Editor asociado: Miguel Angel Martínez Morales
Introduction
A half century after the historic meeting of Cortés and Montezuma II in 1519, the Aztec capital Tenochtitlan was the scene of yet another important meeting: the formal peer review, revision and expansion of the earliest known regional work on Mexican birds. That manuscript, which when improved would eventually become part of the Renaissance-era illuminated encyclopedia known today as the Florentine Codex (Sahagún [1577] 1979), was produced by Bernardino de Sahagún’s research group of elite native Mexican scholars (Appendix A) in collaboration with Aztec leaders.
The rough draft scrutinized by the peer reviewers in Tenochtitlan had been written earlier by the research group during its fieldwork in Tlatelolco during the years 1561-1565. There, they had collaborated with “very capable” Aztec leaders to produce a manuscript describing “the better known and most utilized…birds” of México (Sahagún [1577] 1982, pp. 54, 87). Now, in Tenochtitlan, during the year 1569, the research group presented their Tlatelolco draft (known today as the Manuscript of Tlatelolco) to a similar group of knowledgeable Aztecs (Appendix B) for examination, amendment and expansion (Sahagún [1577] 1982).
As in Tlatelolco, the “principal and wisest” of the research group’s four native scholars, Antonio Valeriano, was present during “these scrutinies” (Sahagún [1577] 1982, p. 55). A renowned scholar from the Colegio de Santa Cruz in Tlatelolco, Valeriano was also a member of the Aztec dynastic family (Appendix C), so it is reasonable to assume that all doors to the past and present in the local indigenous community must have been open to the research group. Because the resulting product of the research group’s work in Tenochtitlan would be a revised manuscript written in the Aztec language (Classical Náhuatl), lacking only the scholia and Spanish translations (both of which would later be included in the Florentine Codex), three scribes were hired to write a new and clear copy of the research group’s manuscript (Appendix D). This new manuscript, known today as the Manuscript of 1569, is now lost. However, during the 1570s, its texts were copied into the Florentine Codex (Sahagún [1577] 1979, 1982), enabling us today to fully access all of its texts.
What little we know about this earliest-known ornithological project in México, including all the above information, comes from prologues that the research group wrote to various books of the Florentine Codex (Sahagún [1577] 1979, 1982, 1988). However, it is possible to discover still more facts about their work by studying the content of the various bird accounts that they wrote (Appendix E).
Accordingly, in the present paper, I use content analysis of the bird accounts, combined with the comparative method, to discover significant new information about the historic ornithological project of Sahagún’s research group. Specifically, I ask and answer the following new question: Did the contributions of the Aztecs from Tenochtitlan differ from those of Tlatelolco and, if so, how did they differ?
Methods
Sahagún wrote that after his research group produced the Manuscript of Tlatelolco, there was only one occasion when new information was added to their work: the above described peer review and collaboration in Tenochtitlan (Sahagún [1577] 1982, p. 55). In contrast, he wrote that there were two occasions when amendments to the manuscript were made: (1) When Sahagún “alone, examined and re-examined” the group’s writings at the Monastery of San Francisco de México during the years 1566-1569, and (2) during the above-described peer-review in Tenochtitlan (Sahagún [1577] 1982, p. 55). Therefore, Sahagún’s own words suggest that we can identify contributions which are undeniably from Tenochtitlan’s Aztecs by focusing our attention on additions rather than amendments.
The additions made in Tenochtitlan appear in two places in the Florentine Codex: (1) the Aztec texts and (2) the Spanish texts. Determining which information was added to the Aztec texts in Tenochtitlan is easy and straightforward: One simply subtracts the original Aztec texts of the Manuscript of Tlatelolco (Sahagún [1565] 1907, folios 248r-264r, 275v-276v) from the Aztec texts of the Florentine Codex (Sahagún [1577] 1963, 1979). What remains are the Aztec texts from Tenochtitlan.
Analyzing the Spanish texts of the Florentine Codex is more complicated because they contain two elements: (1) Spanish translations of select parts of the Aztec texts, and (2) the scholia (Appendix F). Assuming perfect Spanish translation, new information and critical comments appearing in the Spanish texts (i.e. information not present in the Aztec texts) come from the scholia. Scholia were written by Sahagún when he worked alone at San Francisco and also by the entire research group during the peer-review process in Tenochtitlan.
To determine which scholia came from Tenochtitlan, I subtracted from the Spanish texts of the Florentine Codex both the scholia written in the margins and spaces of the extant Manuscript of Tlatelolco (since we don’t know for certain which of them were written when Sahagún “alone examined and re-examined” the group’s writings), and the material in the Aztec texts that was translated into Spanish. After thus identifying in the Spanish texts the scholia information from Tenochtitlan, I temporarily ignored those parts of it that were amendments, critical comments and opinions, and focused solely on those parts that are additions, because (as mentioned earlier) Sahagún’s words suggest that the latter are unequivocally from the peer review and collaboration in Tenochtitlan. Summing this scholia information in the Spanish texts with the Aztec language accounts from Tenochtitlan (see below) gave me the total additions made by Tenochtitlan.
There is no evidence that Sahagún’s research group wrote bird accounts during the years 1558-1561 when they worked in Tepepulco (Haemig 2012). None of the surviving Tepepulco manuscripts contain bird accounts (Sahagún [1561] 1993, 1997). I therefore assumed that all bird accounts in the Manuscript of Tlatelolco were written in Tlatelolco. If I am wrong on this point, it would mean that some of the accounts were peer-reviewed twice rather than once, for Sahagún wrote of the group’s work in Tlatelolco that, “…for a year or more, all I brought written from Tepepulco was amended, explained and expanded” (Sahagún [1577] 1982, p. 54).
