Nationalistic Iconography and `Anti-Iconology` of the

Nationalistic Iconography and `Anti-Iconology` of the

Dominique E. Garcia, 1
Nationalistic Iconography and ‘Anti-Iconology’ of
the Aztec Coatlicue Sculpture
National Iconography and Coatlicue
This project began as a historiography of the Aztec sculpture Coatlicue (fig. 1). In
researching the vast scholarship of this complex sculpture, it became apparent that its
interpretation has been manipulated, iconographically and iconologically,1 in a way that was
emblematic of each author’s historical period. That is to say, beginning in the 1790’s when it was
first unearthed in Mexico City and up to contemporary times, Coatlicue’s iconography and
cultural significance were interpreted and understood in a way that served the western mind. It
was not until the mid-twentieth century that the Coatlicue sculpture was put into a more impartial
historical context.
This paper will use the lens of iconography2 and anti-iconology3 to view how the Aztec
sculpture of Coatlicue was presented and woven into the historical narrative of Mexican
nationalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. These iconographic misconceptions are
tied to art history’s canonical discourse of the preference of classicism in western art. The
Enlightenment notion of utilizing a scientific method of analysis takes precedence, and in the
case of visual analysis, this takes the form of a strong connection between text and images.
Eighteenth-Century Historical Background of the Great Coatlicue
The Coatlicue sculpture was accidentally discovered in 1790 when repairs were being
performed in Mexico City’s main plaza. Along with this sculpture, the Sun Stone (also known as
the Aztec Calendar Stone) was also discovered, adding to the collection of monumental Aztec
sculptures known by the late colonial Mexican officials of New Spain. Viceroy Revillagigedo
commissioned Antonio de León y Gama to study and create a report of these two monuments,
which he intended to preserve (fig. 2).4 Due to the viceroy’s desire to preserve and study the
sculptures, which was contrary to the earlier colonial efforts to destroy or rebury such works, it is
clear that there was a new culture of collecting in New Spain in the early nineteenth century.
After León y Gama and Francisco de Agüera made their written and illustrative assessments of
the sculpture, it was moved to the patio of the University of Mexico and later reburied in 1805
when the bishop Móxo y Fernández expressed fear that the natives of New Spain would begin to
show veneration to the goddess, thus challenging the two hundred years of conversion that the
Spanish believed had been quite successful.5 The statue was briefly disinterred in 1803 for the
renowned Alexander von Humboldt when he showed interest in viewing it, though it was not
until after Mexican independence in 1810 that the sculpture was permanently unearthed. 6
Scholars were intrigued and at times unsettled by the sculpture’s imagery, which is clear in their
writings that will be analyzed later in this paper.
Formal Analysis of Coatlicue
The imposing form of the sculpture in the round stands 8.26 feet (2.52 meters) high and is
5.18 feet (1.58 meters) wide (fig. 1).7 Coatlicue is depicted wearing a skirt composed of woven
rattle snakes, which relates to the goddess’s Nahuatl name, meaning “Snake-her-skirt.”8 Her
form is a nuanced combination of human and animal characteristics. The figure’s head has been
replaced with two snakes that rise from her neck and meet face-to-face, with their tongues and
fangs extended in the center.
Garcia, 2
From the front of the sculpture, the figure has human breasts, which sag in a manner that
suggests she has given birth and breastfed in her life. Around the figure’s neck is a garland of
human hands, with their palms facing outward, stylized human hearts, and a human skull
pendant that meets with the skirt’s belt, which is composed of two snakes tied together in the
center. The legs of the sculpture are covered in decorative designs akin to ornamental regalia
with geometric motifs. A cluster of what appear to be eagle plumes lead to the feet that are
sculpted to form monsters. This monstrous motif can be seen in the stylized eyes on the top of
the feet and talons that also function as fangs for the monstrous instep. Moreover, under the
figure’s skirt is a snake that forms an s-shaped coil, then bends at a right angle parallel to the feet
to show the snake’s face with its fangs exposed. The woven pattern on this snake’s body is
reminiscent of the snakes that form the figure’s head and belt. This pattern, of crossed bands with
small discs in the center, allude to jade (meaning the material and the color green) and
preciousness.
The back of the sculpture (fig. 3) has many of the same characteristics, such as the
woven-snake skirt and neck garland of human hands and hearts. Like the front, the upper back is
more anthropomorphic in that the skin is smooth and there is a clear delineation between the
shoulders and arms. However, the shoulders and elbows are depicted as fanged monsters, like the
feet, which are associated with Aztec earth lords. The arms lay against the figure’s torso (fig. 4).
Bending at the elbow, the forearm turns into the fanged snakes seen in the front of the sculpture.
Thus, the hands are snakes that mimic those of the head and appear to be claws when viewed
from the front. The sculpted human skull fastened to the figure’s belt in the center of the back
attaches to two layers of woven leather straps made in the likeness of rattle snake ends. The
snake, monster, and human body part motifs are consistently portrayed on every side of this
sculpture.
Early Scholarship and Enlightenment Influences
As previously stated, Antonio de León y Gama (fig. 2) was the first modern scholar to
write about this Coatlicue sculpture, though it had been discussed indirectly by a number of
Spanish chroniclers in the sixteenth century. 9 In his writing, León y Gama performed an
iconographic analysis on the sculpture, which is rife with personal opinion and biases. Like many
scholars, he felt compelled to place this sculpture within the known pantheon of Aztec deities,
and thus within a commonly understood narrative of indigenous religious mythology.
