An expressive orange-ware clay vessel in the Toltec style, from the American Museum of Natural History collection.

The Toltec culture is an archaeological Mesoamerican culture that dominated a state centered in Tula, Hidalgo, in the early post-classic period of Mesoamerican chronology (ca 800-1000 CE). The later Aztec culture saw the Toltecs as their intellectual and cultural predecessors and described Toltec culture emanating from Tollan (Nahuatl for Tula) as the epitome of civilization, indeed in the Nahuatl language the word "Toltec" came to take on the meaning "artisan". The Aztec oral and pictographic tradition also described the history of the Toltec empire giving lists of rulers and their exploits. Among modern scholars it is a matter of debate whether the Aztec narratives of Toltec history should be given credence as descriptions of actual historical events. While all scholars acknowledge that there is a large mythological part of the narrative some maintain that by using a critical comparative method some level of historicity can be salvaged from the sources, whereas others maintain that continued analysis of the narratives as sources of actual history is futile and hinders access to actual knowledge of the culture of Tula, Hidalgo. Other controversy relating to the Toltecs include how best to understand reasons behind the perceived similarities in architecture and iconography between the archaeological site of Tula and the Maya site of Chichén Itzá - as of yet no consensus has emerged about the degree or direction of influence between the two sites.

Archaeology[link]

Toltec pyramid at Tula, Hidalgo

Some archaeologists such as Richard Diehl, argue for the existence of a Toltec archaeological horizon characterized by certain stylistic traits associated with Tula, Hidalgo and extending to other cultures and polities in Mesoamerica. Traits associated with this horizon are: The Mixteca-Puebla style of iconography, Tohil plumbate ceramic ware and Silho or X-Fine Orange Ware ceramics.^[1] The presence of stylistic traits associated with Tula in Chichén Itzá is also taken as evidence for a Toltec horizon. Especially the nature of interaction between Tula and Chichén Itzá has been controversial with Scholars arguing for either military conquest of Chichén Itzá by Toltecs, Chichén Itzá establishing Tula as a colony or only loose connections between the two. The existence of any meaning of the Mixteca-Puebla art style has also been questioned.^[2]

A contrary viewpoint is argued in a 2003 study by Michael E. Smith and Lisa Montiel who compare the archaeological record related to Tula Hidalgo to those of the polities centered in Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan. They conclude that relative to the influence exerted in Mesoamerica by Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan, Tula's influence on other cultures was negligible and was probably not deserving of being defined as an empire. While Tula does have the urban complexity expected of an imperial capital its influence and dominance was not very far reaching. Evidence for Tula's participance in extensive trade networks has been uncovered, for example the remains of a large obsidian workshop.^[3]

History of research[link]

A map of the layout of the archaeological site of Tula, Hidalgo

Stucco relief at Tula, Hidalgo depicting Coyotes, Jaguars and Eagles feasting on human hearts.

Carved relief of a Jaguar at Tula, Hidalgo

Depiction of an anthropomorphic bird-snake deity, probably Quetzalcoatl at the Temple of Tlahuizcalpantecuhtli at Tula, Hidalgo

View of the Columns of the Burned Palace at Tula Hidalgo, the second Ballcourt is in the background

The debate about the nature of the Toltec culture goes back to the late 19th century. Mesoamericanist scholars such as Veitia, Manuel Orozco y Berra, Charles Etienne Brasseur de Bourbourg, Francisco Clavigero all read the Aztec chronicles and believed them to be realistic historic descriptions of pan-Mesoamerican empire based at Tula, Hidalgo. This historicist view was first challenged by Daniel Garrison Brinton who argued that the "Toltecs" as described in the Aztec sources were merely one of several Nahuatl speaking citystates in the postclassic period, and not a particularly influential one at that. He attributed the Aztec view of the Toltecs to the "tendency of the human mind to glorify the good old days", and the confounding of the place of Tollan with the myth of the struggle between Quetzalcoatl and Tezcatlipoca.^[4] Désiré Charnay, the first archaeologist to work at Tula, Hidalgo, defended the historicist views based on his impression of the Toltec capital, and was the first to note similarities in architectural styles between Tula and Chichén Itza. This led him to posit the theory that Chichén Itzá had been violently taken over by a Toltec military force under the leadership of Kukulcan.^[5][6] Following Charnay the term Toltec has since been associated with the influx of certain Central Mexican cultural traits into the Mayan sphere of dominance that took place in the late classic and early Postclassic periods; the Postclassic Mayan civilizations of Chichén Itzá, Mayapán and the Guatemalan highlands have been referred to as "Toltecized" or "Mexicanized" Mayas.

