Ancient Mexican Astronomical Apparatus

8/13/2019 Ancient Mexican Astronomical Apparatus

1/7

/ , IThe Ancient Mexican Astronomical ApparatusAn Iconographical Criticism

by Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansenand G. Aurora Perez

Abstractt is generally believed that ancientA merican astronomers made their observationswith an instrument consisting of two crossedsticks. This theory is re examined here and it

s shown to be based on an erroneous inter-pretation of a Mixtec phonetic sign.Historical Overview

In a pioneering archaeoastronomical studyabout The astronomical methods of the ancientMexicans , Zelia Nuttall (1906) pointed out thesimilarity between the depiction of an Aztecpriest-astronomer in Codex Mendoza (Fig. 1)and the configuration of a human face behindcrossed sticks in a temple (Fig. 2), found inCodices Bodley and Selden. In her thoroughanalysis of the contexts in which this configuration appears, she showed the equivalenceof the crossed sticks with a device resemblingthe drawn-up limbs of a seated human figure(Fig. 3) and the frequent association of bothsigns with eyes. The fact that in Mesoamericanpictography eyes can also symbolize stars (seeagain Fig. 1 suggests that both signs may havehad an astronomical function. Nuttall concluded that they represented implements used inthe observation of the movements of celestialbodies. From the position of the signs in thetemples, she inferred that such observationswere made from a dark room through the opendoorway.

In this line of thought, Zelia Nuttall inter-preted a star or heaven sign with a flower andanother with footprints as the setting of the1tPlower Star . The combination of certainanimals with the crossed sticks or knee sign shesaw as other celestial constellations. In herstudy, which remains one of the very fewdealing with the precolumbian astronomical instruments (Coe 1975), Zelia Nuttall came re-markably close to the astralistic interpretations

Codex Bodley p. 31/32 IV.that Eduard Seler and other (especially German)scholars in those days gave to ancient Mexicaniconography, and that have their late reflectionin the present work of Prof. Thomas Barthel.

Remarkably so, because in other studies,like in the well known introduction to the codexnamed after her, Zelia Nuttall provided a morerealistic, historical interpretation of the groupof pictorial documents now known as the Mixteccodices (Bodley, Selden, Vindobonensis, Nuttall,Colombino-Becker, etc. This historical inter-pretation was further developed by JamesCooper Clark, Richard Long and HerbertSpinden, forming a marked contrast with theastralistic view. t was Alfonso Ca so who in hisstudy of the Mapa de Teozacualco (1949) couldprove that the above-mentioned codices indeeddeal with earthly matters, concretely with thegenealogical history of Tilantongo, Teozacualco,and other Mixtec cacicazgos, thereby formulating the modern paradigm for the analysis ofthese documents. According to this new para-digm, the heaven with flower and the heavenwith footprints are part of personal names: theflower turned out to be a butterfly, and theperson in question also appears with a gloss inthe Codex f:l unaha (Smith 1973b, p. 77) callingher Cuvua dzisi (a)ndevui, Butterfly that flit-ters through the sky ; and the footprint belongsto a name glyph Eagle that came down fromHeaven (Bodley p. 17-III).

Volume VI(1-4) 1983 89


2/7

Figure 1: Activities of the Aztec priests. Codex Mendoza p. 63.

Caso showed in his commentaries on Codex Bodley (1960) and Codex Selden (1964) thatthe crossed sticks and the knee sign formedequally parts of place names (in combinationwith a temple or a frieze) or personal names (incombination with individuals), but he adhered toNuttall's analysis in confirming the equivalenceof both signs and their identification as astronomical devices. The toponymic glyph in whichthey appear he called Observatory , and thepersonal names he read as Eagle-Astronomicalapparatus , etc.

