What do you think?
Rate this book
The Aztec Kings: The Construction of Rulership in Mexica History
Scholars have long viewed histories of the Aztecs either as flawed chronologies plagued by internal inconsistencies and intersource discrepancies or as legends that indiscriminately mingle reality with the supernatural. But this new work draws fresh conclusions from these documents, proposing that Aztec dynastic history was recast by its sixteenth-century recorders not merely to glorify ancestors but to make sense out of the trauma of conquest and colonialism.
The Aztec Kings is the first major study to take into account the Aztec cyclical conception of time—which required that history constantly be reinterpreted to achieve continuity between past and present—and to treat indigenous historical traditions as symbolic statements in narrative form. Susan Gillespie focuses on the dynastic history of the Mexica of Tenochtitlan, whose stories reveal how the Aztecs used "history" to construct, elaborate, and reify ideas about the nature of rulership and the cyclical nature of the cosmos, and how they projected the Spanish conquest deep into the Aztec past in order to make history accommodate that event.
By demonstrating that most of Aztec history is nonliteral, she sheds new light on Aztec culture and on the function of history in society. By relating the cyclical structure of Aztec dynastic history to similar traditions of African and Polynesian peoples, she introduces a broader perspective on the function of history in society and on how and why history must change.
The Aztec Kings is the first major study to take into account the Aztec cyclical conception of time—which required that history constantly be reinterpreted to achieve continuity between past and present—and to treat indigenous historical traditions as symbolic statements in narrative form. Susan Gillespie focuses on the dynastic history of the Mexica of Tenochtitlan, whose stories reveal how the Aztecs used "history" to construct, elaborate, and reify ideas about the nature of rulership and the cyclical nature of the cosmos, and how they projected the Spanish conquest deep into the Aztec past in order to make history accommodate that event.
By demonstrating that most of Aztec history is nonliteral, she sheds new light on Aztec culture and on the function of history in society. By relating the cyclical structure of Aztec dynastic history to similar traditions of African and Polynesian peoples, she introduces a broader perspective on the function of history in society and on how and why history must change.
272 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1992
2 people are currently reading
21 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
September 13, 2023
This is an interesting book, but it needs some work.
The premise is that the author isn't reviewing the myriad 16th century Central Mexican chronicles (both Spanish and Nahua produced) as recounting strictly historical events, or trying to establish a concordance between the various accounts. Rather, she is exploring their "hermeneutics" - i.e., what they symbolically convey. She does so by examining the converse - how the accounts differ - and what that implies about how the Aztecs viewed their history.
The book has two sections - one which looks at the incredibly confusing and contradictory relationships between queens and the nine Aztec kings, and one which compares the two Montezumas.
Conceptually, this is intriguing. For me the most valuable takeaway is that a lot of the relationships are not intended to be interpreted literally. Wives become mothers; brothers become father-son; important figures are born by fantastic means like parthenogenesis. These were not intended to be taken as physical facts, but as metaphysical or symbolic facts in the construction of kingship. That could explain why the women vary so much, since their role is in legitimating male kings.
That being said, while the arguments and the possibilities are intriguing, the comparison of accounts thorough, and the appendices very helpful, I think the thesis needs more work.
The most convincing section was Part 1 about the interchangeability of the Aztec women depending on the narrative purposes. As the author noted with many genealogical diagrams, while the 9 Aztec kings are a consistent list the female relatives are an absolute disaster of contradictions, and various authors changing the women to suit their narrative at least vindicates my headache from trying to sort out the women on my own. And yet, I have two questions here:
1) Is it not possible that the various authors just got it wrong? They were writing these chronicles about 100 years after they happened, or even longer. I don't know that I could name all the presidents' wives of the past century, although I could name the presidents.
2) The ending of Part 1 is about the Virgin of Guadalupe as a composite deity, which I think is simply wrong and inconsistent with any of the historical evidence about how the Virgin Mary was perceived in 16th century Mexico.
Part 2, I think, is where the problems begin. The basic line of questioning is if Montezuma Ilhuicamina (Montezuma 1) was actually originally Ilhuicamina, and was then renamed Montezuma as a retcon after the Spanish Conquest to link him with the more famous Montezuma. Adding a name or an epithet posthumously doesn't seem off on its own; however, there's a ton of problems, far more than for Part 1.
1) The author includes a list of every way that Montezuma Ilhuicamina is listed in the various 16th century chronicles. Problem - Montezuma massively beats out Ilhuicamina in number of appearances. If Ilhuicamina alone was the original name, then why is that only the minority?
2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. It cannot be that the numerous and sundry Mexica chroniclers - who, keep in mind, were from different and often rival cities and dynasties - changed about the women willy-nilly to suit their own rhetorical purposes, but also somehow made an agreement to retcon Ilhuicamina as Montezuma in all of their chronicles forever.
Moreover, there is a bigger issue with both Part 1 and 2 - who and why? Why, specifically, are the Aztec chroniclers deliberately manipulating their history in this manner post-conquest? Who are the chroniclers, and what is their agenda?
I've read other books that tackle similar issues more concretely. For example, literally any book published in the past century in the US or Mexico about the Yuctatec Chilam Balams will talk about the petty aristocracy creating narratives and histories to justify their paramountcy over commoners and neighbors. Here, however, the author does not address the real-world implications of historical manipulation, which is a massive weakness to the overall argument. She's established a possible method to the crime, but there is no motive provided.
