Women may have been omitted from pictorial histories since they were created after the Mexico conquest. Some scholars believe that indigenous historians picked up the patriarchal attitudes of Spain that undervalued the role of women. Spaniards brought patriarchal attitudes to Mexico, but this may not completely be the reason women were excluded. This is because not all of the pictorial histories exclude women. For example, Dona Marina in the Codex Azcatitlan. She was an indigenous interpreter for Hernan Coretes, and was shown as a key participant in the conquest. In some depictions, she was even placed in front of Cortes and a group of Spaniards. In another example, she was shown as Cortes’ equal and they were both seated on the Spanish icon of power; a woven reed throne. The reason she was included was because Spanish had no political authority, therefore historians had no issue communicating a woman’s power.
Taking another look at the Spanish perspective, where men where reserved for power and high office; there were actually a few times where women had power. Queen Isabel and a number of other women rose to power in the New World. Left out article in green During the sixteenth century when those pictorials were created, the status of indigenous women had not declined yet. The status of Nahua women actually somewhat rose, but it didn’t last. Studies of genealogies of Tlaxcala shows how women grew in importance in lineage statements.
The representation of women increased during that time. Some indigenous noblewomen were even able to assume rule during the time of conquest and epidemics. Interestingly, in an entry in the Tlaxcalan Actas it said “how the lordly houses all around Tlaxcala are coming to ruin because of new prerogatives assumed by women.” Before the conquest, women shared rule with their husbands and were not banned from serving in government, however they still managed to retain power in unofficial ways. This leads us to assume the historians were probably male therefore implemented their own biases in these records, which is likely why women were obscured.
127 our experts are availableright now
The disappearance of women in some of the pictorial histories could be explained by the context of these colonial works, but there are other possible explanations. Upon imperial expansion, the result was subordination of Aztec women. Although there is debate over this theory since it doesn’t acknowledge the idea of gender complementarity; even though men had more power and control, both men and women were structural complements that negotiated control over social powers. Not all of the pictorial histories exclude or obscure women and their political roles; but there definitely are ones that do. The political systems in these societies where based on the fact rule was based on genealogy. For this, women had an important political function that complemented their husbands. Women gave the ability to ensure the nobility of the ruler and the successors.
Therefore, secondary towns that are struggling for a place in the imperial hierarchy include women in order to reinforce their prestige. In order to establish prestige in Tepechpan, women strengthened the legitimacy of the ruling line and established political alliances, making them relevant and important to their history. But once this prestige, legitimacy, and supremacy of their community was established, the importance of noblewomen was done. Their purpose has been served so therefore their role was finished, which is why they were no longer included and faded from the historical narratives of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco. Essentially, women fade when genealogies lose importance, which occurs once imperial power is established. Therefore, we can say this is a matter of noblewomen being excluded from Aztec imperial history.
In the Mapa Tlotzin, an explanation for failing to indentify the last of the Mexica wives on Texcoco’s dynasty list may have been because of their dissatisfaction of their subordinate status to the Mexica capital. Their dissatisfaction became clear following the death of Nezahualpilli, when his two son assumed the throne of Texcoca. Tenochtitlan favored the older son, who was a son of a Mexica noblewoman. Other Acolhua communities favored the younger son because her promised to free the Acolhua from Mexica tyranny- and since he was married to an Acolhua noblewoman, rather than a Mexica noblewoman may have signified his freedom from Tenochtitlan.
Texcocoan historians assert Texcoco’s autonomy from Tenochtitlan by excluding Mexica queens from their later history. After the Tepanec Was, the Tenochca dynasty established a new pattern of succession. It was patrilineal, where rulers preffered passing down rule to their younger brother or nephew rather than son. Sons would only assume rule until after all the elder males of the ruler’s generation were exhausted. With this system implemented, it is not surprising that women’s roles where not included. And once the legitimacy of the Mexica bloodline was established, historians felt it was unnecessary to further comment. Their supremacy was so established, that a queen of another community could only dilute the Mexica bloodline and test its loyalties. This sends the message of the Mexica tlatoque were self-sufficient.
However, this Mexica dominance in central Mexico did not last. After the Spanish defeated Tenochtitlan, the highest-ranking Spanish noblewoman married a Spaniard. This symbolically created a new political alliance with the Spanish and the Mexica. Since this noblewoman was featured in the Codex Cozcatzin, it was only the loss of Tenochtitlan’s power that brings women back into the picture of Mexica history as a political asset. This marriage had two functions; it established a new symbolic alliance between the Spanish and the Mexica, and it mimicked Acamapichtli’s marriage to Ilancueitl. Same how the Aztec migrants to the Valley of Mexico married Toltec noblewomen to legitimize their prestige and presence. The Spanish conquistadors did the same by marrying Mexica noblewomen, which then created a new strain of noble aristocrats.
In secondary city-state and upstart communities, the women played an important political role, and were important assets that they wanted to advertise in order to show their nobility, alliances, and prestige for their rulers. And once again, when imperial power was attained, the women had no further purpose or function to serve. They could no longer enhance this power, therefore they were excluded from imperial histories. In short, the political subordinations and exclusion of noblewomen correlated to the growth of empires. Women were necessary and valuable with important functions and assets, but only when needed. Otherwise, when power was attained, they threatened the status of rulers.
