central mexican indigenous coats of arms and the conquest of mesoamerica

Central Mexican Indigenous Coats of Arms and the Conquest of Mesoamerica

María Castañeda de la Paz, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Abstract. In this essay, I will discuss certain coats of arms that the Spanish Crown granted to some of the major central Mexican towns and their rulers for taking part in the conquests of Mexico; these towns and peoples have always been considered as conquered rather than conquerors. I will consider the nature of this participation as well as the historical context in which the requests for the coats of arms were made. My analysis will show an indigenous society that coexisted with its Spanish counterpart, and in order to strengthen its identity in new and confusing times, the indigenous society accepted Spanish cultural elements, creating what we now know as the colonial society of New Spain. The indigenous coats of arms are an excellent example of how native iconographic elements were gradually incorporated into the otherwise strongly European medium, producing a new format.

Conquerors or Conquered?

Until relatively recently, the image held of the Tlaxcalteca, the people from the city-state of Tlaxcala, was that of indigenous conquistadors who had made it possible for the Spaniards to conquer the “New World.” In tra-ditional literature about the Spanish conquest, this participation has been legitimated and justified through the difficult political and military position suffered by the Tlaxcaltec city-state, pressured by the ever more power-ful triple alliance headed by Mexico-Tenochtitlán, or present-day Mexico City.1 However, this historical view is changing, thanks to the efforts of scholars who, based on archival documents and a number of pictographic documents, have shown the fundamental roles played by indigenous groups other than the Tlaxcalteca in the so-called Spanish conquest.2 This revision-ist view is a collaborative effort of which the historical range is not yet

Ethnohistory 56:1 (Winter 2009) DOI 10.1215/00141801-2008-038Copyright 2009 by American Society for Ethnohistory

126 María Castañeda de la Paz

entirely understood. However, it has become clear that it is legitimate to ask whether the conquest of Mesoamerica was really a Spanish undertaking or, rather, an indigenous one. Numerous archival documents indicate that the conquest was very much determined by the participation of indigenous peoples and preexist-ing military, economic, and social patterns. For example, various letters of different native groups (Xochimilca, Tlacopaneca, Tenochca, Azcapo-tzalca, etc.)3 still exist and affirm the groups’ participation in the conquest.4 If one follows the progression of the conquest, a pattern in the incorpora-tion of native troops in the allied armies becomes clear. That is, as com-munities and regions were being conquered, people from those locations allied themselves with the ever-growing army, in which the Spanish pres-ence was consequently decreasing (see Oudijk and Restall 2007: 28–64; Asselbergs 2004: 90–91, 96; Gibson 1991: 154, 156; Hassig 1988: 21). This typical Mesoamerican pattern of joining the conquering army was based on the need to regain social and economic status, because through war one could be exempt from the obligations of tribute and personal service, in addition to obtaining land.5 However, once the conquests were over, these indigenous conquerors—as they called themselves—became aware that a new reality was taking shape, with new rules and new ways of behaving. Soon towns and elites alike familiarized themselves with Spanish legal for-mats, which resulted in a steady flow of wide-ranging petitions to the king and his council. Like the Spanish conquistadors, their indigenous allies wrote petitions to receive coats of arms,6 arguing three basic issues: (1) the direct participation of a certain lord or his town in the conquest, pacifi-cation, and settling of different places in New Spain; as such, the coats of arms were granted to both indigenous conquistadors and towns; (2) being true Christians, who as “indigenous nobles facilitated the spread of Chris-tianity and guided the preservation of its memory in drama, paintings, and texts” (Wood 2003: 104); this explains why so many shields contain bibli-cal phrases and numerous Christian symbols; and (3) their noble ascent. Often surprising are the mechanisms used to argue these petitions. Let-ters, sometimes written in Latin, demonstrate the native elite’s biblical and philosophical knowledge. In their petitions, these elites and towns refer to their magnificent pasts only to then ask for exemptions from tribute pay-ments and the restoration for lands and communities that supposedly used to be within their domain. In the field of Mesoamerican studies, some scholars have worked with indigenous coats of arms (Wood 2003; Haskett 1996, 2005; Roskamp 1998; Florescano 2002), but it is important to make a number of theoretical and methodological distinctions between these studies and this essay. Here I

Central Mexican Indigenous Coats of Arms 127

consider shields that were granted in the sixteenth century and that often still exist with their original petition or cédula (grant). Previous studies concern coats of arms that were used and subsequently incorporated into seventeenth- and eighteenth-century documentation that was produced during land litigation or the establishment and recognition of community territory. Such documents, known as primordial titles, constitute a wide range of papers that were based on original sixteenth- and seventeenth-century manuscripts of indigenous and Spanish origin, oral tradition, and sheer invention. While reusing early colonial material in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and the productive process of documents are signifi-cant and fascinating fields of study, studying the sixteenth-century docu-mentation involves methodologically distinctive steps. The early material—coats of arms, in this case—was produced in the context of the conquest and the colonization of Mesoamerica, in which the petitioners tried to obtain certain privileges or rights based on their participation or that of their ancestors. The arguments should therefore be analyzed in this light, as any other historical source would be reviewed. However, the shields used in later documents have a completely different historical context. A direct relationship between the (eighteenth-century) petitioner and the original (sixteenth-century) argument no longer existed. Thus, the analysis should not only consist of a study of the new historical context in which the docu-mentation occurs but also, and maybe particularly, consider the possibility of disjunction—that is, the loss of the relationship between the signifier and the signified. While in an original sixteenth-century document a cer-tain argument was incorporated for a particular reason, the use of the same argument in an eighteenth-century title most likely did not have the same meaning, if any meaning was recognized at all.7 Similarly, the incorporation of a symbol in a particular shield was part of a reasoned discourse, one often lost in the context of reuse. That said, the use of coats of arms in indigenous documentation does not necessarily mean that these were claimed as relating to the community. For example, Stephanie Wood (2003: 90–94, fig. 4.11) notes that the Span-ish Crown granted various shields to the nobles and the city of Tlaxcala, the latter being the first given to any indigenous town in Mesoamerica. Accord-ing to Wood, the city’s shield is represented in the Lienzo de Tlaxcala; how-ever, the blazon depicted in this lienzo is that of the kingdom of Spain and not that of the altepetl (community) of Tlaxcala. It seems highly unlikely that the king granted his own blazon to an indigenous community. It is more probable that the Tlaxcalteca incorporated it into their document in order to show they were part of the Spanish kingdom and as such collaborated loyally with the king. Similar tactics were followed in the Lienzo de Cuauh-


quechollan and the Códice de Tlatelolco by the respective native groups. As shown in the above text, it is important to consider both the historical con-text in which scholars analyze documents and the particular meanings of documents in order to reach a relevant analysis. My first objective here is to consider the nature of the asserted partici-pation in the conquest of each of the lords or towns under discussion, since this was the rationale—in addition to being good Christians—for receiving a grant for a coat of arms. The concessions of the coats of arms corrobo-rate the importance of the indigenous participation in the conquest, which has until recently been thought of as a Spanish conquest only. The Tlaxcal-teca have provided us with most information on such participation, but, as mentioned above, many towns and peoples were involved in the Spanish-indigenous campaigns. The coats of arms are after-the-fact accounts of the different towns and people who participated in this undertaking, and the coats of arms iconographically express the wars and other such activities. Second, I will analyze the indigenous pictographic elements that in the coats of arms converge with iconographic elements of the European heraldic tradition. As such, these blazons are powerful witnesses to the dynamic and creative process of the native population’s adaptation to colonial society. In analyzing these expressive documents, it becomes immediately clear that although the conquest and colonization of Mesoamerica were traumatic, in no way did Mesoamerica’s original inhabitants simply sit back and watch their world be destroyed. Even in a medium as European as the coats—of arms, the indigenous petitioners created a new format—New Spain was not a copy of Spain but rather a truly new society in which Mesoamerican and European cultural elements merged.

The Request for a Coat of Arms

In contrast to the Spanish conquistadors, who started making requests for coats of arms shortly after the initial conquests of the 1520s, the indige-nous conquistadors asked for this privilege only from the mid-sixteenth century on. According to Charles Gibson (1991: 156–57), the grants were awarded because the indigenous lords personally asked for them; other-wise, the Crown would not have bothered to issue any. Gibson also notes that these indigenous petitions were made possible by an organized govern-ment and, above all, a solid knowledge of Spanish forms of law on the part of the petitioners.8 Generally, the principales (nobles) specified their noble ascendancy; their role in the conquest, pacification, and settlement of the recently conquered lands; and the contributions of people, arms, and mone-tary expenses related to the military campaigns.


