~IOS DE CULTURA NAHUATL

lestales doncellas Esta ~ la noche y a la salida ~s de) templo y hecho ~n los altares ~n austera gastaban los iexclUe gustaban sus padres ~ narracioacuten he andado ~istoria sino de un coshy~de sus principios haacutebishyiexcllo que pueden serlo los ando lo supersticioso y I maacutes reglados y obsershyiexcl

iacutes de nuestro ms acostumshyni nada al convento de San 1 Academia de la Historia iexclestro estudio) Estaacute eacuteste a te paacuterrafo y su texto es a en los fols 137 rO -142 rO

James Robert Moriarty THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE A COMPARISON BETWEEN PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTIONISTS AND OTHER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS

It is fortunate for the researeher that the Aztecs possess sueh a strong historical eonseiousness that they reeorded the historical events of eaeh year by day month and hour Therefore the earliest sourees on the eondition of the Aztee state in the preshyeonquest era are derived from the writings of the Aztees themshyselves These historical doeuments extend far back into the past and delve deeply into the traditions eustoms and religions of the Nahua people It was the great leader Itzcoatl who was the fourth ruler and aetually the first great Aztee eonqueror to whom we are indebted for many of the surviving pieees of data His purshypose however was not one whieh historians would approve In the earliest known doeuments the Aztees were assigned a rather seeondary role Under the rule of Itzcoatl however the entire aceumulation of historieal manuseripts were burned for it conshytaineth many falsehoods (Anderson and Dibble 1954 p 191) Itzcoatl was a great statesman as well as a warrior of renown At the beginning of his reing he had Aztee history rewritten to eonform with the multiple viewpoints of religious imperialism and nationalism which he favored In the proeess of the rewriting of the history of the Nahua peoples the position of the Aztees was changed to oneof ascendency The new histories demonstrated that the Aztees were the oldest and certainly the most illustrious families in the land It was the purpose of Itzcoatl to have t1e new histories stress the notion that the Aztees were a superior people destined to rule over all others (Caso 1954 p i5-27 Covarrubias 1957 p 316 Leoacuten-Portilla 1963 p 154 155 160-161)

Any attempt on the part of the investigator to reeonstruet an aceurate picture of the government of the Aztec peoples and Mexishyco City partieularly that period whieh coincides with the arrival

258 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

of the Europeans will find rumself in deep water It has been observed that even as late as today the Indian of today still arms himself with dubious response and an inert attitude before the most simple question about his daily life For him the racial pact of silence before the wrute invader is still valid (Noriega 1959) Presently we are left only with the obviously biased chronshyieles of the Spanish historians who accompanied Cortes We know practically nothing of the Aztec historians who wrote pershyfectly legible and readable manuscripts most of which were destroyed It can be said with sorne authority that the Aztecs had well planned poliacutetical activity withiacuten a military theocratic system and that trus was perhaps one of the most important reashyson s for their rapid development into a city-state As it was to be expected the Spanish conquerors viewed the exterior signs of government from the standpoint of European governmental sysshytems of that period As a consequence the terminology that we use today reflects the nomenelature of European feudalism

The development of the beautiful and elegant city of Tenochshytitlan grew out of two centuries of warfare and building It was almost sixty years after the founding of that city that the Aztecs launched their formal political career It can be said with sorne assurance that not aH elements of the Aztec people subscribed to the dominant outlook wruch was particularIy stressed in the hisshytories that were written under the direction of ItzcoatL Certainly the merchants for example had a far greater desire to accumulate wealth than fight Holy wars Nevertheless the view that war and conquests were both good and necessary is the one that remains to us in the literature (Soustelle 1962 p 58 66 210) EarIy Spanish writings at the tme of the conquest refer to the natural rudeness and inferiority of the Indians (Hanke 1959 p 44 Moshytolinia 1950 p 209 Prescott 1886 p 42) Both the earIy Spanshyish as well as the Indian rustorians interpreted the Aztec governshyment in terms of the Spanish feudal system Out of this reasonshying come the interpretation which has lasted perhaps longer than any other Indeed trus interpretation is still supported today by a sizable number of scholars and may be called the feudal-impeshyrialists theory The feudal-imperialists hold that the Aztec culshyture was comparable to that of medieval Europe They feel the

THE PRE-CONQllEST AZTEe

evidence supports a nation by military or of a democratic triba as having insufficient According to the feuc ed from commoner t4 of les ser and greater 1

cial privileges Thos itary estates wruch quite normal1y as fel as there were very lal inces he1d in vasse1a could be distinguishe mon people had no ernment and they h viewpoint is always ( ing that is that perilt p 2 18 Caso 1954 White 1940 p 32 S p 21-52 Caso 196~

The familiarity of system or the feudalmiddot easy for them to iniacutee dards but they did to a second theory 1

of the earIy authorit Aztec cultures The the Roman Empire political implicatiom an 1956 p 110-11J society formulated ~

religious orders to d intellectual achievem quemada as earIy as and indeed overwhe that the Aztecs rep WorId Later on his In an atmosphere 1

I

OS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

water It has been [ndian of today still inert attitude before

For him the racial still valid (Noriega viously biased ehronshylpanied Cortes We rians who wrote pershynost of whieh were )rity that the Aztees a military theocratie most important reashy

y-state As it was to the exterior signs of

il1 governmental sysshyterminology that we

gtpean feudalismo

gant eity of Tenoehshyand building It was t city that the Aztees LO be said with some people subseribed to

Iy stressed in the hisshyofItzeoatl Certainly desire to aeeumulate he view that war and the one that remains 58 66 210) Early refer to the natural

nke 1959 p 44 MoshyBoth the early Spanshyed the Aztee govern-

Out of this reasonshy perhaps longer than 1 supported today by Jled the feudal-impeshy1 that the Aztee eulshylfope They feel the

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 259

evidenee supports a view of the Aztee empire as inferring domishynation by military or theoeratic aristoeraey The later theories of a demoeratic tribal Aztee soeiety are rejeeted by these people as having insufficient evidenee mainly to support sueh a theory Aeeording to the feudal-imperialists view Aztee society stretehshyed from eommoner to emperor through a eomplicated hierarehy of lesser and greater nobility many of whom possessed very speshyeial privileges Those who were ennobled ruled private heredshyitary estates whieh were worked by serfs and they funetioned quite normally as feudal lords The king was however eleeted as there were very large numbers of autonomous tributary provshyinees held in vasselage to the city-state This eleeted monareh eould be distinguished as an emperor during his reign The eomshymon people had no effeetiv(j voice or representation in the govshyernment and they had few privileges The feudal-imperialists viewpoint is always defined as the period of Aztee empire buildshying that is that period in their history after 1430 (Moreno 1931 p 2 18 Caso 1954 p 22 27 Wolf 1959 p 137 141-142 149 White 1940 p 32 Sahaguacuten 1961 p 15-22 Loacutepez Austin 1961 p 21-52 Caso 1963 p 863-878)

The farniliarity of the early Spanish historians with the feudal system or the feudal-imperialists system in Europe made it very easy for them to interpret the Aztees government by sueh stanshydards but they did not leave ott at this point and that gives rise to a seeond theory whieh developed out of this eoneept Some of the early authorities saw an analogy between the Roman and Aztee cultures They therefore eompared the Aztees state to the Roman Empire and this gave rise to so me very important politieal implieations in the early days (Soliacutes 1738 p 136 Phelshyan 1956 p 110-111) The analogy between Roman and Aztee soeiety formulated as part of an attempt by some of the early religious orders to demonstrate that the Indians were eapable of intelleetual aehievements equal to that ofEuropeans Father Torshyquemada as early as 1615 made this eomparison on a systematie and indeed overwhelming seale The implieations of this were that the Aztees represented the c1assical antiquity of the New World Later on historians inc1uded Aztee deities in this eoneept In an atmosphere suggestive of the Gods of the Greeks and the

260 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Romans [and] the Aztees took on the virtues of heroie Roman emperors (Phelan 1961 p 761)

