\ 
 
 
 
 W' 
 
 
 "Ä'ri 
 
 
 ^m. 
 
 
 :«Ei'i 
 
 
 
 
 mi 
 
 
 m
 
 ORBIS PICTUS/THE UNIVERSAL LIBRARY OF ART 
 EDITED BY PAUL WESTHEIM 
 
 VOL. VIII 
 
 THE .HISTORY OF 
 ANCIENT MEXICAN ART 
 
 AN ESSAY IN OUTLINE 
 
 BY 
 
 WALTER LEHMANN, M. D., PH.D., ETC. 
 
 DIRECTOR OF THE ETHNOLOGICAL INSTITUTE OF 
 THE BERLIN ETHNOGRAPHICAL MUSEUM 
 
 19 2 2 
 NEW-YORK BRENTANO'S PUBLISHERS
 
 PRINTED BY SPAMER, LEIPSIC
 
 F 
 ISZalB. 
 
 TO 
 MY PARENTS'IN-LAW
 
 Introduction. 
 
 It is incumbent on the history of art to work upon fixed basic principles 
 applicable to the manifestations of many peoples. 
 
 Culture is creative. Civilization is exhausted. The former is productive. The 
 latter paramountly reproductive. Thus civilization tends both to syncretism and 
 archaism. 
 
 The creative part of culture is inherent in that which is artistic. The essence 
 of art raises both the question of generalities and particularities. All art should 
 be judged, examined and comprehended simultaneously from the point of view of 
 humanity, as well as of a people and its representative, the creative artist. 
 
 No matter the art of which people be examined, it will always be found 
 on closer investigation of phenomena, either similar or dissimilar, that the path 
 leads to something common and superior to both: the enigma of art manifestation 
 per se. 
 
 The final approach must be the task of philosophy beyond historical and 
 ethnographical investigation. The enigma is rooted in the soul. 
 
 Indeed, every form of art is the expression of either the individual soul, 
 or that of a generality. And here we discover a very peculiar reciprocity between 
 both. The individual artist is able to move the masses. On the other hand the 
 indistinct sentient life of a nation crystalizes in the artist. Though It is not 
 necessary that his name be handed down to posterity. Nor is this the case with 
 folk-songs for instance. Personal art is always imbued with the Impersonal. 
 For the genius of the artist and that of a people, if united, always finds its 
 ultimate human expression In creations which, as something etemeJ, outlasts the 
 mutation of time. 
 
 What Is eternal? — The Ideas which are the foundation of all universal 
 phenomena, and therefore evolve the form problems of art. 
 
 Art Is the power to embody ideas In a creative form, and to erect something 
 permanent, though perishable In Its exterior In the ever-flowing course of time. 
 
 A general view of man's multifarious art expression shows. In spite of all 
 the peculiarities of peoples, that there are certain characteristics which permit 
 us to speak of art styles, and great periods In the history of art. It Is perhaps a 
 moot question as to how far it Is permissible to speak here of a history of 
 development, although an Irrefutable sequence Is recognizable, showing an historical 
 course In a given movement which we term time.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 A succession of styles is observable, both with the individual artist, peoples, and 
 groups of peoples. 
 
 It is important to remark, that pure and applied art, now travelling different 
 roads throughout nearly the whole of Europe, are, with other peoples, more or 
 less distinctly connected. 
 
 High art in the European sense of the word is the expression of the spiritual 
 experience of the individual in which the work of art is both created and enjoyed 
 for its own sake. Applied art is in the same sense of the word pronouncedly 
 utilitarian. In both cases the aim is that of the embodiment of ideas. For the 
 Greek "Charioteer", as well as an axe, cu^ both, in their way, embodied ideas. 
 
 Style is, so to say, the handwriting of a cultured epoch in which recognizable 
 or unrecognizable individuals produce works of art. Personal style is the master 9 
 handwriting. 
 
 The transference of art subjects to handicrafts is nearly always styleless, 
 and a particular evil of our new age of machinery, which, by its highly developed 
 technical ability facilitates any reproduction and nonsensical transference to the most 
 varied material. 
 
 Style is the peculiar form of a work of art. On the other hand, con\'entionalizing 
 of forms is the intentional or unintentional artistic changing of nature's forms 
 and expressions. 
 
 All art is in so far impressionistic as it has its origin in exterior impressions; 
 no one can evade these. The work of art thus created is a connecting-link inserted 
 in an uninterrupted sequence between the external world and man. 
 
 Expressionism however — whether naive or designing — holds that it 
 can create straight from the soul a work of art devested of any intervening 
 medium by disregarding all possible exterior impressions. Such a production finally 
 appears to be in no connection whatsoever with the palpable world. Pure 
 expressionism might be regarded as the art of metaphysics. As absolute 
 space is dealt \rith by metaphysics, such a phenomenon, as for instance cubism, 
 becomes psychologically comprehensible. And, as further, absolute space forms a 
 synchronic continuity, we can also approach nearer to the intention of modern artists 
 who attempt to represent a sequence of events confined in space, as may be sometimes 
 observed in the case of the simple mediaevel legend painters. As however the works 
 of high creative art, plastic and graphic, are really not time-bound in only retaining 
 one moment, the amalgamation of time and space in plastic and graphic art in 
 one and the same work is a characteristic of the primitive, or a voluntary 
 harking back to the same. 
 
 I understand by impressionism a preponderating influence in the artist's work 
 from without, and by expressionism that from within.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 The fundamental form of impressionism is naturalism, for nature was, and 
 remains, the eternal teacher of mankind. Small wonder then that just the most 
 primitive drawings, as for instance the ancient Altamira cave paintings, are possessed 
 of an extraordinary vividness of impression. They are pictures of nature based 
 upon the most acute power of observation emanatmg from the close connection of 
 primitive man with nature. 
 
 The naive grasping of the essential in vivid momentar>' movements (closely - 
 akin to caricature) is characteristic. It is clear that we have here, as is the 
 case with bushmen's and other drawings, a certain psychic mood and form of 
 human thought reacting to momentary phenomena in nature with complete psychic 
 devotion. I term, the art of this attitude to the universe (W eltanscliauung) primary 
 naturalism. Sharply contrasted to this are the restricted and limited patterns 
 enforced by the technique of plaiting and weavmg at a period when man was possessed 
 of a developed handicraft. As, ethnologically, the pot developed from the basket, 
 woven patterns were transferred to ceramic, and were thus changed in variouls 
 v^^manners. I call this style primary plectogene geometrical. 
 
 Since the introduction of plaiting, weaving, and pottery, both styles begin 
 to influence each other, and in doing so, it is probable that originally different 
 and distinct cultural spheres reacted mutually on one another through amalgamation, 
 trade relations, migration and other causes. 
 
 It is possible, for instance, in the case of ancient Peruvian art to distinctly * = 
 recognize the two above-mentioned styles, as well as their mutual exchange of 
 influence. 
 
 Plectogene geometrical patterns undergo a secondary naturalistic change on 
 adoption, as human imagination easily conceives e. g. a square having another little one 
 within it, to be an eye. This secondary plectogene style is geometncal- 
 naturalistic. 
 
 On the other hzmd, naturalistic motives are conventionalized owing to a 
 i^ more reflective and more recent observation of nature. This is a form of observing 
 nature, as conceived and reproduced by means of memory, rather than an observation 
 of what appears actually and at first hand. Associative modifications of the 
 pattern result. And finally, that mode of viewing the universe, which is pondered 
 and mythological, creates an art more or less richly vested with symbols and — 
 ^attributes (mostly of the gods). This conventionalized naturalism as met with, 
 for instance, in ancient Mexico, may be designated as a priestly or hierarchical art. *- 
 
 If the secondary naturalistic plectogene patterns are tranferred to ceramic, the 
 rigid form becomes less rigid, and naturalistic geometncal productions result. 
 
 Again, another form of naturalism developing to a conscious return to the 
 nature of primitive man, is the mature and supermature naturalism of the most 
 cultured peoples. It alone really knows the emotional landscapes and the spiritualized
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 portrait. It is rational (one in many) in its classical or classicizing form, irrational 
 in its romantic form (many in one). 
 
 The exhaustion of impressionism leads to expressionism, which, in a way, 
 is suppressed naturalism, and may perhaps pave the way for a new romanticism. 
 
 Mexico. 
 
 It is only possible within the disposable space to attempt an essay in outline 
 of the historj' of Mexican art in view of the difficult archaeological conditions in 
 this extensive country, and because of the very complicated historical statements made 
 in old sources which are hardly yet even sifted. In order to obtain a more or less 
 comprehensive survey of the various styles and time-epochs on Mexican soil, it is 
 necessar}' to unroll the variegated scroll of the many peoples, among whom the 
 Mexican-speaking inhabitants of the plateau, and the Maya tribes have left important 
 historical traditions and monuments. 
 
 We shall not go amiss in presuming that the differentiation from Mexican 
 style amongst the neighbouring peoples is based on special peculiarities which 
 they were originally possessed of. In doing so we must further consider that the 
 'Mexicans themselves have passed through various style-periods during which they 
 influenced the peoples surrounding them. 
 
 It seems more stimulating in deahng with this obscure field of art to offer a 
 comprehensive view of the peoples in question, as well as of their history, rather 
 than a detailed appreciation of the artistic value of each picture reproduced 
 m this little volume; pictures of works of art. be it said, that were rigidly 
 selected, and which certainly speak very distinctly for themselves. Questions of 
 style dealt with from the view-point of the history of art are now for the first 
 time chronologically arranged in the appended table. The writer trusts that this 
 volume, together with its bibliography, may facilitate an introduction into ancient 
 American art. 
 
 General View. 
 
 L Non^Mexicans, 
 
 The ancient inhabitants of Mexico are divided into two main groups: Mexicans 
 and Non-Mexicans. The former can be arranged in two strata which are linguisti- 
 cally, archaeologically, ethnographically, and chronologically quite distinct from one 
 another.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 The Toltecs or Nahuas (Chichimeca Mochanecatoca in Sahagun's Hist, de 
 la Cosas de la Nueva Espana) form the older stratum of the Mexicans with 
 dialects distinguished by the T sound in place of the Tl. Their language was, or 
 is Nahuat. The latter stratum is formed by the Nahuatlacs, to whom the Aztecs 
 belong. They have the mute Tl sound, and speak Nahuatl. 
 
