Second Nature Concentric Structures and Gravity as Represented in Teotihuacan Art
Assessing the Accurateness of its Interpretation
Teotihuacan, the largest city in Mesoamerica during the Classic flow, developed a complex urban civilization. However, no written histories of Teotihuacan are known, and no true writing system is apparent. Teotihuacan's artistic tradition used pictorial forms of visual communication rather than glyphic writing and Teotihuacan fine art incorporates standardized glyphic elements (Kubler 1967, Langley 1988). Even though the Teotihuacanos were familiar with the writing of other regions, their arrangement does not follow the sequence and glyphic conventions of depiction seen in the Zapotec and the Maya regions.
This paper focuses on issues related to the assumptions and validity of mural art interpretation. First, to provide some context for the discussion, I briefly depict Teotihuacan mural fine art, discuss the current understanding of mural chronology, and outline the history of its written report. I so consider problems relating to interpretation. A discussion of the full range of specific mural interpretations would exist an enormous task, and is unnecessary to address the problems herein. I decided to discuss a specific theme, that of the interpretation of organized religion, to illustrates questions about accuracy of interpretations. In the concluding major section I discuss the interpretation of religious themes, beginning by focusing on wide religious interpretations, then by presenting specific elements and categories of the fine art with religious interpretations.
One of the impressive features of Teotihuacan is the polychrome mural art, some surprisingly well preserved. The mural art constitutes a significant information source with respect to Teotihuacan culture. Mural painting and ceramics are the principal surviving art forms at Teotihuacan, and murals are an important aspect of its architecture. The not bad number of known murals at Teotihuacan is illustrative of their importance. Most of the murals were painted on a plaster medium, a medium with skillful preservation, with a true fresco technique (Littmann 1973:175). Due to their greater preservation, paintings from lower walls are better known.
Some pictographic signs correspond natural objects and role nominatively while others are associated with activities. In the Temple of Agriculture mural pocket-size human figures are depicted presenting items to two composite mount-platform forms which are anthropomorphized with earplugs, necklaces and nose plugs. Settings such as this have been interpreted as formalism and ritualistic. Other murals have a playful quality.
Tepantitla recreation in the National Museum of Anthropolgy, Mexico, D.F.
Sound scrolls, from uncomplicated spirals to complex chemical compound scrolls with bordering and enclosed signs, emanate from beings and natural objects, including shells. Streaming motifs, decorated like the sound scrolls, emanate from the mouths of creatures and fall from the hands of people and anthropomorphic forms. Insignia such as rattles, bags, standards, headdresses and shields are used in the limerick of anthropomorphic forms. Private attributes such as rank, function, and affiliation may have been recorded, and persons and places were probably named (Langley 1986:174).
Of the great quantity of murals and then far discovered at Teotihuacan a few are approximately dated by inference from the dating of the buildings where they are found (Cabrera 1995a:xxvii), although the majority of the buildings do not have a precise date (Cabrera 1992:113). Miller (1973:37) thinks the murals and walls were made at approximately the aforementioned fourth dimension; that the murals were created at the time of structure, that the architecture is patterned to display the paintings, and that the paintings requite meaning to the architecture. On occasion murals were plastered over and replaced with new paintings (Miller 1973:37). The murals in the Patio Blanco of Atetelco are dated to 350-450 A.D., and the other Atetelco murals dated to between 450 and 650 A.D. (Cabrera 1995a:xxvii).
A BRIEF HISTORY OF MURAL STUDIES
Von Winning, beginning in 1946, studied and reported on specific depictions, dripping h2o, shell designs, building representations, figurines, the reptile heart glyph, and he offered interpretations. He approached the art by examining motifs for detailed comparative report (Kubler 1967:3, von Winning 1987). Séjourné (1959, 1966) produced several works on Teotihuacan fine art and architecture containing very useful drawings and photographs. Her "psycho-historical method" (Kubler 1967:3) focused on attempting to find a unitary key to interpretation of cultural symbolism. Pasztory characterized Séjourné's view every bit mystical and meditative. Caso studied Teotihuacan glyphs (1942, 1958-59, 1961) and, in particular, addressed glyphs related to calendars (1937, 1967). In 1966 he published an commodity on the gods and symbols at Teotihuacan.
C. Millon, in an commodity on the history of Teotihuacan mural art (1972:ii), characterized the "more than 200 mural paintings from 40 structures" then known as "a very minor sample of the paintings." She wrote (1972:i), "To try to understand the history and way of life of Teotihuacan without conscientious written report of the landscape painting would be equivalent to report of the Maya area without its sculptures or its codices." She too pointed out the size and complexity of the city, the diverse functions of painted structures, the possible great variation (ethnically, in status, and in occupations) in art patrons, the public and private settings of the art, and the possible differences in conventionalities systems (C. Millon 1972:2). She noted that mode of expression through fourth dimension changed "radically," and concluded "whether its import inverse as well nosotros may never know." She (1973) as well studied the "tasseled headdress" and offered the interpretation that political and religious leadership were united.
