Jump to content
The Corroboree
Black Rainbow

Psilocybe and Xochipilli

Recommended Posts

I recently visited the ~16th century Aztec Xochipilli statue at The National Museum of Archaeology in Mexico City. They had a pretty detailed breakdown of the botanical imagery on the statue, with the museum noting the following as present; Asteraceae, Chiranthodendron pentadactylon, Datura, Nicotiana, Philadelphus mexicana, Phillodendrum mexicanum, Plumeria rubra, Polianthes tuberosa, Pseudobombax, Tagetes erecta, Tagetes lucida, Tigridia pavonia and Turbina corymbosa.

 

 

I was surprised to see no reference to Psilocybe spp. in the exhibit. As I understand it, Schultes is the primary authority on the identification of Psilocybe spp. on the statue. Is this the case? Does anyone know which publication he originally makes this identification in? Is there a perspective critical of Psilocybe spp. identification on the statue?

 

image1.thumb.jpeg.1774b01eac9a024b832ef950aeb1dfdc.jpegimage2.thumb.jpeg.b1843151122e7c03fbafabef5a3015f0.jpeg

image1.thumb.jpeg.1774b01eac9a024b832ef950aeb1dfdc.jpeg

image2.thumb.jpeg.b1843151122e7c03fbafabef5a3015f0.jpeg

image1.thumb.jpeg.1774b01eac9a024b832ef950aeb1dfdc.jpeg

image2.thumb.jpeg.b1843151122e7c03fbafabef5a3015f0.jpeg

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmm, Prince of Flowers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's awesome you got to see it in person.

 

The botanical identifications of the tello obelisk in the museum at chavin also differ from some western description of the same plants, the latter of which depict them as being hallucinogenic.

 

native researchers or museum curators may have good reasons (or bad reasons) for questioning or omitting references and conclusions made by 'outsiders' some 40 years earlier, during which there has been a very strong push to reclaim patrimony of sacred objects (and rights over their interpretation).

 

it could be a simple case of curators not wanting to draw attention to something that might get tourists revved up; they may not agree with the original interpretation; or the association with mushrooms may skew the interpretation toward an imposed outside view of a culture which is not arranged in that way from the inside; and any variation of the above. I am not convinced the mushroom motifs are as obvious of the floral motifs (see attached p.312) but Wasson's insight into the importance of 'flowers' overall to the nahuatl is intriguing.

 

anyway what a super cool thing to see in terms of 'botanical' sculpture that is as good as it gets. as an aficionado of monumental sculptures of the Americas i always kick myself about missing the The National Museum of Archaeology, and teotihuacan. Good for you. Xochipilli also features in small portable artworks where the flowers are not depicted and in some of the codices.

 

oh yeah, the first reference to Psilocybe on the statue is I believe in Wasson (1973), attached, but partially accredited to Schultes and others and this document contains all the botanical identifications and is a great read; followed by Plants of the Gods (Schultes 1979).

wasson-the-role-of-flowers-in-nahuatl-culture.pdf

wasson-the-role-of-flowers-in-nahuatl-culture.pdf

wasson-the-role-of-flowers-in-nahuatl-culture.pdf

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Micromegas,

 

I think there are fair criticisms to make of ‘outsider’ research, and I am definitely an advocate of participant inclusive methodologies. I'm not certain if prejudice against psychoactive substances is taking place in the museum, due to the acknowledgement of Turbina corymbosa. Still, the Psilocybe interpretation of Xochipilli is prominent in published literature and it seems like a shortfall for the museum to not engage with this interpretation at all, even if there is disagreement.

 

In Wasson’s (1973) paper, he attributes primary responsibility for botanical identification to Schultes, although he does not cite a publication in which Schultes has identified Psilocybe on Xochipilli. Perhaps Schultes makes this argument in his doctoral dissertation ‘Economic Aspects of the Flora of Northeastern Oaxaca’ (1941) but unfortunately, I have not been able to access this text. I want to know the details of Schultes’ Psilocybe research in order to form my own opinion concerning its identification on the statue. It would be great if someone could connect me with some earlier literature published by Schultes concerning this.

