The Mexica or Aztec: A Predatory State

1. The Mexica or Aztec: A Predatory State Social, Political, and Economic Organization

2. Who Were the Aztec? • We know they came from somewhere up north—how far north is anyone’s guess • Mythically, they came from “Aztlan, the Land of the Herons,” of which “Aztec” is a derivation • They were mercenaries of the Toltec centered in Tula, although even that is bound up in myth • When Tula fell, the Aztec migrated to an area of five lakes dominated by Lake Texcoco • An area dominated by “Epigonal Toltecs”

3. Epigonal Toltecs • The first were the Otomi-speaking Tepanecs, who founded the city of Atzcapotzalco on the western shores of Lake Texcoco • The second was Xaltocan, an Otomi-speaking state on the north shore of Lake Texcoco • The third was the Acolhua who dominated the eastern shore of Lake Texcoco, organized also by Chichimeca • The fourth was Colhuacán on the southwest part of the Valley of Mexico, at the cusp between Lakes Texcoco and Xochimilco. • The fifth was a small state Xicco.

4. Aztec Nomenclature • Initially, they did not settle at the site of Tenochtitlan • Their names changed from “Chichimec from Aztlan” a contemptuous term that meant “Barbarian” • To “Tenochca” after a patriarch by that name, who also gave the name to Tenochtitlán • To “Mexica,” which they adopted after attaching themselves to the Colhua of Colhuacan as mercenaries, calling themselves “Colhua Mexica”

5. Formation of the Aztec • Initially, they did not settle at the site of Tenochtitlán • After numerous wanderings they settled at a swampy site mythically where an eagle was perched on a nopal cactus devouring a snake • First, they served as mercenaries of Atzcapotzalco • They then switched sides, allied themselves with the Acolhua of Texcoco, overthrew Atzapotzalco, and eventually formed a triple alliance between themselves, the Acolhua, and a liberated part of Atzapotzalco called Tlacopan • Third, they established hegemony in 1500, 21 years before the actual conquest.

6. Formation and Society • Bilateral descent does allow for flexibility. • To enjoy a rapid rise from a muddy village settled in 1345 or so to an empire less than 200 years later, you have to be flexible. • 1427 saw the formation of the Triple Alliance • So to envision an “Aztec society,” the question arises just which society are we talking about • Berdan describes society at it was on the eve of the Conquest • But were they patrilineal groups in the past? We don’t know; records were often destroyed by the victors

7. What Were the Calpulli? • What is known for sure: • There were 20 “Big Houses” by that name • They were landholding groups • They were organized territorially • They had their own councils • They had their own temples • They comprised the macehual, or commoner, generally peasants • The debate: kin groups or peasant class?

8. Calpulli as Kin Groups • Kin groups or clans • Reasoning: the Aztecs themselves were tribal groups at most 300 years before • What kind? Evidence is lacking? • Indication of a patrilineal bias among nobility: preference for “junior lines” in allocating economic assets and political favors.

9. Calpulli as Social and Economic Classes • Developed into administrative subclasses • Could have been units organizing not only peasants but also craftspersons and traders • Example: in Texcoco under Hungry Coyote (Nezahualcoyotl), calpulli were organized featherworkers and goldworkers • Pochteca (luxury good traders) may also have formed a calpulli; we do know they were hereditary

10. Calpulli as Both Kin and Class • Conical clans in which privileges are based on order of birth • Kept wealth and privileges in the family, but some members were more equal than others • Kin trace their ancestry to a founder, real or fictive • But through such justification as precedence of birth, the lineal descendants (junior lines) get preferential treatment • This suggests that unilineal descent might have been dominant at one time

11. Calpulli and Ethnicity • As conquests proceeded, Tenochtitlan became more ethnically diverse. • Thus calpulli included not only kin but also “allies” from the conquered provinces • Flexibility of kin thus allowed fictive (fictional) ties as well • Thus, the European Catholic tradition of compradrazgo fit in very well with indigenous society. • Thus their flexibility is not at issue; only their “pristine” characteristics.

