Article more suitable for mature students

Rethinking the Double-Headed Serpent at the British Museum: A Terrifying Turquoise Caterpillar?

12th Jul 2022

Mexicolore contributor Joshua Fitzgerald

We are delighted to be given permission to upload here an intriguing and important new study into the symbolism and meaning of the famous turquoise double-headed serpent pectoral in the British Museum written for Mexicolore by Dr. Joshua Fitzgerald, Rubinoff Junior Research Fellow 2020-2024, Churchill College, University of Cambridge.

A Mosaic Masterpiece:
Taken from Mesoamerica at the point of Cortesian contact (~1519 CE), the famed double-headed serpent turquoise mosaic (No. Am1894-634, hence forth “Pectoral”) now kept at the British Museum stupefies its viewers today (picture 1). A mosaic of finely polished, tessellated stones and shell glued upon an undulating piece of wood, the object is enigmatic. Currently it is used to explain aspects of Mesoamerican religious history, especially the concept of “bad omens” for the Mexica. It has been linked to Huitzilopochtli, the Mexica patron deity, and twinned, mythical serpent iconography as well as Quetzalcoatl, considering that the deity’s name can be interpreted to mean “precious twin” (McEwan et al., 2006; MacGregor, 2010). Seeking to understand more of the Indigenous context of objects and creatures of this calibre, this essay will attempt a rethinking and alternate reading of the Pectoral. Based on these preliminary findings, the Pectoral is revealed not to have been a serpent nor was its presence simply a bad omen.

To begin, the Pectoral’s physical attributes have been well studied (McEwan et al., 2006; Macgregor, 2010). In brief, it measures roughly the size of a carry-on handbag, except it’s just as thick as an adult’s wrist (20.30 cm X 43.30 cm X 5.90 cm). It is made from a piece of reddish cedrela wood (Cedrela odorata, a.k.a. “Spanish cedar”) endemic to Mexico. The two beastly heads, fanged and toothy maws open, gleam brightly in chili-red thorny oyster (Spondylus princeps) and pearly white conch shell (Strombus). The bright red snouts are ringed with intricate feather designs in alternating turquoise and red shell. Between the heads are five curves, two meet at the top and three on the base.
Its provenance remains obscure, but more than likely it was part of an acquisition listed in the Hertz Collection of Antiquities from the 1830s (follow the link below to access the catalogue); see also the full “Description” at British Museum, cat. no. Am1894.634 (link below...)

Some have argued that Chapter 4 of Book 12 “The Conquest” in the Florentine Codex documents the moment that foreign hands acquired the Pectoral. Presumedly, the object was one of the turquoise mosaics associated with the three sets of divine regalia Moteuczoma Xocoyotzin sent from the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan to the coast for the arriving strangers. Book 12 informs us that Hernán Cortés was confronted with the accessories, but recent material culture studies have revealed that collections of mosaics were taken from Indigenous communities from the surrounding valleys of Oaxaca and Puebla via religious officials before 1533 (Domenici & Laurencich Minelli, 2014; Domenici, 2020).

Returning to Book 12, neither the Spanish nor Nahuatl texts expressly describe the object. The last item attributed to Quetzalcoatl’s appurtenances may be a passing reference, as the Nahuatl describes a turquoise dart thrower as: niman ie iehoatl xioatlatl, çan motquitica xivitl, iuhquin coatzontecometica, coatzontecome (Book 12 fol. 6r-6v; Dibble and Anderson, 1975: 11; Lockhart, 1993: 64). The repeated plural noun phrase coatzontecome[h] (“serpent-like heads”), coupled with the added instrumental postposition and ligature -ti-ca on the first, indicates that the object was “in the way of serpent-like heads.” A literal translation would be “then there was the turquoise atlatl, entirely of turquoise, in the form of serpent-like heads, the serpent-like heads thing” (Book 12 fol. 6r-6v). But this may just be splitting hairs over a description of an atlatl topped with serpent heads. Visually, we are also at a loss, as the artists of the Florentine Codex fail to depict the turquoise pectoral (pic 4).

