You are on page 1of 21

Ancient Mesoamerica, 18 (2007), 31–51 Copyright # 2007 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A. DOI: 10.

1017/S0956536107000077

´CULA DE THE SCRIBES WHO PAINTED THE MATRI TRIBUTOS AND THE CODEX MENDOZA

´ Batalla Rosado Juan Jose
Departamento de Historia de America II (Antropologia de America), Facultad de Geografia e Historia, Ciudad Universitaria s/n, Universidad Complutense, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Abstract
´cula de Tributos and the Codex This article presents an analysis of the tlacuiloque (scribes) who participated in the production of the Matrı Mendoza. I show the relevance of palaeographic analysis for documents in which the writing system is logosyllabic or hieroglyphic and ´cula de Tributos is a pre-Columbian document that recorded the tribute paid to the most of the information is iconographic. The Matrı Mexica empire by conquered towns. It was probably painted during the last decade of Moctezuma’s II rulership, although some of its pages may have been produced earlier. Its production shows the work of at least six scribes. Its content was copied by a single artist around 1542 as the second part of the Codex Mendoza, a document created to be sent to the Spanish emperor. I provide evidence of the work of ´cula. I also show that the scribe responsible for folios 6r– 11v of the Matrı ´cula painted the six scribes in the pages preserved of the Matrı the entire Codex Mendoza at least 20 years later. I demonstrate these interpretations through comparative analysis of some elements of the ´cula and the Codex Mendoza. iconography and logosyllabic writing in the Matrı

In this article, I argue that at least six scribes contributed to the ´cula de Tributos and that one of them was production of the Matrı responsible for producing the Codex Mendoza several decades later, continuing a line of analysis started in previous papers (Batalla Rosado 2002a, 2007a). I summarize the overall argument and offer several new interpretations on the dating and manner of production of the two tribute documents. It is remarkable that a scribe “employed” initially by the Mexica empire to produce an imperial tribute document could be employed again by the Spanish empire in the early Colonial period. To support these conclusions, I analyze graphic elements that appear in both documents, examine patterns that identify the different scribes, and make a comparative analysis of their style.

´CULA DE TRIBUTOS THE MATRI
´cula de Tributos Most scholars attribute the production of the Matrı to the pre-Hispanic period (Barlow 1990; Berdan 1992:I:64–65), ´a 1997:17, 49). My analysis although some disagree (Reyes Garcı supports the former interpretation. The format of the document and the styles of the different scribes suggest a date prior to 1519. ´cula may have been a long document, rolled Originally, the Matrı or folded, or it may have been composed of separate pages painted on one side and later glued together to conform artificially to the format of a European book. Significantly, the damage on back-to-back pages does not match (Batalla Rosado 1992:I: 48–49; Mohar 1997:72 –80; Rojas 1997:34 –35); this damage can ´cula de be observed On folios 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, and others (Matrı Tributos 1980). ´cula de Tributos was apparently produced as a series The Matrı of individual pages of amate paper (Berdan 1980a:9). Although
E-mail correspondence to: batalla@ghis.ucm.es

´a Mohar (1997:74) disagrees with Frances Berdan’s Luz Marı hypothesis, my observations support Berdan’s view. The separate ´cula as a list of sheets make sense, given the function of the Matrı tribute from individual imperial provinces (see Smith 2003:147– 171). As the individual towns, their tribute requirements, or the imperial status of the provinces changed over time, the document could be modified accordingly. It was possible to add, delete, or change the products paid by individual communities, correcting or replacing sheets as needed. New sheets could also be added if warranted by imperial conquests. ´cula was According to Robert Barlow (1990:142), the Matrı painted after 1511. This dating is supported by the inclusion in the document of provinces conquered shortly before the arrival of the Spanish (Rojas 1997:33). Nevertheless, we have to consider ´cula was a register of tribute on separate sheets, it that, if the Matrı could have been produced over a period of many years. It is thus possible, as Berdan (1992:I:64–65) has remarked, that the ´cula was composed throughout the last decade of Matrı Moctezuma’s II government, and not in a single year. We may be able to trace the initial production of the document back to the beginning of the empire if we assume that each sheet, or each group of sheets, was painted separately during a different period, expanding the document over the years. Another observation supporting this hypothesis is the large number of scribes—at least six—responsible for the pages still preserved in the document, including a Mixtec scribe (or a scribe following the Mixtecan artistic tradition but working for the Mexica empire). For these reasons, I ´a (1997:17, 49), who dates the cannot agree with Luis Reyes Garcı ´ s. Reyes work 10 –20 years after the fall of Tenochtitlan to Corte ´a considers the Matrı ´cula an incomplete copy of older Garcı documents. ´cula de Tributos further I will not discuss the content of the Matrı in this work, although I agree with Pedro Carrasco’s (1996: 31

32

Batalla Rosado

Figure 1. Map of the provinces subject to the Mexica empire (from Berdan 1980b:28).

