34 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

4. Figure Toltec warriors. a. Tikal, Stela 31, Yax Nun Ayin. Detail, left side. Courtesy Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. Toltec

CLEMENCYCOGGINS

D?sir?e Charnay, French expeditionary photographer, Most scholars, especially historians and archaeologists, even in of impelled by a European fascination with heroic travel, have accepted Charnay's conclusions, light Aztec discovery, and recording of antiquities in the New the known propensity of the for rewriting history, were to rest at a on World, raised money to follow the legendary journey of and doubts officially laid conference Quetzalcoatl from Tula,1 in the Mexican state of Tula, in 1941 inMexico (L?pez Austin 1989:32). There, common-sense of Hidalgo, to the east (Charnay 1887). In his quest for the the idea that the magnificent Tollan was was a truth behind the legend of this iconic feathered serpent, Aztec history Teotihuacan over-ridden by on Charnay defined what would become the longest majority of the eminent conferees who focused the running debate in ancient Mesoamerican history and reality of Tula, Hidalgo, and its specific role in the Aztec about the archaeology. Beginning at Tula, Hidalgo, Charnay ended histories. Because of apparent certainty dating his travels 800 miles to the southeast, at Chich?n Itz?, in and identity of the historical Tula, derived from these Yucat?n, where he noticed serpent columns and a ball sources, itwas also generally accepted that Chich?n so court ring that closely resembled some he had seen at Itz?, which resembled Tula, ancient capital of the was its Tula (fig. 1; map).2 This led him to research the Toltec, civilized world, remote, contemporary foreign ancient inhabitants of Tula, and Quetzalcoatl, their colony. This view was convincingly demonstrated by feathered-serpent god-king. Reading sixteenth century the portraits of dozens of certifiable Toltec warriors central Mexican Aztec accounts, Charnay found the portrayed with their characteristic weapons in the relief Toltec were believed to have created civilization, and sculpture of both Tula and Chich?n Itz?. that, historically, they had invaded the Maya regions. He saw Toltec accomplishments as "excellent, graceful, and Toltec, In the following overview of the debate delicate" (82) and was confident "no human blood ever about Chich?n Itz? and Tula Iwill concentrate on the art stained their altar, their offerings consisting of fruits, historical and archaeological points of view, seeking flowers, and birds" (88). Eventually, he concluded that cultural constants found at these two places and all Mesoamerican ruins were Toltec; that they were not elsewhere much earlier, might be described As Toltec. very old, and that Tula, Hidalgo, had been their capital. Apparently consistent throughout at least thirteen Thus, he insisted on the unity of Mesoamerican culture. centuries (a.d. 200-1500), and many central Mexican If he had other less probable notions, they were standard penetrations into Maya regions, was a Toltec ideal that for the period, and his insights about theTula-Chich?n epitomized the primordial Toltecs of Tollan?the source axis have not gone out of style, as we shall see. of wisdom and inventors of the calendar, or creators of civilization, the arts and sciences (Davies 1977:416). "The Nahuas of the time to the Tula and Chich?n Itz? just prior Conquest associated Toltec?yotl [Toltecness] with everything Lindsay Jones, in the book Twin City Tales, analyzes superlative in their culture [Itwas] the summing up of the relationship between Tula and Chich?n Itz? from the ancient wisdom and art" (L?on-Portilla 1963:79, 80). was point of view of comparative religion, describing "the Tollan seen as the first city by the Aztec tlamatini, as infamous sister-city semblance" [noted above, as] "the Teotihuacan would have been by the Toltec of Tula burnt-over district of Mesoamerican studies" (1995:13). Hidalgo, thus representing the urban, and exemplifying civilization. "In native thought Tollan was the source of all legitimate power... all legitimate rulers needed I am Tollan ancestors" (Feldman 1974:150). Toltec meant to especially grateful for the invaluable comments and suggestions ofWilliam Ringle, Leonardo L?pez Lujan,Miguel P?rez be learned in the historic tradition, calendar and the David and an Negrete, Virginia Miller, Shannon Plank, Stuart, "loftiest theological ideas" (L?on-Portilla 1963:79), as anonymous reviewer. was true of the N?huatl word tlamatini?the wise men 1. In this paper, the place name "Tula" refers to Tula, Hidalgo; who personified writing and wisdom, analogous to the "Tollan" refers first to Teotihuacan, to other places considered to have Yucatecan word ah its'at, for a wise man. Toltec also been Tollans, and to the "legendary" Tollan. 2. meant to be in The discovery, hypothesis formation, and photographic knowledgeable every facet of the noble documentation took two trips. life, including, and especially, military prowess. The 36 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

TOLTEC COLUMN IN THE CASTILLO. TOLTEC COLUMN AT TtlLA.

Figure 1. Columns at Chich?n Itz? and Tula. From Charnay 1887:343.

at word Toltec?yotl, however, has usually described the city, by their descendants Tula, Hidalgo, and finally by extraordinary artistic and literary skills of the Toltec their descendants atTenochtitlan?although this cultural (L?on-Portilla 1963:167-176; L?on-Portilla 1980), continuity took different forms at different times and was whereas in this paper, which considers Toltec traits that places.3 The Toltec ideal which transmitted from a.d. to be traced originated at Teotihuacan about 200 and spread elite father elite son, may archaeologically of throughout Mesoamerica, Toltec?yotl is not used for lack through itswarrior society and associated evidence storm an of archaeological evidence of such creativity abroad. god and calendric ritual, intertwined with a Instead, "Toltec" will describe the ideal of rulership that evolving role for Quetzalcoatl that finally, millennium evoked a noble warrior who was learned in the history later, bore little, if any, resemblance to the feathered and priestly duties of Tollan (Sahagun, bk. 8:chs. 17, 20), serpent of the original Tollan. a and who might pursue them in foreign environment where the roles of military officer and director of the Quetzalcoatl: the legend marketplace would also have been essential (bk. 8:ch.19). Such use of Toltec does not assume the concept had Once upon a time there was an old, wise, humble to the mythic complexity or cultural brilliance of itsAztec king given solitary penitential devotions: cold himself with thorns. significance. Nor, indeed, that the third-century-A.D. nocturnal bathing and puncturing measure to feathered serpents of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl at He taught his people to write and to time, weave cotton Teotihuacan were intended to evoke the man-god of work gold, jade, and feathers, to grow and as to raise corn cacao. He built Aztec legend. But, more simply, it suggests that of many hues, and and a Teotihuacan's plan was conceived and its pyramids built, four precious houses for fasting and prayer, and temple the foundations of "Toltec" were laid. with serpent columns. But his extraordinary piety on Here, in addition to a characteristic understanding of excited anger among the sorcerers, intent destroying time and the calendar, Toltec refers to qualities of the Toltec. They tricked him into drunken behavior that military and commercial leadership exemplified by and citizens of ancient a traveling emigrating Teotihuacan, 3. Enrique Florescano has recently adopted such long view in by their Epiclassic descendants after the collapse of the Memoria Mexicana (1999:ch. 4). Coggins: Toltec 37

TROPICOFCANCER. 23.5DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE CHALCHIHUITES

LAQUEMADA ISLACERRITOS

15DEGREES NORTH LATITUDE

PACIFICOCEAN SANTALUCIA /EL SALVADOR

Map of Mesoamerica with the Tropic of Cancer and 15 Degrees North Latitude indicated.

so shamed him he fled to the east (Sahag?n, bk.3:chs. 3, However, according to Sahag?n, Quetzalcoatl . . . 4, 12). There, at the edge of the sea, dressed in his "fashioned a raft of serpents [and] set off going divine feathers and turquoise mask, Quetzalcoatl burned across the sea" (fig. 2; bk. 3:ch. 14). Here we lose the himself up and rose into the sky.4 The old people say he mytho-historical Quetzalcoatl, said to have been born became the star that appears at dawn?the Lord of the in the year 1 Reed (understood to be a.d. 843) and to Dawn (Bierhorst 1992:36), or Venus. More variable in have died in year 1 Reed (a.d. 895) after fifty-two are the Aztec accounts those parts of the legend that years or one calendric cycle?a period represented describe Quetzalcoatrs departure from Tollan and his metaphorically by a tied bundle of fifty-two sticks or travels to the Gulf Coast. According to Sahag?n (bk. canes. Many versions of the story of Quetzalcoatl have 3:ch. 12) when Quetzalcoatl left Tollan he buried the survived, but as apotheosized ruler of Tollan and works of art, all the marvelous and costly things; exemplar of civilization his legendary persona and everything else he burned, including his exquisite shimmering spirit have both presided over the houses. He changed the cacao trees to mesquite and theological questions and historical confusion that cloud sent the birds of precious feather to anahuac, the land at Tula, Chich?n Itz?, and Tollan to this day.6 How this the edge of the water. Thus he destroyed the civilization transcendant being was manifest in Toltec, as defined he had created, and headed east, with his people, to here, is the subject of this paper. Tlillan-Tlapallan, place of knowledge, believed to be the Gulf Coast (Sahag?n, bk. 3:ch. 4; bk. 10:ch. 29).5 Fire ritual. The great cultural significance of the fifty-two-year cycle is evident in this tale inwhich Quetzalcoatl's life corresponds exactly to it.At the end 4. are Because these Aztec legends they speak of turquoise and of this cycle the Aztec are known to have extinguished feathers, not of the and feathers that would have been the most jade all fires, then drilled New Fire to guarantee the return of in valuable materials the Classic period. 5. Tlillan Tlapallan (land of the) Black and Red is an Aztec for to metaphor knowledge and refers their painted books (Sullivan and Knab however also denoted 1994:234, n.3); Tlapallan, red, east, 6. See E. Seier, "On the Origins of Central American Civilization" was whereas Tlillan, black, west (Bierhorst 1974:78). (1991:vol. 11:13.). 38 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

on Figure 2. Toltec star warrior serpent raft. Jade from the Sacred Cenote, Chich?n Itz?. From Proskouriakoff 1974:pl. 78a. Courtesy of the Peabody Museum, Harvard University.

the vida la costumbre de sacar Sun, instead of the destruction predicted for the end culta, introdujeron fuego nuevo of an age. At this time the tied bundles of wood that antes de habitar casa reci?n construida); y la otra costumbre de sacarlo cuando atacaban a sus signified fifty-two years were burned. Colonial enemigos, habr? venido tambi?n de la edad en documents describe the Aztec ritual, but there is also par?ceme que que vagaban (237). sculptural evidence of it as early as Teotihuacan (Von was Winning 1979), and this Toltec ceremony apparently [Huitzlopochtli, God of War, was patron of this rite more to often than once a since wars were so introduced the Maya whose calendric celebrations year, frequent; and it were suited them to record that it did not seem to different. William Ringle informs me the drilling of strange New Fire was also undertaken [as seen in Postclassic perform the secular rite during the fiesta of Huitzlopochtli. or This tells us the new fire ceremony was more codices] at "founding refounding rites, and so [was] performed often in the remote past, since during their nomadic life central to placemaking as well as to the origin of time" when they gloried in being Chichimecs, they drilled fire (personal communication, 2002). Indeed, Paso y with the same [stick and hearth] whenever itwas a as apparatus Troncoso may note kind of founding event well as necessary, without care to save it later, when war ritual in his on the Codex Borbonicus (although they commentary were new fire was drawn a civilized, before inhabiting (1979:235-239): newly constructed house); and the other custom of drilling seems me Uit?il-opoxtli, dios de la guerra, patricinaria el rito m?s de fire, when they attacked their enemies, also to to una vez have come from the time when were del a?o, ya que las guerras eran tan frecuentes; y they nomadic] conviene recordarlo tambi?n para no parezca extra?o que (Coggins translation). se hiciera el rito secular durante la gran fiesta de Uit?il Fire ritual associated with bound bundles of wood opoxtli. Todo esto nos dice que la ceremonia del fuego was a event nuevo se en con major for the Aztec; there is habr? hecho tiempos remotos m?s religious evidence for its at and frecuencia, ya que durante su vida n?made, todos los que early importance Teotihuacan, se ser con later indirect evidence in the where itwas vanagloriaban de chichimecos, lo sacaban el Maya regions era taken were mismo aparato, cuando les necesario, y no se cuidaban by Toltec who identified by their feathered de conservarlo (bien que m?s tarde, y ya reducidos ? la war and fire serpent ritual. Coggins: Toltec 39

as Quetzalcoatl Zeitgeist. In 1976 Gordon Willey intellectual concerns, and because of changing considered the difficulties of understanding Quetzalcoatl explanatory modes and intellectual fashion. a in paper entitled "Mesoamerican Civilization and the Gordon Willey and Jeremy Sabloff organize their Idea of Transcendence," inwhich he described the cult History of American Archaeology into periods of as a of Quetzalcoatl transcendent movement of the kind archaeological investigation, each with its own a a that appears at stage of crisis in civilization, and that preoccupations (1993). These are evident in the study of were on "frequently the bearers of transcendence the the Tula-Chich?n problem, beginning with descriptive borders of old imposing civilizations" (1976:206). methods around the turn of the nineteenth century that Relative to the rest of Mesoamerica the central Mexican adopted a Darwinian or evolutionary view of cultures, are near highlands indeed the northwestern frontier, diachronically, while explaining synchronie similarities and the high desert lands that had harbored the by postulating "psychic unity" (87). Such theorizing was nomadic Chichimec. ForWilley, Quetzalcoatl signified not, however, as common then as the simple collection international stability and the "adaptive and protective of objects and the explication of texts, as for instance by ideology of a rising merchant class" (212). In 1998, the great German scholar, Eduard Seier, whose vast archaeologists William Ringle, Tom?s Gallareta, and linguistic knowledge and convictions about the essential George Bey have considered the same questions in unity of an autochthonous Mesoamerican civilization much greater detail, incorporating recent archaeological led him to impose the Aztec template on earlier cultures work. In this article entitled "The Return of Quetzalcoatl: and thus, like the Aztec, to see the Toltec as creators of Evidence for the Second Spread of aWorld Religion that civilization (Seler, vol. 2:10-17). during the Epiclassic Period," they postulate "a network a of major shrines" (1998:185) "that replicated on vast Carnegie Institution. In the 1930s and 1940s the scale the eastern and western aspects of the Venus cult greatest innovation inMaya archaeology was the and the wanderings of the man-god Quetzalcoatl" dedication of a branch of the Carnegie Institution of (227)?a conclusion they support with abundant Washington, D.C, to its study. This work began at ceramic, iconographie, and ethnohistoric detail. The Chich?n Itz? in 1923, when Sylvanus Morley established a authors find it "near impossibility thatTollan-phase an office on the old hacienda of Edward Thompson, was a Tula donor culture" to Chich?n Itz? (184), a view who had dredged the Cenote of Sacrifice twenty years that is endorsed in this paper. A different approach by earlier (Coggins 1992b). The Carnegie archaeologists archaeologists Susan Kepecs, Gary Feinman, and excavated, recorded, and reconstructed Chich?n Itz? Sylviane Boucher has given this "transcendent" selectively, with the support of ethnographic, medical, movement a "world systems perspective," without ever and botanical research programs to broaden their mentioning Quetzalcoatl (1994:146). They cast the understanding of ancient and modern Maya culture macro-regional exchange of luxury goods, so (1924-1940). This multidisciplinary approach marked characteristic of Terminal Classic and Early Postclassic the beginning of a more systemic view of the Maya, Chich?n Itz?, in convincing economic terms that ignore and presumably of ancient Chich?n Itz?. Itdid not, the old Tula-Chich?n dichotomy. however, produce a synthesis of the years of Carnegie work. Perhaps as a consequence, in 1940, American and the Dialectics archaeology particularly Carnegie archaeologists were blasted by the scornful dismissal of anthropologist an During the last seventy-five years, expanding Clyde Kluckhohn who wondered if archaeologists ever body of knowledge about the widely separated Chich?n considered their meticulous excavations and publications Itz? and Tula has involved the ideas, arguments, and and asked themselves "so what?" (1977:43). Were they reconstructions of writers, historians, art historians, so immersed in their typologies and local histories that and anthropologists, while archaeologists have added they could make no syntheses, come to no broad basic data?the building blocks of explanation.7 The conclusions about the cultures? This represented the "influences," or ways inwhich cultural traits diffuse from belated second stage of an attack on American one are group to another, often perceived differently by archaeologists. In the first, late in the nineteenth century, these various disciplines, because they have different archaeologists were broadly condemned as antiquarians, or simple collectors of objects without context?a phase to have But Kluckhohn's accusation had 7. Outlined by A. M. Tozzer in 1957 (ch. 2), A. L?pez Austin and thought passed. L. L?pez Lujan have recently summarized this debate (1999:21-34). a similar galvanic effect, leading to self-examination and 40 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

new even were methods though most archaeologists by culture of the sixteenth century Maya of Yucat?n, which then dedicated to scientific excavation and the building he amplified by many times with his voluminous notes of chronologies. Basically the same criticisms concerning (1941). These drew from all known ethnohistoric, lack of theory resurfaced in the 1960s, but from within ethnographic, and archaeological Mesoamerican the ranks. The so-called "new" archaeologists rejected sources, and from the various recent Carnegie research was the goal of historical reconstruction, in favor of the projects. Invaluable to every Mayanist, this work search for cultural process. Their aim was the creation of followed by two monumental volumes on the Sacred predictive patterns or laws of behavior. In this endeavor, Cenote at Chich?n Itz?. Actually a study of the history of ideology, and of course its artistic expression, was Chich?n Itz? itself, and of Tozzer's theories about the considered of tertiary importance, at best. The statistical Chich?n-Tula relationship, it incorporated Edward H. analysis of settlement patterns and of domestic burials Thompson's dredging, and Carnegie work at the site, in might produce grand cultural generalizations for with the background of broad scholarship established comparative purposes, but the idiosyncratic evidence of his translation of Landa's Relaci?n. The Peabody historic individuals and of unique events does not. This Museum published the volumes posthumously in 1957. classic forest-versus-trees dispute was, however, Tozzer had already presented a brief analysis of the at beneficial in forcing archaeologists again to question differences between the Maya and the Toltec Chich?n what they were doing. In recent decades at Chich?n at the 1928 International Congress of Americanists in Itz?, this injunction to consider process has coexisted New York (1930). In this study of the figurai reliefs on at a uneasily with an unremediated passion for historical the walls and columns the site, he noted was minutia that was never really dampened. These latter distinctively "Toltec" dress that military, with the interests can now shelter in the inevitable reaction to the characteristically central Mexican spear-thrower (atl atl), "new" archaeology called "post-processual"?a school round shield, back disk, cylindrical platelet hat, butterfly a that has returned to an old-fashioned focus on the pectoral, and nose beads. This uniform, which had was with the singular and the relational (Hodder 1986; 1987). very long Toltec history, contrasted Herbert Spinden, an anthropologist, but effectively an idiosyncratic clothing of the Maya with their rectangular nose art historian, was the first to analyze the art of Chich?n shields, spears, knives, jade beads, and bars. The Itz? in his 1909 doctoral dissertation, A Study of Maya paper served to define and harden the dichotomies Art, published in 1913 by the Peabody Museum. between the cultured Maya and the barbarian Toltec that Spinden was also the first to sort out Maya iconography, still characterize this debate. Tozzer's later Sacred and the first to associate stylistic development with the Cenote work considered the question from every angle, as an actual dates on monumental sculpture?a method with this ethnic contraposition explanatory device. saw as a was Tatiana Proskouriakoff later adopted, along with his He Chich?n Itz? Maya site that invaded, belief in the historic nature of the Maya inscriptions. then abandoned, by the Toltec (1957:18), and dismissed as an while Spinden set the tone for decades of debate over Nahua the Itz? unimportant post-Toltec group (2), (or Toltec) influences at Chich?n Itz?. His lists of the generally using the Maya katun prophecy dates recorded as an structures and architectural, artistic and religious in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel historic features that exhibit Toltec traits are the same as those framework (21, 22).8 InTozzer's view, the Toltec brought or latercompiled by Alfred Tozzer (1957), Alberto Ruz the first man-god Quetzalcoatl, Mayan K'uk'ulkan,9 a was (1962, 1971, 1979), and George Kubier (1961, 1962), while the later Itz? brought second, who saw Tozzer treats the Sacred among many others (Spinden 1913:205-206). He associated with idolatry. as it as an them as intrusive at Chich?n Itz?, as had Charnay. Cenote the focus of Chich?n Itz?, seeing

