NOTES

[1]See Saville, The Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico,Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, 1920.[2]Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, Historia General y Natural de las Indias, edition of the Real Academia de la Historia, tomoI, primera parte, lib.XVII, caps,VIII-XVIII, pp. 502-537, Madrid, 1851.[3]The Itinerary of Grijalva, written by chaplain Juan Díaz, was undoubtedly recorded in Spanish, but we know it only from the Italian translation of 1520. It was translated into Spanish by Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta and published by him in hisDocumentos para la Historia de México, tomoI, Mexico, 1858. A translation into English, with translations of other accounts, relating to this voyage, will appear in thePublications of the Cortes Societyunder the title, The Voyage of Juan de Grijalva to Yucatan and the Mexican Coast in 1518.[4]We quote here from the edition of Bernal Díaz published by the Hakluyt Society, bearing the title, The True Conquest of New Spain, translated into English by Alfred Percival Maudslay. The citation is from vol.I, pp. 48-49, London, 1908.[5]Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.I, p. 53. In the work of Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana, is an important statement bearing on this matter, of which we give the following translationin extenso:“And this present it was that Gomara and Antonio de Herrera make confused mention as having been brought to Ferdinand Cortés by the governors of Montezuma on his first landing, which they notice in the following words: ‘Which present it is said was sent for Juan de Grijalva, when he touched on those shores; but that, notwithstanding the haste of those who carried it, they found that he was gone.’ The fact was as they state; but I do not understand how those who drew up the account of which Herrera availed himself, could have omitted that which I say in this chapter, and many other particulars which shall be observed in the sequel; since the circumstances which they mention, and those which I relate, are intimately connected with each other, and those who could have given an account of the former, could likewise have done so of the latter; although I think that the error lay in their seeking information only from the Spaniards, who at that period returned from the Indies, without verifying facts by applying to the Indians, who were mainly concerned in most of them, or I may say in all, since they were the mark which all who have written on the affairs of the conquest strove to hit, and were those who were very well acquainted with them, and in the beginning recorded them by means of figures and characters, and afterward, when some of the most curiousamongst them had learned how to write, wrote them down; which histories are in my possession: and so high is the estimation in which I hold them, on account of their language and the style of their composition, that I should be glad to feel myself competent to the task of translating them into Spanish with the same elegance and grace as the Mexicans penned them in their own language; and since these histories are true and authentic, I follow them to the letter; but lest the accounts which they contain should appear strange to those who read them, I affirm that they are merely a true relation of what actually happened, but that other authors have not noticed them before me, because the few that have written on the affairs of the Indies were ignorant of the events which then occurred, nor had they any one to give them the requisite information; neither should I have mentioned these facts had I not found that they were verified by Father Bernardino de Sahagun, a grave and pious ecclesiastic, who was of the second number of those who undertook the conversion of the natives of New Spain, but was the first of the investigators of the most secret things of this land, of which he knew all the secrets, and employed himself for more than sixty years in composing works in the Mexican language and in incorporating into it all the information which he was able to acquire.” Lib.IV, cap.XIII.[6]This important work will be reprinted in facsimile, with a translation into English, in the author’s proposed work on the voyage of Grijalva, as mentioned in Note 3.[7]This account will also be reprinted in facsimile, with a translation into English, in the author’s account of the voyage of Grijalva. The title is, Provinciæ Sive Regiones in India Occidentali Noviter Repertæ in Vltima Navigatione. The known copies are in the John Carter Brown Library, Providence, and the New York Public Library.[8]I quote here from the translation made and edited by Francis A. MacNutt, De Orbe Novo, vol.II, pp. 19-20, New York, 1912.[9]The chapters relating to the voyage of Grijalva have been translated into English by the writer and will appear in the proposed work mentioned in Note 3.[10]Francisco López de Gomara, edition of Don Enrique de Vedia, Historiadores Primitivos de Indias, inBiblioteca de Autores Españoles, tomoI, Madrid, 1877.[11]Eduard Seler, Ein Kapitel aus dem Geschichtswerk des P. Sahagun, p. 124, Berlin, 1890.[12]Lehmann, in his Methods and Results in Mexican Research, Paris, 1909, writes: “Hardly less remarkable are the mosaics made of more or less precious stones, shells, etc. No less than twenty-three pieces are known in various museums, the finest being in London, Rome, and Berlin. The stones when cut to shape are embedded in a peculiar substance (tzinacanquauhcuitlatl) covering the whole surface of the object to be decorated; the latter werechiefly of wood, rarely of bone or stone. Two masks are skilfully prepared human skulls. The usual shapes are shields, helmets, knife handles and trinkets. The small cup-shaped heads and the double-jaguar in the Berlin Museum are of doubtful meaning. Most of these objects apparently come from the Eastern provinces, i. e., Tabasco. We know from other sources that it was only under king Ahuizotl, with the conquest of the Tzapotec district, that the Mexicans became acquainted with turkois-mosaics, shields, earrings, etc.” This is a translation of his Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung, published inArchiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge, bandVI, heft 2 u 3, Braunschweig, 1907.[13]See Lehmann in our List of Works Describing Mexican Mosaics, under 1906.[14]Juan de Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana, Barcia edition, Madrid, 1732, lib.II, cap.LXXIX, p. 215.[15]See Antonio Peñafiel, Nomenclatura Geográfica y Etimológica de México, Mexico, 1897.[16]Clavigero, The History of Mexico, Cullen transl., vol.II, p. 232, London, 1787.[17]Saville, The Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, op. cit.[18]Peter Martyr, op. cit., vol.II, p. 46.[19]Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, tomoIV, cap.CXXI, pp. 284-286, Madrid ed., 1876.[20]Fr. Bernardino de Sahagun, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, Bustamante ed., lib. 12, caps,II-VI, pp. 5-12, Mexico, 1829.Notes to ChapterIII. The two places mentioned here, Naulitlantoztlan and Mictlanquactle, are given by Torquemada (op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIII, p. 379) as four different towns. Nauhtla and Toztla, the first two, are recognizable as being combined into one place-name by Sahagun. This is also the case with Mictla and Quauhtla, the third and fourth towns of Torquemada, the Mictlanquactle of Sahagun. Brasseur de Bourbourg transforms them to Nauhtlan, Tochtlan, and Mictlan-Quauhtla, in which he is followed by Orozco y Berra.Vigil, the editor of Tezozomoc, states that the town of Mictlancuauhtla has disappeared, but in a map or plan of Vera Cruz in the collection of Icazbalceta, sent in 1580 to Philip II by the alcalde Alvaro Patiño, the place is still mentioned, under a corrupted form of the name, as Metlangutla.The name of the five lords sent by Montezuma to receive Cortés, conceived to be Quetzalcoatl, are spelled differently by Torquemada (op. cit., P-379), and they more closely approach the orthography of Molina’s dictionary. They are, Yohualychan, Tepuztecatl, Tizahua, Huehuetecatl, and Hueycamecateca.Notes to ChapterVI. This Xicalanco is not to be confused with the Mexican colonial town of the same name near the Laguna de Términos,Tabasco. A branch of the Nahuan Mexican people called Xicalancas from the name of their first ruler, Xicalancatl, settled on the coast of Vera Cruz in the region between the present city of Vera Cruz and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.Torquemada relates that the messengers, on leaving the ship of Cortés, “paddled rapidly away, and came to a little island called Xicalanco, where they ate, and rested a little, and they left there and came to a town on the seashore called Tecpantlayacac; from there they went to Cuetlaxtla, which is some leagues in the interior, where they spent the night; the lords and chief of the town begged them to remain there that day and rest, but they replied that the need for speed for their journey was great.”—Op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIV, p. 384.[21]Peter Martyr, op. cit., vol.II, pp. 196-197.[22]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico. The inventories of the loot obtained by Cortés are given in English translation on pp. 56-102.