article on Aztecs

[Michael Mccafferty]

On Sat, 7 Aug 1999, Brant Gardner wrote:

> [Mel]
> Some list members expressed an interest in an article of some 15
> misconceptions about the Aztecs.  It can be found in the journal Wicazo
> Sa Review, Spring 1995, Volume XI, No. 1 by Associate Professor at the
> Univ of Texas, Austin, Dr. Arnold Carlos Vento.  The title of the
> article is Aztec Myths and Cosmology:  Historical Religious
> Misinterpretations.  The 15 misinterpretations, according to the article
> include: 1) polytheism among native cultures, 2) the concept of Hell,
> Mikltan, 3) fatalism 4) native belief of the Spanish as Gods, 5)
> Ketzalkoatl as a Messiah, 6) imperialism 7)slavery, 8) chiomoztok as the
> seven cities of gold or Aztlan, 9) cannibalism, 10) human sacrifice by
> bloodthirsty priests, 11)drunkenness, 12) myth of the debased woman, 13)
> myth of Aztlan in the US, 14) European etymology of the word America,
> and 15	) Nahuatl as a name for the national language or culture.
>
> Any discussion and enlightenment for me on behalf of any scholars
> generally, or specifically, after reading the article, would be
> appreciated by me.
>
> [Brant]
> Of course it doesn't do justice to an article to respond to titles only, but
> since I haven't read the original, that is all I can go on. On some of these
> I have no information because I haven't done much work on the topics, but
> what I understand I will share:


Michael: I looked for the review but couldn't find it here.


>
> 1) polytheism among native cultures,
>
> I am not at all sure why this would be listed as a historical
> misinterpretation. I can only guess that the author must be defending some
> type of monotheism on the basis of Nezahualcoyotl's prime god. Polytheism is
> a system of belief in more than one god, and it is difficult to imagine that
> the many named deities could be easily dismissed. To my knowledge, there is
> no known pre-contact culture that did not have multiple deities.
>
> In Tenochtitlan mythology there is the same evidence for stories moving
> across named deities that is also seen in ancient Greece - which was also
> polytheistic. Nezahualcoyotl's "theology" has the markings of a late
> codifying/regularizing of mythology, something enabled by the nature of the
> city states.
>


Michael: But not finding the article doesn't stop me from making some
generalizations. It sounds to me like the author is doing some heavy-duty
revisionism, using a fundamentalist Christian mindset.
As far as humans go, monotheism is a rather rare bird.  Polytheism is the
main course.  James Hillman has a wonderful exposition of polytheism in
his _Revisioning Psychology_.  A very worthy read.


> 2) the concept of Hell, Mikltan,
>
> I would agree that equating Mictlan with the Christian Hell is an
> oversimplification, and leads to misconceptions.

Michael: I agree absolutely.  On the other hand, I once translated a
description of Mictlan for Brant and found that I would certainly
prefer Hawaii to Mictlan.

> 4) native belief of the Spanish as Gods,
>
> This depends upon the definition of "gods." The Florentine Codex uses
> "teotl" as a description of the Spaniards. The blacks with them were
> "teucacatzactic" which I understand to be black gods or dirty gods - with
> reference to their dark skin.
>
> The Nahua word we translate as god is "teotl," but that doesn't mean that
> there is a direct semantic correspondence between the two ideas.


Michael: Good point.  Christianity tends to simplify the entire religious
experience, and avoids many aspects to the big picture.

> 5) Ketzalkoatl as a Messiah,
>
> I have spent years tracing this one down, and the Quetzalcoatl/Messiah
> correlation is entirely dependent upon post-conquest Spanish (and later
> others) misinterpretations of the native myths.


Michael: shore nuff.

>
> 9) cannibalism,
>
> I suppose there is sensationalist cannibalism, where humans are used as
> dietary supplements. In that sense I don't think it existed. However, there
> is anthropologically understood cannibalism, which is part of a sacred rite
> (as opposed to lunch!). That did exist. I would be surprised if anyone were
> to seriously deny that this type of cannibalism existed.
>

Michael: Well, they tried...even here on this list.  Bless their hearts.


> 10) human sacrifice by bloodthirsty priests,
>
> This one is kind of telling by the modifier. Human sacrifice, yes.
> Bloodthirsty priests? We are stuck on definitions again. They were operating
> completely within their religious system. It is impossible to reliably deny
> that there were sacrifices.

That they were the result of a degenerate
> society is certainly deniable.


Michael: Excellent point!


> I have no comments on the others.

Michael: I have plenty, but I'll spare y'all.


Michael McCafferty
C.E.L.T.
307 Memorial Hall
Indiana University
Bloomington, Indiana
47405
mmccaffe at indiana.edu