Part of the palace compound was a religious sector with over 40 temples and other structures, among them a tall twin-temple pyramid dedicated to the deities Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, a round pyramid for Quetzalcoatl, sacrificial stones, priests' residences, and a special calmecac for the education of royal youth. In all there were over 300 rooms in the palace compound. This was the central administrative center of the Acolhua domain where much of the business of state was carried out. The city of Texcoco covered about 4.5 sq km, and the palace compound occupied much of the city center.
Apart from his achievements as king of the second most powerful state in the Aztec Empire, Nezahualcoyotl was famous as an intellectual, poet, and philosopher. He was an expert architect and builder, who designed the dikes that regulated the waters of Lake Texcoco and kept Tenochtitlan from flooding. Nezahualcoyotl had a number of smaller palaces scattered around his kingdom, the best known of which was Texcotzinco. Here, on a hilltop above Texcoco, he built a center for ritual and relaxation that included a residence, a bath complex, and a botanical garden.34 The canals, aqueducts, and pools at Texcotzinco have delighted visitors from Aztec times to the present day.
Not surprisingly, the sizes of Aztec palaces matched the power of their residents. The palaces described above are examples of the four major types of Aztec palace. (1) Group 6 at Cuexcomate is the largest known example of the pilli (low-ranking noble) palace type; these average 390 sq m. (2) Only one example of a likely tecuhtli palace has been excavated (El Conde in Mexico City); it covers 2,400 sq m. (3) Three tlatoani palaces can be measured (Yautepec, Calixtlahuaca, and Cuentepec); these average 5,000 sq m in size. (4) In addition to Nezahualcoyotl's palace described above, we know the sizes of three imperial palaces in Tenochtitlan (Motecuhzoma I, Motecuhzoma II and Axayacato); these have an average size of almost 15,000 sq m.35
Relations Among Nobles
All nobles regardless of rank, from lowly pipiltin to the high kings, shared an interest in maintaining and protecting their privileged positions and lifestyles. This gave the nobility a common interest that cut across the political divisions of city-states and the empire. Nobles promoted this common interest in several ways. First, they encouraged the adoption of a set of ideas – an ideology – that justified their privileged position. This ideology, expressed in myths, rituals, and formal orations, consisted of themes such as “human fate is in the hands of the gods,” “everyone has duties to perform,” and “hard work and suffering is the normal condition of humankind.” Thus commoners should accept their lot in life and should not question the position of the nobility. Although this ideology helped nobles maintain control over commoners, it took more than ideas to uphold a very unequal social order.36 The second way that nobles promoted their common interest and maintained their privileged positions was through coercion. City-states and institutions like the calpolli and teccalli were organized in part to maintain the control of commoners by the nobility. Political institutions are discussed in the next chapter.
The third method used by the nobility to pursue their common interests was to develop an extensive network of social, economic and stylistic interaction that promoted a strong sense of group solidarity and accentuated their separation from commoners. Nobles could only marry other nobles, and used marriage alliances to link separate families and dynasties into a single, interlocking kinship network.37 The practice of a low-ranking ruler or noble marrying the daughter of a more powerful ruler was widespread in Mesoamerica, and the Aztec kings used it extensively (see the discussion of the third Mexica tlatoani, Huitzilihuitl, in chapter 2).
