-Valley of Anahuac, New Year’s Eve, 1507.

Tenochtitlán, the great island city, capital of the Mexica empire, lies cloaked in darkness. An eerie silence pervades the vast ceremonial center — the Teocalli or Templo Mayor — spreading out over Moctezuma’s splendid palace, with its botanical gardens and well-stocked zoo, across the market places, canals, aqueducts, and within each of the humble abodes in the residential wards.

For five full days, activity in the normally bustling metropolis has ceased. Commerce has been suspended, ceremonial and household fires extinguished, clothing, furniture, crockery and religious idols torn, broken and smashed. It is a time of fasting, sexual abstinence and uneasy waiting. But the nemotemi — empty days — that mark the end of the solar cycle are about to come to an end.

At the summit of Uixachtecatl — the Star Hill — overlooking Tenochtitlán, the city’s astronomer-priests anxiously watch the heavens. Each is outfitted in the image of one of their many gods. They await nature’s sign, for not until the Pleiades appear on the horizon can the sacred New Year’s ritual begin.

Finally a noble captive is guided to the sacrificial stone. At the moment the brilliant star cluster reaches its zenith the priests jump into action. With one swift stroke of a razor-sharp obsidian knife they slash open their honored victim’s chest. They work furiously to kindle fire within the gaping wound, and as the first spark turns to flame, cut out the heart, casting it upon a brazier. One by one, a line of waiting couriers step forward to ignite their torches, then turn back towards the darkened city to relay the New Fire first to the altars of the Templo Mayor and thence to every temple and hearth throughout the empire.

For the next 12 days Tenochtitlán will erupt in unbridled festivity, for this ceremony marks not only the commencement of the new xiuhmolpilli  — year bundle  —  but also the start of a new 52-year calendar cycle. According to Mexica belief, if the New Fire failed to ignite, the sun would surely perish. But on this night it seemed that the gods were pleased; El Quinto Sol  — the Fifth Sun — would continue to illuminate the Mexica Empire. Once again the forces of darkness had been routed by the powers of light.

Or had they? We can only surmise the above scenario of that final New Fire ritual and wonder whether the wise priests perceived some augur of their civilization’s imminent doom. Did they in fact forsee that only a few years hence the mighty Tenochtitlán would be laid to waste, that the foundations of another metropolis would be created from the rubble of their lofty temples? Did they envision that conquerers from a distant land would be so indifferent to their accomplishments, so reviled by their religious customs that all evidence of the Mexica culture would be systematically destroyed and suppressed for generations to come?

As it happened, the Empire of the Mexicas (or Aztecs as the Spanish called them) fell to Cortés and his Conquistadores in 1521. Within a few short years the heathen temples were obliterated and valuable records, such as friar Bernardino de Sahagún’s codices — a 12-volume encyclopedia of Aztec life and culture — secreted and gathering dust.

Widespread interest in Mexico’s pre-Hispanic past was not awakened until 1790, when an astonishing artifact was uncovered during a renovation of el Zócalo, Mexico City’s central plaza. It was a massive disk of carved basalt, three feet thick and 12 feet in diameter, weighing some 24 metric tons. A veritable monument to art and science, the monolith initially remained at the Zócalo, embedded for viewing in the base of the west tower of the Metropolitan Cathedral. A hundred years later it was transferred to Mexico’s National Museum of Anthropology, where today it stands as the institution’s centerpiece.

Following the first intepretations of the intricately carved hieroglyphs it was labeled the Aztec Calendar Stone. In current thought Stone of the Fifth Sun is considered a more apt moniker. Though scholars have long debated the stone’s meaning and purpose, they still puzzle over its many mysteries. Some suggest that, fixed horizontally, it served as a sacrificial altar. Most now agree that it offers a graphic representation of the Mexica cosmos.

The stone’s outer rim shows two fire serpents meeting face to face at the lower extreme. Their tails are joined at the top with the symbol for the ritual date 13-Reed, considered to represent the creation, possibly corresponding to 1011 A.D. Looking out from the center of the stone is the sun god Tonatuih. His tongue, in the form of a sacrificial flint knife, protrudes from between his bared teeth, while in each claw-like hand he grasps a human heart. The god is surrounded by four glyphs symbolizing the cataclysms that ended each of the prior solar eras. According to Mexica belief, earth’s earliest inhabitants were devoured by jaguars. The demise of the second sun brought destruction by great winds. The third era ended with fiery rain, while the fourth sun was extinguished by massive floods.

These symbols, together with the image of Tonatuih, are neatly contained in the abstract motif for motion called ollin. It is surmised that the stone reveals the predicted date of destruction for El Quinto Sol during a 4-Ollin cycle. The Mexicas attempted to preserve their era, forestalling catastrophe by sating the gods with myriad rituals and sacrifices, including a steady diet of human blood.

In fulfilling their sacred duties to some 1,600 deities, the Mexicas adhered to a complex calendar system. There was a civil calendar made up of 18 months of 20 days each, which with the ominous nemontemi brought the total of the solar year to a tidy 365 days. A second sacred calendar — the tonalpohualli — was an ancient ritualistic almanac, probably adopted from the Mayan culture, comprising 260 days. Each 24-hour cycle was designated by one of 20 day names plus a number from 1 to 13. A band of the 20 day-sign gylphs encircles the Sun Stone’s center.

The formula by which the two calendars were combined meant that no one date would be repeated for a period of 18,980 days. Thus the last day of a solar cycle and the last day of a sacred cycle coincided just once every 52 years. It was on this auspicious occasion that El Quinto Sol was considered in greatest jeopardy of extinction. A successful New Fire ceremony would assure the the reappearance of the orb and continued survival of human civilization.

The intercalation of a 12-day New Fire festival period once every 52 years brought the Mexicas into nearly perfect synchronization with the true cycles of earth and sun. Modern scientists calculate the tropical year to be precisely 365.2422 days. While the Gregorian calendar currently in use allots 365.2425 days for each year, the remarkable Mexicas were a bit closer to the mark at 365.2420 days.

This is just one of many unsolved mysteries that promise to keep the Mexica’s Kingdom of the Sun a subject of fascination so long as Tonatuih — the luminous one — shines upon our earth.

(This article originally appeared in the January, 1993 edition of El Ojo del Lago. With some recent revisions by the author, it is reproduced here with her kind permission, as well as that of the publisher.)

The post Mysteries of the Fifth Sun: the Aztec Calendar appeared first on MexConnect.

Cogan’s Reviews

This must surely be one of the great adventure stories of all time – how Hernan Cortés and about 500 conquistadores conquered a settled and established civilization in three short years, from 1519 to 1521. Distinguished scholar and historian Hugh Thomas has made good use of recently discovered archival material in both Spain and Mexico to produce a feast of reading for history buffs.

Cortés must have been an incredible leader – as well as being a total bastard. After landing at Vera Cruz he had his boats burned so that no one would have any thought of deserting or retreating. In occasional battles with the Aztecs on the march to Tenochtitlan (now Mexico City) Cortés often faced certain defeat but would somehow rally his men, seeming to say: “This is our big chance! Let’s go for it!” And he would lead his troops to victory over always superior numbers of enemy warriors.

One interesting reason why the Aztecs lost so many battles is that they wanted to capture prisoners alive, just so they could sacrifice them later, while the Spaniards were content just to kill enemy soldiers. Guess who won most of the time.

Thomas also explains the puzzling question about why the irresolute Montezuma didn’t crush these Spanish invaders when he certainly had all the resources to do so.

Cortés was effective at recruiting many of the local tribes to help him during his march to Montezuma’s capital city, even though he treated them just as abominably as did their rulers, the Aztecs. It was almost the only help he received as few back in Spain even seemed to know or care what he was up to.

The Spaniards were driven on by a lust for the gold and other abundant riches of the New World. But it was also a clash of two opposing cultures. As Thomas writes: “The Spanish had unbounded confidence in their own qualities, in the political wisdom of their imperial mission, and in the spiritual superiority of the Catholic Church.”

