Controversy on the Borgia Group Codices from Ancient Mexico
Controverse sur les Codices du groupe Borgia (Mexique ancien)
Disputa sobre los Codices del grupo Borgia (México antiguo)
p. 379-389
Résumés
The specific provenance of a number of pre‑Hispanic pictographic manuscripts known as members of the “Borgia Group” - now in collections in Italy and England - is unknown. Regarded as part of the “Mixteca‑Puebla” stylistic tradition, these codices share religious and mantic content. Since the pioneering work of Eduard Seler, various experts have argued over the range of diverse places of origin for these codices that are based on similarities to archaeological objects, mural paintings, and ceramics resembling the painted codices. Among the possible places of production of Borgia group codices are the Mixtec region, the Tehuacán zone, the Puebla‑Tlaxcala area, or perhaps the Gulf Coast of Mexico.
Nous ignorons le lieu de provenance des manuscrits pictographiques préhispaniques connus comme membres du « Groupe Borgia » qui sont conservés en Italie et en Grande‑Bretagne. Ces codex partagent un contenu religieux et mantique et s’inscrivent dans une tradition stylistique appelée tradition « Mixteca‑Puebla ». Depuis les travaux pionniers d’Eduard Seler, plusieurs spécialistes ont présenté des arguments divers pour déterminer le ou les lieux d’origine de ces codex, en se basant sur des objets archéologiques, des peintures murales ou des pièces de céramiques qui montrent des ressemblances avec les codex peints. Parmi les possibles lieux d’élaboration des codex du Groupe Borgia, on peut mentionner la région mixtèque, la zone de Tehuacan, la zone de Puebla-Tlaxcala et peut‑être la côte du Golfe du Mexique.
Se ignora el lugar de procedencia de los manuscritos pictográficos prehispánicos conocidos como miembros del «Grupo Borgia» que se conservan en depositorios italianos e ingleses. Estos códices comparten un contenido religioso y mántico y se inscriben en la tradición estilística llamada «Mixteca‑Puebla». Desde los trabajos pioneros de Eduard Seler, diversos especialistas han esgrimido argumentos diversos para determinar el o los lugares de origen de estos códices, basándose en objetos arqueológicos, en pinturas murales o en piezas de cerámica que muestran semejanzas con los códices pintados. Entre los posibles lugares de elaboración de los códices del grupo Borgia destacan la región mixteca, la zona de Tehuacan, la zona de Puebla-Tlaxcala y tal vez la Costa del Golfo de México.
Entrées d’index
Mots-clés : Amérique latine, Mexique, Codex préhispaniques, Style Mixteca‑Puebla, Groupe Borgia, Codex Mixtèques, dieux préhispaniques
Keywords : Latin America, Mexico, Prehispanic Codex, Mixteca‑Puebla Style, Borgia Group, Mixtec Codex, Prehispanic Gods
Palabras claves : America Latina, México Códices, Estilo Mixteca‑Puebla, Grupo Borgia, Códices mixtecos, Dioses prehispánicos
Texte intégral
Introduction
1From the supposed Chinese origin sometimes attributed to the Codex Cospi, to the label born by the case where the Codex Laud is kept “Liber Hieroglyphicorum Aegyptorum MS.”, the provenience of the Meso‑American manuscripts has been the subject of many questions, speculations, and investigations of all kinds. It should be noted that these pictographic documents are today held in museums and libraries in Italy - the Codex Borgia and the Codex Vaticanus 3773 in Rome; the Codex Cospi in Bologna - and in Great‑Britain – the Codex Fejérváry‑Mayer in Liverpool and the Codex Laud in Oxford -and that their provenance is unknown. In the limited space allotted for this paper, I would like to present, in chronological order, the principal contributions made on the theme of the origins of the codices of the so‑called Borgia Group.
Earliest Analysis
2For all I know, in 1887 Eduard Seler1 was the first to gather the following codices into a single group: Borgia, Vaticanus B, Cospi, Fejérváry‑Mayer, and Laud. From then on, the German scholar pointed out that “the last two [Fejérváry‑Mayer and Laud] furthermore exhibit the greatest similarity in the style of the representations.”2 Seler proposed various readings for these manuscripts and presented a list of parallel passages from different codices, while also placing emphasis on the importance of the 260‑day divinatory calendar. In another article dated 1900 and dedicated to the Codex Cospi, Seler3 proposed that this manuscript, together with the Codex Borgia and the Codex Vaticanus B came from “somewhere in the neighbourhood of the ancient Zapotec culture, perhaps in Teotitlan, Tochtepec, or Coatzacualco.” But, at the end of the same article, after mentioning that the numbering system of the Codex Cospi was very similar to the Maya system, he wrote that “it does not seem improbable that our manuscript [the Codex Cospi] originated in the territory bordering on Maya lands, the Tlillan Tlapallan, the land of writing”.4
3As for the expression “Codex Borgia Group,” it appeared for the first time in the comment made by Seler (1901‑1902, p. 3) on the Codex Fejérváry‑Mayer. He revisits it in his comments on the Codex Vaticanus B (Seler, 1902‑1903) and later in his renowned commentary on the Codex Borgia (Seler, 1963 [1904]). Toward the end of his commentary on Codex Fejérváry‑Mayer, Seler5 put forward arguments for an origin of the Codex Borgia Group in the region of Tehuacan, Cozcatlan, and Teotitlan del Camino:
This was a land inhabited by Aztec‑speaking peoples: it was conterminous with the Zapotec territory, and it lay on the trade route which led thence to the coast, and to the Maya‑peopled district of Tabasco. The antiquities made known from this region, the parti‑coloured clay figure of the god Xochipilli (…) so far as regards the carving and the face‑painting, looks in fact as if copied from the Codex Borgia. And indeed, we also know that in this very region astronomic observation was highly developed, and the Morning Star held in special veneration.6
4With the discovery of the murals of Tizatlan (Tlaxcala), new possibilities emerged to locate the place of origin of the codices of the Borgia Group. In fact, according to Alfonso Caso7, the “analogy is so remarkable, that we may think the same culture produced the Tezcatlipoca of the Borgia and that of the paintings in Tizatlan”. Toward the end of his study, the Mexican scholar proposes that the builders of Tizatlan - who used bricks in a very rare instance of this building technique - where the Olmeca Xicallanca, to whom he also attributes the codices of the Borgia Group. The discovery, by the same Alfonso Caso (1949), of the Mixtec origin of several prehispanic manuscripts, at the basis of his famous study of the Mapa de Teozacualco, was to provide the specialists with new bases to try to locate the origin of the Borgia group.
5Shortly before that, it is important to recall that it was George Vaillant (1938) who created the “Mixteca‑Puebla culture” concept, whose members were located in the State of Puebla, and in the Mixteca area: they shared the use of divinatory calendars, pictographic writing, as well as a common artistic style. We should also mention that Wigberto Jímenez Moreno (1942) attributed the invention and diffusion of the Mixteca‑Puebla culture to the Olmeca Xicallanca, that is to say to the same people Caso thought of as the creators of the paintings in Tizatlan … and in the Codex Borgia, as seen earlier.
6Though forgotten by most specialists, Rafael García Granados’ work (1940; 1942) should be remembered for its comparison of the representations of various elements in prehispanic codices, such as the AO year sign, weapons, and day signs. His too often ignored study shows that the Borgia Group codices have more in common with the Mixtec codices than with their Mexica counterparts.