12. Calpulli and Land Tenure • Land was held in common in the calpulli • System was based on usufruct • Peasants “owned” their plot so long as they used it and paid their taxes • Land reverted back to the commons if the peasant stopped using the land or pay the taxes • Land could be rented, but not bought or sold

13. Aztec: Kin Reckoning • Reckoned kinship bilaterally; traced relations through paternal and maternal side. • Kinship terms bilateral: e.g. tlatli is an uncle, whether father’s or mother’s brother • Possibly reflected the extreme instability one expects from a state in rapid formation • And one in which there are shifting alliances

14. Marriage among the Aztec • Marriage was endogamous by class: pipiltin to other pipiltin, macehuallin to other macehuallin • There was no other rule of exogamy outside the immediate family • This meant that marriage could involve one’s cousin; cross-cousin marriage was not unknown • Polygyny was common among nobility and tied in with social class; wives were put to work.

15. Marriage Alliances and Power • Nobility: Marriage had a political function: female from Texcoco married a male from the subordinate Teotihuacan to maintain a tie • The son of the Teotihuacan ruler would then be subordinate to Texcoco because of the “gift” of a wife. • Marriage was to man’s mother’s brother’s daughter—his matrilateral cross-cousin. • Failure to repay in Maussian terms means the Teotihuacan nobility would be “beggar” to Texcoco nobility. • This would persist for generations.

16. Aztec Markets: Common Goods • There were two kinds of markets • One dealt in ordinary goods • Markets usually met every five days • Trading outside the market was illegal and one could be imprisoned or the goods confiscated • Reason: market transactions were subject to taxati

17. Aztec Markets: Luxury Products • Texcoco had been a market town long before the Aztecs assumed power • Markets were a daily affair in Texcoco; major markets comprising up to 50,000 buyers and sellers met every fifth day—they were the center of luxury products • A hereditary class of merchants called Pochteca were probably active long before the Aztecs • They occupied a precarious position • On the one hand, they were vital as sources of military intelligence to the rulers and were protected • On the other hand, their economic power were a threat to the rulers; toward the end, they hid their wealth.

18. Sociopolitical Organization of the Aztecs • Society: A Twofold Division • Pilli: The nobles • Macehual: The peasants • However, the peasants themselves were stratified • Macehuales who excelled in battle could themselves become noble • This requires some background in the principles of political anthropology

19. Social Class: Overview • General types (Fried) • Egalitarian societies: • Social systems with as many valued positions as person capable of filling them • Exceptions: age, gender, special characteristics • Ranked societies • Social systems with fewer valued status positions than those capable of filling them • Stratified societies • Minority control of strategic resources

20. Stratified Societies • Access to strategic resources is unequal • Examples • Water in irrigation societies • Land in patrimonial (feudal) societies • Claims to capital assets (stocks, bonds) in capitalist society • Capital: goods/services used for production • Money, stocks, bonds are also capital

21. Emergence of Stratification • Manipulative Individuals/ Families • Form alliances (chimpanzee-like) • Play one faction against another • Form dynasties (bonobo-like) • Control over Life-Sustaining Resources • Water systems in semi-arid regions • Agricultural lands • Mechanisms of Taxation • Labor • Tribute

22. Political Organization: Basic Principles • Power vs Authority • Power: compliance by coercion or force • Authority: compliance by persuasion • Legitimacy: Beliefs rationalizing rule • Examples: Divine Right, Peoples Consent • Sanctions: reinforcements of behavior • Positive: rewards, recognition • Negative: punishment

23. Power versus Authority • Extreme examples • Power: concentration camps: Auschwitz (above); Guantanamo (below) • Authority: !Kung, Inuit, Yanomamo • Neither is absolute • Dictatorships need to persuade: Nuremberg rallies, Mayday parades • Power is evenly distributed in nonstate cultures

24. Legitimacy as Justification for Political Order • Justification necessary even in authoritarian states • Monarchies: the divine right to rule • Soviet Union: Socialist transition to communist economy • Nazi Germany: Racial purification; delivery of full-employment (Nuremberg rallies, above) • Democratic forms: consent by the governed (below, State of the Union)

25. One Myth Behind Mexica Power • War Against the Tepenacs of Atzcapotalzo • Nobles voted for war; commoners voted for peace • The declaration of the nobles (Wolf, p. 137) • Commoners’ reply on agreement if the war were successful (Wolf, p. 137) • Most likely, a mythical exchange, but this served as one part of legitimation

26. Sociopolitical Organizations: General Typology • Bands: Small, informal groups • Tribes: Segmentary groups integrated by some unifying factor • Chiefdoms: Group organized under a chief in a ranked society • State: Centralized political system with monopoly over legitimized force and its use.