“Oh, what great good fortune for the Indians is the coming of the Spaniards,” gushed one historian in 1554. He was Spanish, of course. Just try to find even one Indian who would express those sentiments.

The Spaniards found much to admire in the city of Tenochtitlan. One conquistador wrote that the houses there were superior to those of Spain. The Aztecs produced clothes and jewellry that astonished the Europeans. However, they had that one little custom which, in Spanish eyes, was unforgiveable – human sacrifice.

As one monk wrote: “O, the strange bestiality of these people. In many things they have good discipline, government, understanding, capacity and polish but, in others, strange bestiality and blindness.” The conquistadores wanted to end the bestiality and build on the good things they found in this surprising civilization . Ultimately they wanted to hand it on a platter to their emperor, Charles V, otherwise known as “The Sword of Christianity”. And they did just that.

This is one great story, beautifully told.

Conquest: Montezuma, Cortés, and the Fall of old Mexico
By Hugh Thomas

Simon & Schuster, 1993

To order from Amazon Books: Paperback

The post Conquest: Montezuma, Cortes and the Fall of Old Mexico by Hugh Thomas appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

The pre-Hispanic history of Mexico is contained in the numerous pictorial codices or painted hieroglyphic books produced by the Aztecs, the Maya, the Mixtecs, and others. Unfortunately, very few pre-Conquest codices survived the Spanish Conquest and the destruction of the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán in 1521. Of course we have the early writings of the Spanish Conquistadors themselves and innumerable published works about the Aztecs and other indigenous peoples of ancient Mexico. But we seldom hear the authentic voice of the people themselves. What did they think of their own history and how did they express it? We should then ask ourselves how do we really know what we know about the history of early Mexico? Or think we do?

We shall never know the whole story. However, we do have hundreds of pictorial and written manuscripts from the early post-Conquest period onwards. Because most of these native historical records were painted or written after the arrival of the Spaniards, there is always the possibility of external interference or foreign influence in the native accounts of their own history. The Spaniards did their best to destroy an entire civilization but did not succeed entirely. Through careful classification and comparison of all the available sources, we can at least begin to piece together something of the pre-Hispanic Aztec view of history. The more familiar name “Aztec” will be used throughout, although the people referred to themselves as the “Mexica.”

The Aztecs had a very clear conception of their past history, their rise to power, and their future destiny. Unfortunately for that vision, Aztec civilization was abruptly cut off at the height of its fluorescence. Consequently, we are left with many gaps in our knowledge. The picture is further complicated by the overlapping of surviving documentary evidence. Some manuscripts are completely pictorial, others are mixed textual and pictorial, and still others are written from the outset. Only two Aztec codices predate the Spanish Conquest and even these may be debatable. But since the Tonalamatl Aubin (“Book of Days”) and the Codex Borbonicus are mainly ritual-calendrical manuscripts, they are less relevant for Aztec history.

The codices, or painted hieroglyphic books, were an essential means of communication for the Aztecs. These included religious books or lifestyle guides, historical books, and practical documents involving land claims and the like. Here we are interested mainly in the historical books, although the other categories are also relevant to the study of Mesoamerican history. Religion was such an integral part of the Aztec way of life that it cannot be considered entirely apart from the Aztec concept of history.

Unable to understand or interpret the historical codices, the Spaniards destroyed all but a few of the pre-Conquest manuscripts in an attempt to wipe out what they regarded as idolatry. However after the Conquest, the Spaniards had a vested interest in maintaining and even encouraging the native manuscript pictorial tradition as a way of obtaining information about Aztec customs and beliefs. With some notable exceptions, secular and religious Spanish chroniclers and historians were not primarily interested in preserving Aztec traditions but rather with providing information to help the Spanish authorities control subject peoples. The native tradition of pictorial manuscripts proved invaluable in helping to bridge the communications gap between the conquerors and the vanquished. Consequently, we have many pictorial manuscripts and illustrated written texts that were copied or produced under Spanish patronage. The material is extensive and detailed analysis of individual codices is beyond the scope of this article. However, we shall look at a few pictorial and written documents dealing mainly with the Mexica-Aztec migration from Aztlán to the founding of Mexico-Tenochtitlán.

Fray Diego Durán (ca.1537-1588) came to New Spain as a child and grew up in what is now Mexico City. Although a Dominican friar who wrote in Spanish, Durán probably spoke Nahuatl as well and is generally considered a primary source of early Mexican history. His major work Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana comprises the Book of the Gods and Rites, The Ancient Calendar, and the Historia proper. Here we may see the value of the hieroglyphic codices for the reconstruction of pre-Hispanic history. The religious and calendrical works were based on codices similar to the Tonalamatl Aubin and the Codex Borbonicus mentioned above. The Historia, however, was based on a somewhat mysterious anonymous Nahuatl text, which, in turn, was probably based on pre-existing codices. For example, chapter two of the Historia is simply a description in Spanish of a native pictorial manuscript which illustrates the departure of the seven tribes from the seven caves. It is possible that the seven caves, which are frequently referred to in other codices as well, symbolize the ancestral houses or dynastic family origins of each tribe or extended family.

Written works were often based on pre-existing pictorial manuscripts. In 1856, J. T. Ramírez discovered an anonymous manuscript of the 16th century by the Jesuit Juan de Tovar. The Codex Ramirez, as it is generally known, is an important secondary source of early Mexican history. The subject matter is depicted in the illustrations, rather crude linear sketches without colour. It contains events of Mexican history, accounts of gods, ceremonies, customs, and a calendar wheel with day signs taken from Durán’s Tratado 3. Another work, the Historia de la Benida, is also attributed to Tovar. Both Codex Ramirez and Durán’s Historia depend to a large extent on the same or a similar series of paintings that covers practically the entire history of the Aztecs. Illustrated events in the Codex Ramirez include: 1) the seven caves, starting point of the Aztec migration; 2) Arrival at Coatepec in the Cerro of Tula, described as a place with many fish and much game; 3) arrival at the Cerro de Chapultepec (“Grasshopper Hill”); 4) the lagoon of Mexico and the founding of Mexico-Tenochtitlán.

It is clear from the pictorial manuscripts and the written interpretations that the three most important events in Aztec history were their first contact with the peoples around the Valley of Mexico, their first strong foothold at Chapultepec, and the founding of their capital city.

Mesoamerican scholars refer to the common pictorial source of Durán’s Historia and the Codex Ramirez as “Chronicle X,” although the exact relationship between the written documents and the pictorial manuscript or manuscripts is still somewhat debatable. One painting in this series depicts the decisive battle of Azcapotzalco, capital city of the Tepanecs. This was a very early site on Lake Texcoco, which had earlier associations with the Toltecs and was probably a colony of Teotihuacán. The Tepanecs were one of the nomadic bands who came from the same general location as the Aztecs. In A.D. 1428, the Aztecs (Mexicas) and their allies destroyed this once flourishing city. The pictorial manuscript shows the scene of the battle, with representations of warriors of the Jaguar Order and various chiefs adorned with quetzal feathers. The women of Azcapotzalco are shown behind the temple begging for mercy. One is apparently ready to fight. Thus through a combination of pictorial representations and written texts from 16th century Mexico, we have a very vivid picture of a slice of early Mexican history.

The purely native Colonial pictorial manuscript tradition continued well into the Colonial period and beyond. From the Valley of Mexico we have numerous pictorial manuscripts depicting, among other things, the Aztec-Mexica migration epic. For example, Codex Azcatitlan, Codex Aubin (Ms. de 1576), and Codex Boturini all treat the same theme by means of pictorial narrative in the form of painted images and glyphic signs. The Codex Boturini, to which we referred in a previous article, is an important source of information for the years from A.D. 1168 to 1355. Here we shall look briefly at the other two codices.

