Mediating Material Culture: The In this article, it is the recognition of the active role archaeologists play in systematically Tula-Chichen Itza Connection amassing information about the past, and in assigning that information a meaning and historical context, that frames the discussion of the similarities between the Postclassic Archaeology is often misrepresented as Mesoamerican sites of Chichen Itza and Tula. an exact science. Indeed, the presentation of From Desire Chamay" s original realization in the archaeological discoveries as fact is hard to I880s that these two sites, located 800 nliles avoid in a society that strives for concrete apart, displayed sinlilar architectural styles and answers to questions of the human past. The iconography (Diehl 1983), to recent cross- recognition that archaeology is part of the larger disciplinary studies of these parallels, opinions fields of inquiry of anthropology and social and interpretations of the Tula-Chichen Itza science is therefore an impOltant one. Through connection have been heavily influenced by social the scientific process of uncovering the matelial conditions. culture of past populations, the equally In order to understand the formation of important process of interpretation is also interpretations concerning Tula and Chichen Itza, involved. It is the excavator who gives meaning a basic understanding of these sites is warranted. to the artifacts he or she unearths. Tula, located in the Central Highlands region of Reconstructions of the past based on material Mexico, is believed to have been established recovered from the archaeological record are around C.E. 960 by the Toltec (Adams 1996:274). thus not only products of the social conditions Its history is complicated by later elaborate Aztec giving rise to the original creation of these accounts that glorify both the city and its artifacts, but also of the modem social inhabitants (Jones 1993a). Nevertheless, it is conditions in which they are recovered. What is estimated that the city grew to between 32 to 37 particularly problematic about ar'chaeological thousand people from the time of its formation as inquiry of the late nineteenth and early capital to C.E. 1200 (Adams 1996:276). The site twentieth century is that these works are filled includes monumental architecture such as with positivist, colonialist assumptions that are elaborate temples, palaces, ball courts and plazas neither recognized nor accounted for by the (Adams 1996). Evidence of a wall on the north archaeologist originally interpreting the and west sides, as well as violent iconography, material. Granted, today archaeological have been used to legitimate the claim that Tula interpretations are also the products of the was a formidable militar'y capital (Diehl 1983; intellectual milieu in which the individual Smith and Montiel 2001). At the end of the archaeologist operates; however, attempts are twelfth century C.E., Tula was abandoned and the increasingly made to account for and to city was destroyed; this was likely the result of acknowledge the biases of the resear·cher. both external and internal conflict as well as of Indeed, the academic critique of these population pressure (Adams 1996). interpretations is enough to push a publishing Chichen Itza, the larger of the two sites, archaeologist to examine his or her own cultural is located in north central Yucatan, Mexico, and and intellectual standpoint. was probably a site of religious pilgrimage

T(HI':,\[ \'Ill II 2(11)2-2(111., Copnight © 21111.' TOTI':i\I: The U\VO journal of .\nthropology (Adams 1996:290). The Sacred Cenote, a large, Toltec symbol, adorns columns and balustrades at cylindrical, natural sinkhole was the main both sites (Jones 1993a). Reclining chacmul attraction at Chichen Itza because of its figures holding bowls over their stomachs, and religious significance (and possibly for its "Atlantean" figures supporting tables or lintels, source of water). Dredging the Sacred Cenote are found in large numbers at Chichen Itza and at has produced large quantities of highly plized Tula, but are relatively rare throughout the rest of objects and human bones, mainly dating from Mesoamerica (Adams 1996:292). FUlther, the Late Classic period. This would suggest militalistic architectural decoration is evident at that Chichen Itza was well established before both sites. Jaguar, processional warrior, ocelot, contact with the Toltec (Adams 1996). Like and eagle (consuming human hearts) iconography Tula, Chichen Itza contains remnants of is common to both Tula and Chichen Itza (Adams monumental architecture, though the quality of 1996:292). the craftsmanship and the scale of the projects Given this