Estimation OF THE Landscape ART
Acosta stated that he was somewhat fearful of making interpretations of the landscape art in the Quetzalpapalotl Palace because it is very easy to give a seemingly normal and believable explanation to the landscape art, fifty-fifty if that interpretation has no scientific ground (Acosta 1964:48). Acosta (1964:48) wrote:
"No es que estemos en contra de hacer interpretaciones, pero siempre y cuando éstas no pertenezcan al mundo de la fantasía. Sin duda, la obligación de todo investigador es presentar una tesis interpretativa al finalizar sus exploraciones, más debe de proceder con cautela porque una afirmación equívocada puede retrasar las investigaciones indefinidamente."
Morelos (1991) addressed interpretation issues at length, writing in parts:
"es común observar trabajos donde los autores sostienen que realizan un estudio sobre las costumbres religiosas de una cultura, cuando en realidad de manera comparativa están imponiendo, a ciertos elementos de las obras, contenidos simbólicos diversos." (Morelos 1991:233)
"La más de las veces el estudio ... se hace a partir de la 'imaginativa sospecha' del investigador, en donde la mayoría de las proposiciones si no son reiterativas y comunes caen en teorizaciones muy vagas." (Morelos 1991:233)
"...existen tres tendencias evidentes: la primera y más común es la comparativa, que se realizan con las representaciones y las obras mexicas ... la segunda se inclina por describir con cierta minisculidad las obras para que a partir de esto se formulen interpretaciones sobre el tema o las formas observadas que en la mayoría de los casos no sobrepasan el nivel descriptivo original; la tercera pretende realizar united nations análisis integral con el desarrollo social, pero al carecer de una propuesta teórica general sobre la sociedad teotíhuacana, es común que se expongan conclusiones que resultan inversosímiles." (Morelos 1991:233-234)
"En arqueología hay cierta preocupación por establecer criterios, postulados teóricos y métodos que permitan que las investigaciones tengan cierta rigurosidad científica para una gran varidad de materiales. Sin embargo en lo que respecta a las obras o manifestaciones artísticas ... hay por lo general cierta liberalidad que ocasiona confusiones ya que permite la coexistencia de explicaciones muy diversas." (Morelos 1991:238)
Various sciences, their diverse schools of thought, and the diverse areas of the humanities tin have distinct views of art. Morelos (1991:238) views five orientations in the investigation of prehispanic fine art: 1.) the romantic or idealistic view, which considers the content as elevated spiritual material of a religious, magical or mythical nature, 2.) studies that pretend that imaginative deductions and sterile theories are "absolute truths," 3.) historical studies that remove exceptional cultural success from its socioeconomic context, 4.) views that attempt to explicate, rather than catalog, isolated aspects grouped past an iconographic benchmark, and 5.) studies that lack a central methodology.
In that location is a significant variation in the rendering of most signs, fifty-fifty though the signs accept prototypical forms (Langley 1986:17). The time depth of sign usage is uncertain, and continuity of usage can be unclear. As seen above, in the previous section, mural chronology is non refined. Without a reliable chronology comparisons of motifs in different murals lack temporal determinations. Even if temporal relationships were known, the question, "Tin can context of a motif in one landscape be used to determine meaning in some other landscape?" remains (to say nothing of its presentation in other media, sites or cultures). I take noticed a general tendency in mural studies (and Mesoamerican art studies mostly) of treating the mural art as though it is a unified whole, rather than myriad artworks by numerous artists spanning many centuries. While there are components of the fine art that obviously adhere to definable conventions, motifs may exist used in contexts that are non part of a symbolic system. There is no sure criterion to delimit these domains.
Teotihuacan art has been termed more abstract, conceptual and possibly allegorical than other Mesoamerican fine art, and difficult to interpret (Pasztory 1988:46). Compound forms nowadays more than difficult interpretive questions than single motifs. Langley writes:
"although the individual signs may be drawn from nature, it is often hard to determine even the literal meaning of compounds. This is in part due to the uncertainty about what precisely the artist wished to invoke by certain pictographic images ... the letters they are intended to limited oft remain obscure. (1986:41-42).