 The Sonoras and the Shoshonees are elder relations of both. As the Mexicans 
 of both strata immigrated to the Mexican highlands, we shall first deal with the 
 Non-Mexican peoples. They either also immigrated in archaic times, or are there 
 so long that they may be regarded as autochthonous. To these belong chiefly 
 the peoples of the great Otomi group, further the Mixteco-Tzapotecs, Mixe- 
 Zoques, Huaves and Mayas, as well as the Totonacs and Tarascs (whose linguistic 
 position remains undecided), although these two latter are also sometimes mentioned 
 in the migration myths as "arrivals". 
 
 Of the northern frontier tribes mention should be made of the representatives 
 of the great families of Athabascans or Tinne stretching far to the south. The 
 chief body of these tribes is settled in the north-west of the continent. The best- 
 known of the southernmost Athabascans are the Apachees between the Rio Grande 
 del Norte and the Upper Rio Gila. In the remote west — in the south-west of 
 the United States on the Lower Colorado, on the Rio Gila, and in the neigh- 
 bouring territories — we find the Yumas as a particular stock, including the 
 Mohaves, Cocopas, Cochimis (of Lower Cahfornia) besides the Sen on the 
 Tiburon island and enclaved on part of the opposite Mexican mainland (in the Pima 
 district). This neglected group is particularly important owing to its relationship on 
 the one hand with the Chontals of Oaxaca in the south, and on the other 
 with the Californian Hokan group in the north. Perhaps we may regard the 
 Californian elements in Mexico as very ancient. It is not possible to discern 
 clearly now-a-days whether in remote antiquity Californians once held a major 
 part of Mexico, or whether only single shoots had penetrated into a still older 
 original population (the Otoml group). But, at any rate it is remarkable that 
 the residue of the Seris, Cuitlatecs, Tlappanec-Subtiabas (Maribios), Chontals of 
 Oaxaca, Xincas (south-east Guatemala), who appear as Californians, cling very 
 closely to the Pacific coast following the direction of California to the south. 
 
 Among the tribes of northern Mexico, attention should be drawn to the 
 Sonoras and Chichemecas. They will be discussed when dealing with the Mexicans, 
 as well as the Shoshonees, as all three belong to one large group. 
 
 There are still to-day numbers of long-settled peoples in central Mexico. The 
 most important arc the Otomisof the southern Mesa Central and the neighbouring 
 countries of the Tierra caliente. They include the Otomis -proper, Mazahuas and 
 Matlatzincas or Toloques (Pirindas in Tarascan) south of them in the neigh- 
 bourhood of the high valley of Toluca. as well as the Ocuiltecas (MaHnalcas;).
 
 10 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 Mexicans found their way in various migratory waves into the ranks of these 
 Otomi p>eoples. 
 
 Adjoining these autochthonous peoples, as primordial relations, are the Chocho- 
 Popolocas now only existing as a fragment of a people south of Puebla, and in 
 northern Oaxaca. Once they were very extensive and coincide, according to my last 
 investigations, mainly with the ancient Olmecs (Olmeca-Uixtotin). They were 
 the inhabitants of the fertile tropical coastal countries of the Gulf shore south 
 of Verra Cruz. Sahagun, who collected old Mexican traditions up to his old 
 age from the most learned Indians, emphasizes the fact that the Olmecs were - 
 not Chichimecas, but Olmeca-Uixtotin-NonouaJcas. This means that they did not 
 immigrate from the north, but were long-settled barbarians, speaking originally a 
 foreign language, and being a foreign race, even though later Toltecicized. They 
 were already influenced at an early period by Toltec culture and language. And 
 it was just their district — the inner angle of the Gulf — that also remained a centre 
 of especially high intellectual culture till well into Aztec times, as is above all 
 proven by the magnificent Codex Borgia originating frQim this district. The extensive 
 Toltec influence among this "rich" border people is partially explained by the 
 trade route passing through their territory leading from the central plateau to Tabasco 
 and the Maya countries. Hence these Olmec tribes were considered in a later era 
 <^from ihc Aztec point of view) as being the children of Quetzalcouatl (the God 
 of the Toltecs and the travelling merchants). 
 
 Olmecs were settled in ancient times in Tlaxcala, where later they had, as 
 Pinome, a quarter of the town to themselves. It is apparent that the early Toltecicized 
 Olmecs had also possessed themselves of the political hegemony in Cholula the 
 Rome of the New World. We may presume that the Toltecs were exercised of <-' 
 the intellectual supremacy at all times, or at least passed it on to their successors. 
 Bishop Lorenzana gives us tidings of the Toltec language which had been adopted, 
 and which was a Nahuat idiom. He calls the dialect of the Puebla district uncom- 
 ►-promisingly "Olmeco-Mexicano". We have an historical foundation for the whole 
 of ancient American history in the Aztec text of the Historia Tolteca Chichimeca^) 
 deposited in the National Library in Paris. 
 
 The expulsion of the Toltecicized Olmecs from Cholula was effected with the 
 
 help of the wariike Nahuatlacs in 1168 A.D. As we read in Torquemada that 
 
 *-^the sovereignty of the Olmecs lasted 500 years, we arrive at the date of 600 A. D. 
 
 for the commencement of the Olmec Tyranny, that is to say: exactly the time 
 
 in which, according to Sahagun, the Empire of Tollan declined. 
 
 ') The Ms is bilingual on the ist page, Aztec and Chocho, as I have been able to prove. 
 This circumstance may also serve as another proof that the language of the Olmeca-Uixtotin was 
 a Chocho dialect.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 11 
 
 The Olmec question is therefore of the greatest importance for the early 
 history of the Toltecs. We are further aware from Oviedo and Torquemada that 
 it was the Olmecs who had caused the emigration of Nahuat-speaidng Nicaraos 
 from the surroundings of Cholula to Nicaragua {circa 1000 A.D.). Chorotega- 
 Mangues had already arrived in Nicaragua before these Nicaraos. They must 
 have gone there before 1000 A. D. from the district of the Chiapanecs of the 
 Mexican isthmus, for Mangues were found by the Nicaraos as "Masters" of the 
 country. Perhaps forebears of the Tlappanecs had come with these Mangues to 
 Subtiaba (near Leon). These are foundations for a chronology hitherto wrapped 
 in darkness, and which now permit of an exacter fixation of the periods of the 
 history of art in Mexico and Central America {vide Table). 
 
 The Mazatecs are the nearest relations and neighbours of the Chocho-Popolocas. 
 To these also belong the Triques, Ixcatecs and Chiapanecs. 
 
 It is as well to connect here the peoples of the Mexican isthmus: the Mixteco- 
 Tzapotecs and the Chinantecs who are connected with the Othomi group, cilthough 
 this fact is not fully cleared up in detail. 
 
 The rough tribes of the Mixe-Zoques form a group of their own who show 
 through the Tapachultecan I connection with the Xincan II in the south-east of 
 Guatemala, perhaps via the mysterious Aguateco II of Guatemala. And finally 
 may be the Huaves of the Tehuantepec lagoons also belong to this group. The 
 linguistic connection of these fragments of peoples with the Maya family are not 
 yet investigated enough to be conclusively judged of. At any rate, the original Mayas, ^ 
 when spreading, had to deal with the ancestors of the Mixe-Zoques in the north- 
 west. These latter had been driven out by the Chiapanecs. In the south and south- 
 east the original Mayas had to deal with Xinca peoples. The relationship of the 
 Mayas with certain tribes in Honduras discloses new historical points of view. 
 
 We must insert here the Tarascs (Quaochpanme, "People with shaven heads").— 
 They inhabit an extensive country (that was never subjugated by the Mexicans) in the 
 west of the high valley of Toluca on the Pacific slope. They speak a very singular 
 agglutinating language, and are remarkable, because — like the Toltecs — they - v^n^**^ 
 did not sacrifice human beings. Archaeologically the style of their ceramic shows '- 
 connections with the primitive Otomi stratum. 
 
 The Totonacs of the Gulf coast between Huaxtecs in the north, and Olmecs 
 in the south, were a people who had attained to a considerable height of culture *- 
 of which their stone sculptury is an eloquent witness. 
 
 i- Linguistically they are conspicuously isolated. Their history goes back centuries 
 anterior to the Spanish conquest. But it has only been handed down in its main 
 lines in a few statements, chiefly by Torquemada. Certainly they were imbued 
 at an early period with Toltec culture. It is possible that for this reason the Totonacs — 
 were considered by the Aztecs of a later epigonal period to be the builders of
 
 12 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 . the TeotiKuacan pyramids which are decidedly Toltec. The magnificent twin 
 manuscripts, the Vienna Codex and the Codex Zouche Nutall (Cod. Jovius) sent by 
 
 ^Cortes to the Emperor Charles V. originate from Totonac districts. 
 
 The Maya peoples of the Mexican isthmus and the neighbouring northern 
 Central America are still a homogeneous mass to-day, which has in course of time 
 extended from the mountainous country between Chiapas and Guatemala to the 
 west, north, east, and south-east without having reached the isthmus of Tehuantepec, 
 nor passing to any considerable extent the Bahia de Fonseca in the south. Only 
 the Huaxtecs, who must have separated from the original Mayas (Chicomuceloltecs) 
 in very early times, are to be found at a great distance from the rest of the Mayas 
 in the state of Vera Cruz from Tuxpan to beyond Tampico where they are 
 neighbours of the Pamis and Otomis in the hinterland. The Huaxtecs, in ill- 
 repute with the Aztecs, as being barbaric drunkards, barbaric, because they wore 
 no lom-cloth (but perhaps a sort of penis-glove), were possessed of neither hiero- 
 glyphs nor stone edifices : at best small modest earth pyramids with rough awkward 
 stone human figures on them, and sometimes faced with stone slabs. On the other hand 
 
 -their coloured striped woollen textiles were celebrated, and drawings of Huaxtec 
 stuffs in Mexican picture-writings give a weak conception of their magnificence. 
 The lack of hieroglyphs with the Huaxtecs proves that they must have been sepa- 
 rated from the original Mayas at latest in the 8th century after Christ, becauset 
 the oldest known dated Maya monument — the Birdgod of San Andres de 
 Tuxtla — originates at the latest from this period. Accordingly, to all appearances, 
 they must have been separated from the original Mayas in much earlier times. 
 