7With the publication of Karl Nowotny’s book Tlacuilolli. Style and Contents of the Mexican Pictorial Manuscripts with a Catalogue of the Borgia Group, a new important light was cast on the interpretation of the Borgia Group codices.8 In Marteen Jansen’s words:
Nowotny parts from a superb overview of the whole corpus of codices and related texts, and from a conviction that the scenes are not to be seen or used as mere illustrations, but are impressive, coherent works with their own voice. He qualified the genre of most religious codices as “mantic” and “ritual”, and analysed the scenes not as occult codifications of astronomical cycles, but as sets of symbols that give meaning to calendrical structures.9
8As to the origin of the members of the Borgia Group, the Austrian scholar proposed that the Codex Borgia came from the Cholula‑Tlaxcala area. He regarded the Codex Vaticanus B as very close to the reverse side of the Codex Vindobonensis, both showing a rather sloppy and hasty style. He adds that “animating coloured surfaces with dots of another colour is peculiar to the Codex Vaticanus B and the Codex Vindobonensis pages i to xiii”.10 As for the Codex Cospi, Nowotny calls it “especially bizarre,” and compares the section with four personages in front of a temple with the scenes on the Nochixtlan vase, done in a Mixtec style. He underlines the “stiffness” of the forms and of the composition of the Fejérváry‑Mayer and Laud codices, and comments that the Malinalco paintings “evidence a certain similarity in their stiffness of composition (…) however these frescoes are too poorly preserved, to permit a definitive conclusion.”11
Donald Robertson vs Henry B. Nicholson
9Starting in the 1960s, the academic debate was dominated by the discussion between two major figures in Meso-American studies: Donald Robertson and Henry B. Nicholson. Their discussion was centred on the characteristics of the Mixteca-Puebla style and on the respective roles of the Mixtecs and of the inhabitants of the Tlaxcala-Cholula area in the elaboration of the Borgia Group codices (Escalante Gonzalbo, 2012).
10Donald Robertson (1959) defines the “Mixtec style” in his book Mexican Manuscript Painting of the Early Colonial Period, and proposes that the six manuscripts that make up the Borgia Group – he adds the Fonds Mexicain No. 20 to the five codices gathered by Seler – has also been elaborated in the Mixteca area. He criticized the iconographic approach to the codices favoured by a number of scholars: “The study of iconography alone is rarely able to establish a provenience that is otherwise unknown, particularly in a situation in which the artists of several closely related schools are working within a common religious system”.12 Robertson then starts a preliminary study on the “the qualities of line and colour and the forms and parts of the human body”. From several examples, the art historian underlines the differences existing between the style of the Vindobonensis and Nuttall codices, on the one hand, and the Bodley and Selden codices on the other, all of them coming from the Mixtec area, but belonging to different “schools.” In the same way, he considers that the stylistic differences between the Codex Borgia and the Laud and Fejéváry‑Mayer pair are less than those existing between the Vindobonensis‑Nuttall and the Selden‑Bodley pairs. Thus, “the three ritual manuscripts [Borgia, Fejérváry & Laud] also have a single artistic origin - either a single school in the narrow sense, or at least two or more very closely related schools in an extended sense”.13 After having compared the Codex Borgia and the Codex Vindobonensis ‑lines, the shape of eyes, nose, hands, and feet, etc. –, Robertson explains that the small differences existing between them are due to their contents – religious vs. historical – and concludes that:
Codex Borgia is so closely related to Codices Vienna and Nuttall that an attribution of Mixtec style is fully justified. The factors linking Borgia to Fejérváry-Mayer and Laud are clear enough to justify our saying that if Borgia is Mixtec, the other two ritual manuscript must be Mixtec as well.14
11As for the Codex Vaticanus B, its rough‑looking style and the slapdash use of colours could point to an origin outside of the Mixteca area. Robertson also points out that the distribution of the bar‑and‑dot number system throughout different regions of Meso‑America makes it impossible to use it as a criterion to assign a specific geographic origin, for example to the Codex Fejérvary‑Mayer, Codex Laud, and the Codex Cospi. Robertson also points out that the distribution of the bar‑and‑dot number system throughout different regions of Meso‑America makes it impossible to use it as a criterion to assign a specific geographic origin, for example to the Codex Fejérvary-Mayer, Codex Laud, and the Codex Cospi.