León y Gama believed that the sculpture was a female deity, based upon her breasts,
which was later refuted by several other scholars.10 In his writing, he named the sculpture
Teoyaomiqui, who he considered a very powerful war and death deity: “Teoyaomiqui, which
translates to die in the divine war, or something similar, to die in the defense of the gods.” 11 He
explains that Teoyaomiqui was given sacrifices and that this deity was venerated in the main
temple, where this sculpture was found, as well as in private homes for the purpose of having her
guard soldiers in battle.12 León y Gama derived this information from the early colonial author
Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci and clearly took this work as ‘truth,’ for he restated it in his
analysis.13
In his analysis of the sculpture’s details, León y Gama parallels the stylistic motifs with
those of better-known Aztec deities. One such example of his iconographic comparison is his
discussion of the symbolic meaning of this sculpture’s snake motifs and their similarities to other
female deities who also have snake imagery, such as the fabled Coatlicue, although he called the
sculpture by a different name. In the eighteenth century, the predominant ethnographic chronicle
that many scholars utilized was Fray Juan de Torquemada’s Monarchia Indiana, which León y
Garcia, 3
Gama utilized and referenced in his work.14 Based upon his analysis, it is clear that León y Gama
knew the Aztec mythological belief that the female deity Coatlicue was the mother of the patron
god Huitzilopochtli, though he didn’t connect this deity to the sculpture.15 In a footnote, he
retells the story of the birth of Huitzilopochtli, which clearly shows influences from
Torquemada’s version of the myth:16
Coatlicue, which translates to serpent skirt. The fable of the birth of Huitzilopochtli
tells that there was a devout woman who occupied herself with sweeping and
cleaning the temples. One day as she was doing this task, a ball of feathers came to
her and she put it in her waist; and when she later tried to find it, she could not: but,
her belly began to raise, and her children knew of her pregnancy, and they set out to
kill her; and as they [her children] carried this plan out, Huitzilopochtli was born
wearing armor, and he went after them and killed them all. 17
Though León y Gama thoroughly cites many of his previous sources, including early colonial
documents, he has no citation for this particular story. This leads me to believe that the story of
Huitzilopochtli’s bird, which tells of his mother Coatlicue’s death, was common knowledge by
the eighteenth century, at the very least among scholars. This commonly-known tale was very
influential in scholars’ future analysis of the Coatlicue sculpture.
Using other forms of comparison, León y Gama also associates the teeth of the statue to
those of Tlaloc (the Mesoamerican rain and earth deity) (fig. 5). He asserts that the attributes of
Tlaloc, such as the fangs and eyebrows (goggles) combine to “form a horrible image.”18 He even
goes so far as to reiterate the notions of his contemporary, Abate Clavigero, and the early
Spanish chronicler Torquemada’s idea that these were demonic images. 19 In his description,
León y Gama continues to use terms like “false idols,” “ridiculous and superstitious rituals,” and
states that the natives committed “consecrated holocausts” in order to give victims to their
deities20—all of which clearly allude to the European fascination and shock with the Aztec ritual
of human sacrifice.
León y Gama’s reading of the statue’s iconography and its connections to the indigenous
past (as known up until that point) is highly influenced by the cultural climate of Mexico in the
late eighteenth century (fig. 6). His analysis of the Coatlicue sculpture should be contrasted to
how he described and understood the other monument that was also found in 1790: the Aztec
Sun Stone (fig. 7). The Sun Stone afforded scholars of the Enlightenment period, particularly
León y Gama, the visual evidence for their scientifically-based line of inquiry. The Sun Stone
was understood to be a solar clock and therefore it was “astronomical, chronological and
gnomonic” in its function.21 In contrast to the Coatlicue sculpture that León y Gama called a
“horrible effigy,”22 he believed the Sun Stone proved that the Aztecs were scientifically-minded,
intelligent people who understood the cosmos in a way that mirrored the Europeans’ view.
However, his need to elevate the Aztecs to a higher, scientific and intellectual echelon is
actually a reaction to negative assertions by other eighteenth-century writers. Art historian Stacie
Widdifield explains that León y Gama’s description of the Sun Stone as an example of the
advanced scientific aptitude of the Aztecs comes from a need to counter the notion that the
Aztecs were still considered barbarians by European scholars. 23 By portraying the Aztecs as
intelligent and scientifically-minded people, the popular notion of their uncivilized and pagan
inclinations could be erased. This need to re-write and essentially legitimize the indigenous past
of the Mexican nation would continue into the nineteenth century, as well as its legitimacy being
anchored in Aztec monumental sculptures.
Garcia, 4
The Museo Nacional and Nineteenth-century Nationalism
As aforementioned, the Coatlicue sculpture was finally unearthed after Mexican
Independence of 1810 (fig. 1). It was during this time that the country was changing from the
Viceroyalty of New Spain to the Mexican nation, while a new concept of identity was being
formed. One of the major cultural manifestations of this new identity was the shift in emphasis to
the national indigenous past of Mexico—with indigenous, meaning the noble Aztecs. An
example of how the Mexican government sought to institutionalize this new past was to establish
a means of displaying the large monuments of the Aztecs.
In 1825, the Mexican president Guadalupe Victoria began the foundation of the National
Museum at the University of Mexico.24 With this initiation, some Aztec monuments were added
to the courtyard of the University, where Greek and Roman plaster models were located. Michael
Schreffler notes that this area was frequently closed to the public, thus only a small group of
visitors would have been able to see the Coatlicue sculpture.25
In an early nineteenth-century engraving by Pedro Gualdi (fig. 8), the Coatlicue sculpture
is located in the left corner, behind the high wrought-iron gates. Upon further observation, it is
clear to me that the only figure who is viewing the Aztec sculpture is a man of lower status,
likely of indigenous heritage, based upon his loose-fitting pants and shirt and his flat hat. This
male figure is a stark contrast to the gentleman in the center of the courtyard, who wears a suit
and top hat. This engraving is a visual representation of the class and ethnic divisions that were
present in Mexico in the nineteenth century, as well as depicts who would have been interested
in viewing the sculpture.
In 1865, the Archduke Maximilian ordered the foundation of the new museum (fig. 9).26
This directive included gathering all of the pre-Hispanic monumental sculptures (fig. 10) that
were known at the time and putting them on display in the former Casa de Moneda. The
Coatlicue sculpture was taken to this new museum site in 1879,27 where it was first placed in the
garden of the building. In a photograph from 1885 (fig. 11), the Coatlicue is displayed behind the
famous Tizoc Stone, which was a monumental sculpture from the reign of the Aztec ruler Tizoc.
Interestingly, the Tizoc Stone was used in sacrificial ceremonies (fig. 12), though this fact was
significantly down-played by scholars and nation-builders at the time.28 The space in the garden
of the National Museum was not open to the public, since there was a concept at the time that
only educated men (meaning white educated men) would have the intellect and rationale to
handle such a horrific image.29 I believe that this association is made evident by the gentlemen
who are closely observing the Tizoc Stone in the foreground of a circa 1880 painting by Cleofas
Almanza (fig. 13). By 1887, all of the monumental sculptures were placed into a small corridorlike gallery called the Hall of Monoliths, where they were intended to be viewed by visitors,
especially those who were coming to Mexico City to partake in the new nationalistic culture (fig.
