In 1577, the king of Spain, Philip II, sent out a detailed questionnaire to gather information about his colonies in the Americas. Officials in regions like New Spain were asked to describe their lands, peoples, and communities. The responses, known as the Relaciones Geográficas, were written by local Spanish officials along with Indigenous scribes and notaries, providing valuable insights into life both before and after Spanish colonization. Many of these reports included maps, called pinturas, created by Indigenous artists. These maps are especially important because they combine European mapping techniques with older Indigenous artistic and writing traditions. As a result, they offer a unique view of colonial society that reflects multiple perspectives. Consider the following as you analyze the maps below:
As you examine the Town of Cempoala map, think about how it portrays both the landscape and the people who lived there. Consider what these details reveal about local geography, political relationships, and the importance of Indigenous knowledge in shaping how this region was represented.
As you examine the Town of Cholula map, consider how these neighborhoods and landmarks are arranged and what they reveal about daily life, religion, and power in a colonial city. Think about why certain places are emphasized and how they reflect the priorities of the people who created the map
This map shows the town of Cempoala, located in the Archbishopric of Mexico, along with many surrounding communities such as Tepeyabalco, Tepemayalco, Tlalnexpa, Tlacopa, Izapotla, Xochitepec, Tecpilpa, and others. It provides a broad view of the region, emphasizing connections between neighboring towns rather than focusing on just one central place. The map also includes detailed images of the natural environment such as desert plants, animals, and landforms as well as representations of Indigenous leaders.
The Town of Cholula: Relaciones Geográficas
This map shows the town of Cholula, located in the Bishopric of Tlaxcala, during the colonial period. It highlights several neighborhoods, including San Miguel Tecpan, Santiago, San Juan, Santa María, San Pablo, and San Andrés, giving a sense of how the community was organized. The map also identifies important landmarks such as the Pyramid of Cholula, the Franciscan convent, the municipal palace, and the marketplace.
The prints of José Guadalupe Posada (1852–1913) remain among the most iconic and influential examples of how popular culture became a vehicle for political and social critique in late 19th- and early 20th-century Mexico. Through his distinctive engravings and illustrations—widely circulated in broadsheets, pamphlets, and newspapers—Posada gave visual expression to the frustrations and hopes of Mexico’s working class, who bore the weight of Porfirio Díaz’s authoritarian modernization. His art offered not just entertainment, but sharp satire, often skewering the excesses of the bourgeoisie and exposing the deep injustices of Díaz’s regime. Posada’s images struck a chord with the public, weaving together acerbic commentary with elements of folk tradition, religious symbolism, and the vivid iconography of Day of the Dead calaveras—motifs he helped bring into popular consciousness. Though he died in poverty and relative obscurity, Posada’s influence far outlived him. He is now hailed as the “printmaker of the Mexican people,” a tribute to his deep connection with the humor, struggles, and resilience of everyday Mexicans. His prints not only captured a turbulent era in Mexican history but also paved the way for future generations of politically engaged artists—including the Mexican Muralists, such as Diego Rivera, who saw Posada as a foundational figure in the evolution of modern Mexican art. Consider the following questions as your read the selections below:
How does electricity represent progress or danger in this work?
What might Posada be saying about the role of technology in relation to life and death? Is it liberating, dehumanizing, or both?
How did political and social conditions during Porfirio Díaz’s regime influence Posada’s imagery in this piece?
What do you think the “American mosquito” symbolizes in this piece? Is it just a pest, or does it represent something more — like imperialism, capitalism, or foreign intervention?
Subheading: The first of November, Like devils will run The electric street cars That go out to Dolores[cemetery in Mexico City].
Verse 4: The electricity will be Of the strongest, señores, There will be dead folks and skeletons On their crop-tailed horses.
Verse 10: Into the light of many lamps Lit by our electricity The dead there [at Dolores Cemetery] will emerge, From their tombs to dance.
Verse 24: The electric street cars ¡So many people they’ll bringTo turn them into skeletons With pure electricity!
The American Mosquito
Subheading: The American Mosquito Has just now arrived; They say that it came to walk around On our Mexican soil.
Verse 1: They say it started on Sunday Over there in Laredo, Texas, Biting on the ears Of some old women at the Station. It made them run around Until it made them sweat This inhuman beast: The American Mosquito.
Verse 2: It proceeded on to Guanajuato, This is a laughable thing, It never made it to the center of town, But it was in Marfil. Now they suffer no more Such a rude and haughty thing, Why it bit an old soldier Right on his behind. Because it’s really very crude The American Mosquito.