[23]This is quoted from the study of Dr. J. Cheston Morris on the “Physical and Technographical Characteristics” of the leaves, in the article, “The Tribute Roll of Montezuma,” edited by Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, Henry Phillips, Jr., and Dr. J. Cheston Morris, published inTransactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol.XVII,N. S., pt.II, art.IV, p. 61, Philadelphia, 1892.[24]The very important Crónica Mexicana, written by Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc, was published by José M. Vigil in hisBiblioteca Mexicana, Colección Metódica de Obras y Documentos Relativos a la Historia, Geografía, Literatura, Estadística y Legislación de México, 1881. The quotation is from cap.LXXVI, pp. 543-544.[25]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXXXIX, p. 600.[26]Dr. George F. Kunz has kindly placed in our hands his publications relating to precious stones. In this connection consult his Gems and Precious Stones, New York, 1892; his important paper, New Observations on the Occurrences of Precious Stones of Archæological Interest in America (extrait desMémoires et Déliberations du XVᵉ Congrès des Américanistes tenue à Québec du 10 au 15 Septembre 1906, Quebec, 1907); and Gems and Precious Stones of Mexico, Mexico, 1907.[27]The work of Rafael Aguilar y Santillan is entitled Bibliografía Geológica y Minera de la República Mexicana completada hasta el año de 1904,Boletín del Instituto Geológico de México, núm. 17, Mexico, 1908.[28]The interesting study of Luigi Pigorini describing the Mexican mosaics in Rome is entitled Gli Antichi Oggetti Messicani Incrostati di Mosaico esistenti nel Museo Preistorico ed Etnografico di Roma,Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Rome, Anno CCLXXXII, 1884-85, 3ª serie, vol.XII, pp. 1-9, I pl. with 5 colored illustrations.[29]The important study by Joseph E. Pogue, The Turquois. A Study of its History, Mineralogy, Geology, Ethnology, Archæology, Mythology, Folklore,and Technology, appears as the third memoir of Vol.XII,Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 1915.[30]Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España que en Doce Libros y Dos Volúmenes Escribió el R. P. Fr. Bernardino de Sahagun, published by Carlos María de Bustamante, 4 vols., Mexico, 1829. Also published by Lord Kingsborough. The quotations are from the Bustamante edition, tomoIII, lib.II, cap.VII, p. 284, and cap.VIII, pp. 296-297.[31]On this subject consult the paper by Dr. A. B. Meyer, Die Nephritfrage, ein ethnologisches Problem, Berlin, 1883, of which an abstract (“The Nephrite Question”) was published inAmerican Anthropologist,O. S., vol.I, no. 3, Washington, July, 1888.[32]Saville, A Votive Adze of Jadeite from Mexico,Monumental Records, New York, May, 1900.[33]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 10, cap.XXIX, p. 107.[34]Ibid., cap. vii, p. 19.[35]The pictorial part of the section of the great work of Sahagun in Florence was reproduced in facsimile by the late Mexican scholar, Sr. D. Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, for the Mexican government. Only recently has the work been received in Mexico, and we are under the greatest obligations to Sr. D. Luis Castillo Ledon, Director of the Museo Nacional, Mexico, for a copy which we have recently received, and which has been of such great assistance in the preparation of this study of Mexican mosaics. It is an Atlas, denominated Vol.V, of 158 estampas (plates). The plates relating to arts and crafts are to illustrate LibroIX, and include pl. lv to lxxvi.[36]We refer the student to the edition of Lord Kingsborough, vol.I.[37]The Mappe Tlotzin once formed a part of the Boturini collection; it was afterward acquired by Aubin, later by Goupil, and is now in the National Library in Paris. It has been published in colors (pl. i-iii) in Mémoires sur la Peinture Didactique et l’Écriture Figurative des Anciens Méxicains, par J. M. A. Aubin, with an introduction by E. T. Hamy, Paris, 1885. The pictures referred to are on pl. ii.[38]Eduard Seler, L’Orfèverie des Anciens Mexicains et leur Art de Travailler la Pierre et de Faire des Ornements en Plumes,Compte rendu de la VIIIᵉᵐᵉ Session du Congrès International des Américanistes, Paris, pp. 401-452. The chapter on the art of the lapidaries is on pp. 418-425. The article, with slight changes in the French translation of the Nahuatl text, and some revision, is included in Seler’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, Zweiter Band, pp. 620-663, Berlin, 1904. The section on the lapidaries’ art is on pp. 635-640.[39]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoII, lib. 9, cap.XVII, pp. 389-391.[40]The goddess is figured in the numerous examples of the tonalamatl in the various codices, of which facsimiles are to be found in all important libraries.[41]The Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection. An Old Mexican Picture Manuscript in the Paris National Library. Published at the Expense of his Excellency the Duke of Loubat. With Introduction and Explanatory Text by Dr. Eduard Seler. Berlin and London, 1900-1901, p. 115.[42]The Codex Borbonicus is in the National Library, Paris. It was published in exact facsimile, with an introduction by Dr. E. T. Hamy, Paris, 1899. The scene referred to is on p. 18 of the Paris reproduction.[43]The important Codex Telleriano Remensis was published in facsimile, with an introduction by E. T. Hamy, by the Duke of Loubat, Paris, 1899. The illustration referred to is on p. 22 verso, of the plates.[44]Seler, op. cit. (Note 41), p. 118.[45]Kingsborough, vol.VI, p. 129.[46]Sahagun, see reproduction of Troncoso, estampa x, fig. 34.[47]Codex Borbonicus, p. 18.[48]Tonalamatl Aubin, op. cit., pl. 18.[49]Seler, op. cit., pp. 114-118.[50]This quotation is from the Libro de Oro y Tesoro Indico, a precious manuscript in the library of the late Joaquín García Icazbalceta. Icazbalceta writes as follows about the author: “We do not know who was Fr. Andrés de Alcobiz, who in the year 1543 collected in Spain these laws of the Mexicans. It is published inNueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoIII, p. 313, Mexico, 1891.[51]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, p. 119.[52]Anonymous Conqueror, translated by Marshall H. Saville, publication of the Cortes Society, no. I, pp. 65-67, New York, 1917.[53]Obras Históricas de Don Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, tomoI, Historia Chichimeca, cap.XXXVI, p. 180, published in Mexico in 1892 under the editorship of Dr. Alfredo Chavero.[54]We refer here to the labors of Mexican archeologists begun by Leopoldo Batres, and continued by Dr. Manuel Gamio. An elaborate work, edited by Gamio, treating of the exploration of this region, has just been printed in Mexico.[55]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 10, cap.XXIX, p. 107.[56]Ibid., tomoI, lib. 3, cap.XII, p. 255.[57]Saville, The Cruciform Structures of Mitla and Vicinity,Putnam Anniversary Volume, p. 187, New York, 1909.[58]Relación de Andrés de Tapia, published for the first time by Icazbalceta inColección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoII, pp. 582-583, Mexico, 1866.[59]The Relación de Texcoco was written by Juan Bautista Pomar, a mestizo, and a grandson of the Texcocan king Nezahualpitzintli on his mother’s side. It was composed for Philip II, and belongs to the class of Relations like those of Yucatan, etc. It was first published by Icazbalceta in hisNueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoII. The quotation is from p. 10.[60]Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.II, bookVI, chap. xcii, p. 74.[61]Ibid., chap.CIV, p. 138.[62]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXXXVI, p. 592.[63]Ibid., cap.LXXXVII, p. 593.[64]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoI, lib.I, cap.XIII, p. 18.[65]Pomar, op. cit., pp. 8-9.[66]Seler, Altmexikanische Studien, Ein Kapitel aus dem Geschichtswerk des P. Sahagun.Sonderabzug der Veröffentlichungen aus dem Königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde,I, 4, p. 123, Berlin, 1890.[67]Anonymous Conqueror, op. cit., p. 22.[68]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 8, cap.IX, p. 289.[69]Antonio Peñafiel, Indumentaria Antigua Vestidos Guerreros y Civiles de los Mexicanos, pl. 149, Mexico, 1903.[70]The Codex Coxcatzin has been published in part by Eugène Boban inDocuments pour Servir à l’Histoire du Méxique, Atlas, pl. 41-45, Paris, 1891.[71]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXI, p. 469; cap.LXIX, pp. 506-507.[72]Diego Duran, Historia de las Indias de Nueva-España y Islas de Tierra Firme, tomoI, cap.LI, p. 407, Mexico, 1867.[73]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.CI, p. 659.[74]Anonymous Conqueror, op. cit., p. 22.[75]Thomas Unett Brocklehurst, Mexico To-day, pl.XXXIV, London, 1883.[76]See Saville, Exploration of Zapotecan Tombs in Southern Mexico,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol.I, pp. 350-362, April, 1899; and Funeral Urns from Oaxaca,American Museum Journal, vol.IV, pp. 49-69, New York, 1904.[77]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, pp. 151-163, pl. i, viii.[78]Manuel Gamio, Los Monumentos Arqueológicos de las Inmediaciones de Chalchihuites, Zacatecas, sobretiro del tomoIIde losAnales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnología, pp. 467-492, 5 plans, 8 pl.,Mexico, 1910. This is the first piece of work by Gamio, and presents the results of the first important archeological exploration undertaken in this part of Mexico.[79]We have just received the first number (Jan.