Manuscripts painted by pre-Columbian and colonial Aztec
Part of the first pages ofCodex Mendoza, depicting the founding ofTenochtitlan.Florentine Codex, Book 12 on the conquest of Mexico from the Mexica viewpoint. (Cortez's army advancing while scouts report to Moctezuma)Diego Durán: A comet seen by Moctezuma, interpreted as a sign of impending peril. (Codex Duran, page 1)Detail of first stones from theCodex Boturini depicting the departure fromAztlán.Codex Magliabechiano: ritual cannibalism. (Folio 73r)Codex Xolotl:Chimalpopoca inHuitzilopochtli ritual attireMapa Quinatzin: Palace ofNezahualcoyotlBadianus Herbal Manuscript A page of theLibellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis, composed in 1552 by Martín de la Cruz and translated into Latin by Juan Badianus, illustrating thetlahçolteoçacatl,tlayapaloni,axocotl andchicomacatl plants used to make a remedy for a wounded body
Before the start of theSpanish colonization of the Americas, the Mexica and their neighbors in and around the Valley of Mexico relied on painted books and records to document many aspects of their lives. Painted manuscripts contained information about their history, science, land tenure, tribute, and sacred rituals.[2] According to the testimony ofBernal Díaz del Castillo,Moctezuma had a library full of such books, known asamatl, oramoxtli, kept by acalpixqui or nobleman in his palace, some of them dealing with tribute.[3] After the conquest of Tenochtitlan, indigenous nations continued to produce painted manuscripts, and the Spaniards came to accept and rely on them as valid and potentially important records. The native tradition of pictorial documentation and expression continued strongly in the Valley of Mexico several generations after the arrival of Europeans, its latest examples reaching into the early seventeenth century.[2]
Since the 19th century, the wordcodex has been applied to all Mesoamerican pictorial manuscripts, regardless of format or date, despite the fact that pre-Hispanic Aztec manuscripts were (strictly speaking) non-codical in form.[4] Aztec codices were usually made from long sheets of fig-bark paper (amate) or stretched deerskins sewn together to form long and narrow strips; others were painted on big cloths.[5] Thus, usualformats include screenfold books, strips known astiras, rolls, and cloths, also known as lienzos. While no Aztec codex preserves its covers, from the example of Mixtec codices it is assumed that Aztec screenfold books had wooden covers, perhaps decorated with mosaics in turquoise, as the surviving wooden covers of Codex Vaticanus B suggests.[6]
Aztec codices differ from European books in that most of their content is pictorial in nature. In regards to whether parts of these books can be considered as writing, current academics are divided in two schools: those endorsinggrammatological perspectives, which consider these documents as a mixture of iconography and writing proper,[7] and those withsemasiographical perspectives, which consider them a system of graphic communication which admits the presence of glyphs denoting sounds (glottography).[8] In any case, both schools coincide in the fact that most of the information in these manuscripts was transmitted by images, rather than by writing, which was restricted to names.[9]
According to Donald Robertson, the first scholar to attempt a systematic classification of Aztec pictorial manuscripts, the pre-Conquest style of Mesoamerican pictorials in Central Mexico can be defined as being similar to that of theMixtec. This has historical reasons, for according toCodex Xolotl and historians likeIxtlilxochitl, the art oftlacuilolli or manuscript painting was introduced to the Tolteca-Chichimeca ancestors of the Tetzcocans by the Tlaoilolaques and Chimalpanecas, twoToltec tribes from the lands of the Mixtecs.[10] The Mixtec style would be defined by the usage of the native "frame line", which has the primary purpose of enclosing areas of color. as well as to qualify symbolically areas thus enclosed. Colour is usually applied within such linear boundaries, without any modeling or shading. Human forms can be divided into separable, component parts, while architectural forms are not realistic, but bound by conventions. Tridimensionality and perspective is absent. In contrast, post-Conquest codices present the use of European contour lines varying in width, and illusions of tridimensionality and perspective.[4] Later on, Elizabeth Hill-Boone gave a more precise definition of the Aztec pictorial style, suggesting the existence of a particular Aztec style as a variant of the Mixteca-Puebla style, characterized by more naturalism[11] and the use of particular calendrical glyphs that are slightly different from those of the Mixtec codices.
