#mesoamerica

[tlatollotl]

Cultura: Totonaca

Técnica: Modelado

Provenience unknown, possibly looted

MNA

[theancientwayoflife]

~ Skull Necklace.

Culture: Aztec

Period: Late Postclassic

Date: A.D. 1200-1520

Medium: Shell

[dyke-delphinium]

3D Reconstruction of Tenochtitlán by Thomas Kole

[memories-of-ancients]

Vessel in the form of a dog, Colima, Mexico, 100 BC - 300 AD

from The Walters Art Museum

[canisvesperus]

And we wouldn’t have to pay to see ourselves in museums.

Source

[shi-gu]

She saw some men fighting and 'gently' asked them to stop. "They can't make war if their legs are broken" reportedly said the passerby woman with a smile.

March 21st is Donají's birthday! 🔥🎉 This time, adult Donají advocating for peace (in her own way).

[sealhaus]

Quetzyyyyyy

[artifacts-and-arthropods]

Curly-Tailed Animal Pendant from Panama, c.350-450 CE: this gold pendant depicts an animal with stubby feet, a rounded head, and a long, thick tail curled up over its back

This design is often referred to as the "curly-tailed animal," and other pendants of the same style have been found in Panama, Colombia, and Costa Rica.

Above: two "curly-tailed animal" pendants from Panama, c.450-950 CE (top) and c.50-450 CE (bottom)

As this publication explains:

Among the intriguing and much-favored Panamanian cast pendants is the curly- tailed animal, a form that is found in both Colombia and lower Central America. Believed to date to as early as the second century A.D., when gold working was introduced into Panama from Colombia, the Panamanian versions are said to belong to the "Initial" style. The curly- tailed animals, so called for the impressively large tails that extend up over their backs, vary considerably in detail and have been identified as everything from dogs to ducks, but the tail, at least, is thought to be simian in derivation. It is clearly the significant element of the composition, and, when the pendant was worn, the tail would have been the most visible part of the ornament.

Produced for centuries in lower Central America, the "curly tails" were rendered in both gold and semiprecious stone; they were one of the few ancient images to be made in both materials.

Above: a "curly-tailed animal" pendant made of agate, c.100-800 CE

This page also expands on the blended characteristics that define the "curly-tailed animal" style:

Artists in the lands that are now part of the modern nations of Colombia, Panama, and Costa Rica created pendants and figures of a hybrid creature known to scholars as the curly-tailed animal.

The diversity of zoological attributes present on this and similar pendants precludes a definitive identification of any specific animal, but the capuchin monkey (Cebus capucinis), coatimundi (Nasua narica), or even domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris) may have provided inspiration.

Why Indigenous Artifacts Should be Returned to Indigenous Communities

Sources & More Info:

The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Curly-Tailed Animal Pendant

The Metropolitan Museum of Art: Curly-Tailed Pendants 2, 3, 4, and 5

Cleveland Art Museum: Agate Animal Pendant

Museum Publication: Gold of the Americas (PDF)

[bronzeageecho]

female dog with corn cob | c. 300 BCE - 600 CE | found in colima, méxico; shaft tombs culture

in the museo amparo collection

[larrycoyote]

Sculpture of a seated warrior with two dogs. Veracruz, Mexico, 400-800 AD

[bastrod]

Tlaloc

[tlatollotl]

Why do some people rage against using the term Aztec, but say nothing when someone uses Maya (multiple cultures), Zapotec (Bën Za), Mixtec (Ñuu Savi Sukun, Ñuu I'ni, Ñuu Andivi), Tarascan (Purépecha), Huichol (Wixárika), Cora (Náayerite), Huastec (Téenek), or any other indigenous groups? Especially when discussing archaeologically defined groups/cultures that may be quite distinct from their contemporary descendants?

I'm not saying that we shouldn't use better terms. We most definitely should. Anasazi, for example, should never be used beyond a single sentence saying it is no longer an acceptable label when reviewing and discussing the historiography of the Puebloan peoples.

But that doesn't mean some terms should be abandoned in lieu of another term that is no way better. Replacing Aztec with Mexica ignores the two other ethnic groups/city-states that made up the Triple Alliance. I want you to stop and think And see if you can recall what those two groups were. I'll give you a hint, Nezahualcóyotl was from one of those groups.

Give up? They were the Acolhua and Tepanec. So, if you want to stop using Aztec, that's fine. But you have to replace it with Mexica, Acolhua, and Tepanec every time. However, that replacement is only limited to talking about Tenochtitlán, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. Why? Because there were more ethnic groups within the Basin of Mexico, not to mention outside the Basin of Mexico, that were under control of the Triple Alliance and were distinct from being Mexica, Acolhua, or Tepanec. You could, of course, replace Aztec with Triple Alliance, or Ēxcān Tlahtōlōyān in Classic Nahuatl. Totally fine if a little unwieldy. Though you may run into issues with people confusing the Triple Alliance of Mesoamerica with several Triple Alliances in European history.

But what really is the issue with using Aztec to refer to the multitude of ethnicities and cultures that made up the Triple Alliance? It isn't derogatory or insulting. The term is based on the semi-mythical homeland of numerous groups that occupied Central Mexico and made up a large part of the Triple Alliance (the Tlaxcalteca were from Aztlan, as well). In fact, Aztec is a handy term to refer to the collection of all these groups despite the polity not being a monocultural entity because these groups did share many cultural features, histories, and/or languages.

You could compare the term Aztec to Roman. A broad term that encompasses many peoples. But when necessary, you can discuss individual or small groups of ethnicities/cultures within the broader polity. And that includes the people of Rome itself which you could refer to as Romani, which they called themselves, to be distinct from the larger broader socio-political Roman label for the people of the Republic/Empire outside of Rome proper.

It's an issue of scale, I think. But that's why we have multiple terms available to use when the context and need arises. And if better terms come along, by all means replace the previous terms.

If you disagree, I would like to know why. This was sort of a rant into the void from seeing other online discourse. I really would welcome a good explanation as to why we should replace Aztec with Mexica at the expense of all the other groups that made up the Triple Alliance.

[theancientwayoflife]

~ Fragmentary Figure.

Culture: Olmec

Period: Middle Preclassic

Date: 900-300 B.C.

Medium: Jadeite

[illustratus]

[memories-of-ancients]

Figural urn, Zapotec culture, Mexico, 450-650AD

from The Walters Art Museum

[yekokataa]

shoutout to ancient mesoamerican artists. greatest creature designers of all time