The next evolutionary step in the development of theories relating to Aztee soeiety and government was the eentral-impeshyrialists interpretation (Feldman 1966 p 171) Thc elements whieh led to this new interpretation whieh is one that has aehievshyed great popularity in Mexieo began with the assumption of an Aztee c1assieal antiquity Gradually out of this assumption Spanshyish colonial intelleetuals dcveloped a philosophy in whieh they began to demand a return to Aztee virtues and in addition the restoration of the Aztee Empire The return of eourse to these c1assie virtues would not bring about any real revival of Aztec culture nor was it really desired but this platform of ideas provided a neat though historieally dubious rationale for inshydependenee When Mexiean independenee did come about this tendency to glorify the Aztee died out There was sorne atshytempt after the 1910 Mexican revolution to revive it and the idea remains of sorne importanee in modern Mexiean historiography (Phelan 1961 p 768-769 Covarrubias 1957 p 312 320 Peshytroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 p 23 Guzmaacuten 1958 p 58-64) It should be noted that Alfonso Trueba disagrees strongly with this view and attaeked this position in his Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas (Trueba 1959 p 7-10)

Following this period the central-imperialists interpretation carne to the fore and as 1 have said aehiacuteeved great popularity in MexIacuteco This view considered the Aztee state to have been either an ineipient or fully developed empiacutereo This empire theshyoretieally was ruled by an absolute monareh who established colonies controlled a number of provinees for the purpose of tribute established garrisons and abolished local autonomy Unshyder this system separate and special classes existed There was a nobility based on merit rather than hereditary rights ConshysequentIy any commoner if he was able eould advance through the c1ass stratum even to the highest rank Aeeording to this viewpoint the emperor or king was not eleeted by either the peoshypIe or the nobility instead a eouncil previously eh osen by the former emperor from members of his fami1y made up the group of eleetors (Caso 1954 p 20 Caso 1958 p 94 Soustelle 1962 p45)

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEe ~

George C Vaillant preecding from an oq ehief of lineage who a says that within this

trade flourished The tisans The product e

ward religion and riuacute tiacuteon of personal weal gion for the Aztees w~ worship with a few G( in turn brought the f in his life on earth migration under the 1 Tenoeheas evolved in result of their being development into an about until there was them psyehologically ing of superioriacutety 11 Itzeoatl the fourth T

About 1300 there w Aztees were defeated eaped to the islands 1325 The town wa~ main chiefs presumal captured were taken placed in a feudal st eline of Culhuaean te The Aztees then rejoi city of Tenoehtitlan Jtzeoatl privilege and but not elass in the ownership of propert and other possessiom tion According to ety was democratic ~ property was its ecO]

ranllt attained was m

DiexclOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

i

tues of heroic Roman r iexcl

~elopment of theories rwas the central-impeshyiexcl 171) The elements ~s one that has achievshy the assumption of an Ithis assumption Spanshypsophy in which they ~ and in addition the n of course to these rreal revival of Aztec platform of ideas ous rationale for inshy~nce did come about

(

~ There was some atshyf revive it and the idea ~eXIacutecan historiogr~phy ~57 p 312 320 Peshy~ 1958 p 58-64) It ~es strongly with this ro Eulalia el mestizo

~a1ists interpretation ved great popularity

state to have been ~ire This empire theshy~reh who established ~s for the purpose ofIlocal autonomy Unshy~ eXIacutested There was a ~ditary rights Conshybuld advance through ~ According to this red by either the peoshyrous1y ehosen by the ly made up the group p 94 Soustelle 1962 I r

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261

George C Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as preeeding from an organizatiacuteon where the Head of State was a ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions He says that within this state craftsmanship was hiacuteghly skilled and trade flourished The later produeed raw materials for the arshytisans The produet of the artisans however was directed toshyward religiacuteon and ritual rather than the accumulation or creashytiacuteon of personal wealth According to Vaillant therefore relishygion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration These in turn brought the full force of the divine powers to aid man in his life on earth (Vaillant 1944 p 97) After a periacuteod of migration under the governmental system described before the Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group The development into an independent state he says did not come about until there was a definIacutete change of attitude which shiacutefted them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feelmiddot ing of superiority This was brought about by the leadership of Itzcoatl the fourth Tenochcan ehief

About 1300 there was a split in triacutebal contiacutenuity when the ear1y Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec A number of the tribe esshycaped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around 1325 The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected main chiefs presumably The other group who were in a sense captured were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan The deshycline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403 The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the stone city of Tenochtitlan was constructed With the aseendeney of Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank but not class in the hereditary sense As wealth did exist the ownership of property in the form of the right to use land tools and other possessions did create a social and economic stratificashytion Aeeording to Vaillant in theory and practice Aztec socishyety was democratic and the communal ownership ofproductive property was its economic base The ladder to power and the rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

258 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

of the Europeans will find rumself in deep water It has been observed that even as late as today the Indian of today still arms himself with dubious response and an inert attitude before the most simple question about his daily life For him the racial pact of silence before the wrute invader is still valid (Noriega 1959) Presently we are left only with the obviously biased chronshyieles of the Spanish historians who accompanied Cortes We know practically nothing of the Aztec historians who wrote pershyfectly legible and readable manuscripts most of which were destroyed It can be said with sorne authority that the Aztecs had well planned poliacutetical activity withiacuten a military theocratic system and that trus was perhaps one of the most important reashyson s for their rapid development into a city-state As it was to be expected the Spanish conquerors viewed the exterior signs of government from the standpoint of European governmental sysshytems of that period As a consequence the terminology that we use today reflects the nomenelature of European feudalism

The development of the beautiful and elegant city of Tenochshytitlan grew out of two centuries of warfare and building It was almost sixty years after the founding of that city that the Aztecs launched their formal political career It can be said with sorne assurance that not aH elements of the Aztec people subscribed to the dominant outlook wruch was particularIy stressed in the hisshytories that were written under the direction of ItzcoatL Certainly the merchants for example had a far greater desire to accumulate wealth than fight Holy wars Nevertheless the view that war and conquests were both good and necessary is the one that remains to us in the literature (Soustelle 1962 p 58 66 210) EarIy Spanish writings at the tme of the conquest refer to the natural rudeness and inferiority of the Indians (Hanke 1959 p 44 Moshytolinia 1950 p 209 Prescott 1886 p 42) Both the earIy Spanshyish as well as the Indian rustorians interpreted the Aztec governshyment in terms of the Spanish feudal system Out of this reasonshying come the interpretation which has lasted perhaps longer than any other Indeed trus interpretation is still supported today by a sizable number of scholars and may be called the feudal-impeshyrialists theory The feudal-imperialists hold that the Aztec culshyture was comparable to that of medieval Europe They feel the

THE PRE-CONQllEST AZTEe

evidence supports a nation by military or of a democratic triba as having insufficient According to the feuc ed from commoner t4 of les ser and greater 1

cial privileges Thos itary estates wruch quite normal1y as fel as there were very lal inces he1d in vasse1a could be distinguishe mon people had no ernment and they h viewpoint is always ( ing that is that perilt p 2 18 Caso 1954 White 1940 p 32 S p 21-52 Caso 196~

The familiarity of system or the feudalmiddot easy for them to iniacutee dards but they did to a second theory 1

of the earIy authorit Aztec cultures The the Roman Empire political implicatiom an 1956 p 110-11J society formulated ~

religious orders to d intellectual achievem quemada as earIy as and indeed overwhe that the Aztecs rep WorId Later on his In an atmosphere 1

I

OS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

water It has been [ndian of today still inert attitude before

For him the racial still valid (Noriega viously biased ehronshylpanied Cortes We rians who wrote pershynost of whieh were )rity that the Aztees a military theocratie most important reashy

y-state As it was to the exterior signs of

il1 governmental sysshyterminology that we

gtpean feudalismo

gant eity of Tenoehshyand building It was t city that the Aztees LO be said with some people subseribed to

Iy stressed in the hisshyofItzeoatl Certainly desire to aeeumulate he view that war and the one that remains 58 66 210) Early refer to the natural

nke 1959 p 44 MoshyBoth the early Spanshyed the Aztee govern-

Out of this reasonshy perhaps longer than 1 supported today by Jled the feudal-impeshy1 that the Aztee eulshylfope They feel the

