#a new analysis of the gender attribution of the “great goddess” of teotihuacan

[chthonicdivinebard]

Several influential scholars have noted the primary, identifying attributes of the Great Goddess. According to [Esther] Pasztory, there are at least three customary characteristics distinguishing the Goddess, including (1) a nosebar that obscured the mouth, as present in the murals of Tepantitla and Tetitla, (2) an avian headdress, and (3) a yellow and red zigzag band. [Karl] Taube expanded on these identifying elements, saying that the most distinctive attributes of the Tepantitla deity are the fanged nosebar and her clothing, which he characterized as female, a subject expanded on below. Taube also concurs with Pasztory, noting "Aside from her gender, major features are a frame headdress with a bird medallion in the center, a curious nose bar with pendant elements suggestive of fangs, and, frequently, yellow body coloration." Other Mesoamericanist scholars subsequently suggested different characteristics for the Goddess. For instance, [Janet] Berlo writes that several of the deity's most significant attributes are the bountiful hands, the mirror, and the headdress, and that "[h]er principal diagnostic features are butterfly wings (sometimes represented in quechquemitl-like form), and a headdress with the curled proboscis and antennae of a butterfly." Many of these characteristics do not identify sex, and they can only identify gender if it can be demonstrated that Teotihuacano men or women wore these attributes with some consistency. Determining the gender of a Teotihuacan deity, however, is made all the more challenging because there is an overall lack of consensus amongst scholars as to the Goddess' principal identifying attributes... This lack of consensus regarding the Goddess' attributes is reflected in the many names that have been bestowed upon the deity. As stated above, Taube suggests that the most important attributes of the Tepantitla deity are the fanged nosebar and a spider mouth, calling the deity the "Teotihuacan Spider Woman." [Peter] Furst alternates between "Mother of Water," "Mother Goddess," and "Earth Goddess." Pasztory, Berlo, [Kathleen] Berrin, and others prefer the "Great Goddess" or simply the "Goddess." Citing connections with several central Mexican deities, [Susan] Milbrath suggests the Tepantitla deity is a gender-ambiguous Lunar Goddess who oversees rain and tides, and who is connected to war (a male attribute) and water (a "feminine aspect"). Most recently, [Annabeth] Headrick has introduced the term "mountain-tree," a gender-neutral term to refer to the deity. As primary and secondary sex characteristics are not depicted in monumental public art, and there is a lack of consistency in how deities are depicted, it is difficult to assign gender to them. For instance, of the Goddess' identifying attributes, neither the nosebar nor headdress are claimed to be inherently female. Other features- liquid, the cave, tree, spider, and clothing- have alleged female fertility associations and have been key in the iconographic gender identification of the Great Goddess. Some of these presumed female symbols, however, are ambiguous signifiers that are moreover inconsistently present in images identified as the Great Goddess.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, pp33-5

[chthonicdivinebard]

Finally, no systematic analysis has been published that defines and supports gendered attributes in representations of humans in Teotihuacan art. Thus, it may be that many of the purported female attributes of the Great Goddess are a projection of scholars' contemporary, Western concepts of what constitutes masculine and feminine, rather than a true reflection of past reality. [David] Pendergast has discussed the impact of scholars' social context in his exploration of the disjunction between early scholars' view of the Maya as a peaceful civilization and the later understanding of them as prone to violence and bloodshed. Similar examples of how modern social context shapes Teotihuacan scholarship can be seen in at least two way. In several instances, many of the presumed female qualities of the Great Goddess rely on an essentialized vision of women that limits their qualities to the biological, reflecting a common Eurocentric view of the role of females. In addition, the models of gender hierarchy and complementarity that are often applies to analyses of Teotihuacan are embedded in Western conceptions of gender and sex and preclude the possibility of mixed genders or gender ambiguity.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, p32-3

[chthonicdivinebard]

Nevertheless, it is clear that many scholars use the "third gender" to refer specifically to males. For instance, Trumbach states that "...there were [by 1800] four genders, two of them legitimated, and two [sodomists and sapphists] stigmatized." "Fourth gender" is thus a term that can be used to refer to biological females who adopt the social roles of men, or in some way diverge from the accepted norm. In an article about Native North American gender roles, [Will] Roscoe identifies individuals who wear clothing that is distinct from that of both males and females, indicating the existence of this fourth gender category for whom the term berdache has sometimes been applied. This raises the question of whether "third gender" is applicable to the representations of supernaturals who lack sex characteristics. It is impossible to determine the sex of images of the so-called Great Goddess and the human attendants at Tepantitla and elsewhere, therefore it seems inappropriate to use "third gender" as it is so closely entwined with sex and biology.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, p32

