SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL:

A TOPONYM AT ATETELCO, TEOTIHUACAN

Jesper Nielsen and Christophe Helmke

The important Classic period site of Teotihuacan is renowned for its great size, ancient influence, and intricately decorated
polychrome murals. The latter are the focus of the present study, in particular the unique landscape scene from Murals 2
and 3 from Portico 1 of the North Patio of the Atetelco residential compound that depicts a row of toponymic hill signs. The
three hills have identical qualifying elements embedded, identified as combinations of an owl and a spearthrower. The murals
thus make a repeated reference to a place named “Spearthrower Owl Hill.” The dating of the murals to the Early Xolalpan
phase (ca. A.D. 350–450) makes them contemporary with the so-called Teotihuacan entrada into the Maya lowland sites
such as Tikal, where hieroglyphic texts make mention of a Teotihuacan-affiliated individual known as “Spearthrower Owl.”
From these findings—and based on Mesoamerican naming practices—we go on to suggest that the Atetelco toponym and
the historical individual share the name of a common forebear, possibly that of a previously unidentified Teotihuacan mar-
tial patron deity. As such, the Early Classic Teotihuacan “Spearthrower Owl” deity has much in common with the legendary
Huitzilopochtli of the Late Postclassic Mexica. Our reexamination of the murals from Atetelco shows the enormous poten-
tial that further studies in Teotihuacan writing and iconography still have for our understanding of the history and religion
of this major Mesoamerican site.

El importante sitio arqueológico de Teotihuacan del período Clásico, es famoso para su gran tamaño, su influencia en la
antigüedad y sus murales adornados por dibujos policromos detallados. Los últimos son el foco del presente estudio; partic-
ularmente el paisaje de los Murales 2 y 3, del Pórtico 1 en el Patio Norte del compuesto residencial de Atetelco que repre-
senta una cordillera de colinas toponímicas. Las tres colinas aparecen marcadas por elementos nominales idénticos incrustados,
identificados como combinaciones de búhos y lanzadardos (propulsores de dardos o lanzas, conocidos también como atlatls).
Los murales hacen así una referencia reiterada a un lugar nombrado ‘Colina del Búho con lanzadardos’. La datación de los
murales a la fase del Xolalpan Temprano (hacia el 350-450 d.C.) es contemporánea con la supuesta ‘entrada’ de Teotihuacan
en sitos tales como Tikal en las tierras bajas mayas, donde los textos jeroglíficos hacen mención a un individuo histórico de
afiliación teotihuacana conocido como ‘Búho Lanzadardos’ (“Spearthrower Owl”). Basándonos en estas conclusiones y
apoyándonos en las prácticas onomásticas mesoamericanas, sugerimos que el topónimo de Atetelco y el apellido del indi-
viduo histórico, que incluyen el elemento común ‘Búho Lanzadardos’, comparten el nombre de un precursor común. Por tanto,
el precursor se refiere posiblemente a una deidad marcial patronal de Teotihuacan, previamente no identificado. Como tal,
dicha deidad de Teotihuacan del Clásico Temprano tiene mucho en común con el Huitzilopochtli legendario de los mexica del
Postclásico Tardío. Nuestro análisis de los murales de Atetelco demuestra el potencial enorme que otros estudios de la escrit-
ura e iconografía de Teotihuacan pueden tener para nuestra comprensión de la historia y de la religión de este importante
sitio Mesoamericano.

R
ecent years have seen an unprecedented Atetelco residential compound located in Teoti-
focus on the writing system of ancient huacan (Figure 1). The scene includes a repeated
Teotihuacan, and it has become obvious sequence of relatively realistically depicted moun-
that the system shares several features with other tains, and we argue that these should be understood
and much better-documented and better- as a toponymic reference to a place read as
understood writing systems of Mesoamerica (see “Spearthrower Owl Hill.” No literal decipherment
Taube 2000a). One of these shared features is place of the toponym will be presented as the dominant
names, or toponyms. In this article we examine a language of a probably multiethnic Teotihuacan
unique landscape-like scene from the murals of the remains unknown. Next, we touch upon how this
Jesper Nielsen and Christophe Helmke ■ Department of American Indian Languages and Cultures, Institute of Cross-
cultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Artillerivej 86, 2300 København S, Denmark (jnielsen@hum.ku.dk)

