MAYA ART AXD ITS DEVELOPMENT 



111 



Archaic period, 160 A. D. to 455 a. d. 

 Great period, 455 a. d. to 600 a. d. 

 Transition period, 600 a. d. to 960 a. d. 

 League period 960 A. D. to 1195 a. d. 

 Nahua period, 1195 a. d. to 1442 a. d. 

 Modern period, since 1442 a. d. 



The relation of Maya to neighboring 

 cultures receives interesting treatment. 

 That an elaborate calendar system was 

 used with comparatively little change 

 from the Tarascans and Otomies on the 

 north to the tribes of Nicaragua on the 

 south points conclusively to ethnic affilia- 

 tions throughout the region. This cal- 

 endar however was invented and largely 

 perfected by the Maya. Gadow points 

 out that five of the animals represented 

 as flay signs in the Aztec calendar do not 

 occur on the highlands of Mexico; it 

 is therefore reasonable to suppose that 

 the calendar did not originate in that 

 region. On the other hand all of the 

 animals connected with the calendar are 

 common to the Maya country-. 



Following a resume of the chronologi- 

 cal sequence of cultures in Mexico, the 

 Author finds no grounds for ascribing a 

 northern origin to Maya art. The 

 earliest period of the north is entirely 

 independent of the Maya; the middle 

 period in the highlands of Mexico was 

 one of low art pressure and received a 

 current from the south; and only in the 

 last decadent period was this current 

 reversed. 



As for cultural connections outside 

 of Mexico, the argument centers princi- 

 pally around: (1) Pyramids and other 

 features of material culture; (2) reli- 



gious ideas associated with the serpent; 

 and (3) similarities in symbolism and art. 

 The Author does not even "dignify by 

 refutation the numerous empty theories 

 of ethnic connections between Central 

 America and the Old World." 



In the New World are three large but 

 widely separated areas where pyramids 

 are found: western Peru and Ecuador, 

 Central America and Mexico, and the 

 Mississippi valley and the southeastern 

 part of the United States, but there is 

 little to suggest interrelation. Of the 

 various types of mounds in the Missis- 

 sippi valley the pyramid is the only one 

 that offers points of resemblance; but 

 points equally striking are offered by 

 the great structure at Moche, Peru, or 

 even by the ruins at Tello, Chaldea; 

 Central American and Mexican influence 

 has likewise lieen invoked to account 

 for the symbolism on the shell gorgets 

 and copper plates from the Mississippi 

 Valley; the Author would account for 

 them in other ways, believing as he does 

 that there are " no trustworthy evidences 

 of trade relations between the Mexicans 

 and Mound-builders, nor is there any 

 sure indication of fundamental unity of 

 culture at any time in the distant past." 



Dr. Spinden's work reflects credit 

 upon his alma mater as well as the mu- 

 seum he now serves. It should be wel- 

 comed by the specialist for the new 

 light it throws on hitherto obscure pages 

 and by the layman as an up-to-date and 

 conservative presentation of a subject 

 that cannot fail to appeal to all lovers 

 of American aboriginal art. 