Results
Number of bird accounts
Tlatelolco contributed 108 bird accounts to the Aztec language texts of the Florentine Codex, while Tenochtitlan contributed 41 (Table 1, Table 2).
Code Number for Aztec Text |
Aztec Bird Name English literal translation or Onomatopoeic origin |
Origin of Aztec Language Account | Foraging Habitat | Physical Description in Aztec Text | Abundance Data | Water folk and their cultural beliefs about birds mentioned | Eaten or Not- eaten by Humans | Spanish Bird Names in Aztec Texts | Comments |
B-1-1 |
Quetzaltototl Quetzal Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-2 | Tzinitzcan Tototl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-3 |
Tlauhquechol Red Quechol |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-4 |
Xiuhquechol Turquoise Quechol |
Tlatlelolco | Not enough info | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-5 | Ҫaquan | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-6 | Aioquan | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-7 | Aioquan | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-8 |
Chalchiuhtototl Jade (Jadeite, Green Stone) Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-9 |
Xiuhtototl Turquoise Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-10 | Xioapalquechol | Tlatelolco | Not enough info | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-11 |
Xochitenacal Flower Tenacal |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-12 |
Quappachtototl Tawny Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-1-13 | Elutototl (Elotototl) Ear of Corn Bird | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-1 |
Toznene Yellow (or Parrot?) Doll |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-2 |
Toztli “Thing Very Yellow” (FC) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-3 | Alo | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-4 | Cocho | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-5 |
Qujliton Little Herb; Little Greens |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-6 | Tlalacueҫali | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-7 |
Vitzitzili (Onomatopoeic name, uitztli = thorn, a reference to beak?) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-8 |
Quetzalhujtzilin Quetzal hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-9 |
Xihujtzilli Turquoise Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-10 |
Chalchihujtzili Jade Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-11 |
Yiauhtic Vitzili Dark (probably green) Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-12 |
Tlapalhujtzili Red Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-13 | Aiopalhujtzili | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-14 |
Tlevitzili Fire Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-15 |
Quappachvitzilin Tawny Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-16 |
Hecavitzili Wind Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-17 |
Totozcatleton Little Fiery-Throat |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-18 |
Telolovitzili Round Pebble Hummingbird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-2-19 |
Yollotototl Heart Bird |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-2-20 |
Pôpocales (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | Patos (Size model) | |
B-2-21 |
Tecuҫiltototl (Onomatopoeic Name) |
Tenochtitlan | Not enough info | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-2-22 | Ixmatlatototl | Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-1 | Canauhtli | Tlatelolco | Water | No | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-2 | Concanauhtli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-3 | Canauhtli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-4 | Canauhtil | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-5 | Tlalalacatl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: SIST) | - | Eaten (Tlat: AT) (Tenoch: ST) | - | Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons). Down used to make Tilmatli (AT). Quill feathers used as writing pens (ST). |
B-3-6 | Tocujlcoiotl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tlat: AT) (Tenoch: ST) | - | Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis) |
B-3-7 | Xomotl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | Feathers used to make Tilmatli (ST). |
B-3-8 | Teçoloctli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | | |
B-3-9 | Atotolin | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-10 |
Quachilton Little Red Head |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-11 |
Iacacintli Corn-nose or Corn-point |
Tlatlelolco | Water | No (AT) Yes (SIST) | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-12 |
Vexocanauhtli Turkey-cock Duck |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-13 | Aҫolin Water Quail | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-14 | Atzitzicujlotl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-15 | Acujcujalotl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-16 | Cujcujtzcatl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-17 | Aztatl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | Not Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-18 | Axoquen | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-3-19 |
Quauhtotoli Wood or Tree Turkey Hen |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tlat: AT) (Tenoch: ST) | - | Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) |
B-3-20 |
Atotolin Aquatic Turkey Hen |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | Water Folk: “heart of the lagoon”, wind sorcery, sinks people, omen, “mirror”. | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-21 |
Acoiotl Water Coyote |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Rare” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | “All told of the Atotolin [B-3- 20] also applies similarly to the Acoiotl.” - FC (AT) | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-22 |
Acitli Water Hare |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Rare” Tenoch: AT, ST | Water Folk Wind sorcery | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-23 |
Tenitztli Obsidian Bill |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | Paloma (Size model, Leg model) | |
B-3-24 |
Quapetlaoac Naked Head |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Quite Rare” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | Water Folk Omen | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-3-25 |
Quatezcatl Mirror-head |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Rare” (Tenoch: AT) | - | - | Paloma (Size model) | |
B-3-26 | Tolcomoctli | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | Water Folk Portent | - | Capón (Size model) | |
B-3-28 |
Covixin (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | Paloma (Size model) | |
B-3-29 |
Icxixoxouhquj Green (or Bluegreen) Legs |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-30 | Quetzalteҫolocton | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-31 |
Metzcanauhtli Moon Duck |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-32 |
Quacoztli Yellow Head |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Down used to make Tilmatli (AT). |
B-3-33 | Hecatototl Wind Bird | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-34 |
Amanacoche “It has paper ear ornaments” |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-35 | Atapalcatl | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: SIST) | Water Folk Omen | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-36 | Tzitzioa | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-37 |
Xalquani Sand-eater |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-38 |
Yacapitzaoac Pointed-Nose |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-39 | Tzoniaiauhquj | Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-40 |
Ҫolcanauhtli Quail Duck |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-41 |
Chilcanauhtli Bright Red (Chilired) Duck |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” Tenoch: AT, ST | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-42 |
Achalalactli (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Not very many… somewhat rare” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-43 |
