J
,
ORBIS PICTUS/THE UNIVERSAL LIBRARY OF ART
EDITED BY PAULWESTHEIM
VOL. VIII
THE HISTORY OF
ANCIENT MEXICAN ART
AN ESSAY IN OUTLINE
BY
WALTER LEHMANN, M. D., PH. D., ETC.
DIRECTOR OF THE ETHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF
THE BERLIN ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM
19 2 2
NEWYORK BRENTANO'S PUBLISHERS
PRINTED BY SPAMER, LEIPSIC
TO
MY PARENTS-IN-LAW
Introduction.
It is incumbent on the history of art to work upon fixed basic principles
applicable to the manifestations of many peoples.
Culture is creative. Civilization is exhausted. The former is productive. The
latter paramountly reproductive. Thus civilization tends both to syncretism and
archaism.
The creative part of culture is inherent in that which is artistic. The essence
of art raises both the question of generalities and particularities. All art should
be judged, examined and comprehended simultaneously from the point of view of
humanity, as well as of a people and its representative, the creative artist.
No matter the art of which people be examined, it will always be found
on closer investigation of phenomena, either similar or dissimilar, that the path
leads to something common and superior to both: the enigma of art manifestation
per se.
The final approach must be the task of philosophy beyond historical and
ethnographical investigation. The enigma is rooted in the soul.
Indeed, every form of art is the expression of either the individual soul,
or that of a generality. And here we discover a very peculiar reciprocity between
both. The individual artist is able to move the masses. On the other hand the
indistinct sentient life of a nation crystalizes in the artist. Though it is not
necessary that his name be handed down to posterity. Nor is this the case with
folk-songs for instance. Personal art is always imbued with the impersonal.
For the genius of the artist and that of a people, if united, always finds its
ultimate human expression in creations which, as something eternal, outlasts the
mutation of time.
What is eternal? — The ideas which are the foundation of all universal
phenomena, and therefore evolve the form problems of art.
Art is the power to embody ideas in a creative form, and to erect something
permanent, though perishable in its exterior in the ever-flowing course of time.
A general view of man's multifarious art expression shows, in spite of all
the peculiarities of peoples, that there are certain characteristics which permit
us to speak of art styles, and great periods in the history of art. It is perhaps a
moot question as to how far it is permissible to speak here of a history of
development, although an irrefutable sequence is recognizable, showing an historical
course in a given movement which we term time.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
A succession of styles is observable, both with the individual artist, peoples, and
groups of peoples.
It is important to remark, that pure and applied art, now travelling different
roads throughout nearly the whole of Europe, are, with other peoples, more or
less distinctly connected.
High art in the European sense of the word is the expression of the spiritual
experience of the individual in which the work of art is both created and enjoyed
for its own sake. Applied art is in the same sense of the word pronouncedly
utilitarian. In both cases the aim is that of the embodiment of ideas. For the
Greek "Charioteer", as well as an axe, are both, in their way, embodied ideas.
Style is, so to say, the handwriting of a cultured epoch in which recognizable
or unrecognizable individuals produce works of art. Personal style is the master s
handwriting.
The transference of art subjects to handicrafts is nearly always styleless,
and a particular evil of our new age of machinery, which, by its highly developed
technical ability facilitates any reproduction and nonsensical transference to the most
varied material.
Style is the peculiar form of a work of art. On the other hand, conventionalizing
of forms is the intentional or unintentional artistic changing of nature's forms
and expressions.
All art is in so far impressionistic as it has its origin in exterior impressions;
no one can evade these. The work of art thus created is a connecting-link inserted
in an uninterrupted sequence between the external world and man.
Expressionism however whether naive or designing — holds that it
can create straight from the soul a work of art devested of any intervening
medium by disregarding all possible exterior impressions. Such a production finally
appears to be in no connection whatsoever with the palpable world. Pure
expressionism might be regarded as the art of metaphysics. As absolute
space is dealt with by metaphysics, such a phenomenon, as for instance cubism,
becomes psychologically comprehensible. And, as further, absolute space forms a
synchronic continuity, we can also approach nearer to the intention of modern artists
who attempt to represent a sequence of events confined in space, as may be sometimes
observed in the case of the simple mediaevel legend painters. As however the works
of high creative art, plastic and graphic, are really not time-bound in only retaining
one moment, the amalgamation of time and space in plastic and graphic art in
one and the same work is a characteristic of the primitive, or a voluntary
harking back to the same.
I understand by impressionism a preponderating influence in the artists work
from without, and by expressionism that from within.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
The fundamental form of impressionism is naturalism, for nature was, and
remains, the eternal teacher of mankind. Small wonder then that just the most
primitive drawings, as for instance the ancient Altamira cave paintings, are possessed
of an extraordinary vividness of impression. They are pictures of nature based
upon the most acute power of observation emanating from the close connection of
primitive man with nature.
The naive grasping of the essential in vivid momentary movements (closely
akin to caricature) is characteristic. It is clear that we have here, as is the
case with bushmen's and other drawings, a certain psychic mood and form of
human thought reacting to momentary phenomena in nature with complete psychic
devotion. I term, the art of this attitude to the universe (Weltanschauung) primary
naturalism. Sharply contrasted to this are the restricted and limited patterns
enforced by the technique of plaiting and weaving at a period when man was possessed
of a developed handicraft. As, ethnologically, the pot developed from the basket,
woven patterns were transferred to ceramic, and were thus changed in various
manners. I call this style primary plectogene geometrical.
Since the introduction of plaiting, weaving, and pottery', both styles begin
to influence each other, and in doing so, it is probable that originally different
and distinct cultural spheres reacted mutually on one another through amalgamation,
trade relations, migration and other causes.
It is possible, for instance, in the case of ancient Peruvian art to distinctly
recognize the two above-mentioned styles, as well as their mutual exchange of
influence.
Plectogene geometrical patterns undergo a secondary naturalistic change on
adoption, as human imagination easily conceives e. g. a square having another little one
within it, to be an eye. This secondary plectogene style is geometrical-
naturalistic.
On the other hand, naturalistic motives are conventionalized owing to a
more reflective and more recent observation of nature. This is a form of observing
nature, as conceived and reproduced by means of memory, rather than an observation
of what appears actually and • at first hand. Associative modifications of the
pattern result. And finally, that mode of viewing the universe, which is pondered
and mythological, creates an art more or less richly vested with symbols and
attributes (mostly of the gods). This conventionalized naturalism as met with,
for instance, in ancient Mexico, may be designated as a priestly or hierarchical art.
If the secondary naturalistic plectogene patterns are tranferred to ceramic, the
rigid form becomes less rigid, and naturalistic geometrical productions result.
Again, another form of naturalism developing to a conscious return to the
nature of primitive man, is the mature and supermature naturalism of the most
cultured peoples. It alone really knows the emotional landscapes and the spiritualized
8 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
portrait. It is rational (one in many) in its classical or classicizing form, irrational
in its romantic form (many in one).
The exhaustion of impressionism leads to expressionism, which, in a way,
is suppressed naturalism, and may perhaps pave the way for a new romanticism.
Mexico.
It is only possible within the disposable space to attempt an essay in outline
of the history of Mexican art in view of the difficult archaeological conditions in
this extensive country, and because of the very complicated historical statements made
in old sources which are hardly yet even sifted. In order to obtain a more or less
comprehensive survey of the various styles and time-epochs on Mexican soil, it is
necessary to unroll the variegated scroll of the many peoples, among whom the
Mexican-speaking inhabitants of the plateau, and the Maya tribes have left important
historical traditions and monuments.
We shall not go amiss in presuming that the differentiation from Mexican
style amongst the neighbouring peoples is based on special peculiarities which
they were originally possessed of. In doing so we must further consider that the
Mexicans themselves have passed through various style-periods during which they
influenced the peoples surrounding them.
It seems more stimulating in dealing with this obscure field of art to offer a
comprehensive view of the peoples in question, as well as of their history, rather
than a detailed appreciation of the artistic value of each picture reproduced
in this little volume; pictures of works of art. be it said, that were rigidly
selected, and which certainly speak very distinctly for themselves. Questions of
style dealt with from the view-point of the history of art are now for the first
time chronologically arranged in the appended table. The writer trusts that this
volume, together with its bibliography, may facilitate an introduction into ancient
American art.
General View.
I. Non^Mexicans.
The ancient inhabitants of Mexico are divided into two main groups: Mexicans
and Non-Mexicans. The former can be arranged in two strata which are linguisti-
cally, archaeologically, ethnographically, and chronologically quite distinct from one
another.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 9
The Toltecs or Nahuas (Chichimeca Mochanecatoca in Sahagun's Hist, de
la Cosas de la Nueva Espafia) form the older stratum of the Mexicans with
dialects distinguished by the T sound in place of the Tl. Their language was, or
is Nahuat. The latter stratum is formed by the Nahuatlacs, to whom the Aztecs
belong. They have the mute Tl sound, and speak Nahuatl.
The Sonoras and the Shoshonees are elder relations of both. As the Mexicans
of both strata immigrated to the Mexican highlands, we shall first deal with the
Non-Mexican peoples. They either also immigrated in archaic times, or are there
so long that they may be regarded as autochthonous. To these belong chiefly
the peoples of the great Otomi group, further the Mixteco-Tzapotecs, Mixe-
Zoques, Huaves and Mayas, as well as the Totonacs and Tarascs (whose linguistic
position remains undecided), although these two latter are also sometimes mentioned
in the migration myths as "arrivals".
