Taken from: http://histclo.com/chron/na.html

 Native American Civilizations

  Native civilizations are difficult to arrange chronologically. The three best known civilizations (Maya, Aztec, and Inca) are contemporaneous with Medieval Europe. There were civilizations that were ancient at the time these and other civilizations flourished. Teoteauacan was an ancient ruin at the time of the Aztec. While the chronology of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca are fairly well developed, the dating of the early civilizations and the early history of human settlement of the Americas is a matter of some controversy. The Native Americans civilizations of the New World are unique in that they developed in isolation from the other great world civilizations. Some of the great Old World civilizations had extensive contacts. Others had only minimal contact, but contact nevertheless. The contact with the Europeans beginning in 1492 was in many ways to Native Americans like visitors from outer space would seem to our modern world. [West]

Evolving Historical Reassessment

Our understanding of history gradually unfolds over time. It is commonly true that what seems very obvious to contemporary people looks very different a generation later. We often change our views with the benefits of hindsight. Improved historical methods have also assisted us. No where is this more true than the historical assessment of Native Americans. Virtually everything we thought we knew about Native Americans a generation ago has been proved wrong. And here we are not talking about Hollywood depictions. We are talking about the work of respected archaeologists and anthropologists who dominated Native American studies. In the past two decades we have found that Native Americans have been present in the Western Hemisphere far longer than previously thought and had developed a far more sophisticated and complex societies than previously believed. The pre-Colombian population was also much larger than previously believed, although there is still intense differences as to actual population levels. But the most serious mistake in our assessment of Native Americans has been the commonly held belief that they lacked agency and had little impact on the environment. The ruins studded throughout Meso-America and the Peruvian Andes stand in testimony to those achievements. Achievements in agriculture, astronomy, engineering, mathematics, textiles, and writing, are impressive. Surely one of the most significant accomplishments of any society over time was the domestication of corn and the potato. These two accomplishments changed Europe more than any other technological achievement making possible a population explosion. Europeans were so amazed by the technological achievements, especially the n monumental architecture of Native Americans, that a long series of popular authors have ascribed these achievements to other peoples including aliens. HBC is not prone to politically correct group speak, but this idea that Native Americans were incapable of high-cultural achievements is pure and simply racist. There is a corollary line of thought. That Native Americans live in harmony with their environment without harming it or leaving a significant footprint. This line of thought has a long history, symbolized by Rousseau's noble savage. We now know that Native Americans significantly shaped their environment. Some believe that the Great American prairie was significantly expanded by Native American use of fire. And in some cases Native American cultures perished because they did mot manage their environment well. The current theories on the collapse of Teoteauacan and the Maya are essentially environmental mismanagement and scientists studying many other Native American cultures are coming up with similar theories.

Ice Age Asian Migration

The Native American people are of Asiatic descent. They were nomadic hunter-gatherers who migrated to the American continent over a Bearing Sea land-ice bridge at the end of the last Ice Age probably about 12,000 years ago. After crossing the Bearing Sea ice bridge, the Native American people moved south and east until populating the entire Western Hemisphere as far south as Tierra del Fuego in South America. Some archaeologists believe that the migrants moved south along the coast of Alaska through an ice free coastal corridor. Other archaeologists challenge this theory. There is no real doubt that Asiatic migrations took place. (Some suggest European or Polynesian migrations, but the archweological evidence is virtually nil.) While the Bearing Sea crossing is accepted by most all serious archaeologists, the precise timing and process of these migrations is a matter of considerable scientific debate. Some contend that the migrations may have begun as early as 15,000-20,000 years ago and may have involved people that moved by sea as well as by land. These mariners did not have large raft, but could have made short hops in small craft from island to island as they moved south. There is little archaeological evidence for this, but most of their settlements would today be underwater. [Koppel] It now appears that there were several successive waves of migrations. This has complicated Native American anthropological studies. We now know that migration continued well after development of indigenous societies in both North and South America. This means that migrations took place well after civilizations for which we have archaeolgical evidence. This had confused early anthropologists who assumed that the migrations preceded the early cultures which they found such as the Clovis Point people. The stone tools found at Clovis, New Mexico are believed to fate to about 9000 BC. The Clovis Point people were once thought to be the earliest American culture. Other cultures have since been found much further south in South America. [Koppel]

Chronology

Native American civilizations are difficult to arrange chronologically. Teoteauacan was an ancient ruin at the time of the Aztec. While the chronology of the Maya, Aztec, and Inca are fairly well developed, the dating of the early civilizations and the early history of human settlement of the Americas is a matter of some controversy. Information is especially limited on the Olmec which appears to have been an early civilization of great importance.

Great Civilizations

Many Native Americans never evolved beyond the hunter-gather stage. Others civilizations developed sedentary agriculture. The first evidence of settled habitation is first noted in modern Mexico during the Archaic period 5000-1500 BC. Here we note corn cultivation, pottery and stone tools. The first sophisticated civilization in Meso-America was the rise of the Olmecs around 1500 BC - 300 AD during what is known as the Pre-Classical period. The Olmecs settled on the Gulf of Mexico Coast of central Mexico. Very little information has, however, been learned about them as is the case of other early Meso-American civilizations. . Many archaeologists believe that it is the Olmecs that developed many of the characteristics features of Meso-American cultures, including sophisticated calendars and hieroglyphic writing. Archaeologists have not definitively developed the relationship between the Olmec culture and the Maya and other Meso-American peoples. The three best known of these agricultural civilizations (Maya, Aztec, and Inca) were contemporaneous with Medieval Europe. These civilizations are well known because they are the civilizations that the Spanish encountered. The three great civilizations were brought to am abrupt end in the early 15th century by Spanish Conquistadors.

Isolation

The Native American civilizations of the New World are unique in that they developed in isolation from the other great world civilizations. Some of the great Old World civilizations had extensive contacts. Others had only minimal contact, but contact nevertheless. Some archeologists have postulated contacts with Polynesians and or Africans and cthere are some intreaguing indicators, but these contacts have yet been proved with DNA evidence. Whether there were such contacts, it is clear that Native Amnericans of the New World were largely isolsted from the Old World. The contact with the Europeans beginning in 1492 was in many ways to Native Americans like visitors from outer space would seem to our modern world. [West] The Native American civilizations of the Americas lived in almost complete isolation from the rest of the world. This was true to such an extent that many Native Americans thought the Spanish might even been gods. One of the many fascinating questions of history is how Cortez, Pizarro, and other Conquistadores defeated empires with millions of inhabitants with pitifully small armies. One reason is the cultural isolation of Native Americans. One historian writes, "Isolation insulates a culture from a wider field of competition and stimulus; and in the long run this is unlikely to be in its advantage." [Cook] Here the danger in part biological. Isolated communities do develop resistance to major disease. The European Conquistadors brought with them diseases like smallpox that proved more deadly than the European plagues of the 14th century. Another matter is technology. The technological progress in human civilizations do not follow a prescripted pattern. A society my be advanced in some areas and very primitive in others. The Native Americans had sophisticated mathematics and calendars, but did not develop the wheel. Europe on the other hand shared technological advances directly or indicrectly with other civiliizations (especially the Arabs ad China). While the contacts might be tenuous, such as over the Silk Road, might have been tenuous, but it existed. The contribution of Chinese technology to European history and civilization is astonishing. The isolation of Native Americans put them at a great disadvantage to the Spanish. As a result, the Native Americans could not match the technology of the Europeans.