Tozzer. Alfred Marsden Tozzer, as a Harvard 8. The Classic Maya calendar, the vigesimal Long Count, had watched Edward H. were in one basic unit graduate student, Thompson comprised units that multiples of twenty, which Cenote of Sacrifice at Chich?n and he was a or a fun. of or one dredging the Itz?, year of 360 days, Twenty these, katun, of historical This was the first to make larger sense of the Carnegie work, divided time into divinatory periods importance. in had been nor system, probably conceived the fourth century, simplified he had never dug there worked for the although the ninth in northern the named katuns as an by century Yucatan?although Carnegie Institution. First, anthropologist and still served to characterize periods of time. Tozzer a annotated = in historian, published heavily English 9. K'uk'ulkan Quetzalcoatl, or quetzal-feathered serpent Cosas de or translation of Diego de Landa's Relaci?n de las Yucatecan. This may also be written kukulkan, kukulcan, on the convention. Yucat?n; this was an encyclopaedic description of the c'uc'ulcan, depending orthographic Coggins: Toltec 41

oracle and of emblematic of goal pilgrimage Postclassic Both Kubler and Ruz discussed the Chacmool figures of Mesoamerican and trade. at were more religion which, the time, there known examples at Chich?n than in central Mexico?but with no known In Kubier and Ruz. Mexico, four years after the antecedents in either place. Ruz conceded the of Tozzer's publication book, Mexican Mayanists Chacmool might be of Maya origin, as Kubier had launched a new journal, Estudios de Cultura Maya, concluded (1962:65), and noted other Chich?n traits edited Alberto Ruz In the first as by Lhuillier. issue George such round structures and a "phallic cult" that art at was Kubier, historian Yale, published the shot that probably derived from Veracruz?Ruz defined heard around the small world of Mesoamerican as "Mexican," archaeologically, referring to central still. Entitled Itz? archaeology, resounding "Chich?n y Mexico and sometimes including Oaxaca and the Gulf it the view of Itz? Tula," questioned accepted Chich?n Coast (1971:203, 204). Basically, however, Ruz denied as the passive, read Maya, receiver of aggressive Toltec Kubler's implied Maya renaissance at Chich?n of art and architecture. on the basis of styles Indeed, (1962:218), later stating that virtually all Maya-Toltec what seemed to be the earlier occurrence of were standard sculptural motifs brought by the Toltec invaders "Toltec" architecture at the Yucat?n Kubier site, (1979:233). This is also the position recently taken by as a described Tula frontier garrison of Chich?n Itz?. This Karl Taube who states that "Toltec at Chich?n refers article was somewhat as a intended, disingenuously, specifically to the culture emanating from the site of meditation on neutral art historical questions of Tula, Hidalgo" (1994:213; and Cobean and Mastache invention and the diffusion of stylistic traits. But it 2001). In this paper Toltec refers to the distinctive on and culture from a.d. touched, unavoidably, religion, ethnicity, emanating Teotihuacan beginning was nationalism because it generally believed, as 250-350, which was a critical element in the formation had that the Toltecs with Charnay concluded, civilizing of Classic Maya culture. In the Epiclassic period, a more their had taken their Nahua and was god Quetzalcoatl (superior) complex diversified Toltec culture widespread culture to Chich?n Itz?. In the second issue new of the and especially evident at Xochicalco, Cacaxtla, and this traditional of view was restated as journal point Chich?n Itz?, although not at Tula, Hidalgo. an emphatic rebuttal by Alberto Ruz, the editor, One of the subtexts of this debate was an aesthetic and Ruz listed the Toltec and one. art was archaeologist, Mayanist. Maya highly developed and its architecture traits Kubier had noted and the Maya defended priority the most technologically sophisticated inMesoamerica. of or of central for most of the Toltec ones. Tula was a town near Tula, Mexico, the northern edge of Mesoamerica Kubler's insistence on the of Toltec and its was origin many sculpture crude in comparison with Maya architectural traits at Chich?n had been as a framed work, while its grandest architecture was confined to of relative was question chronology, but chronology two pyramidal platforms and post and lintel structures. irrelevant to Kubler's This was actually argument. Nevertheless, Kubler's only derogatory remark in his fortunate for two reasons: the relative of the to saw first, dating article referred what he as the unsuccessful Maya two sites was not known at the and to create a really time, second, attempt frieze of Toltec prowling jaguars on more Kubler was critically, using the discredited Spinden the early version of the Castillo at Chich?n Itz?. His real correlation of the which his was Maya calendar, placed interest in deconstructing the site's eclectic dates 260 earlier than all historical monumental years accepted architecture, and in understanding the reconstructions. the traits considered Ruz Among by interrelationship of the many different styles he were site orientation, the feathered serpent columns identified there. Most scholars who worked at Chich?n noted by Charnay, warrior portrait columns, colonnades, after Tozzer have remarked on the wide assortment of prowling jaguars, modified talud-tablero architecture, cultural characteristics shown in the reliefs and wall and the use of almenas. In later elaboration of his and in paintings, especially the great variety of objects Ruz in more traits to argument brought many (1971).11 offered the Sacred Cenote (Coggins 1992a). Aside from the obvious Toltec and varieties of Maya traits, 10. The Spanish almena is translated in English as "merlon," but there was also evidence of contact with the Pacific these attached elements that lined the of a roof in ancient edge Coast of Guatemala, West Mexico were more like Oaxaca, Mexico, Morelos, actually "antefixes"; they had both symbolic Veracruz, and lower Central America. and decorative significance. 11. In Kubier found thatToltec Chich?n 1980, archaeologist Rom?n Pina Chan expressed his had reproduced the in favor of the of Chich?n Itz? arguments priority without mentioning traditions of all ancient Mesoamerica (1961:64), and he the earlier debate. was particularly interested in the striking use of the 42 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

as official, monumental iconography of Monte Alb?n in the archaeologists who, Gordon Willey explained in his no to dentate hanging panels of the nine terraces of the rebuttal of Kubier, have way build remotely Castillo, Chich?n Itz?'s most important structure (55). accurate hypotheses about such ancient cultures, except However, in considering the "Toltec" colonnades, and by ethnographic analogy (1973:161 ).12Willey further feathered serpent and warrior columns, Kubier insisted emphasized the long duration and integrity of the the Maya had made them first. His real point, ignored in Mesoamerican tradition which clearly differs from the as the outrage, was that Toltec chiefs who went to Chich?n ancient Mediterranean world given example by Itz? carried ideas rather than objects and artisans Kubier. Rather like the criticisms of Kluckhohn and the (1961:49). Kubier observed that powerful small groups "new" archaeologists, Kubler's unpalatable judgement can impose ritual and symbolic systems?the Spaniards forced many Americanists to reexamine their for instance (1962:222). At Chich?n, Maya artists and assumptions, and art historians to proceed with greater architects had been put to work realizing the ideology of caution. However, Wi Iley's views have prevailed. The to is seen as the Toltec state and its religion. These Maya solutions "principle of disjunction" today entailing little were to more a Toltec artistic problems then taken back Tula than traffic tickets, rather than criminal case, comes to where they were adapted locally. As Kubier put it: when it interpretation, and archaeologists as in "Concepci?n Mexicana, construcci?n Maya" (1961:52). argue for continuity the working hypothesis was same as To this Kubier would This analysis of the situation much the explanation (Quilter 1996:314). not Tatiana Proskouriakoff's in her study of the gold disk insist out that continuous form does predicate from the Cenote of Sacrifice that shows the heart continuous meaning, nor does continuity of form or sacrifice of a Maya by a Toltec, with a Toltec tutelary of meaning necessarily imply continuity of culture serpent in the sky above (Lothrop 1952:fig. 1). The (1985b:404). characteristically Maya drawing, particularly of the and the metal work bordering serpent heads, repouss? The a problem had apparently been accomplished by local artist, In of the perhaps in the employ of the recently established the following consideration key questions? concur and when was Tollan? Who was foreign rulers. Iwould in this analysis, except what, where, "Toltec," was that many of the Toltec artistic problems had been and what did Toltec mean? What the history of solved in the southern Maya lowlands and Veracruz Maya/Toltec interaction??I will follow Kubler's principle before the Toltec ever went to Chich?n Itz?. of disjunction, as he intended it, by looking for and vice It is not clear why this insight of Kubler's should have continuity of meaning, rather than of form, caused such a storm, since it leaves the intellectual versa. However, Kubier warned, "it ismuch more was to describe than to priority with the Toltec, unless it his remark about difficult change report continuity" since discontinuities remain invisible while the frontier garrison. It is, however, much clearer why (1985c:351), command our attention. an another position taken by Kubier aroused universal resemblances Only through was of contexts is it outrage among Mesoamerican archaeologists. This understanding original archaeological to connect his attack on the use of ethnographic analogy, and his possible related, apparently dissimilar, over time. Ian Hodder notes statement of the "principle of disjunction" in criticism of meanings "archaeology Americanists such as the revered Eduard Seier, and some differs from antiquarianism by concern with context" to of Kubler's own contemporaries who interpreted ancient (1987:8), and "objects change meaning according he first Mesoamerica in terms of sixteenth-century Aztec context" (1986:176); therefore, argues, "the stage was a of the is to the network of sources. His point, simply stated, that if cultural analytical procedure identify in to artifact has the same form it had centuries earlier (an patterned similarities and differences relation the itwill Like who advocated a image of the rain god Tlaloc, for instance), then object" (1987:7). Kubier, principle in there is an exhaustive have a different meaning from the original in its later of complementarity which Hodder appearance; while, conversely, if an ancient meaning overlay of different descriptions (1973b:167), an and for perseveres, then its outward form will have changed argues against agreed methodology diversity consensus (1985b:404-405, 1985a, 1985c). This stricture against and lack of (1986:170). Long preceding was to the in Idea of ethnographic analogy particularly applicable postmodernism, Collingwood observed, Tula/Chich?n question since so much of the historical on Aztec and a an interpretation depended sixteenth-century 12. In 1975 Kubier wrote lively defense of his views, with of his own intellectual Maya sources. But it applied to all Mesoamerican explanation background (1985a). Coggins: Toltec 43

History, that "historical thought is a river into which the long-term relationship between the Toltec and none can step twice" (1967:248). These data, which may Mesoamerica I have divided the question into three involve the anecdotal and historical evidence scorned broad chronological periods (using Maya terminology): by social scientists as least explanatory, are nevertheless I. Early Classic (a.d. 350^50); II. Late and Terminal the richest in information (L?vi-Strauss 1966:261), if also Classic (a.d. 700-900); III. Early Postclassic (a.d. 900 the most ambiguous. They are the province of historians 1100). The first two phases are discussed in this paper, whose "role is to portray, not to legislate" (Kubier from a Maya point of view. The second, Late Terminal 1973b:165). Classic Maya phase, is contemporary with the central These are the principles I have tried to follow in this Mexican Epiclassic, which followed the Classic in consideration of continuity and change in the centuries central Mexico Gim?nez Moreno 1966:49). This leading up to Chich?n Itz?. My aim is to portray the disjunction between the southern and northern cultural phenomenon Icall "Toltec" from its early "Classic" periods has been masked by general to Teotihuacan its later Chich?n Itz? manifestations, by misunderstanding of the actual period of Teotihuacan's was now was way of the Maya regions where its influence collapse. It is clear Teotihuacan declining now profound. Most Mayanists who work inYucat?n, toward the end of the Maya Early Classic period, and was agree that the Toltec period at Chich?n probably dated largely abandoned by the beginning of the Maya a.d. or a.d. between 750, earlier, and 1150 at the latest, Late Classic (Garcia Chavez 1998:492; Rattray and most Mexicanists now accept that Tula was one of 2001:405). During the Maya Late-Terminal Classic and many Tulas, whereas Teotihuacan most closely described the Central Mexican Epiclassic the Toltec ethos was the mythical Tollan and was probably the first truly spread far and wide, for the second time, with the one urban (see chronological chart). My conclusions foundation of new Tollans by the peoples of the new on incorporate this consensus the relative dating of Teotihuacan diaspora. In 1966, William Coe observed Chich?n Itz? and Tula, inwhich Chich?n predates Toltec there were "perhaps three cultural entradas of Peten life or as as two I ... Tula, Tula Grande,13 by much centuries. [or else] there may have been a continuous though see as this confirmation of the Teotihuacan origins of changing Mexican infusion" (1972:258).15 Ibelieve both much that isToltec at Chich?n, inwhich Toltec signifies possibilities were true and that the episodic Toltec or men the condition practice of Toltecness, lived by of entradas all had roots in Teotihuacan and profoundly Teotihuacan ancestry, however far in the past the affected all of Mesoamerica. connection may have been (Coggins 1987b, 1988b, 1989, 1990).14 Inmy view, this description and the TheMiddle Classic Period. A Middle Classic period ideal of Tollan was based on Teotihuacan, while Tula of time is not used in this paper; itwas the definition was one of several Postclassic Mesoamerican Tulas and explanatory device for a symposium organized by founded after the fall of Teotihuacan that emulated the Esther Pasztory in 1973 entitled "Middle Classic ever-developing yet ancient Toltec ideal. Mesoamerica: a.d. 400-700" (1978). Many of the papers Another nagging dictum of George Kubler's is dealt with international cultural phenomena, like the relevant here: a runs "whoever defines period the risk of ballgame and Quetzalcoatl, that are now thought to its becoming jealous guardian" (1985b:396). Protective characterize the Epiclassic period, and in the past thirty attitudes often do characterize the Toltec-Maya debate, years archaeological work has clarified the relative which has the unnerving, if entertaining, characteristic dating of many sites, and served to undermine the value of on a producing earlier and earlier dates each side every of Middle Classic period as so defined. Since the one or time the other manages to establish historical collapse of Teotihuacan was then set near a.d. 750, the precedence (Cobean and Mastache 2001; Cobos and Middle Classic dates apparently corresponded to the Winemiller In order to some 2001). portray aspects of height of Teotihuacan, and of El Tajin?both major players in the diffusion of traits that characterized the period. However, Teotihuacan's decline had actually 13. Tula Grande is the site with Toltec a.d. acropolis characteristically begun by 500 (Rattray, 2001:394; Sempowski architecture, and ceramics that is dated a.d. sculpture, usually 1992:49), and was complete a century and a half later; 900-950 to 1150-1200 Cobean and Mastache (Diehl 1981; 2001). whereas El critical in the of 14. Tajin, spread ballgame "Men" is used advisedly?Teotihuacan warrior-merchants apparently traveled and settled without "Toltec" women, if that is not an Evidence at and oxymoron. Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, Copan suggests 15. Peten is the northern Guatemalan state that comprises much of married local women. they Maya the southern lowlands inwhich Classic Maya civilization unfolded. 44 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

1. Table Chronological Table. Evidence of Toltec Culture in Mesoamerica a.d. 150-1000.

*Akswkaon JffiL. ?**1?

593 9.8.0 0.8 5

57J 9.7.0.8.0 7

554 9.6.0.6.0 - 9

534 9_5.0.0.0 ! I

514 9 4.0.8.8 13 Mwrtik 9J.0.8.8 2 III B 475 9.2.0.8.0 4 V*rtj

455 9 1.0.0.0 6

435 rioe.9 s

41* I.I9I.I.0 1? I 396 8.18.0.8.0 n

376 8.17 0.0.0 !

357 lU6.il 3

337 8.15 0 8? 5 Mpa Btf?r 317 8.14.0.8.8 7 I 298 8.13.0.8.8 9

271 8.12.0.8.8. II

25? 8.11.0.0.0 13

23? 8.10.0.0.8 2 Mp*

219 8.9 0.0.0 4

199 8.8 0.8.8 6

179 8.6.0.0.8 8

164) 8.5 8.0.0 10 154)

rose to two ideology, actually power centuries after the Cholula, El Tajin, Yucat?n, and major Late Classic Maya fall of Teotihuacan (Br?eggeman 1993). At the sites (Pasztory 1978:15). However, the Teotihuacan Lee conference, Parsons described the Middle Classic Horizon probably began and ended earlier?closer to a.d. significance of the Peripheral Coastal Lowlands that 360-480 in the southern Maya lowlands (at Copan connected coast even Veracruz and the Pacific of Guatemala, itwas briefer)?well within the traditional Early and catalogued the period's characteristics, many of Classic period (see Table 1; Coggins 1979b, 1988c; which are was actually Epiclassic (1978:32-34). On the basis Sharer 1997). This followed by a period when the on of his work at Bilbao, the Guatemalan coast, Parsons Maya were focused on internal affairs, with little had was a concluded Chich?n Itz? late Middle Classic Teotihuacan contact from about a.d. 450-650. They site and at were (1969:183), this conference Marvin Cohodas the centuries surrounding Teotihuacan's collapse, came to much the same conclusions (1978a). but would have been the heart of the Middle Classic As an described, this Middle Classic period had early period in the old formulation. It now appears the early a.d. phase of Teotihuacan expansion that lasted from Teotihuacan-related traits were separated from the late 400-550 a a.d. saw and later one, 550-700, that the traits in the Maya regions by as long as two centuries, rise of the "peripheral centers'' including Xochicalco, and that the late ones followed the end of Teotihuacan, Coggins: Toltec 45

Table 1, continued

LtMgCMBtf M?ya Copan CMcbcti II? *Akamkt*wa J2CL.

A.D. A.D. 1190 1190 1984 10.13.0 8.0 7

1064 18.12.0.0.8 9

1047 10.1!.0.0.8-II

1027 I8.I8.0.0J-13 Karh Ajimpur 1007 16 9 0 6 0 2 1000 987 10.10 0 6-4

968 10.7.0.0.0 -6

948 10.40.8.0 8 h>r

92? 18.5.0.8.8-10

909 18.4.0.8.8 12 900 889 18J.0.8.8- 1 B?y?l

849 18.2.0.8J 3

849 18.1.008-5

838 18.0.0.8.8 - 7

818 9.19.0.8.8 9 800 79? 9 18 0.8.0 11

771 9.17.0.8.8 13

751 9.16.8.8.8 2

731 9.15.0.8.8-4

711 9.14.0.8.8 -6 700 692 9.13.0.8.0 8

672 9.12.8.8.8 18

652 9.11.0.8.0 12

633 9.10.0.9.8.- 1 Mrtrpec

613 9 ..9.0.0.8 - 3

and thus constituted the Epiclassic period in central stylistic and iconographie characteristics of the sculpture Mexico (a.d. 700-900). In the Maya area, however, this of Chich?n Itz? that probably predate historic Tula, thus is called the Late-Terminal Classic period, and it is usually demonstrating Kubler's point (Parsons 1969; M. currently seen as including the rise of Chich?n Itz? Cohodas 1978a and b, 1989; Miller 1985;V. Miller (Andrews, A. et al. 2001; Cobos and Winemiller 2001), 1989; Kristan-Graham 1989).16 A second approach and of Coyotlatelco (or pre-Toltec) Tula (Cobean and notes evidence of ritual and other traits later Mastache 1989:37; Diaz; 1981; Foumier 2000; Gaxiola characteristic of the Aztec, like warrior imagery, skull 1999; Cobean and Mastache 2001). Such dating platforms, heart sacrifice, and elements of coronation Wren problems do not, however, invalidate the papers in that ritual (M. Miller 1985;V. Miller 1989; and In conference, which still provide a solid basis and Schmidt 1991; Taube 1994, 2000a). considering the valuable tool for analysis of the Early Classic and the question of Chich?n priority Cynthia Kristan-Graham Epiclassic periods inMesoamerica. 16. Schele and Mathews have summarized the literature on Relative From a more humanistic art dating. angle, Chich?n Itz? in six compendious footnotes (2000:355-360, notes historians and archaeologists have considered various 8-13). 46 RES42 AUTUMN2002

makes the that the Aztec have their point might adopted 1998).17 While only about a century earlier, this model of from Chich?n since central kingship Itz?, difference makes it clear that the origins of Chich?n Itz? Mexico had lacked such a tradition apparently were largely Maya and Toltec derived, however For lack of it has (1989:xvii). contradictory evidence, indirectly, from Teotihuacan, not from Tula, Hidalgo. The been Teotihuacan did not have a ruler thought single collapse of Teotihuacan is now believed to have taken and was for indications of a.d. extraordinary lacking place about 600-650 (Manzanilla 1998; Cowgill individual and The Late Classic personality power. Maya, 1996:329; Rattray 2001:405; Garcia Chavez 1998), and had rulers whom named and however, they portrayed, evidence for the subsequent spread of its culture is and Chich?n Itz?'s form of governance is, nevertheless, found south and east of the Basin of Mexico?not at still unknown. no Tula. It is significant there is evidence of the If such "Aztec" traits at Chich?n Itz? do any predate feathered serpent at Tula, Hidalgo, in the Epiclassic for the and character of Tula, implications development period (Fournier 2000:2). Excavations at Chich?n Itz? by Postclassic Mesoamerican culture are significant. With Charles Lincoln (1986, 1990), Peter Schmidt (1994, the new dating, one must conclude that Maya and 1998, 1999), and Rafael Cobos (Cobos and Winemiller Mexican cities to the south and east of the Basin of 2001) all support early dates for Maya and Toltec Mexico and elaborated the traditions of preserved cultural manifestations that were contemporary and Teotihuacan in conjunction with powerful influences intermixed at the site. from Veracruz and Oaxaca before the rise of Tula. This means Kubler was in terms of relative but right priority, The correlation. The beauty of these new in his view of the and wrong negative perseverance conclusions is, unfortunately, tarnished by further longevity of Toltec, or any, tradition. Striking continuities uncertainties that derive from two more areas of debate. of form and that define Toltec are outlined meaning The first involves the correlation between Maya Long below; the task is to recognize the disjunctions that Count dates and real time, the second, between the existed. certainly correlation and Colonial sources. On the Long Count Chich?n Itz? been seen as a Late has, variously, correlation question, most archaeologists accept the one as a Terminal and as a Middle Classic, Classic, worked out by J. Eric S. Thompson, and modified Postclassic from as as a.d. 700 to city, dating early 1050, slightly; this equates the Long Count katun inwhich the or even 1250 more Most of the dated traditionally. Spanish conquest occurred with the katun 11.16.0.0.0? monumental were written in a inscriptions Mayan script, a period of twenty tuns that ended on 13 Ahaw?the between a.d. followed more "Toltec" 800-900, by Gregorian date November 12, 1539.18 However, there at the site between a.d. 900 and 1150. phases Thus, have always been a few scholars who object to the "fit" Chich?n Itz? has been understood to follow more or less between this correlation and the archaeological facts or closely upon the southern lowland Late Classic period, between the correlation and the historical accounts, and in its to be of the Yucat?n Terminal early phase part since none is completely satisfactory (D. H. Kelley Teotihuacan was to have ended Classic sphere. thought 1983). Arlen Chase addressed both objections in a at a.d. before the of about 750, shortly beginning comprehensive argument for an 11.3.0.0.0 correlation of the two Chich?n Itz?, and before Quetzalcoatl (or the Long Count with a.d. 1539?thirteen katuns or one entradas from Central Mexico that were Kukulcan) cycle earlier (1986). This would equate the important the Toltec state associated with (Thompson 1970:1). Long Count faa/cfun-ending, 10.0.0.0.0, with the year earlier dates for Chich?n However, several radiocarbon a.d. 1086, instead of 830, as is generally accepted. The not with the scenario IV do agree traditional (Andrews clear advantage of such a correlation is that it leaves V nor more recent and Andrews 1980:table 4), has about 350 years for the Postclassic period, instead of the at the site and at its Isla archaeological work port, 600 years (a.d. 900-1530) inherent in the accepted Cerritos 90 km to the north (Robles 1987). These more excavations have supported an earlier, compact as 17. Ringle, Gallareta, and Bey (1998:table 1) list later recalibrated period of time for Toltec Chich?n Itz?, perhaps from midpoint dates for the long-known radiocarbon dates from Chich?n as a.d. 700 to 1050 A. early (Anderson 1998; Andrews, Itz?. Maldonado and 1990; Cobos n.d.; Kurjack 1993; Ringle, 18. This is the "Goodman-Martinez-Thompson" correlation a Bey, and Peraza 1991; Ringle, Gallareta, and Bey (GMT), with correlation factor of 584,283 (Thompson 1960:305). Coggins: Toltec 47