Latin American Antiquity 19(4), 2008, pp. 459-474

Copyright ©2008 by the Society for American Archaeology

459
460 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 19, No. 4, 2008

Figure 1. Map of the Central Zone of Teotihuacan with major architectural groups and pyramidal structures indicated.
The Pyramids of the Moon and Sun as well as the Atetelco compound are highlighted by shading. North is at the top of
the figure. Map © René Millon adapted by the authors from Figure III.5 in Pasztory 1988d:52.
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL
reading can affect our current understanding of the
important historical entity known in the literature
as “Spearthrower Owl.” Finally, we suggest that
“Spearthrower Owl” may have been an important
Teotihuacan deity that may have served as name-
sake to at least one historical figure and a place.
Toponyms in Mesoamerican
Writing Systems and Teotihuacan
Most Mesoamerican languages make use of promi-
nent physiographic features in the natural land-
scape in forming toponyms, and it has long been
recognized by scholars that this is reflected in the
graphic representations of such place signs in both
writing and iconography of most Mesoamerican
cultures (Boone 2000; Marcus 1992; Smith 1973;
Stuart and Houston 1994). Thus, glyphs designat-
ing place names are often composed of such nat-
ural elements called “geographical substantives”
and “qualifiers,” that is, one or more elements that
specify what mountain, cave, or other topograph-
ical element is intended to be named (Smith
1973:38–41). According to Boone, the qualifiers
“carry much of the identity of the place sign” and
cover “a wide range of objects, conceptions, and
qualities” (Boone 2000:51). By far the most com-
mon of the geographical substantives is “moun-
tain,” and in the so-called “open” writing systems
of western Mesoamerica (Houston 2004) the qual-
ifiers are placed either on top of the mountain, or
embedded within mountain-signs. Abundant
examples of this practice are found in Aztec and
Mixtec writing, and the writing systems of earlier
central Mexican cultures (e.g., Cacaxtla and
Xochicalco). While mountain place names are
extremely common, other geographical substan-
tives also appear to be quite widespread in the Late
Postclassic period, e.g. trees, rivers, and caves.
Place signs can be used both to refer to specific
locations in the landscape (such as a particular
mountain or cave), to congregations of built space
such as towns or city-states, and to specific areas
or buildings within sites (Marcus 1992:157; Stu-
art and Houston 1994:81–89). Because Teotihua-
can culture played such a pivotal role in the
development of Mexican highland cultures and
the central Mexican tradition of writing, it is rea-
sonable to assume that a similar, although not nec-
essarily identical, tradition of representing place
461
names existed at that site (Berlo 1989; Browder
2005; Taube 2000a).
Previously, scholars have focused on what is
believed to be Teotihuacan place names based on
“trees” such as those encountered in the murals of
Techinantitla (Berlo 1983, 1989; Corona Sánchez
2002; Pasztory 1988a). However, years ago Jorge
Angulo undertook pioneering work on Teotihua-
can place names based on a mountain—”founda-
tion.” Thus, Angulo appears to have been the first
to suggest that a stylized mountain or “hill sign”
could form part of Teotihuacan toponyms (Angulo
1972:50–51, 1996:74, 82–89). His suggestion was
based on examples from the murals of Portico 2 of
Tepantitla, some of which combine a mountain and
a tree (as do many Aztec toponyms), but he did not
attempt a further analysis of this particular group
of signs as a whole. In Karl Taube’s recent study
of Teotihuacan writing, toponyms are discussed at
some length, and the so-called “stepped moun-
tains” are briefly touched upon as probable place
names (Taube 2000a:7–9, 25–26). Taube also sug-
gests the existence of a possible locative suffix in
the shape of a “twisted-root”-sign, perhaps derived
from the tree-toponyms (Taube 2000a:9), or from
a more general meaning of “belonging to” or “orig-
inating in.” The Atetelco toponym we shall discuss
in the following is formed by precisely this “stepped
mountain” and has the “twisted-root”-sign attached
beneath it.
The Spearthrower Owl Hill
of Patio 3 at Atetelco
Murals 2 and 3 from Portico 1 of the North Patio
(Patio 3) of the Atetelco compound (Figure 2) are
dated to the Early Xolalpan phase (ca. A.D.
350–450).1 The murals were discovered in a frag-
mented state by Laurette Sejourné in 1980–1982
and a reconstruction drawing of the mural was later
made by Santos Villasánchez (Cabrera Castro
1995:248–249, Figure 18.18). The original mural
fragments are presently located in a bodega in the
Zona Arqueológica of Teotihuacan. The layout of
the murals is divided into two parts (Figure 3a). The
lower portion depicts two raptorial birds standing
atop platforms or pedestals decorated with obsid-
ian blades, thorns, and cacti. Surrounding this cen-
tral scene is a border formed by a
coyote-serpent-like being with multiple limbs and
462 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.19, No.4, 2008

Figure 2. Isometric view of the Atetelco compound. Note the location of Murals 2 & 3 (marked off numerically) of Portico
1 (Pc. 1), Patio 3 discussed in the text. Isometric plan adapted by Christophe Helmke from Figure 18.1 in Cabrera Castro
1995:204.

intertwined with a band exhibiting flames and tufts
of malinalli-grass. The upper part—enigmatically
placed up-side down—consists of a row of smaller
hills and three larger stepped hills all with identi-
cal qualifying elements embedded (Figure 3b).2
The landscape is dotted with tufts of grass and
irregularly shaped objects recently identified by
Jennifer Browder as rocks and stones (Browder
2005:106). Emerging from the hills and mountains
are what appear to be obsidian blades.3 Above, or
behind, the hilly landscape, are depicted different
kinds of plants: nopal and barrel cacti, thorns,
maguey or agave plants, and malinalli-grass.4 The
Atetelco landscape scene is comparable to much
later Postclassic and Colonial representations of
landscape also produced in the Valley of Mexico.
Thus, for example, in the famous image from His-
toria Tolteca-Chichimeca showing the “Place of the
Seven Caves” (Kirchhoff et al. 1976:Folio 16r) and
in the map of the Relación Geográfica de Tetlis-
taca (Mundy 1996:Figure 43), we find the same
plants, characteristic of the semi-arid highland
region of highland central Mexico, growing around
the mountains, caves, and towns, as we see depicted
in the Atetelco landscape scene (Nielsen 2006b).
Taube has suggested that the stepped mountains
of the Atetelco landscape scene refer to “a partic-
ular hill or place” (2000a:9, 25–26). We fully agree,
and we will argue that they may refer to a specific
place within Teotihuacan. The qualifying element
combines an owl’s head and wings with a
spearthrower or atlatl (Figure 4). The head of the
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL 463

Figure 3. (a) Reconstructed elevation drawing of Murals 2 & 3, Portico 1, Patio 3 at Atetelco; (b) Inverted superior reg-
ister of Murals 2 & 3, showing three duplicated toponymic signs amidst a mountain range marked by obsidian blades
within a landscape characterized by vegetation of an arid environment as indicated by the cacti, maguey and malinalli
grass. Adapted from a drawing by José Francisco Villaseñor based on a drawing by Santos Villasánchez (Cabrera Castro
1995:240, Figure 18.18).

owl is covering or replacing the base of the atlatl
and its two circular grips. Only the top part of the
spearthrower is visible with its characteristic
rounded hook. A comparison with other
Teotihuacan-related depictions of atlatls as well as
modern examples confirms this identification (Fig-
ure 5) (see also von Winning 1987:I, VII, Figures
1a–j). The tassel-like element just below the owl’s
head is seen on several representations of atlatls and
indicates that spearthrowers may have been
adorned with such tassels or feathers. A remark-
able depiction of an atlatl is found on an incised
ceramic fragment from Early Classic Azcapotzalco
(von Winning 1987, I:VI, Figure 3b) (Figure 5b).
In this case the spearthrower is topped by a small
owl and similar conflations of atlatl and owl appear
to be depicted on the two Teotihuacan-style stucco
facades of Temple II at the North Group at Palenque
(Tovalín Ahumada and Ceja Manrique 1996:99) as
well as Stela 16 at El Perú (Freidel et al. 2007). The
recurring combination of owl and spearthrower
suggest a conceptual link between the two, and
perhaps such “owl-spearthrowers” were believed
to imbue the flight of darts with the same killing
speed and precision as a raptorial bird pursuing its
prey.
In terms of equating the avian parts of the
toponym to those of owls, it needs to be empha-
sized that scholars have long discussed the various
kinds of birds represented in Teotihuacan art. Thus,
464 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.19, No.4, 2008

Figure 4. Detail of the toponymic mountain motif with infixed qualifying element. Drawing by Christophe Helmke based
on drawing by José Francisco Villaseñor (Cabrera Castro 1995:240, Figure 18.18) and drawing by Karl Taube (Taube
2000:9, Figure 6b).