abundance of similarities, it is far surpasses architecture at Tula (Adams 1996). hardly surprising that such a wealth of scholarship What makes the architectural remains at has been dedicated to theorizing about the Chichen Itza interesting is the division between connection between Chichen Itza and Tula. "Old Chichen," in the southern portion of the Although there m'e many theories, for the site, and "Newrroltec Chichen"(dating from purposes of this article I will focus on three around C.E. 987 to 1187) in the northern explanations. The first two, those of Alfred M. portion of the site (Jones 1993a:227). This Tozzer and J. Elic S. Thompson, situate the stylistic division is unusual, particularly since Toltec influence at Chichen Itza within a context New Chichen bears a striking resemblance in of invasion and conquest. The third, and most structure and organization to Tula (Diehl 1983). recent theory, that of Lindsay Jones, argues that It is instructive here to note that New Chichen is perhaps Toltec influence was apparent at Chichen also more closely associated with the Sacred Itza without the accompanying presence of the Cenote, which interests those investigating Toltec themselves. Each of these theOlies arises Toltec presence at the site (Jones 1993a). out of pmticular bodies of knowledge and are Interest in Toltec influence and based on particular sets of assumptions. possible occupation at Chichen Itza has proven Alfred M. Tozzer's explanation of the to be enduring. The existence of similmities at Toltec "conquest" of Chichen Itza is based both geographically disparate sites has prompted on archaeological evidence and on passages from much discussion. Though Chichen Itza' s main the Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Tozzer 1957). plaza around the Temple of Kulkulcan (the The latter is an historical, colonial-era document Castillo) in the New Chichen portion is grander apparently written in Maya languages, but using and more eclectic, the main plazas at both sites the Latin alphabet. It describes such topics as share a number of common features (Adams medicine, history and astrology (Adams 1996:4). 1996). They are both Oliented 17 degrees east- Tozzer based his reconstruction of the of-north, they employ similar uses of relationship between Tula and Chichen Itza on architectural space, and they share the "same one particular passage that reads: "three times it basic articulation of pyramid-lofted temples was, they say, that foreigners arrived"(Roys above a wide-open rectangular amphitheatIic 1933:84). In combination with this three-fold courtyard"(Jones 1993a:227). Furthermore, invasion concept, Tozzer (1957) portrayed the there are matching ball courts, each with their Maya and Toltec as opposites. Where the Maya own "skull racks" and "dance platforms" were peaceful and academic, the Toltec were (Adams 1996:291). Even Tula' s unusually brutish and barbaric; this helps to justify Tozzer's open and spacious Burnt Palace has an contention that the Toltec did indeed invade equivalent at Chichen Itza. The Group of a Chichen Itza. He even went so far as to classify Thousand Columns at Chichen Itza is very Chichen Itza' s matelial culture as either "pure similar, though somewhat more elaborate Maya" or "Toltec-Maya" (Tozzer 1957:25). (Adams 1996). Tula' s Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl Tozzer's (1957) actual reconstruction of (Kulkulcan) is also mirrored at Chichen Itza in events postulates a see-saw relationship between the form of the Temple of the Warriors (Adams the Toltec invaders and the Maya occupying 1996). Chichen Itza. This power struggle had fi ve Examples of architectonic sculpture at stages. In the first stage. beginning around c.E. Chichen Itza and Tula also parallel one another. 948, the Toltec invaders, led by Kulkulcan I, were Quetzalcoatl (the Plumed Serpent), a common exiled from Tula and went east to establish a new

TO'I'Io:i\! \"01 II 211112-21111.1 Copyright © 2(111.T1OTI·:i\I: The U\'(,'() Journal of. \nrhropolo,l,"· capital. This account of Kulkulcan' s exile is considering the inherent ambiguity involved in taken almost directly from Aztec legend such subjective measures. (Carrasco 1982: 103). Once at Chichen Itza. J. Eric S. Thompson's reconstruction of they established the "hem1-sacrificing cults the Tula-Chichen Itza relationship differs in many associated with the ball game and the feathered ways from Tozzer's interpretation. While Tozzer serpent"(Jones 1998:280), which the mild argued that the Itza. the "Mayanized Mexicans" Maya abhorred. During the second peliod, the from the Gulf Coast. were part of the secondary Maya regained control of the city for a blief