Ancient Zapotec Religion: An Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Perspective

By Michael Lind

Ancient Zapotec Religion is the first comprehensive study of Zapotec religion as it existed in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca on the eve of the Spanish Conquest. Author Michael Lind brings a new perspective, focusing not on underlying theological principles but on the material and spatial expressions of religious practice.

Using sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Spanish colonial documents and archaeological findings related to the time period leading up to the Spanish Conquest, he presents new information on deities, ancestor worship and sacred bundles, the Zapotec cosmos, the priesthood, religious ceremonies and rituals, the nature of temples, the distinctive features of the sacred and solar calendars, and the religious significance of the murals of Mitla—the most sacred and holy center. He also shows how Zapotec religion served to integrate Zapotec city-state structure throughout the valley of Oaxaca, neighboring mountain regions, and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Ancient Zapotec Religion is the first in-depth and interdisciplinary book on the Zapotecs and their religious practices and will be of great interest to archaeologists, epigraphers, historians, and specialists in Native American, Latin American, and religious studies. 

• Language: English
• Publisher: University Press of Colorado
• Release date: Apr 15, 2015
• ISBN: 9781607323747

Book preview

Lind.

Contents

---

List of Figures

List of Tables

Preface

1. Introduction

2. Zapotec Deities in Sixteenth-Century Documents

3. Zapotec Deities in Seventeenth-Century Documents

4. Zapotec Temple Priests

5. Zapotec Temples: Mitla

6. Zapotec Temples: Yagul

7. Colaní: Zapotec Community Priests and Their Rituals

8. Zapotec Ritual Books and Sacred Calendars

9. The Mitla Murals

10. Religion in Ancient Zapotec Society

References

Index

Figures

---

1.1 The Zapotecs and their neighbors in Mesoamerica

1.2 Approximate extent of Zapotec city-state culture in Oaxaca

1.3 Plaster sculptures of the rain deity, Cociyo, Mound 190, Lambityeco, ca. AD 775–800

2.1 Images of Mixtec Yahui and Zapotec Xicani

3.1 Late Classic Xoo phase effigy vessels from the Valley of Oaxaca, representing different deities

3.2 Possible images of Cozaana as an earth deity from Mitla and Zaachila

3.3 Possible images of Huichaana in Mitla murals and from Codex Yautepec

3.4 Images of Copiycha, the sun deity, and Tonatiuh

3.5 Images of Cociyo, the rain deity, and Tláloc

3.6 Possible images of Pitao Paa, the god of wealth, and Xochipilli

3.7 Possible images of Pitao Ziy, god of disease, with pockmarked face

3.8 Images of Pitao Pezeelao and Mictlantecuhtli

3.9 The Zapotec cosmos

4.1 Cociyobi II (Don Juan Cortés), King of Tehuantepec, wearing a mitre, or hat worn by temple priests, in the Lienzo de Guevea

4.2 Tied corn husk and circular mat in Codex Vindobonensis (1992:13)

4.3 Sacred bundles in the codices

5.1 Temple-plaza-altar (TPA), Mound M, Monte Albán

5.2 Temple-residence-plaza-altar (TRPA) complex

5.3 Different greca mosaic designs from Mitla

5.4 Howard Leigh’s interpretation of some basic greca mosaic designs

5.5 Late Classic Xoo phase Monte Albán temples (TPA) and Lambityeco palace (PPA)

5.6 Groups of structures at Mitla

5.7 Mühlenpfordt’s plan of the South Group, Mitla

5.8 The South Group at Mitla, showing Caso and Rubín de la Borbolla’s excavation units

5.9 Quadrangle K of the South Group, Mitla, after Caso and Rubín de la Borbolla’s excavations

5.10 Tomb 7, Liobaa phase (AD 900–1200), Plaza K, South Group, Mitla

5.11 Tomb 3c, Plaza K, South Group, Mitla

5.12 Plan and profile of the North Platform (40) of Quadrangle K, South Group, Mitla

5.13 Reconstruction of the Adobe Group, Mitla

5.14 Remains of the Adobe Group as of July 2011

5.15 Reconstruction of the Arroyo Group, Mitla

5.16 Halls around the North Plaza (H) of the Arroyo Group, Mitla

5.17 Rooms around Patio G in the Arroyo Group, Mitla

5.18 Halls around the South Plaza (I) of the Arroyo Group, Mitla

5.19 Reconstruction of the Church Group, Mitla

5.20 Halls around the South Plaza (C) of the Church Group, Mitla

5.21 Halls around the North Plaza (B) of the Church Group, Mitla

5.22 Rooms around the North Patio (A) of the Church Group, Mitla

5.23 Reconstruction of the Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.24 Altar, the Hall of the Columns, and exterior of the Patio of the Grecas, Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.25 Rooms around Patio (D), Patio of the Grecas, Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.26 East (17) and West (19) Halls of the North Plaza (E), Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.27 Halls and entry platform around the South Plaza (F), Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.28 Carved stone heads from Mitla and other sites in the Valley of Oaxaca