110 –111) view that the document reveals the relationship between the provinces and Tenochtitlan. It is a key to the organization of the Mexica empire (Figure 1).1
1 I based Figures 1 and 9 on the map published in Berdan (1980b:28). However, other studies of this issue, such as Berdan et al. (1996:112), are more recent.

´cula de Tributos (1974, 1980, 1991, 1997, 2003) is a The Matrı large document whose pages measure 42 cm  29 cm. It is composed of 32 folios of amate paper. The tribute roll that forms the second part of the Codex Mendoza is generally accepted as a ´cula. However, the later document lists tribute copy of the Matrı ´cula. This suggests from five provinces not included in the Matrı that around 1542, when the Codex Mendoza was painted, the

when the Codex Mendoza was copied. with pages glued together. where we would place the ´cula was province of Oxitipan. the Matrı Tributos should have been annotated in both alphabetical Nahuatl . as such. Its purpose was to register and account for the tribute due to the Mexica empire.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 33 ´cula de Tributos (1980). 12r–13v in the Matrı ´cula must have had at least five additional folios: two between Matrı folios 4v and 5r (the provinces of Axocapan and Atotonilco de Pedraza). depending on the direction in which the document is read (Rojas 1997:34). and the final missing folio must have had ´cula ended (or only a single painted surface. The four missing interior folios were each a recto –verso pair. Figure 2. two between folios 12v and 13r (Tlachquiauhco and Tochtepec). and one more at the end. because the Matrı began) with Oxtitipan. This pattern suggests that the Matrı already in European form. my ´cula de Tributos was an official document opinion is that the Matrı in Tenochtitlan’s imperial administration and that. I must point out that after the Conquest. Although not directly germane to the topic of this paper. Stylistic details of the “Mixtecan-style” scribe on folios 4r–5v. it should be free of errors. ´cula de Finally.

it may be possible to identify the presence of assistants or apprentices in copying the ´cula de Tributos to produce the tribute section of the Codex Matrı Mendoza. and it is logical to assume that only an artist of renown. Stylistic details of the “Mendocino-style” scribe on folios 6r–11v in the Matrı and Castilian. 2002c). Figure 3. 2002b. we can differentiate the pre-Cortesian Libro ´gena (Native Book) from the colonial Libro Escrito Europeo Indı (European Written Book) (see Batalla Rosado 2002b). the viceroy. In agreement with the opinion of the encomendero ´ nimo Lo ´ pez (around 1547). His employer was the highest official in the colonial system. The work of such assistants has been identified in other Colonial and pre-Colonial codices (see Batalla Rosado 1993. I argue that the scribe in charge of painting the Codex Mendoza must have been a master painter known for high-quality work. Thus. 1994. THE CODEX MENDOZA The Codex Mendoza was painted in 1542 by a single scribe (see Codex Mendoza 1992:I). With further analysis.34 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980). the best one available. would receive such an appointment. Nevertheless. as recorded by Silvio Zavala Jero .

(Zavala 1938:70. more or less. Stylistic details of the scribe on folios 1r–2r of the Matricula de Tributos (1980). master of the painters. I believe that the Codex Mendoza was produced by a “master of the painters” named Francisco Gualpuyogualcal or ´a 1997:25): Cuauhpoyouacatl (Reyes Garcı It must have been about six years ago. In secret he showed it to me and told me that he had made it by the command of His Lordship. the former . In 1542. the purpose of the Codex Mendoza was to show a foreign ruler how the old system worked. (1938:70). like the Matrı Tributos. Instead. translated in Nicholson 1992:I:1–2) I believe that the author of the Codex Mendoza did not feel it was necessary to be precise in recording the tribute because he was ´cula de not creating an official economic document. that entering one day into the home of an Indian who was called Francisco Gualpuyogualcal. in which he had to record all the land since the founding of the city of Mexico and the lords that had governed and ruled until the coming of the Spaniards and the battles and clashes that they had and the taking of this great city and all the provinces that it ruled and had made subject and the assignment of these towns and provinces that was made by Motezuma to the principal lords of this city and of the fee that each one of the knights gave him from the tributes of the towns that he had and the plan that he employed in the aforesaid assignment and how he sketched [?] the towns and provinces for it. I saw in his possession a book with covers of parchment and asking [sic] him what it was.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 35 Figure 4.

making it impossible to generate any hypothesis about the intervals between the works beyond inferences based on the life expectancy of an average person. it was. however. and ethnographic sections. Stylistic details of the scribe on folios 2v–3v of the Matricula de Tributos (1980). assuming that some parts of the Matrı painted around the time of the Conquest. This helps explain why the Codex Mendoza is clearly divided thematically into historic. instead. then the not the last pages of the Matrı length of time between the two works would be longer than the interval between the final pages of the document and the painting of the Codex Mendoza in 1542. Unfortunately. The Codex Mendoza was not a document produced by the new colonial administration to control new territories. economic. ´CULA DE THE TIME SPAN BETWEEN THE MATRI TRIBUTOS AND THE CODEX MENDOZA The minimum interval between the production of the two codices ´cula were is 21 years. tribute and territorial divisions were no longer important.36 Batalla Rosado Figure 5. a kind of “encyclopedia” to explain to the new masters how these people had lived. folios 6r– 11v of the Matrı a whole were painted by the same scribe. If folios 6r –11v were ´cula to be painted. The interval could easily have been greater than 21 years. . In my interpret´cula and the Codex Mendoza as ation. we have no information about the age of the scribe at the time that the Codex Mendoza was done.

