Mesoamerica presents special problems for the historian because of the interweaving of myth and history. Academic historians tend to dismiss much of the native historical tradition because of its alleged mythological or legendary features. The inclusion of what we regard as myths in historical accounts are sometimes thought to lower the value of such documents for purposes of historical reconstruction. However, if we set aside our own preconceptions of what history is, or should be, a very different picture emerges.
Historical accident has decreed that most of our information comes from the Aztecs in the Valley of Mexico, the Mixtecs and Zapotecs of western Oaxaca, the Quiche Maya of Highland Guatemala, and the Yucatecan Maya of northern Yucatan. These are the main areas of research because they present us with the most documentation.
Archaeology, which deals with imperishable cultural remains, has hitherto been the most important source of information about Mesoamerican history. Archaeologists rely on the study of individual artifacts and comparison of archeological sites to determine cross-cultural influences and the spread of goods and ideas. This provides a relative or, ideally, an absolute means of dating a site and enables researchers to set up a chronological sequence of historical events.
There are two main methods of classification: summary by period and summary by developmental type. However, while these scholarly timeline classifications are useful in providing a general overall view of historical and cultural development and in solving certain problems, they are, essentially, arbitrary. For example, archaeologists tell us that the last known date for the Maya hieroglyphic inscriptions is found on Stela 5 at the site of Itzimte (A.D. 910). This is useful information for us, but we cannot assume that it was a significant date for the Mayan inhabitants of this area. It is highly unlikely that anyone decided that this was to be the last monumental marker to be set up for all time. Ethnology, which is the study of contemporary functioning pre-literate (“primitive” is an overworked and misleading term), is also very useful in comparative studies of ancient Mesoamerican societies.
I do not dispute the value of field (“dirt”) archaeology. However, it is limited. The mute stones have no voice. Documents, on the other hand, provide control evidence that enables us to interpret the artifacts beyond what can be determined through archaeology. The use of all available documents, both native and foreign, is essential to any study or understanding of myth and history in Mesoamerica. In view of the extensive documentation for the four main cultural areas, ethnohistory is of special value in this regard because it makes use of both archaeology and ethnology for the reconstruction of native New World cultures.
Part of the problem in approaching this subject is the definition or concept of myth and history with which one starts out. We are never entirely free of personal and cultural bias, but we can at least consider alternative methods, concepts, and theories of mythology and historical narrative before, possibly inadvertently, passing premature judgment on what are to us erroneous or alien modes of thought and action.
Many academic researchers who set out to separate myth from history fail to take into account alternative views, especially those of the indigenous peoples themselves, even when documentation is available. One’s prior concept of mythology and history will have a strong bearing on the interpretation of myths in the context of Mesoamerican historical narrative. Accordingly, we shall look briefly at some of the theories of mythology throughout history.
Western philosophy and science begin with the ancient Greeks. This is not to denigrate the contributions and accomplishments of other civilizations. It is simply a starting point. The earlier pre-Socratic philosophers sought explanations for natural phenomena apart from religious beliefs. Plato, Aristotle, and other later Greek thinkers reacted against the notion of divine intervention in human affairs and sought explanations in philosophy and science. Thus began a long historical series of allegorical interpretations of mythology. In this sense, an allegory is an extended metaphor or direct comparison between two seemingly unrelated subjects in such a way that the meaning lies outside of the narrative itself. In other words, we have the myth or story itself and the mythology or reflection upon the myth. The Greeks, therefore, began to associate myths with physical causes or natural phenomena. For example, in a physical allegory, the deity Chronus stands for chronos (the time concept itself).
Much of the history of ancient civilizations in the Americas has been written from the point of view of the conquerors. Consequently, we have a one-sided
or biased view of Mesoamerican history, particularly the famous/infamous Conquest of Mexico. Through the use of ethnography, especially documents in the native historical tradition, we can redress the imbalance.
