2. The Inca of South America, contemporaries of the Aztecs, are an example of a civilization where trade and exchange were heavily controlled by the central imperial state. Production and exchange were managed by state bureaucrats, and marketplaces only existed on the fringes of the Inca Empire. See D'Altroy (1992) or the chapters in D'Altroy and Hastorf (2001).
3. Cortés (1986:103–105). For other first-hand descriptions of the Tlatelolco market, see Díaz del Castillo (1963:232–234), Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.8:67–69), and Torquemada (1975–1983:v.4:348–352).
4. Torquemada (1975–1983:v.4:345). Anderson et al. (1976:138–149) publish documents describing the Coyoacan market.
5. Durán (1971:278). Durán (1971:277–279) also describes the Cholula market. See Berdan (1985:346–349) for a discussion of specialized markets in general.
6. Carol A. Smith (1974) describes complex interlocking market systems. Recent analyses of artifact sourcing in the Valley of Mexico have greatly expanded our understanding of how this market system worked (Garraty 2007; Minc 2006, 2009).
7. The friar Motolinía (1950:59) describes the specifics of the market schedules. Most ethnohistoric descriptions of markets pertain to the Valley of Mexico, but available evidence suggests that markets and market systems were similar throughout Aztec central Mexico. Areas outside the valley like Morelos also had markets in most cities, towns, and villages; market hierarchies; and periodic schedules with merchants traveling among markets (Smith 2010a).
8. Durán (1971:274–275).
9. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.9:31).
10. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.9:17).
11. The reliance of Mesoamerican commerce on human carriers, made necessary by the lack of draft animals and wheeled transport, placed severe constraints on the nature of goods that could be traded over long distances. The human carriers could only carry limited loads over modest daily distances, and they had to be fed along the way. Although wealthy nobles could finance the transport of any type of good over just about any distance, merchants were limited to high-value, low-bulk goods if they were to profit from their ventures. See discussions of the economic and social conditions of Mesoamerican transport systems in Drennan (1994) and Sluyter (1993).
12. Durán (1971:138). Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.9:1–19) lists the goods sold by the pochteca.
13. Olivier (1999) discusses Aztec merchant gods.
14. Berdan (1988:645–646).
15. Aztec money resembled ancient currencies in other parts of the world in that it conformed to two of the three main characteristics of modern money. (1) Cacao and textiles served as a store of value in that they could be saved for use at a later occasion. (2) They functioned as media of exchange in that they could be exchanged for a variety of other goods and services. (3) The third trait of modern money – that it is universally exchangeable for all goods and services – was not present in the Aztec currencies. One could buy food, household items, or jewelry in the market with cacao and textiles, but land could not be purchased with Aztec money, and the use of money to pay for labor services was quite limited. Einzig (1966) discusses various types of nonwestern currency, and Grierson (1977) and Powell (1996) are good introductions to ancient money in the Old World. Rojas (1998) is the best treatment of Aztec money.
16. Coe and Coe (1996) is the best general treatment of cacao, including its cultivation, its use as currency and as a beverage, and its symbolism and significance in Aztec and Maya cultures. See also Bergmann (1969) and McNeil (2006).
17. Anderson et al. (1976:208–213). Rojas (1986:261; 1998) provides additional information on prices and equivalents.
18. Molina (1972:f.37r), translated by Dibble (1988:72).
19. These more limited Postclassic currencies are discussed in the chapters of Smith and Berdan (2003). The T-shaped bronze “axe-monies” that were common in west Mexico are a fascinating form of currency. These were imitation axes manufactured in standard shapes and sizes but so thin that they could not possibly have been used for cutting. Groups of 20 or more were bundled together and tied with cord. See Hosler et al. (1990).
20. Most of the analytical techniques require expensive, specialized equipment, and the analyses can be quite costly. Only a few studies have been published on Aztec and Late Postclassic obsidian exchange (Neff et al. 2000; Pollard and Vogel 1994; Smith et al. 2007), but this is currently an active focus of research at many sites.