Verse 3: It went off toward Irapuato And passed through Pénjamo; From there it returnedThrough the village of Uriagato, The hacienda of Villachato It left all in shambles; All the people frightened As their buddy Mariano found them, Grandma Emeteria shouted: The American Mosquito.
Verse 4: Through the ports of San Juan Piedra Gorda and la Sandía, An old woman said: “Jesus, what a ferocious beast!” Tell me Don Pascual Has the Mosquito arrived? They say it’s really tiny, And also very beastly; What does it say papa Pachito The American Mosquito?
José Francisco Ponciano Arriaga Leija (1811–1865) was a prominent liberal puro who played a significant role in shaping Mexico’s constitutional framework during a pivotal era of reform. As president of both the Asamblea Constituyente and the Comisión de Constitución, Arriaga was a vocal advocate for transformative change, particularly in addressing the deep-rooted issue of land inequality. Alongside other radical liberals, he championed the need for land reform as a means to dismantle the lingering vestiges of colonial privilege and empower the rural poor. While the full realization of these reforms would not occur during Arriaga’s lifetime, his advocacy laid crucial ideological groundwork. The demands for land redistribution would ultimately be brought to fruition decades later with the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920), where agrarian justice became one of the central rallying cries of the movement. Consider the following questions as your read the selections below:
How is the ownership of land distributed amongst Mexicans?
What recourse do the landless turn to?
What will the value of a new constitution be without land reform?
One of the most deeply rooted evils of our country— an evil that merits the close attention of legislators when they frame our fundamental law— is the monstrous division of landed property. While a few individuals possess immense areas of uncultivated land that could support millions of people, the great majority of Mexi-cans languish in a terrible poverty and are denied property, homes, and work. Such a people cannot be free, democratic, much less happy, no matter how many constitutions and laws proclaim abstract rights and beautiful but impracticable theories— impracticable by reason of an absurd economic system. There are Mexican landowners who occupy (if one can give that name to a purely imaginary act) an extent of land greater than the area of some of our sovereign states, greater even than that of one or several European states. In this vast area, much of which lies idle, deserted, aban-doned, awaiting the arms and labor of men, live four or five million Mexicans who know no other industry than agriculture, yet are without land or the means to work it, and who cannot emigrate in the hope of bettering their fortunes. They must either vegetate in idleness, turn to banditry, or accept the yoke of a landed monopolist who subjects them to intolerable conditions of life. How can one reasonably expect these unhappy beings to escape from their condition as abject serfs through legal channels, or hope that the magic power of a written law will transform them into free citizens who know and defend the dignity and importance of their rights?
We proclaim ideas and forget realities; we launch on discussions of rights and turn away from stubborn facts. The constitution should be the law of the land, but we do not regulate or even examine the state of the land. . . . How can a hungry, naked, miserable people practice popular government? How can we proclaim the equal rights of men and leave the majority of the nation in conditions worse than those of helots or pariahs? How can we condemn slavery in words, while the lot of most of our fellow citizens is more grievous than that of the black slaves of Cuba or the United States? When will we begin to concern ourselves with the fate of the proletarians, the men we call Indians, the laborers and peons of the countryside, who drag the heavy chains of serfdom established not by Spanish laws— which were so often flouted and infringed— but by the arbitrary mandarins of the colonial regime? Would it not be more logical and honest to deny our four million poor Mexicans all share in political life and public offices, all electoral rights, and declare them to be things, not persons, establishing a system of government in which an aristocracy of wealth, or at most of talent, would form the basis of our institutions? For one of two things is inevitable: either our political system will continue to be dominated for a long time to come by a de facto aristocracy— no matter what our fundamental laws may say— and the lords of the land, the privileged caste that monopolizes the soil and profits by the sweat of its serfs, will wield all power and influence in our civil and political life; or we will achieve a reform, shatter the trammels and bonds of feudal servitude, bring down all monopolies and despotisms, end all abuses, and allow the fruitful element of demo-cratic equality, the powerful element of democratic sovereignty— to which alone authority rightfully belongs— to penetrate the heart and veins of our political institu-tions. The nation wills it, the people demand it; the struggle has begun, and sooner or later that just authority will recover its sway. The great word reform has been pro-nounced, and it is vain to erect dikes to contain those torrents of truth and light. . . . Is it necessary, in an assembly of deputies of the people, in a congress of representatives of that poor, enslaved people, to prove the unjust organization of landed property in the Republic, and the infinite evils that flow from it? . . . In the realm of a purely ideal and theoretical politics, statesmen discuss the organization of chambers, the division of powers, the assignment of jurisdictions and attributes, the demarcation of sover-eignties, and the like. Meanwhile other, more powerful men laugh at all that, for they know they are the masters of society, the true power is in their hands, they exercise the real sovereignty. With reason the people think that constitutions die and are born, governments succeed each other, law codes pile up and grow ever more intricate, “pronouncements” and “plans” come and go, but after all those changes and upheav-als, after so much disorder and so many sacrifices, no good or profit comes to the masses who shed their blood in the civil wars, who swell the ranks of the armies, who fill the jails and do forced labor on the public works, who, in fine, suffer all the misfortunes of society and enjoy none of its benefits.
