Rethinking the Aztec Economy 0816535515, 9780816535514

Citation preview

Rethinking the Aztec Economy

Amerind Studies in Anthropology Series Editor Christine Szuter

Rethinking the Aztec Economy Edited by

Deborah L. Nichols, Frances F. Berdan, and Michael E. Smith

tucson

The University of Arizona Press www.uapress.arizona.edu © 2017 by The Arizona Board of Regents All rights reserved. Published 2017 Printed in the United States of America 22 21 20 19 18 17   6 5 4 3 2 1 ISBN-13: 978-0-8165-3551-4 (cloth) Cover design by Leigh McDonald Cover image courtesy of MiBACT. Florence, Laurentian Library, Ms. Med. Palat. 219, f. 335v. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Nichols, Deborah L., editor. | Berdan, Frances F., editor. | Smith, Michael Ernest, 1953– editor. Title: Rethinking the Aztec economy / edited by Deborah L. Nichols, Frances F. Berdan, and Michael E. Smith. Other titles: Amerind studies in anthropology. Description: Tucson : The University of Arizona Press, 2017. | Series: Amerind series in anthropology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2016042866 | ISBN 9780816535514 (cloth : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Aztecs—Economic conditions. | Aztecs—Commerce. | Indians of Mexico—Commerce—History. Classification: LCC F1219.36.E76 R47 2016 | DDC 972—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016042866 This paper meets the requirements of ANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (Permanence of Paper).

Contents



Introduction. Aztec Economy and Empire Through the Lens of Objects Frances F. Berdan, Kenneth G. Hirth, Deborah L. Nichols, and Michael E. Smith

3

Part I. The Economy and Commerce 1 Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy Deborah L. Nichols

19

2 Cities in the Aztec Empire: Commerce, Imperialism, and Urbanization Michael E. Smith

44

3 The Sixteenth-Century Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla, Puebla Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

68

Part II. The Economics of Ritual and Social Objects 4 The Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion and Ritual Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom 5. The Economics of Mexica Religious Performance Frances F. Berdan 6. Precious Feathers and Fancy Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán 7. Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values in Aztec Society Emily Umberger

105 130

156 195

vi Contents

Part III. Economy at the Aztec Periphery 8. Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco Janine Gasco 9. Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation: Comparison with Teotihuacan Barbara L. Stark 10. Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire: Scale, Integration, and Change Kenneth G. Hirth, Michael E. Smith, Frances F. Berdan, and Deborah L. Nichols

221

248

278

Contributors 293 Index 301

Rethinking the Aztec Economy

Introduction Aztec Economy and Empire Through the Lens of  Objects

Frances F. Berdan, Kenneth G. Hirth, Deborah L. Nichols, and Michael E. Smith The year is 1486 CE, Chicome Tochtli (Seven Rabbit) in the Aztec calendar. The city of Tenochtitlan has been bustling for days in preparation for the flamboyant coronation ceremony of its newly chosen ruler, Ahuitzotl (r. 1486–1502). In the royal palace, Ahuitzotl awaits his honored guests. He fumes because the highest-ranked invited enemies have rebuffed his invitation—only a couple sent envoys as representatives. Still, his allies are visibly present. Ahuitzotl has a political agenda to accompany his religious investment: “[T]o instill fear in the enemy and to show that the Aztecs were the masters of all the riches of the earth and controlled all the finest lands” (Durán 1994: 319). Amid singing, dancing, and the sacrifices of enemy warriors, Ahuitzotl repeatedly lavishes his guests with objects of inestimable wealth and exquisite artistic beauty. The allies and enemy emissaries receive finely worked clothing, sandals, precious jewels, marvelous feathers and featherwork, gold headbands with eagle feathers, and splendid gold bracelets and waistbands. They are to carry weapons and golden objects (diadems, bracelets, leg ornaments, ear plugs, lip plugs, and nose plugs) to their own rulers, the weapons serving as a reminder of Ahuitzotl’s military power. Ahuitzotl’s guests are continually provided with copious quantities of cacao, flowers, tobacco, and delectable food (offered in the finest ceramic serving ware) throughout their visit. Lesser leaders (nobles, priests, warriors, and city civil officials) also receive splendid gifts: rich clothing and beautiful adornments made of gold and precious stones, along with the ubiquitous flowers, tobacco, and food (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 499–513; Durán 1994: 321–22). Overall, these objects represent some of the most highly valued and finely crafted luxuries in the land, housed in Ahuitzotl’s palace storerooms. This stunning display of the Aztec ruler’s

4

Frances F. Berdan et al.

wealth and largess deeply impresses friend and foe alike, advancing Ahui­ tzotl’s goal of instilling dread (or at least respect) among other rulers of the Aztecs’ known world. Meanwhile, at the same time Ahuitzotl and his noble friends and allies were exchanging and showing off their expensive gifts, hundreds of thousands of Aztec peasant farmers were similarly engaged in a world of objects that helped structure their own activities and lives. Farmers used farm tools such as wooden digging sticks, and they employed other implements and raw materials to produce tools for agriculture and daily life. Every adult commoner engaged in rituals (using copal incense imported from the tropics, ceramic incense burners, and small amulets) and played games (with patolli pieces). Many items such as ceramic griddles and basalt grinding tools were used in the daily act of preparing and serving food. Families also hosted their neighbors and other relatives at feasts, cooking the best delicacies and serving them on the finest decorated ceramic serving ware they could afford. While these two social arenas—kings and nobles in the royal court, and farmers in their villages and urban neighborhoods—seem far removed from one another, in fact they were closely linked. Many of the goods used in these contexts—noble and commoner—were imported from sources near and far, and most of  these goods, from gold jewelry to obsidian knives, were moved by the same merchants through the same marketplaces. Many of the same craft specialists produced goods for nobles along with goods for commoners. The luxurious lifestyles of the Aztec rich and famous were in a very real sense built on a foundation of contributions from commoners. Commoners provided the labor to construct the palaces of nobles, and their various payments in money, goods, and labor (taxes, tributes, and rents) supported nobles and allowed them to obtain their fancy goods. In this book one of our tasks is to explore how these superficially very different kinds of social contexts in fact were integrated into a single society through the processes of a single (albeit complex) economy. We ask questions of goods—questions such as How were they produced? How did they move around? and How were they used?—to understand the workings of society and the economy. We believe that the world of goods is a crucial entry point for advancing scholarly understanding of life in the Aztec world.

Introduction 5

Aztec Society and Economy Who were these Aztecs, that they commanded such wealth and inspired such trepidation among their neighbors, while also conforming to ancient Mesoamerican patterns of rural life? To begin, the term “Aztec” is a tricky one. We use it here to refer to the Nahuatl-speaking peoples of highland central Mexico during the Mesoamerican Late Postclassic period (1350–1521 CE). It is, however, variously used to name earlier Postclassic periods, characteristic architectural and ceramic styles, and specifically the Mexicas of  Tenochtitlan. The Aztec empire was an alliance among three powerful Basin of Mexico city-states: Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. That alliance was formed in 1428 and ended with the cataclysmic fall of Tenochtitlan to Spanish and native armies in August 1521 (although salient features of  Nahua culture have persisted to the present day). The Aztec empire was the last in a long line of  Mesoamerican complex societies: in central Mexico, it was preceded most notably by Teotihua­ can (ca. 1–550/600 CE) and Tula (ca. 950–1175 CE), and farther south, by Zapotecs, Mixtecs, and a succession of Maya dynasties. Some of these entered Aztec myths and histories; others, contemporary with the Aztecs, interacted with them at the edge of their imperial realm. Each plays a part in this book. The Aztecs themselves were a cultural blend of Chichimecas (nomadic and seminomadic migrants who entered central Mexico from northern regions) and peoples who had been settled there for thousands of  years. The Aztecs recognized this dual heritage, honoring and reinforcing both in their titles and traditions. In the Aztec domain, people engaged in social life at several different levels, depending on their geographic location and social station. Their most intimate level was the household, serving as their most basic unit of economic production and social reproduction. More comprehensive social units were calpolli, altepetl (city-state), and empire. Calpollis were neighborhoods or districts of towns and cities. Their component households were arguably related through kinship, but their cohesion also stemmed from reliable access to land (most likely controlled by nobles), focus on a patron deity and temple, and common training for boys in a local military school (telpochcalli). Some calpolli members shared a common ethnicity or engaged in a specialized occupation. At a more comprehensive level, the Aztec city-state featured “a legitimate ruling dynasty, a

6

Frances F. Berdan et al.

Figure I.1.  Map of Mesoamerica showing place-names mentioned in the book. Adapted by Barbara Stark from Google Earth and edited by Kristin Sullivan.

sense (if not the actuality) of political autonomy, control over local lands and labor, a well-established founding legend, often with mythological underpinnings, and a patron deity complete with temple” (Berdan 2014: 135–36). Its hub was a city, with an imposing ceremonial district at its center. The cities ranged in size from the vastly atypical Tenochtitlan at 200,000 to 250,000 residents, to Texcoco at 25,000, followed by moreusual sizes ranging from around 2,000 to 23,000 occupants (Smith 2008: 152). Embracing a defined territory and crowding the central Mexican landscape, the city-state was the unit most often mobilized for warfare and political negotiations. The allied city-states of  Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan engaged in an aggressive program of imperial expansion through military conquests and negotiated alliances. This Triple Alliance empire controlled regions throughout northern and central Mesoamerica, spreading from the Gulf coast to the Pacific coast. Despite its military strength and astute political tactics, it was not invincible, and the Tarascans to the west, the Tlaxcallans in the east, and various pockets in the south remained unconquered. Some of these, especially the Tlaxcallans, continued as vig­ orous enemies throughout the short history of the empire.

Introduction 7

Aztec society was intensely hierarchical, and an Aztec man or woman would have experienced life from their particular rung on the social ladder. There were distinct divisions, by birthright, between nobles and commoners in terms of status, opportunities, and privileges. Yet this was a complex hierarchy, and Aztecs recognized fine distinctions within noble and commoner categories. At the highest level sat the city-state ruler (tla­ toani) and, better yet, one of the three imperial rulers (huey tlatoani, or great ruler). A tlatoani was a warrior, politician, and priest, ultimately responsible for the well-being of his people and the defense and stature of his domain. His opulent palace housed his many wives and children. Nonroyal nobles also established large, affluent, polygynous households, controlled lands and labor, and often held high (or at least respectable) positions in governmental and religious institutions. Commoners constituted the bulk of the population, producing food and crafts and offering a wide range of services. Beyond providing for the livelihoods of their own monogamous households, they also produced sur­ pluses (in good years) that were directed to marketplace exchange and payments of taxes or tributes. Commoners owed payments in labor and kind to their local nobles and rulers; additionally, everyone (including nobles) in conquered lands paid goods (and sometimes labor services) in tribute and homage to their imperial conquerors. Social distinctions were not totally rigid, and barriers could be at least partially breached. Professional merchants and luxury artisans, commoners by birth, gained exceptional privileges through their accumulation of prodigious wealth. And quasinoble status could be achieved by courageous warriors by capturing enemy warriors on the battlefield. On the flip side, individuals could acquire slave status through malfeasances such as theft and excessive gambling. The Aztec economy was highly specialized, and each individual had an occupational role. Some engaged in primary production (e.g., agri­ culture, fishing) or crafting (e.g., pottery making, weaving, feather working). Some, such as porters and barbers, offered services. Others, like scribes, teachers, and majordomos, worked in political administration. And still others became priests or priestesses. These specialized activities stimulated surplus production, important during the Late Postclassic when the population was growing at an unprecedented rate. They also necessitated exchanges of materials and objects, especially through gift giving, feasting, and the region’s lively marketplaces.

8

Frances F. Berdan et al.

While an Aztec’s life was routinized with work and regular daily rounds, it was also punctuated with scheduled events, especially marketing and religious ceremonies (at the household, calpolli, or city-state level), and interrupted by wars and unpleasant natural events such as pestilence and famines. The Aztec world was highly commercialized, and any city of any size enjoyed a marketing event at daily, five-day, or twenty-day intervals. The grandest of these marketplaces was the one at Tlatelolco, attracting local vendors, regional traffickers, and longdistance merchants reportedly selling every known commodity in the land. Other marketplaces were specialized (with slaves or ceramics, for instance) or offered a more restricted range of merchandise. Religious ceremonies pervaded Aztec life. Active participation in frequent mandatory rituals, from life-cycle events to public extravaganzas, required periodic material outlays and social commitments on the part of every person in the society. And while military expeditions took men beyond their homes (and sometimes far afield for long periods), those left at home also performed solemn rites to ensure their safe return. Part of Aztec life was routinized, part was fortuitous. All these aspects of Aztec life, economic production and exchange, levels of social and political engagement, social hierarchy, and religious ceremony are woven throughout the chapters of this book. Having set the stage, this chapter now turns to significant theoretical issues in understanding the Aztec economy and empire through the lens of objects.

The Economy as Objects and Relationships It is important to identify exactly what we mean by the term Aztec econ­ omy, since that is the focus of this volume, and to explain how we are applying it to prehispanic society. We define the economy as a socially mediated form of economic interaction involving the production and allocation of resources among alternative ends. Several things are implied by this definition. First, economic interaction refers to the behaviors associated with the material provisioning of everyday life. Interaction at this level involves the interplay of  individuals both with the resources in their natural environment and with the individuals who regularly use or possess these resources. Second, the economy is a socially mediated realm of behavior. By this we mean that the values and behaviors that

Introduction 9

individuals employ are learned specific to the society in which they live. Third, production and allocation refers to the rational decision-making process that individuals go through with regard to the production, distribution, and use of resources. This definition contains elements of  both formal and substantive views of the economy. The formal definition of economics sees the calculation of means-end relationships and maximizing as attributes of all spheres of human action. This approach derives from Adam Smith (1991), who argued that economic provisioning was the result of rational decision making where individuals chose between alternative ways of producing and using resources. The substantive view follows Karl Polanyi (1944), who argued that rather than being an attribute of any kind of human action, economic activity was a delimited sphere involved with the provisioning of society. For Polanyi, the economy consists of production, distribution, and consumption. But rather than constituting an independent and isolated institutional realm, as claimed by formalists, for Polanyi the economy is embedded in society. That is, the economy cannot be separated out as an institution from the social, political, and religious spheres of society. It was part of these other noneconomic spheres of social interaction. For Polanyi, its main principles of operation in the past were created from the top down to facilitate provisioning but without the strong principle of self-interest. Our definition of the economy is substantive to the extent that it rec­ ognizes that each society defines the parameters of  behavior and scope of economic interaction in its own way. Societies set the parameters of the economic base (Gudeman 2001), the criteria that define fundamental features such as wealth, value, exchange equivalencies, the expectations of reciprocity, and the other norms of material and social well-being (Dal­ton 1961). Nevertheless, while society defines the parameters of economic interaction, people operate creatively within it. It is this dimension of individual economic action and decision making that adds a strong formalist element to our definition. Every prehispanic household was responsible for its own livelihood. People in Aztec households recognized this and as a result were motivated participants in improving their overall economic well-being. Householders understood the economic risk of resource shortfall and both collectively and individually worked to ensure that they had sufficient resources to survive. The

10

Frances F. Berdan et al.

strategies that they adopted were a multifaceted mix of intensified and diversified production activities that together with mutual aid networks and the marketplace served to meet their everyday needs (Netting 1993; Sahlins 1972). Polanyi’s (1957) insistence that the economy was shaped from the top down, through administrative oversight rather than emerging from activities at the level of individual households, was especially influential in the early neoevolutionary approaches of Aztec studies. It set the framework of how Aztec economy was viewed with a strong emphasis on top-down political involvement in everything from market development to individual merchant activity (e.g., Carrasco 1978; Chapman 1957). Many scholars believe that by ignoring the role of individual decision making, Polanyi impeded not only the study of Aztec economics (Blanton and Fargher 2010; Hirth 2016) but also ancient economy as a whole (Feinman 2013; Silver 1995; Smith 2004). In contrast to the top-down administrative perspective of Polanyi (1957; Polanyi et al. 1957), we see the Aztecs and many other ancient/ historic states as having commercialized economies. Polanyi and his colleagues focused on the institutional context of different types of exchange, insisting that commerce was restricted to modern capitalistic economies. But for decades it has been clear that the commercial institutions and practices of the Aztecs were far more important than Polanyi’s model would admit. Marketplaces flourished in cities and towns throughout Mesoamerica, linked together by professional merchants. Goods were purchased using several types of money (Berdan 1975, 1983, 1996; Hirth 2016; Smith 2004, 2008). We should comment here on an unresolved debate among the authors in this book. This focuses on the concepts of tax and tribute. The peoples of Aztec central Mexico made a variety of obligatory payments to their local king and to the empires. These included payments in money (certain cotton textiles), other goods, and labor. Some payments were assessed by households, others by individuals, others by calpollis, and still others by communities. The fiscal organization of Aztec states and empires was quite complex in comparative perspective (Smith 2015). These payments were labeled tributo by early Spanish and native writers, and this term—in both its Spanish and English forms (tribute)—has become the convention to label fiscal payments in scholarship on Aztec states and

Introduction 11

empires. Michael Smith (2015) has argued that many or most of the payments traditionally called tribute in fact fit the definition of taxes in the comparative fiscal literature (e.g., Monson and Scheidel 2015; Tarschys 1988), and he has suggested that Aztec scholars should use the term tax in place of the more traditional term, tribute. Berdan (2014: 263), in contrast, argues that the term tribute better conveys the political relationships between the imperial government and subjects expressed with these payments, as well as the symbolic affirmation of dominance and subordination they signal. The authors of the chapters in this book disagree over the terminological issue of tax versus tribute. To avoid getting sidetracked on a question that is not central to our goals, we have standardized the terminology for Aztec fiscal payments, calling them tax/tribute. The use of this term does not imply any particular interpretation of the Aztec fiscal system. Some authors have chosen to qualify or discuss this issue briefly in their chapters, while others have not.

Scholarship Across the Spanish Conquest Phrases such as the trauma of conquest, native desolation, and cultural loss have long characterized the impact of the Spanish conquest on Native Americans. For the Aztecs, yes, they were conquered and yes, they suffered severe depopulation, and yes, they underwent economic, social, and religious transformations. But research during the past few decades has also shown that much of “native desolation” is a myth, and terms such as tenacity, resilience, and continuity have emerged as illustrative of indigenous responses to Spanish colonial rule (Lockhart 1992; Restall 2003). In this section, we ask: What can information from the colonial period tell us about pre-Spanish life, especially pertaining to objects? Indigenous tenacity transcending the Spanish conquest allows anthropologists and historians to mine the vast and rich documentary record produced by Spaniards and natives after the conquest in efforts to reconstruct the pre-Columbian past. Postconquest codices, chronicles, Spanish administrative records, friars’ compilations of native life, indigenouslanguage documents such as wills and town council minutes—all of these and others, critically approached, provide a wealth of information applicable to pre-Spanish life.

12

Frances F. Berdan et al.

This is especially true in the realm of the material. Many native crafts, utilitarian and luxury, continued well into colonial times. For instance, Aztec ceramic forms have been uncovered in both native and Spanish homes—even in the very Spanish traza of  Mexico City (Rodríguez-Alegría 2005)—and exquisite feathered mosaics continued to be fashioned late into the colonial period, albeit with introduced Christian motifs. Along with crafts, the numerous native markets through which objects passed enjoyed a marked persistence under Spanish rule, representing a “native substratum beneath the notice of colonists” (Gibson 1964: 335; see also Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume). While wheat and tailored clothing could be purchased, trade in native goods still dominated most of the traditional marketplaces. This continued production and exchange of native goods was, not surprisingly, reflected in consumption patterns. Nahuatl wills of the mid- to late sixteenth century reveal gourd bowls, old reed mats, baskets, and colored cloth with rabbit fur for one man ( Juan Tellez of Colhuacan), and spindles with yarn, metates, tecomates (bowls or jars), and two large tamale pots for one woman ( Juana Tiacapan, also of Colhuacan). The rather important don Julián de la Rosa of  Tlaxcala still possessed a shield with two hundred quetzal plumes and a coyote’s head headdress in 1566 (Anderson et al. 1976: 50–51; Cline and León-Portilla 1984: 106–11). While the fancy featherwork had probably been in the family’s possession since preSpanish times, the other goods (along with Spanish-introduced objects) probably passed through the hands of active merchants such as those living in the merchant enclave of Acxotla (Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume). These many colonial lives continued to produce, trade, and use numerous objects popular in pre-Spanish times, allowing us to lean on colonial information for productively projecting into the past.

The Origins of  This Volume The origins of this volume can be considered in two ways: intellectually and logistically. Intellectually, this book represents a step on a long trajectory of research on Aztec economy and society. The authors—along with other scholars—have long been pursuing Aztec research by drawing on multiple scholarly disciplines. Unlike some regional research traditions, in which disciplines occupy distinct isolated silos, in Aztec stud­

Introduction 13

ies historians know the archaeology and art history, archaeologists know the documents and also work with art historians and ethnographers, and art historians take account of both archaeology and history. Partly because of the intellectual cross-fertilization from this group of interdisciplinary scholars, there has been a strong appreciation for the importance of objects in understanding Aztec society. Whether fancy royal cloaks or broken cooking pots, objects have long been appreciated by scholars in this field both for their importance within Aztec society and for their usefulness to scholars in unraveling life in the Aztec world. Within this intellectual tradition, Frances Berdan stands out as a central figure. Her dissertation (Berdan 1975) established the lines along which subsequent research on the Aztec economy would develop. Her work has been strongly interdisciplinary, and she has collaborated with many scholars over the years, including the authors of the chapters in this book. When Frannie retired from teaching at California State University, San Bernardino, her colleague Pete Robertshaw informed Mike Smith and suggested that it might be appropriate to organize a symposium at the meetings of the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) in her honor. Smith asked Deb Nichols to help, and together they put together the session “The Aztecs and Their World: Interdisciplinary Contributions of Frances Berdan” at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the SAA. This was the logistical origin of the present book. Given the centrality of Frannie in Aztec studies, coupled with her en­ thusiasm, generosity, and good collegial relations with everyone, it was not hard to fill that session to its maximal size. The session was successful in presenting a variety of studies that, without much central guidance, fit together well. Because of the quality of the papers and their high degree of thematic integration, we were selected by the Amerind Foundation in their competition for a SAA session to be developed further as an intensive research seminar at the foundation’s facilities in Dragoon, Arizona. This session was held from September 16 through September 19, 2015. Given the foundation’s restrictions on the number of participants, we were not able to include all of the presenters from the SAA symposium.1 The chapters in this book are the result of discussions held at the Amerind Foundation. The excellent conference facilities and the beauty of the natural environment created a productive atmosphere, and the chapters that follow are the happy result of our interactions.

14

Frances F. Berdan et al.

Acknowledgments We thank the Amerind Foundation for providing such a wonderful and supportive setting for the seminar that allowed us to examine and refine our ideas. Christine Szuter gave important intellectual guidance, as well as being a generous and gracious host. The Claire Garber Goodman Fund, Dartmouth College, provided financial support for preparation of the manuscript, and Kristin Sullivan’s contributions in preparing figures and translations enhanced the work of both authors and editors. We are grateful to Pamela Effrein Sandstrom for preparing the index. We thank Allyson Carter and the staff of the University of Arizona Press for their professional expertise and efforts to turn a manuscript into a book.

Notes 1. Participants in the SAA session who were not able to attend the Amerind seminar were Marilyn Masson, Timothy Hare, Richard Blanton, Helen Pollard, Leonardo López Luján, José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil, Peter Robertshaw, and Karl Taube.

References Cited Alvarado Tezozomoc, Fernando. 1975. Crónica Mexicana. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Anderson, Arthur J. O., Frances Berdan, and James Lockhart. 1975. Beyond the Codices. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances F. 1975. Trade, Tribute and Market in the Aztec Empire. PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of  Texas, Austin. ———. 1983. The Economics of Aztec Luxury Trade and Tribute. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 161–83. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC. ———. 1996. The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 115–36. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. ———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher. 2010. Evaluating Causal Factors in Market Development in Premodern States: A Comparative Study with Critical Comments on the History of Ideas About Markets. In Archaeological

Introduction 15

Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 207–26. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Carrasco, Pedro. 1978. La economía del México prehispánico. In Economía política e ideología en el México prehispánico, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda, 13–74. Editorial Nueva Imagen, Mexico City. Chapman, Anne. 1957. Port of  Trade Enclaves in Aztec and Maya Civilizations. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry M. Pearson, 114–53. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Cline, S. L., and Miguel León-Portilla, eds. 1984. The Testaments of Culhuacan. UCLA Latin American Center Publications, Los Angeles. Dalton, George. 1961. Economic Theory and Primitive Society. American Anthro­ pologist 63:1–25. Durán, Diego. 1994. The History of the Indies of New Spain. Translated by Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Feinman, Gary M. 2013. Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece: Reenvisioning Ancient Economies Beyond Typological Constructs. American Journal of  Archaeology 117:453–59. Gibson, Charles. 1964. The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Gudeman, Stephen. 2001. The Anthropology of Economy. Blackwell Publishing, Mal­ den, MA. Hirth, Kenneth. 2016. The Aztec Economic World: Merchants and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stan­ ford University Press, Stanford. Monson, Andrew, and Walter Scheidel, eds. 2015. Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States. Oxford University Press, New York. Netting, Robert McC. 1993. Smallholders, Households, Farm Families, and the Ecol­ og y of  Intensive, Sustainable Agriculture. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Polanyi, Karl. 1944. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press, Boston. ———. 1957. The Economy as Instituted Process. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry M. Pearson, 243–70. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Polanyi, Karl, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Restall, Matthew. 2003. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Oxford University Press, New York. Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique. 2005. Consumption and the Varied Ideologies of Dom­ ination in Colonial Mexico City. In The Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition

16

Frances F. Berdan et al.

in Mesoamerica: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Susan Kepecs and Rani T. Alexander, 35–48. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Sahlins, Marshall. 1972. Stone Age Economics. Aldine, Chicago. Silver, Morris. 1995. Economic Structures of Antiquity. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT. Smith, Adam. 1991. The Wealth of Nations. Edited by Andrew S. Skinner. Vol. 3. Prometheus Books, New York. Smith, Michael E. 2004. Archaeology of Ancient State Economies. Annual Review of  Anthropology 33:73–102. ———. 2008. Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. ———. 2015. The Aztec Empire. In Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States, edited by Andrew Monson and Walter Scheidel, 71–114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tarschys, Daniel. 1988. Tributes, Tariffs, Taxes and Trade: The Changing Sources of Government Revenue. British Journal of Political Science 19:1–20.

Part I

The Economy and Commerce

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy

1

Deborah L. Nichols

The Aztec empire became the largest prehispanic state in Mesoamerica and provides an important comparative case study in urbanism and imperialism. The Aztec or Triple Alliance empire did not arise de novo (Feinman 2013). Aztec imperialism drew on a long history of states, cities, and hinterlands but also created new institutions and practices (figure 1.1).

Figure 1.1.  The Basin of Mexico showing Late Postclassic city-state capitals. Drawing prepared by author and Kristin Sullivan.

20

Deborah L. Nichols

Complex economic interactions involving intensive agriculture, specialized manufacturing, commerce, tax and tribute systems, feasting, and shared religious beliefs and practices were important in the development and functioning of the Aztec empire. Walter Scheidel (2015) recently decried the frequent omission of the Aztecs in comparative histories. Theoretical and methodological advances in research about the Aztec empire and its importance to world history warrant its inclusion. This chapter synthesizes recent research on the complex economy of the Aztecs. Recent work has overturned long-standing theories of ancient/historical state economics. New theoretical frameworks that have emerged are applicable to other world regions, as are innovative methodological approaches. Scholars continue to productively mine the rich documentary sources, but these sources provide much less detail about household goods and their production. The second part of this chapter synthesizes research about households as the most important production unit in the Aztec economy.

Theoretical Frames By the mid-twentieth century, neoevolutionary theory, archaeological discoveries, and documentary studies recognized, albeit belatedly, the Aztecs as a major world civilization (Keene 1971: 563). The “new social history” of the 1960s and 1970s (Berdan 2015) and regional/landscape archaeology laid the basis for current research directions and themes (Nichols and Evans 2009). William Sanders saw regional settlement pat­ terns as a method to obtain data on Aztec agricultural, population, and settlement history not adequately detailed by documentary sources (Sanders et al. 1979). He argued that environmental diversity encouraged economic interdependence and symbiosis through markets, economic specialization, and taxes/tribute and intensive agriculture that reached their greatest prehispanic extent with the Aztec empire. Although the symbiotic model had critics (Blanton 1996), Kenneth Hirth and colleagues (chap. 3, this volume) refine the concept from a household perspective. The Basin of Mexico settlement pattern project was hugely sig­nificant. The surveys documented a dramatic rise in the Aztec popula­tion, both

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 21

urban and rural, during the thirteenth and fourteenth cen­tu­ries. The Late Postclassic settlement pattern makes it “difficult to escape the conclusion that the Late Aztec population explosion brought about fundamental changes throughout Central Mexican society” (Smith 2012a: 61). The Aztec economy became an important case amid the formalistsubstantivist debate of the 1970s (Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume; see also Calnek 1978; Carrasco 1983; Wilk and Cliggett 2007: 5–15). Regional settlement data made it possible to apply quantitative models to examine the importance of Aztec commerce. Using central place theory, Michael Smith (1979, 1980) argued that commercial factors significantly shaped Aztec settlement patterns, while Elizabeth Brumfiel (1980) argued that urbanization drove the intensification of market exchange, a point also argued by Smith (chap. 2, this volume). Susan Evans (1980) challenged Smith and argued that environmental and political-administrative factors were more important than commerce. Richard Blanton (1996) concluded from his regional analysis that the Middle Postclassic (AD 1150–1350) Basin of Mexico was divided into two market spheres, the Acolhua sphere and a larger southern and western Basin sphere. He disputed arguments that the Late Postclassic conformed to a dendritic market structure. These debates set the stage for a new phase of archaeological research about the Aztec economy and urbanism. During the late twentieth century, a broadening geographic scope of both historical and archaeological research documented greater variability in the economy even in the imperial core (Berdan 2014; Carrasco 1999; Gasco, chap. 8, this volume; Nichols and Evans 2009; Stark, chap. 9, this volume). By 1980 only three city-state capitals in the Basin of Mex­ico were still accessible for archaeological investigation: Huexotla, al­though its urban core was built over; and Xaltocan and Otumba, Otomí towns with interconnected histories. Smith (2008 and chap. 2, this volume) concluded that politics and administration underlay the founding of Aztec cities, but commerce took on a growing role shaping Aztec urbanism. The scope of both archaeological and documentary research has expanded beyond the Basin of Mexico to other realms of the Aztec world (e.g., Gasco, chap. 8, this volume; Smith 2012a; Stark, chap. 9, this vol­ume). Models from economic geography and world systems theory have been adapted to understand market networks and the creation of Mesoamerica

22

Deborah L. Nichols

as a macro-regional phenomenon (Smith and Berdan 2003). From doc­ umentary sources, Frances Berdan and her colleagues laid out the operation and imperial strategies of the Triple Alliance (Berdan et al. 1996). The Templo Mayor excavations revealed a wealth of ritual offerings that have led scholars to examine the relationship between ritual and economy (Berdan, chap. 5, this volume; Filloy Nadal and Moreno Guzmán, chap. 6, this volume; Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume; Umberger, chap. 7, this volume). In the late twentieth century, theoretical approaches diversified to include agency, as well as systems-centered perspectives (Nichols and Pool 2012). Smith (chap. 2, this volume) has advocated applying theoretical frameworks from outside of anthropology, such as urban theory, and new approaches to comparative studies. Recently collective action theory has focused attention on fiscal policy and how it influenced not just the Aztec economy but also urbanization and governance (Blanton and Fargher 2008). Also drawing on this body of theory, David Carballo (2013) examined cooperative labor as seen in Aztec hydraulic agriculture that fostered collective action and corporate groups (Carballo et al. 2014; Luna 2014; Nichols 2015). Alan and Pamela Sandstrom (chap. 4, this volume) examine economic theory from an ethnographic perspec­ tive. In light of critiques of the rationality assumptions underlying neoclassical economics, the Sandstroms (this volume) introduce concepts from behavioral economics to Nahua studies. They examine costs and transaction utility and how experience and expectations form part of the calculations of participants in pilgrimages. Emily Umberger (chap. 7, this volume) takes a moral economy approach to consider “noncommodities.” Archaeological research about the Aztec economy has been at the forefront methodologically. Systemic surface sampling and excavation of workshops and households make it possible to quantify consumption and manufacturing of ceramics and obsidian. Archaeologists have paired geochemical composition studies of ceramics and obsidian with excavations of households and craft workshops and regional survey data. Settlement pattern data remain amenable to new methods of analysis, as in recent applications of scaling theory (Ortman et al. 2015). Soil chemistry, residue analysis, and microarchaeology provide new details of household production and consumption complemented by experimental and ethnographic

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 23

studies of manufacturing (Berdan 2007; DeLucia 2013; Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). Biogenetic studies are beginning to provide new details about the movement of people to complement historical migration accounts (e.g., Mata-Míguez et al. 2012; Ragsdale and Edgar 2015). Through aerial imagery and geophysics, archaeologists have gathered new information about the organization and development of chinampas (Luna 2014; Morehart 2014). The processes documented by these approaches and the theoretical frameworks employed to understand them are not unique to the Aztec world and are applicable to economies of ancient/historic empires in other world regions.

Farm to Market Intensive agriculture complemented by exploitation of lacustrine resources in central Mexico generated foodstuffs and other products such as fibers that underwrote Aztec economic development. Agriculture involved a suite of land use practices depending on the local ecology, risk, land availability, and the domestic and political economy (Morehart 2017; Nichols et al. 2006). In the semiarid central highlands of Mexico, shifts in rainfall have significant consequences for agricultural productivity and risk. D. W. Stahle and colleagues’ (2011) dendroclimatological model suggests that the Early Aztec population increase coincided with wetter conditions (Smith 2012a: 60). The implications of the new climate model have not yet been tested. Farmers also had to manage effects of long-term intensive land use, as the region had been farmed for three thousand years. The Aztecs offer a very important opportunity for research in historical ecology and collaborations between environmental scientists and archaeologists that have not been fully realized.

Intensive Agriculture The scale of intensive agriculture expanded during the Late Postclassic. Dispersed Aztec villages and terrace systems reconfigured hillsides. Aztec farmers constructed metepantlis, terraces using rows of maguey, and sometimes also earth and rock. The maguey rows catch colluvium and thus inhibit erosion and also build up the otherwise thin hillside soils for farming, as well as for construction. In some cases, Aztec farmers

24

Deborah L. Nichols

constructed metepantlis and check dams, not just to reduce erosion but also to reclaim land, as in the Texcoco piedmont, which eroded after the Teotihuacan period population retracted (Cordova and Parsons 1997). More such studies are needed to understand anthropogenic and/or climatic degradation. Construction of pleasure gardens and palaces manifested noble status and also drove intensification (Evans 2017). Irrigation reached its maximal prehispanic extent during the Late Postclassic. Aztec agriculture is best known for the chinampas, drained fields that became Tenochtitlan’s “tortilla basket.” Yet, “we know precious little about the prehistory of chinampa agriculture” (Frederick 2007: 107). Chinampas in the southern Basin were constructed using diverse methods, “and the only aspect that now seems planned is the layout and size” (Frederick 2007 [originally italicized]), which Gregory Luna (2014) demonstrates involved centralized management (Parsons 1976). Xaltocan’s Early Postclassic chinampas represent the only securely dated pre-Aztec chinampas in the Basin of Mexico (Morehart and Frederick 2014). In addition to landesque investments, intensification included greater reliance on maize (DeLucia 2013; Morehart 2014; Morehart and Eisenberg 2010). Xaltocan’s chinampas, however, were largely abandoned during the Late Postclassic, after Cuauhtitlan and the Triple Alliance subjugated Xaltocan. Christopher Morehart and Charles Frederick (2014) attribute the collapse to the changing political economy and diversion of water from rerouting the Cuauhtitlan River, initiated by Cuauhtitlan’s ruler. Through wars and alliances, Cuauhtitlan, Xaltocan’s enemy, eventually ruled all the newly irrigated lands (Nichols 2015; Nichols et al. 2006). This instance provides another example of the situational nature of state direction of hydraulic agriculture that was mostly limited to major construction projects. Local corporate groups normally managed irrigation. Agricultural land was distributed through inheritance and corporate allocation (Berdan 2014: 147–50). James Lockhart (1992: 146–47, 154–55) thinks Aztec land sales were rare. Susan Kellogg (1986) sees a shift to in­ creasing amounts of land under private ownership. Wars and conquests also created landed estates with tenant farmers assigned to nobles (Hicks 1987). William Sanders and colleagues (1979: 178–79) speculated that the dispersed Late Postclassic settlements in marginal hillsides/upper pied­mont might reflect farmers attached to administrators’ estates. Te-

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 25

petlaoztoc documents, however, indicate that these were independent farmers, macehualtin (Williams 1991: 203–4). Palaces had lands attached as private property. While there were some instances of private ownership and land sales, land was not fully commoditized in the Aztec economy. Aztec farmers cultivated crops for their households, but they also produced surpluses, and in some cases even prepared foods, that circulated through the market and tax and tribute systems, as well as serving as gifts and ritual offerings (Berdan, chap. 5, this volume). Nahuatl speakers today refer to such rituals as xochitlalia, “to put down flowers” (Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). An intricate web linked farmers, peddlers, regional merchants (tlanecuilo), and the professional long-distance merchants ( pochteca) with regional and, in some cases, international markets (Hirth 2013; Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume; Nichols 2013). Agricultural specializations, often linked with the local ecology, did not begin with the Aztecs but intensified as market networks became more integrated (Nichols et al. 2000). Cultigens also circulated through the imperial tax system, which encompassed a much larger and more diverse territory than any before. The types of foodstuffs and noncomestible crops, such as cotton, depended on cost-distance considerations and ecology (Berdan and Smith 1996). Provinces near Tenochtitlan generally paid staple foodstuffs, in addition to crops paid to local lords. Cotton will not grow in the Basin of Mexico, and it was no accident that the Triple Alliance expanded into the warmer southern highlands and Gulf Coast region, which were important growing areas for cotton and other tropical products (Berdan et al. 1996; Gasco, chap. 8, this volume). Thus, the political economy, as well as commerce and rising population, also drove intensification.

From Source to Workshop to Market The domestic economy also saw more specialized and expanded craft production that illustrates Richard Blanton and Lane Fargher’s (2010: 218) strategies of household production. They predict that when households see greater production as beneficial and have access to prime agricultural land, they will specialize in growing grains for their own consumption and markets. The chinampa farmers of the southern Basin of Mexico provide an excellent illustration of this strategy (Parsons 1976: 252). The

26

Deborah L. Nichols

Xaltocan chinampas also produced large surpluses (Morehart 2014). In more marginal agricultural areas where intensification costs are higher, Blanton and Fargher predict that households will combine agriculture with craft production. The intensification of Late Postclassic household craft production in the dry northeastern Basin of Mexico illustrates this strategy and how household specialization contributed to and was reinforced by the growth of commerce (Nichols 2013). Their third strategy occurs in urban areas with little agricultural land, where households specialize in manufacturing and services. Edward Calnek (1972) concluded that while Tenochtitlan households might have had kitchen gardens, there were no farm fields in the city by the early sixteenth century.

Source Studies and the Aztec Market System Producers, peddlers, and regional merchants bought and sold household goods in Aztec markets, but documentary sources provide few details (Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume). Technological approaches have revolutionized our understanding of Aztec obsidian tool manufacturing and trade (e.g., Pastrana and Carballo 2017). The Missouri University Research Reactor’s (MURR) large database of obsidian makes it possible using neutron activation analysis (NAA) and more recently x-ray fluorescence (XRF) to identify the source of almost any obsidian artifact (Cobean 2003). Obsidian tools, jewelry, and ritual objects manufactured in household workshops were traded through the market system. Some blade makers worked in markets, and some obsidian workshops also were located in palaces. Workshops attached to temples and calmecac and telpochcalli schools specialized in weapons (Pastrana and Carballo 2017), and their circulation was more politically controlled. This explains why gray obsidian did not move as freely across political boundaries as green core-blades (Parry 2002). The pochteca traded obsidian knives and jewelry, and earspools made of green obsidian from the Pachuca source, especially valued by the Mexica, have been found as far away as the Pacific coast and Oaxaca (Parry 2001: 109). Alejandro Pastrana and David Carballo (2017) argue that green prismatic blades exhibit the widest geographic distribution of any archaeological material within and beyond the Aztec empire. Household ceramics circulated through different market networks. Mary Hodge and Leah Minc (Hodge et al. 1992, 1993) pioneered the study

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 27

of market flows of Aztec pottery. They combined stylistic and neutron activation analyses (NAA) of pottery from survey collections of sites in the southern and eastern Basin of Mexico. Other archaeologists expanded this approach to a greater variety of ceramics, to large samples of excavated ceramics, to other parts of the Basin of Mexico and beyond, and to the colonial period and pre-Aztec era (Garraty 2006; Nichols et al. 2013; Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2013; Stark, chap. 9, this volume). This research has guided theoretical developments about markets and defining archaeological correlates of market trade (Garraty 2010; Stark and Garraty 2010). The NAA ceramic database for Mesoamerica at MURR is the largest in the world and is dominated by Aztec pottery from the Basin of  Mexico, despite the challenges of the region’s geology for ceramic sourcing studies. As an interior drainage basin, there is ongoing mixing of sediments. Ceramic composition groups vary on a gradient along north-south and east-west axes. Ceramics made of clays from the Chalco, TenochtitlanTenayuca, and western Cuauhtitlan-Tultitlan regions can be distinguished from each other. Ceramics manufactured in the Texcoco region form a fifth group but grade into the Teotihuacan Valley and Chalco region. A series of small groups also have been defined (Nichols et al. 2002). In the Teotihuacan Valley, the most intensively sampled subregion for both clays and ceramics, it may be possible to distinguish pottery made near the lakeshore from inland workshops up the valley (Crider et al. 2017). Application of multiple sourcing methods can also make finer distinctions (Stoner et al. 2015). Archaeologists have linked distinct stylistic variants with individual composition groups. Garraty (2013: 168, 170), for example, found that potters from Texcoco and Tenochtitlan-Tenayuca used a similar suite of Aztec III decorative motifs, but Texcoco potters painted designs only on the interiors of plates, dishes, and molcajetes (grater bowls), while Tenochtitlan potters decorated both interiors and exteriors (also Hodge et al. 1993). Aztec ceramic source studies have been published in articles but not synthesized (Charlton et al. 2000, 2008; Crider 2013; Garcia 2004; Garraty 2006, 2013; Hodge et al. 1992, 1993; Ma 2003; Minc 2006, 2009, 2017; Minc et al. 1994; Neff et al. 1994, 2000; Neff and Hodge 2008; Nichols 2013; Nichols et al. 2000, 2002, 2009, 2013). Here I highlight major trends. Market exchange of ceramics likely goes back to the Late

28

Deborah L. Nichols

Formative in the Basin, when it mostly was traded between adjoining polities/settlement clusters (Nichols et al. 2013). Multiple production centers made Teotihuacan-style pottery during the Early Classic that traded through subregional market networks. The collapse of  Teotihuacan retracted exchange flows of ceramics during the Epiclassic (AD 550– 950) to solar markets. Commerce increased in the Early Postclassic (AD 950–1150), which coincides with the growth of  Tula and expansion of its influence in the northern and eastern Basin of Mexico (Crider 2013; Nichols et al. 2009, 2013). Minc’s (2006: 84–86) analysis of Aztec red wares supports Blanton’s (1996) division of the Basin into two market spheres during the Middle Postclassic. Within these spheres, Early Aztec Red Ware followed a model of noncentralized, overlapping market networks where political boundaries impeded exchange between the spheres. However, other studies have found market flows across these boundaries. Most of Otumba’s Early Aztec pottery was made in the Teotihuacan Valley, and the town had a small red ware workshop. But Otumba also obtained some imports from the southeastern Basin, including Chalco. Cerro Portezuelo’s ceramics mostly were made in the southeastern Basin, but the community imported some pottery from Texcoco and also the Teotihuacan Valley. Chiconautla, a lakeside trading center, obtained pottery from Cuauhtitlan, Chalco, and Texcoco, as well as the Teotihuacan Valley (Nichols et al. 2009). Aztec pottery, both plain and decorated, had distinct market spheres during the Middle Postclassic, although black-on-orange pottery produc­ tion already was more centralized (figure 1.2). Chalco was a major producer of Aztec I Black-on-Orange pottery, but Culhuacan became the most important center for Aztec II Blackon-Orange (Minc et al. 1994: 161–63), and its black-on-orange pottery was the most widely marketed. Minc and her colleagues attribute this to Culhuacan’s prestige as a Toltec heritage center. This also was the most densely settled and urbanized area of the Basin during the Middle Postclassic. Christopher Garraty (2006: 151) thinks the vertical integration of black-on-orange market networks beginning in the Middle Postclassic was due to elite market meddling, both for the prestige of having it manufactured in their city and for the revenues generated by market taxes.

Figure 1.2.  Aztec ceramics: (A ) Late Aztec Red-on-Black bowl from Cerro Portezuelo (CPZ6216B UCLA Fowler Museum collections); (B ) Aztec II Black-on-Orange bowl from Cerro Portezuelo (CPZ4816A UCLA Fowler Museum); (C  ) Aztec III Black-on-Orange bowl from Otumba. Drawings provided by author.

30

Deborah L. Nichols

Chalco ceased to manufacture black-on-orange pottery during the Late Postclassic following its defeat by Tenochtitlan (Nichols et al. 2002). Minc (2009) concluded that political divisions between areas under Texcoco’s and Tenochtitlan’s control continued to impede trade during the Late Postclassic. She found that Late Postclassic red ware bowls with simple comb motifs were marketed within the Acolhua region, while Late Profile Red Wares mostly circulated in the area controlled by Tenochtitlan. In contrast, Blanton (1996) sees the development of a regionally integrated interlocking market system; Minc’s findings have not been so cleanly born out in other studies, especially when orange wares are included. For example, Cerro Portezuelo, which was part of the Acolhua domain, obtained Early Aztec Red Ware from Chalco, Tenochtitlan, and Texcoco and Late Aztec Red Ware from both the Tenochtitlan and the Texcoco composition group. The majority of its Aztec III Black-on-Orange pottery came from the Tenochtitlan composition group (Garraty 2013: 168). The Tenochtitlan composition group was also a significant exporter of comals (griddles) to Cerro Portezuelo and also to Chiconautla and the northwestern Basin, all parts of the Acolhua domain, as well as the southern and western Basin. Chiconautla also imported significant amounts of both red wares and plain orange wares from Tenochtitlan, along with ones made in the Teotihuacan Valley and Cuauhtitlan (Nichols et al. 2009). The expanded market area of Tenochtitlan ceramics was linked with the growth of lakeshore trade. Most people obtained pottery made in their subregion during the Postclassic and Early Colonial periods, but manufacturing of decorated orange wares, in particular, became more specialized and more centralized. Minc (2009: 351–55) also found that production of more elaborate red wares was more centralized and they were more widely marketed, while manufacturing and marketing of simpler red wares were more lo­ calized (Charlton et al. 2008). Nonetheless, pottery and figurines flowed across political boundaries. Different types of ceramics had different market networks; Aztec III and Aztec III–IV decorated pottery exhibit the largest market area. An increased exportation of orange wares, both plain and decorated, from the Tenochtitlan production zone marks the Late Postclassic, although this did not extend to the northeastern trade routes. At the same time, ceramics made in the eastern Basin of Mexico apparently were

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 31

marketed much less or not at all in the Tenochtitlan area (Garraty 2013; Nichols et al. 2013). My colleagues and I (Nichols et al. 2002) noted that the growth of exports paralleled Tenochtitlan’s growth as an imperial cen­ ter. We did not intend to imply that the prestige of pottery from the im­ perial capital was the sole driver (Garraty 2013: 172). I strongly suspect that intensification of manufacturing in the Tenochtitlan area involved a shift from intermittent to more continuous production (facilitated by urbanization, greater consumer demand, and a more reliable urban food supply). Market integration of the Basin of Mexico was greatest during the Late Postclassic. Opinions remain divided about the degree of polit­ ical impedance, yet both Garraty (2010) and Minc (2009) agree about the importance of markets for elite finance. Garraty (2006) emphasizes revenue generated from market taxes. He cites Bernardino de Sahagún (1954: 67) that market transactions at Tlatelolco were taxed at a rate of 20 percent. Small vendors such as farmers selling surplus staple foods or household goods, however, could not have sustained such a tax rate. But elite manipulation extended beyond taxation (Minc 2009: 366). The contending conclusions about market flows and political boundaries stem in part from theoretical differences but also from our data sets. Most of the Aztec composition data analyzed at MURR are available, but the associated ceramic descriptions and contextual information are reported in different ways.1 Minc’s large NAA red ware data set gen­erated at the University of Oregon is not yet published. Although the NAA Aztec ceramic database is large, it is not uniformly distributed. Ideally source data should be based on randomly selected samples from wellcontrolled comparable contexts. Sampling strategies should take into account the fact that different types of ceramics and obsidian sources and commodities had different market areas. For many Aztec sites, however, all that exist are the “grab” samples of ceramics from surveys, and collections were not made at all Aztec sites. The unsurveyed western Basin of Mexico, including Tenochtitlan, is underrepresented in the NAA database. Based on small samples of Aztec IV and other Early Colonial earthenware, we initially thought that the defeat of  Tenochtitlan and popula­ tion loss caused the collapse of ceramic manufacturing (Nichols et al. 2002). We were wrong; more recent studies show it persisted, albeit at a reduced scale. Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría and colleagues (2013) tested

32

Deborah L. Nichols

Ross Hassig’s model indicating that indigenous Early Colonial towns were mostly self-sufficient (Hassig 1985). Although most Early Colonial pottery at Xaltocan was produced in the northwestern Basin, townspeople also imported some earthenware pottery and majolica from Tenochtitlan and obsidian from diverse sources. Obsidian from Pachuca and Otumba sources continued to dominate in the Early Colonial period, and their markets seem not to have been greatly impacted by Tenochti­ tlan’s defeat (Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2013: 412). Researchers of different theoretical dispositions have undertaken studies of the production and marketing of Aztec household goods. Nonetheless, their findings align in showing an increase in commerce and market integration. The volume of household commodities, along with wealth goods and raw materials, that flowed through Aztec markets in the early sixteenth century was very substantial and paralleled the intensification in specialization as population expanded and urbanism increased with Aztec imperialism (Garraty 2006: 209). The intensified social and economic interactions that accompanied the expanding boundaries of the Aztec empire and the movement of people and commodities across imperial borders had local impacts on households in the Basin of Mexico. Aztec red ware goblets for drinking chocolate are present at rural sites, for example. Long-distance trade and other types of social interaction involving the Basin of Mexico began to define Mesoamerica by the Early Formative (Stoner et al. 2015). Building on the earlier work of Richard Blanton and Gary Feinman (1984), Michael Smith and Frances Berdan (2003) applied a modified world-systems model to the Mesoamerican macro-region with central Mexico as its dominant core. Philip Kohl and Evgenij Chernykh (2003: 308) are more cautious, because they think that in Postclassic Mesoamerica few dependencies could be deliberately created and sustained for long periods. Recently, Blanton and Fargher (2012: 14) argued that increased consumption of  bulk luxury goods, including cotton, green obsidian blades, and cacao, traded on a macro-regional scale was “powerfully system shaping, and key to the development of world systems.” But in what sense were cotton and obsidian blades luxury goods when most households had access to them? Recently, attention has been drawn to storage as a window on linkages between households and agriculture, markets, and fiscal systems (Hirth 2012). In contrast to other empires such as the Inka, evidence of Aztec

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 33

storage is much more limited (Rojas 2012a, 2012b, 2016; Smith 2012b). In a comparative analysis, Smith (2012c) finds that although Aztec small-scale storage is similar to patterns elsewhere, we lack evidence of large-scale storage. Given the needs of  Tenochtitlan’s large urban popu­ l­ation, along with that of other cities such as Texcoco, and the volume of goods moving through the market and tax systems, the lack of evidence of large-scale storage is puzzling. Either most storage was small scale and associated with households, or we have missed both the historical and the archaeological evidence. Hirth (2012) theorizes that transportation costs determine the structure of storage systems. In cases like the Aztecs with high transportation costs, except for the lake system in the Basin of Mexico (or along the coasts), he argues that storage will be dispersed and decentralized. Blanton and Fargher (2012) see the development of market institutions in central Mexico as driving its formation as a core zone and intensifying its trade and political interactions with other regions of Mesoamerica, especially tropical lowlands. As an example, I note the presence of pochteca merchants at Otumba. Their demand for obsidian knives and jewelry and cochineal, which are considered bulk luxury goods, stimulated production of lapidary, core-blade, and maguey workshops at Otumba and perhaps rural workshops that made bifaces, including spear points of Otumba obsidian. A town of Otumba’s size did not need multiple lapidary and core-blade workshops or a neighborhood of maguey fiber workshops to meet its needs, because nearly every rural and urban household spun and wove. Blanton and Fargher (2012) emphasize that growth in commerce rests on market cooperation and broadly based participation across social classes and ethnic groups. Blanton and Fargher highlight key devel­ opments that fostered broad market participation: the formation of the Triple Alliance, which improved the safety of interregional travel; having the pochteca of commoner origins (not state officials) adjudicate mar­ ket disputes; diminishing sharp ethnic group boundaries, perhaps because of the ethnic pluralism of city-states; and an interlocking market system (Blanton 2015; Blanton and Fargher 2012). These are fertile ideas for further testing. Aztec market participation also cut across gender, as both Aztec women and men were buyers and sellers—this is by no means universal across the world and warrants further study.

34

Deborah L. Nichols

Final Thoughts To characterize the Aztec economy as commercial is no longer novel; Berdan (2003: 95) characterizes markets as the “lifeblood of the Postclassic economy.” Research has reversed Karl Polanyi’s (Polanyi et al. 1957) failure to recognize premodern commerce (Feinman 2013: 455). Sandstrom and Sandstrom (chap. 4, this volume) see behavioral economics as a new alternative. For both Aztecs and Nahuas, ritual was laden with emotion and symbolism. They saw themselves as part of (not apart from) the cosmos and engaged in interactions with cosmic forces and deities. The Sandstroms argue that these interactions can be understood as economic transactions, and concepts such as sunk costs may help explain why rituals persist while not losing the profound emotions and meanings of  “people caught up in the exchanges that they view as fundamen­tal to the continuance of the world and to their very existence” (Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). There remain differing views of the relationship of politics and eco­ nomics, but it is more a matter of  weighting than absolutes. With greater urbanization, the demand of larger populations, and more integrated market systems, extracting taxes often was a more effective strategy of state finance and power for the Triple Alliance than was costly direct political control (Gutiérrez 2013; see Berdan et al., introduction to this volume for a discussion of taxes vs. tribute). The Aztec economy was never as commercialized as that of some other ancient states, such as Rome, because land and labor were not fully commoditized and it was not capitalist. The trend of more land shifting from corporate to private ownership and the buying and selling of slaves suggests further commercialization. Berdan (2003: 95) also points to the limited political control of key resource extraction zones. Smith’s approach of emphasizing levels of commercialism (see chap. 2, this volume) also can be productively applied to the Early Colonial period. Collective action and fiscal theory have generated new models to be tested. The same also holds for new climate models, as well as applications of historical ecology and political ecology and economy for analyzing long-term interactions between society, economy, and environment. In the empirical domain, no archaeologist has yet found an Aztec or-

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 35

ange ware ceramic workshop, and no trowel has penetrated remains of an Aztec marketplace. Aztec agricultural features, such as terraces and permanent irrigation, are underinvestigated. The number of excavated Aztec obsidian workshops remains small, and the important Otumba obsidian source warrants intensive survey as has been done for the Pachuca source (Pastrana and Carballo 2017). Identifying a merchant neighborhood at Otumba may still be possible, but that opportunity will not exist forever. It was not obvious in the 1960s and 1970s to archaeologists that most Aztec sites in the Basin of Mexico would be obscured or destroyed within a decade. Nonetheless, much archaeology still can be done, and new methods can be applied to older collections. Little research has focused on other economic impacts beyond taxes and tribute of Aztec wars and their costs (Smith, chap. 2, this volume; Scheidel 2015). War was an important driver of demands for food, weap­ ons, armor, and regalia, as well as of collective action (Morehart and Eisenberg 2010). In eastern Guerrero, Gutiérrez (2014: 165) has demonstrated the potential of archaeology to address the elite bias in historical accounts of Aztec warfare although no battlefield has yet been tested or excavated. Walter Scheidel (2015) attributes the omission of the Aztec empire and its predecessors in many comparative studies to the fact that it developed in isolation from Eurasia. That isolation ended in 1519. The ap­ proaching five-hundredth anniversary of the encounter between the Spanish and Aztec empires should be a clarion call for more inclusive comparative studies, as it set in motion changes that continue to shape the modern world.

Notes 1. Data available at http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/datasets.html.

References Cited Berdan, Frances F. 1996. The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 115–36. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC.

36

Deborah L. Nichols

———. 2003. The Economy of Postclassic Mesoamerica. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 93–95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2007. The Technology of Ancient Mesoamerican Mosaics: An Experimen­ tal Investigation of Alternative Super Glues. Report to FAMSI, www.famsi .org/reports/06015/ (accessed April 6, 2015). ———. 2012. Central Mexican States and Imperial Tribute Systems. In The Oxford Handbook of  Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher Pool, 653–59. Oxford University Press, New York. ———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ———. 2015. Pursuing Passions. Ancient Mesoamerica 26:1–12. Berdan, Frances, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, eds. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Berdan, Frances F., and Michael E. Smith. 1996. Imperial Strategies and CorePeriphery Relations. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 209–18. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard E. 1996. The Basin of Mexico Market System and the Growth of Empire. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 47–84. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. ———. 2015. Theories of Ethnicity and the Dynamics of Ethnic Change in Multiethnic Societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 112: 9176–81. Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-modern States. Springer, New York. ———. 2010. Evaluating Causal Factors in Market Development in Premodern States: A Comparative Study with Critical Comments on the History of Ideas About Markets. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 207–26. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. ———. 2012. Market Cooperation and the Evolution of the Pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican World System. In Rutledge Handbook of  World Systems Analysis, edited by Salvatore J. Babones and Christopher Chase-Dunn, 11­–20. Routledge, London. Blanton, Richard E., and Gary M. Feinman. 1984. The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist 86:673–82. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1980. Specialization, Market Exchange, and the Aztec State: The View from Huexotla. Current Anthropology 21:459–78.

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 37

Calnek, Edward. 1972. Settlement Patterns and Chinampa Agriculture at Tenochtitlan. American Antiquity 37:104–15. ———. 1978. El sistema de mercado de Tenochtitlan. In Economía política e ideo­ logía en el México prehispánico, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda, 95–112. Editorial Nueva Imagen, Mexico City. Carballo, David. 2013. Labor Collectives and Group Cooperation in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by David M. Carballo, 243–74. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Carballo, David, Paul Roscoe, and Gary M. Feinman. 2014. Cooperation and Collective Action in the Cultural Evolution of Complex Societies. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 21:98–133. Carrasco, Pedro. 1983. Some Theoretical Considerations About the Role of the Market in Ancient Mexico. In Economic Anthropolog y: Topics and Theories, edited by Sutti Ortiz, 67–81. Monographs in Economic Anthropology 1. University Press of America, Lanham, MD. ———. 1999. The Tenochca Empire of  Ancient Mexico: The Triple Alliance of  Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Charlton, Thomas H., Cynthia L. Otis Charlton, Deborah L. Nichols, and Hector Neff. 2008. Aztec Otumba, AD 1200–1600: Patterns of the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Ceramic Products. In Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica, edited by Christopher A. Pool and George J. Bey III, 237–66. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton. 2000. Otumba and Its Neighbors: Ex oriente lux. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:247–65. Cobean, Robert H. 2003. Un mundo de obsidiana: Minería y comercio de un vidrio volcánico en le México antiguo / A World of Obsidian: The Mining and Trade of a Volcanic Glass in Ancient Mexico. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Cordova, Carlos E., and Jeffery R. Parsons. 1997. Geoarchaeology of an Aztec Dispersed Village on the Texcoco Piedmont of Central Mexico. Geoarchaeolog y 12:177–210. Crider, Destiny. 2013. Shifting Alliances: Epiclassic and Early Postclassic Interactions at Cerro Portezuelo. Ancient Mesoamerica 24:107–30. Crider, Destiny, Deborah L. Nichols, and Christopher Garraty. 2017. A Geospatial Approach to the Development of Postclassic Markets: Ceramic Production and Exchange from the Epiclassic through Late Postclassic in the Basin of Mexico. In City , Craft and Residence in Mesoamerica: Research Papers Pre­ sented in Honor of Dan Healan, edited by Ronald K. Faulseit, Nezahualcoyotl Xiutecutli, and Haley Holt-Mehta. Middle American Research Institute Papers, Tulane University, New Orleans. In press. DeLucia, Kristin. 2013. Domestic Economies and Regional Transition: Household Multicrafting and Exploitation in Pre-Aztec Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeolog y 32:353–67.

38

Deborah L. Nichols

Evans, Susan T. 1980. Spatial Analysis of Basin of Mexico Settlement: Problems with the Use of Central Place Models. American Antiquity 45:866–75. ———. 2017. Aztec Palaces and Gardens: Intertwined Evolution. In Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Enrique RodríguezAlegría, 229–46. Oxford University Press, New York. Feinman, Gary M. 2013. Crafts, Specialists, and Markets in Mycenaean Greece: Reenvisioning Ancient Economies Beyond Typological Constructs. American Journal of  Archaeolog y 117:453–59. Frederick, Charles. 2007. Chinampa Cultivation in the Basin of Mexico: Observations on the Evolution of Form and Function. In Seeking a Richer Harvest: The Archaeolog y of Subsistence Intensification, Innovation, and Change, edited by Tina Thurston and Christopher T. Fisher, 107–24. Springer, New York. García Chavez, Raul E. 2004. De Tula a Azcapotzalco: Characterization arqueológica de los altepetl de la Cuenca de México del Posclásico Temprano y Medio, a travéz del studio cerámico regional. PhD diss., Facultad de Filo­ sofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. Garraty, Christopher P. 2006. The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and Exchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1200–1650. PhD diss., School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. ———. 2010. Investigating Market Exchange in Ancient Societies: A Theoretical Review. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Socie­ ties, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 3–32. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. ———. 2013. Market Development and Expansion Under Aztec and Spanish Rule in Cerro Portezuelo. Ancient Mesoamerica 24:151–76. Gutiérrez, Gerardo. 2013. Negotiating Aztec Tributary Demands in the Tribute Record of  Tlapa. In Merchants, Markets, Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 141–68. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. ———. 2014. Aztec Battlefields in Eastern Guerrero: An Archaeological and Ethno­historical Analysis of an Operational Theater of the Tlapanec War. In Embattled Bodies, Embattled Places: War in Pre-Columbian Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited by Andrew K. Scherer and John W. Verano, 143–70. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Hassig, Ross. 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Politi­cal Economy of  the Valley of  Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Hicks, Frederic. 1987. First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated Economy in Aztec Mexico. In Early State Dynamics, edited by Henri J. M. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, 91–107. E. J. Brill, Leiden. Hirth, Kenneth G. 2012. Producción Azteca de maiz y almacenamiento institutional en la Cuenca de México: Un modelo de decentralisación del almacenaje. In Almacenamiento prehispánico del Norte de México and Altiplano

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 39

Central, edited by Séverine Bortot, Dominique Michelet, and Véronique Darras, 179–86. Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris; Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico. ———. 2013. The Merchant’s World: Commercial Diversity and the Economics of Interregional Exchange in Highland Mesoamerica. In Merchants, Markets, Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 85–112. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Hodge, Mary G., Hector Neff, M. James Blackman, and Leah D. Minc. 1992. A Compositional Perspective on Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hector Neff, 203–31. Monographs in World Archaeolog y no. 7. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wis. ———. 1993. Black-on-Orange Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire’s Heartland. Latin American Antiquity 4:130–57. Keene, Benjamin. 1971. The Aztec Image in Western Thought. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ. Kellogg, Susan. 1986. Aztec Inheritance in Sixteenth-Century Mexico City: Colonial Patterns, Prehispanic Influences. Ethnohistory 33:313–30. Kohl, Philip L., and Evgenij N. Chernykh. 2003. Different Hemispheres, Different Worlds. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Frances F. Berdan and Michael E. Smith, 307–12. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Luna, Gregory G. G. 2014. Modeling the Aztec Agricultural Waterscape of Lake Xochimilco: A GIS Analysis of Lakebed Chinampas and Settlement. PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Ma, Marina. 2003. Examining Prehispanic Ceramic Exchange in the Basin of Mexico: A Chemical Source Analysis from Azcapotzalco. Senior honors thesis in anthropology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH. Mata-Míguez, Jaime, Lisa Overholtzer, Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría, Brian M. Kemp, and Deborah A. Bolnik. 2012. The Genetic Impact of Aztec Imperialism: Ancient Mitochondrial DNA Evidence from Xaltocan, Mexico. American Journal of Physical Anthropolog y 149:504–16. Minc, Leah D. 2006. Monitoring Regional Market Systems in Prehistory: Models, Methods, and Metrics. Journal of  Anthropological Archaeolog y 25:82–116. ———. 2009. Style and Substance: Evidence for Regionalism Within the Aztec Market System. Latin American Antiquity 2:343–74. ———. 2017. Pottery and the Potter’s Craft in the Aztec Heartland. In Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Enrique RodríguezAlegría, 355–74. Oxford University Press, New York.

40

Deborah L. Nichols

Minc, Leah D., Mary G. Hodge, and M. J. Blackman. 1994. Stylistic and Spatial Variability in Early Aztec Ceramics: Insights into Pre-imperial Exchange Systems. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, 134–73. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany. Morehart, Christopher T. 2014. The Potentiality and the Consequences of Surplus: Agricultural Production and Institutional Transformation in the Northern Basin of Mexico. Economic Anthropolog y 1:154–66. ———. 2017. Aztec Agricultural Strategies: Intensification, Landesque Capital, and the Sociopolitics of Production. In Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría, 263–80. Oxford University Press, New York. Morehart, Christopher T., and Dan T. A. Eisenberg. 2010. Prosperity, Power, and Change: Modeling Maize at Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeolog y 29:94–112. Morehart, Christopher T., and Charles Frederick. 2014. The Chronology and Collapse of Aztec Raised Field Chinampa Agriculture in the Northern Basin of Mexico. Antiquity 88:531–48. Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, Edward B. Sisson, Michael D. Glascock, and Penny R. Sisson. 1994. Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Postclassic Poly­ chrome  Pottery from Central Mexico. In The Mixteca-Puebla Concept in Mesoamerican Archaeology: A Further Examination, edited by H. B. Nicholson, 117–41. Labyrinthos, Culver City, CA. Neff, Hector, Michael D. Glascock, Thomas H. Charlton, Cynthia Otis Charlton, and Deborah L. Nichols. 2000. Provenience Investigation of Ceramics and Obsidian from Otumba. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:207–322. Neff, Hector, and Mary G. Hodge. 2008. Serving Vessel Production at Chalco: Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis. In Place of Jade: Society and Economy in Ancient Chalco, edited by Mary G. Hodge, 185–224. Latin American Archaeology Report. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Nichols, Deborah L. 2013. Merchants and Merchandise. In Merchants, Markets, Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 49­–84. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. ———. 2015. Intensive Agriculture and Early Complex Societies of the Basin of Mexico: The Formative Period. Ancient Mesoamerica 26:407–21. Nichols, Deborah L., Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Hector Neff, Mary Hodge, Thomas H. Charlton, and Michael D. Glascock. 2002. Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective on Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of  Anthropological Archaeolog y 21:25–82.