21. Braswell (2003b) reviews evidence for the sources of obsidian found at Aztec and other Postclassic sites in Mesoamerica. The numerical dominance of Pachuca obsidian is found at most sites within the Aztec Empire that have information on obsidian sources. My recent excavations at Calixtlahuaca, however, have a much lower percentage of Pachuca obsidian than most sites (Andrews 2010). We have not yet carried out planned chemical analyses, though. One interesting finding of our sourcing research at Yautepec is that while material form Pachuca comprises about 90 percent of the obsidian in all excavated contexts, every house had gray (non-Pachuca) obsidian from three or more different geological sources (Smith et al. 2007).
22. The chemical analyses on Aztec III black-on-orange ceramics was done by Mary Hodge, Leah Minc, Hector Neff, and James Blackman; see Hodge and Minc (1990) and Hodge et al. (1993). Christopher Garraty (2006) analyzed plainware ceramics, and Leah Minc has analyzed a variety of ceramic types. Recent synthetic analyses of the Valley of Mexico marketing system, based on ceramic compositional research, include Garraty (2007), Minc (2006, 2009), and Nichols et al. (2009).
23. Díaz del Castillo (1963:226). Hernández Sánchez (2005) is the best discussion of Cholula polylchrome ceramics; see also the chapters in Nicholson and Quiñones Keber (1994).
24. The Valley of Mexico salt industry is discussed by De León (2009), Parsons (1994), and Sanders et al. (1979:171–175).
25. Recent excavations at Calixtlahuaca show a different pattern. We did recover sherds from Valley of Mexico salt basins, but they are much rarer than at sites in Morelos and the Valley of Mexico. There are a number of pre-Hispanic saltworks not far from Calixtlahuaca (Hernández Rivero 1995), and this may explain the rarity of the Valley of Mexico sherds at the site. Other Valley of Mexico imports, such as the Aztec III black-on-orange pottery type, are also less common at Calixtlahuaca than at Yautepec and other sites in Morelos.
26. Arjun Appadurai (1986) provides a good introduction to conceptual issues related to commodities and luxury goods. I apply these concepts to Aztec-period exchange goods in Smith (2003a). Starting with an influential paper by Hirth (1998) archaeologists now use the distribution of commodities among households to infer the nature of ancient exchange processes, including markets, gift-giving, and government redistribution (Garraty and Stark 2010).
27. Molina (1972:f.39v, 36v), translated by Dibble (1988:73, 71).
28. The distinction between a capitalist economy and a precapitalist commercialized economy – such as the Aztec, Roman, or ancient Assyrian economies – is not always recognized. The influential economic historian Karl Polanyi never fully grasped this distinction and devoted considerable effort to trying unsuccessfully to demonstrate the lack of commercial institutions in ancient societies (Polanyi et al. 1957); for discussion see Smith (2004). An article I published on the Aztec Empire in the magazine Scientific American (Smith 1997a) was criticized by The People – newspaper of the Socialist Labor Party – for attributing capitalist institutions and behavior to ancient peoples. In fact, they compared my account of the Aztecs to the cartoon The Flintstones! In a reply to their article, I responded that although the Aztec economy was a commercial economy, it was not a capitalist economy (largely because land and labor were not commodities).
6 Family and Social Class
1. By social class, I mean a category of people who stand in a similar relationship with respect to the basic resources of society. Among the Aztecs, nobles controlled most of the resources, particularly land and labor, and commoners had to work for nobles and pay them rent. Some definitions of social class
require the members to be conscious of their class membership and allegiance to one another (e.g., Mann 1986); from such a perspective, Aztec nobles constituted a class, whereas commoners did not.
2. See the Codex Mendoza (1992). Modern discussion of the Aztec life cycle may be found in Berdan (2005), Clendinnen (1991a), and Soustelle (1961:163–202). Rosemary Joyce (2000:144–165) presents an insightful analysis of the production of gender identity through specific rituals during childhood.
3. Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:118).
4. Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:120).
5. Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:122).
6. These quotations are from the Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:123, 122, and 124).
7. Information on these schools is found in the Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:126–135, v.3:f.60v–65r), Durán (1971:289–295), and Sahagún (1950–1982:bks.3, 8). The best modern study is Calnek (1988).
8. Durán (1971:293).
9. Weddings and their preparations are described in Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.8:127–130). McCaa (1994, 1996) discusses the young age at which girls married.
10. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.8:130).