With some honorable exceptions, the rich landowners of Mexico (who rarely know their own lands, palm by palm), or the administrators or majordomos who represent them, resemble the feudal lords of the Middle Ages. On his seignorial land, with more or less formalities, the landowner makes and executes laws, administers justice and exercises civil power, imposes taxes and fines, has his own jails and irons, metes out punishments and tortures, monopolizes commerce, and forbids the conduct without his permission of any business but that of the estate. The judges or officials who exercise on the hacienda the powers attached to public authority are usually the master’s servants or tenants, his retainers, incapable of enforcing any law but the will of the master. An astounding variety of devices are employed to exploit the peons or tenants, to turn a profit from their sweat and labor. They are compelled to work without pay even on days traditionally set aside for rest. They must accept rotten seeds or sick animals whose cost is charged to their miserable wages. They must pay enormous parish fees that bear no relation to the scale of fees that the owner or majordomo has arranged beforehand with the parish priest. They must make all their purchases on the hacienda, using tokens or paper money that do not circulate elsewhere. At certain seasons of the year they are assigned articles of poor quality, whose price is set by the owner or majordomo, constituting a debt that they can never repay. They are forbidden to use pastures and woods, firewood and water, or even the wild fruit of the fields, save with the express permission of the master. In fine, they are subject to a completely unlimited and irresponsible power.
The political ideals of José María Morelos y Pavón are most clearly articulated in his seminal document, Sentiments of the Nation (Sentimientos de la Nación), delivered in 1813 during the Congress of Chilpancingo. Drawing inspiration from both the principles of the European Enlightenment and the socio-political realities of colonial Mexico, Morelos envisioned a sovereign nation rooted in justice, equality, and popular representation. His proposals included the abolition of slavery, the elimination of caste-based distinctions, and the redistribution of wealth—radical ideas for their time. Although Morelos was ultimately unable to unify the various factions within the independence movement or achieve political consensus, Sentiments of the Nation left a lasting imprint on Mexico’s legal and constitutional development. It laid the ideological groundwork for later liberal reforms and helped shape the national vision of a republic founded on civil liberties and social equity. Consider the following questions as your read the selections below:
What kind of government did Morelos envision for Mexico?
What role did the Roman Catholic Church have in the Mexico Morelos envisioned?
How were citizenship, rights, and obligations to be determined in Mexico as stipulated in Sentiments of a Nations
Did you find elements of liberalism and conservatism housed in Sentiments of a Nation?
Sentiments of the Notion or Points Outlined by Morelos for the Constitution
That America is free and independent of Spain and of all other Nations, Governments, or Monarchies, and it should be so sanctioned, and the reasons explained to the world.
That the Catholic Religion is the only one, without tolerance of any other.
That all the ministers of the Church shall support themselves exclusively and entirely from tithes and first-fruits (primicias), and the people need make no offering other than their own devotions and oblations.
That Catholic dogma shall be sustained by the Church hierarchy, which consists of the Pope, the Bishops and the Priests, for we must destroy every plant not planted by God: minis plantatisquam nom plantabir Pater meus Celestis Cradicabitur. Mat. Chapt. XV.
That sovereignty springs directly from the People, who wish only to deposit it in their representatives, whose powers shall be divided into Legislative, Executive, and Judiciary branches, with each Province electing its representative. These representatives will elect all others, who must be wise and virtuous people . . .
[Article 6 is missing from all reproductions of this document.]
That representatives shall serve for four years, at which point the oldest ones will leave so that those newly elected may take their places.
The salaries of the representatives will be sufficient for sustenance and no more, and for now they shall not exceed 8,000 pesos.
