Chapter 6

Across the Hills, toward the Ocean

Teotihuacan-Style Monuments in Guerrero, Mexico

Jesper Nielsen, Elizabeth Jiménez García, and Iván Rivera

Cultural interaction between the central Mexican metropolis of Teotihuacan and the Maya region in the Early Classic has been the subject of intense debate in the past fifteen years (Braswell 2003a; Nielsen 2003; Stuart 2000), but Teotihuacan’s possible presence, artistic influence, and economic and/or strategic interests in the region of Mesoamerica that today corresponds to the state of Guerrero has received scant scholarly attention. In the present chapter, we wish to provide an overview of archaeological finds in the region that may provide us with the evidence needed to address this lacuna. We focus on a series of carved stone monuments that display iconographic elements that belong to the same type of imperial iconography encountered on Teotihuacan-style monuments not only in the Maya area, but also in Veracruz, Oaxaca, and at the key site of El Rosario in Querétaro. Among the sites to be discussed are Acatempan, Cerro de los Monos, and Tepecoacuilco (figure 6.1). The majority of the monuments are executed in a style that is predominated by local traditions (see Paddock 1972:228), and although we believe that direct Teotihuacan takeovers of one or several sites in the region could in fact have occurred, based on current evidence, the main center(s) of Teotihuacan presence in Guerrero remains to be identified.

Thanks to contributions of scholars such as Rosa María Reyna Robles, Clara Luz Díaz Oyarzábal, Elizabeth Jiménez García, Paul Schmidt Schoenberg, and Karl Taube (Jiménez García et al. 1998; Reyna Robles 1990; 2002, 2013; Reyna Robles and Rodríguez Betancourt 1994; Schmidt Schoenberg 2006; Taube 2000a, 2011:93–98), whose works we will draw upon here, we now have a sufficient database of carved monuments to approach the issue of Teotihuacan presence in Guerrero. Several of the same investigators have also commented on the relationship between Teotihuacan and Guerrero, and, apart from stone monuments, other categories of artifacts also point to an interaction between the two areas (Jiménez García et al. 1998:69).

According to Schmidt Schoenberg (2006), few indications of Teotihuacan influence have been encountered in the central part of the state, whereas carved stelae from sites such as Tepecoacuilco and Acatempan in the north and San Miguel Totolapan in the southern Tierra Caliente suggest some influence. We will reanalyze the iconography of these stelae in detail below. Teotihuacan-style ceramics, including Fine Thin Orange ware and cylindrical tripods, have been reported from different parts of the state, including the coastal region.1 In his 1972 discussion of Teotihuacan cultural traits in different areas of Mesoamerica, John Paddock noted a strong Teotihuacan influence in local material forms and expressions in Guerrero, and at the same time Jeffrey Parsons (1971:238) suggested that northeastern Guerrero had been controlled by Teotihuacan in much the same way as the Valley of Mexico had been. As we shall see, careful iconographic analyses of the carved stone monuments do not run counter to such interpretations, though the evidence for warfare-based incursions is not at all as clear as what we know from the Maya region. Thus, the strategies employed by a possible expansionist Teotihuacan empire in Guerrero may have been different from those used elsewhere; the region may have witnessed less intensive Teotihuacan involvement, or perhaps we are yet to locate the sites with most direct Teotihuacan presence, which may in turn be explained by the limited archaeological excavations and reconnaissance in large parts of the state and by the heavy looting of archaeological sites (Reyna Robles 2013).2

The tremendous importance of Teotihuacan culture in the central Mexican highlands during the Late Preclassic and Early Classic periods has long been recognized by scholars. Nonetheless, archaeologists, epigraphers, and art historians have only recently begun to map and understand the extent of the influence of this powerful state across Mesoamerica in the fourth and fifth centuries AD (see, e.g., Berlo 1984; Nielsen 2003; Santley 1989; Stuart 2000). Thus, numerous parts of Mesoamerica that may potentially reveal economic, political and cultural interactions, and exchanges with the ancient metropolis have not yet been adequately investigated (Cowgill 2003:324). Here we present iconographic analyses of imagery that strongly suggest Teotihuacan presence. We will refer to comparable iconographic and epigraphic evidence found elsewhere in Mesoamerica, where it has been suggested that the Teotihuacan empire had succeeded in taking power—presumably with the aim of controlling the flow of local resources and/or extracting tribute (e.g., Nielsen 2003, in press; Nielsen and Helmke 2015). In doing so, we exemplify what can be called an imperial iconography centered on the display of a relatively small, but well-defined group of Teotihuacan objects and elements of dress related to warfare. These include spear-throwers; darts; square shields; the so-called shell-platelet headdress; and a headdress with human hearts, back mirrors, and torches. Scholars have debated the interpretation of such images along with other possible material indicators of Teotihuacan culture, including talud-tablero architecture, green Pachuca obsidian, and stuccoed and painted tripods (see D. Bryan Schaeffer, chapter 5 in this volume). Are they evidence of Teotihuacan military-based takeovers or conquests? Or should they rather be seen as the result of local non-Teotihuacano elites who, for internal political reasons, emulated these foreign symbols as a means of strengthening their own power? (see Braswell 2003b; Cowgill 2003; Stone 1989; Stuart 2000; see also Nielsen 2003:1–8 for an overview of previous studies of Teotihuacan-Maya interaction). Studies of interaction in Mesoamerica, such as those collected in this volume, emphasize the complexity and multidirectionality of contacts between different regions. While the varied types of interaction between Teotihuacan and other parts of Mesoamerica, including Guerrero, must be stressed, the iconography, along with the epigraphic records from the Maya area, do suggest a military expansion and incursions into several regions. Together they indicate that for a relatively brief span of time, Teotihuacan controlled what may have been one of the greatest empires in the history of Mesoamerica. Presumably, based on what we know about Aztec imperial expansion, the choice of Teotihuacan’s political leadership to invest itself in different regions of Mesoamerica was primarily a question of access to resources that were needed in the capital and its immediate hinterland (Cowgill 2003:316, 2015:50–52, 195–203; Nielsen 2003).