This is an intriguing book. Honestly, I do appreciate the sanity check that, no really, the genealogies are an unnavigable morass of contradictions outside the simple king's list itself. I also find the basic idea that the Aztec chroniclers "tweaked" their histories to suit their agenda intriguing.
That being said, while this is a 3/5 this is NOT a book I would recommend. If you are interested in Aztec history but you never read this, you probably wouldn't be missing much. (Aside from the vindication that the primary sources really are messy and contradictory, which I genuinely did appreciate). That being said, the thesis is intriguing, the genealogical tables are helpful, the cross-cultural comparisons help make the Aztec chronicles more sensible, and the primary source catalogues are an excellent resource.
The premise is that the author isn't reviewing the myriad 16th century Central Mexican chronicles (both Spanish and Nahua produced) as recounting strictly historical events, or trying to establish a concordance between the various accounts. Rather, she is exploring their "hermeneutics" - i.e., what they symbolically convey. She does so by examining the converse - how the accounts differ - and what that implies about how the Aztecs viewed their history.
The book has two sections - one which looks at the incredibly confusing and contradictory relationships between queens and the nine Aztec kings, and one which compares the two Montezumas.
Conceptually, this is intriguing. For me the most valuable takeaway is that a lot of the relationships are not intended to be interpreted literally. Wives become mothers; brothers become father-son; important figures are born by fantastic means like parthenogenesis. These were not intended to be taken as physical facts, but as metaphysical or symbolic facts in the construction of kingship. That could explain why the women vary so much, since their role is in legitimating male kings.
That being said, while the arguments and the possibilities are intriguing, the comparison of accounts thorough, and the appendices very helpful, I think the thesis needs more work.
The most convincing section was Part 1 about the interchangeability of the Aztec women depending on the narrative purposes. As the author noted with many genealogical diagrams, while the 9 Aztec kings are a consistent list the female relatives are an absolute disaster of contradictions, and various authors changing the women to suit their narrative at least vindicates my headache from trying to sort out the women on my own. And yet, I have two questions here:
1) Is it not possible that the various authors just got it wrong? They were writing these chronicles about 100 years after they happened, or even longer. I don't know that I could name all the presidents' wives of the past century, although I could name the presidents.
2) The ending of Part 1 is about the Virgin of Guadalupe as a composite deity, which I think is simply wrong and inconsistent with any of the historical evidence about how the Virgin Mary was perceived in 16th century Mexico.
Part 2, I think, is where the problems begin. The basic line of questioning is if Montezuma Ilhuicamina (Montezuma 1) was actually originally Ilhuicamina, and was then renamed Montezuma as a retcon after the Spanish Conquest to link him with the more famous Montezuma. Adding a name or an epithet posthumously doesn't seem off on its own; however, there's a ton of problems, far more than for Part 1.
1) The author includes a list of every way that Montezuma Ilhuicamina is listed in the various 16th century chronicles. Problem - Montezuma massively beats out Ilhuicamina in number of appearances. If Ilhuicamina alone was the original name, then why is that only the minority?
2) You can't have your cake and eat it too. It cannot be that the numerous and sundry Mexica chroniclers - who, keep in mind, were from different and often rival cities and dynasties - changed about the women willy-nilly to suit their own rhetorical purposes, but also somehow made an agreement to retcon Ilhuicamina as Montezuma in all of their chronicles forever.
Moreover, there is a bigger issue with both Part 1 and 2 - who and why? Why, specifically, are the Aztec chroniclers deliberately manipulating their history in this manner post-conquest? Who are the chroniclers, and what is their agenda?
I've read other books that tackle similar issues more concretely. For example, literally any book published in the past century in the US or Mexico about the Yuctatec Chilam Balams will talk about the petty aristocracy creating narratives and histories to justify their paramountcy over commoners and neighbors. Here, however, the author does not address the real-world implications of historical manipulation, which is a massive weakness to the overall argument. She's established a possible method to the crime, but there is no motive provided.
This is an intriguing book. Honestly, I do appreciate the sanity check that, no really, the genealogies are an unnavigable morass of contradictions outside the simple king's list itself. I also find the basic idea that the Aztec chroniclers "tweaked" their histories to suit their agenda intriguing.
That being said, while this is a 3/5 this is NOT a book I would recommend. If you are interested in Aztec history but you never read this, you probably wouldn't be missing much. (Aside from the vindication that the primary sources really are messy and contradictory, which I genuinely did appreciate). That being said, the thesis is intriguing, the genealogical tables are helpful, the cross-cultural comparisons help make the Aztec chronicles more sensible, and the primary source catalogues are an excellent resource.
July 2, 2016
El análisis de fuentes documentales del los siglos XVI-XIX son buenos en general, y el estudio comparativa entre ellas es notable, mostrando que la historia derivada de los textos tiene más de una versión. Lo más notable del libro es la conclusión en la cual el mito-leyenda-historia de Ce Acatl, Topilztin Quetzalcoatl, tal como se describe en textos etnohistóricos fue una reelaboración novohispana por tratar de equiparar la historia de Cortés durante la invasión europea.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews