Mesoamerican Symbols of Authority in the Shaft Tomb Figures of West Mexico Christopher Beekman University of Colorado Denver christopher.beekman@ucdenver.edu March 31, 2011 Invited paper presented in the session “Gods and human beings: anthropomorphic representations in highland Mexico from Preclassic to Early Postclassic”, at the 76th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Sacramento. Abstract: The hollow ceramic figures of Jalisco, Colima, and Nayarit are still commonly treated as either idyllic representations of people engaged in everyday activities, or as conceptually abstract depictions of shamans and their transformations. These interpretations date from the 1960s when the imagery had little archaeological context. The earliest interpretations of the artwork in the 1940s are more consistent with current archaeological data. Bodily decoration makes reference to Mesoamerican concepts of rulership and its basis in control over nature, and identifies both males and females as holders of diverse positions in a system of diffuse legitimate political authority.

Today I will discuss a category of imagery from Pre-Columbian Mexico that has been puzzled over by scholars for more than a century. I say this because the imagery does not seem to conform to the themes of gods and earthly rulers that we know from elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Perhaps that is why the area I am discussing is here, off the edge of so many maps of the region. I refer to western Mexico, which for today’s purposes will be limited to the states of Colima, Nayarit, and Jalisco. As with most of Mesoamerica, religious and social concepts in western Mexico were conveyed by imagery rather than hieroglyphic texts. The best known occur in the medium of hollow ceramic figures and smaller solid figurines. Archaeologically recovered examples are primarily from the period 300 B.C. to A.D. 200, and are usually found in family tombs as offerings. The distribution of these tombs is shown in this map. In addition, excavations by Bell found two figures with an extended burial at Cerro Encantado, Jalisco. Our excavations at Navajas, Jalisco, encountered fragments of hollow figures from floor contexts within the civic architecture, where they were probably exhibited or used in more dynamic displays. Therefore, while most figures end up in the tombs, they did possess a use-life of indeterminate length on the surface that often resulted in damage or scuffing to the base of the pieces. The late Hasso Von Winning saw these figures as representations of daily life in a village society without concern for issues of power or inequality or gods. This appealed greatly to collectors such as Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, whose personal politics emphasized the nobility of everyday Mexicans. But in an extremely influential interpretation, Peter Furst interpreted the figures as representations of shamans based on the presence of characteristics thought to be associated with these religious practitioners worldwide. Here a horn thought to indicate shamanic power was used by Furst in the 1960s as the jumping off point for a sweeping reinterpretation of west Mexican artwork as shamanic in nature. Furst claimed that earlier interpretations of the artwork had ignored religious topics in favor of secular themes, a blind spot he aimed to correct. For instance, Furst said that figures depicting animal-human combinations were shamanic transformations, an interpretation that he developed while simultaneously studying Middle Formative Olmec art. The characteristics he saw as “shamanic” were frequently found on warriors, which he explained as shamans preparing to do battle with otherworldly denizens. This and other interpretations of Furst’s owed more to comparisons with religious figures from the Amazon than any cross-cultural pattern found with shamans. Furst’s definition of shaman, therefore, was alternately expansive and particularistic. In the 1990s Mark Miller Graham proposed that we view the shaft tomb figures as political ideology, as elsewhere in Mesoamerica. His example was a direct assault on the horned shamans. First he noted that the horns are not supernatural anatomical features of mystic shamans, but costume elements clearly held on by straps in most examples. Second, there are numerous examples that show that one-horns are just pars pro toto representations of multi-horned headdresses that Graham links to conch shells. Graham’s comparisons focused on southeastern Mesoamerica, but central Mexico may be a closer analog. We can see conch shells with a similar placement on high status individuals at Teotihuacan as in western Mexican figures. Conch shells were commonly associated with important males in west Mexico. In the shaft tomb at Huitzilapa excavated by Lopez and Ramos, the principal individual in

