The Aztecs and Monotheism II: Confronting the Evidence

Let’s talk about where the myth that the Mexica and their associates had only one deity (Ometeotl) began. Who are the proponents of this myth? Interestingly enough, this widespread belief can be traced to one source: the Mexica Movement. I’m not here to criticize their political maneuvers. But I am here to criticize the spiritual propaganda being fed to us; things which I feel dishonor our ancestors. To reclaim pride and honor is a good thing. To do it by embracing those very qualities you claim to hate defeats the purpose.

Having looked extensively at the Mexica Movement website, I have read many statements insisting that the Mexica had, depending on when and where the statement is being made, “no gods,” or that they “didn’t believe in god,” or that they believed only in “one creator.” This one creator is, at times, said to not be a god. At other times, they refer to Ometeotl as “Our Mexica word for God.” To make things simple, I shall simply use the word “god” in this, but my argument can and will refer to all possible meanings of these statements – from the idea that the Aztecs believed in a single deity, to the idea that they believed only in Ometeotl as a cosmic/natural force (without any deities present).

While these comments are extensively made anywhere that fans of the Mexica Movement appear, no evidence – even from the source of the movement itself – is ever given. The statements are simply made repeatedly, “We had no gods!” “We had only one god, Ometeotl!” Never is an argument made as to why this is so, never is any evidence given as to how they know this is so. Olin Tezcatlipoca, the leader of this movement, makes the statement, and the masses follow without questioning its truth. Is that what our tlamatinime and leaders would have done in the past? To take the statement of another without question is not the wise way.

Interestingly enough, the MM’s book list is full of readings that will teach people well about the culture of the Mexica and other native civilizations. Short statements are sometimes made about these books, extolling their virtues or pointing out their faults. They go so far as to call Jacques Soustelle, author of Daily Life of the Aztecs, worthy of being an honorary Mexica for his fantastic treatment of the subject. But what faults do they proclaim? Where do they place the label of “Eurocentric”? On the notion that the Aztecs had multiple deities. Even after giving Soustelle the highest honor, Olin cautions us to beware; this book contains the Eurocentric notion that the Aztecs believed in many gods. The same fault he finds in any other book, no matter how much he claims the texts to otherwise deal perfectly with the subject of the Mexica (I should note that since this original writing, I noticed the MM changed the layout of their website, and the comments have been removed from their booklist).

All this time I have to wonder, “Where has Olin got his idea from?” Then I found it there in the booklist, one tiny mention of evidence to justify his statement. In his comments on Miguel Leon-Portilla’s translation of The Broken Spears, Olin claimed that the book “beautifully expresses” the Mexica belief in Ometeotl. Having read The Broken Spears (and most of the other books on the list) myself, I was puzzled for a moment, trying to figure out just where Olin’s statement was coming from. The book is Portilla’s translation of the Aztecs’ own account, in their own words, of the conquest. What better place than to find the true beliefs of the Aztecs than in their own words, translated by one of the most renown and faithful translators of Nahuatl? But having read the book itself, the Aztecs’ own words are full of mentions of gods and sacrifices (another thing some MM fans deny having taken place). No mentions of “the one creator” or “the dual force of the universe” or even “a manifestation of Ometeotl.” Luckily, however, Olin provided the page number on which Ometeotl is “beautifully expressed.” To my amusement, it is not a portion of the translated text, but rather page xlii, a portion of Portilla’s own introduction to the book. Portilla has long been a proponent of the idea that the Aztec tlamatinime (philosophers) believed in far fewer gods than the rest of the populace (I will leave the statement at that, as Portilla’s own claims change from book to book and paragraph to paragraph). This theory has its own large loopholes, but for now we will leave it alone and examine the quote from Portilla’s introduction at face value. It is:

Let’s also note that this, the only mention of this throughout the whole book, follows a very lengthy section on Tlacaelel, a huge political and religious figure during the Aztecs’ heyday, and his invention of flowery wars designed to give Huitzilopochtli enough captives for sacrifice. Portilla makes it very clear that one of Tlacaelel’s main goals was to ensure that “their (the Aztecs’) gods-Huitzilopochtli in particular-are raised to the same level as the ancient creative gods Tezcatlipoca and Quetzalcoatl.” But for a moment, let’s take Portillas’ statements on the Aztecs’ single god at face value, and examine only the statements as they are above. I’ll even give this theory the benefit of the doubt, and examine it from the point of view most flattering to the proponents of the Aztec monotheism theory (while still being logical).