however. XI–XXII [6r–11v]. Figure 6. Similarly. Reyes Garcı research on the document by defending the presence of a single ´a 1997:97. XXIII–XXXII [12v–16v]. ´CULA DE TRIBUTOS THE SCRIBES OF THE MATRI Establishing the number of painters who participated in the ´cula de Tributos is not easy. although later he recognizes two (Reyes Garcı 133)—one in folios 1r–5v and 11v–16v. folios 6r –11r—on the basis of iconographic . In fact. describing three styles in the Matrı of tribute mantas and warriors’ costumes: “the first style includes ´ minas III– X [folios 1v–5v]. Nevertheless. Note 5) notes this possi´cula based on depictions bility. scribe. the second. and the second in the central section.” She does not pursue this ´a (1997:19) starts his analysis. it is possible to identify different “hands” that produced this document because their manners of painting and writing allow the identification of different styles. la the third. Stylistic details of the scribe on folio 14r of the Matrı This factor suggests that the time span between folios 6r–11v of ´cula and the Codex Mendoza could not be more than the Matrı about 50 years. because production of the Matrı iconographic and writing traits are subject to slight differences even in the work of a single artist.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 37 ´cula de Tributos (1980). Berdan (1980a:9.

warriors’ costumes. Stylistic details of the scribe on folios 14v to 16v of the Matrı changes in mantas.38 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980). I show later that it is in fact possible to identify up to six scribes. Berdan (1980a:9) and Reyes Garcı (1997:97. 133) established that the style of folios 6r –11v is different from that of the rest of the document. regardless ´cula was the same as of whether the original order of the Matrı when it was copied for the Codex Mendoza and regardless of the number of folios that were lost after its initial production (at least five). As noted earlier. Following the order of provinces in the . The first clear stylistic incongruities are found in the central part of the document when it was converted into a European-style ´a book. But another factor separates blocks of pages clearly between folios 5 and 6: the place where two pages have been lost. Figure 7. whose work is distributed in a different way from those suggested by Berdan and ´a. and shields. Reyes Garcı I begin by distinguishing the scribes in places that permit the establishment of clear and unquestionable differences.

The presence of the two-scroll tepetl sign on two different folio blocks might suggest the work of two scribes educated in the . The sign is drawn using just two “scrolls” (tetl. ‘stone’) on folios 4r –5v and 12r –15v. and 29 in Figure 1). 9. and 31 in Figure 1) were painted by a Mixtec or. by contrast. Codex Mendoza. Stylistic details of the scribes of the Matrı scribe of folios 4r–5v and 12r–13v. the tepetl element is depicted using three scrolls—or none at all. A key element in making this judgment is the sign for tepetl (hill) used in toponyms. the missing pages must have included the tribute from four provinces (numbers 7. 30.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 39 ´cula de Tributos (1980): (a) scribe of folios 1r–2r. ´cula de The three-scroll design is used throughout the Matrı Tributos. a feature that is characteristic of pre-Columbian and Colonial documents of the Mixtecan culture (see Batalla. perhaps. (d) scribe of folios 6r–11v. (f) scribe of folios 14v–16r. 28. “Mixtecan-style” scribe (Figure 2). 2007b). 8. (b) scribe of folios 2v–3v. In central Mexican documents. 10. 6. The “Mixtecan-Style” Scribe I argue that folios 4r– 5v and 12r –13v (identified with provinces 5. except on folios 4r–5v and 12r –13v. 26. (e) scribe of folio 14r. (c) Figure 8. 27.