Only Americans shall hold public office.
Foreigners shall not be admitted, unless they are artisans capable of teaching [their crafts], and are free of all suspicion.
That the fatherland shall never belong to us nor be completely free so long as the government is not reformed. [We must] overthrow all tyranny, substituting liberalism, and remove from our soil the Spanish enemy that has so forcefully declared itself against the Nation.
That since good law is superior to all men, those laws dictated by our Congress must oblige constancy and patriotism, moderate opulence and indigence, and be of such nature that they raise the income of the poor, better their customs, and banish ignorance, rapine, and robbery.
That the general laws apply to everyone, without excepting privileged bodies, and that such bodies shall exist within accordance with the usefulness of their ministry.
That in order to dictate a law, Congress must debate it, and it must be decided by a plurality of votes.
That slavery is proscribed forever, as well as the distinctions of caste, so that all shall be equal; and that the only distinction between one American and another shall be that between vice and virtue.
That our ports shall be open to all friendly foreign nations, but no matter how friendly they may be, foreign ships shall not be based in the kingdom. There will be some ports specified for this purpose; in all others, disembarking shall be prohibited, and 10% or some other tax shall be levied upon their merchandise.
That each person’s home shall be as a sacred asylum wherein to keep property and observances, and infractions shall be punished.
That the new legislation shall forbid torture.
That the Constitution shall establish that the 12th of December be celebrated in all the villages in honor of the patroness of our liberty, the Most Holy Mary of Guadalupe. All villages shall be required to pay her monthly devotion.
That foreign troops or those of another kingdom shall not tread upon our soil unless it be to aid us, and if this is the case, they shall not be part of the Supreme Junta.
That there shall be no expeditions outside the limits of the kingdom, especially seagoing ones. Expeditions shall only be undertaken to propagate the faith to our brothers in remote parts of the country.
That the great abundance of highly oppressive tributes, taxes, and impositions should be ended, and each individual shall pay five percent of his earnings, or another equally light charge, which will be less oppressive than the alcabala [sales tax], the estanco [crown monopoly], the tribute, and others. This small contribution, and the wise administration of the goods confiscated from the enemy, shall be sufficient to pay the costs of the war and the salaries of public employees.
That the 16th of September shall be celebrated each year as the anniversary of the cry of independence and the day our sacred liberty began, for on that day the lips of the Nation parted and the people proclaimed their rights, and they grasped the sword so that they would be heard, remembering always the merits of the great hero, señor don Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, and his compañero, don Ignacio Allende.
Diego Valadés, illustration of preaching to the Indigenous population in New Spain, from Rhetorica christiana ad concionandi et orandi vsvm accommodata, 1579.
The effectiveness of the mendicant orders in converting and baptizing Native Americans depends largely on the sources consulted. Native Indigenous sources challenge the extent to which the regular clergy succeeded in converting Indigenous peoples. Below is a selection of census records from Morelos dating between 1535 and 1540, a period when this region of Mexico was a central focus of the Spiritual Conquest. These records provide historians with valuable insights into household composition and the presence of Christianity within these communities. As you analyze these sources, consider what they reveal about Indigenous households. Consider the following questions:
What is the typical size of a tlatoani’s household, and who comprises it?
How does this compare to the size and composition of a commoner’s household?
What indicators of baptism can be identified in these sources?
How many members of a tlatoani’s household were baptized compared to those in a commoner’s household?
If there is a difference, what might explain it?
Finally, based on these documents, how effective was the Spiritual Conquest in Morelos? Beyond baptism, what additional insights do these records provide about Nahua households and their social structures?
The ruler of the city-state of Huitzillan’s household
Here is an altepetl (city-state) whose name is Huitzillan […] [There are] [six?] groups of calpulli (kinship/residence group) members. Here is the one who governs there, the tlatoani [ruler] whose name is Don Tomás […]zatzin.
Here is his wife, whose name is Doña* María Tonallaxochiatl. Here are his children, seven of them. The first one is named Ana Tlaco, now ten years old. The second is named María Xocoyotl, now nine years old. The third is named Magdalena Tlaco, now eight years old. Here is the fourth, named Pedro Tecue[…], now seven years old. The fifth is named Pedro Omoacatl, now six years old. Here is the seventh, named Cocoliloc, now four years old. -Here is another of his children [separately engen-dered?], not baptized, named Cocoyotl, now two years old. Here are the concubines of Don Tomás, […] six of them. The first is named María Tlaco, the second is named Marta Xoco. The third, not yet baptized, is named Teicuh. The fourth, not baptized, is named Teicuh [sic]. The fifth, not baptized, is named Necahual. The sixth, baptized, is named Magdalena Teya[ca]pan.