 In order to understand Maya culture, chiefly distinguished by wonderful archi- 
 
 '■ tecture, it is necessary to go back to the Mexicans. 
 
 II. Mexicans. 
 
 Historical, archaeological, and hnguistic facts show that it is possible, if we 
 divide the Mexicans into two main groups, to satisfactorily connect the variety of 
 apparently contradictory statements of the old sources about the earliest Mexican 
 times. These two groups are the Nahuas and Nahuatlacas mentioned above, and 
 by whom I mean the older Nahuat-speaking Toltecs, and younger Nahuatl-speaking 
 tribes of the Aztec type. 
 
 It is a law that compact groups of peoples change, or "develop". On the 
 other hand, segregated parts maintain themselves carefully at that point at which 
 they stood when leaving the greater mother-nation, being a minority struggling to 
 maintain its peculiarities as an enclave in a foreign majority. This applies par- 
 ticularly to the languages and dialects in the diaspora; they are therefore, in connection
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 13 
 
 with other investigatory auxiliaries, especially adapted to answer chronological 
 questions which are also indispensable for questions dealing with the history of art. 
 
 The oldest Nahuat known to me is the Izalco of Salvador. It is partly on the 
 same level as Sonora and Shoshonee. This can only be explained by extremely ancient 
 Toltecs having penetrated as far as Salvador. 
 
 Beyond the real Shoshonees, the following also belong to them: the Hopis 
 (Moquis) of Arizona, the Yutes of Utah and Colorado, the Paiutes of Nevada, 
 the Chemehuevis of the Rio Colorado, and the Comanches of Texas and New 
 Mexico. 
 
 The Sonoras include briefly the Pimas, Opatas, Cahitas, Tarahumaras, 
 Tepehuanos, Acaxees, Coras (Nayarits) and Huichols, all settled in north-west 
 Mexico. 
 
 We had best make mention here of the Chichimecs, who, according to Sahagun, 
 are divided into Tamimes ("Archers" in ancient Nahuat) and Teochichimecas ("steppe 
 Chichimecs"), and to whom the Zacachichimecas ("grassland Chichimices") also 
 belong. 
 
 The namd Chichimecs is a collective one for a number of tribes on the 
 plains, and in the mountain countries of northern and north-western Mexico. It is 
 difficult to decide as to their linguistic position. It is certain on the one hand that a 
 part of the Chichimecs belong to the Otomi group, on the other we may think of the 
 Teules Chichimecas in connection with the Teochichimecas and Zacachichimecas who 
 led their restless lives between the southern Sonora and Otomi . The Cazcans, 
 Cocas and Tecuexes may be placed next to the Teules Chichimecas. As a matter of 
 fact, all these ancient Mexicans who had migrated into the country from the northern 
 districts were called Chichimecs. For this reason Sahagun calls the Olmeca-Uixtotin : 
 Nonoualca ("Speakers of a foreign language"), and not Chichimeca. 
 
 It is highly important that in the district of Teul (source of the Rio Bolanos) 
 as well as in the valley of Juchipila and the side valleys of the Rio Verde magni- 
 ficent earthenware vessels are found encrusted with splendid colours which are 
 recognizable as being connected with the district of Tepic, La Quemada and 
 Chalchihuites, as well as with the discoveries in the middle stratum of Teotihuacan. 
 And further north of the ruins of Chalchihuites and the discoveries of Teul and of 
 Estanzuela (near Tepic) we find La Quemada, the old Tuitlan, with relics of 
 Tarascan style and the Sivano-ki. These "Sivano Houses" consist of numerous 
 clay buildings in the Pima district which are very reminiscent of the old buildings 
 of Casas Grandes in Chihuahua and Arizona. It is probable that the ancestors 
 of the Pimas not only built the Casas Grandes, but also occupied several buildings 
 of the Pueblos. As among the multi-lingual tribes of the Pueblos (Kera, Tehua, 
 Zuni, etc.) the Hopis (Moquis) of the first Mesa are the only present represen- 
 tatives of the Shoshonees in the north of Arizona we are justified in presuming there
 
 14 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 has been, as far as extension, time, language and archaeology are concerned 
 an older Shoshonian period before the Sonoran. P. Perez de Ribera gives us 
 information about the emigration of the Sonoras from the north in his Historia 
 de los Triumphos de Nuestra Santa Fe (Madrid 1645, Kb. I, cap. 19). 
 
 I consider the Casas Grandes as still belonging to the proto-Shoshonic period 
 which ceases linguistically in about 1000 B.C.; the Sivano-ki to the first proto- 
 Sonoran, the Chalchihuites with Teuls, Totoates, La Quemada and Estanzuela 
 (Tepic) to the old-Sonorcm period. Both of which reach from 1000 — 500 B. C. 
 having intimate connection with proto-Toltec culture of the 1 st cent. B. C. From this 
 area sprung the proto-Toltec culture which depended on the ancient Toltec culture 
 flourishing before 600 A. D. 
 
 The stages of these cultures are marked by rums and characteristic antiquities, 
 by linguistic studies in connection with chronological statements as established 
 especially by Sahagun, in the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacän y dei Mexico, and 
 Torquemada. I do not mean that all ruins and discoveries need originate from such 
 dates as 1000 B. C, 500 B. C, etc. {vide Table). Such dates merely serve to 
 outline the epochs that created these styles, of which ruins and objects also 
 belonging to later centuries, are examples due to rentention on the part of the 
 inhabitants remaining behind, and their cUnging to ancient traditions. 
 
 It is here that early American history focuses. Rays of light are always 
 only thrown from complete historical centres back to distant antiquity, and onwards 
 to centuries lying ahead. In America, it is only possible to find fixed points for the 
 chronology and the dates of excavations important in the history of art where 
 historical traditions, or the monuments themselves, have left reliable dates. This 
 applies especially hitherto only to Mexico and Central America, far less to South 
 America, and the least to North America. Mexico herself was in possession of the 
 most important auxiharies to historical preservation of her great part by means of highly 
 developed picture-writing and hieroglyphics, together with an admirably planned 
 calender system. It is true that mythological conceptions play an important role, 
 as is the case with all peoples whose minds tend to mythology, and the corresponding 
 uncritical treatment of history. Myths are connected with events, heroes of cul- 
 ture and historical personalities, and vest distant geographical districts with con- 
 ceptions inseparably connected with the cardinal points. Originally chronology and 
 calenders could not to be distinguished from cosmological studies. For this reason the 
 starting points (zero points) of chronology are closely connected with the establishing 
 of eras. This is particularly the case to a great extent with Mexicans and Mayas. 
 Dim prehistoric periods are summed up into epochs synchronizing with a well- 
 regulated and rounded-off universal conception. Thus the traditions in the 
 Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacän y de Mexico count with 2028 years, which 
 are distributed over 4 world eras of 676, 312, 364 and 676 years, and with
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 15 
 
 2513 years which expired on 22nd May 1558 A. D.. leaving 2513— 2028 -485 years 
 of complete (Aztecan) time. The traditions of this document, the original writing 
 of which is in the handwriting of Ixthlxochitl, and which I was lucky enough to 
 re-discover in Mexico in 1909, only goes back in its first part to 1073 A. D., a date 
 that clearly points to 1064—1074, the 2"^^ dispersal of the Toltecs. These 485 years 
 only include a newer Mexican, Nahuatlacan tradition, and deal with the age of 
 the world, creation, and Toltec history fromi a newer, /. e. Aztec point of view. The 
 starting point of the whole calculation would reach back to 955 B. C. We may 
 perhaps interpret this "zero point" of Mexican-Aztec chronology as having a deeper 
 significance, in as far as here the early period was accepted with 13 + 6 + 7+13 
 cycles — each of 52 years — (= 39.52 years). There ist a dim consciousness of a 
 very ancient past doubtlessly mirrored in these years, as well as in the different zero- 
 point of the Maya chronology. The much higher periods including more than ten 
 thousand years of the Codex Vaticanus are purely cosmological epochs which may 
 be connected with Praecession — like the serpent numbers in the Codex Dresdensis. 
 
 If Sahagun informs us that the Mexicans had stayed about 2000 years in the 
 country, and if Azcapotzalco, which passed through an archaeological Teotihuacan 
 culture — as can be proved — and could (according to Torquemada) look back 
 about 1571 years, these statements are by no means to be scornfully dismissed. 
 These best of the old authors, perfectly credible in their statements, did not simply 
 invent them. What we need do is to discover how to interpret such figures. 
 
 The days of such phantastic views as expressed by Brasseur de Bourbourg 
 (who however should not be disregarded owing to his valuable sources) have, we 
 trust, gone for ever since Eduard Seler's epochal studies. W© are possessed of 
 considerable information from Mexico both old and ancient, but it is very difficult 
 to unravel the apparent entanglement of statements, and to render them uncontradictory. 
 This difficulty is partly owing to the fact that various local traditions and chrono- 
 logies were extant which had been cast into different systems by certain priest 
 schools. Beyond this, there is a break between the younger Mexican-Aztec and 
 the older Toltec traditions. We must recollect that Aztec history was grafted on to 
 the Toltec, which was thus either moved to a more recent time, or vanished, and 
 was hidden in a universal chronology. The end of more recent Toltecdom in 
 1064 A. D. (according to the Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacän y de Mexico) 
 leads us — with but a break of tradition of only a few years — to the above- 
 mentioned year 1073, the end of Toltec renaissance, and the beginning of Aztec 
 times. 
 
 The question is: how far can pre-Aztecan times be historically illuminated? 
 This requires a short treatment of the Toltec problem. Since Seler's archaeological 
 discoveries on the fresco strata of Palenque, it is quite certain that the Toltecs are 
 by no means mythical. Beyond this, there is so much reliable old information about
 
 16 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 them that there can no longer be any dispute as to their being the protagonists of 
 an early Mexican period of culture. Sahagun ascribes to the entire Mexican culture a 
 period of roughly 2000 years, and dates the destruction of Tollan (the Toltec realm) 
 about 1000 years before his time (1571 A. D.). i- e.: about 600 A. D. 
 
