Maya And Spaniards In Yucatan - Essay Example

of the of the Concerned History and Political Science 13 October Victors and Vanquished It was at some time in 1519that the Spanish invaders entered Mexico, a great Mexica metropolis built on a lake island by the Mexicans. Much before the Spanish conquest of America, the Europeans had heard of the splendor and affluence of the native Mexican culture by word of mouth. In that context it was the Spanish invader Don Hernando Cortes, who entered Mexico accompanied by six hundred fellow Spaniards and a retinue of native allies, who was for the first time able to experience the bounty and magnificence of the splendid Mexican temples and palaces about which he had heard so much about. It goes without saying that it was primarily through the accounts furnished by the Spanish chronicles and other texts of historical importance that the Historians have predominantly tried to judge the invasion of an acclaimed and great civilization in the pre-Columbian America. There is no denying the fact these historical accounts ensuing from the Spanish adventurers, churchmen and booty hunters were somewhat biased in their approach towards the Mexican history (Henderson 45). These historical accounts present only the Spanish side of the story, without caring much about the Mayan perspective regarding the Spanish invaders (Henderson 45). Many a times the historians never cared to bother that perhaps the conquered Mexicans may have set their own versions of the Spanish invasion of America. So a great part of the Mayan side of the story is known through the works compiled by Mexicans in their native language, which managed to survive the ravages of the Spanish Invasion. Though it is a fact that both the Spanish and Mexican accounts tell the same story, yet, these two sets of historical text tend to differ immensely in what they decide to convey and how they try to convey it. Though the modern historians of the European origins tend to outline varied cultural, moral and religious motivations that supported the Spanish invasion of the Native American civilizations, still even a cursory perusal of the Spanish invaders brings to fore the fact that the Spanish invasion was predominantly ruled and guided by economic and pecuniary motives (Patch 22). Many accounts of the Spanish encounters with the Mayan diplomatic missions strongly unravel the fact that the Spaniards tried to evaluate the gifts extended by the Mayans in a profit to loss context, without delving specifically on the artistic and cultural relevance of those gifts. The Spanish accounts of the history of the invasion amply testify to the fact that the Spaniards were there in America to seek what they liked the most that are the immense wealth and gold they had heard about, before planning these invasions (Patch 22). In contrast, there are ample Mayan accounts that talk about these diplomatic missions and the gifts they exchanged with the Spaniards. In the Mayan accounts one comes across elaborate details pertaining to these gifts, which are certainly not second to an explanation of a work of art furnished by a modern critic. As per the Spanish chronicles and accounts, the Spaniards in their accounts pertaining to their early interactions with Mayans do reveal that the Spaniards were trying hard to figure out the military and tactical strength of the Mayans. At the same time they left no effort unattended in trying to intimidate the Mayans by a show of their military tactics, weaponry and canons. In contrast, the way the Mexica tell their story, it becomes quite evident that the initial Mexica approach towards the Spaniards was reconciliatory and placatory. While the Spanish were convinced right from the start that they were there in America to subjugate a civilization, Mayans, to a great extent guided by their religious beliefs, do believed that they will be able to forge amicable relations with the invaders, irrespective of the fact that the Mayans were weary of the Spanish invaders and kept a close watch on their movements and maneuvers. The Spanish accounts of the invasion deem to be pecuniary, economically accurate in their estimates of the extent of the Mexican wealth, culturally and ethnically naive and somewhat inaccurate. In contrast, the Mayan accounts of the same invasions are imbued with a spirit of reconciliation, a sentiment of fear and anxiety on being invaded by a strange civilization, and certainly marked by a vivid eye for detail in an artistic, cultural and aesthetic context (Jones 31). The two sides narrate the same story; the one with a tactical and economic stress, while the other with an eye on the possibilities for reconciliation and the artistic and cultural significance of the material and human exchanges that took place between the two civilizations. Actually, such vivid deviations in the Mexican and Spanish interpretation of the invasions are quiet visible and discernable when one labors to go through the historical accounts left by the two civilizations. There are ample biases inherent in the