27. States: Force as Prime Mover • Defining Characteristics • A centralized political system • With power to coerce • The operating factor: • Monopoly over the use of • Legitimate physical force • Supports the apparatus of the state • Bureaucracy --Army and police • Law and legal codes

28. States: Derivative Features • Administrative structure • Public services --Tax collection • Resource allocation --Foreign affairs • Delegation of force • Police, all levels --Armed force • Law • Civil (dispute resolution) • Regulatory (trade, economy) • Criminal (crime and punishment)

29. Law: Cross-Cultural Comparison • Codified law: Formally defines wrong and specifies remedies • Customary law: Informal sanctions or dispute resolution • Restitution or Restorative law: emphasizes dispute resolution, damage restitution • Retributive law: emphasizes punishment for crimes committed

30. Case Studies: Restitution • Nuer: Leopard-skin chief • Function: mediate disputes; leopard wrap identifies role • Cannot force or enforce an agreement • Authority is spiritual • Zapotec in Talea, Mexico • Function: hear cases and negotiate • Recommend settlement • Enforce agreement by community

31. Case Studies: Retribution • Criminal Law • Murder, Robbery, Others • Civil Law • Consumer Law and Small Courts • Final Say: Judge or Arbitrator • Limitation: Sheer Numbers of Cases

32. A Trisection of Society • Relations of Production form the basis of sociopolitical systems. • Political superstructure: government, military, the law • Ideology: religion, myths, even psychology • When the base shifts, the rest of society changes

33. Basic Political Structure of the Mexica • The nobility expanded its privileges as the empire developed • Privileges: Right to wear insignia, special clothing • Marital privileges: polygyny and the political and economic power it implied. • Had their own special courts • Sent children to calmecatl, or schools of religious and ceremonial training, prerequisite for entry into the bureaucracy • Commoners were tillers of the soil • Slaves, who had their own privileges

34. Aztec Society: A Study of Mobility • Remember that the Mexica were still in a state of expansion when the Spaniards came • Unfinished business: The Tlaxcalans, the Tarascans, the unconquered lands of southern Mexico • Internally, they were a mobile society • Rulers created a “nobility of service” as well as a nobility of lineage

35. Nobility of Service • Distinguished themselves in war or by trade • Term: “Knights” or “Sons of the Eagle” • Also divided the commoners from those relative few • A source of tension with the nobility of lineage over bureaucratic positions • An aristocratic reaction curtailed their privileges • Stratification became more established on the eve of the Conquest

36. Religious Ideology • Huitzilopochtli (Hummingbird of the Left): the principal god • Presided over a world that ended in cataclysm • The last world ended in hurricanes, preceded by rain, sky falling on earth, and fire; the present one will end in earthquakes • To forestall the inevitable end would entail the blood sacrifice of humans

37. Gods from the Predecessors • Quetzalcoatl: The plumed serpent god who was banished to the east. • Tezcatlipoca, (smoking mirror), who displaced Quetzalcoatl, who demanded blood sacrificed in his own right, and often identified with Huitzilopochtli • Tlaloc, the rain god, He Who Makes the Plants Spring Up. • Xipe Totec, the Flayed One, whose skin symbolized the old vegetation with the promise of renewal • The pantheon became standardized after the first conquest over the Tepanec • Even so, one god might be merged with another, as Huitzilopochtli with Tezcatlipoca

38. Self-Concept of the Mexica • At the edge of cataclysm • Individuals were expected to combine bravery with moderation • The ideal Mexica did not drink to excess, spoke softly, was sexually continent.

39. The Eve of the Conquest: Cracks in the Mexica State • The Mexica exploited the provinces mercilessly for tribute and sometimes sacrificial victims • Except for these, the provinces were left on their own; their own customs, languages, and religions were left alone. • This, coupled with the still-independent states, may have been their downfall. • The domination was never absolute, and the Mexica armies had their limitations • The Spaniards were able to exploit these weaknesses, despite initial failures.

40. Comparison with the Maya • The Maya were competitive city states • Even after the collapse, they were relatively independent • The conquest of the Aztec was largely a one-time event in the Valley of Mexico • In contrast, the Spaniards would have to conquer one Mayan state over a long period of attrition • Even after 1692, there were constant uprisings throughout Mexico and Guatemala well into the 19th century.