At this point I've reviewed nearly all of the available information (I've found information about the additional Inquisition records that Blosser found, but I still need to track down a book called
Las Plantas Fantásticas de Mexico by Francisco Guerra). And I've got to say the issue is even more convoluted than I gave it credit for! Numerous sources (including Jonathan Ott, I'm sad to say) have repeatedly misconstrued information from the primary literature. Here's are some of the more significant points:
Ott ridiculed Díaz and Valdés for considering cannabis to be a likely candidate for the identity of
pipiltzintzintli, comparing it to speculating that
soma was in fact
peyotl (=
Lophophora williamsii). But that analogy would only be apt if the first reference to
soma came nearly two centuries after the Aryans established contact with a culture who grew
peyotl, and in that case it would be a much less laughable notion. The first records we have of
pipiltzintzintli are not contemporary with the Spanish Conquest of the Aztecs (which occurred from 1519-1521), but in fact do not appear until 1696-1706, during which time the Inquisition archives record several arrests for the use of the plant. While cannabis did not come into widespread cultivation in Mexico until the late-18th or early-19th century, it is not inconceivable that the plant might have been introduced during the 175 years after the Spanish conquest and found use as a psychoactive and medicinal plant among the descendants of the Mexican Indians. I personally find it unlikely that the early cases recorded by the Inquisition refer to the use of cannabis, but I do not doubt that the term had come to refer to cannabis by the time José Antonio de Alzate y Ramírez identified it as such in 1772.
A second point, one of particular interest to this forum, is the fact that in Mexico, some plants in the family Leguminosae are apparently referred to as
pipiltzintli (this claim comes from a 1977 paper by Díaz, who cites the book by Guerra that I'm trying to obtain). Recall also that early references to
pipiltzintzintli indicate that a hallucinogenic beverage was made from the plant, that the effects of the root were compared to
peyotl, and that the plant was also applied topically as a medicine. Now, can we think of a Leguminosae indigenous to Mexico whose root might be aptly compared to
peyotl, and which is used to prepare topical folk medicines? I cannot help but think of
Mimosa tenuiflora, from whose root bark (MHRB) DMT is so commonly extracted. At present, this is pure speculation. I hope that Guerra's book will provide information to either support or refute the notion, but for the moment it's an interesting possibility.
In discussions of
pipiltzintzintli, much has been made of its proposed identification as
ololiuhqui (the seeds of
Turbina corymbosa). Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán's 1955 book
Medicina y Magia is generally cited as the source of this identification, both by Valdés (who supports the notion) and by Ott (who contradicts it). I have recently read the book, and it turns out that Beltrán in fact never made this claim; he specifically says that the evidence from the Inquisition archives "precludes the possibility of both plants belonging to the same species." What he says is that their "mystical identity is clearly the same" ("
en el plano místico la identidad es absoluta"
), which is to say that their mythological and magicomedicinal roles are identical. While he doesn't say so explicitly, he seems to be suggesting that
ololiuhqui either fell out of favor or was suppressed by the Inquisition, and that
pipiltzintzintli was adopted, at least temporarily, as a replacement. This leaves Valdés standing alone as the sole supporter of the extremely unlikely notion that both names refer to
Turbina corymbosa.
Since Wasson apparently retracted his hypothesis that
Salvia divinorum is
pipiltzintzintli (in a personal correspondence with Díaz, reported by Díaz in 1979), Jonathan Ott appears to be the only partisan left writing (in an informed manner, at any rate) in favor of the hypothesis, though to his credit he at least acknowledges the identification as far from conclusive. Unfortunately his supporting evidence is unconvincing at best, and at times downright misleading. We've already shown that his rejection of the cannabis identification is unfounded, or at least over-stated. He acknowledges evidence that the term currently is used to refer to
Rhynchosia seeds, but argues that this is not a plant to which the name referred in the archives of the Inquisition, because in those cases no mention was ever made of the seeds. Where his argument really goes astray is his assertion that Vetancurt's commentary (translated in the previous post) refers to the use of the "leaves of
pipiltzintzintli," when in fact it clearly indicates that the roots are the part of the plant most commonly employed. His arguments about the topical use of
S. divinorum (as reported by Valdés
et al. in 1983 and by Weitlaner in 1952) become much less relevant when one considers that the primary literature refers to the topical use of a preparation made from the root of the plant.
As much as I dislike having to disagree so thoroughly with Ott, I find the most likely possibility is that the name does not refer to a single plant (as is certainly the case at present), and that it may not even have referred to a single plant at the time of our earliest records, around the end of the 17th century. Díaz hinted at this possibility in 1977, but as far as I know this is the first time it has been stated explicitly. I don't believe it will be possible to establish whether this notion is correct; unless the additional references found by Blosser are more revolutionary than I've been led to believe, I expect the identity of the plant referred to in the Inquisition archives is likely to remain largely insoluble. But based on the available evidence, I see no reason to believe that
pipiltzintzintli ever referred to
S. divinorum prior to Wasson's publication to that effect in 1963.
A few additional points:
Sadly none of the libraries that hold Guerra's
Las Plantas Fantásticas de México will lend it out to other libraries, so I don't know if it contains any details beyond the fact that "some Leguminosae" are called
pipiltzintli. If anyone happens to be at one of the Universities that holds the book, it would be wonderful if they could scan the relevant pages (the Universities in question would be U of W in Seattle, UC Davis, UC San Diego, U of T in Austin, Princeton, Yale, and Harvard).
I have, however, acquired a copy of José Antonio de Alzate's article identifying "
pipiltzintzintlis" as cannabis, and the identification seems to be beyond reproach. Cannabis had definitely been introduced to Mexico by the time he wrote the article (1772), as he attests to having personally seen the plant in a local arboretum. When he had the chance to acquire some of the
pipiltzintzintlis, it turned out to be a mixture of leaves and seeds which he thought he recognized as hemp (based on having previously seen the plant). To confirm the identification, Alzate grew some of the seeds, and indeed found them to yield hemp plants. So clearly hemp had not only been introduced to Mexico by that time, but was also used as a sort of folk medicine by some Indians.
It is an entirely different matter whether this is the same plant that the earlier records refer to by the same name. Certainly it is not likely to have been friar Vetancurt's
pipiltzintzin, as Vetancurt referred primarily to the use of the root as a psychoactive and medicinal agent. There is only one record in the Inquisition archives that mentions using seeds, and these seeds rendered the subject unconscious for about ten hours, so this reference is also not likely to refer to cannabis. Nor does cannabis bear large flowers that might be compared to roses, as we see in another of the Inquisition records. But there are other records whose description of the herb, though ambiguous, are not inconsistent with the use of cannabis as an oral preparation.
All things considered, the evidence tends to support the notion that
pipiltzintzintli did not refer to a single particular plant, even in the earliest records of the term. It does, however, seem to have been specific to a particular plant within certain local regions. In more than one case, an Indian recommended that a person acquire some
pipiltzintzintli at the local market and gave them instructions on how to use it. These recommendations would make little sense if the term was generic and did not refer to a specific herb which they were recommending.
There is an 18th-century case where
pipiltzintzintli is described as little beans, and they quickly rendered a person unconscious for ten hours. That doesn't really sound like datura or morning glory seeds, but rather leads me to suspect it might be one of the more obscure toxic seeds that are occasionally mentioned in the literature, possibly colorines or piule (
Rhynchosia spp.). Interestingly, some
Rhynchosia species are referred to in modern Mexico as
pipiltzintli or
piltzintzintli, and Wasson observed a species of
Rhynchosia seeds being used in conjunction with a mushroom known as
apipiltzin (=
Psilocybe aztecorum).