avian figures often appear as supernatural creatures
combining features of birds such as owls and quet-
zals (Pasztory 1988b:164–165; von Winning
1985:65–69). In Atetelco, owls and eagles are rep-
resented interchangeably, and the ancient Teoti-
huacanos seem to have stressed the qualities of
raptorial birds in general rather than any specific
species in particular. The association of eagles with
warriors is well-known, but owls, too, appear to
have been closely associated with warfare and death
not only in Teotihuacan, but throughout Mesoamer-
ica (Benson 1997:82–87; Grube and Schele 1994;
von Winning 1985:57–74). Describing Aztec
beliefs, Sahagún related that: “when it [an owl] was
heard it signified death or sickness; it was an omen
of death; he who heard it would die [...] he would
die in bondage or in war” (Sahagún 1957:5:161).
The frequent combination of owls and weaponry
(shield, darts, and/or spearthrower) in Teotihuacan
iconography suggests similar associations in Early
Classic central Mexico. More than half a century
ago, Von Winning first identified this motif and
named it “lechuza y armas” (Figure 6) (von Win-
ning 1948). In a more recent discussion of the motif,
he argued that it could have served as a heraldic
symbol, perhaps associated with a militaristic order
(von Winning 1987, 1:79–92, Figures 6–9; see also
Pasztory 1988c; Stuart 2000). Recent research has
shown that at least two such orders existed at Teoti-
huacan, those of the coyote and the eagle/owls, and
they were presumably organized along the same
lines as the two well-known Aztec warrior orders
(Headrick 2001; Nielsen 2004).
Below the qualifying element that we will
henceforth refer to as “Spearthrower Owl” is an
object described by Taube as a bowl or shallow
basin (Taube 1992a, 2000a:9) and the aforemen-
tioned “root” locative suffix. The “basin” could
alternatively be seen as a low pedestal or platform,
and the larger birds in the scene below clearly stand
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL 465

Figure 5. Comparison of the owl-shaped spearthrower toponymic qualifier against other Mesoamerican representations
of spearthrowers. (a) Teotihuacan, Atetelco, Patio 3, Portico 1, Murals 2 & 3, owl-shaped spearthrower (A.D. 350-450);
(b) Azcapotzalco, Teotihuacan-style sherd, aviform atlatl (Early Classic); (c) Tikal, Stela 31, left side, spearthrower held
by Yax Nuun Ayiin (A.D. 445); (d) Tikal, Burial 10, Teotihuacan-style stuccoed bowl (A.D. 378-480); (e) Kaminaljuyu,
Tomb 2, Teotihuacan-style stuccoed tripod vase (Early Classic); (f) Codex Laud, folio 6 (Postclassic); (g) two views of a
spearthrower from Janitzio, Michoacan (twentieth century). Credits: (a) based on Figure 4, this paper; (b) based on
drawing by Hasso von Winning (von Winning 1987:I:VI, Figure 3b); (c) based on drawing by William Coe (Jones and
Satterthwaite 1982:Figure 51a); (d) based on drawing in Culbert (1993:Figure 17a4); (e) based on drawing in Kidder et
al. (1946:Figure 204a); (f) based on drawing by Heather Hurst (Boone 2007:59, Figure 29a); (g) based on Stirling
(1960:Plate 41). Drawings by Christophe Helmke.

on more elaborate versions of the same shape. If
they are indeed “platforms” they may serve as
toponymic basal registers, like those known from
Maya and Zapotec iconography (Stuart and Hous-
ton 1994; Urcid 2001). To summarize, we suggest
that the landscape scene from Atetelco Murals 2–3
includes a repeated reference to a place that appears
to be named “Spearthrower Owl Hill.”
“Spearthrower Owl”:
Place, Ruler and Patron Deity?
Since the murals of the North and South temples
of the White Patio at Atetelco depict numerous
Eagle or Owl Warriors (e.g., Cabrera Castro
1995:203–215; Headrick 2001:182–188), an argu-
ment could be made that the toponym refers to the
Atetelco compound itself. However, Atetelco was
not only a place of armed warrior birds, but equally
so a place of coyote warriors, a combination also
featured prominently in the murals of Techinanti-
tla. It is also doubtful whether a compound such as
Atetelco, without any large temple and located far
from the most important zones of Teotihuacan,
would carry such a seemingly prestigious name as
the Spearthrower Owl Hill. A more likely candi-
date would be a mountain, mythological or real, or
a human-made temple structure emulating an
important mountain. In trying to understand fur-
ther the meaning of and possibly identify this
mountain or structure, it must be emphasized that
the armed bird (i.e., the “lechuza y armas,” see Fig-
466 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.19, No.4, 2008

Figure 6. The lechuza y armas motif in Teotihuacan iconography. (a) Ceramic disk; (b) Techinantitla, mural fragment;
(c) ceramic cylinder vase fragment; (d) Mural fragment probably from Techinantitla. Credits: (a) negative of photo in
Berrin & Pasztory (1993:Cat. No. 126); (b) adapted from a drawing by Saburo Sugiyama in Pasztory (1988c:Figure
VI.12b); (c) adapted from a drawing by Linda Schele in Freidel et al. (1993:Figure7:9); (d) drawing by Felipe Dávalos
G. in Miller (1973:Figure 363).

ure 6) is one of the dominant motifs in Teotihua-
can iconography, and clearly was a concept of
extreme importance. This observation is reinforced
by epigraphic evidence from the Maya area that
refers to a historical individual named
“Spearthrower Owl.”
In 2000 David Stuart showed that Yax Nuun
Ayiin,5 one of Tikal’s most famous Early Classic
rulers, was the son of a person nicknamed
‘Spearthrower Owl’ by researchers due to the
glyphic components of his name glyph (Figure 7)
(Stuart 2000:481–490). The glyphic compound has
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL 467

Figure 7. The ‘Spearthrower Owl’ nominal segment in Classic Maya hieroglyphic texts. (a) Tikal, Stela 31, detail of head-
dress; (b) Northern Peten, jadeite earspool; (c) Tikal, Marcador, medallion of verso; (d) Tikal, Marcador, C3; (e) Tikal,
Marcador, E9-F9, note ma complement to “spearthrower”; (f) Tikal, Stela 1, Ap5, note ja complement to
“spearthrower”; (g) Tikal, Marcador, E3-F3, syllabic spelling of “spearthrower” as ja-tz’o-ma and substitution of “owl”
for personified stone sign; (h) Central Maya lowlands, tripod vase K7528, personified stone sign for “owl”; (i) Tikal, Stela
31, L4, stone sign for “owl”. Credits: (a) & (f) based on drawing by William Coe (Jones and Satterthwaite 1982:Figures
1b & 51d); (b) based on drawing by Nikolai Grube (Grube and Schele 1994:14, Figure 7e); (b), (g) & (h) based on draw-
ings by Simon Martin (Martin 2003:14, Figures 1.8, 1.9a & b); (c) based on drawing in Stuart (2000:481, Figure 15.14i);
(d) based on drawing by Stephen Houston (Houston 1989:23, Figure 14); (e) based on drawing by Linda Schele (Grube
and Martin 2000:II-23); (i) based on drawing by David Stuart (Stuart 2000:481, Figures 15.14a & f); (c), (e) & (g) based
on photo by Jorge Pérez de Lara (Sharer and Martin 2005:87, Figure 4); (h) based on photo by Justin Kerr (K7528);.
Drawings by Christophe Helmke.