The exchange of luxury goods among nobles reinforced their interaction network. Nobles presented their peers with gifts of cloth, feathers, jewelry, and the like on many occasions. A major setting for such gift-giving was the state ceremony. These occasions were held for coronations, funerals, temple dedications, and victory celebrations. Typically the host city invited nobles from all over, including foreign and enemy lords. Large-scale theatrical presentations were staged for commoners and nobles alike, and then the nobles withdrew for more exclusive festivities. At these high-level feasts, the nobles ate and drank together, exchanged gifts, listened to speeches, participated in dances, and generally enjoyed themselves away from the eyes of the commoners.38 The consumption of cacao, from cups like the one shown in figure 6.11, was a common part of these feasts. The bonds forged and maintained among the nobles were so strong that they crossed political borders and even bound enemy nobles together. Tlacaelel, adviser to the Mexica kings, articulated this principle in a speech reported by Friar Durán:
It seems to me that it would not be unreasonable to invite them again [nobles and rulers of the enemy states of Tlaxcalla and Metztitlan] to this solemn occasion because, even though we are enemies in the wars that we wage, in our festivities we should rejoice together. There is no reason why they should be excluded since we are all one, and in these times it is reasonable that there be a truce and sociable communication among the rulers.39
Figure 6.11 Polished red goblet used to drink cacao (mouth diameter 15 cm). This was recovered in an offering at the site of Coatetelco (photograph by Michael E. Smith)
This “truce and sociable communication among the rulers” was a primary form of diplomacy between politically independent city-states, and reveals the close connections between social class and the state. We now turn to Aztec political organization.
Chapter seven
City-State and Empire
All the different things the ruler attended to:
That cities be destroyed.
War.
Death.
Singing, dancing.
Guarding.
The ball court; the rubber ball.
The market.
The patolli game.
The installing of a ruler.
The installing of lords.
If there is a famine.
If there is a plague.
That payment to the gods be made.
That copal [incense] be offered.
The guarding of the city.
Removing filth from the roads.
Sweeping.
The assembling of the seasoned warriors.
Bernardino de Sahagún, Primeros Memoriales
This list shows the wide range of activities that engaged Aztec kings. From warfare to dancing, from cleaning the city to offering incense, from installing officials to supervising the ballgame; an Aztec king was responsible for almost everything that happened in his kingdom. Aztec kings (tlatoque; sing. tlatoani) ruled city-states, and by the time the Spaniards arrived in 1519, nearly all of these city-states were under the control of the Aztec Empire. Most of the surviving ethnohistoric information about politics and kings comes from Tenochtitlan, the imperial capital, and not surprisingly the available written documents emphasize the power and glory of Tenochtitlan and its empire. Although the empire was certainly a rich and mighty institution, city-states were actually more influential in Aztec life and politics. Most people gave political allegiance to their local city-state, not to the empire, and the city-state formed the social and economic universe within which they lived out their lives. The Aztec Empire was built on a foundation of city-states, and these units retained their identity and many social and political functions even under imperial control.
City-States
Altepetl
Altepetl is the Nahuatl term usually translated as “city-state” or “kingdom.”1 For the Aztecs, an altepetl was a community with laws, boundaries, a central town with surrounding farmland, and a tlatoani or king. There were about 50 of these city-states in the Valley of Mexico in 1519, and the Aztec Empire ruled over an additional 450 subject city-states. Native histories often describe city-states as founded by immigrant peoples, the early Nahuatl migrants from Aztlan or later migrating groups.
The founding of a new altepetl was heralded by the construction of a royal palace, a temple-pyramid, and a market. These three structures bo
th practically and symbolically established the city-state as the pre-eminent political, religious, and economic unit in the lives of its inhabitants. The royal palace was the heart of the city-state. It served not only as the residence of the tlatoani, but also as the center of administrative and social activity. The temple housed the image of a patron god who watched over the nobles and commoners of the altepetl. The size and luxury of the central temple communicated the importance and success of the city-state. When a city-state was conquered in warfare, its defeat was symbolized by a burning temple (see chapter 11). The market provided an economic focus for exchanges that helped bind the city-state together.
The royal palace, temple, and market were normally located near one another and formed the nucleus for a town or small city. The residential areas of the urban center were divided into calpolli, which can be thought of as urban neighborhoods. Labor obligations in the city-state, such as service at the palace or public works projects, rotated among the constituent calpolli. In some respects the altepetl can be considered a calpolli writ large. Sometimes the calpolli were composed of peoples from different ethnic groups, including both Nahuatl speakers (such as Mexica, Acolhua, Chalca, or Tlahuica) and others (such as Otomi, Matlatzinca, or Mixtec). As a result, Aztec city-states were often multiethnic, with political boundaries cutting across ethnic divisions.