-Feb., 1922) of tomoI, época 4ª, of theAnales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografíaof Mexico, which have long been interrupted. In it is announced the forthcoming appearance of a paper relating to this subject, “Máscara con Mosaicos de Turquesas.—Dictámenes Periciales.” It is to be hoped that the authenticity of this object will be cleared of all suspicion by the proposed study.[80]On this subject consult Saville, Precolumbian Decoration of the Teeth in Ecuador, etc.,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 15, 1913; reprinted asContributions from the Heye Museum, vol.I, no. 2, 1913.[81]David Casares, A Notice of Yucatan with Some Remarks on its Water Supply,Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, pp. 207-230, Oct., 1905.[82]Diego de Landa, Historia de las Cosas de Yucatan, edition of Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado, p. 84, Madrid, 1881.[83]Casares, op. cit., p. 226.[84]William H. Holmes, Archeological Studies among the Ancient Cities of Mexico,Anthropological Series, Field Columbian Museum, vol.I, no. 1, Chicago, 1895. Part I, Monuments of Yucatan, Section on Chichen Itza, p. 137.[85]Seler, Codex Vaticanus No. 3773. Elucidation published at the expense of the Duke of Loubat, Berlin and London, 1902-1903. In this study Seler treats at length of the God Xipe Totec.[86]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoI, lib. I, cap.XVIII, p. 28.[87]The two mosaic masks on the sculptured wall at Chichen Itza are taken from the drawings on pl. 46 and 47 of the great work of Alfred P. Maudslay published as part ofBiologia Centrali-Americana: or Contributions to the Knowledge of the Fauna and Flora of Mexico and Central America, edited by F. Ducane Godman and Osbert Salvin. Archæology, vol.III(Plates). London, 1895-1902. The crowns are from pl. 38, 49-59. The crown with the feathers is from the doorway column of Temple A, of the Ball Court.[88]The first extended study of Mexican turquois mosaics, based especially on some of the specimens now in the British Museum, was made by E. T. Stevens and published in his Flint Chips, pp. 324-328, London, 1870. Read’s paper did not appear until 1895.[89]See Maudslay’s edition of Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.I, app., pp. 299-302. Maudslay gives photographs of the two wooden masks in the British Museum, which he calls “Masks of Quetzalcoatl,” and of the skull mask which he denominates “Mask of Tezcatlipoca.”[90]See List of Works following.[91]See translation in Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, pp. 126-127.[92]See List of Works following.[93]See List of Works following. Our illustration is a photograph of the colored lithographic plate of Uhle.[94]Zelia Nuttall, On Ancient Mexican Shields,Separat-Abdruck aus Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, Bd.V, 21 pp., Leiden, 1892.[95]Read, in his study, gives only a drawing of this shield. Our illustration, a direct photograph, does not show the designs so clearly as the drawing.[96]Our illustration is a copy of the photograph published by Heger. See List of Works following.[97]Seler, Codex Fejérváry, An Old Mexican Picture Manuscript in the Liverpool Free Public Museum, published at the Expense of His Excellency the Duke of Loubat, p. 210, Berlin and London, 1901-1902.[98]The Codex Nuttall or Zouche was published by the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, in 1892. The original is now in the British Museum.[99]On this subject consult the elucidations of Mexican codices by Seler, published at the expense of the Duke of Loubat. Also, Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and History, being translations from the German of papers by Seler, Förstemann, and others, published asBulletin 28, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1904. The studies of C. P. Bowditch will be found in his Numeration, Calendar Systems and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas, Cambridge, Mass., 1910.[100]Hermann Beyer, El llamado “Calendario Azteca,” Mexico, 1921, an important study of interpretation of the calendar stone of the Aztecs.[101]This specimen was first illustrated by Lehmann in his paper, Die altmexikanischen Mosaiken des Ethnographischen Museums in Kopenhagen,Globus, 1907. Our illustration is a drawing from the photograph reproduced in this study.[102]See Note 101.[103]See Heger, 1892, in List of Works.[104]Our drawing is from the photograph published by Lehmann in his paper in theProceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Americanists, Quebec, 1907.[105]Our drawing of this specimen is made from the illustration published by Oppel. See List of Works, 1896.[106]Illustrations of this piece have just been published for the first time by Lehmann in his Altmexikanische Kunstgeschichte: Ein Entwurf in Umrissen, Berlin, 1922(?).[107]See Seler’s remarks to Heger’s paper, List of Works, 1890.[108]Consult Seler, Altmexikanische Knochenrasseln,Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Zweiter Band, pp. 672-694, Berlin, 1904; also Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, vol. ii, pp. 428-430, New York, 1902.[109]As Colini’s paper is not easily consulted, we append his description of these three Mexican wooden objects:“L’idolo, a guisa di figura umana, è alto m.o. 45 [17¾ inches high]. La testa è molto grande, senza alcuna proporzione con le altre parti del corpo ed è sormontana da un ornamento. La faccia conserva ancora traccie del rosso con cui era colorita, il naso è piccolo ma largo e schiacciato, gli occhi sono incavature ovali ed hanno sotto tre incisioni circolari, come se si fossero volute rappresentare le occhiaje di persona vecchia o malata. Anche vicino agli angoli della bocca, poco sopra, sono incise due linee oblique, riempite di bianco, quasi a guisa di rughe. Tiene le braccia sollevate con le mani sull’ornamento della testa, ma le altre parti del corpo non sono affatto distinte. Posa sopra una base decorata con incisioni colorite in bianco, di cui manca però una parte, cosicché non è possibile comprendere pienamente la sua forma primitiva, la quale sembra che fosse rettangolare. In ogni modo era troppo sottile per sostenere l’idolo, e perciò dobbiamo credere che facesse parte di un apparecchio più complicato.“Delle maschere l’una (V.Tav. in fine, fig. 2) nel tipo e nell’espressione somiglia a quella incrosta di mosaico, descritta da Ulisse Aldrovandi la quale oggi si conserva nel Museo Etnografico Nazionale di Roma [6⅞ inches high]. Il naso è lungo, sottile ed arcuato; ma non essendo incavato nell’interno, la maschera non potrebbe adattarsi faccia. Gli occhi consistono in rozze aperture ovali, sotto le quali, a breve distanza, sono incisi due profondi solchi, a guisa di semicerchi, come nell’idolo. Intorno la fronte, sopra la radice del naso, corre una larga fascia in rilievo. Fra le labbra inferiore allungate, esce la lingua, che si ripiega sul mento: della parte inferiore non è possibile formarsi un concetto perchè è stata tagliata. Conserva qua e là le traccie della tinta rossa, ma sono meno evidenti che nell’idoli. Sulla fascia della fronte, nella lingua e sul naso possono ancora notarsi delle linee incise, riempite di materia bianca.“L’altra maschera (tav., fig. I) è lavorata con maggiore cura [7⅛ inches high]: ha la faccia simmetrica nelle varie parti e proporzionata. Le labbra sono piccole, ma, quello inferiore essendo rotto, non è possibile indovinarne la forma. Ha il naso arcuato, e largo alla base, ed è internamente incavato in modo che la maschera potrebbe adattarsi alla faccia, e siccome la bocca, le narici e gli occhi sono forati, cosi il portatore potrebbe benissimo vedere, respirare e parlare. Nella parte inferiore delle occhiaje, agli angoli, si notano due piccole incavature ad arco, la cui forma farebbe supporre che vi fossero adattati pezzi di madreperla a guisa di occhi, come in quelle del Museo Christy. In generale i lineamente mostrano quella espressione placida e contemplativa, che, secondo il Tylor, e caratteristica dei lavori aztechi e degli egiziani, tanto se si riguardano le massiccie sculture in pietra, quanto le piccole teste di terracotta. Ambedue queste maschere, nella parte superiore corrispondente alla fronte, hanno fori nei quali forses’immettevano cordoncini per sospenderle: la prima ne ha due grandi agli angoli, l’altra quattro più piccoli intorno.” (See note under List of Works, 1885.)[110]D. I. Bushnell, Jr., Two Ancient Mexican Atlatls,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 7, no. 2, 1905; also North American Ethnographical Material in Italian Collections,ibid., vol. 8, 1906.[111]See Note 94.[112]Fr. Toribio Motolinia, Historia de los Indios de Nueva España, Tratado Tercero, cap.XX, pp. 247-249, edition published by Icazbalceta,Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomo 1, Mexico, 1858.[113]Consult Frederick Starr, The Little Pottery Objects of Lake Chapala, Mexico,Bulletin II, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1897.[114]An important summary of these discoveries has recently been published by Gamio; see Las Excavaciones del Pedregal de San Angel y la Cultura Arcaica del Valle de Mexico,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 22, no. 2, 1920. Also the paper of Hermann Beyer, Sobre Antigüedades del Pedregal de San Angel,Memorias de la Sociedad Científica “Antonio Alzate” de México, tomo 37, núm. 8, Oct., 1917; and Ramon Mena, El Hombre de “El Pedregal” de San Angel,Escuela Naciona, Preparatoria Curso de 1918.

