Content uploaded by David Tavárez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Tavárez on Oct 26, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by David Tavárez
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by David Tavárez on Sep 14, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
chapter 5
Literate Idolatries
Clandestine Nahua and Zapotec Ritual Texts
in the Seventeenth Century
;
On December 22, 1704, Juan Mathías, a resident of the Bixanos Zapo-
tec town of San Juan Malinaltepec near Choapa in northern Oaxaca,
pointed at a small, well-thumbed booklet and before Juan Gracia Co-
rona, the beneficiado of Yagavila, acknowledged it as his property.1
His term for this booklet, biyee que xotao xoci reo, “the times of the
ancestors and fathers of us all,” which may seem hyperbolic or lyrical
to our ears, was in fact painstakingly literal. Juan Mathías’s father had
given him the booklet seven years before, admonishing him to examine
“that calendar which he was bestowing on him, for it was good for
knowing the various times.” These “various times,” decidedly in the
plural, were inscribed in a recursive count of 260 day names that had
provided a temporal grid for many ritual and social practices in Proto-
Zapotec and Zapotec-speaking communities during the previous 2,300
Gregorian years.2
Juan Mathías’s calendar possessed a feature that set it apart from the
dozens—or, perhaps, hundreds—of alphabetic copies of the Zapotec cal-
endar in clandestine circulation at the time: it recorded the date of a 1691
solar eclipse and a 1693 lunar eclipse using both the Gregorian calendar
and the Zapotec ritual count. We will never know whether Juan Mathías
was struck with grief as he stole one last glance at his father’s times—
perhaps he had already made a copy of them, and hidden the text for
safekeeping. In any case, since the absolution of his fellow townspeople
hinged on the tenor and contents of his confession and of that of other
local specialists, Juan Mathías made a statement that, truthful or eu-
phemistic, was first of all eminently pragmatic: he told Gracia that, even
though his father’s teachings allowed him to tend to individual clients,
Literate Idolatries 125
he used this calendar infrequently and declared himself to be “young
and modern.”3
Juan Mathías’s father’s interest in eclipses was not exceptional among
natives. From the mid-sixteenth century to the late eighteenth century,
Nahua authors who cultivated the altepetlacuilolli, “altepetl records”
genre in urban centers in the Basin of Mexico and the Puebla-Tlaxcala
region generated hundreds of pages in which they recounted notable
events—local political history, public festivities, miracles attributed to
Christian saints, and eclipses and comet sightings. Their narrative was
organized by Gregorian years that were often correlated with substantial
or vestigial references to the Nahua year count. Thus, the midday solar
eclipse of August 23, 1691, was recorded both by Juan Mathías’s father in
his isolated Zapotec village, and by an anonymous Nahua annalist from
Puebla active in the last two or three decades of the seventeenth century,
who eloquently described local reactions, noting, “it was as though peo-
ple had lost their senses. Some ran to the church, some fell down in fright,
and three simply died right away. . . . It was fearful what the lord of the
near and the close, our lord God, did on that Thursday afternoon.”4
Two i mp or ta nt di st in ct ion s shou ld be dr awn b et we en the se t wo in -
dependent native reports of the eclipse. First, the Nahua author wrote
from the vantage point of an acculturated citizen of an altepetl, with in-
timate knowledge of the ecclesiastic sphere and a vested interest in local
struggles against residents regarded as mestizo meddlers.5 Our Zapotec
calendar specialist, by contrast, although a likely participant in his local
political sphere, for his son was a fiscal in 1704, was relatively shielded
from habitual contact with Spaniards and castas in his remote village.
More importantly, the Puebla author regarded the eclipse as an extraor-
dinary phenomenon wrought on humans by the Christian God, whom
he designates, in an archaic turn of phrase, as in tloque nahuaque, “the
lord of the near and the close.” We do not know whether Juan Mathías
attributed the eclipses he witnessed to Zapotec deities, but the close as-
sociation of his report with a non-Christian calendar attests to the so-
cial currency this count still wielded in Northern Zapotec communities,
which stands in stark contrast with the vestigial references to Nahua
calendrical practices in late seventeenth-century Nahua annals.
This chapter examines the differential social articulation of alphabetic
writing by native colonial authors who, like our man from Malinal tepec,
occupied social spaces on the margin of urban centers in central New
Spain, and who managed to turn the Spanish gift of alphabetic writing
on its head, using it to perpetuate ritual genres and knowledge anchored
in Postclassic social and symbolic practices and to recast devotional and
astronomical knowledge of European origin into emerging native textual
Chapter 5
126
genres. Our two authors shared much in common as native colonial sub-
jects and social actors within a legal system that carefully demarcated the
rights and obligations as members of the república de indios. Nonethe-
less, the Zapotec author’s intellectual efforts were inscribed within the
logic of colonial clandestinity: in a colonial order that conflated author-
ship and ownership of proscribed texts by prosecuting anyone involved
in their production or circulation, Juan Mathías’s father was an aberra-
tion, an unwelcome result of the philological and lexicographic work of
sixteenth-century Dominican authors and an example of the widespread
dispersal of alphabetic literacy throughout rural landscapes in central
New Spain. Although the archival record favors the study of historical
narratives and mundane records produced by colonial indigenous au-
thors,6 our understanding of native responses to evangelization remains
tentative without an examination of the clandestine convergence of al-
phabetic writing with ritual, devotional, and astronomical knowledge.
In order to assess this extraordinary merger, this chapter proposes four
case studies that highlight Nahua and Zapotec clandestine intellectual
labor in the seventeenth century: the interplay of the oral and written re-
production of ritual knowledge in Nahua communities in the Cohuixca-
Tlalhuica region; the bold appropriation of a European almanac genre by
Nahua translators; a network of users of Zapotec calendrical texts that
emerged around a single household containing two generations of ritual
specialists; and the production and circulation of dozens of Zapotec cal-
endars and songbooks in forty northern Oaxacan villages.
f r o m p o st c l a s s i c l i t e r a c y t o
literate idolatry
A common observation could be made about the social specificity of
writing in ancient Near Eastern, Mediterranean, and Mesoamerican so-
cieties: the circumscription of formal training in the interpretation and
production of writing for elite groups and their close associates. Classi-
cist Eric Havelock termed this condition “craft literacy,”7 literacy being
a specialized skill fully exercised only by a small segment of society,
which, according to William V. Harris, comprised no more than 15 per-
cent of the population even at peak literacy periods in Mediterranean
antiquity.8 As Stephen Houston has noted, a full understanding of the
role of literacy in ancient societies, and in preconquest Mesoamerica in
particular, should go well beyond estimates that may shift according to
region, period, or methodology.9 Houston argued for a variable defini-
tion of literacy within the parameters of specific scribal traditions, which
Literate Idolatries 127
placed an emphasis on the distinction between reading skills and writing
competence, and which conceived writing systems as a means toward
recitation and public performance, rather than as an end in itself. In
the end, even though these writing systems may seem needlessly elabo-
rate, they fulfilled discursive needs in their societies of origin with apt
precision. This assessment, by necessity, opposes universalistic charac-
terizations of the dynamics of literacy, epitomized by the depiction of
alphabetic literacy as the nemesis of oral literacy.10
Writing and reading in preconquest Mesoamerican societies may be
best regarded as a continuum of interlocking phenomena that reflected
and reproduced social hierarchies and their narratives of origin. An edu-
cation in nonalphabetic writing systems was reserved to specialists with
ties to elite groups. Here, one may highlight appellations that distin-
guished between producers, such as amatlacuilo in Nahuatl and huezée
quíchi or huecàa yye in Valley Zapotec, and interpreters or performers
of texts, amapohuani and tlamatini in Nahuatl and pèni huílla and péni
huelàba yye in Valley Zapotec. There also existed a distinction between
records housed in temples and palaces containing the history and geneal-
ogy of ruling lineages, xiuhpohualli in Nahuatl and quijchi tija in Valley
Zapotec, and public pictographic records in the architectural program
of civil and religious buildings.11 In Zapotec, the divinatory calendar and
pictorial representation seem to be linked by a deep etymological tie:
piyè, the routine designation for calendars, may be analyzed as consist-
ing of the animacy marker pi- and the root -yye, “picture, letter, drawn
or painted image.”12
It is difficult to estimate the access of commoners to an education
in nonalphabetic writing; still, some tantalizing observations suggest
that literacy practices circulated beyond the social networks presided
by rulers and priests. For instance, Itzcoatl (1428–40), the first Mexica
emperor to extend Mexica-Tenochca hegemony beyond the Basin of
Mexico, attempted to keep “the count of days, the paper of the years,
the count of years, the paper of dreams” out of reach of commoners
by burning them: “The Mexica rulers made an agreement; they said:
‘It is not necessary that every man know the black, the red [in tlilli, in
tlapalli]; what is carried, transported on one’s back [political authority]
will be debased, and this will only spread nahuallotl over the land.’ With
this, much falsehood was uprooted.”13 López Austin has proposed that
Itzcoatl’s attempt to curb the spread of pictorial writing—designated
here as in tlilli in tlapalli, “the black, the red”—was a measure against
the proliferation of “man-gods”: ritual specialists who laid claim to rit-
ual knowledge and its concomitant symbolic authority through their use
of calendrical and historical records.14 Even though Itzcoatl’s attempts at
Chapter 5
128
censorship remain poorly understood, this passage conveys the pointed
suggestion that the Mexica state did not exercise a monopoly over either
literacy or ritual practices.
After the conquest, missionaries assessed Mesoamerican literacy prac-
tices in a variety of ways, often according to it the epistemic weight
that alphabetic writing bore in European societies. In a much-quoted
instance that was disseminated through fray Juan de Torquemada’s 1615
Monarquía Indiana, fray Jerónimo de Mendieta noted the use of pic-
tographic characters with phonetic values to record the Pater Noster,15
and fray Diego Valadés argued that the natives of New Spain employed
a species of what Aristotle called “artificial memory,” exercised through
the use of places and images, “in the elucidation of their affairs.”16
In a cardinal passage written for a 154 1 introduction to his historical
narrative about Mexica society and the early postconquest period, fray
Toribio Motolinia argued that the Mexica possessed five types of picto-
graphic “books”: of “years and times,” of “the days and feasts they had
throughout the year,” of “the dreams, delusions, vanities and auguries
they believed in,” of “the baptism and names they gave to children,” and
of “rites, ceremonies, and auguries they had regarding marriage.” In an
interpretive move that epitomized the cautious ambivalence of subse-
quent generations, Motolinia declared that only the first kind of book
was trustworthy, as it “speaks the truth, for, although barbarous and
illiterate, they had a very orderly count of times, days, weeks, months,
and years.”17 Motolinia did not explicitly include historical narratives
in his classification, but his belief in their validity is vouchsafed by the
rest of his work, which he claims is based on his understanding of native
readings of the book of xiuhpohualli, “the count of [365-day] years.”
Motolinia regards the native count of years as unassailable and every-
thing else as doubtful. This eloquent characterization should be seen
as a discursive pirouette that avoids passing judgment on the epistemic
validity of genres that Spanish interpreters relied on in order to construct
a coherent narrative of native societies.18 Since native historical accounts
weave through a past shot through with non-Christian deities, sacrifices,
and offerings, how was a Spanish interpreter to discriminate between
truth and demonic delusion? Motolinia does not answer this question di-
rectly, but his pragmatic response seems to be a recasting of Mexica his-
torical narratives that emphasizes warfare, migration, and genealogical
events. This approach prefigures subsequent solutions, which combined
a serious regard for native literacy practices and a relatively high degree
of confidence on the accuracy of native historical narratives with lasting
suspicions about the demonic influence encoded in native accounts that
touched on calendrical and ritual practices.
Literate Idolatries 129
Certainly, this guarded but ambivalent attitude did not inhibit the
production of native historical and genealogical records, as attested by
the relatively large corpus of alphabetic texts in Nahuatl containing nar-
rative or genealogical accounts of the ancient and recent past that were
produced from the middle decades of the sixteenth century until the
mid-nineteenth century, a trend that also existed in Zapotec-speaking
communities in Oaxaca. These genres have been analyzed by several
generations of scholars; three of them researched in recent times are land
surveys and maps;19 títulos primordiales, “primordial titles,” or founda-
tional historical narratives sometimes backdated to the early sixteenth
century;20 and pictorial narrative or alphabetic historical accounts.21
A more modest output of scholarly works about colonial Nahua and
Zapotec ritual and devotional texts exists, but it includes the important
pioneering work of López Austin, Andrews and Hassig, and Coe and
Whittaker on the Nahua incantations transcribed by Ruiz de Alarcón, of
Louise Burkhart on prayers, songs, and devotional texts independently
produced by Nahua authors,22 of Berlin on the “ancient beliefs” in Zapo-
tec Sola,23 and of Alcina Franch on Northern Zapotec calendars.24 This
chapter seeks to contribute to such efforts, bearing in mind that one moves
into uncertain terrain, as clandestine native texts tend to be fragmentary
and difficult to place within textual or performative contexts.25 Thus, the
four case studies below focus on the social spaces created and maintained
through the circulation of these texts. This approach heeds Joanne Rap-
paport’s call to define literacy within a clearly delineated context of social
relations,26 and dovetails with Roger Chartier’s influential assessment of
the diversity of literacy practices in Renaissance and baroque Europe.27
t h e o r a l a nd w r i t t e n r e p rod u c t ion o f
nahua ritual knowledge
There exist at least five references in Ruiz de Alarcón’s Tratado to incan-
tations independently transcribed by literate ritual specialists. The most
egregious example is an incantation used for carrying loads and propiti-
ating safe travel, discovered after one of his informants claimed to have
chanced upon a copy of it. Francisco de Santiago, who was raised in Ruiz
de Alarcón’s home, found a text on a stretch of road and brought it to his
benefactor, who had no difficulty in establishing its origin because it was
signed by its owner, the deacon of Cuetlaxxochitla. When summoned,
the deacon confessed that the original text had been lost, and that he had
no information about its author.28 This association between public office
and clandestine text production would be a recurring one throughout the
Chapter 5
130
seventeenth century. Another independently produced text recorded an
incantation to hunt deer with a snare. Most of the incantations recorded
in this treatise have two to four sections, but this one is the longest, with
twenty-two sections. This text was not a mere alphabetic transcription,
as it also included metalinguistic comments. At the end of the incanta-
tion’s seventeenth section, Ruiz de Alarcón reports that “it then says on
the paper: Otlamic: nauhcampa toyohuaz. Tic yehecoz; [which means]
that, once the incantation has finished, you shall shout very loudly to-
ward the four directions.”29 Moreover, Ruiz de Alarcón quotes meta-
linguistic content in italics in his original manuscript: “If after this they
have not come, they are ordered—yoyohuaz coyotzaziz quitoz—to howl
repeatedly and to say tahui.”30
The only literate ritual specialist Ruiz de Alarcón mentions by name
was a woman called Petronilla; she was a healer from Tlayacapan who
cured tertian fever with an incantation. Petronilla would prepare an in-
fusion of the coanenepilli plant with rue and then utter an incantation.
“According to the paper on which she had this incantation written,” the
extirpator affirmed, “it began with ica motlatlauhtia in atl, which in
Spanish means ‘With this prayer, one begs the water for something.’”31
This incantation, only three sentences long, propitiated the water deity
Chalchihuitl Icue. As noted by Lockhart,32 its author employed tropes that
occur frequently in Nahua doctrinal discourse: the patient was called Dios
itlachihualtzin, “God’s creature,” and fever’s pain became in ilhuicac jus-
ticia, “heavenly justice.” The incorporation of Christian formulae memo-
rized through the teaching of the doctrine recurs in a fourth incantation
seized in written form. In an incantation to induce sleep in a victim in
order to perform theft or sexual assault, an anonymous hypnotist,33 after
claiming to be Tezcatlipoca, Xolotl, and Xipe, prudently closes the spell
with the formula in nomine domini, “In the name of the Lord . . .”34
A fifth and final written incantation may feature nonalphabetical
signs inserted in the text. In order to transcribe an enigmatic incanta-
tion for bleeding that employs one or more epithets to name each of
the participants in the performance—veins, hands, needle, blood, water,
illness— Ruiz de Alarcón labeled each epithet with a letter. This incan-
tation made a distinct impression on the experienced priest, since he
analyzed it in detail in a lengthy letter to Archbishop Pérez de la Serna.
When he comes to the epithet for the illness to be remedied by bleeding,
Ruiz de Alarcón adds a description of a character that appeared in the
original text:
Hark! Contain yourselves, gods of the wilderness, etc., [which is] where they
place this character X, and they interpret it as the Enemy or Beelzebub, who may,
as a being superior to those that are called gods of the wilderness or lesser [gods],
Literate Idolatries 131
drive them away from the place where they hurt the ill person. Thus, [the spe-
cialist] calls them “green ones,” and then “green spiders,” and he places another
character there, which—since demons are called “spiders” and illnesses depicted
as colors—seems to convey that these enemies cause the illness.35
In the original manuscript, the first character appears as an X; according
to Ruiz de Alarcón, this icon represented a powerful entity that caused
illness, embodied as green spiders, to scatter away. An unspecified char-
acter represented the illness-bearing spiders. Even if Ruiz de Alarcón
copied this incantation from a text featuring actual nonalphabetic ele-
ments, this enigmatic graphic representation did not survive the tran-
scription process.
How did the reproduction of ritual knowledge through oral means
compare to its spread through transcriptions? A previous chapter
outlined a key rhetorical trait of the Nahual Names genre: the use of
epithets featuring morphological, syntactic, semantic, or syllabic paral-
lelism to refer to entities propitiated in the course of the incantation.
One of the epithets with the widest distribution in this corpus is that
of piciyetl, Nicotiana rustica, an herbaceous species of tobacco used so
often that Ruiz de Alarcón likened it to “the little dog who comes to all
the wedding feasts.”36 The broad distribution of this epithet facilitates a
circumscribed analysis of its reported use in incantations transcribed by
Ruiz de Alarcón in a fifteen-year period (1614–29) in the Cohuixca and
Tlalhuica communities.
The canonical form of the piciyetl epithet, as attested from seven
variants drawn from six different incantations, can be defined as a two-
part parallel template. The first part is a numerical form, chiucnauh,
“Nine [Times],”37 which occurs in both initial sections of the parallel
epithet. The second part is a variable element referring to an item that
has been pounded with a stone (tlatetzohtzonalli), slapped with a stone
( tlatecapanilli), or crumbled by hand (tlahtlamatelolli). The epithet al-
ways contained two phrases referring to items that were acted upon in
two different ways. For instance, the spell for trapping deer (Tra t a d o II: 8)
refers to piciyetl as chiucnauh tlatetzohtzonalli, chiucnauh tlatecapanilli,
“Nine (times) Stone-Pounded One,” “Nine (times) Stone-Slapped One,”
and uses a variant of this epithet that differs minimally from the first one.
The remaining five variants (Trat ad o V: 1, VI: 3, VI: 4, VI: 24) are quite
similar in morphological terms to the two written variants. In fact, setting
aside the use of absolutive or honorific suffixes by different incantation
authors (-tli, -li, -tzin, or none), it appears that the parallel epithet for the
piciyetl is customarily constructed with only four verbal stems: tzohtzon-
(pounding), capan- (slapping), matelo- (crumbling), and the more un-
usual patlan- (flying). A less canonical version of the piciyetl epithet, used
Chapter 5
132
in only two instances, is rendered either as xoxohuic tlateca paniltzin,
xoxohuic tlatetzohtzonaltzin, “Green Stone-Slapped One, Green Stone-
Pounded One” (Tratado II: 4), or cozouhqui tlamacazqui, xoxouhqui
tlamacazqui, “Yellow Priest, Green Priest” (Tratado V: 1).
In a sample of nine incantations collected by Ruiz de Alarcón from
literate users or through oral elicitation, this particular epithet possesses
a well-defined canonical form that was easily committed to memory due
to its repetitive structure. Excluding the two unusual epithet alluding to
color terms, the eight canonical variants show minor morphological and
semantic variability and a strong similarity in their syntactic structure.
This sample exhibits the constrained, slight modifications that one would
expect from a group of ritual specialists who repeated from memory an
epithet transmitted orally from one generation to another. Even in two
independent transcriptions, the deer-hunting incantation and the spell
for tertian fever, the piciyetl epithet partook of such morphological and
semantic variability.