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 41

Nichols, Deborah L., Christina Elson, Leslie G. Cecil, Nina Neivens de Estrada, Michael D. Glascock, and Paula Mikkelsen. 2009. Chiconautla, Mexico: A Crossroads of Aztec Trade and Politics. Latin American Antiquity 20: 443–72. Nichols, Deborah L., and Susan T. Evans. 2009. Aztec Studies. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:265–70. Nichols, Deborah L., Charles D. Frederick, Luis Morett Alatorre, and F. Sánchez Martínez. 2006. Water Management and Political Economy in Formative Period Central Mexico. In Ritual Water Management, edited by Lisa Lucero and Barbara Fash, 51–66. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Nichols, Deborah L., Mary Jane McLaughlin, and Maura Benton. 2000. Pro­ duction Intensification and Regional Specialization. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:267–91. Nichols, Deborah L., Hector Neff, and George L. Cowgill. 2013. Cerro Portezuelo: An Overview. Ancient Mesoamerica 24:47–71. Nichols, Deborah L., and Christopher A. Pool. 2012. Theory, Method, and Practice in Mesoamerican Archaeology. In The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeolog y, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Christopher A. Pool, 1–29. Oxford University Press, New York. Ortman, Scott G., Andrew H. F. Cabaniss, Jennie O. Storm, and Luis M. A. Bettencourt. 2015. Settlement Scaling and Increasing Returns in an Ancient Society. Science Advances 1:e1400066. Parry, William J. 2001. Production and Exchange of Obsidian Tools in Late Aztec City-States. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:101–11. ———. 2002. Aztec Blade Production Strategies in the Eastern Basin of Mexico. In Pathways to Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican Core-Blade Technolog y, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Bradford Andrews, 39–48. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1976. The Role of Chinampa Agriculture in the Food Supply of Tenochtitlan. In Cultural Change and Continuity, edited by Charles E. Cleland, 232–62. Academic Press, New York. Pastrana, Alejandro, and David Carballo. 2017. Aztec Obsidian Industries. In Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría, 329–42. Oxford University Press, New York. Polanyi, Karl, Conrad M. Arensberg, and Harry W. Pearson, eds. 1957. Trade and Market in Early Empires: Economies in History and Theory. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Ragsdale, Corey S., and Heather J. H. Edgar. 2015. Cultural Interaction and Biological Distance in Postclassic Period Mexico. American Journal of Physical Anthropolog y 151:121–33. Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique, John J. Millhauser, and Wesley D. Stoner. 2013. Journal of  Anthropological Archaeology 32:397–414.

42

Deborah L. Nichols

Rojas, José Luis de. 2012a. El almacenamiento en el imperio Mexica: Una necesidad evidente en busca de evidencias. In Almacenamiento prehispánico del Norte de México and Altiplano Central, edited by Séverine Bortot, Dominique Michelet, and Véronique Darras, 174–78. Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris; Centro de  Es­ tudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico. ———. 2012b. Análisis de la representación de depósitos de almacenamiento en los codices. In Almacenamiento prehispánico del Norte de México and Altiplano Central, edited by Séverine Bortot, Dominique Michelet, and Véronique Darras, 187–202. Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris; Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centro­ americanos, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico. ———. 2016. Storage and Administration in the Aztec Empire. In Storage in Ancient Complex Societies: Administration, Organization, and Context, edited by Linda R. Manzanilla and Mitchell S. Rothman, 293–312. Routledge, New York. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1954. Florentine Codex: A History of the Things of New Spain. Book 8, Kings and Lords, edited and translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah, Salt Lake City. Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York. Scheidel, Walter. 2015. Rome, Tenochtitlan, and Beyond: Comparing Empires Across Time and Space. Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics. Classics Department, Princeton University, Princeton; Classics Department, Stanford University, Stanford. Smith, Michael E. 1979. The Aztec Marketing System and Settlement Pattern in the Valley of Mexico: A Central Place Analysis. American Antiquity 44:110–25. ———. 1980. The Role of the Marketing System in Aztec Society and Economy: Reply to Evans. American Antiquity 44:110–24. ———. 2008. Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. ———. 2010. Regional and Local Market Systems in Aztec-Period Morelos. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 161–84. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. ———. 2012a. The Aztecs. 3rd ed. Basil Blackwell, Oxford, UK. ———. 2012b. Graneros y almacenamiento de maíz en Morelos posclásico. In Almacenamiento prehispánico del Norte de México and Altiplano Central, edited by Séverine Bortot, Dominique Michelet, and Véronique Darras, 159– 72. Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-

Farm to Market in the Aztec Imperial Economy 43

Sorbonne, Paris; Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico. ———. 2012c. El almacenamiento en la economia Azteca: Una perspectiva comparative. In Almacenamiento prehispánico del Norte de México and Altiplano Central, edited by Séverine Bortot, Dominique Michelet, and Véronique Darras, 203–20. Laboratoire Archéologie des Amériques, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris; Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, Mexico. ———. 2015. The Aztec Empire. In Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States, edited by Andrew Monson and Walter Scheidel, 71–114. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Smith, Michael E., and Frances F. Berdan, eds. 2003. The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Stahle, D. W., J. Villanueva, D. J. Burnette, J. Cerano, R. R. Heim Jr., F. K. Fye, R. Acuña, M. D. Therrell, M. K. Cleaveland, and D. K. Stahle. 2011. Major Mesoamerican Droughts of the Past Millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 38, L05703, doi:10.1029/2010GL046472 (accessed March 15, 2011). Stark, Barbara L., and Christopher P. Garraty. 2010. Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A Methodological Review. In Archaeological Approaches to Marketplace Exchange, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 33–60. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. 2015. The Emergence of Early-Middle Formative Exchange Patterns in Mesoamerica: A View from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39:19–35. Wilk, Richard R., and Lisa C. Cliggett. 2007. Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. Williams, Barbara J. 1991. The Lands and Political Organization of a Rural Tlaxilacali in Tepetlaoztoc, c. A.D. 1540. In Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two-Thousand Year Perspective, edited by H. R. Harvey, 187–208. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Cities in the Aztec Empire

2

Commerce, Imperialism, and Urbanization

Michael E. Smith

The Late Postclassic period in Mesoamerica was a time of rapid social change. Populations grew in most regions, and long-distance connections, including commerce, expanded greatly. City-states flourished in most regions, and the Aztec empire expanded by conquering large parts of Mesoamerica. Wealth flowed into central Mexico, fueling the growth of Tenochtitlan and contributing to an expansion of artistic, intellectual, and religious activity. These processes of change have been targets of continuing research by archaeologists, ethnohistorians, and art historians, and our knowledge has advanced greatly in the past two decades. The Late Postclassic period also saw a major expansion of urbanization, not just in the imperial capital but throughout Mesoamerica. But apart from Tenochtitlan, research on cities and urban growth has lagged behind studies of commerce, imperialism, and other topics. In this chapter I examine Late Postclassic urbanization in central Mexico and its linkages with commerce and imperialism. I argue that cities and urban growth were crucial components of society in the Aztec empire and beyond. Processes of urbanization and city growth influenced—and were influenced by—imperial expansion and commerce. I relate these processes to debates in the field of urban history about the historical and causal relationships between urbanization and economic growth. Taking a cue from that literature (Woods 2003; Wrigley 1990), I argue for a two-stage process in Middle and Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Initially, population growth, coupled with processes of political and economic expansion, led to the founding and early growth of cities. Once cities were established, however, urban dynamics assumed an increasingly important generative role, contributing significantly to broader processes of economic and political growth (see discussion be­

Cities in the Aztec Empire 45

low). Attention to comparative cases and theory can help illuminate the processes of growth and change in Aztec central Mexico. When processes of commerce, imperialism, and urbanization in the Aztec period are under discussion, the material record is of crucial importance. Commerce is recognized and studied by the distributions of portable objects, and imperialism is measured in part by the material remains in the provinces and in Tenochtitlan. Urbanization, in contrast, is analyzed by attention to two broad categories of objects: the household goods and houses of the domestic economy; and the temples, palaces, and plazas of cities. Indeed, a city is nothing but a large, complicated ma­ terial object, and thus this volume’s focus on objects provides a useful entry into cities and urbanization processes.

The Three Main Processes I begin with a consideration of the three major processes under consideration in this paper: markets and commerce, political processes in citystates and empires, and urbanization. For each I outline current theore­t­ ical and methodological approaches, and I discuss how these have been— or could be—applied to the Aztec case.

Markets and Commerce The archaeological analysis of ancient patterns of marketplace operation and commercial exchange has seen a renaissance in the past decade and a half. Mesoamericanists have been at the forefront of this research, developing new methods and concepts and greatly advancing our knowledge of Aztec and other Mesoamerican economies (e.g., Garraty and Stark 2010; Hirth and Pillsbury 2013; see also Feinman and Garraty 2010; Garraty 2010; Smith 2004). Four features of Mesoamerican Late Postclassic markets and commercial institutions are particularly relevant to the themes of this chapter. First, the institutions and processes of commercial exchange—such as periodic marketplaces, professional merchants, and the use of money— were widespread in Mesoamerica at this time (Berdan et al. 2003; Masson and Freidel 2013; see also Gasco, chap. 8, this volume). Although these are most strongly documented for Aztec central Mexico, commercial

46

Michael E. Smith

activity was in fact prevalent from Honduras to northern Mexico. Second, the processes by which goods were moved and exchanged—including both commercial and other channels (e.g., Umberger, chap. 7, this volume)—were varied and complex. The market system was hierarchical and interlocking, with periodic integration of several levels; there were several types of professional merchant (Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume); and the basic forms of money (cacao and cotton textiles) were supplemented with many other more limited forms. Third, markets and exchange were linked to kings and polities in varied and complex ways. City-state kings built marketplaces and promoted their local market (Smith 2008: 175–86), and the Aztec empire encouraged provincial exchange in various ways (Berdan et al. 1996). Yet markets and exchange also had a subversive role that allowed people to prosper outside of the control of their polity (Blanton 2013). The ways these opposed forces balanced out are not yet well understood. Fourth, while there is no doubt that the Late Postclassic was a commercial economy, the level of commercialization remained lower than that of many premodern economies. The Assyrian, Roman, and early medieval European economies all had greater numbers of commercial institutions than the Aztec economy, and the commercialization of the Aztec economy paled in comparison with the incipient capitalist economies of late medieval and early modern Europe. Because key aspects of the economy—land and labor—remained largely outside the commercial domain and transportation infrastructure was rudimentary, the level of investment and profit was far lower than in capitalist economies.1 Commercial exchange was important, but more advanced commercial institutions such as contracts and banking were lacking. (For more discussion of commercialization and its relationship to urbanization, see Smith and Lobo 2016.)

Political Processes in City-States and Empires Comparative research on city-states (Hansen 2000; Nichols and Charlton 1997) and empires (Alcock et al. 2001; Doyle 1986) has long been used to improve our understanding of Aztec polities. Because of the acknowledged indirect nature of control in the Aztec empire (Berdan et al. 1996; Hassig 1985), recent studies by political scientists on the nature of indirect control are highly relevant and can generate insights into the Aztec case (Gerring et al. 2011; Naseemullah and Staniland 2014). I will provide just

Cities in the Aztec Empire 47

one example. The Aztec strategy of indirect control has traditionally been viewed as a broad choice on the part of the imperial rulers (Berdan et al. 1996). But the recent model of John Gerring and colleagues (2011) shows that the decision to implement indirect rule is most commonly made on the basis of an assessment of the degree of political organization of the peripheral society: “[T]he type of authority instituted between units that are grossly unequal in political power is often a product of the degree of political organization existing within the weaker unit prior to the establishment of a formal relationship. Specifically, indirect forms of rule are more likely to be established where [the subordinate polity] enjoys a more statelike form of rule” (Gerring et al. 2011: 380). Because many or most of the polities incorporated into the Aztec empire already had city-state governments, this model helps account for the origin and prevalence of indirect rule in the Aztec case. Such a practice was not just a strategic choice by the dominant state but was instead a negotiated outcome based in large part on political structure in the provincial area. Probably the biggest recent breakthrough in understanding ancient polities has been Richard Blanton and Lane Fargher’s (2008) analysis of the extent to which premodern states had autocratic versus collective forms of rule. In their model, the nature of fiscal organization (e.g., whether internal or external revenues dominate) causally determines the values on three scales: bureaucratization, public goods provision, and control over rulers. Blanton and Fargher use the Aztecs as one of their thirty case studies; they focus on Tenochtitlan and the empire. Although they give extended consideration to Tlaxcala and some other Late Postclassic polities in several articles (Fargher et al. 2010, 2011), a full analysis of Aztec polities from this perspective—separating the em­ pire from city-states—remains to be done. Any such study would ben­ efit from a consideration of additional approaches to the collective ac­ tion in polities, such as Margaret Levi’s (1988) predatory theory of rule, Elinor Ostrom’s (1990) analysis of common-pool resources, and David Carballo’s (2013) focus on labor and cooperation.

Urbanization I employ the standard social-science definition of urbanization as the percentage of the population living in urban centers (Davis 1968). I am deliberately using this limited technical definition instead of the more

48

Michael E. Smith

typical informal use of the term urbanization to describe the growth of cities, their wider importance, and their social and cultural attributes. Urbanization in the technical sense is an aspect of urbanism rarely considered by Mesoamericanists, yet it is a crucial component of many mod­ els of economic and social dynamics in agrarian states. The number of people living in cities has widespread implications for the nature of cities and urban life, for economic change and growth, and for political dynamics (Bairoch 1988; Bettencourt 2013; Fletcher 1995; Storper 2010; Wrigley 1990). Beyond urbanization, the size of cities in a given urban system has numerous implications that are beginning to be explored using settlement scaling theory. Scholars have found that in both contemporary and past systems of cities, the population of settlements has a regular and predictable effect on many domains, including population density, the amount of urban infrastructure, and a wide range of socioeconomic outputs, including income, innovations, crime, and poverty (Bettencourt 2013; Bettencourt et al. 2007). Some of these relationships have now been identified for prehispanic settlements through time in the Basin of Mexico (Ortman et al. 2014, 2015) and for medieval European cities (Cesaretti et al. 2016). Application of this approach to Postclassic Mesoamerican cities is only beginning (Ossa et al. 2016), but it holds promise to illuminate the social context and significance of cities at this time.

The Founding of Cities and States in Middle Postclassic Central Mexico The beginning of Aztec society can be dated to around AD 1100, at the archaeological transition from the Early Postclassic (Toltec) period to the Middle Postclassic (Early Aztec) period. Evidence from archaeology, historical linguistics, and native history converges in depicting the arrival at that time of immigrant groups of Nahuatl speakers, who colonized much of central Mexico (Smith 1984; Smith 2008: 73–78; Smith 2012: 36–39). Scattered evidence suggests that this colonization process was directed, or at least organized, by petty kings. In the minds of their descendants four centuries later, a crucial event was the formal act of founding a capital city and a dynasty (Smith 2008: 78–84) (see figure 2.1). These

Cities in the Aztec Empire 49

Figure 2.1.  The founding of the city and dynasty of  Tepexpan, in the Tira de Tepechpan (Noguez 1978: 3). Drawing from Olko 2005: 402.

pictorial and textual descriptions of acts of foundation suggest that for the Aztec kings and nobles, the institutions of city and dynasty were closely intertwined. The basic argument of my book Aztec City-State Capitals (Smith 2008) is that Aztec cities were established as the material manifestation of kingship and royal power. Cities were founded by kings for political reasons. Rulers built pyramids, palaces, and plazas in their capitals to attract commoner subjects and bind them to the polity, through both construction activities and the ceremonies held in association with civic architecture. As time passed, however, Aztec cities took on increasing economic significance, and by the time of the Spanish conquest, markets

50

Michael E. Smith

and commercial activity played a major role in structuring cities and urban life. During the Middle Postclassic period, however, most Aztec cities remained small centers whose kings were busy constructing civic buildings and consolidating their rule. Land was available and populations were low, leading farmers to spread out over the central Mexican landscape. Why did farmers put up with rent and taxes, and why did some people want to live in cities? I have proposed a two-part model—based on a carrot and a stick—to answer these questions (Smith 2008: chap. 8). The stick consists of institutions of social exploitation. Research in preindustrial political economy shows that periods of high land-to-labor ratios, like the Middle Postclassic, are when institutions of peasant exploitation (e.g., rent and taxes) tend to be established (Allen 1997; Domar 1970). Otherwise, when rural population is high relative to available land, farmers compete for access to land, and institutions of exploitation are less necessary to bind farmers to the land. Aztec kings and elites set up the political and economic institutions that would keep them in power until the arrival of Cortés (Smith and Berdan 2016). My proposed carrot is based on the idea that state religion was a public good; that is, temples, rites, and festivities were services provided by rulers for the benefit of the entire urban population (Chwe 2001; Rao 2008).2 The gods protected people and provided rainfall, and ceremonies provided a positive experience for urbanites. Although market systems existed at this time (Minc et al. 1994), the aggregate level of commercial activity was low because both urban and rural populations were low. Nevertheless, rural and urban households in Morelos were relatively well provisioned by goods obtained in the markets in the Middle Postclassic period (see below).

Commercial Expansion and Urbanization in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica (LPC-A Period, 1350–1430) The start of the Late Postclassic period witnessed numerous changes throughout Mesoamerica. I use the label Late Postclassic A to describe the first part of this interval, prior to the expansion of the Aztec empire. Major processes in Postclassic Mesoamerica included an expansion of markets and commercial exchange, the spread of small polities, and increasing communication and interaction among regions, particularly

Cities in the Aztec Empire 51

among elites (Smith and Berdan 2003). In the Basin of Mexico, where chronology is more refined and data more abundant than for most other areas, populations grew at a very high rate (Sanders et al. 1979: 183–87), a pattern also found in at least one nearby provincial area, Morelos (see be­ low). Cities, such as Tenochtitlan, continued to be founded at this time, and the urbanization rate increased as well.

Population Growth and Commercial Expansion Promoted Urbanization In earlier work I described an increase in commercial activity at sites in Morelos at this time (Smith 2003b). The main evidence for this conclusion was an increase in imported goods from around central Mexico, as well as a jump in long-distance imports such as bronze and greenstone. I interpreted the latter pattern as evidence that the people of Morelos had become full participants in the Postclassic Mesoamerican world system. At the same time, populations were expanding and cities were growing in Morelos. Figure 2.2 presents data from a full-coverage survey of the Yautepec Valley (Smith 2006). The total occupied site area, a proxy of total population, increased dramatically from the Middle Postclassic to the Late Postclassic A period, as did the urbanization rate. In this case, urbanization is measured as the percentage of the population living in sites larger than forty hectares.3 A similar growth trajectory took place in the Basin of Mexico (Sanders et al. 1979) and perhaps in other regions as well. While population growth was likely a major impetus to urbanization at this time, the expansion of commercial activity also played a role. Cit­ ies took on greater economic functions; in other words, production and exchange activity that serviced a hinterland was expanding. One component of this trend was regional in scope. Both rural and urban populations were growing, which stimulated regional market systems to move food, utilitarian goods, and luxuries to expanding numbers of consumers. A second component of this economic expansion was the growth of exchange with distant areas of Mesoamerica. These exchange networks—regional and long distance—were centered on the marketplaces in city-state capitals, and it seems logical that increased economic activity would have promoted both rural-to-urban migration and the expansion of urban public architecture and services by kings.

52

Michael E. Smith

Figure 2.2.  Urbanization rate and total occupied site area in the Yautepec Val­ley. The occupied site area is an index for total population. Key: EF = Early For­mative; MF = Middle Formative; LF = Late Formative; TF = Terminal Forma­tive; EC = Early Classic; LC = Late Classic; Epi = Epiclassic; EPC = Early Postclassic; MPC = Middle Postclassic; LPC-A = Late Postclassic A; LPC-B = Late Postclassic B. Graphic by Michael E. Smith; final version by Kristin Sullivan.

Provincial Urbanization Stimulated Commerce Aztec city-state capitals started out as political settlements promoted by kings to boost their legitimacy and power. As commerce expanded in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica, however, kings tapped into these networks to reap benefits. They had several reasons to promote marketing and trade. First, market taxes were a source of income (Smith 2015b). Second, the expansion of trade, at least in Morelos, led to increasing prosperity at all levels of society (Smith 2016a, 2016c), and kings benefit­ ted through their collection of rent and various taxes. The construction and maintenance of formal public plazas were royal activities, undertaken initially as cities were founded in the Middle Postclassic period. Plazas were the settings for market exchange and other social processes in Late Postclassic times. As discussed elsewhere (Ossa et al. 2016), these plazas were multifunctional spaces whose uses changed with the rhythms of the weekly and monthly calendars. The major activities

Cities in the Aztec Empire 53

in Late Postclassic plazas were participatory public ceremonies, massspectator ceremonies, and periodic markets. Other activities, such as private ceremonies and feasting, also took place in plazas. The entire urban population likely spent some time in the plaza each week. By building and maintaining these formal public open spaces, kings improved their capitals in a way that promoted marketing and commerce.

Provincial Urbanization Stimulated Local Collective Political Activities and Institutions On their comparative political scale—running from autocratic to collective forms of governance—Blanton and Fargher’s (2008) data place the Tenochca state closer to the collective than to the autocratic pole. In a later analysis, Fargher and colleagues (2011) expand their treatment of Late Postclassic central Mexico by identifying a range of governance types. They characterize Tlaxcala as “the most collective state in Postclassic Mesoamerica” (Fargher et al. 2011: 322). Moving along the governance scale, Tlaxcala is followed by the city-states of the Basin of Mexico and Morelos, and finally, closest to the autocratic pole, sit the polities of the Valley of Puebla and the Mixteca Alta. I argue above that in their earliest phase (in Middle Postclassic [MPC] times), people were attracted to Aztec city-state capitals by the royal pro­ vision of public goods, including construction and maintenance of pyr­ amids and public plazas. While this process continued into the Late Postclassic period, the contrary or feedback process took on greater prominence: growing urban populations provided an impetus for the promotion of more collective practices and policies. For example, the calpolli in the altepetl of the Basin of Mexico and Morelos was one component of a more collective form of governance. The calpolli most likely developed alongside the altepetl and other institutions in the Middle Postclassic. It strengthened the position of commoners in bargaining with the king and elites (I develop this theme in Smith 2016a: chap. 7).

Impacts on Households and Communities The processes outlined above—urbanization, commercial expansion, and collective political dynamics—impacted domestic economies throughout central Mexico in varying ways, depending on the region and setting (e.g., rural vs. urban). The artifacts from my excavations of houses at sites in

54

Michael E. Smith

Morelos show the impact of these processes in three settlements: a village (Capilco), a town (Cuexcomate), and a city (Yautepec). The artifacts and excavations are described in detail elsewhere (Smith 1992, 2015a, 2016b), and here I will limit myself to a brief discussion of three relevant findings. First, there were few economic differences between rural and urban households. Commoner houses—small one-room adobe structures— were almost identical at rural and urban settlements. Craft production was a small-scale activity at both rural and urban households. Although the urban households of  Yautepec engaged in a wider range of craft activities than did their rural cousins at Capilco and Cuexcomate (table 2.1), the differences are not great. The major craft (cotton textiles) was carried out at all three sites but at slightly higher rates at the rural sites. All households had access to imported goods from other parts of Morelos, from the Basin of Mexico, and from more distant areas. In short, there were few systematic economic distinctions between rural and urban households in Morelos, in any time period. Urban contexts at Yautepec were “rural-like” in that the houses resembled peasant houses and the spacing among them suggested the presence of urban agriculture. And rural contexts at Capilco were “urban-like” in that peasants had ready access to both foreign goods and foreign styles. Second, the domestic inventories of elites and commoners differed only slightly. Elite domestic inventories had greater quantities of imported and decorated ceramics, suggesting higher wealth levels than commoner inventories had, but there was no category of durable good (beyond the house itself ) consumed by elites but not by commoners (table 2.2). The elitecommoner differences in types of domestic goods exemplify the expected distribution pattern of households supplied by a market system (Hirth 1998). These findings furnish strong archaeological evidence not only for the operation of markets in Aztec central Mexico outside of  Tenochtitlan but also for a high level of market penetration of the domestic economy (Earle and Smith 2012; see also Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume). Third, the commoner households of Morelos were relatively well-off economically. Using methods and concepts that I present elsewhere (Smith 2016c), I have analyzed Morelos households in terms of quality of life at the household level and prosperity at the community level (Smith 2016a). Based on the work of Amartya Sen (1993), I define quality of life as consisting of two components: wealth or standard of living (measured from

0.232 0.571 0.721 0.758

0.887 1.656 1.620

0.835 1.295

1 3 5

3 11

Textiles

3 9 7 1

N

0.092 0.134

0.078 0.057

0.065 0.079 0.035 0.012

Obsidian

0.053

0.089 0.065 0.025

0.272 0.138 0.173 0.037

Ceramics

0.030

0.047 0.024 0.024 0.012

Pounding tools 0.012

Ground stone

0.008

0.057

0.005

Paper

Note: Values are expressed as the frequency of all artifacts in domestic middens, averaged over all houses in each context. Key: Number of houses N Textiles Ceramic spindle whorls and spinning bowls, bronze needles, bone tools Obsidian Cores Ceramics Ceramic molds, sherd polishers, polishing stones Pounding tools Ground stone hammerstones, anvils, hafted tools Basalt flakes, bark-beater blanks Ground stone Paper Bark beaters Paint Pigment minerals

Yautepec MPC LPC-A LPC-B Span Capilco MPC LPC-A LPC-B Cuexcomate LPC-A LPC-B

Phase

Table 2.1.  Mean frequencies of craft production items

0.049 0.081

0.057

0.005 0.036

Paint

1 8

1 6

3 3

2 9

Yautepec LPC-A LPC-A

LPC-B LPC-B

Cuexcomate LPC-A LPC-A

LPC-B LPC-B

E C

E (Capilco)

E C

E C

Status

2.62 3.95

3.94 1.86

1.42 2.04

2.41 4.13

0

38.66 40.86

46.54 61.55

64.02 55.78

59.88 53.58

1

0.15 0.11

0.42 0.64

0.85 0.47

0.64 0.55

2

25.40 25.90

15.93 2.80

5.47 10.61

4.94 14.08

3

12.57 13.68

14.07 13.41

9.08 11.18

14.33 11.89

4

10.32 5.24

11.38 15.69

14.66 9.91

13.25 9.52

5

6.26 7.66

3.32 0.69

2.73 7.52

2.16 4.08

6

1.90 1.20

0.91 1.76

0.88 0.96

1.09 0.76

7

0.08 0.11

0.25 0.02

0.00 0.03

0.01 0.04

8

Note: Values are expressed as the frequency of all artifacts in domestic middens, averaged over all houses in each context. Key to consumption groups (E = elites; C = commoners): 0 Food preparation and storage, general category 6 Serving vessels, eroded 1 Food preparation and storage, plainware ceramics 7 Craft tools and materials 2 Food preparation and storage, decorated ceramics 8 Weapons 3 Food preparation and storage, eroded ceramics 9 Ritual items 10 Bodily decoration 4 Serving vessels, plain 12 Other and uncertain 5 Serving vessels, decorated

N

Phase

Table 2.2.  Elite-commoner differences in domestic goods, arranged by consumption group

1.86 1.15

3.11 1.49

0.66 1.05

1.02 1.04

9

0.25 0.31

12

0.00 0.19 0.00 0.16

0.01 0.11 0.03 0.06

0.00 0.23 0.00 0.43

0.01 0.01

10

Cities in the Aztec Empire 57

valuable goods such as imports); and the capabilities of individuals and households to participate meaningfully in society (measured from a diversity of household possessions and participation in external social networks). At the community level, prosperity can be defined in terms of collective construction projects, stability of residence, population growth, longevity of settlement, and resilience to external shocks (Smith 2016c). On all these measures, the households and communities of Morelos were quite successful and prosperous, more so than other central Mexican sites such as Calixtlahuaca (Huster 2016; Smith et al. 2013) and Xaltocan. The reason is not hard to find: farmers in Morelos cultivated cotton and produced cotton textiles. They could literally produce their own money at home. These three patterns for the households of Morelos—rural-urban similarities, modest elite-commoner distinctions, and economic prosperity—were created or promoted by the operation of commerce, imperialism, and collective political dynamics, as expressed at the domestic level.

The Role of Imperialism After AD 1430 (LPC-B Period) The political and economic dynamics outlined above continued in play until the Spanish conquest, but the expansion of the Triple Alliance em­ pire after 1430 affected many parts of this system.

The Mutual Expansion of Empire and Commerce The close interconnections between Aztec imperialism and commerce have been explored in earlier works (Berdan et al. 1996; Garraty and Stark 2002; Hassig 1985; Smith and Berdan 2003), which I summarize briefly here. The empire strategically promoted commerce in several ways, including the protection and promotion of provincial market towns and the imposition of taxes on nonlocal goods (to force provincial peoples to engage in trade). At the same time, the growth in commerce helped promote imperial expansion. For example, economic growth made provincial areas more attractive as potential tax-paying provinces. Also, commercial and communication routes created ties among distant regions, and imperial expansion generally followed such routes and took advantage of them, both for provisioning imperial troops with foodstuffs and to gather intelligence on areas worth conquering.

58

Michael E. Smith

Figure 2.3.  Schematic map of commercial channels among regions as marked by imported decorated ceramics. Arrows show the direction of commerce as documented archaeologically. Imported goods were recovered at specific sites (indicated with triangles); they are depicted as originating in particular regions. Based on Smith 2003a: 70 and updated with data from Calixtlahuaca. Graphic by Michael E. Smith; final version by Kristin Sullivan.

Figure 2.3 gives an idea of the expanded networks of Late Postclassic commerce in one area of central Mexico: western Morelos, the Toluca Valley, and intervening regions. These exchanges are documented from typological classification of imported ceramics at sites, supported by limited confirmation from chemical paste analysis (Huster 2016).

Empire and Commerce as Drivers of Urbanization at Tenochtitlan The explosive growth of Tenochtitlan in its two centuries of existence was a direct consequence of its role as capital of the Triple Alliance em­ pire. Vast quantities of valuable tax and tribute goods flowed into the city from all parts of northern Mesoamerica.4 Many of the luxury and ritual

Cities in the Aztec Empire 59

goods (e.g., Filloy Nadal and Moreno Guzmán, chap. 6, this volume; Umberger, chap. 7, this volume) were deposited as offerings around the Templo Mayor (Berdan 1987; López Luján 1993). Other goods, as tallied in the imperial tax rolls (Berdan and Anawalt 1992), contributed to the general wealth and prosperity of the capital. The role of Tenochtitlan as the commercial capital of central Mexico was a related institutional boost to urban growth. Not only was the Tlatelolco market the largest in Mesoamerica but also it served as the central organizing place for the pochteca merchants and the top-level market in the central Mexican marketing system (Rojas 2012). Some perspective on the growth of Tenochtitlan can be provided by research in European urban history on the interactions among population growth and economic growth on one side, and urbanization on the other. The consensus view is that prior to the eighteenth century, economic growth simulated urbanization. The urban health penalty (high mortality levels in cities) meant that constant rural-to-urban migration was needed to maintain the populations of cities. But by the eighteenth century in Britain, London had emerged as the first city sufficiently large and economically dynamic for its growth to serve as a significant economic stimulus in large parts of the country (Woods 2003; Wrigley 1990). We know few demographic details about Tenochtitlan (rates of birth, death, and migration), but its explosive growth, while impressive for a premodern city, seems unlikely to have actually achieved the kind of transformation that characterized eighteenth-century London. Te­ nochtitlan remained a “parasitic” preindustrial city (Hoselitz 1955), dependent on the countryside and the empire, while contributing little to the increase in productivity or prosperity of those living outside the city limits (see also Smith and Lobo’s unpublished manuscript [2016]). Unfortunately, the lack of systematic household artifact data from the imperial capital limits the conclusions that can be drawn about these processes on the domestic level.

Imperial Expansion Promoted Provincial Urbanization The settlement data illustrated in figure 2.2 show a major growth of urbanization in the Yautepec Valley under the Aztec empire (Late Postclassic B [LPC-B] period). Urban centers grew in size and number. Adequately demonstrating a parallel pattern in other areas is difficult

60

Michael E. Smith

or impossible, largely because archaeological chronologies are not sufficiently refined to isolate the pre- and postimperial periods. But the high levels of population growth and urbanization in the Late Postclassic period, as shown in survey projects throughout the central highlands (Sanders et al. 1979), suggest that cities were likely growing in size and number in provincial areas beyond the Yautepec Valley. The major driving force behind Aztec-period urbanization in highland central Mexico was most likely regional population growth. But numerous processes connected to Aztec imperialism may also have con­ tributed to the process of provincial city growth. These can be discussed in terms of the three major categories of actors in provincial polities: kings, nobles, and commoners. As discussed above, local kings promoted urbanization and urban growth for their own benefit. One result of imperial incorporation in many areas was to bolster the authority of these kings, which strengthened their ability to extract taxes from their subjects to build temples and markets. The policy of indirect control through provincial kings (Gerring et al. 2011) therefore contributed indirectly to the expansion of their capital cities (see also Stark and Chance 2012). The provincial nobility were eager to participate in the social and economic processes of Aztec imperialism. The establishment of regional peace under the empire strengthened their position as landowners and rent collectors. Networking events such as participation in imperial feasts and ceremonies, as well as marriage alliances among polities, were imperial benefits to the provincial nobility. One possible outcome was that provincial nobles may have preferred urban residence, and this would have stimulated urban growth through increased luxury craft production, marketing, and an urban location for the retainers and clients of the nobles. Provincial commoners had a very different view of the empire. For them, the Aztec empire was a mafia-like protection racket. Commoners had to pay imperial taxes, but they got nothing in return beyond the “service” of not being continuously conquered by imperial armies.5 The nonelite provincial population thus had little incentive to promote or support Aztec imperialism, and the direct effects of imperialism on commoners (raised taxes) did little to spur urbanization. Nevertheless, the imperial policies that strengthened provincial kings and city-states

Cities in the Aztec Empire 61

operated through commoners, drawing them into city-state capitals for economic and social reasons. This was facilitated by their social and emotional investments in their local king and city-state, following the logic of Blanton and Fargher (2008). Overall, the political processes of city-states and the economics of the market system served to insulate commoners from the more severe depredations by the empire.

Cities, Exchange, and Empire It is time for Mesoamericanists to add a consideration of urban economics and urbanization processes to their analyses of exchange and political dynamics. Many craft producers lived and worked in cities, and most goods involved in nonlocal exchange of whatever form passed through marketplaces in one or more cities during their journey from producer to consumer. In the Late Postclassic period, in particular, high levels of urbanization (Smith 2005) meant that consumer demand was spatially concentrated in cities and towns. But urban centers were not just the places where certain economic transactions happened to take place; they had their own social dynamic that linked people to the economic and political domains in many ways. Comparative research on other urban traditions suggests that urbanization—the percent of the total population that lived in cities and towns—likely had important social and economic implications in ancient Mesoamerica (de Vries 1990; Woods 2003; Wrigley 1990). I argue above that urbanization was a key component of the overall social interactions between empire and commerce in Aztec central Mexico. Commerce, city-state growth, and imperialism all contributed to increasing urbanization, and urban growth in turn generated outputs that further stimulated commerce and political expansion. Aztec-period central Mexico was an urbanized landscape, and our analyses need to take this observation into account.

Acknowledgments I thank the participants in the Amerind seminar for useful discussion and comments on this paper. Barbara Stark, in particular, provided very helpful detailed comments on an earlier draft. Conversations with

62

Michael E. Smith

members of the social reactors project—Luis Bettencourt, Jose Lobo, Scott Ortman, and Rudolf Cesaretti—have helped my thinking on processes of urbanization.

Notes 1. I am not claiming that there were no land sales or wage labor; James Lockhart (1992: 135–55) documents land sales, and there may have been limited work for wages. But most land was not subject to commercial sale, and most labor was not compensated with cash. 2. Technically, public goods are those that are nonrival (capable of being used simultaneously by many individuals) and nonexcludable (denying anyone access to the good is difficult). See Ostrom 1990 and Rao 2008. 3. One’s definition of an urban place has an obvious influence on the calculation of urbanization rates. Although functionally urban centers in the Yautepec Valley in Aztec times (that is, city-state capitals) could be as small as 13 hectares (Smith 2006), I use a lower limit of 40 hectares for urban sites. At the median density of Aztec cities—50 persons per hectare (Smith 2008: 152)—40 hectares translates to a population of 2,000 residents, a size threshold that Paul Bairoch (1989: 247) recommends for urbanization studies in preindustrial settings. See de Vries 1990 for a discussion of this and other methodological issues in comparative urbanization research. 4. Although a long-standing convention uses the term tribute for payments to the Aztec empire, in the language of comparative political economy these payments fit the definition of taxes but not of tribute. See Smith 2014, 2015b. 5. I develop the notion of empire as a protection racket in Smith 2016a (chap. 4), based on the ideas of Charles Tilly (1985, 1992).

References Cited Alcock, Susan E., Terence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, eds. 2001. Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History. Cambridge University Press, New York. Allen, Robert C. 1997. Agriculture and the Origins of the State in Ancient Egypt. Explorations in Economic History 34:134–54. Bairoch, Paul. 1988. Cities and Economic Development: From the Dawn of History to the Present. Translated by Christopher Braider. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ———. 1989. Urbanisation and the Economy in Preindustrial Societies: The Findings of Two Decades of Research. Journal of European Economic History 18:239–90.

Cities in the Aztec Empire 63

Berdan, Frances F. 1987. The Economics of Aztec Luxury Trade and Tribute. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone, 161–84. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia R. Anawalt, eds. 1992. The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances F., Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, eds. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. 2003. An International Economy. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 96–108. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Bettencourt, Luís M. A. 2013. The Origins of Scaling in Cities. Science 340:1438– 41. Bettencourt, Luís M. A., José Lobo, Dirk Helbing, Christian Kühnert, and Geoffrey B. West. 2007. Growth, Innovation, Scaling, and the Pace of Life in Cities. Proceedings of  the National Academy of  Sciences 104:7301–6. Blanton, Richard E. 2013. Cooperation and the Moral Economy of the Marketplace. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, ed­ ited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 23–48. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard E., and Lane F. Fargher. 2008. Collective Action in the Formation of  Pre-modern States. Springer, New York. Carballo, David M. 2013. Labor Collectives and Group Cooperation in Prehispanic Central Mexico. In Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by David M. Carballo, 243–74. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Cesaretti, Rudolph, Luís M. A. Bettencourt, Jose Lobo, Scott Ortman, and Michael E. Smith. 2016. Population-Area Relationship in Medieval European Cities. PLOS-One 11 (10): e162678 Chwe, Michael. 2001. Rational Ritual: Culture, Coordination, and Common Knowledge. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Davis, Kingsley. 1968. The Urbanization of the Human Population. Scientific American 213 (3): 3–16. de Vries, Jan. 1990. Problems in the Measurement, Description, and Analysis of Historical Urbanization. In Urbanization in History: A Process of Dynamic Interactions, edited by Ad van der Woude, Akira Hayami, and Jan de Vries, 43–60. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. Domar, Evsey D. 1970. The Causes of Slavery or Serfdom: A Hypothesis. Journal of Economic History 30:18–32. Doyle, Michael W. 1986. Empires. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. Earle, Timothy, and Michael E. Smith. 2012. Households, Economies, and Power in the Aztec and Inka Imperial Provinces. In The Comparative Archaeology

64

Michael E. Smith

of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, 238–84. Cambridge University Press, New York. Fargher, Lane F., Richard E. Blanton, and Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza. 2010. Egalitarian Ideology and Political Power in Prehispanic Central Mexico: The Case of Tlaxcallan. Latin American Antiquity 21:227–51. Fargher, Lane F., Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza, and Richard E. Blanton. 2011. Alternative Pathways to Power in Late Postclassic Highland Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 30:306–26. Feinman, Gary M., and Christopher P. Garraty. 2010. Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:167–91. Fletcher, Roland. 1995. The Limits of Settlement Growth: A Theoretical Outline. Cam­ bridge University Press, New York. Garraty, Christopher P. 2010. Investigating Market Exchange in Ancient Societies: A Theoretical Review. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 3–32. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Garraty, Christopher P., and Barbara J. Stark. 2002. Imperial and Social Relations in Postclassic South-Central Veracruz. Latin American Antiquity 13:3–33. ———, eds. 2010. Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Socie­ ties. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Gerring, John, Daniel Ziblatt, Johan van Gorp, and Julián Arévalo. 2011. An Institutional Theory of Direct and Indirect Rule. World Politics 63 (3): 377–433. Hansen, Mogens Herman, ed. 2000. A Comparative Study of  Thirty City-State Cultures. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, Copenhagen. Hassig, Ross. 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth Century Politi­ cal Economy of  the Valley of  Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Hirth, Kenneth G. 1998. The Distributional Approach: A New Way to Identify Marketplace Exchange in the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology 39:451–76. Hirth, Kenneth G., and Joanne Pillsbury, eds. 2013. Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Hoselitz, Bert. 1955. Generative and Parasitic Cities. Economic Development and Cul­ tural Change 3:278–94. Huster, Angela C. 2016. Effects of Aztec Conquest on Provincial Households at Calixtlahuaca, Mexico. PhD diss., School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University. Levi, Margaret. 1988. Of Rule and Revenue. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stan­ ford University Press, Stanford. López Luján, Leonardo. 1993. Las ofrendas del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Cities in the Aztec Empire 65

Masson, Marilyn A., and David A. Freidel. 2013. Wide Open Spaces: A Long View of the Importance of Maya Market Exchange. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 201–28. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Minc, Leah D., Mary G. Hodge, and M. James Blackman. 1994. Stylistic and Spatial Variability in Early Aztec Ceramics: Insights into Pre-imperial Exchange Systems. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, 133–73. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Albany, NY. Naseemullah, Adnan, and Paul Staniland. 2014. Indirect Rule and Varieties of Governance. Governance. DOI: 10.1111/gove.12129. Nichols, Deborah L., and Thomas H. Charlton, eds. 1997. The Archaeology of  CityStates: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Noguez, Xavier, ed. 1978. Tira de Tepechpan: Códice colonial procedente del Valle de México. 2 vols. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, Toluca. Olko, Justyna. 2005. Turquoise Diadems and Staffs of Office: Elite Costume and Insignia of Power in Aztec and Early Colonial Mexico. Polish Society for Latin American Studies, Warsaw. Ortman, Scott G., Andrew H. F. Cabaniss, Jennie O. Sturm, and Luís M. A. Bettencourt. 2014. The Pre-history of Urban Scaling. PLOS-one 9 (2): e87902. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone .0087902. ———. 2015. Settlement Scaling and Increasing Returns in an Ancient Society. Science Advances 1 (1): e1400066. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content /1/1/e1400066.article-info. Ossa, Alanna, Michael E. Smith, and Jose Lobo. 2016. The Size of Plazas in Meso­ american Cities: A Quantitative Analysis and Social Interpretation. Unpublished manuscript. Ostrom, Elinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of  Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press, New York. Rao, Vijayendra. 2008. Symbolic Public Goods and the Coordination of Collective Action: A Comparison of  Local Development in India and Indonesia. In The Contested Commons: Conversations Between Economists and Anthropologists, edited by Pranab Bardhan and Isha Ray, 168–82. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Rojas, José Luis de. 2012. Tenochtitlan: Capital of the Aztec Empire. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. 1979. The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York. Sen, Amartya K. 1993. Capability and Well-Being. In The Quality of Life, edited by Martha C. Nussbaum and Amartya K. Sen, 30–53. Clarendon Press, Ox­ ford, UK.

66

Michael E. Smith

Smith, Michael E. 1984. The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History? Ethnohistory 31:153–86. ———. 1992. Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico / Investigaciones arqueológicas en sitios rurales de la época Azteca en Morelos. Vol. 1, Excavations and Architecture / Excavaciones y arquitectura. Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology 4. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. ———. 2003a. Comercio postclásico en la cerámica decorada: Malinalco, Toluca, Guerrero y Morelos. Arqueología (INAH) 29:63–84. ———. 2003b. Economic Change in Morelos Households. In The Postclassic Meso­ american World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 249– 58. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2004. The Archaeology of Ancient State Economies. Annual Review of Anthropology 33:73–102. ———. 2005. City Size in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Journal of Urban History 31:403–34. ———. 2006. Reconocimiento superficial del Valle de Yautepec, Morelos: Informe final. Report submitted to the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. ———. 2008. Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. ———. 2012. The Aztecs. 3rd ed. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK. ———. 2014. The Aztecs Paid Taxes, Not Tribute. Mexicon 36 (1): 19–22. ———. 2015a. Artefactos domésticos de casas posclásicas en Cuexcomate y Capilco, Morelos. BAR International Series 2696. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. ———. 2015b. The Aztec Empire. In Fiscal Regimes and the Political Economy of Premodern States, edited by Andrew Monson and Walter Scheidel, 71–114. Cambridge University Press, New York. ———. 2016a. At Home with the Aztecs: An Archaeologist Uncovers Their Domestic Life. Taylor and Francis, New York. ———. 2016b. Excavaciones de casas en la ciudad azteca de Yautepec, Morelos, Méx­ ico. BAR International Series. Archaeopress, Oxford, UK. ———. 2016c. Quality of Life and Prosperity in Ancient Households and Communities. In The Oxford Handbook of  Historical Ecology and Applied Archae­ ology, edited by Christian Isendahl and Daryl Stump. Oxford University Press, New York. In press. Smith, Michael E., and Frances F. Berdan, eds. 2003. The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2016. Charles Tilly Among the Aztecs: Durable Inequality in an Ancient Empire. Ms. in possession of the authors. Smith, Michael E., Aleksander Borejsza, Angela Huster, Charles D. Frederick, Isabel Rodríguez López, and Cynthia Heath-Smith. 2013. Aztec-Period Houses and Terraces at Calixtlahuaca: The Changing Morphology of a Mesoamerican Hilltop Urban Center. Journal of  Field Archaeology 38:227–43. Smith, Michael E., and José Lobo. 2016. Cities Through the Ages: One Thing or Many? Unpublished manuscript.

Cities in the Aztec Empire 67

Stark, Barbara L., and John K. Chance. 2012. The Strategies of Provincials in Empires. In The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, 192–237. Cambridge University Press, New York. Storper, Michael. 2010. Why Does a City Grow? Specialisation, Human Capital or Institutions? Urban Studies 47:2027–50. Tilly, Charles. 1985. War Making and State Making as Organized Crime. In Bringing the State Back, edited by Peter Evans, Dietrich Rueschmeyer, and Theda Skocpol, 169–86. Cambridge University Press, New York. ———. 1992. Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1990. Blackwell, Oxford, UK. Woods, Robert. 2003. Urbanisation in Europe and China During the Second Millennium: A Review of Urbanism and Demography. International Journal of Population Geography 9 (3): 215–27. Wrigley, E. A. 1990. Brake or Accelerator? Urban Growth and Population Growth Before the Industrial Revolution. In Urbanization in History: A Process of Dynamic Interactions, edited by Ad van de Woude, Akira Hayami, and Jan de Vries, 101–12. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK.

The Sixteenth-Century Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla, Puebla

3

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth Merchants were an important component of the prehispanic economic world at the time of the Spanish conquest. Merchants moved goods between regions both inside and outside of the Aztec empire. They bought and sold goods on a regular basis in all of the marketplaces across Mesoamerica. Merchants in the Aztec heartland engaged in commerce for their own enrichment and as economic agents for the elites. Their experience in commercial dealings made them invaluable economic advisors to the state. They were known for their wisdom and fair dealings, and they often were given the responsibility of supervising the operation of the marketplace. Despite their importance, not a great deal is known about indigenous merchants and how they operated. One reason for this is that the Spanish were not interested in the structure and operation of the indigenous commercial system. The Spanish were more concerned with the location and mobilization of wealth. As long as food was available in the marketplace to feed the working population, they were satisfied with letting the native economy run itself. Second, indigenous merchants conducted their commercial business using oral contracts. This together with the fact that they guarded the location of trade routes and where resources could be found led to a tradition of maintaining trade secrets in merchant communities. Third and finally, the emerging colonial economy with its more efficient forms of transportation (Hassig 1985) undercut the traditional sources of wealth of indigenous merchants.1 While merchants continued to operate throughout the sixteenth century, a great deal of long-distance trade involved the purchase and movement of a few goods, such as cacao. Most of our information on indigenous merchants comes from a few meager sources. The most important of these is the Florentine Codex, in

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

69

Figure 3.1.  The province of Huexotzinco and the location of the towns with known locations recorded in the Matrícula de Huexotzinco. Illustration pre­ pared by Zaid Alrawi using a 90-meter SRTM available from NASA.

which Fray Bernardino de Sahagún (1959, 1961) recorded valuable information about merchant activities from his Tlatelolco pochteca informants. Nevertheless, little is known about the scale, diversity, and structure of merchant activities or how merchants were organized to carry them out. The fact that merchants ranged in status from commoners in the Basin of Mexico to elites in the tropical and coastal lowlands makes understanding the structure of their operations all the more difficult. This chapter examines the indigenous merchant community of Santa María Acxotla, located in the Puebla-Tlaxcala basin (figure 3.1). Information on Acxotla comes from the Matrícula de Huexotzinco, a tribute census compiled in 1560 as part of a request by the indigenous leaders of  Huexotzinco to reduce the level of tribute that they paid to their Spanish overlords. Largely overlooked by previous investigators, Acxotla

70

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

is the only community in the central Mexican highlands for which there is detailed information on the size of its merchant cohort and the type of craft professions associated with it. As such, the continued operation of Acxotla merchants into the sixteenth century provides valuable insight into how they may have been organized prior to the Spanish conquest. The question of who qualified as a merchant can be ascertained through the discussions and definitions available to us in Nahuatl from the early colonial records. More specific economic information is presented in the Matrícula de Huexotzinco for Santa María Acxotla, including the structure of merchant groups, how merchants interfaced with craft producers, and what their overall level of economic well-being was during the early colonial era.

Pochtecatl: Who Qualifies as a Merchant? Most of the discussion of merchants in pre-Columbian society revolves around the long-distance pochteca merchants of the Aztec empire. This is understandable, because these merchants are frequently mentioned in historical accounts as operating in, or being attacked in, foreign prov­ inces (Durán 1994; Sahagún 1959). Sahagún’s primary informants for his discussion of merchants in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1959) were high-ranking merchants who engaged in long-distance trade from Tlatelolco; naturally they emphasized the importance of long-distance ventures in the Aztec kingdom. Nevertheless, these same merchants provided a more generic description for who a merchant was in their discussion of the Tlatelolco marketplace (Sahagún 1961). This description is a more objective and representative definition of who and what a merchant ( pochtecatl ) was in Aztec society: Puchtecatl: in puchtecatl ca tlanamacani, tlanamacac, tlanecuilo, tlaixtlapanqui, tlaixtlapanani, tlatennonotzani, tlamixitiani, tlapilhoatiani. In qualli puchtecatl, tlaotlatoctiani, tlanênemitiani, çan tlaipantiliani, tlanamictiani, tlaimaczqui teimacazqui. (Sahagún 1961: 42–43) The merchant is a seller, a merchandiser, a retailer; [he is] one who profits, who gains; who has reached an agreement on prices; who secures in­ crease, who multiplies [his possessions].

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

71

The good merchant [is] a follower of the routes, a traveler [with mer­­ chandise; he is] one who sets correct prices, who gives equal value. He shows respect for things; he venerates people. (Sahagún 1961: 42–43)

The functions of a merchant as a commercial agent and trade intermediary are clearly evident in this description. The essential aspect of a merchant is that he or she engaged in commerce to make a profit. Merchants negotiated prices to gain an increase. Merchants could travel, but that was not the central feature of commercial behavior. Sahagún’s merchants include a wide range of sellers, merchandisers, and retailers who may or may not have traveled very far beyond their local community. This short emic description of who constitutes a merchant is a very thoughtful characterization about indigenous commerce. What is important is that it applies to all individuals who engaged in commercial activity in pre-Columbian society for the purpose of economic gain (Hirth 2016). While merchants are often thought of as men, women were active agents in the marketplace, selling prepared and nonprepared food, apparel and textile supplies, spices, and an array of other goods. Wealthy women also actively invested in long-distance trade ventures by placing goods on consignment with merchants who acted as agents on their behalf (Hirth 2016). Long-distance merchants were distinct operators in the broader merchant community. They were described and referred to by Sahagún’s Tlatelolco informants as a special category of merchants known as the oztomecatl. Again in the Florentine Codex, Sahagún clarifies and defines who a long-distance merchant was: Oztomecatl: in oztomecatl, ca puchtecatl, nenemini, tlaotlatoctiani, nenenqui, tlanenemitiani. In qualli oztomecatl tlaixtlaxiliani, tlaixuiani, ˆvmati, ûiximati, quixtlaxilia in cecen neceuiliztli, quixtlaxilia in cochioaia, in tlaqualoia, in netlacauiloia, quixtlaxilia quimati, quipantilia in itacatl. (Sahagún 1961: 60) Oztomecatl: The vanguard merchant is a merchant, a traveler, a transporter of wares, a wayfarer, a man who travels with his wares. The good vanguard merchant [is] observing, discerning. He knows the road, he recognizes the road; he seeks out the various places for resting, he searches

72

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

for the places for sleeping, the places for eating, the places for breaking one’s fast. He looks to, prepares, finds his travel rations. (Sahagún 1961: 60)

The oztomeca were the long-distance traveling merchants. They are specifically identified as a merchant (pochtecatl) who travels with his wares (tlanenemitiani). The confusion over identifying all pochteca as long-distance merchants comes from the sources where oztomeca are referred to by the generic term of pochteca because the context of the discussion makes it clear that they are merchants on the road in foreign lands (e.g., Oaxaca, Guatemala). Recognizing the distinction of pochteca as a general category is important when we evaluate the information on merchants identified at Santa María Acxotla and elsewhere throughout the Huexotzinco region.

Santa María Acxotla and the Matrícula de Huexotzinco Huexotzinco was an independent kingdom at the time of Spanish contact. Its relationship to the ever-expanding Aztec Triple Alliance was capricious, vacillating between cooperation and confrontation. Although Huexotzinco cooperated with the Triple Alliance at various points in its history, that relationship changed for the worse around AD 1516, when Huexotzinco allied itself with Tlaxcala in open hostilities against the Aztecs (Berdan 1992: 65; Durán 1994: 457–59). Hostile relations continued until the arrival of Hernán Cortés, when Huexotzinco along with the Tlaxcallans allied themselves with the Spanish to defeat the Triple Alliance (Restall 2003: 45). After the conquest, Huexotzinco was incor­ porated into the new colonial state and forced to pay tribute to the Span­ ish Crown. This was a robust change for the people of  Huexotzinco, who prior to the arrival of the Spanish were not obliged to pay tribute to any external power (Britto Guadarrama 2011: 175). They actively and consistently disputed the high tribute demands placed on them, resulting in the audiencia’s decision to reassess the eligible tributary population of the entire province as it existed in 1560. The result was the compilation of the Matrícula de Huexotzinco, a census document that records the status and professions of  households in twenty-three communities under Huexotzinco’s jurisdiction.

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

73

The Matrícula de Huexotzinco is a pictorial head census assembled by indigenous scribes and validated by Judge Diego de Madrid, sent to oversee the accuracy of the counts. Its history is incompletely known. The document originally was deposited in the town of Huexotzinco but was removed from there at an unknown time. It ended up in the collection of  Lorenzo Boturini in Mexico City, where it was confiscated by the viceregal government in 1743 (Aguilera 1996: 530). According to Carmen Aguilera, the Boturini manuscripts including the matrícula were moved several times during the eighteenth century, eventually being deposited in the Archivo de Relaciones in Mexico City in 1823. The matrícula was subsequently stolen and smuggled out of Mexico City; after being taken to France, it was received by the Bibliothèque Nationale in 1829. The document today is located in the National Library in Paris and is identified as Manuscrits Mexicain 387. The document is incomplete and consists of 562 pages (folios 464 through 1032). Edges of the document are eroded, and some pages at the front of the document are partially deteriorated (Aguilera 1996). The document consists of three parts. The first is a text in Spanish that introduces the census and how it was taken. This is followed by the pictorial accounting with the name of the barrio on the top of each page. The final section is a summary tabulation in Spanish of the results of the tabulation. Hanns Prem (1974) published a version of the matrícula in black and white that includes a translation of all the recorded name glyphs. While useful, the photographs lack clarity, are reduced in scale, and do not allow readers to recover valuable information recorded in different ways using color in the pictorial section. There is also an online version in color.2 The province of Huexotzinco covered approximately four hundred square kilometers and was divided into three distinct zones: a northern area containing four towns, a central section containing sixteen towns, and a southern zone with three towns (table 3.1).3 Each of the towns was subdivided into barrios organized by tribute cadres of twenty individuals (tlaxilacaltin). The census for each town is divided into two separate registries: a register recording commoner heads of households, married couples over fifty years of age, widows, widowers, the infirmed, and a count of those who have run away or recently died; and a list of rulers, their elite households, and the elite households associated with specific

74

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Table 3.1.  Towns listed in the Matrícula de Huexcotzinco Northern area San Gregorio Aztatoava (19) San Salvador (20) San Felipe Teotlaltzinco (18) Santa María Tetzmollocan (17) Central area Santa María Acxotla (13) Santa María Asunción Almoyahuacan (3) Santa Cruz Atenco (16) San Agustín Atzompan (14) San Nicolás Cecalacohuacan (10) San Lorenzo Chiauhtzinco (11) San Luis Coyotzinco (9) San Juan Huexotzinco (1) San Pablo Ocotepeque (4) San Esteban Tepetzinco (7) San Francisco Tianquiztenco (6) San Simón Tlanicontlan (15) San Antonio Tlatenco (8) San Sebastián Tlayacaque (5) San Bartolomé Tocuillan (12) Santiago Xaltepetlapan (2) Southern area Santa María Acapetlavacan (21) San Pedro Atlixco (22) San Martín Tianquizmanalco (23) Note: Number in parentheses indicates the order in which the town occurs in the matrícula.

barrio calpollis (Dyckerhoff and Prem 1976; Prem 1974). The census depicts the Nahuatl and Spanish names of household heads. The Nahuatl name is represented pictorially in a glyph that emanates from the mouth of the individual. Two administrative overseers, the centecpanpixqui and the macuiltecpanpixqui, are regularly recorded in the commoner registry that relate to the management of the tributary population.4

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

75

Most important for our purposes here, the matrícula records the pro­ fession of each household in the commoner registry, as well as information on landownership, which serves as a general index of household well-being. Information about access to land is indicated by a mark over the head of each householder. A red dot or mark over the head indicates that the household rented land from an elite landholder, a status referred to throughout the matrícula as a terrazguero. Conversely, the absence of a red mark over the head denotes that the household did not rent, because it either owned land outright or accessed it through the usufruct privileges provided by being a member in a landholding calpolli (figure 3.2). These are not necessarily mutually exclusive categories: A household renting land could also have had access to land through direct ownership or usufruct privilege. If it did, however, the land was insufficient to meet the household’s needs, which was accomplished by renting. Color markings also occur throughout the matrícula to designate other statuses, including green marks to identify artisans and yellow marks to indicate individuals serving as apprentices in different professions. Of particular importance is the information recorded in the matrícula on individual household occupations. How these professions were recorded depended on the individual writing style of the native scribes. The most common way of indicating a profession was by placing a glyph alongside the name glyph of the household head. Occupational glyphs may occur individually alongside the name of each household head or as a summary glyph alongside a series of heads connected by a single line. Occupations can also be designated by the Nahuatl word for the occupation with or without an accompanying glyph. All in all, there is considerable variation in how occupations were depicted in pictorial form. Merchants are one exception to the rule; instead of being designated by a specific glyph for their profession, they are identified by a notation written in Spanish and sometimes in Nahuatl on the page for each tribute cadre. The occupations recorded in the matrícula include an array of artisans practicing traditional crafts, new professions associated with the new Spanish economy, service personnel, and minor positions of admin­ istrative or religious significance (Carrasco 1974: 9). Farmers are indicated by the absence of any distinguishing occupational designation. In total, forty-five distinct nonfarm occupations were identified in the matrícula; these represent an array of full- and part-time activities of households in the province of Huexotzinco.

76

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Figure 3.2.  Page from the Matrícula de Huexotzinco illustrating how informa­ tion was recorded. Modified by Karen Dennison and Kristin Sullivan.

Figure 3.1 shows the original location of twenty-two of the twentythree towns listed in the matrícula. The only town whose exact location is not known is Santa María Acxotla. The most likely location for Santa María Acxotla—given the sequence of town visitations presented in the matrícula and the probability that a major community of merchants

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

77

would be located near the region’s central marketplace—is in the open piedmont near San Francisco Tianquiztenco, the regional marketplace (figure 3.1).5

The Acxotla Community: Where Merchants Lived While its precise location remains unclear, the internal composition of Santa María Acxotla is well documented in the matrícula. In total, 615 individuals/heads of households are listed for this community (table 3.2). Several things are noteworthy. First, the individuals listed for Santa María Acxotla actually reside in two separate locales. While most live within the physical boundaries of Santa María Acxotla, sixty-seven merchants and the five elite households of the Xalpatol barrio had relocated to the Spanish town of San Salvador, located eighteen kilometers northwest of Huexotzinco along the royal road leading into and out of Mexico City. Exactly when this relocation took place is unknown, but it likely occurred shortly before the census was conducted.6 The reason for the move was probably to take advantage of new commercial opportunities afforded by movement along this corridor. Table 3.2.  Categories of individuals listed for Santa María Acxotla Category Elites Farmers Merchants Craftsmen and service professionals Old married couples Widowers Widows Sick and incapacitated Deaths since previous census Runaways since previous census Total

Listing designation

No. in Acxotla

No. in San Salvador

Total

Barrio Mixed barrios Barrio Mixed barrios

41 20 240 20

5 0 67 0

46 20 307 20

Mixed barrios Mixed barrios Mixed barrios Mixed barrios Mixed barrios

57 12 55 8 68

0 0 0 0 0

57 12 55 8 68

Mixed barrios

22

0

22

543

72

615

—

78

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Table 3.3.  Tribute households in Santa María Acxotla and San Salvador by occupation category Occupation category

Number

Percentage

Farmers Craftsmen Merchants Merchant-craftsmen Service professions Total

20 16 305 2 4 347

5.7 4.6 87.9 0.6 1.2 100

Second, merchants in Santa María Acxotla and their associated elite households are listed by named barrios. Commoner merchants in these barrios are grouped into tribute categories of twenty individuals. All other individuals (craftsmen, widows, old married couples, sick, runaways, etc.) are listed as totals for all the barrios combined. While this form of entry makes it impossible to know how farmers, craftsmen, or widows were distributed between Santa María Acxotla and San Salvador, it provides a profile of a dynamic merchant community and how it adapted to new commercial opportunities during the first few decades after the Spanish conquest. The household was the primary tribute unit prior to the Spanish conquest, and it provides the best framework for examining the relative frequency of different occupations in the community. Because households whose head was over fifty years of age were exempt from paying tribute prior to the Spanish conquest, the native scribes recording the matrícula did not register the occupations for many of the old married couples. The breakdown of eligible tribute-paying households in Acxotla is summarized in table 3.3. Of the 347 commoner households paying tribute, fully 88.5 percent are merchants or merchant craftsmen. The proportion of merchants in this community would rise to 90 percent if all 46 elite households listed in the register also were merchants, which was the case for merchant elites in the Basin of Mexico (Sahagún 1959); unfortunately, no information is recorded about whether elites were also involved in commerce, as we might expect. Farmers, craftsmen, and service professionals appear to have been lightly distributed across all of the barrios in the community (see table 3.2).

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

79

The obvious conclusion from this information is that Santa María Acxotla was a community made up primarily of merchants. Merchants occupied eleven resident calpollis in Santa María Acxotla proper, with a twelfth relocated to a barrio in the new community of  San Salvador. This differs from the information on merchant groups in the Basin of Mexico, where the thirteen known pochtecatl groups occupied barrios in larger urban centers. Whether residing in an independent community or in an urban barrio, merchants were often organized as internally stratified corporate groups. Membership in a merchant calpolli was hereditary and not open to outsiders without the special consent of the group and its lord (Hassig 1985: 118; López Austin 1973: 65; Zorita 1994: 181). Corporate membership facilitated collaboration in trade expeditions at both the regional and the interregional level. The advantage of working in groups was twofold: it reduced the risk of assault or robbery on the road (e.g., Durán 1994), and it enabled the distribution of heavy loads for certain types of merchandise among individuals traveling together. Fray Alonso de Zorita presents an alternative picture of merchants based on his time spent in the Valley of Puebla from 1556 to 1566 as part of his service to the Audiencia of Mexico (Vigil 1976: 508–9). Zorita (1994: 183) reported that merchants could be found dispersed across calpolli and tlaxilacalli units, living alongside their artisan and farming neighbors. The implication is that an individual involved in commerce did not need to be a member of a special merchant body to engage in trade. Examination of the matrícula confirms Zorita’s observation that some merchants did indeed reside in nonmerchant calpollis, apparently operating on their own as independent commercial agents within, and possibly between, regions. Five individuals, identified as merchants from their names and name glyphs, resided in separate barrios in four towns in the Huexotzinco altepetl (table 3.4). The last name of four of these individuals is Oztomecatl, which is the Nahuatl word for long-distance merchant. Thoribio Oztomecatl resided in the Yntlatlan barrio of San Juan Huexotzinco, and his name glyph is a picture of a cacaxtli carrying frame used by merchants (see figure 3.3A). Thoribio’s profession as a merchant is indicated pictorially by two cargas of striped textiles, like those paid as tribute in the Codex Mendoza (Anawalt 1992), in addition to his name glyph. Juan Oztomecatl lived in the barrio of Tezoquipan in the community of Santa Cruz Atenco; his profession is registered in his name

Table 3.4.  Merchants residing in other communities in the Huexotzinco altepetl Name of merchant Thoribio Oztomecatl Francisco Miscobatl Juan Oztomecatl Augustin Oztomecatl Toribio Oztomecatl

Barrio

Community

Yntlatlan Analco Cuihitla Tezoquipan Analco Tepenacaçtla

San Juan Huexotzinco San Antonio Tlatenco Santa Cruz Atenco Santa María Acapetlahuacan Santa María Acapetlahuacan

Figure 3.3.  Individuals with merchants’ names residing in other communities in the Huexotzinco altepetl: (A ) Thoribio Oztomecatl (487v); (B ) Juan Ozto­­ mecatl (660v); (C ) Augustin Oztomecatl (877r); (D) Toribio Oztomecatl (882v); and (E ) Francisco Miscobatl (559r). Modified from the Matrícula de Huexotzinco by Karen Dennison and Kristin Sullivan.