worse as new once a 11.16.0.0.0 correlation. This problem gets earlier than thought, suggesting backward area excavations keep pushing the dates earlier and compression of history comparable to the Maya compressing historic periods backwards, since it has the (Rattray 1991). The correlation question is not yet effect of leaving yet more time for the Mesoamerican completely to everyone's satisfaction. The only way to Postclassic period, which is apparently already too long. settle it is by further excavation and discovery of more Chase also addresses the valuable, if inconsistent, radiocarbon dates that will reveal the elusive colonial accounts that include dates, prognostications, inhabitants of ancient Chich?n Itz? and Tula in their and historic events. Since Yucatec Maya history was natural and built environments, relative to the rest of recorded by katuns that recycled every 260 tuns, and the Mesoamerican world. the Maya believed an event would recur in a katun of the same name it is (Roys 1967:Appendix D), very N?huatl difficult to know which katun 8 Ahaw, for instance, corresponds to which absolute date. The Maya would The classic Mesoamerican ist debate over the role of new not have cared. Many scholars have studied and Tollan has recently been given life with a linguistic interpreted these Colonial sources and Chase discusses interpretation that rejects entrenched positions while most of them, concluding that they support his validating others, long rejected. In 2000, Karen Dakin correlation. The reader's conclusion may be that these and Soeren Wichmann published an article "Cacao and one accounts may be used to support more than Chocolate: A Uto-Aztecan Perspective" inwhich they one correlation. suggest that of the most definitively Mesoamerican words, cacao, and the related chocolatl, were originally Calendars. Another approach to the calendric N?huatl.19 Cacao is the native chocolate bean that was inconsistencies involves side-stepping such problems, grown extensively on the southeastern Chiapas while complicating them further. This solution postulates Soconusco coast and in southern Tabasco from a or different calendar for every ethnic group, each Preclassic times. Cacao was such an important luxury major polity (Chase 1986:2,109; Kubier and Gibson trade item, and so essential inMesoamerican culture as a as a 1985; L?pezAustin 1989:99; Molloy and Kelley that it served currency well as drink?inspiring 1993:105), and apparently promises chaos until one economic competition and conflict over control of realizes the Calendar Round, consisting of the ritual trade networks. The word cacao appears inmost count 260 count not of days and solar of 365 days, has Mesoamerican languages and linguists have suggested it stopped since the beginning of Mesoamerican time. A derived from the Late Preclassic Mixe or Zoque "different calendar" meant a different choice for the day languages of the north and south coasts of the Isthmus on (yearbearer) which to begin or end the 365-day year. of Tehuantepec where cacao was grown (Justeson et al. Such differences involved latitude, the local agricultural 1985:59; Kaufman and Norman 1984:122:147). It has calendar, and divinatory and/or possible historic long been axiomatic inMesoamerican studies that the no on reasons?but they had effect the actual day in the Uto-Aztecan N?huatl language did not penetrate into two calendars (Caso 1967:30-90). Thus the Maya central Mexico until after the fall of Teotihuacan changed their year bearers (Thompson 1960:124, 125), (Justeson et al. 1985:64). In fact no one knows the or a and Moctezuma II, predecessor, changed the New identity of the principal language spoken at Teotihuacan Fire ceremony from 1 Rabbit to 2 Reed, without during the six or seven centuries of its existence. Many count affecting the millennial of days. have considered N?huatl (Cowgill 1992a; Jim?nez When it comes to the extant radiocarbon dates, Moreno 1966:39; Mill?n 1981:232), but it is usually to as which tend support the 11.16.0.0.0 correlation rejected having arrived too late. Linguists have IV and V as (Andrews Andrews 1980:fig. 4; Ringle, proposed Totonac (of the Veracruz coast) the language Gallareta, and Bey 1998:Table 1), Chase dismissed most spoken (Justeson et al. 1985:68). However, Veracruz as uncalibrated and probably unreliable, although he archaeologist Garc?a Ray?n believes theTotonacs came admitted "radiocarbon dates from the Maya area" were "still troublesome" for his proposed 11.3.0.0.0 are correlation (1986:139). They also troublesome for 19. Dakin and Wichmann use the word NahuatHor all varieties of central Mexico, where radiocarbon dates are also often this Uto-Aztecan language and Nahua for the people (2000:55, note 1). 48 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

later to Veracruz, where they prolonged Teotihuacan reason, among many, Dakin and Wichmann's brave and culture on the coast after the end of the city (1991:48). stimulating article will open the floodgates of new N?huatl has been rejected as a possible source for a interpretation. word like cacao because cultivation of the bean was Possible confirmation of the Early Classic presence of use on preclassic and the central Mexican of N?huatl Nahuas the Soconusco Coast is found in another cacao presumed to be Postclassic. Furthermore, does not recent article that would demolish the presumed late grow in the dry uncultivated uplands where N?huatl is arrival of Uto-Aztecan speakers in Central Mexico. even more thought originally to have been spoken. The latter point Linguist Jane Hill suggests, iconoclastically, is undeniable. that itwas proto-Uto-Aztecan speaking people that first are b.c. Anticipating opposition, Dakin and Wichmann cultivated maize at around 3000 in central Mexico on as a prepared to defend their iconoclastic etymologies (2001:913). She postulates that consequence of many fronts; from an historical point of view their their agricultural success these farmers outgrew the land new on not controversial hypothesis throws light the Early and were pushed north?the only direction blocked Classic Maya. They postulate two main Nahuatl by other settled groups (916). Eventually these speaking migrations into Mesoamerica from northwest innovators reached the American Southwest, leaving Mexico. The first, "eastern" one pushed into central blocks of Uto-Aztecan speakers along the way. If this on Mexico where it became the principal language of complex hypothesis, based the vocabulary and extent Teotihuacan, then eventually beyond to the Gulf Coast of maize farming is demonstrated to be true, itmight and south across the isthmus to Soconusco where these provide an explanation for the presence of Uto-Aztecan a Nahuas were in contact with tropical environment speakers in southern Mesoamerica during the Classic (2000:58).20 These were proto-Pipiles who later period, and before. controlled the trade routes of the cacao-growing region of the south coast and into El Salvador and beyond. Zuyuano Dakin and Wichmann also postulate a second, western some one N?huatl migration into central Mexico inwhich Of hypothetical component of the Toltec ethos a went more directly south near the Pacific Coast to we have only late evidence, and in foreign context. a an Soconusco. This later entrada spoke N?huatl that This component is the existence of esoteric language differed from the earlier one; they note that in the that conveyed Toltec knowledge from father to son, sixteenth century two N?huatl dialects were recorded in known in sixteenth century Yucat?n as the "Language of central Mexico (ibid.:58). The authors avoid suggesting Zuyua."21 I have postulated that this "language" existed dates for the eastern and western Nahua migrations, but at Classic period Maya cities as well as at Chich?n Itz?, it is tempting to see them as representing, first, the early and that it derived from Toltec concepts introduced into centuries of Teotihuacan expansion, and second, the the Maya regions in Early Classic times or before, where was Chichimec movements of Terminal Classic-Epiclassic it used by the foreign elite and their descendants times that culminated in the foundation of Tula, Hidalgo. (Coggins 1988a, 1992c; Florescano 1999:ch. 5). The was This latter is the only period generally supported by language of Zuyua probably N?huatl. Alfredo L?pez a et Austin Leonardo have linguists for such migration (Justeson al. 1985:61), and L?pez Lujan (1999, 2000) word to although since the excavation of Kaminaljuyu, used the postclassic Toltec-associated Zuyua Guatemala, in the 1940s (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook define the epiclassic culture of Mesoamerica that to of time? 1946), the archaeologically documented contacts corresponds generally my second period to between Central Mexico and the Maya area have a.d. 700-950. They have used the term Toltec?yotl are the indicated both the Early Classic southern presence of describe characteristics that opposite of or versus Teotihuacan and of "Toltec," as later found in Postclassic Chichimec?yotl, civilized peoples barbarians, Aztec culture. However, strictures against ethnohistoric noting that although the Zuyuanos boasted of their as with the Toltec analogy, as much the mysteries of glotto-chronology, Chichimec origins they identified Sansores whereas Kirchhoff saw the have inhibited pursuit of such hypotheses. For this (1999:65-68; 1994), terms as often interchangeable (1966). While perhaps quibbling with abstractions, in this paper I have used 20. If this scenario is possible, N?huatl speakers may have been involved in the destruction of monuments that Gareth Lowe notes at around a.d. 200 21. In Colonial times the of was mentioned in Chiapa de Corzo, Chinkultic, and Kaminaljuyu "language Zuyua'' (1977:232-236). the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Roys 1967:88, 192). Coggins: Toltec 49

Toltec (or Toltecness which would be a translation of to the Sun and Moon "that were just like mountains," a a Toltec?yotl) in larger sense chronologically and and elected their leaders, ultimately to bury them there smaller one, culturally. Here, Toltec dates from about under pyramids (Sahag?n bk. 10:191, 192). Gordon a.d. 200 at Teotihuacan where it includes the qualities of Brotherston, among others, has suggested that since both Chichimec and Toltec and continues to do so until Tamoanchan, as the first Tollan, was probably located on it has become a part of the multi-cultural epiclassic the Gulf Coast and Olmec-related, such a location as manifestation and political system they describe would explain the puzzling importance of tropical birds, was Zuyuano. For them, Zuyuano a supraethnic ideal cacao, and cotton in the descriptions of the mythical that would impose Tollan as a vision of primordial order, Tollan, since none is naturally available in highland on the Mesoamerican world (1999:40-45, 62)?very Central Mexico (2001:237). much the phenomenon thatWilley, and Ringle et al,, Taking a somewhat more analytical view of this tale explored. This valuable historical construct allows the in his introduction to the twelve volume history, on Epiclassic to be discussed without depending ethnic Sahag?n explains that: terms; for L?pez and L?pez, Zuyuano describes a Regarding the antiquity of this people, it is considered more militaristic and multicultural systemic political certain that they have dwelt in this land now called New than does Toltec as used here. In fact, phenomenon they Spain for more than two thousand years. For according to insist does not mean since no Zuyuano Toltec, ethnicity, their ancient paintings there is information that the famous or language, particular origin is involved, and that city called Tula was destroyed a thousand years or so ago. Tollan Zuyua is not Tula, Hidalgo, but rather refers to a And before itwas built many of those who built itwere mythical ideal (1999:143)?although Iwould expect, by settled inTollantzinco where they leftmany very remarkable As to how were how this same token, that itwould refer to all Tollans deriving buildings. long they there, it took to build the of Tula and how their from Teotihuacan, before and after its collapse. long city long prosperity lasted before itwas destroyed, it is likely that more than a thousand years went by; from which it follows Teotihuacan that at least five hundred years before the incarnation of our Redeemer, this landwas populated (bk. 1, prologue:48). Fray Bernardino de Sahag?n in his Historia General was de las Cosas de Nueva Espana (the Florentine Codex) Thus Sahag?n told "this people" had lived in Mexico since 500 described the lives, beliefs, history, and natural history of Central about B.c.,22 and that "the was at a.d. the conquered Mexica as he learned them from his famous city called Tula" destroyed about 500. in Aztec informants (1952-1982). In Book 10, the origin of Tollantzinco the stop that preceded Tula their was the Mexica, inextricably intertwined with the story of migration, perhaps Teotihuacan; modern their Toltec forebears, was related in a tale no more Tulantzinco is located north of Teotihuacan and its name means "reliable" than those of other sixteenth century central simply "little Tollan" (Manrique Caste?eda 1987, The not Mexican Nahua groups. These glorious ancestors had 184). place Tollantzinco probably did exist until stayed a long time at Tamoanchan, after the founders the Epiclassic, and then had little connection with either or had wandered down the Gulf Coast to Guatemala and Teotihuacan before, with Tula, Hidalgo, later (Gaxiola a.d. then back north again (Sahag?n bk. 10:ch. 29). Alfredo Gonzalez 1999). The vague 500 date that Sahag?n so L?pez Austin has explored all possible interpretations of gives for the destruction of Teotihuacan is not long a.d. now the name Tamoanchan (1994:45-101) and does not before the 600-650 date proposed, and by a.d. reject the common assumption that itwas on the Gulf 500 longdistance trade had fallenway off at the dying as Coast described. Sahag?n's translation of Tamoanchan metropolis (Rattray 2001:394; Sempowski 1992:27). The was "we seek our home" (bk. 10:ch. 29:191), while date could not refer to the destruction of the much later near a.d. Seler used the variation "House of Descent" historic Tula, which occurred 1200, although a nor (1992:3:265). To Mayanist, the name looks Mayan; neither Sahag?n, his informants could have known a this. in apparently consisting of preposition, ta, plus moan, Communities had existed the Basin of Mexico a since b.c. the name of mythological Maya bird, and chan, or the third millennium (Niederberger 2001:229), as or serpent, Seler suggested (ibid.). Thus Tamoanchan earlier, but Sahag?n's "history" probably referred only might possibly be read as "at the place of the bird home for the Teotihuacan feathered serpent"?a likely 22. "More two than thousand years" before 1565, when Sahag?n When left Tamoanchan, the Toltec was serpent. they finally compiling and writing the manuscript, or about 500 B.c. in Middle made offerings at Teotihuacan where they built pyramids Preclassic times. 50 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

to Teotihuacan, the Tollan that had been melded with Roman classical architecture, which to this day enjoy an Tula, Hidalgo, which he thought had fallen a archaizing continuity of form, with meaning derived own millennium before his time (a.d. 1560)?instead of from facets of Renaissance and Enlightenment Classical only four centuries before. Despite Aztec destruction of ideals, however remotely. With regards to Mesoamerica a we a historical records, Sahag?n's informants may have had speak of tradition of 1300 years that might surprisingly accurate view of their long history.23 be described as beginning with the Pyramid of Teotihuacan was occupied by the end of the third Quetzalcoatl. The Toltec tradition characterized ancient century B.c. (Cowgill 1992b; 1996:fig. 1). By the end of Mesoamerican civilization as the Greek Classical ideal the second century, the future city was laid out, the that still characterizes "western civilization." Pyramid of the Moon's first three stages, and the It is likely surrounding populations were moved to Pyramid of the Sun had been built.24The Pyramid of the the site of Teotihuacan and coerced into laying out the avenue Sun had established the city's characteristic orientation main and constructing the vast pyramids of the of 15.25 degrees west of north with the long north Sun and Moon?structures that represented a scale of south axis of the "Street of the Dead" focused northward human endeavor hitherto unknown in central Mexico. on the mountain, Cerro Gordo (Mill?n 1973:53). This Such workers became the nucleus of the growing city. arbitrary orientation for the focal Street of the Dead Their mobilization and supervision would have required implies knowledge of the Mesoamerican calendar and a policing function and it is possible these enforcers its origins (Broda 2000:401-408; Coggins 1993, 1996; became a permanent class or caste at Teotihuacan that Malmstrom 1981 ) as does the layout of the street and its later became military (Mill?n 1981:217; 1992:389). monuments a.d. principal which reveals measurements Between 150 and 200, after the two great pyramids determined by the powerful numbers that organized the to the north, a smaller pyramidal structure was calendar and its cycles (Sugiyama 1993). constructed over an ancient shrine on the east side of the axial avenue, but to a slightly different orientation of Talud-tablero. Teotihuacan, Tollan, is thought of 17 degrees west of north. Set within the vast walled as the first Mesoamerican city, exemplar for all that "Ciudadela," this pyramid, known as the Temple of followed and the very definition of civilization.25 Quetzalcoatl, was decorated with feathered serpents in Temples lined the great axial avenue, each with the its taluds and in its tableros, which were probably first a talud-tablero facade that would, henceforth, identify examples of this significant facade at Teotihuacan (fig. Toltec settlement wherever itwas encountered in 3b). The taluds and tableros of this pyramid are Mesoamerica (fig. 3 ). This specialized architectural constructed of enormous monoliths, unlike those of form may originally have been taken to Teotihuacan later ones. from the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley to the southeast, an immediate source of some of the city's founding The Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl. Teotihuacan was a ideologies (GarciaCook 1981; 1989:182; Coggins metropolis of about 100,000 people when the third 1996:27). The talud-tablero, and its later Mesoamerican pyramidwas built (Cowgill 1998:199).26 Justbefore near variations, has been analyzed by architectural historians construction began, a.d. 200 (Cabrera Castro were who appreciate its longevity and symbolic role 2000:196), close to two hundred human sacrifices (Gendrop 1984; Kubler 1973a; Marquina 1942). The made that quite literally embodied the calendric and Toltec talud-tablero provides a paradigmatic example of martial themes of the pyramid's foundation and future were continuity of meaning with later variation in form. A role. The bound bodies (probably captives) buried striking analogy is found in the orders of Greek and in groups of one, four, eight, nine, eighteen, and twenty and set at the corners, nodes and axes of a quincunx laid out beneath the future (Cabrera an account pattern pyramid 23. Comparable "accuracy'' is found in historical of the Maya in the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Roys 1967:79, 83). 24. In two articles I have outlined my understanding of the role of 26. It is perhaps historically and linguistically correct to call this name Teotihuacan inMesoamerica (Coggins 1993, 1996). the Temple of the Feathered Serpent, since the Quetzalcoatl is was a at 25. El Mirador, Peten, Guatemala, surely city several N?huatl, and carries sixteenth-century significance. However, as an are centuries earlier, measured by massive construction built by Chich?n Itz? and Tula the feathered serpents generally described was inferred population (Matheney 1986). Teotihuacan apparently as Quetzalcoatl and I follow this usage that emphasizes formal qualitatively distinct in terms of urban planning, the formal housing of continuity, although not necessarily meaning. Pyramid, instead of is to its resident population, and itswidespread cultural and commercial Temple, of Quetzalcoatl used here distinguish functionally contacts. between them. Coggins: Toltec 51

Ecu, 33 \ \\ \S I I IT" /1 a ^q DDDO CZD ? ? s m

Figure 3.Teotihuacan architecture. a. on two Teotihuacan talud-tableros in 1. Tetitla wall painting and 2, 3 ceramic vessels. From S?journe, 1966:fig. 26. Courtesy of Siglo XXI Editores. From 4. b. Facade, Temple of Quetzalcoatl, Teotihuacan. Coggins 1996:fig. Drawing: Elizabeth W?hle.

are Castro, Sugiyama, and Cowgill 1991; Cabrera Castro These appear to have been sacrificed warriors that a 2000:205-208; Sugiyama 1989a, 1998). These are the earliest evidence of military role at Teotihuacan. In calendrically significant numbers and the quincunx form the tableros of the pyramid, each feathered serpent bears a a on sees itself signifies the completion of cycle (Coggins 1980). headdress its rattlesnake tail.27 Karl Taube this as Many of the sacrificed individuals wore the warrior's representing Xiuhcoatl, the other divine serpent? war pyrite mosaic back disk and were accompanied by both patron of fire and of (Taube 1992, 2000a; Coggins black and green obsidian projectile points probably for 1996:24-26). Sugiyama, however, believes it is the spearthrowers {atl atls). In the axial burial (Bu 190) site proper shell-platelet headdress of Quetzalcoatl that on the south side of the pyramid were eighteen such identifies his militaristic identity and authority (1992). sacrificed individuals accompanied by thousands of While this headdress may have signified the "war shell objects, including hundreds of small rectangular to make warrior a or platelets like those known later up 27. InMesoamerica headdress often indicates the identity wearer. headdresses (Sugiyama 1989a:tables 2, 3; 2000:126). affiliation of its 52 RES42 AUTUMN2002

was serpent," as Taube maintains, it also and first, the dedicated to, this fourth phase of construction (Cabrera crocodilian form of cipactli, the first day of the calendar, Castro and Sugiyama 1999). This included an adult male and thus of time (Sugiyama 1989b; L?pez Austin, L?pez accompanied in death by two felines and a wolf, which Lujan, and Sugiyama 1991). The sacrificed warriors may have been in cages, and by eagle, owl, falcon, were, thus, dedicated to the feathered serpent and to his and snake remains. The felines and wolf suggest the was Xiuhcoatl (fire serpent) identity whose domain war, "prowling" animals shown later in murals at Teotihuacan and the calendar and New Fire ritual?a combination in the militaristic context of the late Atetelco apartment of traits that were always characteristic of the Toltec compound, and the felines, canids, and raptors on the abroad, and fundamental to Toltecness. This hybrid facade of Pyramid B at Tula, half a millennium later. The serpent represented the creation and life, as measured raptor bird bones also evoke Teotihuacan, and later Tula, by time?a world view that saw Teotihuacan or Tollan as war imagery, as do obsidian projectile points and the are the place of the beginning. Teotihuacan serpents pyrite-mosaic disks of warriors. These same kinds of were "clusters of deity attributes" rather than deities (Kubier funerary offerings found in elite Toltec tombs at 1982:93; Pasztory 1993:60; Sugiyama, 2000:119), Kaminaljuyu, far to the south, probably somewhat later. was while Tlaloc, god of storm, war, and lineage, the And like the single Tlaloc effigy vessel in the much Teotihuacan male deity. Contemporary evidence for the earlier sacrificial warrior Burial 14 under the Pyramid of association of the goggled Tlaloc with feathered serpent Quetzalcoatl, this burial included ten such vessels. imagery and with ancestry is also found in the third Tlaloc was the principal Teotihuacan deity?a martial century inwhat may have been the founder's burial of god of rain, storm, and lightning. When this important was theTlajinga apartment compound (Storey 1992:97). This warrior burial made, probably in the middle of the was was two pairs of carved shell "Tlaloc goggles" with fourth century a.D., the Pyramid of the Moon feathered(?) serpent eyepieces that bear a striking reoriented to the city's north-south axis, talud-tableros were resemblance to gold goggles with feathered serpent added. This burial and the subsequent construction eyepieces offered to the Sacred Cenote at Chich?n Itz? may have corresponded to the destruction of the Temple some six centuries later (Coggins 1984:no. 32). A Tlaloc of Quetzalcoatl. Incorporating the symbolism of the effigy vessel was the only vessel included in the central subordinated Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl into the pyramid burial of twenty individuals under the Pyramid of that dominated the city's principal axis may have Quetzalcoatl. signified its incorporation into mainstream Teotihuacan Around a.d. 350, the crowning temple of the Pyramid politics and religion. This is probably the period when of Quetzalcoatl was burned and dismantled and the evidence of Teotihuacan warriors and merchants is found a new principal facade largely blocked from view by at the geographical extremes of Teotihuacan influence. recent in platform, suggesting catastrophic loss of power and of Very excavations the fifth phase of the focal at local significance for this religious institution talud-tablero decorated Pyramid of the Moon have a Teotihuacan (Cabrera Castro, Sugiyama, and Cowgill found tomb with three mature males accompanied by 1991:85-90; Sugiyama 1998:183).28 The recent jades of Maya style and quality, and like the principals were cross excavations at the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl provide in the tombs at Kaminaljuyu they seated a.d. evidence for the formation of the Toltec ethos as early as legged in burial (Wilford 2002). Dated ca. 350, the end of the second century a.D., and perhaps for its this burial assemblage constitutes the earliest, and the rejection or subordination early in the fourth century. At first unequivocal, evidence of Maya contact with this time the fourth stage of the Pyramid of the Moon Teotihuacan, rather than of Teotihuacan contact with the was to was constructed.29 The pyramid re-oriented slightly Maya. The postulated date corresponds the likely which monuments to the dominant, 15.25 degrees west of north, and the beginning of the period Maya record first talud-tableros on this axial structure characterized as signaling the arrival of Teotihuacanos at sites in the was a its facade. An "offering-burial" preceded, or southern Maya lowlands. Such two-way relationship suggests alliance and intermarriage at the highest level. was no construction at 28. Linda Manzanilla suggests the destruction of the Temple of There major monumental as as a.d. a Quetzalcoatl may have occurred early 250, only half Teotihuacan after the Temple of Quetzalcoatl. Instead after its (1998:25). century completion the city turned to the building of corporate apartment 29. Leonardo and Miller have L?pez Lujan Virginia both, Ra?l Garc?a me compounds (Mill?n 1974:121; 1992:397). independently, informed of unpublished information that dates the who has worked in the Basin of fourth phase of the Pyramid of theMoon in the first half of the fourth Chavez, surrounding came to the end of its century a.d. (personal communications, May 2002). Mexico, suggests Teotihuacan Coggins: Toltec 53