which is wide open and facing outward. the design of the petlatl in the loads. the shape of the beans and grains of corn. The “Mendocino-Style” Scribe ´cula is A second scribe who can be differentiated clearly in the Matrı the one in charge of folios 6r– 11v (12 pages that correspond to provinces 11–25 in Figure 1). (b) Mixtecan-style scribe of folios 4r–5v and 12r –13v). the discrepancies could be intentional. the feather decoration on the shields. The four missing provinces (numbers 6. and 29) are marked with broken lines (maps from Berdan 1980b:28). the glyph for xiquipilli. the bundles of mantas are represented similarly. Geographic distribution of the provinces painted by two of the scribes of the Matrı 3v. 28. the ears are identical. (c) Mendoxino-style scribe of folios 6r– 11v. as do the glyph for xiquipilli (the number 8. 7. on folios 4r – 5v and 12r – 13v. Although there are clear differences in how the loads of maxtlatl are representated on folios 4r and 12r. enough shared iconographic details are present to attribute all of the pages to a single hand. The glyph for the number 400 is also similar on all of the folios.40 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos : (a) scribe of folios 2v– Figure 9. these iconographic traits differentiate this artist from the rest of the painters. For example. with straight lines. 2007a). whereas on folios 4r and 5r. These elements are found only on folios 6r –11v of the ´cula de Tributos. the manner of depicting cotton. The difference could be due to the fact that on folio 12r. the maxtlatl (loincloth) in the two-piece warriors’ costumes. the way in which the little lines are disposed to represent the petlatl (mat). shows a whole group of traits that are common to these folios and absent in others (Figure 3). tradition of Mixtec manuscript painting. the ocelotl represents the complete pelt of the animal. whom I have called the “painter of the Mendocino” (Batalla Rosado. And although there is a discrepancy in how the heads of the ocelotl are represented on folios 12r and 4r and 5r. it is part of a warrior’s suit. and the representation of beans and grains of maize. However.000) and the form of depiction of cotton. (d) scribe of folios 14v–16v. and the rounded shape and decoration of the head of Xolotl and of he ocelotl. Matrı . This scribe. although on folio 12r they form a square instead of a rectangle. and the heads of the god Xolotl and of the ocelotl in the costumes are identical on the relevant pages. The missing province (number 38) is marked with a broken line (maps from Berdan 1980b:28). They include loads of mantas (clothes) executed using a curvilinear design. As we will see later. the shape of the shields. to show differences in the quality of the loincloths.

On all three folios. and 4). set this artist apart from the three previously defined scribes (cf.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 41 ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Figure 10. as well as the beans and grains of corn. however. 4. Figures 2 and 4). is represented. whereas on folio 2r. the designs for loads of mantas are identical. 3. together with the icon for xiquipilli (8. Three additional elements set this artist apart from the others. Figures 2. 3. that the differences may again be intentional: on folios 1r and 1v. fitting a person’s head to indicate a ruler. the xiuhuitzolli acts as one element in a glyph.000). its function is iconographic. And the shape of the adornment on the shield. . indicates that the artist of folios 1r–2r is not the painter of the Mendocino (cf. there are similarities (and differences) in how the xiuhuitzolli. These elements. or royal crown. the red cloth attached to the crown does not fall in a straight line but curves toward the exterior. The maxtlatl in the warriors’ outfits is painted differently (cf. The three “scrolls” in tepetl and oztoc are in a different style from that of the Mixtecan scribe (cf. the warriors’ costumes (such as the papalotl ) and shields are very similar. One must keep in mind. Figures 2. with the feathers falling in a straight line. Iconographic depiction of loads of blankets by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Mendoza (1992:Volume III). and the glyph consisting of an eagle head is the same on folios 1v and 2r. even when it has a knot to hold it to the crown. Figures 3 and 4). The Scribe of Folios 2v–3v A number of inconographic elements on folios 2v–3v (provinces 2. The Scribe of Folios 1r–2r Despite the bad state of folios 1r–2r. and Xolotl’s head. 3. the maxtlatl of the warriors’ costumes. For example. and the heads of ocelotl. and 4 in Figure 1) indicate that the images were painted by a single hand (Figure 5). The depiction of the human eye is the same on all three pages. are the same. Also. and 5). I argue that they were painted by the same scribe (Figure 4). (The knot is present on folios 1r and 1v and absent on folio 2r).

The Scribe of Folios 14v–16v The following elements unite folios 14v– 16v and differentiate them from the other folios in the document: the design of the loads of mantas. and shape. the mummy bundle. the warriors’ suits (both the maxtlatl and the headdress in the Patzactl costume). the loads of petlatl. Iconographic depiction of shields by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı (1992:Volume III). Figures 5 and 6). and 6). Figures 4 and 6) and draws the head for Xolotl with a distinctive ear. the glyph for the number 400. and the heads of Xolotl and ocelotl (Figure 7). facial decoration. the execution of the Patzactli outfit. which is different from the head drawn by the artist of folios 2v – 3v (cf. and the head of Xolotl.42 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Mendoza Figure 11. Figures 2. Although similar . the numeric glyphs. These elements also separate this artist clearly from the painters of the Mixtecan and Mendocino styles (cf. 3. which has a distinctive ear. the shields. This artist uses a different type of chimalli (shield) and maxtlatl from the artist of folios 1r – 2r (cf. The Scribe of Folio 14r Only one folio painted by this artist has survived (Figure 6). Although the design of the loads of mantas resembles those on the preceding and following pages. folio 14r is distinguished from them by a number of features: the loads of uipilli (indigenous woman’s blouse). the iconography of the petlatl loads.