Teotihuacan and Its Role in Early Classic Mesoamerica: A Brief Overview

Archaeologists first discovered an unprecedented amount of Teotihuacan talud-tablero architecture and artifacts outside of central Mexico during the excavations undertaken by the Carnegie Institution at the Late Preclassic and Early Classic Maya highland site of Kaminaljuyú in Guatemala (Kidder et al. 1946:218–240, 250–256). Since then, the findings in the burials of Mounds A and B southeast of the Acropolis have generated a continued debate over the links between Kaminaljuyú and Teotihuacan (Braswell 2003c; Cheek 1977; Nielsen 2003:161–188). Among the spectacular finds from the burials were stuccoed and painted tripods and vases with Teotihuacan-style motifs, Fine Thin Orange ceramics, and back mirrors with Teotihuacan iconography, as well as so-called Storm god jars. A few decades later, the excavations of the Tikal Project (1956–1970) at the Northern Acropolis provided further evidence of Teotihuacan influence. A series of inscribed monuments from the central Petén (e.g., Tikal Stela 31, the Tikal Ballcourt Marker, Uaxactún Stela 5, and mural paintings from La Sufricaya) have since enabled epigraphers to recount some of the central events, including the arrival of Teotihuacanos in the area in AD 378, and the subsequent installment at Tikal of a Teotihuacan-affiliated ruler, Yax Nuun Ayiin, son of “Spearthrower Owl” (Jatz’o’m Kuy), who is believed to have ruled in Teotihuacan from AD 374 to AD 439 (Martin and Grube 2008:29–35; Stuart 2000:467–490; see also Estrada-Belli et al. 2009). In this case a possible Teotihuacan takeover is documented in historical texts and is implied via the spread of imperial iconography (Stuart 2017). In the 1990s new evidence of strong links to Teotihuacan were discovered in a series of tombs in the Acropolis of Copán (see Bell et al. 2004; Sharer et al. 2005). Thus, several researchers now agree that Teotihuacan succeeded in conquering and controlling several important Maya cities in the late fourth century AD. This incursion into the Maya region is commonly referred to as the Teotihuacan entrada.

It has also been suggested that Teotihuacan had economic and political interests in Veracruz at sites such as Matacapan, Piedra Labrada, and Sayultepec (Nielsen 2003:78–79; Santley 1989; Yarborough 1992; see also Philip J. Arnold III and Lourdes Budar, chapter 7 in this volume). Based on archaeological surveys in the Río Amatzinac Valley in eastern Morelos, Hirth (1978) argued that Teotihuacan presence caused changes in settlement patterns and that the resource Teotihuacan specifically sought to control here was cotton. At Cinteopa in Morelos, Teotihuacan-style almenas (stepped architectural elements decorating roofs) with goggle-eyed warrior-priests holding obsidian knives with bleeding hearts impaled on them testify further to Teotihuacan presence in the region (Cook de Leonard 1985; Nielsen and Helmke 2014:121–122). Looking toward north-central and western Mexico, researchers have noted Teotihuacan influence at a number of sites in the states of Hidalgo, Querétaro, Guanajuato, and Michoacán (e.g., Brambila Paz and Crespo 2002; Braniff 2000; Castañeda López 2008; Díaz Oyarzábal 1980; Ekholm 1945; Faugère 2007; Filini 2004; Nielsen in press). In Michoacán, Teotihuacan-style objects and murals have been found at several sites in the Cuitzeo Basin, at sites such as Huandacareo, Tres Cerritos, and Queréndaro (e.g., Filini 2004; Filini and Cárdenas García 2007; Hers 2013; Nielsen in press). Frequently, local stylistic features and chronological indicators suggest indirect influence or Epiclassic emulations of Teotihuacan architecture and iconography, as can be seen at sites such as Plazuelas and Peralta in Guanajuato and Tingambato in Michoacán. This, however, is not the case with the recently discovered murals at the archaeological site of El Rosario in the state of Querétaro, some 140 km northwest of Teotihuacan—a discovery that has completely changed our view of Teotihuacan imperial interests in the Bajío region. The murals constitute the first example of Teotihuacan-style murals and elaborate iconography discovered that far north of Teotihuacan (Saint-Charles Zetina et al. 2010:26–34, 65–112). Parading goggle-eyed Teotihuacano warriors depicted in the murals carry shields; darts and flaming torches and their speech scrolls, affixed with darts and bleeding hearts, can be interpreted as references to war songs (Nielsen 2014). This strongly suggests a Teotihuacan military takeover in order to control the resources that could be gained from the San Juan del Río Valley and its surroundings (Nielsen and Helmke 2015).

Previous interpretations of the relationship between Teotihuacan and the Zapotec capital of Monte Albán as one based on diplomacy and trade have been challenged in recent years, and there is new evidence to suggest a significant Teotihuacan presence and perhaps even militarism at Monte Alban (Taube 2011:91–93, figs. 5.11c–e; Winter 1998; Winter et al. 1999). Clear traces of Teotihuacan influence are found further southward along the Pacific coast in Oaxaca (Joyce 2003; Rivera Guzmán 2011); in Chiapas at Cerro Bernal, Los Horcones, and Fracción Mujular (García des-Lauriers 2007; Navarrete 1986; Taube 2000a:40–44, fig. 33); and all the way into southern Guatemala, where Teotihuacan-style artifacts such as richly decorated tripods, so-called candeleros (small, twin-chambered incense burners), and theatrical incense burners have been found at Escuintla, Tiquisate, Lake Amatitlán, and Montana (Berlo 1984; Bove and Medrano Busto 2003; Hellmuth 1975; Nielsen 2003:189–199).

