Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica 9781784910518, 1784910511

Citation preview

Nehammer Knub, Helmke & Nielsen (eds.) Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica

Mesoamerica is one of the cradles of early civilizations in the ancient world, featuring a wide diversity of cultures exhibiting a high degree of social inequality and stratification. At the pinnacle of the society was the ruler, the court and the high elite. This social segment was responsible for the creation and consumption of the hallmarks of civilizations, including monumental architecture, great monolithic monuments and a wide array of highly decorated, exotic and exceptional material culture. As such royal courts defined the very tastes and styles that characterise entire civilizations. This volume collects eight recent and innovative studies on the subject rulership, palatial compounds and courtly culture by staff and students of the American Indian Languages and Culture studies programme at Department of Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Together these studies span the breadth of Mesoamerica, from the Early Classic metropolis of Teotihuacan (ad 200-550), to Tenochtitlan, the Late Postclassic capital of the Aztec (ad 1300-1521), and from the arid central Mexican highlands in the west to the humid Maya lowlands in the east.

Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica Edited by

Julie Nehammer Knub Christophe Helmke Jesper Nielsen

Archaeopress Pre-Columbian Archaeology 4

Nehammer cover.indd 1

15/12/2014 10:43:31

Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica

Edited by

Julie Nehammer Knub Christophe Helmke Jesper Nielsen

Archaeopress Pre-Columbian Archaeology 4

Archaeopress Gordon House 276 Banbury Road Oxford OX2 7ED

www.archaeopress.com

ISBN 978 1 78491 050 1 ISBN 978 1 78491 051 8 (e-Pdf)

© Archaeopress and the individual authors 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright owners.

This book is available direct from Archaeopress or from our website www.archaeopress.com

Contents 

List of Figures   .............................................................................................................................  iii    List of Tables   ..............................................................................................................................  vii    Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica: An Introduction   .................................  ix  Julie Nehammer Knub, Jesper Nielsen & Christophe Helmke      1. Where Kings Once Ruled? Considerations on Palaces and Rulership at Teotihuacan   ........   1  Jesper Nielsen    2. Identifying the Provenance and Dating of Maya Influences at the Cacaxtla Court   ..........   17  Christophe Helmke & Jesper Nielsen    3. Rekindling the Past: Mexica‐Toltec Relations as a Source of Power and Prestige   ...........   37    Helle Hovmand‐Rasmussen    4. The Center of Power: Tasks and Strategies of the Mexica Court   ......................................   51  Casper Jacobsen    5. Courtly Etiquette and Eloquent Speech in Ancient Mesoamerica   .....................................   65  Rosa‐Maria Worm Danbo & Christophe Helmke    6. How the Other Half Lives: The Role and Function of Body Paint at Maya Courts   ............   77  Julie Nehammer Knub    7. The Late Classic Maya Court of Namaan (La Florida, Guatemala)   .....................................   91  Mads Skytte Jørgensen & Guido Krempel    8. Royal Bundle Ceremonies at Yaxchilan   ..............................................................................  111  Rikke Marie Søegaard   

i 

ii 

List of Figures 

Cover: 

Combination  of  the  Aztec  logograms  TEKw  ‘lord’  and  KAL  ‘house’,  for  tekwkalli,  ‘lord‐house’  or  “palace” (detail of fol. 5v, Codex Mendoza; drawing by Christophe Helmke). 

Figure 1.1: 

Map  of  Teotihuacan  with  the  residential  compounds  discussed  in  the  text  marked.  Note  the  location  of  the  Quetzalpapalotl  Palace,  Xalla,  the  Conjunto  del  Sol,  the  Street  of  the  Dead  Complex, Zacuala as well as Conjuntos 1D and 1E of the Ciudadela (after Pasztory 1988: Fig. III.5)  .......  2 

Figure 1.2: 

Possible ruler wearing a distinctive bird headdress and carrying staff. Detail of Mural 2 of Room 2,  Gran Conjunto, Zona 11 (after Miller 1973: Fig. 149)  ...............................................................................  5 

Figure 1.3: 

a)  Aztec  hieroglyph  for  teekpankalli  or  ‘Lord‐Place‐House’  combining  ‘house’  and    ‘royal  kopil  headdress’  (adapted  from Evans  2004:  8,  Fig.  1) compared  to  examples  of  named  structures  in  Teotihuacan writing: b) ‘Bird‐House’ on an adorno of Teotihuacan‐style theatre‐style censer from  the  Escuintla  area  of  Guatemala  (drawing  by  Christophe  Helmke),  and  c)  ‘Heart‐Eating‐Tlaloc‐ House’ on a Teotihuacan‐style tripod from the Escuintla area (after Hellmuth 1978: Fig. 14)  ................  6 

Figure 1.4: 

Plan  of  Street  of  the  Dead  Complex  with  the  sections  of  the  Street  of  the  Dead  marked  (after  Evans 2004: 18, Fig. 5)  ...............................................................................................................................  8 

Figure 1.5: 

Plan of the Xalla compound. Note the quadrilateral Central Plaza (after Millon et al. 1973: 31)  .............  9 

Figure 2.1: 

Plan of the Cacaxtla palace showing the location of the site’s principal structures.  Note that both  terminal  and  penultimate  phases  of  construction  are  represented.    1)  Templo  de  Venus,  2)  Templo  Rojo,  3)  Pórtico  3,  4)  Cuarto  de  la  Escalera,  5)  Pórtico  A,  6)  Patio  de  los  Rombos,  7)  El  Palacio, 8) La Celosía, 9) Estructura de las Columnas, 10) Las Conejeras.  Based on plans by Marta  Foncerrada de Molina and Geneviève Lucet Lagriffoul.  This and all figures by Christophe Helmke  unless otherwise specified  .......................................................................................................................  18 

Figure 2.2: 

Bicephalic  ceremonial  bars.  a)  the  bicephalic  ceremonial  bar  of  the  southern  pier,  Structure  A,  Cacaxtla.  b) Stela from the Bonampak area (drawing by Christian Prager).  c) Stela 1, Bonampak  ........  20 

Figure 2.3: 

Map  of  the Maya  area  showing  the  location  of  sites  exhibiting  iconographic  elements  found  at  Cacaxtla.    a)  Bicephalic  ceremonial  bars  with  centipede  maws  and  eccentric  flints.    b)  Shell‐ winged dragons.  c) Tlaalok masks  ...........................................................................................................  22 

Figure 2.4: 

The clay panels of Structure A, Cacaxtla. a) Photograph of northern panel. b) Drawing of northern  panel.  c) Drawing of southern panel  .......................................................................................................  23 

Figure 2.5: 

Restitution of the cavernous mountain maw, framing the axial entrance to Structure A, Cacaxtla  .......  25 

Figure 2.6: 

Examples of the shell‐winged dragon in Mesoamerican iconography.  a) Northern jamb, Structure  A,  Cacaxtla.    b)  Detail  of  incised  Olmec  figurine.    c)  Stela  8,  Dos  Pilas.    d)  Tablet  of  the  Slaves,  Palenque. e) Stucco relief, House B, Palenque.  f)  Lintel 2, Yaxchilan.  g) Stela 7, Machaquila  ..............  27 

Figure 2.7: 

Tlaalok masks depicted in the battle scene of Structure B and iconography of the Maya area.  a)  Eastern talud. b) Lintel 25, Yaxchilan. c) Jonuta panel.  d) Eastern talud.  e)  Lintel 25, Yaxchilan.  f)  Stela 16, Dos Pilas.  g) Aguateca, Stela 2  ..................................................................................................  29 

iii 

Figure 3.1: 

Map of the archaeological site of Tula, Hidalgo (after Diehl 1983: Fig. 11)  .............................................  38 

Figure 3.2: 

Tollan as represented in Codex Mexicanus (Codex Mexicanus 1952: Planche XXVI)  ..............................  40 

Figure 3.3: 

Reliefs  in  Cerro  La  Malinche,  Tula,  representing  Chalchiuhtlicue  (left)  and  Quetzalcoatl  (right)  (after Pasztory 1983: Plate 68)  .................................................................................................................  43 

Figure 3.4: 

Example of Tenochtitlan as a Place of Reeds in Codex Sierra, Planche 59 (Wikimedia Commons)  .........  45 

Figure 3.5: 

Tenochtitlan as a Place of Reeds (near the middle of the map, besides No. 41) on the Mapa de  Cuauhtinchan No. 2 (Bittmann Simons 1968: lám. IV)  .............................................................................  45 

Figure 4.1: 

Map of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco showing the central precinct and palaces of the former (map  by architect Luis González Aparicio, after Eduardo Matos Moctezuma 2011: 381)  ................................  53 

Figure 4.2: 

Ruler of Tenochtitlan presenting warriors with rewards (after Sahagún 1979b: 306v)  ...........................  56 

Figure 5.1: 

Examples of the oration from the Maya area: a) Detail of Piedras Negras, Stela 1: u‐[BAH]hi ti‐o‐ mi‐OL  (drawing  by  David  Stuart).  b)  Detail  of  Palenque  Temple  XVIII  stucco:  ti‐ma‐ja  a‐wo‐la  (drawing by David Stuart). c) Detail of Palenque Temple of Inscriptions, West panel, passage 1: u‐ ti‐mi‐wa yo‐OL‐la (drawing by Linda Schele)  ...........................................................................................  67 

Figure 5.2: 

Reconstruction drawing of the stucco scene of Temple XVIII, Palenque (composite by Christophe  Helmke based on drawings by David Stuart & William Ringle)  ................................................................  69 

Figure 5.3: 

K2784, Unprovenanced polychrome vase, Dumbarton Oaks collection (photograph by Justin Kerr)  .....  69 

Figure 6.1: 

An example of a “body paint group”: Maya body paint that covers the entirety or majority of the   body  ..........................................................................................................................................................  79 

Figure 6.2: 

Body  paint  types  that  are  representative  of  the  grouping  semi‐circled  body  paint  in  courtly  contexts a) Type 124 b) Type 103  ............................................................................................................  80 

Figure 6.3: 

A representative example of the group of body paint which covers the majority of the body as  illustrated on a template and on original artefact a) body paint Type 290 b) a Maya ruler adorned  with Type 290, K8792 (photo by Justin Kerr)  ...........................................................................................  81 

Figure 6.4: 

Body paint Type 154 adorning various members of the Maya court as well as the Maize god. a)  body paint Type 154 b) Type 154 adorning the Maya Maize god (K5615, photo by Justin Kerr) c)  Type  154  adorning  court  attendants  (K3461,  photo  by  Justin  Kerr)  d)  Type  154  adorning  elite  figures (K5079, photo by Justin Kerr) e) Type 154 adorning a ruler (K8731, photo by Justin Kerr)  .........  83 

Figure 6.5: 

Examples of Type 167 used by Maya rulers and God D a) body paint Type 167; b) a Maya ruler  adorned with Type 167 on K5176 (photo by Justin Kerr) c) The Maya God D adorned with body  paint Type 167 on K5764 (photo by Justin Kerr)  ......................................................................................  84 

Figure 6.6: 

Body paint Type 125, which is restricted to the royal court of the Maya. a) Body paint Type 125 b)  a bound prisoner in a courtly scene that has his body painted with Type 125, beside him sits other  fellow captives, one of which is adorned with Type 124, K4549 (photo by Justin Kerr)  ..........................  84 

Figure 6.7: 

Body paint types worn by scribes, Types 20, 31, 32, 188, 221, 231 and 256  ...........................................  85 

Figure 7.1: 

Map showing the Western Maya Lowlands (map courtesy of Alexander Safronov)  ...............................  92 

Figure 7.2: 

An  updated  site  plan  of  the  archaeological  site  of  La  Florida  based  on  previous  plans  by  Ian  Graham  (1970)  and  Paulino  Morales  (1998),  together  with  personal  observations  by  Mads  Jørgensen  in 2011.  Rectangles,  circles,  and triangles  illustrate  the  location  of  stelae,  altars,  and  fragments respectively (plan by Christophe Helmke and Mads Jørgensen)  ............................................  93 

iv 

Figure 7.3: 

The  MAN‐sign  in  different  semantic  contexts;  a)  T566,  b)  xa‐ma‐MAN‐na,  c)  T554,  d)  Cancuen  Panel 1, e) Tikal Stela 5, f) K1670 (na‐MAN‐ni‐AJAW), g) Piedras Negras, Burial 5, shell (MAN‐ni‐ AJAW) (drawings by Guido Krempel)  .......................................................................................................   94 

Figure 7.4: 

The Namaan court: a) a preliminary chronological list of members of the Namaan court showing  (in parentheses) the sex, origin, and known period of life for each individual. b) An overview of  family  ties  within  the  Namaan  court.  The equal  sign  (=) indicates  marriage,  with  the  single  line  connecting parents with their offspring.  Note the intermarriages between the Namaan and Yokib  courts over two consecutive generations  ................................................................................................   96 

Figure 7.5: 

Hieroglyphic nominal phrases of the members of the Namaan court: a) ? Ti’ Hu’n Pih?, b) Ixix Wak  Chan,  c)  Chakjal  Chih?  Chaahk,  d)  Ixk’in?  Ajaw?,  e)  Sihyaj  Chan  K’awiil,  f)  Ixwinikhaab  Ajaw,  g)  Ixchuwaj? Sak ?, h) Ixsaamal ? Ohl? Hu’n? Ixchak ?, i) Jal? Ti’ Kuy, j) K’in Witz’? Chaahk, k) K’ahk’  Ti’ Kuy, l) K’ahk’ ? Chan? Yopaat Bahlam Uk’awiil, m) ? ? Ch’aho’m Kokan Kab (drawings by Guido  Krempel and Sebastián Matteo) ...............................................................................................................   97 

Figure 7.6: 

A  selection  of  Saxche  Orange‐polychrome  vessels  associated  with  Namaan  rulers,  a)  Unprovenanced  Bowl  2  (photograph  by  Rafael  Tunesi),  K30066  (photograph  courtesy  of  Inga  Calvin),  c)  Unprovenanced  Bowl  1  (after  Société  Genérale  du  Banque  1977:  No.  149),  d)  the  Brussels  Dish  (photograph  by  Sebastían  Matteo),  e)  the  Pomona  Dish  (photograph  by  Michel  Zabé), f) K1670 (courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum), g) the Zaculeu vessel (after  Woodbury & Trik 1953: Fig. 263a)  ...........................................................................................................   98 

Figure 7.7: 

A  selection  of  La  Florida  monuments:  a)  Stela  2,  b)  Stela  7,  c)  Altar  G,  d)  detail  of  Stela  8  (preliminary drawings by Guido Krempel)  ............................................................................................   103 

Figure 8.1: 

Yaxchilan lintels depicting bundles: a) Lintel 5, b) Lintel 7, c) Lintel 32, d) Lintel 1, e) Lintel 53 and  f) Lintel 54 (drawings by Ian Graham, after Graham & Von Euw 1977; reproduced by permission  of the President and Fellows of Harvard College)  .................................................................................   112 

Figure 8.2: 

Unprovenanced vessel, K5794 (photograph by Justin Kerr, after Kerr 2000: 690)  ...............................   117 

Figure 8.3: 

The  tablet  of  Temple  14,  Palenque  (drawing  by  Linda  Schele,  reproduced  courtesy  of  the  Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.)  ......................................................   119 

Figure 8.4: 

The Palace Tablet, Palenque (drawing by Linda Schele, reproduced courtesy of the Foundation for  the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.)  ...............................................................................   119 

Figure 8.5: 

The  central  panels  of  the  temples  of  the  Cross  Group.  a)  Tablet  of  the  Temple  of  the  Sun.  b)  Tablet  of  the  Temple  of  the  Foliated  Cross.  c)  Tablet  of  the  Temple  of  the  Cross  (drawings  by  Linda  Schele,  reproduced  courtesy  of  the  Foundation  for  the  Advancement  of  Mesoamerican  Studies, Inc.)  ..........................................................................................................................................   121 

           

v 

vi 

List of Tables 

Table 2.1: 

Distribution of securely dated lance‐like bicephalic ceremonial bars in the Maya area. Examples  are listed in alphabetical sequence according to site name  ....................................................................  21 

Table 2.2: 

Distribution of securely dated examples of shell‐winged dragons in Maya iconography. Examples  are listed in chronological sequence from earliest to latest  ....................................................................  28 

Table 2.3: 

Distribution of Tlaalok masks in Maya iconography according to chronological incidence  ....................  29 

Table 3.1: 

List of the Central Mexican documents from the 16th and 17th century that refer to Tula and/or  Tollan.    The  one  exception  is  Historia  Antigua  de  Mexico  by  Clavigero (Clavigero  1945a,  1945b,  1945c). Although this source could have been written as late as 1787, I choose to include it in my  studies as it contains valuable information which is not found elsewhere  .............................................  39 

Table 5.1: 

Overall frequency of direct and descriptive speech in the specific contextual categories from the  Maya texts  ................................................................................................................................................  66 

Table 5.2: 

Overall  frequency  of  direct  and  descriptive  speech  in  specific  contextual  categories  from  the  Naawatl sources  .......................................................................................................................................  71 

Table 5.3: 

The components of SPEAKING for both Maya and Aztec speech situations  ............................................  72 

   

vii 

 

viii 

Palaces and Courtly Culture in Ancient Mesoamerica: An Introduction Julie Nehammer Knub, Jesper Nielsen & Christophe Helmke

thereby encompassing the entirety of Guatemala and Belize as well.

This volume brings together recent studies on aspects of high elite culture and royal courts in ancient Mesoamerica. This research has been undertaken by graduate students and staff of the onetime Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures of the Institute for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies at the University of Copenhagen. Although the Department and Institute have now been re-designated, we continue as the American Indian Languages and Cultures studies of the Department for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies at the same university. More specifically this monograph aims to provide novel insights on a variety of facets of courtly culture that to date have not been the subject of other academic treatments. As such, with this volume we hope to present new interpretations and findings in this growing field of research. The contributors make use of archaeological, iconographic, epigraphic and linguistic material in their analyses and the volume thereby reflects the inter- and multidisciplinary approach to research that is encouraged as part of the curriculum of American Indian Languages and Cultures studies. The monograph comprises chapters that focus on different Mesoamerican cultures from time periods spanning from the Early Classic (after A.D. 200) until shortly after the Spanish conquest (after A.D. 1521), and references are made to Native American cultures in the modern nations that now extend across the Mesoamerican culture area. The first half of the volume focuses on the cultures of the Central Mexican Highlands, starting with that of the Early Classic metropolis Teotihuacan (A.D. 200550), going on to the Epiclassic site of Cacaxtla (A.D. 600-950), followed by Early Postclassic Tula (A.D. 900-1100), and ending with the Late Postclassic Aztec (A.D. 1300-1521). The second half of the volume concentrates on aspects of courtly life among the ancient Maya, a cultural area that extends from the southern half of present-day Mexico to the western portions of Honduras and El Salvador,

The chapters that constitute this volume provide new insights and recent research on courtly life and customs in two key regions of Mesoamerica. Still this volumes leaves room for studies of many aspects of courtly life and several fascinating Mesoamerican cultures that fall outside of the scope of the present work. Thus, while there is a growing interest in palace structures and courtly life in the Maya area (e.g., Inomata & Houston 2001; Joyce 2003; Miller & Martin 2004), as well as Classic and Postclassic central Mexico (e.g., Evans & Pillsbury 2004), fewer publications treat these topics for Early and Middle Formative Mesoamerica (1500-400 B.C.). Several factors may explain this, the more obvious being that the majority of Formative communities were presumably not of a size and socio-political complexity that would allow for the construction of the type of architectural entities that we today recognize and classify as “palaces”. Other possible explanations would be that potential palatial structures were either constructed from perishable materials or engulfed by the architecture of subsequent occupations or reused as core materials in such later structures. With regard to what is usually referred to as the first civilization of Mesoamerica, that of the Olmecs of southern Veracruz and Tabasco, it is well-known that major sites such as Early Formative San Lorenzo and Middle Formative La Venta displayed both monumental architecture and sculpture. Traits such as these are normally taken as indicative of a hierarchical, stratified society with a strong ruling elite, and in recent years archaeologists have excavated what they believe could be the residence and palace of Olmec rulers at San Lorenzo. Thus, based on Ann Cyphers’ work (Cyphers 1997) Christopher Pool (2007: 100) describes the assumed residences of rulers on the San Lorenzo plateau as follows:

ix

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB, JESPER NIELSEN & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

The elites of San Lorenzo lived in large structures raised on low clay platforms amidst the monuments that legitimized their authority. One such platform (D4-7) measures 50 x 75 m. twenty post-molds on the platform mark the walls of an apsidal structure 12 m long and 9 m wide […]. The earthen walls and floor of another elite residence, dubbed the “Red Palace”, were plastered with sand stained by hematite.

The first chapter of the volume, by JESPER NIELSEN, is a discussion of palatial compounds of the ancient metropolis Teotihuacan in Central Mexico, and addresses our current understanding of social differentiation and rulership at Teotihuacan and the intriguing possibility of a multi-palatial city. Thus, one of the best-known characteristics of Teotihuacan is the amount of large residential compounds, the remnants of which comprise the bulk of the archaeological site. Many of these compounds display richly painted murals, have their own ‘private’ temple structures, or shrines, and contained rich graves of apparently high-ranking individuals. As a consequence, several of the excavated compounds have been described as palaces, such as the so-called Quetzalpapalotl Palace located near the Moon Pyramid. Recently, excavations at the large compound named Xalla in the north-eastern section of Teotihuacan have prompted archaeologists to suggest that this is the most likely candidate for an actual palatial compound. After reviewing the criteria that define palaces and that can be used to identify them, Nielsen focuses on the Xalla compound and provides a critical review of the evidence that has been used to suggest that this was the principal palace of Teotihuacan.

The “Red Palace” may thus constitute evidence of some of the earliest palatial structures in Mesoamerica, but there are other Formative sites that may challenge the idea that the Olmecs were the first to build palaces. On the Pacific Coast of Mexico possible elite residences dating to the beginning of the Early Formative period have been excavated at sites such as Paso de la Amada (e.g., Lesure 1997; Clark 2004; see also Pool 2007: 184195). Whether these Formative platform structures should be designated as palaces or more neutrally as high-status residences in large measure depends on the criteria and definition of a palace. Another region that is not discussed in detail in the present volume is the state of Oaxaca and the Otomanguean cultures of the area, with the Zapotec and Mixtec prominent among them. This omission is the result of the contributors’ research interests, and should not be taken as a sign that this region was somehow of lesser importance when it comes to palaces and elite culture. Quite to the contrary, there is evidence of elite residences or early “palaces” in Middle Formative Oaxaca (Spencer & Redmond 1983, 2004; Clark 2004) and the famous Zapotec capital of Monte Albán plays a key role in our knowledge of the emergence and development of states in Mesoamerica from the Middle Formative period and onwards. Of particular interest are also the valuable ethnohistorical descriptions of Zapotec royal palaces (quihuitào) and their diverse functions (see Flannery 1983; Spencer & Redmond 2004). Central contributions and further references to the study of royal palaces and courtly life in Oaxaca can be found in Flannery (1983), Marcus & Flannery (1996: Chap. 13), González Licón (2004), Spencer & Redmond (2004: 442-445), whereas for a discussion of Late Postclassic Zapotec palace structures and courtly rituals in Mitla, see Pohl (1999). As a result it is clear that palatial culture in Mesoamerica has a bright future as a subject of study. Let us now review the eight contributions that constitute this volume.

In the second chapter, CHRISTOPHE HELMKE and JESPER NIELSEN present comparative analyses of select iconographic elements found at Cacaxtla, Central Mexico. Whereas it has long been recognized that the murals of the site of Cacaxtla exhibit a distinct style that reflects strong Maya influence, to date no attempt had been made to provide precise stylistic dates or to define the origins of these features within the Maya area. Through the evaluation of the iconographic elements that find their origin in the repertoire and canons of Maya art the authors are able to demonstrate that several iconographic elements indeed find their source in the iconography of the ancient Maya. Since the Maya examples are well-dated, given that monuments are paired with calendrical notations, it is possible to propose independent temporal intervals to which the various murals belong. On the basis of discrete iconographic elements, it has also been possible to identify the specific area of the Maya heartland from which the influence stems. In identifying Cacaxtla as a court complex, and the seat of a distinct polity, we are now in a better position to gauge the timing and source of the Maya influence that is so prominently displayed in the murals of the site.

x

PALACES AND COURTLY CULTURE IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

confines of Maya and Aztec palaces. In the pursuit of the past one of the greatest challenges is the study of the intangible, that which does not preserve in the archaeological record. Thus, whereas we can study ancient palaces and associated material culture, the manners, demeanours and civilities of the courts remain essentially mute to the modern researcher. As a means of addressing precisely this, the chapter engages courtly etiquette, as attested in two major sources, namely the early colonial Florentine Codex (c. A.D. 1540-1585) and Classic Maya glyphic texts (c. A.D. 292-909) from a variety of sites, most notably from Palenque. The Florentine Codex – a twelve-book encyclopaedia of Aztec culture written in a Spanish and Nawatl and compiled by Fray Bernadino Sahagún – is of particular interest since Book 6 is entirely dedicated to rhetoric and eloquent oratory used for addressing regal figures and the divine. Although the Maya examples are few, they preserve highly revealing captions of first and second person orations exchanged between subordinates and superiors. Since certain idiomatic expressions and orations are shared between the Maya and the Aztec, despite the great temporal depth and spatial distance that separates the two cultures, it seems plausible to suggest that at least some features of courtly etiquette were much more widely shared in Mesoamerica than has heretofore been recognized. These findings ultimately have implications as to the origins and dissemination of courtly etiquette across Mesoamerica and its relation to the advent of socially-stratified and complex societies.

Thereafter, HELLE HOVMAND-RASMUSSEN examines the relationship that the Mexica Aztecs, inhabitants of Tenochtitlan (c. A.D. 1325-1521) maintained to the preceding Toltec civilization that once thrived at what is now the archaeological site of Tula, Hidalgo. The Mexica held in high esteem the past civilizations of Central Mexico, which were their cultural predecessors, and some of which were referred to in the early colonial period and in matching documents under the broad heading of “Toltecs”. This chapter looks into the relationship that the Mexica maintained to one of these Toltec civilizations, which flourished around A.D. 9001100 at Tula, Hidalgo. Three approaches will be used: Firstly, a summary of how the Toltecs in general were portrayed in the early colonial documents from the Aztec heartland will be provided. Secondly, examples from the archaeological finds in Tula that show how the Mexica presence at the site is evident in the Late Postclassic period will be drawn, and thirdly, Hovmand-Rasmussen demonstrates how the Mexica employed iconography and architecture from Tula in the sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan. She also argues that this use partly had the purpose of emphasizing that the grandeur of the Mexica was in line with the former Toltec civilization, in keeping with sites such as Teotihuacan, Xochicalco and Tula – which thereby helped to entitle the Mexica in their right rule over the Aztec empire. The following contribution by CASPER JACOBSEN discusses the hierarchical structure of the court of Tenochtitlan and focuses on its function, as the paramount institution, in Mexica society. He defines the nature of the Mexica court and its role through an overview of its institutions and members, as well as their main areas of responsibility. Jacobsen argues that the political power of Tenochtitlan was contained in the courtly offices and institutions. By centering the political power in the court and at the same time setting forth strictly controlled paths of access to its offices, the highest political tier ensured that the objectives of the polity were pursued by commoners and nobles alike through their efforts to obtain important and prestigious posts at the court.

Next the focus turns towards the Maya, with the chapter by JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB, which centres on the types of body paint employed in the royal court, a cultural feature that served as an important social and symbolic expression. Although it has long been recognized that body painting was part of the aesthetic repertoire of the royal court of the ancient Maya, virtually no research has focused on the symbolic meaning, significance or patterning of this art form. Many examples of body paint have been documented – depicted on Classic period (c. A.D. 300-800) polychrome ceramics – and subjected to a comparative study, in order to determine how different types of body paint were employed in the royal court of the ancient Maya. Body paint was used a means of displaying social identity, and as a consequence the choice of colour and patterning was dependent on social context, gender, status and

Bridging the two parts of the volume is a comparative chapter by ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO and CHRISTOPHE HELMKE on courtly etiquette, or the formalized forms of address that dictated speech and interlocutions between individuals within the

xi

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB, JESPER NIELSEN & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

these bundles from several decades of academic research. She explores images, hieroglyphic texts, archaeological finds, historical sources and ethnographic material in an integrative approach, and by addressing all available data she draws conclusions on these enigmatic bundles. She takes on a regional approach focused on the ancient Maya, as opposed to the Mesoamerican or cross-cultural approach often employed in research on ritual bundles. In light of this collective sample of data, she suggests new interpretations of the monuments and offers a hypothesis on the ritual function of the bundles at Yaxchilan.

occupation of the adorned. In addition, the symbolic meaning of the body paint found in the royal court of the Maya was underlined by visual references to the supernatural world as well as being imbued with notions cued by the explicit usage of particular colours. As such, the chapter examines the manner in which body paint was used at court, and served as a marker of identity within this specific social sphere. In the following chapter MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN and GUIDO KREMPEL relate the rediscovery of the ancient Maya court of Namaan, Guatemala, on the basis of glyphic references to several key rulers, which in turn also provide clues as to its dynastic history and the interactions it maintained with neighbouring courts. Several Classic Maya individuals carrying royal titles are known from references in the glyphic corpus, but the corresponding archaeological site from which they hail, in many cases, remains unknown. However, during the 7th and 8th centuries A.D., rulers bore the Emblem Glyph title of Namaan, a toponym that has now been matched to the archaeological site of La Florida, in north-western Guatemala. The site of La Florida is located on the banks of the Río San Pedro Martír, a major tributary to the Usumacinta River. The history of Namaan, as well as the archaeological site, have yet to be investigated thoroughly. Due to intense looting and erosion of the surviving monuments, the historical record remains poorly understood. Nevertheless, historical figures carrying the Namaan title are cited in the texts of adjacent sites such as Piedras Negras, Yaxchilan and Motul de San José. It is on this basis that several of the rulers of Namaan can be identified, demonstrating not only the existence and autonomy of the Namaan court, but also providing telltale clues as its dynastic history and the interactions it maintained with neighbouring courts, both friends and foes. As such the role of the Namaan court in the geopolitical landscape of the area can be partially reconstructed.

Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to David Davison of Archaeopress for his assistance in preparing this volume for publication. We are also incredibly grateful for the financial support offered by the publications committee of the Department for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, and in particular to Denise Gimpel and the head of the department, Ingolf Thuesen, whose help ensured the publication of this volume.

References Cited: Clark, John E. 2004 Mesoamerica Goes Public: Early Ceremonial Centers, Leaders, and Communities. Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by Julia A. Hendon & Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 43-72. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Christie, Jessica Joyce (ed.) 2003 Maya Palaces and Elite Residences: An Interdisciplinary Approach. University of Texas Press, Austin. Cyphers, Ann 1997 Olmec Architecture at San Lorenzo. Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by Barbara L. Stark & Phillip J. Arnold III, pp. 96-114. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Evans, Susan Toby & Joanne Pillsbury (eds.) 2004 Palaces of the Ancient New World. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Flannery, Kent V. 1983 The Legacy of the Early Urban Period: an Ethnohistoric Approach to Monte Alban’s Temples, Residences, and Royal Tombs. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by Kent V. Flannery & Joyce Marcus, pp. 132-136. Academic Press, Inc., New York.

In the final chapter RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD closes the volume by focusing on royal binding ceremonies. She poses the questions “how did the Late Classic royal court at Yaxchilan use the bundles depicted on six carved limestone lintels at the site? What role did the bundles play in those ceremonies? And is it possible to come closer to an understanding of what the contents of the bundles were?”. Here, Søegaard presents what we know of

xii

PALACES AND COURTLY CULTURE IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA: AN INTRODUCTION

González Licón, Ernesto 2004 Royal Palaces and Painted Tombs: State and Society in the Valley of Oaxaca. Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans & Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 83-111. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Inomata, Takeshi & Stephen Houston D. (eds.) 2001 Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. 2 volumes. Westview Press, Boulder. Lesure, Richard G. 1997 Early Formative Platforms at Paso de la Amada. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 8: 217-235. Marcus, Joyce & Kent V. Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico’s Oaxaca Valley. Thames & Hudson, London. Miller, Mary E. & Simon Martin 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson / Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco. Pohl, John M. D. 1999 The Lintel Paintings of Mitla and the Function of the Mitla Palaces. Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol, edited by Jeff Karl Kowalski, pp. 176-197. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Pool, Christopher A. 2007 Olmec Archaeology and Early Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Spencer, Charles S. & Elsa M. Redmond 1983 A Middle Formative Elite Residence and Associated Structures at la Coyotera, Oaxaca. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by Kent V. Flannery & Joyce Marcus, pp. 71-72. Academic Press, Inc., New York. Spencer, Charles S. & Elsa M. Redmond 2004 A Late Monte Albán I Phase (300-100 B.C.) Palace in the Valley of Oaxaca. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 15 (4): 441-455.

xiii

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB, JESPER NIELSEN & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

xiv

Chapter 1: Where Kings Once Ruled? Considerations on Palaces and Rulership at Teotihuacan Jesper Nielsen “Was there strong personal rulership at Teotihuacan all along, systematically downplayed in the messages of murals and sculpture?” — George Cowgill (1992: 212)

One of the most well-known and immediate characteristics of the ancient Mesoamerican metropolis of Teotihuacan is the large and well-made residential compounds, the remnants of which are found all over the archaeological site. Several of these compounds have a prominent location within the city’s core area, display richly painted walls, have their own private temples within the compounds and contained the rich graves of seemingly high ranking individuals. It would seem that, as a consequence, archaeologists have tended to describe these elite compounds as palaces, such as the famous Quetzalpapalotl Palace to the west of the Plaza of the Moon or the structures on both sides of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid in the Ciudadela. In a sense we are faced with the intriguing possibility of a multi-palatial city, depending of course on which definition of the key term ‘palace’ we choose to use. Recent excavations at the unusually large compound named Xalla have suggested to the excavators that this is the best candidate for the main administrative palatial compound in Teotihuacan, thus reopening and adding to the debate of two of the main questions in Teotihuacan archaeology: Who ruled the city and from where? As William Sanders and Susan Toby Evans recently noted: “identifying the residence, or residences, of Teotihuacan’s rulers has been an archaeological challenge, a problem almost as difficult as understanding the nature of Teotihuacan’s rulership” (2006: 256; see also Sanders & Evans 2005: 314-320). I think the two problems go hand in hand, and in the present chapter I wish to briefly review previous and current understandings of elite and royal residences and rulership in Teotihuacan. Next I turn to a focus on Xalla, and provide a critical

review of the kind of evidence and reasoning that has been employed to suggest that this was the place from which Teotihuacan was once ruled. Teotihuacan: A City of Elite Residential Compounds The famous archaeological site of Teotihuacan is situated c. 50 km to the northeast of Mexico City in the present-day state of Mexico (Estado de México). In pre-Columbian times the mighty capital flourished between 100 B.C. and A.D. 550 and at its height during the 4th and 5th centuries it covered an area of approximately 20 km2 and housed an estimated population of 100 000 to 150 000 inhabitants. Teotihuacan’s unique city layout is structured around the Avenue of the Dead, serving as the central axis of the urban core, with the city’s three major monumental structures, the Ciudadela and the Feathered Serpent Pyramid in the southern section, and the Sun Pyramid and the Moon Pyramid in the northern section, the latter occupying the prestigious terminus point of the Avenue of the Dead (Figure 1.1). A matter of debate has been whether the so-called East and West Avenues divided Teotihuacan into four main sectors, or whether the channelized portion of the Río San Juan crossing the Street of the Dead served a somewhat similar purpose (e.g., Millon 1973: 37-38, 55, 1993; 25-26; Sugiyama 1993: 105, 110). Archaeologists have identified some 2 000 residential compounds of varying size and layout within the limits of the city, but only about a dozen of these have been excavated to date (e.g., Linné 1934; 1942; Séjourné 1959; Millon 1973: 40-45,

1

JESPER NIELSEN

Figure 1.1: Map of Teotihuacan with the residential compounds discussed in the text marked. Note the location of the Quetzalpapalotl Palace, Xalla, the Conjunto del Sol, the Street of the Dead Complex, Zacuala as well as Conjuntos 1D and 1E of the Ciudadela (after Pasztory 1988: Fig. III.5).

2

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

What is worth noting and emphasizing here, however, is that Teotihuacan can muster several residential compounds that, based on their size, layout, decoration etc., must have been occupied by wealthy and powerful individuals, many of whom undoubtedly played an important role in the political, economic and religious life of the city. This stands in contrast to what we know from most other areas of Mesoamerica, for example the Classic Lowland Maya, where it is relatively easy to identify the residences of the ruler and his court (Inomata & Houston 2001; Manzanilla et al. 2005: 190-195; Skytte Jørgensen & Krempel, this volume; but see also Andrews & Bill’s discussion of a Late Classic royal residential compound at Copan, 2005). If Cowgill’s basic two-class model of Teotihuacan holds true, the many compounds that seem to reflect a high standard of life and economic wealth would suggest that the group of ‘nobles’ or people of very high rank (perhaps also including well-off members of the ‘commoner’ group) was quite significant. Equally, some of the residential structures of this group approached the dimensions and degree of embellishment (in terms of sculptures, reliefs and mural paintings) that could qualify them as palaces or palace-like compounds. Once again much depends on how strict a definition of the term ‘palace’ we apply, but essentially we are left in a situation where Teotihuacan could be designated as a multi-palatial city. The large and rich residential structures or potential palaces, have certainly already played a role in the discussion of rulership at Teotihuacan in the sense that if we are not able to identify at least one obvious major palatial compound belonging to one supreme ruler, could this then be indicative of a markedly different sociopolitical structure and organization? Could Teotihuacan have been ruled, not by one strong ruler, but by a group of high-ranking members of important lineages, each residing in their own, roughly identical and impressive palace compound? Before we look more closely at some of the palatial candidates among Teotihuacan’s compounds, let us briefly touch on the question of rulership in Teotihuacan,

Manzanilla 1993, 2004; Sanders & Evans 2005). The vast majority of the compounds probably served as multifamily or corporate group residential structures, while some of them functioned at the same time as the loci of workshops producing and processing ceramics, obsidian and a wealth of other materials. In terms of size, the individual compounds vary considerably. Some of the larger compounds, such as Tetitla, cover c. 3 600 m2, whereas smaller ones like Oztoyahualco only cover 550 m2. The median area covered by Teotihuacan compounds is 43 x 43 m (or 1830 m2), but a quarter of them all fall in a group of relatively small compounds measuring 30 x 30 m (900 m2). Yet another quarter consists of considerably larger compounds measuring 56 m on a side (3 100 m2), whereas a fraction measures more than 100 x 100 m (10 000 m2) (Manzanilla 2004: 131). It must also be emphasized that increasing size does not necessarily imply that its inhabitants were of high social status, as one of the larger compounds excavated, Tlamimilolpa, clearly housed people of lower status. However, there is still a tendency that the larger, wealthier and better constructed compounds, including those with open patios and private temples, are situated closest to the Avenue of the Dead (Cowgill 1992: 214-215). Adding to the challenge of understanding compounds as sociopolitical entities is the fact, as recently demonstrated by Linda Manzanilla, that the compounds can rarely be categorized as being the residence of a group of exclusively elite, high or low status members as there is evidence that a single compound could house family members of different economic and social status (Manzanilla 2004: 138139). In terms of understanding differing social status at Teotihuacan, René Millon has suggested the existence of six status levels in the city: 1) the apex, 2) people of very high rank (a group Millon believed should be counted in the thousands), 3-5) various levels of intermediate status, and finally 6) people of low-status (Millon 1976; 1981). More recently, George Cowgill has pointed out that it is perhaps better (and less speculative, at least until we have better-defined criteria to distinguish between the six classes) to assume that Teotihuacan society consisted of two fundamental classes or social groups: the commoners and the nobles or ruling strata. As such, the population would have been organized according to a “two-valued conceptual distinction” akin to what we know from Late Postclassic Mexica society as the piipiltin and maaseewaltin groups (Cowgill 1992: 218; Carrasco 1971).

Has Anyone Seen the King? The Question of Rulership in Teotihuacan One of the most intriguing questions about ancient Teotihuacan is who ruled the city, and the issue has puzzled generations of scholars. For the last twenty years a dominant view, advanced by some of the

3

JESPER NIELSEN

narren los hechos destacados de la vida de dinastías particulares, de tumbas reales, de nombres de reyes, etc., nos hace pensar que Teotihuacan fue la gran anomalía del Clásico mesoamericano.”

most prominent Teotihuacan scholars, has been that in much of its history Teotihuacan, in contrast to most other Mesoamerican civilizations, was not ruled by a single, supreme ruler, but rather by two or more rulers representing powerful lineages, or the four different sectors of the city (Manzanilla 1992, 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004: 140-142; 2012: 66; Paulinyi 2001; Pasztory 1988, 1997: 108-121). Millon and Cowgill for instance have suggested, drawing on analogies from the Old World, that Teotihuacan could have been a case of an oligarchic republic, where the office of rulership was circulated among leading families or lineages (Millon 1976; Cowgill 2000). For their part, Sanders and Toby Evans argue for dual rulership in the later part of the city’s history (2006: 274-279, 2005: 316-317), a suggestion that is primarily based upon the identification of symmetrical or roughly symmetrical architectural plans in The Avenue of the Dead Complex (see also below) and references to Late Postclassic sources that indicate that some decisions in Mexica Tenochtitlan were shared between the weeyi tla’toaani (the title of the main ruler) and the siiwaakoowaatl (a title of a high-ranking military adviser). While it must be considered likely that equal offices of close and trusted advisers to the rulers existed in Teotihuacan, the sources, preColumbian as well as early Colonial, still emphasize the weeyi tla’toaani of the Mexica as the supreme ruler and the singlemost powerful and important figure in the sociopolitical hierarchy (e.g, Carrasco 1971; Townsend 2009: 18-30; 203-204; Solís Olguin 2009). Thus, it is the tla’to’ke’ that are celebrated on semipublic monuments such as the Stone of Tizoc and the cliff carvings at Chapultepec, and likewise, the surviving codices record the successions of tla’to’ke’ in their dynastic lists and not the individuals invested with the siiwaakoowaatl title. As Cowgill pointed out, based on the Spanish sources: “it is clear that there was usually a single position [among the Mexica], higher than all others in the political hierarchy, with no set limit of legitimate tenure” (1992: 208).

We will later return to Manzanilla’s work at Xalla and her hypothesis of Teotihuacan being governed by a four-ruler system, but for now it suffices to note that her idea that Teotihuacan rulership was a Mesoamerican anomaly is based primarily on negative evidence; that is, the apparent absence of clear evidence in favour of strong individual rulers at Teotihuacan. It is thus assumed that individualistic rulership and political power at Teotihuacan would leave the same kind of evidence as encountered among the Classic Maya (including numerous portraits on public and semipublic monuments such as stelae, altars, lintels and panels accompanied by long historical and genealogical hieroglyphic texts) and due to its apparent absence in the archaeological record it is concluded that it did not exist. However, the Classic Maya may not provide the best comparative case in this regard. As pointed out by Annabeth Headrick (2007: 23): To the modern Mesoamerican researcher, the Teotihuacan rulers simply do not announce their presence with the straightforwardness that Mesoamerican scholars have come to expect. Although their monuments stand in all their glory, we have difficulty making the individual players come into focus. Yet, as is so often the case, the city’s original residents had no problem recognizing the imagery of their rulers, reminding us that the opaque nature of the issue is a modern one inherent in reconstructing the past. In consequence, it may be that present-day expectations have obscured our ability to perceive the evidence for Teotihuacan rulers. It would be so much easier for modern scholars to identify Teotihuacan’s kings had they erected stelae like their Maya contemporaries. However, because they did not, the search for Teotihuacan’s kings has been a creative one. Indeed, rather than referring to direct evidence such as tombs or portraits, researchers have often looked instead at the architecture of the city for indications that Teotihuacan did have rulers.

Part of the reason for the continued search for alternative ways of rulership seems to be rooted in the fact that scholars have had difficulties in identifying portraits of Teotihuacan rulers and because the writing system of Teotihuacan has so far yielded few conclusive references to Teotihuacan rulers, or to titles indicative of such. As phrased by Linda Manzanilla (1998: 26): “La inexistencia de representaciones iconográficas que

In a recent review of Teotihuacan studies, Cowgill suggested that the Classic Maya rulers’ highly publicised deeds and portraits may be explained by

4

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

their relatively limited power, whereas: “Early Teotihuacan rulers may have been too powerful to need such public celebration, and the immense pyramids they sponsored may have been all they required by way of monuments” (Cowgill 2008: 966). In many respects, it would seem that powerful central Mexican city-states and empires that succeeded Teotihuacan, such as Xochicalco, Tula and Tenochtitlan and their ways of representing political power, rulership and individual rule would provide a more relevant comparative set of data when trying to understand rulership and its public expression at Teotihuacan (Florescano 2009: 175188). In these later traditions, we have significantly fewer representations of rulers on public monuments, and even less can be said to be portraits, but are rather stylized and idealized images, almost with a logographic quality, coupled at times with a personal name. Furthermore, it must be remembered that many of Teotihuacan’s central and most prominent structures were destroyed during the violent events around A.D. 550 (Millon 1988; López Luján et al. 2006) leaving little of their murals and relief sculptures, which may have included iconographic and textual reference to rulers, intact.

30-32, 96-100) (Figure 1.2). Additionally, Maya hieroglyphic texts from the central Peten refer to an individual nicknamed Spearthrower Owl (read Jatz’o’m Kuy, lit. ‘Striker Owl’ in Classic Maya) who ruled from A.D. 374 to 439 as the fourth in a dynastic sequence. Based on several strands of epigraphic and iconographic evidence from the Maya area as well as Teotihuacan, most scholars now regard Spearthrower Owl, who is associated with the enigmatic toponym Ho’ Noom Witz, as an extremely powerful lord holding the Kalo’m title, and almost certainly the ruler of Teotihuacan (Stuart 2000: 418-490; Guenter 2002: Appendix 1; Martin & Grube 2008: 28-31; Nielsen & Helmke 2008; Whittaker 2010). Thus, future research focusing on Teotihuacan’s writing system together with the possibility of finding further textual references to Spearthrower Owl in the Maya area have the potential to change our knowledge of Teotihuacan history and rulership considerably.

Recent research has also demonstrated that names and titles do appear in Teotihuacan writing and iconography, and that we do thus have references to and representations of historical individuals (e.g., Taube 2000; Nielsen 2004). It has also been suggested that the procession of named individuals from the Techinantitla murals all wearing the Tassel Headdress could represent a dynastic sequence of rulers (Albert Davletshin, pers. comm. 2006). While the depicted individuals are undoubtedly of high rank, and most have belonged to the higher echelons of Teotihuacan’s political and religious hierarchy (C. Millon 1988; Cowgill 1992: 208; García-Des Lauriers 2008) it is doubtful that the Tassel Headdress was the headdress worn by Teotihuacan’s supreme rulers as suggested by some scholars (Paulinyi 2001). In a recent study Christophe Helmke and I have suggested that a possible Teotihuacan’s rulers headdress is more likely to be the much rarer bird-headdress seen in Atetelco and in the murals from the Gran Conjunto (Mural 2, Room 2, Zone 11) (Nielsen & Helmke 2010), a conclusion that dovetails nicely with Headrick’s interpretation of the staff-carrying individual shown in the murals of the eastern structure in the White Patio of Atetelco as a possible ruler (Headrick 2000:

Figure 1.2: Possible ruler wearing a distinctive bird headdress and carrying staff. Detail of Mural 2 of Room 2, Gran Conjunto, Zona 11 (after Miller 1973: Fig. 149).