Cultural Diversity

A stunning characteristic of Native Americans is their cultural differences. Perhaps this is a reflection of the relatively small numbers of Native Americans in a vast territory. There were densely settled areas that did produce high culture, but the general pattern was sparse settlements in a vast landscape. There was more cultural differences in the Americas than was the case of the New World. Language is a good reflection of culture. Much of the world population speak Indo-European languages which developed from a common source. There is no such dominant language among Native Americans, perhaps a reflection of waves of migration. Rather there are many language families in both North and South America. Ethnologists have written at length of this cultural diversity. Some authors have found common threads among Native Americans. One, Some see a pervasive spirituality among Native American peoples. Two, Some see a different attitude toward nature. Europeans wanted to harness nature. Native Americans lived in harmony with nature. Native Americans also did not have a concept of land ownership. Three, The Native Americans were decidedly ethnocentric. Often their names were "The People". There was no concept of racism, but there was cultural chauvinism. Whiles and blacks could be accepted into the tribes if the new comers accepted the tribal culture.

European Voyages of Discovery

The Native American civilizations were brought into contact with Europe beginning in the late 15th century by the European explorers . Christopher Columbus was the first in 1492. The initial impetus was trade with the Spice Islands and China, but as rumors of a fabulous cities of gold circulated in Europe, gold became an increasing allure. While there was no El Dorado, Conquistadors found civilizations with great quantities of the precious metal.The great European voyages of discovery of the 15th and 16th centuries were fundamentally economic enterprises. They were conducted by the European countries of the Atlantic coasts to establish direct trade contacts with China and the Spice Islands (Indonesia) that was being blocked by Byzantium/Venice and the Arabs. At the time, trade in silk, porcelain, and spices from the East carried over the Silk Road had to pass through Turkish, Arab, Byzantine, and Italian middleman, making them enormously expensive. The crusaders failed to break the Islamic wall separating still primitive Europe from the riches of the East. Circumventing the land Silk Road and the sea Spice Route would have profound economic consequences for Europe and the world.

The Conquest

The voyages of Columbus and the other European Voyages of Discovery had profound consequences for both Europe and the world. Following on Columbus' voyages, Spain rapidly began establishing colonies. At first Columbus and the Spanish did not realize that they had chanced upon an entirely new continent--the Americas. They thought it was India and thus called it the Indies and the Caribbean Islands have become known to us as the West Indies. Spanish colonization was at first in the Caribbean and extraordinarily brutal. The native Americans on the islands were for the most part exterminated. Next the Spanish looked to the mainland where rumors described Native American civilizations of vast wealth. This led to Diego Cortez's Conquest of Mexico. Balboa had earlier found the Pacific across the Isthmus of Panama. This led to Hernando Pizarro's Conquest of Peru. The gold and silver flowing from the Americas made Spain a European super-power and financed the Great Armada. The most significant impact of the conquests, however, may well have been the introduction of the humble potato to Europe from Peru.

Population

The population of the Americas before the European conquest is unknown. It is also a hotly debated subject in ethology. There are widely divergent estimates. These estimates vary from about 15 million to as much as 150-200 million people. For many years, historians tended to favor very low estimates of the pre-Conquest native American population. Modern historians are likely to adopt the middle ground of about 80-100 million people, but many still accept the lower range if the estimates. There is at this time no real definitive evidence as to the pre-Conquest population of the Americas. This is interesting, because a population of that magnitude would approximately equal that of Europe at the time.

Impact

Each of the three great Native American civilizations were conquered with surprising speed by the Spanish Conquistadors. Even so, the civilizations had profound and offered ignored impact on Europe. The gold and silver which flooded into Europe in the 16th century had a major impact on the European economy. Many new agricultural products including cacao, corn, potatoes, tomatoes, and others were introduced to Europe. Many of these crops or products are of considerable importance. The lowly potato, however, had a huge impact on European society. Farmers found that the amount of food produced per hectare with potatoes was far greater than with any other crop. This meant that European agriculture could support a much larger population and was a major factor in the growth of European populations after the 16th century. Another major crop was corn, although the full potential of this crop only came to fruition in the 20th century.

Images

The Spanish destroyed vast quantities of art work for religioius reasons. This significantly limits the amount of contemporary images. There are many images from the Native American civilizations. Beautiful Maya murals have been found in tombs that the Spanish never found. There are also metal objects and pottery. We have been unable to find contemporary Native American art depicting children and their clothing. There are modern recreations, but as always there is the problem of historical accuracy.

South America

Besides the Inca, there were many other Native American tribes in South America. Many were centered in the Andes or along the narrow coastal plain to the west of the Andes. he Inca highly civilized. The Inca conquered many of the tribes in or along the Andes from Colombia south to Chile. There were also tribes to the east of the Andes. The primitive tribes in the Amazon still exist, although there numbers are now very small. One such group is the Enawene-Nawe. One ongoing mystery is that Spanish sources report a very substantial population in the Amazon basin during the 16th century. Francisco de Orellana set out on a quest for gold and soon found himself just trying to survive. He was the first European to travel the entire length of the Amazon and he reported a huge population of very productive farmers. Historians at first dismissed the Spanish account as fanciful. Modern anthropologists have begun to reassess this judgment. Some believe there indeed once was a very large population in the Amazon basin practicing sophisticated agriculture.

Central America and the Caribbean

Central America in geographic terms is part of North America. Etnographic studies of North America commonly focus primarily on American and Canadian tribes and those of northern Mexico. Central America is often not considered. This is in part because American anthropolgists have focused primarily on those tribes found within the United Satates. Also the Maya dominated much of northern Central America. The Central American tribes south of the Mayan areas in the north were relatively small and primitive. Most disappeared as a result of Spanish slave raiding and exposure to European diseases. This was the same fate as the Arawaks and Caribs in the Caribbean. One of the few tribes to survive are the Cuna. Unlike Centrl America, the Maya never settled the Caribbean, although they are known to have traded with the people of western Cuba. The Caribbean were heavily settled by the Arawaks, Caribs, and to a lesser extent the Chiboneys. Historians debate the relationship between the Arawaks and Caribs. Some theorize that the differences between the two people were a Spanish colonial convention rather than real differences. These people were descimated by the Spanish early in the colonial era through both ill-treatement and disease.

