I’ve talked about this before, but in another context. So, its worth repeating it here. Basically, although there is evidence of persecutions of non-(what we would heterosexual) orientations. However, the evidence we have is actually quite shaky! To understand this, we’ll have to take a look at the sources.

Of these, the two most direct and explicit are Torquemada’s Monarquía Indiana and Ixtlilxochitl’s Historia de la Nacion Chichimeca. Both of them outright condemn ‘sodomy,’ and claim that server punishments were imposed on those caught in the act. Ixtlilxochitl claims that those who committed the ‘abominable sin’ were either buried in ash (for the active partner), or disembowelled (if the passive partner). Torquemada claims they were hanged or burned. And this is where we start to see the problems come in. Their descriptions of punishments are mutually inconsistent. Furthermore, they do not resemble typical Aztec punishments, which were usually either clubbing to death, stoning, or garrotting. Disembowelling and burning are not usually associated with Aztec law. This is complicated by the fact that both Ixtlilxochitl and Torquemada wrote after the turn of the 17th century, at a minimum 8 decades after the fall of Mexico. At that point, Spain had ruled the Valley of Mexico for almost as long as the Mexica had. On its own, this doesn’t necessarily make them unreliable. However, there is more. Both Torquemada and Ixtlilxochitl were Christians. We can even see this in Ixtlilxochitl’s terminology of ‘abominable sin,’ which is a Christian expression, not an Indigenous one. Therefore, their attitudes to sexuality may have been coloured by their personal beliefs. This is especially evident with Ixtlilxochitl, who wrote his texts to try and win special privileges for his lineage from the King of Spain. It is likely that he re-wrote some parts of Texcocan history and culture to make them seem more appealing to Spanish authorities. He made several other dubious claims, including that Nezahualcoyotl was a monotheist and proto-Christian (he wasn’t), that he created all the best laws in Anahuac (probably and exaggeration), and that Texcoco was the dominant power in the early Triple Alliance, having defeated Tenochtitlan in a Flower War (seems unlikely). In short, they are not reliable enough on this point to draw a solid conclusion.

This means we need another source. So, lets look at Book 10 of the Florentine Codex. This book has the advantage of being written considerably earlier than the previous, and had much more input from Indigenous informants, in that they were allowed some room to express themselves. It also discusses the topic of deviant sexuality, including sodomites, ‘perverts’ (whatever that means), and hermaphrodites. According to the text sodomites were condemned to be burned He burns; he is consumed by fire). That would seem fairly clear. However, we run into problems yet again. While the sodomite is condemned to death, other forms of deviants get off easy. They are not described as being punished at all. In fact, punishments are rarely mentioned in the volume at all. Even traitors and thieves, people who we would expect to be punished harshly, are not described as being treated such. This shouldn’t be that surprising when we remember that Book 10 is not really a legal text. Leaving aside what an Aztec legal text would actually look like, the intent of the text seems to be more a show of the different types of people, and the Aztec’s social attitudes towards them. On this note, it is worth pointing out that much criticism directed at the ‘sodomite’ and others is about effeminacy, rather than committing homosexual ‘acts,’ which makes sense when we remember that the informants were likely all Mexica. The Mexica were vastly outnumbered by the people they conquered, and showing weakness (by lacking masculinity) could cause serious political problems for them. Other Aztecs in a less precarious position may have been more tolerant. One final limitation is that most of Sahagún’s informants were probably, at least partly Christian, and like Ixtlilxochitl may have deliberately misrepresented their social history to better fit into the new regime. This would also explain why the punishment for sodomy was burning, as noted previously. Even if they were not Christians, Sahagún was. It is unlikely that his informants would defend ‘homosexuality’ in the presence of someone who had the power to punish them for it.