Iacapatlaoac Wide Nose |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-44 |
Oactli (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-45 |
Pipitztli (Name possibly derived from pipitzca = to cry, whinney, etc.) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | - | |
B-3-46 |
Acachichictli (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | Water Folk Omen | Eaten (Tenoch: AT, ST) | Paloma (Egg model) | |
B-4-1 |
Quauhtli Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-2 |
Itzquauhtli Obsidian Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | Replaced in the Spanish text by Itzquauhtli B-4-8 (Tenochtitlan). |
B-4-3 |
Mixcoaquauhtli Cloud-serpent Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | Replaced in the Spanish text by Mixcoaquauhtli B-4-10 (Tenochtitlan). |
B-4-4 |
Iztac Quauhtli White Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-5 |
Iooalquauhtli Nocturnal Eagle (FC) |
Tlatelolco | Land | No | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-6 |
Tlacoquauhtli Half-eagle or Media Águila (FC) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-7 |
Aquauhtli Water Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-8 |
Itzquauhtli Obsidian Eagle |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-9 |
Aitzquauhtli Water Obsidian Eagle |
Tenochtitlan | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-10 |
Mixcoaquauhtli Cloud-serpent Eagle |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: ST translates “lives everywhere” of AT as “many”). | - | - | - | |
B-4-11 |
Cozcaquauhtli Necklace Eagle |
Tlatlelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-12 | Oactli | Tlatelolco | Land | No | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-13 | Tzopilotl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Not Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-4-14 |
Tecolotl (Onomatopoeic name) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-15 |
Ҫacatecolutl Grass Owl |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-16 |
Cacalotl “Tongs or Pincers” |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-17 |
Acacalotl Water “Tongs or Pincers” |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-18 |
Pipixcan (Text indicates connection with gathering or harvesting: pixca) |
Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | Paloma (Color model) | |
B-4-19 | Tlhotli | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-20 |
Tlhoquauhtli Falcon Eagle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-21 |
Quauhtlotli Eagle Falcon (or possibly Wood or Forest Falcon) |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | Not eaten (Tenoch: AT) | Alcon (Synonym) | |
B-4-22 |
Coztlhotli Yellow Falcon |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | Turcuello (Synonym for male) | |
B-4-23 |
Hecatlhotli Wind Falcon |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | Alcon (Model) | |
B-4-24 |
Aiauhtlhotli Mist or Fog Falcon |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | Moralo (Synonym) Alcon (Model) | |
B-4-25 |
Iztac Tlhotli White Falcon |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | Sacre (Synonym) | |
B-4-26 |
Itztlhotli Obsidian Falcon |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | Cavillan (Synonym) | |
B-4-27 |
Itztlhotli Obsidian Falcon |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-28 |
Iooaltlhotli Night Falcon |
Tlatelolco | Land | No | - | - | - | - | |
B-4-29 | Necujlictli | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | Not Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | ||
B-4-30 | Têtzompa | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-1 |
Xochitototl Flower Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-2 |
Aiacachtototl Rattle Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-3 |
Tachitovia Onomatopoeic name |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-4 |
Quauhtotopotli Tree-pecker |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-5 |
Poxaquatl Fool (FC) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-6 | Vitlalotl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-5-7 | Chiquatli | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-8 |
Tapalcatzotzonqui Potsherd Striker (or Potsherd Rattler) |
Tlatelolco | Land | No | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-9 | Chichtli | Tlatelolco | Land | No | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-10 |
Tlalchiquatli Earth Owl |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-11 |
Ilamatototl Old Woman Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-12 |
Tlatvicicitli (Onomatopoeic name: “Hello, hello, now wake up [begin the day!”]) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-13 | Chiquâtototl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-14 | Ҫacatlatli | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-15 |
Tlapaltototl Red Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-5-16 |
Chiltotopil Little Chili-red Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | No (AT) Yes (ST) | - | - | Not Eaten (Tlat: AT Tenoch: ST) | - | |
B-5-17 | Molotl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-5-18 |
Quachichil Chili-red Head |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | ||
B-5-19 |
Nochtototl Tuna Cactus Bird (If noch refers to nocheztli, it could indicate a shade of red) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-5-20 |
Cocotli Onomatopoeic name |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | ||
B-6-1 | Ҫolin | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tlat: AT Tenoch: ST) | - | Montezuma Quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae) possibly also other Odontophoridae. |
B-6-2 |
Tecuҫoli Lord (or Lordly?) Quail |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-6-3 |
Ooaton Small, young corn stalk |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-7-1 | Tzanatl | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Not Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | Male Slender-billed Grackle (Quiscalus palustris) |
B-7-2 |
Teutzanatl
(Teotzanatl) Marvelous (or Genuine or Divine or Precious, etc.) Grackle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | Male Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) |
B-7-3 |
Acatzanatl Reed Grackle |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | “Many” (Tenoch: SIST) | - | Not Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | Other plumages of Slender-billed Grackle |
B-7-4 |
Coioltototl Bell Bird (i.e. tinkling type of bell) |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-7-5 |
Vilotl Onomatopoeic name |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-7-6 |
Tlacavilotl Daytime Dove or Person-Dove |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tenoch: SIST) | - | |
B-8-1 |
Cujtlacochin Onomatopoeic name |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-8-2 |
Çentzontlatole “It has 400 words (or speeches, or songs, etc.)” |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-8-3 |
Miaoatototl Corn Tassel Bird |
Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-8-4 | Chiqujmoli | Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-8-5 |
Chachalacametl (Onomatopoeic name). The Aztec verb chachalaca “To talk, talk loud, sing, etc.” may be derived from this bird’s song. |
Tenochtitlan | Land | Yes | - | - | - | - | |
B-9-1 | Totoli | Tlatelolco | Land | Yes | - | - | Eaten (Tlat: AT Tenoch: ST) | - | Domestic Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) |
C-1-4 | Çoqujcanauhtli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | The Spanish text says that this bird has been mentioned in Chapter 2, but I could not find it there. | |
C-1-7 | Atapalcatl | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | Replaced by Atapalcatl B-3-35 (Tenochtitlan) in Spanish Text. | |
C-1-8 | Atoncuepotli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | Replaced by Tolcomoctli B-3-26 (Tenochtitlan) in Spanish Text | |
C-1-9 | Ateponaztli | Tlatelolco | Water | Yes | - | - | - | Replaced by Tolcomoctli B-3-26 (Tenochtitlan) in Spanish Text |
Foraging habitat of birds
Both cities contributed accounts of land birds and water birds (Table 1). However, most bird accounts from Tlatelolco described land birds, while most from Tenochtitlan described water birds (Table 2).
