Chapter XII: Conclusion

In view of the considerable number of objects of stone mosaic that were sent to Europe during the first years of the Spanish conquest of Mexico, part of the loot obtained by Hernán Cortés, it is quite possible that other examples are still hidden away either in Spain or in Italy, which some day will be brought to light. Only twenty years ago two wonderfully preserved carved ceremonial spear-throwers, or atlatls, of wood, covered with delicate gold-leaf, were found in an old leather-covered case in a house in Florence, and are now exhibited in the Ethnological Museum of that city. It is not to be doubted that they were sent from Mexico by Cortés himself, and remained stored away, unknown to the world, until recent times. Bushnell, who figured and described these atlatls, believes that they were formerly in the famous collection of the Medicis, and that other objects of Mexican origin may be hidden away in Italy, to be revealed from time to time.[110] Again, in 1891, Mrs. Zelia Nuttall was the first to bring to our notice the important mosaic shield, and the still more interesting feather-mosaic shield in the Castle Ambras near Innsbruck, which were shortly afterward transferred to the ethnographical section of the State Natural History Museum in Vienna.[111]

We should call attention here to the possibilities of finding mosaics in Mexico, emphasizing the fact that the collection in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, was found under archeological conditions. Until now we have been somewhat sceptical in regard to the possibility of wooden objects of such a fragile and perishable nature being discovered either in tombs or in ruined buildings in Middle America. As we have already written, the few traces of this mosaic art found heretofore in excavations have been of a fragmentary character. No specimens of wood covered with mosaic have been found previously in Mexico, with the exception of the small rim of wood excavated by Gamio in Zacatecas, and the four pieces from Chichen Itza. In the tropical and temperate zones, where the most important ancient sites are situated, artifacts of wood of any sort have rarely been unearthed. It is true that in some of the remote villages carved wooden drums (_teponaztli_) have been religiously guarded from the time of the conquest, and are brought out and played at certain festivals during the year. But these drums are kept in the cabildos, and are preserved with zealous care.

We would again call attention to the statement of Sahagun regarding the tradition of the abandonment of Tula, that Quetzalcoatl ordered certain precious things to be buried in the neighboring hills and ravines. This, of course, refers to times long anterior to the coming of white men. After this unfortunate event, fatal indeed to the Indian, the natives undoubtedly secreted a vast amount of material. The circumstances concerning this have been told by Father Motolinia. As this account is but little known, we have translated literally the entire chapter, for it reveals to us the miserable state into which the aborigines had fallen within twenty years after their subjugation.

_Of how there was an end of idols and of the feasts which the Indians were wont to prepare, and of the vanity and the endeavor which the Spaniards displayed in (their) search for idols._

The feasts which the Indians made, as is told in the first part (of this book), with their ceremonies and pomp, all ended from the beginning (of the time) that the Spaniards were making war (on them), because the Indians had so much to think about in their tribulations that they did not think of their gods, not even of themselves, because they had so much sorrow that in order to remedy that, all the principal (things in their lives) were stopped.

In every town they had an idol or demon whom they considered chiefly as their mediator, and called him such, and they honored and adorned him with jewels and garments, and the best they could find they offered him, each town as it was (able to), and more so in the capitals of provinces. These principal idols I mention, as soon as the city of Mexico was taken by the Spaniards, with their jewels and wealth the Indians hid in the most secret place they could find; a large part of the gold that was on (or with) the idols and in the temples they gave as tribute to the Spaniards under whose patronage they belonged; for they could not do otherwise because in the beginning the tributes were so excessive that all the Indians could scrape together or search for, nor what the lords and chiefs had, would suffice; besides, they were forced (to pay tributes) with such iniquity that they also gave the gold they had in the temples of the demons (idols), and even when this was exhausted they paid tribute in slaves, and many times not having slaves in order to comply (with the taxes), they gave free (Indians) as slaves.