12Published in 1966, H. B. Nicholson’s article “The Problem of the provenience of the members of the Codex Borgia Group: a Summary” presents a very dense and exhaustive synthesis of the theme. He starts by detailing the various theories about the origin of the Borgia Group. Then, he examines Robertson’s opinions: he agrees about the stylistic similarities between the Codex Vindobonensis and the Borgia Group codices, but stresses the importance of the deities represented in these manuscripts: “Both striking similarities and differences with the deities depicted in our group of manuscripts are evident”.15 He underlines the omnipresence of Tezcatlipoca in the Borgia Group codices, as opposed to its scarcity in the Mixtec codices – only one representation in the Codex Nuttall and another one in the Codex Porfirio Diaz.16 He refutes Seler’s argument attributing the creation of the Borgia Group codices to Nahua groups, a theory based on the supposed reading of the atl‑tlachinolli glyph in the Nahua language – in fact the glyph was represented in the Otomi Huamantla Codex, and this metaphor can be found also in Alvarado’s Mixtec dictionary. Nicholson then points out that no such glyph appears in the Mixtec codices. He then tackles the question of the Puebla‑Tlaxcala area, where the Tizatlan altars and a number of ceramic pieces undoubtedly show relations with the Borgia Group codices; on the other hand, in the same Tlaxcala region, he notes that some manuscripts, such as the Codex Huamantla and the Aubin Tonalamatl, are of quite a different style. Nicholson explains this “seemingly anomalous Puebla‑Tlaxcala situation” going back to the hypothesis of an Olmeca Xicallanca origin for the Mixteca‑Puebla style, developed earlier by Caso and Jímenez Moreno.17 Continuing with a consideration of the possible regions of origin of Borgia group codices, Nicholson presents and discusses other materials – sculpture, mural painting, colonial manuscripts and sources – from the Tehuacan zone and different regions of the Gulf Coast that might be related to these codices. In the second part of his article, Nicholson examines each member of the Borgia Group, starting with the manuscript that gave the group its name, which he tentatively attributes to the city of Cholula. He shows some doubts as to the origins of the Codex Vaticanus B – the Puebla‑Tlaxcala zona, or the Mixteca, or even the Gulf Coast. As to the Cospi, he considers it to be very close to paintings in Tizatlan. The group of the Laud and Fejérváry‑Mayer codices, whose style could be “a streamlined Mixteca style,” it could come from the Southern Gulf Coast.18 Finally, Nicholson gives a Mixtec origin to the Fonds Mexicain No 20 and mentions that the Codex Porfirio Diaz – which he adds to the Borgia Group – comes from the Cañada de Cuicatlan.
13I should add that, in 1982, Nicholson summed up the question of the Mixteca‑Puebla style in “The Mixteca-Puebla Concept Revisited”, where he analyses the written sources that mention the presence of Mixtec artists in the High Plateau of Central Mexico, the role of the Olmeca Xicallanca in the light of the discovery of the Cacaxtla murals, and the recent studies on the classification and diffusion of the so‑called Mixteca‑Puebla ceramics. Also, in 1994, together with Eloise Quiñones Keber, he co‑edited a collective work called Mixteca-Puebla. Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology. Among the many contributions this book made to the field, I will underline the publication of important archaeological finds, above all the murals of Ocotelulco, in the State of Tlaxcala, and the Tehuacan Viejo paintings in the State of Puebla. Both these discoveries brought new materials to light, which are very close to the Borgia Group codices iconography. Similarly, the ritual jars bearing the image of Tlaloc, found in Cholula by Gabriela Uruñuela (1997) and her team, are very similar to those also representing the rain god in the Codex Borgia.
Present Discussion
14I want now to devote some time to the publication, between 1991 and 1994, of the main Mixtec codices, as well as the codices of the Borgia Group, edited and commented by Ferdinand Anders and Marteen Jansen, with the collaboration of Luis Reyes García, Aurora Pérez Jiménez, and Peter van der Loo. The question of the origin of the Borgia Group codices appears in the comment to the Codex Cospi (1994). Besides summarizing the studies done by several scholars, the authors point out that the Codex Porfirio Diaz, according to Manuel Martínez Gracida, belonged to don Gabriel de San Francisco, the cacique of Tututepetongo, in the region of Cuicatlan.19 The second part of the study bears on several views that can be adopted to determine the origin of the Borgia Group. I will only mention a number of points, such as the “eared thatched roofs” which Chadwick and MacNeish (1967) used as an argument for a Codex Borgia origin in the Tehuacan area, but which also appears in other closeby areas, and whose use could have been even more widespread in the ancient times.20 Anders, Jansen, and Van der Loo also review Patricia Anawalt’s study on the differences in clothing between the individuals represented in the codices, which would point to a Puebla‑Tlaxcala origin for the Borgia