The procedure to request a municipal coat of arms normally began with the secular indigenous cabildo, or town council, which would write a petition to be presented before the king. A specially formed committee of principales would then take the request to Spain and afterward bring the concessions of privileges and the royal cédula back to New Spain to be presented to the viceroy. A ceremony of obedience would be performed, followed by the presentation of the concessions to the indigenous cabildo (ibid.: 161–63). The cédula would then be kept in a box that had five differ-ent keys. Each key would be placed in the possession of a different member of the cabildo, so the box could not be opened without all five members present. However, the cabildo would also see to it that copies were made of all the concessions of privileges (ibid.: 122, 162).9 From this procedure it can be deduced that at least four copies of each shield existed: the sketch made by the painter of the cabildo, which would serve as a model for the painter of the royal court (often this sketch would contain pre-Hispanic pictographic elements that were not known or understood by the painter); the coat of arms of the painter, which would be incorporated into the royal grant; a copy that the painter made to be kept in Spain; and a copy for the cabildo. This explains why there are sometimes slight variations among rep-resentations of the same blazon. This is true of the coat of arms of Xochi-milco and Coyoacan, as will be shown below. If individuals made a request for a coat of arms, the procedure was more or less the same: the interested party would submit a petition to the colonial authorities, who would send it to Spain. Under these circumstances, three copies of the blazon would exist: the sketch proposed by the applicant; the official coat of arms included in the royal cédula; and the copy kept by the royal authorities. It is important to note that in heraldic studies a coat of arms is dis-cussed by quarters, reading from the upper left to the upper right, followed by the bottom left and bottom right. A shield can be divided into more than four “quarters,” resulting in the awkward terminology of “the sixth quar-ter,” and so on.

The Blazons

Shields and banners were not unknown in Mesoamerica before the arrival of the Spaniards. For example, the shields of warriors showed “emblems indicating geographic origin, ethnic affiliation, and the like” (Haskett 2005: 222). These indigenous warriors also carried a series of banners into battle, as is testified by the representations of the Cuauhquecholteca with such ban-ners in the Lienzo de Quauhquechollan, as identified by Florine G. L. Assel-


bergs (2004: 118–21). Similarly, the Lienzo de Tlaxcala (Chavero 1979) and the Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: Tlaxcala (Acuña 1984) depict the Tlaxcaltec banners, which were eventually incorporated into the European-style shields of the Tlaxcaltec nobility (Luque Talaván and Castañeda de la Paz 2006). This is what don Jerónimo del Águila meant when he said he wanted to incorporate into his new blazon “the banners which I inherited from my ancestors,” while don Diego Cortés Totoquihuaztli asked for the inclusion of the shield that “they used to possess” (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 288, 162). Indeed, two distinct terms existed in pre-Hispanic times to indicate the shields or banners of the lords and those of the community, or altepetl: tlatocatlauiztli and altepetlauiztli, respectively.10 It is important to note that in the colonial era the main objective of a town petitioning for the altepetlauiztli was a change in status from town to city. As James Lockhart (1992: 55–56) points out, the Spaniards primarily used the term pueblo, or town, to refer to larger settlements, so although the word often coincided with the indigenous concept of altepetl, it would also have been used for settlements that may have been part of such an altepetl. Further, in documents that were written in Nahuatl, the Aztec language, the term pueblo is very rarely used. So it seems that while the Spaniards never fully understood the structure of the indigenous altepetl, the indige-nous population did understand the Spanish distinction between a town and a city, using it for their own benefits and to distinguish themselves from other altepetl. As is confirmed by Robert Haskett (1996: 104; 2005: 221), the communities that had the right to possess coats of arms were considered superior to those that did not, which explains why towns like Coyoacan, Tlacopan, and Xochimilco sought to obtain them. While it is relatively easy to explain why the European coats of arms were adopted by the indigenous population, it is more difficult to do so in regard to the format they have. The fact that the colonial indigenous coats of arms do not always follow the rigid norms of European heraldic com-positions may reflect a society that borrowed from another society what it considered useful. The indigenous shields show deviations from the Euro-pean norms, such as the use and combination of dissimilar elements (Span-ish or Italian silhouettes, crests, indigenous iconographic elements), alter-ations in the enamels (frequent breaks with the principal rule of heraldry to never place color over color or metal over metal), and the use of uncommon colors like purple, which was generally reserved for ecclesiastical armory (Luque Talaván 2007). Furthermore, contrary to European norms, there was prolific use of so-called compositions of vignettes, or realistic represen-tations in the form of pictures. These aspects make describing the indige-nous blazons—according to European heraldry—particularly difficult but


all the more interesting from the point of view of Mesoamerican iconog-raphy. Although I will analyze the symbols in a sample group of coats of arms, mainly following Mesoamerican iconographic meanings, I hasten to point out that in European heraldry certain motifs, such as the extended eagle or the rampant lion, did not always have a clearly defined significance at the time of their use. The Archivo Ducal de Alba (ADA) is one of the repositories where many royal cédulas are kept. With these the king conceded coats of arms to indigenous nobles or their altepetl. Except for that of don Diego de Men-doza, the blazons discussed here are those of major central Mexican towns or their rulers.11 I focus on these blazons because the towns they represent have always been considered to have been conquered rather than having been conquerors. Maybe the most astonishing cédula is that of don Diego Tehuetzquititzin from Tenochtitlán. Throughout the historiography of Mexico, the day Mexico-Tenochtitlán fell (13 August 1521) is taken to be the beginning of the colonial period. However, don Diego’s application for a coat of arms does not even refer to that event but instead refers to his feats in other wars of conquest and to his rule of Tenochtitlán. The concessions of the Crown to the indigenous nobility, as well as the coats of arms them-selves, sent out a powerful message to these nobles and their people about the important role they had played in the conquest and the establishment of colonial rule. There is a clear distinction between two types of petitions for coats of arms in terms of their argumentation. One group of petitions is made up of those that focus on the services and participation rendered during the arrival and establishment of the Spanish in Mesoamerica (1519–21), as well as during the initial conquest of Tenochtitlán in 1521. Invariably, these are petitions made by towns—in this sample, Coyoacan, Tlacopan, and Xochi-milco. The second type of petitions emphasizes the services and participa-tion rendered in later conquests and during the process of colonization, especially the indigenous conversion to Catholicism.12 Such petitions were made by individuals such as don Diego Tehuetzquititzin, tlatoani-governor of Tenochtitlán (1541–54); the cacique don Jerónimo del Águila of the city of Tlacopan; and don Diego de Mendoza, governor of Axacuba.13

The Altepetlauiztli, or the Coats of Arms of Towns

The Altepetlauiztli of CoyoacanThe altepetlauiztli of Coyoacan was conceded after a petition from the town’s governor, don Juan de Guzmán Itztlolinqui “the Young,” and was signed in Madrid on 24 June 1561 (fig. 1).14 The term “the Young” indicates


that don Juan was a son of don Juan de Guzmán Itztlolinqui. In order to distinguish between the two men the colonial documents refer to them as “the Young” for the son and “the Old” for the father. This use is, of course, very similar to that of ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ in present-day English. We do not have the transcription of the royal cédula that accompa-nied the blazon and in which the petition is argued and justified. How-ever, the other examples of such petitions, like those of Xochimilco and Tlacopan (see below), make clear that the central argument was always the participation of the town and/or its lords in the conquest of Tenochtitlán. Furthermore, a 1536 petition by don Juan de Guzmán Itztlolinqui “the Old” enumerates the sacrifices that were made in order to conquer, pacify, and colonize Mesoamerica.15 The document includes the testimony of don Juan and three witnesses, all corroborating the services rendered to the Spaniards by Quauhpopocatl, father of don Juan:

Figure 1: Altepetlauiztli of Coyoacan. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


• Quauhpopocatl received don Hernán Cortés and his men by order of the Mexica Huei tlatoani Moctezuma Xocoyotzin. He suppos-edly guided Cortés to Mexico-Tenochtitlán, protecting him and his men against all the towns that sought to wage war against them.

• Quauhpopocatl helped the Spaniards escape the siege of Tenochti-tlán (noche triste) after the Mexica had stoned Moctezuma Xoco-yotzin, causing his death. He recommended taking the road to Tlacopan to reach the mainland, although all the bridges had been dismantled. Quauhpopocatl, with the protection of two Spaniards with crossbows, made bridges so the Spaniards could cross the channels. It was then that a Mexica warrior fatally wounded him.

• Tlacopan and its subject towns provided care and aid to the Span-iards, feeding and curing them. If the Spaniards had not received this, they surely would have died of hunger and disease.

• In the conquest of Hibueras, another son of Quauhpopocatl’s accompanied Cortés. He brought four hundred warriors with him, all of whom died during the battles of this campaign.