[1]See Saville, The Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico,Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Indian Notes and Monographs, 1920.

[2]Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés, Historia General y Natural de las Indias, edition of the Real Academia de la Historia, tomoI, primera parte, lib.XVII, caps,VIII-XVIII, pp. 502-537, Madrid, 1851.

[3]The Itinerary of Grijalva, written by chaplain Juan Díaz, was undoubtedly recorded in Spanish, but we know it only from the Italian translation of 1520. It was translated into Spanish by Joaquin Garcia Icazbalceta and published by him in hisDocumentos para la Historia de México, tomoI, Mexico, 1858. A translation into English, with translations of other accounts, relating to this voyage, will appear in thePublications of the Cortes Societyunder the title, The Voyage of Juan de Grijalva to Yucatan and the Mexican Coast in 1518.

[4]We quote here from the edition of Bernal Díaz published by the Hakluyt Society, bearing the title, The True Conquest of New Spain, translated into English by Alfred Percival Maudslay. The citation is from vol.I, pp. 48-49, London, 1908.

[5]Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.I, p. 53. In the work of Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana, is an important statement bearing on this matter, of which we give the following translationin extenso:“And this present it was that Gomara and Antonio de Herrera make confused mention as having been brought to Ferdinand Cortés by the governors of Montezuma on his first landing, which they notice in the following words: ‘Which present it is said was sent for Juan de Grijalva, when he touched on those shores; but that, notwithstanding the haste of those who carried it, they found that he was gone.’ The fact was as they state; but I do not understand how those who drew up the account of which Herrera availed himself, could have omitted that which I say in this chapter, and many other particulars which shall be observed in the sequel; since the circumstances which they mention, and those which I relate, are intimately connected with each other, and those who could have given an account of the former, could likewise have done so of the latter; although I think that the error lay in their seeking information only from the Spaniards, who at that period returned from the Indies, without verifying facts by applying to the Indians, who were mainly concerned in most of them, or I may say in all, since they were the mark which all who have written on the affairs of the conquest strove to hit, and were those who were very well acquainted with them, and in the beginning recorded them by means of figures and characters, and afterward, when some of the most curiousamongst them had learned how to write, wrote them down; which histories are in my possession: and so high is the estimation in which I hold them, on account of their language and the style of their composition, that I should be glad to feel myself competent to the task of translating them into Spanish with the same elegance and grace as the Mexicans penned them in their own language; and since these histories are true and authentic, I follow them to the letter; but lest the accounts which they contain should appear strange to those who read them, I affirm that they are merely a true relation of what actually happened, but that other authors have not noticed them before me, because the few that have written on the affairs of the Indies were ignorant of the events which then occurred, nor had they any one to give them the requisite information; neither should I have mentioned these facts had I not found that they were verified by Father Bernardino de Sahagun, a grave and pious ecclesiastic, who was of the second number of those who undertook the conversion of the natives of New Spain, but was the first of the investigators of the most secret things of this land, of which he knew all the secrets, and employed himself for more than sixty years in composing works in the Mexican language and in incorporating into it all the information which he was able to acquire.” Lib.IV, cap.XIII.

[5]Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.I, p. 53. In the work of Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana, is an important statement bearing on this matter, of which we give the following translationin extenso:

“And this present it was that Gomara and Antonio de Herrera make confused mention as having been brought to Ferdinand Cortés by the governors of Montezuma on his first landing, which they notice in the following words: ‘Which present it is said was sent for Juan de Grijalva, when he touched on those shores; but that, notwithstanding the haste of those who carried it, they found that he was gone.’ The fact was as they state; but I do not understand how those who drew up the account of which Herrera availed himself, could have omitted that which I say in this chapter, and many other particulars which shall be observed in the sequel; since the circumstances which they mention, and those which I relate, are intimately connected with each other, and those who could have given an account of the former, could likewise have done so of the latter; although I think that the error lay in their seeking information only from the Spaniards, who at that period returned from the Indies, without verifying facts by applying to the Indians, who were mainly concerned in most of them, or I may say in all, since they were the mark which all who have written on the affairs of the conquest strove to hit, and were those who were very well acquainted with them, and in the beginning recorded them by means of figures and characters, and afterward, when some of the most curiousamongst them had learned how to write, wrote them down; which histories are in my possession: and so high is the estimation in which I hold them, on account of their language and the style of their composition, that I should be glad to feel myself competent to the task of translating them into Spanish with the same elegance and grace as the Mexicans penned them in their own language; and since these histories are true and authentic, I follow them to the letter; but lest the accounts which they contain should appear strange to those who read them, I affirm that they are merely a true relation of what actually happened, but that other authors have not noticed them before me, because the few that have written on the affairs of the Indies were ignorant of the events which then occurred, nor had they any one to give them the requisite information; neither should I have mentioned these facts had I not found that they were verified by Father Bernardino de Sahagun, a grave and pious ecclesiastic, who was of the second number of those who undertook the conversion of the natives of New Spain, but was the first of the investigators of the most secret things of this land, of which he knew all the secrets, and employed himself for more than sixty years in composing works in the Mexican language and in incorporating into it all the information which he was able to acquire.” Lib.IV, cap.XIII.