5.29 Tomb 1 and location of cruciform tombs in the South Plaza (F), Group of the Columns, Mitla

5.30 Tomb 2, beneath the East Hall (21) of the South Plaza (F), Group of the Columns, Mitla

6.1 Yagul’s civic-ceremonial center situated atop a bluff

6.2 Plan of the civic-ceremonial precinct of Yagul

6.3 Palace of the Six Patios, Yagul

6.4 Vessels with umbilical cord offerings near offering box, North Patio (B), Central Group, Yagul

6.5 Rooms around the North Patio (B), Central Group, Yagul

6.6 Rooms around the South Patio (E) and offering beneath the patio floor, Central Group, Yagul

6.7 Halls around South Plaza (D) and Tombs 23 and 24, West Group, Yagul

6.8 Rooms around the North Patio (A), West Group, Yagul

6.9 Halls around the South Plaza (F), East Group, Yagul

6.10 Rooms and features of the North Patio (C), East Group, Yagul

6.11 Comparison of Arroyo and Church Groups at Mitla with West and East Groups at Yagul

6.12 Reconstruction of the Patio 1 Group, first phase, Yagul

6.13 Perspectives of the Patio 1 Group, Yagul, first and second phases of construction

6.14 North Hall (1-N) of the Patio 1 Group, Yagul

6.15 West Hall (1-W) of the Patio 1 Group, Yagul

6.16 East Platform (1-E) of the Patio 1 Group, Yagul

6.17 South Platform (1-S) of the Patio 1 Group, Yagul

6.18 Patio 4 Group, Yagul

6.19 Altar, cruciform cache, and Tomb 7 in the plaza of the Patio 4 Group, Yagul

6.20 Tombs 3, 29, and 30 in the plaza of the Patio 4 Group, Yagul

6.21 Pyramid (4-E) and carved jaguar cuauhxicalli in the Patio 4 Group, Yagul

6.22 South (4-S) and North (4-N) Platforms of the Patio 4 Group, Yagul

6.23 West Platform (4-W) of the Patio 4 Group, Yagul

7.1 Zapotec sweatbath (yaa) in Mitla, AD 1980

7.2 Marriage prognostication scenes in Codex Borgia (1963:58)

8.1 The Nexitzo, Caxonos, and Bixanos regions of the Sierra Juárez

8.2 Aztec trecena, or thirteen-day period, on page 13 of Codex Borbonicus

8.3 Zapotec cociy, or 13-day period, emerging from the House of the Earth

8.4 Page from a seventeenth-century ritual book from Villa Alta showing the 20-day months in a Zapotec solar year

8.5 Pages from a seventeenth-century ritual book from Villa Alta showing the fifty-two years in a calendar round in four groups of thirteen solar years each

8.6 Late Classic and Postclassic Zapotec year glyphs and year bearers

8.7 A comparison of Late Classic Zapotec and Postclassic Zapotec and Mixtec day signs 1–10

8.8 A comparison of Late Classic Zapotec and Postclassic Zapotec and Mixtec day signs 11–20

8.9 Gold pectoral 26 from Tomb 7 at Monte Albán, showing transition to the new system of year bearers

9.1 Mural on lintel of Tomb 2, Group of the Columns, Mitla

9.2 Borders around the murals of the east (a) and north (b) halls in the South Plaza (I) of the Arroyo Group and the east room (c) of the Church Group, Mitla

9.3 Lord 9 Wind Ehécatl-Quetzalcóatl with a ray-emitting eye

9.4 Rabbit inside the inverted omega moon in the night sky

9.5 Mural on the lintel of the north hall of the south plaza of the Arroyo Group, Mitla

9.6 A carved stone head of a petehue

9.7 Mural on the lintel of the east room of Patio A in the Church Group, Mitla

9.8 Composite offering bundles from the east mural, Church Group, Mitla

9.9 Carved stone figures of bird-men from Teotitlán del Valle

9.10 Two-headed bird-man in Codex Nuttall (1975: plate 16)

9.11 Mural on the lintel of the north hall of Patio A, Church Group, Mitla

9.12 Mural on the lintel of the north hall (1) of Patio A, Church Group, Mitla, continued

9.13 Lord 9 Wind descends a celestial rope from heaven accompanied by two supernaturals carrying temples on their backs in Codex Vindobonensis (1992:48)

9.14 Sketch of some discernible elements at the south end of the west mural, Patio A, Church Group, Mitla

9.15 North part of the mural on the lintel of the west room of Patio A, Church Group, Mitla

9.16 Itzpapálotl in Codex Borgia (1993:12, plate 66)

9.17 Mural on the lintel of the south room of Patio A, Church Group, Mitla

Tables

---

If the tables in this publication are not displaying properly in your ereader, please contact the publisher to request PDFs of the tables.

