[Aztlan] 1491 and Quetazlcoatl redux

[Dan]

I'm struck by the fact that so much recent literature, and this discussion,
tends toward polarization on the question of the Quetzalcoatl-Cortes
relationship---those starting with an uncritical read of Sahagun's Book 12
assertion that Moctezuma believed in and acted on the Q-C connection, versus
those who (with Lockhart, Gillespie and others) suggest that the
"Caxtilteca" were seen as merely another alteptl group and that the Q-C
association is just a post-Conquest imposition.  Either view, in isolation,
seems a little too rigid and too condescending---insisting on an either/or
interpretation of behavior that was likely susceptible to multiple
motivations and impulses.   As Martha here touches on, the reality must
almost certainly have reflected the sophistication and complexity of Nahua
perspectives---across the gamut from hard-headed real-politik to absurd
superstitions.

Did Moctezuma believe he was facing Quetzalcoatl?  Who knows, but don't
forget to ask, "when?"  An argument that the Mexica believed they were still
battling deities after the Spanish sojurn in Tenochtitlan in 1519-20 assumes
the Mexica were idiots---whatever currency any possible Cortes-Quetzalcoatl
connection MIGHT have had when the Spaniards were still fighting mosquitoes
on Veracruz beaches in early 1519, would have rapidly dissolved with
subsequent contact.  But what about those first weeks, when Mexica
leadership was making crucial decisions about how to respond to the
Spaniards?  Now, it is possible that GWB got born again solely to help his
Texas political prospects, and very possible that Tenocha heavyweights used
religion solely as a cynical mechanism of social control.  But state
religion, even when used opportunistically, tends to acquire a life of its
own, and it's hard to believe that Moctezuma and his advisors would have
excluded religious explanatations of Castilian origins.  These people,
Spaniards very much included, WERE inclined to see the hand of supernatural
agency everywhere.   And, with all due respect to the just-another-altepetl
view, there would seem to have been (to Nahua eyes) some strikingly unique
characteristics---including some very frightening aspects---about the
Castilian newcomers.  In light of how routinely religion was employed to
explain, predict and influence the behavior of the natural world and of
people, why expect otherwise in Mexica approaches to sizing up the
Castilians?  And wasn't Q part of the pantheon pre-Conquest  deities (in
varying degrees of prominence depending on area), and is there really no
basis for some version of a pre-Conquest Quetzalcoatl "return" myth, curious
calendrical connections, and the origins in the East?  My guess is that
there was a pretty lively debate in Tenochtitlan among those privvy to
reports from the coast as to who these people were.  And ---especially in
light of Sahagun and the richness of detail provided (remember those outfits
that were prepared as gifts for Cortes?)---the possibility of the Castilians
as gods, and of the Quetzalcoatl connection in particular, would have been a
logical  part of that debate.

Dan Deneen
Norwich, VT


> -----Original Message-----
> From: aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org
> [mailto:aztlan-bounces at lists.famsi.org]On Behalf Of martha noyes
> Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2007 11:06 PM
> To: aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Subject: [Aztlan] 1491 and Quetazlcoatl redux
>
>
> Aloha  all
>
> To a like matter, the identification of a European explorer with
> a deity prophesied to return, Marshall Sahlins's "How Natives
> Think" (University of Chicago Press) makes a fair argument that
> yes, there was recognition of a prophecy fulfilled, but no, not
> in the way Europeans understood/understand it.  Sahlins's point
> is that deities, at least major deities, have more than one form
> or appearance, and that just as a priest or chief "stands for" a
> deity at certain times, so, too may an outsider/foreigner, just
> as an animal, celestial phenomenon, or a geographical element
> does.  This "standing for" a deity is sometimes, maybe often,
> restricted to a specific circumstance - a ritual period or
> function - after which circumstance the stand-in is again a mortal.
>
> Some cultures are quite comfortable with a "both/and" view.
>
> my two cents
> Martha
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>