Of the northern frontier tribes mention should be made of the representatives
of the. great families of Athabascans or Tinne stretching far to the south. The
chief body of these tribes is settled in the north-west of the continent. The best-
known of the southernmost Athabascans are the Apachees between the Rio Grande
del Norte and the Upper Rio Gila. In the remote west — in the south-west of
the United States on the Lower Colorado, on the Rio Gila, and in the neigh-
bouring territories — we find the Yumas as a particular stock, including the
Mohaves, Cocopas, Cochimis (of Lower California) besides the Seri on the
Tiburon island and enclaved on part of the opposite Mexican mainland (in the Pima
district). This neglected group is particularly important owing to its relationship on
the one hand with the Chontals of Oaxaca in the south, and on the other
with the Californian Hokan group in the north. Perhaps we may regard the
Californian elements in Mexico as very ancient. It is not possible to discern
clearly now-a-days whether in remote antiquity Cahfornians once held a major
part of Mexico, or whether only single shoots had penetrated into a still older
original population (the Otomi group). But, at any rate it is remarkable that
the residue of the Seris, Cuitlatecs, Tlappanec-Subtiabas (Maribios), Chontals of
Oaxaca, Xincas (south-east Guatemala), who appear as Californians, cling very
closely to the Pacific coast following the direction of California to the south.
Among the tribes of northern Mexico, attention should be drawn to the
Sonoras and Chichemecas. They will be discussed when dealing with the Mexicans,
as well as the Shoshonees, as all three belong to one large group.
There are still to-day numbers of long-settled peoples in central Mexico. The
most important are the Otomisof the southern Mesa Central and the neighbouring
countries of the Tierra caliente. They include the Otomis -proper, Mazahuas and
Matlatzincas or Toloques (Pirindas in Tarascan) south of them in the neigh-
bourhood of the high valley of Toluca, as well as the Ocuiltecas (Malinalcas).
10 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
Mexicans found their way in various migratory waves into the ranks of these
Otomi peoples.
Adjoining these autochthonous peoples, as primordial relations, are the Chocho-
Popolocas now only existing as a fragment of a people south of Puebla, and in
northern Oaxaca. Once they were very extensive and coincide, according to my last
investigations, mainly with the ancient Olmecs (Olmeca-Uixtotin). They were
the inhabitants of the fertile tropical coastal countries of the Gulf shore south
of Verra Cruz. Sahagun, who collected old Mexican traditions up to his old
age from the most learned Indians, emphasizes the fact that the Olmecs were
not Chichimecas, but Olmeca-Uixtotin-Nonoualcas. This means that they did not
immigrate from the north, but were long-settled barbarians, speaking originally a
foreign language, and being a foreign race, even though later Toltecicized. They
were already influenced at an early penod by Toltec culture and language. And
it was just their district — the inner angle of the Gulf — that also remained a centre
of especially high intellectual culture till well into Aztec times, as is above all
proven by the magnificent Codex Borgia originating from this district. The extensive
Toltec influence among this "rich" border people is partially explained by the
trade route passing through their territory leading from the central plateau to Tabasco
and the Maya countries. Hence these Olmec tribes were considered in a later era
(from the Aztec point of view) as being the children of Quetzalcouatl (the God
of the Toltecs and the travelling merchants).
Olmecs were settled in ancient times in Tlaxcala, where later they had, as
Pinome, a quarter of the town to themselves. It is apparent that, the early Toltecicized
Olmecs had also possessed themselves of the political hegemony in Cholula the
Rome of the New World. We may presume that the Toltecs were exercised of
the intellectual supremacy at all times, or at least passed it on to their successors.
Bishop Lorenzana gives us tidings of the Toltec language which had been adopted,
and which was a Nahuat idiom. He calls the dialect of the Puebla district uncom-
promisingly "Olmeco-Mexicano". We have an historical foundation for the whole
of ancient American history in the Aztec text of the Historia Tolteca Chichimeca1)
deposited in the National Library in Paris.
The expulsion of the Toltecicized Olmecs from Cholula was effected with the
help of the warlike Nahuatlacs in 1168 A. D. As we read in Torquemada that
the sovereignty of the Olmecs lasted 500 years, we arrive at the date of 600 A. D.
for the commencement of the Olmec Tyranny, that is to say : exactly the time
in which, according to Sahagun, the Empire of Tollan declined.
') The Ms is bilingual on the ist page, Aztec and Chocho, as I have been able to prove.
This circumstance may also serve as another proof that the language of the Olmeca-Uixtotin was
a Chocho dialect.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 1 1
The Olmec question is therefore of the greatest importance for the early
history of the Toltecs. We are further aware from Oviedo and Torquemada that
it was the Olmecs who had caused the emigration of Nahuat-speaking Nicaraos
from the surroundings of Cholula to Nicaragua {circa 1000 A. D.). Chorotega-
Mangues had already arrived in Nicaragua before these Nicaraos. They must
have gone there before 1000 A. D. from the district of the Chiapanecs of the
Mexican isthmus, for Mangues were found by the Nicaraos as "Masters" of the
country. Perhaps forebears of the Tlappanecs had come with these Mangues to
Subtiaba (near Leon). These are foundations for a chronology hitherto wrapped
in darkness, and which now permit of an exacter fixation of the periods of the
history of art in Mexico and Central America (vide Table).
The Mazatecs are the nearest relations and neighbours of the Chocho-Popolocas.
To these also belong the Triques, Ixcatecs and Chiapanecs.
It is as well to connect here the peoples of the Mexican isthmus: the Mixteco-
Tzapotecs and the Chinantecs who are connected with the Othomi group, although
this fact is not fully cleared up in detail.
The rough tribes of the Mixe-Zoques form a group of their own who show
through the Tapachultecan I connection with the Xincan II in the south-east of
Guatemala, perhaps via the mysterious Aguateco II of Guatemala. And finally
may be the Huaves of the Tehuantepec lagoons also belong to this group. The
linguistic connection of these fragments of peoples with the Maya family are not
yet investigated enough to be conclusively judged of. At any rate, the original Mayas,
when spreading, had to deal with the ancestors of the Mixe-Zoques in the north-
west. These latter had been driven out by the Chiapanecs. In the south and south-
east the original Mayas had to deal with Xinca peoples. The relationship of the
Mayas with certain tribes in Honduras discloses new historical points of view.
We must insert here the Tarascs (Quaochpanme, "People with shaven heads").
They inhabit an extensive country (that was never subjugated by the Mexicans) in the
west of the high valley of Toluca on the Pacific slope. They speak a very singular
agglutinating language, and are remarkable, because — like the Toltecs — they
did not sacrifice human beings. Archaeologically the style of their ceramic shows
connections with the primitive Otomi stratum.
The Totonacs of the Gulf coast between Huaxtecs in the north, and Olmecs
in the south, were a people who had attained to a considerable height of culture
of which their stone sculptury is an eloquent witness.
Linguistically they are conspicuously isolated. Their history goes back centuries
anterior to the Spanish conquest. But it has only been handed down in its main
lines in a few statements, chiefly by Torquemada. Certainly they were imbued
at an early period with Toltcc culture. It is possible that for this reason the Totonacs
were considered by the Aztecs of a later epigonal period to be the builders of
1^ The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
the Teotihuacan pyramids which are decidedly Toltec. The magnificent twin
manuscripts, the Vienna Codex and the Codex Zouche Nutall (Cod. Jovius) sent by
Cortes to the Emperor Charles V. originate from Totonac districts.
The Maya peoples of the Mexican isthmus and the neighbouring northern
Central America are still a homogeneous mass to-day, which has in course of time
extended from the mountainous country between Chiapas and Guatemala to the
west, north, east, and south-east without having reached the isthmus of Tehuantepec,
nor passing to any considerable extent the Bahia de Fonseca in the south. Only
the Huaxtecs, who must have separated from the original Mayas (Chicomuceloltecs)
in very early times, are to be found at a great distance from the rest of the Mayas
in the state of Vera Cruz from Tuxpan to beyond Tampico where they are
neighbours of the Pamis and Otomis in the hinterland. The Huaxtecs, in ill-
repute with the Aztecs, as being barbaric drunkards, barbaric, because they wore
no loin-cloth (but perhaps a sort of penis-glove), were possessed of neither hiero-
glyphs nor stone edifices: at best small modest earth pyramids with rough awkward
stone human figures on them, and sometimes faced with stone slabs. On the other hand
their coloured striped woollen textiles were celebrated, and drawings of Huaxtec
stuffs in Mexican picture-writings give a weak conception of their magnificence.
The lack of hieroglyphs with the Huaxtecs proves that they must have been sepa-
rated from the original Mayas at latest in the 8th century after Christ, because
the oldest known dated Maya monument — the Birdgod of San Andres de
Tuxtla — originates at the latest from this period. Accordingly, to all appearances,
they must have been separated from the original Mayas in much earlier times.
In order to understand Maya culture, chiefly distinguished by wonderful archi-
tecture, it is necessary to go back to the Mexicans.
II. Mexicans.
Historical, archaeological, and linguistic facts show that it is possible, if we
divide the Mexicans into two main groups, to satisfactorily connect the variety of
apparently contradictory statements of the old sources about the earliest Mexican
times. These two groups are the Nahuas and Nahuatlacas mentioned above, and
by whom I mean the older Nahuat-speaking Toltecs, and younger Nahuatl-speaking
tribes of the Aztec type.
It is a law that compact groups of peoples change, or "develop '. On the
other hand, segregated parts maintain themselves carefully at that point at which
they stood when leaving the greater mother-nation, being a minority struggling to
maintain its peculiarities as an enclave in a foreign majority. This applies par-
ticularly to the languages and dialects in the diaspora; they are therefore, in connection
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 13
with other investigatory auxiliaries, especially adapted to answer chronological
questions which are also indispensable for questions dealing with the history of art.
The oldest Nahuat known to me is the Izalco of Salvador. It is partly on the
same level as Sonora and Shoshonee. This can only be explained by extremely ancient
Toltecs having penetrated as far as Salvador.
Beyond the real Shoshonees, the following also belong to them: the Hopis
(Moquis) of Arizona, the Yutes of Utah and Colorado, the Paiutes of Nevada,
the Chemehuevis of the Rio Colorado, and the Comanches of Texas and New
Mexico.
The Sonoras include briefly the Pimas, Opatas, Cahitas, Tarahumaras,
Tepehuanos, Acaxees, Coras (Nayarits) and Huichols, all settled in north-west
Mexico.
We had best make mention here of the Chichimecs, who, according to Sahagun,
are divided into Tamimes ("Archers" in ancient Nahuat) and Teochichimecas ("steppe
Chichimecs"), and to whom the Zacachichimecas ("grassland Chichimices") also
belong.