[chthonicdivinebard]

The terms that seem to have the fewest complications and that seem the most suitable in describing the mixture of male, female, and neutral attributes in representations identified as the Great Goddess are "mixed gender" and/or "multiple gender." These terms have also been previously applied to the literature, particularly in describing the coded dress of Maya kings, as discussed below. "Mixed gender" and "multiple gender" also encompass the notion of gender ambiguity without being embroiled in notions of biological sex. This is appropriate when dealing with representations of supernatural deities who lack primary and secondary sexual characteristics, and who are, in fact, not human themselves, rather they are the productions of human imagination.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, p32

[chthonicdivinebard]

Discussions of sex and gender at Teotihuacan seem to lack consistency, and in addition, most features associated with the Goddess are impossible to sex...In addition, with regard to sex determination, [Traci] Ardren notes the growing awareness that even the most "scientific" archaeology relies on methodologies that are culturally constructed." Sex in artwork can only be definitively determined by the presence of primary and secondary sexual organs: genitalia and breasts. Much pre-Columbian imagery, however, is not neatly packaged with the signifiers that indicate biological sex. Human figures are frequently depicted clothed, and breasts and genitalia are hidden from view. Other criteria for determining sex, such as genetic indicators, are impossible to ascertain in the visual record.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, pp29-30

[chthonicdivinebard]

The site of Teotihuacan (100 BC-AD 650) flourished as an urban and ceremonial center more than half a millennium before the Nahua migrated into the Valley of Mexico. The proximity of Teotihuacan to the Mexica capital of Tenochtitlan (AD 1345-1521), however, influenced scholars' perceptions about the identity of the Teotihuacanos. Due to both early misinformation about Mesoamerican chronology, as well as thematic commonalities in art from Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan, many Mesoamericanist scholars superimposed the Nahua pantheon onto the one at Teotihuacan. The most notable example of the imposition of Nahua cosmology on Teotihuacan can be seen in the work of investigators who once labeled the goggle-eyed Storm God of Teotihuacan by its Nahuatl name, Tlaloc.

In those early days, scholars did not have much hard evidence by which to understand Teotihuacan society. Apart from the site's gigantic architectural monuments and sculptures, painted murals still visible in several elite barrios or apartment complexes provided some of the most important information about the culture. These include damaged, polychrome frescoes from the Tetitla and Techinantitla complexes, among others, as well as the most celebrated, highly elaborate murals at Tepantitla discovered by Alfonso Caso in 1933 and first published by him almost a decade later. The reconstructed imagery is distinguished by a cast of characters arranged in an upper and lower register. The upper register is framed by a band of two interlaced streams of liquid, indicated by the stylized wave pattern that borders each stream. One of the undulating liquid bands is filled with red, star-shaped elements, the other with anthropomorphic creatures. Interspersed among the twisted bands of liquid are profile and frontal representations of the Storm God with the characteristic goggle eyes and bigotera. In these representations the Storm God is shown with a water lily in its mouth. The central figure of the upper register is a frontal deity wearing an enormous headdress, behind which foliate forms emerge. The figure wears large earspools, and a fanged nosebar, however the eyes, which are diamond-shaped, are nearly obscured by a vertical fringe. From the mouth emerge broad streams of liquid, also filled with red star shapes. The deity's arms are outspread, and what appears to be the edge of the sleeves of a garment- possibly a triangular cap, known in Nahuatl as a quechquemitl- is barely visible on the shoulders and upper arms. Part of the visible details of the garment inlcude alternating red and yellow trianges, as well as small, round elements- perhaps armbands- that also appear on the wrists as beaded bracelets. From each open hand eight large, tear-shaped drops fall intwo rows. The headdress has a large, predatory bird at the center and many green and red quetzal feathers are fanned out above and beside it. From behind the headdress emerge two twisted branches- one red and one yellow- of fantastic foliage. Each branch terminates with a single flower, from which pistils and long, ribbon-like stamens emerge. Droplets spill from the tips of the stamens. The branches, or perhaps vines of the plant are inhabited by butterflies and spiders. Below the mouth of the deity is a form shaped like an upside-down saucer from which seeds and flower-filled liquid spills. This form, which will be discussed in great detail below, has been alternatively identified as the large, upper lip of the Storm God, an overturned basin, an early variation of a lunar insignia, and a vagina or cave. Facing the central deity are two profile figures wearing the same headdress and bracelets as the deity. These profile figures with human faces wear short skirts, fancy sandals with fringes and ankle straps, and a garment that many scholars identify as a quechquemitl. A wide scroll embelled with flowers and filled with seeds or shells sprays upward from one hand of each attendant figure, while from the same hand a stream of seed or shell-filled liquid flows downward to the watery scrolls upon which the group stands. In another Tepantitla mural depicting a procession of priests wearing the cipactli (crocodilian) headdress, [María Teresa] Uriarte describes these elements as rods, and identifies the one pointing upward as speech scrolls, representing talking or chanting. Each attendant carries in their other hand a bag with a looped handle, perhaps an incense bag, suggesting they are attendant priests or priestesses to the deity. Behind each profile figure are small plants, two of which have attracted the interest of small birds that fly above.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, p33