Obviously, having been written by his son, the petition mainly deals with the exploits of Quauhpopocatl. However, it is easy to infer from this docu-ment the argumentation that was probably used in the petition of Coyoacan for its coat of arms. After the Spaniards had arrived in Mesoamerica, the Coyoacan people, at the order of Moctezuma Xocoyotzin, guided and pro-tected them through hostile country. An important issue in this petition, as well as in others, is the loyalty of Coyoacan to the Mexica ruler. He was the embodiment of rendition and dedication to the Spanish cause and even died for it. This was a powerful argument that descendants of Moctezuma and towns loyal to him used over and over again until the eighteenth century. This argument also appears regarding Coyoacan’s participation in the con-quest of Tenochtitlán: Coyoacan sided with the Spanish, continuing as such the policy of Moctezuma, and fighting the insurgent Tenochca powers. When the Spaniards were in danger of losing everything during the noche triste, the people of Coyoacan rescued the surviving Spanish troops. It is interesting to see that they chose to go to Tlacopan, the main town of the Tepanec region. During the reign of Itzcoatl, the fourth tlatoani of Tenoch-titlán (1428–40), the three central Mexican cities of Texcoco, Tenochtit-lán, and Tlacopan formed the triple alliance more or less according to the three main ethnic and political entities in the region, Acolhua, Culhua, and Tepaneca, respectively. The triple alliance replaced an older one made up of Coatlinchan, Culhuacan, and Azcapotzalco. Tlacopan replaced Azcapo-tzalco, which had controlled not only the Tepanec area but also the greater part of central Mexico until the time of Itzcoatl. Coyoacan was a Tepanec


town, too, and had been subject first to Azcapotzalco and later to Tlacopan. Such use of pre-Hispanic relations and alliances was surely commonplace during the contact period but often escapes notice due to limited historical information. In this case, it is clear that these relationships determined the direction in which the Spanish escape took place and consequently saved their lives. Coyoacan’s participation in Spanish conquests continued with the campaigns in Central America, which was sufficient justification to make a request for and receive a coat of arms. The Coyoacan altepetlauiztli combines clear Hispanic iconographic elements of a religious nature with those of indigenous traditions of war, representing two of the main arguments for the concession of privileges. The shield is laden with meaning. First, in the lion’s headdress one recog-nizes the representation of the pre-Hispanic god Otontecuhtli in the form of paper butterflies. Such iconography is very similar to that used in relation to the feast of Xocotl Huetzi, or “fruits fall,” linking it to Otontecuhtli. This deity guided the Tepanec people, and thus the Coyoaque, too, during their migration before settling in the Valley of Mexico. It seems probable that Otontecuhtli was taken as the patron god once Coyoacan was founded, and consequentially, it was important to incorporate him into the shield’s iconography. The deity is represented here to show the Chichimec origin of the Tepaneca and their association with war and conquest. Prisoners of war were sacrificed to Otontecuhtli by being thrown into a fire and removed before they died, so that their hearts could be taken out while they still lived.16 The combination of elements of a sacred character with those of war typifies the inner part of the shield. In the first and fourth quarters, the Dominican cross clearly alludes to the Dominican Order, which founded a house in Coyoacan. The cross rises from the mouth of a coyote, the animal from which the city took its name (coyotl ). Therefore, its symbolism could be interpreted as the installation and acceptance of the Catholic religion by the city. However, the cross is also a decorative element of a chimalli, or shield, that is accompanied by arrows. According to pre-Hispanic iconog-raphy, the shield and arrows must be read as “war.” This appears to allude to conquests the Coyoacan undertook with the Spanish. Due to a lack of information, it is not possible to interpret the symbolism of the other quar-ters of the shield, which depict a jaguar and a coyote embracing a tree. The coat of arms of Coyoacan includes another frequently used sym-bol, a bow and arrow. Many elements used in the shields concern the indigenous concepts of Chichimec and Toltec. Chichimec ascendancy is associated with groups that came from the north—nomads and hunters—which explains why groups that wanted to show their relationship to such


ascendancy relied on the depiction of the bow and arrow. However, non-nomadic groups that lived in cities developed art, writing, and other skills. That is, they were civilized and called themselves Toltecs. They claimed to have come from Tollan, the center of civilization and were inheritors of the tradition of Quetzalcoatl, the great Mesoamerican culture hero. These two concepts may seem to us to be opposites, but in fact they were not to the people living in pre-Hispanic central Mexico. Many who claimed to be of Chichimec descent became imbued with culture and civilization, sometimes acquiring a double identity that, depending on the objective of a document or the time in which they lived, could be used in either way. Obviously, during a time of conquests like the first half of the sixteenth century, the Chichimec values were of great importance, considering that they were not only associated with hunting and nomads but also, and maybe particularly, with warring peoples who were respected and feared.17

The Altepetlauiztli of TlacopanThe altepetlauiztli conceded to the town of Tlacopan was signed in Barce-lona on 3 March 1564 (fig. 2).18 The grant states that two petitions were made, one on 6 August 1552 and another on 20 February 1561 (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 163–65, 245–47). In these petitions, the principales of Tlacopan noted the town’s importance in pre-Hispanic times as one of the three towns of the triple alliance. But of greater importance are the statements about the people’s conversion to Catholicism and participation in the conquest of Tenochtitlán. Both petitions describe in detail the aid that the Tlacopaneca rendered the Spanish during the siege and conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlán. Don Antonio Cortés, who wrote the petitions and was the son of Totoquihuaztli, the ruler of Tlacopan when Cortés arrived in 1519, reminds the Spanish monarch of the noche triste, in which more than half of the Spaniards died. He reflects on the brave acts of the Tlacopaneca and suggests that his people could have finished off the other half, if they had wanted to. Instead, they received the Spaniards in peace and fed them, and consequently they suffered terrible reprisals from the Mexica, who attacked Tlacopan, killing many of its people. For these reasons and others, the Tlacopaneca wrote the petition for a coat of arms and a request for certain benefits for their town. As they did not receive a concession in 1552, the principales of Tlacopan tried again nine years later. The town obtained its coat of arms nine years later, in 1564. There is another letter of don Antonio Cortés, dated 1 December 1552, in which he explains in greater detail the relationship of Tlacopan to the Spanish conquistadors (ibid.: 175–77). Don Antonio goes back to the time of his father, lord Totoquihuaztli, who, having heard of the arrival of


the Spaniards, sent gifts on behalf of his town. In the letter, don Antonio records the words Totoquihuaztli supposedly addressed to Cortés, which don Antonio claims can be corroborated by witnesses known to him. According to this version, Totoquihuaztli offered his services to Cortés and the king of Spain, abstaining from fighting against the Spaniards and pro-posing the possibility of an alliance with Cortés. The objective of Tlacopan was to bring down its enemies with the help of the Spanish. This supposed friendship and alliance explains why the Tlacopaneca continued to serve the Spanish as auxiliaries at the time of the Spanish defeat in Tenochtit-

Figure 2: Altepetlauiztli of Tlacopan. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


lán. Further, don Antonio claims that Totoquihuaztli forbade Moctezuma Xocoyotzin to wage war against the Spaniards, something that seems quite unlikely, given that the ruler of Tlacopan had no authority or power over the ruler of Tenochtitlán. According to this letter, when Totoquihuaztli died, his brothers continued to warn the residents of Tenochtitlán against their confrontations with the Spaniards, which is why the Mexica later killed them. This heraldic example presents an iconography that is very much related to war and religious conversion. The glyph of the city is represented in the central quarter of the upper part of the shield. It contains a hill (the altepetl ), a tree with water flowing from its roots, a flaming lion embracing the tree, and some flowers. The meaning of the flaming lion embracing the tree is unclear, although according to European norms it is associated with force and power. The tree is positioned on top of the hill with water flowing from its roots and, consequently, from within the hill, which may symbolize a primordial tree.19 Even though there are only two, the flowers must refer to the pre-Hispanic glyph of Tlacopan, which consists of three tlacotl, a kind of flower.20 The quarters on either side of the toponym express mili-tary conquests through representations of the two main military orders in pre-Hispanic Mesoamerica, those of the eagle and the jaguar. In this case, they are both shouting “War!” using the pre-Hispanic convention of atl tla-chinolli, or “water-burned land,” clearly represented in the use of blue, for water, and red, for fire. The eagle is depicted on top of a hill that can be qualified as “precious” because the shapes of the elements in the eagle’s claws give them the appear-ance of precious stones (called xihuitl in Nahuatl), typically turquoise. This interpretation is corroborated by the stones’ blue color and the presence of a bunch of green grass or leaves, since the word for “grass” in Nahuatl is homophonous (xihuitl ).21 The jaguar can be identified by its spots, and it flanks a steep hill with a burning temple on top. In Mesoamerican pictog-raphy, this is a common convention to signify the conquest of a particular town (see, for example, the Codex Mendoza [Berdan and Anawalt 1991]). The building, or tecpan, to its right may allude to Tlacopan. A similar tecpan is depicted in the fourth and seventh quarters. Above it are three smaller houses crowned by the xiuhtzolli, a royal diadem worn only by the tlatoque, or principal lords. Without a doubt, this is a reference to the cities of the triple alliance: Tenochtitlán, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. The fifth and sixth quarters, though slightly different from one another, are related to the religious theme. The fifth quarter refers to Christianity’s arrival (represented by a globe) in the New World, or “Mundo Me[n]or.” The star may represent the light of faith brought by Catholicism, in a Euro-


pean interpretation, or it could refer to Venus announcing the arrival of the sun, indicating the beginning of a new era, in Mesoamerican iconography. This message is complemented by the sixth quarter, in which a tlatoani with his xiuhtzolli embraces the Catholic faith through baptism, explaining the naked torso in the water (Olivier 2007). This must be don Antonio Cortés because his father, Totoquihuaztli, was never baptized. The last two quarters, the eighth and ninth, can be interpreted thanks to the description by don Jerónimo del Águila. They allude to a river of blood and fire and a river of blood and water, respectively, both mythical places of origin. Although the eighth quarter contains representations of flames and, therefore, of fire, there is no sign of blood. In the ninth quar-ter, the blood was again left out—only the water was depicted. That both coats of arms from Tlacopan contain these elements is probably due to the existence of such elements in the local historical tradition. As don Jerónimo affirmed in his petition, these were “the banners that I inherited from my ancestors” (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 287). Such places of origin, as elements of the local identity, are also present in the coats of arms of Tzin-tzuntzan, in which Chicomoztoc, or Cave Seven, the place where the Chi-chimecs have their origin, is depicted (see fig. 1 of Roskamp 2001). Finally, a garland of flowers hangs from a round face on the right side of the actual shield. This face may be that of Xipe Totec, the probable patron god of the city. Such interpretation is based on a comparative icono-graphic study of the blazon of the Tlacopan ruler in which this face has been replaced by a shield or chimalli closely related with Xipe. Furthermore, the pink color of the coat of arms seems to be associated with this deity.22 The other end of the garland is held by the claws of an eagle, which also holds a bunch of arrows referring to war and possibly to the Chichimec or the warlike character of the Tlacopaneca.