The name! Chichimecs is a collective one for a number of tribes on the
plains, and in the mountain countries of northern and north-western Mexico. It is
difficult to decide as to their linguistic position. It is certain on the one hand that a
part of the Chichimecs belong to the Otomi group, on the other we may think of the
Teules Chichimecas in connection with the Teochichimecas and Zacachichimecas who
led their restless lives between the southern Sonora and Otomi • The Cazcans,
Cocas and Tecuexes may be placed next to the Teules Chichimecas. As a matter of
fact, all these ancient Mexicans who had migrated into the country from the northern
districts were called Chichimecs. For this reason Sahagun calls the Olmeca-Uixtotin:
Nonoualca ("Speakers of a foreign language"), and not Chichimeca.
It is highly important that in the district of Teul (source of the Rio Bolanos)
as well as in the valley of Juchipila and the side valleys of the Rio Verde magni-
ficent earthenware vessels are found encrusted with splendid colours which are
recognizable as being connected with the district of Tepic, La Quemada and
Chalchihuites, as well as with the discoveries in the middle stratum of Teotihuacan.
And further north of the ruins of Chalchihuites and the discoveries of Teul and of
Estanzuela (near Tepic) we find La Quemada, the old Tuitlan, with relics of
Tarascan style and the Sivano-ki. These "Sivano Houses" consist of numerous
clay buildings in the Pima district which are very reminiscent of the old buildings
of Casas Grandes in Chihuahua and Arizona. It is probable that the ancestors
of the Pimas not only built the Casas Grandes, but also occupied several buildings
of the Pueblos. As among the multi-lingual tribes of the Pueblos (Kera, Tehua,
Zuni, etc.) the Hopis (Moquis) of the first Mesa are the only present represen-
tatives of the Shoshonees in the north of Arizona we are justified in presuming there
14 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
has been, as far as extension, time, language and archaeology are concerned
an older Shoshonian period before the Sonoran. P. Perez de Ribera gives us
information about the emigration of the Sonoras from the north in his Historia
de los Triumphos de Nuestra Santa Fe (Madrid 1645, lib. I, cap. 19).
I consider the Casas Grandes as still belonging to the proto-Shoshonic period
which ceases linguistically in about 1000 B.C.; the Sivano-ki to the first proto-
Sonoran, the Chalchihuites with Teuls, Totoates, La Quemada and Estanzuela
(Tepic) to the old-Sonoran period. Both of which reach from 1000 — 500 B. C.
having intimate connection with proto-Toltec culture of the 1 st cent. B. C. From this
area sprung the proto-Toltec culture which depended on the ancient Toltec culture
flourishing before 600 A. D.
The stages of these cultures are marked by ruins and characteristic antiquities,
by linguistic studies in connection with chronological statements as established
especially by Sahagun, in the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico, and
Torquemada. I do not mean that all ruins and discovenes need originate from such
dates as 1000 B. C, 500 B. C, etc. {vide Table). Such dates merely serve to
outline the epochs that created these styles, of which ruins and objects also
belonging to later centuries, are examples due to rentention on the part of the
inhabitants remaining behind, and their clinging to ancient traditions.
It is here that early American history focuses. Rays of light are always
only thrown from complete historical centres back to distant antiquity, and onwards
to centuries lying ahead. In America, it is only possible to find fixed points for the
chronology and the dates of excavations important in the history of art where
historical traditions, or the monuments themselves, have left reliable dates. This
applies especially hitherto only to Mexico and Central America, far less to South
America, and the least to North America. Mexico herself was in possession of the
most important auxiliaries to historical preservation of her great part by means of highly-
developed picture-writing and hieroglyphics, together with an admirably planned
calender system. It is true that mythological conceptions play an important role,
as is the case with all peoples whose minds tend to mythology, and the corresponding
uncritical treatment of history. Myths are connected with events, heroes of cul-
ture and historical personalities, and vest distant geographical districts with con-
ceptions inseparably connected with the cardinal points. Originally chronology and
calenders could not to be distinguished from cosmological studies. For this reason the
starting points (zero points) of chronology are closely connected with the establishing
of eras. This is particularly the case to a great extent with Mexicans and Mayas.
Dim prehistoric periods are summed up into epochs synchronizing with a well-
regulated and rounded-off universal conception. Thus the traditions in the
Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico count with 2028 years, which
are distributed over 4 world eras of 676, 312, 364 and 676 years, and with
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 15
2513 years which expired on 22nd May 1558 A. D., leaving 2513 — 2028 = 485 years
of complete (Aztecan) time. The traditions of this document, the original writing
of which is in the handwriting of Ixthlxochitl, and which I was lucky enough to
re-discover in Mexico in 1909, only goes back in its first part to 1073 A. D., a date
that clearly points to 1064 — 1074, the 2nd dispersal of the Toltecs. These 485 years
only include a newer Mexican, Nahuatlacan tradition, and deal with the age of
the world, creation, and Toltec history from, a newer, i. e. Aztec point of view. The
starting point of the whole calculation would reach back to 955 B. C. We may
perhaps interpret this "zero point" of Mexican-Aztec chronology as having a deeper
significance, in as far as here the early period was accepted with 13 + 6 + 7+13
cycles — each of 52 years — ■ (= 39.52 years). There ist a dim consciousness of a
very ancient past doubtlessly mirrored in these years, as well as in the different zero-
point of the Maya chronology. The much higher periods including more than ten
thousand years of the Codex Vaticanus are purely cosmological epochs which may
be connected with Praecession — like the serpent numbers in the Codex Dresdensis.
If Sahagun informs us that the Mexicans had stayed about 2000 years in the
country, and if Azcapotzalco, which passed through an archaeological Teotihuacan
culture — as can be proved — and could (according to Torquemada) look back
about 1571 years, these statements are by no means to be scornfully dismissed.
These best of the old authors, perfectly credible in their statements, did not simply
invent them. What we need do is to discover how to interpret such figures.
The days of such phantastic views as expressed by Brasseur de Bourbourg
(who however should not be disregarded owing to his valuable sources) have, we
trust, gone for ever since Eduard Seler's epochal studies. We are possessed of
considerable information from Mexico both old and ancient, but it is very difficult
to unravel the apparent entanglement of statements, and to render them uncontradictory.
This difficulty is partly owing to the fact that various local traditions and chrono-
logies were extant which had been cast into different systems by certain priest
schools. Beyond this, there is a break between the younger Mexican-Aztec and
the older Toltec traditions. We must recollect that Aztec history was grafted on to
the Toltec, which was thus either moved to a more recent time, or vanished, and
was hidden in a universal chronology. The end of more recent Toltecdom in
1064 A. D. (according to the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico")
leads us with but a break of tradition of only a few years to the above-
mentioned year 1073, the end of Toltec renaissance, and the beginning of Aztec
times.
The question is: how far can pre- Aztecan times be historically illuminated?
This requires a short treatment of the Toltec problem. Since Seler's archaeological
discoveries on the fresco strata of Palenque, it is quite certain that the Toltecs are
by no means mythical. Beyond this, there is so much reliable old information about
16 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
them that there can no longer be any dispute as to their being the protagonists of
an early Mexican period of culture. Sahagun ascribes to the entire Mexican culture a
period of roughly 2000 years, and dates the destruction of Tollan (the Toltec realm)
about 1000 years before his time (1571 A. D.), /. e.\ about 600 A. D.
Thus the most prosperous period of the ancient Toltecs was some centuries
before 600 A. D., and the commencement of the reign of the Toltecs — whom I call
proto-Toltecs — should, according to Sahagun, be placed at 429 B. C. Both archaeolo-
gical and linguistic facts support this chronology. The newer Mexican dialects, distin-
guished by their Tl-sound, represent Aztec known to us from three periods: language of
the ancient hymns to the Gods in Sahagun, which we possess commentated with glossary
in classical Aztec of the period of the Spanish Conquest (16th cent.), and a finally
present-day vulgar Aztec. The proto- Aztecs, old Aztecs and Tenochca- Aztecs should
be distinguished historically. I call all Nahuatl- speaking tribes Nahuatlacs.
One of their members who rose to special political power are the Aztecs of
Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The Nahuatlac immigration seems partly to date back to some
centuries before 1168 A. D. Thus it is said that the Aculhuaques of Tetzcoco
immigrated in the 47th year of Xolotl's reign (== 836 A. D.) together with the house
of Citin {vide Torquemada). These Citin remind us of the Mecitin ("agave
hares") or Mexitin. They expressly changed their name again from Mexitin to
Mexica (Cod. Aubin 1576). It appears that the Nahuatlacs immigrated in successive
groups. The 11 th — 12 th century after Christ was the period of the chief migratory
movement, and amongst others it also brought in 1168 A. D. the Tlatelolcas who
were separated from the Tenochcas since 1337 A. D. The dynasty of the Mexico-
Tenochtitian kings (ca. 1376 A. D.) is preceded by a period of ten war-chiefs
quauhtlatoque), of which the first page of the Codex Mendoza gives us pictorial
tidings. The time between these chiefs of the single town-quarters and Acamapichth is
occupied by Tenuch (ca. 1321 — 1373) according to Andre Thevet.
The peculiar dialect of Pochutla in Oaxaca, recorded by Boas, is distinguished
itself from Aztec by certain vocal changes. Here we appear to have a special
dialect which may be connected with the Toltec builders of Mitla mentioned by
Torquemada, and which to my thinking belongs to the middle or late Toltec period
(after 1064).
The style of the Xochicalco ruins, together with that of the Chalco sculptures
projects into a Toltec-Aztec transitionary period.
After the decline of the ancient and pacific Toltec empire in about 600 A. D.
caused by Olmecs, a period of confusion set in which is mentioned as "interregnum",
the historians not agreing as to the duration of the time of this period.