2.1 List of Prehispanic Zapotec deities from Córdova’s Vocabulario

2.2 Alternative names for the Zapotec deity Cozaana in Córdova’s Vocabulario, according to Smith Stark (2002:110)

2.3 The Zapotec deities named in the Relaciones Geográficas

2.4 Zapotec deities named in Spanish in the Relaciones Geográficas

3.1 Lists of Zapotec deities provided by Diego Luis of Sola de Vega in AD 1635 and AD 1654 (Berlin 1988:18–19)

3.2 Summary of Zapotec deities

4.1 Human sacrifices listed in the Relaciones Geográficas

4.2 Animal sacrifices listed in the Relaciones Geográficas

4.3 Auto-sacrificial bloodletting listed in the Relaciones Geográficas

5.1 Comparison of the sizes of patios, plazas, rooms, and halls of the Group of the Columns, Church Group, and Arroyo Group at Mitla

6.1 Comparison of the sizes of the patios, plazas, rooms, and halls of the Central, West, and East Groups of the Palace of the Six Patios at Yagul

8.1 A comparison of Aztec and Zapotec names for each of the twenty 13-day periods in the sacred calendar

8.2 Zapotec deities and Aztec deities and volatiles associated with the day numbers of each 13-day period

8.3 The Zapotec 260-day sacred calendar, or piye

8.4 The periods of fifty-two days and their associated times, or cociy, of thirteen days in the Loxicha sacred calendar

8.5 A comparison of the Aztec nine companion deities with the Zapotec nine companion deities from Loxicha and the Peñoles region

8.6 The first period of the Loxicha sacred calendar (adapted from Weitlaner et al. 1958: lámina 1)

8.7 Names of the riño (cociy), or 13-day periods, in the Peñoles sacred calendar, the beginnings of cociyo, and ritual activities listed as associated with the riño

8.8 The partially complete Peñoles sacred calendar illustrating the days, companion deities, terms, riño, and cociyo

8.9 The deities that rule the day numbers and their companion deities in a traditional Zapotec sacred calendar: hypothetical examples for the first two cociy

8.10 A comparison of Zapotec and Aztec day names in fixed order

8.11 Four Zapotec terms associated with the same five day names

8.12 The eighteen Zapotec 20-day months, or peo

8.13 A hypothetical example of a Zapotec calendar round of fifty-two years from 1 Xoo to 13 Piya

8.14 Zapotec solar year beginning on March 12 in Tehuantepec, according to Burgoa (1989: II, 391)

8.15 A hypothetical example of a Zapotec 365-day solar calendar, or yza, for AD 1503, 1 Xoo (1 Earthquake)

8.16 A hypothetical example of a Zapotec 365-day solar calendar, or yza, for AD 1502 (13 Piya) leading into AD 1503 (1 Xoo)

Preface

---

This book grew out of a need to understand something about Zapotec religion as it existed around the time of the Spanish Conquest. The need was related to my research into Mound 190 at Lambityeco, a Late Classic Xoo phase (AD 650–850) site near Tlacolula in the Valley of Oaxaca. Mound 190 contains a palace with a special room adorned with large plaster busts of Cociyo, the Zapotec rain deity. It was reasonable to suppose that Mound 190 represented a series of superimposed palaces occupied by several generations of important priests at Lambityeco. There are, of course, no documents referring to the Late Classic period that might provide information on the nature of Late Classic Zapotec religion. But documents do exist for the Postclassic period leading up to the Spanish Conquest. And because Postclassic Zapotec religion had its roots in the Late Classic period, these documents can provide a model of Late Postclassic Zapotec religion that can be compared with Late Classic archaeological remains to illuminate the similarities and differences between Zapotec religion in both periods. Suffice it to say that a great many changes are evident between Late Classic and Late Postclassic Zapotec religion, and a discussion of these changes will be included in a forthcoming monograph on Mound 190.

Upon researching ancient Zapotec religion as it existed at the time of the conquest, I discovered the lack of a comprehensive discussion of Zapotec deities, the Zapotec priesthood, religious rituals and ceremonies, the nature of Zapotec temples, and the sacred and solar calendars that regulated many ritual and religious activities. References to deities, the priesthood, and religious ceremonies were scattered among sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents—all in Spanish and most difficult to find. Likewise, articles referring to ancient Zapotec religion were scattered among various scholarly works dealing with specific aspects of Zapotec religion, with little or no attempt to present a unified discussion of the nature of the religion. The purpose of this study is to present a more comprehensive overview of Zapotec religion as it existed at the time of the conquest by bringing this information together in one place. Several new insights into Late Postclassic Zapotec religion resulted from the research presented in this book.

Many people contributed to this study. Marcus Winter, Javier Urcid, Robert Markens, Michel Oudijk, Adam Sellen, Carlos Rincón, Nicholas Johnson, Paul Schmidt, and Catalina Barrientos provided often difficult-to-obtain sources. John Pohl, Winter, Urcid, Markens, and Sellen read all or parts of the manuscript and provided very helpful commentaries. In addition, two anonymous readers made very useful comments. I thank them all for their most helpful advice, but because I did not always follow their suggestions, I take full responsibility for any errors I may have committed. Finally, I greatly appreciate the hard work and conscientious effort put forth by Jessica d’Arbonne, acquisitions editor, and Darrin Pratt and the staff and board of the University Press of Colorado for their help in seeing this work through to its completion.