The place name in question was studiedthoroughly by Mary Elizabeth Smith in herfundamental opus Picture Writing in AncientSouthern Mexico (1973a, p. 58 ss.), echoingNuttall's study:This sign has been called 'Observatory'because the crossed sticks on the platformof the building in this sign represent theastronomical device used by the Maya andthe Mexicans to observe the movement of

90 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

stars, the planet Venus and other celestialphenomena. The crossed sticks were fixedin a set place to record the position of astar or planet. Then, when the star orplanet returned to this point a secondtime, the observer could calculate thetime of its complete cycle. (op. cit. p60).Smith related this place sign to the Mixtec

name of the important cacicazgo of Tlaxiaco inthe Mixteca Alta, which is named Ndisi nuu inthe orthography of the dictionary of frayFrancisco de Alvarado (1593) or Ndiji nuu in thelocal Mixtec of today. This name, Smith pointsout, means Clearly seen or Clearly visible ,which, taking into account also the importanceof the place, is a good base for such anidentification.The last doubt was removed by WigbertoJimenez Moreno, who demonstrated that thelast known ruler of Observatory , Lord 8 GrassRain-Sun (Iya Nacuafie Dzavui Ndicandii ),

Figure 2: Left) Lord 4 Wind draws blood from his ear in frontof the Temple with eyes. face and crossed stickssign. Codex Bodley p. 31/32- IV Hartung 1971).Figure 3: Above) Frieze nuu. town ) with knee sign ndcrossed sticks, Codex Bodley p. 15-11 Smith 1973a).


3/7

mentioned in Bodley pp. 20-II, 21-III, 22-III, andSelden p. 17-II, actually corresponds to LordMalinaltzin, ruler of Tlaxiaco whose fightingagainst the Aztecs is described by Torquemada(see Gaxiola and Jansen 1978, p. 12). n themeantime Horst Hartung (1977) published auseful catalogue of nearly all occurrences of thecrossed sticks and the knee sign in CodicesBodley and Selden. Arguing that actual astro-nomical observations might have taken place atTlaxiaco, those being the reason for its name,Hartung urges archaeologists to look for andexcavate that observatory: "Given the writtenevidence, we have only to dig and excavate atthe right place, as did Schliemann at Troy" (op.cit. p. 41).

By now, the crossed sticks sign has beengenerally accepted as a representation of theancient Mexican astronomical apparatus andserves as a sort of emblem for archaeo-astronomical studies. Several invest igators holdthat a similar astronomical instrument was usedby other ancient American cultures, like theMaya (Morley 1946, p. 308, Hartung 1971, p. 26)and the Inca (MUller 1972, pp. 25-26).The Problem

Looking at the general context of pre-columbian studies, we observe that in thebeginning of this century iconographical analysiswas strongly influenced by astralistic inter-pretations (ItAstraldeutungll . Since then, inseveral areas, most notably in Maya and Mixtecstudies, a dramatic change has taken placetowards historical and economical paradigms.Even in religious matters, emphasis is givenmuch more to mantic and ritual scenes(Nowotny 1961). On the other hand a new andmore scientific study of archaeoastronomy inancient America is being developed with awholly different perspective, starting from pre-cise analysis of orientation patterns in ancientcity plans and architecture (see the well knownworks of Aveni, Hartung, Tichy and others). Inthis situation it is important to separate clearlythe now obsolete astralistic theories from thedata of modern archaeoastronomical researchand to re-examine carefully the evidence beforeconstructing the new paradigm.

Zelia Nuttall based her interpretation ofthe crossed sticks on its position in a cluster ofelements (eyes, temples, etc.) which she con-sidered to be astronomical in character. By thetime Caso defined that cluster as a series of

names of places and persons, most of Nuttall'sargument had become doubtful, but the crossedsticks sign as an astronomical instrument hadalready established a life of its own. True,Nuttall s identification led Smith to the hypothesis of its reading ndisi nuu in Mixtec, ahypothesis which was confirmed. But, ndisi nuu,although referring to the act of seeing, does notnecessarily have astronomical implications. Wewill argue here that this reading is correct, butthat the reasoning behind it is wrong. We haveto reconsider the crossed sticks from the perspective of what is now known about Mixtecpictography: as the crossed sticks are equivalent to the knee sign, and as both are glyphs,it is clear that both should have the samephonetic value in the Mixtec language.The Place Name

Taking our point of departure in theMixtec language, we first have to ask ourselves:how do the crossed sticks and the knee signbecome the representation of the expressionndisi nuu? Nuu means among other things"facel and "eye", which is easy to depict, so itis not surprising to find such an element as partof the glyph under discussion. Ndisi means"visible", an inherent quality related to the eyeand the act of seeing. Fray Francisco deAlvarado mentions in his dictionary:- visible cosa, sa yotuvui ndisi ("that whichis ndisi").- claramente por publicamente, yotuvuindisi ("it is ndisi").In modern Mixtec we find the same sig-nificance: "clear", "visible", IIbrilliant" (seePensinger 1974, Dyk/Stoudt 1973). InChalcatongo, where hdijin corresponds with thendisi of Alvarado, we note expressions like:- a ni-cuu-ndijin, "ya amanecio", "ya sedistingue (la persona que viene)".- ndijin saha ja maa ni-saha, "claro estaque el 1 hizo".- nuu ndijin iya vehe, "la casa esta en unlugar visible".

The expression ndijin nuu (corresponding withndisi nuu) turned out to have both a passive andan active significance: "clear ly seen" and"clearly seeing":- ndijin nuu nuu nuu yucu, IIse distingue elpueblo en el monte".

Volume VI(1-4) 1983 91


4/7

- xraan ndijin nuu bilu, T el gato ve muybien .-{,tuu ndijin nuu-ro?, {,no ves?1IThe quality ndisi is difficult to representpictorially. In cases like this, the ancientMexican painter was likely to look for a

homonym, a word with the same sound but withanother meaning, which would be more easy torender in painting. This is a well known form ofphonetic writ ing (Nowotny 1959). Anotherexample of this procedure is found in the glyphof Teozacualco, called Chiyo cahnu in Mixtec,which means Large Altar , but is painted as aBroken Frieze. Cahnu, broken , is easier topaint than its homonym (with difference in thetone) cahnu, great (Smith 1973a, p. 57). In thesame manner, the Mixtec scribe would havelooked for another significance of ndisi. Hecould have used ndisi, wing , but, we find, heused ndisi, cross-beam or beams laid crosswise .--xlvarado mentions:

- atravesar algo poniendolo de traves, yosaq ndisi-ndi.- atravesado estar algo asi, caa ndisi.In modern Mixtec from Chalcatongo, ndijin isboth travesafio and travesado :

- caindijin yunu, poner atravesadas lasbigas .- caindijin ndava jiin si-hin, poner atravesado el travesano con el horcon .Obviously, the crossed sticks in Mixtecpictography represent this cross-beam, as theydo in Maya codices. Thompson in his 1972commentary on the Dresden Codex (p. 48)discusses this element in relation to the Mayaglyph T552, which has the very same configuration as the Mixtec ndisi sign, and points out itssuggestive position Trl1he depiction of houses

(Fig. 4). Glyph T552, in combination with theglyphs for black and red , forms part of thenames of two Maya twenty-day periods (Fig. 5).These periods were known in Yucatec as Do andZip, but in the Manche Chol language as blackand red kat. Therefore, a reading kat for T552has been suggested (see also De Gruyter 1946,p. 54 and Kelley 1976, p. 152). Thompson'scomment is very pertinent and worth quoting infull:As the glyphic prefixes match the colors

in these names, it follows that kat mustcorrespond to the crossed bands.--rndeed,92 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY

Figure 4: Left) The Rain God in hishouse, Codex Dresden p.38c Anders 1975).Figure 5: Above) The Maya glyphs Uo2 examples) a n d ~ -

kat in most Maya lowland languages and inthose of Chiapas means transversal or setcrosswise, which, of course, is preciselywhat the glyph shows. According to theMotul dictionary, kat is to wander aboutcrossing a street from side to side; kaatalis to be placed on high or transversal, anda whole series of compounds are built onkat signifying transversal. For instance,katche is to place poles crosswise; in thecodices the cross-bands glyph is often setin the back wall of a hut or a temple,clearly marking the A-frame or crossbeam (e.g. D.25b-28b, 38c; M.51b, 63b,84c-87c).