 Thus the most prosperous period of the ancient Toltecs was some centuries 
 before 600 A. D., and the commencement of the reign of the Toltecs — whom I call 
 proto-Toltecs — should, according to Sahagun, be placed at 429 B. C. Both archaeolo- 
 gical and linguistic facts support this chronology. The newer Mexican dialects, distin- 
 guished by their Tl-sound, represent Aztec known to us from three periods : language of 
 the ancient hymns to the Gods in Sahagun, which we possess commentated with glossziry 
 in classical Aztec of the period of the Spanish Conquest (16th cent.), and a finally 
 present-day vulgar Aztec. The proto-Aztecs, old Aztecs and Tenochca-Aztecs should 
 be distinguished historically. I call all Nahuatl-speaking tribes Nahuatlacs. 
 One of their members who rose to special political power are the Aztecs of 
 Mexico-Tenochtitlan. The Nahuatlac immigration seems partly to date back to some 
 centuries before 1168 A. D. Thus it is said that the Aculhuaques of Tetzcoco 
 immigrated in the 47th year of Xolotl's reign (= 836 A. D.) together with the house 
 of Citin (vide Torquemada). These Citin remind us of the Mecitin ("agave 
 hares") or Mexitin. They expressly changed their name again from Mexitin to 
 Mexica (Cod. Aubin 1576). It appears that the Nahuatlacs immigrated in successive 
 groups. The 11 th — 12 th century after Christ was the period of the chief migratory 
 movement, and amongst others it also brought in 1168 A. D. the Tlatelolcas who 
 were separated from the Tenochcas since 1337 A. D. The dynasty of the Mexico- 
 Tenochtitlan kings {ca. 1376 A. D.) is preceded by a period of ten war-chiefs 
 quauhtlätoque), of which the first page of the Codex Mendoza gives us pictorial 
 tidings. The time between these chiefs of the single town-quarters and Acamapichth is 
 occupied by Tenuch {ca. 1321 — 1373) according to Andre Thevet. 
 
 The peculiar dialect of Pochutla in Oaxaca, recorded by Boas, is distinguished 
 itself from Aztec by certain vocal changes. Here we appear to have a special 
 dialect which may be connected with the Toltec builders of Mitla mentioned by 
 Torquemada, and which to my thinking belongs to the middle or late Toltec period 
 (after 1064). 
 
 The style of the Xochicalco ruins, together with that of the Chalco sculptures 
 projects into a Toltec-Aztec transitionary period. 
 
 After the decline of the ancient and pacific Toltec empire in about 600 A. D. 
 caused by Olmecs, a period of confusion set in which is mentioned as "interregnum", 
 the historians not agreing as to the duration of the time of this period. 
 
 According to Torquemada and the dynasty lists in other old sources the Toltec 
 cultural, and certainly religious influence begins to get stronger again soon after 
 700 A. D. which justifies us in speaking of a kind of Toltec renaissance. Cholula
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 17 
 
 was the centre of this classical ancienne neo-Toltec culture. Older reports actually 
 speak of a ToUan-Cholollan. Table A of Kings in Torquemada mentions names 
 of kings from 651-1031 A. D. (Clavigero 667-1031). Table B of Kings 
 from 726—1064 A. D. (Codex Zumarraga 799—1160). 
 
 The centre of old Tollan was in Teotihuacan, Tollantzinco and Tollan. 
 I succeeded at Teotihuacan in 1909, by excavations in the Teopannacazco, in establishing 
 the presence of three successive cultural strata, which were later found to be correct 
 by other explorers, and were also found in other places. Remains of Aztec culture 
 belong to the upper stratum, those of Toltec to the middle one, and a primitive 
 (Otomi) culture to the lowest. The remains of Toltec culture are distinguished 
 by fine stucco paintings and brilliant emerald green colours. The figures of the 
 Teotihuacan temple frescos conformable to the paintings of the Aljojuca vessels 
 show an archaic style which changed to epigonal style in Aztec times based on 
 the fundamental style of the Estanzuela (Tepic) encrusted ceramic, the art of 
 which can be traced far to the north. The rest of the ancient Toltecs were probably 
 mixed to a great extent with the Otomi (Chichimeca-Otomi). As the pioneers of 
 culture came from the north, and Chichimecs however were settled in the north 
 of the Mexican high plateau, "Chichimeca" became a title of honour, both for the 
 ancient Toltecs, as well as especially for the Chichimeca Aculhuaque of Tetzcoco, 
 whose beginnings reach back to 323 A. D. i); /. e. at a time when ancient 
 Toltec influences were extending to neighbouring Otomi tribes. Nahuatlacan Aculhuas 
 seem to appear as early as 836 A. D. The Citin clan mentioned in connection 
 with the above reminds us of the names of ancient Toltec relics such as Ecitin 
 {yide supra: Mecitin). 
 
 The end of the earlier "young" Toltecs is completed in a second Toltec 
 dissolution by the suicide of Uemac in Cincalco (1064 — 1070 A. D.). We hear 
 of Cholula at the time when the migrating Toltecs begin to spread. The beginnmg 
 of the Kingdom in Tepeyacac and Cholula is dated 1168 A. D. But this only means 
 that since this time the predomination of foreign Olmecs, who were however 
 already Toltecisized, was disrupted with the assistance of warlike Nahuatlacs. 
 For Instance. Tepeyacac counts 332 years (Herrera 2. 10. 21, p. 285/6) since the 
 original home of Chicomoztoc ("Place of seven Caves") till the beginning of the 
 kingdom. The year 1168 A. D. minus 332 years takes us to 836 A. D., the 
 
 ') Everything that is Chichimec before circa 320 A. D. would be proto-Chichimec. The period 
 of 469 years in Torquemada (320 — 789 A. D.) civers the ancient Chichimec period based on an 
 old Otomi stratum. The time from 789—989 (Xolotl) may be regarded as a middle period, that 
 from 989 — 1 1 39 A. D. (Nopaltzln Pochotl), and 1139— 1175 A. D. (Tlotzin-Pochotl) may be termed 
 a newer period. About this time the dynasty poses to a later one of Tetzcoco in the person of 
 TIaltecatzin Quinatzin (1175 — 1258 A. D.) whose accession to the throne Sahagun (VIII, 3) states 
 as being in 1246 A. D. 
 
 The history of ancient mexican art 2
 
 18 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 above-menitoned 47th year of Xolotl's reign as the beginning of the Aculhuaque of 
 Tetzcoco. 
 
 There are plain signs in Xochicalco of the admixture of Toltec art activity 
 with aboriginal. Here we should note the calculiform framing of the day symbols 
 hieroglyphs, and employment of a line instead of dots for the number 5. as in the 
 Codex Fejervary Mayer and the Codex Cospi on the one hand, and with the 
 Mayas on the other. It is evident that we have here an older style which was 
 also retained by the Tzapotecs (Monte Alban reliefs). 
 
 We may presume that ancient Toltec culture rescued the younger Toltecs 
 extended to the surrounding autochtones at an early period through pacific and 
 religious channels, and along the trade routes. It is thus that the Toltecs, Olmecs, 
 Tarascs, Mixteco-Tzapotecs, Chiapanecs, and Mayas were repeatedly fructified 
 by the benefits of Toltec culture and science. 
 
 The Tzap>otec calender is retentive of the particularly ancient names of the 
 20 day symbols. The Toltec calender with hieroglyphic characters found its way via 
 the Tzapotecs to the aboriginal Mayas of the boundary highlands between Chiapas 
 and Guatemala, following ancient trade routes leading from Tabasco from the 
 Rio Usumacinta upwards to Peten, Guatemala and further to Central America. Those 
 aboriginal Mayas developed the old Toltec picture-writing independently to peculiar 
 hieroglyphics, which in their inward conception of ideas, betray to the connoisseur a 
 closer relationship with the Mexican pictures than one would presume in view of 
 the great external differences between the two systems of writing. 
 
 The Leiden jade plate originating from the boimdary district of Belize and 
 Guatemala dates at the latest from the 10th century A. D., and deals with the 
 old end of the year of the month Xul ("end"). The "Birdgod" of Tuxtla is 
 considerably older according to my calculations, namely 158 years and 225 days, and 
 thus belongs to the 8 th century A. D. The date of this piece, 8 (caban) = 20 Mac, 
 refers perhaps to the end of a year. The birdbeaked God of Tuxtla is connected with 
 forms of Quetzalcouatl, and old Mexican mosaics in the Copenhagen and London 
 museums support this theory. 
 
 The Maya calender certainly developed under the influence of the ancient 
 Toltecs several centuries before the 8 th after Christ. Ancient Toltec influence 
 extended from Guatemala via Peten and Belize to Bacalar, and brought the 
 first group of the Itza peoples to old Chich'enitzä the beginning of which 
 dates back to about the commencement of the 2nd quarter of the 6th century A. D. 
 according to the books of Chilam Balam. More recent Toltec influence came 
 later from Champoton in the west to northern Yucatan. Especially Chich'enitzä 
 and Mayapan show Toltec influence. In Chich'enitzä we recognize elements of 
 the Toltec style of Teotlhuacan as well as also those celebrated stone snake 
 columns which Sahagun emphasizes for Tula (Tollan). Remains of such columns
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 19 
 
 in the form of an "erect snake", which may also signify quetzacouatl, have been found 
 in Tula, and are deposited in the Museo Nacional of the Mexican capital. The 
 peculiar recumbent stone figures of the so-called Chac-Mol type are distributed as 
 far as west Salvador; this should point to Toltec mfluence. 
 
 The Santa Rita frescos in northern Belize also betray Toltec influence, perhaps 
 coming from the south with a strange admixture of Maya elements. 
 
 The magnificent stone figures of Santa Lucia de Cozumalhuapa in southern 
 Guatemala are remains of ancient Pipil culture. 
 
 It is probable that the oldest culture from Chich'enitza to south Belize is connected 
 with ancient Toltec seats in the central Motagua valley from which offshoots can 
 be traced archaeologically on the one hand to northern Honduras, and on the other 
 to south Salvador. 
 