Physical descriptions of birds
One hundred forty-one of the 149 Aztec language bird accounts list physical characteristics of the birds which they describe (Table 1). All eight of the accounts lacking physical descriptions originated from Tlatelolco (Table 1). In two of the latter accounts, the Spanish text supplies the missing physical description, indicating that this information originated from Tenochtitlan via the scholia from the peer review process there.
Bird abundance
Information about abundance is given in 17 of the 149 Aztec language bird accounts (Table 1). In each case, this information originated from Tenochtitlan, either in the Aztec accounts written in that city (15 cases) or in the Spanish texts of Aztec language accounts from Tlatelolco (2 cases) that were peer-reviewed and improved in Tenochtitlan (Table 1).
Of the 17 bird accounts with abundance data, all except two were water birds (Table 1). However, one of the two land birds with abundance data lived, at least partially, in wetlands (B-7-3 Acatzanatl, Slender-billed Grackle Quiscalus palustris, Haemig 2010).
Birds eaten or not eaten for food by humans
Fifty-two of the 149 bird accounts contain information about whether or not the bird described was eaten for food by humans (Table 1). In seven of these cases, the bird described was not eaten by humans.
Twenty-nine of the 41 bird accounts originating in Tenochtitlan contain information about whether or not the bird described was eaten by humans (Table 1). Twenty-three of the 108 bird accounts originating from Tlatelolco also contain such information, but in seventeen of these accounts the information is present only in the Spanish texts, indicating that these data were added later in Tenochtitlan (Table 1).
Tlatelolco reported only five birds eaten by humans: Wild Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), Domestic Turkey, Montezuma Quail (Cyrtonyx montezumae), Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis), Greater White-fronted Goose (Anser albifrons) (Table 1). Tenochtitlan confirmed that these birds were eaten and added 40 smaller birds to the list, including a diversity of ducks, shorebirds, gallinules, pigeons, doves and passerines (Table 1).
Medicinal uses of birds
Three Aztec language bird accounts, all written in Tlatelolco, document the deliberate use of birds in attempting to heal or harm the health of people (Vitzitzili B-2-7, Cocotli B-5-20, Totoli B-9-1). All three cases have warning phrases (see below) in the Aztec text. The second and third accounts also have warning phrases in the Spanish text (Table 4), but not the first account. Thus, only the medicinal information in Vitzitzili (B-2-7) was regarded by the research group as factual.
Use of Spanish bird names in the Aztec language bird accounts
Only one of the 108 Aztec language accounts from Tlatelolco contains a Spanish bird name (paloma). In contrast, eight Spanish bird names (paloma, halcón, capón, gavilán, moralo, pato, sacre, turcuello) are found in twelve of the 4 Aztec language bird accounts from Tenochtitlan (Table 1). Thus, while Spanish bird names are absent from the majority of Aztec language bird accounts of both cities, they are more frequent in the accounts from Tenochtitlan (Fisher’s Exact Test, Two-tailed, p<0.0001).
The Spanish bird names are used three ways in the Aztec language texts: (1) as synonyms for Aztec bird names; e.g. Spanish sacre for Iztac Tlhotli (B-4-25, Prairie Falcon Falco mexicanus), (2) as vernacular names for old world birds introduced into México; e.g. capón (Tolcomoctli, B-3-26), and (3) as color and size models used to describe the birds in the Aztec language accounts, e.g. “white like a paloma” (Pipixcan, B-4-18), “the same size as the Castilian Totolin [= Castilian “turkey”, i.e. chicken], the capón” (Tolcomoctli, B-3-26). Five of the eight Spanish bird names used in the Aztec language accounts are raptors (Table 1).
References to Water Folk (Atlaca)
Although both cities contributed almost equal numbers of water bird accounts (Table 2), six of the 28 Aztec language accounts from Tenochtitlan mentioned water folk (Atlaca) and their cultural beliefs about birds, while zero of the 26 from Tlatelolco did (Table 1). This difference was statistically significant (Fisher’s Exact Test, Two-tailed, p = 0.0235).
Discussion
Sahagún wrote that his research group described “the better known and most utilized…birds” of New Spain (Sahagún [1577] 1982, p.87). When examining their work, it is important to remember this statement because it explains why the bird chapter focuses so much on applied ornithology and ethno-ornithology. It also explains why, while most birds with abundance data are reported to be numerous, a few rare birds also appear in the bird chapter. In all but one case, the rare birds were well-known to the Aztecs as omens or were believed to possess special magical powers (Table 1, Table 4).