14).
Largely due to the influence of León y Gama and other subsequent scholars, the pride and
centerpiece of the Hall of Monoliths was the Aztec Sun Stone. The Sun Stone was placed at the
entrance of the gallery, so that visitors would see it upon both entering and exiting. The emphasis
on this particular monument, above the others in the gallery, demonstrates the continuation of the
Enlightenment notion that scientific thought dominated everything else (fig. 15). The very use of
a museum to house these sculptures speaks to what Enrique Florescano writes was the
“Enlightenment conception of a museum as the showcase for all specimens of the natural
kingdom and of human creativity.”30
Garcia, 5
Nineteenth-Century Scholarship of Coatlicue
It was not until 1888 when Alfredo Chavero published the first volume of his important
work, México a Través de los Siglos: Historia Antigua y de la Conquista (fig. 16), that there was
an iconological analysis of the Coatlicue sculpture. The first major contribution that Chavero
made to the study of this sculpture was giving it a more accurate name from the Aztec pantheon:
Coatlicue (fig. 17), based upon nineteenth-century Aztec knowledge.31 Chavero’s work also ties
the image of Coatlicue to Aztec religion, adding to the cultural context of the image beyond the
previous western notions of aesthetics and violence that León y Gama established.
Chavero dedicates two of the three books in his volume to the history and culture related
to Aztec deities. Thus, he brings the religious pantheon and culture into the previouslyestablished iconography of the Coatlicue sculpture—executing what Panofsky would consider an
assessment of the symbolic values of the sculpture’s imagery. 32
Also characteristic of the nineteenth century and the Enlightenment movement is the
necessity to have textual and scientific proof, even within visual culture.33 Chavero situates his
“proof” in the scholarship of several chroniclers,34 but his use of ethnohistorical language and his
interpretation of all the motifs using written sources removes him from the previous habitus35 of
New Spain. Chavero’s work thus reflected nineteenth-century Mexican secularization and
scientific ideological expansion, along with the continuation of nation-building efforts involving
an entire re-writing of the Mexican history—one that included the noble Aztecs.
Like León y Gama almost a century before him, Chavero retells the story of
Huitzilopochtli’s birth. Chavero’s version is quite similar to Torquemada’s, though it includes
more dramatic dialogue, such as Huitzilopochtli speaking to Coatlicue from within her womb,
telling her that he will vindicate her: “Coatlicue heard an inner voice say: ‘Mother, do not fear,
for I will liberate you and glorify both of us.”36 The interaction between Coatlicue and
Huitzilopochtli in her womb is reminiscent of Fray Bernardino Sahagún’s version of the same
story.37 Sahagún’s Florentine Codex was published in 1840 by Carlos María de Bustamante,38
therefore Chavero would have had access to this more dramatic and detailed rendition of the
birth of Huitzilopochtli and was clearly influenced by it.
A more basic issue of scholars’ writing and re-writing of Coatlicue’s history, is that it is
primarily based on the written documentation and much less on the visual evidence, even in
Chavero’s case. The Coatlicue sculpture was not understood as such until a scholar named it and
supported his claim with other written sources—sources that came from sixteenth-century
Spanish friars who understood the European value of the written word above all else. Thus in the
context of European scholarship and readership, Chavero renamed the sculpture through the use
of textual sources. However, unfortunately for him, the sculpture he was analyzing was not based
upon European religion of imagery.
Iconography in Art
Iconography is a fundamental aspect of visual analysis and one that is utilized throughout
art history. Though iconography is often utilized in the formal analysis of a piece, its main
purpose is to assess the “meaning” of an art object.39 Erwin Panofsky’s work on iconography
expands the complexities of this particular method. The fundamental idea of iconography is the
notion that a scholar with enough knowledge would be able to ‘read’ the motifs to develop a
meaning of any given art work.
In his 1939 publication,40 Panofsky introduces the fundamental layers of analysis in
iconography. He divides the process of iconography into three levels, all of which are dependent
upon differing depths of cultural assumptions. The first stage is what he calls “Primary or
Garcia, 6
Natural Subject Matter,” which he further divides into “factual” and “expressional” imagery. 41
When combined, the forms become “carriers of primary or natural meanings…called the world
of artistic motifs.”42
The second stage, one that I will use in this paper to analyze the Coatlicue sculpture, is
what Panofsky calls “secondary” or “conventional subject matter.”43 This part of the
iconographic process is when the scholar relates the previously-mentioned artistic motifs to a
narrative, or “the world of specific themes or concepts manifested in images, stories and
allegories.”44 This scholarly need to connect an image to a narrative dates back to ancient
theorists’ idea of invenzioni.45 Panofsky realizes that this stage of iconographical analysis, which
implores the scholar to name particular motifs and associate them with a narrative, can be
problematic, especially when the iconographer imposes upon the intentions of an artist and can
remove the artistic and expressive qualities of the image in the analysis.46
Panofsky’s final stage of iconographic analysis is what he calls “intrinsic meaning” or
“content,” which is obtained by determining “those underlying principles which reveal the basic
attitude of a nation, a period, a class, a religious or philosophical persuasion—unconsciously
qualified by one personality and condensed into one work.”47 He writes that the combination of
the imagery and narrative qualities of a given piece is necessary in order to perform a “correct
iconographical interpretation in a deeper sense.”48 Once again this process can be problematic, as
he notes that trying to analyze a particular piece as an example that speaks to a subconscious
aspect of its entire culture or even its artist is reductive.49
Panofsky maintains that when the analysis of motifs relies upon narratives, there is an
assumption that the themes or concepts of the art come from written sources.50 Written sources
are the crux of analysis in western scholarship, thus transmission of knowledge is based upon
text. Yet, it is important to remember that the ‘truth’ or correctness of an image’s meaning does
not come solely from its correlations to written sources. 51 In order to carefully decide which
outside sources are of relevance to an image in order to correctly label it, Panofsky proposes that
the scholar execute a comparative visual studies.52 Though his work mentions that an
iconographical analysis must take historical context of a work into account, I believe that the
reliance on written sources narrows the analysis to very specific cultures in which text is both
available and valued.
