What do you think?
Rate this book
The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion
How did the hummingbird become the symbol of the chief Aztec god? Who were the Hero Twins? Why was Venus the planet of war? Did the Maya practise human sacrifice? And did they eat their victims? Who played the ancient ball game? Who were the first consumers of chocolate? What was a war of flowers?
216 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 1992
30 people are currently reading
1076 people want to read
About the author
Mary Ellen Miller
18 books8 followersMary Ellen Miller is an American art historian and academician specializing in Mesoamerica and the Maya.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
January 26, 2021
THIS BOOK HAS AGED TREMENDOUSLY DUE TO NO UPDATING
This new printing of an old book does not negate the essential character of this book, but it reduces it tremendously because from 1997 to 2017 archeology, history, and general Maya and Aztec studies have discovered so many new things that the book sounds obsolete on quite a few questions. It should have been upgraded and updated. One of the most important shortcoming, and it was already a shortcoming in 1997, is the linguistic approach of these people. Systematically mixing up Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayas, Olmecs and other people from both Central Mexico and southern Mesoamerica is leading to obvious confusion. The linguistic confusion is that we are not told what relationships existed and still exist among the various languages concerned, some of them disappeared and some others are still active, but the history of these languages is never specified. Is Maya derived from Olmec? Probably, but not explicitly said, nor proved or disproved. Does any relationships exist between Maya and Aztec, or the language associated with the Aztecs, viz. Nahuatl? The question is not asked and not answered. All linguistic information is exclusively (except in some illustrations) given in transliterated Latin writing, never in the real local writing of these people. Very frustrating indeed for Maya which was advanced in its writing system, but also in Nahuatl and other languages which had some writing systems. We cannot from what we are given even imagine if those languages are root languages, isolating languages, agglutinative languages, or synthetic-analytical languages. When we are dealing with a civilization at that level of linguistic and technological development, it is necessary to give the linguistic elements in local writing, in the transliterated Latin alphabet (as close as possible to the real pronunciation), the indispensable linguistic parameters to understand what we are dealing with (and that implies the T-numbers of these elements), the “word-for-word” or “formative-element for formative-element translation, and finally a semantic equivalent in English for example. This is never done and no real reference to any standard book or study on the subject is quoted when necessary, not only as a reference but as a real explicit quotation on the facts concerned. At best a couple of allusions to Michael Coe or Dennis Tedlock or Eric Thompson, but just as a reference and if you want to know what these quoted authors actually said, you have to go to their books or articles. The subject should have deserved 100 pages more for specific quotations and for further recent developments to update the matter.
[…]
To finish with a positive note, the approach of the serpent or snake in these civilization is important and this book gives various approaches: Vision-serpent page 181 that opens onto religion and shamanism; War serpent page 182 that opens on the constant presence of war among these peoples for very varied reasons and objectives though the main one seems to be prisoners who became slaves and were kept for various human sacrifices causing death or just providing society with the human blood they needed for their rites; the Water-lily serpent page 184 and the ambiguous value of a symbol of the creation of the world, of birth and the gate to the underworld under the water on which it floats; the fiery Serpent page 188 and the very tyrannical value of this serpent from the deepest layer of the world; and we must not forget Quetzalcoatl page 141, the Plumed Serpent known as Kukulcan among the Mayas, though the two are not differentiated though they should be, but Quetzalcoatl is a dead sacrificed god promised to rebirth. The Maize God, the Maya Jun Nal Ye, is such a god who was sacrificed at least twice if not three times before being reborn, but he remains always on probation and he is constantly expecting blood donations from humans. I was slightly surprised not to find the centipedes and millipedes that are, some of them, poisonous, and they are abundantly represented in the surviving codices and the surviving art. And what about the stingray that was an essential sea animal providing the Mayas with its spine for bloodletting.
It is where a general discussion could appear. Isn’t this civilization in a phase of development as for its religious attachment to blood that must have existed in all human civilizations and was, maybe for good, transcended by some religions like Buddhism or Christianity, transcended really by the total rejection of any sacrifice by the Buddhists and symbolically by the Christians who reenact the divine gift of blood to salvage humanity in their ritual of the Eucharist, a ritual that reenacts the Last Supper of bread, wine, and mutton plus various other foods, hence a very agricultural practice, and that commutes the blood sacrifice of the crucifixion embedded in this Last Supper into a divine act of selflessness. The bloodshedding is on the side of God, or his Son, on one Christian hand, and on the side of the humans to keep the Gods alive on the other Maya hand. Fundamentally the same thing but in opposite directions. The meaning cannot come from the common element, blood, but the meaning of the two civilizations can only come from the difference in directions. If we want to understand we have to get rid of our sensitiveness that makes us faint in front of violence and blood, though we are cathartically and at times perversely attracted to scenes of that type with road accidents in real life or all sorts of violent action films in symbolic life.