from top to bottom.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 43 Figure 12. whereas the other folios have five . Figures 4 and 7). Differences from the other artists (cf. in the iconography of cotton. folios 6r–11v of the Matrı to the painter of folios 1r–2r in the execution of the xiuhuitzolli (cf. The bottom line on folio 15v has only pages of the Matrı three loads of mantas. The work of this artist differs from the scribe of folio 14r in the forms of representation of the mortuary bundle and load of petlatl (cf.000 and iconographic depiction of the trojes (wooden bins) and baskets for copal by the scribe of ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Mendoza (1992:Volume III). Figures 6 and 7). the work of this scribe differs in the decoration of the chimalli and in the manner of depicting the maxtlatl of the warriors’ suits. ´a (1997:51) has noted a possible European Finally. for the rows of loads of mantas on folio 15v—an order that is not found on the other ´cula. Figures 2– 7) can also be found in the way xiquipilli is drawn. Reyes Garcı reading order. Glyphs for the numeral 8. and in the design of the heads of Xolotl and ocelotl.

in contrast to the loads in the upper row. because other Colonial-era tributary ´ dice Tributos de Coyoaca ´ n (see Batalla codices. which all have the glyph for 400. ´a believes that a downward reading order is (Figure 7). however. Reyes Garcı the only way to explain the space left in the third row. the descending reading order is found throughout the Matrı reading order on folio 15v alone is insufficient to prove that the document is pre-Columbian.44 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Mendoza Figure 13. Summary I thus conclude. In least six scribes in the production of the Matrı Figure 8. I assemble the icons that support the differentiation of these six scribes. The scribes are indicated in the columns following . I cannot agree with him. Therefore. even though an ascending ´cula. preserve this characteristic. Depiction of an eagle by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı (1992:Volume III). such as the Co Rosado 2002d). based on the representation of various iconographic and writing elements. The loads in the bottom row all have glyphs for 20 (the flag. that it is possible to identify the work of at ´cula de Tributos. The order of reading thus follows the pre-Columbian pattern of increasing quantities of objects from bottom to top. pantli).

and the design of the beans and maize kernels differentiate four. differentiate five of the scribes. The maxtlatl in the warriors’ costumes differentiate all six scribes. Iconographic depiction of warriors’ suits by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Mendoza (1992:Volume III). although some of them show similarities. and the ocelotl and xiquippilli glyphs distinguish four. separates the scribe of Mixtecan style from the others. the order in which their work appears in the document. The shields distinguish all six artists. The loads of mantas.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 45 ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Figure 14. in the second row. Numerous other . The glyph tepetl (hill). in the top row. the heads of Xolotl distinguish five.

but these eight traits (Figure 8) should be sufficient to establish the presence ´cula de Tributos. 9. 8. The provinces represented on these pages (numbers 5. Unfortunately. 28. Folios 2v–3v. These pages describe the tribute of a province. Iconographic depiction of heads of ocelotl by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Mendoza (1992:Volume III). we cannot draw further conclusions on this time. their placement also makes it possible that they were painted by the artist of the Mendocino. details set each artist’s work apart from that of the others. 10. of six scribes in producing the Matrı It is also possible to analyze the geographic distribution of the provinces whose tribute was painted by the six scribes. Iconographic depiction of Xolotl’s head by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Mendoza (1992:Volume III). The pages for provinces 7. Folios 1r–2r. and 29 (Figure 1) have disappeared. 30. Folios 4r –5v and 12r–13v. probably Tlatelolco. 26. 6. These are the pages painted by the Mixtec or Mixtecan-style scribe. and the posts of the imperial administration. and 31 on Figure 1) are grouped into two blocks. According to the sequence given in the Codex Mendoza. .46 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Figure 15. one of which covers the Mixtecan area (Figure 9b). they should have fallen in the middle of the work done by the Mixtecan-style scribe. These pages include provinces in central Mexico (Figure 9a). 27. however. ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Figure 16.