According to Torquemada and the dynasty lists in other old sources the Toltec
cultural, and certainly religious influence begins to get stronger again soon after
700 A. D. which justifies us in speaking of a kind of Toltec renaissance. Cholula
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 17
was the centre of this classical ancienne neo-Toltec culture. Older reports actually
speak of a Tollan-Cholollan. Table A of Kings in Torquemada mentions names
of kings from 651 — 1031 A. D. (Clavigero 667-1031), Table B of Kings
from 726—1064 A. D. (Codex Zumarraga 799—1160).
The centre of old Tollan was in Teotihuacan, Tollantzinco and Tollan.
I succeeded at Teotihuacan in 1909, by excavations in the Teopannacazco, in establishing
the presence of three successive cultural strata, which were later found to be correct
by other explorers, and were also found in other places. Remains of Aztec culture
belong to the upper stratum, those of Toltec to the middle one, and a primitive
(Otomi) culture to the lowest. The remains of Toltec culture are distinguished
by fine stucco paintings and brilliant emerald green colours. The figures of the
Teotihuacan temple frescos conformable to the paintings of the Aljojuca vessels
show an archaic style which changed to epigonal style in Aztec times based on
the fundamental style of the Estanzuela (Tepic) encrusted ceramic, the art of
which can be traced far to the north. The rest of the ancient Toltecs were probably
mixed to a great extent with the Otomi (Chichimeca-Otomi). As the pioneers of
culture came from the north, and Chichimecs however were settled in the north
of the Mexican high plateau, "Chichimeca" became a title of honour, both for the
ancient Toltecs, as well as especially for the Chichimeca Aculhuaque of Tetzcoco,
whose beginnings reach back to 323 A. D. x); i. e. at a time when ancient
Toltec influences were extending to neighbouring Otomi tribes. Nahuatlacan Aculhuas
seem to appear as early as 836 A. D. The Citin clan mentioned in connection
with the above reminds us of the names of ancient Toltec relics such as Ecitin
{vide supra: Mecitin).
The end of the earlier "young" Toltecs is completed in a second Toltec
dissolution by the suicide of Uemac in Cincalco (1064 — 1070 A. D.). We hear
of Cholula at the time when the migrating Toltecs begin to spread. The beginning
of the Kingdom in Tepeyacac and Cholula is dated 1168 A. D. But this only means
that since this time the predomination of foreign Olmecs, who were however
already Toltecisized, was disrupted with the assistance of warlike Nahuatlacs.
For instance, Tepeyacac counts 332 years (Herrera 2. 10. 21, p. 285/6) since the
original home of Chicomoztoc ("Place of seven Caves") till the beginning of the
kingdom. The year 1168 A. D. minus 332 years takes us to 836 A. D., the
') Everything that is Chichimec before circa 320 A. D. would be proto-Chichimcc. The period
of 469 years in Torquemada (320 — 789 A. D.) civers the ancient Chichimec period based on an
old Otomi stratum. The time from 789 — 989 (Xolotl) may be regarded as a middle period, that
from 989 — 1 139 A. D. (Nopaltzin Pochotl), and 1139 — 1175 A. D. (Tlotzin-Pochotl) may be termed
a newer period. About this time the dynasty poses to a later one of Tetzcoco in the person of
Tlaltecatzin Quinatzin (11 75 — 1258 A. D.) whose accession to the throne Sahagun (VIII, 3) states
as being in 1246 A. D.
The history of ancient mexican art 2
18 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
above-menitoned 47th year of Xolotl's reign as the beginning of the Aculhuaque of
Tetzcoco.
There are plain signs in Xochicalco of the admixture of Toltec art activity
with aboriginal. Here we should note the calculiform framing of the day symbols
hieroglyphs, and employment of a line instead of dots for the number 5, as in the
Codex Fejervary Mayer and the Codex Cospi on the one hand, and with the
Mayas on the other. It is evident that we have here an older style which was
also retained by the Tzapotecs (Monte Alban reliefs).
We may presume that ancient Toltec culture rescued the younger Toltecs
extended to the surrounding autochtones " at an early period through pacific and
religious channels, and along the trade routes. It is thus that the Toltecs, Olmecs,
Tarascs, Mixteco-Tzapotecs, Chiapanecs, and Mayas were repeatedly fructified
by the benefits of Toltec culture and science.
The Tzapotec calender is retentive of the particularly ancient names of the
20 day symbols. The Toltec calender with hieroglyphic characters found its way via
the Tzapotecs to the aboriginal Mayas of the boundary highlands between Chiapas
and Guatemala, following ancient trade routes leading from Tabasco from the
Rio Usumacinta upwards to Peten, Guatemala and further to Central America. Those
aboriginal Mayas developed the old Toltec picture-writing independently to peculiar
hieroglyphics, which in their inward conception of ideas, betray to the connoisseur a
closer relationship with the Mexican pictures than one would presume in view of
the great external differences between the two systems of writing.
The Leiden jade plate originating from the boundary district of Belize and
Guatemala dates at the latest from the 10th century A. D., and deals with the
old end of the year of the month Xul ("end"). The "Birdgod" of Tuxtla is
considerably older according to my calculations, namely 158 years and 225 days, and
thus belongs to the 8 th century A. D. The date of this piece, 8 (caban) = 20 Mac,
refers perhaps to the end of a year. The birdbeaked God of Tuxtla is connected with
forms of Quetzalcouatl, and old Mexican mosaics in the Copenhagen and London
museums support this theory.
The Maya calender certainly developed under the influence of the ancient
Toltecs several centuries before the 8 th after Christ. Ancient Toltec influence
extended from Guatemala via Peten and Belize to Bacalar, and brought the
first group of the Itza peoples to old Chich'enitza the beginning of which
dates back to about the commencement of the 2nd quarter of the 6th century A. D.
according to the books of Chilam Balam. More recent Toltec influence came
later from Champoton in the west to northern Yucatan. Especially Chich'enitza
and Mayapan show Toltec influence. In Chich'enitza we recognize elements of
the Toltec style of Teotihuacan as well as also those celebrated stone snake
columns which Sahagun emphasizes for Tula (Tollan). Remains of such columns
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 19
in the form of an "erect snake", which may also signify quetzacouatl, hava been found
in Tula, and are deposited in the Museo Nacional of the Mexican capital. The
peculiar recumbent stone figures of the so-called Chac-Mol type are distributed as
far as west Salvador; this should point to Toltec influence.
The Santa Rita frescos in northern Belize also betray Toltec influence, perhaps
coming from the south with a strange admixture of Maya elements.
The magnificent stone figures of Santa Lucia de Cozumalhuapa in southern
Guatemala are remains of ancient Pipil culture.
It is probable that the oldest culture from Chich'enitza to south Belize is connected
with ancient Toltec seats in the central Motagua valley from which offshoots can
be traced archaeologically on the one hand to northern Honduras, and on the other
to south Salvador.
If Mexican culture has its roots in the Sonora and Pueblos districts, then the
strange relationship between archaeological discoveries in the southern states of the
North American Union and those of ancient Mexico become more comprehen-
sible. We may presume that certain influences of a very ancient culture with
protogonal style emanated years ago from the Pueblos district which spread
partly to the district of the Mississippi mounds, and spreading further, fructified
Mexico. It will require close investigation to discover how far this oldest Pueblos
culture can be traced to the north along the Rio Colorado. The Pueblos district
will provide the key to a correct comprehension of ancient Mexican culture. In
connection with this are further questions as to the links with the higher north-west
of America which are to-day not yet ripe for discussion.
2#
Bibliography.
i. Channing Arnold and Fred J. Tabor Frost, The American Egypt. London 1909. 8°. 391 pp.
ill. Maps.
2. A. F. Bandelier, Rep. of Am. Arch. Tour in Mexico in 1881, Papers Arch. Inst. Am., Am. Ser. II.
Boston 1884.
3. Leopoldo Batres, Exploration of Mount Alban. Mexico 1902; — Visita a los monum. arq. de
"La Quemada", Zacatecas. Mexico 1903. — Teotihuacan, Mexico 1906. — Civilizacion prehist.
de las riberas del Papaloapam y Costa de Sotavento, Estado de Vera Cruz. Mexico 1908.
4. H. Beuchat, Manuel d'Archeologie Americaine. Paris 1912. — 8°. 773 pp. ill.
5. Franz Boas, Archaeological investigations in the valley of Mexico by the Intern. School (191 1 — 12)
Intern. Congr. of Am. London 1912 pt. I (London 191 3) p. 176 — 179.
6. G. Briihl, Die Kulturvolker Altamerikas. New York 1875 — 87.
7. Munoz Camargo, Hist, de Tlaxcala, edid. Chavero, Mexico 1892.
8. Chimalpain, Relaciones; Mss. Bibl. Nat. Paris.
9. Clavigero, Storia antica del Messico. Esena 1780 — 81. 4 vols.
10. Diego Duran, Hist, de la Nueva Espana"y islas de tierra firma, edid. J. Fern. Ramirez, Mexico 1867.
8°. 2 vols.
11. Escuela Internacional de Arqueologia y Etnologia Americanas, Afio Escolar de 191 1 a 191 2. Me-
xico 1 91 2. XX pp. (cf. also 14).
12. J. W. Fewkes, Certain Antiquities of Eastern Mexico, Bur. of Ethn. XXV (1907 Washingt.)
p. 231 — 296. — Antiquities of the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Smithson. Misc. Coll. Vol. 70 No. 2
(Wash. 1918).
13. E. Forstemann, Editions of the Dresden Maya-Manuscript: Leipzig 1880, Dresden 1892. 40. —
Commentary on the Maya Cod. in the Ryl. Public Library Dresden. Dresden 1901.
14. Manuel Gamio, Arqueologia de Atzcapotzalco, Intern. Congr. of Am. London 191 2 pt. I (Lond.
1913) p. 180 — 87. — Investigaciones arq. en Mexico 1914 — 15, XIX. Intern. Congr. Am. Washington
191 5 ( 1 9 1 7) p. 125ft. — Los ultimos descrubrimientos arq. en Teotihuacan. "Ethnos Tomo" I
Num. 1 Mexico 1920 p. 7 — 14 (cf. also 11).
15. fH. K. Haberlin in the American Anthropologist N. Ser. 21 Nr. 1 ( 1 9 1 9) p. 61 — 70.