Codex Azcatitlan is a post-conquest pictorial narrative of uncertain date. This historical account of the origin and the migration of the Aztecs contains a genealogy of their rulers and a brief account of Conquest and post-Conquest events with the usual painted images and glyphic signs. This is an annual history covering the two hundred year migration journey of the Aztecs, led by their god Huitzilopochtli, from Aztlán in the year One Flint (1168), to the omen of the eagle on the cactus and the eventual founding of their capital city.

Codex Aubin is a historical and calendrical manuscript from Mexico City (around 1576 – 1596). The pictorial and written manuscripts cover the following periods: 1168-1591, 1595-1596, and 1597-1608. Themes include the departure from Aztlán, the dynastic history of Tenochtitlán and various colonial events. As in Codex Boturini, one of the main events is that of the Broken Tree, a divine sign that the Aztecs should break off from the other migrants from Aztlán. Other common themes are the tyranny of the kings of Culhuacán and the omen of the eagle on the cactus.

A fourth category of mixed Colonial pictorial and written manuscripts includes such invaluable historical sources as the MS de 1528 comprising two related codices, the Codice de Tlatelolco and the Anales de Tlatelolco. The annals provide a full chronological record of Tlatelolco from the most remote times, including the departure from Aztlan down to the years immediately following the Spanish Conquest. Themes include the history of Tlatelolco following the separation from Tenochtitlán, songs celebrating military victories, and an Aztec account of the Conquest. The pictorial part of the codex, which was produced in Mexico City around 1565, covers the years 1554 to 1562 inclusive. Drawings of colonial events and personages are given in no particular chronological order.

The Aztecs had a concept of history that included both a clear grasp of chronological timelines and a kind of visual memory that did not depend upon the written word. These early pictorial and written manuscripts not only allow us to penetrate to some extent into the mind set of the ancient Aztecs but also shed light on the cultural milieu that is modern Mexico.

The post Early pictorial and written sources of Aztec history appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

In previous articles we looked at some Aztec lyric poems contained in the Cantares Mexicanos and other manuscript collections. The current controversy over the correct translation and interpretation of these poems in the classical Nahuatl language of Mexico-Tenochtitlán and surrounding area is an important issue in Mesoamerican studies because it calls into question the standard interpretation by the Mexican scholars, the late Father A. Garibay and his pupil M. León-Portilla.

To recapitulate: the recurring phrase in xochitl in cuicatl (“the flower, the song”), according to the Garibay/León-Portilla interpretation, is said to represent poetry in classical Aztec society. The poems themselves are attributed to the “poet-kings” whose names are mentioned in the poems. This implies that these lyric Aztec poems were composed before the Conquest of Mexico in A.D. 1521 and indeed represent the very words of Aztec rulers who lived before the arrival of the Spaniards. If true, this would provide an invaluable insight into authentic Aztec culture uncontaminated by foreign influence. Some scholars, however, argue that the poems were composed after the Conquest and represent the nostalgic yearnings of a conquered people for the return of “Ghost Warriors” to help them throw off the yoke of the hated Spaniards. References in the poems to “God” and “the Holy Spirit” and the like are taken as further evidence of post-Conquest composition. These revisionist scholars claim that Garibay and León-Portilla between them in fact “invented” Aztec literature in order to promulgate their particular view of Aztec society for personal and political reasons.

The two main areas of controversy involve the authenticity of the sources and the way in which they have been translated. Detailed arguments pro and con have been presented in previous articles. Here, I wish to deal simply with the composition and transmission of oral literature in general and suggest a possible explanation of these Aztec lyric poems.

The first obvious observation is that the manuscripts containing the poems have come down to us in written form and therefore could not have been produced in that format before the arrival of the Spaniards and the introduction of writing in Roman transcription. We know that the Aztecs had an advanced system of education in which traditional lore was preserved by means of pictorial/pictographic painted codices and memorization in the various schools of learning. However they lacked an alphabetical system of writing capable of recording compositions of such a complex nature. But let us assume for the moment that these poems are genuine pre-Hispanic compositions. The question then is how did these poems, which were composed in what we may regard as primarily an oral society, find their way into writing?

The manuscript collection Cantares Mexicanos was most likely transcribed into Roman characters in the latter half of the 16th century. But this does not tell us when the original poems were actually composed. The names of the supposed authors contained in the poems themselves provide a rough date of probable composition, if authentic. However, this leaves the question of how elaborate poems of this type could have been preserved in that form until they were finally written down.

A possible explanation may be provided through the use of analogy. Indeed Father Garibay, who began to translate and interpret the Cantares Mexicanos in the 1930s and ’40s, saw Nahuatl or Aztec literature in a wider context embracing Greek, Biblical, and Hindu traditions. This is not of course to say that there was any pre-Hispanic trans-oceanic cultural contact before the arrival of the Spaniards in what became New Spain. Nevertheless, heroic poems, epics, and sagas in both oral and written traditions in many parts of the world bear certain common characteristic features of style and content. Aztec “literature” is no exception. For example, some of the poems contained in Cantares Mexicanos are of a heroic type reminiscent of the Norse Eddas. Other Nahuatl texts written down after the Conquest also showed marked resemblances to Indo-European and Asiatic epic traditions. Therefore, what we know about one tradition may be used by way of analogy to suggest what might have happened in another. Arguments from analogy do not, of course, constitute proof positive but, in lieu of other concrete evidence, analogy may be useful in suggesting a solution.

The new revisionist approach of Bierhorst and others opposed to the earlier “standard” interpretation of the Cantares Mexicanos of Garibay and León-Portilla seemingly does away with the problem of having to account for the preservation of the poems from pre-Hispanic times to the Colonial Period. Leon-Portilla, perhaps somewhat misleadingly, refers to pre-Hispanic Aztec “texts,” which could be confusing to a reader not familiar with the codices and the Aztec-Mixtec style of “writing.” He is of course referring to the use of codices and memorization in the Aztec educational system to preserve oral literature accurately. But this still does not explain fully the written versions of the Cantares Mexicanos.

The Parry-Lord theory deals specifically with the problem of the composition and transmission of Homeric epic, the Iliad and the Odyssey, but has been greatly expanded to include other oral and written epic poems and sagas. Details cannot be given here, but the basic idea is that the higher the proportion of repeated phrases or “formulaic” language in a poem or a saga, the more likely it is to have been orally composed, that is to say, produced without the use of writing. According to this theory, the Homeric epics were oral-dictated texts, i.e. they were written down from oral performance. There are other criteria that indicate oral composition, such as poetical metre or rhythmic prose and recurring themes, often hearkening back to a real or reconstructed heroic age. This is a gross over-simplification of the problem, but an example or two may help to clarify the idea.

The Homeric epic contains many formulaic phrases, such as “Swift-footed Achilles,” “White-armed Hera,” and the like. These phrases, along with more extensive repetitions, enabled the Greek oral epic poet to compose and perform even lengthy epics without breaking down. Likewise, Aztec lyric poetry includes such stylistic features as: Difrasismo or the juxtaposition of two words with another meaning (e.g. seat and mat = authority and power, face and heart = personality); Semantic couplets (the repetition of ideas and the expression of sentiment in parallel form); recurring phrases and “key words” to impress the main idea on the mind of the audience; recurring themes (e.g. meditations of the wise men concerning divinity and the meaning of life, adventures in war, the pleasure of conversing with friends). The particular stylistic features or formulary language of Homeric epic and Aztec lyric poetry may differ in the details but the function is the same, namely to aid the oral poet in the process of composition and performance.

In the history of oral traditions and epic or heroic poetry and saga, it is often assumed that some form of verse preceded prose composition. There are, however, exceptions to the rule where different criteria apply, for example in the case of rhythmic prose. One of the criticisms leveled against Garibay was his presentation of the text of the Aztec lyric poems in a versified form. One critic accused him of “introducing” rhythm into the prose text in order to make it conform to classical Greek models. No. The rhythmic prose was there to start with. Rearranging the text simply highlighted this stylistic feature. There is admittedly a vast difference between the apparently rigid dactylic hexameter of Homeric epic and the relatively loose rhythmical patterns of Nahuatl literature, but undoubtedly such stylistic devices aided the poet in the process of oral composition. For example, the story of Copil is found in two separate Nahuatl versions, the Ms of 1528 and the Crónica Mexicayotl, each of which displays distinctive stylistic features. However their common predominant characteristic is a strong rhythmical regularity based on a complex of eight syllables with a strong accent on the uneven numbers alternating with the more weakly accented numbers, somewhat reminiscent of the Kirghiz Manas and other Asiatic oral epics.