Comparing the spread and consistency of the imperial iconography of Teotihuacan with that of the Late Postclassic Mexica, we note a striking difference, since the latter is in fact quite rare, with the notable exception of Castillo de Teayo in Veracruz (Umberger 1996). The extent of the Mexica-headed empire of the Triple Alliance is documented mainly by written sixteenth-century sources and not by archaeological or iconographic evidence left by imperial representatives in the tribute-paying provinces (Smith and Montiel 2001; Umberger 1996). Currently, we seem to have better archaeological and iconographic evidence for the existence of a Teotihuacan empire than for the Triple Alliance empire (Nielsen 2003:61–86). Based solely upon the iconographic and epigraphic records there is sufficient evidence to suggest the existence of a short-lived but widespread, hegemonic Teotihuacan empire. Thus, we are now able to identify a number of specific sites and areas that seem to have been under Teotihuacan control or imperial influence.

Darts and Shields: The Repertoire of Teotihuacan Imperial Iconography

Before we turn to the relevant monuments from Guerrero, we will briefly discuss the Teotihuacan-related iconographic motifs that are most frequently encountered in the Maya area and elsewhere in Mesoamerica in the fourth and fifth centuries. It is important to emphasize the fact that there is a marked consistency in the selection of motifs depicted, which seem to be centered around martial and sacrificial themes, and thus warriors or warrior-priests with weaponry, burning torches, and Storm-god attributes constitute the dominant repertoire of images that as a whole we refer to here as Teotihuacan imperial iconography (Nielsen 2003:87–97, in press).

The majority of human figures represented are almost certainly warriors or otherwise related to armed conflict and sacrifice, as they appear equipped with standard Teotihuacan warrior outfit, including spear-thrower, darts, feather-rimmed square shields, and high-backed sandals. Headdresses include the shell-platelet headdress with War Serpent features (see Taube 1992) and in addition warriors often wear goggles, undoubtedly as a reference to the Teotihuacan Storm god whose role in warfare and as a symbol of Teotihuacan political authority has long been recognized (Anderson and Helmke 2012:186–187; Headrick 2007; Paulinyi 2001). Another recurring motif is the torch, most often held by warriors. Jesper Nielsen (2003:88–93, 2006) has suggested that these motifs are related to the concept of toma de posesión ‘taking possession’ and serve as references to the act of founding a new dynasty or settlement, as well as to the appropriation of new territory. Apart from this set of recurring war-related motifs, some geographical areas emphasized other aspects of Teotihuacan culture and ideology. The Escuintla region of Guatemala displays a high concentration of objects and images related to ideas about the afterlife, including butterflies and a floral world (Berlo 1984; Taube 2000b). In Guerrero there are some surprising examples of so-called ballcourt markers with Teotihuacan iconography and elements of Teotihuacan writing that are rarely seen elsewhere and provide important evidence of variation in the motifs represented. However, as we shall see, the ballcourt markers also appear to be associated with warfare and sacrifice, though in a less direct and obvious way.

While some of the monuments that we discuss below are close to being identical to representations from Teotihuacan itself, most of the examples in our corpus are not as clear evidence of direct Teotihuacan presence as several of the famous images from the central Petén or the murals from El Rosario. This leads to the obvious questions: by and for whom were these different sculptures produced? And what were their intended purposes? In a discussion of art styles in the Epiclassic period Debra Nagao (1989:100) noted: “The adoption of foreign stylistic or iconographic traits potentially served multiple functions and ends. It was a means of emulating or imitating one’s cultural betters in order to become more closely identified with a superior authority. It was also a way of expressing far-flung ties—a visual form of namedropping. At the same time, the adoption of a nonlocal style could be interpreted as a symbol of supremacy and conquest.” In the case of Teotihuacan-style iconography in Guerrero, all three functions were probably at play at specific times and at specific locations, but it is the examples of the latter category that will have our special attention here. Adoption may not, however, be the most precise term to use since the change in expression and in style, as well as in content, may well have been demanded and overseen by Teotihuacan representatives.3 In such cases we should perhaps rather be referring to forced adoptions. It is also in such historical contexts that we must expect the greatest degree of similarity between the iconography of the imperial capital and the province, since the iconography was designed and manufactured in a setting controlled by the imperial system. This, however, does not mean that there is no difference between the metropolitan style of the imperial capital and its provincial counterpart. In most cases differences are evident. As noted by Emily Umberger (1996:177–178) in her brilliant analysis of Aztec imperial art: “Provincial centers are inhabited principally by elites, administrators, and others from the center and have center-trained artists producing works close in style but with possible modifications in types, materials, and imagery according to local variables. Peripheral centers are inhabited by local peoples, and the locally produced works, which reveal awareness of the style of the center, are a step further removed from its artistic canons.” In the case of Early Classic Guerrero, we suggest that the former is applicable only to a few sites known at present. In contrast, the latter would correspond to a number of sites where the use of Teotihuacan-derived motifs and iconographic elements appear in compositions that deviate from what we find at Teotihuacan. What we must emphasize once again, though, is the repetition and consistency in the iconographic motifs. These correspond to those found in the Maya area and elsewhere, and suggest a relatively well-controlled and concerted introduction of the motifs and the messages they carried.

