SELER] ANCIENT MEXICAN FEATHER ORNAMENTS 73 



We may perhaps go further. The ornament now preserved in the 

 Vienna Museum was found in the Ambras collection, together with 

 a feather jacket (ain Morischer Roekh), a feather shield (ain Kundell 

 Von Roten federn). a ])lume (ein morischer Feder Puschen, so aim 

 Ross auf die Stirn gehort, ''a Moorish plume, such as is used on the 

 head of a horse"), and a feather fan (ain Wedler von Federn). The 

 feather fan and feather shield were found later." All are articles which 

 belonged to the adornment of distinguished Mexican warriors. For 

 the "'■plume, such as is worn on the head of a horse," is undoubtedl}' 

 an aztaxelli — a plume which Mexican warriors stuck into their Itack 

 tuft of hair when they joined in the dance. This plume and the feather 

 fan most certainly constituted the civic dress (festive dress), the })ack 

 device, feather jacket, and feather shield being tlie military dress. If 

 we continue our conjectures, we may also consider it probable that 

 the Vienna ornament was a warrior's device. If this be the case, 

 then the Axayacatl of the Cozcatzin codex and the Bilimec warrior 

 are more appropriate subjects for comparison than the god in the 

 manuscript of the Biblioteca Nazionale. 



However, these are mere conjectures. Archeologic considerations 

 do not lead to the goal. Since we are without historical proof, for the 

 note in the catalogue, "ain Morischer Huet", can hardly be regarded as 

 decisive, the matter must be relegated to that final resort to which, 

 as I have alwa3'S insisted, it properly ])elonged from tiie Hrst — that is, 

 to a study of the object itself. Von Hochstetter is the only one who 

 has really studied the Vienna ornament in reference to its construc- 

 tion. Mrs Nuttall only worked with a model. 



In opposition to von Hochstetter, Mrs Nuttall maintains that in his 

 experiments with the original the crease in the stiffening pi-evented 

 him from recognizing the possibility of its use as a headdress. We 

 grant Mrs Nuttall that the limitation of the transverse stifiening to 

 the side parts indicates a bending of these latter; but this is also ([uite 

 compatible with von Hochstettei's interpretation. The idea of a bird 

 with outspread wings doubtless underlies the ornament. This kind of 

 stifiening made a movement of the wings possible. Lastly, Mrs Nuttall 

 claims for her- theory that, according to von Hochstetter's own state- 

 ment, there was a pocket or liood-shaped opening hirge enough to 

 admit a head between the nets which formed the foundation of the 

 fiont and ))ack of the ornament. But here again von Hochstetter 

 gives a perfectly satisfactoi-y explanation, since he says that in his 

 opinion this pocket merely served to receive the upper part of the 

 carrying pole. While these conditions offer no grounds which oblige 

 us to accept Mrs NuttalFs theory, there are yet two facts which, in 

 my opinion, Mrs Nuttall has not considered sufficiently. One is the 

 defective condition of the ornament. According to the oldest catalogue 



a See Franz Heger. Annalen des Koniglich-Kaiscrlichon Naturhistorischeii nofinuso.mis, v. /, 



I>t. 4. ■ 