The relationship between diction and metre in oral compositions is a technical matter beyond the scope of this article. However we can consider briefly other processes available to the oral poet, such as improvisation, memorization, and recitation. The following are only examples of possible analogies. They do not constitute proof. For example, Hawaiian poets systematically composed long epic-type poems as a group and then memorized them. Somali poets premeditated, composed, and then memorized, their poems. The non-literate Gaelic oral bard Duncan Ban Macintyre composed lengthy complex poems without relying on a ready-made formulaic language and he premeditated and reworked his poems many times in his mind before they were finally written down by others. Irish and Scottish professional bards premeditated, composed, and then memorized their poems. These and many other similar analogies that could be mentioned show several different ways in which oral poets compose. These are just some of the possible ways in which pre-Hispanic Aztec poets may also have operated. Further, if we take into account the Aztec use of pictorial and pictographic codices and the emphasis on memorization in their educational system, it is easy to see how poems like the Cantares Mexicanos could have been composed and transmitted orally, until they were finally committed to writing.

Many different techniques of oral composition may be observed in various oral traditions around the world. The Parry-Lord theory is highly suggestive of how oral tradition works and is a useful starting point for the understanding of oral literature and the process of composition and transmission in a predominantly oral society. However it cannot account for all types and still leaves open certain questions about Aztec lyric poetry. For example, the theory downplays the role of verbal accuracy in oral tradition. Again we may appeal to argument from analogy. In ancient India the hymns of the Rig Veda were preserved orally verbatim for generations before being written down in the form we have them now. The Tibetan bard Dickchen Shenpa recited the epic of Gesar of Ling, a performance which reportedly lasted six weeks, during which the bard would disappear for long periods at a time to receive direct inspiration from the warrior-king Gesar himself. When Dickchen recited, he sat staring at a piece of blank paper. In the history of traditional Celtic oral literature, bards and tradition-bearers often have a very clear idea of a fixed text, even it they themselves are non-literate or make little use of writing in their compositions. I myself observed something similar during a curing ceremony of the Huichol Indians. While the chief maraka’ame(shaman-priest) conducted the ceremony, one of his assistants explained to us that he was turning over the leaves of the Book of Life belonging to the patient in search of the root cause of her suffering and the cure.

We shall never have all the answers to questions about Aztec “literature.” For this lack of knowledge we can once again lay the blame at the feet of the Spaniards who did so much to destroy native culture during the Conquest of Mexico. However, in my view, the arguments in favour of the authenticity of the Cantares Mexicanos far outweigh the arguments against. Bierhorst’s assertion that the poems of the Cantares Mexicanos were designed to summon “Ghost Warriors” to help the vanquished against the conquerors remains an unproved theory, for which there is little real evidence. Obviously Franciscan priests or their literate Indian converts wrote out the texts as we have them. But this does not detract from their authenticity. Similarly, many authentic early Irish sagas hearkening back to the Celtic heroic age of Europe were copied and preserved by monks in the monasteries of mediaeval Ireland. Therefore, for reasons given above, the Aztec song-poems in Nahuatl could have been fairly accurately transmitted from the oral to the written tradition, albeit backed up by codices, memorization in the Calmecac, and the nature of the poems themselves. Father Garibay and M. León-Portilla no more “invented” the Aztecs or their literature than Bierhorst and his supporters have succeeded in “reinventing” it. Nahuatl literature stands on its own merits.

The post Reinventing the Aztecs, Part three appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

The Internet is an invaluable source of information but it can also be a source of misinformation and great confusion. Recently I was accused of “plagiarizing” some of my material from the Internet. Therefore I shall digress here for a moment to set the record straight.

All writers expect criticism, hopefully of a constructive nature. Accusations of “plagiarism” from internet sources are based on a misunderstanding of reference libraries, research methods, and the nature of the Internet itself. The popular search engine Google has announced the bold intention of eventually posting all libraries on line. This otherwise praiseworthy project is both good and bad, because not everyone has the training or the expertise to assess this overload of information on the Internet.

First, anyone can say almost anything on the Internet more or less with impunity. Unlike the standard process of publication, there is no peer review on the Internet to sift out reliable information from misleading or wrong information. Unless you are already familiar with the subject, you are at the mercy of whoever posts the entry. Often there is no way of checking the accuracy of statements or following up relevant references. A trained academic researcher with a project to do goes to a research library, checks the index for relevant material, looks up references, follows up leads based on preliminary investigation, takes notes and eventually writes the article or book with lots of footnotes, notes and references, bibliography, and indices. With some exceptions, these guidelines are usually lacking on the Internet. The average reader, understandably, does not have the time or the inclination to sort through piles of detailed references in order to assess the accuracy or usefulness of an Internet entry, or even a standard published article for that matter. Personally, I would prefer to include detailed references in the articles I write, along with a bibliography. But I have been assured by editors that the average reader has little time or patience for such a tedious procedure. I accept their judgment.

The charge of “plagiarism” off the Internet is most likely to be made by persons who seldom frequent research libraries. In researching a project, a competent investigator takes material from the relevant library books, taking great care to record each reference. If a passage is quoted verbatim it should be put in quotation marks with a footnote giving the exact origin of the quotation so that any reader can check the reference. But when the contents of a book or article are displayed on the Internet, it is often difficult or impossible to keep proper records. Moreover, with the bulk of information now available on the Internet it is quite likely that a writer may appear to duplicate material available to everyone with a computer and an Internet connection. The appearance can be deceiving because the process of Internet research is similar in many ways to library research, except that the checks and balances of scholarly guidelines are generally missing and therefore not readily available to the general public. Accusing someone of “plagiarizing” off the Internet, at least under the circumstances herein described, is tantamount to accusing a writer of cheating by using reference books in a library. What matters is how the information is used. And that is still a grey area because of the lack of control over material posted on the Internet. I’m not suggesting police vigilance over the Internet (we have enough of Big Brother watching us already); rather I refer to the need for some commonly accepted guidelines for Internet research and publication. The relative lack of same is the negative side of the information overload on the Internet.

A good example of the information glut on the Internet is the Aztec Calendar or Sun Stone, which we touched on in a previous article. Because of the importance of this Aztec sculpture in the reconstruction of the pre-Hispanic history of Mexico, it has garnered a great deal of attention from the general public as well as from professional Mesoamerican scholars. If you check the Internet, you will find no lack of information on the symbolism and interpretation of the Aztec Sun Stone, much of it quite accurate. Nevertheless, even though we are fairly certain of the basic facts, interpretation of these facts may differ somewhat according to the expertise or the personal interest or whim of the writer. The version offered by an imaginative New Age interpreter of the Aztec Sun Stone would differ considerably from that of a sober academic type writing for a scholarly journal. But while it is quite legitimate to popularize a technical subject for public consumption, some writers go too far, at least in my opinion.

I do not wish to fall into the ad hominem fallacy of attacking a person rather than criticizing their views, especially in published articles. However, in several prominent articles on the Internet, the author presented the “Legend of the Fifth Sun,” a key element in the interpretation of the Aztec Sun Stone, without indicating clearly the sources or how they were being used. In another related Internet article, this same writer simply summarized the Anderson and Dibble English translation of Chapter Two of Book Seven of Sahagun’s Florentine Codex in Nahuatl without any indication that this was being done. The resulting text reads smoothly enough but gives the misleading impression that it is the work of the present author. I strongly disagree with this method of research and presentation, although, as I have already pointed out, I too am constrained by the popular demands of the medium in which I am now writing. However, I do make an effort to be as scholarly as possible under the circumstances.