[6]This important work will be reprinted in facsimile, with a translation into English, in the author’s proposed work on the voyage of Grijalva, as mentioned in Note 3.

[7]This account will also be reprinted in facsimile, with a translation into English, in the author’s account of the voyage of Grijalva. The title is, Provinciæ Sive Regiones in India Occidentali Noviter Repertæ in Vltima Navigatione. The known copies are in the John Carter Brown Library, Providence, and the New York Public Library.

[8]I quote here from the translation made and edited by Francis A. MacNutt, De Orbe Novo, vol.II, pp. 19-20, New York, 1912.

[9]The chapters relating to the voyage of Grijalva have been translated into English by the writer and will appear in the proposed work mentioned in Note 3.

[10]Francisco López de Gomara, edition of Don Enrique de Vedia, Historiadores Primitivos de Indias, inBiblioteca de Autores Españoles, tomoI, Madrid, 1877.

[11]Eduard Seler, Ein Kapitel aus dem Geschichtswerk des P. Sahagun, p. 124, Berlin, 1890.

[12]Lehmann, in his Methods and Results in Mexican Research, Paris, 1909, writes: “Hardly less remarkable are the mosaics made of more or less precious stones, shells, etc. No less than twenty-three pieces are known in various museums, the finest being in London, Rome, and Berlin. The stones when cut to shape are embedded in a peculiar substance (tzinacanquauhcuitlatl) covering the whole surface of the object to be decorated; the latter werechiefly of wood, rarely of bone or stone. Two masks are skilfully prepared human skulls. The usual shapes are shields, helmets, knife handles and trinkets. The small cup-shaped heads and the double-jaguar in the Berlin Museum are of doubtful meaning. Most of these objects apparently come from the Eastern provinces, i. e., Tabasco. We know from other sources that it was only under king Ahuizotl, with the conquest of the Tzapotec district, that the Mexicans became acquainted with turkois-mosaics, shields, earrings, etc.” This is a translation of his Ergebnisse und Aufgaben der mexikanistischen Forschung, published inArchiv für Anthropologie, Neue Folge, bandVI, heft 2 u 3, Braunschweig, 1907.

[13]See Lehmann in our List of Works Describing Mexican Mosaics, under 1906.

[14]Juan de Torquemada, Monarchia Indiana, Barcia edition, Madrid, 1732, lib.II, cap.LXXIX, p. 215.

[15]See Antonio Peñafiel, Nomenclatura Geográfica y Etimológica de México, Mexico, 1897.

[16]Clavigero, The History of Mexico, Cullen transl., vol.II, p. 232, London, 1787.

[17]Saville, The Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, op. cit.

[18]Peter Martyr, op. cit., vol.II, p. 46.

[19]Las Casas, Historia de las Indias, tomoIV, cap.CXXI, pp. 284-286, Madrid ed., 1876.

[20]Fr. Bernardino de Sahagun, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, Bustamante ed., lib. 12, caps,II-VI, pp. 5-12, Mexico, 1829.Notes to ChapterIII. The two places mentioned here, Naulitlantoztlan and Mictlanquactle, are given by Torquemada (op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIII, p. 379) as four different towns. Nauhtla and Toztla, the first two, are recognizable as being combined into one place-name by Sahagun. This is also the case with Mictla and Quauhtla, the third and fourth towns of Torquemada, the Mictlanquactle of Sahagun. Brasseur de Bourbourg transforms them to Nauhtlan, Tochtlan, and Mictlan-Quauhtla, in which he is followed by Orozco y Berra.Vigil, the editor of Tezozomoc, states that the town of Mictlancuauhtla has disappeared, but in a map or plan of Vera Cruz in the collection of Icazbalceta, sent in 1580 to Philip II by the alcalde Alvaro Patiño, the place is still mentioned, under a corrupted form of the name, as Metlangutla.The name of the five lords sent by Montezuma to receive Cortés, conceived to be Quetzalcoatl, are spelled differently by Torquemada (op. cit., P-379), and they more closely approach the orthography of Molina’s dictionary. They are, Yohualychan, Tepuztecatl, Tizahua, Huehuetecatl, and Hueycamecateca.Notes to ChapterVI. This Xicalanco is not to be confused with the Mexican colonial town of the same name near the Laguna de Términos,Tabasco. A branch of the Nahuan Mexican people called Xicalancas from the name of their first ruler, Xicalancatl, settled on the coast of Vera Cruz in the region between the present city of Vera Cruz and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.Torquemada relates that the messengers, on leaving the ship of Cortés, “paddled rapidly away, and came to a little island called Xicalanco, where they ate, and rested a little, and they left there and came to a town on the seashore called Tecpantlayacac; from there they went to Cuetlaxtla, which is some leagues in the interior, where they spent the night; the lords and chief of the town begged them to remain there that day and rest, but they replied that the need for speed for their journey was great.”—Op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIV, p. 384.

[20]Fr. Bernardino de Sahagun, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, Bustamante ed., lib. 12, caps,II-VI, pp. 5-12, Mexico, 1829.

Notes to ChapterIII. The two places mentioned here, Naulitlantoztlan and Mictlanquactle, are given by Torquemada (op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIII, p. 379) as four different towns. Nauhtla and Toztla, the first two, are recognizable as being combined into one place-name by Sahagun. This is also the case with Mictla and Quauhtla, the third and fourth towns of Torquemada, the Mictlanquactle of Sahagun. Brasseur de Bourbourg transforms them to Nauhtlan, Tochtlan, and Mictlan-Quauhtla, in which he is followed by Orozco y Berra.

Vigil, the editor of Tezozomoc, states that the town of Mictlancuauhtla has disappeared, but in a map or plan of Vera Cruz in the collection of Icazbalceta, sent in 1580 to Philip II by the alcalde Alvaro Patiño, the place is still mentioned, under a corrupted form of the name, as Metlangutla.

The name of the five lords sent by Montezuma to receive Cortés, conceived to be Quetzalcoatl, are spelled differently by Torquemada (op. cit., P-379), and they more closely approach the orthography of Molina’s dictionary. They are, Yohualychan, Tepuztecatl, Tizahua, Huehuetecatl, and Hueycamecateca.

Notes to ChapterVI. This Xicalanco is not to be confused with the Mexican colonial town of the same name near the Laguna de Términos,Tabasco. A branch of the Nahuan Mexican people called Xicalancas from the name of their first ruler, Xicalancatl, settled on the coast of Vera Cruz in the region between the present city of Vera Cruz and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Torquemada relates that the messengers, on leaving the ship of Cortés, “paddled rapidly away, and came to a little island called Xicalanco, where they ate, and rested a little, and they left there and came to a town on the seashore called Tecpantlayacac; from there they went to Cuetlaxtla, which is some leagues in the interior, where they spent the night; the lords and chief of the town begged them to remain there that day and rest, but they replied that the need for speed for their journey was great.”—Op. cit., lib.IV, cap.XIV, p. 384.