Ancient Zapotec Religion

1

Introduction

---

This study is about Zapotec religion as it existed around the time of the Spanish Conquest. Our knowledge of ancient Zapotec religion, like ancient Mesoamerican religions in general, comes principally from Spanish colonial documents (Nicholson 1971:396–97). From an analysis of sixteenth- and seventeenth-century documents, the nature of ancient Zapotec religion will be described and interpreted. This description and interpretation includes an identification of Zapotec deities, the role of ancestor worship, the nature of the Zapotec cosmos, the composition of the Zapotec priesthood, the rituals and ceremonies performed, and the use of the Zapotec sacred and solar calendars in religious activities. This study also relies on the archaeological record from the Postclassic, the time period leading up to the Spanish Conquest. Archaeological evidence of the nature of Postclassic Zapotec temples, tombs, ritual areas of palaces, and representations of deities in murals and artifacts also will be discussed. The role of religion in ancient Zapotec society will be examined in the conclusion to this study.

Society, Culture, and Religion

To place religion within the context of society and culture requires some definitions. A society is a group of people who have a history of interacting with one another behaviorally, such as the ancient Zapotecs, and a culture is the behavior patterns that characterize their interactions. Together, a society and culture form a sociocultural system. From an analytical perspective, a sociocultural system consists of technology, social organization, and ideology. Technology is the manner in which the members of a sociocultural system interact with their habitat. Social organization involves the interaction of members of a sociocultural system with one another. Ideology represents the ways that the members of a sociocultural system interact with regard to ideas. Ideology encompasses religion.

Anthropologists have found religion difficult to define. Saint Jerome evidently first used the term religion in Western civilization in the late fourth century AD, but the term was not widely used in Christianity until the Reformation (Insoll 2004:6). Edward B. Tylor (1960:202), seeking to define religion universally, as it applies to all human groups, first defined religion in anthropological terms as the belief in spiritual beings. More recently, Clifford Geertz (2005:14) has defined religions as systems of ideas about the ultimate shape and substance of reality. Marcus Winter (2002:50) simply defines religion as an institutionalized system of beliefs and practices relating to the supernatural or gods. Zapotec religion generally conforms to all these definitions. There is no Zapotec word for religion, but instead the concept of sacred exists (de la Cruz 2002a:xxix).

Approaches to the study of religion reflect approaches to the study of sociocultural systems in general. The neo-evolutionary, or processual, approach regards technology as the driving force in a sociocultural system. Social organization is determined by technology, and ideology or religion functions to reinforce social organization (White 1949; Sahlins and Service 1960). In this view, religion is seen as ultimately determined by technology (Harris 1974). More recently, the post-processual approach, associated with action theory or agency, views ideology as the driving force in the sociocultural system (Bourdieu 1977; Ortner 1984). In this view, the ideas (thoughts and actions) of its individual members determine all aspects of the sociocultural system (Hodder and Hutson 2003:30–31). In this regard, Insoll (2004:22–23, figure 2) has argued that religion determines the sociocultural system.

Lars Fogelin has reviewed both processual and post-processual approaches to the study of religion in archaeology. Archaeologists studying religion often focus on ritual because ritual is a form of human activity that leaves material traces, whereas religion is a more abstract symbolic system consisting of beliefs, myths, and doctrines (Fogelin 2007:56). Processual archaeologists see rituals as the enactment of religious principles or myths (Fogelin 2007:55). Post-processual archaeologists focus on the ways that the experience of ritual and ritual symbolism promotes social orders and dominant ideologies (Fogelin 2007:55). Herein, Zapotec religion is conceived as a shared worldview that helped integrate Postclassic Zapotec city-state culture, a point that will be explored in the conclusion to this study.

Ancient Mesoamerican Religions

Ancient Mesoamerican religions are best known for the Aztecs—or more properly and generally, the Nahuas—and the Maya because of the numerous documentary sources pertaining to them combined with the ritual or religious codices and the Classic Maya hieroglyphic records.¹ Eduard Seler (1904) pioneered the study of Nahua and Maya religions and wrote extensively about them. Seler (1904:273) also wrote a lengthy article that still stands today as a pioneer study of Zapotec religion, although he noted the limited amount of information available on Zapotec religion compared to the Maya and the Nahuas. An unpublished AD 1910 manuscript by Martínez Gracida also deals with Zapotec religion, although it lacks the scholarly approach of Seler (Adam Sellen, personal communication, 2011). Most recently, Victor de la Cruz and Winter (2002) have published a series of articles that includes a Spanish translation of Seler’s original work and provides new insights into various aspects of Zapotec religion from linguistic, archaeological, ethnohistoric, and ethnographic points of view.

Seler (1904:266–75) was perhaps the first to point out a basic unity among Mesoamerican religions. Nahua, Maya, and Zapotec religions, among others throughout Mesoamerica, share many basic concepts, exemplified by the 260-day sacred calendar. Alfonso Caso (1971a) agreed with Seler that a basic unity existed among Mesoamerican religions and argued that we should speak of a Mesoamerican religion instead of Mesoamerican religions. Caso (1971a:199) believed that we can speak of a single Mesoamerican religion from as far back as the Classic period (AD 300–900). de la Cruz (2002b:279), who agrees with Caso about the unity of Mesoamerican religion, has suggested that this unity is best exemplified during the Late Postclassic (AD 1200–1521), when the merchants and soldiers of the Aztec Triple Alliance imposed religious uniformity throughout much of Mesoamerica. Wigberto Jiménez Moreno (1971) opposed this view and considered there to be a plurality of Mesoamerican religions with differences comparable to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in the Middle East. He argued that the crucible of Western civilization in Mesopotamia, a region comparable to Mesoamerica, produced these identifiably different religions that, despite their differences, share many basic concepts. The same could be said for Mesoamerican religions. The problem of the unity of Mesoamerican religion will be taken up in the conclusion to this study insofar as ancient Zapotec religion can shed light upon it.