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

81

as a merchant’s staff and fan (see figure 3.3B). Augustin and Toribio Oztomecatl both lived in the community of Santa María Acapetlahuacan but in different barrios (table 3.4). Their name glyphs, recorded by the same scribe, both consist of a man carrying a basket full of goods with a tumpline and also carrying a short staff (see figure 3.3C, D). The only individual identified as a merchant whose name is not listed as Oztomecatl is Francisco Miscobatl, who resided in the community of San Antonio Tlatenco (table 3.4, figure 3.3E). Francisco lived in a barrio with farmers and seven craftsmen; he is identified as a merchant by the circular market glyph with footprints in its center that is located adjacent to his name glyph. Francisco may be designated in this fashion to show his involvement in local trade, possibly as a retailer who sold some of the products of his craftsman neighbors.7 What is important about all of these five merchants is that they resided alone and operated on their own, unconnected to a larger merchant community. The Matrícula de Huexotzinco demonstrates both the variability and the flexibility of how merchants operated, ranging from separate independent communities (Santa María Acxotla) and barrios in larger towns (San Salvador), to single merchant households that operated on their own by buying, selling, and moving products within and between regions.

The Relationship Between Craftsmen and Merchants If pochteca merchants were engaged in a range of local, regional, and interregional exchange as the information from Sahagún implies, then it is important to consider their possible relationship with craftsmen and the role they may have served in transporting and selling the products outside the community that these craftsmen produced. We know that craftsmen often sold the goods that they produced themselves in the lo­ cal marketplace (Hirth 2013, 2016; Sahagún 1961). Merchants similarly trafficked in a range of both high- and low-value goods that they did not produce themselves (Sahagún 1959). It is important, therefore, to consider whether symbiotic relationships existed between merchants and craftsmen for producing and marketing specific products, and if so, what those relationships may have been. We know, for example, that a close relationship existed between merchants and feather craftsmen in the barrio

82

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

of Amatlan in Tenochtitlan. Merchants procured feathers for craftsmen from distant areas and sold their finished goods in marketplaces across Mesoamerica. One of the clearest cases of a close relationship between merchants and craftsmen is provided by two obsidian blade makers who resided in the Quetzalhuacan barrio (figure 3.4H) (Prem 1974: 627r). While the glyph for an obsidian tool identifies them as obsidian blade makers, they are identified as, and included with, other merchants in the tribute cadre for that barrio (figure 3.2). The most likely interpretation is that these two craftsmen were itinerant obsidian blade makers. At the time of the conquest, obsidian blade makers regularly circulated from marketplace to mar­ ketplace producing blades on demand for those who needed them. This pattern of itinerant crafting was present in central Mexico by AD 650 (Hirth 1998, 2008, 2009), and blade makers were still reported in the tax records of the Coyoacan marketplace in 1571 (Anderson et al. 1976: 141–49; Carrasco 1978: 188–95). The important point about these obsidian blade makers is that they produced blades for consumption by households located throughout the province of Huexotzinco. Based on experimental data, William San­ ders and Robert Santley (1983: 252) estimated that a single obsidian blade maker working full-time could have produced 37,500 obsidian blades in a single year. Calculations made on the basis of average consumption levels indicate that a single full-time obsidian craftsman would have produced enough blades to supply between 3,125 and 3,750 households with all the obsidian blades needed for an entire year. If these two blade makers were full-time specialists, their total output would have far exceeded the needs of Santa María Acxotla’s resident households, and they would have been producing for export outside the community. The most artisans in a single craft were pottery makers (e.g., figure 3.4E). Ten potters were identified, distributed across Santa María Acxotla’s different barrios (table 3.5). Pottery was in high demand in every household for cooking, storage, and food service. Vessels were used daily and frequently broke. Pottery was a utilitarian commodity that was consumed to variable degrees in all households depending on their size. Sanders and Santley (1983: table 11.4) estimate that a specialized potter could manufacture 1,171 bowls or 759 jars per year. They estimate that a potter who made a range of different

Figure 3.4.  Craftsmen residing in different barrios at Santa María Acxotla: (A ) tobacco tube maker; (B ) paper maker; (C ) resin collector; (D ) stone­­ worker; (E ) ceramicist; (F ) doctor; (G ) fiscal; and (H ) two itinerant obsidian blade makers. Modified from the Matrícula de Huexotzinco by Karen Den­­ nison and Kristin Sullivan.

84

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Table 3.5.  Craftsmen and merchant-craftsmen in Santa María Acxotla Occupation category

Number

Papermaker Pottery maker Obsidian blade maker Resin collector Stoneworker Tobacco tube maker Doctor Fiscal Total

1 10 2 1 3 1 3 1 22

types of bowls and basins would produce fewer vessels, an average of 923 vessels per year. If each household consumed between 10 and 15 vessels per year, then a single potter could supply all the needs for between 62 and 92 households annually. At these production levels, the ten potters in Santa María Acxotla could have produced all of the ceramics to supply between 620 and 920 households, two to three times the consumption levels of their own community. Although we know that potters often sold their own goods in the marketplace (Sahagún 1961), some of their merchant kinsmen could have transported and marketed their wares to neighboring markets, much like what may have occurred at Otumba (Nichols 2013). The other craftsmen who made or processed utilitarian items in Santa María Acxotla include one resin collector (figure 3.4C), one tobacco tube maker (figure 3.4A), and three stoneworkers (figure 3.4D). The resin collector gathered resin from trees; this could be processed into glues, mastics, incense, sealants, and other useful goods. Tobacco was used for healing and was consumed in many merchant feasts and celebrations (Hirth 2016; Sahagún 1959), so this individual is likely to have manufactured smoking tubes (acayechiuhqui) and also to have served as a local tobacconist (tlapepech, tlapecho). Both of these goods would have filled local consumption needs as well as representing possible items for sale outside the community. The three stoneworkers could have shaped

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

85

construction blocks used in the community as well as manufacturing ground stone items intended for sale. Basalt is readily available along the southwestern slopes of the Iztaccihuatl volcano, and modern stonemasons residing in the nearby town of San Nicholas de los Ranchos exploit similar basalt flows to manufacture manos and metates to grind corn. Seventeen towns in the Huexotzinco altepetl had at least one resident doctor (figure 3.4F), which is logical given that sickness is a constant in every community. The fiscal in Santa María Acxotla (figure 3.4G) is only one of two administrators identified across the region. As an official in the new colonial economy, this individual was likely involved in monitoring tax revenues both in and outside the Acxotla community. The utilitarian goods produced by Acxotla craftsmen represent one level of possible commercial interaction between artisans and their merchant neighbors. Sahagún (1959) in his discussion of merchant pochteca in the Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan referred to a close relationship between merchants and craftsmen who manufactured wealth goods. Lords often admonished their children to live productive lives by learning the art of wealth-good crafting (Carrasco 1971: 373). While the manufacture of many traditional sources of wealth (featherwork, jade lapidary crafting, etc.) had declined with the impoverishment and disappearance of indigenous elites, there are a few hints that it had been, or still was, prac­ ticed in the community. The production of wealth goods is reflected in several ways in Santa María Acxotla. Paper was a valuable commodity in both prehispanic and colonial society, and the presence of a paper craftsman (figure 3.4B) suggests that it was produced for sale outside the community. The Acxotla paper maker is one of only two craftsmen with this specialization in the Huexotzinco altepetl,8 and although merchants regularly used paper as part of their preparation rituals for long-distance ventures, this commodity was likely produced for export and not just local consumption. Figure 3.5 illustrates the names of two individuals who were the heads of elite households in the Xaltepetlapa barrio of Santa María Acxotla. They are important because they suggest continuity, either in memory or in fact, with wealth-good crafting in elite households. The first individual is named Juan Teocuitlachiuiqui (figure 3.5B); his name is the direct translation in Nahuatl for “maker of gold” (Molina 1977). The

86

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Figure 3.5.  Two possible wealth-good craftsmen in elite households in Santa María Acxotla: (A) Caspal Acxoteca, a possible feather worker; and (B) Juan Teocuitlachiuiqui, whose family name is the word for goldworker. Modified from the Matrícula de Huexotzinco by Karen Dennison and Kristin Sullivan.

glyphic expression of two round circles enclosing two crescents is the hieroglyph for gold found on the cheeks of the goddess Coyolxauhqui (Séjourne 1976: fig. 63). A second possible wealth-good craftsman is a feather worker named Caspal Acxoteca (figure 3.5A). His identification is based solely on the representation of the feather glyph that serves as his name. What is important about the merchants of Santa María Acxotla is that they represent individuals who produced and trafficked in both utilitarian and higher-value goods as an integrated economic community.

Merchants, Land, and Wealth One measure of the economic well-being of communities in Huexot­­ zinco is whether households had access to their own farming land or

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

87

Table 3.6.  Tribute-paying households in Santa María Acxotla and San Sal­vador that rented land as terrazgueros Occupation category Farmers Craftsmen Merchants Service professions Total

Number

No. of terrazgueros

Percentage of terrazgueros

20 16 307 4 347

8 3 44 0 55

40.0 18.8 14.3 0 15.9

had to rent it from elites. Despite the occasional claim that merchants did not own land (Scholes and Adams 1958: 80), most of the evidence across central Mexico suggests that merchants did have land to support their families (Berdan 1975: 144; Carrasco 1963, 1969, 1978: 61; Martínez 1984). Households that rented land from elites paid them rent and/or had to provide them with additional types of service. Renting land car­­ ried a cost and was less advantageous to households than owning land (Gibson 1964: 153). Direct access to land, rather than renting, gave house­­ holds an economic advantage, as they did not have to pay rents in addition to Spanish tax levies. Table 3.6 summarizes the number of renters (terrazgueros) found in the 347 commoner households in Santa María Acxotla. Forty percent of the farmers in the community were renting land from elites. The proportion of merchants (14.3 percent) and craftsmen (18.8 percent) who rented land was very low. The number of terrazgueros amounted to only 15.9 percent of the entire community. This is the lowest ratio of renters to landholders of any community in the province of Huexotzinco (Dyckerhoff and Prem 1976: 168–69)! What this low percentage of renters in Santa María Acxotla indicates is that merchants and craftsmen were welloff economically compared to other members of the commoner class by both colonial and pre-Columbian standards. They did not have to rent land to support themselves or to meet the obligatory tribute payments to their Spanish overlords. This suggests that native merchants could con­ tinue to prosper even during the changing economy of the early sixteenth century.

88

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Death and Departure in a Merchant Community Examination of census categories in Santa María Acxotla revealed an interesting correlation between the number of widows and old widows in the matrícula (n=55) and the number of deaths reported after the previous census (n=68). When the number of widowers listed (n=12) is added to the number of widows, the combined sum of 67 single-spouse households comes intriguingly close to the 68 deaths reported for the town as a whole. Although it seemed unlikely that a census document focused on male tribute labor would record female deaths, the correspondence was intriguing enough to warrant further investigation of community composition. Santa María Acxotla was different from the other communities in Huexotzinco in that its merchant households were highly mobile. Unlike other communities where the majority of residents were farmers and relatively stationary, the Acxotla merchants moved across the landscape visiting marketplaces in all the communities to which they traveled. This provided them with both advantages and disadvantages in New Spain’s early colonial economy. One advantage of mobility is that it provided the opportunity to buy and sell new commodities in the marketplace. This included selling Spanish goods when they could be obtained, buying traditional goods in high demand (e.g., cacao), and dealing in new products produced by indigenous labor such as cochineal or silk when they became available. Mobility also allowed merchants to flee Spanish oversight when tax and service burdens became onerous. While we often think of population movement during the early colonial period in terms of the sixteenth-century congregaciones, indigenous populations were more mobile than that. Households fled Spanish oversight when they had better economic options in other communities and could get away. For merchants, the opportunity to relocate was greater than for other groups because they traveled farther, had commercial contacts in distant regions, and probably had friends and family in at least some of the regions to which they journeyed. The economic advantage that mobility afforded brought with it one significant disadvantage: a higher incidence of contact with contagious path­ogens. The sixteenth century was rife with endemic diseases that drastically reduced the indigenous population. Merchants and travelers often

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

89

carried diseases from place to place, and the marketplace would have been a prime location to spread pathogens throughout local populations. The likelihood of contracting a disease, therefore, was higher for merchants than for other professional groups because they moved from community to community where outbreaks of disease could and did occur. These circumstances made it seem reasonable to explore how these two different opportunity costs affected residency in Santa María Acxotla. Both provided a vehicle for reducing population in the community, either voluntarily through economic relocation or involuntarily through death. The census data in the Matrícula de Huexotzinco provided a framework for viewing changes in Santa María Acxotla in relation to other, more sedentary, agricultural communities in the region. The opportunity for economic relocation was examined using the number of huidos, or runaways, reported for each community. Table 3.7 summarizes the number of runaways reported for each community in relation to the number of nonelite tribute-paying households with heads of households under fifty years of age. Three things are particularly noticeable about the number of runaways recorded. First, all but one of the twenty-three communities listed in the matrícula (95.7 percent) reported runaways after the previous census. Second, considerable variability can be noticed in those communities where runaways were reported, with losses ranging from a low of 2.35 percent in San Francisco Tianquiztenco to a high of 21.43 percent in San Martín Tianquizmanalco. Third, the rate of population loss through runaways is relatively high. The average population loss via runaways is 5.93 percent for the region as a whole, which is high, since this population decline is suspected to have occurred over a four-year period prior to the last attempted census. These conditions indicate that Santa María Acxotla had a population loss due to runaways of 6.43 percent, which is slightly higher than the regional average. The Acxotla merchants appear not to have taken full advantage of their commercial contacts to relocate for purely economic reasons. Outside of Santa María Acxotla, however, economic opportunity does seem to have been a pull factor in communities with high rates of runaways. If households that rented were less well-off than households with their own land, as discussed above, then the number of renters in communities can serve as an indicator of greater or lesser economic

San Agustín Atzompan San Antonio Tlatenco San Bartolomé Tocuillan San Esteban Tepetzinco San Felipe Teotlaltzinco San Francisco Tianquiztenco San Gregorio Aztatoava San Juan Huexotzinco San Lorenzo Chiauhtzinco San Luis Coyotzinco

Community 226 84 231 166 375 170 748 309 221 700

No. of households1 0 5 13 8 10 4 21 13 13 61

No.

% 0.00 5.95 5.63 4.82 2.67 2.35 2.81 4.21 5.88 8.71

Runaways

24 21 35 32 57 20 35 31 35 82

No.

Deaths

10.62 25.00 15.15 19.28 15.20 11.76 4.68 10.03 15.84 11.71

%

24 26 48 40 67 24 56 44 48 143

No.

10.62 30.95 20.78 24.10 17.87 14.12 7.49 14.24 21.72 20.43

%

Total deaths and runaways

Table 3.7.  Deaths and runaways recorded in the Matrícula de Huexotzinco in relation to nonelite tribute households

2

1

56 245 201 78 87 171 674 698 347 293 1,071 389 7,540

12 8 10 16 12 17 43 68 22 11 52 28 447

21.43 3.27 4.98 20.51 13.79 9.94 6.38 9.74 6.34 3.75 4.86 7.20 5.93

11 43 34 15 22 55 60 61 68 45 184 74 1,044

Nonelite tribute-paying households are headed by a person under 50 years of age. The listing for Santa María Acxotla also contains information for the merchant community in San Salvador.

San Martín Tianquizmanalco San Nicolás Cecalacohuacan San Pablo Ocotepeque San Pedro Atlixco San Sebastián Tlayacaque San Simón Tlanicontlan Santa Cruz Atenco Santa María Acapetlavacan Santa María Acxotlan2 Santa María Asunción Almoyahuacan Santa María Tetzmollocan Santiago Xaltepetlapan Totals

19.64 17.55 16.92 19.23 25.29 32.16 8.90 8.74 19.60 15.36 17.18 19.02 13.85

23 51 44 31 34 72 103 129 90 56 236 102 1,491

41.07 20.82 21.89 39.74 39.08 42.11 15.28 18.48 25.94 19.11 22.04 26.22 19.77

San Agustín Atzompan San Antonio Tlatenco San Bartolomé Tocuillan San Esteban Tepetzinco San Felipe Teotlaltzinco San Francisco Tianquiztenco San Gregorio Aztatoava San Juan Huexotzinco San Lorenzo Chiauhtzinco San Luis Coyotzinco San Martín Tianquizmanalco San Nicolás Cecalacohuacan

Community 162 67 142 104 225 126 510 207 159 563 44 168

Total no. of farming households 52 46 29 38 41 92 57 108 109 157 0 84

No. of landholding households 110 21 113 66 184 34 453 99 50 406 44 84

No. of renting (terrazguero) households

Table 3.8.  Landholding and renting farming households recorded by community in the Matrícula de Huexotzinco

67.9 31.3 79.6 63.5 81.8 27.0 88.8 47.8 31.4 72.1 100.0 50.0

Percentage of renting households

92 0 47 55 229 0 12 115 18 160 1,531

145 63 69 127 651 521 20 180 729 309 5,293

711 149 3,750

53 63 22 72 422 521 8 65 97.5 48.2 70.8

36.6 100.0 31.9 56.7 64.8 100.0 40.0 36.1

Note: Households are headed by a person less than 50 years of age. 1 There are actually 147 farming households in San Pablo Ocotepeque, but information on whether two of the households had individual land or were renters could not be determined. 2 The listing for Santa María Acxotla also contains information for the merchant community in San Salvador.

San Pablo Ocotepeque1 San Pedro Atlixco San Sebastián Tlayacaque San Simón Tlanicontlan Santa Cruz Atenco Santa María Acapetlavacan Santa María Acxotlan2 Santa María Asunción Almoyahuacan Santa María Tetzmollocan Santiago Xaltepetlapan Totals

94

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

well-being. Two communities (San Martín Tianquizmanalco and San Pedro Atlixco) had runaway levels over 20 percent, a rate 50 percent higher than that of the next closest community (table 3.7). What is important to note is that all of the farmers (100 percent) in both of these communities were terrazgueros and rented land from their lords (table 3.8). It is likely that the shortage of good agricultural land together with the stresses associated with service to their Spanish lords encouraged indigenous households to relocate to other communities in the highlands. The risk of infectious disease seems to have played a role in the death rate reported at Santa María Acxotla. The reported death rate throughout the region as a whole is high, averaging 13.85 percent for all twenty-three communities. The death rate for Santa María Acxotla is notably higher, reaching 19.6 percent of all nonelite tribute households with heads of households under fifty years of age (see table 3.7). This is the fifth-highest death rate in the region. San Simón Tlanicontlan, although only one-half the size of Santa María Acxotla, has the highest death rate in the region, 32.16 percent. The other three communities with high death rates (San Sebastián Tlayacaque, San Antonio Tlatenco, and San Martín Tianquizma­ nalco) are small communities one-fourth to one-sixth the size of Santa María Acxotla and thereby subject to small sample error, such that a few unanticipated deaths can significantly elevate mortality rates. While the incidence of commercial contact was not the only factor driving these death rates, it certainly had its effect. San Martín Tianquizmanalco, one of two named market towns, has the fourth-highest death rate in the region, 19.64 percent. This community together with San Francisco Tianquiztenco and Santa María Acxotla represent the communities with the highest level of commercial traffic in the region. While containing only 6.2 percent of the regional population, they account for nearly one-tenth (9.5 percent) of all the deaths reported throughout the region.

Discussion: Lessons from Santa María Acxotla This chapter is an empirical study intended to broaden what is known about indigenous merchants and merchant communities in central Mexico. Information on merchants is very limited for the early colonial and pre-Columbian periods for three reasons. First, the Spanish were not interested in the native economy and did not record information about its

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

95

merchants or the scale of their operations. Second, native merchants did not keep written records either before the conquest or throughout the colonial period. Third, mercantile success was based on knowing where to buy products and sell goods for a profit. This knowledge was not shared outside of specific merchant communities. New information like that provided by the Matrícula de Huexotzinco for Santa María Acxotla, therefore, provides valuable and unique insight into native merchant behavior in the early colonial economy. The information presented here indicates that native merchants lived and operated in a variety of different-sized communities. At Santa María Acxotla, merchants lived in an internally stratified community, made up primarily of merchants along with auxiliary craftsmen and a few farming households. Merchants from the Xalpatol calpolli at Santa María Acxotla moved to San Salvador, forming a barrio of merchants in this new Spanish community. The incentive to move to San Salvador was probably the new commercial opportunities that this Spanish community afforded. That merchants resided in corporate communities was a function of two separate factors: such communities facilitated the organization of intermediate and long-distance trade expeditions; and residing together made it easier for elites to collect tribute from merchants in either cacao or the goods that they trafficked in. The advantages of corporate residence notwithstanding, merchants also operated as individual commercial agents. Five merchant households were identified that were scattered among farming and crafting households in nonmerchant barrios. This confirms Zorita’s (1994: 183) observation that merchants lived as individuals dispersed across communities. It also shows that not only was there a great deal of variation in where merchants lived, but also individual households could successfully pursue a commercial livelihood outside of formally organized merchant calpollis. The information from Santa María Acxotla conforms well to Saha­gún’s broad definition of who constitutes a merchant: a merchant is an individual who seeks to make a profit through buying and selling. This broad definition of economic behavior covers commerce in both utilitarian and high-value goods. The Acxotla community included craftsmen who made an array of utilitarian and high-value goods. The ceramic and obsidian craftsmen made goods intended for sale outside the community. The

96

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

paper maker produced a product intended for sale to scribes and administrators throughout the region. It is likely that craftsmen and merchants worked together in Santa María Acxotla to produce and sell products to other communities both inside and outside of the Huexotzinco altepetl. In this respect it mirrors the craftsmen-merchant relationships proposed from archaeological excavations at the pochteca community at Otompan in the Basin of Mexico (Charlton et al. 2008; Nichols 1994, 2013). Merchant travel was always risky. During the colonial period, the dangers of the road were compounded by increased contact that merchants had with individuals carrying infectious disease. Not only could merchants spread disease from community to community during their travels, but they could also bring it home. This no doubt played a role in the higher than normal death rates found at Santa María Acxotla and the two market towns identified in the matrícula by their place-names (San Francisco Tianquiztenco and San Martín Tianquizmanalco). While death rates were devastatingly high throughout the colonial period (Borah and Cook 1963; Cook and Borah 1968; Cook and Simpson 1948), the data from Huexotzinco suggest that disease had an even greater effect on in­­digenous commercial communities, further disrupting the participation of merchants in regional and interregional economic activities during the sixteenth century. A final question is what role did the merchants of Santa María Acxotla have for the broader society in which they lived? They certainly were important in the region, as they were the only merchant community recorded among twenty-three towns listed for the Huexotzinco altepetl. Except for a few independent merchants (see figure 3.3), the pochteca of Santa María Acxotla were the primary individuals moving goods over long distances into and out of the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley. Numerous scholars have argued that a close relationship existed between pre-Columbian merchants and the Aztec state. Scholars who favor this position feel that merchants were an official arm of the state’s administered economy, that the state intentionally structured tribute demands to benefit merchants by requesting goods that had to be acquired from merchants, and founded marketplaces in locales that facilitated merchant commerce (Bittmann Simons and Sullivan 1978; Carrasco 1978; Chapman 1957).

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

97

Merchants played an important role in pre-Columbian society, but the Aztec state did not intentionally structure its economic policies to benefit merchant commerce. The political economy was structured on the dual principles of labor service and tribute payments from military conquest. Aztec political economy was an economy of command, not a mercantile one. The Aztec nobility were envious of the enormous wealth that some pochteca merchants could accumulate (Berdan 1982: 31), so the state is unlikely to have intentionally enacted economic policies to enrich them even more. Instead, merchants were economic opportunists who took advantage of commercial possibilities whenever these were presented. The em­­pire presented a range of commercial opportunities that merchants could respond to when it was in their social and economic interest to do so. Merchants provided a valuable service in the empire, supplying towns with tribute goods that they could not produce themselves. But as we know from later documentation, this was a for-profit enterprise for the merchants who practiced it (Herrera Meza and Ruíz Medrano 1997: 33; Hirth 2016). Likewise, merchants served as commercial agents for wealthy elites who might consign goods to them for trade. Ahuitzotl used merchants in this way (Sahagún 1959), and in so doing merchants used Ahuitzotl’s special treaty relationships to engage in trade for their own economic benefit. Merchants were in business for themselves and simultaneously provided a threefold economic service to the Aztec state: they were the source for high-value goods consumed in large numbers by high-ranking elites; they served as economic agents for wealthy members of society; and they could be directly taxed in cacao and other high-value goods that they traded in. Their ability to pay their taxes in cacao or other high-value goods may explain why the merchants from Santa María Acxotla and San Salvador were grouped together like craftsmen and farmers in tribute cadres of twenty individuals. That an administrative official known as a fiscal is listed for Santa María Acxotla is noteworthy: there are only two fiscals listed for the entire Huexotzinco altepetl, and it is possible that one of the duties of this administrator was to oversee the collection of taxes from practicing merchants (Gibson 1964: 206–7). The colonial period was one of significant economic change. The ba­­ sis of merchant wealth during the pre-Columbian era was based on the

98

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

movement of high-value goods in high demand by indigenous elites. The impoverishment of indigenous elites removed the ability of merchants to accumulate wealth from trade in objects made of jade and gold, high-value textiles, feathers and featherwork, and the sale of slaves. Cacao remained a source of revenue for native merchants along with salt and cochineal. Native merchants adapted to these new conditions. Although perhaps not as wealthy as their pre-Columbian prede­cessors, the merchants of Santa María Acxotla appear to have been better off economically than their nonmerchant neighbors. Their access to land was the highest in the region, and merchants may have used some of their commercial income to invest in the purchase of land to grow products that they could sell in the new colonial economy.9

Notes 1. The traditional sources of indigenous wealth at the time of the Spanish conquest were jade, greenstone, and gold jewelry, feather devices and capes, slaves, and both plain and elaborately decorated textiles. Demand for these emblems of elite rank and power declined with the demise of indigenous political systems. Gold increased in importance, but access to and control over both gold and silver were controlled by the Spanish. Plain cotton textiles continued as a staple currency during the first several decades after the conquest but eventually were replaced by coinage. 2. Available at http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200005f/f1.image. 3. David Warren (1971: 252) estimates the area of the Huexotzinco domain at 155 square miles. 4. The centecpanpixqui was an overseer for a group of twenty households and normally was a member of the commoner class, while the macuiltecpanpixqui was an elite overseer for one hundred households. These individuals are depicted with a flag for each group of twenty individuals that they were responsible for (Carrasco 1974: 3). 5. The name Tianquiztenco translates as “at the edge of or next to the marketplace.” 6. The reason for suspecting a relocation close to AD 1560, when the census was conducted, is based on the uniform number of merchants in all tribute cadres in Santa María Acxotla. Sixty-seven merchants moved to San Salvador, and the high mortality rate of merchants in the community makes it unlikely that each of the tribute cadres would have had exactly twenty members unless the sixty-seven who relocated to San Salvador left the community after balancing out the tribute cadres that remained in Santa María Acxotla. 7. His crafting neighbors included a carpenter, two stonemasons, two sandal makers, a spinner, and a doctor.

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

99

8. The other paper maker is listed for the town of San Lorenzo Chiauhtzinco. 9. The purchase and privatization of land are known to have occurred in the sixteenth century; in the town of San Gregorio Aztatoacan, for example, three individuals in the commoner census are specifically identified as land purchasers (tlalcouqui).

References Cited Aguilera, Carmen. 1996. The Matrícula de Huexotzinco: A Pictorial Census from New Spain. Huntington Library Quarterly 59:529–41. Anawalt, Patricia. 1992. A Comparative Analysis of the Costumes and Accoutrements of the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, vol. 1, edited by Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt, 103–50. University of California Press, Berkeley. Anderson, Arthur, Frances Berdan, and James Lockhart. 1976. Beyond the Codices. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances. 1975. Trade, Tribute and Market in the Aztec Empire. PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of  Texas, Austin. ———. 1982. The Aztecs of  Central Mexico: An Imperial Society. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. ———. 1992. The Imperial Tribute Roll of the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, vol. 1, edited by Frances Berdan and Patricia Anawalt, 55–79. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bittmann Simons, Bente, and Thelma Sullivan. 1978. The Pochteca. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Culture Contacts, edited by Thomas Lee and Carlos Navarrete, 211–18. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 40. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Borah, Woodrow, and Sherburne Cook. 1963. The Aboriginal Population in Central Mexico on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest. Ibero-Americana 45. University of California Press, Berkeley. Britto Guadarrama, Baltazar. 2011. Huexotzingo en el siglo XVI. PhD diss., Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. Carrasco, Pedro. 1963. Las tierras de los indios nobles de Tepeaca en el siglo XVI. Tlalocan 4:97–119. ———. 1969. Más documentos sobre Tepeaca. Tlalocan 6:1–37. ———. 1971. Social Organization of Ancient Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, edited by Gordon Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, 349–75. University of  Texas Press, Austin. ———. 1974. Introducción—La Matrícula de Huexotzinco como fuente socio­ lógica. In Matrícula de Huexotzinco, edited by Hans Prem, 1–16. Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria. ———. 1978. La economía del México prehispánico. In Economía política e ideología en el México prehispánico, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda, 13–74. Editorial Nueva Imagen, Mexico City.

100

Kenneth G. Hirth, Sarah Imfeld, and Colin Hirth

Chapman, Ann. 1957. Port of Trade Enclaves in Aztec and Maya Civilizations. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad Arensberg, and Harry Pearson, 114–53. Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Charlton, Thomas, Cynthia Otis Charlton, Deborah Nichols, and Hector Neff. 2008. Aztec Otumba, AD 1200–1600: Patterns of the Production, Distribution, and Consumption of Ceramic Products. In Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica, edited by Christopher Pool and George Bey, 237–66. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Cook, Sherburne, and Woodrow Borah. 1968. The Population of the Mixteca Alta, 1520–1960. Ibero-Americana 45. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cook, Sherburne, and Lesley Byrd Simpson. 1948. The Population of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century. Ibero-Americana 31. University of California Press, Berkeley. Durán, Diego. 1994. The History of the Indies of  New Spain. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Dyckerhoff, Ursula, and Hanns Prem. 1976. La estratificación social en Huexot­ zinco. In Estratificación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica, edited by Pedro Carrasco, 157–77. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mex­­ico City. Gibson, Charles. 1964. The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Hassig, Ross. 1985. Trade, Tribute and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Herrera Meza, Maris del Carmen, and Ethelia Ruíz Medrano. 1997. El códice de Tepeucila: El entintado mundo de la fijeza imaginaria. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Hirth, Kenneth. 1998. The Distributional Approach: A New Way to Identify Market Behavior Using Archaeological Data. Current Anthropology 39:451–76. ———. 2008. The Economy of Supply: Modeling Obsidian Procurement and Craft Provisioning at a Central Mexican Urban Center. Latin American Antiquity 19:435–57. ———. 2009. Craft Production in the Mesoamerican Marketplace. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:89–102. ———. 2013. The Merchant’s World: Commercial Diversity and the Economics of Interregional Exchange in Highland Mesoamerica. In Merchants, Markets and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 85–112. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC. ———. 2016. The Aztec Economic World: Merchants and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. López Austin, Alfredo. 1973. Hombre-dios: Religión y política en el mundo nahuatl. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Merchant Community of Santa María Acxotla

101

Martínez, Hildeberto. 1984. Tepeaca en el siglo XVI: Tenencia de la tierra y organización de un señorio. Ediciones de la Casa Chata, Mexico City. Matrícula de Huexotzinco. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b7200005f/f1.image. Molina, Fray Alonso de. 1977. Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana y mexicana y castellana. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Nichols, Deborah. 1994. The Organization of Provincial Craft Production and the Aztec City-State Otumba. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary Hodge and Michael Smith, 175–94. State University of New York, Albany; University of  Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2013. Merchants and Merchandise: The Archaeology of Aztec Commerce at Otumba, Mexico. In Merchants, Trade and Exchange in the PreColumbian World, edited by Kenneth Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 49–83. Dumbarton Oaks Library and Research Collection, Washington, DC. Prem, Hanns. 1974. Matrícula de Huexotzinco (Ms. mex. 387 der Bibliothéque Nationale de Paris). Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria. Restall, Matthew. 2003. Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1959. Florentine Codex: A History of the Things of New Spain. Book 9, The Merchants, edited and translated by Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 1961. Florentine Codex: A History of the Things of New Spain. Book 10, The People, edited and translated by Charles Dibble and Arthur Anderson. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sanders, William, and Robert Santley. 1983. A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, edited by Evon Vogt and Richard Leventhal, 243–91. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque; Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, MA. Scholes, Frances, and Eleanor Adams. 1958. Sobre el modo de tributar los indios de Nueva España a su majestad, 1561–1564. Documentos para la historia del Méx­ ico colonial 5. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Séjourne, Laurette. 1976. Burning Water: Thought and Religion in Ancient Mexico. Shambhala Publications, Berkeley, CA. Vigil, Ralph. 1976. Alonso de Zorita: Early and Last Year. Americas 32:501–13. Warren, David. 1971. Some Demographic Considerations of the Matrícula de Hue­ xotzinco. Americas 27:252–70. Zorita, Alonso de. 1994. Life and Labor in Ancient Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Part II

The Economics of Ritual and Social Objects

The Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion and Ritual

4

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

In this chapter we suggest a method for increasing our understanding of religious rituals and the circulation of valued commodities between human and spirit worlds among contemporary Nahuas of the Huasteca region of northern Veracruz, Mexico. Nahua rituals range from relatively simple offerings to cure sickness, to complex and costly performances that may involve scores of participants and last for weeks at a time. Our focus is on pilgrimages to sacred mountains because they are the highest and most complex expression of Nahua religious belief. Despite significant influences from Spanish Catholicism, we argue, the central strategy of their ritual behavior derives from Mesoamerican traditions of great antiq­ uity. Our basic finding is that Nahua rituals can be understood as forms of social exchange and that they exhibit many features that we would normally associate with behavior in economic and other spheres of social life. Viewing Nahua ritual from an economic perspective helps to clarify meanings of important symbols employed in the rites, illuminates fac­ tors that motivate people to participate in ritual events, and provides an opportunity to better understand how and why rituals change through time. The study of ritual using economics as a heuristic device generates new insights into the basic nature of Nahua religion as well as a pathway to study other religious systems. We depart from the type of analysis pre­ sented by John Monaghan (1995) in which he examines systems of social exchange among Mixtec ritual sponsors and their supporters. Instead, we focus here on the economic nature of exchanges between individuals and the spirit entities themselves, as well as on the factors that affect peo­ ple’s participation in ritual offerings. An initial step is to define the terms ritual and economics, both of which are controversial within anthropology. Regarding ritual, we rely on the definition from the Nahuas themselves. They call a religious ritual

106

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

xochitlalia, meaning “to put down flowers” (as an offering), or tlama­ nilistli, meaning literally “the spreading out of something”; in Spanish, rituals are called ofrendas, simply “offerings.” At the heart of all Nahua rituals are gifts of food and other valued items dedicated to relevant spirit entities believed to control key aspects of what Euro-Americans call “na­ ture”—the natural world. Cross-culturally valid definitions of econom­ ics or the economy also remain an unresolved issue within anthropology (Sandstrom 2007). Disagreements over the role of the economy in culture (and vice versa) lie at the heart of the substantivist-formalist debate that roiled anthropology during the 1960s and 1970s (see Wilk and Cliggett 2007: 3–14). While we recognize the complex issues revealed during this debate, the definition of economics we employ is based on the assump­ tion that to the best of their abilities and given their constraints, people everywhere attempt to cut costs and increase benefits for themselves and their significant others. It is difficult to see how people (or entire cul­ tures) could survive over the long run unless individuals attempted to balance costs and benefits. We follow Lionel Robbins (1972 [1935]: 16), who defined economics as “the science which studies human behavior as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses.” Note that the definition does not specify what means are used or what ends actors are maximizing (Sandstrom 2008: 95–97). Neoclassical economics has come under increasing criticism for its flawed assumptions about human rationality and its failure to account for how people behave in actual situations of decision making (Thaler 2015: 4–10). Clearly, the simplistic assumption of the omniscient ratio­ nal actor that lies at the heart of neoclassical economics does not reflect empirical reality. Scholars have developed theories of bounded rational­ ity to overcome the shortcomings of neoclassical economics (Gigerenzer and Selten 2001; Klein 2001; Simon 1955). Economists have responded to these critiques by asserting that their highly deductive theories should be judged by the accuracy of the predictions they produce, not by the valid­ ity of their assumptions (following Friedman 1953). Failure to predict the collapse of the U.S. economy in 1987 and 2008, however, gave additional ammunition to the critics. In the past thirty years, numerous noncon­ forming economists have worked with cognitive psychologists to focus on what decision makers actually do when faced with allocating scarce means toward alternative ends. Richard Thaler’s book Misbehaving: The

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

107

Making of Behavioral Economics (2015) shows decision makers to have systematic biases that affect the way they choose between alternatives. His title underscores the criticisms that people do not actually behave according to ways economists have assumed in their models and theo­ ries. Human beings, in fact, are misbehaving rational actors. We will use insights from the nascent field of behavioral economics to help clarify aspects of Nahua ritual behavior. Behavioral economics is appealing to ethnographers because it fo­ cuses on real people and their observable behavior. It lends itself to the kind of holism and cultural complexity that ethnographers are accus­ tomed to addressing. Neoclassical economics, by contrast, seems to exist in a deductive world of pure forms, connected to the empirical world only through its predictions. Anthropologists are attracted to the promise of behavioral economics, but at the same time, we have serious reservations about the bases on which it is developed. Just as with many psychological studies, many behavioral economists test their theories in experiments on a restricted population largely made up of American college students. Much of the research is cast in the form of games or hypothetical-choice tests that are administered to subjects, with little or no idea of the role of culture in their responses. As an example, Thaler mentions the Ultima­ tum Game that plays a significant role in his studies, and he claims with authority that responses to it “all around the world . . . with the excep­ tion of some remote tribes . . . are pretty similar” (Thaler 2015: 142). He does report limited cross-cultural data (Thaler 2015: 143), but these remain largely unanalyzed. Do the systematic biases in decision making discussed by Thaler exist deep in the psychology of all humans? Or are such biases simply artifacts of culture? Behavioral economists seem to accept the for­ mer explanation, little questioning the norms, values, worldview, and en­ vironmental conditions under which people operate. To anthropologists, the sociocultural context in which people make decisions is of supreme importance. In responding to the challenge of whether behavioral economics is hopelessly culture-bound, anthropologists and others have taken their games of choice to different cultural settings around the world. These investigators, however, are not motivated strictly by questions related to economics. The larger issues for them derive from evolutionary biol­ ogy—particularly behavioral ecology—and research questions are often

108

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

formed around puzzles of how and why people cooperate. Anthropolo­ gist Michael Chibnik (2011: 90–117) evaluates many of these studies and concludes that the results are mixed and findings rarely extend beyond what has already been discovered through conventional ethnographic re­ search. Chibnik also discusses problems with the methods of behavioral economics, especially the artificial nature of the game situation and the difficulty of  linking behavior during games with real-life behavior outside of the experimental context. In conclusion, Chibnik (2011: 93) states that “this research exemplifies the dangers of ignoring ethnographic complex­ ity when attempts are made to create models of human behavior that can be mathematically formulated and experimentally tested.” Despite these drawbacks, we must recognize that this type of research is in its infancy and that methodological shortcomings will be addressed by scholars. We cannot be sure that the systematic so-called misbehaviors identified by behavioral economists apply to the Nahuas of our study. As far as we know, no researcher has administered behavioral economic games to them, and so we cannot surmise their responses. Nonetheless, we will proceed with our analysis and determine whether or not apply­ ing hypotheses from behavioral economics can help explain Nahua ritual behavior.

Contemporary Nahua Religion Several useful summaries describing Nahua culture are available.1 The Nahuas are a Native American group of speakers of one or more closely related dialects of the Nahuatl language, itself the southernmost exten­ sion of the great Uto-Aztecan family of languages. The 2010 Mexican census reports that 1,544,968 people speak a dialect of Nahuatl (INEGI 2013: 82). Most Nahuas today live in the periphery of the Aztec empire, from Mexico through Central America. Our study concentrates on a Nahua village we call Amatlán located in a tropical forest ecosystem on the Gulf coast of Mexico. Amatlán villagers produce food through slashand-burn horticulture, raise patio animals such as chickens and tur­ keys, fish in local streams, and gather wild products in the lush tropical forest. We have conducted research in Amatlán since 1970 and have been in residence in the village for about five and a half years. Many significant changes that occurred over these years include the arrival of

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

109

electricity, the construction of a road system, and especially important, the conversion of nearly half the village to one or more sects of Protes­ tantism (Sandstrom 1991). The primary productive activity continues to be farming, and it is important to note that the Nahuas of this region face considerable uncertainty wherein weather, human and crop disease, soil conditions, local politics, and many other factors conspire to make life precarious. There is no safety net when the crops fail. Their religious conceptions and associated rituals are part of their collective efforts to understand how the world works and serve to reduce the risks and un­ certainty associated with slash-and-burn technology. What is remark­ able is the degree to which the ancient prehispanic religious beliefs and practices continue to be followed by so many in this area (see also Broda 2004: 20). Much has been published on the religion of the Nahuas and other indigenous groups from this region of Mexico; what follows is necessar­ ily a brief summary.2 Although the Nahuas direct their rituals at a large number of seemingly independent spirit entities, some scholars have concluded that the Nahua religious system is pantheistic rather than polytheistic.3 Pantheistic systems posit that there exists a single seamless sacred entity that is coterminous with the entire universe. The Nahuas call this principle totiotsij, meaning “our sacred deity,” and the term is based on the prehispanic word teotl, which the sixteenth-century friars translated as “God” (Molina 1944 [1571]: 101 [in Nahuatl-Spanish sec­ tion]; see also the illuminating discussion of teotl in Maffie 2014: 21–77). To render it more comprehensible and relevant to the daily concerns of people, ritual specialists break this abstract concept down into discrete entities that control specific aspects of the world (we call them “spirit entities” or simply “spirits”). For example, relevant to crop-increase ritu­ als are the dueños (“rulers” or “owners”) of the earth, water, and seeds. People address the spirit entities in their pantheon through a complex set of rituals directed by specialists (tlamatiquetl, sing., meaning “person of knowledge”).4 When organizing a ritual offering, the first task of the specialist is to create anthropomorphic images of the relevant spirits from sheets of paper. The ancient practice of paper cutting reduces the highly abstract religious philosophy of the Nahuas to manageable proportions and makes the ritual relevant to the daily concerns of participants. For a major pilgrimage, the number of cut-paper figures easily reaches 15,000

110

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

to 25,000. Spirits are portrayed anthropomorphically; the human body is an important metaphor for the Nahuas, as it represents the animat­ ing principle that makes the cosmos alive (Sandstrom 2009). All Nahua rituals have as a central feature some type of altar called tlaixpamitl in Nahuatl (“something one stands before or in front of ”) or, in Spanish, mesa (“table”). For all larger ritual occasions, specialists employ a small table as an altar, often surmounted by a decorated arch (Monaghan 2003; Sandstrom 2003). The specialist and helpers carefully lay out the paper figures. For larger ritual occasions, chickens and turkeys are sacrificed and their blood is carefully sprinkled directly on the paper figures. Help­ ers lay palm and marigold adornments on top of the blood-spattered paper, followed by plates of food, tobacco, purchased treats such as cook­ ies, drinks, and other valued items. Ritual specialists lay out paper figures and a slightly less elaborate offering on the floor beneath the altar table, placing adorned water pots nearby. Nahua altars are ritual spaces that model the layered cosmos. The arch represents the sky, the tabletop the earth’s surface, the array of adornments and offerings beneath the table the interior of the earth, and the decorated vessels the water realm. We were told repeatedly that the altars are designed to be beautiful places and to reflect the abundance brought into people’s lives by the spirits portrayed in cut paper. Rituals have a fiesta atmosphere in which food and drink are proffered for the pleasure of the spirit entities. James Tag­ gart (2007: 52; 2016) has pointed out that food is the primary way that the Nahuas demonstrate respect and love among themselves and by ex­ tension between themselves and the spirit entities. Nahua rituals are complex events that involve numerous common features, including scaling (Sandstrom 2003), concepts of modularity (Lockhart 1992), well-developed conceptions of the sacred landscape (Sandstrom 2005), use of the human body as a key symbol (Sandstrom 2009, following López Austin 1988 [1980]), and ideas about the ordered center and disordered fertile periphery (Sandstrom and Sandstrom, forthcom­ ing). Even this brief description should underscore that Nahua rituals are highly transactional in nature. People model the cosmos in their al­ tars and dedicate costly offerings to spirit entities linked to processes that make the crops grow. Chanting by ritual specialists can be understood as a form of bargaining with the spirit entities (Sandstrom 2008). The rituals act to obligate the spirit entities to return the gift in the form of

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

111

abundant crops, healthy children, productive patio animals, and gener­ alized prosperity. Several key arenas of contemporary Nahua community life model the system of ritual exchanges: the faena (weekly village-level cooperative labor in which community members perform work in lieu of taxes); mano vuelta, or labor exchange, usually observed among kinsmen (Sandstrom 1991: 170, 205); and the social exchange and reciprocity commonly seen in the bilateral cognatic kinship system (Sandstrom 1991: 157–78; Sand­ strom 1996, 2008). Village life conditions the way people deal with spirit entities, and we are certainly not the first to notice that rituals are closely associated with gift exchange; compare conceptions of exchange and rec­ iprocity among ritual participants articulated by Monaghan (1990, 1995, 1996). Alfredo López Austin (1988 [1980], vol. 1: 73–74) writes of the sixteenth-century Aztecs that “the gods were thought to participate in a process of interchange. . . . Men acquired water and crops, and were free of illness and plagues in exchange for offerings of blood, hearts, fire, copal incense, and quails. The vocabulary in use indicates that in reality it was a kind of business transaction.” In an interesting parallel, neighboring contemporary Otomí people, who share many cultural features with the Nahuas, call some of their rituals pagar algo, “to pay something” (Sandstrom 2008: 104). Alessandro Lupo, who studies contemporary Nahuatl speakers in the Sierra Norte de Puebla not far from our own field site, affirms what López Austin found among the ancient Aztecs: “Almost always, the rites that accompany the pleas include offerings; the intention of the latter is to reestablish an ex­ change relationship in which the principle of reciprocity obliges the recip­ ients to grant that which is asked of them as compensation” (Lupo 1995: 99, translation ours). He notes that when the earth captures part of a soul, the ritual specialists speak of the altar adornments and chants as payment for the return of the soul to the patient and compensation for its loss as earth’s “food” (Lupo 1995: 146). Lupo states (regarding crop-fertility ritu­ als), “The offering to the earth is truly an economic investment, whose payoff will arrive in some time. The ‘food’ that is given today will be returned multiplied tomorrow and forever” (Lupo 1995: 163, translation ours). In sum, Nahua rituals can be understood as instances of reciproc­ ity; see similar observations about Nahuas of the Huasteca by Anuschka van ’t Hooft and José Cerda Zepeda (2003: 106). People extend the social

112

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

exchange mechanisms that define their interactions with other villagers to incorporate spirit entities—those invisible manifestations of totiotsij, the sacred unity that is isomorphic with the cosmos.

The Prominent Place of Pilgrimage in Nahua Ritual Practice Of all Nahua ritual undertakings, pilgrimages to prominent mountain­ tops in the surrounding sacred landscape are the most elaborate, costly, and extensive. Between 1998 and 2007 we participated in five pilgrim­ ages from Amatlán to four sacred mountain peaks. We went twice (in June 1998 and June 2001) to the summit of Postectli, the most important mountain in Nahua sacred geography. Near its summit at an altitude of approximately two thousand feet above the surrounding landscape are rock clefts—home to water, seeds, and earth spirits. The other pilgrim­ ages were undertaken during spring 2007 to lesser mountains. Rituals associated with each of the sacred journeys exhibit similar structures and are composed of identical sequences of events. They differ only in the degree of elaboration, length of time devoted, and quantity of offerings. While there is a template for the rituals having to do with pilgrimages, a high degree of deviation is the norm. We are in the pro­ cess of writing a monograph on Nahua pilgrimage that features more than 850 photographs along with drawings of the paper figures prepared for the treks, accompanied by ethnographic and iconographic analysis (Sandstrom and Sandstrom, forthcoming). Figures 4.1 to 4.4 illustrate the basic outline of events. The overall purpose of the pilgrimages is to reestablish equilibrium between humans and forces in the universe—or create an imbalance in the villagers’ favor—so that the spirits receiving the gifts bring rain, fertility, and abundance to the fields. Participants be­ lieve that the cosmos is in precarious balance but basically beneficent and that once obstacles have been removed and proper offerings have been dedicated to the forces controlling the crops, human beings inevitably benefit. Built into this conception of the normal workings of the cosmos is a fail-safe mechanism. The fundamental idea is that rituals establish an exchange relationship but do not produce results directly. Therefore, a ritual undertaken to produce rain may be perfectly successful at getting the system of obligations back in balance or tipped in humans’ favor

Figure 4.1.  The initial offering in the xochicali in Amatlán continues through­­ out the night until dawn, when the trek to the sacred mountain Postectli commences. Photographed by authors.

Figure 4.2.  At times the pilgrims traveling to Postectli follow the dirt road that leads to the Nahua town of Ichcacuatitla, municipio of Chicontepec, Veracruz. The sacred mountain is barely visible in the distance through thick smoke from numerous forest fires. Photographed by authors.

Figure 4.3.  Close-up of the contents of the opened bundle of counted and stacked paper figures. Outside of the xochicali at Ichcacuatitla, the ritual specialists prepare additional paper figures for the pilgrimage. Photographed by authors.

Figure 4.4.  Near the decorated altar to the sun and water at the summit of Postectli, a ritual specialist blesses and cleanses a participant by rubbing him with candles. Photographed by authors.

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

115

even though rain still may not come. The only certainty is that the fertile fields that rain produces will remain elusive if people neglect to dedicate the offerings. Nahua rituals, as exemplified by the pilgrimage to Postectli, generally rest upon close observations of the natural world. The Nahuas know bet­ ter than anyone that their lives depend on their ability to understand and operate effectively in the subtle and complex web of ecological relations. They must produce a surplus and simultaneously ensure that the soil is replenished, keep in check pests and other threats to the crop, and main­ tain in some degree of balance weather, human labor, and local political conditions. It is no surprise that their religious conceptions mirror these fundamental requirements of life.

Neoclassical and Behavioral Economics of Ritual A brief review of some observations (presented in Sandstrom 2008) il­ lustrating neoclassical economic principles that underlie Nahua ritual behavior will prepare us for applying behavioral economics to pilgrim­ age. First, the Nahuas adjust the cost of a ritual depending on the de­ gree of cooperation they are trying to elicit from the spirit entities. This finding indicates that people are economizing, that is, they are adjusting their means to match the utility level of the ends they seek. Second, members of wealthier households tend to make fewer ritual offerings than do those less well-off. Wealthier villagers “have generally attained a higher overall level of utility through technical and social means. As a consequence, they are less likely than those in poorer households to rely on ritual strategies” (Sandstrom 2008: 107). Third, the transactional na­ ture of Nahua rituals caused us to see the altar as a seat of exchange be­ tween people and relevant spirit entities. This relation, later affirmed by ritual participants, allowed us to determine that the tabletop of the altar is the analog to the milpa. Offerings are dedicated on the tabletop to spirit entities who respond accordingly by repaying with the gifts of rain and crop fertility in the milpas (Sandstrom 2008: 108–11; see also figure 4.1). Finally, looking at rituals as economic transactions helps us to under­ stand why religious practices change. High levels of stress experienced by local communities under conditions of shifting circumstances have led people to modify their strategies in dealing with the unseen forces in

116

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

the cosmos. We witnessed widespread conversion to Protestantism and even a local revitalization movement in which the corn spirit appeared in the person of a young girl from a neighboring community, which was suppressed immediately by the Catholic Church (Quiroz Uría 2008). In sum, “As the Nahua means of production was modified and economic arrangements were realigned, their relationships with the spirit world underwent a transformation as well” (Sandstrom 2008: 114). Researchers can look at ritual economy in two basic ways. One is to calculate the costs and opportunity costs (the value of alternative pro­ ductive activity forsaken in order to participate in a religious event) of an actual ritual. This approach entails a straightforward enumeration of of­ ferings and an accounting of the time involved in preparing for the ritual occasion. Another is to view the logic of the ritual itself as fundamentally economic, to view the religious activity as a type of exchange between humans and spirit entities. In this approach, ritual is incorporated into people’s lives as part of the means-to-end logic that underlies productive activity, social exchange, and systems of reciprocity. We note here that our approach to this topic deviates from the more comprehensive view presented by Patricia McAnany and E. Christian Wells (2008: 3), who see ritual economy in relation to provisioning and consuming goods, materializing and substantiating worldview, and managing and shaping meaning and interpretation. We present a far more restricted, narrowly focused conception of ritual economy. We will look at the more easily measured costs of the pilgrimage to Postectli before discussing the appli­ cation of behavioral economics to the logic of Nahua ritual. It is striking how the sixteenth-century Aztecs as well as contempo­ rary Nahuas employ objects as a primary means to deal with spirit enti­ ties. This shared practice reveals much about Mesoamerican religion and is worthy of a separate study. Our participation in the sacred journeys to Postectli in 1998 and 2001 gave us the opportunity to observe the items that people assemble before undertaking a major pilgrimage (table 4.1). We have categorized the items to distinguish actual outlays of money from other valued resources, reusable goods versus those consumed. We estimate that when all donations of money from the fifty or sixty partici­ pants were tallied, the total neared the 10,000 peso mark (approximately 800 U.S. dollars at 1998 exchange rates). Of that total figure, nearly a quarter was donated by the lead ritual specialist and the ethnographers.

Table 4.1.  Provisions required for the pilgrimage Monetary outlays cash offerings (to purchase needed items) fees paid (?) to Ichcacuatitla authorities fees paid to musicians (guitarist, violinist) Purchased items (consumed) aguardiente (cane alcohol) bandanas (for wrapping maize bundles) beer brandy or rum candles and votives (paraffin or lard) chocolate cloth (to make clothing for paper figures) coffee crackers and cookies firework rockets (to signal ritual phases) jewelry (for paper figures) paper ( papel de china, papel ilustre, papel revolución, to create cut-paper figures) perfume (for walking sticks) ribbons (for paper figures and walking sticks) soap (to wash seed figures’ clothing) soft drinks string tobacco (leaves and cigarettes) water pots Purchase items (reused) bowls, cups, glasses, and vases Catholic saints’ statues and pictures metal bells (to call spirit entities) palm sleeping mat (to carry paper figures) scissors sisal carrying bags tiny wooden chair (for dressed earth figures beneath altar)

Gathered and locally manufactured items (consumed) bamboo (as ornaments, to make altar tables) bananas (as offerings, stalk to hold candles) bread (freshly baked) candles (beeswax) chickens and turkeys (blood and cooked meat) coffee copal bark (incense) coyol palm leaves cut-paper figures and paper altar ornaments eggs firewood herbs maize bundles (the finest mazorcas tied into 3- and 4-ear bundles, wrapped in bandanas) marigold blossoms and other seasonal flowers piloncillo (sugar loaf  ) tamales tortillas vines Locally manufactured items (reused) bastones (walking sticks to lead procession) carrying baskets clay whistles (to call spirit entities) gourd rattles gourds (to carry water) incense braziers wooden box (containing dressed seed figures) xochicali (shrine of lead ritual specialist)

118

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

The remaining amount (approximately 7,700 pesos divided among the many participants) may seem like a trivial amount of money, but to people in Amatlán, where a family gets by on the equivalent of a few hundred U.S. dollars a year, it represents a fortune. A glance at the list of items provided by participants indicates the level of complexity of the pilgrimage. It takes dozens of people several days to assemble the items and make preparations for the offerings that lie at the heart of the occasion. Compare the list of provisions to the one compiled by Frances Berdan (2007; also Berdan, chap. 5, this volume) for rituals among the sixteenth-century Aztecs in the imperial capitals. The work involved in assembling, preparing, and distributing items for a pilgrimage is among the largest of communal efforts undertaken by the village throughout the year. In addition to direct costs and opportunity costs, the actual trek to the sacred mountain is arduous at best and positively dangerous during times of drought and extreme heat. People went for several days without ad­ equate sleep while making preparations and conducting a series of cleans­ ings and offerings, whereupon they undertook a taxing twelve-hour walk over difficult trails in overwhelming heat and humidity (see figure 4.2). Most were loaded down with adornments, sacrificial birds, and heavy containers of water. Several participants fainted during the pilgrimage, and everyone had to halt to give them time to recover. After arriving at the base of the sacred mountain, the people set up the altar, continued cutting additional paper figures to add to the thousands already prepared (see figure 4.3), and spent the night dancing or standing before the com­ pleted offerings. Then, following another cleansing, they proceeded to spend the entire next day climbing the treacherous trail—constructing altars and making major offerings along the way—to arrive at the sum­ mit of Postectli (see figure 4.4). After it was all over, they faced another twelve-hour walk back to their villages. The effort expended by the men and women, some of whom were in their seventies, was truly impressive. During one pilgrimage, the people set up four complete cleansing arrays, eight major altars, and numerous abbreviated altars at forks in the trail, water sources, and rock clefts. The strenuous exertion involved in a pil­ grimage is part of the cost borne by each participant. In short, there are many costs of participating in the pilgrimage, all of which further obligate spirit entities to cooperate.

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

119

Behavioral Economics and the Pilgrimage By taking a descriptive approach to their subject, behavioral economists have identified many factors causing decision makers to deviate from the emotionless, fully informed, rational homo economicus at the core of neo­ classical economics. They focus on actual behavior and have shown that people even in advanced capitalist societies are bounded in their ratio­ nality, regardless of  what more traditional economists may say. Behav­ ioral economics has not yet developed an overall theoretical perspective and at this stage can best be understood in conjunction with traditional neoclassical economics. We would never make the argument that the Nahuas are ideal rational decision makers regarding their ritual behavior, only that they exhibit behavior that can be understood as economic and transactional in relation to the spirit entities in their pantheon. It seems clear to us, following the more formalist line, that their means-to-end rationality in all spheres of life is identical to that of people anywhere in the world but that it is applied within their own historical and cultural context. This position differs from that of many substantivists, who see decision making instead as embedded in the culture and not the exercise of choice in allocating scarce means to alternative ends. In neoclassical economics, what rational decision makers maximize is utility, which can be defined as satisfaction or happiness. So we can say that the Nahuas engage in rituals because the rituals are a means of increasing their level of utility. But can we go further in analyzing why the Nahuas hold such elaborate and colorful ritual offerings? Through his studies of behavior, Thaler has determined that there are actually two distinct kinds of utility. The first is acquisition utility, which is “based on standard economic theory” (Thaler 2015: 59). The second type is transac­ tion utility, which is defined as “the difference between the price actually paid . . . and the price one would normally expect to pay” (Thaler 2015: 59). If  we move the discussion away from monetary prices and toward more general categories of utility, we can see that expectations and the experience of the transaction itself likely affect the level of utility. Peo­ ple experience positive and negative transaction utility depending on costs and expectations. As Thaler points out, one expects to pay more for drinks at an elegant restaurant than a local bar. Customers would be outraged if the bar began to match prices with the restaurant: the

120

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

quality of the experience is part of the calculation of transaction utility. This type of analysis contradicts the neoclassical economic concept of the perfectly rational actor. For the Nahuas, the transactional utility of pilgrimages is very high and helps explain, even in a small way, why they continue to participate in pilgrimages. In rural villages such as Amatlán, the pilgrimage is a time of action and excitement, of engaging in a com­ mon activity with friends and neighbors, meeting new people, consum­ ing the best food and drink, listening to moving music and chanting, traveling outside of the village, visiting sacred features of the landscape, making contact with normally remote spirit entities, and participating in the fiesta-like atmosphere of a Nahua ritual. While it costs—in terms of time, money, and effort—to participate, everyone we talked to agreed that the pilgrimage is a highlight of the year. In sum, there is far more than acquisition utility drawing people to participate in the pilgrimage. There is a significant payoff in positive transactional utility as well. Behavioral economists also write about sunk costs or the sunk cost fal­ lacy (Thaler 2015: 64–73). Money that has been spent and cannot be retrieved is an example of a sunk cost. Of course, any value such as labor or time can be a sunk cost; the transaction does not have to involve money. The basic idea is that if people have invested some value in an enterprise, they have a hard time forgetting about it. They continue to pour good resources after bad even though doing so is not rational. Sunk costs affect future decisions. Neoclassical economists claim that rational decision makers forget about sunk costs when choosing how to allocate resources. For real people, that is a very difficult model to follow, and it is only called a “fallacy” in economics because it deviates from what neo­ classical theoreticians expect of the rational actor. We have shown above that the Nahuas invest an enormous amount of resources and consider­ able effort in pilgrimages. According to behavioral economics, the sunk costs incurred by the Nahuas increase the likelihood that individuals will participate in future sacred journeys. In sum, committing resources to a ritual predicts future participation. Sunk costs may be one reason that rituals can persist well after they no longer produce the level of utility they once did. The psychological phenomenon could also help to explain why certain people are always found at pilgrimages and other major rit­ ual occasions. They may be attending because they have already sunk so many resources into the religious practices over the years.

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

121

Another finding of behavioral economics that causes the perfectly ra­ tional maximizer to deviate from the normative path is called hindsight bias (Thaler 2015: 21–22): people misremember past decisions that led to present circumstances. As Thaler (2015: 22) states, “What makes the bias particularly pernicious is that we all recognize this bias in others but not in ourselves.” The distortion may cause decision makers to allocate re­ sources according to false interpretations of past decisions and to misap­ prehend results of those choices. Rational choice theory in neoclassical economics does not allow for such exogenous variables to affect choices. Clearly, however, hindsight bias affects Nahua participation in ritual of­ ferings. People assume that current dire circumstances are the product of past actions of other Nahuas and, in particular, non-Nahua elites who live in cities. They attributed the disastrous drought of 1998, for example, to actions of people in Mexico City who disrespected the earth. Positive con­ ditions that exist today are thought to be the result of ritual offerings from previous pilgrimages. By assuming a causal relation between past actions and current problems, as well as recalling a high success rate of previous offerings, the Nahuas are creating a powerful motive among people to participate fully in current offerings. And, as discussed above, ritual of­ ferings are considered to simply change the mutual obligations between humans and the spirit pantheon but do not produce results directly. The fail-safe nature of Nahua ritual makes it impossible to attribute specific salutary conditions to individual rituals, but everyone who participates remains convinced that without the pilgrimage, conditions for growing crops would only worsen. Behavioral economists recognize that human beings attempt to over­ come their limitations by creating heuristics, or rules of thumb, to follow. One example of this process is illustrated by the concept of availa­bility (Thaler 2015: 22). People use information available to them to make choices. A significant problem is that people’s experiences and thus the type of information that they have at hand is probably not representa­ tive of the wider world. The omniscient maximizer of utility is a fiction projected by neoclassical economic models. Every human being views the world through a series of lenses that limit his or her ability to see a bigger picture. Among the Nahuas, the decision to participate in the pilgrimage to Postectli is informed by the heuristic that offerings engage spirit entities and only the spirits can ameliorate the situation. The methods for dealing

122

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

with the spirits are part of the cultural understandings of ritual special­ ists who organize and perform the rituals and thus are what is avail­ able for individual decision makers. When asked why people follow a specific set of  beliefs and practices, most anthropologists are likely to answer that it is part of a group’s socially shared traditions or culture. A more interesting answer may be that the rituals are people’s avail­ ability heuristic useful for deciding what to do during a crisis or during any general decision-making process. By looking at religious rituals as an availability heuristic, we are in a more powerful position to explain why cultures change. Thus, as the rural Huasteca region underwent a period of turmoil in response to external forces of economic develop­ ment, Protestant missionaries arrived on the one hand, and the corn spirit appeared to save the people on the other. As a result, more options became available for individual Nahuas caught in the middle. People changed their religious affiliation when the old system failed to deliver and new choices became available. In a sense, culture itself is a kind of heuristic that provides the blueprint of how the world works, as well as the means for making strategic choices. If cultureis a kind of amorphous process in constant flux lacking clear bound­aries, as some contempo­ rary anthropologists assert, maybe the availabilityheuristic will provide us with a means to better understand how culture operates and why it changes. Two findings of behavioral economics seem to contradict our analy­ sis of Nahua pilgrimage as an economic transaction. The first, called the endowment effect, holds that “people valued things that were already part of their endowment more highly than things that could be part of their endowment, that were available but not yet owned” (Thaler 2015: 18). Ac­ cording to neoclassical economics, the endowment effect runs contrary to rational choice theory because all such resources should be valued equally. In sum, by overvaluing that which is possessed, this bias would lead peo­ ple to make choices that depart from strict rationality. Nahua participants in the pilgrimage are asked to give up part of their monetary endowment, to endure opportunity costs, and to undergo an arduous trek, all for the possibility of increasing their utility by having bountiful crops. Regardless of how deeply people believe in the efficacy of the ritual offerings, they are still asked to forsake something that is already theirs in exchange for possible gain in the future.