historical records left by each side of the encounter. Actually speaking, the Mexican approach towards history is marked y by goals and assumptions that were indigenous to it and in a way has characteristics that were different from the European approach towards history (Henderson 5). Sometimes the biases rampant in the Mexican versions of the encounter tend to be less transparent and somewhat misleading (Henderson 5). The Mayans portray the invasion as not the victory of a civilization that happened to be tactically and militarily superior to theirs, but the Mexica approach towards chronicling history is dominated by their religion, which leaves much scope for omens and prophecies (Montejo 22). The initial Mexican accounts portray the advent of the Spaniards as the coming back of their gods to reclaim their throne. In the later accounts, the Mayans tend to demonize Spaniards, which leaves much scope for a factual and balanced approach towards things. In that context, the Spanish accounts are also not less blameless. The Spanish accounts distinctly mention the superiority of the Spanish civilization as compared to Mexicans, and present Mexicans as a pagan civilization that needed to be converted, if possible, or to be obliterated, if necessary. The Spaniards were also not less superstitious in their accounts. Many Spanish chroniclers and historians do pointed to the hand of God in the invasion of a so called inferior civilization (Steggerda 56). The Mayan biases appear to be marred by a vacillation, on the onside delving on the things that were new to them like the Spanish crossbows and horses, and on the other side trying to find commonalities between their own traditions and the ways of the foreigners (Goetz & Morley 13). An actual grasp over the reality of invasions requires much sifting and discretion. It is a known fact that the Spanish were able to triumph over the Mexicans owing to their military and weaponry superiority. So, while detailing the history of the invasion, they seem to be carried away by a need to dehumanize an entire civilization in comparison to the Spanish culture and values (Mason 137). Hence, it does not seem strange when the Spanish historians go out of their way to detail and delineate the Mayan tendency to resort to abject acts of obeisance, marked by much formality, while welcoming their Spanish overlords. One primary objective of the Spanish approach towards history is to be elaborate in those aspects of the Spanish-Mayan interactions that tend to convey the willing and voluntary subjugation of an inferior race and culture to their superior civilization. The Spanish historians leave no stone unturned to cite the religious motives and to project the cross as a primary premise to justify the invasions. It will be really realistic to say that no single account of the invasion either left by the Mayans or the Spaniards tends to be immaculately fair in its approach and narration. The Mayan accounts mostly suffer from a preponderance of superstitious beliefs and omens and a need to somehow rationalize the invasion and to make a sense of it by ascribing to it a place as per their traditions and beliefs. The Spaniards on the other side appear to be overbearing and haughty in their explanations, approaching the Mayan civilization both with a sense of awe and an accompanying derision and disgust. So, the need for drawing valid conclusions from the accounts left by both the sides must not desist from corroborating these accounts from the available archaeological findings and the related historical research. The history spanning an invasion of such proportions could not be verified by ascribing to a single source. It is true that history is mostly written by the victorious. This premise also stands to be true in the context of the Mexican invasion by the Spaniards. So, it is a fact that the historians from the victorious civilizations in any clash of civilizations tend to incorporate much biases and prejudices in their accounts. Yet, this is also true that the historical texts left by the Vanquished civilizations are not utterly sans flaws, misinterpretations and biases. Any corrective approach towards historical interpretations needs to correlate the available facts with the available archaeological and research based evidence. Works Cited Goetz, Delia & Morley, Sylvanus. Popal Vuh: The Sacred Book of the Ancient Quiche Maya. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1950. Henderson, John S. The World of the Ancient Maya. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997. Jones, Grant D. The Conquest of the Last Maya Kingdom. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1998. Mason, Gregory. Columbus came late. New York: Century, 1981. Montejo, Victor. The Bird who cleans the World and other Mayan Fables. Willimantic: Curbstone Press, 1991. Patch, Robert W. Maya and Spaniards in Yucatan. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Steggerda, Morris. Maya Indian of Yucatan. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington, 1941. Read More