three centuries of expansion about a.d. 350, the end (Sugiyama 1989a:93). Thus by the end of the second of the Tlamimilolpa Phase (1998). After this, in the century a.d. Teotihuacan contacts and resources Xolalpan phase, he describes the city as "contracting"; extended in all four directions. reason Xolalpan was the city's period of maximum population, One important for the presence of most intensive residential construction, and burgeoning Teotihuacanos in other parts of Mesoamerica in the art. At this time, about when the the Temple of fourth century a.D., after the apparent decommissioning Quetzalcoatl was demolished, emigrants moved east to of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, may have been the Veracruz and south into the Maya regions (Garcia desire to establish the Toltec concept of divine order at Chavez 1998:487). Perhaps these were members of a the limits of its sphere of influence; this involved the warrior-merchant caste with ties to the suppressed or calendar, time, and space which encompassed the internalized Quetzalcoatl institution; their armed farthest extent of significant measurable solar events presence was possibly considered a threat to the city. (Coggins 1993, 1996). The importance of measuring This hypothetical interpretation is interesting because it solar events is evident in the city's orientations which a implies an historic trajectory inwhich a period of commemorated and defined solar events; mechanism expansion (a.d.1 50-350) was followed by one of local for determining these dates has recently been found at contraction (a.d. 350-550), and then by swift collapse Teotihuacan in subterranean observatories that were (a.d. 550-600) (1998:481). A reflection of such central constructed in Early Tlamimilolpa times (a.d. 200-300) Mexican events may be seen in the Maya area, where near the Pyramid of the Sun (Cabrera Castro 2000; the Teotihuacan presence had been assimilated and was Morante L?pez 2001) when the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl no longer evident between about a.d. 480 and 680 (see was built, or under construction. Here the local dates of Table 1). A strong Toltec ethos and its evolved imagery the two zeniths and of summer solstice were recorded, surged back into the southern Maya lowlands at the end allowing priests to calculate the true length of the year of the seventh century as the post-collapse Teotihuacan at 365.24 days (Morante L?pez 2001:51). After the end diaspora spread into the lowlands, and met the Toltec of the prominence of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl and elite that had been ruling for almost three centuries. itsmilitary role, and probably during the postulated Late Most Late Classic Maya rulers aspired to Toltec ancestry. Tlamimilolpa period of expansion, this observatory was copied at Monte Alban (Morante L?pez 2001:46; Aveni Expansion. The Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl and its 1980:253-255). Such an export of scientific and many burials and caches provide valuable information calendric knowledge apparently characterized about the early economy and ideology of Teotihuacan. Teotihuacan's relationship with Monte Alb?n (Mill?n As in all Mesoamerican elite burials, greenstone, the 1974:352; Coggins 1983, 1993), and, I suggest, sucha most valued material, was present. But unlike Maya concern with astronomical and calendric precision took burials these were mostly "greenstone" objects, rather Teotihuacanos, who would encompass their "world," than the fine green jadeite that was most highly prized; north to the Tropic of Cancer (23.5 degrees north this is not surprising since the source of jadeite was in latitude), and south to Copan, Honduras (close to 15 a.d southeastern Maya territory, far to the south. Teotihuacan degrees north latitude), late in the fourth century warrior mirrors were faced with hexagonal plates of (map).31 This involved an expansion, even an was golden iron pyrite that probably imported to imposition, of their understanding of Toltec time and Teotihuacan from mines to the northwest in Zacatecas,30 space. All Mesoamerican peoples already used the same as were greenstone and many of the pigments used to calendar, marked the zeniths (as determined by their paint the sculpture on the pyramid, and the walls of the latitudes), and the universal stations of the solar year. city (Weigand 1982:97-99). Brilliant green feathers But only at Teotihuacan was the sun created and did it represented in the sculpture and later murals, and begin its eternal journey, thus starting time, and the probably present in the burials, may have been imported calendar.32 InMaya regions to the south, Early Classic from the Gulf Coast to the east along with the majority rest came were as of the shells?the from the Pacific to the west 31. Both geographical extremes of calendric significance measured by Zenith passages (Coggins 1993). 32. These mythical events were, of course, attributed to Teotihuacan 30. Phil C. notes that Zacatecas disks were cannot Weigand pyrite inAztec times and be demonstrated to have inspired the city's at Alta Vista Leonardo more important (1982:120); however, L?pez Lujan ancient renown?but Teotihuacan's overwhelming size, singularity, have come from since Aztec tribute suggests pyrite might Oaxaca, and its evident effect upon all Mesoamerica have suggested it did have came from Coixtlahuaca pyrite (personal communication). such primordial significance (Mill?n 1992:382-395). 54 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

images of Teotihuacan warriors document their role in The principal Teotihuacan cultural traits taken abroad missions that entailed both trade and ideology, and as at included a Toltec understanding of time and space, as Monte Alb?n, were perhaps not always hostile. To the measured by solar observation and fifty-two-year north of the city, within the fluctuating Mesoamerican Calendar Round cycles with their requisite drilling of frontier, Teotihuacanos established a presence at the New Fire. In the Maya regions, the intrusive foreign Tropic of Cancer "where the sun turns" at summer warrior elite practiced these under the dual patronage of solstice and begins its apparent journey south until the feathered serpent, combined with the fire serpent winter solstice (Aveni, H?rtung, and Kelley 1982:331). attributes of the patron of New Fire, the calendar, and Here, the sun is at the zenith only on the summer also of warriors (Taube 1994, 2000a; Coggins 1987b). solstice, instead of the two days evenly spaced around These were the dual reptilian attributes of the Pyramid the solstice experienced elsewhere to the south in of Quetzalcoatl, and they surely represented the Mesoamerica. Teotihuacanos may have settled at Alta personification of roles and ideals rather than deities. a no Vista, Zacatecas, and built or simply used distinctive There is evidence of gods like the Aztec Quetzalcoatl or "Hall of Columns," its corners cardinally oriented to Xiuhtecuhtli?only of regalia that evoked the a indicate the equinox sunrise over prominent peak symbolic program of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl at directly east?a peak that also indicated the location of Teotihuacan. The only Teotihuacan deity taken abroad an important greenstone mine (327, 328). Orientation was Tlaloc; the militaristic and calendric worship of this points for both equinox and summer solstice sunrises sky deity of rain, storm, and lightning also incorporated were marked on a nearby mountain by devices known and expressed the cult of the Toltec ancestors. At were as "pecked circles"; these are concentric circles Teotihuacan Tlaloc's female characteristics was centered on a cross outlined by calendrically significant embodied in the "Great Goddess" whose domain numbers of holes pecked in the bedrock. Pecked circles earth, water, and fertility?later to become the Aztec were characteristic of Teotihuacan orientation and Chalchihuitlicue. Yet Esther Pasztory, who defined this sees as at surveying, and served to mark counts of days relative to goddess, her subsuming Tlaloc Teotihuacan, was the zeniths and spring equinox (Aveni 1980:222-234; while only abroad he the principal deity (1997:59, 2000). At Teotihuacan, pecked circles were worked in 104; Berlo 1992; Mill?n 1992:359). It isTlaloc, was in medium at the rock at sighting points in mountains surrounding the however, that represented every as center of the city, and sixty-eight have been found Teotihuacan, well as elsewhere, while portrayals of are within the city?and nowhere else in such numbers the goddess monumental at Teotihuacan, and his were (Cabrera Castro 2000:203). Deliberately located at the are not. Tlaloc's storm god associations usually a astronomically significant Tropic of Cancer, the site of militaristic, but his female counterpart had destructive was on AltaVista was also attractive for its proximity to the role as well. Her warrior role represented mines that provided Teotihuacan with precious ceramics of the Pacific coast of Guatemala with the greenstone and red and green pigments. Since the Hall butterfly attributes later expressed in imagery of the or of the Columns was built toward the end of the fifth Aztec goddess Itzpapalotl, Obsidian Butterfly (Berlo she century (C. J. Kelley 1983:13; C. J. Kelley and E. Kelley 1989, 1992:136, 147). Thus, when taken abroad, 2001; Jimenez Betts 2001), Teotihuacan's initial conformed to the prevailing Toltec warrior role, whereas as at she and relationship with this northern outpost may have been Teotihuacan usually represented personified from the earth and the abundant late as the Xolalpan period, although theTeotihuacan themes of emergence It is clear this earth derived pecked circles might have preceded the land of Teotihuacan itself. goddess, structure (Hers 1989:41, 50). Considered to be in and the Old Fire God (long predating Teotihuacan in the was but uncivilized Chichimec territory, although inhabitants Valley of Mexico), of great local importance, were settled farmers and miners, the colonists and labor was not any part of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl was taken abroad. All evidence force of AltaVista probably spoke N?huatl?the likely associated ideology that as as the Teotihuacanos who traveled abroad were language of Teotihuacan, well of the later Toltec suggests and Aztec.33 lone warriors and merchants who married foreign women (Sanders and Michels 1977:403). Their heraldry, regalia, and symbolism combined the ancestral Tlaloc 33. the Chichimec were barbarian hunters and Theoretically which became a cult in to religion, lineage Maya territory, gatherers who lived in caves, but Chichimec also referred with a newer, more from "uncivilized" ancestors who were great hunters and brave warriors, geopolitical agenda deriving and thus an important part of the Toltec ideal. the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl. Coggins: Toltec 55

means Teotihuacan was the primary central Mexican goal for and Grube 2000:32), "First (or Green/Precious) A religious pilgrimage and for trade?an international, Crocodile Who SpeaksWith Bad Accent (the First)."35 were The Yax and Nun were added to Crocodile multilingual place where the citizens confident of titles only their divine charter and tolerant of the foreign, and after he became ruler (Coggins 1979b:256-260). name One where N?huatl was probably the city's lingua franca. The However, his original may have been Toltec warrior elite, once emissaries of the institution of Crocodile, Ce Cipactli, a day in the central Mexican a on the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, were interested in securing calendar. Sahag?n reported that nobleman born the a a the Teotihuacanos' calendrically defined world for Toltec day Ce Cipactli would become ruler, and brave a trade and order, not in converting it. Intellectual warrior, valiant chief, esteemed, honored, and great if so was a concerns are difficult to discern archaeologically, he commoner, and that he might be given the name trade and conquest have always been, and still are, Cipac, for short (bk. 4:ch. 1). The day "One was assumed to have been the only possible reasons for Crocodile" the first day, the beginning of the a name Teotihuacan travel abroad. The city traded obsidian far calendar. Such would perfectly represent this Mexican and wide; itwas perhaps residents' monopoly and base warrior's Teotihuacan background that central of power, but obsidian may have been a means, not tradition recorded as where the first day happened, and necessarily the end. Teotihuacanos combined a Toltec time began. L?pez Austin, L?pez Lujan, and Sugiyama see as ideological agenda with their military might and trading Cipactli, the crocodile of the first day, the headdress on at superiority?somewhat like the Christian crusaders, of Quetzalcoatl the pyramid Teotihuacan where it except that in ancient Mesoamerica there were no signifies all twenty days, as well as theological concepts infidels. Instead, there was a need to encompass the of time and destiny (1991:100). The headdress of the astronomically defined Toltec world and its resources, feathered serpent would have implied both the religious not necessarily to conquer it. calendric and the Tlaloc-derived military authority of the creator Quetzalcoatl; these are the two most prominent facets of the Toltec role inMesoamerica, Toltecs abroad ca. a.D. 350-480 expanded although not necessarily at Teotihuacan after the fourth Tikal century.

In the Maya lowlands at Tikal, Toltec arrived about Toltec warrior. Yax Nun Ayin, in a posthumous a.d. 375, as shown and commemorated on their portrait on his son's Stela 31, wore the Toltec warrior's monuments at Tikal and Uaxactun. They may have come shell headdress, back mirror, and tails from the since a related date and name are known platelet coyote west, while an atl atl in his hand and a shield from a monument at the site of El Peru (Martin and carrying right with a Tlaloc face in his left (fig. 4a).36 Three flaming Grube, 29), or they may have come from the east where bundles of sticks insignia are worn in his feathered there is clear evidence a century earlier of Teotihuacan headdress, his role in fire ritual. As at and contact at the site of Altun Ha near the implying Copan jades-rich the shell of the headdress Caribbean coast did not Kaminaljuyu later, platelets (Spence 1996); they probably were found in his tomb. Another martial element inYax come from the south coast and southern highlands an Nun Ayin's pedigree is a glyph consisting of atl atl where they may have arrived somewhat later (Cheek and Cauac shield, identified by Proskouriakoff as 1977; Bove 1993). A Toltec military presence is clear at his Teotihuacan affiliation 5a; Tikal where aTeotihuacan-affiliated man became the indicating (fig. Coggins 1975:143; 1979:258); in fact, two identifying inscriptions ruler known as Yax Nun Ayin (Stuart, 2000:472) after on Stela 31 suggest Yax Nun Ayin was the son of this eliminating the incumbent and marrying his daughter sign which is surely a name or title (Stuart 1985; (fig. 4a,b; Coggins 1975, 1979). On his stela, inaugural 2000:473). where he is seated Mexican fashion,34 this foreigner wore the highest ranking uniform of the Toltec warrior He was a In means 35. foreigner. Yucatecan Ah Nun "he who does with its frontal feathered "Bird-Serpent-Jaguar" not know how to the of the land" (Barrera headdress associated with the fire or war speak language V?squez Serpent 1980:588). His Yax Nuun I (Taube, 2000a:281). name, Ayiin (Martin 36. On Stela 31, the front of this shield is only visible in the second image of Yax Nun Ayin where his proper left side is shown as on a 34. The Maya elite sat cross-legged flat surface while the he stands to the left of and behind his son, Siyaj Chan K'awil. In the to on one or to Toltec tended represent their rulers raised seats with both first image he stands the right and in front of him; and in the third as legs down (Coggins 1979a:255). he is above, depicted the ancestor in the sky. 56 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

Figure 4. Toltec warriors. (See fig. 4a at p. 34.) b. Yax Nun Ayin. Stela 4, Tikal. Courtesy Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. c. Stuccoed and painted cylinder tripod with seated figure, Burial B-ll Kaminaljuyu. From Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946:fig. 204a.

Another Yax Nun Ayin military emblem, later his dead father who is also shown as the ancestor in the an an conferred upon his son, consisted of owl with atl sky above (fig. 6).38 war atl (fig. 5b); this owl is a well-known Teotihuacan If the Atl Atl-Cauac Shield was originally the emblem symbol (VonWinning 1948) that probably denoted of Yax Nun Ayin's "father," and the Atl Atl-Owl sign, as a military rank at Tikal. David Stuart interprets this owl which he (literally) handed down to his son sign as equivalent to the atl af/-shield glyph?both headdress, was its equivalent, then the important never referring to an individual who is actually difference between the two signs is that the Atl Atl to see represented (2000:481-487). It seems reasonable Cauac Shield, that refers to Tlaloc and the sky, also both signs as having military associations but, I suggest, describes the militant Teotihuacan or Toltec ancestor? the Atl Atl-Cauac Shield refers specifically to the while the Atl Atl-Owl is the title or rank of a living as storm Teotihuacan god Tlaloc, the lightning-hurling warrior. This is demonstrated by the final (remaining) god and patron of itswarriors, and thus signifies date on Stela 31 which, if Stuart is right (2000:482), Teotihuacan ancestry. This glyph is the equivalent of the refers to the death of Atl Atl-Cauac Shield (meaning Yax on posthumous portraits of Yax Nun Ayin Stela 31 where Nun Ayin) who had died only six years before the he holds the Tlaloc (Cauac) shield and atl atl. The dedication of the monument.39 Here, the Atl Atl-Cauac Teotihuacan atl atl propelled its dart with a green Shield substitutes for Yax Nun Ayin because he had was a obsidian projectile point that characteristic only of become the Toltec ancestor. David Stuart believes title Teotihuacan. The Teotihuacan Tlaloc is analogous to the would not be used in such a context, but this individual Maya Chac, also the sky god of rain storm and lightning, was not Maya, and this is not a typical Mayan inscription. and etymologically related to the Maya glyph Cauac He came from a culture where corporate rather than was (Coggins 1979b:258, 259; Thompson 1960:87; Kaufman personal identity proclaimed in the headdress. and Norman 1984:117).37 On Stela 31, Yax Nun Ayin's as royal son, Siyaj Chan K'awil, is portrayed having just 38. Saburo notes that at Teotihuacan a headdress received a headdress with the Atl Atl-Owl emblem from Sugiyama may signify the transfer of political authority (1992; 2000:135). 39. Jones believes Yax Nun Ayin died in 420 a.d. on the basis of This was 25 37. Cauac is the nineteenth day in the Maya calendar; Quauitl, an inscription at the site of El Zapote (1999:82). years 31 date. rain, is the corresponding nineteenth day in the Nahua calendar. before the Stela dedication Coggins: Toltec 57

Figure 5. War emblems. a. Tikal, Stela 31 (H28, L4, N3), Atl Atl-Cauac Shield. Courtesy of Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. b. Tikal, Stela 31, Atl Atl-Owl (emblem). Courtesy of Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. c. Tikal, Str. 1, Lintel 3, (B4) Tok Pakal, Shield and Knife. Courtesy of Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Tlaloc and Chac. Tlaloc imagery at Tikal evoked the Toltec generation in the Maya lowlands was not ancestral Teotihuacan and itswarriors; indeed Yax Nun emulating Teotihuacan, they embodied it. Ayin himself had shown Chac, the long-nosed Maya as on equivalent of Tlaloc, his ancestor in the sky his Calendar reform. The most profound innovation Yax own inaugural Stela 4 (fig. 4b). Chac and the Maya Nun Ayin engineered at Tikal was the creation of a were highland storm god, Tojil, both analogues of the major calendric celebration for the completion of each Teotihuacan lightning-armed Tlaloc that would later katun, a period of 20 x 360 days, in the vigesimal Maya become the Maya insignia of lineage, the manikin Long Count, and for the dedication of most monuments. or a axe scepter, God K, K'awil, with smoking hafted in These replaced or subsumed the earlier dedications to its forehead (Coggins 1979a, b, 1988, 1990; 1992:266 historic and lineage events, like birth and accession, and 283). The Atl Atl-Cauac Shield translates Tlaloc's had the effect of emphasizing an institution (calendric a menacing storm god symbolism by joining Maya rainy religion) rather than individuals and local events an sky glyph with the Toltec weapon, atl atl, with which (Coggins 1979a, 1980). At great public ceremonies the war Tlaloc hurled his lightning bolts. Like the serpent, ruler would cast seed, or liquid, like the priests of Tlaloc denoted war; Taube calls this "lightning war" Teotihuacan, and the prophecy was given for the next (1994:230; 2000a:274). katun. This innovation may have been an important In the next generation, the long-nosed Maya version component of the Toltec strategy for assimilation into of the storm god, first shown legitimizing Yax Nun Ayin and transformation of the Maya ruling class. While name son from the sky, became the proper of his and continuing to use Maya Long Count dating, this successor, Siyaj Chan K'awiil I ("Sky Born 'God K' the reformulation converted it to a structural analogue of the once as First"; Martin and Grube 2000:26), known MayaTzolkin, or Mexican Tonalpohuali?the ritual "Stormy Sky" (Coggins 1975, 1979a). The nickname calendar of 260 days. In this calendric reform, a period Stormy Sky came from his name glyph (atop his of thirteen katuns (13 x 20 tuns) constituted a complete headdress) that consists of the long-nosed lightning cycle of 260 tuns?just as the thirteen numbers in the a axe hurling Maya deity Chac (Cauac) with smoking Tzolkin multiplied by the twenty named days constituted hafted in his forehead rising from a (lightning) cleft sky the Mesoamerican ritual calendar of 260 days; the elite as (fig. 6). In the Late Classic period, the God K Manikin Maya had subordinated this demotic count to their Scepter or K'awil, this emblem became, the widespread historic Long Count. sign of Toltec ancestry and thus of Maya royal legitimacy The Toltec reformation was numerological, ritual, (fig. 7a; Coggins 1979b, 1988b).40 However, the first social, and derived from a world view inwhich life and the individual were entirely subordinate to the cycles of time. It involved a of the burden of 40. Manikin scepters were offered to the Sacred Cenote at Chich?n metaphor carrying as as time Austin et al. Itz? long six centuries later?probably by rulers of Toltec (Coggins 1979a; L?pez 1991:96), affiliation (Coggins 1988b; Coggins and Ladd, 1992). which was set down (or unloaded) at the end of the 58 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

Figure 6. Siyaj Chan K'awil receiving headdress with atl atl/owl emblem from his father in the sky. Detail, Stela 31, Tikal. Courtesy Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

period, or Watun?analogous to the Toltec traveling ritual persisted throughout the centuries of Toltec-Maya merchant role in the Maya regions. I suggest this elite rule and modified calendric celebration in the was metaphorical burden at Tikal was called "twenty," in southern Maya lowlands, and the system still reference to the completion, or unloading, of the burden operating inYucat?n when the Spaniards arrived, of the Watun (20 tuns). Tikal was the principal Maya although by then the renewed Toltec reformation had locus of katun celebration until the end of the Classic produced an even more simplified Maya Long Count period, and was thus known as 77K'al, "At the Burden of (Coggins 1980). Twenty" (Coggins 1987a).41 This vocabulary of Watun Firemakers. Yax Nun Ayin's principal early title, 41. In David Stuart has read the Tikal emblem unpublished work, "Smoking Frog," probably described him as the as Mot'al since its main element resembles a twisted top-knot of glyph firemaker, since he was responsible for the calendric or mot (Martin and Grube 2000:30). I this knot" is hair, suggest "top were to a in or was set at that make permanent the metaphorical burden of time, kuch, that down the manipulations change as or as the ritual of the it end of the katun, as well being the burden, duty, of the ruler, Maya Long Count, although might itwould later be for Aztec kings (Coggins 1987a). also refer to firemaking attendant upon the battles Coggins: Toltec 59

Figure 7. Manikin scepter. a. (left) K'awil. Machaquila, Stela 3. From Graham 1967:fig. 49. Courtesy of IanGraham. b. (above) Tlaloc/Chac K'awil. Copan Str. 26. From Proskouriakoff 1950:fig. 35.

implied by Peten Toltec warrior imagery, and may even have been emblematic of New Fire ceremony for the founding of a new dynasty at Tikal, as it probably was at Copan. The main element of this glyph is the "birth" toad (not frog, Coggins 1988a), modified by a fire prefix (fig. 8c).42 The title is analogous to the glyph of the Copan founder, Yax K'uk' Mo; that denotes the "Tied Bundles-of-Wood Temple/' also referring to fire-making, and to a defining action associated with these Toltec founding rulers.43 An early example of this Copan

42. The Maya glyph for birth (T740) consists of an "upended" toad; the word for birth, sih, is virtually homophonous with the Yucatecan a words for offering, si, and the Chorti word for number or series, si, as well as for firewood, si', in both Yucatecan and Chorti (Barrera V?squez 1980;Wisdom 1950). The fire prefix suggests to me the glyph is to be read si', firewood, and thus refers to Yax Nu un Ayin as Fire or as Maker, K'ak' Si', K'ak' Si, referring to the person who makes the fire offering on each sequential occasion, or in a series. Stuart reads the birth toad glyph literally as Siyah K'ak', or Fire is Born, the personal name of another individual (2000:476). 43. The Tikal fire/birth toad glyph also occurs on what Ibelieve is an early portrait of Yax Nun Ayin on Uaxactun's Stela 5, on the "Ball 60 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

