STUDIES IN ANCIENT AMERICAN AND EUROPEAN ART The Collected Essays of George Kubler edited by Thomas F. Reese YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS and LondonOLAS, Avauis, FECHA PROCED, BIBLIOTECA JUSTINO FERNANDEZ INSTITUT DE INVESTIGACIONES sraricas U.N. A. M. PRoGEO. FECHA \904 (hv 00s Copyright © 1985 by Yale University. All rights reserved. ‘This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that copying permitted by Sections 107 and 108 of the U.S. Copyright Law and except by reviewers for the public press), without written permission from the pub- lisher, Designed by Nancy Ovedoviez and set in Garamond No. 3 type by The Composing Room of Mich., Inc. Printed in the United States of America by Murray Printing Company, Westford, Massachusetts. 10119 8 ae 7iad Od Merah 3 EZ ET Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Kubler, George, 1912— ‘Studies in ancient American and European art. (Yale publications in the history of art ; 30) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Art—America, 2. Indians—Are. 3. Art, European, I. Reese, Thomas Ford. I. Title. Ill. Series. N6S0L.K83 1984 70084-13216 ISBN 0-300-02662-5 (alk. paper) The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Commitee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources,Il. 17 Renascence and Disjunction in the Art of Mesoamerican Antiquity I ‘Attention has seldom been drawn to the notion that the literary habits of Clio resemble the weav- ing of Penelope. Historians often write of the web of happening, the tapestry of history, as though it were a creation of patient persistence only. The other face of happening, however, which is all dis- ruption and broken threads, gets little attention. It is much more difficult to describe change than to report continuity. This may be why historians pre- fer to describe change as a continuity disturbed, rather than as change and disruption per se. For this, reason perhaps, the writing of history has often been lacking in sharply contrasted opposites. Let us take, for example, the Renaissance. We speak of “The Renaissance” with ease and famil- iarity as though it were an operational reality. But one of the tests of reality is the presence of an opposite: night and day, wet and dry, hot and cold. The idea of the Renaissance suggests a field of forces and, though it is seldom noted by historians, the presence of an opposite pole. How are we to apprehend these counterforces in history? We can begin by laying out a scale of the magni- tude of periods within the historical field. The Re- naissance, as everybody understands it, is the largest species in the museum of history. In magni- tude it is like brontosaurus—by far the greatest example of its kind—but structurally it is similar to much smaller and more recent species. ‘The next smaller historical instance has been studied mainly by medievalists. Less ample than Renaissance, the name it usually bears is renas- cence. Erwin Panofsky presented those many me- dieval episodes in which a renascence of some part of classical antiquity was attempted, in a volume of 1960 entitled Renaissance and Renascences.' The idea of renascence as a fragmentary restoration of some portion of classical antiquity to actual use includes the special case of the Carolingian reno- vatio, Panofsky and his colleague Richard Kraue- heimer finally enumerated so many renascences, from the Early Christian centuries through to the quattrocento, that these formed an almost contin- uous tissue of classical substance. From their work there appeared a new definition of tradition. For them, tradition could be characterized as a close- meshed sequence of efforts to restore portions of classical antiquity to positions of authority in me- dieval culture. In this light, renascence could be seen as a phenomenon of the persistence of tradi- tion. We can now observe as well the persistence of tradition throughout the entire scale of magni- tudes of historical periods. Our museum of history, now a museum of con- tinuities, contains even smaller species of the same genus as Renaissance and renascence. The history of art abounds in examples of closely related per- sistences of tradition called “revivals of taste.” When many different revivals coexist, as in the nineteenth century, their intermingling is called an “eclectic style.” Revival differs from renas- cence, however, as fashion differs from historic style. Greek or Gothic or Egyptian revivals are episodes of taste. As such, they transform the scene, Doric columns, Theban pylons, and Flam- boyant vaulting reappear side by side. They func- tion more as quotations from the past than as, whole texts. The Renaissance was an attempt to 351352 Ancient America live from the whole book of antiquity; renascences make use of fragments; and revivals are selective, obeying the rule of taste in ransacking the whole treasury of history and archaeology. OF even briefer duration than revivals are the revolutions and cycles of fashion in clothing. Two different rhythms appear in fashion: the slower one skips generations and the faster one turns back upon its track several times in each genera- tion. The slower rhythm reasserts the continuity with the grandparents’ generation. The faster cy- cle is fashion itself, as charted by Richardson and Kroeber,” and is manifested in the regular rise and fall of skirt length, degree of flare, waist height, and depth of décolletage. On the slower cycle of fashion, the present often returns to the modes of about six decades, or two generations carlier, thereby skipping the parents’ style to renew an interest in the style of the grandparents. These terms and concepts all pertain to con- tinuity and the reassertion of tradition, but there are few correspondences on the other side of the ledger, where discontinuity and rupture might be recorded. In an experimental accounting of such polar terms we might have, in descending order of magnitude: Types of Continuity Means of Discontinuity Renaissance disjunction renascence disjunction renovatio disjunction revival discard fashion discard “Discard” needs little comment. But “disjunc- tion” is a term brought into the history of art by Panofsky in 1944,3 following the lead of Adolf Goldschmidt and Paul Frankl.4 Goldschmidt had noted in 1937 the phenomenon of the separation of classical form from classical meaning in medi- eval art. Panofsky’s “principle of disjunction” comes from his long examination of the modes of survival of classical antiquity during the Middle Ages. His analysis was iconographic, and it was only toward the end of his lifelong study chat Pan- ofsky adopted the idea of disjunction to explain the medieval reuse of classical forms and mean- ings. In the process of his investigation he came to believe that a principle of disjunction which gov- cerned these survivals existed in consistent and rec- ognizable form. ‘The axioms fundamental to this method, and first stated in 1939 by Focillon,> are, first, that visible form often repeated may acquire different meanings with the passage of time and, second, that an enduring meaning may be conveyed by different visual forms. Panofsky extended this perception to the systematic study of medieval Christian iconography in 1944 with the formula- tionas follows, “wherever a [medieval] sculptor or painter borrows a figure or a group from classical poetry, mythology or history, he almost invariably presents it in a non-classical, viz., contemporary form.”6 In 1960 Panofsky called this the “princi- ple of disjunction,”’ and he amplified it to cover not only the reclothing of classical meanings in medieval forms, but also the converse bestowal of medieval meanings on classical forms. In these terms Panofsky presented the entire fabric of clas- sical art as disrupted during the Middle Ages, with classical forms torn from their meanings and re- organized as medieval art on the pattern of classi- cal meanings expressed in medieval form and clas- sical forms yielding medieval meanings. Panofsky’s works treat only of symbolic ex- pressions in classical and medieval European liter- ature and art. When wider ranges of useful objects and ordinary communications are considered, the question arises whether the disjunctive process of combining old forms and meanings with new meanings and forms does not vary alonga gradient between choice and necessity. Indeed, useful ob- jects and everyday expressions usually display a greater conjunction of form and meaning through time than do the more fragile expressions of religious symbolic systems. For instance, stability of form in utilitarian pottery is evident to all. Cooking ware changes less rapidly than carved and painted pottery made for ceremonial use. The most useful symbols also endure with little change. For instance, the letters of the alphabet, which are nonritualistic symbols, continue essen- tially unchanged for long periods because they are in constant, universal use. Although the grand dis- junctions described by Panofsky all concern re- ligious beliefs and symbols rather than the ico-Renascence and Disjunction in Mesoamerican Art 353 nography of everyday life, the principle can be carried over to ancient and medieval technologies, which also underwent change in form and mean- ing, if less rapidly than did the corresponding sys- tems of religious iconography. Were we to read the succession of classical and medieval civiliza- tions from cooking ware alone, the many dif- ferences between them would vanish into the con- tinuity of ceramic technology. ‘The disruption between religious forms and their meanings yields an objective measure of the extent t0 which antiquity was replaced by the Christian and Islamic Middle Ages. This disjunc- tion, which isa mode of renovation, may be said, in an even wider frame of reference, to happen whenever a civilization refashions its inheritance by discovering new meanings in the forms of the preceeding civilization and by clothing in new forms those old meanings which remain accept- able, The successors thereby unconsciously obey a rule of least effort: without realizing it they salvage large parts of their inherited tradition and so avoid having to discard and then reinvent everything. The cumulative character of the succession of cultures in a given region can occur only with the selective discarding which is implicic in disjunc- tion, Panofsky’s investigations of medieval and Renaissance materials demonstrated that the car- ry-over of a cultural tradition can be quantified by the extent of the disjunction between its forms and meanings. The quantification may be coarse, but it is undeniably a measure of old and new matter. When observing disjunction, not only do we pace out the boundary between eras in occidental history, but we also face the difficult notion of discontinuity in a temporal fabric whose weave we know to be unbroken. Continuous form does not predicate continuous meaning, nor does con- tinuity of form or of meaning necessarily imply continuity of culture. On the contrary, prolonged continuities of either form or meaning, on the order of a thousand years, may mask a cultural discontinuity deeper than that between classical antiquity and the Middle Ages. This is a particu- larly important caveat in considering civilizations for which literary sources are unavailable, as, for example, in the study of the older stages of the native civilizations of ancient America. The princi- ple of disjunction, once accepted, brings into question every ethnological analogy by insisting upon discontinuity rather than continuity wherev- er long durations are under discussion, but it also provides a serviceable explanation for many com- plex mechanisms of cultural change. The relation between renascence and disjune- tion is of particular interest in considering the Mesoamerican archaeological record. Let us con- sider in detail, then, both the architectural profiles of Teotihuacdn and their continuation as renascent forms in later periods, and also, through the dis- junction of form and meaning, the changing sig- nificance of the enduring image of the jaguar in Mesoamerican iconography. II The iconography of architecture, both here and in Europe, has been under intense study for several decades. The methods of that study can also yield useful results when they are applied to the archi- tecture of ancient Mesoamerica. Itis now apparent that no building is without some conventional meaning which is conveyed by its spatial order as well as by its ornamental themes. It is also appar- ent that such meanings can be recovered from the spatial designs of peoples who left no written re- cords when their societies vanished long ago. ‘At Teotihuacén (fig. III-46) the ancient archi- tecture built from 300 B.c. to about A.D. 700 in- cludes many forms which centuries later reappear at distant places in Guatemala and Yucatén, signi- fying at least some continuity of meaning both in time and in space. The most distinctive and dura- ble physiognomic trait of the architecture at Teoti- huacdn, known as the “terrace-profile,” was used to articulate huge pyramidal platforms which served as bases for shrines (fig. III-193). Itis often called by its Spanish name, even in English writing, as the “talud-and-tablero profile.” Talud means “talus” in English, or, here, the receding slope at the base of the pyramid. The fablero, which means “apron” in English, is a panel rising vertically above the slanting talus. This panel, or tablero, is the facing on a horizontal ledge of slate which is cantilevered out over the top of the sloping talus.354 Ancient America Seen frontally, then, the first level of construction in the pyramid is the talus, which slopes away from the viewer, and the second level is the tablero which overhangs the talus and rises vertically above it (fig. III-194). There are large and small terraces, depending on the size of the platform and its context in space, but both the small and the large terraces follow the same format. The projecting tablero protects the talus from weathering, and the design as a whole assures a certain degree of stability by its cantilevered form. Stonework projects from the face of the tablero around its perimeter to form a frame for the re- cessed panel (fig. III-119). This frame rested on stone ledges destined sooner or later to collapse. Early stone frames such as the Quetzaleéatl plat- form in the Citadel are wider, deeper, and thicker than late frames and are made of massive masonry blocks. In contrast, the tableros of the later cen- turies had thin, shallow frames. The visual effect of this form of construction is remarkable. The massive, framed tablero over- hanging relatively small talus casts a deep shadow when the sun is high in the sky. This shadow causes the massive frame of the tablero to seem to levitate off a supporting cushion of darkness. The effect is especially striking at midday when seen from the small courtyard dwellings of the last periods. ‘The main difference beeween public, or re- ligious, and private, or secular, constructions