You can then understand that my conclusion is that I am frustrated by the republishing of an old book without integrating into it all we have learned in the twenty years between the two editions. That reveals, too, the fact that such an updated and updating project is not yet available in public form, though it is quite available in scattered form over a great number of books and publications. As Chomsky would say (he did in 1965) instead of criticizing, why don’t we try ourselves to produce the book we are dreaming of? Such a book can only be produced by a multi-scientific team of probably twenty specialists if not more, and two or three times as many students, graduate students, of course, doing the ancillary exploration needed for the research workers to nourish their reflection. I must say quite a few books and studies exist already in this direction, and that’s why this book would have been inspired if one or two editors had accepted the challenge and updated the book, at least on crucial questions, some of the questions I have touched above.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
This new printing of an old book does not negate the essential character of this book, but it reduces it tremendously because from 1997 to 2017 archeology, history, and general Maya and Aztec studies have discovered so many new things that the book sounds obsolete on quite a few questions. It should have been upgraded and updated. One of the most important shortcoming, and it was already a shortcoming in 1997, is the linguistic approach of these people. Systematically mixing up Aztecs, Toltecs, Mayas, Olmecs and other people from both Central Mexico and southern Mesoamerica is leading to obvious confusion. The linguistic confusion is that we are not told what relationships existed and still exist among the various languages concerned, some of them disappeared and some others are still active, but the history of these languages is never specified. Is Maya derived from Olmec? Probably, but not explicitly said, nor proved or disproved. Does any relationships exist between Maya and Aztec, or the language associated with the Aztecs, viz. Nahuatl? The question is not asked and not answered. All linguistic information is exclusively (except in some illustrations) given in transliterated Latin writing, never in the real local writing of these people. Very frustrating indeed for Maya which was advanced in its writing system, but also in Nahuatl and other languages which had some writing systems. We cannot from what we are given even imagine if those languages are root languages, isolating languages, agglutinative languages, or synthetic-analytical languages. When we are dealing with a civilization at that level of linguistic and technological development, it is necessary to give the linguistic elements in local writing, in the transliterated Latin alphabet (as close as possible to the real pronunciation), the indispensable linguistic parameters to understand what we are dealing with (and that implies the T-numbers of these elements), the “word-for-word” or “formative-element for formative-element translation, and finally a semantic equivalent in English for example. This is never done and no real reference to any standard book or study on the subject is quoted when necessary, not only as a reference but as a real explicit quotation on the facts concerned. At best a couple of allusions to Michael Coe or Dennis Tedlock or Eric Thompson, but just as a reference and if you want to know what these quoted authors actually said, you have to go to their books or articles. The subject should have deserved 100 pages more for specific quotations and for further recent developments to update the matter.
[…]
To finish with a positive note, the approach of the serpent or snake in these civilization is important and this book gives various approaches: Vision-serpent page 181 that opens onto religion and shamanism; War serpent page 182 that opens on the constant presence of war among these peoples for very varied reasons and objectives though the main one seems to be prisoners who became slaves and were kept for various human sacrifices causing death or just providing society with the human blood they needed for their rites; the Water-lily serpent page 184 and the ambiguous value of a symbol of the creation of the world, of birth and the gate to the underworld under the water on which it floats; the fiery Serpent page 188 and the very tyrannical value of this serpent from the deepest layer of the world; and we must not forget Quetzalcoatl page 141, the Plumed Serpent known as Kukulcan among the Mayas, though the two are not differentiated though they should be, but Quetzalcoatl is a dead sacrificed god promised to rebirth. The Maize God, the Maya Jun Nal Ye, is such a god who was sacrificed at least twice if not three times before being reborn, but he remains always on probation and he is constantly expecting blood donations from humans. I was slightly surprised not to find the centipedes and millipedes that are, some of them, poisonous, and they are abundantly represented in the surviving codices and the surviving art. And what about the stingray that was an essential sea animal providing the Mayas with its spine for bloodletting.