The Altepetlauiztli of XochimilcoThe shield conceded to the city of Xochimilco was dated 11 April 1559 in Valladolid (fig. 3).23 It has been affirmed that Xochimilco was yet another city that actively took part in the process of conquest and colonization. A letter in the Archivo General de Indias dated 20 May 1563 and written by the governor don Pedro de Santiago and other principales provides abun-dant information about this matter (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 281–86). The Xochimilca claim, as did citizens of other towns, that they received the Spanish in peace and without war or resistance, although we know from Cortés’s third letter that this was not the case (Hassig 1988: 113). The Xochimilca first battled with the Spaniards and then agreed to an alliance,


Figure 3: Altepetlauiztli of Xochimilco. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


possibly to protect their polity or to gain time for the Tenochca to arrive. Be that as it may, after this agreement, the Xochimilca claim to have provided two thousand canoes filled with food and twelve thousand warriors for the siege of Tenochtitlán, thanks to which the Spanish were able to win the war. The petition refers not only to the assistance given to the Spaniards; it also notes the aid given to the Tlaxcalteca. The request for the shield clearly describes the indispensable role of the Xochimilca in the success of the conquest. They were aware that Cor-tés’s troops were low on supplies and had made inadequate preparations for traveling through unknown lands. As the Xochimilca explain, they guided the Spanish, “whom we saved from death a thousand times” (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 281). Furthermore, the request gives a relatively precise number of men and provisions that Xochimilco provided for the military campaigns to Honduras, Guatemala, Pánuco, and Jalisco. On 4 March 1559, for these services Xochimilco received a royal cédula, which granted the title of noble city.24 A couple of days later, the Crown issued the blazon. The symbolism of this interesting example of early municipal heraldry from New Spain is easy to interpret. The hill with flowers at its foot refers to the town of Xochimilco, as its pre-Hispanic glyph was a field of flowers.25 The cross seems to be crowning the hill as a symbol of the acceptance of a new time and religion by its inhabitants. Or, as Hans Roskamp (2001: 16) points out, a cross could show that a town had become a center of Catholicism protected by the new god. In the Xochimilco blazon, the waves of water allude to the city’s canals, fed by the southern lakes of the central altiplano. A large royal crown is repre-sented above the shield, which is quite common in municipal blazons of royal jurisdiction. It is curious that the altepetlauiztli shows no reference whatsoever to the impressive military participation of Xochimilco in conquests across Mesoamerica. For some reason it was thought more important to illustrate the acceptance of the Catholic religion, which was not mentioned in the petition at all.

The Tlatocatlauiztli, or the Personal Coats of Arms

The Tlatocatlauiztli of Don Diego de San Francisco TehuetzquititzinIn Madrid on 23 December 1546, a concession for a coat of arms was granted to don Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquititzin, tlatoani-governor of Tenochtitlán from 1541 to 1554 (Villar Villamil 1933, coat of arms no. 130; fig. 4).26 The tlatocatlauiztli were conceded to indigenous nobility in com-


Figure 4: Tlatocatlauiztli of don Diego Tehuetzquititzin. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


pensation for their participation in the conquest and for other services ren-dered. Various documents refer to the participation of don Diego Tehuetz-quititzin in the pacification of New Galicia and in the well-known Mixton War.27 It is not surprising that although Tehuetzquititzin was ruler of Tenoch-titlán, at no time did he refer to the conquest of his city. It seems improbable that his father, Tezcatlpopocatzin, did little that Tehuetzquititzin, probably still a young boy in 1521, could boast about to the king. It is more likely that he was fighting the Spanish alongside the Mexica rulers Cuitlahuac and Cuauhtemoc in the final siege of the city. Unlike, for example, Doña Isabel Moctezuma, who consistently referred to her father, Moctezuma Xocoyo-tzin, in her claims for privileges, Tehuetzquititzin could not use this same argument, since he was a descendant not of Moctezuma but of Tizoc, a Mexica ruler of a different branch of the ruling family. This explains why anything that happened before don Diego Tehuetzquititzin’s rule is simply ignored in his petitions and demands. The focus is thus on his own actions, particularly on his participation in the military campaigns to the north. Pre-Hispanic patterns of enthronement constitute an interesting aspect of don Diego’s participation in the Mixton War. This becomes clear if we consider the following quotation:

Auh zan níman ipanin in omoteneuh in 10 Calli xíhuitl in motlatoca-tlallli in tlacatl Dn. Diego de Sn. Francisco Tehuetzquitítzin tlatohuani Tenochtitlan, inin ipiltzin in Tezcatlpopocatzin tlatocapilli Tenoch-titlan, inin ipiltzin in Tizocicatzin tlatohuani, auh zanno iquac ipan in xihuitl huilohuac in Xochipillan, iquac poliuhque in Xochipilteca ompa motlatocapacato in Dn. Diego Tehuitzquititzin. (Alvarado Tezo-zomoc 1992: 171–72)

In this aforementioned year of 10-House, when the person of Don Diego de San Francisco Tehuetzquititzin, King of Tenochtitlan, being the son of Tezcatl Popocatzin, prince of Tenochtitlan, and [grand]son of Tizocicatzin, king [of Tenochtitlán] and also when in this year every-one left to Xochipillan, when the Xochipilteca lost, there he went to wash as a ruler, he, Don Diego Tehuetzquititzin.28

The phrase “he went to wash as a ruler” is given in the Nahuatl text as motlatocapacato and should be translated as “he washed himself as ruler of the land.” This is a reference to a ritual act that an indigenous ruler would perform on taking office, which consisted of going to war to take prisoners to be sacrificed.29 This is an extraordinary example of the pre-Hispanic motivations of indigenous nobles to participate in the conquest—a pattern of conduct inherited from their ancestors that, once assimilated into the


colonial life system, would abruptly disappear. Still, it is interesting to see how in a colonial document an indigenous term with such important con-notations persisted. The tlatocatlauiztli shows that the Tenochtitlán ruler made sure to include the glyphic representation of the altepetl, represented by the waters of a lagoon, white and blue according to the description in the cédula, and a stone from which a nopal (prickly pear cactus) grows. Without any doubt, these elements refer to the survival of Tenochca history in the memory of its principales.30 It is important to remember that this glyph was replaced in 1523 by a shield with prevailing Spanish heraldic elements that was con-ceded to the city by the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. From that time on, the old Tenochtitlán—now called Mexico—was represented as a tower flanked by two lions on top of an aqueduct and ten figs (tuna) along its fringe as a reminder of the nopal. But this provoked a continuous disagree-ment about the inclusion or exclusion of certain elements.31 During the six-teenth and seventeenth centuries, the water, stone, nopal, and eagle were used continuously in insignias and banners (see Alberro 1997: 393–414; and the illustration in the Codex Osuna [Cortés 1976: fol. 8r]). They finally reappear on the Mexican flag in 1812, with the eagle representing Huitzi-lopochtli, the Mexica’s patron deity, an element seemingly disregarded by don Diego. However, an extended eagle appears in the second quarter of his blazon, alongside the glyph of Tenochtitlán. The extended eagle is com-mon in European heraldry, and although the Tenochtitlán blazon depicts a typical European eagle, the eagle was most certainly associated with the patron god Huitzilopochtli (who also represented the sun) and would thus be a clear continuation of pre-Hispanic iconography. Haskett (2005: 233) agrees with such identification and adds that the eagle “as ‘king of birds’ represented politician supremacy.” In his discussion of the coats of arms in the Lienzo de Patzcuaro and that of Tzintzuntzan, Hans Roskamp (2001: 14, figs. 2 and 3) points out that the eagle “was a highly venerated animal in Central Mexico and generally associated with the sun or other deities.” This suggests that don Diego may have considered it a way to include the image of Huitzilopochtli into his coat of arms, which would explain why he did not include the nopal in this quarter but in the other.