These principal idols, with the insignia and ornaments or garments belonging to the demons, the Indians hid, some in the earth, others in caves, and still others in the woods. Later, when the Indians became converted and were baptized, they unearthed many (of them), and they brought them to the courtyards of the churches to burn them publicly. Others rotted in the earth, because after the Indians had received (or accepted) the Faith, they were ashamed to take out those they had hidden, and would rather let them rot than that anyone should know that they hid them. And when they were importuned to tell (talk) about their principal idols and their vestments, they took them out, all decayed, of which I am a witness, for I have seen it (done) many times. The excuse they gave was good, for they said, “When we hid it, we did not know God, and we thought the Spaniards would soon return to their (own) country, and after we came to understand (about) God, we left it to rot, because we were afraid and ashamed to take it out.” In other towns these principal idols with their vestments were in the care of the lords or of the principal priests of the demons, and those kept them so secretly that hardly anyone knew about them except two or three people who guarded them, and of these (idols) they also brought a very large number to the monasteries to burn them. In many other remote villages, far away from Mexico, when the monks went there to preach, they told them in their sermons and before christening them that the first thing they had to do was to bring all the idols they had and all the insignias of the demons to burn (them): and in this manner they also gave and brought a large quantity which was publicly done in many parts (of the country): because wherever the doctrine and the word of God has reached, not a thing has remained that they knew or could tell about, for if from now on for a hundred years they should dig in the courts of the temples of the ancient idols, they would always find idols, because there were so many that they had made: for it happened that when a child was born they made an idol, and the following year (they made) one a little larger, and after four years they made another one, and as the child grew up they went on making idols, and of these (idols) the foundations and walls are filled, and in the courts there are many of them. In the year (15)39 and in the year (15)40 several Spaniards, some with authority and some without it, to show their zeal of the Faith, and thinking that they were accomplishing something (worth while), began to dig and to unearth the dead and to urge the Indians that they should give them idols: and in some parts (of the country) this reached such a stage that the Indians went to look for the idols that were decayed and forgotten in the earth, and some of the Indians were even so sorely tormented that, to tell the truth, they made new idols and gave them (to the Spaniards) that they should cease maltreating them.

Mixed with the great zeal they (the Spaniards) showed in searching for idols, (there was) not a little covetousness, and it was because the Spaniards (would say), in such a village, or in such a parish, there are (were) idols of gold, or of chalchihuitl which is a stone of great value, and they imagined that there was an idol weighing ten or fifteen arrobas: but in truth they came (too) late, because all the gold and precious stones were spent and cashed in and safely in the power (hands) of the Spaniards who first held those Indians under their jurisdiction. They also thought of finding an idol of stone which would be worth as much as a city, and certainly, although I have seen many idols which were adored and held highly by the Indians and (were) very (greatly) revered as chief gods, and some were of chalchihuitl, the one which seemed to me to be worth most, I do not think that in Spain they would give ten pesos of gold for it: for this they upset and stir and scandalize the towns with their truly indiscrete zeal, because if there really is still an idol in some village, it is either rotten or so (completely) forgotten or (held or kept) so secretly that in a town of ten thousand inhabitants there are not even five who know it, and they hold them for what they are, either for stones or for wood. Those who thus upset these Indians who go their straight way, are like Laban who went to meet Jacob to look for his property, and to upset his house in search of his idols, because of this that I am telling here I have great experience and I (can) see the deceit in which they go about and the way they have to disturb and disfavor (hurt) these poor Indians who have forgotten so absolutely their idols, as if it were a hundred years ago (that they had had them).[112]

Hernándo Ruiz de Alarcon, in his treatise on the superstitions of the natives of New Spain, relates that when they went to the hills or other remote places where their idols were hidden away, or to certain piles of stones where they often made offerings and sacrifices, they carried there offerings which were sometimes copal incense wrapped in _quauhamatl_, a kind of white paper made from the bark of a soft tree. This work, written in 1620, is entitled, _Tratado de las Supersticiones y Costumbres Gentilicas que oy viuen entre los Indios Naturales desta Nueva España_, and was published for the first time in 1892 by the Museo Nacional of Mexico. The present writer has noted such stone piles, particularly in Yucatan.