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

123

A second distortion in rational decision making that might appear to contradict our analysis is called intertemporal choice. The phrase refers to the finding that there is a time-dimension bias regarding people’s level of satis­ faction and happiness. In Thaler’s (2015: 89) words, “The basic idea is that consumption is worth more to you now than later.” Another way to state the finding is that decision makers discount future consumption, that is, con­ sumption is present biased (Thaler 2015: 91). This issue brings up self-control or willpower, factors that have little or no place in neoclassical economics. Adherents would say utility is utility regardless of when it occurs and timing should play no part in its enjoyment or in the way it enters into rational calculation. The Nahuas who participate in pilgrimages must endure costs now for possible increased future utility when the crops are harvested. Be­ cause of intertemporal choice, that future utility—and the consumption it entails—is discounted relative to something immediately available. Both endowment effect and intertemporal choice probably operate among the Nahuas as among other groups, and so these concepts pose a problem in our understanding of the essentially transactional nature of ritual. The Nahuas should be disinclined to participate in a pilgrimage, given these deviations from rational choice. However, a partial answer may be found in the observation by Lupo presented earlier to the effect that ritual offerings are understood by the Nahuas as investments rather than simple outlays. The idea of investing for the future is commonplace in the lives of people who practice slash-and-burn horticulture. The in­ tensive process of cutting and burning the forest to prepare fields to plant can stretch over several years. For a Nahua farmer who cuts old-growth forest, the delay can be even longer. Any individual engaged in tropical horticulture invests a great deal now for potential rewards in the future. We conclude, therefore, that the slash-and-burn cycle itself conditions the Nahuas to overcome the endowment effect and intertemporal choice and to view initial outlays of wealth, time, and labor in the pilgrimage as a type of investment rather than a simple loss of resources. We have also argued elsewhere that Nahua rituals themselves are mod­ eled by the slash-and-burn mode of production (Sandstrom 2008). Culti­ vation in their environment involves creating order out of disorder, paying painstaking attention to detail, and performing highly repetitious, almost assembly line–like movements to plant, weed, and harvest. Nahua ritual occasions are generally characterized by the same traits. Labor involved

124

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

in manufacturing thousands of paper figures and adornments, multiple cleansings, and construction of numerous, heavily laden altars are anal­ ogous on a symbolic level to the repetitive nature of slash-and-burn hor­ ticulture. The altar tabletop is the analog to the milpa, and it is upon the table’s surface that the offering is placed. The altar is above all an or­dered space where paper figures and palm-and-flower adornments are  care­ fully laid out by supplicants just as the corn and beans are planted in neat rows by the farmer and members of his mano vuelta labor-exchange group. The altar contains gifts for those entities in the cosmos closely linked to crop fertility, and the milpa is where the gifts are returned in the form of a bountiful harvest. The transaction is complete and the Na­ huas have successfully engaged with the forces that make life possible. In sum, the hard labor in the fields is of the same order as labor required by rituals, and methods for extracting crops from the fields run paral­ lel to those designed to extract cooperation of the spirit entities. Both involve investment with clear expectation of returns. There are many additional findings from behavioral economics that could apply to Nahua ritual behavior, but we would like to conclude with the problem of fairness and attempt to show how this phenomenon gives us insight into how the people of Amatlán view their spirit pantheon. In administering their experimental games to subjects, psychologists and behavioral economists have found that people depart from the rationalactor model of neoclassical economics by relying on a sense of fairness and justice (Thaler 2015: 127–47). This deviation from ideal rational behavior is, of course, anathema to the idea that actors behave strictly according to rules of logic regarding the allocation of scarce resources. As Thaler (2015: 131) writes, “Both buyers and sellers feel entitled to the terms of trade to which they have become accustomed, and treat any deterioration of those terms as a loss.” Nahua pilgrims have a clear ex­ pectation that they will be treated fairly by the spirits if they are gener­ ous with their offerings, participate in rituals, and behave with respect. Spirits themselves can act arbitrarily and may at times prove dangerous to human interests and welfare. But in the end, people put their faith in a sacred cosmos that provides life, abundance, and happiness to human beings. The ritual offerings keep the exchange in a tentative, temporary balance so that, for the most part, the cosmos provide what is neces­ sary. At times when people become anxious because the workings of the

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

125

cosmos appear to have been disturbed or disrupted and disaster seems imminent, they must renew their vigilance against the possibility that the exchange has become unbalanced. Nahua attitudes reflect a strict sense of fairness in their dealings with these forces, and people seem sat­ isfied with the techniques and strategies available to them to reestablish fruitful exchange relations. In conclusion, we believe that Nahuas themselves view their interac­ tions with the spirit realm as economic transactions. They expend labor, relinquish comfort, dedicate offerings, bargain forcefully in their chants, and thereby attempt to restore a precarious (and self-serving) balance with the forces of the cosmos. Their actions reflect transaction utility, sunk costs, hindsight bias, and availability heuristics; the universe is a precarious place, and they define such actions as a form of investment to overcome intertemporal choice and the endowment effect to forge an effective relationship with the spirits that populate their world. Because in the end there is fairness in the cosmos, they fully expect that their earnest efforts will pay off in multiple values, particularly in the form of abundant crops in their fields. Analysts should, therefore, be able to illu­ minate religious practices of the Nahuas and others using basic concepts from both neoclassical and behavioral economics. Of course, going on a pilgrimage to the summit of a sacred mountain and dedicating elab­orate offerings to the earth, sun, water, and seeds is not the same as entering into an exchange at the weekly market. Ritual exchange is fraught with meanings that touch people at the deepest level. Nahua rituals are pow­ erful emotional experiences, and it is not unusual to see participants openly weeping while pleading before a decorated altar. By fulfilling their end of the bargain, human beings enter into close communion with teotl, the giver of life, in its local form, totiotsij. For pantheists, the cos­ mos far transcends simple existence: “The sacredness of teotl consists of its all-encompassing and magnificent power”—a “creative, destructive, transformative power” according to philosopher James Maffie (2014: 93). Because human beings are also part of the sacred cosmos, coming into close contact with this power takes worshipers to the heart of their own being. To be in the presence of such power cannot fail to produce a pro­ found emotional experience for the people caught up in the exchanges that they view as fundamental to the continuance of the world and to their very existence.

126

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

Notes 1. See Sandstrom 2010 for general statements on Nahua culture; see Sandstrom 2000: 87–91 and Rodríguez López and Valderrama Rouy 2005 for coverage of Gulf Coast Nahuas; see Sandstrom 1995 for a summary of Nahuas of the Huasteca. 2. For fuller descriptions of contemporary Nahua religion, see Báez-Jorge and Gómez Martínez 1998; Gómez Martínez 2002; Montoya Briones 1964; and Sand­ strom 1991. 3. For discussions of Mesoamerican pantheism, see Hunt 1977; Maffie 2014: 79–136; Monaghan 2000; and Sandstrom and Sandstrom 1986: 275–80. 4. See Sandstrom and Sandstrom 1986: 106–8 for a list of rituals in Amatlán; also see Sandstrom 1991: 294–95.

References Cited Báez-Jorge, Félix, and Arturo Gómez Martínez. 1998. Tlacatecolotl y el diablo: La cosmovisión de los nahuas de Chicontepec. Secretaría de Educación y Cul­ tura, Xalapa, Mexico. Berdan, Frances F. 2007. Material Dimensions of Aztec Religion and Ritual. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis-Salazar, 245–66. Univer­ sity Press of Colorado, Boulder. Broda, Johanna. 2004. Introducción. In Historia y vida ceremonial en las comu­ nidades mesoamericanas: Los ritos agrícolas, edited by Johanna Broda and Catharine Good Eshelman, 15–32. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Chibnik, Michael. 2011. Anthropology, Economics, and Choice. University of Texas Press, Austin. Friedman, Milton. 1953. The Methodology of Positive Economics. In Essays in Posi­ tive Economics, edited by Milton Friedman, 3–43. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Gigerenzer, Gerd, and Reinhard Selten. 2001. Rethinking Rationality. In Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox, edited by Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten, 1–12. Massachusetts Institute of  Technology Press, Cambridge. Gómez Martínez, Arturo. 2002. Tlaneltokilli: La espiritualidad de los nahuas chicon­ tepecanos. Programa de Desarrollo Cultural de la Huasteca, Mexico City. Hooft, Anuschka van ’t, and José Cerda Zepeda. 2003. Lo que relatan de antes: Kue­ ntos tének y nahuas de la Huasteca. Ediciones del Programa de Desarrollo Cultural de la Huasteca, Pachuca de Soto, Hidalgo, Mexico. Hunt, Eva. 1977. The Transformation of the Hummingbird: Cultural Roots of a Zina­ cantecan Mythical Poem. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY. INEGI (Instituto Nacional Estadistica y Geografía). 2013. Perfil sociodemográfico, Estados Unidos Mexicanos: Censo de Población y Vivienda 2010. Mexico City.

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

127

Klein, Gary. 2001. The Fiction of Optimization. In Bounded Rationality: The Adap­ tive Toolbox, edited by Gerd Gigerenzer and Reinhard Selten, 103–21. Mas­ sachusetts Institute of Technology Press, Cambridge. Lockhart, James. 1992. The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford University Press, Stanford. López Austin, Alfredo. 1988 (1980). The Human Body and Ideology: Concepts of the Ancient Nahuas. 2 vols. Translated by Thelma Ortiz de Montellano and Bernard Ortiz de Montellano. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Lupo, Alessandro. 1995. La tierra nos escucha: La cosmología de los nahuas a través de las súplicas rituales. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional Indigenista, Mexico City. Maffie, James. 2014. Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. McAnany, Patricia A., and E. Christian Wells. 2008. Toward a Theory of Ritual Economy. In Dimensions of Ritual Economy, edited by E. Christian Wells and Patricia A. McAnany, 1–16. Research in Economic Anthropology 27. JAI Press, Bingley, UK. Molina, Alonso de. 1944 (1571). Vocabulario en lengua castellana y mexicana. Colec­ ción de incunables americanos 4. Ediciones Cultura Hispanica, Madrid. Monaghan, John. 1990. Reciprocity, Redistribution, and the Transaction of Value in the Mesoamerican Fiesta. American Ethnologist 17 (4): 758–74. ———. 1995. Covenants with the Earth and Rain: Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revela­ tion in Mixtec Society. Civilization of the American Indian Series 219. Uni­ versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman. ———. 1996. Fiesta Finance in Mesoamerica and the Origins of a Gift Exchange System. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2 (3): 499–516. ———. 2000. Theology and History in the Study of Mesoamerican Religions. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 6: Ethnology, edited by John D. Monaghan, 24–49. University of  Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2003. Shamanism, Colonialism, and the Mesa in Mesoamerican Religious Discourse. In Mesas and Cosmologies in Mesoamerica, edited by Douglas Sharon, 141–48. San Diego Museum Papers 42. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. Montoya Briones, José de Jesús. 1964. Atla: Etnografía de un pueblo náhuatl. Insti­ tuto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Quiroz Uría, Sitna. 2008. ¿Evangelización o fanatismo el la Huasteca? El caso de Ama­ lia Bautista Hernández. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Mexico City. Robbins, Lionel. 1972 (1935). An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. 2nd rev. ed. Macmillan, London. Rodríguez López, María Teresa, and Pablo Valderrama Rouy. 2005. The Gulf Coast Nahua. In Native Peoples of the Gulf Coast of Mexico, edited by Alan R.

128

Alan R. Sandstrom and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom

Sand­­strom and E. Hugo García Valencia, 158–86. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Sandstrom, Alan R. 1991. Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Con­ temporary Aztec Indian Village. Civilization of the American Indian Series 206. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. 2012 Internet Archive edi­ tion available at http://archive.org/details/cornisourbloodcu00sand. ———. 1995. Nahua of the Huasteca. In Encyclopedia of World Cultures, vol. 8: Middle America and the Caribbean, edited by James W. Dow and Robert V. Kemper, 184–87. Human Relations Area Files. G. K. Hall, Boston. ———. 1996. Center and Periphery in the Social Organization of Contemporary Nahuas of Mexico. Ethnology 35 (3): 161–80. ———. 2000. Contemporary Cultures of the Gulf Coast. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 6: Ethnology, edited by John D. Monaghan, 83–119. University of Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2003. Sacred Mountains and Miniature Worlds: Altar Design Among the Nahua of Northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Mesas and Cosmologies in Meso­ america, edited by Douglas Sharon, 51–70. San Diego Museum Papers 42. San Diego Museum of Man, San Diego, CA. ———. 2005. The Cave-Pyramid Complex Among the Contemporary Nahua of Northern Veracruz. In In the Maw of the Earth Monster: Mesoamerican Ritual Cave Use, edited by James E. Brady and Keith M. Prufer, 33–68. University of Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2007. Cultural Materialism, Rational Choice, and the Problem of General Ethnography: Marvin Harris and the Struggle for Science in Anthropol­ ogy. In Studying Societies and Cultures: Marvin Harris’s Cultural Material­ ism and Its Legacy, edited by Lawrence A. Kuznar and Stephen K. Sander­ son, 78–102. Studies in Comparative Social Science. Paradigm Publishers, Boulder, CO. ———. 2008. Ritual Economy Among the Nahua of Northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Dimensions of Ritual Economy, edited by E. Christian Wells and Patricia A. McAnany, 93–119. Research in Economic Anthropology 27. JAI Press, Bingley, UK. ———. 2009. The Weeping Baby and the Nahua Corn Spirit: The Human Body as Key Symbol in the Huasteca Veracruzana, Mexico. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social Phenomena, edited by Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, 261–96. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. ———. 2010. Culture Summary: Nahua. Online introduction to eHRAF World Cultures, Nahua Collection NU46. Indexing notes by Teferi Abate Adem. Human Relations Area Files. Yale University, New Haven, CT. Available through institutional license at http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/. Sandstrom, Alan R., and Pamela Effrein Sandstrom. 1986. Traditional Papermak­ ing and Paper Cult Figures of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Nor­

Behavioral Economics of Contemporary Nahua Religion

129

man. 2012 Internet Archive edition available at http://archive.org/details /traditionalpape00sand. ———. Forthcoming. Pilgrimage in Contemporary Nahua Religion: The People of Amatlán Seek to Establish Order in a Diminishing World. Multimedia monograph and accompanying website with 850 color images, vector draw­­ ings, and audio-video components (350-page ms. available), to be pub­­ lished as part of eHRAF World Cultures, Nahua Collection NU46. Human Relations Area Files. Yale University, New Haven, CT. Available through institutional license at http://ehrafworldcultures.yale.edu/. Simon, Herbert. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics 69 (1): 99–118. Taggart, James M. 2007. Remembering Victoria: A Tragic Nahuat Love Story. Uni­ versity of Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2016. El amor y la comida: La teoría de las emociones de los nahuat de Puebla. Unpublished manuscript. Thaler, Richard. 2015. Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. W. W. Norton, New York. Wilk, Richard R., and Lisa Cliggett. 2007. Economies and Cultures: Foundations of Economic Anthropology. 2nd ed. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

The Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

5

Frances F. Berdan

Mexica religion was expensive. The construction of lofty temples, crafting of godly idols and their luxurious adornments, daily support of a multitude of priests, and dedication of thousands of precious materials and objects to buried offerings all required enormous material outlays (Berdan 2007). In addition, major public religious ceremonies required the use and display of a wide array of local and exotic raw materials and finished objects to properly venerate the deities and celebrate mythologies and sacred rhythms. All of this adds up to a considerable investment in religion at all levels, from household to state. This chapter focuses on the economic dimensions of the eighteen monthly (veintena) ceremonies as enacted in the Mexica capital city of  Tenochtitlan (table 5.1), recognizing the many variations in ceremonial scheduling and activities among the several cities of central Mexico (Boone 1983; Kubler and Gibson 1951; Quiñones Keber 1995; Sahagún 1997). These ceremonies were predictable and repetitive, although they also may have been “dynamic and malleable,” taking “particular forms in particular years” (DiCesare 2009: 153, 161 [referring to the month of Ochpaniztli]). They involved actors from all segments of this complex society and required repeated infusions of nearby and distant goods for their proper performance. An economic examination of these ceremonies has the potential to illuminate the extent of Mexica material commitments to their religious world, as well as to consider relevant economic dimensions of ritual activities (such as opportunity costs and transaction utility: see Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). By 1519 the Mexica capital city of Tenochtitlan had reached an unprecedented urban population of between 200,000 and 250,000 inhabitants, far outstripping even its most powerful neighbors (Smith 2008: 152). The aggressive imperial political entity known as the Aztec empire

Feb. 13–Mar. 4 Mar. 5–Mar. 24 Mar. 25–Apr. 13 Apr. 14–May 3 May 4–May 23 May 24–June 12 June 13–July 2 July 3–July 22

July 23–Aug. 11 Aug. 12–Aug. 31 Sept. 1–Sept. 20

Sept. 21–Oct. 10 Oct. 11–Oct. 30 Oct. 31–Nov. 19 Nov. 20–Dec. 9 Dec. 10–Dec. 29 Dec. 30–Jan. 18 Jan. 19–Feb. 7

Tlaxochimaco Xocotl Huetzi Ochpaniztli

Teotl Eco Tepeilhuitl Quecholli Panquetzaliztli Atemoztli Tititl Izcalli

Corresponding dates

Atl Caualo Tlacaxipehualiztli Toçoztontli Huey Toçoztli Toxcatl Etzalcualiztli Tecuilhuitontli Huey Tecuilhuitl

Month

Highlights of ritual activities Children sacrificed, tamales offered, fasting, dancing, papers hung Human sacrifices, feasting, dancing, rewards to warriors Children sacrificed, planting rituals, offerings of tamales, flowers, snakes Children and deity impersonator sacrificed, mock battles, offerings, fasting Deity impersonators sacrificed, feasting, dancing, offerings of food, quail, incense Deity impersonators sacrificed, offerings to agricultural tools, fasting, offerings of etzalli Human sacrifices, singing, dancing Deity impersonators sacrificed, nobles host commoners at feasts, warriors and prostitutes sing and dance Human sacrifices, dead honored, singing, dancing, flowers offered, idols decorated Fire sacrifice, xocotl pole climbed, dead honored Deity impersonators sacrificed, houses and public structures cleaned and repaired, mock battles, rewards to warriors, fasting, singing, dancing, feasting, offerings Fire sacrifices, singing, dancing, feasting, offerings Human sacrifices and offerings to rain and pulque deities, rituals on hilltops Deity impersonators sacrificed, feasting and rewards for hunters, hunting of animals Human sacrifices, processions, feasting, warriors and prostitutes fast and dance Children sacrificed, making of rain deity images and offerings to rain deities, fasting Deity impersonator sacrificed, women ritually harassed, procession Making of deity images, feasting, offerings

Table 5.1.  The eighteen months of the Tenochtitlan annual calendar

132

Frances F. Berdan

(or Triple Alliance empire) had been spreading its hegemony across central and southern Mexico for the past ninety years, a period of time encompassing only about three generations. Imperial successes contributed to religious and political displays by funneling extraordinary wealth into Tenochtitlan through tribute demands and trading activities. The former channeled raw materials and finished goods through state and royal hands. The latter was reflected in the commercial magnet that was the Tlatelolco marketplace, adjacent to Tenochtitlan and the largest trading venue in the empire. This and other marketplaces attracted the commercial and entrepreneurial attention of the region’s many full-time and part-time merchants. All in all, the island twin cities served as lively settings for the production and exchange of raw materials, utilitarian objects, and luxury goods. Many of these were destined for use and display in the ubiquitous, flamboyant religious ceremonies.

Mexica Ceremonial Performances: The Calendrical Cycle The ceremonies punctuating the eighteen months of the Mexica solar calendar were predictable, theatrical, and highly scripted. They expressed and in some cases enacted the people’s most fundamental cosmological beliefs. Spread throughout the year, they honored specific deities and focused on tensions or worries for which the supernatural could be of help, especially in providing sufficient rainfall and successful crops; indeed, eleven of the ceremonies focused on rainfall and fertility. The Mexicas experienced a high-stakes, risky, and fateful existence, with crop failure and famine ever-present historical shadows. In their ceremonies they honored, venerated, thanked, propitiated, appeased, implored favor, petitioned, and prayed to their numerous deities. In many instances, postures and behaviors of reciprocity are evident. For example, offerings and sacrifices were presented to godly idols “when their help was needed” (Durán 1971: 211). Importantly, ritual human sacrifices were viewed as debt payments, paying the gods back for their earlier sacrifices on behalf of humanity. The calendrical events also provided opportunities for specialized groups and persons of achievement to honor and call on their patron deities, demonstrate their spiritual commitments, and “show off ” their personal and communal accomplishments.

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

133

In broad perspective these monthly extravaganzas commonly included activities of fasting and feasting; vigils; processions; music, singing, and dancing; and the dedication of sacred offerings (including human sacrifices). Still, each ceremony was unique (Berdan 2014: 226–28; Nicholson 1971; Townsend 2009: 242–44). For instance, the highlight of the second month, Tlacaxipehualiztli, was the much-anticipated gladiatorial sacrificial battles. Young men and women engaged in mock battles during Huey Toçoztli, offerings were made to agricultural tools during Etzalcualiztli, and boys competed in a pole-climbing ceremony during Xocotl Huetzi. In the ceremony of the final month, Izcalli, children were “stretched” by their parents to ensure proper growth (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2). Each month also saw varying participation among different segments of  Mexica society, such as the warriors, young men and women, boys, and children seen in these examples. During other rituals, rulers danced, nobles hosted commoners at feasts, honored warriors received distinguished rewards, and old men and women had their moment. At specified ceremonies, hunters, prostitutes, merchants, weavers, midwives, and other specialists took center stage. In short, different social groups, at different times, shouldered the responsibilities of preparations, time, and resources required for the proper enactments of the monthly extravaganzas. Each ceremony, drawing on general ritual prescriptions and exhibiting individualized features, necessitated its own constellation of material accompaniments. Recognition of this material dimension raises several interesting questions of an economic nature: (1) How did the participants acquire the requisite materials and goods for a proper performance? (2) Who was responsible for providing the ceremonial materials and goods, and what was the extent of religious support from the considerable state coffers? (3) How were the ritual materials and goods disposed of: were they destroyed or deposited during the ceremony, or were they retained and recycled for repeated use? (4) Why did the Mexicas spend so conspicuously and so prodigiously on these ceremonies? Did they anticipate something positive in exchange for their loyal, repeated, and often expensive efforts? What can a look at these economic questions reveal about Mexica involvement in religious performances? Alan Sandstrom and Pamela Sand­strom (chap. 4, this volume) obligingly present numerous eco­no­mic concepts applicable to Nahua ritual behavior. Some of these, notably

134

Frances F. Berdan

opportunity costs, sunk costs, and transaction utility, find possible analogs among the Mexicas as well.

Economic Dimensions of the Calendrical Ceremonies Acquisition of Materials and Objects A wide array of raw materials available in the Mexica political domain were employed in religious ceremonial performances, spread across the year. The same was true with manufactured goods, whether utilitarian or luxurious. Among raw materials, foodstuffs were essential to the appropriate performance of every one of the eighteen monthly ceremonies. This is to be expected, as feasting and offerings were nearly universal components of these rituals. Maize appears in all of the ceremonies, primarily consumed as tortillas, tamales, pinole (maize flour with chia or other food additive), stew, or atole (a hot maize beverage); maize stalks and ears were presented as gifts and sacred offerings. Other everyday foods were also consumed or offered at specific ceremonies: chia, amaranth (seeds and greens), beans, chiles, squash seeds, tomatoes, “greens,” fruits, nopales, honey, dogs, turkeys, birds, and pulque. Chocolate also appears but much less frequently; also uncommon, mentioned only once, is a tantalizing shrimp sauce (during Izcalli). Additional foods were probably prepared for these ceremonies: there is mention of quite a bit of unspecified food and drink, sometimes as a “feast” or a “banquet” (Durán 1971; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2). Tobacco was considered an essential part of feasting and also makes an appearance. Most of these foods, especially those consumed in greatest quantities, were produced in and around the Basin of Mexico and hence were readily available to the celebrants. Only a very few—most notably chocolate, shrimp, tobacco, and a “Huaxtec fruit” (for Etzalcualiztli)—were products of lands beyond the basin. Also, as might be expected, foods consumed in feasting were cooked and otherwise prepared, invariably, in individual households (whether noble or commoner). If unavailable to the household through its own production, these foods were readily available in the Tlatelolco and other Basin of Mexico marketplaces (e.g., Cortés 1928: 87–89; Díaz del Castillo 1963: 232–34; Sahagún 1950–82,

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

135

bk. 8: 67–69; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 10: 63–94). Tobacco and chocolate were also provided in tribute (Berdan and Anawalt 1992, vol. 3). Some foods, or portions of them, were not intended to be eaten but rather were dedicated as gifts and offerings. This was the case with amaranth dough, which was formed into balls and sacred images, cornstalks and maguey roots presented as gifts, gourds used as containers, a hardbaked frog (dyed blue and dressed in a little skirt), a small dried rabbit, and game (deer, rabbits, and coyotes) killed by hunters, their heads displayed as trophies. Quails were frequently sacrificed; although it is not clear how often they were eaten, in at least one case they were roasted, salted, cured in brine, and served to eminent persons (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 74). A wide range of other raw materials were dedicated to the monthly ceremonies. Most of these were available in the confines of the Basin of Mexico: reeds from the lakeshores, cypress woods from chinampa lands, pines (for staves, boughs, torches, splinters, and firewood) from along the basin’s periphery. Local maguey plants provided fibers, thorns, and leaves often used in the ceremonies. Grasses, Spanish moss, and mesquite wood were also available, and a variety of flowers, including yauhtli and cempohualxochitl (marigold), were grown. Turkeys were commonplace in the basin, and their feathers and down were important in three of the monthly ceremonies. Heron and eagle feathers and down were also ceremonial adjuncts. Charcoal, chalk, lime, and some of the paints and glues had local sources. Other raw materials, some of them making frequent appearances in the monthly ceremonies, could be obtained only from beyond the Basin of Mexico. These included rubber, precious feathers (including quetzal, roseate spoonbill, and motmot), conch shells, large seashells, turtle shells, copal incense, amolli (for soap), cotton blossoms, chapopotli (tar), and some glues and paints. These items were widely used in the monthly ceremonies. Some entered the Mexica capital through tribute payments, although much did not (such as cotton blossoms, glues, turtle shells, large seashells, amolli, chapopotli, and some of the dyes, paints, and trop­ ical feathers). Marketplaces served as distribution points for many of these materials. Commoners, without direct access to tribute stores, would have relied heavily on these commercial venues for access to prescribed ceremonial materials. For their part, the vendors surely would

136

Frances F. Berdan

have been attuned to the ceremonial high points and adjusted their merchandise accordingly. A great many worked objects were employed in the proper observance of the monthly rituals. These may be divided (simply for convenience) into utilitarian and luxury goods. Among the utilitarian items, those made of paper and woods predominated (the paper also made from wood bark), being featured in fourteen and eleven of the ceremonies, respectively. Paper adornments included banners, vestments, streamers, rosettes, and clothing; wooden objects ranged from litters, carrying frames, benches, and platforms to cages, poles, vessels, and trays. Objects made of reeds (such as mats, seats, boxes, jar rests, and staffs) appear in half of the ceremonies. Musical instruments, as would be expected, were recorded for fifteen of the eighteen ceremonies; these included flutes, whistles, rattles, drums, and conch shell trumpets that provided accompaniment for the many processions, songs, and dances. Flint and obsidian blades were also frequently needed, often in sacrificial contexts. The number and variety of ceramic objects reflect the emphasis on food preparation and serving (from cooking vessels and molcajetes [mortars and pestles] to bowls, jars, drinking vessels, and platters). Ceramic skills were also applied to braziers and incense ladles. Surprisingly little in the way of lower-value (maguey) textiles was needed from weavers, although cotton textiles were more common, and the month of Quecholli featured a woman-to-be-sacrificed who was surrounded by all of her weaving implements. Spinning was a different matter: a great deal of cordage and cotton thread (dyed and plain) were prepared as bags, threads, and ropes. Depending on the specific needs of the ceremony, celebrants also had to equip themselves with brooms, baskets, gourds, sandals, smoking tubes, heron- and eagle-feather flags and canes, and various weapons such as arrows and tools such as axes. Where did the celebrants acquire these everyday manufactured goods? Almost all of the raw materials for these objects were available within the Basin of Mexico. Exceptions were cotton (for threads and textiles), paper (available from the nearby Cuauhnahuac region), and possibly smoking tubes. Raw cotton, paper (as sheets), and smoking tubes were all delivered periodically to Tenochtitlan as tribute (Berdan and Anawalt 1992, vol. 3); access to these goods was restricted to the palace or depended on the ruler’s largess. If a household or priestly entity did not

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

137

have the wherewithal to fashion their own objects (such as flower garlands and twig tiaras), the responsible parties could benefit from a visit to the marketplace. All manner of ceramics, reed objects, stone knives, and other implements are included in the Tlatelolco marketplace descriptions. Baskets, gourds, brooms, cordage, cotton thread, axes, and sandals were also present in that venue. Notably absent (or at least not mentioned) are musical instruments, weapons, and paper adornments, although paper itself is well represented. Only two of the many wooden objects used in the ceremonies (benches and vessels) are listed in the marketplace descriptions despite the repeated mention of planks, poles, beams, pillars, and thin and thick boards. It should be kept in mind that these listings were most certainly incomplete, although the absence of paper and wood objects geared primarily toward ritual events is nonetheless intriguing. The most spectacular manufactured objects adorning the monthly ceremonies were those fashioned from colorful feathers, precious stones, shining metals (especially gold), and finely worked shells. Elegant decorated cotton textiles provided luxurious backdrops for these splendid accoutrements, whether bedecking participants or godly idols. For all of these adornments, not only were the component materials considered precious and valuable but also the objects themselves were complex: a tiara made of feathers, gold, and jewels; a greenstone and turquoise mask; jaguar-skin incense bags with shells; and a quetzal- and heronfeather crown. The effort of combining different valuable materials into singular objects did not merely add to the overall value of the objects but must have enhanced their visual impact as well. The “costly devices” (warrior regalia) frequently displayed in these ceremonies were complicated in their materials and construction (see Filloy Nadal and Moreno Guzmán, chap. 6, this volume). They were also very diverse in appearance: jaguars and eagles, butterflies and Huaxtec, and many others. A few very fancy and luxurious objects were sent as regular tribute to Tenochtitlan; these included warrior devices (although not the eagle regalia), greenstone beads, and perhaps some of the decorated clothing. But the majority of the specific ceremonial adornments do not appear on the tribute tallies. They are rarely found on the marketplace lists of the Tlatelolco marketplace: principal merchants dealt in netted and eagledesign capes; the metal seller offered golden bracelets; the fine-stone

138

Frances F. Berdan

seller laid out precious greenstones as well as pearls and jet; high-ranking merchants traded in greenstone beads, gold lip plugs, metal bells, and jaguar pelts (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: illus. 2–3; bk. 10: 60–64). This does not mean that the specific luxury paraphernalia used in the monthly ceremonies were not available in the marketplaces—these lists were surely incomplete, and identifying specific clothing is difficult, particularly when it is simply described as costly, designed, painted, or precious. The same is true with gold and feathered items and jewelry. Yet the highly specific construction and designs of many of these objects, and their sacred uses, suggest that many of these pieces, such as a Tlaloc mask, back mirrors, golden shell pendants, turquoise mosaic ear plugs, feathered capes, a snail shell lip ornament, and costly banners (including gold ones), were commissioned specially for these events. Three other matters fall into the realm of ceremonial luxuries: the ruler’s dancing attire, sacrificial victims, and nonmaterial costs. The ruler took center stage in at least six of the monthly ceremonies, performing scripted dances (Townsend 2009: 242–44). His dances were ritually prescribed, and his array carried sacred overtones. Fortunately, we have an impressive list of his adornments and a statement that palace artisans (notably, feather workers) were specifically responsible for producing his dancing array (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 8: 27–28; Sahagún 1997: 206). Those constructing the royal adornments and other regal finery worked on-site at the palace (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 8: 45). Indeed, these artisans were known as “feather workers of the treasury store house,” and “their domain was everything which was in Moctezuma’s treasury store house” (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 91). It is a reasonable assumption that most of the materials (tropical feathers, fine stones, and gold) that went into fashioning these ornate objects arrived as tribute from conquered subjects. Still, various tools and other materials (such as glues) were also required in the manufacture of these precious accoutrements and most likely would have necessitated a trip to the marketplace. The royal finery designated as the ruler’s dancing array was quite specific and certainly crafted in the palace by these highly trained artisans—to exact specifications, no doubt. Most of the monthly ceremonies involved human sacrifice, and these individuals were probably considered as a form of material offering, indeed, a highly prestigious offering presented as a sacred debt payment.

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

139

They arrived at the sacrificial site in four ways: as children, as battle captives, as deity impersonators, and as bathed (purchased) slaves. How the children were chosen is unclear, but in the other cases, considerable economic investment was involved in the sacrificial event (although the person to be sacrificed may not have looked at it quite that way). All were adorned in ways considered acceptable to the presiding deity, sometimes involving considerable expense. Captors were responsible for their captives, priests for the deity impersonators, and merchants and other specialists for their bathed slaves. Human sacrifices were, arguably, the most expensive of the ritual offerings. There were also nonmaterial economic commitments and costs; these unfortunately are difficult to quantify or evaluate economically. It has already been mentioned that royal palaces maintained skilled artisans; many noble houses did the same (see Berdan 2014: 108–9). Mexica royalty and elites also retained musicians and singers used in nearly all the ceremonies. In Tenochtitlan the royal singers and dancers were housed in the palatial building called Mixcoacalli. Their performances were at the behest of the ruler; these responsibilities included the veintena ceremonies as well as more idiosyncratic events (Mendieta 1973: 85–86; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 8: 45). Maintenance of these performers involved expenses of daily support and recompense (to put this in perspective, see Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 668–69 for payments made to royal sculptors). The cyclical rhythms of these ceremonies were well known. This means that specified individuals and groups (many of them occupational) needed to focus their attention, time their preparations, mobilize their resources, and prioritize their activities at designated times of year. Who were these persons and groups responsible for acquiring and preparing the proper ceremonial materials and goods?

Involvement and Responsibilities Precise performance of the eighteen veintena ceremonies required dedicated participation on the part of everyone in Mexica society at one time or another. These ceremonies typically were complex affairs consisting of many sequential scenarios. As such, they drew on several different per­ sons and groups, each playing their designated scripted roles. A summary of one of the ceremonies, celebrating the month of Panquetzaliztli,

140

Frances F. Berdan

provides a rather extended example of these roles and relationships (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 141–50): 1. Offering priests had been fasting and laying out fir branches for eighty days prior to the actual ceremony. 2. Women (including “pleasure girls”) sang and danced for twenty days. 3. On the ninth day before the feast, old men of the calpolli got water and bathed sacrificial victims (slaves) and adorned their slaves at Huitzilopochtli’s temple. 4. Bathers took their slaves to their respective calpollis. Owners sang and danced. 5. Bathers and old men of the calpolli bathed themselves. 6. Bathed slaves, bathers, escorts, flag bearers, and women “facewashers” danced the serpent dance while the old men beat the drums. 7. Finally, the feast day arrived and the slaves left their bathers’ houses. 8. Gifts (clothing and banners) were given to the bathed slaves, who adorned themselves with them. 9. Bathed slaves danced in the calpolli courtyard. Bathers (only the mer­ chants) gave gifts to invited guests. 10. Slaves were taken by bathers to the temple, where they climbed to the top, circled the sacrificial stone, and stepped back down (a dry run?). 11. Slaves and bathers returned to their calpollis, and slaves kept vigil there. 12. Slaves’ hair was cut (by whom?) at midnight. 13. Amaranth seed tamales were eaten by all of the “common folk” that night. 14. Just prior to dawn, an image of Paynal was carried from Huitzilopochtli’s shrine, and sacrifices were performed by priests. 15. The priest bearing Paynal’s image ran from temple to temple with the figure, slaying victims at temples along the route; also along the way a mock battle ensued, involving the bathed slaves. 16. The Paynal bearer gave standards and devices to small boys, who gave them to valiant warriors who ran with the standards and devices in relays to Huitzilopochtli’s temple.

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

141

17. A fire priest cut the last of these warriors’ ears with a flint knife. 18. The last of the running warriors were given Huitzilopochtli’s amaranth dough image, which they took to their homes as a captive; joined by their relatives and neighbors, they ate it. 19. Priest(s) conducted sacrifices of captives and bathed slaves. 20. The next day, the old men and women, seasoned warriors, married men, and lords (nobles) drank pulque. 21. Meanwhile, at bathers’ homes there was music and singing and a presentation of gifts by bathers to all of their workers (from chocolate servers to pulque makers), those who had helped in the ceremony. Obviously, with so many different activities and such a diverse array of participants, this ceremony needed to be carefully orchestrated to ensure success. Instruction in this and the other ceremonies was central to teachings in the cuicacalli (House of Song, often situated at the calpolli level); a mandatory ceremonial education would have contributed substantially to the workability and coordination of these complex rituals, easing communication among diverse participants. In some cases the onset of new stages in the overall event was signaled by the blowing of a conch shell, easily heard and understood by all. Ritual education, again not readily quantified, was an investment traditionally and willingly made in Mexica life. This was only one of eighteen ceremonies; other months required the participation of different persons and groups (although some repeated over several months). Perhaps surprisingly, given the state and public flavor of these flamboyant ceremonies, the broadest participation was by people labeled as commoners, common folk, people, and commoner occupational groups who variously took part in all of the ceremonies (figure 5.1). Of these, farmers are specifically mentioned in two of the ceremonies (gleaning maize stalks and maguey roots from their own fields, for example), although it was more usual that the commoner population at large was referenced. Commoner participants typically engaged in the household components of the broader encompassing ceremonies and were largely responsible for foods, nonfood materials, and utilitarian goods (in keeping with their social status and economic wherewithal). A slight anomaly is the offering of chocolate (albeit a small amount) by

142

Frances F. Berdan

Figure 5.1.  Offerings proffered during the month of Huey Toçoztli. From Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: illus. 13. Reproduced by permission from Bernar­ dino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain (Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble, eds. and trans.), 12 vols. (University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City).

commoners in ceremonies during Atemoztli (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 152). On occasions, participants moved from household to central temple to household and back again, weaving through the rhythms of the celebration. For instance, during Tlaxochimaco, “commoners gathered together and strung flowers, made tamales, and stayed up all night—all in their homes. At daybreak, they went out and adorned the deities with flowers. This was followed by feasting in homes and then by public singing and dancing, featuring achieved warriors and ‘women of the night.’ At day’s end, everyone went home and continued to sing for the gods”

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

143

(Berdan 2014: 244). Broad participation and the use of everyday materials and objects helped make ceremonies relevant to everyday life (see Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). In the extended example above, all commoners were expected to expend the time, effort, and resources to participate fully in the ceremony. In other similar examples, everyone gave up all food except amaranth and tortillas during the great feast of Izcalli; everyone danced a serpent dance at midday of the main feast of Xocotl Huetzi; and all were required to sweep and clean their houses, possessions, and streets during Ochpaniztli (Boone 1983: 200; Durán 1971: 448, 462; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 115–16). In other cases, individual commoners could make personal vows to contribute to the community’s sacred well-being. For instance, during Toxcatl, men had opportunities to fulfill vows made earlier in the year by ritually offering materials such as pine torches, ears of corn, quail, or incense; during the same month, women could fulfill vows by dancing a “popcorn dance” or by cooking an “amazing” meal for Tezcatlipoca (understood to be consumed by priests and dignitaries) (Durán 1971: 104–5; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 75). During Atemoztli, “common folk” made vows to fashion figures of the mountain gods and present offerings before them (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 151–52). Whether fulfilling obligations from customary expectations or from vows, individuals obtained their required materials and ritual objects through their own production (where possible) and probably more frequently from purchases in the marketplaces. For instance, spring flowers used during Toçoztontli were either bought or collected in fields (whose fields is not indicated), pine splinters were purchased during Huey Toçoztli, a tree trunk was cut in the forest during Tlaxochimaco, and there was a considerable amount of sharing and gift giving (and perhaps regifting as well) during nearly all of the ceremonies. Some ritual roles were assigned based on gender, age, or parental status. Several activities required participation by old men and women, by young men, by young women (or by young men and young women), by adults of drinking age, or by mothers with children. Age and gender distinctions were important to the Mexicas generally, and specified ritual roles highlighted these categories. Women and girls danced (leaping about) during Toxcatl and other months (with less leaping and more swaying). In these dances the women and girls were gaily decorated,

144

Frances F. Berdan

variously painted with yellow ochre, legs bright with red feathers, and heads adorned with flower garlands. Young women defended themselves against boys with staves in a mock battle during Tititl, and adult women served dried maize grains and pulque during Atemoztli. While not always explicitly mentioned, women prepared and served foods in daily life and would have been involved in almost every ceremony where food and feasts were included. Motherhood was highly valued, and mothers were featured in Huey Toçoztli, Quecholli, and Izcalli. If male participants were singled out, it was usually because they were either old or young. “Old people” were most usually associated with pulque and music (explicitly during Huey Tecuilhuitl, Panquetzaliztli, Tititl, and Izcalli). Also during Panquetzaliztli, old men of the calpolli bathed slaves slated for sacrifice (see example above). Boys and young men were incorporated into several of the monthly ceremonies, sometimes in mock battles; they also danced, ran with ritual banners, played musical instruments, made offerings, received gifts, and could join in on a raucous pole-climbing competition (during Xocotl Huetzi). Perhaps recognizing the energy and enthusiasm of youth, masters of youth are frequently mentioned in association with the activities of their youthful charges. Depending on the ceremony and the appetite of the presiding deity (and sometimes perceived political postures), adult men, adult women, or children may be sacrificed. High-ranking and/or wealthy individuals also shouldered ritual responsibilities. They decorated their fine houses. They were expected to dance, but with more exquisite finery than that exhibited by the commoner participants: in the month of Toxcatl, dancers wore wreaths on their heads from which “hung little figures of gold or stone or many other finely worked things, for all those who danced were lords or chieftains” (Durán 1971: 428). Young men and women, “all of them offspring of highborn men” (Durán 1971: 445), danced adorned with jewels and feathers and enjoyed abundant food and drink during the festivities. Their glamorous visual presence in the ceremonies was in rather stark contrast to the picture presented by the commoner participants, who were more humbly adorned. While not necessarily nobles, accomplished warriors took center stage in several of the ceremonies. During Tlacaxipehualiztli, the eagle and jaguar warriors were primary participants in the much-anticipated

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

145

gladiatorial sacrifices. On other occasions, valiant warriors were honored with lavish gifts from the ruler. And when captives were slated for sacrifice, warrior captors were present to offer them. In short, many of the calendrical rituals overtly reinforced and even heralded the Mexicas’ mar­ tial stance. Persons with calpolli affiliations sometimes participated collectively in the monthly ceremonies. Some sang together, played drums in unison, danced in their own neighborhood courtyards, bathed slaves, or exchanged food and other goods. Some calpolli-based ritual activities make practical sense. For instance, singers and musicians would have been trained together, the proximity of neighbors made food sharing and other reciprocities logistically easy, and specialized calpollis could collectively mobilize their resources and skills. Among the many expected calpolli duties was the provision of food and drink to current and veteran warriors during the month of Huey Tecuilhuitl, in recognition of their service (Durán 1971: 438–39). Many individuals, male and female, became ritual actors by virtue of their occupation or profession. With only a few exceptions, any one occupational group was called on for special service, or honored, only once each year, and always during the same month. The most notable were the salt people (Tecuilhuitontli), midwives and healers (Huey Tecuilhuitl), women physicians (Ochpaniztli), lime vendors (Ochpaniztli), carpenters (Xocotl Huetzi), merchants (Panquetzaliztli), pulque makers (Quecholli and Izcalli), hunters (Quecholli), calmecac singers (Etzalcualiztli and Huey Tecuilhuitl), concubines (Tecuilhuitontli and Huey Tecuilhuitl), and mas­ ters of youths (Huey Tecuilhuitl and Xocotl Huetzi). Intensity of participation by these groups varied widely. The merchants, for example, took center stage as they offered bathed slaves for sacrifice; the hunters vied for rewards signaling their prowess as hunters; the calmecac singers, well, sang and sank somewhat more into the background. Some of these groups, such as the merchants, were relatively cohesive. Others, like the masters of youths, may have been less so. People in other “jobs,” such as servers, constables, and “workers,” also contributed widely to the rituals. Whatever the depth of their contributions, each of these groups was essential to the successful performance of its respective ceremony. The ruler was an active participant in several of the veintena ceremonies: he danced, he made “appearances,” he distributed food, he adorned

146

Frances F. Berdan

deity impersonators, and he initiated sacrifices. He also bestowed gifts and honors on his loyal subjects. For instance, he gave fine capes, ornaments, food, and drink to hunters successful during the Quecholli ritual hunts, and he granted warrior devices to accomplished warriors during Ochpaniztli (explicitly drawn from his tribute stores). The ruler also ritually bestowed gifts on godly impersonators (headed for sacrifice) as part of their sacred preparation during Panquetzaliztli and Toxcatl. During Toxcatl, the ruler (Motecuhzoma) adorned the chosen deity impersonator with eagle down, golden shell pendants, turquoise mosaic ear plugs, and other finery supplied from his storehouse by his calpixque, or stewards (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 69–70). Many of the materials from which these objects were fashioned (gold, shells, turquoise, cotton, jaguar pelts, brown cotton, and quetzal feathers) appear in the tribute tallies. It remains to consider the priests. Discussing these persons under the category “occupations and professions” would have been reasonable, but their pivotal role in the ceremonial arena makes them deserving of separate consideration. All of the monthly ceremonies required active priestly participation—from many different types of priests and many levels of the priestly hierarchy. There were fire priests, high priests, offering priests, and calpolli priests. There was the Tlaloc fire priest and the priest of Tezcatlipoca. Priests adorned the godly idols, orchestrated the complex ceremonies, provided ritual timing with conch shells and drums, engaged in autosacrifice, performed sacrifices on others (from quails to humans), and received alms and many offerings from the populace (see Olivier 2003). They made wide use of the materials and objects detailed earlier in this chapter, from paper adornments to musical instruments, and also priestly implements such as sacrificial knives and maguey thorns. They were prodigious consumers of incense and likewise required the corresponding ceramic censers (see Smith 2002).

Disposition of Materials and Goods The discussion thus far has demonstrated that large quantities of materials and goods were directed to the performance of repetitive cyclical ceremonies. And the same materials and goods were needed repeatedly, year after year. How much of this disappeared each month through wear and tear, offerings, or intentional destruction—how much needed to be

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

147

renewed each year as each month reappeared? What happened to other materials: were they saved, stored, gifted, reused, or recycled? Religious life is rarely simple, and in this case ritual consumption is indeed a bit tangled. Many materials and objects could, and did, serve multiple purposes, traveling frequently from secular to sacred spheres of life and back again, perhaps changing meaning in the process (see Umberger, chap. 7, this volume). As examples, many foods were ritually gifted among household members and then consumed; other foods were offered at temples, later to be eaten by the temple priests. Warrior costumes were worn and torn on the battlefield but also ritually gifted and displayed in specific ceremonies. Wispy red feathers were fashioned into lovely mosaics but also decorated the limbs of female ritual dancers. Similar transformations and multiple uses occurred with paper, rubber, sauce bowls, dyes, and on and on. Transitions from mundane to sacred appear fairly seamless, as they probably were to a Mexica, who would have viewed secular and sacred realms as an intertwined unity. Foodstuffs were produced, prepared, and consumed in large quantities throughout the eighteen veintenas. Many were eaten in household feasts, but others circulated as gifts (and mostly then eaten), were presented to priests, were laid out as offerings to the gods and goddesses, or were sacrificed (as with quail). Amaranth dough was formed into replica idols, which were subsequently destroyed. Nearly all of the foodstuffs (with the possible exceptions of the hard-baked frog and small dried rabbit) needed to be produced and prepared anew. Almost all of these foodstuffs were produced in and around the Basin of Mexico and would have been readily available, barring seasonal variations or the frequent famines or other agricultural stresses (Berdan 2014: 54–55). Other local raw materials were also, for the most part, fully consumed during the ceremonies. Woods burned, flowers wilted, feathers pasted on human limbs deteriorated, and maguey thorns were ritually bloodied and presented as sacred offerings. Charcoal, chalk, lime, glues, and paints were single-use materials. Raw materials obtained from more distant areas experienced mixed fates. Rubber was spattered on paper banners and normally used up (unless the banners themselves were saved), as were soap, cotton blossoms, tar (chapopotli), dyes, paints, glues, and large quan­ tities of copal incense. However, some other materials could be reused,

148

Frances F. Berdan

such as large seashells, turtle shells, and conch shells (the latter two often were transformed into musical instruments and undoubtedly reused until broken or worn out). Similarly, some feathers, especially precious ones that were tied rather than glued, may well also have been retained for repeated use. Manufactured goods used in the ceremonies also experienced mixed fates. Specific objects made of reeds (such as mats, boxes, staffs, and jar rests) may have survived until their next “assignment,” but they probably needed to be repaired or replaced frequently. Paper adornments could have been reused but, like the reed objects, would have needed renewal. Wooden objects (such as drums, litters, trays, and platforms) were usually decorated and required considerable woodworking skills and labor investments; they were probably reused again and again. Ceramics were also often highly decorated and therefore valuable, but they did break, requiring unplanned replacement. Spun threads of cotton or maguey were commonly used and then disposed of after their use; they would have needed regular replacement. Stone knives were reusable unless ritually destroyed, although obsidian blades are notoriously fragile. Aside from usual and expected wear and tear, some objects were intentionally destroyed, deposited, or recycled. Musical instruments were probably used and reused year after year, although flutes were also ritually broken (Smith 2014). Human sacrifices, of course, needed to be replaced. Many objects served as temple equipment and priestly array and were used over and over again: eagle vessels, a greenstone jar as a heart receptacle, ceramic censers and other incense burners, large braziers, priestly capes, musical instruments such as drums and rattle boards, knives, idol adornments, tobacco gourds, incense bags, and netted capes were all reusable. Some objects were left at temples as offerings, such as the small sauce bowls and green gourd jars left by commoners at the Mist House during Atemoztli. They were probably retained but in new hands. Certain ritually used objects were privately owned. For example, dancers such as the courtesans and lords performing during Tecuilhuitontli were dressed and adorned in their own personal finery (Durán 1971: 435; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 98–99). During Huey Tecuilhuitl, brave warriors who danced purchased for themselves ornate adornments such as gastropod shell neck bands (expensive) or just yellow neck bands (inexpensive) (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 100). Similarly, eagle and jaguar warriors appeared

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

149

Figure 5.2.  Gladiatorial sacrifice during Tlacaxipehualiztli. From Nuttall 1903: fol. 30r.

for the gladiatorial sacrifice (Tlacaxipehualiztli) bedecked in their own ornate, earned warrior insignia (figure 5.2). Warrior costumes such as these, bestowed as gifts from the ruler, became the inalienable property of the warriors who earned them (Berdan 2014: 260–68; Umberger, chap. 7, this volume). In a way, the regalias’ histories ended with their new owners, who could not sell or otherwise dispose of them. These devices were granted as rewards for individual battlefield achievements and therefore were specific to the honored warrior. They could not be recycled (at least in theory). Some materials and goods were ritually destroyed, such as the quetzal and other precious feathers burned during Etzalcualiztli; the rubberspattered banners, maguey fiber capes, and rubber idols presented as sacred offerings during the same month; and the paper sashes, loincloths, and wigs worn by captives burned during Xocotl Huetzi. During Quecholli, the costly banners, shields, capes, and loincloths of slain warriors, along with cotton thread, small arrows, a dead hummingbird, and many heron feathers, were burned in memory of those warriors (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 135–36). During that same month, the ritual materials (mostly weaving equipment) of a female sacrificial victim were also burned. More burning

150

Frances F. Berdan

of paper vestments, sacrificial papers, maguey fiber, a small wooden vessel, and feathers occurred during Panquetzaliztli, Atemoztli, and Tititl. Might some of the monthly ritual dispositions have ended up in the many caches surrounding Tenochtitlan’s Templo Mayor? There is some coincidence of materials and objects used in the monthly ceremonies and those uncovered in the Templo Mayor excavations (e.g., copal, conch shells, jars, and human sacrificial remains). Yet Leonardo López Luján (2005: 77) concluded that the majority of those buried gifts “belonged to exceptional ceremonies, that is, they were not periodical.” These “exceptional ceremonies” largely revolved around building dedications; one monthly ceremony, Tlacaxipehualiztli, is possibly implicated in these offerings inasmuch as the temple renovations were always commemorated during that month (López Luján 2005: 217). Sometimes the rules of disposition were very specific. During Xocotl Huetzi, the captor of the xocotl image was presented with a brown cape with a feathered border for his achievement. If no one disputed his victory, he could then wear the fine cape; if his success was questioned, he could only keep it, or he could sell it if he became poor or ill (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 117). In another case, paper banners and headdresses covered with liquid rubber, which had served as the array of Tepeilhuitl’s female sacrificial victims, were hung from a calpolli roof. After one year they were thrown away and had to be created anew for the next cere­ mony (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 132–33).

Mexica Rituals as Economic Behavior What does this little foray into the Mexica monthly ceremonies tell us about the people’s contributions and commitments to their religion? Can we see these activities in economic terms, especially costs, sunk costs, opportunity costs, transactions, and transaction utility? In terms of acquisitions, most raw materials used in the veintena ceremonies were obtained locally, most were inexpensive and widely available, and most were provided by the “common folk.” The materials could be obtained through the Mexicas’ own production efforts or in local marketplaces. More exotic (or more expensive) materials were also generally found in the marketplaces; many of them also entered  Te­ nochtitlan through imperial tribute channels. Fancy manufactured items

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

151

are another matter: although the marketplace reports do not paint a complete picture, many of the specific ceremonial objects (especially the luxury ones) do not appear and may well have been produced by artisans commissioned by the ruler and other nobles for specific ceremonial needs. The ruler’s dancing array was fashioned in-palace by his own master artisans. Costs were high for the many material and nonmaterial acquisitions for these ceremonies. We cannot quantify most of these, although a merchant’s ritual feast is an exception (see Berdan 2014: 188). In general, while some materials were household mainstays and served multiple purposes (e.g., many tools, bowls, and weaving equipment), others needed to be obtained anew by each ritual participant. In addition to direct costs, individuals and groups also incurred opportunity costs, the loss of gains from other productive activities in favor of ritual participation. This also cannot be directly quantified here. Still, the many days devoted to ritual preparation and participation each year, as well as production of dedicated ceremonial materials and objects, appear to be considerable, especially for the nonelite householders. Perceived benefits from ceremonial involvement must have offset these direct and indirect economic costs. The flamboyance of Mexica religious performance is obvious and was intentional. One reason, well attested, for this ritual splendor is its political associations—theatrical and expensive ceremonies served to publicly exalt the city-state, proclaiming its wealth and power. But economic concepts can also be useful here, notably in terms of sunk costs and transaction utility (see Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). The Mexicas (and their neighbors) made enormous infrastructure investments in religion, in labor, and in materials—lofty temples, cadres of priests, ritual education, and uncountable ceremonial objects and materials all entailed expensive outlays. So did ceremony after ceremony enacted year after year. These were primarily sunk costs, investments paid for in advance of the current ritual event and not immediately recouped. Having already invested so much into these ceremonial occasions, people (here, the Mexicas) continued to engage in repeated and elaborate rituals so as not to undermine their previous investments (or so one might speculate, in theoretical terms). Transaction utility inserts the quality of a transaction into economic scenarios. This concept suggests that the quality of the experience is part

152

Frances F. Berdan

of the utility of the transaction (see Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). In these terms, the Mexicas allocated so many resources and so much time and energy to their ceremonies at least partly because the events themselves were so satisfying: so colorful, so captivating, so exhilarating. Importantly, widespread personal participation in these ceremonies also contributed to the quality of the experience for each in­ dividual, enhancing the rituals’ transaction utility. There were very visible, very obvious differences between nobles and commoners expressed throughout the monthly ceremonies. Many of the same (or very similar) ceremonial activities were performed by both commoners and nobles, but more was expected of the nobles, especially in terms of “the show.” The distinction was expressed materially: “And where there was riches, there was singing, and there was drinking pulque, and there was drinking pulque for them. But elsewhere all they did was make offerings to them” (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 132). Noble houses retained their own singers, and there is even mention of “the lords’ pulque-makers” (Mendieta 1973: 85–86; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 2: 162). Public ceremonial events had the effect of openly advertising status and wealth differences, with offerings and participation adjusted according to social station. In this case, more was contributed by the higherranked and more wealthy, in contrast to the situation in the Sandstroms’ Amatlán (chap. 4, this volume). Economic responsibility for successful performance of the Tenochtitlan monthly ceremonies was spread throughout the Mexica population. Not only did this arrangement distribute the economic burden of serving the gods, but it also allowed certain individuals and groups to demonstrate their sacred commitments. Individuals made vows, engaged in mock battles (perhaps to release tensions), competed in pole-climbing competitions, and carried banners in relays. Merchants offered bathed slaves for sacrifice, and warriors accompanied their captives up the temple steps. Warriors also exhibited their martial skills and received public rewards for their achievements. Specific occupational specialists had their moments. And many occupational specialists would have benefited from high levels of consumer demand directly associated with the ceremonial calendar: papermakers, carpenters, spinners and weavers, reed workers, pottery makers, feather workers, and those who fashioned adornments from precious materials would have been especially busy as relevant ceremonial dates approached. Most of these producers also would have

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

153

benefited from the disposable nature of many of the ceremonial materials and objects, fulfilling predictable requirements for material renewal. These spikes in demand would have been reflected in the availability of these types of materials and objects in the marketplaces. Individual and group involvement in these signal ritual events can be understood as transactions. While there are overtones and explicit indications of deity veneration, there are also expectations of exchanges and reciprocity among participants, and between participants and deities. In the course of the eighteen monthly ceremonies, economic commitments and investments were made by everyone in the society, no matter their station in life. Every person had a stake in and responsibility toward these life-ensuring events. The constantly recurring veintena ceremonies stimulated a great deal of economic exchange. Ceremonial participants relied heavily on marketplaces, while tribute channels and the efforts of long-distance merchants filled some gaps in moving luxury materials and goods into Tenochtitlan (at least into the coffers of the elites). Successful performance of the ceremonies, therefore, relied on both commercial and political institutions. Still, as far as the ceremonies are concerned, state contributions through tribute appear to have been quite restricted in scope and quantity. In addition, in this chapter we have entered the world of reciprocity, rewards, and recompense. Food, the quintessential social glue, was exchanged with enthusiasm (or so it appears) within and across neighboring households and up and down the social ladder, from nobles to commoners, from ruler to successful hunters and warriors, from workers to slave-bathers, from merchants to workers, from commoners to priests, and from commoners to the gods themselves. A wide range of utilitarian and luxury materials and objects also moved in this fashion. Overall, these gifts and interpersonal exchanges not only physically moved materials from hand to hand but also served to solidify social ties. That such exchanges and transactions also pertained between humans and deities, through dramatic and flamboyant rituals, accentuates the economic nature of sacred relationships in Mexica life.

References Cited Alvarado Tezozomoc, Fernando. 1975. Crónica Mexicana. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City.

154

Frances F. Berdan

Berdan, Frances F. 2007. Material Dimensions of Aztec Religion and Ritual. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy, edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis-Salazar, 245–66. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. ———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Rieff Anawalt. 1992. The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Boone, Elizabeth Hill. 1983. The Codex Magliabechiano. University of California Press, Berkeley. Cortés, Hernando. 1928. Five Letters of Cortés to the Emperor. Translated by J. Bayard Morris. W. W. Norton, New York. Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1963. The Conquest of New Spain. Penguin, Baltimore, MD. DiCesare, Catherine R. 2009. Sweeping the Way: Divine Transformation in the Aztec Festival of Ochpaniztli. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Durán, Diego. 1971. Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Translated by Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Ekholm, Gordon F., and Ignacio Bernal, eds. 1971. Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica. Vol. 10, pt. 1 of Handbook of Middle American Indians. University of Texas Press, Austin. Kubler, George, and Charles Gibson. 1951. The Tovar Calendar. Memoirs of the Con­­ necticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 11. Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, New Haven. López Luján, Leonardo. 2005. The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. Translated by Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz de Montellano. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Mendieta, Jerónimo de. 1973. Historia Eclesiástica Indiana. Biblioteca de Autores Españoles 260. Real Academia Española, Madrid. Nicholson, H. B. 1971. Religion in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, 395–446. University of  Texas Press, Austin. Nuttall, Zelia. 1903. The Book of the Life of the Ancient Mexicans, Containing an Account of Their Rites and Superstitions. Part 1, Introduction and Facsimile. University of California Press, Berkeley. Olivier, Guilhem. 2003. Mockeries and Metamorphoses of an Aztec God: Tezcatlipoca, “Lord of the Smoking Mirror.” University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Quiñones Keber, Eloise. 1995. Codex Telleriano-Remensis. University of  Texas Press, Austin. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1950–82. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. 12 vols. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Economics of Mexica Religious Performance

155

———. 1997. Primeros Memoriales: Paleography of Nahuatl Text and English Translation. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Smith, Michael E. 2002. Domestic Ritual at Aztec Provincial Sites in Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, 93–114. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology Monograph 46. University of California, Los Angeles. ———. 2008. Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. ———. 2014. The Archaeology of Tezcatlipoca. In Tezcatlipoca: Trickster and Supreme Deity, edited by Elizabeth Baquedano, 7–39. University Press of Col­ orado, Boulder. Townsend, Richard F. 2009. The Aztecs. Thames and Hudson, London.

Precious Feathers and Fancy FifteenthCentury Feathered Shields

6

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

Section 3 of the Codex Mendoza (1541) offers exceptional details regarding the daily life of the Mexicas (Berdan and Anawalt 1992). The section begins with folios 56v and 57r, which detail the naming ceremony for newborns, celebrated four days after birth. On folio 57r, a pictograph shows a midwife carrying a naked baby, accompanied with the genderappropriate insignia: a female child was associated with a broom, spin­ dle, and basket; a male child was shown with a shield (chimalli in Nahuatl), a bundle of arrows, and the implements associated with his father’s profession. Of the many skilled artisans in Tenochtitlan, the accomplished craftspersons contributing to the manufacture of these shields included carpenters (cuahxinque), feather workers (amanteca), painters (tlacuiloque), and goldsmiths (teocuitlahuaque) (Calnek 1992: 81). Folio 70r of the Codex Mendoza explains that these professions were passed down from father to son, suggesting that specialized craft production may have been organized at the household and neighborhood level (Berdan 2001: 401). The ethnographic information gathered by Fray Bernardino de Sahagún during the sixteenth century and presented in the Florentine Codex details the various activities carried out by the skilled artisans residing in Tenochtitlan. These artisans manufactured luxury goods produced with fine materials from distinct Mesoamerican ecosystems for the exclusive use of gods, kings, lords, priests, and warriors (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9). In this chapter, we examine ethnohistoric accounts to analyze the activities of a group of artisans specializing in producing shields, uniforms, costumes, headdresses, flags, and insignias using multicolored feathers, animal hides, gold bells and ornaments, pearls, and polished stones (Sahagún 2000, bk. 12: chap. 4). We closely examine four feathered disks

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

157

manufactured during the decades immediately preceding or following the conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan in AD 1521 (figures 6.1–6.4). We use French anthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan’s (1993) concept of “operational networks” to guide our discussion. This theoretical framework facilitates an examination of different production steps, including the procurement of raw materials, technical attributes, and

Figure 6.1.  Quetzalcuexyo chimalli, feline hide shield. National History Mu­­seum, Mexico City, inv. no. 10.922.67 (MNH). Digital drawing by Citlali Coronel.

158

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

strategies for transforming raw materials into finished goods, as well as the possible uses for these items. In addition, we discuss the social life of each of these four objects based on the frameworks proposed by Igor Kopytoff (1986) and Arjun Appadurai (1986). As part of an international team of restorers, we had the unique opportunity to closely study these four ancient feathered objects with the goal of identifying the manufacturing techniques and raw materials utilized by sixteenth-century artisans. We compare our direct observation of these Mexica artifacts with sixteenth-century ethnohistoric sources to

Figure 6.2.  Feathered canine shield. Weltmuseum of  Vienna, inv. no. 43.800 (WMV). Digital drawing by Idian Rocío Álvarez Alcántara, courtesy of Proyecto: Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México, IIE-UNAM.

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

159

Figure 6.3.  Xicalcoliuhqui chimalli, shield with red background. Staats Museum of  Württemberg, Stuttgart, inv. no. KK_ORANGE_6 (SMWS-1). Digital drawing by Idian Rocío Álvarez Alcántara, courtesy of Proyecto: Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México, IIE-UNAM.

highlight similarities and draw attention to any details that might have escaped the chroniclers’ narratives. We also quantify some of the materials used to form the various sections of these feathered shields.

Mexica Featherwork and Military Paraphernalia: Chimalli Production The Mexicas were a preeminently warlike people with well-established military institutions. The various military orders were differentiated by

160

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

Figure 6.4.  Xicalcoliuhqui chimalli, yellow step-fret shield. Staats Museum of Württemberg, Stuttgart, inv. no. E1402 (SMWS-2). Digital drawing by Idian Rocío Álvarez Alcántara, courtesy of Proyecto: Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México, IIE-UNAM

their colorful uniforms and insignias. The Mexica sovereign supplied noble contingents with cotton armor; full military uniforms, or tlahuiztli (a one-piece suit that covered the arms and legs); and related paraphernalia such as emblems (headdresses or helmets, back insignia) and shields. At least twelve different types of military uniforms entered the empire’s coffers via periodic tribute. The tlahuiztli could be used in the context of war as well as during religious holidays (Durán 1994: 184); each design represented a particular merit, legitimizing the bearer’s authority and identity (i.e., inalienable wealth) (Berdan 2014: 262). Sixteenth-century pictographic documents

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

161

and Mexica artifacts in a variety of materials (e.g., wood, stucco, stone, and ceramic) detail the variety of military emblems worn by different male and female deities, god impersonators, lords, nobles, and highranking warriors. Unlike the simpler and less colorful items for everyday use, these items stand out in their use of vivid colors and rich materials: hides of various mammals, multicolored feathers, and metal ornaments. In the Codex Mendoza, both the annotations and the pictographs refer to the shields and uniforms as having been made of fine and ordinary (called “trivial”) feathers in a variety of colors: blue, yellow, green, red, black, and white. It is not surprising that the first Spaniards to reach the North American continent were impressed by the elaborate items made by indige­ nous feather workers; indeed, they sent many of the items to Europe as examples of the New World’s wonders. Various historical documents re­ port that some 150 feathered shields were taken out of Mexico in 1518, 1519, 1522, and 1524 (Feest 1990: 16–17). Artifacts made of feathers were exhibited numerous times in the courts of Carlos V, both in Spain and in the Spanish Netherlands (Anders 1970: 4; Feest 1996, 2012; Núñez Ortega 1885; Núñez Ortega 1886: 282), and were mentioned by various observers of the time. Painter and engraver Albrecht Dürer (Feest 1996) and the bishop of Bertinoro, Giovanni Ruffo del Forli, both witnessed the 1520 shipment, while chronicler Petrus Martyr de Angleria marveled at the delicate textiles adorned with “brilliant feathers and gold that shimmers like a star” among the items that arrived in Spain in 1524 (quoted in Feest 1990: 55n71). Unfortunately, the passage of time has taken its toll on these delicate materials. Only a few examples of Mexica feathered shields have survived to this day. We know of only four Mexica feathered shields that may have been made before the conquest of Mexico using two of the traditional techniques employed by Mexica amantecas: mosaic and tied feathers. Of these four feathered artifacts, three are currently in Europe; only one remains in Mexico. Two shields with large fret patterns are housed in the Staats Museum of Württemberg, Stuttgart (SMWS). A shield displaying a feathered canine, whose features are highlighted in gold, can be found in the Weltmuseum of  Vienna (WMV). The only feathered shield found in Mexico is made of feline skin and housed at the

162

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

National History Museum in Chapultepec Castle (Museo Nacional de Historia, or MNH).