Persons | Supporting Evidence and Other Relevant Facts |
---|---|
One or more of the water folk Atlaca, who made their living by hunting and fishing in the wetlands surrounding Tenochtitlan. |
|
Someone familiar with birds in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas region. |
|
People who had knowledge of Mexican birds-of-prey, Aztec religious beliefs, and who also had contact with Spanish falconers. |
|
Bird Information not accepted by Sahagun’s Research Group | Bird Accounts (Table 1) with the unaccepted information and their Spanish text warning phrases (Sahagun [1577] 1979) | Type of Info |
---|---|---|
These bird species are leaders of the water birds. |
Tlauhquechol (B-1-3): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” Atotolin (B-3-20): “…dicen que… [They say that…]” |
A |
Lovely Cotina (Cotinga amabilis) feathers can lose their blue color with careless handling (See Appendix I). |
Xiuhtototl (B-1-9): “…dicen… [they say…]” | B |
When people die their souls turn into these birds. | Yollotototl (B-2-19 ): “…dicen que…[…they say that…)” | A |
These birds transform themselves into fish and vice versa. This claim constitutes not only transmutation of species but also transmutation of vertebrate classes! |
Atzitzicujlotl (B-3-14): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” | A |
This bird nests in Anahuac. | Atzitzicujlotl (B-3-14): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” | B |
These birds are “the heart of the water.” |
Atotolin (B-3-20): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” Acoiotl (B-3-21): “Toda la fabula que se dice del atotoli de arriba se dice tambien deste acóyotl. [Everything in the above fable that they say about the Atotolin they also say about this Acoiotl.].” |
A |
When humans kill or try to kill these birds, the birds use sorcery to summon the wind, sink canoes and drown people, or else they cause the death of Aztec lords. |
Quapetlaoac B-3-24). “Tenían desto experiencia…que…[They had this experience…that…” Atotolin (B-3-20): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” Acoiotl (B-3-21): “Toda la fabula que se dice del atotoli de arriba se dice tambien deste acóyotl. [Everything in the above fable that they say about the Atotolin they also say about this Acoiotl.].” |
A |
Certain birds function as omens and portents, revealing unanticipated events that will happen in the future. |
Tenitztli (B-3-23): “Tienen por agüero…[They interpreted as an omen…]” Quapetlaoac (B-3-24) “Dicen cuando…[They said when…” Quatezcatl (B-3-25): “Tenían por mal agüero…Decían que… [They interpreted as a bad omen…They said that…]” Tolcomoctli (B-3-26): “…toman conjectura…dicen que… [They conjecture…they say that…]” Atapalcatl (B-3-35): “…entienden que…[…they understand that…”] Oactli (B-4-12): “…que toman a las veces buen agüero y a las veces malo […that they interpret sometimes as a good omen and sometimes bad.]” Chiqujmoli (B-8-4): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” |
A |
Raptors of Mexico are better than those of Spain. | Itztlhotli (B-4-26): “…dicen..que…[…they say…that…]” | C |
This raptor does not drink water. | Necujlictli (B-4-29): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” | A |
GreyPartridges (Perdix perdix) in Spain use the same distraction display as this quail. |
Ooaton (B-6-3): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” | B |
The Plain Chachalaca (Ortalis vetula) calls in order to awaken people. |
Chachalacametl (B-8-5): “Dicen que… [They say that…]” | A |
Fable of the falcon (See Appendix J). |
Quauhtlotli (B-4-21): Fable not present in Spanish text, warning phrase present in Aztec text |
A |
Fable of the dove (See Appendix J). |
Viotl (B-7-5): Fable not present in Spanish text, warning phrase present in Aztec text |
A |
The present study has discovered important differences in the contributions of the two cities to the Florentine Codex’s bird chapter. The most important difference is that the bird accounts from Tlatelolco were mainly land birds, while those from Tenochtitlan were mainly water birds.
Tlatelolco produced over twice as many bird accounts as Tenochtitlan and supplied the only information on medicinal uses of birds. The latter result is not surprising because Tlatelolco also produced the Códice de la Cruz-Badiano or Libellus de medicinalibus indorum herbis (Cruz 1964, Kumate 1992, León-Portilla 1994), which contains additional examples of the use of birds in Aztec medicine (reviewed by Corona-Martínez 2002).
However, while the Tenochca (people of Tenochtitlan) peer-reviewed the work of the Tlatelolca (people of Tlatelolco), there is no evidence that the Tlatelolca peer-reviewed the work of the Tenochca. This explains why the Spanish and Aztec texts of the bird accounts from Tlatelolco usually differ more from each other than the Spanish and Aztec texts from Tenochtitlan differ from each other.
Tenochtitlan contributed all information on the abundance of various birds and most of the information on which birds were eaten and not eaten by humans. However, both cities supplied physical descriptions of birds for most (Tlatelolco) or all (Tenochtitlan) of the accounts they produced.
Spanish bird names in the Aztec texts
Why were Spanish bird names used more frequently in the Aztec language bird accounts from Tenochtitlan than in those from Tlatelolco? One possible answer is that the Aztecs from Tenochtitlan had more close and frequent contact with Spanish speakers than did the Aztecs from Tlatelolco. According to Lockhart (1992, p. 261-262),
Linguistic phenomena prove to be the most sensitive indicator the historical record contains of the extent, nature and trajectory of contact between the two populations [Spanish and Nahua]…The theory that the rate of linguistic change in Nahuatl is a function of the amount of contact between the two populations involved automatically predicts that the change will come first where the largest number of Spaniards and Nahuas had daily encounters and subsequently spread out to the rest of the Nahuatl-speaking community.
