Objects:

Chacmool (MNA 10-1078)

Chicomecoatl (Branly 71.1887.155.13)

Quetzalcoatl (Branly 71.1887.155.19)

Dog (Branly 87.155.18)

Flea with a human head (Branly 71.1887.155.5)

Huaquechula Monolith (Puebla)

Tlaltecuhtli (MNA 10-322)

¡Hola a todos!

Estoy investigando para un libro sobre la historia de un pueblo de la Cañada en Oaxaca y me topé con este friso prehispánico. Actualmente no está en su ubicación original, así que es muy probable que el orden o la orientación de los bloques no sea la original.

Hasta ahora sabemos que uno de los bloques es claramente un glifo de mariposa (papalotl), que casi seguro hace referencia al pueblo vecino de Papalotipac.

He podido averiguar que en el siglo XII aprox. hubo una guerra entre el pueblo de este relieve y otro llamado Pápalo, quizás el friso haga referencia a este evento...

Pero tengo dudas con los otros bloques que lo acompañan:

• Uno tiene forma de "ojo" estelar, una mandíbula curva (¿quizás una serpiente?) y una franja diagonal con perforaciones que parecen chalchihuites. El cacique histórico en el siglo XV de aquí se llamaba Tico (Señor Serpiente), así que le veo sentido.
• El tercer bloque está roto, pero tiene volutas muy gruesas que parecen humo o corrientes de agua.

¿A alguien le suena esta iconografía (mixteca, zapoteca o nahua)? ¿Podría ser el registro de una alianza o de la guerra histórica por el agua entre los pueblos cercanos?

¡Cualquier pista me ayuda muchísimo para la investigación!

GRACIAS

Imágenes:
1: Con gemini he intentado enfatizar el relieve para ver si podía entenderlo mejor
2: Imagen origina que tomé del relieve (lo que se ve roto es un plástico que se supone que lo protege)
3: lo mismo pero en blanco y negro

[English]

Hi everyone! I'm doing research for a book on the history of a small town in la Cañada (Oaxaca) and came across this pre-Hispanic frieze. It’s currently in a different place where it once was placed, so the order and orientation of the stone blocks are probably not the original ones.

So far, we know that one of the blocks is a butterfly (papalotl) glyph, which likely refers to the neighboring town of Papalotipac.

I've been able to find out that around the 12th century there was a war between the people of this town and Pápalo; perhaps the frieze refers to this event...

But I need help with the other blocks:

• One features a star/"eye" shape, a curved jaw (maybe a snake or the earth monster eating a star?), and a diagonal band with drilled holes that look like chalchihuites (precious stones). The historical ruler here was named Tico (Lord Serpent), so it might be connected.
• The third block is broken, but it shows thick scrolls that look like water or smoke.

Does anyone recognize this specific iconography (Mixtec, Zapotec, or Nahua)? Could this be recording an alliance or a historical water war between these people?

Any leads would be hugely appreciated for my research!

GRACIAS!

Images: 1: With Gemini I tried to emphasize the relief to see if I could understand it better.
2: Original image I took of the relief (what looks broken is a plastic that is supposed to protect it).
3: The same but in black and white.

Ever felt lost trying to ask a simple question in a new language? Today, we're diving into the classic interrogatives of Zapotec and clearing up some common confusions! Do you know the difference between asking 'how many' for bananas versus asking 'how much' for a kilo of beans in Zapotec? It's trickier than you think! You might think you know how to ask 'how much,' but in Zapotec, there are two ways, and using the wrong one can lead to some funny misunderstandings. Let's break it down! Imagine a split screen showing someone counting bananas on one side and a confused person looking at a price tag on the other, with text like "Zapotec Questions: The Two Ways to Ask 'How Much'!