11. Codex Mendoza (1992:v.4:126).
12. Although some scholars have argued that women were dominated and severely exploited by men and by the state in Aztec society (e.g., Nash 1978), the predominant view today emphasizes the complementary nature of male and female roles in Aztec society. See Brumfiel (1991), Burkhart (1997), Dodds Pennock (2008), Joyce (2000), and Wood (2008).
13. For the role of women in Aztec domestic ritual see Smith (2002).
14. For disussions of Aztec social classes, see Hicks (1996), Lockhart (1992), Olko (2005), and Smith (1986).
15. These payments are typically called “tribute,” both in the ethnohistorical sources and by modern scholars. Technically, however, they correspond to “taxes.” I discuss this further in chapter 7; see also Smith (forthcoming b).
16. Preliminary data on these issues are assembled by Berdan (1987), Hicks (1994) and Smith (forthcoming b).
17. The most important discussions of the calpolli are Reyes García (1996) and Lockhart (1992); see also Hicks (1986). Smith and Novic (forthcoming) analyze the calpolli as an urban neighborhood. Many older works present an outdated view of the calpolli as an egalitarian body of commoners that owned its own land; Offner (1983:163–175) reviews debates over this and related issues. I am using the term “ward” for the subdivision of a calpolli sometimes called tlaxilacalli or chinamitl in the sources.
18. Lockhart (1992:154).
19. Lockhart (1992) is the best source on the teccalli, and on differences in social organization between the eastern and western Nahua areas. Chance (2000) provides a more recent interpretation of the eastern Nahua teccalli.
20. This discussion is based upon our excavations at Cuexcomate and Capilco. We used written documents from other settlements in Morelos to interpret aspects of social organization at these sites; see Smith (1992, 1993) and Smith and Heath-Smith (1994). Other descriptions of Aztec village life may be found in Brumfiel (1991) and Evans (1993).
21. Aztec kinship and household organization are discussed by Kellogg (1995), Lockhart (1992:59–93), and McCaa (2003). The Aztec kinship system was of the bilateral type, meaning that individuals traced descent through both the maternal and paternal lines.
22. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.6:35–36). The Nahuatl term for potsherd, tapalcatl, is still used in central Mexico today (as tepalcate), even among Spanish speakers.
23. This argument is developed in Smith and Heath-Smith (1994). We used domestic artifact inventories to define quantitative measures of the standard of living at each excavated house (see also Olson 2001).
24. Fieldwork at Yautepec is described in greater detail in chapter 8; see Smith et al. (1994, 1999).
25. See below and chapter 8 for discussion of Calixtlahuaca. The Xaltocan project is directed by Elizabeth Brumfiel, Kristin De Lucia, Christopher Morehart, Lisa Overholtzer, and Enrique Roderígue-Alegría. Lisa Overholtzer excavated the house shown in figure 6.6, and Elizabeth Brumfiel excavated the burial in figure 6.7. Information about this important ongoing project can be found in Brumfiel (2000, 2005), Morehart and Eisenberg (2010), and De Lucia (2010).
26. My view of the initial emergence of a new middle class parallels that of Sanders (1992). Like Sanders, I see the Aztecs as unique in ancient Mesoamerica in this respect; the Classic Maya and other Mesoamerican societies are best viewed as having two social classes. Hicks (1999) also argues for an Aztec middle class, but he bases his interpretation on the strange (and incorrect) notion that all state-level societies must by definition have three classes.
27. There is no systematic comparative analysis of known Aztec palaces. Susan T. Evans has assembled information from ethnohistoric sources (Evans 2001, 2004) and described a small palace from Cihuatecpan (Evans 1988).
28. Excavation of this palace is described in Smith (1992).
29. This census, which dates to the 1530s, is published in Nahuatl and German in Hinz et al. (1983); much of the pertinent information is summarized by P. Carrasco (1972, 1976). The census quoted at the start of this chapter is a related document from another town (S. L. Cline 1993); see also McCaa (1996, 2003).
30. Many modern works on the Aztecs state that nobles were exempt from taxes. This incorrect interpretation comes from an uncritical reading of early written sources. After the Spanish Conquest, many Aztec nobles managed to convince the Spaniards (including many of the chroniclers) that they had not paid any taxes in ancient times and therefore should not have to pay taxes to the Spanish crown. This misrepresentation is exposed by Lockhart (1992:106), who notes that “lords and nobles paid tribute to the altepetl [city-state] as a matter of course.”
