[Aztlan] 1491 and Quetazlcoatl redux

[David Hixson]

Estimados Listeros,

While I deeply respect the comments by Dan
<drd30 at columbia.edu>, I would propose that the
arguments made by Gillespie and others are a bit more
nuanced than he implies.

Rather than a polarized view of "Quetzalcoatl as
Cortez" as a myth vs. history, I read Gillespie's
discussion as a fascinating view into how history is
constructed in the first place.  Her focus is not
actually the Q-C connection, but the history of king
lists (both Toltec and Aztec).  She takes a very hard
look at the king lists and notes how history must be
viewed as constructed (rather than simply recorded).

This has been driven home to me by the recent work at
Mayapan and Chichen Itza, where archaeological
excavations have shown that the ethnohistorical
accounts cannot be taken at face value.  We must
examine why certain perspectives were widely accepted,
and when they were adopted as "history".

Many Maya Archaeologists working at Yucatecan sites
currently believe that Chichen Itza was never overrun
by the Toltecs, and that Mayapan was not controlled in
its final days by Aztec garrisons (despite the clear
passages in Spanish and Maya texts that tell us
otherwise).  Similarly, the list of Toltec kings,
including the kingly manifestation of Quetzalcoatl
(constructed by the Aztecs centuries later), may also
be a conflated history, as might the Q-C connection.

However, none of this implies that the Aztec kings and
later historians NEVER made the hypothetical
connection between Quetzalcoatl and Cortez.  As Dan
stated, these theories may have crept up during
various stages of the conquest (or even
post-conquest).

History is not immutable.  It is based within a
constant dialogue with the present.

I’d love to hear more thoughts on this topic.  It
(combined with other ethnohistorical mysteries, such
as the chronologies of Mayapan and Chichen Itza)
strike to the core of what different disciplines can
bring to the table (archaeology, history,
ethnohistory, cultural anthropology, etc. etc.). 
Aztlan is a perfect format to hear all sides of the
story.

Saludos,

-Dave


--- Dan <drd30 at columbia.edu> wrote:

> I'm struck by the fact that so much recent
> literature, and this discussion,
> tends toward polarization on the question of the
> Quetzalcoatl-Cortes
> relationship---those starting with an uncritical
> read of Sahagun's Book 12
> assertion that Moctezuma believed in and acted on
> the Q-C connection, versus
> those who (with Lockhart, Gillespie and others)
> suggest that the
> "Caxtilteca" were seen as merely another alteptl
> group and that the Q-C
> association is just a post-Conquest imposition. 
> Either view, in isolation,
> seems a little too rigid and too
> condescending---insisting on an either/or
> interpretation of behavior that was likely
> susceptible to multiple
> motivations and impulses
.



 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Bored stiff? Loosen up... 
Download and play hundreds of games for free on Yahoo! Games.
http://games.yahoo.com/games/front