recently been read as Jatz’o’m “Owl” (lit. “Striker
“Owl”),6 and from the inscriptions of Tikal and
other sites in the central Peten we know that he ruled
from A.D. 374 to his death in 439 (see Freidel et
al. 2007; Martin 2003:13–15). According to the
Tikal Marcador text he is said to be the fourth
dynast7 to hold the title Kalo’m and is associated
with a place named Ho’Noom Witz or Ho’Noj Witz8
(Figure 8). Drawing on various types of evidence,
Stuart also proposed that Spearthrower Owl may
have been a Teotihuacano and perhaps even a ruler
there (Stuart 2000:483–484). These new interpre-
tations of the inscriptions and iconography from
Tikal have led to a much debated entrada-scenario
suggesting a major political and military influence
from Teotihuacan in Tikal in the late fourth and
early fifth centuries (Braswell 2003; Guenter
2002:Appendix 1; Martin 2003:11–17; Martin and
Grube 2000; Nielsen 2003, 2006a). The reign of
the alleged Teotihuacan ruler Spearthrower Owl
mentioned at Tikal correlates nicely with the sug-
gested dates for Atetelco, and it is tempting to
hypothesize a direct link between the person men-
tioned in the inscriptions and the place documented
in the Atetelco murals. However, we have few, if
any, Mesoamerican examples of toponyms that are
named after actual, historical individuals. Of
course, Teotihuacan may provide an exception.
However, a more plausible explanation for a
toponym and a ruler sharing the same name would
be that Spearthrower Owl was initially an impor-
tant deity or mythological being. This is a pattern
encountered elsewhere in Mesoamerica, for
instance, among the Aztecs and the Mixtecs where
several place names had the names of gods as their
qualifying elements (Boone 2000:51; see also
468 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol.19, No.4, 2008

Figure 8. The Ho’ Noom Witz toponym. (a) Tikal, Marcador, E4-E5, toponym qualifying the place of origin of
‘Spearthrower Owl’, here preceding Kalo’m and “Fourth Successor King” titles; (b) Tikal, Marcador, G6-G7, toponym
qualifying the place of origin of the supernatural ‘War Serpent’ Waxaklaju’n Ub’aah Chan (lit. “Eighteen are the Images
of the Snake”). Drawings by Linda Schele (Grube and Martin 2000:II-32).

Peñafiel 1885). As we shall see, rulers were also
often named wholly or partly after deities (for the
ancient Maya see Colas 2006; Grube 2002).
To this point, Spearthrower Owl has not been
recognized or discussed as a possible Teotihuacan
deity, and it would not seem to fit into any of the
major deity complexes of Teotihuacan (Miller and
Taube 1993:162–163). However, we propose that
Spearthrower Owl was an important ancestor that
eventually developed into a patron deity. With its
avian appearance and obvious martial aspect,
Spearthrower Owl may have been a deity compa-
rable to Huitzilopochtli, the supreme war god and
patron deity of the Late Postclassic Aztecs or Mex-
ica.
Huitzilopochtli (“Hummingbird of the Left or
South”) was not only associated with war but also
with the sun, fire, and the ruling lineage, and accord-
ing to several sources, it was he who had led his
people from the mythical place of origin, Aztlan,
to the final destination, the Valley of Mexico (e.g.,
Miller and Taube 1993:93–96; Nicholson 1988).
Torquemada remarked that it was Huitzilopochtli
who presented the Mexica with their weapons of
war: “long spears of cane stalks and tipped with
obsidian, which they threw with a certain imple-
ment called ‘atlatl’” (Torquemada 1969:II, 43, cited
from Stirling 1960:268). Henry Nicholson
described Huitzilopochtli as “the divine embodi-
ment of the ideal Mexica warrior-leader” (Nichol-
son 1971:426), and when dressed in his bird
costume, holding shield, darts, and wielding his
xiuhcoatl spearthrower, he has a striking resem-
blance to the lechuza y armas motif of Teotihua-
can (Codex Azcatitlan 1995:8, 11, 15; Durán
1971:325, Plate 3; Taube 2000b:297–301, Figure
10.17) (Figures 6 and 9). Like owls and eagles, the
aggressive and territorial hummingbirds were asso-
ciated with military might in Mesoamerica. As Eliz-
abeth Benson notes: “the long, sharp beak of many
humming-birds resembles a weapon or a sacrifi-
cial implement. The bird’s flight is like that of an
arrow and they are sometimes invoked by archers
seeking a surer aim” (Benson 1997:78; see also
Taube 2004:122–124).
As a god of war an image of Huitzilopochtli was
carried into battle, but in contrast to many other
Aztec deities Huitzilopochtli was rarely represented
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL 469