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 259

evidenee supports a view of the Aztee empire as inferring domishynation by military or theoeratic aristoeraey The later theories of a demoeratic tribal Aztee soeiety are rejeeted by these people as having insufficient evidenee mainly to support sueh a theory Aeeording to the feudal-imperialists view Aztee society stretehshyed from eommoner to emperor through a eomplicated hierarehy of lesser and greater nobility many of whom possessed very speshyeial privileges Those who were ennobled ruled private heredshyitary estates whieh were worked by serfs and they funetioned quite normally as feudal lords The king was however eleeted as there were very large numbers of autonomous tributary provshyinees held in vasselage to the city-state This eleeted monareh eould be distinguished as an emperor during his reign The eomshymon people had no effeetiv(j voice or representation in the govshyernment and they had few privileges The feudal-imperialists viewpoint is always defined as the period of Aztee empire buildshying that is that period in their history after 1430 (Moreno 1931 p 2 18 Caso 1954 p 22 27 Wolf 1959 p 137 141-142 149 White 1940 p 32 Sahaguacuten 1961 p 15-22 Loacutepez Austin 1961 p 21-52 Caso 1963 p 863-878)

The farniliarity of the early Spanish historians with the feudal system or the feudal-imperialists system in Europe made it very easy for them to interpret the Aztees government by sueh stanshydards but they did not leave ott at this point and that gives rise to a seeond theory whieh developed out of this eoneept Some of the early authorities saw an analogy between the Roman and Aztee cultures They therefore eompared the Aztees state to the Roman Empire and this gave rise to so me very important politieal implieations in the early days (Soliacutes 1738 p 136 Phelshyan 1956 p 110-111) The analogy between Roman and Aztee soeiety formulated as part of an attempt by some of the early religious orders to demonstrate that the Indians were eapable of intelleetual aehievements equal to that ofEuropeans Father Torshyquemada as early as 1615 made this eomparison on a systematie and indeed overwhelming seale The implieations of this were that the Aztees represented the c1assical antiquity of the New World Later on historians inc1uded Aztee deities in this eoneept In an atmosphere suggestive of the Gods of the Greeks and the

260 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Romans [and] the Aztees took on the virtues of heroie Roman emperors (Phelan 1961 p 761)

The next evolutionary step in the development of theories relating to Aztee soeiety and government was the eentral-impeshyrialists interpretation (Feldman 1966 p 171) Thc elements whieh led to this new interpretation whieh is one that has aehievshyed great popularity in Mexieo began with the assumption of an Aztee c1assieal antiquity Gradually out of this assumption Spanshyish colonial intelleetuals dcveloped a philosophy in whieh they began to demand a return to Aztee virtues and in addition the restoration of the Aztee Empire The return of eourse to these c1assie virtues would not bring about any real revival of Aztec culture nor was it really desired but this platform of ideas provided a neat though historieally dubious rationale for inshydependenee When Mexiean independenee did come about this tendency to glorify the Aztee died out There was sorne atshytempt after the 1910 Mexican revolution to revive it and the idea remains of sorne importanee in modern Mexiean historiography (Phelan 1961 p 768-769 Covarrubias 1957 p 312 320 Peshytroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 p 23 Guzmaacuten 1958 p 58-64) It should be noted that Alfonso Trueba disagrees strongly with this view and attaeked this position in his Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas (Trueba 1959 p 7-10)

Following this period the central-imperialists interpretation carne to the fore and as 1 have said aehiacuteeved great popularity in MexIacuteco This view considered the Aztee state to have been either an ineipient or fully developed empiacutereo This empire theshyoretieally was ruled by an absolute monareh who established colonies controlled a number of provinees for the purpose of tribute established garrisons and abolished local autonomy Unshyder this system separate and special classes existed There was a nobility based on merit rather than hereditary rights ConshysequentIy any commoner if he was able eould advance through the c1ass stratum even to the highest rank Aeeording to this viewpoint the emperor or king was not eleeted by either the peoshypIe or the nobility instead a eouncil previously eh osen by the former emperor from members of his fami1y made up the group of eleetors (Caso 1954 p 20 Caso 1958 p 94 Soustelle 1962 p45)

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEe ~

George C Vaillant preecding from an oq ehief of lineage who a says that within this

trade flourished The tisans The product e

ward religion and riuacute tiacuteon of personal weal gion for the Aztees w~ worship with a few G( in turn brought the f in his life on earth migration under the 1 Tenoeheas evolved in result of their being development into an about until there was them psyehologically ing of superioriacutety 11 Itzeoatl the fourth T

About 1300 there w Aztees were defeated eaped to the islands 1325 The town wa~ main chiefs presumal captured were taken placed in a feudal st eline of Culhuaean te The Aztees then rejoi city of Tenoehtitlan Jtzeoatl privilege and but not elass in the ownership of propert and other possessiom tion According to ety was democratic ~ property was its ecO]

ranllt attained was m

DiexclOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

i

tues of heroic Roman r iexcl

~elopment of theories rwas the central-impeshyiexcl 171) The elements ~s one that has achievshy the assumption of an Ithis assumption Spanshypsophy in which they ~ and in addition the n of course to these rreal revival of Aztec platform of ideas ous rationale for inshy~nce did come about

(

~ There was some atshyf revive it and the idea ~eXIacutecan historiogr~phy ~57 p 312 320 Peshy~ 1958 p 58-64) It ~es strongly with this ro Eulalia el mestizo

~a1ists interpretation ved great popularity

state to have been ~ire This empire theshy~reh who established ~s for the purpose ofIlocal autonomy Unshy~ eXIacutested There was a ~ditary rights Conshybuld advance through ~ According to this red by either the peoshyrous1y ehosen by the ly made up the group p 94 Soustelle 1962 I r

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261

George C Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as preeeding from an organizatiacuteon where the Head of State was a ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions He says that within this state craftsmanship was hiacuteghly skilled and trade flourished The later produeed raw materials for the arshytisans The produet of the artisans however was directed toshyward religiacuteon and ritual rather than the accumulation or creashytiacuteon of personal wealth According to Vaillant therefore relishygion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration These in turn brought the full force of the divine powers to aid man in his life on earth (Vaillant 1944 p 97) After a periacuteod of migration under the governmental system described before the Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group The development into an independent state he says did not come about until there was a definIacutete change of attitude which shiacutefted them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feelmiddot ing of superiority This was brought about by the leadership of Itzcoatl the fourth Tenochcan ehief

About 1300 there was a split in triacutebal contiacutenuity when the ear1y Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec A number of the tribe esshycaped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around 1325 The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected main chiefs presumably The other group who were in a sense captured were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan The deshycline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403 The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the stone city of Tenochtitlan was constructed With the aseendeney of Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank but not class in the hereditary sense As wealth did exist the ownership of property in the form of the right to use land tools and other possessions did create a social and economic stratificashytion Aeeording to Vaillant in theory and practice Aztec socishyety was democratic and the communal ownership ofproductive property was its economic base The ladder to power and the rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

I

OS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

water It has been [ndian of today still inert attitude before

For him the racial still valid (Noriega viously biased ehronshylpanied Cortes We rians who wrote pershynost of whieh were )rity that the Aztees a military theocratie most important reashy

y-state As it was to the exterior signs of

il1 governmental sysshyterminology that we

gtpean feudalismo

gant eity of Tenoehshyand building It was t city that the Aztees LO be said with some people subseribed to

Iy stressed in the hisshyofItzeoatl Certainly desire to aeeumulate he view that war and the one that remains 58 66 210) Early refer to the natural

nke 1959 p 44 MoshyBoth the early Spanshyed the Aztee govern-

Out of this reasonshy perhaps longer than 1 supported today by Jled the feudal-impeshy1 that the Aztee eulshylfope They feel the

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 259

evidenee supports a view of the Aztee empire as inferring domishynation by military or theoeratic aristoeraey The later theories of a demoeratic tribal Aztee soeiety are rejeeted by these people as having insufficient evidenee mainly to support sueh a theory Aeeording to the feudal-imperialists view Aztee society stretehshyed from eommoner to emperor through a eomplicated hierarehy of lesser and greater nobility many of whom possessed very speshyeial privileges Those who were ennobled ruled private heredshyitary estates whieh were worked by serfs and they funetioned quite normally as feudal lords The king was however eleeted as there were very large numbers of autonomous tributary provshyinees held in vasselage to the city-state This eleeted monareh eould be distinguished as an emperor during his reign The eomshymon people had no effeetiv(j voice or representation in the govshyernment and they had few privileges The feudal-imperialists viewpoint is always defined as the period of Aztee empire buildshying that is that period in their history after 1430 (Moreno 1931 p 2 18 Caso 1954 p 22 27 Wolf 1959 p 137 141-142 149 White 1940 p 32 Sahaguacuten 1961 p 15-22 Loacutepez Austin 1961 p 21-52 Caso 1963 p 863-878)

