Amoxtli San Ce Tojuan
AMOXTLI SAN CE TOJUAN
DOCUMENTARY
The stories in the Amoxtli San Ce Tojuan documentary turn the world of history, archeology, anthropology and linguistics upside down as living connections are revealed between the Uto-Nahuatl peoples of the continent (ranging from Canada to Central America). Beyond that, it is an inspiring story of origins & migrations and ancient connections of all the indigenous peoples of the continent. It is also a story that places maize and the Ants of Qetzalcoatl at the center of this epic story.
History told through our breath, told in English, Nahuatl, and Spanish. The documentary features the words of indigenous scholars and traditional elders from throughout the Americas, including: Jack Forbes, Dolores Huerta, LaDonna Harris, Ted Jojola, Luis Leal, Maestra Angelberta Cobb & Paula Domingo. It also features the music of: Grammy Award nominee, Joanne Shenandoah, Aztlan Underground, Leilani Finau, El Vuh, Michael Heralda, Martin Espino and Irma Rangel.
The documentary carries a collective copyright in the name of all those who are part of the documentary – in recognition that the knowledge is collective and thousands of years old. It was produced & directed by columnists Roberto Rodriguez & Patrisia Gonzales.
BACKGROUND
The documentary is the result of Frank Gutierrez of East L.A. College passing the 1847 Disturnell Map to columnists (filmmakers) Roberto Rodriguez and Patrisia Gonzales. He had received it from then-Hopi spokesperson, Thomas Banyacya. This is what triggered this project on origins and migrations. The role of Gutierrez and Banyacya is explored in the documentary, culminating with the explosive revelation by Maestra Cobb regarding connections between peoples of Mexico and peoples from what is today the United States.
Amoxtli San Ce Tojuan in a sense is a modern codex and a chronicle of many stories. The message is a continuation of an ancient message... of a journey of many footsteps, of origins and migrations and of connections to all the ancient peoples of the continent.
In a nutshell, that's the story, written in ancient codices -- about the origins/migrations of Mexican-Uto-Nahuatl peoples (a language family extending in the north from Canada to Nicaragua in the south, which includes the Shoshones, Utes, Pauites, and Hopi... all the way to the Nahuatl peoples of Mexico and the Pipil of El Salvador. The modern codices speak of the northward journeys of these peoples going from south to north.
The story is that of a people whose existence has long been called into question. It is that of a people ill defined by society as immigrants, but who refuse that designation. When told to go back to where they came from, they respond: We are where we came from.
One such modern codex is Jack Forbes's Aztecas del Norte, (Forbes, 1973) -- who has long maintained that people of Mexican descent are native. In that sense, the message of the documentary is already set in stone -- literally -- on rocks and on carved stones, i.e., petroglyphs, architecture and calendars throughout the continent -- depicted in the documentary when Cecilio Orozco is speaking from Utah or Laurie Weakie speaks from the Petroglyph National Monument in New Mexico. The documentary goes beyond exploring the roots of Uto-Nahutl peoples, but seeks to understand their relationship to other native peoples of the continent and to the continent itself.
THE ANTS OF QUETZALCOATL
The opening begins with ants carrying a kernel of corn. In effect, the entire story is right here: the story of the continent and the history of indigenous knowledge.
The ant, particularly in Mesoamerican cultures, represents the means by which the people received Teo Cintli - their sacred maize or corn or sustenance.
It is also important to note that even the very method by which the story is told is contested.
First, there is no narrator. The people themselves tell their own stories. Not all the stories are linear or sequential, but together, the stories themselves are the weave. Each storyteller is the narrator. Each storyteller is the storyteller of a long ago forgotten tradition or story. The stories is the story. For that, no authority figure is needed to remind the audience of what they have just seen or heard. The message here is that the people themselves can speak for themselves.