Group.21 In fact, the authors point out that Anawalt did not take into account the historic character of the Mixtec codices, as opposed to the religious aspect of the Borgia Group of codices, which would explain the differences found in the analysis.22 According to Anders, Jansen, and Van der Loo, the same gods appear in both the Mixtec codices and in the Borgia Group, which could account for the slight “theological” differences, also found among the members of the Borgia Group themselves.23 Also, the authors remark on the presence of the AO year sign in the Codex Borgia, from which they propose an origin in some place located between Mitla and Tecamachalco, while the absence of the same sign in the Codex Vaticanus B means one has to look for its origin outside of the Mixteca area.24 The authors place the Codex Cospi in an area “around the snow-capped volcanoes of Central Mexico, an area inhabited by Nahuas, Popolocas, and Mazahuas…”25 Even if a few arguments point to the area of the Gulf Coast as the origin of the Fejérváry‑Mayer and Laud codices, “this remains for now a mere conjecture, more an intuition than an argument”.26
15Another important contribution is Elizabeth Boone’s Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate, published in 2007, whose Chapter 8 is dedicated to the provenience of the members of the Borgia Group. Boone first examines the various geographical areas that have been proposed by scholars: Tehuacan‑Cozcatlan‑Teotitlan del Camino; The Mixteca; Puebla‑Tlaxcala Region; Gulf Coast.27 She then takes in turn the case of each of the Borgia Group members.28 In the case of the Codex Borgia, even though the style is close to the Mixtec codices, several elements point, according to Boone, to the Puebla‑Tlaxcala area, more specifically toward Cholula. For instance, she underlines the absence of Mixtec calendar names for the gods in the Codex Borgia – with the exception of Tlazolteotl – while the Sun appears with the Nahuatl name of 4 Movement and the face painting of Tonatiuh. Boone insists on the similarities between the Codex Borgia and the Tizatlan and Ocotelulco paintings – specially the representations of Tezcatlipoca, which “agree even in many of the smaller details and are thus clearly products of the same aesthetic and iconographic tradition” – as well on several motifs of Cholula ceramics. Similarly, the Codex Cospi would have been painted in the Tlaxcala region, while the Fejérváry‑Mayer and Laud codices would have originated in the area of Teotitlan del Camino and Tochtepec, where “Nahua, Mixtec and potentially Gulf Coast elements” converge.29 As for the Codex Vaticanus B, Boone sees closeness with the Mixtec codices, for instance in the representations of the day signs, as well as in the presence of Mixtec gods – god with the serpent‑tie‑flints mouth assemblage and a Mixtec ñuhu – which brings her to propose “a location on the edge of the Mixteca, where Nahua and Mixtec tradition mixed”.30
Conclusion
16In brief, the various proposals and hypotheses that we have summarized here illustrate the difficulties found in identifying a precise origin for each codex. I think, first, that the very reduced number of prehispanic codices which have come down to us is the main obstacle to such an endeavour. Furthermore, the mobility of the artists has been stressed, as well as that of ceramic pieces, and also of the codices themselves, which could be carried around, traded, or be the subject of exchanges, as during wedding ceremonies, etc. I think the opinions of Anders, Jansen, and Van der Loo are very sound, as they deal with the fact that in the same document such as the Codex Vindobonensis, two very different styles appear on both sides of the manuscript: “it seems obvious that in a limited territory, artists and workshop can co‑exist, with very dissimilar painting styles and techniques”.31 Similarly, in spite of stylistic differences, the Codex Bodley and the reverse side of the Vindobonensis tell the history of the same place, Tilantongo. Were they elaborated in that city, by different artists or workshops?32 We can recall the “seemingly anomalous Puebla-Tlaxcala situation” mentioned by Nicholson33 when he stresses the differences between the codices of the Borgia group and the manuscripts of the same area such as the Codex Huamantla and the manuscripts from the Cuauhtinchan region. Let me also mention the interesting point made by Juan José Batalla (2007), who could identify a Mixtec tlacuilo among the six painters who worked on the Matricula de Tributos. Thus, the presence of the Mixtec year sign could mean that one of the painters of the Codex Borgia had been educated in the Mixtec tradition, but that did not necessarily mean that the whole manuscript was a product of that school. Whatever the case, the non‑invasive scientific analyses recently carried out on the codices, as well as those that are being done from now on, keep bringing up new data, which enrich our theme. I must also mention the links recently discovered between the Codex Borgia and the Codex of Madrid, of Maya's origin, or the presence of personages painted in the Mixtec‑Puebla tradition in the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, which makes the theme of the present paper even more complex.