Typology of Mexica Feathered Shields Mexica defensive weapons, including shields, helmets, and various types of uniforms (Hassig 1988: 85), were designed to protect against longand short-range offensive weapons that had been in use for centuries (Cervera Obregón 2007: 19). In contrast to passive defensive weapons such as armor and padded uniforms, shields are active defensive weapons, as they permit mobility in combat (Cervera Obregón 2007: 31). The term shield is often necessarily associated with war paraphernalia used in battle. However, in Mesoamerica, these objects also played an active role in public religious events, and they often appear in codices, on murals, on stone reliefs, and on votive objects of different materials. Zelia Nuttall (1892: 34; see also Feest 1990: 17) classified shields into two categories: those used for protection; and the so-called emblem shields, which were symbolic or theatrical and were used in religious ceremonies and dances. The four shields considered here are so lightweight that each can be supported with a single finger. Documentary and pictorial records reveal that many of the costumes and shields were made with feathers and displayed sophisticated designs and rich decorations. The Anonymous Conquistador mentioned that the warriors wore uniforms consisting of “one garment . . . covered with a layer of feathers of different colors, making a fine effect. . . . They use shields of various kinds, made of good thick reeds [and] . . . cover them with precious stones [ plumas] and round plates of gold[;]  .  .  . some of these shields have been seen in Spain . . . used in the festivals and dances which they are accustomed to have” (Conquistador Anónimo 1917 [1556]: 21). The uniforms worn by higher-ranking officials were also adorned with precious materials and functioned as badges of rank (see Olko 2011). Tables 6.1 and 6.2 provide an overview of the four shields considered in this comparative analysis. Two of the four shields (SMWS-1 and SMWS-2) are Xicalcoliuhqui chimalli, characterized by large frets; they are strikingly similar to the shields shown in documents like the Codex Mendoza. Another shield (WMV) displays a blue-feathered canine, and

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

163

Table 6.1.  Similarities and differences in the posterior surfaces of the four shields Characteristics Support with two juxtaposed layers of thin rods Folded leather perimeter band stitched at regular intervals and with traces of red pigment Vertical transverse wooden rods chamfered on both ends and embedded in the perimeter band Leather reinforcement of hand grips Horizontal leather tensors (double strap or enarme) Hand grips

Shield 1 (MNH)

Shield 2 (WMV)

Shield 3 (SMWS-1)

Shield 4 (SMWS-2)

Total

Total

Total

Total

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

4

4

4

4

—

Yes, square

—

Yes, square

2 hides

2 hides

—

2 possibly hide

2 lined with hide

2 fiber

2 fibers (lined with hide) 2 lined with hide

the fourth (MNH) is a Quetzalcuexyo chimalli with a feline skin partially covering its front surface. The four shields studied here are uniform in size, with a mean diameter of 70.6 centimeters: shield 1 (MNH) has a diameter of 67 centimeters and a maximum length of 97 centimeters; shield 2 (WMV) has a diameter of 69 centimeters and a maximum length of 85 centimeters; shield 3 (SMWS-1) has a diameter of 75.5 centimeters; and shield 4 (SMWS-2) has a diameter of 71 centimeters. All were large enough to cover the flexed arm, as the average length of an adult male’s forearm (from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger) is 40 centimeters.

Yellow-green, yellow

Individually and consecutively knotted feathers Red, green, blue Individually knotted feathers and clusters of feathers, strips of feather mosaic Red, green, blue, pink

Consecutive clusters of small feathers

Color of feathers in pendants

— — Gold leaf Yes

— Feline Traces of gold Yes

Yellow-green Individually knotted feathers and clusters

Yes

—

Color of feathers in perimeter band Pendants on lower edge (tentlapilolo)

—

Yes: black and brown

Some knotted feathers (knotted together consecutively on a guideline and sewn to the surface) Dyed feathers affixed to the surface (base or fill) Some knotted feathers on the surface Animal hide on surface Metallic appliqués Perforations and stitches (suggesting possible ornamental hanging elements) Perimeter band (tecouhqui)

Yes: red, blue, purple, yellow, orange

Shield 2 (WMV)

Yes (partially): red, blue, green, brown

Shield 1 (MNH)

Feather mosaic on paper in layers on frontal surface

Characteristics

Table 6.2.  Similarities and differences in the anterior surfaces of the four shields

Yellow-green

Yellow-green, red Individually knotted feathers and clusters of feathers

Consecutive clusters of small feathers

Yes — — Yes

Yes

Yes: red, blue, green, purple, orange, white, black —

Shield 3 (SMWS-1)

Consecutive clusters of small feathers Yellow-green Individually knotted feathers and clusters of feathers Yellow-green

Yes — — —

Yes

—

Yes: green, yellow, white, brown

Shield 4 (SMWS-2)

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

165

These four shields are most similar in terms of the structural elements on their posterior surfaces; thus, we begin our analysis there (table 6.1). In all cases, the support structure consists of two layers of 2-millimeterwide rods (made of Otatea sp.) at 90 degree angles to one another; a perimeter band of thick leather is stitched on at regular intervals, with remains of a red pigment along the interior border. Four upright crossbars of reeds provide structure and prevent the support from deforming; their ends are chamfered so they can be inserted into the perimeter band of leather. Various strips of hide are cut into belts or sets of fibers as enarmes, and other strips of hide served as reinforcements, tensioners, or complementary pieces possibly for holding accessories or emblems. Shields with a pair of enarmes (or straps) on the back are common in Mesoamerica (Kirchhoff 1960: 8). The MNH specimen is the most durable of the four shields we consider, as the feline hide still covers the front surface. The four examples employ the same mechanical principles to support an item of considerable size that was also lightweight and able to support the layers of precious materials on the anterior surface. All four chimallis have iconographic motifs on their anterior surfaces (table 6.2). The designs were created as a mosaic of feathers on a support structure of fine fibers; feathers are also tied and glued to form the shield. This combination of featherwork techniques provides richness in the precision of the designs, the variety of textures, and the nuances of the surface colors. All four objects have green, yellow, and red feathers. Blue feathers are present on three of them but are not found on the yellow step-fret chimalli. The blue-feathered canine shield also has orange, purple, white, and pink feathers. The MNH shield includes two different types of tan or beige feathers. Work is under way to identify the specific bird species represented by these feathers; the sixteenth-century documentary sources mention that feathers from some twenty different types of birds were used to manufacture various feathered items (table 6.3). All four shields have a perimeter band (tecouhqui) made from thousands of feathers tied consecutively and linearly. In the canine shield, the border incorporates the knotting of individual feathers; in the other three shields, clusters of feathers were bunched together to form groups. All four shields also originally had pendants hanging from their bottom

Mentioned by Sahagún Adhesive Agave Cotton Wood Gold Silver and copper alloys Canes Feathers1 Xiuhtototl: lovely cotinga (Cotinga amabilis) Quetzalli: resplendent quetzal, Meso­american quetzal (Pharomachrus mocinno) Northern pintail (Anas acuta) (Anas sp.) Tzanal or tzanatl: great-tailed grackle, zanate (Quiscalus mexicanus or Quiscalus palustris) Alo (or cuezalin? ): scarlet macaw (Ara macao) Cocho or cochohuitl: white-fronted parrot (Amazona albifrons)

Material

*

* *

(?)

*

* (?) * * * * (?)

Feathered canine shield

* * * * *

Feline hide shield

Table 6.3.  Raw materials used in the manufacture of Mexica feathered items

* *

(?)

*

*

(?)

* (?)

Shield with yellow step-fret

* (?)

Shield with red background

*

* *

*

* (?) *

Chalice cover

* *

* * * * * *

Ancient Mexican feathered headdress

*

*

* *

*

*

*

*

Sources: Based on Florentine Codex, bk. 9 (Sahagún 1950–82); Filloy Nadal and Navarijo Ornelas 2015; Filloy Nadal et al. 2007; Korn 2014; Mongne 2012, 2014; Moreno Guzmán and Korn 2012; NaturaLista 2015; Riedler 2009, 2015. Note: Asterisk (*) indicates information confirmed by specialized analyses; question mark (?) indicates information yet to be confirmed by specialized analyses. 1 Feathers from other birds mentioned by Sahagún have not been identified in Mesoamerican feathered objects made during the 15th–17th centuries: xiuhquechol: blue-crowned motmot (Momotus momota or Momotus coeruliceps) or blue-diademed motmot (Momotus lessonii); cuitlatexotli: military macaw (Ara militaris); quiliton: olive-throated parakeet (Aratinga nana or Eupsittula nana or Aratinga azteca); tlalacuetzali: red-crowned parrot (Amazona viridigenalis); toztli, toznene: yellow-headed parrot (Amazona oratrix or Amazona ochrocephala); chalchiuhtototl: red-legged honeycreeper (Cyanerpes cyaneus); zaquan: Montezuma oropendola (Gymnostinops montezuma or Psarocolius montezuma); tzinitzcan teutzinitzcan: mountain trogon, Mexican trogon, elegant trogon (Trogonus mexicanus); aztatl or teoaztatl: snowy egret (Leucophoyx thula or Egretta thula); xochitenecatl: emerald toucanet (Aulacorhynchus prasinus); huitzitzili (several are described, including huitzilin, xiuhuitzilli, quetzalhuilitzin, and tleuitzilin or tleuitzili): hummingbirds and swifts, including Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae), broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus), and Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin). 2 Feathers from birds not mentioned by Sahagún that have been identified in Mesoamerican feathered objects made during the 15th–17th centuries.

Teoquechol, teoquecholtotl, or tlauhquechol (?): roseate spoonbill (Platalea ajaja or Ajaia ajaja) Quappachtototl or cuapachtototl: squirrel cuckoo (Piaya cayana or Piaya mexicana) Feathers from birds not mentioned by Sahagún2 Altamira oriole (Icterus gularis) Crimson-collared tanager (Ramphocelus sanguinolentus) Yellow-winged cacique (Cacicas melanicterus or Cassiculus melanicterus)

168

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

border that were composed of thousands of feathers (tentlapilolo). In the two Xicalcoliuhqui chimalli, the only remains of the pendants that have been identified are located under the perimeter band and thus cannot be seen by the naked eye. In the MNH shield, the pendants are severely deteriorated and have lost almost all of the original feathers, exposing the fibers; this has enabled us to directly observe the knotting and tying techniques. Although most are fragmentary, some of the pendants on the blue-feathered canine shield still contain feathers, permitting us to examine the coloration. Colors undoubtedly are an essential part of the symbolism of iconographic motifs. Here, we simply note that there was a clear intention to harmonize the feather bands and pendants, using the same types of feathers to manufacture both. Thus, textures, sizes, colors, brightness, and iridescence all play a fundamental role in the formal composition of these shields. The canine shield is the only one that preserves some of the original gold leaf. The crescents on the MNH shield still display some traces of gold; thus, we argue that it may have been covered in gold leaf as well, based on XRF results (Ruvalcaba Sil 2015). The foregoing allows us to consider the technological aspects of the chimallis, assessing their materiality and the different activities and actors involved in their production.

Production of Feathered Shields Prior to the Conquest of Mexico-Tenochtitlan: The Amanteca Workshop Feather working was one of the finest and most delicate arts in ancient Mexico. The Nahuatl term amanteca designates a group of craft specialists responsible for making a variety of feathered objects. In the Mexica capital, there were three types of urban feather workers. The calla amanteca resided in the Amatlan district and sold their products in the market (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: chap. 18; Sahagún 2000: 762, 846; see also López de Gómara 1985: 112). The tecpan amanteca, or “royal feather workers,” were charged exclusively with manufacturing the apparel and insignia of the Mexica emperor and luxuries offered as gifts to commensals and political leaders (Berdan 1992: 311; Berdan 2002: 42; Broda 1978; Umberger 1996: 102–3); they produced the uniforms and accoutrements

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

169

worn by nobles, priests, and warriors in religious rituals and the elaborate costumes used in various festivals, parades, and in combat (Seler 1892). Finally, the calpixcan amanteca (López Austin 1961: 72), or treasury feather workers, were responsible for producing the most pre­cious objects for the Mexica sovereign (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 91). The amantecas were undeniably linked to the nobles, as the use of feathered par­ aphernalia and other luxury goods was reserved for the ruling classes (table 6.4). Book 9 of the Florentine Codex is dedicated entirely to the activities carried out by the merchants and skilled artisans who produced and traded luxury goods made of gold, precious stones, and feathers. Sahagún describes the items in such detail that we can identify some of the raw materials used in the production of these luxury goods (table 6.4), the steps of the production process, the specialized implements, the strategies used to transform raw materials, and the different types of goods manufactured. He also outlines the work sequence and the relationships between different craft specialists in Azcapotzalco (where the Amatlan district was located) and those working in other craft workshops, such as the Totocalli, or House of Birds, located in the Tenochtitlan palace complex, where goldsmiths, feather workers, painters, and lapidary specialists manufactured their goods (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9; see also Berdan 1992: 307–8; Díaz del Castillo 1969:188–92, 278; López Luján et al. 2015). The Mexica artisans had at their disposal the raw materials, semifinished products, and finished goods that arrived in Tenochtitlan through the Mexica empire’s complex tributary and commercial networks (Berdan 2003, 2014; Berdan and Anawalt 1992) (table 6.5). Sahagún’s informants mention two traditional techniques used by the Tenochca feather workers: mosaic and tied feathers (Sahagún 1950– 82, bk. 9: chap. 20). Mosaic work required a series of successive steps, knowledge of the specific characteristics of the different materials, and considerable technical mastery (tables 6.5–6.6). Sahagún notes that the amantecas first received the elaborate designs created by the tlacuilos, or bark-paper painters. The first production step involved creating the support for the mosaic using the smooth surfaces of maguey leaves. Next, cotton fibers were glued on with an adhesive made of tzauhtli, or orchid mucilage, and the piece was left to dry in the sun (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: fol. 63r). This operation was repeated

Table 6.4.  Definition of common and luxury goods Goods Common

Luxury value

Predominantly economic value Moderate value and price Profane content Little communication of symbolic value General economic value derived from raw materials, manufacture, design, etc. Traditional artistic value with minimal modifications General value of common goods

Prestige or sacred value in addition to considerable economic value Elevated value and price Highly sacred content Considerable communication of symbolic values General economic value beyond that associated with raw materials, manufacture, design, etc. Considerable attention paid to artistic quality General value of rare items

raw materials Local raw materials Materials of moderate value Created using common elements

Both local and nonlocal raw materials Some components of high value May be formed from other luxury items

production Mass production Typically do not require highly specialized artisans Typically do not require collaboration between different artisans Intercraft collaboration is local or regional Typically only a few production steps Designs do not require specialized knowledge

Reduced production, often individualized and highly controlled Highly specialized artisans Typically require that several craft specialists coordinate their work Complex intercraft collaboration requiring participation of foreign artisans in parts of production process Complex production consisting of simultaneous and consecutive steps Complex symbolic designs requiring specialized knowledge

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

171

Table 6.4. (continued ) Goods Common

Luxury functions

Typically everyday goods Often utilitarian, common, and for direct application

Items restricted for use on special occasions Often have ceremonial, liturgical, courtly, or rank-signaling functions

control of production, access, circulation, and use Unrestricted production, circulation, and use Accessible to most of society Open access through trade or gifting

Restricted production, circulation, and use Access restricted to only some segments of society Restricted access through trade or gifting

social, economic, and political complexity required Production, circulation, and use do not require much social, economic, or political complexity

Production, circulation, and use require considerable social, economic, or political complexity

Sources: Based on Appadurai 1986; Berdan 2003, 2014; Smith 2003.

at least twice more, resulting in fine, semitransparent cotton paper. At least nine production steps were required to manufacture the mosaic (Anders 1970; Berdan 2015: 327–29; Filloy Nadal and Navarijo Ornelas 2015; Filloy Nadal et al. 2007; Seler 1892): 1. Tracing the design created by the tlacuilos on cotton paper with a brush and red or black pigment. 2. Using copper blades and obsidian knives to cut out the design on a hardwood board. 3. Dyeing the feathers, as mentioned by Sahagún. 4. Gluing a layer of feathers to the design to form the background. The feathers used in this phase were typically from common birds

raw materials

Rushes or reeds (monocotyledons)

Reeds

Agave

Leather (possibly deer), tanning supplies

element

Two perpendicular layers of matting (base)

Support structure of small wooden rods

Small cords

Straps (perimeter band)

Table 6.5.  Production of a feather mosaic chimalli

Hunting tools, scrapers and cutting tools to remove muscle and fur from hide

Cutting tools, agave scrapers, spindles and bowls, needles

Cutting tools

Cutting tools

implements

Local implements: hunting tools (?), scrapers and cutting tools (?)

Foreign implements: N/A

Foreign raw materials: N/A

Foreign implements: N/A

Foreign implements: N/A Foreign raw materials: N/A

Foreign implements: N/A Foreign raw materials: N/A

Foreign raw materials: N/A

provenience Local raw materials (lacustrine): mono­cotyledons (rushes or reeds) Local implements: cutting tools (?) Local raw materials (lacustrine): monocotyledons (reeds) Local implements: cutting tools (?) Local raw materials (highlands): agave Local implements: cutting tools (?), spindles, bowls, needles (?) Local implements: deer, tanning supplies (tannins, saltpeter/alum)

Structural elements

Agave

Flat fibers and feather guidelines

Fill feathers

Fill feathers, dyes and fixers, adhesive

raw materials

Cotton or agave

Textile

element

Cotton fibers, agave fibers, adhesive

raw materials

Paper

element

Base elements

Cutting tools, large pots for dyeing, brushes (?)

implements

Agave scrapers

Spindles, bowls, agave scrapers

Agave scrapers, agave leaves

implements

Local implements: cutting tools (?), large pots, brushes

Local raw materials: common feathers, some dyes and fixers (alum/saltpeter)

(continued )

Foreign raw materials: some dyes, some common feathers, adhesive (orchid: tzauhtli) Foreign implements: obsidian blades

provenience

Foreign raw materials: N/A

Foreign raw materials: cotton Local raw materials: agave

Local implements: stone scrapers (?), agave leaves Foreign implements: N/A Local implements: spindles and bowls Foreign implements: N/A Local implements: stone scrapers (?) Foreign implements: N/A

provenience Local raw materials: agave fibers Foreign raw materials: adhesive (orchid: tzauhtli), cotton fiber Local raw materials: agave

Support elements

raw materials

Pigments (trace), fine feathers, adhesive, support structure (see above)

Mosaic of fine feathers (on fiber support structure, on layer of common feathers or textile)

Hides, fill fibers, tanning supplies

raw materials

element

Enarmes and handles

element

Table 6.5. (continued )

Brushes, cutting boards (ahuehuete), cutting knives, bone spatulas

implements

Local raw materials: pigments (red and black), wood (ahuehuete), bones Local implements: brushes, spatulas

Foreign raw materials: fine feathers, adhesive (orchid: tzauhtli) Foreign implements: obsidian blades, copper blades

provenience

Foreign implements: N/A

Foreign raw materials: N/A

provenience Local raw materials: large mammals (?), tanning supplies (tannins, saltpeter/alum), agave Local implements: hunting tools (?), cutting tools (?), scrapers to remove muscle and fur from hide (?), agave scrapers (?)

Decorative elements

Hunting tools, scraper and cutting tools to remove muscle and fur from hide, agave scrapers, cutting tools

implements

Functional accessories

Fine feathers, flat fibers and small cords (see above) Fine feathers, flat fibers and small cords (see above), support (see above)

Jaguar hides, pigments (trace), adhesive

Gold (appliqués and larger pieces), silver (appliqués and larger pieces), copper (appliqués and larger pieces), agave cords or cotton threads (see above)

Stitched feathers (perimeter band, tecouhqui) and hanging elements End pieces of hanging elements (tentlapilolo)

Jaguar hides

Metal ornaments Needles, cutting tools

Brushes, cutting boards (ahuehuete), cutting blades, drills or perforators

Local raw materials: wood (ahuehuete); bone

Cutting boards (ahuehuete), cutting knives, bone spatulas, needles

Local implements: needles (?)

Local raw materials: agave cords

Local implements: cutting boards, brushes, drills or perforators (?)

Local raw materials: wood (ahuehuete), pigments

Local implements: cutting boards, brushes, spatulas, needles (?)

Local implements: needles (?)

Cutting tools, needles

(continued )

Foreign raw materials: tanned jaguar hides, adhesive (orchid: tzauhtli) Foreign implements: obsidian blades, copper blades Foreign raw materials: gold, silver, copper, cotton Foreign implements: obsidian blades, copper blades

Foreign implements: obsidian blades, copper blades Foreign raw materials: feathers; adhesive (orchid: tzauhtli) Foreign implements: obsidian blades, copper blades

Modified shells, shell appliqués, agave cords or cotton threads (see above) Marine pearls, agave cords or cotton threads (see above)

Shell ornaments

Note: N/A = not applicable; (?) = unknown.

Pearls

Semiprecious stones, agave cords or cotton threads (see above)

raw materials

Lapidary ornaments

element

Table 6.5. (continued )

Needles

Needles

Needles

implements

Local implements: needles (?)

Local raw materials: agave cords

Local implements: needles (?)

Local raw materials: agave cords

Local implements: needles (?)

Foreign raw materials: pearls Foreign implements: N/A

Foreign raw materials: shells Foreign implements: N/A

Foreign raw materials: semiprecious stones, cotton Foreign implements: N/A

provenience Local raw materials: agave cords

Decorative elements

1

Featherwork: feathered structures (headdresses and shields)

Featherwork: feather mosaic

Workshop

Manufacture or cutting Selection, cutting, placement Selection, dyeing, cutting, placement Collection, grinding, hydration Use Preparation and application Preparation and application Cutting and/or assembly Cutting and manufacture of structure Cutting, affixing, and sewing

Textiles

Fine feathers Common feathers

Dyes and fixers

Pigments Mats

Rods

Hide

Adhesive Implements

Manufacture

Activity realized in workshop

Paper

Materials required

Table 6.6.  Production of feathered mosaics, headdresses, and chimallis

Previously acquired

Previously acquired

(continued )

Previously acquired Previously acquired and/or produced in the workshop Previously acquired and/or produced in the workshop Previously acquired Previously acquired

Possibly previously acquired and/or produced in the workshop Possibly previously acquired and/or produced in the workshop Previously acquired Previously acquired

Production or acquisition

Goldsmithing

Lapidary work

2

3

Workshop

Table 6.6. (continued )

Semiprecious stones, shells, and pearls

Pearls and beads Gold, silver, copper, etc.

Collaboration in cutting and applying metal pieces Manufacture of pieces

Applying bells, etc. Designing, cutting, and applying gold leaf in coordination with goldsmiths Application Manufacture of pieces

Cutting, placement, and stretching Cutting and placement Tying and sewing Knotting of flat fibers Everything mentioned above Cutting and placement Metalwork

Leather

Fine skins Cords Nets Feathers Textiles Metals: gold, silver, copper, etc.

Activity realized in workshop

Materials required

Previously acquired

Prior preparation of metal sheets

Previously acquired Previously acquired metals and fluxes

Previously acquired Previously acquired and/or coordinated preparation

Previously acquired Previously acquired

Previously acquired Previously acquired Previously acquired

Previously acquired

Production or acquisition

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

179

in tones similar to those of the fine feathers later used on the surface. 5. Selecting fine feathers based on their color, texture, and iridescence. Sahagún mentions the use of some twenty different species (see table 6.3). 6. Cutting fine feathers, adjusting them exactly to the designs cut into the cotton paper. 7. Gluing the feathers to the cutout design using bone spatulas. 8. Joining the now-feathered designs using an adhesive that permitted them to be superimposed and adjusted to complete the design. 9. Gluing the finished mosaic to a sheet of bark paper, which provided the necessary stability. Thus, the manufacture of feather mosaics required several steps undertaken by craft specialists capable of producing cotton paper (hydrating the powdered orchid bulbs, separating the cotton fibers, and preparing the maguey leaves that served as the working surface) and handling, selecting, dyeing (preparing materials), and storing delicate feathers in baskets for long periods. The specialists must have been skilled at cutting feathers with patience and expertise following a predetermined design, gluing the feathers to paper cutouts while maintaining their anatomical order, and using bone spatulas (all feather barbs are tidy). In addition, they had to be able to reproduce complex designs and highly symbolic content. Fray Juan de Torquemada and Giovani Lorenzo d’Anania provide eloquent descriptions of the work performed by the amantecas. The former stated that “if there are twenty artisans, they all make an image together, and dividing among themselves the figure of the image, into so many parts, however many there are, each one [artisan] takes his piece to make it at his house, and afterwards each one returns with it [the finished piece], and they all join together, and in this way the perfect and completed image results, as if one artisan had done the work” (Torquemada 1969, vol. 3: 210; translation and bracketed interpolations by Frances Berdan [Berdan et al. 2009: 152]). The Italian Giovani Lorenzo d’Anania had the opportunity to observe feather workers performing their

180

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

craft in Mexico-Tenochtitlan in 1570; he commented, “So absorbed are they in placing, removing, and adjusting the feathers, scrutinizing them from one side or the other, in the sun, in the shade, or in the half-light, that sometimes they will not eat all day long” (López de Gomara 1966: 161; d’Anania 1576, quoted in Russo 2002: 245). These descriptions indicate that feather working was a craft done by highly skilled, full-time specialists. Sahagún also mentions that making feather tassels, headdresses, and insignia involved tying the feathers to cane or lightweight wooden frames using maguey fibers. Book 9 of the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 96–97 [fol. 63v]) details the use of maguey fiber cords wrapped around the feather rachis and quills, which were then tied to the structure of lightweight wood or cane. In addition, several feathers could be knotted (or sewn) in sequence to a cord or guideline that was then sewn onto the frame (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 96–97). The vignettes in book 9 of the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950–79: fols. 61–67) offer other interesting facts: the amantecas kept different feathers in small palm straw baskets, they had skeins of cords (probably agave), they tied together independent feathers or clusters of feathers to form groups, they used needles for different tasks, they sewed feathers together, and children or adolescents prepared the orchid adhesive. We know very little about the amanteca workshops and prevailing working conditions. The colonial sources provide relatively little information on the topic, and unfortunately no workshop has been identified archaeologically. Several of the activities performed by the amantecas must have taken place outside or at least where the lighting was sufficient to facilitate making difficult cuts and juxtaposing different layers of feathers to form the mosaic; however, shelter from wind and rain also would have been essential. There must have been specialized storage facilities for the long-term storage of feathers, which by their organic nature are common targets of microorganisms. Different activities would have taken place simultaneously in the feather workshops. Several processes (such as acquiring raw materials and producing some items, like paper, and modifying others, like dyeing feathers) could have been performed ahead of time, but others had to have been repeated continuously or at the moment of use (like

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

181

preparing the adhesive, which spoiled quickly). Some of the tasks may have been carried out by different members of the community, since knowledge was passed down from generation to generation (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: fol. 57r). Crafting the mosaics required more experience and expertise, so only a few individuals would have been involved in these activities. The production process required the efficient and controlled coordination of different activities and individuals in the community. Some of the raw materials, adornments, and implements (e.g., cotton or maguey threads and cords, cotton textiles, fine tanned hides, obsidian and copper blades, baskets, and lapidary and metal ornaments in bulk, including copper bells) used by the amantecas would have been produced in other workshops. However, many of the activities were sequential and consecutive (cutting and gluing the feathers on paper, outlining the designs with thin sheets of gold, assembling the mosaic); these would have required considerable organization of labor, including cooperation among several specialized craftsmen (i.e., intercraft collaboration), as among feather workers and goldsmiths, two different types of attached specialists (see also Berdan 2014: 102; López Luján and Ruvalcaba Sil 2015). Our direct observation of the Mexica chimallis has allowed us to reconstruct the technical sequence chosen by the amantecas to manufacture this type of shield. To make the support, first they had to cut two identical circles of rush mat composed of two-millimeter-wide reed rods held together by agave threads that were sewn diagonally and distributed uniformly every three to four millimeters (table 6.1). Subsequently, they attached hide fragments cut into straps, enarmes, and tensioners along the circumference. A second rush mat supported the decorated surface area (table 6.2). The entire surface was covered in feather mosaic, using common feathers dyed to match the fine feathers on the surface (Shields 2, 3, and 4). In some cases, the surface was also coated with a feline hide and adhesive. The multicolored designs were produced by cutting feathers and outlining the edges of the designs with gold leaf. Preparing and placing gold leaf involves several steps. Sahagún mentions that the teocuitlatzotzonque, or goldsmiths, hammered gold dust

182

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

and nuggets to produce thin sheets (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 69, 73– 78). Next, the amantecas provided them with the designs and helped them trace them: “First the feather workers made them a design with a flint knife [as a tracer]. They followed the black line as a design with a flint knife. . . . [The goldworkers] join with [and] are instructed by the feather workers” (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 76). With the gold laminas cut to the appropriate size, small tabs (with fragments of paper glued to the posterior side) were then cut and folded to form loops through which cords could be woven for support. Thus, the small tabs had a range of motion and could be superimposed like the feathered mosaic (Riedler 2009: 61–64; Riedler 2015). Finally, decorative elements, feathered guidelines (such as that on the MNH shield), hanging ornaments, and small appliqués were tied onto the surface with thread passed through small perforations that in turn were covered by layers of feather mosaic. Next, these pendants (which were also knotted to guidelines and were composed of thousands of feathers) would be sewn to the border, or tecouhqui, with long stitches. None of the seams mentioned above are visible on the posterior side of the shields. These elements could have been prepared separately (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 96–97). With the two layers of rush mats prepared, the amantecas would proceed to assemble the chimallis. First, the two layers of rush mats were placed perpendicular to one another. The perimeter band was composed of thick leather stitched at regular intervals with cords that perforated both the leather and the two layers of rush mats; the hides must have been applied wet, as they are always very taut. At the same time, four wooden rods were placed vertically (or as crossbars) providing structure and preventing the support from becoming deformed; these crossbars have chamfered ends and were inserted into the leather perimeter band. Thus we conclude the discussion of the raw materials and operational networks involved in the manufacture of feather mosaics, focusing our attention in particular on the feathered shields (luxury goods) used in civil, military, and religious activities. Next, we discuss the different ways in which raw materials were obtained in the amanteca workshops of the Tenochca capital.

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

183

Access to Raw Materials and Specialized Implements in the Tenochtitlan Workshops The Codex Mendoza is the primary source regarding how feathers and feathered objects arrived in and circulated throughout the great city of Tenochtitlan. The green, orange, pink, yellow, and blue feathers belong to bird species living in ecosystems located far from Tenochtitlan and would have arrived there as commercial goods or tribute. A staggering 34 percent of the Mexica provinces sent feathers to the capital as part of their tribute (Berdan and Anawalt 1997); most of these provinces were located in tropical areas south of the empire and along the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. The Codex Mendoza mentions that the Tochtepec, Tuchpan, and Xoconochco provinces provided exotic materials, including long, red and/ or yellow feathers as well as live xiuhtototl (Cotinga amabilis) or their hides, which must have received taxidermy treatment to ensure their preservation. Coixtlahuaca also provided these delicate blue feathers as tribute (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: fols. 45v–46r, 46v–47r, 51v–52r). Xoconochco also sent jaguar hides (Berdan and Anawalt 1997: fols. 46v– 47r) and purple feathers (Durán 1994: chap. 25). The amantecas who worked in the palace could also obtain feathers from the royal zoo. The captive birds, cared for by qualified staff from the Totocalli, thus not only were intended for the enjoyment of the tlatoani and his court but also served as an inexhaustible source of feathers for the amantecas (Castillo 1991 [1599]: 199). The paper supports used in the feather mosaics were likely manufactured from Gossypium hirsutum, the most important cotton species in ancient times, according to the Florentine Codex. Cotton was not grown in the highlands; rather, it was imported from nearly all of the tropical regions of the empire and reached the Tenochca capital through trade or tribute (Berdan et al. 1996: 308–23; Rodríguez 1976: 70–84). In addition, large amounts were delivered to both the Tlatelolco market and the palace. Among the products readily available in the Basin of Mexico (in lacustrine and highland ecosystems) were agaves, rushes, and canes, as well as several endemic and easily captured birds like ducks (see Peterson and Chalif 1973). Ducks also were kept alive in captivity for periodic feather plucking (Casas 1967, vol. 1, bk. 3: chap. 1, p. 267; Sahagún 2000, vol. 2,

184

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

bk. 8: 762; Sahagún 1950–79, bk. 7: chap. 14). Other products could be purchased easily, as they were available in the island’s markets; these included tanned hides, powdered adhesive (tzauhtli), obsidian and copper blades, needles, pots (Berdan et al. 2009; Sahagún 2000), scrapers, and wooden cutting boards. The amantecas surely produced other implements on their own, such as brushes and bone spatulas. The raw materials selected for creating shields were likely based on well-established criteria associated with their origin in various provinces and ecosystems of the Mexica empire as well as on the difficulty of ob­ taining them. The physical, symbolic, and optical properties of the materials used were also important.

Restoration in the Twenty-First Century: The Complexity of Mexica Featherwork Objects can acquire value and meaning through many different processes. Of primary importance are the steps of the production process (each of the different stages), the selection and origin of different raw materials, the use of complex manufacturing techniques, and the intervention of specialists to create complex objects exclusively for the elite during the fifteenth century. Moreover, the time invested in manufacturing an item also increases its economic value (Smith 2003: 118). As we have noted, the feather workers of ancient Mexico employed a complex production technology executed with precision to highlight the color and iridescence of the materials used; they were so expert that technological indicators and evidence of production techniques are hidden from view. The magnitude and sheer volume of materials used are also important. To quantify the materials used to manufacture chimallis, first we performed a direct count of the feathers that could be distinguished by the naked eye as well as those visible only under a microscope. Next, we determined the number of feather clusters per unit (linear and/or square centimeters). Later, the feather clusters in each unit were multiplied by the total size of each element (perimeter band, mosaic bands, or pendants) to estimate the approximate number of feathers in the Quetzalcuexyo chimalli (table 6.7). Because of the precarious condition of the mosaic bands, the feather count was based on remaining evidence. Furthermore, we replicated the

Material Complete, yellowgreen feathers measuring 2 cm in length

Flat vegetable fibers (agave)

Blue feathers (contour); most feather tips cut in a straight line Cut red feathers (contour)

Characteristics

In its original state, the perimeter band must have measured at least 5 cm wide by 212 cm long (perimeter); it is composed of a dense layer of seemingly disorganized feathers that project from all sides, an effect created by tying the feathers together in clusters

Width 1.2 cm; length 52.1 cm (top) and 54.8 cm (bottom)

Width 1.3 cm; length 54.8 cm (top) and 56.5 cm (bottom)

Element

Perimeter band

Perimeter band

Band #2, mosaic

Band #3, mosaic

No.

1.1

1.2

2

3

8 mm width at feather tips; 70 feathers in each layer; mosaic composed of 2 layers

(continued )

140 feathers

324 feathers

1,378 m of fiber

17,172 feathers

9 feathers per cluster; 6 clusters in 2 linear cm; 636 clusters on each guideline; 3 concentric guidelines

3 cm to tie each cluster of feathers (190.8 m to tie 636 clusters and 572.4 m to tie 1,908 clusters); 3 guidelines composed of 6 fibers each (381.6 m for 3 guidelines); 212 cm perimeter to tie clusters to guidelines (20 turns to fasten the leather to the matting, a total of 424 m) 2 feather tips in 1 linear cm; 108 feathers in each layer; mosaic composed of 3 layers

Total

Quantification

Table 6.7.  Estimate of feathers in each section of the Quetzalcuexyo chimalli, or feline skin shield

Width 1.8 cm; length 56.8 cm (top) and 59.7 cm (bottom)

Width 2.4 cm; length 59.7 cm (top) and 62.1 cm (bottom)

A series of beige-black feathers on the red mosaic of band #6; feathers placed in so that their natural anatomy forms a concave shape

Feathers placed consecutively so that their natural anatomy forms a convex shape

Band #5, mosaic

Band #6, mosaic

Band #6, knotted

Band #7, knotted

4

5.1

5.2

6

Characteristics

Element

No.

Table 6.7. (continued )

Complete, beigeblack feathers 5.5 cm in length; individually tied or inserted under band #5 Complete, grayblack feathers (contour) 9 cm in length; some feather tips cut in a straight line

Cut red feathers (contour)

Cut green feathers (contour)

Material

3 feathers in 1 linear cm; 189 feathers on a 63 cm guideline; 3 guidelines on a textile

8 mm between feather rachis; 75 feathers in each layer; mosaic composed of 2 layers 1 cm width at feather tips; feather vanes superimposed; 125 feathers in each layer; mosaic composed of 2 layers 10 feathers in 2 linear cm; forming an arch measuring 63 cm in length

Quantification

567 feathers

315 feathers

250 feathers

150 feathers

Total

Tassel measures 3 cm in length

Tied feathers supported by small skein

Hanging elements (tassel)

Hanging elements (tassel) Hanging elements (end piece)

9.1

9.2

A fine wooden rib in the center originally may have measured up to 4 cm in length

Complete, yellowgreen feathers measuring 2.5 cm in length Complete, yellowgreen feathers measuring 3 cm in length Small skeins of twisted material, possibly cotton Complete, yellowgreen feathers measuring 4.5 cm in length

Chain measures 20.5 cm in length

Hanging elements (chain)

8

10

Cut brown-beige feathers

Width 3.4 cm; lower length 67.3 cm

Band #8, mosaic

7

3 feathers tied to each wooden rib; 52 hanging elements

40 cm of twisted material in each tassel; 52 hanging elements

10 feathers tied to each tassel; 52 hanging elements

1.4 cm width at feather tips; feather vanes superimposed; mosaic composed of 1 layer 7 feathers tied to each knot; 16 knots in each chain; 52 hanging elements

156 feathers

20.8 m of fiber

520 feathers

5,824 feathers

960 feathers

188

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

technique used by the ancient Mexica feather workers to quantify the length of fiber necessary to tie the clusters of feathers to the perimeter band. Some 26,400 feathers were required to manufacture a single chimalli (table 6.7). Approximately 17,000 complete, yellow-green feathers were tied with maguey fibers to form the perimeter band. For the mosaic bands, 1,800 red, green, blue, and brown-beige feathers were cut (only the tip of each feather was used), and another 900 complete black feathers were tied together with fibers. Finally, 6,500 complete yellow-green feathers were used for different sections of the hanging elements (chain, tassel, and end piece) (see table 6.7). In addition, some 1,378 meters of agave and/or cotton fibers were required. Estimating the time that was invested in the fabrication of a chimalli is difficult, as it would require factoring in the artisan’s individual skills, which are related to personal characteristics, experience, and years in their profession. Another complication is that the production of certain elements could have occurred separately, with those elements being incorporated into the shields sometime later: for example, the several linear meters of clusters of feathers tied to guidelines, which would later be cut to fit the diameter of the border of the shield, and pendants made by the hundreds that could later simply be attached to different objects. All of this suggests the existence of craftsmen with different skills or specializations. In any case, it is clear that manufacturing a shield like those examined here would have required several days of work and involved different craftsmen (masters, experienced artisans, and trainees) acting in concert, increasing the value of the object. On a broader level, this type of luxury good could be produced only where the ruling class was able to ensure the conditions necessary to carry out the collection, transport, storage, control, selection, care, preparation, knowledge, and skills required to create a single shield composed of nearly 26,400 multicolored feathers.

From Nature’s Gifts to the Mastery of the Amanteca The fact that four of the six feathered objects that have survived since the sixteenth century happen to be shields is surprising; perhaps the large number of shields sent to Europe increased the likelihood of their

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

189

conservation. The MNH shield must have been magnificent when the feline hides still retained a full coat of fur, the borders and pendants retained their complex clusters replete with yellow feathers, and the artifact was still adorned with the rattles, shells, beads, and appliqués of fine materials used as pendants. Indeed, the first European account of the shield refers to it as “Moctezuma’s weapon.” The colors and designs were selected following a strict metonymic code that added complexity to the contexts in which the shield was used. The uniqueness of the shields derived from the interaction of the use of carefully selected precious materials, the gentle and skilled treatment required to assemble them, and the sheer number of feathers used in specific areas. In their original state, these shields must have been breathtaking, with all the textures, colors, brightness, iridescence, and dynamism conceivable. In addition to their value and symbolism, these aspects made the chimallis very attractive visually and worthy of the ruling classes and deities. The use of several raw materials from diverse and distant ecosystems reflects the scope of Mexica trading networks, as well as the control and movement of goods in the Mexica empire before the arrival of the Spaniards. Moreover, it reveals the expertise of the amantecas in selecting plant and animal materials, as they adapted natural products to the requirements of this intricate design. Finally, the chimallis reflect the wealth of knowledge possessed by the prehispanic inhabitants of Mexico and their relationship with nature.

References Cited Anders, Ferdinand. 1970. Las artes menores. In Tesoros de México: Arte plumario y de mosaico, 4–45. Artes de México 17, no. 137. Mexico City. Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Berdan, Frances F. 1987. The Economics of Aztec Luxury Trade and Tribute. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone, 161–83. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 1992. Economic Dimensions of Precious Metals, Stone and Feather: The Aztec State Society. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 22:291–323. ———. 1996. The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge,

190

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 115–35. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 2001. Feathers and Featherwork. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by David Carrasco, 400–401. Oxford University Press, Oxford. ———. 2002. Aztec Society: Economy, Tribute and Warfare. In Aztecs, edited by Eduardo Matos Moctezuma and Felipe R. Solís Olguín, 38–47. Royal Academy of Arts, London. ———. 2003. The Aztec Empire. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 117–25. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ———. 2015. Amantecatecayotl Glyphs in the Florentine Codex. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alessandra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 323–29. Hirmer, Munich. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia Anawalt. 1992. Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. ———. 1997. The Essential Codex Mendoza. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances F., Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, eds. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. 2003. An International Economy. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 96–108. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Berdan, Frances F., Edward A. Stark, and Jeffrey D. Sahagún. 2009. Production and Use of Orchid Adhesives in Aztec Mexico: The Domestic Context. In Archaeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 19:148–56. Broda, Johanna. 1978. El tributo en los trajes guerreros y la estructura del sistema tributario mexica. In Economía política e ideología en el México prehispánico, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda, 113–72. Centro de Estudios Superiores del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Calnek, Edward E. 1992. The Ethnographic Content of the Third Part of the Codex Mendoza. In The Codex Mendoza, edited by Frances F. Berdan and Patricia Rieff Anawalt, 2:81–91. University of California Press, Berkeley. Casas, Bartolomé de las. 1967. Apologética historia sumaria. Edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. Castillo, Cristóbal del. 1991 (1599). Historia de la venida de los mexicanos y otros pueblos e Historia de la conquista. Asociación de Amigos del Templo Mayor,

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

191

Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and García y Valadés Editores, Mexico City. Cervera Obregón, Marco Antonio. 2007. El armamento entre los mexicas. Consejo Superior de Investigación Científica and Ediciones Polifemo, Madrid. Conquistador Anónimo. 1917 (1556). Narrative of Some Things of New Spain and of the Great City of Temestitan, Mexico. Translated by Marshall H. Saville. Cortés Society, New York. Electronic document, http://catalog.hathitrust .org/Record/006773895. d’Anania, Giovani Lorenzo. [1576]. L’Universale Fabrica del Mondo, overo Cosmografia divisa in quattro Trattati. Andrea Muschio, Venice. Available at www .iberoamericadigital.net. Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1969. Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España. Edited by Joaquín Ramírez Cabañas. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Durán, Diego. 1994. The History of the Indies of New Spain. Translated by Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Feest, Christian F. 1990. Vienna’s Mexican Treasures: Aztec, Mixtec, and Tarascan Works from 16th Century Austrian Collections. Archiv für Völkerkunde, no. 44: 1–64. ———. 1996. Una evaluación del arte mexicano. In Destinos cruzados: Cinco siglos de encuentros amerindios, edited by Joëlle Rostkowski and Sylvie Devers, 93–104. Siglo XIX Editores, Mexico City. ———. 2012. El Penacho del México Antiguo en Europa. In El Penacho del México Antiguo, edited by Sabine Haag, Alfonso de Maria y Campos, Lilia Rivero Weber, and Christian Feest, 5–28. ZFK Publishers, Altenstadt, Germany; Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; Museum für Völker Kunde, Vienna. Filloy Nadal, Laura, and María del Lourdes Navarijo Ornelas. 2015. Currents of Water and Fertile Land: The Feather Disk in the Museo Nacional de Antropología, México. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alessandra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 252–59. Hirmer, Munich. Filloy Nadal, Laura, Felipe Solís Olguín, and Lourdes Navarijo. 2007. Un excepcional mosaico de plumaria azteca: El tapa cáliz del Museo Nacional de Antropología. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 38:85–100. Hassig, Ross. 1988. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Kirchhoff, Paul. 1960. Mesoamérica: Sus límites geográficos, composición étnica y caracteres culturales. Suplemento de la Revista Tlatoani 3. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The Cultural Biography of Things: Commoditization as a Process. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64–94. Cambridge University Press, New York.

192

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

Korn, Melanie. 2014. Zwei Präkolumbianische Federschilde im Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgard. Unpublished report. Archive Landesmuseum Württemberg, Stuttgart, Germany. Leroi-Gourhan, André. 1964–65. Le geste et la parole. 2 vols. Albin Michel, Paris. ———. 1993. Gesture and Speech. Translated by Anna Bostock Berger. Massachusetts Institute of  Technology Press, Cambridge. López Austin, Alfredo. 1961. La constitución real de México-Tenochtitlan. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. López de Gómara, Francisco. 1966. Cortés: The Life of the Conquerer by His Secretary. Translated and edited by Lesley Byrd Simpson. University of California Press, Berkeley. ———. 1985. Historia general de las Indias. Ediciones Orbis, Barcelona. López Luján, Leonardo, and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil. 2015. El oro de Tenochtitlan: La colección arqueológica del Proyecto Templo Mayor. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 49:7–57. López Luján, Leonardo, Jorge Arturo Talavera González, María Teresa Olivera, and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil. 2015. Azcapotzalco y los orfebres de Moctezuma. Arqueología Mexicana 23 (136): 50–59. Mongne, Pascal. 2012. In totol in amanteca: Les oiseaux de la plumasserie aztèque. Dossiers du GEMESO, no. 2 (December 2011). Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes, Paris. Electronic document, available at www.gemeso.com. ———. 2014. Le chemin des plumes: De l’oiseau à l’atelier dans le monde aztèque. Ethnozootechnie 96:53–68. Moreno Guzmán, María Olvido, and Melanie Korn. 2012. Construcción y técnicas. In El Penacho del México Antiguo, edited by Sabine Haag, Alfonso de Maria y Campos, Lilia Rivero Weber, and Christian Feest, 61–82. ZFK Publishers, Altenstadt, Germany; Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; Museum für Völker Kunde, Vienna. NaturaLista. 2015. Electronic resource, http://conabio.inaturalist.org/. Navarijo Ornelas, María de Lourdes Plumas. 2012. La materia prima. In El Penacho del México Antiguo, edited by Sabine Haag, Alfonso de Maria y Campos, Lilia Rivero Weber, and Christian Feest, 83–88. ZFK Publishers, Altenstadt, Germany; Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; Museum für Völker Kunde, Vienna. Núñez Ortega, Ángel. 1885. Apuntes históricos sobre la rodela Azteca conservada en el Museo Nacional de México. Gustavo Mayolez, Brussels. ———. 1886. Apuntes históricos sobre la rodela Azteca del Museo Nacional. In Anales del Museo Nacional de México, ser. 1, vol. 3, pp. 281–91. Mexico City. Nuttall, Zelia. 1892. On Ancient Mexican Shields. P. W. M. Trap, Leiden.

Precious Feathers and Fifteenth-Century Feathered Shields

193

Olko, Justyna. 2011. Supervivencia de los objetos de rango prehispánicos entre la nobleza colonial nahua. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 41 (2): 455–69. Peterson, Roger Tory, and Edward L. Chalif. 1973. Mexican Birds. Houghton Miff­ lin, Boston. Riedler, Renée. 2009. Ein monster aus gold und federn: Materialtechnishche untersuchugen und konservatorische/restauratorishe masshainahmen am aztekischen federchild in Wien. In Technologische Studien: Kunthistorisches Museum Wien 6:47–81. ———. 2015. Materials and Technique of Feathered Shield Preserved in Vienna. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alessandra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 330–41. Hirmer, Munich. Rodríguez Vallejo, José. 1976. Íxcatl: El algodón Mexicano. Fondo de Cultura Eco­ nómica, Mexico City. Ruffo de Forli, Giovani. 1986 (1520). Carta a Messer Francesco Chieregati. In Re­ lación de la Nueva España, by Conquistador Anónimo, appx. 1, pp. 165–68. Translated and edited by Jesús Bustamante. Ediciones Polifemo, Madrid. Russo, Alessandra. 2002. Plumes of Sacrifice: Transformation in Sixteenth Century Mexican Feather Art. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 42:226–50. Ruvalcaba Sil, José Luis. 2015. Informe preliminar: Análisis por fluorescencia de rayos X del Quetzalcuexyo chimalli (MNH 10-92267). Unpublished report, Instituto de Física Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Archivo del Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1950–82. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Edited and translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. 12 vols. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah, Salt Lake City. ———. 1950–79. Códice Florentino: El Manuscrito 218–220 de la Colección Pala­ tina  de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana. Facsimile edition. 3 vols. Archivo de la Nación, Secretaría de Gobernación and Giunti Barbera, Mexico City. ———. 2000. Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. 2 vols. 3rd ed. Paleography, glossary, and notes by Alfredo López Austin and Josefa García Quintana. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes, Mexico City. Seler, Eduard Georg. 1892. L’orfèvrerie des anciens Mexicains et leur art de travailler la pierre et de faire des ornaments en plumes. In Congres International des Americanistes, Compte-rendu de la huitieme session tenue a Paris en 1890, 401–52. Ernest Leroux, Paris. Smith, Michael E. 2003. Key Commodities. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 117–25. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

194

Laura Filloy Nadal and María Olvido Moreno Guzmán

Torquemada, Juan de. 1969. Monarquia Indiana. 3 vols. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Umberger, Emily. 1996. Art and Imperial Strategy in Tenochtitlan. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 85–106. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values in Aztec Society

7

Emily Umberger

This chapter examines ideas about value in Aztec times, the economics of ceremony, as it were, but considered differently from the chapters by Frances Berdan and Alan and Pamela Sandstrom (chaps. 5 and 4, this volume). Through the analysis of texts and images, I address Aztec ideas about the objects of wealth that were considered powerful in both sacred and secular spheres. These reveal conflicting views of value, the ideologi­ cal resolution of the conflict, and the religious and moral justification for the nobles’ exclusive possession of these objects.

Jade, Feathers, Gold, and Turquoise Materials like jade, colorful feathers, turquoise, and gold were used by the Aztec state, centered in Tenochtitlan, for the regalia of its elite mem­ bers, both ceremonial garb indicating high power and deity costumes and appurtenances. The ceremonies themselves were an entangled mix of social, political, historical, and sacred referents and aims, with no sharp divisions between these in Aztec society. Objects of all materials were endowed with supernatural powers, but, as with individual people, the degree to which supernatural power was vested in each object varied at its origin and was individualized further in its later history. The four mate­ rials mentioned above—jade, colorful feathers, turquoise, and gold— have been separated in written sources from others, because of their exotic qualities, rarity, and distant sources. Motecuhzoma I’s sumptuary laws (Anawalt 1980; Durán 1994: 202–7) list the material markers of social distinctions between rich and poor and between nobles and commoners. The complexities of the system are specified in the laws themselves, and modern studies of actual objects, archaeological contexts, and ethnography as well as written records have

196

Emily Umberger

revealed much more about the manufacturing and exchange systems behind the laws (Berdan 1987, 2014 [also chap. 5, this volume]; Blanton et al. 2005; King et al. 2012; Kovacevich 2014; López Luján and Ruval­ caba Sil 2015; McEwan et al. 2006; Russo et al. 2015; Thouvenot 1982). My focus here is on several stories in sixteenth-century sources that reveal the reasoning by which nobles justified their exclusive use of the most economically valuable materials. The argument is that these valu­ ables contained the powers needed to deal with the sacred forces of their environment and that the elite wielded them for the good of the polity as a whole. At the same time, the stories provide assurance that those chosen to handle these powers were judged by moral principles shared by the whole society. Traditionally, the oldest of these materials used in Mesoamerica were jades and colorful feathers (especially green quetzal feathers). The diphrasm denoting wealth in the Aztec language comprises the words in chalchihuitl, in quetzalli (jade, quetzal feathers). Transformations of both materials into art and regalia appear in the earliest civilizations of Meso­ america (after 1200 BC). True jadeite was relatively rare by Aztec times, in contrast to the supplies available to the Olmecs and Mayas. The use of other green-colored stones instead has led scholars to use the term social jades, but how these were differentiated from true jade in Aztec times is not known. In the Early Postclassic (AD 900–1150), gold and turquoise joined exotic feathers and jade. At this time metal technology had reached Mesoamerica from South America, where metallurgy had been initiated more than two thousand years earlier. Turquoise from the Southwest was obtained by the Aztecs down the line rather than directly from the source. The powers contained by these four materials were considered as cor­ responding to different parts of the natural world, to which they were connected metonymically. Green jade and quetzal feathers refer to water, plants, and the fertile earth, while gold was related to the sun and heat. Turquoise (xihuitl, xiuh- in combination with other words) seems to have had the most complex chain of associations. The word xihuitl means both turquoise and herbaceous plants. The stone itself in its preferred bright blue color pertained specifically to the items of Aztec royalty—the royal crown, or xiuhhuitzolli (turquoise pointed thing), and the ruler’s cape, the xiuhtilmatli (turquoise mantle). Studies by Carmen Aguilera

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

197

(1997) and Patricia Anawalt (1990), considered together, indicate that, depending on the occasion or date, the cape could be made completely of dyed blue cotton or made with stones incorporated, meaning that dye could replace actual turquoise. Turquoise was also the material of the powerful weapon of the patron god Huitzilopochtli, the atlatl (throw­ ing stick) in the form of a xiuhcoatl, turquoise serpent. A second word, xihuitl, a possible homonym, means year, and the varied meanings of the two words seem to be interwoven in Aztec thought with other related ideas (Louise Burkhart, pers. comm., December 2015). The turquoise ser­ pent is often connected by scholars with fire and the sun. By extension turquoise and its blue color could symbolize the day sky, illuminated by the sun’s light. Turquoise thus seems to have been a solar-related material in many senses, and its multiple associations were no doubt inherited from the Toltecs, the Aztecs’ ancient predecessors, who first worked the material in Mesoamerica. Besides these four are other materials that merit attention. Richard Blanton and colleagues (2005) differentiate between these prestige goods of limited quantities and bulk luxury goods like cotton cloth, which were plentiful and traded widely in Aztec times but were officially restricted to nobles (see Durán 1994). Other materials, such as obsidian, were also traded in bulk and used by all classes (Levine and Carballo 2014; Pas­ trana and Carballo 2017). Even maguey, the quintessential material of commoner clothing, could be worn by nobles for symbolic reasons but would not have taken the rough form described as pertaining to com­ moners (see the description of Cuauhtemoc’s maguey cloak in Lockhart 1993: 250–51). In addition to more refined processing and workmanship, decoration with luxury materials like spun feathers also could transfer an object to a different social category. As indicated above, Fray Diego Durán (1994) detailed many fine distinctions inherent in the sumptuary laws, and a close reading reveals that the rules went far beyond broad categories of materials. The final touches that made objects more and more individualized socially and aesthetically or strengthened their sa­ cred effectiveness were added in high-level workshops. It is at this level that kings and nobles controlled the production of items worthy of ne­ gotiations with the powers of their world. Leonardo López Luján and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil (2015; López Luján et al. 2015) make clear that there were a variety of workshops in

198

Emily Umberger

the capital city working for clients of different social levels. The highestlevel workshop was near the palace and was occupied by artists skilled in different materials working together under the direction of the ruler. Diana Fane (2015) and Dúrdica Ségota (2015) underline not just the quality of the materials and the skill of the artists but also the aesthetic requirements behind the finest examples. The aim was the juxtaposition of materials and colors to achieve the brilliance and luminosity neces­ sary to evoke the spirit world in ceremony (Burkhart 1992; Tomlinson 2015). As is now generally accepted, both luxury materials and ordinary goods were sold in the market, and tribute demands likewise included both categories (Berdan 1987). As Fane (2015: 107–9) reveals, even among objects made of luxury materials in the tribute lists, there were different levels of quality (Filloy Nadal and Moreno Guzmán, chap. 6, this vol­ ume). All that can be said definitively about differences between the two venues is that tribute items were distributed as gifts and rewards by the state to warriors and foreign dignitaries or as necessities to the general population at times of famine, while market items were priced and sold to whoever could buy them. Such a complex situation of exchange, distribution, usage, and value calls for complex characterizations. Igor Kopytoff (1986) would have distinguished between the items distributed by the two systems as com­ modities that were sold and noncommodities that were exchanged or gifted outside the market system, respectively. His emphasis was on com­ mercialization and included both Western and non-Western examples. Annette Weiner (1985, 1992), in contrast, concentrated on the different types of gift giving in non-Western cultures (her examples were Pacific island cultures); the concepts that guided her analysis were those of alienability and inalienability of objects. Alienability refers to the degree to which objects traveled through exchange systems with the histories and other nonmarket aspects that distinguish them. She thus avoided making market value the defining distinction and focused on the many ways that objects were valued for other reasons. In recent years, Weiner’s ideas have been used frequently in preconquest Mesoamerican studies (e.g., Berdan 2014: 262–68; Kovacevich and Callaghan 2014).1 It is now apparent that these scholars were dealing with related prob­ lems. I am presenting here aspects of  Kopytoff ’s essay that are worth revis­

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

199

iting: his concept of “moral economy,” in particular. By moral economy he means consensually held principles behind an object’s status as a com­ modity or noncommodity (its degree of alienability/inalienability).2 He also emphasizes changes and differences in evaluations according to view­ point: “[T]he same thing may be treated as a commodity at one time and not at another. And . . . the same thing may, at the same time, be seen as a commodity by one person and as something else by another. Such shifts and differences in whether and when a thing is a commodity reveal a moral economy that stands behind the objective economy of visible transactions” (Kopytoff 1986: 64). Also significant is his contrast between the economies of small-scale societies that share the same principles about what can or cannot be sold, and the economies of large societies in which there are multiple groups with significantly different corporate views and principles: “The peculiarity of complex societies is that their publicly recognized com­ moditization operates side by side with innumerable schemes of valu­ ation and singularization devised by individuals, social categories, and groups, and these schemes stand in unresolvable conflict with public commoditization as well as with one another” (Kopytoff 1986: 79–80). Finally, he links these schemes with politics and social powers: “In every society, there are things that are publicly precluded from being commod­ itized. Some of the prohibitions are cultural and upheld collectively. In state societies, many of these prohibitions are the handwork of the state, with the usual intertwining between what serves the society at large, what serves the state, and what serves the specific groups in control” (Kopytoff 1986: 73). These observations are especially relevant to differences among the multiple factions of Late Aztec society: nobles and commoners, as well as different occupational groups cross-cutting these classes—those of warriors, engineers and builders, religious specialists, healers, merchants, artisans, and agriculturalists. All had points of view on the matter of value that probably differed according to a combination of social rank, occupation, and group membership. Kopytoff ’s ideas also point to the possibility of societal conflicts. Aztec consciousness of these conflicts is apparent in the stories below. These stories were articulated by the elites and represent an offi­ cial point of view that justified on religious grounds elite possession of

200

Emily Umberger

valuables that were officially prohibited to other members of society. What the stories imply is that the sacred value of such items had prece­ dence over their wealth value and also that humble materials and imple­ ments had sacred value also (making some examples inalienable too). The subtext is that proper rulers had the right to possess them by virtue of being trained (in noble schools and palaces) to use them and that their manipulation was for the good of the whole society, for which the elites were responsible. The stories also appeal to basic principles shared by all members of Aztec society, about the sacred necessity of human blood sacrifice. Finally, in the end, infractions even by elites led to fail­ ure and punishment by the gods. As is typical of other alphabetic sources on the Aztecs, these stories were no doubt reshaped by postconquest ideas. Although we do not know how they were changed, there is no reason to think that their moralizing substance was of Spanish derivation. I use preconquest art­ works to support this stance.

Aztec Narratives Involving Nobles and Valuable Materials In the first story I analyze, jade and quetzal feathers are linked explicitly with the responsibilities of rulership. This is a legend in the Leyenda de los Soles of 1558 (Bierhorst 1992: 156–57) about the last ruler of the Toltecs, Huemac, whose misunderstanding of valuable materials, which he considered principally as wealth, led to a societal catastrophe. In the story Huemac played ball with the tlaloque (helpers of  Tlaloc, the rain god), who asked what they would gain if they won. Huemac said, “My jades, my quetzal plumes.” The tlaloque responded, “Likewise, you win our jades, our quetzal plumes.” When Huemac won, the tlaloque prof­ fered an ear of green corn and its shuck, the essential products that the jades and feathers represented. Rebuffing the offer, Huemac demanded actual jades and quetzal plumes, and the tlaloque acquiesced. Shortly thereafter Huemac’s polity was subjected to a severe drought and col­ lapsed as a result. Thus, Toltec society fell, at least according to this leg­ end (an alternative to the story of Quetzalcoatl’s drunkenness and fall from power). Water and crop fertility returned only when the Aztecs, who were humble wanderers in the Basin of Mexico at the time, sacri­

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

201

ficed a human being to the rain gods. Obviously, Huemac did not un­ derstand the sacred aspects of materials to the continuing existence of his polity. How different groups received this story depended on their places in Aztec society. The highest nobles were reminded that luxury materials were connected with the necessities of survival and that with privilege came responsibility. In addition, the story would have reassured others who had not reached high office, or were defeated, that rulers were cho­ sen for their understanding of these principles. They were elected, after all, from among multiple candidates (from the royal family), and their intellectual talents and religious devotion were reputedly as important as their political and warrior abilities. Two other well-known stories have the same message, but the valu­ able materials are gold and turquoise and their powers are linked to the sun and sky. These stories are about solar-related beginnings. The first is the Aztec charter myth, the birth of Huitzilopochtli at Coatepec, as told in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 3: 1–5). In the story, Huitzilopochtli is newly born on Coatepec, a mountain representing the earth. His older siblings, the Centzonhuitznahua, and their leader and sister Coyolxauhqui, resenting his appearance and potential rivalry for rulership, form an army and attack the young god on Coatepec. He defeats them, throws his sister’s body to the base of the mountain, and thus gains political hegemony (and metaphorical solar status). The message about contrasting attitudes toward valuable materials can be demonstrated in the facial decorations of the two protagonists: the winner, Huitzilopochtli; and the loser, Coyolxauhqui. To support my argument, I add the evidence of prehispanic stone sculptures to Saha­ gún’s textual description of apparel and accoutrements. Coyolxauhqui’s name means “one with bell face-paint.”3 That the bells were probably gold is indicated by the yellow color of those hanging on the cheeks of the monumental Coyolxauhqui image found at the base of the Aztec Templo Mayor (figure 7.1) (Cué et al. 2010). Likewise, those on the face of the colossal greenstone head of Coyolxauhqui are labeled by the sym­ bol for gold. The other parts of Coyolxauhqui’s facial jewelry are blue in color, probably indicating that they were of turquoise material. The trapezeand-ray forms, rare in Aztec art, have been identified as symbols of

202

Emily Umberger

Figure 7.1.  Great Coyolxauhqui Stone, Aztec, about 1469, andesite with paint, Museo del Templo Mayor, Mexico. Drawing by the author.

fire (López Luján 2010). An ancient symbol of time in Mesoamerica, the trapeze-and-ray design probably refers to the complex of fire and sun as well, given that the same shape forms the tail of a well-known xiuhcoatl (turquoise serpent) sculpture in the British Museum and the pair of xiuhcocoa carrying the sun through the sky on the Calendar Stone. The xiuhcoatl also had strong associations with Huitzilopochtli as the representative of the sun; his atlatl was in the form of a turquoiseencrusted serpent. Coyolxauhqui’s facial jewelry, then, represents the

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

203

wealth associated with high status and also conveys her solar pretensions, the sun being the symbol of the ruler. In contrast, having just been born before his confrontation with his enemy sister and brothers, Huitzilopochtli arrayed himself rather quickly. “He had his array with him then: his shield, called ‘tehuehuelli,’ and his darts, and his blue dart thrower, called ‘turquoise dart thrower,’ was at his feet. His face was painted with his ‘child’s excrement’ design. He had feathers stuck on his head, at his forehead and his ears. And one of his feet, the left one, was skinny and had feathers pasted on the bottom. And he had blue stripes painted on both thighs and both shoulders” (Louise Burkhart translation of the Nahuatl text, e-mail, October 24, 2008). Paradoxically, the excrement that he used as face paint was linked through color and linguistics to both the sun and gold, as noted by Ce­ celia Klein (1993). Gold was called teocuitlatl, “divine excrement,” and the yellow of the sky before sunrise is compared to diarrhea in another part of the Florentine Codex (López Austin 1988; Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 11: 33). Thus, the humble material, “holy shit” as Klein calls it, decorated the victor also with a solar material that is linked to the sun, specifically, to the sun’s contribution to agriculture. Human waste was used as fertil­ izer, which worked with the rays of the sun to feed plants. In contrast, Coyolxauhqui’s facial decorations, as items of wealth, point more to her sense of priority to the throne than to knowledge of the essential role of the sun to the continuation of society. Thus, in addition to his superior warrior skills, Huitzilopochtli won the right to wear the regalia of rank, because of his knowledge of the true values of their materials and their usage. One final detail, Huitzilopochtli’s weapon, the turquoise xiuhcoatl atlatl, reinforces his connection with the sun in another way that con­ trasts with Coyolxauhqui. The xiuhcoatl was a sign that the sun had al­ ready designated him as the victor and gave it to him; its powers were demonstrated in his use of the weapon to defeat his enemies. Huitzilo­ pochtli is not depicted in the representations of Coyolxauhqui in pre­ conquest monuments. Rather, he was represented by his statue holding the xiuhcoatl in the temple shrine at the top of the pyramid. The solar weapon is not included on the Coyolxauhqui illustrated, but it is the weapon piercing her chest on other images of the goddess (e.g., one

204

Emily Umberger

fractured sculpture in López Luján 2010). Thus, Huitzilopochtli’s rise as political sun is supported in numerous ways on Coyolxauhqui images (see Umberger 1987 and 2007 on metaphorical connections between the sun and Aztec rulership). The expression of similar ideas with emphasis on the relative wealth and priority of contestants for a solar position is seen in the story of the creation of the actual sun. As told in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 3: 4–7), the gods assembled at Teotihuacan and designated two of their number as candidates to become the sun by immolation in a great fire. These were Tecuciztecatl, a rich god, and Nanahuatzin, a poor, diseased god who had sores on his face. They both fasted and performed penances for four days in preparation for the great event. Tecuciztecatl’s penitential implements were of valuable materials. His sacrificial points were of jade, and they were decorated with red coral to represent blood rather than the real substance. Nanahuatzin used real maguey spines to draw his own blood, which he offered along with his own bloody scabs instead of fine incense. Tecuciztecatl was given the opportunity to jump into the blazing fire first, but in the end he lost his nerve. In contrast, Nanahuatzin did dare to offer himself, and he became the sun (on Nana­ huatzin, see also Graulich 1997: 128). The shamed Tecuciztecatl jumped into the ashes and became the second sun, the moon. The wealth that gave Tecuciztecatl priority did not win over the real blood offerings that the gods (here the sun) needed and true courage. Another preconquest object, a turquoise mask (figure 7.2), likely represents Nanahuatzin after his transformation into the sun god (Car­ michael 1970: 21). The surface of the mask is turquoise, the color of the day sky and rulership, and the eyes are lined on the inside with gold foil (McEwan et al. 2006: 45). It is a perfect synthesis of traits expressing the idea of cosmic reward for essential values, and it captures the irony of the story in the depiction of the poor god’s facial scabs as large pieces of valuable turquoise. These stories outline the ideal attitudes that members of Aztec so­ ciety were supposed to have toward wealth. What I find additionally interesting is that they seem to be addressed not just to rulers but also to those who did not rise to domination, such as defeated enemy rul­ ers and those lower in status within Aztec society. Their purposes are a

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

205

Figure 7.2.  Turquoise mask, Aztec, turquoise, wood, gold, and shell. British Museum, London. ©Trustees of the British Museum.

complex mix of justification for elite possession of  wealth, admonitions, and reminders and reassurances that the proper attitudes accompanied their possession. The ruler had to possess the abilities and proper un­ derstanding required, not just the elite status. He had to appreciate the metonymical and utilitarian functions of the materials of wealth, and

206

Emily Umberger

he had to have the humility, courage, and true devotion of self-sacrifice that were appropriate ideals for all levels of society.4

More Preconquest Evidence A contrast between preconquest and colonial visualizations highlights differences between European and Aztec ways of thinking about au­ tosacrifice. That a European audience was addressed is obvious in the Codex Magliabechiano (figure 7.3; see facsimile in Anders and Jansen 1996), and the native view is in the Codex Borbonicus (figure 7.4; see fac­ simile in Anders et al. 1991). The Magliabechiano scene illustrates autosac­ rifice as a practice for the enlightenment of the audience on the customs of this new group. It is a narrative with human actors using the imple­ ments, the maguey points and the grass ball (zacatapayolli) in which they were placed. Lacking are any indications of the Aztec view of the practice; thus there are no symbols pointing to its sacred purpose. The images in the Borbonicus tonalamatl (Book of Days, the 260-day divinatory cycle), in contrast, recall preconquest values in that the em­ phasis is on the preciousness of bloodletting and on the blood itself. Figure 7.4A represents a bowl called a cuauhxicalli (Eagle Vessel) filled with blood for the sun (the eagle), and figure 7.4B is a grass ball with two maguey points stuck in it. The blood splashes from the bowl end in jade symbols, and the maguey spines are topped with flowerlike deco­ rations made of other valuable materials (see Thouvenot 1982 on jade symbols). These images represent the sacred implications of sacrificial practices, whereas the Magliabechiano image does not. Interestingly, no decorated artifacts like these have appeared in the archaeological record. The use of humble implements in state rituals is instead evidenced by actual maguey spines, sacrificial knives, and bone points at the Templo Mayor, the center of elite Aztec devotion. These humble materials coexisted with “artworks” combining real skulls and knives with elaborations in other materials—sometimes valuable mate­ rials, sometimes not—that make the symbolic significance of the offer­ ings and implements clearer (see López Luján 1994: 135, 210–12, 263–66). One stone skeuomorph of a grass ball exists, but it lacks both maguey points and decorations (it is in the Museo Nacional de Antropología).