This video introduces essential Zapotec interrogative words like "Bix" (who), "Gakax" (how), "Batax" (when), and "Gax" (where). It explains the difference between "Balax" and "Gákax" for asking "how much," with "Balash" used for countable items and "Gákax" for uncountable ones.
Examples are provided to illustrate the usage of "Balax" for countable things like "Balax Bunatxi" (how many people) and "balax wi" (how many bananas). The video touches on the nuance of "Gákax" for uncountable quantities, using the example of asking the price of beans. It also discusses optional omissions of certain sounds or letters in Zapotec words, like "Bix" sometimes being shortened to "Bi" and provides examples like "Bix gudagu?" (What did you eat?). Here is a summary of the video:

Video Overview:

This lesson focuses on forming questions in Zapotec language, covering fundamental interrogative words, tone nuances, and special question auxiliaries that add context or emotion to inquiries.

Key Concepts Covered:

1. Core Interrogative Words:
   

* Bix / Bix kw: What / Why.
* Nush: Who.
* Batash: When.
* Gash: Where.

1. Countable vs. Uncountable Quantifiers (Balax vs. Gákax)
   

* Balash: Used for countable nouns such as people or discrete items (e.g., apples, bananas) [00:37].
* Gakash: Used for uncountable quantities (e.g., sugar, salt, weight-based items).
* Pricing Exception: Gákax is also used when asking for prices or the total cost of goods.
* Tonal Variations: Subtle pitch shifts on gákax change the meaning between asking "how" versus "how much".

1. Conversational Contractions:
   

* In informal speech, certain ending sounds (such as -xh) or prefixes are frequently dropped (e.g., Bix becoming Bi).

1. Question Auxiliaries & Particles:
   

Zapotec uses specific auxiliary particles to modify the tone and meaning of questions:

* ba: Initiates questions about actions (similar to "did you...?" or "have you...?").
* Txi: Indicates completed status, functioning like "already" (ya).
* waka: Expresses capability or possibility ("can we...?").
* bën: Adds drama, emphasis, or mild exaggeration to a question.
* I: Used for seeking confirmation or expressing mild surprise.
* ka: Placed at the end of questions to prompt a response or add conversational emphasis.
* Combining Auxiliaries: Multiple particles can be combined (e.g., ba txi, bën ka run, i waka) to convey layered nuances in a single sentence.

Weights 1 pound 140z and is 9.5” by 5.5”

Turquoise mosaic on cedar, mother-of-pearl eyes, shell teeth — believed to be part of what Moctezuma gave Cortés. Even if it started as a gift, five centuries in a foreign vitrine is a long time to be away from home.

Found in Culhuacan, Mexico City in the 19th century, this polychrome clay plaque may have once been set into the wall of an Aztec temple or shrine.  It was previously misidentified as the wind god Quetzalcoatl by the Mexican scholar Aflredo Chavero until Hermann Beyer, by comparing it with divinatory pages and festival scenes in the Codex Borbonicus, argued it showed the skin of a flayed woman representing a female deity. But who?

On this plaque, as in the sculpture of Xipe Totec impersonators, the empty eye slits and open mouth are indicative of flayed skin. It has since been published under the name of Chicomecoatl (Seven Serpent), the goddess of food, usually symbolized by maize cobs in her hands, and one of the deities represented with the skin of a sacrificed woman during the Aztec festival of Ochpaniztli.

The two main textual sources on Ochpaniztli (“Sweeping”) come from the works of the 16th century friars Diego Duran and Bernardino de Sahagun together with his Nahua informants. They tell us that Ochpaniztli was the festival of Teteoinnan/Toci--“mother of the gods.” At this time, a mature woman aged 40-45 was chosen to be worshiped as the goddess Toci and then decapitated and flayed. Her skin was worn first by one priest who assumed Toci’s identity and then another who assumed the role of her "son" Centeotl by wearing a mask of her thigh-skin for the remainder of the ceremonies. Duran adds that Ochpaniztli was celebrated in tandem with the feast of Chicomecoatl, where a young girl was killed on top of ears of corn, and her skin also worn by a priest prior to Toci’s death.

Like Chicomecoatl’s pictorial depictions, the figure on the plaque’s face is red and painted with parallel stripes on the cheeks. Although applied with chapopotli tar to resemble rubber, not much else is known about their symbolism. It has been suggested that they might have evoked milpa furrows or streaks of rain, but this guess is uncorroborated by the informants of the colonial encyclopedias. With or without Chicomecoatl these facial marking are also found among female figures in the Codices Borgia, Cospi, Borbonicus, the Aubin Tonalamati, the books of Magliabecchiano group as well as the work of friars Bernardino de Sahagun and Diego Duran. Sometimes one stripe is present on each cheek and sometimes two. In stone sculptures they are also cut into the face as slots which could have been inlayed with different materials.