 If Mexican culture has its roots in the Sonora and Pueblos districts, then the 
 strange relationship between archaeological discoveries in the southern states of the 
 North American Union and those of ancient Mexico become more comprehen- 
 sible. We may presume that certain influences of a very ancient culture with 
 protogonal style emanated years ago from the Pueblos district which sprea<l 
 partly to the district of the Mississippi mounds, and spreading further, fructified 
 Mexico. It will require close investigation to discover how far this oldest Pueblos 
 culture can be traced to the north along the Rio Colorado. The Pueblos district 
 will provide the key to a correct comprehension of ancient Mexican culture. In 
 connection with this are further questions as to the links with the higher north-west 
 of America which are to-day not yet ripe for discussion.
 
 Bibliography. 
 
 1. Channing Arnold and Fred J. Tabor Frost, The American Egypt. London 1909. 8°. 391 pp. 
 ill. Maps. 
 
 2. A. F. Bandelier, Rep. of Am. Arch. Tour in Mexico in 1881, Papers Arch. Inst. Am., Am. Ser. II. 
 Boston 1884. 
 
 3. Leopoldo Batres, Exploration of Mount Alban. Mexico 1902; — Visita a los monum. arq. de 
 "La Quemada", Zacatecas. Mexico 1903. — Teotihuacan, Mexico 1906. — Civilizacion prehist. 
 de las riberas del Papaloapam y Costa de Sotavento, Estado de Vera Cruz. Mexico 1908. 
 
 4. H. Beuchat, Manuel d'Archeologie Americaine. Paris 1912. — 8°. 773 pp. ill. 
 
 5. Franz Boas, Archaeological investigations in the valley of Mexico by the Intern. School (1911 — 12) 
 Intern. Congr. of Am. London 191 2 pt. I (London 191 3) p. 176 — 179. 
 
 6. G. Brühl, Die Kulturvölker Altamerikas. Nevf York 1875 — 87. 
 
 7. Munoz Camargo, Hist, de Tlaxcala, edid. Chavero, Mexico 1892. 
 
 8. Chimalpain, Relaciones; Mss. Bibl. Nat. Paris. 
 
 9. Clavigero, Storia antica del Messico. Esena 1780 — 81. 4 vols. 
 
 10. Diego Duran, Hist, de la Nueva Espana y islas de tierra firma, edid. J. Fern. Ramirez, Mexico 1867. 
 8°. 2 vols. 
 
 11. Escuela Internacional de Arqueologia y Etnologia Americanas, Afio Escolar de 191 1 a 1912. Me- 
 xico 1 91 2. XX pp. (cf. also 14). 
 
 12. J. W. Fewkes, Certain Antiquities of Eastern Mexico, Bur. of Ethn. XXV (1907 Washingt.) 
 p. 231 — 296. — Antiquities of the Gulf Coast of Mexico. Smithson. Misc. Coll. Vol. 70 No. 2 
 (Wash. 19 1 8). 
 
 13. E. Förstemann, Editions of the Dresden Maya-Manuscript: Leipzig 1880, Dresden 1892. 4°. — 
 Commentary on the Maya Cod. in the Ryl. Public Library Dresden. Dresden 1901. 
 
 14. Manuel Gamio, Arqueologia de Atzcapotzalco, Intern. Congr. of Am. London 1912 pt. I (Lond. 
 1913) p. 180 — 87. — Investigaciones arq. en Mexico 1914 — 15, XIX. Intern. Congr. Am. Washington 
 191 5 (1917) p. i25ff. — Los Ultimos descrubrimientos arq. en Teotihuacan. "Ethnos Tpmo" I 
 Num. I Mexico 1920 p. 7 — 14 (cf. also 11). 
 
 15. tH. K. Häberlin in the American Anthropologist N. Ser. 21 Nr. i (1919) p. 61 — 70. 
 
 16. E. T. Hamy, Galerie am. du Musee d'Ethnogr. du Trocadero. Paris 1897. Fol. 
 
 17. Historia de los Reynos de Colhuacän y de Mexico Original Copy by Ixtlilxochitl. Ms. mex. in the 
 Bibl. del Mus. Nac. de Mexico. (Refound thereby the author in 1909.) Copies in the Bibl. Nat. 
 Paris; cf. W. Lehmann, Zts. f. Ethn. Berlin. Bd. 38 p. 752ff.; cf. W. Lehmann, in the Journal de la 
 Soc. des Americanistes Paris N. S. Ill No. 2 p. 239—97; cf. incomplete and faulty reprint = Anales 
 de Quauhtitlan in Anales del Mus. Nac. de Mexico, Tomo III Apend. Ixtlilxochitl's Ms. 
 (1568— 1648) = Boturini Catalogo § VIII Nr. 13. 
 
 18. Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca, Ms. Aubin-Goupil, Mexican Coll., Paris, Bibl. Nat. 
 
 19. Holmes, Arch. Studies Among the Ancient Cities of Mexico, Field Colomb. Mus., Anthr. Ser. 
 1895—97.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 21 
 
 20. Walter Hough, Arch. Field Work in Northern Arizona, U. St. Nat. Mus. for 1901, Washington 
 1903 p. 279 — 358 ill. — Culture of the Ancient Pueblos of the Upper Gila Region, New Mexico 
 and Arizona, Smithson. States Nat. Mus. Bulletin 87, Washington 1914. 8°. 139 pp. ill. 
 
 21. Al. Hrdliöka, The "Chichimecs", Am. Anthrop. Lancaster 1903. 
 
 22. Al.v. Humboldt, Vues des Cordilleres et monuments des peuples indigenes de I'Amerique. Paris 1813, 
 
 23. Ixtlilxochitl, Hist. Chichimeca apud Kingsborough, Mexican. Antiquities vol. IX fol. 197 — 316; 
 
 — Relaciones ibid. fol. 317 — 468; both works edited by Chavero, Mexico i 891, 1892. 
 
 24. Thomas Joyce, Mexican Archaeology, London 1914. 
 
 25. Diego de Landa, Relac. de las cosas de Yucatan, edid. Brasseur Paris 1864 edid. de la Rada y Del- 
 gado Madrid 1881, cf. Col. Doc. ined. Ha. Ser. vol. XHI (1900) p. 265 — 408; important additional 
 information in Cogolludo, Hist, de Yucatan, Madrid 1688 (2. ed. Merida 1842, 3. ed. 1897). 
 
 26. W. Lehmann, Altmexikanische Mosaiken, "Globus" 90 Nr. 20 (1906) p. 318 — 322 (ad vide Xolotl 
 Vienna ibid. p. 319 note 15); "Globus" Vol. 91 Nr. 21 (1907) p. 332 — 5; cf. also Oppel, "Globus' 
 1896. — Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexik. Forschung, Archiv f. Anthr. VI (1907) p. 113 — 168, 
 Engl, translation. Paris 1909. — Ergebnisse einer Forschungsreise in Mittelamerika und Mexiko 
 (1907 — 09), Zts. f. Ethn. Vol. 42 (1910) p. 687 — 749. — The Hist, de los Reynos de Colh. etc. 
 v. supra 17. — Zentralamerika, 2 Vols., Berlin (D. Reimer) 1920 — 21. 
 
 27. Leon y Gama, Descripcion hist, y cronol. de las dos piedras . . . Mexico 1790. 
 
 28. Herzog Fl. de Loubat, Facsimile-Edit, of the Cod. Borgia, Cod. Vat. A and B, Cod. Fejervary- 
 Mayer, Cod. Cospi, Tonalamatl Aubin etc. 
 
 29. C. Lumholtz, Unkown Mexico, London 1903 2 vols. — New Trails in Mexico (1909 — 10). London. 
 
 — Leipzig 1912, 8°. 411 pp. ill. 
 
 30. Teobert Maler, Yukatekische Forschungen, "Globus" Vol. 82 Nr. 13 u. 14 (1902) p. 197 — 230. ill. 
 
 31. Brantz Mayer, Mexico As It Was And as It Is. Philadelphia 1847. 
 
 32. A. P. Maudslay, in Goodman and Salvin's Biologia Centrali- Americana, Archaeol., London 1889 
 to 1902. 
 
 33. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum Am. Arch, and Ethn., Havard Univ. Cambridge. 
 
 34. Mendieta, Hist, ecclesiast. Indiana, Col. Doc. p. la hist, de Mexico III (1870); Nueva col. doc. 
 p. las hist, de Mex. IV (1892). 
 
 35. Earl H. Morris, The Aztec Ruin (Pueblo), Anthr. Pap. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. vol. XXVI pt. I New 
 York 191 9, io8 pp. (Culture Strata p. io4ff.). 
 
 36. Motolinia, Hist, de los Indios de la Nueva Espana, Col. Doc. p. la hist, de Mexico I (1858). — 
 Memoriales, edid. Luis Garcia Pimentel, Mexico 1903. 
 
 37. Orozco y Berra, Hist. ant. y de la conq. de Mexico. Mexico 1880. 4 vols. 
 
 38. Oviedo y Valdes, La hist. gen. de las Indias, Sevilla 1533; reedition of the Real Acad, de la Hist. 
 Madrid 1851 — 55, 4 vols. 
 
 39. Penafiel, Monumentos del arte antiguo mexicano. Berlin 1890. 3 vols. 
 
 40. Remesal, Hist. gen. de las Indias occid. y particular de la gobern. de Chiapas y Guatemala, Madrid 
 1619 — 20. 
 
 41. Sahagun, Hist, de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana, edid. Bustamente. Mexico 1829, 3 vols. (= Kings- 
 borough vol. VII); Original-Mss. a) Bibl. del Palacio and Bibl. de la Acad, in Madrid, b) Bibl. Lau- 
 renziana in Florenz; French translation by Remi Simeon, Paris 1880. 
 
 42. Ed. Seler, Ges. Abhandlungen zur Am. Sprach- u. Altertumskunde, Berlin (A. Asher) I (1902), 
 II (1904), III (1908), V (191 5). — Die sog. sakralen Gefäße der Zapoteken, Veröff. K. Mus. f.V. 
 Berlin I (Berlin 1890) p. 1882 — 8. — Wandmalereien von Mitla, Berlin 1895. — Die alten An- 
 siedelungen von Chacula, Berlin 1901. Tonolamatl Aubin, Berlin 1900. — Cod. Fejerväry-Mayer, 
 Berlin 1901. — Cod. Vatic. B, Berlin 1902. — Codex Borgia, Berlin 1904, 1906 with Index by 
 W. Lehmann 1909. — La Quemada (Zacatecas), Ges. Abh. III p. 545 — 559. — Similarity of
 
 22 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 design of some Teotihuacan frescoes and certain Mexican pottery objects, Intern. Congr. of Aox. 
 London 1912, pt. I (1913) p- 194 — 202. — Die Teotihuacan-Kultur des Hochlands von Mexico 
 V (191 5) p. 405 — 585. — Beobachtungen und Studien in den Ruinen von Palenque, Abh. Akd. 
 Wiss. Berlin 191 5. — Die Quetzolcouatl-Fassaden yukatekischer Bauten, ibid. 1916. 
 
 43. C. Seier, Auf alten Wegen in Mexiko und Guatemala, Berlin 1900. — Die Huaxteken-Slg. im 
 K. Mus. f. V. Berlin, Baessler Archiv Bd. V (191 6). 
 
 44. Leslie Spier, An Outline for a Chronology of Zuni Ruins, Anthr. Papers Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. vol. 
 XVni pt. HI, New York 1917, p. 209 — 331 ill.; Map and Bibliography. 
 
 45. H. J. Spinden, A study of Maya Art, its Subject Matter and Hist. Development, Mem. Peabody 
 Mus. Am. Arch, and Ethn., Harvard Univ. Cambridge 1913. — Ancient Civilisation of Mexico 
 and Centralamerica, New York, Am. Nat. Hist. Handbook Series No. 3. 
 
 46. VV. Staub, Begleitwort zur Huaxteken-Slg. im Hist. Mus. in Bern, Jahresber. über die Ethnogr. 
 Slg. in Bern 1920, Bern 1921, p. 36 — T] ill. and Map; cf. "El Mexico Antiguo" (publ. Herrn. Beyer) 
 Tomo I, Num. 7 y 8 (1921) p. 218 — 236. 
 
 47. H. Strebel, Alt-Mexico, Hamburg and Leipzig 1885. — Ornamente auf Tongefäßen aus Altmexiko, 
 Hamburg and Leipzig 1904. 
 
 48. Tezozomoc, Crönica mexicana, edid. Orozco y Berra, Mexico 1878. 
 
 49. J. de Torquemada, Monarquia Indiana. Madrid 161 3; edid. Barcia, Madrid 1723.
 
 List of Illustrations. 
 
 Tripodal grey-reddish earthenware bowl in the shape of a human figure; primitive style. 29 cm. 
 high. Ethnolographical Museum, Berlin, No. IV. Ca. 34 398. Colima. Consul Vogel's Collection. 
 Red-brownish earthenware animal figure; dog species (perhaps young hairless non-barking dog 
 bred for fattening purposes; dachshund species.''). 49 cm. long. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 
 34 429. Colima. Consul Vogel's Coll. 
 
 Earthenware vessel with serratures and stripes formed by hatched triangles. 17.5 cm. high. Ethn. 
 Mus. Berlin, No. IV. Ca. 34 487. Colima. Consul Vogel's Coll. 
 
 Earthenware vessel painted black and white. 21 cm. high including handle. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, 
 No. IV. Ca. 9381. Tanquian, Huaxteca. Seler Coll. 
 
 Earthenware vessels. 15.5 cm. high covered with stucco and finely painted; black background; 
 colours: green, white, red, and yellow with black lines. Singing priests (breath issuing from mouth 
 decorated with flowers = song) in rich garments with waving feather head-dress, an incense pocket 
 in left hand, the right pouring a wine offering on the ground (cf. priests pouring pulque in front 
 of the Moon Picture in the frescos on the south wall in the backroom of the Teopanacazco in Teo- 
 tihuacan). Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 35 789 and 35 790. San Rodrigo near Aljojuca, district 
 of Chalchicomula. Honorato J. Carrasco Coll. — Ed. Seler. Teotihuacan culture, archaic style- 
 cf. Seler Hist. Essays V, p. 529 et seq. (dealing with my first strata excavations in Teotihuacan) 
 and plate LXIII. 
 
 Front r. side of a blue-green jade figure originating perhaps from the convent of Weingarten (in 
 Wurtemberg), now in the Linden Museum Stuttgart. — 29.7 cm. high. Mouth and cheeks with 
 red-tinged pieces of mussels, and yellowish fragments in the nose. Xolotl as death guide of the 
 sun. Mexican-Aztec. Cf. H. Fischer, "Globus", Vol. 85, No. 22 (Brunswick 1904), p. 345 — 348, 
 Seler Ges. Abh. Ill, p. 392 — 409. 
 
 Front and 1. side view of a squatting Xolotl-like figure 8 cm, high of dark brown wood with hair. 
 covered cavity behind. The horn-like projection gilded at points, probably representing the dog's 
 ears of the dog-shaped Xolotl; eyes and teeth made of mussel shells. Valuable insertions some of 
 which had been fixed with pins and have been lost out of the ears, the butterfly-shaped breast 
 ornament and the carved triangular side pieces. Projecting out of, and clear of the navel, is a small 
 beautiful mosaic-work head. The frontlet is of alternating light turquoise blue and dark green 
 mosaic with dark red plaques on the clasp (right); oblique stripes run across each cheek (on the r. 2, 
 on the 1. i); the right ear-ornaments yellow green material fastened by thread; the eyes of mussel 
 shells with obsidian pupil (1.); the mouth of mussel shell with dark red congue plaque. The Xolotl- 
 f Igure has an anal opening made of a flat-disc with central malachite piece. The male genitals are 
 carefully made, the glans penis consisted of an inserted piece now missing. There is a short piece 
 of square wire between the conic ears. Hof Mus. Vienna, No. 12 585. The figure came from the 
 collection of the Coin and Antiquity Cabinet Vienna, in the inventory of which it seems to 
 be registered as No. 164. The Mexican collection once contained there (Nos. 157 — 270) dates from 
 the property left by the Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, and was purchased by the Treasury Dept. 
 in 1868 for 1483 florins (old currency), but handed to the ethnographical dept. of the Natural History 
 Museum Vienna in 1881. Cf. Lehmann "Altmexikan. Mosaiken", "Globus", V'ol. 90, No. 20
 
 24 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 (1906), pp. 318 — 322, in particular p. 319, annotation No. 15. I am indebted to governement Coun- 
 cillor Heger in Vienna for photographs and information. 
 
 8. Jaguar-shaped vessel of light brown wood encrusted with mussel-shell mosaic and coloured stone 
 plaques embedded in a resinous substance; the bowl formed lacquered part shows remains of gold 
 foil; 16 cm. high, Lond. Brit. Mus. Christy Coll. 
 
 9. Stone jaguar, 2.75 m. long, 95 cm. high, made of smoothed andesite (lava stone) with traces of colour 
 (black spots on white ground) with a hollow in back akin to bowls used to catch sacrificial blood; 
 found in courtyard of the Secretaria de justicia, corner of the Primera calle del Reloj and the Calle 
 Cordoba in the vicinity of the excavated temple pyramid with front facing south. Museo Nacional 
 de Mexico. Cf. Anales del Mus. Nac. de Mex. Vol. VH, Seler, Ges. Abh. II, p. 901, Aztec style. 
 
 10, II. Carved-wood drum from Malinalco, dist. of Tenancingo in the State of Mex. covered on top 
 with skin (tlalpan ueuetl); 97 cm. high, dimension on top 42 cm. greatest dim. 52, thickness of 
 sides 4 cm.; dancing and singing jaguars and eagles are depicted on it; the sign Naui olin ("4"sun 
 movements") and other war symbols. Now in Toluca Museum, reproductions of photographs by 
 Frau Caecilie Seler. cf. Seler Mittlg. Anthrop. Ges. Vienna, Vol. 34, p. 222 — 274, and Hist. Essays 
 ni, p. 221 — 304. Aztec style. 
 
 12. Stone figure of smooth grey andesite with folded neck ribbon, frontlet, ear-pegs and loin-cloth 
 a hollow In the chest. R. hand broken off, 1. hand closed like a ring. Low priest, torchbearer? 
 72.5 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 341. Uhde Coll. Cf. similar stone fig. of the ex- 
 cavations In the Calle de las Escalerlllas (Mex. City), however without nape ornament, but with 
 Incense-ball in r. hand; see Ges. Abh. E. H, p. 890. Aztec style (young-epigonal). The execution 
 is no longer constrained, though the attitude is stiff. 
 
 13. Stone toad with the hieroglyh chalchiultl ("green jewel") on belly. 42 cm. long. Mus. Nac. de Mex. 
 (No. 22). From photographs by Frau C. Seler. Aztec style. 
 
 14. Face mask of smoothed stone with mild expression. On the back the Wind God QuetzalcouatI In 
 basso-relievo as Chiconaui eecatl "9 Wind". 14 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. 26 077. Seler 
 Coll. Cf. Ges. Abh. E. H, p. 953 et seq. 
 
 15. Face mask of smoothed stone with wild expression. Mus. Nac. de Mex. Aztec style. (Young 
 epigonal.) 
 
 16. Group: mother with child of dark greenish carefully smoothed stone. 41 cm. high. Eth. Mus. Berlin. 
 Dr. W. Lehmann's Coll. (presented by His Ex. the Duke of Loubat). Acapulco. Orilla del Rio 
 de San Pedro, Guerrero state. Old epigonal style. Strictly conventionalized execution though 
 showing evidence of Internal unconstrained rhythm. 
 
 17. Clay figure, painted white-yellowish, red, blue, and orange-yellow. Macullxochltl-Xochlpllll (the 
 "Flower Prince"), the God of the Rising Morning Sun in the mask of the Coxoxtll-bird with high 
 feather cap singing at dawn. 35 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 10 957, Seler Coll. Teo- 
 tltlan del Camino, Frontier of the Tzapotecan country. Cf. Seler Ges. Abh. II, p. 886; wall paintings 
 of Mitla, Berlin 1895, Plate XIII. Last branch of classical style. 
 
