Antiques, Revivals, and References to the past in Aztec Art

The President and Fellows of Harvard College
Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Antiques, Revivals, and References to the past in Aztec Art
Author(s): Emily Umberger
Source: RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 13 (Spring, 1987), pp. 62-105
Published by: The President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThe President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeThe
President and Fellows of Harvard College acting through the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and
EthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and EthnologyPeabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20166764
Accessed: 02/12/2010 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pfhc.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
http://www.jstor.org
The President and Fellows of Harvard College and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics.

62 RES 13 SPRING 87
m itofoox ?ata?, y?iecni &v*i?t>locala>.
Figure 2. Sixteenth-century plan of ceremonial precinct of Tenochtitlan with the Templo
Mayor of Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, from Sahag?n's Primeros Memoriales. Paso y Troncoso
1905-1907; 6, part 3, pi. 11.

Antiques, revivals, and references to the past
in Aztec art
EMILY UMBERGER
Like other people around the world, the
Precolumbian inhabitants of the Americas were
aware of the art of their predecessors. In several parts
of the hemisphere, especially in the Andean and
Mesoamerican regions of "high civilization," this
consciousness of the material past took the form of
antiquarianism: the veneration and reuse of ancient
cities, collection of ancient objects, and creation of
archaizing copies. The purpose behind these revivals
varied, as did knowledge of the original cultures.
To understand such revivals, one must attempt to
understand historical thought in the New World. The
bulk of ideas about "the past" (a continuum of myth
and history) was transmitted orally. Even in cultures
that practiced some form of historical recording (in
manuscripts or on stone monuments), the amount
and nature of information were limited, and records
were usually destroyed periodically as history was
"rewritten." History was conceived as cyclical rather
than linear. It was the result of a dialectic between the
past and the present, in which events were seen as
repeating types. Current happenings were interpreted to
fit patterns established by the past, and the past was
reconceived to accommodate present circumstances.1
This form of historical thought has two important
implications for the study of antiquarianism. In the first
place, revived objects, like past events, were used
to validate and provide precedents for the present.
Second, the end result of such constantly evolving
histories was not true history in the modern Western
sense. As events moved into the more distant past they
gradually lost their historical specificity. For this reason,
the inheritors of such traditions would have had as
much trouble matching them to ancient remains as the
modern scholar. In other words, if later people were
not the direct and immediate descendants of a previous
culture, they had little specific knowledge of it, even
though they may have inherited many traits indirectly.
1. For an explanation of some of these aspects in Aztec history,
see Umberger 1981, passim. Like other Mesoamericans, the Aztecs
were very concerned with time and had a calendar of repeating dates
(i.e., the date 1 Rabbit recurred as a day every 260 days and as a
year every 52 years). Thus in their histories, cyclically recurring types
of events tended to happen (that is, were made to happen
or were
interpreted
as
happening)
on dates of the same name. The events
could be either of the same type literally or seen as related
metaphorically.
In most cases then, the material remains provided the
only direct link with earlier cultures, and antiquities
thus played an important part in the formation of the
historical consciousness of New World people (see
Tom Cummins, dissertation in progress). Antiques and
archaizing objects brought the past and the present
together. Later people reused ancient monuments in
contemporary ceremonies and created new objects that
combined within one image elements from both time
frames.
Although there are several important
studies of
archaizing in Andean civilization,2 no one has directly
addressed the phenomenon of antiquarianism in the
cultures of Mesoamerica (fig. 1).3 Evidences of later
activity at ancient sites are usually of secondary interest
to archaeologists and are appended to reports focusing
on the earlier inhabitants.4 Even a cursory survey of the
literature on Mesoamerica, however, reveals a number
of reused sites and antiques and possible revival styles.
The most common examples of antiques deposited in
later contexts are carvings of jade (and other green
colored stones). Jade carving began with the Olmecs,
the first great artists of Mesoamerica, perhaps as early
as 1000 b.c., in the Middle Preclassic Period.5 Olmec
jades were highly prized by later people, as attested by
2. See, for instance, Menzel (1960), Lyon (1966), Rowe (1971),
Berger (1976), and Cummins (dissertation in progress).
There is also a vast literature on revivals of past styles in Western
civilization; for a
comprehensive survey and bibliography specifically
on classicism, see
Greenhalgh (1978). For another study of attitudes
toward antique remains in Res, see Nercessian (1983). For studies of
archaizing in a different non-Western area, see articles in Murck
(1976) on Chinese art.
3. I am aware of only one article that treats Mesoamerican
antiquarianism as a phenomenon with important consequences for an
understanding of the archaeological record (Proskouriakoff 1968, and
comments by M. Coe and others following the paper). The only
monograph
on the subject is Coe's (1966) study of an Olmec jade
with Maya glyphs.
4. This is not to say that there is not good information on later
occupants in several reports. Although not their primary focus, Coe
and Diehl (1980, 1: 213 ff., and elsewhere) give detailed treatment to
the Early Postclassic reoccupation of the Olmec sites of San Lorenzo,
Potrero Nuevo, and Tenochtitlan (in Veracruz); and Acosta in various
articles (see bibliography) gives a great deal of information on Aztec
presence at Tula.
5. Mesoamerican prehistory is traditionally divided into three
main periods: the Preclassic, Classic, and Postclassic periods. The
following
are the generally accepted subdivisions and durations of
these periods: Early Preclassic, 1500-1200 b.c.; Middle Preclassic,

64 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 1. Map of Mexico with inset of the Aztec area in Central Mexico. Stippling indicates the extent of the Aztec Empire. (The
maximum expanse of ancient Mesoamerica extended farther to the north and south of the area covered by the map.)
those found in an Early Classic offering at Cerro de las
Mesas in Veracruz (Drucker 1955). During the same
period Maya artists carved glyphs on Olmec jades; and
the inscription on one, commemorating the accession
of a lord, indicates an evocation of the past for political
purposes.6 Olmec jades are also depicted in Classic
Period murals. At Teotihuacan they fall in streams of
water from the hands of fertility deities (A. Miller 1973:
154-155, pis. 324, 326). In Late Classic battle scenes
at Cacaxtla in Central Mexico and at Bonampak in the
Maya lowlands, defeated warriors may be wearing
Olmec pendants. Here Olmec jades seem to identify
one group with the past in a negative sense (M. Miller
1986: 101-102). In the Early Postclassic after the fall of
Classic Maya civilization, antique Maya jades were
deposited along with Olmec jades in the sacred well at
1200-300 b.c.; Late Preclassic, 300 b.c.-A.D. 300; Early Classic, A.D.
300-600; Late Classic, A.D. 600-900; Early Postclassic, a.D. 900
1200; Late Postclassic, a.D. 1200-1521.
6. Coe 1966; Schele and Miller 1986: 119-120, pis. 31-32.
Chichen Itza.7 Perhaps by this time they, too, had
become important signifiers of the past.
Beginning in the Late Classic, there is evidence in
various parts of Mesoamerica of reoccupation and
reverence for ancient sites. At Laguna de los Cerros in
Veracruz and at Sin Cabezas on the Guatemala coast,
monumental figurai sculptures of Preclassic date were
resurrected. In Veracruz the sculptures are Olmec, and
at Sin Cabezas they are pedestal figures in the local
Olmec-related style. Those at Laguna de los Cerros (or
similar sculptures) subsequently may have stimulated
Maya artists at Tonina to create the few sculptures
in-the-round made in Classic Maya times (see
Proskouriakoff 1968: 126-128). Again in Veracruz
during the Early Postclassic San Lorenzo and two
nearby sites had major reoccupations one thousand
years after their abandonment by the Olmecs. The new
people took advantage of the original layout, and as a
7. Proskouriakoff 1974: 14-15; Coggins and Shane 1984: nos.
52, 53, 162, 167, and others.

consequence their ceremonial center resembled that
of another Olmec site (La Venta). Offerings were
deposited, Olmec artifacts were resurrected, and
sculptures may have been moved and reused (Coe and
Diehl 1980: 1, 35, 213ff., and elsewhere; Coe 1981:
136-139). In Central Mexico the Toltecs probably
made pilgrimages to the deserted ceremonial center of
the sacred city of Teotihuacan, the mythical birthplace
of the sun, in much the same way as described later in
Aztec times. At another ancient site, Chalcatzingo in
Morelos, a shrine, consisting of a broad stairway, altars,
and platforms, was built below an Olmec rock carving
(Grove 1984: 167) at the end of the Early Postclassic.
After the fall of Tula around the same date, the
inhabitants of Central Mexico continued to imitate the
Toltecs' distinctive sculptural forms. From the foregoing
it is evident that a regard for the cities and art of the
past was an important aspect of Mesoamerican culture.
In this paper, I will concentrate on antiquarianism
among the Mexica Aztecs of Tenochtitlan, the creators
of the last great culture to dominate Mesoamerica
before the Spanish Conquest.8
It has been generally acknowledged that the Mexica
copied the art forms of their immediate predecessors,
the Toltecs,9 collected some antiquities (Batres 1900),
and created a few pieces imitating the older styles
of Teotihuacan (Umberger 1981: 80-81) and
Xochicalco.10 That these activities were much more
extensive than previously thought has only become
apparent with the excavation of their Great Temple,
the Templo Mayor. With the new finds, it is now
appropriate to examine Mexica antiquarianism in
detail. Fortunately, in the case of the Mexica, whose
civilization flourished between 1428 and 1521, a
wealth of information was recorded during the century
after the Conquest. Thus we can ascertain something
of their attitudes toward past cultures, analyze
relationships between ancient and contemporary
8. At this point antiquarianism seems much more
Mexica culture than in earlier Mesoamerican groups.
prevalent in
And as Menzel
(1960: 597) notes of the situation in Peru, "antiques clearly [prove? of
greater attraction in some periods than in others. Imitations, in
particular, seem to be confined to certain periods." But, in the case
of the Mexica, to what extent is this the result of recent and fortuitous
discoveries and a lack of information on earlier cultures? Perhaps
more extensive evidences of antiquarianism, especially archaizing
styles, will become apparent as chronologies
are refined and
archaeologists and scholars focus on later reuse of sites and objects.
9. See, for instance, Beyer 1955; Moedano K?er 1947; and
Nicholson 1971: 118-119.
10. Nicholson 1971: 120, 122; Umberger 1981: 94-95, 219.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 65
objects, and hypothesize possible reasons behind their
collection, reworking, and revival of these styles.11
The Mexica Aztecs
The focus here is on the Mexica Aztecs12 of
Tenochtitlan, a city whose remains are now under
Mexico City. The Mexica were one of several
seminomadic groups who arrived in Central Mexico at
the time of (or soon after) the waning of Tula, the
capital of the Toltecs, who dominated the area prior to
1200. The Mexica founded Tenochtitlan and its twin
city, Tlatelolco, on adjacent islands in Lake Tetzcoco,
in the first half of the fourteenth century. In the late
fourteenth century the people of Tenochtitlan acquired
as ruler (tlatoani, speaker) Acamapichtli, the son of a
Mexica noble and a princess of Culhuacan, a city on
the south lake shore whose rulers were said to be the
descendants of the royal line of Tula.13 Thus the Mexica
11. Although the information on antiquarianism is scattered, the
cumulative effect of focusing more on this phenomenon would
benefit Mesoamerican
connections between
studies. Archaisms are direct and tangible
cultures ?
and their investigation makes obvious
the fallacy of assuming that visual similarity indicates closeness in
time (Menzel 1960) and sameness of culture and meaning. In the end
such studies should lead to stricter definitions of the styles of different
cultures. The investigation of archaizing is also enlightening because
it reveals the part played by conscious choice in a culture's
acquisition of artistic elements, as opposed to a view that stresses
passive reception of "influences" (see Winter 1977; Von Staden
1976). What a later group is looking for and at, what they
understand, what they modify, and what they misunderstand are
all revealing. An awareness of the extent of antiquarianism in
Mesoamerica would also help explain generalized and less easily
defined influences from much earlier cultures. In the end the study of
archaisms should, in fact, contribute new
insights into the problem of
continuity and disjunction between cultures in Mesoamerica by
focusing
on the conscious receivers rather than the unconscious
donors. For discussions of continuity and disjunction,
see Kubier
1967, 1973, 1977; Willey 1973; Nicholson 1976; Townsend 1979:
13-15, 71; Berlo 1983: 1-8.
12. The term Aztec, which became popular
in the nineteenth
century, is useful as a
general designation for the related Nahuatl
speaking groups who inhabited Central Mexico in the Late Postclassic
Period (a.D. 1200-1521), although they did not refer to themselves as
such (Nicholson 1971: 116, n. 13). The people of Tenochtitlan and
their neighbors in Tlatelolco called themselves Mexica. Thus I am
using Aztec to refer generally
to the cultures of the Late Postclassic
and their art and Mexica to refer specifically
to Tenochtitlan and
objects found there (Tlatelolco is referred to only twice). I am calling
objects in the distinctive late fifteenth- to early sixteenth-century
style that centered in Tenochtitlan (sometimes referred to as the
Metropolitan Aztec style) either Late Mexica or Late Aztec, depending
on provenience.
13. It is generally thought that the Toltec line went to Culhuacan

66 RES 13 SPRING 87
established a connection with the legendary Toltecs,
and it is assumed that they absorbed or inherited
survivals of Toltec culture from Culhuacan and other
communities. Between 1428 and 1431 the Mexica
defeated their overlords, the Tepanecs of Azcapotzalco,
won their independence, and formed an alliance with
two other cities, Tetzcoco and Tlacopan. By the
1480s this Triple Alliance dominated a major part of
Mesoamerica, and Tenochtitlan was the imperial capital
of a
large tribute empire. The city was divided into
quarters ?
corresponding to the four quadrants of the
world ?
by four streets that met at the sacred walled
precinct (fig. 2). At the center was the Templo Mayor
(excavated between 1978 and 1982),14 surrounded by
other temples and platforms. The Templo Mayor was a
double pyramid-temple dedicated to Tlaloc, the ancient
Central Mexican rain god, and Huitzilopochtli, the
Mexica tribal numen, who, as the politically dominant
deity in Mexico, was associated with the sun. The right
side of the temple, Huitzilopochtli's shrine, was
conceived as representing Coatepec, the Serpent
Mountain, the site of his birth in myth.
It is apparent from the visual evidence that the
Mexica were absorbing a number of foreign styles
during the second half of the fifteenth century, the
period of formation of their own great style (and
simultaneously the formation of the empire). The artistic
situation in Tenochtitlan was very complicated at this
time. According to the written sources, the Mexica
collected artworks frorq ancient sites and deity images
from the temples of conquered towns, and they also
brought artists from neighboring towns to work in
Tenochtitlan. As in other parts of the world, both
ancient and contemporary styles were probably imitated
for the purpose of identification, authority, and prestige.
However, there is also an aspect of conquest and
humiliation involved in the Mexica's collection of
foreign objects and use of foreign artists. The deity
images were actually "captured" and kept in a "prison
temple," the Coacalco or Coateocalli (Sahag?n 1950
1982: bk. 2, 2d revised ed., 182), and artists were
made to carve monuments that commemorated their
own defeat. This aspect of humiliation generally does
not apply to the ancient objects (see Nicholson 1971 :
119, n. 17), except perhaps in the case of antiques
from conquered territories outside the Aztec heartland.
after the fall of Tula. Davies (1977: 300-301) further suggests that
Culhuacan existed in Toltec times.
14. For information on the Templo Mayor excavations, see Matos
1981; L?pez Portillo, Le?n-Portilla, and Matos 1981a; for recent
studies of the offering caches at the site, see Nagao 1985a and b.
The Mexica probably venerated all ancient sites in
general. The focus here will be on the three important
cities that seem to have had special and distinctive
associations for them: Tula, Teotihuacan, and
Xochicalco. Approximately sixty kilometers to the
northwest of Tenochtitlan was Tula (florescence, a.D.
900-1200), identified as the legendary Tollan in the
written sources, the city of the Toltecs and their ruler
Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl (Our Lord, Feathered Serpent).
As indicated above, the Mexica claimed partial
descent and their right to rule from the Toltec line. The
older city of Teotihuacan (a.D. 1-750), whose very
impressive remains are thirty kilometers to the
northeast, was associated with a more distant, cosmic
event, the birth of the fifth and final sun in mythic
times. Finally, Xochicalco, a city sixty kilometers to the
southwest with a florescence postdating the decline of
Teotihuacan (a.D. 650-900), seems to have been
associated with the invention of the calendar, which
the Mexica and other Aztecs inherited. All three cities
then were considered the sites of important beginnings,
places of origin for the Aztecs. While their ideas on
Tula are best known, those on Teotihuacan are more
shadowy, and their attitudes toward Xochicalco are
least understood. The Aztecs probably referred to the
inhabitants of these cities generally as Toltecs.15
The collection of antiquities
According to the literary sources the Mexica and
other Central Mexicans made ceremonial pilgrimages to
ancient sites (instances are given for both Tula and
Teotihuacan), were familiar with the surface remains,
and dug for buried objects. They were
especially
interested in finding objects made of jade and
greenstone (chalchihuite, which (as seen above) were
highly valued in Mesoamerica and buried in offerings
and graves as early as Olmec times. Proskouriakoff
(1974: 15) has noted that one passage in Sahag?n's
Florentine Codex indicates that the Aztecs looked for
changes in surface plant growth and other signs as
indications of where to dig for ancient objects.
15. Other ancient cities for which there may be evidence of Aztec
awareness include Teotenango in the State of Mexico and El Tajin in
northern Veracruz. In the relaci?n geogr?fica of the colonial (and
Aztec-period) town of Tenango, the area occupied by the ruins of
Teotenango is surrounded by a conventional Aztec-style drawing of a
wall (the ancient wall that is still there). The text says, "In ancient
times there was a town on the hill" (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906, 7:
1 and map facing 1). Melgarejo Vivanco (1970: 15) suggests that
Mictlan (Place of the Dead) in the Aztec tribute province of Tuxpan
(in Codex Mendoza) might have been El Tajin.

