12. Davies (1973:110); this view is echoed by Conrad and Demarest (1984:53) and other authors.
13. Variations in ancient empires are discussed by the chapters in Alcock et al. (2001) and Morris and Scheidel (2009). Hassig (1985) first applied the hegemonic empire model to the Aztecs, and Berdan et al. (1996) refined this approach. My discussion of the Aztec Empire is based primarily upon Berdan et al. (1996) and Smith (2001).
14. Imperial control in the Valley of Mexico is discussed by D. Carrasco (1999), Berdan et al. (1996), and Hodge (1994).
15. The expansion of the empire outside of the Valley of Mexico is covered by Berdan et al. (1996) and Sergheraert (2009).
16. The tax provinces were previously called “tributary provinces” by myself and others (e.g., Berdan et al. 1996), but since they were the basis of taxation, not tribute (see note 5 above) I use the more accurate phrase “tax provinces” in this book. Groups of nearby “client states” were previously called “strategic provinces” (Berdan et al. 1996), but this term is problematic since there is little evidence that these independent polities were organized as provinces.
17. For many years the dominant interpretations of Aztec imperialism stressed the indirect and even loose nature of control of the provinces. More recent archaeological and ethnohistorical research, however, suggests that imperial control of many provincial areas was stronger and more direct than previously assumed. See Ohnersorgen (2006) and Sergheraert (2009) for some of the recent findings.
18. Other unconquered enemy states included Metztitlan to the north of the Valley of Mexico, the Yope state, and Tututepec along the Pacific coast, and various Maya polities south of the empire. See Berdan et al. (1996:ch.6) and Davies (1968). The best source on the Tarascans is Pollard (1993).
19. Acuña (1984–1988:v.6:328); author's translation.
20. The Oztuma fortress is discussed by Armillas (1944) and Silverstein (2001). Other fortresses along the Tarascan frontier are discussed by Hernández Rivero (1994). These sites are isolated and difficult to reach without a local guide.
21. Jay Silverstein (2001) has clarified some of the confusion in the native historical sources concerning the fortress and region of Oztuma. Sources from the Mexica tradition apparently confused the local Chontal fortress at Ixtepec with the newer Aztec fortress at Oztuma. The Mexica sources state that the Chontal people were entirely wiped out in the battle, and this was the reason for sending immigrants to take their place. Local documents from the Oztuma area, however, make it clear that many Chontals survived, and the distinction between the local Chontal and the immigrant Mexica in this region remains important to their descendants even today.
22. The major excavations at Malinalco are described in José García Payón (1947), who first proposed the Eagle Warrior Temple interpretation of Structure 1. R. F. Townsend (1982) interprets the site as a monument to rulership and coronation. José Hernández Rivero (2004) reviews these and all other published views of Structure 1; he favors García Payón's original interpretation. For a description of the site, see Smith (2008a:63–64). Malinalco is a popular tourist destination today; there is a new museum with many interesting objects from the site.
23. The excavations at Quauhtochco are described in Medellín Zeñil (1952). The role of the fortress is discussed in Berdan et al. (1996:142–146). This site, known as Huatusco Viejo, can be visited today.
24. The major publication on Zempoala is Brüggemann (1991). Zempoala was the first major Mesoamerican city visited by the expedition of Cortés, and its armies joined the Spaniards in their expedition to Tlaxcala and Tenochtitlan (see chapter 13). The site is a major tourist attraction today.
25. The most systematic study of these imperial facilities in the outer provinces is Sergheraert (2009). By assembling scattered sources, archaeological and ethnohistorical, on a large number of provincial places, she is able to show that the level of imperial control of provincial areas was stronger than posited by many previous studies (e.g., Berdan et al. 1996).
26. Durán (1994:336). See Smith (1986) for further discussion of this passage and its implications.
27. Tapia (1971), translated by Isaac (1983a:416).
28. Díaz del Castillo (1963:179) reports the Tlaxcallan viewpoint. The flowery war remains a controversial subject. In spite of its obviously propagandistic nature, many modern authors take the Mexica explanation at face value. See discussion by Davies (1987) and Isaac (1983a).
8 Cities and Urban Planning
1. Here I am following an approach to urbanism that has been called “functional” (Fox 1977) or “relational” (Ward 2009). In contrast to the traditional sociological definition of cities as large complex places (Sanders and Price 1968; Wirth 1938), this newer approach focuses on the roles an urban settlement plays within its broader society and hinterland. Applications of this approach to Mesoamerican cities include Marcus (1983) and Smith (2008a).