The farniliarity of the early Spanish historians with the feudal system or the feudal-imperialists system in Europe made it very easy for them to interpret the Aztees government by sueh stanshydards but they did not leave ott at this point and that gives rise to a seeond theory whieh developed out of this eoneept Some of the early authorities saw an analogy between the Roman and Aztee cultures They therefore eompared the Aztees state to the Roman Empire and this gave rise to so me very important politieal implieations in the early days (Soliacutes 1738 p 136 Phelshyan 1956 p 110-111) The analogy between Roman and Aztee soeiety formulated as part of an attempt by some of the early religious orders to demonstrate that the Indians were eapable of intelleetual aehievements equal to that ofEuropeans Father Torshyquemada as early as 1615 made this eomparison on a systematie and indeed overwhelming seale The implieations of this were that the Aztees represented the c1assical antiquity of the New World Later on historians inc1uded Aztee deities in this eoneept In an atmosphere suggestive of the Gods of the Greeks and the

260 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Romans [and] the Aztees took on the virtues of heroie Roman emperors (Phelan 1961 p 761)

The next evolutionary step in the development of theories relating to Aztee soeiety and government was the eentral-impeshyrialists interpretation (Feldman 1966 p 171) Thc elements whieh led to this new interpretation whieh is one that has aehievshyed great popularity in Mexieo began with the assumption of an Aztee c1assieal antiquity Gradually out of this assumption Spanshyish colonial intelleetuals dcveloped a philosophy in whieh they began to demand a return to Aztee virtues and in addition the restoration of the Aztee Empire The return of eourse to these c1assie virtues would not bring about any real revival of Aztec culture nor was it really desired but this platform of ideas provided a neat though historieally dubious rationale for inshydependenee When Mexiean independenee did come about this tendency to glorify the Aztee died out There was sorne atshytempt after the 1910 Mexican revolution to revive it and the idea remains of sorne importanee in modern Mexiean historiography (Phelan 1961 p 768-769 Covarrubias 1957 p 312 320 Peshytroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 p 23 Guzmaacuten 1958 p 58-64) It should be noted that Alfonso Trueba disagrees strongly with this view and attaeked this position in his Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas (Trueba 1959 p 7-10)

Following this period the central-imperialists interpretation carne to the fore and as 1 have said aehiacuteeved great popularity in MexIacuteco This view considered the Aztee state to have been either an ineipient or fully developed empiacutereo This empire theshyoretieally was ruled by an absolute monareh who established colonies controlled a number of provinees for the purpose of tribute established garrisons and abolished local autonomy Unshyder this system separate and special classes existed There was a nobility based on merit rather than hereditary rights ConshysequentIy any commoner if he was able eould advance through the c1ass stratum even to the highest rank Aeeording to this viewpoint the emperor or king was not eleeted by either the peoshypIe or the nobility instead a eouncil previously eh osen by the former emperor from members of his fami1y made up the group of eleetors (Caso 1954 p 20 Caso 1958 p 94 Soustelle 1962 p45)

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEe ~

George C Vaillant preecding from an oq ehief of lineage who a says that within this

trade flourished The tisans The product e

ward religion and riuacute tiacuteon of personal weal gion for the Aztees w~ worship with a few G( in turn brought the f in his life on earth migration under the 1 Tenoeheas evolved in result of their being development into an about until there was them psyehologically ing of superioriacutety 11 Itzeoatl the fourth T

About 1300 there w Aztees were defeated eaped to the islands 1325 The town wa~ main chiefs presumal captured were taken placed in a feudal st eline of Culhuaean te The Aztees then rejoi city of Tenoehtitlan Jtzeoatl privilege and but not elass in the ownership of propert and other possessiom tion According to ety was democratic ~ property was its ecO]

ranllt attained was m

DiexclOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

i

tues of heroic Roman r iexcl

~elopment of theories rwas the central-impeshyiexcl 171) The elements ~s one that has achievshy the assumption of an Ithis assumption Spanshypsophy in which they ~ and in addition the n of course to these rreal revival of Aztec platform of ideas ous rationale for inshy~nce did come about

(

~ There was some atshyf revive it and the idea ~eXIacutecan historiogr~phy ~57 p 312 320 Peshy~ 1958 p 58-64) It ~es strongly with this ro Eulalia el mestizo

~a1ists interpretation ved great popularity

state to have been ~ire This empire theshy~reh who established ~s for the purpose ofIlocal autonomy Unshy~ eXIacutested There was a ~ditary rights Conshybuld advance through ~ According to this red by either the peoshyrous1y ehosen by the ly made up the group p 94 Soustelle 1962 I r

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261

George C Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as preeeding from an organizatiacuteon where the Head of State was a ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions He says that within this state craftsmanship was hiacuteghly skilled and trade flourished The later produeed raw materials for the arshytisans The produet of the artisans however was directed toshyward religiacuteon and ritual rather than the accumulation or creashytiacuteon of personal wealth According to Vaillant therefore relishygion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration These in turn brought the full force of the divine powers to aid man in his life on earth (Vaillant 1944 p 97) After a periacuteod of migration under the governmental system described before the Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group The development into an independent state he says did not come about until there was a definIacutete change of attitude which shiacutefted them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feelmiddot ing of superiority This was brought about by the leadership of Itzcoatl the fourth Tenochcan ehief

About 1300 there was a split in triacutebal contiacutenuity when the ear1y Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec A number of the tribe esshycaped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around 1325 The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected main chiefs presumably The other group who were in a sense captured were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan The deshycline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403 The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the stone city of Tenochtitlan was constructed With the aseendeney of Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank but not class in the hereditary sense As wealth did exist the ownership of property in the form of the right to use land tools and other possessions did create a social and economic stratificashytion Aeeording to Vaillant in theory and practice Aztec socishyety was democratic and the communal ownership ofproductive property was its economic base The ladder to power and the rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

260 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Romans [and] the Aztees took on the virtues of heroie Roman emperors (Phelan 1961 p 761)

The next evolutionary step in the development of theories relating to Aztee soeiety and government was the eentral-impeshyrialists interpretation (Feldman 1966 p 171) Thc elements whieh led to this new interpretation whieh is one that has aehievshyed great popularity in Mexieo began with the assumption of an Aztee c1assieal antiquity Gradually out of this assumption Spanshyish colonial intelleetuals dcveloped a philosophy in whieh they began to demand a return to Aztee virtues and in addition the restoration of the Aztee Empire The return of eourse to these c1assie virtues would not bring about any real revival of Aztec culture nor was it really desired but this platform of ideas provided a neat though historieally dubious rationale for inshydependenee When Mexiean independenee did come about this tendency to glorify the Aztee died out There was sorne atshytempt after the 1910 Mexican revolution to revive it and the idea remains of sorne importanee in modern Mexiean historiography (Phelan 1961 p 768-769 Covarrubias 1957 p 312 320 Peshytroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 p 23 Guzmaacuten 1958 p 58-64) It should be noted that Alfonso Trueba disagrees strongly with this view and attaeked this position in his Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas (Trueba 1959 p 7-10)

Following this period the central-imperialists interpretation carne to the fore and as 1 have said aehiacuteeved great popularity in MexIacuteco This view considered the Aztee state to have been either an ineipient or fully developed empiacutereo This empire theshyoretieally was ruled by an absolute monareh who established colonies controlled a number of provinees for the purpose of tribute established garrisons and abolished local autonomy Unshyder this system separate and special classes existed There was a nobility based on merit rather than hereditary rights ConshysequentIy any commoner if he was able eould advance through the c1ass stratum even to the highest rank Aeeording to this viewpoint the emperor or king was not eleeted by either the peoshypIe or the nobility instead a eouncil previously eh osen by the former emperor from members of his fami1y made up the group of eleetors (Caso 1954 p 20 Caso 1958 p 94 Soustelle 1962 p45)

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEe ~

George C Vaillant preecding from an oq ehief of lineage who a says that within this

trade flourished The tisans The product e

ward religion and riuacute tiacuteon of personal weal gion for the Aztees w~ worship with a few G( in turn brought the f in his life on earth migration under the 1 Tenoeheas evolved in result of their being development into an about until there was them psyehologically ing of superioriacutety 11 Itzeoatl the fourth T

