Censer Symbolism and the State Polity in Teotihuacán

Ritual Ceramics at a Workshop in the Ciudadela, Teotihuacán: Catalog
by Carlos Múnera B. and Saburo Sugiyama

General Comments on Cataloging

The classification presented here includes groups of the different motifs in a very general manner and by no means pretends to be exhaustive; we are simply interested in making this material available, and we have classified it in four groups as shall be later seen.

For more complete information regarding the iconography of the materials found in the context of a ceramic workshop, we have attempted to illustrate with photographs, and as widely as possible, the huge variety of designs from this collection, including those pieces that feature the more extravagant motifs and which do not correspond to any of the established groups. Instead, pieces with the more widely known and more frequently repeated motifs, such as a variety of shells, the repeated volutes, the feather representations, etc., required just a small number of pictures, notwithstanding the large amount of existing pieces. The content of the tables included in this catalog may provide some idea of the number of pieces included in each group.

As to the analyses of the materials, a first classification was completed by Múnera, who prepared an overall grouping for his dissertation (Múnera 1985). Later, Múnera and Sugiyama undertook a second revision of the materials that had already been set apart from the fragments that contained poor iconographic information, with the purpose of verifying the original classification or changing it altogether for this catalog. Once the second classification was completed, Sugiyama took the pictures presented here. Then, Sugiyama revised once again the materials related to the ceramic workshop that were accessible to him, with the purpose of quantifying them in accordance with the second categorization established by Múnera and Sugiyama. The additional photographs were taken upon completion of the final modification.

The quantitative analysis was accomplished during a short season. Besides, after concluding the analyses conducted at the Teotihuacán laboratory, the access to this facility was restricted to us, due to situations that affected both the authors and the materials involved. For this reason, we were unable to verify some quantification data and to modify the original classification design. Therefore, a deeper analysis of said materials that takes into account the ceramic components, a typological classification, and the corresponding chronology, is still pending. However, we consider that the preliminary data presented here do reflect significantly the ceramic production activities that have taken place in the excavated area.

We must point out that not all ceramic materials found in this place, such as the different types of vessels and figurine fragments, have been included here. Although such materials were not directly related to the ceramic workshop, they may provide references for the information presented here. The archaeologist Ignacio Rodríguez, who conducted the excavations here, is in charge of analyzing this material. Therefore, the tables prepared by Sugiyama that follow the photographical order from this catalog, do not necessarily match the one originally prepared by Múnera, who included, in his dissertation, several general tables. However, the numbers in both tables feature an identical quantitative characteristic. The difference between both tables is due mainly to the different manners of grouping, and to the fact that a large number of pieces with different iconographic elements, may belong to different groups. We believe that the two tables prepared under two different points of view, provide references about the same set of materials.

The total number of materials revised by Sugiyama amounted to 20,637 pieces (3,281 molds and 17,356 appliqués). Preliminary analyses indicate that the primary function of this ceramic workshop was the production of censers. We are sure that more than 60% of this material was used for the theater-type censers. This assertion is based on the existing literature in regard to these censers (i.e. Berlo 1983; Gamio 1979; Helmuth 1975, 1978; Séjourné 1966; Von Winning 1987). Should we include other appliqués probably made for censers, then the total pieces would cover a percentage of 80%.

As suggested in Múnera’s dissertation, the workshop may have probably been at the service of people residing inside the Ciudadela. This proposition is supported by the fact that a large amount of molds and reproductions, similar to the ones described in here, were found by archaeologists Ana María Jarquín and Enrique Martínez in the northern residential complex of the Ciudadela (Jarquín and Martínez 1982). Unfortunately, those materials could not be revised by the authors to provide wider information in this catalog. Future studies on the aforementioned pieces, together with the ones presented here, will provide richer information about the function that the ceramic workshop may have had, information which in turn will contribute to a greater understanding of the history of this great monumental complex known as the "Ciudadela".

General Classification

I.     Phytomorphic Motifs: Realistic and Schematized Representations. Photos: 1-16.
II.    Zoomorphic Figures: Realistic and Schematized Representations. Photos: 17-49.
III.   Anthropomorphic Figures: Attributes of Deities and Characters. Photos: 50-129.
IV.  Other Motifs: Different Representations and Symbols. Photos: 130-207.
V.   Other Pieces: Censer Fragments. Photos: 208-216.

Previous Page  |  Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page