What might we learn from studying the Pectoral? Based on its unfinished backside and its size, it is plausible that it would have been hung over a person or a larger-than-life sized object, perhaps a statue. This assumption is supported by pictorials from the Codex Yohualli Ehécatl (“Codex Borgia”) and Codex Tonalpouhqui (“Vaticanus B 3773”). A nearly identical object to the pectoral hangs over the chest of a person dressed as the “Rain God,” also known as Tlaloc (pic 5). Tlaloc and its priests were associated with the mucky earth, rain, water, and fecundity (Seler, 1901: 197, 242; Domenici, 2020). The Codex Tonalpouhqui’s double-headed accessory undulating body closely mirrors that of the Pectoral at the British Museum (pic 6), and we see that, in use, the object could have rested atop a curtain of greenstone beaded necklaces and, perhaps, swung left to right about the bearer’s chest.

A Bicephalic Snake or Content Caterpillar?
Seemingly mythological in nature, the “double-headed snake” pectoral may represent the attempted commemoration of a real creature by Indigenous artists. Bicephalic snakes do exist in nature, but the Pectoral indicates a head and mouth at both ends. So far, no living beast’s anatomy easily fits the depiction. However, many animals have developed mockeries of second heads to trick predators, keeping them at bay: snakes especially.
Covering Tlaloc’s torso or chest, as shown in the codices, would be a way to set a serpent visually and metaphorically over the rich soil and waters of Tlaloc. Scholars have argued that Mesoamerican peoples identified real snake behaviours with fertility and fertility cults. This is because the animal sheds its skin on a regular basis. Did the Pectoral’s artists mean it to represent some real creature, and what can be made of its two heads? But a brief study of Nahua ethnozoology and linguistics will help to complicate the understanding of the Pectoral as representative of a snake and, instead, propose that it is a caterpillar.

Lying in the green grass of a pictorial from the Florentine Codex Book 11 “On Earthly Things,” a double-headed snake called the maquizcoatl, or “bracelet snake” (macuextl, “bracelet” + coatl, “serpent”) reveals its true nature to the viewer. Was the maquizcoatl even a snake? Book 11 indicates that it was part of the Indigenous ecosystem. Presently, the maquizcoatl and the related tetzauhcoatl, or “Omen Snake,” are thought to be Ringneck Snakes (Diadophis punctatus). This assumption is based upon the brief description of the latter in Book 11: a non-venomous, small serpent coloured black along the spine and having a fiery yellow and red belly. This seems plausible for the Tetzauhcoatl (pic 7).

Ringnecks are a tiny, mildly-venomous snakes that easily fit in the palm of the hand (pic 8). The sudden coiling reaction their tails go through when threatened exposes the chili-red underside of the Ringneck’s tail. This may confuse or frighten would-be predators and, in some way, look something like a second head. Furthermore, the Ringneck gets its name from the yellow-to-scarlet “ring” of scales behind its head. Perhaps this inspired people to compare the Ringneck to a human’s braceleted wrist, thus equating the maquizcoatl with the tetzauhcoatl, but I am sceptical. The tetzauhcoatl entry in Book 11 fails to mention this neck ring, nor are any of the Ringneck’s attributes found in the maquizcoatl entry.

Book 11’s Nahua artist depicts the maquizcoatl as a double-headed, double-clawed serpent-like creature. It rests on the ground before a standing male figure. This double-headed creature, save the two set of claws, mirrors the depictions of the pectorals on the Rain God (above). The tlacuilo also labelled the animal pictographically by placing a three-piece jade bracelet on a tied red cord in the grass beside the “bracelet” snake (pic 9, top). In the scene (pic 7), the man reaches out with his right hand to indicate the maquizcoatl, and the blue speech glyph emanating from his mouth indicates that the man is speaking about (or with) the animal. The painter dabbed the creature’s heads with a bright orange pigment and the curving body black along the spine and red across the base. A clear line separates the black and red. For the tetzauhcoatl entry (pic 9, bottom), the artist renders a single-headed, clawless serpent with prismatic colouring - alternating stripes of translucent blues, reds, and yellows in verticals cover the body.