It is where a general discussion could appear. Isn’t this civilization in a phase of development as for its religious attachment to blood that must have existed in all human civilizations and was, maybe for good, transcended by some religions like Buddhism or Christianity, transcended really by the total rejection of any sacrifice by the Buddhists and symbolically by the Christians who reenact the divine gift of blood to salvage humanity in their ritual of the Eucharist, a ritual that reenacts the Last Supper of bread, wine, and mutton plus various other foods, hence a very agricultural practice, and that commutes the blood sacrifice of the crucifixion embedded in this Last Supper into a divine act of selflessness. The bloodshedding is on the side of God, or his Son, on one Christian hand, and on the side of the humans to keep the Gods alive on the other Maya hand. Fundamentally the same thing but in opposite directions. The meaning cannot come from the common element, blood, but the meaning of the two civilizations can only come from the difference in directions. If we want to understand we have to get rid of our sensitiveness that makes us faint in front of violence and blood, though we are cathartically and at times perversely attracted to scenes of that type with road accidents in real life or all sorts of violent action films in symbolic life.
You can then understand that my conclusion is that I am frustrated by the republishing of an old book without integrating into it all we have learned in the twenty years between the two editions. That reveals, too, the fact that such an updated and updating project is not yet available in public form, though it is quite available in scattered form over a great number of books and publications. As Chomsky would say (he did in 1965) instead of criticizing, why don’t we try ourselves to produce the book we are dreaming of? Such a book can only be produced by a multi-scientific team of probably twenty specialists if not more, and two or three times as many students, graduate students, of course, doing the ancillary exploration needed for the research workers to nourish their reflection. I must say quite a few books and studies exist already in this direction, and that’s why this book would have been inspired if one or two editors had accepted the challenge and updated the book, at least on crucial questions, some of the questions I have touched above.
Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU
August 30, 2022
The Mayans were not a wholly distinct culture, they were scattered throughout several areas and also shared similarities with the Aztecs, Olmecs, and other Mesoamerican tribes. This dictionary does a nice job of breaking down the similarities and differences while also providing a great resource for various terms, gods, and other lore.
July 8, 2011
Illustrated dictionary. First class reference book.First paperback edition 1997
August 6, 2011
Doesn't really sit well as a "curl up with a cup of coffee and read book". But is a great encyclopedia of the gods/goddesses of these cultures, with several examples of the artwork related to them.
April 1, 2013
Informative. Good way to dip your toes into a vast ocean. The focus is more on Aztec/Central Mexico than on the Maya. Descriptions of the various calendar systems is helpful.
December 21, 2017
Great reference material when studying the art and mythology of the Mayans.
February 5, 2020
If you're new to studying Mesoamerican art, than this illustrated dictionary is your new bestfriend. While it does not have everything, I can not imagine having gone through all of my Mesoamerican studies without it.
December 29, 2020
Informative, and interesting. However, I was hoping for a book about Central American mythology that was illustrated in a way that better conveys the beliefs and ideas. Instead this is a straight forward dictionary that has pictures for certain topics. Still a great reference material though, but not comprehensive enough if you are looking for the myths themselves.
June 24, 2021
While out of date, I still find this a really important resource for anyone looking into the mythology of mesoamerica. It was a great starting point to gather information on a particular subject or deity that might interest me, and move on from there.
June 21, 2020
Excellent dictionary. I am used to read mythologies in some chronological order or like stories, so it was hard for me to link some figures. Had to re-read it. However, really enjoyed.
December 10, 2020
The organizational structure is not conducive to a casual read. The alphabetized reference material is a good start but not as detailed as I had hoped.
August 6, 2022
Starts off with a good introductory essay. Great reference book.
January 27, 2025
Densely informative, with an abundance of information about Mesoamerican culture and religion. It is a dictionary, so it is not a quick read, but I found much in the book interesting.
April 22, 2015
This book is a marvelous journey to mesoamerican myth and legend, and of itself a marvelous companion to books like The Penguin Dictionary of Symbols. Being a latin american, this book is also a journey to my roots, to part of my ancestry, which is also a rediscovery of the world. The only faulty thing about this book is that is in B&W.
Read
December 20, 2013I was working with this last year to help me navigate some of the sub themes in my one-act. It was useful but since i have no plans to revisit that work, I'll never read all of the entries.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews