Dialogue with Europe, Dialogue with the Past

Colonial Nahua and Quechua Elites in Their Own Words

Justyna Olko, John Sullivan, Jan Szeminski, Justyna Olko, John Sullivan, Jan Szeminski

• Publisher: University Press of Colorado
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781607328346
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

Dialogue with Europe, Dialogue with the Past is a critical, annotated anthology of indigenous-authored texts, including the Nahua, Quechua, and Spanish originals, through which native peoples and Spaniards were able to convey their own perspectives on Spanish colonial order. It is the first volume to bring together native testimonies from two different areas of Spanish expansion in the Americas to examine comparatively these geographically and culturally distant realities of indigenous elites in the colonial period.In each chapter a particular document is transcribed exactly as it appears in the original manuscript or colonial printed document, with the editor placing it in historical context and considering the degree of European influence. These texts show the nobility through documents they themselves produced or caused to be produced—such as wills, land deeds, and petitions—and prioritize indigenous ways of expression, perspectives, and concepts. Together, the chapters demonstrate that native elites were independent actors as well as agents of social change and indigenous sustainability in colonial society. Additionally, the volume diversifies the commonly homogenous term "cacique" and recognizes the differences in elites throughout Mesoamerica and the Andes.Showcasing important and varied colonial genres of indigenous writing, Dialogue with Europe, Dialogue with the Past reveals some of the realities, needs, strategies, behaviors, and attitudes associated with the lives of the elites. Each document and its accompanying commentary provide additional insight into how the nobility negotiated everyday life. The book will be of great interest to students and researchers of Mesoamerican and Andean history, as well as those interested in indigenous colonial societies in the Spanish Empire. Contributors: Agnieszka Brylak, Maria Castañeda de la Paz, Katarzyna Granicka, Gregory Haimovich, Anastasia Kalyuta, Julia Madajczak, Patrycja Prz?dka-Giersz

Documents and Studies

Legal Proceedings

Document 1

Painting of the Idols of the Temple of Huitzilopochtli, Mexico Tenochtitlan, 1539–1540

Strategies to Safeguard Legitimacy13

María Castañeda de la Paz

DOI: 10.5876/9781607328346.c001

Sacred bundles—tlaquimilolli in Nahuatl—were one of the main objects of veneration in Mesoamerican religion. These bundles made of cloth, amate paper, or reed mat boxes contained a number of objects representing different deities and were the focus of great devotion.14 However, beyond this reverence, the divine force that resided in the bundles was what legitimated the foundation of many Mesoamerican polities and their rulers’ authority. This latter aspect explains why, at the height of the conquest, the Central Mexican nobles hurriedly saved the sacred bundles that were at risk of being destroyed by the Spaniards. It is this issue that is discussed in the present study. Due to the existence of an important document, known as the Painting of the idols of the temple of Huitzilopochtli, presented in one of the interrogations led by fray Juan de Zumárraga between 1536 and 1540, we can go in depth into a poorly documented period of Tenochca history and explain the strategy and rationale behind the action of some of members of its royal house.15

The pictorial we know today as the Painting of the idols of the temple of Huitzilopochtli was painted in color on amate paper (figures 1.1, 1.2). At some point during the years 1539 and 1540, it was presented as evidence against various persons accused of hiding several sacred bundles, including the bundle of Huitzilopochtli from the Templo Mayor at Tenochtitlan. This explains why these sacred bundles and several associated ritual objects are the main focus of the pictorial. A series of small heads represent the accused. Volutes denoting their speech accompany some of the heads. Contrary to its traditional prehispanic style, the painter chose not to paint onomastic glyphs to identify these people, but rather employed a series of alphabetic glosses. This choice surely reflects the fact that the painting was to be presented before the Spanish authorities, which also explains why the only text that appears in the work is in Spanish, not Nahuatl.

Figure 1.1. Painting of the idols of the temple of Huitzilopochtli (photograph of the

original, Archivo General de la Nación, Mapoteca no. 4848, Mexico)

Figure 1.2. Painting of the idols of the temple of Huitzilopochtli (drawing by Michel Oudijk)

Some heads are larger than others, a technique used to highlight the relative importance of the figures portrayed. And all of the figures, except one, are drawn with their eyes closed, indicating that when the document was made the individuals represented had already died. The only person with open eyes is Miguel Tlaylotlac, or “Pochteca Tlaylotlac,” as he is identified by a gloss. We can conclude then that he was the only person alive at the time of the trial. The size of his head clearly indicates that, as the principal defendant, he was the central person in the painting.

Two other important figures accused of hiding the sacred bundles are Ixcuecuechtzin and Oquiztzin. The gloss identifies Oquiztzin (“hoquicin”), Lord of Azcapotzalco, a fact corroborated by several witnesses. However, none of these deponents affirmed that he specifically governed the Mexicapan parcialidad of the city; rather they simply refer to Azcapotzalco.16 That particular altepetl had been divided into two dynastic moieties in the aftermath of Itzcoatl’s conquest of Azcapotzalco in 1428; one half was Tepanecapan, which was still governed by a Tepanec lineage, while the other half was Mexicapan, where Itzcoatl placed his son as governor, thus imposing a Tenochtitlan lineage (figure 1.3).17 When the Spaniards arrived, a member of the Tenochtitlan lineage was still governing Azcapotzalco-Mexicapan; namely, a grandson of Axayacatl, who later adopted the name Don Carlos Oquiztzin.

The other individual was Don Francisco Ixcuecuechtzin, also a grandson of Axayacatl, who at the time of the conquest held the position of tlahtoani of Tula. This leads us to conclude that when the Spaniards arrived some of the altepetl in Central Mexico were governed by lords who shared close kinship ties and were, to a greater or lesser degree, members of the royal house of Tenochtitlan. This explains why together they had to decide what to do with the sacred bundles.

As mentioned above, the bundles are painted in close association with several ritual objects. All of the objects are white, except for the first one, which is purple and wrapped in some kind of net. Normally, in order to distinguish the deity to which each tlaquimilolli referred, an image of the divinity, or of an object closely related to it, was reproduced on the bundle itself. However, in this case—except for the bundle that corresponds to ‘Tepeuha’—they bear only glosses, which allow us to identify each of them. Thus, we are able to determine that the purple one represents Huitzilopochtli, while the others corresponded to Cihuacoatl, Telpochtli, Tlatlauhqui, and Tepeuha, or Tepehua. Clearly, the most important bundle was the one that pertained to Huitzilopochtli, the patron god of the Tenochcas. We should not confuse the bird that appears on Tepehua´s bundle with a hummingbird, which was a manifestation of Huitzilopochtli.18 On one side of Tepehua´s bundle we see a set of ritual objects painted in conjunction with the bundles that includes a fan, a staff shaped like a serpent, called coatopilli, and a flag with the upper part of its pole decorated with feathers.

The judicial process against Miguel Tlaylotlac began when Mateos, an indigenous painter from Mexico Tenochtitlan, accused him before the bishop, fray Juan de Zumárraga, of hiding several bundles in his house so that they would not fall into the hands of the Spaniards. In the trial Mateo (not to be confused with the painter Mateos) and his brother Pedro were called to testify. They were sons of a “privado”19 of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin called Tlatolatl (or Atolatl), a member of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin’s retinue. They testified that Tlatolatl was not just any ordinary priest, but that he was responsible for guarding and securing Huitzilopochtli’s bundle. Seeing how the Spaniards were quickly overrunning Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, Tlatolatl decided to take Huitzilopochtli’s bundle from the city so it would not be captured and burned by the conquerors. He chose to take it to Azcapotzalco, specifically to the home of Oquiztzin (Procesos de indios 2002: 116, 118). However, Oquiztzin later returned it to Mateo (Tlatolatl´s son), together with other bundles, a fact confirmed by a gloss in the codex: “this is Mateo’s father and with him [indicating Mateo], Oquiztzin, tlahtoani of Azcapucalco, and Tlillantzin, who was also a great principal, left these idols to be guarded.”

The decision to leave all the bundles with Tlatolatl was made in 1524, the year in which Hernán Cortés took many lords and governors from Central Mexico (together with their entourage of principals) to Guatemala and Honduras (the Hibueras expedition). This turn of events left Tlatolatl no other choice than to keep the bundles hidden in Azcapotzalco-Mexicapan for a whole year and maintain the associated cult. That is why the image of Tlilantzin is facing Oquiztzin (figures 1.1–1.2); and the accompanying volutes indicate that the words emerging from their mouths concern the decision about what to do with the bundles. It is especially important to note that the painter included proof that Tlatolatl was the guardian of Huizilopochtli’s bundle, while his counterpart in Azcapotzalco, Tlilantzin, was entrusted with all the others. This helps us understand why only Tlatoatl is joined to the Tenochca deity, while a separate line unites Tlilantzin to the other gods. However, the fact that all of the bundles are interconnected indicates that w...