AArrtt ffoorr AArrcchhaaeeoollooggyy’’ss SSaakkee Material Culture and Style across the Disciplines Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Chacmool Conference Edited by Andrea Waters-Rist, Christine Cluney, Calla McNamee and Larry Steinbrenner CHACMOOL © 2005 THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY Art for Archaeology’s Sake Material Culture and Style across the Disciplines Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Annual Conference of the Archaeological Association of the University of Calgary Edited by Andrea Waters-Rist, Christine Cluney, Calla McNamee and Larry Steinbrenner The University of Calgary Archaeological Association, 2005 ISBN 978-0-8895-293-9 ii THE MEANING OF THE MIXTECA-PUEBLA STYLISTIC TRADITION: THE VIEW FROM NICARAGUA Geoffrey G. McCafferty and Larry Steinbrenner Archaeology, University ofCalgary Archaeologists and historians of non-Western art As defined by Nicholson, the Mixteca-Puebla have struggled with the meaning of style for as style features religious motifs characterized by long as their disciplines have existed. What do the Central Mexican pantheon of deities (e.g., similarities mean? How are 'similarities' even Quetzalcoatl and Tlaloc) and the 20-day identified? One goal ofthis Chacmool conference calendrical system. These are often represented was to grapple with questions such as these. Style metonymically, where a symbolic element such may carry information about cultural identities as a cut shell (i.e., Quetzalcoatl's pendant) or either overtly as emblematic symbols or covertly goggle eyes (i.e., Tlaloc's facial feature) will be as shared patterns of learned behaviour. used to signify an entire iconographic complex. Similarly, material culture may incorporate Images are depicted in colourful, caricature-like fossilized mental templates of past societies, as figures that are easily recognizable. Because the well as functional information on the technology iconography was used by diverse cultural groups and practice of daily life. Archaeological objects it has also been called the "International Style" therefore encapsulate a range of social (Robertson 1970), somewhat analogous to information waiting to be decoded by nuanced international traffic signs that carry meaning and contextually informed analysis (Hodder outside ofany particular linguistic system. Due to 1990). this international nature, iconographic elements In Mesoamerican archaeology one of the most of the Mixteca-Puebla stylistic tradition have famous-and controversial-'styles, is the been used to infer long-distance exchange as well Postclassic Mixteca-Puebla style of Central as shared religious principles (Ringle, Gallareta Mexico. It was first identified by George Vaillant Negron, and Bey 1998; Lopez Austin and Lopez (1938, 1941), and has been elaborated on by H.B. Lujan 2000). Nicholson in a series ofpublications spanning the Since the Mixteca-Puebla stylistic tradition 1960s to 1990s (1960, 1982; Nicholson and was defined in the 1930s, when explanations Quinones Keber 1994; but see Smith and Heath­ based on principles ofdiffusion were popular, the Smith 1980). The Mixteca-Puebla style is largely concept has often been employed uncritically, religious in theme, and is best represented in the with the identification of presumed Mixteca­ pictorial manuscripts of the Mixtec- and Borgia­ Puebla characteristics being used to infer an group codices from modem Oaxaca and Puebla, entire range of cultural traits. This problem has Mexico. The style also occurs on polychrome been rightly criticized by Michael Smith and pottery, sculpture, murals, and textiles over a Cynthia Heath-Smith (1980), who recommend wide geographic area and a long temporal span. dividing the Mixteca-Puebla concept into three Mixteca-Puebla stylistic elements have been components: religious iconography, pictorial identified as far afield as the Southeastern United manuscript style, and polychrome pottery. While States (in Southern Cult iconography) and in these categories are not always mutually Greater Nicoya (that is, Pacific Nicaragua and exclusive, the implication is that polychrome northwestern Costa Rica) in Nicoya polychrome pottery does not necessarily imply a total cultural pottery styles dating between AD 800-1520 (Day package of'Mixteca-Puebla' traits. 1994). 