31. José García Payón's excavations are described in several works: García Payón (1974, 1979, 1981). My excavations are not yet published; see Smith et al. (2009 and forthcoming). The sculptures and reliefs are being studied by Emily Umberger (2007).
32. Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975–1977:v.2:92–100). My description is based on this source; see also Hicks (1984). Douglas (2010) is an important recent analysis of manuscript painting in Nezahualcoyotl's palace.
33. Alcocer (1935); Calnek (1976). Unlike Tenochtitlan, Texcoco did not have a shortage of land, so Nezahualcoyotl's palace may have been larger than Motecuhzoma's. The large size of Alva Ixtlilxochitl's estimate for the compound (84 ha) suggests that he may have been describing the entire downtown area of Texcoco, including the palace area, central plaza, temples, and market, and not just the palace compound itself.
34. On Texcotzinco, see Evans (2000) and Medina Jaen (1997). Agricultural terraces at Texcotzinco are shown in figure 3.4.
35. The data on palaces sizes are from Smith (2008a:117); I describe Aztec palaces at greater length on pp. 115–119 of that work.
36. The themes of Aztec political ideology that I list are taken from Hicks (1996), an excellent study of the subject. Other important studies of Aztec ideology include León-Portilla (1963) and López Austin (1988).
37. Social connections within the Aztec noble class are discussed by P. Carrasco (1984), Olko (2005), and Smith (1986; 2008a:passim).
38. Aztec feasting is discussed by Pohl (1998) and Smith et al. (2003).
39. Durán (1994:331).
7 City-State and Empire
1. Aztec city-states are discussed by Hodge (1984, 1997), Lockhart (1992), and Smith (2000, 2008a). Wright Carr (2008) presents insightful comparisons of Aztec polities and social organization with those of central Mexican Otomi peoples.
2. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.10:15). For the concept of tlatoani, see Graulich (1998a) and the essays in McEwan and López Luján (2009).
3. Zorita (1963:126).
4. Levi (1988) is probably the most relevant work in collective action theory; other important studies for understanding ancient states include Little (1988) and Ostrom (2007). In their application of this approach to premodern states, Richard Blanton a
nd Lane Fargher (2008) break new ground in how we understand ancient systems of government. While Blanton and Fargher focus on Mexica government in Tenochtitlan, most of the features they discuss (e.g., judges, public goods, the royal council) pertain to the other Aztec city-states as well. I apply collective action theory to city-state capitals in Smith (2008a:ch.8).
5. Following traditional usage in Aztec studies, in earlier editions of this book I used the term “tribute” for all sorts of diverse payments. I have recently completed the first systematic analysis of Aztec taxation (Smith, forthcoming b), where I provide many details and a fuller justification for changing our terminology from tribute to taxes: see ch. 7, note 30, on the erroneous idea that Aztec nobles were exempt from taxation. For definitions of taxes and tribute, see Tarschys (1988).
6. Examples include Berdan et al. (1996), Hodge (1984, 1994), and Nichols (2004).
7. Gibson (1964) first pointed out the interspersed subjects of Tepexpan and other city-states in the Teotihuacan Valley. I discuss the ruler-oriented nature of Aztec political organization in Smith (2008a:72–73); see also Tomaszewski and Smith (2011). This perspective differs from the views of Lockhart, which are based on a western, territorial model of political organization. This kind of ruler-centered political organization seems to have characterized other Mesoamerican regions (Grube 2000; Martin and Grube 2000). The Relaciones Geográficas are published in Acuña (1984–1988).
8. Examples of political geography include D. Carrasco (1999), García Castro (1999), Gerhard (1993), and Tomaszewski and Smith (2011). For Hodge's research, see Hodge (1984, 1994, 1997).
9. Comparative city-states are analyzed in Hansen (2000).
10. Durán (1994:406). See discussion of Ahuitzotl's funeral in chapter 2.
11. Hassig (1988) provides the most complete account of Aztec warfare; other useful works include Bueno Bravo (2007), Isaac (1983b), and Pohl (2001). The ideology and iconography of Aztec warfare are discussed by D. Carrasco (1999). Clendinnen (1991a) discusses the effects of warfare on Aztec society and culture.
The Aztecs Page 35