 

On a side note, I went to a grungy pulque bar in Mexico City called 'Peluquería las duelistas', where there was an awesome Xochipilli mural with mushrooms fruiting from his head. So there appears to be some local association of Xochipilli with fungi, at least…

Edited by Wile E. Peyote
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't really making an argument that it is prejudice, just raising the possibility, and schultes and his disciples seem pretty sensitive to indigenous beliefs and involved native people in their research. Wasson's work is perhaps a little more sensationalist.

 

I think the fact the mushroom-xochipilli connection is made in a grungy bar not in one of the world's most important museums might be saying something. next to no-one knows about the hallucinogenic properties of rivea relative to 'shrooms and i think overall the museum exhibit is focused on flowering plants.

 

I think the Wasson article is the first western document to identify the plants on the statue as it indicates he brought schultes in for the job and as you say does not reference any earlier work.

 

But who knows what material is in the museum's archive. a whole sleuth of mexican researchers might have a had a go in all sorts of unpublished documents. In any case on closer inspection the motif Wasson/Schultes identify as profile psilocybes arranged around a circle, the museum gives as dahlia sp. so fundamentally it appears to be a case of different interpretations. interestingly wasson questions why a butterfly would be attracted to a mushroom and provides a speculative theory, which is sound but requires a leap of faith so to speak, but if the motif were in fact a dahlia then the butterfly would be involved in the course of natural events. given that museums need to parse their information down i don't know how they could really engage with the idea of it being a shroom, if they had identified it as a dahlia. shrooms being identified in monumental art has a history of being in the grey zone, since the general shape can be identified in multiple ways.

 

it is an interesting question to ponder and ultimately it could be both a shroom or a dahlia, or both, or neither! i'd be interested to hear if you come up with any further conclusions yourself. why don't you write the museum or if you are there maybe go an ask them about it?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry – I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth. I agree, it is possible that Schultes, Wasson and/or the Museum are prejudiced, but I can’t access enough information to form a strong opinion. I have drafted an email for the museum but I’m hoping to read something more concrete published by Schultes regarding his identification before making contact. I’ll let you know if I make any progress!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so I’ve found two early papers published by Schultes relevant to Aztec use of psychoactive mushrooms. There doesn’t seem to be a copy of his dissertation online or available to purchase or borrow in print. Interestingly, neither of these papers refer to Psilocybe. They are both concerned with Panaeolus, with Schulte’s central argument being that the Aztec term "Teonanacatl" refers to "intoxicating mushrooms".
 

I’ve sent the following in an email to the Museum;
 

“I am interested in claims that Psilocybe aztecorum can be identified on this statue (Wasson, 1973; Schultes, Hoffman and Rätsch, 2001). The original publication of this botanical identification by Wasson (1973) is said to rely on observations by Schultes, and while Schultes does have experience researching Mexican ethnobotanical contexts, he does not appear to have published further detail regarding why he chooses to identify Psilocybe aztecorum on the Xochipilli statue. Psilocybe aztecorum was not acknowledged within the Xochipilli exhibit, in which the relevant motif was alternatively identified as a Dhalia ssp. I am wondering if the experts who composed the exhibit are critical of Wasson and Schulte’s identification? What is the reasoning for identifying this image as a Dhalia ssp?”
 

Schultes, R. (1939) Plantae Mexicanae II The Identification of Teonanácatl a Narcotic Basidiomycete of the Aztecs, Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University, 7(3), 37-54.pdf

Schultes, R. (1940) Teonanacatl The Narcotic Mushroom of the Aztecs, American Anthropologist, 42, 429-443.pdf

Schultes, R. (1940) Teonanacatl The Narcotic Mushroom of the Aztecs, American Anthropologist, 42, 429-443.pdf

Schultes, R. (1939) Plantae Mexicanae II The Identification of Teonanácatl a Narcotic Basidiomycete of the Aztecs, Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University, 7(3), 37-54.pdf

Schultes, R. (1940) Teonanacatl The Narcotic Mushroom of the Aztecs, American Anthropologist, 42, 429-443.pdf

Schultes, R. (1939) Plantae Mexicanae II The Identification of Teonanácatl a Narcotic Basidiomycete of the Aztecs, Botanical Museum Leaflets of Harvard University, 7(3), 37-54.pdf

Edited by Wile E. Peyote
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool little research project you have going on there and some nice articles you've attached, i'm keen to give them a read.