Fire Figure 8. ritual. a. Copan, Altar Q (B2, A5), "Founder Glyph," Wi' Te' Nah. Drawing: courtesy of David Stuart. b. Tikal, Stela 31 (F5, E15), Wi' Te' Nah. Courtesy of Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. c. Tikal, Stela 31 (C22, E14), K'ak' Si' or Siyah K'ak'. Courtesy of Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Kan Chitam have had the N?huatl Temple glyph, written entirely phonetically, is earlier copilli (fig. 9).45 may or K'uk'ulkan in found twice associated with Yax Nun Ayin in the long title Quetzalcoatl, Mayan. In the third of the fourth a.d. historical inscription on the back of Stela 31 at Tikal (fig. quarter century are Teotihuacanos went to Tikal and other Peten 8b). Here the signs read as "Wi' Te' Nah" preceded apparently to a sites lost their base of at by a verb that indicates climbing steps temple. where, possibly having power Teotihuacan, they showed themselves as conspicuously militaristic; they went to trade and to settle and Toltec assimilation introduced a Toltec calendar reform while creating new in their own within the world. Yax Nuun Ayin, a powerful foreign warrior of dynasties image Maya By the end of the of Chan K'awil Teotihuacan affiliation arrived at Tikal, the largest Early reign Siyaj (a.d. 458, the Toltec innovations at Tikal had been Classic lowland Maya city, a generation before the Jones, 1999:88) absorbed into local culture epochal turn of the Long Count cycle from baktun eight Maya (table 1; Coggins Identifiable Toltec elements were confined to to baktun nine. This gave him time to modify Tikal 1979a). in the time of this ruler's son and Kan calendric ritual before the end of the eighth baktun, in regalia successor, and to the of used a.d. 435. It is significant that his grandson, the ruler K'an Chitam, probably Language Zuyua by educated and its as well as Chitam (Martin and Grube 2000:32)44 is portrayed on the ruling family priesthood, to celebration of the of Stela 9 commemorating the important katun ending theToltec-inspired completion in the dates chosen for the dedication 9.2.0.0.0, 4 Ahaw (in a.d. 475), the first /ca?un-ending katuns?evident of in the southern lowlands. after the death of Siyaj Chan K'awil, his father. In this monuments, especially Teotihuacan's Toltec culture was to transform Tikal portrait he wears a complete, jaguar head-punctuated, again near the end of the seventh about two centuries feathered serpent cape that cascades down his back century, after the of Teotihuacan itself. while the serpent's head forms his headdress. This later, collapse serpent head is in turn crowned with the earliest known or example of the Aztec royal diadem, the xiuhuitzolli Copan

At Copan, at the southeasternmost extremity of Maya Court Marker" at Tikal, on Yax Nun Ayin's Tikal stelae 4 and 18, and lands, Toltec of the next generation founded another in with his name on his son's Stela 31. While others again conjunction dynasty as an outpost and in the image of Freidel enduring have concluded the glyph refers to another person (Schele and 1990:140-164; Stuart, 2000, 478-481), Ibelieve it refers to this Toltec his name in ruler's ritual role, or to the firemaker. 45. This "crown" is also among the titles preceding the and Satterthwaite 11:B3). 44. Formerly Kan Boar. inscription (Jones 1982:fig. Coggins: Toltec 61

resources Teotihuacan. But Copan, unlike Tikal, was located at the procuring jade rather than securing obsidian critical latitude of the "day that time began" so that at near Copan, as the later Teotihuacanos may have been. Copan the second solar zenith actually marked the day Sources of the famous Olmec blue jade have very that, at Teotihuacan, was commemorated by an August recently been found near Copan (Seitz et al. 2001). sunset from the Pyramid of the Sun, and by the layout of During the Classic period, this particularly desirable the whole site. Copan was an ancient place, inhabited a jade source may have been covered by volcanic flows millennium earlier by an elite with Gulf Coast, Olmec, (Russell Seitz, personal communication, May 2002), but connections (Fash 1991:67-70). Jim?nez Moreno long other jade sources in the region would certainly have ago suggested these early traders set the pattern for attracted Teotihuacan; Copan, however, controlled Teotihuacan's later entradas into the Maya regions Ixtepeque, the principal eastern Maya source of same (1966:17), but the Olmec were probably intent on obsidian, while highland Kaminaljuyu, at the latitude, controlled El Chayal, the principal western source. With Teotihuacanos settled in these two places, the movement of obsidian into the Maya lowlands might have been under Toltec control, just as the production and distribution of much central Mexican obsidian was probably under the control of Teotihuacan. Green obsidian was particularly emblematic of Teotihuacan, and of its storm god, itswarriors, and their weapons.

Yax K'uk'Mo'. At Copan at about a.d. 425, an individual with Toltec characteristics married into a local ruling family with macaw heraldry and became ruler. He was identified by a quetzal bird perched was asymmetrically on his headdress46 and portrayed posthumously wearing goggles that probably signified his role as Toltec ancestor. The prominent quetzal provided the first part of his new name, K'uk' (Mayan for quetzal); for the second part he adopted the local macaw, Mo'. His complete name was Yax K'uk' Mo', "First (or Green/Precious) Quetzal-Macaw"; this proclaimed his role as the founder of a new lineage that macaw combined quetzal and lines of descent.47 Yax K'uk' Mo's Toltec bloodline had brought the quetzal imagery. The iridescent blue-green quetzal feathers, so prized in central Mexico, defined their sacred feathered serpent, and figured prominently in the costume of the Teotihuacan elite?providing another motivation for trade with the southern highland cloud forests, home of the quetzal. Quetzal feathers were equally treasured by narrow Aztec nobles; Sahag?n describes the long tail

46. On Stela 5 at Uaxactun (ca. a.d. 378) the Toltec warrior wears an portrayed on the front (Probably Yax Nun Ayin) such a asymmetrical turban headdress with quetzal, and such headdresses are on at in the fifth with goggles found molded figurines Teotihuacan century (S?journe, 1959, fig. 65c). on 47. This coupled heraldry was featured the facade of the "Margarita" temple above the tombs of Yax K'uk' Mo' and his wife; here two serpent-wing birds, which may be read as one, intertwine a on a macaw on Figure 9. Tikal, Stela 9. Kan Chitam. Courtesy Tikal Project, their long necks, with quetzal head the right, head the left and Grube University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. (Martin 2000:194). 62 RES42 AUTUMN2002

feathers with wonder, "They become green, they words, cacatzilpia and xiuhmolpilli, may refer to the become turquoise. They bend, they constantly bend; tied bundle of wood, and then to the temple inwhich they glisten" (bk. 11 :ch. 2). Before the Teotihuacanos Toltec fire ritual occurred. However, David Stuart in arrived in the Maya regions, the elite Maya did not wear recent work with this glyph suggests it is read wi' te' nor feathers, perhaps because they were neither rare, nah, inwhich wi' means "root" or "origin" (n.d.); thus particularly valuable.48 Teotihuacan introduced feathers the glyph would read "Origin House" or "Origin to the Maya as royal costume (Coggins 1975:147). In Temple." This seems to me convincing?except that it dramatic contrast to the cool colors of the quetzal, the ignores the prominent tied bundles of wood. They as brilliant, hot, red, yellow, and green macaw feathers probably served logographic indicators of the fire were symbolic of the Sun and probably of a dominant ritual performed in the Toltec origin temple. Ceremonial Copan lineage. firedrilling is usually understood to have been tied to the Contemporary monumental imagery representing Calendar Round, but itmay also have been performed as Copan founder, Yax K'uk' Mo', has not been found, but for founding ritual Ringle suggests, or related to battle was a as recent analysis of his excavated bones suggests he Paso y Troncoso reported. Any such events would battered soldier, and his body was accompanied by the have been appropriate for the Toltec Origin Temple at one can shell platelets of the warrior headdress.49 Furthermore, a Copan, and for the foreigners at Kaminaljuyu, if Toltec warrior burial with Tlaloc goggles and obsidian assume such ritual from the Teotihuacan bundled wood on projectile points was associated with his wife's later and cycle signs the funerary vessels. tomb (Sharer 1997), while another burial had Tlaloc Itonce seemed logical that Yax K'uk' Mo' would have to not to west? goggles, a pyrite mosaic back disk and the warrior's gone Copan from Kaminaljuyu far the a shell platelets (Fash and Fash 2000:443, 445). since both places offered role in the obsidian trade (Coggins 1983, 1993). However, recent analysis of his Fire ritual. At each of the Early Classic Maya sites bones has shown Yax K'uk' Mo' may have grown up in near to as a where powerful Toltec immigrants were present, and at Peten, perhaps Tikal, and gone Copan veteran or subsequent Late Classic and Terminal-Classic Maya sites battle-scarred in his forties fifties (Sharer in where Toltec ancestry is displayed, Calendar Round 2000). He might have lived in Teotihuacan enclaves near associated fire ritual was practiced (Coggins 1987b; Peten at Tikal, Uaxactun, Tres Islas, Yaxha, R?o Azul, 1989). A prominent retrospective historical inscription Holmul where wall paintings of Teotihuacan warriors associates Yax K'uk' Mo' with a title that includes bound have recently been excavated (Estrada Belli 2001), or more bundles of wood, perhaps indicating his role in New possibly at El Peru (Coggins 1988c:101, 102)?and Fire ceremony that he had introduced at Copan (fig. evidence of Teotihuacan settlement in Peten will surely 8a).50 This same title is found much earlier at Tikal in be found. association with the Toltec period, although it iswritten as entirely phonetically there (fig. 8b). Known the Kaminaljuyu "Founder's glyph" at Copan, it comprises two crossed a or tied bundles of sticks with three affixes (fig. 7a). This The establishment of Teotihuacan outpost colony at west of and south of Tikal was might be read Wi Te' Nah, meaning "The Tied Bundle Kaminaljuyu Copan one at Temple."51 Thus Yax K'uk' Mo's title, like the N?huatl matched, perhaps contemporaneously, with mineral-rich AltaVista on the northern frontier (see map). But it is evidence from rich burials, at that 48. At Tikal, the earliest royal portrait with feathers depicts the Kaminaljuyu on with Teotihuacan Toltec ruler, Yax Nun Ayin, his inaugural Stela 4 (378 a.D.; fig. 4b). indicates important individuals distinctive 49. He is to have a.D. 426-437 thought reigned only (Sharer connections were living at this Guatemalan highland 1997). capital around a.d. 400, if not before (Kidder, Jennings, 50. The on the of Altar was dedicated Yax inscription, top Q, by and Shook Cheek Since Teotihuacan Mo'. 1946; 1977). may Rasaj, the sixteenth in line after the Copan founder, Yax K'uk' a have dominated obsidian craft and directed 51. The Ch'ol and Yucatecan word Wit' refers to tightly bound production two in an interest in bundle of kindling and may be read in the logographic image of its distribution northern Mesoamerica, te' affix would thus crossed bundles of bound wood; the wood, (T87), the redistribution of southern highland obsidian and as a or serve phonetic complement, with the nah (T23), temple house, as one reason other elite goods has been suggested for affix on the Michel Davoust has read the small face (T542) as right. Teotihuacano at serve as presence Kaminaljuyu (Sanders Ahaw, Lord (1995:585), but itmight read wich, face, and thus 1977:405, 408). Robert describes true craft a phonetic indicator for the reading wit' (Shannon Plank, personal Santley as a communication); T542, has also been read na, and e (ibid). specialization particular characteristic of Coggins: Toltec 63

Shook 1977 Teotihuacan, where most of the city's production was Jennings, and 1946; Cheek a, b) of which the earliest be dated in the fifth a.d.53 intended for exchange beyond the state (1989:131, may early century two 134). Teotihuacanos may have introduced such A green obsidian bifacial "sacrificial" knife,54 and carved conch in the earliest A-l in specialized production at Kaminaljuyu and. in the large trumpets tomb, were Mound A and surrounding valley, where obsidian workshops (Kidder,Jennings, Shook 1946:figs. 157, a at important, and Kenneth Brown believes their activities 162), might have filled priestly role the Pyramidof or of the Moon at Teotihuacan. were confined to long-distance luxury trade in jade, Quetzalcoatl However, obsidian, and ceramics [cacao and feathers] (1977:303, in the later Mound B with Teotihuacan talud-tableros, was 322-331). This did not involve the conquest of the initial dedicatory burial, B-l (ca. 475-500 a.D.), rich in fine in addition to two Kaminaljuyu. Teotihuacanos were city folk, and the elite unusually Maya jades, conch and 200 shell chose to settle in this cosmopolitan highland metropolis large trumpets perforated spangles, or surrounded by volcanoes, not unlike Teotihuacan, platelets (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946:fig. such characteristic of warrior although they lived apart from the center of the city 161a-d); platelets, Toltec (335). The Teotihuacan presence was first evident in the headdresses found with the sacrificed warriors at the of from a.d. were offerings, and then in the introduction of the talud Pyramid Quetzalcoatl, about 200, also tablero for the architecture above their elite tombs. The found in the tomb of the warrior usurper, Curl Nose known as Yax Nun at Tikal burial assemblages apparently evoked the ideologies of (now Ayin), (fig. 4a,b.; Coggins as as the Teotihuacan Tlaloc, and of Toltec warriors and their 1979b), well in the tomb of the Copan dynasty Yax K'uk' Mo' two a.d. calendric ritual as they were earlier seen at Tikal and founder the dating between 420 440 Copan. There is no evidence at Kaminaljuyu, however, and (Sharer 1997:6), earlier than with Kaminaljuyu. The tombs were in of the defining dynastic and permanent political power Kaminaljuyu located front of the assumed at those two Maya centers by the Toltec pyramid's axial stairway; this unusual location may have the the in immigrants. copied position of important burial front of the of at was Kaminaljuyu was located close to the latitude at Pyramid Quetzalcoatl Teotihuacan that looted before the was built over it which the calendar, or time, was believed to have begun adosada (Cabrera on was and August 12, 3114 b.c., and although Teotihuacan Castro, Sugiyama, Cowgill 1991:fig. 1, pit 5, p. 88). Itwas also the far from that southern latitude, the day was apparently position of the tombs chosen for Tikal's new commemorated there in the second century a.d. layout Toltec dynasty (Coggins 1975, 1979:265). In the of the city when the Pyramid of the Sun was focused on succeeding Kaminaljuyu tomb, B-ll, the was the sunset of this day?which was the second solar principal individual accompanied by three zenith over 600 km southeast (Coggins 1996; Drucker adolescents, jaguar and canid bones, and an eagle skull, 1977; Malmstrom 1973). The date did, however, have recalling the Pyramid of the Moon offering-burial at in its observational significance at the latitude of Kaminaljuyu, Teotihuacan furnishings (Kidder, Jennings, and at Copan to the east, as well as at Izapa to the west, in Shook 1946:fig. 32). One of six Mayoid stuccoed and in the cacao-growing Soconusco.52 At Teotihuacan this painted cylinder tripods this funerary assemblage an on a date would primarily have had commemorative depicts individual seated stool Mexican fashion wears a significance as the day on which time and the calendar (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook, fig. 173 a-f);55 he shell a had begun?events described, inAztec times, as having platelet headdress while carrying Toltec "incense" occurred at Teotihuacan (Mill?n 1981:230).

were The tombs. A few monumental Maya inscriptions 53. The Teotihuacan tombs at Kaminaljuyu dated as mid-fifth a.D. the State excavations remain at Kaminaljuyu, but they are much earlier and century by Pennsylvania University (Cheek 1977a,: 166), but evidence from where there are Count do not refer to these later lords, so inferences about Tikal, Long dates, were earlier. If the earliest was toward these men must derive from their tombs suggests they probably (Kidder, the end of the fourth century?the arrival of the foreigners at or Kaminaljuyu may have been mid-fourth century, earlier (Coggins 1975:145; 1979b:41). 54. Green obsidian was imported from Teotihuacan where itwas 52. The band at which these two solar zeniths most exactly the characteristic obsidian from the Teotihuacan-controlled Rachuca was to corresponded to 5/1 and 8/12 between 14 degrees 42' and 15 Mines the north (Spence 1996). on a degrees north latitude. Kaminaljuyu is 14 degrees 38' N; Copan is 14 55. The Maya elite sat cross-legged flat surface while the to on degrees 52' N, and Izapa is 14 degrees 54' N, whereas Teotihuacan is Toltec tended represent their rulers raised seats with one or both 19 degrees 42' N (Drucker 1974:165-168). legs down (Coggins 1979a:255). 64 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

bag and atl atl,56 and with the warrior's pyrite back disk warrior uniforms and insignia were derived from the and coyote "tails" (fig. 4; Stone 1989:156).57 Cylinder calendric fire serpent portrayed as a headdress that tripods were an elite ceramic form particularly defined the authority of Quetzalcoatl on the facade of characteristic of Teotihuacan after a.d. 300 (Cowgill the home pyramid. Platelet headdresses that resembled 1998:188) that assumed similar importance for the Early the crocodilian skin of this fire serpent, were worn by Classic Maya. Seven of these vessels in Tomb B-l, such warriors from Early Classic through Postclassic or probably all made at Teotihuacan, had calendric, times (Taube 1992, 2000a). The Fire serpent, Xiuhcoatl cycle-related decoration, with the "comb-and-bar" in was also patron of the drilling of New Fire, and thus for the basal band (Kidder,Jennings, and Shook 1946, figs. the ordering of the Calendar Round and its cycles, 174 a, c, d, 177b).58 This motif is a variant of the sign important Toltec religious preoccupations at Teotihuacan worn in the headdress of theOld FireGod at (VonWinning 1979), as they were a millennium later at Teotihuacan that consists of vertical bars with short Tenochtitlan. a perpendicular lines. It is common Teotihuacan sign as a as identified by Hasso Von Winning denoting tied Cacao. Dakin and Wichmann, noted above, bundle of firewood "related to the completion of time postulate an early wave of Nahuatl-speakers, some of on or near cacao periods" (fig. 10a; 1977:15, 16). Here, Von Winning whom settled the growing eastern alludes to the imagery of drilling New Fire at the Chiapas Soconusco coast, southwest of Kaminaljuyu completion of a calendric cycle, as symbolized for the (2000). These migrations or trade relationships may have or as Aztec by a tied bundle of fifty-two wooden sticks begun in the Preclassic period recent analysis of as as canes; fifty-two years was the most important cycle and bones at Kaminaljuyu has shown, well in the Early a.d. itwas represented by such bundle, or xiuhmolpilli (fig. 11). Classic period, probably before 400. In fact, the Butterflies were another element of Teotihuacan analysis of bones from the well-known Kaminaljuyu are in a tombs reveals that some individuals lived at both fire symbolism and butterfly wings shown had completion sign on one of the seven comb-and-bar Teotihuacan and at Kaminaljuyu (White 2001:70). one seven decorated vessels in this Early Classic tomb which also Another of the Teotihuacan cylinder tripods contained four of the warrior's pyrite mosaic-covered with comb and bar basal bands in tomb B-l may provide in cacao discs. For the Aztec, butterflies signified the immortality evidence of early Teotihuacan involvement the as of valiant warriors (Coggins 1975:193-196) and, as trade, well as of the early N?huatl use of the word noted, warrior butterfly symbolism was associated with cacao (fig. 10d; Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946:fig. on one a cacao the Teotihuacan goddess at Kaminaljuyu and the 177b).59 On side of this vessel is stylized Pacific coast. The personal insignia in these tombs imply tree with ridged pods and pendant white blossoms.60 a combination of military and religious roles likely The comb-and-bar sign is in the framing band below. characteristic of the elite trader and warrior Toltec Hasso Von Winning notes the resemblance of the was to the T563 traveling from Teotihuacan where, until the temple comb-and-bar sign Maya glyph, (fig. 10a,b; a destroyed about a.d. 350, they may have been part of 1979:22), which is also thought to signify bundle of to to the trained cohort of the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl. Toltec firewood, and refer logographically fire, k'ak'? or especially when it has a smoke fire affix (fig. 10b:2; 1968).61 It is the fire 56. What have been nine fabric each a set Kelley possible Maya glyph's may bags, containing with the double derived from the a significance, "combs," of: one greenstone figure, earspools, beads, bivalve, and miniature Teotihuacan which is an of the Old Fire obsidian bifacial knives, were found associated with individuals in the sign insignia central Burial 14 beneath the Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, Teotihuacan God. Since this vessel with the Teotihuacan comb-and and This have been (Cabrera Castro, Sugiyama cowgill 1991:88). may bar motif and the cacao tree was in a Kaminaljuyu tomb the contents of the often described as "incense The use of bags bags/' with of both local Maya and Teotihuacan style, the atl atl was confined to Toltec soldiers. offerings spearthrower apparently its decoration make a reference to cacao worn on is might bilingual 57. The shell platelet headdress by the figure the vessel worn a much simpler than the "jaguar-serpent-bird" type by worn on a in commanding officer. It resembles those by Jasaw Chan K'al 59. Cynthia Conides discusses this vessel (one of pair Tomb Lintel 2 of Temple I,Tikal (fig. 12b), and by soldiers on Panel 2 from B-l) and seven other stuccoed and painted cylinder tripods with the same a a Piedras Negras, for instance. motif, which she says always included figure with blowgun at a on 58. These seven vessels would be dated Late Xolalpan aimed at quetzal the opposite side (2001, 134-136). cacao Teotihuacan (a.d. 450-550) (Rattray 2001 :fig. 164; Conides 60. See Taube 1994:220, for identification of this blossom. in is no T563 is to 2001:239-240). They include 3 pairs, cylinder tripod pairs, burials 61. When there clarifying affix, currently thought sa are a Teotihuacan trait (Conides 2001:105-109). denote the phonetic syllable (Grube 1992, 207). Coggins:Toltec 65

AAAAA

Hill ^T

TTTTT L>

S ? s

Figure 10. Fire signs. a. Teotihuacan comb-and-bar From Von signs. Winning 1977:figs. 1a-e, 8e b. Maya fire glyphs. 1. T563 from Thompson, 1960:183. 2. T122:563a, T16:122:563, after D. H. Kelley 1976:fig. 54. c. Name of Jasaw Chan K'awil. Lintel 3 (D4-D5) Temple I,Tikal. From Maudslay 1899-1902:3:pl. 74. d. Stuccoed and painted cylinder tripod with cacao tree. Burial B-ll, Kaminaljuyu. From Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946:fig. 177b. 66 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

Figure 11. Aztec Xiuhmolpilli. Fifty-two-year bundle of sticks/canes for year Two Acatl (1507). Aztec patron deity Huitzlopochtli, died on One Death, the day commemorated. From Von Winning 1979:fig. 3.