Here are the dependents of the tlatoani Don Tomás. The first dependent person is not baptized, named Necahualli, a widow; three years ago her husband [died]. She has [two?] children. [The first?], not baptized, is named Teyacapa […] years old. [The second], not baptized, is named Ichpocton, now three years old. Here is the second dependent [of the tlatoani], named Xoco, now [ten years old?]. Here are the fields of Don Tomás, 800 [units of measure] of lordly land. And here is his tribute: every 80 days he delivers five Cuernavaca cloaks, [one good?] embroidered skirt, a thick tribute garment, no provisions of food, et cetera [sic]. In the residence of the tlatoani Don Tomás there are 20 people who are included in the tecpan [palace].”
Typical household in Huitzillan
Here is the home of one named Tomiyauh, not baptized. His wife is named Teicuh, not baptized. They have had no children. Here are his four younger siblings. The first is named Poton, not baptized. He has taken a wife. His wife is named Necahual, not baptized. They do not yet have children. They were married not long ago. The second of his younger siblings is named Acol, not baptized, born ten years ago. The third of his younger siblings is named Teicuh, not baptized. She is married. Her husband is named Huehuetl, not baptized. The fourth is named Xoco, not baptized, born seven years ago. Tomiyauih’s mother […], just an old woman. Here is one he maintains, named Teyacapan, not baptized. Her home is not far, there [i.e., nearby]. Here is his field: 20, 15 matl [unit of measure] wide. Here is his tribute: every 80 days he delivers on quarter-length of a cloak, so that in one year it is one whole Cuernavaca cloak. Here is his provisions tribute: one quarter-length of a narrow cloak, so that in one year it is one whole one; no tribute cloaks. That is all of his tribute. In addition, his younger siblings look for cotton [for?] his tribute. Ten are included; they are in one house.
Las Siete Partidas is a landmark legal code compiled in 13th-century Castile during the reign of King Alfonso X, known as Alfonso the Wise (r. 1252–1284). Written between 1256 and 1265, this extensive legal text sought to unify and standardize the kingdom’s laws by drawing upon Roman, Visigothic, and canon law traditions. Comprising seven distinct sections, the code addresses a wide range of legal matters, including governance, civil and criminal law, family relations, commerce, and religious affairs. Although Las Siete Partidas was not immediately enforced upon completion, it went on to become one of the most influential legal texts in Spain and its territories, particularly in colonial Latin America. It shaped Spanish legal traditions for centuries and remained a key reference in the Spanish-speaking world well into the modern era. The code reflects Alfonso X’s vision of a centralized monarchy and underscores the role of law in maintaining order and justice. Today, Las Siete Partidas stands as a crucial resource for understanding medieval Iberian law, governance, and culture. Consider the following questions as you read the selections below:
According to the passage, what are the three justifications for war?
How does the passage reflect the concept of the divine right of kings or the idea that rulers have a moral obligation to wage just wars?
The passage distinguishes between two types of war—one against internal enemies and one against external enemies. How does the reasoning behind each differ, and what does this suggest about medieval perspectives on governance and security?
Title XXIII – Concerning the War which all Persons on Earth should engage in
War is of two kinds one bad, the other good. And although each of these can be divided with relation to the deeds to which it gives rise, nevertheless, so far as the name and the manner of making it are concerned, both are one and the same thing; for engaging in hostilities, although it involves destruction and the inciting of dissensions and enmity among men, yet, when, it is carried on as it should be, it afterwards brings peace, from which result quiet, rest and friendship. For this reason the ancient sages declared that it was well for men to endure the hardships and dangers of war, because, by this means they eventually obtain beneficial peace and rest; and since the evil inherent in it is productive of good results, and on account of the mistrust which compels men to engage in war, those who desire to inaugurate it should be well informed before they begin.