 

I think your letter may draw an interesting response. there is the possibly a slightly softer angle (like... i was recently in the museum of... and was very impressed by the interpretive display associated with the Xochicipilli statue and the range of floral identifications... I was curious about how this display was developed... i.e. curator/botanists... and how the floral motifs were identified ... etc... I really enjoyed seeing this statue in person, having had an interest for some time. I have undertaken some personal study and I am curious if there is some further reading material you could suggest to better learn about the botanical identifications relating to Xochicipilli and the exhibit) rather than directly asking if the experts are critical of previous work. in a way it is more important to understand how the museum display came about than raise the issue of shrooms, schutles and wasson, straight away.

 

anyway don't mean to say how to suck eggs just i know people can get defensive really quick if their ideas are challenged too bluntly and may choose not to enter into a convo (i know because i am like that!)...

 

good stuff!

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, and good point Micromegas. There was another paragraph to the email that gives some context for my interest. Hopefully this paragraph will reduce perception of criticism. If I get no response I will have a friend send an email in Spanish from another address. In this second email I might avoid the Schultes/Wasson/Psilocybe references and just ask about the reasoning behind the Dahlia ssp ID.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still haven't received any replies from the museum, so today I sent the following text as part of an email to employees listed on the museum website with relevant sounding titles:

"Recientemente visité la exhibición del Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia en la que se muestra una estatua de la deidad Xochipilli. Me preguntaba si sería posible que me compartieran publicaciones o fuentes académicas en donde se identifique una subespecie de Dhalia en dicha estatua?

También agradecería bastante, si es posible, la posibilidad de tener el contacto de los conservadores y botánicos encargados de la existencia de esta impresionante exhibición."


My Spanish is very poor. An entheofriend produced the latter text from this:
 

“I recently visited an exhibition featuring the Xochipilli statue at The National Museum of Anthropology. I was wondering if you could share with me any knowledge or publications supporting the identification of a Dhalia subspecies on this statue?
 

I would really appreciate being put in contact with the curators and botanists who put this impressive interpretative display together."


I also sent this email from an institutional address (the last one was vintage hotmail), so hopefully it gets more attention.

Edited by Wile E. Peyote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised you got no reply at all.

 

But anyway, good one re: the perseverance. Hopefully the espanol does the trick!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, me too. However, I did receive a reply to the most recent email! The exhibit curator suggested I get in contact with the biologist and restorers who worked on the exhibit, and has shared with me their contact details. Stay tuned...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a vaguely related note, Alan Rockefeller just posted this on Facebook:

"Just got another batch of the Psilocybe of Mexico posters in. I took most of the photographs, a couple are by Alonso Cortés-Pérez and Cesar Kevin Perez did the graphic design work. All of the mushrooms have been deposited in a herbarium for scientific study, making this poster not only a work of art but also serious scholarship. The posters are 110 cm x 70 cm (43.3 by 27.5 inches), printed on glossy poster paper at 300 DPI, and cost $10.... Payment via PayPal, all proceeds go towards the study of mushrooms from Mexico. Autographed by Alonso and myself upon request."

Alan is currently figuring out the postage cost to Australia for me. If you'd like a poster too PM me and we can save on shipping.

43063106_10155758644307031_8415328477607100416_o.jpg

43063106_10155758644307031_8415328477607100416_o.thumb.jpg.cf4a87da49921a418f1f92b1cd7b4838.jpg

43063106_10155758644307031_8415328477607100416_o.thumb.jpg.cf4a87da49921a418f1f92b1cd7b4838.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow,  cosmic to stumble onto this...I only briefly read over this discussion but thought I might add something as Xochipilli has been in my awareness of late, I have a mural on my wall with the prince surrounded by some of the plants listed above but also noticeably mushrooms at his feet...

 

I came across Xochipilli doing some research on Aztec an Mayan use of sacred Cacao, I don't quite remember exactly where, I was doing a lot of quick information gathering/browsing but the prince was strongly linked with Ixcacao and the Mayans and Aztecs strongly linked the two together...Cacao and Psilocybin ...Mexicana? Aztecorum?

 

Anyways...Maybe look deeper into Cacao use and there may be some link tucked away in there :) somewhere....

 

Also if you guys aren't on board with the ceremonial cacao I would strongly recommend it ;D Beautiful medicine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×