16. E. T. Hamy, Galerie am. du Musee d'Ethnogr. du Trocadero. Paris 1897. Fol.
17. Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacan y de Mexico Original Copy by Ixtlilxochitl. Ms. mex. in the
Bibl. del Mus. Nac. de Mexico. (Refound thereby the author in 1909.) Copies in the Bibl. Nat.
Paris; cf. W. Lehmann, Zts. f. Ethn. Berlin. Bd. 38 p. 752ft.; cf. W. Lehmann, in the Journal de la
Soc. des Am6ricanistes Paris N. S. Ill No. 2 p. 239 — 97; cf. incomplete and faulty reprint = Anales
de Quauhtitlan in Anales del Mus. Nac. de Mexico, Tomo III Apend. Ixtlilxochitl's Ms.
(1568— 1648) = Boturini Catalogo § VIII Nr. 13.
18. Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, Ms. Aubin-Goupil, Mexican Coll., Paris, Bibl. Nat.
19. Holmes, Arch. Studies Among the Ancient Cities of Mexico, Field Colomb. Mus., Anthr. Ser.
1895—97.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 21
20. Walter Hough, Arch. Field Work in Northern Arizona, U. St. Nat. Mus. for 1901, Washington
1903 p. 279—358 ill. — Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila Region, New Mexico
and Arizona, Smithson. States Nat. Mus. Bulletin 87, Washington 1914. 8°. 139 pp. ill.
21. Al. Hrdlicka, The "Chichimecs", Am. Anthrop. Lancaster 1903.
22. Al.v. Humboldt, Vues des Cordilleres et monuments des peuples indigenes de l'Amerique. Paris 18 13.
23. Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chichimeca apud Kingsborough, Mexican. Antiquities vol. IX fol. 197 — 316;
— Relaciones ibid. fol. 317 — 468; both works edited by Chavero, Mexico 1891, 1892.
24. Thomas Joyce, Mexican Archaeology, London 19 14.
25. Diego de Landa, Relac. de las cosas de Yucatan, edid. Brasseur Paris 1864 edid. de la Rada y Del-
gado Madrid 1881, cf. Col. Doc. ined. Ila. Ser. vol. XIII (1900) p. 265—408; important additional
information in Cogolludo, Hist, de Yucatan, Madrid 1688 (2. ed. Merida 1842, 3. ed. 1897).
26. W. Lehmann, Altmexikanische Mosaiken, "Globus" 90 Nr. 20 (1906) p. 318 — 322 (ad vide Xolotl
Vienna ibid. p. 319 note 15); "Globus" Vol. 91 Nr. 21 (1907) p. 332—5; cf. also Oppel, "Globus'
1896. — Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexik. Forschung, Archiv f. Anthr. VI (1907) p. 113 — 168,
Engl, translation. Paris 1909. — Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise in Mittelamerika und Mexiko
(1907—09), Zts. f. Ethn. Vol. 42 (1910) p. 687 — 749. — The Hist, de los Reynos de Colh. etc.
v. supra 17. — Zentralamerika, 2 Vols., Berlin (D. Reimer) 1920 — 21.
27. Leon y Gama, Descripcion hist, y cronol. de las dos piedras . . . Mexico 1790.
28. Herzog Fl. de Loubat, Facsimile-Edit, of the Cod. Borgia, Cod. Vat. A and B, Cod. Fejervary-
Mayer, Cod. Cospi, Tonalamatl Aubin etc.
29. C. Lumholtz, Unkown Mexico, London 1903 2 vols. — New Trails in Mexico (1909 — 10). London.
— Leipzig 1912, 8°. 411 pp. ill.
30. Teobert Maler, Yukatekische Forschungen, "Globus" Vol. 82 Nr. 13 u. 14 (1902) p. 197 — 230. ill.
31. Brantz Mayer, Mexico As It Was And as It Is. Philadelphia 1847.
32." A. P. Maudslay, in Goodman and Salvin's Biologia Centrali- Americana, Archaeol., London 1889
to 1902.
33. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum Am. Arch, and Ethn., Havard Univ. Cambridge.
34. Mendieta, Hist, ecclesiast. Indiana, Col. Doc. p. la hist, de Mexico III (1870); Nueva col. doc.
p. las hist, de Mex. IV (1892).
35. Earl H. Morris, The Aztec Ruin (Pueblo), Anthr. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. vol. XXVI pt. I New
York 1 91 9, 108 pp. (Culture Strata p. io4ff.).
36. Motolinia, Hist, de los Indios de la Nueva Espafia, Col. Doc. p. la hist, de Mexico I (1858). —
Memoriales, edid. Luis Garcia Pimentel, Mexico 1903.
37. Orozco y Berra, Hist. ant. y de la conq. de Mexico. Mexico 1880. 4 vols.
38. Oviedo y Valdes, La hist. gen. de las Indias, Sevilla 1533; reedition of the Real Acad, de la Hist.
Madrid 1851 — 55, 4 vols.
39. Pefiafiel, Monumentos del arte antiguo mexicano. Berlin 1890. 3 vols.
40. Remesal, Hist. gen. de las Indias occid. y particular de la gobern. de Chiapas y Guatemala, Madrid
1 61 9 — 20.
41. Sahagun, Hist, de las Cosas de la Nueva Espafia, edid. Bustamente. Mexico 1829, 3 vols. (= Kings-
borough vol. VII); Original-Mss. a) Bibl. del Palacio and Bibl. de la Acad, in Madrid, b) Bibl. Lau-
renziana in Florenz; French translation by Remi Simeon, Paris 1880.
42. Ed. Seler, Ges. Abhandlungen zur Am. Sprach- u. Altertumskunde, Berlin (A. Asher) I (1902),
II (1904), III (1908), V (1915). — Die sog. sakralen GefaBe der Zapoteken, Veroff. K. Mus. f.V.
Berlin I (Berlin 1890) p. 1882 — 8. — Wandmalereien von Mitla, Berlin 1895. — Die altcn An-
siedelungen von Chacula, Berlin 1901. Tonolamatl Aubin, Berlin 1900. — Cod. Fejervary-Mayer,
Berlin 1901. — Cod. Vatic. B, Berlin 1902. — Codex Borgia, Berlin 1904, 1906 with Index by
W. Lehmann 1909. — La Quemada (Zacatecas), Ges. Abh. Ill p. 545 — 559. — Similarity of
The Hiitory <>i Ancient Mexican Art.
deiign <■! tome Teotihuacan freicoei and certain Mexican poiii-ry <il>j<-itn, intern, Congr. of Aju.
London 1912. pt. I (">>>,) p. 104 — 202. - i>m- Teotihuacan-Kultur del Hochlandi von Mexico
V (1915) i>- <|"<; 5851 Beobachtungen und Studien in den Ruinen von Palenque, Al>li. Akd.
Willi Berlin 191 e. Die Quetzolcouatl Panaden yukatekiicher Bauten, ibid. 19161
.) i, c. Seler, \ui alten Wcgen in Mexiko und Guatemala. Berlin 1900. — Die Huaxteken-Slg. im
K. Mui. 1. v. Berlin, Baeiilei Archiv Bd. V (1916).
.(.). Leilie Spier, An Outline foi 1 Chronology oi Zufii Ruim, Anthr, Paperi Am. Mui. Nat. Hist. vol.
win pt 111, New York «<)i7, p, 109 u> ill-} Map and Bibliography.
4<;. 11. j. Spinden, A itudy oi Maya Art, iti Subject Mattel and Hilt. Development, Mem. Peabody
Mui. Am Arch, and Ethn., Harvard Univ. Cambridge 1913. - Ancient Civiliiation of Mexico
.mil Centralamerica, New York, Am. Nat. Hiit, Handbook Scries No. 3,
.i(>. \v. .si. mi., Begleitwort eui Huaxteken sir., im Hilt. Mui. in Bern, [ahreiber. iiber die Ethnogr.
Slg. in Bern 1920, Bern 19x1, p. i<> 77 ill. and Map; cf. "El Mexico Antiguo" (publ. H<'rm. Beyer)
'i omo 1, Num. 7 y 8 (")••') p. Ji8 136.
1 11. Strebel, Alt Mexico, Hamburg and Leipzig 1SS1;. Ornamcnte mil TongefBfien aut> Altmcxiko,
1 [amburg and Leipzig 191 1
4«. Tezotomoc, Crdnica mexicana, edid. Orozco ) Berra, Mexico 1K7H.
■im 1 <ii Torquemada, Monarquia Indiana. Madrid iiu]; edid. Barcia, Madrid 1713.
List
01
lustrations.
Tripodel grey reddish earthenware bowl in the thape <>i .1 human figure) primitive ityle •■•)'
high. Ethnolographical Muieum, Berlin, No iv. Ca. m ;<>s. Colima Coniul Vogel'i Collect!
in
Oil
:. Red brownuh earthenware animal figure ) dog peciei (perhapi poung hairleii non*barking >lo>.;
bred toi fattening purposes; dachshund ipeciei?) 1.9cm. long Ethn Mui Berlin, No. i\', Ca
; 1 1 -i) Colima. Consul Vogel'i Coll.
; Earthenware veuel with terraturei and itripei formed bj hatched trianglei 17 (cm high Kthn
Mu:.. Berlin, No. iv. Ca. [4487. Colima Coniul Vogel'i Coll
.|. Earthenware vend painted black and white 11 cm high Including handle Ethn Mui Berlin,
No. IV. Ca. 9381. Tanquian, Huaxteca Selei Coll.