Wherever they can see that something like a little smoke
[column] stands, that one of them is giving off vapor, this
one is the precious stone. . . .
Then they dig. There they see, there they find the
precious stone, perhaps already well formed, perhaps
already burnished. Perhaps they see something buried
there either in stone, or in a stone bowl, or in a stone
chest; perhaps it is filled with precious stones. This they
claim there.
And thus do they know that this precious stone is there:
[the herbs] always grow fresh; they grow green. They say
this is the breath of the green stone, and its breath is very
fresh; it is an announcer of its qualities.
In this manner is
seen, is taken the green stone.
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 11,221-222
In Aztec thought, jade and greenstone were
associated with water and fertility because of their
color. They were also thought to attract moisture
(perhaps for this reason the Aztecs looked for a column
of mist and greener plants). In addition, a small piece
of greenstone was placed in a cavity in the chest of
many Aztec sculptures to represent the heart.16 A
greenstone was put in the mouth of the dead for the
same purpose and buried with the remains. For this
reason, and because of their discovery in caches and
burials at ancient sites and cemeteries, such stones
were probably associated with the ancestors in Aztec
thought.17
Archaeological remains in Mexico City indicate that
Mexica collecting was not confined to urban areas and
the cities mentioned above. Antiquities discovered in
Mexico City (see, for instance, fig. 3), mostly in offering
caches at the Templo Mayor and in other areas, include
Teotihuacan masks and figurines (most of greenstone)
and ceramic vessels, a Toltec ceramic vase, a Maya
jade, jades or greenstones from Oaxaca, a Preclassic
bib-and-helmet jade, and even an Olmec greenstone
mask that was over two thousand years old in Mexica
times. Archaeologists have also discovered more than a
thousand objects from Guerrero (mostly greenstone
masks and figures) as well as Mixtee greenstone
objects from Oaxaca and a Huastec shell carving from
northeast Mesoamerica. Because of problems with the
dating of Guerrero, Mixtee, and Huastec objects, it is
not known how old these pieces were in Mexica times
and what the Mexica's attitude toward them was. In
the case of the Guerrero objects, at least, some are
16. The stones are usually missing, but some were found in
sculptures recently excavated at the Templo Mayor (Hern?ndez Pons
1982: fig. 13).
17. See Nagao 1985a: 50-52; and Thouvenet 1982, for further
associations of greenstone.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 67
?AW ^^ ^b?F VbV ^^ ^* ??? Ebb*. mmB
^ ^"*
"
?^^

68 RES 13 SPRING 87
recarved by an Aztec artist (Easby
and Scott 1970: no.
307). Both are of unknown provenience.
A number of questions arise in relation to these
collected antiquities. How did the Mexica acquire
them? Did they excavate them, or demand them as
tribute? What were the ideas behind their burial,
reworking, or reuse? Were they recognized as antiques
or were some objects considered more as tribute from
conquered people? To what extent were the Mexica
sensitive to distinctions between styles and connect
them with particular sites or cultures, or are we seeing
in their burial just a generalized evocation of the past?
Matos (1978: 15) notes that 80 percent of the objects
found at the Templo Mayor are non-Mexica, and all of
these are from tributary areas.19 Were such objects
included in regular tribute from various parts of the
empire? Tribute lists mention (or picture) only
unworked greenstone or strings of beads, although it is
possible that this category referred generically to all
greenstone objects, worked and unworked. Nicholson
(quoted in Nagao 1985a: 52) suggests that antiquities
may also have been the result of looting after warfare.
Another possibility is that foreign leaders were required
to bring them to Tenochtitlan as offerings on important
occasions. One incident is described during the
rebuilding of the Templo Mayor in the reign of
Motecuhzoma I (Nagao 1985a: 33):
Seeing the speed with which his temple was being built,
King Motecuhzoma ordered all the lords of the land ... to
collect from all cities a great number of precious stones,
green stones . . . which they call chalchihuitls?[and
other types of precious stones], and each braza [1.67 M.]
that the building grew, these precious stones were to be
thrown into the fill. . . .
Duran 1967, 2: 228; see also
Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 357
Phases IV and IVb were built by Motecuhzoma I, and,
indeed, many greenstone objects were found in offering
chambers on those levels.
(begun)/1487 (finished)-ca. 1500; Phase VII, Motecuhzoma II, begun
soon after flood of 1499/1500-destroyed 1521. Presumably the
objects found within a
phase
were
deposited during the time it was
-
visible. This schema of dates applies only to objects found in the
recent excavations of the Templo Mayor and nearby platforms and
pavements. Objects found outside this context must be dated on the
basis of other criteria, that is, style and hieroglyphic dates.
19. Although in styles originating in areas outside the Aztec
empire, the Olmec mask and Maya jade found in Tenochtitlan may
have come from within the empire. The Olmec mask is made of a
stone from the Puebla-Oaxaca-Guerrero area south of the Valley of
Mexico (Matos 1979) and could have been found in any part of
It is difficult to answer questions about the
significance of the burial of the unmodified antiquities,
in particular, because most were found in offering
caches, and there seems to be no purposeful pattern
behind their deposit (Nagao 1985a: 52). Antiques of
different cultures appear to be mixed indiscriminately
with certain types of Mexica objects. Perhaps they were
meant to be references to the past and ancestors in
general (rather than to specific societies), or perhaps
many (those of greenstone) were buried also because of
the connection of greenstone with water. Could the
accumulation of greenstone objects at the temple also
represent the "heart" of the empire, as greenstone does
in the chest of a sculpture? Or could the burial of
objects extracted from burials and offerings in different
parts of the empire relate to the Mexica's efforts to
make their city an imago mundi, a miniature ?mage of
the empire? There was a temple for conquered gods
and a zoo and gardens for animals and plants from
different parts of the empire. In addition, even the
human and animal sacrifices at the Templo Mayor
were from all areas. Perhaps, then, the idea was to
rebury sacred offerings from all parts in the center.
Unfortunately, present evidence can take us no further
toward the solution of these questions. It is probable
that a number of these ideas were operating at the
same time.
Although most collected antiques were unmodified,
a few were reworked or reused in ways that relate to
their origins: the Teotihuacan figure was recarved
with the date of a mythical event associated with
Teotihuacan; and glyphs on some of the modified
Guerrero objects may name their places of origin,
which would also make them seem to be items
collected after conquest or as tribute. Others in this
group have hieroglyphic dates that may provide clues
to the circumstances of their burial.
Archaizing
artworks
In the case of archaizing copies of artworks,
architecture, and motifs from past cultures, a distinction
should be made between revivals and survivals of
ancient forms (see Greenhalgh 1978: 20-24).20 A
revival is the result of the direct observation of an
original object, and constitutes a conscious and
Central Mexico, especially Guerrero. Maya jades have also been
found in Central Mexico and in Oaxaca.
20. Greenhalgh writes specifically of classical revivals in Western
art, and although his general discussion is useful for the consideration
of non-Western art, his final definition is too narrow.
"Only when the

purposeful reference to the past. A survival, on the
other hand, is the result of a chain of replications of a
form with or without knowledge of its original source.
It is often difficult to draw a line between the two
categories, and to find the links in the chain between
early and late types. A specific problem for this study is
that in some cases we cannot determine whether a
sculpture is an antique, an early Mexica copy, or a
non-Mexica Aztec copy, because of our ignorance of
the parameters of all styles involved. This is due in part
to the confusion of the archaeological record at the
ancient sites by the activities of later people and in part
to lack of studies. We are familiar with the distinctive
late Aztec style that was centered in Tenochtitlan (see,
for example, figs. 11, 15), but many non-Mexica Aztec
or early Mexica objects are in rough or less distinctive
carving styles and are recognizable mostly because of
their imagery rather than surface qualities. This is
especially a problem in the case of early copies of
Toltec types in which recognizable Aztec imagery is
lacking (see, for example, fig. 10).
Nevertheless, a number of Mexica imitations can be
distinguished, and they appear to be limited to objects
and motifs in the styles of the three cities that are the
focus of this study. It should also be noted in the case
of these consciously archaizing imitations that the
Mexica were aware of the culture of origin and that
they chose to refer to a particular style or site because it
was relevant to the occasion for which the object was
created. In other words, these references to ancient
styles were not generalized or haphazard evocations
of the past. Although it is difficult to date Mexica
sculptures and link them with events in history (see
Umberger 1981), a few enlightening examples have
hieroglyphic dates or original context to give clues to
the circumstances of their creation.
Even though the Mexican purposes were related to
the site in question, however, they did not necessarily
fully understand the forms they were imitating. Despite
their legends and traditions about the cultures of the
past and their inheritance of many forms and ideas,
when they were faced with the material remains, they
had to evolve their own interpretations. The degree of
understanding varied according to each culture and
object. For this reason and because of the demands of
the event commemorated, one cannot assume that the
original and the copy had the same meaning.
ideals of Roman civilization join a selective interest in Roman style
are we entitled to call the product a revival" (p. 24). In this passage
he is actually defining
a renaissance rather than a revival.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 69
Toltecs and Chichimecs21
In the written sources, the Toltecs, the previous
inhabitants of Central Mexico, are described as great
artists. The word for artist, in fact, is toltecatl, literally,
"a person from Tollan," and art is toltecayotl, "the
Toltec thing."
There [was]
taken from ?
no real word for their name. Their name is
it comes from ?
their manner of life, their
works. The Tolteca were wise. Their works were all good,
all perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous;
. . .
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 165-166
It is apparent in the literature that the term Toltec was
often meant to refer specifically to the inhabitants of
Tula (Tollan) Xicocotitlan. At other times, however, it
is used more broadly, to describe the inhabitants of
Teotihuacan and other ancient cities,22 just as Tollan is
appended to the names of several cities?for instance,
Tollan Chollolan (modern Cholula).23
And these, the traces of the Tolteca, their pyramids, their
mounds, etc., not only appear there at the places called
Tula [and] Xicocotitlan, but practically everywhere they
rest covered; for their potsherds, their ollas, their pestles,
their figurines, their armbands appear everywhere. Their
traces are everywhere, because the Tolteca were
all over.
dispersed
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 167
As Davies notes, "both Tollan and Toltec are
concepts as much as proper names" (1984: 210; see
also 1977: ch. 2). It seems probable that the Aztecs
used the term Toltec in the broader sense to designate
all their urban predecessors in Central Mexico, in
contrast to the Chichimecs, nonurban inhabitants, or
barbarians.24 Both categories were broadly applied
to a number of different groups, and their general
connotations were of civilized and settled versus
nomadic, uncultured, and barbarian (which was not
necessarily negative). The Mexica and their neighbors
all claimed a dual Toltec-Chichimec heritage. Their
histories begin with the migration of their Chichimec
ancestors into Central Mexico before the foundation of
21. For detailed studies of Toltec history and the ensuing time of
Chichimec (Early Aztec) activity in Central Mexico, see Davies 1977
and 1980.
22. Alva Ixtlilxochitl's (1975-1977, 1: 272) list of Toltec cities
includes Tula, Teotihuacan, Toluca, Cuauhnahuac, Cholula, and
others.
23. According to Heyden (1983), Tollan, literally meaning "place
of reeds and rushes," may signify the watery and fertile environment,
which was
thought appropriate for the site of a great city.
24. See Carrasco (1982) on the Aztecs' linking of the Toltecs and
their leader Quetzalcoatl with urban culture in Mesoamerica.

70 RES 13 SPRING 87
settlements and intermarriage with descendants of the
Toltecs (who were themselves descendants of earlier
Chichimec groups).
The contrast between Toltecs and Chichimecs and
their descendants is shown through distinctions in
costume both on Mexica sculptures, such as the Stone
of Tizoc (fig. 4), and in pictorial manuscripts (which
although Colonial period in date, reflect preconquest
ideas). Toltec warrior costumes and paraphernalia,
visible on such sculptures as the colossal Atlantean
figures at Tula (fig. 5), include the "butterfly" pectoral
(this could also be on the front of the headdress), a
headdress of upright feathers and a long feather
panache, a bird on the front of the headdress, a
triangular apron over the loincloth, a disc on the back,
and an atl-atl. Nonwarrior attributes consist of woven
dyed cotton cloaks, a ceremonial jacket (xicolli), the
blue pointed crown of a lord (xiuhuitzolli), and woven
reed thrones (icpalli). In contrast, Chichimec costumes
and paraphernalia consist of headgear featuring a
headband and a variety of small feather decorations,
bows and arrows, animal skins, maguey fiber cloaks
(which seem to represent a stage between skins and
dyed cotton cloaks), and bundles of reeds for seats.
The purpose behind the contrast between Chichimec
and Toltec clothing varies according to context. A
Figure 4. Tezcatlipoca dressed in Toltec warrior outfit and
conquering the deity of another town, dressed in non-Toltec,
or Chichimec, garb,
Stone of Tizoc, Mexica, 1481-1486,
MNA.
contrast between warriors can indicate a distinction
between civilized conquerors and uncivilized
conquered groups, as on the Stone of Tizoc, where the
representatives of the Mexica are dressed in Toltec
warrior costumes and their enemies are dressed in
Chichimec costumes.25 Or a contrast in civilian clothing
can indicate a change through time from an uncivilized
to a civilized state, for instance in Sahag?n's Primeros
Memoriales (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1907: 6, ill. 18
and others), where the costumes of the kings of various
towns change from Chichimec to Toltec after the defeat
of the Tepanecs in 1428. The Mexica did not always
identify the Toltec past as superior to the Chichimec
past. On the Temple of Sacred Warfare, Motecuhzoma
II is dressed as a Chichimec in contrast to the dead
figures below who wear Toltec costume parts
(Umberger 1984: 72-73, and figs. 2, 3). Thus the
Mexica sometimes invoked one heritage, sometimes the
other, depending on the circumstances.
The Toltecs, however, were the symbols
producing past.
The Toltecs of Tula26
of the art
In Aztec sources, Tollan was the legendary city of
Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl,
a great culture hero, ruler, and
religious leader, whose reign ended in disgrace and
25. At first I thought that the Toltec warrior costume worn by the
figures on the Stone of Tizoc was an archaizing outfit, not what
actual Mexica warriors wore. It is only represented on stone
sculptures and not in manuscript representations of warriors, and from
descriptions it seems not to have been worn in actual warfare. Aztec
warriors wore body-length fitted costumes. The ruler wore an outfit
representing the flayed skin of Xipe Totee. However, Wray (1945) has
pointed to a similar contrast at the Toltec-Maya city of Chichen Itza
(on the Yucatan Peninsula) between warriors in sculpture who wear
the typical costume described above and those who wear simpler
costumes in mural paintings depicting
an actual battle. Wray suggests
that the costume worn in stone reliefs is reserved for scenes of a
ceremonial or formal nature (thanks to my student Pamela Jones Pailet
for pointing out this contrast in Toltec art).
Klein (in press) has recently analyzed Mexica bench reliefs (to be
discussed later), where figures
wear some of these Toltec costume
parts. She decided that these are the costumes that were worn by
kings and warriors for the procession into Tenochtitlan after battle
and for the subsequent bloodletting ceremony. If this Toltec costume
was used just for ceremonials, it is interesting that it is depicted in
conquest scenes even
though it was not worn in warfare.
See also Anawalt (1985) on other aspects of Toltec clothing and
Pierce (1981) on a similar contrast between warriors in an unusual
sixteenth-century church mural at Ixmiquilpan.
26. The following discussion of Mexica contact with Toltec art is
limited mostly to objects in Central Mexico, since I am assuming their
knowledge was based on local remains. In some cases, however,
related examples at Chichen Itza may indicate the broader range of
examples that were once visible at Tula.

flight. Quetzalcoatl was the prototypical priest and the
first to institute bloodletting. The Aztecs also probably
inherited their warrior societies and other institutions
from the Toltecs. In addition, there is a connection
between Tula and Huitzilopochtli. The Mexica during
their migration stayed for a while near the city at
Coatepec, where they dammed a river and established
a settlement. It was here that Huitzilopochtli was born,
or rather reborn as the sun, according to modern
interpreters.
Tula (fig. 6), identified as the legendary Tollan by
Jim?nez Moreno (1941), is located in the state of
Hidalgo.27 Tula Grande, the area of the main Toltec
occupation of the site, features a plaza with an
adoratorio (small platform) in the center and a number
of structures around the periphery: a west-facing
pyramid-temple (Pyramid C), probably the main
pyramid of the site; a smaller pyramid-temple on the
27. For archaeology at Tula, see Acosta (1940, 1941, 1945, 1954,
1956, 1956-1957, 1957, 1960, 1961, 1964) and Diehl (1981,
1983).
Figure 5. Atlantean warrior figure on Pyramid B at Tula, Toltec,
H. 4.6 m. By permission of INAH.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 71
//
Canal
j)
^
Vv /r S~^ Locality ..
S/f
I I Tula Grande \
IsJuXer ro La %teX\nSv?>jhSs^ ((fe- /*7^ !
'
J?'liiiilHH'llli'LL
v2$f ? Cerro El . il
vi\ ^^^^ ^\\ ^V Cie,it0. il
.
? ii. Escarpment IK
Aztec remains
'
-All periods
'
v?v
^^?S^C
Figure 6. Map of Tula in Aztec times with inset of plan of
Tula Grande. (A) Ball Court I; (B) Pyramid B; (C) Pyramid C;
(D) Burned Palace; (E) Ball Court II; (F) Skull Rack; (G) Grand
Vestibule; (H) Central Adoratorio; (I) Palace of Quetzalcoatl;
(J) Palace East of Vestibule; (K) Aztec Adoratorio; (L)
approximate location of Mexica reliefs on Cerro La Malinche.
After Diehl 1983: fig. 12 and map 37 (with additions).
north side (Pyramid B) flanked by three complexes of
colonnaded rooms, called the Burned Palace, the
Palace of Quetzalcoatl, and the Palace East of the
Vestibule; the Grand Vestibule in front of the stairway
of Pyramid B; two ball courts, one behind Pyramid B
and another along the west side of the plaza; a platform
that once probably supported a skull rack (tzompantli)
east of the ball court; and an unexcavated long, low
structure on the south side.
Tula was reoccupied after the collapse of Toltec
power. It was a significant town at the time of the
Spanish Conquest (Diehl 1983: 166-169), and there
were intermarriages between its ruling line and that of
Tenochtitlan (Davies 1980: 8). Aztec-period remains at
Tula include a palace on the hill of El Cielito, which
was still occupied in Colonial times; buried caches and
scattered ceramics, of both early (Aztec II) and late