From all this we conclude that the crossedsticks sign indeed represents two crossed beams,and is to be read as ndisi, cross-beam inMixtec.But ndisi is not only used for beams. Notin the dictionaries, but in the living Mixteclanguage (Chalcatongo) we find expressions like:- chihi ndijin si-hin, poner cruzadas laspiernas ,

which demonstrate that ndisi (Chalcatongo:ndijin) also refers to the crossing of the legs.This, of course, explains nicely the fact that thecrossed sticks sign can be replaced by the kneesign. The Mixtec expressions cited above makeit quite clear that both crossed sticks andcrossed legs are to be read as ndisi. This ndisithen can be used to express in pictography othernotions which are also called ndisi, but whichhave another meaning. Tempting though theimage of a face looking through crossed sticksin a temple might appear, the configuration is


5/7

nothing but a quite common phonetic writingwithout any reference to something astronomical.One could still claim that maybe theimage is not only a phonetic writing but also aniconic representation of some observation instrument, used both to indicate the nameclearly seen , one in a phonetic and the other

in a purely pictorial manner. But in order tobring forward such an ad hoc hypothesis, itwould be necessary to produce evidence that iscompletely independent from the material discussed here. The Mixtec word for observatoryis not known to us, but it is unlikely that itwould have contained the word ndisi, considering related terms that are---gIven byAlvarado:- astrologo, tai sini tnuni tenoo andevui ( aman that looks at/knows the signs of thestars in the heaven ) or

tai yonacaha casi sa yondaa andevui( a man that observes clearly what is inheaven ).- mirar al cielo, yondoyo contondi ( I wakeand see )yondoyo nai nuundi ( I wake witha constant face )yochidzo nduvua nuundi (Ill throwthe arrow of my eye )yondoyo chihi nuundi ( I wake anddirect my eye ).The Personal Name

Tlaxiaco is an im portant place in CodexBodley, and to a lesser extent in Codex Selden.Some other place glyphs also contain the ndisielement (Bodley p. 6-II, p. 35-II; Vindobonensisp. 6-11), but these are very rare and as yetunidentified. Apart from the place glyphs, ndisioccurs in personal names, in combination withthe elements: maize, jewel, fan, eagle, jaguaror ball-court. These do not match the fewknown names of Mixtec constellations (e.g.,astillejo constelacion: ydzu, deer , accordingto Alvarado), but, instead are quite normalconstituents of Mixtec personal names.

We should make a parenthesis here andnote that, although some fine studies of Mixtecnaming practices have been made (e.g., Smith1973b, Arostegui 1978, Konig 1979. see alsoTroike 1978, p. 561), Mixtec name glyphs arestill rendered in literature as descriptive para-phrases, without trying a real translation: aconsequence not only of scientific caution, butalso of the divorce between iconographic analy-

sis and the study of the language involved.Another example of this unfortunate division oflabor is the ridiculous habit of designating thesex difference between the protagonists of thecodices with 0 or Male and 0 or Female .This in spite of the fact that the Mixtecdesignations are well documented, equally handyin usage and certainly muc'h more elegant: i}a,Lord (senor) and iya dzehe, Lady senora.A name like Eagle-Astronomical Apparatus , though acceptable as a descriptive paraphrase, does not really make any sense as aname. The original Mixtec name is easilyreconstructed as Yaha ndisi nuu, which can betranslated as:

1. Eagle that is clearly seen , ''VisibleEagle ,2. Eagle that sees well , Sharp-eyedEagle ,3. Eagle from Tlaxiaco .The same translations are possible for JaguarAstronomical Apparatus (Cuine ndisi nuu).Just as Eagle and Jaguar were favoritenames for the Mixtec Lords, names with aJewel or a Fan in it were loved by theMixtec Ladies. In combination with the ndisinuu sign, these names translate as:

1. Clearly seen (or brilliant) Jewel ,Clearly seen (or brilliant) Fan ,2. Jewel from Tlaxiaco , Fan fromTlaxiaco

According to this interpretation, these namesmake perfect sense in Mixtec. As was to beexpected, the personal names discussed abovewere quite popular within the Tlaxiaco rulingfamily, because of their double or triple meaning. As far as we can see, all personages withthese ndisi nuu names belonged to or had somerelationship with the Tlaxiaco dynasty. In onecase the ambivalence is solved by adding a

Figure 6: ames o rulers o Tlaxiaeo. Codex Bodley p. 15-VHartung 1971 .