Figure 7.3.  Scene of autosacrifice using maguey points in Codex Magliabechiano, folio 78v, unnamed colonial native Mexican artist, paint on European paper, mid-sixteenth century. Drawing by the author after Anders and Jansen 1996, facsimile.

Figure 7.4. (A) Bowl with blood streams ending in jades and (B) grass ball with sacrificial points decorated with jewels, Codex Borbonicus, Trecena 18 (folio not numbered), unnamed colonial native Mexican artist, paint on native paper, early sixteenth century. Drawing by the author after Anders et al. 1991, facsimile.

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

209

In addition to these archaeological remains at the Templo Mayor, there is verbal evidence of objects that no longer exist, as far as we know: the sacred bundles (tlaquimilolli) that contained humble implements, sticks, stone knives, bones, cloth, ashes, and other relics, as well as some valuable stones, obsidian mirrors, and jades (Olivier 2006). These bun­ dles were the Aztecs’ most important sacred objects, more sacred and protected than the images of the deities in the same temples, and they were kept in different, less accessible temple spaces. As Guilhem Olivier has explained, their contents were relics that connected the Aztecs to ac­ tivities of particular gods and heroes in the past. This is what gave both humble and wealth objects comparable power. Also interesting is a sixteenth-century tale recorded by Juan de Tor­ quemada (1969, vol. 1: 79–81) and cited by Olivier (2006: 207) that illus­ trates the contrasting attitudes toward such humble and rich contents of two sacred bundles. During the migration period, the wandering Mexica Aztecs, consisting half of  Tenochca and half of  Tlatelolca peoples, found two tla­ quimilolli. The first bundle opened contained a large jade stone, which they all wanted because of its wealth value, according to the text. The leader of the group, Huitziton, suggested that the other bundle might contain “something more precious,” implying that they should wait to decide their ownership. In the second bundle were found only two wooden sticks. The Tenochca, gambling on Huitziton’s wisdom, kept the bundle with sticks and gave the jade to the Tlatelolca. In the end, the greater value of the sticks became ap­ par­ent when Huitziton used them to produce fire, a powerful and spectacular element never seen before. The implication is that the Tlatelolca, like Hue­ mac, valued the jade as an object of wealth, whereas the fire produced by the sticks was even more impressive and of obvious utilitarian value. The purpose of the above story was to portend future Tenochca dom­ inance over the Tlatelolca and to indicate why they were dominant: their appreciation of the gifts of the gods, even in humble guise. The proper stance of  Tenochca rulers is presented on a monument, which can be seen as contrasting with the great Coyolxauhqui Stone, depicting the royal pretender who lost. Called the Dedication Stone (figure 7.5) by modern scholars, it depicts two kings of  Tenochtitlan offering their own blood to the cosmos. They are dressed modestly, and the only items of wealth decorate their sacrificial points, which are displayed inserted into an enlarged grass ball in the position of prominence between them.

Figure 7.5.  Dedication Stone, Aztec, 1487, greenstone, Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico. Drawing by the author.

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

211

The Dedication Stone was created for display on the Templo Mayor enlargement completed in 8 Reed 1487. On the lower part is the date of the event, 8 Reed, and above is the depiction of the two rulers who built the temple: Tizoc on the left and Ahuitzotl on the right. The decorated maguey spines embedded in the grass ball most likely had been used by the rulers in the preliminary operation of opening the bleeding wounds on their bodies. They are depicted during the next stage when they used real, sharpened jaguar bones to enlarge the slits in their ears, from which great streams of blood enter the mouth of the earth. The offering may be to the earth and the sun in the underworld, meant to help it rise and move through the day sky, as in the case of the first sun at Teotihuacan. The two rulers wear the jackets of priests, with a bag for copal on one arm and a gourd container on the back for tobacco. Their feet are bare, and they do not wear the jade necklaces of important personages or the tenixyo decorations of high status on their priestly jackets. On their heads they wear only the feather ornaments of captives to be sacrificed. I suggest that the emphasis here is on the essential values of sacrifice re­ vealed in the story of the birth of the sun. The most obvious valuables in the image are not worn by the kings. They are the jewels on the maguey points on the centralized sacrificial symbol. Cecelia Klein (1987) saw the emphasis of this image on royal autosacri­ fice as ironic, given the far greater amounts of blood supplied by thousands of captured sacrificial victims in the same series of ceremonies. I agree with Klein’s point, but I will attempt to explain the image from the point of  view of Aztec ideology. To begin, the idea that autosacrifice was lesser in importance than sacrificial death is mistaken, according to Claude Bau­ dez (2010), who explains that autosacrifice was extremely painful, that it was repeated over one’s lifetime with increasingly larger implements, and that it was practiced by all Aztecs, from infancy to death. This would have been true also of the Aztecs’ enemies who were sacrificed at the initiation of the temple. Of course, most would not have wanted their lives to end in such a way, but they shared with the Aztecs the doctrine of the precious­ ness of blood and its necessity as a debt payment to the gods. Baudez also demonstrates the close ideational link between autosac­ rifice and sacrificial death, with the first serving as a precedent to the second. This pattern is seen in the story of the birth of the sun, in which

212

Emily Umberger

Nanahuatzin’s self-mortification was preparatory to his self-immolation and transformation into the sun. A ruler’s lifetime of bloodletting like­ wise ended with his total sacrifice, his death, after which he was cremated like Nanahuatzin and joined the sun in the sky. As Klein has pointed out, the scene depicts Ahuitzotl as the successor of  Tizoc, who had died before the temple was completed, and he used the monument and the temple initiation to publicly commemorate this succession. What should be emphasized is that the dead Tizoc was most likely being compared to Nanahuatzin in his lifetime of autosacrifice and his cremation at death (although he did not actually kill himself, his death would have been conceived as a voluntary offering). Ahuitzotl is presenting himself as tak­ ing up this responsibility of rulership. Finally, this scene contrasts with the negative examples of  Tecuciztecatl and Coyolxauhqui. Tecuciztecatl did not actually let his own blood, and although Coyolxauhqui’s blood was real, it was not given voluntarily. It was actually an offering by her executioner, Huitzilopochtli.

Final Thoughts According to the evidence presented above, several well-known myths, legends, and allegories of the Aztecs indicate intersocietal conflicts cen­ tered on definitions of value. These stories focus on objects made of jade, colored feathers, gold, and turquoise, objects that gave the nobility who could afford them both economic and sacred powers that supported their social, political, and cultural dominance. The stories and monuments, of course, were propagandistic efforts on the part of the nobility, which ignored the social and economic re­ alities of the Aztecs’ urban environment. Those who defined wearing practices, in fact, could not prohibit the market purchase of restricted materials by other members of society. Nor could they direct their ev­ eryday and private manipulation and display (Anawalt 1980). Thus, the sumptuary laws probably pertained mostly to public ceremonial occa­ sions, when valuable materials were manipulated by the king and cer­ tain nobles as demonstrations of their sacred powers on behalf of the whole society.5 At the same time, special and even secret arrangements had to be made to reward ambitious and meritorious commoners whose efforts were crucial to the acquisition of the materials in question. War­

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

213

riors of high position were made honorary nobles with the appropriate privileges, and powerful long-distance merchants were allowed to keep some of the wealth that they brought into the city. Nevertheless, the king and his noble cohorts seem to have retained their grip on the sacred powers of the objects in ceremonies (for example, the merchants who possessed some of the same riches as wealthy nobles could not display them in public), and thus the control of their powers was still an essen­ tial underpinning of rulership. The ideas outlined above would have been known to and accepted by other members of Aztec society in different forms and degrees. Cer­ tainly the honorary nobles and wealthy merchants, who coexisted in close proximity with the true nobility, had to accept the official limitations of their privileges. How and in what form the general outlines and details were conveyed to the other levels of society is unknown. Relevant to this is Berdan’s description of the complexity of ceremonies (chap. 5, this vol­ ume). The coordination of a huge number of participants in different sections of the city, which would have required excellent communications vertically and horizontally among the estates of Aztec society, indicates acceptance at all levels of individual roles.6 Finally, tying the whole society together were the basic beliefs in an animated universe and the necessity of negotiations with its supernatu­ ral powers. These negotiations required human offerings and gifts as pay­ ment for the propitious conditions that fostered human survival. As noted by the Sandstroms (chap. 4, this volume), the same worldview and prac­ tices of negotiation and exchange with the forces of the cosmos have persisted to the present day in humble villages, where the offerings lack the rich materials that were available in Aztec society and also the focus on human blood offerings in ceremonial practices.

Notes 1. Kopytoff and Weiner’s ideas are more complex than discussed in the present essay. Both are based on Marcel Mauss’s (1990) 1925 essay on gifting, but they em­ phasize different aspects. See Keith Hart (2014) on English-language trends grow­ ing from Mauss’s work, including misinterpretations. 2. For a different usage of the phrase moral economy, see Blanton 2013 and Sayer 2004, where it is used to refer to agreed-upon rules in the evaluation of market exchange.

214

Emily Umberger

3. According to Louise Burkhart (e-mails, October 23 and 24, 2008), the verb xahua usually refers to women’s makeup, not warriors’ paint. This may indicate her lack of masculine warrior prowess (see Umberger 2007 on the role of gender in the image). 4. Another story involving the sacredness of jade and the dangers of possessing it (by the uninitiated, presumably) is in the Florentine Codex (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 11: 68–70; Sahagún 1979, bk. 11: fols. 72v–73v). A cautionary tale wherein Coatlicue, Huitzilopochtli’s mother, laments the wealth of her son and the postmigration Az­ tecs is found in Durán 1994: chap. 27, pp. 212–22 (on this tale, see also Blanton et al. 2005: 274–80). 5. Durán attributed these laws to Motecuhzoma I. However, they were prob­ ably revived and reinforced by Motecuhzoma II in reaction to his predecessor Ahuitzotl’s disrespect for the traditional prerogatives and sacred connections of nobles. He seems to have believed that these offenses could and did lead to serious punishment by the gods. 6. See also Johanna Broda’s (1970, 1976) reconstructions of the networks that connected the high-status members at the center of  Tenochtitlan during citywide ceremonies with the people at lower levels, whose activities were mostly confined to their own neighborhoods on the urban periphery. The networks, of course, in­ volved people who travelled between center and periphery. See Blanton et al. 1996 and Mann 1986: chap. 1 on the interplay of groupings of exclusion and incorpora­ tion in complex societies.

References Cited Aguilera, Carmen. 1997. Of Royal Mantles and Blue Turquoise: The Meaning of the Mexica Emperor’s Mantle. Latin American Antiquity 8:3–19. Anawalt, Patricia R. 1980. Costume and Control: Aztec Sumptuary Laws. Archaeology 33 (1): 33–43. ———. 1990. The Emperors’ Cloak: Aztec Pomp, Toltec Circumstances. American Antiquity 55:291–307. Anders, Ferdinand, and Maarten Jansen. 1996. Libro de la vida, explicativo del llamado Códice Magliabechiano. With facsimile, mid-sixteenth century. Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria; Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City. Anders, Ferdinand, Maarten Jansen, and Luis Reyes García. 1991. El libro del Ciua­ coatl, homenaje para el año del Fuego Nuevo, libro explicativo del llamado Códice Borbónico. With facsimile, early sixteenth century. Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz, Austria; Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico City. Baudez, Claude. 2010. Dolor redentor, el autosacrificio prehispánico. Universidad Na­ cional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

215

Berdan, Frances F. 1987. The Economics of Aztec Luxury Trade and Tribute. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, 161–84. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 2007. Material Dimensions of Aztec Religion and Ritual. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Chronological Perspectives, edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla Davis-Salazar, 245–66. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. ———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Bierhorst, John. 1992. History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Blanton, Richard E. 2013. Cooperation and the Moral Economy of the Market­ place. In Merchants, Markets, Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, ed­ ited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 23–48. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard E., Lane F. Fargher, and Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza. 2005. The Mesoamerican World of Goods and Its  Transformations. In Settlement, Sub­ sistence, and Social Complexity: Essays Honoring the Legacy of Jeffrey R. Par­ sons, edited by Richard E. Blanton, 260–94. Cotsen Institute, University of California, Los Angeles. Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Peter N. Per­ egrine. 1996. A Dual-Processual Theory of the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1–14. Broda, Johanna. 1970. Tlacaxipehualiztli: A Reconstruction of an Aztec Calendar Festival from 16th Century Sources. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 5:197–273. ———. 1976. Los estamentos en el ceremonial Mexica. In Estratificación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica, 37–66. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Burkhart, Louise M. 1992. Flowery Heaven: The Aesthetic of Paradise in Nahuatl Devotional Literature. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 21:88–109. Carmichael, Elizabeth. 1970. Turquoise Mosaics from Mexico. British Museum, London. Cué, Lourdes, Fernando Carrisosa, and Norma Valentín. 2010. El monolito de Coyolxauhqui: Investigaciones recientes. Arqueología Mexicana 102:42–47. Durán, Diego. 1994. History of the Indies of New Spain. Translation of 1579–81 edi­ tion by Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Fane, Diana. 2015. Feathers, Jade, Turquoise, and Gold. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alexandra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 100–116. Hirmer, Munich. Graulich, Michel. 1997. Myths of Ancient Mexico. Translated by Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz de Montellano. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

216

Emily Umberger

Hart, Keith. 2014. Marcel Mauss: In Pursuit of the Whole: A Review Essay. Comparative Studies in Society and History 49:473–85. King, J. C. H., Max Carocci, Caroline Cartwright, Colin McEwan, and Rebecca Stacey. 2012. Turquoise in Mexico and North America: Science, Conservation, Culture and Collections. Archetype Publications / British Museum, London. Klein, Cecelia F. 1987. The Ideology of Autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, edited by Elizabeth H. Boone, 293–370. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 1993. Teocuitlatl, Divine Excrement: The Significance of “Holy Shit” in Ancient Mexico. Art Journal 52:20–27. Kopytoff, Igor. 1986. The Cultural Value of Things: Commoditization as Process. In The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective, edited by Arjun Appadurai, 64–94. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kovacevich, Brigitte. 2014. The Inalienability of Jades in Mesoamerica. In The Inalienable in the Archaeology of Mesoamerica, edited by Brigitte Kovacevich and Michael G. Callaghan, 95–111. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association 23. Washington, DC. Kovacevich, Brigitte, and Michael G. Callaghan, eds. 2014. The Inalienable in the Archaeology of Mesoamerica. Archeological Papers of the American Anthro­ pological Association 23. Washington, DC. Levine, Marc, and David M. Carballo, eds. 2014. Obsidian Reflections: Symbolic Dimensions of Obsidian in Mesoamerica. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Lockhart, James, ed. and trans. 1993. We People Here: Nahuatl Accounts of the Conquest of Mexico. Includes Sahagún’s Book 12 of the Florentine Codex. Uni­ versity of California Press, Berkeley. López Austin, Alfredo. 1988. Una vieja historia de la mierda. Ediciones Toledo, Mexico City. López Luján, Leonardo. 1994. The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. Translated by Bernard R. Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz de Mon­ tellano. University Press of Colorado, Niwot. ———. 2010. Las otras imágenes de Coyolxauhqui. Arqueología Mexicana 102: 48–54. López Luján, Leonardo, and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil. 2015. El oro de Tenochtitlan: La colección arqueológica del Proyecto Templo Mayor. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 49:7–57. López Luján, Leonardo, Jorge Alturo Talavera González, María Teresa Olivera, and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil. 2015. Azcapotzalco y los orfebres de Moctezuma. Arqueología Mexicana 23 (136): 50–59. Mann, Michael. 1986. The Sources of  Social Power. Vol. 1, A History of  Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Mauss, Marcel. 1990 (1925). The Gift: Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies. Routledge, London.

Conflicting Economic and Sacred Values

217

McEwan, Colin, Andrew Middleton, Caroline Cartwright, and Rebecca Stacey. 2006. Turquoise Mosaics from Mexico. British Museum Press, London. Olivier, Guilhem. 2006. The Sacred Bundles and the Coronation of the Aztec King in Mexico-Tenochtitlan. In Sacred Bundles: Ritual Acts of Wrapping and Binding in Mesoamerica, edited by Julia Guernsey and F. Kent Reilly III, 199–224. Boundary End Archaeology Research Center, Barnardsville, NC. Pastrana, Alexandro, and David M. Carballo. 2017. Aztec Obsidian Industries. In Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs, edited by Deborah Nichols and Enrique Rodríguez-Alegria, 329–42. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Russo, Alexandra, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, eds. 2015. Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700. Hirmer, Munich. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1950–82. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Edited and translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. 12 vols. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah, Salt Lake City. ———. 1979. Códice Florentino [1575–78]. Facsimile edition. 3 vols. Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence; Archivo General de la Nación, Secretaría de Gobernación, Mexico City. Sayer, Andrew. 2004. Moral Economy. Department of Sociology, Lancaster Uni­ versity, Lancaster, UK. Unpublished manuscript available at www.comp .lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/sayer-moral-economy.pdf (accessed January 1, 2009). Ségota, Dúrdica. 2015. The Radiance of Feathers. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alexandra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 378–85. Hirmer, Munich. Thouvenot, Marc. 1982. Chalchihuitl: Le jade chez Aztèque. Institut d’Ethnologie, Musée de l’Homme, Paris. Tomlinson, Gary. 2015. “Y Niquetzal . . . Nicuicatl—I Am a Quetzal Plume, I Am a Song”: Material Transformations in the Cantares Mexicanos. In Images Take Flight: Feather Art in Mexico and Europe, 1400–1700, edited by Alex­ andra Russo, Gerhard Wolf, and Diana Fane, 260–69. Hirmer, Munich. Torquemada, Juan de. 1969. Monarchía Indiana. Copy of second edition of 1723 (first edition, 1615). 3 vols. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City. Umberger, Emily. 1987. Events Commemorated by Date Plaques at the Templo Mayor: Reconsidering the Solar Metaphor. In The Aztec Templo Mayor, ed­ ited by Elizabeth H. Boone, 411–49. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 2007. The Metaphorical Underpinnings of Aztec History: The Case of the 1473 Civil War. Ancient Mesoamerica 18:11–29. Weiner, Annette. 1985. Inalienable Wealth. American Ethnologist 12 (2): 210–27. ———. 1992. Inalienable Possessions: The Paradox of Keeping While Giving. Univer­ sity of California Press, Berkeley.

Part III

Economy at the Aztec Periphery

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

8

Janine Gasco

This chapter considers transformations that took place in Late Postclassic Xoconochco (Soconusco) as a result of the region’s participation in Mesoamerica’s commercial systems. Because Xoconochco produced cacao, an important commodity in the Late Postclassic period, I review key features of cacao production, distribution, and consumption in Mesoamerica and discuss some of the ways that the archaeological record reveals how Xoconochco’s involvement in commerce impacted local society. I then discuss how local conditions together with Aztec political and economic dynamics set the stage for the conquest of Xoconochco by the Triple Alliance (Berdan 1996; Gasco and Voorhies 1989) (see figure I.1). This conquest, however, took place less than thirty-five years before the Spanish invasion, and the great majority of Late Postclassic archaeological remains pertain to the preceding two hundred years. Consequently, most of the data presented here reflect conditions in Xoconochco prior to the Aztec conquest. The Soconusco region is located just east of the Isthmus of  Tehuan­ tepec in the state of Chiapas, Mexico, along the coast, coastal plain, and foothills of the Sierra Madre range (figure 8.1).1 Soconusco, with its rich soils, warm temperatures, and high rainfall, has extraordinary potential for agricultural production, and valuable resources are found in the region’s tropical forests. The mangrove estuary, just inland from the coastline, provides residents with marine resources, and in the Late Post­ classic period the canals that cross the estuary were important transportation routes (Navarrete 1978). Linguists identify the native language of  Xoconochco as Tapachultec, a Mixean language (Campbell 1988). But speakers of other languages, including Nahua/Pipil, Otomanguean, and Mayan (Mam), reportedly settled in the area as well (see Gasco 2016a). Whereas the Otomanguean

222

Janine Gasco

Figure 8.1.  Location of study areas discussed in the text. Adapted by the author and Kristin Sullivan from Voorhies and Gasco 2004: fig. 1.3.

populations apparently left the area prior to the Spanish invasion, both Mam and Pipil speakers continued to reside in the region, and Early Colonial accounts report that Nahuatl also was widely spoken across the region (Campbell 1988; Gasco 2016b). Most residents today speak Spanish.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

223

Precursors to the Postclassic Period Considerable research has been conducted in the Soconusco region on the Archaic and Early-Middle Formative periods focusing on initial settlements in the region, the origins of agriculture, and early developments in social complexity (e.g., Blake et al. 1992; Clark and Blake 1994; Lesure 2011; Rosenswig et al. 2015a; Voorhies 2004). Less is known about subsequent periods leading up to the Postclassic period, although important work has been carried out at Los Horcones (García DesLauriers 2012) and at Izapa (Guernsey 2010; Lowe et al. 1982; Rosenswig et al. 2015b), as well as on plumbate pottery produced in the region (Neff 1989, 2003). Xoconochco’s environment has played a key role in the region’s so­cial, political, and economic development from the earliest human settlement to the present day. Evidence suggests long-term continuities in land-use patterns. The region’s early residents developed agroforestry practices that involved full-sun agriculture and forest management (Gasco 2012; Jones and Voorhies 2004). The identification of cacao residues on a pot dating to between 1500 BC and 1900 BC (Powis et al. 2011) indicates that cacao was an early cultivar in the region. By the Late Postclassic period (and presumably during the intervening periods), Xoconochco’s economic foundations were rooted in the agroforestry systems practiced in the region and in cacao cultivation (see Gasco 2006, 2012).

Late Postclassic Period Xoconochco Xoconochco has been classified as an “affluent production zone,” which describes a region with small polities that were centers of intensive economic activity that contributed to the growth of commercial exchange (Smith and Berdan 2003: 26). Economic conditions in Late Postclassic Xoconochco are known to have been influenced by the importance of cacao in the Mesoamerican economy; Xoconochco towns eventually paid at least five tons of cacao per year to the Aztecs in tribute (Gasco and Voorhies 1989). The movement of this tribute must have been logistically complex, but calculations based on typical cacao yields for the region today indicate that five tons could have been produced on less than twenty hectares of land (see Gasco 2016b), so tribute demands do

224

Janine Gasco

not seem onerous. Soconusco continued to be a major cacao producer throughout the colonial period (Gasco 2006). The archaeological data discussed below provide evidence for the variable impacts of the cacao trade for Late Postclassic Xoconochco residents.

Cacao and the Late Postclassic Economy Cacao can be grown only in hot and humid regions of lowland Mesoamerica, and the earliest evidence for cacao cultivation and use comes from those zones where it could be cultivated.2 By the Postclassic period, cacao production and consumption are generally agreed to have increased, and cacao became more widely available, even in regions where it cannot be grown (Bergmann 1969). Cacao was used widely in ritual and feasting, apparently by people from all social statuses. By the Late Postclassic period, it was also used as currency. Cacao was sold openly in the Tlatelolco market (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 10: 65, 93), and it was found in large quantities in Morelos markets (Smith 1994: 331). Undoubtedly the wealthy could afford more of it, but many people across Mesoamerica had access to cacao, and its use had spread into northern Mexico and the American Southwest (Crown et al. 2015; Durand-Forest 1967: 170–72; Millon 1955: 210–12). In the discussion below, I examine several aspects of cacao production, distribution, and consumption, as well as the use of cacao as a medium of exchange. The earliest evidence for cacao consumption and cultivation in Mesoamerica comes from Soconusco, where cacao residues have been found on pots that may date to as early as 1900 BCE (as noted above). Cacao residues have been identified on pots associated with elites and in ritual contexts in Early Formative period San Lorenzo (Powis et al. 2011). In the Early Classic period, cacao has been found in elite ritual contexts at Copan (McNeil 2006), and a cache of imitation cacao beans (made of clay) was part of an offering at the base of an Early Classic structure at Balberta, Guatemala (Bove 1993: 187–89). Images of cacao pods and trees appear on stone and other media throughout the Classic period (see Coe and Coe 1996: 43–57; García Payón 1936; Martin 2006; Millon 1955: 266), although the precise function of the cacao is not obvious in most of these images.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

225

Cacao was commonly associated with marriage in pre-Columbian as well as in historic and contemporary Mesoamerica. For prehispanic and contemporary Mixtecs, a cacao drink was (or still is) shared by the bride and groom during wedding ceremonies (Smith 1973: 29–31; Thompson 1956: 105), and the Mixtec term for royal dowry is composed of words for cacao and possibly blossom or tobacco (Smith 1973: 31). Cacao either was exchanged between the bride and groom or was given as a gift to the wife’s family among Maya groups, including the Yucatecs, Chols, Mams, and Lacandons, and in Honduras (Thompson 1956: 105). Cacao also played an important role in feasting (see Durand-Forest 1967; Thompson 1956). The Classic Mayas sometimes drank cacao beverages from cylindrical polychrome vessels (Coe and Coe 1996: 45–51; Reentz-Budet 2006; Stuart 2006). Bernal Díaz del Castillo (1963) describes a banquet hosted by the Aztec ruler Motecuhzoma during which he drank large quantities of a cacao beverage from gold vessels. We know less about more narrowly economic roles for cacao for the years prior to the Postclassic period. A mural at Bonampak, however, includes bags of cacao thought to represent tribute payments (Ware et al. 2002). By the Postclassic period, cacao had served for centuries as a valuable item for religious offerings and for gift exchange, particularly gifts exchanged at marriage, characteristics common to many other objects that eventually became money because over time people began to attach a standard of value to these materials (see Burns 1965: 6–7; Einzig 1949: 379, 392, 456). Its use in ritual, ceremonial, and possibly economic functions did not only enhance its value in general but would also have reinforced the notion that cacao had a standard of value. Cacao, then, was ideally suited to take on a new function, that of currency. Cacao also has other critical properties: it is portable, relatively durable, divisible, recognizable, and somewhat difficult to counterfeit. And like other goods that became money in other cultures, once it had acquired monetary properties it continued to serve other functions as well. If cacao was a good candidate for becoming currency, economic and political conditions were ideal in Postclassic Mesoamerica for the development of money (other commodities, such as cotton cloaks and copper axes, also served as money in the Late Postclassic period [Berdan 2003]). Not

226

Janine Gasco

only was trade extensive—for some commodities more extensive than ever before—but also economies across much of Mesoamerica were less subject to strong, centralized state control than had been the case previously. While cacao had been highly valued in Mesoamerica since Formative times, it may not have become a medium of exchange until the Postclassic period. Admittedly, this is a difficult proposition to prove or disprove. Numerous Early Colonial period reports provide details about the purchasing power of cacao seeds (typically called beans in English). Price lists make it clear that at least by the 1540s and 1550s prices varied widely. For example, in Tlaxcala in 1545 a rabbit cost 100 cacao beans (Anderson et al. 1976: 211), whereas in Nicaragua in the 1550s a rabbit cost 10 beans (Oviedo y Valdés 1944: 246). It is not surprising that goods had different prices in different places and at different times, a practice we are all familiar with. The important point is that cacao beans had a standard of value. We have little evidence about cacao production and distribution prior to the Late Postclassic period other than where it was produced and that through some sort of exchange it was increasingly consumed in areas where it did not grow. More information is available regarding production and distribution for the Late Postclassic period, and we can address—if not always answer—questions related to the use of cacao as a medium of exchange. Was inflation a problem? Did the people who grew cacao suddenly become rich (or richer) once the seeds acquired mon­ etary properties? How did people decide whether to ingest their cacao or use it to purchase other things? In Late Postclassic Mesoamerica, cacao production was managed in several ways. In Yucatan, in the Peten, and in the Chinantec region of northern Oaxaca, cacao trees were owned privately by local lords (Millon 1955: 132–35). In the Suchitepéquez region, highland Maya lords reportedly controlled cacao orchards in the piedmont (Orellana 1984: 70), although this may reflect a situation where subjected piedmont towns paid tribute to highland polities. In other major cacao-producing areas—like Soconusco and Tabasco—we have no direct evidence about how production was organized. By the 1580s, however, in one Soconusco town, cacao production was not controlled exclusively by local elites but instead was in the hands of individual indigenous families, and fifteen of eighteen

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

227

tributary families owned cacao trees (Gasco 1990). It seems likely that this reflects an existing prehispanic pattern, but it is also possible that ownership customs had changed because of heavy population loss in the Early Colonial period. As early as 1527, cacao sales in Mexico City were licensed by the cabildo, and after 1536, cargas (loads or bags of 24,000 cacao beans weighing fifty to sixty pounds) had to exhibit the seal of the municipality where the exchange took place (Seeger 1978). This may reflect the heavy hand of Spanish regulation, but these early dates invite speculation that some form of regulation may have existed earlier, as well. If this were the case, it was likely due to concerns about maintaining the legitimacy and thus the value of a high-cost good, to political motives aimed at cer­ tain locations where cacao was produced, or to other factors (see Garraty 2010: 20–21). With regard to questions about drinking cacao versus spending it, in the late sixteenth century Francisco Hernández (1959: 304) listed four kinds of cacao, three of which were preferred for money while the fourth was preferred to drink. Unfortunately, there is no clear botanical connection between the known varieties of cacao and the four varieties named by Hernández. Only the criollo variety of Theobroma cacao is known to have been cultivated in prehispanic Mesoamerica (Motamayor et al. 2008). Perhaps Hernández was referring to landraces of cacao grown in different regions where variations in soil and other conditions can result in distinct morphologies in what are otherwise genetically identical plants (see Motamayor et al. 2002). For Late Postclassic Xoconochco, while we can assume that production intensified (see Nichols, chap. 1, this volume), there is still much we do not know about cacao cultivation and distribution. Who controlled production? In other words, was cacao something most families grew in their forest plots (as was the case throughout the colonial period [Gasco 1990, 2006])? How was trade conducted? Was cacao just one of many products exchanged in marketplaces? Did merchants trade directly with growers, as they did in the Early Colonial period (Gasco 1987: 179)? These are the kinds of questions that archaeologists have successfully addressed in recent years (see Hirth 1998; Stark and Garraty 2010) but I am unable to answer in this study. Work that is currently under way will, I hope, remedy this situation. Although the following discussion of

228

Janine Gasco

a range of archaeological data does not answer these questions explicitly, it provides a more general perspective about the impacts that the cacao trade and other commercial enterprises had on Xoconochco residents.

Late Postclassic Archaeological Data Much of the research for Late Postclassic period Xoconochco has been carried out in northwestern Xoconochco, near Escuintla and extending farther to the northwest, beyond the bounds of Soconusco proper, to Pijijiapan and Tonalá (see figure 8.1). This includes Barbara Voorhies’s Proyecto Soconusco (PS), her wetland survey project (WSP), and my Proyecto Soconusco Posclásico (PSP). Research recently conducted as part of the Izapa Regional Survey Project (IRSP) (see figure 8.1) provides additional data from southeastern Xoconochco.3 Information also comes from previous research (e.g., Drucker 1948; Navarrete 1996). The following focuses on settlement patterns, ceramics, obsidian, metal, and domestic ritual objects.

Settlement Patterns Currently, the most comprehensive data for Late Postclassic settlement patterns come from survey and excavations within the 755 square kilometer PS study area (Voorhies and Gasco 2004; Voorhies et al. 2011). Ninety-six sites were located during the survey, of which twenty-nine residential sites dated to the Late Postclassic period (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 48). All residential sites with Late Postclassic period occupations in the PS study area had earlier occupations, and many excavation units contained mixed fill. Two aspects of Late Postclassic settlement patterns in Soconusco provide evidence related to participation in Mesoamerican commercial systems. First, changes in the internal structure of sites, including site size and labor investments, suggest changes in political organization that may be associated with the development/expansion of market exchange. Second, changing patterns of site locations suggest that transportation routes increasingly played a role in determining a community’s importance. The internal structure of Late Postclassic sites exhibits a key set of changes: in contrast to earlier sites, many Late Postclassic sites in the PS

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

229

study area have a formal layout that consists of a tall, conical mound with plazas to the west and east. In some cases the central mounds have two peaks. Plain stelae are sometimes found in the western plazas (see Voorhies and Gasco 2004: figs. 3.19, 3.22). Except for the largest site in the study area, the primary site of Acapetahua (one of the Soconusco towns identified in the Codex Mendoza [Berdan and Anawalt 1992]), and one of its neighbors, ballcourts were not found at Late Postclassic sites in the PS study area (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 74–77). Another change in settlement patterns has to do with site hierarchies based on comparisons of relative site size and labor investment at sites for the Early Classic, Late Classic, and Late Postclassic periods in the PS study area (Voorhies et al. 2011: 143–55). Not until the Late Postclassic period is there strong evidence for a three-tiered site hierarchy in which a single, relatively large primary city—Acapetahua—dominated the entire area. The estimated labor investment at Acapetahua was more than double that of any other site. Most secondary sites are located along canals in the estuary system, and tertiary sites are found throughout the area. This all suggests that a single political system was in place in the study area by the Late Postclassic period with the center of Acapetahua managing administrative tasks, including overseeing the movement of goods to and from the coastal towns where commerce and exchange took place. It is likely that several small polities like Acapetahua existed in the Soconusco region in the Late Postclassic period (Voorhies 1989a; Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 3–7). These new characteristics of Late Postclassic sites—a more formal arrangement of architectural features and the presence of plain stelae, together with the shift to a settlement pattern that features a solar or primate settlement (Acapetahua)—represent major shifts from Classic period patterns. We have speculated that these changes were associated with changing political organization that reflected more centralized political leadership (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 76). Increased strength of political institutions is typically associated with the development of market exchange in ancient societies to better control production and distribution of commodities (Garraty 2010; also see Smith, chap. 2, this volume), so it is not surprising to observe this pattern in Late Postclassic Soconusco. Another settlement pattern change in Late Postclassic Soconusco is that in the PS study area we see an increase in the percentage of sites

230

Janine Gasco

located in the estuary system. In the Late Postclassic period, 50 percent of all sites were located along the navigable canals, compared to 25 percent in the Late Classic period. This change reflects the fact that Late Classic period sites in the wetlands were much more likely to have been occupied in the Late Postclassic than was the case for Late Classic sites located in the inland zone, many of which were abandoned. This shift can be attributed to the growing importance of canoe traffic on the canals that facilitated long-distance trade. Further evidence for this comes from the WSP, which located additional Late Postclassic sites along the canals to the northwest of the PS study area (figure 8.1). In contrast to the PS study area, several of these sites were single-component Late Postclassic sites. Whereas in the PS study area a community’s location along the canal system contributed to its continued occupation, farther to the northwest entirely new communities were established. In summary, changes in the internal structure of sites in Late Postclassic Soconusco as well as evidence for a three-tiered site hierarchy may be associated with a more centralized political organization that may, in turn, be linked to the development or expansion of market exchange. Additionally, the expansion of waterborne commerce led to an increased role for sites situated along the canals in the estuary system. The growing demand for Soconusco’s forest resources was clearly an underlying factor for these trends.

Ceramics Ceramic consumption patterns are examined here to determine whether the increased movement of goods and ideas impacted all communities equally. Our general observations about Late Postclassic ceramics in Soconusco conform to features that have been noted elsewhere in Mesoamerica (Voorhies and Gasco 2004). There is a fairly restricted range of forms that may be evidence for standardization, and new forms reflect changing foodways, in particular the adoption of the comal, which appeared for the first time in Soconusco in the Late Postclassic period. Notably, even though new ceramic types were identified in the IRSP materials, vessel forms were identical to those found in types common in the PS study area. Given the goal of this analysis, we have grouped ceramic types into two major categories: “utilitarian plain” refers to ceramics that presum-

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

231

ably were produced locally, as none of these types correspond to types described elsewhere; “fancy” refers primarily to painted vessels that were either imports or inspired by stylistic trends elsewhere.4 The bi- or polychromes of the latter group are stylistically similar to ceramics that fall into the Mixteca-Puebla and Central Mexican stylistic traditions, and they resemble ceramics found at Chiapa de Corzo (Navarrete 1966) or the neighboring Guatemalan highlands (Wauchope 1970). Fine gray ceramics that are similar to Oaxacan pottery are also included in this category (see Navarrete 1966). Ceramic consumption patterns for eight single-component Late Postclassic sites from the PSP and IRSP study areas (figure 8.2) reveal a clear difference between wetland and inland sites (table 8.1). Wetland communities—even the small site of Lomas del Camino—consumed considerably higher percentages of fancy ceramics. Inland sites, including Soconusco Viejo, the town that would become the provincial capital under Aztec rule, had lower proportions of fancy pottery. Notable for its complete absence of fancy pottery is the site of Las Gradas. This site is unique in several ways. It is located on a ridgetop approximately 400 meters west of the town of Soconusco Viejo, and we have speculated elsewhere that it might be the site of the reported Aztec garrison (Cardona 2001; Gasco 2002). This is the one site included here that may date exclusively to the period after the Aztec conquest. Note that ceramic data for the primary city of Acapetahua, an inland site, as well as the other twenty-eight Late Postclassic sites in the PS study area are not included in table 8.1. Because of the large number of mixed deposits at these sites, percentages by type were not calculated (see Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 43–175). Presence/absence data, not directly comparable to table 8.1 but useful nevertheless, show greater consumption of fancy ceramics at wetland sites. Fancy ceramic types were recovered at 73 percent of wetland sites and 50 percent of inland sites, and the two wetland sites of La Palma and Las Morenas had the greatest variety of fancy types. Of the inland sites, Acapetahua had the greatest variety of fancy types that are polychromes. La Palma, Las Morenas, and Acapetahua all had large quantities of one particular fancy type, resembling polychromes found at Chiapa de Corzo (e.g., Nucatili Polychrome and Nimbalari Trichrome [Navarrete 1966; Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 161]). These polychromes were also found at the sites of Gonzálo

232

Janine Gasco

Figure 8.2.  Location of archaeological sites mentioned in the text. Drawn by the author and Kristin Sullivan.

Table 8.1.  Utilitarian and fancy sherds Location Estuary sites Las Piedritas1 Las Brujas1 Lomas del Camino1 Inland sites Ocelocalco1 Soconusco Viejo1 Las Gradas1 Gonzálo Hernández La Libertad2 1 2

From Gasco 2002. From Nuñez Cortés 2014.

Utilitarian plain

Fancy

N

71% 82% 84%

29% 18% 16%

1,931 1,344 132

89% 89% 100% 93% 89%

11% 11% 0 7% 11%

91 218 484 6,122 2,627

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

233

Hernández and La Libertad, two Late Postclassic sites in the IRSP study area (figure 8.2). We initially assumed that some or even many of the fancy vessels were imports, a possibility tested using laser ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS)5 and neutron activation analysis (at the University of Missouri’s Research Reactor [MURR]).6 To date, we have analyzed ninety-three Late Postclassic sherds, and the results do not support this assumption. All but six sherds come from vessels that were likely to have been produced in the Soconusco region; the six sherds unassigned to local compositional groups may come from neighboring regions immediately to the northwest or southeast (Gasco et al. 2006; Holland et al. 2008; Pierce and Glascock 2014). Previously Carlos Navarrete (1996) identified what he called Aztec III Black-on-Orange ceramics in Tapachula as well as other Aztec ceramics and Mixteca-Puebla polychromes at several Soconusco sites, and Philip Drucker (1948) identified MixtecaPuebla ceramics at several Soconusco sites. These identifications—like ours—were based on stylistic comparisons rather than sourcing data. Additional sourcing studies are currently planned, but at the present time, the overwhelming majority of our fancy pottery seems to consist of knockoffs produced locally. Although the painted vessels in the Soconusco collections, for the most part, appear to have not been imported, the characteristics of the painted designs demonstrate that local potters were influenced by stylistic trends popular across Mesoamerica. The higher proportions of fancy pottery at the wetland sites apparently was due not to greater access to imported pots but instead to either greater access to or perhaps simply a greater preference for ceramic styles that were in vogue elsewhere. Given the importance of cacao in Late Postclassic Xoconochco, it is somewhat curious that we have not found drinking vessels like those identified elsewhere (see Pohl 2003: 203). A likely explanation for this is that in Xoconochco gourds were the preferred receptacles for beverages, as they still are today for many rural residents. Gourds have not been preserved at any Soconusco sites, but a beautiful gourd, painted in elaborate Mixteca-Puebla-style designs, was recovered at the cave of La Garrafa in the Municipio Siltepec, which borders several Soconusco municipios to the north (Landa et al. 1988).

234

Janine Gasco

Obsidian There are no obsidian sources in the Soconusco region (nor are there sources of chert), although a poor-quality obsidian substitute (ignimbrite) is available at the nearby Tajumulco source in Guatemala. Over the years, Soconusqueños acquired stone—almost always obsidian—for their hunting and cutting implements (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 82– 94) from a variety of sources that changed over time. John Clark and colleagues (1989) documented these changes using the data available at that time; they noted an overall shift in the Late Postclassic to the use of high-quality Mexican sources (almost exclusively Pachuca and Pico de Orizaba). Subsequently, obsidian from the PSP sites has been analyzed (Gasco 2003), and now we can add the Gonzálo Hernández (GH) material to the mix.7 Analysis of obsidian sources for Late Postclassic components at ten sites (including five previously analyzed by Clark et al. [1989]) confirms the previously identified pattern of increased use of Mexican sources, with the exception of GH, which has a very low percentage of Mexican obsidians (20 percent) (table 8.2). Coastal Guatemalan sites did not

Table 8.2.  Obsidian sources Source Location where found

Mexican

Guatemalan

N

Estuary sites Las Piedritas1 Las Brujas1 Las Morenas2 La Palma2

72% 56% 53% 45%

28% 44% 47% 55%

225 140 297 121

Inland sites Soconusco Viejo1 Las Gradas1 Acapetahua2 El Aguacate2 Gonzálo Hernández2

45% 67% 47% 57% 20%

55% 33% 53% 43% 80%

45 15 176 155 157

1 2

From Gasco 2003. From Clark et al. 1989.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

235

register the same high use of Mexican obsidians, however, so perhaps GH, the most southeastern of the sites considered here, participated in the coastal Guatemalan exchange networks for obsidian. Clark and colleagues (1989) observed that in Soconusco the Late Postclassic period saw the greatest use of Ixtepeque obsidian, a pattern confirmed at GH, where 65 percent of the obsidian came from Ixtepeque. Obsidian also was used in the Late Postclassic period for jewelry and other accessories. Sequins, a labret, and ear flare fragments were found at Acapetahua and the wetland site of Las Morenas (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 121–22).

Metal Whereas ceramics and obsidian tools are ubiquitous across Late Postclassic Soconusco sites, metal objects, in a pattern more similar to the specialized obsidian objects just described, have been found only at the sites of Acapetahua and three estuary sites: Las Morenas, Las Piedritas, and Las Brujas. These objects include copper bells, hachas, tiny copper axe monies, copper needles, and a copper ring (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 120, 123–24, 140–41).

Domestic Ritual Objects This category includes censers and figurines thought to have been used in household ritual. Long-handled censers/frying pan censers have been found at sites across Mesoamerica, including elsewhere in Chiapas and at Late Postclassic Soconusco sites (Bryant et al. 2005; Navarrete 1966; Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 151). These censers were used in Aztec household rituals (Smith 2002), and presumably they served the same purpose elsewhere. It is worth noting that long-handled censer fragments were found at small sites like GH as well as the primary center of Acapetahua, and everything in between, indicating their widespread use. A surprising discovery at GH was three sherds from Texcoco molded censers, a ceramic type common in the Basin of Mexico in both domestic and formal ceremonial contexts and reported from Aztec tributary towns in Veracruz, often in elite contexts (Garraty and Stark 2002; Ohnersorgen 2006; Venter 2012). I cannot say with 100 percent certainty that we had not encountered Texcoco molded sherds at other Late Postclassic Soconusco sites, but they were not recorded as such. The presence of this

236

Janine Gasco

pottery at GH is curious given the limited access of community residents to other artifact categories that are linked to either direct or indirect external contacts or elite contexts (e.g., fancy sherds, obsidian jewelry, and metal goods). Figurines at Late Postclassic Soconusco sites share vague similarities, in some cases, with figurines documented elsewhere (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 125–27). As with censers, figurines are present at several sites including the primary site of Acapetahua as well as GH. The widespread presence of figurines and censers at a wide range of sites confirms that household ritual was important in Late Postclassic Soconusco as it was elsewhere (see Smith 2002).

Late Postclassic Xoconochco on the Eve of the Aztec Conquest In the Late Postclassic period, the Xoconochco region was heavily involved in Mesoamerican commerce. Commerce was driven largely by the cacao trade, but the tribute later paid by Soconusco towns to the Aztecs suggests that merchants also were attracted by other forest products—like colorful tropical bird feathers and jaguar pelts that were products of the region’s forests (see Berdan, chap. 5, and Filloy Nadal and Moreno Guzmán, chap. 6, this volume). We do not have documentary or archaeological evidence that provides details about how commerce was conducted; perhaps the entire region functioned as a locus of trade, similar to what may have occurred in the Chontalpa and Xicalanco regions on the Gulf coast (Gasco and Berdan 2003). Whatever the process, the result, as seen in the archaeological record discussed above, is that Late Postclassic period Soconusco residents had access to imported goods (obsidian) and to goods that were apparently produced locally but whose production was influenced by a familiarity with products widely consumed elsewhere (e.g., painted ceramics and household ritual items) at levels that exceeded anything observed in previous periods. Consumption patterns varied across the region: the primary center of Acapetahua and communities located in the estuary system consumed more fancy ceramics and some high-value goods like metal and obsidian jewelry, but major changes in distribution and consumption patterns were felt by everyone. Clearly changes in production patterns—in particular an

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

237

increase in cacao production—are related to changing patterns of consumption and distribution. By the late fifteenth century, Soconusco cacao and other forest products could be found across Mesoamerica. Long-distance traders had travelled to the region to exchange their wares for cacao and other goods for two hundred years or longer. There are no obvious signs of disruptions in this trade, nor is there evidence that Tenochtitlan was suffering a cacao or feather shortage. Yet for some reason, the Triple Alliance decided to conquer Xoconochco towns and extract tribute in products that had long been acquired by long-distance merchants. There must have been compelling reasons to carry out what would have been a logistically complex enterprise to conquer Xoconochco, which was not only the most distant province from Tenochtitlan but also more than five hundred kilometers from the nearest Aztec provinces. The importance of trade has long been recognized for Xoconochco, and it was once identified as a “port of trade,” a particular kind of neutral trading center where trade was conducted among merchants from competing polities (Chapman 1957; Hassig 1985; but see Voorhies 1989b). As more data have become available, this concept has been largely abandoned in favor of approaches that consider the variable characteristics of trade centers (Gasco and Berdan 2003). If the evidence is strong that the Xoconochco region can be thought of as an international trading center in the Late Postclassic period, the role the pochteca or otzemeca played in Xoconochco is less clear. While our understanding of the pochteca has improved considerably in recent years (Hirth 2013; Hirth and Pillsbury 2013; Nichols 2013; also see Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume), uncertainties remain for places like Xoconochco. To what extent were the pochteca formal agents of the Aztec tlatoani as opposed to independent entrepreneurs? One of Bernardino de Sahagún’s sources claimed that pochteca, who formally represented the Aztec ruler, did not travel to Xoconochco until Ahuitzotl’s reign and that an attack by local populations against this group of pochteca prompted the Aztec conquest of coastal regions, including Xoconochco (see Voorhies 1989b). It seems unlikely that the pochteca were not active in Soconusco prior to 1486. But was there something special about this particular group that invited local resistance? Or was the reported attack simply invented or exaggerated as an excuse to exert greater control over the Xoconochco region? If so, then why?

238

Janine Gasco

Perhaps the Aztecs felt threatened by the expansion of the K’iche’, who had successfully mounted raids on at least four Xoconochco towns (Ayutla, Tapachula, Mazatan, and Nahuatan) in the late fifteenth century (Carmack 1981). The K’iche’ reportedly collected tribute in cacao, feathers, precious stones, and other commodities—several of which became the exact tribute items the Aztecs eventually demanded from Xoconochco towns. Were the Aztecs concerned that they might lose access to these valuable Soconusco resources? Another factor that may have played a role in the decision-making process in Tenochtitlan is the linguistic affinities between the Aztecs and Nahua/Pipil speakers in Soconusco. Frances Berdan (1996: 121) has noted that many tributary provinces were bi- or multilingual and that Nahuat or Nahuatl speakers were residents in a number of them. If the Aztecs wanted to gain better control over regions that could provide secure access to tropical forest resources, among the unconquered areas to the east, there were only a few small pockets where Nahua languages were spoken; across most of this region Zapotec, Huave, Chiapanec, Mixe-Zoquean, and Mayan languages were spoken (see Justeson and Broadwell 2007). If linguistic affinity was viewed as an advantage, the Aztecs had only those pockets near the Gulf coast and Xoconochco to choose from. It is not clear why they would have chosen the more distant Xoconochco over the closer Gulf coast communities, but perhaps the threat from the K’iche’ tipped the scale to Xoconochco. For whatever reason(s), during the last decades of the Late Postclassic period the Xoconochco region became a “tributary province” of the Aztec empire (see Berdan 1996). Two high-ranking military officials were stationed there, and there was reportedly a military garrison at the town of Xoconochco (possibly Las Gradas, as noted above) (Gasco 2002; Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 3–9). The full impact of the Aztec conquest and subsequent tribute collection on the people of Soconusco is difficult to assess through archaeological data given its short duration, and I make no attempt to do so here.

The Pre-Columbian Legacy in Soconusco Today Certain features that characterized the Soconusco region in the Postclassic period continue to define the area today. Primary among these is the

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

239

dominance of agricultural and agroforestry production as the backbone of the local economy. Today, shade-grown coffee, not cacao, is the region’s principal export, and other crops like mangos and increasingly African palm are also major exports (see Castillo and Gasco 2016; Gasco 2016a). But while export crops have changed to accommodate today’s global markets, many native plants are still found in milpas, home gardens, and forest gardens, and there is considerable continuity in foodways (Gasco 2008, 2012). A handful of potters continue to produce ollas and comales that are indistinguishable from the Late Postclassic versions. Another pre-Columbian legacy of the Nahua influence (Pipil and/or Nahuatl) is the extensive Nahuatl lexicon for a variety of plants, animals, foods, and agricultural practices that has been retained among today’s Spanish speakers. Most Soconusco residents live in towns with preColumbian roots; the largest town, Tapachula, was reportedly conquered by the K’iche’, and the second largest town, Huixtla, is one of the Codex Mendoza towns (Berdan and Anawalt 1992). Perhaps what is most striking about processes of long-term change in Soconusco society—whether we are considering important changes in the Postclassic period, some of which have been documented here, the dramatic changes of the colonial period, or the head-spinning changes of recent years (Castillo and Gasco 2016; Gasco 2006, 2016b)—is an underlying thread of continuity in many aspects of society.

Notes 1. The Aztec tributary province extended from Mapastepec to a few kilometers into what is today Guatemala; the colonial period province of Soconusco extended farther to the northwest, to Tonalá, but by the late eighteenth century, the region had been subdivided into the Soconusco proper—which corresponds to the preColumbian province—and the area to the northwest, divisions that are still recognized today. Negotiations in the nineteenth century led to the creation of the modern border between Mexico and Guatemala in which the southeasternmost part of Soconusco became part of Guatemala. 2. The current consensus is that cacao originated in the Amazon (Motamayor et al. 2008). 3. Permission to conduct archaeological field work in Chiapas was granted by the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico. Proyecto Soconusco was supported by the National Science Foundation (#BNS

240

Janine Gasco

78-07664) and the National Geographic Society (#1932-78; #2257-80, #2534-82, #3689-87). Research at Ocelocalco was supported by the National Science Foundation (#BNS 82-14029). The Proyecto Soconusco Posclásico was supported by the H. John Heinz III Fund and the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc. (FAMSI). The Izapa Regional Settlement Project (IRSP) was supported by the National Science Foundation (BCS-0947787). Analysis of materials from the site of Gonzálo Hernández (IRSP) was supported by a Summer Grant from the College of Natural and Behavioral Sciences, California State University, Dominguez Hills. 4. Late Postclassic ceramics from sites within the PS study area were used to establish ceramic types based on paste characteristics and surface treatment (Voorhies and Gasco 2004: 143–72). As more research has been carried out, particularly in areas that are distant from the PS study area (e.g., the IRSP study area approximately 100 kilometers to the southeast), new types have been identified (Nuñez Cortés 2014). 5. LA-ICP-MS was performed under the direction of Dr. Hector Neff, IIRMES, California State University, Long Beach. 6. Neutron activation analysis at the University of Missouri–Columbia Research Reactor Center was supported through NSF grant #1110793. 7. Scott Bigney, under the guidance of Dr. Hector Neff, sourced the GH obsidian using portable XRF.

References Cited Anderson, Arthur J. O., Frances Berdan, and James Lockhart, trans. and eds. 1976. Beyond the Codices: The Nahua View of Colonial Mexico. UCLA Latin Amer­ ican Series Studies 27. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances F. 1996. The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodges, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, 115–36. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 2003. The Economy of Postclassic Mesoamerica. In The Mesoamerican Postclassic World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 93–95. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia R. Anawalt. 1992. The Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bergmann, J. F. 1969. The Distribution of Cacao Cultivation in Pre-Columbian America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 59:85–96. Blake, Michael, Brian S. Chisholm, John E. Clark, Barbara Voorhies, and Michael W. Love. 1992. Prehistoric Subsistence in the Soconusco Region. Current An­ thropology 33:83–94.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

241

Bove, Frederick J. 1993. The Terminal Formative–Early Classic Transition. In The Balberta Project: The Terminal Formative–Early Classic Transition on the Pa­ cific Coast of Guatemala, edited by Frederick J. Bove, Sonio Medrano B., Brenda Lou, and Barbara Arroyo, 177–93. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology 6. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Bryant, Douglas Donne, John E. Clark, and David Cheetham. 2005. Ceramic Se­ quence of the Upper Grijalva Region, Chiapas, Mexico, Part 2. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 67. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Burns, A. R. 1965. Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times. Reprints of Economics Classics. Reprint of 1927 edition. Augustus M. Kelley, New York. Campbell, Lyle. 1988. The Linguistics of  Southeastern Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of  the New World Archaeological Foundation 50. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Cardona, Karla. 2001. Description, History, and Function of the Late Postclassic Sites of Soconusco Viejo and Las Gradas, Chiapas, Mexico. Master’s thesis, Tulane University, New Orleans. Carmack, Robert M. 1981. The Quiche Mayas of Utatlan: The Evolution of a High­ land Guatemala Kingdom. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Castillo, Mario, and Janine Gasco. 2016. Historical and Contemporary Forest Transitions in the Soconusco Region of Chiapas, Mexico. Manuscript for volume in preparation, Technology and Trade in Mesoamerica After the Span­ ish Invasion, edited by Rani Alexander. Chapman, Anne C. 1957. Port of Trade Enclaves in the Aztec and Maya Civilizations. In Trade and Market in the Early Empires, edited by Karl Polanyi, Conrad M. Arensbert, and Harry W. Pearson, 114–53. Free Press, Chicago. Clark, John, and Michael Blake. 1994. The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, 17–30. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Clark, John E., Thomas A. Lee Jr., and Tamara Salcedo. 1989. The Distribution of Obsidian. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 268–84. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Coe, Sophie D., and Michael D. Coe. 1996. The True History of Chocolate. Thames and Hudson, New York. Crown, Patricia L., Jiyan Gu, W. Jeffrey Hurst, Timothy J. Ward, Ardith D. Bravenec, Syed Ali, and Laura Kebert. 2015. Ritual Drinks in the Pre-Hispanic US Southwest and Mexican Northwest. Proceedings of the National Acad­ emy of Sciences 112 (37): 11436–42. Díaz del Castillo, Bernal. 1963. The Conquest of New Spain. Penguin Classics, London.

242

Janine Gasco

Drucker, Philip. 1948. Preliminary Notes on an Archaeological Survey of the Chiapas Coast. Middle American Research Records 1:151–69. Durand-Forest, Jacqueline. 1967. El cacao entre los Aztecas. Estudios de Cultura Nahuatl 7:155–81. Einzig, Paul. 1949. Primitive Money in Its Ethnological, Historical, and Economic Aspects. Eyre and Spottiswood, London. García Des-Lauriers, Claudia. 2012. Public Performance and Teotihuacan Identity at Los Horcones, Chiapas, Mexico. In Power and Identity in Archaeologi­ cal Theory and Practice: Case Studies from Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Eleanor Harrison-Buck, 63–81. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. García Payón, José. 1936. Amaxocoatl o Libro del Chocolate. Escuela de Artes, Toluca, Mexico. Garraty, Christopher P. 2010. Investigating Market Exchange in Ancient Societies: A Theoretical Review. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 3–32. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Garraty, Christopher P., and Barbara L. Stark. 2002. Imperial and Social Relations in Postclassic South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 13:3–33. Gasco, Janine. 1987. Cacao and the Economic Integration of Native Society in Colo­ nial Soconusco, New Spain. PhD diss., University of California, Santa Bar­ bara. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI. ———. 1990. Población y economía en Soconusco durante el siglo XVI: El ejemplo del pueblo de Guilocingo, 1582. Mesoamérica 20:249–65. ———. 2002. Ancient Xoconochco: Occupational History. Report to the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc. ———. 2003. Soconusco. In The Mesoamerican Postclassic World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 282–96. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2006. Soconusco Cacao Farmers Past and Present. In The Origins of Choc­ olate: Cacao in the Americas, edited by Cameron McNeil, 322–37. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. ———. 2008. “Le da alegría tener flores”: Homegardens in the Soconusco Region of Chiapas, Mexico. Journal of Ethnobiology 28 (2): 259–77. ———. 2012. El paisaje del Soconusco desde el posclásico tardío hasta el siglo XX. In Arqueología reciente de Chiapas: Contribuciones del encuentro celebrado en el 60° aniversario de la Fundación Arqueológica Nuevo Mundo, edited by Lynneth Lowe and Mary Pye, 295–312. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 72. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. ———. 2016a. Anthropogenic Landscapes of Soconusco Past and Present. In Co­ lonial and Postcolonial Change in Mesoamerica: Archaeology as Historical An­ thropology, edited by Rani Alexander and Susan Kepecs. Ms. under review for publication.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

243

———. 2016b. Linguistic Patterns, Material Culture, and Identity in Late Postclassic to Postcolonial Soconusco, Chiapas, Mexico. In Identity and Archae­ ology in Southeast Mesoamerica, edited by Claudia García-Des Lauriers and Michael Love, 126–41. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gasco, Janine, and Frances F. Berdan. 2003. International Trade Centers. In The Mesoamerican Postclassic World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 109–16. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gasco, Janine, Hector Neff, and Gloria Evins. 2006. Postclassic and Colonial Ceramics in the Soconusco: Patterns of Production and Exchange. Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, April 27–30, San Juan, PR. Gasco, Janine, and Barbara Voorhies. 1989. The Ultimate Tribute: The Role of the Soconusco as an Aztec Tributary. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 48–94. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Guernsey, Julia. 2010. Ritual and Power in Stone: The Performance of Rulership in Mesoamerican Izapan Style Art. University of Texas Press, Austin. Hassig, Ross. 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Po­ litical Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Hernández, Francisco. 1959. Historia natural de Nueva España: Obras completas. Vol. 2. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico, Mexico City. Hirth, Kenneth G. 1998. The Distributional Approach: A New Way to Identify Marketplace Exchange in the Archaeological Record. Current Anthropology 38:451–67. ———. 2013. The Merchant’s World. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 85–112. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Hirth, Kenneth G., and Joanne Pillsbury. 2013. Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 1–22. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Holland, Karl, Janine Gasco, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock. 2008. Instrumental Neutron Activation Elemental Analysis of Postclassic and Historic Period Pottery from the Soconusco Region, Chiapas, Mexico. Poster presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, March 26–30, Vancouver, BC. Jones, John G., and Barbara Voorhies. 2004. Human and Plant Interactions. In Coastal Collectors in the Holocene: The Chantuto People in Southwest Mex­ ico, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 300–343. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Justeson, John J., and George A. Broadwell. 2007. Language and Languages in Mesoamerica. In Legacy of Mesoamerica: History and Culture of a Native

244

Janine Gasco

American Civilization, edited by Robert Carmack, Janine Gasco, and Gary Gossen, 379–406. 2nd ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. Landa, Maria Elena A., Eduardo Pareyon M., Alejandro Huerta C., Emma E. Herrera G., Rosa Lorena Román T., Martha Guajardo P., Josefina Cruz R., Sra Altamirano R., and Eva Rodriguez C. 1988. La Garrafa: Cuevas de la Garrafa, Chiapas. Estudio y conservación de algunos objetos arqueológicos. Gob­ ierno del Estado de Puebla, Centro Regional de Puebla, Mexico. Lesure, Richard G. 2011. Early Mesoamerican Social Transformations: Archaic and Formative Lifeways in the Soconusco Region. University of California Press, Berkeley. Lowe, Gareth, Thomas A. Lee, and Eduardo Martinez Espinosa, eds. 1982. Izapa: An Introduction to the Ruins and Monuments. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 31. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Martin, Simon. 2006. Cacao in Ancient Maya Religion: First Fruit from the Maize Tree and Other Tales from the Underworld. In The Origins of Chocolate: Cacao in the Americas, edited by Cameron McNeil, 154–83. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. McNeil, Cameron. 2006. The Use and Representation of Cacao During the Classic Period at Copan, Honduras. In The Origins of Chocolate: Cacao in the Americas, edited by Cameron McNeil, 224–52. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Millon, Rene. 1955. When Money Grew on Trees: A Study of Cacao in Ancient Me­ soamerica. PhD diss., Columbia University, New York. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, MI. Motamayor, Juan C., Philippe Lachenaud, Jay Wallace da Silva e Mota, Rey Loor, David N. Kuhn, J. Steven Brown, and Raymond J. Schnell. 2008. Geographic and Genetic Population Differentiation of the Amazonian Chocolate Tree (Theobroma cacao L). PLoS-One 3 (10). DOI: 10.1371/journal .pone.0003311. Motamayor, Juan C., A. M. Risterucci, P. A. Lopez, C. F. Ortiz, A. Moreno, and C. Lanaud. 2002. Cacao Domestication I: The Origin of the Cacao Cultivated by the Mayas. Heredity 89 (5): 380–86. Navarrete, Carlos. 1966. The Chiapanec History and Culture. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 23. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. ———. 1978. The Pre-Hispanic System of Communications Between Chiapas and Tabasco. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts, edited by Thomas A. Lee Jr. and Carlos Navarrete, 75–106. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 40. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. ———. 1996. Elementos arqueológicos de mexicanización en las tierras altas mayas. In Temas Mesoamericanos, edited by Sonia Lombardo and Enrique Nalda, 305–42. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

245

Neff, Hector. 1989. The Origins of Plumbate Pottery Production. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 175–93. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2003. Analysis of Mesoamerican Plumbate Pottery Surfaces by Laser Ablation–Inductively Coupled Plasma–Mass Spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Journal of Archaeological Science 30:21–35. Nichols, Deborah L. 2013. Merchants and Merchandise: The Archaeology of Aztec Commerce at Otumba, Mexico. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 49–83. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Nuñez Cortés, Yahaira. 2014. Serving Tortillas and Paying Cacao: An Economic Study of La Libertad Site, Late Postclassic Soconusco. Master’s thesis, University at Albany, Albany, NY. Ohnersorgen, Michael A. 2006. Aztec Provincial Administration at Cuetlaxtlan, Veracruz. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:1–32. Orellana, Sandra L. 1984. The Tzutujil Mayas: Continuity and Change, 1250–1630. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Oviedo y Valdes, Gonzalo Fernández. 1944. Historia general y natural de las Indias. Vol. 2. Editorial Guarania, Asunción, Paraguay. Pierce, Daniel, and Michael D. Glascock. 2014. Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Postclassic Ceramics from the Soconusco Region, Site of Gonzálo Her­ nández, Chiapas, Mexico. Unpublished report, Archaeometry Laboratory, Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia. Pohl, John M. D. 2003. Ritual and Iconographic Variability in Mixteca-Puebla Polychrome Pottery. In The Mesoamerican Postclassic World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 201–6. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Powis, Terry G., Ann Cyphers, Nilesh W. Gaikwad, Louis Grivetti, and Kong Cheong. 2011. Cacao Use and the San Lorenzo Olmec. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (21): 8595–600. Quiggin, Alison. 1963. A Survey of Primitive Money: The Beginning of Currency. Methuen, London. Reentz-Budet, Dorie. 2006. The Social Context of Kakaw Drinking Among the Ancient Maya. In The Origins of Chocolate: Cacao in the Americas, edited by Cameron McNeil, 202–23. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Rosenswig, Robert M., Amber M. VanDerwarker, Brendan J. Culleton, and Douglas J. Kennett. 2015a. Is It Agriculture Yet? Intensified Maize-Use at 1000 cal BC in the Soconusco and Mesoamerica. Journal of Anthropological Archae­ ology 40:89–108. Rosenswig, Robert M., Ricardo López-Torrijos, and Caroline E. Antonelli. 2015b. Lidar Data and the Izapa Polity: New Results and Methodological Issues from Tropical Mesoamerica. Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences 7 (4): 487–504. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-014-0210-7.

