1 / 60

The Nahua calli of ancient Mexico: household, family, and gender

Explore the household structures, family relationships, and gender dynamics of the Nahua people in ancient Mexico, reflecting on co-residence patterns, kinship ties, and societal norms. Dive into the complexities of multiple conjugal families, generational connections, and the diverse definitions of households.

trivett
Download Presentation

The Nahua calli of ancient Mexico: household, family, and gender

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Nahua calliof ancient Mexico: household, family, and gender “It is simply untrue as far as we can yet tell that there was ever a time or place where the complex family was the universal background to the ordinary lives of ordinary people.”—Peter Laslett, Family & Household in Past Time, 1972

  2. Simplyan old widow Married Married Marriedhead of household Female, 20 years old, not yet married Marriedoneyear ago Married Married Married Married Married one year ago Male10 years of age, not married Married A neolithic, complex household from Ancient Mexico (1540): 13 people, 4 generations, 5 marital units

  3. Competing theories of family history (regarding co-residence) • Evolutionary, 4 stages: • Foragers: co-residence not limited to family or kin • Neolithic, agriculturalists: compound multi-family • Ancient to early modern: complex, extended family • Modern: nuclear family • High mortality simplified family structures in the past (Peter Laslett, 1972): “It is simply untrue as far as we can yet tell that there was ever a time or place where the complex family was the universal background to the ordinary lives of ordinary people.”

  4. There once was a place, where the complex family, “the classical family of Western nostalgia,” was the rule. • Nahua agrarian villages, early 16th centuryuniversal early marriage (<13 years female)high mortality (e0 <20 years) • Household system: joint, complex, or compound? • Gender relations: parallelism & symmetry or hierarchy & subordination?

  5. Source: The Book of Tributes S. L. Cline (1993) • Census listings made by Aztec scribes, writing in Nahuatl, according to prehispanic conventions (translated by Cline).

  6. Museo de Antropología, Mexico City: “Here is the home of one named...” …translated …microdata ...transcribed

  7. Nahua population and land register Darkened faces = dead Lines are used to connect kin rather than to separate households Codex Santa María de Asunción, ~1550

  8. Cemithualtin (those around a patio): the importance of kin • Nahua households (cemithualtin): “those who live in a house” “people who live in only one house” “those from a patio,” etc. • 99% live with kin: 47% as spouse or children of head; 52% as extended kin of head. • 1% have no kin ties with the head (3 orphans, 20 servants and 1 [Indian] slave).

  9. Table 1. Explicit and inferred kin relationships with 19+ occurrencesHuitzillan and Quauhchichinollan villages, circa 1540 RelationshipFrequency (total n = 2,486) child 596 mother-in-law 40 spouse 316 brother-in-law’s spouse 38 head 315 sister-in-law 37 brother 158 daughter-in-law 36 brother’s spouse 88 nephew 34 son-in-law 77 brother-in-law’s child 33 brother-in-law 76 sister’s child 33 sister 67 mother 26 grandchild 56 cousin 19 brother’s child 51 niece 19

  10. Household and family definitions • Household classes with only 1 conjugal family:nuclear: pa, ma, &/or childextended: some non-nuclear, unmarried kin • Household classifications for 2+ conjugal families:Joint - families connected by kin of same sex, under single headComplex - tangled, intricate, diverse, multipleCompound - fusion, blending or amalgam of parts; hierarchy

  11. Simplyan old widow Married Married Marriedhead of household Female, 20 years old, not yet married Marriedoneyear ago Married Married Married Married Married one year ago Male10 years of age, not married Married 5 conjugal families, 4 generations, 3 married brothers, 2 widows, 1 unmarried woman and a boy

  12. Table 2. Multiple households were the norm among rural Nahua Household typeHouseholds (Percent) Individuals Simple 13.4 7.2 No children 1.9 0.5 Children 11.5 6.7 Extended 13.4 10.1 Upward 1.9 1.0 Downward 0.3 0.2 Lateral 6.7 4.9 Combinations 4.5 3.9 Multiple 72.1 81.1 Upward 0.3 0.3 Downward 15.1 14.6 Lateral 26.3 26.6 Combinations 30.4 39.5 Polygamous 1.0 1.6 Total (n) 312 2,486 Illegible (n) 3 17

  13. Nahuatl sense of “joint”differs from classic definition of family historians: “Joint - families connected by kin of same sex, under single head” “They pay the tribute jointly.” “They all produce what they eat jointly”. “Their wives make it jointly.” “They just do their tribute together.” “They just share the tribute.” “They just do it jointly.” “He just feeds them all as a unit.” “All of them do the tribute jointly.” “They just produce his tribute jointly.”

