THE ART OF WAR: IMAGERY OF THE UPPER …api.ning.com/files/N-m37Ss5uFrYQenqsFywKU6s9MtAIsb62...THE ART OF WAR: IMAGERY OF THE UPPER TEMPLE OF THE JAGUARS, CHICHEN ITZA William M. Ringle

THE ART OF WAR: IMAGERY OF THE UPPER TEMPLEOF THE JAGUARS, CHICHEN ITZA

William M. RingleDepartment of Anthropology, Davidson College, Box 1709, Davidson, NC 28035-1709, USA

Abstract

This paper reexamines the art and architecture of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars, Chichen Itza, in light of new unpublished digitalimages of Adela Breton’s copies of the murals. Following discussion of the construction date of the building and previous interpretationsof the murals, examination of costume, setting, and house form suggests that rather than depicting mythic or symbolic episodes, thesemurals illustrate actual military encounters between Chichen and its enemies. The occasion for their production seems to be the utilizationof the Upper Temple of the Jaguars by a specific sector of Chichen Itza’s military, perhaps for rites of investiture. This sector isargued to have been associated with the Cloud Serpent, either as the title of its leader or as a patron deity, and the structure itself is perhapsrelated to later Nahua buildings associated with penitential rites involving warfare and investiture.

In 1843, John Lloyd Stephens announced discovery of “perhapsthe greatest gem of aboriginal art which on the whole Continentof America now survives” (Stephens 1963 [1843]:II:211). Whileexploring Chichen Itza, Stephens had been astonished to find theinterior of a small room in what he called the Gymnasium orTennis-court entirely covered by colorful paintings, but to his dis-appointment they were even then in a sad state of preservation, andthe few figures illustrated by Catherwood (Stephens 1963 [1843]:II:Plate 37) give little idea of why Stephens was so effusive in hispraise. Stephens also made the prescient comment that the paint-ings “call forcibly to mind the well-known picture writings ofthe Mexicans; and if these analogies are sustained, this buildingattached to the walls of the Tennis-court stands an unimpeachablewitness that the people who inhabited Mexico at the time of theconquest belong to the same great race which furnished thebuilders of the ruined cities in Yucatan” (Stephens 1963 [1843]:211–213). This might be cited as the first glimmering of the con-troversy that surrounds the ruins of Chichen Itza to this day, thequestion of why non-Maya traits should so dominate this sitealone among the many Terminal Classic centers of northernYucatan.1

Stephens was of course describing what today is called theUpper Temple of the Jaguars (UTJ) of Chichen’s Great Ballcourt.

In the succeeding 60 years, the murals were studied by a numberof prominent early explorers, among them Augustus and Alice LePlongeon, Teobert Maler, Alfred Maudslay, and Eduard Seler, buttowering above them all was the modest but determined figure ofAdela Breton, who between 1900 and 1906 patiently produced com-plete color replicas of the entire mural cycle (Breton 1907; Giles andStewart 1989; McVicker 2005; Tozzer 1957).2 Today the originalshave suffered even greater damage, and so her watercolors providevirtually the only record of these invaluable paintings.3 Her worklanguished for 70 years before being published in anythingapproaching complete form, and then only in black and white(Miller 1977). The sole full publication in color remains that ofCoggins and Shane (1984), but at a scale too small for detaileddiscussion. The comments in this paper have been made possibleby recent digital photographs of the City Museum of Bristolcopies, kindly provided by curator Susan Giles.

Fortunately, the murals do not occur in isolation. The poly-chrome bas-reliefs covering the interiors of two other smalltemples associated with the ballcourt, the well-known LowerTemple of the Jaguars and the less familiar North Temple, wereboth recorded by Adela Breton, often by tinting photographs ofthe walls (Breton 1917; Giles and Stewart 1989). These copieshave also been inadequately published, and like the murals,remain stored in the archives of the City Museum of Bristol, thePeabody Museum, and Tulane University. Nevertheless, theseimages have played a prominent part in interpretations of

15

E-mail Correspondence to: [email protected] A note on terminology. Toltec will be used herein to refer to adherents

of a particular warrior ideology associated with Quetzalcoatl, Mesoamericanin scope and dating from at least the Early Classic period onward, if notearlier. It also refers to a style of art and costume. Its use does not implyendorsement of an ethnic Maya-(Tula) Toltec dichotomy at Chichen or aToltec invasion, but rather Chichen’s participation in a broader Epiclassicperiod ideology. The inhabitants of Tula will be referred to as TulaToltecs. Itza is used as shorthand to refer to the inhabitants of Chichen,without reference to the question of their origin. Nahua terms for severalcostume elements are employed not in the belief that they were the termsused by the inhabitants of Chichen, but to be more precise in their identifi-cation and to underline the continuity of the Toltec costume.

2 Line drawings of the murals were produced by Santiago Bolio (forEdward Thompson [McVicker 2005:72]), Augustus and Alice LePlongeon, and Teobert Maler (cited by Seler 1998:109). With the exceptionof a tracing of the southwest panel and a portion of the northeast panel byMaler (in Willard 1926:217, 220), the others are unpublished. I have seenno indication that Thompson’s copy survived.

3 Martınez de la Luna (2005) summarizes the current state of the muralsand some of the results of a recent Brigham Young multispectral investi-gation of the UTJ murals.

Ancient Mesoamerica, 20 (2009), 15–44Copyright # 2009 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.doi:10.1017/S0956536109000030

Chichen’s history, and it is therefore fitting that they be revisited onthe centenary of the completion of her work.

THE GREAT BALLCOURT

Before beginning examination of the murals, it is first necessary tohave some understanding of the architecture of the ballcourt and itsrelationship to the other structures of the Great Terrace. The GreatBallcourt itself lies near the northwest corner of this vast plaza(Figure 1a). The North and South Temples are placed along thecentral axis at the extremities of the court, while the UTJ and fiveother much smaller platforms line the east and west edges ofthe playing court walls with the UTJ at the southeast position. TheLower Temple of the Jaguars, although part of the structure, liesoutside the playing court proper and faces onto the Great Terrace.

The dating of the UTJ continues to be debated, but several linesof evidence indicate that it antedates the Temple of the Warriors(Table 1). The first concerns the orientation of the structures.Morris et al. (1931) demonstrated that the Temple of the ChacMool and the Castillo were arranged about a formal plaza andhence shared the same orientation, with the Castillo antedatingthe Temple of the Chac Mool.4 When the Temple of theWarriors was constructed over the Temple of the Chac Mool, theorientation of its midline shifted slightly but noticeably from2938 to 2918 east of north, and its center was offset from that ofthe Temple of the Chac Mool. It seems logical that this wasdone purposefully. Cynthia Kristan-Graham (personal communi-cation 2003) pointed out to me that the midline of the Temple ofthe Warriors points directly at the UTJ (Figure 1b). Thus, theTemple of the Warriors may have been built to align with analready existing UTJ. Note, however, that the reverse sequencecannot be true given that the UTJ faces just under 2868 east ofnorth (Kubler 1982:Table 4) and thus is not aligned with theTemple of the Warriors, which is in any case invisible from thewest-oriented UTJ.

On the basis of architectural traits, Kubler, for reasons notaltogether clear, placed the UTJ fifth in his sequence of serpenttemples, immediately following the Temple of the Warriors andthe Little Tables. In contrast, both Cohodas (1978:289) andTozzer (1957:34) identify the UTJ as being among the earliestToltec buildings. However, Cohodas dates it contemporary withthe Temple of the Chac Mool but before the final Castillo, whileTozzer simply included it among his earliest group of Toltec struc-tures (see Kubler 1982: Table 2 for a comparison). One reason was adistinction noted by Tozzer (1957:100) between round and squareserpent columns, in which case the UTJ groups with the Castillo,Temple of the Big Tables, and Temple of the Chac Mool.Another similarity of construction is that the serpent heads of theTemple of the Chac Mool, Castillo, Temple of the Big Tables,and UTJ form an integral part of the lowest block, whereas in theothers, the head is a separate stone attached to the lowest load-bearing segment of the column (significantly, Late Postclassicperiod serpent heads from Tulum and Mayapan are also of two

pieces). Furthermore, Kubler (1982:96) notes that there are onlytwo head types, a “flat-topped, table-like block” and another with“raised upper jaws.” If shaft morphology, head construction, andjaw form are seriated, the UTJ clearly groups with the Temple ofthe Chac Mool and the Outer Castillo (Table 1), although theserpent jaws of the Castillo were destroyed before they could berecorded. The Temple of the Big Tables, with a round shaft and aone-piece head but with intermediate jaws, may belong to this

Figure 1. (a) Plan of the Great Ballcourt, Chichen Itza. (b) Structures of theGreat Terrace and Osario Platform, showing the alignment of the Templeof the Warriors with the Upper Temple of the Jaguars (modified afterSchmidt 1998:431).

4 The construction sequence of the Castillo and Temple of the ChacMool were determined by a trench between the two by the CarnegieProject (Morris et al. 1931:165–172), demonstrating they are relativelyearly (construction intervals 3 and 5, respectively). The Temple of theWarriors and the Northwest Colonnade are assigned to interval 6, with theNorth Colonnade belonging to the final interval 7. The relatively few replas-terings of the Temple of the Chac Mool suggest the interval between 5 and 6was not long.

Ringle16

early group as well, as the similarities of its Atlanteans to those ofthe UTJ and its Pawahtuns to those of the Castillo also suggest.The similarity of the monster-face framing panels of the piers andjambs of the Temple of the Chac Mool and UTJ also suggests aclose temporal relationship between the two.

Like the interiors of the Temple of the Chac Mool, Temple of theWarriors, and Temple of the Big Tables, the UTJ consists of twotandem vaulted rooms connected by a central doorway (Figure 2).An elaborately carved wood lintel spanned this inner door, but of

the exterior lintels we know nothing because, as can be seen inCatherwood’s illustrations, the entire front facade of the buildinghad collapsed well before the arrival of the first travelers of thenineteenth century. Portions of a large stone table supported by15 Atlantean figures were found in the outer chamber by LePlongeon.5 To prevent theft (or to keep them from the eyes ofMexican authorities), he reburied the supports below the floorof the UTJ, and they were only reexcavated by Bolio in 1900(McVicker 2005:80). Breton made a full set of color images ofthese figures as they reemerged, as well as the remaining portionsof the tabletop. This “table” almost certainly served as a seat, andsince existing plans of the UTJ indicate that it was too large tohave been easily accommodated in the rear chamber, the outerchamber was most likely the original place of reception.

The inner and outer jambs were sculpted with a total of 16warrior figures, three on each of the outer and five on each ofthe inner jambs. Each warrior is framed between an upper andlower panel depicting a monster with a flower headdress, verylike the arrangement of the doorjambs of the North Temple and

Figure 1. Continued.

Table 1. Traits of serpent columns at Chichen Itza

Building Shaft Pieces of Head Jaws

Outer Castillo R 1 (lost)Temple of the Chac Mool R 1 FlatUpper Temple of Jaguars R 1 FlatTemple of the Big Tables R 1 TransitionalTemple of the Little Tables Sq 2 FlatTemple of the Warriors Sq 2 RaisedOsario (High Priest’s Grave) Sq 2 RaisedTemple of the Wall Panels R 2 RaisedNorthwest Court Sq — —

Note: R ¼ round; Sq ¼ square. Data from Kubler 1982; Tozzer 1957.

5 The history of this tabletop is puzzling. As Seler (1998:83) noted, LePlongeon (1900:7–8, 88) claims to have found the table entire in 1875and published a photograph of the tabletop on the atlantids (McVicker2005:79–80; Seler 1998:Plate XVI.1). Seler supposed that while reburyingthe atlantids for safety, he also threw the top over the edge, a rather contra-dictory impulse it would seem.