of ancient Mesoamerican architecture was probably one of size. Large platforms were for public use, small ones for dwellings or household shrines. Within the household, a difference in proportion echoed the difference between the divinity and the people of the compound. The shrine rose upon its high slanting base—the entire pyramidal platform—while the surrounding megaron-like chambers occupied lower pedestals over shad- owed taluses. Tablero and talus are omnipresent at Teotihua- cén. As the privileged form, chosen to distinguish the facades of temples and their platforms, it dom- inates all parts of the vast city. No other exterior profile competes. The tablero and its base, like the pediment in ‘Mediterranean antiquity, may have connoted “sa- cred architecture.” The domain of cult and ritual would thus be marked off from secular building by the notched and cantilevered profile of the plat- form. The tablero may or may not bear sculptural indications of the specific cult, but itis likely that its main purpose was to set sacred edifices apart from dwellings and other secular buildings. If this ‘guess is correct, then the tablero and talus are sig- nificant forms in themselves, without additional information which might have been supplied by written record but which, if it had been offered, might be merely corroborative. In this case, we may suppose that the architectural profile is in and of itself a major indicator of meaning, specifying both the function of the building and the ethnic identity of its builders. The mention of ethnic identity brings us co ask, how are the terrace profiles at Teotihuacin related to those of the rest of ancient Mesoamerica? The other varieties of profiles assembled by Marquina in 19518 differ significantly from those of Teoti- huacén (fig. II1-195a). Five more types are easily recognizable during the two-thousand-year era from Late Formative until the sixteenth century (fig. 11-195). They are: b. the dentated profile of Monte Albin . the slanted and undercut profile of the southern Maya lowlands d. the so-called binder profile of the north- ern Maya provinces e and f. the outsloping profile of Tajin and Xo- chicalco g. the double-pitched profile of Aztec ar- chitecture Each profile marks out an architectural sphere of influence, and each has a distinct duration. Cer- tain profiles—especially the tablero and talus of Teotihuacan or the dentation of Monte Alban— reappear far away from their origins, both as colo- nial forms, as at Kaminaljuyd, and as revival or renascent forms, as at Tula and Chichén Itz4. Each probably has a distinct meaning in its characteriza- tion of different architectural traditions, different cult practices, and different ethnic identities ‘The terrace moldings at Monte Alban are often treated as though they were merely another vari-Renascence and Disjunction in Mesoamerican Art 355, ety of the tablero and talus profile, but their design and construction differ radically from those of Te- otihuacén, Here, the talus is not at the base of the platform, but rests upon a rectangular plinth (figs. IIL-195b and III-196). Above the talus hang sever- al short bracketlike moldings which repeat in two or more parallel receding planes. Above these moldings there may be a short outsloping cornice or another plinth. The effect in the bracketlike moldings is of planes and outlines alternating in highlight and deep shadow, giving to the base and the roofline the character of an intermittent or rhythmical system. These separate planes of relief are like a fringed fillet, or headband. The molding above the talus is not a tablero: it has no frame, and itencloses no panel. In large compositions its pro- files are slanting. No supporting ledges cantilever the projecting portions, which are generally cor- belled out only enough to cast the desired shad- ‘ows. The dentated profile of Monte Alban or Mitla was repeated with modifications many cen- turies later at Chichén Itz4 in the profiles of the Toltec-Maya Chacmool Temple as well as at the Castillo, ‘The southern Maya lowlands repertory of pro- files is more difficult to define and interpret. A recognizable group from Uaxactin and Tikal through to the end of the Initial Series period in the ninth century arises from a coherent system of design. In this group the exterior profile of the vaulted building echoes the profile of the platform terrace on which itis built (fig. 111-197). This pro- file, shared by platform and building alike, can be called “a slanted and undercut apron molding.” An architect would call it a chamfered bevel. The chamfer, or recessed molding, acts as a talus, and the strong shadow it casts separates the terraces, while the bevel, which catches the light, empha- sizes the weight of the terrace whose shape it de- fines. The chamfer sometimes occurs in the bevel itself, Northern Maya builders separated the vaulted building from its platform by endowing it with a profile more characteristic of buildings than of platforms (fig. III-198). This profile resembles the binder with which a thatched roof is gathered or cinched together at the eaves and at the peak. It is an imitation in stone of the construction with wat- tle and slender saplings used in Mayan houses. This “binder molding,” as it is called, appears in Chenes, Puuc, and East Coast buildings. At the Caracol in Chichén Itza the binder molding at im- post level has five members, expressive of the structural requirements of this annulated vault system. The outsloping profiles used at Tajin (fig. I1I-195e) and Xochicalco (fig. II1-195f) may be regarded as a regional variety of the binder mold- ing, rising upon a talus and sloping out above the construction. Here the binder is like a paneled strip, containing niches or geometric frets. Its early history is unclear; itis possible that the form may reflect contact with Maya peoples. ‘The last of the Mesoamerican terrace molding appears in Post-Classic Aztec architecture after 1300. Aztec influence throughout ancient Meso- america was toral, and no region entirely resisted its terrible appeal. Its architectural symbol was probably the stair-balustrade which is dis- tinguished by having two slopes of different pitch (fig. II1-195g). Ie is a special variant of the binder molding; the effect resembles the constriction when a bag of earth is abruptly capped by a confin- ing lid. To the climber, the suddenly increased pitch of the balustrades makes the stairs seem steeper. All its victims, whether ancient or mod- ern, have been intimidated by such visual changes of angle in their ascent of the painfully narrow treads (fig. II1-199). ‘These six major Mesoamerican profiles corre- spond to geographic and ethnic groupings, as did the orders of classical antiquity codified by Vitru- vius, the first-century architect of the emperor Augustus. For Vitruvius, the Doric order was the earliest and was associated with the Peloponnesus in the reign of the Dorian kings of Achaea. The Tonic order arose later when the Athenians colo- nized Asia Minor. The Corinthian order was in- vented last by a sculptor wishing to imitate the growth of acanthus leaves in the ornamentation of the capitals. Each order had definite expressive properties: the Doric was manly; the Ionic, wom- anly; the Corinthian, of slighter, more maidenly proportions. These expressive conventions have persisted to the present day in architectural theo- ry. During the centuries after the Italian Renais-356 sance, architectural fashions continued to re~ capitulate the earlier history of the orders. In the fifteenth century the Corinthian order was the one preferred by Italian sculptors; sixteenth-century ‘Mannerist architects turned to Doric and the even cruder Tuscan severity; seventeenth-century Pal- ladianism used Ionic details, and Baroque archi- tects preferred the Corinthian’ When the orders were depaganized in the Renaissance, Christ and the saints, both male and female, were assimilated into the Vitruvian system. Even the ages of man were equated with Vitruvian orders in schemes comparing the Tuscan column to old age, the Dor- ic to the prime of manhood, and so on. In the past quarter-century, the students of ‘American antiquity have become increasingly par- tial to terms borrowed from Mediterranean ar- chaeology. The Americanist’s use of the word “classic” to designate events older than A.D. 900 is now part of a terminology having almost unques- tioned acceptance. Other suggestions of the “clas- sic” parallel are the following: the presence of a canon of proportions based upon numerical ratios; the prevalence of the use of local-tone coloring, without perspective shading, to show shadows; and the strong anthropomorphism of most Meso- american art. These all reinforce the idea of the “classic” character of American antiquity before A.D. 1000. The existence of an expressive system, shown in the terrace profiles we have examined, again confirms the parallels with Greco-Roman antiquity that have long been apparent. Such a sys- tem of expressive architectural forms, as we have seen, is also necessary to the existence of a classical tradition perpetuated by repeated renewals or re- discoveries. Mesoamerica shares this pattern with the Mediterranean world. Indeed this study itself forms a minute part of the ongoing renascence of American antiquity in the twentieth century. ut But tradition is more than self-renewal: italso con- tains pauses and lapses and many disappearing structures. As an example of the self-cleansing character of disjunction, let us turn to the jaguar theme in Mesoamerican art. During the Classic Age, from A.D. 100 to 700 in the Valley of Mex- Ancient America ico, a dominant pattern of ritual and ceremony centered upon a jaguar-serpent-bird icon. This cult was known first at Teotihuacén (fig. 111-200), and it reappeared much later at Tula and Chichén Itz4. Jaguar-serpent-bird images appear at Teoti- huacin as quadrupeds and bipeds, as helmeted busts, as priestly headdresses, as ritual instru- ments, and as frontal icons. Uncompounded