2. The city described in this fictionalized account is a composite picture of a typical city-state capital drawn from archaeological and ethnohistorical sources on various Aztec towns (Smith 2008a). Very little information survives on the city of Amecameca beyond its size (10,000 inhabitants in an area of 4 sq km) and political status (Hodge 1984).
3. There is no single comprehensive study of ancient Mesoamerican urbanism and urban planning. Good introductions include Marcus (1983) and Sanders and Webster (1988). My discussion of Aztec urban planning is based on Smith (2008a); see also Smith (2008b).
4. The pochteca, for example, lived in their own calpolli, as did many of the luxury artisans described by Sahagún (see chapter 4). The localized distribution of craft workshops at Otumba (see figure 4.13) also suggests calpolli organization (Charlton et al. 1991). Not all cities fit this model; for example, Huexotla does not appear to have had many craft specialists or distinguishable calpolli divisions (Brumfiel 1987). On calpolli as urban neighborhoods, see Smith and Novic (forthcoming).
5. Mesoamerican peoples had a four-directional spatial and symbolic system of cosmology. There is documentary evidence that astronomers and priests observed the rise of the sun between the two temples of the Templo Mayor pyramid in Tenochtitlan, and that the orientation of the temples was established to line up with the direction of sunrise on an important date in the calendar. Beyond this fact, however, there is little evidence that cosmology played a role in the layout or orientation of cities in Mesoamerica. This has not stopped writers from speculating that Maya and Aztec cities were built as “cosmograms,” or models of the universe, an argument I criticize in Smith (2005).
6. The population data in the previous paragraph are from Smith (2008a:152). Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975–1977) describes Texcoco; see Hicks (1982). Santamarina (2006) assembles the scattered documentary information on Azcapotzalco; see also Davies (1973:40–78). Angulo Villaseñor (1976) and Smith (2008a:33–47) describe archaeological work in Cuauhnahuac (modern Cuernavaca).
7. Fieldwork at Coatetelco is described by Arana Alvarez (1984) and Angulo Villaseñor (1984). I describe ceramics from the site in Smith (2011). The site today is an official archaeological zone open to the public; there is a small museum with many of the excavated artifacts.
8. See note 31 to chapter 6 for information on fieldwork at Calixtlahuaca. Ethnohistoric sources relating to the site are reviewed in García Castro (1999), Hernández Rodríguez (1988), and Tomaszewski and Smith (2011). The site is open to the public today. There is a small museum at the site, but most of the finds are at the Museo de Antropología in Toluca.
9. Descriptions of our fieldwork at Yautepec may be found in Smith (2006); see also Smith et al. (1994, 1999). The palace excavations are described in de Vega Nova (1996).
10. We had planned to concentrate our efforts in a large open area just west of the palace (probably an elite residential neighborhood), but between the first and second field seasons this area was the setting for a planned invasion by squatters. Local government officials were unable to evict the squatters, so we c
hanged our tactics and found other places to dig around town. Instead of an intensive study of one part of Yautepec, we ended up with a larger number of smaller excavations distributed more widely throughout the site. I describe our experiences excavating in the midst of this political conflict in Smith (1997b).
11. An early colonial census permits the reconstruction of the population of Yautepec in 1519 at around 15,000 inhabitants (Smith 1994). When this figure is divided by the areal extent of the city – 210 ha – the resulting population density of 71 persons per hectare is not too different from that of Cuexcomate (55 persons per hectare).
12. The reconstruction painting of Tenochtitlan (figure 8.5) gives a fairly accurate idea of the look of the city. At this scale, however, the city would have been about twice as large as depicted in the painting. See figure 8.6 for a more accurate scale.
13. My discussion of Tenochtitlan is based on Calnek (1976, 2003), Rojas (1986), and Sanders (2003). Excavations are described by Chávez Balderas (2007b), López Luján (2006), and Matos Moctezuma (1982, 1988, 2003). Although native historical sources state that Tenochtitlan was founded as a new settlement in the swamp, archaeological findings now suggest that there was a pre-Mexica settlement at that location (see chapter 2). I discuss ideas about ancient city planning in Smith (2007a).
14. Emily Umberger (1996a) discusses these aspects of urban planning at Tenochtitlan. Boone (2000b) discusses the Mexica use of Tollan as a model for Tenochtitlan, and I extend this concept to city-state capitals in Smith (2008a:ch.3).