[21]Peter Martyr, op. cit., vol.II, pp. 196-197.

[22]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico. The inventories of the loot obtained by Cortés are given in English translation on pp. 56-102.

[23]This is quoted from the study of Dr. J. Cheston Morris on the “Physical and Technographical Characteristics” of the leaves, in the article, “The Tribute Roll of Montezuma,” edited by Dr. Daniel G. Brinton, Henry Phillips, Jr., and Dr. J. Cheston Morris, published inTransactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol.XVII,N. S., pt.II, art.IV, p. 61, Philadelphia, 1892.

[24]The very important Crónica Mexicana, written by Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc, was published by José M. Vigil in hisBiblioteca Mexicana, Colección Metódica de Obras y Documentos Relativos a la Historia, Geografía, Literatura, Estadística y Legislación de México, 1881. The quotation is from cap.LXXVI, pp. 543-544.

[25]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXXXIX, p. 600.

[26]Dr. George F. Kunz has kindly placed in our hands his publications relating to precious stones. In this connection consult his Gems and Precious Stones, New York, 1892; his important paper, New Observations on the Occurrences of Precious Stones of Archæological Interest in America (extrait desMémoires et Déliberations du XVᵉ Congrès des Américanistes tenue à Québec du 10 au 15 Septembre 1906, Quebec, 1907); and Gems and Precious Stones of Mexico, Mexico, 1907.

[27]The work of Rafael Aguilar y Santillan is entitled Bibliografía Geológica y Minera de la República Mexicana completada hasta el año de 1904,Boletín del Instituto Geológico de México, núm. 17, Mexico, 1908.

[28]The interesting study of Luigi Pigorini describing the Mexican mosaics in Rome is entitled Gli Antichi Oggetti Messicani Incrostati di Mosaico esistenti nel Museo Preistorico ed Etnografico di Roma,Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Rome, Anno CCLXXXII, 1884-85, 3ª serie, vol.XII, pp. 1-9, I pl. with 5 colored illustrations.

[29]The important study by Joseph E. Pogue, The Turquois. A Study of its History, Mineralogy, Geology, Ethnology, Archæology, Mythology, Folklore,and Technology, appears as the third memoir of Vol.XII,Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 1915.

[30]Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España que en Doce Libros y Dos Volúmenes Escribió el R. P. Fr. Bernardino de Sahagun, published by Carlos María de Bustamante, 4 vols., Mexico, 1829. Also published by Lord Kingsborough. The quotations are from the Bustamante edition, tomoIII, lib.II, cap.VII, p. 284, and cap.VIII, pp. 296-297.

[31]On this subject consult the paper by Dr. A. B. Meyer, Die Nephritfrage, ein ethnologisches Problem, Berlin, 1883, of which an abstract (“The Nephrite Question”) was published inAmerican Anthropologist,O. S., vol.I, no. 3, Washington, July, 1888.

[32]Saville, A Votive Adze of Jadeite from Mexico,Monumental Records, New York, May, 1900.

[33]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 10, cap.XXIX, p. 107.

[34]Ibid., cap. vii, p. 19.

[35]The pictorial part of the section of the great work of Sahagun in Florence was reproduced in facsimile by the late Mexican scholar, Sr. D. Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, for the Mexican government. Only recently has the work been received in Mexico, and we are under the greatest obligations to Sr. D. Luis Castillo Ledon, Director of the Museo Nacional, Mexico, for a copy which we have recently received, and which has been of such great assistance in the preparation of this study of Mexican mosaics. It is an Atlas, denominated Vol.V, of 158 estampas (plates). The plates relating to arts and crafts are to illustrate LibroIX, and include pl. lv to lxxvi.

[36]We refer the student to the edition of Lord Kingsborough, vol.I.

[37]The Mappe Tlotzin once formed a part of the Boturini collection; it was afterward acquired by Aubin, later by Goupil, and is now in the National Library in Paris. It has been published in colors (pl. i-iii) in Mémoires sur la Peinture Didactique et l’Écriture Figurative des Anciens Méxicains, par J. M. A. Aubin, with an introduction by E. T. Hamy, Paris, 1885. The pictures referred to are on pl. ii.

[38]Eduard Seler, L’Orfèverie des Anciens Mexicains et leur Art de Travailler la Pierre et de Faire des Ornements en Plumes,Compte rendu de la VIIIᵉᵐᵉ Session du Congrès International des Américanistes, Paris, pp. 401-452. The chapter on the art of the lapidaries is on pp. 418-425. The article, with slight changes in the French translation of the Nahuatl text, and some revision, is included in Seler’s Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, Zweiter Band, pp. 620-663, Berlin, 1904. The section on the lapidaries’ art is on pp. 635-640.

[39]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoII, lib. 9, cap.XVII, pp. 389-391.

[40]The goddess is figured in the numerous examples of the tonalamatl in the various codices, of which facsimiles are to be found in all important libraries.

[41]The Tonalamatl of the Aubin Collection. An Old Mexican Picture Manuscript in the Paris National Library. Published at the Expense of his Excellency the Duke of Loubat. With Introduction and Explanatory Text by Dr. Eduard Seler. Berlin and London, 1900-1901, p. 115.

[42]The Codex Borbonicus is in the National Library, Paris. It was published in exact facsimile, with an introduction by Dr. E. T. Hamy, Paris, 1899. The scene referred to is on p. 18 of the Paris reproduction.

[43]The important Codex Telleriano Remensis was published in facsimile, with an introduction by E. T. Hamy, by the Duke of Loubat, Paris, 1899. The illustration referred to is on p. 22 verso, of the plates.

[44]Seler, op. cit. (Note 41), p. 118.

[45]Kingsborough, vol.VI, p. 129.

[46]Sahagun, see reproduction of Troncoso, estampa x, fig. 34.

[47]Codex Borbonicus, p. 18.

[48]Tonalamatl Aubin, op. cit., pl. 18.

[49]Seler, op. cit., pp. 114-118.

[50]This quotation is from the Libro de Oro y Tesoro Indico, a precious manuscript in the library of the late Joaquín García Icazbalceta. Icazbalceta writes as follows about the author: “We do not know who was Fr. Andrés de Alcobiz, who in the year 1543 collected in Spain these laws of the Mexicans. It is published inNueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoIII, p. 313, Mexico, 1891.

[51]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, p. 119.

[52]Anonymous Conqueror, translated by Marshall H. Saville, publication of the Cortes Society, no. I, pp. 65-67, New York, 1917.

[53]Obras Históricas de Don Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl, tomoI, Historia Chichimeca, cap.XXXVI, p. 180, published in Mexico in 1892 under the editorship of Dr. Alfredo Chavero.

[54]We refer here to the labors of Mexican archeologists begun by Leopoldo Batres, and continued by Dr. Manuel Gamio. An elaborate work, edited by Gamio, treating of the exploration of this region, has just been printed in Mexico.

[55]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 10, cap.XXIX, p. 107.

[56]Ibid., tomoI, lib. 3, cap.XII, p. 255.

[57]Saville, The Cruciform Structures of Mitla and Vicinity,Putnam Anniversary Volume, p. 187, New York, 1909.

[58]Relación de Andrés de Tapia, published for the first time by Icazbalceta inColección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoII, pp. 582-583, Mexico, 1866.

[59]The Relación de Texcoco was written by Juan Bautista Pomar, a mestizo, and a grandson of the Texcocan king Nezahualpitzintli on his mother’s side. It was composed for Philip II, and belongs to the class of Relations like those of Yucatan, etc. It was first published by Icazbalceta in hisNueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomoII. The quotation is from p. 10.

