334 PAPERS RELATING TO ANTHROPOLOGY. 



yields none such. It is Dot Toltec, as the sites of Toltec cities furnish 

 only their own tine wares. It is not ancient Aztec, for I have shown* 

 that on the site of the Aztec capital, the ancient Tenochtitlan, a series 

 of deposits tilled witli relics of all ages contains no such ware. It is 

 not modern Aztec, as it is not used by the Atzec people; and finally I 

 may say, without fear of controversion, that no matter where or by 

 whom made, it was as a rule not intended to be used at all, excepting 

 as abait for the gullible collector. 



The decoration is in the main un-American in character and in exe- 

 cution, it is incongruous and wholly meaningless. The greater part of 

 these products have absolutely no place in legitimate art and should be 

 nameless in the discussion of archaeology, save in so far as naming is 

 necessary in branding them as spurious. 



Arguments which seem sufiicient to me may not be strong enough to 

 convince others of the correctness of my position, but there is such 

 pressing need of clearing away much useless and harmful debris that I 

 make these strong assertions hoping, if I am wrong, that some ambi- 

 tious student may be spurred on to a closer definition of the true line 

 between the normal and the abnormal phases of Mexican art. 

 * TransactionB of the Anthropological Society, Vol. Ill, p. 66. 