The historicist school of thought persisted well in to the 20th century, represented in the works of scholars such as David Carrasco, Miguel León Portilla, Nigel Davies and H. B. Nicholson which all held the Toltecs to have been an actual ethnic group. This school of thought connected the "Toltecs" to the archaeological site of Tula, which was taken to be the Tollan of Aztec myth.^[7] This tradition assumes that much of central Mexico was dominated by a "Toltec empire" between the 10th and 12th century CE. The Aztecs referred to several Mexican citystates as Tollan, "Place of Reeds", such as "Tollan Cholollan". Historian Enrique Florescano has argued that the "original" Tollan was probably Teotihuacán, and that the Mayan sources refer to Chichén Itzá when talking about the mythical place Zuyua (Tollan).

Many historicists such as H. B. Nicholson (2001 (1957)) and Nigel Davies (1977) were fully aware that the Aztec chronicles were a mixture of mythical and historical accounts, this led them to try to separate the two by applying a comparative approach to the varying Aztec narratives. For example they seek to discern between the deity Quetzalcoatl and a Toltec ruler often referred to as Topiltzin Ce Acatl Quetzalcoatl.^[7]

Toltecs as myth[link]

In recent decades the historicist position has fallen out of favor for a more critical and interpretive approach to the historicity of the Aztec mythical accounts based on the original approach of Brinton. This approach applies a different understanding of the word Toltec to the interpretation of the Aztec sources, interpreting it as largely a mythical and philosophical construct by either the Aztecs or Mesoamericans generally that served to symbolize the might and sophistication of several different civilizations during the Mesoamerican Postclassic period.

Scholars such as Michel Graulich (2002) and Susan D. Gillespie (1989) maintain that the difficulties in salvaging actual historic data from the Aztec accounts of Toltec history are too great to overcome. For example, there is not one supposed Toltec ruler identified with Quetzalcoatl, but two: the first ruler and founder of the Toltec dynasty, and the last ruler, who saw the end of the Toltec glory and was forced into humiliation and exile. The first is described as a valiant triumphant warrior, but the last as a feeble and self-doubting old man. This causes Graulich and Gillespie to suggest that the general Aztec cyclical view of time, where events repeated themselves at the end and beginning of cycles or eras was being inscribed into the historical record by the Aztecs, making it futile to attempt to distinguish between a historical Topiltzin Ce Acatl and a Quetzalcoatl deity. Graulich argues that the Toltec era is best considered the fourth of the Five Aztec mythical "Suns" or ages, the one immediately preceding the fifth sun of the Aztec people, presided over by Quetzalcoatl. This causes Graulich to consider that the only possibly historical data in the Aztec chronicles are the names of some rulers and possibly some of the conquests ascribed to them.

Further more among the Nahuan peoples the word "Tolteca" was synonymous with artist, artisan or wise man, and "toltecayotl" "Toltecness" meant art, culture and civilization and urbanism—and was seen as the opposite of "Chichimecayotl" "Chichimecness", which symbolized the savage, nomadic state of peoples who had not yet become urbanized. This interpretation argues that any large urban center in Mesoamerica could be referred to as "Tollan" and its inhabitants as Toltecs—and that it was common practice among ruling lineages in Postclassic Mesoamerica to strengthen claims to power by claiming Toltec ancestry. Mesoamerican migration accounts often state that Tollan was ruled by Quetzalcoatl (or Kukulkan in Yucatec and Q'uq'umatz in K'iche'), a godlike mythical figure who was later sent into exile from Tollan and went on to found a new city elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Claims of Toltec ancestry and a ruling dynasty founded by Quetzalcoatl have been made by such diverse civilizations as the Aztec, the Quiché and the Itza' Mayas.