Secondly, and just as importantly, as previously mentioned, is the use of animals to tell the story. The ants of Quetzalcoatl are, in effect, the protagonists in this story of origins/migrations and connectedness. It is animals – in this case insects – from which humans first learned most everything in matters related to subsistence, survival and sustenance. As such, indigenous knowledge is an unbroken chain of knowledge of millions of years - from plants to animals to human beings. The knowledge referred to is primarily about food, water and medicines.
Featured in the documentary are:
Dolores Huerta: The co-founder of the United Farm Worker's Union emphasizes that We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us.
Luis Leal, professor from UC Santa Barbara speaks of coming to the United States in 1927, researching the location of Aztlan.
LaDonna Harris, Comanche, founder of Americans for Indian Opportunity, Albq., NM, speaks of the need for Chicanos to recognize their indigenous heritage and of Uto-Nahuatl peoples speaking to each other about their common stories.
Ted Jojola, former chair of Native American Studies at the University of New Mexico, speaks of ancient trade networks and the spread of corn throughout North and South America.
Armando Solorzano, University of Utah professor from Mexico speaks of being greeted by the chief of the Utes, informing him that he is in Aztec country.
Maestra Angelberta Cobb: Hailing from Puebla, Mexico, she stands in front of a sculpture of Quetzalcoatl in San Jose, Calif, as she reveals the story of being able to understand elders from what is today the U.S. Southwest in her own native Nahuatl language.
Nora Chapa Mendoza's relacion regarding her niece perhaps best sums up the documentary. Her niece grows up being ashamed of being Mexican until one night, she sees herself in the mirror.
The mirror, alluded to previously by Tupac Enrique (Tezcalipoca and the Smoking Mirror) functions as both symbol and metaphor. Through it, she sees her actual color and is finally able to see who she actually is.
Inez Hernandez, Nez Perce, Chicana scholar, UC Davis, speaks of the need for people to hold onto their common sense as they search for their roots.
The documentary also features the music of Grammy Award nominee, Joanne Shenandoah, Aztlan Underground, Leilani Finau, El Vuh, Will Harjo, Michael Heralda, Martin Espino and Irma Cuicui Rangel. Also featured: Daniela Conde, Gustavo Gutierrez, Alfredo Figueroa, Enrique & Lucila Maestas, Paola Domingo, Robert Upham, Velia Silva, David Castro, David Lujan, Sylvia Ledesma, Jose Garza, Helga Garza, Celia Perez, Rocky Rodriguez, David Lujan, Fernando Nenadich, Alurista, Olga Gonzalez, Thayrohari, Dennis Reinhartz, Maestro Lauro Tairire, Guillermo Rosette, Arturo Meza, Lorena Montoya, Sara Mendoza, Noenoe Silva, Jose Montoya, Vivian Delgado, Carlos Aceves, Enriqueta Vasquez, Don Aurelio, Maestro Tata Cuaxtle, Yolanda B. Gonzalez.
The Nahuatl narration is done by Paula Domingo of Cuentepec, Morelos…. And playing themselves, the ants or Las Hormigas de Quetzalcoatl.
The filmmakers can be reached at and copies of the documentary can be ordered by contacting: email at xcolumn@gmail.com or 520-743-0376.
AMOXTLI SAN CE TOJUAN
THEMATIC CURRICULUM
Introductory Essay
The Amoxtli San Ce Tojuan documentary is in English and Spanish with Nahuatl introductions to each section. Its focus is the origins/migrations and connections of the indigenous peoples of the continent. Specifically, it also challenges the traditional views of mestizaje or racial mixture on this continent.
The documentary has a unique format in that it is not chronological, sequential or linear. It is a collection of stories from peoples from throughout the continent with the added feature that it has no narrator – no one to interpret or tell us what we are seeing or hearing. Peoples from throughout the continent can and do speak for themselves.