in larger, permanent public sculptures. The same

seems to hold true for Spearthrower Owl. From rep-
resentations of Teotihuacan warriors we know that
his image or emblem was prominently placed on
their shields or worn on their chest (e.g., Sejourné
1966a:Figures 37, 147–149, 1966b:Figure 75; von
Winning 1987:I, cap. VIIb, Figures 9a–c), and thus
no doubt carried into war as well. In relation to this,
it should be noted that the Tikal Marcador text
states that Siyaj K’ahk’ “arrived to Tikal in the com-
pany of Spearthrower Owl” (A.D. 378) just as the
Teotihuacan “War Serpent” is said to arrive to Tikal
some decades later (A.D. 414). Thus, we have a
reference to Siyaj K’ahk’, the Teotihuacan warlord,
arriving at Tikal protected by and possibly carry-
ing an effigy of the war deity and patron deity of
his hometown (see also Guenter 2002:269–274).
Finally, as with Huitzilopochtli, no great sculptures
or reliefs of Spearthrower Owl are known to exist.
We also know that some Aztec leaders and rulers
carried names that are directly associated with the
Aztec patron deity. Thus, according to some
sources, the tribal leader who led the Mexica out
of Aztlan was named Huitzilton, and he later
became deified and known as Huitzilopochtli. Yet
another early Mexica leader was called Huitzili-
huitl, and later, one of the famous Mexica rulers
bore the same name, ruling from 1391 to 1415
(Gillespie 1989:4–7, 170). From Durán we learn
that Huitzilihuitl was conceived of as “the image
of our god [Huitzilopochtli], and [he] will defend
and lift up his name! He will make known to the
entire world that the Aztec nation has enough valor
and strength to subject the earth and make all peo-
ples his vassals!” (Durán 1964:39). The importance
of Huitzilopochtli is also reflected in the fact that
at least one place, Huitzilopuchco, was named after
him (Peñafiel 1885:121).
Another location associated with
Huitzilopochtli is Tenochtitlan and more specifi-
cally the city’s main ritual structure Templo Mayor.
Thus, the place where the Mexica capital was to be
founded, as prophesized by Huitzilopochtli, was
signaled by an eagle perched on a nopal cactus. In
depictions of this defining moment in Mexica his-
Figure 9. Huitzilopochtli in avian form. (a) Codex Azcatitlan, folio 8, Huitzilopochtli shown standing besides a personi-
fied mountain, labeled <chicomostoc>; note caption in Latin letters; (b) Codex Azcatitlan, folio 11, Huitzilopochtli
depicted atop pyramidal temple structure above a toponymic mountain sign labeled <coh-huatepec>; (c) Huitzilopochtli
seated on throne brandishing a serpent-shaped staff as well as a shield with darts marked with a flag sign for “20” (Durán
1971:325, Plate 3).
470 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
tory the ideogram for “war,” composed of a shield,
darts, and occasionally a spearthrower (Boone
2000:33) is depicted close to the eagle, thus sym-
bolizing the future military and imperial success of
the Mexica (e.g., Codex Mendoza 1992:2r–2v;
Durán 1971:frontispiece). 9 Here we see that
Huitzilopochtli, in his role as a tribal guide and ora-
cle, is associated with an eagle as well as with the
“instruments of war”: shield, darts, and
spearthrower. To honor Huitzilopochtli a temple
was built on the sacred spot of the cactus. This
structure, known as the huey teocalli or Templo
Mayor, was enlarged through time by several of the
succeeding Mexica rulers (e.g., León-Portilla
1987:72–75), and became the focal point of state
rituals, including coronation ceremonies and pos-
sibly royal burials.
To return to the Atetelco toponym, we believe
it is most likely that the Spearthrower Owl Hill was
an actual or mythological location closely associ-
ated with the armed bird. Another, and admittedly
tentative, suggestion would be that the toponym
refers to an architectural version of that mountain,
just as the south side of the Templo Mayor was an
artificial restitution of Coatepec, Huitzilopochtli’s
place of birth and triumphant battle with Coyolx-
auhqui and her brothers. In Teotihuacan the one
major structure that best fits a temple dedicated to
a deity associated with warfare and the ruling lin-
eage, and which we know was enlarged several
times, is the Pyramid of the Moon. During con-
struction phases 4–6 (ca. A.D. 225–400) the pyra-
mid increased markedly in size, probably reflecting
the success of Teotihuacan’s imperial strategies
(Sugiyama and Cabrera Castro 2003; see also Mil-
lon 1992:389–390). The many remains of raptor-
ial birds, including several eagles and owls, found
in the rich elite burials, sacrificial victims, and ded-
icatory offerings within the pyramid (Sugiyama
and Cabrera Castro 2003; Sugiyama
2005:205–209) supports this intriguing link
between the Spearthrower Owl Hill and the Pyra-
mid of the Moon.
Surely, we should not expect Spearthrower Owl
(the suggested deity) to be identical to
Huitzilopochtli, but considering the obvious simi-
larities between the two, we suggest that
Spearthrower Owl was an important deity associ-
ated with warfare, and at the same time perhaps a
patron deity of Teotihuacan or of one of the major
[Vol.19, No.4, 2008
lineages of the city. The comparison with
Huitzilopochtli suggests that Spearthrower Owl
was an important figure, historical or mythologi-
cal, associated with Teotihuacan. This hypothesis
serves to explain why a location was named
Spearthrower Owl Hill and why a later ruler (or sev-
eral rulers) would carry the name, perhaps embody-
ing the legendary ancestor just as Huitzilihuitl
became a living embodiment of Huitzilopochtli.
Furthermore, it would also help explain why the
emblematic use of the armed bird is so frequently
encountered in Teotihuacan iconography (e.g.,
Nielsen 2003; Sejourné 1966a, 1966b; von Win-
ning 1987).
Conclusion
The identification of a Teotihuacan toponym as
Spearthrower Owl Hill adds important new per-
spectives to our knowledge of the ancient city. But
as is often the case, new knowledge generates new
questions: Where and what is the “Hill of
Spearthrower Owl”? We have pointed out that the
Pyramid of the Moon is a possible candidate, since
the temple’s association with warfare, raptorial
birds, human sacrifices, and high-standing elites
would seem to fit a place named after a deified
ancestor known as a great military leader. This, of
course, remains speculation for the time being, and
further research is required to test this hypothesis.
Also, can the idea of a Teotihuacan deity named
Spearthrower Owl be backed up by further evi-
dence? The observations and arguments presented
here do, however, tie the name of Spearthrower
Owl firmly together with Teotihuacan. As an exam-
ple of a textual reference to Spearthrower Owl
found in Teotihuacan itself, and being contempo-
rary with Teotihuacan’s entrada into the Maya
region, it reinforces previous ideas of Teotihua-
can’s presence and influence in this area, and sup-
ports the suggestion that Jatz’o’m ‘Owl’—
Spearthrower Owl, the father of Yax Nuun Ayiin of
Tikal, was a Teotihuacano.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank Jorge Angulo
Villaseñor, Jennifer Browder, Una Canger, Albert
Davletshin, Stanley Guenter, Stephen Houston, María Elena
Ruiz Gallut, Toke Sellner Reunert, Karl Taube, Rogelio
Valencia Rivera, Søren Wichmann, and two reviewers for
their helpful comments and suggestions on earlier versions