While the skeptical school of thought does not deny that cultural traits of a seemingly central Mexican origin have diffused into a larger area of Mesoamerica, it tends to ascribe this to the dominance of Teotihuacán in the Classic period and the general diffusion of cultural traits within the region. Recent scholarship, then, does not see Tula, Hidalgo as the capital of the Toltecs of the Aztec accounts, but rather takes "Toltec" to mean simply an inhabitant of Tula during its apogee. Separating the term "Toltec" from those of the Aztec accounts, it attempts to find archaeological clues to the ethnicity, history and social organization of the inhabitants of Tula.

Notes[link]

References[link]

External links[link]

• Media related to Toltec at Wikimedia Commons

Pueblo Bonito
Pueblo Bonito, a Chacoan Great House
Pueblo Bonito Location within New Mexico today
Coordinates	36°3′38″N 107°57′42″W / 36.06056°N 107.96167°W / 36.06056; -107.96167
Location
Country	USA
Region	San Juan County, New Mexico
History
Culture	Chacoan civilization
First occupied	828
Abandoned	1126
Excavation and maintenance
Responsible body	private
Architecture

Pueblo Bonito, the largest and best known Great House in Chaco Culture National Historical Park, northern New Mexico, was built by ancestral Pueblo people and occupied between AD 828 and 1126.

In January, 1941, a section of the canyon wall known as Threatening Rock, or tse biyaa anii'ahi (leaning rock gap) in Navajo, collapsed as a result of a rock fall, destroying some of the structure's rear wall and a number of rooms. The builders of Pueblo Bonito appear to have been well aware of this threat. However, they chose to build beneath the fractured stone, which stood 97 feet (30 m) high and weighed approximately 30,000 tons, and compensated by building a structural reinforcement for the slab. Pueblo Bonito was one of the most famous Chaco Sites and was a huge D-shaped building that housed many. (Snow, 130)

In 2009, it was reported that traces of cacao from, at the nearest, 1,200 miles (1,900 km) away in Mexico, were detected in pottery shards at Pueblo Bonito. This was the first demonstration that cacao, important in rituals, had been brought into the area that became the United States at any time before the Spanish arrived around 1500. Cylindrical pottery jars, common in Central America, had previously been found, but are rare. At Pueblo Bonito, 111 jars had been found in one of the 800 or so rooms of the pueblo.^[1]

"Pueblo Bonito is the most thoroughly investigated and celebrated cultural site in Chaco Canyon. Planned and constructed in stages between AD 850 to AD 1150 by ancestral Puebloan peoples, this was the center of the Chacoan world."^{[citation needed]}

Discovery[link]

Approaching Pueblo Bonito from the east

U.S. army Lt. James H. Simpson and Carravahal, Simpson's guide from San Juan Pueblo, first came upon Chaco Canyon during a 1849 military expedition. They briefly examined eight larger ruins in Chaco Canyon including Pueblo Bonito, named pretty village in Spanish by Carravahal. At the conclusion of his expedition, Simpson published the first description of Chaco Canyon in his military report, with drawings by expedition artist R. H. Kern.

Rancher Richard Wetherill, and natural history student George H. Pepper from the American Museum of Natural History, began excavations at Pueblo Bonito in 1896 and ended in 1900. These excavations were financed by B. Talbot Hyde and Frederick E. Hyde, Jr. of New York City, who were philanthropists and collectors. During this time, the two men uncovered 190 rooms and photographed and mapped all major structures in the canyon.

Among the artifacts recovered by Pepper, eight wood flutes were found in a room the Northwestern part of Pueblo Bonito that Pepper designated as "Room 33". These flutes are in the style of the Anasazi flutes that are considered a prececessor to the Native American flute.^[2][3] The rituals performed at Pueblo bonito were performed with cylindrical vessels, human effigy vessels, and ceramic incense burner. (Snow, 131)

The Hydes donated the resulting large collection of artifacts to the American Museum of Natural History. After the excavation, Wetherill sought to gain personal control of parts of Chaco Canyon, including Pueblo Bonito, Chetro Ketl and Pueblo Del Arroyo. He filed a homestead entry on these ruins, which was invalidated by the General Land Office in 1904 when the federal government took formal possession of these lands. Wetherill was required to stop his ongoing excavations on federal property, but continued to run a trading post at Chaco Canyon until his death in 1910.