North America

The Spanish encountered the great Native American civilizations in Meso-America and the Andes. There were many other Native American cultures in North America. These tribes were mostly nomadic hunter gatherers, but some practiced agriculture to varying degrees. Native Americans, in part because of the horrendous treatment by white Americans as well as the exposure to European diseases, now comprise only a small part of the American mosaic. It is a rich, colorful tradition, no matter how small. Native American dress is showcased at powwows and other gatherings held annually throughout America.

Holocaust

The term holocaust is today most commonly used to describe the NAZI genocide of European Jews and others. There have been other terrible holocausts in history and not all of them man made. There have been terrible epidemics, the most familiar to Western historians is the bubonic flu epidemics which ravaged medieval Europe. Perhaps the most deadly disease epidemics in history occurred in the Americas in the wake of the European conquests. By a quirk of evolutionary history, Native Americans had no resistance to many of the most deadly human diseases. This was because of the Great Extinction of the Pleistocene Era, the America were left without large mammals which could be domesticated. In Europe and Asia, the advent of civilization brought domestication of many large mammals (cats, dogs, cows, horses, oxen, pigs, sheep, etc). People thus lived in close proximity to these mammals. Peasant family commonly lived with livestock. Most of the most deadly are diseases which have mutated from animal diseases to human diseases (influenza, measles, small pox, and others). Over time Asians and Europeans developed an immunity to these diseases, but Native Americans without these large domesticated mammals did not. Thus when the diseases were introduced by the Europeans, Native American populations were ravaged. Such diseases were, for example, a principal reason in the Cortez's defeat of the Aztecs. Historians believe that as much as 90 percent of the Native American population perished.

Clothing

Clothing varied dramatically among the different Native American peoples. The variations are such that it is difficult to describe any garments that were shared among Native Americans. There were garments that were widely worn regionally such as moccasins in North America and ponchos in the Andes. Thus we have attempted to address clothing either regionally or on the individual tribal pages. Perhaps the most common element was animal products for decoration such as teeth and feathers. But this was not distinctive to Native Americans, these items were also used by stone age people on other continents. There were no garments common among all Native American peoples. The reason for that is that Native Americans were tremendously diverse culturally. Some Native Americans did not wear clothes such as the Tainos that Columbus first encountered in the Bahamas (Lucayas). The Taino on Hispaniola were somewhat more advanced, but clothing was still very basic if worn at all. In contrast the Inca produced some of the finest woven textiles imaginable. The Spanish were shocked by the lack of clothing among the Taino. And along with Christianizing them attempted to get them to wear clothing. Missionaries on Hawaii and elsewhere in Polynesia attempted to do the same. Christian missions played an important role for the spreading of European clothing and sense of modesty. In spite of his effort, clothing was seen as something unconnected with the local culture. Their success in large measure reflected the degree of control. Thus the Spanish with the Native Americans organized into ecomiendas could require Native Americans to adopt Western clothing. The Native Americans isolated in remote areas of the Amazon were able to maintain their cultural patterns.

Sources

Koppel, Tom. Lost World: Prehistory--How New Science is Tracing America's Ice Age Mariners (Atria, 2003), 288p.
West, Rebecca. Survivors in Mexico (Yale University Press, 2003), 264p.

A Stroke of an Insight - Jill Bolte

Slavery in Hisory

Click on the image to open a new window with a timeline of the history of slavery:

Peter Hassler

Click below to download "Ethnohistorical considerations and reflections on indigenous symbols cast a new light on the Mesoamerican cultures: a challenge to scholars of the 21st century" by Peter Hassler: 

 

Peter Hassler's Ethnohistorical considerations in regards to "human sacrifices" amongst the Aztec, direct correspondence with Professor Hassler as a contribution to our course.

'1491': Vanished Americans

By KEVIN BAKER

 

Published: October 9, 2005

MOST of us know, or think we know, what the first Europeans encountered when they began their formal invasion of the Americas in 1492: a pristine world of overwhelming natural abundance and precious few people; a hemisphere where - save perhaps for the Aztec and Mayan civilizations of Central America and the Incan state in Peru - human beings indeed trod lightly upon the earth. Small wonder that, right up to the present day, American Indians have usually been presented as either underachieving metahippies, tree-hugging saints or some combination of the two.

The trouble with all such stereotypes, as Charles C. Mann points out in his marvelous new book, "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus," is that they are essentially dehumanizing. For cultural reasons of their own, Europeans and white Americans have "implicitly depicted Indians as people who never changed their environment from its original wild state. Because history is change, they were people without history."

Mann, a science journalist and co-author of four previous books on subjects ranging from aspirin to physics to the Internet, provides an important corrective - a sweeping portrait of human life in the Americas before the arrival of Columbus. This would be a formidable task under any circumstance, and it is complicated by the fact that so much of the deep American past is embroiled in vituperative political and scientific controversies.

Nearly everything about the Indians is currently a matter of contention. There is little or no agreement about when their ancestors first came to the Americas and where they came from; how many there were, how and where they lived and why they were not more effective in resisting the European invasion. New archaeological discoveries and interpretations of Indian materials are constantly altering the historical record, and every debate comes equipped with its own bevy of archaeologists, anthropologists and other social scientists tossing around personal invective with the abandon of Rudy Giuliani on a bad day.

Mann navigates adroitly through the controversies. He approaches each in the best scientific tradition, carefully sifting the evidence, never jumping to hasty conclusions, giving everyone a fair hearing - the experts and the amateurs; the accounts of the Indians and their conquerors. And rarely is he less than enthralling. A remarkably engaging writer, he lucidly explains the significance of everything from haplogroups to glottochronology to landraces. He offers amusing asides to some of his adventures across the hemisphere during the course of his research, but unlike so many contemporary journalists, he never lets his personal experiences overwhelm his subject.

Instead, Mann builds his story around what we want to know - the "Frequently Asked Questions," as he heads one chapter. He moves nimbly back and forth from the earliest prehistoric humans in the Americas to the Pilgrims' first encounter with the Indian they (mistakenly) called "Squanto"; from the villages of the Amazon rain forests to Cahokia, near modern St. Louis, the sole, long-vanished city of the North American Mound Builders; from the cultivation of maize to why it was that the Incas apparently developed the wheel but never used it as anything but a child's toy.

Mann remains resolutely agnostic on some of the fiercest debates. What he is most interested in showing us is how American Indians - like all other human beings - were intensely involved in shaping the world they lived in. He is sure that "many though not all Indians were superbly active land managers - they did not live lightly on the land." Just how they did live, so long uninfluenced by the vast majority of the world's population in Africa and Eurasia, forms the bulk of his fascinating narrative.