While these many problems exist, I find other factors to be supportive of the view that interpretation is plausible. Langley believes that Teotihuacan art includes a more complex and effective system of symbolic notation that previously recognized (1991:286). Patterns of sign and context association suggest the beingness of rules of composition and brandish the characteristics of systematic usage (Langley 1986:173-174). A degree of heterogeneity of Teotihuacan signs is obvious (Langley 1991:294). Signs cluster with a limited range of other signs and with sure contexts, there is a nifty deal of repetition in the clustering of the signs and contexts, and in that location is minor variation within the patterns of association (Langley 1986:173). Of course, proof that the patterns of sign usage are part of a notational arrangement depends on interpretation of their meanings. In this regard Langley writes:
"A safeguard against error or worse--the fictive interpretations that take plagued the written report of early writings--lies in the demonstration that the semantic values of signs remain the same throughout the corpus or that variations are explicable in philological terms." (Langley 1991:294)
The limited, identifiable categories of representation are useful in interpretations and the delineation of conventions. 1 such classification, by Miller (1973:19-23), divided the mural elements into nine composition categories:
one.) processional profile figures,
2.) frontal or caput-on figures,
3.) central frontal figure with against contour figures on either side,
4.) scenes,
5.) heraldic images,
half dozen.) natural motifs,
7.) ritual paraphernalia,
8.) geometric and curvilinear designs,
nine.) architectural motifs.
Cross-cultural comparisons and analogies within Mesoamerica are possible. The cultures of Mesoamerica shared a common history, a agenda, and, to a degree, "certain basic religious and mythological beliefs" (Pasztory 1976:110), although I question the accuracy of contemporary interpretations of those beliefs. Prior to Teotihuacan art, Olmec artistic representations, elements of which are recognizable in Teotihuacan murals (Lombardo 1996:13-15), evidenced conventionalized ideographic elements over a wide geographic region. And broad continuities are seen between Teotihuacan and contemporaneous groups, too as with Aztec symbolism. However, this approach has limitations.
Kubler rejected the apply of illustration between Aztec and Teotihuacan fine art, warning that over long spans of history disjunctions of form and meaning may exist expected more oft than continuity in their associations (Kubler 1967:12). More contempo authors, among them Cowgill and Berlo, have also commented on this issue:
"Aztec society was very unlike from that of Teotihuacan in many respects. Nevertheless, it is increasingly clear that there were many broad continuities ... Obviously we must be conscientious, look for specifics more than than generalities, and be sensitive to differences as well as resemblances." (Cowgill 1992:231)
"Until recently, a reductive rather than a deductive method has been used when applying Aztec sources to the written report of Teotihuacan divinities." (Berlo 1992:130)
Some very broad issues and theoretical problems came to mind while I read the mural literature. Fundamental questions seem to have been ignored in the study of Teotihuacan mural fine art, and unstated theoretical assumptions seem prevalent. I believe it is valid to assume that the world view of a society, whether those views are religious, magical, mythical, natural, scientific or combinations of these, will be inherently evidenced, at least to some extent, in its symbolic system. Contrarily, I regard every bit invalid the assumptions that merely one earth view exists in a society, that world views are consistent over the temporal span of a gild, or that 1 or the other of the possible world views (i.e. religious) is inherently present.
Earlier, or equally a office of, interpreting a society's art the post-obit key questions need to be addressed. To what extent was the symbolic system interrelated with item arenas of the social system, with the arts, entertainment, social life, production, politics, religions, or other arenas? What evidence, outside of the interpretation itself, supports the relationships and meanings posited? Different groups in a society may have entirely distinct world views, especially in a large and complex urban civilization such as Teotihuacan. Did the symbolic system serve to reproduce the philosophy, customs, beliefs, social norms and ideologies of the society at large or particular groups, and if and so how extensively and/or exclusively? Does all the art adhere to a symbolic organisation, or is only a portion of the fine art systematic? Is the fine art, and its components, the production of individual consumer's and/or artist's taste in ornamentation, or is it governed past a communal aesthetic? Who controlled the content of the art? In my view, the interpretations discussed below disregard these questions and theoretical issues.
At the reverse end of the spectrum, that is, the specific, I also question certain interpretations and their underlying assumptions. For case, some quite simple geometric decorations take been interpreted every bit inherently meaningful. As Cabrera (1995d:46) reports, green circles take been interpreted as "chalchihuites, símbolos de belleza, los objetos preciosos, el campo verde, la abundancia, la fertilidad." Also Cabrera (1995d:47) himself interprets circular carmine drawings with fringes (in Portico 2, Conjunto Plaza Oeste) as shields which warriors carry, and triangles in a serial on either side of parallel lines as "macanas o armas militares" (clubs), in role because they are reverse the portico with the fringed circles (1995d:48). While some of these interpretations might be true, geometric forms tin also but be decorative. In the case of these examples, the motifs lack contextual back up for the interpretations. Every bit in these examples, interpretations often presume that complex meaning is inherent in the virtually basic motifs, or that every blueprint, fifty-fifty the most ubiquitous of geometric forms, is part of a symbolic system. This instance, that of assumptions in estimation of simple geometric forms, exemplifies a more circuitous problem of assumptions when considered in relation to more than circuitous motifs.