the xiquipilli is depicted in the same manner in ´cula and the common tributary folios (6r –11v of the Matrı 31r –42r of the Codex Mendoza). Folios 6r–11v. the heads of ocelotl (Figure 15) and Xolotl (Figure 16) are represented the same way in both documents. 8. and number 400 are depicted identically in the baskets of copal. and there is great similarity in the specific content of each work. Also. A consideration of the iconography of the shields (see Batalla Rosado. This could be due to special historical circumstances. I expand the analysis to include the entire Codex Mendoza. Second. Finally. suggest the work of a single artist (Figure 13). which is missing from the Matrı been painted by this artist. and one finds only small differences in the grains of corn. Other icons. even when they are part of the place names that occur throughout the Codex Mendoza. and its interior design is adorned). Folio 14r. It is also possible. In this article. At present. in the grain containers. the similarity in Mictlantecuhtli’s head as part . the xiquipilli is a place name. The representation of the warriors’ suits (Figure 14) leads one to the same conclusion (see Batalla Rosado 2007a:Figure 5). moreoever. 28. the boxes. however. although province 29 borders province 32 and is not far from province 28 (see Figure 1).” including the direction and orientation of the small lines that define the baskets. and 29). These pages are the work of the Mendocino painter. These pages record the tribute of provinces in northern Mexico and the Gulf Coast (Figure 9d). see also Batalla Rosado 2007a: Figure 3). we cannot determine which ones. 2007a:Figure 2) leads to the same conclusion (Figure 11): the variations are minimal. On that folio. incense. Three additional elements support my hypothesis (see Figure 12. there is no variation in the forms of representation. First. The provinces that they depict (numbers 11 –25 on Figure 1. that the artist painted the folios for some of the “lost” provinces (numbers 7. Province 38 ´cula. see also Figure 9c) are located in the western part of the empire. Folios 14v –16r. labeled “canastillas de copale blanco. It is my opinion that it is sufficient to compare particular iconographic elements to establish ´cula and the entire Codex clearly that folios 6r– 11v of the Matrı Mendoza were painted by the same person. as well as in the other pages of the Codex Mendoza. 2007a:Figure 1) establishes that both works were executed by a single painter (Figure 10). however. ´CULA THE PAINTER OF FOLIOS 6R –11V OF THE MATRI DE TRIBUTOS AND THE WHOLE CODEX MENDOZA ´cula de Tributos Elsewhere. It is rare for an artist to have been given charge of documenting a single province (number 32 on Figure 1). which would require extending the currently known borders of the Mexica empire. but also when they are part of a glyph. and each individual representation shows the same design of feathers. between the Pacific coast and central Mexico. I compared folios 6r–11v of the Matrı and folios 31r– 42r of the Codex Mendoza by focusing on the tribute paid by individual provinces as recorded in the two documents (Batalla Rosado 2007a). such as the images of eagles painted on the different folios in this analysis (see Batalla Rosado 2007a:Figure 4). Iconographic depiction of Mictlantecuhtli’s head by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Codex Mendoza (1992:Volume III). Third. Curving lines predominate. which expand out in a curving fashion. The icon that represents the loads of mantas in the two documents (see Batalla Rosado. It is also possible that this scribe painted folios for provinces that are still unidentified. the icon for beans is identical across all of the folios. also could have (Oxitipan). The eagles are identical not only when they are depicted as tribute.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 47 ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Figure 17. except folio 10v. making both provinces possibilities.

apart from very minor details. and the teeth in the sign for oztoc. the joints between the blades and handles of axes. the red cloth that hangs in the back is divided by two lines. Writing elements by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Volume III). ´cula of the Tzitzimitl suit (Figure 17) in folios 6r– 11v of the Matrı and in the Codex Mendoza leaves little doubt that these were all done by the same painter. when one compares the place names (see Batalla Rosado 2007a:Figure 6) that occur in both documents (Figures 18 and 19).48 Batalla Rosado ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Mendoza (1992: Figure 18. ´cula and in various pages of the on folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Codex Mendoza. such as human faces (Figure 19. Finally. In the depictions of royal crowns (Figure 19. the two sinuous lines on the upper part of the human skulls mounted on skull racks. There are no differences between them. one sees again that they were painted by the same person. middle row). Also notable for their similarities are depictions of dogs. one horizontal and the other vertical. lower half). although there are small discrepancies within the same document (in the old men’s heads). This point is reinforced by a comparison of other iconographic elements. .

and it is impossible to assign them definitively to any of the painters. It is strange that one of the scribes may have painted only a single folio (14r). folio 14r. The presence of so many scribes ´cula de Tributos is a supports the interpretation that the Matrı . grouped as follows: folios 1r –2r. Iconographic and writing elements depicted by the scribe of folios 6r–11v of the Matrı Mendoza (1992:Volume III).´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı 49 ´cula de Tributos (1980) and the Codex Figure 19. folios 4r– 5v and 12r–13v (Mixtecan style). Nevertheless. We know that at least five pages were lost over time. and folios 14v–16v. and distinct. The location of the province painted by this scribe (numer 32 in Figure 1) is clearly delimited geographically. All of these iconographic elements lead to a single conclusion: the ´cula and the scribe scribe who produced folios 6r–11v of the Matrı who produced the Codex Mendoza were in fact the same person. the evidence suggests that four of the missing pages may have been done by the Mixtecan-style scribe and the other by the scribe who painted folios 14v–16v. folios 2v–3v. scribes. CONCLUSIONS The evidence presented here supports the conclusion that the surviv´cula de Tributos were painted by at least six ing pages of the Matrı different. folios 6r –11v (Mendocino style).

