The Process

This section is intended as an explanation of the process that I have used to formulate my religious and ritual practices. As you are already familiar with reconstructionism, I will skip any direct explanation of that concept. Even understanding that, I have found that some people are a bit confused about what the actual process of reconstructing a religion (and thus, being a reconstructionist practitioner) entails.

In regards to any reconstructionist religion, you will hear a lot of talk about study and research. This can't be stressed enough. While many people are lucky enough to belong to religions that have books geared directly towards them at the local Barnes & Noble, or who have organizations that can guide them directly in understanding their chosen religion, reconstructionists are rarely that lucky. Even for those traditions popular enough to have organized worship groups with their own educational and clergy programs, outside study is essential. I've never met a recon worth their salt who read one book or website and gleaned all their information from it. So, while you are reading this website, I urge you to pick up some books on the topic of historical Mesoamerican religion - mythology books, books on Aztec culture, books covering the topic of Mesoamerica in general, and of course, books that focus on Aztec and Mesoamerican theology. Read these books, compare notes, learn about different theories and do your best to figure out what the facts are.

Now, note that I said facts. While your personal beliefs and feelings on these topics are absolutely important (you will never find a religion fulfilling if they conflict too much with its' teachings), the first goal of the reconstructionist is to gain some knowledge on what the original religion consisted of. Only once you know that can you begin to answer the question of whether or not a reconstruction of that religion is right for you. I really believe that this is an important consideration for any religion, reconstructionist or not. The world is filled with too many people trying to make a religion into something it's not in order to fulfill what they want it to be, while if they just looked elsewhere they would find something that would suit them much better. That's not to say that you must agree 100% with every aspect of a religion in order to belong in that religion - I doubt that many people truly do that. But, if you can't even agree with the basic concepts and worldview, or while reading about them you find yourself trying to fudge them into really meaning something else, maybe you should think again about why you're interested in this. It's easy to think that Quetzalcoatl is cool because you love snakes and birds. But will He seem so cool when it's time for a ritual offering? That's why it's important to have a good foundation of knowledge on the historical basis of this religion before attempting modern worship.

Once you've begun studying scholarly sources, you'll quickly realize that some things are pretty definite facts, while others are merely theory, conjecture, or opinion. Since we're dealing with a religion whose pre-Christian form was stamped out almost five hundred years ago, obviously there are a lot of things that we don't know. Sometimes different sources (even primary sources) may contain conflicting information, and many differing opinions will exist on what the most accurate one is. Other times a theory is considered well established, only for a new discovery to be had that discounts it. Even in regards to the known facts, even the best scholars often have pet theories that they do their best to push in their works. If all this is confusion is to be had within the scholarly community itself, imagine how much more exists when we're dealing with recreating this as an actual, living religion. While the situation isn't really as dismal as it may sound at first, it does present challenges. You will often find that reconstructionists differ in opinion about certain points, even within the same tradition. This is partially due to the fact that we are merely people, and people can never agree completely on anything, but a lot of it is also due to the fact that there are some things that we just don't know for sure.

In reading this, I want you to keep in mind that this guide is based on what, in my research and experience, I personally believe to be the most accurate. I have done my best to choose the information that I believe is best supported, and to build my practices based on what I can of that information. Some of this information is probably flawed. For example, the calendar correlations I am using are those that I currently believe to be the closest to the actual timing used by the Aztecs. However, no one knows with certain accuracy what the actual correlations are; these are merely approximations. Several other calendar reckonings exist, and some people swear by them. I don't swear by the ones I use because I know that it is highly unlikely that the calendars were transfered to Gregorian dates with 100% accuracy, but I use them because they're currently the ones most often found in respectable sources. If new information was to be had that gave good evidence for a better correlation then I would use that. So, with the above points in mind, while this is reconstructionism, it is a reconstruction done by me, and a reconstruction done by someone else may turn out looking somewhat different. This is another reason why I stress the importance of studying primary sources and scholarly texts - perhaps a different idea will seem better supported to you than it did to me, and vice versa. It's important to think for yourself and not just accept things at face value, whether those things are said by scholars, people such as myself, or anyone else.

Fill In the Blanks

So, if holes exist in what we can know, what do we do about it? There are a few different approaches that recons use, and again, the preferred approach differs with individual opinion. While we shouldn't accept everything we read or hear at face value if we are given no information to support it, at the same time it's important for a reconstructionist not to make the opposite mistake - completely disregarding a likely conclusion in favor of an unlikely one simply because evidence is scarce for either. This happens more frequently than you might think, and is where common sense comes into play. To use an analogy, let's say that you're baking a cake, but part of the recipe is torn and you can't make out one of the ingredients. Do you substitute something that makes more sense for what you're baking, like sugar or cocoa powder? Or do you decide that cheese should be the missing ingredient because there's nothing you like better than some sharp cheddar? One answer seems more rational while the other one looks ridiculous, and yet people do this in regards to religious topics all the time.