Regarding local schools within the Aztec pictorial style, Robertson was the first to distinguish three of them:
A large number of prehispanic and colonial indigenous texts have been destroyed or lost over time. For example, when Hernan Cortés and his six hundred conquistadores landed on the Aztec land in 1519, they found that the Aztecs kept books both in temples and in libraries associated to palaces such as that of Moctezuma. For example, besides the testimony of Bernal Díaz quoted above, the conquistadorJuan Cano de Saavedra describes some of the books to be found at the library of Moctezuma, dealing with religion, genealogies, government, and geography, lamenting their destruction at the hands of the Spaniards, for such books were essential for the government and policy of indigenous nations.[12] Further loss was caused by Catholic priests, who destroyed many of the surviving manuscripts during the early colonial period,burning them because they considered them idolatrous.[13]
The large extant body of manuscripts that did survive can now be found in museums, archives, and private collections. There has been considerable scholarly work on the classification, description, and analysis of these codices. A major publication project by scholars of Mesoamerican ethnohistory was brought to fruition in the 1970s: volume 14 of theHandbook of Middle American Indians, Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources: Part Three is devoted toMiddle American pictorial manuscripts, including numerous reproductions of single pages of important pictorials. This volume includes John B. Glass and Donald Robertson's survey and catalogue of Mesoamerican pictorials, comprising 434 entries, many of which originate in the Valley of Mexico.
Three Aztec codices have been considered as being possibly pre-Hispanic:Codex Borbonicus, theMatrícula de Tributos and theCodex Boturini. According to Robertson, no pre-Conquest examples of Aztec codices survived, for he considered theCodex Borbonicus and the Codex Boturini as displaying limited elements of European influence, such as the space apparently left to add Spanish glosses for calendric names in theCodex Borbonicus and some stylistic elements of trees in Codex Boturini.[4] Similarly, theMatrícula de Tributos seems to imitate European paper proportions, rather than native ones. However, Robertson's views, which equated Mixtec and Aztec style, have been contested by Elizabeth-Hill Boone, who considered a more naturalistic quality of the Aztec pictorial school. Thus, the chronological situation of these manuscripts is still disputed, with some scholars being in favour of them being pre-Hispanic, and some against.[14]
The types of information in manuscripts fall into several categories: calendrical, historical, genealogical, cartographic, economic/tribute, economic/census and cadastral, and economic/property plans.[15] A census of 434 pictorial manuscripts of all of Mesoamerica gives information on the title, synonyms, location, history, publication status, regional classification, date, physical description, description of the work itself, a bibliographical essay, list of copies, and a bibliography.[16] Indigenous texts known as Techialoyan manuscripts are written onnative paper (amatl) are also surveyed. They follow a standard format, usually written in alphabetic Nahuatl with pictorial content concerning a meeting of a given indigenous pueblo's leadership and their marking out the boundaries of the municipality.[17] A type of colonial-era pictorial religious texts are catechisms calledTesterian manuscripts. They contain prayers and mnemonic devices, some of which were deliberately falsified.[18] John B. Glass published a catalog of such manuscripts that were published without the forgeries being known at the time.[19]
Another mixed alphabetic and pictorial source for Mesoamerican ethnohistory is the late sixteenth-centuryRelaciones geográficas, with information on individual indigenous settlements in colonial Mexico, created on the orders of the Spanish crown. Eachrelación was ideally to include a pictorial of the town, usually done by an indigenous resident connected with town government. Although these manuscripts were created for Spanish administrative purposes, they contain important information about the history and geography of indigenous polities.[20][21][22][23]
Particularly important colonial-era codices that are published with scholarly English translations areCodex Mendoza, theFlorentine Codex, and the works byDiego Durán. Codex Mendoza is a mixed pictorial, alphabetic Spanish manuscript.[24] Of supreme importance is theFlorentine Codex, a project directed by Franciscan friarBernardino de Sahagún, who drew on indigenous informants' knowledge of Aztec religion, social structure, natural history, and includes a history of theSpanish conquest of the Aztec Empire from the Mexica viewpoint.[25] The project resulted in twelve books, bound into three volumes, of bilingual Nahuatl/Spanish alphabetic text, with illustrations by native artists; the Nahuatl has been translated into English.[26] Also important are the works of DominicanDiego Durán, who drew on indigenous pictorials and living informants to create illustrated texts on history and religion.[27]
The colonial-era codices often contain Aztec pictograms or other pictorial elements. Some are written in alphabetic text inClassical Nahuatl (in theLatin alphabet) orSpanish, and occasionallyLatin. Some are entirely in Nahuatl without pictorial content. Although there are very few surviving prehispanic codices, thetlacuilo (codex painter) tradition endured the transition to colonial culture; scholars now have access to a body of around 500 colonial-era codices.