What emerges is an epic story, with a subtly altered tragedy at its heart. For all the European depredations in the Americas, the work of conquest was largely accomplished for them by their microbes, even before the white men arrived in any great numbers. The diseases brought along by the very first unwitting Spanish conquistadors, and probably by English fishermen working the New England coast, very likely triggered one of the greatest catastrophes in human history. Before the 16th century, there may have been as many as 90 million to 112 million people living in the Americas - people who could be as different from each other "as Turks and Swedes," but who had cumulatively developed an incredible range of natural environments, from seeding the Amazon Basin with fruit trees to terracing the mountains of Peru. (Even the term "New World" may be a misnomer; it is possible that the world's first city was in South America.)

Then, disaster. According to some estimates, as much as 95 percent of the Indians may have died almost immediately on contact with various European diseases, particularly smallpox. That would have amounted to about one-fifth of the world's total population at the time, a level of destruction unequaled before or since. The exact numbers, like everything else, are in dispute, but it is clear that these plagues wreaked havoc on traditional Indian societies. European misreadings of America should not be attributed wholly to ethnic arrogance. The "savages" most of the colonists saw, without ever realizing it, were usually the traumatized, destitute survivors of ancient and intricate civilizations that had collapsed almost overnight. Even the superabundant "nature" the Europeans inherited had been largely put in place by these now absent gardeners, and had run wild only after they had ceased to cull and harvest it.

In the end, the loss to us all was incalculable. As Mann writes, "Having grown separately for millennia, the Americas were a boundless sea of novel ideas, dreams, stories, philosophies, religions, moralities, discoveries and all the other products of the mind. Few things are more sublime or characteristically human than the cross-fertilization of cultures. The simple discovery by Europe of the existence of the Americas caused an intellectual ferment. How much grander would have been the tumult if Indian societies had survived in full splendor!"

La Alhambra: a 3D tour of its exteriors

La Alhambra: a 3D visit to its interior

The Mayan Word

The Nuremberg Chronicles (the original document)

Click here (or on the set of illustrations, below) to download the Nuremberg Chronicles (107 MB, PDF version)

HUMAN SACRIFICE AMONG THE AZTECS?

Copyright World Press Review Dec 1992

An aura of lurid fascination surrounds our interest in the Aztecs, the people who, at the beginning of the 16th century, inhabited one of the largest cities of the world: Tenochtitlan. In 1521, this metropolis was erased from the face of the Earth by the Spanish conquerors under Hernando Cortes and his Indian allies. As a justification for their destructive acts, the conquistadors generated propaganda designed to offend the sensibilities of their Christian audience: They described the Aztec practice of human sacrifice. Later chronicles by Spanish writers, missionaries, and even Indian converts also told repeatedly of this cult. Even when scientists called these reports grossly exaggerated, the fact that the Aztecs sacrificed humans remained undisputed. Cutting out the victim's heart with an obsidian knife [fashioned from volcanic glass] was supposedly the most common method of sacrifice, although other forms were practiced as well. These included beheading, piercing with spears or arrows, and setting victims against each other in unequal duels. We are also told that some victims were literally skinned alive; a priest then donned this macabre "skin suit" to perform a ritual dance.

There has been no shortage of theories and explanations for what lay behind these archaic cults. Some researchers have deemed them religious rituals. Others have called them displays of repressed aggression and even a method of regulating population. Although human sacrifice has been the subject of much writing, there has been almost no critical examination of the sources of information about it. A critical review is urgently needed.

Bernal Diaz del Castillo is the classic source of information about mass sacrifice by the Aztecs. A literate soldier in Cortes' company, Diaz claimed to have witnessed such a ritual. "We looked over toward the Great Pyramids and watched as [the Aztecs] ... dragged [our comrades] up the steps and prepared to sacrifice them," he wrote in his Historia Verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva Espana (The True History of the Conquest of New Spain), published posthumously in 1632. "After they danced, they placed our comrades face up atop square, narrow stones erected for the sacrifices. Then, with obsidian knives, they sawed their breasts open, pulled out their still-beating hearts, and offered these to their idols."

The scene of these sacrificial rituals was the main temple in the island-city of Tenochtitlan. The observers, however, were watching from their camp on the shore of a lake three or four miles away. From that point, Diaz could have neither seen nor heard anything. To follow the action at the foot of the pyramid, he would have to have been inside the temple grounds. But this would have been impossible: The Aztecs had just beaten back the Spanish and their allies, who had been besieging the city from all sides.

But Diaz is not the inventor of the legend of ritual murder. Cortes fathered the lie in 1522, when he wrote a shorter version of the tale to Emperor Charles V. He would have been confident that his reports would find ready ears, for in the 15th and 16th centuries many lies were being spread in Spain about ritual murders carried out by the Jews, who were being expelled from the Iberian peninsula along with the Moors. Cortes' lies were a tremendous success: They have endured for almost 500 years without challenge. Along with the lies of the conquistadors, there also have been secondhand reports--what could be called "hearsay evidence"--in the writings of Spanish missionaries and their Indian converts, who, in their new-found zeal, scorned their old religion. The accounts are filled with vague and banal phrases such as, "And thus they sacrificed," which indicates that the writers cannot have witnessed a real human sacrifice.

The only concrete evidence comes to us not from the Aztecs but from the Mayan civilization of the Yucatan. These depictions are found in the records of trials conducted during the Inquisition, between 1561 and 1565. These supposed testimonies about human sacrifice, however, were coerced from the Indians under torture and have been judged worthless as ethnographic evidence.

Along with the written accounts, many archeological finds--sculptures, frescoes, wall paintings, and pictographs--have been declared by the Spanish, their Indian converts, and later anthropologists to be connected to human sacrifice. Yet these images are in no way proof that humans were in fact sacrificed.

Until now, scientists have started from a position of believing the lies and hearsay reports and interpreting the archeological evidence accordingly. The circularity of such reasoning is obvious. There are plenty of possible interpretations of the images of hearts and even killings in these artifacts. They could depict myths or legends. They could present narrative images--allegories, symbols, and metaphors. They could even be images of ordinary executions or murders. Human bones that appear to have been cut also do not serve as evidence of human sacrifice. In tantric Buddhism, skulls and leg bones are used to make musical instruments used in religious rituals; this is in no way connected to human sacrifice.

Leslie J. Furst, a student of symbols used by the Aztecs, has seen depictions of magic where others have seen tales of human sacrifice. For example, one image shows the incarnation of a female god "beheaded" in the same way that a plant's blossom is removed in the ritual connected to the making of pulque, an alcoholic drink. Why scholars have interpreted images of self-beheadings and other things that depart from physical reality as evidence of human sacrifice will puzzle future generations.