The Tlatoani
Friar Sahagún provides us with the Aztec nobles' view of a good tlatoani:
The good ruler (is) a protector; one who carries (his subjects) in his arms, who unites them, who brings them together. He rules, takes responsibilities, assumes burdens. He carries (his subjects) in his cape; he bears them in his arms. He governs; he is obeyed. (To him) as shelter, as refuge, there is recourse.2
Tlatoque were selected by a high council of tetecuhtin nobles, male kin of the deceased ruler. Usually a brother or a son succeeded to the office, but sometimes a nephew or grandson of the previous ruler was chosen (see the genealogy of the Mexica tlatoque in figure 2.9). The council deliberated to find the appropriate successor, who was viewed as the god Tezcatlipoca's selection to the post. Tezcatlipoca, sometimes known as “We his slaves,” was the most powerful Aztec deity. Among the Mexica many tlatoque had been successful war leaders under earlier rulers.
The installation of a new Mexica tlatoani involved a series of elaborate ceremonies and activities – a rite of passage through which the chosen noble was transformed into a being worthy of speaking in the voice of Tezcatlipoca. First, the candidate stood naked before the image of the god Huitzilopochtli to present offerings. He then went into retreat with his tetecuhtin for four days of fasting and penance. Upon emergence, he was required to lead a brief military excursion to gather captives for sacrifice at his installation ceremony. An all-night prayer vigil to Tezcatlipoca preceded the formal installation ceremony. The entire kingdom and tlatoque and nobles from other city-states were invited to witness the pageants, theatrical presentations, dances, musical performances, and human sacrifices that accompanied the ruler's installation. These ceremonies were intended to impress upon the citizens the link between the new king and the god Tezcatlipoca, the supernatural basis for political authority.
Tlatoque were also concerned with the dynastic basis of their authority. Political legitimacy for the Aztec kings was derived from their genealogical connections with the earlier Toltec dynasty of Tula. The Aztec concept for legitimate rulership, tlatocayotl, depended upon this apparent lineage. Each local Aztec city-state dynasty could trace its ancestry back to Tula, although in many cases the genealogies were fictional. When the Mexica, newly settled at Tenochtitlan, wished to establish a tlatocayotl for the first time, their ruler, not yet a tlatoani, married a princess from Culhuacan whose pedigree provided a direct link to the Toltec kings that the subsequent Mexica dynasty would follow.
The tlatoani owned or controlled the land within his city-state, and received tax payments from both his direct commoner subjects and his subordinate lords. He served as the military leader of the polity by organizing campaigns, overseeing the defense of the city-state, and sometimes leading his troops into battle. In addition to being the voice of Tezcatlipoca, the tlatoani sponsored religious celebrations and led many of the state rituals. Finally, as protector of his people, he settled disputes that could not be resolved through the normal process of judicial hearings.
The power and exalted position of the tlatoani led to a luxurious lifestyle. He wore the costliest clothing, ate the most exotic delicacies, had access to the greatest number of servants, aides, and entertainers, and lived in the most sumptuous palace in the kingdom. Many nobles and commoners served in the royal court. In painted manuscripts a king was depicted wearing a pointed crown and seated on an elevated platform (figure 2.11). This platform or throne was covered with one or both of the ancient Mesoamerican symbols of royalty: a reed mat or a jaguar pelt.
The tlatoani was assisted by a council of nobles and a series of lower-ranking bureaucrats. Other lords served as judges to hear suits, and in some city-states there was a group of superior or appeals judges. An early Spanish governor of New Spain, Alonso de Zorita, described Aztec judges as follows:
The Indian judges of whom I spoke would seat themselves at daybreak on their mat dais, and immediately begin to hear pleas. The judges' meals were brought to them at an early hour from the royal palace. After eating, they rested for a while, then returned to hear the remaining suitors, staying until two hours before sundown. Appeals from these judges were heard by twelve superior judges, who passed sentence in consultation with the ruler.3
Altepetl Government: Autocratic or Collective?