More recent studies of ancient Mesoamerican religions, especially Nahua (López Austin 1980; Burkhart 1989) and Maya (B. Tedlock 1992; D. Tedlock 1985) religions, have sought to search out their underlying theological principles. Louise M. Burkhart (1989), in particular, has noted how many colonial documents relating to Nahua religion in reality consist of an active dialogue between Nahuas and Christian missionaries; missionaries learned as much about Nahua religion as the Nahuas learned about Christianity. The underlying theological principles of these religions were at the center of this dialogue. For example, Nahua religion had no concepts of good and evil, the underlying theological principles of Christianity, but instead manifested the concepts of order and chaos (Burkhart 1989:34). The research into underlying theological principles has been made more amenable to the study of Nahua religion because of the plethora of colonial documents relating to it. However, attempts have been made to identify the underlying theological principles of Zapotec and Mixtec religions. Kent V. Flannery and Joyce Marcus (1976) have cited the concept of pèe that they relate to vital force as an underlying theological principle of Zapotec religion. Also, John Monaghan (1995:127) has considered the concept of yii that he relates to potency, vitality, or fecundity as an underlying theological principle of Mixtec religion.

Compared to Nahua and Maya religions, the study of Zapotec and Mixtec religions are in their infancy and lack the volume of documentation available for study. No comprehensive study or identification of Zapotec deities exists like those for the Nahuas (Caso 1958; Nicholson 1971) or the Maya (Taube 1992). There is also no comprehensive study of the Zapotec priesthood as there is for the Nahua (Acosta Saignes 1946). The Zapotec sacred and solar calendars have only recently been studied in detail (Alcina Franch 1993; Urcid 2001; Justeson and Tavárez 2007; Tavárez and Justeson 2008), whereas Maya and Nahua calendars have a long history of scholarly research. Zapotec ceremonies and rituals are little known compared to those of the Nahua and Maya, which have received, especially in the case of the former, ample discussion.

It is not the purpose of this book to examine the underlying theological principles of Zapotec religion. Instead, the principal tasks of this book are to present a comprehensive study and a new perspective on ancient Zapotec deities, the priesthood, the sacred and solar calendars, and the rituals and ceremonies. Unlike most other studies of ancient Mesoamerican religions, this book also presents a comprehensive study of the archaeological remains of temples, tombs, ritual spaces in palaces, and murals and artifacts relating to deities.

The Zapotecs

At the time of the Spanish Conquest, the Zapotecs occupied the southern part of the present-day state of Oaxaca, Mexico, including the large Valley of Oaxaca, the small mountainous valleys surrounding it, and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (figure 1.1). The Valley of Oaxaca, the Zapotec heartland, manifests three arms or sub-valleys: the Tlacolula arm in the east, drained by the Río Salado; the Etla arm in the north; and the Zimatlán arm, or Valle Grande, in the south. The Río Atoyac drains both north and south arms (figure 1.2). The small mountainous valleys surrounding the Valley of Oaxaca include the Sierra Juárez to the north; part of the Peñoles region to the west; the Sola, Coatlán, Miahuatlán, and Ejutla Valleys to the south; and the Ozolotepec and Chichicapa regions to the east. Extending east-southeast of the Valley of Oaxaca along the Tehuantepec River drainage are the areas of Nexapa, Jalapa de Marquez, and Tehuantepec that the Zapotecs occupied late in their Prehispanic history. Zapotec is not a dead language; it is still spoken by nearly half a million native speakers today who continue to live in the Valley of Oaxaca, the small mountainous valleys around it, and the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.

Figure 1.1. The Zapotecs and their neighbors in Mesoamerica (redrawn and modified after Paddock 1966b: 80, map 1).

Figure 1.2. Approximate extent of Zapotec city-state culture in Oaxaca (community locations after Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática, Map of the State of Oaxaca, 1993).

Ancient Zapotec Society

Shortly before the Spanish Conquest, the Zapotecs lived in numerous city-states, or small kingdoms. Called queche in Zapotec, these city-states varied in size and importance but were composed of a capital city that controlled a small territory and the subject communities within it. In the Valley of Oaxaca, at least thirteen different city-states and an unknown number of additional city-states occurred in the small mountainous valleys adjacent to the valley and in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Oudijk 2002:80–83). A king (coqui) and queen (xonaxi) who lived in a palace (quihui) in the capital city ruled each city-state. They appointed nobles (xoana) to govern components of the city-state and the subject communities within it. In addition, barrio headmen (collaba) collected tribute and organized communal workgroups from their neighborhoods, and guardians (copa) policed their neighborhoods and conscripted citizen soldiers in times of war (Oudijk 2002:77–78). The collaba and copa were commoners.