Wherefore, since in the preceding Title we have spoken separately of knights and commanders, and of the things which they are required to observe and do, we intend to show here in the laws of this Title what wars it is proper both should engage in with consideration of the two different advantages which may be obtained by their country through war; first, by learning how to protect and defend it from its enemies; second, how to aggrandize, it by obtaining their property. In the first place, we shall show what war is; how many kinds there are; for what reasons it should be made; with what things those who desire to make it should be provided and equipped; what kind of men those who are selected to act as commanders in the war should be; what they should do and observe; how all the rest of the people should be governed by them; and what benefit arises from this control. We shall also show how many kind of bodies of troops there are; and how they should be divided when they have to invade a country or go into battle; and also how the officers should be vigilant while in command of an army when it marches from one place to another, or when they select a camp for the night, or desire to lay siege to a town or castle; and, above all, we shall speak of foraging parties, ambuscades, forays, and all the other kinds of hostilities which men engage in.
Law I – What War Is, and How Many Kinds There Are
The ancient sages who treated of the subject of war stated that it is hostility to peace, the motion of things that are quiet, and the destruction of things that are complex. They also described war as something from which proceeds the death and captivity of men, and the injury, loss, and ruin of property. There are four kinds of war. The first is called justa, in Latin, which means, in Castilian, founded upon right. This happens where a man engages in it to recover his own property from the enemy, or to protect himself and it from them; the second is called, in Latin, injusta, which means a war instituted through pride, and contrary to what is right. The third is called civilis, which means one which arises among the inhabitants of a certain locality, as among factions, or in a kingdom on account of some disagreement which the people have among themselves. The fourth is called plusquam civilis, which means a war in which not only the citizens of some locality contend with one another, but also where relative is arrayed against relative, by reason of faction; as was the case with Caesar and Pompey, who were respectively father-in-law and son-in-law, And in which war Romans fought, fathers against their sons, and brothers against their brothers, some of them supporting Caesar and others Pompey.
Law II – For What Reasons Men Are Impelled to Make War
The inauguration of war, is something which those who wish to, make it should carefully consider before they begin, in order that it may be carried on with reason and justice, for, by doing this, three great advantages are obtained; first, God will afford greater assistance to those who institute it in this manner; second, they will exert themselves more strongly on account of their being in the right; third, those who hear of it, if they are friendly, will assist them with greater good will, and if they are hostile, will withdraw themselves more from them. The right to maintain a just war, is as the ancient sages explained, based upon three considerations; first, to expand the religion of the People, and to destroy those who wish to oppose it; second, for the sake of their lord, by desiring loyally to serve, honor, and defend him; third, in order to protect themselves and aggrandize and honor the country in which they dwell.
A war of this kind should be made in two ways, namely; one on enemies who are within the kingdom, who are doing harm to the country by robbing and unjustly depriving men of their property – for kings and those who have the right to sit in judgment should oppose such as these, and see that justice is executed upon them and the whole body of the people should fight them, in order to eradicate and expel them. For, as wise men stated, persons of this kind are malefactors in the kingdom, and resemble poison in the body of a man, who cannot be well as long as it is there. Wherefore, it is proper that war should be carried on with men of this kind, by pursuing them and inflicting upon them as much injury as possible until they are driven from the kingdom or killed, (as we stated above in the laws of the Title treating of this subject,) in order that the people who inhabit the land may be able to live in peace. The second kind of war of which we intend to speak here, is that which is carried on with enemies outside the kingdom, who desire to deprive the people of their country by force, and for the purpose of protecting them in what they should justly possess. We desire to show how this kind of war should be made, as established by the ancient sages, who, as well as other knights, thoroughly understood it, because they were well informed on the subject through their own operations and practice during a long period of time.
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.
Source: 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 Legend of the Four Suns is one of the most significant surviving texts detailing Nahua cosmology, offering a comprehensive account of the universe’s origins and evolution. Equally important, it presents a cyclical view of time, describing the successive ages the earth has undergone. According to this tradition, four previous suns—or eras—preceded the current one. In addition to the Legend of the Four Suns, the Aztec Calendar Stone also records these four previous ages, prominently depicted at its center (see image above). Consider the following questions as you analyze this source:
What is the purpose of cosmologies?
How were the different ages in Nahua cosmology created and destroyed?
What insights does this cosmology provide about Nahua culture?
Here is the oral account of what is known of how the earth was founded long ago. One by one, here are its various foundations [ages].
How it began, how the first Sun had its beginning 2513 years ago—thus it is known today, the 22 of May, 1558. This Sun, 4-Jaguar, lasted 676 years. Those who lived in this first Sun were eaten by ocelots. It was the time of the Sun 4-Jaguar. And what they used to eat was our nourishment, and they lived 676 years. And they were eaten in the year 13. Thus they perished and all ended. At this time the Sun was destroyed. It was on the year 1-Reed. They began to be devoured on a day [called] 4-Tiger. And so with this everything ended and all of them perished.