It may be tempting to regard these results as merely confirming the
existence of a strong oral culture in the Cohuixca-Tlalhuica region; after
all, Ruiz de Alarcón identifies an incantation as transcribed by special-
ists only in five cases, or about 7 percent of the corpus. This example
suggests three distinct conclusions: first, that the ritual knowledge that
extirpators encountered in the Nahua hinterlands was linked to oral
transmission dynamics that survived nearly a century of political change,
demographic upheaval, and social engineering; second, that the control
and elicitation of oral performance, as shown by metalinguistic direc-
tions and the strong continuities between transcribed and oral expres-
sion in the piciyetl epithets, was a major concern behind the transcription
of incantations; and third, that oral and written transmission could co-
exist with ease in the social spaces where ritual specialists operated. The
third case study in this chapter expands on this last conclusion by exam-
ining the articulation of social spaces in which clandestine native authors
operated in Oaxaca.
a n a h ua a s t ro n o m i c a l a n d de v o t i on a l
miscellany
Strict measures against the possession and circulation of unauthorized
manuscript copies of devotional works emerged from the First (1555)
and Third (1585) Mexican Church Councils, and these directives were
confirmed by the Council of Trent. Nonetheless, some indigenous intel-
lectuals avoided Tridentine scrutiny by circulating or sharing manuscript
Literate Idolatries 133
copies in a clandestine manner among discreet circles of readers. Even
though few extant examples exist of native devotional works that may
have circulated in this manner, a brief glance at some of the known
specimens is deeply revealing. In this section, I provide a brief overview
of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France’s Fonds Mexicain 381 (hence-
forth BNF-Mex 381), a manuscript Nahuatl miscellany of devotional and
divinatory texts.38 Two criteria render this unusual text relevant: first of
all, it shows the broad range of genres and topics that clandestine Na-
huatl texts could have addressed; second, since its production and usage
is roughly contemporary with both the Ruiz de Alarcón incantations and
the Sola divinatory texts, its contents reflect the intentions of a group of
native readers whose interests contrasted with those of the ritual special-
ists represented in the other two case studies.
BNF-Mex 381 is a sixty-page manuscript that was once part of the
collection of the eighteenth-century Italian scholar and historian Lorenzo
Boturini. It is likely that it was bought in Mexico, along with other works
owned by Boturini, by the French scholar Joseph-Marie Aubin, who took
his priceless collection with him to Paris in 1840. While it is not abso-
lutely certain that this miscellanea existed in its present form before join-
ing Boturini’s collection around the 1730s, the fact that it features several
alternating hands, with Hand 1 being responsible for an initial section
and the final section of the manuscript, suggests that this manuscript was
copied by more than one literate native. A remarkable feature of BNF-
Mex 381 is the diversity of genres it contains. The manuscript begins with
a set of Nahuatl prayers for meditation, a Spanish prayer to the Virgin,
a devotional enumeration of the thorns in Christ’s crown, a persignum
crucis in Nahuatl and Otomi, a Nahuatl translation of a Latin text about
the life of Saint Nicholas Tolentino, a set of Latin prayers recorded in
the equivocating transcription of a scribe who was a native speaker of
Nahuatl, assorted prayers in Latin, Spanish, and Nahuatl, a correlation
between the Gregorian months of April to December and the twenty
Matlatzinca day signs written without numerical coefficients,39 a list of
holy days, and, most striking of all, a brief text on the signs of the Zodiac
and on their correlation with the days and months of the Christian calen-
dar. The manuscript closes with a short text about the Eucharist.
This miscellanea appears to have been in use from the early 1630s to
the mid-1650 s: on page 24, one finds a list of holy days with the anno-
tation “a[n]nus 1633”; on page 45, there is a note about the feast of the
Assumption in 1639; on the margins of the correlation between the Mat-
latzinca day sign count and the Gregorian calendar, a note indicates that
a certain Caterina fled her home in 1654. Unfortunately, as is the case
with other miscellaneous works, it is impossible to ascertain either the
Chapter 5
134
authors’ identity or the exact location in which it was produced. Nahuatl
predominates in the text, but the presence of Otomi and Matlatzinca
terms suggests that the manuscript was produced by Nahuatl-speaking
authors who lived close to speakers of Otomanguean languages in re-
gions west and northwest of the Toluca Valley, in or near the jurisdic-
tions of Querétaro, Metepec, or Temazcaltepec. This is precisely the area
where two clergymen, Nahuatl-speaker Ponce de León and Matlatzinca-
speaker Gutiérrez Bocanegra, conducted idolatry eradication efforts
against literate specialists in 1610 and confiscated their devotional texts.
Given the dates referring to the 1630s and the 1650s in BNF-Mex 381,
the texts contained in this miscellaneous work were probably not col-
lected in 1610, although a distant possibility is that some of the undated
texts were indeed surrendered to Ponce de León.
The list of holidays on page 24, and the correlations between days
of the week, planets, months, and signs of the zodiac on pages 47 to
54 suggest these sections were inspired by a reportorio de los tiempos.
This early modern genre shared some traits with the book of hours and
the almanac genre—a correlation between days of the months and days
of the week indicated by the dominical letters A to g, a list of Christian
holidays, and the canonical correlation between months and signs of
the zodiac—but also included extensive information on the correlations
among planets, months, days of the week, and signs of the zodiac, pro-
vided a characterization of personality types by zodiac signs, and usually
included tables detailing moon phases for a particular time period (1495
to 155 0 , for example), and for a specific geographical location (such as
Barcelona, Madrid, or Mexico City). Some reportorios even included
instructions on common early modern healing practices, such as bleed-
ing and cupping.
Among the most influential examples of printed reportorio editions,
one could cite Bernat de Granollach’s 1485 Catalan-language Lunari,
Andrés de Li’s 1495 Reportorio de los tiempos,40 Jerónimo de Cháves’s
157 2 Chronographia o Reportorio de los tiempos, Bartolomé Hera y
de la Varra’s 15 84 Reportorio del mundo particular, de las spheras del
cielo y orbes elementales, and the most influential and perhaps most
widely circulated reportorio in seventeenth-century New Spain, which
was written with a regional readership in mind: Enrico Martínez’s Re-
portorio de los tiempos e historia natural de Nueva España, printed
in Mexico City in 1606.41 Spanish reportorios circulated in Mexico
City well before the appearance of Martínez’s work: a lot of 341 books
sold by bookseller Alonso Losa in July 157 6 includes a Chronografia o
Repertorio [sic], probably a copy of Cháves’s text, and Irving Leonard
observes that this work appears in the list of books inspected, but not
Literate Idolatries 135
necessarily confiscated, by inquisitors as they inspected ships arriving in
New Spain from Europe.42 In fact, during the expansion and reorganiza-
tion of the Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco in 157 2 and 157 3 , the
Franciscans Molina and Sahagún offered for sale several books from the
school’s collection in order to raise funds; among them, a Reportorio,
valued at five pesos, is listed.43
Since these books circulated and were sold in Central Mexico without
attracting great scrutiny, it is not surprising to find that Nahua readers
studied and attempted to render reportorios and books of hours. The
most salient example of the refashioning of a book of hours by Nahua
authors is found in the first eight pages of the Codex Mexicanus.44 In
this text, each of these pages corresponds to a month in the Christian
calendar, and the codex’s surviving pages run from May to December.
On each page, the days of the week are represented by letters, and impor-
tant saints’ days are spelled out in syllabograms.45 This manuscript also
includes a chart with the twelve signs of the zodiac.
Another Nahua attempt to interpret the European zodiac that pres-
ents a series of parallels with BNF-Mex 381 is an eight-page manuscript
appended to a printed copy of Pedro de Gante’s 1553 Doctrina chris-
tiana en lengua mexicana. This Nahuatl text, entitled Reperdorio de
los dienpos [sic], was transcribed by an anonymous sixteenth-century
hand. López Austin’s translation and analysis of this Reperdorio allow
a comparison with the contents of BNF-Mex 381.46 Both texts contain
predictions about agricultural practices, health, and well-being for each
of the twelve months of the Latin calendar, which are paired with signs
of the zodiac, and both offer the characterizations of personality types by
signs of the zodiac that are a mainstay of the reportorio genre. Unlike the
Reperdorio, BNF-Mex 381 offers predictions for each of the days of the
week, contains calendrical lists, and shows a series of correlations among
primordial elements, days, months, and zodiac signs.
Pages 47–54 of BNF-Mex 381 suggest that its Nahua author(s)
adapted them from a reportorio, for they feature a brief text on the car-
dinal winds, a correlation among days of the week, signs of the zodiac,
and primordial elements, and a correlation between months and zodiacal
signs. Some elements in this Nahua appropriation imply that its author
consulted a reportorio displaying canonical images for the twelve zodiac
signs with no help or supervision from a nonindigenous reader. In the
primarily visual reading of the signs of the zodiac by this anonymous
Nahua interpreter, the eight signs represented by primarily iconographic
signs (Aries, Taurus, Cancer, Leo, Virgo, Scorpio, Capricorn, Aquarius,
Pisces) are given an accurate Nahuatl gloss. The icons for three signs
are rendered equivocally in Nahuatl: the twins of Gemini become Wise
Chapter 5
136
Men, or tlamatinime; Libra’s scales are read as Merchant, or pochtecatl,
and Sagittarius’s centaur turns into Deer Man, or tlacamaçatl.47 Surpris-
ingly, there are faint echoes of this ambivalent reading in the zodiac-sign
glosses provided by the Nahua annalist Chimalpahin. At the end of a
manuscript section dedicated to the Mexica month count, Chimalpa-
hin provided a Nahuatl translation for each zodiac sign that employed
Spanish lexical items and Nahuatl glosses.48 Thus, he translated Libra
with the Spanish term balanza, and Sagittarius with both Spanish and
Nahuatl terms—centauro and tlacamaçatl. As for Gemini, Chimalpa-
hin wrote a lengthy explanation that referred in an indirect manner to
twins: “The astrologers render it as two children who embrace each
other. Thus, they say that, when the two are born, they therefore love
each other much; they therefore never quarrel.”49
The Nahuatl text about the signs of the Zodiac in BNF-Mex 381 is
not a literal rendition of a Spanish reportorio; it rather seems that the au-
thors browsed through a reportorio, making partial notes on its contents.
Some lexical clues indicate that these Nahuatl students of the zodiac used
a printed or manuscript version of Andrés de Li’s popular Reportorio de
los tiempos, first printed in Zaragoza in 1495. In Li’s Reportorio, after
a brief discussion of months, hours, and planets, there begins a section
about the correlations between the nine heavens and the seven planets
(Moon, Mercury, Venus, Sun, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn). This section
opens with the following words:
The planets are listed below.
On the first heaven and the seventh planet, which is the moon, and which has its
seat within it [the first heaven].
The first heaven is where the moon has its seat; this is the lowest planet, the sev-
enth one, which is located in the lowest circle of the [celestial] sphere; its circle
is completed after eight years, and it is the lord of the seventh and last climate.50
On the other hand, after stating the correlations between months and
zodiac signs with the Nahuatl glosses discussed above, a new section in
BNF-Mex 381 begins with the following mixture of Nahuatl and Span-
ish words:
Sunday, the planets are listed below. First, the grammar. He is a lord, Monday.
The second mer-heaven [sic] planets, which is the moon, and which has its seat
within it. Sterile person. Tuesday, the third one, which is Mars. Third planets [sic]
knight. Wednesday. The second heaven, which is Mercury, which is planets. He
will become a doctor.51
It appears as if the Nahuatl authors incorporated the phrases “The plan-
ets are listed below” (Siguense los planetas) and “which is the moon, and
Literate Idolatries 137
which has its seat within it” (que es la luna que tiene en el su asiento),
found verbatim in Li’s Reportorio, into a jumble of notes in Spanish and
Nahuatl. In any case, as amateur European astrologers, these writers
attempted to grasp the correlations between signs of the zodiac, periods
of time, and primordial elements—Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water—by
consulting a reportorio that may have been based on Li’s text. Nonethe-
less, the contents of BNF-Mex 381 do not provide a section-by-section
parallel to Li’s Reportorio and introduce topics that are not treated in
this text. Since its Nahua author(s) were apparently not interested in a lit-
eral translation of the reportorio that was consulted, it would be difficult
to link their work with a single printed or manuscript reportorio edition.
However, the interest of Nahua writers in Li’s publication is confirmed
by the existence of a lengthier text produced by several copyists, some
of whom worked on this text in the mid-eighteenth century: a 121-folio
manuscript now preserved at the Tropenmuseum in the Netherlands,
which provides a Nahuatl translation of most of the sections in Li’s Re-
portorio and includes glosses from various other sources.52
The Nahuatl reportorio section in BNF-Mex 381 seems to follow its
own peculiar logic. For example, a section on page 49 shows that each
day of the week is related to one or two signs of the zodiac, to primordial
elements, and to a particular archangel. In addition, an entire section is
devoted to the following correlation between signs and elements (Spanish
or Latin terms are shown in italics below):
First Planet. Every sign is counted here. During Aries, they are atop Fire; during
Leo, they are in the middle; during Sagittarius, they are at the bottom of Fire,
which lights up all the days. During Taurus, they are on top of Earth; during
Virgo, they are in the middle of Earth; during Capricorn, they are at the bottom
of Earth. During Gemini, they are on top of Wind; during Libra, they are in the
middle of Wind; during Aquarius, they are at the bottom of Wind. During Can-
cer, they are on top of Water; during Scorpio, they are in the middle of Water;
during Pisces, they are at the bottom of Water.53
The main section of this reportorio text contains seven paragraphs
dedicated to the days of the week, beginning with Sunday. Each para-
graph gives a brief discussion of the planet and zodiac sign born on that
day, gives a forecast applicable to people born on that day, and points
out whether illnesses may be easy or difficult to cure on that particular
day. For example, the text’s author(s) make the following remarks about
Sunday:
Here it is written about all kinds of planetas, and all kinds of births. In the man-
ner of the reportorio, the days are mentioned here. At dawn on Sunday, which
is called the first [prayer?], there the lords are born. The commoner will be born,
Chapter 5
138
and [this is] what his work is, what happens here on Earth when he is born: This
child will then be summoned; since he knows his [reportorio], he will explain it
to the people. This is how Leo comes to take he who is born under it: His body is
a thing of wonder: precious stone, turquoise, emerald. His eyes are a frightening
thing; his body is very red. Thus, he goes about on earth; he truly deserves to be
feared, and has great renown. When he gets sick, he will get very wet; when he is
given food, he will not let it go as soon as he comes to eat it. He will be coming
in and out of his senses, he whose name is Leo. Then, he will die quickly; he who
is of this birth will not heal.54
The characteristics and prognosis associated with people born under
Leo may seem peculiar; nonetheless, the Nahua authors described here
a recognizable cluster of traits that distinguished those born under this
sign, according to early modern almanacs. Both this text and the afore-
mentioned Nahuatl Reperdorio analyzed by López Austin agree on the
characteristics of people born under Leo. In BNF-Mex 381, it is said that
people born under Leo will live “deserving much respect, with much
fame.” The Reperdorio states the following about people born under
Leo: “One bows before them; they are young men with a great heart,
they are courageous.”55 In fact, the characterization of people born under
Leo that appears in Enrico Martínez’s 1606 Reportorio states that those
born under Leo “are usually of good height, have blue eyes; they are bold
by nature; . . . they will thrive in any manner of literary tasks, if they
embrace them, and also in any exercise of wit; . . . they are usually some-
what sad, prone to danger, and besieged by stomach pains.”56 Hence,
BNF-Mex 381 and Martínez depict a somewhat convergent portrait of
Leos. While the Spanish text assigns blue eyes to them, the Nahuatl text
depicts their glance as “a frightening thing,” which could be a Nahua
misreading of zarco, “blue-eyed”; if the Spanish text emphasizes their
literary prowess and wit, the Nahua text predicts those born on Leo will
know how to explain the reportorio. The danger and stomach illnesses
mentioned in passing by Martínez acquire a very specific set of predic-
tions for illness from a Nahua perspective: people born on this day will
eat like wild beasts, lapse in and out of their senses, and then die a quick
death, with no possibility of being healed.
The appropriation of a Spanish reportorio and its adaptation to a
Nahua cultural context bears witness to the great interest with which
the authors and users of the Codex Mexicanus and the BNF-Mex 381
investigated European divinatory practices. The differences between the
context of production of a reportorio and that of BNF-Mex 381 kept
this act of appropriation from becoming a simple transfer of contents.
In transcribing, glossing, and reinterpreting the contents of a Spanish
reportorio, the anonymous Nahua writers had neither the possibility nor
Literate Idolatries 139
the interest of replicating the encoded cultural assumptions that charac-
terized the “horizon of expectations,” to use Hans Robert Jauss’s lucid
term,57 of the reportorio genre. Paradoxically, such a selective appropria-
tion of the European zodiac resulted in the emergence of a novel textual
genre, the Nahua reportorio, whose horizon of expectation was still in
the formative stages. This concern with the use of European ritual tech-
niques seems to indicate a process of substitution of the tonalamatl, the
Nahua ritual calendar text, with a new textual genre based on Christian
divinatory techniques. In contrast with this tendency, other native co-
horts of readers continued to produce and circulate copies of indigenous
calendars.
l i t e r ac y a n d c l a n d e s t i n e d ev o t i o n a l
spheres in southern oax aca
In Oaxaca, the earliest evidence about the clandestine circulation of
ritual texts in seventeenth-century native villages comes from a rather
marginal area: two Amuzgo-speaking towns in the jurisdictions of
Igualapa and Xicayán (de Nieto), in the southwestern Oaxaca coastal
area. This incident took place in the early years of the ecclesiastical
career of Gerónimo Curiel, who served as beneficiado of the Amuzgo
towns of Xochistlahuaca and Xicayán de Tovar between 1616 and 1635,
and as beneficiado of Teotitlán del Camino from 1635 until at least the
early 1640 s.58 Curiel, who was fluent in Amuzgo, Mazatec, and Nahuatl,
claimed to have authored translations of the Christian doctrine into some
of these languages. From the perspective of Bishop Bohórquez, these
traits made Curiel an ideal extirpator, and thus he served the diocese
as a judge against idolaters for at least two decades after his appoint-
ment in 1622. In this capacity, he toured his parish “seizing idols, books,
characters, and other instruments of idolatry.” In a brief discussion of his
career, Curiel highlighted his prosecution of an Amuzgo cacique, whom
he identifies as a sorcerer and as a proselytizer. In 1633, Curiel tried this
unnamed ruler, seized “the books, characters and instruments which he
employed,” and sentenced him to hard labor at the fort of Acapulco.59
Two years after Curiel passed this notably harsh sentence, Gonzalo de
Balsalobre, a young secular priest residing in the town of San Miguel Sola
in south-central Oaxaca, had his first confrontation with Diego Luis, a
Zapotec literate specialist, as noted in Chapter 4 above. Diego Luis had
in his possession a calendrical text written in Chatino, a member of the
Proto-Zapotecan language family, which he had translated into Solteco,
the Zapotec variant spoken in Sola. Apparently, the original text had
Chapter 5
140
come from Lorenzo Martín, a principal of the Chatino-speaking town
of Juquila, who had given it to Félix de Alvarado, who had passed it on
to Diego Luis. In 1635, Balsalobre brought Diego Luis to trial, confis-
cated the offending calendar, and had it burned before the door of Sola’s
church, after parading Diego Luis through town as a penitent.60
This sentence would by no means end the circulation of ritual texts
in Sola. In February 1654, a surprised Balsalobre learned, as he interro-
gated Lorenzo Martín, one of Diego Luis’s sons, that a copy of the text
had eluded the flames. Martín had made a transcription of his father’s
text so he would learn to use it before the 1635 trial, and later he saw
the original burn during his father’s auto. When Diego Luis returned
from exile, Martín presented him with the surviving copy of his text.61
Balsalobre began investigating Diego Luis for reincidence in idolatrous
practices in December 1653. Between 1653 and 1654, the beneficiado
uncovered extensive evidence about the clandestine circulation of ritual
texts and about one hundred clients who consulted him or had access to
his calendars.62
Berlin’s study of the Balsalobre trial materials provides a substantial
description of the network of calendar authors, users, and owners in
Sola,63 but the analysis presented here does not share one of Berlin’s
crucial assumptions. In the Sola trials, native specialists were often but
unsystematically designated with the rather sarcastic designation of
letrado, a term referring to officials and clerks in Spanish civil courts
that Balsalobre used for literate ritual practitioners, perhaps in the same
ironic spirit that drove earlier chroniclers to transform papauhqui, a
term for Mexica priests, into papa, “pope.” Even though Berlin assumed
that every identification of a specialist in the trial records as letrado indi-
cated that he or she owned a ritual text, this assertion is often impossible
to corroborate, as no specific mention of text ownership is made in each
instance. However, if one uses the more stringent criterion of designating
a letrado as a text owner only if a mention of ownership is made in the
trial records, Berlin’s group of sixty-one letrados is whittled down to a
list of thirty-eight ritual-text owners.
Paradoxically, these sources allow a detailed reconstruction of social
networks through which calendars were exchanged, but few insights into
the contents of these texts, which were destroyed by Balsalobre. The
texts contained the names of the thirteen gods in the local pantheon, and
they are sometimes referred to as “books of the thirteen gods.” Diego
Luis’s detailed testimony about the thirteen deities that governed the
Zapotec calendar, as discussed in the previous chapter, indicates that
the texts recorded calendrical information. Text descriptions are made
only incidentally, and few details about their format or contents are ad-
Literate Idolatries 141
dressed. For example, Balsalobre proffers the following description of a
text owned by Melchor López, an illiterate inhabitant of San Francisco
Sola who obtained it from Diego Luis: “After comparing the said book
with the other one found in Lorenzo Martín’s possession, it appears to
be one and the same, except for some symbols or characters which the
second book bears on its last pages.”64 These trial records, however, do
not mention incantations, spells, or songs.