Imagery of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars, Chichen Itza 17

Figure 2. Plan of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars and associated jamb sculptures (plan and line drawings from Seler 1998:Figures109–120; rubbings from Robertson 2007:Rubbings D15732, D15733, D17746, D17749, D15750).

Ringle18

the Temple of the Chac Mool, as well as the balustrades of theNorth and South Temples. In comparison to warrior piers else-where at the site, the UTJ jamb sculptures have a much narrowerrange of costume. Each wears the two-feather aztaxelli hairornament, variants of the “pillbox” headdress, a “back mirror”(tezcacuitlapilli), and a multistrand necklace, although in a fewcases these are obscured by pose or other costume elements. Allcarry darts and an atlatl, with the exception of a single figure(H6) who carries two curved and grooved sticks, anothercommon weapon. None wear capes and none of the headdresseshave the small bird ornament. All this suggests that these figuresbelonged to a single warrior order or occupied a similar rank,but were not themselves of the highest leadership. Nevertheless,there are differences. Butterfly pectorals, peaked diadems (xiuhuit-zontli), and Toltec nose buttons are worn only by warriors on thenorthern jambs, and the only figure backed by a serpent is fromthis side. In contrast, animal pectorals are found only on thesouthern warriors. All these traits form part of the Toltec militarycostume; the motivations for these costume elements will bediscussed later in this paper.

This emphasis on the midline by means of symmetries andasymmetries is reinforced by the central panel of the east wallmural and the three faces of the door lintel. The lintel faces pair indi-viduals sometimes identified as “Captain Sun Disk” and “CaptainSerpent” (Miller 1977), and in each, Captain Sun Disk is consist-ently placed to the north and Captain Serpent to the south(Figure 3). The emphasis on the central axis of the UTJ may be inpart for astronomical reasons. Several studies (Galindo Trejo et al.2001; Milbrath 1988, 1999:68) have shown that the orientation ofthe UTJ falls 2858460 east of north, so that the sun sets along themain axis, directly between the serpent columns and illuminating

the central east mural panel, on April 29 and August 12/13 of thesolar year. Both dates are of central importance in Mayacosmology,6 but the general westward orientation is perhaps themost important factor to bear in mind, as all of the other serpenttemples are generally oriented westward. For Seler (1998), thissignaled a tie between the UTJ, the setting sun, and the souls ofdead warriors, but because these temples were placed on the eastside of their respective plazas, they might also be associated withthe ascendant sun, life, and living warriors.

FORMAL ASPECTS OF THE MURALS

It is striking that despite their location, the UTJ murals themselves makeno reference to the ball game, unlike the friezes from the North Temple.Instead the subject is warfare. Of the murals in the outerchamber, Bretonnoted that “only a few round shields are now left, showing that the sub-jects were battles as in the inner chamber” (Breton 1907:166). The innerchamber was divided into eight panels, three each on the east and westwalls (one being the central doorway) and a single mural on both thenorth and south end walls.7 As will be seen, although they all depictbattles, each panel differs in its setting with no obvious reading order

Figure 3. Lintels from the Upper Temple of the Jaguars (Seler 1998:Figure 121). (a) Front, north to left, (b) underside, north to right, (c)rear, north to right. The north figure is sometimes referred to as Captain Sun Disk, the south as Captain Serpent.

6 The span between the two dates is 104 days, or twice 52, with the mid-point being the summer solstice on June 21. The remainder is 260 days, thelength of the sacred calendar. April 12 was also the date on which 4 Ahau 8Cumku, the date of creation in the Maya Long Count, fell.

7 The two tympanums also bore murals, but apparently only a portion ofthe south tympanum survived when Breton arrived. Because its sacrificialscene is similar to that over the doorway, this upper register may havediffered thematically. See Miller (1997) and Schele and Mathews(1998:232–241) for discussions of these scenes.


indicated, although Breton (1907), Coggins (1984), and Miller (1977)have hazarded possibilities.

Breton (1907:167) noted the hands of two artists in the murals.Examination of the southern versus the northern panels shows thelatter to be of markedly lower quality. Clear differences of techniqueseparate them: the southern figures are meticulously outlined in red,but the figures of the northern half are not and frequently lack anyfeatures whatsoever. The northern figures also are on the wholemore awkwardly drawn and posed than those of the south. Bretonfurther noted that the more carefully executed sections alsoemployed true fresco, the paint elsewhere having been applied toa dry surface. However, differences can be noted even within thetwo groups: the southwestern and central panels, for instance, arethe only ones to make use of flames to identify particularly impor-tant figures, a technique also found in the stone reliefs. This maysuggest that more than two hands were at work.

The lackof detail mayalso indicate that parts of the mural were neverfinished. In this regard, it should be noted that some studies haveclaimed that the blue sections at the top of the north and south murals

represent water orair, making the placement of houses in these areas dif-ficult to interpret. Breton (1907:166) mentioned more than one layer ofpaint was visible, however, and Seler (1998:117) commented: “In thisentire part of the wall it can be observed at several places that this paint-ing covered a former one (one that was uniformly blue?). In severalplaces the outlines of the figures of the present, last painting havebeen introduced into a break of the stucco cover.” What he meant bythis “entire part” is not clear: this quote occurs in a discussion of thesoutheast panel, where no blue is visible, but it may provide an expla-nation for the peculiar arrangement of the abovementioned houses.The houses on the south panel are set in two neat rows, over bothblue and green backgrounds. Furthermore, it is clear that some of thefigures at the top are climbing the same hilly ground depicted in thebattle below, although the background there is blue. The conclusionmust be that the mural is either incomplete or carelessly done.

The panels all share a common basal register delimited by a brightblue line (Figure 4). The imagery of this register is unambiguouslyMaya (Taube 1994:214), consisting as it does of water lilies, cavort-ing Pawahtuns in turtle shells, and other underwater/underworld

Figure 4. Southwest mural battle scene. Two sun disks are outlined by dashed lines. Adela Breton, unpublished image, courtesy CityMuseum of Bristol.

Ringle20

beings, very similar to the basal registers of the North Temple andthe Lower Temple of the Jaguars. The only interruption is a recum-bent figure below the central east panel, also on a blue ground. Thisfigure also appears over the west doorway, again against a blue field,and in several other places around the ballcourt, though notelsewhere.

The upper sections each depict a pitched battle, with theexception of the central panel and the extant (south) tympanum.The visual organization of these battles is significantly differentfrom that of the other Maya murals, especially their depiction ofspace. Most Maya murals, including those from northernYucatan, foreground figures arranged along a single baseline, orat most two. The perspective of the viewer is always from theside, even for complicated battle scenes. The Maya-influencedmurals from Cacaxtla would be an extreme example. TheBonampak battle mural is admittedly more complex, but neverthe-less the perspective remains the same, little or no indication ofexterior place is provided, and the dramatic thrust consists oftwo horizontally opposed groups.

In the UTJ, this type of horizontal organization is reflected in thetwo registers above the blue baseline (Figure 4) depicting the activi-ties of what are probably military camps (and may reflect actionsbefore or after the main scene).8 The main battle scenes areunique in focusing on military actions in their totality and from abird’s eye view. Here the number and variety of actors vividlysuggest the tumult of hand-to-hand battle within a landscape ofunparalleled complexity and specificity. In the Chichen murals,the leaders are distinguished less by their size or position than bythe large serpents that curl around them and by costume details dif-ficult to appreciate except at close quarters. The emphasis is on theevent, on the massed troops and their movements, and on the detailsof rank, rather than on personal heroics. As will be discussed, thismay reflect fundamental differences in the way power was exertedat Chichen Itza.

INTERPRETATIONS

Earlier interpretations emphasized two aspects of the murals: thesupposed opposition between Captain Sun Disk and CaptainSerpent, reflecting a Maya-Toltec opposition (Coggins 1984;Miller 1977) (Figure 3), or its interpretation as an astronomical alle-gory, either solar (Cohodas 1978), solar and Venusian (Coggins1984, Milbrath 1999:181–183), or solar-lunar-Venusian (Lincoln1990; Seler 1998:119). Coggins (1984:157) fused these two scen-arios, arguing that the scene represented a “reinterpretation,almost a reversal, of the cosmic order” in which the victoriesdepict the world-historical conquest of the Venus-oriented Toltecsover the sun-worshiping Mayas, reversing Miller’s identificationof the victor. The solar orientation of the building, noted earlier,and the clear images of sun disks and feathered serpents in themurals make these suggestions worth considering.

There are, however, difficulties with both arguments. The astro-nomical interpretation argues that the position of the several solardisks on the murals represents the position of the sun with respectto the horizon, with the proviso that here north represents zenithand south the point directly below the observer in the underworld.

Venus is argued to be indicated by warriors who bear a large bluestar sign around their waist, much like the Cacaxtla figures.Neither figure can be found on the three panels of the east wall,however. Although this may reflect the accidents of preservation,it does mean the argument is founded on just a few examples.Furthermore, the southwest panel actually has two sun disks, andthe sun disk on the south panel, supposedly representing the nadirof its path, is high along the right side (Figure 4 and see alsoFigure 6).

As for the supposed Captain Sun Disk–Captain Serpent wars,one problem with this simple opposition is that there are multipleinstances of these figures on the same panel, as both Miller andCoggins admitted. The case of multiple sun disks on the southwestpanel has been already noted, but on this same panel three figureswith large serpents behind them preside over the field of battle,two clearly being feathered serpents, while below are two additionalfigures with feathered serpents. The south panel has five featheredserpent warriors. More to the point, it is not clear that the serpentand sun-related figures are in fact opposed, for in several casesboth appear to be on the same side. For instance, neither of thetwo sun disks on the southwest panel is clearly associated withthe white-costumed enemies. One of the sun disks is placed squarelyin the middle of the Itza camp, and the other may be part of an Itzaattack from the upper right.

Seler (1998:111) argued that the sun disks were instead imagesof the sun god, basing his argument on the southwest panel where heargued they were attached to a “sun temple.” Although the twouprights are probably white banners intruding into the pictorialspace of the disk behind them, his point is well taken.Furthermore, the northwest panel sun disk has two bowls of offer-ings before it, which would be unlikely if it enclosed a human par-ticipant, an argument that can also be applied to the sun disks on thedoor lintels (Figure 5a). Lopez de Cogolludo mentioned severalsuch emblems at Chichen:

They venerated an idol of one who had been a great captainamong them, called K’uk’ulkan, and one of another who theypretended brought a shield of fire to battle with which hedefended himself, called K’ak’ u Pakat, “Gaze of Fire.” Duringwars four captains carried an idol, whose name was Ah ChuyK’ak’, who was the god of their battles. They had as a godQuetzalcoatl of Cholula, whom they called K’uk’ulkan, accord-ing to what Padre Torquemada states. (Lopez de Cogolludo IV:4 [1957:196–197], author translation)

As noted in Ringle (2004), the “effigy” of the Lower Temple of theJaguars and the UTJ might be the “idol” of K’uk’ulkan/Quetzalcoatl. The sun disk, therefore, may be K’ak’ u Pakat ormore probably Ah Chuy K’ak’. Barrera Vasquez (1980:147)argue that chuy is a misspelled ch’uy, meaning either “hanging/sus-pended” or “hawk,” thus the war “idol” would be something like“Descending Fire” or “Fire Hawk.” At any rate, it is best identifiedas some sort of battle standard depicting a solar deity. Interestingly,although sun disks are a common feature of Aztec iconography, aswell as El Tajın, Tula, and Teotihuacan (Taube 1994:224), theclosest parallel is with f. 23b of the Mixtec Codex Vienna(Figure 5b).