The Tlatocatlauiztli of Don Jerónimo del ÁguilaThis blazon was conceded to don Jerónimo de Águila, a principal of Tlaco-pan, and was signed in Barcelona on 3 March 1564 (Villar Villamil 1933: coat of arms no. 139; Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 53)32 (fig. 5). We are par-ticularly fortunate to have the petition to the king written by don Jerónimo himself (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 287–88). Based on this letter, we know


that petitioners would explain why certain elements should be included in this coat of arms, and he would sometimes even explain the elements’ sym-bolism. By comparing the petition with the description of the coat of arms in the royal cédula, it becomes clear that the responsible authorities did not always grasp the value that certain iconographic elements had for the petitioner. In his petition, don Jerónimo explains that he is a resident and prin-cipal of Tlacopan, where he has been a corregidor (a position in the town council) several times. He requests various privileges in addition to a coat of arms, such as the right to carry a sword, lance, and other weapons used

Figure 5: Tlatocatlauiztli of don Jerónimo del Águila. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


by the Spanish. He justifies his request by noting his many services to the Crown, including his participation in the war of Xochipilla—and others that are not specified—in the company of viceroy don Antonio de Men-doza. Furthermore, don Jerónimo claims to have fought against idolatry, destroying images and temples, at times risking his life. By his own account, during the war of Xochipilla, don Jerónimo carried a lance, a sword, and a shield adorned with the five wounds of Christ, as well as the insignia he had inherited from his ancestors. He asks to have these and other elements incorporated into his tlatocatlauiztli. Since a Spaniard at the royal court, who had never been in New Spain, could not possibly draw the elements on this coat of arms that were alien to his culture, it is therefore clear that these are based on a sketch made in Tlacopan. The description of the shield is very clear:

Firstly, the five wounds, a sword and a lance, two houses with two cedars, on top of which are two eagles, two more houses with three bloody flints on each one of them, another house with a river of blood and water, another [house] with another river of blood and fire, with the other things contained in the said shield, on the edge of which go the following notice: “Libera me Domine Iesu Christe, Salvator mundi, Dominus meus et Deus meus.” (Letter of Don Jerónimo del Águila to King Felipe II. In Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 288)

The shield shows a clear fusion of Christian and indigenous elements related to war and, more concretely, to acts of war in which don Jerónimo partici-pated. At the same time, it emphasizes his conversion to Catholicism. As described by don Jerónimo, the hills with the bloody knives in the first and fifth quarter are intimately related to war. As we have already seen, in Mesoamerican iconography such hills are often accompanied by a flow of water. Usually the hill is drawn with a second qualitative element giving the name of the town. Since this is not the case here, it may be a generic reference to “town.” The obsidian knives allude to the indigenous tradition of sacrificing those who were captured in battle. In pre-Hispanic times, flint knives were used to cut open the chests of sacrificial victims taken in war in order to take out their hearts. The third and fourth quarter show a hill with a tree on top that is described as a cedar in the petition. An eagle appears to be sitting on top of the tree. The hill, painted as an island situated in blue water, may again symbolize the concept of altepetl. It is unclear what the cedar meant to don Jerónimo and why he wanted it in his coat of arms. The cedar appears fre-quently in the Old Testament as a symbol of strength and greatness. How-ever, Alonso de Molina (2001: 33v) says that the cedar is the same as the


ahuehuetl and oyametl, trees with enormous symbolism in Mesoamerica (Swanton 2007). The eagle could allude to the Christian name Águila, adopted by don Jerónimo, which would convert it into a so-called speaking heraldic element. Two streams emerge from the eagle’s beak. They clearly represent atl tlachinolli, or “water-burned land,” which in pre-Hispanic ico-nography means “war.” That is, the eagle—and therefore don Jerónimo—shouts “War!” One stream should have been colored blue to indicate water, while the other should have been red to symbolize fire. However, the whole symbol is colored red, and the difference between the two streams is only indicated by pre-Hispanic pictorial elements: whereas one stream ends with small circles representing drops and shells, the other terminates in three petals or flames. This representation can be compared to the famous Teocalli de la Guerra Sagrada, a huge stone monument housed in the Museo Nacional de Antropología in Mexico City, which represents the foundation of Tenochtitlán. It depicts an eagle—alluding to Huitzilopochtli—on top of a nopal, shouting “War!” shown by the atl tlachinolli glyph emerging from its beak (Alcina Franch 1992: 237, 239). In his request, the petitioner paid much attention to the second quar-ter, which, located in the center, occupies the most important compositional place in the shield. It depicts the weapons with which don Jerónimo went to battle: his sword, his lance with a banner (a typical element in the Hispanic and indigenous armories), and the shield with the five wounds of Christ and the three nails of the crucifixion, elements that symbolize the passion and death of Jesus. In pre-Hispanic times, the round shields were also decorated with different iconographic motifs, such as the down feathers on the shield of Huitzilopochtli. Here, however, we have a European shield topped by a cross. There are two more important pre-Hispanic traits in this coat of arms that we have already seen in the blazon conceded to the city of Tlacopan. Don Jerónimo specified that he wanted a river of blood and fire in the sixth quarter, elements that are associated with war and battles. In the concession of the royal cédula, these elements were not depicted as he had requested, and, instead, the coat of arms shows red flames. The Spanish painter may actually have drawn a reference to the Holy Spirit in the form of a rain of fire. The seventh quarter shows an allusion to a river of blood and a river of water. The latter is depicted in a European manner, while the blood has to be deduced from the red color. It is important to note that the image of red and blue water—blood and water—evokes the Lagoon of Primordial Blood, a conceptual place of origin for various Mesoamerican peoples.33 This also reminds us of the garlands of flowers represented in the altepetlahuiztli of


Tlacopan. This is yet another element of the sacred landscape, as it is por-trayed on page 16v of the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca (Kirchhoff, Güemes, and Reyes García 1989), where the primordial waters are surrounded by water lilies and cotton flowers, which are very similar to these garlands. Finally, the motto on the edge of the shield is, in the words of don Jerónimo, the “unmistakable argument of the evidence with which we pos-sess the holy Catholic faith” (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000: 288). Without a doubt, this was conceived as another solid argument for the concession of the blazon.

The Tlatocatlauiztli of Don Diego de MendozaAs the cédula explains, this shield was conceded to don Diego de Mendoza, cacique and governor of the town of Axacuba in the present-day state of Hidalgo, and was signed in Madrid on 8 February 1562 (fig. 6).34 The cédula specifies that the coat of arms was conceded because don Diego had always been a friend of the Spanish, offering his services to the king. Carrying his weapons and riding a horse, he had taken part in the conquest and pacifi-cation of the province of Pánuco, as well as in the Chichimec wars of the mining region of Zacatecas.35 During these campaigns, don Diego risked his life on several occasions. A glyph in the first quarter represents a hill with water flowing from it, again, a reference to the concept of altepetl. A black eagle is positioned on top of the hill, but it is difficult to determine its meaning as this bird cannot be related to Axacuba either as a place glyph or in any other way. The grant specifies that a maguey is represented on one side of the hill, although it does not look like one, and on the other side is depicted a bow and arrow. Both elements are characteristic of the arid Chichimec region in northern Mexico, place of origin of the people of Axacuba. The second quarter reproduces with total accuracy the blazon of the Mendoza lineage to which the then-viceroy don Antonio de Mendoza belonged. One of the most important and powerful noble families of the lower Middle Ages in the kingdom of Castile and León and a lineage very close to the Spanish monarchs, this is, of course, particularly a reference to don Diego’s family name. On the one hand, don Diego refers to his warlike character, which was of great importance in the military campaigns in which he participated, and on the other hand, he refers to his important noble descent, even though he was not of the Spanish royal branch. Some confusion exists about who don Diego was. Whereas the cédula was granted to don Diego de Mendoza from Axacuba, various copies of the coat of arms are incorporated into documentation produced by sup-posed descendants of a don Diego de Mendoza from Tlatelolco, the twin


Figure 6: Tlatocatlauiztli of don Diego de Mendoza. Photo courtesy of Archivo Ducal de Alba


city of Tenochtitlán, suggesting that the men are one and the same. How-ever, there are several reasons to reject such identification. From 1549 until 1560, don Diego of Tlatelolco was cacique of the city and a powerful figure in colonial Mexico. Nevertheless, he fell from power in 1560 when he was removed from his position and was brought to a residencia (trial) regarding certain land disputes. After the trial, he was sent to jail, where he died two years later. Of the various existing documents that mention don Diego, only one dates from the sixteenth century, and many—in which his descendants seem to inflate his historical importance—are from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.36 Although the Códice de Tlatelolco confirms the participation of don Diego of Tlatelolco in various military campaigns that are also mentioned in the cédula, it is important to note that this grant was given on 8 Febru-ary 1562, when don Diego had already been in jail for some time. It is very unlikely that the Spanish king would honor don Diego with a coat of arms after stripping him of his political position and imprisoning him. It is also somewhat strange that in the documents related to this don Diego the legiti-mating argument is that he and his ancestors had been rulers of Axacuba, a small and rather insignificant town in Hidalgo, while there is no mention whatsoever of Tlatelolco, a powerful city-state with an important historical and political history. These problematic issues do not have to be resolved if we simply accept that don Diego of Axacuba, a cacique who ruled at least until 1564 and died around 1569,37 received the coat of arms and the sup-posed descendants of don Diego of Tlatelolco used the cédula and shield several times to make various claims for privileges during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.38 As such, this blazon is an excellent example of how the nobility and communities, anxious to receive certain rights and privileges, obtained documents that did not pertain to them and incorpo-rated these into their historical and legal documentation. With time, these documents were simply regarded as part of the legacy of the community shaping and becoming part of the local identity.