jag- uar images are nonexistent. Every four-footed im- age of the jaguar is in one way or another compounded with nonjaguar parts drawn from other life forms. The eyes are usually round and rimmed by feathers; the broken-circle spots on the pelt are treated as flowers or seashells; the tongue is a bifid serpent’s tongue, and the entire body is often covered with a design resembling a fishnet. For example, the most easily recognizable jaguar from Teotihuacén is the thirteen-inch-long onyx (secali) figure in the British Museum shown lying belly-down with its paws extended (fig. III-92). On each front paw is a glyphlike cipher which re- sembles the serpent’s mouth and is associated with rain. The eyes are the round eyes of a bird, and the legs are shown fringed with serrated forms like the paw-wing of avian derivation in Olmec art before the fifth century B.c. Similar instances of compounded jaguar forms abound in the murals. In the mural of the mytho- logical animals at Teotihuacén (assigned by Clara Millon to an early Stage Two in the history of wall painting at the site)? various four-footed jaguars appear among the waves. One has a winged figure halfway down its throat (fig. II-201). One square- jawed feline, swimming with an overhand stroke and spitting vigorously, wears a floral pelt like that of the Tetitla cat. Another lacks some claws, hav- ing perhaps been flayed (fig. 11-202). These early jaguars all have round bird’s eyes. By far the largest class of jaguar images consists of human beings wearing jaguar costumes. Some- times the costume is an entire pelt, with head and claws and tail, but more often it is only a jaguar headdress. Whether in full garment or headdress alone, the jaguar traits are always compounded with others drawn from bird and serpent images. ‘The kneeling jaguar-man from the wall paint- ings at Teticla (fig. I1I-85) wears an overall netted costume with the meshes extending to the muzzleRenascence and Disjunction in Mesoamerican Art and ears of the jaguar suit. The wearer’s human identity is revealed by the shield and staff he holds in his hands. He kneels upon a pathway leading to atemple decorated with floral spots like those of a pregnant she-jaguar. These spots surround the doorway and fill the crenellations below a band of netting similar to the netting worn by the jaguar man. They probably signify the dedication of the temple to a spirit or force represented by these markings. Elsewhere the netted figure is associ- ated only with the jaguar-serpent-bird figure in murals and pottery decoration. If we suppose that frontal figures are more like- ly to represent objects of worship than were the profile figures serving or accompanying the front- al figure, it is plausible to maintain that large and isolated frontal figures are cult objects or icons. Cylindrical vessels on tripods, of Teotihuacin III date, show crouching jaguar-serpent-birds in frontal aspect, both alone and attended by priests (fig. 111-203). In one liturgical scene, the intended representation of the priest’s headdress is un- known, but the icon he approaches is the familiar figure with bird’s eye, serpent’s tongue, and jag- uar’s mouth in double profile. This figure appears frontally with a large pecten shell on its chest and serpent scales on its limbs. In the background are conch shells, feathered eyes, and flames. The of- fering borne by the priest resembles a bird with beak and round eye, reminding us of the mural of the mythological animals at Teotihuacan, where a jaguar is seen swallowing a bird (fig. III-201), sug- gesting that birds were offerings welcome to the jaguar-serpent-bird. This scheme reappears without the offerings in anumber of molded pottery fragments. The feath- ered bird’s eyes surmount a jaguar’s mouth, and the bifid serpent’s tongue hangs between the legs and claws of the crouching jaguar. This theme ap- pears again in abbreviated form at Tula and at Chichén Itza, and we shall examine these forms later. ‘A human form, shown only to the waist, is fre- quently represented in murals, pottery designs, and clay figurines as a pyramidal bust, crowned by the jaguar-serpent-bird helmet. In a mural found at Zacuala, this figure carries a shield on his left arm and, in his right hand, a feathered jaguar-mask 357 held like a vessel or censer. The helmet is in the iconic form of a jaguar’s mouth seen in double- profile, and it has feathered bird’s eyes and netted panels. The censerlike mask repeats these forms in single profile and is surmounted by a netted jag- uar’s paw and a bifid serpent’s tongue. Among the feathers on the mask are drops of water and cus- pated lines like those of the waves in the fresco of the mythological animals at Teotihuacén (fig. III-201). A helmeted bust!” is also of this type, but the eyes behind the goggles are closed, suggesting death, and the plumage seems to be that of a but- terfly, often associated with burials. ‘The significance of the helmeted-bust form is suggested by a double figurine of baked clay in