Epi-Classic Cultural Dynamics in the Mezquital Valley

Some Contexts

With the purpose of addressing the possible meaning of the figures and the implications of their distribution, it is important to identify the regions where they are present, and whenever possible, the contexts of which they were a part.

Maya Area

An abundant sample of these pieces was recovered in the Sacred Cenote, at Chichén Itzá (Figure 5, Figure 6 y Figure 7). In spite of how difficult it is to come to a conclusion with pieces that have been separated from their original context, Tatiana Proskouriakoff accomplished the enormous task of analyzing the objects that the Carnegie Institution of Washington recovered at the site, and produced a book that reached far beyond the exclusive goal of cataloging (Proskouriakoff, 1974). In her book, the author made a preliminary classification of the objects aimed at distinguishing temporality and provenience, while motifs and representations, forms and arrangement, and manufacturing techniques, were considered as primary variables.

Besides the differences imprinted by each manufacturer, Proskouriakoff has observed the emergence, transformation and decline of a number of techniques in the assemblage, while a comparative analysis of monuments, sculptures and contexts enabled her to propose a chronological sequence for such development.

Throughout this evolution and as of the Classic, the use of mechanical implements was adopted and their use widespread, allowing for an increased sharpness and standardized effects for delineating motifs, as well as a greater precision in the curved lines (Proskouriakoff, 1974:9).

As a part of that technological innovation, the use of tubular perforators or drills is observed, and the very particular traces they leave are considered to be one of the main chronological markers of the Late Classic (Digby, 1972:24; Proskouriakoff, ibid.:13).

Several iconographic patterns in the illustrations shown along the text, appeared during the Early Classic. In Alfred Kidder’s description (in Proskouriakoff, ibid.:12) of plaques he recovered in the region of Nebaj, Guatemala, and corresponding to this period, the figures show flexed arms and the back of the hands united at the chest level, sophisticated headdresses and necklaces around their necks. In our opinion, the absence of ophidian or human profiles flanking the faces of individuals in the early pieces from Guatemala is significant, a difference outlined by Proskouriakoff in regard to her collection, where the motif is present in pieces she already considered to show a transitional Early–Late Classic style. ⁵   Other features noticed for the first time in this transition are the "tufts" centered in the forehead, and the pierced earflares, "announcing common conventions at a later date", in Proskouriakoff’s own words (idem).

During the Late Classic, and in addition to what has been mentioned before, the double plain bands that joined together the tuft of the headdress with the earflares were added, occasionally exhibiting, in the final epochs, an upwards curl, ⁶   and a significant detail: hands still rested at the chest level, though by then palms were shown inwards, with the fingers often touching one another, contrary to the customary position of earlier times (idem).

After her analysis, the author concludes that "Most pieces in the collection were manufactured, not in Chichén Itzá but in the southern Maya area during the Late Classic Period" (ibid.:x).

Thus, and so far, we know that the manufacture of these Maya pieces took place mostly between the years A.D. 600 and 900, and that they were a derivation of a southern style. However, when, and to what purpose, they have been offered to the Cenote, still remains unclear.

Unfortunately, we are still unable to determine when the deposit was put in place (Thompson, 1973:133). There are two basic versions of this event that derive from two different conceptions around the historical developments that took place in Chichén Itzá, and the kind of links this Maya city maintained with other regions. ⁷ 

Proskouriakoff came up with an alternative to explain the presence of these pieces from the Late Classic and the southern style recovered at the northern border of the Yucatán peninsula. Even though a number of samples may have arrived along that route, the author considers that during the Classic period Chichén Itzá was not a place of gathering for pilgrims arriving from Petén, and explains that there’s no concluding evidence to consider that an "intense" exchange between both areas has taken place at that time. In her view, it was during the "Toltec occupation" when these objects were offered to the waters of the Sacred Cenote, though this was not their original function; in Proskouriakoff’s own words: "[…] most pieces manufactured in the south were used there and duly buried with their owners in Classic tombs, only to be unearthed at a later time, either by Toltec plunderers or by their regional allies, and further sent to Chichén Itzá as a tribute or gift […]." (ibid.:14-15). To Proskouriakoff, this situation may have explained why a good portion of the burials in the southern regions have been plundered of their contents ⁸   and why, being the ’Toltec period’ the moment of greater activity in the Sacred Cenote, these objects with dates from the Late Classic were the ones that abounded the most. However, recent revisions in the chronology of Chichén Itzá have obscured the abrupt and sequential distinction presumed between the ’Maya’ and ’Toltec’ ’occupations’ of Chichén, and they would even seem to confirm that the period with the greatest dynamics in that city may have been the Epi-Classic (Cohodas, 1989; Wren and Schmidt, 1991; Ringle et al., 1998).