RELIGIOUS INTERPRETATIONS
The following discussion focuses on the motifs and categories that have been interpreted as religious. I first nowadays some general interpretations past diverse writers, and so talk over specific categories and elements. When they are offered in the literature, and this is not always the example, I include the rationales for the interpretations. My purpose is to present sufficient textile to appraise the religious estimation. The diverse interpretations are not consistent; the authors are not e'er in agreement. This variability certainly justifies questions about the accuracy of the interpretations. Several authors make very broad assumptions well-nigh religion and Teotihuacan.
R. Millon argued that Teotihuacan:
"was a sacred place of enormous prestige, whose faith must have encompassed a belief system that transcended ethnic, linguistic, and regional ties." (1992:378).
Cabrera, et al., (1991:78) wrote:
"...religion undoubtedly was of enormous importance throughout the life of the city...."
Angulo (1996:134-135) plainly states his assumptions nigh Teotihuacan religion as follows:
"La proposición para entender el pensamiento cosmogónico en la etapa teotihuanaca que aquí se aplica, se basa en la consideración que desde la fase inicial todas las culturas prehispánicas compartían un concepto mítico acorde con una religión politeísta que deificaba a todo elemento natural."
An underlying supposition of "divinities" is credible in Berlo'south (1992:129) comment, ironically, about how much remains unknown about Teotihuacan images:
"For more than than a century, Teotihuacan's images and icons have been the object of scholarly scrutiny. Yet major questions about the nature of the image system, the divinities portrayed, and the uses of art at this nifty metropolis remain unanswered."
Kubler (1967:5-6) interpreted the mural scenes at Zacuala equally strongly suggesting litany and liturgy, including the names of deities, recital of the powers of the deity, and worshiper'south petitions. He suggested (1967:six) that the murals designate "complex liturgical comparisons, where powers, forces, and presences are evoked in metaphors or images", and ended (1967:12) that "every mural or busy vessel is a prayer exalting the elements of nature."
While earlier scholars described the Teotihuacan mural art equally primarily religious and ritualistic, Langley (1986:11) found considerable prove suggesting a broader range of information. He (1992:275) stated that social concepts like religion and sacrifice could exist expressed by the Teotihuacan sign organisation:
"...we can be confident that emblems of various kinds were widely used in the culture, that sign usage included the organisation of signs in linear sequences feature of verbal texts, and that the sign system was capable of signifying concepts such as war, cede, and, probably, ritual events."
Langley (1992:257) blended martial and religious interpretations:
"In considering all the analogies cited and the imagery of the Teotihuacan insignia there seems no doubt that they may be comprehended as emblems of military leadership related to the Storm God, implying that this deity was, inter alia, the patron of the warriors who fought nether his insignia, much every bit the Crusaders a few centuries after sailed for the Holy Land under the banners of Christ."
Pasztory states that the signs, as defined by Langley
"are related to deities, mythological animals, and man or animal-homo composites dressed either every bit warriors or priests." (Pasztory 1988:70)
Pasztory sees the art of Teotihuacan as concerned with human, social, and political relations, as well equally cosmic relations that denote the homo place in nature, in the universe, and "in relation to the gods" (1991:247). She wrote:
"...nature, fertility, sacrifice, and state of war, ... are seen every bit a collective enterprise in which humans, animals, and even gods are depicted..." (1992:136).
"Teotihuacan images propose a neutral, impersonal world inhabited by largely benevolent deities and by an anonymous aristocracy preoccupied with the proper performance of ritual." (1992:137).
Interpretations of specific elements or scenes are easier to analyze than wide and sweeping full general interpretations. They are likewise the foundation of broader interpretation (or, at to the lowest degree, they should exist) and, if unjustified, raise questions nigh broader interpretations. In the remainder of this section I focus on specific interpretations.
I such interpretation is the attribution of religious meanings to uncomplicated geometric forms. Basic geometric forms are found in the art and ornament of many cultures, and cannot exist justifiably interpreted as religious without supportive evidence. The limited geometric designs of the earliest Teotihuacan stylistic phase; circles, diverse forms of frets, undulating bands, interlaced volutes, a U-shaped glyph, vertical bands and the motility glyph, are interpreted by Lombardo as:
"Cada uno de estos elementos simbólicos funciona en el contexto ritual como indicador mnemotécnico, que remite al orante a la plegaria, repetida el número de veces necesario para que surta el efecto mágico religioso." (1996:21)
Lombardo (1996:xiii) interpreted pictographic images in Guerrero in "estilo llamado 'olmeca'" as signifying an agrestal society deifying natural forces and developing a culture to control them through magic and religion. Lombardo (1996:21) states her supposition, regarding concentric circles and continuity of iconography, as follows:
"Los circulos concéntricos o anillos, por su permanencia en casi todas las culturas posteriores del Altiplano mexicano, se asume que representan cuentas, joyas, chalchihuites, que por asociación se les identifica con la función calificativa de 'lo precioso', 'lo valioso'. Cuando son verdes y semejan jade o serpentina --piedras que desde el Preclásico se utilizan en rituales y cultos-- se relacionan con el agua, con las gotas de lluvia y por lo tanto con la fertilidad."