and to fire ritual, even though inMaya languages c'ac', known from sixteenth century N?huatl manuscripts are fire, and cacaw, cacao, usually not the same (2000b; Cowgill 1992a). Although no phonetic signs phonetic sound.62 AtTeotihuacan the comb-and-bar had been identified, most scholars who have worked at sign may possibly have stood for the N?huatl word Teotihuacan have assumed there must have been some means una cosa cacatzilpia which "atar fuertemente" kind of writing at that huge commercial city. Taube is (Simeon, 1885:56), to tie something strongly, and refer the first to have assembled the scattered corpus of to the tied bundle of wood, or canes, of the New Fire Teotihuacan signs and presented them as part of a Ceremony?later called xiuhmolpilli, or xiuhtlalpilli, discrete system. He believes itwas a true writing system; tying of the year (fig. 11 ). The comb-and-bar sign may, this means itwas possible to reconstruct the spoken thus, have been read logographically as (caca) piltzia in language from the signs, which are phonetic, or "visually N?huatl on this vessel at Kaminaljuyu, and as a recorded speech" (3). For this reason, Taube calls the phonetic indicator for the N?huatl word cacaw, since signs found at Teotihuacan "glyphs," by analogy with cacao is shown on the vessel above.63 This would Mayan phonetic glyphs. Sixteenth century N?huatl confirm the Early Classic use of the NahuatK?) word writing used phonetic signs, especially in naming cacaw a in Teotihuacan context in the southern Maya people and places, but it is thought to have used many a cacao-growing regions, and perhaps indicate logographic64 signs as well, and not to have attempted cacao connection between andToltec New Fire ritual. It to reproduce speech. The reading of cacatzilpia might also confirm the early use of phonetic signs to suggested above might confirm Taube's hypothesis, as indicate syllabic readings inAztec writing. since the comb-and-bar, long believed to be an Karl Taube has recently demonstrated there may have ideographic sign for the Xiuhmolpilli, may actually been a writing system at Teotihuacan and that it have had a phonetic role. resembled and functioned in the same way as signs

Toltecs abroad (a.D. 700-950) 62. Fire could be like cacaw, without the written, glottal stops; Tikal word "fire" in Ch'ol (cac) is not glottal ?zed, whereas in Chorti it is (c'ajc', c'ajc, c'ac')) in Yucatecan itmay or may not be {cac, c'ac') The period after the of Classic Teotihuacan, (Dienhart 1997). In this paper I have tried to use c and c', instead of k collapse a name between a.D. 700 and 900, is known in central Mexico and k', but this is not always possible when iswell known a as the in with k'. The reader should consider them interchangeable. Epiclassic period. Probably actually beginning 63. Contemporaneously, about a.D. 400, the Maya referred to cacao on funerary vessels where the phonetic sound is clearly written as not c'a There are no to make such a ca, (Stuart 1988). glottal stops 64. Logographic signs represent words; ideographic signs indicate in distinction N?huatl. meaning (DeFrancis 1989:279, 278). Coggins: Toltec 67

the seventh century, this period provides abundant, facades, Lintel 2 of Temple I, and Lintel 3 of Temple IV complex, and little-understood testimony to the massive (fig. 12).66 It is likely that, as at Piedras Negras Teotihuacan diaspora, and to its integration with (Proskouriakoff 1960), the presumptive Tikal ruler surrounding cultures. AtTikal, there is dramatic achieved warrior status and full sovereignty only when evidence for both a continuing presence and for a Toltec he had captured prisoners and been successful in battle renascence in the reign of the Late Classic ruler of Tikal himself, as was true for the later Aztec Tlahtoani. After as or long known "Ruler A" "Ah Kakaw," although his such exploits he donned war serpent regalia for his now or title is read Jasaw Chan K'awiil I, "[?] Sky God K official portraits. The interior Lintel 3 of Temple I,where a the First" (fig. 10c; Martin and Grube 2000:44). Almost Jasaw Chan K'awil was buried, is dedicated to a victory century after the fall of Teotihuacan, this great Late and to a date that was forty days before the thirteen or Classic ruler revived, consciously relived, the Toltec katun (complete cycle) anniversary of the last date on florescence of thirteen katuns, 260 tuns, or one cycle the Early Classic Stela 31. This latter ancient date, with earlier?he was the twenty-sixth Tikal ruler since the the atl atl-cauac Shield, had recorded the death of Yax first, in Late Preclassic times. Such numbers were highly Nun Ayin, the great warrior, Jasaw Chan K'awil's revered significant, and prophecies for cycles of time would Toltec ancestor, and founder of the ruling dynasty. The predict similar events for periods of time with the same first date on the Late Classic lintel, 9.13.3.7.18, name and number. Thus Jasaw Chan K'awil expected celebrated the defeat of the grand site of Calakmul, and created events in the periods named "8 Ahaw" Tikal's greatest enemy; this probably provided Jasaw (k'atun 9.13.0.0.0) and "7 Ahaw" (9.13.10.0.0) that Chan K'awil's legitimizing battle. The second date, forty evoked his glorious Toltec Tikal ancestors of thirteen days later, commemorated his ancestor's death, thirteen was katuns before. Among his most important initiatives katuns before, with a bloodletting ceremony. Temple I, on renewed emphasis the ceremony associated with the which contained his tomb, was probably built near the completion of each katun. At the critical katun ending time of this victory and the significant anniversary?long 9.13.0.0.0, which denoted a complete cycle since the before Jasaw Chan K'awil's actual death. Lintel 2 a end of baktun eight, he built specialized architectural celebrates the victory by showing Jasaw Chan K'awil as on own complex with pyramids the east and west, his conqueror inwar serpent regalia, his pyrite back discs a on stela and altar at the north, and long structure the were later placed in his tomb (Trik 1963). The victory is as a south.65 Known Twin Pyramid groups, these identified by flint knife and shield glyph, analogous to complexes that institutionalized the public "scattering" his ancestor's warrior insignia (fig. 5c), except that at the ritual and its prophecy, grew bigger with each one that end of the seventh century the Maya used flint knives was built, until Christopher Jones estimates, the whole hafted in spears, not the Mexican atl atl. A shield with population of Tikal could have fit into the final group's weapons signified war and eventually became an plaza (1977). They were the legacy of Yax Nun Ayin's important emblem at Chich?n Itz?, where it is found as a reformulation of katun completion ritual fusion of crowning the facade of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars Toltec and Maya calendric practice. which also celebrates war, victory, and warriors.67 However, in the third revival, or Toltec recrudescence Toltec warrior. Jasaw Chan K'awil had perhaps at Chich?n Itz? the war shield was again paired with returned to rule Tikal from the Pasi?n River region to the atl atl darts, not a stone blade. Such emblems also west where foreign traders had continued contact with characterized the Epiclassic regime at Xochicalco, and central Mexico (Coggins 1975:443-456; 1979). He may the later Postclassic Toltec and Aztec states. This Toltec as a have presented himself militant Toltec outsider like motif exemplified Zuyuano as a political statement. Yax Nun Ayin, his predecessor and ancestor whose life and reign he emulated, and also as the rightful inheritor Venus warrior. At Late Classic Tikal, Jasaw Chan ofthat innovative reign. All five of Jasaw Chan K'awil's K'awil's persona was as well defined as his ancestors', monumental portraits show this ruler wearing variations on the shell-platelet war serpent uniform of the commanding officer: Stela 16, two Str. 5D-57 stucco 66. Lintel 3 of Temple Imay portray his ancestor Yax Nun Ayin, while Lintel 3 of Temple IV portrays the apotheosized Jasaw Chan K'awil in his son's later temple (Coggins 1975:551). war 65. Smaller ones had been built in earlier times Qones 1969), but 67. Tok-pakal, flint-shield signified (Stuart 1998b; Schele and Jasaw Chan K'awil revitalized the concept. Mathews 2000:226). 68 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

?>lllljliliii?0H i > i _ ii ? ii i

-i>^=--r~~r-S-x

Figure 12. Four portraits of Jasaw Chan K'awil. Tikal. Courtesy Tikal Project, University Museum, University of Pennsylvania. a. Str. 5D-57. b. Lintel 2, Temple I.

but his name remains untranslated. Michel Davoust reads Jasaw as "dawn" (fig. 10; 1995:551). This would be like the name of the later Copan ruler Yax Pasaj Chan Yoat {First Dawn Sky Lightning God) (Martin and Grube 2000:209) who, like Jasaw Chan K'awil at Tikal, associated himself with his Copan ancestor?the dynasty founder, Yax K'uk' Mo'. Ifjasaw might be read Ah Sah (cab), or Sah (cab) Ahaw, with the cab implied, then the name would mean dawn and the Morning Star or Venus, since this is the meaning of ah sah cab inYucatecan (Barrera V?squez 1980:4),68 and Venus was one of this ruler's principal insignia. The Venus sign was visible in his Warrior regalia in every portrait except the incomplete Lintel 2 of Temple I (fig. 12). Venus as Morning Star will also become the principal Toltec ancestor emblem at Tula, where it is found repeatedly in the guise of Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli?there the personified planet emerges at dawn from the gaping mouth of the earth monster, just as the head of the ruler emerges from the jaws of the "jaguar-bird-serpent" war serpent uniform (figs. 9, 13). The motif provides an example of continuity of meaning expressed through variation in form?from

68. In the Barrera V?squez dictionary "h" is used instead of "j," and "k" in place of "c." Coggins: Toltec 69

d i Figure 12, continued c. Stela 16. d. Lintel 3, Temple IV.Venus sign in headdress.

Early Classic Teotihuacan andTikal to Postclassic fifteenth, and sixteenth Late Classic rulers revived Toltec as a Chich?n Itz? and Tula. Finally, there is a possible symbolism which, atTikal, evoked founder (here logographic reading of Jasaw Chan K'awil's name that Yax K'uk' Mo'), and regenerated Toltec connections were new would have involved a deliberately archaizing use of the that perhaps embodied in emigrants from as Mayan version of the Teotihuacan comb-and-bar sign as Teotihuacan. The thirteenth ruler, once known was tied firewood, or simply as fire (fig. 10b, c).69This would Eighteen Rabbit whose accession only thirty days have given Jasaw Chan K'awil a firemaker name or title before the victory date recorded in Jasaw Chan K'awil's a like that of his revered ancestor. Fire events found with Temple IatTikal,70 constructed temple with Chac masks a this glyph are found contemporaneously on lintels at set at the corners and with serpent-mouth doorway. Yaxchilan (Stuart 1998a:402-409), and with the name or These are northern Maya traits, most characteristic of title K'ak'upakal (Fire Shield) in the inscriptions of the southwest Yucat?n peninsular Ch?nes region, and Chich?n Itz?, less than two centuries later. AtTikal in the conceivably significant at Copan for appearing there a in Late Classic period after the fall of Teotihuacan, Toltec first. Somewhat later, bilingual inscription carved was pride and symbolism persist in shield and weapon a Mayan and a central Mexican writing system emblems, a possible firemaker title, and in the set into the temple overlooking the ballcourt (Stuart a symbolism of the Venus warrior as Morning Star. After 2000:495-498). This included lineage emblem that the reign of Jasaw Chan K'awil explicit Toltec symbolism recapitulated the evolution of the serpent footed faded again atTikal. manikin scepter from Tlaloc to K'awil (fig. 7b). The sixteenth ruler, Yax Pasa] Chan Yoat (Martin and war Grube 2000:206), emphasized Toltec and death Copan and the western river regions imagery, with associated Tlaloc year signs and skulls Copan. There was a contemporary eighth century Toltec renewal at where the thirteenth, at 7 Lamat 1 The Copan, important 70. Eighteen Rabbit acceded 9.13.3.6.8 Mol; Tikal date is 9.13.3.7.18 11 Eznab 11 Chen (Fash 1991:80; Jones and 69. T563, otherwise read as sa. Satterthwaite 1982:98). 70 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

war Figure 13. Complementary Tlaloc/Chac and EarthA/enus emblems. a. Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli and Tlaloc/Chac panels. Structure J. Facade, Tula. From Acosta 1960:kms. XVI, XVIII. b. Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli and Chac, Temple ofWarriors facade, Chich?n Itz?. From Morris, Chariot, and Morris 1931 :fig. 17.

(Fash and Fash 2000:451-455), while Copan sculpture Jaguars?one, like the Copan Macaw, with the Sun as included a monumental stone skull "rack" and bacab patron, while the other is protected by the Toltec were figures?both important motifs at Chich?n Itz?.71 feathered serpent, with a quetzal persona.72 Sun imagery Copan may also have influenced Chich?n Itz? in that is rare in the southern lowlands, and except for the Yax K'uk' Mo's Early Classic royal heraldry is suggested posthumous portrait of Jasaw Chan K'awil in Temple IV later at Chich?n in depictions of two principals with atTikal, Copan is the only Classic Maya site that has contrasting identities in the Upper Temple of the monumental feathered serpent imagery. It is interesting that these feathered reptiles at Copan differ from most other monuments at the site in Calendar a having only 71. Bacabs were aged supporters of the sky, role they had one assumed in of the early creations when the earth and sky were not 72. two are separated. Charles Lincoln has noted there were more Bacabs at These Arthur Miller's "Captain Sun Disk" and "Captain Copan than anywhere but Chich?n Itz? (1990:62). Serpent" (1977). Coggins: Toltec 71

a at Round, rather than Long Count, dates (Nicholson populations they founded newTollan Xochicalco, 1987:171 ). These may represent dates of the kind epitome of Zuyuano, and perhaps at Cacaxtla where in a celebrated inYax K'uk' Mo's Origin Temple. Cop?n's Maya style painting covered the walls, reformulation manifest and possibly close relationship with Chich?n of the Teotihuacan tradition. Itz? might have stemmed from Copan control of the were Ixtepeque obsidian source that supplied northern Nunualca. These revenants probably Nunualca, or on Yucatan from the east, and dominated the peninsular who had departed Teotihuacan Tula, lived the Gulf trade after a.D. 800 (Ball and Taschek 1989; Braswell Coast and Maya frontiers (in Nonohualco), many 1997; Cobos 1998). returning north with southern ideas. For the Maya, the Aztec, and probably the Toltec and Teotihuacan before an Southern lowlands. Elsewhere in the Maya lowlands them, the Nunualca were people who spoke with was as Toltec military symbolism is found at sites along the accent. This true for the Yucatec Maya well (see western rivers that maintained trade with central Tozzer 1941:244, "Nonoualco"). Yax Nun Ayin atTikal Mexico. Tikal, east of the river trade routes between the had the title Nun because he was a foreigner, and much u was Gulf of Mexico and the southern highlands, lost contact later K'ak' Pakal of Chich?n Itz? apparently also a nun with the lively warrior culture of the Teotihuacan given title (Grube 1994:334-336). Most frequently u diaspora along the Middle Usumacinta and at the mentioned in the inscriptions of Chich?n Itz?, K'ak' Petexbatun sites. Tikal was, however, still an important Pakal, whether an individual or a title (Coggins 1987b), city after the beginning of the new baktun ten when, at also had the typically Toltec appellations of Warrior, Seibal on the Rasi?n river, Tikal was proclaimed, with its Lord of Fire, K'awil (God K), and Sprinkler, among as a old enemy Calakmul, part of declining southern others (Grube 1994:334, 335). In the Chilam Balam of are as lowland world dominated by Seibal at the beginning of Chumayel the Itz?es also frequently described new the baktun ten. At this millennial date Seibal people who could not speak the language (Tozzer emulated Tikal's cyclic celebrations at the culmination of 1941:note 123). Like Itz?, Toltec, Xiu, and Chichimec, a baktun nine, and renewed western Toltec culture the term Nunualca, perhaps of N?huatl origin,73 did emerged with monumental traits linked to the Puuc and not describe ethnic identity, but rather referred to Chich?n Itz? (Coggins 1990; Sabloff 1973). A group characteristics of groups of people (Davies 1977:162 identified as Itz?was settled in the Peten lakes region, 164; Proskouriakoff 1970:466). The Nunualca were not far from Tikal, in the ninth century (Chase 1985), and supposed to have lived along the southern Gulf Coast, a Grube sees possible "Itz?" glyph in the inscriptions of and been part of the populations of Tula, and Tollan, and Motul de San Jose north of Lake Peten Itz? (Schele and Cacaxtla, as well as migrating southeast into Oaxaca Mathews 1998:354, note 6; Florescano 1999:150, 151). and Veracruz, perhaps on the way to the Maya regions These would correspond to the Itz? that Ball and Gim?nez Moreno 1941; Carrasco 1971:463) However, Taschek describe as "eastern," as distinguished from these accented Nunualca were often associated with the "western" Itz? in southwestern Campeche (Taschek and artistic and intellectual ideals of Toltec?yotl, in contrast Ball 1989:188; Chase and Chase 1982). to the Chichimec warrior ethos (Pina Chan 1980:10; Quetzalcoatl's Gulf Coast goal, Tlillan Tlapalan, was Davies 1977:164). Nunualca were surely part of both near probably the mouths of the Usumacinta River, a the Teotihuacan and the Tula diasporas, while for the west were region of these western Itz?, and corresponding to Aztec they probably among the Tlailotlaques? both Anahuac and Nonohualco, which Izquierdo and those who returned from the Mixteca bringing learning as Figueroa describe the coastal zone east of Veracruz and craftsmanship lost in central Mexico for many and southwest of Campeche (1978:85). There the centuries (Chadwick 1996:143; Kubier 1984:89, 178). followers of Quetzalcoatl (of the Teotihuacan and/or Tula The Nunualca represented much of the cultural diaspora) mixed with the western Maya along the rivers, continuity in the three centuries between Teotihuacan making and exporting fine paste ceramics to the west and Tula (and after). They may have included Itz?, and north into Yucat?n. They married into Maya ruling remnants of the Tikal, Copan, and Usumacinta River families, absorbed Maya culture, both incorporating and Toltec dynasties, who had spread along the rivers and introducing the Toltec ethos of the lostTollan. Elements 73. Non-tli means someone mute in N?huatl. It is of this of the perhaps diaspora Maya west, Mayanized or including significant that Nonoquia means to "sprinkle" "scatter" (Kartunnen Toltec elite and their returned to craftsmen, eventually 1983:174), since the scattering ritual is integral to Toltec katun central Mexico with a where, other such dispersed ceremony atTikal, and Sprinkler is title of Kakupakal. 72 RES42 AUTUMN2002

Figure 14. Murals, Temple of the Chac Mool, Chich?n Itz?. a. Warrior seated on north side. From Morris, Chariot, and Morris 1931:fig. 306.

across the southern Campeche Ch?nes region to the Bay Nikolai Grube has identified an Ah Its'at, "learned, of Chetumal, coming from the west but also from the artistic man," title at Xcalumkin in the southwestern to south, thus corresponding the two Itz? groups peninsula and southern Puuc region that sources suggest described by Ball and Taschek (1989). was the home of the Itz? (1994:322).75 Its'at might even translate as "Toltec" which may refer to a wise and The Itz?. J. Eric S. Thompson argued that the Itz? artistic person in N?huatl, and thus conceivably supply or were the Putun sea traders, Chontal-speaking Maya the derivation of Itz?, or tea.76 However, I suggest the from Acalan, the watery rivers region of the mouths of Itz? name may have applied to the original Toltec as as the Usumacinta and Candelaria Rivers, in southwestern foreigners at Kaminaljuyu, Copan and Tikal, well Campeche and eastern Tabasco (1970:ch. 1; Scholes and to all subsequent southern traders in obsidian, whether or Roys 1968).While it isvery likely the trading Putun brought to the northern Maya by eastern Caribbean transmitted Toltec culture, their water-based home western river routes from the highlands of Guatemala. In environment is not likely to have been the source of N?huatl the word for obsidian, and obsidian blades, is many architectural and sculptural traits found at Chich?n were across Itz?, and it is Ch'ol, not Putun Chontal, that analysis of 75. There probably many homes the base of the and southwest as far as the Chinkultic region of Chiapas the inscriptions suggests was spoken, along with peninsula (Kowalski 1989). Yucatecan, at Chich?n Itz? (Garc?a Campillo, 2000).74 76. Tozzer quotes Roys on the derivation of Itz? as "one of the am . . . most widely distributed patronymics in Yucat?n" and "I coming to to that Itz? is a name not encountered" 74. The Chontal language of the Putun Maya is estimated have the conclusion plant yet a.D. et separated from Western Ch'ol around 800 (justeson al. 1985:59). (1941:note123). Coggins: Toltec 73

Figure 14, continued b. Lord seated on south side. From Morris, Chariot, and Morris 1931 :fig. 305a.

exclusive Toltec warrior-merchants itz-tli (Kartunnen 1983:109), the two languages share an weapons. "Itz?," have obsidian to all lowland "itz" root.77 Such an incorporation of a N?huatl word may supplied Maya sites, from south to and the Their into Maya may also be seen with cacaw. If it is a north, along peripheries. were the new Tollans at and Tikal N?huatl word, cacao might provide a striking example early capitals Copan while after the Classic the of the early dissemination of the N?huatl name of a (Stuart, 2000) period, was Chich?n Itz?. a Toltec desirable, and in the case of obsidian, necessary, trade principal MayaTollan There, Itz? merchant-warrior elite have controlled the item. Obsidian was a key element in the economy of may distribution of obsidian to lowland from Teotihuacan, and believed by some to have been a Maya sites, south to from the southern factor in the Toltec settlement of Kaminaljuyu and north, arriving highlands, Central and Michoac?n Copan, near the prime Maya sources. Obsidian Mexico, Veracruz, (Braswell were with fine ceramics and cast projectile points and knives significant parts of 1997), along paste Teotihuacan elite burials at Teotihuacan and abroad, and copper bells. as The Itz? of Chich?n Itz?were Toltec as they were essential for Teotihuacan warriors, their who, mostly southern Maya, were shaped for at least five centuries by the ?deal of Tollan. The Itz? comprised many polities in 77. Itz? is to derive from a combination of its, usually thought loose association that included learned elites sorcerer, and ha, or a, water?thus "water witch," in reference to the governing who used the of and trained and directed Sacred Cenote (Barrera V?squez 1980:272; Pina Chan 1980; Ringle, language Zuyua Gallareta, and Bey 1998:note 33). overlapping warrior and long-distance merchant segments 74 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

of their society, all sharing an idealized Toltec ancestry. structures in "Old Chich?n." As atTikal just before the From the beginning atTikal, and until Chich?n Itz?, completion of baktun eight, there is evidence of a Toltec calendar reforms had stressed the burden of time deliberate association made between the Long count and the ruler's obligations in metaphoric allusion to the and the fifty-two-year cycles. Fifteen out of Chich?n traveling merchant and warrior origins and the character Itz?'s twenty inscriptions, many with fire-making glyphs, of their culture. The armed men shown at Chich?n Itz?, cluster around the date 10.2.12.13.0, which was one a many explicitly identified as Toltec, were specialized fifty-two-year cycle after the completion of baktun 9. part of the complex Itz? society with its noble and (Coggins 1989:264).79 More significant, however, from priestly class, countless administrators, merchants, the point of view of conscious Toltec continuity between craftsmen, and ordinary citizens?all elements in the Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan, is the fact that the year of southern Mesoamerican Itz? coalition that shared an completion of the ninth Maya baktun, A.D. 830, also saw idealized Toltec warrior ancestry which was portrayed in the completion of thirteen fifty-two-year cycles since a.D. or a.d. the upper registers of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars at 154, the thirteenth New Fire since 206.80 Chich?n Itz?. This is a date close to the time of the sacrificial At Tula, Hidalgo, early evidence of the "Maya-Toitec" ceremony that inaugurated construction of the Pyramid was phenomenon is found in monumental sculpture that of Quetzalcoatl and when the talud-tablero represents men with Maya nose bars on stelae?a probably introduced to the site; itwas also thirteen fifty a.d. foreign monumental form. These suggest the seated two-year cycles before 1506?the last Aztec New on a figures with Maya traits the earlier Pyramid of the Fire ceremony, before the Spanish Conquest.81 Such Feathered Serpent at Xochicalco. Reused low relief choice of dates involved the structure of the Toltec and at facade panels from Tula's Building J, south of Pyramid C, the Maya calendars commemorated together Chich?n include Maya imagery that may prefigure the facade Itz? by the Maya-Chichimec warriors and the Maya were program of the Temple of the Warriors at Chich?n; they Nunualca nobles of the Itz?. The Itz? Toltec, suggest Maya traits were present relatively early at Chichimec, and Nunualca from the time of Yax Nun a.D. a Tula Grande, perhaps between 900-950, when Ayin and until K'ak'upakal?both of whom spoke with a new accent. a source its they may have combined with local motifs in bad While always foreign, of power, a or was to to way. The Tula panels display combination of, the Toltec ideal integral lowland Maya society an opposition between, a Maya long-snouted Chac which it supplied dynastic legitimacy. The Toltec Maya a with Tlaloc goggles, holding serpent scepter, and warrior represented the ideal ruler, although this role as Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli (fig. 13a).78 The juxtaposition of changed after the fall of Teotihuacan Quetzalcoatl divine Maya and divine Toltec patronage contrasts the became anthropomorphic. Similarly, calendric ritual a celestial and ancestral Maya storm god Chac (and early changed to accomodate multicultural society by to Tlaloc identity) with the terrestrial monster that disgorges emphasizing shorter cycles, the exclusion of linear a the Toltec warrior's militant Venus as Morning Star. The Maya history. Throughout millennium of development, on to late Chich?n as a same juxtaposition is found the facades of the Temple from early Teotihuacan Itz?, Toltec, was most of the Warriors at Chich?n Itz? (fig. 13b). Earlier way of life, remarkable for its clarity and the and paintings at Chich?n Itz? in the sanctuary of the continuity throughout enriching complicating in it came to the dominant Chacmool Temple, beneath the Temple of the Warriors, changes which characterize as male values of Mesoamerican civilization. show analogous segments of this society Itz? (fig. 14a,b). Here, uniformed Toltec Itz? (Venus) warriors are shown seated on jaguar thrones on the north side of the on throne room; they face Toltec Itz? nobles seated the south who hold Toltec Chac serpent legitimizing 79. Most are between 10.2.0.0.0 and 10.2.17.0.0, ca. a.d. variations on the manikin scepters?late Classic Maya 869-886. and Sun at Itz?" the scepter (Coggins 1988b; Coggins Ladd 1992). 80. In "New Chich?n (1989:264), retrospectively were on a a.d. 311/312 at Toltec calendric preoccupations are evident in ninth calculated cycles based beginning date of Teotihuacan David Drucker. It now seems more that century Mayan inscriptions on the stone lintels of supplied by likely a.d. 154 was the beginning. 81. One Tochtli (1506) should have been the completion of the resembles the thirteenth it to Two Acatl 78. This goggled Chac with serpentine scepter fifty-two-year cycle; was, however, changed a earlier that is the of the Moctezuma II Copan example of about century equivalent (1507), probably by (P?rez Negrete n.d.; Umberger Maya Manikin Scepter (figs. 7b, 13a). 1983:appendix). Coggins: Toltec 75