A separation of iconographical analysis from its reliance on canonized written sources is
what Michael Camille proposes in his article “Mouths and Meanings: Towards an AntiIconography of Medieval Art.”53 Camille insists that though Panofsky’s concept of iconology
has been very influential in the humanities and is quite effective when applied to Renaissance art,
it is still problematic when applied to art from periods before and after.54 It is my assertion that in
many ways, these problems are applicable to non-Western art as well, especially art coming from
a time when written ‘history’ (in a European sense of the word) was not produced. Camille
suggests that “by limiting itself to written models of interpretation, iconography does not take
enough account of the uninscribed codes and cultural practices that are generated orally and
performatively.”55 And, what else would be performative and oral if not religion?
Camille situates the scholarly need to correlate the written source with the visual in the
nineteenth century when there was a positivist “‘science’ of philology.” 56 At this time, there was
an impulse in scholarship, even in the humanities, for an analysis to follow a systematic
procedure by which a “truth” or result could be obtained. When dealing with the visual, the text
was favored as a source of fact; however, in cases such as medieval art, text was not necessarily
a favored form of mass information transmission.57 It is also important to take the object of
Garcia, 7
analysis into account, such as a sculpture’s attributes viewed in contrast to a painting or painted
manuscript.
Non-textual cultural references are inherent in the work that Camille examines, as seen
through animal imagery. He discusses the possible symbolism that is evoked by the animals in
the pillar to the right of the entrance of Souillac, Abbey Church of Sainte-Marie (fig. 18). Going
beyond the stories of Biblical scripture, he turns to a fable in which medieval Europeans were
said to hang a wolf’s jaw over a doorway to ward off evil spirits, taking the imagery further than
simply an allusion to temptation from Christianity. 58 Camille blames this oversight by earlier
scholars on the academic tendency to separate religious and profane text. Nonetheless, this
separation is not always the problem: “The difficulty for the art historian becomes one of double
translation—to explore in writing, ideas that might have originated through writing like Holy
Writ, but which were then mediated outside or beyond it, in rituals, prayers, sermons, but most
importantly of all, in images.”59
Iconography and ‘Anti-Iconology’60 of Coatlicue
As aforementioned, the first attempt at visual analysis of the Coatlicue statue was
executed by León y Gama, in the form of proto-iconography. Inherent in this analysis is his
impulse to compare this statue to other known images. He derives visual and historical parallels
from Spanish chroniclers, who were Christians with an extreme bias against rampant indigenous
paganism. As explained more in depth previously, the major source of this historical information
was Torquemada’s Monarchia Indiana, published in the early seventeenth century. Though there
were numerous chronicles produced before Torquemada’s, this was the only known work at the
time of León y Gama’s analysis.
A major issue that is present in León y Gama’s late eighteenth-century work is the
overwhelmingly-evident European lens through which he viewed the sculpture. Yet, this is not to
say that he was the sole Euro-centric scholar in late colonial Mexico. On the contrary, this was
the habitus in which all educated Mexicans existed—which was derived from European
religious, political, and even scientific concepts. I argue that this habitus can be assessed, among
many factors, through the physical surroundings of the Coatlicue sculpture while it was housed
in the University of Mexico. Alexander von Humboldt, the historian and well-known
Enlightenment traveler, wrote in his accounts about the many plaster casts of Greek and Roman
models in the courtyard, which were gifts from the Spanish King Charles III who was himself an
amateur archaeologist.61 The professors of the university found the sculpture of the thenTeoyaomiqui, the warrior goddess (Coatlicue), was unfit to be in the presence of such canonical
works since they were examples of perfect representations of western art.62
Similarly, the snakes of the Coatlicue sculpture (fig. 1) were frightening to eighteenthcentury New Spanish intellectuals. León y Gama’s assessment of the sculpture’s association with
the cult of death and war was a reaction to the gruesomeness of the figure. The snakes, with their
snarling lips and curved tongues, were monstrous to the European eye. Serpents had several
meanings to the Aztecs, but in the case of Coatlicue the snakes symbolized blood. As León y
Gama told the story, Coatlicue was decapitated and dismembered by her conniving offspring.63
However, what was not considered by León y Gama, was that blood, like the material jade and
the color green, was precious to Aztec cosmovision, since it was a source of both life and death.
Not knowing more about the cultural and religious context of the Aztecs clearly led León y
Gama to use his own concepts of aesthetics in his assessment of the sculpture. This is an example
of poorly-executed iconographical analysis, for he has failed to properly evaluate what Panofsky
called the intrinsic meaning64 of the snake in the context of Aztec imagery.
Garcia, 8
Aesthetics in Context
Aside from Chavero and later scholars’ need to associate a narrative to the Coatlicue
sculpture, the visual analyses are polluted with the desire to ascribe aesthetic qualities. León y
Gama’s subjective manner of describing is what Gombrich explains as the inability of art
historians to separate criticism from description, mostly due to cultural biases.65 His use of terms
such as “horrible” when describing the physical and visual qualities make evident the scholastic
tendency to use culturally-specific notions of beauty, or in his case ugliness.
Another major shift in visual conception of the “horrible effigy,” as León y Gama put it,
is Chavero’s terminology because he writes that Coatlicue was “the most beautiful idol in the
National Museum.”66 His use of the term beautiful (or hermosa) speaks directly to the changing
notions of aesthetics in late-nineteenth-century Mexican scholarship, though it also demonstrates
to the contemporary reader the author’s inability to once again separate his opinion from visual
analysis. Through his language, Chavero almost seeks to redeem previous scholars’ negative
analyses of Aztec art.
León y Gama and Chavero’s analyses exemplify how using the use of universalizing
language clearly expresses Gombrich’s notions of normative criticism that fits into alreadyestablished ideas of description.67 The Coatlicue sculpture’s style is not classical in the western
artistic canonical sense, therefore making it ‘non-classical,’68 these scholars sought to find other
means of understanding its imagery. Once again, this is an example of scholars’ failed attempts
to fit the sculpture into the canonical discourse of western art.
Closing Thoughts
The Coatlicue sculpture’s significance was subject to the scholarship and the culture from
which it was written. León y Gama’s writing on the sculpture is riddled with bias and
Enlightenment-influenced visual analysis, which connected the figure to the fearsome war deity
Teoyaomiqui. He based his concepts on early colonial chronicles and previously-established
imagery. By the nineteenth century, the sculpture served to help glorify the Aztecs’ religion and
artistic abilities. This is evident in Chavero’s writing that contains a more accepting sentiment, in
addition to having been shaped by other previous-known Spanish accounts. Both analyses are
examples of the western impulse to develop a connection between textual narrative and visual
evidence. This evidence is “proven” when an accepted story supports the imagery of a work of
art, but results in the elimination of the object’s function and intention of its artist. In the end,
this need to use “proof” is a human instinct, as Gombrich writes: “Man is a classifying animal,
and he has an incurable propensity to regard the network he has himself imposed on the variety
of experiences as belonging to the objective world of things” 69—even in the case of objects that
were not originally part of his world, like the Coatlicue sculpture.
Garcia, 9
Figures
Figure 1. Contemporary image of Coatlicue sculpture, front view.
Figure 2. Coatlicue, engraving by Francisco de Agüera, ca. 1792.
Garcia, 10
Figure 3. Contemporary image of Coatlicue sculpture, back view.
Figure 4. Contemporary image of Coatlicue sculpture, ¾ back view.
Garcia, 11
Figure 5. Aztec Chac Mool with Tlaloc face, Late Post Classic (1250-1501 AD)
Figure 6. Contemporary photo of Coatlicue, view from below.
Garcia, 12
Fig. 7. Schematic illustration of the Sun Stone (Aztec Calendar Stone), engraving by Francisco
de Agüera, ca. 1792
Figure 8. Interior de la Universidad de Mexico, Pedro Gualdi, engraving, ca. 1841.
Garcia, 13
Figure 9. Coatlicue sculpture, ca. 1864-1867.
Figure 10. Mexican antiquities, which exist in the National Museum of México, 1857. Castro,
C., Lithograph, From México y sus alrededores. Coleccion de vistas monumentales, paisajes y
trajes del pais. Dibujados al natural y litografiados por los artistas mexicanos. 2 p. l., 67, [3] p.
47 pl. (part col.) 2 fold. maps. 46 cm. Stephen A. Schwarzman Building / General Research
Division.
Garcia, 14
Figure 11. Coatlicue in the patio of the Museo Nacional, 1885. Photo: Sinafo – INAH.
Figure 12. Center of the garden of National Museum depicting the Tizoc Stone and Coatlicue,
photo by William Henry Jackson, ca. 1883-1885.
Garcia, 15
Figure 13. Patio del Museo Nacional, oil on canvas, Cleofas Almanza, ca. 1880.
Figure. 14. The main hall of the National Museum, which was located in the Casa de Moneda
No. 13. The Sun Stone, opposite the exit, became the centerpiece of the Hall of Monoliths, which
opened in 1887. In the foreground can be seen the Tizoc Stone.
Figure 15. The same Hall of Monoliths, now seen from the opposite end, in foreground showing
the monolith of the statue of Coatlicue, after the opening of the enclosure in 1887, which served
to protect from the weather to as valuable antiquities.
Garcia, 16
Figure 16. Frontispiece of Volume 1 of México a Través de los Siglos, written by D. Alfredo
Chavero, 1888.
Garcia, 17
Figure 17. Line drawing of Coatlicue, from Achavero’s first volume, 1888.
Figure 18. Pillar on right of doorway, Souillac, Abbey Church of Sainte-Marie.
Garcia, 18
Works Cited
Bernal, Ignacio. A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. London; New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1980.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill. "Templo Mayor Research, 1521-1978." In The Aztec Templo Mayor: A Symposium at
Dumbarton Oaks, 8th and 9th October 1983, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Dumbarton Oaks, 5-69.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Camille, Michael. "Mouths and Meanings: Towards an Anti-Iconography of Medieval Art." In Iconography at the
Crossroads : Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University,
23-24 March 1990, edited by Brendan Cassidy, Princeton University Department of Art Archaeology and
Index of Christian Art, 43-54. Princeton, N.J.: Index of Christian Art, Dept. of Art and Archaeology,
Princeton University, 1993.
Chavero, Alfredo, and Vicente Riva Palacio. México a Través De Los Siglos; Historia General Y Completa Del
Desenvolvimiento Social, Político, Religioso, Militar, Artístico, Científico Y Literario De México Desde La
Antigüedad Más Remota Hasta La Época Actual. México, D.F.: G.S. López, 1940.
Florescano, Enrique. "The Creation of the Museo Nacional De Antropología of Mexico and Its Scientific,
Educational, and Political Purposes." Paper presented at the Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past: a
Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 6th and 7th October 1990, Washington, D.C., 1993 1990.
Franco, Jean. "The Return of Coatlicue: Mexican Nationalism and the Aztec Past." Journal of Gender Studies 13,
no. 2 (2004): 205-19.
Gombrich, E. H. Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. London; New York: Phaidon, 1978.
Klein, Cecelia F. "The Devil and the Skirt: An Iconographic Inquiry into the Pre-Hispanic Nature of the
Tzitzimime." Ancient Mesoamerica 11, no. 1 (2000): 1-26.
León Portilla, Miguel. Bernardino De Sahagun: First Anthropologist. Translated by Mauricio J. Mixco. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 2002.
León y Gama, Antonio, and Eduardo de Matos Moctezuma. Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos
Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza Principal De
México, Se Hallaron En Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición (1832). México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2009.
Panofsky, Erwin. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper &
Row, 1962.
Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Sahagún, Bernardino de. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, Part Iv, Book 3- the
Origins of the Gods. Edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Santa Fe, N.M.; Salt Lake
City, Utah: School of American Research ; University of Utah, 1978.
Schreffler, Michael J. "The Making of an Aztec Goddess: A Historiographic Study of the Coatlicue." Arizona State
University, 1994.
Torquemada, Juan de. "Donde Fe Trata De El Dios Huitzilupuchtli, Llamado De Los Antiguos, Marte, Mui Querido,
Y Celebrado De Eftas Gentes Indianas, En Efecial De Mexicanos; Y Fe Dicen Embuftes De El Demonio,
Mezclados Con Mifericordias De Dios; Y De Como Fingió Nacer De Muger [Sic]." In Monarquia Indiana.
T.2, 41-42. México: Porrúa, 1969.