Did the Nahua of Tenochtitlan have more frequent and intense contact with Spaniards than the Nahua of Tlatelolco during the sixteenth century? Yes, in 1522, when Emperor Cuauhtémoc surrendered the Aztec empire to the Spanish, Cortés decided to build the Spanish colonial capital on the ruins of Tenochtitlan (Gibson 1964, Mundy 2015, Rodríguez-Alegría 2017). Subsequently, the Spanish marked off a large section (26 blocks by 26 blocks) in the center of Tenochtitlan for white settlement (Gibson 1964, Mundy 2015). This section, the traza, also became the official residence of the governor of New Spain, the viceroy and the real audiencia [royal court]. Gibson (1964, p. 37) writes:
Tenochtitlan…was unique among colonial Indian communities of the Valley [of México] in that a large section of its center was marked off to house the Spanish colonists. Moreover, it was the only Valley location to maintain a cabildo, or municipal council, of Spaniards. But its four barrios - under their colonial names Santa María [Cuepopan], San Sebastián [Atzacoalco], San Pablo [Teopan], and San Juan [Moyotlan] - remained as sites of Indian habitation.
Thus, in comparison to Tlatelolco, Tenochtitlan had large populations of both Spanish-speakers and Aztec-speakers. Consequently, there may have been more opportunities for Hispanic loan words, such as Spanish bird names, to enter the Aztec language in Tenochtitlan than in Tlatelolco.
The fact that many Spanish bird names found in the Aztec language bird accounts from Tenochtitlan are for birds-of-prey (Table 1, Table 3) could indicate that the Tenochca had contact with Spanish colonists who practiced falconry. The Spanish text adds credence to this idea by noting that the Spaniards believed that the falcons and hawks of México were “better than those of Spain” (Sahagún [1577] 1988, p. 707). Here we must ask, (1) “Who were the Spaniards mentioned and in what ways did they believe that Mexican raptors were better?” and, (2) “How did these Spaniards obtain a good enough knowledge of birds-of-prey in both Spain and México to be able to judge which region’s raptors were better?” Spanish colonists who practiced falconry provide a good answer for both of these questions, as well as a reasonable explanation for the nume rous Spanish raptor names in the Aztec language bird accounts from Tenochtitlan.
Another indication in the bird chapter of increased contact between Aztecs and Spaniards in Tenochtitlan was the use of waterfowl quill feathers for writing, a European custom unknown to the Aztecs before contact with Spaniards (Sahagún [1577] 1961, Boone 2008, Diel 2012). The original account from Tlatelolco of the Tlalalacatl (B-3-5, Greater White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons) simply stated that this goose’s down feathers were used to make Tilmatli, an indigenous cloak, cape or mantle (Appendix G). The Tenochca confirmed this use in their peer review and then, via the scholia later inserted into the Spanish text, added, “The feathers above [the down] are strong. They have good quills for writing.” The fact that quill pens for writing were mentioned in the Tenochtitlan text, but not in the Tlatelolco text, suggests that they were used more often in Tenochtitlan, which would not be surprising since, as we have seen, there were more Spaniards in Tenochtitlan.
The lone Spanish bird name from Tlatelolco, paloma (Table 1), refers specifically to the white color phase of this bird, and is used as a color model to describe a gull (Pipixcan B-4-18): “It is white, like a paloma” (Sahagún [1577] 1963, p. 43). For millennia, the paloma blanca (white dove) has been used by Christians as a symbol of the Holy Spirit and Her works (love, joy, peace, hope, fortitude, divine guidance, inspiration, and others; see Barnes 1909). In sixteenth-century México, Roman Catholic clergy were often the first Spaniards to learn the Aztec language and have close, personal contact with the Indians (Motolinia [1541] 1979, Mendieta [1596] 1980). In addition, many Aztecs attended church worship services, pageants and social activities (Burkhart 2017). If, by the time Sahagún’s research group worked, the paloma blanca was illustrated in stained-glass windows, paintings or other ecclesiastical art seen by the Tlatelolca, or if feral pigeons Columba livia had been introduced into México City by then, or if the white color phase of these birds was being used at that time as release doves at weddings and other church ceremonies, we would have reasonable explanations for why paloma seems to have been the first Spanish bird name used by the Tlateloca (Table 1).
Bird data not accepted by Sahagún’s research group
The research group did not believe all bird information they were told (Table 4). Claims which they did not accept fall mainly into two categories: (1) Indigenous folklore (fables, omens, portents, transmutations) and native religious beliefs, and (2) Information from geographically remote localities that the research group could not verify, such as a claim that a certain bird nested there. Some claims in the second category might actually be correct, so the research group’s methodology can best be characterized as cautious, conservative and skeptical.
Tenochca peer reviewers and collaborators
The Aztecs from Tenochtitlan were both peer-reviewers and collaborators. They scrutinized and amended the bird accounts from Tlatelolco, but also collaborated with Sahagún’s research group to add completely new bird accounts to the manuscript (Table 1, Table 2).
Although the names of these Tenochca have been lost, we can make some intelligent guesses about who some of them were by analyzing the information they provided the research group either in person or in pictorial manuscripts (Table 3). For example, the focus of the Tenochtitlan accounts on water birds, edible bird species, avian abundance, and their many references to the water folk (Atlaca), all suggest that the research group collaborated with one or more persons from the Atlaca while working in Tenochtitlan (Table 1, Table 3).
A prehistoric lacustrine culture, the Atlaca made their living by hunting birds, collecting eggs and harvesting other aquatic biota such as fish, frogs, salamanders, turtles, insects, crustaceans, mollusks, aquatic flowering plants and algae in the then extensive and highly productive wetlands of the Valley of México (Linné 1937, 1940, Parsons 2005, 2006, De Lucia 2013, Millhauser 2017; see also Albores 1995; Sugiura 1998, 2000, Williams 2014). It would therefore have been natural and logical for Sahagún’s research group to seek information about birds from the Atlaca.