of this paper. Any errors or misinterpretations, however,
remain our sole responsibility.
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL
References Cited
Angulo V., Jorge
1972 Reconstrucción etnográfica a través de la pintura. In
Teotihuacan – XI Mesa Redonda, pp. 43–68. Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropología, México, D.F.
1996 Teotihuacán: Aspectos de la cultura a través de su
expresión pictórica. In La Pintura Murales Prehispánica
en México I, Teotihuacan. Tomo II, Estudios, edited by
Beatriz de la Fuente, pp. 63–186. UNAM and Instituto de
Investigaciones Estéticas, México, D.F.
Benson, Elizabeth P
1997 Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America. Univer-
sity of Florida Press, Gainesville.
Berlo, Janet C.
1983 Conceptual Categories for the Study of Texts and
Images in Mesoamerica. In Text and Image in Pre-
Columbian Art: Essays on the Interrelationship of the Ver-
bal and Visual Arts, edited by Janet C. Berlo, pp. 1–39.
BAR International Series 180. British Archaeological
Reports, Oxford.
1989 Early Writing in Central Mexico: “In Tlilli, In Tla-
palli” before A.D. 1000. In Mesoamerica after the Decline
of Teotihuacan A.D. 700–900, edited by Richard A. Diehl
and Janet C. Berlo, pp. 19–47. Dumbarton Oaks, Wash-
ington, D.C.
Boone, Elizabeth H.
2000 Stories in Red and Black: Pictorial Histories of the
Aztecs and the Mixtecs. University of Texas Press, Austin.
2007 Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of
Fate. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Braswell, Geoffrey E.
2003 Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interac-
tion. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early
Classic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, pp.
1–43. University of Texas Press, Austin.
Browder, Jennifer
2005 Place of the High Painted Walls: The Tepantitla Murals
and the Teotihuacan Writing System. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, University of California, Riverside.
Cabrera Castro, Rubén
1995 Atetelco. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en Méx-
ico I, Teotihuacan. Tomo I, Catálogo, edited by Beatriz de
la Fuente, pp. 203–258. UNAM and Instituto de Investi-
gaciones Estéticas, México, D.F.
Codex Azcatitlan
1995 Bibliothèque nationale de France and Société des
Américanistes, Paris.
Codex Laud
1966 Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.
Codex Mendoza
1992 Volume 3. Edited by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia
R. Anawalt. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Colas, Pierre Robert
2006 Personal Names: A Diacritical Marker of an Ethnic
Boundary among the Classic Maya. In Maya Ethnicity:
The Construction of Ethnic Identity from Preclassic to
Modern Times, edited by Frauke Sachse, pp. 85–98. Acta
Mesoamericana, Vol.19. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt
Schwaben.
Corona Sánchez, Eduardo
2002 Territorio y estado en Teotihuacán. Los topónimos de
Techinantitla. In Ideología y política a través de materi-
ales, imágenes y símbolos. Memoria de la Primera Mesa
Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gal-
lut, pp. 371–398. CONACULTA and INAH, México, D.F.
Culbert, T. Patrick
471
1993 The Ceramics of Tikal: Vessels from the Burials,
Caches and Problematical Deposits. Tikal Report, No. 25,
Part A. University Museum Monograph 81. University
Museum, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Durán, Diego
1964 The Aztecs – The History of the Indies of New Spain.
Translated and annotated by Doris Heyden and Fernando
Horcasitas. Orion Press, New York.
1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calen-
dar. Translated and edited by Fernando Horcasitas and
Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma, Norman.
Freidel, David, Héctor Escobedo, and Stanley Guenter
2007 A Crossroads of Conquerors. In Gordon R. Willey and
American Archaeology, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and
William L. Fash, pp. **. University of Oklahoma, Nor-
man.
Freidel, David, Linda Schele, and Joy Parker
1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the
Shaman’s Path. William Morrow, New York.
Gillespie, Susan D.
1989 The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in
Mexica History. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Grube, Nikolai
2002 Onomástica de los gobernantes mayas. In La organi-
zación social entre los mayas: Memoria de la Tercera
Mesa Redonda de Palenque, Vol. II, edited by Vera Tiesler
Blos, Rafael Cobos and Merle Greene Robertson, pp.
321–353. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and
Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán, México, D.F. and
Mérida.
2006 Ancient Maya Royal Biographies in a Comparative
Perspective. In Janaab’Pakal of Palenque – Reconstruct-
ing the Life and Death of a Maya Ruler, edited by Vera
Tiesler and Andrea Cucina, pp. 146–166. The University
of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Grube, Nikolai, and Simon Martin
2000 Tikal and Its Neighbors. In Notebook for the XXIVth
Maya Hieroglyphic Forum at Texas, edited by Nikolai
Grube, pp. II.1–II.73. Department of Art and Art History,
Institute of Latin American Studies, University of Texas
at Austin, Austin.
Grube, Nikolai, and Linda Schele
1994 Kuy, the Owl of Omen and War. Mexicon
XVI(1):10–17.
Guenter, Stanley
2002 Under a Falling Star: The Hiatus of Tikal. Unpublished
M.A. thesis, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne.
Headrick, Annabeth
1999 The Street of the Dead ... It Really Was: Mortuary Bun-
dles at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 10(1):69–85.
Headrick, Annabeth
2001 Merging Myth and Politics: The Three Temple Com-
plex at Teotihuacan. In Landscape and Power in Ancient
Mesoamerica, edited by Rex Koontz, Kathryn Reese-
Taylor, and Annabeth Headrick, pp. 169–195. Westview
Press, Boulder.
Houston, S. D.
1989 Maya Glyphs. University of California Press and
British Museum, Berkeley and London.
Houston, Stephen D.
2004 Writing in Early Mesoamerica. In First Writing: Script
Invention as History and Process, edited by Stephen D.
Houston, pp. 274–309. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge.
Houston, Stephen, David Stuart, and John Robertson
2004 Disharmony in Maya Hieroglyphic Writing: Lin-
guistic Change and Continuity in Classic Society. In The
472 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by Søren Wichmann,
pp. 83–101. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Jones, Christopher, and Linton Satterthwaite
1982 Monuments and Inscriptions of Tikal: The Carved
Monuments. Tikal Report, No. 33, Part A. University
Museum Monograph 44. University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Kidder, Alfred V., Jesse D. Jennings, and Edwin M. Shook
1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyú, Guatemala. Carnegie
Institution of Washington, Publication 56. Carnegie Insti-
tution of Washington, Washington, D.C.
Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odena Güemes, and Luís Reyes García
1976 Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, México, D.F.
Lacadena, Alfonso, and Søren Wichmann
2004 On the Representation of the Glottal Stop in Maya
Writing. In The Linguistics of Maya Writing, edited by
Søren Wichmann, pp. 103–162. University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
León-Portilla, Miguel