The Nahuatl text for maquizcoatl describes two distinct ends and behavioural habits unlike a snake. According to Anderson and Dibble, “This snake has heads at each end, and also mouths at each end. It has teeth, it has eyes, it has tongues at each end, and in the place of its tail place it does not appear. And it is not long; it is just a little thing.” Bicephally does occur naturally in serpents, among many other animals, but in snakes these formations are commonly expressed as separate appendages attached to a single body, tail following behind. Maquizcoatl did not appear to have a tail whatsoever. As to colouring: “It was painted: four black [stripes] are on its back. And [the stripes] are chili-red on its left side, and yellow on its right side” (Anderson and Dibble, Book 11, 1963: 79). These flashy colours are found in the Common Milk Snake and dangerous Coral Snake.
Maquizcoatl’s two heads, two sets of claw-like features, and the odd way it had of moving about add to the idea that the creature was not a serpent. The Nahuatl reads: “And since it is really provided with a head at each end, it can go nowhere when it is seen. To travel, it just stretches itself out; to go along its way, it just runs on both ends. (Auh ca nel noço necoc tzontecome: acampa huel yauh in icuac itto, inic nen[n]emi çan motitihuana, inic otlatoca, çan necoc motlaloa; Anderson and Dibble, Book 11, 1963: 79). These gesticulations and the arching of the creature’s back, and its ability to lift the distal ends in the air actually appears to mimic the movements of butterfly and moth larva. Additionally, Maquizcoatl’s apparent claws may have been an attempt to depict the appearance of legs and the second head a “mock” larval head as seen in nature. Non-serpents did receive the suffix -coatl, as it could mean “serpent” and “twin,” but also “worm” (Molina, part 2, 23r), and some large caterpillars do appear serpent-like.

Previously, H.S. Darlington drew connections between caterpillars and “serpents” for Mesoamerica. Studying the famed “Aztec Calendar Stone,” Darlington identified large caterpillars as possible contenders for fire serpents (Darlington, 1931) (pic 11). These may be part of a larger military culture relating to caterpillars. Karl Taube has made a compelling case that the chief symbol of sacred warfare, the “War Serpent,” was a caterpillar, and he argues that insectoids, comets, and xiuhcoatl (“fire serpent”) related to the transformation of larvae into butterflies (Taube, 2000; 2012). Warriors would transform into butterflies and hummingbirds when achieving success on the battlefield, and in that state they flitted about, bright, quick, and light as a feather, helping the sun throughout the day (FC, Book 3: 49). Changing before human eyes, caterpillars had the ability to transform to become butterflies and moths.

Based on the black, red, and yellow coloration described in the texts, examples of a double-headed caterpillar may be the Orangestriped Oakworm (Anisota senatoria) and Pseudosphinx tetrio caterpillar. The former has sets of alternating black and chili-red lines running its body and two black ends. But it is most likely too small (5 cm) to warrant the “bracelet snake” title. The Pseudosphinx is giant (as big as 15 cm long), but the chromography consists of two red ends at the ends of a vertically striped black-yellow pattern. That larva is found in the rainy season usually gobbling up the Frangipani plumeria (pic 12). Besides the crucial component of them seeming to have two heads, these caterpillars also appear to reproduce snake-like coloration patterns (i.e. the Common Garter and Coral Snake).

