   |
| Distortion by Interpretation |
|
|
In other cases, European descriptions and meanings were given to authentic native categories. In this type of distortion, the Spaniard is seeing or hearing material which is pre-conquest, but the interpretation of that information is European, and it is the European interpretation we have in their written works. For example, Mendieta describes the conclusions of certain Friars concerning a lienzo (cloth/hide with picture writing) in their possession: ... The vicar of that convent showed them some painted papers which had been reproduced from some very ancient paintings, made on certain large rolled leathers, which touch on our faith, and were where the mother of Our Lady and three of her young sisters (who were held to be saints). And the one which represented Our Lady, was [painted] with hair done up in the style in which the natives pull up and tie their hair, and in the knot which was behind she had placed a small cross, by which was given to understand that she was the most holy, and that from her was to be born a great prophet who was to come from the heavens, and that she was to give birth without joining with a man, remaining virgin... (Gerónimo Mendieta. Historia Eclesiástica Indiana. 4 volumes. Mexico: editorial Sálvador Chávez Hayhoe, 1945, 537-538.) The description of the actual painting in front of the fathers seems to be native enough. The women all wear their hair in the native fashion. The interpretation of this section (for it was only a part of a larger roll) appears to be based solely upon the cross found in the hair of one of the four women. The cross had very specific meaning in Mesoamerican culture, but the one given here is very obviously European. In pre-conquest texts certain symbols might be attached near the head of a person, but those generally indicated their name, not a degree of holiness. The rest of the description of the history of the Lady with the cross in her hair is a pure departure from the pictures, a clear interpretation based on the European categories, rather than the native. What the native meaning might have been, we might never know. When these Spaniards examined the paintings, there is no indication that they consulted a native as to the interpretation. The merely saw the cross in the hair of the woman, and deduced that this woman must have been Mary. An even more obvious example of the distortion of a native text comes form Durán: The disciples of this holy man (Topiltzin or Quetzalcoatl) walked along with long robes to their feet, they wore on their heads coverings of kerchiefs or bonnets, which was what the Indians meant to paint when they, to show the hats or bonnets they wore, painted shells. (Diego de Durán, Historia de las Indias de Nueva España, 2 volumes Mexico: Editorial Porrúa, 1967, 1:13.) It cannot be denied that the shells were there because Durán even includes a reproduction in his text. (Durán 1971, 324). What is interesting is that Durán can be so certain of what the natives meant. Durán does not see the shells as shells, but as representations of what the natives meant to paint, that is kerchiefs or bonnets. Durán makes an interpretation based on some preconceived notion of what he would find, or what he wanted to find. In this particular case, he left us the indication that he was interpreting shells. Here we can at least see what Durán saw, and therefore catch him in the act of an interpretive distortion. When we are not so lucky as to have the evidence of the reasoning process, the interpretive distortions become harder to find, but this process was certainly a major factor in the development of the Quetzalcoatl material in Spanish hands. |
||
| by Brant Gardner. Copyright 1998 |
A good deal of the
information on Nahua mythology comes from the works of Spanish authors who collected their information from native
sources. Most authors did not record texts verbatim but retold them in shorter form. Given this condensation
process, it was inevitable that some type of interpretation of the material would be included with the abbreviated
text. On the simplest level the results of this process are readily identified. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún
used gods from the Roman pantheon to help explain the nature of Nahua deities. Thus Tezcatlipoca was said to be
another Jupiter, Chicomecoatl another Ceres, Chalchiuhtlicue another Juno and so on. (Bernardino de Sahagún,
Florentine Codex, tr. Arthur J.O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, New Mexico: The School of American Research
and the University of Utah, 1950-1975, 12 volumes, 3: 31, 33, 35.) The process is simple. Sahagún took the
native deity and related it to a similar deity from his own background where he felt there was a resemblance. In
Sahagún the correlation is on the level of a simple comparison and the descriptive text retains the basically
native information.|
|
 |