15. Excavations at Tlatelolco are described in González Rul (1996, 1998) and Guilliem Arroyo (1999). The skull rack is described in González Rul (1963) and Pijoan et al. (1989). The native historical record for Tlatelolco is based primarily on the document known as the Anales de Tlatelolco (Tena 2004). The excavations at Tlatelolco are open to the public at the “Plaza of the Three Cultures” in Mexico City.
16. The conqueror Hernando Cortés said of the narrower southern causeway, “This causeway is as wide as two lances and well built, so that eight horsemen can ride abreast” (Cortés 1986:83).
17. I discuss the sacred precinct and Templo Mayor at greater length in chapter 10.
9 Creation, Death, and the Gods
1. Good discussions of Aztec religion include Boone (2007), Burkhart (1989), D. Carrasco (Carrasco, 1999), Graulich (1997b, 1999), León-Portilla (1963), and Nicholson (1971). There is a vast amount of ethnohistorical information on Aztec religion, thanks to the efforts of priestly chroniclers like Sahagún and Durán. Most of this material comes from Tenochtitlan and, therefore, my discussion of religion pertains primarily to the Mexica people, unless noted otherwise.
2. The most complete treatment of Aztec myths is Graulich (1997b); see also León-Portilla (1963) and Taube (1993). The Fifth Sun is an excellent video by Patricia Amlin that portrays Aztec myths through the animation of images from the codices.
3. From the Leyenda de los Soles; quoted in León-Portilla (1963:107–108).
4. Bierhorst (1992:148).
5. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.3:2).
6. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.3:4).
7. In a classic and insightful study Soustelle (1961:115) attributed much of the complexity of Aztec religion to the incomplete synthesis of the diverse historical traditions; Graulich (1997b), on the other hand, stresses the incomplete attempts by the Mexica kings to transform traditional religion into a more imperial and centralized form. In an alternative view, León-Portilla (1963) finds more cohesiveness and integration in Aztec thought. My own views align more with Soustelle and Graulich than with León-Portilla.
8. Several chapters in Berlo (1992) discuss these deities at Teotihuacan; see also Paulinyi (2006) and Taube (2000a).
9. Chimalpahin, quoted in León-Portilla (1963:161). Michel Graulich (1997b) has done the most to distinguish late Mexica innovations from the older traditional central Mexican religion. He suggests, for example, that earlier Mesoamerican mythology describes four suns or creations, whereas the notion of a fifth sun was a Mexica innovation. Graulich's very important study of Aztec rituals (Graulich 1999) has yet to appear in English translation, although parts of it have been published in English (Graulich 1992a).
10. See Nicholson (1971). It should be stressed that this scheme is a great simplification of a very complex situation. As Nicholson points out, the Aztecs themselves viewed the gods as more fluid and dynamic than this seemingly well-organized scheme might suggest.
11. Durán (1971:99). For a detailed study of Tezcatlipoca, see Olivier (2003); I discuss archaeological manifestations of Tezcatlipoca in Smith (forthcoming a). Taube (2000a) includes a discussion of Xiuhtecuhtli. León-Portilla (1963) discusses Ometeotl.
12. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.6:5).
13. Arnold (1999) and López Austin (1997) discuss Tlaloc. Nicholson (1991) analyzes the iconography of Ometochtli, and that of Xipe Totec is discussed by Vié-Wohrer (1999) and González González (2005). The goddesses of the Teteoinnan complex are discussed by Klein (2000) and Sullivan (1982).
14. Nicholson (1993) reviews the iconography of Tonatiuh in relation to the Aztec calendar stone (see chapter 12). For Huitzilopochtli, see Nicholson (1988) and González Torres (1999). Brotherston (1994) and Ragot (2000) discuss Mixcoatl.
15. There is an enormous literature on Quetzalcoatl, much of it attempting to separate the Aztec deity from Topiltzin Quetzalcoatl, a shadowy semi-historical figure who was either a Toltec deity and/or a ruler of Tollan (e.g., López Austin 1973; Nicholson 2001). Graulich (1992e) is a good introduction to Quetzalcoatl, and circular temples dedicated to Ehecatl are discussed by Guilliem Arroyo (1999) and Smith (2008a:103–105). On Yacatecuhtli, see Olivier (1999).