The coqui and xonaxi were hereditary rulers. They traced their ancestry directly back to the real or mythical founders of the city-state who had formed their yoho, or royal house: "The main legitimating aspect of this yoho was the possession of a sacred bundle or quiña, i.e., an actual bundle of paper, cloth, or vegetable material which contained a sacred object symbolizing the deified founder of the yoho" (Oudijk 2002:77). Lienzos, pictorial genealogies of the rulers of some city-states painted by Zapotecs after the conquest, depict their ancestral Prehispanic rulers as far back as seventeen generations to the real or mythical founders of their royal houses (Oudijk 2008:107). Xoana also traced their yohos back to real or mythical founding ancestors who were secondarily related to the rulers’ founding ancestors as junior or cadet lineages. These nobles also maintained quiña (Oudijk 2002:77). The ancestors of Zapotec rulers and nobles played a very important part as intermediaries with the deities. The role of Zapotec religion within these city-states will be the focus of this study.

Zapotec Religion

There have been basically two different approaches to Zapotec religion. Most experts regard Zapotec religion, like Aztec religion, as being characterized by a pantheon of gods and a hierarchical priesthood (Seler 1904, 2002; Caso and Bernal 1952; Berlin 1988; Whitecotton 1977; Alcina Franch 1972; Smith Stark 2002; and Sellen 2007). Marcus (2003a), however, opposes this traditional view. Although acknowledging a hierarchical priesthood (Marcus 2003a:350), she regards Zapotec religion as animatistic. E. Adamson Hoebel (1958:643) defines animatism as the attribution of life to inanimate objects. Marcus (2003a:345) considers Zapotec religion animatistic because it attributed life to many things we consider inanimate. In this sense, Monaghan (1995:45–46, 98) found that the Zapotec’s neighbors, the Mixtecs, considered almost everything animate, including the sun and the earth; only fire-cracked rocks were considered inanimate.

Marcus (2003a:345) cites the Zapotec concept of pèe as a central principle that imbues inanimate objects with a sacred life force. For this reason, lightning (Cociyo) and earthquakes (Xoo) were not conceived as deities but as living supernatural forces filled with pèe.² Furthermore, she criticizes Fray Juan de Córdova’s (1578a) definition of pitào as god or deity, maintaining that pi- is the same as pèe and that tào means great. Therefore, pitào should be translated as great wind, great breath, or great spirit and not god or deity. She concludes that pitao never referred to a specific deity but rather to the great and sacred life force within lightning or a supernatural being (Marcus 2003a:345).³

For Marcus (2003a:348–49), the different names of the gods, mentioned in the AD 1579–1581 Relaciones Geográficas (Geographical Reports) relating to the Zapotecs and written by Spanish colonial administrators, were not gods but Zapotec rulers (coqui) deified after their deaths and perceived as intermediaries between the people and the supernatural forces. She also maintains that the Zapotec gods mentioned in Córdova’s (1578a) Vocabulario en lengua zapoteca (Dictionary of the Zapotec language) and in Gonzalo Balsalobre’s (1988) report on Zapotec religion, written in AD 1656, were names for the different supernatural forces. Therefore, according to Marcus, the Zapotecs did not have a pantheon of gods that they worshipped but instead attempted to appease supernatural forces through rituals, reciprocity, and the intervention of the spirits of deceased and deified coqui.

Alfredo López Austin (1998:8) distinguishes two great categories of supernatural entities: supernatural forces and gods. Supernatural forces are impersonal entities, as Marcus proposes, like lightning and earthquakes.⁴ On the other hand, gods possess a personality so similar to the human [personality] that they can comprehend the expressed desires of men and so that they are willingly susceptible to being affected by human actions (López Austin 1998:9).⁵ Furthermore, as Henry B. Nicholson (1971:408) has observed with regard to Mesoamerican religion, "Most of the deities were conceived anthropomorphically; even those ostensibly in animal form are often portrayed in the disguise (nahualli) of an anthropomorphic deity." Gods or deities, then, look and act a lot like humans, whereas supernatural forces do not and are impersonal.

The Relaciones Geográficas repeatedly refer to idols made of stone, wood, or ceramics that represent Zapotec gods. For example, the Relación de Teguantepec (Tehuantepec) reported that "the principal idols that they had were idols of precious green stones [chalchihuites] and ceramics and wood that they worshipped as gods" (Torre de Lagunas 1580:114).⁶ And according to the Relación de Tecuicuilco (Teococuilco), all these natives of these towns worshipped the Devil in the figure of a statue made from wood and stone which they called gods (Villagar 1580:91).⁷ Furthermore, they mention that these idols were stones carved in the manner of persons (Zárate 1581:198) with very ugly faces (Pérez de Zamora 1580:111), and they were given different names (Espíndola 1580:117).⁸ Likewise, four green stone idols, in the shape of men, although deformed and with frightening features, have been described by Francisco Burgoa (1989: II, 90), a Spanish colonial priest.⁹ These descriptions clearly indicate that Zapotec idols looked a lot like humans and fit both Nicholson’s characterization of them as anthropomorphic deities and López Austin’s description of gods having human attributes as opposed to being impersonal supernatural forces.