Sometimes even small errors may provide a clue to the accuracy of an article. For example, in another Internet article on the Aztec Sun Stone, one writer misspelled the Nahuatl word for the Sun, Tonatiuh, as Tonatiub, but got it right in the next sentence. A minor mechanical error, you may say. Not necessarily so. If a writer makes a mistake in a minor detail that is easily checked, how do we know that there are not more serious errors elsewhere in the article? No one is perfect and people do make honest mistakes. Accordingly, as I have stated elsewhere, if anyone finds any serious errors or misleading references in my articles let me know and, if verified, I will make appropriate corrections and, if necessary, issue a retraction.

Having digressed thus far, I have left myself little space in this month’s column for my contribution to the interpretation of the Aztec Sun Stone. This brings up another pertinent question: since so much has already been published on this topic, do we really need or want another article or book on the same? In the Arts and Humanities as well as in Science, we stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before us. Each generation re-interprets the accumulated fund of knowledge in accordance with its own needs and understanding. This is not a philosophy essay. I shall therefore refrain from reiterating the various Truth Theories, although the concept of Historical Truth or Fact is directly relevant to the present discussion.

What is an “original” contribution to any subject in the Humanities or in Science? This is where careful research is most important. If you look far enough, you will find that somebody somewhere has said something about almost everything. If you fail to take into account the labours of others, you run the risk of re-inventing the wheel. More than one diligent but isolated researcher-writer has found later to his or her chagrin that somebody has already anticipated their labour of love and, to add insult to injury, got paid for it as well. I approach the problem with a basic question: how do we know what we know, or think we know? I then proceed to whatever original sources are available and only later consult secondary sources, such as the Internet, which, of course, may also contain original source material. The challenge then is to separate the dross from the gold and refine what remains.

I apologize to the reader for the above digression. However, in view of the overwhelming influence of the Internet today, it had to be said. In the words of Ecclesiastes: “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). We shall continue with the Aztec Sun Stone in the next issue (without digressions).

The post Aztec symbolism: Part two appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

The Aztec Calendar Stone is one of the most important monumental works of art left to us by the Aztecs. Since its discovery in what is now the main zocalo of Mexico City, it has been studied in minute detail. Much fairly accurate information about it is available to the public via the internet and in numerous articles and books. However, much misinformation tends to turn up in popular articles on the subject because of failure to consult primary source materials. One of the problems even for professional Mesoamerican scholars is the general lack of critical editions of Nahuatl texts, such as we have for the Greek and Latin classics. The situation is even more acute for popular writers who do not have access to original texts or primary sources. A case in point is the symbolism of the Aztec Calendar or Sun Stone, in particular the central pattern of the Glyph 4 Movement (Nahui Ollin), which frames the visage of Tonatiuh, the Sun God, and represents the Five Ages or Suns of Aztec cosmology.

The term Sun Stone is perhaps more appropriate than Calendar Stone because the only reference to the calendar is to the twenty day names of the Aztec month in the innermost of the concentric rings surrounding the face of Tonatiuh. The other symbols relate to the Aztec concept of the cosmos and, for this reason, we shall henceforth refer to the monolith as the Sun Stone.

One of the more thorough studies of Mesoamerican symbols of the gods, time, space, and animals was published in 1965 by the German-Mexican Society founded by Hermann Beyer, a well-known Mesoamerican scholar. Beyer himself wrote a detailed analysis of the symbolism of the Sun Stone. This is a good example of how research on ancient Mexico should be conducted in order to arrive at reasonably accurate results. We have too many examples of the opposite approach in the work of sensation-mongers, such as Von Daniken (Chariots of the Gods) and others. The real research is painstaking and sometimes tedious, but the end result justifies the pains taken.

Beyer took a comparative approach to the symbolism of the Aztec Sun Stone. Although the article was written in 1921, the research methodology remains valid today. First, Beyer pointed out that the Sun Stone, as important as it is for the study of Aztec thought and culture, is neither unique nor mysterious. It is one of a class of artifacts known technically as cuauhxicalli (“Eagle Bowl”). Other monumental artifacts similar to the Sun Stone exist, among them the almost equally famous Stone of Tizoc. In central Mexico, as P. D. Joralemon points out in his study of the symbol of the Olmec Dragon, the eagle was represented as carrying the hearts of sacrificial victims to the sun. The eagle therefore became a name for the sun itself, hence the designation of the Sun Stone as an “Eagle Bowl.” Joralemon further notes that the flames emanating from the two fire serpents surrounding the outer rim of the Sun Stone are “formally identical to Olmec flame eyebrows.” This is an example of how we arrive at the probable meaning of a symbol on the Sun Stone by establishing the prototype of a Mesoamerican symbol through the comparative approach.

Beginning with the face of Tonatiuh, the Sun, Beyer takes each feature of the Sun Stone in turn and compares it with similar items or artifacts found elsewhere. It is impossible in this article to review all the symbolic representations on the Sun Stone. Besides, most of this information is readily available to any interested person with a computer and an internet account. What is lacking in most cases is an explanation of how we arrive at the correct interpretation of each item. Here we shall simply look at a few examples to illustrate the methodology used in dealing with the signs and symbols of ancient Mexico.

One way to approach Mesoamerican religious concepts is through the careful examination of each system of religious symbolism, such as the Sun Stone, and then to compare it with other related or similar systems. In this way the accumulated knowledge leads to a more accurate interpretation of particular symbols. Indeed, even the face of the Sun God Tonatiuh in the centre has been interpreted as a symbol of earth rather than the sun. Beyer, however, points out several representations of the face of Tonatiuh as the sun in pictographic codices of central Mexico that show the same configuration as the Sun Stone, including the surrounding Glyph 4 Movement (Nahui Ollin). From this and other evidence, there is no doubt about the identification of the central face on the Sun Stone.

There are many other such examples. One more will have to suffice here, the hieroglyphic symbol for the all-important date 4 Movement. Once again, we have evidence from the pictographic codices of Central Mexico and adjacent areas. In the Codex Borbonicus, for example, the central circle occupied by the face of Tonatiuh in the Sun Stone is replaced by an eye surrounded by the Glyph 4 Movement as on the Sun Stone. We may note in passing that the central part (tsikuri) of the familiar so-called Eyes of God (“Ojos de Dios”) of the Huichol Indians also represents the deified face of the sun (Tau). The more traditional Huichol yarn paintings also show clearly the sun god throwing off fiery sparks which the marakame (shaman) must brave when he or she goes in search of the rock crystal or soul of a deceased shaman. Since the Huichols claim the Aztecs as their spiritual ancestors, it does not take a great stretch of the imagination to associate the Huichol concept with that of the Aztecs.

Many popular writers on ancient Mexico not only fail to indicate their sources but deal with the material in a most uncritical way. This has resulted in a failure to recognize the difference between the Five Ages depicted on the Aztec Sun Stone and the version found in the written sources. For example, one author refers to “…the destruction of the First Age, the Sun of Water, and then equates the destruction of the Aztec First Age with the Biblical account of the Flood …in which great floods of water covered the earth. Then in both accounts, new life begins” (I refrain from giving the names of authors or titles of their articles on diplomatic grounds). This order of the Ages, however, is out of sequence with order on the Sun Stone.