Teotihuacan-Style Monuments in Guerrero

An increasing demand for natural resources such as shell, feather, greenstone, and cotton not found in the Basin of Mexico may have been the prime mover for Teotihuacan’s presence in the region. Archaeological remains found in the various parts of Guerrero point to relationships between Teotihuacan groups and populations along the Pacific Coast, and in the central and northern parts of Guerrero, where greenstone and possibly also cotton could be acquired. The same products were sought in these areas by the expanding Aztec Empire some seven centuries later (Carrasco 1999:266–280; Litvak King 1971). Thus, we know from written documents that the province of Tepecoacuilco paid tribute to Tenochtitlan in the form of green stones and blankets (Matrícula de Tributos [1980], fol. 9r; Codex Mendoza [1992], fol. 37r). Spondylus shells, probably collected in the Costa Grande region during the Early Classic and transported back to Teotihuacan (see Kolb 1987), were a resource that was also valued by the Mexica, who charged it as tribute from the city of Cihuatlán (Matrícula de Tributos [1980], fol. 9v; Codex Mendoza [1992], fol. 38r). In the case of the Montaña region, Tlapan (Matrícula de Tributos [1980], fol. 10r; Codex Mendoza [1992], fol. 39r) paid tribute mainly in the shape of cotton blankets and raw materials such as gourds. We thus can easily imagine that Teotihuacanos were interested in acquiring similar resources from the area.

In terms of identifying the most probable routes of interaction between Teotihuacan and Guerrero, the natural environment and topography offer several options depending on what particular part of Guerrero we are dealing with, but in practical terms the possibilities can be reduced to three.4 The first sets out in the southeastern part of the Mexico Basin, moves through the Chalco-Amecameca region, by the slopes of Popocatepetl, and continues down the Amatzinac River Valley in Morelos. Teotihuacan presence in this region has long been recognized (Hirth 1978). From there the route continues in a southeasterly direction and reaches the Mixteca Baja and Tlapaneca regions by the Río Tlapaneco, finally arriving at Las Minas–Alpoyeca and Tlapa in Guerrero. The second route follows the Río Amacuzac in western Morelos and enters into Guerrero between the present-day towns of Quetzalapa and Huitzuco. This area remains poorly studied, though some of the most fascinating Teotihuacan-style monuments in Guerrero come from this part of the state (e.g., Tepecoacuilco). The third route departs from the western part of the Basin of Mexico, passes through the Toluca Valley, where clear evidence of Teotihuacan occupation has been found (Sugiura 2009), and from here continues past the Nevado de Toluca Volcano, towards the south until reaching the Balsas River and nearby Arcelia and Tlapehuala. Before the construction of large dams in modern times, the Balsas River was navigable from the northern part of Guerrero to its mouth at the Pacific Ocean (Wicks and Harrison 1999:157–162). The importance of the Balsas River as a communication route is yet to be investigated in detail, but may have been comparable to the role played by the Usumacinta River in the Maya lowlands. Several Classic Maya political centers were situated on the banks of the river, which was fundamental not only for the trade and exchange of goods, but also for elite interaction (Golden et al. 2012). There are many important Classic period settlements along the Balsas River, for example, Mexiquito, but these have only just begun to be the subject of careful archaeological studies (Armillas 1947; Meanwell 2007).

As noted above, we focus on sites with Teotihuacan-style stone monuments,5 and though practically all of these sculptures are currently in museum collections and no longer found in situ, most of them have a relatively secure provenance. Unfortunately, there have been very few controlled excavations at sites with monuments, and we lack even the most basic knowledge of the exact archaeological contexts of nearly all the monuments discussed here.

El Norte

In line with general practice we subdivide the large territory covered by the modern state of Guerrero into the five areas of Norte, Tierra Caliente, Centro, Las Costas (Chica and Grande) and the Montaña (Schmidt Schoenberg 2006:30–31). We begin our survey in the northern part of the state, bordering on the modern states of Mexico, Morelos, and Puebla, and it is from here that we have some of the most fascinating examples of Teotihuacan-style monuments. They can all be described as stelae (i.e., freestanding rectangular stone monuments), and though small stela-like monuments are known from Teotihuacan (such as the tecalli monument from the Quetzalpapalotl Palace; see Acosta 1964:36, fig. 60), it was clearly not the preferred format of stone sculpture in the central Mexican metropolis (Jordan 2014:106–110). This is important to emphasize and may be explained as a result of local processes where foreign iconography is displayed according to existent local practices, just as was the case in the central Maya lowlands in the late fourth century, where Teotihuacan ideology was predominantly expressed to a local audience via the already well-known stela-like format.6

One of the most illustrative examples is the monument that reportedly comes from Acatempan (figure 6.2a; Jordan 2014:141; Piña Chan 1977:fig. 72; Reyna Robles 2002; Taube 2000a:9, 2011:93–94), and it displays Teotihuacan imperial iconography as well as writing. It shows a Teotihuacan warrior portrayed frontally, wearing a large raptorial bird headdress comparable to those often represented in Teotihuacan iconography, possibly suggesting a relation with a specific warrior order. In the beak of the bird is the lower part of the so-called year sign (or “trapeze and ray”) which reappears in the toponym below (Nielsen and Helmke 2017). Other significant elements are the individual’s goggles and the square, feather-rimmed shield (and the two darts behind it), as well as the spear-thrower held in his left hand. The spiral wave-like design on the shield is interesting since this is also found on the shields of Teotihuacan warriors at El Rosario, as well as at Teotihuacan (Taube 2011:93). Such degree of correspondence suggests a detailed and direct transference of knowledge of Teotihuacan military organization and emblems. The warrior’s sandals, embellished by feather tassels or tufts, are also highly characteristic of Teotihuacan representations and indeed seem to have served as yet another standard marker of individuals associated with this place. As first pointed out by Taube (2000a:9), the warrior stands on top of a toponym that consists of the “trapeze and ray” sign and the “twisted root sign,” which most likely functions as a locative suffix in Teotihuacan writing. From comparable examples in the Maya area, we know that depictions of warriors or triumphant kings standing on toponyms sometimes refer to their conquest of that particular site or some other affiliation with this place (see Nielsen 2006:4). On the Acatempan monument it is difficult to determine which of the two is the more plausible, but the fact that the “trapeze and ray” sign also shows up in the beak of the bird (thus substituting for the human hearts or backbones normally found in this position) in the headdress speaks in favor of this as a reference to a place conquered by Teotihuacan, and as such a possible toponymic reference to Acatempan. On either side of the glyph and the warrior figure flowers appear, and as Taube (2011:94) noted: “flowers were closely identified with warfare and a flowery paradise in Teotihuacan thought.”

