Mediating Material Culture: The Tula-Chichen Itza Connection

Mediating Material Culture: TheTula-Chichen Itza Connection

Archaeology is often misrepresented asan exact science. Indeed, the presentation ofarchaeological discoveries as fact is hard toavoid in a society that strives for concreteanswers to questions of the human past. Therecognition that archaeology is part of the largerfields of inquiry of anthropology and socialscience is therefore an impOltant one. Throughthe scientific process of uncovering the matelialculture of past populations, the equallyimportant process of interpretation is alsoinvolved. It is the excavator who gives meaningto the artifacts he or she unearths.Reconstructions of the past based on materialrecovered from the archaeological record arethus not only products of the social conditionsgiving rise to the original creation of theseartifacts, but also of the modem socialconditions in which they are recovered. What isparticularly problematic about ar'chaeologicalinquiry of the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth century is that these works are filledwith positivist, colonialist assumptions that areneither recognized nor accounted for by thearchaeologist originally interpreting thematerial. Granted, today archaeologicalinterpretations are also the products of theintellectual milieu in which the individualarchaeologist operates; however, attempts areincreasingly made to account for and toacknowledge the biases of the resear·cher.Indeed, the academic critique of theseinterpretations is enough to push a publishingarchaeologist to examine his or her own culturaland intellectual standpoint.

In this article, it is the recognition of theactive role archaeologists play in systematicallyamassing information about the past, and inassigning that information a meaning andhistorical context, that frames the discussion ofthe similarities between the PostclassicMesoamerican sites of Chichen Itza and Tula.From Desire Chamay" s original realization in theI880s that these two sites, located 800 nlilesapart, displayed sinlilar architectural styles andiconography (Diehl 1983), to recent cross-disciplinary studies of these parallels, opinionsand interpretations of the Tula-Chichen Itzaconnection have been heavily influenced by socialconditions.

In order to understand the formation ofinterpretations concerning Tula and Chichen Itza,a basic understanding of these sites is warranted.Tula, located in the Central Highlands region ofMexico, is believed to have been establishedaround C.E. 960 by the Toltec (Adams 1996:274).Its history is complicated by later elaborate Aztecaccounts that glorify both the city and itsinhabitants (Jones 1993a). Nevertheless, it isestimated that the city grew to between 32 to 37thousand people from the time of its formation ascapital to C.E. 1200 (Adams 1996:276). The siteincludes monumental architecture such aselaborate temples, palaces, ball courts and plazas(Adams 1996). Evidence of a wall on the northand west sides, as well as violent iconography,have been used to legitimate the claim that Tulawas a formidable militar'y capital (Diehl 1983;Smith and Montiel 2001). At the end of thetwelfth century C.E., Tula was abandoned and thecity was destroyed; this was likely the result ofboth external and internal conflict as well as ofpopulation pressure (Adams 1996).

Chichen Itza, the larger of the two sites,is located in north central Yucatan, Mexico, andwas probably a site of religious pilgrimage

T(HI':,\[ \'Ill II 2(11)2-2(111.,

Copnight © 21111.' TOTI':i\I: The U\VO journal of .\nthropology

(Adams 1996:290). The Sacred Cenote, a large,cylindrical, natural sinkhole was the mainattraction at Chichen Itza because of itsreligious significance (and possibly for itssource of water). Dredging the Sacred Cenotehas produced large quantities of highly plizedobjects and human bones, mainly dating fromthe Late Classic period. This would suggestthat Chichen Itza was well established beforecontact with the Toltec (Adams 1996). LikeTula, Chichen Itza contains remnants ofmonumental architecture, though the quality ofthe craftsmanship and the scale of the projectsfar surpasses architecture at Tula (Adams 1996).What makes the architectural remains atChichen Itza interesting is the division between"Old Chichen," in the southern portion of thesite, and "Newrroltec Chichen" (dating fromaround C.E. 987 to 1187) in the northernportion of the site (Jones 1993a:227). Thisstylistic division is unusual, particularly sinceNew Chichen bears a striking resemblance instructure and organization to Tula (Diehl 1983).It is instructive here to note that New Chichen isalso more closely associated with the SacredCenote, which interests those investigatingToltec presence at the site (Jones 1993a).