Volume VI 1-4) 1983 9


6/7

semantic determinative: Lord 10 Rabbit(Bodley p. 15-V, Fig. 6), ruler of Tlaxiaco, has apersonal name Jaguar-Temple with eyes andcrossed sticks . The temple indicates that ndisinuu is here to be understood as a toponym. So,the name should be translated as Jaguar fromTlaxiaco .Geographical references of this type arequite common in Mixtec names (Jansen 1983, p.227). A nice example is to be found in thenames of two sisters in Codex Bodley pp. 13-V,13-IV and 14-III: The first is named Lady 13Rain Jewel-Town-Cattail , which can be interpreted as Jewel from Tula or Toltec Jewel .Possibly the original Mixtec was Dzeque&uucohyo, which nowadays of course would beunderstood as Jewel from Mexico City . Hersister is Lady 1 Flower, who has two personal

names: Quetzal (Tedzandodzo) and one thatconsists of a combination of glyphic elementsTown-Cattail-Flower device - (Shining?) Jewel, which we read tentatively as Flower fromthe Jewel-City of Tules or Flower fromprecious TuIa . Both are appropriate names fordaughters of a couple that married in TuIa(Bodley p. 12-V, see Caso 1960, p. 41), of whomthe second one married a ruler of Tula-TemazcaI.A different pattern of distribution has the

name glyph Ball-court-ndisi nuu (Selden p. 5-III and p. 5-IV . We could translate this asVisible Ball-court , Visible in the Ball-court ,or perhaps Sharp-eyed Ball-player (?) . t isalso possible, however, that the ball-court isagain a phonetic writing for something else.Finally, we find a name Maize-Crossed legs(Bodley p. 38-11 , which could have been Ndisinuni in Mixtec, Maize that becomes v i s i l ~term which indicates that the first greensprouts of the maize can be seen above theground (Fig. 7 .

Summarizing, _ we see that the correctargument for identifying the toponym formed bythe combination o crossed sticks or crossedlegs with eye or face as Tlaxiaco is the factthat the crossed sticks and crossed legs are readndisi in Mixtec, which is here used to express itshomonym ndisi, visible , while eye and face arenuu. Together they are read Ndisi nuu, whichmeans clear ly seen , sharp-eyed and is theMixtec name of Tlaxiaco. In this context thereis no reason to interpret the crossed sticks as anastronomical instrument. The reading ndisi nuualso applies to personal names where it producessatisfactory readings and translations.

This discussion shows the caution necessary in archaeoastronomical interpretations; theimage cannot be taken at face value, withoutstudying the language and culture behind it. Infact, we are convinced that the study of nativeAmerican cultural heritage needs the activeparticipation of those who share that culturaltradition and are its direct inheritors, the nativeAmericans themselves. Modern research practice is still essentially analyzing people forCulture History , Nomothetic Science , orCareer Building . As long as the peopleinvolved, confronted already with crisis, povertyand discrimination, are only the object of suchstudy, the knowledge which others gather aboutthem, among them and without them, willremain an occidental monologue, suffering frommisunderstandings, falsification and sterility.Acknowledgements

This article resulted from research thatwas made possible by the Literary Faculty ofLeiden University, Holland (see also Jansen1983). We thank our family and friends inChalcatongo Oax., Mexico, and especially MarfaLuisa Perez Jimenez, for their help in bringingtogether relevant Mixtec expressions.

Figure 7: Lord 7 Movement Maize-Crossed Legs nd his wife Codex Bodley p. 38-11.94 ARCHAEOASTRONOMY


7/7

R e f e r e n c e ~Alvarado,1964

eckert, eds.

1 9 7 ~ Codex Dresdensis, ADEVA Graz.Arostegui,1978

Carlos"Mixtec Personal Names and Naming Practices".Paper presented at the 26th Annual Meeting of theAmerican Society for Ethnohistory, 3 November,Austin, TX.