REFERENCES 1992 "Icons and ideologies at Teotihuacan: the Great Goddess reconsidered." InArt, Ideology, and the City Anderson, Patricia K. of Teotihuacan, ed. J.C Berlo, pp. 129-168. D.C. 1998 "Yul?,Yucat?n, M?xico: Terminal classic Maya Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, ceramic chronology for the Chich?n Itz? area/' Ancient Mesoamerica 9:151-165. Bierhorst, John (ed.) 1974 FourMasterworks of American Indian Literature. Straus & New York. Andrews, Anthony P. Farrar, Giroux, 1990 "The fall of Chich?n Itz?: a preliminary hypothesis/' Latin American Antiquity 1 (3):258-267. Bierhorst, John (trans.) 1992 History and mythology of the Aztecs: rhe Codex of Arizona Tucson. Andrews, Anthony P., E.W. Andrews, V, and Fernanco Robles Chimalpopoca. University Press, Castellanos 2001 The northern Maya collapse and its aftermath. Society Bove, Frederick J. transition." In for American Archaeology Meetings, 2000. New 1993 "The Terminal Formative-Early classic Orleans. The Balberta Project, ed. F. J. Bove et al., 177-194. University of Pittsburgh memoirs in Latin American Andrews, E.W., IV, and E.W. Andrews, V Archaeology #6. Pittsburgh. 1980 Excavations at Dzibilchaltun, Yucat?n, M?xico. Publication 48. Middle American Research Institute, Braswell, Geoffrey E. en Tu lane University, New Orleans. 1997 "El Intercambio Prehisp?nico Yucat?n, M?xico." In X Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueol?gicas en Aven i,Anthony F. Guatemala, 1996, ed. Juan Pedro La Porte, and 1980 Skywatchers of ancient Mexico. University of Texas H?ctor L. Escobedo, pp. 545-549. Ministerio de e Press, Austin. Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropolog?a 2000 "Out of Teotihuacan: origins of the celestial canon in Historia, Asociaci?n Tikal, Museo Nacional de e Mesoamerica/' InMesoamerica's Classic Heritage: Arqueolog?a Etnolog?a, Guatemala. from Teotihuacan to the Aztec, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 253-268. University Press Broda, Johanna of Colorado, Boulder. 2000 "Calendrics and ritual landscape at Teotihuacan: themes of continuity inMesoamerican cosmovision." In Aveni, Anthony F., Horst H?rtung, and John Charles Kelley Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: from Teotihuacan 1982 "AltaVista (Chalchihuites), astronomical implications to the Aztecs, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. of a Mesoamerican ceremonial outpost at the Tropic Sessions, pp. 397-432. University Press of Colorado, of Cancer/' American Antiquity 47(2):316-335. Boulder.

Ball, J.W., and Jennifer T. Taschek Brotherston, G. 1989 "Teotihuacan's fall and the rise of the Itz?: 2001 "Toi Ian." InOxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican realignments and role change in the Terminal Classic Cultures, vol. 3, ed. David Carrasco, pp. 236-239. Maya lowlands." InMesoamerica after the decline of Oxford University Press, New York. Teotihuacan: a.d. 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, pp. 187-200. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, Brown, K. L. D.C. 1977 "TheValley of Guatemala: A Highland port of trade." In Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu, ed. William T. Barrera V?squez, A. (ed.) Sanders, Michels, pp. 205-396. Pennsylvania State 1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Ediciones Cordemex, University Press. M?rida, Yucat?n, Mexico. Br?ggemann, Juergen J?rgen K. Berlo, Janet Catherine 1993 "El problema cronol?gico del Taj in."Arqueolog?a 1989 "Art historical approaches to the study of 9-10:61-72. Teotihuacan-related ceramics from Escuintla, In Guatemala." Anthropological Research Papers, vol. 39. New frontiers in the archaeology of the Pacific Coast of southern Mesoamerica, ed. Frederick Bove and L. Heller, pp. 147-162. Arizona State University. 76 RES42 AUTUMN2002

Cabrera Castro, R. Chase, Diane Z., and Arlen F. Chase 2000 "Teotihuacan cultural traditions transmitted into the 1982 "Yucatec influence inTerminal Classic northern to recent In Postclassic according excavations." Belize." American Antiquity 47(3):596-614. Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: from Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, Cheek, Charles D. pp. 195-218. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 1977a "Excavations at the Palangana and the Acoprolis, Kaminaljuyu." In Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: a Cabrera Castro, Rub?n, Saburo Sugiyama, and George L. study in prehistoric culture contact, ed. William T. Cowgill Sanders and JosephW. Michels, pp. 1-204. 1991 "The Templo de Quetzalcoatl Project at Teotihuacan: Pennsylvania State University. a Ancient Mesoamerica 2:77-92. at In preliminary report." 1977b "Teotihuacan influences Kaminaljuyu." Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu: a study in prehistoric Cabrera Castro, Rub?n, and Saburo Sugiyama culture contact, ed. William T. Sanders and Joseph W. 1999 "El proyecto arqueol?gico de la Pir?mide de la Michels, pp. 441-452. Pennsylvania State University. Luna." Arqueolog?a 21:19-33. Cobean, Robert H., and Alba Guadalupe Mastache Cabrera Castro, R., S. Sugiyama, and G. L. Cowgill 2001 "Toltec." InOxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican 1991 "The Templo de Quetzalcoatl Project at Teotihuacan: Cultures, vol. 3:239-241, ed. David Carrasco. Oxford A Preliminary Report." Ancient Mesoamerica University Press, New York. 2:77-92. Cobos, Rafael Carrasco, David, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions (eds.) 1998 "Chich?n Itz? y el Cl?sico terminal en las tierras 2000 Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to bajas Mayas." InXI Simposio Internacional de the Aztecs. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Investigaciones Arqueol?gicas en Guatemala, 1997, ed. Juan Pedro Laporte, and H?ctor L. Escobedo, pp. Carrasco, Pedro 791-802. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto e 1971 "The people of Central Mexico and their historical Nacional de Antropolog?a Historia, Asociaci?n traditions." InHandbook of Middle American Indians, Tikal, Museo Nacional de Arqueolog?a e Etnolog?a, 11. Northern ed. n.d. the end of Itz?: a review of the vol. Archaeology of Mesoamerica, Dating Chich?n G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernai, pp. 459-473. University chronology and interpretations between 1937 and of Texas Press, Austin. 1997.

Caso, Alfonso Cobos, Rafael, and Terence L.Winemiller 1967 "El calendario Mexicano." In Los Calendarios 2001 "The Late and Terminal Classic Period causeway Prehisp?nicos, pp. 3-90. Universidad Nacional systems of Chich?n Itza, Yucat?n, Mexico." Ancient Aut?noma de M?xico, Mexico. Mesoamerica 12:283-291.

Chadwick, Robert L. Coe, W. R. 1995 "Los 'Olmeca-Xicalanca' de Teotihuacan [1966]." In 1972 "Cultural contact between the lowland Maya and as seen In Antolog?a de Cacaxtla, vol. 1, ed. A. Garcia Cook Teotihuacan from Tikal, Peten, Guatemala." and B. L.Merino Carrion, pp. 120-149. Instituto Teotihuacan XI Mesa Redonda, ed. Alberto Ruz L., Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. pp. 257-271. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropolog?a, Mexico. Chase, Arlen F. 1985 "Postclassic Peten interaction spheres: the view from Coggins, Clemency Chase An historical Tayasal." In The Lowland Maya Postclassic, ed. Arlen 1975 "Painting and Drawing Styles atTikal: F. Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 184-205. and iconographie reconstruction." Doctoral University of Texas Press, Austin. dissertation, Harvard University. University Ann # 76-3783. 1986 "Time depth or vacuum: the 11.3.0.0.0 correlation Microfilms, Arbor, Michigan new some and the Lowland Maya Postclassic." In Late Lowland 1979 "A order and the role of the calendar: of Middle Classic Period atTikal." Maya civilization: Classic to Postclassic, ed. J.A. characteristics the Sabloff and E.W. Andrews, V, pp. 99-140. University InMaya Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. Norman of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Hammond, pp. 38-50. University of Texas Press, Austin. Coggins: Toltec 77

1979 "Teotihuacan atTikal in the Early Classic Period." In 1992c "Pure language and lapidary prose." InNew theories on Actes:8, pp. 251-269. 42nd International Congress of the ancient Maya, ed. E. C. Danien and R. J. Americanists, Paris 1976. Sharer, pp. 99-107. University Museum, University of 1980 "The shape of time: some political implications of a Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. four-part figure." American Antiquity 45(4):727-739. 1993 "The age of Teotihuacan and itsmission abroad." In 1983 "An instrument of expansion: Monte Alban, Teotihuacan: Art from the city of the gods, ed. K. Teotihuacan, and Tikal." In Interdisciplinary Berrin and E. Rasztory, pp. 140-155. Thames and approaches to a study of highland-lowland Hudson, New York. interaction, ed. Arthur G. Miller, pp. 49-68. 1996 "Creation religion and the numbers at Teotihuacan Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. and Izapa." Res 29/30:16-38. 1984 Cenote of Sacrifice: catalogue. InCenote of Sacrifice: Maya treasures from the sacred well at Chich?n Itz?, Coggins, Clemency Chase, and JohnM. Ladd ed. C. C. Coggins, and O. C. Shane, III,pp. 22-166. 1992 "Wooden artifacts." InMemoirs of the Peabody University of Texas Press, Austin. Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 1987a "The names of Tikal." InPrimer simposio mundial 10:3:235-344: Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, sobre epigraf?a Maya 1986, pp. 23-45. Asociaci?n Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n, Mexico, ed. C. C. Coggins. Tikal, Guatemala. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 1987b "New fire at Chich?n Itz?." InMemorias, pp. 427-484. Primer coloquio internacional de Mayistas Cohodas, Marvin 1985. Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, 1978a "Diverse architectural styles and the ball game cult." Mexico. InMiddle Classic Mesoamerica: a.d. 400-700, ed. E. 1988 "Classic Maya metaphors of death and life." Res Pasztory, pp. 86-108. Columbia University Press, 16:64-84. New York. 1988 "TheManikin Scepter: Emblem of Lineage." Estudios 1978b The great ball court at Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n, Mexico. de Cultura Maya 17:123-158. Garland, New York. 1988 "On the Historical Significance of Decorated 1989 "The epiclassic problem: a review and alternative Ceramics at Copan and Quirigua and Related Classic model." InMesoamerica After the Decline of Maya Sites." In The Southeast Classic Maya Zone, Teotihuacan: a.d. 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. ed. E. H. Boone, and G. R.Willey, pp. 95-123. Berlo, pp. 219-240. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. D.C. 1989 "A new Sun at Chich?n Itz?." InWorld A. Archaeoastronomy, ed. Aveni, pp. 260-275. Collingwood, R. G. 2nd Oxford International conference on 1967 The idea of history [1946]. Clarendon Press, Oxford. archaeoastronomy, M?rida, Yucat?n, 1986. Cambridge University Press, New York. Conides, Cynthia 1990 "The birth of the baktun at Tikal and Seibal." InVision 2001 "The stuccoed and painted ceramics from and revision inMaya studies, ed. F. S. Clancy and P. Teotihuacan, Mexico: a study of authorship and D. Harrison, pp. 79-97. University of New Mexico function of works of art from an ancient Press, Albuquerque. Mesoamerican city." Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New York. Coggins, Clemency Chase (ed.) 1992a Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Cowgill, George L. Yucatan: textiles, basketry, stone, bone, shell, 1992a "Teotihuacan glyphs and imagery in the light of some ceramics, wood, copal, rubber, other organic early Colonial texts." InArt, Ideology and the City of materials, and mammalian remains. Memoirs of the Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, pp. 231-246. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 10:3. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 1992b "Toward a political history of Teotihuacan." In Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Ideology and pre-Columbian civilizations, ed. A. Demarest and G. Conrad, pp. 87-114. School of Coggins, Clemency Chase American Research Press, Santa Fe, New Mexico. 1992b "Dredging the Cenote." InMemoirs of the Peabody 1996 Discussion. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:325-331. Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 10:3:9-31 :Artifacts from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n, ed. C. C. Coggins. Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 78 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

1998 "Nuevos datos del Proyecto Templo de Quetzalcoatl Fash,William L. acerca de la cer?mica Miccaotli-Tlamimilolpa." In 1991 Scribes, warriors and kings: the city of Copan and the Los ritmos de cambio en Teotihuacan: reflexiones y ancient Maya. Thames and Hudson, New York. discusiones de su cronolog?a, ed. R. Brambila and Cabrera Castro R., pp. 185-199. Instituto Nacional Fash,William L., and BarbaraW. Fash de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. 2000 "Teotihuacan and the Maya: a classic heritage." In Mesoamerica's classic heritage: from Teotihuacan to Dakin, Karen, and Soeren Wichmann the Aztecs, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, a 2000 "Cacao and chocolate: Uto-Aztecan perspective." pp. 433^463. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:55-75.

Feldman, Lawrence H. Davies, Nigel 1974 "Tollan inCentral Mexico: The geography of 1977 The Toltecs until the fall of Tula. University of economic specialization." InUniversity of Missouri Oklahoma Press, Norman. Monographs inAnthropology, Vol. 1:150-189: Studies of Ancient Tollan, ed. R. A. Diehl. Columbia, Davoust, Michel MO. 1995 L'?critureMaya et son d?chifrement. CNRS Editions, Paris. Florescano, Enrique 1999 Memoria ind?gena. Taurus, Mexico. DeFrancis, John 1989 Visible speech: the diverse oneness of writing Fourni er, P. systems. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. 2000 The Epiclassic in the Tula region beyond Tula Chico. Chich?n Itz?. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C, Diaz, Clara L. February 2000. 1981 "Ching? y la expansi?n Teotihuacana." In Interacci?n cultural en M?xico central, ed. E. Rattray and J. K. Garcia Campillo, Miguel (Foundation for the Advancement of Litvak, pp. 107-111. Universidad Nacional Mesoamerican Studies) Aut?noma de M?xico, Mexico. 2000 Linguistic study: Chich?n Itz? inscriptions. http://www.famsi.org/reports/garciacampillo/garcia. Diehl, Richard A. March 2002. 1981 "Tula." InHandbook of Middle American Indians, vol. supplement 1:277-295:Archaeology, ed. J.A. Garcia Chavez, Raul Sabloff. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1998 "Evidencias Teotihuacanas en Mesoamerica y su posible significado para la cronolog?a de Dienhart, John M. (Odense University, Denmark) Teotihuacan." In Los Ritmos de cambio en 1997 The Mayan Languages: A Comparative Vocabulary Teotihuacan: reflexiones y discusiones de su R. R. http://www.hum.sdu.dk/projekter/mayainfo.htm. cronolog?a, ed. Brambila and Cabrera Castro, e April 2002. pp. 477-502. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a Historia, Mexico. Drucker, R. David 1974 "Renovating a reconstruction: the ciudadela at Garc?a Cook, Ang?l Teotihuacan, Mexico: construction sequence, layout, 1981 "The historical importance of Tlaxcala in the cultural In and possible uses of the structure." Doctoral development of the Central Highlands." Handbook dissertation, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY. of middle American Indians, Vol. Supplement A. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1:244-276. Archaeology, ed. J. Sabloff. University 1977 "A solar orientation for Teotihuacan." In Los procesos of Texas Press, Austin. de cambio en Mesoamerica y ?reas circunvecinas, 1989 "El formativo en la region de Tlaxcala, Puebla." In vol. 2, pp. 277-284. XV Mesa Redonda. Sociedad Precl?sico o formativo: avances y perspectivas, ed. Mexicana de Antropolog?a y Universidad de M. Carmona Mac?as, pp. 161-194. Instituto Nacional de e Mexico. Guanajuato. Antropolog?a Historia,

Estrada Belli, Francisco Garc?a Pay?n, Jos? su 2001 "Maya kingship at Holmul, Guatemala." Antiquity 1991 "Zempoala, compendio de estudio arqueol?gico." 75:685-686. InZempoala: el estudio de una ciudad prehisp?nica, ed. J. K. Br?ggemann, pp. 27-49. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. Coggins: Toltec 79

Gaxiola Gonzalez, Margarita Jim?nez Moreno, Wigberto 1999 "Huapalcalco y las tradiciones alfarereas del 1941 "Tula y los Toltecas seg?n las fuentes hist?ricas." Eptcl?sico." Arqueolog?a 21:45-72. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol?gicas 5(2-3):79-83. Gendrop, Raul 1966 "Mesoamerica before the Toltecs," trans. M. 1983 Los Estilos R?o Bec, Ch?nes y Puuc en la arquitectura Bullington and C. R.Wicke. InAncient Oaxaca, ed. Maya. Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, John Raddock, pp. 1-82. Stanford University Press, Mexico. Palo Alto, Calif. en 1984 "El tablero-talud la arquitectura mesoamericana." Mesoamericana 2:4-27. Cuadernos de Arquitectura Jones, Christopher 1969 "The twin pyramid group pattern: a classic Maya Graham, Ian architectural assemblage at Tikal, Guatemala." 1967 Archaeological Explorations in El Peten, Guatemala. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Middle American Research Institute Publication, Vol. Philadelphia. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Ml. 33. Tu lane University, New Orleans. 1999 The lords of Tikal. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Grube, Nikolai Jones, Christopher, and Linton Satterthwaite 1992 "Classic Maya dance: evidence from hieroglyphs and 1982 The monuments and inscriptions of Tikal: the carved iconography." Ancient Mesoamerica 3:201-218. monuments. Tikal Reports, Vol. 33:A. University 1994 "Hieroglyphic sources for the history of northwest Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. Yucatan." InHidden among the hills: Maya archaeology of the northwest Yucatan peninsula, ed. Jones, Lindsay Hans J. Prem, pp. 316-358. Verlag von Flemming, 1995 Twin City Tales. University Press of Colorado, Niwot, Mockmuhl, Germany. CO.

Hers, Marie-Areti Justeson, John S., and Lyle Campbell (ed.) 1989 Los Toltecasen tierras Chichimecas. Cuadernos del 1984 Phoneticism inMayan hieroglyphic writing. Institute Historia del Arte, Vol. 35. Instituto de Investigaciones forMesoamerican Studies, State University of New Est?ticas, Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de York at Albany, Albany. M?xico, Mexico. Justeson, John S.,William M. Norman, Lyle Campbell, and Hill, Jane H. Terence Kaufman a of on 2001 "Proto-Uto-Aztecan: community cultivators 1985 The foreign impact lowland Maya language inCentral Mexico?" American Anthropologist and script. Middle American Research Institute 103(4):913-934. Publications Vol. 53.Tulane University, New Orleans.