The Sola texts were kept within the immediate family of their authors
or owners and passed on as treasured possessions from one generation
to another. According to Marcial Ramírez, a semiliterate cantor in the
town of Los Reyes near Sola, Diego Luis made a copy of a ritual text for
his father Cristóbal Ramírez, which he had inherited after his father’s
death, along with all of his papers. Marcial asserted that he had burned
this book after “seeing that it was an evil thing,” but no other witness
corroborated this act.65 Other Sola residents who inherited calendars
avowed keeping them, even if they were illiterate or made little use of
their texts. At the trial of the illiterate specialist Gracia Margarita, who
did not use texts as a ritual practitioner, and her husband Miguel Mar-
tín, who was literate, but did not work as a ritual specialist, Miguel re-
counted how the book of his dead father-in-law, the letrado Luis López,
was kept in the family long after his death, until it was seized by Balsa-
lobre’s agents in April 1654:
Through the interpreter, [Miguel Martín] declared that about seven years ago,
when Diego Luis was in his home—in which [Diego Luis] lived because he had
married [María], his mother-in-law and the mother of his wife—his wife opened
a box and took out a small book written entirely by hand. She showed it to said
Diego Luis, saying that it was the book of the devil that his father Luis López
had left them, and which her foster father Melchor Xuárez had used, for after
the death of said Luis López [Melchor] had married her mother, and he was also
a letrado and gave consultations to the Indians. Then, Diego Luis leafed through
said book and recognized the handwriting, and said it belonged to Luis López,
and was just like one he used himself.66
This passage uncovers an interesting but still enigmatic axis of kinship
relations through which ritual knowledge was passed on among special-
ists associated with the same household, as shown in Figure 5.1. This
household was established by Luis López, a literate specialist from San
Juan Sola, who married a woman known only as María, and fathered
Gracia Margarita. Luis López passed on ritual knowledge and a book
containing “the thirteen gods of the Gentiles”67 to his neighbor, Esteban
de Aquino, and a copy of one of his texts ended up in the hands of Diego
Luis. Diego Luis had in turn given or sold copies of ritual texts to at least
seven clients in Sola. In spite of the fact that María was not identified as
) "
"
#' & " # ")
!"# )
# & !"* !# #!")
#! * & ") ) & & ) ' !
) &
#
!
(%$
" #" "
"#"%"!
!"!
%"" !!!
figure 5.1 Clandestine Circulation Network for Ritual Texts in Sola (Oaxaca), 1629–1654.
source: AGN-Inq
Literate Idolatries 143
either a specialist or an author of ritual texts, three of the most influen-
tial literate specialists in Sola lived in her household. After the death of
Luis López circa 1629, María was remarried to Melchor Xuárez; Aquino
began to work as a ritual specialist and passed on ritual knowledge to
his wife Ana, who was also consulted for divination occasionally, when
Aquino was drunk or unavailable.68 Melchor Xuárez not only inherited
Luis López’s widow but also his ritual text, which he used for divina-
tion purposes. At some point between 1629 and 1647, Melchor Xuárez
died or left María, and she married a ritual specialist for the third time,
Diego Luis, who came to live in her house. After Esteban de Aquino’s
death circa 1652 , his widow Ana inherited the ritual text that Aquino
had obtained from Luis López.
The Sola ritual texts not only circulated among specialists and clients
linked by kinship or friendship ties, but were also copied for a reason-
able fee. According to one of Diego Luis’s depositions, Diego Luis made
a copy of the “book of thirteen gods” for one of his clients, the letrado
Pedro Mendoza, and charged him one peso as payment for his work.
Fifteen days after this purchase, Diego Luis gave him a lesson on the
usage of calendars. After the following fifteen days, he went back to
Pedro’s house, gave him a copy, and “taught him the manner in which
[Pedro] would use it, because said witness knows how to read and write.
Upon receipt of said book, [Pedro] paid him one peso for his work; three
or four months later, [Diego Luis] went back to Pedro’s house upon his
request so he would teach him again how to use such book, and this wit-
ness taught him. However, since this is difficult, he thinks that [Pedro]
was not able to learn it.”69
This testimony suggests that being able to elicit information from and
interpreting the ritual texts authored by Diego Luis was a skill that went
beyond simple literacy. In the example above, Pedro Mendoza happens
to have been fully literate, but still he took lessons from Diego Luis in
order to learn to interpret the calendars, but failed in this attempt. Some
less experienced specialists valued ritual texts enough to have owned a
copy, even if they were not fully capable of interpreting them. Similarly,
an illiterate student of Diego Luis, Melchor López, admitted in his dec-
laration that he had not been able to comprehend all the contents of his
book. Although he was skilled enough to divine an appropriate day for
the harvesting the first ears of corn and for the offering of alms at the
church, more difficult cases called for consultations with Diego Luis.70
Sometime around 1634, Diego Luis made a copy of a ritual text for the
letrado Cristóbal Ramírez. After owning this copy for fourteen years,
Cristóbal confessed to his son Marcial that he had not been able to fully
understand the manner in which the text should be interpreted. Cristóbal
Chapter 5
144
did not pass on even his limited understanding of the text to his son,
but he did bestow it as part of his inheritance.71 Hence, the preservation
and copying of calendars did not hinge on their owners’ degree of ritual
knowledge, or even their literacy status.
t h e t i m e cou n t of t h e g r an d fa t he r s
and fathers of us all
Linguistic and residential compartmentalization are important factors in
the social history of Villa Alta, a vast jurisdiction to the northeast of Oa-
xaca City inhabited by speakers of Chinantec, Mixe, and Zapotec. This
region’s geography is dominated by a mountainous landscape, and human
settlements have traditionally been dispersed throughout valleys, moun-
taintops, and piedmonts. Such a landscape placed substantial restrictions
on travel and communication among the various Zapotec communities
of Villa Alta, and between them and the Valley of Oaxaca. Even though
each Northern Zapotec town in Villa Alta employed a local speech vari-
ant, colonial administrative and linguistic categories emphasized a preex-
isting ethnic distinction among three Northern Zapotec groups: Caxonos
or bene xhon in the south; Bixanos or bene xan in the north and east; and
Nexitzo or bene xidza in the northwest reaches of this district.72
Still, geographical intricacies were not an obstacle to the dissemination
of alphabetic literacy throughout the region. More than 460 documents
in Zapotec from Caxonos, Bixanos, and Nexitzo communities now ex-
tant at the Archivo Histórico Judicial de Oaxaca (AHJO) and the Ar-
chivo General de la Nación (AGN) attest to the importance that written
texts held for social and political arrangements within and beyond town
boundaries. Between the 159 0s and the 182 0s, Northern Zapotec vil-
lagers produced short texts in a variety of genres. While more than one-
third of those extant were testaments, the most popular genres included
memorias or formal legal statements, bills of sale, testimonies, petitions,
and letters. Between 1676 and 1700, a period that corresponds to the
probable date of production of the texts discussed below, Zapotec nota-
ries and other literate specialists produced about one-sixth of the corpus
of nonclandestine colonial Northern Zapotec texts. Given the extent and
diversity of this corpus, which allowed individual villagers or entire com-
munities to defend their interests within the documentary framework of
colonial jurisprudence,73 it is not surprising to find that the number of
clandestine Northern Zapotec ritual texts was relatively large.74
A collection of booklets copied by Northern Zapotec specialists in
the last two decades of the seventeenth century grants us an exceptional
Literate Idolatries 145
opportunity to assess the clandestine production and circulation of rit-
ual texts in Villa Alta. In 1704 and 1705, Oaxaca bishop fray Ángel
Maldonado conducted the most ambitious extirpation campaign ever
conducted in New Spain. As a result of this initiative, the authorities
of forty communities surrendered 107 separate textual units contain-
ing alphabetic ritual texts in Bixanos, Caxonos, and Nexitzo Zapotec.
Four of these documents, designated as Booklets 100 , 101, 102, and 103
by the Archivo General de Indias (AGI), consist of four collections of
transcribed ritual songs. The remaining 103 units are copies of the 260-
day Zapotec ritual calendar, bound into ninety-nine separate booklets.75
This calendrical corpus encompasses ninety-one complete calendars,
seven calendars with at least 75 percent of the 260 day names, and three
calendar fragments, as well as two calendars with aberrant day orders.76
These texts, along with the better-known Maya books of Chilam Balam,
are the two largest extant corpuses of clandestine ritual texts authored
by native authors in colonial Spanish America.
These materials received no scholarly attention before the pioneering
work of Cristina Zilbermann and José Alcina Franch.77 Alcina Franch’s
1993 monograph examined, except for the four collections of ritual
songs, the entire calendrical corpus from Villa Alta. This work retains
its status as an overarching summary of some details that appear in the
collective confessions, particularly regarding the timing of collective
rituals, the items offered, the names of sacred sites, the foodstuffs con-
sumed during rituals, and the pragmatic goals of individual practices.
This work also proposes a generally accurate characterization of the two
distinct elements of each day form—a prefix or augment, and a root—
and contains several calendar transcriptions and reproductions. Alcina
Franch and his collaborators, however, had little knowledge about Za-
potec languages; therefore, their discussion of linguistic evidence other
than calendrical day forms should be regarded as tentative. The section
below examines three paramount issues that Alcina Franch’s team did
not address, given their philological limitations: linguistic and textual
evidence regarding the provenance of the booklets; evidence about cor-
relation statements in the calendars; and the social context of production
of these texts.
Alcina Franch identifies each calendar he published by place of origin
based on the contemporary order of binding of collective confessions
and calendars of legajo, or archival unit, Audiencia de México 882 at the
AGI. Nonetheless, linguistic criteria and annotations found in the calen-
dars strongly suggest that place of origin cannot be assigned by binding
order alone. In fact, the order of the collective confessions, collective
petitions, lists of absolved individuals, assorted ecclesiastical documents,
Chapter 5
146
and of the ninety-nine booklets containing 103 separate calendrical
texts and four collections of ritual songs was modified between the early
eighteenth century and the 1960s, when the booklets were numbered and
an unsystematic pagination was given to the entire legajo.78 Therefore,
extreme caution should be employed before attributing particular book-
lets to specific communities, since most of them bear no annotations that
may link them to their owners.
The Villa Alta calendars demonstrate that, in the last two decades of
the seventeenth century, a 260-day divinatory count, or piyè, dating back
to 600 BCE was in use in at least forty Zapotec communities along with
the yza, a vague solar year count of 365 days of preconquest origin. The
piyè possessed the same structure reported by Córdova for the Valley of
Oaxaca.79 It consisted of two independent cycles: a group of prefixes that
stand for a count from one to thirteen; and twenty nominal roots refer-
ring to plants, animals, or forces of nature. The combination of these
counts thus provided a unique designation for each of 260 days.80 This
count, called biyé in Northern Zapotec variants, had four major subdi-
visions of sixty-five days, each composed of five thirteen-day periods.81
Since the 260-day count is endless—Day 260, quecellao (13-Face), is
followed by Day 1, Yagchila (1-Cayman), and by the rest of the cycle—
the correlation of the colonial Zapotec calendar with the Julian and
Gregorian counts can be established only if there exist several internally
consistent instances of Gregorian days for which we know the corre-
sponding day in the piyè. Felicitously, Booklet 27, composed by Nexitzo
or Bixanos Zapotec speakers, bears such statements and aligned its day
count with the dominical letter system.82 This method was used to label
days of the week using the letters a through g in both European alma-
nacs and colonial Mesoamerican calendars, such as the Q’eqchi Maya
calendar from Lanquín,83 the Codex Mexicanus, and the Matlatzinca
calendar included in BNF-Mex 381. Thus, Booklet 27, which bears no in-
dication of a Gregorian year, aligns several separate piyè dates—9-Water
(yologniça) and the letter d with February 1, 11-Earthquake (laxoo) and
the letter d with March 1, and 3-Rabbit (quiolaba) and the letter g with
April 1. Moreover, the statement naa tza tomiigo 19 lao beo brero, “now
the day is Sunday, 19 of the month of [Fe]bruary,” is aligned with 1-Deer
(qagchina) and the letter A. These statements, penned in a hand different
from that which composed the day count, are mutually consistent and
may be used to identify their year of composition as 169 0.84
It would be erroneous to regard each of these booklets as standard-
ized copies of the same template. There is, indeed, a core of textual con-
tents—the ordered list of the 260 day names, four major subdivisions
and divisions by trecena, and the names of the fifty-two Zapotec 365-
Literate Idolatries 147
day years—but each text was composed of different authorial layers. The
first one, which often contained all of the aforementioned core elements,
was in all likelihood provided by the primary author or authors of the
text. Other owners or readers of the text provided supplementary layers,
which contained a miscellaneous range of annotations: specific auguries
or cardinal orientations for each day, cosmological diagrams, brief ex-
cerpts from larger cosmological or historical narratives, correlation state-
ments regarding Christian holidays. They were, therefore, open-ended
texts created through pluralistic authorial practices. Figure 5.2 provides
an example of the supplementary annotations made by a primary or
secondary author in Booklet 81. Furthermore, this document displays
an unusually specific reference to eclipses in the corpus of Mesoamerican
colonial texts—an astronomical phenomenon also employed as a point
of reference by the authors of hieroglyphic inscriptions in Monte Albán
fifteen centuries earlier.85
This calendar, first introduced at the beginning of the chapter, was
turned in by Juan Mathías of San Juan Malinaltepec, who stated his
father gave it to him circa 1697.86 Mathías’s father or one of his as-
sociates had a keen interest on eclipses, as shown by two annotations
made by the calendar’s author sometime after the main text was fin-
ished. The first note is aligned with the day 2-Jaguar (yolatzi) and reads
miercole tza niga bitago beoo bisabini 21 enero año de 1693, “On this
day Wednesday, the moon got eaten (was eclipsed); it floated in the air,
on January 21, 1693.”87 The second note right below, placed besides
5-Earthquake (yoxoo) is equally succinct: tza Jueve goqueaqui gobitza
sanero 23 agosto año de 1692, “Earlier, on the day Thursday, the sun
burned, on August 23, 1692.”88 Contemporary astronomical data shows
that both dates correspond to known eclipses. On Thursday, August 23,
1691, a total eclipse of the sun would have been seen throughout central
New Spain, as suggested by the Nahua annalist’s report quoted above.
In Booklet 81, the scribe recorded the European year’s last digit as 1692 ,
rather than 1691. On the evening of January 21, 1693, a total eclipse of
the moon was indeed visible in central New Spain.89 Furthermore, these
annotations are fully consistent with the correlation established in Book-
let 27; in other words, the authors of both texts independently agreed on
their reckoning of days.
The 260-day piyè and the 365-day yza were parallel counts that al-
lowed calendar specialists to provide a unique identification for a day
within a range of fifty-two years of 365 days. For structural reasons,
the first day of each of these vague solar years always fell within a series
of four of twenty day signs. Since fifty-four of the Villa Alta calen-
dars provide an either partial or complete list of the fifty-two yza, each
figure 5.2 Eclipse Annotations in Booklet 81.
source: Gobierno de España. M inisterio de Cultura. Archivo General de Indias, México 882,
1369 r
Literate Idolatries 149
named after the piyè date on which it began, we know that the four day
signs serving as year bearers were Earthquake, Wind, Deer, and Soap-
root.90 These elements of time reckoning were anything but esoteric,
since several communities fasted or made offerings at the beginning
of the Zapotec year. Most Zapotec Villa Alta communities reported
special commemorations held “close to the New Year,” an ambivalent
designation; less ambiguously, eight Nexitzo towns located near or in
the parish of Yagavila specified that the first major offering of the year
was made in February,91 and five of these towns specifically mentioned
Saint Matthias’s day. Zoogochi’s cabildo avowed that male town resi-
dents bathed in cold water on three consecutive mornings and refrained
from sleeping with their wives for three nights on the feast of Saint
Matthias, commemorated on February 24 on nonleap years and a day
later on leap years, according to the instructions of Juan Pacheco, a
specialist from nearby Yaxila.92 Four neighboring communities con-
curred with Zoogochi. The people of San Pedro Yagneri and San Pedro
Yavago confirmed having observed bathing and sexual fasts on Saint
Matthias’s day,93 Xosa’s town officials offered candles at their church
on the same holiday,94 and Santa Cruz Xuquila residents confided they
had two major sacrificial offerings per year, “one around [the feast of]
Saint Matthias, and another at the time that corn fields are prepared
for sowing.”95
What was the local significance of this Christian holiday? These de-
votional acts were driven by an elegant and eminently pragmatic solu-
tion to the correlation problem: between 1689 and 1704, the first day
of the 365-day Zapotec count fell either on February 24, 23, or 22—
thus, the feast of Saint Matthias was in exact or almost exact synchrony
with the beginning of the Zapotec year in the fifteen-year period that
preceded Maldonado’s campaign. This correlation is corroborated by yet
another exceptional document: the first calendar bound within Book-
let 85 (henceforth, Calendar 85a). Calendar 85a was among a group
of three calendars surrendered by three maestros from Nexitzo-speak-
ing San Miguel Tiltepec: Miguel Hernándes, Juan de Luna, and Juan
Velasco. T he f ront cover of Calendar 85a depicts a table, shown in Fig-
ure 5.3, containing the only extant list of the names of the subdivisions
of the Zapotec 365-day count. This folio also shows that the structure of
the Zapotec yza closely resembled that of the Nahua xihuitl: both counts
had a five-day period at the end of the year. In Nahuatl, this period was
called nemontemi, “one lives in vain.” In Northern Zapotec, this inter-
val is described with two obscure terms, quicholla and queai nij; another
calendar from the same region and period states that during these days,
“one is incapacitated, one is angry.”96
figure 5.3 The Zapotec 365-day Year in Booklet 85a and its Correlation
with a Christian Feast in 1696.
source: Gobierno de España. M inisterio de Cultura. Archivo General de Indias, México 882,
1405r
Literate Idolatries 151
This document also establishes a correlation with dates and days of
the week in two consecutive Gregorian years, February 1695 to Febru-
ary 1696. Here, the first and the last days of the Zapotec year are both
identified as February 23; this is consistent with the custom of counting
days from noon to noon, rather than from midnight to midnight. The
correlation from Booklets 27 and 81 establishes that February 23, 1695
fell on 11-Earthquake and February 23, 1696 on 12-Wind; these two
days provided the name for two consecutive Zapotec 365-day years. The
note under the table could not be more explicit: it reads vigillia Samathie
cij làçà tohuâ, “the eve of Saint Matthias receives the turn [beginning]
of tohuâ,” tohuâ being the name of the first subdivision of the Zapotec
year. This concise statement rendered a rather complicated correlation
issue readily accessible to any reader of this text.
t h e s oc i a l l if e o f a z a p o t e c
ancestral count
These calendars circulated in a collective sphere that operated in rela-
tive clandestinity and encompassed several Northern Zapotec towns. It
is clear that calendar authors regarded the production of these texts as
a public but illicit practice that had to be carefully compartmentalized
from a broader textual sphere. Several calendar owners reported hav-
ing buried these texts for safekeeping; others inserted a title page that
contained the beginning of a document in Zapotec directed to civil or
ecclesiastic authorities, or a page with several polite formulas written
out as if to practice one’s letter-writing skills. The most ingeniously mis-
leading title page in this category, which appeared at the beginning of
Booklet 39, contains several lines from the Latin hymn Iam Luces Orto
Sidere, “Now That the [Day] Star Shines,” commonly attributed to Saint
Ambrose. Such a device would have allowed a day keeper to hide a text
in plain sight and suggests a close relationship among literacy, service in
church as a singer, and traditional ritual knowledge.
Many calendars began with a formula that indicated the contents and
genre of these texts for any literate Zapotec reader. The formula was
variable, but it often included the clauses niga betapa yaga biyee, “here
are the four time counts,” which refers to the four 65-day subdivisions
of the 260 -day calendar, and/or lani que xotao xoçi reo, “the holidays of
the ancestors and fathers of us all.” In total, about twenty calendars con-
tained a version of this formula,97 and four calendars contained the first
phrases of a cosmological narrative regarding the most recent creation
of the world.98 The fact that this narrative ended with the words “et
Chapter 5
152
cetera” in two instances implies that its implied audience were literate
readers who had access to the narrative’s full version, perhaps in oral
form. Surprisingly, the authors of seven calendars used the Spanish word
tiempo, “time,”99 to refer to the 260-day count, rather than biyee, the
standard term employed elsewhere. In fact, the unusual label calentario
de los yntio [sic], “calendar of the Indians,” appears in Booklet 82 . The
use of these terms suggests that, by the late seventeenth century, literate
specialists found it useful to employ Spanish terms with a broad circula-
tion in a multilingual public sphere, in order to convey the significance
of these calendrical texts to Zapotec readers.
The collective confessions highlight the activities of several ritual spe-
cialists who, as Diego Luis had done in Sola half a century earlier, dis-
tributed calendars to specialists and apprentices in various communities,
either as a gift or for a fee. Two would-be day counters from Cacalotepec,
Sebastian Hernándes and Juan Marcial, testified that Gabriel Lópes, a
well-known specialist from the neighboring town of Yavechi, had sold
them one booklet each for six reales—about two to three days’ wages for
a skilled laborer—and told them “that if they began learning, they would
know [the count], and he gave them one lesson, explaining those papers
for them.” Although Hernándes and Marcial did not fully master the day
count, Lópes found a more proficient student in Nicolás Ruis of Lachi-
china, who told the magistrate that he had paid Lópes 3 reales for “one
of the booklets they call books of ancient times,” a Spanish formula that
probably translated the Valley Zapotec term quijchi tija colàça, “lineage
book of ancient times.”100 Questioned further, Ruis said that he bought
the text around 1698, using it to learn “the appropriate days for supersti-
tious observations,” apparently for his own individual needs, since “he
had not indicated [the days] to others.”101 Lópes, an apparently modest
man who offered his services as the sole resident specialist in Yavechi on
a sliding scale—“half a real, a real, and he does not collect a thing from
the poor”—composed at least four booklets, according to the Villa Alta
confessions: a booklet he owned, the two booklets he sold to Hernándes
and Marcial, and Ruis’s calendar.102 This was the largest number of sur-
rendered booklets from the same author. Hence, he is a prime candidate
for the authorship of a series of seven calendars that were copied from
a single source, given their internal structure—Booklets 45, 46, 48, 50,
52, 71, and 77.
