   |
| The Apologetic Response to Quetzalcoatl Scholarship |
|
|
"A second problem that occurs is an attempt to be objective in a study of Quetzalcoatl arises from the fact that on many occasions it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether the Spanish chroniclers were writing about human beings who were named Quetzalcoatl or whether the chroniclers were indeed referring to the myths and legends that date back to the god Quetzalcoatl." (Allen, 1989, 165.) "... when we read the writings of the natives themselves, and those of the early Spanish historians, we find it difficult to reach the core of the Quetzalcoatl saga - it appears almost timeless. Even more difficult to sort out is a time period for the various Quetzalcoatls: the time when they lived. Does the historical source refer to a man who took upon himself this popular name, or dies the record refer to the deity of Quetzalcoatl? We also have to account for mutations in the Quetzalcoatl tradition over the centuries as well as possible "Christian gloss" added by over-zealous Catholic priests." (Wirth 1986, 135-6.) "This native belief has misled some Latter-day Saints into trying to connect all references to "Quetzalcoatl" to the visit of Christ as related in the Book of Mormon. After nearly 2,000 years of legend making, things are much more complex than that. A number of beings bore the title Quetzalcoatl; certain traditions and symbols refer to some bearers of the name and some to others. Distinguishing when a given statement points to the god Quetzalcoatl and when to subsequent humans who bore his title is a complex, uncompleted task." (John L. Sorenson, An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon, (Salt Lake City: Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies, 1985), 337.) Much of this recognition comes in response to the work which attempts to correlate Quetzalcoatl with a 10th Century historical figure.(1) This is an important issue, for if all information about Quetzalcoatl were to pertain to that individual, then the legends would be dated in time to nearly a thousand years too late to have anything to do with a remembrance of Christ. Hence it is important in each of these authors to point out that the material applies in various ways to multiple facets, only one of which would have been a particular person living in the 10th Century. These LDS authors hold that the evidence does not preclude some of the legendary material pertaining to a deity, and that such a deity might predate the 10th Century culture hero. In Allen's words: "On the one hand, Quetzalcoatl is seen as a human being existing in the 10th Century, filled with passions, fighting with his people, and finally exalted to the position of a god. The god Quetzalcoatl, on the other hand, seems to have a long life span with information about him beginning prior to the time of the Christian era and proceeding forward. The latter is considered in the annals as the Creator god of the earth and even man himself." (Allen 1989, 165.) The reluctance to attribute all of the Quetzalcoatl material to a 10th Century culture hero is understandable, and one which I share. However, stating that there is a difference, and demonstrating why this should be so are two different items, and the LDS literature is very weak on the demonstration end of it. No author attempts to delineate a set of traits which belong to one or the other. In general, traits which support their theory must belong to the god, and traits which are in conflict must belong to the person. Such an assumption is too simplistic and self-serving, and bears no relationship to the textual evidence. The texts themselves leave very little way in which traits may be differentiated. So far, the best indication is that the natives could have made a real distinction between three different Quetzalcoatl's; a sky deity, a terrestrial demi-god, and a human ruler in Tula in the 10th Century. The key to the distinction is the name of the father used to indicate parentage. In such a categorization, virtually all of the legendary material which have been attributed to the deity or the human actually belong to the myth of the demi-god. While that might be sufficiently close to deity for LDS authors, the events and attributes reconstructible to the demi-god still fall into the category of ambiguous, with some good, and some bad.(2) The best attempt to correlate the Quetzalcoatl material with an earlier deity is proved by John L. Sorenson. After discussing the difficulties in discerning the various aspects of Quetzalcoatl, he notes that this has led at least one scholar to believe that all legends grew up around a late historical personage. Sorenson responds: "However, that extreme position ignores a large body of evidence that demonstrates that a divine being was known and worshiped as the god Quetzalcoatl for many centuries, perhaps before the time of Christ's birth. This deity was identified with certain sacred symbols whose use is testified to by archaeological material going back thousands of years... Among the symbols of Quetzalcoatl were marine shells, the quetzal bird, and the serpent, particularly in feathered or flying form." (Sorenson, 1985, 328.) This statement is essentially correct. Quetzalcoatl was clearly associated with the mentioned symbols on the eve of the Conquest. It is equally true that the symbols are found in related contexts for centuries, dating back to near the time of Christ, and perhaps before that time. What must be discovered, however, is the nature of those symbols, whether they remain constant through time, and whether or not they connote the Christ-like version of Quetzalcoatl. That is the point Sorenson assumes, but has not investigated. Recent information concerning the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent in Teotihuacan provides an important caution to assumptions that the feathered serpent represents the benign, Christ-like Quetzalcoatl. The Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent has a dramatic facade which shows a feathered serpent undulating in the background, associated with the marine shells Sorenson mentioned. Virtually all LDS authors who write about a Christ-like Quetzalcoatl directly or indirectly correlate that figure with the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent at Teotihuacan, including Sorenson's work. That correlation is thrown into doubt by recent excavations at the pyramid. Saburo Sugiyama reports on burials found during recent excavations at the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent: "Five important burial pits were encountered, on the north and south for the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent, including two multiple burials with lithic, shell, and bone offerings. The discovery of thirty-nine individuals, which stratigraphically correspond to the time of the construction of the temple around A.D. 150 or a little later, some with their hands joined behind their backs as if they had been tied, seems to indicate that human sacrifice was being carried out at the Ciudadela." (Saburo Sugiyama, "Rulership, Warfare, and Human Sacrifice at the Ciudadela: An Iconographic Study of Feathered Serpent Representations", in Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet Catherine Berlo, (Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, 1992), 209-210.) He further noted that "Both the archaeological and the artistic evidence indicate that the deity's associations with the military and with sacrifice were paramount in this structure." (Sugiyama, 1992, 220.) The results of these burials, and Sugiyama's examination of the iconography of the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent provide a symbolic context which is antithetical to the Christ-like version of the Quetzalcoatl material. Those specific elements of militarism and sacrifice, however, do find corroboration in the Quetzalcoatl material most often ignored by LDS authors, the Histoyre du Mechique and the Leyenda de los Soles. (Histoyre, 1973, 113-4, and Leyenda, 1975, 125. These are the previously cited texts linking Quetzalcoatl and sacrifice.) It is possible, therefore, to conclude that there was some kind of symbolic continuity from the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent to the Quetzalcoatl legends as they existed thirteen hundred years later. Unfortunately, the specific symbolic correlation is the opposite of what has been assumed to be the Quetzalcoatl legacy. 1. Nicholson, 1957 remains the most comprehensive treatment of sources available, and the most comprehensive discussion of the historical person. See also Basil Calvin Hedrick, "Quetzalcoatl: European or Indigene?", in Man Across the Sea, edited by Carroll L. Riley, (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1971), 255-265. 2. Brant A. Gardner, "Quetzalcoatl's Fathers," unpublished manuscript, n.d. This paper presents a three-fold distinction in the characteristics surrounding Quetzalcoatl, as opposed to the two proposed by Nicholson. The distinction by named father appears to have a possible basis in native perception, and resolves several difficulties involved in dating the events of the life of the ruler in Tula. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
How have the LDS
author's responded to current Quetzalcoatl scholarship? The most important response has been a recognition that
the subject is complex, and is not amenable to simple analysis. Joseph L. Allen, Diane E. Wirth, and John L. Sorenson
all acknowledge the complexity of the task of sorting the historical from the mythical in the Quetzalcoatl material:
|
|
 |