This weekly feature is a place to discuss new developments in fields of history and archaeology. This can be newly discovered documents and archaeological sites, recent publications, documents that have just become publicly available through digitization or the opening of archives, and new theories and interpretations.
I am not sure if anyone was at the American Historical Association conference this past weekend, but there was a rather radical development in how we might view the fall of Tenochtitlan during the European Invasion of Mexico. Matthew Restall argued that if consider that Montezuma was interested in building his zoos and museums as centerpieces and monuments to Mexica Imperial control, the admittance of Cortes and his European followers is less confusing. Historians have often wondered why Cortes was able to walk along the causeways into the city, unopposed by military force. Furthermore, historians have wondered why the Mexica leader surrendered so quickly. Restall posited that the back and forth movement of his ambassadors and armies against the oncoming alliance between the Europeans and Mexica enemies allowed Montezuma to appreciate the novelty of the newcomers.
Once in the city itself, Montezuma placed the Europeans in an area near his own zoos and museums, essentially keeping Cortes and his men as curiosities to show off. Restall noted that multiple digs in the Mexico City area show that there were areas that contained animal remains not native to the Valley of Mexico. Furthermore, post-conquest writings show that zoos that displayed animals and deformed humans were important parts of Nahua cultural life. Restall's point is that if we consider Montezuma as a collector, then Cortes and his men were essentially zoo animals that bit their keeper.