THE BATTLE SCENES

In my opinion, and that of Freidel et al. (1993: 377), these muralsinstead represent a series of historical conquests by, or of

8 Whether this was also true for the northern panels is unclear due topoor preservation of the lower halves of the north and northeast walls, butenough survives to indicate a lower camp on the north wall and oneclearly is present on the northwest panel.


importance to, the Itza leadership of Chichen. These may have beensemimythic and foundational in nature, but as with many otherMesoamerican narratives, such events may well have been viewedas occurring within historical times, as in the origin narratives ofthe Books of Chilam Balam or the Mixtec codices. It is apparentthat there is little consistency in the costume of the opposingforces or the locations of battles, suggesting that the murals depicta series of wars against several discrete enemies rather than asingle ongoing conflict as hypothesized by the “Captain SunDisk–Captain Serpent” interpretation.

The battle on the southwest panel to the left of the doorway is thebest preserved and is most consistent with the imagery of the bas-reliefs (Figure 4). The battle takes place on moderately hillyground, and the opponents may be identified by their large whitespherical headdresses with blue feather decorations, the quivers ofdarts carried by several of the warriors, the distinctive backdevices of others, and finally their circular shields, embossed witha crescent within a blue or red border. This shield may also befound sculpted on the East Court of the East Building of theMonjas complex (Bolles 1977:232), where it may be a war trophyof this same event. The enemy advances in two lines, with a few

stragglers. It is also noteworthy that they are armed with atlatlsand darts, as are the Itzas but unlike the vast majority of northernMaya, at least as they represented themselves. The onlyLate-Terminal Classic period exceptions I have found are thejambs of 2C6 at Kabah (Pollock 1980:Figures 372–373).

The Itzas attack from below and are most easily recognized bythe bands of fur around their ankles and knees. (Two warriorsappear to have surprised the village from the top as well, as onthe southeast panel.) Several headdresses are present, suggestingsome sort of ranking, including pillbox hats, white hats with acluster of blue feathers, and simple two-feather aztaxelli ornaments.Some wear back mirrors, but a minority has more elaborate backdevices from which fall quetzal feathers. These too are probablymarks of rank, the most important of which are worn by the feath-ered serpent figure at the upper right. Their circular shields are forthe most part simply decorated by a circular border contrastingwith the color of the central circle. Below the battle a series ofconferences take place in the Itza encampment. Note the tricolorstandard pitched above a tricolored bowl and a large red ball, andin several cases tricolored vases, perhaps cups of cacao, separatethe conferees. A multitiered white feathered canopy resembles

Figure 5. (a) Sun disk from the northwest panel with offerings before it. Adela Breton, unpublished image, courtesy City Museum ofBristol. (b) Sun disk, Codex Vienna f. 23b (Anders et al. 1992).

Ringle22

a simpler one to the right, also pitched above a large red ball orcushion, perhaps related to similar canopies sculpted on thefacade of the west building of the Nunnery, Uxmal, and to thosementioned in various Guatemalan highland chronicles as insigniasof leadership at “Tulan” (Ringle 2004:177, 208).

The south panel (Figure 6) shares a common style with thesouthwest panel, but depicts a different opponent. It depicts apitched battle against a foe who must reside behind some sort of for-tification or on a natural advantage, because the attack demandssiege towers and scaling ladders and because the poses of the war-riors indicate they are ascending or descending sloping terrain. Thispanel is of the greatest importance for the study of Maya warfare,because it is our only image of this sort of technology.

Differences of costume clearly indicate a new opponent. Themajority wear a blue or blue-and-white headband crowned bylonger red feathers, a red belt or loincloth, and sometimes a redtunic as well. In contrast to the Itzas and the opponents of the pre-vious panel, they appear to be throwing darts or spears, rather thanusing atlatls.

The three scaffolds are clearly manned by higher-rank warriorsmarked by feathered serpents. One unusual feature of this scene isthat two warriors with red serpents behind them frame the upperpart of the scene and appear to be attacking the village. The oneto the right wears a large blue star glyph and is next to the sundisk, suggesting he is an Itza. Finally, three airborne figures attackthe village from above, probably Itzas as well.

Figure 6. South mural battle scene. Adela Breton, unpublished image, courtesy City Museum of Bristol.


Miller and Coggins argue that the fragmentary southeast paneldepicted a state of peaceful expectation, for which reason theybegin their versions of the narrative sequence here (Figure 7).Close inspection of Breton’s watercolor suggests several figuresaround the periphery of enclosure walls have their arms raised tothrow missiles, as does the Itza warrior to the upper left. Thus,the subject of this panel is probably also a battle. In any event,the fragmentary remains of an Itza camp along the baseline, thenon-Itza architecture of the village, and the hilly terrain indicateit did not occur at Chichen Itza.

Despite the absence of its entire lower half, the northeast panelis the most distinctive topographically (Figure 8a). Lines of sol-diers pass through narrow defiles between reddish hills, whileanother group crosses a footbridge between two peaks. The attack-ing soldiers wear a unique headdress marked either by a crest ofred, yellow, or green feathers from which sprout three tall bluefeathers with gold tips, or by deep blue caps, some with earflaps. Several wear crossed “suspenders.” Also unique are the rec-tangular shields decorated with grecas, which are especially clearin an earlier copy of this panel by Teobert Maler (Figure 8b).Although Maler’s copy must be used with caution, only thisversion shows a burning house at the top right of the picture.The question remains as to whether the invading soldiers alongthe top are Itzas or enemies. The conventions of the othermurals would place the enemies at the top, but in Maler’s copyat least, the upper warriors seemed to be garbed as Toltecs andthe lower warriors seem foreign. This distinction is much lessevident in Breton’s version, however, and so the rectangularshields may in fact belong to foreign forces.

Although much of the main scene of the north mural is effaced,one can still make out a series of soldiers protected by rectangularshields, usually with a blue or gold border and a white interior

(Figure 9). These would seem to be the defenders, whom the Itzasattack from the right, from above, and probably from below.Around the top and sides of the village are a series of Itza warriorssurrounded by serpents or being carried by boatlike stylizedserpents. An Itza camp probably ran across the bottom of thepicture, as suggested by banner outlines, although only onesoldier is clearly Itza.

The conventions used to depict the battle on the final northwestpanel are significantly different from the others, rendering itsinterpretation problematic (Figure 10). As will be discussed, thehouses within the town’s enclosure wall suggest that an Itza townis under attack. Yet the attacking forces are just as clearly Itza:a typical Itza camp occupies the bottom of the scene, including oneof their beehive huts. Furthermore, leaders in typical Itza garb seemto lead prisoners away from the town. Many of the attackers are,however, decorated with a light blue body paint, a color not otherwiseassociated with the Itza forces. Just two wear Itza fur ankle and kneebands, but several others wear Itza insignias. By no means are all ofthe victors so painted: an avenging Itza Venus warrior enters thescene from the upper left, surrounded by a red serpent but withoutbody paint, and most of the figures toward the bottom, at least theones in authority, also lack body paint. If this is an attack on anItza village, it is worth noting that it is not the only case ofItza-on-Itza aggression. The west lintel from the Castillo, for instance,depicts a number of bound prisoners in Toltec costume (Robertson2007:Rubbings D15802, D15804–D15809). Likewise, several ofthe individuals with bound hands from the “captive” section of theNorthwest Colonnade wear Toltec costume elements (e.g., Morriset al. 1931:Columns 25, 28, 37).

Figure 7. Southeast mural battle scene. Adela Breton, unpublished image,courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

Figure 8. Northeast mural battle scene: (a) by Adela Breton, unpublishedimage, courtesy City Museum of Bristol; (b) by Teobert Maler, inWillard (1926:220).

Ringle24

These battles occur in localities whose differences were closelyobserved. In most Maya murals, place is indicated schematically byat most a single building or two. In contrast, at Chichen, we seecamps, communities, and battlefields. Several of the murals clearlyindicate differences of terrain, most famously the red hills of the north-east mural panel, but also the green hills upon which the village of thesoutheast mural is built and the hill or earthworks being scaled in thesouth mural. Although the red hills (Figure 8) have been identified asthe Puuc Hills, none of the peaks there are set closely enough to makecrossing by a footbridge possible, nor were they probably so denudedof vegetation. Miller’s (1977:213) suggestion that southern Oaxacamay be represented is intriguing given the other Mixteca-Puebla par-allels noted herein. At present nothing about the topography in any ofthe murals directly implicates other polities of northern Yucatan,although it is logical that they might be involved, but other detailsof topography, architecture, and weaponry hint that areas beyondthe northern plains may also be represented.

Specificity of place is also conveyed by the architecture of thesescenes, among the very few depictions of Classic Maya commu-nities to have survived. Two of the communities are walled (north-west and southeast panels), as is the community under attack on amural from Las Monjas (Charlot in Bolles 1977:201–202; Bretonin McVicker 2005:Plate 11; Willard 1926:252). Furthermore, thehouses reflect different construction styles and probably differentethnicities (Figure 11) (see also Angulo Villasenor 2001; Smith2000). The houses on the southeast, northwest, and south panels

are drawn frontally for the most part and all have thatched roofsand a single doorway framed in red. For many the crest of thethatch is distinctive in being constricted just below the peak, sothat the thatch is bunched into an inverted wedge pattern abovethe ridgepole. In contrast, most of the houses on the southwestpanel are drawn in profile, their roofs lack the constricted top,and many have a covered front porch, sometimes with partiallypainted posts.

Although Wauchope (1934:116–118) felt confident in identify-ing all of these as typical northern Maya houses, that seems proble-matic for several reasons. First, at the northern sites with which I amfamiliar, most perishable houses have two or more rooms with adoor in each. Although some have jamb stones, they are rarelymore than 50 cm high. On the other hand, a house depicted in amural from Dzula has a single doorway not unlike those fromChichen, as do the sculpted houses on the facades of the Arco atLabna and the south building of the Nunnery at Uxmal(Figures 12a and b). Porches too are absent among modernYucatecan houses (Wauchope 1938:98–100) and do not seem tobe a common feature archaeologically, although admittedly post-holes are difficult to identify. Even though ethnographic accountsindicate that houses at Mayapan and Chichen had open fronts,these always had masonry side walls with columns piercing thedoorway (Ruppert and Smith 1957), whereas the porches in themurals are true open porches. Porches are more common ethnogra-phically in Guatemala, and archaeologically one of the Uaxactunhouses also seemed to have had a porch (Wauchope 1934:House 1).

Although we know little about the thatching of precontact housesin Yucatan, the constricted crest is unknown ethnographically or inmural or sculptural depictions of houses from elsewhere in northernYucatan.9 They do occur several times in the Tikal graffiti alongside

Figure 9. North mural battle scene. Adela Breton, unpublished image,courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

Figure 10. Northwest mural battle scene. Adela Breton, unpublishedimage, courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

9 A possible example in stone may be N1065E1025 at Kiuic, whosesloping upper wall zone most probably was crowned by a three-part


more typical hip roofs, although often these seem to be litters ratherthan houses (Figure 12c). Further afield, many of the same conven-tions for the depictions of structures are present in the LatePostclassic period Mixtec and Borgia Group codices coming fromthe Mixteca-Puebla-Tlaxcala region (Figure 12d) (AnguloVillasenor 2001). The depiction of the doorway by red jambs andlintels is common throughout the Nuttall and Borgia, for instance,and houses are often depicted in profile. The constricted thatch roofmay also be found in some of the temple depictions in the Nuttall,such as the Temples of Tilantongo and Tututepec. The beehive-

shaped structures along the two basal registers provide anotherlink to this area and the Mixteca-Puebla tradition, since, asnoted by Seler (1998:109), these resemble nothing so closely asglyphs for the day calli in the codices Vaticanus B and Bodley10

(Figure 12e).Finally, as already noted, the profiles of houses on the southeast

mural panel are distinguished by a sloping or battered lower wallsurmounted by a narrow horizontal molding. This construction tech-nique is not found at any other northern Maya site, nor is it depictedin the codices, but it is a central trait of “Chichen-Toltec”

Figure 11. House types depicted in the Upper Temple of the Jaguars murals: (a) southeast panel; (b) south panel; (c) southwest panel;(d) northwest panel, note battered lower wall zone and molding; (e) North Temple, rear (north) wall; (f) North Temple, north vault.

molding. Two piers divide the entrance, however, and this style of architec-ture was out of vogue by the time the UTJ was built.

