The Aztecs

by Michael E Smith

  Reading a Ritual Codex

  Priests used ritual codices for divination and to keep track of lucky and unlucky days in a type of astrology. The most common theme in these codices is the tonalpohualli, the 260-day ritual calendar. The operation of this calendar is explained in chapter 11; here we only need to know that the calendar was divided into 20 groups of 13 days called by the Spanish term trecenas, and that the days of a trecena shared a patron god and various symbolic associations. The trecena in figure 1.7 is called 1 jaguar, after the first day name in the sequence of 13 days (lower right). The 13 days of this trecena are listed across the bottom and up the left side.

  On the right of the main panel the god Quetzalcoatl sits on a throne; he is the patron of the trecena 1 jaguar. A supplicant offers weapons and a bowl of precious objects (such as feathers) to the god. A sun disk half obscured by the starry night sky suggests dusk or nightfall. In the center is a temple with a ball of rubber before it. The identification of these elements and their meanings are not certain; no Aztec priest ever revealed his or her secrets to a Spanish or native chronicler. The meanings of these items have been reconstructed by scholars using myths and other pictorial and written accounts. According to Eduard Seler, the foremost interpreter of the Codex Borgia, these elements all relate to myths about Quetzalcoatl, who ruled over the 13 days of the trecena 1 jaguar.14

  Friar Sahagún produced several distinct, yet overlapping, written accounts of Aztec culture. The most informative, today called the Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, is a lengthy chronicle written in Nahuatl. Although Sahagún made a hasty Spanish translation of the manuscript, the original Nahuatl version is more complete. It was written in 12 books, some of the titles of which are as follows: The Gods, The Ceremonies, Rhetoric and Moral Philosophy, Kings and Lords, The People, and Earthly Things. Each book was accompanied by numerous drawings illustrating major points. The Florentine Codex has been translated into English and published in a bilingual (Nahuatl and English) edition. The work of Bernardino de Sahagún stands as the most detailed and systematic first-hand account of Aztec culture. I make numerous references to Sahagún's writings in the pages that follow, and many of his illustrations are reproduced in this book.16

  Alva Ixtlilxochitl and Chimalpahin. These two chroniclers, descendants of Aztec nobles and kings, recorded historical accounts of their native towns.17 Fernando de Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1578–1650) was a mestizo (a person of mixed native and Spanish origins) whose ancestors were kings of Texcoco (his namesake Ixtlilxochitl ruled from 1409 to 1418). He was educated at Sahagún's Colegio de Santa Cruz and wrote his first chronicle, in Spanish, in 1600. His description of the expansion of the Triple Alliance (Aztec) Empire provides a non-Mexica point of view of the empire's history to balance the better-known Mexica versions, and gives scholars insight into the nature of Aztec native historical accounts.

  Domingo de San Antón Muñón Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin (1579–1660) was a descendant of a minor branch of the nobility of Amecameca, a city-state in the southeast corner of the Valley of Mexico that was subject to Chalco. He was a caretaker at a Christian church and was in contact with Alva Ixtlilxochitl and other native historians of the early seventeenth century. Chimalpahin wrote several histories of Chalco and Amecameca, in Nahuatl, that cover events from the time of the Toltecs until 1612. These documents are valuable for their historical chronicle of these areas and for their portrayal of the Aztec view of histories and settlements.

  Durán, Sahagún, Alva Ixtlilxochitl, and Chimalpahin were only four of the many sixteenth-century chroniclers. Other notable examples are the Spanish friars Acosta, Motolinía, and Torquemada; the Aztec noble Alvarado Tezozomoc; and the Spanish administrator Zorita. Taken as a group, the works of the chroniclers are our single most extensive source of information on the Aztecs. Recently, however, ethnohistorians have begun to recognize some serious drawbacks to these accounts. First, the chroniclers describe overwhelmingly the lives and activities of lords and nobles with scant attention to the commoners. Second, most of their descriptions are very generalized and written as if they apply to all parts of the Aztec realm, whereas we now realize that there was considerable variation between regions in customs, beliefs, and social conditions. For example, the chroniclers described Aztec cities as huge, complex urban centers, using the imperial capitals Tenochtitlan and Texcoco as their models. Yet recent research on other Aztec cities shows them to be far smaller and simpler than the imperial capitals. Just how widely can we generalize descriptions of the Mexica of Tenochtitlan to other Aztec peoples and places? Another problem is that the Colonial-period Nahuas sometimes deliberately deceived the Spanish chroniclers to achieve particular objectives, so some of the information in the chronicles is incorrect.18 There is a growing recognition that the work of the chroniclers is of limited relevance for many Aztec peoples and areas, and this sentiment has led to an increased use of the fourth type of ethnohistoric document.

  Colonial-period Administrative Documents

  Once the conquest of the Aztecs was completed in 1521, central Mexico became a province of the Spanish Empire called New Spain. The Spaniards ran their empire in a highly bureaucratic fashion, and countless written reports were produced on topics ranging from fruit trees to Aztec land tenure to strategies for converting the natives to Christianity. These documents were stored in archives in Mexico and Spain, where many still remain for scholars to study. Fortunately, a large number of the most informative examples have been transcribed and published, and some have been translated into English.

  Documents on the civic administration of New Spain are numerous. Wills, deeds, baptismal and death records all provide information on household and family organization. Many of the most informative records are those written by Nahuas in Nahuatl, using the Spanish alphabet. The Nahuas quickly learned to use the Spanish legal system, and lawsuits with extensive written documentation proliferated. These suits often involved detailed information-gathering actions, and the results are a treasure trove of useful information on local conditions in many areas of central Mexico soon after the Spanish Conquest.19

  The most systematic attempt at gathering information on New Spain and the other Spanish provinces was a questionnaire prepared by the crown in 1577 and sent to all colonial administrators. Fifty questions were included on a variety of topics, from the ancient customs of the area to the natural environment and resources to the Spanish occupants. The often lengthy replies to this questionnaire, called Relaciones Geográficas, fill nine books today and furnish detailed pictures of several hundred Aztec towns in the years 1579 to 1581.20

  Excerpts from the Relación Geográfica from Huaxtepec, a town in the modern state of Morelos, give an idea of the information to be found in these documents. The reply was submitted on September 24, 1580, by Juan Gutiérrez de Liébana, mayor of Huaxtepec and other towns.

  Question 14: To whom were they subject when they were heathens; what power did their rulers have over them; what did they pay in tribute; what forms of worship, rites, and good or evil customs did they have?

  Reply: They say that in this town, although they recognized Montezuma the Elder and his successors as king, they did not pay tribute beyond participation in his campaigns . . . They had another local lord whom they obeyed and recognized as king . . . called Tultecatl tecuhtli. When the king would go out of his house, no one dared look at him except those who accompanied him . . . For affairs of state, they had two officials like judges who ascertained and verified what had to happen when crimes occurred . . . And they say that they had only one idol in the town's public market, called Ichpuchtli Quilaztle . . . to this idol, every 20 days they sacrificed a child, the offspring of slaves they had captured in war.21

  In addition to the written replies, many of the Relaciones are accompanied by maps of the towns and their dependent villages (see chapter 7). Unfortunately, not all Aztec towns are covered by these reports, and some examples that were submitted have since b
een lost. For towns that do have a surviving report, it is one of the first places ethnohistorians turn for information on local conditions.

  Archaeology

  The contributions of archaeologists to Aztec studies are quite recent. For decades archaeologists bypassed Aztec sites on their way to the spectacular jungle ruins of Classic Maya civilization. A few surviving Aztec pyramids at sites such as Tenayuca (in Mexico City) and Teopanzolco (in Cuernavaca, Morelos) were excavated and restored (see chapter 2), but most Aztec sites had little to offer fieldworkers whose focus was on the great monuments of ancient civilizations. In the late 1970s, when the ideas of social archaeology began to bring a more scientific approach to the discipline, archaeologists took another look at the potential of Aztec sites.