In brief, dual rulership, quadripartite rule as part of a corporate state and collective as well as oligarchic republican rule have all been suggested as the dominant type of rulership at Teotihuacan, sometimes with one type replacing the other over the course of the city’s history. More recently, however, the idea of a single, powerful ruler has resurfaced due to advances in epigraphic and iconographic studies. As we shall see, the varying interpretations of rulership in Teotihuacan affect

5

JESPER NIELSEN

current hypotheses regarding where a main Teotihuacan palace-compound is situated and how it looks. Palatial Candidates: The Ciudadela and the Street of the Dead Complex In a recent discussion of social organization and rulership at Teotihuacan, Manzanilla stated that: “Un palacio puede ser definido como la residencia de un gobernante, la sede de un gobierno, el sitio donde se concentra el tributo, la representación material del poder político” (Manzanilla 2001: 476; see also Manzanilla et al. 2005) and most other scholars writing on Mesoamerican palaces would agree with such a definition (e.g., Pillsbury & Evans 2004; Evans 2004: 7-9). If we consult an emic Mesoamerican definition of a palace, Bernardino de Sahagún’s Florentine Codex provides a lenghty and vivid description of a Mexica teekpankalli (lordplace-house): “It means the house of the ruler, or the government house, where the ruler is, where he is, where he lives, or where the rulers or the townsmen, the householders, assemble. It is a good place, a fine place, a palace” (Sahagún 1963: 270). We can further read that it is embellished, well made, plastered in all places, of diverse colours and intricate design and: “it stands constantly shining, wonderful, a marvel” (Sahagún 1963: 270). Tellingly, the Aztec glyph for teekpankalli (or teekkalko / teekpan) is a house glyph carrying the royal diadem (Evans 2004: 8) (Figure 1.3). A problem that has been confronting Teotihuacan archaeologists for years is to identify the palace (if we stick to the definition that it has to be a ruler’s residence), while resisting the urge to classify every one of the many magnificent, well made and colorful compounds as palaces. If we would choose to use the term palace in its broader definition and following its common-usage, where it is also often refers to large private mansions for the aristocracy and noveau-riche, many Teotihuacan compounds could in fact be called palaces, and over the decades several have indeed been designated as such. When excavating the residential compound known as Zacuala in the 1950’s, Laurette Séjourné thus named it a “palace”, mainly due to its many impressive mural paintings and the fine ceramics and other objects encountered in burials and offerings (Séjourné 1959). However, since then we have come to know that Zacuala was only one out of several

Figure 1.3: a) Aztec hieroglyph for teekpankalli or ‘Lord-Place-House’ combining ‘house’ and ‘royal kopil headdress’ (adapted from Evans 2004: 8, Fig. 1) compared to examples of named structures in Teotihuacan writing: b) ‘Bird-House’ on an adorno of Teotihuacan-style theatre-style censer from the Escuintla area of Guatemala (drawing by Christophe Helmke), and c) ‘Heart-Eating-Tlaloc-House’ on a Teotihuacan-style tripod from the Escuintla area (after Hellmuth 1978: Fig. 14).

other residential compounds of relatively equal size and wealth. A few years later, excavations on the southwest side of the Moon Plaza led by Ignacio Bernal and Jorge Acosta, revealed a compound which was henceforth referred to as the Quetzalpapalotl Palace. Its designation as a palace

6

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

emphasize the Avenue of the Dead Complex as the best candidate, while admitting that other elite administrative compounds may have been established in Xalla in the north-eastern sector, and possibly also at the Ciudadela, in the first centuries of Teotihuacan’s history (Sanders & Evans 2005, 2006). Following Cowgill’s earlier suggestion (Cowgill 1983: 316, 338-341), they believe that the Street of the Dead Complex, Teotihuacan’s largest compound, covering a staggering 112 500 m2, partly surrounded by massive walls, was: “a massive palatial compound in the very center of the city and possibly the seat of rulership in the last era of Teotihuacan’s greatness” (Sanders & Evans 2006: 259; see also Manzanilla 2001: 474-475) (Figure 1.4). Built around A.D. 300 they assert that: “From its size and layout, the complex clearly could have served functions pertaining to both administration of the state and residence for the rulers, their extended households, and their retainers. It is a compound of courtyards and symmetrical rooms, plus all the backstage areas necessary for daily life” (Sanders & Evans 2006: 266). Cowgill estimated: “that the entire [Calle de los Muertos Complex] provides facilities for around 800 to 1 600 persons”. (1983: 339). The huge compound also contains an impressive three-temple complex – the West Plaza Compound – originally decorated with large sculptures of feline-serpent beings, and the whole compound, in general, is exceedingly rich in sculptures and reliefs (Morelos García 1999). An unusual feature of the complex is that it incorporates or blocks a section of the Street of the Dead. As noted by Esther Pasztory: “At this point the avenue has a pronounced slope and is divided into six segments by transverse platforms with stairs on both sides. This division closes the Street of the Dead into a series of courts of potentially restricted access” (Pasztory 1988: 61, Fig. III.13). Thus, it could be argued that the controlling of access, even if just symbolically, to the northern section of the city and its mayor monuments via the Avenue of the Dead was an integral part of the Street of the Dead Complex (see also Cowgill 1983: 340). Excavations in the so-called Viking Group within the complex also showed that: “It has the largest rooms, porches, and patios of any residences excavated at Teotihuacan and may have been the residence of someone of very high status, possibly even the head(s) of the compound and of the Teotihuacan state”, and Sanders and Toby Evans go on to suggest that the Avenue of the Dead Complex was the residence of Spearthrower Owl the assumed

was qualified not only because of the polychrome murals and famous stone reliefs of “quetzalbutterflies”, but presumably also due to the compound’s proximity to the Moon Pyramid (e.g., Bernal 1963: 16-21; Acosta 1964; Miller 1973: 4245). Similarly, the neighbouring compound (Conjunto de los Jaguares) is sometimes referred to as the Palace of the Jaguars (Miller 1973: 49-57; Angulo 1998: 50), just as the large compound (Conjunto del Sol, Zone 5A) located at the northern end of the plaza that fronts the Pyramid of the Sun was previously known in the literature as the Palace of the Sun (Millon 1976: 236; for a recent discussion of this compound and its possible association with Teotihuacan’s ruling strata, see Nielsen & Helmke 2010). Whereas the above-mentioned compounds have been called palaces, none of them have, in more recent studies, been regarded as serious candidates for a major royal palace. So have, however, the structures on the north and south sides of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid (Conjuntos 1D & 1E). The rooms of the structures cover a total of 9 600 m2, and was first suggested by Pedro Armillas to have been the residential area of a Teotihuacan royal family, an idea that still surfaces from time to time (Armillas 1964; Millon 1973; Sanders & Evans 2006). While the complex iconography of the pyramid’s facade, the massive dedication offerings and the wooden feathered serpent staff or scepter recovered in one of the looted graves (see Taube 1992; Sugiyama 2000, 2005) all point to the central importance of this structure to the rulers of Teotihuacan, Cowgill early on dismissed 1D and 1E as being likely palatial compounds because of their relatively small size (Cowgill 1983: 329), and more recent excavations also suggest that these “palaces” more likely served ritual and administrative functions related to the pyramid and the Ciudadela complex, such as “quarters for priests and schools for educating upper-class youth, like the Aztec calmecac” (Sanders & Evans 2006: 264). Alternatively, the two quarters could be compared to the kwaawkalli flanking the Aztec Templo Mayor (see López Luján 2006), and thus have been associated with the most highly respected warrior orders that served the Teotihuacan state and formed its military backbone (see also Sugiyama 1998; Nielsen 2004; Headrick 2007: 90-102). In a recent re-evaluation of Teotihuacan’s possible palace buildings, Sanders and Toby Evans

7

JESPER NIELSEN

Figure 1.4: Plan of Street of the Dead Complex with the sections of the Street of the Dead marked (after Evans 2004: 18, Fig. 5).

A New Contender: Xalla and the Four Rulers of Teotihuacan

ruler of Teotihuacan from A.D. 374-439 (2006: 267271). As previously stated, scholars disagree on the nature of rulership at Teotihuacan, and while Sanders and Toby Evans seem to support the hypothesis that Spearthrower Owl ruled at Teotihuacan, they also claim that, at least in part of the city’s history, dual leadership was practised. Although it can not be said to have been demonstrated with absolute certainty that the Avenue of the Dead Complex served as Teotihuacan’s main palace, it is, at present, probably the best candidate for a mayor Teotihuacan royal palace with residential as well as administrative and religious functions.

Recent excavations 230 m to the north-east of the Sun Pyramid at the enormous group today known as Xalla, has demonstrated that the compound: “tiene dimensiones inusualmente grandes en el contexto de Teotihuacan”, its perimeter walls enclosing an area of no less than 35 500 m2 (López Luján & Manzanilla 2001a: 14; see also Manzanilla et al. 2005: 200-203) (Figure 1.5). Thus, Xalla is only surpassed by the Street of Dead Complex in terms of size, and is ten times larger than the average Teotihuacan residential compound. It has direct

8

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

access to the Avenue of the Dead, and contains 32 structures, several of them reaching a height of at least five meters, as well as a total of eight plazas. Considering that the nearby Sun Pyramid was probably associated with the New Fire ceremony and the investiture of rulers (Fash et al. 2009; Nielsen & Helmke in press), while the equally close by Moon Pyramid appears to have been tied with martial might and possibly the succession of rulers (Sugiyama & López Luján 2007; Nielsen & Helmke 2008) the Xalla compound is ideally and strategically placed between these two key monumental structures and would have provided its inhabitants easy access to them both and the secondary buildings associated with them. While only a fraction of Xalla has been excavated to this date, excavations carried out in the Central Plaza in 2000-2002 provided several new insights.

Figure 1.5: Plan of the Xalla compound. Note the quadrilateral Central Plaza (after Millon et al. 1973: 31).

The Central Plaza is highly unusual in Teotihuacan due to its four temple structures centred on a fifth building at the centre. Thus, the dominant threetemple complex found throughout Teotihuacan is replaced by: “five large religious constructions that occupy the cardinal points and the center, echoing the form of the renowned Mesoamerican quincunx” (López Luján et al. 2006a: 14; see also Headrick 2007: 108-110). A structure with a comparable cosmologically significant layout is the so-called Building of the Altars (or Structure A of Zone 1) at the foot of the Moon Pyramid with its low altars placed at the cardinal and intercardinal points and in the center. Not surprisingly, the structure has been compared to the famous cosmogram of the much later Mixtec Codex Féjérvary-Mayer by several scholars (e.g., Headrick 2007: 159-162; Cabrera Castro 2000: 206-207). The quincunx layout of the Central Plaza buildings and the Building of the Altars strongly indicate a relationship between the two, and as it is plausible that they carried more or less identical cosmological meanings, the latter could have played a role in larger public ceremonies, whereas the former is more likely to have been reserved for more private and exclusive rituals. The fact that Xalla is one of very few known compounds build around a quincunx temple complex immediately sets it it apart, and further suggests its central importance to the religious and political life at Teotihuacan.

(E2) had once been embellished by sculptures of feline beings emerging from starry portals (López Luján & Manzanilla 2001a; López Luján et al. 2006a: 29) as well as possible Storm God (‘Tlaloc’) imagery. According to Manzanilla the Eastern Temple was dedicated to the Storm or Rain God (Linda Manzanilla, pers. comm. 2011), and it is worth noticing the shared features between E2 and the adjacent Sun Pyramid, both in terms of their east-west orientation and with regard to the associated sculptures and iconography, since the large sculptural fragments at the base of the Sun Pyramid, most of which presumably once embellished the western façade of the pyramid, are dominated by feline and star imagery. At present it is not known what supernatural deity or ritual actions the Western Temple (E4) was dedicated to, and most attention has been given the Southern Temple structure (E3) on top of which a remarkable, large marble sculpture was excavated (López Luján et al. 2006a-b). The now reassembled and wellpublished sculpture had been purposely destroyed at the time of the fall of Teotihuacan (c. A.D. 550), and represents a bound captive marked by arrows on his legs, and has been interpreted as a victim of a ceremony comparable to the later Aztec tlakakalistli sacrifice (López Luján et al. 2006a: 23-28). To Leonardo López Luján and his co-authors the sculpture and its symbolism, possibly hinting at military conquests, would be ideologically backing up “the pre-ponderant power of the inhabitants of this complex, possibly a Teotihuacan palace” (López Luján et al. 2006a: 28). The Central Temple (E9) of the plaza was a spacious structure build

Excavations in the Central Plaza revealed an Old Fire God (“Weewe’teootl”) sculpture in the Northern Temple (E1), whereas the Eastern Temple

9

JESPER NIELSEN

upon a low platform, its outer walls originally painted red, whereas the interior walls show clear remains of green and white paint. While it is difficult to attribute specific cosmological significance to the four cardinal temples based on the sculptures, it must be noted that green is the predominant colour associated with the center in Mesoamerican cosmology (e.g., Thompson 1934; Miller & Taube 1993: 65-66; Houston et al. 2009: 25-30, 40-41), and it does seem highly plausible that the Central Plaza and its five temples carried cosmological significance. Furthermore, Offering AA18 found near the Central Temple: “formed a true cosmogram, for it contained three seashells and a small green obsidian blade at each cardinal point of the deposit in addition to a greenstone bead placed in the center (López Luján et al. 2006a: 14-15). To Manzanilla the layout of the Central Plaza possibly also served as a reference to a four-petalled flower, a common and no doubt highly significant motif in Teotihuacan iconography (Linda Manzanilla, pers. comm. 2011; von Winning 1987: II: 29-34).

As there is currently no evidence, however, that Xalla functioned as a residential area for these four leaders and their courts, Manzanilla assumes that they did not have their residences in Xalla, but in their respective “home” sectors of Teotihuacan. She points to examples of Late Postclassic city-states governed by three or four tla’to’ke’, and: “Proponemos, entonces que Teotihuacan fuese el primer ejemplo de co-gobierno, instaurando una tradición que perduró hasta la Conquista” (Manzanilla 2001: 470). It is true that Late Postclassic and Colonial sources indicate that a few central Mexican city-states were relying on a system of co-rulership or by an assembly of lineage leaders, just as we know that Tlaxcala was ruled jointly by four leaders representing four cabeceras (e.g., Carrasco 1971: 372). From the Itza Maya of Nojpeten in Guatemala we also learn that: “Itza governance was a complex system grounded in principles of dual rulership, a quadripartite division of elite governance over territories” (Jones 1998: 60). Thus, Grant Jones suggests that Itza territory was divided into four cardinally arranged provinces, and that each of these were governed by a pair of rulers. In the centre of this arrangement, however, was the capital of Nojpeten, and here: “The fifth pair comprised the supreme rulership itself and was shared by the “king” Ajaw Kan Ek’, and the high priest, his father’s brother’s son, known as Aj K’in Kan Ek’. These two men ruled, at least symbolically, as a single political persona, embodying dynastic rule over all of Itza territory and over Nojpeten, the political and cosmological center of that territory” (Jones 1998: 60). While we do find occasional references to dual or even quadripartite rulership in relatively minor city-states and confederations of the Late Postclassic, we lack evidence of equal types of political organization and government in any of the major cities, states and empires of Classic and Postclassic period Mesoamerica.

The prominent quadripartite pattern also recurs in the cave beneath the Sun Pyramid, where the long tunnel terminates in four smaller chambers arranged like petals of a flower, evoking the well-known image of Chicomoztoc in the Historia ToltecaChichimeca and the seven ethnic groups that originated from the caves (Heyden 1975). The same pattern may be repeated on the famous Teotihuacanstyle Las Colinas Bowl from Tlaxcala that shows a procession of four high-ranking individuals which have been suggested to represent four different social groups, perhaps the four main sectors of the city (C. Millon 1973: 304; von Winning & Gutiérrez Solana 1996: 20-27). It is clear that these examples have played a role in formulating the hypothesis that the four temples of Xalla’s Central Plaza were associated with the four sectors of the city, and hence also with the leaders of each sector (see Villareal 2009). Building on Hasso von Winning and Nelly Gutiérrez Solana’s interpretation of the Las Colinas Bowl, Manzanilla thus stated that: “The 4 city sectors were represented by lineages of birds of prey to the northwest, jaguars and the Storm deity to the northeast; of serpents to the southeast and canines or coyotes to the southwest” (cited in Villareal 2009), and according to her, Xalla was the seat of a Teotihuacan corporate state government ruled by four representatives (Manzanilla 2001, 2012: 66; Villareal 2009).

In my view there are other and perhaps more plausible interpretations of the Central Plaza and its quincunx layout and the different supernaturals and rituals that may have been in focus here. Thus, John Pohl describes how, among the Mixtecs of Oaxaca, four priests were responsible for the religious cults important to the Mixtec rulers. The members of this “holy council” assisted the Mixtec ruler in political, judicial and religious matters and were responsible for the well-being and care of the most important sacred bundles (Pohl 2000). At Xalla, the four

10

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

temples combined with a central structure could have functioned in a similar fashion, with four gods and/or key rituals intimately associated with the state cult(s), and we may speculate that the Central Plaza was the location where private rituals were performed by the ruler of Teotihuacan overseen by four major priests. Xalla certainly held a strong strategic and symbolic position within the city, and it must have played a pivotal role in the religious and political life of Teotihuacan, and as such it may be designated a compound that in addition to its religious functions also served as a palace or court. Yet, in contrast to Manzanilla, I find it problematic to use the layout of Xalla as evidence in support of a hypothesis of collective rulership shared between four individuals or lineages.

supporting evidence. In many ways, the Street of the Dead Complex appears to be a better candidate and more scholars have pointed to this as a likely royal palace, although conclusive evidence to settle the matter is also frustratingly vague in this case. In future efforts to identify the palace (or palaces) of Teotihuacan a more fine-grained understanding of the chronology and construction history of the individual residential compounds will be necessary, since it is only with a better chronological grasp on the compounds’ histories that we will potentially be able to time renovations and rebuildings with accessions, as well as the possible shifts of royal residences that may very well have occurred over time. Thus, both the Street of the Dead Complex and Xalla may have served as royal palaces in different time periods having been built and used by different rulers (see Cowgill 1983, 2000; Sanders & Evans 2006). Accepting that for the moment we are left with little certainty as to which was the main royal palace of Teotihuacan, I suggest that future studies into the nature and seat of rulership of the ancient city should focus much more on the available iconographic and epigraphic evidence. In this relatively unexplored set of data there are several fascinating pathways and possibilities that may bring us closer to answering some of the questions pertaining to rulers and their palaces. By further studies of titles and names, be they expressed by glyphic texts and captions (e.g., Millon 1973; Nielsen 2004) or by headdresses and other types of regalia in the iconography (Paulinyi 2001; Headrick 2007; García-Des Lauriers 2008; Nielsen & Helmke 2010) we may finally be able to discern the structure of the political hierarchy and to discover additional names of individual rulers. In a similar manner we may also soon be able to identify toponymic references to specific buildings and temples (Figure 1.3b-c), and among them those that were the residences of the ruling class, akin to the houses and temples documented among the Maya and Aztecs (Velásquez García 2009; Nielsen & Helmke, in press). Nevertheless, from present evidence it seems that the Teotihuacanos were somewhat reluctant to express information of this type on their painted walls or in sculpted reliefs. In contrast, the painted, engraved and incised ceramic vessels, produced in the thousands through much of Teotihuacan’s history, appear to have been a far more common media for hieroglyphic expressions, including, linear, albeit short, texts (Taube 2000) and the juxtaposition of text and images. We will

Finally it is worth bearing in mind that the hypothesis that Xalla was an administrative palace area is not based on archaeological evidence (the five temples do not in themselves provide any evidence of rulers), but mainly on the assumption that Teotihuacan was ruled, not by one strong individual ruler, but rather by a group of leaders. As we have seen, we now have enough evidence to suggest that Teotihuacan was in fact home to a dynasty with powerful individual rulers, and there is a certain irony in the fact that the absence of clear portraits of Teotihuacan rulers (based on the erroneous assumptions that such must have existed and preserved to this day) seem to have forced scholars to imagine alternative forms of rulership, even though such forms of rulership and political organizations is no more apparent in the archaeological record than that of strong dynastic rulership. Conclusions and Perspectives To briefly conclude on the discussion presented above, it is clear that there is currently no consensus among archaeologists as to which compound may have served as the main royal palace. Although it seems quite likely that Xalla served a central part in the ritual life of the highest echelons of Teotihuacan society, more excavations are required to fully understand the functions of this unique and large compound. The quincunx-temple complex of Xalla distinguishes it from the three-temple complexes so common and characteristic of Teotihuacan, but the conclusion that this layout (with obvious cosmological connotations) reflect a group of four rulers is, in my view, still in need of more and better

11

JESPER NIELSEN

Acknowledgements: While researching and writing the present chapter a number of good friends and colleagues have helped me in various ways, among them Julie Nehammer Knub, Christophe Helmke, Casper Jacobsen, Toke Sellner Reunert, Erik Velásquez García and Montserrat Salinas Rodrigo. An especially heartfelt thank is extended to Linda Manzanilla for granting me access to Xalla in February 2011 and for the fruitful discussion we had while touring this magnificent compound. While we may not share all views on Teotihuacan rulership and the significance of Xalla, I can not thank her enough for her openness and her encouragement. I would also like to thank a number of great scholars who, over the past decade have inspired and assisted me in my research on Teotihuacan, and whose thoughts and influences are in one way or the other reflected in this chapter: María Elena Ruiz Gallut, María Teresa Castañeda Uriarte, Rubén Cabrera Castro, Saburo Sugiyama, Sergio Gómez Chávez, Karl Taube, Albert Davletshin, Jorge Angulo, Jennifer Browder and Annabeth Headrick. Any errors and misinterpretations are, however, my sole responsibility.

need better access to this rich source material, of which only a fraction has been published so far (von Winning 1987; Conides 2001), and I believe that further significant advancement in the decipherment of Teotihuacan’s writing system will only take place once this has been achieved. Finally, in reply to Cowgill’s question cited at the beginning of this chapter, I find it plausible that the strong individual rulers were probably there all along in the history of Teotihuacan, but rather than being downplayed, they may in fact be present in the murals and sculpture in a degree that we as scholars have been slow to recognize. Perhaps, as Headrick pointed out, we have been looking for and expecting the wrong kind of evidence. In our attempts to understand rulership and its material representations in Teotihuacan, we must start concentrating on other central Mexican cultures, such as those of the Epiclassic, in our comparative efforts and less so the Classic Lowland Maya which for too long has provided the criteria for identifying rulers in Teotihuacan. Furthermore, I think we need to be cautious in applying models of rulership that are not well-documented in Mesoamerica when reconstructing Teotihuacan’s sociopolitical structure; in particular since it is becoming still more evident that Teotihuacan, rather than being the great anomaly in Mesoamerica, laid out the patterns for so much of central Mexico’s contemporary and later history as well as cultural practices and institutions. Many, if not most, of central Mexico’s Epiclassic and Postclassic cultures strove to recreate their own cities and societies as mirror images or inheritors of the great Tollan Teotihuacan (see Hovmand-Rasmussen, this volume), and rulership and its representation was probably no exception to this. As recently noted by Enrique Florescano (2009: 187):

References Cited: Acosta, Jorge R. 1964 El palacio de Quetzalpapalotl. INAH, México, D.F. Andrews, E. Wyllys & Casandra R. Bill 2005 A Late Classic Royal Residence at Copán. Copán: The History of an Ancient Maya Kingdom, edited by E. Wyllys Andrews & William L. Fash, pp. 239-314. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe & James Currey, Oxford. Angulo, Jorge 1998 Teotihuacan – City of the Gods. Monclem Ediciones, S.A. de C.V., México, D.F. Armillas, Pedro 1964 Northern Mesoamerica. Prehistoric Man in the New World, edited by Jesse D. Jennings & Edward Norbeck, pp. 291-329. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Bernal, Ignacio 1963 Teotihuacan: Descubrimientos – reconstrucciones. INAH, México, D.F. Cabrera Castro, Rubén 2000 Teotihuacan Cultural Traditions Transmitted into the Postclassic According to Recent Excavations. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones & Scott Sessions, pp. 195-218. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

Así, todo indica que Teotihuacan, al igual que otros reinos de ascendencia tolteca, fue gobernado por una dinastía de tlatoque. Es también probable que la palabra tlatoani (el que habla), adquira su significaco político pleno en Tollan-Teotihuacan […] Los textos nahuas dicen que en Teotihuacan nació el señorío y que ahí se elegía a los gobernantes, una tradición que se perpetuó en Cholollan, Tula, Chichén Itza y Tenochtilan, capitales políticas a las que los jefes de los reinos subordinados debían acudir para recibir al investidura real y los símbolos toltecas del poder.

12

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

Carrasco, Pedro 1971 Social Organization of Ancient Mexico. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 10, Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm & Ignacio Bernal, pp. 349-375. University of Texas Press, Austin. Conides, Cynthia A. 2001 The Stuccoed and painted Ceramics from Teotihuacan, Mexico: A Study of Authorship and Function of Works of Art from an Ancient Mesoamerican City. Ph.d. dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Cowgill, George L. 1983 Rulership and the Ciudadela: Political Inferences from Teotihuacan Architecture. Civilizations in the Ancient Americas – Essays in Honour of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Richard M. Leventhal & Alan L. Kolata, pp. 313-343. University of New Mexico Press & Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. 1992 Social Differentiation at Teotihuacan. Mesoamerican Elites: An Archaeological Assessment, edited by Diane Z. Chase & Arlen F. Chase, pp. 206-220. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 2000 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica – A Reader, edited by Michael E. Smith & Marilyn Masson, pp. 300-323. Blackwell Publishers, Malden. 2008 An update on Teotihuacan. Antiquity, Vol. 82 (318): 962-975. Evans, Susan Toby 2004 Aztec Palaces and Other Elite Residential Architecture. Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans & Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 7-58. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Fash, William L., Alexandre Tokovinine & Barbara Fash 2009 The House of New Fire at Teotihuacan and Its Legacy in Mesoamerica. The Art of Urbanism: How Mesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery, edited by William L. Fash & Leonardo López Luján, pp. 201-229. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Florescano, Enrique 2009 Los orígenes del poder en Mesoamérica. Fondo de cultura económica, México, D.F. García-Des Lauriers, Claudia 2008 The “House of Darts”: The Classic Period Origins of the Tlacochcalco. Mesoamerican Voices, Vol. 3: 35-52.

Guenter, Stanley 2002 Under a Falling Star: The Hiatus of Tikal. Unpublished M.A. thesis, la Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne. Headrick, Annabeth 2007 The Teotihuacan Trinity: The Sociopolitical Structure of an Ancient Mesoamerican City. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hellmuth, Nicholas M. 1978 Teotihuacan Art in the Escuintla, Guatemala Region. Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700, edited by Esther Pasztory, pp. 7185. Columbia University Press, New York. Heyden, Doris 1975 An Interpretation of the Cave underneath the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 40 (2): 131-147. Houston, Stephen, Claudia Brittenham, Cassandra Mesick, Alexandre Tokovinine & Christina Warriner 2009 Veiled Brightness: A History of Ancient Maya Color. University of Texas Press, Austin. Inomata, Takeshi & Stephen D. Houston (eds.) 2001 Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. 2 volumes. Westview Press, Boulder. Jones, Grant D. 1998 The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Linné, Sigvald 1934 Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacan, Mexico. New Series, Publication No. 1. Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm. 1942 Mexican Highland Cultures: Archaeological Researches at Teotihuacan, Calpulalpan, and Chalchicomula in 1934-35. Ethnographical Museum of Sweden, Stockholm. López Luján, Leonardo 2006 La casa de las águilas – un ejemplo de la arquitectura religiosa de Tenochtitlan. 2 volumes. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes & INAH, México, D.F. López Luján, Leonardo & Linda Manzanilla 2001a Excavaciones en un palacio de Teotihuacan: Proyecto Xalla. Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. IX (50): 14-15. 2001b Exploraciones en un posible palacio de Teotihuacan: El Proyecto Xalla (20002001). Mexicon, Vol. XXIII (3): 58-61. López Luján, Leonardo, Laura Filloy Nadal, Barbara Fash, William L. Fash & Pilar Hernández 2006a The Destruction of Images in Teotihuacan: Anthropomorphic Sculpture, Elite Cults, and the End of a Civilization. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 49/50: 12-39.

13

JESPER NIELSEN

2006b

El poder de las imágenes: esculturas antropomorphas y cultos de elite en Teotihuacan. Arqueología e historia del Centro de México: Homenaje a Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, edited by Leonardo López Luján, Davíd Carrasco & Lourdes Cué, pp. 171-201. INAH, México, D.F. Manzanilla, Linda 1993 Daily Life in the Teotihuacan Apartment Compounds. Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, edited by Kathleen Berrin & Esther Pasztory, pp. 90-99. Thames & Hudson / The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, London & San Francisco. 1998 El Estado teotihuacano. Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. VI (32): 22-31. 1999 Organización sociopolítica de Teotihuacan: lo que los materiales arqueológicos nos dicen o nos callan. Ideología y política a través de materiales, imágenes y símbolos. Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut, pp. 3-21. CONACULTA/INAH, México, D.F. 2001 Agrupamientos sociales y gobierno en Teotihuacan, centro de México. Reconstruyendo la ciudad maya: El urbanismo en sociedades antiguas, edited by Andrés Ciudad Ruiz, María Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León & María del Carmen Martínez Martínez, pp. 461-482. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid. 2004 Social Identity and Daily Life at Classic Teotihuacan. Mesoamerican Archaeology – Theory and Practice, edited by Julia A. Hendon & Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 124147. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. 2012 Neighborhoods and Elite “Houses” at Teotihuacan, Central Mexico. The Neighborhood as a Social and Spatial Unit in Mesoamerican Cities, edited by M. Charlotte Arnauld, Linda R. Manzanilla & Michael E. Smith, pp. 74-101. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Manzanilla, Linda, Leonardo López Luján & William L. Fash 2005 Cómo definir un palacio en Teotihuacan. Arquitectura y urbanismo: pasado y presente de los espacios en Teotihuacan. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut & Jesús Torres Peralta, pp. 185-209. INAH, México, D.F. Martin, Simon & Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Revised edition. Thames & Hudson, London.

Miller, Arthur G. 1973 The Mural Paintings of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Miller, Mary & Karl Taube 1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames & Hudson, London. Millon, Clara 1973 Painting, Writing, and Polity in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity, Vol. 38 (3): 294-314. 1988 A Reexamination of the Teotihuacan Tassel Headdress Insignia. Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by Kathleen Berrin, pp. 114-134. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco. Millon, René 1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1: The Teotihuacan Map, Part 1: Text. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1976 Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacan. The Valley of Mexico: Studies in PreHispanic Ecology and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 205-248. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians – Archaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 198-243. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1993 The Place Where Time Began: An Archaeologist’s Interpretation of What Happened in Teotihuacan’s History. Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, edited by Kathleen Berrin & Esther Pasztory, pp. 16-43. Thames & Hudson / The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, London & San Francisco. Millon, René, R. Bruce Drewitt & George L. Cowgill 1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1: The Teotihuacan Map, Part 2: Maps. University of Texas Press, Austin. Morelos García, Noel 1999 Las evidencias iconográficos del Complejo Calle de los Muertos in Teotihuacan. Ideología y política a través de materiales, imágenes y símbolos. Memoria de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut, pp. 23-59. CONACULTA/INAH, México, D.F. Nielsen, Jesper 2004 The Coyote and the Tasseled Shield: A Possible Titular Glyph on a Late Xolalpan Teotihuacan Tripod. Mexicon, Vol. XXVI (3): 61-64.

14

WHERE KINGS ONCE RULED? CONSIDERATIONS ON PALACES AND RULERSHIP AT TEOTIHUACAN

Nielsen, Jesper & Christophe Helmke 2008 Spearthrower Owl Hill: A Toponym at Atetelco, Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 19 (4): 459-474. 2010 The Defeat of the Great Celestial Bird: A Master Myth in Early Classic Central Mexico. Paper presented at Teotihuacan: Media and Power in the City of the Gods. Lateinamerika-Institut, Freie Universität Berlin, Berlin, Sep. 26th. in press Denominaciones del entorno construido: referencias glíficas a edificios en Teotihuacan y su periferia. Teotihuacan: Investigaciones recientes – centro y periferia. Memoria de la Quinta Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by Sandra Riego Ruiz & Salvador Guilliem Arroyo, INAH, México, D.F. Pasztory, Esther 1988 A Reinterpretation of Teotihuacan and its Mural Painting Tradition. Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by Kathleen Berrin, pp. 45-77. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco, San Francisco. 1997 Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Paulinyi, Zoltán 2001 Los señores con tocado de borlas: Un estudio sobre el estado teotihuacano. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 12: 1-30. Pillsbury, Joanne & Susan Toby Evans 2004 Palaces of Ancient New World: An Introduction. Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans & Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 1-5. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Pohl, John M.D. 2000 The Four Priests: Political Stability. The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica – A Reader, edited by Michael E. Smith & Marilyn Masson, pp. 342-359. Blackwell Publishers, Malden. Sahagún, Bernardino de 1963 Florentine Codex: Book 11 – Earthly Things. Translated and annotated by Charles E. Dibble & Arthur J. O. Anderson. University of Utah, Santa Fe. Sanders, William T & Susan Toby Evans 2005 Prestige, Power and Wealth at Teotihuacan: A Perspective from the Residential Architecture. Arquitectura y urbanismo: pasado y presente de los espacios en Teotihuacan. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut & Jesús Torres Peralta, pp. 295-323. INAH, México, D.F.

Sanders, William T & Susan Toby Evans 2006 Rulership and Palaces at Teotihuacan. Palaces and Power in the Americas – From Peru to the Northwest Coast, edited by Jessica Joyce Christie & Patricia Joan Sarro, pp. 256-284. University of Texas Press, Austin. Séjourné, Laurette 1959 Un palacio en la ciudad de los dioses. Exploraciones en Teotihuacán, 1955-1958. INAH, México, D.F. Solís Olguin, Felipe 2009 Family Histories: The Ancestors of Moctezuma II. Moctezuma – Aztec Ruler, edited by Colin McEwan & Leonardo López Luján, pp. 24-39. The British Museum Press, London. Stuart, David 2000 “The Arrival of Strangers”: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya Texts. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones & Scott Sessions, pp. 465-513. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Sugiyama, Saburo 1993 Worldview Materialized in Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 4 (2): 103-129. 1998 Archaeology and Iconography of Teotihuacan Censers: Official Military Emblems originated from the Ciudadela? Teotihuacan Notes: Internet Journal for Teotihuacan Archaeology and Iconography: http://archaeology.la.asu.edu/teo/notes/SS/ noteI_2SS.htm. 2000 Teotihuacan as an origin for Postclassic Feathered Serpent Symbolism. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones & Scott Sessions, pp. 117-143. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2005 Human Sacrifice, Militarism, and Rulership: Materialization of State Ideology at the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Sugiyama, Saburo & Leonardo López Luján 2007 Dedicatory Burial/Offering Complexes at the Moon Pyramid, Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 18: 127-146. Taube, Karl 2000 The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacan. Ancient America, Vol. 1: 1-56. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1934 Sky bearers, colors, and directions in Maya and Mexican religion. Carnegie Institution Contribution to American Archaeology, Vol. 2 (10): 209-242.

15

JESPER NIELSEN

Townsend, Richard 2009 The Aztecs. Third edition. Thames & Hudson, London. Velásquez García, Erik 2009 Terminología arquitectónica en los textos jeroglíficos Mayas y Nahuas. La arquitectura precolombina de Mesoamérica, edited by María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda, pp. 265-324. Editorial Jaca Book & Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes / INAH, Milano & México, D.F. Villareal, José 2009 Teotihuacan Could Have Been Governed by 4 Seigniors. Art Daily: http://www.art. daily.com Whittaker, Gordon 2010 Tollan in Memoriam: Spearthrower Owl and the Central Mexican Connection. Paper presented at the conference Teotihuacan: Media and Power in the City of the Gods. Freie Universität Berlin & Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhems-Universität Bonn, Bonn, September 28th. von Winning, Hasso 1987 La iconografía de Teotihuacan: Los dioses y los signos. 2 volumes. UNAM, México, D.F. von Winning, Hasso & Nelly Gutiérrez Solana 1996 La iconografía de la cerámica de Río Blanco, Veracruz. UNAM, México, D.F.

16

Chapter 2: Identifying the Provenance and Dating of Maya Influences at the Cacaxtla Court Christophe Helmke & Jesper Nielsen

Stuart 1992; Uriarte 1999). Set within a wider Mesoamerican context, Cacaxtla is located more than 550 km west of Comalcalco, the nearest Maya site. Seen from the vantage of Maya iconography it is undeniable that there are qualities, even if these are difficult to grapple with and clearly define, about the execution, composition and fine line of Cacaxtla’s murals that tie these to contemporaneous practices in the Maya area. To emphasize the Maya qualities of the murals, in large measure diminishes the exceptional features of Cacaxtlan imagery, which is clearly something more, something that exhibits its own and uniquely trenchant syncretism of features. Whereas the iconography exhibits a blend of features, among the glyphic texts are representatives of a distinct central Mexican tradition, stemming back to Early Classic Teotihuacan (c. A.D. 200-550) (see Helmke & Nielsen 2011, 2013). Nonetheless, the Mayaness of the imagery craves an explanation, especially the depictions of objects and supernatural entities that were loaned from the iconographic repertoire of the Classic Maya (A.D. 250-900).

The archaeological site of Cacaxtla, located in modern-day state of Tlaxcala, Mexico, served as the palatial compound and the seat of the polity that once dominated the area during the Epiclassic period (A.D. 600-950). Cacaxtla’s nucleated and raised acropoline architecture, as well as its layout and configuration, with buildings arranged around and facing onto a series of open patios and plazas, are well in keeping with the features that define palaces throughout Mesoamerica (e.g., Inomata & Houston 2001; Evans 2004) (Figure 2.1). Some of these structures can be clearly identified as temples (e.g., Structures A and Y) whereas others conform to residential and administrative functions, fulfilling the manifold services associated with a regal court. Thus, the structures at the southern end of the acropolis formed the more private and residential portion of the palace whereas the range structures arranged around the broad northern plaza served as halls of audience and other administrative tasks. As with other Epiclassic sites, Cacaxtla was built atop a hill for defensive purposes as the broad moats, cut deep into bedrock, and the steeply-terraced slopes attest to. One of the particularities is that discrete areas of the larger site have received different names during the course of investigations, wherein Cacaxtla served as the epicentral palace of a much larger settlement. Based on archaeological finds, this settlement is known to spread out over at least 4.3 km2, stretching across the surrounding and heavily terraced hills and ravines, over to the portions of the site known as of Xochitecatl and Atlachino (see Foncerrada de Molina 1993: Fig. 2a; Lombardo de Ruiz et al. 1986).

Here we present some cursory comments on the imagery of Cacaxtla, as seen specifically from a comparative vantage that meshes with examples from the Maya area. We will focus on four major elements of the iconography, represented on the murals of Structures A and B (for a similar treatment of the Red Temple, see Martin 2013). In this examination we provide a comprehensive overview of Maya iconography against which to examine the Cacaxtlan examples, which as it turns out, helps to reveal the geographic origins of the Maya influence. In addition, the particular features examined are also found to be temporally-restricted and consequently these have a bearing as to when Cacaxtla stood witness to these external influences and the time-period during which the murals where ultimately executed.

Since the discovery of Cacaxtla’s famed murals in 1975 these have been commonly regarded by the academic community as influenced by canons of Maya artistic conventions and iconography (e.g., Foncerrada de Molina 1976, 1980; Kubler 1980; Quirarte 1983; Robertson 1985; McVicker 1985;

17

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Figure 2.1: Plan of the Cacaxtla palace showing the location of the site’s principal structures. Note that both terminal and penultimate phases of construction are represented. 1) Templo de Venus, 2) Templo Rojo, 3) Pórtico 3, 4) Cuarto de la Escalera, 5) Pórtico A, 6) Patio de los Rombos, 7) El Palacio, 8) La Celosía, 9) Estructura de las Columnas, 10) Las Conejeras. Based on plans by Marta Foncerrada de Molina and Geneviève Lucet Lagriffoul. This and all figures by Christophe Helmke unless otherwise specified.

The Bicephalic Ceremonial Bar 18

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

The Bicephalic Ceremonial Bar

Leaving the identity of these figures aside, what interests us here are the large bicephalic ceremonial bars that they are shown cradling, particularly that of the southern avian figure (Figure 2.2a). As a starting point it should be remarked that bicephalic scepters are a particular item of royal regalia that is specifically tied to Classic Maya culture thereby highlighting the foreign influence at play at Cacaxtla (Miller & Taube 1993: 58-59; see also Clancy 1994). Such ceremonial bars are shown cradled by rulers on the occasion of their accession, or more frequently as part of period-ending celebrations. We suspect that the latter applies to the Cacaxtlan cases also, on the basis of the associated calendrical expressions rendered on the two piers (see Helmke & Nielsen 2011, 2013). As the name implies, two heads usually adorn the apexes of such ceremonial bars, most often serpentine creatures with wide open maws. The body of the bar is frequently made of woven matlike material, as is the case with the Cacaxtlan examples, which are further enhanced by a series of three bows of cloth strips. Such clusters of knots are also seen attached to bloodletting instruments among the Maya, leading to the identification as implements of sacrifice (see Joralemon 1974). Among central Mexican cultures the torches ignited as part of New Fire ceremonies are bundled together by similar groupings of knots, as clearly seen in the Codex Borbonicus (p. 34). At times, the body of the bar is rendered with celestial symbolism and glyphic elements drawn from sky-bands, marking the bar as a diminutive rendition of the heavenly realm. A ruler clasping such a ceremonial bar thereby asserted his authority over the breadth of the heavens, in much the same way as the enthronement orbs of European monarchs marked their dominion over the terrestrial sphere.

The painted piers of the portico of Structure A represent two richly-attired human figures. The northern figure is depicted in a spotted feline suit, replete with matching headdress and appropriately is standing atop a supernatural spotted feline with the body of a snake, ventral scales clearly rendered. Emanating from the brow of the supernatural feline is a blue blossom, which might mark this entity as a “water-lily feline” 1 known from Maya imagery (Schele & Miller 1986: 51; Miller & Taube 1993: 104, 184; Benson 1998: 64-67). The southern figure is dressed in an avian suit, presumably that of a raptorial bird, such as an eagle, and is standing atop a feathered serpent. The choice of feline and avian immediately calls to mind the warrior orders depicted on the battle murals of Structure B. Whereas the warrior orders of the later Aztec are quite well-known, their origins, which can be traced back to Early Classic Teotihuacan, will undoubtedly profit from more in-depth research (but see GarciaDes Lauriers 2000; Nielsen 2004; Headrick 2007). Both of the Structure A figures exhibit black body paint, large bows of knotted rope worn as pectorals, and wear typically-Maya belts, loincloths and kilts, the edges of which are embellished with so-called “death-eyes” (see Beyer 1937:151-152; Coe 1973:16; Taube 1992: 11-13). Taken together these features suggest that they are priestly figures, or at least renditions of individuals in their priestly capacity (see for example Grube & Schele 1994; Zender 2004: 118, 120). Thus, based on the features that call to mind the characteristics of warriors and those of priests, it must be assumed that we are looking at warrior-priests, known from several Mesoamerican cultures (e.g., Hassig 1988: 34-35, 43-44; Berdan & Anawalt 1997: 134-135; Zender 2004). At present there are no secure indications as to whether these are depictions of historical figures in a supernatural setting, or deified ancestral figures in an otherwise appropriate setting.

However, what is remarkable about the bicephalic bar at Cacaxtla is the fact that it represents a very particular type, namely one which is headed by skeletal creatures, which recent iconographic and epigraphic research have shown to be monstrous centipedes (Boot 1999; Taube 2003; Kettunen & Davis 2004). Instead of divinities or deified ancestors, as is usually the case, these centipedes belch out chert spear heads that exhibit crescentshaped notching along the edges, indicating that these are “eccentric flints” (Figure 2.2b). It is the fact that the ceremonial bars are tipped by eccentrics, headed by centipedes and tied together by tripartite knots that sets these apart from the other types of ceremonial

1

Here we refer to this entity as a “feline” rather than a “jaguar” as it is commonly termed in the literature since the glyphic captions that accompany its depictions in Maya imagery refer to it not as a bahlam ‘jaguar’ (Panthera onca), but as a hix ‘ocelot’ (Leopardus pardalis). Since it is unclear which of the two spotted felines is represented we prefer using the more neutral designation.

19

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Figure 2.2: Bicephalic ceremonial bars. a) the bicephalic ceremonial bar of the southern pier, Structure A, Cacaxtla. b) Stela from the Bonampak area (drawing by Christian Prager). c) Stela 1, Bonampak.

depictions on portable objects and diminutive examples that form part of headdresses. 2

bars. Occasionally in Maya iconography these types of bars are held upright as spears suggesting some kind of overlap with the military trappings of royalty. A review of Maya imagery has only found a little over a dozen examples of this particular type of ceremonial bar, which are presented in tabular form below, according to area of origin (Table 2.1). Note that only clear examples of such ceremonial bars are presented, as rendered on monuments that can be adequately dated, leaving aside eroded and undated monuments as well as

2

Eroded or otherwise unclear examples of possible centipede-eccentric flint ceremonial bars are seen at Dzehkabtun (Stela 1), Uaxactun (Stela 6), and Xultun (Stela 2). Miniature examples that are clearly not used as ceremonial bars are depicted as part of headdresses seen among other sites at Yaxchilan (Lintel 9), Quirigua (Stela J) and Tonina (Mon. 21). An example is also found on an incised sherd found at Copan.

20

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

n Site 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Arroyo de Piedra Bonampak Bonampak area Bonampak area Ek Balam Ek Balam La Mar area Itzimte-Sacluk Naranjo Naranjo La Pasadita Polol Retalteco Yaxchilan Yaxha

Example

Long Count

Julian

Stela 4 Stela 1 New York Stela Bruxelles Stela Column 1 Stela 1 Zürich Stela Stela 4 Stela 8 Stela 25 Lintel 4 Stela 2 Lintel 1 Stela 5 Stela 31

— 9.17.10.0.0 9.18.19.14.12 9.8.0.0.0 10.0.0.0.0 10.0.10.0.0 — 9.15.5.0.0 9.18.10.0.0 9.9.2.0.4 9.17.0.16.1 9.19.0.0.0 9.16.1.?.? 9.18.6.5.11 9.18.5.16.14

— A.D. 780 A.D. 810 A.D. 593 A.D. 830 A.D. 840 — A.D. 736 A.D. 800 A.D. 615 A.D. 771 A.D. 810 A.D. 752/3 A.D. 796 A.D. 796

Style c. 750-800 750-800 800-850 550-600 800-850 800-850 c. 650-700 700-750 750-800 600-650 750-800 800-850 750-800 750-800 750-800

Table 2.1: Distribution of securely dated lance-like bicephalic ceremonial bars in the Maya area. Examples are listed in alphabetical sequence according to site name.

Usumacinta served as the artery of contact between central Mexico and the Maya area during the Epiclassic, a point that we will return to again.