Zorita's account of the judges gives us insight into the nature of Aztec government, which departs from some popular views of ancient civilizations. There is a stereotypical model of ancient government in which all-powerful, autocratic god-kings ruled with an iron fist over a powerless and cowering mass of commoners. In the Aztec case, however, the institutions of government gave commoners and nonroyal nobles some level of say and participation in civic affairs. Indeed, the processes of city-state governance can be viewed as a system of negotiation between the king, the nobility, and groups of commoners. The actions of kings were limited by the royal council – nobles who selected kings and on occasion may have deposed bad kings. The judges described by Zorita helped protect the rights of commoners, who received benefits in the form of key services provided by the king. In addition to legal protection, these services included security from attack (not always successful!), economic infrastructure such as irrigation canals, and the temples and ceremonies of public religion.
These observations pertain to a body of thought, originating in political science, known as collective action theory.4 Richard Blanton and Lane Fargher were the first to apply this approach systematically to ancient states and kingdoms, where they find wide variation in the extent to which rulers were responsive to the needs of commoners. The Classical Greek poleis, for example, lies at the more “collective” end of the spectrum, whereas various indigenous African kingdoms are among the more “despotic” or autocratic of states. In Blanton and Fargher's analysis, the Aztecs are closer to the Greek city-states than to the African kingdoms. A key aspect of collective states is an efficient and transparent system of taxation. Whereas autocratic rulers typically demanded payments from their subjects in varying and arbitrary fashion, rulers of more collective states needed a better organized system of taxation that could be accepted as legitimate by the people, and this was the case with Aztec altepetl government.
The Spanish chroniclers used the term tributo (“tribute”) to describe a broad range of political payments in Aztec society. Although scholars writing in English have traditionally translated tributo as “tribute,” this term obscures the nature and significance of payments and the organization of government. In comparative terms, “tribute” refers to a lump-sum payment, usually following a conquest, whereas “taxes” are regular payments with a set schedul
e and specified amounts. In contrast to tribute, taxes are recorded in writing and collected by professional agents. Although the sources do record cases of Aztec tribute (typically immediately after a conquest), most payments traditionally called “tribute” were in fact taxes, with all the major characteristic of taxes in other premodern states.5
The Aztec tax system was quite complex, consisting of a number of distinct types of payment. Imperial taxes are discussed in the section on the Aztec Empire below. At the city-state level, the major tax was a land tax, assessed on the basis of the amount of land worked by a household. Some commoners rented lands from the king, and their rent was another source of royal revenue. Commoners were subject to two types of labor taxes, and vendors in the markets paid a tax. People had to produce food and arms for military campaigns, and young men in the telpochcalli school (chapter 6) paid a special labor tax. Most of these taxes were recorded in documents (figure 7.1). From the royal council to the actions of judges to the system of taxation, many of the institutions of altepetl government gave more consideration to commoners and nonroyal nobles than did governments in more autocratic states.
Figure 7.1 Tax roll from the province of Tlapa. The three columns on the left record the goods paid (gold bars, gold dust, and cotton textiles), the fourth column indicates the payment month (the tax was collected four times a year), and the right column depicts various historical and calendrical events, including the death of a local king and the installation of his successor. Although this document records imperial taxes, city-state taxes were tracked in similar documents (modified after Seler 1904:pl.5)
The Political Landscape
Recently, ethnohistorians and archaeologists have joined forces to reconstruct the Aztec political landscape for the first time.6 This effort to map the boundaries and settlements of Aztec city-states has been facilitated by the new focus on administrative documents as a major source of data. The first step in this procedure is to review the documents from a region to determine which cities or towns had a tlatoani. Then it is often a simple matter to locate these on a map. Aztec Texcoco, Chalco, Otumba, Yautepec, or Calixtlahuaca were located precisely where the modern cities of these names are located today. Some place names were changed. For example, the Spaniards had trouble pronouncing Cuauhnahuac and the city's name became Cuernavaca (“cow horn”). In other cases, towns were moved forcibly by the Spaniards, and some Aztec towns were abandoned completely, which makes it difficult to impossible to locate the original Aztec tlatoani center.
The Aztecs Page 18