Other individual water folk could have also assisted the research group in Tlatelolco, for many water bird accounts were written there too (Table 2). However it is in the Tenochtitlan bird accounts and scholia that one especially feels the presence and influence of the Atlaca. For there the water folk and their cultural beliefs about birds are specifically mentioned, something completely absent from the Aztec language bird accounts written in Tlatelolco (Table 1).
Two bird accounts (Pôpocales B-2-20, Tecuciltotol B-2-21) from Tenochtitlan mention occurrence at Toztlan and Catemahco, in the Sierra de los Tuxtlas region of present-day Veracruz state (see maps in Venter 2012, 2017). The specific mention of these localities suggests that at least one of the collaborators in Tenochtitlan was familiar with birds of the Tuxtlas region (Table 3).
The birth of Mexican ornithology
Sahagún’s research group wrote the first known scholarly descriptions of Mexican birds (Table 1), the first known regional avifaunal work of Mexican birds (Table 1), and were the first scholars to formally and comprehensively distinguish fact from fable in the indigenous bird knowledge of México (Table 4). Because such bird research is now called ornithology (Stresemann 1975, Walters 2003, Chansigaud 2009), I believe that we are fully justified in calling the bird chapter of the Florentine Codex an early ornithological work.
Two additional lines of evidence also support designation of the work of Sahagún’s research group as ornithology. The first of these is the fact that the majority of their bird accounts, i.e. those originating in Tlatelolco, were later peer reviewed in Tenochtitlan. Peer review is now a routine and essential part of all modern scientific research, including ornithology (Sahagún [1577] 1982, Haemig 2014, Berggren 2016).
The second additional line of evidence is the fact that numerous scholarly histories of ornithology report that ornithology began with Aristotle (Stresemann 1975, Walters 2003, Chansigaud 2009). Because Sahagún’s research group produced a comparable or better work on birds than Aristotle, it would be wrong and unfair not to recognize their work as ornithology as well.
Escalante et al. (1993) and Navarro (1994) wrote that ornithology in México may have begun well before the Spanish conquest, because there were Mexicans then who were very knowledgeable about birds. I agree, and the results of my own research also point in that direction (Haemig 1978, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014). It is even possible that in pre-Hispanic times there could have been an ornithological literature of sorts, consisting of painted, pictorial manuscripts (screenfolds) about birds (Appendix H). However, if such pictorial manuscripts of Mexican birds were ever made, none are known to be extant today, and there is currently not enough evidence to determine whether or not Mexican ornithology began in the pre-Hispanic era (see discussion in Corona-Martínez 2002).
We therefore have a situation in México similar to that of Europe. In Europe, Aristotle is recognized as the first ornithologist because his writings are the earliest-known, clear example of ornithological work (Stresemann 1975, Walters 2003, Chansigaud 2009). However, most researchers realize that there could have been, and probably were, Europeans before Aristotle who also studied birds. Nevertheless, because adequate documentation of their work has not survived, Aristotle is by default recognized as the first ornithologist.
Applying these same principles to México, I conclude that the scholars of Sahagún’s research group should be recognized as Mexico’s earliest-known ornithologists, because I can find no adequate documentation of any other scholars doing ornithological research in México before them. Yet, and this is an important implication of my conclusion, recognition of Sahagún’s research group as México’s first ornithologists is also recognition of the Aztecs who collaborated with them in Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan, including the Atlaca, and also recognition of the sources from the pre-Hispanic past that contributed bird knowledge to the Florentine Codex.
Closing Remarks
There is a long history of the development of science, a scholarly evolution covering hundreds of years. Sahagún’s research group is located at a much earlier point on this timeline than we are today and, consequently, we sometimes lack adequate vocabulary to describe their work in a precise way that satisfies everyone. In this paper, I have chosen to use well-known, established terms to describe their work, rather than invent new terms that are laborious and impractical for readers to learn and use, especially those who do not have English as their native language. The latter often complain that there are already too many new scientific terms being invented every year in English for them to keep up with and assimilate (personal comments from fellow Swedish researchers).
What is important for all to realize is that “species descriptions”, “regional avifaunal studies”, “peer review”, “group research”, “science”, “scholarly publication” and “ornithology” were not done in precisely the same way in sixteenth century México as today, because at that time our present ways of doing science and their associated technologies had not yet been invented. Nevertheless, it is appropriate, logical and practical to use such terms to describe the studies of Sahagún’s research group, not only for the reason given above, but also because definitions of scientific terms often change and evolve through time anyway, over even much shorter periods than the 400-500 years separating us from the time of Sahagún’s research group. For example, compare the definitions of terms “in the scientific literature, or the Unabridged Oxford Dictionary of the English Language, from several decades ago, to the meanings that we give to the same terms today” (Wilson 1995).
Sahagún’s research group worked centuries before Linneaus and Darwin, and so lacked the modern knowledge of birds, evolutionary concepts, research methods, specimen preservation technologies and museum collections that we have today to help us do our research. Furthermore, the Aztec folk taxonomy that they used does not always correspond to our current delineation of bird species and much of their formerly novel information has now been surpassed by more complete data from modern studies.
Because the Florentine Codex is ancient, sometimes difficult to understand, and appears to contain mistakes, it is tempting to simply give up trying to glean information from it and, with a superior sneer and flick of the hand, summarily dismiss it all as worthless. However, if we do this, we risk not only loosing important data, but also of establishing and nourishing a tradition that, centuries into the future, could be used to unfairly denigrate and dismiss our own contributions to ornithology. For we today, like Sahagún’s research group, do not use all the methods and technologies that future ornithologists will use hundreds of years from now.