It is probable that we have here an explanation of the existence of our deposit of mosaic-incrusted wooden shields and masks, which leads us to hope that still further discoveries of this character may be made. The climatic conditions in certain parts of the highlands of Middle America, where this deposit was found in a cave, favor this assumption. There are great sections of comparatively dry, wind-swept, almost desert plains, treeless hill-slopes, and ravines, where the chief vegetation is cacti in the lower altitudes, while higher up pines and oaks abound. Here wooden objects should be indefinitely preserved in ancient tombs or in caves, protected by a covering of loose, dry earth, the condition under which our collection was found.

The discovery of this remarkable collection of mosaics emphasizes the fact that the investigation of the archeology of Mexico is hardly commenced, in view of the vast amount of material hidden under the ruins of thousands of ancient settlements and burial places, and probably in countless caves, which still remain untouched by the archeologist.

As revealed by the surprising results of Thompson’s dredging in the sacred cenote in Yucatan, a wealth of archeological material also lies buried in the mud under the waters of sacred wells and lakes. This is notably so in the case of Lake Chapala, on the borders of Michoacan and Jalisco in Mexico,[113] and of Lake Amatitlan in Guatemala, where thousands of pottery vessels and other objects have been recovered from the bottoms of the lakes by divers, and from the mud when the waters have receded from the shores during times of extreme drought. These objects had been thrown into the waters as offerings to the gods.

The recent results of the systematic exploration of the great mounds at Teotihuacan have been quite surprising, and have shed new light on the archeology of the central plateau of Mexico. Even more important is the discovery of culture sequences in stratified deposits in the valley of Mexico, the investigations showing three distinct culture layers distinguished by the character of the pottery. Of great significance are the discoveries recently made under the great lava flow called the Pedregal, at the very edge of the City of Mexico, where the artifacts correspond _in toto_ with those found in the bottom layer of the stratified deposits.[114] These discoveries mark a great advance in our knowledge of the history of ancient Mexico, but, as we have before stated, they are only a beginning. Buried underground are the “books” the student must study, if ever the tangled history of Middle America is to become known and the story of the development of this exceedingly interesting division of the human race is to be recorded.

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, tomo I, 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 his _Documentos para la Historia de México_, tomo I, Mexico, 1858. A translation into English, with translations of other accounts, relating to this voyage, will appear in the _Publications of the Cortes Society_ under 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 translation _in 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 curious amongst 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, in _Biblioteca de Autores Españoles_, tomo I, 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 were chiefly 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 in _Archiv für Anthropologie_, Neue Folge, band VI, 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, tomo IV, 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 Chapter III. 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 Chapter VI. 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 in _Transactions 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 his _Biblioteca 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 des _Mémoires 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, tomo III, 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 in _American 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., tomo III, 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 Libro IX, 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., tomo II, 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 in _Nueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México_, tomo III, 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, tomo I, 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., tomo III, lib. 10, cap. XXIX, p. 107.

[56] Ibid., tomo I, 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 in _Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México_, tomo II, 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 his _Nueva Colección de Documentos para la Historia de México_, tomo II. The quotation is from p. 10.

[60] Bernal Díaz, op. cit., vol. II, book VI, 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., tomo I, 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., tomo III, 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 in _Documents 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, tomo I, 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 tomo II de los _Anales 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 tomo I, época 4ª, of the _Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía_ of 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 as _Contributions 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., tomo I, 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 of _Biologia 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 as _Bulletin 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 the _Proceedings 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 forse s’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_.

LIST OF WORKS DESCRIBING MEXICAN MOSAICS

1648

ALDROVANUS, ULYSSES. Musæum metallicum. Bologna.