The booklet trade in which Francisco Morales engaged was facilitated
by his training and geographical location. Besides being the escribano of
the Bixanos town of Yetzelálag in 1704,103 his home community was lo-
cated on Villa Alta’s main northbound trade route, which connected San
Ildefonso, Villa Alta’s cabecera, with Guaspaltepec, a terminus with riv-
Literate Idolatries 153
erine access to Veracruz.104 Lópes’s text circulated primarily in Nexitzo
communities and could be regarded as affordable; Morales’s range was
broader, and his prices were higher. One of his clients, Joseph Velasco
from Yagayo, declared that he bought a calendrical booklet from Mo-
rales for the relatively high amount of twelve reales, but the interval
during which he held the booklet before surrendering it, five months,
did not allow him to learn its proper use.105 In fact, learning to read
and interpret the piyè could take years; thus, Pedro de Asevedo of Tagui
avowed that, after buying a booklet from Morales and attempting to
learn its proper use for a year, he relented, selling it to Francisco de
Chaves of Talea. The social trajectory of this text, which was produced
by a Bixanos specialist and sold to a Nexitzo speaker, who transferred it
to a Caxonos speaker, suggests that linguistic and ethnic differences did
not hinder the dispersal of calendrical information. Indeed, Morales’s
renown as a specialist cut a broad swath through Villa Alta, since wit-
nesses from Camotlán, Temascalapa, Yatzona, and Yelago knew him as
a respected “teacher of idolatries.”
The relative ease with which booklets traveled across Villa Alta is il-
lustrated by two further examples. In Reagui, Juan Gerónimo, one of the
four local maestros, became an important link in a tripartite exchange
of booklets, reales, and ritual implements. Local resident Cristóbal
Hernándes bought a calendar from Gerónimo, as well as six reales worth
of parrots’ feathers—a commodity used in various ritual practices that
could come from as far away as Chiapas—from Yaee resident Nicolás
Tarifa, who acquired a transcription of Gerónimo’s booklet.106 Calendars
were also occasionally given as gifts, as shown by the transfer of texts
from three maestros at the Nexitzo village of Teotlaxco. Gaspar Gómez
and escribano Juan Santiago gave copies of their texts to their fellow
maestro and principal Domingo Morales of Zoogochi;107 Baltasar San-
tiago gave a calendar as a gift to a young apprentice from the Caxonos
town of La Oya, Joseph Mendez.
How did this broad pattern of text dispersion influence the oral repro-
duction of ritual knowledge? Three further examples challenge the as-
sumption that literate calendar specialists simply replaced their illiterate
forebears due to the advantage conferred upon them by European letters.
Although the aforementioned Joseph Mendez of La Oya obtained a cal-
endar from Teotlaxco, town officials emphatically denied on two separate
instances that they could employ Mendez as the organizer of communal
rituals solely on the basis of calendar ownership, declaring instead that
“since he was a young man, we employed and consulted Juan Baptista
and Gerónimo Flores from the town of Lalopa, who were also consulted
by individuals.”108 Moreover, Pedro de Aquino of San Juan Malinaltepec
Chapter 5
154
implied that even experienced calendar owners regarded public divina-
tion as a competitive and difficult endeavor. Aquino declared that, even
after having possessed a calendar for twenty years, he employed it for
individual practices and would not use it “in public,” even though he
wished to do so, since “he was afraid of other, more expert maestros.”109
An apparent division of labor between correlation and calendar special-
ists existed in Yavago, where specialists who did not own alphabetic calen-
dars informed town residents when they should observe Saint Matthias’s
holiday—a proxy, as argued above, for the beginning of the Zapotec year.
Even if four Yavago specialists—Juan de Santiago, Juan de Luna, Juan
Sánches, and Balthasar Martín—owned and used Booklets 94, 95, and
96, the town consulted these maestros primarily to plan observances as-
sociated with the inauguration of town officials, while the maestros Juan
Francisco and Juan Martín told them when to celebrate the holidays of
Saint Matthias and the town’s patron saint, Saint Peter, for they knew
this correlation, and thus its likely ritual implications, “by heart.”110 This
is a remarkable display of preference for illiterate specialists, especially
since an annotation in Booklet 94 shows that its author knew the correct
Gregorian month and day on which a Zapotec year 5-Earthquake began.
The statements made during the collective confessions did not reveal
substantial status distinctions between literate and illiterate specialists;
in some cases, maestros stated they have no text to surrender, either be-
cause they knew the day count by heart or because they could not read.
None of the confession’s narrative vignettes provide an indication of a
pitched contest between text and memory users. However, some exam-
ples suggest that illiterate apprentices could expect to receive assistance
from calendar owners. For instance, in Lachixila, an enterprising but
illiterate apprentice called Miguel López confided “sharing” a calendar
with the literate maestro Francisco de Mendoza, a curious term that con-
veys Miguel’s broad understanding of literacy. López also benefited from
consultations with the two other calendar owners in his village, Juan de
Bargas and Agustín Pérez. Apparently López yearned for cosmological
knowledge, since he questioned four other specialists from Chinantec
communities about the “things of his ancestors”: Tomás de Aquino in
Petlapa, don Juan Mansano of Jocotepeque, Andrés de Medina of Lo-
bani, and a certain Simon from Tepinapa.111
However, there existed a correlation between calendrical literacy and
the geographical scope of a specialist’s network of clients. Evidence from
fifteen Villa Alta villages implies that calendar ownership and one’s repu-
tation as a specialist beyond hometown boundaries were closely linked.
Table 5.1 provides the names of twenty-one specialists whose services
were requested either by town officials for collective observances, or by
Literate Idolatries 155
individuals. The towns that made the most frequent requests tended to be
small; for instance, Lachichina, La Oya, and Yalahui had estimated popu-
lations of 205 or less in 1703. A majority of the specialists who had clients
outside their own communities were texts owners—twelve out of sixteen
specialists whose status as calendar owners is known. These patterns
imply that literate specialists were located within regional social networks
that did not necessarily exclude or compete with those surrounding illiter-
ate maestros. Moreover, a handful of specialists could cover a relatively
table 5.1 Villa Alta Calendar Specialists
with Clients Outside Their Home Communities
Hometown Specialist Ritual-text owner? Tow n s where clients
resided
S Juan Juquila Yllescas, Gabriel Ye s Lachichina
Lachirioag Alonso, Joseph Booklet 2 La Oya
Lachixila Vargas, Juan de Booklet 31, 32, or 33 Yovego
Lalopa Bautista, Juan Yes La Oya, Lachichina
Flores, Gerónimo Yes La Oya
Laxopa Nicolás, Fabián Not known Yahuio, Yelaxi
Nicolás, Martín Not known Yahuio, Yelaxi
Tabeg ua Martín, Diego No Yaglina, Zoochina
Tagui
Gonzalo, Juan Not known Yalahui
Marcos, Juan Not known Yalahui
Vargas, Miguel Not known Yalahu i
Teotla xco Gómez, Gaspar Yes Xogochi
Yaa Bautista, Joseph Yes Yatee
Yaee Yllescas, Pedro Not known Lachichina
Yagayo/ Tiltepec Martín, Joseph No Lachichina
Yaton i Hernández,
Francisco Yes La Oya
Yatzon a Vargas, don Gaspar Booklet 24 or 25 Camotlan
Yax i la
Pablo, Gabriel Yes S Juan Juquila
Pacheco, Juan No S Juan Juquila,
Xogochi, Yagavila
Santiago, Bernabé No Tepanzac ualco
Yet z elál ag Morales, Francisco Yes; distributed 3
booklets Camotlán
source: AGI-Mex 882
Chapter 5
156
large geographical scope—a mere twenty-one specialists operated in
twenty-nine out of about eighty-three Zapotec communities in Villa Alta.
This fact suggests that these client networks may have survived periodic
eradication efforts due to the fact that even a single specialist could serve
a substantial number of linguistic, ethnic, and social domains.112
Furthermore, specialists from certain communities were regarded
as optimal sources for rare textual genres, as it was the case for tran-
scriptions of ritual songs. There are only five reports about the existence
of these songbooks, and specialists from Betaza were the sources for
two of them. Hence, Fernando Lópes of Lachirioag avowed having pur-
chased Booklet 100 from the renowned specialist Pedro de Vargas of
Betaza, even though at least another collection of songs was produced
locally in Lachirioag. Additionally, two performers of ritual songs from
Yoeche confided that the songbook they used had been bought by town
officials from another Betaza maestro, don Juan Martín.113
cl a nd e s t i n e r i t u a l t e x t s a n d t h e i r r e a de r s
in seventeenth-century central mexico
These four case studies afford us an overview of clandestine writing and
reading practices in various Nahua and Zapotec communities in the
seventeenth century. The contrast between the scarcity of clandestine
ritual texts in the communities investigated by Ruiz de Alarcón before
1629 and the relative abundance of such texts in Sola twenty years later
does not necessarily suggest an increase in the influence of literacy in
indigenous communities, but a crucial difference in the cultural adap-
tation of Nahua and Zapotec communities to Spanish literacy which
merits further study. Some clandestine texts were produced in locations
that had been under the influence of secular priests or regulars for sev-
eral decades. Petronilla, the literate healer from Tlayacapan, lived in the
shadow of the Dominican convent of Tepoztlan, established by 1556 ;114
in the Sola region, there had been resident secular priests at Exutla and
at San Miguel Sola since about 157 0 .115 Although the diffusion of ritual
texts confiscated by Ruiz de Alarcón and Gonzalo Curiel between 1613
and 1633 may be regarded as an initial period in the spread of literacy
to remote indigenous communities, only detailed research on the spread
of literacy in both isolated and integrated native communities in Central
Mexico during the latter half of the sixteenth century may lead to a more
definitive conclusion.116 This evidence suggests that the first decades of
the seventeenth century was a crucial period in the native use of writing
for clandestine devotional purposes.
Literate Idolatries 157
In terms of the rapport between social status and production of clan-
destine ritual texts, there were some correlations between membership
in the upper tiers of local political hierarchies and ownership of ritual
texts. In the Nahua Cohuixca area, it was the deacon of Cuetlaxxochitla
who signed his name on his transcribed incantation; in Sola, at least five
church cantors, one principal, and a former alcalde, or local magistrate,
and cantor could be counted among thirty-eight owners of ritual texts
mentioned in Balsalobre’s proceedings. In fact, just like some of their con-
temporaries, the Yucatec Maya maestros cantores,117 or church cantors,
these specialists appear to have led a dual existence as leading members
of the public Christian sphere and as owners and readers of clandestine
calendrical and divination texts of Postclassic origin. Both in Cuetlaxxo-
chitla and in Sola, the activities of these literate native officials linked
the public sphere of orthodox Christian practices with marginal social
spheres, located in a social space that went beyond the domestic sphere
and merged with a local public sphere, in which various forms of ritual
knowledge, Christian or not, circulated clandestinely through texts.
What was the effect of literacy on the content of native ritual prac-
tices, and on its oral dimensions? The case studies presented here depict
a plurality of interactions between literacy and “idolatries” that suggests
the impossibility of committing to a monolithic answer, or adhering to a
purely epistemological analysis. Even if some analysts have presented the
impact of literacy and evangelization on native populations colonized by
the Spanish as a dramatic epistemic confrontation between Western writ-
ing and native practices of orality and writing,118 my analysis leads to two
conclusions that go beyond well-known assessments about the phonetic
ideologies embedded in Greco-Latin writing systems.119 First, as shown
by the circulation of calendrical texts in Sola and Villa Alta, the par-
ticular features and assumptions of genres of Postclassic origin closely
guided the native appropriation of the Latin alphabet. Second, as shown
by the transcription of the Nahuatl epithets for the piciyetl, some Nahua
ritual specialists employed the Latin alphabet as a powerful vehicle for
the inscription of a latent oral performance. This notion of orality was
not limited to the yoking of specific sounds to graphic symbols, as Der-
rida would argue, but included an inherent calculation about parallel syl-
labic and morphological structures in rhetorical practice. In other words,
the transcription of these epithets by Nahua specialists in that particular
social context reinforced, rather than effaced, a broad performative (and
not merely phonetic) dimension that alphabetic transcription indexed only
in a weak way. The simultaneous reproduction of a ritual oral genre, the
nahualtocaitl, through written and oral means demonstrates that the tran-
scription of ritual knowledge did not result in the sudden demise of orality.
Chapter 5
158
In his discussion of reading practices in early modern and Renais-
sance Europe, Chartier emphasizes the differences in reading practices
among different groups of readers based on degree of literacy. He also
suggests that oral elicitation of the written text could play a significant
role in different readings of it.120 One could arrive at a similar conclusion
when considering the diversity of reading practices in early seventeenth-
century Nahua and Zapotec communities, for both alphabetic and non-
alphabetic literacy modes coexisted in the same social spheres without
contradiction. This diversity was not unique to Central Mexico; in Eliza-
bethan England and in Golden-Age Spain,121 the owners of and audience
for printed books included readers who supported their interpretation
through a perusal of the illustrations that accompanied the text. Accord-
ing to Michel de Certeau’s eloquent evocation, these readings implied
an intense oral and physical interaction with a sacred or devotional text
that led to its bodily appropriation: “Only over the last three centuries
has reading become an ocular gesture. . . . In earlier times, the reader
interiorized the text; he made his voice the body of the other; he was its
actor.”122 Thus, the Manichean vision of oral versus literate cultures rests
on an aprioristic analysis that does not reflect the complex rapports be-
tween orality and textuality in Europe and New Spain in the seventeenth
century.123 In both terrains, two similar elements governed both reading
practices: the act of interpreting a text orally, and the inevitable variation
in the interpretation of a text by individuals with varying competence.
The clandestine circulation of ritual and devotional texts fostered the
emergence of Nahua and Zapotec cohorts of readers. The exchanges of
texts chronicled here suggest that, much like the groups of readers cre-
ated by the circulation of pliegos sueltos in Spain, chapbooks in England,
and the Bibliothèque bleue in France, such communities of native read-
ers and manuscript authors were diverse in terms of sociocultural back-
ground, literacy skills, and modes of appropriation of the text.124 These
groups of readers maintained a certain integrity through the circulation
of texts in a social space defined by the absence of the licencia del ordi-
nario, the measures of control prescribed by the Mexican councils and
the Council of Trent, and the periodic extirpatory interests of friars and
secular priests. Located as they were at the margin of public Christian
native practices, the clandestine ritual manuscripts provided an essential
textual core for the reproduction of a common clandestine social space
in which native cohorts of readers transcribed and transmitted divina-
tory practices of Postclassic origin. In spite of various eradication efforts,
in the seventeenth century, literate idolatries prospered through the work
of Protean writers, obstinate readers, and driven translators.
Abbreviations
ACM Archivo del Cabildo Catedralicio de México
-L Legajos
-Litig Litigios
AGEO Archivo General del Estado de Oaxaca (Mexico)
-AM Alcaldes Mayores
-Obisp Obispado de Oaxaca
AGI Archivo General de Indias (Spain)
-Cont Contratación
-Escr Escribanía
-Indif Indiferente General
-Inq Inquisición
-Just Justicia
-Merc Libro de Mercedes
-Mex Audiencia de México
-MP Mapas y Planos
-Patr Patronato
AGN Archivo General de la Nación (Mexico)
-AM Alcaldes Mayores
-BN Bienes Nacionales
-Carc Cárceles y Presidios
-Civ Civil
-Cler Clero Regular y Secular
-Crim Criminal
-GPar General de Parte
-Ind Indios
-Inq Inquisición
-Jud Judicial
Abbreviations
288
-Matr Matrimonios
-RC Reales Cédulas
-Tier Tierras
-UE Unidad Eclesiástica
AGOP Archivio Generale dell’Ordine dei Predicatori (Italy)
-SH Provincia S. Hyppoliti
AGPEO Archivo General del Poder Ejecutivo del Estado de Oaxaca
(Mexico)
AGSA Archivio Generale dell’Ordine di Sant’Agostino (Italy)
AHAM Archivo Histórico del Arzobispado de México (Mexico)
Cajas (indicated by number)
-Var Va rios
AHAO Archivo Histórico del Arzobispado de Oaxaca (Mexico)
-Dioc Diocesano / Gobierno
-LCab Libros de Cabildo
-Mart Mártires de Caxonos
AHJO Archivo Histórico del Poder Judicial de Oaxaca (Mexico)
-TEP Archivo Judicial de Teposcolula
-Civ Civil
-Crim Criminal
-VA Archivo Judicial de Villa Alta
-Civ Civil
-Crim Criminal
-YAU Archivo Judicial de Yautepec
AHN Archivo Histórico Nacional (Spain)
-DocInd Documentos de Indias
-Inq Inquisición
ALC Archivo del Lic. Luis Castañeda (Mexico)
AMO Archivo Parroquial de La Merced, Oaxaca (Mexico)
ANO Archivo de Notarías del Estado de Oaxaca (Mexico)
-Álvarez José Álvarez Aragón
-Benaias Diego Benaias
APF Archivio di Propaganda Fide (Italy)
-SOCG Scritti Originale Riferite alla Congregazione Generale
ARAO Archivo de la Reforma Agraria del Estado de Oaxaca (Mexico)
Abbreviations 289
ASV Archivio Segreto Vaticano (Vatican)
-AC Ad Cardenali
-Arm Armadii
-AV Ad Vescovi
-BulPr Bullae Praedicatorum
-ReLat Registri Laterani
-SecBr Secretariae Brevi
-SS Secretaria di Stato
BBO Biblioteca Francisco de Burgoa, Oaxaca (Mexico)
-DomGob Dominicos Gobierno
BCN Biblioteca Centrale Nazionale (Italy)
-Gesu Fondo Gesuitico
BMNA Biblioteca del Museo Nacional de Antropología (Mexico)
-ColAnt Colección Antigua
BNE Biblioteca Nacional de España (Spain)
BNF Bibliothèque Nationale de France
-Mex Fonds Mexicain
BNM Biblioteca Nacional de México
-Imp Impresos
BRAH Biblioteca de la Real Academia de Historia (Spain)
-MemNE Memorias de la Nueva España
BRP Biblioteca del Real Palacio, Madrid (Spain)
JCB John Carter Brown Library (USA)
-CodInd Codex Indianorum
-CodSp Codex Spaniorum
MNAM Museo Nacional de Arte (Mexico)
NL Newberry Library (USA)
-Ayer Edward Ayer Collection
RBE Real Biblioteca de El Escorial (Spain)
TL Tozzer Library, Harvard University (USA)
TRO Tropenmuseum, Amsterdam (Netherlands)
313
Notes to Pages 124–29
2. Caso (19 65, 932) established 600 BCE as the antiquity of t he earliest
known epigraphic representation of this calendar through a Mixteca Alta radio-
carbon date linked to ceramics that closely resemble Monte Albán I assemblages.
3. AGI-Mex 882, 914r.
4. Lockhart 1992, 383.
5. Ibid., 384.
6. For a sample of alphabetic genres in Maya languages, Mixtec, Nahuatl,
and Zapotec, see Restall, Sousa, and Terraciano 2005.
7. Havelock 1982 .
8. Harris 198 9, 32 8.
9. Houston 1994 , 37, 39.
10. Goody 1987.
11. Córdova 1578b, 182v. Huezée quíchi may be glossed as “Maker of tree-
bark paper,” and huecàa yye as “Maker of images.” Pèni huílla means “singer,”
and péni huelàba yye is “reader or reciter of images” (ibid., 241v). In Córdova’s
work, the term quijchi tija—literally, “Tree-bark paper of lineages”—is given the
qualifier colàça, “(of) ancient times,” and it is rendered in Spanish as “Native
book with figures” (ibid., 244v).
12. Some of the glosses in Córdova (ibid.) for the root -yye include: “Cipher.
Yye nagána nolòhuinice tòbi latícha, [or] yye” (108v); “To be drawn. Ti-yè-a
[or] ti-yèe-a. A drawing. Na-yye” (114r); “Any sort of writing. Tícha, yye cáa
quíchi, yye nacàa quíchi, tícha nacáa” (182v); “A single letter. Yye, lána, lána
yye” (142v); “To draw a figure . . . Tozèe a , tocàaya yye” (196v); “To paint.
Toz è e a , tocàaya yye” (315v). For a less likely etymological interpretation of piyè
as “wind flower,” see Cruz 2007, 335–36.
13. From nahualli, shape-changing religious specialist. Nahuallotl was an
abstract noun that referred to the capacity of being a nahualli, or the actions
performed by one. This statement comes from book 8, folio 192v of the Códice
Matritense, and it is discussed in López Austin 1973a, 175. A similar statement
also occurs in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950 –1982, book 10, 191).