This Sun is known as 4-Wind. Those who lived under this second Sun were carried away by the wind. It was under the Sun 4- Wind that they all disappeared. They were carried away by the wind. They became monkeys. 13. Their homes, their trees everything was taken away by the wind. And this Sun itself was also swept away by the wind. And what they used to eat was our nourishment. [The date was] 12-Serpent. They lived [under this Sun] 364 years. Thus they perished. In a single day they were carried off by the wind. They perished on a day 4- Wind.
The year [of this Sun] was 1-Flint. This Sun, 4-Rain, was the third. Those who lived under this third Sun, 4-Rain, also perished. It rained fire upon them. They became turkeys. This Sun was consumed by fire. All their homes burned. They lived under this Sun 312 years. They perished when it rained fire for a whole day. And what they used to eat was our nourishment. [The date was] 7-Flint. The year was 1-Flint and the day 4-Rain. They who perished were those who had become turkeys. The offspring of turkeys are now called pípil-pípil.
This Sun is called 4-Water; for 52 years the water lasted. And those who lived under this fourth Sun, they existed in the time of the Sun 4-Water. It lasted 676 years. Thus they perished: they were swallowed by the waters and they became fish. The heavens collapsed upon them and in a single day they perished. And what they used to eat was our nourishment. [The date was] 4-Flower. The year was 1-House and the day 4-Water. They perished, all the mountains perished. The water lasted 52 years and with this ended their years.
This Sun, called 4-Movement, this is our Sun, the one in which we now live. And here is its sign, how the Sun fell into the fire, into the divine hearth, there at Teotihuacán. It was also the Sun of our Lord Quetzalcóatl in Tula. The fifth Sun, its sign 4-Movement. Is called the Sun of Movement because it moves and follows its path. And as the elders continue to say, under this sun there will be earthquakes and hunger, and then our end shall come
Source: León-Portilla, Miguel. Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind. University of Oklahoma Press.
Fray Diego de Landa’s Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán (1566) is a pivotal historical and ethnographic account of the Maya civilization, written during the Spanish colonization of the Yucatán Peninsula. As a Franciscan missionary, Landa meticulously documented Maya culture, language, religious practices, and daily life. However, he is also infamous for orchestrating the 1562 auto-da-fé in Maní, which led to the destruction of Maya codices and religious artifacts. Despite this contradiction, his work remains an invaluable resource, offering crucial insights into Maya glyphs and traditions that later contributed to the decipherment of the Maya script. Notably, Landa’s original Relación de las Cosas de Yucatán has never been found. The version that survives today is an abridged copy, transcribed by unidentified bureaucrats. This preserved text remains a key source on the Maya calendar and writing system, ensuring that some of Landa’s observations endure despite the loss of the original manuscript. As you analyze this selection from the abridged manuscript, consider the following questions:
According to Landa, what materials did the Maya write on?
What happened to many of these works?
How does Landa describe the workings of the Maya writing system?
Use these questions to guide your analysis as you engage with the text.
These people also used certain characters or letters with which they wrote in their books their ancient affairs and their sciences, and with these and with figures and some signs in the figures, they understood their affairs and they made others understand them and taught them. We found among them a large number of books in these their letters, and because they had nothing in which there was not superstition and lies of the devil, we burned them all, which they regretted to an amazing degree and which caused them sorrow. Of their letters I will give here an A, B, C, since their ponderousness permits nothing more, for they use one character for all the aspirations of the letters and, later, they unite with it part of another and thus it goes on ad infinitum, as will be seen in the following example. le means noose and to hunt with it; to write le with their characters (we having made them understand that these are two letters), they wrote it with three, placing for the aspiration of I the vowel e, which it carries in front of it, and in this way they do not err even though they might use [another] e if, out of curiosity, they so wish. Example:
Afterwards, at the end, they affix the part which is joined. Ha means water, and because the h has a before it, they put it at the beginning with, and at the end in this fashion:
They also wrote in parts, but in one way or another that I shall not give here nor will I deal with it except by giving a full account of this people’s affairs. Ma in kati means I don’t want to and they write it in parts in this fashion:
There follows their A, B, C:
Of the letters which are missing, this language lacks them and has others added from our own for other things of which it has need, and already they do not use these their characters at all, especially the young people who have learned ours.