About 1300 there w Aztees were defeated eaped to the islands 1325 The town wa~ main chiefs presumal captured were taken placed in a feudal st eline of Culhuaean te The Aztees then rejoi city of Tenoehtitlan Jtzeoatl privilege and but not elass in the ownership of propert and other possessiom tion According to ety was democratic ~ property was its ecO]

ranllt attained was m

DiexclOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

i

tues of heroic Roman r iexcl

~elopment of theories rwas the central-impeshyiexcl 171) The elements ~s one that has achievshy the assumption of an Ithis assumption Spanshypsophy in which they ~ and in addition the n of course to these rreal revival of Aztec platform of ideas ous rationale for inshy~nce did come about

(

~ There was some atshyf revive it and the idea ~eXIacutecan historiogr~phy ~57 p 312 320 Peshy~ 1958 p 58-64) It ~es strongly with this ro Eulalia el mestizo

~a1ists interpretation ved great popularity

state to have been ~ire This empire theshy~reh who established ~s for the purpose ofIlocal autonomy Unshy~ eXIacutested There was a ~ditary rights Conshybuld advance through ~ According to this red by either the peoshyrous1y ehosen by the ly made up the group p 94 Soustelle 1962 I r

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261

George C Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as preeeding from an organizatiacuteon where the Head of State was a ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions He says that within this state craftsmanship was hiacuteghly skilled and trade flourished The later produeed raw materials for the arshytisans The produet of the artisans however was directed toshyward religiacuteon and ritual rather than the accumulation or creashytiacuteon of personal wealth According to Vaillant therefore relishygion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration These in turn brought the full force of the divine powers to aid man in his life on earth (Vaillant 1944 p 97) After a periacuteod of migration under the governmental system described before the Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group The development into an independent state he says did not come about until there was a definIacutete change of attitude which shiacutefted them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feelmiddot ing of superiority This was brought about by the leadership of Itzcoatl the fourth Tenochcan ehief

About 1300 there was a split in triacutebal contiacutenuity when the ear1y Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec A number of the tribe esshycaped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around 1325 The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected main chiefs presumably The other group who were in a sense captured were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan The deshycline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403 The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the stone city of Tenochtitlan was constructed With the aseendeney of Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank but not class in the hereditary sense As wealth did exist the ownership of property in the form of the right to use land tools and other possessions did create a social and economic stratificashytion Aeeording to Vaillant in theory and practice Aztec socishyety was democratic and the communal ownership ofproductive property was its economic base The ladder to power and the rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

DiexclOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

i

tues of heroic Roman r iexcl

~elopment of theories rwas the central-impeshyiexcl 171) The elements ~s one that has achievshy the assumption of an Ithis assumption Spanshypsophy in which they ~ and in addition the n of course to these rreal revival of Aztec platform of ideas ous rationale for inshy~nce did come about

(

~ There was some atshyf revive it and the idea ~eXIacutecan historiogr~phy ~57 p 312 320 Peshy~ 1958 p 58-64) It ~es strongly with this ro Eulalia el mestizo

~a1ists interpretation ved great popularity

state to have been ~ire This empire theshy~reh who established ~s for the purpose ofIlocal autonomy Unshy~ eXIacutested There was a ~ditary rights Conshybuld advance through ~ According to this red by either the peoshyrous1y ehosen by the ly made up the group p 94 Soustelle 1962 I r

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261

George C Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as preeeding from an organizatiacuteon where the Head of State was a ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions He says that within this state craftsmanship was hiacuteghly skilled and trade flourished The later produeed raw materials for the arshytisans The produet of the artisans however was directed toshyward religiacuteon and ritual rather than the accumulation or creashytiacuteon of personal wealth According to Vaillant therefore relishygion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration These in turn brought the full force of the divine powers to aid man in his life on earth (Vaillant 1944 p 97) After a periacuteod of migration under the governmental system described before the Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group The development into an independent state he says did not come about until there was a definIacutete change of attitude which shiacutefted them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feelmiddot ing of superiority This was brought about by the leadership of Itzcoatl the fourth Tenochcan ehief

About 1300 there was a split in triacutebal contiacutenuity when the ear1y Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec A number of the tribe esshycaped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around 1325 The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected main chiefs presumably The other group who were in a sense captured were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan The deshycline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403 The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the stone city of Tenochtitlan was constructed With the aseendeney of Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank but not class in the hereditary sense As wealth did exist the ownership of property in the form of the right to use land tools and other possessions did create a social and economic stratificashytion Aeeording to Vaillant in theory and practice Aztec socishyety was democratic and the communal ownership ofproductive property was its economic base The ladder to power and the rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

I

262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

could perform If aman demonstrated superior skills wisdom or judgement he could well be e1ected a clan representative to the tribal council or even the chief One of the other routes to rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Medshyicine Man The learning of magic rituals with which to placate the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices

The semi-materialistic examination of history particularly reshylating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter part of the 19th century Frederiacuteck Enge1s compatriot and close friend of Karl Marx after having made a careful study of Lewis H Morgans pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mateshyriacutealistic concept of history Engels felt that both Marx and Morshygan in the main points had arrived at the same conclusions According to the materialistic concept of history the determinshying factor is in the final instance the production and reproducshytion of the immediate essentials of life This leads of course to a positive social organization and further to the structure of the state and organization control of the state This control extends also to the entities within the state The theory behind this is quite simply that the social organization under which a people in any historical time regardless of the particular country in which they live is determined by the two kinds of production The first being the production of the means for existence that is the construction of tools the gathering of food making c1othshying constructing dwellings etc The other aspect being the proshypagation of the species itself The societal organization then can be determined by what stage of development there is of labor on one hand and of the family on the other This type of society would be based on kinship groups The productivity therefore of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops As this increase occurs priacutevate wealth is accumulated in the form of property and articles of exchange Engels sees these differences as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms When these antagshyonisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility beshytween new developing conditions and the old social order there is a complete upheaval The kinship society or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG

is broken up In its this society the contre 5-6) With some moc that later writers such

The progressive cut tec state developed o that arose in the 19th pIe as Marx Engels ] evolutionary and prol of cultural evolution biological evolution that lay the foundati( idea that European c all cultures were supp~ this was being done t

Adolph F BandeU school of thoughiacute f reasoning along theslt Morgan had studied state according to the priacutemary stages of bal democratic and personal relationship and this was based 01

the lack of property sumption along with tion did not have ti then applied to all isphere Progressive the present time (Ba] 3 White 1940 p 5 p 5-90)

One of the most f tionist concept was F tions he discussed thl 10 140 Marx and E to Aztec government refers to the Aztec

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

rDlOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Isuperior skills wisdom ~ clan representative to ~ of the other routes to t of the Priest or Medshy

with which to placate in the society offered ~

knew these practices btory particularly reshyaits origins in the latter s compatriot and close careful study of Lewis

Society concluded that y developed the mateshyt both Marx and Morshythe same conclusions

if history the determinshy duction and reproducshy

s leads of course to ~ to the structure of the

This control extends theory behind this is under which a people particular country in

o kinds of production ans for existen ce that of food making clothshyr aspect being the proshyI organization then can ment there is of labor

ero This type of society productivity therefore easingly develops As mulated in the forro of s sees these differences

When these antagshytal incompatibility beshyold social order there

~ety or the old society

THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STAacuteTI 263

is broken up In its place will appear a new society and with this society the control is centered in the state (Engels 1942 p 5-6) With sorne modification it is from this background then that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society

The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Azshytec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution that arose in the 19th century It was not difficult for such peoshypie as Marx Engels Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an evolutionary and progressive entity As a consequence the idea of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on biological evolution were published One of the earliest theories that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which aH cultures were supposedly evolving Another postulate was that this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages

Adolph F Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this school of thought His relationship with Morgan influenced his reasoning along these lines to a great extent The Indians that Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a state according to the progressive evolutionist theory One of the primary stages of development was that of the classless trishybal democratic and communal society which was based on personal relationship Another of these stages was the state and this was based on property re1ationships It was precisely on the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the asshysumption along with Morgan and Engels that the Iroquois nashytion did not have the attributes of a state The concept was then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hemshyisphere Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to the present time (Bandelier 1880 p 557-699 Moreno 1931 p 3 White 1940 p 52 Morgan 1877 p 186-214 Engels 1942 p 5-90)