In this case both of the interpretations of Aztec art are seen as having a continuity of meaning spanning over two millennia.
A subtle form of interpretation is the nomenclature of structures and murals reflecting religious interpretations. This presents the question, "How does the interpretation of functions of structures influences interpretations of their murals?" (and vice-versa). The 'Temple' of Agriculture is an ofttimes-interpreted example of early murals with scenes. A scene excavated by Batres is called the "Offer Scene Mural." Berlo (1992:133) proposed the following interpretation of the scene:
"In the Temple of Agriculture landscape, the goddess is depicted equally monumental mountain-like forms in relation to her worshippers."
Regarding the same mural, de la Fuente (1995b:107) wrote:
"Ésta se ha llamado de 'las ofrendas' porque las acciones ahí representadas sugieron que los personajes, sentados y de pie, ofrecen distinctos dones de la tierra a dos grandes imágenes que se han interpretado como deidades, como braseros con flamas, y también como construcciones en cuyo interior hay united nations sahumerio con flamas. Los supuestos ofrendantes llevan palomas, maiz, y otros objetos, y entonan oraciones o cantos según se apreciaba por las vírgulas del lenguaje que salían de sus bocas."
Regarding the shells mural in the complex, de la Fuente (1995b:104) adds:
"...al centro el la parte alta una especie de tocado, que recuerda a otros que se miran en varios imagenes teotihuanacas, y que pudieron simbolizar la imagen de una deidad..."
These examples raise questions well-nigh a wide category of interpretation, "Are gods and priests depicted in the art?" There are several expressed interpretive criteria for identification of deities and/or priests. According to LaGamma (1991:282) "...frontal depiction is a sign of divinity at Teotihuacan..." Kubler wrote that "the detailed significant of the art of Teotihuacán remains a mystery," nonetheless he interpreted anthropomorphic motifs as priests (Teopancaxco landscape), warriors (Atetelco murals), or representations or impersonations of deity, all by reason of their wearing or begetting attributes such as butterfly wings, a conch (Atetelco), or an fauna helmet (1967:three-iv). Kubler suggested that frontal figures may have more rank than contour figures because they are generally larger and more than elaborate, and are frequently flanked past contour figures (1967:7). Kubler (1967:7) ended that "frontal representations probably depict cult images" and that:
"the hypothesis that many frontal figures are cult images or supernatural beings allows us to suppose that the same figures, when shown in profile ... represent human celebrants, or priests, or impersonators."
Angulo (1996:140) summarized the distinguishing characteristics of a priest depiction as follows:
"Hay varias figuras antropomorfias que llevan los mismos atributos o emblemas que characterizan a las deidades, aunque es fácil distinguirlas de ellas, por estar representadas de perfil y de cuerpo entero, a la vez que por encontrarlas ejerciendo algún ritual en torno a la deidad que representa de frente o como un busto solo."
The interpretation of profile figures as priests is also seen in Cabrera'southward reference (1995e:157-158) to the Teopancaxco murals:
"En una composición simétrica, se muestran de perfil dos sacerdotes que se dirigen hacia un pequeno altar sobre el que se levanta un disco solar."
Barthel (1982:4) wrote:
"Depictions of Teotihuacan deities and priests are distinguished by a large volute emanating from the mouth (speech or chant scrolls) and by open up easily casting offerings."
Figures with a falling stream from their hands have been interpreted as elites and as deities. Pasztory (1992:142) discussed her interpretation of the symbol's purpose:
"A principal Teotihuacan symbol is the divine hand from which water, seeds, jades, or other gifts catamenia. This theme is ... axiomatic in ... diverse abstract and metaphoric symbols painted in repeating serial on polychrome mural panels. Such images are positive reinforcements: they emphasize the benign aspects of gods, nature, and elites, and thus, presumably, encourage an piece of cake adherence to the norms and traditions of society."
Ostrowitz (1991:266) suggested that images with faces are easier to associate with deity:
"Images of natural forms organized effectually a heart are easier to acquaintance with a deity or an anthropomorphic being when a face is included in the composition. The face suggests an expression of consciousness, a mind --or will-- that elevates the otherwise blind natural forces operating through the medallion to the level of intentional beliefs."
Ostrowitz (1991:263) also suggested that elements in murals that seem to float are supernaturals. This conclusion patently assumes that elements in Teotihuacan art are discipline to the physical law of gravity.
"Because the portrayal of nature by Teotihuacan artists is persistently organized according to item canons of representation, the paintings contain a sure objectivity, or actual existence in a singled-out but credible reality.
"...the murals function effectively equally windows onto a consistently configured but unique physical plane that follows bona fide laws of its own....
"Certain gratuitous-floating medallions in this painted world, unfettered by the constraint of gravity, may constitute key structures that signify the presence of a supernatural being....beings operating exterior the 'laws of nature,' ones defying gravity..."
Some interpretations include some very specific assertions and hypotheses about the identity of deities. Peter Furst suggested a "Mother Goddess" as the principal deity (1974:198). Séjourné (1966:248), based on ear ornaments in an Aztec delineation interpreted as a goddess, interpreted a Tetitla mural personage equally a feminine deity. Pasztory interprets representations to include the Storm God and her "Great Goddess," a major personage in murals and possibly "the major deity" during the Metepec period (Pasztory 1988:74). C. Millon (1988:228) wrote:
"The Peachy Goddess was one of the near powerful Teotihuacan deities, perhaps for a time the almost powerful. Like the Tempest God she manifested herself variously in unlike roles and dissimilar contexts. It is more authentic to speak of a Great Goddess circuitous. We do not know to what degree her different personalities may have been regarded as distinct entities."
Pasztory (1992:141-142) wrote, :
"Both the Storm God and the Great Goddess appear to accept military or destructive aspects, and other deities, including 1 wearing an owl pendant, may have been related to war."
LaGamma (1991:282) wrote:
"The Groovy Goddess's facelessness in so many representations --in some instances her face is concealed past a mask and in others she is represented merely past a headdress-- allows her to brandish an especially wide range of aspects. In other murals the Great Goddess displays the jaguar's ferocious teeth, and her hands are replaced past claws. Her innate flexibility would enable her to exchange her mask for a jaguar face up, and the jaguar could be seen equally a surrogate for a particular attribute of the Keen Goddess."
R. Millon (1992:359) summarized the Nifty Goddess as:
"a goddess of earthly waters, a patroness of warfare who requires sacrifices, mother of the gods, and the fertile mount from which all things come up."
The category "processional figures'" as the name implies, has been interpreted as religious. Seler interpreted processional figures as priests in 1915 (Pasztory 1976:113). Pasztory (1976:112) interpreted iii kinds of processional figures, warriors (figures carrying weapons), priests (those carrying bags), and gods (human-animal figures). Pasztory's (1976:113) distinguishes a priest from a god as "clearly human rather than a grotesque or composite supernatural," and by the incense handbag they carry "which serves ... to point that the effigy is engaged in ritual action." The streams flowing from the hands of priests or from the objects they deport are interpreted as identifying "the nature of the deity being worshipped or the ritual being enacted" (Pasztory 1976:115).
The processional contour figures include both humans and animals, sometimes of anthropomorphic appearance (Miller 1973:19-xx). Séjourné interpreted the jaguar and personage murals in the chief patio of Tetitla every bit symbolizing the realization of a spiritual journey, with the jaguars evoking the itinerary that allows penetration to a spiritual state.
Maybe the best known murals at Teotihuacan are the so-called "Tlalocan murals" (Portico 2) at Tepantitla, particularly the lower annals, the "paradise scene" (Miller 1973:21). These widely used names reflect Caso's 1942 interpretation of the Tepantitla murals every bit representing Tlalocan, the mythical Paradise of Tlaloc, the happy identify where those who died honorably in war, mothers who died of childbirth, and those who drowned would get in (de la Fuente 1995a:154). Pasztory'south 1992 Tepantitla interpretations nowadays a very detailed and specific hypothetical model for Teotihuacan religious thought that incorporates the ideas of a Tlalocan paradise:
"The images evoke a terrestrial paradise through the depiction of waters teeming with marine life, a land of fruit- and blossom-bearing plants, and mythical birds, canines, and felines." (Pasztory 1992:137).
"a Storm God and a Great Goddess preside over an earthly paradise ... ofttimes surrounded past water, trees, and plants in flower, animals, and occasionally, minor people. The themes of riches and water are intertwined and indicated by many repeated details, such equally raindrops, rows of jade beads, starfish, and bounding main creatures. The drops and flowers suggest a perpetual, fertile rainy season." (Pasztory 1992:141-142)
Berlo (1992:147) compared the Tepantitla scene with several interpretations of Aztec art:
"The bearers in the Tepantitla mural take decorated streams flowing from their mitt. The green dots in the streams are chosen "jades" by Pasztory (1976:118). Like Chalchihuitlicue, the Teotihuacan deity is goddess of earthly waters that gush forth from the mount over which she presides in the Tepantitla mural.... Like Itzapapalotl, the neat Goddess is a patroness of warfare; she assumes a butterfly guise and demands sacrifices, both locally and in distant lands.