Final Reflections

The importance of the participation of various indigenous groups of cen-tral Mexico in the conquest of Mesoamerica—particularly their participa-tion in the siege of Tenochtitlán and the military campaigns to the north and south—is becoming clearer to us. The Tepaneca (Coyoaque and Tlaco-paneca) and Xochimilca helped the few Spaniards that survived the noche triste; the Tenochca and Tlatelolca, among others, joined the campaigns to the north; and many indigenous groups participated in the conquests of

Figure 7: Tlatocatlauiztli in Codex Techialoyan García Granados


Guatemala and Honduras. These actions corresponded with pre-Hispanic models of war and alliance and as such were related to obtaining exemp-tions of tribute, the distribution of land, and social prestige. These models were at least partly understood by the Spanish conquistadors, who prom-ised privileges and land to the native troops. An exception to the rule is the case of don Diego Tehuetzquititzin. It reveals another pre-Hispanic model for participation in war inherent in the selection and ascension of indigenous tlatoque and, consequently, of colonial governors: Tehuetzqui-titzin had to “wash himself as a ruler.” That is, in order to become tlatoani-governor and initiate his government, he had to undertake an important military campaign during which he doubtlessly had to take a certain num-ber of prisoners. The privileges the indigenous conquistadors expected after the wars had ended in most cases did not materialize, which caused the represen-tatives of the altepetl and the nobles to write complaints and petitions to the king of Spain. Among these petitions were those for the coats of arms, which were made after the native population and the Spanish had been living together for some time. As Stephanie Wood (2003: 9) argues, many of the Indians lived between two worlds, “taking sometimes one side, some-times the other, depending upon how they might better be served.” This is well illustrated by the coats of arms. Although it is difficult to determine what the shields meant to the indigenous nobility, we can make various hypotheses. It seems possible that the nobility tried to gain equality with the Spanish conquistadors in order to benefit from the privileges they received from the Spanish Crown. This would explain why the indigenous conquistadors insisted on their role in the process of the conquest and their Christianity. It is also possible that through the coats of arms the indigenous nobles wanted to show their social distinction from not only the rest of the native population but also the “com-moner Spaniards, in that they could attach don and doña to their names and enjoy access to tribute and labor, among other privileges” (Wood 2003: 59). The concession of a coat of arms, apart from being a sign of gratitude for services provided, is thus particularly synonymous with social status and privilege. The indigenous elites aspired to status and privileges, since the recognition of their social status by the Spanish Crown would reaffirm their position as legitimate lords over their subjects. This status was prob-ably augmented by the adoption of surnames of prestigious Spanish houses and the consequent incorporation of related iconography in the indigenous coats of arms. Such is the case with the shield of don Diego de Mendoza. As Haskett (1996: 115) states, the indigenous elite knew “that their legitimacy, as well as the preservation of the altepetl ’s physical integrity, depended on


the continued external support,” which explains the indigenous arguments of participation in the military and religious conquest of Mesoamerica. In the case of the petitions for coats of arms by communities, they seem to have their origin in the continuous struggle for prestige among the different altepetl in both pre-Hispanic and colonial times. Normally, with the grant, a town would be elevated to the status of city and consequently would receive the recognition of certain lands and privileges. This was par-ticularly important as in the historical memory of the indigenous towns it was recorded that the altepetl was the place where the group had settled, guided by their deity. It was the place of the ancestors and authorities, of which its “ceremonial center is the strategic heart of the kingdom and a resumed image of the cosmos” (Florescano 1999: 229–230). In this way, the altepetlauiztli expressed the identity of the community, which explains that, similar to European cities’ coats of arms, the indigenous blazon with the incorporation of “its lord seal, well-known buildings, its patron saint, dis-tinctive geographic or natural features . . . patron saints and even pictures of God conveyed the conviction that the town enjoyed heavenly patronage” (Haskett 2005: 221–22). The inclusion of the headdress of Otontecuhtli in the blazon of Coyoacan or the shield and colors of Xipe Totec in that of Tlacopan were “hidden” yet important iconographic elements that would guarantee the protection of these patron gods. For the same reason, the new god was not forgotten—hence, the Christian crosses and references to baptism. In the blazons of the lords, we see similar reasons for the inclusion of iconographic elements. But in looking for more motivations for the incor-poration of such elements in the altepetlauiztli and tlatocatlauiztli, it seems that a certain pattern is discernible. As the shields were granted for merits and military exploits, it is logical that the role of the indigenous conquis-tadors was praised in the petitions, which explains why the tlahuiztli are decorated with eagles and jaguars screaming “War!” and Chichimec ele-ments associated with respected and feared warriors. At the same time, there seems to have been a certain reluctance in doing away with the (mem-ory of the) practice of sacrifice, which was abruptly stopped by the Spanish. In some cases, the messages were hidden—for example, the paper butter-flies referring to Otontecuhtli and the human sacrifices made in his name. However, the association with sacrifice is particularly clear in the shield of don Jerónimo del Águila, who reserved an important place for the repre-sentation of bloody flint knives, which in the context of war can be related only to extracting hearts from prisoners of war. It is thus that the tlauiztli transmitted a subliminal message to the indigenous people when these coats of arms were presented on the facades


of houses or during important public ceremonies. At such moments, the people saw the shield not only as a privilege bestowed on their lords by the Spanish king and therewith the recognition of his authority, but they also recognized elements and symbols related to their identity as an altepetl and subjects of the ruling lineage since pre-Hispanic times. It is this double message that the coat of arms was supposed to send to the Coyoaque who saw the elements of Otontecuhtli or to the Tlacopaneca when they saw the Lagoon of Primordial Blood. On the one hand, it seems obvious that the Spanish were not aware of the multiple meanings of these iconographic ele-ments, as they would certainly not have agreed to all of them. On the other hand, the presence of European iconographic elements such as crosses, bap-tism, and biblical texts, also shows the true conversion to Christianity, even though this conversion may have been perceived differently by the Span-iards and the indigenous population, respectively. The coats of arms show how the indigenous elites tried to maintain their privileged situations, how they saw themselves, and how they wanted to project themselves before the eyes of both the Spanish authorities and their indigenous subjects. By studying the documents written to petition for these coats of arms, it becomes clear how indigenous lords adapted to Spanish legal formulas in order to defend themselves against the calamities produced by their new sociopolitical reality.

Notes

I would like to thank Michael Swanton for his time and his invaluable observations and corrections to the first draft of this article. 1 For a more subtle point of view, see Gibson 1991. 2 Restall 1998 concerns the Mayan participation in the conquest of Yucatán.

Asselbergs (2004: esp. ch. 5) demonstrates the important role of the Quauh-quecholteca in the conquest of Guatemala. Matthew and Oudijk 2007 is a col-lection of essays demonstrating the essential and structural role of the indige-nous conquistadors. Castañeda de la Paz and Luque Talaván (forthcoming) deal with the participation of the Tepaneca in various campaigns in different parts of Mesoamerica for which they received coats of arms. Oudijk and Restall (2008) evaluates the role of don Gonzalo Mazatzin Moctezuma in the conquest of southern Puebla and the Mixteca.

3 In my references to the population of indigenous towns, I will use terminology from the Nahuatl language. Such terms are normally formed by replacing the toponymical phoneme with one that means “of people.” Therefore, people from Xochimil-co are Xochimil-ca, those from Tenoch-titlán are Tenoch-ca, and the Colhua-que are the people from Colhua-can.

4 These letters are published in Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000. 5 For a detailed analysis, see Asselbergs (2004: 95–99, 106–112). As Asselbergs

explains, these groups often had no choice but to participate due to Spanish


pressure. See Barlow (1989: 419–40) for the documents from the Archivo Gen-eral de la Nación (hereafter AGN) Hospital de Jesús about the Tenochca distri-bution of lands in the Valley of Toluca and that of the Tlatelolca during the reign of Axayacatl. Durán (1995: 1:129–30, 1:151, 1:165) refers to distributions in Azcapotzalco, Coyoacan, and Xochimilco during the reign of Itzcoatl.

6 I use the terms coat of arms, blazon, and shield interchangeably. 7 For a further methodological discussion on disjunction in Mesoamerican pic-

tography, see Panofsky 1939, Loo 1986, Jansen 1988, Doesburg 2001, Roskamp 1998, and Oudijk 2000, 2008a.

8 Although Gibson focuses on the impressive political organization of the Tlax-calteca, his observations can be extended to other towns such as Tlatelolco, Coyoacan, Xochimilco, and especially Tacuba, which made their petitions dur-ing this period.

9 Gibson notes that the royal cédulas and other important papers were kept in these boxes, as was the money of the cabildo. The documents were not taken out of the box unless they were needed for very specific reasons. For the importance of these boxes in present-day communities, see Roskamp (1998: 275n639).

10 Tlatocatlauiztli designates the “armas de caualleros” or “armas o insignias de grandes señores,” and altepetlauiztli stands for “armas de ciudad” (Molina 2001: 140v, 13v, 4r). See also the word tlahuiztli in the Códice Florentino (1979: bk. 8, fol. 54r) about when these recognitions were given to indigenous lords. I would like to thank Michael Swanton for this important information.

11 All the cédulas reales and shields that will be discussed here that were granted to indigenous principales in New Spain—not those of the towns—were reproduced by Villar Villamil (1933) in drawings of poor quality without color. Although he never mentioned the provenance of the shields, they are surely from the Archivo Ducal de Alba (hereafter ADA). The book is not paginated, so when I refer to information of a particular cédula, I will give the number of the coat of arms.

12 As these same arguments were also used in the primordial titles (Haskett 1996: 101), I think these sixteenth-century cédulas were used for the elaboration of later documents.

13 The tlatoani was the highest political position in central Mexico in the late pre-Hispanic period. With the introduction of the colonial political system and the indigenous cabildos, it was the governor who obtained this position. Often the pre-Hispanic tlatoani became the governor, thereby creating the tlatoani-governor.