invasion of Chichen Itza, Thompson brought the amount of time. only to succumb to another Itza to the forefront of his explanation and wave of intruders. This time, it was the credited them with contributing to a cultural Mexicanized ltza from the Gulf Coast who took fluorescence at Chichen ltza (Thompson 1970). over (around CE. 1145), led by Kulkulcan II This fluorescence was presumably brought on by (Tozzer 1957:35-45). The Maya recovered the intermixing of the Itza with the Maya. who again in the fourth peliod, but were struck down were already occupying Chichen ltza. Thompson again by the final surge of invaders, charactelized the Itza as Opp0l1unistic merchants mercenmies from Tabasco. From this point on. who. in the tenth century. expanded their the city declined in importance as people considerable influence to the Yucatan. conqueling migrated south (Tozzer 1957). This chronology Chichen ltza around CE. 918. Chichen Itza thus thus attempts to reconstruct the events of the became a regional capital of the "Putun Itza Maya last quarter of the tenth century CE. until the Empire" (Thompson 1970:3-15). At this time, abandonment of Chichen Itza in the twelfth Kulkulcan I and his followers entered the picture, century CE. heading east from Tula (as in Tozzer's There are a number of problems with reconstruction). Thompson argued that where the this reconstruction and its accompanying Kulkulcan Toltec group and the Putun Itza first assumptions. The first is that Tozzer relied met was in Tabasco. and the Toltec were heavily on the colonial documentation of the subsequently escorted to Chichen Itza. This Chilam Balam of Chumayel. In this case, the productive meeting of Toltec prestige and Itza Chilam Balam of Chumayel was created economic influence sparked another cultural hundreds of years after the events it describes. fluorescence. in which the Toltec recreated the and it reflects the interests and biases of its splendour of Tula at Chichen Itza (Thompson colonial authors. Tozzer also incorporated 1970:32-47). Aztec mythology that glOlifies and exaggerates Thompson's theory is also somewhat the power and influence of the Toltec. from problematic. On the one hand, the positioning of whom they claimed descent (Adams 1996). the Putun Itza as a central pm1 of the explanation Furthermore. Tozzer's portrayal of the Maya at of the Tula-Chichen Itza connection conttibutes to Chichen Itza as gentle and noble may be a the abandonment of the concept of the polarity projection of stereotypes about rural people between the Maya at Chichen Itza and the Toltec onto a population that was only slightly less invaders. Whether or not this was intentional is concentrated in urban areas than Tula (Jones dubious because. on the other hand. Thompson' s 1998). In addition, this portrayal may also portrayal of the Putun Itza as able to conquer the reflect a retention of 17th to 19lh century Maya of Chichen Ilza locates their power in their European ideas about the "civilized" nature of "Mexicanization"(Jones 1998:284). Essentially, past cultures like the Maya in the Ne\\ World this Mexicanization results in "moral decay." at and the Greeks in the Old World. Toner is least from a Western standpoint. in that the also widely criticized for his reliancc on thc introduction of thc Itza at Chichen Itza prevalence of Toltec and Maya "cthnic incorporates "lewd. crotic" and violent saclificial figUlines" and gold disks from thc Sacrcd practices (Thompson 1970:20-21). Furthermore. Cenote depicting "ethnic" conflict as markers of Thompson's charactcrization of the Putun Itza as the Toltec takeover or the resurgcncc of thc a consolidated superpower is fallacious since the Maya at Chichen Itza (Tozzer 1957:321. Thcsc archaeological evidence indicates that they were figurines do indicate different influclH.:cs. hut probably "several related yet competitive Gulf they do not definitively indicatc a takcO\cr Coast groups rather than a single unified people" (Thompson 1959). More importantly. hasing (Miller 1977:22). Thompson' s theory is therefore interpretations of conquest on thc racc or perhaps too neat and organized. ethnicity of these figurines seems duhious Lindsay Jones' interpretation of the relationship between Tula and Chichen-Itza is