” Perugia. Su contenido fue copiado.50 pre-Columbian document and that in its original form. Ame ´ dice Borbo ´ nico: Una aproximacio ´ n a su 1994 Los tlacuiloque del Co ´ mero y estilo. Robert H. University of California Press. y la totalidad del segundo. Anales del Museo de Ame in press. 9 –11. and that was probably the reason that both the Mexica administration and the viceroy selected him to paint the documents. en el que participaron al menos seis pintores. in press. 1992 El arte de escribir en Mesoame Memoria de licenciatura.. como mı ´nimo 20. Actopan (1578). Madrid. ´z en el imperio de Moctezuma. Graz. Ası en la realizacio ´ fico tiene tambie ´ n en mostramos la importancia que el estudio paleogra ´ n donde el sistema de escritura es logosila ´ bico y este tipo de documentacio ´ n es iconogra ´ fica. Juan Jose ´ rica: El Co ´ dice Borbo ´ nico. and was checked in its final version by Dr. In Actas del XXIV Congreso paron en la Matrı ´stica. REFERENCES Barlow. 27– 45. The evidence also suggests strongly that the scribe who was ´cula de responsible for painting folios 6r –11v of the Matrı Tributos painted the Codex Mendoza at least 21 years later. pp. DC. pp. facsimile ed. Berdan. Brokarte. This case is not unique. pp. Tetzcoco y Tlacopan. Alianza de Tenochtitlan. ´ Batalla Rosado. La Triple 1996 Estructura polı ´ xico. The translation of this article was done by Carlos Garcı candidate in the Department of American History II. 2002d Co ´cula de Tributos y Co ´ dice Mendoza: La autorı ´a de 2007a Matrı un mismo “maestro de pintores” para los folios 6r a 11v del primero ´ rica 15:1– 20. ´cula de Tributos—Provincial Tribute. which needed to be free of errors. aunque alguna de sus pa ´ ginas de ´ npuede ser anterior. Volumen de estudio de ieval europea de copia de co ´ n. Frances F. Revista italiana Internacional de Americanı di studi americanistici. Carrasco. Berdan and Jacqueline Matrı de Durand-Forest. Akademische Druck. ´ n escrituraria mixteca: El signo “cerro” con 2007b Un glifo de la tradicio doble voluta. The case of the painter of the Matrı Tributos and the Codex Mendoza. Richard E. vol. Graz. edited by Frances F. Frances F. Elena Limo ´ n. Berdan and Jacqueline de Durand-Forest. Hodge. it consisted of separate sheets. Para despue ´ n presentamos un ana ´ lisis comparativo a nivel iconogra ´probar esta afirmacio ´ bica de la Matrı ´cula de Tributos y del Co ´ dice fico y de escritura logosila Mendoza. Fondo de Cultura Econo . en lo que conocemos ´ n tributaria del Co ´ dice Mendoza. Akademische Druck. Universidad Complutense. the scribe in question was already a master artist in pre-Columbian times. a Ph. Estudios de Historia Social y Econo ´ mica de los signos calenda ´ rica 10:9–24. Berdan. 3. the iconographic analysis confirms this interpretation. Real Academy Neerlandesa of Sciencies and Arts. 55–79. obra realizada como segunda parte o seccio ´ nico artista para enviar al emperador espan ˜ ol. ´ dice Tributos de Coyoaca ´ n.und Verlagsanstalt. En este trabajo pretenpor un u ´ n de demos ofrecer las pruebas de la presencia de seis escribas en la realizacio ´ ginas que conservamos de la Matrı ´cula de Tributos y que uno de ellos. A final question remains: how is it possible that an individual scribe’s painting style was maintained for 20 years or more. pinto ´ en su totalidad el Co ´ dice Mendoza. Journal de la Socie ´ te ´ des Ame ´ ricanistes 80:47–72. Berdan and Patricia R. Ana ´ lisis iconogra ´ fico de 1993 Los tlacuiloque del Co ´ ricos. Ministerio de Educacio la edicio ´ n Internacional y ˜ ola de Cooperacio y Deportes. Mexico City. In The 1980b The Matrı ´cula de Tributos. It is only logical that Colonial documents such as the Codex Mendoza would have been assigned to painters of recognized prestige. this should not be viewed as an extraordinary occurrence. 139– 150. Amsterdam. pp. In my opinion. ´dice Borbo ´ nico. Smith of Arizona State University. which leads logically to the conclusion that scribes from the late pre-Columbian era continued to work during the Colonial period. and Maria de la Cruz Paille ´ s. In The Matrı ´cula 1980a The Matrı de Tributos. vol. ´cula de Tributos y del Co ´ dice Mendoza. Washington. ´cula de Tributos—Introduction. 2 Vols. Madrid. and that some of the painters of other major Colonial codices would have been scribes who had been working since the pre-Hispanic epoch. hacia 1542. Smith.und Verlagsanstalt.D. edited by Maarten Jansen. ´ s Monjara Jesu ´a e Historia and pp. 1. las pa ´ a cabo los folios 6r– 11v de la misma fue el que an ˜ os aquel que llevo ´ s. In the case described here. Mexico City. In The Codex Mendoza. Michael E. ´ dice Tudela y el Grupo Magliabechiano: La tradicio ´ n med2002b El Co ´ dices en Ame ´ rica. for it has been documented in several Colonial-period maps. even Batalla Rosado to the point of executing most iconographic elements identically? It is difficult to offer an adequate response when we know so little about how scribes learned and how they carried their work. Elizabeth Hill Boone. 1992 The Imperial Tribute Roll of the Codex Mendoza. Nevertheless. is the first documented example of a single person carrying out a work of such magnitude and so many years apart. plasma dose en el mismo los tributos que los lugares conquistados pagaban al imperio mexica. Anawalt. La Matrı ´cula de Tributos es un mucha de su informacio ´ nico pintado posiblemente durante la u ´ ltima documento de origen prehispa ´ cada del gobierno de Moctezuma II. nu ´ lisis sobre el nu ´ mero de tlacuiloque–“escribas” que partici2002a Ana ´cula de Tributos. Barbara Mundy (1996:188–195) has demonstrated the presence of a single painter in the maps of the ´ ficas from Xalapa (1580). Revista Espan ´a Americana ˜ ola de Antropologı Co 32:127– 177. In Actes colloquim Mixtec Writing: Historical Development and Social Context. Barlow: Los mexicas y la triple alianza. In Obras de 1990 El tributo en maı Robert H. ´gena del ´ mero de tlacuiloque– “pintores” del Libro Indı 2002c El nu ´ dice Tudela. RESUMEN ´culo presentamos un ana ´ lisis sobre los escribas que participaron En este artı ´ n de la Matrı ´. Blanton. edited by ´ s-Ruiz. Madrid. and Relaciones Geogra ´cula de Atezca (1587). Berkeley. edited by Frances F. Michael E. edited by Frances F. 363–368. however. Mary G. Instituto Nacional de Antropologı Universidad de Las Americas. Agents of these two empires must have commissioned codices from expert scribes for official documents of this sort. El Colegio de Me ´ mica. Quaderni di Thule. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection. Pedro ´tico-territorial del imperio tenochca. Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Agencia Espan ˜´ Testimonio Compan ıa Editorial. and Emily Umberger 1996 Aztec Imperial Strategies. Italy. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ´a Lahuerta. Cultura ´ n facsı ´mil del Co ´ dice Tudela. Centro Studi Americanistici “Circolo Amerindiano.