Hodder, Ian Karttunen, Frances 1986 Reading the past: current approaches to interpretation 1983 An analytical dictionary of N?huatl. University of in archaeology. Cambridge University Press, New Texas Press, Austin. York. 1987 "The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings." In Kaufman, Terence S., and William M. Norman The archaeology of contextual meanings, ed. Ian 1984 "An outline of proto-Cholan phonology, morphology, Hodder, pp. 1-10. Cambridge University Press, New and vocabulary." InPhoneticism inMayan York. hieroglyphic writing, ed. J. S. Justeson and L. Campbell, pp. 77-184. Institute forMesoamerican Izquierdo, Ana Luisa, andTolita Figueroa Studies, State University of New York at Albany, 1978 "Las influencias N?huas entre los Chontales." In Albany. Estudios Preliminares Sobre losMayas de las Tierras Bajas Noroccidentales, ed. Lorenzo Ochoa, pp. Kelley, David H. 71-89. Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad 1968 "Mayan fire glyphs." Estudios de cultura Maya Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, Mexico. 7:141-157. 1983 "TheMaya calendar correlation problem." In Jim?nez Betts, Peter Civilization in the ancient Americas, ed. Richard M. 2001 "Chalchihuites-Alta Vista." InOxford Encyclopedia of Leventhal and Alan Kolata, pp. 157-208. University Mesoamerican Cultures, vol. 1:171, 172, ed. David of New Mexico Press; Peabody Museum of Carrasco. Oxford University Press, New York. Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. 80 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

Kelley, John Charles 1973a "Iconographie aspects of architectural profiles at 1983 El centro ceremonial en la cultura de Chalchihuites. Teotihuacan and inMesoamerica." In The Instituto de Investigaciones Antropol?gicas, iconography of Middle American sculpture, pp. Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico, Mexico. 24-39. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. 1973b "Science and humanism among Americanists." In The Kelley, John Charles, and Ellen Abbott Kelley iconography of Middle American sculpture, pp. 2001 "AltaVista de Chalchihuites (Zacatecas, Mexico)." In 163-167. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Archaeology of ancient Mexico and Central America: 1982 "Serpent and atlantean columns: symbols of an encyclopedia, ed. Susan T. Evans and David L. Maya-Toltec polity." Journal of architectural historians Webster, pp. 16, 17. Garland, New York. 61(2):93-115. 1984 The art and architecture of ancient America: the Kepecs, Susan, Gary Feinman, and Sylviane Boucher Mexican, Maya, and Andean peoples, 3rd ed. 1994 "Chich?n Itz? and its hinterland: a world systems Penguin, New York. perspective." Ancient Mesoamerica 5:141-158. 1985a "History or anthropology of art [1977]." InStudies in ancient American and European art: the collected Kidder, Alfred V, Jesse B. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook essays of George Kubler, ed. T. F. Reese, pp. 406-412. 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Publication, Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Vol. 561. Carnegie Institution ofWashington, 1985b "Period, style and meaning in ancient American art In in ancient Washington, D.C. [1970]." Studies American and European art: the collected essays of George Kubier, Kirchhoff, Paul ed. T. F. Reese, pp. 395-405. Yale University Press, 1966 "Civilizing the Chichimecs: a chapter in the culture New Haven, Conn. history of ancient Mexico [1948]." InAncient 1985c "Renascence and disjunction in the art of Mesoamerica: Selected Readings, ed. John A. Mesoamerican antiquity [1977]." InStudies in Graham, pp. 273-278. Peek Publications, Palo Alto, ancient American and European art: the collected Calif. essays of George Kubler, ed. T. F. Reese, pp. 351-359. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Kluckhohn, Clyde 1977 "The conceptual structure inMiddle American Kubier, George, and Charles Gibson Studies." In The Maya and their neighbors: essays on 1985 [Selections from] The Tovar calendar: an illustrated Middle American anthropology and archaelogy Mexican manuscript ca. 1585 [1951]. In Studies in art: [1940], ed. C. L. Hay, R. L. Linton, S. K. Lothrop, and ancient American and European the collected 41-51. New of ed. T. F. 51-60. H. L. Shapiro, Vaillant, pp. Dover, York. essays George Kubler, Reese, pp. Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Kowalski, Jeff K. 1989 "Who am Iamong the Itz?? Links between northern Le?n-Portilla, Miguel Yucat?n and the western Maya lowlands and 1963 Azfec thought and culture. University of Oklahoma highlands." InMesoamerica after the decline of Press, Norman. Teotihuacan a.d. 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J.C. 1980 "About the Ancient Toltecs." InNative American Berlo, pp. 173-186. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, spirituality: ancient myths, discourses, stories, D.C. doctrines, hymns, poems from the Aztec, Yucatec, Quiche-Maya and other sacred traditions, pp. Kristan-Graham, Cynthia 207-209. Paulist Press, New York. 1989 "Art, rulership and the Mesoamerican body politic at Tula and Chich?n Itz?."Doctoral dissertation, L?vi-Strauss, Richard University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles. 1966 The savage mind. University of Chicago Press, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Chicago.

Kubier, George Lincoln, Charles E. 1961 "Chich?n Itz? y Tula." Estudios de cultura Maya 1986 "The chronology of Chich?n Itz?: a review of the 1:47-79. literature." In lafe lowland Maya civilization, ed. J.A. 1962 "R?plica del Doctor Kubier al trabajo de Alberto Ruz Sabloff and E.W. Andrews, V, pp. 141-196. School of que antecede." Estudios de cultura Maya 2:221-223. American Research Books, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Coggins: Toltec 81

1990 "Ethnicity and social organization at Chich?n Itz?, Manrique Casta?eda, Leonardo Mexico." doctoral en Yucat?n, Unpublished dissertation, 1989 "Los nombres de lugar el Codice Mendocino." In Harvard Mass. De University, Cambridge, toponimia y top?nimos: contribuciones al estudio de nombres de lugar, ed. Ignacio Guzman L?pez Austin, Alfredo Betancourt, pp. 167-187. Instituto Nacional de en e 1989 Hombre-Dios: religi?n y pol?tica el mundo Antropolog?a Historia, Mexico. N?huatl [1972]. Serie Cultura N?huatl, Vol. 15:2. Instituto de Investigaciones Hist?ricas, Universidad Manzanilla, Linda Nacional Aut?noma de Mexico. 1998 "El M?xico, estado Teotihuacano." Arqueolog?a Mexicana 1994 Tamoanchan y Tlalocan. Fondo de Cultura 6(32):22-31. Econ?mica, Mexico.

Marquina, Ignacio L?pez Austin, Alfredo, and Leonardo L?pez Lujan 1941 "Relaciones entre los monumentos del norte de 1999 Mito y realidad de Zuyu?: serpiente emplumada y las Yucat?n y los del centro de M?xico." Revista transformaciones mesoamericanas del Cl?sico al Mexicana de estudios antropol?gicos Poscl?sico. El Colegio de M?xico, Fondo de Cultura 5(2-3):135-150. Econ?mica, Mexico. 2000 "The myth and reality of Zuyua: the feathered serpent Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube and mesoamerican transformations from Classic to 2000 Chronicles of theMaya kings and queens: In Postclassic." Mesoamerica's Classic heritage: from deciphering the dynasties of the ancient Maya. Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, Thames and Hudson, New York. and S. Sessions, pp. 21-84. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Mastache, Alba Guadelupe, and Robert H. Cobean 1989 "The Coyotlatelco culture and the origins of the L?pez Austin, Alfredo, Leonardo L?pez Lujan, and Saburo Toltec state." InMesoamerica after the decline of Sugiyama Teotihuacan?a.d 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. at 49-68. 1991 "The temple of Quetzalcoatl Teotihuacan: its Berlo, pp. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, possible ideological significance." Ancient D.C. Mesoamerica 2:93-105. In 2001 "Tula." Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, vol. 3:269-271, ed. David Carrasco. Oxford Lothrop, Samuel Kirkland University Press, New York. 1952 Metals from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Matheny, Roy T. at Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. X:2. Peabody 1986 "Investigations El Mirador, Peten." National Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Geographic Research Reports 2(3):332-353. University, Cambridge, Mass. Maudslay, Alfred P. Lowe, Gareth W. 1899-1902 Archaeology, Biolog?a Central i-Americana, Vols. 1977 "TheMixe-Zoque as competing neighbors of the I-VI. R. H. Porter and Dulau, London. In early lowland Maya." Origins of Maya civilization, ed. R. E.W. Adams, pp. 197-248. University of New Miller, Arthur G. Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1978 "Capitanes del Itz?; evidencia mural in?dita de Chich?n Itz?." Estudios de cultura Maya 11:121-154. Maldonado C?rdenas, Rub?n, and Edward P. Kurjack 1993 "Reflexiones sobre las relaciones entre Chich?n Itz? y Miller, Mary Ellen sus "A vecinos peninsulares y Tula." Arqueolog?a 1985 re-examination of the mesoamerican chacmool." 9-10:97-103. Art bulletin 67r(1):7-17.

Malmstrom, Vincent H. Miller, Virginia E. 1970 "Origin of the mesoamerican 260 day calendar." 1999 "The skull rack in mesoamerica." InMesoamerican as a Science 181:939-941. architecture cultural symbol, ed. Jeff K. Kowalski, in 1981 "Architecture, astronomy, and calendrics pre pp. 340-360. Oxford University Press, New York. In Columbian America." Archaeoastronomy of the Americas, ed. Ray A. Williamson, pp. 249-261. Ballena Press, Los Altos, California. 82 RES42 AUTUMN2002

Mill?n, Ren? Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del 1973 "The Teotihuacan map: Part 1:Text." InUrbanization 1979 Descripci?n, historia y exposici?n del C?dice at Teotihuacan, ed. Ren? Mill?n. University of Texas Borb?nico [1898]. Edici?n facsimilar, Siglo XXI, Press, Austin. Mexico. 1974 "The study of urbanism at Teotihuacan, Mexico." In new Mesoamerican archaeology: approaches, ed. Rasztory, Esther Norman Hammond, pp. 335-362. University of Texas 1978 "Historical synthesis of the Middle Classic Period." In Press, Austin. Middle Classic Mesoamerica: a.d. 400-700, ed. E. 1981 "Teotihuacan: city, state, and civilization." In Pasztory, pp. 3-22. Columbia University Press, New Handbook of Middle American Indians, Supplement York. 1:198-243:Archaeology, ed. J.A. Sabloff. University 1992 "Abstraction and the rise of a Utopian state at of Texas Press, Austin. Teotihuacan." InArt, ideology and the city of 1992 "Teotihuacan studies: from 1950 to 1990 and Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, pp. 281-320. D.C. beyond." InArt, ideology and the city of Teotihuacan, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, a In ed. J. C. Berlo, pp. 339-429. Dumbarton Oaks, 1993 "Teoithuacan unmasked: view through art." D.C. art the of the ed. K. Washington, Teotihuacan: from city gods, 45-63. Berrin and E. Pasztory, pp. Thames and Molloy, John, and David H. Kelley Hudson, New York. 1993 "Una secuencia din?stica Tolteca." Arqueolog?a 1997 Teotihuacan: an experiment in living. University of 9-10:105-120. Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Morante L?pez, Rub?n P?rez Negrete, Miguel 2001 "Las c?maras astron?micas subterr?neas." n.d. "ElTemplo del Fuego Nuevo de Huixachtecatl: Arqueolog?a Mexicana 8(47):46-51. funci?n de un centro ceremonial al sur de la cuenca de M?xico." Tesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropolog?a Morris, Earl H., Jena Chariot, and Ann Axtell Morris e Historia, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e 1931 The Temple of theWarriors at Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n, Historia, M?xico. 2 vols. Publication 406. Carnegie Institution of D.C. Pina Rom?n Washington, Washington, Chan, 1980 Chich?n Itz?: ciudad de los brujos del agua. Fondo Nicholson, H. B. de Cultura Econ?mica, Mexico. 1957 "Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tollan." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, Cambridge, Proskouriakoff, Tatiana Mass. 1950 A study of Classic Maya sculpture. Publication no. 1987 "The 'feathered serpents' of Copan." In The periphery 593. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, W. D.C. of the southeastern Classic Maya realm, ed. Gary Pahl, pp. 171-188. University of California Los 1960 "Historical significance of a pattern of dates at Angeles Latin American Center, Los Angeles. Piedras Negras, Guatemala." American Antiquity 2001 Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl: the once and future lord of 25(4):454-475. the Toltecs. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. 1974 Jades from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chich?n Itz?, Yucat?n. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Vol. X:1. Niederberger, Christine Archaeology and Ethnology Peabody 2001 "Tlapacoya." InOxford Encyclopedia of Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard Mesoamerican Cultures, vol. 3:228-229, ed. David University, Cambridge, Mass. Carrasco. Oxford University Press, New York. Qui Iter, Jeffrey Parsons, Lee A. 1996 "Continuity and disjunction in pre-Columbian art." 1969 Bilbao, Guatemala, 2 vols. Publications in Res 29/30:303-317. Anthropology vol. 12. Milwaukee Public Museum, Milwaukee. Rattray, Evelyn en 1978 "The peripheral coastal lowlands and the Middle 1991 "Fechamientos por radiocarbono Teotihuacan." Classic Period." InMiddle Classic Mesoamerica: a.d. Arqueolog?a 6:3-18. tendencias 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, pp. 25-34. Columbia 2001 Teotihuacan: cer?mica, cronolog?a y e University Press, New York. culturales. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a Historia, Mexico. Coggins: Toltec 83

Reese, Thomas F. (ed.) Sahagun, Fray Bernardo de 1985 Studies in ancient American and European art: the 1952-1982 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things collected essays of George Kubler. InYale of New Spain, 13 vols. Ed. and trans. Arthur J.O. Publications in the History of Art, ed. G. L. Hersey. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. School of American Yale University Press, New Haven, Conn. Research and University of Utah, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Ringle, William M. 1990 "Who was who in ninth century Chich?n Itz?." Sanders, William T. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:235-245. 1977 "Ethnographic analogy and the Teotihuacan horizon style." In Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu; Pennsylvania Ringle, William M., George Bey, and Carlos Peraza State University Press Series on Kaminaljuyu, ed. 1991 "An Itz? empire in northern Yucatan? A neighboring William T. Sanders and JosephW. Michels, pp. view." 47th International Congress of Americanists. 397-410. Pennsylvania State University Press. New Orleans. Sansores, Francis [Francisco] Xavier Ringle, William R., Gallareta Tom?s N., and George J. Bey, III 1994 "Desplazamientos de poblaci?n previos a las 1998 "The return of Quetzalcoatl: evidence for the second migraciones Chichimecas." InArqueolog?a en el spread of a world religion during the Epiclassic estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, 1989, ed. E. Period." Ancient Mesoamerica 9:183-232. Fern?ndez D?vila, pp. 11-20. Instituto Nacional de Anthropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. Robles Castellanos, Fernando 1987 "La secuencia cer?mica preliminar de IslaCerritos, Santley, Robert S. costa centro-norte de Yucat?n." InMaya ceramics: 1989 "Obsidian working and the Teotihuacan presence." In papers from the 1985 Maya ceramic conference, part Mesoamerica after the decline of Teotihuacan, ed. 1. 1985 Maya Ceramic Conference, pp. 99-109. R. A. Diehl and J.C Berlo, pp. 131-151. Dumbarton British Archaeological Reports, International Series Oaks, Washington, D.C. 345(i). Schele, Linda, and David Freidel Roys, Ralph L. 1990 A forest of kings: the untold story of the ancient 1967 The Book of Chilam Balam of Chumayel [1933]. Maya. William Morrow, New York. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 438. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews 1998 The code of kings: the language of seven sacred Ruz Lhuillier, Alberto Maya temples and tombs. Scribner, New York. 1962 a un "Chich?n Itz? y Tula: comentarios ensayo." Estudios de Cultura Maya 2:205-220. Schmidt, Peter J. 1971 "Influencias Mexicanas sobre losMayas [1964] and 1994 "Chich?n Itz?."Arqueolog?a Mexicana 2(10):20-25. Addenda [1971]." InDesarrollo cultural de los 1998 "Chich?n Itz?: los contactos con el centro de M?xico Mayas, ed. E. Z. Vogt and A. L. Ruz, pp. 195-241. y la transici?n al periodo Poscl?sico." In LosMayas, Centro de Estudios Mayas, Universidad Nacional ed. Peter Schmidt, Mercedes de laGarza, and Aut?noma de M?xico, Mexico. Enrique Nalda, pp. 426-449. Conaculta, Instituto en en 1979 Chich?n Itz? la historia y el arte. Editora del Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. Sureste, Mexico. 1999 "Chich?n Itz?: esultados y proyectos nuevos (1992-1999)." Arqueolog?a Mexicana 7(37):32-39. Sabloff, Jeremy A. 1973 "Continuity and disruption during Terminal-Late Scholes, Frances V, and Ralph L. Roys Classic times at Seibal: ceramic and other evidence." 1968 The Maya Chontal Indians of Acalan-Tixchel [1948]. In The Classic Maya collapse, ed. T. P. Culbert, pp. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication 560. 107-131. School of American Research, University of University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Seitz, R., G. E. Harlow, V. B. Sisson, and K. E. Taube Saenz, Cesar A. 2001 "'Olmec Blue' and formative jade sources: new 1967 El fuego nuevo. Serie Hist?rica #19, Instituto discoveries inGuatemala." Antiquity 75:687, 688. Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. 84 RES 42 AUTUMN 2002

S?journe, L. Storey, Rebecca 1966 Arquitectura y pintura en Teotihuacan. Siglo XXI, 1992 Life and death in the ancient city of Teotihuacan: a Mexico. modern paleodemographic synthesis. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa. Seier, Eduard 1990-2000 Collected works inMesoamerican linguistics and Stuart, David archaeology, 6 vols. Ed. J. E. S. Thompson and B. F. 1985 "A new child-father relationship glyph." Research Richardson. Labyrinthos, Culver City, Calif. Reports on Ancient Maya Writing 2. Center forMaya D.C. 1991 "On the origin of central Mexican civilizations Research, Washington, [1902]." InCollected works inMesoamerican 1988 "The Rio Azul cacao pot: epigraphic observations on linguistics and archaeology, vol. 2:10-17. the function of a Maya ceramic vessel." Antiquity Labyrinthos, Culver City, Calif. 62(234):153-157. 1992 "The religious songs of the ancient Mexicans." In 1998a "The fire enters his house': architecture and ritual in Collected works inMesoamerican linguistics and Classic Maya texts." In Function and meaning in D. archaeology, vol. 3:231-301. Labyrinthos, Culver Classic Maya architecture, ed. Stephen Houston, City, Calif. pp. 373-425. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1996 "On the Toltec question [1912]." InCollected works 1998 "Testimonios sobre la guerra durante el Cl?sico inMesoamerican linguistics and archaeology, vol. Maya." Arqueolog?a Mexicana 6(32):6-13. 5:103-108. Labyrinthos, Culver City, Calif. 2000 "The arrival of strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya history." InMesoamerica's classic Sempowski, Martha L. heritage: from Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, ed. D. 1992 "Economic and social implications of variation in Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 465-513. mortuary practises at Teotihuacan." InArt, ideology University Press of Colorado, Boulder, and the city of Teotihuacan, ed. J. Berlo, pp. 27-58. n.d. "The beginnings of the Copan dynasty: a review of Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. the hieroglyphic and historical evidence." In Understanding Early Classic Copan, ed. Ellen Bell, Sharer, Robert J. Marcello Canuto, and Robert Sharer. 1997 "EarlyCopan acropolis program." In Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. Sugiyama, Saburo to www.famsi.org/reports/sharer/sharer.htm. March 1989 "Burials dedicated the old Temple of Quetzalcoatl 2002. at Teotihuacan, Mexico." American Antiquity 54(1):85-106. Simeon, Remi 1989 "Iconographie interpretation of the Temple of 1988 Diccionario de la lengua N?huatl o Mexicana. Siglo Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan." Mexicon 11(4):68-74. XXI, Mexico. 1992 "Rulership, warfare, and human sacrifice at the Ciudadela: an iconographie study of feathered Spence, Michael W. serpent representations." InArt, ideology and the city 1996 "Commodity or gift: Teotihuacan obsidian in the of Teotihuacan, ed. J.C. Berlo, pp. 205-230. Maya region." Latin American Antiquity 7 (1):21-39. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C. 1993 "Worldview materialized inTeotihuacan, Mexico." Spinden, Herbert J. Latin American Antiquity 4(2):103-129. 1913 A study of Maya art. Memoirs of the Peabody 1998 "Cronolog?a de sucesos ocurridos en el Templo de Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology vol. 6. Quetzalcoatl, Teotihuacan." In Los ritmos de cambio Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, en Teotihuacan, ed. R. Brambila and R. Cabrera Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Castro, pp. 167-184. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico. an Stone, A. 2000 "Teotihuacan as origin for Postclassic feathered 1989 "Disconnection, foreign insignia and political serpent symbolism." InMesoamerica's Classic to ed. expansion: Teotihuacan and the warrior stelae of heritage: from Teotihuacan the Aztecs, InMesoamerica after Carrasco L. and S. 117-143. Piedras Negras, Guatemala." D., Jones, Sessions, pp. the decline of Teotihuacan, ed. R. Diehl and J.C. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Berlo, pp. 153-172. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Taube, Karl A. 1992 "The Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the cult of sacred war at Teotihuacan." Res 21:53-87. Coggins: Toltec 85

1994 "The iconography of Toltec period Chich?n Itz?." In Weigand, Phil C. Hidden among the hills: Maya archaeology of the 1982 "Mining and mineral trade in prehispanic Zacatecas." northwest Yucatan peninsula, ed. Hans J. Prem, pp. Anthropology 6(1 -2):87-134. 212-246. Verlag von Flemming, Mockmuhl, Law Germany. White, Christine D., Fred J. Longstaffe, and Kimberley R. 2000a "The turquoise hearth: fire, self-sacrifice, and the 2001 "Revisiting the Teotihuacan connection at Altun Ha." central Mexican cult of war." InMesoamerica's Ancient Mesoamerica 12:65-72. Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, ed. D. Carrasco, L. Jones, and S. Sessions, pp. 269-340. Wilford, John Noble University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado. 2002 "Inside Mexican pyramid. Buried clues link ancient 2000b "Thewriting system of Teotihuacan." Ancient cultures." New York Times, November 19, 2002. America 1. Willey, Gordon R. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1973 "Mesoamerican art and iconography and the integity 1960 Maya hieroglyphic writing: an introduction [1950]. of the mesoamerican ideological system." In The University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. iconography of middle American sculpture, pp. 1970 Maya history and religion. University of Oklahoma 153-162. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Press, Norman. 1976 "Mesoamerican civilization and the idea of transcendance." Antiquity 50(199-200):205-215. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1930 "Maya and Toltec figures at Chich?n Itz?." InActs, Willey, Gordon R., and Jeremy A. Sabloff pp. 155-164. 23rd International Congress of 1993 A history of American archaeology [1974]. Thames Americanists, New York, 1928. and Hudson, New York.

Tozzer, Alfred M. (ed.) Wisdom, C. 1941 Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and 1950 Materials of the Chorti language. Transcribed and Ethnology, Vol. 18: Landa's relaci?n de las cosas de transliterated by Brian Stross. Collection of Yucatan. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Manuscript Materials on Middle American Cultural Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Anthropology, Vol. 5th Series:28. Microfilm, University of Chicago. Tozzer, Alfred M. 1957 Chich?n Itz? and Its cenote of sacrifice. Memoirs of Wren, Linnea H. the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology 1994 "Ceremonialism in the reliefs of the North Temple, vols. 11, 12. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Chich?n Itz?." InSeventh Palenque Round Table, ed. Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. V. M. Fields, pp. 25-31. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco. Trik, Aubrey S. 1963 "The splendid tomb of Temple Iat Tikal, Guatemala." Wren, Linnea H., and Peter Schmidt ?xped/fVor?6(1):2-18. 1991 "Elite interaction during the Terminal Classic Period: new evidence from Chich?n Itz?." InClassic Maya Umberger, Emily political history: hieroglyphic and archaeological 1983 "Events commemorated by date plaques at the evidence, ed. T. P. Culbert, pp. 199-225. School of on Templo Mayor: further thoughts the solar American Research, Cambridge University Press, metaphor." In The Aztec Templo Mayor, ed. Elizabeth Cambridge, England. H. Boone, pp. 411-449. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Von Winning, Hasso 1948 "The Teotihuacan owl-and-weapon symbol and its association with 'serpent head X' at Kaminaljuyu." American Antiquity 14(2):129-132. 1977 "The old fire god and his symbolism at Teotihuacan." Indiana 4:7-32. 1979 "The 'binding of the years' and the 'new fire' in Teotihuacan." Indiana 5:15-27.