The Mexican Mission: Indigenous Reconstruction and Mendicant Enterprise in New Spain, 1521–1600

Abstract

Almost three hundred mission church-monastery complexes were built in central Mexico from the fall of the Aztec Empire in 1521 to 1600. What did this extensive construction campaign signify? Early historians viewed it as a sign of mendicant zeal: Franciscans, Dominicans, and Augustinians expanding into ever more Indigenous communities and gaining converts along the way. Revisionists rejected this narrative’s triumphalism and instead argued for continuities in Indigenous religion, emphasizing native adaptation of Christianity to fit Mesoamerican religious frameworks. Crewe challenges both interpretations by viewing the Mexican mission as a political and social project more than a religious one. He explores why Indigenous communities invested so much labor in building churches (for it was the Indigenes who actually built them) and how the missions were staffed and funded rather than the ways Indigenous peoples translated Christianity into a Mesoamerican context. This focus results in a set of interrelated arguments that center socially stratified Indigenous communities as primary agents in the missionary endeavor.First, conversion was more a political than religious act. The Native population soon learned that baptism offered a modicum of protection from colonialism’s worst abuses. Spanish conquerors enslaved recently defeated Indigenous populations to profit quickly from their victories. Spanish law, however, prohibited enslavement of Christian subjects. Moreover, missionary friars, though they demanded labor and tribute from their Indigenous flocks, tended to protect them from the settlers’ excesses. Conversion therefore granted Indigenes some defense against colonial demands.Second, mission church construction served to reconstitute Indigenous community in the face of Old World epidemics that killed over 90 percent of the Mesoamerican population during the sixteenth century. Three devastating plagues—in 1521, 1545, and 1576—each killed over a third of the Indigenous populace. Because of this, Native elites began mission-building projects. In fact, the most active construction period began in the 1550s despite population decline. Indigenous elites saw mission building as a way to reassert community identity. The mission church functioned similarly to the precontact teocalli, or temple, which had been the physical manifestation of the altepetl (pl. altepeme), or Indigenous city-state. But the friars had destroyed the temples early in their evangelization. The mission church took over the teocalli’s role as representation of the altepetl by mid-century, and Indigenous elites used churches to reinforce altepetl identity in the face of devastating loss.Third, Native elites built mission churches to proclaim altepetl independence from other city-states. The altepetl was the fundamental Mesoamerican unit of sociopolitical organization, and the Aztec Empire had subjugated hundreds of them. Once the empire fell, altepeme vied with one another for dominance. Friars contributed to these political maneuvers by establishing their first missions in the largest altepeme. This, however, effectively subordinated other city-states to the religious authority and labor demands of the mission altepetl. In part, the spurt of mission building starting in the 1550s reflects the desire of Native elites to assert their independence.The wave of mission expansion ceased by the 1580s. Although Native elites had used church building to reconstitute Indigenous community in response to colonialism and disease, the epidemics at the century’s end decimated the population such that church building was no longer feasible.Crewe offers a fascinating and innovative interpretation of Mexican missionary history that foregrounds Indigenous agency. The book is richly researched and clearly written and presents more arguments than can be addressed in this review. I do think Crewe underestimates the significance of religion in mission building, but he correctly points out that many have addressed this topic already. Crewe’s contributes significantly to the historiography, and scholars of colonial Latin America will welcome his work.