  Today archaeologists design their fieldwork with clear research problems in mind. Previously, many archaeologists who followed the “monumental archaeology” approach would select a site simply because it had large mounds or was conveniently located; they would then excavate it to see what turned up. Sometimes the results were spectacular; sometimes they were meager. Now, we focus on a particular problem and use that to structure the research. We select which sites to study and what methods to use in order to answer specific questions about the past. This change makes fieldwork much more efficient and productive. When this approach is coupled with the latest technical advances in dating methods, fieldwork, and artifact analysis, it allows archaeologists to reconstruct many aspects of Aztec society in great detail. A number of examples of projects that follow the problem-oriented social archaeology approach are discussed in the chapters that follow. Here I review the different fieldwork methods that have contributed to our knowledge of Aztec society.

  Regional Survey

  The goal of regional survey is to locate archaeological sites across the landscape. A team of archaeologists walks over the entire surface of an area, using maps and aerial photographs to plot the locations of sites and features. This method is particularly useful in arid and semiarid environments, such as most of central Mexico, where the surface of the ground can easily be seen. Most of rural central Mexico has been plowed for many years. Although plowing destroys the upper portion of archaeological sites, it also brings buried artifacts to the surface where the survey crew can find them. The team members spread out in a line and walk forward with their “nose to the ground.” Sites are identified by either the presence of mounds (usually the ruins of temples or residences) or more commonly by a scatter of potsherds, obsidian tools, and other artifacts (figure 1.8).

  Figure 1.8 A rural Aztec site. The low mound was once an Aztec house or other structure. This site in the Teotihuacan Valley, called TA-27, was discovered in 1957 by a regional survey project directed by William T. Sanders (Evans and Sanders 2000:188)

  Once a site is found, the survey crew measures its size, makes a map, and takes one or more collections of artifacts from the ground surface. Any visible architecture is photographed and/or drawn (figure 1.9). Regional surveys provide information on the number and size of sites in each temporal period and the locations of sites in relation to the natural landscape and to each other. These data are then analyzed to produce population estimates and reconstructions of settlement patterns for each period.

  Figure 1.9 A small temple platform at the site TA-8 in the Teotihuacan Valley. This structure was built of small stones and covered with white lime plaster. It was discovered by a regional survey project directed by William T. Sanders (Evans and Sanders 2000:115)

  The use of regional survey in highland Mesoamerica was pioneered by William T. Sanders in the Teotihuacan subvalley of the Valley of Mexico in the 1960s. As part of this research, Sanders located many Aztec sites, and he used ethnohistoric sources to interpret Aztec settlement patterns. His methods of regional survey were then applied to other parts of the Valley of Mexico by Jeffrey R. Parsons, Richard E. Blanton, and in later fieldwork by Sanders himself. By 1975, several thousand square kilometers had been surveyed, resulting in the identification of nearly four thousand archaeological sites.22 A major discovery of these projects was a population explosion that took place during the Late Aztec period. The implications of this growth are discussed in chapters 2 and 3.

  Intensive Site Surface Studies

  At many sites, artifacts are numerous on the surface of the ground, or the foundations of houses and temples may still be visible. Aztec sites are often not deeply buried. In these cases, the mapping of structures and features and the systematic collection of surface artifacts allow archaeologists to reconstruct the ancient activities and lifeways at a site. The surface collections taken during regional survey are usually inadequate for this purpose. Intensive site surface studies typically take hundreds or even thousands of separate artifact collections for thorough coverage of the site (figure 1.10).