72 RES 13 SPRING 87
types (Aztec III);28 Aztec-period burials and sculptures;
and adoratorios in the main area of Tula Grande. Diehl
(1983: 168-169) does not believe that Tula Grande
was the center of the late Aztec town, because the
extensive damage to that part of the site made it
uninhabitable. Pyramid C was completely looted and
destroyed, and its revetment removed. Pyramid B,
which had once been decorated on all sides with
reliefs of birds, animals, and composite monsters, was
stripped, except for one area on the east side that was
hidden by a later structure. The shrine on top of the
pyramid was destroyed, and a ramp was cut into the
rear of the temple, presumably for removal or burial
of the sculptures on top. Parts of these sculptures (all
being composed of several stacked pieces) were found
on the ramp and behind the pyramid. These comprised
four 4.6 M. tall Atlantean warrior figures (fig. 5), piers
with warrior reliefs, and cylindrical column sections
decorated with feathers, which presumably represented
feathered serpents (one tail section was also found at
the site). The palaces were burned, and many of the
bench reliefs representing processions of warriors were
removed from their rooms and from the vestibule
connecting the palaces and pyramids. There is also
evidence of looting of buried caches, for instance in the
Canal Locality Temple. Other Toltec sculptures found
at Tula (most not in their original contexts) include
chacmools (see fig. 13) (all but one broken), small
supporting figures (telamones), miscellaneous relief
panels, and other types.
According to archaeologists, the destruction and
looting of Tula probably began soon after the Toltec
period and continued until the Conquest. Aztec groups
are usually blamed for much of the damage to the site.
In contrast to Teotihuacan, where it is known that the
center was systematically destroyed at the fall of the
city, it is not clear how much damage was done at the
time of the fall of Tula, or how much happened later
(see Diehl 1981: 292; and Mill?n, in press: n. 43). That
Aztec groups did loot the city is indicated by a well
known passage in Sahag?n:
Then there they [the Toltecs] went?they went to live, to
dwell on the banks of a river at Xicocotitlan, now called
Tula. . . . And they left behind that which today is there,
28. Aztec Black-on-Orange ceramics fall into three pre-Hispanic
style groups. Aztec I and II correspond to ceramic spheres centering
on Culhuacan and Tenayuca respectively and dating to ca. 1150
1350. Aztec III ceramics correspond to the period of Tepanec and
Mexica dominance in Central Mexico, ca. 1350-1521. The presence
of Aztec III ceramics at Tula may indicate Mexica activities.
which is to be seen, which they did not finish
?
the so
called serpent column, the round stone pillar made into a
serpent. Its head rests on the ground;
its tail, its rattles are
above. And the Tolteca mountain is to be seen; and the
Tolteca pyramids, the mounds, and the surfacing of
Tolteca [temples].
. . . And Tolteca bowls, Tolteca ollas
are taken from the earth. And many times Tolteca jewels?
arm bands, esteemed green stones, fine turquoise,
emerald-green jade?are taken from the earth. . . .
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 165
The amount of looting done by the Mexica
specifically, however, is still in question. As will be
seen, the archaeological materials found to date in
Mexico City do not support the idea of massive looting
of the site, and passages in written sources indicate that
people other than the Mexica of Tenochtitlan went to
Tula and removed art. In the 1420s their neighbors
in Tlatelolco took a statue identified as the god
Tlacahuepan from Tula back to their city (Historia de
los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 1973: 60).29 There are
no mentions of similar practices in other towns, like
Culhuacan, during the period intermediate between the
Toltecs and the Mexica.
There is evidence, however, that Tlaxcala, a
Nahuatl-speaking town that was never conquered by
the Aztec Triple Alliance, had strong memories of Tula.
Motolinia (1971: 78) mentions that the Tlaxcalans had
two deity ?mages, a large one, on which they put a
mask that had come from Tula, and a small one that
they had brought with them from Puyauhtlan, their
place of origin on the border of the state of Tlaxcala
(Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed. revised, 43,
n. 12). Given that the Tlaxcalans carried artworks
from Tula and elsewhere, it is interesting that two
Toltec telamones now in Vienna were collected in
Tlaxcala.30 Judging from their style, these sculptures
probably originated in Tula. In addition, among
sculptures attributed to Tlaxcala are two chacmools and
a related type of standing figure, who holds a circular
29. According to Sahag?n (1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed., revised,
175) Tlacahuepan
was a
deity closely associated with Huitzilopochtli
(the god of Tlatelolco as well as Tenochtitlan), especially during the
festival of Panquetzaliztli, which celebrated Huitzilopochtli's birth
and subsequent victory
over his enemy siblings (by extension the
deities of conquered groups). In myth (Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 3,
2d ed., revised, 17), Tlacahuepan
was one of the "sorcerers" along
with Huitzilopochtli and Titlacahuan (Tezcatlipoca), who predicted
and helped effect Topiltzin Quetzalooatl's downfall.
30. Becker-Donner 1965: nos. 122 and 123, pp. 17-18, pi. 31,
color pi. 6. The sculptures were collected by Philipp J. Becker and
given to the Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Vienna, in 1897. Becker kept
a record of towns where he acquired objects.

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 73
Figure 7. Mexica reliefs representing Chalchiuhtlicue, the water
goddess, and Quetzalcoatl letting blood, probably
carved in 8 Flint 1500, Cerro La Malinche, overlooking Tula Grande.
frame at waist level.31 All three are probably local
productions imitating Toltec types.32
The written sources do not mention the Mexica's
taking of ancient deity images from Tula, but they do
indicate Mexica pilgrimages to the site on important
occasions associated with Quetzalcoatl. In 1519
Motecuhzoma II sent his priests to Tula to bury some
pieces of biscuit that his messengers got
Spaniards then in Veracruz. Afraid to eat it,
Motecuhzoma said that
from the
it belonged to the gods and that to eat it would be a
sacrilege.
He told the priests
to carry
it solemnly
31. One of the chacmools is in the Museo Nacional de
to the
Antropolog?a (Seier 1960-1961, 2: 817, fig. 17) and the other is
in a private collection (Von Winning 1960). The standing figure is
in the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a (Nicholson and Berger 1968,
fig. 18).
32. The details of Motolinia's discussion of the larger sculpture in
Tlaxcala reveal other connections with Tula and the Toltecs. It was a
colossal figure (three estados, ca. 6 M. tall) and represented the
Tlaxcalans' main god Camaxtli/Mixcoatl, who was the father of
Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl. If it had the striped legs and net bag that are
the usual characteristics of Mixcoatl, it would have resembled the
colossal figures associated with Pyramid B in those details, as well as
size. On the occasion of the god's main festival, the vestments of
Quetzalcoatl
were
brought to Tlaxcala from Cholula, the center of
Quetzalcoatl's worship in Aztec times. After they were put on the
city of Tula and to bury it in the temple of Quetzalcoatl,55
since those who had arrived here [the Spanish] were his
sons. The priests took the biscuit, placed it in a gilded
gourd, wrapped the latter in rich mantles and made a
long
procession
to Tula. Along the way they incensed it and
sang hymns honoring Quetzalcoatl, whose food they
carried. Once it had reached Tula it was buried in his
temple with great honors.
Duran 1967, 2: 510-511; translation, Duran 1964: 267
Another important evidence of Mexica presence at
Tula is a group of reliefs on the La Malinche hill across
the river from Tula Grande (fig. 7). These represent a
frontal image of Chalchiuhtlicue, the Aztec goddess of
water and floods, faced by a profile Quetzalcoatl, who
stands before a rampant feathered serpent (a Toltec
convention)34 and lets blood from his ear. These reliefs
statue of Camaxtli with the mask from Tula, it was said, "Today
Camaxtli goes out as his son."
33. It is not known which structure this might have been. We
have no record of Aztec-period
names for features at the site. There is
a
glorified description of Quetzalcoatl's Tula (Sahag?n 1950-1982:
bk. 10, 166), but it cannot be matched with the remains.
34. This convention is common at Chichen Itza, and although
rarer it is also represented at Tula ?
for instance, the central figure of
the relief in the Palace East of the Vestibule (fig. 9). Its presence in
the Malinche reliefs and on other Aztec objects indicates a strong
association with Tula.

74 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 8. Central section and several figures in procession
on bench reliefs, reused as construction materials in Phase III of the
Templo Mayor (ca. 1431-1454), discovered in 1913, Mexica, H. 55.9 cm. (with cornice). The original location and arrangement
of the reliefs are unknown,
nor do they form a
complete set. On exhibit at the MNA are a total of eight figures facing right, twenty
figures facing left, plus the two central figures.
were most likely carved in 1500 (the date 8 Flint next
to Chalchiuhtlicue), as part of ceremonies petitioning
the goddess to stop a flood in Tenochtitlan. The flood
had begun with the building of an aqueduct in the
previous year, 7 Reed, a year associated with
Quetzalcoatl. On a monument carved to celebrate
that occasion, the rampant feathered serpent behind
Ahuitzotl identifies him with Quetzalcoatl. The
profile figure of Quetzalcoatl at Tula, then, is either
Quetzalcoatl standing in for the king or Ahuitzotl
himself, petitioning the goddess to stop the flood. The
connection between Quetzalcoatl and these events
explains the presence of the reliefs at Tula (see
Umberger 1981: 129-132, 157-164).35
Moving to Tenochtitlan, the main features of the
layout of Tula seem to have been duplicated by the
Mexica. The plan of the sacred precinct in Sahag?n's
Primeros Memoriales (fig. 2) depicts a west-facing main
pyramid, aligned with an adoratorio, a skull rack, and
a ball court to the west. As for the archaeological
remains, the only certain Toltec object is a plumbate
vessel found in an offering on Phase II of the Templo
Mayor (Mus?e du Petit Palais 1981 : no. 37).36 Plumbate
vessels are lustrous wares, which were made on the
Pacific Coast of Guatemala and traded widely during
the Toltec period. Since examples were common at
35. The site of Huitzilopochtli's birth, the hill of Coatepec in the
province of Tula (location unknown), was the object of a pilgrimage
in Motecuhzoma I's reign (Duran 1967, 2: 217). It was also said that
after the Conquest, the image of Huitzilopochtli from the Templo
Mayor was hidden in a cave near Tula (Padden, 1970, 266, 270).
36. An example of a reworked plumbate piece is a very similar
dog vessel of unknown provenience, which has traces of stucco and
blue paint on the surface. Ulf Bankmann recently suggested that it
may have been renovated by the Aztecs and pointed out that blue
dogs are depicted as accompanying the dead in Aztec manuscripts
(Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum 1986: vol. 2, no. 130).
both Tula and Teotihuacan, they could have been
associated by the Mexica with both sites.
Diehl (1983: 27) suggests that many sculptures were
removed from Tula and taken to Tenochtitlan. The
candidates for Toltec sculptures in Mexico City are
close in iconography and general form to sculptures at
Tula, but in all cases there are significant differences,
indicating that they are Mexica copies. Two types of
sculptures are involved: bench reliefs with processions
of warriors and a group of four warrior figures in-the
round. The bench reliefs are usually identified as
Mexica (Beyer 1955; Moedano K?er 1947; Nicholson
1971: 11 7-118), but the figures are usually called
Toltec (Nicholson 1971: 111, fig. 31, 119).
Procession reliefs, which must have originally
decorated benches, have been found on two phases
of the Templo Mayor, where they were reused as
construction materials. One group, discovered in 1913
(Beyer 1955), was set into the side wall of the pyramid
platform of Phase III (fig. 8). Another group discovered
in the recent excavations served as paving blocks on
the northwest corner of the terrace in front of the
pyramid (Phase IVb) (I have not seen them at close
enough range to discuss them).37 A third group was
found in their proper (presumably original) context?
on the sides of benches in the interior rooms of the
Platform of the Eagles, a structure to the north of the
Templo Mayor (possibly Phase V [Matos 1984b: 19]).
The benches have projecting sections, which seem to
be places of special focus, as on the benches in the
vestibule and palace areas of Tula.
The procession reliefs, although similar to those still
remaining at Tula (and likewise crude), are not in
styles represented at the site. In addition, the Mexica
37. The reliefs are visible as dark blocks in Matos 1984a, ill. after
p. 63, lower left corner.

Figure 9. Figures
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 75
on projecting section in situ inside entrance to Palace East of the Vestibule at Tula, Toltec, H. 45 cm.
The figure in the center has a feathered serpent behind him. After Acosta 1954: fig. after p. 80.
processions proceed from opposite directions and meet
at a central section, featuring a pair of important
personages flanking a zacatapayolli, a grass ball for the
deposit of sacrificial points.38 This type of composition
is characteristic of both the Platform of the Eagles reliefs
and the ones discovered in 1913. In the case of the
former, where the reliefs are still in their proper
context, the central scenes are on the fronts of the
projecting areas. The arrangement of the reliefs
remaining at Tula (many are missing) indicates that the
figures proceeded from left and right toward the
stairway of Pyramid B, but there are no comparable
central scenes. The only projecting area that still has
relief decoration features an important person, but in a
different manner (fig. 9). The other figures, in profile,
proceed around the projection from right to left toward
Pyramid B. The central figure on the front is highlighted
by frontal presentation (with head turned back toward
the procession) and a rampant feathered serpent behind
him. The remains of the back of the next figure to
the left indicate that the procession continued toward
the pyramid stairway.39 Finally, a number of motifs
38. Klein (in press) has recently suggested that the Platform of the
Eagles was the Tlacochcalco Cuauhquiauac, the House of Darts at the
Eagle Gate, which was a place for bloodletting by the ruler and
warriors (thus, the central focus on bloodletting instruments in the
reliefs). She suggests the same purpose for similar rooms at Tula and
Chichen Itza, and quotes Matos (personal communication) as saying
that there is another, unexcavated room of this type flanking the south
side of the Templo Mayor, complete with bench reliefs.
39. Another set of related reliefs was once located around the
upper fa?ade of the open patio of Room 1 of the Burned Palace at
Tula. Found broken and scattered on the floor of the room, their
arrangement was
hypothetically reconstructed by Acosta (1954: 112)
as follows: a series of recumbent figures flanking and facing central
bowl-like objects containing
an unidentified mass with projections,
one in the center of each wall. If this is the proper reconstruction,
there is a
similarity to the Mexica reliefs in that a cult object is
represented in the Tenochtitlan reliefs are found only in
Mexica art, for instance, the zacatapayolli and the
smoking mirrors on the figure (probably a king) to the
left of the center in the relief illustrated here (fig. 8).
Moedano K?er (1947) has also pointed out that certain
weapons are only depicted in the Mexica reliefs (atlatls,
darts, and lances) and that the xiuhuitzolli headgear is
more common. Whether there were intermediate
examples of bench reliefs between the Tula and Mexica
versions is unknown.40
The four warrior figures in question (fig. 10) were
found in 1944 in the area to the west of the Templo
Mayor (12 Guatemala Street) together with a late-style
Mexica copy (fig. 11) (Mateos Higuera 1979: 213
214). Actually the latter is a copy of only three of the
earlier figures (the fourth wears a skirt), which, although
dressed in typical Toltec warrior outfits and resembling
the colossal Atlantean figures at Tula in general form,
featured in a composition with a central focus. In addition, there are
procession scenes with a central focus on a similar object (which
does not look like a Mexica zacatapayolli) at Chichen Itza (Moedano
K?er 1947: 127). Thus the type existed on the Toltec horizon, but
none remains at Tula.
40. It is interesting that the reliefs found in Mexico City were
associated with phases of both early and late date at the Templo
Mayor (Phases III, IVb, and V). By Phases IVb and V the Mexica's
distinctive late style had evolved, yet the reliefs on those levels are
not in the late style. They either were reused from earlier buildings or
were made by artists not practicing the late style. There are other, less
finely carved sculptures on these levels ?the serpent heads that
decorate Phases IV and IVb, for instance. Providing a contrast is a
late-style version of this type of procession relief, the Stone of the
Warriors, which was probably created between 1450 and 1480 and
therefore roughly contemporary with Phases IVb and V. This
monument (Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a; Nicholson 1971: 124,
fig. 57) represents a similar procession of warriors around the sides of
a single large block, which, like the projecting sections of the bench
reliefs, served as a seat or altar.

76 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 10. One of four warrior figures found at 12 Guatemala
Street (formerly Escalerillas Street) behind Cathedral, Mexica/
Aztec, H. 1.15 m., MNA. By permission of INAH.
were almost certainly not made by the Toltecs. The
only small standing human figures at the site, the
telamones with upraised arms, are smaller in size
(Wendy Schonfeld, personal communication) and not at
all similar in style. Schonfeld has also observed that the
four figures have holes in the chests for the insertion
of jade, an Aztec characteristic not found on Toltec
figures, and that these holes were part of the original
conception. (Note the low position of the necklace and
pectoral to allow for the hole.) It is therefore probable
that the four figures are earlier Mexica sculptures,
derived either from the Atlantean figures or a smaller
Toltec version (now lost), and then copied by a later
Mexica artist. The differences between the two Aztec
versions are interesting. The copy is point for point very
close in terms of pose, proportions, and paraphernalia.
However, it has the typical and unmistakable attributes
of the late aesthetic?the inflated surfaces contrasting
with flat surfaces, greater projection of planes, enlarged
hands, and carefully articulated sandals, hands, feet,
Figure 11. Late Mexica copy found in same location, H. 1.30
m., MNA. Photograph courtesy INAH.
and border details. The characteristics of this aesthetic
appear in early form in figures from Phase IV of the
Templo Mayor (1450s) and in developed form in the
Coyolxauhqui relief sculpture on Phase IVb (1460s).
Thus, although the date of the four matching figures is
unknown, the late-style copy probably postdates the
mid-1460s.41
The chacmool is another important sculptural type
derived from the Toltecs.42 Pre-Mexica versions made
in Central Mexico in the period after the fall of the
Toltecs, for instance those at Tlaxcala, must have been
purposeful, overt references to Tula. The Mexica would
also have known the chacmool to be a Toltec type; of
41. Found at the same site with the five figures was a block with
the date 12 House on it (Mateos Higuera 1979: 214, no. 24-1456).
I have not seen an illustration and do not know if the date has a
cartouche indicating a year or whether it can be used to date the
other sculptures found with it (1465 and 1517 were 12 House years).
42. Much has been written on chacmools; for a new
interpretation
and review of the literature, see M. Miller 1985.

