Introduction¹

Humans do not make their history ‘just as they please’; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by themselves, but under circumstances directly found, given and transmitted from the past (Marx quoted by Hamann, 1992: 367)

Groups of dancers, who frequently call themselves Concheros, convene on a number of specific occasions throughout the year at various locations, most of which are outside Catholic churches to perform a ritualized circle dance. Predominantly, such dancers see themselves as Catholics. However, increasingly today groups have formed who call themselves Mexica who are followers of an ideology known as mexicanidad: they reject all aspects of those practices that can be seen to be linked to Catholicism. They aim to perform, if possible, at archaeological sites and I shall be focusing on two—Teotihuacan and Cholula. The choice of place is but one of the many changes that have affected the ethos of the dance during the course of the twentieth century.

‘Ethos’ as a term was brought to social anthropology by Bateson (1936). Defined as “the prevalent tone or sentiment of a people or community” by the SOED (1974), it concerns the “feel” or “sprit” of inculcated values that are linked to practices—to a culture on whatever scale. As change occurs, traditions “grow hand in hand with the ethos”. A tradition that is alive retains its connections with a persisting ethos. Choice as to which new practices to accept is guided “both by tradition and by the ethos of the group” (Bateson, 1936: 121). A particular ethos is thus linked to the emotive and expressive aspect of a particular “habitus” (Bourdieu, 1977). Ethos can thus be defined in terms of the habitus; the practices performed by persons are “structured” by the habitus, which in their turn “structure” the habitus which exhibits a certain ethos. The predominant habitus of the dancers can then perhaps be said to be neo-indianism or indianity. ‘Indianity’ has recently become the accepted term to apply to some of the practices of those who are not strictly indigenous—that is pure autochthones—but who claim indigenous roots and are intent on recreating indigenous practices. In the Aztec region of Mexico, it manifests in a desire to go back to an indigenous pre-Hispanic past but the ‘indianity’ of the Concheros is very different from that of the Mexica.

Can the Mexica be said to be neo-pagans? The term ‘neo-paganism’ can be a useful analytical tool that has gained increasing currency in the last few decades as Christianity (for example) has declined and many are turning to other forms of religiosity. In Europe at least ‘paganism’ has tended to have pejorative connotations, denoting the religious beliefs of rural, largely pre-literate people: that is of folk religion. The Aztecs in Mexico certainly had a religion which would undoubtedly have been seen as ‘pagan’ by the conquering Spaniards as they enforced Catholicism. The Aztecs were however an urban people with a highly developed society and religiosity. It may not have been, in Redfield's terminology, strictly a ‘great tradition’ which encompasses many cultures like Catholicism or Buddhism but certainly could not be classified as a ‘little tradition’ (Redfield, 1956). In that sense the Mexica are not just neo-pagans: I thus prefer to refer to the dancers as neo-indians as their practices encompass many more aspects of their lives than just the religious. This category can be used too, to encapsulate both the Concheros and the Mexica, as I focus on the changing location and ethos of what has constituted “indianity” for them both during the twentieth century.

The concheros

I begin by looking briefly at the organization of the Concheros before examining their origins which are significant for the subsequent changes in their ethos. A group or mesa consists of a leader, the jefe, and a sahumadora who controls the incense burner both usually positioned in the centre of the circle during a dance. To assist in its execution various incumbents are a prerequisite such as the alferez or standard bearer: for each mesa exhibits a banner giving details of its name and origins. The dance is accompanied at certain times by songs, alabanzas, sung to music played on the concha, a stringed instrument that gives them their name. A dance obligation usually begins in a ritualized way in the morning, with a break to eat in the middle of the day and ends just before sunset. Important in maintaining the ethos of the dance is the terminology used. The palabras who are chosen for each dance, aim to aid dancers to achieve “union, conformity and conquest” (unión, conformidad y conquista), Palabra is also used to apply to those mesas that are in “conformity”’ with each other and belong to the same larger segment of the organization (such as the palabra of Santiago Tlatelolco). Before some dances an all-night vigil (velación) is held, at which during its course, a flower form is ritually laid out on the floor accompanied by music, singing and prayers. At dawn it is disassembled and the flower heads deployed to cleanse those present. Thereafter the attendees will rest briefly and if a dance is scheduled dress-up and go out for that.

The five most important dances that any adept must not miss take place at La Villa, Los Remedios, Chalma and Amecameca—locations all close to Mexico City. The last occurs at the centre, Tlatelolco and is dedicated to Santiago who is said to be the courier of the four winds (referring to the other locations). All are sites of Catholic significance with churches that have been built over or near to Pre-Colombian edifices.

From myth to history

According to their foundation myth, the Concheros' dance began in the area of Mexico known as the Bajio where in 1531, some 10 years after Cortes had defeated the Aztecs, a battle was fought against the Chichimeca by the Spaniards—many of whose troops were indigenous Otomi converts. The Chichimeca were predominantly hunters and gatherers and were difficult to trounce. The battle is said to have taken place on a hill called Sangremal—situated in what is today the city of Queretero. During it, a shining cross appeared in the sky with Santiago on a horse. The Chichimecas were so astounded that they converted to Christianity and demanded that an initial wooden cross be made around which they danced.

But what form did these dances take? The Aztecs certainly danced and depictions of their dancing in various codices have come down to us from soon after the Spanish conquest. Dance and song were inextricably intertwined and were an important aspect of most social relations. As Pedro de Gante commented, “[a]ll their worship of their gods consisted of singing and dancing in front of them” (Alberro, 1998: 123). Little can be known however about the steps enacted or the precise nature of the rhythms beaten out on the drums that accompanied them. Although more is known about the cities, circle dances must have existed too in country towns: a form that was clearly not brought to the New World by the Spaniards.

What the Spaniards did bring was the dance of the Moors and Christians which with time became known as the dance of the Christians in contra to the Chichimeca (Warman, 1972). It thus seems likely that these would have been the dances that the Chichimeca performed after their conversion by the Franciscans who drew them into confraternities which were charged with organising the Catholic fiestas.

Figure 1
A dance of Aztec nobles, Tovar Codex, 1585.
Source: courtesy of the John Carter Brown Library, Brown University, USA.