Clemency Chase Coggins suggests that the pieces were thrown down shortly after they were manufactured: "The simplest thing is to assume that all these foreign objects that were broken for their ritual consignment in the Cenote, ⁹   were taken to Chichén Itzá during the Terminal Classic period when they were carved, rather than thinking that they were all relics, or that they were all plundered from tombs at a much later time" (1984:27).¹⁰

Coggins considers that the majority of the jade plaques were deposited during the Early Period I, around the IXth Century (1984:43, see also McVicker and Palka, 2001:184). Ringle, Gallareta and Bey suggest that this could have started one century before, in face of the pieces of an identical type recovered in Epi-Classic contexts within the city of Chichén, in Monte Albán and Xochicalco (Ringle et al., 1998:203).

During the explorations carried out in the Chac Mool Temple from Chichén Itzá, conducted by E. Morris, J. Charlot and A. Morris, from the Carnegie Institution, a stone box with a lid was found deposited as an offering on an altar. The container had remains of a shell necklace, jade, and a pendant with a carved face in the style already described, in addition to a turquoise mosaic (Morris et al., 1931:186-188, figs. 119 and 121). A necklace, also found in a stone box that was placed at the foot of the inner stairway of El Castillo, presents similar characteristics (Erosa, 1939:241; Marquina, 1990 [1951]:854-855, photo 428; CCM/MEB, 1990:189, fig. 96; Ringle et al., 1998:203, fig. 18; McVicker and Palka, 2001:184), this time by a "small deposit of human remains" (Erosa, idem). Again, the necklace was accompanied by two mosaics with coral, shell and turquoises, and a design of serpents in profile (Erosa, ibid., figs. 6 and 7; Marquina, ibid., photos 426 and 427). For the time being, it is difficult to assign both these contexts a definite temporality, but recent revisions of the site’s chronology (Cohodas, 1989:227-238; Wren and Schmidt, 1991; Ringle et al., 1998:183-184, 188-192) allow to assume that their disposition predated the Early Post Classic.¹¹

It is possible that the throwing of the greenstone plaques into the waters of the Sacred Cenote was contemporary to their manufacture, and that the offering ceremonies may be inserted in the ambit of their original significance (as proposed by Ringle et al., idem); but contrary to Coggins (1984:70), we believe that their production was not exclusively designed for that purpose.

Contrary to Coggins’ statements in support of the notion that the figures were destined, from the very beginning, to be thrown into the Cenote, simpler versions of these plaques are actually represented in sculptures and paintings worn by individuals as a part of their necklaces, chest protectors or belts, being this the reason why most of them have perforations, and showing, therefore, that they were in fact personal possessions and ornaments (Figure 6 and Figure 7; see also Acosta, 1955, illus. 2; Jiménez 1998, figs. 22 and 59; Mastache and Cobean, 2000, fig. 23; McVicker and Palka, 2001, figs. 10, 11 and 12c; see note 37).

In the southern Maya lands these pieces were recovered in burial contexts. For instance, during the works carried out in Structure A34 at El Caracol, Belize, Diane and Arlen Chase explored a tomb where the remains of at least four individuals had been placed, together with some offerings (1996:66-78). This deposit had been accomplished in at least two episodes, reusing the grave. This situation partially disturbed the previous depositions, making it difficult to associate the objects and their owners, but the ceramic objects evidence a span of approximately one hundred years for the occurrence of these events during the Late Classic.