First, let’s look at the idea of the monotheistic tlamatinime as being true. The tlamatinime are philosophers and poets; they aren’t tlamacazque or teopixque (priests). In other words, they are not the holders of the official religious doctrine- they are not the proponents of the traditional Mexica belief system. In addition to this, Portilla makes it clear both in The Broken Spears and Aztec Thought and Culture that the tlamatinime were not often mainstream figures even as poets and philosophers. Rather, the tlamatinime were an elite; though they might not have had qualms about sharing their thoughts with others, they spent most of their time within their own groups, or with the nobility that they often were a part of themselves. Even if we are to take it as true that the tlamatinime were monotheists, this does not at all reflect the beliefs of the national religion of the Mexica, nor the beliefs of the common people or the majority. The tlamatinime are not the keepers of official religious tradition, nor do they make a habit of indoctrinating the common people into their philosophies. Philosophers are well known for challenging traditions and beliefs (that’s what got Socrates in trouble); in fact, I would venture to say that it is most common for philosophers to think outside of, or at least doubtfully analyze, the traditional beliefs of their culture. Even without analyzing this as far as I have, all you need to do is take Portilla’s statements at face value; he himself makes it clear that the tlamatinime’s beliefs are not the common religious beliefs. Let’s look at these statements again:

If it is true that the tlamatinime were monotheists (this will be debated later on), it cannot be truthfully claimed that the Aztecs as a people believed in only a single deity. The tlamatinime represent an elite whose knowledge and beliefs are not that of the masses. Even to take Portilla’s claims without question, it is clear that the majority of the populace believe in an entire pantheon, while only the “upper social levels” worshipped a single deity. If one chooses to subscribe to Portilla’s claims, one also chooses to relegate the beliefs of the common man to that Eurocentrically-defined “primitive” pile that Olin seems so keen on purging from Mexica history. If Olin and the rest of the MM wanted to resurrect old tradition in a way that would be most faithful to majority of Aztec belief, they would do better to embrace the traditional views of polytheism. If a single god was most on the minds of the Aztec populace, Portilla makes it clear that it was Huitzilopochtli- a deity that he defines as a “tutelary deity” whom the Aztecs fought for strong recognition of. This is a far cry from Olin’s fantasy of a culture made up of believers in a single, esoteric creator.

Wow, all that without even challenging the truth of Portilla’s claims, or challenging Olin’s statement that these few paragraphs “beautiful express” the Aztecs' belief in Ometeotl. All we needed to do is think about the claims made, and actually look to see where they stem from, in order to come to a logical conclusion which the tlamatinime themselves would likely be proud of in its’ process.

So, what of the tlamatinime? Is it really “quite clear” that the tlamatinime believed in only one deity? Portilla gives no evidence for this statement during The Broken Spears, so I will look at his claims in Aztec Thought and Culture. I use Aztec Thought and Culture because it is often considered Portilla’s definitive work, and it is a book composed mainly on his analyses of and theories on Aztec culture rather than a collection of translations (though there are several translations of segments of native texts throughout the book).

Although Portilla makes the unbacked claim of pure monotheism among the tlamatinime in The Broken Spears, in Aztec Thought and Culture he sings a different tune. Aztec Thought and Culture once again contains sections on Tlacaelel, flowery wars, and the rise of Huitzilopochtli in the Mexica pantheon. Once again, he makes it clear that the common people saw the gods not as names for a single creator, but as a pantheon of deities in which Huitzilopochtli would lead them to glory. But what of the mysterious tlamatinime?

According to Portilla’s claims in this book, the tlamatinime weren’t even monotheists. Instead, they believed in Ometeotl (the Dual Creator), and His four sons; beings whom Portilla makes clear are deities. In Aztec Thought and Culture, Portilla presents the “names” as referring not only to aspects of Ometeotl, but also to aspects of his four sons. Portilla does not dispute Ometeotl’s original creation of children in the form of four gods to govern the principle forces of the cosmos. Rather, his claims only center on the idea that the Aztec pantheon consisted of many aspects of these five beings. Again taking his claims at face value, the tlamatinime themselves believed in at least five deities. Add to this the fact that Ometeotl is considered both one and separate depending on the circumstances, and the number of deities could even rise to six on occasion.

But where are these claims even made clear? In The Broken Spears, Portilla assures us that “a closer analysis of the religious thought of the tlamatinime” makes it clear that they believed in far fewer gods than the average Aztec. I have read Portilla’s books, and I have yet to see it made clear through close analysis. The fact of the matter is: Portilla, like many scholars, is the perpetrator of a pet theory. The difference: this pet theory actually caught on.

How do I come to the conclusion that it’s merely a pet theory, you ask? Throughout Portilla’s works, much like Olin, he never gives justification for his claims. He never shows where and how it is made clear that the tlamatinime believed only in a single god/and his four children. Although Portilla is a scholar and writes lengthy works on his theories, and although he is the foremost translator of Nahuatl, he is unable to back this one. As a scholar, Portilla does the admirable job of going out of his way to bring as much native literature to the public light as he can. He himself wants to believe that, somehow, there were monotheistic Aztecs. And yet, even in his own translations of the words of the Aztec philosophers, poets, and priests, he cannot avoid the fact that the Aztecs themselves repeatedly referred to many gods in their literature. If, as some have suggested, Aztec texts have merely been “translated eurocentrically” to insert many gods where there is only one (or none), then Portilla would be the man to translate these texts properly. Not only is he the foremost translator of Nahuatl, he strongly wishes to believe that the writers of these texts approached monotheism in their beliefs. If the texts truly referred to no gods, or a singular god, Portilla would be the one to show us. And yet, instead of this, Portilla faithfully translates the Aztecs’ own words in contradiction to his own. In one chapter, he talks about his theories on Aztec monotheism; in the next, he presents “the last defense of the tlamatinime,” with such touching phrases as:

It is important to realize that the texts that Portilla translates are the Aztecs’ own words in Nahuatl, not Spanish. Because of this, no Spanish ideas about “primitive gods” have been inserted; instead, what we have is Portilla’s own faithful translation of the original Nahuatl words, spoken 500 years ago by a group of tlamatinime who were about to be executed. What better time to tell the Spaniards how you really feel?

Not only in the sections I have related here, but also repeatedly throughout the tlamatinime’s defense, the gods are referred to not only as “gods,” but also with the term “they”- a very plural statement. If “gods” was mistranslated, as some MM fans have suggested, and really only means “single god,” “divine force,” or whatever they’re claiming at the moment, then the tlamatinime would’ve used “He” “She” or “It” to describe the gods instead of “they.” This is, in fact, the way Ometeotl is referred to; Ometeotl’s dual nature is reflected by coupling phrases using singular pronouns that refer both to the masculine and feminine qualities of Ometeotl. To use another translated quote from Aztec Thought and Culture as an example:

Ometeotl is always referred to in this way, using singular pronouns in coupled phrases. This expresses the duality of Ometeotl along with its oneness. Never is the term “they” used in regards to Ometeotl; if the tlamatinime were lamenting about a single god only, or simply a cosmic force, why would they use “they” when such a term is never used unless in reference to several different beings? They wouldn’t.

Countless other examples like this can be given, from any one of Portilla’s books. The Broken Spears contains various references, made by the Aztecs themselves, to their various gods. To shoot the “cosmic force” theory down further, these gods are also presented as distinct beings. In fact, Tezcatlipoca even makes a physical appearance to a group of Motecuhzoma’s sorcerers. Why would the Aztecs make these claims if they did not sincerely believe in various gods, and likewise sincerely believe that they were personified beings rather than esoteric forces? They wouldn’t.

Pet theories like this are not uncommon in the world of historical scholars. Most of Portilla's books are relatively dated (these two volumes were both published in the 1960's), and during this period and earlier, it was not uncommon for scholars to theorize and even insist that clearly polytheistic cultures contained a secretive monotheistic elite. The Maya, Egyptians, and Druids all suffered from this, and over time the monotheistic theory has been disproven among these cultures as well. The reason for this rampant belief is simple: like the MM followers today, many scholars of the time were unable to believe that civilizations so advanced as these could be run by people professing such a "primitive" belief as polytheism.

In short, “a closer analysis of the religious thought of the tlamatinime” has only shown that they did indeed believe in and often refer to several different gods, evidenced by their own words on the subject. Furthermore, Portilla's own statements have shown that the general Aztec populace was quite polytheistic in nature. At this point I have to conclude that Portilla’s statements on “Aztec monotheism” are simply his own pet theories that have no basis in the reality of Aztec theology and philosophy, and the twisted versions of his theories being tossed about by the MM and others like them are even more baseless still.

References:
Portilla, Miguel Leon-Portilla. The Broken Spears. 1962, Beacon Press, Boston, USA.

Portilla, Miguel Leon-Portilla. Aztec Thought and Culture. 1963, the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, USA.