1987 The Ethnohistorical Record for the Huey Teocalli of
Tenochtitlan. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Eliz-
abeth H. Boone, pp. 71–95. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Marcus, Joyce
1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems—Propaganda, Myth,
and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton Uni-
versity Press, Princeton.
Martin, Simon
2003 In the Line of the Founder: A View of Dynastic Pol-
itics at Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs
of State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 3–45. School of
American Research Press, Santa Fe.
Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube
2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. Thames &
Hudson, London and New York.
Miller, Arthur G.
1973 The Mural Painting of Teotihuacán. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington D.C.
Miller, Mary E. and Karl Taube
1993 An Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of
Ancient Mexico and the Maya. Thames & Hudson, Lon-
don and New York.
Millon, Clara
1973 Painting, Writing, and Polity in Teotihuacan, Mexico.
American Antiquity 38:294–314.
Millon, René
1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond.
In Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by
Janet C. Berlo, pp. 339–429. Dumbarton Oaks Research
Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Mundy, Barbara
1996 The Mapping of New Spain: Indigenous Cartography
and the Maps of the Relaciones Geográficas. The Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Nicholson, Henry
1971 Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Hand-
book of Middle American Indians Vol.10, Part 1, edited by
Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, pp. 395–446. Uni-
versity of Texas Press, Austin.
1988 The Iconography of the Deity Representations in Fray
Bernardino de Sahagún’s Primeros Memoriales:
Huitzilopochtli and Chalchiuhtlique. In The Work of
Bernardino de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer of
Sixteenth-Century Aztec Mexico, edited by J. Jorge Klor
de Alva, H.B. Nicholson and Eloise Quiñones Keber, pp.
229–253. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, The Uni-
[Vol.19, No.4, 2008
versity of Albany, State University of New York, New York.
Nielsen, Jesper
2003 Art of the Empire: Teotihuacan Iconography and Style
in Early Classic Maya Society (A.D. 380–500). Ph.D. dis-
sertation, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.
2004 The Coyote and the Tasseled Shield: A Possible Tit-
ular Glyph on a Late Xolalpan Teotihuacan Tripod. Mex-
icon XXVI(3):61–64.
2006a The Coming of the Torch: Observations on Teoti-
huacan Iconography in Early Classic Tikal. In Maya Eth-
nicity: The Construction of Ethnic Identity from Preclassic
to Modern Times, edited by Frauke Sachse, pp. 19–30. Acta
Mesoamericana, Vol. 19. Verlag Anton Saurwein, Markt
Schwaben.
2006b Mountains and Magueys: Landscapes and Toponyms
in Teotihuacan Iconography and Writing. Paper presented
at the symposium Escritura e iconografía mesoamericana
con enfoque especial en Teotihuacan, University of Copen-
hagen.
Pasztory, Esther
1988a Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees with
Glyphs. In Flowering Trees and Feathered Serpents:
Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by Kath-
leen Berrin, pp. 137–161. The Fine Arts Museum of San
Francisco, San Francisco.
1988b Large Birds. In Flowering Trees and Feathered Ser-
pents: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited
by Kathleen Berrin, pp. 162–167. The Fine Arts Museum
of San Francisco, San Francisco.
1988c Small Birds with Shields and Spears and Other Frag-
ments. In Flowering Trees and Feathered Serpents: Recon-
structing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited by Kathleen
Berrin, pp. 168–183. The Fine Arts Museum of San Fran-
cisco, San Francisco.
1988d A Reinterpretation of Teotihuacan and its Mural
Painting Tradition. In Flowering Trees and Feathered Ser-
pents: Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacan, edited
by Kathleen Berrin, pp. 45–77. The Fine Arts Museum of
San Francisco, San Francisco.
Peñafiel, Antonio
1885 Nombres geográficas de México. Catálogo alfabético.
Oficina Tipográfica de la Secretaría de Fomento, México,
D.F.
Pollard, Helen P
2000 Tarascans and Their Ancestors: Prehistory of
Michoacán. In Greater Mesoamerica: The Archaeology of
West and Northwest Mexico, edited by Michael S. Foster
and Shirley Gorenstein, pp. 59–70. The University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Rattray, Evelyn C
2001 Teotihuacan: Ceramics, Chronology and Cultural
Trends. INAH and University of Pittsburgh, México, D.F
and Pittsburgh.
Sahagún, Bernardino de
1957 General History of the Things of New Spain. Book 5,
The Omens. Translated by Charles E. Dibble and Arthur
J.O. Anderson. Monographs of the School of American
Research, No.14, Parts 5 and 6. School of American
Research, Santa Fe.
Sejourné, Laurette
1966a Arqueología de Teotihuacan – la cerámica. Fondo
Cultural Económica, México, D.F.
1966b El lenguaje de las formas en Teotihuacan. México,
D.F.
Sharer, Robert J., and Simon Martin
2005 Strangers in the Maya Area: Early Classic Interaction
with Teotihuacan. In Lords of Creation: The Origins of
Nielsen] SPEARTHROWER OWL HILL
Sacred Maya Kingship, edited by Virginia M. Fields and
Dorie Reents-Budet, pp. 80–89. Los Angeles County
Museum of Art and Scala Publishers Ltd., London.
Smith, Mary E
1973 Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico—
Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. University of Oklahoma
Press, Norman.
Stirling, Matthew W.
1960 The Use of the Atlatl on Lake Patzcuaro, Michoacán.
Anthropological Papers, No. 59, Bureau of American Eth-
nology, Bulletin 173. Smithsonian Institution, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Stuart, David
2000 “The Arrival of Strangers”: Teotihuacan and Tollan
in Classic Maya Texts. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritage:
From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd Carrasco,
Lindsay Jones and Scott Sessions, pp. 465–513. Univer-
sity Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Stuart, David, and Stephen Houston
1994 Classic Maya Place Names. Dumbarton Oaks
Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.
Sugiyama, Saburo
2005 Human Sacrifice, Militarism, and Rulership: Materi-
alization of State Ideology at the Feathered Serpent Pyra-
mid, Teotihuacan. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Sugiyama, Saburo, and Rubén Cabrera Castro
2003 Hallazgos recientes en la Pirámide de la Luna. Arque-
ología Mexicana XI(64):42–49.
Taube, Karl
1992a The Iconography of Mirrors at Teotihuacan. In Art,
Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet C.
Berlo, pp. 169–204. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library
and Collection, Washington, D.C.
1992b The Temple of Quetzalcoatl and the Cult of Sacred
Warfare at Teotihuacan. RES 21:53–87.
2000a The Writing System of Ancient Teotihuacan. Ancient
America 1:1–56.
2000b The Turquoise Hearth: Fire, Self Sacrifice, and the
Central Mexican Cult of War. In Mesoamerica’s Classic
Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by Davíd
Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp. 269–340.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