I( I II \1 \,,I II 211112-21111,> C"p,n,c:hl \ 2""\ 1(111 \1. I'h, l'\\"(}.I,,"rnal()f,\nthr"p()I,,~\ radically different than those of Tozzer and chooses to build only on one portion of the story Thompson. Jones argued that the occupants of of Chichen Itza. Chichen ltza, whether Putun ltza or Yucatecan All three theories concerning the Tula- Maya, were the instigators of the architectural Chichen Itza connection are clearly products of reproduction of Toltec motifs and themes at the social conditions in which they were devised. Chichen Itza (Jones 1993b). In his In evaluating Tozzer and Thompson's interpretation, ideas and architectural styles interpretations, remnants of a colonialist ideology moved west to east, but actual people did not, can be detected. The tendency to characterize the and, more imp0l1antly, the meaning of these Maya as "noble savages" makes it easier to justify ideas and architectural styles changed in this past colonial and contemporary developmental movement. Whereas Tula responded to the endeavours in Mesoamerica that seek to complete unstable social and political conditions of the process of "civilization" (Sullivan 1989: 131- Central Mexico in the Postclassic period with a 137). It also serves to assuage any guilt arising "Iitual-architectural program designed to from the subordination of indigenous peoples, and tenOlize and intimidate" (Jones 1993b:328), serves to further marginalize them as "non- Chichen Itza used the same architecture in a viable" in a modern context (Jones 1998:287). different manner and for different purposes. Both theories offer a commentary on the The Putun Itza at Chichen Itza had built up a devaluation of "primitive" religion; Mexican formidable centre of political and military clout, influence on the "civilized" Maya religion results but perhaps they lacked respectability to go in a cOlluption of values (Jones 1998). Tozzer's along with it. Therefore, the blatant sympathy for the Maya can potentially be reproduction of the grandeur of Tula may have accounted for by what Paul Sullivan calls the been a move toward legitimizing their control "long conversation" between the Yucatecan Maya and attracting people to the already important and foreigners in post-war/revolution Mexico Sacred Cenote. In fact, the proximity of the (1989:xv). The plight of the Maya in this context main plaza to the Sacred Cenote, and the use of may have had some bearing on Tozzer"s depiction a grand processional sacbe to connect the two, of the Maya as victims of violence. Thompson' s perhaps hints at this attempt (Jones 1993b). theory has the potential to be abused in that his Jones took this a step further, though, by depiction of the Putun Itza as a super-hybrid arguing that reconsiderations of those presents a situation in which multiculturalism and architectural elements considered to be eclecticism leads to greater power and diagnostic only of Tula perhaps have Maya manipulative abilities (Jones 1998). Of course, origins.As George Kubler notes, '''Maya- these results were likely not the outcomes Tozzer Toltec' architecture at Chichen ltza appears and Thompson intended in crafting their theories; now much more cosmopolitan and eclectic than nevertheless, their interpretations do seem to the traditional comparison with Tula alone represent an uncritical projection of modern views penmts" (1961 :76-77). In this case, Tula is no and attitudes onto the past. longer the sole inspiration for the design and Jones' theory, too, can be identified as layout of Chichen ltza, but rather a contributor the product of the social context in which it was to an enterprising attempt at stylistic synthesis. devised. First of all, Jones has had the benefit of Jones' argument also has some time. Archaeology is always changing, and Jones problems. Although physical evidence is not is able to incorporate a more secure set of data lacking for his explanation of events at Chichen about Tula and Chichen Itza that was not Itza, it is definitely open to interpretation. This available to Tozzer and Thompson. Furthermore, is evident in the prevalence of theories based on whereas the social conditions and intellectual invasion. Also, Jones seems unable or assumptions underlying Tozzer and Thompson's unwilling to deal with the nature of the Putun theories detracted from their credibility, Jones' ltza "invasion" of Chichen Itza. Was there a theory gains credibility through its innovative and full-scale invasion? Was there subsequent cross-disciplinary interpretation. Jones frames his integration of the Putun Itza with the Yucatecan theory within the context of a hermeneutic Maya? How different were they to begin with, investigation of the Tula-Chichen Itza connection. and were the Putun Itza as economically This technique, Oliginally devised by historians of successful as Thompson imagined them to be? religion, involves the "study of the It seems that Jones' theory either relies heavily methodological plinciples of interpretation" on certain aspects of the other two theories, or (Diehl 1997: 158). In particular, it attempts to decipher the concealed meanings of written texts.