14 ADA, carpeta 238, legajo 2. 15 The document was published by Pérez-Rocha and Tena (2000: 103–22). See

also in the same work genealogy no. 10 in relation to Coyoacan. 16 See Garibay (1979: 40–41). Although he calls the god Ocotecutli, modern inves-

tigations have shown that it really is Otontecuhtli. Regarding the feast of Xocotl Uetzin, see Durán 1995 2:125–30; the Codex Borbonico (Anders, Jansen, and Reyes García 1991: 28); and Graulich 1999: 409–22. See Noguez’s commentary (1996 1:79–80) on the Tira de Tepechpan for a reference to a number of people who wore this attire.

17 These themes are dealt with more fully in Castañeda de la Paz 2005a: 135–42. See also Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca (Kirchhoff, Güemes, and Reyes García 1989: 158–59), where the Cholulteca look for Chichimec warriors to help them to throw out the allies of the Olmeca-Xicalanca from Cholula.


18 ADA, carpeta 238, doc. 72, fojas 2 y 1/2. 19 See López-Austin 1999: 191–93, 225–26, and Ruiz 2001: 143–83 for a discussion

of the primordial tree and the concept of hills as containers of water. 20 See folio 5v in Codex Mendoza (Berdan and Anawalt 1991: 16). The name Tlaco-

pan derives from the Nahuatl word tlacotl (rod, stick, stalk, thin stick) and the relational word -pan (above, on top of) (Molina 2001: 116r).

21 Xihuitl or xiuitl means “precious stone” in Nahuatl and, by extension, “pre-cious.” The homophonous xihuitl means “year, comet, turquoise, herb,” and here apparently functions as a phonetic complement clarifying the previous interpretation (Molina 2001: 159v).

22 Castañeda de la Paz and Luque Talaván (forthcoming). This identification is corroborated by folio 30r of the Códice Magliabechiano (Anders et al. 1996) and folio 12r of the Códice Tudela (Batalla Rosado 2002), which register the feast of tlacaxipehualiztli, associated with Xipe Totec, during which warriors carry shields of the same color and decorative design. As Xipe was also incorporated into the shield of lord Totoquihuaztli, ruler of Tlacopan, it is probable that this deity was protector of the ruling lineage.

23 ADA, carpeta 238, legajo 2. 24 Pérez Zevallos (2003: 55, 125) reproduces the document, which is an oil painting

kept in a conference room of the delegate of Xochimilco. It is apparently a copy of another shield kept in the Archivo General de Indias (AGI) in Seville. A third version is kept in the collection of the Chapultepec Castle, and a photo of yet another shield is kept in the old History Museum of the City of Mexico (Pérez Zevallos, personal communication 2005).

25 The town’s name translates as “in the flower field” as follows: xochi(tl) (flower or flowers), mil(li) (field), and the locative –co (in).

26 ADA, carpeta 238, legajo 2, doc. 19. 27 Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin (1998: 2: 201) and the Crónica Mexicayotl

(Alvarado Tezozomoc 1992: 172) specify that he went to Xochipillan. 28 I would like to thank Michael Swanton for the English translation. The emphasis

is mine. 29 This observation was made by Reyes García (2001: 155n48) in his commentary

on the Anales de Juan Bautista. He further states that once the Spanish system had been installed, this act of inauguration was substituted by the payment of the expenses of the tree that was used in the ritual of the voladores. See Sahagún 2000: 8:773–75 for a description of the ritual of enthronement and its related necessity to go to war to take prisoners.

30 According to these accounts, the city of Tenochtitlán had to be founded where the Mexica, on their migration in search of the place predestined by their patron god Huitzilopochtli, would encounter an eagle on top of a nopal growing out of a stone. An abundant bibliography exists on the theme of the foundation of Tenochtitlán. See, among many others, Duverger 1987: 364–68; Graulich 1990: 258–62; and Castañeda de la Paz 2005a: 129–34, 2005b: 2: 31–42.

31 Regarding this coat of arms and its poor reception among the indigenous and Spanish populations, see Florescano 1998: 37–50. According to him, in order to not offend the Spanish king yet improve its reception, the shield was adorned with indigenous iconography, which had become more prominent than Spanish iconography. In 1642, such representations were prohibited in shields, but by 1663, the order had been defied.


32 The iconography of a river of water and blood within the pre-Hispanic pictorial tradition can be seen on folio 16v of the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca (Kirchhoff, Güemes, and Reyes García 1989). For a description of Tenochtitlán as a sacred and conceptual place, see Durán 1995: 1:211, 1:422. See Oudijk 2008b for a discussion of the Lagoon of Primordial Blood.

33 ADA, carpeta 238, legajo 2. 34 ADA, carpeta 238, legajo 2, doc. 45. See also Villar Villamil 1933, coat of arms

no. 130. The cédula is also published in Fernández de Recas 1961: 276–77. 35 Also see Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin 1998: vol. 2, pg. 201. The Crónica

Mexicayotl (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1992: 172) specifies that he was also in Xochipilla.

36 Regarding don Diego’s death, see Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin 1998: 2: 215. Folio 51v of the Codex Aubin (Lehmann and Kutscher 1981) mentions the trial of residencia related to land disputes. The Crónica Mexicayotl (Alvarado Tezo-zomoc 1992: 172) says that he was a son of a Tlatelolco prince called Zayoltzin, while in a series of late paintings an attempt is made to show that his father was Cuauhtemoc (AGN, Tierras 1586, exp. 1; and AGN, Tierras 2692, exp. 19). The royal cédula of 1523 (AGN, Tierras 1586, exp. 1) is false, as was already sug-gested by Barlow (1989: 2:148). Not only is the date too early for such a docu-ment, but more important the conquests that are attributed to don Diego during the pacification of New Spain had not yet taken place. López Mora (2005: 203–87) discusses the problematic date of the cédula, as well that of other documents related to this ruler and his descendants. For a recent study see Castañeda de la Paz 2008.

37 See AGN, Tierras, 2354, no. 1, fol. 31v. 38 A copy of this shield is kept in the Archivo General de la Nación (AGN-T 1586,

exp.1, fol. 1; see AGN 1997: 99–100) and another copy, very similar to that in the AGN, is in the Biblioteca Nacional de Antropología e Historia (BNAH, Archivo Histórico, Col. Antigua 223, fol. 132r) in Mexico City. Both the AGN and the BNAH copies have a very elaborate fringe that includes portraits of the king of Spain and don Diego. These copies were made by the supposed descen-dants of don Diego who disputed the cacicazgo of Tlatelolco. Generally, such coats of arms are inserted in a dossier with various information, often consisting of copies of wills, death certificates, baptism records, and, of course, cédulas reales describing the blazon and granted by the king in the sixteenth century.

Part of the coat of arms was incorporated into the obverse of the Códice Techialoyan García Granados (Noguez 1992), a document from the eighteenth century (fig. 7). This document gives an account of the ancestry of the Tlatelolca and Tenochca royal houses and reaches back to the times of the great Chichi-mec lord Xolotl. The García Granados also shows the coat of arms of the town of Azcapotzalco (Santamarina 2006: 226–27) and two very elaborate shields—that of the kingdom of Spain and that of Castilla y León. The manufacture of this primordial title is related to don Diego García de Mendoza, a famous fal-sifier of documents identified by Wood (1989). As a muleteer, he would travel to many communities and as such had access to their documents, which may in part explain the incorporation of elements from various documents into a par-ticular title.


References

Acuña, René, ed.1984 Relaciones geográficas del siglo XVI: Tlaxcala. Mexico City: Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México.Alberro, Solange

1997 La iglesia como mediador cultural en la Nueva España, Siglos XVI–XVII: La recuperación del complejo simbólico del águila y el nopal. In Entre dos mundos: Fronteras culturales y agentes mediadores. Berta Ares Queija and Serge Gruzinski, eds. Pp. 393–414. Sevilla: CSIC, Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos.

Alcina Franch, José1992 Teocalli de la Guerra Sagrada. In Azteca Mexica: Las culturas del México

antiguo. José Alcina Franch, Miguel León-Portilla, and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, eds. Pp. 236–39. Mexico City: Ministerio de Cultura, Quinto Centenario, Lunwerg editores, Instituto Nacional de Antropo- logía e Historia.

Alvarado Tezozomoc, Fernando1992 Crónica Mexicayotl. Adrián León, trans. Mexico City: Universidad

Nacional Autónoma de México.Anders, Ferdinand, Maarten Jansen, Jessica Davilar, and Anuschka van’t Hooft, eds.

1996 Libro de la vida. Texto explicativo del llamado Códice Magliabechiano. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Anders, Ferdinand, Maarten Jansen, and Luis Reyes García, eds.1991 El libro del Ciuacoatl: Homenaje para el año del Fuego Nuevo Libro expli-

cativo del llamado Códice Borbónico. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Archivo General de la Nación1997 Cultura y derechos de los pueblos indígenas de México: Catálogo documen-

tal. Mexico City: Secretaría de Gobernación, Archivo de Indias.1982 Catálogo de ilustraciones. Vol. 14. Mexico City: Centro de Información

Gráfica del Archivo General de la Nación.Asselbergs, Florine G. L.

