{"id":116,"date":"2014-08-10T14:53:50","date_gmt":"2014-08-10T14:53:50","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.calmecacanahuac.com\/blog\/?p=116"},"modified":"2023-04-23T17:53:00","modified_gmt":"2023-04-23T17:53:00","slug":"ometeotl-the-god-that-didnt-exist","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.calmecacanahuac.com\/blog\/uncategorized\/ometeotl-the-god-that-didnt-exist\/","title":{"rendered":"Ometeotl, the God that Didn\u2019t Exist"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u201cLike the Christian god, Ometeotl is found, as members of its cult insist, everywhere; everywhere that is, except in primary sources\u201d \u2013 Richard Haly<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ometeotl is perhaps the most widely embraced concept within the Mexicayotl community and throughout the years, its original meaning has morphed into such ideas as monotheistic god, energy, and duality. What most people don\u2019t know is that the word Ometeotl first appeared in secondary sources written by Miguel Leon-Portilla, La Filosofia Nahuatl and Aztec Thought and Culture and appears nowhere in any of the primary sources. After examination of Leon-Portilla work, it is clear that he either intentionally or unintentionally invented the word.\u00a0 Although Ometeotl is grammatically correct, it is not an Indigenous Nahuatl word.\u00a0 There is nothing wrong ordinarily with creating words and native speakers create words all the time.\u00a0 We see examples of this with words like tepoztototl (airplane) which surely did not exist in pre-cuauhtemoc times.\u00a0 However, Leon-portilla’s Ometeotl is problematic for many reasons. First, Leon-Portilla bases his entire conception of Ometeotl on five primary sources, which, upon closer inspection, do\u00a0not contain the word Ometeotl at all.\u00a0 Second, he cites text from sources and claims they\u00a0describe Ometeotl, when in all of these sources, it is clear that the original text is describing a different teotl.\u00a0 Third, it is a misappropriation of the Nahuatl language since it is a word unknown to modern Nahua communities. As a result, I am proposing that we stop using ometeotl since its origin is fabricated and does not properly represent Pre-Cuauhtemoc philosophy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In his Filosofia Nahuatl, Leon-Portilla starts off by claiming \u201cOmeteotl is the cosmic principle by which all that exists is conceived and begotten.\u201d The only commentary he gives on this significant claim is that \u201cTorquemada attempts to explain this unified masculine-feminine being: \u2018it might be said, that these Indians wanted the Divine Nature shared by two gods (two persons) who were men and wife.\u201d From this point Leon-Portilla jumps to the conclusion that \u201cthus the wise men, anxious to give greater vitality and richness to their concept of the supreme being, gave him many names, laying the foundation for a comprehensive vision of the dual and ubiquitous deity (Aztec Thought and Culture by Miguel Leon-Portilla, pages 83 and 89).\u201d Furthermore, he explained that the true nature of Ometeotl was a \u201cgod of duality\u201d shared by Ometeuctli, \u201clord of duality\u201d and Omecihuatl, \u201clady of duality (Fray Juan de Torquemada, Monarquia Indiana, facsimile of the 1723 edition, ed. Miguel Leon-Portilla, 3 vols. Mexico: Editorial Porrua, 1986, 2:37).\u201d Leon-Portilla’s interpretation of Torquemada incorrectly led him to assume the Aztec (Mexica) believed in a male\/female unitary dual figure -Ometeotl (Bare Bones: Rethinking Mesoamerican Divinity by Richard Haly. History of Religions. Vol. 31, No.3, Feb., 1992, pp.269-304, page 278).