the Diego Rivera Museum in Mexico City (fig. 11-204). A standing human with the head of a jaguar carries just such a helmeted bust in his out- stretched arms. The helmet is of the Oaxacan type, with the parted upper lip of a jaguar. The scenic and narrative context of the jaguar-headed man holding the helmeted bust allows a provi- sional interpretation of the figure as a heraldic bearer. The helmeted bust may have been intended as the portrait likeness of a dynastic p sonage, whose clan or family membership it signified. Cats and dogs do not usually go about together, but at Atetelco jaguars and coyotes appear in peaceful procession on a panel inside a border where a coyote’s body is intertwined with netted jaguars, suggesting the interchangeable and com- plementary character of the two forms (fig. III-79). The netted jaguars have feathered bird’s eyes and bifid serpent’s tongues. Under the mouths of both creatures appear trilobed water- signs like those common in Oaxaca. On the right- hand border, the water-sign is augmented by an eye signifying the brightness of running water. ‘The water theme reappears in the upper border, where goggled rain-faces appear among the twin- ing parts of the bodies of netted jaguars and coyotes. The scene invites speculation upon the union of cat and dog and the relation of this union to water, running water, and rainwater. Although neither jaguar nor coyote was un- known in the Valley of Mexico, the coyote was more common in the dry northern plateaus and358 Ancient America the jaguar in the humid lowlands of Veracruz and Tabasco. Itis possible that their encounter at Teo- tihuacén may have signified some resolution of opposites in the cult of Teotihuacén, such as, for example, the unifying of unlike peoples in a com- ‘mon ritual The association of interewining coyote and jag- uar is both complementary and reciprocating; each seems to supply what the other lacks, and their apparent affection for one another is mutu- al, It is also a unique association, for the jaguar- serpent-bird is found with no other land animal at Teotihuacdn except man, as in the jaguar holding a human bust (fig. 111-204). Furthermore, there is no example at Teotihuacén—in any medium—of the association between jaguar and eagle that be- came common at Tula and of central importance in the warrior cult of Aztec religion at Ten- ochtitlén. These various instances of the associa- tion of jaguar and eagle in Aztec iconography all have in common the idea of darkness as ex- pressed by night, caves, eclipse, and any other disappearance of the sun. No such expression of darkness is manifest in the repertory of represen- tations of the jaguar at Teotihuacan. Further- more, warriors at Teotihuacén identified them- selves with a weapon-bearing owl rather than with a jaguar. The compounding of properties suggested by jaguar, serpent, and bird elements, as emblems of earth, water, and air, respectively, points to transcendent powers of a metaphysical nature rather than to a cult of war. For these reasons, it is doubtful that either the eagle or the jaguar images at Teotihuacén carried the meaning assigned to them by the later Az- tecs.!! By the same token, doubts arise about the validity of any interpretation of the religious sig- nificance of jaguars throughout the entire Teoti- huacdin empire which are colored by the beliefs of the Aztecs of six centuries later when a disjunc- tion, occurring between new and old mythologies, had altered the jaguar’s form and thereby his meaning. Let us now contrast the felines of seventh-century Teotihuacén with those of the thirteenth-century Toltec and fifteenth-century Aztec peoples. Both these later peoples brought about a new era of political expansion, using old symbolic forms for the worship of the new gods brought into the Val- ley of Mexico by wandering tribes from the North, who came as hunters and nomads after the collapse of the polity and the faith at Teotihuacén When the new Post-Classic peoples began to use the jaguar-serpent-bird form, it was already two thousand years older than they, and it had changed meaning from a miscegenated Olmec were-jaguar before 400 n.c. to a transcendent spirit compounded of various animal powers. The new folk in due time used the variants as they saw fit and transformed the jaguar and the eagle into a symbol of warfare conveyed by the complemen- tary images of these creatures. The earlier com- pounds of the jaguar were converted by the pro- cess of disjunction co other purposes. For ex- ample, the old jaguar-serpent-bird acquired a new Toltec meaning as a symbol of the underworld by being placed in a new context at Chichén Itzé and Tula (fig. 11-205). At Chichén Itza the jaguar-serpent-bird appears on the bases of square piers (fig. I11-205a), as Tozzer has noted, “almost 500 times in connec- tion with the top figure of the sun disk, the atlan- tean bacab, or a mask.” |? Tozzer believed that the jaguar-serpent-bird referred to the underworld when conjoined with the sun disk or with a