Interest in Toltec influence andpossible occupation at Chichen Itza has provento be enduring. The existence of similmities atgeographically disparate sites has promptedmuch discussion. Though Chichen Itza' s mainplaza around the Temple of Kulkulcan (theCastillo) in the New Chichen portion is granderand more eclectic, the main plazas at both sitesshare a number of common features (Adams1996). They are both Oliented 17 degrees east-of-north, they employ similar uses ofarchitectural space, and they share the "samebasic articulation of pyramid-lofted templesabove a wide-open rectangular amphitheatIiccourtyard" (Jones 1993a:227). Furthermore,there are matching ball courts, each with theirown "skull racks" and "dance platforms"(Adams 1996:291). Even Tula' s unusuallyopen and spacious Burnt Palace has anequivalent at Chichen Itza. The Group of aThousand Columns at Chichen Itza is verysimilar, though somewhat more elaborate(Adams 1996). Tula' s Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl(Kulkulcan) is also mirrored at Chichen Itza inthe form of the Temple of the Warriors (Adams1996).

Examples of architectonic sculpture atChichen Itza and Tula also parallel one another.Quetzalcoatl (the Plumed Serpent), a common

Toltec symbol, adorns columns and balustrades atboth sites (Jones 1993a). Reclining chacmulfigures holding bowls over their stomachs, and"Atlantean" figures supporting tables or lintels,are found in large numbers at Chichen Itza and atTula, but are relatively rare throughout the rest ofMesoamerica (Adams 1996:292). FUlther,militalistic architectural decoration is evident atboth sites. Jaguar, processional warrior, ocelot,and eagle (consuming human hearts) iconographyis common to both Tula and Chichen Itza (Adams1996:292).

Given this abundance of similarities, it ishardly surprising that such a wealth of scholarshiphas been dedicated to theorizing about theconnection between Chichen Itza and Tula.Although there m'e many theories, for thepurposes of this article I will focus on threeexplanations. The first two, those of Alfred M.Tozzer and J. Elic S. Thompson, situate theToltec influence at Chichen Itza within a contextof invasion and conquest. The third, and mostrecent theory, that of Lindsay Jones, argues thatperhaps Toltec influence was apparent at ChichenItza without the accompanying presence of theToltec themselves. Each of these theOlies arisesout of pmticular bodies of knowledge and arebased on particular sets of assumptions.

Alfred M. Tozzer's explanation of theToltec "conquest" of Chichen Itza is based bothon archaeological evidence and on passages fromthe Chilam Balam of Chumayel (Tozzer 1957).The latter is an historical, colonial-era documentapparently written in Maya languages, but usingthe Latin alphabet. It describes such topics asmedicine, history and astrology (Adams 1996:4).Tozzer based his reconstruction of therelationship between Tula and Chichen Itza onone particular passage that reads: "three times itwas, they say, that foreigners arrived" (Roys1933:84). In combination with this three-foldinvasion concept, Tozzer (1957) portrayed theMaya and Toltec as opposites. Where the Mayawere peaceful and academic, the Toltec werebrutish and barbaric; this helps to justify Tozzer'scontention that the Toltec did indeed invadeChichen Itza. He even went so far as to classifyChichen Itza' s matelial culture as either "pureMaya" or "Toltec-Maya" (Tozzer 1957:25).

Tozzer's (1957) actual reconstruction ofevents postulates a see-saw relationship betweenthe Toltec invaders and the Maya occupyingChichen Itza. This power struggle had fi vestages. In the first stage. beginning around c.E.948, the Toltec invaders, led by Kulkulcan I, wereexiled from Tula and went east to establish a new

TO'I'Io:i\! \"01 II 211112-21111.1Copyright © 2(111.1TOTI·:i\I: The U\'(,'() Journal of. \nrhropolo,l,"·

capital. This account of Kulkulcan' s exile istaken almost directly from Aztec legend(Carrasco 1982: 103). Once at Chichen Itza.they established the "hem1-sacrificing cultsassociated with the ball game and the featheredserpent" (Jones 1998:280), which the mildMaya abhorred. During the second peliod, theMaya regained control of the city for a bliefamount of time. only to succumb to anotherwave of intruders. This time, it was theMexicanized ltza from the Gulf Coast who tookover (around CE. 1145), led by Kulkulcan II(Tozzer 1957:35-45). The Maya recoveredagain in the fourth peliod, but were struck downagain by the final surge of invaders,mercenmies from Tabasco. From this point on.the city declined in importance as peoplemigrated south (Tozzer 1957). This chronologythus attempts to reconstruct the events of thelast quarter of the tenth century CE. until theabandonment of Chichen Itza in the twelfthcentury CE.