Description[link]

Pueblo Bonito is divided into two sections by a precisely aligned wall, running north to south, through the central plaza. A Great Kiva is placed on either side of the wall, creating a symmetrical pattern common to many of the Great Houses. In addition to the great kivas, over thirty other kivas or ceremonial structures have been found, many also associated with the large central courtyard. Interior living spaces were quite large by the standards of the Ancient Pueblo.

The site covers almost two acres (8,000 m²) and incorporates at least 650 rooms, with some estimates rising to 800. In parts of the village, the tiered structure was four and five stories high. During later construction, some lower level rooms were filled with debris to better support the weight of the upper levels. The builder's use of core and veneer architecture and multi-story construction produced massive masonry walls as much as three feet (1 m) thick.

Archaeologists' population estimates for the village have varied. During the early 20th century, the structures were viewed as small cities, with people residing in every room. From this perspective, Pueblo Bonito could have accommodated several thousand inhabitants at the village's peak. More recent analysis has lowered the resident total to less than 800, primarily due to the small number of usable hearths in the ruins. Another analysis, based on architecture, estimates the resident population to be even smaller, with only 12 households or about 70 people at its peak.^[4] These tend to be located on the ground floor, near the central plaza, and are associated with entrances to a series of rooms going deeper into the structure. Rooms were connected by a series of interior doorways, some of them in a T-shape. A family may have inhabited 3 to 4 rooms, with many small interior spaces being used for storage. There was generally no outside access to the room blocks other than from the central courtyard.

It is possible that Pueblo Bonito is actually neither a village nor city. While its size has the capacity for a significant population, the environment may not have been ideal for sustaining a large population. Excavations at the site have not revealed significant trash middens indicating residential areas. A common suggestion is that Pueblo Bonito was a ritual center. This is not only evident in the existence of the kivas (which are more often than not attributed to ritual function) but also in the construction of the site and its relation to other Chaco Canyon sites. Although there were many occupants, only 50-60 burials were found here. (Snow, 131)

Pueblo Bonito, aerial view 2009

The site allows us to begin to comprehend the degree to which the Anasazi/ Ancient Pueblo understood the solar and lunar cycles. The solar and Lunar cycles are marked in the petroglyphs of the surrounding cliff area as well as in the architecture of Pueblo Bonito itself.

Examination of pack rat middens revealed that, at the time that pueblo bonito was built Chaco Canyon and the surrounding areas were wooded by trees such as ponderosa pines. Evidence of such trees can be seen within the structure of Pueblo Bonito, such as the first floor support beams. Scientists hypothesised that during the time that the pueblo was inhabited the valley was cleared of almost all of the trees, to provide timber for construction and fuel. This, combined with a period of drought, led to the water table in the valley to drop severely, making the land infertile. This explains why Pueblo Bonito was only inhabited for about 300 years and is a good example of the effect that deforestation can have on the local environment. The Anasazi, no longer able to grow crops to sustain their population, had to move on.

Since 2004, the University of Mexico has begun a campaign to reopen excavations of the great house in order to obtain new data. Major excavations of Chaco Canyon occurred during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries; for this reason, the nature of the incredible social transformation that developed in Chaco Canyon and its underlying causes remains poorly understood.

A multi-year field study, centered in Pueblo Bonito, has been launched in order to obtain new information on the economic conditions of the Bonito phase. The ultimate goal of this recent fieldwork is to obtain data that will enable researchers to examine the development of great house communities in respect to relationships between demographic change and economic productivity.

Thus far, the team from the University of New Mexico has recovered and inventoried thousands of artifacts, including ceramics, animal bones, and stone fragments. As a result, the researchers have received a separate grant from the National Science Foundation to analyze more than 300,000 artifacts: the largest single-site artifact assemblage ever collected from Chaco.