There is another important symbolic background for images of killing in Aztec artifacts: the initiation ceremony, whose central event is the mystical death. The candidate "dies" in order to be reborn. This "death" in imaginary or symbolic forms often takes on a dramatic shape in imagery--such as being chopped to pieces or swallowed by a monster. There has been no research into the symbolism of death in the high culture of the Indians of Mesoamerica, however, even though there were many reincarnation myths among these peoples.

The ritual of "human skinning" surely belongs in this same category. In our depictions, we see the skin removed quickly from the victim, with a single cut along the spine, and coming off the body in a single piece. This is scarcely practicable. This "human skin suit" may be nothing but a metaphorical-symbolic representation, as indeed is appropriate for the image-rich Aztec language. And all of the heart and blood symbolism may be just a metaphor for one of the Aztecs' favorite drinks, made from cacao.

The heart is a symbolically important organ in more than just European cultures. In the Indian languages, as well, it is a symbol of courage and the soul. And "cutting the soul from the body," after all, is not a surgical operation. This may explain why no massive catacombs with what would have been the bones of sacrifice victims have ever been found in Mesoamerica.

After careful and systematic study of the sources, I find no sign of evidence of institutionalized mass human sacrifice among the Aztecs. The phenomenon to be studied, therefore, may be not these supposed sacrifices but the deeply rooted belief that they occurred.

From the liberal weekly "Die Zeit" of Hamburg. Peter Hassler, an ethnologist at the University of Zurich, is the author of "Human Sacrifice Among the Aztecs? A Critical Study," published recently in Switzerland.

The Memoirs of the Conquistador Bernal Diaz Del Castillo

 

THE MEMOIRS OF THE CONQUISTADOR BERNAL DIAZ DEL CASTILLO WRITTEN BY HIMSELF CONTAINING A TRUE AND FULL ACCOUNT OF THE DISCOVERY AND CONQUEST OF MEXICO AND NEW SPAIN

The Popol Vuh - the sacred book of the Quiché

 

Download the PDFversion translated into English by clicking here

You can find the Spanish version here: http://www.ecured.cu/index.php/Popol_Vuh

Human sacrifices among the Aztecs: a modern myth (in Spanish)

Taken from: Abya-Yala blog

viernes, 14 de agosto de 2009

INTISUNQU WAMAN ENTREVISTA AL DR. PETER HASSLER

“LOS SACRIFICIOS HUMANOS ENTRE LOS AZTECAS: UN MITO MODERNO”


Hace una década viajamos a México para estudiar, como parte de nuestra tesis universitaria, las fuentes históricas (escritas y figuradas) existentes en dicho país sobre los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas. Los estudios preliminares que hicimos sobre dichas supuestas practicas aztecas nos habían permitido proponer varias hipótesis, las que según nuestro director eran no solamente audaces sino estaban científicamente fundamentadas: estas sostenían grosso modo que los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas nunca existieron y que fueron una invención de los invasores y autoridades coloniales españolas a fin de justificar y legitimar lo actuado manu militari. Desgraciadamente este punto de vista es fielmente continuado y defendido por sus descendientes, los criollos, y claro esta también por los amerindios occidentalizados.

Una primera aproximación académica a dichas fuentes históricas nos acercó al ambiente académico mexicano, donde pudimos encontrar comentarios historiográficos así como interpretaciones de códices y de restos arqueológicos: algo que salta a la vista es que para que estas interpretaciones sean admitidos como “científicamente correctas” deben necesariamente tener como punto de partida el hecho de admitir a priori la existencia de sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas. Estas interpretaciones constituyen la versión histórica oficial que historiadores, arqueólogos, antropólogos, teólogos, sociólogos, guías de turistas y hasta simples profesores de primaria y secundaria deben acatar como si se trata de un dogma inmutable. Como nos dijo un mexicano orgulloso de ser un occidentalizado: “todo puede ponerse en duda menos esto”. Esta creencia, pues se trata de una creencia, constituye el núcleo duro de la ideología que sostiene la presencia del Occidente moderno en el Anahuac (México, Guatemala, Belice, Honduras, El Salvador y Nicaragua).

Ante tal situación, decidimos, gracias a la sugerencia y contactos de hermanos amerindios de EEUU y Canadá, acercarnos a diferentes instituciones representativas de los pueblos amerindios de México, sobre todo las localizadas en el ámbito citadino, para conocer su versión de los hechos. Por asombroso que parezca, una de las primeras constataciones que hicimos in situ, luego de conversaciones extensas con sus más esclarecidos representantes, es que todos unánimemente sostienen que los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas no fueron más que una invención de los españoles del siglo XVI. Ellos fundamentan sus aserciones en base a la transmisión oral, la misma que en forma ininterrumpida y con “agregados de coyuntura” para que pase desapercibida por la censura ideológica y la praxis modernista siempre en alerta, nos ha llegado hasta el presente. Bueno, como la tradición oral, que según el punto de vista modernista imperante, que se basa en culto supersticioso, como lo ha bien anotado René Guénon, del documento escrito así este diga falsedades, no tiene el mismo valor científico que este ultimo. Frente a esto decidimos ahondar el estudio de los documentos escritos, dibujados o pintados por europeos, eurodescendientes y amerindios occidentalizados (en esta categoría incluimos también a los mestizos de primera generación, porque son genética y culturalmente amerindios, así nieguen esta realidad, como es corrientemente su caso), entre 1450 a 1550, es decir durante un siglo.

Por exagerado que pueda parecer cuatro años de estudio ininterrumpido de estos documentos no nos fueron suficientes. Estando en Veracruz, y encontrándonos listos para partir a Chiapas y enseguida ganar Guatemala para estudiar in situ los documentos inquisitoriales, un profesor universitario amigo nos informó de que un europeo, de quien no recordaba ni su nombre ni su nacionalidad, había hecho, hace solamente algunos años, indagaciones parecidas a las que entonces hacía: abandonamos Veracruz a fin de cumplir con el objetivo trazado. De retorno a la ciudad de México y lejos de los ambientes universitarios, nos pusimos a buscar algo sobre el mencionado europeo, un joven amigo historiador náhuatl (Baruc Martínez Díaz) nos puso en la pista correcta y después de varias tentativas finalmente pudimos hacer contacto personal con el mencionado europeo, se trataba de Peter Hassler. Desde entonces hemos cultivado una gran amistad y hermandad.

Peter Hassler, nació el 19 de Diciembre de 1954, en St.Gallen - Place of Origin: Arbon, Suiza; es casado y padre de dos niños. En 1983, concluyó sus estudios de maestría en la Universidad de Bonn (Alemania), adquiriendo el grado académico Magister Artium en “Antropología Amerindia, Indología y Tibetanología”; en 1991, adquiere en la Universidad de Zurich el grado académico de Philosopher Doctor (PhD) en la especialidad de Etnología. No esta demás agregar que Peter Hassler es también poligloto: a parte de su lengua materna, el alemán, tiene una excelente maestría del inglés, español y conoce bastante bien el francés y el italiano. El ha trabajado en diferentes universidades de su país: St. Gallen, Basle y Zurich; actualmente trabaja en el rectorado de la Universidad Pedagógica Terapéutica de Zurich (Hochschule fuer Heilpaedagogik).