On the basis of the clearly dated monuments, we have found that this type of ceremonial bar was utilized during the course of the Late Classic, between A.D. 593 and 840. Nevertheless, the tabulation also reveals that over half of the examples date to between A.D. 746 and 810, during which such ceremonial bars occurred preferentially. It is possible that the Cacaxtlan examples may also date to this short period of predominance, although the span of dates associated with such ceremonial bars is sufficiently broad that alternate dates should be considered viable when viewed in conjunction with other temporal data. The other notable feature is that the vast majority of examples are spatiallyrestricted to the western Maya area, especially to sites along the course of the Usumacinta River and its tributary the Pasión River (Figure 2.3a). That the earliest documented example stems from the Bonampak area also helps to support the spatial pattern, in that the area of highest frequency also corresponds to the probable locus of inception. The examples from the eastern Peten and Yucatan appear as outliers since they do not coherently form part of the plotted distributions, nor the patterns of predominance. Thereby the core area of development and usage of this type of ceremonial bar can be identified as the upper Usumacinta drainage, giving an indication of the source of influence on Cacaxtla. In turn, this suggests that the

The Clay Panels At some point after the murals of the portico piers of Structure A had been completed, their iconography and composition was altered by secondary additions (see López de Molina & Molina Feal 1986: 35, 4243; Brittenham 2008: 37-39). These additions are represented by two rectangular clay panels that were modeled symmetrically onto the frame of the axial doorway into Structure A. Today, the wellpreserved northern panel has been left in situ (Figure 2.4a-b), whereas the matching southern panel that was recovered in a fragmentary state and is now exhibited at the site museum (Figure 2.4c). Incised and faded painted outlines remain along the doorframe show where the southern panel had originally been applied and that the original composition is entirely symmetrical to that of the northern panel. Based on available information it is unclear if the southern panel was willfully destroyed during the final phases of the site’s occupation, or if it simply succumbed to breakage during the structure’s collapse. Despite these uncertainties, we are fortunate that the northern panel survived in nearly pristine condition and it is on this feature

21

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Figure 2.3: Map of the Maya area showing the location of sites exhibiting iconographic elements found at Cacaxtla. a) Bicephalic ceremonial bars with centipede maws and eccentric flints. b) Shell-winged dragons. c) Tlaalok masks.

these would be lost amidst local examples. The aesthetic attributes of these panels are difficult to characterize in earnest, but they can be qualified as more Maya than the painted murals at Cacaxtla, which bear distinct hybrid or syncretistic features.

that we concentrate here. The clay panels are remarkable in that they are rendered in almost pure Maya iconography, as though the artisan who modeled the panels had actually been trained in the Maya area. In fact, it is not unfair to remark that if the panels had been discovered in the Maya area,

22

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Figure 2.4: The clay panels of Structure A, Cacaxtla. a) Photograph of northern panel. b) Drawing of northern panel. c) Drawing of southern panel.

knee-level and a large snarling mountain forming his headdress, amidst prominent molars. The witz monster of the headdress is particularly clear, with prominent and bifurcated fangs, typical earspool assemblage and clusters of three dots on the brow and cheek. These three dots together form the diagnostic marking for stone in Maya graphic conventions as seen most pertinently in the glyph for tuun ‘stone’. Precisely such a tuun logogram has been inset besides the earspool of the upper witz monster as if to reify that these animated entities are

Depicted on the northern panel is a male figure seated atop an animate mountain, known in the literature as a kawak or a witz monster, the latter based on the Classic Maya term for ‘mountain’ as attested in the glyphic texts (Stuart 1987: 17-20, 23; Schele & Mathews 1998: 14-15, 22, 43). The figure is shown with his left hand held to his face, his right pointed downwards to his feet and a large knotted snake as his necklace. In fact, the human figure is surrounded by witz monsters, with one entity forming his throne, another fragmentary one at

23

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Stacked mountain signs, similar to those at Cacaxtla, are in fact a well-known aspect of Maya imagery, with clear examples found in the sanctuaries of the three temples of the Cross Group at Palenque, where these embody three mountaincave complexes (see Stuart 2006). A similar composition is found at Copan, on Stela B (Mon. 3), in which the ruler is shown celebrating a period ending, framed by stacked mountain signs, which together literally represent the king standing at the entrance of a temple (presumably Str. 10L-22), and figuratively at the maw of the personified mountain, named Mo’ Witz ‘Macaw Mountain’ in accompanying glyphic captions (see Baudez 1994: Fig. 5). On Stela 5, at Piedras Negras the local lord is shown as the dueño, enthroned in the maw of a witz monster, as nefarious underworld creatures creep out of the cavities of the mountainous skull, including the Jaguar God of the Underworld, a simian with swollen abdomen and a pesky firefly (see Stuart & Graham 2003: 33). What is noteworthy about these Maya examples is that the personified mountain signs form analogous sets to the Cacaxtla ones suggesting that these are indeed based on comparable templates. Although cursory, these few examples date to after A.D. 692 and considering their great stylistic similarities might be used as a very rough and general yardstick against which to gauge the execution of the clay panel at Cacaxtla.3

made of stone, the primordial substance of mountains. All that remains of an outstretched and webbed wing indicates that the uppermost witz monster was once surmounted by a perched bat. All the witz monsters exhibit scrolled and leafy elements at the back of their heads representing young maize sprouts, which glyphically are read nal ‘young maize’, although here these are probably used as a homophonous locative suffix (Stuart & Houston 1994: 20, 21, Fig. 22), to indicate that we are looking upon a mountainous place. The painted panel found at the rear of the sanctuary of Structure A (see Lopéz de Molina & Molina Feal 1986: Lám. 51-52) also depicts a series of stacked blue mountain signs, according to Maya iconographic practices. Emerging from the mouths of these stacked mountain signs are snakes, quite possibly aligning these to the ~ Koowaatepeek ‘Snake-mountain’ of Aztec legend and much in accord with some of the earliest Maya depictions of mythological mountains at the site of San Bartolo (see Saturno et al. 2005: 15-18, 21-25). As such the whole of Structure A was undoubtedly regarded as a symbolic and human-made mountain, in keeping with Mesoamerican precepts. Taken as a whole the scene on the clay panel thereby portrays a human figure seated within the maw of mountain monsters, a distinctively cavernous underworld locality, as accentuated by the bat. As such the anthropomorphic figure finds analogy in the ‘earth lord’ or supernatural dueño known from modern Maya ethnographies (Vogt 1969: 457; Vogt & Stuart 2005; Brady & Ashmore 1999: 126-127). The same sources indicate that the dueño resides within a cave in the mountains amidst earthly riches and an abundance of harvests. In this connection the ‘earth lord’ is the one that has to be appeased and placated to ensure abundant harvests and rains propitious to cultivation. In myths of the first emergence of maize, it is said that this nourishing substance was found within a cave in an elusive and yet all-pervasive mountain of sustenance and rebirth, known as Flower Mountain or as Tonakatepeetl among the Aztec (Schele & Mathews 1998; Taube 2004a, 2006; Saturno et al. 2005: 4850; Townsend 2009: 29, 43, 156). The Mesoamerican motif of the dueño presiding within the maw of his cave is evidently one of great antiquity harking back to the petroglyphic panel at Chalcatzingo (Mon. 1) and the monumental thrones at La Venta (see Grove 1987; Taube 2004b).

What is particular in the Cacaxtla case is that the mountain of sustenance motif is rendered according to the conventions of Maya iconography, suggesting some kind of rupture with the past. However, this is not the case, since the original composition of the murals painted on the piers rendered the same iconographic program as the later clay panel, although in keeping with local canons of iconography.

3

It should be cautioned, however, that the mountain signs discussed here are not very diagnostic temporally and consequently the lower end date provided here should only be considered a rough estimate and nothing more. The authors suspect that the panels were not executed until after A.D. 750. The knotted serpent that forms part of the necklace of the seated human figure depicted on the clay panels may be a much better temporal indicator. Although not used as necklace, a similar knotted snake is seen in the headdress rendered on Stela 1 at Seibal, which dates to A.D. 869 (10.2.0.0.0), and although quite late may be more in line with the actual execution of the clay panels at Cacaxtla.

24

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Figure 2.5: Restitution of the cavernous mountain maw, framing the axial entrance to Structure A, Cacaxtla.

Indeed, close inspections of the southern pier and portions of the northern pier, which are not obstructed by the clay panel, indicate that the door is framed by a brightly-colored blue and yellow curving frame that is embellished laterally by two outward-coiling scrolls (Figure 2.5). As such this frame resembles a prototype to the later Aztec mountain signs seen in toponymic constructions and undoubtedly represents an Epiclassic descendant of even earlier Teotihuacan precursors. 4 Emerging out from the edge of the door and sprawling out of the

mountain sign is a hearty maize stalk, with four cobs and blossoms. Taken as a whole the original painted composition delineates an intimately comparable set of connotations to those of the clay panel, in that the doorway to Structure A remains the cavernous opening into a mountain that unendingly provides vital maize. Based on these interpretations, the inevitable conclusion is that Structure A at Cacaxtla was treated and perceived as a human-made mountain of sustenance and rebirth (see Townsend 2009: 42-43, 141), an emulation of Tonakatepeetl or Flower Mountain, dedicated to the warrior orders, throughout the course of its usage. In this connection it also bears noting that the famous Aztec rock-cut temple (Structure I) at Malinalco (e.g., Townsend 1982; Noguez 2006) makes reference to some of the same, central themes seen on Structure A. Thus, the entrance to the circular chamber at the top of the temple is carved

4

In Aztec writing the lateral scrolls on the sides of signs for tepee-tl ‘mountain’ are the diagnostic features for stone, as found on the sign for te-tl ‘stone’ and repeated on that for oostoo-tl ‘cave’ (Marc Zender pers. comm. 2009; see also Townsend 2009: 42-43, 141). The presence of this feature on the mountain sign of Structure A indicates that this convention can be traced back at least to the Epiclassic.

25

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

so as to represent an open, monstrous maw. This is a clear reference to an oostootl ‘cave’, and inside the architectural cave are beautifully carved stone seats or thrones in the shape of birds of prey and felines. The relationship between the warrior orders, a temple-mountain, and a cave – remembering that at Malinalco the temple is carved directly into the mountain side – seem to suggest a continuity between the Epiclassic and the Late Postclassic, ultimately reaching back to the Early Classic, in beliefs and practices concerned with the veneration of deceased high status warriors (see Taube 2006).

resemble wings (Figure 2.6a). Fascinatingly, these features are characteristics of a supernatural serpent that is known from Maya imagery. This serpentine entity has been described as a “strange creature nicknamed ‘shell-winged dragon’, a two-legged ophidian chimera whose ‘wings’ are the valves of a clam or oyster” (Van Stone 2005: 186). Although first identified in the iconography of the Maya, the earliest examples of this figure can be traced back to Olmec horizons (Reilly 1991: 159-160, Fig. 12; Taube 2004b: 51) (Figure 2.6b). Nevertheless, it is among the Maya that such shell-winged dragons are found most commonly, although its original Maya name or designation has so far eluded decipherment, since examples in glyphic writing are not accompanied by phonetic complementation (see Guenter n.d.).

The Shell-winged Dragon The next feature we would like to explore is found on the northern jamb of Structure A, framing the doorway that separates the outer portico from the inner sanctum. Depicted on this jamb is a standing human male dressed in a spotted feline suit, in keeping with that rendered on the contiguous northern pier. The figure on the jamb is distinguished, however, from that on the pier, by his headdress that is composed of the skull of monstrous centipede embellished by a broad flourish of blue feathers. His belt, loincloth and kilt are all again typically Maya and the hem is once more finished with a trim of death eyes. The supernatural overtones of the scene include the large plant that is sprouting from the individual’s navel. The lively plant bears three different types of blossoms, including those seen on the maize stalks rendered on the piers. Braced in the crook of his right arm is an olla, or jar, from which he pours water, streaming in broad drops. The body of the olla is decorated with the face of a divinity that resembles a prototype of the storm and rain deity Tlaalok (Foncerrada de Molina 1993: 146). 5 Clasped in the left hand of the figure is a blue snake with yellow ventral scales. It is on this snake that we would like to comment further.

Nevertheless, Javier Urcid (2005: 139-142, Fig. 7.10-13) has cogently proposed that the example of the shell-winged dragon at Cacaxtla be compared to instances in which deities, or impersonators in the guise of the rain divinity Tlaalok, or its counterparts, brandish sinuous staffs representing lightning bolts (see also Williams 2008). Here the sinuous locomotion of snakes and the paths of lightning through the sky are set in parallel, as though the shell-winged dragon is an incarnation of lightning itself. This inference has a bearing on the identity of the shell-winged dragon, not the least since Guenter (n.d.) has aptly remarked that the ‘wings’ depict thorny oyster shells (Spondylus sp.), which are one of the salient diagnostic traits of the Maya thunder and rain divinity Chaahk. Furthermore, it has been found that the name Chaahk derives from the proto-Maya word *kahwoq ‘lightning, thunder’, its Classic-period cognate chahuk ‘lightning’ documented in the glyphic texts (see Wichmann 2002: 24; Kaufman 2003: 473, 489-490; Lacadena & Wichmann 2004: 124-125). 6 Thus, on the whole

The head of the snake is rendered with a strong brow and clearly defined mandible, whereas the dorsal section of the snake is accentuated by scrolled protrusions that can be broadly said to

6

The 16th day sign in the tzolk’in of the Maya, was known in Yukatek as Kawak, which corresponds to the Aztec Kiyawitl ‘rain’, in which the Yukatek term is cognate with the proto-Maya *kahwoq ‘lightning, thunder’. An intriguing example is known from Step 21 of the great hieroglyphic stair at Copan where the head of the divinity Chaahk stands in lieu of the otherwise standard and geometric day sign Kawak (Pallán Gayol 2009: 28), much as in central Mexican writing where the head of Tlaalok can stand for the matching day sign.

5

The scalloped eyebrows of the divinity, the pointed element between the eyes and the curving fangs, however, are also reminiscent of the features of the Jaguar God of the Underworld, who in the Maya area is frequently rendered on censers and shields (see Schele & Miller 1986: 50).

26

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Figure 2.6: Examples of the shell-winged dragon in Mesoamerican iconography. a) Northern jamb, Structure A, Cacaxtla. b) Detail of incised Olmec figurine. c) Stela 8, Dos Pilas. d) Tablet of the Slaves, Palenque. e) Stucco relief, House B, Palenque. f) Lintel 2, Yaxchilan. g) Stela 7, Machaquila.

From the glyphic texts at Dos Pilas we know that the ancient toponym for the site was “shell-winged dragon water” (possibly ‘lightning water’) undoubtedly referring to the sudden and thunderous

this makes us wonder if the shell-winged dragon should not simply be understood and read as chahuk-chan ‘lightning-snake’, when encountered in Maya imagery and writing.

27

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

n

Site

Monument

Long Count

Julian

Figure

1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Palenque Palenque Yaxchilan Yaxchilan Machaquila Machaquila Machaquila Machaquila Seibal Seibal

House B Tab. of Slaves Lintel 9 Lintel 2 Stela 3 Stela 8 Stela 4 Stela 7 Stela 8 Stela 11

— 9.14.18.9.17 9.16.1.2.0 9.16.6.0.0 9.19.5.11.0 9.19.15.0.0 9.19.10.0.0 10.0.0.0.0 10.1.0.0.0 10.1.0.0.0

c. A.D. 615-683 A.D. 730 A.D. 752 A.D. 757 A.D. 816 A.D. 825 A.D. 820 A.D. 830 A.D. 849 A.D. 849

2.6e 2.6d — 2.6f — — — 2.6g — —

Table 2.2: Distribution of securely dated examples of shell-winged dragons in Maya iconography. Examples are listed in chronological sequence from earliest to latest.

flooding of the site’s caves during the rainy season (Houston 1993: 99-100; Stuart & Houston 1994: 19, Fig. 18; Brady 1997: 606; Guenter 2008: 10) (Figure 2.6c). At the nearby site of Seibal these creatures figure as central elements in headdresses, as they do at Machaquila (Figure 2.6g). The shellwinged dragon is also seen in a few examples at Palenque, most notably as diadem-like elements on the Tablet of the Slaves and as part of a stucco relief in the Palace (Guenter n.d.) (Figure 2.6d-e). A variant of the shell-winged dragon is depicted as parts of headdresses on lintels at Yaxchilan, where these creatures are rendered in centipede rather than snake fashion and bear markings associating them to the solar deity K’inich 7 (see Taube 2003: 406-418) (Figure 2.6f). Taken as a whole the iconographic depictions of these creatures occur on monuments with the following distribution (Table 2.2).

Seibal, Dos Pilas, Yaxchilan and Palenque (Figure 2.3b). This distribution matches the spatial patterning observed for the ceremonial bars, since all these sites can be seen to be located within a broad corridor defined by the course of the Usumacinta. The Tlaalok Masks Another iconographic feature that we wish to examine is represented twice on the murals of Structure B and thereby has a bearing on the date by when these murals were completed. Amidst the chaotic battle scene in which the vanquished avian soldiers are brutally set to the spears and blades of the dominant feline warriors are two prominent standing figures. Following the designations of Foncerrada de Molina (1993), the individual in question has been designated as Figure 2 (on the West Talud) and as Figure 3 (on the East Talud). Both representations are captioned glyphically by ‘3 deer’, here apparently functioning as a nominal sequence, which suggests that each mural represents a separate event, or sequential scene, involving the same individual (see Foncerrada de Molina 1993: 132, 140-141). In addition to the same name caption, the figure is rendered on both scenes with the same black body paint, and with the same headdress, including a trapezoidal year sign and a stylized mask seen in section (Figure 2.7).

Although the mere presence of the shell-winged dragon cannot be taken as a solid temporal indicator it is noteworthy that the well-dated examples range between A.D. 730 and 849, which helps to frame the period during which the murals were executed on Structure A. What is more enticing is that the shellwinged dragons are found depicted at sites in the western Maya Lowlands, particularly Machaquila, 7

In the Yaxchilan examples, wherein the shell-winged dragons exhibit features tying them to the solar deity, it is plausible that these were known as k’inich chahuk chan ‘radiant lightning snake’, an epithet that is well in keeping with our interpretation of these entities as personified atmospheric phenomena.

The practice of rendering masks in cut-away fashion is a typical convention of Maya iconography, one that is rarely seen outside of that culture area (Velásquez García 2007: 19-24; 2009: 353-404).

28

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Figure 2.7: Tlaalok masks depicted in the battle scene of Structure B and iconography of the Maya area. a) Eastern talud. b) Lintel 25, Yaxchilan. c) Jonuta panel. d) Eastern talud. e) Lintel 25, Yaxchilan. f) Stela 16, Dos Pilas. g) Aguateca, Stela 2.

n

Site

Monument

Long Count

Julian

Figure

1 2 3 4 5 6

Palenque area Dos Pilas Yaxchilan Yaxchilan Aguateca Yaxchilan

Jonuta Panel Stela 16 Lintel 25 Lintel 25 Stela 2 Stela 35

— 9.14.6.10.2 9.14.16.13.9 9.14.16.13.9 9.15.9.9.0 9.16.3.16.19

c. A.D. 692-702 A.D. 718 A.D. 728 A.D. 728 A.D. 740 A.D. 755

2.7c 2.7f 2.7b 2.7e 2.7g —

Table 2.3: Distribution of Tlaalok masks in Maya iconography according to chronological incidence.

of the storm god of Teotihuacan, or properlyspeaking the prototype of the Postclassic Tlaalok (Wrem Anderson & Helmke 2013). The blue curved element thus corresponds to the so-called mustache of Tlaalok, which appears in fact to be a stylized and exaggerated upper lip, with the fangs jutting out from below the lip. A very similar composition of elements forms the central belt

The masks in question are composed of four elements, namely an object in the shape of the number 3 near the orbits, a blue curved element terminating in a scroll, a series of three prominent and pointed fangs above a red scrolling emanation (Foncerrada de Molina 1982, 1993: 130). Taken together all these attributes point to the figure wearing a mask that exhibits the diagnostic elements

29

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

(Figure 2.7b-c, e-g). What is all the more remarkable is that some of the Maya examples depict warriors in entirely Teotihuacan-inspired attire, replete with primary wing feathers of eagles and trapezoidal year signs embedded in their headdresses, Tlaalok figures rendered on their kilts, complete with feline leggings, and incense pouches. Although it is clear that these Tlaalok entities stem from even earlier Teotihuacano prototypes and that the Maya examples derive from a martial complex initially introduced from Teotihuacan (Stone 1989; Schele & Freidel 1990: 146-148, 208-210; Stuart 2000; Nielsen 2003), what is noteworthy is that the Maya examples form a coherent representational canon that has been adapted to local practices. In turn what we see at Cacaxtla, is not the product of a direct inheritance from Teotihuacan, but a reintroduction of sorts, after a period of gestation in the Maya area. In all only six examples of these types of Tlaalok masks are known from Maya iconography, from four sites. These are here tabulated according to their dating, from earliest onwards (Figure 2.3c & Table 2.3).

assemblage of the eastern depiction of ‘3 deer’, thereby indicating that he also bore a Tlaalok masquette on his belt to complete the attire. This interpretation is well in keeping with the other feline warriors that wear the goggles of Tlaalok as part of their attire (Figures 3, 7 and possibly 9 on the West Talud and Figure 9 on the East Talud), or bear a Tlaalok effigy above their shield (Figure 10 on the East Talud). Consequently it would seem that the victorious feline warriors were fighting under the symbols of a protective Tlaalok, here possibly serving as a supernatural patron deity (e.g., Langley 1992: 256-257). At this juncture it bears remarking that in Classic Maya society those that bore the title of yajawk’ahk’ (‘vassal of fire’) were warrior-priests, whose characteristic attire included the Tlaalok goggles on their headdress (Zender 2004: 135, 294, 313). True to their title, in times of peace these militaristic priests made offerings of incense to the gods and tended to the temple’s censers and ritual fires (Zender 2004: 204-210). Zender (2004: 208) has further suggested that the yajawk’ahk’ may be compared to the Aztec tlenamakak (‘fire vendor’), who “achieved this high station by taking some three or four captives in warfare … was expected to lead the temple’s lesser acolytes and offering priests in times of war … and assumed primary responsibility for human sacrifice both in the temples and on the field of battle”. These correspondences are enticing, not the least on account of the regalia that allows matching Cacaxtlan warriors to the yajawk’ahk’ of the Maya, but also due to the prominent positioning of ‘3 deer’ within the scenes, in which he not only charges onto foes, but also provides a watchful eye over the carnage of the battle. The contrast between the aquatic Tlaalok and the fire that constitutes a large measure of the occupation of the tlenamakak and the yajawk’ahk’ may seem in stark contrast. The propinquity of the two is, however, resolved by the ceramic effigies of Tlaalok that have been found in various contexts at Cacaxtla, and which occur with some frequency at Xochicalco and other Epiclassic sites, which may well have been used as miniature votive censers (see López de Molina & Molina Feal 1986: Lám. 140).

All of the six examples stem from sites in the Usumacinta and Petexbatun areas, which dovetails coherently with the findings made for the ceremonial bars and the shell-winged dragon. However, in this case the temporal distribution is narrowly focused to a span of dates ranging from A.D. 692 and 755. The uncanny similarities between the Tlaalok masks worn by ‘3 deer’ in the battle scenes at Cacaxtla and the rarity of comparable masks in Maya iconography leave few alternatives but to see these as wholly contemporaneous. The congruity between the Cacaxtlan and the Maya examples are difficult to overstate and an inherent connection is called to mind, as though the former were drawn from templates of the latter. Thus based on the present stylistic data it seems likely that the battle mural adorning Structure B was completed sometime after A.D. 700. Summary & Conclusions Here we have examined four elements of the iconography of Cacaxtla and scrutinized them for their Maya attributes. Some, which heretofore had eluded identification, have benefitted from integration into a broader comparative corpus of Maya imagery, such as the shell-wing dragon and the mountain of sustenance. In our review we have

The manner in which the Tlaalok masks of ‘3 deer’ are rendered is what is of greatest significance since the same type of mask is present in scenes with overt martial symbolism in Maya iconography

30

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

these indeed find their source predominantly within the western Maya Lowlands, at sites within the greater Usumacinta area in particular. In large measure this should come as no surprise since that is the portion of the Maya area that is geographically most proximate to Cacaxtla. Yet, it is also undoubtedly on account of the river’s significance, as an axis of communication with non-Maya cultures in western Mesoamerica, especially during the Epiclassic and the corresponding Late-toTerminal Classic of the Maya area. Thus in examining the murals at Cacaxtla we can now begin to identify the point of origin of the foreign Maya features and appreciate the cosmopolitanism and multiculturalism of the period at this remarkable court.

also noted the temporal distributions of iconographic elements, in an attempt to ascertain if the span of dates provides a coherent means of stylistically cross-dating the Cacaxtlan murals to dated Maya iconography. In so doing we have found that certain items do not lend themselves to clear temporal assessments either on account of subject matter, or because these appear in the iconography over broad stretches of time. Others, however, occurred in such narrow temporal frames that these could aptly serve as horizon markers. Thus, in our evaluations of the iconographic features pertaining to Structure A, we found that the shellwinged dragon and the ceremonial bars overlap most significantly between A.D. 746 and 810. On the basis of these stylistic data we suggest that the murals adorning the piers and jambs of Structure A probably date to this interval, which accords well with the independently suggested dates of c. A.D. 755 ± 75 (López de Molina & Molina Feal 1986: 21), c. A.D. 790 (Stuart 1992: 136), c. A.D. 800 (Uriarte 1999), and c. A.D. 750-755 (Moreno Juárez et al. 2005) (for a more extensive discussion see Brittenham 2008: 198-250). The dating of the clay panels has proved more vexing, not the least since stratigraphically these clearly postdate the murals, but inherently these do not exhibit iconographic features that are liable to coherent temporal assessment. As a result it remains possible that the panels were completed after the stylistic span attributed to the murals, or even in the latter half of that span. At present there simply is no good evidence to pin down the execution of the panels, except to say that these are clearly Late Classic (c. A.D. 600-900). In contrast is the assessment of the Tlaalok masks depicted in the murals of Structure B, which date narrowly to between A.D. 692 and 755. This finding is itself surprising since previous temporal assessments have dated this phase of Structure B to c. A.D. 650 (López de Molina & Molina Feal 1986; Uriarte 1999), or even to c. A.D. 755-760 (Moreno Juárez et al. 2005), which is to say after Structure A (see also Brittenham 2008: 198-250). As such it remains possible that the stylistic dates for the Tlaalok masks should only be used as lower end date (i.e. post quem A.D. 692). Nevertheless, the temporal and stylistic congruity of the examples examined makes us wonder if the dating of Structure B should not be reconsidered.

Acknowledgements: We would like to extend our thanks to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, and to the members of the Consejo de Arqueología, for the research permit [14/09 P.A., 401-1-666] allowing us to conduct our documentation project at Cacaxtla. Our heartfelt gratitude to Guillermo Goñi Motilla for the generous assistance and help provided during our time at Cacaxtla. María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda deserves special thanks for her support and inviting us to present the results of our research at the Seminario Permanente de Pintura Mural of the Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, UNAM. For letters of introduction, support, and the encouragement we thank her Excellency Martha Bárcena Coquí, former Ambassador of Mexico to Denmark. This project would not have been possible without funding from the Research Council for the Humanities of the Danish Ministry of Science Technology and Innovation, as well as funds from the Institute of Cross-Cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen. Thanks to Christian Prager, for permission to present a portion of his drawing of the New York stela here. Erik Velásquez García and María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda shared with us their ideas on iconography of the Structure B murals for which we are grateful.

References Cited: Baudez, Claude F. 1994 Maya Sculpture of Copán: The Iconography. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Benson, Elizabeth P. 1998 The Lord, the Ruler: Jaguar Symbolism in the Americas. Icons of Power: Feline Symbolism in the Americas, edited by Nicholas J. Saunders, pp. 53-76. Routledge, London.

As for the regionality of the iconographic traits within the Maya area, we hope to have shown that

31

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Berdan, Frances F. & Patricia Rieff Anawalt 1997 The Essential Codex Mendoza. University of California Press, Berkeley. Beyer, Hermann 1937 Studies on the Inscriptions of Chichen Itza. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Publication 483, No. 21, Washington D.C. Boot, Erik 1999 Of Serpents and Centipedes: The Epithet of Wuk Chapaht Chan K’inich Ahaw. Maya Supplemental File, No. 3. University of Texas, Austin. Brady, James E. 1997 Settlement Configuration and Cosmology: The Role of Caves at Dos Pilas. American Anthropologist, Vol. 99 (3): 602-618. Brady, James E. & Wendy Ashmore 1999 Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Landscapes of the Ancient Maya. Archaeologies of Landscape: Contemporary Perspectives, edited by Wendy Ashmore & A. Bernard Knapp, pp. 124-148. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Brittenham, Claudia Lozoff 2008 The Cacaxtla Painting Tradition: Art and Identity in Epiclassic Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation. Yale University, New Haven. Clancy, Flora S. 1994 The Classic Maya Ceremonial Bar. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Núm. 65: 7-45. Coe, Michael D. 1973 The Maya Scribe and His World. The Grolier Club, New York. Evans, Susan Toby 2004 “Aztec Palaces and Other Elite Residential Architecture.” Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans & Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 7-58. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Foncerrada de Molina, Marta 1976 La pintura mural de Cacaxtla. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Vol. XIII (46): 5-20. 1980 Mural Painting in Cacaxtla and Teotihuacan Cosmopolitanism. Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2, edited by Merle Green Robertson, pp. 183198. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1982 Signos glíficos en relación con Tláloc en la pintura de la Batalla en Cacaxtla. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Vol. XIII (50): 9-23. 1993 Cacaxtla: La iconografía de los olmecaxicalanca. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, UNAM, México, D.F.

Garcia-Des Lauriers, Claudia 2000 Trappings of Sacred War: The Warrior Costume of Teotihuacan. M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology. University of California, Riverside. Grove, David C. (ed.) 1987 Ancient Chalcatzingo. University of Texas Press, Austin. Grube, Nikolai & Linda Schele 1994 Tikal Altar 5. Texas Notes on Precolumbian Art, Writing and Culture, No. 66. University of Texas, Austin. Guenter, Stanley P. n.d. The Dos Pilas Toponym. Maya File, No. 60. University of Texas, Austin. 2008 Additions and Revisions to the Epigraphy of Dos Pilas and Aguateca. Paper presented at the VI Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México, Palenque. Hassig, Ross 1988 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Civilization of the American Indian series, No. 188. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Headrick, Annabeth 2007 The Teotihuacan Trinity: The Sociopolitical Structure of an Ancient Mesoamerican City. University of Texas Press, Austin. Helmke, Christophe & Jesper Nielsen 2011 The Writing System of Cacaxtla, Tlaxcala, Mexico. Ancient America, Special Publication No. 2. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. 2013 La escritura jeroglífica de Cacaxtla. La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México V, Cacaxtla, Tomo II, edited by María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda & Fernanda Salazar Gil, pp. 383-425. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. Houston, Stephen D. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin. Inomata, Takeshi & Stephen Houston (eds.) 2001 Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. 2 volumes. Westview Press, Boulder. Joralemon, David 1974 Ritual Blood-Sacrifice among the Ancient Maya: Part I. Primera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, edited by Merle Green Robertson, pp. 59-76. Pre-Columbian Art Research, Pebble Beach.

32

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Kaufman, Terrence 2003 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary. FAMSI: http://www.famsi. org/ reports/01051/pmed.pdf Kettunen, Harri & Bon V. Davis III 2004 Snakes, Centipedes, Snakepedes, and Centiserpents: Conflation of Liminal Species in Maya Iconography and Ethnozoology. Wayeb Notes, No. 9: 1-42. Kubler, George 1980 Eclecticism at Cacaxtla. Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2, edited by Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 163-172. University of Texas Press, Austin. Lacadena, Alfonso & Søren Wichmann 2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya Writing. The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann, pp. 103-162. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Langley, James C. 1992 Teotihuacan Sign Clusters: Emblem or Articulation? Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet C. Berlo, pp. 247-280. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. Lombardo de Ruiz, Sonia, Diana López de Molina & Daniel Molina Feal (eds.) 1986 Cacaxtla: El lugar donde muere la lluvia en la tierra. Secretaria de Educación Pública, INAH, México, D.F. López de Molina, Diana & Daniel Molina Feal 1986 Arqueología. Cacaxtla: El lugar donde muere la lluvia en la tierra, edited by Sonia Lombardo de Ruiz, Diana López de Molina & Daniel Molina Feal, pp. 11-208. Secretaria de Educación Pública / INAH, México. Martin, Simon 2013 El Templo Rojo y los mayas: arte, mitología, y contactos culturales en las pinturas de Cacaxtla. La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México V, Cacaxtla, Tomo III, edited by María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda & Fernanda Salazar Gil, pp. 529-545. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F. Martin, Simon & Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Second edition. Thames & Hudson, London. McVicker, Donald 1985 The ‘Mayanized’ Mexicans. American Antiquity, Vol. 50 (1): 82-101.

Miller, Mary & Simon Martin 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson, London. Miller, Mary & Karl Taube 1993 The Gods and Symbols of Mexico and the Maya. Thames & Hudson, New York & London. Moreno Juárez, Luz María, Lino Espinoza García & Pedro Ortega Ortiz 2005 Cacaxtla: mural glifo de conquista. La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México, No. 22: 54-58. Nielsen, Jesper 2003 Art of the Empire: Teotihuacan Iconography and Style in Early Classic Maya Society (A.D. 380-500). Ph.D. dissertation. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. 2004 The Coyote and the Tasseled Shield: A Possible Titular Glyph on a Late Xolalpan Teotihuacan Tripod. Mexicon, Vol. 26 (3): 61-64. Noguez, Xavier 2006 El templo monolítico de Malinalco, Estado de México. Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. XIII (78): 68-73. Pallán Gayol, Carlos 2009 The Many Faces of Chaahk: Exploring the Role of a Complex and Fluid Entity within Myth, Religion and Politics. The Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and Context in Maya Mythologies, edited by Geneviève Le Fort, Raphaël Gardiol, Sebastian Matteo & Christophe Helmke, pp. 17-40. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 20. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Quirarte, Jacinto 1983 Outside Influence at Cacaxtla. HighlandLowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches, edited by Arthur G. Miller, pp. 201-221. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Reilly, F. Kent, III 1991 Olmec Iconographic Influences on the Symbols of Maya Rulership: An Examination of Possible Sources. Sixth Palenque Round Table, 1986, edited by Virginia M. Fields, pp. 151-174. University of Oklahoma, Norman. Robertson, Donald 1985 The Cacaxtla Murals. Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, Vol. VI, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 291-302. The PreColumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

33

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube & David Stuart 2005 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala – Part 1: The North Wall. Ancient America, Vol. 7: 1-56. Schele, Linda 1992 A New Look at the Dynastic History of Palenque. Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 5: Epigraphy, edited by Victoria R. Bricker, pp. 82-109. University of Texas Press, Austin. Schele, Linda & David Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. Quill & Morrow, New York. Schele, Linda & Peter Mathews 1998 The Code of Kings: The Language of Seven Sacred Maya Temples and Tombs. Scribner, New York. Schele, Linda & Mary Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth. Stone, Andrea 1989 Disconnection, Foreign Insignia and Political Expansion: Teotihuacan and the Warrior Stelae of Piedras Negras. Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700-900, edited by Richard A. Diehl and Janet C. Berlo, pp. 153-172. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. Stuart, David 1987 Ten Phonetic Syllables. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, No. 14. Center for Maya Research, Washington D.C. 2000 The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya Texts. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones & Scott Sessions, pp. 465-513. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 2006 The Palenque Mythology. Sourcebook for the 30th Maya Meetings, edited by David Stuart, pp. 85-194. Mesoamerican Center, Department of Art and Art History, University of Texas, Austin. Stuart, David & Stephen Houston 1994 Classic Maya Place Names. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Architecture No. 33. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. Stuart, David & Ian Graham 2003 Corpus of Maya Hieroglyphic Inscriptions, Volume 9, Number 1: Piedras Negras. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.

Stuart, George E. 1992 Mural Masterpieces of Ancient Cacaxtla. National Geographic, Vol. 182 (3): 120136. Taube, Karl A. 1992 The Major Gods of Ancient Yucatan. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology No. 32. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. 2003 Maws of Heaven and Hell: The Symbolism of the Centipede and Serpent in Classic Maya Religion. Antropología de la eternidad: la muerte en la cultura maya, edited by Andrés Ciudad Ruiz, Mario Humberto Ruz Sosa & María Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León, pp. 405-442. Sociedad Española de Estudios Maya & Centro de Estudios Mayas, Madrid. 2004a Flower Mountain: Concepts of life, beauty, and paradise among the Classic Maya. RES, Vol. 45: 69-98. 2004b Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. PreColumbian Art at Dumbarton Oaks, No. 2. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington D.C. 2006 Climbing Flower Mountain: Concepts of Resurrection and the Afterlife at Teotihuacan. Arqueología e historia del Centro de México: homenaje a Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, edited by Leonardo López Luján, David Carrasco & Lourdes Cué, pp. 153-170. CONACULTA, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México D.F. Townsend, Richard F. 1982 Malinalco and the Lords of Tenochtitlan. The Art and Iconography of Late PostClassic Central Mexico, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone, pp. 111-140. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 2009 The Aztecs. Third edition. Thames & Hudson, New York. Urcid, Javier 2005 Zapotec Writing: Knowledge, Power, and Memory in Ancient Oaxaca. FAMSI: http://www.famsi.org/zapotecwriting/ Uriarte, María Teresa 1999 The Paintings of Cacaxtla. The PreColumbian Murals of the Mesoamerica, edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 71-134. Editoriale Jaca Book, Milano. Van Stone, Mark Lindsey 2005 Aj-Ts’ib, Aj-Uxul, Itz’aat, & Aj-K’uhu’n: Classic Maya Schools of Carvers and Calligraphers in Palenque after the Reign of Kan-Bahlam. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Texas, Austin.

34

IDENTIFYING THE PROVENANCE AND DATING OF MAYA INFLUENCES AT THE CACAXTLA COURT

Velásquez García, Erik 2007 La máscara de “rayos X”: Historia de un artilugio iconográfico en el arte maya. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Núm. 90: 7-36. 2009 Los vasos de la entidad política de ’Ik’: una aproximación histórico-artística; Estudio sobre las entidades anímicas y el lenguaje gestual y corporal en el arte maya clásico. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Vogt, Evon Z. 1969 Zinacantan: A Maya Community in the Highlands of Chiapas. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. Vogt, Evon Z. & David Stuart 2005 Some Notes on Ritual Caves among the Ancient and Modern Maya. In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady & Keith M. Prufer, pp. 155-222. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Wichmann, Søren 2002 Hieroglyphic evidence for the historical configuration of Eastern Ch’olan. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, No. 51. Center for Maya Research, Washington, D.C. Williams, A.R. 2008 Rainmakers. National Geographic, Vol. 213 (2): 28-29. Wrem Anderson, Kasper & Christophe Helmke 2013 The Personifications of Celestial Water: The Many Guises of the Storm god in the Pantheon and Cosmology of Teotihuacan. Contributions in New World Archaeology, Vol. 5: 165-196. Zender, Marc U. 2004 A Study of Classic Maya Priesthood. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology. University of Calgary, Calgary.

35

CHRISTOPHE HELMKE & JESPER NIELSEN

36

Chapter 3: Rekindling the Past: Mexica-Toltec Relations as a Source of Power and Prestige Helle Hovmand-Rasmussen

In reading the wide range of colonial documents from the former Aztec dominion in Central Mexico, one often comes across the toponyms Tula and Tollan. Time and again I have found these two terms to be a source of confusion – are they referring to the same place, and is that place the archaeological site of Tula in Hidalgo? Many Mesoamericanists have studied the identity of Tula/Tollan through time (e.g., Boone 2000; Heyden 1983; Carrasco 1982; Davies 1977, 1980; Bittmann Simons 1967-1968; Jiménez Moreno 1971 [1941]; Gamio 1971 [1922]); some have identified it as Teotihuacan, others as Tula, Hidalgo, yet nearly everyone agrees that Tollan was also considered a concept rather than an actual place in the Precolumbian landscape. In order to understand the nature of Tula/Tollan I examined the Mexica relations to Teotihuacan and Tula respectively, the topical focus of my thesis (Hovmand-Olsen 2010). My conclusion was the same as suggested by Elizabeth Boone (2000): that both sites, as well as others, were identified as Tollan 1. To describe the Mexica’s relations to every site considered to be a Tollan in this chapter would, however, be an impossible task. Therefore I propose that the reader

considers my analysis in this chapter of the ToltecMexica relations based on Tula, Hidalgo, as a case study that could easily be applied to other sites considered Tollan. In the present chapter my aim is to review the evidence available regarding the relationship of the Mexica 2 to – and use of – the Early Postclassic site of Tula, which flourished between A.D. 900 and 1100 (for additional information about Tula, I refer the reader to the works of Diehl 1983; Mastache et al. 2002) (Figure 3.1). I will use three sources in order to understand the relationship: first and primarily, early colonial documents from Central Mexico. Second, archaeological finds from Tula that are indicative of Mexica presence at the site in the Late Postclassic period (A.D. 1200-1519), and third, archaeological finds in the sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan that have clear roots in the imagery, iconography and architecture of Tula. I will use these three sources to suggest that the utilization of Tula by the Mexica (among other sites) had the ultimate purpose of entitling the Mexica with their right to rule over the Aztec empire.

1

2

I have found the following place names combined with Tollan: Tollan Nonoalco (in Cantares Mexicanos, Bierhorst 1985: 219), Tollan Tlalcohualco (in Codex Chimalpahin, Chimalpahin 1997a: 148-149), Techachaltic Tollan (in Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, Kirchhoff et al. 1976: fol. 7v), Acuculco Aztacalco Tollan Anepantla (in Relaciones Originales de Chalco Amaquemecan, Chimalpahin 1965: 60), Tollan Cholula (in Monarquia Indiana, Torquemada 1969a: 255; Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, Kirchhoff et al. 1976: fol. 16v; Codex of Cholula, Bittmann Simons 1967-1968; Relación de Cholula, Acuña 1985: 128). In Mapa Quinatzin (Mohar Betancourt 2004: 137) Teotihuacan is represented by a toponym consisting of reeds (tollin) and teeth (tlantli), forming the toponym Tollan.

I distinguish in my use of the terms Aztec and Mexica by following Michael E. Smith’s definition of the Aztec as the Middle and Late Postclassic population of Central Mexico (Smith 2003: 3-5; Smith 2008: 15-17), including the Mexica. The Mexica I define as the ethnic group that came to inhabit the island in Lake Texcoco on which they founded Tenochtitlan, according to their own official history (e.g., Codex Mexicanus 1952: planche XLIV). However, more importantly, the Mexica formed the Triple Alliance together with the city-states of Texcoco and Tlacopan, and thus came to rule over one of the largest empires known in Mesoamerican history. In addition, I use the term Nawa to refer to the people that were of Aztec descent after the Conquest, again following Smith’s definition (Smith 2003: 4).

37

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

Figure 3.1: Map of the archaeological site of Tula, Hidalgo (after Diehl 1983: Fig. 11).

The Colonial Documents

friars or Nawa themselves and are referred to as Chronicles. I divide the mentions made to Tula/Tollan into themes in order to clearly recognize the different contexts in which these references appear. Here, I will outline the three best-defined themes (these are marked in Table 3.1).

As a basis for the analyses of this subject, I studied a total of 29 Central Mexican colonial documents which bear references to Tula/Tollan (Table 3.1). Whereas not all of the documents can be attributed to the Mexica and their descendants, I believe that they provide excellent insights into the area’s general perception of Tula/Tollan and thereby form an invaluable dataset. The documents fall into three categories: some are related in style with the Aztec pictorial codices (none, however, can be said to predate the Spanish Conquest of Mexico with certainty), others are Spanish administrative documents, and others still were written by Spanish

The first theme is found in 20 documents and therein Tula/Tollan is described as one of the major places that were visited during the alleged Aztec migration. Five of these documents represent Tula/Tollan graphically, one being Codex Mexicanus (Codex Mexicanus 1952: Planche XXVI; Figure 3.2). In this pictorial codex-style document, Tollan is represented as a toponym consisting of a

38

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Sources

Tula/Tollan

References

Themes

Anales de Cuauhtitlan Anales de Tlatelolco Anónimo Mexicano Cantares Mexicanos Codex Aubin Codex Azcatitlan Codex Boturini Codex Chimalpahin Codex Mexicanus Codex of Cholula Codex Vaticanus A Codex Xolotl Crónica Mexicana The Florentine Codex

Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tollan Tula Tula, Tollan

Bierhorst 1998a Berlin & Barlow 1948 Crapo & Glass-Coffin 2005 Bierhorst 1985 Aubin 1893 Graulich 1995 Johansson K. 2007 Chimalpahin 1997a, 1997b Codex Mexicanus 1952 Bittmann Simons 1967-1968 Codex Vaticanus 3738 1979 Dibble 1951 Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975 Sahagún 1979a: Book 1, Book 2, Book 3; Sahagún 1979b: Book 6, Book 7, Book 8; Sahagún 1979c: Book 10, Book 12

Historia Antigua de Mexico Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firme Historia de los Indios de la Nueva España Historia de los Mexicanos por sus pinturas Historia de Tlaxcala Historia Eclesiástica Indiana Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca Leyenda de los Soles Mapa Quinatzin Monarquia Indiana Obras Históricas Relación de Cholula Relaciones Originales de Chalco Amaquemecan

Tula, Tollan Tula, Tollan

Clavigero 1945a, 1945b, 1945c Durán 1984a, 1984b

1, 2, Misc. 1, Misc. 1, 2 2 1 1 1 1, 2, 3, Misc. 1 Misc. 2 1, Misc. 1 1 (Book 10) 2 (Book 2), (Book 3) 3 (Book 3) Misc. 1, Misc. 1, 2, 3, Misc.

Tula Tula Tula Tula Tula Tollan Tollan Tollan Tula, Tollan Tula, Tollan Tollan Tula, Tollan

Motolinía 1971 Garibay 1965 Muñoz Camargo 1998 Mendieta 1971 Acosta 1962 Kirchhoff, Güemes & Reyes Garcia 1976 Bierhorst 1998b Mohar Betancourt 2004 Torquemada 1969a, 1969b, 1969c Ixtlilxóchitl 1997a, 1997b Acuña 1985 Chimalpahin 1965

1, 2, Misc. 1, 3 2 2, Misc. 1 1 2 Misc. 1, 2, 3, Misc. 1, 2, Misc. Misc. 1, 2, Misc.

Tratado de las supersticiones de las Naturales de esta Nueva España

Tollan

Ruiz de Alarcón 1984

Misc.

Table 3.1: List of the Central Mexican documents from the 16th and 17th century that refer to Tula and/or Tollan. The one exception is Historia Antigua de Mexico by Clavigero (Clavigero 1945a, 1945b, 1945c). Although this source could have been written as late as 1787, I choose to include it in my studies as it contains valuable information which is not found elsewhere.

– all portray Tollan differently. However, the one thing they all have in common is the graphical element of rushes or reeds. This leads me to comment on the name Tollan. As the attentive reader might have noticed, I use the name Tollan (not Tula), in respect to the glyphic place name rendered in Codex Mexicanus. This is because the toponym Tollan in Nawatl is composed of the noun

cattail reed with profiles of human faces peering out among the leaves. The toponym is situated on top of a long year count, above the date 11 House. The other four documents with graphic representations – Codex Azcatitlan (Graulich 1995: Planche VII), Codex Boturini (Johannson 2007: 39), Codex Xolotl (Dibble 1951: Planche I), Historia ToltecaChichimeca (Kirchhoff et al. 1976: fol. 2r, fol. 32v)

39

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

Figure 3.2: Tollan as represented in Codex Mexicanus (Codex Mexicanus 1952: Planche XXVI).

tool-lin, meaning ‘reed or rush’ 3, and the locative suffix –lan (a syncopated form of –tlan), meaning ‘place, next to, besides’, thereby producing a toponym meaning ‘place of reeds/rushes’, or ‘besides the reeds/rushes’. Thus, a depiction of the ‘Place of Reeds’ will here always be read as Toollan rather than Tula, as Tula is the Hispanicism of the original Nawatl toponym (Launey 1992: 283; Smith 2008: 24).

Codex is one of the primary documents used by Wigberto Jiménez Moreno (1971) to connect Tula of the colonial documents with Tula the archaeological site in Hidalgo (Jiménez Moreno 1971). To support his argument, Jiménez Moreno accentuates several place names mentioned in the myth, such as for example Xicocotitlan (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 165), which he identifies as the mountain named Jicuco close to Tula (Jiménez Moreno 1971: 131). Considering the fact that the archaeological site of Tula is situated on the banks of the river Tula (see Figure 3.1), it is plausible that this was the Tula Sahagún had in mind when he wrote the following: “they went to live, to dwell at the banks of a river at Xicocotitlan, now called Tula” (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 165). Moving on to the more general contents of the text, the Florentine Codex describes the skills of the inhabitants of Tula, the Toltec. These skills range widely from featherwork, the preparation of greenstone and medicines, to astronomy and calendar counts. In fact, the text mentions several times that the Toltec were the inventors of all of the above and more: “The Tolteca were wise. Their works were all good, all perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous” (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 165-166). This quotation, along with the many other references to the Toltec in the colonial documents, makes it clear that the Toltec were highly esteemed by their cultural descendants. However, the

In addition, 16 documents describe the visit of the migrating group at Tula/Tollan in text. One of these documents is Anales de Tlatelolco, where the event is related as follows: “llegaron a Tollan. Levantaron un asiento de piedra y se quedaron 9 años. Después partieron” (Berlin & Barlow 1948: 33). I use this short example to underscore the fact that although the descriptions vary in details, the overall content of the migration myth remains the same – the migrants arrive, actions follow, and they leave again. A quite longer description of the migrants stay at Tula/Tollan is found in the Florentine Codex (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 165-170). The migration myth in the Florentine Codex is of particular interest since it gives a thorough description of the city of Tula/Tollan and the inhabitants that were referred to as the Toltec. For the same reason the Florentine 3

Fray Alonso de Molina glosses tollin as ‘juncia, o espadaña’ (Molina 2004: 148v, Nawatl-Spanish part)

40

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Florentine Codex also tells us that we should not equate the Toltec exclusively with Tula4:

greatest extent, only to be the cause of its destruction as he fell into disgrace with the vicious sorcerer, Tezcatlipoca. Although it is valuable information by itself that the Aztecs connected Tula/Tollan to the story of the Toltec ruler Quetzalcoatl, none of the stories bring forth any new information regarding the Toltec-Mexica relations, and therefore I will not go into details with this theme.

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 arm bands appear everywhere. Their traces are everywhere, because the Tolteca were dispersed all over. (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 167)

Although the third theme is not mentioned in as many documents as the first two (see Table 3.1), it is quite interesting as it refers to Tula/Tollan in connection with the birth of the Mexica’s patron god, Huitzilopochtli. None of the documents use Tula/Tollan actively – they only mention that the town of Tula/Tollan was in the vicinity of Coatepec, the place where Huitzilopochtli was born in a mysterious fashion. The use of Tula/Tollan in this theme can be interpreted in two ways, from my point of view; either it is an indication of the fact that Coatepec gained a higher status by being placed close to Tula/Tollan, or it is an attempt to link Huitzilopochi – and thereby the Mexica – to the Toltec heritage.

The final point that I wish to draw forward from the description of Tula and the Toltec in the Florentine Codex, is one that is found in most of the migration myths involving Tula/Tollan, which is to say a clarification of the kinship relations between the Toltec and the later Aztec. The Florentine Codex explains the relationship as follows: “All the Nahua, those who speak clearly, not the speakers of a barbarous tongue, are the descendants of the Tolteca” (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 170). This statement thus includes the Mexica. Other examples of claims to Toltec descent can be found in works such as Obras Históricas (Ixtlilxóchitl 1997a: 282) from which it appears that the mighty ruler of Texcoco, Nezahualcoyotl, was a descendant of the Toltec rulers, including Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. We cannot confirm this claimed kinship, but we do know that the author of Obras Históricas, Ixtlilxóchitl, was a descendant of the royal court of Texcoco and without a doubt meant to portray his ancestors in the best light possible. He thereby used Toltec heritage, real or perceived, as an attribute, so to speak, which brings me to my point: the documents clearly demonstrate that if an ethnic group according to a migration myth had passed through Tula/Tollan and somehow was influenced by the place – or vice-versa – then that ethnic group in later Aztec times had the right to claim Toltec heritage, thereby raising the group’s social status.

As Tula/Tollan appears in many different contexts, it is not possible for me to review them all in this chapter. I will, however, point out a couple of particularly interesting examples. The first is found in Diego Durán’s Historia de las Indias (Durán 1984b), and in short it tells the story of how the Mexica ruler Moteuczoma II in 1519 received gifts from Cortés, including a couple of ship biscuits (bizcochos). According to Durán, Moteuczoma thought the biscuits were the work of the Gods, so he ordered his priests to take the biscuits to “Tulan” 5 and bury them in the temple of Quetzalcoatl (Durán 1984b: 511). The reason for this action should supposedly be that Moteuczoma believed that Cortés and his entourage were the children of Quetzalcoatl (Durán 1984b: 511). Durán describes the event as follows:

The second theme which is found in the colonial documents in connection with the mentioning of Tula/Tollan is the fate and life story of the Toltec ruler, Ce Acatl Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. No less than 15 documents (see Table 3.1) contain the story of how Quetzalcoatl built the city of Tula/Tollan to its

Los sacerdotes tomaron el bizcocho y, poniéndolo en una rica jícara muy dorada, cubiertos con ricas mantas lo llevaron en procession a Tulan, con muchos incensarios, con que lo iban incensando y cantándole himnos

4

5

This fact is supported by Molina’s translation of toltecatl as ‘official.de arte macanica, o maestro’ (Molina 2004: 148v, Nawatl-Spanish part).

I presume that it is Tula in Hidalgo which Durán refers to in this context, as he elsewhere connects the story of Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl with Tula (Durán 1984a: 11).

41

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

apropriados a la solemnidad de Quetzalcoatl, cuya comida decían que era. Y llevado a Tulan, lo enterraron en el templo dicho con mucha solemnidad. (Durán 1984b: 511)

crafts and that the expression derives from a time when the city of Tollan was the pioneer in crafts, such as pottery and lapidary. The explanation is clearly reminiscent of the description of Tula and the Toltec in the Florentine Codex, as we have already seen. Conclusively, the Relación explains the etymology of the word Tollan: “TULLAN significa “multitud de gente congregada en uno, a similtud del TULE”, que es “la enea”, yerba” (Acuña 1985: 128). To summarize – according to the Relación de Cholula – Tollan is a concept used to describe a place where many skilled people are gathered in the same fashion as rushes and reeds. According to the Relación this was the case in Cholula, and I would like to add that the same seems to have applied to many other places like Tula, Teotihuacan, and Tenochtitlan. The latter I shall return to later.

If we can rely on the specifics in Durán’s story, it has a very important point – the Mexica used Tula as a sacred place for offerings. Later on I will use examples of Aztec archaeological finds in Tula, Hidalgo, to support Durán’s information about Aztec presence at the site. The second example I wish to bring forth is found in the Spanish administrative document Relación de Cholula (Acuña 1985). This document is just one of many Relaciones that were written by command of the Spanish King Philip II in order to account for the new parts of the kingdom that Spain had acquired after the conquest (Mundy 1996). As the name indicates, Relacíon de Cholula accounts for the city of Cholula 6. The city is one out of six cities that I have found paired with Tollan, thus being referred to as “Tullan Cholollan” 7 (Acuña 1985: 128). The Relación de Cholula also contains what is perhaps the most explicit explanation of the word Tollan that has been handed down through time:

The Toltec-Mexica Archaeology of Tula In this first part of the chapter I have dealt with the Aztec’s (and when possible, the Mexica’s) view of Tula/Tollan in general, and more specifically Tula in Hidalgo, based on the colonial documents from Central Mexico. I will now turn my attention to the archaeological data which support our knowledge of the Aztec’s – and specifically the Mexica’s – relations to the Toltec of Tula.

TULLAN significa “congregación de oficiales de diferentes of[ici]os”, porque dicen que, antiguamente, en sola esta ciudad se usaba hacer jarros, ollas, escudillas, sogas, zapatos, y otros oficios como plateros, lapideros, y albañi[l]es, y de los demás oficios que les eran necesarios; y de aquí, dicen los indios antiguos que los demás pueblos de la comarca comenzaron a tomar y [a] aprender los dicho of[ici]os. Y, porque en la lengua mexicana TULTECATL quiere decir “oficial”, [esta ciudad] se llamó Tullan, q[ue], como esta dicho, quiere decir “congregación de muchos oficiales. (Acuña 1985: 128)

In 1940 a major excavation of Tula directed by archaeologist Jorge R. Acosta, began (Jiménez Moreno 1971: 130). According to Leonardo López Luján (2002: 24), large amounts of Aztec pottery were found during the excavation. However, the origin of the Aztec pottery cannot be determined with certainty as this type of pottery came from four different parts of the Basin of Mexico – Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, Chalco, and Ixtapalapa. López Luján furthermore mentions finds of Aztec offerings buried inside Tula’s Central Shrine, Building C, Building B, and Templo Quemado (López Luján 2002: 24). The latter two, as well as Building 4, also contain burials from Aztec times (López Luján 2002: 24). Other examples of Aztec remains found in Tula are religious buildings and residential complexes built on top of the Toltec ruins (López Luján 2002: 24). The most outstanding Aztec remains in Tula, however, are two reliefs carved in Cerro La Malinche, situated across the river opposite Tula Grande (Figure 3.3). According to Emily Umberger (1987: 73) the reliefs portray the two gods, Quetzalcoatl and Chalchiuhtlicue, who

The Relación de Cholula thereby tells us that Tollan means a congregation of people mastering different 6

The city of Cholula, situated in the modern state of Puebla, has a long history going back to the Classic Period. In the Late Postclassic period Cholula was a highly esteemed and very influential city – and one of the only cities within Central Mexico that never became subject to the Triple Alliance (Smith 2008: 55-58). 7 Similar terms for Cholula are used in Monarquia Indiana (Torquemada 1969a: 255), Historia ToltecaChichimeca (Kirchhoff et al. 1976: fol. 16v), and Codex of Cholula (Bittmann Simons 1967-1968) (Figure 3.5).

42

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Figure 3.3: Reliefs in Cerro La Malinche, Tula, representing Chalchiuhtlicue (left) and Quetzalcoatl (right) (after Pasztory 1983: Plate 68).

in the ruins of Tenochtitlan is not surprising, because we know from the Florentine Codex that the Aztec arranged excavations with the purpose of finding Toltec objects 8: “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” (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 165). In the article The Social life of Pre-Sunrise Things Byron Hamann (2002) argues convincingly that the collecting of objects from all over the Aztec Empire and the placing of these objects in the sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan was an attempt made by the Mexica to create a microcosm of the Aztec empire within the city walls (Hamann 2002: 356). Therefore it is surprising that only one object found in Tenochtitlan so far can be traced back to the Toltec of Tula, which according to López Luján is: “a decapitated chacmool which was discovered in the foundations of the colonial Casa del Marqués del Apartado […] The piece’s typically Toltec features, in terms of raw material, size, proportions, style and iconography (López Luján 2002: 27). Although the amount of objects made by the Toltec of Tula barely is represented in the ruins of Tenochtitlan, it does not mean that one cannot find the legacy of Tula in the archaeological settings of the Mexica. The latter commonly reproduced objects with traits from the past, and Tula was an especially frequent source of inspiration, which López Luján describes in this

was the Aztec goddess of water and floods. Umberger connects the reliefs with the occurrence of a flood in Tenochtitlan in the year 8 Flint in the Aztec year count – corresponding to the year A.D. 1500 – as this date appears right next to Chalchiuhtlicue (Umberger 1987:74). The Mexica ruler in 1500, Ahuitzotl, is shown associated with Quetzalcoatl on a bench relief of similar style found in Templo Mayor, Tenochtitlan (Umberger 1987: 74). This makes Umberger suggest the following: “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” (Umberger 1987: 74). If Umberger’s analysis of the reliefs is correct, it means that we can specifically ascribe the creation of the reliefs to the Mexica and consequently use them as markers of the Mexica’s presence in – and use of Tula, Hidalgo. The Toltec-Mexica Archaeology of Tenochtitlan The archaeological finds from the sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan (see also Jacobsen this volume) also exhibit an abundance of evidence of the ToltecMexica relations. The excavations carried out in the center of the former Mexica capital have brought forth numerous objects. Some of these are, of course, characteristic in their Aztec style; others originate from distant places in time and space (Umberger 1987; Matos Moctezuma 1994; López Luján 2002). The fact that foreign objects are found

8

Here I use the term Toltec in the meaning transmitted through the Relación de Cholula.

43

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

and it can be defined as a reconstructed memory shared among a group of people (Connerton 1989). Connerton explains that history contains numerous examples of how rulers have reconstructed the history of their nation by handpicking a group of historians to rewrite the nation’s entire history so that it becomes advantageous for the reigning elite (Connerton 1989: 14). I draw attention to Connerton’s observations as we have indications of such an occurrence among the Mexica mentioned in the Florentine Codex. As part of the migration myth of the Mexica, it is told:

manner: “the Aztecs copied practically every Toltec vestige that met their eyes, particularly braziers with the face of Tlaloc, telamons, standard-bearers, colossal plumed serpents, as well as reliefs showing people bearing arms, undulating serpents, birds of prey, felines and the so-called man-bird serpents” (López Luján 2002: 27-28). The Mexica also produced architecture with the past in mind. López Luján suggests that the Casa de las Águilas, a religious building placed to the north of Templo Mayor, shows: “a kind of Neo-Toltequism in the art of the Aztec capital [as] The design of this building is vaguely reminiscent of the Toltec hypostyle halls, but its iconographic and decorative programme revives Tula in all its splendor. Braziers with the face of Tlaloc, benches with undulating serpents and processions of armed men, and mural paintings with multi-coloured friezes decorate interiors to convey the living image of the glorious past” (López Luján 2002: 28; see also López Luján & López Austin 2007).

No longer can it be remembered, no longer can it be investigated how long they were left in Tamoanchan, which is to say, “We seek our home”. The history of it was saved, but it was burned when Itzcoatl ruled in Mexico. A council of rulers of Mexico took place. They said: “It is not necessary for all the common people to know of the writings; government will be defamed, and this will only spread sorcery in the land; for it containeth many falsehoods. (Dibble & Anderson 1961: 191)

Discussion

Connerton’s work has inspired many, among others Ruth Van Dyke and Susan Alcock, who point out four media through which social memory can transmitted (and detected) – ritual behaviors, narratives, objects and representations, and places (Van Dyke & Alcock 2003: 4-5). I argue that all four of these media are detectable in the ToltecMexica relations, and that each media has already been presented through examples made in this chapter. Firstly, we have encountered the ritual behaviors in regards to Tula through Duran’s story of Moteuczoma’s sacrifice at the site (Durán 1984b: 510-511); secondly, numerous migration myths can be used as example of narratives where Tula and Tenochtitlan are connected through the history of their citizens; thirdly, all the archaeological remains from the (Mexica) Aztec in Tula, and all traces of Tula in Tenochtitlan – from the chac mool to the architecture of the Casa de las Águilas – can be interpreted as objects and representations; and finally, every sign of use of Tula by the Mexica – at the Toltec site as well as in Tenochtitlan – can be included in the media places. From my perspective the evidence clearly states that the Mexica used the site of Tula not only because they venerated the place, but because they wished to position the site of Tula in their social memory as their place of ancestry. Doing so would give the Mexica a certain status, as I have pointed out earlier. However, an

So far, this chapter has focused on finding confirmation of relations between the Mexica and the Toltec civilization of Tula, Hidalgo. Before I attempt to answer the question of why the Mexica were so interested in emphasizing this relationship, I will look at the Toltec-Mexica relations from a theoretical angle. Only one scholar has done this previously, namely Emily Umberger in the article Antiques, Revivals, and References to the past in Aztec Art. In this article Umberger introduces the concept of antiquarianism, which she defines as: “the veneration and reuse of ancient cities, collection of ancient objects, and creation of archaizing copies” (Umberger 1987: 86). I call attention to the concept as there is no doubt that antiquarianism is characteristic of the ToltecMexica relation; the Aztec (including the Mexica) did all of the above – they came, venerated, and reused the city of Tula, they collected objects from the site, and they created art which only could have had Tula as a model. I take Umberger’s theory a step further as I see the antiquarianism of the Mexica as an attempt to create a social memory regarding their relations to the Toltec – both in the eyes of allies and enemies. The concept of social memory has been thoroughly described by Paul Connerton in his work How Societies Remember,

44

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Figure 3.4: Example of Tenochtitlan as a Place of Reeds in Codex Sierra, Planche 59 (Wikimedia Commons).

Figure 3.5: Tenochtitlan as a Place of Reeds (near the middle of the map, besides No. 41) on the Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2 (Bittmann Simons 1968: lám. IV).

45

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

extinct civilizations should perhaps be seen as one of the many strategies adopted by Aztec rulers to sustain a new, dominant position in the eyes of both kindred and strangers. As the centuries passed, these antiquities, making direct allusion to a grandiose past and genealogically legitimizing the actions of the belligerent users, no doubt became the ultimate sacred symbols. (López Luján 2002: 29)

even more important message lies in the Mexica’s multiple use of Tula – as well as other past grand civilizations (such as Teotihuacan) – the Mexica wanted Tenochtitlan emphasized as a Tollan place in their social memory by associating with these grand civilizations of the past. Examples of Tenochtitlan being conceived as Tollan are also found beyond the Valley of Mexico in Mapa de Cuauhtinchan no. 2 (Bittmann Simons 1968: lám. IV) and Codex Sierra (Terraciano 2001). The latter is from the Mixtec area and contains eight references to Mexico (Tenochtitlan) (Figure 3.4). Kevin Terraciano has written the following regarding these Mixtec references:

From this quote it is clear that López Luján interprets the Mexica’s use of what Umberger defines as antiquarianism as a strategic move with the purpose of justifying their position as the rightful rulers of the Aztec empire. This leads me to conclude that the Mexica’s use of social memory had the same purpose – to justify the Mexica’s right to rule. Taking all into consideration, I argue that the ruling Mexica elite were the creators of the social memory regarding the Toltec-Mexica relations, and that the message of Tenochtitlan being a Tollan was directed towards ruling allies as well as enemies. Particularly those living in the proximity of Tenochtitlan got to experience the Mexica’s use of propaganda first-hand.

They consistently called Tenochtitlan ñuu coyo, “place of the reeds,” and the people from Mexico were known as tay ñuucoyo, or “people from the place of the reeds. This term, extended to apply to anyone from the general region of central Mexico, associated a cultural area and its people with a most prominent place. (Terraciano 2001: 331)

The Mapa de Cuauhtinchan no. 2 also refers to Tenochtitlan as a Place of Reeds (Bittmann Simons 1968: lám. IV). The city is relatively anonymous in the Cuauhtinchan map and it is represented in the shape of a cactus on a rock in Lake Texcoco, surrounded by reeds and rushes (Figure 3.5). Probably a reference to Tenochtitlan as Tollan.

Concluding Remarks Throughout this chapter I have tried to illuminate the relations between the Mexica and their predecessors, the Toltec of Tula in Hidalgo. I have used colonial documents deriving from Central Mexico, which mention Tula/Tollan (and related words) in order to understand the Mexica’s perception of Tula. I have not done so believing that Tollan in each and every case corresponded to Tula in Hidalgo, but because the texts which indisputably concern Tula make it clear that the site was considered a Tollan – meaning a place where a large amount of highly skilled people were gathered. Hereby I wish to imply that there were other places considered to be Tollans in the world of the Aztecs, including Teotihuacan and Cholula, and – by means of the Mexica’s efforts discussed in this chapter – also Tenochtitlan. So why are there so many different opinions regarding the nature as well as the geographical location of Tollan? Bente Bittmann Simons who studied a vast number of colonial documents has provided the following answer to my question: “The most likely explanation of this whole question is probably that the historical sources had their “Tollans” confused” (Bittmann Simons 19671968: 295). I agree. Considering the fact that Tollan

To find the explanation as to why the Mexica aspired for Tenochtitlan to be viewed as a Tollan place, one has to have the definition of Tollan from Relación de Cholula in mind – along with the knowledge of which civilizations had been considered Tollan places through time (see note 1). Looking at the political situation in Late Postclassic Central Mexico, we find that the area in effect was governed by the Mexica through their leading role in the Triple Alliance; taking this fact into consideration, I agree with López Luján’s conclusion regarding the Mexica’s use of the past as part of a political play: The reuse of relics, the imitation of ancient sculptures and the construction of archaic buildings in Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco coincided with the period of maximum integration, consolidation and expansion of the Aztec empire. The recovery and ennoblement of

46

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Berlin, Heinrich & Robert H. Barlow (ed.) 1948 Anales de Tlatelolco: Unos Annales Historicos de la Nacion Mexicana y Codice de Tlatelolco. Version preparada y anotada por Heinrich Berlin, con un resumen de los anales y una interpretacion del codice por Robert H. Barlow. Antigua Libreria Robredo, de Jose Porrua e Hijos, México, D.F. Bierhorst, John (ed.) 1985 Cantares Mexicanos: Songs of the Aztecs. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 1998a Anales de Cuauhtitlan. History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca, pp. 17-138. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. 1998b Legends of the Sun. History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca, pp. 139-162. University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. Bittmann Simons, Bente 1967-1968 The Codex of Cholula: A Preliminary Study. Tlalocan, Vol. 5 (3/4): 267-339. 1968 Los Mapas de Cuauhtinchan y la Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Insitituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, México, D.F. Boone, Elizabeth H. 2000 Venerable Place of Beginnings: The Aztec Understanding of Teotihuacan. Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones & Scott Sessions, pp. 371-395. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Carrasco, Davíd 1982 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire: Myths and Prophesies in the Aztec Tradition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Francisco de S. A. M. 1965 Relaciones Originales de Chalco Amaquemecan, edited by S. Rendón. Fondo de cultura económica, México, D.F. 1997a Codex Chimalpahin: Society and Politics in Mexico Tenochtitlan, Tlatelolco, Texcoco, Culhuacan, and other Nahua Altepetl in Central Mexico, Volume 1, edited and translated by Arthur J.O. Anderson & Susan Schroeder. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 1997b Codex Chimalpahin: Society and Politics in Mexico Tenochtitlan, Tlatelolco, Texcoco, Culhuacan, and other Nahua Altepetl in Central Mexico, Volume 2, edited and translated by Arthur J.O Anderson & Susan Schroeder. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

often is found in connection with past and contemporary cities of high esteem, it must have been a source of confusion for the Spanish friars to come across so many Tollans in their documentation of the history of New Spain. The results of my analysis of the Mexica’s relations to Tula, combined with the conclusions made in the excellent works of Umberger (1983), Boone (2000), and López Luján (2002), strongly point to the fact that the Mexica succeeded in positioning the city of Tenochtitlan in the company of great cities like Tula, as a Tollan place. By use of ritual activities, accounts, and material remains from the past Toltec civilization, the Mexica created a social memory which legitimized their position of power as rightful rulers over the Aztec Empire, when it was at its greatest. Acknowledgements: My deepest appreciations go to my former teachers and fellow students from the Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures at the University of Copenhagen, for broadening my world view on a professional as well as on a personal level.

References Cited: Acosta, Joseph de 1962 Historia natural y moral de las Indias, edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, D.F. Acuña, René (ed.) 1985 Relación de Cholula. Relaciones Geográficas del Siglo XVI: Tlaxcala, Tomo segundo, Vol. 5: 123-145. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Alvarado Tezozomoc, D. Hernando 1975 Crónica Mexicana – anotada por el Sr. Lic. D. Manuel Orozco y Berra; Códice Ramírez: Relación del Origen de los Indios que Habitan Esta Nueva España según sus Historias. 2nd edition. Editorial Porrúa, S.A, México, D.F. Aubin, J.-M.-A (ed.) 1893 Histoire de la Nation Mexicaine depuis le départ d’Aztlan jusqu’à l’arrivée des Conquerants espagnols (et au delà 1607). Reproduction du Codex de 1576 appartenant à la collection de M.E. Eugène Goupil. Ancienne collection Aubin. Paris.

47

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

Clavigero, Francisco Javier 1945a Historia Antigua de México, Tomo I. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. 1945b Historia Antigua de México, Tomo II. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. 1945c Historia Antigua de México, Tomo IV. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. Codex Mexicanus 1952 Bibliothèque nationale de Paris. Nos 23-24. Société des Américanistes, Paris. Codex Vaticanus 3738 1979 (“Cod. Vat. A”, “Cod. Ríos”) der Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Farbreproduktion des codex in verkleinertem format. Akademische druck- u. verlagsanstalt, Graz. Connerton, Paul 1989 How Societies Remember. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Crapo, Richley H. & Bonnie Glass-Coffin (ed.) 2005 Anónimo Mexicano. Utah State University Press, Logan. 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. Dibble, Charles E. (ed.) 1951 Códice Xolotl. University of Utah/ Universidad Nacional de Mexico, México, D.F. Dibble, Charles E. & Arthur J.O. Anderson (ed.) 1961 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, Book 10 – The People. The School of American Research / The University of Utah, Santa Fe. Diehl, Richard A. 1983 Tula: The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico. Thames & Hudson, London. Durán, Fray Diego 1984a Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firm, Tomo I. 2nd edition, edited by Ángel Ma. Garibay K. Editorial Porrúa, S.A., México, D.F. 1984b Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de la Tierra Firme, Tomo II. 2nd edition, edited by Ángel Ma. Garibay K. Editorial Porrúa, S.A., México, D.F. Gamio, Manuel 1971 [1922] Reconocimiento del problema de Teotihuacán y Tula. De Teotihuacan a los Aztecas: Fuentes e interpretaciones Históricas, edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla, pp. 127-129. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.

Garibay K., Angel Ma. (ed.) 1965 Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas. Teogonia e historia de los mexicanos: Tres opúsculos del siglo XVI. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. Graulich, Michel (ed.) 1995 Codex Azcatitlan – Fac-similé. Bibliothèque nationale de France / Société des Américanistes, Paris. Hamann, Byron 2002 The Social life of Pre-Sunrise Things: Indigenous Mesoamerican Archaeology. Current Anthropology, Vol. 43 (3): 351-382. Heyden, Doris 1983 Reeds and Rushes: From Survival to Sovereigns. Flora and Fauna Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures: Iconography and Function. Proceedings of the 44th International Congress of Americanists, Manchester, 1982, edited by J.F. Peterson, pp. 93-148. BAR International Series 171, London. Hovmand-Olsen, Helle 2010 Tenochtitlan som Tollan? En etnohistorisk og arkæologisk analyse af mexicaernes forhold til Teotihuacan, Tula og Tollanbegrebet. Master’s thesis, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Ixtlilxóchitl, Fernando de Alva 1997a Obras Históricas, Tomo I. 3rd edition, edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, Universidad Naional Autónoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, México, D.F. 1997b Obras Históricas, Tomo II. 3rd edition, edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, Universidad Naional Autónoma de Mexico, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, México, D.F. Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto 1971 [1941] Tula y los Toltecas según las fuentes históricas. De Teotihuacan a los Aztecas: Fuentes e interpretaciones Históricas, edited by Miguel Leon-Portilla, pp. 130134. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Johansson K., Patrick 2007 Tira de la Peregrinación (Códice Boturini). Arqueología Mexicana. Edición especial (Diciembre), Núm. 26: 4-74. Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odena Güemes & Luis Reyes Garcia (ed.) 1976 Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México, D.F.

48

REKINDLING THE PAST: MEXICA-TOLTEC RELATIONS AS A SOURCE OF POWER AND PRESTIGE

Launey, Michel 1992 Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura Náhuatl. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. López Luján, Leonardo 2002 The Aztecs’ Search for the Past. Aztecs, edited by Eduardo Matos Moctezuma & Felipe Solís Olguín, pp. 22-29. Royal Academy of Arts, London. López Luján, Leonardo & Alfredo López Austin 2007 Los mexicas en Tula y Tula en MexicoTenochtitlan. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, Vol. 38: 33-83. Mastache, Alba Guadalupe, Robert H. Cobean & Dan M. Healey 2002 Ancient Tollan: Tula and the Toltec Heartland. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo 1994 The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan. Thames & Hudson, London. Mendieta, Fray Gerónimo de 1971 Historia Eclesiástica Indiana: Obra escrita a fines del siglo XVI. Segunda edición facsimilar y primera con la reproducción de los dibujos originales del códice. Editorial Porrúa, S.A, México, D.F. Mohar Betancourt, Luz María (ed.) 2004 Códice Mapa Quinatzin: Justicia y derechos humanos en el México antiguo. Comisión Nacional de los Derechos Humanos, México, D.F. Molina, Fray Alonso de 2004 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Estudio Preliminar de Miguel León-Portilla. Editorial Porrúa, México, D.F. Motolinía, Fray Toribio de Benavente 1971 Memoriales o Libro de las Cosas de la Nueva España y de los Naturales de ella. 2nd edition. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Mundy, Barbara E. 1996 The Mapping of New Spain: Indigenous Cartography and the Maps of the Relaciones Geográficas. The University Press of Chicago, Chicago. Muñoz Camargo, Diego 1998 Historia de Tlaxcala (Ms. 210 de la Biblioteca Nacional de París), edited by Luis Reyes García. Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala.

Pasztory, Esther 1983 Aztec Art. Harry N. Abrams, New York. Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando 1984 Treatise on the Heathen Superstitions That Today Live Among the Indians Native to This New Spain, 1629, edited and translated by J. Richard Andrews & Ross Hassig. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Sahagún, Fray Bernardino de 1979a Códice Florentino: el manuscrito 218-220 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Volume I. Facsimile edition. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenciana, Florence. 1979b Códice Florentino: el manuscrito 218-220 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Volume II. Facsimile edition. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenciana, Florence. 1979c Códice Florentino: el manuscrito 218-220 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Volume III. Facsimile edition. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenciana, Florence. Smith, Michael E. 2003 The Aztecs. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. 2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Terraciano, Kevin 2001 The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca: Ñudzahui History, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Torquemada, Fray Juan de 1969a Monarquía Indiana, Tomo I. Introducción por Miguel Leon Portilla. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. 1969b Monarquía Indiana, Tomo II. Introducción por Miguel Leon Portilla. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. 1969c Monarquía Indiana, Tomo III. Introducción por Miguel Leon Portilla. Editorial Porrua, S.A., México, D.F. Umberger, Emily 1987 Antiques, Revivals, and References to the past in Aztec Art. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, Nr. 13: 62-105. Van Dyke, Ruth M. & Susan E. Alcock (ed.) 2003 Archaeologies of Memory. Blackwell Publishing, Malden.

49

HELLE HOVMAND-OLSEN

50

Chapter 4: The Center of Power: Tasks and Strategies of the Mexica Court Casper Jacobsen

restricted way. As Rudolph van Zantwijk argues, the term has the advantage of removing ethnicity as a defining factor, enhancing culturally and religiously based factors (Zantwijk 1985: 82). Thus, I agree with van Zantwijk who argues that the term refers “not to one particular people or nation but rather to a religious and cultural current with a political ideology of its own that had certain social administrative implications and followers among the different ethnic groups” (Zantwijk 1985: 83, emphasis added). One group within this Aztec current was the Mexica which settled on an island in Lake Texcoco and founded the city Tenochtitlan in A.D. 1325, according to their own accounts, although recent studies show that the city may have been founded earlier (Smith 2008: 66, 84). In A.D. 1358 a group of Mexica founded the twin city Tlatelolco in the north of the island (Smith 2008: 69), but this was subdued and absorbed by Tenochtitlan in A.D. 1473. At the arrival of the Spaniards, Tenochtitlan had grown to be the largest Aztec city-state with approximately 200.000 inhabitants (Smith 2005: 411). Along with the smaller city-states Tetzcoco and Tlacopan, it formed from around A.D. 1428 the so-called Aztec triple alliance which had an indirect control of strategically important cities and provinces within a vast geographical area stretching from Central Mexico to Guatemala from which it extracted great quantities of tribute to support the motherland (Nielsen 2003: 63-70). The motherland was also referred to as Mexico or Mexico-Tenochtitlan, and accordingly the citizens were referred to as Mexica or Tenochca.

Courts can be studied from many perspectives, and this chapter will not do justice to all aspects of Mexica courtly life. The focus of this study is to define the nature of the Mexica court and its role through an overview of its institutions and members, as well as their main fields of responsibility. I shall argue that the political power of Tenochtitlan was contained in the courtly offices and institutions. By centering the political power in the court and at the same time setting forth strictly controlled paths of access to its offices, the political top ensured that the objectives of the polity were pursued by the commoner and noble masses through their efforts to obtain important and prestigious posts at the court. This model may have represented the general organization of Aztec courts, as it can be traced in other Aztec city-states. Since I have limited space for this study, I shall rely almost entirely on written sources. Nevertheless, I do believe it could be fruitful to expand the study to include other types of sources, cross-checking with archaeological sources in particular. The Mexica and the Aztecs Before advancing any further a few words about the Mexica are due. From around A.D. 1200 to 1350 series of Naawatl speaking groups migrated southward to present day Central Mexico, where they settled and founded a wealth of city-states. In addition to speaking the same language, they shared a common account of their migration with the same mythological content, involving their departure from a distant homeland in the North called Aztlan, as well as their emergence from a seven-chambered cave called Chicomoztoc (Smith 2003: 4, 34-37). These groups, especially those that settled in the Valley of Mexico, are therefore often referred to by the collective term Aztecs, which draws on their mythological place of origin (Conrad & Demarest 1984: 70-71 note 3; Smith & Berdan 1996: 4; Smith 2003: 3-4), although it is also used in a more

A Brief Discussion of the Concept of Court and Political Power As recently noted by Stephen Houston and Takeshi Inomata, the word court can be understood in more than one way, referring to both a “group of people” and the “architectural compound” where this group belongs (2001: 3). I would agree that the term has

51

CASPER JACOBSEN

rather search for the domains that are directly under the control of the ruler. In order to do so here, I shall start by investigating the institutions of the palace of the Mexica ruler, which had both an administrative and residential function, containing both government institutions and private quarters (Evans 2008: 8). In addition, I shall investigate which tasks and responsibilities the ruler had in order to see how well these correspond to the tasks of the institutions and offices of his palace. In doing so, I intend to search for an organizational structure that allows for a better understanding of the nature and role of the Mexica court as a social institution. I shall argue that this organizational structure incorporates the political power of the city. According to Norman Yoffee political power can be defined as “the ability to impose force through specialized, permanent administrators, including a military organization”, and it is “exercised in administrative decisionmaking, in settling disputes […] and in defending the society in times of war” (Yoffee 2005: 37). In other words political power rests in and is mediated through the structures that impose force on the population, and therefore the people that hold these structures maintain, interpret and formulate the components of political power. In this way political power is negotiated in debates about, decisions on and the execution of military campaigns against enemy states, as well as it is inherent in the judicial and law enforcement system.

double meaning, although I would like to modify the former slightly, since, in my view, it is not the group of people itself that is central to the concept of court. Rather, the group of people is organized in a structure of tasks and offices that are controlled by the ruler via a conditioned or qualified access. At first glance this view does not differ so much from Houston and Inomata’s defining criteria as they find that the crucial feature of the royal court is “that it incorporates an organization centered around the sovereign, be this person a king, ruler, emperor, or monarch” (2001: 6, emphasis added). However, in their definition of court, physical proximity to the ruler is key (Houston & Inomata 2001: 7; Inomata 2001: 27) and as such the court officials performed their tasks near the ruler in the physical space of the court. This notion may stem from our double understanding of the concept, and as they themselves are well aware of their definition demonstrates the general problem of defining court boundaries. For instance they include not only the family members of the sovereign as well as court officials, but also more loosely attached personnel such as servants (Houston & Inomata 2001: 6-7), that is the people that work within the courtly structures i.e. the palace. This approach is useful for archaeological purposes, but in relation to my study I note two problems. Firstly, even though servants move around and work in the physical space of the court, they do not hold a court membership nor the same rights as the officials. Secondly, court officials can move outside of the physical space of the court or palace to carry out their office just as non-courtly individuals can enter certain courtly structures without performing courtly tasks. Therefore, I prefer to view the concept of court as an organizational structure that is centered around the interests of the sovereign. The individuals that fill the positions and tasks of this structure can be placed physically near or far away from the ruler according to what their tasks demanded of them. As many of the important courtly offices do not involve location bound tasks they will naturally be placed physically near the ruler since the physical proximity emphasizes the ruler’s power and enhances his ability to rule, react and control.

The Mexica Palace Institutions The palaces of Mexica rulers were placed in the center of Tenochtitlan next to the central precinct, a zone with sacred structures and religious activity enclosed by a heavy wall with four controlled gates of entry (see Figure 4.1). The palaces served both residential and administrative functions, as is also known from other Aztec cities, and according to Michael E. Smith their physical form always incorporated certain features, namely rooms elevated on platforms encircling a courtyard that had a single entrance opposite from which a special raised platform was located (Smith 2008: 115-119). Bernardino de Sahagún’s Florentine Codex contains the most comprehensive list of what he himself defines as halls in the palace of lords, or royal houses 1, and from the description of these we may

This approach to the concept of court can be criticized for its inability to present a complete and well-defined physical courtly space. However, an approach that defines the court solely on the extent of a physical space arranged around the ruler may exclude vital courtly functions that lie outside of the palace area. Therefore, I would argue that we should

1

It is not clear if Sahagún is referring to one single palace structure or if he is describing the different palaces as a unified whole.

52

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

Figure 4.1: Map of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco showing the central precinct and palaces of the former (map by architect Luis González Aparicio, after Eduardo Matos Moctezuma 2011: 381).

53

CASPER JACOBSEN

be able to deduct their individual areas of responsibility (1979b: 275v[S])2. Accordingly, I have arranged them into five different categories:

it is listed among the palace structures in the Primeros Memoriales (Sahagún 1997: 209; 1993: 57r), while the teekpilkalli is not.

Judicial and Law Enforcement System 3

4) ~ Aach-kaaw-kal-li: The Aachkaawkalli was the assembly hall that organized people of the generic rank Aachkaawtli (Sahagún 1954: 43; 1979b: 277v). This was an administrative military rank connected to the legal system (Piho 1976: 174-175, 176). According to the Florentine Codex, they functioned as executioners (Sahagún 1954: 43; 1979a: 112r; 1979b: 277v; 1981: 106), but they were also similar to the alguacil, a legal officer in charge of the law enforcement, detaining and arresting people (Sahagún 1978: 55; 1979a: 233v).

1) ~ Tla-kxi-tlan 4: The Tlakxitlan was the supreme court of justice, placed below the ruler’s residence (Sahagún 1979b: 287r[S]), where the ruler, a certain group of high nobles ( ~ tlaso’-pil-li) and the judges ( ~ teekw-tla-’to-’) were in office. Here the judges tried cases involving any class of citizen from commoners to high nobles (Sahagún 1954: 41, 55; 1979b: 275v, 287r-v).

Economy and Subsistence

2) ~ Teek-kal-li: The Teekkalli was a legal quarter reserved for hearings where the trials were recorded and prepared for the Tlakxitlan (Sahagún 1954: 42, 55; 1979b: 276r-v, 287r-v). Diego Durán makes no mention of this legal function, but simply states that this was the place where the great lords resided (1984: 112-113). Certainly, the term does carry the literal meaning of ‘lord house’, and it may well be that the Teekkalli had both functions. In accordance with this, Molina translates the term as both house and court in his Naawatl-Spanish dictionary (Molina 2004: 92r). Alternatively, it is possible that Teekkalli also carried a general meaning of palace just as the term ~ Teek-pan.

5) ~ Petla-kal-ko: The Petlakalko was a warehouse for storage of food, but located here was also the jail for prisoners who had committed crimes that were not punished by death (Sahagún 1954: 44; 1979a: 112r; 1979b: 278v; 1981: 106). 6) ~ Kal-pix-kaa-kal-li or ~ Te-xaan-kal-li: The Kalpixkaakalli, or Texaankalli, was the place where the tribute collectors ( ~ Kal-pix-ki and ~ Tekit-ki) arranged and registered the collected tribute before redistribution (Sahagún 1954: 44; 1979b: 278v). According to Durán, the tribute collectors also organized public work and made sure to keep the streets clean. Furthermore they took care of logistical and administrative tasks at times of war (1984: 116). The Codex Mendoza confirms the information that public work was delegated there (69v-70r, for full facsimile version see Berdan & Anawalt 1992).

3) ~ Teek-pil-kal-li: We are only told very little of the Teekpilkalli, but this institution is described as a court for the warriors and nobles (Sahagún 1954: 42; 1979b: 277r). Durán makes mention of a ~ Pil-kal-li and just as with the Teekkalli he describes it as a residence, in this case for the nobles (1984: 113). The pilkalli is not mentioned by Sahagún in the Florentine Codex, but

7) ~ Tootoo-kal-li: The tribute collectors were also in charge of the Tootookalli, which contained the ruler’s treasures and personal belongings along with his animals. This was also the work place for the courtly artisans (Sahagún 1954: 45; 1975: 49; 1979b: 280r-v; 1979c: 435r-v).

2

For Sahagúntine works I present a reference to both a facsimile version and English translations. Here I refer only to Sahagún’s Spanish paraphrase marked with [S]. When I refer solely to the Naawatl text, I mark it with [N]. For the Florentine Codex, the folio numbers referred to are those in the right bottom corner of the recto side of the folios. 3 Note that the ~ petlakalko, also belongs to this category. 4 The naawatl terms in this paper are presented in their singular form only, so as not to cause confusion for readers who are not familiar with Naawatl grammar and conjugation.

Diplomacy and Foreign Policy 8) ~ Koowaa-kal-li: The Koowaakalli was a guest house for all visitors of high status, friends or enemies, from near or far, who came to Tenochtitlan (Sahagún 1954: 44; 1979b: 279r). It is

54

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

worth noting that another house named with apparently the exact same function is mentioned as one of the structures of the central precinct (Sahagún 1981: 191; 1979a: 172r). It is possible that one of these houses represents a transcription error and that there was just one house in either the palace or the central precinct. In the Codex Mendoza, as part of the council chambers, two guest houses are shown for the lords of Tenayuca, Chiconauhtla and Colhuacan and the lords of Tetzcoco and Tlacopan respectively (69r).

large area. About the function of the warrior council, Durán states that no decision in war could be reached without this council, and consequently the rulers could not contradict the collected decisions of these warriors (1984: 105, 113). While the Codex Mendoza confirms the placement of this structure in the palace among the council chambers (69r), the Primeros Memoriales instead places a kalmekak both within the central precinct (Sahagún 1997: 119; 1993: 268v) and among the palace structures (Sahagún 1997: 209; 1993: 57v).

Military System 5

10) ~ Mal-kal-li: The Malkalli was a jail guarded by the tribute collectors. Here the captured war prisoners were placed before they were sacrificed (Sahagún 1954: 45, 83; 1979b: 280r).

9) ~ Teki-wa’-kaa-kal-li or ~ Kwaaw-kal-li: The house of Tekiwa’ warriors, also known as the house of eagles, was the central institution which organised the warriors who had taken four captives or more in war (Jacobsen 2011). All of these warriors are referred to as eagles and jaguars, and Sahagún explicitly expresses that a warrior received a seat in the Kwaawkalli when he reached this status (Sahagún 1954: 77; 1979b: 306r-306v[S], 306r [N]). This seat he kept, along with the status of being an eagle and jaguar, as he progressed further in the military ranking system to the ranks of ~ Otomi-tl, ~ Kwa'-chik 6 (Sahagún 1954: 88) 7, and general (Jacobsen 2011; Sahagún 1954: 43, 77; 1979b: 277v; 1979b: 306r-306v). The Florentine Codex describes this institution as 8 loosely translated as ‘war council’ by Sahagún, while a more direct translation would be ‘the counselling place for war of the brave warriors’ (1954: 43; 1979b: 277v). Durán calls this place ‘the plot of eagles’ and states that there were many rooms, indicating that we are dealing with a fairly

Religion and Ritual 11) ~ Kwiika-kal-li: The Kwiikakalli organized all the male and female students from the ~ Teelpooch-kal-li schools, primarily commoners, but also nobles (Las Casas 1967: 25; Sahagún 1978: 59; Sahagún 1979a: 235r; Calnek 1988: 169) who went there at sunset to be taught and to perform songs, dances and music until midnight (Calnek 1988: 171; Sahagún 1978: 56; 1979a: 234v; Durán 1984: 189-190). The attendance at the Kwiikakalli was mandatory and rigorously maintained by certain elder men who were appointed to collect and lead the boys there. In describing the Kwiikakalli of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan, Durán states that they were comprised of large rooms which encircled extensive and beautiful patios where the dancing would take place. Moreover, he states that the Kwiikakalli was located next to a temple, which was placed within the central temple precinct in Tenochtitlan (Durán 1984: 188-190). However, according to Sahagún’s informants, it was part of the palace structures (Calnek 1988: 171; Sahagún 1954: 58; 1979b: 291r [N]).

5

It should be remarked that the Kalpixkaakalli, also belongs to this category. 6 Bierhorst (1985: 96) has kwaa-chik meaning ‘shorn head’. However, in my view, the verb should be i’chiki, one of those Classical Naawatl verbs which begin on iCC but loose the initial i in certain constructions (Launey 1992:36). The glottal stop affects the long vowel of the preceding morpheme, making it short. 7 The text referred to has been added in Dibble and Anderson’s translation from a longer version of chapter 21 in the Real Academia de la Historia MS, another result of the same Sahagúntine project (Sahagún 1954: 77, note 77). 8 ~ in iin-ne-noo-nootza-yaan tiya’kaaw-aan in ii-pampa yaaoo-yoo-tl.

12) ~ Mix-koowaa-kal-li: The Mixkoowaakalli was a house of dance and song, where singers and musicians were installed and ready to assist the ruler at his command. Here dances and songs from afar were imitated and performed (Sahagún 1954: 45; 1979b: 279v-280r). Having sketched the institutions of the Mexica palace, we have to consider a few methodological problems. Firstly, even though the list provided by

55

CASPER JACOBSEN

courtly institutions placed outside of the physical space of the palace. Tasks of the Ruler Head of Warfare and Military System: The ruler’s prime task was to act as the head of the military system, thus, he was the one who assembled the Tekiwa’ warriors (Sahagún 1993: 54r; 1997: 198199). As stated in the Florentine Codex, his work was war, and he was the prime planner of the military operations (Sahagún 1954: 51; 1979b: 282r). In fact, the office of rulership was achieved not merely through nobility, but also through military accomplishments, or at least this was the perception, and it is widely attested that the ruler legitimated his rule through his military achievements (e.g., Carrasco 1971: 352; Klein 1997: 317). Subsequently he participated in war campaigns in distant places and in patrols around the city, while also keeping vigil at night (Sahagún 1954: 33, 56-57; 1979b: 270r-v, 289v-290r). In the first part of the Codex Mendoza the history of the Mexica dynasty is listed, and rendered visually are all the conquests of the empire attributed to each Mexica ruler (2v-16v), stressing that the ruler’s role was that of a supreme war leader. As a further symbol of this, he was in charge of handing over war materials to the warriors (Sahagún 1954: 51-52; 1979b: 283r).

Figure 4.2: Ruler of Tenochtitlan presenting warriors with rewards (after Sahagún 1979b: 306v).

Head of Economy, Commerce and System of Social Advancement: It was also the ruler who presented people with symbolic, material or economic rewards, as well as promotions in social and professional rank (Sahagún 1954: 53, 54-55, 65, 76; 1979b: 285r-v, 286r-287r, 298r, 305v-306v). The Florentine Codex has two explicit illustrations showing this function (Figure 4.2), and as noted by Edward Calnek this function is also depicted in the Codex Mendoza (1988: 177; 67v-68r). The ruler furthermore kept control with the market place by installing supervisors that organized the market and regulated the prices. The market place was the property of the ruler and the city, and therefore everyone there had to pay tribute for war provisions (Sahagún 1954: 67-69; 1979b: 298v-300v; 1993: 54r; 1997: 200). As such, the ruler was the head of the state economy and of the system of social advancement.

the Florentine Codex is the most extensive description of Mexica palace structures at our disposal and probably encompasses the most important of its institutions, it is possible that they are not all mentioned. Secondly, not all sources agree on the location of the different institutions. As seen with the Kwiikakalli and Tekiwa’kaakalli some sources indicate that they were placed in the central precinct and not in the palace proper. Thirdly, according to my definition of the concept of court, the institutions identified within the palace were only part of the court system if the ruler was the head of them. Finally, it is possible that court institutions were placed outside of the palace and therefore are as yet unidentified. In order to deal with these problems, I shall now focus on the main responsibilities and tasks of the ruler. Since he was the head of the court – the sovereign around whom the courtly institutions were arranged – we should be able to see if his responsibilities transcended the physical domain of the palace, and thereby identify

Head of Judicial System: The ruler also acted as head of the judicial system. Not only did he appoint

56

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

commercial activities which were carried out in local and distant markets. Many of the most important religious activities and sacred temples, of the ruler and in general, were found in the central precinct just next to the palace. Following my definition of court, the priestly offices of the central precinct should be considered part of the court system since the ruler, when needed, acted the role of high priest, assuming the prime responsibility and authority of the religious domain, showing that all priests were his subordinates. This view is supported by further significant parallels between the institutions and offices of the central precinct and the palace. It is substantial that the qualification system rested on equal principles in both places. The qualification was administered by structurally similar educational institutions located in each area, the Kalmekak in the central precinct, which was primarily a school for nobles, but also for the most promising of the common children, and the Kwiikakalli in the palace (Calnek 1988: 169, 171; Sahagún 1954: 58; 1969:182, 183, 184, 185, 188, 190; 1979a: 165v, 167r, 168r, 170r, 170v-171r; 1979b: 291r [N]; 1997: 119; 1993: 268v 9), which organized the Teelpoochkalli schools and students. No matter which educational institution the Mexica boys enrolled, they entered similar hierarchic ranking systems, where the rise in rank was effectuated through the capture of enemies in battle, and where they were trained in warfare (Sahagún 1954: 72; 1978: 51-56; 1979a: 230r-233v; 1979b: 302r) along with other topics such as religion (Las Casas 1967: 25; Sahagún 1978: 55, 61-67; 1979a: 233r, 235v-240r). Notably, the titles acquired by youths in both institutions share some similarities. With a capture of one or two enemies both incorporated the denomination ~ Ya’-ki, which means ‘departer’, and at the capture of a fourth enemy, the Teelpoochkalli students would receive the Tekiwa’ title and enter the warrior house (Sahagún 1954: 77; 1979b: 306r-306v[S], 306r [N]), while the Kalmekak students correspondingly would receive the title of priestly Tekiwa’

the judges, but he also supervised the trials and was consulted by the high judges whenever a trial was difficult to judge (Sahagún 1954: 54-55; 1979b: 286r-288r). As Calnek notes, this is another function of the ruler that is explicitly illustrated in the Codex Mendoza (1988: 177; 68v-69r). Head of Religious and Ritual Activities: One of the ruler’s tasks which is not particularly transparent through a study of the palace institutions is his role as the head of ritual and religious activities. Within the palace, the Kwiikakalli and Mixkoowaakalli were related to ritual dance, and it is clear that the ruler assumed a leading role in the Mixkoowaakalli, but the ruler also lead ritual dancing events at the monthly ritual feasts that took place both within (e.g., Sahagún 1979a: 77v-78r; 1981: 55-56) and outside of the palace, for instance in the central temple precinct (1979a: 171v; 1981: 191). Furthermore, it was his duty to do penance and perform sacrificial rituals to the gods, and he had the senior responsibility that this was done (Sahagún 1993: 54r-v; 1997: 198). He not only sponsored religious events and led some of the state rituals (Smith 2003: 150), but he could also assume the role of supreme head of religious affairs (Miller & Taube 2003: 168). Calnek notes that this happened particularly when the ceremonies were directed towards the public at large (Calnek 1976: 294). It is also clear that it happened in times of crisis, emphasizing his supreme authority of the religious domain. For instance when there was a heavy drought, the ruler would command that sacrifices were made for Tlaloc on the mountain tops (Sahagún 1993: 54v; 1997: 201). From the Florentine Codex it appears that the ruler performed rituals in the central precinct in his own private temple structures (Sahagún 1979a: 164v, 165r-v, 170v-171r; 1981: 180, 181, 190), indicating his privileged access to some of these sacred structures as well as a leading position within the religious system. The Organizational Structure of the Mexica Court

9

It is unclear how many of the kalmekak schools mentioned by Sahagún were placed within the central precinct, but as noted by Calnek, six of the seven mentioned kalmekak schools carry names that correspond to different urban areas of Tenochtitlan, while the seventh carries the name Mexico Kalmekak (Calnek 1988: 171172). This may correspond to a structure found archaeologically within the central precinct recently (Vela 2009: 48, 59).

Warriors and Priests As can be seen, the above list of tasks and responsibilities of the ruler corresponds to the areas of duty of the palace institutions so far identified in all but two domains; the ritual and religious activities, which extended beyond the palace, and

57

CASPER JACOBSEN

Judges

( ~ Tla-maka-s-tekiwa’) (Sahagún 1979a: 92v[S]). Thereafter, seemingly, the priests continued in the central precinct where the internal structure of offices is somewhat unclear, although the continued capture of enemies seems to be essential for further advancement, as was the case in the non-priestly system. At a later stage, however, the priests had the opportunity to enter the office of judge, which was physically located in the palace. At the same time eagle and jaguar warriors had religious tasks in their own temples, which according to archaeological studies may have been placed within the central precinct, so we may have to revise our understanding of the categories priestly and nonpriestly and our strict division of function between the central precinct and palace. In this regard it is also worth noticing that structures with clear administrative purposes were placed within the central precinct, such as the ~ Tlakoch-kal-ko weaponry structures, although it had also important ritual functions (Klein 1997: 309-314; Sahagún 1954: 63; 1979b: 295v-296r). This structure was directed by the ~ Tlakoch-kalka-tl, general and one of the four advisors of the rulers (Piho 1972: 322, 325-326). Additionally, as mentioned, a diplomacy house for housing Anahuac rulers may have been placed there as well (Sahagún 1981: 191; 1979a: 172r). Bearing in mind these structural similarities and that the ruler acted as the supreme religious leader, I believe the priestly offices should be considered part of the same courtly system.

Without mentioning what separated their appointment to the office of judge, Sahagún makes clear that both nobles (Tlaso’pilli) and commoners from either the Kalmekak or Teelpoochkalli schools could come to hold this office. As for the commoners they would qualify through their efforts in war, thus the position could only be held by warriors who had been engaged in war taking captives (1954: 54, 75; 1979b: 286r-v, 304v). Without mentioning explicitly at which point in the military hierarchy the warrior could enter the office of judge, there are some indications that one had to reach the top of the military hierarchy in order to qualify, since Sahagún opens his explanation of the hierarchic system by explaining that all these steps had to be passed before rising to the office of judge (Sahagún 1954: 75; 1979b: 304v). The fact that nobles and commoners rose through similar ranking systems suggests that the same criteria applied for nobles. Political Influence As demonstrated, access to a career within the court offices depended upon success in two similar hierarchic ranking systems that were based on the capture of enemies in war with the fourth capture being the key to entering a courtly office. Investigating these court offices another shared property occurs – they held an inherent political voice, that is, court officials were heard in the utmost important political debates and they were involved in decisions following from them.

Law Enforcement Officers and Tribute Collectors

One of the political matters that was debated and decided on was the recurring event of warfare campaigns. When the ruler wished to wage war he would consult his generals and the Tekiwa’ warriors that all held a seat in the Kwaawkalli (Sahagún 1997: 198-199; 1993: 54r). As stated earlier, the warrior council had the authority to reject the ruler’s warfare plans (Durán 1984: 113), so it was not merely a discussion of tactics.

In the Florentine Codex it can be read that the office of Aachkaawtli could be achieved after the capture of four enemies in war (Piho 1976: 174-175; Sahagún 1978: 55; 1979a: 233v). How this position relates to that of Tekiwa’ is not clear, but it seems to have been granted after obtaining the office of Tekiwa’. Contrary to this, we may get a clue in the Florentine Codex as to how to pass from the Tekiwa’ office to the office of tribute collector. Although no specific number of captives is mentioned, it is stated that the office could be obtained when eagles and jaguars took captives (Sahagún 1954: 53, 73-74; 1979b: 284v-285r, 303v304r). Since the status of eagle and jaguar was achieved at the capture of the fourth enemy in war, it seems certain that the office of tribute collector could not have been obtained before the capture of a fifth enemy in war.

Another important but less frequently recurring event was the election of a new ruler. Here the Florentine Codex tells us that the judges, law enforcement officers, Tekiwa’ warriors, leaders of the Teelpoochkalli schools, and priests assembled in order to discuss and decide on whom to install as ruler. The Primeros Memoriales only mentions the Tekiwa’ warriors as included in this decision (Sahagún 1993: 54v; 1997: 201), but this may be,

58

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

other gods tell Teucciztecatl to throw himself into the fire, but his courage fails. Therefore, the gods call upon Nanahuatzin, who immediately hurls himself into the fire. Teucciztecatl then decides to jump into the fire anyway and is followed by an eagle and a jaguar that are merely scorched by the fire. Thereupon, each god rises as a sun, but since this creates too much light one of the gods strikes Teucciztecatl in the face with a rabbit to dim his light, which transforms him into the moon. Thereby, Teucciztecatl who had the precious ritual objects and adornments, but who was reluctant to perform his task, did not receive the same position as Nanahuatzin who had merely standard ritual objects and paper clothes, but nevertheless had performed his task impeccably. As to the eagle and jaguar we are told that this event gave rise to the denomination eagle-jaguar that is applied for brave warriors, thus spelling out for us that a central theme of the myth is warfare, and that it is not social heritage and wealth that makes the Mexica male, but rather efforts and achievement in warfare (Sahagún 1953: 4-7; Sahagún 1979b: 228v-232r). In the myth, the eagle and jaguar thus symbolize that the two gods achieved the qualities of eagles and jaguars after giving their supreme effort.

because all court officials already carried this title from their point of entry, so perhaps the title of Tekiwa’ was never lost, even though new titles were achieved. When the new ruler had been elected, the same people assembled to elect the ruler’s four closest advisors, and afterwards the priests and judges installed the ruler and his advisors (Sahagún 1954: 61, 62; 1979b: 293r-295r). Although the traces of the specific political tasks of the court officials are few, they relate to matters of greatest importance in both domestic and foreign policy, and therefore it is not unlikely that court officials had a say in other important matters as well. In any case, their inclusion and collective influence in the political system separated them from other citizens and court employees such as servants, although the actual political influence of the individual would probably have been very limited. Nevertheless, the individual may have had a fair chance to spread his influence within the institution to which he was connected, and even the symbolic value of being included in political decisions must have been very appealing. Especially in terms of social prestige, the political role of the courtly official should not be underestimated. Ideology of Achievement above Heritage in Myth and Ritual

The monthly feast Xocotl Huetzi also serves to demonstrate how social expectation of achievement was nurtured by state ideology through a ritual performed by the Teelpoochkalli schools. As discussed by Betty Ann Brown different local versions existed (Brown 1988: 174-175), but the Florentine Codex describes the celebration in Tenochtitlan. There all ceremonial activities had a clear focus on the necessity of warfare and the potential that every man had to advance in the social scene through the prominent profession of warriors. First, a tall pole was set up, which was adorned on the day of the main activities of the feast (Sahagún 1981: 111-113; Brown 1988: 174). Next, captors with eagle or jaguar symbols danced forth with their captives, who were destined for sacrifice (Sahagún 1981: 113). The captors had the privilege to lead their captives to the foot of the temple, where their captive was to be sacrificed in honor of the god Xiuhteuctli. The captor would seize his captive by the hair (Sahagún 1981: 115), and thereby the ceremony worked as a controlled re-enactment, reactualizing a recently fought war and the subsequent capture of enemies (Brown 1988: 176). All sacrificial victims were dressed so as to represent the Tepanec patron deity Otonteuctli

Although it is not completely clear how social heritage influenced the opportunity of the Mexica male to rise in the hierarchy, it is clear that the favorable social heritage of elites alone would not win them a prestigious courtly office just as the social heritage of commoners would not exclude them from obtaining a highly esteemed courtly office through achievement. What valued the most was their achievement in war. This ideology of achievement above heritage that is inherent in the structure of the court system can also be traced outside of it in institutionalized rituals and myths. In the myth of the creation of the sun and the moon, for instance, we see this clearly. Here the two gods Teucciztecatl and Nanahuatzin are to perform rituals for four days and consequently throw themselves into a sacrificial pyre so as to transform into the sun. In every aspect, the two gods are direct opposites. While Teucciztecatl, who had volunteered, is adorned richly and carries excessively precious ritual objects, Nanahuatzin, who had been chosen for the task, is merely dressed in paper clothes and carries only basic ritual objects. After the rituals the

59

CASPER JACOBSEN

those who strove the most, would reach their goals, and the ritual performance by the eagle and jaguar warriors worked as a reminder of the glory they could potentially gain.

(Brown 1988: 176) and this gives the ritual reenactment a prototypical dimension, since it refers to the victory against the Tepanec that established the Aztec empire. It also ties together this ceremony with the following where the Teelpoochkalli students which had not yet taken captives were engaged in a climbing competition by the pole. This was guarded by the leaders of the Teelpoochkalli who were armed with staves so as to keep the students away. Eventually the defensive ranks would break and the students attempted to climb the pole from one of its ten ropes. At the top of the pole there was a so-called xocotl image – an amaranth seed dough figure armed with shield, arrow and atlatl – which was to be captured (Sahagún 1981: 116). According to Brown, the xocotl image was a representation of Otonteuctli, and the event was in fact originally a Tepanec ceremony designed to revere him. However, after the victory against the Tepanecs, the Mexica had adopted and transformed the ceremony into a symbolic re-enactment of the conquest of the Tepanecs expressed through the capture of the Tepanec patron deity (Brown 1988: 176-177). Upon reaching the top, the winner would split the Tepanec patron deity into pieces and throw the amaranth seed dough down bit by bit to the people below, who strove to get a piece of it. After descending, the captor was taken to the place of sacrifice, where he received gifts and was dressed in a mantle which he could always wear as he pleased as a proof of his accomplishment (Sahagún 1981:116). Lastly, two old priests would grab the captor’s arms and accompany him to his home while the offering priests went behind blowing shell trumpets to his honor (Sahagún 1981: 117). Apart from being a symbolic re-enactment of the conquest of the Tepanecs and a “ritualized manifestation of imperial power” as Brown argues (Brown 1988: 173, 176), the ritual was also a state controlled symbolic representation of the social ideals and the possibility to reach them through achievement in the hierarchical rank system. Notably, the captor was honored in a way that parallels the honors received for a real enemy capture, and not only were all the Teelpoochkalli students and staff present, but there would also have been many other spectators, which would have given the students a taste of the social prestige, which could be won through the military profession. It also emphasized for them that it was through this profession alone that they could ever achieve this prestige and glory, and that it was far from everyone who would be able to achieve the full rewards and glories from warfare. Only the best,

Other Aztec Courts That commoners and nobles could only achieve important offices through their efforts in warfare was not a model that was restricted to Tenochtitlan, since equal traits can be found in written sources describing other Aztec city-states both within and outside of the core empire. According to the Relaciones Geográficas the bravest men from the Teelpoochkalli in Tetzcoco received offices in the government, and thus became both judges and warriors (Pomar 1986: 75-76, 83-84). Both nobles and commoners could reach government offices, but only by becoming Tekiwa’, which also in Tetzcoco required four enemy captives taken in war. This meant that not even the sons of the ruler could reach these privileges without having merited them, it is stated, and this was done first and foremost to urge people to participate in warfare (Pomar 1986: 8485). Similar information can be found about Cempoala outside the core empire. There the title of Tekiwa’, and the privileges following from it, was also achieved by the capture of four captives. These privileges could not be achieved in any other way, not even by the sons of the greatest lords. Only their achievements mattered, and it is even emphasized that those who were honored for their achievements alone were held in higher esteem than those who had inherited their noble status, while sons of ‘good parents’ who had not achieved any merits went about discouraged (Umaña 1985 :77-78). 10 Concluding Remarks: The Court as the Center of Power I have attempted to set forward a frame through which to understand and study courts in general and for this chapter specifically the Mexica court. My point of view is that in investigating courts we need to search for a structure of offices and institutions that corresponds with the interests and responsibilities of the supreme leader. This allows us to investigate courts from perspectives that exceed the notion of a well-defined physical space, 10

For nearby Epazoyuca we get a similar although reduced account of these things (Umaña 1985: 86-87).

60

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

which we often equate with a palace structure, and the group of people that operated there.

In summary, the access to the courtly offices came through advancement via similar fixed ranking systems that were based on success in war. This system applied to students of the Kalmekak and Teelpoochkalli schools all the way to the position of ruler. In this way Mexica males were urged to do well in war if they had the ambition of achieving prestigious courtly positions in society, gain a political voice, improve their economic situation, and as I have argued elsewhere, to obtain the status of eagle and jaguar (Jacobsen 2011). By centralizing these prestigious posts and privileges and directing the access to them, the Mexica ruler ensured a constant supply of motivated warriors and warrior priests. It is not completely clear how social heritage influenced their opportunities, but it is an important point that the favorable social heritage of elites alone would not win them a prestigious courtly office just as the social heritage of commoners would not exclude them from obtaining a highly esteemed courtly office through achievement.

The Mexica ruler was head of an organizational structure that I refer to as court which reached beyond the physical space of the palace. Although some of the court officials were physically located within the palace, others were not. The priests were located in the central precinct and the ruler placed directors in the market place, while law enforcement officers would have performed many duties outside of the palace, just as the warriors went to war on distant battle fields. Additionally, court officials worked as ambassadors in foreign places and tribute collectors could likewise be installed in conquered cities (Hodge 1996: 35-36; Smith 1996: 147; 2003: 161). Key is that even though they were placed outside of the physical space of the palace they were still officials working for the ruler. Therefore, of all the privileges that could be gained by entering a courtly office, physical access to the palace or the central precinct was merely a further expression. Physical access in itself is not necessarily telling in terms of power and rank, as it is possible to identify personnel, which did not hold the same membership, political voice and rights as the court officials, but which still had access to certain parts of the palace. According to Durán, the different people of the palace had access only to the institutions where they belonged, whereas court personnel, such as servants, did not belong to a certain institution. Instead they served the court members, where they belonged. This is not to say that physical access did not play an important role. Indeed, Durán states that servants were not to be seen in the different institutions, and they had very restricted access, thus they were only allowed to use secret back doors, which were far away from the main entrances (1984: 112-113). My point here is that even though physical access played an important role, the Mexica court cannot be understood in its entirety merely through a definition of a physical space organized around the ruler. Therefore, in order to understand the Mexica court we must understand its structure, the mechanisms that provided access to it and the system that supported it 11.

Acknowledgements: I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the editors for inviting me to contribute to this book and I thank them for their useful comments on earlier versions of the chapter from which it has benefitted greatly. I also wish to thank Una Canger and K. Anne Jensen for their constant support and for providing me with the skills to read Classical Naawatl texts, for which I am deeply grateful. Moreover, I thank Una for sharing her Naawatl expertise with me while writing this chapter.

evidence that long distance ~ Pooch-teekatl merchants could not only act as ‘state economic agents’ sponsored by and working directly for the ruler, but also serve as spies (Berdan 1996: 132-134). This speaks in favor of including them in the courtly structure, a point which has to be investigated further as some scholars have noted that the merchants did not necessarily take on this role (Berdan & Smith 1996: 213).

11

This focus will excuse that the chapter has not encompassed all courtly offices. For instance no mention has been made of the merchants, some of which apparently rose in a similar hierarchic system as those presented here (Carrasco 1971: 359). There is some

61

CASPER JACOBSEN

References Cited:

Conrad, Geoffrey W. & Arthur Demarest 1984 Religion and Empire – The dynamics of Aztec and Inca expansionism. Cambridge University Press, London. Durán, Fray Diego 1984 Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de la Tierra Firme, Tomo I. 2nd edition. Edited by Ángel M. Garibay K. Editorial Porrúa, México, D.F. Evans, Susan Toby 2008 Aztec Palaces and Other Elite Residential Architecture. Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans & Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 7-58. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Hodge, Mary G. 1996 Political Organization of the Central Provinces. Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith & Emily Umberger, pp. 17-45. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Houston, Stephen & Takeshi Inomata 2001 Opening the Royal Maya Court. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Vol. 1, edited by Stephen Houston & Takeshi Inomata, pp. 3-23. Westview Press, Boulder. Inomata, Takeshi 2001 King’s People: Classic Maya Courtiers in a Comparative Perspective. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Vol. 1, edited by Stephen Houston & Takeshi Inomata, pp. 27-53. Jacobsen, Casper 2011 Aztekisk militær ideologi: Ørne- og jaguarkrigere som eksemplet på den perfekte aztekiske borger. CHAOS – Skandinavisk Tidsskrift for religionshistoriske studier, No. 52: 37-62. Klein, Cecilia F. 1997 The Ideology of Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, pp. 293360. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Las Casas, Bartolomé de 1967 Apologética Historia Sumaria – Cuanto a las cualidades, dispusición, descripción, cielo y suelo destas tierras, y condiciones naturales, policías, repúblicas, manera de vivir e costumbres de las gentes destas Indias Occidentales y Meredionales cuyo imperio soberano pertenece a los reyes de Castilla, Tomo II. Edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, D.F.

Berdan, Frances F. 1996 The Tributary Provinces. Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith & Emily Umberger, pp. 115-135. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Berdan, Frances F. & Michael E. Smith 1996 Imperial Strategies and Core-Periphery Relations Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith & Emily Umberger, pp. 209-217. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Berdan, Frances F. & Patricia R. Anawalt (ed.) 1992 The Codex Mendoza, Vol. II. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bierhorst, John 1985 A Nahuatl-English Dictionary and Concordance to the Cantares Mexicanos – with an Analytical Transcription and Grammatical Notes. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Brown, Betty Ann 1988 All Around the Xocotl Pole: Reexamination of an Aztec Sacrificial Ceremony. Smoke and Mist – Mesoamerican Studies in Memory of Thelma D. Sullivan, edited by J. Kathryn Josserand & Karen Dakin, pp. 173-189. BAR International Series, Vol. 402(i). BAR, Oxford. Calnek, Edward 1976 Internal structure of Tenochtitlán. The Valley of Mexico: Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 287-302. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1988 The Calmecac and Telpochcalli in PreConquest Tenochtitlan. The Work of Bernardino de Sahagun – Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century Aztec Mexico, edited by J. Jorge Klor de Alva, H. B. Nicholson & Eloise Quinones Keber, pp. 169-177. State University of New York, Albany. Carrasco, Pedro 1971 Social Organization of Ancient Mexico. Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 10, edited by Robert Wauchope, pp. 349-375. University of Texas Press, Austin.

62

THE CENTER OF POWER: TASKS AND STRATEGIES OF THE MEXICA COURT

Launey, Michel 1992 Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura Náhuatl. Universidad Autónoma de México, México D.F. Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo 2011 Tlatelolco y Tenochtitlan. Seis cuidades antiguas de Mesoamérica: Sociedad y medio ambiente, Gilda Castillo & Mariana Roca, pp. 365-384. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico D.F. Miller, Mary & Karl Taube 2003 An Illustrated Dictionary of – The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames & Hudson, London. Molina, Fray Alonso de 2004 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Editorial Porrúa, México, D.F. Nielsen, Jesper 2003 Art of the Empire: Teotihuacan Iconography and Style in Early Classic Maya Society (A.D. 380-500), Vol. 1. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute of History of Religions, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Piho, Virve 1972 Tlacatecutli, tlacochtecutli, tlacatéccatl y tlacochcálcatl. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl, Vol. 10: 315-328. 1976 Esquema provisional de la organización militar mexica. Actas del XLI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas – México, 2 al 7 de septiembre de 1974, Vol. II: 169178. Pomar, Juan Bautista de 1986 Relación de Tezcoco. Relaciones geográficas del siglo XV: México, Vol. 8, Tomo tercero, edited by René Acuña, pp. 45-113. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Sahagún, Bernardino de 1953 Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 7 – The Sun, Moon, and Stars, and the Binding of the Years. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson & Charles E. Dibble, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe. 1954 Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 8 – Kings and Lords. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson & Charles E. Dibble, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

1969

Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 6 – Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy. Translated and edited by Charles E. Dibble & Arthur J. O. Anderson, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1975 Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 12 – The Conquest of Mexico. 2nd edition. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson & Charles E. Dibble, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1978 Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 3 – The Origin of the Gods. 2nd edition. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson & Charles E. Dibble, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1979a Códice Florentino – el manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Vol. I. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. 1979b Códice Florentino – el manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Vol. II. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. 1979c Códice Florentino – el manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Vol. III. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. 1981 Florentine Codex – General History of the Things of New Spain – Book 2 – The Ceremonies. 2nd edition. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson & Charles E. Dibble, The School of American Research & The University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA. 1993 Primeros Memoriales – Facsimile Edition. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. 1997 Primeros Memoriales – Paleography of Nahuatl Text and English Translation. Edited by Thelma D. Sullivan, completed and revised by H.B. Nicholson Arthur J. O. Anderson, Charles E. Dibble, Eloise Quiñones Keber & Wayne Ruwet, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Smith, Michael E. 1996 The Strategic Provinces. Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith & Emily Umberger, pp. 137-150. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

63

CASPER JACOBSEN

Smith, Michael E. & Frances F. Berdan 1996 Introduction. Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith & Emily Umberger, pp. 1-9. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Smith, Michael E. 2003 The Aztecs. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Smith, Michael E. 2005 City Size in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Journal of Urban History, Vol. 31 (4): 403434. Smith, Michael E. 2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Umaña, Juan de 1985 Relación de Cempoala, Epazoyuca y Tetliztaca. Relaciones geográficas del siglo XV: México, Vol. 6, Tomo primero, edited by René Acuña, pp. 73-93. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F.

Vela, Enrique (ed.) 2009 Arqueología Mexicana – Edición especial, No. 33, Ciudad de México, Guía Arqueológica. Editorial Raíces, Mexico. D.F. Yoffee, Norman 2005 Myths of the Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Zantwijk, Rudolf van 1985 The Aztec Arrangement: The Social History of Pre-Spanish Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

64

Chapter 5: Courtly Etiquette and Eloquent Speech in Ancient Mesoamerica Rosa-Maria Worm Danbo & Christophe Helmke

across its borders. These features thus distinguish Mesoamerica as a linguistic area from languages to the north and south (for further reading on linguistic features of Mesoamerica see Garibay 1968; Bierhorst 1985b; Justeson & Broadwell 1996; Hull 2003; Helmke 2013). 1 One of these features, which is of special interest to the present research, are the semantic calques that are found in various Mesoamerican languages (Campbell et al. 1986), which constitute a “specific subset of linguistic borrowing in which reliance is placed on literal translations of a foreign expression, phrase or juxtaposition of words, rather than the direct phonetic adoption of a single foreign lexical item as a loanword” (Helmke 2013: 1). Since certain idiomatic expressions and orations are shared between the Maya and the Aztec, despite the temporal and spatial distance that separates the two cultures, it seems plausible to suggest that the concept of courtly etiquette is yet another feature that sets Mesoamerica apart from other areas in the Americas. Indeed, the only areas of the Americas where binary or multiple politeness distinctions are made with regards to the use of pronouns are in Mesoamerica and among Kechwan languages of the Andes (Helmbrecht 2003, 2005). It might not come as a surprise that these politeness distinctions are found in the precisely the areas, since this is

In the pursuit of the past one of the greatest challenges is the study of the intangible, that which does not preserve in the archaeological record. Thus, whereas we can study ancient palaces and associated material culture, the manners, demeanours and civilities of the courts remain essentially mute to the modern researcher. As a means of addressing precisely this, the present paper engages what can be termed courtly etiquette: the formalized forms of address that dictated speech and interlocutions between individuals within the confines of palaces. Two major sources of information are available for Mesoamerica, namely the early colonial Florentine Codex (c. A.D. 15401585) and select Classic Maya glyphic texts (c. A.D. 292-909). The Florentine Codex – a twelve-book encyclopaedia of Aztec culture written in Spanish and Naawatl and compiled by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún – is of particular interest since Book VI, is entirely dedicated to rhetoric and eloquent oratory used for addressing regal figures and the divine. Although the Maya examples are few, they preserve highly revealing captions of first and second person orations exchanged between subordinates and superiors. These findings ultimately have implications as to the origins and dissemination of courtly etiquette across Mesoamerica and its relation to the advent of socially-stratified and complex societies. The underlying idea behind this piece of research finds its inspiration in the work of Marc Zender (2004: 310-312) as well as a more recent synthesis on the idiomatic expressions presented and analysed here (Helmke 2009). It is intended to investigate similar structures of contextual function, and emphasis on the word ‘heart’, in occurrences of a specific expression found in both Maya and Naawatl texts.

1

Campbell et al. (1986: 532) define a linguistic area as “an area in which SEVERAL linguistic traits are shared by the languages of the area and [in which] furthermore, there is evidence (linguistic and non-linguistic) that contact between speakers of the languages contributed to the spread and/or retention of these traits and thereby to a certain degree of linguistic uniformity within the area”. Many Mesoamerican languages share certain linguistic features, which are also found in languages across its borders and thus do not define Mesoamerica as a linguistic area, but still characterize it – an example is the difrasismo, a poetic construction wherein a pair of two separate words produce a metaphor that conveys a third concept (e.g. Garibay 1968).

Lyle Campbell, Terrence Kaufman and Thomas Smith-Stark (1986) listed five linguistic features that were present within the geographical area of Mesoamerica and absent in languages found just

65

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

Discourse category A B C

Occurrences Direct (sg.) — 5 —

Direct (pl.) — — —

Descriptive — 1 1

Table 5.1: Overall frequency of direct and descriptive speech in the specific contextual categories from the Maya texts.

Analysis

where high cultures and so-called civilizations developed in the Americas, reflecting the adaptation of languages to increasing social inequality, stratification, status distinctions and hierarchisation. The analytical model that we will use to approach the functional variants that the Naawatl and the Maya expressions served, is inspired by the SPEAKING model developed by Dell Hymes (1972) (see Table 5.3), in which more than just the grammar of an utterance is analysed. The setting (S), participants (P), ends (E), act (A), key (K), instrumentalities (I), norms (N) and genre (G) are all components that constitute a speech situation – and therefore all of relevance to the subject under investigation (Table 5.3). 2 The occurrences are divided into discourse categories based on contextual and grammatical use of the oration. When the participants of the speech situations have been identified, a comparative study of the frequency of occurrences in the two categories allows us to attend to the remaining components of the model and thereby clarify the contexts and surroundings, by and to whom the phrase was put to use. The method of discourse analysis has before proven to be fruitful in studies of Mesoamerican languages (Burns 1980, 1983, 1993; Pérez Martínez 1996; Maxwell 1997; see also Hull 2003), and by using this method of analysis it is possible to determine that certain features of grammar and function are shared, and, ultimately, that they exhibit identical paradigms testifying of a predetermined concept of etiquette in ancient Mesoamerica.

From the Maya area, six occurrences are relevant to the subject under investigation, examples found at the sites of Piedras Negras and Palenque (and one occurrence whose origin is not yet entirely clear) (Table 5.1). The time span of these occurrences range from A.D. 688 to 724, which places them firmly in the Late Classic period. As there are no written descriptions of rhetoric and etiquette, the contexts in which the oration occurs relies on an analysis of the depicted scenes, where present. For every example of the oration, we first provide a description of the scene accompanying it. The Naawatl version of the oration occurs a total of 58 times – the majority of which occur in Book VI of the Florentine Codex. The division of occurrences into discourse categories A, B and C is based upon orator and audience, that is, who pronounces the oration and whom is addressed. In category A the orators are of lesser status, such as commoners, and the audience comprise people of higher status or gods, in category B the orators are of higher status (priests and non-royal nobility) and the audience are rulers or divinities, whereas in category C the orators are rulers and the intended audience are divinities (for the Aztec, most frequently Teskatlipooka). Besides dividing the occurrences of the expression into contextual categories there are also three grammatical categories – 1, 2, 3 – which are based upon the inflection or voice of the verb, as well as the pronominal affixes on the noun. Palenque, Piedras Negras & K2784

2

The components of a speech situation in this model form the acronym SPEAKING. Setting: the setting and scene of the speech situation; Participants: here characterized by the terms orator and audience; Ends: includes both function and outcome of the speech situation; Act: the content and form of speech; Key: the manner of speech; Instrumentalities: how the speech is expressed (e.g. verbal vs. non-verbal); Norms: the rules underlying interaction; and Genre: the class of speech act (Hymes 1972: 65; O’Grady et al. 1996: 577).

For category B we provide analyses and translations of three texts from Palenque and Piedras Negras, while the only example of category C is from Palenque (Table 5.1). The Temple of inscriptions at Palenque was completed in A.D. 688 by K’inich Kan Bahlam II as a funerary sanctuary for his father K’inich Janaab

66

COURTLY ETIQUETTE AND ELOQUENT SPEECH IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

Figure 5.1: Examples of the oration from the Maya area: a) Detail of Piedras Negras, Stela 1: u-[BAH]hi ti-o-mi-OL (drawing by David Stuart). b) Detail of Palenque Temple XVIII stucco: ti-ma-ja a-wo-la (drawing by David Stuart). c) Detail of Palenque Temple of Inscriptions, West panel, passage 1: u-ti-mi-wa yo-OL-la (drawing by Linda Schele).

Pakal II and contains three large hieroglyphic tablets in the rear walls of the superstructure, facing Palenque’s main plaza. Together they present one of the longest inscriptions found at any Maya site (Stuart & Stuart 2008: 24-27; Guenter 2007: 1). The texts recount events and royal ritual, emphasizing Pakal’s part in Palenque’s history. The expression occurs four times in the first four clauses of the panel (A1-D10), exhibiting both category B and C. At this juncture we will only provide full transliteration, transcription and analysis of two of these (the second will be analysed and translated in category C). The occurrence that we have chosen to analyse for category B, is the second clause, which consist of glyph blocks B8 through B12. In this, the expression occur in a possessed nominalized form, which yields the translation “inclination”. 3 An

orator is not identifiable in this occurrence, but the audience is probably Pakal, since the previous passage narrates how he, in connection to the celebration of a K’atun-ending, pleases his gods by offering them a headdress, and the succeeding passage jumps in time to the period-ending after his death (Guenter 2007: 38-39). i-chi na-i-ki u ti-mi je-la a-OL-la ich-na’-ik u-ti[h]m-ij-eel a[w]-o[h]l ‘may it be (thus) the inclination of thy heart’ Stela 1 from Piedras Negras falls under the interlocutory category B that is, the expression is used to describe regal figure, but there is no action or direct speaker to identify. It dates to A.D. 706 and depicts the Namaan princess, wife to the sixth ruler of Piedras Negras, K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II. The Namaan princess, named Ixwinaakhaab Ajaw, held exalted status at the local court (Martin & Grube 2008: 145-146) and possibly possessed actual

3

This is an interesting grammatical construction, since the verb tim is not only nominalized by the infixation of [h], yielding tihm, but then also verbalized by the suffix -ij and finally nominalized again by the -eel suffix.

67

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

political power. In the case of Stela 1, it is the last six glyph blocks that present her as being of an “appeased” or “inclined” heart (Figure 5.1a). Since the princess is also represented in full figure on Stelae 2 and 3 (Martin & Grube 2008: 146-148), but without the expression timohl accompanying her, it is plausible to suggest that the circumstances at the time of her depiction were significant with regards to her state of heart. Stela 8 recounts that the accompanying date on Stela 1 is the anniversary of her husband’s first K’atun in rulership, which might be an explanation as to why she is described with this specific expression; in sum, she was delighted by this celebration.

ti-ma-ja a-wo-la a-TZ’AK-bu-ji ti[h]m-aj aw-o[h]l atz’akbuij ‘inclined is thy heart, thy succession’ The earliest example from the Maya area is also the only example of category C. 4 It is recorded on the West Tablet of the Temple of Inscriptions, Palenque (the last of three panels each designated respectively as east, central and west). The first passage of the tablet (A1-A8) continues from the central tablet and relates how K’inich Janaab Pakal II cared for and tended to his gods, the Palenque Triad, and placed his headdress at their altar – an action which is described as pleasing the hearts of his gods (Guenter 2007: 38; see Figure 5.1c).

u-[BAH]hi ti-o-mi-OL {IX}-[WINAKHAB]AJAW {IX}-na-[MAN-{ni]AJAW} u-baah tim-o[h]l ix-wina[a]kha[a]b ajaw ixnamaan ajaw ‘It is a depiction of Lady K’atun Ajaw, Namaan Princess, of the appeased heart’

u-ti-mi-wa yo-OL-la u-K’UH-li u-tim-iiw y-o[h]l u-k’uh-[uu]l ‘It inclines the heart of his gods’ The three passages following this see a shift in oratory category, since the receiver and the action of pleasing the heart is now expressed directly in the second person, most likely to Pakal (Guenter 2007: 39-40). Passage 2, as mentioned above, relates the pleasing of Pakal’s heart at a period-ending, whereas passage 3, takes place after his death, the inclination of his heart as Matawiil and Baake’l king, and the reason of the heart-appeasement in passage 4 is all the more difficult to detect (Guenter 2007).

Another example of category B can be found in the stucco texts of Temple XVIII (A.D. 724) at Palenque. The Temple was dedicated long after K’inich Janaab Pakal’s lifetime and contains historical info about Pakal and the concerns of the royal family. The stucco is severely damaged, but hieroglyphic captions and names of the people once depicted, remain (Ringle 1996: 1-9; Stuart & Stuart 2008: 162-163) (Figure 5.2). The scene is dated four years before the death of Pakal and it is therefore plausible to suggest that the dominant seated person in the middle of the scene is Pakal, whereas the three name captions to his right, spell out the pre-accession names of his three sons (Zender 2004: 310-312; Ringle 1996: 1-9; Stuart & Stuart 2008: 162-163). To his left an unknown person is facing him and between the two appears the statement tihmaj awohl atz’akbuij (Zender 2004: 310-312; Stuart & Stuart 2008: 162-163) (Figure 5.1b & 5.2). In this example of the expression it is, both visibly and grammatically, possible to identify an orator and audience. The scene takes place a month after the birth of Pakal’s grandson, Ahku’l Mo’ Naahb III, son of Pakal’s third son Tiwol Chan Mat. Marc Zender (2004) proposes that “The priest’s admonition may […] have been intended to indicate that things were now set in order, and that K’inich Janaab’ Pakal II could die in the sure knowledge that his line would pass through his sons to his grandson” and that this kind of reassurance was one function of the Classic Maya priests (Zender 2004: 311).

An unprovenanced polychrome vase, K2784, dating to between A.D. 681-731 and now part of the Dumbarton Oaks collections, does not represent an occurrence of the expression, but the vase exhibits a similar expression to that mentioned above. It depicts a Late Classic court scene in which two priests are seated before their ruler, the owner of the vessel, who is identified as K’ebij Ti Chan, son of Sak Muwaan the k’uhul ajaw who ruled the Ik’ polity between ca. A.D. 700-726 (Reents-Budet 1994: 176-178; Reents-Budet & Bishop: 2003: 1011; Tokovinine & Zender 2012: 43; Skytte Jørgensen & Krempel, this volume). Even though the owner of the vessel is from Ik’ (identified as the site of Motul de San José, Guatemala), the

4

This does not mean that the other example from West Panel date differently – all examples from the Temple of Inscriptions date to the same period, but this exact clause is the only example of category C.

68

COURTLY ETIQUETTE AND ELOQUENT SPEECH IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

Figure 5.2: Reconstruction drawing of the stucco scene of Temple XVIII, Palenque (composite by Christophe Helmke based on drawings by David Stuart & William Ringle).

Figure 5.3: K2784, Unprovenanced polychrome vase, Dumbarton Oaks collection (photograph by Justin Kerr).

scribal arts, propitiated deities and served as a ritual specialists at the royal court (Zender 2004). The first three glyphs of the little caption have previously been transliterated ti-ma-ja (Zender 2004: 312), which provides the transcription tihmaj and translation ‘appeased, inclined’ (Helmke 2009; Kettunen & Helmke 2010b: 157) (Figure 5.3). A new reading, si-mi-ja, now seems more plausible

painting style differs from the one usually found in that area. Moreover chemical analysis of the clay of which it is made indicates that it stems from the area of La Florida (Guatemala), where the court of Namaan is thought to have located (Reents-Budet & Bishop 2003: 11). One of the priests depicted on the vessel is identified as an ajk’uhuun, one of the titles held by Late Classic priests who were tied to the

69

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

Florentine Codex – Book VI

based on our examination of the original vessel. A search for the root sim in various other Maya languages has proven unproductive (for discussion and cognate set of sim see Worm Danbo 2011: 1517), but the use of the word ‘heart’ in the second glyph block in conjunction with the function and context of the expression, duplicate features of the other examples. This suggests that the ajk’uhuun who utters the expression is also intending to appease the lord that he addresses and serves.

Previously tlakaawa has been translated ‘incline thy heart’ (Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982; Anderson 1993), but after an analysis of the Naawatl expression, we believe, based on the entry in Alonso de Molina (2008: 115v) and the analysis provided by Joe Campbell (1985: 433) that a more correct direct translation of tlakaawa moyoolo’ is ‘your heart brings (or leaves) something’, while for a more fluent translation, “[let] your heart be generous” or “[let] your heart be merciful” as proposed by John Bierhorst (1985a: 323; 1985b: 338), adheres more to the analysis and the translations provided by Bernardino de Sahagún (see for example 1979: 6r, 11v, 13v, 14v), than the ones provided by Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson (see for example 1950-1982: 14, 18-20). 5 The expression in question occurs a total of 58 times (Table 5.2).

Summary In the Maya texts we see two kinds of usages of the oration: interlocutory and direct speech. The interlocutory occurrences are used in reverential description of a person or god as having an inclined or appeased heart (Zender 2004; Guenter 2007; Ringle 1996; Helmke 2009) – describing a state of being – while the direct usages has a more optative or subjunctive aspect, meaning that the use expresses a request that the addressed person should be appeased or cease worrying. The categories of orator-audience present in the occurrences are B and C. In category B the majority of use is direct speech, while in category C it is only descriptive. There are two plausible explanations for the lack of category A. The first is that there are no inscriptions in which commoners address rulers, or even appear, which therefore negates the category in which a person of low status addresses a ruler, god or priest. The second is that the norm of interacting using the oration, was specific to the court and restricted to addressing or describing rulers and gods and thereby also restricted to courtly etiquette used within the confines of the royal palace. Despite the discrepancy regarding the translation of K2784 and the other Maya occurrences, they seem as to share the same overall use and function, which is further underlined by the emphasis on awohl, ‘your heart’, and the close resemblance between the scenes depicted on K2784 and within Temple XVIII (see Figure 5.2 & 5.3), in which priests are directly addressing a seated ruler using these particular expressions. As proposed by Zender (2004: 312) “Evidently at least one of the functions of Classic Maya clerics was the appeasement, supplication and perhaps even propitiation of their sovereigns”, and it is precisely for this purpose the oration was also used. Depictions of this kind of court scene accompanied by an utterance in the second person provide a unique glimpse of the etiquette regarding speech and posture of those allowed an audience with the ruler.

Book VI, Chapter 23 relates what parents did when they considered their sons ready to marry. Category A shows usage of the expression outside the confines of the royal palace – in the example below, a young man responds his elders who, in wanting to find their son a woman, have told him to seek permission to take leave from the telpochkalli, the school for commoners (Sahagún 1979: 106v; Dibble & Anderson 1950-82: 127; Smith 2003: 128). The expression is uttered as a praise to his parents for having suffered and worried on his behalf. This agentive nominal form tlakaawki combined with the second person plural possessive prefix amo- on the noun is the most frequent grammatical construction in this category. The scarcity of an actual verbal construction (combined with optative maa) might suggest that when commoners addressed someone using this oration, it was not used as part of a request, but more as a polite statement that elevated the addressee while humbling the orator.

O Ø-tla-kaaw-ki in amo-yoollo’-tzin ‘O generous are your hearts’ The example of the most recurrent grammatical form of the expression in contextual category B is from Book VI, Chapter 3 (Sahagún 1979: 11v; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 14). This chapter 5

For discussion of analysis and translation see Worm Danbo (2011: 19-21).

70

COURTLY ETIQUETTE AND ELOQUENT SPEECH IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

Discourse category A B C

Occurrences 1. Direct (sg.) 5 17 4

2. Direct (pl.) 11 6 —

3. Indirect 5 6 4

Table 5.2: Overall frequency of direct and descriptive speech in specific contextual categories from the Naawatl sources.

describes how priests prayed to Teskatlipooka, pleading for aid in times of war. This section of text illustrates in which setting the priests used the sentence and how they inflected it, and furthermore includes several of the terms of address terms used for invoke Teskatlipooka – making frequent use of the vocative that is often seen in incantations to gods and rulers. This optative construction is the most common form of the expression in category B – wherein the priest directly addresses Teskatlipooka with a request. This way of speaking is furthermore used to appeal to the divinity Tlaalok, especially for rains in times of drought (Sahagún 1979: 33r; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 40). In this context the oration seems to function as a means of enabling the orator to make a request while still showing reverence towards the addressee.

tlaka-tl-è to-tekw-yo-é, tlo-k-è, nawa-k-é, yowalé, e’eka-tl-é: O Ø-tla-kaaw-ki in mo-yool-lo’ ‘O Master our Lord, Lord of the near of the nigh, night and wind, your heart is generous’ Summary The most frequent use of the oration is in categories A and B, whereas in category C there are only a handful of occurrences. From this observation two conclusions can be drawn: it was a fixed expression used either to humble oneself before a figure of higher status, or as a respectful means of making requests while still showing deference towards the addressee. The frequency of the different grammatical uses in the contextual categories testifies as to which social stratum was permitted to make use of such expressions and forms and furthermore reveals something of the general self-perception of the ruler. Not only does a regal figure rarely present the oration, but in only a single case does a ruler actually use both the optative maa and the reverential -tzin when addressing Teskatlipooka (Sahagún 1979: f. 37v; Dibble & Anderson 19501982: 44). When the ruler used the interlocutory expression in third person singular, he spoke on behalf of the tloke’ nawake’, stating that his heart was generous (Sahagún 1979: 49r-49v, 160r; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 61, 189), which, together with the lack of reverential suffix, suggests that the ruler did not need to humble oneself in the same manner as his priests and dignitaries, but held such an elevated status so as to allow him to converse with the divine. 6 The priests served and assisted their sovereigns, as well as mediated between gods and humans, which allowed them to directly address

maa Ø-tla-kaawa in mo-yoollo’-tzin tlaca-tl-é, to-tekw-yo-é, teoo-tl-é ‘[Let] your heart be generous, master, our Lord, god’ Turning to contextual category C, the most frequent grammatical use, wherein we see the agentive noun tlakaawki used in combination with a second person singular prefix mo-. The example is from Book VI, Chapter 9 and relates how the newly instated ruler addressed Teskatlipooka in order to pay homage and give thanks for the enthronement and to ask for his help in fulfilling the office (Sahagún 1979: 33v; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 41). It is only in this category that the reverential suffix -tzin is present on the possessed noun. The following example, wherein the ruler initiates his incantation to Teskatlipooka with the above titles, illustrates this category well (see also Sahagún 1979: 34r-34v; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 42).

6

See Gillespie (1989), Freidel & Schele (1988), Schele & Freidel (1990) and Reilly (2000).

71

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

S

P

E

A K I

N G

The settings vary according to discourse category. The Aztec examples are the only ones exhibiting category A, where the setting is private surroundings, while in both Maya and Aztec examples exhibit categories B and C, where the setting is within the confines of the royal court or temples. The participants are the orators and audience of category A, B and C respectively. Commoners before higher status; priest and dignitaries before rulers and gods; rulers before gods. The outcome of the utterance is to comply with or present requests in an appropriate manner that follows the norms and etiquette of the speech situation. In both cultures, the expression is used to initialize a dialogue or a respond. The oration is only uttered in a formal tone. Both the Aztec and Maya occurrences provide written descriptions of verbal and face-to-face speech situations, while it is only in the Maya area that visual descriptions of the speech situation is present. Same norm of inequality between participants. The orator has to show reverence before the one he or she addresses. The expression is used in greetings, incantations and pleas to entities of higher social strata than the orator. Table 5.3: The components of SPEAKING for both Maya and Aztec speech situations.

addressee, and the orator therefore praises, or appeals, for the heart to be in this particular state. 7 The examples found in the Florentine Codex exhibit all three contextual categories, while the texts of the Maya area do not exhibit the contextual category A wherein the orator is a person of low status – a commoner. Despite the relative large number of hieroglyphic texts known, these are often of another function and literary trope, describing dedications of buildings, royal accession, death and pedigrees, which do not include the kind of description of everyday life and eloquent speech that is to be found in the Florentine Codex, nor the intercessions of those of lesser status (see for example Sahagún 1979: 106r-113v, 119v-127r, 165v-167r; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 127-133, 141-147, 194-196, 219-260).

the latter with requests, whereas the people in category A used the expression as a way of exhibiting courtesy when addressing a person of higher status than themselves. Discussion As has been shown, there are specific features applying to the usage of the oration in respective speech situations and also certain similarities in these features that apply to both the Maya and the Aztec examples (Table 5.3). Concerning the grammatical structure, we find that in both cases there are examples of verbal use (utihm awohl and tlakaawa in moyoollo’tzin) and descriptive use (the passive or agentive noun form; tihmaj awohl and tlakaawki in iiyoollo’tzin) – and as concerns orator and audience, similar structures apply to both – the orator is usually of a lower, or in some cases same, status than the addressee – indicating that the oration is used as a way of humbling oneself before the audience and functions as part of proper verbal etiquette when addressing a superior. Moreover, the heart in both cases seem to be regarded as the source of the intentions of the

Marc Zender (2004: 50-53, 375) in his study of Classic Maya priesthood, showed that there were several similarities between Maya and Aztec priests, 7

For analyses of pre-Conquest Mesoamerican concepts of body and self, see López Austin (1988) (on the concepts of body and ideology amongst the ancient Nawa) – and Robert Hill and Edward Fischer’s (1999) on early colonial Kaqchikel perceptions of self, souls and the heart.

72

COURTLY ETIQUETTE AND ELOQUENT SPEECH IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

such as the yajawk’ahk’ and tlenama’kak, 8 as well as rulers, k’uhul ajaw and tla’toaani, with regards to their roles, vestments, civil and ceremonial functions. Similar titles, functions, oratory and vestments all indicate something that can be said to conform to pan-Mesoamerican traits. Similarities in literal the translation and grammatical structure of the titles k’uhul ajaw of the Maya and the tla’toaani of the Aztec are worth repeating, since these provide an emic view of the importance of Mesoamerican rulers as gifted orators. The k’uhul ajaw of the Maya and the tla’toaani of the Aztec are the title used for supreme rulers of individual city-states. The Classic Maya lexeme k’uh means ‘god’ (Kettunen & Helmke 2010a: 143, 155), whereas k’uh-ul exhibits an abstractivizing suffix, thus prompting the translation ‘godly’. The title ajaw is composed of the verb aw, ‘to shout’, with general agentive prefix aj-, yielding the literal translation ‘shouter’, much like the Aztec tla’toaani, which is composed of the indefinite object prefix tla-, the transitive verb i’toa, ‘to say/speak’ (Molina 2008: 43r) and an eventualis or nominalizing suffix -ni, making the literal translation ‘speaker’ (Justeson 1985; Houston & Taube 2000: 273; Houston & Stuart 2001: 59-61). Both titles portray the leaders as agents of discourse and oratory. Skills regarding language – both written and spoken – were subject to great admiration among both the Maya and the Aztec. An example of their way of using their languages to create various ways of expressing for example sovereignty, poetry or their name for a city, is the difrasismo. These metaphorical couplet constructions were highly stylized and considered part and parcel of prestigious and refined speech (Maxwell & Hanson 1992:19; León-Portilla 1992:54-55; Hull: 2003: 135-142). In Book VI of the Florentine Codex, paragraphs are on numerous occasions initiated with a short mention of the beautiful discourse used by the speakers and on several occasions dignitaries express delight for the discourse of each other or the ruler (see for example Sahagún 1979: 69v; Dibble & Anderson 1950-1982: 85). From the different occurrences it is clear that the oration also functioned as a way of complying with and putting forward

requests to gods and rulers, while retaining the reverential aspect of the appeal by assigning the ruler unselfish properties and thereby also underlining the noble and charitable nature of overlords. After investigating the occurrences from the two cultures, the many similarities in grammatical and contextual use of the expressions suggest that the occurrences are examples of one specific idiomatic expression presented in two different languages and that it, like the many address terms seen in the vocative of Naawatl, were a part of a fixed verbal etiquette within the confines of the royal court, when addressing a superior. As a result we propose three hypotheses on the possible origins of the expression. Possible Origins of the Expression The study of language provides an unquantifiable amount of information about the culture and history of, and interaction between, the peoples inhabiting ancient Mesoamerica. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the linguistic features that distinguishes Mesoamerica as a linguistic area from the languages to the north and south, is the sharing of several semantic calques (Campbell et al. 1986: 553555; Smith-Stark 1994; Helmke 2013). Interaction between cultures always affects those involved and language is one aspect of culture where the effects of interaction is discernible. Most often it is possible to determine the source or donor language and the borrowing or receiving language, which culture has affected and which has been affected, since “different types of social interaction lead to different types of linguistic change” (Justeson & Broadwell: 1996: 402), one way of doing this is by studying phonological loans. Assigning an origin to semantic loans or calques can be difficult, since they are translated into a language and thus it is not possible to trace their source, as with loanwords. Regarding the subject of this paper it is, however, possible to present hypotheses concerning the provenance of the expression by considering chronology and incidence of its occurrences. Since the same, or very similar, expression is found as part of courtly etiquette in two cultures that are geographically and temporally removed from one another, one possible origin is to postulate that this represents a shared inheritance from a third and earlier culture, such as the Olmec. If this is the case one should though expect to find earlier use of the expression in Maya texts and yet this is not the case. The earliest example is from the Maya area is dated to A.D. 688

8

The yajawk’ahk’ of the Maya is a priestly titles for the ones who deal with fire rituals. Is seen in all time periods. In charge of maintaining fire rituals and military function (easy to recognize in the epigraphy because of the Tlaloc goggles on the headdress). The tlenama’kak of the Aztec was also a priest – responsible for, amongst other things, the New Fire ceremonies every 52nd year.

73

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

1983

An Epoch of Miracles: Oral Literature of the Yucatec Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1993 Modern Yucatec Maya Oral Literature. On the Translation of Native American Literatures, edited by Brian Swann, pp. 387-405. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Campbell, R. Joe 1985 A Morphological Dictionary of Classical Nahuatl: A Morpheme Index to the Vocabulario en Lengua Mexicana y Castellana of Fray Alonso De Molina. The Hispanic Seminary of Medieval Studies, Madison. Campbell, Lyle Terrence Kaufman & Thomas C. SmithStark 1986 Meso-America as a Linguistic Area. Language, Vol. 62 (3): 530-570. Coe, Michael D. 1992 Breaking the Maya Code. Thames & Hudson, New York. Coe, Michael D. & Mark Van Stone 2001 Reading the Maya Glyphs. Thames & Hudson, New York. Coe, Michael D. & Rex Koontz 2008 Mexico – from the Olmecs to the Aztecs. 6th edition. Thames & Hudson, New York. Dibble, Charles E. & Arthur J. O. 1950-1982 The Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, Book 6: Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy. School of American Research / University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Evans, Susan T. 2008 Ancient Mexico & Central America: Archaeology and Culture History. 2nd edition. Thames & Hudson, London. Freidel, David A. & Linda Schele 1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthropologist, Vol. 90 (3): 547-567. Garibay, K., Angel María 1954 Historia de la Literatura Náhuatl. Biblioteca Porrúa, México D.F. 1968 Poesía náhuatl III. UNAM, México D.F. Gillespie, Susan D. 1989 The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexica History. University Of Arizona Press, Tucson. Guenter, Stanley 2007 The Tomb of K’inich Janaab Pakal: The Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/articles/ guenter/TI.pdf.

(i.e. West Panel of the Temple of Inscriptions, Palenque), which could indicate that this is where the phrasing emanated and later, through contact between the Maya and other Naawatl-speaking peoples, came to be calqued into Naawatl. The verb tlakaawa is nevertheless more productive in Aztec sources than the verb tihm in Maya texts, something that can be explained both by semantic widening through time, but also by another hypothesis: that it was cultural concept developed by a language group to west of the Maya area, and which was later adopted by the Maya, during the latter portion of the Classic period. From what we can see, the expression in the Maya area also diffused and seems to have spread outwards from the Western Ch’olan area inwards to the central the Maya lowlands, via the Usumacinta. That the earliest hieroglyphic example is from Palenque may further support the hypothesis that the expression was introduced to the Maya area from western Mesoamerica, and perhaps specifically from central Mexico. The study of Mesoamerican languages has provided indispensable information about the cultures and the histories of the peoples inhabiting the area, and we will conclude by citing Justeson and Broadwell’s (1996: 405) emphasis on the importance of linguistic studies: “Languages not only served as a medium for the expression of histories, religions and dreams of Mesoamerican people, but it has also acted as a conservative force in shaping the content of these expressions as well.” The linguistic characteristics testify to a pan-Mesoamerican way of speaking and thinking that make such studies crucial to our understanding of pre-Conquest Mesoamerican worldview.

References Cited: Bierhorst, John 1985a A Nahuatl-English Dictionary and Concordance to the Cantares Mexicanos: with an Analytic Transcription and Grammatical Notes. Stanford University Press, Stanford. 1985b Cantares Mexicanos: Songs of the Aztec: Translated from Nahuatl with Introduction and Commentary. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Burns, Allen F. 1980 Yucatec Mayan Ethnopoetics: The Translation of a Narrative. Journal of Mayan Linguistics, Vol. 2 (1): 3-12.

74

COURTLY ETIQUETTE AND ELOQUENT SPEECH IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA

Helmbrecht, Johannes 2003 Politeness distinctions in second person pronouns. Deictic Conceptualisation of Space, Time and Person, edited by Friedrich Lenz, 185-202. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. 2005 Politeness Distinctions in Pronouns. The World Atlas of Language Structures, edited by Martin, Haspelmath, Matthew Dryer, David Gil & Bernard Comrie. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Helmke, Christophe 2009 Incline Thy Heart. Closing workshop paper, 14th European Maya Conference, Jagiellonian University, Cracow. 2013 Mesoamerican Lexical Calques in Ancient Maya Writing and Imagery. The PARI Journal, Vol. 14 (2): 1-15. Hill, Robert M. & Edward F. Fischer 1999 State of Heart. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 10: 317-332. Houston, Stephen D. & David Stuart 2001 Peopling the Classic Maya Court. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Vol. 1: Theory, Comparison, and Synthesis, edited by Takeshi Inomata & Stephen D. Houston, pp. 54-83. Westview Press, Boulder. Houston, Stephen & Karl Taube 2000 An Archaeology of the Senses: Perception and Cultural Expression in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 10 (2): 261-294. Hull, Kerry M. 2003 Verbal Art and Performance in Ch’orti’ and Maya Hieroglyphic Writing. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin. Hymes, Dell H. 1972 Models of the interaction of language and social life. Directions in sociolinguistics: The Ethnography of Communication, edited by John J. Gumperz & Dell H. Hymes, pp. 35-71. Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. Justeson, John S. 1985 The Foreign impact on lowland Mayan language and script. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans. Justeson, John S. & George Broadwell 1996 Language and Languages in Mesoamerica. The Legacy of Mesoamerica – History and Culture of a Native American Civilization, edited by Robert M. Carmack, Janine L. Gasco & Gary H. Gossen, pp. 379-406. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.

Karttunen, Frances 1992 An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Kettunen, Harri & Christophe Helmke 2010a Introduction to Maya Hieroglyphs. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Museo América & WAYEB, Madrid. 2010b La Escritura Jeroglífica Maya. Acta IberoAmericana Fennica Series HispanoAmericano 8, Instituto Iberoamericano de Finlandia, Madrid. Lacadena, Alfonso & Wichman, Søren 2002 The Distribution of Lowland Maya Languages in the Classic Period. La Organización entre los mayas: Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Vol. II, edited by Vera Tiesler Blos, Rafael Gobos & Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 275319. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia & Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán: México, D.F. & Mérida. Launey, Michel 1992 Introducción a la lengua y a la literatura Náhuatl. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F. León-Portilla, Miguel 1992 Fifteen Poets of the Aztec World. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. López Austin, Alfredo 1988 The Human Body and Ideology: Concepts of the Ancient Nahuas. Translated by Thelma Ortiz de Montellano & Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Martin, Simon & Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. 2nd edition. Thames & Hudson, London. Maxwell, Judith M. & Graig A. Hanson 1997 Discourse Strategies, Then and Now. The Language of Maya Hieroglyphs, edited by Martha J. Macri & Anabel Ford, pp. 97110. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 1992 Of the Manners of Speaking That the Old Ones Had: The Metaphors of Andrés de Olmos In the TULAL Manuscript “Arte para Aprender la Lengua Mexicana 1547”. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Molina, Alonso de 2008 [1555-1571] Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana y Mexicana y Mexicana y Castellana. 6th edition. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico. O’Grady, William, Mark Aronoff, John Archibald & Janie Rees-Miller 1996 Contemporary Linguistics – An Introduction. Copp Clark Pittman Ltd., Toronto.

75

ROSA-MARIA WORM DANBO & CHRISTOPHE HELMKE

Pérez Martínez, Vitalino 1996 Leyenda Maya Ch’orti’. Proyecto Lingüístico Francisco Marroquín, La Antigua. Reents-Budet, Dorie & Ronald Bishop 2003 What Can We Learn form a Maya Vase? Archaeology, Vol. 56 (2): 10-13. Ringle, William B. 1996 Birds of a Feather: The Fallen Stucco Inscription of Temple XVIII, Palenque, Chiapas. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb .com/pari/publications/rt10/Birds.html Sahagún, Bernardino de 1979 [1540-1585] Libro sesto – De la rethorica y philosophia moral. Códice Florentino – el manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Vol. II. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence. Schele, Linda & David Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. Quill, New York. Sharer, Robert J. & Traxler, Loa P. 2006 The Ancient Maya. 6th edition. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Smith, Michael E. 2003 The Aztecs. 2nd edition. Blackwell Publishing, Malden. Smith-Stark, Thomas C. 1994 Mesoamerican calques. Investigaciones lingüisticas en Mesoamérica, edited by Carolyn J. MacKay & Verónica Vázquez, pp. 15-50. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México D.F.

Stuart, David & George Stuart 2008 Palenque: Eternal city of the Maya Thames & Hudson Ltd., London. Tokovinine, Alexandre & Marc Zender 2012 Lords of Windy Water: The Royal Court of Motul de San José in Classic Maya Inscriptions. Motul de San José: Politics, History, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity, edited by Antonia Foias & Kitty Emery, pp. 30-66. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Wichmann, Søren 2004 The Linguistics of Maya Writing. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Worm Danbo, Rosa-Maria 2011 Courtly Etiquette and Eloquent Speech in Ancient Mesoamerica. Unpublished BA thesis, Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute of CrossCultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Zender, Marc Uwe 2004 A Study of Classic Maya Priesthood. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

76

Chapter 6: How the Other Half Lives: The Role and Function of Body Paint at Maya Courts Julie Nehammer Knub

This chapter will address this and is based on examples of body paint – depicted on Classic period (c. A.D. 300-800) polychrome ceramics, in order to determine how different types of body paint were employed in the royal court of the Maya as important social and symbolic expressions (see Nehammer Knub 2010). On the basis of this dataset it will be examined how body paint was used a means of displaying social identity and how, in consequence, the choice of colour and especially patterning dictated or was dependent on social context, gender, status and occupation of the adorned. In addition, the symbolic meaning of the body paint found in the royal court of the Maya seems to have been underlined by visual references to the supernatural world as well as being inherently imbued with both broader notions as well as literal ideas, which were cued by the specific usage of particular colours.

Native Americans have been characterized repeatedly in the literature for the frequency with which they adorn their bodies with paint. This characterization has become so entrenched that for many novices to the topic, this feature is deemed stereotypical second only to the proverbial feathers in their hair. In large measure the now thankfully wholly abandoned racial characterization of Native Americans as “red men”, seems to stem from the prevalence of red body painting (Anton 1997: 35). A remarkable contrast to these widespread stereotypes is the dearth of academic literature on the topic. This absence is nowhere clearer than for the Mesoamerican culture area. Not only is the iconographic repertoire for Mesoamerican cultures abundant in contrast to its northern and southern Amerindian neighbours, but it exhibits a frequent and wide range of human body painting that crosscuts social roles, classes and functions and even the great divide separating the human from the supernatural. Seen from this standpoint the wide array of Mesoamerican data cannot as such be readily dismissed especially when one considers the occasional, albeit dramatic, correspondences found in certain body paint types between Mesoamerica and their northern and southern brethren.

Paint and Pigmentation If the extant iconography is any indication, the practice of body painting was widespread and pervasive in the Maya area. Considering this starting point, the sheer dearth of academic literature on the subject is all the more baffling and stark. Nevertheless, a few references exist, especially from early colonial ethno-historical sources, which are very informative when viewed in conjunction with the iconographic representations of body paint. The famous colonial source for the Maya area, the Relación de las cosas de Yucatan by Fray Diego de Landa, mentions how people applied body paint for aesthetic reasons: “They painted their faces and bodies, as has been said, for the sake of elegance” (Tozzer 1941: 217). De Landa even adds that they strove to do so because it was of great importance to them (Tozzer 1941: 89; see Gomez de Orosco 1937: 15-16; Bourbourg: 1864; and Genet: 1928; 1929 for other examples). Though mentions of ancient Maya body painting are rare, they are not entirely

It is within this matrix of correspondences that it makes sense to provide an in-depth and thorough analysis of the different body paint types represented in Mesoamerica. Elsewhere I have documented and compared body paint types across a representative sample of Mesoamerican cultures of differing time periods (Nehammer Knub 2010). It is on this basis that I will now turn my attention to the Maya area and more specifically the ancient Maya courts. Although it has long been recognized that body painting was part of the aesthetic repertoire of the royal court of the ancient Maya, virtually no research has focused on the symbolic meaning, significance or patterning of this art form (Houston et al. 2006: 22).

77

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

conceptions. As proposed by Lévi-Strauss, red is intimately connected to the notion of human blood which serves as a proxy for the power, vitality and potency of human life, something to be simultaneously feared, confronted and embraced. This symbolism is likewise found within Mesoamerican cultures (Houston et al. 2009: 9, 52), where blood played a crucial role in ceremonies (e.g., Stuart 1984; 1988; Schele & Miller 1986; Klein 1987). In addition to the symbolic connection between red and blood, as well as being a symbol of the cardinal direction east (Miller & Taube 1993: 65-67), the colour was also linked with other concepts. Thus, we see that among the Maya, the semantic domain of the word chak (or the equivalent colonial spelling chac) encompasses the notions of the colour red, something or someone big, or great, as well as a person of great stature (Ciudad Real 2001: 185; Barrera Vasquez 1980; Houston et al. 2009: 30). In fact, the word chak was used interchangeably as the adjectives ‘red’ and ‘great’ in naming practices, to the extent that we at times cannot know whether the original intention was the colour or the qualifier of magnitude (Christophe Helmke pers. comm. 2010; Houston et al. 2009: 3031). Thus, the colour red encompassed a range of meanings and symbolisms, as well as being infused with ‘human blood’ and ‘greatness’ as integral notions. Finally it becomes clear that colour and its role in body painting is of great symbolic significance, not the least since colours in Mesoamerica are inherently laden with meaning that operated, interacted and intersected dynamically in everyday and ritual settings.

restricted to the colonial period. Modern scholars have identified body paint iconographically, although most have not dealt with the topic in any detail (see for instance Houston et al. 2006: 22-23; Joyce 1998: 152; Stone 2011). Other mentions of body paint are likewise limited to references to the colouration of divinities (e.g., Boone 1989: 6, 13, 29, 34, 52, 84; see also Stone 2011). Nevertheless this chapter will show that there is a great deal of culturally significant information that can be obtained by analyzing the practice of body painting. Making Colour Count Forming an integral part of the topic of body paint are studies of colours and their symbolism. It is therefore important to note that the templates that condition conceptions of colour, as well as the mechanisms by which these are recognized and identified are highly variable and culturally specific. It is likewise clear that colour is wholly integrated into discrete cultural systems, forming part of what can be deemed emic thinking (see MacLaury 1997; Houston et al. 2009). Treatments of colour and their symbolic usage also help to understand the underlying connotations that might imbue the painted object with further meanings and values. Dominique Raby (2006) for instance points out that colours were used actively in Mesoamerican religion (Raby 2006: 299, 301) and Victoria Bricker (1999) has made it clear that colour terms were highly productive in Yukatek word formation and as a direct consequence there is a multitude of colour perceptions associated with these words. As such, when analyzing body paint the significance of colours can be considered to be fundamental and will thus be accounted for.

Deities and Humans The distinction between humans and the supernatural is likewise a key characteristic of this study, since divinities, on par with humans, are frequently depicted with coloured bodies. In certain cases the coloration of divinities forms one of their essential attributes and thus cannot be readily construed as body paint per se. Other divinities, especially those that have anthropomorphic form, tend to exhibit other types of body paint that are also seen adorning humans in historical settings. This essentially is a proverbial “chicken and egg” causality dilemma. Humans may paint themselves with the body paint of particular divinities to emulate the divine in ritualised contexts, such as deity impersonations, or royal accession ceremonies (see Nehammer Knub et al. 2009). In contrast,

In the dataset of body paint for the Maya, red is the single most prevalent colour, which is not surprising since it is among the most common pigments that can be obtained most easily from nature (Saller 1997: 16; Houston et al. 2009: 63-64). However, red is also one of the more symbolically laden colours in Mesoamerican perception and this could likewise be the reason for its popularity. It is possible that it may have gained this status on account of availability, but the colour was nevertheless of tremendous importance. Rather than leaving things to environmental conditioning, it is imperative to stress that colours can have an underlying significance, which transcends culture and reflects something innate of human perceptions and

78

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

Figure 6.1: An example of a “body paint group”: Maya body paint that covers the entirety or majority of the body.

themselves strove to resolve, since it is selfpropitiating and both serve clear functions, and I surmise that this circular reasoning may actually have been fostered in antiquity. However, in order

deities may be rendered in the image of humans, replete with loincloths, earspools and most importantly – body paint. This dilemma of causality is probably not one which the ancient cultures

79

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

portrayed in these palatial scenes range from the dressing of the ruler, or the presentation of tribute, to audiences with regal figures seated on elevated benches or diases. The overall tendency, in terms of body paint customs within the court, is decoration that covers almost the entire body, the vast majority in monochrome red (Figure 6.1). The second most prominent practice is paint covering the top of the shoulders or clavicles in a semicircle extending up to include the neck and / or parts of the face with greater or lesser degree of elaboration (Figure 6.2). These types are also primarily red and almost exclusively monochrome. Facial paint, especially among women, and types that consist of black body paint, covering most of the body, are almost on par in terms of numbers. Brown types remain as the least represented in courtly scenes, alongside a category or grouping of types with mostly patterned body decoration, in contrast to other examples wherein the greater parts of the body is covered with solid pigment. In this chapter focus will be placed on the most promising types of body paint, and of these the two major groups will be treated here (for a detailed discussion of the remaining groups see Nehammer Knub 2010). Figure 6.2: Body paint types that are representative of the grouping semi-circled body paint in courtly contexts a) Type 124 b) Type 103.

Maya body paint in palatial settings was laden with underlying symbolic references, some of which were, as already mentioned, supplied by the preferential and almost exclusive use of the colour red. The Maya word chak, which conveys both red and great, constitutes key notions that we shall keep in mind when looking at the red body paint worn by rulers. In these instances it becomes clear that this semantic seemingly dualistic notion, or symbolism is at play. As previously indicated, the colonial word chac has likewise been glossed as “a man of great stature” in of itself (Ciudad Real 2001: 185), similarly the word was also employed as an adjective given to rulers, as seen in the colonial attestation of Chac Ahau, which has been taken to mean ‘great lord’ (Bolles 2001; Houston et al. 2009: 30). Though the intent of the word chak might be clear in this specific case, it is theoretically possible to provide an equally valid translation of ‘red lord’. Fascinatingly this duality seems to be communicated visually through the body paint of rulers. Thus, it seems conceivable that the ruler was painted red to physically underline and demonstrate his greatness through the colouration of his body and as such his qualities were expressed visually and clear for all to see. Keeping this framework in mind, let us turn to the specific examples.

to provide the modern researcher with a point of entry into this complicated issue, it has been essential to segregate all supernatural scenes and examples from the historical scenes that are designed to represent humans bearing body paint. Since iconography on the whole is an idealisation of the world perceived by humans, the types of body paint represented fall neatly into typological groupings, thereby assisting in their documentation and their typological classification. The body paint types shared between humans and divinities cannot be coincidental and thus, where it is relevant I will make cross-references to see if the connotations of divinities serve a specific role in imbuing particular body paint types with further meaning. Body Paint at Court The majority of Maya examples of body paint are, not surprisingly, found in the contexts of royal courts, probably the most common setting displayed on ancient Maya polychromatic ceramics (Miller & Martin 2004: 43; Reents-Budet 2001). The activities

80

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

Extensive Body Paint in Courtly Contexts As noted above, the most prominent kind of body paint found in palatial scenes is monochrome red that covers the entirety, or the vast majority, of the body. This group of body paint types encompass 134 examples of different social agents1, decorated with 59 distinct types of body paint in the courtly scenes of the ancient Maya (for a detailed definition of types and categories of agents see Nehammer Knub 2010). Within this broader category of red body paint that covers most of the body, contextualized by the palatial setting, seated regal figures tend to be portrayed with types of body paint that leave the front of the head, especially the mouth area, as well as hands and feet, bare or unpainted. This is actually the case with all body paint types that are specific to seated rulers. Figure 6.3: A representative example of the group of body paint which covers the majority of the body as illustrated on a template and on original artefact a) body paint Type 290 b) a Maya ruler adorned with Type 290, K8792 (photo by Justin Kerr).

The types of body paint which constitute this first and largest group are exemplified by a representation on K8792, where the ruler is seated on his throne, engaged in a conversation (Figure 6.3). This scene is a simple and illustrative example of general palatial scenes and the activities conducted within such settings. Here the ruler is dressed modestly and casually and in this particular case it would seem that his seated position, as well as the throne, reveals his identity as king though, as will be demonstrated, these play a complementary role to his bodily adornment. Although it has previously been stated that it is the headdress of a king that distinguish him from all others (Schele & Miller 1986: 68; Grube 2001: 96), this is far from the only means of identification. On the contrary, it seems that the social role and identity of ancient Maya rulers were not only expressed through the more resilient regalia such as headdresses or jewellery but, in palatial contexts, primarily by means of ephemeral paraphernalia 2 in the shape of restricted types of body paint, at times reified by a link with types worn by deities. Whereas elaborate costumes and regalia would be worn by royalty in public

settings, as a demonstration of power and semidivinity (Schele & Miller 1986: 67-72), the opposite held true within the palace itself, where the court exhibits an ease and simplicity of dress, on par with the household and domestic functions of the court as residence of the king (Schele & Miller 1986: 67; Miller & Martin 2004: 24). It is within this context that body paint would have played a symbolic role that cannot be overemphasized, in addition to being a vibrant and manifest expression of social identity. Furthermore, this particular type of body paint (seen in Figure 6.3) is a restricted type, since it is only ever found worn by seated rulers in palatial contexts. This restricted usage of the type is an indication of the way body paint was employed as a visual medium of information in daily life. In this case the body paint carried the diagnostic attributes of royal types, restricted to the ruler on his throne, both in shape and colour, and the type served as a clear signal of social identity and power. This is grounded in a comparison of all types adorning seated rulers, and on the basis of the symbolic use of the colour red. It is further supported by the fact that this class of monochrome red paint that covers the majority of the body often is seen adorning divinities with strong connections to ancient Maya courtly life (see Nehammer Knub 2010: 46-49).

1

For a definition of the various social agents see Nehammer Knub (2010: 41-44). 2 Here I draw an analogy between body paint and paraphernalia in the broadest sense of the term (which otherwise include the objects and regalia wielded by monarchs, priests and similar individuals, appropriate to their function) in order to emphasize the materiality and tangibility of body paint even though it is not a archaeological recoverable part of material culture.

81

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

themselves with this divinity, far from. Especially God D, known in the literature as Itzamnaaj (for a discussion of his name see Martin 2007a: 13-20; Boot 2008), was also an ideal to strive after. This divinity (or one of his theosynthetical aspects; see Martin 2007a, 2007b) acted as the king of the heavenly realms, the ruler of the celestial court of deities (Miller & Taube 1993: 99, 146; Taube 2001: 274; D. Stuart 2005: 162; Martin 2007a: 9, 33), and it is in this respect that earthly kings modelled themselves and sought to emulate God D. This is explicitly expressed through the types of body paint chosen by rulers, wherein kings wore precisely the same body adornment as this deity, (Figure 6.5a-c). These seemingly deliberate parallels, where the king physically appeared like the divinity were probably instated to create a symbolic connection between themselves and God D, much in the same manner as the court attendant who painted themselves in the guise of the Maize god. In this case, the underlying reference sought by the ruler was, in all probability, a parallelism of two great kings on equal footing, one ruling over the heavens the other ruler of the earthly realm, both marked with red body paint.

This is illustrated by the fact that these red types are associated with the Maize god, who usually is portrayed as red (see for example K633, ReentsBudet 1994: 63). The Maize god is in many aspects also tightly linked with the royal court, even to the extent that the ruler and the Maize god were at times perceived to be one and same being (Miller & Martin 2004: 52). A comparison can be found among the ancient Egyptians who seem to have had an eternal bond between the Pharaoh and Osiris, the god of afterlife, the underworld and the dead (Smith 1978: 79; Breasted 2005: 39). Similarly, the cycle of life, death and resurrection that the Maize god incarnated among the Maya permeated the life and the people at the royal court, which was often expressed by agents portraying themselves as the Maize god (Miller & Martin 2004: 52-53). The deity came to be a symbol of “the beauty, health and abundant wealth of the ruler” (Taube 2009: 49). Though it was not only kings who were associated with the Maize god but also court attendants are displayed adorned with the same body paint as the deity. This is exemplified by a particular type of body paint (Type 154 Figure 6.4a) that can be found on the Maize god (Figure 6.4b; K5615), on court attendants (Figure 6.4c; K3461), elite figures in general (Figure 6.4d; K5079) and rulers in particular (Figure 6.4e; K8721, K8731, K8746). That rulers are painted as this deity is evident, but court attendants must have had a different reason, other than striving to be as divine as a king. Such a reason might be found in the mythological past where the Maize god and his two sons Juun Ajaw and Yax Bahlam sought after audience with a seated ruler, presenting him with the so-called ‘first gourd’ (see K512; Coe 1973: n. 43; Saturno et al. 2005: 32-33). Here the deities perform an act that is normally associated with court attendants, namely the presentation of goods before the ruler. Consequently, it might be this aspect of the Maize god who shows deference to the ruler that is desirable for court attendants to strive after during audiences with the king. As a result, we see courtiers wearing the same type of body paint as the deity in courtly scenes, (see Figure 6.4a), and by adorning themselves in the same manner as the deity they create a symbolic reference, linking themselves to the known mythological events and actions of the legendary Maize god.

In this respect it is important to keep the aforementioned causality dilemma of the relation between humans and divinities in mind. In all likelihood it was Maya kings who created or commissioned images to be made of God D, adorned with certain types of body paint, either existing types often worn by the ruler or types that would be suitable for a king to wear, that the ruler could then later adopt. This way kings could symbolically foster visual relations between themselves and God D. On the other hand, it is also possible that tradition dictated the body paint types of the deity and that the earthly ruler’s body paint simply followed the same guidelines. Nevertheless, the visual effect of the two appearing alike, also symbolically, was also achieved by means of the shared body paint. Semi-Circled Body Paint in Courtly Contexts The next, and second largest, group found within the royal court consists of body paint types that cover the top of the shoulders and clavicles in a semicircle extending up to include the neck and / or parts of the face. These types are, as previously mentioned, all primarily red and almost exclusively monochrome. A total of 99 examples of this kind of body paint have been documented in palatial scenes, many of which are unique to both the setting and the

The Maize god was an extremely important deity to Maya kingship, not the least since he was involved in the first mythic act of royal accession (Taube 2009: 45), but kings did not exclusively associate

82

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

Figure 6.4: Body paint Type 154 adorning various members of the Maya court as well as the Maize god. a) body paint Type 154 b) Type 154 adorning the Maya Maize god (K5615, photo by Justin Kerr) c) Type 154 adorning court attendants (K3461, photo by Justin Kerr) d) Type 154 adorning elite figures (K5079, photo by Justin Kerr) e) Type 154 adorning a ruler (K8731, photo by Justin Kerr).

wearing this kind of body paint. Focus will be placed on two types that are deemed representative (Type 124 Figure 6.2a and Type 103 Figure 6.2b).

set of social agents (see Nehammer Knub 2010: 4851). Although these types of body paint are very interesting it is not possible for all to be addressed here. The types of body paint in this group were favoured by court attendants, members of the elite, seated rulers and scribes in particular, at the detriment of persons with social functions such as dancers, musicians, priests and warriors who, in contrast to the previous group, are never found

Furthermore, these two types encompass the majority of examples, and can therefore be qualified as the most common. In addition, these two types are almost idealized forms that shape the basis for all other types in the group. The type seen in Figure

83

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

the high number of occurrences, the social classes or agents wearing this type and the preferences for carrying this type within palatial scenes, one could almost be tempted to say that this type, perhaps alongside one more type represented in Figure 6.5a, was the archetype of courtly body paint. From there it can be reasoned that “proper attire” for an appearance at court involved precisely this body paint, even for individuals that were granted audience.

Figure 6.5: Examples of Type 167 used by Maya rulers and God D a) body paint Type 167; b) a Maya ruler adorned with Type 167 on K5176 (photo by Justin Kerr) c) The Maya God D adorned with body paint Type 167 on K5764 (photo by Justin Kerr).

6.2a (Type 124) is especially refined and simple. It is monochrome red and covers only the top of the body, where it forms a semi-circle reaching from the shoulders downwards to include the upper portion of the chest. The colouration extends up along the neck and covers the sides of the face just touching upon the cheekbones but leaving the front of the face unpainted (Figure 6.2a). This type is the second most common type and in all there are 20 examples in the dataset. In 15 cases it is found in the royal court (see for example K2800 Coe 1973: No. 29), whereas outside of this context it is found, for instance, in a natal scene (see K5113 Reents-Budet 1994: 222) and a dancing scene (see K7013 Kerr 1997: 841), of which the latter is associated with the royal court. Thereby we can establish that this type is almost exclusively linked to the palatial environment and events involving members of the court. Furthermore this type is preferentially worn by elite personae, court attendants and seated regal figures who together constituted the core of the court (see Inomata & Houston 2001; Houston & Stuart 2001). Additional examples of this body paint type is seen adorning the body of God D, who, as mentioned above, epitomizes the notion of kingship and the royal court itself (Miller & Taube 1993: 99, 146; Taube 2001: 274; Martin 2007a: 9, 33). Due to

Figure 6.6: Body paint Type 125, which is restricted to the royal court of the Maya. a) Body paint Type 125 b) a bound prisoner in a courtly scene that has his body painted with Type 125, beside him sits other fellow captives, one of which is adorned with Type 124, K4549 (photo by Justin Kerr).

Another type of body paint found in this grouping is worth mentioning (Type 125 Figure 6.6a) on account of the context it is found in. The type is very similar to the one just discussed (Type 124 Figure 6.6b; see also Figure 6.2a), the main difference lies in the face where this type encompasses the chin and the cheek bone and rather than the paint border running behind the eye, it reaches to touch the outermost edge of the eye (Figure 6.6a). This type is likewise found preferentially in palatial contexts where it exclusively embellishes members of the elite and in one case a court attendant. However, an exception to this rule is found on K4549 (Figure 6.6b) where a bound prisoner has his body painted with this type. Beside him sit other fellow captives, one of which is adorned with the abovementioned type (124), a type otherwise restricted to deities and royalty. In the case of the ancient Maya there is a substantial

84

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

Figure 6.7: Body paint types worn by scribes, Types 20, 31, 32, 188, 221, 231 and 256.

are members of the elite and/or the royal court. This in turn means that it is possible to identify and make apparent their social status on the basis of their body paint, since this is not feasible on account of their regalia, which, as was customary, they have been stripped of. Although the hieroglyphs are often informative with regards to titles and names, also of captives, the visual display of identity through body

amount of evidence to suggest that it was often members of the elite that were taken as prisoners of war (e.g., Grube 1993: 3, 8-11; Houston 1993; Stuart 1985; Schele & Miller 1986). This is entirely in keeping with the information we can obtain from body paint in isolation of contexts. In the case portrayed on K4549 three of the four captives carry, as mentioned, types that strongly support that they

85

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

also related to God D. In this context body paint occasionally served to reify the symbolic link between humans and deities, strengthening kingship as well as the social pre-eminence of the court. These red types, when adorning rulers, carried additional symbolic value, stressing the greatness of the ruler through the dual connotation of red and great inherent to the language of the court. Secondly, types that form semi-circles along the chest, whether they encompass the face or not, were likewise favoured by the nobility and especially female members of the court and scribes made good use of this kind of design, as a means of displaying their identity and social role. Due to restricted usage with regards to certain types, we can recognize the identity of personae, even when these are stripped of all regalia, as is often the case with captives. Thereby body paint within palatial scenes served as a coherent marker of identity, inherently imbued with connotations of greatness and divinity.

paint only strengthen the message and can, in cases where the glyphic record is absent or less informative, serve as a clear and coherent means of identification. Scribes were likewise an integral part of courtly life and it is therefore not surprising to find that they too carried body paint deemed proper to their working environment. In addition, scribes seem to have been drawn from the nobility itself (see Coe & Kerr 1997: 36, 97-98; Fash 1991: 120-122; Reents-Budet 1994), elite figures that carried out a specific function within the activities and duties that constituted the royal court. It was in fact common that the primary nobility, including lesser lords, were in charge of administrating the court and kingdom (Miller & Martin 2004: 26; Houston & Stuart 2001; Houston 1993). It is precisely in this perspective that it becomes clear why most of the body paint types worn by scribes are found within the group of body paint (of which Type 103 is the most represented; see Figure 6.2b), only seconded by types from the previously discussed group. The reason is that scribes were part of nobility and therefore adorned themselves as such. Thus, the types worn by scribes have a tendency to confine to the related general stylistic norms for body paint within palatial settings. The vast majority of types worn by scribes are distinctive of this particular metier and were therefore never worn by other social agents (within this group, the types in question are 20, 31, 32, 188, 221, 231 and 256; see Figure 6.7). Additionally, scribes are very rarely found outside the court in the polychromatic iconographic corpus of the Maya and when they are, they are likewise adorned by body paint types specific for their task and role. This in turn implies that scribes, in the majority of cases, wore types of body paint that were particular to their social function and thereby they can equally be identified in the iconography on the basis of their body paint, leaving aside regalia and scribal objects as additional markers of identity.

In this chapter, representations of Maya body paint have been analyzed in order to shed light on the function, symbolism and usage of this practice in PreColumbian times. A few key examples and analyses have shown that body paint functioned as a means of symbolic communication, which in turn carried vital social and cultural information. As such, this study has yielded many promising new results and although only a fraction of the mechanisms operating behind all body paint of the culture area has been addressed herein, the chapter has certainly touched upon several fascinating and salient trends. I would like to stress that body paint was employed in society as a means of cultural and symbolic communication. Based on previous research (Nehammer Knub 2010), I think that it is now possible to say with some confidence that Maya body paint functioned as a symbolic language that could be read by the culturallyinitiated. A visual code that was highly revealing with regards to identity, occupation, worldview in addition to being symbolically laden and imbued with a sense of quality or value that related to the adorned.

Concluding Remarks

Thus it seems clear that body paint and the specific patterns employed were far from random, that there was an exact intent, tradition and symbolism behind every line of the adornment. Body paint related to and conditioned not only aspects of social structures and human interaction but also the relation between humans and the divine, as well as culturally embedded colour symbolisms. Furthermore, it has

The groups of body paint types discussed here comprise the vast majority of examples found within palatial settings. Therefore, it can be stated that the general trend with regards to body paint displayed at court is a preference for types that cover almost the entire body in monochrome red, reminiscent of the adornment of the Maize god, but

86

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

References Cited:

been argued that ancient Maya body paint functioned primarily as an identity marker. At times the identity affirmed or communicated by the body paint was remarkably specific as to a particular office, whereas at other times body paint simply attested a more general identity, such as that of a courtier. In addition, body paint could be further imbued with symbolic meaning by creating a visual link to the divine through the choice of type. As such kings could reify and validate their right to rule as well as their superiority and power by adorning themselves with body paint associated with for instance the supreme celestial lord. Thereby the ruler created a symbolic parallel between himself and the deity, indicating that he was the terrestrial manifestation of the divinity incarnate. This visual link between the ruler and the god would be apparent to all around him, probably instilling awe and prompting respect, thereby strengthening his right to rule. Lastly, and on a deeper and more fundamental level, body paint was always inherently loaded with symbolic meanings and associations inalienably connected with the given colour used. By applying the colour red, it would, for the ancient Maya, innately denote vitality, strength and greatness. Thus, the colour also played a role in imbuing the body paint with qualitative notions. Consequently, it was not possible to separate a colour from its symbolism and hence the connotations and meanings of body paint always operated on multiple levels of symbolism that factor in, then, as now.

Anton, Ferdinand 1997 North America: Portraits of a Great Past. Decorated Skin: A World Survey of Body Art, edited by Karl Gröning pp. 35-51. Thames & Hudson, London. Barrera Vásquez, Alfredo 1980 Diccionario maya Cordemex: maya–español, español–maya. Ediciones Cordemex, Merida. Bolles, David 2001 Combined Dictionary–Concordance of the Yucatecan Mayan Language. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.: http://www.famsi.org/reports/ 96072/ch/chac_abal_chac_pupuk Boone, Elizabeth Hill 1989 Incarnations of the Aztec Supernatural: The Image of Huitzilopochtli in Mexico and Europe. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 79 (2): i-107. Boot, Erik 2008 At the Court of Itzam Nah Yax Kokaj Mut Preliminary Iconographic and Epigraphic Analysis of a Late Classic Vessel. Maya Vase Database: http://www.mayavase.com/ God-D-Court-Vessel.pdf Bourbourg, Brasseur de (ed.) 1864 Relation des Choses de Yucatan de Diego de Landa, Texte Espagnol et Traduction Française en Regard Comprenant les Signes du Calendrier et de L’alphabet Hiéroglyphique de la Langue Maya. Auguste Durand, Madrid. Breasted, James H. 2005 Development of Religion and Thought in Ancient Egypt. Kessinger Publishing co., Whitefish. Bricker, Victoria 1999 Color and Texture in the Maya Language of Yucatan. Anthropological Linguistics, Vol. 41 (3): 283-307. Ciudad Real, Antonio de 2001 Calepino Maya de Motul. Transcribed & edited by René Acuña. Plaza y Valdez Editores, México D.F. Coe, Michael D. 1973 The Maya Scribe and His World. The Grolier Club, New York. Coe, Michael D. & Justin Kerr 1997 The Art of the Maya Scribe. Thames & Hudson, London. Fash, William L. 1991 Scribes, Warriors and Kings: the City of Copán and the Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson, London.

Thus, there exists a vast and intricate system of codified information inherently built into the tradition of body painting and as such it should no longer be contentious that body painting among the ancient Maya was a highly prevalent and symbolically-laden form of visual communication, which conveyed social identity, cultural norms and worldview.

Acknowledgements: My sincerest appreciation for the help and input I received while conducting this reasearch goes to (in alphabetic order): Andrew Bevan, Harri Kettunen, Diana Magaloni Kerpel, Montserrat Salinas Rodrigo, Karl Taube, María Teresa Uriarte Castañeda, Verónica Amellali Vázquez López and Erik Velásquez García. My warmest and most heartfelt gratitude goes to Christophe Helmke and Jesper Nielsen for all their support, help and patience, it made all the difference to me.

87

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

Gómez de Orosco, Federico 1937 Relación Historical Eclesiástica de la Provincia de Yucatán de la Nueva España. Written by Francisco de Cárdenas Valencia, edited by Federico Gómez de Orosco. Bibilioteca Historia México Obras Ined. 3, Mexico, D.F. Grube, Nikolai 1993 Palenque in the Maya World. Eighth Palenque Round Table, edited by Merle Greene Robertson, Martha J. Macri & Jan McHargue, pp. 1-13. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 2001 The Insignia of Power. Maya: Divine Kings of the Rainforest, edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 96-97. Könemann, Cologne. Houston, Stephen D. 1993 Hieroglyphs and History at Dos Pilas: Dynastic Politics of the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin. Houston, Stephen, Claudia Brittenham, Cassandra Mesick, Alexandre Tokovinine & Christina Warinner 2009 Veiled Brightness: A History of Ancient Maya Color. University of Texas Press, Austin. Houston, Stephen & David Stuart 2001 Peopling the Classic Maya Court. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 1, edited by Takeshi Inomata & Stephen Houston, pp. 54-83. Westview Press, Boulder. Houston, Stephen, David Stuart & Karl Taube 2006 The Memory of Bones: Body, Being and Experience among the Classic Maya. University of Texas Press, Austin. Inomata, Takeshi & Stephen Houston (eds.) 2001 Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya. 2 volumes. Westview Press, Boulder. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1998 Performing the Body in Pre-Hispanic Central America. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 33: 147-165. Kerr, Justin & Barbara Kerr (eds.) 1997 Maya Vase Book, Volume 5. Kerr Associates, New York. Klein, Cecelia F. 1987 The Ideology of Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. The Aztec Templo Mayor: A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 8th and 9th October 1983, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, pp. 293-370. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. MacLaury, Robert E. 1997 Color and Cognition in Mesoamerica: Constructing Categories as Vantages. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Martin, Simon 2007a The Old Man of the Maya Universe: A Unitary Dimension within Ancient Maya Religion. Unpublished manuscript in the possession of the author. 2007b Theosynthesis in Ancient Maya Religion. Paper presented at the 12th European Maya Conference: The Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and Context of Maya Mythologies, Geneva, December 7th. Miller, Mary E. & Simon Martin (eds.) 2004 Courtly Art of the Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson / Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco. Miller, Mary E. & Karl Taube 1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames & Hudson, London. Nehammer Knub, Julie 2010 Mesoamerican Body Paint: An Analysis of the Iconographic Sources. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute for CrossCultural and Regional Studies, Univesity of Copenhagen. Nehammer Knub, Julie, Simone Thun & Christophe Helmke 2009 The Divine Rite of Kings: An Analysis of Classic Maya Impersonation Statements. The Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and Context in Maya Mythologies, edited by Geneviève Le Fort, Raphaël Gardiol, Sebastian Matteo & Christophe Helmke, pp. 177-195. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 20. Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Raby, Dominique 2006 Mujer Blanca y Dolor Verde: Uso de los Colores, del Género y de los Lazos de Parentesco en el Tratado de Ruiz de Alarcón. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, No. 37: 294-315. Reents-Budet, Dorie 1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic period. Duke University Press, Durham. 2001 Classic Maya Concepts of the Royal Court: An Analysis of Renderings on Pictorial Ceramics. Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Volume 1, edited by Takeshi Inomata & Stephen Houston, pp. 195-233. Westview Press, Boulder. Saller, Martin 1997 In the Beginning: The Magic of Colours. Decorated Skin: A World Survey of Body Art, edited by Karl Gröning, pp. 16-17. Thames & Hudson, London.

88

HOW THE OTHER HALF LIVES: THE ROLE AND FUNCTION OF BODY PAINT AT MAYA COURTS

Saturno, William, Karl Taube, David Stuart & Heather Hurst 2005 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala, Part 1: The North Wall. Ancient America, No. 7. Schele, Linda & Mary E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings, Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. George Braziller, Inc., New York & Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth. Smith, Jonathan Z. 1978 Map is not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions. University of Chicago Press, London. Stone, Andrea J. 2011 Keeping Abreast of the Maya: A Study of the Female Body in Maya Art. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 22:167-183. Stuart, David 1984 Royal Auto-sacrifice among the Maya: A Study of Image and Meaning. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 7/8: 6-20. 1985 The “Count of Captives” Epithet in Classic Maya Writing. Fifth Palenque Round Table, 1983, edited by Virginia M. Fields, pp. 97-101. San Francisco: Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute 1988 Blood Symbolism in Maya Iconography. Maya Iconography, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson & Gillet G. Griffin, pp. 175-221. Princeton University Press, Princeton. 2005 The Inscriptions from Temple XIX at Palenque: A Commentary. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Taube, Karl 2001 The Classic Maya Gods. Maya, Divine Kings of the Rainforest, edited by Nikolai Grube, pp. 262-277. Könemann, Cologne. 2009 The Maya Maize God and the Mythic Origins of Dance. The Maya and their Sacred Narratives: Text and Context in Maya Mythologies, edited by Geneviève Le Fort, Raphaël Gardiol, Sebastian Matteo & Christophe Helmke, pp. 41-52. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 20. Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Tozzer, Alfred M. (ed.) 1941 Landa’s Relacion de las Cosas de Yucatan: A Translation. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Memoirs Vol. 18. Harvard University, Cambridge.

89

JULIE NEHAMMER KNUB

90

Chapter 7: The Late Classic Maya Court of Namaan (La Florida, Guatemala) Mads Skytte Jørgensen & Guido Krempel

propose that the court of Namaan utilized a distinctive ceramic tradition during the 7th century, participated in trade and intermarriage networks with several sites located in the vicinity and far beyond their territory, and that local rulers even claimed the status of divine kings (k’uhul ajaw), before eventually succumbing to its long-time enemy in the south, Yaxchilan.

The archaeological and epigraphic investigations conducted in recent years have greatly impacted our understanding of the history and evolution of Classic Maya polities in the area around the Upper Usumacinta River (including parts of Chiapas and Tabasco, Mexico, and the North Western Peten, Guatemala, see Canter 2007), and the mutual peaceful or bellicose interactions they maintained (e.g., Anaya Hernandez 2001; Beliaev 2008; Biro 2009; Clancy 2009; Golden 2010; Golden & Sherer 2006; Jackson 2005; Martin & Grube 2008; Safronov 2005; Zender 2002). A poorly understood part of this area along the San Pedro Martir River, a major tributary of the Usumacinta, centers on the archaeological site of La Florida (also known as El Naranjo, El Naranjo-Frontera, and Ocultun). This little-known site (Figure 1), located half-way between the archaeological sites of Piedras Negras and El Peru, is now widely accepted as the seat of the ancient court of Namaan (e.g., Boot 2004: 1; Krempel 2011, Martin & Grube 2008: 145-147; Reents-Budet et al. 2007; Safronov 2005; Zender 2002: 167; Tokovinine & Zender 2012: 49), although few hold divergent views (Houston 2012: 321). La Florida was placed in a strategically favorable position considering the flow of commodities between polities situated along this major trade route. Nevertheless, the site has so far escaped thorough investigation, not at least due to the illicit machinations at El Naranjo (e.g., Graham 2010: 296) and the occupation by the military since the late 1970ies; resulting in restricted access to the ruins for the past four decades. Following a period of looting and neglect, the time has come for a more in-depth study of the site and its history. Since most studies involving Namaan have tended to refer only sporadically to the site’s inscriptions, the present study will have the court of Namaan as its focal point. Based on epigraphic records, as few archaeological data is yet available, we seek to repopulate the Namaan court, by proposing a preliminary census of its nobility. In so doing, we

Prior Research at La Florida Edwin M. Shook, the first of three prominent scholars to visit the ruins of La Florida in the 20th century, arrived at the site in March 1943 and reported the existence of seven stone monuments in his field notes (Shook 1943: Fol. 15-16a, 19a-24a; see also Graham 1970). Having heard of the find, Sylvanus G. Morley arrived one year later and found additional five monuments, but unfortunately, only photographed the better preserved Stelae 7, 9, and Altar G (Morley 1944: 404-410; see also Graham 1970). As did Shook, Morley only spent few days at La Florida, and a brief note on his visit was subsequently published (Weeks 2006: 263-264, see also Proskouriakoff 1950: Fig. 61b-c). Another twenty years passed until Ian Graham received news of looting at La Florida and sought to document the site (Figure 2) and the remaining monuments properly. Graham had only four days for this purpose, until he was suddenly chased off by the local land owner and never returned (Graham 1970: 430, Graham 2010: 296-300). Therefore, his investigation resulted in a preliminary report including a total amount of thirteen stelae, and nine altars (Graham 1970). However, Graham managed to draw and photograph several monuments, but since he was interrupted, failed to provide illustrations of all monumental inscriptions. In recent times, only two site-surveys have been conducted, bringing two additional monuments, Stelae 14 and 15, to light (García 1996; Morales 1998). As for ceramic analysis, which is crucial for

91

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Figure 7.1: Map showing the Western Maya Lowlands (map courtesy of Alexander Safronov).

La Florida: The Residence of The Namaan Court

dating archaeological remains, only one test pit was made near Stela 5. Jeremy Sabloff examined and identified the sample as “basically Tepeu 3- and 2like; [with a] small Early Classic and Preclassic admixture [and] all five levels probably dated to Late Classic times” (Graham 1970: 432). The sparse archaeological data suggest predominant levels of occupation in the Late Classic (A.D. 600-800), which is mirrored by the monumental record at the site.