Other larval possibilities include three giant, turquoise-coloured larva: Cecropia larvae (Hyalophora cecropia), the Giant Silk Promethea (Callosamia promethea larva), and the so-called Hickory Horned Devil (Citheronia regalis larva) (pic 13). All three are native to North America and can grow to fill the palm of an adult human’s hand. Based on a different interpretation of the Nahuatl text, the colour pattern - “four black on its back: chili-red on its left side, yellow on its right” - could have been meant to indicate natural features of these. For instance, The Crecropia larva’s thorax develops four bulbous, chili-red and black spines and many others running along the abdomen. This division seems significant in line with the partition of colours in the description. As to the Hickory Horned Devil, they develop four black spots on the thorax, behind its red head and long, chili-red spines (setae). All three of the giant larvae can be found in Mexico, depending on the season.

The Hickory Horned Devil may be a good candidate for Book 11’s maçacoatl or “deer snake,” otherwise (pic 14). Molina defines the maçacoatl as type of “fat worm with horns, or a large snake that is harmless” (Part 2 50r) and the “Gusano con cuervos” as the ocuilin quaquaue; maçacoatl (Part 1 67v). At least three of these coatl are described in Book 11, though Anderson and Dibble maintained that they were reptiles. In fact, the related tlamaçacoatl, indicates that maçacoatl were gastropods. The Nahua artist’s depiction of horn- or tentacle-like features upon the head or nape of these creatures’ bodies seem to match larval spines or gastropodal tentacles and its coloration (“dark” or “blackish”) and scaled body might also indicate other caterpillars, such as the Aztecan Horned-Devil (Citheronia azteca).

Items 11.0-10355 and 11.0-00041 in the Museo Nacional de Antropología collections in Mexico City are other examples of double-headed artwork made of precious stone that may help further the caterpillar case for Maquizcoatl. Archaeologists located both objects in Postclassic sites in the Valley of Mexico, and they are attributed to the Mexica. The first is a small (1.50 cm x 2.00 cm x 4.10 cm), hand carved jade bead with two heads, four feet and four eyes. Placed upon the wrist or strung below the neck, the jade bead may have appeared a brilliant, green caterpillar with two heads. Additionally, its tri-segmented shape follows the contours of the “bracelet” pictograph found in the grass of the Maquizcoatl entry in Book 11 of the Florentine Codex (pix 9 and 15).

The other object, a jadeite engraving consisting of two double-headed creatures - one carved upright over another that is upside down - is larger (5.00 cm x 9.80 cm x 0.90 cm). It may have been a chest piece or attached to some form of attire, based on its size and presence of drilled holes that would allowed for such a treatment. The jadeite’s two double-headed bodies are roughly the size of giant caterpillars in the final instar stage. Further study of these will reveal more about objects of this nature, including the Pectoral (pic 16).

A Word of Warning for Omens:-
Then one who saw it made an armlet of it for himself. It was said that if he were about to die it would very peaceably be content on his arm. That is, he had come to reach his time to die; his time had come to an end. But it is said that no one would die when he made of it an armlet for himself [and] it was not content on his arm; it was not enough, as if it were not long [enough]; it is a little serpent. So they called it a serpent of omen. It is not poisonous. This is all about the so-called tetzauhcoatl. Hence, those who go stirring up trouble, who gossip, are named maquizcoatl; because it is as if he spoke falsely, was a tale-bearer, like an evil omen. (translation by Anderson and Dibble, Book 11, 1963: 79)
Anderson and Dibble’s final line casts the nature of maquizcoatl in a negative light, inserting the word “evil.” Of course, seeing a two-headed creature might cause fright. That, or perhaps it was the animal’s ability to move or eat from each of its ends end that truly horrified would-be passers-by. This fright aside, Nahuas were encouraged to take hold of a maquizcoatl and place it upon one’s wrist. It would then help to divine one’s fate. If it moved on, the bearer would not die, but if it decided to stay, then the wearer’s life was over.