Several similar motifs can be observed on an unprovenanced stela, attributed to Guerrero, currently in the Rufino Tamayo collection in Oaxaca (figure 6.2b; Taube 2011:94–95). The front depicts the upper part of a Teotihuacan warrior wearing a huge shell-platelet headdress with a possible “year sign” and a large array of feathers, as well as goggles and a nose-bar, the two latter being characteristic of warriors associated with the Teotihuacan Storm god. In one arm he holds a burning torch, whereas the other is covered by a square shield with three darts behind it. The shield appears to have been marked by a wave-like emblem similar to that seen on the Acatempan stela. What is unusual is that the figure carries the calendrical date “3 house” on his chest. This is a feature that is more common in the Epiclassic and Early Postclassic periods, but the rounded cartouche indicates that this is in fact a Classic period monument (see Helmke et al. 2013). The two most likely interpretations are that this is either the 260-day calendar name of the portrayed individual or that the date refers to the year in which an important event transpired, possibly a conquest.7 The emphasis on warfare and conquest is continued on the back of the stela, where a row of six darts penetrates an undulating ground line which we interpret as a stylized landscape, and hence an Early Classic forerunner of the well-known late Postclassic Mixtec visual convention of expressing a military conquest by an atlatl dart penetrating the toponym of the vanquished city. The unusual spiral design with footprints surrounded by plant-like elements may specify the name of the locality, or may, as Taube suggested, be related to the previously mentioned spiral sign on Teotihuacan shields that sometimes occur with footprints (Taube 2011:94, fig. 5.14b). As with the Acatempan monument, we thus have a possible combined iconographic and epigraphic reference to a Teotihuacan conquest.

Clara Luz Díaz Oyarzábal first published a detailed description of the two monuments (known as Stela 1 and 2; figure 6.2c–d) from the vicinity of Tepecoacuilco (Díaz Oyarzábal 1986, 1990);8 she suggested that they represent Teotihuacan equivalents to Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue, and other authors have followed this line of interpretation (Jordan 2014:138–141; Schmidt Schoenberg 2006:32). Recently, Taube (2011:95–98) provided excellent and detailed interpretations that offer a deeper understanding of these two important monuments. In spite of the damage that has occurred to both monuments, leaving them without the upper third, a number of crucial observations and identifications can be made. Thus, on Stela 1 an individual holds forth a dart, drops falling from its pointed blade, in front of the chest (figure 6.3a). Darts dripping with blood are known from the murals in Atetelco and Tetitla at Teotihuacan (figure 6.3b; cf. Taube 2011:fig. 5.16d). Also, a stuccoed and painted Teotihuacan tripod vessel in the Brooklyn Museum (figure 6.3c) shows a goggle-eyed warrior holding a dart with two hands, and this example constitutes the closest parallel to the figure on Stela 1. Enough survives of the figure’s head to recognize an open mouth with teeth visible, goggles, and a possible nose-bar. The sandals are virtually identical to those worn by the Acatempan warrior as well as the person on Tepecoacuilco Stela 2. Rather than the Storm or Rain god himself, this is probably yet another Teotihuacan warrior figure affiliated with the martial aspect of the Storm god. Stela 2 (figure 6.2d) shows an individual with a large cloud-rimmed medallion or disk on the chest marked by a stylized Teotihuacan Storm god with a bifurcated tongue. The objects held by the individual can interpreted as a hanging strand of jade beads (left hand) and some other oblong object, and as Taube (2011:96; fig. 5.17d–e) notes: “In ancient Mesoamerica, jade and quetzal plumes were some of the treasured items of conquest and tribute, and figures were commonly shown holding bundles of quetzal plumes9 and strands of beads.” As in the case of Acatempan, the figure stands on top of a combination of glyphic signs that probably allude to a specific location. Thus, rather than depicting two water deities, the Tepecoacuilco stelae appear to represent historical events, and possibly historical individuals, centered on military conquest and tribute collection.

Also in the collections of the Museo Nacional de Antropología is an unprovenanced stela fragment, said to come from Guerrero,10 which has several similarities to the Tepecoacuilco stelae (figure 6.4; cf. Taube 2011:97–99). This intriguing object shows the lower part of a human individual twice, and as Taube (2011:97) noted: “On close inspection, it is evident that there are two distinct carving styles present . . . This stela was likely recarved from a larger broken monument.” The feet of the latest carving stands on top a toponymic register composed of a “shallow basin” sign marked by jade disks and streams of water (represented according to Teotihuacan conventions by two bands of eyes), quite possibly the exact same place referred to on Tepecoacuilco Stela 2. Between the legs is a “year sign” and the stylized Storm god with a quincunx and blood droplets in his mouth. It has been suggested that cardinal aspects of the Teotihuacan Storm god existed, and in particular one appears to have been associated with warfare, and this is the “white” Storm god (Anderson and Helmke 2013:186–187). His identifying characteristic is a quincunx representing the cosmos, which Taube relates to an understanding of this particular deity as a “world devourer” since the stylized cosmogram often appears in the mouth of the god. In a political perspective, Taube (2011:101–103) sees this as an expression of “the Teotihuacan state as the taker of territory.” Thus, this may be a reference to the “world devouring” Storm god, here also shown feeding on the “trapeze and ray” sign, as did the raptor in the headdress of the Acatempan Teotihuacan warrior. In conclusion, the monuments from this part of Guerrero display a great familiarity with the iconographic conventions of Teotihuacan in terms of both style and content, as well as Teotihuacan writing. The themes expressed center on warfare, conquest, and possibly tribute collection and as such form part of Teotihuacan imperial iconography.

Tierra Caliente

From the site of San Miguel Totolapan one stela, carved on both sides, is known, and it exhibits some likely influences from Classic central Mexican iconography (figure 6.5). The stela was originally part of a collection of archaeological artifacts that included other Teotihuacan-style objects, such as a fragment of a so-called Huehueteotl incense burner and a candelero (Reyna Robles and Rodríguez Betancourt 1994:96; see also Jordan 2014:141–143). The monument is 1.40 m tall and although the one side suffers from weathering, it seems that originally a very similar design was found on the front and back of the stela: a standing individual with a Storm god mask, if not the Storm god himself. Reyna Robles and Rodríguez Betancourt (1994:98) interpret the objects held in both hands of the figure as related to clouds and conch shells, but based on comparisons with other representations from Teotihuacan and elsewhere these are in fact clearly bound torches with a single flame on top (von Winning 1979; Nielsen 2003[II]:12, fig. B7a–i, 2006), while a third torch serves as a headdress. Thus, this is probably a local interpretation of the aspect of the Teotihuacan Storm god qualified by one or several torches, and the face of the San Miguel Totolapan figure indeed has much in common with the “black” Storm god found in the murals from the Barrio San Sebastián, who is shown with torches (Anderson and Helmke 2013:186, fig. 10a–b). As for the overall style of the image, however, it is different from what we would expect to find at Teotihuacan, for example the “Charlie Chaplin” posture of the legs, as well as the way in which the arms and shoulders are represented (cf. Lomitola 2008). Based on the current evidence, we therefore suggest that Teotihuacan influence at San Miguel Totolapan was probably indirect and sporadic, and the Storm god imagery was adopted according to a regional style of expression.

Known since the middle of the last century, the archaeological site of Cerro de los Monos is located approximately 5.5 km east of Villa Madero, in the municipality of Tlalchapa (figure 6.6). In the archaeological literature it has been cited as an important place due to the presence of several sculptures (figure 6.7; cf. Armillas 1947; Cepeda Cárdenas 1970; Hendrichs 1945; Reyna Robles and Rodríguez Betancourt 1990; Schmidt Schoenberg and Litvak King 1986). The site has not, however, been thoroughly investigated, due in part to its relative remoteness and the social problems of the region. An unpublished archaeological report by Hugo Moedano Köer (1951) suggests that is was one of the largest and most complex sites reported in this part of Guerrero. It consists of several groups of mounds, plazas, and platforms distributed on the southern slope of a hill named Cerro Coyolito, separated by small streams that flow down to join the Río Peñas Grandes (figure 6.6) Aerial photography allows for the identification of at least two ballgame courts with a north-south orientation, and associated with multiple sets of mounds. It is possible that not all groups were contemporaneous (Moedano’s report indicates that the site was occupied in the Classic and Postclassic), but the architecture and sculptures reveal that this was an important site with intense occupation and construction.

Before proceeding with an iconographic analysis of the sculptures, it is worth stressing that what we have here designated as “columns” may in fact be sections of so-called ballcourt markers. While no formal ballcourts have been identified at Teotihuacan itself (however, see Uriarte 2006), the famous mural paintings from the residential compound at Tepantitla show different ballgames being played. One of these appear to take place on an open field marked by two markers or standards, and one such object, a finely sculpted stone monument, was discovered at La Ventilla (figure 6.8a; cf. Arroyo de Anda 1963). The La Ventilla ballcourt marker is 2.13 m tall and composed of four distinct parts, namely, a columnar support, a conical, and a spherical or globular central part, and finally a disk- or medallion-like upper part. Other possible fragments have been found at Teotihuacan (Acosta 1964:29, figs. 34–35; Aveleyra Arroyo de Anda 1963:figs. 5, 7–8), but it is from outside of Teotihuacan that we have the best additional evidence of this type of monument. Most well known is the Tikal Ballcourt Marker, excavated in a small talud-tablero platform together with a Teotihuacan-style mask in Group 6C-XVI (figure 6.8c; see Laporte and Fialko 1995; Nielsen 2003:106–109). A rich burial (PNT-174) from the same architectural compound also contained a number of other Teotihuacan-style artifacts, including a slate mirror and cylindrical tripods and what was probably a shell-platelet headdress (Laporte 1989:173–175; Nielsen 2003:101–105). The column of the ballcourt marker is inscribed with two Maya glyphic texts outlining the arrival of Teotihuacanos at Tikal in AD 378 (Martin and Grube 2008:30–31; Stuart 2000). The text has a direct reference to the object itself,11 and states that it belonged to “Spearthrower Owl,” or Jatz’o’m Kuy, the assumed ruler at Teotihuacan between AD 374–439. His name reappears on in the center of the circular disk, surrounded by feathers. Thus, while the c. 1 m tall monument may have been related to the ballgame, it certainly also was a prestigious object that served to relate the conquest narrative and display the power of Teotihuacan, and as such it functioned akin to an effigy battle standard as first suggested by David Freidel and Linda Schele (Freidel et al. 1993:299–301; see also in Koontz 2009:22–23). A possible ballcourt marker was also found at Kaminaljuyú (Kidder et al. 1946; Parsons 1986:64, fig. 164), and yet another was found near Chalcatzingo in Morelos (figure 6.8b; cf. Cook de Leonard 1967:pl. 8; see also Hirth 1978). Of importance is that a Teotihuacan-style marcador is also known from Arcelia in the Tierra Caliente region of Guerrero (Cepeda Cárdenas 1970:16, figs. 21–22), and with these examples in mind, we can approach a group of sculptures from Cerro de los Monos and other sites in the region, which may all originally have been part of similar ballcourt markers or battle standards.