10 It is not universal in that area, however, because the sign for calli in theNuttall and Vienna and elsewhere is the more familiar Aztec form.

Ringle26

architecture (although not at Tula itself).11 The very similar housesdepicted on the North Temple frieze confirm this, as certainly thesescenes either took place at Chichen or someplace central to Itzaideology. The torched village on the Las Monjas mural also has bat-tered lower wall zones; though these structures have an outset upperwall, unlike known Chichen structures (but like some examples inthe Mixteca-Puebla codices). As already noted, these murals may

record instances of conflict among groups sharing a commonToltec ideology of leadership.

INFORMATION ON MILITARY AND POLITICALORGANIZATION

Although at present we do not have sufficient information to identifyspecific opponents or battle locations, the murals may usefully beexamined for information concerning the internal organization ofChichen’s military and therefore possibly the function of the UTJ.Considered alone, the murals may be suspected of reflectingidiosyncratic artistic choices or conventions, but if supportingmaterials can be cited from elsewhere at the site, we may be moreconfident in our conclusions. Recently, Ringle and Bey (2010)suggested that the advent of the mature Toltec style reflected anew form of political control exercised through the formation ofmilitary sodalities and the proliferation of ranks, reflected in,among other things, an intense emphasis on the details ofcostume visible on the sculpted jambs and piers. Another wayranking seems to have been expressed in the murals is throughcolor. A striking aspect of the coloration of the murals and friezesof Chichen is the pervasive use of deep red, blue, and ocher


11 Ledyard Smith (1955:76) noted basal batter can be found in severalLate Postclassic period highland Guatemalan sites, such as Chitinamit,Zaculeu, Chinchilla. He also noted Central Mexican examples such asMitla, Tepoztlan, Teopanzolco, and Xochicalco, although only the lastwould date roughly to the time period of Chichen. To these we can addthe Templo Mayor and other structures from Tenochtitlan. Xochicalco issuggestive because it may have had an interior arrangement much like thetwo-room serpent temples at Chichen, such as the Temple of the Warriorsand the UTJ. Teopanzolco, however, is the only one that seems to havethe outset upper wall zone (Marquina 1964:Lamina 63).

Marquina (1964:Lamina 46) reconstructed a basal batter for Mound B atTula, but the top of this mound was completely destroyed and no traces of thewalls of the superstructure survived. No other examples of basal batter existat Tula to my knowledge. Nor was basal batter used on any of the late build-ings at Seibal, despite other instances of “Itza” influence.


banding (Figure 13).12 Perhaps the clearest examples are the featherstandards present on the north, northwest (twice), and southwest

panels, consisting of an upper crown of red feathers with bandsof blue and ocher beneath, above which stand two or three tallwhite banners. The colors of these standards, obviously insignias ofthe highest importance, strongly suggest that these three colors werein some way a political symbol. The concentric spiked rims of thesun disk banners on the southwest, south, northwest, and northwalls conform to this palette, as do the head, tail, and underbelly ofthe large green feathered serpent at the center of the Lower Templeof the Jaguars and the arm padding of the peculiar effigy figure stand-ing in front of it. Although its counterpart on the east wall of the UTJdoes not wear such padding and little of his costume has survived, hishelmet is banded blue and red with ocher adornments.

Figure 12. Comparative house types: (a) Classic period Puuc house from Dzula, Yucatan (Thompson 1904:Plate II); (b) detail from theArco, Labna, Yucatan (author photograph); (c) thatched roofs in Tikal graffiti (Trik and Kampen 1983:Figures 15, 18, 23, 27, 73, 80, 93);(d) houses and temples in the Mixtec codices (Vienna f. 11r, 14r, 6r); (e) Mixteca-Puebla “beehive” houses and their counterparts atChichen Itza (Seler 1998:Figures 200, 203).

12 Red, blue, ocher, black, white, and perhaps green were probably theprimary pigments available to the Chichen artists, as they were for thelater Aztecs (Lopez L. et al. 2006). Interestingly, green was not employedon Aztec murals or sculpture and is also absent on the painted benches ofTula, and neither seems to have gone beyond this basic palette. In contrast,Breton (1907:165–166) emphasized the importance of tonality in the muralsof Chichen, as is readily apparent in skin tones, the color given to jade orturquoise objects, and the background colors. This only serves to reinforcethe special value of the consistent use of red, blue, and ocher to markspeech and to symbolize toltecayotl.

Ringle28

This scheme could seemingly be employed differentially toindicate rank and identity. For instance, the figure just left of centerin the third register of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars, probablythe most important person in that half of the row, has a blue andocher feathered headdress with a red upper border; two individualson the northwest mural panel wear similar headdresses. On the south-west panel, two seated individuals, apparently of secondary rank,wear capes of blue and ocher differing only in which color formedthe central band, and two have yellow-crowned hats with small redornaments at the back of their diadems (Figure 4). In this scene,one of the most important insignias was the back device. Mostwear the tezcacuitlapilli back mirror, and only five have a spray ofquetzal feathers held by a ribbed ferrule. Of these, only one has a tri-colored device, the right feathered serpent warrior who is almost cer-tainly one of the two or three Itza captains.

These colors also mark Itza speech (Figure 4). Turning again tothe southwest panel, many of the Itza warriors are marked withspeech scrolls that seem to vary in color with rank. Only three aretricolored: one is associated with the cloud serpent, another with a

warrior unfortunately effaced, and the third, a row above and tothe left of the lower sun disk, wears a long white tunic and aquetzal feather back device, seemingly another mark of highrank. In the camp scene along the base of the mural, the speechscroll of each of the principals is tricolored, with the exception ofthe individual just to the right of the sun disk, and in each case,this correlates well with costume details. Particularly interesting isthe speech scroll of the left feathered serpent figure, which hasnot only all three colors (plus green), but also an embedded jestergodlike profile (see Figure 15a). Speech scrolls of the subordinatesseem on the whole simpler and of two colors at most, while theiropponents are notably silent, with the exception of a possibleenemy captain at top center.

Three final instances of the tricolor scheme remain to be noted. Inthe chambers of both the Temple of the Chac Mool and the Temple ofthe Warriors, the lower halves of the walls were decorated with alower black band surmounted by bands of blue, red, and yellow, aswere the serpent’s bodies in the Chac Mool (Morris et al. 1931:20,75, Plate 132). This same banding was used at Tula in the passageway



between the Palacio Quemado and Edificio B (Acosta 1956:44,Figure 3). A recent study of color symbolism at Tenochtitlanreports similar banding in the Casa de las Aguilas (Lopez Lujanet al. 2005:32, Figure 6). The authors note that the second stage ofthis structure was especially reminiscent of Tula-Toltec architecture,including processional benches, sunken patios, Tlaloc braziers.Thus, the tricolor schemata may have functioned symbolically as amarker of Toltec identity and heritage throughout its centers.

Turning now to the individuals depicted in the murals, threefigures may reflect the highest ranks within the Itza hierarchy,distinguished by virtue of costume elements, their association withserpents, and their position in the overall composition. On thesouthwest panel, these three are marked with yellow flames similarto those associated with persons of power on the North Templefrieze.13 Two are associated with green feathered serpents and theother with a white cloud snake, but all three seem to be realpeople, at least insofar as the UTJ murals depict real events.Costume elements such as shields also indicate their high rank.

The first figure (warrior A, Figure 14a) sits at the center of the base-line scene on the southwest mural, just to the left of the great trico-lored standard and a great reddish ball. He can be identified by hisbright blue cap with a single white feather, surrounding yellowflames of potency, and a green feathered serpent curling up behindhim. In the battle scene above, near its left edge, is another blue-capped figure throwing a dart and holding a shield decorated withdots or scallops (Figure 14b). Because both are dressed in whitetunics and because both are surrounded by flames, I believe theseare the same person, represented at two different points in the narra-tive. This same figure can be found on the uppermost level of therightmost siege scaffolding on the south wall, where his blue caphas a crown of several white feathers (Figure 14c).

The leadership role exercised by warrior A in the camp scene ofthe southwest mural is also reflected by his appearance as the centralseated figure of the North Temple, where he seems to be confirmingthe standing figure to the left in office (Figure 14d). This portion ofthe North Temple frieze was damaged, but Breton’s tracing suggestshe had a typical Toltec costume, including a back mirror and acurved stick, as do the examples from the UTJ. He also figuresprominently on bench processions, including the North Dais, theNorthwest Colonnade Dais, and the recently discovered bench

Figure 13. Examples of tricolor motifs at Chichen Itza: (a) standard, (b) sun disk, (c) warrior B (all from southwest panel), (d) effigy andfeathered serpent, Lower Temple of the Jaguars. Adela Breton, unpublished images, courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

13 A warrior at the top of the scene, painted against a red rectangle, also ismarked by flames. Unfortunately, the image is partially effaced and theremaining portions of his costume are not particularly diagnostic.

Ringle30

found near 5C–11 of the Initial Series Group, where he is shown withhis hallmark blue cap meeting a warrior with a feathered serpentcurling behind him, color unknown (Figures 14e–g). This figuremay therefore have had a key role as an intermediary with warriorsodalities residing in outlying architectural complexes such as theInitial Series Group and the Southwest Group, and it is perhaps thissort of investiture that is depicted on the rear wall of the North Temple.

The costume of the second figure (warrior B, Figure 15), alsoassociated with a green feathered serpent, is quite different. Againhe seems to occur twice on the southwest mural, once nearthe extreme right of the lowest register and then directly above inthe battle scene, just below the lintel (Figures 15a and b).Although the two differ in costume—the lower being wrapped in

an ocher and blue feather cape, the upper being dressed forbattle—the close similarity of their feathered serpents, as wellas their headgear, suggest they are again variants of the sameindividual. Both wear the jade mosaic pillbox hat, here ornamentedwith a small bird and surmounted by a tall crown of green quetzalfeathers. The upper individual’s nose is pierced for both a tubularnosepiece and the Toltec button. Three other images are possiblyversions of warrior B, though differing in details. One, possiblyholding the same shield but wearing the aztaxelli ornament ratherthan the quetzal feather spray, is the warrior mounting thescaffold just right of center on the south panel (Figure 15c).A similar feathered serpent warrior occurs at the right-hand sideof the north panel, and opposite him is a warrior with the quetzal

Figure 14. Examples of warrior A: (a) Southwest panel, battle scene; (b) southwest panel, lower register camp scene; (c) south panel. (a)–(c) by Adela Breton,unpublished images courtesy City Museum of Bristol. (d) North Temple, center of rear (north) wall. Adela Breton, unpublished image courtesy CityMuseum of Bristol. For full panel, see drawing by Linnea Wren in Ringle (2004:Figure 3). (e) North dais, Temple of the Warriors (Morris et al.1931:Figure 257). (f) Northwest colonnade dais, Temple of the Warriors (Morris et al. 1931:Plate 124). (g) Dismantled bench from near Structure 5C11,Grupo de la Serie Inicial (Schmidt 2003). Courtesy Peter Schmidt.


feather spray but backed by a serpent that is less clearly feathered(Figures 15d and e).