However, pre-Colombian forms of dance undoubtedly continued although attempts to extirpate them were made. As Sahagun noted in 1576, “secretly and at night they perform[ed dances] in honour of their idols” (Bierhorst, 1985: 527). But undoubtedly other dances spread too such as hispanized forms of circle dances known generically as mitotes but accompanied now by an instrument of Spanish origin, the stringed Concha made from the shell of a local animal, the armadillo. As the church gradually lost its hold over confraternities, many became private associations or secret societies (Taylor, 2012: 315). Moedano (1984: 6) likens the dances of a Chichimeca organisation in the early 1800s to those of the Concheros.

The Aztec past

But how interested were the residents of New Spain in the Aztec past? Torquemada as early as 1615 had drawn an analogy between the Aztecs, and the Greeks and Romans (Phelan, 1960: 761). During the second part of the 18^th century, restrictions were placed on publications that praised the Aztec past for fear of provoking religious doubts and attacks against Spanish domination (Bernal, 1980: 102). In the following century however, museums began to be established where found artefacts could be displayed such as the Aztec Calendar stone (or sun stone) which had been unearthed as early as the 1790s (López Luján, 2006: 78).

Teotihuacan and the emergence of Neo-aztecism

The Aztec city of Tenochtitlan, known today as Mexico City had predominantly been built over: but Teotihuacan some sixty kilometres away had not. Although it had been abandoned and partially destroyed in A.D.750 parts were still standing. Explorations had begun as early as 1675 and were followed in 1767, by those of Clavijero, who was also the first to introduce the notion of neo-Aztecism (Phelan, op. cit.;Moragas & Sarabia, 2008). But predominantly, the sites of those pre-Hispanic cities that had not been built over continued to fall into disrepair. When pre-Colombian objects appeared in the course of agricultural activities, they were either destroyed or sold on to those who would be interested.²

During the late nineteenth century, during the presidency of Porfirio Diaz (1876-1911) interest in the Aztec past was largely emblematic. For example, it provided a source of symbols for the buildings designed for the Paris World Fair in 1889 in Aztec style (Tenorio, 1996). But full archaeological explorations had also begun. The first known use of Teotihuacan for an event dates from 1910, when the pyramid of the Sun having been fully restored and was deployed to celebrate the centennial of the Mexican War of Independence (1810) (Moragas & Sarabia, op. cit.).

During that period too, the Catholic Church had been able regenerate itself again after being curtailed in 1855 when much of its property was expropriated and dances which had had links with the church were forced to be performed in secret. Uncertain, however, is when the dance now known as that of the Concheros first came to Mexico City. There may well have been several mesas that came at roughly the same time but the generally accepted date is 1876 when Jesus Gutierrez “came conquering from the Bajío” where the dance had been well established for some time and assumed the position of Captain General de las Danzas de Tenochtitlan³ (Stone, 1975: 209; Fernández & Mendoza, 1940).

The last years of the Porfiriato were a nationalistic period, a time of great social change; migrants from many regions were flooding into a rapidly expanding Mexico City in search of a better life. Many brought their rural practices with them and this included the practices of their confraternities and their various dances. The name Conchero probably originated at this time; dances having previously been called “Apache”, or “Chichimeca”, the later tending to indicate that they had originated in the Bajio (de la Peña, 1999: 56-57). Others were known as “danzas de conquista” and this appellation persists for some to this day (Jáuregui & Bonfiglioli, 1996: 207-227).

Neo-Aztecism and the concheros dance in Mexico City

After the 1910-20 Revolution, the interest in the Aztec past became more sophisticated. An Aztec Zeitgeist was in the ascendant, and that past was to be utilized as the foundation for Mexico as a nation. It was a time of optimism: a period that Monsivais has called “cultural nationalism” (Lavalle, 2002: 45). At Christmas in 1930, for example, the President Pascual Ortiz Rubio decreed that the deity Quetzalcóatl would replace the Three Kings (and Father Christmas) at a ceremony on a pyramid especially constructed in the National Stadium (Díaz Maya, 2019).

Throughout that decade those aspects of indigenous cultures that were part of the plastic arts were being brought into the national culture. Ballets and operas were being written with Aztec themes. By the mid-1930s a programme of folkdances, Danzas Autenticas Mexicanas had been organised sponsored by the wife of the then President, Lazaro Cardenas. This included Conchero dances (but performed by professionals). Currently called The Ballet Polklorico, it continues to this day. The elite gave Aztec names to their children or assumed them themselves and Aztecism had filtered down too into everyday life: There were depictions on calendars of Aztec warriors with dying maidens in their arms. Organizations adopted Aztec logos or names and clubs, bars and restaurants followed suite.

Figure 2
The pyramid with “representations” of “Aztecs, priestesses, tehuanas and other indigenous people.” Dances were performed and gifts were given to the children of the poor (Díaz Maya, 2017).
Source: El Universal.

Some of the mesas of gente humilde (that is the less well educated many of whom may have been of recent indigenous descent) became involved in the Aztec trend and began to introduce neo-Aztec traits. The group of La Gran Tenochtitlan, claimed that they danced for Tonantzin⁴ rather than the Virgen of Guadalupe at La Villa; at Chalma for Huitzilopochtli⁵ rather than San Miguel and that their headdresses were like those of Cuauhtémoc⁶ (Solórzano & Guerrero, 1941). But at that time, the dancers of this mesa were still clad in costumes that covered their whole bodies which had clear Catholic connotations and which had originated in and come from the Bajio.

Aztec clothing is more minimal and its introduction was an important marker of the changing ethos of the dance. The jefe, Manuel Pineda is said to have been inspired by the murals of Aztecs by Diego Rivera in Cuernavaca, and introduced his dancers to this more minimal style. It consisted of a loin cloth, pectoral and/or a cloak, although dancing with a bare chest was not initially well received by the Church (Stone, 1975; De la Torre, 2007: 164-165, 168). Pineda also introduced Aztec drums into the dance—the Huehuetl and Teponaztle (Gonzalez Torres, 2005). Thereafter other jefes followed suite and in particular Felipe Aranda and Andres Segura. By 1979, the latter had founded a mesa known as Danzas Aztecas Xinachtli and began to “conquer” in the USA: forming groups in Austin Texas and elsewhere predominantly amongst Chicanos (Poveda, 1981). These jefes also provided a bridge between the Catholic religiosity of the predominantly conservative Concheros and a new neo-nationalistic ideology that was gaining ground.

Figure 3
Dancers at Los Remedios during a break in the dance and wearing Aztec style costumes: A mesa of gente humilde with probably scarce resources judging by the simplicity of their headdresses (1989).
Source: Susanna Rostas.

