Expert opinion
Chichen Itza and the Toltec Question
Possibly one of the most controversial topics which has arisen among Chichen Itza scholars is the presence of certain features and elements which could be typified as “foreign,” and which are associated with what is known as Toltec culture.

This was first noted in the nineteenth century by the French photographer and scholar Desiré Charnay, and the debate has continued ever since (Charnay, 1885). Initially the presence of these traits was explained as the result of conquest and invasion by Toltec-affiliated groups arriving from central Mexico (Piña Chan, 1980). Nevertheless, as several authors including Baddeley (1983), Cohodas (1989) and Jones (1995) have indicated, this view is based on a traditional model from Europe which proposes a dichotomy between “civilized” and “savage” people, in which the Maya would be classed as a culture with peaceful tendencies while the Toltecs were a culture which excelled in warfare.

This perspective has changed over the years with the increase in archeological, iconographic and textual studies, giving us a deeper knowledge of ancient Mayan society. Now, for example, we know how important warfare, captive-taking and sacrifices were to the Maya; as well as the power struggles between different elites. A notable case is the study of royal dynasties using textual analysis (Schele, 1990).

With the benefit of these discoveries, authors such as Wren and Schmidt (1991) have characterized Chichen Itza as the result of the coming together and convergence of two regional cultures which essentially shared the same world view, although with certain differences (López Austin, 1999). According to the authors mentioned above, this process did not come about as a result of the Toltec conquest of the Mayan lands, but rather from the cultural accumulation of different ethnic groups, which formed part of wider processes of social, political, economic and religious transformation that correspond to and define the period known as the Mesoamerican Early Postclassic, between 800 and 1100 AD.
Chichen_Itza_La_Iglesia
INAH
600 - 800 AD. Puuc style
Under translation
185_opinion_experto_mascaron_edificio_monjas
INAH
600 - 800 AD. Puuc style
Under translation
185_opinion_experto_templo_jaguares
INAH
800 - 1100 AD. Toltec Maya style
Under translation
185_opinion_experto_cabeza_de_serpiente
INAH
800 - 1100 AD. Toltec Maya style
Under translation


  • Baddeley, Oriana, 1983, “Relationship of Ancient American Writing Systems to the Visual Arts”, en Berlo, Janet Catherine (ed.), Text and Image in Pre-Columbian Art: Essays on the Interrelationship of the Verbal and Visual Arts, Oxford, BAR.
  • Charnay, Désiré, 1885, Les anciennes villes du Nouveau Monde: Voyages d’explorations au Mexique et dans l’Amerique Centrale, Paris, Hachette.
  • Jones, Lindsay, 1995, Twin City Tales: A Hermeneutical Reassessment of Tula and Chichén Itzá, Niwot, University Press of Colorado.
  • López Austin, Alfredo y Leonardo López Luján, 1999, Mito y realidad de Zuyuá, México, FCE / Colmex.
  • Piña Chan, Román, 1993, Chichén Itzá. La ciudad de los brujos del agua, México, FCE.
  • Schele, Linda y David A. Freidel, 1990, A Forest of Kings: the Untold Story of the Ancient Maya, New York, Morrow.
Chichen_Itza_La_Iglesia

LEGAL NOTICE

The contents of this website belong to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia de México, and may be downloaded and shared without alterations, provided that the author is acknowledged and if is not for commercial purposes.

Footer MediatecaINAH

Guardar
Lugares INAH

Idioma