each chamber to be a male associated with elaborately decorated conch shells found around the pelvis. I will leave the symbolism of this to Lorenza’s upcoming paper, but these same two males were also accompanied by weaponry. Both horned figures and figures with conchs as part of their costume have a strong association with weaponry, armor, and/or trophy heads in the west Mexican visual corpus. Rather than seeing these as shamans, these figures may be more straightforwardly interpreted as warriors with distinctive headgear as part of their costume. We can now return to the figures that combine human and animal features. Many of these figures also possess costume elements of dancers, who are probably performing animal impersonations. Note the similar costume on this two piece sculpture of a warrior, where the animal head is specifically modeled not as a half human half animal creature, but explicitly as a mask. This is not a representation of transformation, but of a human impersonating an animal or supernatural creature. The impersonation aspect is very explicit, just as with the conch or horn headdress noted earlier. So if these do not depict transformations from human to animal, what do they represent? Despite Furst’s assertion, some of the very first analyses of the shaft tomb figures did indeed propose religious interpretations. In 1946 Salvador Toscano explained the frequent occurrence of animals with humans in western Mexican art as representations of the nagual. Animal transformation or co-essences are widely reported in Mesoamerican ethnography and are usually known by the Nahuatl terms Nagual or Tonal. Tonal are a particular animal that has a link to a human from birth, designated the calendar day on which they were born. Sorcerers on the other hand can control their spirit animal or nagual and project it outwards while they sleep. Stephen Houston and David Stuart have identified this concept in Classic period Maya iconography and hieroglyphics, where it is designated by the term Way, known across several Maya languages. Lowland Maya rulers in the Classic period constantly reaffirmed their positions through the ritual impersonation and conjuring of gods that were also the co-essence of the ruler. This view provides a more culturally-specific explanation for the relationship between humans and animals, one that acknowledges that all individuals and not just shamans may have animal spirits. Rulers seemingly possessed more powerful and exotic animal spirits than ordinary people. This association of elites with powerful animals spans the Pre-Columbian sequence in Mesoamerica. To the right we have examples from western Mexico of animal headdresses. Different examples can have different patterned markings, but I think the pelage of a feline is indicated. To the left are Olmec sculptures from the much earlier period of about 1400-700 B.C. These are the earliest representations of high ranking individuals in Mesoamerican prehistory, and most consider them rulers. Their headgear may also make reference to their co-essences, appropriately represented here as jaguars. Headrick has argued that co-essences can be used to explain the frequent association of warriors with animals in major highland centers. For example, warriors are associated with raptors, coyotes, and jaguars at Teotihuacan, and eagles and jaguars in later Aztec society. For Headrick, the co-essences of these figures are not just a convention for representing the warriors as fierce predatory beasts. Perhaps warriors were chosen from those who had certain animal spirits; Saunders notes that those born on the day sign of the jaguar were considered particularly apt for military service. Or perhaps

induction into the high ranking military orders involved ritually taking on a new animal spirit. The tonal also seems very apt for western Mexico. Carolyn Baus de Czitrom has drawn upon the co-essence concept to interpret warriors with animal masks like the one shown earlier. I think it can be extended to those warriors wearing other animal emblems. But whereas the animal shock troops of the urban states of Teotihuacan and the Aztec were codified in a limited number of military orders, the warriors of western Mexico encompass a broader range of co-essences more reminiscent of the personal animal spirits of Native North Americans. It remains to be determined how widely this explanation can be applied, but the humans most widely associated with animals in the imagery are warriors and elites. Elsewhere I have argued for the occurrence of other symbols of political authority in the west Mexican figures. A scheme is beginning to become apparent in which individuals holding political and religious symbols, warriors, and more everyday depictions occupy different positions. Most of these figures are found in museum or private collections, but a small number of them come from excavated archaeological contexts. Figures that depict ballplayers have been found in high status tombs within the ceremonial centers, as at Huitzilapa. But more ordinary figures like those said to depict daily life and one warrior, have been found in low status tombs clustered into rural cemeteries likely serving scattered farmsteads. These contexts suggest that the figures depicted people of a status comparable to that of the tombs where they are found, and that the figures were probably made at all levels of society. Thus the distinctions often pointed out in western Mexican art that make it seem so different from that elsewhere in Mesoamerica may be due to the lack of political control over the production of symbolic imagery. Social inequalities existed, but ceramic production was widely available, and individuals of various ranks were in a position to make or commission representational figures for ritual or as mortuary offerings.

