Epi-Classic Cultural Dynamics in the Mezquital Valley

Tula

Between the seventh and tenth season of archaeological works in Tula, Hidalgo, under the direction of Jorge Acosta, the explorations concentrated around Rooms 1 and 2 from Building 3 or Burnt Palace. Both rooms had socles running along the interior walls, and in Room 2 they were covered with wonderful reliefs representing a procession. Attached to the socles, there were altars in both rooms, and two of them contained the offerings we are referring to (Acosta, 1954:95-106, 112-114; 1955:146-154, 167-168; 1956-57:100). In the South Altar of the first room, the following has been recovered:

"[…] an extremely important offering that was spotted at a depth of 25 cm, consisting of a cylindrical lidded limestone vessel, painted in red. Inside, there was a jade plaque together with 18 shell beads (Illus. 45 and 46). The lid, which still keeps a good amount of red paint, presents perforations for its use as a pendant (Illus. 47). It is dark green in color, and a human figure occupying the entire surface of one of the faces has been magnificently carved on it. […] The individual is in a front position and standing, with his left hand on his chest, he wears circular earflares and as headdress, a large tuft of feathers that fall on both sides" (Acosta, 1954:104) (Figure 10a, shown below).

Regarding the altar where these objects were found, Acosta notes it is a superposition, as it was built on top of the general floor of the room and from the surrounding socle (ibid.:106). The situation of the East Altar in Room 2 is the same:

"[…] 0.20 cm deep, a cylindrical, lidded stone vessel was found, also painted in red. […] once unlidded, we saw it contained a wonderful jade plaque, two shells, and 16 small beads of the same material (illus. 27). The plaque was used, almost for sure, as a pectoral, in view of its two lateral perforations. On one of its faces, a beautiful human figure, in frontal position, had been sculpted (illus. 28). The hair had been tied over the forehead with a circular ornament and fell in curls on both sides. The individual was wearing circular earflares, and a necklace made of spheric beads hung from his chest. His hands were on his thorax, and held a circular object seen in another sculpture from Tula […]" (Acosta, 1955:152-153) (Figure 10b).

In this work, the author presents a comparative illustration that shows the figurine we have just described, the Toltec sculpture with which he finds similarities, the plaque Sánchez recovered in Palenque, and three samples of pieces originated in Monte Albán; we may include a plaque from Guerrero, exhibited at the National Museum, which features the same characteristics.²²  The arms are lifted in the position frequently observed in other figures, at the chest level, and with the palms of the hands facing each other, representing maybe the same attitude, although now the hands are holding an object whose meaning or functionality is unknown.²³

We know of three other plaques in the same style originated in Tula; two of them are made of jade, while the third one is shell. The first is presently exhibited in the Toltec Hall from the National Museum, but there are no details indicating contextualization. The second one was recovered during the explorations in the locality of El Canal, accomplished by the Missouri Project (Diehl, 1983, fig. 51), but besides the image and the general provenience, no other information is provided. Finally, several other authors have illustrated or referred to a shell fragment carved in the Late Classic Maya style found by Désiré Charnay in Tula in the late XIXth century, presently exhibited in the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago (Easby, 1961:72; Thompson 1973:217; Schele and Miller, 1986:78, 89, fig. 5; Paredes, 1990:13-14; McVicker and Palka, 2001). For a long time, it was thought to be abalone shell, whose origin is restricted to the north of the Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of California (see Schele and Miller, idem); however, a recent study suggested that it actually corresponded to the species Pinctada mazatlanica, circumscribed as well to the Pacific, but with a wide distribution that extends from the Gulf of California to Peru (McVicker and Palka, 2001:179). It has been considered that the piece was carved at least twice, and finally exported to Tula (Schele and Miller, idem; McVicker and Palka, ibid.:179, 182). Unfortunately there is no context information, as in addition to being a one-of-a-kind piece, it presents an interesting phenomena: even though the composition, the position and part of the individual’s garments are undoubtedly of a Maya style, this is not what happens with the phenotype (McVicker and Palka, 2001:182) which seems to be closer to the Toltec representations.²⁴  In addition, the character is wearing Q type earflares and a nose ring bar, ornaments that are absent in the Maya plaques known so far, but which are present, and frequently, in the sculptural representations from Tula (Jiménez, 1998) and occasionally in sculptures or mural paintings from Maya sites like Seibal, Chichén Itzá and Halal, or sites from Central México, like Cacaxtla, during the Terminal Classic (McVicker and Palka, idem, fig. 12). To McVicker and Palka, the similarities between these iconographic motifs and the shell ornament are an indicator of contemporaneity (ibid.:183).