Peter Hassler durante tres años, ha escrupulosamente estudiado las fuentes históricas del siglo XVI donde mencionan los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas; de igual modo, ha analizado los mitos y símbolos sacrificiales que se encuentran en códices prehispánicos y posthispánicos mesoamericanos, y finalmente ha analizado las pretendidas evidencias arqueológicas. Su tesis de doctorado es resultado de este enorme trabajo, se titula en alemán: Menschenopfer bei den Azteken? Eine Quellenkritische Studie [traducido en español: ¿Sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas? Un estudio de las fuentes y de la ideología], Universidad de Zurich, 1992, 478p.

Por lo brevemente dicho, es fácil comprender que nuestro entrevistado no es un alucinado que sataniza a los “cristianísimos” españoles del siglo XVI a fin de santificar a los pueblos amerindios, ni tampoco es un sospechoso indianista que pretende una relectura subjetiva de la historia sobre la base de un desbocado sentimentalismo. Lejos de esto, Peter Hassler afirma sin ambages que los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas y otros pueblos amerindios nunca han existido y que son solo una invención de los españoles de los siglos XVI para justificar el genocidio contra las poblaciones amerindias, la destrucción de sus civilizaciones tradicionales y legitimar el actual orden establecido.

Cabe señalar antes de entrar a nuestra entrevista, que la tesis de doctorado de Peter Hassler no ha pasado desapercibida, particularmente, en el mundo universitario germánico[1] (alemán, suizo y austriaco), a tal punto que ciertos han llegado a afirmar que “los estudios ulteriores no podrán ignorar el trabajo de Hassler si se quieren tomar por serios”[2]. Asimismo, han aparecido en inglés algunos sorprendentes comentarios sobre su tesis[3]; en el mundo académico francés que desafortunadamente se solidariza en esto con la versión colonial española no han aparecido comentarios académicos[4] ni recensiones (es la vieja táctica, que aplicaron a la obra magistral de René Guénon: “complot de silencio”). Frente a esto, el Centre de recherches et d’études des traditions amérindiennes – CRETA (Canadá) ha publicado, en español, e incluso distribuido, muchas veces gratuitamente, un resumen de la tesis de doctorado de Peter Hassler: los académicos de habla hispana se han quedado mudos: obstinadamente se niegan a participar en debates académicos sobre el tema, pero pese a ello continúan repitiendo sin sonrojarse el dogma histórico oficial. Esperamos sinceramente que los pocos académicos y ciertos estudiantes universitarios logren romper este cerco intelectual erigido por los modernistas; lo importante es tomar conciencia que las ilusas bases sobre las que reposa el orden establecido por la invasión y colonización española comienza a resquebrajarse…

Intisunqu Waman

Tu tesis de doctorado cuestiona en profundidad la “creencia”, y remarcamos que se trata de una creencia moderna, elevada a rango de verdad indiscutible sobre los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas; evidentemente que esto a molestado a muchos pontífices de la verdad histórica: por ejemplo, Michel Graulich, director de estudios de l’École pratique des Hautes Études de la Universidad Libre de Bruselas (sección sciences religieuses), te presenta, en su reciente voluminosa obra Le sacrifice humain chez les Aztèques, como un “negacionista”[5]. ¿Qué piensas sobre este calificativo?

Peter Hassler

La base de mi tesis de doctorado es el método de la crítica de las fuentes, que fue fundado por los historiadores hace más que 150 años. Este método se ha establecido en las ciencias históricas como conditio sine qua non y es el fundamento de todas las investigaciones históricas. Sin embargo, muchos especialistas, sobre todo historiadores, antropólogos y otros, lo ignoran y todavía siguen ignorándolo o simplemente no les interesaban ni están interesados. Así por ejemplo, Radcliff Brown constata esto cuando escribe “Las consideración históricas son relativas, sino son absolutamente sin importancia”. En referencia de los supuestos sacrificios humanos entre los Aztecas y otros pueblos amerindios los historiadores y antropólogos, particularmente los mexicanistas, preguntaron solamente cómo y porqué los amerindios han hecho los sacrificios humanos, pero jamás se han preguntado si estos sacrificios humanos han sido realmente practicados. Es por eso, que constatamos que casi todas las publicaciones sobre los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas faltan la crítica de las fuentes históricas, es por ello que no se pueden tomar estos trabajos como científicamente serios, sino más bien como aficionadas o diletantes. En este sentido, la publicación de Michel Graulich tampoco es una excepción, aunque su obra sea voluminosa.

Intisunqu Waman
Hernán Cortés y sus secuaces son habitualmente presentados, por la mayor parte de historiadores, antropólogos y arqueólogos occidentales y occidentalizados, como testigos directos de sacrificios humanos entre los pueblos amerindios del Anahuac. ¿Estas afirmaciones tienen algún fundamento histórico?

Peter Hassler
Si se lee atentamente las fuentes históricas del siglo XVI, se puede constatar que los relatos sobre los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas se basan fundamentalmente en “oír-decir”. Según el Liber Chronicorum de Hartmann Schedel, publicado en Nuremberg (Alemania) en 1493: los confines del mundo esta poblado de razas monstruosas: una tiene un solo pie muy grande, que le sirve como paraguas (los sciapodos); otra tiene cabeza de perro (los cinocéfalos), y otra tiene enormes orejas (los panotis); etc. Todas estas descripciones que durante más de tres siglos pasaron como ciertas se fundamentaban en el “oír-decir”.

