The symbolical surroundings of the downward ray are in striking contrast to its opposite, the upward ray, which reaches to the 13 Acatl sign and points to what appears to be the place of origin or birth of the twin serpents. It certainly seems that this all-embracing and enfolding twin pair are designed to typify the dual forces of nature under a form which would also express quadruplication. By what must be termed a stroke of genius the designer of the monolith chose to represent the forms of two serpents, relying upon the fact that Nahuatl-speaking people would see in each serpent (=coatl) a twin (=coatl). Did he not also realize that to a Maya each serpent (=can) would mean 4 (=can) and that the pair would appear to embody or express the numerals 4 and also 8?
It is noteworthy that each serpent is represented with one claw and that these two added to those contained in the central nahui-ollin complete the four-limbed figure which was essentially the image of a complete count=the state, the nation, the era, etc. In this monument, as elsewhere, it is possible to follow the development of the symbolism expressed by two heads which form but one, [pg 258] twin-bodies which mean four and of four limbs which represent the digital count=20.
Under different aspects the same theme repeats itself again and again upon the stone, which proves that the master minds who planned and wrought it destined it to be the image of a plan based on the idea of a central and yet all-embracing, dual, yet quadruple force or power.
The preceding rapid sketch I have given of the wide-reaching significance of this remarkable monument will, I hope, be found to amply support and corroborate the view I advanced in 1886, when I pointed out that the “Calendar-stone” answered to the description given by Duran, of the “circular elaborately carved tablets which were kept in each market-place and were held in great veneration.” I trust that it is now clear why it should have been frequently consulted and why the market-days were regulated according to the carved indications upon the surface. Engraved upon it were the Great Plan and its laws of organization and rotation. It clearly determined, once and for all, the sequence of the days; the relation of all classes of the population to each other and to the whole, and set forth not only the place each group should occupy in the market-place, but also the product or industry with which it was associated and the periods when its contributions to the commonwealth should be forthcoming in regular rotation. The stone was therefore not only the tablet but the wheel of the law of the State and it can be conjectured that its full interpretation was more or less beyond the capacity of all but an initiated minority, consisting of the elders, chiefs and priests.
Postponing for the present further discussion of this, the most precious and remarkable monument which has ever been unearthed on the American Continent, let us briefly bestow attention upon the two other monoliths which may be said to be its companions and obviously belong to the same period and civilization. In 1886, in the preliminary note cited above, I advanced the view that the first of these, generally known as the “Sacrificial stone,” was a “law-stone of a similar nature [to the Calendar-stone] which recorded, however, the periodical collection of certain tributes paid by subjugated tribes and others whose obligation it was to contribute to the commonwealth of Mexico.” I pointed out that the “frieze around the stone consists of groups, placed at intervals, of the flint-knives (tecpatl) with conventionally carved teeth (tlantli) [pg 259] giving in combination the word ‘tecpatlantli.’ This occurs in Sahagun's Historia, as the name given to the ‘lands of the tecpan or palace,’ and in one of the native works I find designated the four channels into which the produce of these lands was diverted.” I likewise noted that “the periods indicated on it differ from those on the Calendar-stone,” which might more appropriately be designated as the ancient Mexican wheel of the law or of the Great Universal Plan.
Thirteen years of painstaking research have only served to strengthen me in my interpretation of the “Sacrificial-stone.” The frieze around it exhibits sixteen groups, each consisting of the repeated representation of a warrior characterized by having one foot only. In each case he is figured as seizing by the hair a different individual, who bows his head and offers the weapon he holds in his right hand to his victor. Amongst the sixteen subjugated personages are two women and above each are hieroglyphs expressing the names of well-known localities, some of which are mentioned in native chronicles as having been conquered in historical times by Mexican rulers.
In my account of the Plan of the Ancient City of Mexico, I shall illustrate these hieroglyphs, locate the places to which they refer and further discuss this monument. Meanwhile I shall but state that it undoubtedly belongs to the same category of monuments as the tablets in the “Temple of the Sun” at Palenque; the bas-relief at Ixkun and that in the house of the “Tennis-court” at Chichen-Itza where warriors in a procession render homage to a seated personage, by presenting their spear-throwers to him in precisely the same manner as shown on the Mexican Tribute-Stone.
The upper surface of this exhibits the same division into eight parts, marked by four large and four smaller rays, pointing to the quarters and half-quarters. Observation shows that of the sixteen localities four were assigned to each quarter and it is evident that the monument determined the time and the order in which the tribute for each was paid and collected at the capital. The one-footed man again graphically symbolizes axial rotation and conveys the idea of a central ruler who in turn seizes and exerts control upon 4×4 tribal chiefs. The monument establishes, moreover, the interesting fact that amongst the subjugated communities were two gynocracies, represented by women who, instead of spear-throwers, present their weaving shuttle to the victor.
We shall next consider a monument whose uncouth and ugly form embodies a deep and nobly planned conception of the “divine twin,” or “divine Four,” that so completely dominated the minds of the native philosophers.
Let us now carefully examine the monolith now preserved in the National Museum of Mexico (fig. [57]). Leon y Gama, having observed that what appeared to be the foundation of the statue was carved and that massive projections existed under its so-called arms, logically concluded that the original design had been to support the figure from the sides, so that its base was lifted from the ground and the figure upon it exposed to view from underneath. His inference is borne out by the carving on the base which belongs to the same category as the image of Mictlan-tecuhtli, and represents a semi-human body, of quadriform shape soaring downward.