In the southwest battle scene, warrior B (Figure 15b) is in a throw-ing posture and holds a distinctive shield similar to that of warrior Abut marked by several rows of small scallops. This same shield dec-orates the exterior of the UTJ, forms part of the frieze above theCastillo-sub, and is also found at Tula. It may therefore be anemblem of wider importance. If an emblem of high rank, it wouldbe complemented by the jester godlike profile embedded in thespeech scroll of warrior B. Whether the green-dotted shield of theblue-capped warrior A is of equal importance remains to be seen.

The final figure (warrior C, Figure 16) of the triumvirate issurrounded by a white serpent with hooked cloud markings ratherthan feathers. Because cloud serpents are associated withMixcoatl in the highland tradition, it is worth dwelling on thisfigure and his iconography. On the southwest mural, he wears thejade pillbox cap with the small bird affixed to it, aztaxelli, large cir-cular ear flares, both a pendant nose bead and a Toltec nose button,and has green marks, perhaps scarifications, on his cheek(Figure 16a). His body is badly damaged, but an earlier tracing by

Teobert Maler (Figure 16b) shows him holding a scalloped shieldidentical to warrior B’s, by whose side he stands. He also wears amultistrand necklace like those seen on the jamb figures. Anotherprobable example of this figure may be found on the southeastpanel (Figure 16c). Here the serpent’s body has been effaced andonly its outline permits identification as a cloud serpent, but thewarrior is dressed almost identically to warrior C. Finally, a headlessfigure above a white snake can be found at the left edge of the north-east panel, where what survives of his costume is consistent withFigure 16c (Figure 16d). Whereas warriors B and C cluster togetheron the southwest panel, here they frame the battle scene.

This figure is most easily identified elsewhere at the site,however (Table 2). The two most prominent examples occurin the fourth register of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars(Figure 16e) and in the upper register of the North Temple(Figure 16f). Aside from the cloud serpent and costume details,the fact that both these instances are in the upper registers next toa sun disk argues for their homology. Both wear a pillbox headdressornamented with the small bird, aztaxellis, back mirrors, nose pen-dants, and where visible, the nose button, and finally fur knee and

Figure 15. Examples of warrior B: (a) Southwest panel, battle scene; (b) southwest panel, lower register camp scene; (c) south panel; (d)north panel, left side; (e) North panel, right side. All by Adela Breton, unpublished images courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

Ringle32

ankle ornaments. The only difference is that the Lower Temple ofthe Jaguars example has the butterfly pectoral, and the otherswear the multistrand necklace. Both these cloud serpent warriorsstand at the head of a file of warriors clad in variants of thetypical Toltec costume, suggesting they are the commanders.

A key example of warrior C is the right figure on the table of theUTJ (Figure 17). Whereas I (Ringle 2004:196) formerly identifiedhim with the effigy of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars, this isclearly wrong given the difference in serpents. Although fragmen-tary, what remains of his costume is consistent with his identifi-cation as warrior C: sandals, fur anklets, arm padding, the Toltecback mirror, and darts and arrows. Another tabletop fragmentshows the grooved curved stick and the fur arm protector, andanother an upraised atlatl. His nose is pierced for the Toltecbutton ornament. Unfortunately, his headdress has not survived,but clearly the badly damaged serpent behind him is neither feath-ered nor green, and arguably has at least one curl. A key facialfeature is that this person is bearded, a rare trait among Chichen’swarriors. However, it is characteristic of a warrior who consistentlyfigures on the gold disks pulled from the Sacred Cenote, often

attacking non-Itza warriors. This scene is found on disks A–F.On disks D and E, he is accompanied by a nonfeathered serpentand on F by a serpent that has both feathers and cloud marks.On disk F, he also holds the same scalloped shield associatedwith warriors B and C on the southwest mural (Figure 18).

He is perhaps the prototypical occupant of the cloud-serpentoffice, possibly semi-divine, and hence a fit image for the UTJ table-top. The UTJ table may therefore have been the seat of a leader whoeither had Cloud Serpent as a title or presided over a cloud serpentwarrior sodality. Among the warriors on the UTJ jambs, only oneis backed by a serpent, and tellingly it is a cloud serpent(Figure 19a). This warrior occupies the central facet of the innernorth jamb, arguably the most prestigious position. Furthermore,although the jambs and piers of the Castillo are decorated with war-riors in a great variety of costumes, including several with serpents,only two are cloud serpents and they pair to frame the west Castillodoorway (Figure 19b). This is, of course, the direction in which theUTJ and indeed all of the serpent temples face at Chichen, perhapsreflecting a tie between the setting sun, the cloud serpent, and war-riors, as Seler (1998) suggested. This may indicate that the Central

Figure 16. Examples of warrior C: (a) Southwest panel. Adela Breton, unpublished images courtesy City Museum of Bristol. (b)Southwest panel. Detail of drawing by Teobert Maler, published in Willard (1926:217). (c) Southeast panel; (d) northeast panel, leftside; (e) Lower Temple of the Jaguars; (f) North Temple, top center, north (rear) wall. (c)–(f) Unpublished images by Adela Bretoncourtesy City Museum of Bristol. (g) Line drawing of North Temple figure by Linda Schele.


Mexican linkage between Camaxtli-Mixcoatl and the souls of deadwarriors was operative as early as the Terminal Classic period (andhence belies the migration myths of the Postclassic period Nahuasof the Puebla-Tlaxcala region, who viewed themselves as descen-dants of a Chichimec lord Mixcoatl). In any event, the cloudserpent clearly occupied a significant position within the symbolicgeography of Chichen Itza.

The position of the cloud serpent leader in the overall hierarchyremains to be resolved and is important for an understandingChichen’s political hierarchy. The pairing of cloud and featheredserpent leaders (or Mixcoatl/Quetzalcoatl) can be seen in severalcontexts at Chichen (Table 2), such as the pairing of warriors Band C on the southwest mural mentioned earlier. Althoughwarrior C is clearly a major captain, he never appears in the campscenes and the warriors surrounding him on the UTJ jambs are allmodestly costumed.14 It is curious too that despite the apparentspecial link between the UTJ and the Temple of the Warriors, the

latter has a far wider range of costume represented on its piers,and in fact, none of its warriors are backed by serpents of any sort(for a thorough and insightful discussion of the Temple of theWarriors, see Kowalski 2007).

The Osario Group may represent a precinct dedicated to thissector of Chichen’s leadership, however. As is well known, thisgroup rests upon its own plaza, a smaller version of the GreatTerrace, and like the latter, the Osario Group is centered around aradial pyramid and is connected to a cenote via a sacbe. Bothgroups have nearly identical Venus Platforms, with one significantdifference: Schmidt’s excavations have demonstrated that the OsarioVenus Platform (3C3) has a cloud serpent in the homologousposition to that occupied by a feathered serpent on the VenusPlatform of the Great Plaza (Figures 20a–c, Schmidt 2007). Thispairing is further made explicit by the intertwined feathered andcloud serpents forming the balustrades of the Osario itself. Theinterior of its temple features four warrior piers. Warriors arebacked by serpents only on the two rear piers and then in just fiveor six of eight cases (they are absent on the two rear faces, possiblyalso the south side of pier 2), as if they were guarding the benchbetween them. The specifics of the serpents are weathered anddifficult to discern, but at least three appear to be cloud serpents

Table 2. Warrior C and Cloud Serpent images at Chichen Itza

Structure Number Location Locations of Cloud Serpent

2D1 Lower Temple of the Jaguars, Great Ballcourt Right center, fourth register2D1 North Temple, Great Ballcourt Upper register2D1 Upper Temple of the Jaguars, Great Ballcourt Jamb (K3); Table Throne—right figure; Murals: southwest, southeast, northeast2D5 Castillo West doorway jambs, north and south3C1 Osario Balustrades, intertwined with feathered serpent; Southwest Colonnade 1, north

and east faces; Northwest Colonnade 2, east face (Robertson 2007:RubbingsT23251, T23253, T23257)

3C3 Osario Venus Platform Above hombre-pajaro-serpiente panelsSacred Cenote Gold disks F, H. Gold disks D?, E?, N? (none have clear cloud markings, but

none are feathered); pottery vessel (Schmidt 1998:426)

Notes: Data from Schmidt (2007), Seler (1998:83, 113), and personal observations. Serpent-accompanied warriors are absent from the Temple of the Chac Mool, Temple of theWarriors, and the Northwest Colonnade.

Figure 17. Tabletop of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars: (a) painted version by Adela Breton, and (b) line drawing by Linda Schele.

14 Kelley (1982:3–4) also noted this pairing and Mixcoatl’s subordinateposition, although his historical interpretation hews closer to the traditionalopposition between Mayas and Toltecs and the identification of the featheredserpent as the historical Quetzalcoatl.

Ringle34

and none are feathered (Table 2) (Robertson 2007:RubbingsD23251–D23266).

If the Osario Group represents a smaller version of the GreatPlaza, then perhaps it hosted similar but less prestigious rites ofinvestiture specific to its warrior ranks (it is probably significant

that it has neither ballcourt or serpent temple). There remains theproblem of the date of this complex. The hieroglyphic date onone of its pillars has been variously dated as a.d. 842 or a.d. 998(Grana-Behrens et al. 1999; Schele and Freidel 1990: 500, note26; Thompson 1937), with many epigraphers now favoring thelater (and original) reading. However, in a recent discussion,Cobos (2007:328–330) argued that the inscription postdates con-struction of the complex, which he places in his early Sotutaphase on the basis of ceramics from construction fill. Thus, Cobossuggests a relatively short interval between construction of theGreat Terrace buildings and the Osario, followed by their contem-porary usage for the remainder of the Sotuta phase. At present,further evidence is needed to decide among these alternatives.

One section of the murals remains to be treated, the centralpanel of the east wall (Figure 21a). Here a largely effaced featheredserpent and his “effigy,” the same figure who is at the center of theLower Temple of the Jaguars, face a simply dressed individualwith golden hair. The effigy, in conjunction with the warriorC figure on the tabletop (Figure 21b), again creates a featheredand cloud serpent pairing along the right halves of thesecompositions. Therefore, the final question to be resolved is theidentities of the figures facing them to the left, both of whom aresimilarly depicted. In the case of the tabletop, I believe he is aninitiate, because he wears a costume very much like the warriorson the piers, including a pillbox hat, fur anklets and knee rings,darts, and a back mirror. He lacks only the aztaxelli featherornament, which appears to be descending from above. A twinfeather was also an identifying characteristic of Mixcoatl’scostume (Boone 2007:42). Although his seems to have been ofeagle feathers, this may possibly be just a variant of the morecommon aztaxelli, which is usually claimed to be of heronfeathers.

With regard to the identity of the person on the left of the centralmural panel, two possibilities present themselves: (1) he is an imageof Captain Sun Disk or the sun god, as his hair color and diademmight indicate, or (2) he is that same initiate in somewhat differentcostume who now receives this diadem as a mark of office or inves-titure. The former is the opinion of most authorities, but in supportof the latter, one might cite a similar diadem worn by 8 Deer JaguarClaw only after his initiation (Figure 22a). 8 Deer is of particularrelevance because his costume and face paint possess several ofthe attributes of Quetzalcoatl and because he is invested by theToltec lord 4 Jaguar after undergoing rites that seem to be sharedby many Tollans (Byland and Pohl 1994:139–145; Ringle 2004).The front of the Chichen diadem is composed of an image of theJester God, widely recognized as an emblem of leadership, and sowould be appropriately bestowed during an act of investiture.It should also be noted that both left-hand figures wear a similarheaddress of green feathers, unlike that of the sun deity but likethat of many warriors, and most importantly both lack an encirclingsun disk. The sun god’s jaguar throne is also absent, though it is notinvariably present in images of the sun disk.