One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolushytionist concept was Frederick Engels In a number of his publicashytions he discussed the construction of a state (Engels 1937 p 10 140 Marx and Engels 1963 p 54-57 69-102) In reference to Aztec government Engels following the concepts of Morgan refers to the Aztec ruler as a democratically elected official

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a joint-tenement house occupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in common with his own The Aztec ruler was nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffishycient to be called a state by the progressive evolutionist definishytion (Vaillant 1960 p 119 EngeIs 1942 p 96 Negrete 1958 p 116)

The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data According to EngeIs these were obviously people who learned nothing and knew nothing they were only interpreting the Azshytecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway It becomes evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with proshygressive evolutionist theory the evidence therefore was wrong not the theory Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation and development of cultures has little support today It is a viewshypoint that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this subshyject have abandoned (Radin 1920 p 129)

The eoncept of a tribal classless and demoeratic Aztee soshyciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as Engels as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent discredits the proshygressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles As a matter of fact there is an entire school developing among eershytain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes the primary focus for their attention Today the entire eoneept of progressive evolution is in disrepute In sorne eommunist countries however there is still an oceasionaI paper being produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint

In summary the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Azshytee governmental development First is the interpretation of the Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system seeond the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov-

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al

ernment as being tems third the pi ed out of the ead as well as sorne ( opment

Today in Mex in sorne cases ayo Aztec governmen presently hold to evoIutionist sees single culture or i sive evolutionists p 71 White 19lt According to the toward any spcci cultures must ne although they arf point out that nc a reasonably ne thirties Basical1y time early in 195 ley 1962 p 10 1951 p 278 27

As to be expe and sorne variati paper A rising e

of the feudal-imI earlier viewpointi inite correlation It assumes that or theocratic aris tec society are r member of the s greater and lessc lived on and ru man labored T ruler was electec the latter days e tributary provin

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

1

lOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

in a palace but in a l terms by a hundred

l The Aztec ruler was ~al who was the chief ~deracy had as yet not ~ry development suffishy~ve evolutionist definishyfp 96 Negrete 1958

~ theorists to the fact ~rians did not support ~ non-supportive data rpeople who learned ~y interpreting the Azshy~ anyway It becomes iexclce disagreed with proshyItherefore was wrong Ideas on the formation ~rt today It is a viewshy~pecialists on this subshy) l dernocratic Aztec soshy~sed by such people as tnt discredits the proshyof rnost investigators

with a theory is no scientific circ1es As

eveloping among cershy

t~ve evidence becomes

y the entire concept In sorne commulllst

asional paper being

pt to represent sorne

interpretations of Azshye interpretation of the feudal system second viewed the Aztec gov-

TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ 265

ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sysshytems third the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1opshyed out of the early works on biological evolution These theories as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1shyopment

Today in Mexico there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest Aztec government The major people in thc field in my opinion presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea Although the neoshyevolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures unlike the progresshysive evolutionists he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936 p 71 White 1940 p 12 and 24 Goldenweisser 1941 p 152) According to the neo-evolutionists cultures do not have to evolve toward any special goals The neo-evolutionist argues that al] cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and although they are willing to take into account many causes they point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage This is a reasonably new theory elements of which were initiated in the thirties Basically however the total concept has its origin sorne time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wilshylcy 1962 p 10 Willey and Phillips 1962 p 17 196-199 Strong 1951 p 278 279 Green 1963 p 98 Rester 1962 p 1014)

As to be expectcd thcre have been modifications additions and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this paper A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that of the feudal-imperialists This is a modification of sorne of the earlier viewpoints In this interpretation Aztec culture has a defshyinite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military or theocratic aristocracy All thoughts of a democratic tribal Azshytec society are rejected Prom the Emperor down to the least member of the society there existed a complicated hierarchy of greater and lesser nobility Viewed as feudal lords the nobles lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common man labored The estates would have been semi-hereditary The ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large tributary provinces

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL266

As Fe1dman pointed out in a recent paper (Feldman 1966 p 173) all of these interpretations have an application to what is known of the Aztec state society and culture They all have been indifferently or differently emphasized at various periods in the last four hundred years Ifone views Aztec history as being stratshyified into three temporal periods then the progressive evolutionist ideas of such men as Vaillant and Engels were important primashyrily in the earliest periodo With the rise of Itzcoatl and the beginshyning the period of great conquest there is little doubt that the Aztec government was a strong military aristocracy with overshytones of theocratic influence and was very probably semi-heredshyitary in structure The last period which preceded the arrival of the Spanish in 1519 was the time of political consolidation At this time all of the allied states were subordinated to the govshyernment at Tenochtitlan and Moctezuma taking increasing power for himself imposed strict controls over the provinces and made Tenochtitlan the single absolute political center of what can be defined as an empiacutereo

QUOTED BOOKS

Anderson AJ and Dibble CE (See Sahaguacuten)

Bandelier Adolph F

1880 On the Social Organization and Mode of Government of the Andent Mexicans Twelfth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology p 557shy699

Barlow R H 1949 The Extent o( the Empire of the Culhua Mexica Berkeley

and Los Angeles Universiacutety of California Press (Ibero-Ameshyricana 28)

Caso Alfonso

1954 Instituciones Indiacutegenas Precortesianas sobretiro de la Meshymoria del Instituto Nacional Indigenista VI p 15-27

1958 The Aztees People of the Sun Norman Oklahoma Univershysity of Oklahoma Press

THE PRE-CONQUEST Ul

1963 Land Tel Anthropolo~

Covarrubias Migue 1957 Indian Art

fred A Kn Engels Frederick

1937 Engels on ( tary Mater national PI

1942 The origin Marxist Lil p 5-176

Feldman LH 1966 Conflict iJ

Society 1 167-175

Green John C 1963 Darwin a1l4

American

Goldenweisser A 1941 Recent T

thropologis

Guzmaacuten Eulalia 1958 Relaciones

Hanke L 1959 Aristotle al

ter Limite(

Hester James J

1962 A Com~ kan Anthr

Hewett Edgar L 1936 Anden L

Bobbs-Me

Leoacuten-Portilla M 1963 Aztec Tho

of Oklabc 1962 The Brokj

Mexico I

~IOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

I

r (Feldman 1966 p pplication to what is ~e They all have been arious periods in the histOry as being strat~ rogr~ssive evoluti~nist~ere Important pnmashy~tzcoatl and the begin~

little doubt that the[istocracy with overshyprobably semi-heredshyreceded the arrival of

cal consolidation At rdinated to the govshy

king increasing power ~e provinces and made iexclcenter of what can be

~n) r

~e 01 Government 01 lhe ~eport of the Peabody Iand Ethnology p 557shy

I ~lhua Mexica Berkeley ornia Press (Ibero-Ameshy

~ sobretiro de la Meshy~ta VI p 15-27 ~ Oklahoma Univer-

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 267

1963 Land Tenure Among the Ancient Mexicans American Anthropologist LXV August p 863-878

Covarrubias Miguel 1957 Indian Art 01 Mexico and Central America New York AIshy

fred A Knopf Engels Frederick

1937 Engels on Capital Synopsis Reviews Letters and Supplemenshytary Material Marxist Library v XXXIV New York Intershynational Publishers p 3-147

1942 The origin 01 the Family Priva te Property and the State Marxist Library v XXII New York International Publishers p 5-176

Feldman LH 1966 Conflict in Historical Interpretation of the Aztec State and

Society Estudios de Cultura Naacutehuatl v VI Mexico City p 167-175

Green John C 1963 Darwin and the Modern World View New York The New

American Library of World Literature Inc p 98

Goldenweisser A 1941 Recent Trends in American Anthropology American Anshy

thropologist v XLII April-June p 151-163

Guzmaacuten Eulalia 1958 Relaciones de Hernaacuten Corteacutes Meacutexico Libros Anaacutehuac

Hanke L 1959 Aristotle and the American Indians London Hollis and Carshy

ter Limited

Hester James J 1962 A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures Amershy

ican Anthropologist LXIV October p 1001-1015

Hewett Edgar L 1936 Andent Lije in Mexico and Central America New York

Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers

Leoacuten-Portilla M 1963 Aztec Thought and Culture Norman OkIahoma University

of Oklahoma Press 1962 The Broken Spears The Aztec Account 01 the Conquest 01

Mexico Boston Beacon Press

268 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteliUATL

toacutepez Austin Alfredo 196] La constitucioacuten real de Meacutexico-Tenochtitlan Meacutexico Univershy

sidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico p 21-52 Marx K and Engels Frederick