The problem is that the account of the Five Ages given by this author (let’s call this person Writer X) does not accord either with the sequence of the Ages on the Sun Stone or with the order in the 1558 written version of the Five Suns in the Leyenda de los Soles (“Legend of the Suns”), an appendix to the Anales de Cuauhtitlan, an anonymous manuscript in Nahuatl. The order of the Ages on the Sun Stone and in the appendix goes thus: A. (1) Sun 4 Tiger; (2) Sun 4 Wind; (3) Sun 4 Rain (of Fire); (4) Sun 4 Water; (5) Sun 4 Movement. The last (5) is the Fifth Sun, which, on the Sun Stone, comprises the surrounding four preceding ages plus the central figure of Tonatiuh. But the order in the first part of the Anales is different: B.(1) Sun 4 Water; (2) Sun 4 Tiger; (3) Sun 4 Rain (of Fire); (4) Sun 4 Wind; (5) Sun 4 Movement. Notice the discrepancy between the two lists. Only numbers (3) and (5) correspond, the rest are out of sequence. List B is the order followed by Leo-Portilla in his popular Spanish and English works: Los Antiguos Mexicanos (Mexico, 1961) and Pre-Columbian Literatures (Oklahoma, 1969), both of which are out of sequence with the order of the Ages on the Sun Stone.

Writer X obviously followed Leon-Portilla’s version. But since the version on the Sun Stone is definitely pre-Hispanic, I would suggest that it is more likely to represent the authentic Aztec order of the Ages. I do not know why Leon-Portilla chose the other version, but it is clearly out of sequence with the Sun Stone. That does not necessarily mean that it is “wrong,” but it leaves a lot to be explained. For example, by focusing only on the version at the beginning of the Anales, Writer X fails to take into account the interim period between the Fourth and Fifth Suns as described in the fuller version of the Leyenda de los Soles in the appendix to the Anales. According to this latter account, the universal flood that destroyed the human race occurred at the end of the Fourth Age, when humans were turned into fish. With a little stretch of the imagination, one can indeed, as Writer X did, see a parallel with the Biblical story of the flood. I am not an Aztec logician, but it would seem to make sense for the gods to turn people into fish to save them from the flood waters. However, in the 1558 version, we are told that Tezcatlipoca called forth noto (i.e. Nahuatl Nota, Amy Father”) and his consort nene (short for Nahuatl nenetl, lit. “Vulva,” but note the translation given by the pious Franciscan, Sahagun: “The nature of woman”) and told them to enter into a large hollowed log that had been prepared for them (an alternate Aztec version of Noah’s ark or Christian missionary influence?). There they remained until they heard the waters subside. Several major events then occurred during the aftermath of the flood, such as the generation of fire, the creation of the human race, and the discovery of maize, all of which took place before the birth of the Fifth Sun.

The symbols of the Ages on the Sun Stone are distinct enough and have been identified with certainty. The problem first arises in the two conflicting versions of the Ages, namely the one in the Anales itself and the other one in the appendix to the Anales. The first begins with Sun 4 Tiger, the second with Sun 4 Water. But if we begin with Sun 4 Water (see list B above), we miss out on the events between the Fourth and Fifth Suns. This seemingly trivial discrepancy between the two lists throws them out of sequence and makes nonsense of Writer X’s argument based on the assumption that the destruction by flood took place during the First Age, Sun 4 Water. It is also contrary to the order on the Sun Stone. Moreover, if we begin the count on the Sun Stone with Sun 4 Water and proceed counter-clockwise around the Sun Stone, the sequence there is also thrown out of kilter. Of course we cannot expect logical consistency in such an intermingling of history, legend, and myth as this, but the inconsistency in the different versions requires a more detailed analysis than we can attempt in this article.

The repetitive formulaic style of the 1558 appendix to the Anales supports the view that this written account of the Ages was passed on from pre-Hispanic oral tradition, backed up by pictographic codices, into the literary tradition through the medium of writing introduced by Spanish missionaries. From Spanish words in the text, such as diablo, it is also likely that it was taken down by a Spanish missionary or a literate Aztec convert from an oral performance only a few decades after the Conquest of Mexico in 1521.

To give some idea of the style of the original, we shall look at the opening lines of each of the five divisions in Nahuatl, followed by a translation and a few lines to indicate the context. The following is based on W. Lehmann’s Nahuatl-German critical edition of the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975, pp324 ff.) and Leon-Portilla’s Filosofia Nahuatl (1966, 332 ff.). This is the order on the Sun Stone and in the appendix to the Anales.

I. SUN 4 TIGER: inin tonatiuh nahui ocelotl ocatca – 676 years (“The Sun 4 Tiger lasted 676 years. Those who lived in the first Sun were eaten by tigers at the time of the Sun 4 Tiger…”).

II. SUN 4 WIND: inin tonatiuh nahui ecatl ytoca (“This Sun is called 4 Wind. Those who lived in second place in this second Sun were taken up by the wind at the time of the Sun 4Wind…”).

III. SUN 4 RAIN [OF FIRE]: inin tonatiuh nahui quiyahuitl (“This Sun is called 4 Rain. The people who lived in the third age at the time of the Sun 4 Wind, they perished as well. Fire rained upon them and they turned into peacocks…”).

IV. SUN 4 WATER: inin tonatiuh nahui atl itoca (“This Sun is called 4 Water, the time during which the water lasted for 52 years… The year was 1 House, the day sign Four Water, and so they perished. Every mountain was destroyed. The water lasted 52 years and with that their years came to an end..”).

The Anales goes on to tell us of events during the Fourth Sun before its final destruction by a universal flood. There appears, therefore, to be an interim period before the birth of the Fifth Sun, our present Sun, during which the gods apparently re-create the human race and provide sustenance in the form of maize.

V. SUN 4 MOVEMENT: inin tonatiuh itoca naollin [Nahui Ollin] (“This Sun is called 4 Movement. This is our Sun in which we now live…”).

With the birth of the Fifth Sun, we enter our own age. This is the time when the present Sun was created at Teotihuacán through the self-sacrifice of the sickly god Nanahuatzin, who threw himself into the fire and emerged as the Sun. Many years ago, I sat in the Great Square of Teotihuacán and listened to Professor Margain of the Anthropology Department at the U.N.A.M in Mexico City describe to us students the sacrifice of Nanahuatzin on the altar just in front of us. But back to the Anales….

The Sun did not move at first in the Anales account because the Sun God required human sacrifice in return for the initial sacrifice of the gods on behalf of the human race. It is a little unclear in this context what finally got the Sun moving properly, but the Huichol Indians know what happened. Some time ago my friend Joaquin Carillo, a Huichol from San Andres, gave me a Huichol creation story taken down from the narration of a relative. It was in Huichol with a rough translation in Spanish. Between the two, I produced an English version. We cannot go into details here but I found many echoes of the classical Aztec version in the Huichol account, such as the conspicuous recurrence of the numeral five and the problem of the recalcitrant Sun, which at first refused to move. For example, in the Huichol version the deity Nakawé raised up the Sun five times with his staff, until it remained where it is today.

Obviously the text of the Anales requires a much more detailed analysis than can be attempted here. Our task, however, is to try to think like an Aztec, not twist the thoughts or words of others to fit our own preconceptions.

The post Mesoamerican religious concepts: Aztec symbolism, Part Three appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

Some communications “experts” claim that most of our communication is non-verbal and that we interact with one another more with signs and symbols than through the spoken word. However, it is difficult to see how these supposedly “non-verbal” signs and symbols can be adequately understood apart from language. I see an object in front of me but lack the words to describe what it is. But in fact I have already begun to put words to the experience by calling “it” an “object.” If I go further and describe the shape of the object it becomes a “house.” A little further and I am looking at a “home” with a family, etc. At every stage of the way, I depend upon language spoken aloud or whispered to myself to arrive at a fuller understanding of the object in front of me. A signpost on the road points the way I’m going but, if I can’t read the message on the sign, it is of little use to me.

The complex meaning of symbol may be approached in at least three ways: visual symbols, symbolic actions (as in worship), and linguistic symbols. However, unless we have the words to describe the object we are looking at, it may have little meaning for us. For example, a first-time visitor to the archaeological site of Teotihuacan will recognize the serpent heads on the so-called temple of Quetzalcoatl for what they are, serpent or dragon heads, but only because the visitor already has these basic words in his or her vocabulary to begin with. Any interpretation beyond that basic level of recognition requires a great deal of background knowledge, which depends upon written or spoken verbal descriptions.