This diadem provides another link to the Osario because it isworn by images of the Principal Bird Deity adorning the tiers ofthe platform (Figure 22b). The head of this bird is that of K’awil(God K), a god emblematic of dynastic spirit and power. Theevidence taken as a whole thus leads to the conclusion that theOsario complex may represent a ceremonial area dedicatedspecifically to the Cloud Serpent leader and his cohort. Thebroader symbolism of the Great Ballcourt and the buildings andpiers of the Great Terrace taken as a whole suggest that they were

Figure 18. Disk F from the Sacred Cenote (Lothrop 1952:Figure 34).

Figure 19. Additional cloud serpent warriors from Chichen Itza (warriorC): (a) Jamb face K3, Upper Temple of the Jaguars (Seler 1998:Figure 120); (b) Castillo, West jamb, south side (Seler 1998: Figure 123).


representative of all segments of Chichen’s leadership, but I wouldargue that the UTJ was specifically the domain of the Cloud Serpentleader.

ETHNOHISTORICAL PARALLELS

Given the parallels suggested between ritual practices at Chichenand those of the later Postclassic period Mixteca-Puebla tradition,it is noteworthy that the most important stop during the initiationof a tecuhtli (teuclti) of Tlaxcala was at the temple of Mixcoatl-Camaxtli, but in Cholula, it was at the temple of Quetzalcoatl (seereferences in Carrasco 1966, Byland and Pohl 1994:147). Thetitle of tecuhtli was an honor accorded nobility for outstanding

service, principally in warfare, but was by no means confined tothe highest ranks (Spaniards equated it with the title of caballero).This rank would therefore seem to parallel very closely thosehypothesized to have been conferred on the Great Terrace atChichen (Ringle 2004).

Yet if Cloud Serpent/Mixcoatl was the title of an important leaderduring the Late Postclassic period, it seems to have gone largelyunremarked by later chroniclers. The Codex Mendoza f. 17v listsa mixcoatl tlacatecuhtli as military governor of Tetenanco, while thetitle of mixcoatl tlailotlacteuctli is given to a war chief in the Analesde Tlatelolco (Umberger 2007). Barlow (1987:41) also mentionsthat the mixcoatl tlailotlaque were inspectors of the Aztec markets.Several historical figures have Mixcoatl as one of their names,

Figure 20. Imagery from the Osario Group: (a) Panel from 3C3, the Osario Venus Platform (Schmidt 2007:172, Figure 17). (b) Rubbing of serpent from 3C3(Robertson 2007:D23327). (c) Comparable facade from Venus platform, 2D4. Author photograph.

Ringle36

possibly representing the same process of title incorporation evident inthe many leaders having Quetzalcoatl as part of their name (mostfamously Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl of Tula). Mixcoamazatzin is listedas a founding king of that city in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan(cf. Prem 1999), and according to Alva Ixlilxochitl (1985:I:102,305, 321), a king named Mixcoatl was given by the Toltec

Aculhuas to Tlatelolco at the same time Acamapichtli was bestowedupon Tenochtitlan, infusing both lines with Toltec legitimacy.

A variety of images also hint at the persistence and importance ofthe feathered/cloud serpent pairing in Postclassic period CentralMexico. Paired feathered-cloud serpents alternate on the centralbench of the Palacio Quemado at Tula, a building that likelyserved the local warrior orders, and at Tenochtitlan, the two serpentsalternate on the Centro Mercantil stone and along the edges of thebenches from the Casa de las Aguilas, a building with strongTula-Toltec symbolism (Figure 23). A somewhat less directpairing occurs on a pair of imitation Fine Orange vessels found inOfferings 10 and 14 near the Great Coyolxauhqui Stone at thefoot of the Templo Mayor (Figure 24), offerings that Wagner(1982:127) recognized were in reality funerary urns because ofthe human cremations within. The cups respectively depicta Tezcatlipoca-like figure backed by a feathered serpent, and afigure with Mixcoatl attributes backed by a serpent marked withobsidian or flint blades, perhaps indicating the martial aspect ofthat deity.15 Nicholson and Quinones Keber (1983:94–97) main-tained these were produced as acts of “conscious archaism” recal-ling the Aztec’s Toltec heritage, although the details of costumerecall Mixteca-Puebla iconographic conventions just as strongly.Umberger (2007) recently argued that the bones found withinwere the remains of Moquihuix and Teconal, leaders of the rebel-lious Tlatelolcans. Umberger associates Moquihuix with the feath-ered serpent vase and Teconal, his war chief, with the Mixcoatlvessel (as she notes [2007:15], the latter may have had the titlemixcoatl tlailotlacteuctli). If Umberger is correct, the figures standin similar structural relations to one another as warriors B and C

Figure 21. (a) Central panel, east side, Upper Temple of the Jaguars; (b) Upper Temple of the Jaguars tabletop. Adela Breton, unpub-lished images, courtesy City Museum of Bristol.

Figure 22. The sun diadem: (a) 8 Deer Jaguar Paw wearing “sun jewel”(Codex Nuttall f. 59; Nuttall 1975). (b) Panel from the basal platform ofthe Osario (3C1) (Robertson 2007:Rubbing D40674).

15 Similar obsidian serpents were found in the Temple of the Chac Mooland in the substructure to the Temple of the Big Tables (Schmidt 2007:165).This image has a considerable antiquity, being found on a series of muralsfrom Tlacuilapaxco, Teotihuacan (Berrin 1988:195, Figures 6.21–22).


Figure 23. Pairings of the feathered and cloud serpents: (a) Bench from the central room, Palacio Quemado, Tula (Acosta 1957:Figure 3;Tozzer 1957:Figure 600). (b) Centro Mercantil stone, Tenochtitlan (Tozzer 1957:602). (c) Casa de las Aguilas, Tenochtitlan (Lopez Lujan2006:Figure 165).

Ringle38

at Chichen Itza, although it must be admitted that the identificationsrest on relatively slight grounds.

As mentioned, another example of an actor with Mixcoatl charac-teristics is 4 Jaguar in the Mixtec codices. On Nuttall f. 52, he is shownaccompanying 8 Deer Jaguar Claw in the rituals prior to his investi-ture. His mouth area is painted red and, like images of Mixcoatl onthe UTJ table and on the gold disks, 4 Jaguar is bearded(Figure 25a–c). He also wears a simple head ornament decoratedwith a down ball, a trait of Mixcoatl and very like the one on theTemplo Mayor vase. Politically, 4 Jaguar seems to have served asan emissary, perhaps from Tulancingo (Byland and Pohl 1994:139–145). He was probably not a paramount ruler, but one with sufficientpower to sanction the legitimacy of Toltec rulers, such as 8 Deerbecame. What seems to be a strikingly similar pairing may be foundon a pot from the Sacred Cenote of Chichen Itza, of local manufacturebut bearing figures with face paint very similar to that of 8 Deer and 4Jaguar and to the gods Quetzalcoatl and Mixcoatl (Figure 25e).

The association of Mixcoatl with noble warriors occurs evenfurther afield. A series of shell ornaments from the Huasteca depictfigures whose costumes include traits associated with Mixcoatl(Beyer 1933). Several of these depict paired serpents from whichhumans (or deities) emerge. On the most famous of these(Figure 26), two figures surmount a pair of intertwined serpents dif-fering in their body decoration but with curls (or possibly feathers)along their backs. These in turn rise from a watery body with reedsgrowing at the center, a clear Tollan marker. Deer hoofs throughthe ear lobes of the left figure mark him as having traits ofMixcoatl. Another pectoral (Beyer 1933:Figure 24) shows a figurewith Mixcoatl’s hair ornament drilling fire. Besides being an inven-tion of Mixcoatl, fire drilling was one of the steps in the investitureof teteuctin in the Puebla-Tlaxcala region. Although Beyer provided

no information on the contexts of these shells, he demonstrated theywere worn as pectorals. It is therefore not unlikely that they were orna-ments of rank for the local equivalent of tecuhtli warriors, for whomMixcoatl appears to have been of particular importance.

A final perspective on the role of the UTJ in rites of investiturecome from striking resemblances it has to the tlacochcalco-tlacatecco, a building type to which Lopez Lujan (2006:Chapter8; cf. Klein 1987) has recently assigned the so-called Casa de lasAguilas of Tenochtitlan. To be more precise, these providesupport for the role of the entire ballcourt in such rites, becausetraits of the tlacochcalco-tlacatecco can also be seen in the NorthTemple and the Lower Temple of the Jaguars. This building isdescribed by several chroniclers as having served as a place forboth penitential rites prior to investiture and vigils held for deadkings and warriors before their burials (see Klein 1987:309–314;Lopez Lujan 2006:Chapter 8). Rites may have been conductedeither in two related structures or in two chambers of the same build-ing, the interpretation favored by Lopez Lujan for the Casa de lasAguilas. As I argued previously (2004), a similar pairing can beseen in the bas-reliefs of the north and south vaults of the NorthTemple, where the theme of the death and regeneration of theking seems to parallel the general theme of the Casa de lasAguilas. As with Chichen, it is important to note that such ritualswere not for the tlahtoani alone, but also involved tecuhtli oflesser rank.

The various examples of the tlacochcalco-tlacatecco differed indetail, but most housed twin god effigies. In the case of Chalcoand the Casa de las Aguilas, these were Huitzilopochtli andTezcatlipoca, and part of the investiture ritual was to performpenance in front of these two bundles and perhaps even don theirvestments (Lopez Lujan 2006:284, citing others). The conceptual

Figure 24. Offertory vessels from the Templo Mayor, Tenochtitlan: (a) Figure with Tezcatlipoca attributes and a feathered serpent,vessel from Offering 14 (Lopez Lujan 2005:Figure 98). (b) Figure with Mixcoatl attributes and a “projectile point” serpent, vesselfrom Offering 10 (Lopez Lujan 2005:Figure 97).


link is that “both were gods of war who, according to Motolinia,were brothers” (Lopez Lujan 2006:281). The UTJ references adifferent pair, Quetzalcoatl and Mixcoatl, but again both weregods of war (at least in the Chichen-Pueblan tradition) and bothwere closely related, Mixcoatl being equated with Quetzalcoatl insome later sources or alternatively identified as his father. And asin the tlacochcalco, a significant event in the UTJ investiture wasto present the initiate before both deities: the one depicted on thetable, the other on the rear wall.

Several more specific details can be noted. The tlacochcalcocan be translated as “house of darts,” and its depiction in theCodex Mendoza shows a building with a series of darts adorningits roof, recalling the crossed-darts merlons of the UTJ, Tajin, andTula.16 Also the costume used by the attendants and the initiatefor both initiation and funerary rites in the tlacochcalco was along dresslike garment ornamented with skulls and bones.

Similar vestments are depicted on the mortuary priests of theNorth Temple and some of the females depicted on thecolumns of the Lower Temple of the Jaguars. Another was thexicolli jacket, which Ringle (2004) argued was donned by thecentral figure of the North Temple, and the twin-feather aztaxelliornament, which Klein (1987:320) notes was worn both by peni-tent priests and by autosacrificial images of Tizoc and Ahuitzotlon the Templo Mayor Dedication Stone. Perhaps most importantis the conscious archaism of the benches and artifacts of the Casade las Aguilas, which makes clear the historical Toltec basis oflordly and kingly legitimacy. Like the imagery of the UTJ andthe Palacio Quemada of Tula, these benches show alternatingfeathered and cloud serpents (see Figure 23c) (Lopez Lujan2006:Figures 148, 156–190).