There are a number of problems withthis reconstruction and its accompanyingassumptions. The first is that Tozzer reliedheavily on the colonial documentation of theChilam Balam of Chumayel. In this case, theChilam Balam of Chumayel was createdhundreds of years after the events it describes.and it reflects the interests and biases of itscolonial authors. Tozzer also incorporatedAztec mythology that glOlifies and exaggeratesthe power and influence of the Toltec. fromwhom they claimed descent (Adams 1996).Furthermore. Tozzer's portrayal of the Maya atChichen Itza as gentle and noble may be aprojection of stereotypes about rural peopleonto a population that was only slightly lessconcentrated in urban areas than Tula (Jones1998). In addition, this portrayal may alsoreflect a retention of 17th to 19lh centuryEuropean ideas about the "civilized" nature ofpast cultures like the Maya in the Ne\\ Worldand the Greeks in the Old World. Toner isalso widely criticized for his reliancc on thcprevalence of Toltec and Maya "cthnicfigUlines" and gold disks from thc SacrcdCenote depicting "ethnic" conflict as markers ofthe Toltec takeover or the resurgcncc of thcMaya at Chichen Itza (Tozzer 1957:321. Thcscfigurines do indicate different influclH.:cs. hutthey do not definitively indicatc a takcO\cr(Thompson 1959). More importantly. hasinginterpretations of conquest on thc racc orethnicity of these figurines seems duhious

considering the inherent ambiguity involved insuch subjective measures.

J. Eric S. Thompson's reconstruction ofthe Tula-Chichen Itza relationship differs in manyways from Tozzer's interpretation. While Tozzerargued that the Itza. the "Mayanized Mexicans"from the Gulf Coast. were part of the secondaryinvasion of Chichen Itza, Thompson brought theItza to the forefront of his explanation andcredited them with contributing to a culturalfluorescence at Chichen ltza (Thompson 1970).This fluorescence was presumably brought on bythe intermixing of the Itza with the Maya. whowere already occupying Chichen ltza. Thompsoncharactelized the Itza as Opp0l1unistic merchantswho. in the tenth century. expanded theirconsiderable influence to the Yucatan. conquelingChichen ltza around CE. 918. Chichen Itza thusbecame a regional capital of the "Putun Itza MayaEmpire" (Thompson 1970:3-15). At this time,Kulkulcan I and his followers entered the picture,heading east from Tula (as in Tozzer'sreconstruction). Thompson argued that where theKulkulcan Toltec group and the Putun Itza firstmet was in Tabasco. and the Toltec weresubsequently escorted to Chichen Itza. Thisproductive meeting of Toltec prestige and Itzaeconomic influence sparked another culturalfluorescence. in which the Toltec recreated thesplendour of Tula at Chichen Itza (Thompson1970:32-47).

Thompson's theory is also somewhatproblematic. On the one hand, the positioning ofthe Putun Itza as a central pm1 of the explanationof the Tula-Chichen Itza connection conttibutes tothe abandonment of the concept of the polaritybetween the Maya at Chichen Itza and the Toltecinvaders. Whether or not this was intentional isdubious because. on the other hand. Thompson' sportrayal of the Putun Itza as able to conquer theMaya of Chichen Ilza locates their power in their"Mexicanization" (Jones 1998:284). Essentially,this Mexicanization results in "moral decay." atleast from a Western standpoint. in that theintroduction of thc Itza at Chichen Itzaincorporates "lewd. crotic" and violent saclificialpractices (Thompson 1970:20-21). Furthermore.Thompson's charactcrization of the Putun Itza asa consolidated superpower is fallacious since thearchaeological evidence indicates that they wereprobably "several related yet competitive GulfCoast groups rather than a single unified people"(Miller 1977:22). Thompson' s theory is thereforeperhaps too neat and organized.