and M. Silvio ˜ a y el gobierno de don Antonio 1938 Las encomiendas de Nueva Espan ´ rica I:59– 75. Leo ´a de Hacienda y Cre ´ dito Pu ´ blico. Antropologı Smith. Editorial Raı ´a Mohar. 1. vol. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en ´a Social. 1992 The History of the Codex Mendoza. 63– 82. edited by Miguel Leo ´ces. Luis Reyes Garcı ´cula de Tributos o Co ´ dice de Moctezuma.´cula de Tributos and the Codex Mendoza The scribes who painted the Matrı Codex Mendoza 1992 The Codex Mendoza. University of Chicago Press. Volumen de 1997 Matrı ´ n facsı ´mil. ´cula de Tributos. 1– 11. Blackwell. Anawalt. 2. Akademische Druck. Mundy. 2003 The Aztecs. Nuevos Estudios. Mexico City. vol. Berdan and Patricia Anawalt.. In The Codex Mendoza. Fondo de Cultura Econo ´ Luis de Rojas. Victor Castillo. Nicholson. Fondo by Luis Reyes Garcı ´ mica. In Estudio de V. colores y lı ´ xico. Mexico City. Victor Castillo.und Verlagsanstalt. Michel E. Henry B. ´cula de Tributos Matrı ´cula de Tributos. 2nd ed. Berkeley. vol. Jose ´ n de 1554. 523– 528. Graz. Indigenous Cartography and the ´ ficas. In Co ´ dices 1997 De amate.und estudio de la edicio ´ mica.und Verlagsanstalt.. Revista de Historia de Ame . Maps of the Relaciones Geogra Chicago. Zavala. de Mendoza. edited by Frances F. edited 1980 Matrı by Frances Berdan and Jacqueline de Durand-Forest. Secretarı ´cula de Tributos o Co ´ dice de Moctezuma. Instituto Nacional de Antropologı Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Berkeley. Akademische Druck. Mexico City. ´a. Mexico City. Luz Marı ´neas en la Matrı ´cula de Tributos. de Cultura Econo ´cula de Tributos. Edited by Miguel 1991 Matrı ´ n-Portilla. Salvador Rueda y documentos sobre Me ´nez Baracs. edited by Miguel Leo Mexicana de Ediciones. Consejo pp. Akademische Druck. reprint ed. Salvat Mexico. In Arqueologı ´a Mexicana (special 2003 La Matrı ´ n-Portilla. Castillo en Historia de 1974 Matrı ´ n-Portilla. Constanza Vega Sosa. edited by Frances F. Marı ´a Teresa Sepu ´ lveda. 3. and M. Sobre los tributos que los indios pagaban a 1997 Informacio Moctezuma. pp. 1996 The Mapping of New Spain. Edited 1997 Matrı ´a. Mexico City. Berdan and Patricia R. Mexico City. University of California Press. and Rodrigo Martı 51 ´a e Historia. pp. Marı ´a Teresa Sepu ´ lveda. 4 vols. Mexico City. University of California Press. Oxford. ´cula de Tributos (Co ´ dice de Moctezuma). Verlagsanstalt. reprint ed. Smithers. Segundo Simposio.M. edition 14). Barbara E.