the many examples at Tula (fig. 13), two were found in
an area of possible Mexica activities near the Aztec
adoratorio in front of Pyramid C. Several chacmools
have been discovered in Tenochtitlan (one in the early
style and three in the late style). These Mexica versions,
even the early one, could never be mistaken for Toltec
originals. They are more the result of a series of replicas
rather than of firsthand study.
The chacmool on Phase II of the Templo Mayor (fig.
12) is the earliest datable Mexica version. The outline
and arrangement of masses of the Tenochtitlan
sculpture are distinctively different from the Tula type,
which is a standardized form at the site. Replacing
the flat upper surface and container of the Toltec
chacmools is a large three-dimensional bowl sitting on
the stomach and held by hands with splayed fingers.43
There are two other Central Mexican chacmools
with this same emphasis on the round bowl, one of
unknown provenience now on the pyramid of Santa
Cecilia Acatitlan in a northern suburb of Mexico City
(fig. 14) (Solis 1976: 13, fig. 25) and one in the site
museum at Tula. Both are missing their heads, are
rougher in style than the Mexica chacmool, and lack
the painted decoration and costume details. The
Mexica chacmool was visible on the platform of
the Templo Mayor before and during the war of
independence from the Tepanecs and was covered by
1431, when the temple was rebuilt for the coronation
ceremonies following the war (see Umberger, in press a).
The three chacmools, then, probably represent a type
popular during the time of Tepanec domination before
the political rise of the Mexica.44 Although their
interrelationship is unknown, it can be said that the
Tenochtitlan version is more monumental and more
artistically advanced. There is already the Mexica
propensity for articulating details of costume. In
addition,
costume
unlike the other two chacmools, some
parts are of Toltec origin ?
the triangular
apron, the garment covering the upper body, and the
blocklike earplugs. This indicates knowledge of the
43. Although without the detailed articulation of fingernails, lines,
and knuckles of the late style, this is the earliest dated example
showing the Mexica focus on hands.
44. An early ceramic example of a chacmool with bowl-shaped
container was found at Culhuacan in a stratigraphie level with
early Aztec ceramics (Aztec I and II) (S?journ? 1970: [1051). This
association seems to indicate a pre-1350 date for the initiation of the
bowl-shaped container on chacmools. It is of unknown size (but
presumably small, given the material) and missing its head, as is true
of most Central Mexican chacmools.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 77
original source of the chacmool form and the Mexica's
more conscious and explicit form of archaizing.
The late-style Mexica chacmools (fig. 15)45 likewise
are not specifically related to the Tula type, and again
they seem to have developed from the earlier post
Toltec version. However, the Mexican consciousness of
the relationship of this distinctive form to the past is
evident in the wearing of antique picture-plaque jades
(to be discussed below) and the identification of two of
the chacmools with an ancient god, Tlaloc.46 Thus it
can be said that Mexica chacmools are the result of a
continuing tradition, but with knowledge of their source
in Tula, and they were meant to recall this link to the
past.
One interesting question concerns the identification
of chacmools with deities. In the most recent discussion
of chacmools in Mesoamerica, M. Miller (1985: 15-17)
points out that in addition to the two late Mexica
chacmools with Tlaloc attributes, the early chacmool at
the Templo Mayor is associated with Tlaloc because of
its placement in front of the god's shrine. From this
she suggests that the chacmool form in Mesoamerica
is generally associated with Tlaloc. Earlier Central
Mexican chacmools, however, including those at Tula,
seem not to be elaborated with recognizable deity
attributes. The attributes on the only whole example at
Tula (fig. 13) include the ''butterfly" breastplate and
triangular apron worn by the Atlantean figures at the
site, as well as a knife on the shoulder and the pointed
headdress of a lord. The breastplate and crown may
identify the figure as Xiuhtecuhtli, the old fire god, or
they may just identify him as a Toltec lord. Thus I agree
with Esther Pasztory (in press) that the association of the
chacmool and Tlaloc in late times is probably a Mexica
invention, not a survival from the deep past. As
will become apparent in the following examples of
archaizing sculptures, the Mexica often combined an
old form with deity characteristics differing from the
original model. At this point, I think that the Tlaloc
chacmools are more likely to be the result of a
45. The other two chacmools are of about the same date as the
one illustrated, judging from their style and imagery, but they are
both badly damaged. One is in the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a
(Seier 1960-1961, 2: 819, fig. 18) and the other is in the Museo de
Santa Cecilia Acatitlan (Solis 1976: 12, figs. 22-24). The
interrelationship of the three sculptures is unknown.
46. Pasztory (in press) points out that the Tlaloc chacmool (fig.
13) also has a trapeze-and-ray in his headdress, an ancient symbol
associated with Tlaloc and not depicted in Aztec art.

78 RES 13 SPRING 87
14
Figure 12. Early Mexica chacmool in situ on Phase II (ca. 1390-1431) at the Templo Mayor, in front of Tlaloc sanctuary. By
permission of INAH. Figure 13. Toltec chacmool, in situ at Tula, H. 66 cm. By permission of INAH. Figure 14. Early Aztec
chacmool, provenience unknown, H. 46, L. 83 cm., Sta. Cecilia Acatitlan. By permission of INAH. Figure 15. Mexica Tlaloc in
form of chacmool and wearing antique jade or copy of antique jade, found in 1944 at corner of Venustiano Carranza and Pi?o
Suarez Streets, probably 1500-1507, H. 54, L. 78 cm., MNA. By permission of INAH.

conflation of a form associated with the Toltecs and
an ancient Toltec god (see discussion below of the
Teotihuacan-form Tlaloc sculpture).47
Other very unusual (and problematical) archaizing
objects are a pair of cylindrical pedestal vessels made
of an orange-colored ceramic (fig. 16) that were found
buried in the Phase IVb terrace of the Templo Mayor.
Carved in a panel on the front of each vase is the
motif of a standing figure with rampant serpent behind
him. As Nicholson and Keber suggest, the vases are
imitations of an X Fine Orange vessel type (1983: 95).
Although no exact prototype is known, both the vessel
type and figurai motif were common in Toltec times.
Cylindrical pedestal vessels in various wares have been
found all over Mesoamerica. True X Fine Orange
vessels bearing Toltec motifs seem to have been made
on the southern Gulf Coast and are found principally in
Veracruz and the Yucatan Peninsula. Strangely, no true
X Fine Orange has been found at Tula (Diehl 1981 :
289), but rather a related type, which Acosta called
Polished Orange (1956-1957: 91). Nicholson and
Keber cite as a prototype for the Mexica vessels a vase
in Vienna (fig. 17), of unknown provenience, which is
a
Toltec-period ware
imitating X Fine Orange (Christian
Feest, letter, April 1, 1986; see also Nowotny 1959:
136-137). It has the same shape and a carved panel,
although the scene is multifigured. Acosta
of another related vase at Tula (fig. 18)
found pieces
?
probably a
bell-shaped pedestal vessel (also a common form in
Toltec times). Of interest is the relief panel depicting
a
profile male figure with feathered serpent behind. It is
not known if there was an
original closer to the Mexica
vases, which is quite possible, or if the artist conflated
a Toltec-period vase type with a Toltec type of
composition.48
47. I think it is a coincidence that two chacmools at Chichen Itza
have Tlaloc faces or Chac (Maya rain god) faces on their earplugs
(Miller 1985: 17), given the lack of evidence of Tlaloc associations on
the chacmools between these and the Mexica versions.
48. Another similar vase, but of true X Fine Orange, is a bell
shaped pedestal vessel from Chichen Itza. Painted around the sides is
a procession of Toltec warriors with feathered serpents behind them.
Again, only parts of the vase remain. It was classified by Brainerd
(1958: fig. 89a) as an
imported ware from Veracruz, Cerro Montoso
Polychrome. Another, beaker-shaped orange vessel in Vienna has
pairs of Toltec warriors in carved panels
on opposite sides (Becker
Donner 1965: no. 124, p. 18, pi. 32; Nowotny 1959: 134-136).
Mayer (1844: 106-108) illustrates this vessel and says it was found
on the Cerro del Tesoro (Tula Grande).
Besides the affiliation with X Fine Orange, the Mexica vessels
from the Templo Mayor seem to have other connections with
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 79
The vases were buried next to the monumental
Coyolxauhqui Stone, representing Huitzilopochtli's
defeated enemy sister, at the base of the Huitzilopochtli
side of the Templo Mayor. They contained incinerated
human remains. From their location one would assume
that it was the cremation of an important person,
possibly Motecuhzoma I, who died in 1469, a date
associated with this phase by Matos (1981a: 50; see
Umberger, in press a). If these were a king's funerary
vessels, the use of a Toltec period form would be
appropriate (Nicholson, in press). It is interesting that
although the figurai prototype is Toltec, the Mexica
arranged the vases in the holes in which they were
buried to conform to a Mexica type of composition; the
profile figures
on the two vases were oriented toward
the west and faced each other. This pairing of figures is
commonly used for representations of kings, as in the
central section of the bench reliefs found in 1913 (fig.
8). Klein (in press) suggests that this composition type is
associated with the passing of power from one ruler
to another at the time of a death and accession. In
addition, the figures are dressed in deity costumes
that would not have been found in Toltec prototypes.
One seems to be a combination of Mixcoatl and
Xiuhtecuhtli, the Old Fire God, and the other is a form
of Tezcatlipoca standing before a feathered serpent
(Nicholson with Keber 1983: 95-96).
Several other large Toltec-like ceramic vessels (fig.
19) were found in the interior rooms of the Platform
of the Eagles. There are eight vessels altogether, six
with what Matos and other archaeologists identify as
weeping Tlaloc faces (Matos 1984b: 20). Large braziers
decorated with Tlaloc faces have been found in many
parts of Mesoamerica and date from Toltec times up to
the Conquest (Fernando Robles, letter, June 12, 1986).
In photographs (Matos 1984b: photos 9, 10; 1984a: ill.
on 102-103) the vessels at the Templo Mayor look very
like a Tula ceramic type, called Abra Coarse Brown by
recent archaeologists (Cobean 1978) (fig. 20). There
are two basic problems with these related ceramics at
Tenochtitlan and Tula. First, it is unclear whether
Veracruz. The figure on the one illustrated (fig. 16) has two left
hands, something that is rare in Aztec art proper but characteristic of
the Aztec provincial style around Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, and
Huastec shell carvings. This may perhaps indicate a Veracruz artist
and Mexica awareness that Toltec-type ceramics are found in
Veracruz. The reference is still to the Toltecs, given the strong
connection between Tula and the man with serpent motif, evident in
the Malinche reliefs (fig. 7).

80 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 16. Mexica imitation Fine Orange vessel with
representation of Tezcatlipoca with feathered serpent behind,
Offering 14, Templo Mayor, Phase IVb (ca. 1464-1481),
H. 33 cm. Photograph by Salvador Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy
INAH.
those at Tula are Toltec or Aztec; and second, the
relationships between the various vessels need to be
clarified through technical and stylistic analysis (they
are currently being studied by Francisco Hinojoza).
Acosta found fragments of this vessel type and late
Aztec ceramics scattered around the Aztec-period
adoratorio next to Pyramid C at Tula (Acosta 1954:
107-111, pis. 51-52).49 He thus believed that the
vessels were Aztec productions inspired by Toltec types
and suggested that they were used in a ceremony
featuring ceramic breakage like the New Fire Ceremony
(1954: 114). Cobean (1974: 35), however, decided
from the context of the remains of another vessel found
next to the Canal Locality Temple that the known
examples at Tula are probably Toltec period in date.
49. The adoratorio was built next to Pyramid C after the latter was
stripped of its revetment, and thus it is dated to post-Toltec times.
Whether it is early or late Aztec is unknown. Acosta (1954: 111)
believed that the platform and the scattered ceramics around it,
Figure 17. Toltec-period imitation Fine Orange vessel,
provenience unknown, H. 24.8 cm. Photograph courtesy
Museum f?r V?lkerkunde, Vienna.
The eight vessels in Mexico City give rise to new
questions about the whole group; and the answers at
this point are inconclusive. There is nothing about any
of these vessels that recalls the late Aztec style so well
known in other media. Yet Eduardo Matos (letter, April
22, 1986) does not think there is any evidence of
Mexica repairs to the Tenochtitlan vessels?which
would suggest that they are Mexica productions, as
would their size and number.50 On the other hand,
Robert Cobean (letter, September 25, 1986) thinks
that the Templo Mayor vessels are probably Toltec
productions (on the basis of style), although they vary
from the Tula vessels in details. Large storage areas,
where the Mexica could have discovered such vessels
including the Abra Coarse Brown fragments, were late Aztec, that is,
Mexica period (some of the ceramics definitely are).
50. In addition, Mexica "fancy" ceramics are not well known and
may vary from the styles evident in other media (this is true of Aztec
III Black-on-Orange ceramics).

Figure 18. Pieces of Polished Orange vessel found at Tula:
(A) relief of man and feathered serpent; (B) painted (fresco)
decoration; (C) reconstruction of vase (support hypothetical);
present location unknown. Acosta 1942-1944: fig. 30.
intact, have been excavated at Tula (Diehl 1983: 89
and pi. 31). Whatever the exact situation, the discovery
of such closely related examples in a Toltec context at
Tenochtitlan and in a late Aztec context at Tula
suggests that the Mexica thought of the form as Toltec.
There is another interesting Templo Mayor vessel,
representing a skeletal figure, which Nagao (1985a:
72-73) suggests is a copy of a plumbate vessel in a
light greenish stone.51 Other sculptures which seem to
be in a style somewhere between Toltec and Mexica,
are two reliefs of birds of prey clutching hearts, like
those on Pyramid B at Tula, but finer in carving style,
polychromed (rather than stuccoed in white), and
including additional motifs in the background.52
In summary, it must be pointed out that the few true
Toltec and Teotihuacan objects found to date in Mexico
City do not implicate the Mexica in the extensive
looting apparent at the two cities. There are many more
Mexica imitations than antiques. It is also evident from
the written sources on Teotihuacan that large sculptures
of deities, including Tonacatecuhtli who was thought to
be a "Toltec" god (Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1975-1977: 1,
272-273), were worshiped by the Mexica and their
neighbors at the site (see below). Whether these were
ancient or modern ?mages is unknown, but their
presence does indicate that that city was treated with
respect, and was not considered merely a place to be
51. See Matos 1981a: color ill. after photo 28; compare with
Seler 1960-1961, 5: 579, fig. 263.
52. There might also be a 1 Reed date, consisting of an
arrow and a dot in the upper right. The reliefs were given to the
Metropolitan Museum of Art in 1893 by the painter Frederic E.
Church, who had acquired them in Tampico
on the Gulf Coast.
Similar finer carvings at Tula represent hearts pierced by arrows
(Diehl 1983: pi. 16 after p. 72).
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 81
Figure 19. Toltec (?) ceramic brazier with face possibly of rain
god, located inside the Platform of the Eagles north of the
Templo Mayor, possibly Phase V (ca. 1469-1481).
Photograph by Salvador GuiNiem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.
Figure 20. Abra Coarse Brown ceramic brazier, reconstructed
from fragments found around post-Toltec adoratorio abutting
west side of Pyramid C at Tula, Toltec (?), H. 50 cm., site
museum, Tula. By permission of INAH.

82 RES 13 SPRING 87
looted. Likewise, the evidence of pilgrimages to Tula
and the burial of offerings seem to suggest the same
thing.
Teotihuacan53
If Tula was associated in Mexica thought with
Quetzalcoatl, warrior figures, dynastic legitimacy, and
cultural precedents, Teotihuacan was linked with a
sacred, cosmic event at the beginning of the present era
of time?the birth of the sun. In the year 1 Rabbit, the
fourth era of time ended in a great flood and the fifth
era began with a period of darkness that lasted until 13
Reed, twenty-six years later,54 when the gods gathered
at Teotihuacan for the birth of the new sun. After a rich
god failed to leap into the fire that would transform
him into the sun, a poor, sore-ridden god dared and
became the 4 Movement sun. Then the rich god
jumped into the ashes and became the moon (Sahag?n
1950-1982: bk. 7, 3-9).
The best-known Aztec reference to specific features
at the site of Teotihuacan is also found in the Florentine
Codex:
Offerings
were made at a
place named Teotiuacan. And
there all the people raised pyramids for the sun and for
the moon; then they made many small pyramids where
offerings
were made. And there leaders were elected. . . .
And when the rulers died, they buried them there.
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10, 191-192
Teotihuacan (fig. 21) was the largest Precolumbian
city in Mesoamerica, covering eight square miles. Its
population, estimated up to 125,000, was only equaled
or exceeded by that of Tenochtitlan. The plan has two
wide avenues oriented toward the cardinal directions
and dividing the city into four quarters. The avenues
meet at a point in front of a great ceremonial-civic
complex, the Ciudadela, which encloses the so-called
Temple of Quetzalcoatl. The northern end of the north
south avenue, the Street of the Dead, is limited in
access by a palace complex and features the two largest
pyramids in the city, the Pyramids of the Sun and
Moon. In 1971 a cave was discovered under the west
facing Pyramid of the Sun. This was apparently an
important place of pilgrimage from early times and
probably the original source of the city's power.
53. For an overview of Teotihuacan archaeology,
see Mill?n
1973, 1981.
54. Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1973: 5; Historia de los mexicanos por
sus pinturas 1973: 32, 36.
Figure 21. Teotihuacan in 1865, as it appeared before
restoration. Seler 1960-1961, 5: 406, fig. 1, by permission of
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
Periodically at unknown times in its history, the long
passageway was sealed by walls (which were later
broken), and although an Aztec sherd was found near
the entrance, it is not known if the Aztecs were aware
of the cave (Heyden 1975: 134). Acosta removed all
materials from its floor for study. Unfortunately, the
results were never published (Mill?n 1981: 233), so the
dates of use are not known. Mill?n (in press) suggests
the possibility that Teotihuacan's original attraction
was the same as in Aztec times, its claim to be the
birthplace of the sun,55 and that the cave under the
55. A variation on this suggestion, made by Davies (1984: 210), is
that the fifth and final sun was born after the fall of Teotihuacan.

pyramid was an appropriate place for this and other
types of origins?a symbolic function of caves
throughout Mesoamerica (see Heyden 1975). There
may have been a cave under the Pyramid of the Moon
also (see Kubier 1982: 50).
The most noticeable characteristic of Teotihuacan
architecture is the talud-and-tablero (sloping base
supporting rectangular panel) profile of the stepped
levels of its pyramid platforms (see fig. 28). Mural
paintings, the city's main art form, once covered all
surfaces with bright polychromy. Although sculpture is
rarer at Teotihuacan, the city's artists did create some
distinctive forms, such as anthropomorphic face masks
and braziers representing the Old Fire God supporting
a container. In addition to the sloped line with
rectangular panel, another popular combination of
shapes was a curvilinear solid on a truncated cone.
Like Tula, the peripheral areas of Teotihuacan were
reoccupied after its fall in around 750; the sacred
center, however, was totally destroyed, and although
used for ceremonies by later people, it was never again
inhabited. In late Aztec times, Teotihuacan was within
the jurisdiction of Tetzcoco, Tenochtitlan's ally, and
there were five Aztec communities, notably San Juan
Teotihuacan and San Francisco Mazap?n, near and on
the ruins. There is some evidence of Aztec presence
in the ceremonial center?for instance Aztec-period
burials on the east side of the Ciudadela and possibly
an adoratorio in front of the Pyramid of the Sun. The
well-known Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl, which featured
sculptures of double-headed, feathered serpents, was
stripped of these sculptures, except for a section that
was covered by a later platform. When this was done
and by whom is not known.
Evidence of the appearance and use of Teotihuacan
in Aztec times is found in the 1580 Relaci?n de
Tecc?ztlan y su partido (Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906,
6: 221-222). In the map accompanying the relaci?n
(fig. 22), two large pyramids and seven smaller
platforms are located around a rectangular area,
presumably the north part of the north-south avenue,
containing the words "or?culo de Montecuma." The
text identifies the two main pyramids, the largest as the
Pyramid of the Sun and the one to the north as the
Pyramid of the Moon. On the summit of the Sun and
facing west was a stone idol of Tonacatecuhtli (Lord
of Sustenance), of one piece of stone and three brazas
tall (about 5 M.). On a lower platform in front of the
pyramid was a smaller idol called Mictlantecuhtli
(Lord of the Dead). Another idol three brazas tall and
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 83
representing the Moon was on the Pyramid of the
Moon. Around this pyramid were many other platforms,
on the largest of which were six other idols called the
brothers or siblings of the Moon.56 "To all of these the
priests of Montesuma, lord of Mexico, went, with the
said Montesuma, each twenty days to sacrifice." Every
fourth year there was a ceremony in a great plaza
between the pyramids, during which wrong-doers were
punished on a small platform two estados high (ca. 4 M.).
The question is whether the Aztecs were reusing
Teotihuacan deity ?mages found at the site, images of
their own, or a combination of the two. According to
early sources (see Pe?afiel 1900: 34), the sculptures
were destroyed by Bishop Zum?rraga in the sixteenth
century. However, two large Teotihuacan period
sculptures at the site could be the remains of these
deity images. One is the 3 M. tall sculpture of a female
deity discovered in 1889 at the southwest corner of the
56. Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 1: 272-273) gives much of the
same information about the Aztec-period idols at Teotihuacan: "Los
?dolos de los tultecas que antiguamente tuvieron, fueron los m?s
principales que fue Tonacateuhtli, y hoy en d?a est? su personaje en
el c? Ipyramidl mas alto, que es dedicado al sol, de este pueblo
JTeotihuacanl, que quiere decir dios del sustento, y |a| su mujer
ten?an Jporl otra diosa, y dicen que este dios del sustento era
figurado
al sol y su mujer a la luna, y otras diosas que llamaban las hermanas
del sol y luna, que todav?a hay pedazos de ellas en los cues de este
pueblo.
. . ."
It is interesting that the relaci?n and Alva Ixtlilxochitl indicate the
Aztecs' connection of Tonacatecuhtli, Lord of Sustenance, with the
sun and the main west-facing pyramid of Teotihuacan, which may
have been a double temple like the Templo Mayor (to be discussed
further on). This information complements Nagao's (1985b)
identification of the mysterious Two-Horned God images found in a
number of caches at the Templo Mayor as representations of the same
deity (also known as Ometecuhtli, Lord of Duality).
Figure 22. Detail of map of Tecciztlan and environs showing
site of Teotihuacan (in center), from relaci?n geogr?fica o?
1580. Paso y Troncoso 1905-1906, 6: map after p. 222.