Marcus selected two natural but inanimate forces, lightning and earthquakes, to support her animatistic hypothesis. But Córdova (1578a:141) lists a whole series of other Zapotec deities in his dictionary that are much more difficult to accommodate under animatism, including the maize deity, the deity of omens, the deity of hunting, the deity of merchants and good fortune, the deity of misery, and the deity of the underworld. Furthermore, Córdova (1578a:141) defines Cociyo as dios de las lluvias or the rain god, indicating that his Zapotecs informants considered Cociyo the god of rain, although his name literally means lightning.

There are two large plaster sculptures of Cociyo attached to the walls of a special room in the palace of a priest from the Late Classic Xoo phase (AD 650–850) archaeological site of Lambityeco in the Tlacolula arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (figure 1.3). These sculptures clearly depict Cociyo in anthropomorphic form, although his face might seem quite ugly or deformed to a sixteenth-century Spaniard. Like a Zapotec noble, Cociyo wears a fancy feather headdress, earspools, a necklace with a pendant, and beaded bracelets. His human arms end in human hands with fingernails. In his left hand he carries lightning bolts and his right hand holds a vase with water (rain) pouring from its mouth. The vase is of a type whose neck is frequently adorned with an effigy of Cociyo’s face. This indicates that nearly a millennium before the Spanish Conquest the Zapotecs portrayed Cociyo as an anthropomorphic deity, not an impersonal supernatural force.

Figure 1.3. Plaster sculptures of the rain deity, Cociyo, Mound 190, Lambityeco, ca. AD 775–800: (a) West room of Patio 4, Structure 190-4, Mound 190, Lambityeco; (b) South Cociyo; (c) North Cociyo (photos courtesy of Robert Markens).

Marcus (2003a:345) criticizes Spanish colonial priests and administrators for calling Zapotec supernaturals gods, suggesting that they were being ethnocentric by forcing Zapotec sacred beings into their preconceived Western notion of Greek and Roman gods. She likewise criticizes anthropologists for considering animatism to be associated with so-called primitive societies, such as bands and tribes, and not with more complex preindustrial state societies, such as the Zapotecs. With regard to the latter, she is right for the wrong reasons. Zapotec religion was not totally animatistic, but aspects of animatism were in Zapotec religion, such as worshipping stone, wooden, or ceramic idols of deities thought to be imbued with supernatural forces. It can be argued, however, that all religions have aspects of animatism, including the religions of modern industrial nations, with their plastic dashboard Jesuses, crucifixes, and statues and medallions of saints—inanimate objects thought by many, if not most, practitioners to be imbued with supernatural forces.¹⁰ Marcus is absolutely correct in stating that animatism is not restricted to so-called primitive societies but incorrect in characterizing Zapotec religion as solely animatistic and devoid of deities. Zapotec religion included a pantheon of deities.

In the following pages, the nature of ancient Zapotec religion will be explored. Chapters 2 and 3 deal with the identification of Zapotec deities and the nature of the Zapotec cosmos. Chapter 4 describes Zapotec temple priests and temple ceremonies. Chapters 5 and 6 examine the nature of Zapotec temples and priestly residences uncovered in archaeological excavations at Mitla and Yagul. Chapter 7 treats Zapotec community priests, or colaní, who lived in their own local neighborhoods and practiced their rituals with the aid of sacred books. Chapter 8 explores the Zapotec sacred and solar calendars and their relationships to religious rituals and ceremonies. Chapter 9 analyzes a series of Prehispanic murals from Mitla and examines their religious content. Chapter 10 concludes with a summary of the nature of ancient Zapotec religion and how it fit into ancient Zapotec society.

Notes

1. Codices are indigenous books made from amate paper or deerskin in the form of screenfolds instead of loose leaf. The only Prehispanic Aztec codex that survives is the Borbonicus (Caso 1967:103–12), which is a religious or ritual codex geared to the sacred calendar with depictions of deities and rituals or ceremonies. Other religious codices include those of the Borgia group: Borgia, Laud, Fejérváry-Mayer, Vaticanus B, and Cospi. Among the Maya religious codices are Dresden, Madrid, and Paris. Return to text.

2. Traditionally, the name of this supernatural being has been written as Cocijo and pronounced Ko see hoe; the correct spelling should be Cociyo and pronounced Ko see yo (Urcid 2001:36n3). Return to text.

3. Marcus unfortunately chose the term supernatural being, which is usually associated with gods or deities. Return to text.

4. Translated into English by the author. Hereafter, only the original Spanish will be quoted. The original Spanish reads, dos grandes categorías de entes sobrenaturales: las fuerzas sobrenaturales y los dioses. Las fuerzas sobrenaturales son entidades impersonales (López Austin 1998:8). Return to text.

5. tan semejante a la humana como para que puedan comprender las expresiones de los hombres y para que tengan una voluntad susceptible de ser afectada por las acciones humanas (López Austin 1998:9). Return to text.

6. los principales ídolos que tenían, eran ídolos de piedras de chalchihuites, y de barro y de palo, a los cuales adoraban por dioses (Torre de Lagunas 1580:114). Return to text.

7. Adoraban, todos estos naturales destos pueblos, al DEMONIO en figura de estatua, hechas de palo y de piedra, a los cuales llamaban dioses (Villagar 1580:91). Return to text.