TOTI':"! \01 II 211112-21111."1 Copnight © 21111."1 TOTI':"I: The U\\'() .!ourn'll o~'.\nthropo]o1-,'Y Although the applicability of textual criticism as 1996. Review of Twin City Tales: A an anthropological methodology has been hotly Hermeneutical Reassessment of Tula debated, Jones' choice to apply it to the Tula- and Chichen Itza. Latin American Chichen Itza problem does seem to widen the Antiquity 8(2):158-159. scope of inquiry in this case. Jones focused on the way that people experience monumental Jones, Lindsay. 1993a. The Hermeneutics of architecture. and, in this way. he recognized that Sacred Architecture: A Reassessment individual expelience may vary. From this of the Similitude Between Tula, standpoint, it becomes evident that the Hidalgo and Chichen Itza, Yucatan, meanings assigned to superficially similar Pmt I. History of Religions, buildings in different places. in this case at Tula 32(3):207-232. and Chichen Itza, are mutable in the hands of those who use them. Symbols can mean very 1993b. The Hernleneutics of Sacred different things in different contexts. It is this Architecture: A Reassessment of the consideration of individual agency and the Similitude Between Tula, Hidalgo and importance of context that sets Jones' theory Chichen ltza. Yucatan, Pmt II. History of apmt from Tozzer or Thompson's theories. Religions, 32(4):315-342. The problem, and the challenge, of archaeology is that we may never know who is 1996. Conquests of the Imagination: '·right." Perhaps none of these theories will Maya-Mexican Polarity and the Story prove to be lasting, or perhaps each will of Chichen Itza. American contiibute to the formulation of new theories Anthropologist 99(2): 275-290. based on subsequently recovered evidence. For now, the importance of Jones' contribution to Kubler. George. 1961. Chichen Itza y Tu1a the Tu1a-Chichen ltza situation lies in the (Chichen Itza and Tula).Estudios de impOitant questions it raises concerning the way Cultura Maya 1:47-79. in which we evaluate the importance and stylistic similarity of monumental architecture. Miller. Arthur G. 1977. Captains of the Itza: The process of gatheling knowledge about the Unpublished Mural Evidence from past is never exact; it is always mediated by the Chichen Itza. /n Social Process in interests of the resem'cher and of the interests of Maya Prehistory: Studies in Honour the society that appropriates this knowledge. of Sir Eric Thompson. N. Hammond, Thus, different approaches will produce very ed. New York: Academic Press. different results. In the cases of Tula and Chichen Itza, the analysis of differences in Roys, Ralph L.. ed. and trans. 1933. The Book interpretation simultaneously contributes to our of Chi1am Balam of Chumayel. understanding of possible connections between Washington, D.C.: Carnegie the two and to the vitality of the archaeological Institution of Washington Publications. endeavour in general. Smith, Michael E. and Lisa Montiel. 2001. The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic Mexico. Adams, Richard E.W. 1996. Prehistoric Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Mesoamerica. Oklahoma City: 20:245-284. University of Oklahoma Press. Sullivan, Paul. 1989. Unfinished Carrasco, David. 1982. Quetzalcoatl and the Conversations: Maya and Foreigners Irony of Empire: Myths and Between Two Wars. New York: Prophecies in the Aztec Tradition. Alfred A. Knopf. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Thompson, J. Eric S. 1959. Review of Chichen Itza and Its Cenote of Diehl, Richm'd A. 1983. Tula: The To1tec Sacrifice. Amelican Journal of Capital of Ancient Mexico. London: Archaeology 63: 119-120. Thames and Hudson Ltd.

'1'( )'I'I':i\[ \'01 II 211112-211111 Cop\Tight~, 21111.1'1'( ),('l-:i\I: The L1\'n) -'ournal of .\nthropologl" ---. 1970. Maya History and Religion. Oklahoma City: University of Oklahoma Press.

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1957. Chichen Itza and its Cenote of Sacrifice: A Comparative Study of Contemporaneous Maya and Toltec. Cambridge: Peabody Museum.

1\ , II \1 \ 411 II ~111l.2-~lllJ")

CoplTight l' ~1I(1)'1 (fll \1. II" I'"() I""nul of .\nthropology