Umberger, Emily. "The Later Lives of Two Aztec Sacrificial Stones." Paper presented at the College Art
Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, February 2010.
Villar K., Mónica del, Margarita de Orellana, Gabriela Olmos, and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
Artes de México. Catálogo Esencial, Museo Nacional De Antropologia: 100bras. México, D.F.: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Artes de México, 2011.
Widdifield, Stacie Graham. "The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History." University of California, Los Angeles,
1981.
Bibliography
Aguilera, Elizabeth. "Feminist Approaches to Aztec Sculptures: A Historiographic Approach." 2007.
Bernal, Ignacio. A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. London; New
York: Thames and Hudson, 1980.
Garcia, 19
Boone, Elizabeth Hill. "Templo Mayor Research, 1521-1978." In The Aztec Templo Mayor: A Symposium at
Dumbarton Oaks, 8th and 9th October 1983, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone and Dumbarton Oaks, 5-69.
Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987.
Boone, Elizabeth Hill, Gary Urton, and Dumbarton Oaks, eds. Their Way of Writing: Scripts, Signs, and
Pictographies in Pre-Columbian America. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and
Collection, 2011.
Bourdieu, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
Camille, Michael. "Mouths and Meanings: Towards an Anti-Iconography of Medieval Art." In Iconography at the
Crossroads : Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of Christian Art, Princeton University,
23-24 March 1990, edited by Brendan Cassidy, Princeton University Department of Art Archaeology and
Index of Christian Art, 43-54. Princeton, N.J.: Index of Christian Art, Dept. of Art and Archaeology,
Princeton University, 1993.
Chavero, Alfredo, and Vicente Riva Palacio. México a Través De Los Siglos; Historia General Y Completa Del
Desenvolvimiento Social, Político, Religioso, Militar, Artístico, Científico Y Literario De México Desde La
Antigüedad Más Remota Hasta La Época Actual. México, D.F.: G.S. López, 1940.
Fernández, Justino. Coatlicue: Estética Del Arte Indígena Antiguo. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas,
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1959.
———. A Guide to Mexican Art: From Its Beginnings to the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969.
Fernández, Justino, and Eugenio Fischgrund. Mexico's Prehispanic Sculpture. [Mexico City?]: Published by
Editorial México in collaboration with the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 1964.
Florescano, Enrique. "The Creation of the Museo Nacional De Antropología of Mexico and Its Scientific,
Educational, and Political Purposes." Paper presented at the Collecting the Pre-Columbian Past: a
Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 6th and 7th October 1990, Washington, D.C., 1993 1990.
———. National Narratives in Mexico: A History. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006.
Franco, Jean. "The Return of Coatlicue: Mexican Nationalism and the Aztec Past." Journal of Gender Studies 13,
no. 2 (2004): 205-19.
Gombrich, E. H. Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance. London; New York: Phaidon, 1978.
Humboldt, Alexander von. The Travels and Researches of Baron Humboldt. New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833.
Klein, Cecelia F. "The Devil and the Skirt: An Iconographic Inquiry into the Pre-Hispanic Nature of the
Tzitzimime." Ancient Mesoamerica 11, no. 1 (2000): 1-26.
———. "A New Interpretation of the Aztec Statue Called Coatlicue, "Snakes-Her-Skirt"." Ethnohistory 55, no. 2
(2008): 229-50.
Kubler, George. "Aesthetics since Amerindian Art before Columbus." Paper presented at the Collecting the PreColumbian Past: a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 6th and 7th October 1990, Washington, D.C., 1993
1990.
León Portilla, Miguel. Bernardino De Sahagun: First Anthropologist. Translated by Mauricio J. Mixco. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 2002.
León y Gama, Antonio, and Eduardo de Matos Moctezuma. Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos
Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza Principal De
México, Se Hallaron En Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición (1832). México: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2009.
León y Gama, Antonio de Bustamante Carlos María de. Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos Piedras :
Reproducción Facsimilar De Las Primeras Ediciones Mexicanas, Primera Parte 1792, Segunda Parte
1832. México: M. A. Porrúa, 1978.
López Luján, Leonardo. "El Ídolo Sin Pies Ni Cabeza: La Coatlicue En El Siglo Xviii." Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl
42 (2011): 203-32.
Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. Las Piedras Negadas: De La Coatlicue Al Templo Mayor. México, D.F.: Consejo
Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, 1998.
Metropolitan Museum of Art, San Antonio Museum of Art Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Mexico: Splendors
of Thirty Centuries. New York; Boston: Metropolitan Museum of Art; Little, Brown, 1990.
Panofsky, Erwin. Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. New York: Harper &
Row, 1962.
Pasztory, Esther. Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of Art. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2005.
Preziosi, Donald, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Garcia, 20
Sahagún, Bernardino de. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, Part Iv, Book 3- the
Origins of the Gods. Edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Santa Fe, N.M.; Salt Lake
City, Utah: School of American Research ; University of Utah, 1978.
Schreffler, Michael J. "The Making of an Aztec Goddess: A Historiographic Study of the Coatlicue." Arizona State
University, 1994.
Torquemada, Juan de. "Donde Fe Trata De El Dios Huitzilupuchtli, Llamado De Los Antiguos, Marte, Mui Querido,
Y Celebrado De Eftas Gentes Indianas, En Efecial De Mexicanos; Y Fe Dicen Embuftes De El Demonio,
Mezclados Con Mifericordias De Dios; Y De Como Fingió Nacer De Muger [Sic]." In Monarquia Indiana.
T.2, 41-42. México: Porrúa, 1969.
Umberger, Emily. "The Later Lives of Two Aztec Sacrificial Stones." Paper presented at the College Art
Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, February 2010.
———. "A Reconsideration of Some Hieroglyphs on the Mexica Calendar Stone." In The Aztec Calendar Stone,
edited by Khristaan Villela and Mary Ellen Miller, 238-57. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute,
2010.
Villar K., Mónica del, Margarita de Orellana, Gabriela Olmos, and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
Artes de México. Catálogo Esencial, Museo Nacional De Antropologia: 100bras. México, D.F.: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Artes de México, 2011.
Widdifield, Stacie Graham. "The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History." In The Aztec Calendar Stone, edited by
Khristaan Villela and Mary Ellen Miller, 223-37. Los Angeles, CA: Getty Research Institute, 2010.
