William M. Ringle

The Return of Quetzalcoatl

Continuing analysis of the site of Chichen Itza suggests that its construction dates primarily to the Late Classic period, ca. a.d. 700–1000, rather than the Early Postclassic. This paper examines the implications of this redating for the well-known “Toltec” problem. Since Chichen largely antedated Tollan-phase Tula, we conclude that what is usually identified as Toltec imagery in fact dates to an earlier Epiclassic horizon extending from Morelos and Puebla to the Gulf Coast and Yucatan. Chichen Itza, we suggest, was the eastern node in a network of shrine centers dedicated primarily to Quetzalcoatl/Kukulcan. This network transcended political boundaries and included such sites as Cholula, Cacaxtla, El TajIn, Xochicalco, and ultimately Tula. The Quetzalcoatl cult is manifested by a specific complex of traits and seems to have expanded militarily with messianic vigor. Pilgrimage was also an important activity at these centers. This cult axis apparently continued into the Postclassic period, and was responsible for the distribution of the Mixteca-Puebla art style. In Yucatan, Mayapan would seem to have assumed Chichens position as the major Yucatecan node, although accompanied by several new shrines along the Caribbean coast.

The Ceramic Chronology of Ek Balam, Yucatan, Mexico

Since 1984, the Ek Balam Project has been investigating the organization and developmental history of a large Maya polity in the northeastern part of the Yucatan Peninsula. The survey included both urban Ek Balam, the largest regional center during the Late Classic period ( a.d. 600–900), covering a minimum of 12 km 2 , and its rural hinterland. One result of this project has been the construction of a preliminary ceramic history of the region, the subject of this report. Evidence supports a sequence of occupations extending from the Middle Preclassic through the Hispanic period (600 b.c. – a.d. 1600). The ceramic sequence, constructed from a type-variety analysis of more than a quarter of a million pieces of pottery from surface survey and excavations, consists of six preliminary ceramic complexes. This ceramic analysis extends our understanding of Maya cultural development in the northern Maya lowlands to a largely unknown area of the peninsula.

ON THE POLITICAL ORGANIZATION OF CHICHEN ITZA

This paper argues that what we and others have termed a “cult of Quetzalcoatl” is more properly viewed as a set of imagery, beliefs, and practices associated with an ideology of leadership. Examination of the architecture and iconography of Chichen Itza and related sites with feathered serpent iconography suggests that these practices were similarly structured and played a similar role in many of Mesoamericas Tollans, specifically in the investiture of client elites. Many of the structures of the Gran Nivelación of Chichen Itza, particularly the Great Ballcourt, were the loci of such rituals of investiture, especially its military aspect. This common ritual structure supports the idea that Quetzalcoatl may have been central to institutions unifying Mesoamerica from the time of Teotihuacan onward, if not earlier.

Who Was Who in Ninth-Century Chichen Itza

Hieroglyphic inscriptions from Chichen Itza are examined for possible light they might shed on its ethnic and political makeup during the Terminal Classic period ( a.d. 800–1000). It is suggested that many of the name glyphs include patronyms known to be important at contact. This continuity of elite occupation is reinforced by decipherment of a title common to many of them as holpop , a title also known from early colonial Spanish and Maya documents. Finally, a reading of the event of the lintel as yul is suggested. The implications of these readings suggest the genesis of at least some Late Postclassic organizational features in the Terminal Classic. Also arguing against a severe rupture of elite life at the end of the Terminal Classic is the persistence of patronyms in northern Yucatan. Colonial sources make frequent mention of migrations and invasions as the source of the distinctive art and architecture, yet if the arguments herein are correct, there was instead a remarkable stability of ruling families in northern Yucatan. Finally, the dedication of several monuments by different individuals, each having different patronyms and marked by epithets such as “holy,” suggests considerable autonomy of these lesser officials consistent with a segmentary state form of organization.

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

Abstract This paper reexamines the art and architecture of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars, Chichen Itza, in light of new unpublished digital images of Adela Bretons copies of the murals. Following discussion of the construction date of the building and previous interpretations of the murals, examination of costume, setting, and house form suggests that rather than depicting mythic or symbolic episodes, these murals illustrate actual military encounters between Chichen and its enemies. The occasion for their production seems to be the utilization of the Upper Temple of the Jaguars by a specific sector of Chichen Itzas military, perhaps for rites of investiture. This sector is argued 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 perhaps related to later Nahua buildings associated with penitential rites involving warfare and investiture.

DEBATING CHICHEN ITZA

Abstract Teams from the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH) and the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) have put forth a new chronology for Chichen Itza that challenges recent scholarly opinion favoring a date of roughly a.d. 800/850–1000/1050 for the so-called “Toltec” or Modified Florescent occupation. The new chronology instead argues for the placement of this occupation between a.d. 950–1150, a span favored by scholars prior to the 1970s. This paper presents a critique of the ceramic, radiocarbon, and stratigraphic foundations of these arguments, arguing that, on present evidence, Chichen Itza experienced a tenth-century florescence. Although the site may very well have been occupied into the next century, at present we have no absolute dates after a.d. 1000 and no evidence for later monumental construction. Furthermore, arguments for a proposed hiatus or discontinuity at the onset of the Modified Florescent period are rejected in favor of a model of continued development of Toltec ideas from the late ninth century onward.