To this mess we have to add translation problems. In ‘Aztec Homosexuality,’ (which has informed my arguments here), Geoffrey Kimball argues that the Florentine Codex has some translation and interpretation issues relating to its descriptions of homosexuality and the like. For example, remember that line about burning. Kimball notes a tense change between this sentence and the others. The others are in past tense, the burning line in present. In other words, homosexuals were being burned (by the Spanish) at that point in time, not in pre-Hispanic times. He also points out that the translators, Dibble and Anderson, may have chosen inappropriate words that might give the wrong impression of Aztec thoughts on the matter creating the impression that the Aztecs were more hostile to non-heteronormative sexualities than they really were. This is understandable, as the translation was done in the 1950s and 60s. Lastly, Kimball notes that homosexual men were highly visible, often advertising their sexuality (say, by chewing gum in the market). This would be highly unlikely if homosexual activities were heavily punished.

However, there are some issues with Kimball’s arguments. Firstly, Classical Nahuatl is a difficult language to master, and this is as true for Kimball as for everyone else, so it is possible that he is incorrect. Unfortunately, I don’t know enough Nahuatl to check. We also have to note that early Classical Nahuatl was somewhat inconsistent in its orthography. So the word may simply have been misspelled. Furthermore, he uses the term ‘homosexual’ quite frequently, seemingly ignorant of how anachronistic this is. There is no reason to think that homosexual (or gay, or lesbian, or trans for that matter), existed as discreet social identities in Aztec society as they do now.

Let’s turn to another author, Pete Sigal. In ‘The Flower and the Scorpion,’ Sigal dedicates an entire chapter to discussing homosexuality. In said chapter he points to numerous accounts which confirm that sodomy was practised in pre-Conquest Mesoamerica, as was cross-dressing and various other forms of non-conforming sexuality. His work is basically an examination of the Nahua’s complex relationship with same-sex sex. He also includes the role of gods and ritual in the discourse, specifically focusing on Tezcatlipoca, who has some androgynous traits, and is even associated with sodomy in his guise of Titlacuan, and Tlazoteotl. He also points to translation issues as a source of misunderstandings. All told, Sigal’s work is quite complex and difficult to summarise. Nevertheless, I think his work makes it clear that persecutions of homosexual ‘acts’ was more a feature of the Colonial period than the pre-Hispanic.

For a negative counterpoint, we can look at Caroline Dodds Pennock’s ‘Bonds of Blood.’ In this text, Pennock outlines some of the problems with Colonial era accounts of homosexuality, but tends to agree with them anyway because their claims of punishment for sodomy appear in multiple sources. Personally, I don’t find this reasoning convincing. Firstly, she does not examine why some of those Colonial sources (i.e. Ixtlilxochitl) are considered dubious on this point. Furthermore, she also ignores the opposite, that multiple Conquistadors reported sodomy as common practise. Of course, these accounts are also suspect as well, but if we are to accept Colonial era records because they describe similar punishments for sodomy, then why not accept Conquistador accounts because several of them claim sodomy was common practise.

And where does this leave Townsend’s arguments? If memory serves, she based her description on the ‘event’ on the work of Chimalpahin. Chimalpahin’s work has some limitations, in that it was written long after the Fall of Mexico. However, it has a few distinct advantages over other sources. First, Chimalpahin was indigenous and so the text isn’t filtered through as much of Spanish cultural lens. More importantly, it was intended for a Nahua audience. No Spaniard was ever expected to read it. Therefore, unlike Ixtlilxochitl’s work, there was no need to modify the text to suit Spanish sensibilities. This does not mean that Chimalpahin did not have an agenda, but that agenda more represents Indigenous ideologies than Spanish ones. Case in point, Chimalpahin wanted to glorify both Chalco (where he was from), and Mexico (where he lived). I recall that Quecholcoatl originally came from Chalco. This implies that Chimalpahin saw ‘gay sex’ as glorious, as something that connected the histories of Chalco and Mexico to each other and legitimised them, and the sharing of their achievements!

Ultimately, we can’t really prove who exactly is telling the truth, as there is no definitive proof either way. So, you will have to make up your own mind on this one. One final point I’d like to address is that there are Mesoamerican cultures that are accepting of non-cis people and identities, such as the Muxe in Zapotec culture. So they did exist, and were accepted, among at least some cultures.