 18. Page I of the Codex Fejervary-Mayer in Liverpool. Free Public Museum (12 014 M). The period 
 of 260 days = tonal-amatl, based on the fundamental row of 20 day symbols distributed as a cos- 
 mological picture over the 4 cardinal points with the Fire God, "the mother, the father of the gods" 
 in the middle. Photographs of the coloured edition of the above-mentioned picture manuscript 
 published by His Ex. the Duke of Loubat. The fusion of two perspectives Is noteworthy. Last 
 branch of younger Toltec style. 
 
 19. Mug-shaped alabaster vessel with superimposed lizard shaped figure of an animal. 23 cm. high. 
 Mus. Nac. de Mex. Classical style or last remnant of same. Alabaster figures being found in Mix- 
 teco-Tzapotec districts. I observed however their southermost occurence in Guanacaste (Costa 
 Rica) which points to the classical influence of Cholula.
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 25 
 
 20. Melon fruit of smoothed stone (diorite), 28 cm. long and 18 cm. high. Mus. Nac. de Mex. Perhaps 
 Totonac origin. 
 
 21. Tajin from Papantla. Chief fa<;ade looking east. The rising walls of the intervals of the step- 
 pyramid ornamented with niches which are the characteristic feature of Totonac architecture. 
 Cf. Seler. Ges. Abh. Ill, p. 538; Del Paso y Troncoso, Catalogo Exposicion Hist. Am. Madrid. 
 Tomo n, p. 16 et seq. 
 
 22. Stone sculpture — grooved underneath — of the so-called "Palma type" in the form of a conventiona- 
 lized pelican. Jalapa. Heredia Coll., Mexico. From an original photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the 
 author's possession. Totonac style. The meaning of the palma pieces is a mystery. Palmas were 
 found placed in graves. Perhaps they were put in front of the corpse of a revered person as a pro- 
 tective spirit of the grave and as the soul's companion in its subterranean journey? (Cf. Seler 
 G. A. HI, p. 542). Palmas, be it noted, are characteristic of the Totonac district. But I also saw such 
 a palma piece in western Salvador. Narrow stone heads, stone yokes, alabaster vessels, glazed ceramic, 
 Chac-Mol figures and palmas seem to belong to an ancient period of culture. In reference to palmas, 
 vide Seler in Boas Anniversary Vol. New York, 1906, p. 302 et seq. 
 
 23. Palma stone sculpture, 60 cm. high. Sacrificial male victim whosebreast is opened by a cross cut, 
 the arms pinioned with ropes. Hair dressed in shape of a plaited grass-tuft (zacatapayolli), perhaps 
 as a receptacle for the agave-leaf thorns smeared with the sacrificial blood. Heredia Coll. Mexico. 
 From an original photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the author's possession. Coatepec, Jalapa. Totonac 
 style (cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV, Ca. 32462, cast No 4516). 
 
 24. Stone head with very hollow cheeks and open mouth. 25 cm. high. Mus. Nac. de Mex. Vera Cruz 
 state. Perhaps Totonac origin. 
 
 25. Fragment of a child's figure of whitish finely sifted clay, showing grey when broken. Two small 
 teeth in upper and lower jaw. A hole in top of head probably intended for an ornament. Photo- 
 graphs by Frau C. Seler. The original in Seler's possession. Santiago Tuxtla (acquired end 1910). 
 Olmec style; presumably already influenced by Spaniards (vide plate 36). 
 
 26. Human clay figure with large rattle or incense staff. The lower left part of face covered with 
 caoutchouc layers; holes are pierced round right half of the mouth. The ear-pegs are pointed and 
 conical. The upraised left hand contains a roundish object (perhaps manopla?). Heredia Coll., 
 San Andres de Tuxtla. From a photograph by Dr. W. Bauer in the author's possession. Style 
 of the Olmec coastal population. Considered by Batres (in his Civilizaciön prehist. de las riberas 
 del Papaloapam, Mex. 1908 p. 47) as a product of "Mayoid" culture. 
 
 27. Clay figure of a warrior with pot-lid shaped hat, his raised arms holding a club and ready to strike. 
 The body is in a pot somewhat like a suit of armour. The calves are covered with mosaic bands. 
 Heredia Coll. S. Andres de Tuxtla. From a photograph by Dr. W. Bauer. Style of the Olmec 
 coastal inhabitants (Olmeca-Uixtotin). The figure is strikingly similar to a clay-figure from Colima. 
 Vogel's Coll. (Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV. Ca. 34 403). 
 
 28. Stone relief from Huilocintla, Hacienda San Isidro, Canton Tuxpan. Tatooed figure of Ce ocelotl 
 ("i Jaguar") = Quetzalcouatl's or his incarnation inflicting self-chastisement — by piercing the 
 tongue with a thorn-like instrument of torture. About ^/j, of natural size. Totonac style 
 influenced by young Toltec art. (Plaster cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV. Ca. 25 072). 
 
 29. Stone relief from Huilocintla Colegio preparatorio de Jalapa. About '/u of natural size; tatooed 
 figure of Quetzalcouatl similar to fig. 28. Both from photographs by Frau C. Seler. Cf. Ges. Abh. 
 E. Ill, p. 514 — 521 (plaster cast in Berlin Ethn. Mus. No. IV, Ca. 25071). 
 
 30. Stone relief about i m. broad and 1.80 m. high. Richly ornamented human figure, the face looking 
 out of the opened jaws of a monster, the ear-ornaments with flower rosette; a horizontal line is 
 drawn from nose to mouth over the lower part of the face. The coat is ornamented with a mean-
 
 26 . The History of Ancient Mexic an Art. 
 
 drian edging with flower rosette in the middle-field, the lower border with a dentated edging 
 and an animal's head in front; the bandages around the calves and a foot-ribbon are recognizable 
 on the partly broken feet. At the back of the head of the monster-mask there is the head of a 
 snake with open jaws. A snake—like body, belonging perhaps to this head, hangs down the back 
 of the figure, its outer edge limited by the plaited hair tresses of the figure. The left arm is 
 raised, the r. bent, showing only a partly extended hand. In front of the figure, on the edge, there 
 is a vertical stripe of hieroglyphics. Horizontally above the figure a creature like a fire-snake, the 
 head ornamented with lightning-arrows (miötli). Above the body another opened jaw of a reptile, 
 the tail-end apparently moved to the side on the right. Mus. Nac. de Mex. (No. 24). Information 
 as to origin of "Chapultepec" in Del Paso y Troncoso (Catalogo Exposiciön Hist. Am. Madrid, 
 Vol. II, p. 389 — 90) is doubtful. The piece serves as a connecting style between the Huilocintla 
 reliefs (vide plate 28 and 29) on the one hand, and the Tzapotec grave stone with its yet undeci- 
 phered hieroglyphics on the other. (Cf. e. g. grave stones from Tlacolula etc., Oaxaca in Seler 
 G. A. II, p. 359 et seq. 
 
 31. Clay head with richly ornamented head-dress: 26 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 11 152; 
 Seler Coll. Tlacolula, Tzapotec style. 
 
 32. Smoothed hematite'figure 23 cm. high. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 30 347. Seler Coll. Teotitlan 
 del Camino, borders of the Tzapotec country. 
 
 33. Head of smooth dark stone with frontlet; about i span high. In the town of Chiapa, Chiapas, pri- 
 vate property. Photograph by Frau C. Seler (1897). 
 
 34. Above: Sacred funeral-urn in the shape of a sitting human figure with rich head-dress. Nat. Hist. 
 Mus. Vienna, Guillaume Coll. Oaxaca. Photo, by Frau C. Seler. Tzapotec style. — Below: Sacred 
 funeral-urn in the shape of a sitting human figure with grotesque bearded face; two dentated 
 clay censers on pipe-shaped base, in front jaguar head with ribbons. Kennedy Coll. Oaxaca. Photo, 
 by Frau C. Seler (1910). Tzapotec style. (Cf. similar censers in Ethn. Mus. Berlin from Sta. 
 Maria Sola.) 
 
 35. Front and side view of a; human fig. with dance-rattles attached to belt; a drinking vessel in the 
 shape of a jaguar's foot held in the outstretched hands. The head with hair dressed in catterpillar- 
 shaped coils. Nat. Hist. Mus. Vienna, Guillaume Coll. Oaxaca. Photo, by Frau C. Seler. Tzapotec 
 style (cf. a similar piece in Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 28 353 from Nazareno, Dist. del Centro 
 [Oaxaca], grave excavation 1856). 
 
 36. Front and side view of a brownish clay figure 62 cm. high, with rattle belt; mouth opened (to sing.'') 
 and chieftain's hair-coif consisting of a bundle of hair wrapped in a leather strap. Ethn. Mus. Berlin. 
 No. IV, Ca. 31 601. Seler Coll. Santiago Tuxtla (acquired together with piece mentioned as No. 25). 
 Olmeca-Uixtotin style, especially of the Cuetlaxtlan (Cotastla) the "leather-strap land". 
 
 37. Sitting jaguar with three bells; clay, 64.5 cm. high; painted brown-yellow and red (on tongue, nose 
 ears, bushy eyebrows and breast ribbon). Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 35 247. Seler Coll. 
 Tzapotec style. 
 
 38. Above: Colossal stone head, very old-faced with wrinkles, beard and frontlet; reminiscent of similar 
 bearded faces of glazed clay vessels from Vera Cruz. (Strebel Coll. Ethn. Mus. Berlin, cf. Seler 
 G. A. Ill, p. 624, fig. 90, and V. S. 559, fig. 228) and the republic of Salvador. Sta. Lucia Co- 
 zumalhuapa, Finca Bilbao (later = Peor es nada) property of Koch Hagemann and Co. Photo, by 
 F. Berendt (grandson of H. Strebel) belonging to Prof. E. Seler. Pipil style of the Guatemala 
 coast. — Below: "Cabeza colosal". Colossal stone head. Tuxtla canton. Photo, by Fr. C. Seler. 
 