2004 Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Pre-Columbian Art
at Dumbarton Oaks, No. 2. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing-
ton, D.C.
Thompson, J. Eric S.
1962 A Catalog of Maya Hieroglyphs. University of Okla-
homa Press, Norman.
Torquemada, Juan de
1969 [1615] Monarquía Indiana. Tomo Segundo. Editor-
ial Porrúa, S.A., México, D.F.
Tovalín Ahumada, Alejandro, and Gabriela Ceja Manrique
1996 Desarrollo arquitectónico del Grupo Norte de
Palenque. In Palenque Round Table – 1993, Vol. X, edited
by Martha Macri and Jan McHargue, pp. 93–101. The Pre-
Columbian Art Research Institute, San Francisco.
Urcid, Javier S.
2001 Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Dumbarton Oaks,
Washington, D.C.
von Winning, Hasso
1948 The Teotihuacan Owl and Weapon Symbol and its
Association with “Serpent Head X” at Kaminaljuyu. Amer-
ican Antiquity 14:129–132.
1985 Two Maya Monuments in Yucatan: The Palace of the
Stuccoes at Acanceh and the Temple of the Owls at Chichén
Itzá. Southwest Museum, Highland Park, Los Angeles.
473
1987 La iconografía de Teotihuacan: Los dioses y los sig-
nos. Tomos I-II. UNAM, México, D.F.
Wichmann, Søren, and Cecil H. Brown
2000 Panchronic Mayan Dictionary. Electronic database.
Notes
1. The dates for the Early Xolalpan phase presented here
are based on Evelyn Child Rattray’s recent chronology for
Teotihuacan, (see Rattray 2001:203; Figure 1b). Earlier
researchers have suggested that the start of the Xolalpan
phase should be placed at A.D. 375 while the end of the phase
has been assigned to anywhere between A.D. 400 and 550.
2. It is not known whether a similar scene was originally
placed above the coyotes seated on similar platforms or
pedestals in Murals 1 and 4 of the same portico (Cabrera
Castro 1995).
3. Jorge Angulo has suggested that the mountains with
obsidian blades could be a specific iconic reference to Cerro
de las Navajas, the rich obsidian source north of Teotihuacan
(Jorge Angulo personal communication 2006). Alternatively,
the blades could serve to indicate a more general “essence” of
the environment, thus possibly referring to a rugged, “sharp”
topography.
4. As Taube has shown, the Late Classic ruler Jasaw Chan
K’awiil I of Tikal made a strong association between the bar-
rel cacti, malinalli-grass and Teotihuacan. On Lintel 2 of
Tikal Temple I (Structure 5D-1) the local ruler is shown
seated on a stepped platform marked by these plants, appar-
ently to indicate his antecedents’ affiliations to highland
Mexico (Taube 1992b:68–74; Martin and Grube 2000:45).
5. All Maya terms in this paper are rendered according to
the orthography endorsed by the Academia de las Lenguas
Mayas de Guatemala (ALMG). As such accents are omitted
in their entirety as these are Hispanic diacritics that are
shunned by the ALMG. The names of ancient Maya mon-
archs are spelled as these appear in Martin and Grube’s
(2000) work. Items derived from hieroglyphic attestations are
rendered in transliterations according to the principles of syn-
harmony and disharmony as elaborated by the most recent
published studies (Houston et al. 2004; Lacadena and
Wichmann 2004). Confronted with disharmonic cases we
have consulted dictionaries of Lowland Maya languages and
opted for the spellings that we feel most closely coincide with
all the relevant data.
6. The name may be more complex than hitherto noted.
Important examples of the “Spearthrower Owl” name render
the “Owl” element as something entirely different and more
in keeping with Maya writing conventions. These examples
are the passage from the Tikal Marcador under scrutiny
(E3–F3) as well as Tikal Stela 31 (L4 and N3) and an Early
Classic vase designated as K7528 in the Kerr Archives. On
the Tikal Marcador Jatz’o’m (E3) is followed by a glyph
block (F3) representing a personified stone sign with another
distinct T528 sign inset therein (Figure 7g) (Thompson
1962:134–143, 452). Similarly, on K7528 the “Owl” is sub-
stituted by a similar “stony” head-variant, but in this case the
distinct T528 sign is omitted (Figure 7h). On Stela 31 in turn,
a typical T528 sign is represented within a so-called “shield”
element (Figure 7i). These discrepancies, and the scribal
474 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
practice of omitting key parts of proper names, means that the
reading of the latter segment of the name remains unclear. In
keeping with earlier analyses, it remains possible that the ku
syllabic value of T528 is intended here, to target Ku’ or Kuh
“owl” as attested in several Lowland Maya languages (Grube
and Schele 1994:10). Conversely, it is tempting to speculate
that the personified stone sign served as a WITZ logogram
(based on supporting evidence found on the so-called “lock-
top vase” from Río Azul) and that the “Owl” segment was
somehow omitted or abbreviated. If this proves to be the case,
the epigraphically attested name would represent a direct
corollary to the iconographic examples from Atetelco.
7. The Marcador text clearly records a dynastic successor
title as 4-TZ'AK-b'u-AJAW, or “fourth king.” The accession
statement of this protagonist can be placed at A.D. 374 based
on the accompanying calendrical information. The mean
length of reigns for documented Maya rulers is 30.6 years,
while the average for other early civilizations falls around 25
years (Grube 2006: 154–158). Based on these parameters the
emically acknowledged “founding” of the dynasty of which
Spearthrower Owl is a part can be placed at anywhere
between A.D. 282 and 299.
8. This toponym deserves further comment. On the
Marcador this toponyms appears twice (E4 and G6) in both
contexts occurring as a modifier to the segment that follows.
In both cases we see it is spelled as 5-[no]ma-WITZ, where it
precedes the title Kalo’m borne by “Spearthrower Owl” and
the name of the Teotihuacano ‘War Serpent’ Waxaklaju’n
[Vol.19, No.4, 2008
Ub’aah Chan, respectively. Consequently, we can see this
toponym as qualifying “Spearthrower Owl” and the “War
Serpent” as originating from this same place and both are said
to huley or “arrive” at Tikal. This implies that the toponym is
not local and in keeping with earlier interpretations may be
closely associated with Teotihuacan. The spelling of the
toponym yields several possible realizations, the most pro-
ductive of which is Ho’ Noom Witz as “Five Noom Mountain”
in full accordance with its original spelling. For no-ma the
best matches are entries for nòom referring to various small
birds, such as “partridge, quail, tinamou” and “pato chico” in
Yukatek and Itzaj (Wichmann and Brown 2000ff). Thus, in
sum, the putative Teotihuacan toponym Ho’ Noom Witz may
best be translated as “Five Small-bird Mountain.” Stanley
Guenter and Albert Davletshin (personal communication
2007), however, have independently suggested that the
toponym is spelled as 5-no-WITZ in which the intermediate
syllabogram would be rendered in an exceptionally rare
“complete form.” Based on this interpretation the translitera-
tion of this toponym as Ho’ No[j] Witz would yield a transla-
tion of “Five Big/Great Mountain(s).”
9. Interestingly, the Postclassic Tarascans, according to
the Relación de Michoacán, also made a strong connection
between early founding dynasts and raptorial birds. Thus, the
ancestors of the royal Tarascan dynasty were referred to as
“eagles” (uacúsecha) (see Pollard 2000:65).
Submitted May 2, 2007; Accepted September 4, 2007.