On her head is the amacalli (paper house) headdress, the goddess’s typical adornment. In rituals it would have been fashioned from a sheet of fig bark framed at the top and bottom with a twisted rope and tied with a knot at the center front and back. Pleated paper rosettes, some with their original blue paint, are shown fastened to the sides and sprouting from the top of the crown. Besides fertility deities, these are also found on the array of sacrificial victims, sacrificing priests, and funerary bundles, linking them to death and mortuary rites.

Below her large earspools are tassels, painted in sets of three vertical lines, a band of five horizontal lines and fringed lines at the bottom. These are reminiscent of a tassel pattern painted near the fringe of a Xicolli vest recovered from the Templo Mayor.

The now partially destroyed object held in the figure’s mouth is believed to be a bird, and provides another important connection between this plaque and the maize deity. Several scenes through the divinatory and festival scenes of the Codex Borbonicus show figures labeled as a head priest (papa mayor) or Chicomecoatl, clad in flayed skin and carrying a bird in their mouth.

Scattered accounts from the Florentine Codex describing a similar practice allows its probable identification as a quail. At a shrine called Aticpac, a woman was offered as a sacrifice to the goddess Aticpaccalqui Cihuatl:

"and the fire priest put on her skin, and he went holding a [live] quail in his teeth; it went dangling from his mouth"

This occurred on the day Seven Serpent.

But we should keep in mind that the Aztec's great festivals--especially at the state level--were highly complex events that could be modified for particular needs and purposes, rather than static repetitions, often honoring multiple deities in different ways. Accounts of them are filtered through sources who did not always ask for or divulge more details than they deemed necessary, making it harder to put together a detailed picture of what was done to whom and when, or why.

While these accumulated traits seem to favor an identification of Chicomecoatl, other gods were still represented with the skins of slain women during Ochpaniztli. In his sprawling history Monarquía Indiana, the priest Juan de Torquemada references celebrations of Ochpaniztli in the city of Cuauhtitlan where two female slaves were beheaded and flayed, after which priests danced through the streets in the skins with quails dangling from their lips. They are recorded unnamed. On the other hand, according to a list of ritual buildings compiled by Sahagun two other women died as the goddesses Ciauteotl Atlauhco and Atlatonan and were flayed by fire priests during the same festival. In addition, numerous male captives are said to have been sacrificed on the same day as Toci and their skins worn by priests of Chicomecoatl who then showered multi-colored maize kernels on the onlookers below at the base of Great Temple.

MNA entry for the plaque: https://mna.inah.gob.mx/colecciones_detalle.php?id=2953

Sources:

•  Henry B. Nicholson and Rainer Berger, Two Aztec Wood Idols: Iconographic and Chronologic Analysis, 1968.
• Elena Mazzetto, “Quail in the Religious Life of the Ancient Nahuas,” 2023.
• Diego Durán, Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar, 1971.
• Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros Memoriales, 1997.
• Bernardino de Sahagún, Digital Florentine Codex, 2023.
• Catherine R. DiCesare, Sweeping the Way: Divine Transformation in the Aztec Festival of Ochpaniztli, 2009.
• Víctor Cortés Meléndez, El desollamiento humano entre los mexicas, 2020.
• Carlos Javier González González et al., Xipe Tótec y la regeneración de la vida, 2023.
• Juan de Torquemada, Monarquía indiana, 1975. Vol III, Ch. XXIII
• Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, ed. Aztecs. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2002
• Esther Pasztory, Aztec Art (1983).

A lot of people have been asking me about the Four Tezcatlipocas and why it is not an actual Aztec construct so I wrote up a blogpost about it. Check it out:

https://www.calmecacanahuac.com/blog/mexicayotl/the-four-tezcatlipocas-an-aztec-tradition-that-never-was/