2004 The Lienzo de Quauhquechollan: A Nahua Vision of the Conquest of Guatemala. Leiden: CNWS.

Barlow, Robert1989 Tlatelolco: Fuentes e Historia. Jesús Monjarás-Ruiz, Elena Limón, and

María de la Cruz Paillés H., eds. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Universidad de las Américas.

Batalla Rosado, Juan José2002 El Códice Tudela y el grupo Magliabechiano: La tradición medieval

europea de copia de códices en América. Study in Thesaurus Americae, vol. 4. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte.

Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt, eds.1991 The Essential Codex Mendoza. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Castañeda de la Paz, María2005a Itzcoatl y los instrumentos del poder. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 36:

115–47.


2005b Y se fundó Tenochtitlan: Análisis pictográfico y alfabético del Grupo de la Tira de la Peregrinación. In Quaderni di Thule III, Atti del XXV Con-vegno Internazionale di Americanistica (Perugia, Italy, 9–11 May 2003, and Xalapa, Mexico, 21–24 October 2003), 2 vols., pp. 29–40. Perugia, Italy: Argo.

2008 Apropiación de elementos y símbolos de legitimidad entre la nobleza indígena: El caso del cacicazgo tlatelolca. In Anuario de Estudios His-panoamericanos 65: 21–47.

Castañeda de la Paz, Maria, and Miguel Luque TalavánForthcoming ¿Conquistadores o conquistados? Análisis pictográfico de los

escudos concedidos al pueblo tepaneca por la Corona española. In Actas del VI Coloquio Paul Kirchhoff. Rafael Pérez Taylor, ed. Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México..

Chavero, Alfredo, ed.1979 Lienzo de Tlaxcala. Mexico City: Cosmos/Innovación.

Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo1998 Las ocho relaciones y el Memorial de Colhuacan. 3 vols. Mexico City: Cien

de México.Códice Florentino

1979 Códice Florentino. Facs. ed. Mexico City: Secretario de Gobernación.Cortés, Vicenta, ed.

1976 Pintura del gobernador, alcaldes y regidores de México. Madrid: Ministe-rio de Educación y Ciencia.

De Solano, Francisco, ed.1991 Papeles de América en el Archivo Ducal de Alba. Madrid: Ediciones de

Cultura Hispánica, Agencia Española de Cooperación Internacional.Doesburg, Sebastián van

2001 Códices cuicatecos: Porfirio Díaz y Fernández Leal. Mexico City: Gobierno Constitucional del Estado de Oaxaca/Miguel Angel Porrúa.

Durán, Diego1995 Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e islas de la tierra firme. 2 vols.

Mexico City: Cien de México.Duverger, Christian

1987 El origen de los aztecas. Mexico City: Editorial Grijalbo.Fernández de Recas, Guillermo S.

1961 Cacicazgos y nobiliario indígena de la Nueva España. Mexico City: Uni-versidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Florescano, Enrique1998 La bandera mexicana: Breve historia de su fundación y simbolismo. Mexico

City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.1999 Memoria Indígena. Mexico City: Taurus.2002 El canón memorioso forjado por los títulos primordiales. Colonial Latin

American Review 11: 183–229.Garibay, Ángel María

1979 Teogonía e historia de los mexicanos: Tres opúsculos del Siglo XVI. Mexico City: Porrúa.

Gibson, Charles1991 Tlaxcala en el siglo XVI. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.


Graulich, Michel1999 Ritos aztecas: Las fiestas de las veintenas. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional

Indigenista.1990 Mitos y rituales del México antiguo. Madrid: Colegio Universitario de

Ediciones Istmo.Haskett, Robert

1996 Paper Shields: The Ideology of Coats of Arms in Colonial Mexican Pri-mordial Titles. Ethnohistory 43: 99–126.

2005 Vision of Paradise: Primordial Titles and Mesoamerican History in Cuer-navaca. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Hassig, Ross1988 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. Norman: Uni-

versity of Oklahoma Press.Jansen, Maarten

1988 The Art of Writing in Ancient Mexico: An Ethno-Iconological Perspec-tive. Visible Religion: Annual for Religious Iconography 6: 86–113.

Kirchhoff, Paul, Lina Oden Güemes, and Luis Reyes García, eds.1989 Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones

y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Gobierno del Estado de Puebla, Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Lehmann, Walter, and Gerdt Kutscher, eds.1981 Geschichte der Azteken: Der Codex Aubin und verwandte Dokumente.

Walter Lehmann and Gerdt Kutscher, trans. Berlin: Mann.Lockhart, James

1992 The Nahuas after the Conquest. A Social and Cultural History of the Indi-ans of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Loo, Peter van der1986 Códices, Costumbres, Continuidad; Un estudio de la religión mesoameri-

cana. Indiaanse Studies 2. Leiden: Leiden University.López-Austin, Alfredo

1999 Tamoanchan y Tlalocan. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.López Mora, Rebeca

2005 El cacicazgo de Diego de Mendoza Austria y Moctezuma: un linaje bajo sospecha. In El cacicazgo en Nueva España y Filipinas. Margarita Mene-gus and Rodolfo Aguirre, eds. Pp. 203–87. Mexico City: Plaza y Valdés, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Luque Talaván, Miguel2007 Personal communication with author, May 2007.

Luque Talaván, Miguel, and María Castañeda de la Paz2006 Escudos tlaxcaltecas: Iconografía prehispánica y europea. In Arque-

ología Mexicana 81: 68–73.Matthew, Laura E., and Michel R. Oudijk, eds.

2007 Indian Conquistadors: Indigenous Allies in the Conquest of Mesoamerica. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Molina, Alonso de2001 Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana.

Miguel León-Portilla, ed. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.


Noguez, Xavier, ed.1992 Códice Techialoyan García Granados. Zinacantepec, Mexico: Gobierno

del Estado de México, Colegio Mexiquense.1996 Tira de Tepechpan: Códice colonial procedente del valle de México. 2 vols.

Mexico City: Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura.Olivier, Guilhem

2007 Personal communication with author, January 2007.Oudijk, Michel R.

2000 Historiography of the Bènizàa: The Late Postclassic and Early Colonial Periods. CNWS Publications vol. 84. Leiden: CNWS.

2008a De tradiciones y métodos: Investigaciones pictográficas. Desacatos 27: 123–38.

2008b The Postclassic Period in the Valley of Oaxaca: The Archeological and Ethnohistorical Records. In After Monte Albán: Transformation and Negotiation in Oaxaca, Mexico. Jeffrey P. Blomster, ed. Pp. 95–118. Boul-der: University of Colorado Press.

Oudijk, Michel R., and Matthew Restall2007 Mesoamerican Conquistadors in the Sixteenth Century. In Indian Con-

quistadors: Native Militaries in the Conquest of Mesoamerica. Michel R. Oudijk and Laura Matthew, eds. Pp. 28–64. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

2008 Don Gonzalo Mazatzin Moctezuma: Señor de Tepexi de la Seda. Puebla, Mexico: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla.

Panofsky, Erwin1939 Ikonographie und Ikonologie. In Bildende Kunst als Zeichensystem:

Ikonographie und Ikonologie, Theorien, Entwicklung, Probleme. Ekkehard Kaemmerling, ed. Pp. 207–25. Cologne: Dumont Taschenbücher.

Pérez-Rocha, Emma, and Rafael Tena2000 La nobleza indígena del centro de México después de la conquista. Mexico

City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.Pérez Zevallos, Juan Manuel

2003 Xochimilco: Ayer I. Mexico City: Delegación Xochimilco, Gobierno del Distrito Federal, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora.

2005 Personal communication with author, November 2007.Restall, Mathew

1998 Maya Conquistador. Boston: Beacon.Reyes García, Luis, ed.

2001 ¿Cómo te confundes? ¿Acaso no somos conquistados? Anales de Juan Bau-tista. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Biblioteca Lorenzo Boturini, Insigne y Nacional Basílica de Guadalupe.

Roskamp, Hans1998 La historiografía indígena de Michoacan: El Lienzo de Jucutácato y los

Títulos de Carapan. Leiden: CNWS.2001 Warriors of the Sun: The Eagle Lords of Curicaueri and a Sixteenth-

Century Coat of Arms from Tzintzuntzan, Michoacan. Mexicon 23:14–17.


Ruiz, Ethelia2001 En el cerro y la iglesia: la figura cosmológica atl-tépetl-oztotl. Rela-

ciones: Estudios de Historia y Sociedad 86: 143–83.Sahagún, Bernardino de

2000 Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. Mexico City: Cona-culta/Cien de México.

Santamarina, Carlos2006 El sistema de dominación tepaneca: el imperio tepaneca. Madrid: Fun-

dación Universitaria Española.Swanton, Michael

2007 Personal communication with author, June 2007.Valle, Perla, ed.

1994 El códice de Tlatelolco. Facs. ed. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla.

Villar Villamil, Ignacio1933 Cedulario Heráldico. Conquistadores de Nueva España. Mexico City:

Talleres Gráficos del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía.

Wood, Stephanie1989 Don Diego García de Mendoza Moctezuma: A Techialoyan Master-

mind. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 19: 245–68.2003 Transcending Conquest: Nahua Views of Spanish Colonial Mexico. Nor-

man: University of Oklahoma Press.

central mexican indigenous coats of arms and the conquest of mesoamerica

Documents