For more information regarding the documentary or curriculum, please contact us at: XColumn@gmail.com
1) Going Back
Throughout the documentary - both in narrative and song - the concept of Going Back is addressed. In the United States, this is uttered disparagingly and directed at people from Mexico, Central and South America. Based on our knowledge of maize and the Uto-Nahuatl language family, this notion appears to be nonsensical and ahistorical as many of those peoples do in fact have ancestral roots in what is today the United States or at least passed through there at one point.
a) Do you believe the idea of "Go back" is grounded in history, science or politics?
b) Scientists believe that all human beings have origins in what is today Africa. Is this where everyone is supposed to go back to?
c) Where does the notion of "Go back" fit?
d) This phrase is also often hurled at American Indians, African Americans, Puerto Ricans and Asian Americans. What do you think motivates those who do this hurling?
2) No narrator
San Ce Tojuan does not utilize a narrator. Additionally, it is non-linear in developing the primary argument.
a) Do you believe this unorthodox style works?
b) Narrators normally guide the viewer. Why do you believe the creators of the documentary elected not to employ a narrator?
c) The documentary is a collection of stories regarding origins, migrations and connections between the peoples of the Americas. Do the stories create an effective narrative regarding these topics?
d) Being that there is no narrator, do you believe the creators of the documentary intended for viewers to reach their own conclusions?
3) One America or two?
Some peoples use the indigenous terms Pacha Mama (Quechua – South America), Turtle Island (American Indians) or Cemanahuak (Nahuatl) to refer to the Americas. In western culture, North and South America are viewed by geographers as two continents. Yet the division traditionally has not been in Central America, but with Mexico.
A) Why do you believe divisions between the north and south begin with Mexico and not in Central America?
B) Despite language and cultural divisions, many people do not see a division and see the Americas as one continent. Is that possible?
C) The view of America as one continent - does that speak to peoples or to a land mass?
4) Aztlanahuac: Mesoamerica in North America
The map exhibit consists of some 200 maps with names or citations of name places that allude to a Mesoamerican presence in the U.S.
a) While many historians have long rejected the idea of a Mesoamerican presence in what is today the U.S., what accounts for these names on these maps, spanning the 1800s-1500s.
b) Why do you believe the literature on the topic of southern connections and relationships [between North & South America] does not mention these public maps?
c) Virtually all the maps are post-Colombian in origin. Does it mean there is no credible indigenous information on these maps?
d) Many historians say that it was U.S. archeologists who created the notion that the Aztecs had been all over the United States. If these maps predate the existence of the United States, and they do, what can we conclude from this?
5) Sacred Geography/Indigenous Geography
Many native peoples continue to view the continent as indigenous.
a) With the advent of European colonialism, America was seen as no longer indigenous. Despite this, is it still possible to view the entire continent as indigenous?
b) Virtually all those interviewed view their roles as stewards of the continent, not its owners. Considering that most are indigenous, how does this contrast with modern views of private property?
c) This view of being stewards, as opposed to owners, extends to the entire planet. Is that still feasible in today's globalized world?
6) Teo Cintli: Sacred Maize - Story of the continent
While in the process of creating the documentary, the producers were initially investigating old maps that indicated a Mesoamerican presence in what is today the United States. But as they pursued their research, they were continually told to follow maize.
a) Why is maize important to the continent?
b) Maize is not the oldest crop in the Americas, yet it is considered the root of the culture for many of the ancient cultures of this continent. Why do you believe this is so?
c) Scientists believe that rather than naturally evolving, maize was created by native peoples in Southern Mexico. Might this explain why it is held in such high regard?
d) After its creation, maize spread throughout the continent to all but the coldest regions of the Americas. How did this development change the face of the continent? How did it alter peoples' lives?
e) Maize is grown throughout the continent along with beans and squash. Together these crops provide a nutritious diet. Do you believe that this combination was arrived at accidentally?
f) In many places, chile, which is also very high in vitamin C, is also grown along with maize. Why do some farmers grow maguey in their milpas or cornfields in Mexico?
7) "The search of Aztlan."