First, we concentrate on three columnar fragments that all share some iconographic features. Column 1 (94 x 27.5 cm) (figure 6.9a) has a repeating design composed of rows of geometric triangular elements (perhaps imitating feathers), circular disks, possibly chalchihuites or jade disks, and bands with halved stars. The exact same elements appear on Column 2 (72 x 30 cm) (figure 6.9b), the only difference being that the halved stars are here oriented both up- as well as downward. The half-star motif is common at Teotihuacan and served two different purposes, in some cases representing starfish in a watery environment, but frequently the halved stars are associated with warfare and death (and possibly Venus), as is also the case in Epiclassic iconography (Baird 1989; Brittenham 2015:99–110) and in Classic Maya writing, where the logogram for star EK’ representing a half-star combined with streams of water is placed on top of the location that is subject to the act of aggression (Martin 2001). This observation becomes particularly interesting when we look at Column 3 (86 x 28 cm; figure 6.9c), where halved stars occur in combination with a repeated hieroglyphic collocation that combines an unidentified leaf-like sign with the “twisted root” sign.12 As we have already seen, the latter probably functions as a locative suffix, and one possible interpretation would thus be that this is a toponymic reference to the place that war was waged against. The imagery of Cerro de los Monos Sculpture 1, a globular stone object (ca. 32 x 43 cm; figure 6.9d), speaks in favor of this being a reference to war. Thus, halved stars are shown in combination with the Teotihuacan logogram for “hill, mountain,” which is frequently used in forming toponyms in Teotihuacan writing (see Helmke and Nielsen 2014; Taube 2000a:7–9, 25–26). Infixed in the sign for hill, thus qualifying it, is a stylized Storm god face paired with a half-star, and the sign would read something like the “Hill of the Star / War Storm god.”

In 1973 José Luis Franco Carrasco published a photo of a fragment of another carved column that resembles those already discussed, and it too may originally have come from Cerro de los Monos (see figure 6.8f). The imagery includes circular disks, feather-like elements, and the head of a serpent-like creature that can be compared to that on the Arcelia marcador and that may be related to the Teotihuacan War Serpent mentioned in the text on the Tikal marcador (Stuart 2000). A carved relief (figure 6.9e) from Pueblo Viejo near the modern city of Iguala in northern Guerrero13 shows a stylized Storm god emerging from the center of a star. In this representation, the deity has a protruding bifurcated tongue similar to that seen on Tepecoacuilco Stela 2 (see figure 6.2d). Identical representations are found at Teotihuacan, for example, in the murals in the Conjunto de los Jaguares (de la Fuente 1995:119, fig. 12.4) and during excavations at the Quetzalpapalotl Palace, several almenas with similar “star-Tlalocs” were discovered (Acosta 1964:23, figs. 16–17). An exquisite alabaster almena depicts the same aspect of the Storm god but with water gushing from its open mouth, thus making a perfect parallel to the previously mentioned Maya logogram for war (Helmke and Nielsen 2014:89–91, fig. 5e; cf. Somogny Éditions d’Art 2009:cat. no. 129). Assuming that Cerro de los Monos Sculpture 1 (see figure 6.8e) was once part of a marker or standard, it can be compared to the ballcourt markers mentioned above. Finally, we have already seen that ballcourt markers or battle standards were used to record and commemorate military actions, and viewed as a whole the sculptures from Cerro de los Monos thus again demonstrate the coherency of the motifs commissioned by what we argue were imperial representatives from Teotihuacan.

Centro

A site of potential major importance in the central part of the state is Quechomictlipan (also referred to as Omitlán and Yerbabuena). Located approximately midway between Xochipala and Tlacotepec, it was visited and described by the Scottish mineralogist, amateur archaeologist, and collector William Niven in 1890 (see Wicks and Harrison 1999:31–38). Several large ruined mounds were spread out over several ridges, and at least one carved stone monument was discovered during Niven’s visit. This is currently kept in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City and is commonly referred to as “Estela de Acapulco” (e.g., Manzanilla López 2008:120) (figure 6.10). There can be little doubt, however, about its original provenance since a photograph from Niven’s expedition shows the monument lying horizontally at the site of Quechomictlipan (see Reyna Robles 2008:60), and we thus rename it Quechomictlipan Monument 1. The stela depicts a standing individual, with both arms and hands in front of the body, and wears a belt of shells or hearts. The face has the standard attributes of the Storm god—large, goggled eyes, ear spools, and open mouth displaying prominent fangs—and the headdress is composed of what appears to a highly stylized serpent creature emphasizing the upper jaw, fangs, and snout (see also Jordan 2014:137–138). Around the neck the figure wears a large necklace with a pendant in shape of what appears to be heart. The monument exhibits some close similarities with the stela from San Miguel Totolapan, in particular the unusual “Charlie Chaplin” position of the legs (which may point to influences from regions other than central Mexico and Teotihuacan; Lomitola 2008), and it is plausible that they belong to the same period and local style—yet emphasizing two different aspects of the Storm god.14 In terms of any direct Teotihuacan influence or presence at Quechomictlipan there is little available evidence pointing in this direction, but further investigations at site may eventually change this.