Stanley Guenter (1998; pers. comm. 2010) was the first to publish that the toponymic title of Namaan could be associated with the archaeological site of La Florida. His hypothesis was primarily based on the limited distribution pattern of the Namaan Emblem Glyph at sites such as Yaxchilan, Piedras Negras and El Peru, all of which are located within a 50 km radius of La Florida, the assumed place of origin. Additionally, Guenter recognized a partially eroded Namaan emblem glyph on La Florida Stela 7 (Figure 7b), supporting his assumption that this site may have been the ancient residence of the Namaan court. By studying La Florida’s inscriptions, Dmitri Beliaev (1999) likewise came to the conclusion that La Florida was the best candidate for the residence of the Namaan court, and further suggested that the now eroded inscription on Altar G (Figure 7c) once referred to a divine lord of Namaan (k’uhul namaan ajaw). Several scholars accepted this identification, and turned their attention to Namaan’s regional political sphere, primarily based on external textual

In sum, besides a few preliminary site-surveys and one test pit, no excavations have been undertaken at La Florida (for more recent work, see Baron 2014a, 2014b). Moreover, since the remaining inscriptions are badly weathered, poorly documented or not published at all, only a fraction of a once rich corpus has been studied so far. Taking into consideration the site’s history and the condition of the surviving monuments, it is not surprising, that a proposal for La Florida as the seat of the Namaan court was not made before the late 1990ies (Guenter 1998). 1 1

Recently, David Stuart (pers. comm. July 2011) pointed out to us that he recognized a Namaan emblem glyph in company with Linda Schele in the 1980s, and that Stephen Houston and other epigraphers did as well prior

to Stanley Guenter. However, since their ideas have unfortunately not been published nor materialised into a manuscript, they are not included in this discussion.

92

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Figure 7.2: An updated site plan of the archaeological site of La Florida based on previous plans by Ian Graham (1970) and Paulino Morales (1998), together with personal observations by Mads Jørgensen in 2011. Rectangles, circles, and triangles illustrate the location of stelae, altars, and fragments respectively (plan by Christophe Helmke and Mads Jørgensen).

The Different Occurrences of the Enigmatic MAN Sign (T566)

references (Lopes 2003; Teufel 2004: 160, 168; Safronov 2005: 52-5; Martin & Grube 2008: 124, 145-147).

It has long been known that the ‘serpent segment’ sign T566 (Figure 3a), which constitutes the main sign of the Namaan Emblem Glyph, occurs in various semantic contexts, one of them being the cardinal direction xaman ‘north’ 2 (Closs 1988; Jones 1989; see Figure 3b). Most problematic are the diverse lexicographic variations of the word root /man/; xa-man (direction), na-maan or just maan

In 2009 Guido Krempel visited La Florida, and documented a partially eroded Namaan Emblem Glyph (na?-MAN-ni AJAW?) on the rear side of La Florida Stela 2 (Figure 7a) still in situ in the Great Plaza (Krempel 2011). This discovery supports the initial proposal by Guenter (1998) and Beliaev (1999). Moreover, as will be shown in the present study, several La Florida monuments bear mention of a specific king who is identified as a holy Namaan king by a well preserved Namaan Emblem Glyph on La Florida Stela 7. There is therefore both sufficient qualitative and quantitative data present locally at La Florida to identify it as the best candidate for the capital of the Namaan court, and it will be treated as such henceforth.

2

John Watanabe (1983) demonstrated, that the identification of xaman understood as a cardinal point is unsuitable, and is better understood as a vector (direction and length) (see also Hopkins & Josserand in press). However, for want of a better term we use ‘north’ in quotation marks.

93

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Figure 7.3: The MAN-sign in different semantic contexts; a) T566, b) xa-ma-MAN-na, c) T554, d) Cancuen Panel 1, e) Tikal Stela 5, f) K1670 (na-MAN-ni-AJAW), g) Piedras Negras, Burial 5, shell (MAN-ni-AJAW) (drawings by Guido Krempel).

had an enigmatic being in mind, the so-called ‘vision serpent’, believed to be the wahy of the deity K’awiil (Houston & Stuart 1989: 7-8; Schele & Miller 1986: 177). It appears in multiple forms and regional variations and is named Nah Chan at Yaxchilan whereas at Palenque another serpentine aspect of K’awiil is known as the Sak Baak Nah Chapat (‘White-Bone-House-Centipede’) (Grube & Nahm 1994: 702; see also Figure 6f). Often, it is

(toponymic title), yok man, yajaw man, til man k’ihnich 3 (in nominal phrases), or ma(h)noj? (verbal constructions; Péter Bíró pers. comm. May 2011) (Figure 3). Crucial for an understanding of the meaning of man is an identification of the abstract icon T566 and its possible full form T554 (Figure 3c), showing a curled snake on a perch or tied up. The logogram MAN evidently depicts a stylized pattern of a serpent’s skin (e.g., Kettunen & Davis 2004: 4, 10, Figs. 16, 17). 4 The scribes may have

depicted. In an effort to try to identify a single specimen to T566 we risk the possibility of forcing a scientific zootaxonomy onto an ethnozoological or ‘folk’ taxonomy. Evidence of this differentiation in taxa for precisely snakes are found in Tzeltal Folk Zoology (Hunn 1977: 238, 244; see also Kettunen & Davis 2004).

3

For an explanation of the aspirated vowel in k’ihnich see Wichmann (2004: 77-82) as well as Lacadena and Wichmann (2004: 104-106, n. 72). 4 It shall be emphasized that it is the general concept of ‘snake’ rather than a specific species that was meant to be

94

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Peopling the Namaan Court

rendered as a hybrid creature, showing the typical serpent MAN-skin patterns as well as body parts of a centipede. A crucial passage referring to such a serpentine being as part of a nominal phrase is recorded on Yaxchilan Stela 18: ubaahil a’n k’ahk’ man? chan k’awiil ma(h)noj? tu kab tu ch’e’en... “it is the impersonation of ‘Fire-man-Heaven-K’awiil’ 5 having ? (verb) at the place of…”. Seemingly, the possible full-figure glyph T564 substitutes for the usual T566 MAN here, leading us to assume that man was also used as a verbal root. On Cancuen Panel 1, a certain yajaw man (Figure 3d) is mentioned as one of four patron deities6 of the local ruler (Guenter 2002b: 6). The same deity is mentioned on a fragment found at the ballcourt of Calakmul: muhkaj yajaw maan, akan yaxha’(al), and Stela 54 (Figure 3d). This deity was later captured and moved to Tikal by Jasaw Chan K’awiil, just after his glorious war campaign against the Kaanu’l dynasty of Calakmul (Martin 1996; Martin & Grube 2008: 45). The wife of Jasaw Chan K’awiil also incorporated the T566 MAN glyph in her nominal phrase: Ix ? Nal K’awiil Yok Man Ajaw, “Lady ?-nal K’awiil, Foot-of-Man” (Figure 3e). Thus, man is again affiliated with K’awiil and one of his enigmatic wahy creatures (Freidel et al. 1993: 195-196, Figs. 4.11-4.13). Despite the many semantic variations of man, the meaning of the sequence na-MAN-ni-AJAW or MAN-ni-AJAW (Figure 3f-g), forming the attested Emblem Glyph of La Florida, still eludes us, and we have to await further investigation to solve this problem.

The first references to members of the Namaan court are recorded in dedication texts (Primary Standard Sequence, henceforth PSS) on finely painted polychrome ceramics of unknown provenance, currently either in private collections, museum exhibitions or storage facilities. While populating the Namaan court, we will additionally demonstrate that a particular Saxche Orangepolychrome ceramic variety, characterized by red and black painted lines directly underneath a black rim, was favoured by the Namaan royalty throughout a century (see Figure 6b-g). Here we do not wish to argue for this particular design as an ethnic marker, but rather to underscore the high frequency with which Namaan Emblem Glyphs appear on one distinct variety in the Type-Variety system (e.g., Gifford 1960; Smith et al. 1960). In peopling the Namaan court, we shall give each of its members a number in the Roman numeric system, starting from I counting forward according to their chronological appearance (Figure 4a). The seemingly earliest mention of an individual from Namaan, entitled namaan hu’n ajaw, appears on exactly such a distinctive Saxche Orangepolychrome vessel (Figure 5a, Muñoz 2003); K5193 (Lopes 2003: 13). Due to the appearance of rare and undeciphered logograms in this uncommon and highly abbreviated PSS, the name of the owner can only partially be read as ? Ti’ Hu’n Pih? (I). 7 It is uncertain if Namaan functions as a toponymic title here, or if it was rather meant to form part of the proper epithet of the owner. However, since namaan is so far only attested as a toponymic title, we consider K5193 to make a reference to a member of the Namaan court.

The Toponym Namaan The name of the ancient court, however, most likely begins with na- since namaan only occurs as a toponymic title, which is further supported by the substitutions of T23 and T537 for the syllable na-. For this reason, and the fact that na-MAN-ni for namaan is by far the most frequently attested rendering of La Florida’s Emblem Glyph, we favor the reading ‘Namaan’ for the name of the court that resided at this archaeological site.

In dating K5193 and the following Saxche Orange polychrome Namaan vessels we use the wellestablished ceramic sequence from nearby Piedras Negras since this ceramic type is in use at slightly

5

As Lopes (2003:4) notes, the Dumbarton Oaks Panel depicts K’an Joy Chitam dressed as Chaahk wielding a serpent-fire-axe, which might be an image of what is referred to here, and hints at a relationship between man and the serpentine aspects of the deities K’awiil and Chaahk. 6 Kaloomte’, yajaw man, ho’ kokan k’uh and yaxha’al chaahk (Helmke et al. 2003: 124, note 5; Lacadena 2004: 88-93).

7

Another bowl bearing a similar nominal and titular phrase is recorded on a hitherto unpublished vessel in a private collection in Guatemala (Sebastián Matteo pers. comm. January 2011), but cannot surely be assigned to the Namaan polity. Stylistically it strikingly resembles ceramics that were found at La Joyanca and other sites in the vicinity (see e.g., Arnauld et al. 2004: lám. 11; Michelet 2011: 158).

95

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Figure 7.4: The Namaan court: a) a preliminary chronological list of members of the Namaan court showing (in parentheses) the sex, origin, and known period of life for each individual. b) An overview of family ties within the Namaan court. The equal sign (=) indicates marriage, with the single line connecting parents with their offspring. Note the intermarriages between the Namaan and Yokib courts over two consecutive generations.

96

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Figure 7.5: Hieroglyphic nominal phrases of the members of the Namaan court: a) ? Ti’ Hu’n Pih?, b) Ixix Wak Chan, c) Chakjal Chih? Chaahk, d) Ixk’in? Ajaw?, e) Sihyaj Chan K’awiil, f) Ixwinikhaab Ajaw, g) Ixchuwaj? Sak ?, h) Ixsaamal ? Ohl? Hu’n? Ixchak ?, i) Jal? Ti’ Kuy, j) K’in Witz’? Chaahk, k) K’ahk’ Ti’ Kuy, l) K’ahk’ ? Chan? Yopaat Bahlam Uk’awiil, m) ? ? Ch’aho’m Kokan Kab (drawings by Guido Krempel and Sebastián Matteo).

where a TI’ logogram is nearly identical to E1 on K5193 (Muñoz 2003: 64; 2006: 149-152; see also Pallán Gayol 2010: 6, Fig. 7b). ? Ti’ Hu’n Pih? therefore probably lived around the end of the 6th century. Thus, the ceramic evidence of this period point to early interaction between La Florida and Piedras Negras, a fact that has hitherto only been testified by inscriptions from the 7th century A.D. (e.g., Pallán Gayol 2010).

different time periods throughout the Maya Lowlands – for example testified by a vessel dedicated to K’ahk’ Xiiw? Chan Chaahk of Naranjo around A.D. 644-681, which is later than at Piedras Negras (see Martin & Grube 2008: 74-77; Krempel & Davletshin 2011; for an overview see Jørgensen 2012). At Piedras Negras K5193 belongs to the Balche Phase (A.D. 560-620), which is clearly exemplified by the calligraphy on a particular sherd

97

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Figure 7.6: A selection of Saxche Orange-polychrome vessels associated with Namaan rulers, a) Unprovenanced Bowl 2 (photograph by Rafael Tunesi), K30066 (photograph courtesy of Inga Calvin), c) Unprovenanced Bowl 1 (after Société Genérale du Banque 1977: No. 149), d) the Brussels Dish (photograph by Sebastían Matteo), e) the Pomona Dish (photograph by Michel Zabé), f) K1670 (courtesy of the Princeton University Art Museum), g) the Zaculeu vessel (after Woodbury & Trik 1953: Fig. 263a).

98

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

As Luís Lopes has demonstrated, a set consisting of four vessels can be associated with a Namaan ruler named Chakjal Chih? Chaahk (III) (Figure 5c, 6b-e, Lopes 2003). One of these vessels is a Saxche Orangepolychrome dish from Pomona currently exhibited at the site Museum (Figure 6e). The Pomona Dish displays the same configuration of motifs as K5193, which can also be found on another dish assigned to Chakjal Chih? Chaahk, today in the Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire in Brussels (Figure 6d, Matteo in press). Both dishes assigned to this ruler belong to a less common class of vessel types known as yajaljiib that Erik Boot deciphered as “awakening dish”, and it is interesting to note that, besides the two yajaljiib of Chakjal Chih? Chaahk, a third is known from nearby Piedras Negras, and a fourth from Tikal (Boot 2004). The specimen from Tikal was found in the burial of K’ihnich Waaw, the assumed 22nd king of Tikal, alongside several Ik-complex dishes (Culbert 1993: bu195, Fig. 50-51; Guenter 2002a: 96 ff.). These dishes bear strikingly resemblance to the Pomona and the Brussels dishes, and can be dated to A.D. 573-628. 8 This line of evidence thus serves to further strengthen the above ceramic dating.

Another unprovenanced Saxche Orange polychrome bowl has so far not received a designation (Figure 6b). This vessel is particularly interesting as Chakjal Chich? Chaahk is mentioned with the epithet Chakjal – yet he is not the owner of the vessel. As indicated by the relationship expressions mijiin? and yal, this bowl is dedicated to the son of Chakjal and Ix ? K'in? Winikhaab Chak Ohl ? (IV, Figure 4b, 5d). Yet the name of the son is entirely omitted in this dedicatory formula (V). The unusual PSS of this vessel is therefore extremely important in piecing together the family of Chakjal Chih? Chaahk, as it names his wife, and alludes to the presence of a son. Chakjal Chih? Chaahk is on the above four vessels accredited the ajaw-title of kingship, but bears further two distinct titles that are both frequently present on Codex Style ceramics and often associated with the realm of Calakmul: chih witz?/chih cha’ yajawte’ (Grube 2004: 36-37; Stuart 2014) and chatahn winik. On the Pomona Dish he bears the latter title k’uhul chatahn winik (see Boot 2005: 505-511). This title that appears on numerous Codex-style ceramics and betimes, is combined with the title chan nuun? sak wayis, both of which appear at different sites located in and around the El Mirador Basin (e.g., La Corona, Uxul and Calakmul), and are intimately related to the mighty Kaanu’l court of Calakmul (Barrios & Velásquez García 2010; Grube 2008: 227-229). Although the exact geographic origin of chatahn people still remains opaque, it is tempting to assume their place of origin somewhere in the North-Central Peten region, possibly north of Lake Peten Itza close to the El Mirador Basin (see Boot 2005: 506). The chih witz/chih cha’ yajawte’ and chathan winik titles, as seen on Chakjal Chih? Chaahk’s bowl and the Pomona Dish, seem to have similar functions and the substitution attested here leads us to assume that both titles are part of a mythological concept related to the amalgamation of political power and the rise of ‘ajaw-(ruler)ship’.

The latter dish is known as the Brussels Dish (Matteo 2011), and mentions a female named Ixix Wak Chan Ajaw (II) (Figure 5b), who is identified as the mother of Chakjal Chih? Chaahk by the relationship expression yal (Stuart 1997). Chakjal Chih? Chaahk carries the Namaan Emblem Glyph on both dishes, but his mother’s origin is unknown. Yet she is still a part of the Namaan royal court, and therefore included herein. Another Saxche Orange-polychrome vessel of unknown provenance (Figure 6c, see Hellmuth 1987: 165) bears mention of Chakjal Chih? Chaahk. Although we have no colour photo available, the piece exhibits the same design found on K5193, and the Pomona Dish consisting of circumferential lines in two different colours – most likely red and black. Hellmuth assigns it to the Tepeu 1 complex (A.D. 600-650) (Hellmuth 1987: 165), which corresponds nicely with the Balche Phase discussed above.

The Saxche Orange-polychrome phase is the earliest mark yet of the Namaan court, but this court continued to prosper over the following century. Two skillfully painted Orange-polychrome vessels of similar style were surely produced in the same workshop later during the 7th century. Luís Lopes (2003) already recognized that K1670 (Figure 6f), now at display in the Princeton University Art Museum, was dedicated to the Namaan king Sihyaj Chan K’awiil (VI, Figure 5e). However, the

8

The reign of K’ihnich Waaw can approximately be dated to A.D. 573-628 based on Burial 195 and Stela 8 at Tikal, as well as Stela 8 from Altar de Sacrificios, which support the dating of the Pomona and Brussels dishes at the turn of the 6th century (see Guenter 2002a: 96-100, 303-307; Martin & Grube 2008: 40; Muñoz 2003, 2006; Jørgensen 2012).

99

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

association of a Saxche Orange-polychrome bowl from highland Zaculeu with the Namaan court is proposed here for the first time. The Zaculeu vessel was part of the burial furniture in the tomb under Structure 1 at Zaculeu in the Maya Highlands (Figure 6g) (Woodbury & Trik 1953: 191-193, Figs. 263a, 265s). The similarities in style and design, near identical and very rare PSS, calligraphic similarity and painting methodology, as well as the presence of a Namaan Emblem Glyph on the latter, leads us to suggest that the Zaculeu vessel also hails from a Namaan workshop. If compared to the Piedras Negras ceramic sequence, the vessels clearly belong to the subsequent Yaxche phase A.D. 620750 (Muñoz 2003: 18). That Sihyaj Chan K’awiil reigned during a period of ceramic innovation or transition and maybe even enjoyed relations with far-away courts such as Zaculeu is supported by the recent excavation of a Saxche Orange-polychrome vessel of the Balche Type at La Corona(Canuto and Barrientos 2013). The Balche vessel, originally a Teotihuacan-style tripod, was found in the fill of the palace, dating to the late 7th century, and mentions Sihyaj Chan K’awiil as a k’uhul chatan from Namaan, which means that Sihyaj Chan K'awiil was probably Namaan king in the early-mid 7th century, which dovetails nicely with the Yaxche phase. It is however interesting to note, that Sihyaj Chan K’awiil like Chakjal Chih? Chaahk is equipped with the k’uhul chatahn title, which suggests some sort of continuity in Namaan kings legitimacy to kingship based on a shared mythological narrative. Concerning the surprising presence of a likely Namaan polychrome vessel at Zaculeu, it was probably a prestige item traded or gifted to the Highlands. It raises interesting questions regarding trade routes connecting these regions and intermediate production zones. Especially La Florida’s location along the San Pedro Martir River merits attention, as it surely facilitated the exchange of commodities and ideas between the Usumacinta Valley and the Peten, and even to highland Zaculeu. La Florida is ideally located along this route, and it is not surprising to find Saxche Orangepolychromes as well as other comparable ceramic spheres in its vicinity. Similar but yet distinct Saxche Orange polychrome ceramics were found at nearby La Joyanca (Arnauld et al. 2004, Forné 2005: 436-438), and El Peru (Guenter 2004; Pérez Robbles & Lucia Arroyave 2009: 225-226), associated with the archaeological site of El Zotz and Uaxactun (Smith 1955: Fig. 7f-I; Houston 2008;

100

Zender 2000), and sporadically in the West, as for example at Piedras Negras (see also Muñoz 2003; Pallan Gayol 2010). Allies in the West: The Courts of Namaan and Yokib By the second half of the 7th century, the court of Namaan already played an important role in the regional geopolitical landscape. Several monuments at Piedras Negras attest to the continued interaction between the local Yokib court on the one hand, and the Namaan court on the other. The left side of Piedras Negras Stela 8, the latest monument of K’ihnich Yo’nal Ahk II (Ruler 3, known prior to his inauguration as Kooj or ‘Puma’), relates his birth with his father’s reign (Ruler 2 or Itzam K’an Ahk II), stating that: “youths from the [court of] Namaan [and the] mother of Kooj arrived [at Piedras Negras]” (ihuliiy ch’ok namaan ajaw yanaatz? kooj). 9 Hereby we propose, that the wife of Itzam K’an Ahk II, whose name we tentatively read Ixchuwaj? Sak ? 10 (VII, Figure 5g) originated from La Florida, and arrived in the company of Namaan emissaries. This arrival allegedly took place on 9.11.12.7.2 (Jan. 1st A.D. 665), at the day of K’ihnich Yo’nal Ahk’s birth and nine years before the birth of his future wife, Ixwinikhaab 9

The ya-na-‘BAT’ expression is partly undeciphered. While Jones and colleagues (1989) prefer ‘parent’, Schele (1989: 31) lists ‘mother’. Recently, Christophe Helmke (pers. comm. 2012) suggested that the expression might refer to kin related by marriage, as supported by the lexeme anab, which denotes this general meaning. We follow the generally accepted interpretation of ‘mother’ although the latter idea is promising, it remains to be tested. That the syllable na is intended to be read as testified by the substitution pattern on a fragment of the throne pertaining to Machaquila Structure 4, which uses a variant of T1000. 10 The reading of this name is based on a recent drawing of the left side of Piedras Negras Stela 6 (see Figure 5g). In previous studies, scholars tended to refer to this individual, the mother of K’inich Yo’nal Ahk, with the nickname Lady Sak ‘Bird’, a name that we find improper since the nominal phrase certainly does not begin with Sak and does not resemble the outlines of a bird head, but rather a conflated feline, shark and female head. For the reading of the Feline God of the Underworld we follow a proposal by Luis Lopes as CHUWAJ?. Hence her name can tentatively be transcribed as IX K’UH?-IX? K’UH?IX? CHUWAJ?-SAK ?, but abbreviated for the sake of simplicity as IX CHUWAJ?-SAK, Ixchuwaj? Sak.

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Ajaw of La Florida (X, Figure 4b, 5f) on 9.12.2.0.16 (July 7th A.D. 674). It is, however, somewhat unlikely that the pregnant Ixchuwaj? Sak ? could travel from La Florida to Piedras Negras on the day she gave birth, but not entirely impossible. The arrival of Ixchuwaj? Sak ? at the court of Itzam K’an Ahk II functioned to strengthen the political ties between the two polities. This relationship was consolidated by the more prominent marriage between K’ihnich Yo’nal Ahk II and Ixwinikhaab Ajaw twelve years later. The first part of this important event took place on 9.12.4.10.11 (Nov. 16th A.D. 686), the day when Ixwinikhaab Ajaw of La Florida, underwent a ‘seclusion’ or ‘betrothal’ ritual (mahkaj) (Houston & Stuart 2001: 67; Stuart 1985) under the auspices of Itzam K’an Ahk II, as seen on, for example, Piedras Negras Stela 1, and 3. Itzam K’an Ahk II died just two days later, and three days hereafter the second part of the weddingevent took place: “Ixwinikhaab Ajaw, Namaan Princess was presented before Kooj” (nahwaj ixwinikhaab ajaw namaan ajaw yichnal kooj), likewise attested on Piedras Negras Stelae 1 and 3. Hence the father of K’ihnich Yo’nal Ahk II never witnessed the second ritual, which was instead overseen by a lady from the little-known site of Bik’iil, who might have been his wife. Yet she could also be an unknown wife of K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II if she is the female mentioned in glyph block B3 on the front of Piedras Negras Stela 8. B3 is indiscernible but followed by the relationship expression yatan ‘wife’ (Stuart 1997) in reference to K’inich Yo’nal Ahk II (B4-B5). Curiously enough, however, B3 does not seem to include the mandatory female agentive prefix ix-, and might not be a female. If so, yatan might, in a very unusual way, instead refer back to Ixwinikhaab Ajaw in B2 who here becomes his wife. If this second scenario is preferred, then who is overseeing the event besides the Bik’iil lady? At least three other important events were recorded in the life of Ixwinikhaab Ajaw as testified on Piedras Negras Stela 3. Twelve years after the nahwaj event, she gave birth to Lady Juntahn Ahk who is given the poorly studied k’ihna’ ajaw title, which Marc Zender has tied to Piedras Negras, or its close vicinity (Zender 2002: 170-176). In the course of events, Ixwinikhaab Ajaw takes the throne on which she is shown seated on Stela 3, surely representing an exalted status. Her last recorded action is another nahwaj ‘presentation’ event undertaken by Ixmatawiil?, which she is said to

101

have overseen in 9.14.17.14.17 (A.D. 729); shortly before her husband’s death, as inscribed on Shell 3 from Burial 5 in Structure J-5 (Stuart 1985, 2005: 22, note 1). Due to these records, there is no doubt that Ixwinikhaab Ajaw held high status in the Yokib court. In an effort to understand the crucial link between the rulers of the Yokib and Namaan courts, we must raise an important question: who was the father of Ixwinikhaab Ajaw and contemporary ruler of Namaan? The only known candidate so far is Sihyaj Chan K’awiil (VII), who ruled sometime in the 7th century, approximately when Ixwinikhaab Ajaw was born (A.D. 674). However, on the basis of present evidence this identification remains conjectural, and the question must remain open for debate. The next reference to the Namaan court is painted on an unprovenanced vessel whose origin remains debated (Reents-Budet et al. 1994; Lopes 2003; Reents-Budet & Bishop 2003; Houston 2013: 321). Divine Kings of Namaan and the Rise of K’ahk’ Chan Yopaat Bahlam Uk’awiil The polychrome vessel K2784, now in the Collection of Dumbarton Oaks (Inv.-No. PC.B.564; see Coe 1975; Reents-Budet et al. 1994: 177) shows the consumption of food and beverages at the Namaan court during an audience. The PSS states that the owner is K’ebij Ti Chan, son of Sak Muwaan – the divine king of Ik’. The name of the Namaan king is debatable (Velasquez García 2009: 54; Tokovinine & Zender 2012: 40; Houston 2013: 319), but we propose the following translation for the accompanying glyphic caption: “At night on the day 9 Imix, it is his image seated in front of K’in Witz’? Chaahk, divine King of Namaan, Chief of the land” (XI, Figure 5h). 11 We are unable to place the event in time due to the missing haab, and are left with approximating the life time of K’in Witz’? Chaahk to c. A.D. 682-731 with reference to the reign of Sak Muwaan (A.D. 682-701) and a later Namaan king (see below) (Tokovinine & Zender 2012: 40-41; see also Reents-Budet et al. 2007: 1419; Velásquez García 2009, 2010). This vessel then serves to confirm the existence of a k’uhul ajaw at La Florida at the beginning of the 8th century (Figure 4a), and it documents peaceful interactions between the Namaan and Ik’ courts in this period. 11

Note that the subject of the text is the owner of the vessel, K’ebij Ti Chan, not the Namaan king.

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

K’in Witz’? Chaahk was probably succeeded by the first Namaan king recorded in the local monumental inscriptions of La Florida. La Florida Stela 9, the earliest dated12 and best preserved monument of La Florida (Figure 7b), depicts a high ranking woman 13 in royal garment standing before a tied lid-to-lid cache vessel and a box as her offerings for the stela dedication. The stela is erected in front of Structure 22 in company of Altar G (Figure 7c) as understood by the inscription (patlaj T0174 tuunil), and commemorates the date 9.15.0.0.0 4 Ajaw 13 Yax Sihom (A.D. 731) (see Stuart 1996: 150). The side of the stela facing Altar G depicts a woman with the partially deciphered nominal phrase Ixsaamal? ? Ohl Hu’n? Ixchak ? (XII, Figure 5i). The ya-na-‘BAT’ title succeeds her nominal phrase, and identifies her as the mother of the local Namaan king. The latter is the protagonist on Altar G, here named K’ahk’ Chan Yopaat Bahlam K’awiil (XIII, Figure 5j). Stanley Guenter (n.d.) recognized parts of a similar nominal phrase on Stela 8, which he read Bahlam K’awiil. On Stela 8 and Altar G, the same individual is mentioned by an additional epithet, K’ahk’ ? Chan? Bahlam Uk’awiil (Figure 7d). Yet since the inscription is too eroded and complex to be analyzed in detail in the present chapter, it shall suffice to mention that Bahlam Uk’awiil celebrated the 15th K’atun (A.D. 731), and is named a two score king on Stela 8 (cha’ winikhaab ajaw). Bahlam Uk’awiil is likewise mentioned on an Ik’style polychrome vessel (K5418) in A.D. 756. Here, he is mentioned with his epithet K’ahk’ Yal? Chan Yopaat, and appears as a divine king of Namaan. Around the same time that the Namaan court had amicable interactions with the Ik’ court, the latter was engaged in friendly courtly affairs with the Hix 12

A possible reference to an earlier monumental tradition at La Florida is the mention of a sculptor on the front of El Peru Stela 34, which was erected in 9.13.0.0.0 (A.D. 692, see Wanyerka 1996: 92). The sculptor is here named ? y-ajaw ‘HEAD’ man ajaw, but as previously shown, this could be part of a nominal phrase, and should be treated with caution. However, due to the close vicinity of El Peru to La Florida and the favorable river route through the San Pedro Martir River, an assumed scenario of a sculptor from La Florida leaving his signature on a monument dedicated to a noble woman of El Peru remains a plausible hypothesis. 13 Additionally, a hitherto unrecognized record of a female individual appears on La Florida Stela 5 (see Graham 1970), but unfortunately only the female qualifier ix can clearly be identified.

Witz court (associated with Zapote Bobal/El Pajaral and La Joyanca, see Stuart 2003) (K2803, see Lopes 2003: 13, Martin & Reents-Budet 2011). However, Hix Witz was involved in a conflict with Ruler 4 of Piedras Negras, which ended in the decapitation of ? Chan Ahk of Hix Witz (Martin & Grube 2008: 150). This complex geopolitical landscape begs the question: on which side did the allegiance of Bahlam Uk’awiil of La Florida lie? The last mention of Bahlam Uk’awiil is on Stela 7, which commemorates the period ending 9.16.15.0.0 (A.D. 766), which earned him the title four score king. Thus, Bahlam Uk’awiil reigned for at least 45 years (A.D. 721-766), and surely influenced the adjacent regions in the Upper Usumacinta during a period of transaction and increased warfare. An important ancestor to Bahlam Uk’awiil, with the name Jal? Ti’ Kuy (IX, Figure 5k), is also prominently mentioned on Altar G. Bahlam Uk’awiil deliberately choose to associate himself with his grandfather who carries the chan sak wayis title associated with supernatural entities, magic, and personified illnesses (Houston & Stuart 1989; Zender 2004: 200-202; Helmke & Nielsen 2009; Barrios & Velásquez 2010). Jal? Ti’ Kuy must have lived around the end of the 7th century onwards – an estimate arrived at by counting two generations back from Bahlam Uk’awiil. Interestingly, a Namaan king with the strikingly similar name phrase K’ahk’ Ti’ Kuy (VIII, Figure 5l) is recorded on Yaxchilan Lintel 45 roughly the same time in A.D. 681. He is ascribed an overlord status to the captive Aj Nik of Itzam Bahlam III, divine king of Yaxchilan. The capture of Aj Nik? was of much importance to Itzam Bahlam III, since ‘captor of Aj Nik’ remains one of his favourite titles (Mathews 1989: 161). This owes to the struggles for geopolitical control of the Usumacinta region by Yaxchilan and Piedras Negras, where La Florida was tied to the latter polity. The Demise of the Namaan Court As previously noted, Itzam Bahlam III of Yaxchilan waged war against a Namaan subordinate in A.D. 681, and it was his later namesake that orchestrated the only other known campaigns against La Florida (Safronov 2005). The impressive Yaxchilan Hieroglyphic Stairway 5 of Structure 20 records the military success of Itzam Bahlam IV and Namaan figures twice within the year A.D. 796 (Mathews

102

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Figure 7.7: A selection of La Florida monuments: a) Stela 2, b) Stela 7, c) Altar G, d) detail of Stela 8 (preliminary drawings by Guido Krempel).

1989: Table 8-3, Safronov 2005). 14 In both attacks, the captive is named “he of Namaan” (XIV, glyph block 40 and 56) (Figure 4a) but cannot be identified more precisely. Through the campaigns of 14

Peter Mathews worked out the chronology of the stairway shortly after its discovery by Roberto García Moll, providing 9.18.5.14.0 and 9.18.6.5.11 for the two chuhkaj events (Jun. and Dec. A.D. 796, respectively) (Mathews 1989: Table 8-3).

103

Itzam Bahlam IV and his farther, Yaxchilan became the dominating factor in the Usumacinta and eventually managed to sack Piedras Negras in A.D. 808 (Martin & Grube 2008: 137, 153). No monumental references from La Florida are registered after the attacks from Yaxchilan, and another by-product of the political downfall seems to have been the declining quality of ceramic production. A vessel, now in the William College Collection (Zender n.d.), carries a Namaan Emblem

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Final Remarks

strengthened by the coupling of Ixchuwaj? Sak ? with Itzam K’an Ahk II, the arrival of Namaan nobles, and the marriage of Ixwinikhaab Ajaw into the Yokib court, integrating Namaan into the political struggle of its ally during this period of time. From what can be discerned so far, this part of the local history is not traceable through the study of the monuments of La Florida, and it is not until the end of the lifetime of Ixwinikhaab Ajaw and her husband (A.D. 729-764), that several monuments record the reign of Bahlam Uk’awiil, the divine lord of Namaan who seemingly marks the height of the Namaan court. Thus, we propose that the Namaan court already gained considerable political autonomy by the turn of the 7th century; a fact that is supported by close contact to, for example Motul de San José, on polychrome ceramics. The last references to members of the Namaan court are two consecutive attacks in A.D. 796 by Itzam Bahlam IV, marking the beginning of the downfall of the Namaan polity. Thus, throughout the entire Late Classic Period, the court of Namaan continued as a major player to reckon with concerning the struggle on territorial expansion in the Upper Usumacinta Valley. Yet our current understanding relies exclusively on the epigraphic data, and it can only be hoped that future archaeological investigations at La Florida will unveil more about the history of the Namaan court.

As has been shown, the dynastic history of Namaan is recorded by ceramic and monumental texts. Hallmarks of the early Namaan court are ceramics of a particular Saxche Orange-polychrome variety, rendered in a distinctive regional style. A stylistic comparison and epigraphic analysis of these works of art revealed a total of seven members of the Namaan court. While three of these individuals can clearly be identified as local Namaan rulers, others were relatives that can likewise be dated to the 7th century. It can thus be assumed that the court of Namaan was already well established at this period, and we expect it to have existed earlier still. The high quality of ceramics and their distribution suggests that La Florida was involved in a wide trading network; thereby passing ideas and commodities from the Eastern Peten to the Upper Usumacinta, and even reaching the Southern Highlands. We likewise propose that the Namaan court established friendly ties to the Yokib court as early as the 6th century (even prior to the reign of Itzam K’an Ahk II). This bond was surely

Acknowledgements: We want to thank Alexander Safronov, Charles Golden, David Stuart, Erik Boot, Luís Lopes, Paulino Morales, Péter Bíró, Nikolai Grube, Stanley Guenter, and Yuriy Polyukhovich for fruitful discussions and comments. A separate thanks goes to Barbara Fash and the CHMI for Graham’s photos of the La Florida inscriptions, Justin Kerr for high resolution photos of K5418, Christian Heck for his valuable photos of the La Florida ruins and monuments, Dimitri Beliaev, Erik García Velásquez, Ana Barrios, and Sebastián Matteo for letting us read their unpublished manuscripts, Rahapel Tunesi for permitting us to publish his photo of the bowl belonging to the son of Chakjal Chih? Chaahk, Tomás Barrientos and the Shook Archive at the Universidad del Valle in Guatemala for help and permission to study the notebooks of Edwin M. Shook, Bryan Just and the Princeton Museum for permission to publish K1670, and Inga Calvin for letting us publish K30066. Finally, we would especially like to thank the editors of the present volume for having invited us to contribute this chapter on the Namaan court and for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper. As always, unless otherwise stated, the opinions expressed in this paper are the sole responsibility of the authors.

Glyph, but is made by a less skilful artist compared to the earlier vessels. The bowl has diagnostic vertical grooved and moulded sides, which gives the vessel a gourd-like appearance. The vessel is cream slipped with red paint, which differentiates it from the other known Namaan vessels. The manufacturing technique is called gadrooning and is found at Uaxactun A.D. 825< (Tepeu 3, Smith 1955: 45, Fig. 3a,j, 24b, 44s), Seibal A.D. 830-928 (Sabloff 1970: 377-381, Fig. 57-58; 1975: 205, Fig. 397; Willey et al. 1975: 42), Altar de Sacrificios A.D. 909-948 (Adams 1971: Table 26, Fig. 66f, 66n, 66s), and at Piedras Negras A.D. 850-900? (Muñoz 2004; 2006: 167-169, 349). As with the previously discussed Namaan vessels, we follow the ceramic sequence at nearby Piedras Negras (see also Jørgensen 2012: 68-69). The bowl belonged to an individual bearing an elusive name, ? ? Ch’aho’m Kokan Kab (XV, Figure 5m), and an odd titular phrase, jun winikhaab ch’aho’m winikhaab ? cha’ winikhaab namaan ajaw. Examining the long titular phrase and the poor quality of the vessel, it gives the impression of a faltering Namaan royal court fighting to preserve a legitimate right to rule around the first half of the 9th century, and probably shortly hereafter followed the demise of the Southern Maya Lowlands.

104

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

References Cited:

Canuto, Marcello & Tomás Barrientos 2013 Hallazgos e Interpretaciones Recientes en el Sitio La Corona y el Noroccidente de Petén. Paper presented at the XXVII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Guatemala City. Clancy, Flora Simmons 2009 The monuments of Piedras Negras: An Ancient Maya City. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Coe, Michael D. 1975 Classic Maya Pottery at Dumbarton Oaks. Dumbarton Oaks Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C. Culbert, Patrick T. 1993 Tikal Report No. 25, Part A: The Ceramics of Tikal; Vessels From the Burials, Caches and Problematical Deposits. University Museum Monograph 81. University Museum & University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Forné, Mélanie 2005 La Chronologie céramique de La Joyanca, nord-oust du Petén, Guatemala. 2 vols. Ph.D. dissertation, Université Paris I, Paris. Freidel, David, Linda Schele & Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on a Shaman’s Path. William Morrow & Co., New York. García, Edgar V. 1996 Breve reconocimiento en el suroeste de Petén: Acercamiento preliminar (ríos San Pedro Martír-Pasion-Usumacinta. IX Symposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1995, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte & Hector Escobedo, pp. 59-78. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City. Gifford, James C. 1960 The Type-Variety Method of Ceramic Classification as an Indicator of Cultural Phenomena. American Antiquity, Vol. 25 (3): 341-347. Graham, Ian 1970 The Ruins of La Florida, Peten, Guatemala. Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, edited by William R. Bullard, pp. 427-455. Papers of the Peabody Museum Vol. 61, Harvard University, Cambridge. 2010 The Road to Ruins. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Grube, Nikolai 1996 Palenque in the Maya World. Eighth Palenque Round Table, 1993, edited by Merle Greene Robertson, pp. 1-14. PreColumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.

Anaya Hernández, Armado 2001 Site Interaction and Political Geography in the Upper Usumacinta Region During the Late Classic: A GIS Approach. BAR International Series 994. J. and E. Hedges, Oxford. Arnauld, Charlotte, Véronique Breuil-Martínez & Erick Ponciano Alvarado 2004 La Joyanca (La Libertad, Guatemala): Antigua ciudad maya del noroeste del Petén. Asociación Tikal, Guatemala City. Baron, Joanne 2014a La Florida/Namaan: The Site, its Monuments, and Directions for Future Research. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the authors. 2014b La Florida: Treasures of the Ancients Under Our Feet. Explorers Journal: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2 014/08/28/la-florida-treasures-of-theancients-under-our-feet/ [Accessed: August 28th 2014] Barrios, Ana & Erik Velásquez García 2010 Artistas, Gobernantes y Magos: El Papel de los “Chatan Winik” en la sociedad Maya. Paper presented the 15th European Maya Conference, Madrid. Manuscript in the possession of the authors. Beliaev, Dimitri 1999 Some Thoughts on Man. Unpublished manuscript in the possession of the authors. 2008 Piedras Negras y Palenque en el Clásico Tardío. Paper presented at the Sixth Palenque Round Table, Chiapas, Mexico. Manuscript in the possession of the authors. Bíró, Péter 2009 Classic Maya (AD 300-900) Political History and Political Organisation in the Western Maya Region: An Inscriptional Analysis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, La Trobe University, Melbourne. Boot, Erik 2004 Classic Maya plates identified with a rare vessel type spelled as ya-ja ji-b’i and ya-jala ji[b’i]. Wayeb Notes No. 12. 2005 Continuity and Change in Text and Image at Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico: A Study of the Inscriptions, Iconography, and Architecture at a Late Classic to Early Postclassic Maya Site. CNWS, Leiden. Canter, Ronald L. 2007 Rivers among the Ruins: The Usumacinta. The PARI Journal, Vol. 7 (3): 1-24.

105

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

2004

Cuidades perdidas mayas. Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. XII (67): 32-37. 2008 Monumentos esculpidos: epigrafía e iconografía. Recnonocimiento arqueológico en el sureste del estado de Campeche, México: 1996-2005, edited Ivan Sprajč, pp. 177-231. Paris Monographs in American Archaeology 19. BAR International Series 1742. Archaeopress, Oxford. Grube, Nikolai & Werner Nahm 1994 A Census of Xibalba: A complete Inventory of “Way” Characters on Maya Ceramics. The Maya Vase Book: A Corpus of Rollout Photographs of Maya Vases, Vol. 4, edited by Justin Kerr, pp. 686-715. Kerr Associates, New York. Golden, Charles 2010 Frayed at the Edges: Collective Memory and History on the Borders of Classic Maya Polities. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 21: 374-384. Golden, Charles & Andrew Sherer 2006 Border Problems: Recent Archaeological Research along the Usumacinta River. The PARI Journal, Vol. 7 (2): 1-16. Guenter, Stanley 1998 Where is Man? The case for La Florida. Unpublished manuscript cited in Zender 2002. 2002a Under a Falling Star: The Hiatus at Tikal. Unpublished M.A. thesis, La Trobe University, Melbourne. 2002b A Reading of the Cancuén Looted Panel. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/ features/cancuen/Panel.pdf. Hellmuth, Nicolas M. 1987 Monster und Menchen in der Maya-Kunst: Eine Ikonographie der alten Religionen Mexikos und Guatemalas. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt Graz, Graz. Helmke, Christophe, Jaime Awe & Cameron Griffith 2003 El arte rupestre de Belice. Arte Rupestre de México Oriental y América Central, edited by Martin Künne & Matthias Strecker. Indiana Supplement Vol. 16. Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin. pp. 97-117. Hopkins, Nicholas A. & J. Kathryn Josserand in press Directions and Partitions in Maya World View. Festschrift for Terrence S. Kaufman, edited by Thomas Smith-Stark & Roberto Zavala. Houston, Stephen D. 2008 In the Shadow of a Giant. Research at El Zotz, Guatemala. Mesoweb: http://www. Mesoweb.com/zotz/articles/Shadow-of-aGiant.pdf.

106

2009

A Splendid Predicament: Young Men in Classic Maya Society. Cambridge Archaeological Journal, Vol. 19 (2): 149-178. 2012 Painted Vessel. Ancient Maya Art at Dumbarton Oaks, edited by Joanne Pilsbury, Miriam Doutriaux, Reiko Ishihara-Britto & Alexandre Tokovinine, pp. 314-321. Pre-Columbian Art at Dumbarton Oaks, Number 4. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. Houston, Stephen D. & David Stuart 1989 The Way Glyph: Evidence for “Coessences” among the Classic Maya. Research Reports on Ancient Maya Writing, No. 30. Center for Maya Research, Washington, D.C. Hunn, Eugene S. 1977 Tzeltal Folk Zoology: The Classification of Discontinuities in Nature. Academic Press, New York. Jackson, Sarah 2005 Deciphering Classic Maya Political Hierarchy: Epigraphic, Archaeological, and Ethnohistoric Perspectives on the Courtly elite. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge. Jones, Tom 1988 The Serpent Segment Glyph: Its Sound and Sense. U Mut Maya II, edited by Tom Jones & Carolyn Jones, pp. 179-185. Kinkos of Acrata, California. Jones, Tom, Carolyn Jones & Randa Marhenke 1990 Blood Cousins: The Xok-Balam Connection at Yaxchilan. U Mut Maya III, edited by Tom Jones & Carolyn Jones, pp. 99-114. Kinkos of Acrata, California. Jørgensen, Mads S. 2012 The Royal Court of Namaan (La Florida, Peten, Guatemala): An Epigraphic Study of History and Politics at a Late Classic Maya Court. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute for Cross-cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Kettunen, Harri & Bon V. Davis II 2004 Snakes, Centipedes, Snakepedes, and Centiserpents: Conflation of Liminal Species in Maya Iconography and Ethnozoology. Wayeb Notes No. 9. Krempel, Guido 2011 Notes on Stela 2 of La Florida, Peten, Guatemala. Mexicon Vol. XXXIII (1): 7-10. Krempel, Guido & Albert Davletshin 2011 Two polychrome drinking vessels for cacao in the The Chocolate Museum Cologne, Germany. Mexicon, Vol. XXXIII (3): 2632.

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Lacadena, Alfonso 2004 On the Reading of Two Glyphic Appelatives of the Rain God. Continuity and Change: Maya Religious Practices in Temporal Perspective; 5th European Maya Conference, University of Bonn, December 2000, edited by Daniel Graña Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager, Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel & Elizabeth Wagner, pp. 87-100. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 14. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Lacadena, Alfonso & Søren Wichmann 2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya Writing. The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann, pp. 100-162. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. LeCount, Lisa 1999 Polychrome Pottery and Political Strategies in Late and Terminal Classic Lowland Maya Society. Latin American Antiquity, Vol. 10 (3): 239-258. Lopes, Luis 2003 The Maan Polity in Maya Inscriptions. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the authors. Martin, Simon 1996 Calakmul y el enigma del glifo Cabeza de Serpiente. Arqueología Mexicana, Vol. 3 (18): 42-45. 2003 Moral-Reforma y la contienda por el oriente de Tabasco. Arquelología Mexicana, Vol. 61: 44-47. Martin, Simon & Nikolai Grube 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya, revised edition. Thames & Hudson, London. Martin, Simon & Dorie Reents-Budet 2011 A Hieroglyphic Block from the Region of Hiix Witz, Guatemala. The PARI Journal, Vol. XI (1): 1-6. Mathews, Peter L. 1989 The Sculpture of Yaxchilan. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. Matteo, Sebastián in press Un plato policromo maya en las colecciones de los Museos de Bruselas, originario de Namaan-La Florida, Petén, Guatemala. Bulletin des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire, Parc du Cinquanenaire, Bruxelles. Michelet, Dominique (ed.) 2011 Maya: de l’aube au crepuscule. Collections nationales de Guatemala. Somogy éditions d’art, Musée du Quai Branly, Paris.

107

Moore, Dan R. 1982 A phonetic reading of xaman in The Maya Inscriptions. U Mut Maya II, edited by Tom Jones & Carolyn Young, pp. 169-174. University of Texas, Austin. Morales, Paulino L. 1998 Asentamientos prehispánicos en El Naranjo-Frontera, La Libertad, Petén. XI Simposio de Investigations Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1997, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte & Héctor Escobedo, pp. 128-143. Mueso Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City. Morley, Sylvanus G. 1944 Diary of Sylvanus Griswold Morley – Central American Expeditions, Part 2. Manuscript in the American Association Library. Muñoz, Arturo René 2003 The Ceramic Sequence of Piedras Negras, Guatemala: Type and Varieties. Report submitted to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies. FAMSI: http://www.famsi.org/reports/ 02055/02055Munoz01.pdf 2006 Power, Production and Prestige: Technological Change in the Late Classic Ceramics of Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona, Flagstaff. Pérez Robbles, Griselda & Ana Lucía Arroyave 2009 Tipología Cerámica Preliminar de El Perú. Proyecto Arqueológico El Perú-Waka’: Informe No. 5, Temporada 2007, edited by Héctor L. Escobedo, Juan Carlos Meléndez & David Freidel, pp. 207-260. Southern Methodist University, Dallas. Prager, Christian 2006 Is T236 a Logograph for NA:M “hide, to go out of sight”?. Unpublished manuscript in possession of the authors. Pallan Gayol, Carlos 2010 The Classic Court of Itzam K’an Ahk of Piedras Negras: New Information on a Vessel from the Yaxche Phase with Hieroglyphic Dedicatory Formula. The PARI Journal, Vol. 10 (4): 1-10. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1950 A Study of Classic Maya Sculpture. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pub. 593. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Reents-Budet, Dorie & Ronald L. Bishop 2003 What can we learn from a Maya Vase? High-tech analysis enables once-enigmatic ceramic vessels to tell their tales. Archaeology, Vol. 56 (2): 26-30.