84 RES 13 SPRING 87
plaza of the Pyramid of the Moon; the other is a
fragment of a similar sculpture found nearby (Seler
1960-1961, 5: 435-437, fig. 27, pi. 17, nos. 1, 2).
The most interesting remains are death images that
may have been associated with the Mictlantecuhtli
platform. Beyer (1922 170-171: pi. 82a, b) suggested
that two profile skull sculptures found about 100 meters
east of the Pyramid of the Sun were part of this shrine,
either left there from Teotihuacan times or moved there
by the Aztecs. In 1963 Chadwick excavated a large
sculpture, representing a frontal skull framed by a large
pleated circular element, near the platform in front of
the Pyramid of the Sun. This he suggested may have
been the death god image described as being on the
platform (Mill?n 1973: fig. 21b).57 Another possibility is
a sculpture in the Teotihuacan site museum (see fig.
25), which one can assume (from the two Mexica
copies to be discussed below) was visible in Aztec
times, although its original location at the site is
unrecorded. The sculpture is a Janus figure, with
skeletal faces on front and back. The body is a
truncated cone with stylized ribs, four arms, and a row
of skulls in relief around the base. These skulls match
in details the large profile skull sculptures found
previously near the Pyramid of the Sun. They share the
distinctive upturned curl in the nose area, the volute
where the jaw and cheek meet, and the knot behind
the head.58 These similarities may indicate that the
three sculptures were part of the same ensemble.
The large plaza with platform used for punishment of
criminals may be either in front of the Pyramid of the
Moon or at the Ciudadela, or, less likely,
one in front of the Sun.59
the smaller
57. Von Winning (n.d.) suggests that this sculpture is actually
Aztec, because death images are very rare at Teotihuacan, but I agree
with Esther Pasztory (letter to Von Winning, December 2, 1980) that
its style is consistent with that of other Teotihuacan sculptures. She
cites a Teotihuacan mural that depicts skulls (A. Miller 1973: 57,
fig. 47).
58. This same type of skull is presented frontally in the mural
cited by Pasztory, indicating the Teotihuacan origin of the type.
59. Other early
sources of information on Teotihuacan are the
Mazap?n maps (Kubier 1982) of which there are three copies,
showing the layout of the city in the early colonial period and
including N?huatl glosses naming many parts of the site, the north
south avenue, for instance, which was then, as it is now, called the
Street of the Dead. The maps indicate other places of significance to
the Aztecs, for instance, a "place of reverence" west of the Pyramid
of the Moon and a "place of burials in honor of the sun" behind the
Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl in the courtyard of the Ciudadela, which
may possibly correspond with Aztec-period burials recently excavated
in Structure 1R on the east platform (Martinez and Jarquin 1982: 45;
There are several aspects of the layout of
Teotihuacan that are repeated in Tenochtitlan. Both
cities were organized by grid plans and two main
north-south and east-west avenues meeting in the
center. Both also had a main west-facing pyramid, but
that of Tenochtitlan was placed at the meeting place of
the avenues, rather than to the north. According to
Mill?n (1976: 238), the Teotihuacan Pyramid of the
Sun may have had two shrines on top also. If so, some
evidence points to its having been shared by rain and
sun deities, as in the case of the Mexica temple.60
Actual Teotihuacan objects found in Mexico City
include figurines, masks, and ceramic vessels, cached
at and near the Templo Mayor61 and in front of a small
temple to the south (near the corner of Pi?o Suarez and
Izazaga streets) (Gussinyer 1970a).
An important modified antique
of unknown
provenience is a Teotihuacan serpentine figure
inscribed in Postclassic times with the dates 13 Reed
and 1 Flint on its chest (fig. 23). In the Mexica calendar
these were two years at the middle of the fifty-two-year
cycle, the most important position in the cycle.
Thirteen Reed was the date of the sun's birth at
Teotihuacan, and 1 Flint was a date of multiple
references of political importance to the Mexica
(see Umberger, in press b). It was the date of
Huitzilopochtli's birth, the year the Mexica left on their
migration from their homeland, and the year they
overthrew the Tepanec capital city (1428). When
inscribed together with the date of the sun's birth, it
probably signified the birth of the "Mexica sun" in a
political sense, and the ascendance of the Mexica as
the people of the sun.62 Both dates were associated
Romero 1982). An Aztec III jar was associated with a child's burial,
which was
accompanied by a fragment of a Teotihuacan sculpture
(not illustrated). An adult burial nearby included two vases of
Tetzcoco Red-on-Black ware. See Kubier's analysis of the N?huatl
glosses of the Mazap?n maps and discussion of other early maps of
Teotihuacan. See also Hodge (1984: 117-132) for further information
on
Aztec-period Teotihuacan.
60. Associated with Tlaloc, the rain god,
are the cave (his name
means
"path through the earth" in N?huatl) and the child sacrifices
found at the corners of the stepped levels of the pyramid (Heyden
1975: 141). Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 1: 272-273), after his
description of the "Toltec" city of Teotihuacan, states that the Toltecs
sacrificed children to Tlaloc. The pyramid's western orientation, the
cave as a birthplace, and its Aztec-period
name may indicate solar
aspects.
61. Batres 1902: pis. on 19 and 24 (see fig. 3); Mus?e du Petit
Palais 1981: nos. 11, 90.
metaphor.
62. See Umberger, in press b, on the political
use of the solar

with the image of the sun on the great Calendar Stone,
and their placement on this Teotihuacan figure is
appropriate because the sun was born at that city.63
However, although the dates can be interpreted from
the Mexica point-of-view, there is a problem with
seeing the inscription as Mexica because of its variant
style. The Flint date, represented as a knife with face
and speech scroll, could be Aztec, but the Reed date is
atypical, consisting of two reed arrows with points
visible (in the Mixtee manner) rather than the usual
reed shaft and leaves emanating from a vase seen in
cross-section (see fig. 35). There are two possibilities:
either the inscription is that of a non-Mexica group
using similar symbolic associations,64 or a foreign artist
working for the Mexica. At present I do not know the
answer, but I think the latter explanation is possible
because of the speech scroll on the Flint date. As far as
I know, speech scrolls occur only on Aztec dates.
There are two late Aztec-style monuments that use
arrows for Reed dates, and another Aztec period
sculpture at Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, with the dates
1 Flint and 13 Reed in a nonconventional, provincial
style.65 The atypical style of these inscriptions of
63. Parts of two similar greenstone figures were found in
the House of the Priests adjacent to the Pyramid of the Sun at
Teotihuacan (Seler 1960-1961, 5: 434, fig. 26). Could the Hamburg
figure have come from this area also? If so, its association with the
date of the sun's birth would have been especially appropriate.
64. There is some evidence that these two dates were
important
and had similar symbolic associations in Early Postclassic times. The
connection of 13 Reed with the sun goes back at least to Xochicalco,
where it is inscribed on the back of Stela 3; on the front of the same
monument is 4 Movement, the calendric name of the sun in Aztec
times (see Caso 1967: 186, pi. 3). I feel that the inscription of these
two dates together indicates the same symbolic association with the
sun that they had in later times (on the relationship of 13 Reed and 4
Movement, see Umberger 1981: 203-204). That the date 13 Reed
was
significant at Xochicalco is indicated by its appearance on three,
possibly four, monuments (Berlo, in press).
One Flint does not appear in the known Xochicalco inscriptions.
However, in the written sources it is associated with the migrations
of groups besides the Mexica, which probably indicates that it had
political associations before the Mexica expropriated it. One Flint and
13 Reed are inscribed on two boxes excavated by local people at
Tolcayuca, Hidalgo (Cossio 1942: photos 10, 14; these boxes were
called to my attention by H. B. Nicholson, personal communication).
Most of the other materials at the site are Mazap?n (Toltec period),
and the carved dates, which are very difficult to see in the
photographs,
are unconventional in relation to Mexica inscriptions.
The boxes may thus indicate the linking of the two dates in pre-Aztec
times.
65. For the two Aztec objects with arrows for reed dates, see Caso
1967: 68, fig. 20; Nicholson 1956: 99, fig. 3. For the stela at Castillo
de Teayo, see Seler 1960-1961, 3: 417, fig. 8; Umberger 1981a:
134-135,
200.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 85
0 ?w>
^r

86 RES 13 SPRING 87
politically important dates can perhaps be explained by
the Mexica's habit of forcing artists from outside
Tenochtitlan to carve monuments for them. Two such
incidents are recorded in the written sources. On one
occasion during the 1450s, the Mexica made Tepanec
artists carve a sacrificial stone on which was depicted
the defeat of their own nation (Alvarado Tezozomoc
1975: 318-319). The year of that defeat, 1 Flint, may
very well have been carved on the monument. At
another time also in the reign of Motecuhzoma I, on
the day 1 Flint, Huitzilopochtli's ceremonial day, artists
from nearby communities were brought to Tenochtitlan
to carve images of the gods that Huitzilopochtli had
conquered (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356).66
In the category of archaizing monuments are four
platforms (Boone 1985: 179) and four stone sculptures.
A bust-length death figure (fig. 24), found in 1900 in
front of and on axis with the Huitzilopochtli half of the
Templo Mayor, seems to be a copy of the death figure
in the Teotihuacan site museum (fig. 25; this is the only
known Teotihuacan example of this type). The Mexica
version was found in battered condition under a pre
Hispanic floor in front of a small west-facing platform.
It reproduces the general shape and motifs of the
Teotihuacan figure (four arms, stylized ribs and skulls
around the base), but has only one face. Made of
greenstone, the image was further modified by the
addition of Aztec deity characteristics. It wears the head
decoration of Coyolxauhqui, Huitzilopochtli's enemy
sister whom he killed soon after his birth at Coatepec.
In addition, on top of the head the representation of the
sign for grass (malinalli) including its flowers (xochitl)
may refer to Malinalxochitl, another enemy sister,
whom Huitzilopochtli abandoned near Malinalco,
a town south of Tenochtitlan, during the Mexica
migration (Peterson 1983: 122). The figure is dead, like
Coyolxauhqui, but not decapitated. Its location in
front of the temple, which represented Coatepec,
is appropriate for a Coyolxauhqui image (other
Coyolxauhqui sculptures were placed on that axis),
and the use of greenstone is not unprecedented in
representations of this deity.67 The sculpture then must
66. "... y habiendo tenido noticia todos los principales del
mando de Moctezuma, y para el dia proprio que llaman Zetecpatl |1
Flint], ...
y allegada gran copia de piedra gruesa y pesada, de mas
de un estado, y otros dos estados de alta y grueso, mandaron venir
de Tezcuco, Tacuba, Cuyuacan, Atzcapotzalco, Chalco, Xuchimilco
canteros buenos para labrar los bultos de cada dios sugeto ?
Huitzilopochtli, han de estar en las cuadras lof the Templo Mayorl."
67. See the colossal head of Coyolxauhqui and a small mask,
Figure 24. Mexica bust-length, greenstone figure of
Huitzilopochtli's dead enemy sister, found by Batres on
Escalerillas Street in 1900, H. 76 cm., with drawing of
headdress, MNA. By permission of INAH.
be some sort of embodiment of the defeated, traitor
sisters. The reason for using a Teotihuacan prototype is
unknown.
Another sculpture (fig. 26) (Seler 1960-1961, 2:
843-846) similar to the greenstone death figure
gray volcanic stone and without the Coyolxauhqui
headdress, was found with four cihuateteo, death
but of
goddesses, at the corner of 16 de Septiembre and Isabel
la Cat?lica streets. It has hair like a cihuateotl (sing.)
and therefore may represent an archaizing version of
that type; the date 7 Flower on top of the head may be
a calendric name. It is interesting that the Mexica used
the same model for figures with different identities, a
Coyolxauhqui type and a cihuateotl. Perhaps this
both of green colored stones (Nicholson with Keber 1983: color pis.
on 48, 51).

Figure 25. Teotihuacan death god, original location at
Teotihuacan unknown, site museum.
Photograph courtesy
INAH.
difference accounts for their varying fates. The
Coyolxauhqui figure, representing the enemy of
Huitzilopochtli, was destroyed in pre-Hispanic times
and interred below a pavement; the other was not
damaged. The dating of these two late-style archaizing
sculptures is difficult. They may have been made in the
1480s or 1490s, in the reign of Ahuitzotl, with other
female death deities.68
The four Teotihuacan-style structures include two
Red Temples flanking the north and south sides of the
68. Unfortunately, the correspondence of the 1900 excavation to
the recently defined levels of the Templo Mayor is unknown. The
greenstone figure has a Tlaloc earth monster on the bottom very like
that on the great Coatlicue and Yolotlicue sculptures, which may date
from around 1491, the date 12 Reed carved on both (Umberger
1981: 77-78). The gray stone figure was found with a colossal head
bearing the same date (Mateos Higuera 1979: 226-227).
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 87
Figure 26. Mexica gray stone, archaizing cihuateotl, found at
corner of 16 de Septiembre and Isabel la Cat?lica Streets, H.
1.14 m., MNA. By permission of INAH.
Templo Mayor, another, more distant platform to the
west of the Templo Mayor (on Guatemala Street, now
in the garden of the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a),
and a fourth one north of the Templo Mayor (near the
corner of Argentina and Justo Sierra Streets).69 They
all feature the typical Teotihuacan talud-and-tablero
profile, and at least one, the Red Temple north of the
Templo Mayor, has pseudo-Teotihuacan paintings in
the form of broad vertical bands, each containing a
large red-rimmed eye, on the sloping talud (fig. 27). On
the alfardas (sloping panels) framing the stairway the
bands are horizontal. Bands with eyes represent liquid
at Teotihuacan and are ubiquitous at the site. Although
69. See Matos 1981b: 258-267, for information on one of the
two Red Temples; Gussinyer 1970b, for the platform
on Guatemala
Street; Matos 1964 for the one on justo Sierra Street.