17Finally, and though specific studies do exist, a more systematic evaluation should be done on the deities represented in each codex and on the type of adornments they are wearing. And, inasmuch as it is possible, these should be examined in light of archaeological data, as well as later colonial sources from the 16th century, which describe the Meso‑American pantheons.
Bibliographie
Books
Boone Elizabeth H., 2007, Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of Fate, Austin: University of Texas Press, 338 p. [9780292712638]
Códice Cospi, 1994, Calendario de pronósticos y ofrendas. Libro explicativo del llamado Códice Cospi, Anders Ferdinand, Jansen Maarten & van der Loo Peter (dir.), Graz - Mexico City: Akademische Druck-u Verlagsanstalt - Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Nicholson Henry B. & Quiñones Keber Eloise (eds.), 1994, Mixteca Puebla. Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, Labyrinthos. Culver City, California, 248 p. [9780911437386]
Nowotny Karl Anton, 2005 [1961], Tlacuilolli. Style and Contents of the Mexican Pictorial Manuscripts with a Catalogue of the Borgia Group, Everett George A. & Sisson Edward B. (ed. and trad.), University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Robertson Donald, 1959, Mexican Manuscript Painting of the Early Colonial Period, Yale University Press, New Haven, 234 p. [9780806126753]
Seler Eduard, 1901‑1902 [1901], Codex Fejérvár‑-Mayer. An old Mexican Picture Manuscript in the Liverpool Free Public Library Museum, published at the expense of his excellency the duke of Loubat. Elucidated by Eduard Seler, Edinburgh University Press, Berlin and London.
Seler Eduard, 1902‑1903 [1902], Codex Vaticanus n. 3773. An old Mexican Pictorial Manuscript in the Vatican Library. Elucidated by Eduard Seler, 2 vol., Edinburgh University Press, Berlin and London.
Seler Eduard, 1963 [1904], Comentarios al Códice Borgia, 2 vol., Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City.
Seler Eduard, 1990‑1998 [1902–1923], Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, 6 vol., Bowditch Charles P. (ed.), Labyrinthos Culver City, California, 306 p.
Papers and Contributions to Books
Anawalt Patricia Rieff, 1981, “Costume Analysis and the Provenience of the Borgia Group Codices”, American Antiquity, no 46, p. 837‑852.
Batalla Rosado Juan José, 2007, “The Scribes who Painted the Matrícula de Tributos and The Codex Mendoza”, Ancient Mesoamerica, vol. 18, Issue 1, p. 31‑51.
Caso Alfonso, 1927, «Las ruinas de Tizalán, Tlaxcala», Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos, vol. 1, p. 1‑34.
Caso Alfonso, 1949, «El Mapa de Teozacualco», Cuadernos Americanos, vol. viii, no 5, p. 145‑181.
Chadwick Robert & McNeish Richard S., 1967, “Codex Borgia and the Venta Salada Phase”, in Byers Douglas S. (ed.), The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, vol. I, Austin and London: University of Texas Press, p. 114‑131, 331 p.
Escalante Gonzalbo Pablo, 2012, “The Mixteca-Puebla Tradition and H. B. Nicholson”, in Boxt Matthew A. & Dillon Brian Dervin (eds.), Fanning the Sacred Flame. Mesoamerican Studies in honor of H. B Nicholson, Boulder, University of Colorado Press, Colorado, p. 293‑307.
García Granados Rafael, 1940, «Observaciones sobre los códices Pre-hispánicos de México y reparos que estas sugieren acerca de su clasificación», El México antiguo, vol 5, no 1‑2), p. 41‑47.
García Granados Rafael, 1942, «Estudio comparativo de los signos cronográficos en los códices prehispánicos de México», in Vigesimoséptimo Congreso Internacional de Americanistas, vol. 2, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia - Secretaría de Educación Pública, Mexico City, p. 419‑469.
Jansen Marteen, 2012, “The Ancient Mexican Books of Time: interpretative developments and prospects”, Analecta Praehistorica Leidensia, vol. 43/44, p. 77‑94.
Jiménez Moreno Wigberto, 1942, El enigma de los olmecas», Cuadernos Americanos, vol. I/5, p. 113‑145.