One may think that the plaque was carved in Tula imitating the Maya style, perhaps using as a referral an original jade plaque from that region,²⁵  but then it would be strange that the objects display a series of Maya glyphs on one of its faces, which by no means is a feature extensive to the Central Plateau. Those who have studied this object state that the front and rear carving of the piece took place in different episodes, and that the inscription was damaged when the individual was represented (Schele and Miller 1986:78; McVicker and Palka, 2001:181). Could this have something to do with the non-Mayan traits of the central image? This is what McVicker and Palka say: "In case this was a talisman owned by foreigners who were not familiar with the Maya texts, the inscription in itself may have been of little importance" (idem). If in fact the piece was a Maya export, perhaps its destination was already anticipated when the second carving was completed. This may provide some information on its time of arrival to the Toltec capital, as the integration of allochthonous traits (frequently from Central México) and their arrangement within a composition of local rootings is a phenomenon common in the Maya lowlands since the Epi-Classic (Wren and Schmidt, 1991; McVicker and Palka, 2001:194). We believe that one of the plausible candidates for the manufacture is Chichén Itzá, a site with which Tula was intimately related.

In fact, the elements for reliably "dating" the presence in Tula of any of these jade plaques are inexistent. It has been said that the occupation of El Canal corresponds to the Tollán phase (Diehl, 1983:91; Healan, 1989:163; Healan et al., 1989:244; Paredes, 1990:85), but our lack of knowledge on the precise provenience and context in which this jade piece was found, is an obstacle to reflect on its presence in that place.

There is some more information concerning the figures from the Burnt Palace, but the assignation of a time frame seems difficult, as no associated ceramic materials have been recovered. As to the building, a number of ceramic elements collected during the excavations conducted by Acosta would suggest a late temporality (1945, in Paredes, 1990:122). In fact, the building was used during the Tollán phase, but it is possible that the construction dates back at least to the Terminal Corral phase (within the Ancient Period in the sequence defined by Acosta), due to the presence of the Coyotlatelco and Mazapa Undulating Lines (Mazapa Líneas Ondulantes) types (Paredes, 1990:60, 122; Gómez et al., 1994:17). It has been proposed that construction works at Tula Grande began during the Coyotlatelco age, when the ceremonial center of Tula Chico was still in use, and that the monumental sector of the Tollán phase was built on top of that first construction (Mastache and Cobean 2000:101). Regarding the Burnt Palace, Robert Cobean and Elba Estrada referred to a number of offerings located at the centre of the building, as deposits made between the years A.D. 900 and 1000 (1994:77).

As to the finding of the jade plaques, the apparent late placement of the compound caught the attention of Acosta himself, as he had information on the objects from Oaxaca and Palenque:

"[…] the fact that representations resembling those from Tula are present in Monte Albán, should not be surprising, as the latest phases from this large city already correspond to the Historic Period, and therefore, are contemporary to the Toltec Horizon. […] But the Palenque sample corresponding to the Classic Period, that is, prior to Tula, is disconcerting" (Acosta, 1955:167) (as mentioned before, the findings from both places have been dated around the Epi-Classic).

The presence of these plaques at the Burnt Palace is a phenomenon that may be interpreted at least in three different ways, and the first two do not respond to our chronological proposition:

1. If these pieces and the one from El Canal had been found in primary contexts corresponding to the Tollán phase (and provided the time frame suggested for this phase is correct), the force of the phenomenon we have described would be larger than the one initially proposed, while its latest examples would be found in the ancient Toltec capital. Needless to say, the implications would be much larger; including that the pattern observed for the arrangement of pieces in contexts from neighboring sites has not been preserved.

2. One may think that the pieces were there for circumstances similar to those from Cerro de las Mesas, that is, long after they were manufactured and with a different functionality and symbolism than the original ones. Thus, the pieces may have been taken from earlier contexts of the same site (Tula Chico, for instance) and kept as relics, or either, considering the close relationship existing with the Toltecs that apparently inhabited the Yucatecan peninsula during the Early Post Classic, they may have been imported from the south, towards the decline of the Tollán phase.²⁶

