The “Mayanized” Mexicans

Abstract

After study of the murals recently discovered at Cacaxtla, Tlaxcala, Mexico, I conclude: (1) that the role played by the Late Classic Maya in the central Mexican highlands during the period A.D. 700—900 was much greater than previously assumed; (2) that a post-Teotihuacán art style and mythology was carried into the central Mexican highlands by conquering people from the Gulf Coast lowlands; and (3) that the term “Mexicanized Maya” can be reasonably rendered “Mayanized Mexican,” particularly in the context of later Toltec developments.

The Return of Quetzalcoatl

“…The cult network also provides a logic for the significance and distribution of the Mixteca Puebla style during the PostcJassic period, although by then this axis was already old and in some disarray. Aspects of this model have been anticipated by several authors, in particular Coggins (1987), 29 Davies(1977),Fox (1991), McVicker(1985),and Thompson (1970), but these have been either more restricted in their scope or have been "Tulacentric," locating these events in the Early Postclassic. An overlap between Chichen and Tula of at most 100 years is insufficient for Tula to have achieved urban status and replicated itself in Yucatan, but it is sufficient for a rising urban power (i.e., Tula) to have emulated the architecture and imagery of the Quetzalcoatl cult from its eastern node.…”

What Maya Collapse? Terminal Classic Variation in the Maya Lowlands

“…Many of these elements are part of the ''the Postclassic religious style'' (Smith and Heath-Smith 1980), the Early Postclassic facet of the Mixteca-Puebla style that Robertson (1970) called the ''international style'' of the Postclassic (McVicker 1985;Nicholson 1981). Smith and Heath-Smith (1980) similarly suggested that the Postclassic religious style was spread through a network of Mesoamerican religious interaction that included the Pacific coast of Mexico and Costa Rica (Willey 1973b).…”

The Conquered Women of Cacaxtla

“…They stand on either side of the central staircase, dominating the scene despite the fact that within the context of the murals they themselves are represented in defeat. Elsewhere, these individuals have been described as male (Baird 1989; Carlson 1991;Kubler 1980;McVicker 1985;Nagao 1989), even though their costumes have occasionally been identified as quechquemitl (Carlson 1991;Nagao 1989;Quirarte 1983;Stuart 1992). On the basis of the present costume analysis, we suggest that they were represented as gender female, while explicitly retaining the possibility that these could be biological males in female costume.…”

“…Despite the presence of diagnostic female costume elements, these two figures have been consistently identified as male (Baird 1989; Carlson 1991;Kubler 1980;McVicker 1985;Nagao 1989). Although the gender identification has never been explicitly discussed, we suggest that the interpretation stems from an assumption that these captives were displayed in women's clothing as a form of humiliation."…”

“…Since their discovery, the Cacaxtla murals have been the focus of continuous debate, considering aspects of their iconography, content, and cultural origins (Baird 1989;Baus Czitrom 1990;Berlo 1989;Carlson 1991; Foncerrada de Molina 1976Molina , 1978Molina , 1980Kubler 1980;Lopez de Molina 1977;McVicker 1985;Nagao 1989;Quirarte 1983;Robertson 1985; Santana Sandoval andDelgadillo Torres 1990a, 1990b). While the growing literature on Cacaxtla represents some of the finest examples of recent Mesoamerican scholarship, we suggest that a detailed analysis of costume elements provides a valuable fram-ing context 1 for further interpretations of the action and underlying meanings of the representations ( Anawalt 1981Anawalt , 1982.…”