88 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 27. Red Temple with Teotihuacan-style ta/ud-and-tab/ero and paintings of bands
with eyes, north side of Templo Mayor, Phase VI (1483 - ca. 1500), Mexica.
Photograph by Salvador Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.
they usually are small in scale and pertain to borders,
there are examples of large-scale bands, arranged either
horizontally or vertically in the main field (fig. 28).70
Stylized seashells on the frame of the tablero of the Red
Temple probably indicate that the bands, which have
alternating blue and yellow backgrounds, likewise
represent liquid. The platform farther north is painted
with a Tlaloc design (Matos 1964: fig. 2). Tlaloc was
an ancient god associated with Teotihuacan, but the
painting does not follow Teotihuacan conventions.
Boone (1985: 179) comments that all four platforms
with ta/ud-and-tab/ero profiles would have recalled
Teotihuacan also because of their bright polychromy,
70. See also A. Miller 1973: 44, pis. 6, 7.
I_/
Figure 28. Teotihuacan paintings of bands with eyes on
platform
Teotihuacan. After S?journ? 1959: fig. 32.
in contrast to the other buildings in the ceremonial
precinct, which were probably white.
During the recent excavations, an important
archaizing sculpture
was found in the area behind the
Red Temple with pseudo-Teotihuacan paintings (fig.
29). It is a late Mexica sculpture of Tlaloc in a pose
derived from Teotihuacan sculptures of an old man
carrying a brazier on his head, which modern scholars
interpret as representing the Old Fire God (fig. 30). This
is a typical Teotihuacan type found in several places
in the city, and thus is comparable to the Toltec
chacmool. The Mexica version is, in fact, very close in
style and iconography to the Tlaloc chacmool (fig. 15).
Both figures wear heavy jade necklaces with antique
picture-plaques and carry vessels, one full of water and
\
at Zacuala,

the other with an ?mage of the water god himself on
top. Although some scholars suggest that the figure in
the pose of the Old Fire God is a conflation of Tlaloc
and the Old Fire God (Nicholson with Keber 1983: 35;
L?pez Austin, in press), I do not think there are any
intentional references to the original Teotihuacan deity
on the sculpture. Even the eyes in the decorative band
around the vessel, typical motifs on the Teotihuacan
sculptures, are misunderstood and transformed into
flowerlike forms. In Mexica times, the fire god,
Xiuhtecuhtli, had taken a different form, and it is
possible that the artist did not know the identity of the
Teotihuacan deity. Or if he did know its identity, he
chose to ignore it, borrowing only its distinctive pose. I
am thus* extending Esther Pasztory's (in press) line of
thought on the Tlaloc chacmool in suggesting that both
archaizing Tlalocs are conflations of the ancient deity
with the most typical figurai forms of the cities with
which the Aztecs associated him (Alva Ixtlilxochitl
1975-1977, 1: 273).
The Teotihuacanoid sculpture has a date on the
back, 11 Reed, which probably refers to the year 1503,
the second year of Motecuhzoma H's reign. The Tlaloc
chacmool was certainly carved around the same time,
which according to the written sources was a period of
concern about water. The inauguration of the new
aqueduct in 1499 and ceremonies to stop the
subsequent flood were occasions for the making of
images of water deities. The written sources emphasize
the part played by Chalchiuhtlicue, goddess of the
water of the lake. The priest who welcomed the water
to the city dressed as the goddess, and a sculpture of
Chalchiuhtlicue was later thrown into the spring where
the aqueduct started (Duran 1967, 2: 375-381). She
was also depicted in the reliefs on the Cerro La
Malinche at Tula. Tlaloc was a participant, too,
although not as important in the written accounts. After
the flood, Tenochtitlan suffered a serious drought, and
normal conditions did not return until 2 Reed (1507). It
is not surprising that sculptures and structures with
aquatic imagery were created at this time.
Another sculpture of interest (fig. 31) was first
published in 1900 with an implied provenience of
Teotihuacan (Pe?afiel 1900: pis. 49-51). The upper
part of this late Aztec sculpture is covered with
Teotihuacanoid reliefs of flowers, comparable with a
flower-covered cylindrical sculpture from the site (fig.
32). The lower part has low relief carvings on both
front and back representing the face of a non
Teotihuacan deity (the same face is depicted twice).
Like the archaizing Coyolxauhqui and cihuateotl, the
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 89
Figure 29. Mexica Tlaloc in form of Teotihuacan Old Fire
God brazier and wearing antique jade or copy, found in area
behind Red Temple north of Templo Mayor, Phase VI (?), date
11 Reed (1503) on back, H. 67 cm. Photograph by Salvador
Guil'liem Arroyo, courtesy INAH.
Figure 30. Teotihuacan Old Fire God brazier, MNA. By
permission of INAH.

90 RES 13 SPRING 87
Figure 31. Mexica sculpture combining Teotihuacan motifs
and shapes, said to be from Teotihuacan, H. 34 cm., MNA.
Seler 1960-1961, 5: pi. 39 after p. 585, by permission of
Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
Figure 32. Cylindrical sculpture with flowers, found on west
side of the Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan. Seler 1960
1961, 5: 430, fig. 19, by permission of Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
Figure 33. Diagram of La Ventilla Stela, made of four pieces
tenoned together, found at La Ventilla, Teotihuacan, H. 2.13
m., MNA.
31
sculpture is in the form of a sphere on a truncated
cone, a combination of shapes also characteristic of the
La Ventilla Stela (fig. 33) (Arroyo de Anda 1963). A
cavity in the top reproduces the hole for a tenon that is
part of such multipiece Teotihuacan sculptures. Pe?afiel
apparently recognized this when he called the sculpture
a column section. The Aztec piece may be imitating an
unknown Teotihuacan prototype, or it could be the
result of a conflation of Teotihuacan forms. The deity
depicted would not have been part of the original.
Finally, Nagao (1985a: 72-73) suggests that a
greenstone vessel (Mus?e du Petit Palais 1981: no. 81),
which archaeologists label as Teotihuacan, is actually
a Mexica translation into precious greenstone of a
Teotihuacan Thin Orange type of vessel, since no
greenstone versions are known from Teotihuacan. As
Nagao points out, this vessel was found with the stone
copy of a plumbate vessel, both being translations into
stone of ancient ceramic types, along with true antiques
(Olmec, Teotihuacan, and Guerrero pieces). Although
skeuomorphs (translations of forms from one medium to
another) are common in Mexica art, these two vessels
are the only archaizing stone copies of ceramic forms
of which I am aware.
Xochicalco71
The site of Xochicalco, south of the modern town of
Cuernavaca in Morelos, had an eclectic art style. The
motifs represented in its monumental reliefs point to
connections with cultures in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and the
Maya area. The most striking structure at the site, the
Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, is covered with
reliefs of hieroglyphs, feathered serpents, and Maya
looking personages (see fig. 38).72
A passage in the Florentine Codex indicates that the
Aztecs called the site Xochicalco:
There are large vestiges of the antiquities of this people
as
they nowadays appear in Tula, Tollantzinco, and a
71. For Xochicalco archaeology,
see Saenz 1962, 1963a, 1963b,
1964; Hirth 1984.
72. I am not
describing the layout of the site because there are no
obvious correspondences to the plan of Tenochtitlan. Nor is there
archaeological evidence of Mexica activity at the site (Michael E.
Smith, personal communication). Although some of its structures
suffered purposeful destruction, it is noteworthy that the reliefs on the
Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents were left in place, in contrast to
the stripping of pyramids at both Tula and Teotihuacan. Many of the
reliefs were still visible at the time of Dupaix's visit in 1805 (1978:
127, pi. 31, fig. 33).

structure called Xochicalco, which is near Quauhnauac
[Cuernavaca].73
Sahag?n 1950-1982, introductory volume: 48
According to Jim?nez Moreno (1942: 129-136; 1959:
1072),74 Xochicalco was also in an area of quasi
mythical importance, which the Aztecs referred to as
Tamoanchan. From his study of written references to
Tamoanchan, he deduced that there were at least
two important Tamoanchans: a more distant and
ancient place, which he located on the Gulf Coast,
"sublimated in myth" by Aztec times, and an
identifiable area relating to the more recent past and
located near Aztec Cuauhnahuac (Histoyre du
Mechique 1905: 27), an area which, as Jim?nez
Moreno notes, is similar to the Gulf Coast in its
semitropical environment.75 In addition, the Aztec
period cities of Amaquemecan (Amecameca) and
Chalco to the southeast of Tenochtitlan were both
called Tamoanchan (Chimalpahin 1965: 34, in
introduction by S. Rend?n; Davies 1980: 250), and
there are evidences of artistic connections between
Xochicalco and this area, seeming to date from
Xochicalco times and perhaps later.76 So it appears that
Tamoanchan, like Tollan, was a concept as well as the
name of several historically identifiable (perhaps
related) places.
Another, often quoted passage in Sahag?n connects
the invention of the calendar that was later to be used
by
the Aztecs with Tamoanchan:
But four remained [at Tamoanchan] of the old men, the
wise men: one named Oxomoco, one named Cipactonal,
one named Tlaltetecui, one named Xochicauaca. And
73. The structure must be the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents.
Another probable reference to this pyramid is found in Alva
Ixtlilxochitl's list of ruins of Toltec cities (1975-1977, 1: 272;
Michael E. Smith, personal communication): "En Cuauhnahuac, otro
palacio,
con una ciudad que sol?a ser antigua, un palacio labrado
todo de piedras grandes de piedra de canter?a sin lodo, ni mezcla, ni
vigas, ni ninguna madera, sino unas piedras grandes pegadas unas a
otras.
. . ."
74. The following two paragraphs paraphrase and slightly expand
Jim?nez Moreno's ideas.
75. Jim?nez Moreno also suggested that the references to a more
distant, mythical Tamoanchan indicate that the ancient inhabitants of
Xochicalco came from the Gulf Coast.
76. A Xochicalco-style relief representing
a woman was found on
the island of Xico in the southeastern Aztec area (Seler 1960
1961, 2: 159-160, fig. 69). Xico had a substantial occupation
contemporary with Xochicalco. Another, very curious object is a
large relief-covered block (later made into a container), which was
given to the Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a by a Chalco family
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 91
when the wise men had gone, then these four old men
assembled. . . .
Then they devised the book of days, the book of years,
the count of the years, the book of dreams. They arranged
the reckoning just as it has been kept. And thus was time
recorded during all the time the Tolteca, the Tepaneca, the
Mexica, and the Chichimeca reign endured.
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 10,19
Based on this passage and the location of Tamoanchan
near Cuernavaca, Jim?nez Moreno suggested that the
site of the invention of the calendar was Xochicalco.
Indeed, according to Caso's (1967: 166-186)
analysis of the inscriptions, the calendar used at
Xochicalco was ancestral to the Aztec calendar, with
the same year bearers and many of the same day signs.
In fact, this is the earliest appearance of the Rabbit
Reed-Flint-House year bearer system in Central Mexico.
Supporting the evidence that the Aztecs considered this
area the locus of the invention of their calendar, and
also indicating that Xochicalco probably was the site of
that event, is a rock carving (fig. 34) discovered near
the site during the 1966-1967 archaeological season
(Saenz 1967). It depicts a 1 Rabbit date (with a loop
around the cartouche, designating it as a year bearer),
(Seler 1960-1961, 2: 161, fig. 70). In some ways it looks midway
between Xochicalco and Aztec in style. The date glyphs, however,
are definitely Xochicalco forms. See also Nicholson (1971: 120).
Figure 34. Inscription
on rock at Xochicalco, probably
representing
a fire drill in a
piece of wood with a numeral
one next to it and the dates 1 Rabbit and 2 Serpent below,
Late Classic to
Early Postclassic. After Saenz 1967: fig.
1.

92 RES 13 SPRING 87
a new fire symbol (drill, board, and flames), and a
circular element signifying the numeral one. All of this
Saenz interpreted as the commemoration of the first
new fire in a 1 Rabbit year. There is no reason to
believe that the inscription is not contemporary with the
florescence of the site.
Mexica objects in an archaizing Xochicalco style are
few but significant. In the category of Mexica revivals is
the cartouche around the dates on three fire serpent
heads found in Mexico City (fig. 35). Here the date 2
Reed in late Mexica style has a Xochicalco style frame
and Xochicalco numerals below, a bar (representing
five) and three dots (compare with fig. 36). This is a
purposeful archaism that can be linked to a specific
date in Mexica times, 2 Reed (1507), the year of the
last new fire and binding of years ceremonies initiating
a new fifty-two-year cycle before the Conquest.
According to the Codex Telleriano-Remensis (1899:
f. 42r), the Mexica formerly "bound their years" in 1
Rabbit, but in 1506 Motecuhzoma II postponed the
binding of the years until 2 Reed, the next year,
because of repeated famines in 1 Rabbit years. Whether
such a reform actually occurred in 1506 and the exact
nature of the change are unknown (see Umberger, in
press a, appendix). In any case, it can be said that the
Mexica artist's use of the Xochicalco frame was meant
to evoke that site because of its association with the
calendar and the beginning of the fifty-two-year cycle,
on the anniversary of that occasion. Caso (1967: 15)
under the 2 Reed date on
interpreted the numeral eight
the xiuhcoatl heads as indicating the eighth new fire
since the Mexica departure from Aztlan. It is more
likely that the reference is to something that happened
at Xochicalco?perhaps the first cycle beginning in the
1 Rabbit system. If there was a calendric change in
1506 making 2 Reed the more prominent year, perhaps
the Mexica were creating these "antiques" to project
the change into the past.
Antique jade picture-plaques
Another interesting object in the style of Xochicalco,
a small jade plaque (fig. 37 and fig. 3) discovered in
front of the Templo Mayor in 1900, raises special
questions related to jade in Mesoamerica, survivals and
revivals of types, and the interrelationship of figures in
jade and in large-scale reliefs. The jade in question is a
copy of the figures on the Pyramid of the Feathered
Serpents at Xochicalco (fig. 38), which in turn look like
copies of a Maya picture-plaque jade (fig. 39). The two
Figure 35. Date 2 Reed on underside of one of three fire
serpent heads found at the corner of Palma and Cuba Streets
in 1944 and made on the occasion of 1507 New Fire
Ceremony, Mexica, H. 50.8 cm., MNA. Outside the Aztec
style cartouche is a Xochicalco-style frame and numeral
consisting of a bar and three dots (eight).
Figure 36. Ten Reed date on Pyramid of the Feathered
Serpents, Xochicalco.
? ?

Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 93
Figure
37.
Xochicalco-type figure
on Mexica jade picture-plaque discovered by Batres on Escalerillas Street in 1900, H. 10.8 cm.,
MNA. Figure 38. Mayoid figure
on
Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, Xochicalco. By permission of INAH. Figure 39. Maya jade
picture-plaque, Late Classic Period, said to have been collected at Monte Alban, Oaxaca, H. 8.3 cm., Museum of the American
Indian Npw Ynrk
"classic" types of Maya plaques feature a seated figure
with monster maw headdress, with the face either in
profile or frontal. The profile version seems to have
been originally derived from representations of rulers,
which evolved in stone and stucco reliefs at Palenque
(Proskouriakoff 1974: 13). In her study of jades found
in the sacred well at Chichen Itza, Proskouriakoff
suggested that these types were made and buried in the
Late Classic Period, and then were excavated and
offered in the cenote in the Early Postclassic. She
considered the possibility of heirlooms less likely (for a
contrasting view, see Coggins and Shane 1984: 66-68).
It seems that Classic Maya jades like these also traveled
to other parts of Mesoamerica, where they were
deposited in later contexts. Maya jades of various types
have been found in Oaxaca and Veracruz, near
Teotihuacan,77 in Tenochtitlan (fig. 3, no. 6), and
77. Schele and Miller 1986: 122, 130, color pi. 34.
reportedly at Tolcayuca (Cossio 1942: fig. 16).78
Mexican versions of Maya types (fig. 40), usually with
frontal figures in preference to profile figures, have
been found at Monte Alban, Xochicalco, and Tula.
I believe the Xochicalco-style plaque discovered in
Mexico City to be a Mexica carving, although close to
the original reliefs, because of the mittenlike hands,
which are characteristic of the late Aztec style and not
of the Xochicalco models. Jades found at Xochicalco
(Saenz 1963: photo 9) are of frontal figures and do not
relate in any respect to the reliefs on the pyramid, nor
in carving style to the jade in question. The Xochicalco
jades are carved with a grooving technique and the
figures fill the entire space; the Mexico City jade has a
cut-out background, like both Xochicalco and Mexica
78. A Maya carved shell representing a profile seated figure like
those on
jades and on the Xochicalco pyramid
was found near Tula
(Pe?afiel 1900: pi. 80; Schele and Miller 1986: 78, 89, color pi. 5).

94 RES 13 SPRING 87
"S? i

Figure 42. Jade picture-plaque pendant
worn
by Tlaloc in (fig. 29).
pose of Teotihuacan Old Fire God
Figure 43. Rock carving
at
Acacingo representing
figure from picture-plaque jade with dates 1
Rabbit and 2 Reed. After Palacios photograph of
September 1925; unpublished volume, INAH
139, Estado de M?xico: Varios 1, 1922-1929.
2 Reed next to the figure indicate that it was carved in
connection with the cycle change of 1506-1507. The
rock commemorates the same calendrical happening as
the dates on the fire serpent heads and is located in
the general area that Jim?nez Moreno identified as
Tamoanchan, the site of the invention of the calendar.7'
Why the figure from the jade is depicted in connection
with this event is not known.
79. Jim?nez Moreno (1942: 135) suggested that another group of
Aztec-period rock carvings at Coatlan near Cuernavaca (Krickeberg
1969: 95-109, pis. 58-60) relates to the passage in Sahag?n about
the calendrical reform in Tamoanchan. Represented
And this count of days ?
so was it claimed ? was an invention of
the two called and named Oxomoco and Cipactonal.
. . . They
who were readers of day signs embellished their book of days
with their representations.
are two of the
characters mentioned, Cipactonal and Oxomoco, as they are depicted
in the Codex Borbonicus (1974: 21). Another passage in Sahag?n
underlines their connection with the calendar:
Sahag?n 1950-1982: bk. 4, 4
Thus two Aztec rock carvings in the Xochicalco area (the one at
Acacingo definitely Mexica) and three fire serpent heads with
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 95
Ensembles of antiques and archaizing monuments
Before the recent excavations, references to the past
in Mexica art seemed to be eclectic and fragmentary.
However, at the Templo Mayor two structures with
ensembles from the Toltec and Teotihuacan pasts were
revealed. Under the Platform of the Eagles are the
rooms with Toltec-style procession reliefs and ceramic
urns. There was also an almost life-size ceramic
dressed in the fitted costume of an eagle warrior
figure
(Nicholson with Keber 1983: fig. p. 84). The Aztec
warrior cult centered around several groups, the most
prominent of which were the eagle and jaguar warriors,
who fought for the sake of the sun. The eagle itself
was a symbol of the sun, and the jaguar represented
darkness. Eagles with hearts, jaguars, and coyotes
depicted in reliefs at the site of Tula have been
interpreted as the symbols of similar warrior groups. In
archaizing Xochicalco type frames refer primarily to calendrical
matters.