Finally, although the two effigies were the most prominent deities,solar symbolism pervaded both the tlacochcalco and the rites practicedwithin. For instance, the famous ceramic “eagle warrior” was, in LopezLujan’s (2006:289) estimation, instead an image of the Cuauhtlehuanitl,a representation of the rising sun. As he notes, the course of the sun wasthe primary metaphor for the career of the warrior and the life cycle ofthe sovereign. In similar fashion, we can see the omnipresent role of the

Figure 25. Characters with Mixcoatl attributes: (a)–(c) 4 Jaguar (Codex Nuttall ff. 70, 78, 79, respectively; Nuttall 1975). (d)Quetzalcoatl, Codex Borgia (Dıaz and Rodgers 1993:Plate 62). (e) Vessel from the Sacred Cenote, Chichen Itza (Schmidt 1998:426).(f) Mixcoatl, Codex Borgia (Dıaz and Rodgers 1993:Plate 25).

16 The merlons of Temple of the Big Tables were also crossed arrows,but those of the Temple of the Warriors, the Northwest Colonnade, andthe Mercado were shell-like (Morris et al. 1931:Figure 66; Ruppert1943:Figure 17d).

Ringle40

sun god on the murals and lintels of the UTJ; although there, the sungod seems also to have conferred specific objects on the initiate, inparticular the sun diadem.

If there was indeed a historical link between the UTJ and thelater tlacochcalco-tlacatecco, we might then ask whether the lea-dership of the UTJ in any way paralleled the Aztec offices later con-nected to these buildings. Although Chichen probably did notfollow exactly the same system as Tenochtitlan, the roles of theassociated offices are instructive. Sahagun (1979:355) told us that:

He (the sovereign) was aided by two senators with regard to thatwhich related to the governance of the people; one of them was anoble (pilli) and the other was trained as a warrior. The one wascalled tlacatecutli and the other tlacochtecutli. Two other captainsaided the lord in military affairs: one of these was a noble (pilli)and trained in warfare, and the other was not a noble. The onewas called tlacateccatl and the other was called tlacochcalcatl.

The various sources, summarized by Piho (1972), are somewhatcontradictory in their definitions of these four offices (tlacatecutli,tlacochtecutli, tlacateccatl, and tlacochcalcatl), but the first twoseem to have been political councilors or governors, and thesecond two were military leaders. The tlacatecutli and tlacateccatlseem to be of somewhat lower status, but Piho (1972) showedthat in fact all four offices could be occupied by nobles, despiteSahagun’s statement. As Lopez Lujan notes in his commentary,many if not all tlahtoani and cihuacoatls, such as Tlacaelel, arosefrom these offices.

The pairing of a political leader (tlacochtecutli) with one who wasprimarily a war captain (tlacochcalcatl) recalls the pairing of warriorsB and C on the southwest mural panel of the UTJ, where only warrior

B converses with other leaders in the lower camp scene. Whether thetlacatecutli and tlacateccatl are also among the figures of the murals isunclear, but the tlacatecutli could be warrior A, the other figure backedby a feathered serpent that also seems to play a political role. The tla-cateccatl warrior captain, as mentioned, complemented the tlacoch-calcatl but was of lesser, sometimes non-noble origin. Perhaps thiswas embodied on the central faces (K3 and K8) of the UTJ jambs.We see from the Codex Mendoza (ff. 17–18) and Matricula deTributos (f. 1) that one of the privileges of the three offices (savethe tlacateccatl) was to wear the peaked xiuhuitzontli diadem. Onthe UTJ jambs, only K3 wears the peaked diadem (and is backed bya cloud serpent) while the hat of his opposite at K8 is undistinguishedfrom the others. Possibly these therefore represent the pairedtlacochcalcatl-tlacateccatl.17

If something akin to these offices is being represented in theimagery of the Great Ballcourt, how do they relate to the supreme lea-dership? A possible answer comes from the fact among the Aztecsthese offices could be held as one title among several others, sothere was no contradiction in the tlatoani or cihuacoatl also beingthe tlacochtecutli. This is what I believe we see at Chichen: the feath-ered serpent leaders were the highest political officers and the cloudserpent warrior the highest military authority.

Figure 26. Huastec shell pectorals (Beyer 1933:Plate 1, Figure 24).

17 More speculatively, the canid pectoral found on the jamb figures of thesouthern side is also worn by a mortuary bundle with a Toltec jade nosebutton on Codex Magliabechiano f. 72r. The pectoral is called xolocozcatlin the accompanying text and the animal Xolotl. The mortuary bundle alsowears the face paint of Mixcoatl, reinforcing the association of this pectoralwith the cloud serpent. In the Codex Mendoza, f. 67r, the warrior suit of a“brave tlacatecatl” includes a xolotl head on the back device (Berdan andAnawalt 1997:213). The tlacatecatls (for there could be more than one)were thus perhaps marked by this insignia.


CONCLUSIONS

This paper has explored three themes related to the function of theUTJ. First, I have suggested that the UTJ was a contemporary of theouter Castillo and Temple of the Chac Mool, or at least did not longpostdate them. This is consistent with the hypothesized use of theentire Great Plaza as the scenario for rituals of investiture, majorstops of which were in the Great Ballcourt (Ringle 2004).Second, I argue that its murals depict battles of a historical ormythico-historical nature, rather than being allegories of celestialbodies or deities. Support for this is admittedly by analogy withother narrative types, because neither the places nor the costumesdepicted in the murals can be identified as yet, but the significantdifferences of each panel in terms of place and opponent argueagainst strictly symbolic interpretations.

Finally, the paper argues that the murals provide concrete infor-mation concerning rank that can be correlated with other imagery.In keeping with the general role of investiture of the GreatBallcourt, I have attempted to demonstrate that this stop representeda leader or rank (or both) associated with the CloudSerpent-Mixcoatl, who seems to have been a war captain but prob-ably was not the supreme political leader. His close pairing with afeathered serpent leader suggests parallels with the later Aztecdual office of tlacochtecuhtli/tlacochcalcatl, and the UTJ itselfechoes aspects of the tlacochcalco, a place where the ruler andother high lords stopped for various rites preparatory to final inves-titure (this last step may have happened on the Castillo for the

highest political leaders). It is worth noting that in Aztec investiture,the stage immediately following the actual crowning was a “war ofconfirmation” (Lopez Lujan 2006:282, citing others) in which thecandidate proved his mettle. A similar pattern can also be noted inthe investiture of the Mixtec king 8 Deer of Tilantongo. Perhapssimilar such wars, conducted by the ancestral war lords ofChichen Itza, provided the occasion for the wall murals of theUTJ and help explain their variety. Klein (1987:314) furthersuggests that penitential rites were an important component of therituals held within the tlacochcalco to celebrate recent military vic-tories. This may explain Virginia Miller’s observation (personalcommunication 2008) that most of the warriors on the jambs haveexposed and pierced penises.

If these assertions prove true, the murals and the temple in whichthey were housed underscore the view that the Toltec tradition wasindeed ancient and that there was considerable continuity of officesand rituals as successive Tollans drew upon and reshaped the prac-tices of their predecessors. What is interesting is that the UTJ and itsmurals merge two long-standing strains of Mesoamerican militaryideology. One, associated with Venus, has roots extending backto the Early Classic period and to Teotihuacan, if not earlier. Theother, sun associated, was later to be most dramatically expressedby the Aztecs. It is thus not a matter of Captain Serpent conqueringCaptain Sun, or vice versa, but, as with so many other aspects of thissite, the creative melding of a wide spectrum of traditions to forgenew forms of social and political organization.

RESUMEN

Este articulo reexamina el arte y arquitectura del Templo Superior de losJaguares de Chichen Itza, en base a las nuevas imagenes digitales de altaresolucion de las copias de los murales hechas por Adela Breton a principiosdel siglo XX. Despues de una discusion de la antiguedad del edificio y de lasinterpretaciones previas de los murales, los analisis del traje, ambiente y delos tipos de casas sugieren que en lugar de representar episodios mıticos osimbolicos, dichos murales ilustran encuentros belicos reales entre

Chichen y sus enemigos. La razon de su creacion parece ser la utilizaciondel Templo para ritos de investidura auspiciados por un sector especificode los militares de Chichen. Se argumenta que este sector estuvo asociadocon Mixcoatl (o “serpiente nube”), como el titulo de su lıder o como unadeidad patrona, mientras que el Templo mismo posiblemente se relacionacon algunos edificios Nahuas mas tardıos asociados con ritos penitencialesinvolucrados con guerra e investidura.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank the New World Archaeological Council of Irvine,California, for the opportunity to present a preliminary version of this paperat the Mysteries of Ancient Maya Murals Symposium and for their hospitalityin hosting the speakers. I owe a particular debt to Sue Giles, Curator ofEthnography and Foreign Archaeology of the City Art Museum and ArtGallery, Bristol, for her help in obtaining digital images of the murals in

rather short order, and to David Emeney, of the same institution, for perform-ing the necessary photography despite more pressing commitments. I am alsoindebted to Annabeth Headrick, Virginia Miller, and an anonymous reviewerfor several very helpful comments and editorial suggestions that undoubtedlyimprove the initial version. Finally, Tomas Gallareta Negron kindly providedthe translation for the article abstract, for which I am grateful.

REFERENCES

Acosta, Jorge R.1956 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones arqueologicas

en Tula, Hgo., durante las VI, VII y VIII temporadas, 1946–1950. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia VIII:37–115.

1957 Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones arqueologicasen Tula, Hgo., durante las IX y X temporadas, 1953–1954.Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia IX:119–169.

Alva Ixlilxochitl, Fernando de1985 Obras historicas. 2 vols. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de

Mexico, Mexico.Anders, Ferdinand, Maarten Jansen, and Gabina Aurora Perez-Jimenez

1992 Origen e historia de los reyes mixtecos: Libro explicativo del

llamado Codice Vindobonensis. Codices Mexicanos No. 1.Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt/Fondo de CulturaEconomica, Vienna.

Angulo Villasenor, Jorge2001 Conceptos generales y controversiales sobre la cultura Maya. In La

pintura mural prehispanica en Mexico II, Area Maya: Tomo IV, editedby Beatriz de la Fuente and Leticia Staines Cicero, pp. 1–39.Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Barlow, Robert H.1987 Lo que vieron los conquistadores. In Tlatelolco: Rival de

Tenochtitlan, edited by Jesus Monjaras-Ruiz, Elena Limon, and Marıade la Cruz Pailles, pp. 37–58. Obras de Robert H. Barlow, Vol. I.Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico.

Ringle42

Barrera Vasquez, Alfredo (editor)1980 Diccionario Maya Cordemex. Ediciones Cordemex, Merida,

Mexico.Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt

1997 The Essential Codex Mendoza. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Berrin, Kathleen (editor)1988 Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees: Reconstructing the

Murals of Teotihuacan. The Fine Arts Museum of San Francisco,San Francisco.

Beyer, Hermann1933 Shell Ornament Sets from the Huasteca, Mexico. Middle

American Research Series, Publication No. 5, pp. 153–216. TulaneUniversity, Middle American Research Institute, New Orleans.

Bolles, John S.1977 Las Monjas: a Major Pre-Mexican Architectural Complex at

Chichen Itza. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Boone, Elizabeth Hill

2007 Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate.University of Texas Press, Austin.