Caso, Alfonso1949 El Mapa de Teozacoalco, in: Cuadernos AmericanosVIII-5 pp. 145-81, Mexico.1960 Inte ,>retacion del COdice Bodley 2858, SociedadMexICana de Antropologia, Mexico.1964 Interpretacion del COdice Selden 3135, SociedadMexicana de Antropologia, Mexico.

CODEX MENDOZA1979 Codex Mendoza (Editorial Cosmos). Edited by F.del Paso y Troncoso, with introduction by J.Galindo y Villa.Coe, Michael D.1975 "Native astronomy in Mesoamerica", in: A.F. Avenied., Archaeoastronomy in pre-Columbian America,pp. 3-31, University of Texas Press, Austin.De Gruyter, W. Jos1946 A New Approach to Maya Hieroglyphs. H.J. Paris,Amsterdam.Dyk Ann and Betty Stoudt1973 2 Vocabulario mixteco de San Miguel el Grande.Gaxiola,1978

S.I.L. Mexico.Margari ta and Maarten E.R.G.N. JansenPrimera Mesa Redonda de Estudios Mixtecos,INAH Oaxaca.

Hartung, Horst1971 Die Zeremonialzentren der M a ~ a ADEVA Graz.1977

Jansen,1983

"Astronomical Signs in the Codices Bodley andSelden", in: A.F. Aveni, ed. Native AmericanAstronomy, pp. 37-41, University of Texas Press,Austin.Maarten E.R.G.N.

Huisi Tacu, estudio interpretativo de un libromixteco antiguo: Codex Vindobonensis Mexicanus, CEDLA, Amsterdam.KiJlf' , E v i d H.

Konig1979

Deciphering the Maya Script. University of TexasPress, Austin.

ViolaInhaltliche Analyse und Interpretation von CodexEgerton. Beitrage zur mittelamerikanischenVolkerkunde XV Hamburg.Morley Sylvanus G.1946 The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press.

MUller, Rolf ;1972 Sonne, Mond und St'erne iiber dem Reich der Inka,Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Nowotny, Karl Anton1959 "Die Hieroglyphen des Codex Mendoza: der Baueiner mittel-amerikanischen Wortschrift, in: Mitteilungen aus dem Museum fur Volkerkunde UiidVorgeschichte XXV pp. 97-113, Hamburg.1961 Tlacuilolli, die mexikanische Bilderhandschriften,StH und Inhalt, Ibero-Amerikanische Bibliothek,Berlin.

Nuttall, Zelia1906 "The astronomical methods of the ancient Mexicans", in: Boas Anniversary Volume, B. Laufer, ed.,pp. 290-298, Stechert, New York.Parmenter, RoSs1982 "Cracking the codices: the contributions of ZeliaNuttali", paper presented at the XLIV InternationalCongress of Americanists, Manchester.Pensinger, Brenda J.1974 Diccionario Mixteco del este de Jamiltepec , pueblode Chayuco, S.I.L. Mexico.Smith, Mary Elizabeth1973a Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico,Mixtec Place Signs and Maps, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

1973b "The Relationship between Mixtec manuscriptpainting and the Mixtec language", in: E.P. Benson,ed. Meso-american Writing Systems, DumbartonOaks, Washington.Thompson, J. Eric S.1972 A Commentary on the Dresden Codex: A Mayahieroglyphic book, Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society 93, Philadelphia.

Troike,1978 Nancy"Fundamental Changes in the Interpretations of theMixtec Codices", in: American Antiquity 43: 4 pp.553-568.

Maarten E.R.G.N. Jansen teaches archaeology ofPrecolumbian America at Leiden University, Holland.During several years of fieldwork in Mexico he studiedMixtec history and cultural continuity on the basis of boththe precolonial data and contemporaneous Mixtec customsand concepts.Aurora Perez is Mixtec from the Mixteca Alta,Mexico. Besides making contributions to the interpretationof Mixtec codices, she has studied europacentric distortion. and political implications of anthropological practice. Theaddress for both authors is Huis te Landelaan 168, Rijswijk,Holland.

Volume VI(1-4) 1983 95

Documents

Ancient Mexican Astronomical Apparatus