96 RES 13 SPRING 87
addition, the central focus of the bench reliefs was the
zacatapayolli associated with bloodletting,
a practice
invented by Quetzalcoatl (see Klein, in press). So to
create this warrior-related ensemble in Tenochtitlan, the
Mexica looked to Tula.
Across the courtyard is the Teotihuacan-style painted
platform, behind which was found the Tlaloc in the
form of the Old Fire Cod. Both have water imagery and
perhaps were part of an ensemble.80 Other sculptures
found together may have formed similar archaizing
groups. The five "Toltec" warrior figures were found
with reliefs of eagles and jaguars, which unfortunately
have not been published (Moedano K?er 1944: 56;
Noriega 1944; Mateos Higuera 1979: 213-214).81
The three fire serpent heads with Xochicalco-style
cartouches may also have decorated a structure.
Although no building with Xochicalco imagery has
been found, Sahag?n (1950-1982: bk. 2, 2d ed.
revised, 191) mentions a Xochicalco temple in his list
of sacred structures in Tenochtitlan.
It is well known that the center of Tenochtitlan
recreated a mythic landscape, with the Templo Mayor
at the center representing the hill of Coatepec where
Huitzilopochtli was born as the sun. The precinct was
the setting of ceremonial recreation of myths, for
instance, the Panquetzaliztli ceremony, which
reenacted Huitzilopochtli's defeat of his enemy brothers
soon after his birth (Le?n-Portilla 1981: 82, 84). The
archaizing structures referring to the sacred cities
nearby, the sites of legendary and mythic events,
probably were meant to contribute to this setting.
Whether they formed a more coherent pattern in the
plan of Tenochtitlan is not known. The layout of some
80. Eduardo Matos (letter, April 22, 1986) says that the sculpture
was found close to the Red Temple in fill corresponding to Phase VI;
he believes they could have been associated.
81. Some of the eagle and jaguar reliefs may be those published
by Solis (1976: 26, nos. 60-62); others may be canine reliefs at the
Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a. The idea of feline/canine reliefs
and eagle reliefs presumably for setting into a wall dates back to
Toltec times, but the Mexica versions are not close enough to the
prototypes
on Mound B at Tula to be considered copies.
The top of a beautifully carved "stela" (which is actually almost
in-the-round) was found at the same site. Representing
a face
emerging from a monster maw feathered headdress, it may have been
a copy of a Xochicalco type of stela, as suggested by Moedano K?er
(1944: 57). The only
one known represents a female figure. See
Nicholson 1961 : fig. 1, for an illustration of the Mexica sculpture; see
Seler 1960-1961, 2: 157, fig. 64, for an illustration of the Xochicalco
stela. The lack of the lower part of the sculpture makes it difficult to
decide if it is an
archaizing piece,
or even whether it represents a
female (as suggested by Nicholson 1961) or a male.
elements of the city seems to have been a combination
of several ancient cities, with its four-part plan and
west-facing pyramid, like Teotihuacan (possibly even
the double shrines), and its east-to-west alignment of
pyramid, adoratorio, skull rack, and ball court, like
Tula.82
There is a smaller ensemble on Tetzcotzingo (fig.
44), a sacred mountain with a complex of temples and
other structures in the pleasure garden of the rulers of
nearby Tetzcoco, which was created between 1454 and
1467 (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1975: 52). Relevant to the
subject of this paper are three pools of water along the
walkway around the hill, which are identified as
representing different capital cities by the chronicler
Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977, 2: 114-116). The pool
on the south side represented Tenayuca, an older city
on the north shore of Lake Tetzcoco, which was ruled
by the Chichimec ancestors of the kings of Tetzcoco.
The remains of the pool feature a stepped wall, the
hieroglyphic symbol of Tenayuca. On the west end of
the pathway a larger pool, according to the chronicler,
had three frogs around it representing the Aztec Triple
Alliance cities of Tetzcoco, Tenochtitlan, and Tlacopan
(one frog remains). On the north side of the hill the
pool mentioned as representing Tollan must correspond
to a small pool with what appears to be a temple front
behind it (the stairs and one alfarda remain), probably
the emblem of the city. Here the Tetzcocans refer to
both their Chichimec and Toltec pasts in an
architectural ensemble.83
The Mexica as archaeologists and inheritors of the
Mesoamerican past
There are many types of archaisms, and motivating
factors vary greatly. In her seminal article on Andean
antiquarianism, Menzel (1960) contrasts two types
discernible from studies of tomb ceramics in the lea
82. I wonder if the association of the archaizing greenstone death
figure with the small platform in front of the Templo Mayor could
have been meant to recall the Mictlantecuhtli platform in front of the
pyramid at Teotihuacan, which I have hypothesized
was
possibly
associated with the model for the Mexica sculpture (this is
speculative,
as we do not know the original location of the
Teotihuacan sculpture).
83. They may be linking themselves and their allies more
closely
to Tenayuca than to Tula. A canal running from east to west along
the south side of the hill joins the Tenayuca and Aztec pools; the
Tula pool is not part of the system. However, this could actually be
a matter of geography; Tenayuca and the Triple Alliance cities are
around the lake, while Tula is far to the north.

Valley of Peru. The first type involved the collection
and imitation of certain styles of several hundred years
earlier, a form of archaizing popular during the Inca
occupation of the valley. In contrast, after the end of
Inca domination there was a wholesale revival of the
local ceramic style of sixty years earlier and rejection of
the Inca ceramic types that had replaced them. Menzel
does not discuss the problem of changes in meaning,
but there is a contrast in this respect, too. The later
revival brought back elements within memory from
the lea people's own culture, and the forms and
iconography were probably for the most part
understood. The earlier revivals, on the other hand,
were of forms out of memory and pertaining
archaeologically to different cultural configurations.
What did these forms mean to the later people, why
were they revived, and how were they understood? This
is not known in the case of the lea Valley. For the Inca
in Cuzco, however, written evidence and archaizing
objects look back to Tiahuanaco, a revered ancient
city, which played a part in myth as the place of origin
of their royal line and institutions (Tom Cummins,
dissertation in progress).
In Mesoamerica, the specific motivations behind
most evidences of pre-Mexica antiquarianism remain
obscure. There are a few exceptions, all jades, where
context or inscriptions give a clue to the general
intention. Evidence at Teotihuacan and in the Maya
area indicate that both cultures were aware of Olmec
jades as representative of a distinct style. One jade, on
which was commemorated an early Maya king's
accession, was used for dynastic validation through
Triple
Alliance
Cities
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 97
Tenayuca
continuity with the past. In Teotihuacan murals, the
jades pour from hands in streams of water, indicating
the same associations as in Aztec times. The explicit
depiction of Olmec jades indicates that their antiquity
also had significance. The wearing of Olmec pectorals
by the losing warriors in the Cacaxtla and Bonampak
murals is interesting, especially considering the later
depiction of antique jades, derived from Maya types,
on Mexica sculptures. In both cases the exact
significance is unknown.
The Mexica accumulated objects from a number of
ancient cultures, and they were aware of the cultures of
origin, even of works in styles that they did not imitate.
They probably knew the specific sources of the
Guerrero and Mixtee pieces, which most likely came as
loot, tribute, or gifts from conquered areas. In fact, the
Mexica knew more about their origins than we do (few
have been found in context). In the case of Olmec and
Maya jades and greenstone objects, from cultures more
distant in time and space, the evidence so far does
not indicate their identification by the Mexica with
particular cultural configurations. Although the Maya
area was outside the empire, Maya jades could be
found in Central Mexico, albeit not in great numbers.
Whether the Mexica saw any originals besides a few
like the small head illustrated (fig. 3) is unknown.
However, they were familiar with and copied Central
Mexican imitations of Maya jades, which they would
have seen in jade copies and in large stone reliefs.
They seem to have associated such jades with the
"Toltecs" in the general sense, and not a particular
style. The Olmec "heartland" likewise was outside the
Toi Ian
Figure 44. Plan of Tetzcotzingo. After Parsons 1971: 124, fig. 24 (modified).

98 RES 13 SPRING 87
empire, but there was a significant Olmec presence
in Central Mexico and Guerrero (for instance, at
Chalcatzingo and Teopantecuanitlan [see Crossley
1986]). Olmec jades were also buried in graves in
Guerrero, the source of so many other greenstone
objects in Tenochtitlan. Thus the Mexica could have
been exposed to enough Olmec objects to recognize
them as a distinctive style associated with particular
sites.
The ideas behind the burial of so many ancient and
foreign objects in the Templo Mayor are still unclear.
These objects probably signify to some extent Mexica
appropriation from different parts of the empire of
sacred offerings associated with the past or ancestors ?
which in some way validated their imperial claims.
The styles of Tula, Teotihuacan, and Xochicalco
were associated with three ancient cities with particular
associations. These cities had the same place in Mexica
historical thought that a single city had for the Incas.
They were considered places of dynastic, institutional,
cultural, and cosmic beginnings. Their veneration and
specific associations were pre-Mexica, and presumably
the sites were not used by them exclusively in late
times. For example, although Teotihuacan was used
by the Mexica for ceremonies, it was actually in the
jurisdiction of Tetzcoco, and the 1480 relaci?n
indicates that it was used by the people of neighboring
towns. The Mexica, however, were appropriating the
ancient authority of these cities for their own purposes
through their manipulation of art forms.
Late-period knowledge of all three cities was based
on
legends, combined with oral traditions of local
inhabitants nearby, who were familiar with the actual
remains. Unfortunately,
we have "local" reports only
for the Aztec-period functions of the remains at
Teotihuacan. In contrast are the vaguer descriptions and
mythological accounts of events at all three sites, which
reflect a distant view and show more concern for the
place of the city in Aztec thought than for its actual
appearance. At this point it is very difficult to evaluate
the specific naming of areas and sculptures at
Teotihuacan. How much reflects the original situation
at that city and how much was the invention of later
Toltec and Aztec people? One would suppose, as
Mill?n does, that the Teotihuacanos did claim to have
founded their city at the site of the birthplace of the
sun, and that the naming of the Pyramids of the Sun
and Moon relates to their original associations,
although their symbolic elaboration in Teotihuacan
times would have been much more complicated.
Likewise, Xochicalco was associated with the beginning
of the calendar that the Mexica used and probably was
the site of that invention.
More problematical is the identification of sculptures
at the sites with deity names, for instance, the lost
sculpture of Tonacatecuhtli, a god whose Mexica
appearance is not easily identified (see Nagao 1985b),
not to mention his Teotihuacan appearance. Was
Tonacatecuhtli a Teotihuacan deity,
and was the
sculpture a Teotihuacan ?mage, which kept its original
identity? Could a major deity image survive the
holocaust of the final destruction of Teotihuacan? It
seems unlikely. The Tlatelolcans identified a sculpture
collected from Tula as the deity Tlacahuepan, who was
closely associated with both the fall of Quetzalcoatl
and the birth/rise of Huitzilopochtli (see n. 29). Given
the political implications, the identification of this god
with a Toltec sculpture should probably not be taken
seriously. In addition, since the Mexica usually
changed the identity of figures in their imitations of
ancient forms, the continued association of deities with
particular formal types cannot be assumed. Sometimes
they used the same form for different deities (for
instance, the archaizing Teotihuacan death goddesses
and the man and serpent motif), and sometimes
different forms for the same deity (for instance, Tlaloc
in the form of a chacmool and the Teotihuacan Old
Fire God).
The Mexica's earliest imitations derived from the
art of a group with which there was much cultural
continuity (if not total ethnic identity), although there
was a time gap of perhaps 150 years between the fall
of Tula and the founding of Tenochtitlan. It is thus
probable that many Toltec objects were understood.
The history of Aztec relations with Toltec art is long
and complex. Mexica copies are in both early and late
styles and developed out of an earlier widespread
tradition of imitation by various Central Mexican
groups. Some are derived from intermediate
productions rather than being direct copies of Toltec
objects. In fact, it is interesting that even in the late
. period when the Mexica were obviously studying
ancient objects at first hand (as is apparent in the case
of the orange vases, the Teotihuacanoid Tlaloc, and the
Xochicalcoid cartouche), they seemed to prefer to use
as a model their own last version of a form rather than
returning to an original. This is especially apparent in
the late chacmools. On the other hand, details may
reveal new observations of antiques, for instance, in the
depiction of jade pendants. The early Aztec chacmools

were survivals of Toltec forms and were vague
reflections of the originals, whereas the Mexica versions
(even the earliest) sharpen the image and make it
more specific with details of both archaizing and
contemporary significance.
Imitations of Xochicalco and Teotihuacan works
appear relatively late, probably after 1480; known
examples are only in the late fifteenth- to early
sixteenth-century style and were made after a gap of
at least five hundred years for Xochicalco and seven
hundred years for Teotihuacan, with no direct cultural
continuity. It is probable that Teotihuacan- and
Xochicalco-type objects continued after the fall of those
polities, and it is possible that there were early Aztec
imitations, but no certain examples can be identified.84
All Mexica imitations seem to be direct revivals from
ancient objects, presumably studied at or collected
from those sites.
In the case of most archaisms, we have a general
sense of the motivation behind the choice of style and
forms; the connections are often very straightforward,
as in the rooms of Toltec-derived works used by warrior
groups. There are several examples, however, which
served a commemorative purpose and can be linked
to specific events. These were inscribed with or
associated archaeologically with hieroglyphic dates
(the orange vessels, the Malinche reliefs at Tula,
the Teotihuacanoid Tlaloc, the fire serpents with
Xochicalcoid frames, and the Acacingo relief). In
such monuments a tighter fit can be made between
imagery and historical circumstances. The Malinche
reliefs at Tula, for example, were made on the
occasion of a ceremony to stop a flood, and the
connection with Tula and Toltec forms can be seen
as a circumstance of history. The flood started in a
year associated with Quetzalcoatl.
In conclusion, it is obvious that the Mexica knew a
lot about the art and cities of their predecessors; that
they inherited many forms, ideas, and conceptual
structures from the past; that they were sometimes
aware of the sources; and that they linked material
remains to oral traditions. However, it is equally
obvious that their visual knowledge was based on
firsthand observations, and that they modified forms for
their own purposes. Even if they had some awareness
of the original context and associations of an object,
what was most important for them was the purpose
behind their reuse of the object or motif. In
84. See n. 76 on possible Xochicalco connections with Aztec
groups in the southeastern area.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 99
Mesoamerica, the physical remains of an ancient
culture and oral traditions about it had separate
histories. While the Pyramids of the Sun and Moon,
the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpents, and various
structures at Tula remained visible, many objects went
out of view (literally or figuratively) and were not the
focus of attention until late Preconquest times, when
they were again studied by Mexica "archaeologists."
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank the following for their assistance in
the preparation of this article. Elizabeth Boone, Dorie Reents,
Debra Nagao, Wendy Schonfeld, Michael Smith, and
Francesco Pellizzi read drafts and made helpful suggestions,
which I have incorporated. I am additionally grateful to Janet
Berlo and Rose Hauer for editorial comments. Robert Cobean,
Fernando Robles, and Christian Feest shared their knowledge
of Toltec ceramics, and Patricia Sarro, of Teotihuacan
sculptures. Eduardo Matos very kindly provided information
and photographs of objects discovered at the Templo Mayor,
and Wendy Schonfeld and Debra Nagao researched other
objects in Mexico. I am especially grateful to Tom Cummins
for many stimulating discussions of the general questions
involved, for editorial comments, and for suggestions that
greatly improved the introduction. Research and writing were
accomplished during a fellowship at Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, D.C., 1985-1986. Photographsand drawings
are
by the author, unless otherwise noted.
Quotations
are
transcribed as published, without
or diacritical marks.
standardization of spelling
This work is dedicated to John, Peggy, Sally,
REFERENCES
and Mother.
Abbreviations used: BAR = British Archaeological Reports;
ICA = International Congress of Americanists; IN AH =
Instituto Nacional de Antropolog?a e Historia, Mexico; MNA
= Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a, Mexico; RMEA =
Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol?gicos; UNAM
=
Universidad Nacional Aut?noma de M?xico.
Acosta, Jorge R.
1940 Exploraciones en Tula, Hgo.,
172-194.
1940. RMEA 4(3):

100 RES 13 SPRING 87
1941 Los ?ltimos descubrimientos arqueol?gicos en Tula,
Hgo., 1941. RMEA 5(2-3): 239-248.
1942- La tercera
temporada de exploraciones arqueol?gicos
1944 en Tula, Hgo., 1942. RMEA 6(3): 125-160.
1945 La cuarta y quinta temporadas de excavaciones en
Tula, Hgo. RMEA 7: 23-64.
1956 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones
arqueol?gicas en Tula, Hgo. durante las VI, Vil y
VIII temporadas, 1946-1950. Anales del INAH
8(37), 1954: 37-115.
1956- Interpretaci?n de algunos de los datos obtenidos en
1957 Tula relativos a la ?poca tolteca. RMEA 14: 75-110.
1957 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones
arqueol?gicas
en Tula, Hgo., durante las IX y X
temporadas,
169.
1953-54. Anales del INAH 9: 119
1960 Las exploraciones
en Tula, Hgo., durante la XI
temporada, 1955. Anales del INAH 11: 39-72.
1961 La doceava temporada de exploraciones
en Tula,
Hgo. Anales del INAH 13: 29-58.
1964 La decimotercera temporada de exploraciones en
Tula, Hgo. Anales del INAH 16: 45-76.
Ahuja O., Guillermo
1982 Excavaci?n de la c?mara II. In El Templo Mayor:
excavaciones y estudios, edited by Eduardo Matos
Moctezuma, pp. 191-220. INAH, Mexico.
Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de
1975- Obras hist?ricas, 2 vols. Instituto de Investigaciones
1977 Hist?ricas, UNAM.
Alvarado Tezozomoc, Hernando
1975 Cr?nica mexicana, 2d ed. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan
1973 Anales de Cuauhtitlan. In C?dice Chimalpopoca.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan y Leyenda de los Soles,
translated by Primo Feliciano Vel?zquez, 2d ed.,
pp. 3-68. Instituto de Investigaciones Hist?ricas,
UNAM.
Anawalt, Patricia
1985 The Ethnic History of the Toltecs as Reflected in
Their Clothing. Indiana 10, Gedenkschrift Gerdt
Kutscher, part
2: 129-145.
Arroyo de Anda, Juis Aveleyra
1963 La estela teotihuacana de La Ventilla. MNA, INAH.
Barlow, R. H.
1946 The Malinche of Acacingo, Estado de Mexico. Notes
on Middle American Archaeology
(65): 31-33.
and Ethnology 3
Batres, Leopoldo
1902 Exploraciones arqueol?gicas en la Calle de las
Escalerillas, A?o de 1900. J. Aguilar Vera, Mexico.
Becker-Donner, Etta
1965 Die Mexikanischen Sammlungen des Museums f?r
V?lkerkunde, Wien. Museum f?r V?lkerkunde,
Vienna.
Berger, Richard L.
1976 The Moche Sources of Archaism in Chimu Ceramics.
?awpa Pacha 14: 95-104.
Berlo, Janet Catherine
1983 Conceptual Categories for the Study of Texts and
Images in Mesoamerica. In Text and Image in Pre
Columbian Art. Essays
on the
Interrelationship of the
Verbal and Visual Arts, edited by Janet Catherine
Berlo, pp. 1-39. BAR International Series, no. 180.
Oxford,
in In Tlilli, In Tlapalli before 1000 a.D.: A Review of
press Early Writing in Central Mexico. In Cultural
Relations in Mesoamerica After the Decline of
Teotihuacan, edited by Richard A. Diehl.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Bernai, Ignacio
1969 Museo Nacional de Antropolog?a: Arqueolog?a.
Aguilar,
Mexico.
Beyer, Hermann
1922 Arquitectura y escultura. In La poblaci?n del Valle
de Teotihuacan, Manuel Gamio, vol. 1, pp. 99
174. Secretar?a de Agricultura y Fomento, Direcci?n
de Antropolog?a, Mexico.
1955 La 'procesi?n de los se?ores', decoraci?n del primer
teocali i de piedra en M?xico-Tenochtitl?n.
Antiquo 8: 1-42.
El M?xico
Boone, Elizabeth Hill
1985 The Color of Mesoamerican Architecture and
Sculpture. In Painted Architecture and Polychrome
Monumental Sculpture in Mesoamerica, edited by
Elizabeth Hill Boone, pp. 173-186. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Brainerd, George W.
1958 The Archaeological Ceramics of Yucatan. University
of California Publications, Anthropological Records,
vol. 19.
Carrasco, David
1982 Quetzalcoatl and the Irony of Empire. Myths and
Prophecies in the Aztec Tradition. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