This problem is particularly acute when we deal with what is for most of us esoteric or “alien” cultures, such as the pre-Hispanic civilizations of ancient Mexico. Symbolism and iconography (representation by means of pictures) are universal means of communications in all religions of the world. Here we shall take a look at Aztec symbolism, especially with regard to the statue of Coatlicue and the Aztec Calendar Stone, perhaps more aptly named the Sun Stone.

Methodological approaches to Mesoamerican religions have differed from time to time according to the interests and the expertise of the investigator. Formerly, the greatest emphasis was placed on economic and environmental factors to explain the development of religion and its symbols in ancient Mexico, too often to the neglect of the intellectual achievements of the early civilizations of the Americas. Fortunately, the trend is now changing with more emphasis being placed on the cultural, intellectual, and spiritual developments and achievements of the Maya and the Aztecs in particular.

There are several possible theoretical approaches to Mesoamerican religious concepts. The “intrinsic configurational iconographic analysis” approach examines each system of religious symbolism or representation on its own terms with relevant comparison with other related or similar systems. The direct historical approach, on the other hand, proceeds directly from the known to the unknown. Of course there is always a risk in working backwards from known iconography, symbols and their meaning, in late 16th century post-Conquest times back to pre-classical times. The meanings of many ancient religious and ritual symbols on monuments, stelae, and in the codices have changed over the centuries, and much more has been lost because of the destruction wrought by the Spaniards. However, there is a certain continuity in the meaning of religious symbols in Mesoamerican religion which enables us to reconstruct with some degree of certainty the main outlines of the major religious movements in pre-Hispanic Mexico.

With the discovery of the gigantic heads in the Veracruz area in the 1930s, the Olmec culture has come to be regarded as the “mother culture,” predating even the much better known Maya civilization. Known at least partially from sculpture, iconography and religious art, Olmec deities survived many centuries down to the time of the Spanish Conquest. For example, the Olmec dragon motif can be traced with some confidence from early Olmec times (800-400 B.C.) down to the Aztec period, which ended with the destruction of Tenochtitlan in A.D. 1521. Itzamná (Iguana House), the greatest god of the Maya, is graphically depicted in the Dresden Codex as a celestial dragon and as a rain god, still in reptilian form, with a torrent of water pouring from his open jaws. He later appears as Xiuhtecuhtli (Turquoise Lord ), also a fire dragon, in Aztec religion. In the pre-Conquest Mixtec-Aztec Borgia Codex, a major source of information on central Mexican deities, Quetzalcoatl in his aspect as the Sun God is surrounded on four sides by different aspects of Xiuhcoatl (Turquoise Serpent), another fire serpent. Finally, Tonacatecuhtli (Lord of Our Sustenance) is the presiding deity over the first day of the Aztec month, which, not surprisingly, is symbolized by Cipactli (Alligator), yet another variation of the dragon theme.

Theories differ, but it seems likely that certain universal themes ran through most, if not all, religious systems in ancient Mexico, going back possibly to pre-Classic Olmec times. Major themes were the concept of Duality and Fertility, the idea of life affirmation versus barrenness and death. For example, the Flayed God, Xipe Totec, represented the theme of life out of death through the symbolic act of flaying the sacrificial offering and wearing the skin in a ritual performance. Aztec religious symbolism operated on many different levels and, contrary to the opinions of the early Spanish missionaries, reflected a closely integrated and fully functional system of belief and practice. The European invaders, of course, failed utterly to understand the Aztec point of view.

Much Aztec symbolism is contained in the statue of the goddess Coatlicue (Serpent Skirt), and the famous Aztec Calendar or Sun Stone now in the museum of Anthropology in Mexico City. Coatlicue, the mother of gods and humans, is represented by a stone sculpture of a beheaded woman with two large serpent heads protruding from her severed neck. Her horrific appearance is augmented by a necklace of human hearts, two hands, palms outwards, and a skull with life-like eyes. Her skirt is a mass of intertwined serpents knotted in front by a sash of two more serpents. With claws for hands and feet like the talons of an eagle grasping the ground, she is the very epitome of our worst nightmares. However, Coatlicue also symbolizes the fundamental theme of dualism, which runs through all of Mesoamerican religion. As the goddess of birth and death she represents the duality of human beings, symbolized by the two facing serpent heads. Her necklace represents the offering of the sacrificial victim to preserve the universe. Her petticoat or skirt symbolizes the earth through which her talons penetrate into the world of the dead. Coatlicue, thus, is the embodiment of the cosmic struggle to preserve life through death. Human sacrifices nourish the Sun and thus maintain the balance of the universe. This is the central theme of Aztec cosmology.

The Aztec Calendar Stone, strictly speaking, is not really a calendar in the usual sense; rather this monumental stone sculpture is, like the statue of Coatlicue, an embodiment of the Aztec vision of the cosmos. We shall therefore henceforth refer to it as the Aztec Sun Stone.

The first step in unravelling the esoteric symbolism of the Aztec Sun Stone is classification. This is important in order to avoid falling into the common, but false, notion that it is a single unique phenomenon embodying all the profound mysteries of the fabled Aztecs and, therefore, perforce remains an unsolved mystery. Titles of popular articles such as “Mysteries of the Fifth Sun” or “All About 2012” give a false impression of our present state of knowledge of the Sun Stone, which is neither unique nor particularly mysterious; it belongs to a class of such monuments known technically as cuauhxicalli (Eagle Bowl), of which another well-known example is the almost equally famous Stone of Tizoc. In this context the eagle is a symbol of the sun.

Among some of the theories about the Sun Stone is that it was used as a stone of sacrifice. However, it took at least five persons to perform a human sacrifice, four to hold the victim down and one to tear out the heart. This would require a raised altar high enough and at the same time small enough for the officiating priests to gather around in order to carry out the operation. Because of the size of the Aztec Sun Stone, it seems unlikely that it could have served as a sacrificial altar. There are other theories about the Aztec Sun Stone. In part two, therefore, we shall look carefully at the evidence to date and decide just how much we really do know about this monolithic stone carving and, perhaps more importantly, how we know it.

The post Mesoamerican religious concepts: Aztec symbolism, Part Two appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexican History

An article by Mr. Morgan Bedford entitled “New Spain’s Fifty Magical Years (1492-1542)” appeared in the July, 1999, issue of the Ojo Del Lago. A more accurate title would have been “New Spain’s Fifty Years of Rape, Pillage, Murder, and Slavery.” Mr. Bedford highly praises the achievements of Cortes and other Spanish explorers and conquerors in spreading the Spanish empire over such a vast area of the world in so short a time. In only fifty years, these dozen or so “incredible” explorers created an empire out of “millions of square miles of jungle and ocean.” Our author goes on: “A dozen men under the flag of Spain created by the right of discovery and conquest one of the greatest empires of all time.” It is true, as Mr. Bedford points out, that according to the “principles of international law as understood by the then civilized powers of Europe,” the Indian peoples of the Americas were deemed to be mere temporary occupants of the soil and therefore subject to the absolute property rights of any European nation who claimed the land upon “discovery.”

Mr. Bedford is not alone in justifying the brutal actions of the Spaniards against the Aztecs and other native peoples on the grounds of the “Right of Discovery and Conquest.” The very popular but highly biased historian of the Conquest, William Prescott, appeals to this so-called “Right of Conquest” to justify any and all such acts committed by Cortes and his men during the period of the Conquest of Mexico, referring specifically to the fall of the Aztec capital of Mexico-Tenochtitlan in 1521. For example, during his march to Tenochtitlan in 1519, Cortes – with the help of his new Indian allies – slaughtered an estimated 5,000 to 10,000 unarmed Indians at Cholula in less than two hours of butchery on the mere suspicion that the people of Cholula were planning to ambush him. More likely, Cortes launched this preemptive strike to make himself appear more formidable to the Aztec emperor Moctezuma who did everything in his power to hinder Cortes’ march to Tenochtitlan. Shortly after the hapless Moctezuma welcomed Cortes, he was made a prisoner in his own palace. Preemptive strikes on suspicion alone were as effective then as they have been in recent times.