Lindsay Jones' interpretation of therelationship between Tula and Chichen-Itza is

I ( I II \1 \, ,I II 211112-21111,>

C"p,n,c:hl \ 2""\ 1(111 \1. I'h, l'\\"(}.I,,"rnal()f,\nthr"p()I,,~\

radically different than those of Tozzer andThompson. Jones argued that the occupants ofChichen ltza, whether Putun ltza or YucatecanMaya, were the instigators of the architecturalreproduction of Toltec motifs and themes atChichen Itza (Jones 1993b). In hisinterpretation, ideas and architectural stylesmoved west to east, but actual people did not,and, more imp0l1antly, the meaning of theseideas and architectural styles changed in thismovement. Whereas Tula responded to theunstable social and political conditions ofCentral Mexico in the Postclassic period with a"Iitual-architectural program designed totenOlize and intimidate" (Jones 1993b:328),Chichen Itza used the same architecture in adifferent manner and for different purposes.The Putun Itza at Chichen Itza had built up aformidable centre of political and military clout,but perhaps they lacked respectability to goalong with it. Therefore, the blatantreproduction of the grandeur of Tula may havebeen a move toward legitimizing their controland attracting people to the already importantSacred Cenote. In fact, the proximity of themain plaza to the Sacred Cenote, and the use ofa grand processional sacbe to connect the two,perhaps hints at this attempt (Jones 1993b).Jones took this a step further, though, byarguing that reconsiderations of thosearchitectural elements considered to bediagnostic only of Tula perhaps have Mayaorigins. As George Kubler notes, '''Maya-Toltec' architecture at Chichen ltza appearsnow much more cosmopolitan and eclectic thanthe traditional comparison with Tula alonepenmts" (1961 :76-77). In this case, Tula is nolonger the sole inspiration for the design andlayout of Chichen ltza, but rather a contributorto an enterprising attempt at stylistic synthesis.

Jones' argument also has someproblems. Although physical evidence is notlacking for his explanation of events at ChichenItza, it is definitely open to interpretation. Thisis evident in the prevalence of theories based oninvasion. Also, Jones seems unable orunwilling to deal with the nature of the Putunltza "invasion" of Chichen Itza. Was there afull-scale invasion? Was there subsequentintegration of the Putun Itza with the YucatecanMaya? How different were they to begin with,and were the Putun Itza as economicallysuccessful as Thompson imagined them to be?It seems that Jones' theory either relies heavilyon certain aspects of the other two theories, or

chooses to build only on one portion of the storyof Chichen Itza.

All three theories concerning the Tula-Chichen Itza connection are clearly products ofthe social conditions in which they were devised.In evaluating Tozzer and Thompson'sinterpretations, remnants of a colonialist ideologycan be detected. The tendency to characterize theMaya as "noble savages" makes it easier to justifypast colonial and contemporary developmentalendeavours in Mesoamerica that seek to completethe process of "civilization" (Sullivan 1989: 131-137). It also serves to assuage any guilt arisingfrom the subordination of indigenous peoples, andserves to further marginalize them as "non-viable" in a modern context (Jones 1998:287).Both theories offer a commentary on thedevaluation of "primitive" religion; Mexicaninfluence on the "civilized" Maya religion resultsin a cOlluption of values (Jones 1998). Tozzer'ssympathy for the Maya can potentially beaccounted for by what Paul Sullivan calls the"long conversation" between the Yucatecan Mayaand foreigners in post-war/revolution Mexico(1989:xv). The plight of the Maya in this contextmay have had some bearing on Tozzer"s depictionof the Maya as victims of violence. Thompson' stheory has the potential to be abused in that hisdepiction of the Putun Itza as a super-hybridpresents a situation in which multiculturalism andeclecticism leads to greater power andmanipulative abilities (Jones 1998). Of course,these results were likely not the outcomes Tozzerand Thompson intended in crafting their theories;nevertheless, their interpretations do seem torepresent an uncritical projection of modern viewsand attitudes onto the past.

Jones' theory, too, can be identified asthe product of the social context in which it wasdevised. First of all, Jones has had the benefit oftime. Archaeology is always changing, and Jonesis able to incorporate a more secure set of dataabout Tula and Chichen Itza that was notavailable to Tozzer and Thompson. Furthermore,whereas the social conditions and intellectualassumptions underlying Tozzer and Thompson'stheories detracted from their credibility, Jones'theory gains credibility through its innovative andcross-disciplinary interpretation. Jones frames histheory within the context of a hermeneuticinvestigation of the Tula-Chichen Itza connection.This technique, Oliginally devised by historians ofreligion, involves the "study of themethodological plinciples of interpretation"(Diehl 1997: 158). In particular, it attempts todecipher the concealed meanings of written texts.