Así Hernán Cortés escribió en su Tercera Carta de Relación (15 de Mayo de 1522): «... los sacrificaron y abrieron por los pechos, y les sacaron los corazones para ofrecer a los ídolos; lo cual los españoles del real de Pedro de Alvarado pudieron ver bien de donde peleaban...»[6] Es bastante claro que Cortés dice no haber visto dichos sacrificios humanos, sino más bien se basa en el “testimonio” de Pedro de Alvarado. Es Bernal Díaz de Castillo quien afirma, después de cincuenta años al tratar de rectificar las aserciones de Francisco López de Gomara, haber sido testigo de los mencionados sacrificios humanos cuando había estado cerca del real de Alvarado (muy cerca de Tlacopan): desde este lugar éste afirma haber observado que en ese momento se estaban sacrificando a los españoles en la cima del Templo Mayor (“…vimos que llevaban por fuerza las gradas arriba a nuestros compañeros que habían tomado [presos] en la derrota que [los aztecas] dieron a Cortés, que los llevaban a sacrificar; y desde que ya los tuvieron arriba en una placeta que se hacia en el adoratorio donde estaban sus malditos ídolos, vimos que a muchos de ellos les ponían plumajes en la cabeza y con unos aventadores les hacían bailar delante del Uichilobos, y después que habían bailado, luego les ponían de espalda encima de unas piedras, algo delgadas, que tenían hechas para sacrificar, y con unos navajones de pedernal les aserraban por los pechos y les sacaban los corazones aun palpitando y se los ofrecían a los ídolos que allí presentes habían, y los cuerpos dábanles con los pies por las gradas abajo; y estaban aguardando abajo otros indios carniceros, que les cortaban brazos y pies, y las caras desollaban, y las adobaron después como cuero de guantes, y con sus barbas las guardaban para hacer fiestas con ellas cuando hacían borracheras, y se comían las carnes con chilmote, y de esta manera sacrificaron a todos los demás[…]”[7]). Estas afirmaciones sirven en las publicaciones científicas y populares como “testimonio clásico”.

Además hay muchas frases estereotípicas sin detalles como “y sacrificaban hombres y niños” o “y les cortaron el corazón”. Los únicos “testigos” sobre cuando, cual y quién ha sacrificado se encuentra en las Actas de Quijada[8]. Pero estos son documentos de procesos inquisitoriales obtenidos bajo tormento y tortura por el tristemente célebre Diego de Landa[9]; desde el punto de vista jurídico, estas “confesiones” no tienen ningún valor jurídico mucho menos histórico, ya se han producido bajo de tortura y tormentos, y más bien son fantasiosos productos de los victimas inquisitoriales a fin de liberarse del dolor y el sufrimiento.

Intisunqu Waman

Para complementar nuestra ultima pregunta: ¿Es posible que Bernal Díaz del Castillo y otros españoles, quienes en ese momento se encontraban en las afueras de Tlacopan, vieran que los sacerdotes aztecas sacrificaban en la cima del Templo Mayor, que se encuentra en Tenochtitlán, a algunos de sus compañeros de armas prisioneros?

Peter Hassler
La distancia del Real de Alvarado (Tlacopan) hasta el Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlán era de 7 Km. (ver ilustración); es por esto que Bernal Díaz del Castillo ni ningún otro español, jamás pudieron haber visto absolutamente nada de lo que se estaba realizando en la cima del Templo Mayor (ver ilustración 2). Este “testigo clásico de los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas es una ficción”, evocado por la mayor parte de historiadores y antropólogos, ha dicho simplemente una mentira. Se trata simplemente de propaganda para justificar la invasión del Anahuac y su ulterior colonización española.


La distancia que existe entre el Templo Mayor en pleno centro de Tenochtitlán y el Real de Alvarado en Tlacopan es de casi 8 Km.; esto invalida el pretendido testimonio ocular español mencionado por Bernal Díaz del Castillo, ya que no es posible que lo haya visto con sus propios ojos (el telescopio fue inventado por Galileo un siglo después de estos acontecimientos).

Intisunqu Waman

¿Podemos tomar como ciertos los “códices” hechos por amerindios y mestizos, en los que describen en lenguas indígenas (para lo cual utilizan el alfabeto latino), dibujan y pintan escenas sacrifícales humanas realizadas por los “malditos idolatras” (es así como llamaban a sus antepasados aztecas). Es de remarcar que estos amerindios y mestizos no eran simples convertidos al cristianismo renacentista español y excelentes estudiantes de las escuelas de catequesis de los curas dominicos y franciscanos sino que además fabricaron estos “códices” 70 años después de la total destrucción de la civilización azteca?

Peter Hassler

Los autores amerindios y mestizos de códices post-hispánicos no estaban más en la tradición indígena del Anahuac (ver Códice). Ellos conocieron la cultura antigua de sus antepasados por “oír-decir”, sin la transmisión regular de los sabios nahuas (tlamatinini) en las escuelas de sabiduría (Calmecac). Además fueron cristianizados y hablaban de la religión indígena prehispánica como “obra de diablo”. Así pues, sus afirmaciones están “coloreadas” no solamente por su ignorancia de las milenarias tradiciones del Anahuac sino por sus prejuicios, producto de la catequización de los misioneros cristianos. Hay que tener también presente que los códices post-hispánicos no fueron hechos en libertad sino más bien a pedido de sus mentores (misioneros y autoridades españolas); además, los documentos producidos tuvieron que pasar por el celoso cernidor de la Inquisición antes de su publicación (todo aquello que no era “correcto” era simplemente eliminado).

Intisunqu Waman
¿Porqué los antropólogos y arqueólogos que trabajan en el espacio azteca, afirman haber encontrado las pruebas arqueológicas que corrobora la versión de Hernán Cortés y sus secuaces?

Peter Halsser

Sus interpretaciones están confundidas por las fantasías propagandistas de los invasores y colonialistas españoles. Además de ello, no solamente les falta la crítica de las fuentes sino que toman literalmente a los símbolos; por ejemplo, los mitos en los relieves del juego de pelota en El Tajín y en Chichén Itzá y también en los Códices prehispánicos.

Intisunqu Waman

¿A qué crees que se deba la obstinada creencia sobre los sacrificios humanos entre los aztecas? ¿Existe otras razones para explicar esta obstinación?

Peter Hassler
No es fácil luchar con argumentos racionales contra prejuicios: romper mitos es trabajo de todo el día en las ciencias, pero si se va a romper un mito, que fue producido o traducido por una ciencia, no se gana muchos amigos entre sus seguidores... Max Planck constató hace tiempo que: “Un nuevo avance de la ciencia no suele imponerse de manera que sus adherentes estén convencidos y se manifiesten instruidos, sino mas bien que sus adherentes empiecen a desaparecer mientras que la nueva generación se familiariza con la verdad desde el principio.”

Intisunqu Waman
Unas ultimas palabras para nuestros lectores.

Peter Hassler
En referencia de la cultura Maya unos antropólogos e historiadores se están poniendo al día: Así, Pierre R. Colas y Alexander W. Voss llaman a los supuestos sacrificios humano al fin del juego de pelota como “productos de un exotismo estrafalario” (en 2000). La reacción de Nikolai Grube sobre la película Apocalypto de Mel Gibson es aleccionador: “Todo eso es mentira e imposible” (en Die Weltwoche, Zurich, marzo 2007).

Pienso que los mexicanistas (antropólogos e historiadores) necesiten un poco más de tiempo, esto debido a tantísimos prejuicios así como al etnocentrismo que existen en los estudios sobre los pueblos amerindios en general y Aztecas en particular. Pero en el sentido de la frase de Max Planck, solamente se tiene que esperar la desaparición de los incorregibles, quienes se agarran a sus conceptos pasados pese a todas las contradicciones de estas con las fuentes históricas.