Breton, Adela C.1907 Wall Paintings at Chichen Itza. XV International Congress of

Americanists, 1901, pp. 165–169. Quebec. Reprinted in The Art ofRuins: Adela Breton and the Temples of Mexico, edited by Sue Gilesand Jennifer Stewart [1989], pp. 55–57. City of Bristol Museum andArt Gallery, Bristol.

1917 Preliminary Study of the North Building (Chamber C), Great BallCourt, Chichen Itza, Yucatan. XIX International Congress ofAmericanists, 1915, pp. 187–194. Washington, DC.

Carrasco, Pedro1966 Documentos sobre el rango de tecuhtli entre los Nahuas tramonta-

nos. Tlalocan 5:133–160.Cobos, Rafael

2007 Multepal or Centralized Kingship? New Evidence onGovernmental Organization at Chichen Itza. In Twin Tollans:Chichen Itza, Tula and the Epiclassic to Early PostclassicMesoamerican World, edited by Jeff K. Kowalski and CynthiaKristan-Graham, pp. 315–343. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Coggins, Clemency C.1984 Murals in the Upper Temple of the Jaguars, Chichen Itza. In

Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures from the Sacred Well at ChichenItza, edited by Clemency C. Coggins and Orrin C. Shane III,pp. 156–165. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Coggins, Clemency C., and Orrin C. Shane III1984 Cenote of Sacrifice: Maya Treasures from the Sacred Well at

Chichen Itza. University of Texas Press, Austin.Cohodas, Marvin

1978 The Great Ball Court of Chichen Itza, Yucatan, Mexico. GarlandPublishing, New York.

Dıaz, Gisele, and Alan Rodgers1993 The Codex Borgia. Dover Publications, New York.

Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path.

William Morrow and Co., New York.Galindo Trejo, Jesus, Daniel Flores Gutierrez, and Marıa Elena Ruiz Gallut

2001 Senderos celestes con visiones divinas: un estudio arqueo-astrononico del Templo Superior de los Jaguares en Chichen Itza. InLa pintura mural prehispanica en Mexico II: Area Maya: Tomo IIIEstudios, edited by Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 258–264. UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico/Instituto de Investigaciones Esteticas,Mexico.

Giles, Sue, and Jennifer Stewart1989 The Art of Ruins: Adela Breton and the Temples of Mexico. City of

Bristol Museum and Art Gallery, Bristol.Grana-Behrens, Daniel, Christian Prager, and Elisabeth Wagner

1999 Hieroglyphic Inscription of the High Priest’s Grave at ChichenItza, Yucatan, Mexico. Mexicon 21(3):61–66.

Kelley, David H.1982 Notes on Puuc Inscriptions and History. In The Puuc: New

Perspectives, Central College Scholarly Studies in the Liberal Arts,Publication No. 1, Supplement 1, edited by Lawrence Mills. CentralCollege, Pella, Iowa.

Klein, Cecelia F.1987 The Ideology of Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. In The Aztec

Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone, pp. 293–370.Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Kowalski, Jeff Karl2007 What’s “Toltec” at Uxmal and Chichen Itza? Merging Maya and

Mesoamerican Worldviews and World Systems in Terminal Classicto Early Postclassic Yucatan. In Twin Tollans: Chichen Itza,Tula and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World,edited by Jeff K. Kowalski and Cynthia Kristan-Graham,pp. 250–313. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Kubler, George1982 Serpent and Atlantean Columns: Symbols of Maya-Toltec Polity.

Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians XLI:93–115.Le Plongeon, Augustus

1900 Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphynx. K. Paul, Trench, Truebner,New York.

Lincoln, Charles E.1990 Ethnicity and Social Organization at Chichen Itza, Yucatan,

Mexico. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Harvard University.

Lopez de Cogolludo, Fray Diego1957 Historia de Yucatan, edited by J. Ignacio Rubio Mane. Coleccion de

Grandes Cronicas Mexicanas, 3. Editorial Academia Literaria, Mexico.Lopez Lujan, Leonardo

2005 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, Rev. ed.Translated by Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz deMontellano. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

2006 La Casa de las Aguilas. Fondo de Cultura Economica/Conaculta,Mexico.

Lopez Lujan, Leonardo, Giacomo Chiari, Alfredo Lopez Austin, andFernando Carrizosa

2005 Lınea y Color en Tenochtitlan. Escultura Policromada y PinturaMural en el Recinto Sagrado de la Capital Mexica. Estudios deCultura Nahuatl 36:15–45.

Lothrop, Samuel K.1952 Metals from the Cenote of Sacrifice, Chichen Itza, Yucatan.

Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology,Vol. 10, No. 2. Harvard University, Cambridge.

McVicker, Mary F.2005 Adela Breton: a Victorian Artist amid Mexico’s Ruins. University

of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Marquina, Ignacio

1964 Arquitectura Prehispanica. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria and the Secretarıa de Educacion Publica, Mexico.

Martinez de Luna, Lucha Aztzin2005 Murals and the Development of Merchant Activity at Chichen Itza.

Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, BrighamYoung University, Provo, Utah.

Maudslay, Alfred P.1974 Biologia Centrali-Americana. Archaeology, edited by Francis

Robicek Milpatron Publishing, New York.Milbrath, Susan

1988 Astronomical Images and Orientations in the Architectureof Chichen Itza. In New Directions in American Astronomy, editedby Anthony F. Aveni. Proceedings of the 46th International Congressof Americanists, pp. 57–79. BAR International Series 454, BritishArchaeological Reports, Oxford.

1999 Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, andCalendars. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Miller, Arthur G.1977 “Captains of the Itza”: Unpublished Mural Evidence from

Chichen Itza. In Social Process in Maya Prehistory, edited byNorman Hammond, pp. 197–226. Academic Press, New York.

Miller, Virginia E.2005 Representaciones de sacrificio en Chichen Itza. In Antropologıa de

la eternidad: la muerte en la cultura maya, edited by Andres CuidadRuiz, Mario H. Ruz Sosa, and Marıa Josefa Iglesias Ponce de Leon,pp. 383–404. Sociedad Espanola de Estudios Mayas/UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico.

Morris, Earl H., Jean Charlot, and Ann A. Morris1931 The Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Carnegie

Institution of Washington Publication No. 406, Washington, DC.Nicholson, Henry B, and Eloise Quinones Keber

1983 Art of Aztec Mexico: Treasures of Tenochtitlan. National Galleryof Art, Washington, DC.


Nuttall, Zelia1975 The Codex Nuttall: A Picture Manuscript from Ancient Mexico.

Dover Books, New York.Piho, Virve

1972 Tlacatecutli, tlacochtecutli, tlacateccatl y tlacochcalcatl. Estudiosde Cultura Nahuatl 10:315–328.

Pollock, Harry E. D.1980 The Puuc. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum, Vol. 19. Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge.Prem, Hanns J.

1999 Los reyes de Tollan y Colhuacan. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 30:23–70.

Ringle, William M.2004 On the Political Organization of Chichen Itza. Ancient

Mesoamerica 15:167–218.Ringle, William M., and George J. Bey, III

2010 The Face of Chichen Itza. In The Art of Urbanism: HowMesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architectureand Imagery, edited by William L. Fash and Leonardo Lopez Lujan,Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Robertson, Merle Greene2007 Merle Greene Robertson’s Rubbings of Maya Sculptures.

Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute. Online image database, http://www.mesoweb.com/rub/rubbingsdatabase.html, accessed November16, 2007.

Ruppert, Karl1943 The Mercado, Chichen Itza, Yucatan. Contributions to American

Anthropology and History, No. 43. Carnegie Institution ofWashington Publication No. 546, Washington, DC.

Ruppert, Karl, and A. L. Smith1957 House Types in the Environs of Mayapan and at Uxmal, Kabah,

Sayil, Chichen Itza, and Chacchob. Current Reports, No. 39.Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.

Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de1979 Historia general de las cosas ce Nueva Espana, edited by Angel

Marıa Garibay Kintana. Editorial Porrua, Mexico.Schele, Linda, and David Freidel

1990 A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. WilliamMorrow, New York.

Schele, Linda, and Peter Mathews1998 The Code of Kings. Scribner, New York.

Schmidt, Peter J.1998 Chichen Itza: los contactos con el centro de Mexico y la transicion al

perıodo Posclasico. In Los Mayas, edited by Peter J. Schmidt, Mercedesde la Garza, and Enrique Nalda, pp. 426–449. Conaculta—InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico.

2003 Proyecto Chichen Itza: Informe de Actividades julio de 1999 adiciembre de 2002. Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional deAntropologıa e Historia, Mexico.

2007 Birds, Ceramics, and Cacao: New Excavations at Chichen Itza,Yucatan. In Twin Tollans: Chichen Itza, Tula and the Epiclassic toEarly Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Jeff K. Kowalskiand Cynthia Kristan-Graham, pp. 151–203. Dumbarton Oaks,Washington, DC.

Seler, Eduard1998 The Ruins of Chichen Itza in Yucatan. In Collected Works in

Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, Vol. 6, edited by J. EricThompson, Francis B. Richardson, and Frank E. Comparato,pp. 41–165. Labyrinthos, Lancaster, CA. Originally published 1908(in German).

Smith, J. Gregory2000 An Analysis of Domestic Architecture at Chichen Itza,

Yucatan, Mexico: The Mural Evidence. Paper presented at the99th Meeting of the American Anthropological Association,San Francisco.

Smith, A. Ledyard English1955 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Central Guatemala.

Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 608,Washington, DC.

Stephens, John L.1963 Incidents of Travel in Yucatan. Dover Press, New York.

Taube, Karl A.1994 The Iconography of Toltec Period Chichen Itza. In Hidden among

the Hills, edited by Hanns J. Prem, pp. 212–246. Acta Mesoamericana,Vol. 7. Verlag Von Flemming, Mockmuhl, Germany.

Thompson, Edward H.1904 Archaeological Researches in Yucatan: Reports of Explorations

for the Museum. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of AmericanArchaeologyand Ethnology, Vol. 3, No. 1. Harvard University, Cambridge.

Thompson, J. Eric1937 A New Method of Deciphering Yucatecan Dates With Special

Reference to Chichen Itza. Contributions to American Archaeology,No. 22. Carnegie Institution of Washington Publication No. 483,Washington, D.C.

Tozzer, Alfred M.1957 Chichen Itza and Its Cenote of Sacrifice. Memoirs of the Peabody

Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Vols. 11 and 12. HarvardUniversity, Cambridge.

Trik, Helen, and Michael E. Kampen1983 The Graffiti of Tikal. Tikal Report No. 31. University Museum,

University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.Umberger, Emily

2007 The Metaphorical Underpinnings of Aztec History: The Case ofthe 1473 Civil War. Ancient Mesoamerica 18:11–29.

Wagner, Diane1982 Reporte de las ofrendas excavadas en 1978. In El Templo

Mayor: excavaciones y estudios, edited by Eduardo MatosMoctezuma, pp. 119–142. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa eHistoria, Mexico.

Wauchope, Robert1934 House Mounds of Uaxactun, Guatemala. Contributions to

American Archaeology, No. 7. Carnegie Institution of WashingtonPublication No. 436, Washington, DC.

1938 Modern Maya Houses: A Study of Their ArchaeologicalSignificance. Carnegie Institution of Washington PublicationNo. 502, Washington, DC.

Willard, Theodore A.1926 The City of the Sacred Well. The Century, New York.

Ringle44

Documents

THE ART OF WAR: IMAGERY OF THE UPPER …api.ning.com/files/N-m37Ss5uFrYQenqsFywKU6s9MtAIsb62...THE ART OF WAR: IMAGERY OF THE UPPER TEMPLE OF THE JAGUARS, CHICHEN ITZA William M. Ringle