1963 The Communist Manifesto Ed D Ryazanoff New York Russell and Russell Inc p 2-365

Moreno Manuel M 1931 La organizacioacuten poliacutetica y social de los aztecas Meacutexico Unishy

versidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico Seccioacuten Editorial p87

Morgan Lewis H 1877 Ancienl Society or Researches in tlle Laws of Human Progshy

ress from Savagery througlz Barbarism lO Civilization New York A Hoh and Company

Motoliniacutea 1950 History of the lndians of New Spain transo and ed Elizabeth

A Foster Bcrkeley Calif The Cortes Society Noriega Rauacutel Co-editor

1966 Esplendor del Meacutexico Antiguo Centro de Investigaciones Anshytropo16gicas de Meacutexico Mexi) City 195) (Quoted from Reed p 79)

Oliveacute Negrete Julio Ceacutesar 1958 Estructura y dinaacutemica de Mesoameacuterica Acta Anlhropoloshy

gica eacutepoca 2 1 n 3

Petroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 Archaeology in Mexico Today Mexico p 23

Phelan J L 1956 The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World

A study of the Writings of Geronimo de Mendieta (1525shy1604) Berke1ey and Los Angeles University of California Press (University of California in History v 52)

1961 Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Centuryand the Genesis of Mexiean Nationalism Culture in History Essays in Honor of Paul Radin Stanley Diamond (ed) New York Columbia University Press

Prescott W H 1886 History of the Conquest of Mexico New York JB Alden

and Crowell

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST UTE

Radin P 1920 The Sources

Mexicans 1 versity of e and Ethnolo

Reed Alma M 1966 The Andent

Inc p 1-1L

Sahaguacuten Fray Bem~ 1961 Kings and L

by Arthur J New Mexicc of The UI The Sehool People BooA The Schoolmiddot

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The llistory

send and N ward

Soustelle J 1962 Daiy Lije (

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural II

Diffusion1 (ed) Chica

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulali

Vaillant George C 1944 llistory anG

Report Sm 530

1962 The Aztecs 333

Whitc Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in

I

DE CULTURA IdHUATL

YltlLltlJJll New York

aztecas Meacutexico UnishySeccioacuten Editorial

Laws of Human Progshyto Civilization New

and ed Elizabeth Society

de Investigaciones Anshy 195) (Quotcd from

~C Acta Anthopoloshy

~o p 23

bcans in the New Worldbo de Mendieta (1525shy~niversity of California tEstory v 52) ~enturyand the Genesis History Essays in Honor J) New York Columbia iexcl

New York JB Alden

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 269

Radin P 1920 The Sourees and Authenticity of the History of lhe Anclent

Mexieans Berkeley University of California Press (Unishyversity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology v 17 n 1) p 1-132

Reed Alma M 1966 The Anclen past of Mexieo New York Crown Publishers

Inc p 1-140

Sahaguacuten Fray Bernardino de 1961 Kings and Lords Book 8 of the Florentine Codex Translated

by Arthur JO Anderson and Charles E Dibble Santa Fe New Mexico published by The School of American Research of The University of Utah 1954 (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part IX) The People Book 10 of the Florentlne Codex (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part XI)

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The History of the Conquest of Mexico transo Thomas Townshy

send and Nathan Hook 2 V Londqn Printed for T Woodshyward

Soustellc J 1962 Daily Lije of the Aztees New York The Macmillan Comshy

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America-Parallelism or

Diffusion The Civilizations of Andent Ameriea Sol Tax (ed) Chicago University of Chicago Press

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas Meacutexico Editorial Jus

Vaillant George C 1944 History and Stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico Annual

Report Smithsonian Institution Washington DC p 521shy530

1962 The Aztecs of Mexico Baltimore Penguin Book Inc p 21shy333

White Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in American Anthropology The Bandelier-Morgan

bull

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL270

Lelters 1873-1883 George P Hammond (ed) 2 V Albushyquerque The University of New Mexico Press

Willey Gordon R and Philip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology Chicago Unishy

versity of Chicago Press 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations American Anthropologist LXIV February p 1-11

Wolf E R 1959 Sons o the Shakmg Earth Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Fernando Horcas

Bajo el tiacutetulo prov( Carlos Mariacutea de Bl indiacutegenas de habla

Agradezco al

Chicago el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos nuacutemeros de a m2 1820

En la primera h

Esta es publicaci seguridad eacutel no j

el idioma 10 qUl Leoacuten Es de gra

En la misma he

This is a publica tainly was not ti that language ~ The pamphlet is this N Leoacuten

El licenciado e 1774 y murioacute en y a veces se le ce Diario de Meacutexico tado en 1815 fue minoacute hasta 1820 No regresoacute a la e

iquest Quieacuten habraacute

~IOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL

I

r (Feldman 1966 p pplication to what is ~e They all have been arious periods in the histOry as being strat~ rogr~ssive evoluti~nist~ere Important pnmashy~tzcoatl and the begin~

little doubt that the[istocracy with overshyprobably semi-heredshyreceded the arrival of

cal consolidation At rdinated to the govshy

king increasing power ~e provinces and made iexclcenter of what can be

~n) r

~e 01 Government 01 lhe ~eport of the Peabody Iand Ethnology p 557shy

I ~lhua Mexica Berkeley ornia Press (Ibero-Ameshy

~ sobretiro de la Meshy~ta VI p 15-27 ~ Oklahoma Univer-

THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 267

1963 Land Tenure Among the Ancient Mexicans American Anthropologist LXV August p 863-878

Covarrubias Miguel 1957 Indian Art 01 Mexico and Central America New York AIshy

fred A Knopf Engels Frederick

1937 Engels on Capital Synopsis Reviews Letters and Supplemenshytary Material Marxist Library v XXXIV New York Intershynational Publishers p 3-147

1942 The origin 01 the Family Priva te Property and the State Marxist Library v XXII New York International Publishers p 5-176

Feldman LH 1966 Conflict in Historical Interpretation of the Aztec State and

Society Estudios de Cultura Naacutehuatl v VI Mexico City p 167-175

Green John C 1963 Darwin and the Modern World View New York The New

American Library of World Literature Inc p 98

Goldenweisser A 1941 Recent Trends in American Anthropology American Anshy

thropologist v XLII April-June p 151-163

Guzmaacuten Eulalia 1958 Relaciones de Hernaacuten Corteacutes Meacutexico Libros Anaacutehuac

Hanke L 1959 Aristotle and the American Indians London Hollis and Carshy

ter Limited

Hester James J 1962 A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures Amershy

ican Anthropologist LXIV October p 1001-1015

Hewett Edgar L 1936 Andent Lije in Mexico and Central America New York

Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers

Leoacuten-Portilla M 1963 Aztec Thought and Culture Norman OkIahoma University

of Oklahoma Press 1962 The Broken Spears The Aztec Account 01 the Conquest 01

Mexico Boston Beacon Press

268 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteliUATL

toacutepez Austin Alfredo 196] La constitucioacuten real de Meacutexico-Tenochtitlan Meacutexico Univershy

sidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico p 21-52 Marx K and Engels Frederick

1963 The Communist Manifesto Ed D Ryazanoff New York Russell and Russell Inc p 2-365

Moreno Manuel M 1931 La organizacioacuten poliacutetica y social de los aztecas Meacutexico Unishy

versidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico Seccioacuten Editorial p87

Morgan Lewis H 1877 Ancienl Society or Researches in tlle Laws of Human Progshy

ress from Savagery througlz Barbarism lO Civilization New York A Hoh and Company

Motoliniacutea 1950 History of the lndians of New Spain transo and ed Elizabeth

A Foster Bcrkeley Calif The Cortes Society Noriega Rauacutel Co-editor

1966 Esplendor del Meacutexico Antiguo Centro de Investigaciones Anshytropo16gicas de Meacutexico Mexi) City 195) (Quoted from Reed p 79)

Oliveacute Negrete Julio Ceacutesar 1958 Estructura y dinaacutemica de Mesoameacuterica Acta Anlhropoloshy

gica eacutepoca 2 1 n 3

Petroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 Archaeology in Mexico Today Mexico p 23

Phelan J L 1956 The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World

A study of the Writings of Geronimo de Mendieta (1525shy1604) Berke1ey and Los Angeles University of California Press (University of California in History v 52)