16. The similarity of the Aztec motif (the skull and crossbones) to the Jolly Roger flag of the Caribbean pirates is fortuitous. The pirates most likely adopted this symbol in the eighteenth century from Christian iconography, probably from tombstone designs in the Kent–Sussex area of Britain. There is no evidence that pirates saw or were influenced by Aztec skeletal imagery (Dr. Richard Pennell, personal communication, 2001). See Pennell (2001).
17. The symbolism and iconography of death are discussed by Baquedano (1998), Brotherston (1994), and Johansson K. (2002). The ceramics from royal feasts, some with death symbolism, are discussed by Smith et al. (2003). The platforms decorated with skulls and crossbones, found at several sites and depicted in the ritual codices, are often incorrectly identified as skull racks (tzompantli). Klein (2000) has shown that these were more likely platforms used for curing and for fertility ceremonies, associated with the Tzitzimime deities; see also Smith (2008a:110–112).
18. Aztec concepts of the afterlife are discussed by Graulich (1997b:248–252), León-Portilla (1963:124–133), and Ragot (2000).
19. Durán (1971:122). For discussion of funeral practices and burials, see Chávez Balderas (2007b), León-Portilla (1963:124–133), and Nagao (1985).
20. An intriguing aspect of the burials at Cuexcomate and Capilco is the absence of adults. Burials in general are rare at Aztec sites, and some archaeologists think this is due to the prevalence of cremation. I disagree, because cremated remains were buried in ceramic jars or urns, and few such urn burials have been excavated outside of palaces and temples. Documentary sources such as the above quotation from Friar Durán mention the jars used to bury the charred bones from a cremation. Several of these urn burials, probably of Mexica kings or leaders, were recovered in the excavations at the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan; they are quite rare at other sites, however. In my view most Aztec commoners were buried in cemeteries outside of settlements, but archaeologists have yet to find or excavate any of these.
21. The urn burials at the Templo Mayor may pertain to one of the Mexica kings. The Eagle Warrior Hall burial is described by López Luján (2006). The Calixtlahuaca burials are described in García Payón (1941).
22. Beyer (1934) is still the best study of notched bones, often called “bone rasps”; see also
McVicker (2005) and Pereira (2005) for more recent studies. These were used as musical instruments.
10 Temples and Ceremonies
1. Priests are discussed by Alberti Manzanares (1994), Brundage (1985), and Nicholson (1971).
2. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.2:184–185). Graulich (2005a) is the most important recent scholarly work on autosacrifice; see also his book on human sacrifice (Graulich 2005b).
3. Klein (1987:297). Cecelia Klein, like many other scholars, use the term “debt” to describe the obligations that humans have to the gods. Ulrich Köhler has questioned this term, arguing that the obligation was not a “debt” but rather “an adequate or correct exchange of goods and services” (Köhler 2001:126). While I appreciate Köhler's desire for terminological precision, to me the term “debt” does not seem very different from his alternatives.
4. The identification of Aztec deities with the devil, made by Friar Sahagún and his assistants, is not an accurate interpretation of their nature or role within Aztec religion.
5. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.2:184).
6. Durán (1971:81).
7. Sacrificial stones are described by Graulich (1998b) and López Luján and Urcid (2002); Seler (1992) discusses stone boxes. Human skeletal evidence for sacrifice is discussed by Pijoan and Mansilla (1997); see also Bustos Ríos (2007), Chávez Balderas (2007a), and González Sobrino et al. (2001).
8. Sahagún (1950–1982:bk.2:185). Aztec cannibalism in this respect was similar to other reported cases of cannibalism around the world. The eating of human flesh in most cases is a sacred act, done to close relatives in order to honor them and incorporate something of their essence into their living kin. This ethnographic reality contrasts sharply with the popular image of antagonistic cannibalism in which blood-thirsty tribes capture their enemies (or perhaps missionaries and anthropologists) to cook for dinner in a big stewpot. There is a recent debate on the existence and extent of cannibalism among the Aztecs. On one side is Barry Isaac (2005), who suggests that the Spaniards may have invented the practice of Aztec cannibalism (that is, the Aztecs did not eat human flesh); he is opposed by Michel Graulich (2001, 2005b), who finds numerous credible cases in the written record. My opinion is closer to Graulich than to Isaac on this topic. The ritual use of the femurs of sacrificial victims is discussed by Johanna Broda (1970:231).
The Aztecs Page 36