8. unas piedras labradas a manera de personas (Zárate 1581:198). Return to text.

9. cuatro ídolos de piedra verde, con figuras de hombre, aunque disformes, y espantosas en las facciones (Burgoa 1989: II, 90). Return to text.

10. Among world religions, only Islam has attempted to purge itself of animatism through the teachings of Mohammed, but even it has the meteorite at Mecca as an inanimate object imbued with supernatural force and, some might argue, the Koran and prayer beads as well. Return to text.

2

Zapotec Deities in Sixteenth-Century Documents

---

Our knowledge of Zapotec deities is derived principally from sixteenth- and seventeenth-century colonial documents prepared by Spanish priests and administrators. The identification of Zapotec deities is complex. Their names are written with highly variable spellings, making it difficult at times to know if one or two separate deities are being cited in different documents. Compounding this difficulty are dialectical differences in Zapotec from different areas. For example, the Zapotec word for deity is pitào in the Valley of Oaxaca, betao in the Sierra Juárez, nato in the Peñoles region, and liraa in Sola de Vega. There are no illustrations of Zapotec deities comparable to those of the Aztec deities in Codex Borbonicus (1974), for example, that would allow us to know how they were depicted and what attributes distinguished them. Also, each of the colonial sources approaches Zapotec deities from a somewhat different perspective. For these reasons, it is necessary to analyze each source separately and then compare them to achieve a definition of major Zapotec deities. The discussion begins with the sixteenth-century documents.

Sixteenth-Century Sources

The sixteenth-century documents include Fray Juan de Córdova’s Vocabulario en lengua zapoteca and Arte del idioma zapoteca, both published in AD 1578, and the Relaciones Geográficas (Geographic Reports), written by various Spanish administrators in response to a questionnaire sent out by King Phillip II of Spain between AD 1579 and AD 1581. The information provided by Córdova’s works is more complete than the reports, although the latter provide a wider geographical coverage that makes these two sources complementary to a certain degree. The analysis of Córdova presented herein relies principally on the work of the late Thomas C. Smith Stark (2002), professor and researcher of linguistics at El Colegio de México, who specialized in colonial Zapotec and made a detailed study of Zapotec religion—deities, priests, and sacrifices—through an analysis of Córdova’s dictionary.

Zapotec Deities in Córdova’s Vocabulario

Córdova compiled his vocabulario between AD 1572 and AD 1576 at Teitipac in the Tlacolula arm of the Valley of Oaxaca (see figure 1.2) and published it in AD 1578 (Whitecotton and Whitecotton 1993:417). Because Córdova had served in the Isthmus of Tehuantepec and the Valley of Oaxaca, his dictionary reflects the Zapotec dialects spoken in these regions and not those spoken by the communities in the small mountain valleys surrounding the Valley of Oaxaca (Whitecotton and Whitecotton 1993:416). The Zapotec words and phrases recorded in the dictionary were written using Spanish orthography—that is, Latin letters. Although Latin letters more or less effectively recorded some Mesoamerican languages—such as Náhuatl, the Aztec language—they served poorly to record Zapotec words. Zapotec is a tonal language with glottal stops, and there are no tones or glottal stops in the Latin alphabet. As a consequence, Zapotec words written identically with Latin letters may have two different meanings—such as loo (monkey) and loo (eye)—that are differentiated in Zapotec by tones. In addition, because Zapotec never became standardized as a written language, the recordings of Zapotec words in distinct sources, such as Córdova and the Relaciones Geográficas, show a considerable range of variation (Whitecotton and Whitecotton 1993:v). Only a highly competent linguist specializing in colonial Zapotec, such as Smith Stark, is adept enough to navigate through these difficulties and achieve a thorough understanding of Córdova’s vocabulario.¹

Córdova cited the Zapotec word pitào as meaning god, which he recorded variously as pitáo, pitòo, or bitào, reflecting the different spellings he gave to the majority of Zapotec words (Smith Stark 2002:93).² Many authors, such as Joyce Marcus (2003a:345), have considered pitao to consist of two words—pi (spirit, breath, or wind) and tao (great) and have translated it as literally meaning great spirit, breath, or wind. However, Smith Stark (2002:94) disagrees and translates pi as animated being because it occurs in the names of animated beings in Zapotec. He translates tào as sacred because in his contextual analysis, for example, a church is referred to as yoho tào, sacred house not great house.³ He concludes that the literal translation of pitao should be sacred animated being, or god. Córdova has twenty-four entries for pitao in his vocabulario, the majority of which refer to Prehispanic deities. Smith Stark (2002:93) suggests that many of these names are alternative names for the same deity and that basically nine Prehispanic Zapotec deities are named in Córdova’s vocabulario.

Smith Stark’s analysis of the deities in Córdova is substantially correct. But Smith Stark purposefully avoided comparing the deities in Córdova with other sources because he wished to focus exclusively on Córdova’s vocabulario. Including other sources, however, can clarify the nature of some deities. Table 2.1 presents a list of nine Zapotec deities in Córdova based on the above analysis by Smith Stark as well as revisions I have made. I have been able to identify fourteen possible