Some prose manuscripts in the indigenous tradition sometimes have pictorial content, such as theFlorentine Codex,Codex Mendoza, and the works ofDurán, but others are entirely alphabetic in Spanish or Nahuatl.Charles Gibson has written an overview of such manuscripts, and with John B. Glass compiled a census. They list 130 manuscripts for Central Mexico.[28][29] A large section at the end has reproductions of pictorials, many from central Mexico.
ConquistadorNuño Beltrán de Guzmán as depicted inCodex Telleriano Remensis "año de onze casas y de 1529 se partio nuño de guzman para jalisco yendo a sujeptar aquella tierra finjen que sale la culebra del cielo diziendo que les venia travajo a los naturales yendo los cristianos alla" (Year of 11 House [Mahtlactli Calli] and of 1529, Nuño de Guzman left for Jalisco to subjugate that land; they feign that a snake came out of the sky saying that hard times were coming for the natives with the Christians going over there.)(Filio 44R)
Anales de Cuauhtitlan, a 16th century text in Nahuatl, is one part ofCodex Chimalpopoca
Badianus Herbal Manuscript is formally calledLibellus de Medicinalibus Indorum Herbis (Latin for "Little Book of the Medicinal Herbs of the Indians") is a herbal manuscript, describing themedicinal properties of various plants used by the Aztecs. It was translated into Latin byJuan Badiano, from aNahuatl original composed in theColegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco in 1552 by Martín de la Cruz that is no longer extant. TheLibellus is better known as the Badianus Manuscript, after the translator; the Codex de la Cruz-Badiano, after both the original author and translator; and the Codex Barberini, afterCardinalFrancesco Barberini, who had possession of the manuscript in the early 17th century.[30]
Codex Azcatitlan, a pictorial history of the Aztec empire, including images of the conquest
Codex Aubin is a pictorial history orannal of the Aztecs from their departure from Aztlán, through theSpanish conquest, to the early Spanish colonial period, ending in 1608. Consisting of 81 leaves, it is two independent manuscripts, now bound together. The opening pages of the first, an annals history, bear the date of 1576, leading to its informal title,Manuscrito de 1576 ("The Manuscript of 1576"), although its year entries run to 1608. Among other topics, Codex Aubin has a native description of themassacre at the temple in Tenochtitlan in 1520. The second part of this codex is a list of the native rulers of Tenochtitlan, up to 1607. It is held by the British Museum and a copy of its commentary is at theBibliothèque Nationale de France. A copy of the original is held at thePrinceton University library in the Robert Garrett Collection. The Aubin Codex is not to be confused with the similarly namedAubin Tonalamatl.[31]
Codex Borbonicus is written by Aztec priests sometime after theSpanish conquest of Mexico. Like all pre-Columbian Aztec codices, it was originally pictorial in nature, although some Spanish descriptions were later added. It can be divided into three sections: An intricatetonalamatl, or divinatory calendar; documentation of the Mesoamerican 52-year cycle, showing in order the dates of the first days of each of these 52 solar years; and a section of rituals and ceremonies, particularly those that end the 52-year cycle, when the "new fire" must be lit. Codex Bornobicus is held at the Library of theNational Assembly of France.
Codex Boturini orTira de la Peregrinación was painted by an unknown author sometime between 1530 and 1541, roughly a decade after theSpanish conquest of Mexico. Pictorial in nature, it tells the story of the legendary Aztec journey fromAztlán to theValley of Mexico. Rather than employing separate pages, the author used one long sheet ofamatl, or fig bark, accordion-folded into 21½ pages. There is a rip in the middle of the 22nd page, and it is unclear whether the author intended the manuscript to end at that point or not. Unlike many other Aztec codices, the drawings are not colored, but rather merely outlined with black ink. Also known as "Tira de la Peregrinación" ("The Strip Showing the Travels"), it is named after one of its first European owners,Lorenzo Boturini Benaduci (1702 – 1751). It is now held in theMuseo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City.
Codex Chimalpahin, a collection of writings attributed to colonial-era historianChimalpahin concerning the history of various important city-states.[32]
Codex Cozcatzin, a post-conquest, bound manuscript consisting of 18 sheets (36 pages) of European paper, dated 1572, although it was perhaps created later than this. Largely pictorial, it has short descriptions in Spanish and Nahuatl. The first section of the codex contains a list of land granted byItzcóatl in 1439 and is part of a complaint against Diego Mendoza. Other pages list historical and genealogical information, focused onTlatelolco andTenochtitlan. The final page consists of astronomical descriptions in Spanish. It is named for Don Juan Luis Cozcatzin, who appears in the codex as"alcalde ordinario de esta ciudad de México" ("ordinary mayor of this city of Mexico"). The codex is held by theBibliothèque Nationale in Paris.