(Entrevista aparecida en la revista semestral Serpiente Emplumada, Ano 1, No. 2, Lima-Peru, Solsticio de Verano Austral, 23 de Diciembre 2007, pp.29-42)

NOTAS:

[1] Cf. Die Zeit, Hamburg, No. 38, 11 september 1992, p. 92[2] Cf. Zeitung Neue Zürcher, No. 5, 1993.[3] Cf. « The Lies of the Conquistadors. Cutting through the Myth of Human Sacrifice », in World Press Review, December 1992, pp. 28-29.[4] El especialista en ciencia de las religiones Michel Graulich en su libro, Le sacrifice humain chez les Aztèques, Paris, Fayard, 2005, p. 11, menciona a Peter Hassler sin hacer ninguna referencia a su tesis de doctorado.[5] Ibid.[6] Hernán Cortés, Cartas y Documentos, introducción de Mario Hernández Sánchez-Barba, México, Editorial Porrúa, Colección « Biblioteca Porrúa No. 2 », 1963, p. 171.[7] Bernal Díaz del Castillo, Historia verdadera de la Conquista de la Nueva España, introducción y notas de Joaquín Ramírez Cabañas, México, Editorial Porrúa, Colección « Sepan cuantos...» No. 5, 1999, capitulo CLII, pp. 352-353. Ciertos pasajes de esta citación están en itálica a fin de resaltar la manifiesta mentira escritas por el cronista: como lo señala Peter Hassler, es imposible que desde una distancia de 8 km. Que este haya podido observar que sacaban los corazones de los pechos de los españoles y que estos aun palpitaban! La mentira se hace más evidente cuando el supuesto testigo ocular afirma que la piel de la cara desollada de los españoles era adobada y convertida en guantes, para ser utilizados en fiestas: solamente un mes después de ocurrida la captura y ajusticiamiento de los españoles la ciudad de Tenochtitlán cayó en poder de los españoles, lo que significa que los aztecas nunca tuvieron tiempo, debido al estado de sitio que se encontraba la ciudad de Tenochtitlán, para celebrar fiesta alguna ni menos emborracharse! Finalmente ¿cómo Bernal Díaz del Castillo supo que los aztecas comían las carnes de sus compañeros con chilmote (salsa de tomate con picante y hortalizas) si los historiadores de la época afirman que durante el sitio de la ciudad de Tenochtitlán no funcionaron más los mercados ni habían víveres para los mismos guerreros aztecas? Hay que tener presente que Bernal Díaz del Castillo fue también uno de los asesores de Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda durante parte de su debate con Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas.[8] Al respecto véase France V. Scholes y Eleanor B. Adams, Don Diego Quijada. Alcalde Mayor de Yucatán (1561-1565), México, 1938 (Biblioteca Histórica Mexicana de Obras Inéditas, volúmenes 14 y 15).[9] Quien es conocido de los especialistas debido a su nefasto rol inquisidor; ya que hizo quemar vivos a cientos de mayas, quienes habían cometido el “pecado” de querer continuar viviendo de acuerdo a sus antiguas tradiciones espirituales; este cura católico fue también quien hizo quemar miles de códices mayas prehispánicos.

Were Mayan cultures patriarchal?

Kudomomo/Flickr

Evidence of female deities and women as heads of state are being found amid Maya ruins such as these in Yaxchilan, Mexico.

-------------------------------------------------

New research shows ancient Maya women were powerful leaders

by Joanna Carver
March 06, 2012

Taken from:http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/

Shankari Patel

Some ancient Maya deities were female and the women themselves served as heads of state and warlords until the Spanish colonization of Mexico in the 1500s.

Shankari Patel

These spindle whorls were used for making cloth and as symbols of feminine identity in Maya rituals.

To cell phone-toting, internet-obsessed citizens of the modern world, ancient cultures may seem difficult to relate to. But a new look at Maya art and artifacts shows one of the most advanced ancient societies allowed women much more contemporary power than previously believed.

“I think the popular belief is that they were restricted to the private household,” said Shankari Patel, an anthropology graduate student at the University of California-Riverside. “The popular belief would be that women stay at home, they didn’t really participate in the rituals that were very important in Maya society. The previous research I looked at left out women completely.”

Patel studied artifacts at the British Museum that were brought to the U.K. from Cozumel, Mexico in the 1800s. She found spindle whorls, which were used by Maya women to weave cloth, and she thought it was curious that something apparently meant for private use was so elaborately decorated. With further research she was able to conclude that the spindle whorls were used in public Maya rituals as a symbol of feminine identity.

“Patriarchy in the past is very different,” she said. “Women controlled their own reproductive rights. They had women healers and women midwifes.”

Patel said that because many of the Maya sites were excavated by men, many of their questions about the ancient civilization weren’t related to women. She looked at iconography on art and pottery that showed evidence of female rulers and deities and read historical documents written by the Mayas that detailed their way of life.

The Spanish expedition in the 1500s led by Hernán Cortés saw the destruction of the Maya way of life and the collapse of its society, which developed from about 250 A.D.

“The first person [the Spanish] met was a woman,” Patel said, “The first thing they thought was, ‘What kind of a woman would leave a woman to make first contact?’ They refused to talk with her, so a man had to come and deal with them.”
Thomas Patterson, a professor of anthropology at UC-Riverside and Patel’s dissertation advisor, said part of the reason women’s role in Maya culture has been lost for so long is that archaeologists have been too focused on the bigger sites. Now that that’s changing, researchers are learning more.

“These sites were all viewed as being built by men, viewed by men, and female deities were just weird,” Patterson said. “We didn’t know what to do with those. I think it gives us a much more textured understanding of the role of women in Maya society.”

Cynthia Robin, a professor of anthropology at Northwestern University, called Patel’s research a “very significant finding” and stressed the importance of looking at history to inform the present.

“One of the things we know about Maya society is before the Spanish conquest there was no glass ceiling for women as there appears to be in our own society,” she said.

Robin said that in Maya culture, women were heads of state as well as war lords.

“One of the great things about archaeological research is that it can show us how different life was in the past and how it is in the future,” she said. “So if we assume that gender relations were always the same then we’re just kind of justifying the inequalities that exist today.”

Mesoamerican cultures timeline

 

Maya indigenous peoples prevail despite over 5 centuries of systematic efforts to annihilate them. Although their mature culture has suffered some reversals before, during and after the arrival of Spaniards, the resilience of their culture has proven to be long-lasting.

In our days, the descendants of the Maya culture exist in various colonial countries and maintain a distinctive set of traditions and beliefs that have stood firm and proud. Millions of people speak Mayan languages today in several countries, mainly in Central America and Mexico.