sky- bearer. At Tula the same figure (fig. 11-205b) is shown between pairs of eagles and vultures, and on column bases in what was thought of as the underworld position beneath the feet of a warrior or priest. ‘At the same time, however, jaguars and eagles devouring hearts became the emblems of the new warrior societies at Chichén Itz (fig. I1I-206) and at Tula with the resule that jaguars acquired new meanings in two ways, as underworld figures when represented as jaguar-serpent-birds and as em- blems for warriors when shown as seated or walking animals. Neither of these meanings is evi- dent from jaguar contexts in the usage of Teoti- huacén, nor in the usage of Pre-Classic Olmec or Oaxacan peoples. It seems certain, on the evi- dence of their representations, that jaguars meant different things before and after the end of Teotihuacin. ‘With the emergence of the Aztecs, the symbolRenascence and Disjunction in Mesoamerican Art 359 of the jaguar-serpent-bird waned and vanished, perhaps because it was replaced by the eagle-and- jaguar warrior cult and because the cult of Tezcatlipoca as a jaguar was disjoined from the cult of Quetzalcéatl as a feathered serpent. This disjunction probably had the effect, among other things, of factoring out jaguar traits for separate treatment. It seems clear, then, that these newer meanings for jaguar and eagle were no older than the Toltec era, which had begun in the Mexican highlands at Tula, after the fall of Teotihuacin in about a.D. 700. The people of Teotihuacén never connected jaguar and eagle in the fashion of their successors. Their respects to the jaguar were addressed to the jaguar-serpent-bird, first in an iconic, later in a dynastic aspect, whose representation ceased after the fall of Tula and before the rise of Tenochtitlan. A still unrealized humanistic task for archae- ologists everywhere is to distinguish among funda- mental historic forms in the products of excava- tion, Such historic forms are the renascent and disjunctive classes of objects we have been consid- ering. The renascent expressions are repetitions of a past tradition made in order to assure its per- petuation, The disjunctive expressions, on the contrary, infuse old forms with new meanings and clothe old meanings in new forms. Artists and ar- tisans at all times face this choice about the forms of the past: either the past is viable, deserving to be continued, or it is irrelevant and condemned to discard, at least for a time. Often the choice im- poses a separation or disjunction between form and meaning. One is renewed, and the other is replaced. For the archaeologist to distinguish renasceat from disjunctive classes among his artifacts may require the training of a humanist. Since the ap- pearance of Panofsky’s book in 1960 it has be- come much clearer that archaeology, in order to discover meaning, needs once again to embrace humanistic learning. ‘The relation between Americanist studies and art historical scholarship is a two-way circuit. Art historical studies can assist the Americanists in their efforts to discover an archaeological history. In the other direction, conclusions drawn from American antiquity can perhaps lead to a reevalua- tion of ideas about the history of art: as by confirm- ing the generality of renascence and disjunction as processes of making and undoing tradition. NOTES 1 Erwin Panofsky, Renaiisanceand Renascences in Western Art (Stockholm: Almquist and Wicksell, 1960). 2 Jane Richardion and Alfred L. Kroeber, “Three Centuries of Women's Dress Fashions: A Quantitative Analysis,” Anthropological Records, V, n0. 2 (1940), 3 Erwin Panofsky, “Renaissance and Renascences,” Kenyon Review, V1 (1944), pp. 201-36, 4 See Adolf Goldschmidt, “Die Bedeutung der Formen- spaltung in der Kunsteatwicklung,” in Independence, Con- tergence, and Borrowing in Institutions, Thought and Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1937); and Paul Frankl, “The Crazy Vaults of Lincoln Cathedral,” Avt Bul- latin, XXXV (1953), p. 105 Henri Focillon, La Vie ds formes (Patis: Alcan, 1939). Panofsky, “Renaissance and Renascences,” p. 220. Panofsky, Renaissance and Renascences, p. 8 Ignacio Marquina, Arguitecura prebispanica (Mexico: In- stituto Nacional de Antropologia ¢ Historia, 1951). 9 Clara Hall Millon, “A Chronological Study of the Mural Are of Teotihuacia’ (Dissertation: University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, 1962). 10 For illustration, see Miguel Covarrubias, Indian Art of ‘Mexico and Central America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957),p. 129 11 These latter-day beliefs of the Aztecs were summarized ‘on textual and archaeological evidence by Eduard Seler in “Die Teotihuacéa-Kultur des Hochlands von México,” Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- snd Altertumskunde (Berlin, 1915), V, 484~506. 12 Alfred M. Tozzer, Chichén Itzé and its Cenote of Sacrifice, Peabody Museum of American Archacology and Eth- nology, Harvard University, Memoirs, XI-XII (Cam- bridge, Mass., 1957).