14. López Austin 1973a.
15. Torq uemad a ([1615] 1969) appropriated this description from a manu-
script authored by Mendieta, which circulated among Franciscans in the late
sixteenth century, but remained unpublished until 1870 (Baudot 1995).
16. Valadés 157 9, 227.
17. Motolinia [1858] 199 0 , 2.
18. While Mignolo (1996) uses Motolinia’s interpretation to argue that it
epitomized the demonization of nonhistorical genres, Cañizares-Esguerra (2001)
contends that the Spanish did not summarily reject the information recorded in
Mesoamerican pictographic genres due to suspicions about their origin.
19. See Galarza 19 80; Kellogg 1995; Romero Frizzi 199 6, 2003; Romero
Frizzi and Vázquez 2003.
20. Gruzinski 1993 ; Wood 2003.
21. Galarza 1980 ; Lockhart 1992; Oudijk 2000; Schroeder 1991; Whitecot-
ton 1977, 199 0.
22. Burkhart 1995.
314 Notes to Pages 129–36
23. Berlin 198 8.
24. Alcina Franch 1993, 1998.
25. Hanks 1987, 2010.
26. Rappaport 1998.
27. See Chartier 1992 , 1996 .
28. Ruiz de Alarcón 18 92 , 157.
29. Ibid., 164.
30. BMNA-ColAnt 16 0, 42v.
31. Ruiz de Alarcón 1892 , 217.
32. Lockhart 19 92 , 259 .
33. López Austin (1966, 1967a, 1967b) claims this incantation was used by
temacpalihtotiqueh, the thieving Aztec hypnotists (Sahagún 1950 –1982 , book 4).
34. Ruiz de Alarcón 1984, 78–80.
35. BMNA-ColAnt 160 , 91v, as translated by Andrews and Hassig.
36. Ruiz de Alarcón 1984, 251.
37. This element refers to the piciyetl’s association with the nine-tiered Nahua
cosmos (López Austin 1973a, 1984; Taváre z 1999).
38. Some sections of this manuscript were published by the Maya Society
(Anonymous 1935), based on a photostat made by Willam Gates (NL-Ayer MS
1675).
39. As in other 260-day counts, one would expect these twenty day signs to
possess numerical coefficients from one to thirteen. In 1756, Mariano Veytia
copied this correlation, now preserved as BNF-Mex 249, and erroneously identi-
fied as a Phurépecha calendar. Caso (1945, 95–96) correctly identified this count
as a Matlatzinca calendar.
In his publication, Caso referred to versions of this count published by Veytia
in his Historia antigua de México and by Ramírez in the Anales del Museo
Nacional in 1905.
40. Li [1495] 1999.
41. Reprinted as E. Martínez [1606] 1948 .
42. Leonard [1949] 19 92 , 16 0, 164, 201.
43. Códice Mendieta 1971, 255–58, cited in Mathes 19 82 , 33.
44. BNF-Mex 23–24.
45. See Mengin 1952.
46. López Austin 1973b.
47. BNF-Mex 381, 49.
48. Chimalpahin 1997, vol. 2, 128 –29.
49. My translation departs slightly from the one in Chimalpahin 19 97, vol.
2, 129, because I believe that Chimalpahin omits the morpheme -tla- in Ipan
quicuepa in ilhuica[tla]matinimeh, yielding Ipan quicuepa in ilhuicamatinimeh.
Molina (1992, 37 v) translates Ilhuicatlamatini as “astrologer.”
50. Li 1510 , b verso to b ii recto, my emphases: Siguen se los planetas Del
primer cielo : y del septimo planeta que es la luna que tiene enel su assiento
El primero cielo es donde tiene su assiento la luna: que es el inferior planeta y
seteno: el qual esta constituydo en[e]l mas baxo circulo dela espera: y en espacio
d[e] ocho años consuma su circulo. y es señor del seteno & ultimo clima.
315
Notes to Pages 136–41
51. BNF-Mex 381, 49–50, my emphases: Domi[n]go.Sigue se llos planetas.
primero gramatica ca tlatohuani lunes el segoto mercielo planetas ques la
llona que tiene en el su asie[n]to tetzacatl martes. el tercero ytel marius. ter-
cero planetas cabalero miercoles. el segoto ciello ytel melgorio que es planetas
ticitl yetz.
52. TRO Ms. 352 3 –2. This manuscript features several hands, and a note
toward the end identifies one of its owners in 1748. I am currently working on a
comparison of this work with BNF-Mex 381.
53. BNF-Mex 381, 48–49: Primero Planeta. Nica[n] pohuallo yn izqui si[g]
nos, yn iquac aries tleticpacticate yn iquac leon tlanepa[n]tlaticate yn iquac
sagitarius t[l]etl yntzi[n]tlaticate yn izqui [i]llhuitl tlahuica, yn iquac taurus
tlalticpacticate yn iquac Virgon tlallinepa[n]tlaticate yn iquac capricornios
tlalliynci[n]tlaticate yn iquac Seminis yehecatl ti[c]pacticate yn iquac libra ye-
hecatl nepa[n]tlaticate yn iquac aquarius yehecatl tzintlaticate yn iquac ca[n]
cer atl ticpacticate yn iquac Secorbius atl nepa[n]tlaticate yn iquac pilcis atl
tzintlaticate.
An alternative translation for “and [this is] what his work is, what happens
here on Earth when he is born,” is: “and what[ever] his work is, it will be done
here on Earth.”
54. BNF-Mex 381, 50: Y[n] nica[n] micuiliuhtica yn izqui tlama[n]tli y[n]
planetas y[n] tlacatiliztli, yn queni[n] [ç]an leportorion ypa[n] tlacatli nican
motenehuan yn iquac Domigo tlahuizcalpa[n] motocayotia la primera olas[un?]
yoa[n] onca tlacati yn tlatoque y[n] macenhualli tlacatiz yoa[n] ytla ytequiuh
mochihuan nica[n] t[laltic]p[a]c yn iquac tlacati ypiltzintli nima[n] notzaloz yn
quimatia ylepordorion [sic] quitemelahuiliz yn queni[n] leon yn ipa[n] tlacatin
quihualcuitaci yn inacayo huel mahuiztic chalchihuitl teoxihuitl quetzaliztli yn
ixtelolo temamauhti yn inacayo ce[n]ca chichiltic. Auh ynic nemi y[n] t[laltic]
p[a]c ce[n]ca ymacaxoni ce[n]ca yxteyo yn iquac mococohua huel apaloz yn
iquac macoz yn tlaquali amo quicahuaz ça[n] tequi[tl] tlaquatoz ytla[h] ypa[n]
pehuaz. yn itoca leon niman iciuhca miquiz ahuel patiz yn tlacatilizpa[n].
With regards to my translation of amo quicahuaz ça[n] tequi[tl] tlaquatoz, see
Molina [157 1] 1992, 14v: “çan tequitl oacico. He barely arrived, and then left.”
Regarding my rendering of ytla[h] ypa[n] pehuaz, see Molina [1571] 1992, 41v:
“Ipam pepeua. A madman who was periods of lucidity.”
55. López Austin 1973b, 290: yn imixpan nepechteco yuan cencayollo tlapal-
lihui yollochicahuaque.
56. E. Martínez [160 6] 194 8, 23.
57. Jauss 1982 , 19 , 23.
58. AGI-Mex 301, and Mexico 357.
59. AGN-Indif 3000, no. 217.
60. AGN-Inq 437-I-3.
61. AGN-Inq 456 , 592v– 93r.
62. Balsalobre [1656] 189 2, 241.
63. Berlin 1988.
64. AGN-Inq 456 , 577r–v.
65. Ibid., 558r–v.
316 Notes to Pages 141–47
66. Ibid., 547r.
67. Ibid., 544v.
68. Ibid., 545r.
69. AGN-Inq 457, 67r.
70. AGN-Inq 456 , 577r.
71. Ibid., 558r.
72. These ethnic designations follow the usage proposed in Castellanos 2003;
also see Rendón 1995.
73. See Restall and Kellogg 1998; Rojas Rabiela, Rea López, and Medina
Lima 19 99 .
74. The quantitative data about Zapotec texts in this paragraph come from
Oudijk 2006.
75. Alcina Franch (1993) numbered the Villa A lta calendrical booklets as
Calendars 1–99, and this numeration is used at AGI; nevertheless, some of these
booklets contain two different calendars, or split the same calendar into two
booklets. Since there are in fact 103 separate copies of the calendar bound into
99 booklets, Alcina Franch’s system identifies separate booklets, but not sepa-
rate calendars.
76. Booklets 47, 63, 66, and 85 contain multiple calendars, and Booklet 87
contains a section of the calendar completed by one of the fragments bound in
Booklet 85.
77. Zilbermann 1966; Alcina Franch 1993, 19 98.
78. First, the original eighteenth-century page numbers present discontinuities
that can only be explained by two separate attempts at pagination. Second, some
booklets labeled with the name of their owner are not currently located adjacent
to the corresponding community’s confession. Third, booklets by Caxonos Za-
potec speakers do not have a systematic distribution in the corpus, even though
most Caxonos Zapotec confessions appear before 654v in AGI-Mex 882.
79. Córdova 1578 a, 204–12.
80. While the colonial Zapotec piyè shares this structure with other Meso-
american calendars, it also possesses two distinctive features. First, unlike all
other counts, where numbers precede day signs, Zapotec day names are fol-
lowed by a written number (Yagchila 1, Quiolaha 2, etc.). Second, each of the
260 Zapotec day names contain two elements: the first one is a prefix; and the
second is one of twenty nominal roots. For instance, the day name 1-Cayman is
composed by yag- and -chila.
81. Córdova 1578a, 202.
82. See Justeson and Tavárez 2007, for a discussion of this system.
83. Gates 1931.
84. The correlation between the piyè and the Gregorian calendar allows for
1671 or 169 0 as possible dates of production; given the timing of Maldonado’s
campaign, the most likely date is the latter.
85. AGI-Mex 882, 136 9r; Tavárez and Justeson 2008.
86. Booklet 87 bears on its front cover the inscription Juan Mathias es
M[aest]ro, “Juan Mathias is a teacher [of idolatries].” There is only one Juan
Mathías identified as a maestro (AGI-Mex 882, 914 r) in the confessions.
317
Notes to Pages 147–54
87. Córdova (1578 b, 15 0 r) glosses “For the sun to b e eclipsed” as t-ati, ti-
tágo, and ti-gáchi.
88. Córdova (1578b, 161r), “For something to catch fire. Tiàaqui, coyàqui”
(161r); and “To be consumed by fi re, see bu rn. Tiàaquia táaquia, teyáaquia”
(336v).
89. Two l una r ec l ipses were v is ible in Mesoa m er i c a in 1693. Moreover,
eclipses take place at the new moon and full moon nearest the nodes of the eclipse
cycle. The nodes occur at intervals just short of two piyè cycles (520 days). Thus,
two eclipses occurring at these intervals, as it is the case for those of August
23, 1691, and January 21, 1693, would be assigned near adjacent dates in the
Zapotec count.
90. Caso (1928, 1965) contended that the yza, or 365-day count, is attested in
the hieroglyphic inscriptions of Monte Albán in the year-bearer system.
91. Alcina Franch 1993, 138 –39. The tow ns were Cacalotepec, San Juan
Xuquila, Tanetze, Tiltepeque, Yaee, Yatao, Yatoni, and Xosa. Of those towns re-
porting specific Christian holidays in February, Yaee was the only town to have
embraced the feast of the Purification (February 2) rather than Saint Matthias’s
day (AGI-Mex 882, 1310r).
92. AGI-Mex 882, 1456r. The Catholic Church later moved this holiday to
May 14.
93. AGI-Mex 882, 15 42r, 15 43r. Both towns also performed these obser-
vances on their patron saint’s day.
94. AGI-Mex 882, 1512v.
95. Ibid., 1144r.
96. Justeson and Tavárez 2007, 25–27, 56.
97. Booklets 8, 17, 19, 24, 25, 31, 323, 43 , 44, 45, 49, 50, 52, 58, 59, 64, 74,
85–1, 88, and 97.
98. Booklets 22, 24, 31, and 32 ; Booklets 31 and 32 contain the same tex t
with diverging spellings.
99. Booklets 43, 49, 58, 59, 74 , 88, and 97.
100. Córdova 1578b, 244v. An annotation in Booklet 81 designates its con-
tents as Libro quichi tia queani xotao, “B ook, paper of the lineages of our
grandfathers” (AGI-Mex 882, 1368 r).
101. AGI-Mex 882, 1365 r.
102. Ibid., 1319v.
103. Ibid., 483v.
104. Chance 1989 , 22.
105. AGI-Mex 882, 1347r.
106. Ibid., 511v–12v.
107. Ibid., 694r–95v, 1458r,
108. Ibid., 998r, 1000r.
109. Ibid., 914v.
110. Ibid., 1542r.
111. AGI-Mex 882, 615r–16v. Although Lachixila may have had Chinantec
residents (Chance 1989 , 25, 35), many of its inhabitants spoke Bixanos Zapotec
in the early 1700 s. Three maestros from this town declared their ritual sites were
318 Notes to Pages 156–65
called “in our language” Guia Yabechi, Guiag Gozana, and Guia Goxio, all of
them Zapotec names.
112. The demographic data cited here comes from Chance 1989, 48–52 .
113. AGI-Mex 882, 182r–84v, 299v, 430r.
114. Gerhard 1972 , 96.
115. Ibid., 50, 72.
116. Due to the relative abundance of Nahua mundane texts, researchers have
privileged their study in historical and philological surveys. See Karttunen and
Lockhart 1976; Lockhart 19 92 .
117. Farriss 1984, 341.
118. Rafael 198 8, 44–54 , 121.
119. Derrida’s theory of logocentrism and about the radical difference be-
tween orality and the written sign rests on an ambitious survey of the properties
of writing that goes from Plato’s Phaedrus to Rousseau’s Essai sur l’Origine des
Langues (Derrida 19 67). However, one of Derrida’s crucial assumptions—the
absence of linguistic signs prior to the emergence of writing —is based on a
Greco-Latin conception of writing that excludes, in both historical and epis-
temic terms, the Mesoamerican writing systems. Mignolo 199 6 provides a cri-
tique of the application of Derrida’s notion of logocentrism to Mesoamerican
texts.
120. Chartier 1992 , 4–5.
121. Watt 1991; Chartier 199 6.
122. Certeau 1984 , 175–76.
123. See, for instance, Goody 1987.
124. Chartier 1996 , 138 –39.
Chapter 6
1. Mills 1997, 15.
2. Nutini and Bell 1980; Nutini 1988.
3. Mills 199 7, 14–15.
4. Aguirre Beltrán 1963 ; Alberro 1992; Griffiths and Cervantes 199 9; and
Gruzinski 19 93, 2002.
5. Peña Montenegro [1668] 1995 , vol. 1, 458 –83; Mills 19 97, 102.
6. Lorenzana 1769b.
7. Gruzinski 1988.
8. AGI-Mex 78, ramo 1, no. 13, image 335.
9. Ibid., image 349.
10. Gruzinski 1988.
11. AGN-Cler 191, 433v.
12. AGN-Inq 605, no. 10, 443r.
13. AGN-Ind 24, no. 121 bis.
14. AGN-GenPar 13, no. 178 , 205v.
15. AGN-BN 596, no. 11.
16. AGI-Mex 69, ramo 4, no. 47.
17. AGN-RC Duplicadas 30, no. 1365. There is no indication of outcome.
Bibliography
Acosta, José. [1590] 1962. Historia natural y moral de las Indias. Mexico:
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Acuña, René. 1986. Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: Mexico. Vol. II. Mex-
ico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Agüero, Cristóbal de. 1666. Misceláneo Espiritual en el idioma Zapoteco. Mex-
ico: Francisco Rodríguez Lupercio.
Aguirre Beltrán, Gonzalo. 1963. Medicina y magia: El proceso de aculturación
en el México colonial. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
Aguirre Salvador, Rodolfo. 2001. “Los catedráticos juristas de México.” In
Universidad y sociedad en Hispanoamérica: grupos de poder, siglos XVIII
y XIX, ed. Margarita Menegus Bornemann, 63–114. Mexico: Universidad
Nacional Autonoma de México, Centro de Estudios sobre la Universidad.
Alatorre, Antonio, and Martha Lilia Tenorio. 1998. Serafina y Sor Juana: Con
tres apéndices. Mexico: Colegio de México.
Alberro, Solange. 198 8. Inquisición y sociedad en Mexico, 1571–1700. Mexico:
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
———. 1992 . Del gachupín al criollo. Mexico: Colegio de México.
Alcina Franch, José. 19 93. Calendario y religión entre los zapotecos. Mexico:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 1998. “Mapas y calendarios zapotecos; siglos XVI y XVII.” In Historia
del Arte en Oaxaca, vol. 2, 173–91. Oaxaca, Mexico: Consejo Nacional para
la Cultura y las Artes, Gobierno de Oaxaca.
Alva, Bartolomé de. [1634] 1999. A Guide to Confession Large and Small in the
Mexican Language, 1634. Trans. and ed. Barry Sell, John F. Schwaller, and
Lu Ann Homza. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Andrews, J. Richard. 19 75. Introduction to Classical Nahuatl. Austin: Univer-
sity of Texas Press.
Anonymous. 1935. Ayer MS Planetary Calendar en Lengua Nahuatl del año
1639. Publication 17. Baltimore, MD: The Maya Society.
Anunciación, Domingo. 1565. Doctrina Christiana breve y compendiosa. Mex-
ico: Pedro Ocharte.
Anunciación, Juan. 1575. Doctrina Christiana muy cumplida. Mexico: Pedro
Balli.
Bibliography
338
———. 157 7. Sermonario en lengua mexicana. Mexico: Antonio Ricardo.
Aquinas, Thomas. 1948. Summa Theologiae. Rome: Marietti.
Aramoni Calderón, Dolores. 1992. Los refugios de lo sagrado. Religiosidad,
conflicto y resistencia entre los zoques de Chiapas. Mexico: Consejo Nacional
para la Cultura y las Artes.
Asad, Talal. 1986. “Medieval Heresy: An Anthropological View.” Social His-
tory 11 (3): 345–62.
Austin, John Langshaw. 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Ballesteros César, Claudia. 2004. Los documentos de San Francisco Caxonos.
Oaxaca, Mexico: Archivo Histórico Judicial de Oaxaca, Proveedora Escolar,
IAGO.
Balsalobre, Gonzalo. [1656] 1892. “Relación auténtica de las idolatrías, super-
sticiones, vanas observancias de los indios del obispado de Oaxaca.” Anales
del Museo Nacional de México (1a Época) 6: 229–60.
Barlow, Robert. [1949] 1992 . La extensión del imperio de los Culhua-Mexica.
Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Universidad de las
Américas.
Barreda, Nicolás de la. 1730. Doctrina Christiana en Lengua Chinanteca,
añadida la Explicacion de los Principales Mysterios de la Fee. Mexico:
Herederos de la Viuda de Francisco Rodríguez Lupercio.
Barrera Vázquez, Alfredo. 19 65. El libro de los Cantares de Dzitbalché. Mexico:
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Barros, Alonso. 2007. “Cien años de guerras mixes: territorialidades prehis-
pánicas, expansión burocrática y zapotequización en el Istmo de Tehuantepec
durante el siglo XVI.” Historia Mexicana 57 (2): 325 –403.
Baskes, Jeremy. 2000. Indians, Merchants, and Markets: A Reinterpretation
of the Repartimiento and Spanish-Indian Economic Relations in Colonial
Oaxaca, 1750-1821. Stanford: Stanford University Press
Baudot, Georges. 199 0. La pugna franciscana por México. Mexico: Consejo
Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.
———. 1995. Utopia and History in Mexico: The First Chroniclers of Mexican
Civilization, 15 20 –156 9 . Niwot: University Press of Colorado.
Bautista Viseo, Fray Juan. 15 9 9 . Confesionario en lengua mexicana y castellana.
Tlatilulco: Melchior Ocharte.
———. 160 0a. Advertencias para los confessores de los naturales. Tlatilulco:
Melchior Ocharte.
———. 160 0b. Huehuehtlahtolli. Tlatelolco: Melchior Ocharte.
———. 1606. Sermonario en Lengua mexicana. Mexico: Casa de Diego Lopez
Daualos.
Benassar, Bartolomé. 1979. L’ I n q u i s i t i on espagnole, XVe–XIXe siècle. Paris:
Hachette.
Berdan, Frances F., Elizabeth Boone, et al. 1996 . Aztec Imperial Strategies.
Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.
Berdan, Frances F., John K. Chance, Alan R. Sandstrom, Barbara L. Stark,
James M. Taggart, and Emily Umberger. 2008. Ethnic identity in Nahua
Bibliography 339
Mesoamerica: The View from Archaeology, Art History, Ethnohistory, and
Contemporary Ethnography. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Berlin Neubart, Heinrich. 1988. Idolatría y supersticion entre los indios de
Oaxaca. Mexico: Ediciones Toledo.
Bernand, Carmen, and Serge Gruzinski. 1992 . De la idolatría: Una arqueología
de las ciencias religiosas. Mexico: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Bierhorst, John. 1985. Cantares Mexicanos: Songs of the Aztecs. Stanford: Stan-
ford University Press.