The focus of this project [including the documentary], has never in fact been the search for Aztlan, the purported homeland or point of departure of the Aztec/Mexica. Instead, those involved set out to find out why the 1847 Disturnell map (attached to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo) contained a reference to an "Antigua Residencia de los Aztecas.” This citation is near what appears to be the confluence of the Colorado and Green Rivers in Utah. The research turned up older maps that pointed to the Great Salt Lake. The epic migration story of the Aztec/Mexica was that the people had left from an island in a lake, somewhere north of Mexico City-Tenochtitlan. Being that there are islands in Salt Lake, this may have caused early cartographers (1728, Barreiro) to associate Salt Lake (with the assistance of indigenous "informants') with Aztlan. Despite the maps pointing in this direction, the documentary does not make the claim that Aztlan has been found. Other maps indicate that the references may have been Aztec NM or Mesa Verde, Colorado ((1845, Conde). Some researchers have in fact looked for and make claims to have located Aztlan either in Utah or Mexico. The actual Aztlan story (Sahagun & The Florentine Codex version) is that of a larger migration which includes peoples coming from across the oceans, landing near what is today the Panuco River (Tamualipas). Half the people go south and the other half go north. It is these peoples that went north (after many, many hundreds of years) that in stages later migrated south.
When Europeans first came upon the Aztecs/Mexica, they asked them about their origins and were purportedly told about having come from seven caves, somewhere in the north (not in contradiction with larger migration story). This seemingly was conflated with stories regarding “The seven Cities of Gold.” When explorers failed to find these mythical cities, the story of the seven caves was also discarded.
During the 1960s, Chicanos began to also conflate the idea of Aztlan with the entire Southwest – land that had previously been Mexico’s.
a) While no gold was found (when the explorers went searching for the seven cities of gold), why was the idea of the seven caves also relegated to the status of hoax?
b) In the story of the Aztlan migration – usually the earlier part of the migration story is not retold (coming from across the oceans). Why do you think this part of the story is generally ignored?
c) When the early explorers first came, most believed that all native peoples were part of the Lost Tribes of Israel. Why do you think they (especially the priests) believed this?
d) How credible are the post-Columbian codices that speak of origins/migration stories? Have they been contaminated by bias?
e) Why do you believe Chicanos also conflated the idea of the lands lost by Mexico with Aztlan.
8) Deindigenization
The era of first contact has been characterized as conquest and colonization. Along with the colonization came Christianization or evangelization. Not explained as much is the concept of de-ingenization – de-indigenization of the peoples and the continent itself.
a) What does de-indigenization mean in reference to peoples and the continent?
b) Were Europeans successful at both?
c) Is de-indigenization an irreversible process?
d) Can the continent be re-indigenized or indigenized?
e) On top of de-indigenization, peoples were also dehumanized. Is rehumanization necessary and possible or no longer relevant today?
g) Rather than re-humanization, is humanization desirable?
h) How does one define humanization or what are the characteristics that define [good] human beings?
9) Uto-Nahuatl or Uto-Azteca peoples
Linguists have long known that many peoples -- from Canada to Central America -- are part of a language family group known as Uto-Azteca or Uto-Nahuatl.
a) Why do you suppose this is not more widely known by the general population?
b) Taking into consideration that peoples on this continent were generally isolated (according to scientists) from the rest of the world, can we draw any conclusions about this language family?
c) The Nahuatl language was considered a lingua franca or common trade language among many peoples on the continent. Might this account for knowledge of this language among peoples from Canada to Central America.
d) Might the fact that this language family exists mean that all the peoples may have at one point been related?
e) Can the peoples that are part of this language family group still be considered to be related?
f) Some say that the reason there is knowledge of Nahuatl among peoples from Canada to Central America is not because of ancient connections, but rather because the Spaniards brought Nahuatl-speaking peoples with them on their northern explorations. Is this a plausible explanation and does this preclude a prior knowledge of Nahuatl among these peoples?