[60]Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.II, bookVI, chap. xcii, p. 74.

[61]Ibid., chap.CIV, p. 138.

[62]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXXXVI, p. 592.

[63]Ibid., cap.LXXXVII, p. 593.

[64]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoI, lib.I, cap.XIII, p. 18.

[65]Pomar, op. cit., pp. 8-9.

[66]Seler, Altmexikanische Studien, Ein Kapitel aus dem Geschichtswerk des P. Sahagun.Sonderabzug der Veröffentlichungen aus dem Königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde,I, 4, p. 123, Berlin, 1890.

[67]Anonymous Conqueror, op. cit., p. 22.

[68]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoIII, lib. 8, cap.IX, p. 289.

[69]Antonio Peñafiel, Indumentaria Antigua Vestidos Guerreros y Civiles de los Mexicanos, pl. 149, Mexico, 1903.

[70]The Codex Coxcatzin has been published in part by Eugène Boban inDocuments pour Servir à l’Histoire du Méxique, Atlas, pl. 41-45, Paris, 1891.

[71]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.LXI, p. 469; cap.LXIX, pp. 506-507.

[72]Diego Duran, Historia de las Indias de Nueva-España y Islas de Tierra Firme, tomoI, cap.LI, p. 407, Mexico, 1867.

[73]Tezozomoc, op. cit., cap.CI, p. 659.

[74]Anonymous Conqueror, op. cit., p. 22.

[75]Thomas Unett Brocklehurst, Mexico To-day, pl.XXXIV, London, 1883.

[76]See Saville, Exploration of Zapotecan Tombs in Southern Mexico,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol.I, pp. 350-362, April, 1899; and Funeral Urns from Oaxaca,American Museum Journal, vol.IV, pp. 49-69, New York, 1904.

[77]Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, pp. 151-163, pl. i, viii.

[78]Manuel Gamio, Los Monumentos Arqueológicos de las Inmediaciones de Chalchihuites, Zacatecas, sobretiro del tomoIIde losAnales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnología, pp. 467-492, 5 plans, 8 pl.,Mexico, 1910. This is the first piece of work by Gamio, and presents the results of the first important archeological exploration undertaken in this part of Mexico.

[79]We have just received the first number (Jan.-Feb., 1922) of tomoI, época 4ª, of theAnales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografíaof Mexico, which have long been interrupted. In it is announced the forthcoming appearance of a paper relating to this subject, “Máscara con Mosaicos de Turquesas.—Dictámenes Periciales.” It is to be hoped that the authenticity of this object will be cleared of all suspicion by the proposed study.

[80]On this subject consult Saville, Precolumbian Decoration of the Teeth in Ecuador, etc.,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 15, 1913; reprinted asContributions from the Heye Museum, vol.I, no. 2, 1913.

[81]David Casares, A Notice of Yucatan with Some Remarks on its Water Supply,Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, pp. 207-230, Oct., 1905.

[82]Diego de Landa, Historia de las Cosas de Yucatan, edition of Juan de Dios de la Rada y Delgado, p. 84, Madrid, 1881.

[83]Casares, op. cit., p. 226.

[84]William H. Holmes, Archeological Studies among the Ancient Cities of Mexico,Anthropological Series, Field Columbian Museum, vol.I, no. 1, Chicago, 1895. Part I, Monuments of Yucatan, Section on Chichen Itza, p. 137.

[85]Seler, Codex Vaticanus No. 3773. Elucidation published at the expense of the Duke of Loubat, Berlin and London, 1902-1903. In this study Seler treats at length of the God Xipe Totec.

[86]Sahagun, op. cit., tomoI, lib. I, cap.XVIII, p. 28.

[87]The two mosaic masks on the sculptured wall at Chichen Itza are taken from the drawings on pl. 46 and 47 of the great work of Alfred P. Maudslay published as part ofBiologia Centrali-Americana: or Contributions to the Knowledge of the Fauna and Flora of Mexico and Central America, edited by F. Ducane Godman and Osbert Salvin. Archæology, vol.III(Plates). London, 1895-1902. The crowns are from pl. 38, 49-59. The crown with the feathers is from the doorway column of Temple A, of the Ball Court.

[88]The first extended study of Mexican turquois mosaics, based especially on some of the specimens now in the British Museum, was made by E. T. Stevens and published in his Flint Chips, pp. 324-328, London, 1870. Read’s paper did not appear until 1895.

[89]See Maudslay’s edition of Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol.I, app., pp. 299-302. Maudslay gives photographs of the two wooden masks in the British Museum, which he calls “Masks of Quetzalcoatl,” and of the skull mask which he denominates “Mask of Tezcatlipoca.”

[90]See List of Works following.

[91]See translation in Saville, Goldsmith’s Art in Ancient Mexico, pp. 126-127.

[92]See List of Works following.

[93]See List of Works following. Our illustration is a photograph of the colored lithographic plate of Uhle.

[94]Zelia Nuttall, On Ancient Mexican Shields,Separat-Abdruck aus Internationales Archiv für Ethnographie, Bd.V, 21 pp., Leiden, 1892.

[95]Read, in his study, gives only a drawing of this shield. Our illustration, a direct photograph, does not show the designs so clearly as the drawing.

[96]Our illustration is a copy of the photograph published by Heger. See List of Works following.

[97]Seler, Codex Fejérváry, An Old Mexican Picture Manuscript in the Liverpool Free Public Museum, published at the Expense of His Excellency the Duke of Loubat, p. 210, Berlin and London, 1901-1902.

[98]The Codex Nuttall or Zouche was published by the Peabody Museum, Cambridge, in 1892. The original is now in the British Museum.

[99]On this subject consult the elucidations of Mexican codices by Seler, published at the expense of the Duke of Loubat. Also, Mexican and Central American Antiquities, Calendar Systems, and History, being translations from the German of papers by Seler, Förstemann, and others, published asBulletin 28, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, 1904. The studies of C. P. Bowditch will be found in his Numeration, Calendar Systems and Astronomical Knowledge of the Mayas, Cambridge, Mass., 1910.

[100]Hermann Beyer, El llamado “Calendario Azteca,” Mexico, 1921, an important study of interpretation of the calendar stone of the Aztecs.

[101]This specimen was first illustrated by Lehmann in his paper, Die altmexikanischen Mosaiken des Ethnographischen Museums in Kopenhagen,Globus, 1907. Our illustration is a drawing from the photograph reproduced in this study.

[102]See Note 101.

[103]See Heger, 1892, in List of Works.

[104]Our drawing is from the photograph published by Lehmann in his paper in theProceedings of the Fifteenth International Congress of Americanists, Quebec, 1907.

[105]Our drawing of this specimen is made from the illustration published by Oppel. See List of Works, 1896.

[106]Illustrations of this piece have just been published for the first time by Lehmann in his Altmexikanische Kunstgeschichte: Ein Entwurf in Umrissen, Berlin, 1922(?).

[107]See Seler’s remarks to Heger’s paper, List of Works, 1890.

[108]Consult Seler, Altmexikanische Knochenrasseln,Gesammelte Abhandlungen, Zweiter Band, pp. 672-694, Berlin, 1904; also Lumholtz, Unknown Mexico, vol. ii, pp. 428-430, New York, 1902.