Many other early ornithological writings, whose contributions we already acknowledge, suffer from the same defects as the Florentine Codex. For example, the great Linneaus (1707-1778) sometimes made errors and wrote taxa descriptions that are today inadequate for diagnostic purposes. Linneaus failed to recognize (1) the Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata as a species separate from the Arctic Loon Gavia arctica, (2) the Grey-headed Woodpecker Picus canus as a species separate from the Green Woodpecker Picus viridus, and (3) the Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius as a species distinct from the Common Ringed Plover Charadrius hiaticula (Ericson and Tyrberg 2004).
In addition, Linneaus confused the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus, Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus and Goshawk Accipiter gentilis and, consequently, it was not until a decade after his death that the Peregrine Falcon finally became clearly recognized as a separate species in Sweden (previously unpublished data from P.G. Lindroth and P. Osbeck inEricson and Tyrberg 2004). Yet, fortunately, these and other shortcomings of Linneaus’ works have not prevented us from appreciating his many important and truly great contributions to ornithology (Stresemann 1975, Walters 2003, Chansigaud 2009).
In the same way, I believe that we can recognize and value the contributions of Sahagún’s research group to Mexican ornithology without having to accept the mistakes they made or even understand completely the species concepts that the Aztecs used. Sahagún’s group was the first to write scholarly descriptions of Mexican birds and the first to write a regional avifauna work on Mexican birds. In doing so, they contributed significant new information to science.
It is not easy to be the first to do something. One has no results from earlier researchers to compare with ones own, and no body of published knowledge upon which to build and improve. What seems so clear and easy for us today, over 400 years later, was not so in sixteenth-century México.
At that early stage of ornithology, with so many of the world’s birds still unknown to science, ornithology was by necessity descriptive, involving primarily the accumulation of basic knowledge about birds and the separation of fact from fable (Table 4). Sahagún’s research group participated in this great work by combining the then established and accepted Aristotelian method of gathering factual information from knowledgeable persons and dependable manuscripts, with newer research methods that included the use of formalized questionnaires and peer review (López Austin 1974, Haemig 2012, 2014). The research group took the bird knowledge of the Aztec people and, separating away the fables, myths and unverifiable information (Table 4) from the facts, produced an authentic regional avifaunal work about “the better known and most utilized…birds” of México.
Some might argue that Sahagún’s research group does not deserve our praise or recognition today because almost every ornithologist who has written a regional work on Mexican birds after them has done a better job. To such critics I would ask, “Isn’t that the way science is supposed to function?” Sahagún’s research group finished their fieldwork and completed the Aztec language texts and scholia for the Florentine Codex in 1569. Therefore, any ornithological work done by subsequent researchers after that date is supposed to be better. If later research is not better, or if it does not otherwise contain significant new information or insights, then it is not supposed to be published. Sahagún’s group finished their work first, so we cannot reasonably require their manuscripts to be better than those who came after them. At the time of their completion, the manuscripts of Sahagún’s group contained significant new information about the birds of México that had never been published before (e.g.Haemig 1978, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2014). Consequently, despite flaws, they were important contributions to ornithology.
And there is not only novel information in their manuscripts. There is also beauty. The research group’s concise, succinct accounts are often quite eloquent, especially in the Aztec language in which they were originally written. Consider, for example, Pipitztli (B-3-45), written in Tenochtitlan in 1569:
It also lives in the water. Its head is black; its eyes are also black; white [feathers] are set on the eyelids [so that these] appear to be its eyes. It is somewhat long-necked. The throat and breast are white. Down the back of its neck, on its back, its tail, wings, wing tips, it is black. The tips of both wing-bends are white. Its legs are quite long, chili-red, slender. There is really not very much to its body, but it is quite tall. Some migrate, some remain and rear their young here. Four are its eggs; only on the ground, on dried mud, on the plain, or somewhere on the top of a clod it lays its eggs; not on grass nor feathers. It is edible. (Sahagún [1577] 1963, p. 39).
This appears to be a description of the Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus, perhaps the earliest ever written for this species. And it is quite good. Even the ground nesting habit, number of eggs, and the bird’s dual status as a breeding resident and migrant are accurate.
However, one significant error is that the tail should be “pale gray” not black (Ridgway 1919, p. 442). What could have caused this mistake? An imperfect translation? A melanistic or soiled specimen? An error in reading an image from a pictorial manuscript? Or were the long wings of this bird, which when folded at rest have overlapping tips that extend beyond the tail and cover it from above, mistaken as a black, forked tail when viewed from a distance. Such an error would be understandable when one remembers that, in the sixteenth century, binoculars had not yet been invented and the more secure method of writing bird descriptions based upon specimens in hand had not yet become the norm in ornithology.
It may not even have been possible for the research group to obtain a specimen of Pipitztli to examine in hand because of legal questions regarding property and collection rights. According to Millhauser (2017, pp. 310-311), “Sixteenth-century documents record individual and community ownership of territory dedicated to bird-hunting, fishing, and algae-collecting - as well as prolonged and bitter disputes over them (Gibson 1964:339-342, Hernández 1959:408-409).” Another hypothesis is that the text of the Pipitztli account is completely accurate but describes a different bird species, perhaps even one that no longer lives in the Valley of México (Appendix L).
Whatever the reasons for this apparent mistake, the Pipitztli account is still more detailed, informative and complete than the formal scientific description of the Black-necked Stilt published two centuries later by Müller (1776). Like many of the bird accounts from Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan, it shows clearly that Aztecs with substantial knowledge of birds helped to produce the Florentine Codex. The Renaissance-era studies of Sahagún’s research group, on a now lost island in the formerly vast, bird-rich wetlands of the Valley of México, constitute the birth of Mexican ornithology and, coincidently, give the history of Mexican ornithology a distinctive, Aztlán-like beginning, significantly different from the ornithological histories of neighboring countries.