246

Janine Gasco

Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1950–82. Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Edited and translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. 12 vols. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Seeger, Martin L. 1978. Media of Exchange in 16th Century New Spain and the Spanish Response. Americas 35 (2): 168–84. Smith, Mary Elizabeth. 1973. Picture Writing from Ancient Southern Mexico: Mixtec Place Signs and Maps. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Smith, Michael E. 1994. Economies and Polities in Aztec-Period Morelos: Ethnohistoric Overview. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, 313–48. University at Albany, Albany, NY; University of  Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2002. Domestic Ritual at Aztec Provincial Sites in Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, 91–114. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Smith, Michael E., and Frances F. Berdan. 2003. Spatial Structure of the Mesoamerican World System. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 21–31. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Stark, Barbara L., and Christopher P. Garraty. 2010. Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A Methodological Review. In Archaeological Ap­ proaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 33–58. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Stuart, David. 2006. The Language of Chocolate: References to Cacao on Classic Maya Drinking Vessels. In The Origins of Chocolate: Cacao in the Ameri­ cas, edited by Cameron McNeil, 184–201. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Thompson, J. Eric. 1956. Notes on the Use of Cacao in Middle America. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 128. Department of Anthro­ pology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. Venter, Marcie L. 2012. A Reassessment of the Extent of the Eastern Aztec Empire in the Mesoamerican Gulf Lowlands. Ancient Mesoamerica 23:235–50. Voorhies, Barbara. 1989a. A Model of the Pre-Aztec Political System of the Soconusco. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 95–129. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 1989b. Whither the King’s Traders: Reevaluating Fifteenth-Century Xoconochco as a Port of Trade. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 21–47. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2004. Coastal Collectors in the Holocene: The Chantuto People in Southwest Mexico. University of Florida Press, Gainesville.

Cacao and Commerce in Late Postclassic Xoconochco

247

Voorhies, Barbara, and Janine Gasco. 2004. Postclassic Soconusco Society: The Late Prehistory of the Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, Albany. Voorhies, Barbara, Janine Gasco, and Paul Cackler. 2011. Prehistoric Settlement on the South Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico. Papers of the New World Archaeological Foundation 71. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. Ware, G., S. Houston, M. Miller, K. Taube, and B. de la Fuente. 2002. Infrared Imaging of Precolumbian Murals at Bonampak, Chiapas, Mexico. Antiq­ uity 76:325–26. Wauchope, Robert. 1970. Protohistoric Pottery of the Guatemalan Highlands. In Monographs and Papers in Maya Archaeology, edited by William R. Bullard, 89–144. Peabody Museum, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

9

Comparison with Teotihuacan

Barbara L. Stark

The Aztecs achieved the most extensive empire in prehispanic Mesoamerica during the Late Postclassic period (AD 1350–1521) (Barlow 1949; Berdan et al. 1996; Carrasco Pizana 1999; Cowgill 2003, 2015: 195–203; Smith and Montiel 2001), but in the case of  Teotihuacan during the Early Classic period (AD 300–600), not all the evidence of distant interaction can be ascribed to imperial administration (Braswell 2003; Nichols 2016). The two cases seem very different in part because documentary sources cover Aztec expansion, but archaeology is the source of information about Teotihuacan. Beyond areas near the Basin of Mexico where it took control, Teotihuacan coexisted with some polities, such as Monte Albán, but also created a mosaic of colonist, military, merchant, or emissary presences in other locations, not necessarily all state sponsored. Regions that remained independent of the Aztecs were generally enemy states active in war against the Triple Alliance, such as the Taras­cans and Tlaxcallans (or else so far away or lacking in desired resources the empire did not threaten them). Why was the Aztec Triple Alliance so successful at imperial expansion compared to Teotihuacan, with its more checkered effects? This complex question requires multiple lines of evidence. Here I use systematic stylistic ceramic comparisons for the Gulf lowlands in the western lower Papaloapan basin, an area known today as the Mixtequilla, to better register the contrasts and similarities with Teotihuacan and the Aztec Triple Alliance. In closing, I consider possible explanations. Household consumption provides a window on the circulation of ceramics (e.g., Nichols, chap. 1, this volume), but in distant locations stylistic emulation may be more common than imported items and can (1) show local knowledge about distant ceramics, (2) express social af-

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

249

filiation, or (3) employ prestigious styles to local ends. Attribute-level stylistic and compositional analyses require direct access to collections and provide a “gold standard” for assemblage comparisons, but that analytic approach in Mesoamerica faces severe challenges from curation practices. Instead, I devise an ordinal scale to assess degrees of similarity applied to five ceramic domains using published residential ceramic assemblages for Teotihuacan and the Aztec Triple Alliance in the Basin of Mexico compared with those from the Mixtequilla region in southcentral Veracruz (published and unpublished data). Holding the regions constant makes identification of differences in the effects of powerful capitals easier. Given the results of previous studies, I expected to identify more stylistic effects during the Late Postclassic period. Previous assessments for both periods focused on selected ceramic, sculptural, and settlement pattern traits, especially any traits pointing to outside influence. As a result, previous work did not systematically assess the ceramic inventories. My approach here is designed to be practical and accessible for archaeologists when direct assemblage comparisons are difficult, providing an intermediate step that can frame future ceramic comparisons when moreintensive, direct observations are pursued. I consider degrees of stylistic similarity across five ceramic domains. In the conclusions I note two factors in Aztec expansion that likely affected the degree of Gulf lowland stylistic emulation during the Late Postclassic period. The Aztec realm was more thoroughly integrated through a market system than had occurred during any earlier time (Nichols, chap. 1, this volume). While population was at an all-time high in the Basin of Mexico, parts of the Gulf lowlands had experienced political disruption, collapse, and considerable depopulation, which rendered south-central Veracruz vulnerable to political intrusion. During the Early to Middle Postclassic periods, staggered regional collapses affected the Gulf lowlands. These disruptions were incompletely redressed, affording significant expansionist opportunities for the Aztec Triple Alliance. Antecedent conditions to Aztec expansion were nearly the opposite of those confronted by Teotihuacan. This more “global” historical characterization is essential to better explain why two powerful expansive political organizations in Mesoamerica, both operating from the Basin of Mexico,

250

Barbara L. Stark

display marked contrasts in the character of their political and economic effects on the Mixtequilla and, in turn, the degree of ceramic emulation.

The South-Central Gulf  Lowlands The Mixtequilla, in the south-central Gulf lowlands, lies at the eastern edge of Mesoamerica, approximately 335 kilometers in straight-line distance to the Basin of Mexico (see figure I.1). This richly endowed land had complementary resources to the Basin and was a target of Aztec expansion. Similar reasons may have guided Teotihuacan trade interactions with areas including the region immediately east in the Tuxtla Mountains, where Matacapan is located, a site interpreted by Robert Santley (2007) as an enclave; Tuxtla centers flanking Matacapan lack equivalent Teotihuacano affinities (Stoner and Pool 2015). Evidence for vigorous Late Postclassic trade in a market system and the effects of Aztec tribute demands have led to discussions of a “world system” with a core and pe­ ripheral dependencies (Blanton and Feinman 1984; Smith and Berdan 2003). It is less clear that such intense economic ties operated during the Early Classic period, but scholars have suspected that Teotihuacan engineered asymmetrical exchanges perhaps with administrative controls in a more patchy fashion than the Aztecs, as indicated by “corridors” of control and a more spotty presence at distant sites (Carballo and Pluckhahn 2007; Cowgill 2015: 195–203; García Cook 1981). During the Early Classic period in the Mixtequilla, the dominant capital along the lower Blanco River was Cerro de las Mesas, with a series of secondary and tertiary centers (Stark 2008b). Evidence of interaction with Teotihuacan was concentrated near Cerro de las Mesas and seldom affected commoner household material culture. Information to date does not support administration of the region by Teotihuacan, although an asymmetrical relationship may have prevailed economically and politically (Stark 2008b; Stark and Johns 2004). During the Late Postclassic period in the Mixtequilla, only a small town, Callejón del Horno, and dispersed rural settlement have been identified. The town may have been subsidiary to Cuetlaxtlan (Cotaxtla) or Tlalixcoyan, probably the former. Christopher Garraty and I (Garraty and Stark 2002) argued that the lower Blanco was incorporated into the

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

251

Triple Alliance empire, with Callejón del Horno as a subsidiary of Cuetlaxtlan, an Aztec provincial capital along the next drainage west of the Blanco, the Cotaxtla River. Here I am not concerned with political administration for the two periods. I also avoid a direct assessment of trade, a prospect that is difficult at best because so many high-value tropical lowland products are perishable. Other publications have wrestled with these questions (Garraty and Stark 2002; Skoglund et al. 2006; Stark 1990; Stark and Johns 2004). Instead, I apply a systematic stylistic assessment of pottery to determine the degree to which external styles and practices were emulated.

Stylistic Assessments Issues in Stylistic Analysis Stylistic assessments can operate at multiple levels, from detailed recording of attributes that tend to be nearly invisible to the user and analyst (temper mixes) to those that are readily visible, such as gross vessel form and size or surface treatment and decoration. Attributes of “technological style” (Lechtman and Merrill 1977; Lemonnier 1993) are more likely to be retained from training as a legacy and less subject to manipulation to communicate social position or cultural affiliations. Assertive styles can readily figure in social communications (see review in Hegmon 1992). Some of the considerations that guide direct study of collections also bear on publication-based stylistic analysis because functional categories of vessels have different social contexts affecting display. Both overt communicative (assertive) styles on serving vessels and less public ones involving culinary vessels can contribute information. Other assessments consider vessel categories more likely to be differentially associated with elite households versus others that pertain to the general population. Ritual vessels functioned across a range of contexts from large-scale public display to smaller-scale contexts suited to household, multifamily, or community activities. The greater the range of contexts of vessel use in which we see incorporation of styles from a distant prestigious capital, the greater the possible political and economic effects of a distant regime on the local scene.

252

Barbara L. Stark

Vessels may be traded from the distant area or persons who are connected with the foreign or imperial government may relocate, bringing examples of distant products that serve as models for local copies. Colonists or immigrants may arrive, whether at a state’s behest or through their own decisions. They, too, may bring material items that serve as models or may themselves produce such items. Emulation is one possible local strategy, with locals conveying loyalty or simply using recognized prestige associations for their own purposes (Stark and Chance 2012). For the Mixtequilla Late Postclassic period, legacy effects also present a challenge because Middle Postclassic highland immigrants, likely from Puebla-Tlaxcala, introduced ceramics cognate with those used in the Basin of Mexico (Curet et al. 1994). Highland-style ceramics may have continued in use in the Mixtequilla Late Postclassic period, and close examination of characteristics will be important. My stylistic assessment lacks the precision of attribute-based studies but is an improvement over considering a few obvious stylistic effects while neglecting the bulk of ceramic evidence, or favoring elite contexts and neglecting the general population. Degrees of resemblance are important in my approach but seldom addressed when the most obvious traits or types are the focus. For example, the Mixtequilla ceramic traits considered by Christopher Garraty and Michael Ohnersorgen (2009 [drawn from chronological analyses in Garraty and Stark 2002]) underestimate stylistic affinities because they do not disentangle legacy effects and degrees of resemblance.

A Continuum of Ceramic Copies In a previous study of Teotihuacan and Mixtequilla ceramic resemblances, I laid the groundwork for the ordinal scale that distinguishes different degrees of stylistic copying (Stark 2014). The ordinal scale considers local replication versus imitation or adaptation of styles. The style assessments follow guidelines to gauge where stylistic similarities fall on this continuum of copies. I use the term copies to refer to any of the three categories of resemblance. Replication repeats a broad range of traits to produce an extremely close rendition in outward appearance, likely requiring detailed direct knowledge of the products and perhaps training in production. Close replication is not easily distinguished from importation without appro-

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

253

priate material or stylistic analyses of attributes. Imitation yields less similar copies, but many attributes are close to the original, with some traits that are different, such as production of a similar vessel shape and decoration but with a different slip. Adaptation is still less similar to distant vessels, with a recognizable affinity but alteration in a variety of traits; adaptation also may incorporate or blend other styles (including local ones) or may include innovations. Diverse incentives may yield copying, such as advantageous technological traits, but I am particularly interested in emulation of the cultural materials associated with a powerful, prestigious distant polity or capital. The continuum of copies recognizes the important role of local traditions, selectivity, and innovation, in addition to emulation. My focus is not solely on elite actions but also on the degree to which commoners were involved in creating or using copies. At stake is the degree and pervasiveness of stylistic emulation of a distant powerful capital—or conversely the extent to which a richly endowed distant region might be a source of emulation at the powerful capital. Stylistic comparisons consider a “two-way street.” The more closely styles are copied across multiple ceramic domains, the more pervasive and persistent would be the social interactions between people in the distant localities, particularly the economic and political effects of conquest or assimilation into the territory of an expansive state or empire. Local provincial ceramics may be of little concern for an imperial government, but the local population may be drawn into political and economic relations in which use of stylistically similar items is an asset. Advantageous social interactions could include intermarriage or communication of political solidarity and loyalty, for ex­ ample. Of course, we have to be alert for “resistance” and the legacy of styles related to local identity, which may be vigorously reinforced as part of local solidarity. Previous cultural practices may be retained, leading to legacy commonalities. Assessments cannot be conducted in a temporal or cultural vacuum. The ceramic categories I use are (1) general types of pottery as seen through the lens of archaeological classifications, (2) cooking vessels, (3) ritual vessels in use domestically, (4) everyday serving vessels, and (5) elaborate serving vessels. In each case, the assessment evaluates similarities and differences in copies by considering replication, imitation, and adaptation.

254

Barbara L. Stark

Data Sets In the Gulf lowlands I previously reported ceramic information from Early Classic residential excavations in the Mixtequilla (Stark 2001) and Patarata 52 (Stark 1989), located just east of the lower Blanco in a mangrove swamp. The analysis by Evelyn Rattray (2001) is the key source for Teotihuacan, where I concentrate on the period AD 300–600 in the Teotihuacan sequence. The results of Early Classic comparisons are only summarized here for reason of space (see Stark 2014 for details). Unlike the Early Classic comparisons, those for the Late Postclassic period do not have the benefit of residential excavations in the Mixtequilla, but surface data from survey are available. For the Mixtequilla, I draw upon collections determined by the separation of Late and Middle Postclassic components (Upper I and Upper II [Drucker 1943]) by Garraty and Stark (2002; see also Curet et al. 1994; Stark 1995). Mixtequilla Late Postclassic data derive from surface collections at Callejón del Horno, a small town, and residential mounds nearby (Garraty and Stark 2002). Because Middle Postclassic occupation was concentrated in the Blanco delta, only the Postclassic surface collections upriver along the Guerengo and Blanco Rivers that were identified by Garraty and Stark (2002) provide data for the south-central Gulf area (i.e., Callejón del Horno and its periphery). Although some of the Postclassic ceramic data have been published, I draw upon unpublished data as well. Percentages of ceramic types from the set of upriver Late Postclassic Mixtequilla collections can be compared to those from Basin of Mexico Chalco excavations at residential Mound 69 (Hodge 2008). Tables 9.1 and 9.2 present the rim sherd counts and percentages of pottery in the two Postclassic locations, with variants and types grouped to provide as comparable an inventory as feasible. Sample sizes for rims from Chalco and the Mixtequilla collections are reasonably robust (1,440 Chalco; 3,114 Mixtequilla). Throughout the discussion a key heritage issue for the Late Postclassic in the Mixtequilla is the Middle Postclassic ceramic complex, likely introduced by migrants from the eastern central highlands but likely not the Basin of Mexico (Stark 2008a). Several of these new ceramic types were dropped in the Late Postclassic period, but others continued,

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

255

Table 9.1.  Rims of Chalco ceramics from Mound 69 Unit A Vessel type or ware

Count

Percentage

Utility Comal Var. D Other comal Buff bowls Polished brown olla or jar Orange bowl or basin Orange olla

236 14 56 3 64 107

0.16 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.07

10 37 77 0 3

0.01 0.03 0.05 0.00 0.00

137 10 79 304 65 149 89 1,440

0.10 0.01 0.05 0.21 0.05 0.10 0.06 1.00

Ceremonial Spiked brazier Other brazier Red rimmed, orange, or tan censer (handled) Texcoco Molded1 Texcoco Filleted Decorated, mainly bowls Epiclassic decorated Early Postclassic decorated Black-on-orange Chalco Polychrome Black-on-red incised Black-on-red Black-and-white on red Total Source: Hodge 2008: 164, 166. 1 Present but no rims.

usually in a simpler form. Thus, in part Late Postclassic similarities with Basin ceramics reflect a legacy from earlier Gulf practices that are stylistically cognate with earlier Basin ceramics. I stress that the continuation of categories that correspond to Basin types indicates emulation because most pottery that was unrelated or less closely related to the Basin was suppressed or abandoned.

Polished Red Red-on-orange

Postclassic

Polished red-on-buff Patarata Red-orange Acula Red-orange monochrome Red Plain Plain Subtotal

Possibly mixed Classic-Postclassic

Subtotal

Summary by period

Ceramics

9 4

42 113 58 67

ACMO_17A RED 30m, l PL_42AC PL_42M

PRED_30S ROR_11V

14 27

8 169 27 12

PRBU_13 PARO_16A

All Preclassic All Classic Unclass. 49 Historic

Period or type code

Total, central Callejón

2 1

47 197 142 349

14 19

1 129 7 12

Total, peripheral Callejón

Table 9.2.  Ceramic rims from surface collections at Callejón del Horno and periphery

11 5

89 310 200 416 1,089

28 46

9 298 34 24 365

Total, central and peripheral Callejón

0.00 0.00

0.03 0.10 0.06 0.13 0.35

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.10 0.01 0.01 0.12

Percentage

Comals Black-on-red Complicated Polychrome Local polychrome Red-on-orange multi-banded Escolleras Chalk Fondo Sellado Quiahuistlan Fine Gray Postclassic style Coarse Plain Brushed Coarse Plain Brushed Black-on-orange Black-on-orange Black-on-orange, Aztec III style Texcoco Fabric Impressed Coarse Orange Coarse Orange Texcoco Molded Incensarios Subtotal Total rims

COMA_1A_ BLRD_7A_ COMP 7s,t LPOLY_7W ROR_11PU int multi-banded ESCO_19 SELL a-n QUIA_35 FGY_38M PLBR_42X PLBR_42Y BLOR_57A BLOR_57B, C BLOR_57M TEFI_61A COOR_70A COOR_70M TEXM_53A 46 b–e,h,f incen

217 7 22 5 0 17 127 5 0 4 0 9 2 10 0 0 0 18 6 1,369

274 13 109 22 1 10 465 15 2 38 4 32 4 36 3 58 76 13 20 1,745

491 20 131 27 1 27 592 20 2 42 4 41 6 46 3 58 76 31 26 1,660 3,114

0.16 0.01 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.53

258

Barbara L. Stark

General Typological Comparisons Early Classic Period Early Classic ceramic groups in the Mixtequilla and at Teotihuacan have notably divergent characteristics and some similar ones. For example, orange-slipped bowls and jars constitute between 30 and 46 percent of the Mixtequilla inventory but are not represented at Teotihuacan. Brown-to-black fired surfaces, mainly bowls, are present at both locations, with Preclassic antecedents in both cases, so that in neither case can legacy effects be ruled out. Overall percentages for brown-to-black ceramics tend to be higher at Teotihuacan, and the temporal trends in each locality are different. Some distinctive categories (e.g., ultrafine pastes) are present in the Gulf area but not at Teotihuacan (except through importation); in reverse, others such as San Martin Orange, Stuccoed and Painted Ware, and imported Granular Ware are present at Teotihuacan but not in the Mixtequilla or at Patarata 52. One category, negative resist decorated bowls or vases, occurs in each location, and Teotihuacanos may have emulated a technique and designs from sites to the east, if not the specific area of south-central Veracruz. Red-on-buff (or natural) vessels with red paint outlined by incision are present in both localities, but designs are quite different, suggesting at best adaptation that conceivably incorporated a particular technique of decoration in use at Teotihuacan into the local Veracruz repertoire. This interpretation is suspect, however, because the technique is not particularly complex. Overall, the great majority of the typological categories vary independently in the two regions. Copies do not appear to be involved. Negative resist decorated vessels are a possible exception involving replication or imitation at Teotihuacan of a technique and style of decoration more characteristic to the east or southeast, discussed further in the category of elaborately decorated serving vessels.

Late Postclassic Period Postclassic typological similarities are striking between the Basin of Mexico and the Mixtequilla, including orange finishes (due to a slip in the Gulf area, which is present but uncommon in the Basin [Garraty 2006:

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

259

351], where orange fired paste typically provides the color). Basin of Mexico Orange Ware (Parsons 1966: 133–210) includes plain orange and black-on-orange vessels. Only some of the Mixtequilla black-on-orange is stylistically similar to the Basin vessels, however (type 57m, Aztec III style), indicating replication. Other vessels in each location bear a highly polished, deep red slip (Guinda ware), with black painted decoration, but such vessels are much less common in the Mixtequilla (1 percent versus 15 percent) and do not display the typical “comb” designs consisting of groups of vertical or slanted lines (Hodge 2008: 429–33). The Mixtequilla collections analyzed here lack rims from the incised black-on-red variant, but it was well represented in the Middle Postclassic period and declined dramatically in frequency during the Late Postclassic, an instance of simplification of the pottery repertoire as well as local decisions divergent from the Basin. In both locations unslipped, orange-fired utility vessels include jars with loop handles, forming 7 percent of the assemblage at Chalco but only 2 percent in the Mixtequilla. Texcoco Fabric Impressed, possibly related to salt production, is classified as part of Chalco Orange Ware (Hodge 2008: 443), and this type is present in trace amounts in the Mixtequilla. Comals are also among the Orange Ware in the Basin, and comal forms are quite similar to those for Buff Comals in the Mixtequilla, as discussed below with food preparation pottery. Comals are likely a legacy type. Some domestic censers in both regions were made with molds in a distinctive form (Texcoco Molded); these censers are scarce in each location. Many of the larger censer types in the Basin are not replicated in the Mixtequilla. Solid molded serpent-head handle ends for “frying pan” censers are found in both locations. Legacy issues are challenging because the Middle Postclassic (Upper I) complex, concentrated in the Blanco delta, includes black-on-orange, black-on-red, cholutecoid polychromes, and buff comals. As will be discussed, however, many resemblances between the Basin and the Mixtequilla during the Late Postclassic cannot be ascribed solely to a common heritage in each location. The Mixtequilla area is not in lockstep with the Basin of Mexico, having less Choluteca tradition polychrome pottery than Chalco (4 percent in the Mixtequilla, 21 percent at Chalco), which is not surprising, as Chalco Polychrome was manufactured there (Hodge 2008: 405). In another contrast, stamped base bowls are 19 percent of the

260

Barbara L. Stark

assemblage in the Mixtequilla but absent or very rare in the Late Postclassic Basin of Mexico.

Discussion of Typological Relationships In sum, there are numerous typological similarities during the Late Postclassic period between the two localities. Despite legacy issues, two new replica types are evident in the Mixtequilla: Texcoco Fabric Impressed and 57m Aztec III–style Black-on-Orange. The replicas are not exact copies, but detailed attribute analyses are required to pin down the differences (Skoglund et al. 2006). Another new type involves a degree of imitation (coarse orange jars). Other types likely reflect imitation, too, because many Middle Postclassic pottery types disappeared but some continued that correspond to varying degrees to types in the Basin of Mexico (Buff Comals, Texcoco Molded, and simpler versions of black-on-red bowls). The legacy types were not discouraged and might well have been encouraged through trade and communication within the empire. There are no signs of pottery in the Basin that emulated practices in the Gulf area. In contrast, the Classic period had one decorated category for which this “two-way street” was relevant (at least for areas east of  Teotihuacan): negative resist vessels.

Utility Food Preparation and Storage Vessels Cooking and storage vessels were not necessarily on public display and can help gauge the extent to which the general population participated in ceramic emulation. The roles of culinary and storage vessels impose some formal constraints; these constraints are related to the dominant foodstuffs consumed, which are common to both locales. Therefore, I concentrate on more unusual traits.

Early Classic Period Amphoras at Teotihuacan are a striking form (mainly in San Martin Orange and Thin Orange [Rattray 2001: 110–11]). These jars are relatively narrow and tall, with small bases and looped solid handles. These forms are not shared in south-central Veracruz, where a variety of jars (tall and short necked, outcurving and straight necks) and tecomates are present. Discoidal jar lids in the Mixtequilla are not found at Teotihuacan.

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

261

Comals are infrequent at Teotihuacan but absent in the Mixtequilla. Consequently, cooking and storage vessels do not suggest copying between the two localities.

Late Postclassic Period Utility jars are part of the Orange Ware category in Parsons’s (1966: 184– 88) study of ceramics from the Teotihuacan Valley, with firing variation that includes browns and even black (figure 9.1). Jeffrey Parsons (1966: 204) notes that orange fired pastes are more characteristic in the Late Postclassic compared to earlier. Pastes are described as usually compact, with some burnishing streaks (Parsons 1966: 133, 199). Solid loop handles are characteristic (Parsons 1966: 198). In Garraty’s (2006: 76) study of plain wares, he notes that brushed or scored exteriors were more common in colonial times than during the Late Postclassic period.

Figure 9.1.  Late Postclassic jars: (A) Coarse Orange jars (after Parsons 1966: 538), no scale; (B) Callejón del Horno Coarse Orange jars, code 70a; (C ) Late Postclassic comals from Chalco (after Hodge 2008: 437b,c,d,e); (D) Mixtequilla Buff Comals, code 1a–g.

262

Barbara L. Stark

In the Mixtequilla, a coarse and medium-textured orange ware (Coarse Orange 70a,m) was newly defined from collections at Callejón del Horno (figure 9.1). Additionally, two new jar and bowl categories were defined that have compact paste, brown-toned, with coarse to medium texture (Coarse Plain Brushed 42x,y); paste colors grade into Coarse Orange colors, but the vessels typically have brushed exteriors and interiors unlike Coarse Orange. A new coarse orange paste for plain jars and bowls and the presence of solid loop handles in the Mixtequilla Coarse Orange and Coarse Plain jars suggest some degree of imitation of Basin jars and of paste preparation and firing. Both Coarse Orange and Coarse Plain Brushed jars have a slightly outcurving neck and apparently a gently inflected neckbody joint, similar to vessels illustrated by Parsons (1966: 538–39; see also Hodge 2008: 440). No examples of loop handles attached to the rim and shoulder as occurs in the Basin were observed in the Mixtequilla, however. This relatively characteristic placement of solid loop handles in the Basin (González Rul 1988: 52, 63, 90; Séjourné 1983: figs. 100, 101) contrasts with the vertical placement on the upper body of jars in the Mixtequilla. Solid handles that occur on vessel bodies are generally placed horizontally in the Basin (González Rul 1988: 67). The localization of the new coarse orange paste vessels at and near Callejón del Horno may reflect a new social articulation with the Basin that was concentrated at the local town. Ossa (pers. comm., 2015) did not encounter examples in her study conducted around the Middle Postclassic town of El Sauce in the Blanco delta (Ossa 2011). Comals (griddles) have very similar forms and percentages at Chalco and in the Mixtequilla (figure 9.1). Mary Hodge’s (2008: 437) Variant D is 16 percent of the assemblage at Chalco, and 1a–g Buff Comals are 16 percent in the Mixtequilla. The Mixtequilla comals resemble Garraty’s (2006: 357) “standard comals” from Basin surface collections. Such comals were in use during the Middle Postclassic in the Blanco delta at the center of El Sauce and in the countryside surrounding it. Therefore, continuity in local cultural practices may be involved rather than emulation. Nevertheless, the close similarity was certainly maintained with highland forms, perhaps indicating communication. Overall, culinary vessels show enough correspondences that a degree of imitation is suggested, even though some forms were consonant with

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

263

a heritage from Middle Postclassic Mixtequilla. Particularly Coarse Orange jars and bowls suggest new imitations but with local traits included, such as vertical body handles.

Ritual Vessels in Domestic Use Early Classic Period Candeleros, small ritual vessels known at Teotihuacan, are extremely rare in the Mixtequilla, with four fragments encountered in surface collections in the Blanco delta where Cerro de las Mesas is located. Two three-pronged burners/stoves, also known at Teotihuacan, were rare occurrences at Patarata 52. These distinctive forms, especially the candeleros, likely were imitations of  Teotihuacan forms or possibly replications. Fragments of large incensarios are present infrequently but consistently in household trash at both localities. They exhibit some traits in common, such as appliqué bands, but the appearance and execution differ, and the composite “theater” incensarios at Teotihuacan have not been recovered in south-central Veracruz. Small incensarios in the Mixtequilla (“frying pan” type) are not known from Teotihuacan. Consequently, the two localities do not suggest replication and provide only scattered evidence of possible imitation. One confounding issue requiring further analysis is the extent to which people at both locations drew upon a wider Mesoamerican heritage of appropriate ritual forms.

Late Postclassic Period Some censers in both localities were made with molds in a distinctive form (Texcoco Molded) and were scarce in each location (1 percent at Mixtequilla, present but with zero rims at Chalco) (figure 9.2). The Basin of Mexico types Texcoco Molded and Texcoco Filletted both pertain to shallow incense burner bowls with handles and cutouts. Texcoco Molded has areas of small molded bumps on the exterior, surrounded by raised molded bands. Texcoco Filletted has appliquéd pinched fillets on the exterior and has not been identified in south-central Veracruz, suggesting local selectivity in emulation. Texcoco Molded was present not only during the Late Postclassic but also earlier, during the Middle Postclassic. Consequently, what appears to be a very close replication

264

Barbara L. Stark

Figure 9.2.  Late Postclassic incensarios (incense burners): (A) Texcoco Molded (after Garcia Chavez et al. 1999: 84k); (B) Mixtequilla Texcoco Molded, code 53a, from surface collections; and (C ) Mixtequilla censer han­dle ends (serpent heads) from surface collections.

of Aztec practices may be as well (or instead) a legacy vessel form reinforced through Late Postclassic interactions. Because molds have been recovered in the Mixtequilla, we know that not all—perhaps none—of the Texcoco Molded was imported. In addition to Texcoco Molded as a replica, the serpent effigy ends on hollow “frying pan” incense burner handles are close replicas of highland forms (figure 9.2), and these han­ dle ends have not been detected in contexts dated to the Middle Postclassic period in the Mixtequilla. The clearest illustrations I have located are from Yautepec (M. Smith, pers. comm., 2015), but illustrations in published works suggest replicas also (e.g., González Rul 1988: 64–66, 80, 87–88; Séjourné 1983: figs. 116, 124). Many of the larger Postclassic censer types in the Basin are not replicated in the Mixtequilla (e.g., Cross-Hatched Braziers [Hodge 2008: 447] and molded appliqués [Hodge 2008: 445]). Incense burners with

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

265

conical appliqués occur in both localities (a Mixtequilla example from Callejón del Horno is from looters’ backdirt and may derive from a Classic platform that was heavily trenched). Incense burners with conical appliqués are present in Classic period contexts as well. Overall, ritual gear includes at least some close replicas of smaller highland forms, but the fragmentation of Mixtequilla surface pieces makes judgments about larger, more stationary vessels unreliable.

Ordinary Serving Vessels Early Classic Period Common serving bowls in the Mixtequilla are orange slipped, black smudged, red-on-buff, or red-on-orange. As mentioned, these categories do not correspond to those at Teotihuacan or can be attributed to heritage effects, as more specific traits of decoration do not correspond in the two localities. There is little to no evidence of copying.

Late Postclassic Period In the Basin of Mexico, scholars have documented production and trade of black-on-red and black-on-orange bowls across the Basin through an interlocking hierarchical market system during the Late Postclassic period (Nichols et al. 2002). Several similar decorated serving bowls became widespread in Postclassic Mixtequilla. I define the black-on-orange and black-on-red bowls as ordinary serving vessels because they were common in the Basin of Mexico; conceivably they were less common in the Mixtequilla, in view of the frequency of orange-slipped bowls and red-slipped bowls without decoration. Unfortunately, these latter vessels cannot yet be reliably discriminated from possible Classic admixture. Common black-on-red Mixtequilla vessels in the Late Postclassic period typically have a rim band and sometimes an additional band, sometimes delimiting a carried-over red slip (figure 9.3). These bands are a low-frequency variant at Chalco (Hodge 2008: 433), but they are the most common vessels in the Late Postclassic Mixtequilla. Basin of Mexico bowls typically have additional lines, often in a set of vertical or slanted lines on the exterior (the “comb” motif  ) (figure 9.3). Mixtequilla black-on-red in the Late Postclassic is dramatically changed from that of

266

Barbara L. Stark

Figure 9.3.  Late Postclassic common serving bowls, black-on-red: (A) comb motifs (after Hodge 2008: 430, A-34); (B) Variant I (after Hodge 2008: 430, A-34); (C  ) Mixtequilla Black-on-Red, code 7a–d,f, exterior; (D) Mixtequilla Black-on-Red, code 7a–d,f, interior.

the Middle Postclassic, with near abandonment of most of the elaborate painting, including black-and-white-on-red, and incised black-on-red. Heritage of a black-on-red treatment of vessels is likely, but the redirection of black-on-red favors the simpler end of the Late Postclassic Basin array. Therefore, Mixtequilla black-on-red also is an imitation of Basin vessels and, like black-on-orange, discussed next, a considerable simplification. Black-on-orange bowls were assessed in regard to decorative motifs between the two regions by Thanet Skoglund and colleagues (2006), including the Gulf center of Cuetlaxtlan to the west of the Mixtequilla (Ohnersorgen 2001, 2006). Mixtequilla Late Postclassic black-onorange changes markedly from Middle Postclassic black-on-orange and includes near replicas of Aztec III–style Basin vessels (figure 9.4). They

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

267

are selective replicas because they do not attempt the variety and density of motifs that are more typical of Basin examples. They also are executed on an orange slip, which is rarely the case in the Basin, where orange fired pastes provide the surface color (Garraty 2006: 351). Stamped base bowls are relatively common in the Mixtequilla (figure 9.4) but were nearly absent during the Late Postclassic in the Basin. These stamped bowls are a good indication of a local ware, continued from the Middle Postclassic period, that has affinities to southern Puebla pottery. Despite the considerable array of replication and imitation of Basin pottery, the stamped base bowls were maintained, even becoming more frequent during the Late Postclassic than during the Middle Postclassic period (Garraty and Stark 2002: 8). Thus, common serving bowls show stylistic replication of Basin of Mexico vessels but also selectivity

Figure 9.4.  Late Postclassic common serving bowls, black-on-orange: (A) Chalco, Aztec III (after Hodge 2008: 425, A-29; (B) Mixtequilla, code 57m, Aztec III–style Black-on-Orange; (C  ) Mixtequilla Fondo Sellado, code 21a.

268

Barbara L. Stark

in replication as well as continuation of a local type, possibly an element of local identity.

Elaborate Serving Vessels Early Classic Period Elaborately decorated Mixtequilla bowls include (1) incised or mattepolished designs, usually on brown or black finishes, and (2) negative resist. At Teotihuacan, Stuccoed and Painted vessels are among the most elaborate, but other fancy serving vessels also use differential polishing or negative resist designs. Gulf vessels incorporate polished and matte areas into very different designs from those at Teotihuacan. One variant of the Mixtequilla matte and polished decoration has a carefully executed matte basketryimpressed exterior, with an interior polished red slip carried over to form an exterior polished rim band. Other black vessels, either bowls or small jars, have contrastively textured surfaces with designs formed by polished areas contrasting with matte stippled or impressed exteriors. No examples illustrated by Rattray (2001) resemble the matte-polished-textured variants in the Mixtequilla (see also Séjourné 1966: 86, fig. 70). Another Mixtequilla decorated bowl category in brown-black finishes is Armas Unpainted, Armas Variant, first defined at Patarata 52. These deeply and coarsely incised exteriors have bold geometric patterns, often with red and/or white pigment rubbed into the incisions. No equivalent category is evident at Teotihuacan. A characteristic Teotihuacan form, the tripod cylindrical vase, is present but scarce in the Mixtequilla, mainly recognized in cases of an exterior basal band with crescent-shaped impressions, which appears to be a rare variant at Teotihuacan. Therefore, Mixtequilla vases are highly selective replicas. Supports for tripod vessels are applied to both cylinder vases and low bowls, suggesting a local adaptation from Teotihuacan cylinder vases. The supports are oval or subrectangular, only extremely rarely rectangular with a stepped profile, as seen at Teotihuacan. Negative resist pottery is elaborately decorated in both localities. Rattray (2001: 363, following Bennyhoff 1966: 21–22) argued for its introduction to Teotihuacan from the Puebla area, perhaps Cholula, and

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

269

noted its more characteristic association with Gulf ceramics (see also Lira López 2012: 153; Manzanilla 2011: 26). Several design motifs are shared, and negative resist decoration may have been adopted from pottery traditions to the east, if not the Mixtequilla precisely. Mixtequilla copying of Teotihuacan elaborate serving vessels is not “across the board” and displays an elite bias for a few cylinder vase replicas found in the lower Blanco area where Cerro de las Mesas is located; several local categories with wider access are not shared with Teotihuacan. In negative resist decoration, Teotihuacan seems to have incorporated a technology and some motifs found east of the Basin, so that they cannot be ascribed solely to Mixtequilla interaction.

Late Postclassic Period Chalco-Cholula polychromes are treated here as elaborate serving vessels in the Basin of Mexico because of the amount of painted decoration and multiple colors. Complicated Polychrome (cholutecoid) is a cognate type in the Mixtequilla (figure 9.5). The majority of examples bear a white underslip, but some vessels lack it. Such polychromes occurred during the Middle Postclassic as well, so they present a legacy issue. Unfortunately, no detailed comparison of motifs and stylistic traits is possible with the surface sherds, because the paint preservation is patchy and the painted surfaces extend over most of the exterior, rendering larger patterns unclear because of sherd size. With cholutecoid polychromes, however, it seems likely that their continuing value in the Basin of Mexico and intervening territory of southern Puebla toward the Gulf lowlands reinforced

Figure 9.5.  Late Postclassic elaborate serving bowls, Mixtequilla Complicated Polychrome, code 7t, exterior (left), interior (right).

270

Barbara L. Stark

their continued use. They did not drop out of the Late Postclassic repertoire as did so many other Middle Postclassic types. Because they are not obvious imports, they continued to express a local imitation of a widespread highland tradition that included production in the Chalco area. Because cholutecoid pottery has an extensive distribution, it can­ not be ascribed solely to emulation of the Basin of Mexico pottery, and in the Mixtequilla it is a legacy category like stamped base bowls.

Overview of Basin of Mexico and Mixtequilla Ceramic Relationships During the Late Postclassic period, all the domains of pottery comparison reveal either reinforcement of imitative legacy types or sometimes simplified replication of Basin of Mexico categories, although local selectivity and emphases are present. The primary exception, although it cannot be considered well documented, appears to be larger incense burners (braziers) for which some Basin forms are not known from the Gulf area. Local traditions (stamped base bowls) and local selectivity (often toward simplification) of decorated Basin bowls are evident. No characteristics were uncovered that would suggest that Basin potters and consumers sought to emulate Mixtequilla practices. Additionally, some common and elaborate serving vessels (stamped base and cholutecoid) have stylistic connections with southern Puebla as well as legacy qualities, suggesting social and economic interactions with areas of the central highlands nearer than the Basin of Mexico. Crucially, many everyday food preparation and serving vessels were imitations of Basin vessels, in part reinforcing a selective legacy from the Middle Postclassic period. Commoners in the general population were far more involved in aspects of Basin ceramic culture during the Late Postclassic than during the Early Classic period. Copying at Callejón del Horno is sufficiently evident that the presence of some Basin migrants cannot be ruled out with current evidence, warranting further research. Also relevant is the degree of interaction with Cuetlaxtlan, where Aztec personnel appear to have been present (Ohnersorgen 2006: 9–10). In contrast, during the Early Classic period, ritual and elite connections were more pronounced than those involving commoners.

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

271

Comparison of  Teotihuacan and Aztec Triple Alliance Ceramic Effects in the Mixtequilla This exercise in systematic comparisons highlights a striking contrast between the impact of the Aztec Triple Alliance in the western lower Papaloapan basin of south-central Veracruz versus the earlier ceramic relationships with Teotihuacan. The contrast is all the more striking when we consider that the two sets of results reflect very different intervals of time, perhaps one hundred years for the Aztecs versus three hundred or more years for Teotihuacan interactions. The western lower Papaloapan Postclassic patterns are somewhat similar to the ceramic changes that affected Postclassic Soconusco pottery, as described by Janine Gasco (chap. 8, this volume). A significant factor explaining Postclassic differences from the Early Classic and Teotihuacan is surely the political power and resources of local polities in south-central Veracruz during the two periods. During the Early Classic period, the Gulf region was the seat of a major center at Cerro de las Mesas and of multiple dependencies and other small polities in nearby drainages (Daneels 1997). The region was at its most populous during the Classic period. During the Late Postclassic period, only a small town was located in the Mixtequilla, with scattered farmsteads in the countryside. Cuetlaxtlan (Cotaxtla) along the lower Cotaxtla River to the west was probably the head town over Callejón del Horno. For this head town, compared to Cerro de las Mesas, population and resources to resist the Aztecs were more modest. Teotihuacan faced not only Cerro de las Mesas but also many other powerful and prosperous polities in Classic period Mesoamerica. Expansionist policies and values may well have been different, as Mexica mythical history emphasized peregrinations, military service, alliances, and combat. Authority from sacred realms and forces was a key aspect of Teotihuacan’s prominence, whatever other political, military, and economic investments were characteristic. Because of the collapse and disappearance of the Classic period Mix­ tequilla and lower Cotaxtla cultural traditions and political centers some­ time around AD 900–1000, the south-central Gulf area was diminished demographically and lacked the numerous centers characteristic during

272

Barbara L. Stark

the Classic period. The Aztec conquest was likely advantaged by the weaker political situation in south-central Veracruz. It may have seemed a good target for conquest and perhaps resettlement of some people from the Basin of Mexico. Because we do not know the language spoken by the Middle Postclassic migrants to the Blanco delta, Gasco’s observation (chap. 8, this volume) that the presence of Nahua speakers may have made some coastal locales attractive for Aztec conquest cannot be evaluated for the Mixtequilla. The antecedent demographic and political configuration of conquered provinces has been given insufficient attention in appreciating Aztec imperial successes, because at least some regions had undergone a Classic period collapse that has only come into focus with the advent of sufficient regional surveys (for south-central Veracruz, Daneels 1997 and Stark 2006). The Basin of Mexico was at a demographic high point, and success in Mesoamerican warfare was linked more to the sizes of armies than to superior weapons (Hassig 1988: 71, 101; Hassig 1992: 135, 141, 144). The roles of military training and organization of armies are difficult to assess because of the unevenness of information, but both Teotihuacan and the Aztecs may have benefitted from advances in military organization—organizational change was a necessity for large forces to be deployed effectively (Hassig 1992: 48–52, 141–43). In view of the permeation of Basin ceramic resemblances to include everyday serving vessels and utility culinary vessels, a second factor warrants consideration: the growth of interlocking market systems on a more extensive basis. Because the earlier Middle Postclassic ceramics point toward Puebla-Tlaxcala more than the Basin of Mexico for immigrant origins, Middle Postclassic market systems do not appear to have connected the Mixtequilla to the Basin as strongly as during the Late Postclassic period. Nevertheless, it seems likely that coastal lowland market exchange may have been generally more active in the Postclassic compared to the Classic period (e.g., Stark et al. 2016), and there is no reason to think that increasing market connectivities are solely a result of integration into the Aztec empire. Rather, the empire may have enhanced them. Although evidence for market exchange during the Classic period has accumulated (Stark and Ossa 2010), these market systems, at least during the Early Classic period, may not have led to the same flow of merchants and

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

273

communications as during the Late Postclassic period. Particularly with incorporation into the Aztec Triple Alliance empire, the south-central Veracruz area could be more readily connected with highland markets, creating a better flow of information about ceramic styles as well as economic interdependencies. Granted, stylistic similarities are a complex subject, with interwoven contradictory elements, such as resistance to outside symbols or practices, emulation of them, and forging of new blended or hybrid styles. Much work remains to be accomplished to achieve adequate stylistic comparisons among Late Postclassic (or Early Classic) assemblages. The Basin of Mexico has been a hotbed of ceramic style and materials science studies to delimit zones of production and distribution, but in the Gulf area, we have spotty information. In this circumstance, the examination of the five domains of pottery and the evaluation of copies in terms of replication, imitation, and adaptation is a first step to gain a “big picture” comparative perspective that can assist the kinds of investigations that Skoglund and colleagues (2006) pursued with black-on-orange pottery. If this initial assessment of copies is borne out, the Late Postclassic period was quite distinct from the Teotihuacan era. Coastal political collapses and fractionation contrasted with Basin of Mexico demographic advantages in warfare, plus growing market exchanges that likely improved information flow and possibly personal contacts. Imperial incorporation, possibly movement of personnel, and interconnected markets likely contributed to Late Postclassic ceramic emulation. Aztec imperial successes had complex causes, but much earlier regional collapses offered them opportunities denied to Teotihuacan.

Acknowledgments An earlier version of this chapter was presented in the symposium “The Aztecs and Their World: The Interdisciplinary Contributions of Frances Berdan,” organized by Michael Smith and Deborah Nichols, at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, San Francisco, CA, April 15–19, 2015. I thank the organizers for the symposium opportunity, the Amerind Foundation for hosting the follow-up conference, and the conference participants for their lively and valuable comments.

274

Barbara L. Stark

References Cited Barlow, Robert H. 1949. The Extent of the Empire of the Culhua Mexica. IberoAmericana 28. University of California Press, Berkeley. Bennyhoff, James A. 1966. Chronology and Periodization: Continuity and Change in the Teotihuacan Ceramic Tradition. In Teotihuacan: XI Mesa Redonda, edited by Alberto Ruz Lhuiller, 19–29. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Mexico City. Berdan, Frances F., Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard, and Gary Feinman. 1984. The Mesoamerican World System. American Anthropologist 86 (3): 673–82. Braswell, Geoffrey E., ed. 2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. University of  Texas Press, Austin. Carballo, David M., and Thomas Pluckhahn. 2007. Transportation Corridors and Political Evolution in Highland Mesoamerica: Settlement Analyses Incorporating GIS for Northern Tlaxcala, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 26:607–29. Carrasco Pizana, Pedro. 1999. The Tenochca Empire of Ancient Mexico: The Triple Al­­ liance of  Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan. The Civilization of the Amer­ ican Indian Series 234. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Cowgill, George L. 2003. Teotihuacan and Early Classic Interaction: A Perspective from Outside the Maya Region. In The Maya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpret­ ing Early Classic Interaction, edited by Geoffrey E. Braswell, 315–36. University of  Texas Press, Austin. ———. 2015. Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Curet, L. Antonio, Barbara L. Stark, and Sergio Vásquez Zárate. 1994. Postclassic Changes in Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:13–32. Daneels, Annick. 1997. Settlement History in the Lower Cotaxtla Basin. In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Patterns in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, 206–52. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Drucker, Philip. 1943. Ceramic Stratigraphy at Cerro de las Mesas, Veracruz, Mexico. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 141. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. García Chávez, Raul, José Francisco Hinojosa Hinojosa, and Alma Martínez Dá­­ vila. 1999. La cerámica prehispánica de Tenochtitlan. In Excavaciones en la Catedral y el Sagrario metropolitanos, edited by Eduardo Matos Mocte­ zuma, 69–85. Programa de Arqueología Urbana, Instituto Nacional de An­­ tropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

275

García Cook, Ángel. 1981. The Historical Importance of Tlaxcala in the Cultural Development of the Central Highlands. In Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 1, Archaeology, edited by Victoria Bricker and Jeremy A. Sabloff, 244–76. University of  Texas Press, Austin. Garraty, Christopher P. 2006. The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and Exchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1200–1650. PhD diss., School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. Garraty, Christopher P., and Michael A. Ohnersorgen. 2009. Negotiating the Imperial Landscape: The Geopolitics of Aztec Control in the Outer Provinces of the Empire. In The Archaeology of Meaningful Places, edited by Brenda Bowser and M. Nieves Zedeño, 107–31. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Garraty, Christopher P., and Barbara L. Stark. 2002. Imperial and Social Relations in Postclassic South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 13:3–33. González Rul, Francisco. 1988. La cerámica en Tlatelolco. Instituto Nacional de An­­ tropología e Historia, Mexico City. Hassig, Ross. 1988. Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. ———. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hegmon, Michelle. 1992. Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of An­ thropology 21:517–36. Hodge, Mary G. 2008. Un lugar de jade: Sociedad y economía en el antiguo Chalco / Place of Jade: Society and Economy in Ancient Chalco. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Hodge, Mary G., and Leah D. Minc. 1991. Aztec-Period Ceramic Distribution and Exchange Systems: Final Report Submitted to the National Science Foundation for Grant BSM-8704177. Unpublished manuscript. Lechtman, Heather, and Robert S. Merrill, eds. 1977. Material Culture: Styles, Or­ ganization, and Dynamics of  Technology. West Publishing, St. Paul, MN. Lemonnier, Pierre. 1993. Introduction. In Technological Choices: Transformation in Material Cultures Since the Neolithic, edited by Pierre Lemonnier, 1–35. Routledge, New York. Lira López, Yamile. 2012. Maltrata, un valle intermontano en las tierras altas del centro de Veracruz. In Culturas del Golfo, edited by Sara Ladrón de Guevara, 134–67. Editoriale Jaca Book, Milan, Italy; Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Manzanilla, Linda R. 2011. Sistemas de control de mano de obra y del intercambio de bienes suntuarios en el corredor teotihuacano hacia la costa del Golfo en el Clásico. Anales de Antropología 45:9–32. Nichols, Deborah L. 2016. Teotihuacan. Journal of Archaeological Research 24:1–74.

276

Barbara L. Stark

Nichols, Deborah L., Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Hector Neff, Mary Hodge, Thomas H. Charlton, and Michael D. Glascock. 2002. Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective on Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:25–82. Ohnersorgen, Michael A. 2001. Social and Economic Organization of Cotaxtla in the Postclassic Gulf Lowlands. PhD diss., School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. ———. 2006. Aztec Provincial Administration at Cuetlaxtlan, Veracruz. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:1–32. Ossa, Alanna. 2011. Given, Borrowed, Bought, Stolen: Exchange and Economic Organization in Postclassic Sauce and Its Hinterland in Veracruz, Mexico. PhD diss., School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. Parsons, Jeffrey Robinson. 1966. The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. PhD diss., Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Rattray, Evelyn Childs. 2001. Teotihuacan: Ceramics, Chronology, and Cultural Trends / Teotihuacan: Cerámica, cronología y tendencias culturales. Arqueología de México. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City; University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Santley, Robert S. 2007. The Prehistory of the Tuxtlas. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Séjourné, Laurette. 1983. Arqueología e historia del Valle de México de Xochimilco a Amecameca. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico City. Skoglund, Thanet, Barbara L. Stark, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock. 2006. Compositional and Stylistic Analysis of Aztec-Era Ceramics: Provincial Strat­­ egies at the Edge of Empire, South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Latin Ameri­ can Antiquity 17:541–59. Smith, Michael E., and Frances F. Berdan, eds. 2003. The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Smith, Michael E., and Lisa Montiel. 2001. The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropologi­ cal Anthropology 20:245–84. Stark, Barbara L. 1989. Patarata Pottery: Classic Period Ceramics of the South-Central Gulf Coast, Veracruz, Mexico. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 51. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. ———. 1990. The Gulf Coast and the Central Highlands of Mexico: Alternative Models for Interaction. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:243–85. ———. 1995. Introducción a la alfarería del postclásico en la Mixtequilla, surcentral de Veracruz. Arqueología (Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia) 13/14:17–36.

Aztec Imperialism and Gulf Ceramic Emulation

277

———, ed. 2001. Classic Period Mixtequilla, Veracruz, Mexico: Diachronic Inferences from Residential Investigations. IMS Monograph 12. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University at Albany, Albany, NY. ———. 2008a. Archaeology and Ethnicity in Postclassic Mesoamerica. In Eth­ nic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica: The View from Archaeology, Art History, Ethnohistory, and Contemporary Ethnography, by Frances F. Berdan, John K. Chance, Alan Sandstrom, Barbara L. Stark, James Taggart, and Emily Umberger, 38–63. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2008b. Polity and Economy in the Western Lower Papaloapan Ba­sin. In Cul­­tural Currents in Classic Veracruz, edited by Philip J. Arnold III and Christopher A. Pool, 86–119. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. ———. 2014. Teotihuacan y La Mixtequilla, Veracruz: Comparaciones Cerámicas. Paper presented at VIII Coloquio “Pedro Bosch Gimpera” en Home­naje a la Doctora Evelyn Childs Rattray, Instituto de Investigaciones Antro­ pológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, August. Stark, Barbara L., Matthew A. Boxt, Janine Gasco, Rebecca B. González Lauck, Jessica D. Hedgepeth Balkin, Arthur A. Joyce, Stacie M. King, et al. 2016. Economic Growth in Mesoamerica: Obsidian Consumption in the Coastal Lowlands. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 41:263–82. Stark, Barbara L., and John K. Chance. 2012. The Strategies of Provincials in Empires. In The Comparative Archaeology of Complex Societies, edited by Michael E. Smith, 192–237. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stark, Barbara L., and Kevin M. Johns. 2004. Veracruz sur-central en tiempos Teotihuacanos. In La costa del Golfo en tiempos teotihuacanos: Propuestas y perspectivas, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut and Arturo Pascual Soto, 307–28. Memoria de la Segunda Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan. Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Stark, Barbara L., and Alanna Ossa. 2010. Origins and Development of Mesoamerican Marketing: Evidence from South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. In Archaeological Approaches to Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christopher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, 99–126. University of Colorado Press, Boulder. Stoner, Wesley D., and Christopher A. Pool. 2015. The Archaeology of Disjuncture: Classic Period Disruption and Cultural Divergence in the Tuxtla Mountains of Mexico. Current Anthropology 56:385–420.

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

10

Scale, Integration, and Change

Kenneth G. Hirth, Michael E. Smith, Frances F. Berdan, and Deborah L. Nichols In this volume we have used objects—potsherds, incense burners, feather shields, and even cities—as entries into the Aztec economy and the Aztec empire. The authors of the chapters represent a variety of disciplines: archaeology, ethnohistory, art history, and ethnography. One of the things we all share is the idea that objects allow us to reconstruct and analyze the social processes of ancient societies. They allow us to measure and compare different levels of shared interaction as opposed to basing interpretations on assumed patterns of shared behavior or psychological worldview. In following this perspective, the chapters in this volume point to several conclusions about Aztec society: 1. Objects were crucial to the operation of the Aztec economy and society. 2. The household was the basic setting for the production and use of goods. 3. Markets, communities, and other institutions connected households and integrated them into society through objects. 4. Objects continued to play similar roles after the Spanish conquest. 5. An object-based perspective has numerous benefits for Aztec scholarship. In this chapter we synthesize our view that an object-based perspective allows new insights and advances into many realms of Aztec society.

Objects Were Crucial to the Operation of the Aztec Economy and Society The notion that objects were crucial to the operation of the Aztec economy and society is the fundamental message of this book. In whatever

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

279

social setting one considers—from a royal installation ceremony to a marketplace exchange, or from an imperial battle to the act of eating tacos for breakfast—objects played a crucial role. We distinguish our economic-based approach to objects from the so-called materiality ap­proach that has gained popularity with postmodernism in the humanities and interpretive archaeology (Knappett 2012; Overholtzer and Robin 2015; Tilley and Bennett 2004). The materiality scholars reify the notion of material objects by taking an interpretive perspective on the past that focuses on the subjective meanings of objects. In contrast, our focus on the production, exchange, and consumption of objects yields a much more direct entry into the social processes of Aztec society. Our economic approach opens the way to examining the cost of procuring alternative goods in the energy involved in their production, transportation from point of origin, and distribution to consumers. It also provides a way of measuring the utility that objects may have had in the social contexts where they were used by examining the relative proportions of alternative goods with equivalent functions. The chapters by Frances Berdan (chap. 5, this volume) and Alan Sandstrom and Pamela Sandstrom (chap. 4, this volume) provide particularly clear examples of how a focus on objects can clarify key ceremonial contexts in Aztec and modern Nahua society. While past studies of the Aztec monthly ceremonies focused most intensively on their symbolism, gods, and supporting myths (e.g., Graulich 1999), Berdan’s object-based study reveals the intimate connection between individual households and the state-sponsored ceremonies. Similarly, Emily Umberger (chap. 7, this volume) and Laura Filloy and María Olvido (chap. 6, this volume) in their chapters trace out the origins and routes of key luxury goods used by nobles, thereby showing how these fancy goods were implicated in key economic and symbolic dimensions of Aztec society. As Michael Smith (chap. 2, this volume) argues, even cities can be considered as material objects whose form and growth were intimately connected to both the political strategies of kings and the ways that people used marketplaces. The chapters dealing with distant provinces in the Aztec empire by Janine Gasco (chap. 8, this volume) and Barbara Stark (chap. 9, this volume) extend our perspective on objects by considering their role in long-distance interactions and transformations. Not only did the Aztec empire expand to gain control of material objects, in the form of tax/ tribute, but also objects were deeply implicated in a variety of imperial

280

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

processes and practices. Beyond these payments, distant areas traded with central Mexico both before they were conquered by the empire and after (Berdan et al. 2003), and client states gave “gifts” to the emperor as a symbol of their fealty (Berdan et al. 1996: chap. 6). In addition, some imperially acquired objects were “recycled” to future military and political ventures—a few examples are feathered military regalia and raw feathers, as well as, possibly, wooden carrying frames, fancy clothing, and an abundance of foodstuffs for diplomatic feasting. As Stark (chap. 9, this volume) points out, the nature of local economies in provincial areas provides a good indication of the impact of imperial conquest and incorporation. The basic Aztec strategy of indirect control of provinces (Berdan et al. 1996) makes sense in terms of current theory. John Gerring and colleagues (2011) show that the decision of whether to employ direct or indirect control of a subordinate polity rests in large part on the nature of political organization in the subordinate area. Because most parts of Mesoamerica were already organized into city-states at the time of Aztec imperial expansion (Smith 2003), the indirect strategy was the favored one. But within an overall scheme of indirect imperial rule, there was great variation in the impact of conquest and the extent of imperial reorganization (Sergheraert 2009), and Stark (chap. 9, this volume) explores some of the implications of this in the Gulf lowlands. The key role of objects for Aztec society goes beyond their social embeddedness and their roles in social dynamics at various scales. Each of the primary disciplines included in this volume uses objects as evidence. For archaeology and art history, objects—whether broken or intact—are the crucial data source for reconstructing Aztec society. For ethnohistory, the recent turn toward focusing on objects has greatly expanded the nature of inferences possible from documents (Berdan 2007; DurandForest and Eisinger 1998).

The Household Was the Basic Setting for the Production and Use of Goods The household was the main economic unit for the production, distribution, and consumption of goods in Aztec society. It was also where agricultural production was carried out that supported the bulk of the

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

281

population and where labor was mobilized for elite support, ritual activities, and state-sponsored construction projects. Although individual households did not produce large agricultural surpluses, they did so in the aggregate and were the contexts where both utilitarian and highvalue craft goods were created. Virtually all craft production in Aztec society was centered on the household. Any given craft specialty such as carpentry or pottery manufacture was characterized by a multitude of small-scale producers operating within the confines of their individual residences to produce goods on consignment or for sale to the general public within a nearby marketplace. Most crafting and merchant households also had land to farm, as is seen in Santa María Acxotla (Hirth et al., chap. 3, this volume), so involvement in crafts was often a part-time ac­ tivity combined with agriculture. Depending on a household’s circum­ stances, crafting could be a very important contributor to its overall eco­ nomic well-being. Indeed, in cases where agricultural land was poor or limited, even infrequent crafting and production for sale could constitute a major component in the household’s annual subsistence activities. A recent review of domestic subsistence activities in the Basin of Mexico revealed over 130 different production, crafting, and foraging activities that households engaged in to acquire products that they could sell in the marketplace to support themselves (Hirth 2016). The enterprising spirit was alive in central Mexico at the time of the Spanish conquest, and households actively engaged in commerce when they saw an opportunity to do so. Households managed and maximized their limited labor by working during downtime both while they were farming and during nonagricultural times of the year. They sold the goods they produced in the marketplace. These domestic producer-sellers were referred to generically as tlachiuhqui (maker of something) in the Nahuatl language, often with the suffix -chiuhqui added to the word designating their product or craft activity (e.g., comalchiuhqui, “griddle maker”; petlachiuhqui, “mat maker”; malacachiuhqui, “spindle maker”). The result was a rich and diverse array of products produced and available for purchase, with both tradition and demand providing the framework for stylistic and technological innovation. Archaeologists may casually refer to production at the community level, but this is a misnomer because in the technical sense the commu­ nity was not organized for production except for special construction

282

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

projects or to meet tribute/taxation demands in the altepetl or the Aztec empire. What archaeologists see when they suggest community-level economic activity is a constellation of households organized for production and operating independently within a community. The degree of shared similarity between household-level production units is often the result of households being engaged in the same production activities based on the availability of a common pool of regional resources such as forest and lake products, or specific stone or mineral resources. This is especially the case when examining levels of craft production at the regional level. Even high concentrations of production facilities like the ceramic and lime kilns identified near Tepeaca, Puebla, are small in scale and reflect the activities of multiple independent households in the same community (Castanzo 2009). The construction of production facilities used by multiple households within the same community is rare. The aggregate effect of household patterns at the level of the community is best illustrated in the study by Hirth and colleagues (chap. 3, this volume) for the merchant community of Santa María Acxotla. Merchants engaged in long-distance exchange, often traveled in groups, and relied on one another as they faced the dangers of the road. Although Santa María Acxotla was characterized as a merchant community because of the high percentage of merchants residing there, it actually was a community comprising farmers, craftsmen, service providers, and in this case a large number of merchants. Other communities in the Huexotzinco altepetl had concentrations of different craft specialists, but none of the communities grouped or concentrated craft specializations in ways that would suggest their organization into larger interhousehold forms of collaboration along the lines of guilds or other community-level forms of organization. Artisan and farming households certainly collaborated when it was in their self-interest to do so, but cases of organization at the community level were rare except when they were associated with special community-oriented projects or periodic mandatory ceremonial events. In essence, producers of the same genre of goods were sometimes spatially clustered, which at the regional level often was a function of the distribution of the natural resources that they used. But individuals or individual households in these spatial clusters did not necessarily cooperate or collaborate in their economic endeavors as did merchants. They may as well have competed with each other—we are not sure—and

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

283

indeed any of these stances may have pertained at different times and under differing circumstances. For instance, competition may have surfaced when raw materials were scarce, and cooperation may have been a useful strategy during spikes in periodic high demand for special ritual or political events. Regardless of their individual circumstances, producers at whatever level depended on an extensive and reliable marketing system. Women were a vital component of the domestic economy. In addition to preparing food and rearing children, women played an important role in selling the goods produced by the household in the marketplace. They were the primary producers of prepared foods in the marketplace; then, as today, one can readily procure a beverage or a hot meal in the marketplace setting. Women were particularly important as the primary producers of textiles, which they usually wove in the contexts of their homes. Standard-sized cotton textiles (quachtli) served as a form of cur­ rency, and elaborately decorated capes were highly valued goods de­ manded as part of imperial tax/tribute. Within the taxation/tribute sys­ tem the household was the minimal taxable unit, and household mem­bers worked together to meet their obligations to the state.

Markets, Communities, and Other Institutions Connected Households and Integrated Them into Society Through Objects All aspects of the Aztec economy intersected at the marketplace. It was where perishable and nonperishable goods were distributed and different sectors of the economy marketed their surpluses for goods to meet their individual consumption needs. It was where the relative values of goods were established in relation to the demand and needs of the society and where perishable goods were converted to imperishable and vice versa. Most importantly, it was where the domestic, institutional, and commercial sectors of the economy intersected and where goods procured under different forms and scales of production moved about through lively negotiated exchange. As a result, the marketplace provided a key physical setting where these economic processes intersected with both the political domain of kings and the process of urbanization (Smith, chap. 2, this volume).

284

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

The marketplace was vital for households operating to meet their individual consumption needs. It was where they could sell their small surpluses of food or craft goods for the goods that they could obtain only through exchange. It was also where they could acquire raw materials or semiprocessed items that they could employ in their own small-scale domestic craft production. Textiles, for example, were produced in large quantity by women in domestic contexts, and the marketplace was where women in the Basin of Mexico could obtain raw cotton that they could spin into thread and weave into cotton cloth. Alternatively, women could purchase already spun thread, dyed thread, rabbit fur, or tiny feathers for weaving more elaborate textiles. The marketplace was the primary venue for households to obtain nonlocal resources and to convert their meager surpluses into storable wealth that they could reconvert into food or other resources during times of shortfall. Elite households normally produced more food from their individual holdings and estates than they could consume (Hirth 2016). They also had a higher level of demand for wealth goods than did commoner households. The marketplace is where elite households marketed their food surpluses in exchange for a range of consumables that included cacao, tobacco, exotic foods, textiles, adornments, or other high-value goods. The state also could use the marketplace to convert high-value goods entering the Basin of Mexico through the imperial tax/tribute sys­ tem into alternative goods consumed in large-scale state-sponsored religious and political celebrations. For both elite households and the state, the marketplace functioned as the place where perishable or imperishable commodities could be converted into the array of goods regularly consumed in social, political, and ritual contexts at all levels of society. The marketplace was the engine behind highland commercial economy because it afforded everyone with the opportunity to buy and sell and, in so doing, actualize a material gain from the goods that they sold. Markets were ubiquitous in most medium to large communities, where they were held in open plazas on a regularized periodic schedule. Where population was thin and the distance to neighboring marketplaces was great, the itinerant peddler known as the tlacôcoalnamacac carried goods to sell to households residing outside urban areas. Merchants were the arms and legs that did the heavy commercial lift­­ ing in the Aztec economy. Navigable rivers are rare in the central high-

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

285

lands, which meant that the majority of the commodities in the Aztec empire moved between regions on the backs of human porters. Longdistance interregional exchange was largely in the hands of merchants who traveled from marketplace to marketplace bartering the manufactured goods that they carried for local commodities and raw ma­­terials. They relied on the principle of abundance to buy at low prices and on the principles of distance and scarcity to sell at a profit. Merchants absorbed the transportation costs to create profit differentials that allowed them to amass considerable material wealth. Merchants provided two important economic functions in the prehispanic economy. First, they procured high-value items such as feathers, jade, shell, gold, silver, amber, and other exotic raw materials that they could sell to craftsmen in Tenochtitlan and other centers to produce a wide array of wealth goods. Second, the Aztec state often demanded finished goods from tax/tribute provinces. These included both high-value goods, such as warrior costumes, goldwork, fine stone beads, and woven textiles, and goods that they could not easily produce locally because they lacked the natural resources to do so. Merchants also acted as agent intermediaries in the empire. Some provinces were required to supply resources or finished goods that were not locally available in their respective regions. In these cases they could either procure the resources themselves or contract with merchants to supply the resources in exchange for the goods that they could produce themselves. In this sense merchants entered the tax/tribute system as suppliers of goods at a profit (Hirth 2016). The community was another important institution that provided so­­ cial integration through material objects. As the most common setting for marketplaces, the community (cities, towns, and occasionally villages) was the setting where goods produced in domestic settings were aggregated to be sent off to other areas, as well as the locale where goods arrived from afar to be purchased and moved to individual households. In the Basin of Mexico and Morelos, communities typically corresponded to a calpolli. This was a corporate group consisting of households living near one another with common economic activities and social connec­ tions. In cities, calpollis constituted neighborhoods (Carrasco 1976; Reyes García 1996). A variety of community-level practices served to organize collective labor for community needs. For example, community labor in the form

286

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

of coatequitl was mobilized and used for ritual and state-related projects including the construction of temples, palaces, irrigation systems, and defensive fortifications or similar works. Smith’s archaeological fieldwork at Aztec communities in Morelos has documented many of these facilities, which he uses to reconstruct patterns of prosperity at the community level (Smith 2016). Subject provinces in the Aztec empire also had to produce goods required to meet tribute/taxation demands, and these would have been spread, evenly or unevenly, across the households within the domain. Where elite sponsorship was absent, communities could also collaboratively participate in joint production and sponsorship of communitylevel ritual events. Some phases of major public ceremonies took place at the calpolli level, under the leadership of calpolli elders (Berdan, chap. 5, this volume). The present-day pilgrimages undertaken in the Huasteca also have a community focus in terms of personal participation and pro­ duction of the rituals’ material necessities (see Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume). The economic approach that we advocate enables investigators to view participation in these social communities, at least in part, as economic transactions. The investments individuals made in these events, and the costs they incurred, reinforced their belief in the positive outcomes that the events provided. Through participation in these events, individuals and households forged and maintained effective relationships with the sociopolitical groups and spiritual forces that made up their world. An institution that was an exception to the household-based mode of production was the special workshop known as the totocalli, located in the Aztec capital of  Tenochtitlan, at or near the royal palace. As described by written sources (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 8: 45; bk. 9: 91), it was there that the Aztec tlatoani brought together the best artisans specifically to produce high-value prestige and ritual goods; these artisans included feather workers, goldworkers, silversmiths, coppersmiths, painters, “cutters of stones,” greenstone mosaic workers, and woodcarvers. The objects produced in the totocalli were special items that adorned the ruler, bedecked the gods, were offered as diplomatic gifts, and were used during major ritual events. These items included the elaborate regalia used in the dances and pageantry accompanying the ceremonies as well as an array of expensive items designated as gifts to high-ranking elites attending the

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

287

celebrations. The goods produced in the totocalli workshops, and their scale of production, depended on the type and scale of the celebrations (religious and political) for which the wealth items were provided. The totocalli was a state-sponsored workshop, and the goods produced there were not intended for commercial circulation. They either were used to adorn the ritual participants in the celebrations or were given away during the festivities as part of a large-scale gift-giving distribution. In this sense it was a special form of production under the guidance of the patron state, whereby the state provided the artisans with their raw materials. The actual organizational format for palatial artisans is not entirely clear, and two of the authors of this chapter have contrary opinions. Ken Hirth believes it is likely that these craftsmen worked in the totocalli but resided in their households located elsewhere in the city. Frances Berdan suggests the possibility that, for the feather workers at least, entire households may have been settled in a palatial com­pound (Sahagún 1950–82, bk. 9: 91). While this would have been expensive for the state (as Hirth rightly observes), it nonetheless would have maintained the internal division of labor in feather working, requiring inputs from males and females, children and adults (Berdan 2014: 108). Still, these are hypothetical scenarios, and we remain amicably divided on this (and Smith is dubious about these arguments in the absence of evidence).

Objects Continued to Play Similar Roles After the Spanish Conquest In keeping with the issues of this book, we ask “what can objects tell us about native life under Spanish rule?” Some of the chapters in this volume address native life after the Spanish conquest. These include a merchant cohort in eastern-central Mexico (Acxotla) and, pressing forward to the present day, cacao growers in Xoconochco and the Nahuas of the Huasteca in eastern Mexico. A perceptible theme is cultural tenacity and creativity under changing conditions. Objects appear as leading and supporting actors in a variety of colonialperiod sources. Historical archaeological investigations have uncovered Spanish and native objects (especially ceramics but also objects such as figurines and obsidian) in controlled contexts. Looking at objects,

288

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

whether found in excavations or wills, reveals that colonial life was a great deal more varied, more individualized, and less “cookie cutter” than of­ ten thought. The Spanish-Indian dichotomy for early colonial Mexico, while very real in many contexts, becomes rather blurred when viewed through the lens of objects. Spaniards living in different houses in Mexico City’s traza used Spanish-introduced majolica pottery alongside native ceramics, with no predictable pattern based on wealth, ethnicity, or social class—suggesting to Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría (2005: 47) that “there was not a set standard for displaying wealth in early colonial Mexico.” Thomas Charlton and colleagues (2005) see greater persistence of native ceramic traditions in rural than urban areas, and Deborah Nichols (2013) notes continuations through transformations of objects such as lapidary work and figurines at colonial Otumba. Additionally, Janine Gasco (1989: 314) finds that the locals in the distant Xoconochco region persisted in using pre-Spanish-style cooking and storage vessels while at the same time incorporating Spanish-style majolica pottery into their ceramic repertoire. These archaeological findings indicate household variations in selections of daily-life objects. Creativity in such decisions is also suggested by a closer look at two of the wills mentioned above: Juan Tellez passed on a green glass bottle, an axe, a lock, scissors, leather shoes, and white boots, while Juana Tiacapan possessed a metal-tipped digging stick. Material eclecticism appears to have been the order of the day. Looking forward in time, Janine Gasco (chap. 8, this volume) observes that some potters in the Xoconochco region continue to produce Late Postclassic– style ollas and comals. The impressive pilgrimages of the present-day Nahuas of the Huasteca (Sandstrom and Sandstrom, chap. 4, this volume) creatively incorporate objects from ancient through colonial to modern times: from handmade paper figures and tobacco to chickens and scissors to soft drinks and cookies. The lives of objects in colonial (and modern) times in many ways mirrored the lives of the same or similar objects in Aztec times. Yet of course there is more to all of this than just the objects themselves. Objects have contexts, and those contexts have undergone considerable changes over the past five hundred years, often transforming the ways objects are used and perceived. Still, in these chapters we see the continued significance of a variety of objects in production arrangements, trading scenarios, and

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

289

everyday consumption, and even as mediators between the natural and sacred worlds.

An Object-Based Perspective Has Numerous Benefits for Aztec Scholarship An object-based approach strengthens Aztec studies in several important ways. It does not ignore the value of texts and written sources but complements traditional historical approaches that dominated Aztec studies until the mid- to late twentieth century. A focus on objects helps integrate the different disciplinary strands of Aztec studies, bridging archaeology, art history, ethnohistory/history, and ethnography, as we illustrate with this volume. Because objects as “things” communicate in social, religious, and economic contexts, their study is not confined to technological or aesthetic approaches (Pasztory 2005: 11). We have little or no written documentation about most people of the Aztec world. Through objects, however, we can move beyond a normative institutional framework to document daily lives and the diversity— geographic, ethnic, economic, and social—of the Aztec world and the interactions that created it. Only a few decades ago we did not know that commoner, as well as noble, households in central Mexico consumed cacao on ceremonial occasions in fancy redware copas made in a potter’s household workshop and that they obtained both the pottery and the cacao beans from sellers in a marketplace. Objects were central to both Aztec and Spanish imperialism and their legitimation. Objects also document the resilience and eclecticism of households in the face of rapid political change. At many levels and in a variety of locales we have investigated how objects serve as valuable entrees into the complex structures and subtle nuances of the Aztec way of life. By extension, we hope to leave the reader with the thought that this object-centered approach has applications well beyond this one ancient society.

References Cited Berdan, Frances F. 2007. Material Dimensions of Aztec Religion and Ritual. In Mesoamerican Ritual Economy: Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by E. Christian Wells and Karla L. Davis-Salazar, 245–300. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

290

Kenneth G. Hirth et al.

———. 2014. Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Cambridge University Press, New York. Berdan, Frances F., Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. 2003. An International Economy. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 96–108. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Carrasco, Pedro. 1976. Estratificación social indígena en Morelos durante el siglo XVI. In Estratifiación social en la Mesoamérica prehispánica, edited by Pedro Carrasco and Johanna Broda, 102–17. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Castanzo, Ronald A. 2009. Ceramics on the Side: Pottery Making as an Augmentation of Household Economy in the Valley of Puebla During the Formative Period. In Housework: Craft Production and Domestic Economy in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth, 133–47. Archeological Papers 19. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Charlton, Thomas H., Cynthia L. Otis Charlton, and Patricia Fournier Gardía. 2005. The Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1450–1620: Archaeological Dimensions. In The Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Susan Kepecs and Rani T. Alexander, 49–64. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Durand-Forest, Jacqueline de, and Marc Eisinger, eds. 1998. The Symbolism in the Plastic and Pictorial Representations of Ancient Mexico: A Symposium of the 46th International Congress of Americanists, Amsterdam 1988. Bonner Amerikanistische Studien 21. Bonner Amerikanistische Studien, Bonn. Gasco, Janine. 1989. Economic History of Ocelocalco, a Colonial Soconusco Town. In Ancient Trade and Tribute: Economies of the Soconusco Region of Mesoamerica, edited by Barbara Voorhies, 304–25. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Gerring, John, Daniel Ziblatt, Johan van Gorp, and Julián Arévalo. 2011. An Institutional Theory of Direct and Indirect Rule. World Politics 63 (3): 377–433. Graulich, Michel. 1999. Fiestas de los pueblos indígenas: Ritos aztecas, las fiestas de las veintanas. Instituto Nacional Indígenista, Mexico City. Hirth, Kenneth G. 2016. The Aztec Economic World: Merchants and Markets in Ancient Mesoamerica. Cambridge University Press, New York. Knappett, Carl. 2012. Materiality. In Archaeological Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, 188–207. 2nd ed. Polity Press, Oxford, UK. Nichols, Deborah L. 2013. Merchants and Merchandise: The Archaeology of Aztec Commerce at Otumba, Mexico. In Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury, 49–84. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Wrapping Up Objects, Economy, and Empire

291

Overholtzer, Lisa, and Cynthia Robin, eds. 2015. The Materiality of Everyday Life. Archeological Papers 26. American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Pasztory, Esther. 2005. Thinking with Things: Toward a New Vision of  Art. University of  Texas Press, Austin. Reyes García, Luis. 1996. El término calpulli en documentos del siglo XVI. In Documentos nahuas de la Ciudad de México del siglo XVI, edited by Luis Reyes García, Celestino Eustaquio Solís, Armando Valencia Ríos, Constantino Medina Lima, and Gregorio Guerrero Días, 21–68. Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, Mexico City. Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique. 2005. Consumption and the Varied Ideologies of  Dom­ ination in Colonial Mexico City. In The Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: Archaeological Perspectives, edited by Susan Kepecs and Rani T. Alexander, 35–48. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Sahagún, Bernardino de. 1950–82. Florentine Codex: A General History of the Things of New Spain. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. 12 vols. School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM; University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Sergheraert, Maëlle. 2009. L’Expansion mexica (1430–1520 après J.-C.): La question du contrôle impérial dans les provinces extérieures de l’empire. PhD diss., Department of Archaeology, Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne. Smith, Michael E. 2003. Small Polities in Postclassic Mesoamerica. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, 35–39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. ———. 2016. At Home with the Aztecs: An Archaeologist Uncovers Their Domestic Life. Routledge, New York. Tilley, Christopher, and Wayne Bennett. 2004. The Materiality of Stone: Explorations in Landscape Phenomenology. Vol. 1. Berg, Oxford, UK.

Contributors

Frances F. Berdanis a professor emerita of anthropology at California State University, San Bernardino. She received her BA in geography from Michigan State University and her PhD in anthropology from the Uni­ versity of  Texas at Austin. Berdan has conducted research on the ancient Aztecs for over 45 years, applying multiple approaches (including ethno­ history, archaeology, ethnography, and linguistics) to unraveling broad aspects of Aztec culture, economy, social life, and imperial structure. She has authored or coauthored/coedited 13 books and more than 100 arti­ cles, including The Codex Mendoza (4 vols., coauthored with Patricia Anawalt, 1992); Aztec Imperial Strategies (coauthored with five other au­ thors, including Michael E. Smith and Emily Umberger of this volume, 1996); Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica (coauthored with five other authors, including Alan Sandstrom, Barbara Stark, and Emily Umberger of this volume, 2008); and The Postclassic Mesoamerican World (coedited with Michael E. Smith, 2003). Her most recent book is Aztec Archaeology and Ethnohistory (2014). Laura Filloy Nadalis a professor at the School of Conservation and a senior conservator at the Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City. She holds a BA in art conservation from the National School of Conser­ vation in Mexico and an MA and a PhD in archaeology from the Université Paris I–Sorbonne. She has been a guest researcher at Princeton University and at Dumbarton Oaks Research Library of Harvard University, as well as a guest professor at the Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza” and at the Sorbonne in Paris. She has collaborated on different archaeologi­ cal research projects. She specializes in studying manufacturing technology and applying archaeometric methods of material analysis to museum ob­ jects and artifacts. Her publications include Costume et insignes d’un gouvernant maya: K’inich Janaab’ Pakal de Palenque (1988); Misterios de un rostro maya: La máscara funeraria de K’inich Janaab’ Pakal de Palenque (2010); La Ofrenda 4 de La Venta: Un tesoro Olmeca reunido en el Museo Nacional de

294 Contributors

Antropología; Estudios y catálogo razonado (with Diana Magaloni, 2010); “El jade en Mesoamérica” in Arqueología Mexicana (2015); “Un excep­ cional mosaico de plumaria azteca: El tapacáliz del Museo Nacional de Antropología” in Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl (with Lourdes Navarijo Ornelas and Felipe Solís Olguín, 2007); and “Currents of Water and Fertile Land: The Feather Disk in the Museo Nacional de Antropología” in Images Take Flight (with Lourdes Navarijo Ornelas, 2015). Janine Gascois a professor of anthropology at California State Uni­ versity, Dominguez Hills. She received her PhD in anthropology at the University of California, Santa Barbara in 1987. For most of her career, Dr. Gasco has conducted research in the Soconusco region of Chiapas, Mexico, where she has excavated Late Postclassic and colonial period sites. She also has worked in archives in Mexico, Guatemala, and Spain. She has focused principally on economic issues for the Postclassic and co­ lonial periods. She also is interested in documenting long-term land-use practices in Soconusco and to that end has worked with contemporary farmers in the region in an effort to trace continuity and change from the Late Postclassic period to the present. Dr. Gasco is a coauthor of Postclassic Soconusco Society: The Late Prehistory of the Coast of Chiapas (with Barbara Voorhies, 2004) and Prehistoric Settlement on the South Pacific Coast of Chiapas, Mexico (with Barbara Voorhies and Paul Cackler, 2011) and is a coeditor of The Legacy of Mesoamerica: History and Cul­ture of a Native American Civilization, 2nd ed. (with Robert Carmack and Gary Gossen, 2007). She has published numerous articles in journals and ed­ ited volumes in the United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Spain, and En­ gland. Her research has been funded by the National Science Foundation, the Wenner-Gren Foundation, Fulbright, the H. John Heinz Fund, the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies Inc., and the CSUDH Office of Research, the College of Natural and Behavioral Sci­ ences, and the Center for Urban Environmental Research. Colin Hirthis a graduate student in the Viking and Medieval Norse Stud­ ies Program at the University of Iceland. Prior to attending the Uni­ver­ sity of Iceland he received undergraduate degrees in history and medi­eval studies as well as a minor in Spanish at Pennsylvania State Univer­sity. He has worked with the Joint POW/MIA Accounting Command at Hickam

Contributors 295

Air Force base in Honolulu, Hawaii, with the goal of recovering miss­ ing airmen from the Second World War. He worked for Seminary Ridge Museum in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, as a Civil War researcher in the National Archives in Washington, DC. His interests include the study of the medieval North Atlantic and early Middle Ages, the effect and pro­ gression of technology through history, the evolution and phenomenon of  warfare, early American history, manuscripts, and paleography. Kenneth G. Hirthis a professor of anthropology at Pennsylvania State University. He is an archaeologist and economic anthropologist inter­ ested in the comparative analysis of ancient economy. He is especially interested in issues of the domestic economy, the origin of craft produc­ tion, the role of the marketplace, and the structure of political econ­omy in the pre-Columbian world. He has authored, edited, and coedited eigh­ teen books on different aspects of Mesoamerican economy and political economy, including The Aztec Economic World (2016); Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World (2013); Housework: Craft Production and Domestic Economy in Ancient Mesoamerica (2010); Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient Central Mexico (2006); Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation (2003); and  An­ cient Urbanism at Xochicalco (2000). He is the recipient of the Chair­ man’s Award for Career Achievement in Archaeology by the National Geographic Society (2000) and the Excellence in Lithic Studies Award from the Society for American Archaeology (1998). He is currently con­ ducting active field research on the organization of prehispanic craft pro­ duction at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan and Teotihuacan, Mexico. Sarah Imfeldis a graduate of Pennsylvania State University with a major in anthropology and a minor in linguistics. She is primarily in­ terested in the interpretation of the historical and archaeological record in regard to European contact in the New World, particularly in central Mexico. In the future, Sarah hopes to expand on these interests by pursu­ ing graduate studies. María Olvido Moreno Guzmánis a graduate of the Escuela Nacional de Conservación, Restauración y Museografía, Instituto Nacional de Antro­ pología e Historia, Mexico. For her 1982 thesis, “Conservación de arte

296 Contributors

plumario mexicano,” she learned the art of mosaic featherwork from master artisan Gabriel Olay, who comes from a dynasty of feather work­ ers that goes back to the sixteenth century. She obtained the degree of maestra do museos from the Universidad Iberoamericana for her thesis “Encanto y desencanto: El público ante las reproducciones en los mu­­ seos.” This involved a public study of Motecuhzoma’s headdress in the Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico. She obtained her PhD in art history from the Universidad Autónoma de México for her dissertation “La reproductibilidad contemporánea del arte prehispánic,” which dis­ cusses the auratic environment of the headdress. From 2010 to 2012 she was part of a binational group of experts that was responsible for the study and restoration of this famous sixteenth-century object. In 2014 she prepared the scientific script for the documentary The Headdress of Moctezuma: Featherwork in Old Mexico, produced by TV UNAM. Currently she directs the project Mural Prehispanic Painting in Mexico, while simultaneously conducting research about feather working at the Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Mexico. Deborah L. Nicholsis the William J. Bryant 1925 Professor of Anthro­ pology at Dartmouth College. Her research in archaeology examines the development of agricultural economies, urbanism, and state formation. Nichols’s archaeological investigations span the beginnings of complex societies in the Formative period of central Mexico through the forma­ tion of the Aztec empire and early Spanish colonialism. She is the codi­ rector with Wesley Stoner (University of Arkansas) of the Altica Project, which is investigating craft specialization, exchange, and the development of early complex societies in central Mexico with support from the Na­ tional Science Foundation and the National Geographic Society. Among her edited books is the coedited Oxford Handbook of the Aztecs (2017). Her recent articles include “Teotihuacan” in the Journal of  Anthropological Research (2016); “Intensive Agriculture and Early Complex Societies of the Basin of Mexico” in Ancient Mesoamerica (2015); and “Civil Engi­ neering and Ceremonial Space at Teotihuacan, Mexico” in Human Adaptation in Ancient Mesoamerica: Empirical Approaches to Mesoamerican Archaeology (with Susan T. Evans, 2015). She has received both the So­ ciety for American Archaeology’s Distinguished Service Award and the American Anthropological Association’s President’s Award. Nichols is

Contributors 297

the current treasurer of the Society for American Archaeology and serves on its board of directors and is also the chair of Latino, Latin American, and Caribbean Studies at Dartmouth. Alan R. Sandstromis a professor emeritus of anthropology at Indi­ ana University–Purdue University, Fort Wayne (IPFW). A sociocultural anthropologist with interests in cultural ecology, cultural materialism, economic anthropology, history and theory of anthropology, Native Amer­ icans, religion, ritual, and symbolism, Dr. Sandstrom has conducted eth­ nographic field research among Tibetans in exile in Himachal Pradesh, India, and has worked for more than 45 years among the Nahua (presentday Aztec) people of northern Veracruz, Mexico. Prior to retiring from full-time teaching at IPFW in 2009, he served as chair of the Anthro­ pology Department and editor of the Nahua Newsletter from 1990 to 2011. He has published Traditional Papermaking and Paper Cult Figures of Mexico (with Pamela Effrein Sandstrom, 1986); Corn Is Our Blood: Culture and Ethnic Identity in a Contemporary Aztec Indian Village (1991 [added in 2010 to Yale University’s Human Relations Area Files database, eHRAF World Cultures, as a core text]); and Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica: The View from Archaeology, Art History, Ethnohistory, and Contempo­rary Ethnography (with Frances Berdan, John Chance, Barbara Stark, James Taggart, and Emily Umberger, 2008). Coedited works in­ clude Native  Peo­ples of the Gulf Coast of Mexico (with E. Hugo García Valencia, 2005); Mesoamerican Healers (with Brad Huber, 2001); and Holy Saints and Fiery Preachers: The Anthropology of Protestantism in Mexico and Central America (with James Dow, 2001). The Sandstroms are currently curating 850 color images along with vector drawings of sacred cut-paper figures for a multimedia monograph tentatively titled Pilgrimage in Contemporary Nahua Religion: The People of Amatlán Seek to Establish Order in a Diminishing World. Pamela Effrein Sandstromis an associate librarian emerita at Indiana University–Purdue University, Fort Wayne (IPFW). Currently the archi­ vist for the Central States Anthropological Society and the reference edi­ tor for the American Library Association’s Choice Reviews database, she is the former director of library programs and development at IPFW. She holds MLS and PhD degrees in library and information science from

298 Contributors

Indiana University, Bloomington, and has published in Library Quarterly, Scientometrics, and Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology. As an academic librarian and information social scientist, she has pioneered applying models from optimal foraging the­ ory to analyze scholarly information seeking in the specialty of human behavioral ecology. With Alan Sandstrom, she has written articles pro­ moting scientific anthropology and the emic/etic distinction for library and information science research. The Sandstroms’ ongoing collaboration in the anthropological study of a single community in northern Vera­ cruz, Mexico, has yielded publicly accessible archival collections of oral narratives held at the University of Texas’s Archive of the Indigenous Languages of Latin America and papers deposited in the Smithsonian Institution’s National Anthropological Archives. Michael E. Smithis a professor at the School of Human Evolution and Social Change at Arizona State University. He is an archaeologist with two research themes: the Aztecs and Teotihuacan in ancient central Mexico and comparative urbanism. He has directed fieldwork projects at sites in the provinces of the Aztec empire, including Calixtlahuaca, Yautepec, Cuexcomate, and Capilco. His fieldwork focuses on the exca­ vation of houses and the study of daily life. He has also conducted eth­ nohistoric research on the Aztec empire, urbanism, social inequality, and other economic and political topics. He has published six books and nu­ merous scholarly articles on the Aztecs; his books include At Home with the Aztecs: An Archaeologist Uncovers Their Daily Life (2016); The Aztecs (3rd ed., 2012); Aztec City-State Capitals (2008); and Aztec Imperial Strat­ egies (with Frances Berdan and others, 1996). Smith’s work on compa­ rative urbanism addresses questions of the sizes, forms, and social institu­ tions of cities throughout history and around the world, studied from a transdisciplinary perspective in collaboration with a variety of social sci­ entists. He has published numerous journal articles on this research. His research on Aztec cities and society informs his comparative research, and the transdisciplinary comparative perspective helps illuminate as­ pects of Aztec cities and urbanization. Barbara l. Starkis a professor emerita at the School of Human Evolu­ tion and Social Change, Arizona State University (she received her PhD

Contributors 299

from Yale University in 1974). Stark has published on archaeological topics including settlement patterns, urbanism, service facilities in cen­ ters, urban garden and open spaces, migration, ethnicity, subsistence, crafts, markets and exchange, economic growth, provincial strategies, the Olmecs, and culture change in south-central Veracruz, Mexico. A series of regionally oriented surveys and residential excavations in the western lower Papaloapan basin, Veracruz, and a residential project on the Pa­ cific coast of Guatemala contributed data for her research and that of students. Stark’s current research includes the ball game, the collapse of polities, and urban services; her monographic publications are focused on the Veracruz fieldwork. Emily Umbergeris a professor emerita of art history at the University of Arizona. Her main scholarly interests are the Aztecs and other pre­ hispanic cultures of central Mexico in the colonial and immediate pre­ hispanic periods. Focusing on sculptures, she studies Aztec ideas about the calendar, history, metaphor, and politics. Her most recent publica­ tions include “Matlatzinco Before the Aztecs: José García Payón and the Sculptural Corpus of Calixtlahuaca,” to appear in Ancient Mesoamerica (with Casandra Hernandez); and “Aztec Art in Provincial Places: Water Concerns, Monumental Sculptures, and Imperial Expansion,” in Altera Roma: Art and Empire from Mérida to Mexico (2016).

Index

Note: Page numbers in bold highlight major discussions; page numbers in italic are figures or tables Acapetahua, 229, 231, 234, 235–36 Acxotla. See Santa María Acxotla agriculture, 19–35, 89, 94, 199, 203, 280–81; and agroforestry, 221, 223, 239; and famines, 147; and storage, 32–33; and tools, 4, 131, 133; chinampa, 24–26; intensive, 20, 23–25, 123; irrigation or hydraulic, 22, 24; urban, 54. See also farming or farmers; horticulture Aguilera, Carmen, 73, 196 Ahuitzotl, 3–4, 97, 211–12, 214n5, 237 alcohol (aguardiente), 117 altars (tlaixpamitl, sing.): and adornments, 111, 114, 117; as models of exchange, cosmos, or milpas, 110, 115, 118, 124–25 altepetl. See city-states amaranth: dough figures, 135, 141, 147; seed, 134, 140, 143 Anania, Giovanni Lorenzo d’, 179–80 Anawalt, Patricia, 197 Appadurai, Arjun, 158 archaeology: case studies, 19–35, 44–62, 221– 40, 248–73; bridging disciplines in, 96, 195, 206, 278–82, 286, 287–89; regional/landscape approaches in, 12–13, 20. See also geography; land architecture or building construction: ded­ ication ceremonies, 150; palaces, 24, 45, 139, 140, 151, 169, 183, 198, 200, 286, 287; plazas, 45, 49, 52–53, 229, 284; styles, 5, 229; tem­ ples, 5–6, 26, 45, 50, 60, 130, 140, 142, 147, 148, 150, 151, 152, 203, 209, 211–12, 286. See also houses; political organization Archivo de Relaciones (Mexico City), 73 art history, 13, 44, 195–214, 278, 280, 289 artisans, 7, 130–53, 156–89, 286–87. See also goods or crafts availability heuristic, 121–22, 125 Aztec economy: and indigenous merchants, 68–98; and Mesoamerican world system,

21, 32, 51, 250; and Mexica religious per­ formance, 130–53; and sacred-secular value of goods, 170, 195–214; and surplus, 7, 25, 26, 31, 115, 281, 283–84; as moral or ritual economy, 22, 116, 195, 196, 199, 213n2; as object-based relationships, 3–13, 45, 98, 116, 130–31, 134–39, 143, 156–89, 195–214, 278–89; as ritual exchange, 105–26; as urban-population-market dynamics, 19–35, 44–62. See also center-periphery models; commerce; economics; goods or crafts; markets or marketplaces; merchants; tax/ tribute systems; value Aztec empire: boundaries, 6, 19, 32, 108, 130–32, 238; case studies, 19–35, 44–62, 248–73; defined, 5; economic relations, 3–13, 278–89; theoretical frameworks, 20– 23, 34–35, 44–46. See also Aztec economy; Basin of Mexico; imperialism; Mexica or Mexicas; Tenochtitlan; Tenochca empire; Triple Alliance Aztec society: and Late Postclassic Meso­ america (1350–1521 CE), 5–8, 44–62, 221– 40; and quality of life, 54; economic and sacred values of, 195–214; role of objects in, 12–13, 278–89. See also commoners; elites or nobles; households; kinship; po­ litical organization; population; social organization barrios (calpolli, sing.): 5, 8, 10, 53, 72–86, 95, 140–41, 144, 145, 146, 150, 285–86. See also city-states; households Basin of Mexico, 5, 19–35, 48, 51, 53–54, 69, 78–79, 96, 134–36, 147, 183, 200, 281, 284, 285; city-state capitals, 19; relations at the periphery, 21, 27, 47, 32, 214n6, 235, 248–73. See also Aztec empire; city-states; Tenochtitlan; Texcoco; Tlacopan

302 Index baskets, 12, 136, 137, 156, 179, 180, 181; carrying 81, 117 Baudez, Claude, 211–12 Berdan, Frances, 11, 13, 22, 32, 34, 118, 179, 195, 213, 238, 273, 279, 287 Bibliothèque Nationale (Paris), 73 biogenetic studies, 23 birds, 118, 134, 149, 165, 167, 171, 183, 236; or House of Birds (totocalli), 169, 183, 286–87. See also feathers or featherwork Blanton, Richard, 14n1, 21, 25–26, 28, 30, 32– 33, 47, 53, 61, 197, 213n2, 214n4, 214n6 blood, 110, 111, 117, 147, 200, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211–12, 213. See also sacrifice Bonampak, 225 Boturini, Lorenzo, 73 bounded rationality, 106, 119 Broda, Johanna, 214n6 bronze, 51, 55 Brumfiel, Elizabeth, 21 bundles: of arrows, 156; of paper, 114; maize, 117; sacred (tlaquimilolli ), 209 Burkhart, Louise, 214n3 cacao, 3, 32, 46, 68, 88, 95, 97–98, 221–40, 284, 287; ceremonial consumption, 224, 225, 227, 289; cultivation and production, 223–24, 226–27; origins, 239n2. See also chocolate; money calendar: Mexica monthly (veintena) cere­mo­ nial, 52, 130–53; Stone, 202. See also rituals or ritual practice canal systems, 221, 229; and canoe traffic, 230 capes, 98n1, 137–38, 146, 148, 149, 150, 197, 283 captives, 139, 145, 149, 152, 211. See also warriors Carballo, David, 22, 26, 47 carpenters, 98n7, 145, 152, 156; and wood­ working skills, 148 Catholic Church or Spanish Catholicism, 105, 116; saints, 117 center-periphery models: 46–47, 108, 110, 214n6, 250, 254, 256; and central place the­ ory, 21. See also Aztec economy; markets and marketplaces; political organization ceramic ware or pottery: Aztec, 12, 22, 29, 136, 137, 148, 248–73, 287–88; and craftspeople, ceramicists, or potters, 27, 82–84, 95, 152,

239, 288; and food preparation, storage, or serving, 3–4, 32–33, 260–63, 268–70; and market network or source studies, 26–33, 58; and stylistic assessment methods, 248– 49, 251–53; elite vs. commoner, 54, 55–56; kilns, 282; plain vs. fancy, 230–33; vessel types, 255. See also incense braziers or censers Cerda Zepeda, José, 111 ceremonies or ceremonial objects. See rituals or ritual practice Chalco, 27, 28, 30, 254, 255, 259, 261, 262, 263, 265, 267, 269–70 chanting, as bargaining, 110–11, 120, 125 Charlton, Thomas, 288 Chernykh, Evgenij, 32 Chibnik, Michael, 108 children: health of, 111; ritual roles or sacrifice of, 131, 133, 139, 143, 144; roles in craft man­ ufacture, 85, 180, 287 chocolate, 32, 117, 134–35, 141. See also cacao city-states (altepetl, sing.), 5–8, 19, 21, 33, 44– 62, 72, 79, 80, 85, 96, 97, 151, 280, 282. See also barrios; imperialism; political organ­iza­ tion; urbanism clothing, 3, 12, 117, 136, 137–38, 140, 197, 280. See also cotton; maguey; textiles; and specific items cochineal, 33, 88, 98 Codex Borbonicus, 206, 208 Codex Magliabechiano, 206, 207 Codex Mendoza, 79, 156, 161, 162, 183, 229, 239 collective action theory, 22, 34, 35, 47 commerce: case studies, 19–35, 44–62, 68–98, 221–40; defined as commercial exchange or commercialization, 8, 10, 21, 34–35, 45–46, 50–51, 198, 223; contracts in, 46, 68; trade routes, networks, or channels, 57, 58, 68, 71, 169, 189, 279. See also Aztec economy; eco­ nomics; goods or crafts; markets or market­ places; merchants; money; transportation; and specific trade goods commoners: as merchants, 33, 69, 78; as non­ elites, 60, 89, 90–91, 94, 151; compared to nobles or elites, 4, 7, 49, 53, 54, 56, 57, 60– 61, 87, 98n4, 152, 195, 197, 199, 253, 270, 284, 289; in Mexica ceremonies, 131, 133, 135,

Index 303 141–44, 150, 212; registry/census of, 73–75, 99n9. See also elites or nobles; households; political organization communication: among levels of Aztec society, 141, 213, 214n6; interregional, 50–51, 57, 260, 262, 273. See also commerce; transportation consumption: defined, 9, 123, 147, 283–84; meas­ures of production and, 22–23, 25, 32, 82, 84–85, 221, 224, 248, 279, 280; patterns, 12, 56, 230–31, 236–37. See also goods or crafts; households cooperation: as economizing behavior, 108, 115, 118, 124; as market strategy, 33, 47, 72, 282–83; intercraft, 170, 181. See also labor; markets or marketplaces Cortés, Hernán, 50, 72 cosmos, 34, 110, 112, 116, 124–25, 132, 213; and cosmological beliefs, 209. See also religion cotton: armor, 160; as currency (quachtli), 10, 46, 98n1, 283; crop or raw material, 25, 57, 135, 146, 147, 166, 183, 284; fibers or threads, 136, 137, 173, 175–76, 181, 187, 188; goods or cloth, 32, 148, 149, 169, 197, 225; paper, 171, 179. See also money; textiles Coyolxauhqui, 86, 201–4, 209, 212; Ded­ica­ tion Stone, 209–11 crafts. See goods or crafts crops, 25, 134, 239; and reducing failure or un­cer­tainty, 109, 110–11, 112, 121–25, 132. See also agriculture; foods; horticulture; and specific cultigens Culhuacan, 28 culture: and behavioral economics, as culturebound, 107–8; and tenacity, 5, 11, 287; change, 122; role of economy in, 106 dancing, 3, 118, 131, 133, 142, 143; array or at­ tire, 138, 151 de Vries, Jan, 62n3 death or mortality rates, 59, 77, 88–94, 96, 98n6, 211–12 Díaz del Castillo, Bernal, 225 disease, illness, or sickness, 78, 88–89, 94, 96, 105, 109, 111, 204 drought, 118, 121, 200; or weather uncertainty, 109, 115 Durán, Diego, 197, 214n4, 214n5 Dürer, Albrecht, 161

economics: and decision making, rational ac­ tors, or homo economicus, 9–10, 22, 106–7, 119–24, 238; and substantivist-formalist de­ bate, 9, 21, 106, 119; as maximizing utility, 9, 106, 119, 121, 281; behavioral, 8–9, 22, 34, 105–26, 95, 150; geographic, 21; neoclassical, 22, 106, 107, 115, 119–25. See also Aztec econ­ omy; rituals or ritual practice elites or nobles: and market revenues, 28, 31, 98; and merchants or craft specialists, 69, 73, 75, 77, 78, 85, 86, 87, 89, 97, 98n4, 184; and warfare, 35; as disrespectful, 121; as roy­ alty or interacting with rulers, 49, 53, 139; domestic inventories of, 54, 56, 224, 235–36, 251, 252, 253, 296, 207; hierarchy of, 3–4, 5, 7, 50, 60, 153, 199; honorary, 213; in Mexica ceremonies, 131, 133, 134, 141, 144, 151, 152; palaces or landed estates of, 24; powers or privileges of, 196, 199–200, 205; schools of, 200; wealth goods or regalia of, 160–61, 169, 195–96, 197, 200, 201, 212–13, 214n5, 281, 284, 286–87. See also commoners; politi­cal organization; social organization; sump­ tuary laws endowment effect, 122, 124, 125 environment, 8, 20, 21, 34, 107, 212, 223; and archaeology-environmental science collabo­ ration, 23; and ecological relations within nature, 106, 115, 189; and equilibrium, 112; and historical ecology, 23 ethnography, 13, 22–23, 105–26, 156, 195, 278, 289, 293 ethnohistory, 44, 130–53, 156–89, 278, 280, 289, 293 Evans, Susan, 21 evolutionary biology or behavioral ecology, 107 excrement or waste, 203 fairness, 124–25 Fane, Diana, 198 Fargher, Lane, 25–26, 32, 33, 47, 53, 61 farmin­g or farmers, 19–35; and labor ex­change, 124; and exploitation, 50; as oc­cu­pation, 4, 75, 77, 78, 87, 88, 95, 97, 109, 141, 281, 282; tenant, 24. See also agriculture; crops; horticulture; rent or renters feathers or featherwork, 3, 85, 98, 135–38, 144, 147–48, 149–50, 156–89, 236–38, 278, 280,

304 Index 284, 285; and feather workers (amanteca), 7, 81–82, 86, 138, 152, 156, 161, 168–69, 179, 180–84, 188–89, 286, 287; and feathered mo­ saics, 12, 147, 164, 172–78, 185–87; as en­ dowed with power, 195–97, 200, 203, 211, 212; quetzal, 12, 135, 137, 146, 149, 166–67, 196, 200. See also birds; workshops fire, ritual value of, 111, 131, 146, 197, 202, 204, 209 flowers, 3, 124, 131, 137, 142, 143, 144, 147; mari­gold (cempohualxochitl ), 110, 117, 135. See also rituals or ritual practice food: and fasting, 131, 133, 140, 143; and feast­ ing, 3–4, 120, 134–35, 144, 280; and food­ ways, 230, 239; and war, 35; as demonstra­ tion of  love or respect, 110; as ritual offering or gift, 106, 110, 111, 131, 135, 147; as social glue, 153; preparation and storage, 56, 71, 82, 136, 251, 260, 262, 272; supply or pro­ duction, 7, 23–25, 31, 51, 57, 68, 108, 134– 46. See also ceramic ware or pottery; crops Frederick, Charles, 24 game animals, 135, 147, 226 games, 4; in behavioral economics, 107–8, 124 Garraty, Christopher, 28, 250, 252, 254, 261, 262 Gasco, Janine, 271, 279, 288 geography, 5, 289; economic, 21. See also archaeology; land Gerring, John, 47, 280 gifts or gift exchange: 3–4, 7, 25, 106, 110–11, 112, 115, 124, 134, 135, 140–41, 144, 145, 146, 147, 149, 153, 168, 171, 188, 198, 209, 213n1, 280, 286–87; buried, 150; marriage, 225; regifting, 143. See also offerings glues, 84, 135, 138, 147–48, 165, 169, 171, 179, 181, 182 gold (teocuitlatl ), 3–4, 98n1, 137–38, 144, 146, 156–89, 195–214, 225, 285; and goldsmiths (teocuitlachiuiqui), 85, 86, 156, 169, 181–82, 286 goods or crafts, 130–53, 156–89; and elite vs. commoner household production, 54–57, 280–87; and merchant-craftsmen relation­ ships, 68–98, 282–83, 285; and occu­pa­ tional/professional categories of production,

7, 75, 77–78, 83–84, 86–87, 139–46, 152, 199; and raw materials for manufactured ob­jects, 4, 32, 130, 132, 134–39, 147, 150, 157–58, 166–67, 168–84, 189, 280, 283, 284, 285, 287; as valued objects of wealth, 195–214; disposition of, 146–50; exotic, 130, 150, 183, 195–96; in native wills, 12, 288; movement, trade, import, or circulation of, 4, 28, 32, 51, 54, 58, 68, 95–98, 105, 183–84, 189, 223, 229, 230, 236, 248; public, 47, 50, 53, 62n2; specialized workshops, 168–84; utilitarian/ common vs. luxury, 7, 12, 32, 33, 95, 132, 136, 156, 169, 170–71, 182, 197–98, 201, 279. See also Aztec economy; commerce; households; markets or marketplaces; merchants; workshops; and specific goods or crafts grass, 135; ball (zacatapayolli), 206, 208; 209, 211 greenstone, 51, 98n1, 137–38, 148, 201, 210; and true jadeite or jade, 85, 98, 98n1, 195–200, 204, 206, 208, 209, 211, 212, 214n4, 285; de­ fined as social jade, 196; lapidary work, 33, 85, 169, 176, 178, 181, 288; masons or stone­ workers, 83–84, 85, 98n7, 286; or precious stones, 3, 137, 144, 156, 162, 169, 238. See also goods or crafts Guerrero, 35 Gulf Coast lowlands, 6, 25, 108, 126n1, 236, 238, 248–73, 280 Hassig, Ross, 32 Hernández, Francisco, 227 hindsight bias, 121, 125 Hirth, Kenneth, 20, 33, 287 Hodge, Mary, 26, 262 holism, 107 Hooft, Anuschka van ’t, 111 horticulture: slash-and-burn, 108–9, 123–24; and milpas, 115, 124, 239. See also agri­cul­ ture; farming or farmers households: and domestic economy or inven­ tory, 25–26, 45, 53–57; and domestic producersellers (tlachiuhqui), 281; and ritual strategies or investments, 115, 130; and specialized occupations, 68–98, 156; as basic social/ economic unit, 5, 9–10, 19–35, 78, 278–89; polygynous or monogamous, 7; women as vital to, 283. See also Aztec economy; Aztec

Index 305 society; goods or crafts; kinship; women; workshops houses: of Spaniards, 288; of  wealthy, 144, 152; repair or sweeping of, 131, 143; urban vs. rural, 45, 53–54, 55–56 Huasteca region (Veracruz), 105, 122 Huemac, 200–201, 209 Huexotzinco province. See Matrícula de Huexotzinco Huitzilopochtli, 197, 201–4, 212, 214n4; image of, 141; temple of, 140–41 human body: and anthropomorphism, 109– 10; and cut-paper figures or ceramic fig­ urines, 30, 109–10, 117, 235–36, 287–88; as key symbol, 110 Ichcacuatitla, Chicontepec (Veracruz), 113–14, 117, and Postectli sacred mountain, 105, 112–16, 118, 121, 125. See also pilgrimage or peregrination iconographic analysis, 112; motifs, 165, 168 imperialism: case studies, 19–35, 44–62, 248–73; defined in terms of objects, 45, 289. See also Aztec empire incense: braziers or censers, 117, 136, 146, 148, 235–36, 255, 259, 263–65, 270; copal, 4, 111, 117, 135, 147, 150, 211 intertemporal choice, 123, 125 investments: economic, 46, 111, 139, 271; labor, 148, 228, 229; landesque, 24; religious or rit­ ual, 3, 111, 123–25, 130, 141, 150–53, 286; social-emotional, 61. See also Aztec econ­ omy; rituals or ritual practice Izapa (Chiapas), 223, 228, 240n3 jade or jadeite. See greenstone jaguar: bones, 211; skins, hides, or pelts, 137, 138, 146, 175, 183, 236 Kellogg, Susan, 24 kinship, 5, 111. See also households Klein, Cecelia, 203, 211–12 Kohl, Philip, 32 Kopytoff, Igor, 158, 198–99, 213n1 labor: and mutual aid networks, 10; as com­ modity, 34, 46; as sunk cost, 120; as ritual transaction or investment, 123–24, 125,

148, 151; collective (coatequitl  ), cooperative (  faena), or community-level, 22, 47, 111, 181, 285–86; control of, 4, 6, 7, 10; division of, 287; exchange (mano vuelta), 111, 124; service, 97; to land ratios, 50; wage, 62n1. See also households; investments; slaves; tax/tribute systems land: as rural vs. urban landscape, 50, 61; as sacred landscape, 110, 112, 120; erosion, 23– 24; use or ownership, 5–7, 23–26, 34, 46, 60, 62n1, 75, 86–87, 88–94, 98, 99n9, 223, 281. See also archaeology; geography; labor; urbanization Levi, Margaret, 47 Leyenda de los Soles (1558), 200 Lockhart, James, 24, 62n1 López Luján, Leonardo, 14n1, 150, 197 López Austin, Alfredo, 110, 111 Lupo, Alessandro, 111,123 Maffie, James, 109, 125, 126n3 maguey: as commoner clothing, 136, 197; capes, 149; fiber, 33, 148, 149–50, 180, 181, 188; plants or roots, 135, 141, 169, 179; ter­ races, 23; thorns, as sacrificial knives, 146, 147, 204, 206, 207, 211; workshops, 33. See also clothing; textiles maize, 24, 134, 141, 144; bundles, 117; tortillas, 24, 143 markets or marketplaces: and commercial vs. ritual exchange, 125; and enterprising households, 281; and factors fostering commercial exchange/trade across socialpolitical/core-peripheral boundaries, 21, 33, 45–46, 228–29, 250; and moral econ­ omy, 213n2; and name Tianquiztenco, 98n5; as hierarchical or interlocking, 30, 33, 46, 230, 265, 272–73; as lifeblood of Mesoamerican economy, 34; as neutral port of trade, 237; as source of ceremonial goods, vs. tribute channels, 132, 150–51, 153, 198, 284; as source of taxes, 28, 31, 52; ethnohistorical case study of, 68–98; glyph, 81; operations of, and commerce, 44–62; theoretical understanding of, as system, 3–13, 19–35, 278–89. See also commerce; households; merchants; tax/tribute systems; Tlatelolco

306 Index marriage: alliances, 60; gifts, 225; or inter­ marriage, 253; polygyny vs. monogamy, 7. See also households Martyr de Angleria, Petrus 161 Matrícula de Huexotzinco (1560), or Huexotzinco province, 68–98 Mauss, Marcel, 213n1 Mayas, 5, 196, 225, 226; K’iche’, 238; Mam, 221 McAnany, Patricia, 116 men: and military expeditions, 8; and training of  boys, 5; as merchants or buyers, 33, 71; ceremonial roles for males, or sacrifice of, 133, 140–41, 143–44. See also warriors merchants: and travel, 33, 88–89, 96, 282, 285; as commoners or nobles, 4, 7, 69, 73–75, 78, 87, 98n4, 99n9; as corporate group vs. independent agents, 68, 79, 95, 237, 285; as professional or part-time occupation, 7, 10, 45–46, 132, 169, 213, 248, 281; glyph, 75, 81, 199; in Acxotla enclave, 12, 68–98, 282; in Otumba obsidian workshop, 33, 35; itinerant peddler (tlacôcoalnamacac), 25, 26, 82, 83, 284; long-distance ( pochteca or otzemeca), 8, 25, 33, 59, 69, 70–72, 85, 96–97, 237, 285; regional (tlanecuilo), 25, 26, 70; rituals with bathed slaves, 133, 139, 140, 145, 151, 152, 153. See also commoners; elites or nobles; markets or marketplaces metal or metalwork, 137, 175, 178, 181, 228, 235, 236, 288; and metallurgy, 196; appliqués, 164; bells, 117, 138, 161. See also gold; silver Mexica or Mexicas: artisans of  luxury goods, 156–89; defined, 5; naming ceremony, 156; religious performance, 130–53. See also Aztec empire; Tenochtitlan; Tlatelolco; Triple Alliance migration: from Basin of  Mexico or highlands, 270, 252, 254, 270, 272; of Chichimecas, Mexicas/Aztecs, or Nahuatl speakers, into Basin of  Mexico, 5, 48, 209, 214n4; ruralto-urban, 51, 59; study of, 23 Minc, Leah, 26, 28, 30–31 Mixtecs, 5, 105, 225; and Mixteca Alta, 53; and Mixteca-Puebla style, 231, 233 Mixtequilla region (Veracruz), 248–73 modularity, 110 Monaghan, John, 105, 111, 126n3 money, 4, 10, 45–46; and cacao, as currency, 46, 224–28; and cotton, as currency, 46, 57,

98n1, 225, 283; as monetary outlay, reusable vs. consumable good, 116–18, 119–20, 122. See also commerce Monte Albán, 248 Morehart, Christopher, 24 Morelos, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 57, 58, 224, 285–86 Motecuhzoma I, 214n5 Motecuhzoma II (Moctezuma), 146, 214n5; and cacao, 225; headdress, 296; treasury, 138; weapon, 189 Museo Nacional de Historia (Mexico), 162, 206, 210 music or musicians, 117, 120, 133, 139, 141, 145; and musical instruments, 136, 137, 144, 146, 148 Nahuas, 5, 22, 34, 279; Gulf coast, 126n1; Huastecan, 105–26, 287, 288 Nahuatl language speakers, 5, 25, 48, 70, 108, 272, 281; and census records or glyphs, 70, 74–75, 76, 79, 85, 86; and wills, 12; or Nahua/Pipil languages, 221–22, 238, 239 Nanahuatzin, 204, 212 neutron activation analysis (NAA), 26–27, 31 Nichols, Deborah, 13, 273, 288 Nuttall, Zelia, 162 objects: and object-based approach, 3–13, 278–89; and ownership, as commodi­ tized, 25, 34, 198–99; as alienable vs. inalienable, 149, 160, 198–99, 200; as endowed with sacred-secular power, 195–214. See also goods or crafts; and specific commodities obsidian: blade makers or craftsmen, 82, 83– 84, 95; jewelry, 236; knives, 4; manufacture or production, 22, 55, 171, 173–75, 181, 184, 278; mirrors, 209; sacrificial contexts of, 136, 148; source studies of, 26, 31–33, 35, 234–35, 240n7; trade, 197 offerings: consumed vs. reused or renewed, 117, 146–50; Mexica calendrical, as sacred debt payments, 130–53; Nahua pilgrimage, as economic exchange, 105–26. See also gifts; rituals or ritual practice Ohnersorgen, Michael, 252 Olivier, Guilhem, 209 opportunity costs, 89, 116, 118, 122, 130, 134, 150–51

Index 307 orchid: adhesive or mucilage, 169, 173–75, 180; bulbs, 179 Ostrom, Elinor, 47 Otomís, 111, and towns, 21 Otumba, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 84, 288 paints, 55, 135, 147, 269; and painted body adornment, 138, 144, 201, 203, 214n3; and painted ceramics, 27, 231, 233, 258, 259, 266, 268, 269; and painters (tlacuiloque, sing.), 156, 169, 286 paper, 55, 131, 147, 164, 173, 177, 207–8; adorn­ ments, 117, 136, 137, 146, 148; and bark-paper painters, 169, 179; and blood, 110; and feather­ work, 179–83; and papermakers or craftsmen, 83–84, 85, 96, 99n8, 152; and rubber, 147, 150; as medium for depicting spirits as anthropo­ morphic figures, 109–10, 112, 114, 117, 118, 124, 288; as prehispanic or colonial com­ mod­ity, 85; as tribute, 136; cotton, 171, 179; sacrificial sashes, loincloths, wigs, or vest­ ments, 149–50 Parsons, Jeffrey, 261, 262 Pastrana, Alejandro, 26 pilgrimage or peregrination, 22, 105–26, 271, 286, 288; Nahua provisions for, 116, 117, 118 Polanyi, Karl, 9–10, 34 political organization: and autocraticcollective scale of governance, 47, 53; and civic or state functions of marketplaces, plazas, or public goods, 49–50, 51, 52–53, 62n2, 279; and indirect control or rule, 46–47, 60, 280; and power of kings, rulers, dynasties, or polities, 3, 7, 34, 49, 50, 52, 151, 271; and ruler (tlatoani ), 7–8, 183, 237, 286; and sacred or supernatural powers, 195–200, 209, 212–13; and symbols of rulership, 200– 6; and top-down administration, 9–10. See also Aztec society; center-periphery models; city-states; sumptuary laws population: and settlement patterns, 20–21, 22; density, 48, 62n3, 284; increase or growth, 7, 23, 25, 32, 34, 44–62; loss or depopula­ tion, 11, 24, 31, 88–94, 227, 249; of  Tenoch­ titlan, 33, 130. See also Aztec society; urbanism Prem, Hanns, 73 present bias, 123 priests, types of, 146

productive activities. See Aztec economy; crops; farmers or farming; goods or crafts; households; and specific cultigens or products profits, 46, 70–71, 95, 97, 285. See also tax/ tribute systems prosperity, 52, 54, 59, 87, 111, 287; as sub­ver­ sive, 46; measures of, 57 protection, 57; rackets, 60, 62n5; shields, 162 Protestantism, 109, 116, 122 psychology, 106, 107, 120, 124, 278 Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley or Valley of Puebla, 53, 69, 79, 96, 252, 272. See also Santa María Acxotla pulque, 131, 134, 141, 144, 145, 152 rain or rainfall, 23, 50, 115, 131, 132, 180, 221. See also Tlaloc rational choice theory. See economics rattles, 117; 136, 148, 189 Rattray, Evelyn, 254, 268 religion: and god concept (teotl or totiotsij), 109, 112, 125, 131, 132; and pantheism, 109, 125, 126n3; as political agenda, 3–8, 9, 11, 20, 151, 195, 199, 284; as public good, 50; Mexica, 130–53; Nahua, 105–26. See also cosmos; rituals or ritual practice; spirit entities or spirit world rent or renters (terrazgueros), 75, 87, 89, 92–93, 94. See also farming or farmers respect, 71, 110, 124; and disrespect, 121, 214 revitalization movements, 116 rituals or ritual practice: behavioral economics of  Nahua, 34, 105–26; defined as “to put down flowers” (xochitlalia), 25, 105–6; eco­ nomic dimensions of Mexica, 130–53; edu­ cation, 141, 151; material or nonmaterial costs of, 138–39, 151; objects of domestic use in, 4, 228, 235–36, 253, 259, 263–65; objects of  wealth in, 3, 22, 26, 143, 195–215; paper cutting in, 109–10; public ceremonies and state-sponsored, 8, 53, 130, 141, 151, 152, 162, 212–13, 279, 284, 286, 287; reciprocity in, 9, 111–12, 116, 132, 145, 153; roles of participants in, 139–46; roles of ritual specialists (tla­ma­ tiquetl, sing.) in, 109–11, 114, 116, 117, 122. See also calendar; gifts; offerings; paper; religion Robbins, Lionel, 106 Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique, 31–32, 288

308 Index rubber, 135, 147, 149, 150 Ruvalcaba Sil, José Luis, 14, 197 sacrifice: animal, 110, 118, 131, 135, 147; as auto­ sacrifice, 146, 206, 207, 211–12; as gladia­ torial battle, 133, 145, 149; as sacred debt pay­ment, 132, 138, 211; human, 3, 130–53, 200, 211. See also blood; warriors Sahagún, Bernardino de, 31, 69, 81, 85, 95, 171, 179, 237; and Florentine Codex, 68, 70–72, 142, 156, 166–67, 169, 180, 183, 201, 203–4, 214n4 salt or brine, 98, 135, 259; and salt people, 145 saltpeter, 172–74 Sanders, William, 20, 24, 82 Sandstrom, Alan, or Pamela Effrein Sand­ strom, 14, 22, 34, 133, 152, 195, 213, 279 Santa María Acxotla (Puebla), 12, 68–98, 281, 282, 287 Santley, Robert, 82, 250 scaling: concept, in rituals, 110; theory, of set­tle­ments, 22, 48 Scheidel, Walter, 20, 35 Ségota, Dúrdica, 198 shells, 135–38, 141, 146, 148, 150, 176–78, 189, 205, 285 shields (chimalli, sing.), 156–89. See also feath­ ers and featherwork; warriors shrine (xochicali), 113, 117, 140, 203 silver, 98n1, 166, 175, 178, 285; and silversmiths, 286 Skoglund, Thanet, 266, 273 slaves or slavery: and slave-bathers, 153; as pun­ ishment, 7; as source of indigenous wealth, 98n1; as sacrificial victims, 139, 140–41, 144, 145, 152; trade in, 8, 34, 98 Smith, Adam, 9 Smith, Michael, 11, 21, 32, 273, 279 social organization: and economic sphere, 9, 105; and exploitation, 50; and social affil­ iation or interactions, 248, 251, 253, 270; and social class, 33, 288; and social com­ plexity, 223, 224; and social exchange, 105, 111–12, 115, 116; and social history, 20; and social life of objects, 158, 171; and social processes, analyzed in objects, 278–89; as hierarchical or stratified, 7, 79, 95, 146;

of  Mexica/Aztec society, 3–8, 133, 152, 153, 195–200, 212. See also Aztec society; commoners; elites or nobles; households; sumptuary laws Soconusco region (Tehuantepec, Chiapas), 221– 40, 271. See also Xoconochco (Soconusco), Late Postclassic songs or singing, 3, 131, 133, 136, 141, 142, 152; or House of Song (cuicacalli), 141 soul capture, 111 Spanish conquest, 11–12, 49, 57, 68, 70, 72, 78, 98n1, 278, 281, 287–89; or colonial pe­ riod, 30, 31–32, 34, 88, 95, 96, 97, 224, 226, 227, 239; and Spaniards, 161, 189, 288 spirit entities or spirit world: Nahua, 105–26, 286; color and luminosity of, 198; portrayal of, in cut paper, 110. See also paper; religion; rituals or ritual practice Staats Museum (Württemberg), 159, 160, 161 Stark, Barbara, 6, 61, 254, 279 sumptuary laws, 195–96, 197, 212, 214n5 Sun: agriculture, 223; altar, 114; birth of, 204, 211–2; offerings, 125, 206, 211; symbols, 196, 197, 201, 202–4 sunk costs, 34, 120, 125, 134, 150, 151 Szuter, Christine, 14 Taggart, James, 110 Tarascans, 6, 248 tax/tribute systems: and feathered-goods trade, 160, 183; and Gulf lowland, Teotihuacan, Tenochtitlan ceramic trade, 250; and Isth­ mus of  Tehuantepec cacao trade, 223–24, 225, 226, 236, 237, 238; and Puebla mer­ chants, as agent intermediaries, 68–98, 285; and tribute cadres (tlaxilacaltin), 73, 75, 78, 82, 97, 98n6; as source of  Tenochtitlan wealth, 130–53; as state/fiscal payments of money and goods, 4, 7, 10–11, 20, 25, 28, 31, 34, 35, 52, 57, 58–59, 60, 62n4, 279–80, 282, 283, 285, 286; as supplying noncommodity gifts/rewards vs. market commodities, 22, 198–99, 284. See also Aztec economy Tecuciztecatl, 204, 212 Templo Mayor, 22, 59, 150, 201, 202, 206, 211 Tenochtitlan, 130–53, 156–89; agriculture, crops, or foods, 24, 25, 26; at center of Te­­ nochca empire, 53, 169, 182, 183, 195, 209;

Index 309 calendrical ceremonies, 131, 195, 214n6; ceramics or earthenware, 27, 30–32; lan­ guages, 238; markets or merchants, 54, 82, 85, 132, 285; palace complex, 3, 169, 286; trade interactions, 237, 250; urban/city-state population, 5–6; 44, 45, 47, 51, 58–59, 130. See also Aztec empire; Basin of  Mexico; citystates; Tlatelolco, Triple Alliance Teotihuacan, 5; collapse of, 24, 28; ceramics, 27, 28, 30, 248–73; sun sacrifices, 204, 211 terraces (metepantlis), 23–24, 35 Texcoco, 5–6, 24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 235, 255, 257, 259, 260, 263, 264 textiles, 55, 161, 177–78, 186, 283–85; agave, 173; cotton, 10, 46, 54, 57, 98n1, 136, 137, 173, 181, 283; maguey, 136; silk, 88; spinning or spinners or, 136, 152; striped, 79; weaving or weavers of, 7, 133, 149, 151, 152; women as producers and sellers of, 71, 283, 284. See also clothing; cotton Thaler, Richard, 106–7, 119, 121, 123, 124 Tizoc, 211, 212 Tlacopan, 5, 6 Tlaloc, 200; fire priest, 146; mask, 238 Tlatelolco market, 8, 31, 59, 69, 70, 71, 132, 134, 137, 183, 224 Tlaxcallans, 6, 72, 248; or Tlaxcala, 12, 53, 47, 53, 69, 72, 96, 226, 252, 272 tobacco, 3, 84, 110, 117, 134–35, 148, 211, 225, 284, 288; or tobacco tube makers, 83–84 Toltecs, 28, 48, 197, 200 Torquemada, Juan de, 179, 209 trade. See commerce rransportation, 33, 46, 68, 81, 84, 188, 279, 285; and human porters, 7, 71, 285; and travel risks, 96; routes or road systems, 109, 221, 228 Triple Alliance, 6, 19, 22, 24, 25, 33, 34, 57–58, 72, 132, 221, 237, 248–49, 251, 271–73. See also Aztec empire turquoise (xihuitl ), 195–97, 201, 212; mask, 137, 204, 205; mosaic ear plugs, 138, 146; serpent (xiuhcoatl ), 197, 202–3 Tuxtla mountains, 250 urbanism, 19, 21–22, 32, 34, 44–62, 283; and provincial economic interactions, 45, 53, 57, 59–60, 70, 183, 184, 231, 237, 238, 251, 253,

272, 279, 280, 285, 286; and urbanization, as urban place or center, 47–48, 59, 62n3, 79. See also city-states; population utility: as satisfaction or happiness, 119; tran­s­ actional vs. acquisition, 22, 119–20, 125, 130, 134, 150–52; measures of, 279 value: and economic-sacred conflict, 195–214; and moral economy, 198–99, 213n2; as ac­ quired through production process, 170–71, 184, 188; as calculation of costs, 116, 120; as demonstration of sacred power, 212–13; as dominant-class propaganda, 212; as eco­ nomic interaction, 8–11; as equal or correct price, 71; as reward in human-spirit tran­sac­ tion, 125. See also Aztec economy; goods or crafts; religion Veracruz: northern, 105–26; south-central, 248–73; tributary towns, 235 wage labor, 62n1 Warren, David, 98n3 warfare or military conquest, 3, 6, 8, 97, 35, 131, 159–60, 238, 248, 271–72, 273; and military school (telpochcalli), 5, 26 warriors, 3, 7, 133, 140–41, 142, 144–46, 152, 153, 156, 161, 198, 199, 201, 203, 212–13, 214n3; and costumes, devices, insignia, or regalia, 137, 146, 147, 148–49, 156–89, 280, 285. See also captives; warfare or military conquest water: altar, pot, or gourd, 117, 118; and com­ merce, 230; and irrigation or diversion, 24; for sacrifice or in exchange, 111, 125, 140, 200; realm, 110; rulers (dueños), 109; spirits, 112; symbolism, 196. See also agriculture; rituals or ritual practice weapons, 3, 35, 56, 137, 162, 189, 272; atlatl, 197, 202, 203; workshops, 26 Weiner, Annette, 198, 213n1 Wells, E. Christian, 116 Weltmuseum (Vienna), 158, 161 women: and motherhood, 144; and pilgrimage, 118; and warrior prowess, 214n3; as widows, 88; as wives or midwives, 7, 133, 145; ceremonial roles for females, or sacrifice of, 131, 133, 136, 140–41, 142–44, 147, 149, 150; deities, 161; in domestic economy or

310 Index markets, 33, 71, 283, 284; in hierarchical society, or division of  labor, 7, 287; insignia of, 156; physicians, 145 workshops: archaeological analysis of, 22, 180; object-based analysis of, 289; palace or state-sponsored, 26, 169, 183–84, 197–98, 286–87; types of, 26–28, 33, 35, 168–84. See also feathers or featherwork; goods or crafts; greenstone; households; and specific materials

Xaltocan, 21, 24, 26, 32, 57 Xoconochco (Soconusco), Late Postclassic, 183, 221–40, 287, 288. See also Soconusco region Yautepec Valley (Morelos), 51, 52, 54, 55–56, 59–60, 62n3 Zorita, Alonso de, 79, 95

Amerind Studies in Anthropology Series Editor Christine Szuter Trincheras Sites in Time, Space, and Society Edited by Suzanne K. Fish, Paul R. Fish, and M. Elisa Villalpando Collaborating at the Trowel’s Edge: Teaching and Learning in Indigenous Archaeology Edited by Stephen W. Silliman Warfare in Cultural Context: Practice, Agency, and the Archaeology of  Violence Edited by Axel E. Nielsen and William H. Walker Across a Great Divide: Continuity and Change in Native North American Societies, 1400–1900 Edited by Laura L. Scheiber and Mark D. Mitchell Leaving Mesa Verde: Peril and Change in the Thirteenth-Century Southwest Edited by Timothy A. Kohler, Mark D. Varien, and Aaron M. Wright Becoming Villagers: Comparing Early Village Society Edited by Matthew S. Bandy and Jake R. Fox Hunter-Gatherer Archaeology as Historical Process Edited by Kenneth E. Sassaman and Donald H. Holly Jr. Religious Transformation in the Late Pre-Hispanic Pueblo World Edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Scott Van Keuren Crow-Omaha: New Light on a Classic Problem of Kinship Analysis Edited by Thomas R. Trautmann and Peter M. Whiteley Native and Spanish New Worlds: Sixteenth-Century Entradas in the American Southwest and Southeast Edited by Clay Mathers, Jeffrey M. Mitchem, and Charles M. Haecker Transformation by Fire: The Archaeology of Cremation in Cultural Context Edited by Ian Kuijt, Colin P. Quinn, and Gabriel Cooney Chaco Revisited: New Research on the Prehistory of Chaco Canyon Edited by Carrie C. Heitman and Stephen Plog Ancient Paquimé and the Casas Grandes World Edited by Paul E. Minnis and Michael E. Whalen

Beyond Germs: Native Depopulation in North America Edited by Catherine M. Cameron, Paul Kelton, and Alan C. Swedlund Knowledge in Motion: Constellations of Learning Across Time and Place Edited by Andrew P. Roddick and Ann B. Stahl Rethinking the Aztec Economy Edited by Deborah L. Nichols, Frances F. Berdan, and Michael E. Smith