If that's what not to do, then what should we do? Well, my first choice is to look for clues elsewhere within the same religion. Let's say that we're looking at a certain Aztec ritual that obviously contains a lot of symbolism, but the exact meaning of the symbolism has been lost in time. Knowing what the symbolism means may be very important for reconstructing this particular ritual, especially if the symbolism is presented in elements of the ritual that we can't directly duplicate now. We have to know what substitutes we can make with what we have access to today that will still be relevant and convey the same religious meaning in order to create a decent ritual. The first place that I would look for a solution to the problem would be within the Aztec religion itself. What deities are involved in the ritual and what do we know about the symbols associated with them? Do any of these symbols match with those used in the ritual? What about known symbols and metaphors from the myths, codices, and even Nahuatl figures of speech? Are there any other rituals that use similar symbols, the meanings for which are known?

Now, let's say that all this looking still comes up with nothing. In general, my next two choices for possible answers are tied, and I usually use them in conjunction with one another. One thing I would do is look for similarities in other closely related cultures. By closely related cultures, I mean those of Mesoamerica - not the Lakota because they're also an indigenous American culture, not the Egyptians because they also built pyramids, not the Chinese because they also found jade to be sacred. I look at cultures which had known associations with the Aztecs, and who are generally accepted to share some religious and cultural similarities with them. Is there anything that I can learn from these sources that might be a relevant approximation to the missing piece of the Aztec puzzle?

What I also do next is look for any scholarly theories that might exist on the subject. The reason why I don't simply look in one of these places or the other is that I find they complement each other. A scholarly theory might look like an obvioius pet theory if the author doesn't have much support to begin with, and knowing about other possibilities may help you to see that. At the same time, it may also be easy to make assumptions about cultural connections that don't exist, and looking into current theories may help dispell some of that.

Keep in mind in regards to all these methods that even if you find enough scholarly evidence to convince you that you've accurately deciphered the missing piece of information, you could still be wrong. Use the conclusion you have come to and see how it works. If it works out well, share it with others along with your reasons for coming to the conclusions you have, but never under the pretense that your conclusion is a definite, known fact. If it was, you wouldn't have had to do the digging in the first place. Also, always keep yourself open to new information. New discoveries are made all the time in regards to the topics we're studying, and new and better theories come along. It's important that we don't make the mistake of becoming unyielding in the face of new ideas.

Last, but not least, you may find yourself using what recons usually refer to as Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis, or UPG. I will be saying more about UPG in a minute, but for now, suffice it to say that UPG consists of personal spiritual experiences and revelations. In some cases, UPG can be quite helpful in filling in gaps or solving ritual problems. For example, octli (pulque) is pretty much impossible to get in the US, so during rituals that traditionally involve an alcohol offering, an Aztec practitioner may have to come up with an acceptable substitute. The logical conclusion might seem to be tequila, since it's also made from agave. However, I have found that the gods actually seem to prefer sweeter drinks or less strong ones. This is considered UPG, as I am basing this practice on personal spiritual experiences that do not have a provable basis in historical fact. In many cases, we can think of good reasons for why our UPG makes sense - in the above example, octli is significantly milder and sweeter than tequila, and other drinks may better fit those preferences. However, it is still UPG and it's important that we recognize and deliniate this.

At a certain point, some UPG may become something more. Continuing with the above example of alcohol offerings, in discussing this topic with other Aztec practitioners, I have also found that several others have had experiences of the gods expressing a similar preference. At this point, the knowledge becomes what could be termed "shared personal gnosis," as it reflects similar experiences between different practitioners, and offers support for what was once merely an individual's experience. It still isn't based on any provable historical fact, so it is important that we as reconstructionists present it as it is - modern experiential knowledge, rather than something passed down from the Aztecs themselves. It wouldn't be right for us to transfer our personal experiences over history and present them as something that the Aztecs did back in the day - for example, if I were to write a book in which I claimed that the Aztecs offered piña coladas to their gods, I would be downright wrong. This might seem relatively harmless at first, but in reality such claims cause a whole chain of misinformation to be distributed as people who are simply looking for honest information and don't know any better read it, repeat it, and it becomes ingrained and accepted as "correct" when it is in fact not. This may sound extreme, but it actually happens quite frequently in the Pagan community - a Celtic recon friend of mine once mentioned an author who talked about a Celtic "pumpkin goddess," when the Celts did not even possess pumpkins. The difference between stating "I have found that X goddess appreciates pumpkins" and "Goddess X was the Celtic the goddess of pumpkins" is the difference between making something constructive out of your UPG that may (or may not) benefit others, and making a fool out of yourself and everyone else when people who don't know any better accept your statements at face value and repeat them. While such topics as whether or not a certain beverage or fruit was had by a historical culture may seem like innocent mistakes over unimportant details, such mistakes really can and do add up to mass ignorance of epic proportions, at which point it becomes really difficult to battle. The best way to avoid this is to simply accept and present UPG as it is - not a divine revelation intended to be recited as fact to all who will listen, but a personal experience between you and the gods intended to enrich your practice, and to share if applicable to those who are interested.