282 This paper will take a critical look at the ninth century AD (Lothrop 1926; Healy 1980; Mixteca-Puebla style as it appears on the southern Fowler 1989; Hoopes and McCafferty 1989). periphery ofMesoamerica. Recent archaeological Polychrome pottery with iconography relating to research in Rivas, Nicaragua, has recovered an the Mixteca-Puebla tradition provides a material assemblage of polychrome pottery that has and iconographic link between Central Mexico previously been related to the Mixteca-Puebla and the Greater Nicoya region (Day 1994). stylistic tradition (e.g., Stone 1966; Day 1994). The Epiclassic time period (AD 600-900) is This paper will consider how 'similar' the noted for the dramatic social changes that took iconography really is to more prototypical place across Mesoamerica. It immediately Mixteca-Puebla themes, and what the similarities follows the fall of the great Central Mexican might mean. Finally, we will consider the centre of Teotihuacan, and it also encompasses implications of Mixteca-Puebla style to the the end of the Classic Maya civilization. The question of cultural complexity among migrant Epiclassic is recognized as a period of eclectic Mexican ethnic groups in Nicaragua. internationalism, when iconographic motifs from throughout the region were combined in Cultural Background innovative ways to assert new configurations of Mesoamerica has been defined as a culture power as the old models were abandoned or area corresponding to the geographic area transformed (Lopez Austin and Lopez Lujan bounded by northern Mexico to the north and 2000; McCafferty 2000, in press; Ringle, Central America to the south. Because the Gallareta Negron, and Bey 1998). New centres cultural traits used to define 'Mesoamerica' such as Chichen Itza, Xochicalco, and Tula varied over time, the boundaries of the culture developed along very different principles than area were dynamic. The southern boundary was their predecessors. At the same time the Classic­ usually drawn at Honduras, but during the period city of Cholula, located in the Puebla Postclassic period (AD 900-1550) cultural Valley of Mexico's central highlands, characteristics of the Greater Nicoya region metamorphosed into an international economic suggest that the frontier should be drawn -further and pilgrimage centre focused on its Great south into Pacific Costa Rica. These Pyramid, which combined architectural and other characteristics were associated with cultural artistic styles from different cultures of groups known as the Chorotega and Nicarao, who Mesoamerica to become the crucible in which the arrived in the region as the result of mythico­ Mixteca-Puebla tradition was created historical migrations beginning in the Epiclassic (McCafferty 1994, 2001a). Stamp-impressed period, circa AD 800 and perhaps continuing into ceramics feature Mixteca-Puebla iconography the final centuries before the arrival of the beginning by about AD 700 (McCafferty and Spanish in 1529. Cultural traits of these migrant Suarez Cruz 2001), and polychrome pottery Mesoamericans included linguistic evidence for appears by at least AD 900 (McCafferty 1996, Nahuat-speakers (Constenla Umafia 1994; 2001a; Suarez Cruz 1994). Nahuatl was the language spoken by the Late Ethnohistorical sources identify the cultural Postclassic Aztecs and probably the Early group that occupied Epiclassic Cholula as the Postclassic Toltecs of Central Mexico; Nahaut is Olrneca-Xicallanca, a multi-ethnic group from the its Nicaraguan dialect, which drops the "I"); use southern Gulf lowlands with ties to both Maya of the Central Mexican calendar system and and Nahua cultures (Jimenez Moreno 1942, 1966; related rituals; a pantheon of deities related to Olivera and Reyes 1969; McCafferty 1997, in those ofCentral Mexico, and myths oforigin with press). The Olmeca-Xicallanca were also present references to migration out of Mexico around the at other Epiclassic centres, including Cacaxtla, 283 Xochicalco, and Tula (where they were known as the Gulf Coast heartland of the Olmeca­ the Nonoalca), and were the culture brokers ofthe Xicallanca (Lastra 2001). When Nahuatl first new eclectic style (McCafferty in press; cf. appeared in Mesoamerica remains a bone of McVicker 1985; Nagao 1989). Since early contention, though a recent study by Dakin and evidence for the nascent Mixteca-Puebla style Wichmann (2000) argues persuasively for the derives from Cholula during the period of Nahuatl term for cacao in Maya documents as Olmeca-Xicallanca occupation, it is likely that the early as AD 350. A good part of the Nahuatl­ style conveys ideological principles linked to the appearance debate revolves around whether or Epiclassic transformation of pan-Mesoamerican not Nahuatl was a prominent language at the internationalism. Classic urban centres of Teotihuacan and Origin myths for the Chorotega and Nicarao of Cholula. If it was, then this provides another Greater Nicoya suggest that they were originally means of tying the Nicarao to Central Mexico, inhabitants of Central Mexico--specifically and Cholula in particular. Complicating. any Cholula-but were driven out of Mexico by the migration scenario, however, is the fact that the 'tyrannical' Olmeca (Torquemada 1975-83; cf. Chorotega spoke