———. 1992 . Codex Chimalpopoca. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Boletín del AGN. 1934. “Fragmento de un proceso de indios antropófagos.”
Vol. 5 (2): 169 –73.
———. 1941. “Proceso contra Ana de Xochimilco.” Vol. 12: 211–13.
Boone, Elizabeth. 2007. Cycles of Time and Meaning in the Mexican Books of
Fate. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Boone, Elizabeth, and Walter Mignolo, eds. 1994. Writing Without Word s: An-
cient Literacies in Mesoamerica and the Andes. Durham, NC: Duke Univer-
sity Press.
Borah, Woodrow. 1951. New Spain’s Century of Depression. Ibero Americana
35. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1983. Justice by Insurance: The General Indian Court of Colonial Mex-
ico and the Legal Aides of the Half-Real. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Boturini, Lorenzo. 1746. Idea de una nueva historia general de la América
septentrional. Madrid: Juan de Zúñiga.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1971. “Genèse et structure du champ religieux.” Revue Fran-
çaise de Sociologie 12: 295–334.
Bouza, Fernando. 2001. Corre manuscrito: Una historia cultural del Siglo de
Oro. Madrid: Marcial Pons Historia.
Brading, David A. 2001. Mexican Phoenix: Our Lady of Guadalupe, Image
and Trad i tio n Across Five Centuries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bricker, Victoria Reifler. 1974. “The Ethnographic Context of Some Traditional
Mayan Speech Genres.” In Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, ed.
Richard Bauman and Joel Sherzer, 368–88. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Burgoa, Fray Francisco de. [1670] 1989 . Palestra historial. Mexico: Editorial
Porrúa.
———. [1674] 1989. Geográfica descripción. 2 vols. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Burkhart, Louise. 198 9. The Slippery Earth: Nahua-Christian Moral Dialogue
in Sixteenth-Century Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 1995. “The Voyage of Saint Amaro: A Spanish legend in Nahuatl Litera-
ture.” Colonial Latin American Review 4: 29–57.
———. 1996 . Holy Wedn esday : A Nahua Drama from Early Colonial Mexico.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
———. 2001. Before Guadalupe: The Virgin Mary in Early Colonial Nahuatl
Literature. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-Albany.
———. 2010. “Pageantry, Passion, and Punishment. Eighteenth-Century Nahuatl
Bibliography
340
Community Theater.” In Nahuatl Theater, Volu me 4. Nahua Christianity in
Perfor mance, eds. Barry Sell and Louise Burkhart, 3–50. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Bustamante García, Jesús. 199 0. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún: Una revisión
crítica de los manuscritos y de su proceso de composición. Mexico: UNAM.
Butler, Ines. 19 97. Voca bul ario zapoteco de Yatzachi el Bajo. Mexico: Instituto
Lingüístico de Verano.
Calvo, Thomas. 2009. Vivre dans la Sierra zapotèque du Mexique, 1674–1707.
Paris: L’Harmattan.
Canger, Una. 1986. “Los dialectos del náhuatl de Guerrero.” In Primer coloquio
de arqueología y etnohistoria del estado de Guerrero, Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, 281–94. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología
e Historia.
Cañeque, Alejandro. 2004. The King’s Living Image: The Culture and Politic s
of Viceregal Powe r in Colonial Mexico. New York: Routledge.
Cañizares-Esguerra, Jorge. 2001. How to Write the History of the New World:
Histories, Epistemologies, and Identities in the Eighteenth-Century Atlantic
World. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Cárdenas, Juan de. [159 1] 1965. Problemas y secretos maravillosos de las Indias.
Mexico: Bibliófilos Mexicanos.
Carmagnani, Marcelo. 1988. El regreso de los dioses: El proceso de recon-
stitución de la identidad étnica en Oaxaca, siglos XVII y XVIII. Mexico:
Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Carrasco, Pedro. 1984. “Royal Marriages in Ancient Mexico.” In Explorations
in Ethnohistory, ed. H. R. Harvey and Hanns J. Prem, 41–81. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Cartas de Indias. 1877. Madrid: Imprenta de Manuel G. Hernández.
Caso, Alfonso. 1928. Las Estelas Zapotecas. Monografías del Museo Nacio-
nal de Arqueología, Historia, y Etnografía. Mexico: Talleres Gráficos de la
Nación.
———. 1939. “La Correlación de los Años Azteca y Cristiano.” Revista Mexi-
cana de Estudios Antropológicos 3: 11–45.
———. 1945. “El Calendario Matlatzinca.” Revista Mexicana de Estudios
Antropológicos 8: 95 –109.
———. 1965. “Zapotec Writing and Calendar.” In Handbook of Middle Ameri-
can Indians, vol. 3, ed. Robert Wachope and Gordon R. Willey, 931–47. Aus-
tin: University of Texas Press.
Castellanos, Javier. 2003. Diccionario Zapoteco-Español, Español-Zapoteco.
Varian te Xhon. Oaxaca, Mexico: Ediciones Conocimiento Indígena.
Certeau, Michel de. 1982. La fable mystique. XVIe – XVIIe siècle. Paris:
Gallimard.
———. 1984. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
———. 1988. The Writing of History. New York: Columbia University Press.
———. 2000. The Possession at Loudun. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bibliography 341
Cervantes, Fernando. 1994. The Devil in the New Worl d. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Chance, John K. 1989. The Conquest of the Sierra. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
———. 1992 . “Colonial Ethnohistory of Oaxaca.” In Supplement to the Hand-
book of Middle American Indians: Ethnohistory, ed. Victoria Bricker, 165–
89. Austin: University of Texas Press.
———. 1996 . “Mesoamerica’s Ethnographic Past.” Ethnohistory 43 (3):
379 –403.
Chance, John, and William B. Taylor. 1985. “Cofradías and Cargos: An Histori-
cal Perspective on the Mesoamerican Civil-Religious Hierarchy.” American
Ethnologist 12: 1–26.
Chartier, Roger. 1992 . The Order of Books: Readers, Authors and Libraries in
Europe Between the Fourteenth and Eighteenth Centuries. Cambridge, MA:
Polity Press.
———. 1996 . Culture écrite et société. L’o r d r e des livres (XIVe–XVIIIe siècle).
Paris: Albin Michel.
Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñón.
1997. Codex Chimalpahin. 2 vols. Trans. and ed. Arthur J. O. Anderson and
Susan Schroeder. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Christian Jr., William A. 1981a. Apparitions in Late Medieval and Renaissance
Spain. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 1981b. Local Religion in Sixteenth-Century Spain. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Chuchiak, John F. 2000. “The Indian Inquisition and the Extirpation of Idola-
try: The Process of Punishment in the Provisorato de Indios of the Diocese of
Yucatán, 1563 –1812 .” Doctoral dissertation, Tulane University.
———. 2002. “Toward a Regional Definition of Idolatry: Reexamining Idolatry
Trials in the Relaciones de Méritos and Their Role in Defining the Concept
of Idolatria en Colonial Yucatán, 1570 –1780.” Journal of Early Modern His-
tory 6 (2): 1–29.
———. 2005. “In Servitio Dei: Fray Diego de Landa, The Franciscan Order, and
the Return of the Extirpation of Idolatry in the Colonial Diocese of Yucatán,
157 3 –157 9 .” The Americas 61 (4): 611–46.
Ciruelo, Fray Pedro. 1977. A Treat i se Reproving All Superstitions and Forms of
Witchcraft. Trans. E. Maio and D. Pearson. Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dick-
inson University Press.
Clavijero, Francisco Javier. 1945. Historia Antigua de México. 4 vols. Mexico:
Editorial Porrúa.
Clendinnen, Inga. 1987. Ambivalent Conquests: Maya and Spaniard in Yu-
catan, 1517–1570. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 199 0 . “Ways to the Sacred: Reconstructing Religion in Sixteenth-
Century Mexico.” History and Anthropology 5: 105–41.
Cline, Sarah L. 1993. “The Spiritual Conquest Reexamined: Baptism and Chris-
tian Marriage in Early Sixteenth-Century Mexico.” Hispanic American His-
torical Review 73 (3): 453–80.
Bibliography
342
Coe, Michael, and Richard Whittaker. 1982. Aztec Sorcerers in Seventeenth-
Century Mexico. Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-Albany.
Cook, Noble David, and W. George Lovell, eds. 1991. Secret Judgments of
God: Old World Disease in Colonial Spanish America. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
Cook, Sherburne F., and Woodrow W. Borah. 1979. Essays in Population His-
tory: Mexico and California. Vol. 3. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cope, R. Douglas. 1994. The Limits of Racial Domination: Plebeian Society in
Colonial Mexico City, 1660 –1720. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Córdova, Fray Juan de. 1578 a. Arte en lengua zapoteca. Mexico: Pedro Balli.
———. 157 8b. Vocabula rio en lengua zapoteca. Mexico: Pedro Ocharte and
Antonio Ricardo.
Covarrubias Orozco, Sebastián de. [1611] 1994. Teso ro de la lengua castellana
o española. Madrid: Editorial Castalia.
Cruz, Martín de la, and Juan Badiano. 1940. The Badianus Manuscript (Codex
Barberini, Latin 241) Vatic a n Library: An Aztec Herbal of 1552. Baltimore,
MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Cruz, Víctor. 2007. El pensamiento de los binnigula’sa’: Cosmovisión, religión,
y calendario, con especial referencia a los binnizá. Mexico: Publicaciones de
la Casa Chata.
Cruz Soto, Irma Guadalupe. 1993. Magdalena Papalo y Joseph Chicon: Dos
médicos nahuas del siglo XVI. BA thesis, History Department. Mexico: Uni-
versidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Cueva, Fray Pedro de la. N.d. Parábolas y exemplos sacados de las costumbres
del campo. Manuscript, BNF. Photostat reproduction, TL.
Cuevas, Mariano. 1921–1928. Historia de la iglesia en México. 5 vols. Mexico:
Ediciones Porrúa.
Cummins, Thomas. 1995. “Colonial Ekphrasis.” In Reframing the Renaissance:
Visual Culture in Europe and Latin America, 1450 –1650, ed. Claire Farago,
152 –76. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
———. 2003. “To Serve Man: Pre-Columbian Art, Western Discourses of Idola-
try, and Cannibalism.” RES 42: 10 9 –30.
Dean, Caroline. 1989 . “Praying with Pictures: A Reading of the Libro de
Oraciones.” Journal of Latin American Lore 15 (2): 211–73.
Dehouve, Danièle. 198 8. “The ‘Money of the Saint’: Ceremonial organiza-
tion and monetary capital in Tlapa, Guerrero, Mexico.” In Manipulating
the Saints. Religious Brotherhoods and Social Integration in Post-Conquest
Latin America, ed. A. Meyers and D. E. Hopkins, 149–74 . Hamburg, Ger-
many: WAYASBAH.
Derrida, Jacques. 1967. De la Grammatologie. Paris: Les Éditions de Minuit.
Díaz-Polanco, Héctor, et al. 1996 . El Fuego de la inobediencia. Autonomía y
rebelión india en el obispado de Oaxaca. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones
y Estudios en Antropología Social.
Dominican Order. 155 0 . Doctrina Christiana en le[n]gua española y mexicana.
Mexico: Juan Pablos.
Don, Patricia Lopes. 2010. Bonfires of Culture: Franciscans, Indigenous Leaders,
Bibliography 343
and the Inquisition in Early Mexico, 1524 –154 0. Norman: University of Okla-
homa Press.
Dundes, Alan. 1992. The Blood Libel Legend: A Casebook in Anti-Semitic
Folklore. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Durán, Fray Diego. 19 67. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de
Tierra Firme. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Durkheim, Émile. [1912] 2001. The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Ox-
ford: Oxford University Press.
Durston, Alan. 2007. Pastoral Quechua: The History of Christian Tra nslat ion
in Colonial Peru, 1550 –1650 . Terre Haute, IL: University of Notre Dame
Press.
Duviols, Pierre. 1971. La lutte contre les religions autochtones dans le Pé rou
colonial; l’extirpation de l’idolâtrie entre 1532 et 1660. Lima: Institut Fran-
çais d’Études Andines.
———. 2003. Proceso y visitas de idolatrías. Cajatambo, siglo XVII. Lima:
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
Edmonson, Munro. 1988. The Book of the Year : Middle American Calendrical
Systems. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Elliott, John H. 2006. Empires of the Atlantic World : Britain and Spain in
America 1492–1830. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Esparza, Manuel. 1996. Santo Domingo Grande: Hechura y reflejo de nuestra
sociedad. Oaxaca, Mexico: Carteles Editores.
Evans-Pritchard, Edward E. 1937. Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the
Azande. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
———. 1965. Theories of Primitive Religion. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Farfán, Agustín. 15 79. Tra t ado breve de Medicina, y de todas las Enferme-
dades, que cada passo se ofrecen. Mexico: Antonio Ricardo.
Farriss, Nancy M. 19 84 . Maya Society Under Colonial Rule. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Feria, Pedro de. 156 7. Doctrina christiana en lengua castellana y çapoteca.
Mexico: Pedro Ocharte.
Few, Martha. 2002. Wome n Who Live Evil Lives: Gender, Religion, and the
Politics of Power in Colonial Guatemala. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Fields, Sherry. 2008. Pestile nce and Headcolds: Encountering Illness in Colo-
nial Mexico. New York: Columbia University Press.
Flannery, Kent, and Joyce Marcus, eds. 1983. The Cloud People: Divergent
Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. New York: Academic
Press.
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London:
Penguin Books.
Fragoso, Juan, and Francisco Díaz. 1627. Cirugia vniuersal, aora nueuamenta
añadida. Madrid: Viuda de Alonso Martín.
Friedrich, Paul. 1977. Agrarian Revolt in a Mexican Village. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
———. 1986 . The Princes of Naranja: An Essay in Anthrohistorical Method.
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bibliography
344
Fuente, Julio de la. 1947–1948. “Documentos para la etnografía e historia za-
potecas.” Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, vol. 3.
———. [1949] 1979. Yalálag; una villa zapoteca serrana. Mexico: Museo Nacio-
nal de Antropología e Historia, Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
Galarza, Joaquín. 1980. Doctrina christiana: Méthode pour l’analyse d’un
manuscrit pictographique mexicain du XVIIIe siècle avec application a la
première prière: le Pater Noster. Paris: Société d’Ethnographie.
Galinier, Jacques. 19 90. La mitad del mundo: Cuerpo y cosmos en los ritu-
ales otomíes. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto
Nacional Indigenista.
Gante, Pedro de. 1547. Doctrina Christiana en lengua mexicana. Mexico: Juan
Cronenberg.
———. [1553] 1981. Doctrina Christiana en lengua mexicana. Mexico: Edito-
rial Jus.
García Castro, René. 1999. Indios, territorio y poder en la provincia mat-
latzinca: la negociación del espacio político de los pueblos otomianos, siglos
XV–XII. Mexico: CIESAS, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,
and El Colegio Mexiquense.
García Garagarza, León. 2010. “The Descent of the Tzitzimimeh: The Spanish
Conquest and the Colonization of New Spain as the Fulfillment of Nahua
Eschatology.” Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
García Icazbalceta, Joaquín. 1881. Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga, primer obispo
y arzobispo de México. Mexico: Antigua Librería de Andrade y Morales.
———. 1947. Don Fray Juan de Zumárraga, primer obispo y arzobispo de
México. 4 vols. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Gareis, Iris. 199 9. “Repression and Cultural Change: The ‘Ex tirpation of
Idolatry’ in Colonial Peru.” In Spiritual Encounters: Interactions Between
Christianity and Native Religions in Colonial America, ed. N. Griffiths and
F. Cervantes, 230 –54. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Garibay K., Angel María. 1946 . “Paralipómenos de Sahagún.” Tlalocan 2–3:
167–74, 135 –254 .
———. 1954. Historia de la literatura náhuatl. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Gates, William E. 1931. “A Lanquin Kekchi Calendar.” Maya Society Quarterly
1 (1): 29 -32.
Gay, José Antonio. 1998. Historia de Oaxaca. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Gerhard, Peter. 1972 . A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain. Nor-
man: University of Oklahoma Press.
Gibson, Charles. 1964 . The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Gillow, Eulogio. [1889] 1990 . Apuntes históricos sobre la idolatría e introduc-
ción del cristianismo en Oaxaca. Mexico: Ediciones Toledo.
Ginzburg, Carlo. 1979 . “Il nome e il come: Scambio ineguale e mercato storio-
grafico.” Quaderni Storici 40: 181–90.
———. 1980 . The Cheese and the Worms. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Uni-
versity Press.
Bibliography 345
———. 1985. The Night Battles: Witchcraft and Agrarian Cults in the Sixteenth
and Seventeenth Centuries. New York: Penguin Books.
———. 1992 . Ecstasies: Deciphering the Witches’ Sabbath. New York: Penguin
Books.
González Obregón, Luis. 1910. Proceso inquisitorial del cacique de Te xcoc o,
Don Carlos Chichimeca tecutli. Mexico: Guerrero Hermanos.
———. 1912 . Procesos de indios idólatras y hechiceros. Mexico: Guerrero
Hermanos.
Goody, Jack. 1987. The Interface Between the Written and the Oral. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gosner, Kevin. 1992 . Soldiers of the Virgin: The Moral Economy of a Colonial
Maya Rebellion. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 19 98. “Religion and Rebellion in Colonial Chiapas.” In Native Resis-
tance and the Pax Colonial in New Spain, ed. Susan Schroeder, 47–66. Lin-
coln: University of Nebraska Press.
Greenleaf, Richard E. 1962 . Zumárraga and the Mexican Inquisition, 1536 –
1543 . Washington, DC: Academy of Franciscan History.
———. 1965. “The Inquisition and the Indians of New Spain: A Study in Juris-
dictional Confusion.” The Americas 22 (2): 138–66.
———. 1969. The Mexican Inquisition of the Sixteenth Century. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
———. 1978. “The Mexican Inquisition and the Indians: Sources for the Ethno-
historian.” The Americas 34 (3): 315–44.
———. 19 85. Inquisicion y sociedad en el México colonial. Madrid: J. Porrúa
Turanzas.
———. 1991. “Historiography of the Mexican Inquisition: Evolution of Inter-
pretations and Methodologies.” In Cultural Encounters, ed. M. Perry and
A. Cruz, 248–76. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Griffiths, Nicholas. 1995. The Cross and the Serpent. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
Griffiths, Nicolas, and Fernando Cervantes, eds. 1999. Spiritual Encounters.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Grunberg, Bernard. 1998. L’ In q u i s i t i o n apostolique au Mexique: histoire d’une
institution et de son impact dans une société coloniale (1521–1571). Paris:
L’Ha r matt a n .
Gruzinski, Serge. 1978. “Indios reales y fantásticos en documentos de la Inquis-
ición.” Boletín del AGN 6: 18–39.
———. 19 85. “La ‘segunda aculturación’: El estado ilustrado y la religiosidad
indígena en Nueva España (1775–180 0).” Estudios de Historia Novohispana
8: 175–201.
———. 1988 . Man-Gods in the Mexican Highlands. Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
———. 1989. “Individualization and Acculturation: Confession Among the
Nahuas of Mexico from the Sixteenth to the Eighteenth Century.” In Sexual-
ity and Marriage in Colonial Latin America, ed. Asunción Lavrín, 96–117.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Bibliography
346
———. 1993. The Conquest of Mexico. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
———. 2001. Images at War: Mexico from Columbus to Blade Runner (1492–
2019). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
———. 2002. The Mestizo Mind: The Intellectual Dynamics of Colonization
and Globalization. New York: Routledge.
Halbertal, Moshe, and Avishai Margalit. 1992. Idolatry. Cambridge, M A: Har-
vard University Press.
Hanks, William F. 1987. “Discourse Genres in a Theory of Practice.” American
Ethnologist 14 (4): 668–92.
———. 2010. Converting Words: Maya in the Age of the Cross. Berkeley: Uni-
versity of California Press.
Harris, William V. 1989. Ancient Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Haskett, Robert. 1991. Indigenous Rulers: An Ethnohistory of Town Govern-
ment in Colonial Cuernavaca. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
———. 2005. Visions of Paradise: Primordial Titles and Mesoamerican History
in Cuernavaca. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Haslip-Viera, Gabriel. 199 9. Crime and Punishment in Late Colonial Mexico
City, 1692–1810. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Havelock, Eric. 1982 . The Literate Revolution in Greece and its Cultural Con-
sequences. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Heath, Shirley Brice. 1972. Tel ling Tong u e s : Language Policy in Mexico, Col-
ony to Nation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Heinrich, Michael. 2002. “Ethnobotany, Phytochemistry and Biological/
Pharmacological Activities of Artemisia ludoviciana ssp. mexicana (Estafi-
ate).” In Artemisia, ed. Colin Wright, 107–17. Boca Raton, LA: CRC Press.
Henningsen, Gustav. 1980. The Witches’ Advocate: Basque Witchcraft and the
Spanish Inquisition, 1609 –1614. Reno: University of Nevada Press.
Hernández, Francisco. 1651. Nova plantarum, animalium et mineralium Mexi-
canorum. Rome: n.p.
———. 1986. Antigüedades de la Nueva España. Madrid: Historia 16.