A Little More on UPG

While UPG experiences are often fascinating to compare among practitioners of the same religion, and can lead to some very solid and functional modern adaptations (how do you think the ancients figured out what to do, after all), not all UPG is as directly functional as "deity X enjoys rum and coke." UPG refers to any personal spiritual encounter, any supernatural occurance or revelation that a practitioner may experience. In many cases, while these incidents are very helpful, meaningful or useful to the individual, they are not necessarily relevant or intended for anyone else. Keep in mind that in many traditional cultures, spiritual experiences were not shared openly with anyone who would listen, but were instead closely guarded and shared only with a few relevant people such a religious guides or family members. In some cases, they weren't shared at all. UPG can be a great asset, but it can also be a tremendous downfall if we don't temper it with reason and exploration, and if shared in the wrong context with the wrong people, it can make you sound downright ridiculous. Keep in mind that spiritual experiences do not always translate well to others, and certainly don't always apply to them. So, while UPG is very important, and is in fact the heart of an individual's religious experience, it is not the religion itself. I think it would be accurate to say that recons generally believe that accurate knowledge and practice lead to UPG, not the other way around. In other words, if you understand the principles of your religion well and practice it faithfully, the gods will be more likely to interact with you directly to help you fill in the blanks. The more popular Neopagan perception is that tossing around a deity's name will result in UPG, which will in turn tell you everything you needed to know about the religion without ever needing to actually study it. This may sound overly critical of UPG, but in the current Neopagan climate I feel it is necessary to make this distinction. While religion remains hollow without personal gnosis, spirituality remains stunted without intelligent direction.

Things to Watch Out For

Chances are that anyone taking a reconstructionist approach to a religion will run into a few things that may at first appear to be real examples of pre-Christian traditions and theology, but really are not. Not everything is as obviously false as a crystal-weilding suburban shaman's claims. As recons we must be dilligent to recognize these things for what they are, so that they do not infiltrate our own practices. Unfortunately, it is often people rather than ideas that are most insidious in this regard. A person making a false claim can go a long way to influence others as long as they look and sound like they know what they're talking about. It is because of this that I encourage anyone researching the subject of Mesoamerica to take their studies outside of my site and the ideas here. I am confident in my beliefs, but I also don't claim to know everything about anything and I can be wrong, and if I am, I hope that other people figure out where I am wrong so that they don't repeat the same mistakes. At the same time, not every difference of opinion is a sign that the other person has made a mistake. Because of this, much of this section is geared towards recognizing when someone has merely come to a different conclusion than you, versus when they may be making a false claim. The reason why I offer this information is because the alternative spiritual community is rife with people who try to awe the unknowing with their supposed wisdom. Your average Neopagan might believe that someone can teach them all about "Aztec Shamanism" simply because they say they can, but as a reconstructionist, you should have a good chance of figuring out whether they really have this wisdom or not before you buy into their claims.

Signs that a person may be presenting dubious "facts":

Claims about a religion that diverge wildly from anything else encountered through research. Why? The majority isn't always correct, nor does old accepted knowledge always turn out to be right. Don't be afraid to examine new theories or ideas that you aren't familiar with. However, if one individual is making a claim that you've never seen any support for anywhere else, that's a good sign that the claim is questionable.

Refusal to engage in constructive debate over their claims. Why? If a person's ideas about a religion are well founded, then they should possess enough information to be able to discuss their reasoning with others. If they can't or won't discuss this reasoning, then it begs the question of why. It may be that they know they possess no well founded knowledge of the topic.

Ignoring the questions or comments of others who are knowledgable on the topic, while simultaneously paying a great deal of attention to anyone who is not so knowledgable about it. Why? This is usually the sign of someone who wants to attract others who don't know enough about the subject. They realize that they can't fool people who already know about the subject, but for whatever reason, they gain something from fooling those who aren't yet well versed on it.