Las Costas and the Montaña

The extensive coastal region of Guerrero is further divided into the Costa Grande to the north and Costa Chica to the south. Rubén Manzanilla López (2008:110–133; see also Suárez Díez 1977:82) discusses different kinds of Teotihuacan-influenced material culture from the Costa Grande—including ceramics, sculpture, and shell objects—though none of these would seem to indicate a marked Teotihuacan presence. Schmidt Schoenberg (2006:32) mentions a marcador from Acatolín near Tecpán, with some similarity to the one from La Ventilla, and a ballcourt ring from Tecpán adds to the corpus of carved sculptures from the site (Manzanilla López 2008:65, fig. 19). Between Zihuatanejo and Petatlán, Manzanilla and his colleagues registered fifty-five sites, some of them with continuous occupation from the Middle Preclassic to the colonial period. The archaeological record is dominated by local forms, but also suggests cultural interaction with central Mexico, and molded human figurines show some affinities with Teotihuacan. La Soledad de Maciel stands out between the sites with Classic occupation; the ceremonial center covers approximately one square kilometer, and include plazas, platforms, and foundations made from adobe as well as a ballgame court. Three stone rings decorated with entwined serpents were also discovered, but the style does not suggest direct Teotihuacan influence (Manzanilla López and Moguel Cos 1990; Manzanilla López 2008:122–123, figs. 61–62). Excavations by Gordon Ekholm at Tambuco (near Acapulco) on the Costa Chica revealed cylindrical tripods with hollow feet, but apart from this evidence pointing to Teotihuacan, contacts in this region remains scarce (Schmidt Schoenberg 2006:33).

Evidence suggesting interaction with Teotihuacan has been found in at least four sites in the Montaña region.15 Las Minas-Alpoyeca, located north of Tlapa, is a ceremonial center with talud-tablero architecture and Teotihuacan-style ceramics, including Fine Orange ceramic vessels and bowls with nubbin supports, as well as incense burners with iconographic elements resembling Teotihuacan Storm god faces. Another site is Contlalco (Tlapa), which appears to have developed during the Early Classic period. Here Raúl Barrera and Carlos Parra excavated part of a fully stuccoed altar reminiscent of Teotihuacan patio altars, and found black-and-orange ceramics suggesting some Teotihuacan influence or local inspiration (Barrera and Parra 1992:13–15).

Concluding Remarks

In pre-Columbian times the vast area that today constitutes the state of Guerrero was inhabited by several different ethnic and linguistic groups (see Vélez Calvo 1998), which all, in varying degrees, were involved in socioeconomic and religious interactions, as well as military conflicts with neighboring regions and peoples. Such contacts continually caused changes in local communities and their cultural traditions, including language and symbolic and artistic expressions. Based on the available iconographic evidence, we suggest that many important changes that occurred in Guerrero during the Classic period were related to contacts with or the actual presence of Teotihuacanos at a number of select sites.

The carved monuments presented and discussed above are important in several ways; first, they are evidence of a vibrant sculptural tradition in Guerrero in the fourth-sixth centuries AD. Second, they add to the emergent picture of a time period in Mesoamerica in which the influence and power of Teotihuacan was felt in nearly every part of Mesoamerica. Furthermore, the monuments contribute to the ongoing discussion concerning how and to what degree Teotihuacan was involved in actual conquests and political maneuvering in these areas, or whether local dynasties merely mimicked the style and content of Teotihuacan iconography for their own ends and purposes. In our view, the stelae and other carved sculptures from Guerrero that we have analyzed in detail here all conform to the imperial iconography of Teotihuacan, and there can be no doubt that local elites and artists possessed a knowledge of its standards with regards to the basic repertoire of motifs.

In some cases, such as San Miguel Totolapan, the iconography points to local adaptations, indicating an indirect knowledge of the original source of inspiration. This would suggest a similar situation as observed in the Maya area where sites such as Tikal and Kaminaljuyú display Teotihuacan iconography that is almost identical to that of Teotihuacan, whereas smaller surrounding cities and communities produced less-precise and well-articulated imitations. It is in the north and the tierra caliente that we have found the clearest evidence of direct Teotihuacan influence, and at several sites we have also noted examples of Teotihuacan writing. In sum, stone monuments displaying Teotihuacan imperial iconography can be traced in a number of sites in Guerrero, most prominently at Acatempan, Cerro de los Monos, and Tepecoacuilco. In our view, they strongly suggest that some members of the Teotihuacan elite, possibly imperial representatives and/or merchants, settled in those areas. This is not to say that all examples of Teotihuacan-style monuments or ceramics encountered in the various regions of Guerrero reflect conquests and subsequent collection of tribute. Some can undoubtedly be understood as part of other modes of interaction and exchange, just as goods and luxury items may have been brought back to the metropolis through long-distance trade in the hands of merchants similar to Mexica pochteca.

We have detailed several resources that may have underlain Teotihuacan interest in Guerrero, but the routes through Guerrero that we suggest were used by Teotihuacan armies and merchants also need to be seen and understood in a wider perspective. These routes also provided access to the coastal regions of Oaxaca and Chiapas, where Teotihuacan-style monuments and other types of evidence showing links to central Mexico have been found (García des-Lauriers 2007; Navarrete 1986; Rivera Guzmán 2011), and farther south toward the Pacific coast and piedmont regions of Guatemala, where Teotihuacan presence is well documented. As such, Guerrero stands out as a region of major importance because its network of trade routes were crucial in terms of connecting the Basin of Mexico with eastern Mesoamerica and the exotic and prestigious resources that could be gained from those distant lands.

Acknowledgments. We would like to express our gratitude to a number of colleagues who, in one way or the other, have been helpful and generous with their assistance, advice, and access to data and drawings, including Christophe Helmke, Nicolas Latsanopoulos, Karl Taube, Paul Schmidt, José Luís Ramírez, and Mayra Mendoza Avilés. Comments from two anonymous reviewers also improved the quality of or contribution considerably. We would also especially like to thank the director of the Museo Regional de Guerrero in Chilpancingo, Maura Liliana Ortíz, who kindly permitted our inspection and documentation of several of the monuments discussed here. Jesper Nielsen also wants to thank the late Toke Sellner Reunert for accompanying him on his first trip to Guerrero in 2008, where several of the Teotihuacan-style monuments from Cerro de los Monos first caught his attention. During the writing of this chapter, Iván Rivera was supported by an INAH Fellowship at the University of Leiden, the Netherlands. Finally, we want to thank the editors, Joshua D. Englehardt and Michael D. Carrasco, for the wonderful opportunity to present our ideas and research in the present volume.

Notes

References