Hoffmann, Albert. 19 95. “Medical Chemistry’s Debt to Ethnobotany.” In
Ethno botany: Evolution of A Discipline, ed. Richard Schultes and Siri von
Reis, 311–19. Portland, OR: Dioscorides.
Horton, Robin. 1971. “African Conversion.” Africa 41: 85–108.
———. 1975. “On the Rationality of Conversion.” Africa 45: 219–35 , 373 –99.
Houston, Stephen. 1994. “Literacy Among the Pre-Columbian Maya: A Com-
parative Perspective.” In Writing Without Words: Ancient Literacies in Meso-
america and the Andes, ed. Elizabeth Boone and Walter Mignolo, 27 –49.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Huerga Teruelo, Álvaro. 1991. “Proyecto de Santa Cruz la Real.” Actas del III
Congreso Internacional Los Dominicos y el Nuevo Mundo. Granada.
Hvidtfeldt, Arild. 1958. Teotl and *ixiptlatli: Central Conceptions in Ancient
Mexican Religion. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.
Hymes, Dell. 1981. “In Vain I Tried to Tel l You”: Essays in Native American
Ethnopoetics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Bibliography 347
Jakobson, Roman. 1987. Language in Literature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Jarquín Ortega, María Teresa. 1990. Formación y desarrollo de un pueblo no-
vohispano: Metepec en el Vall e de Toluca. Metepec: Colegio Mexiquense,
H. Ayuntamiento de Metepec.
Jauss, Hans Robert. 1982. Towa rd an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Jiménez H., Víctor, and Rogelio González M. 1992 . El Ex-Obispado de
Oaxaca: Un caso singular en la arquitectura colonial mexicana. Mexico:
CODEX Editores
Jiménez Moreno, Wigberto, and Salvador Mateos. 1940 . Códice Yanhuitlán.
Mexico: Museo Nacional, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Jonghe, Edouard de. 1905. Histoyre du Mechique: Manuscrit français inédit du
XVIe siècle. Paris: Société des Americanistes.
Joyce, Arthur. 2004. “Sacred Space and Social Relations in the Valley of Oa-
xaca.” In Mesoamerican Archaeology, ed. Julia Hendon and Rosemary Joyce,
192 –216. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Justeson, John, and David Tavárez. 2007. “The Correlation of the Colonial
Northern Zapotec Calendar with European Chronology.” In Cultural As-
tronomy in New World Cosmologies: Essays in Honor of Anthony Aveni, ed.
Clive Ruggles and Gary Urton, 19–96. Niwot: University of Colorado Press.
Kamen, Henry. 1998. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1957. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Mediaeval
Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Karttunen, Frances. 1983. An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl. Austin: Uni-
versity of Texas Press.
Karttunen, Frances, and James Lockhart. 1976. Nahuatl in the Middle Ye ars :
Language Contact Phenomena in Tex ts of the Colonial Period. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
———. 198 0. “La estructura de la poesía náhuatl vista por sus variantes.”
Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 14: 15 –65.
———. 1987. The Art of Nahuatl Speech: The Bancroft Dialogues. Los Angeles:
UCLA Latin American Center Publications, University of California.
Katz, Friedrich. 1990 . “Las rebeliones rurales en el México precortesiano y colo-
nial.” In Revuelta, rebelión y revolución, ed. Friedrich Katz, 65–93. Mexico:
Ediciones Era.
Kaufman, Terrence. 2000. The Day Names of the Meso-American Calendar.
Unpublished manuscript, 105 pp.
———. 2004. Proto-Zapotec Reconstructions. Unpublished manuscript, 77 pp.
Kellogg, Susan. 1995. Law and the Transformati on of Aztec Culture, 15 00 –
1700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Kelly, John, and Martha Kaplan. 1990 . “History, Structure and Ritual.” Annual
Review of Anthropology 119: 119–50.
Kieckhefer, Richard. 1976 . European Witch Tri als: Their Foundations in
Bibliography
348
Popular and Learned Culture, 130 0 –1500. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Odena Güemes, and Luis Reyes García. 1989. Historia
tolteca-chichimeca. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antrop-
ología Social, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Klor de Alva, J. Jorge. 1981. “Martín Ocelotl: Clandestine Cult Leader.” In
Struggle and Survival in Colonial America, ed. D. Sweet and G. Nash, 128 –
41. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1982. “Spiritual Conflict and Accommodation in New Spain: Towards a
Typology of Aztec Responses to Christianity.” In The Inca and Aztec States,
ed. George Collier et al., 345–66. New York: Academic Press.
———. 19 91. “Colonizing Souls: The Failure of the Indian Inquisition and the
Rise of Penitential Discipline.” In Cultural Encounters, ed. M. Perry and
A. Cruz, 3–22. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1999. “’Telling Lives’: Confessional Autobiography and the Reconstruc-
tion of the Nahua Self.” In Spiritual Encounters, ed. Nicolas Griffiths and
Fernando Cervantes, 136 –62. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Klor de Alva, J. Jorge, H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiñones Keber, eds. 198 8.
The Work of Bernardino de Sahagún: Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-
Century Aztec Mexico. Albany and Austin: Institute for Mesoamerican Stud-
ies, SUNY-Albany, and University of Texas Press.
Knaut, Andrew L. 1997. The Pueblo Revolt of 1680: Conquest and Resistance
in Seventeenth-Century New Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Kobayashi, José María. 19 74. La educación como conquista: Empresa francis-
cana en México. Mexico: Colegio de México.
Kripke, Saul. 1980. Naming and Necessity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press.
Kubler, George. 1948 . Mexican Architecture of the Sixteenth Century. 2 vols.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Lafaye, Jacques. 1976 . Quetzalcoatl and Guadalupe: The Formation of Mexi-
can National Consciousness, 1531–1813. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Lamadrid, Lázaro. 1951. “The Letters of Margil in the Archivo de la Recolec-
ción in Guatemala.” The Americas 7 (3): 325–55.
Lara Cisneros, Gerardo. 2002. El cristianismo en el espejo indigena: Religiosi-
dad en el occidente de la Sierra Gorda, siglo XVIII. Mexico: Instituto Nacio-
nal de Antropología e Historia.
Lastra, Yolanda. 1986. Las áreas dialectales del náhuatl moderno. Mexico:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Lavrín, Asunción. 1988. “Diversity and Disparity: Rural and Urban Confrater-
nities in Eighteenth-Century Mexico.” In Manipulating the Saints: Religious
Brotherhoods and Social Integration in Post- Conquest Latin America, ed.
A. Meyers and D. E. Hopkins, 67–10 0. Hamburg, Germany: WAYASBAH.
Le Roy Ladurie, Emmanuel. 1975. Montaillou, village occitan de 1294 à 1324.
Paris: Editions Gallimard.
Bibliography 349
Lea, Henry Charles. 19 06. A History of the Inquisition of Spain. 4 vols. New
York and London: The Macmillan Company.
———. 1922. A History of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages. New York:
Macmillan.
León, Fray Martín de. 1611. Camino del Cielo en Lengua Mexicana. Mexico:
Diego López Dávalos.
León-Portilla, Ascención H. de. 1988. Te puzt l a hc u ilolli. Impresos en náhuatl. 2
vols. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
León-Portilla, Miguel. 1983. “Cuicatl y Tlahtolli: Las formas de expresión en
náhuatl.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 16: 13 –108.
———. 2002. Bernardino de Sahagun, First Anthropologist. Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press.
León-Portilla, Miguel, and Librado Silva Galeana. 1990 . Te s timo n ios de la
antigua palabra. Madrid: Historia 16.
Leonard, Irving. [1949] 1992. Books of the Brave: Being an Account of Books
and of Men in the Spanish Conquest and Settlement of the Sixteenth-Century
New World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Levanto, fray Leonardo. 1776. Catecismo en lengua zapoteca. Puebla, Mexico:
Viuda de Miguel de Ortega.
Lewis, Laura A. 2003. Hall of Mirrors: Powe r, Witchcraft, and Caste in Colo-
nial Mexico. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Li, Andrés de. [1495] 1999. Reportorio de los tiempos. Ed. Laura Delbrugge.
London: Tamesis.
———. 1510 . Reportorio de los tiempos. Seville, Spain: Jacob Cromberger.
Lipp, Frank. 1998 . The Mixe of Oaxaca: Religion, Ritual, and Healing. Austin:
University of Texas Press.
Lockhart, James. 1992 . The Nahuas After the Conquest. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
———. 2001. Nahuatl as Written: Lessons in Older Writ ten Nahuatl, with
Copious Examples and Tex t s (Nahuatl Series, No. 6). Stanford: Stanford Uni-
versity Press.
Long, Rebecca. 19 99 . Diccionario zapoteco de San Bartolomé Zoogocho, Oa-
xaca. Mexico: Instituto Lingüístico de Verano.
López, Gregorio. 1576 . Las siete partidas del sabio rey Don Alonso el Nono.
Salamanca, Spain: Domingo de Portonarijs Ursino.
López Austin, Alfredo. 196 6. “Los temacpalitotique: Brujos, profanadores,
ladrones y violadores.” Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 6: 97–117.
———. 1967a. “Cuarenta clases de magos del mundo náhuatl.” Estudios de
Cultura Náhuatl 7: 87–117.
———. 1967b. “Términos del nahuallatolli.” Historia Mexicana 17: 1–36.
———. 1970 . “Conjuros médicos de los nahuas.” Revista de la Universidad de
México 24 (11): 1–16.
———. 1973a. Hombre-dios: Religión y política en el mundo náhuatl. Mexico:
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 1973b. “Un repertorio de los tiempos en idioma náhuatl.” Anales de
Antropología 10 : 285–96.
Bibliography
350
———. 1975. Te xtos de medicina náhuatl. Mexico: Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México.
López Austin, Alfredo, and Leonardo López Luján. 2009. Monte Sagrado-
Temp lo Mayor: El cerro y la pirámide en la tradición religiosa mesoameri-
cana. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
López de Hinojosos, Alonso. [15 95 ] 197 7. Suma y recopilación de cirugía con
un arte para sangrar muy útil y provechosa. Mexico: Academia Nacional de
Medicina.
Lorenzana, Francisco Antonio. 1769a. Concilios Provinciales Primero y
Segundo, celebrados en la . . . ciudad de México . . . en los años de 1555 y
1565. Mexico: Imprenta del Superior Gobierno.
———. 1769b. III Concilium Mexicanus . . . Mexico: Imprenta del Superior
Gobierno.
Losa, Francisco. 1642. Vida que el siervo de Dios Gregorio Lopez hizo en algu-
nos lugares de la Nueva España. Madrid: Imprenta Real.
Lupo, Alessandro. 1995. La tierra nos escucha. Mexico: Consejo Nacional para
la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
MacCormack, Sabine. 1991. Religion in the Andes: Vision and Imagination in
Early Colonial Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Maldonado, Ángel. ca. 1720. Respuesta que da D. Fr. Angel Maldonado . . . a
un informe, y manifiesto, que ha hecho Fr. Antonio de Torres . . . Madrid.
Mandrou, Robert. 19 80. Magistrats et sorciers en France au XVIIe siècle: Une
analyse de psychologie historique. Paris: Seuil.
Marcus, Joyce, and Kent Flannery. 1994. “Ancient Zapotec Ritual and Religion:
An Application of the Direct Historical Approach.” In The Ancient Mind:
Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, ed. Colin Renfrew and Ezra Zubrow,
55–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1996. Zapotec Civilization. London: Thames and Hudson.
Martín, Juan. 169 6. Bvcabulario de la Lengua Castellena [sic] y Zapoteca
Nexitza. Manuscript, Newberry Library.
Martínez, Alonso. [1633] 1872. Manual breve y compendioso para empesar a
aprender lengua çapoteca, JCB-CodInd 70.
Martínez, Enrico. [160 6] 1948. Reportorio de los tiempos e historia natural de
Nueva España. Mexico: Secretaría de Educación Pública.
Martínez, María Elena. 2008. Genealogical Fictions: Limpieza de Sangre,
Religion, and Gender in Colonial Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Martínez González, Roberto. 2006. “Sobre la función social del buen nahualli.”
Revista Española de Antropología Americana 36 (2): 39–63.
Martínez Sola, María del Carmen. 1998. El obispo fray Bernardo de Albuquer-
que. El marquesado del valle de Oaxaca en el siglo XVI. Oaxaca, Mexico:
Instituto Oaxaqueño de las Culturas.
Mathes, Miguel. 1982. Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco: la primera biblioteca aca-
démica de las Américas. Mexico: Archivo Histórico Diplomático Mexicano
12, cuarta época, Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores.
McIntyre, Kellen K. 1997. The Vene rable Martyrs of Caxonos: An 1890 Painted
Bibliography 351
History of Zapotec Rebellion in 1700. Doctoral dissertation, Art History
Department, University of New Mexico.
Medina, José Toribio. 1905. Historia del tribunal del Santo oficio de la inquis-
ición en México. Santiago, Chile: Imprenta Elzeviriana.
Meer, Ron van. 2000. “Análisis e interpretación de un libro calendárico zapo-
teco: El Manuscrito de San Antonio Huitepec.” Cuadernos del Sur 15 (6):
37–74 .
Mendieta, Gerónimo de. 1997. Historia eclesiástica indiana. 2 vols. Mexico:
Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes.
Menegus-Bornemann, Margarita. 19 91. Del señorío a la república de indios.
El caso de Toluca: 15 00 –1600. Madrid: Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y
Alimentación.
Mengin, Ernest. 1952. “Commentaire du Codex Mexicanus, nos. 23–24, BNP.”
Journal de la Société des Americanistes 41: 387–498.
Mignolo, Walter. 1996. The Darker Side of the Renaissance. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Miller, Arthur. 1991. “Transformations of Time and Space: Oaxaca, Mexico,
circa 150 0 –170 0.” In Images of Memory: On Remembering and Represen-
tation, ed. Susanne Küchler and Walter Melion, 141–75. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
———. 1998. “Espacio, tiempo y poder entre los zapotecas de la sierra.” Acer-
vos: Boletín de los Archivos y Bibliotecas de Oaxaca 10 (3): 17–20.
Millones, Luis. 1979 . “Religion and Power in the Andes: Idolatrous Curacas of
the Central Sierra.” Ethnohistory 26 (3): 143–263.
Mills, Kenneth. 199 7. Idolatry and its Enemies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.
Molina, Fray Alonso de. [154 6 ] 1675. Doctrina christiana y cathecismo en
lengua mexicana. Mexico: Viuda de Bernardo Calderón.
———. [1569 ] 1984. Confesionario mayor en la lengua mexicana y castellana.
Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. [157 1] 1992 . Voc abu lar io en lengua Castellana y Mexicana y Mexicana
y Castellana. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Monaghan, John. 1999. The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sac-
rifice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Monardes, Nicolás. 15 74 . Primera y segunda parte de la historia de las cosas
que se traen de nuestras Indias Occidentales que sirven en medicina. Seville,
Spain: Alonso Escrivano.
Moreno de los Arcos, Roberto. 1991. “New Spain’s Inquisition for Indians
from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century.” In Cultural Encounters, ed.
M. Perry and A. Cruz, 23 –36. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Mörner, Magnus. 1970 . La corona española y los foráneos en los pueblos de in-
dios de América. Instituto de Estudios Ibero-Americanos, Serie A, Monografía
1. Stockholm, Sweden, and Castellón, Spain: Almqvist and Wiksell, Armengot.
Motolinia [Fray Toribio Benavente]. [1858] 199 0. Historia de los indios de la
Nueva España. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Bibliography
352
Munro, Pamela, and Felipe H. López. 199 9. Di’cyonary X:tèe’n Dìi’zh Sah Sann
Lu’uc. San Lucas Quiavini Zapotec Dictionary. 2 vols. Los Angeles: UCLA
Chicano Studies Research Center Publications.
Muñoz Camargo, Diego. 1981. Descripción de la ciudad y provincia de
Tlaxcala de las Indias y del Mar Océano para el buen gobierno y ennobleci-
miento dellas. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 1998. Historia de Tlaxcala: Ms. 210 de la Biblioteca Nacional de París.
Tlaxcala, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, Centro de Investigaciones y
Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Universidad Autónoma de Tlaxcala.
Murray, Margaret. 1962. The Witch-Cult in Wester n Europe. Oxford: Claren-
don Press.
Nájera Coronado, Martha. 2007. Los Cantares de Dzitbalché en la tradición re-
ligiosa mesoamericana. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Nesvig, Martin. 2009. Ideology and Inquisition: The World of the Censors in
Early Mexico. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Nicholson, Henry B. 197 1. “Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico.” Hand-
book of Middle American Indians 10: 395–446.
Normann, Anne Whited. 1985. Teste r i a n codices. Doctoral dissertation, An-
thropology Department, Tulane University.
Nutini, Hugo G. 19 88 . Todos Santos in Rural Tlaxcala. Princeton, NJ: Princ-
eton University Press.
Nutini, Hugo G., and Betty Bell. 1980. Ritual Kinship, Volum e One: The Struc-
ture and Historical Development of the Compadrazgo System in Rural Tlax-
cala. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Nutini, Hugo G., and John Roberts. 1993. Bloodsucking Witchcraft. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
Offner, Jerome A. 1983. Law and Politic s in Aztec Texc o co. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
O’Hara, Matthew D. 2010. A Flock Divided: Race, Religion, and Politics in
Mexico, 1749 -1857. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Olmos, Fray Andrés de. [1553] 199 0. Tratado de hechicerías y sortilegios. Ed.
Georges Baudot. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Oudijk, Michel. 2000. Historiography of the Bènizàa: The Postclassic and Early
Colonial Periods (1000–1600 A.D.). Leiden, Germany: CNWS Publications,
vol. 84.
———. 2003. “Espacio y escritura: El Lienzo de Tabáa I.” In Escritura zapo-
teca: 2,50 0 años de historia, ed. María de los Ángeles Romero Frizzi, 341–91.
Mexico: CIESAS, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Porrúa,
CONACULTA.
———. 2006. “Los documentos zapotecos coloniales.” Paper presented at the
Francisco Belmar Conference on Otomanguean Languages. Oaxaca City,
Mexico, April 21, 2006.
———. 2008. “The Postclassic Period in the Valley of Oaxaca: The Archaeo-
logical and Ethnohistorical Records.” In After Monte Alban: Transf ormati on
and Negotiation in Oaxaca, Mexico, ed. Jeffrey P. Blomster, 95–118. Boulder:
University Press of Colorado.
Bibliography 353
Oudijk, Michel, and Maarten Jansen. 1999. “Changing History in the Lienzos
de Guevea and Santo Domingo Petapa.” Ethnohistory 47 (2): 281–331.
Pacheco de Silva, Francisco. [1687] 1752. Doctrina Christiana en lengua Zapo-
teca Nexitza. Mexico: Imprenta de Francisco Xavier Sánchez.
Padden, Robert C. 1970. The Hummingbird and the Hawk: Conquest and Sov-
ereignty in the Va lle y of Mexico, 1503–154 1. New York: Harper & Row.
Pardo, Osvaldo. 2004. The Origins of Mexican Catholicism: Nahua Rituals
and Christian Sacraments in Sixteenth-Century Mexico. Ann Arbor: Univer-
sity of Michigan Press.
Patch, Robert W. 1998. “Culture, Community and ‘Rebellion’ in the Yucatec
Maya Uprising of 1761.” I n Native Resistance and the Pax Colonial in New
Spain, ed. Susan Schroeder, 67–83. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Peña Montenegro, Alonso de la. [1668] 1995. Itinerario para párrocos de indios,
vol. 1. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas.
Peñafiel, Antonio, ed. 1981. Gramática zapoteca de autor anónimo. Oaxaca,
Mexico: Ediciones Toledo.
Phelan, John Leddy. 1970. The Milennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the
New World. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ponce de León, Pedro. 1892. Breve relación de los dioses y ritos de la gentilidad.
Anales del Museo Nacional de México (Primera época) 6: 3–11.
Poole, Stafford. 1987. Pedro Moya de Contreras: Catholic Reform and Royal
Powe r in New Spain, 1571–1591. Berkeley: University of California Press.
———. 1995. Our Lady of Guadalupe: The Origins and Sources of a Mexican
National Symbol, 1531–1797. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
Prem, Hanns J. 2008. Manual de la antigua cronología mexicana. Mexico:
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social, Miguel Porrúa.
Quezada, Noemí. 1989. Enfermedad y maleficio: El curandero en el México
colonial. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 1991. “The Inquisition’s Repression of Curanderos.” In Cultural En-
counters, ed. M. Perry and A. Cruz, 37–57. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Quiñones Keber, Eloise. 1995. Codex Tel lerian o - R e m e n sis: Ritual, Divination,
and History in a Pictorial Aztec Manuscript. Austin: University of Texas
Press.
Raby, Dominique. 2006. “Mujer Blanca y Dolor Verde. Uso de los colores, del
género y de los lazos de parentesco en el Tratado de Ruiz de Alarcón.” Estu-
dios de Cultura Náhuatl 37: 294–315.
Rafael, Vicente. 1988. Contracting Colonialism: Tran slat ion and Conversion
in Tagalog Society Under Early Spanish Rule. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
Press.
Rappaport, Joanne. 19 98. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpre-
tation in the Colombian Andes. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Reko, Blas. 1945. Mitobotánica zapoteca. Tacubaya, Mexico: n.p.