Caso, Alfonso
1967 Los calendarios prehisp?nicos. Instituto de
Investigaciones Hist?ricas, UNAM.
Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin,
de San Ant?n Mu??n
Don Francisco
1965 Relaciones originales de Chalco Amaquemecan,
paleography and translation by S. Rend?n. Fondo de
Cultural Econ?mica, Mexico.
Cobean, Robert
1974 The Ceramics of Tula. In Studies of Ancient Tollan:
A Report of the University of Missouri Tula
Archaeological Project, edited by Richard A. Diehl.
University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology,
no. 1, pp. 32-41. Department of Anthropology,
University of 1978
Missouri, Columbia.
The Pre-Aztec Ceramics of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
Harvard University.
Codex Borbonicus
1974 Codex Borbonicus, commentary by Karl Anton
Nowotny. Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt,
Graz.
Codex Telleriano-Remensis
1899 Codex Telleriano-Remensis, introduction by
E.-T. Hamy. Paris.
Coe, Michael D.
1966 An Early Stone Pectoral From Southeastern Mexico.
Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology,
no. 1. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1981 San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan. In Supplement to the
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1,
Archaeology, edited by Victoria Reif 1er Bricker,
Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Patricia A. Andrews, pp.
117-146. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Coe, Michael D., and Richard A. Diehl
1980 In the Land of the Olmec. The Archaeology o? San
Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, 2 vols. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
Coggins, Clemency C, and Orrin C. Shane III (editors)
1984 Cenote of Sacrifice. Maya Treasures from the Sacred
Well at Chich?n Itza. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
Coss?o, Jos? L.
1942 Ruinas arqueol?gicas de Tolcayuca, Hidalgo.
Sociedad Mexicana de Geograf?a y Estad?stica,
Bolet?n 56(2): 17-34.
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 101
Crossley, Mimi
1986 Ancient Olmec Site Unearthed in Mexico. The
Washington Post, April 26, A1 and A14.
Davies, Nigel
1977 The Toltecs, Until the Fall of Tula. University of
Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1980 The Toltec Heritage, From the Fall of Tula to the Rise
of Tenochtitlan. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
1984 The Aztec Concept of History: Teotihuacan and
Tula. In The Native Sources and the History of the
Valley of Mexico, edited by Jacqueline de Durand
Forest, pp. 207-214. BAR International Series, no.
204. Oxford.
Diehl, Richard A.
1981 Tula. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle
American Indians, vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by
Victoria Reifler Bricker, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and
Patricia A. Andrews, pp. 277-295. University of
Texas Press, Austin.
1983 Tula, The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico. Thames
and Hudson, New York.
Drucker, Philip
1955 The Cerro de las Mesas Offering of ?ade and
Other Materials. Bureau of American Ethnology,
Anthropological Papers, no. 44, Bulletin 157, pp.
25-68. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Dupaix, Guillermo
1978 Atlas de fas Antiqu?dades Mexicanas . . . San Angel
Ediciones,
Mexico.
Duran, Fray Diego
1964 The Aztecs. The History of the Indies of New Spain,
translated by Doris Heyden and Fernando
Horcasitas. Orion Press, New York.
1967 Historia de las indias de Nueva Espa?a e islas de la
Tierra Firme, edited by Angel Mar?a Garibay K.,
2 vols. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.
Easby, Elizabeth Kennedy, and John F. Scott
1970 Before Cortes. Sculpture of Middle America.
Metropolitan
Museum of Art, New York.
Greenhalgh, Michael
1978 The Classical Tradition in Art. Harper and Row, New
York.
Grove, David C.
1984 Chalcatzingo. Excavations on the Olmec Frontier.
Thames and Hudson, London.

102 RES 13 SPRING 87
Gussinyer, Jordi
1970a Un adoratorio dedicado a Tlaloc. Bolet?n del INAH
39: 7-12.
1970b Un adoratorio azteca decorado con pinturas. Bolet?n
del INAH 40: 30-35.
Hern?ndez Pons, Elsa C.
1982 Sobre un conjunto de esculturas asociadas a las
escalinatas del Templo Mayor. In El Templo Mayor:
excavaciones y estudios, edited by Eduardo Matos
Moctezuma, pp. 221-232. INAH, Mexico.
Heyden, Doris
1975 An Interpretation of the Cave Underneath the
Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan, Mexico.
American Antiquity 40(2): 131-147.
1983 Reeds and Rushes: From Survival to Sovereigns. In
Flora and Fauna Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures.
Iconography and Function, edited by Jeanette F.
Peterson, pp. 93-112. BAR International Series, No.
171, Oxford.
Hirth, Kenneth
1984 Xochicalco: Urban Growth and State Formation in
Central Mexico. Science 225 (4662): 579-586.
Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas
1973 Historia de los mexicanos por sus pinturas. In
Teogonia
e historia de los mexicanos: Tres op?sculos
del siglo XVI, edited by Angel Mar?a Garibay K., pp.
23-66. Editorial Porr?a, Mexico.
Histoyre du Mechique
1905 Histoyre du Mechique. Manuscrit fran?ais in?dit du
XVIe si?cle, published by M. Edouard de Jonghe.
Journal de ?a Soci?t? des Americanistes de Paris n.s.
2(1): 1-41.
Hodge, Mary G.
1984 Aztec City-States. Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology,
Michigan,
no.
18, vol. 3. University of
Ann Arbor.
Jim?nez Moreno, Wigberto
1941 El problema de Tula. I Mesa Redonda, Bolet?n No.
1: 2-8.
1942 El enigma de los olmecas. Cuadernos Americanos 5:
113-145.
1959 Xochicalco y las influencias mayenses. Tamoanchan
y los "Tlamatinime." In El Esplendor del M?xico
Antiquo, edited by Carmen C. de Leonard, vol. 2,
pp. 1072-1073. Centro de Investigaciones
Antropol?gicas de M?xico, Mexico.
Klein, Cecelia F.
in Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. In The Aztec
press Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Krickeberg, Walter
1969 Felsbilder Mexicos als Historische, Religi?se und
Kunstdenkm?ler. Verlag von Dietrich Reimer in
Berlin.
Kubler, George
1967 The Iconography of the Art of Teotihuacan. Studies
in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology,
no. 4.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1973 Science and Humanism among Americanists. In The
Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, pp.
163-167. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
1977 Renascence and Disjunction in the Art of
Mesoamerican Antiquity. In Ornament, Via III:
Journal of the Graduate School of Fine Arts,
University of Pennsylvania, edited by Stephen
Kieran, pp. 31-41.
1982 The Mazap?n Maps of Teotihuacan in 1560.
Indiana 7, Gedenkschrift Walter Lehmann, part 2:
43-55.
Le?n-Portilla, Miguel
1981 Los testimonios de la historia. In El Templo Mayor,
by Jos? L?pez Portillo, Miguel Le?n-Portilla, and
Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, pp. 34-101. Beatrice
Trueblood,
Mexico.
L?pez Austin, Alfredo
in The Masked God of Fire. In The Aztec Templo
press Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
L?pez Portillo, Jos?; Miguel Le?n-Portilla; and Eduardo Matos
1981 El Templo Mayor. Beatrice Trueblood, Mexico.
Lyon, Patricia J.
1966 Innovation Through Archaism; the Origins of the lea
Pottery Style. Nawpa Pacha 4: 31-61.
Martinez Vargas, Enrique, and Ana Mar?a Jarqu?n Pacheco
1982 Arquitectura y sistemas constructivos de la fachada
posterior de la Ciudadela. An?lisis preliminar. In
Teotihuacan 80-82. Primeros resultados, edited by
Rub?n Cabrera Castro, Ignacio Rodr?guez Garc?a,
and Noel Morelos Garc?a, pp. 41-47. INAH,
Mexico.

Mateos Higuera, Salvador
1979 Herencia arqueolog?a de M?xico-Tenochtitl?n. In
Trabajos Arqueol?gicos en el centro de la Ciudad de
M?xico (Antolog?a), edited by Eduardo Matos
Moctezuma, pp. 205-273. INAH, Mexico.
Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo
1964 El adoratorio decorado de las Calles de Argentina.
Anales del INAH 17: 127-138.
1978 El Proyecto Templo Mayor. Antropolog?a e Historia
24 (Bolet?n del INAH, ?p. (3): 3-17.
1979 Una m?scara olmeca en el Templo Mayor de
Tenochtitlan. Anales de Antropolog?a 16:11-19.
1981a Una Visita al Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. INAH,
Mexico.
1981b Los hallazgos de la arqueolog?a. In El Templo
Mayor, by Jos? Lopez Portillo, Miguel Le?n-Portilla,
and Eduardo Matos, pp. 106-181. Beatrice
Trueblood, Mexico.
1984a Gu?a oficial, Templo Mayor. INAH-SALVAT, Mexico.
1984b Los edificios aleda?os al Templo Mayor. In Estudios
de Cultura N?huatl 17: 15-21.
Mayer, Branz
1844 Mexico As It Was and As It Is. New World Press,
New York.
Melgarejo Vivanco, Jos? Luis
1970 Los lienzos de Tuxpan. Editorial La Estampa
Mexicana,
Mexico.
Menzel, Dorothy
1960 Archaism and Revival on the South Coast of Peru. In
Selected Papers of the Fifth International Congress
of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences,
Philadelphia, September 1-9, 1956, edited by
Anthony F. C. Wallace, pp. 596-600. University of
Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.
Miller, Arthur G.
1973 The Mural Painting
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Miller, Mary Ellen
of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton
1985 A Re-examination of the Mesoamerican Chacmool.
Art Bulletin 67(1): 7-17.
1986 The Murals of Bonampak. Princeton University Press.
Mill?n, Ren?
1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Vol. 1, The
Teotihuacan Map, part 1, text. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
1976 Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacan. In The
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 103
Valley of Mexico. Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology
and Society, edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 205-248.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In
Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by Victoria
Reifler Bricker, Jeremy A. Sabloff, and Patricia A.
Andrews, pp. 193-243. University of Texas Press,
Austin,
in The Last Years of Teotihuacan. In The Collapse of
press Ancient Civilizations, edited by George Cowgill and
Norman Yoffee. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
Moedano K?er, Hugo
1944 ?La cultura azteca es realmente azteca? Significaci?n
de los ?ltimos hallazgos arqueol?gicos en la ciudad
de M?xico. Hoy, November 4: 54-57.
1947 El friso de los caciques. Anales del ?NAH 2, 1941
46: 113-136.
Motolinia, or Fray Toribio de Benevente
1971 Memoriales, o libro de las cosas de la Nueva Espa?a
y de ?os naturales de e?a, edited by Edmundo
O'Gorman. UNAM, Mexico.
Murck, Christian F. (editor)
1976 Uses of the Past in Chinese Culture. Artists and
Traditions. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
Mus?e du Petit Palais
1981 Mexique d'Hier et dAujourd'hui. Minist?re de
Relations Ext?rieures, Paris.
Nagao, Debra
1985a Mexica Buried Offerings.
A Historical and Contextual
Analysis. BAR, International Series, no. 235. Oxford.
1985b The Planting of Sustenance: Symbolism of the Two
Horned God in Offerings from the Templo Mayor.
Res 10: 5-27.
Nercessian, Nora
1983 Renaissance, Residues, and Other Remains: Some
Comments on the Arts in the Twelfth Century. Res 5:
23-39.
Nicholson, H. B.
1956 The Temalacatl of Tehuac?n. E? M?xico Antiguo 8:
95-134.
1961 An Outstanding Aztec Sculpture of the Water
Goddess. The Masterkey 35(2): 44-55.
1971 Major Sculpture in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10,

104 RES 13 SPRING 87
Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, part 1,
edited by Robert Wauchope, Gordon F. Ekholm, and
Ignacio Bernai, pp. 92-134. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
1976 Preclassic Mesoamerican Iconography from the
Perspective of the Postclassic: Problems in
Interpretational Analysis. In Origins of Religious Art
and ?conography in Prec lassie Mesoamerica, edited
by H. B. Nicholson, pp. 159-175. UCLA Latin
American Center Publications, Ethnic Arts Council of
in
Los Angeles,
Symposium on the Aztec Templo Mayor: Discussion.
press In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill
Boone. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Nicholson, H. B., and Rainer Berger
1968 Two Aztec Wood Idols: Iconographie and
Chronologic Analysis. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art
and Archaeology,
Washington, D.C.
no. 5. Dumbarton Oaks,
Nicholson, H. B., with Eloise Qui?ones Keber
1983 Art of Aztec Mexico, Treasures of Tenochtitlan.
National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.
Noriega, Ra?l
1944 El nexo cultural entre los aztecas y toltecas. El
Nacional, November 4: 2.
Nowotny, Karl A.
1959 Americana. Archiv f?r V?lkerkunde 14: 132-137.
Padden, R. C.
1970 The Hummingbird and the Hawk. Harper and Row,
New York.
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco
Region, Mexico. Memoirs of the Museum of
Anthropology,
Arbor.
no. 3. University of Michigan, Ann
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del
1905- Papeles de Nueva Espa?a, Segunda Serie, Geograf?a
1906 y Estad?stica, 6 vols. (vols. 1 and 3-7). Tipogr?fico
Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid.
1905- Fray Bernardino de Sahag?n: Historia de las cosas de
1907 Nueva Espa?a, 4 vols. (vols. 5-8). Hauser y Menet,
Madrid.
Pasztory, Esther
in The Aztec Tlaloc: God of Antiquity. In publication
press dedicated to Thelma Sullivan, edited by Kathryn
Josserand and others. BAR International Series.
Oxford.
Pe?afiel, Antonio
1900 Teotihuacan. Estudio hist?rico y arqueol?gico.
Oficina Tipogr?fica de la Secretar?a de Fomento,
Mexico.
Peterson, Jeanette Favrot
1983 Sacrificial Earth: The Iconography and Function of
Malinalli Grass in Aztec Culture. In Flora and Fauna
Imagery in Precolumbian Cultures. Iconography and
Function, edited by Jeanette F. Peterson, pp. 113
148. BAR International Series, no. 171. Oxford.
Pierce, Donna L.
1981 Identification of the Warriors in the Frescoes of
Ixmiquilpan. Research Center for the Arts Review
4(4): 1-8.
Proskouriakoff, Tatiana
1968 Olmec and Maya Art: Problems of their Stylistic
Relation. In Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the
Olmec, edited by Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 119
134. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
1974 lades from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza,
Yucatan. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of
Archaeology and Ethnology,
University, Cambridge.
Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum
vol. 10,
no. 1. Harvard
1986 Glanz und Untergang des Alten Mexiko, 2 vols.
Verlag Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein.
Romero R., Erica Ma. Eugenia
1982 Evidencias post-teotihuacanas
en el lado este de
la Ciudadela. In Teotihuacan 80-82. Primeros
Resultados, edited by Rub?n Cabrera Castro, Ignacio
Rodr?guez Garc?a, and Noel Morelos Garc?a, pp.
149-154. INAH, Mexico.
Rowe, John H.
1971 The Influence of Chav?n Art on Later Styles. In
Dumbarton Oaks Conference on Chavin, edited by
Elizabeth P. Benson, pp. 101-124. Dumbarton
Oaks, Washington, D.C.
S?enz, C?sar A.
1962 Xochicalco. Temporada 1960. INAH.
1963a Nuevos descubrimientos en Xochicalco, Morelos.
Bolet?n del ?NAH 11: 3-7.
1963b Exploraciones en la pir?mide de las serpientes
emplumadas, Xochicalco. RMEA 19: 7-25.

1964 Ultimos descubrimientos en Xochicalco. INAH.
1967 El fuego nuevo. INAH, Mexico.
Sahag?n, Fray Bernardino de
1950- Florentine Codex. General History of the Things of
1982 New Spain, translated and edited by Arthur J. O.
Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, 12 bks. in 13 vols.
Monographs of the School of American Research,
no. 40. The School of American Research and the
University of Utah Press, Santa Fe.
Schele, Linda, and Mary Ellen Miller
1986 The Blood of Kings. Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art.
Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth.
S?journ?, Laurette
1959 Un palacio en la ciudad de ios dioses, [Teotihuacan].
INAH.
1970 Arqueolog?a del Valle de M?xico, I. Culhuacan.
INAH.
Seier, Eduard
1960- Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen
1961 Sprach- und Alterthumskunde. 5 vols. Akademische
Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz (reprint of 1902-23
edition, A. Asher und Co. and Behrend und Co.,
Berlin).
Solis O., Felipe R.
1976 La escultura mexica del Museo de Santa Cecilia
Acatitl?n, Estado de M?xico. INAH, Mexico.
Thouvenet, Marc
1982 Chalchihuitl. Le ?ade chez ?es Azt?ques. Mus?e de
l'Homme,
Paris.
Townsend, Richard Fraser
1979 State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan. Studies
in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology,
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
no. 20.
Umberger, Emily
1981 Aztec Sculptures, Hieroglyphs, and History. Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Art History and
Umberger: Antiques, revivals, and references to the past in Aztec art 105
Archaeology, Columbia University. University
Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
1984 El trono de Moctezuma. Estudios de Cultura N?huatl
in
17: 63-87.
Events Commemorated by Date Plaques at the
press Templo Mayor: A Reconsideration of the Solar
a Metaphor. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by
Elizabeth Hill Boone. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,
D.C.
in A Reconsideration of Some Hieroglyphs on the Aztec
press Calendar Stone. Book dedicated to Thelma Sullivan,
b edited by Kathryn Josserand and others, BAR
International Series. Oxford.
Von Staden, Heinrich
1976 Nietzsche and Marx on Greek Art and Literature:
Case Studies in Reception. Daedalus 105(1): 79-96.
Von Winning, Hasso
1960 A Chac Mool Sculpture from Tlascala, Mexico. The
Masterkey 34 (2): 50-55.
n.d. El simbolismo del arte funerario en Teotihuacan.
Unpublished paper presented at the Coloquio
Internacional de Historia del Arte, Mexico, D.F.,
1980.
Willey, Gordon R.
1973 Mesoamerican Art and Iconography and the Integrity
of the Mesoamerican Ideological System. In The
Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, pp.
153-162. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.
Winter, Irene J.
1977 Perspective on the "Local Style" of Hasanlu IVB: A
Study in Receptivity. In Mountains and Lowlands:
Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia,
edited by Louis D. Levine and T. Cuyler Young, Jr.,
pp. 371-386. Undena Publications, Malibu.
Wray, Donald E.
1945 The Historical Significance of the Murals in the
Temple of the Warriors, Chichen Itza. American
Antiquity 11: 25-27.