[109]As Colini’s paper is not easily consulted, we append his description of these three Mexican wooden objects:“L’idolo, a guisa di figura umana, è alto m.o. 45 [17¾ inches high]. La testa è molto grande, senza alcuna proporzione con le altre parti del corpo ed è sormontana da un ornamento. La faccia conserva ancora traccie del rosso con cui era colorita, il naso è piccolo ma largo e schiacciato, gli occhi sono incavature ovali ed hanno sotto tre incisioni circolari, come se si fossero volute rappresentare le occhiaje di persona vecchia o malata. Anche vicino agli angoli della bocca, poco sopra, sono incise due linee oblique, riempite di bianco, quasi a guisa di rughe. Tiene le braccia sollevate con le mani sull’ornamento della testa, ma le altre parti del corpo non sono affatto distinte. Posa sopra una base decorata con incisioni colorite in bianco, di cui manca però una parte, cosicché non è possibile comprendere pienamente la sua forma primitiva, la quale sembra che fosse rettangolare. In ogni modo era troppo sottile per sostenere l’idolo, e perciò dobbiamo credere che facesse parte di un apparecchio più complicato.“Delle maschere l’una (V.Tav. in fine, fig. 2) nel tipo e nell’espressione somiglia a quella incrosta di mosaico, descritta da Ulisse Aldrovandi la quale oggi si conserva nel Museo Etnografico Nazionale di Roma [6⅞ inches high]. Il naso è lungo, sottile ed arcuato; ma non essendo incavato nell’interno, la maschera non potrebbe adattarsi faccia. Gli occhi consistono in rozze aperture ovali, sotto le quali, a breve distanza, sono incisi due profondi solchi, a guisa di semicerchi, come nell’idolo. Intorno la fronte, sopra la radice del naso, corre una larga fascia in rilievo. Fra le labbra inferiore allungate, esce la lingua, che si ripiega sul mento: della parte inferiore non è possibile formarsi un concetto perchè è stata tagliata. Conserva qua e là le traccie della tinta rossa, ma sono meno evidenti che nell’idoli. Sulla fascia della fronte, nella lingua e sul naso possono ancora notarsi delle linee incise, riempite di materia bianca.“L’altra maschera (tav., fig. I) è lavorata con maggiore cura [7⅛ inches high]: ha la faccia simmetrica nelle varie parti e proporzionata. Le labbra sono piccole, ma, quello inferiore essendo rotto, non è possibile indovinarne la forma. Ha il naso arcuato, e largo alla base, ed è internamente incavato in modo che la maschera potrebbe adattarsi alla faccia, e siccome la bocca, le narici e gli occhi sono forati, cosi il portatore potrebbe benissimo vedere, respirare e parlare. Nella parte inferiore delle occhiaje, agli angoli, si notano due piccole incavature ad arco, la cui forma farebbe supporre che vi fossero adattati pezzi di madreperla a guisa di occhi, come in quelle del Museo Christy. In generale i lineamente mostrano quella espressione placida e contemplativa, che, secondo il Tylor, e caratteristica dei lavori aztechi e degli egiziani, tanto se si riguardano le massiccie sculture in pietra, quanto le piccole teste di terracotta. Ambedue queste maschere, nella parte superiore corrispondente alla fronte, hanno fori nei quali forses’immettevano cordoncini per sospenderle: la prima ne ha due grandi agli angoli, l’altra quattro più piccoli intorno.” (See note under List of Works, 1885.)

[109]As Colini’s paper is not easily consulted, we append his description of these three Mexican wooden objects:

“L’idolo, a guisa di figura umana, è alto m.o. 45 [17¾ inches high]. La testa è molto grande, senza alcuna proporzione con le altre parti del corpo ed è sormontana da un ornamento. La faccia conserva ancora traccie del rosso con cui era colorita, il naso è piccolo ma largo e schiacciato, gli occhi sono incavature ovali ed hanno sotto tre incisioni circolari, come se si fossero volute rappresentare le occhiaje di persona vecchia o malata. Anche vicino agli angoli della bocca, poco sopra, sono incise due linee oblique, riempite di bianco, quasi a guisa di rughe. Tiene le braccia sollevate con le mani sull’ornamento della testa, ma le altre parti del corpo non sono affatto distinte. Posa sopra una base decorata con incisioni colorite in bianco, di cui manca però una parte, cosicché non è possibile comprendere pienamente la sua forma primitiva, la quale sembra che fosse rettangolare. In ogni modo era troppo sottile per sostenere l’idolo, e perciò dobbiamo credere che facesse parte di un apparecchio più complicato.

“Delle maschere l’una (V.Tav. in fine, fig. 2) nel tipo e nell’espressione somiglia a quella incrosta di mosaico, descritta da Ulisse Aldrovandi la quale oggi si conserva nel Museo Etnografico Nazionale di Roma [6⅞ inches high]. Il naso è lungo, sottile ed arcuato; ma non essendo incavato nell’interno, la maschera non potrebbe adattarsi faccia. Gli occhi consistono in rozze aperture ovali, sotto le quali, a breve distanza, sono incisi due profondi solchi, a guisa di semicerchi, come nell’idolo. Intorno la fronte, sopra la radice del naso, corre una larga fascia in rilievo. Fra le labbra inferiore allungate, esce la lingua, che si ripiega sul mento: della parte inferiore non è possibile formarsi un concetto perchè è stata tagliata. Conserva qua e là le traccie della tinta rossa, ma sono meno evidenti che nell’idoli. Sulla fascia della fronte, nella lingua e sul naso possono ancora notarsi delle linee incise, riempite di materia bianca.

“L’altra maschera (tav., fig. I) è lavorata con maggiore cura [7⅛ inches high]: ha la faccia simmetrica nelle varie parti e proporzionata. Le labbra sono piccole, ma, quello inferiore essendo rotto, non è possibile indovinarne la forma. Ha il naso arcuato, e largo alla base, ed è internamente incavato in modo che la maschera potrebbe adattarsi alla faccia, e siccome la bocca, le narici e gli occhi sono forati, cosi il portatore potrebbe benissimo vedere, respirare e parlare. Nella parte inferiore delle occhiaje, agli angoli, si notano due piccole incavature ad arco, la cui forma farebbe supporre che vi fossero adattati pezzi di madreperla a guisa di occhi, come in quelle del Museo Christy. In generale i lineamente mostrano quella espressione placida e contemplativa, che, secondo il Tylor, e caratteristica dei lavori aztechi e degli egiziani, tanto se si riguardano le massiccie sculture in pietra, quanto le piccole teste di terracotta. Ambedue queste maschere, nella parte superiore corrispondente alla fronte, hanno fori nei quali forses’immettevano cordoncini per sospenderle: la prima ne ha due grandi agli angoli, l’altra quattro più piccoli intorno.” (See note under List of Works, 1885.)

[110]D. I. Bushnell, Jr., Two Ancient Mexican Atlatls,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 7, no. 2, 1905; also North American Ethnographical Material in Italian Collections,ibid., vol. 8, 1906.

[111]See Note 94.

[112]Fr. Toribio Motolinia, Historia de los Indios de Nueva España, Tratado Tercero, cap.XX, pp. 247-249, edition published by Icazbalceta,Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México, tomo 1, Mexico, 1858.

[113]Consult Frederick Starr, The Little Pottery Objects of Lake Chapala, Mexico,Bulletin II, Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1897.

[114]An important summary of these discoveries has recently been published by Gamio; see Las Excavaciones del Pedregal de San Angel y la Cultura Arcaica del Valle de Mexico,American Anthropologist,N. S., vol. 22, no. 2, 1920. Also the paper of Hermann Beyer, Sobre Antigüedades del Pedregal de San Angel,Memorias de la Sociedad Científica “Antonio Alzate” de México, tomo 37, núm. 8, Oct., 1917; and Ramon Mena, El Hombre de “El Pedregal” de San Angel,Escuela Naciona, Preparatoria Curso de 1918.

Back to Index Next