Discouraging people who are new to the religion from seeking information elsewhere. Why? This suggests that they are interested in gaining followers rather than helping educate people who are interested in the religion. If one's beliefs are well supported by one's religion, there is no reason to be afraid of encouraging outside study.

Refusal to offer any sources for their information. Why? If an idea is contested, then others should have access to the sources - or at least the knowledge of what those sources are - so that they can decide for themselves. If someone withholds this information intentionally, one should question their motives. Even if the answer is as simple as that they can't remember where they got the information, at least it puts things in perspective and is an honest answer.

A source is offered, but the individual relies simply on one or two sources for all their information. Why? People who rely heavily on only one or two sources for all their information do not usually have a full perspective on the topic, or may have chosen sources that specifically reflect their views despite the reliability of those sources. For example, someone who prefers a monotheistic view of the Aztec religion might restrict their reading to Leon-Portilla's works.

A source is offered, but it is an outdated source. Why? Outdated sources are more likely to contain information that has been disproven later on. Those that rely on these sources may be bringing up old arguments that have already been defeated. Outdated sources can be useful for some things, but if we rely on them solely or do not keep up with current knowledge, we cannot put them in perspective, and may end up with an inaccurate view. I have met a few people who read some old books, then essentially retired from religious study, but still believed that what they had learned a decade or two before about a certain culture is set in stone.

A source is referenced which is claimed to be a hidden gem, ignored by all scholars for mysterious reasons. Why? While it is possible that someone might stumble upon some great treasure of knowledge which few others have noticed, it is highly unlikely. Don't ignore the source given, but try to figure out the truth behind it before you accept it as correct. Scholars study these topics because they love them and want to know what they can about the topic. If a certain source is so fantastic, it simply makes no sense that it would be largely ignored by scholars who devote themselves to figuring these things out. If it's being ignored by scholars, there is probably a reason. Find out what the reason is before you buy into the theory.

Claims that the majority of their knowledge comes from a source that cannot be verified (i.e. they were personally taught by a Maya shaman, or raised in the tradition by their grandmother). Why? While there may be a chance that such claims are true, the chance is very small. How likely is their claim? If they claim that they were, for example, taught by a Maya shaman, what was his name? Where did he live? Under what circumstances did the person come to be taught by him? Does the person in question use this claim in order to place themselves above others? Examine how believable the claim is before you decide to believe it.

What all this really boils down to is a person's support for their claims, especially when those claims seem highly unusual. Is there something to a theory, or is it simply the religious version of a magic act - all illusion with no substance. Similarly, as a reconstructionist, it goes without saying that you should also try to avoid doing any of the things described here yourself.

Putting Syncreticism in Perspective

With that less pleasant topic covered, I shall now discuss syncretic practices as they may pertain to the process of reconstructing pre-Christian religions. In researching cultures of interest, one may examine anthropological or ethnographic information. On one hand, these sources can offer a wealth of information, particularly when it comes to missing pieces of a religious puzzle. On the other hand, contemporary cultures may differ in many key aspects from their pre-Christian ancestors. Most notably, many aspects of religious practice within these cultures today are syncretic in nature, meaning that they stem from a combination of influences that have come together to form a new whole. A syncretic religion might share common traits with several religions, and yet despite this, be completely different from those religions in other regards. In most cases, these differences stem from the combination of parent religions. It may be tempting to look at a certain practice and see it as a thinly disguised survival from pre-Christian times, but this is not always the case. Often, even if a syncretic religious practice or belief is largely based on a pre-Christian one, certain key aspects will have changed based on Christian influence. In other cases, a religious practice may very closely resemble an original pre-Christian one, but because of Christian influence, the underlying beliefs connected to the practice are now very different from those that would have been connected to the practice in pre-Christian times. For example, many modern Mesoamerican cultures identify as largely Christian, and believe in the Christian god and Jesus, as well as various saints. Rituals may be held celebrating certain saints which, during the time shortly after the conquest, were intentionally made to resemble Precolumbian rituals for deities which became associated with those saints as a method of encouraging conversion. However, 500 years later, the ritual may still look very Precolumbian in certain aspects, but the belief behind the worship has changed almost entirely due to the effects of time and the prevailing Christian worldview in the area. If we were to look at these rituals for clues to Precolumbian worship, we may indeed find clues, however, we should be careful of what we see as clues. If the beliefs behind the ritual now revolve around a selection of saints, one supreme deity and a savior figure, we should not then conclude automatically that the Aztecs believed in a selection of saint-like less deities, a supreme deity, or that Quetzalcoatl was a savior figure.