\ Earthenware veiieli. 1, ,5 cm, high covered with stucco and finely painted) black background;
colouri green, white, red, ahd yellow with black linei, Singing prioiti (breath iuuing from mouth
decorated with flowers t<>ug) in rich garmenti with waving (oathoi head droit, an in cento pockei
in li-ii hand, the right pouring •> wine offering on the ground (cf. prictti pouring pulque in froni
ui the Moon Picture in the freicoi on th< touth wall in the backroom oi the Tcopanacaaco in Tco
1 1i1n.11 .in). Ethn. Mui. Berlin, No. [V, Ca. ;, '89 and |< '90 San Rodrigo neai Aljojuca, district
ol Chalchicomula. rlonorato |. Carraico Coll Ed. Selei Teotihuacan culture, archaii tyl
cf, Seler Hiit. Enayi V, p. s-'<> el leq (dealing \n ■ < 1 1 my tint itrata excavation! in reotihuacan)
.....l plate 1. \ni
(>. Front 1. lide oi •• I <1 1 ■<- green j .* « t <- figure originating perhapi from the convenl ol Weingerton (in
Wurtemberg), now in the Linden Muieum Stuttgart. 1917cm high Mouth and cheeki with
red tinged i>i<-'<-. oi muiieli, and yellowish fragmenti in thi note Kolotl ai death guide oi the
huh. Mexican-Astec. Cf. H. Pitcher, "Globus", Vol 85, No ia (Brumwick 1904)^ ;i, ;i*.
Selei < lei. Abh. ill, p. !•>.• 1 <q
■. Front .Mi.i l. iide view ol aiquatting Kolotl 1 ■ k •- figure 8 cm. high oi dark brown wood with lian
covered cavity behind. The horn like projection gilded at pointi, probabl} rej tting th< dog'i
eari oi <li<- dog ihaped Xolotlj eyei and i<<-ii> made oi munel ihelli Valuable iniertioni iomi ol
which li.nl been it\<-.l with pini and have been loil out oi the eari, the butterfly ihaped bn 1 <
ornament and the carved triangulai iide piecei. Projecting out of, and deai oi the navel, 11 1 imall
beautiful moiai< work head. The frontlet 11 oi alternating light turquoiie blue and dark green
ino:i.i 11 with dark red plaquei on the claip (right) , obliqui iti ipei run at roil each < hcek (on the 1 ••,
on the 1. «); the right ei laments yellow green material (a tened bj thread) tli ol muuel
ihelli with obsidian pupil (l.)| c I • ■- mouth ol muuel ihell with dark red congue plaque rhe Xolotl
figure hai an anal opening made oi ■■ li-it din with central malachiti 1 The mail genitalian
carefully made, the glam penii comiited ol an inierted piece now mining Tl I pi
oi iquare win- between the conh eari. Hoi Mui \ ienna, No 1 1 j8j The figure came trom thi
collection oi the Coin and Antiquity Cabinet Vienna, in the Inventoryjoi which il
beregiitered ai No. 164, The Mexican collei 1 ontained there (N01 ij dati 1
the property left bj the Emperoi Maximilian oi Moxico, ind wai purchaied bj thi 1 rj Dept
in 1 nr.H for 1483 fl 1 (old currency)} but handed to the ethnographical dept of th< Natural Hiitorj
Muieum Vienna in 1 hki . Cf. Lehmann "Altmexikan Moiaiken", "Olobui", Vol g
24 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
(1906), pp. 318 — 322, in particular p. 319, annotation No. 15. I am indebted to governement Coun-
cillor Heger in Vienna for photographs and information.
8. Jaguar-shaped vessel of light brown wood encrusted with mussel-shell mosaic and coloured stone
plaques embedded in a resinous substance; the bowl formed lacquered part shows remains of gold
foil; 16 cm. high, Lond. Brit. Mus. Christy Coll.
9. Stone jaguar, 2.75 m. long, 95 cm. high, made of smoothed andesite (lava stone) with traces of colour
(black spots on white ground) with a hollow in back akin to bowls used to catch sacrificial blood;
found in courtyard of the Secretaria de justicia, corner of the Primera calle del Reloj and the Calle
Cordoba in the vicinity of the excavated temple pyramid with front facing south. Museo Nacional
de Mexico. Cf. Anales del Mus. Nac. de Mex. Vol. VII, Seler, Ges. Abh. II, p. 901, Aztec style.
10, 11. Carved-wood drum from Malinalco, dist. of Tenancingo in the State of Mex. covered on top
with skin (tlalpan ueuetl); 97 cm. high, dimension on top 42 cm. greatest dim. 52, thickness of
sides 4 cm.; dancing and singing jaguars and eagles are depicted on it; 'the sign Naui olin ("4'sun
movements") and other war symbols. Now in Toluca Museum, reproductions of photographs by
Frau Caecilie Seler. cf. Seler Mittlg. Anthrop. Ges. Vienna, Vol. 34, p. 222 — 274, and Hist. Essays
III, p. 221 — 304. Aztec style.
12. Stone figure of smooth grey andesite with folded neck ribbon, frontlet, ear-pegs and loin-cloth,
a hollow in the chest. R. hand broken off, 1. hand closed like a ring. Low priest, torchbearer ?
72.5 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 341. Uhde Coll. Cf. similar stone fig. of the ex-
cavations in the Calle de las Escalerillas (Mex. City), however without nape ornament, but with
incense-ball in r. hand; see Ges. Abh. E. II, p. 890. Aztec style (young-epigonal). The execution
is no longer constrained, though the attitude is stiff.
13. Stone toad with the hieroglyh chalchiuitl ("green jewel") on belly. 42 cm. long. Mus. Nac. de Mex.
(No. 22). From photographs by Frau C. Seler. Aztec style.
14. Face mask of smoothed stone with mild expression. On the back the Wind God Quetzalcouatl in
basso-relievo as Chiconaui eecatl "9 Wind". 14 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. 26 077. Seler
Coll. Cf. Ges. Abh. E. II, p. 953 et seq.
1 5. Face mask of smoothed stone with wild expression. Mus. Nac. de Mex. Aztec style. (Young
epigonal.)
16. Group: mother with child of dark greenish carefully smoothed stone. 41 cm. high. Eth. Mus. Berlin.
Dr. W. Lehmann's Coll. (presented by His Ex. the Duke of Loubat). Acapulco. Orilla del Rio
de San Pedro, Guerrero state. Old epigonal style. Strictly conventionalized execution though
showing evidence of internal unconstrained rhythm.
17. Clay figure, painted white-yellowish, red, blue, and orange-yellow. Macuilxochitl-Xochipilli (the
"Flower Prince"), the God of the Rising Morning Sun in the mask of the Coxoxtli-bird with high
feather cap singing at dawn. 35 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 10 957, Seler Coll. Teo-
titlan del Camino, Frontier of the Tzapotecan country. Cf. Seler Ges. Abh. II, p. 886; wall paintings
of Mitla, Berlin 1895, Plate XIII. Last branch of classical style.
18. Page 1 of the Codex Fejervary-Mayer in Liverpool. Free Public Museum (12 014 M). The period
of 260 days = tonal-amatl, based on the fundamental row of 20 day symbols distributed as a cos-
mological picture over the 4 cardinal points with the Fire God, "the mother, the father of the gods"
in the middle. Photographs of the coloured edition of the above-mentioned picture manuscript
published by His Ex. the Duke of Loubat. The fusion of two perspectives is noteworthy. Last
branch of younger Toltec style.
19. Mug-shaped alabaster vessel with superimposed lizard shaped figure of an animal. 23 cm. high.
Mus. Nac. de Mex. Classical style or last remnant of same. Alabaster figures being'found in Mix-
teco-Tzapotec districts. I observed however their southermost occurence in Guanacaste (Costa
Rica) which points to the classical influence of Cholula.
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 25
20. Melon fruit of smoothed stone (diorite), 28 cm. long and 18 cm. high. Mus. Nac. deMex. Perhaps
Totonac origin.
21. Tajin from Papantla. Chief facade looking east. The rising walls of the intervals of the step-
pyramid ornamented with niches which are the characteristic feature of Totonac architecture.
Cf. Seler. Ges. Abh. Ill, p. 538; Del Paso y Troncoso, Catalogo Exposicion Hist. Am. Madrid.
Tomo II, p. 16 et seq.
22. Stone sculpture — grooved underneath — of the so-called "Palma type" in the form of a conventiona-
lized pelican. Jalapa. Heredia Coll., Mexico. From an original photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the
author's possession. Totonac style. The meaning of the palma pieces is a mystery. Palmas were
found placed in graves. Perhaps they were put in front of the corpse of a revered person as a pro-
tective spirit of the grave and as the soul's companion in its subterranean journey? (Cf. Seler
G. A. Ill, p. 542). Palmas, be it noted, are characteristic of the Totonac district. But I also saw such
a palma piece in western Salvador. Narrow stone heads, stone yokes, alabaster vessels, glazed ceramic,
Chac-Mol figures and palmas seem to belong to an ancient period of culture. In reference to palmas,
vide Seler in Boas Anniversary Vol. New York, 1906, p. 302 et seq.
23. Palma stone sculpture, 60 cm. high. Sacrificial male victim whosebreast is opened by a cross cut,
the arms pinioned with ropes. Hair dressed in shape of a plaited grass-tuft (zacatapayolli), perhaps
as a receptacle for the agave-leaf thorns smeared with the sacrificial blood. Heredia Coll. Mexico.
From an original photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the author's possession. Coatepec, Jalapa. Totonac
style (cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV, Ca. 32462, cast No 4516).
24. Stone head with very hollow cheeks and open mouth. 25 cm. high. Mus. Nac. de Mex. Vera Cruz
state. Perhaps Totonac origin.
25. Fragment of a child's figure of whitish finely sifted clay, showing grey when broken. Two small
teeth in upper and lower jaw. A hole in top of head probably intended for an ornament. Photo-
graphs by Frau C. Seler. The original in Seler's possession. Santiago Tuxtla (acquired end 19 10).
Olmec style; presumably already influenced by Spaniards (vide plate 36).
26. Human clay figure with large rattle or incense staff. The lower left part of face covered with
caoutchouc layers; holes are pierced round right half of the mouth. The ear-pegs are pointed and
conical. The upraised left hand contains a roundish object (perhaps manopla?). Heredia Coll.,
San Andres de Tuxtla. From a photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the author's possession. Style
of the Olmec coastal population. Considered by Batres (in his Civilizaci6n prehist. de las riberas
del Papaloapam, Mex. 1908 p. 47) as a product of "Mayoid" culture.
27. Clay figure of a warrior with pot-lid shaped hat, his raised arms holding a club and ready to strike.
The body is in a pot somewhat like a suit of armour. The calves are covered with mosaic bands.
Heredia Coll. S. Andres de Tuxtla. From a photograph by Dr. W. Bauer. Style of the Olmec
coastal inhabitants (Olmeca-Uixtotin). The figure is strikingly similar to a clay-figure from Colima.
Vogel's Coll. (Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV. Ca. 34403).
28. Stone relief from Huilocintla, Hacienda San Isidro, Canton Tuxpan. Tatooed figure of Ce ocelotl
("1 Jaguar") = Quetzalcouatl's or his incarnation inflicting self-chastisement — by piercing the
tongue with a thorn-like instrument of torture. About 2/ir> of natural size. Totonac style
influenced by young Toltec art. (Plaster cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV. Ca. 25 072).
29. Stone relief from Huilocintla Colegio preparatorio de Jalapa. About 1/l5 of natural size; tatooed
figure of Quetzalcouatl similar to fig. 28. Both from photographs by Frau C. Seler. Cf. Ges. Abh.
E. Ill, p. 514 — 521 (plaster cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV, Ca. 25071).
30. Stone relief about 1 m. broad and 1.80 m. high. Richly ornamented human figure, the face looking
out of the opened jaws of a monster, the ear-ornaments with flower rosette; a horizontal line is
drawn from nose to mouth over the lower part of the face. The coat is ornamented with a mean-
26 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
drian edging with flower rosette in the middle-field, the lower border with a dentated edging
and an animal's head in front; the bandages around the calves and a foot-ribbon are recognizable
on the partly broken feet. At the back of the head of the monster-mask there is the head of a
snake with open jaws. A snake— like body, belonging perhaps to this head, hangs down the back
of the figure, its outer edge limited by the plaited hair tresses of the figure. The left arm is
raised, the r. bent, showing only a partly extended hand. In front of the figure, on the edge, there
is a vertical stripe of hieroglyphics. Horizontally above the figure a creature like a fire-snake, the
head ornamented with lightning-arrows (mi6tli). Above the body another opened jaw of a reptile,
the tail-end apparently moved to the side on the right. Mus. Nac. de Mex. (No. 24). Information
as to origin of "Chapultepec" in Del Paso y Troncoso (Catalogo Exposicion Hist. Am. Madrid,
Vol. II, p. 389 — 90) is doubtful. The piece serves as a connecting style between the Huilocintla
reliefs (vide plate 28 and 29) on the one hand, and the Tzapotec grave stone with its yet undeci-
phered hieroglyphics on the other. (Cf. e. g. grave stones from Tlacolula etc., Oaxaca in Seler
G. A. II, p. 359 et seq.
31. Clay head with richly ornamented head-dress: 26 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 11 152;
Seler Coll. Tlacolula, Tzapotec style.
32. Smoothed hematite'figure 23 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 30 347. Seler Coll. Teotitlan
del Camino, borders of the Tzapotec country.
33. Head of smooth dark stone with frontlet; about 1 span high. In the town of Chiapa, Chiapas, pri-
vate property. Photograph by Frau C. Seler (1897).
34. Above: Sacred funeral-urn in the shape of a sitting human figure with rich head-dress. Nat. Hist.
Mus. Vienna, Guillaume Coll. Oaxaca. Photo, by Frau C. Seler. Tzapotec style. — Below: Sacred
funeral-urn in the shape of a sitting human figure with grotesque bearded face; two dentated
clay censers on pipe-shaped base, in front jaguar head with ribbons. Kennedy Coll. Oaxaca. Photo,
by Frau C. Seler (1910). Tzapotec style. (Cf. similar censers in Ethn. Mus. Berlin from Sta.
Maria Sola.)
35. Front and side view of a human fig. with dance-rattles attached to belt; a drinking vessel in the
shape of a jaguar's foot held in the outstretched hands. The head with hair dressed in catterpillar-
shaped coils. Nat. Hist. Mus. Vienna, Guillaume Coll. Oaxaca. Photo, by Frau C. Seler. Tzapotec
style (cf. a similar piece in Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 28 353 from Nazareno, Dist. del Centro
[Oaxaca], grave excavation 1856).
36. Front and side view of a brownish clay figure 62 cm. high, with rattle belt; mouth opened (to sing?)
and chieftain's hair-coif consisting of a bundle of hair wrapped in a leather strap. Ethn. Mus. Berlin.
No. IV, Ca. 31 601. Seler Coll. Santiago Tuxtla (acquired together with piece mentioned as No. 25).
Olmeca-Uixtotin style, especially of the Cuetlaxtlan (Cotastla) the "leather-strap land".
37. Sitting jaguar with three bells; clay, 64.5 cm. high; painted brown-yellow and red (on tongue, nose
ears, bushy eyebrows and breast ribbon). Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 35 247. Seler Coll.
Tzapotec style.
38. Above: Colossal stone head, very old-faced with wrinkles, beard and frontlet; reminiscent of similar
bearded faces of glazed clay vessels from Vera Cruz. (Strebel Coll. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, cf. Seler
G. A. Ill, p. 624, fig. 90, and V. S. 559, fig. 228) and the republic of Salvador. Sta. Lucia Co-
zumalhuapa, Finca Bilbao (later — Peor es nada) property of Koch Hagemann and Co. Photo, by
F. Berendt (grandson of H. Strebel) belonging to Prof. E. Seler. Pipil style of the Guatemala
coast. — Below: "Cabeza colosal". Colossal stone head. Tuxtla canton. Photo, by Fr. C. Seler.
39. Large stone relief. A chieftain sitting on a chair (r. of spectator) dressed in jaguar skin. Snakes
coiled round hair, and a snake on right leg. The hands hold fruit-shaped hearts. Underneath the
chair a bowl filled with heads, a sacrificial knife, and the figure of child. In the middle of the relief
The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 27
a tall figure with head turned backwards, hair-plait, down-feather bush in nape of neck, the slightly
raised hands hold (1.) an ornamented sacrificial blade, and (r.) a heart-shaped fruit. The loin-cloths
are richly ornamented, the left knee tied with a snake. The features of this figure appear to be
young. A smaller figure approaching from left has a long pointed peg in its knee, the extended
1. hand holds a bone-dagger, the raised right one a female shirt-clad child. A small male person
crouches between the stepping and the tall standing figures. There are tendril-scrolls in front of
the mouths of the sitting and standing figures to denote speech. Along the whole relief garlands
with leaves, buds, blossoms, and birds are distributed. The original is a lava block at the foot of
a low earth pyramid of the Hacienda Peor es nada (formerly Bilbao) near Sta. Lucia Cozumalhuapa,
Dep. Escuintla, Rep. Guatemala. Photo, by Frau C. Seler (Cast in Ethn. Mus. Berlin, Seler Coll.
presented by H. Ex. the Duke of Loubat, and stands in the central hall, No. 29). Pipil style. Cf.
S. Habel, The Sculpture of Sta. L. C. Washington 1872; Bastian "Steinskulpturen aus Guatemala",
and J. F. Bransford, Ann. Rep. Board of Regents, Smiths. Inst, for 1884, Wash. 1885, p. 719 — 730,
Seler "Centenario", Madrid, No. 26 (1892), p. 241—252, Strebel "Jahrbuch" Hamburg "Wiss.
Anst." XI (1874), C. Seler, "Auf Alten Wegen in Mexico und Guatemala", Berlin 1910; Guides to
the Royal Museums Berlin, Ethn. Mus. Berlin. 16 th ed. (1914), p. 20 — 36.
40. Stone relief from Menche (Stone Lintel House, M.). A human figure kneeling on r. leg, grasping
with r. hand the pendant tassel of a large flint bladed lance belonging to the chief person standing
before the recumbant one. The former holds the lance in his uplifted 1. hand, whilst with his r.
he grasps the hair of the kneeling figure who holds with his 1. hand the end of a ribbon attached
to the lance. The central figure is ornamented with a feather head-dress, and has a skull suspended
over his back. The flattened, i. e. artificially deformed skulls of the figures are noteworthy. Besides
large hieroglyphics in relief there are still smaller engraved ones behind the left leg of the chief person.
It is possible that these hieroglyphics refer to the two figures represented. According to Maudslay,
Biologia Centraliamericana, Archaeol. Vol. II. PI. 97. (Photo, in Ethn. Mus. Berlin.) Maya style.
41. Facade of the temple palace of Sayil with stone columns probably developed from an older wood
architecture and a grotesque mask of joined stones. Photo, by Teobert Maler (in Ethn. Mus. Berlin).
Maya style. (N. W. Yucatan, between Hecelchakan and Ticul).
42. Clay figure, 18 cm. high. Mailed figure in cotton armour (Aztec ichcauipilli) with cap, collar-piece
and shield, Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 32 344, Dr. F. Cazares Coll. Merida, Hacienda Cuzumal
(between Merida and Muna) Dist. of Maxcanu, W. Coast of Yucatan. Maya style.
43. Clay figure 29cm. high. Jester (?) with collar-piece, upper garments with sleeves and leather strips.
Girdle, apron; trousers with leather strips, and sandals. Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 4938.
Jimeno's Coll. Yucatan, Maya atyle.
44. Feather snake column in front of the Cella on the hill of the "Tiger and Jaguar Temple" in Chi-
ch'en itza (N. E. Yucatan). Photo, by Fr. C. Seler (1902). Toltecan style of the celebrated Tollan
snake column, fragments of which have actually been found in Tula, and are kept in the Mus. Nac.
of Mex. In ref. to various architectural periods cf. T. Maler "Globus", Vol. 82, p. 225, and
W. Holmes, Arch. Researches Field Columbia Mus. Anthr. I, p. 106 — 109.
45. Stone figure of the so-called "Chac-Mol': type (Le Plongeon's), also called "Dios recostado", with
bowl-like hollow in body, butterfly-shaped breast ornament, head turned to right. About 1.48 m
long, 1 m. high, and 78 cm. broad. The original was excavated in 1884 by Lc Plongeon in Chich'en-
itza, and is now kept in the Mus. Nac. of Mex. (Cast in Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 18 553).