Nicholson Henry B., 1966, “The Problem of the Provenience of the Members of the Códice Borgia Group. A Summary”, in Pompa y Pompa Antonio (dir.), Summa Anthropologica en homenaje a Roberto J. Weitlaner, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia - Secretaría de Educación Pública, Mexico City, p. 145‑158.
Nicholson Henry B., 1977, “The Mixteca‑Puebla Concept Revisited”, in Boone Elizabeth H. (eds.), The Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central Mexico, Dumbarton Oaks/Trustees for Harvard University Press, Washington, D. C, p. 227‑254. [9780884021100]
Robertson Donald, 1966, “The Mixtec Religious Manuscripts”, in Paddock John (ed.), Ancient Oaxaca. Discoveries in Mexican Archeology and History, California, Stanford University Press, Stanford, p. 298‑312, 416 p.
Uruñuela Gabriela, Plunket Patricia, Hernández Gilda & Albaitero Juan, 1997, “Biconical God Figurines from Cholula and the Codex Borgia”, Latin American Antiquity, vol. 8, p. 63‑70.
Vaillant George C., 1938, “A Correlation of Archaeological and Historical Sequences in the Valley of Mexico”, American Anthropologist, vol. 40, no 4, p. 535–573.
Notes de bas de page
1 Seler, 1990‑1998 [1902‑1923], vol. I, p. 39‑44.
2 Ibid., p. 39; Seler, 1963, vol. I, p. 10.
3 Seler, 1990‑1998, vol. I, p. 74.
4 Ibid., p. 80.
5 Seler, 1901‑1902, p. 210.
6 See also Seler, 1963 [1904], vol. I, p. 102‑103; and Seler, 1990‑1998, vol. III, p. 208.
7 Caso, 1927, p. 145.
8 Nowotny, 2005 [1961].
9 Jansen, 2012, p 82.
10 Nowotny, 2005, p 8.
11 Nowotny, 2005, p 9.
12 Robertson, 1966, p 299.
13 Ibid., p. 308.
14 Ibid., p. 309.
15 Nicholson, 1966, p. 149.
16 Ibid., p. 150.
17 Ibid., p. 151.
18 Ibid., p. 152.
19 Codice Crispi, 1994, p. 46.
20 Codice Crispi, p. 63.
21 Anawalt, 1981.
22 Codice Crispi, 1994, p. 71‑72.
23 Ibid., p. 84.
24 Ibid., p. 87‑91.
25 Ibid., p. 94.
26 Ibid., p. 94.
27 Boone, 2007, p. 214‑227.
28 Ibid., p. 227‑230.
29 Ibid., p. 229.
30 Ibid., p. 228‑229.
31 Códice Cospi, 1994, p. 68.
32 Ibid., p. 68.
33 Nicholson,1966, p. 151.
Auteur
UNAM-IIH, México
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Shakespeare a mal aux dents
(Que traduit-on quand on traduit ?)
Marie Vrinat-Nikolov et Patrick Maurus
2018
Le Façonnement des ancêtres
Dimensions sociales, rituelles et politiques de l'ancestralité
Sophie Chave-Dartoen et Stéphanie Rolland-Traina (dir.)
2019
Encyclopédie des historiographies : Afriques, Amériques, Asies
Volume 1 : sources et genres historiques (Tome 1 et Tome 2)
Nathalie Kouamé, Éric P. Meyer et Anne Viguier (dir.)
2020
S’émanciper par les armes ?
Sur la violence politique des femmes
Caroline Guibet Lafaye et Alexandra Frénod (dir.)
2019
Experts et expertise dans les mandats de la société des nations : figures, champs, outils
Philippe Bourmaud, Norig Neveu et Chantal Verdeil (dir.)
2020
La Prédication existentielle dans les langues naturelles : valeurs et repérages, structures et modalités
Tatiana Bottineau (dir.)
2020
Variation linguistique et enseignement des langues
Le cas des langues moins enseignées
Gilles Forlot et Louise Ouvrard (dir.)
2020
(Ré) Appropriations des savoirs
Acteurs, territoires, processus, enjeux
Marie Chosson, Marie-Albane de Suremain et Anne Viguier (dir.)
2021