 39. Large stone relief. A chieftain sitting on a chair (r. of spectator) dressed in jaguar skin. Snakes 
 coiled round hair, and a snake on right leg. The hands hold fruit-shaped hearts. Underneath the 
 chair a bowl filled with heads, a sacrificial knife, and the figure of child. In the middle of the relief
 
 The History of Ancient Mexican Ai't. 27 
 
 a tall figure with head turned backwards, hair-plait, down-feather bush in nape of neck, the slightly 
 raised hands hold (1.) an ornamented sacrificial blade, and (r.) a heart-shaped fruit. The loin-cloths 
 are richly ornamented, the left knee tied with a snake. The features of this figure appear to be 
 young. A smaller figure approaching from left has a long pointed peg in its knee, the extended 
 1. hand holds a bone-dagger, the raised right one a female shirt-clad child. A small male person 
 crouches between the stepping and the tall standing figjures. There are tendril-scrolls in front of 
 the mouths of the sitting and standing figures to denote speech. Along the whole relief garlands 
 with leaves, buds, blossoms, and birds are distributed. The original is a lava block at the foot of 
 a low earth pyramid of the Hacienda Peor es nada (formerly Bilbao) near Sta. Lucia Cozumalhuapa, 
 Dep. Escuintla, Rep. Guatemala. Photo, by Frau C. Seler (Cast in Ethn. Mus. Berlin, Seler Coll. 
 presented by H. Ex. the Duke of Loubat, and stands in the central hall, No. 29). Pipil style. Cf. 
 S. Habel, The Sculpture of Sta. L. C. Washington 1872; Bastian "Steinskulpturen aus Guatemala", 
 and J. F. Bransford, Ann. Rep. Board of Regents, Smiths. Inst, for 1884, Wash. 1885, p. 719 — 730, 
 Seler "Centenario", Madrid, No. 26 (1892), p. 241 — 252, Strebel "Jahrbuch" Hamburg "Wiss. 
 Anst." XI (1874), C. Seler, "Auf Alten Wegen in Mexico und Guatemala", Berlin 1910; Guides to 
 the Royal Museums Berlin, Ethn. Mus. Berlin. 16 th ed. (1914), p. 20 — 36. 
 
 40. Stone relief from Menche (Stone Lintel House, M.). A human figure kneeling on r. leg, grasping 
 with r. hand the pendant tassel of a large flint bladed lance belonging to the chief person standing 
 before the recumbant one. The former holds the lance in his uplifted 1. hand, whilst with his r. 
 he grasps the hair of the kneeling figure who holds with his 1. hand the end of a ribbon attached 
 to the lance. The central figure is ornamented with a feather head-dress, and has a skull suspended 
 over his back. The flattened, i. e. artificially deformed skulls of the figures are noteworthy. Besides 
 large hieroglyphics in relief there are still smaller engraved ones behind the left leg of the chief person. 
 It is possible that these hieroglyphics refer to the two figures represented. According to Maudslay, 
 Biologia Centraliamericana, Archaeol. Vol. II. PI. 97. (Photo, in Ethn. Mus. Berlin.) Maya style. 
 
 41. Facade of the temple palace of Sayil with stone columns probably developed from an older wood 
 architecture and a grotesque mask of joined stones. Photo, by Teobert Maler (in Ethn. Mus. Berlin). 
 Maya style. (N. W. Yucatan, between Hecelchakan and Ticul). 
 
 42. Clay figure, 18 cm. high. Mailed figure in cotton armour (Aztec ichcauipilli) with cap, collar-piece 
 and shield, Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 32 344, Dr. F. Cazares Coll. Merida, Hacienda Cuzumal 
 (between Merida and Muna) Dist. of Maxcanu, W. Coast of Yucatan. Maya style. 
 
 43. Clay figure 29 cm. high. Jester (?) with collar-piece, upper garments with sleeves and leather strips. 
 Girdle, apron; trousers with leather strips, and sandals. Ethn. Mus. Berlin. No. IV, Ca. 4938. 
 Jimeno's Coll. Yucatan, Maya atyle. 
 
 44. Feather snake column in front of the Cella on the hill of the "Tiger and Jaguar Temple" in Chi- 
 ch'en itza (N. E. Yucatan). Photo, by Fr. C. Seler (1902). Toltecan style of the celebrated Tollan 
 snake column, fragments of which have actually been found in Tula, and are kept in the Mus. Nac. 
 of Mex. In ref. to various architectural periods cf. T. Maler "Globus", Vol. 82, p. 225, and 
 W. Holmes, Arch. Researches Field Columbia Mus. Anthr. I, p. 106 — 109. 
 
 45. Stone figure of the so-called "Chac-Mol" type (Le Plongeon's), also called "Dios recostado", with 
 bowl-like hollow in body, butterfly-shaped breast ornament, head turned to right. About 1.48 m 
 long, I m. high, and 78 cm. broad. The original was excavated in 1884 by Le Plongeon in Chich'en- 
 itza, and is now kept in the Mus. Nac. of Mex. (Cast in Ethn. Mus. Berlin, No. IV, Ca. 18 553). 
 Toltec style. Such antique figures are mostly found in or near the entrance of temple porticos 
 being used perhaps as vessels to hold offerings of honey or pulque, also in the older stratum 
 before the actual Sacrarium of the temple of Cempoallan (Totonac dist.). Cf. Seler, G. A. II, 
 p. 817 — 820, V. p. 153 et seq. I discovered a Chac-Mol in S. Salvador (1909). The discovery o^
 
 28 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. 
 
 the Chiche' nitzä Chac-Mol in situ in Aug. Le Plongeon, Queen Moo II. edit. N. Y. 1900, plate 62, 
 cf. Lond. Magazine Vol. 241, No. 140, p. 123 — 132. 
 
 46. Large clay vessel with plastic face. Nat. Hist. Mus. Vienna, Adam Coll. Photo, by Fr. C. Seler. 
 S. Salvador. Similar, but partially perforated vessels come from Quen Santo (Chacula), the western 
 Maya dist. of the frontier of Chiapas and Guatemala. Maya style. 
 
 47. Page 6 of the Dresden Maya MS. (vide E. Förstemann). Gods with accompanying hieroglyphics, 
 numbers and day symbols. Maya style. 
 
 48. Stone plate with a jaguar in relief eating a heart. Chich'enitza, Mausoleum I, Photo, by T. Maler 
 in Ethn. Mus. Berlin (1886, 94). Cf. Le Plongeon, Queen M60 II. edit. N. Y. 1900, plate 59.
 
 Earliest 
 Times 
 
 Pre- 
 Histon 
 
 Aboriginal 
 Mayas 
 
 Protol 
 Histor 
 
 (mythicat«nns of ancient! 
 tingedffoltec culture 
 
 i-eached the ab- ' 
 original Mayas I 
 
 early as perhaps 
 300 A. D. ' 
 
 5out 526 A. D J 
 wst settlement 
 Dm the south*« 
 
 Je.'*"-J'hence ancient 
 
 rtlStqich'enitza was 
 
 (partlpiscovered" in 
 
 mythicarca 585 A. D. 
 
 '°^*TBirdgod from , 
 ixtla 158 years 
 
 I 
 
 iden jade plate 
 
 om S. Belize 1 
 
 latest loth cent 
 
 A. D. ' 
 
 '3 
 
 Actfyapan des- 
 
 Hisr/'J5^i45oj 
 
 
 pllan
 
 before loooB.C. 
 
 A.D.— 600 B. C- 
 
 726— 1235 (?) 
 726 — 1064 A.D. 
 I nd Toltec 
 
 downfall 
 
 . Proto-Toltec 
 
 b) Ancient-Toltec 
 
 A. Prc-Tcotihuai 
 
 Pueblos. Casas grande- 
 
 uProto-Teotihua 
 
 D. Young -Tcotihuacan 
 
 . ;g b) Early Mexican 
 
 , Tonayan- 
 3. Tlät" 
 
 Colhuacan-Mexico (S»h 
 
 Tenochtitlan -Mexico 
 
 VI. Mixed style 
 VII, epigonal 
 
 Tribes and their Hist 
 
 Teules Chichimeca 
 
 Proto-Toltecs 
 
 [Pre-Tenochca. ii6S 
 I Ancient-Aztecs 
 
 
 Chichimec 
 
 
 Acolhuaq 
 
 
 Am.que,.,rej 
 
 Otomi 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■hi" *p*'od 
 
 .Vt'lCbiVc'h'.co 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 TBg-,«-, A. D 
 
 CommcDcemea 
 
 roltecic.icd: 
 
 eTiVsi-iYi^ 
 
 Tolteca- 
 
 Bittbye»rol 
 
 chichimeca 
 
 "ing^^Chfc'bi 
 
 
 
 
 
 ■^'oiJ^^'Mlfs 
 
 
 'tTonVännlSj" 
 
 Ä^lL'«, 
 
 
 
 
 loll — 836, 
 
 n
 
 ¥
 
 10
 
 « a^^.jau.f.SJ-ii'!^.. 
 
 11
 
 \<4 
 
 ■^ 
 
 12
 
 13
 
 14
 
 15
 
 16
 
 17
 
 18
 
 19
 
 20
 
 21
 
 22
 
 23
 
 24
 
 25
 
 26
 
 27
 
 / 
 
 
 
 28
 
 'r'r k 
 
 f 
 
 n 
 
 J 
 
 I T 
 
 J, 
 
 29
 
 
 ^r^taSfh- . ^y*-. v^-^^ 
 
 \ 
 
 30
 
 31
 
 32
 
 33
 
 34
 
 ;^9 
 
 35
 
 36
 
 37
 
 38
 
 39
 
 40
 
 41
 
 42
 
 r .vX 
 
 fj0i^' 
 
 43
 
 44
 
 45
 
 *t? 
 
 *?? 
 
 -X 
 
 f^ 
 
 I 
 
 i 
 
 46
 
 :-A.i'- ,:^ii'W^~21W :'^--'- ■ ' • ' C "^y ^ y^??vT-''' 
 
 47
 
 r^p>^o^<^^n^ 
 
 J' f 
 
 
 
 48
 
 b 
 
 «UNIVERSITY OF C -t IFORNlM 
 
 THE LIBRAirr 
 ÖHIVEKSITY .jFOftNtÜ 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 Los Angeles 
 . «. iioiThis book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 ^.H 3^973 
 
 «90 tM» 
 
 
 FEB' ' fises 
 
 RICO m^^Q^ 
 
 IHM ^^9 i^g0 
 
 APR 18 1979 
 
 
 «RCTItB-UW 
 
 
 »AR 26 1981 
 
 
 ,^^*'^ 
 
 x^^'^^ 
 
 
 (R\n IAN 12 1987 
 
 Form L9-Series WJ • '-'