Of the four individuals, only one young adult had been dismembered and his remains possibly arranged in a mortuary bundle. Artifacts associated with this assemblage of bones include beads, earflares and other shell ornaments, obsidian blades, and one jadeite pendant like the ones we have mentioned here, of the type that shows only the face with the typical protruding eyes and mouth, earflares and the finish centered in the head, which in this case has been described as "[…] some kind of crown in his forehead which has been associated with the royal Maya authorities" (Chase and Chase, ibid.:70-71, fig. 9).

An additional example is represented by César Sáenz’s finding in Palenque, mentioned above. In 1954, while excavation and consolidation works were being carried out in Temple XVIII, near the portico and under the stucco floor, three cists sealed with stone slabs were found. Among them, the denominated Tomb No. 2 contained a secondary burial together with over one hundred objects of jade (beads, pendants, fragments of a mosaic and two earflares), shell (beads and one piece with carved glyphs), flint (pendants), pearls, pyrite (thin flakes), obsidian and pottery (Sáenz, 1956:8-9). Among the objects, there is "[…] a jade plaque representing a "halach huinic" in a seated position […]" in Sáenz’s description, and he continues "[…] with a headdress formed by one circle with two crossing lines in the shape of an X, and two sorts of serpent heads, one at each side. He is wearing earflares and a necklace" (Sáenz, ibid.: 15 and illus. 20) (Figure 3). The material found near the dismembered individual could not be absolutely dated, but when the temple’s portico was liberated, adhering to the outside wall and on both sides, "[…] two burial slabs with their corresponding Initial Series and a Long Count date […]" were found, which read "[…] 9.12.6.5.8, 3 Lamat 6 Zac, year 678 of our Age in the B correlation, while in the A correlation it corresponds to the year 418" (ibid.:9). Like the Goodman-Martínez-Thompson correlation has proved to be the most accurate, Sáenz favors the dating for the A.D. 678, and when he further mentions this finding, he refers only to this latter one.

Coming back to the work on the objects found in the Sacred Cenote, Tatiana Proskouriakoff concludes that "[…] the overall geographical extension of this collection is difficult to establish. A small number of pieces may be ascribed to the Guatemalan highlands and to the Pacific Coast" (1974:x), and later she refers to their presence in Oaxaca: "There is a closely related Oaxacan style, in which much of the same technique has been used (Late Classic’s). The ears, nose and mouth are represented with plain arcs, and in the larger pendants, the headdress consists of the central tuft from the Late Classic, and bands which sometimes are rolled over the earflares" (ibid.:14).

Coincidences with Oaxaca have also been noted by Clemency Coggins, who refers to a "Nebaj" style plaque included in the collection recovered at the Sacred Cenote, by saying: "In any way it may have arrived in here (from the southwestern Maya regions), similar events may probably have connected the Oaxacan center of Monte Albán with the region of the Usumacinta River, where it originated. A fragment of a "Nebaj" plaque such as this one was included in an offering from Monte Albán IIIB, with a jade variety comparable to those found in the Cenote (Caso 1965a, fig. 20)" (Coggins, 1984:70).

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Endnotes

5. Based on stratigraphy, Alfred Kidder was able to establish the basic differences between the jade carvings from the Early and the Late Classic for the region of Nebaj, Guatemala (Rands, 1965:574). As a part of the late style, there are plaques showing individuals with their heads in profile and wearing serpentine headdresses, characterized by long noses (ibid.:573, 578, fig. 43).

6. In his study on Maya jades, Adrian Digby (1972:23-24) also refers to a technological and iconographical evolution that may be traced from the Early to the Late Classic periods. The use of tubular perforators or drills had already been noted by him as a key to differentiate the early style from the later one–perforators corresponded to the later style, as also the bands curled on top of the earflares (see also Easby, 1961:74-75).

7. We refer to the occupational sequence in Chichén Itzá, which has been divided into two major periods: a properly "Maya" occupation of the site (A.D. 600/750-950) and a Toltec occupation (A.D. 950-1250) (Thompson, 1941; Kubler, 1961; Wren, 1984; Coggins, 1984, 1992). No doubt, a close relationship existed between Tula and Chichén, although when this happened, or under what circumstances, still remain unclear. There are scholars who think that a group of warriors coming from the city of Tula arrived in the Yucatecan peninsula and conquered the local population (Diehl, 1983:144; Coggins, 1984), imposing an architectural and an artistic style (Jiménez Moreno, 1941:82; Acosta, 1956-57:108-109). On the other hand, there is evidence that the impact of the foreigners was not too determining for the resident population (Du Solier, 1941:188; Wren, 1984:21), and that the "influence" also worked the other way round influencing the art and architecture of the Toltec capital, and also that the Toltecs residing in Chichén exported more than what they contributed (Kubler, 1961:49, 76-79). Presently, we know that some structures considered as typical of that period were in fact older (Wren, ibid.:20; Cohodas, 1989:228-231; Wren and Schmidt, 1991; Ringle et al., 1998:184, 188-192), that the so-called ’Toltec style’ also combined concepts of the Gulf Coast and Oaxaca (Wren and Schmidt, ibid.:203, Schmidt, 1999:439; Ringle et al., ibid.:184), and of the southern Maya lowlands and the Pacific Coast of Guatemala (Wren, ibid.:19-20), and that many of the elements defined as "Toltec" in Chichén Itzá and other centers from the lowlands, have antecedents in the region, and that these didn’t even exist in Tula (Kubler, 1961:47-79; Cobean, 1978:105-106; Cohodas, idem). This is the situation with most of the pieces from the Early Post Classic offered in the Sacred Cenote (Proskouriakoff, 1974:16), and regarding our subject of interest, the greenstone plaques, so abundant in collections recovered from the Cenote, for what we know, only four samples have been found in the Hidalgo site. The researchers who are presently working on these matters are favoring an intermediate solution, whereby the multiethnical aspects represented in the art and architecture of Chichén Itzá are interpreted as "[…] an example of cultural convergence, instead of an opposition between the elites of two ethnical groups […]" (Wren and Schmidt, ibid.:201).

8. It would seem that the desecration of tombs and the plundering of offerings has been a common practice. N. Grube and L. Schele have worked on hieroglyphic texts inside Maya tombs that describe irruptions in sealed tomb in the search of relics (in Chase and Chase, 1996:77). A similar behavior has been noted among the Aztecs (Proskouriakoff, 1974:15).

9. About the intentional damage that the pieces were subjected to before they were thrown down into the Cenote, McVicker and Palka suggested this was the result of a ritual act in which emblematic objects of some political order were "killed", for the establishment and justification of a new order (2001:194).

10. This is probably what happened, mostly because, as stated by Ringle, Gallareta and Bey, the limited variety of motifs among the abundant amount of pieces would be unlikely, should the objects had been plundered (1998:207, note 17). However, it should not be forgotten that the Cenote featured much older pieces contained in copal offerings from the Late Post Classic, and in this case Coggins accepts that "[…] apparently, they had been taken from tombs and offerings one millennium older […]" (1984:27).

11. The substructure of El Castillo is an early building from the second architectural phase of the site, and the superstructure corresponds to the last part of the same phase. Based on C14 datings, Cohodas has placed both buildings by the Terminal Classic at the latest (1989:229; see also Ringle et al., 1998: 191-192, Table 1). The Chac Mool Temple, one portion of which was destroyed when the Temple of the Warriors was built (Morris et al., 1931:70), corresponds to the following architectural phase, well into the Late Classic (Cohodas, idem). Epigraphic and radiocarbon dates have also been obtained, linking the sites of Uxmal and Chichén Itzá towards the Terminal Classic. Interestingly, in the shrine located in front of the Governor’s Palace in Uxmal, one of our plaques was recovered (Easby, 1961:72; Rands, 1965; CCM/MBE, 1990:190, fig. 100). Uxmal is also the place of origin of one of the tecali vessels that resembles the most the shape of the cylindrical vases supporting the tecali pedestal recorded in Tula (Acosta, 1956-57:100), Sabina Grande (Carrasco et al.,; Carrasco, in preparation) (see below), and in the Cenote (Coggins, 1984:33). The Uxmal piece shows an engraved panel "in a Late-Terminal Classic (A.D. 800-900) Maya style" (Coggins, idem).

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page