TOTI':"! \01 II 211112-21111."1

Copnight © 21111."1 TOTI':"I: The U\\'() .!ourn'll o~'.\nthropo]o1-,'Y

Although the applicability of textual criticism asan anthropological methodology has been hotlydebated, Jones' choice to apply it to the Tula-Chichen Itza problem does seem to widen thescope of inquiry in this case. Jones focused onthe way that people experience monumentalarchitecture. and, in this way. he recognized thatindividual expelience may vary. From thisstandpoint, it becomes evident that themeanings assigned to superficially similarbuildings in different places. in this case at Tulaand Chichen Itza, are mutable in the hands ofthose who use them. Symbols can mean verydifferent things in different contexts. It is thisconsideration of individual agency and theimportance of context that sets Jones' theoryapmt from Tozzer or Thompson's theories.

The problem, and the challenge, ofarchaeology is that we may never know who is'·right." Perhaps none of these theories willprove to be lasting, or perhaps each willcontiibute to the formulation of new theoriesbased on subsequently recovered evidence. Fornow, the importance of Jones' contribution tothe Tu1a-Chichen ltza situation lies in theimpOitant questions it raises concerning the wayin which we evaluate the importance andstylistic similarity of monumental architecture.The process of gatheling knowledge about thepast is never exact; it is always mediated by theinterests of the resem'cher and of the interests ofthe society that appropriates this knowledge.Thus, different approaches will produce verydifferent results. In the cases of Tula andChichen Itza, the analysis of differences ininterpretation simultaneously contributes to ourunderstanding of possible connections betweenthe two and to the vitality of the archaeologicalendeavour in general.

Adams, Richard E.W. 1996. PrehistoricMesoamerica. Oklahoma City:University of Oklahoma Press.

Carrasco, David. 1982. Quetzalcoatl and theIrony of Empire: Myths andProphecies in the Aztec Tradition.Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Diehl, Richm'd A. 1983. Tula: The To1tecCapital of Ancient Mexico. London:Thames and Hudson Ltd.

1996. Review of Twin City Tales: AHermeneutical Reassessment of Tulaand Chichen Itza. Latin AmericanAntiquity 8(2):158-159.

Jones, Lindsay. 1993a. The Hermeneutics ofSacred Architecture: A Reassessmentof the Similitude Between Tula,Hidalgo and Chichen Itza, Yucatan,Pmt I. History of Religions,32(3):207-232.

1993b. The Hernleneutics of SacredArchitecture: A Reassessment of theSimilitude Between Tula, Hidalgo andChichen ltza. Yucatan, Pmt II. History ofReligions, 32(4):315-342.

1996. Conquests of the Imagination:Maya-Mexican Polarity and the Storyof Chichen Itza. AmericanAnthropologist 99(2): 275-290.

Kubler. George. 1961. Chichen Itza y Tu1a(Chichen Itza and Tula). Estudios deCultura Maya 1:47-79.

Miller. Arthur G. 1977. Captains of the Itza:Unpublished Mural Evidence fromChichen Itza. /n Social Process inMaya Prehistory: Studies in Honourof Sir Eric Thompson. N. Hammond,ed. New York: Academic Press.

Roys, Ralph L.. ed. and trans. 1933. The Bookof Chi1am Balam of Chumayel.Washington, D.C.: CarnegieInstitution of Washington Publications.

Smith, Michael E. and Lisa Montiel. 2001. TheArchaeological Study of Empires andImperialism in Pre-Hispanic Mexico.Journal of Anthropological Archaeology20:245-284.

Sullivan, Paul. 1989. UnfinishedConversations: Maya and ForeignersBetween Two Wars. New York:Alfred A. Knopf.

Thompson, J. Eric S. 1959. Review ofChichen Itza and Its Cenote ofSacrifice. Amelican Journal ofArchaeology 63: 119-120.

'1'( )'I'I':i\[ \'01 II 211112-211111

Cop\Tight~, 21111.1'1'( ),('l-:i\I: The L1\'n) -'ournal of .\nthropologl"

---. 1970. Maya History and Religion.Oklahoma City: University ofOklahoma Press.

Tozzer, Alfred M. 1957. Chichen Itza and itsCenote of Sacrifice: A ComparativeStudy of Contemporaneous Maya andToltec. Cambridge: PeabodyMuseum.

1\ , I I \1 \ 411 II ~111l.2-~lllJ")

CoplTight l' ~1I(1)'1 (fll \1. II" I'" () I""nul of .\nthropology