[chthonicdivinebard]

Within a span of roughly 50 years, popular thinking regarding the identity and social meaning of a principal deity at the ancient central Mexican metropolis of Teotihuacan has changed radically. In 1962, George Kubler proposed that the central figure in the polychrome Mural 3 in the Tepantitla apartment complex at Teotihuacan was not an early version of the Nahua (or Aztec) rain deity, Tlaloc, as was generally thought, but rather a female figure that he named the "Water Goddess". Its initial identification as Tlaloc was due not only to the many excavations that revealed a strong visual presence of the rain deity at Teotihuacan, but also due to the fact that the central deity in the Tepantitla mural has an abundance of watery iconography, as well as some shared attributes with Nahua representations of Tlaloc, such as fangs and the bigotera, a term commonly used in the literature to refer to its large, curved upper lip. A decade later, [Esther] Pasztory and [Peter] Furst, in separate research, followed suit, independently challenging the masculine gender of the figure. Relying on iconographic analysis, Pasztory rejected both its identification as a male and as Tlaloc, declaring the central figure to be an earth and fertility Goddess, and proposing the name "Great Goddess" or simply the "Goddess." The moniker found wide acceptance, although its attributions suggest a stereotypical view of females as personifying nature while also being inherent in nature.

In a climate where figures are often assumed to be male, unless breasts, a pregnant belly, or female genitalia are visible, Pasztory’s work, in particular, opened the door for an ongoing debate about gender attribution at Teotihuacan, setting the stage for both the establishment of a gynaecentric cult and a major reassessment of how the visual culture should be addressed, and the work continues apace. Yet, the ready acceptance of a female gender for the deity represented at Tepantitla- described in detail below- and those deities seen elsewhere at Teotihuacan seems hasty in some regards. These gender attributions have had far-reaching consequences in promoting the concept of a Great Goddess- and, by extension, a cult of the Goddess- at Teotihuacan, assigning gender without substantiating evidence. Attempts to find important female deities at Teotihuacan have unfortunately obfuscated other lines of inquiry concerning how Teotihuacanos may have conceptualized gender. In some instances, the propagation of a Great Goddess mythology has created a fiction that relies on modern, Western stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. As [Caroline Walker] Bynum has noted, “the past is seldom usefully examined by assuming that its specific questions or their settings are the same as those of the present.” She goes on to specify that “the only past we can know is one we shape by the questions we ask; yet these questions are also shaped by the context we come from, and our context includes the past.” Hence, questions about specific aspects of the evidence on which the assertion of the gender identity of the Goddess rests deserve more rigorous scrutiny than has previously been accorded, particularly in light of recent discoveries. Likewise, a carefully reasoned assessment of how gender may have been conceived in ancient Mesoamerica is warranted. More specifically, this study addresses how ancient concepts of gender may have affected artistic representations in monumental and civic contexts at Teotihuacan, and the ways in which gender attribution has affected interpretations of Teotihuacan and its visual culture.

"A New Analysis of the Gender Attribution of the "Great Goddess" of Teotihuacan" by Elisa Mandell in Ancient Mesoamerica 26, p29