The growth of the neo-nationalism and neo-Aztecism

Many fledgling associations were pushing neo-nationalist and neo-Aztec ideas, such as the “Indigenous Confederation of Mexico.” However, the most influential organization was the later Movimiento Confederado Restaurador de Anáhuac, the MCRA, which was not founded until 1955 (Odena Güemes, 1984; Friedlander, 1975).⁷ Its initiator was Rodolfo Nieva, a lawyer who worked in the offices of the Federal District in Mexico City. Its members were predominantly professionals and from the upper middle classes. Nieva claimed Aztec ancestry and glorified the Aztec past. He proposed that Náhuatl should replace Spanish as the lingua franca.⁸ In 1967, he formed a political party, El Partido de la Mexicanidad but died before he could be elected. After his death ‘culture’ was added to the movement's acronym (MCRCA) and his sister known as Izkalotzin became responsible for the more performative side of its activities. In the 1990s, for example, she was still teaching Náhuatl and arranging ad-hoc Aztec style weddings for aspiring young men who were of more humble origins.⁹

Mexikayoytl and the emergence of mexicanidad

The MCRCA published both a journal, Izkálotl and a book, Mexikayotl (1969). Mexikayotl, as an ideology was both anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic. It excoriated Mexicans for their sense of inferiority urging them to return to the “raza pura” that had been sullied by miscegenation with the gauchupines (Spaniards). A syncretic view of Mexican history was presented: all pre-Hispanic cultures had undergone Nahua influences and most of the western world had also learnt from the Nahuas: for example, they had taught the Egyptians how to build pyramids. Mexikayotl argued that the Catholic religion, religions in general and beliefs in supernatural entities were superfluous and suggested that the cosmos had been created by natural forces: Teotl or Ometeotl then is not the supreme (Aztec) deity but rather the essence of the cosmos. From this it follows that there are no anthropomorphic deities: rather Huitzilopochtli was a type of energy with Tonantzin representing the power of the earth. Finally, Cuauhtémoc as the culture hero was given particular significance and it was prophesized that he would return at the time of the sixth sun.¹⁰

Photocopies of Mexikayotl circulated widely amongst adepts in the late 80s and early 90s as the movement, known today as Mexcanidad grew. An aggressive form of it was spread by Tlakaelel¹¹ whose kalpulli was called Koakalco.¹² Rather different was that of the intellectual, Antonio Velasco Piña who was also involved with various Eastern and esoteric traditions (such as Buddhism, Hinduism and the Hermetic tradition). He propounded a form of nationalistic spiritual extremism which predicted that in the very near future Mexico would become the leading chakra of the spiritual world as that moved westwards from Tibet. Regina (1987), the title of one of his many published books led to the formation of a new movement known as the Reginas. Its dancers wear red head bands (izcoahuecatl) and enact a form of dance known as Citlalmina that combines Tibetan dances with those of the Concheros. They are cosmopolitan, global and decidedly New Age.¹³

By the 1990s, other more accessible publications had begun to appear such as El Mitote, Tlamatini and a professionally produced journal, Ce-Acatl. The latter, calling itself the journal of Anáhuac culture, aimed to redeem the culture of “nuestros antepasados” (Ce-Acatl, 1991: no 1:3).¹⁴ It reported on and advertised the activities of those involved in mexicanidad. Mexica kalpultin in general offered a range of Aztec classes: on the Náhuatl language, on Nahua philosophy, mathematics, calendars and astronomy, on cosmic vision, on song and poetry, on the making of autochthonous musical instruments, and enacted various ceremonies and rituals including curative baths (temazcal) and importantly dance (chitontequiza). One offered guided tours once a month to archaeological sites (Ce-Acatl, 1992 no 23:31-32). The Kalpulli Moviemiento del Sexto Sol, for example, offered classes on calendars, cosmic vision, and astronomy, and in addition, guided tours once a month to archaeological sites presumably not for ceremonies or to dance as the idea that the dance could or should occur at such sites was still only incipient (Ce-Acatl, 1992 no 23:31-32).

Importantly, Mexica kalpulli in general offer a range of Aztec classes from Nahuatl language, mathematics and philosophy, to Nahua song and poetry, the making of autochthonous musical instruments, to various ceremonies and rituals including curative baths (temascal) and dance (chitontquiza): but importantly, the Mexica's dances have in fact been adopted and adapted from thosee dances performed by the Concheros.

The concheros and mexicanidad

I want to return now briefly to the Concheros. Until recently the Concheros had an oral tradition and much of their history was celebrated in their songs. Aside from the mandatory dances, each mesa has its own programme of dances (some linked to vigils) which take place in locations that are particular to its history. There are too other events which are political as much as religious such as the celebrations for Cuauhtémoc which have been occurring since the 1950s (de la Torre, 2007: 157).

Although, as already indicated, certain Conchero mesas had by mid-century taken on some Aztec features; at their core most of their practices still had strong Catholic elements. They danced to achieve transcendence—to become god-like. Another of their leitmotifs is El es Dios (literally—he is God) which appears on their banners, is enunciated before a dance begins, at frequent intervals during it and also, at all-night vigils.

During the dance it is important that each female dancer places herself between two men and that each enacts the dance steps in as disciplined way, as possible, such that no one dancer disrupts the others. The dance is performed not to be looked at (although it often draws an audience) but rather each dancer is aiming to still his or her inner voices, and thereby to ‘conquer’ the self so as to be in touch with the deity and if the dance is being performed by invitation to make a ‘conquest’ of that location.

For the Concheros much was and still is based on taken for granted assumptions: they tend not to make assertions of belief. Their religiosity can be said to be incorporated into and to emerge from their practices, which are said to have been “bequeathed to them by their ancestors": by the animas conquistadoras (the spirits of former members of the mesa and the association in general). Their political concerns (if such they can be called) are primarily about stability and succession. Although the organization of a mesa is apparently hierarchical—with names such as General (for a high up jefe), Captain and Sergeant (having been adopted from organized armed groups in the Bajío)—these are titles based on know-how rather than coercion. And finally, they are inclusive rather than exclusive.

Initially, the followers of mexicanidad took a political stance and although they found it difficult to accept the pluralism and religiosity of the Concheros, joined a number of mesas and danced with them as they began to form their own kalpultin. Each kalpulli tended to an extent to have its own ideology but their ideas about the non-material realm were clearly based on those propounded in Mexikayotl. They danced to get in touch with, or recreate the various energies of those entities that have been “falsely” called deities. To begin with they had little interest in achieving ‘union’ and ‘conformity’ and were more interested in external ‘conquest’—they tended to dance individualistically, faster and often in a more aggressive, flamboyant and exaggerated way and, initially there were few women in their groups (as they found it difficult to keep up). The Mexica eliminated many of the Concheros’ practices. They do not play the concha which is clearly of Spanish origin but rather deploy Aztec style drums to accompany their dancing; do not sing alabanzas as many have Catholic elements (and often indicate a history of the dance that is not Aztec, i.e. not Mexico City centric); nor did they hold all night vigils (at least initially)—as these too were considered to be Catholic. The dance for them rather than being the means to achieve transcendence, was and still is for many a form of spectacle that produces an endorphin high, which in the breaks between sets of dances provides the opportunity to proselytize about their movement. Dance was and is (as already indicated) just one part of a larger project. Finally, they often tend to consider themselves to be more indigenous than the country's indigenes.

Neo-concheros and neo-mexicanidad

During the last three decades, however, the two distinct types of dancers have begun to converge: many Mexica have softened their attitude, while quite a few Conchero mesas which had already begun to show an interest in the Aztec past, became increasingly open to the ideas of mexicanidad. The organization of the Concheros’ rituals—such as their vigils—have become both more ritualized but also more performative (Rostas, 2009). In country districts (in Guanajuato for example) during vigils procedures were often carried out in a fairly relaxed way, while in Mexico City, Concheros on the whole followed a fixed pattern of ritualization. The Mexica's influence has added many more intricacies and these minutiae often appear to be performative flourishes.¹⁵ They have given Náhuatl names to the dances—La Guadalupana becoming known as Tonantzin, El Cojito becoming Tezcatlipoca: names that are increasingly used too by Conchero mesas. Some of the Concheros’ sahumadoras have become known as malinches.¹⁶ During vigils, many Concheros no longer lay out their flower forms as a (Christian) cross with no predetermined plan but instead follow a preconceived design consisting of Aztec symbols and in particular the Nahui Ollin, a kind of cross on its side representing the four movements (which is also the insignia of the MCRCA). This symbol, amongst other representations of energy, is also deployed by Mexica kalpultin for some now hold vigils. Their forms consist not just of flowers but also fruits and other objects—rather similar to the offerings that most Mexican families assemble on their altar for the Day of the Dead. Morover, if constructed outdoors at the centre of the dance circle, can include images. Their Kapultin also now include many women. The rigorous sumptuary code that in the 1990s mandated that their costumes should only be made from natural materials that would have been available at the time of the Aztecs has loosened with time: many dancers now dress as they wish to or can. They accompany their singing with drums and other (wind) instruments, not conchas; their songs, rather than being alabanzas, are predominantly rhythmical chants some of U.S. indigenous origin translated into Spanish, or more usually Náhuatl. As their formation is very recent, they have as yet few animas of their own to call up during a vigil so enlist Cuauhtémoc or the various instigators of mexicanidad.

The Mexica and Pyramids

But where do the Mexica dance? They tend to dance in a wide variety of places (often by invitation) just as do the Concheros although locations outside Roman Catholic churches imbued with Christianity will frequently be eschewed unless they are close to an archaeological site.¹⁷ Within Mexico City itself they dance at locations such as the Zocalo beside the Templo Mayor (Tenochtitlan) and the Plaza de las Tres Culturas (at Tlatelolco); and outside the city at the pyramids at Teotihuacan, Xochicalco and Cholula—none of which were Aztec pyramids per se. And even further afield at Chichén Itza (for example), a Mayan site well over a thousand kilometres away. They dance at such sites partly because both Conchero mesas and Mexica kalpultin are to be found today in many parts of Mexico and often invite other groups to come and dance with them—but this is also linked to the previously mentioned belief that many other Mexican cultures were influenced by the Nahuas.

The use of the Zocalo in Mexico City is a fairly recent innovation. In 1978, for example, the kalpulli Mazatl was strongly discouraged by the authorities and so danced outside the museum of Anthropology: but by 1989, the Zocalo had been “taken” (de la Peña Martínez, 1999: 16, 25).¹⁸ Since then, it has attracted a number of groups on a regular daily basis. This also includes the chimaleros, dancers who aim to be seen by tourists and to collect monetary contributions.¹⁹ Also convened are annual celebrations of a more political nature (which some Conchero mesas also attend), such as Dia de la Raza, renamed the ‘Day of Dignity and Resistance of the Indian’ and, on the ‘Day for the Heroic Defence of Mexico-Tenochtitlan.’ Importantly, on May 3^rd a celebration is held known as Dia de la mexicanidad which coincides with Nieva's birthday when all kalpultin should attend. Other possibilities of places to dance are the Cerro de la Estrella in Iztapalapa and Mixcoac both archaeological sites.

Teotihuacan

The most important site however is Teotihuacan. As indicated earlier, the city had already been abandoned by the time of the Aztecs, but it was still considered of great significance. Its layout was copied for the then new city of Tenochtitlan and objects such as stone masks and ceramics from there have been found in excavations of the Templo Mayor (in Mexico City). According to Sahagún ceremonies were performed every twenty days at Teotihuacan for it was believed that it was from there that the fifth sun had risen (Hamann, 1992: 356; McCafferty, 2000: 344). And the Aztecs had proceeded “metaphorically” to take “ownership of this Sun, for whose continuance their sacrifices and offerings were responsible” (Carrasco et al., 2000: 13).

Serious archaeological work began in 1917 under Manuel Gamio who was also interested in the then current indigenous population of the area. By 1929, he was encouraging the use of archaeological sites for tourism and promoted Teotihuacan in particular as a way of “visualizing the phases of civilization that humanity has gone through hundreds of centuries ago until the present day” (Díaz-Andreu, 2013: 228).

It also attracted members of the Supreme Order and the Great Universal Brotherhood who claimed that they had been coming to Teotihuacan for years, the latter to initiate the “cosmic year” ruled by Mars which signifies strength and positive creativity’.²⁰

As its material conditions improved, Teotihuacan increasingly began to be used for other celebrations and in 1968 the Olympic flame was received there. Until the late 1980s, a light show was staged which was a spectacle which attractinged many tourists, but which displeased some archaeologists. The central theme of the show was the fifth sun, the sun of movement and of the Nahui Ollin, although this sun was soon to be replaced (Villalobos, 2013). During the 1990s, a new show was in preparation—“Resplandor Teotihuacano”—which was to occur twice a night. But it was abandoned, as it was in violation of national and international requirements for the conservation and use of archaeological sites, but by 2016, a less intrusive version of the show—“Experiencia Nocturno” opened.²¹

Map 1
Central Mexico - showing Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), Teotihuacan and Cholula.
Source: Google Maps.

But Teotihuacan also became a place for mesas or kalpultin to dance and this was closely linked to the emergence of the New Age tendency and Velasco Piña whom I mentioned earlier. In 1989, Velasco Piña had brought the Dalai Lama to Mexico City and established the Casa Tibet-Mexico which drew a large number of adherents and: he took groups of Reginas to Teotihuacan to open the energy channels of the neighbouring volcanoes, Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl.

Figure 4
A Mexica kalpulli at Teotihuacan.
Source: Roger Blench.

In 1991, on the 21^st March (the equinox) some 500,000 people went to Teotihuacan at dawn for a ceremony to unify the “four races”, accompanied by the leaders of mexicanidad.

There were dancers, many meditating with upheld arms, thousands dressed in white lying on their backs, young people lighting incense and copal to the rhythm of music on a cassette by Jorge Reyes and a large queue of people waiting to ascend the pyramid...to receive energy from its summit (Mejia Madrid, 1993, my translation).

The throng consisted of those who were part of Casa Tibet-Mexico, Hindus and people from other religions and other parts of the world. The practise continues and dances for both the equinoxes and the solstices are held there every year.

However, in 1992, some Mexica manifested xenophobic tendencies which caused considerable concern. A group of Tibetan llamas and their followers were allowed into the ruins before dawn for an “oriental style ritual”, but were routed by a group of Mexica who entered later with the general public.²² They claimed that the site was effectively theirs and pointed out that it was inconceivable that they would go to a mosque or a monastery to carry out an Aztec-Chichimec ceremony: thereby living up to the unflattering designations they had received of being “fanatics”, “charlatans” and “Aztec imbeciles” (Anzaldo Meneses, 1990: 1; 1993: 12).²³

Many groups danced there during that decade: Santo Niño de Atocha for example danced at Teotihuacan in 1990 to celebrate the fifth Sun and for the subsequent five years to celebrate the spring equinoxes. But worried by the damage being done to the ruins and the lack of respect shown went in 1996 to celebrate at the pyramid of Cuicuilco, located in the parque ecológico Peña Pobre. However, as the pyramids at Teotihuacan are considered by many to be a source of universal energy, other multi-ethnic events have been and still are held there.²⁴

The use of archaeological sites by the Concheros and the Mexica is thus a fairly recent innovation, instigated by the influence of Antonio Velasco Piña but also by others involved in the esoteric and to the so-called celebrations for the 500 years discovery of the Americas when awareness of Mexico's pre-Hispanic past was at an all-time its highest level.

Cholula²⁵

The conchero mesa of Santo Niño de Atocha usually goes to Los Remedios (at Naucalpan in the State of Mexico) in September for one of the principal vigils and dances linked to the equinox. However, in 1989 some of the dancers decided to go to Cholula (in the State of Puebla). First an all-night vigil was held for the Virgin in the church followed by a dance outside on the following day.

After the demise of Teotihuacan, Cholula became “the primary religious centre of central Mexico... the Rome of Anáhuac” (McCafferty, 2000: 359). The church which appears to have been built on a hill is in reality on the top of a pyramid which had been abandoned as early as the eighth century. The initial structure is thought to have been built some two thousand years ago and to have been enlarged six times in volume: it is in fact the largest pyramid in the world. At the time of the Aztecs there were hundreds of other places of worship in the city, all of which were destroyed by the Spaniards but they mistook the mound (known as Tlachihualtépetl) for a natural hill.

As it has attracted less archaeological attention than Teotihuacan, serious excavations only began recently and the pyramid is still predominantly covered with grass. Tunnels were dug into its centre in the 1930s to try to assess the various stages of its expansion while other areas such as the Patio de los Altares (figure 5) have been carefully excavated. The vigil in the church had been organized by the mesa from Amecameca who also invited Tepetlixpa and Saint Ramon—all places just over the border in the State of Mexico. Dancers from Santo Niño de Atocha were included as part of the strong alliances between these groups. There were representative dancers from other Mexico City groups too—such as that of Felipe Aranda—but also, some from Puebla.

Figure 5
The pyramid at Cholula with the church of Los Remedios at its summit and with drums readied for the winter solstice dance.
Source: L.A. Arenas Fernandez.

Since then, several Kapultin in Cholula itself have formed who dance either on the periphery of the pyramid but only occasionally actually within the fenced-in space of the ruins which is now a site for which the public must pay an entry fee.²⁶ Every day there are dancers in the Parque Soria, an extension of the site devoted to tourism, where they take turns to perform with the Voladores from Papantla.²⁷ Dances are held too in the area above the enclosure of the ruins (close to the church). Kapultin only rarely dance within the demarcated space. One occasion is the vigil and dance held for the winter solstice for which various groups assemble. The groups arrive before dawn—at five in the morning—gaining access by special arrangement. They bring with them all they will need for the day—food, water, musical instruments, flowers and standards.

Generally, it is the female captain from San Bernadino Tlaxcalancingo whose kalpulli is charged with this obligation. Songs are sung as the sun rises mostly in Náhuatl (cantos guerreros - warrior songs) some based on native American ones. Ideally the men should wear only a red head band (Ixcualmecatl)²⁸ and loin cloth (maztlaj), despite the cold.²⁹ In the area known as the Patio de los Altares the groups (both Kapultin and sometimes mesas too) assemble an altar consisting of a large circle of flowers usually of four colours (one for each of the four directions) laid out on the ground with a large image of Huitzilopochtli (as the sun) in the centre.

Subsequently after some sustenance and the appointment of palabras to lead the various aspects of the obligation, the dancers dress for the dance. After the fourth, they stop to enact the so-called run of Huitzilopochtli: whoever wins will be in charge of the standard for the coming year. By this time the public have arrived on the site and are either just looking and/or involved in taking photos, some may be trying to copy the dance but will make way for the run. Later on, the dancers may stop again briefly for a naming ceremony (la siembra de nombres): the taking on by a dancer of a Náhuatl name.

This obligation usually takes place on a Sunday when access to the ruins is free and draws a large crowd. Many of the public come dressed in white to meditate some with medieval swords, who lift their arms up to the sun to receive its energy. Others who would usually be in the Parque Soria will also be present to offer cleansings (limpias) or simply to take photos of, or with the visitors.

Getting permission to hold an obligation within the ruins is currently difficult. Permission has to be solicited months in advance from the INAH both in Mexico City and locally.³⁰ The group from Tlaxcalancingo have good relations with the administration but an archeo-astronomer and ‘metaphysical maestro’, Ángel Farpón, has recently apparently been denied such authorization. It seems that Farpón had in the past tried to join the dancers and sometimes encircled them but this was not acceptable. Farpón does however hold a special event on the pyramid for the spring equinox. Taking a fibre—glass copy of a stone dedicated to Quetzalcoatl—the original of which sits at the base—he ascends the steps to the top of the most heavily reconstructed part of the pyramid. There, with the aid of his followers and with his white clad assistants, whom in 2016 included some Mexica dancers, he holds a New-Age ceremony and meditation.³¹ He performs similar ceremonies each month at other archaeological sites (Velazquez Valdes, 2011: 101).

Figure 6
The dance for the winter solstice.
Source: L.A. Arenas Fernandez.

Many dancers are grateful to dance on the day when there is no admission charge as some have no secure source of income. Most mesas and kalpultin receive invitations to dance on occasions that are not related to their annual calendar and will then be offered a form of monetary reimbursement. Known as ‘co-operation,’ this is not seen as pay but as a way of covering the expenses for say transport or providing for new feathers for their copilli (headdresses). As Arenas Fernandez has shown, many are in fact dependent on this co-operation as a source of income but which on occasions when they are not actually inside the ruins can be added to by other means (Arenas Fernández, 2018, 2019).

Why archaeological sites?

For the Mexica who reject the effects of the Spanish invasion on their country and the Catholic religion, the most appropriate spaces in which to dance are in those places that instantiate the pre-Hispanic past. The clearest option is the pyramids which are part of most archaeological sites. As ritual can be seen to create links between man and the cosmos, these locations are thus seen not as archaeological ruins but as ceremonial centres, places that are milieux de memoires—with a difference—having suffered centuries of disuse (Nora, 1996). The pyramids are considered to be animated, and to energize in a special way those who hold ceremonies or rituals on or in them. This energy would have been felt by the ancestors and is to be found only in certain locations which determined where the pyramids were to be constructed. For as Carrasco has noted for Cholula, “[t]he... pyramid was believed to be the opening to celestial forces as well as the covering over [of] the primordial waters of the underworld” (McCafferty, 2000: 344). The pyramid at Cholula was indeed built over a spring whose source was only uncovered comparatively recently (Ibid., 342-343).³² There is also a belief that certain stones have ‘doors’ or ‘portals’ into the other world-such as the stone dedicated to Quetzalcoatl at Cholula or fissures in the rocks in the community of Amatlán near Tepoztlán in Morelos.³³

At their summits, pyramids are related to the upper-cosmos: to the celestial sphere. Many were constructed in such a way that the sun rose or set at the solstices or the equinoxes behind them. Diego Duran mentions that in Cholula petitioners went to pray to the Lord of Created Things, Tonacatecuhtli—that is the sun—when at the summer solstice, it sets behind the pyramid and the mountains of Popocatépetl and Iztaccíhuatl (McCafferty, 2000: 343).

The Mexica tend to be drawn to those archaeological sites that have been extensively excavated often with large rebuilt areas. A site that has barely been excavated would not be appropriate as it would not offer surfaces large or flat enough on which to dance nor offer easy opportunities to sell handicrafts to visiting tourists: often an important aspect of the Mexica's choice of location.

Heritage

As the pyramid of Cholula is essentially within the town, it has become a site for tourist entertainment and indeed both Teotihuacan and Cholula have become part of the heritage industry. The Mexica have to an extent been drawn into this process of “heritagisation” as it has been labelled by some which “offer[s].. a field of seduction”, and “a promise of recovery of an allegedly lost world,” often involving a myth of origins while legitimising the use of power (Del Mármol et al, 2014: 3-4).

In 2001, Cholula gained the sobriquet of becoming a pueblo mágico—one of 132 towns chosen for this ‘honour’ by the Federal Government. The programme aims to boost local economies and to develop tourism by emphasising authenticity whether by means of say, local food served in restaurants or by so-called indigenous dances such as those of the Mexica presented as show.

Cholula is divided between two municipal councils. San Pedro is supportive of the dancers who are permitted to dance in the central Zocalo (for example) where they act as a tourist attraction. The other municipality of San Andres includes the pyramid and organizes a spectacle of Music and Dance to Quetzalcóatl during the spring equinox. Occurring mostly at night, it consists of staged groups playing music and various kinds of dancers. But mexicanidad receives especial emphasis: during the opening ceremony a number of Mexica dance in the presence of the mayor. In 2012, the event culminated with a pre-Hispanic spectacle staged by dancers from the local university.³⁴ A further heritage moved in 2017 was the establishment of the twinning between Cholula—the City of Quetzalcóatl—and Teotihuacan—the City of the Gods for which a ceremony was staged in the Patio de Altares aiming to preserve and recuperate, create and disseminate intercultural and touristic ties in both municipalities.

Conclusion

Many of the Mexica dancers at Cholula claim that they are the “guardians of the tradition.” But as this paper will have demonstrated this is not a tradition that has been continuous but an “invented” or a reinvented one, of comparatively recent innovation (Hobsbawm & Ranger 1983). In Mexico City, the Conchero's lineages are deeper and in Guanajuato especially there are mesas that can trace their roots back to the 16^th century (Santamaria Hernandez 2014). As I have already indicated one of the Concheros’ frequent enunciations is that the habitus of the dance is a constant: that the dances never change as they have been inherited from the ancestors and the latter's spirits (animas) oversee and even comment on the practices.³⁵ Change does of course occur sometimes imperceptibly as a tradition adapts to its current circumstances; sometimes more consciously as a new habitus with an enticing ideology manifests itself such as mexicanidad. Much has changed in the last few decades, but it seems likely that there is a sufficient degree of similarity between the dances performed a century ago—at the very least—and those enacted today for a claim of continuity to be “good to think with” (Lévi-Strauss, 1963). But if the underlying forms of the dances have predominantly endured unaltered, the actual manner of their enactment has changed: for as executed by the Mexica the dances have become faster, more aggressive, more flamboyant and sometimes more complex.

As I have discussed in this article, a clear disjunction became apparent in the organization of the dance in the middle of the twentieth century as the Mexica emerged. A strong initial distinction could be made between the Concheros, some of whom had taken on certain Aztec traits and the Mexica, the latter rejecting most of the practices of the former. But in the last few decades the major differences in the habitus between the two types of dancers has diminished as each has become more amenable to and inclined to adopt some of the practices of the other: the Mexica have become increasingly spiritual, the Concheros keener to take on Aztec features.

In Cholula the Mexica do now hold vigils and build flower forms to honour the sun as Huitzilopochtli (rather than a Christian saint) which in the heady days of the early 1990s would have been inconceivable. But the hours for their vigils are somewhat constrained: Conchero mesas can hold vigils in churches from dusk to dawn by prior arrangement but the Mexica cannot be in the ruins all night as these have yet to be perceived by the authorities as living ritual centres. The habitus of the various mesas and kupultin is changing once again but the difference in the locations of the dance—church or pyramid—still remains

However, the Catholic Church has accepted non-Christian practices in its churches over the centuries, especially in those indigenous areas at some distance from Mexico City, such as Chiapas. But there are now signs that it is perhaps prepared to accept the indianization or neo-paganism of some of its practices at its centre. For example, in 2014, the padre in Santa Ana Tlacotenco, Milpa Alta (in the State of Mexico) had a pyramid constructed in the courtyard of his church. It is small—probably no more than two metres in height but built of stone and with various carved glyphs. At the top of its steps a fountain spouts water from a head of Quezalcoatl. For its inauguration the padre donned a sumptuous feather headdress, and on Sundays holds mass in Náhuatl (which is not his native language) (Whittaker, 2016, 2018: 55). But his pyramid is not totally an indianist edifice for it is also an altar to Catholicism crowned as it is by an image of Juan Diego, Cuauhtlatoatzin kneeling to the Virgin of Guadalupe. He was the indigenous man who it is claimed saw the Virgin in a vision and was canonized in 2002. The apparition in 1531 was the initial step that enabled Tonantzin to be seen as the Virgin of Guadalupe thus creating an enduring link between indigenous and Catholic religiosity.

While the church itself is apparently built over a pre-Hispanic temple, its outside space may not yet be a place to dance although in the community there are some Aztec dancers. Were excavations to be carried out in a large number of Mexican churches, it might be possible to reveal the foundations of the pre—Christian edifices over which they had been built: a practice which is common in other countries.³⁶ This may be a sign of what is to come—a melding of the places where the dance will occur—not church or pyramid but church and pyramid although not all will have had tetragonal pyramids, the physical form that has become iconic of the ‘pagan’ past in the popular imagination.

Referências bibliográficas

ALBERRO. Solange. Bailes y mitotes coloniales como producto y factor slncrético. In: LUPO, Alessandra; LÓPEZ AUSTIN, Alfredo (orgs.). La cultura plural: Homenaje a Italo Signorini, Mexico: UNAM, pp. 119-137, 1998.

ANZALDO MENESES, Juan. Editorial. In: Ce-Acatl, v.1, n.7, pp. 3, 1990.

ANZALDO MENESES, Juan. Fanatismo, mexicanidad y las culturas autóctonas. In: Ce-Acatl, v.41, n.12, pp. 8-12, 1993.

ARENAS FERNÁNDEZ, Luis Acatzin. ‘La cultura no es mercancía’: Subjetividad, etnicidad y proletariado entre los danzantes de la mexicanidad en Cholula, Puebla. Tesis de Maestría, Benemérita Universidad Autónoma de Puebla, 2018.

ARENAS FERNÁNDEZ, Luis Acatzin. Los Danzantes de la mexicanidad en Cholula, Puebla (México): ¿guardianes de la tradición o proletariado del multiculturalismo? In: Revista Latinoamericana de Antropología del Trabajo, v.3, n.6, , pp 25, 2019.

ARENAS FERNÁNDEZ, Luis Acatzin. Hacerse de una vida en tiempos del multlculturallsmo neoliberal. In: Cuadernos de Antropología Social, n.51, pp. 229-244, 2020.

BATESON, Gregory. Naven. California: Stanford University Press, 1936 [1958].

BERNAL Y GARCÍA PIMENTEL, Ignacio. A History of Mexican Archaeology: The Vanished Civilizations of Middle America. London: Thames and Hudson, 1980.

BIERHORST, John. Cantares Mexicanos: Songs of the Aztecs. California: Stanford University Press, 1985.

BONFIL BATALLA, Guillermo; WARMAN; Arturo; MUÑOZ, Alfonso; ANTEO, Víctor. El Es Dios. Film INAH -Instituto de Antropología y Historia, México, 1965.

BOURDIEU, Pierre. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.

CARRASCO, David. Imagining the Classic Heritage in Mesoamerica: Continuities and Fractures in Time, Space, and Scholarship. Introduction. In: CARRASCO, David; JONES, Lindsey; SESSIONS, Scott (orgs.). Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: Prom Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. Colorado: University Press of Colorado, pp 1-20, 2000.

CARRASCO, David; JONES, Lindsey; SESSIONS, Scott (orgs.). Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: Prom Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2000.

DANSAC, Yaël. ‘Son más que piedras’: una biografía cultural de Los Guachimontones de Teuchitlán, basada en testimonios orales. In: Trace, n.64, 2013.

DE LA PEÑA MARTÍNEZ, Francisco. Le Mouvement de la Mexicanité ou l'invention de l'autre : neo-tradicion, millénarisme et imaginaire indigène. Ph.D. Dissertation, École de Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, 1999.

DE LA PEÑA MARTÍNEZ, Francísco. Profecias de la mexicanidad: entre el milenarismo nacionalista y la New Age. In: Cuicuilco, n.55, pp. 127-143, 2012.

DE LA TORRE, Reneé. Estetica azteca de las danzas concheras: tradiciones exóticas o memorias re-descubiertas. In: Versión, n.20, pp 147-186, 2007.

DE LA TORRE, Reneé. Tensiones entre el esencialismo azteca y el universalismo New Age a partir del estudio de las danzas “conchero-aztecas”. In: Trace, n.54, pp. 61-76, 2008.

DE LA TORRE, Reneé; GUTIÉRREZ, ZÚÑIGA, Cristina. ‘La neomexicanidad y los circuitos new age ¿Un hibridismo sin fronteras o múltiples estrategias de síntesis espiritual’? In: Archives de sciences sociales des religions, n.153, 2011.

DEL MÁRMOL, Camila; MORELL, Marc; CHALCRAFT, Jasper (orgs.). The Making of Heritage Seduction and Disenchantment. New York: Routledge, 2014.

DÍAZ-ANDREU, Margarita. Ethics and Archaeological Tourism in Latin America. In: International Journal of Historical Archaeology, v. 17, n.2, Special Issue: The Ethics of Archaeological Tourism in Latin America, pp. 225-244, 2013.

DÍAS MAYA, Karla Ibett. Guando se intentó desaparecer a Santa Claus en Navidad. Mochilazo en el tiempo. In: El Universal, 25 December 2017. URL: <https://www.eluniversalxorn.mx/colaboracion/rnochilazo-en-el-tiempo/nacion/sociedad/cuando-se-intento-desaparecer-santa-claus-en>.

FERNÁNDEZ, Justino; MENDOZA Vicente. T. La danza de los concheros en San Miguel de Allende, Estudio histórico, costumbrista y coreográfico. México: El Colegio de México, 1940.

PRIEDLANDER, Judith. Being Indian in Hueyapan. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1975.

GONZÁLEZ TORRES, Elisabeth; ACEVEDO MARTÍNEZ, Víctor. In Rational: ‘La Casa del Sol’ Iglesia del Movimiento de la Mexicayotl. Undergraduate thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia (INAH), México, 2000.

GONZÁLEZ TORRES, Yolotl. Danza tu palabra: La danza de los concheros. Mexico: Plaza y Valdés, 2005.

HAMANN, Brian. The Social Life of Pre-Sunrise Things. In: Current Anthropology, v.43, n.3, pp. 351.382, 1992.

HOBSBAWM, Eric; RANGER, Terence. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

JÁUREGUI, Jesús; Bonfiglioli, Carlo (coords). Las danzas de la conquista I. México contemporáneo. México: Conaculta/FCE, 1996.

JOHNSON, Anne W. El poder de los huesos: peregrinaje e identidad en lxcateopan de Cuauhtémoc, Guerrero. In: Anales de Antropología, v.48, n.ll, pp. 119-149, 2014.

LAVALLE, Josefina. En busca de la danza moderna mexicana. Dos Ensayos. México: Cenidi Danza/INBA/CONACULTA, 2002.

LÉVI-STRAUSS, Claude. Totemism. Boston: Beacon, 1963.

LÓPEZ LUJÁN, Leonardo. El adiós y triste queja del gran Calendario Azteca: ‘E1 incesante peregrinar de la Piedra del Sol’. In: Arqueología Mexicana, n.91, pp. 78-83, 2006.

MCCAPPERTY, Geoffrey. Tollan Cholollan and the Legacy of Legitimacy. In: CARRASCO, David; JONES, Lindsey; SESSIONS, Scott (orgs.). Mesoamerica's Classic Heritage: Prom Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. Colorado: University Press of Colorado, pp. 341-369, 2000.

MOEDANO, Gabriel. La Danza de Los concheros de Queretero. In: Universidad, n.23/24, pp. 3–10, 1984.

MORAGAS, Natalia; SARABIA, Alejandro. Teotihuacán de un sistema urbano a un desarrollo regional. In: DALLA CORTE, Gabriela; et al. Poder local, Poder Nacional en América Latina. Barcelona: UBE, 2008.

NIEVA, María del Carmen. Mexikayotl. Mexico: Editorial Orion, 1969.

NORA, Pierre. Between Memory and History: General Introduction. In: NORA, Pierre (org.). Realms of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.

PHELAN, John Leddy. Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Century and the Genesis of Mexican Nationalism. In: DIAMOND, Stanley (org.). Culture in History: Essays in Honor of Paul Radin. New York: Columbia University Press, 1960.

POVEDA, Pablo. Danza de Concheros en Austin, Texas: Entrevista con Andrés Segura Granados. In: Latin American Music Review / Revista de Música Latinoamericana, v.2, n.2, pp. 280-299, 1981.

REDFIELD, Robert. Peasant Society and Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.

ROSTAS, Susanna. ‘Mexicanidad’: the Resurgence of the Indian in Popular Mexican Nationailism. In: Cambridge Anthropology, v.23, n.1, pp. 20-38, 2002.

ROSTAS, Susanna. Carrying the Word: The Concheros Dance in Mexico City. Colorado: Colorado University Press, 2009.

SANTAMARÍA HERNÁNDEZ, Fátima. La danza de concheros, practicas indígenas y cultura de conquista en Querétaro, período novohispano, siglo XIX y actualidad. Tesis de Maestría, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, 2014.

SOED. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford at the Clarendon Press, 1974.

SOLÓRZANO, Armando; GUERRERO, Raúl. Ensayo para un Estudio sobre la ‘Danza de los Concheros de la Gran Tenochtitlan’. In: Boletín Latino-Americano de Música, n.5, pp.449–476, 1941.

STONE, Martha. At the Sign of Midnight: The Concheros Dance Cult of Mexico. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press, 1975.

TAYLOR, William. Placing the Cross in Colonial Mexico. In: The Americas, v.69, n.2, pp. 167-171, 2012.

TENORIO, Mauricio. 1910 Mexico City: Space and Nation in the City of the Centenario. In: Journal of Latin American Studies, v.28, n.1, pp. 75-104, 1996.

VELAZQUEZ VALDES, Angel Ulises. Amatlán de Quetzalcoatl y la neomexicanidad: mercado espiritual y circuito alternativo. Undergraduate Thesis, Mexico DF: Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2011.

VILLALOBOS ACOSTA, César. Light Shows and Narratives of the Past Tesis de Maestría, Universidad Autónoma de Querétaro, 2013.

WARMAN, Arturo. La danza de moros y cristianos. México DF: INAH, 1972.

WHITTAKER, Catherine. Sahagun reloaded? The priest, his pyramid, and deliberate syncretism in Milpa Alta. In: Mexicon, v.38, n.2, pp. 33-35, 2016.

WHITTAKER, Catherine. Warrior Women: Contested Understandings of Violence and Gender in Highland Mexico. Ph.D Thesis, University of Edinburgh, 2018.

Notes