3. The more probable alternative, we believe, is that the figures were deposited sometime during the tenth century or maybe earlier, as was the case with similar jade plaques in nearby sites (Sabina Grande and Barrio de la Cruz, for instance), and as also happened with other offerings from the Burnt Palace, situated between the years A.D. 900 and 1000 (Cobean and Estrada, 1994:77), close to the moment when presumably, the shell plaque was obtained. In this case, the singularities in the integration of contexts in Tula may be a consequence of the emulation of depositional patterns from other regions, considering specifically the contexts already mentioned from the Chac Mool Temple and the substructure of El Castillo, in Chichén Itzá. It is of interest to note the great similarity existing in the arrangement of the objects found by Acosta and these two offerings: in the four contexts jade plaques were found as a part of shell necklaces inside stone lidded containers of identical shapes and very similar dimensions, in three cases the pieces had been deposited in an altar, and in all four cases in relation with buildings that exhibited Chac Mool type sculptures (Erosa, 1939:244; Acosta, 1955:147-151, 164-167; Marquina, 1990 [1951]: 853, 855, photo 422). The Toltec boxes did not contain turquoise mosaics, but in the same Room 2 of the Burnt Palace one of them was recovered by Acosta (1957, in Mastache and Cobean 2000:121), and yet another one was recovered years later (Mastache and Cobean, idem), with the serpent design observed in two of the Chichén discs. The homologies between these deposits represent additional singularities shared by Chichén Itzá and Tula: "No doubt, people in these two areas maintained a direct contact, and there is clear evidence on the dispersion of a highly structured politico-religious ideology " (Sanders, 1989:216). The main obstacle to address the nature of the relationships between both these sites lies, as mentioned by Peter Schmidt (1999:444) in the fact that in both of them there are, still, major details concerning the absolute and relative chronologies that need to be solved.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Endnotes

22. Eduardo Noguera describes a sculpture from Xochicalco exhibited at the National Museum, which shows similarities with the Toltec monolith: "[…] a standing individual holding a perforated disc in his hands." However, this time, "The head appears inside the serpent’s mouth and features large earflares," as is the case with the images of the jade plaques. Noguera concludes: "This deity has been identified as Chalchiuhtlicue" (1960:61). Karl Taube illustrates another sculpture from the Late Classic originated in Puebla, again with a serpent headdress and holding a similar object (2000b:318, fig. 10.27c).

23. About the circular element, Acosta notes: "[…] it has been temporarily identified as a magic mirror, those that priests used for their prophesies" (1955:167). Also in Room 2 of the Burnt Palace, several pyrite mirrors have been recovered (Mastache and Cobean, 2000:121). Karl Taube shows two Teotihuacán-style figurines recovered by Joseph Ball in Becán that were a part of an offering, and that again were holding a circular object in their hands, which he also identifies as a mirror (Taube, 1992:179-180, fig. 10). In a different work, this author referred that this was a relatively common sculptural subject in Mesoamerica throughout the Late Classic (Taube, 2000b:317). The pendant that the individual is wearing in the shell plaque we shall now refer to, has also been interpreted as a mirror (McVicker and Palka, 2001:182).

24. McVicker and Palka have carried out a thorough study of this piece (2001). By comparing it with others with similar raw materials and manufacture, the authors find a number of similarities with a bivalve on which the figure of a seated individual was carved, originated in Panaba, in the northeastern edge of the Yucatán peninsula (ibid.:179). Although the style greatly resembles the sample from Tula, the authors underline that the facial traits from the Panaba plaque are more Maya "classics", and tentatively place it in the Late/Terminal Classic. They also emphasize the similarity between this latter representation and the scene carved in a tecali vessel, recovered together with a figurative jade in an offering from Uxmal (idem).

25. It must be outlined that none of the known jade plaques from Tula seems to have been imported from the Maya Area. In the illustrations included here, the pieces from this latter region may be compared with the ones found by Acosta. The figure from the National Museum has greater similarities with the Zapotecan ones, and the one from El Canal is fragmented and its strokes look rather simple, making it difficult to establish a connection with the regional variants of this style.

26. Although less feasible, the possibility that the pieces were taken to the site during the Late Post Classic by Mexica groups must be considered. Intrusive contexts with Aztec materials (including ceramic IV) have frequently been recorded in the Tula Grande buildings (1954:86; 1955:136, 145, 147, 164) and similar offerings in stone boxes were recovered at the Templo Mayor, according to the information provided for one of the jade plaques exhibited in the museum in this latter site. However, as seen in Acosta’s reports, there is no doubt that the rubble which covered the Burnt Palace (resulting from the collapse of the roof originated by the fire and collapse of the building, was used as refill for a Mexica platform, and in this case, at least the East Altar of Room 2 should have remained totally sealed).

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page