  14. Icnocalli (casa humilde)humble house Coloti calli (choça)hut or hovel Totecujo calli (hermita)hermitage Xacalli (casa paxija)Straw house Çaça ie xacalli (choça) another kind of hut The different houses Sahagún, Códice Florentino, ~1580

  15. Colotic calli: “It means it is unpretentious, a lowly house.” Commoner’s house(choça o cabaña) 14 meters square Sahagún, Códice Florentino, ~1580

  16. Icnocalli (casa humilde)“the unpretentious house, or the house of the humble or…the poor.” Sahagún, Códice Florentino, ~1580

  17. Excavated residences “those of one patio…” M.E. Smith, Archaeological Research (1992)

  18. “those of one patio…” note grouped ground-level houses M.E. Smith, Archaeological Research (1992)

  19. Table 3a. Headship designation by frequency of occurrence.District identities of households and head freq Key Explanation 165 H “Here is the home of ...”; “Here is ....'s home.” 47 R “Here is the householder named ...” 39 S “Here is the home of some people...” “ The household head is named...” or “The head of the household is named...” or “The householder is named...” 25 T “The tribute payer is named...” 20 . illegible 6 m migrant (“Here are some people who...came from afar”) 6 G “one who governs” (tlatoani); “one named ... is in charge” 1 b “one who belongs to the tlatoani” 1 g “Here is the one who guards things for the tlatoani” 1 n “Here is a nephew...” 2 C “Here is a tribute collector...”; “...tribute boss” 1 a “Here is a goodly maiden...”

  20. Table 3b. Headship designation by order of appearance in district: • “Here is an altepetl named Huitzillan” (H1-H41): • GbH.HHHHHH.HHH.HHH.HHHHHHHmHmH.HHHHm.HHHH • Quauhchichinollan people (Q1-Q66): • GgRSSSSSSSSTSSSSSHHHHHSSSSRSSSSSSSHSTTTTSSTT.TTTTTT.TTTTTTTT.T.TTT • District illegible (Q67-Q135): • GHRRRRRHHRR.RRRRRR.RRRHHRRRRRRRR.RSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHn.HHHH.mHHHHHHHHH • Tlacochcalco (H#1-H#18): • HHHHHHHHHHCHHHHHHH • Coloteopan (H#19-H #35): • GHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH • District illegible (H#36-H#62): • GHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHmHHHH.HHm • Xanyacac (H#63-H#72): • CHHHHHHHH • ...cenhuitzco (H#73-H#139): • SSSSRRRRRRRRRRRRR.RRRRRRRGHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.HHHHHHa Key: Here is...H - HomeR - HouseholderS - Some people; household headT - Tribute payerm - migrant

  21. Widow4 years ago Widow 10 years ago Married Married Married Single15 years old Marriedhousehold head Boy7 years old Girl1 year old Household H-38: 9 people, 3 generations, 2 widows

  22. Table 4. Position of married individuals in rural Nahua households was strongly structured by gender RelationshipMaleFemale Head 306 1 Spouse 1 309 Son/daughter 36 75 Other kin: 323 285 Brother/sister 98 26 Brother/sister-in-law* 63 106 Son/daughter in law 75 36 Brother/sister-in-law’s spouse 14 38 Father/mother 3 3 Father/mother-in-law 8 8 Other 62 68 Not related: 11 11 Total married (includes 2nd wives) 677 681

  23. Rules of household headship (inferred), the 3Ms: • 1. Male (311 of 315 households) • 2. Married (97%) or recently widowed (3%). • 3. Most sons resident (or the eldest son resident).

  24. The Codex Mendoza: life at age 13 and 14 years Boys Girls 13: 14: married unmarried

  25. Marriage (at 15) 15:

  26. Child Brides and Patriarchy in Ancient Mexico Codex Mendoza, 1540

  27. 1540 vs 1990Persistence of Mexico “profundo”? • Pre-hispanic survivals? • Virilocal stem families? • Residence around the paternal home? • Or transformations? • The world Mexico has lost: extended families are now rare • But family and kin ties remain important

  28. Marriedhead of the household Single Male 20 years old Widowthis year Married Boyborn this year Married three years ago Widow,10 years ago Male, single 10 years old Girl, 1 year old Male,8 years old Married Male, already dead Female,single 15 years old 1540: 4 lateral extensions, Only 1 complete conjugal family 3 incomplete (2 widows+children)

  29. Marriedhead of the household 50 years old Daughter 22, free union Daughter 14, free union Married48 years old Daughter10 years old Son 22,free union Daughtermonths of age 21, free union 29free union 16 free union Unión libre, 25años 25free union 19, free union Son 15 years old Daughter2 years old Son, 2 years old Daughter5 years old 1990, 450 years later: An example of a patrilateral household from rural Morelos (5 conjugal unions) (not kin)

  30. Table 5. Household Composition in Rural Morelos, 1540 and 1990,and in the Federal Republic of Mexico, 1990 154019901990 Rural MorelosRepublic Relation to Head % % % Head 13 20 19 Spouse 13 16 16 Son or Daughter 24 54 53 Other kin 49 6 7 Not related 1 4 5 Total % 100 100 100 N (sample size) 2,503 1,633 801,981

  31. Gender relations: parallelism & symmetry or hierarchy & subordination? • Situs: Tenochitlan (Mex. City) or the countryside? • Parallelism, symmetry and complementarity with less hierarchy? • Or patriarchy: subordination, domination, and submission? • Evidence: • Widows, “just a little old woman”. • Married women in the household (Table 4).

  32. Debate: Condition of Nahua Women • Leon-Portilla (1958): prominent and of great social recognition • Nash (1978): subordination emerged with predatory empire • Rodriguez-Shadow (1991): devalued and dominated • Kellogg (1995): gender parallelism: complementary and symmetrical

  33. Nahua gender relations over the life course: assymetry, hierarchy, subordination • I. Naming patterns • II. Marriage: • girls: 12.7 years • boys: 19.4 years • III. Household: only male heads • IV. Widowhood: a female affair • V. Division of labor

  34. Gender and ‘earthly names’ among the ordinary (rural) Nahua at contact: “a linguistic thicket” • Names provide a compendium of the history of a civilization--Tibon. • Why are the names of ordinary Nahuas excluded from history? • What do gender differences in names suggest about relations between the sexes?

  35. “Ordinary women…we don’t even know their names.”--Blanco, 1991The Nahua Naming Ceremony

  36. The Midwife Bathes the Newborn Babe “And all during the time that she bathed the baby, a pine torch stood burning. It was not extinguished.” “And then they there gave him a name, they there gave him his earthly name.”

  37. boys girls Earthly Names Ceremony differs by gender Boys waitingto snatch the umbilical cord offering and eat it. Strict division by gender from birth.

  38. And as she washed it all over, its hands, its feet, she gave a talk to all... Its hands, it was said, she cleaned of thievery. Everywhere on its body, its groin, it was said, she cleaned it of vice.

  39. The naming ceremony began at sunrise… and concluded with a banquet Then she raised it as an offering in the four directions; then she lifted it up, she raised it as an offering to the heavens.

  40. From classic texts, elite male names: few female names, fewer names of ordinary people • Sahagun’s General History, “Persons and Deities”: 436 names, but very few are female names. • Tax records reveal names of ordinary people, including females: few share names with deities (of 661 names in tribute lists only 47 occur in Sahagun’s General History).

  41. Females Teyacapan 315 (First one) Tlaco 182(Middle one) Teicuh 182(Second one) Necahual 151(Quiet one) Males Yaotl 74(Rival/Enemy) Matlalihuitl 63(Rich Feather) Nochhuetl 52(Ideal Bean) Coatl 48(Serpent) 4 most common names for each sex. What are the differences? 1201 females 87 unique names 1303 males 574 unique names

  42. Females Xoco 53 (The Last one) Centehua 42(One’s Woman) Xocoyotl 38(Youngest one) Tlacoehua 22(Second daughter) Cihuaton 15(Littlest female) Tepin 15(Elder Sister) Males Tototl 19(Bird) Quauhtli 18(Eagle) Tochtli 17(Rabbit) Zolin 16(Quail) Matlal 12(Indigo Plant) Xochitl 12(Flower) Common names 6th-10th most frequent by sex

  43. Frequency of Common Female Names

  44. Common Male NamesNote low frequency of most names

  45. Inequality of marital condition:fewer never married females, more widowers, concubines, etc.

  46. 4. Widowhood is a female conditionwidowers quickly remarry; widows do not (cannot?)

  47. Household composition • Brothers of heads: of 135 coresiding, 98 were married and 2 recently widowed.90 older brothers were heads; 8 younger. • 26 mothers lived in households headed by sons; 40 mothers….by sons-in-law • 1/5 of residents were related to the head through marriage (affinal kin tie).

  48. Conclusions • 1. Nahua households were large (ave. = 8) and complex (75% contained two or more conjugal families) • 2. Mortality, rather than braking, accelerated the formation of complexfamilies. • 3. social constraints were of greater importance than mortality: Nahua offspring formed new households after the birth of a child, not simply with marriage.

  49. Conclusions, social flexibility: • 1. Marriage norms and family forms are social constructions and are highly plastic, even in ancient Mexico. • 2. Marriage age (including informal unions) has increased greatly over the centuries, from as little as 13 years in rural “Morelos” five centuries ago to as much as 22 years by 1930, and 24 by 1990. • 3. Likewise, complex families have declined from 75% to 15% in 1930, and 6% in 1990.

More Related