  Figure 1.10 Archaeologists collecting surface artifacts from a 2 × 2 m square in a cornfield at the Aztec city of Yautepec (photograph by Michael E. Smith)

  Intensive site surface research at Aztec sites was pioneered by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel at the city-state center of Huexotla. Brumfiel took 1,243 artifact collections from the surface of the site and studied changing patterns of resource use, commerce, and craft production between the Early Aztec (AD 1150–1350) and Late Aztec periods (1350–1520). She later applied this method to the sites of Xico and Xaltocan, and I used a similar approach at Calixtlahuaca (see chapter 8). The most spectacular results from intensive site surface research come from the city-state center of Otumba. Thomas H. Charlton, Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton took 1,150 artifact collections that documented extensive craft production activity, including the manufacture of obsidian tools, pottery figurines and incense burners, textiles, and several types of jewelry. This unexpectedly high degree of craft specialization has changed our views of Aztec urbanism and economics; the Otumba research is discussed in more detail in chapter 4.23

  Excavation

  Beginning with the uncovering of the Templo Mayor in 1978, excavations at Aztec sites have added tremendously to our knowledge of Aztec culture. The Mexican government project at the Templo Mayor, directed by Eduardo Matos Moctezuma, has produced the most dramatic results. Beyond documenting the history of building and rebuilding of the central temple of Tenochtitlan, these excavations have yielded new information on imperial rituals, taxes from distant lands, and the cosmic symbolism of the Aztec Empire (see chapter 10).

  Outside of the Templo Mayor project, three types of excavations have been done at Aztec sites: (1) excavations of monumental architecture at major urban centers, (2) large-scale exposure of houses and domestic contexts, and (3) small, problem-oriented test-pit operations. The monumental archaeology approach has been applied to Aztec urban sites since the 1920s, when major excavations were undertaken at Tenayuca in Mexico City and Teopanzolco in Morelos (see chapter 2). Urban architecture has also been studied at Tlatelolco and Santa Cecelia in Mexico and at provincial sites like Malinalco, Calixtlahuaca, Coatetelco, and Yautepec.24

  House excavations are crucial for the reconstruction of Aztec economic and social patterns (figure 1.11). Except in the largest cities, houses were widely scattered and people simply threw their trash out back. By excavating these trash middens, we can learn of domestic activities and living conditions of individual Aztec households. Susan T. Evans excavated several houses at the rural village of Cihuatecpan in the Teotihuacan Valley, and I have dug houses at a village (Capilco), a town (Cuexcomate), and two cities (Yautepec and Calixtlahuaca) in provincial areas. Hortensia de Vega Nova excavated part of an Aztec royal palace in Yautepec, and more recently Elizabeth Brumfiel and her students have excavated a number of houses at Xaltocan in the northern Valley of Mexico.25

  Figure 1.11 Excavation of an elite residence at the Aztec city of Yautepec. The flat, white surfaces are lime plaster floors. This ruin is in a schoolyard today; the modern basketball courts are visible in the background (photograph by Michael E. Smith)

  A number
of projects have used test excavations to investigate specific issues at Aztec sites. For example, Jeffrey R. Parsons and colleagues tested the chinampa agricultural fields in the southern Valley of Mexico to learn how and when these features were constructed. At Otumba, Charlton, Nichols, and Otis Charlton followed up their intensive surface collections at craft workshops with test excavations to better document economic activities at the site. Similarly, Mary G. Hodge excavated test pits in Chalco to investigate economic and social changes. At Yautepec, I used test excavations to look for buried houses (some were successful, some not), to see whether early Spanish churches were built on top of Aztec temples (they were not), and to look (unsuccessfully) for evidence of Aztec irrigation canals.26

  Analysis and Interpretation

  Artifacts do not speak to us directly. They must be analyzed, and the results must be interpreted. This is the tedious side of archaeology. It is fun and exciting to excavate sites, but then we are faced with the long task of classifying, studying, and describing the artifacts and architecture. The fruits of five months of excavation at Cuexcomate and Capilco (nearly half a million artifacts, mostly potsherds) required my wife and me to spend four years in the laboratory studying artifacts plus several additional years of computer analysis and write-up.