Rock Art[link]

Behind Pueblo Bonito is a series of petroglyphs depicting six-toed feet, an element also found in other Ancient Pueblo rock art. These images were made in the late 10th century or early 11th century.^[5]

References[link]

Archaeology of Native North America, 2010, Dean R. Snow, Prentice-Hall, New York. pp. 130-131

Further reading[link]

• Fagen, Brian. Chaco Canyon; Archaeologists Explore the Lives of an Ancient Society. Oxford University Press, New York, 2005. ISBN 0-19-517043-1.
• Frazier, Kendrick. People of Chaco: A Canyon and Its Culture. W.W. Norton and Company, New York, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30496-5.
• Noble, David Grant, editor. New Light on Chaco Canyon. School of American Research, Sante Fe, New Mexico, 1985.
• Plog, Stephen. Ancient Peoples of the American Southwest. Thames and London, LTD, London, England, 1997. ISBN 0-500-27939-X.
• Simpson, James H. Navaho Expedition: Journal of Military Reconnaissance from Santa Fe, New Mexico to the Navaho Country Made in 1849. Edited and annotated by Frank McNitt. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1964.
• Attenborough, David. "The State of the planet". (2000) BBC documentary.

External links[link]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Category:Pueblo Bonito

• The Mystery of Chaco Canyon a PBS documentary narrated by Robert Redford
• Chaco Canyon, a Photo Gallery
• Pueblo Bonito: 1995 Site Guide
• New Research at Pueblo Bonito
• [1]

v t e    Pre-Columbian North America Archaeological cultures North American pre-Columbian chronology – Adena – Alachua – Ancient Pueblo (Anasazi) – Baytown – Belle Glade – Buttermilk Creek Complex – Caborn-Welborn – Calf Creek – Caloosahatchee – Clovis – Coles Creek – Deptford – Folsom – Fort Ancient – Fort Walton – Fremont – Glades – Glacial Kame – Hopewell (List of Hopewell sites) – Hohokam – Leon-Jefferson – Mississippian (List of Mississippian sites) – Mogollon – Monongahela – Old Cordilleran – Oneota – Paleo-Arctic – Paleo-Indians – Patayan – Plano – Plaquemine – Poverty Point – Prehistoric Southwest – Red Ocher – Santa Rosa-Swift Creek – St. Johns – Steed-Kisker – Tchefuncte – Tocobaga – Troyville Archaeological sites Angel Mounds – Bandelier National Monument – The Bluff Point Stoneworks – Cahokia – Chaco Canyon – Casa Grande – Coso Rock Art District – Eaker – Effigy Mounds National Monument – Etowah Indian Mounds – Eva – Folsom Site – Fort Ancient – Fort Center – Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument – Holly Bluff Site – Hopewell Culture National Historical Park – Kincaid Mounds – Kolomoki – Manitou Cliff Dwellings – Marksville – Meadowcroft Rockshelter – Mesa Verde – Moorehead Circle – Moundville – Mummy Cave – Nodena Site – Ocmulgee National Monument – Old Stone Fort – Parkin Park – Pinson Mounds – Portsmouth Earthworks – Poverty Point – Pueblo Bonito – Rock Eagle – Rock Hawk – Salmon Ruins – Serpent Mound – Spiro Mounds – SunWatch – Taos Pueblo – Toltec Mounds – Town Creek Indian Mound – Winterville Miscellaneous Ballgame – Black drink – Buhl woman – Calumet – Chunkey – Clovis point – Container Revolution – Eastern Agricultural Complex – Eden point – Effigy mound – Falcon dancer – Folsom point – Green Corn Ceremony – Horned Serpent – Kennewick man – Kiva – Metallurgy – Mi'kmaq hieroglyphic writing – Medicine wheel – Mound builders – N.A.G.P.R.A. – Norse colonization of the Americas – Piasa – Pueblo dwellings – Southeastern Ceremonial Complex – Three Sisters agriculture – Thunderbird – Underwater panther Related: Genetic history · Indigenous Portal of North America · Pre-Columbian era