Codex Ixtlilxochitl, an early 17th-century codex fragment detailing, among other subjects, a calendar of the annual festivals and rituals celebrated by the Aztecteocalli during the Mexican year. Each of the 18 months is represented by a god or historical character. Written in Spanish, the Codex Ixtlilxochitl has 50 pages comprising 27 separate sheets of European paper with 29 drawings. It was derived from the same source as the Codex Magliabechiano. It was named afterFernando de Alva Cortés Ixtlilxochitl (between 1568 & 1578 - c. 1650), a member of the ruling family ofTexcoco, and is held in the Bibliothèque Nationale in Paris and published in 1976.[33] Page by page views of the manuscript are available online.[34]
Codex Magliabechiano was created during the mid-16th century, in the early Spanish colonial period. Based on an earlier unknown codex, the Codex Magliabechiano is primarily a religious document, depicting the 20 day-names of thetonalpohualli, the 18 monthly feasts, the 52-year cycle, various deities, indigenous religious rites, costumes, and cosmological beliefs. The Codex Magliabechiano has 92 pages made fromEuropea paper, with drawings and Spanish language text on both sides of each page. It is named afterAntonio Magliabechi, a 17th-century Italian manuscript collector, and is held in theBiblioteca Nazionale Centrale,Florence,Italy.
Codex Mendoza is a pictorial document, with Spanish annotations and commentary, composed circa 1541. It is divided into three sections: a history of each Aztec ruler and their conquests; a list of the tribute paid by each tributary province; and a general description of daily Aztec life. It is held in theBodleian Library at theUniversity of Oxford.[35]
Codex Florentine is a set of 12 books created under the supervision of Franciscan friarBernardino de Sahagún between approximately 1540 and 1576. The Florentine Codex has been the major source of Aztec life in the years before theSpanish conquest.Charles Dibble andArthur J.O. Anderson published English translations of the Nahuatl text of the twelve books in separate volumes, with redrawn illustrations. A full color, facsimile copy of the complete codex was published in three bound volumes in 1979.
Mapa de Cuauhtinchan No. 2 - a post-conquest indigenous map, legitimizing the land rights of the Cuauhtinchantlacas.
Mapa Quinatzin is a sixteenth-century mixed pictorial and alphabetic manuscript concerning the history ofTexcoco. It has valuable information on the Texcocan legal system, depicting particular crimes and the specified punishments, including adultery and theft. One striking fact is that a judge was executed for hearing a case that concerned his own house. It has name glyphs for Nezahualcoyotal and his successorNezahualpilli.[41]
Matrícula de Huexotzinco. Nahua pictorial census and alphabetic text, published in 1974.[42]
Continued scholarship of the codices has been influential in contemporaryMexican society, particularly for contemporaryNahuas who are now reading these texts to gain insight into their own histories.[45][46] Research on these codices has also been influential inLos Angeles, where there is a growing interest inNahua language and culture in the 21st century.[47][48]
^abBoone, Elizabeth H. "Central Mexican Pictorials." InDavíd Carrasco (ed).The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. : Oxford University Press, 2001.ISBN9780195188431
^Glass, John B. "A Survey of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts", article 22,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 3-80.
^Glass, John B. in collaboration with Donald Robertson. "A Census of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts". article 23,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 81-252.
^Robertson, Donald. "Techialoyan Manuscripts and Paintings with a Catalog." article 24,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 253-281.
^Glass, John B. "A Census of Middle American Testerian Manuscripts." article 25,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 281-296.
^Glass, John B. "A Catalog of Falsified Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts." article 26,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 297-309.
^Howard F. Cline "The Relaciones Geográficas of the Spanish Indies, 1577-1648", article 5.Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 1;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1972, pp. 183-242.ISBN0-292-70152-7
^Robertson, Donald, "The Pinturas (Maps) of the Relaciones Geográficas, with a Catalog", article 6.Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 1;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1972, pp. 243-278.
^Cline, Howard F. "A Census of the Relaciones Geográficas of New Spain, 1579-1612," article 8.Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 1;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1972, pp. 324-369.
^Mundy, Barbara E.The Mapping of New Spain: Indigenous Cartography and the Maps of the Relaciones Geográficas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.