10) Myths of Mestizaje
Jack Forbes, foremost American Indian scholar has always noted that the whole world is mestizo. Yet, only peoples from Mexico, Central and South America are generally perceived to be mestizo or of mixed origin (metis in Canada). As part of this view, mestizos are generally perceived to be of mixed Indian-European heritage. While its true that these peoples are generally mixed, what’s also true is that this mixture is not in fact half and half. The root for most mestizos remains indigenous and the mixture most likely includes as much if not more African blood than European as more Africans came to the Americas (including Mexico) than Europeans (Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran). Additionally, the concept of mestizo during the colonial period was part of a much larger system of racial categorization involving mostly European males and native and African women. (Through much of history, mixture of Indian or African males with European women was either illegal or greatly discouraged). This system was not put in place as a form of census, but for the purpose of exploitation.
a) Why are only peoples from the Americas considered mixed?
b) Does the concept of mestizo imply: “not a complete human being,” half breed or mongrel?
c) If the mixture of Indian/African men with European women was greatly discouraged, why is mestizaje considered consensual?
d) Mestizos are traditionally viewed as peoples who did not exist prior to European arrival (assuming there was no prior contact). This view holds that these peoples’ histories begins no earlier than 1492. Another view of mestizaje is that mestizos have histories that go back thousands of years to both sides of the oceans. Is this a valid view?
e) If being mixed does not preclude one [Forbes, Aztecas del Norte] from being indigenous, why do you believe that people of Mexican descent in the United States are viewed as alien?
f) If being mestizo connotes at least being part Indian [the root being indigenous], why are they viewed as “non-Indian?”
g) Why do mestizos traditionally reject their indigenous roots?
11) Indigenous Citizenship
Native peoples in the Americas traditionally claim a citizenship or relationship to a tribe or nation [particularly within the United States]. The tribe or nation is usually associated with a place [homeland]. Such a claim is usually not made by de-indigenized peoples [many of whom are mestizos], particularly those that have been historically displaced.
a) Assuming that the entire continent remains indigenous, is it foreseeable that a claim to a broader indigenous citizenship by both indigenous and de-indigenized peoples can be made in the future?
b) How/when did the continent cease being indigenous?
c) What does it mean [today] to claim the entire continent – from Alaska to Chile – as indigenous?
d) To claim indigenous citizenship – does it conceivably mean to claim special rights or to literally claim the land itself?
12) The master narrative
The master narrative of this country tells the story of a peoples’ [Pilgrims] arriving on these shores, having a Thanksgiving dinner, then civilizing the land and its peoples, then moving westward. The documentary challenges that simplistic, but well-worn story of the settling of this continent by reminding the viewer that there were many peoples and civilizations for thousands of years, prior to the arrival of the Pilgrims.
a) In this master narrative, why does the story of this continent generally begin with the arrival of Europeans?
b) In this master narrative, the story prior to Columbus generally does not involve names of people, peoples or the thousands of cities they built over a span of 20,000 – 40,000 years. What do you attribute this to?
c) Despite this tens of thousands of years of presence on this continent, does the story of this continent begin with humans?
d) Do all peoples have the right to create their own narratives, tell their own stories and tell them in their own ways?
e) Does this right, given that these peoples are alive, include the right to create new narratives and tell new stories?
13) San Ce Tojuan – We Are One
The title - San Ce Tojuan – was collectively chosen. It means We Are One – Nosotros Somos Uno. It was a phrase that that many of the people kept repeating over and over. No one said: We native people are one, though a few did speak of the continent and all its people being one. We added Amoxtli to the title because it means book or painted book (codex). Thus, this work is Amoxtli: San Ce Tojuan.
a) Do you believe that when the phrase San Ce Tojaun or We Are One is repeated, is it limited to the indigenous peoples of the continent, all peoples of the continent or all human beings?
b) Do you think it may also allude to all living beings – all life?
c) Does life include living and non-living things?
d) Why do you believe the documentary is referred to as an amoxtli or a modern codex?