Excepting a few earlier papers, Teotihuacan landscape art has received meaning written report for simply half a century. The authors presenting interpretations of the art often disagree about meanings. The variation in landscape interpretation illustrates that the meanings and identifications of motifs and scenes are debated, that a consensus about the significant of the mural fine art is lacking. While differing on specifics, nigh authors accept a religious interpretation for many elements of the landscape art. I question whether prove supports this wide estimation. I find, instead, an often unstated a priori supposition that the subject affair is religious, and that faith was important in Teotihuacan society.
I discover that Acosta's (1964:48) alarm, that it is very easy to give a seemingly normal and believable explanation to the mural fine art, even if that interpretation has no scientific basis, best characterizes mural interpretation. In particular, religious interpretations may seem logical, especially to researchers whose traditions include a cultural heritage in which religion remains significant. All the same, from a scientific perspective, evidence is required for any interpretation, no matter how seemingly plausible or logical.
I as well find that there has been a degree of acceptance of previous authors' works without the same scientific benchmark. Hence, the religious interpretation has evolved into a more complex and divers view, a reconstructed prehistoric religious world view, without sufficient evidence to accept the underlying and unstated supposition that the theme is religious, not to mention the testify needed to sympathise such detailed ideation as personalities or manifestations of deities. An objective, principal level of report has been ignored while secondary, subjective levels of estimation are ascendant in the literature. In my view, some interpretations take reached the signal where the researchers seemingly read the collective mind of a prehistoric civilization. Ironically, at the same time archaeologists lament how little is understood near Teotihuacan.
CONCLUSION
In by mural studies, scientific evidence to support the religious estimation of Teotihuacan mural art is lacking. A reassessment of current assumptions about symbolism at Teotihuacan is needed. Future studies demand to conspicuously state what their assumptions are, and the evidenciary or theoretical basis of those assumptions. Mural interpretations need to be founded on scientific evidence, especially so when they are integrated into a presumed-to-be scientific understanding of Teotihuacan order.
Literature Cited
Acosta, Jorge R. 1964 El Palacio de Quetzalpaplotl. Instituto Nacional de Antropología due east Historia, Mexico City.
Angulo Villaseñor, Jorge 1996 Teotihuacán. Aspectos de la Cultura a Través de su Expresión Pictórico. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica: I, Teotihuacán, Tomo II: Estudios. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 65-196. Instituto Nacional de Antropología east Historia, Mexico City.
Barthel, Thomas South. 1982 Veritable "Texts" in Teotihuacan Art? Masterkey 56(1):4-12.
Berlo, Janet Catherine 1992 Icons and Ideologies at Teotihuacan: The Nifty Goddess Reconsidered. In Fine art, Credo and the City of Teotihuacan. Edited by J. C. Berlo, pp. 129-168. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1992 A Survey of Recently Excavated Murals at Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology and the Urban center of Teotihuacan. Edited past J. C. Berlo, pp. 113-128. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1995a La Cronología de los murales de Atetelco. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. xxvii-xxviii. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1995b Catálogo. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited past Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. xxvii-xxviii. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1995c Conjunto del Sol. In La Pintura Landscape Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 59-lxxx. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1995d Conjunto Plaza Oeste. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 45-58. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén 1995e Teopancaxco Casa Barrios o del Alfarero. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 157-161. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén, Saburo Sugiyama and George 50. Cowgill 1991 The Temple of Quetzalcoatl Project at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:77-92.
Caso, Alfonso 1937 ¿Tenían los teotihuanacos conocimientos del Tonalpohualli? El Mexico Antiguo 4(1-2):131-143.
Caso, Alfonso 1942 El paraiso terrenal en Teotihuacan. Cuadernos Americanos 1(6):127-136.
Caso, Alfonso 1958-59 Glifos Teotihuacanos. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicas 15:51-lxx.
Caso, Alfonso 1961 El Glifo "Ojo de Reptil." Ethnos 26(4):167-171.
Caso, Alfonso 1966 Dioses y Signos Teotihuacanos. In Teotihuacan: XI Mesa Redonda, pp. 249-279. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, United mexican states Urban center.