Rendón, Juan José. 1995. Diversificación de las lenguas zapotecas. Mexico:
Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social, IOC.
Restall, Matthew, and Susan Kellogg, eds. 19 98 . Dead Giveaways: Indigenous
Bibliography
354
Tes t a ments of Colonial Mesoamerica and the Andes. Salt Lake City: Univer-
sity of Utah Press.
Restall, Matthew, Lisa Sousa, and Kevin Terraciano. 2005. Mesoamerican
Voices . Native Language Writings from Colonial Mexico, Yuc atan, and Gua-
temala. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reyes, Gaspar de los. [1704] 1891. Arte de la Lengua Zapoteca Serrana.
Oaxa ca, Mexico: Imprenta del Estado.
Reyes García, Luis. 2002. Cómo te confundes? Acaso no somos conquistados?:
Anales de Juan Bautista. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Supe-
riores en Antropología Social, Biblioteca Lorenzo Boturini, Insigne y Nacio-
nal Basílica de Guadalupe.
Ricard, Robert. 19 66 . The Spiritual Conquest of Mexico. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Ríos Morales, Manuel. 1994 . Los zapotecos de la sierra norte de Oaxaca:
Antología etnográfica. Oaxaca, Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios
en Antropología Social-Oaxaca.
Rojas Rabiela, Teresa, E. Rea López, and C. Medina Lima. 1999. Vida y bienes
olvidados: Tes t a mento s indígenas novohispanos. 3 vols. Mexico: Centro de
Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social-CONACYT.
Romero, Javier. 1956. El Dios Tolo t zin. Mexico: Fondo Mexicano del Libro.
Romero Frizzi, María de los Ángeles. 1996. El sol y la cruz: Los pueblos indios
de Oaxaca colonial. Mexico: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antro-
pología Social, Instituto Nacional Indigenista.
———. 2003. “Los zapotecos, la escritura, y la historia.” In Escritura zapo-
teca: 2500 años de historia, ed. M. Romero Frizzi, 13–69. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en
Antropología Social.
Romero Frizzi, María de los Ángeles, and Juana Vázquez. 2003. “Memoria y
escritura: La memoria de Xuquila.” In Escritura zapoteca: 2500 años de his-
toria, ed. M. Romero Frizzi, 393–448. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antrop-
ología e Historia, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social.
Rosaldo, Renato. 1986. “From the Door of His Tent: The Fieldworker and the
Inquisitor.” In Writing Culture, ed. James Clifford and George Marcus, 77–
97. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ruiz de Alarcón, Hernando. 1892. Tratado de las supersticiones y costumbres
gentílicas que oy viuen entre los indios naturales desta Nueva España. Anales
del Museo Nacional de México (Primera época) 6: 125–223.
———. 1984 . Tre atise on the Heathen Institutions that Today Live Among the
Indians Native to this New Spain (1629 ). Trans. and ed. J. Richard Andrews
and Ross Hassig. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sáenz de Santa María, Carmelo. 19 69. “Un formulario mágico mexicano: El
‘Manual de ministros de indios’ del doctor Jacinto de la Serna.” Revista de
Indias 29 (115–18): 531–79.
———. 1981. “Una revisión etnorreligiosa de la Guatemala de 1704, según fray
Antonio Márgil de Jesús.” Revista de Indias 41: 445–97.
Sahagún, Bernardino de. 195 0 –1982. The Florentine Codex: General History
Bibliography 355
of the Things of New Spain. Books 1–12, 13 vols. Trans. and ed. Arthur J. O.
Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
———. 1986. Coloquios y doctrina cristiana. Trans. and ed. Miguel León-
Portilla. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
———. 199 0. Breve compendio de los ritos idolátricos que los indios de esta
Nueva España usaban en tiempo de su infidelidad. Mexico: Lince Editores.
———. [158 3] 1993. Bernardino de Sahagún’s Psalmodia Christiana. Trans. and
ed. Arthur J. O. Anderson. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
Sahlins, Marshall. 1985. Islands of History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Salomon, Frank. 1987. “Ancestor Cults and Resistance to the State in Arequipa,
ca. 1748–1754.” In Resistance, Rebellion and Consciousness in the Andean
Peasant World, ed. Steven J. Stern, 148–65. Madison: University of Wisconsin
Press.
Sánchez de Aguilar, Pedro. 1892. “Informe contra idolorum cultores.” Anales
del Museo Nacional de México (1a Época) 6.
Sánchez Bella, Ismael, ed. 199 2. Recopilación de las Indias por Antonio de
León Pinelo. 3 vols. Mexico: Miguel Porrúa.
Sanders, William T. 19 76. “The Population of the Central Mexican Symbiotic
Region, the Basin of Mexico, and the Teotihuacán Valley in the Sixteenth
Century.” In The Native Popul ation of the Americas in 1492, ed. W. Dene-
van, 85–150 . Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
———. 1979 . The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a
Civilization. New York: Academic Press.
Sandstrom, Alan. 1992 . Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a
Contemporary Aztec Indian Village. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Sariñana, Isidro. 1666. Llanto del occidente en el ocaso del más claro sol de las
Españas . . . Mexico: Bernardo Calderón.
———. [1668] 196 8. “La catedral de México en 1668: Noticia breve de la
solemne, deseada, última dedicación del Templo Metropolitano de México.”
Ed. Francisco de la Maza. Anales del Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas
37, Supplement 2.
———. 1681. Oración fúnebre . . . en las exequias de veinte y un religiosos
de la regular observancia de seráphico P.S . Francisco . . . Mexico: Viuda de
Bernardo Calderón.
Sarmiento Donate, Alberto. 1988. De las Leyes de Indias. Antología de la
R ecopilación de 1681. Mexico: SEP.
Scholes, France, and Eleanore Adams. 1938 . Don Diego Quijada, Alcalde
Mayor de Yuc atán, 1561–1565. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
———. 1952. Proceso contra Tzintic ha Tanga xo an, el Caltzontzin, formado
por Nuño de Guzmán, año de 153 0. Mexico: Editorial Porrúa.
Scholes, France, and Ralph Roys. 1938. Fray Diego de Landa and the Problem
of Idolatry in Yucat án. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.
Schroeder, Susan. 1991. Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco. Tucson:
University of Arizona Press.
———. 2000. “Jesuits, Nahuas, and the Good Death Society in Mexico City,
1710–1767.” Hispanic American Historical Review 80 (I): 43–76.
Bibliography
356
Schroeder, Susan, Anne Cruz, Cristián Roa-de-la-Carrera, and David Tavárez.
2010. Chimalpahin’s Conquest: A Nahua Historian’s Rewriting of Francisco
López de Gómara’s La conquista de Mexico. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Schwaller, John F. 1987. The Church and Clergy in Sixteenth-Century Mexico.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
———. 199 9. “Don Bartolomé de Alva, Nahuatl Scholar of the Seventeenth
Century.” In A Guide to Confession Large and Small in the Mexican Lan-
guage, 1634, trans. and ed. Barry Sell, John F. Schwaller, and Lu Ann Hozma,
3–15. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Schwartz, Stuart B. 2008. All Can Be Saved: Religious Tolera nce and Salvation
in the Iberian Atlantic World. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Scott, James C. 1985. Weapons of the Weak: Everyday Forms of Peasant Resis-
tance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Sell, Barry. 1999. “The Classical Age of Nahuatl Publications and Don Bar-
tolomé de Alva’s Confessionario of 1634 .” I n A Guide to Confession Large
and Small in the Mexican Language, 1634, trans. and ed. Barry Sell, John
F. Schwaller, and Lu Ann Hozma, 18 –32. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press.
Sellen, Adam. 2002. Las vasijas efigie zapotecas: Los ancestros personificado-
res de divinidades. Doctoral dissertation in Mesoamerican Studies, Universi-
dad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Sepúlveda y Herrera, María Teresa. 1999. Proceso por idolatría al cacique,
gobernadores y sacerdotes de Yanhuitlán, 1544 –1546 . Mexico: Instituto Na-
cional de Antropología e Historia.
Serna, Jacinto de la. 1892. Manual de Ministros de Indios para el conocimiento
de sus idolatrías y extirpación de ellas. Anales del Museo Nacional de México
(Primera época) 6: 261–475.
Silverblatt, Irene. 1987. Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class
in Inca and Colonial Peru. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
———. 2004. Modern Inquisitions: Peru and the Colonial Origins of the Civi-
lized Worl d. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Siméon, Rémi. 1984. Diccionario de la lengua náhuatl o mexicana. Josefina
Oliva de Coll, trad. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editores.
Smith, Philip. 1992. “A Quantitative Evaluation of Demographic, Gender and
Social Transformation Theories of the Rise of European Witch Hunting,
130 0 –150 0 .” Historical Social Research 17 (4) 64: 99–127.
Smith-Stark, Thomas. 1999. “Dioses, sacerdotes, y sacrificio—una mirada a
la religion zapoteca a través del Vocabulario en lengua Çapoteca (157 8) de
Juan de Cordova.” In La religión de los Binnigula’sa’, ed. Víctor de la Cruz
and Marcus Winter, 89–195. Oaxaca, Mexico: Instituto Estatal de Educación
Pública de Oaxaca, Instituto Oaxaqueño de las Culturas.
———. 2003. “La ortografía del zapoteco en el Vocabulario de fray Juan de
Córdova.” In Escritura zapoteca: 2,500 años de historia, ed. María de los
Ángeles Romero Frizzi, 393–448. Mexico: CIESAS, Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Porrúa, CONACULTA.
Bibliography 357
———. 2008. “La flexión de tiempo, aspecto y modo en el verbo del zapoteco
colonial del valle de Oaxaca.” In Memorias del Coloquio Francisco Belmar,
ed. Áurea López Cruz and Michael Swanton, 377–419. Oaxaca, Mexico: Bib-
lioteca Francisco de Burgoa.
Smith-Stark, Thomas C., Sergio Bogard, and Ausencia López Cruz. 1993. Elec-
tronic Archive of the Vocab vla rio en lengva çapoteca by Juan de Córdova.
Word Perfect 8, 7.7 MB.
Sousa, Lisa. 2002. “The Devil and Deviance in Native Criminal Narratives from
Early Mexico.” The Americas 59 (2): 161–79.
Spicer, Edward H. 1967. Cycles of Conquest: The Impact of Spain, Mexico, and
the United States on Indians of the Southwest, 1533–1960. Tucson: University
of Arizona Press.
Spores, Ronald. 1998. “Differential Responses to Colonial Control among the
Mixtecs and Zapotecs of Oaxaca.” In Native Resistance and the Pax Colo-
nial in New Spain, ed. Susan Schroeder, 30 –46. Lincoln: University of Ne-
braska Press.
Stern, Steve J. 1987. “New Approaches to the Study of Peasant Rebellion and
Consciousness: Implications of the Andean Experience.” In Resistance, Rebel-
lion and Consciousness in the Andean Peasant World, ed. Steven Stern, 3–25.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Stresser-Péan, Guy. 2009. The Sun God and the Savior: The Christianization
of the Nahua and Toto n a c in the Sierra Norte de Puebla, Mexico. Boulder:
University of Colorado Press.
Sugiyama, Saburo. 2004. “Governance and Polity at Classic Teotihuacan.” In
Mesoamerican Archaeology, ed. Julia Hendon and Rosemary Joyce, 97–123.
New York: Wiley-Blackwell.
Tambiah, Stanley J. 1981. A Performative Approach to Ritual. London: British
Academy.
———. 199 0. Magic, Science, Religion, and the Scope of Rationality. Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Taube, Karl. 2004. “Aztec Religion: Creation, Sacrifice, and Renewal.” In The
Aztec Empire, ed. Felipe Solís, 169 –77. New York: The Solomon Guggenheim
Museum.
Tavárez, David. 19 99. “La idolatría letrada: Un análisis comparativo de textos
clandestinos rituales y devocionales en comunidades nahuas y zapotecas,
1613–1654.” Historia Mexicana 49 (2): 19 7–252.
———. 2000. “Naming the Trinity: From Ideologies of Translation to Dialectics
of Reception in Colonial Nahua Texts, 15 47 –1771.” Colonial Latin American
Review 9 (1): 21–47.
———. 2002. “Idolatry as an Ontological Question: Native Consciousness and
Juridical Proof in Colonial Mexico.” Journal of Early Modern History 6 (2):
114–39.
———. 2006a. “The Passion According to the Wooden Drum: The Christian
Appropriation of a Zapotec Ritual Genre in New Spain.” The Americas 62
(3): 413–44.
———. 2006b. “Autonomy, Honor, and the Ancestors: Confrontations over
Bibliography
358
Local Devotions in Colonial Oaxaca.” In Local Religion in Colonial Mexico,
ed. Martin Nesvig, 119–44. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
———. 2009a. “Legally Indian: Inquisitorial Readings of Indigenous Identities
in New Spain.” In Imperial Subjects: Race and Identity in Colonial Latin
America, ed. Andrew B. Fisher and Matthew O’Hara, 81–10 0. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
———. 2009b. “Los cantos zapotecos de Villa Alta: Dos géneros rituales indíge-
nas y sus correspondencias con los Cantares Mexicanos.” Estudios de Cultura
Náhuatl 39: 87–126.
Tavár ez, Dav id, a nd J ohn Just eson. 2008. “Eclipse Records in a Corpus of Colo-
nial Zapotec 260-day Calendars.” Ancient Mesoamerica 19: 1 (2008): 67–81.
Taylor, William B. 1979. Drinking, Homicide and Rebellion in Colonial Mexi-
can Villages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
———. 19 94 . “Santiago’s Horse: Christianity and Colonial Indian Resistance
in the Heartland of New Spain.” In Violence, Resistance, and Survival in the
Americas: Native Americans and the Legacy of Conquest, ed. William B.
Taylor and Frankli n Pease, 153 –89. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institu-
tion Press.
———. 1996. Magistrates of the Sacred. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Tedlock, Dennis. 1987. “Hearing a Voice in an Ancient Text: Quiché Maya Po-
etics in Performance.” In Native American Discourse: Poetics and Rhetoric,
ed. Joel Sherzer and Anthony Woodbury, 140 –75. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ten a, Rafael. 1987. El calendario mexica y la cronografía. Mexico: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Terraciano, Kevin. 1998. “Crime and Culture in Colonial Mexico: The Case of
the Mixtec Murder Note.” Ethnohistory 45 (4): 709–45.
———. 2001. The Mixtecs of Colonial Oaxaca. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Thévet, André. 1575 . La cosmographie vniuerselle d’André Theuet. Paris: Pierre
L’Hui l lier.
Tilly, Charles. 2008. Credit and Blame. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Tom li ns on, Ga ry. 2007. The Singing of the New World: Indigenous Voice in the
Era of European Contact. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tor que mada, Fray Juan de . [1615] 1969. Monarquía indiana. 3 vols. Mexico:
Editorial Porrúa.
Tor re Villar, Ernesto de la. 1973 . Fray Pedro de Gante. Mexico: Seminario de
Cultura Mexicana, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
Traffano, Daniela. 2001. Indios, curas y nación: La sociedad indígena frente a
un proceso de secularización: Oaxaca, siglo XIX. Turin, Italy: OTTO.
Traslosheros, Jorge. 2002. “El tribunal eclesiástico y los indios en el Arzo-
bispado de México, hasta 1630.” Historia Mexicana 51 (3): 485–516.
Truman, R. W. 2003. “Censorship in Spain: 1558 –1631.” Paper delivered at the
History of Censorship Conference, Princeton University, September 26–27,
2003.
Bibliography 359
Turner, Victor Witter. 1977. The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Tw in am , An n. 1999. Public Lives, Private Secrets: Gender, Honor, Sexuality, and
Illegitimacy in Colonial Spanish America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Urcid, Javier. 2001. Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Studies in Pre-Columbian
Art & Archaeology, Number 34. Washington, DC: Dumbarton Oaks Re-
search Library and Collection.
Valadés, Diego. 1579. Rhetorica Christiana. Perugia, Italy: Petrumiacobum
Petrutium.
Van Meer, Ron. 2000. “Análisis e interpretación de un libro calendárico za-
poteco: El Manuscrito de San Antonio Huitepec”. Cuadernos del Sur 15 (6):
37-74.
Vetancour t , Agustí n de. [1698] 1982. Te a tro mexicano. Mexico: Editorial
Porrúa.
Villa-Flores, Javier. 2006. Dangerous Speech: A Social History of Blasphemy in
Colonial Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
———. 2008. “Wandering Swindlers: Imposture, Style, and the Inquisition’s
Pedagogy of Fear in Colonial Mexico.” Colonial Latin American Review 17
(2): 251–72.
Villavicencio, Luis Diego Jaimes Ricardo. 1692. Luz y método para extirpar
idolatrías. Puebla, Mexico: Diego Fernández de León.
Viqueira, Juan Pedro. 1997a. “Una fuente olvidada: El Juzgado Ordinario
Diocesano.” In Las fuentes eclesiásticas para la historia social de México, ed.
Brian Connaughton and Andrés Lira, 81–99. Mexico: UAM-Iztapalapa and
Instituto Mora.
———. 19 97b. Indios rebeldes e idólatras: Dos ensayos históricos sobre la re-
belión india de Cancuc, Chiapas, acaecida en el año de 1712. Mexico: Centro
de Investigaciones y Estudios en Antropología Social.
Wachtel, Natha n. 1992. La vision des vaincus: Les indiens du Pérou devant la
conquête espagnole. Paris: Gallimard.
Warner, Rick. 2002. “’Ambivalent Conversions’ in Nayarit: Shifting Views of
Idolatry.” Journal of Early Modern History 6 (2): 168–84.
Warren, J. Benedict. 1973. “An Introductory Survey of Secular Writings in the
European Tradition on Colonial Middle America, 1503 –1818.” In Handbook
of Middle American Indians 13: 42–137. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Watt, Tessa. 1991. Cheap Print and Popular Piety, 155 0 –1640. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Weber, Max. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminster Press.
Weit laner, Roberto, and Gabriel De Cicco. 19 61. “La jerarquía de los dioses
zapotecos del sur.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Fourth International Congress
of Americanists, 695–710, Vienna.
Weit laner, Roberto, et al. 1958. “Calendario de los zapotecos del sur.” Proceed-
ings of the Thirty-Second International Congress of Americanists, 296–99.
Munksgaard.
Whitecotton, Joseph. 197 7. The Zapotecs: Princes, Priests and Peasants. Nor-
man: University of Oklahoma Press.
Bibliography
360
———. 1990. Zapotec Elite Ethnohistory. Pictorial Genealogies from Eastern
Oaxaca. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology,
no. 39.
Whitmore, Thomas. 1992. Disease and Death in Early Colonial Mexico: Simu-
lating Amerindian Depopulation. Dellplain Latin American Studies, no. 28.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Winston-Allen, Anne. 1997. Stories of the Rose: The Making of the Rosary in
the Middle Ages. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Wood, Stephanie. 2003. Trasc e n ding Conquest: Nahua Views of Spanish Colo-
nial Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Wright-Rios, Edward. 2009. Revolutions in Mexican Catholicism: Reform and
Revelation in Oaxaca, 1887–1934. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Yanna kakis , Yan na. 2008. The Art of Being In-Between: Native Intermediar-
ies, Indian Identity, and Local Rule in Colonial Oaxaca. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Zaballa, Ana de. 2005. “Jurisdicción de los tribunales eclesiásticos novohis-
panos sobre la heterodoxia indígena. Una aproximación a su estudio.” In
Nuevas perspectivas sobre el castigo de la heterodoxia en la Nueva España.
Siglos XVI–XVIII, ed. Ana de Zaballa, 57–78. Bilbao, Spain: Servicio Edito-
rial Universidad País Vasco.
Zanhe Xbab Sa, A.C. 2006. Lha Bene: El nombre propio en zapoteco. Oaxaca,
Mexico: Ediciones Conocimiento Indígena.
Zeitlin, Judith. 1994 . “La pintura, la escritura, y el discurso colonial sobre la
historia: una perspectiva desde el Istmo de Tehuantepec.” Paper presented at
the Second Annual Colloquium on Zapotec Studies. Oaxaca, Mexico.
———. 2003. “Recordando a los reyes: El lienzo de Guevea y el discurso
histórico de la época colonial.” In Escritura zapoteca: 2,500 años de historia,
ed. María de los Ángeles Romero Frizzi, 265–304. Mexico: CIESAS, Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Porrúa, CONACULTA.
———. 2005. Cultural Politics in Colonial Tehuante p ec: Community and State
Among the Isthmus Zapotec, 150 0 –1750. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Zeitlin, Judith, and Lillian Thomas. 1992 . “Spanish Justice and the Indian
Cacique: Disjunctive Political Systems in Sixteenth-Century Tehuantepec.”
Ethnohistory 39: 285–315.
Zierikzee, Amandus van. 1534 . Chronica compendiosissima ab exordio mundi.
Antwerp, Netherlands: Simon Cocus.
Zilbermann, Cristina. 1966. “Idolatrías de Oaxaca en el siglo XVIII.” Actas del
XXXVI Congreso Internacional de Americanistas 2: 111–23. Seville.
Zulaica y Gárate, Román. [1939] 1991. Los franciscanos y la imprenta en
México en el siglo XVI. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
