If the obsidian mirror was the symbol, par excellence, of Mexican star cult, there are evidences that the small mirror of polished pyrites was that of the sun-cult. The latter seems to have been employed, in some way or other, for the concentration of the rays of the sun required for the lighting of the sacred fire, at noon, on the days of the vernal equinox and summer solstice. As in Peru, this duty devolved upon the high priest of the Above or the Son of the Sun, a title which undoubtedly pertained also to the Mexican ruler, though not employed so ostentatiously as in Peru. A keen emulation, which may almost be termed an intense rivalry, seems to have existed between the two cults, which Sahagun even goes so far as to designate as two religions. From a chapter of his Historia we even learn that the entire population of Mexico was divided into two halves who respectively belonged to one or the other religion, a fact which naturally affected the position of the two classes of people and had created the native ideas, of an upper and a lower class or caste which will be further discussed.
Sahagun's informants explained to him that, when a child was born, its parents, according to their class, registered it at one of the two educational establishments for the young and took vows to have it educated there as soon as it attained a suitable age. The lower class took their offspring to the Telpuchcalli, where they were dedicated to the service of the community and to warfare, i. e., the ruling class. “The ‘Lords, chieftains or elders,’ offered their sons to the Calmecac to be educated for the priesthood.”
It being impossible to present here in full the data showing how certain primitive conceptions had developed further and how some human occupations had become associated with the Above and others with the Below, I will but point out the important fact that the city of Mexico, divided into four quarters, each of which had five subdivisions (calpullis), actually consisted of two distinct parts. One of these was Mexico proper, where the Great Temple stood and where Montezuma and the lords resided; the other was Tlatelolco, where the lower classes dwelt and the merchant class prevailed. After a certain revolt the inhabitants of this portion [pg 084] of the city were, we are told, “degraded to the rank of women” (see Bandelier, op. et loc. cit.). From this it would seem evident that their affairs or lawsuits were settled in the official house named the Cihua-tecpaneca, whilst the affairs of the nobility, residing in Mexico proper, were disposed of in the Tlaca-tecpaneca (see Duran, chap. 3). Knowledge of the prevalence of the division of the population into two parts is gained through a passage of Ixtl-ilxo-chitl's Historia (chap. xxxv, p. 241): “To Quetzalmemalitzin was given the lordship of Teotihuacan ... with the title of Captain-general of the dominion of the noblemen. All affairs or lawsuits of the lords and the nobility belonging to the towns of the provinces situated in the plain, were to be attended to and settled in his town. The same title was bestowed upon Quechaltecpantzin of Otompan, with the difference that he was the captain-general of the commoners and attended to the affairs and claims of the commoners and populace of the provinces in the plains.”
A further detail concerning the position of the ancient capital of Mexico should not be omitted, for it is described as follows by the English friar Thomas Gage, who visited it in 1625: “The situation of this city is much like that of Venice, but only differs in this, that Venice is built upon the sea-water, and Mexico upon a lake, which seeming one is indeed two; one part whereof is standing water, the other ebbeth and floweth according to the wind that bloweth. That part which standeth is wholesome, good and sweet, and yieldeth store of small fish. That part which ebbeth and floweth is a saltish bitter and pestiferous water, yielding no kind of fish, small or great” (p. 43). Added to other data, this detail seems to indicate that the geographical position of the capital had been chosen with utmost care and profound thought, so that, built on a dual island on a dual lake, it should be in itself an image or illustration of the ideas of organization which I have shown to have dominated the entire native civilization. If it be admitted, as I think is evident, that the site of the capital was chosen and mapped out in accordance with these ideas, then we undoubtedly have, in ancient Mexico, not only one of the most remarkable “Holy Cities” ever built by mankind, but also the most convincing proof of the great antiquity and high development of the civilization under whose influence one of the greatest capitals of ancient America was founded.
It is impossible to read the following descriptions without recognizing [pg 085] that the identical fundamental ideas had undoubtedly determined the native topography of capitals situated in other parts of the continent. Beginning with Guatemala, which formed a part of ancient Mexico, I refer to the plan of the ancient capital and its description by Fuentes of Guzman, published by Dr. Otto Stoll in his work already cited: “A deep ditch, running from north to south, divided the town into two portions. One of these, situated to the east, was inhabited by the nobility; whilst the commoners (Macehuales) lived in the western division.” I pause here to call attention to the intentional coincidence that the association of the east with the Above, and the west with the Below, is exemplified here, topographically. The plan shows that the eastern half contained, in its centre, a great, oblong enclosure, surrounded by a high wall. A wall, running from east to west, divided this enclosure into two distinct courtyards with wide separate entrances from the west. The northern courtyard, designated as the “Place of the Palace,” contains several buildings. The southern one, named the “Place of the Temple,” contains an edifice on a terraced mound and several others. It is noticeable that, in the exact middle of the central wall, there is a seemingly double, unfortunately indistinguishable object, or building, which marks the exact middle of the entire dual enclosure. It is particularly interesting that the East City is divided into two portions by a wall running from the southeast angle of the wall of the Temple courtyard to the outer wall of the city. The southern half, in which the “Tribunal or hill of justice is to be seen, is designated as containing the houses of the Ahauas or heads of the Calpuls.” The northern half, containing many houses, lacks designation. The West city is likewise divided into two distinct portions by a broad street, enclosed by a hill wall and conducting from the western and only entrance to the city directly to the Place of the Temple. A deep trench or ditch encloses the entire city, whilst nine watch-towers, on small hills, are placed at equal distances around it.
If this precious document clearly reveals the ground plan on which the native capitals were built, in accordance with the dominant idea, the following native map shows that the ancient dominion of Yucatan, for instance, was figured as an integral whole with form of a flat disc divided into four quarters, Ho, the modern Merida, in its centre. This map, copied from the native Codex Chumazel, has been published by Señor Crescencio Carillo of Ancona [pg 086] in the Anales del Museo Nacional de Mexico, vol. ii, p. 43, as showing the territorial division of Yucatan before the Conquest (fig. [27]). According to Herrera and Diego de Landa, the unity of the dominion was destroyed about two centuries before the Conquest by the destruction of the capital, Mayapan. The land then remained divided amongst many independent chiefs or Bacabs. Señor Carillo renders the Maya descriptive text written under the map, as follows: “Here is Mani. The beginning of the land, or its entrance, is Campeche. The extremity of the wing of the land is Calkini; the (chun) place where the wing grows or begins, is Izamal. The half of the wing is Zaci; the tip of the wing is Cumkal. The head of the land is the city, the capital Ho.”
Figure 27.
The foregoing text shows that, notwithstanding the circular shape in which it is figured, the dominion was evidently thought of as in the form of a bird, the head of which was the capital.