Source: Coe, Michael D. Breaking the Maya Code (Third Edition) (Kindle Locations 1797-1805). Thames & Hudson. Kindle Edition.
Ricardo Flores Magón (1873–1922) was a prominent Mexican activist, journalist, and political reformer, renowned for his fierce opposition to the dictatorship of Porfirio Díaz. In 1900, he founded Regeneración, an influential newspaper that served as a powerful platform for denouncing the regime and championing social justice. His uncompromising activism led to repeated imprisonments under Díaz’s rule. While in exile in the United States, Magón co-founded the Mexican Liberal Party (PLM), advancing anarchist and revolutionary ideals. He remained committed to his cause until his death under suspicious circumstances at Leavenworth Penitentiary in Kansas in 1922. Today, Magón is remembered as a foundational thinker and ideological forerunner of the Mexican Revolution. Consider the following questions when reading the selection below:
What has been changed by La Revolución?
What has been gained by workers through La Revolución?
That afternoon dies without specific peculiarity. The sun, lazy, did not want to spread his golden hair in all the circumference of the horizon, as if he would be upset from the baseness of men, that because of their smallness they kill each other, because of nothing they suffer, and from nothing they are amused, like poor worms.
Through the dusty highway–and dusty, too–an older man walks. It must have been a long journey, judging by the reflected tired face and his painful walk. He carries a backpack, a shirt, made of bleached cotton, perhaps, and worn out pants. It is a soldier returning home from the Orozco group.
The man walks and walks, walks observing the groups of men and women assiduously, working in their eternal labor, dressed in very humble clothes, with sadness and desperation showing in their sunburned faces. These people work the same, dress the same, have the same look than before the revolution.
The revolutionary stops to contemplate the picture and questions, “Why did we have the revolution?”
And he continues walking to his village where he will see his loved ones, waiting for him anxiously, for sure, children and wife, after his long absence. The highway is slowly covered by shadows. To his side walks a group of workers marching towards their shacks, with the same looks of weariness, of fatigue, and maybe resentment. The revolutionary turns to the group and asks, “Why did we have the revolution?”
He continues walking towards the village, where he will find his loved ones, where they are waiting desperately after a long wait, his children and wife.
The barking of dogs denounces the proximity of the village completely submerged in darkness.
The wind weeps between the branches of ash trees burdening the road. Our traveler walks, walks, and walks, thinking about his loved ones…
The next day the revolutionary has to go back to the furrow, as any other one to make 25 to 50 cents a day; and if Vazquez Gómez has gotten the presidential chair, the poor keep on being poor, keep on being humiliated by the rich and by the authority.
The revolutionary reflects and questions, “Why did we have the revolution?”
Worn out, he returns to his shack, where he had been the night before. A pot of beans is their dinner, with a few tortillas. The dog yawns close to the fire; crickets sing their love in the cracks; children sleep almost naked. “Who won?” asks his wife, who is so happy to be able to stretch and hug her absent husband’s arms, and had not been able to ask the question before. After a few minutes, thinking, the revolutionary answers,
“Well, we did.”
“But you have not even a cent.”
“Well anyhow, we son–we dethroned Madero.”
“But we were left down, as always,” says the woman.
The revolutionary scratches his hair and, not having any other way to answer,and answering as before, he questions, “Why did we have a revolutionary?”
“Why did we have the Revolution?” the woman asks.
And the revolutionary, surprised of this woman thinking like him, could not stand his indignation anymore, backing inside and exclaimed, “The revolution is only for the bold ones, the ones who want to be in the government, the ones who want to live off of the work of others! “
We got furiously obstinate by not listening to the anarchists of Regeneration, who in all ways have advised us not to follow the employers, to take possession of the land, water, fields, mines, the factories, mills, miner, means of transportation, and that we should commune property to all the population of the Mexican Republic and so, we would consume what we produced. We were told that to struggle to elevate individuals was a criminal offense. We did not listen, because they were poor, from our own class, and as the saying goes, we carry penitence from our own sins. This is what we deserve, for being stupid! Our employers are having a great time right now, while we, the bait, the suckers, the ones who work, sweat, and struggle, show our chests to the enemy; now we are the ones who suffer more than before… Juan sounds the trumpet, announcing a meeting; rubs his eyes…It was a bad dream! Picks up his rifle, and rejoices, knowing the fact he’s joining the lines of the red flag liberators, and yells with sound voice, “Hail to my laud and freedom!”
(From “Regeneración,” number 87, dated April 27, 1912.)