^Berdan, Frances, andPatricia Rieff Anawalt. The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992.
^Sahagún, Bernardino de.El Códice Florentino: Manuscrito 218-20 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Fascimile ed., 3 vols. Florence: Giunti Barbera and México: Secretaría de Gobernación, 1979.
^Sahagún, Bernardino de.General History of the Things of New Spain: Florentine Codex. Translated by Arthur J. O Anderson and Charles E Dibble. 13 vols. Monographs of the School of American Research 14. Santa Fe: School of American Research; Salt Lake City: University of Utah, 1950-82.
^Durán, Diego.The History of the Indies of New Spain. Translated by Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994. Durán, Diego.Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Translated by Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971.
^Gibson, Charles. "Prose sources in the Native Historical Tradition", article 27B. "A Census of Middle American Prose Manuscripts in the Native Historical Tradition".Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 4;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, 326-378.
^Gibson, Charles and John B. Glass. "Prose sources in the Native Historical Tradition", article 27A. "A Survey of Middle American Prose Manuscripts in the Native Historical Tradition".Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 4;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, 311-321.
^An Aztec Herbal: The Classic Codex of 1552. Wm. Gates editor. Dover Publications 2000.ISBN978-0486-41130-9
^Codex Chimalpahin: Society and Politics in Mexico-Tenochtitlan, Tlatelolco, Texcoco, Culhuacan, and other Nahua Altepetl in Central Mexico. Domingo de San Antón Muñon Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuantzin, Edited and translated by Arthur J.O. Anderson, et al. 2 vols. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press 1997.
^Jacqueline de Durand-Forest, ed.Codex Ixtlilxochitl: Bibliothèque nationale, Paris (Ms. Mex. 55-710). Fontes rerum Mexicanarum 8. Graz, Austria:Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt 1976.
^Barbara J. Williams, Harvey, H. R. (1997). The Códice de Santa María Asunción : Facsimile and Commentary : Households and Lands in Sixteenth-century Tepetlaoztoc. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.ISBN0-87480-522-8
^Eloise Quiñones Keber, Eloise.Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual, Divination, and History in a Pictorial Aztec Manuscript. University of Texas Press 1995.ISBN978-0-292-76901-4.
^M. Jorge et al. (2011). Mathematical accuracy of Aztec land surveys assessed from records in the Codex Vergara. PNAS: University of Michigan.
^Offner, Jerome A.Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1983, pp. 71-81.ISBN978-0521-23475-7
^Hans J. Prem,Matrícula de Huexotzinco. Graz: Druck und Verlagsanstalt 1974.ISBN978-3201-00870-9
^Sigvald Linné,El valle y la ciudad de México en 1550. Relación histórica fundada sobre un mapa geográfico, que se conserva en la biblioteca de la Universidad de Uppsala, Suecia. Stockholm: 1948.
Batalla Rosado, Juan José. "The Historical Sources: Codices and Chronicles" inThe Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs. Oxford University Press 2017, pp. 29–40.ISBN978-0-19-934196-2
Gibson, Charles. "Prose sources in the Native Historical Tradition", article 27A. "A Survey of Middle American Prose Manuscripts in the Native Historical Tradition".Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 4;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, 311–321.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Gibson, Charles and John B. Glass. "Prose sources in the Native Historical Tradition", article 27B. "A Census of Middle American Prose Manuscripts in the Native Historical Tradition".Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 4;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, 322–400.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Glass, John B. "A Survey of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts", article 22,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 3–80.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Glass, John B. "A Census of Middle American Testerian Manuscripts." article 25,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 281–296.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Glass, John B. "A Catalog of Falsified Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts." article 26,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 297–309.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Glass, John B. in collaboration with Donald Robertson. "A Census of Native Middle American Pictorial Manuscripts". article 23,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 81–252.ISBN0-292-70154-3
Nicholson, H. B. “Pre-Hispanic Central Mexican Historiography.” In Investigaciones contemporáneos sobre historia de México. Memorias de la tercera reunión de historiadores mexicanos y norteamericanos, Oaxtepec, Morelos, 4–7 de noviembre de 1969, pp. 38–81. Mexico City, 1971.
Robertson, Donald, "The Pinturas (Maps) of the Relaciones Geográficas, with a Catalog", article 6.Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 1;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1972, pp. 243–278.ISBN0-292-70152-7
Robertson, Donald. "Techialoyan Manuscripts and Paintings with a Catalog." article 24,Guide to Ethnohistorical Sources Part 3;Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press 1975, pp. 253–281.ISBN0-292-70154-3