Prescott, among other historians, assumes that Cortes was not only in imminent danger but also completely justified by “Right of Conquest.” However, the account in Sahagun’s Florentine Codex recorded from Aztec informants shortly after the Conquest is very different. According to the Aztec account, the unarmed Cholulans waited peacefully in the temple courtyard. Assisted by his Indian allies, the Tlaxcalans and the Cempoallans, Cortes then treacherously closed all the entrances and stabbed and beat to death most of the men and enslaved the women and children. On the other hand, Chimalpahin, another early historian, says the Cholulans met Cortes in battle.

In dealing with conflicting historical accounts of the Conquest of Mexico we can assume, in general, that there is a certain amount of bias on both sides. But there is no doubt about the final outcome. Armed with the latest military technology of 16th century Europe and fortified by the conviction that it was God’s will that they search for gold and other treasure in the Indies, Cortes and his handful of men did indeed succeed in causing the greatest genocide in human history. They did so on the basis of this so-called “Right of Discovery and Conquest.” Many similar atrocities committed by the Spaniards were justified on these grounds not only by the Spaniards themselves but by successive generations of professional and amateur historians like William Prescott and Mr. Bedford.

The “Right of Discovery and Conquest” was in fact a mere fiction created by the Roman Catholic Church to justify the exploitation of the territories supposedly “discovered” by Columbus in 1492. A series of Papal Bulls or proclamations by different popes set the stage for “New Spain’s Fifty Magical Years,” as Mr. Bedford put it. These Bulls of Donation granted this so-called “right” to Catholic rulers in Spain and Portugal and instructed and authorized Catholic priests to convert the Indians at all costs. The authority of the Bulls of Donation was backed up by the threat of excommunication of those who disobeyed the pope.

Pope Nicholas V issued the Bull Dum Diversas ( June 18, 1542) authorizing Alfonso V of Portugal to “…reduce any Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers to slavery.” This papal Bull paved the way for the Portuguese slave trade in West Africa and the eventual slave system of the encomienda in Mexico. This same Pope issued the Bull Pontifex Romanus (January 4, 1455) to this same ruler of Portugal, extending all rights and benefits, grants and donations, to all the Catholic countries of Europe to search out and vanquish all “enemies of Christ” wherever they are found, to take full possession of all their goods and lands, and to “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.” In response to the former Bulls in favor of Portugal, Pope Alexander VI then issued the Inter Caetera (May 4, 1493), which was highly favorable to Spain and marked the beginning of Spanish colonization and Catholic missions in the Americas. Later papal Bulls granted even more rights and privileges to Spain. For example, the Bull of September 25th, 1493, entitled Extension of the Apostolic Grant and Donation of the Indies, granted even more territory to Spain. Finally, to pacify Portugal, the Treaty of Tordesillas (1493) arbitrarily divided up the Americas between Spain and Portugal. The papal recognition that no Christian nation could infringe upon the domains of another Christian nation was the beginning of the so-called “Law of Nations” which, in effect, guaranteed only the rights of the rich and powerful.

It is against this ecclesiastical background that we can best understand and assess the Conquest of Mexico and the allegedly “incredible” achievements of Spain during its so-called “magical years” of exploration in the New World. Obviously, we cannot apply present day standards to the thoughts and actions of over-zealous “Christian” militants in 16th century Mexico. However, the ensuing ingenious and tortuous legal arguments based on this early concept of “Right of Discovery and Conquest” have persisted to the present day and are still sometimes reflected in current government policies toward native peoples throughout North and South America. In 16th century Mexico, this meant that the non-Christian Aztecs, for example, were subhuman by definition and therefore had no legal rights to their property or persons as defined by the Roman Catholic Church – at least in the 16th century. Today some of these historical violations of Human Rights are being redressed. But however you interpret the “Right of Conquest,” past or present, the conquered or oppressed people generally have very little say in the matter. The basic principle remains the same: “Might is Right.”

The post New Spain: The right of conquest appeared first on MexConnect.

Related articles and Links:

• Ancient History of Mexico
• Mexica/Aztec Calendar Systems – Dale Hoyt Palfrey (detailed explanation of the symbols)
• Mysteries of the Fifth Sun – Dale Hoyt Palfrey
• Guided Tour at the La Paz Museum – Wendy Devlin

The post Aztec Sunstone or Aztec Calendar, Mexico appeared first on MexConnect.

Mexica/Aztec Calendar Systems

The Civil Calendar

The solar year was the basis for the civil calendar by which the Mexicas (Aztecs) determined the myriad ceremonies and rituals linked to agricultural cycles. The calendar was made up of 18 months, each lasting 20 days. The months were divided into four five-day weeks. The year was rounded out to 365 days by the addition of the five-day nemontemi (empty days), an ominous period marked by the cessation of normal activities and general abstinence. The correlation of dates in the Gregorian calendar is uncertain, although most authors on the subject affix the beginning of the Aztec year to early February. A variety of sources were consulted in developing the following chart of some of the ritualistic activities associated with each month.

Tonalpohualli – The Ritual Calendar

The tonalpohualli (count of days) was the sacred almanac of the Mexicas. This ritual calendar was registered in the tonalamatl (book of days), a green-fold bark paper or deerskin codex from which a priest (called tonalpouque) cast horoscopes and predicated favorable and unfavorable days of the cycle. The almanac year comprised of 260 days, each of which was assigned a date by intermeshing one of 20 day-signs, represented graphically with a gylph, and a number from 1 to 13, represented by dots so that no two days in the cycle could be confused. The almanac year was thus made up of 20 13-day weeks, with the first week beginning on 1-Crocodile and ending on 13-Reed, the second week running from 1-Ocelot to 13-Deaths’ Head and so on. A god or goddess was believed to preside over each day-sign, as shown in the following chart.

​

	Cipactli-Crocodile	Tonacatecuhtli- Lord of our Sustenance; male aspect of dual gods
	Ehecatl-Wind	Quetzalcoatyl- Plumbed Serpent; god of knowledge and the priesthood
	Calli-House	Tepeyolohtli- Heart of the Mountain; jaguar god of the interior earth
	Cuetzpallin-Lizard	Huehuecoyotl- Old Coyote; back-biiter or mischief-maker
	Coatl-Serpant	Chalchiuhtlicue- Lady of the jade skirt; goddess of ground waters
	Miquiztli-Deaths’ Head	Tecciztecatl-He from the sea-snail; moon god
	Mazatl-Deer	Tlaloc- He who makes things sprout; god of rain and earth fertility
	Tochtli-Rabbit	Mayahuel- She of the maguey plant; goddess of pulque (maguey wine)
	Atl-Water	Xiuhtecuhtli- Lord of the year; fire god, patron of rulers
	Itzcuintli-Dog	Miclantecuhtli- Lord of Mictlan (Region of the Dead);god of death
	Ozomatli-Monkey	Xochipilli- Flower Prince; god of flowers and plants
	Malinalli-Grass	Patecatl- He from the Land of Medicines; god of medicinal plants
	Acatl-Reed	Tezcatlipoca- Smoking mirror; major creator of god, god of fate
	Ocelotl-Ocelot	Tlazolteotl- Eater of Filth; earth mother
	Cuauhtli-Eagle	Xipe- Totec- Our Flayed Lord; god of seeding and planting
	Cozcaquauhtli-Vulture	Itzapapalotl- Obsidian Butterfly; stellar and agricultural goddess
	Ollin-Motion	Xolotl- Double; Monster god, twin of Quetzalcoatl
	Tecpatl-Flint Knife	Chalchiuhtotolin- Guise of Tezcatlipoca; god of night and the mysterious
	Quiahuitl-Rain	Chantico- In the House; godess of the hearth
	Xochitl- Flower	Xochiquetzal- Flower of the Rich Plume; goddess of flowers

Other Ancient Mexico Articles

The post Aztec Calendar appeared first on MexConnect.