Strategies of Organization in Teotihuacan Art

Abstract

It was not so long ago, even in my own work, that Teotihuacan art was explained in terms of Aztec meaning (Pasztory 1973). Yet its unique composite character, combined seemingly endlessly from a limited set of signs, was also apparent quite early; and the basic cluster of imagery was defined by many, including Hasso von Winning (1987) and Laurette Sejourne (1956). Their aim was to group the signs around deities or at least into motif clusters. A major division everyone has tried to make is between fertility and war imagery. That notion, too, is Aztec derived, with the twin temple dedicated at Tenochititlan to Tlaloc, the rain god, and to Huitzilopochtli, the war god. We have hung on to this distinction as an intellectual life-belt even though even a cursory study can show that water and war imagery are often intermixed. In a short but provocative article, Kubler (1967) suggested a structural and linguistic reading of Teotihuacan art focusing on images that stand as nouns (main figures) and others as adjectives or adverbs (borders, costumes, etc.). In a long study full of excellent observation, Langley (1986) analyzed the signs and their clustering in the most sophisticated manner so far. The only shortcoming of his study is his search for writing at Teotihuacan and an unwillingness to accept it for what it is: a nonnarrative system of art.