For its part, the tetzahuacoatl was ominous by name. Like maquizcoatl, it was called “tetzauhcoatl because in few places is it seen, and also few people see it. He who sees it is much terrified; because of it he dies of fright, or he becomes very sick. For that reason, they give it the name tetzauhcoatl”. Its entry does not mention bicephally nor the wrist litmus test for diving one’s fate. It simply surprises one to the point of fright, illness, and death. In the early-modern Christian frame of mind, however, the tetzauhcoatl was equivalent to the Indo-European basilisk, a mythical, venomous beast - part snake, part cockatrice - that could strike a man down with its gaze. Neither does it fit the dangerous nature of the maquizcoatl, which was a metaphor for gossips (Spanish: chismeros). Gossips were two mouthed and scandalized their neighbours with unrestricted speech. But the ominous nature of maquizcoatl and tetzauhcoatl was the shared sense of rarity. Both “snakes” were nonvenomous and not physically threatening to humans, unlike the Basilisk.
If the Bracelet or Omen Snakes were caterpillars, and people tested them upon their wrist, what would have been the meaning behind a content or complacent caterpillar? León García Garagarza’s recent revelations on owl folklore (2020) are helpful in understanding omens in Book 11’s entries. Similar to Nahua-bird dialogues, the cultural entanglements of serpent-like creatures required local knowledge to parse natural and supernatural “embodied omens” (Ibid., 457). In this sense, the act of reading the maquizcoatl/tetzauhcoatl required that Nahuas place the two-headed animal upon the wrist. It was the only way that communication between species could occur.

Scientifically, a fully-grown, sluggish, or resting larva may be an indication that the insect has reached the final instar stage, preparing for its chrysalis. It would be at the precipice of becoming a butterfly or moth. Braving the chance to place a great caterpillar upon one’s wrist, as one did with the Bracelet Snake, a person would know if death were near, which could have meant a new phase of a warrior’s existence was at hand. There is no indication in Book 11 that this was known to have occurred for the creatures in question. But the lacuna may be because large caterpillars tend to burrow into the earth, out of sight, to form their chrysalis.
Notably, the dictionary entries relating to “omens” seems menacing. The grammarian Alonso de Molina translated the reflexive verb derived from tetzahuitl with a negative connotation. The recipient of a tetzahuitl awaited a frightful event (Part 2 111r Molina). Perhaps an outgrowth of post-facto teleology, the famous omens in the Florentine Codex facilitate the cant of Spanish colonialism (Townsend, 2003). This fatalistic sense, that signs pointed to a frightful coming of foreigners, permeates our readings of Book 12. At the point of encounter, Moteuczoma Xocoyotzin’s dependency on ill tidings - eight omens in total - cast the august ruler as a coward, frozen by the shock of the encounter. The final, eighth tetzahuitl, in fact, was the sighting of a double-headed human who was brought to Tenochtitlan, an omen that Moteuczoma Xocoyotzin only heard about but never laid eyes upon (pic 19).

Ask Us: the double-headed serpent ‘The Provenance of Three British Museum Turquoise Mosaics’British Museum’s long-awaited ‘Turquoise Mosaics’ book launched Ask the Experts: Were there any women warriors?Access the Hertz Collection of Antiquities from the 1830s Read the full BM description of the pectoral in their online database

Comments (2)

Fernando Gonzales

5th Feb 2024

Lamentable el conocimiento limitado de arqueólogos y estudiosos afines.
El símbolo de serpiente y ave está presente en todas las culturas antiguas.
En egipto, china, paracas, tiahuanaco, etc etc.
La serpiente simboliza la sapiencia y sabiduría y las alas el estado angelical, facultades que era podía obtener el hombre si hacía un trabajo de cambio personal para llegar a Dios.
Un estudio comparado de las antiguas religiones llevan a la conclusión de que eran una misma enseñanza.
Con más razón la serpiente de 2 cabwzas al igual que el águila bicéfala simbolizan a un hombre de conciencia despierta es decir con el 100 por ciento de sus facultades. además era un ser que podía estar en varios lugares a la vez, similar a Jano, de ahí que aparezca con 2 cabezas.
Gracias
Bendiciones.

Aztecs

Maya

Rethinking the Double-Headed Serpent at the British Museum: A Terrifying Turquoise Caterpillar?

Comments (2)

More Aztec Artefacts