In this work are a brief description (p. 550) and illustrations of two of the specimens now in the Museum in Rome, namely, one of the knife handles (our pl. XXXIX), and the mask (our pl. VIII). This book is vol. XIII of the fourteen volumes of the _Opera Omnia_ of Aldrovanus, issued in 1602-1668.

1861

TYLOR, E. B. Anahuac: or Mexico and the Mexicans, ancient and modern. London.

See pp. 110, 235, 337-339, I fig. Dr. Tylor illustrates the knife with handle in the figure on p. 101. In the appendix (pp. 337-339), article V is a “Description of three very rare specimens of ancient Mexican mosaic work (in the collection of Henry Christy, Esq.).” These objects are now in the British Museum.

1866

BRASSEUR DE BOURBOURG, E., and WALDECK, F. Palenque et autres ruines de l’ancienne civilisation du Mexique. Collection de vues, bas-reliefs, morceaux d’architecture, coupes, vases, terre cuites, cartées et plans, dessinés d’après nature et relevés par M. de Waldeck. Texte rédigé par M. Brasseur de Bourbourg.... Ouvrage publié sous les auspices de S. E. M. le Ministre de l’instruction publique. Paris. Arthur Bertrand, Editeur. Plates. Monuments anciens du Mexique.

Describes (p. VIII) and illustrates in color (pl. XLIII, XLIV) the mosaic-handled knife and mosaic skull mask formerly in the Hertz collection, now in the British Museum.

1867

LÉOUZON LE DUC, L. Rapport sur les antiquités mexicaines conservées à Copenhague. _Archives de la Commission Scientifique du Mexique_, Tome III. Paris.

Two Mexican mosaics in the Copenhagen Museum are described (tome III, pp. 157-158), as follows:

“Voici maintenant trois pièces qui, à mon avis, méritent une attention toute particulière.

“D’abord, une tête d’alligator, de 19 centimètres de longueur. Cette tête est sculptée en bois et creusée par derrière. La gueule de l’alligator est largement ouverte et ses mâchoires encadrent une tête humaine fixée au fond du palais.

“Ensuite, une tête d’idole, également sculptée en bois et évidée intérieurement, avec une coiffure très-élevée et évasée au sommet, d’une hauteur totale, y compris la tête, de 24 centimètres. La bouche de l’idole est vaste, ses lèvres fortement tendues découvrent une double rangée de longues dents; ses oreilles sont ornées de pendelogues.

“Ces deux pièces offrent cette singularité remarquable qu’elles sont garnies en partie, et ont dû l’avoir été en entier, de petits fragments d’os la plupart quadrangulaires, blanc ou teints en vert, en rouge et en noir, fixés sur le bois à l’aide d’une espèce de résine, ce qui leur donne l’aspect d’une mosaïque. Fort endommagées, elles n’ont guère conservé d’intacts que les yeux, dont les prunelles sont formées d’os blancs, noirs et rouges, et entourées d’un cordon d’os verts. L’état du bois qui les compose suffrirait à lui seul pour établir leur haute antiquité, si déjà leur caractère symbolique ne la rendait évidente. L’une et l’autre out été achetées à Rome, où l’on suppose qu’elles avaient été apportées de Mexico par un missionnaire.”

1869

SQUIER, E. G. Observations on a collection of chalchihuitls from Central America. _Annals of the New York Lyceum of Natural History_, vol. IX, August, article XIV, pp. 252-253, fig. I.

The mosaic skull in the British Museum is illustrated, after Waldeck.

1870

STEVENS, EDWARD T. Flint chips. A guide to prehistoric archæology, as illustrated by the collection in the Blackmore Museum, Salisbury. London.

Aztec mosaic work, pp. 324-328. Describes specimens in the Christy collection.

1880

STEINHAUER, C. L. Das Königliche Ethnographische Museum zu Copenhagen. Hand-catalog für die Besuchenden. Copenhagen.

Describes (p. 19) the two mosaics in the Copenhagen Museum. In the 1866 edition the description is on p. 22.