Caso, Alfonso 1967 Los calendarios Prehispánicos. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cowgill, George 50. 1992 Teotihuacan Glyphs and Imagery in the Lite of Some Early Colonial Texts. In Art, Ideology and the Urban center of Teotihuacan. Edited by J. C. Berlo, pp.231-246. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Fuente, Beatriz de la 1995a Tepantitla. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited past Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 139-155. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Fuente, Beatriz de la 1995b Zona 2 Templo de la Agricultura. In La Pintura Landscape Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo I. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 103-108. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Fuente, Beatriz de la 1996 Bibliohemerografía. In La Pintura Landscape Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo Ii Estudios. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 479-506. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Furst, Peter 1974 Morning Glory and Mother Goddess at Tepantitla, Teotiuancan: Iconography and Illustration in Pre-Columbian Art. In Mesoamerican Archeology: New Approaches. Edited by Norman Hammond, pp. 187-215. Academy of Texas Printing, Austin.
Kubler, George 1967 The Iconography of the Fine art of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
LaGamma, Alisa 1991 A Visual sonata at Teotihuacan. Aboriginal Mesoamerican ii(ii):275-284.
Langley, James C. 1986 Symbolic Notation at Teotihuacan: Elements of Writing in a Mesoamerican of the Classic Period. International Series 313. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford.
Langley, James C. 1991 The Forms and Usage of Notation at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerican 2(2):285-298.
Langley, James C. 1992 Teotihuacan Sign Clusters: Emblem or Articulation? In Art, Ideology and the Metropolis of Teotihuacan. Edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 247-280. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Langley, James C. 1993 Symbols, Signs, and Writing Systems. In Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods. Edited past Kathleen Berrin and Esther Pasztory, pp. 128-139. Thames and Hudson, New York.
Littmann, Edwin R. 1973 The Concrete Aspects of Some Teotihuacán Murals. In The Mural Painting of Teotihuacan. Edited past Arthur M. Miller, pp.175-189. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Lombardo de Ruiz, Sonia 1996 El Estilo Teotihuacano en la Pintura Mural. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México I: Teotihuacan. Tomo Two. Edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 3-64. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
López Austin, Alfredo, Leonardo López Luján, and Saburo Sugiyama 1991 The Temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan: Its Possible Ideological Significance. Ancient Mesoamerican 2(1):93-105.
Miller, Arthur Thousand. 1973 The Mural Painting of Teotihuacan. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Millon, Clara 1972 The History of Landscape Art at Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan, XI Mesa Redonda. pp. 1-16. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Mexico Urban center.
Millon, Clara 1973 Painting, Writing, and Polity in Teotihuacan, Mexico. American Antiquity 38(iii):294-314.
Millon, Clara 1988 Great Goddess Fragment. In Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan. Edited past Kathleen Berrin, pp. 226-228. The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco.
Millon, René 1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond. In Art, Ideology and the Metropolis of Teotihuacan. Edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, pp. 339-429. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Morelos García, Due north. 1991 Municipalidad en la representacíon de felinos; y a propósito de los análisis de pintura mural y escultura, la critica. In Teotihuacan 1980-1982: Nuevas interpretaciones. Edited by Rubén Cabrera Castro, Ignacio Rodríguez García, and Noel Morelos García, pp. 233-257. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, United mexican states City.
Ostrowitz, Judith 1991 Second Nature: Concentric structures and gravity as represented in Teotihuacan fine art. Ancient Mesoamerican 2(2):263-274.
Pasztory, Esther 1976 The Murals of Tepantitla, Teotihuacan. Garland Publishing, NY.
Pasztory, Esther 1988 A Reinterpretation of Teotihuacan and its Mural Painting Tradition. In Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan. Edited past Kathleen Berrin, pp. 45-77. The Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, San Francisco.
Pasztory, Esther 1991 Strategies of System in Teotihuacan Art. Ancient Mesoamerican ii(2):247-248.
Pasztory, Esther 1992 The Natural World as Civic Metaphor at Teotihuacan. In Aboriginal Americas: Art from Sacred Landscapes. Edited by Richard F. Townsend, pp. 135-146. The Art Constitute of Chicago.
Séjourné, Laurette 1959 United nations Palacio en la Ciudad de los Dioses (Teotihuacan). Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Séjourné, Laurette 1966 Architectura y pintura en Teotihuacan. Siglo Ventiuno, México, D.F.
Villagra Caleti, Augustín 1951 La pinturas de Atetelco en Teotihuacan. Cuadernos Americanos 10(vi):1543-162.
Von Winning, Hasso 1987 La iconogafía de Teotihuacan: Los dioses y los signos, two vols. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico.
Cite equally: http://www.jqjacobs.net/mesoamerica/teo_murals.html.
©2001 by James Q. Jacobs
Published online February. 7, 2002.
The Cannibalism Prototype:
Assessing Contact Period Ethnohistorical Discourse
Source: http://www.jqjacobs.net/mesoamerica/teo_murals.html
0 Response to "Second Nature Concentric Structures and Gravity as Represented in Teotihuacan Art"
Post a Comment