———. "The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History." University of California, Los Angeles, 1981.
Endnotes:
Though there is a later analysis of Panofsky’s work on iconography and iconology, I do not
given one specific definition. Here is a definition located in Preziosi’s survey book: “although
the term ‘iconology’ was used during the Renaissance to suggest a systematic accounting for the
appearance and variety of imagery, it was appropriated by Erwin Panofsky in a systematic
relationship with what he termed in complementary fashion ‘iconography,’ referring to the study
of the deeper meanings of artworks. Panofsky’s ‘iconology’ referred to the study of the deeper
meanings of artworks. An iconographic interest in works implied a broad knowledge of a work’s
referential subject-matter as a particular variation upon or development of a common stock of
images and themes.” Donald Preziosi, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2009). 576.
2
Erwin Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance (New
York: Harper & Row, 1962).
3
This term is derived from Michael Camille’s article title, Mouths and Meanings: Towards an
Anti-iconography of Mediecal Art, which will be discussed in this paper.
4
Enrique Florescano, "The Creation of the Museo Nacional De Antropología of Mexico and Its
Scientific, Educational, and Political Purposes" (paper presented at the Collecting the PreColumbian Past: a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 6th and 7th October 1990, Washington,
D.C., 1993 1990). 84.
5
Jean Franco, "The Return of Coatlicue: Mexican Nationalism and the Aztec Past," Journal of
Gender Studies 13, no. 2 (2004). 207.
6
Ibid.
7
Mónica del Villar K. et al., Catálogo Esencial, Museo Nacional De Antropologia: 100bras
(México, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia: Artes de México, 2011).
8
There are varying translation of Coatlicue, and for this paper I have decided to use the one
posited by many art historians, especially Dr. Cecelia Klein. Cecelia F. Klein, "The Devil and the
1
Garcia, 21
Skirt: An Iconographic Inquiry into the Pre-Hispanic Nature of the Tzitzimime," Ancient
Mesoamerica 11, no. 1 (2000). 17.
9
An example of such a chronicle is Fray Bernardino de Sahagún’s chronicle that was created in
the sixteenth century, but unknown lost and unknown to scholars until the nineteenth century.
Miguel León Portilla, Bernardino De Sahagun: First Anthropologist, trans. Mauricio J. Mixco
(Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002). 234-235.
10
Antonio León y Gama and Eduardo de Matos Moctezuma, Descripción Histórica Y
Cronológica De Las Dos Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está
Formando En La Plaza Principal De México, Se Hallaron En Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De
La Segunda Edición (1832) (México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, 2009). 35.
11
“Teoyaomiqui, que se interpreta, morir en la Guerra divina, ó lo que es lo mismo, morir en
defense de los dioses.” Ibid. 37-38. English translation by author.
12
“A ella dirigian sus votos y sacrificios los señores y gente military, no solo en el temple, donde
veneraba, sino dentro de sus proprias casas; cuidando los padres, ó parientes de aquellos
soldados…”ibid. 38.
13
Ibid. n. 2. 37-38.
14
This concept will be explore much more later in this essay.
15
León y Gama and de Matos Moctezuma, Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos
Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza
Principal De México, Se Hallaron En Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición
(1832). 39.
16
León y Gama’s story is a shorter version of the one told by Torquemada in the 1723
publication of his book Monarquia Indiana. It is important to note that Torquemada does not cite
a source for this story in his work, though it is the assumption of many scholars that it was likely
derived from Fray Bernardino de Sahagún’s telling of the story in the Florentine Codex. Juan de
Torquemada, "Donde Fe Trata De El Dios Huitzilupuchtli, Llamado De Los Antiguos, Marte,
Mui Querido, Y Celebrado De Eftas Gentes Indianas, En Efecial De Mexicanos; Y Fe Dicen
Embuftes De El Demonio, Mezclados Con Mifericordias De Dios; Y De Como Fingió Nacer De
Muger [Sic]," in Monarquia Indiana. T.2 (México: Porrúa, 1969). 41-42.
17
“Coatlicue se interpreta, faldellin de culebra. La fábula del nacimiento de Huitzilopochtli
cuenta, que fué ésta un muger [sic] devota, que se ocupaba en barrer y limpiar los templos; y
estando un dia en este ejercicio, vino á ella de lo alto una pelota de plumas, la que guardó en la
cintura; y volviendo despues á buscarla, no la encontró: pero le fué elevando el vientre, y
conocida por sus hijos su preñez, pretendieron matarla; y al querer ejecutarlo, nació
Huitzilopochtli armado, dió tras ellos, y les mató a todos.” León y Gama and de Matos
Moctezuma, Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del
Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza Principal De México, Se Hallaron En
Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición (1832). 39. n. 2. English translation by
author.
18
Ibid. 40.
19
“Todos estos adornos acostumbraban poner á los ídolos, segun el P. Torquemada, como
insignias, que significaban lo que ellos eran y podian; las cuales, en sentir del Abate Clavigero,
eran la causa de que los representaran en tan horribles figurasl aunque el mismo Torquemada
la atribuye á las diversas formas en que se les aparecia el demonio, ó se los representaba en
sueños.” Ibid.
20
Ibid. 44.
Garcia, 22
21
Stacie Graham Widdifield, "The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History" (University of
California, Los Angeles, 1981). 14.
22
His actual words were “horrible simulacro.” León y Gama and de Matos Moctezuma,
Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo
Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza Principal De México, Se Hallaron En Ella El
Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición (1832). 42. This translation is based on the 18thcentury use of the word in Spain.
23
“In a letter to one of Don Anrés [sic] Cavo, León y Gama wrote that one of the reasons he felt
it important to discuss the Calendar Stone, and in general to illuminate the workings of the
ancient Mexican calendric system, was that the understanding of them would help refute the
‘accusations of barbarism made by the Europeans against the ancient Mexicans.’” Widdifield,
"The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History". 16.
24
Michael J. Schreffler, "The Making of an Aztec Goddess: A Historiographic Study of the
Coatlicue" (Arizona State University, 1994)ibid. 12.
25
Ibid.
26
Florescano, "The Creation of the Museo Nacional De Antropología of Mexico and Its
Scientific, Educational, and Political Purposes". 89.
27
Schreffler, "The Making of an Aztec Goddess: A Historiographic Study of the Coatlicue".
28
Emily Umberger, "The Later Lives of Two Aztec Sacrificial Stones" (paper presented at the
College Art Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, February 2010). 8.
29
Ibid.
30
Florescano, "The Creation of the Museo Nacional De Antropología of Mexico and Its
Scientific, Educational, and Political Purposes". 93.
31
Boone asserts that Chavero was the first scholar to use the name Coatlicue for this sculpture.
Elizabeth Hill Boone, "Templo Mayor Research, 1521-1978," in The Aztec Templo Mayor: A
Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 8th and 9th October 1983, ed. Elizabeth Hill Boone and
Dumbarton Oaks (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1987).
32
Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. 8.
33
Widdifield, "The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History". 3.
34
Chavero references Boturini, Torquemada, Sahagún, and Durán. Alfredo Chavero and Vicente
Riva Palacio, México a Través De Los Siglos; Historia General Y Completa Del
Desenvolvimiento Social, Político, Religioso, Militar, Artístico, Científico Y Literario De México
Desde La Antigüedad Más Remota Hasta La Época Actual (México, D.F.: G.S. López, 1940).
102, 341, 343-345, 637, 647, 648, 650, 780, 791,
35
I am using the term habitus in the framework that Pierre Bourdieu used in his 1977 book,
which speaks to the cultural climate of a given location and time. Pierre Bourdieu, Outline of a
Theory of Practice (Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1977).
36
“Celosos sus hijos determinaron matarla; pero antes de que los Centzonhuitznahua pusieron
en ejecución su intent, oyó Coatlicue una voz interior que le dijo: ‘Madre, no temas, que yo te
liberaré para gloria de ambos.’” Chavero and Riva Palacio, México a Través De Los Siglos;
Historia General Y Completa Del Desenvolvimiento Social, Político, Religioso, Militar,
Artístico, Científico Y Literario De México Desde La Antigüedad Más Remota Hasta La Época
Actual. 644. English translation by author.
37
“…her child, who was in her womb, comforted her. He called to her; he said to her: ‘Have no
fear. Already I know [what shall I do].’” Bernardino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex: General
History of the Things of New Spain, Part Iv, Book 3- the Origins of the Gods, ed. Arthur J. O.
Garcia, 23
Anderson and Charles E. Dibble (Santa Fe, N.M.; Salt Lake City, Utah: School of American
Research ; University of Utah, 1978). 2.
38
León Portilla, Bernardino De Sahagun: First Anthropologist. 234-235.
39
Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. 3.
40
This piece was first published in 1939 as an introduction to his book Studies in Iconography:
Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance, though it was actually a revision of a 1932
essay. Preziosi, ed. The Art of Art History: A Critical Anthology. 215. The version that I will be
utilizing in this paper comes from the 1969 reprint of Panofsky’s book.
41
Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. 5.
42
Ibid.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid. 6.
45
Ibid.
46
“Furthermore it is important to note that the statement ‘this is an image of St. Bartholomew’
implies that conscious intention of the artist to represent St. Bartholomew, while the expressional
qualities of the figure may well be unintentional.” Ibid. 7.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid. 8.
49
“As long as we limit ourselves to stating that Leonardo da Vinci’s famous fresco shows a
group of thirteen men around a dinner table, and that this group of men represents the Last
Supper, we deal with the work of art as a symptom of something else which expresses itself in a
countless variety of other symptoms, we interpret its compositional and iconographical features
as more particularized evidence of this ‘something else.’” ibid. 8.
50
“Iconographical analysis, dealing with images, stories and allegories instead of motifs,
presupposes, of course, much more than familiarity with objects and events which we acquire by
practical experience. It presupposes a familiarity with specific themes or concepts as transmitted
through literary sources, whether acquired by purposeful reading or oral tradition.” Ibid. 11.
51
“while an acquaintance with specific themes and concepts transmitted through literary sources
is indispensable and sufficient material for an iconographical analysis, it does not guarantee
correctness.” Ibid. 12.
52
Ibid. 12-13.
53
Michael Camille, "Mouths and Meanings: Towards an Anti-Iconography of Medieval Art," in
Iconography at the Crossroads : Papers from the Colloquium Sponsored by the Index of
Christian Art, Princeton University, 23-24 March 1990, ed. Brendan Cassidy, Princeton
University Department of Art Archaeology, and Index of Christian Art (Princeton, N.J.: Index of
Christian Art, Dept. of Art and Archaeology, Princeton University, 1993).
54
Ibid. note.2.
55
Ibid. 44.
56
Ibid.
57
“it is clear that the matrix in which medieval art functioned was on in which speech had
priority over writing….Medieval images, whether in books or on walls, were, like medieval
texts, dynamically delivered and performed aloud rather than absorbed in static isolation.” Ibid.
58
Ibid. 52.
59
Ibid. 44-45.
60
I am using this term as an extension of Michael Camille’s article title.
Garcia, 24
61
Ignacio Bernal, A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle
America (London; New York: Thames and Hudson, 1980). 85.
62
Ibid. 85.
63
León y Gama and de Matos Moctezuma, Descripción Histórica Y Cronológica De Las Dos
Piedras: Que Con Ocasión Del Nuevo Empedrado Que Se Está Formando En La Plaza
Principal De México, Se Hallaron En Ella El Año De 1790: Facsimil De La Segunda Edición
(1832). ibid. 39. n. 2.
64
Panofsky, Studies in Iconology: Humanistic Themes in the Art of the Renaissance. 7.
65
E. H. Gombrich, Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance (London; New York:
Phaidon, 1978). 81.
66
Chavero writes: “Coatlicue, la madre de Quetzalcoatl, la de la enagua de culebras, la diosa
tierra, está representada en el más hermoso ídolo que tiene el Museo Nacional, en el que se
ostenta magnífico y grandioso en el centro de su patio.” Chavero and Riva Palacio, México a
Través De Los Siglos; Historia General Y Completa Del Desenvolvimiento Social, Político,
Religioso, Militar, Artístico, Científico Y Literario De México Desde La Antigüedad Más Remota
Hasta La Época Actual. 102. English translation by author.
67
Gombrich, Norm and Form: Studies in the Art of the Renaissance.
68
Gombrich asserts that there are only two main categories of style: classical and non-classical.
Ibid. 83.
69
Ibid. 82.