1883

BROCKLEHURST, THOMAS UNETT. Mexico to-day: a country with a great future, and a glance at the prehistoric remains and antiquities of the Montezumas. London.

Describes (p. 184) and reproduces in colors (pl. XXXIII) the human-skull mask in the British Museum. Pl. XXXIV illustrates the goddess Coatlicue, showing the turquois-mosaic in colors--the specimen to which Peñafiel refers, vide 1903. See our pl. II.

1885

COLINI, G. A. Collezioni etnografiche del Museo Borgiano. _Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana_, Roma, Anno XIX, vol. XXII; serie II, vol. X, pp. 316-325, 914-932.

In this article Colini (pp. 324-325) describes two masks and an idol in the Museo Borgiano in Rome. Regarding these specimens he quotes from Vitæ Synopsis Stephani Borgiæ, S. R. E. Cardinalis amplissimi, S. Congr. de Propaganda Fide Præfecti, Roma, 1805, p. 44, “Classis mexicana: multa lignea et testacea idolorum simulacra forma et figura singulari, ac gente mexicanæ propia.” He describes the idol as being made of wood in the form of a human figure, 45 cm. high. The two masks of wood are described, and figured on the plate containing drawings of other American antiquities. It is highly probable that these three objects were formerly decorated with mosaic.

PIGORINI, LUIGI. Gli antichi oggetti Messicani incrostati di mosaico esistenti nel Museo Preistorico ed Ethnografico di Roma. _Reale Accademia dei Lincei_, Anno CCLXXXII, 1884-1885. 9 pp., I pl. with 5 colored figs.

BASTIAN, A. Zwei altmexikanische Mosaiken. _Verhandlungen der Berliner Gesellschaft für Anthropologie_, p. 201.

1888

BASTIAN, A., and UHLE, MAX. Schädelmaske von Mexico und Analogien aus der Südsee. _Veröffentlichungen aus dem Königlichen Museum für Völkerkunde, Herausgegeben von der Verwaltung_, Berlin, Oct.

A description (pp. 2-3) and colored illustration (T. I., I) of the mosaic-skull mask in the Berlin Museum.

ANDREE, RICHARD. Die altmexikanischen Mosaiken. _Beitrage zur Ethnographie von Amerika aus dem Internationalen Archiv für Ethnographie._ Leiden.

Brief notice (p. 8) of the specimen in Gotha.

1889

ANDREE, RICHARD. Ethnographische Parallelen und Vergleiche. Neue Folge. Leipzig.

Description (pp. 127-130) of the mosaic specimen in Gotha.

1890

PEÑAFIEL, ANTONIO. Monumentos del arte Mexicano antiguo. Berlin.

Description (Text, p. 23) and illustration in colors (Atlas, pl. 123) of the knife with mosaic handle in the British Museum.

ANDREE, RICHARD. Sur une ancienne mosaique mexicaine. _Congrès International des Américanistes, Compte-rendu de la septième session_, Berlin, 1888. Berlin.

Describes the Gotha specimen (pp. 146-148).

HEGER, FRANZ. Sur quelques objets archéologiques du Mexique et de l’Amérique du Sud. _Congrès International des Américanistes, Compte-rendu de la septième session_, Berlin, 1888, pp. 93-97.

The author describes (p. 94) one of the mosaic pieces in the Vienna Museum. In the discussion of this paper, Seler (p. 104) identifies the animal-like figure as representing the god Xolotl.

1892

PI Y MARGIL, FRANCISCO. Historia de la América antecolombiana. Tomo primero, segunda parte. Barcelona.

Two colored illustrations (opposite p. 1214) of the mosaic-handled knife in the British Museum.

HEGER, FRANZ. Altmexikanische Reliquien aus dem Schlosse Ambras in Tirol. _Annalen des K. K. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseums_, B. VII, Heft 4, pp. 310-400, pl. XVIII, XXII. Vienna.

In this paper Dr. Heger describes and illustrates the shield and animal head (three views) of turquois mosaic in the Vienna Museum.

1895

READ, CHARLES HERCULES. On an ancient Mexican head-piece coated with mosaic. _Archæologia_, vol. LIV, 16 pp., pl. XXVIII, fig. 1-6, London.

Gives in colors and describes for the first time the mosaic head-piece, and illustrates all but one of the eight other pieces, in the British Museum.

1896

OPPEL, A. Die altmexikanischen Mosaiken. _Globus_, Bd. LXX, Nr. 1 (June), pp. 4-12, 15 fig., Braunschweig.

Figures seven mosaic pieces in the British Museum, five pieces in Rome, one piece in Berlin, a piece in Gotha, and a section of the shield in Vienna.

1903

PEÑAFIEL, ANTONIO. Indumentaria Antigua Mexicana. Vestidos Guerreros y Civiles de los Mexicanos. Mexico.

Dr. Peñafiel, in chapter XXIII, under the heading “Incrustaciones de Mosaico,” describes some of the mosaic pieces in Europe which he states are the most important specimens. “Of this class of works the Museo Nacional (Mexico) can count as having only one, in the statue of Coatlicue coming from Tehuacan.” On pl. 26 are given the British Museum knife, and the two knife-handles in Rome; on pl. 117 one of the masks in Rome; on pl. 118(A) the skull mask in Berlin, and (B) the mask in Rome; pl. 123 is the femur musical instrument in Rome; and pl. 168 restorations of the knife-handle specimens with blades, in Rome. These illustrations are all in colors, excepting the last.

1906

BUSHNELL, DAVID I., Jr. North American ethnographical material in Italian museums. _American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol. VIII, Lancaster, Pa.

On pp. 245-246 the author briefly describes the five mosaic pieces in Rome, and regarding one of the masks (our pl. VII, _a_) quotes from the inventory of the Guardaroba Medicea, 1553, showing the specimen to have been in the Medici collection.

LEHMANN, WALTER. Altmexikanische Mosaiken und die Geschenke König Motecuzomas und Cortés. _Globus_, Bd. XV, Nr. 20, pp. 318-322, Braunschweig, 29 Nov.

In this study Lehmann enumerates the twenty-three Mexican mosaic pieces in European museums and gives considerable documentary material from the early chroniclers.

1907

KUNZ, GEORGE FREDERICK. Gems and precious stones of Mexico. Mexico.

On pp. 7-10, Dr. Kunz discusses turquois and describes some of the turquois mosaic specimens in European museums. On p. 52 he concludes that “it must be considered as possible, at least, that other localities containing turquois were once known, and may be hereafter re-discovered.”

LEHMANN, WALTER. Altmexikanische Mosaiken in Kgl. Museum für Völkerkunde zu Berlin. _Congrès International des Américanistes, XVᵉ Session, tenue à Quebec en 1906_, tome II, pp. 339-349, 4 fig., Quebec.

Describes and illustrates two pieces of Mexican mosaics in the Ethnographical Museum of Berlin, a double-jaguar figure, and a jaguar head. The first came from the estate of Alexander von Humboldt, the second was transferred to the Berlin Museum from the Ducal Museum of Braunschweig.

LEHMANN, WALTER. Die altmexikanischen Mosaiken des Ethnographischen Museums in Kopenhagen. _Globus_, Bd. XCI, Nr. 21, pp. 332-335, 6 June, 1907. Abb. I-III.

The author describes and figures the two pieces in Copenhagen, giving front and side views, and two different drawings of one of the masks in Rome.

1908

DÍAZ DEL CASTILLO, BERNAL. (Maudslay, A. P., translator and editor.) The true history of the conquest of New Spain. Edition of the Hakluyt Society, vol. I, London.

Under the title “Montezuma’s Gifts to Cortés,” Maudslay describes (Appendix, pp. 299-302) and illustrates (pl. 13-16) the three mosaic masks in the British Museum. Pl. 16 is a rear view of the skull mask showing the leather strap by which it was attached to the head. This mask Maudslay identifies as probably that of Tezcatlipoca, and the other two as belonging to Quetzalcoatl.

1910

GAMIO, MANUEL. Los monumentos arqueológicos de las inmediaciones de Chalchihuites, Zacatecas. _Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnología_, tome II, pp. 469-492, pls. 1-8, Mexico.

On pl. 8 are figured two pieces of mosaic-work found in the ruins near Chalchihuites.

BLACKISTON, A. HOOTON. Recent discoveries in Honduras. _American Anthropologist_, N. S., vol. 12, Lancaster, Pa.

Describes (p. 539) and illustrates (pl. XLVI) the mosaic wooden mask found in 1908 in a cave in an arroyo on the headwaters of a small stream flowing into the Rio Chamelecon, about 25 miles distant from the ruins of the ancient city of Naco. This specimen is now in the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation. See our pl. XVII.

1912

JOYCE, T. A. A short guide to the American antiquities in the British Museum. London.

Joyce describes (p. 14) and illustrates (figs. 12-17) six of the mosaic pieces in the British Museum.

1914

JOYCE, T. A. Mexican archæology. An introduction to the archæology of the Mexican and Mayan civilizations of pre-Spanish America. New York and London.

In pl. I is reproduced in colors the skull mask, and in pl. XVIII, fig. 1, the knife with handle. Reference to these is made on p. 141.

HOLMES, W. H. Masterpieces of aboriginal American art. II. Mosaic work, minor examples. _Art and Archæology_, vol. I, no. 3, Washington, November.

A description (pp. 91-102) of some of the more important specimens of mosaics, with colored frontispiece and 9 figures.

1915

POGUE, JOSEPH E. The turquoise. A study of its history, mineralogy, geology, ethnology, archæology, mythology, folklore, and technology. _Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences_, vol. XII, part II, third memoir, Washington.

Mexican mosaics are described on pp. 93-97; fig. 4 illustrates the bird mask in Gotha; pl. 15-17, Mexican mosaics in the British Museum and in Rome (10 pieces). The Use of Turquois in Mexico and Central America: Use as Attested by Historical Evidence, pp. 90-92; Use as Attested by Objects, pp. 93-97.

1921

ARREOLA, JOSÉ MARÍA. Como legítima el Museo Nacional ha adquirido una pieza falsificada. _El Excelsior_, Mexico, Oct. 20.

Illustrates in this signed newspaper article a stone mask with turquois mosaic decoration said to have been found in Guerrero. He concludes that it is fraudulent.

LEHMANN, WALTER. Altmexikanische Kunstgeschichte ein Entwurf in Umrissen. Band 8 des Orbis Pictus. Weltkunst-Bücherei herausgegeben von Paul Westheim. Berlin.

In this short study of old Mexican art history Dr. Lehmann illustrates a number of notable Mexican antiquities. The Xolotl figure in Vienna is illustrated, front and side views, pl. 7, and the crouching animal figure in the British Museum is given on pl. 8. He gives brief descriptions in the description of plates on pp. 22-23.

1922

GAMIO, MANUEL. Una máscara de mosaico falsificada. [A counterfeit mosaic mask.] _Ethnos_, tomo I, núms. 8-12, pp. 260-264, Mexico, Nov. 1920-Mar. 1921.

Gamio denounces as fraudulent the stone mosaic mask claimed to have been discovered in Guerrero by Porfirio Aguirre.

MENA, RAMON. La arqueología debe de estar en manos de arqueológicos. _El Universal_, Mexico, April 2.

In this signed newspaper article Mena defends the authenticity of the stone mask decorated with turquois mosaic, said to have been found in Guerrero.

Transcriber’s Notes:

Italics are shown thus: _sloping_.

Small capitals have been capitalised.

Variations in spelling and hyphenation are retained.

Punctuation has been retained as published.