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

Reents-Budet, Dorie, Ronald L. Bishop, Jennifer T. Taschek & Joseph W. Ball 2000 Out of the Palace Dumps: Ceramic Production and use at Buenavista del Cayo. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 11: 99-121. Reents-Budet, Dorie, Antonia E. Foias, Ronald L. Bishop, M. James Blackman & Stanley Guenter 2007 Interacciones políticas y el sitio Ik’ (Motul de San José): datos de la cerámica. XX Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2006, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Barbara Arroyo & Hector Mejía, pp. 1416-1436. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala City. Reents-Budet, Dorie, Joseph W. Ball, Ronald L. Bishop, Virginia Fields & Barbara MacLeod 1994 Painting the Maya Universe: Royal Ceramics of the Classic Period. Duke University Press, Durham. Schele, Linda & Mary E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. George Brazilier, New York. Safronov, Alexander 2005 The Yaxchilan Wars in the Reign of Itzamnaaj B’alam IV (771-ca. 800). Wars and Conflicts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Peter Eeckhout, pp. 50-57. BAR International Series 1385. Archaeopress, Oxford. Shook, Edwin M. 1943 Field Notes of Edwin M. Shook, Book 286. Petén, centro y este de Guatemala y El Salvador. Department of Archaeology, Universidad del Valle, Guatemala. Smith, Robert E. 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle American Research Institute Publication 20. Tulane University, New Orleans. Smith, Robert E., Gordon R. Willey & James C. Gifford 1960 The Type-Variety Concept as a Basis for the Analysis of Maya Pottery. American Antiquity, Vol. 25 (3): 330-340. Société Générale du Banque (ed.) 1977 Art de Mésoameérique/Meso-Amerikaanse Kunst. Société Générale du Banque, Bruxelles. Stuart, David 1985 The Inscriptions on Four Shell Plaques from Piedras Negras. Fourth Palenque Round Table, 1980, Vol. VI, edited by Merle G. Robertson & Elizabeth P. Benson, pp 175-184. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 1996 Kings of Stone: A consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 29/30: 148-171.

1997

Kinship Terms in Maya Inscriptions. The Languages of Maya Hieroglyphs, edited by Martha Macri & Anabel Ford, p. 1-11. PreColumbian Art Research Institue, San Francisco. 2003 La identificación de Hixwitz. Paper presented at the XV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala. 2005 The Inscriptions from Temple XIX at Palenque: A Commentary. The PreColumbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. 2014 A Possible Sign for Metate. Maya Decipherment: http://www.decipherment. wordpress.com/2014/02/04/a-possiblesign-for-metate/ Teufel, Stefanie 2004 Die Monumentalskulpturen von Piedras Negras, Petén, Guatemala: Eine hieroglyphische und ikonographischikonologische Analyse. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Rheinische-Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität Bonn, Bonn. Tokovinine, Alexander & Marc U. Zender 2012 Lords of Windy Water: The Royal Court of Motul de San José in Classic Maya Inscriptions. Motul de San José: Politics, History, and Economy in a Classic Maya Polity, edited by Antonia E. Foias & Kitty F. Emery, p. 30-66. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Velásquez García, Erik 2009 Los señores de la entidad política de ’ik’. Estudios de Cultura Maya, Vol. 34: 45-64. 2010 Gobernantes Simultáneos en el Señorío de Ik’: Evidencia Epigráfica de un Sistema Atípico de Organización Política en la Región del Lago Petén Itzá. Paper presented at the XXII Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas de Guatemala. Manuscript in the possession of the authors. Wanyerka, Phil 1996 A Fresh Look at a Maya Masterpiece. Cleveland Studies in the History of Art, Vol. 1: 72-97. Watanabe, John M. 1983 In the World of the Sun: A Cognitive Model of Mayan Cosmology. Man, Vol. 18 (4): 710-728. Weeks, John M. (ed.) 2006 The Carnegie Maya. The Carnegie Institution of Washington Maya Research Program, 1913-1957, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Wichmann, Søren 2004 The Names of Some Major Classic Maya Gods. Continuity and Change: Maya

108

THE LATE CLASSIC MAYA COURT OF NAMAAN (LA FLORIDA, GUATEMALA)

Religious Practices in Temporal Perspective; 5th European Maya Conference, University of Bonn, December 2000, edited by Daniel Graña Behrens, Nikolai Grube, Christian M. Prager Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel & Elizabeth Wagner, pp. 77-86. Acta Mesoamericana, Vol. 14, Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Woodbury, Richard B. & Aubrey S. Trik 1953 The Ruins of Zaculeu Guatemala. 2 vols. The William Byrd Press, Richmond. Zender, Marc 2000 A Study of two Uaxactun-Style TamaleServing Vessels. The Maya Vase Book, Vol. 6, edited by Justin Kerr & Barbara Kerr, pp. 1038-1055. Kerr Associates, New York.

2002

n.d.

The Toponyms of El Cayo, Piedras Negras, and La Mar. Heart of Creation: The Mesoamerican world and the legacy of Linda Schele, edited by Andrea Stone, pp. 166-184. The University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Comments on the Inscription of the Williams College Vessel (K8713). Unpublished manuscript in possession of the authors.

Zorich, Zach 2011 Defending a Jungle Kingdom. Archaeology, Vol. 64 (5): 34.

109

MADS SKYTTE JØRGENSEN & GUIDO KREMPEL

110

Chapter 8: Royal Bundle Ceremonies at Yaxchilan Rikke Marie Søegaard

How did the Late Classic royal court at Yaxchilan use the bundles depicted on six carved limestone lintels at the site? What role did the bundles play in those ceremonies? And is it possible to come closer to an understanding of what the contents of the bundles were? In this chapter I present what we know of these bundles from several decades of academic research. I explore images, hieroglyphic writing, archaeological finds, historical sources and ethnographic material in an integrative approach, because only by addressing all available data can we hope to draw conclusions on the enigmatic bundles. I also opt for a regional approach, as opposed to the Mesoamerican or cross-cultural approach often employed in research on ritual bundles, because I find the regional data to be underrepresented in the literature. In light of this collective sample of data, I am able to suggest new interpretations of images and translations, and offer a new hypothesis on the ritual function of the bundles at Yaxchilan. Mesoamerican Palaces and What Went on inside Them This anthology centres on Mesoamerican palaces and court culture. It could take an entire chapter in itself to define ‘palace’, and how we determine an archaeologically excavated building as such. In the city centres of the larger Mesoamerican sites, we find many structures, some large, some small, some beautifully decorated, and some plain. Some of these buildings were used for residential purposes and some for more esoteric purposes, such as temples. For the purpose of this chapter, it is not really important to go into stringent details about the particular function of a given archaeological structure. What is important is that the subject I discuss here revolves around the activities practised by the royal court in and around these structures. Specifically I explore a particular ritual or ceremonial practice performed by kings and queens involving a small bundle of something wrapped in cloth. Scholars have contemplated the contents and function of these

111

bundles for decades, and I will try to include as many of the previous hypothesis in this chapter as possible, as well as pose a few ideas of my own. The vantage point of this chapter will be the Classic Maya site of Yaxchilan situated in modern day Chiapas, Mexico right upon the Usumacinta River. Here we find the highest density of imagery of bundles in all the Maya area. I will examine and present the contextual evidence available to us from a number of sub disciplines such as iconography, epigraphy, archaeology, history and ethnography. I will further discuss what we may learn of the use and contents of these bundles when we tie all this data together. Where? At the time of the Classic period (ca. A.D. 250-900) the Maya inhabited both highland and lowland territory extending the entire Yucatan Peninsula as well as vast portions of the mainland, an area covered by present day Southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize and Western Honduras. Yaxchilan is situated in the tropical central lowlands with a prime location at a prominent oxbow in the Usumacinta River. The river would have made for excellent trade and transportation purposes, and would have served a natural defence line as well. The great city centre was built on a large flat area close to the bank and extended up a hill. The Lintels with Bundles The curious bundles feature in six limestone lintels elaborately carved with imagery depicting detailed performance and hieroglyphic writing. The lintels comprise Lintels 1, 5, 7, 32, 53 and 54 (Figure 8.1). They were placed in the following structures: Structure 1: Lintels 5 and 7 Structure 55: Lintel 53 Structure 13: Lintel 32 Structure 33: Lintel 1 Structure 54: Lintel 54

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

Figure 8.1: Yaxchilan lintels depicting bundles: a) Lintel 5, b) Lintel 7, c) Lintel 32, d) Lintel 1, e) Lintel 53 and f) Lintel 54 (drawings by Ian Graham, after Graham & Von Euw 1977; reproduced by permission of the President and Fellows of Harvard College).

112

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

The Scene The lintels all feature two individuals whom we know to be a king and a queen (Martin & Grube 2000: 128-137), although not the same king and queen, but I will return to that below. In all the images the king is dancing with a staff in his hand, while the queen stands still cradling the bundle in her arms. A written record framing the images describes the nature of the events, the dates and the individuals present, as is common for Maya writing from this period. The information we may gather from these lintels is extremely valuable and at the same time too scarce to actually determine what the purpose of these performances were, or what was contained in the bundles. We therefore need additional modes of investigation, if we want to approach this issue further, but let me first present some of the previous thoughts on the matter. Previous Research The function and contents of subject to several inquiries Proskouriakoff (1963: 164) dowry and the ceremony as marriage alliance.

the bundles have been in the past. Tatiana saw the bundles as an establishment of a

Merle Greene Robertson (1972: 1) suggested there was a strong connection between lintels depicting bloodletting ceremonies and the six lintels from Yaxchilan. She argued that archaeological finds of cached bloodletting implements, that appeared to have been wrapped in cloth, could shed light on the contents of depicted or iconographic bundles. She concluded that instruments for bloodletting were the contents of the Yaxchilan bundles. Her ideas found wide acceptance in Mayanist circles especially up until the 1990s (Schele & Freidel 1990: 289, 293300; Schele & Miller 1983: 63-64; Tate 1992: 93), but the bloodletting-implement hypothesis is still repeated as a fact in newer publications (Megged 2010: 138). Brian Stross (1988) instead proposed that bundle ceremonies were associated with the king’s accession to office and that the bundles contained his royal insignia. This suggestion is based on the reading of a glyph that sometimes captions the depicted bundles, something that I will return to later in this chapter. The glyph is i-ka-tzi, ikaatz (see Figure 8.1a and d). Stross read this as ‘burden’ or ‘cargo’ based on glosses in Tzeltal, ihkatz, ‘load,

113

burden’, and Tzotzil, ikatzil, ‘cargo, load, burden’ and in modern Maya culture this is a metaphor for office holding (Stross 1988: 118). Since then, David Stuart has proposed a different reading of ihkaatz. He suggests that the term refers to jadeite finery and consequently goes on to interpret the bundles as the containers of precious greenstone objects (Stuart 2006: 128-137). Recently Maricela Ayala Falcón (2010: 40) noted the great variation in the existing depictions of bundle ceremonies from the Maya area. According to her the bundles displayed at Yaxchilan contained objects used for the particular events celebrated, such as accession, period ending and marriage. Ayala Falcón (2002: 141-146) has also investigated cached offerings from Tikal that were probably wrapped in cloth. She argues that certain contents, such as shells, bloodletting instruments, jadeite and obsidian, were symbols of specific deities (of particular triad deities), and that the wrapping of these sacred items was equivalent to enclosing the name and power of that patron deity (Ayala Falcón 2002: 141-146). Maya scholars no longer believe the Yaxchilan bundles contained dowry, and the translation of ikaatz as ‘burden’ or ‘cargo’ is not generally accepted anymore either. The remaining propositions may all still hold water or be partially true. Leaving the physical contents of bundles temporarily aside, there is a general consensus that the bundles contained a magical substance of power variously called energy, ch’ulel (a modern Tzeltal term, although some ascribe the notion or concept to the Classic Maya as well; Stross 2008: 17), and thought to be essentially comparable to the Polynesian mana. A number of scholars believe the Maya swaddled valuable objects in cloth so as to contain this magical power lest it escape and cause danger (Guernsey 2006: 22; Guernsey & Reilly 2006: iv; Newsome 2003: 38; Pohl 2000: 346; Reents-Budet 2006: 107; Stuart 1996: 157; Stenzel 1968; Stuart 2006: 132). Scholars base this notion mostly on Werner Stenzel’s work (1968). 1 Stenzel took a comparative and diachronic approach to the 1

This article is based on an unpublished dissertation in German, which undoubtedly provides much more detail and discussion of each case.

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

question of the meaning and function of bundles. He included examples from most Mesoamerican cultures past and present (except for the Maya Lowlands) and from North America as well. He drew on Mixtec and Aztec codices, Spanish chronicles and ethnographic material. This broad scope certainly gives the impression that the function and meaning of bundles is and was quite similar in these different cultures; also his work gives the impression that a common concept prevailed all over Mesoamerica that continued unchanged from Pre-Columbian times to the present. Unfortunately the regional data lacks depth. We are left to wonder whether the ritual structure and symbolism used was analogous between the various cultures investigated, and whether the bundle ceremonies performed originated in similar events and were ascribed analogous effects. I have found that we may refine a hypothesis further by compiling all the data now available for the Maya area alone, and will now delve into the analysis of the six Yaxchilan lintels. I will start with the people involved, the high members of the royal court, the kings and queens of Yaxchilan. Who? The individuals involved in the six limestone lintels comprise both the kings and queens depicted, and the kings who were responsible for commissioning the lintels. In the case of most of the lintels, these were not the same. However, we cannot ascertain who commissioned the lintels before we establish a timeline. I will therefore return to this part of the question, once I have dealt with the question of when the lintels were manufactured.

Four of these lintels portray Bird Jaguar IV, who ruled from A.D. 752 to 768. In three of the lintels his primary wife and mother of his heir flank him. On Lintel 5 the artist portrayed Lady Six Sky as bearer of the bundle, a foreign woman probably joined in alliance to Yaxchilan through her marriage with the king (Mathews 1988: 221). On Lintels 53 and 32 the artist depicted the parents of Bird Jaguar IV, Shield Jaguar III with his wife Lady Ik’ Skull of Calakmul. Shield Jaguar III was the longest ruling king in Yaxchilan and sat on the throne for more than 60 years from A.D. 681 to 742 (Martin & Grube 2000: 122-128). When? The lintels each have two dates – one is the date carved on the lintel, the other is the time when the lintel was actually produced. The Classic Maya rulers often commemorated events in the past, and repeatedly re-enacted them at certain intervals in their Long Count calendar (see Helmke 2010: 5 for a discussion of the repitition of events portrayed at Yaxchilan). Therefore a date on a monument did not always coincide with the time it was executed. The latter is important because it reveals, who commissioned the monuments, and we may speculate as to the motives behind the message communicated in any given monument. History becomes so much more interesting, when it is made up of more than just dates. In reality history is the accumulated actions of every individual, who ever lived. The dates and events inscribed are as follows: • •

The kings and queens depicted were: •

•

•

Lintels 53 and 32: Itzamnaaj Bahlam III (also known as Shield Jaguar III) and his wife, Lady Uh Jolom Chanil (also known as Lady Ik’ Skull). Lintels 1, 7 and 54: Yaxun Bahlam IV (a.k.a. Bird Jaguar IV) and one of his four wives, Lady Chaak Ix Jolom (a.k.a. Lady Great Skull). Lintel 5: Yaxun Bahlam IV (Bird Jaguar IV) and his other wife, Lady Wak Jalam Chan Ajaw of the Ik’ polity (a.k.a. Lady Six Sky of Motul de San José (Mathews 1988: 221).

114

• • • •

9.13.5.12.13 7 Ben 16 Mak (Oct. 31st, A.D. 679): Lintel 32 unknown event 9.13.5.12.13 7 Ben 16 Mak (Oct. 31st, A.D. 679): Lintel 53 unknown event 9.16.1.0.0 11 Ajaw 8 Sek (May 3rd, A.D. 752): Lintel 1 accession of Bird Jaguar IV 9.16.1.2.0 12 Ajaw 8 Yaxk’in (June 12th, A.D. 752): Lintel 5 2 winal anniversary of accession 9.16.1.8.8 10 Lamat 16 Mak (Oct. 18th, A.D. 752): Lintel 7 event linked to Lintel 6 9.16.5.0.0 8 Ajaw 8 Sotz’ (Apr. 12th, A.D. 756): Lintel 54 Period Ending

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

The date on Lintel 32 has been under debate. It only records the Calendar Round (CR), of which only # Ben 16 Mak is visible. As discussed by Mathews (1988: 212) scholars have disagreed on the reading of the coefficient of the Tzolk’in day of Ben, but most agree that it is probably the same as on Lintel 53 because of the overall similarities of these lintels. Here the date inscribed is 7 Ben 16 Mak. Proskouriakoff (1963:164) believed this was a scribal error and that 6 Ben was intended. Proskouriakoff argued that there was a discrepancy in the date 7 Ben 16 Mak. Shield Jaguar III in the written text is given the title 5 Katun Ajaw, but 7 Ben 16 Mak fails to produce a Long Count (LC) date within this ruler’s 5th Katun. If changed to 6 Ben, Proskouriakoff argued, we would reach a possible LC date of either 9.13.17.15.13 (Oct. 25th, A.D. 709), which falls 1 day after an important bloodletting ritual depicted on Lintel 24 (dated 9.13.17.15.12, Oct. 24th, A.D. 709), or 9.15.10.5.13, of which we have no associated dates, but which would coincide with the 5th Katun of the King. Note that the former date, Proskouriakoff offers, is not within the king’s 5th Katun, but it appears that this criterion somehow was not so important after all. Proskouriakoff (1963: 166) refrains from choosing between these dates, but the possible association of the former with Lintel 24 has compelled others to accept this (Oct. 25th, A.D. 709), and the correction to 6 Ben is now widely accepted (Marcus 1976: 78; Milbrath 1999: 236, 299; Robertson 1972; Schele 1991: 102-103; Schele & Freidel 1990: 293; Stewart 2009: App. 3; Tate 1992: 93; Tuszyńska 2009: 6). Accepting this correction however disregards the problem of the 5 Katun years of the king, which was the argument for claiming a scribal error in the first place. The ball kept rolling for this date conundrum since Merle Greene Robertson (1972: 8, 22-23) used the corrected 6 Ben 7 Mak date as key, when she argued for a strong connection between bundles and bloodletting rituals. An important argument of hers was the closeness of the dates of Lintels 24, 32 and 53, but if we maintain the coefficient of 7 as inscribed on Lintel 53, these monuments have no clear relation to each other. There is also an internal discrepancy with the dates Robertson applies in her paper, where the sequence of events were mixed up in her argumentation. She argued that the bundle event was part of a series of rituals leading up to a bloodletting ritual that would eventually sanctify the commemorated event (Robertson 1972), however, the bundle event (according to the corrected date) took place after the bloodletting event.

115

This line of evidence is a bit of a side-track, but if we do not address this puzzle and argue for our choices, the ball will keep rolling – and possibly in the wrong direction. We may find associations between events, where there were in fact none. To conclude this matter I find that the proposed significance of the date of 6 Ben is not strong enough to posit a scribal error, and for now prefer 7 Ben. The fact that Shield Jaguar III was given the 5 Katun Ajaw title in these lintels could be because the lintels were posthumous. Mathews (Mathews 1988: 212) reached a similar conclusion. This renders a possible LC date of 9.13.5.12.13 7 Ben 16 Mak (Oct. 31st, A.D. 697), which falls within the life span of the ruler depicted. This date does not correspond to any known accession, birth, death, period ending or other ritual performance at Yaxchilan, nor does it tie to any anniversaries of such events. This was the easy part. It is a far more difficult and uncertain task to establish when the lintels were commissioned. We base these dates mainly on dates connected with the structures, they adorned. For this purpose we use a combination of archaeological evidence, which may determine the approximate time of construction of a structure, and epigraphy, which reveals some dates of dedication of the structures. Who commissioned the lintels is still subject to debate. It is generally agreed that Bird Jaguar IV was responsible for Structure 1, which puts him in charge of Lintels 5 and 7 (Martin & Grube 2008: 128; Mathews 1988: 329; Tate 1992: 102). There is also a general consensus that Shield Jaguar IV, son and successor of Bird Jaguar IV, commissioned Lintels 53 and 54 (Martin & Grube 2008: 134; Mathews 1988: 329; Proskouriakoff 1964: 193, 194; Tate 1992: 93). Here the agreement ends. Some assign Lintel 32 to Bird Jaguar IV (Plank 2004: 68; Proskouriakoff 1964: 181; Tate 1992: 93), but Mathews (1988: 329) holds that the same king was responsible for Lintels 53 and 32 (Shield Jaguar IV), since these lintels commemorate the same day with depictions of the same individuals. I find it illogical that the same king would depict the same event in the same way twice. Instead I argue that Bird Jaguar IV was responsible for Lintel 32. According to Tate (1992: 48) stylistic details in the glyphic writing point to

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

Lintels 5, 7 and 32 having been produced by the same individual (Scribe M). This again points to Bird Jaguar IV. Moreover certain stylistic details of the carved individuals also suggest Bird Jaguar IV. I will return to that shortly. Lintel 1 of Structure 33 is generally assigned to Bird Jaguar IV (Mathews 1988: 286, 291, 329; Tate 1992: 48, 68, 102). An important piece of evidence pointing to this is the dates of Structure 33. The latest date of any monument associated with Structure 33 is in A.D. 757, which is during the reign of Bird Jaguar IV. However, there are a number of clues pointing in a different direction. Martin and Grube (Martin & Grube 2008: 134-137) assign Lintel 1 to Shield Jaguar IV (although with a question mark), and I agree. We know that the lintel retrospectively describes the accession of Bird Jaguar IV in A.D. 752, because he carries the title of Captor of Jewelled Skull, which he did not acquire until A.D. 755. Lady Ix Chak Joloom carries the title of Mother of Shield Jaguar. Most scholars agree that the son of Bird Jaguar IV, Chel Te’ Chaan K’inich, did not begin using the name Shield Jaguar until his accession day shortly prior to A.D. 769 (Eberl & Graña-Behrens 2004: 165; Grube 1992: 343; Helmke 2010: 7; Martin & Grube 2008: 134). This suggests that he had already acceded the throne, when this lintel was produced, making him responsible for the production of Lintel 1. Returning to the argument of style, Lintels 5, 7 and 32 have certain compositional details in common, while Lintels 1, 53 and 54 have others in common (see Figure 8.1): Lintels 5, 7 and 32 all feature the women in front view (Robertson 1972: 5), while Lintels 1, 53 and 54 feature women in profile. In Lintels 5, 7 and 32 the individuals appear short and stocky with no necks, while the opposite is the case regarding Lintels 1, 53 and 54. Moreover, the robes of the women in Lintels 5 and 32 (Lintel 7 is eroded) appear with similar braided designs on the large surfaces of the fabric, while in Lintels 1, 53 and 54 the pattern is limited to the borders and bottoms of the robes (see also Robertson 1972: 6). These arguments combined persuade me that Bird Jaguar IV commissioned Lintels 5, 7 and 32, while his successor commissioned Lintels 1, 53 and 54, and this will be a working hypothesis throughout the remainder of this study. To summarize Bird Jaguar IV commissioned Lintels 5, 7 and 32 sometime between A.D. 752 and 769,

116

and chose to commemorate events performed by himself and two of his wives (Lintels 5 and 7), as well as his parents performing a similar event (Lintel 32). His son Shield Jaguar IV commissioned Lintels 1, 53 and 54 between A.D. 769 and 800, and commemorated events performed by his parents (Lintels 1 and 54) as well as his grandparents (Lintel 53). What? What do the six lintels portray? What did Bird Jaguar IV and Shield Jaguar IV wish to communicate with these monuments? What was inside the bundles? In the iconography, the bundle is not the centre of attention, rather the king is. This is true for both the images and the hieroglyphic writing. The text tells of the king’s dance with the particular staffs he manipulated. The events differed. Sometimes he would dance in celebration of a period ending in the calendar, sometimes in celebration of an anniversary. The special staffs the king wielded, probably signified different dances, and possibly denoted different ritual ceremonies (see Grube 1992: 211 and Helmke 2010). The lintels thus communicated the dance performance, and the bundles were a part of this performance somehow. As mentioned earlier, it has been suggested that the bundles contained bloodletting implements (Robertson 1972: 1), insignia of the king in relation to his accession to office (Stross 1988), jadeite finery (Stuart 2006), or various precious or symbolic objects pertaining to the particular event celebrated or the particular dance performed (Ayala Falcón 2010: 40; Helmke 2010: 9-10). The only clue the ancient Maya artist from Yaxchilan gave us is a tag on some of the bundles spelling the word ihkaatz. Glyphic Texts The glyphic evidence reveals important clues as to the role of the bundle in those rituals. Here I will go over the glyphs tagging the bundles, and other relevant glyphic evidence. Among these is i-ka-tzi, ihkaatz, which tags a few of the bundles from Yaxchilan. In 1988 Brian Stross suggested the reading ‘cargo’ or ‘burden’, both terms that were used metaphorically in present day Tenejapa for holding office. More recently David Stuart (2006: 131) argued for the correspondence between ihkaatz and small jadeite objects. Based on a jadeite object found in Burial 5 at Piedras Negras carrying the glyphic tag ihkaatz, he concluded that ihkaatz

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

Figure 8.2: Unprovenanced vessel, K5794 (photograph by Justin Kerr, after Kerr 2000: 690).

translates to ‘jade’. The linguistic evidence still speaks for the former interpretation. Terrence Kaufmann and John Justeson (2002) list the various cognates of ihkaatz ‘bundle’, ‘cargo’ or ‘load’. These cognates suggest that ihkaatz denotes something that was carried, but the meaning of the glyphs tagging the bundles is still not entirely clear, in my opinion. If Stuart’s conclusion is correct, the bundles contained something made of jadeite, but what? Ihkaatz is usually mentioned as the only term tagging a bundle, but during my research on Maya rituals involving binding and wrapping (Søegaard 2009), I came across another example painted on a ceramic vessel from the Late Classic of unknown origins. The vessel named K5794 (Figure 8.2) features two K’awiil figures with a bundle each in of their arms. On one bundle the artist painted the glyphs ba-li. It is uncertain what this means. In 2009 I consulted Erik Boot’s Classic Maya – English Vocabulary (Boot 2002) and found the form b’a-li, b’aal-, ‘to hide something’. From this I deduced a nominalized derivation of b’aahl, ‘the hidden’ (Søegaard 2009: 122). Boot’s vocabulary has since been updated (Boot 2009), and this particular form no longer appears. I will have to leave it to the epigraphers to sort this one out. However, a reading from the K’ichee’ myth Popol Wuj could support the idea that bundles were considered a means to hiding objects. According to this account, a bundle was handed down to the K’ichee’ lords by the ancestor and founder of their lineage (Christenson 2004: 221, 223). The last passage relating to the bundle reads Xb’i’naj puch ki “Q’u’n”. Christenson (2004) translates this ‘It was named as well their “wrapping”’. Thus q’u’n is translated ‘wrapping’. In

117

his dictionary (Christenson 2003) has k’u ‘to hide’, k’u-ib ‘to hide self’, and k’u’talik ‘hidden’. This root indicates a focus on the purpose of wrapping, i.e. that the object or person becomes hidden, rather than a focus on the act of wrapping. The distinction between these two words is a matter of purpose or incentive. If I wrap something up, I do not reveal why I do it. The purpose could be practical such as holding objects together. The word ‘hide’ instantly reveals the purpose of the act. Dennis Tedlock (1985) does not provide an explicit translation of this word, but Munro Edmonson’s K’ichee’ dictionary (1965) has q’u’u: ‘hidden’, and q’u’, ‘garment, cloth, cover, shelter, jacket’. Could the form in the Popol Wuj in fact also be something equivalent to ‘hidden’? Another part of the written record at Yaxchilan is a title given to Lady Uh Joloom Chanil, which could shed light on her role in this dance performance. The title is Ixajk’uhuun and features on Lintel 53 and Stela 10. According to Mark Zender (2004: 188-190) this translates to ‘One who worships’ (Zender 2004: 188-190 see also 164-196 for an in depth analysis of this title). The title could indicate that Lady Uh Joloom Chanil functioned as a ritual specialist whose task rested in the ritual objects wrapped and concealed by the bundle itself. None of the other queens are given this title, so we do not know if only an Ixajk’uhuun was allowed to hold the bundle as a ritual privilege. It appears, however, that the privilege to hold the bundle was not limited to one individual at a time. Recently Christophe Helmke (2010) suggested that the king’s dance ceremony depicted on the lintels discussed here, were in fact a display of such a ritual privilege and the transferral of it to another person (Helmke 2010: 1-2).

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

A final piece of glyphic evidence to shed light on this dance performance is written on Lintel 1. The caption relating to Lady Ix Chak Joloom states: uBAH-hi / ti-CHAN-na-li / IX-1-WITZ’? / NAHka-KAN, ub’aah ti cha’nil ixjuun witz’ nah kaan. Alexandre Tokovinine (2003: 3) translates this ‘it is her image of public performance, Lady Juun Witz’ Nah Kaan’. If this is correct then the phrase informs us that this ceremony was not a secluded one, but rather a public one, perhaps an announcement of the religious privileges of the king and queen. Archaeology Archaeologists have excavated several examples of items with textile remains, suggesting that the objects were wrapped up before deposition. Among the items found are: a vessel at Calakmul, Tomb 4 (Carrasco Vargas et al. 1999: 53-55); eccentric flints at Copan (Fash 1991: 100; Morehart et al. 2004: 53); Spondylus shells, jadeite beads, jadeite pendants, freshwater pearls, crystalline hematite laminae, and stucco-coated objects at Altun Ha (Reents-Budet 2006: 115); vessels containing obsidian blades, snail shells, snake skeletons, and turtle shells at Tikal (Ayala Falcón 2002; Tate 1992: 68); maize, squash, chilli, pine wood, cacao, copal, and nance at Barton Creek Cave, Belize (Morehart et al. 2004: 51). This small list shows that the Maya had a practice of wrapping up their offerings, before they deposited them. The list also shows that they offered a great variety of objects and foodstuff of a valuable nature. It is tempting to deduce a direct relationship between the image of a bundle and an archaeological objects wrapped in cloth. However, as we will see, the historical and ethnographical data describe a different use of bundles. This suggests that bundles were not just bundles. Sometimes offertory items may have been wrapped and deposited in caches, whereas at other times precious objects and deity effigies were kept in bundles, but never offered to the ground. Which situation do the Yaxchilan lintels depict? While it is difficult to conclude We will probably never know for certain, but, I find the latter scenario more likely. (see also Becker 1992 for analyses of offertory caches). Ethnography and Historical Documents The veneration of bundles is not exclusive to the Classic Period. We find descriptions and tales of bundles in post conquest historical sources and in ethnographic accounts from the 1920s onward. In

118

the Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel, an 18th century Yukatekan account, we hear of a bundle containing a bead of precious stone wrapped in thirteen layers of cloth. The bundle is described as the heart of God (Hoil & Roys 1933: 31C). In the 16th century Fray Bartolomé de las Casas wrote of a deity effigy wrapped in many layers of cloth and kept in a wooden chest in a small village in Honduras. The Spanish defiled the deity to great sorrow for the native Maya (Casas 1967: clxxx, 229). It took a lot of ritual purification to restore order around this venerated deity (see a more thorough analysis of this account in Søegaard 2009: 129-130). In Santiago Atitlan in Guatemala, one of the cofradías protects a bundle called San Martín. The bundle contains two very old tunics (supposedly left by ancestors), wrapped in cloth and kept in a wooden chest. Handling this bundle in any way is a privilege of only one man, the religious practitioner. He tells stories of the bad things that happen to those, who open the bundle without authorization (Christenson 2006: 233-38; Mendelson 1958). A Lakantun myth recorded by McGee (1990: 106107) tells of a magical object that was kept wrapped in cloth, and could only be handled by one person. After an unauthorized person opened the bundle and touched the object, it lost its magical powers. This was a shame, because the object was used to awaken the dead, but now the object is powerless to stop people from dying. Charles Wisdom (1940: 403) recorded a practice resembling a ritual bundle among the Ch’orti’. This is the only example, I have found, where the bundle is part of a regular household ritual, and not a cofradía or other community level institution. The Maya simply sculpted or moulded deity figures out of copal wax and wrapped them in white cotton cloth. The effigies were placed in the maize storage house for protection. Common about these accounts is that the bundles contained deity effigies, in one case called ‘the heart of God’. They were venerated as deities, wrapped in cloth, kept in chests and taken out during special ceremonies. Moreover handling the bundle was in most cases considered a ritual privilege – and bad things would happen if this privilege was not

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

Figure 8.3: The tablet of Temple 14, Palenque (drawing by Linda Schele, reproduced courtesy of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.).

Figure 8.4: The Palace Tablet, Palenque (drawing by Linda Schele, reproduced courtesy of the Foundation for the

maintained. Again, we cannotStudies, be certain Advancement of Mesoamerican Inc.). that the

119

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

maintained. Again, we cannot be certain that the bundles from Yaxchilan contained deity effigies or were kept in chests. We do however have a possible example of just such a situation from the panels and tablets at Palenque. Iconographic Evidence from Palenque At Palenque we find images of objects that appear to have been concealed swaddled in cloth, but are now shown unwrapped and unfolded. On the Temple 14 Tablet (Figure 8.3), we see the heir K’inich Kan B’ahlam II, dancing inside a cave. His mother is kneeling and holding a K’awiil deity effigy outstretched towards her son. The cloth hanging from her hands indicates that the effigy was just unwrapped (Houston & Stuart 1996: 302-303; Wald & Carrasco 2004). Either the king is being handed the deity, or he is dancing in front of it, the deity being a witness to his ritual performance. The Palace Tablet (Figure 8.4) features K’inich Kan Joy Chitam II on his accession day receiving a socalled “drum major” headdress from his father and a personified flint and shield from his mother (Schele & Miller 1986). The fabric draping below the flint and shield suggests it had just been unwrapped. The objects presented by his parents are compositional parallels and both can be viewed as regalia of office (Skidmore 2008: 49). The personified flint and shield was probably considered a deity since it also features in the central tablet of the Temple of the Sun in an even more animated version (Figure 8.5). On the Cross Group Tablets commissioned by K’inich Kan B’ahlam II in celebration of his accession in A.D. 684 (9.12.11.12.10), we find three very similar images placed within the inner sanctuaries of the Temple of the Cross (TC), the Temple of the Foliated Cross (TFC) and the Temple of the Sun (TS) (Figure 8.5). Each of these tablets portray K’inich Kan B’ahlam II holding a recently wrapped deity effigy outstretched in his hands in a presenting pose. On two occasions this is the Jester God and on one occasion K’awiil. A secondary individual, possibly his father, the deceased Pakal (Ayala Falcón 2002: 95; Eberl & Graña-Behrens 2004; Schele & Freidel 1990: 242), or a younger version of himself (Martin & Grube 2008: 169; Skidmore 2008: 75), holds bloodletting implements or a Jester God effigy. On each tablet a large deity figure dominates the centre of the image; on the TC

120

Tablet this is a cross-shaped tree with the Principal Bird Deity perched on top and an offering bowl below personified as a monster2; on the TFC Tablet the cross-shaped tree is replaced by a cross-shaped sprouting maize – again with the Principal Bird Deity perched; and on the TS Tablet the central image is two flint spears and a personified shield with the face of the Jaguar God of the Underworld (Callaway 2006: 82; Skidmore 2008: 74). Others have interpreted all of these images of ‘open bundles’ from Palenque as images of the king in the process of receiving the effigies, which in turn are viewed as strong symbols of rulership (Ayala Falcón 2002: 95; Schele & Freidel 1990: 242). I believe that the king is actually presenting the deity figures, not receiving them. In the Cross Group Tablets the king is not the centre of attention. Rather the two individuals focus their attention on the central images, the monumental deities, who are given the pride of place. The king has his arms outstretched towards these focal cult images, and there is an intimate connection between K’inich Kan B’ahlam II and the Principal Bird Deity. They look at each other and are fairly close to one another, almost as if they are in conversation. I believe that it is not the king receiving gifts here, but rather the cult images to which these are offered or presented. K’inich Kan B’ahlam II venerates the three monumental deities by presenting them with the smaller, portable deity effigies, or by having them witness this ritual involving the smaller effigies. As king and high religious leader, K’inich Kan B’ahlam II could well be the owner and caretaker 2

That a tree could be a deity image may be foreign to modern Western culture, but there is evidence to suggest that such was the case, and still is in some areas, among the Maya. Smaller versions of these tree crosses have been found archaeologically in Palenque and Rio Azul, and these could possibly have been the actual effigies venerated (Callaway 2006: 103-107). In Palenque a part of the inscription from the central panel of the Temple of Inscriptions seems to name two of these tree crosses; one is named the T24-UH-TE’, ‘? Necklace tree?), while the other is called HO’-[‘square-nosed-serpent’]-TE’, ‘five ‘square-nosed serpent’ tree?’ (Callaway 2006: 62; Stuart 2006: 136-137). The remaining text states: ‘the heavenly bundle, the earthly bundle, the necklace, the ear spools’ (Guenter 2007: 26; Stuart 2006: 137). If the text does refer to actual tree effigies, then the jewelry mentioned could have been used to adorn the effigies. The present day Maya in Chan Kom also venerate crosses, but these crosses, although today an integrate part of Catholicism, are painted green with floral motives, and are referred to as santos, i.e. cult images (Redfield & Villa Rojas 1934: 110-111).

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

Figure 8.5: The central panels of the temples of the Cross Group. a) Tablet of the Temple of the Sun. b) Tablet of the Temple of the Foliated Cross. c) Tablet of the Temple of the Cross (drawings by Linda Schele, reproduced courtesy of the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.).

of several cult images, and his commissioning of the Cross Group Tablets could be a way of immortalizing the offerings he made to them on the day of his accession (see also Houston & Stuart 1996). There are noticeable differences between the monuments I have discussed from Palenque and Yaxchilan. • • •

In Palenque the events are accession rituals and the celebration of an heir, while the events vary in Yaxchilan. In Palenque the contents of the bundles are made visible, while in Yaxchilan they are hidden. In Yaxchilan the ritual performance takes place in public, while in Palenque the locations are caves and the inner sanctuaries of temples.

121

Why? Time and again we see in the historical and ethnographic sources that the contents of bundles were objects ascribed godlike powers, such as the old tunics in the San Martín bundle and the precious bead that was the heart of God in the Chumayel narrative. In Palenque the bundles also contained deity figures or cult images. The archaeological evidence shows a different side to bundles and reveals a practice of wrapping up valuable, symbolic, and sacred objects before they were deposited in ritual cache offerings. We can never know what was contained in the bundles carved on the six lintels at Yaxchilan, based on the precedence set by the unfolded Palenque bundles it is likely that the Yaxchilan bundles contained deity effigies, a small cult image taken out to witness the king’s dance ceremony.

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

The answer to why the contents of the bundles remain unrevealed at Yaxchilan may lie in the location of the ritual ceremonies. The dance ceremonies at Yaxchilan seem to have been public events, as one glyphic phrase points to (Tokovinine 2003). In the historical and ethnographic sources we learn that the handling of bundles was enshrouded in secrecy. Only the religious practitioner was allowed to open the bundle and in some cases unauthorized persons were not even allowed to lay eyes on the items inside. In Palenque the rituals took place in secluded and intimate spaces, and this is a likely explanation for this difference. The contents of the bundles were hidden from public view at Yaxchilan, whereas they could be revealed in the proper ritual spaces at Palenque, where only a few privileged individuals took part. Although there is still much to learn about ancient Maya palaces and courtly culture, this chapter has attempted to provide an insight into a few of the ritual ceremonies performed by kings and queens at the court of Yaxchilan (and Palenque). Likewise a suggestion has been put forth that the hidden content of the Yaxchilan bundles was in fact deity effigies similar to those found at Palenque and known among the Post-Classic and modern Maya. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the editors for including me in this publication, for their many valuable and insightful comments on drafts of this chapter, and for their patience. Any errors still present are my own.

References Cited: Ayala Falcón, Maricela 2002 El bulto ritual de mundo perdido, Tikal. Cuaderno 27. Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. 2010 Bultos Sagrados De Los Ancestros Entre Los Mayas. Arqueología Mexicana, XVIII (106): 34-40. Becker, Joseph M. 1992 Burials as Caches; Caches as Burials: A New Interpretation of the Meaning of Ritual Deposits Among the Classic Period Lowland Maya. New Theories on the Ancient Maya, edited by Elin C. Danien & Robert J. Sharer, pp. 185-196. University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology, Philadephia.

122

Boot, Erik 2002

A Preliminary Classic Maya-English / English-Classic Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocab ulary/Vocabulary.pdf. 2009 The Updated Preliminary Classic MayaEnglish/English-Classic Maya Vocabulary of Hieroglyphic Readings. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/resources/vocab ulary/Vocabulary-2009.01.pdf. Callaway, Carl Douglas 2006 The Maya cross at Palenque a reappraisal. BA thesis, University of Texas, Austin. Carrasco Vargas, Ramón, Vera Tiesler Blos, Sylviane Boucher & Paula Alvarez González 1999 New Evidence on Jaguar Paw, a Ruler from Calakmul. Latin American Antiquity 10 (1): 47-58. Casas, Bartolomé de las 1967 Apologética historia sumaria, Vol. II. Edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Serie de historiadores y cronistas de Indias. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, México, D.F. Christenson, Allen J. 2003 K’iche’ – English dictionary and Guide to the pronunciation of the K’iche’-Maya alphabet. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.: http://www.famsi.org/mayawriting/dictiona ry/christenson/quidic_complete.pdf 2004 Popol Vuh, Vol. 2. O Books, Winchester. 2006 Sacred Bundle Cults in Highland Guatemala. Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey & F. Kent Reilly, pp. 226-246. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. Eberl, Markus, & Daniel Graña-Behrens 2004 Proper Names and Throne Names: On the Naming Practice of Classic Maya Rulers. Continuity and change: Maya religious practices in temporal perspective, edited by Daniel Graña Behrens, Christian M. Prager, Frauke Sachse, Stefanie Teufel, & Elisabeth Wagner, pp. 165-183. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt Schwaben. Edmonson, Munro S. 1965 Quiché-English dictionary. Middle American Research Institute, Tulane University, New Orleans. Fash, William L. 1991 Scribes, Warriors, and Kings: The City of Copán and The Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson, New York.

ROYAL BUNDLE CEREMONIES AT YAXCHILAN

Graham, Ian 1979 Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions, Vol. 3, Part 2, Yaxchilan. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Graham, Ian & Eric Von Euw 1977 Corpus of Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions, Vol. 3, Part 1, Yaxchilan. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge. Grube, Nikolai 1992 Classic Maya Dance. Evidence from Hieroglyphs and Iconography. Ancient Mesoamerica, Vol. 3: 201-218. Guenter, Stanley P. 2007 The Tomb of K’inich Janaab Pakal: The Temple of the Inscriptions at Palenque. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/articles /guenter/TI.pdf Guernsey, Julia 2006 Late Formative Period Antecedents for Ritually Bound Monuments. Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey & F. Kent Reilly, pp. 22-39. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. Guernsey, Julia F. & Kent Reilly (eds.) 2006 Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. Helmke, Christophe 2010 The Transferral and Inheritance of Ritual Privileges: A Classic Maya Case from Yaxchilan, Mexico. Wayeb Notes, No. 35. Hoil, Juan José & Ralph L. Roys 1933 The book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel. Publication, 438. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, D.C. Houston, Stephen & David Stuart 1996 Of Gods, Glyphs and Kings: Divinity and Rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity, Vol. 70 (268): 289-312. Kaufman, Terrence & John S. Justeson 2002 A Preliminary Mayan Etymological Dictionary. Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.: http://www.famsi.org/reports/01051/ Kerr, Justin & Barbara Kerr (eds.) 2000 Maya Vase Book, Volume 6. Kerr Associates, New York. Marcus, Joyce 1976 Emblem and State in the Classic Maya Lowlands: an Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Martin, Simon & Nikolai Grube 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Thames & Hudson, London. 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens: Deciphering the Dynasties of the Ancient Maya. Revised edition. Thames & Hudson, London. Mathews, Peter Lawrence 1988 The Sculpture of Yaxchilan. Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, New Haven. McGee, R. Jon 1990 Life, Ritual, and Religion among the Lacandon Maya. Wadsworth Pub. Co., Belmont. Megged, Amos 2010 Social Memory in Ancient and Colonial Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, New York. Mendelson, E. Michael 1958 A Guatemalan Sacred Bundle. Man, Vol. 58 (1): 121-126. Milbrath, Susan 1999 Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars. University of Texas Press, Austin. Morehart, Christopher T., Jaime J. Awe, Michael J. Mirro, Vanessa A. Owen & Christophe Helmke 2004 Ancient Textile Remains from Barton Creek Cave, Cayo District, Belize. Mexicon, Vol. 26 (3): 50-56. Newsome, Elizabeth A. 2003 The “Bundle” Altars of Copán: a New Perspective on Their Meaning and Archaeological Contexts. Ancient America, No. 4: 1-72. Plank, Shannon E. 2004 Maya Dwellings in Hieroglyphs and Archaeology: an Integrative Approach to Ancient Architecture and Spatial Cognition. BAR International Series 1324, John and Erica Hedges Ltd., Oxford. Pohl, John M. D. 2000 The Four Priests Political Stability. The Ancient Civilizations of Mesoamerica: a Reader, edited by Michael E Smith & Marilyn A Masson, pp. 342-360. Blackwell Publishers, Malpen. Proskouriakoff, Tatiana 1963 Historical data in the inscriptions of Yaxchilan. Part 1. Estudios de Cultura Maya, No. 3: 149-167. 1964 Historical data in the inscriptions of Yaxchilan. Part 2. Estudios de Cultura Maya, No. 4: 177-201. Redfield, Robert, & Alfonso Villa Rojas 1934 Chan Kom: A Maya Village. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

123

RIKKE MARIE SØEGAARD

Reents-Budet, Dorie 2006 Power Material in Ancient Mesoamerica: The Roles of Cloth among the Classic Maya. Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey & F. Kent Reilly, pp. 105-126. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. Robertson, Merle Greene 1972 The Ritual Bundles of Yaxchilan. Paper presented at the Symposium on the Art of Latin American, Tulane University, New Orleans, April 15th. Schele, Linda 1991 Notebook for the XVth Maya Hieroglyphic Workshop at Texas. Department of Art History, University of Texas, Austin.

Stross, Brian 1988 The Burden of Office: A Reading. Mexicon 10 (6): 118-121. 2008 K’U: The Divine Monkey. Journal of Mesoamerican Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 1(1): 1-34. Stuart, David 1996 Kings of Stone: A Consideration of Stelae in Ancient Maya Ritual and Representation. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics No. 29/30:148-171. 2006 Jade and Chocolate: Bundles of Wealth in Classic Maya Economics and Ritual. Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey & F. Kent Reilly, pp. 127144. Ancient America, Special publication. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville. Tate, Carolyn E. 1992 Yaxchilan: the Design of a Maya Ceremonial City. University of Texas Press, Austin. Tedlock, Dennis 1985 Popol Vuh: The Definitive Edition of the Mayan Book of the Dawn of Life and the Glories of Gods and Kings. Simon and Schuster, New York. Tokovinine, Alexandre 2003 A Classic Maya Term for Public Performance. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/features/tokovin ine/performance.pdf Tuszyńska, Boguchwala 2009 Some Notes on Wives and Concubines. Wayeb Notes, No. 31: 1-14. Wald, Robert & Michael Carrasco 2004 Rabbits, Gods, and Kings: The Interplay of Myth and History on the Regal Rabbit Vase. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Maya Meetings, University of Texas, Austin, Texas, March 11th. Wisdom, Charles 1940 The Chorti Indians of Guatemala. University of Chicago Publications in Anthropology. Ethnological series. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Zender, Marc Uwe 2004 A Study of Classic Maya Priesthood. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, University of Calgary, Calgary.

Schele, Linda & David A. Freidel 1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. William Morrow and Company, Inc., New York. Schele, Linda & Jeffrey H. Miller 1983 The Mirror, the Rabbit, and the Bundle: “Accession” Expressions from the Classic Maya Inscriptions. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Schele, Linda & Mary E. Miller 1986 The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Kimbell Art Museum / G. Braziller, Fort Worth. Skidmore, Joel 2008 The Rulers of Palenque: A Beginner’s Guide. 3rd edition. Mesoweb: http://www.mesoweb.com/palenque/resour ces/rulers/PalenqueRulers-03.pdf. Søegaard, Rikke Marie 2009 Hidden in Public: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Ancient Maya Rituals Involving Binding or Wrapping. Unpublished MA thesis, Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute of Crosscultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen. Stenzel, Werner 1968 The Sacred Bundle in Mesoamerican Religion. Thirty-eighth International Congress of Americanists, Vol. 2: pp. 34752. Renner, Munich. Stewart, Daniel Moroni 2009 Parentage Statements and Paired Stelae: Signs of Dynastic Succession for the Classic Maya. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, Brigham Young University, Provo.

124