Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs by Michael D. Coe
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

A Rather Glorious Present As Well As Past

I have had difficulty in finding the best text for learning about the pre-Conquest history of Mesoamerica. There are several introductory series for schools which are too basic; and any number of professional tomes that provide much more than I need in terms of discussion of professional controversies and archaeological technique. This volume sits squarely in the middle of these two extremes. Written by a world-expert in the field, it is definitive without being pedantic, explanatory without being condescending to the amateur. The first quarter of the book discusses the largely speculative theories of the source and timing of the arrival of Asian settlers in the Americas. But this background can easily be skipped. It is after the introductory material that things get exciting.

For me, he most striking fact about the civilisations of Mesoamerican antiquity is their historiographic modernity. Aside from a few Spanish records from the time of the Conquest that report ancient legends of the last of these civilisations, the Aztecs, almost nothing was known of the development of Mexican and Mayan cultures. Not until the beginning of the 20th century was substantial archaeological and linguistic research begun. And not until the 1930’s was the earliest of these civilisations (and the earliest in all of the Americas), the Olmec, even known to have existed. As might be expected, therefore, understanding of the origins and the continuing cultural significance of these civilisations continues to advance at a rapid pace.

Yet another striking fact of Mesoamerican antiquity is its complexity. Unlike, say, the developmentally equivalent civilisations of Mesopotamia, Mexican culture in particular began and continued as a highly fragmented mix of ‘language-groups.’ Less than nations but more than tribes, these groups expanded and contracted in physical presence and influence like cultural amoebae. And while their amoebic movements may have involved violence on some small scale, they did not occur through invasion or large-scale military action (until the 15th century Aztec state which was constructed to permit constant warfare with its neighbours). Rather, the impetus for the inter-action of these groups was largely commercial rather than military. Even the great Aztec empire was a complex, quasi-feudal arrangement using the lingua franca of Nahuatl (which was not the Aztec mother-tongue but the common second language) rather than a strict hierarchy and unified cultural identifiers.

So rather than being destroyed by, or directly assimilated into some other dominant power, the successive civilisations of Mesoamerica seem simply to have evaporated or self-destructed, or simply retreated to obscurity - as in the important cities of San Lorenzo (Olmec), Monte Albán (Zapotec), Tula (Toltec), Atzcapotzalco (Tepanec) and the still mysterious Teotihuacan - leaving behind the legacy of a still living language as well as artefacts ranging from unexceptional household items to magnificent art works and monumental constructions. But aside from the fragmentary legends recorded by successor civilisations, the culture itself was essentially dead with only indirect absorption, if any, into the newly dominant civilisation. Most interesting for me is that many (most?) of the original languages along with their associated mythologies and legendary histories remain active among significant populations. But only place names may recall their previous importance. Some written languages remain undeciphered to the present day, emphasising the depth of obscurity reached by formerly dominant groups.

The Aztecs themselves were not ‘locals’ but Chichimeca of the Northern deserts, the equivalent of the Germanic barbarians who swept down upon the decaying Roman Empire or the Mongols who overcame the Jin dynasty in the 13th century. The situation seems similar to that of fifth and sixth century Britain. Progressive Anglo-Saxon settlement occurred with very little cultural effect on the existing British-Romano culture. For example, I am reliably informed that there are even today more words of Russian origin in the English language than there are derived from British-Celtic (indeed there may be more Nahuatl Aztec words than Welsh in modern English, including tomato coyote, ocelot and cocoa). Yet the established and the invading communities lived in relatively close proximity to one another. A similar kind of cultural separation apparently was maintained in Greenland between the Scandinavian settlers and the Inuit (much to the disadvantage of the Scandinavians who didn’t understand the rudiments of survival and either died off or left).

So minimally the history of Mesoamerica is intriguing. It may even provoke some interesting thoughts about one’s own history - one example being theological. The gods of Teotihuacan sacrificed themselves for the benefit of humanity, including human resurrection after death (also, incidentally, the first city to be laid out in a grid plan). The Aztecs considered themselves to be the chosen people of the gods, with a divine mission to restore the world in a manner not unlike that of Christianity. They also used a form of baptism as a welcome into the Aztec community and performed a kind of religious communion in which they consumed the grain-based likeness of a god, the key ritual of Christianity.*

Other social characteristics are equally interesting. The intriguing and deadly ball game with which late Classical period cultures were obsessed may have been a substitute for actual combat - and not a bad adaptation relevant to modern warfare. Among the Aztecs, education was universal and mandatory for both boys and girls. On the other hand, these cultures thought the wheel was only suitable for children’s toys and was not used for any sort of transportation. The sophistication and beauty of the sculptural, mural and monumental art left behind is inspiring. And the mysteries of written and spoken languages, cosmological beliefs, and social relationships are fascinating and far from being resolved.

In short, this and the companion volume about the Mayas, is a must read for the enthusiastic history buff.

* I am unaware of any studies comparing Aztec and Christian theology. But it is interesting to note that the Aztecs are strict theological monists, that is they believed that the world is not divided neatly into good and evil but it (and God) is composed of the conjunction of opposites. This is consistent not only with the pre-Socratic philosophers like Heraclitus, but also with contemporary Christian theologians such as the 15th century Nicholas of Cusa. Kant and Hegel, of course, developed an entire mode of philosophy based on this principle in the 18th and 19th centuries. And the 20th century psychology of Carl Jung is explicitly keyed on the conjunction of opposites in every human being. Perhaps it was their devotion to this idea that allowed the Aztecs to indulge in massive human sacrifice while maintaining a highly puritanical social regime which also appreciated poetry and art. This clearly was not a simple society.

View all my reviews