Toltec style. Such antique figures are mostly found in or near the entrance of temple porticos
being used perhaps as vessels to hold offerings of honey or pulque, also in the older stratum
before the actual Sacrarium of the temple of Cempoallan (Totonac dist.). Cf. Seler, G. A. II,
p. 817 — 820, V. p. 153 et seq. I discovered a Chac-Mol in S. Salvador (1909). The discovery of
28 The History of Ancient Mexican Art.
the Chiche' nitza Chac-Mol in situ in Aug. Le Plongeon, Queen Moo II. edit. N. Y. 1900, plate 62,
cf. Lond. Magazine Vol. 241, No. 140, p. 123 — 132.
46. Large clay vessel with plastic face. Nat. Hist. Mus. Vienna, Adam Coll. Photo, by Fr. C. Seler.
S. Salvador. Similar, but partially perforated vessels come from Quen Santo (Chacula), the western
Maya dist. of the frontier of Chiapas and Guatemala. Maya style,
47. Page 6 of the Dresden Maya MS. (vide E. Forstemann). Gods with accompanying hieroglyphics,
numbers and day symbols. Maya style.
48. Stone plate with a jaguar in relief eating a heart. Chich'enitza, Mausoleum I, Photo, by T. Maler
in Ethn. Mus. Berlin (1886, 94). Cf. Le Plongeon, Queen Moo II. edit. N. Y. 1900, plate 59.
Ep
o c h s
C
ulture Eras
Representatives
of Culture
Places
(
(
Earliest
Tin
1.
Pre-Toltec
Aborigines
A. Pre-Teotihuacan etc.
Teot. Lowest Stratum
I.
(
ca.
before ioooB.C.
2.
Proto-Toltec
Immigrants
Pueblos, Casas grandes
|II.
\ (be'
ca.
a)
Proto-Shoshonian
Sivano-ki (Cibola)
Pre-
iooo — 500 B. C.
— — T
History
(955 B. C. stirting
point of thr Hist.
de Colh. y de Mexico)
3-
b) Ancient-Sonoran
O
Chalchihuites. La Quemada, Toto-
ate, Teul. Tepic (Estanzuela)
III
1 a>
ca.
500 B.C.— A.D.
(ca. 429 B.C. accord-
B. Proto-Teotihuacan
bj
a) Proto-Toltec
(Subterranea ?) Proto -Azca-
ing to Sahagun)
potzalco) (1571 years old. Tor-
ca.
que mada)
Proto-
A.D.— 600 B.C.
1 st Toltec downfall
b) Ancient-Toltec
History ,
(mythically
tinged)
ca.
600 A. D. (Saha-
gun)
0
(Pyramid-culture)
C. 1. Old-Teotihuacan
2. Old Cholula
ad 1. Ciudadela, central- westerly
1
ca.
600 — 726 A. D.
Interregnum
-t->
O
Nahua
small pyramids.
Tollantzinco, Tollan ; Ancient-
0 -
H
( with T-Dialect*
Azcapotzalco, Aljojuca ec.
(Nahuat)
726— 1235 (?)
726 — 1064 A.D.
v
a) Young-Toltec
D. Young -Teotihuacan
a older
Ciudadela, central easterly small
V.
Early-
2 nd Toltec
pyramids.
• (Tol
History
downfall
Tollan -Cholollan
7c
(partly
mythically
1064 — 1 168
/S middle
Tollan- Colhuacan (721-1064)
tinged)
A. D.
1 168— 1235 (?)
A.D.
y recent
> I
B. C. D. Teot. middle stratum
Mitla
perhaps already from
i
Xochicolco, Chalco sculptures
VI. I
836 A. D. (Tetzcoco)
(Toll*
1064-1193 A.D.
a) Proto Mexican
\
\Tahuatlaca
vith Tl. -Dialects
Colhuacan. Tetzcoco ate.
Azcapotzalco.
VI
a)
(Nahuatl) Original
Chapoltepec.
home Chicomoztoc
According to Saha-
e
gun:
0
i. Chichi-
meca:
Colhuacan-Mexico (Saha-
\ b>'
1193-1323A.D.
0
b) Early Mexican
Tepaneca
> Acolhuaque
Chalca
2. Tonayan-
tlaca:
Tlalhuica
Couixca
3. Tlate-
putzca:
>
N
rt
gun X 29)
Tenochtitlan-Mexico
(Sahagun).
0)
Actual
History
1325-1519A.D.
c) Late Mexican
Uexotzinca
Tlaxcalteca
(Tco-Chichimeca)
O
O
Teotihuacan upper stratum
16 th— 18 th
Tra
■it . AD.
6. European
Spaniards
Col
litive
inal)
Otomi-Groups
Chocho-Popolocas
(Olmecs)
ogonal
>ooB. C.)
ida-
nental
500 B.C.
Hopis
Pimas
Teules Chichimeca
(Tepecanos)
. C.
haic
A. D.
deal
aissance
>♦ A. D.)
I style
igonal
pigonal
epigonal
epigonal
>nal &
Style
Proto-Toltecs
Tlamatinime. Chichime-
ca rncchanecatoca)
Yaque-Izalcos
Nahua-Toltecs
Ancient-Toltecs .
Pipil Salvador, Guate-
mala.
Olmecs
Aloriginal popula- OtOITH
tionof Cholula, Pue
bla, Tlaxcala,
Tecamachalco etc. ,
originally not
"Chichimeca"
Olmeca Xicalanca
A = Olmeca Uix
totin separate af-
ter the Tlamati
nime in Tamoan
chan
Olmecs destroy
the old Empire of
Tollan circa
600 A. D.
Olmec Hegemony
lasting over 500
years (Torque-
mada). Olmecs
Toltecicized.
Young-Toltecs.
Nicarao (Ticomega e Ma-
guatega) :
Pipil
Chololteca
(destroyed 1235 A. D.)
Nonoualca-
Chichimeca
Olmec tyranny
:auses migration
of the Nicarao
(Oviedo, Torque
mada) from the
Cholula district.
Olmeca Xicalan- left-Colbuatepecin
ca driven from Tula together with
Pochutla Pipil
Colhua. Mecitin (Me-
xica Chichimeca)
Acolhuaque ^
Tepaneca
Proto-Aztecs. citin
Xolotl's mentioned al-
ready in 836 A. D.
Pre-Tenochca. n68
— 1325. Mexitin -Aztecs
(Original home Aztlan-
Ancient-Aztecs
(Language ofSahagun's
hymns ^
fTlatelolca.
JTenochca.
J Azteca (Mexica)
lYoung Aztecs
a) Period of the loWar-
Chiefs before Acama-
pichtli. Tenuch (1321
- 1373)
b) Kings of Acamapichtli-
ti!l (juauhtemoc (i376—
1521)
Cholula by 7 tri-
bes (amongst
irhich the Chichi
meca of Acol-
huacan — Teo-
chicbimecs) 11 68
D.
Chichimeca
Otomi
In Tenayocan-
Tetzcoco since
320 A. D.
Chichimec Period
begins in Tetz
coco 686 A. D.*
Xolotl Period
789—989 A. D.
Toltecicized:
Tolteca-
chichimeca
Nonoualca Chichi
meca (Toltecici-
zed Olmecs ) 1 1 16.
Since iri7 hostile
to one another.
Quarrel caused by
Hue mac
Chichimeca-
Acolhuaque
Original home:
Amaquemecan
Chichimec Period
(of Quauhtitlan)
323—687 A. D.
1 st King Chicon
tonatiuh687— 751
Commencement of
the 5 th World
Era75ir=i3acatl.
(Birth year of the
sun) 804 new dy-
nasty and spread-
ing of Chichi-
mecs.
Colhua
Founding of Col-
huacan byChichi
mecs 721 A. D.,
the older Kings'
Lists of Colhua
are identical with
those of Tollan
Quetzalcoatl
Prince of Tollan-
Colhuacan died
883 A. D.
Nauhyotzin 1064
The Colhuas had
their own parti
Arrival of the
Aculhua in the Icular dynasty for
47 th year of Xo- 130 years (1064—
lotl — 836. 1193 or 1193-1323
Tlaltecatzin-Quinatzin founds dy-
nasty in Tetzcoco (Acolhuacan),
1175 — 1258 (scil. 1246, Sahagun)
Dynasty of the Tepaneca of
Tlacopan and Azcapotzalco since
886, Quaquauhpittauac the son of
TeepQomoctli 1 st of the Tlatelolco
dynasty
00
O
U)
O
o
V
c
p
o
3
a
x
o
o
Q
H
a
>,
Q
o
a
c
o
o
H
Achitometl 1346
Colhuaque spread
1 347-1 377 without
Kings, only war
— ■ chiefs.
10
Aboriginal
Mayas
Germs of ancient
Toltec culture
reached the ab-
original Mayas
as early as perhaps
300 A. D.
About 526 A. D.
first settlement
from the south**
in Bacalar, from
whence ancient
Chich'enitza was
"discovered" in
circa 585 A. D.
Birdgod from
Tuxtla 158 years
Leiden jade plate
from S. Belize,
at latest 10th cent
A. D.
a
"B
1
Mayapan des-
troyed circa 1450
A. D.
I
I
•) The Chichimecs came to Tetzcoco 22 years after the destruction of Tollan
(Sahagun).
**) Cultural connections of the district extending from old Chich'enitza to S.
Belize with ancient Toltec seats in the middle of the Motagua Valley.
Dr. Walter Lehmano, Seewalchcn, Sept. 1931.
10
11
12
13
**V»«*t!\/W4
J, I ''
;.*#«
«H
14
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
.*.*i>'J
23
V
24
■
k nTHiilliii
■
*&i'-
****>. ^
25
26
%s
•if
11
s
■mbbmbk
28
29
«s
*5i
30
31
32
33
34
R^MM** ■>.->
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
n
45
V
*
i
i
K>
'
\.CQ> s-Z .
» 1
-*
^-^lilifi
47
J '
s
if
48
lii
pRj
r~M* -.
GETTY CENTER LIBRARY
3 3125 00025 2888