Ma: Toltecs ?!!!

[Richard Haly]

Thanks, Jorge for taking the time to summarize all these findings. To
believe Nahua accounts of the "Toltecs" is tantamount to believing PRI
accounts of the Nahuas. Both have significant "nationalist" agendas.

Best,

Richard=20


>=20
> Having received many private communications of objections or questions
> raised by my previous reticence to accept the word "Toltec" in associatio=
n
> with Chich'en Itza (and the concept "Toltec" in general), I think it is
> better to try and explain myself on-list, so here goes:
>=20
> Some of the many problems of "Toltecs" overrunning, conquering and ruling
> Chich'en Itza include:
>=20
> 1. Despite the very evident artistic style change (as compared to Classic
> Maya style) that one can see in Chich'en Itza, the fact is that even the
> most recent buildings at that ancient city date from the end of the IX
> Century, almost 200 years before Tula, Hidalgo came into existence. Since
> the only people that are known as Toltec in Mesoamerica are the people wh=
o
> built Tula, Hidalgo, when somebody speaks of Toltecs ruling (and building=
)
> Chichen Itza, they run into an impossible-to-resolve time discrepancy.
>=20
> This long-lived confusion was created before finer dating methods came
> along:  Acosta, the archaeologist who restored the Temple of the Warriors
> at Chich'en Itza, moved on later to restore the platform of the "Atlantes=
"
> at Tula, Hidalgo and most probably allowed his interpretation of this
> platform to be influenced by his previous work in Chich'en. This accounts
> for an introduced "resemblance" between the two structures, which has bee=
n
> for a long time one of the central arguments for an alleged Toltec
> intervention in Chich'en. The fact is that many archaeologists are now
> deeply dissatisfied with Acosta's restoration work at Tula, particularly
> with his interpretation of the original appearance the platform of the
> Atlantes must have had.
>=20
> Even discounting the temporal impossibility alluded to in the previous
> paragraph, the comparatively puny size of Tula, Hidalgo as compared to
> Chich'en Itza (does it sound logical that a provincial colony should be
> much larger than the metropolis that conquered it?) would make of itself =
a
> strong argument against a Tula takeover of Chich'en Itza. Furthermore, if
> Tula was as powerful as it would have needed to be to conquer and establi=
sh
> such a prosperous colony 1,500 miles away from its heartland, why is ther=
e
> an absolute lack of evidence of other Tula-conquered territories/cities
> between Hidalgo and Yucatan?
>=20
> 2. To compound the iron-clad argument stemming from the impossibility of =
a
> possible contemporaneity between Chich'en Itza and Tula, there are also a
> myriad problems with the identification as Toltecs of the inhabitants of
> the site we now know as Tula, Hidalgo: we have no evidence that the
> inhabitants of this highland city were known as "Toltecs" in their own
> time. The names by which we now know them and their city were given to th=
em
> by the much later Aztec, when the city itself was already an old ruin and
> the civilization that had built it had passed. The fact that it is now
> known that the term "Tollan" (i.e., Tula) was high-powered political
> currency throughout the history of Mesoamerica further muddles the pictur=
e.
> "Tollan" may have been the name many important cities (such as Teotihuaca=
n,
> Tikal or Copan) may have given themselves at different points in time. Do=
es
> this make teotihuacanos, tikale=F1os or copanecos "Toltec"? Well... yes and
> no (but this is another story).
>=20
> 3. Every single text in Chichen Itza is written in Mayan, using Maya
> glyphs. Is there a great likelihood that invaders would leave records of
> their deeds in a language that was not theirs? The fact that the Chich'en
> Maya (a group that migrated from the Central Peten and who were known as
> 'Itza') were probably under heavy influence (as can be seen in the new ar=
t
> style) of some form of Central Mexican culture, probably through Gulf
> coastal trade, does not inescapably led to the conclusion that they were
> governed by Central Mexicans, Toltecs or otherwise. The arguments against
> this ever happening are, however, beyond the scope of an Aztlan posting.
>=20
> I think that the most likely explanation of what one sees in Chich'en
> Itza and other sites in Northern Yucatan during the terminal Classic is a
> breakdown of the old order (the phenomenon known as the Classic collapse)
> and a regrouping of the populations around new foci of power, some of whi=
ch
> probably emerged through control of trade. There is, for example, evidenc=
e
> for maritime trade by Chich'en Itza through a port in Isla Cerritos, not
> far from present-day Rio Lagartos. It is not inconceivable that the new
> order would have been more outward-looking than the previous one given a
> more heavy dependence on trade and the more frequent contact with
> foreigners this would have brought. This would have shown in the
> incorporation of foreign styles in art and architecture. Still, we have y=
et
> to come across any real evidence of foreign control in Maya territory.
>=20
> The books of Chilam Balam speak of many migrations and takeovers through
> time by different groups in the Yucatan peninsula. However heavily
> influenced by Central Mexican culture these groups (such as the Itza, the
> Cocom or the Xiu) may have been, there is still little doubt that they we=
re
> Maya. Linguistic evidence from the time of Spanish contact further
> reinforces this: the only language spoken in the whole peninsula was
> Yucatec Mayan.
>=20
> By the way, a wonderful rebuttal of one of Thompson's favorite examples
> of Putun takeover in the Central Peten (Seibal's late monuments) can be
> read in the Seibal chapter of Linda Schele's and Peter Mathews' 'Code of
> Kings'.
>=20
> Jorge Perez de Lara
> Mexico
>=20
> jorgepl at infosel.net.mx