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this starting point, in both Filosofia Nahuatl and Aztec Thought and Culture, Leon-Portilla repeatedly imposes Ometeotl where it is not found in an attempt to provide evidence to his creation. On page 80 of Aztec Though and Culture, Leon-Portilla translates a poem from the Cantares Mexicanos and translates the word omeycac in the third line as god of duality when in fact it does not refer to ometeotl at all but to stand two-wise (Bare Bones: Rethinking Mesoamerican Divinity by Richard Haly. History of Religions. Vol. 31, No.3, Feb., 1992, pp.269-304, page 275). On page 85, Leon-Portilla goes on to translate line six of a song from the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca as \u201cthe god of duality is at work,\u201d but in the original text the word is spelled ayometeotl (ayotl, juicy + metl, maguey + teotl) which is more accurately translated as \u201cit is the teotl of the juicy maguey\u201d which also makes more sense considering the song is about drinking (Bare Bones: Rethinking Mesoamerican Divinity by Richard Haly. History of Religions. Vol. 31, No.3, Feb., 1992, pp.269-30 page 276). The third source used is the post-Cuauhtemoc codex named the Codex Rios and is also known as Codex Vaticanus 3738. Page 1v of the Codex Rios depicts the thirteen heavens and a teotl who is said to reside in the thirteenth level, Omeyocan, whose name is written in Italian Hometeule which is translated as \u201clord of three.\u201d The Italian text describes Hometeule as \u201cthe creator of all, the first cause.\u201d Upon further examination, it turns out the image presented on page 1v is actually Tonacateuctli and not a distinct teotl named Hometeule which many people attempt to interpret as Ometeotl. The codex is therefore substantially modified by European interpretation and is clearly attempting to infuse ideas about the trinity (Bare Bones: Rethinking Mesoamerican Divinity by Richard Haly. History of Religions. Vol. 31, No.3, Feb., 1992, pages 276-277).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
Folio 1v (of Vaticanus A also known as Codex Rios) on the left depicting Omeyocan with the name Hometeule attached the figure. Folio 12v depicting the same exact figure as Tonatecuhtli, patron of 1-Cipactli, the first trecena.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The fourth source commonly used as a reference to Ometeotl is the sixteenth-century Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas by Andres del Olmos. In the work he talks about how Tonacateuctli and Tonacacihuatl created four sons, \u201cthe fourth and smallest they called Omiteuctli\u2026known to the Mexica as Huitzilopochtli\u201d Although very close to Ometeotl, Omiteuctli translates to omitl bone + teuctli lord. Folio. 52 of the Codex Tudela clearly depicts Omteuctli as a teotl with exposed bones which supports the translation (Bare Bones: Rethinking Mesoamerican Divinity by Richard Haly. History of Religions. Vol. 31, No.3, Feb., 1992, pp.278-282).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In addition to the primary source references, Leon-Portilla also unsuccessfully attempts to attach descriptions of other Teteoh to Ometeotl. For example, on page 102 of Aztec Thought and Culture, Leon-Portilla claims Yohualli-Ehecatl was a title designated for Ometeotl while in sources such as the Florentine Codex, it is clear that the title belongs to Tezcatlipoca (The Illustrated Dictionary of the Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya by Mary Miller and Karl Taube, page 164). On page 91, Leon-Portilla goes on to claim that Tloque in Nahuaque, Ipalnemohuani, and Moyocoyani are all attempts to describe the \u201cLord of duality.\u201d Then on page 30, he boldy claims that Tonacatecuhtli and Tonacacihuatl are in reality Ometeotl with no other explanation. It should be noted that Angel Garibay, another scholar identified to be associated with the early leaders of the Mexicayotl, has attempted to further legitimize Leon-Portilla\u2019s work through his own writings. In Garibay\u2019s Historia de la Literatura Nahuatl, volume 1, page 129, he also references the ayometeotl from the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca but completely drops the ay- and boldly rewrites it as Ometeotl. Garibay has gone so far as to attempt to insert Ometeotl into his 1979 translation of the Histoire Du Mechique, originally published in French by Andre Thevet in 1543. On page 144 of the original French text, we see the sentence “avoyt ung dieu nome Teotli, que vault dire ‘deux dieux’ translated by Garibay as “habia un dios llamado Ometeotl que quiere decir ‘dos dioses’.\u201d The Teotli in the French text is replaced with Garibay\u2019s text as Ometeotl which is clearly incorrect even to those who can\u2019t read Spanish or French.  In addition, “deux diuex” means “two gods” and Thevet’s original text shows that it was not intended to describe two gods in one.<\/p>\n\n\n