Mesoamerican Symbols of Authority in the Shaft Tomb Figures of West MexicoChristopher S. Beekman

University of Colorado Denver

Presented in the session “Gods and human beings: anthropomorphic representations in highland Mexico from Preclassic to Early Postclassic”,

organized by Brigitte Faugère and Christopher Beekman

Society for American Archaeology meetingsMarch 31, 2011

Sacramento

Clark/Pye 1996

Primarily from 300 B.C.-A.D. 200

Butterwick 2005, Kan et al 1989, Townsend 1998

AccessChambers for shaftbodies andofferings

Bell 1974, TVRAP photo

Primarily from 300 B.C.-A.D. 200

Townsend 1998Views of everyday life?

...or representations of shamans practicing their art?

Holsbeke/Arnaut 1998, Kan et al. 1989

Human-animal relationships called shamanic transformation by Furst

Many also possess weaponry

Townsend 1998, Von Winning 1974, Butterwick 2005

Many figures with the shamanic horn are also armed with weapons or armor

Holsbeke/Arnaut 1998, Graham 1998

The “horns” are also not supernatural features but costume elements held on by straps. Graham links them to conch shells

Holsbeke/Arnaut 1998, Graham 1998

Conchs as belt ornaments at Teotihuacan and in western Mexico. The Teotihuacan figure is considered a ruler by Headrick on the basis of the staff in hand

Headrick 2007, Kan et al. 1989

Shaft tomb from Huitzilapa, Jalisco. Conchs as offerings associated with 30-45 year old males, who are also accompanied by spearthrowers

Horned and/or conch-decorated warriors

Butterwick 2005, Griffin 1992, Kan et al. 1989, Townsend 1998, Von Winning/Stendahl 1968

Diversity of representations of warriors, warfare and captives

Solis 2004, Kan et al. 1989, Holsbeke/Arnaut 1998, American Museum of Natural History

Human-animal relationships characterized by Furst as shamanic transformation

Note the leg decorations indicating them to be dancers

Townsend 1998, Von Winning 1974, Butterwick 2005

These animal masks usually associated with warriors, carrying weaponry, shields, and often quilted armor.

Holsbeke/ Arnaut 1998

The interpretation of co-essences in western Mexican art originates with Toscano 1946, Medioni 1952. These warriors are displaying their co-essences through elements of costume

West Mexican warriors with animal emblems

Mesoamerican concepts of human-animal transformation or connectionTonal – animals that become associated with a human at their birth, and whose fate becomes linked to that of the human though only specialists know which animal it might be. Nagual – Animal spirits that can be projected by sorcerers while they sleep.

Houston/Stuart 1989

Way – or “co-essence”. Classic period Maya rulers constantly reaffirmed their positions through the ritual impersonation of gods that were also the co-essence of the ruler. Attested through hieroglyphic texts.

Animal skin headdress in Early/Middle Formative Olmec depictions

Alcina Franch 1983, Pina Chan 1989, Townsend 1998

Animal warriors at Teotihuacan

Animal warriors in Aztec society

Baus de Czitrom argues that figures like this one represent dancers portraying their co-essence, though they are also clearlywarriors as indicated bythe atlatl anddarts and sometimescotton armor

Who had access to them? • Probably numbered in the thousands • No workshops known, but wide variation in quality suggests a range of specialists• Clear bias in where they end up:

• Ceremonial centres – Make up 1/3 of excavated tombs but have 2/3 of figures. 5x the figures/tomb, and 2x the figures/person. Figures with status symbolism. • Rural cemeteries – 2/3 of excavated tombs but 1/3 of figures. More “daily life” figures.

Galvan 1991, Ramos\Lopez 1996

The site of Guachimontón

Archaeology 2007