1961 Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Centuryand the Genesis of Mexiean Nationalism Culture in History Essays in Honor of Paul Radin Stanley Diamond (ed) New York Columbia University Press

Prescott W H 1886 History of the Conquest of Mexico New York JB Alden

and Crowell

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST UTE

Radin P 1920 The Sources

Mexicans 1 versity of e and Ethnolo

Reed Alma M 1966 The Andent

Inc p 1-1L

Sahaguacuten Fray Bem~ 1961 Kings and L

by Arthur J New Mexicc of The UI The Sehool People BooA The Schoolmiddot

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The llistory

send and N ward

Soustelle J 1962 Daiy Lije (

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural II

Diffusion1 (ed) Chica

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulali

Vaillant George C 1944 llistory anG

Report Sm 530

1962 The Aztecs 333

Whitc Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in

I

DE CULTURA IdHUATL

YltlLltlJJll New York

aztecas Meacutexico UnishySeccioacuten Editorial

Laws of Human Progshyto Civilization New

and ed Elizabeth Society

de Investigaciones Anshy 195) (Quotcd from

~C Acta Anthopoloshy

~o p 23

bcans in the New Worldbo de Mendieta (1525shy~niversity of California tEstory v 52) ~enturyand the Genesis History Essays in Honor J) New York Columbia iexcl

New York JB Alden

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 269

Radin P 1920 The Sourees and Authenticity of the History of lhe Anclent

Mexieans Berkeley University of California Press (Unishyversity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology v 17 n 1) p 1-132

Reed Alma M 1966 The Anclen past of Mexieo New York Crown Publishers

Inc p 1-140

Sahaguacuten Fray Bernardino de 1961 Kings and Lords Book 8 of the Florentine Codex Translated

by Arthur JO Anderson and Charles E Dibble Santa Fe New Mexico published by The School of American Research of The University of Utah 1954 (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part IX) The People Book 10 of the Florentlne Codex (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part XI)

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The History of the Conquest of Mexico transo Thomas Townshy

send and Nathan Hook 2 V Londqn Printed for T Woodshyward

Soustellc J 1962 Daily Lije of the Aztees New York The Macmillan Comshy

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America-Parallelism or

Diffusion The Civilizations of Andent Ameriea Sol Tax (ed) Chicago University of Chicago Press

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas Meacutexico Editorial Jus

Vaillant George C 1944 History and Stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico Annual

Report Smithsonian Institution Washington DC p 521shy530

1962 The Aztecs of Mexico Baltimore Penguin Book Inc p 21shy333

White Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in American Anthropology The Bandelier-Morgan

bull

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL270

Lelters 1873-1883 George P Hammond (ed) 2 V Albushyquerque The University of New Mexico Press

Willey Gordon R and Philip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology Chicago Unishy

versity of Chicago Press 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations American Anthropologist LXIV February p 1-11

Wolf E R 1959 Sons o the Shakmg Earth Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Fernando Horcas

Bajo el tiacutetulo prov( Carlos Mariacutea de Bl indiacutegenas de habla

Agradezco al

Chicago el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos nuacutemeros de a m2 1820

En la primera h

Esta es publicaci seguridad eacutel no j

el idioma 10 qUl Leoacuten Es de gra

En la misma he

This is a publica tainly was not ti that language ~ The pamphlet is this N Leoacuten

El licenciado e 1774 y murioacute en y a veces se le ce Diario de Meacutexico tado en 1815 fue minoacute hasta 1820 No regresoacute a la e

iquest Quieacuten habraacute

268 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteliUATL

toacutepez Austin Alfredo 196] La constitucioacuten real de Meacutexico-Tenochtitlan Meacutexico Univershy

sidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico p 21-52 Marx K and Engels Frederick

1963 The Communist Manifesto Ed D Ryazanoff New York Russell and Russell Inc p 2-365

Moreno Manuel M 1931 La organizacioacuten poliacutetica y social de los aztecas Meacutexico Unishy

versidad Nacional Autoacutenoma de Meacutexico Seccioacuten Editorial p87

Morgan Lewis H 1877 Ancienl Society or Researches in tlle Laws of Human Progshy

ress from Savagery througlz Barbarism lO Civilization New York A Hoh and Company

Motoliniacutea 1950 History of the lndians of New Spain transo and ed Elizabeth

A Foster Bcrkeley Calif The Cortes Society Noriega Rauacutel Co-editor

1966 Esplendor del Meacutexico Antiguo Centro de Investigaciones Anshytropo16gicas de Meacutexico Mexi) City 195) (Quoted from Reed p 79)

Oliveacute Negrete Julio Ceacutesar 1958 Estructura y dinaacutemica de Mesoameacuterica Acta Anlhropoloshy

gica eacutepoca 2 1 n 3

Petroacuteleos Mexicanos 1961 Archaeology in Mexico Today Mexico p 23

Phelan J L 1956 The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World

A study of the Writings of Geronimo de Mendieta (1525shy1604) Berke1ey and Los Angeles University of California Press (University of California in History v 52)

1961 Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Centuryand the Genesis of Mexiean Nationalism Culture in History Essays in Honor of Paul Radin Stanley Diamond (ed) New York Columbia University Press

Prescott W H 1886 History of the Conquest of Mexico New York JB Alden

and Crowell

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST UTE

Radin P 1920 The Sources

Mexicans 1 versity of e and Ethnolo

Reed Alma M 1966 The Andent

Inc p 1-1L

Sahaguacuten Fray Bem~ 1961 Kings and L

by Arthur J New Mexicc of The UI The Sehool People BooA The Schoolmiddot

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The llistory

send and N ward

Soustelle J 1962 Daiy Lije (

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural II

Diffusion1 (ed) Chica

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulali

Vaillant George C 1944 llistory anG

Report Sm 530

1962 The Aztecs 333

Whitc Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in

I

DE CULTURA IdHUATL

YltlLltlJJll New York

aztecas Meacutexico UnishySeccioacuten Editorial

Laws of Human Progshyto Civilization New

and ed Elizabeth Society

de Investigaciones Anshy 195) (Quotcd from

~C Acta Anthopoloshy

~o p 23

bcans in the New Worldbo de Mendieta (1525shy~niversity of California tEstory v 52) ~enturyand the Genesis History Essays in Honor J) New York Columbia iexcl

New York JB Alden

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 269

Radin P 1920 The Sourees and Authenticity of the History of lhe Anclent

Mexieans Berkeley University of California Press (Unishyversity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology v 17 n 1) p 1-132

Reed Alma M 1966 The Anclen past of Mexieo New York Crown Publishers

Inc p 1-140

Sahaguacuten Fray Bernardino de 1961 Kings and Lords Book 8 of the Florentine Codex Translated

by Arthur JO Anderson and Charles E Dibble Santa Fe New Mexico published by The School of American Research of The University of Utah 1954 (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part IX) The People Book 10 of the Florentlne Codex (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part XI)

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The History of the Conquest of Mexico transo Thomas Townshy

send and Nathan Hook 2 V Londqn Printed for T Woodshyward

Soustellc J 1962 Daily Lije of the Aztees New York The Macmillan Comshy

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America-Parallelism or

Diffusion The Civilizations of Andent Ameriea Sol Tax (ed) Chicago University of Chicago Press

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas Meacutexico Editorial Jus

Vaillant George C 1944 History and Stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico Annual

Report Smithsonian Institution Washington DC p 521shy530

1962 The Aztecs of Mexico Baltimore Penguin Book Inc p 21shy333

White Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in American Anthropology The Bandelier-Morgan

bull

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL270

Lelters 1873-1883 George P Hammond (ed) 2 V Albushyquerque The University of New Mexico Press

Willey Gordon R and Philip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology Chicago Unishy

versity of Chicago Press 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations American Anthropologist LXIV February p 1-11

Wolf E R 1959 Sons o the Shakmg Earth Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Fernando Horcas

Bajo el tiacutetulo prov( Carlos Mariacutea de Bl indiacutegenas de habla

Agradezco al

Chicago el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos nuacutemeros de a m2 1820

En la primera h

Esta es publicaci seguridad eacutel no j

el idioma 10 qUl Leoacuten Es de gra

En la misma he

This is a publica tainly was not ti that language ~ The pamphlet is this N Leoacuten

El licenciado e 1774 y murioacute en y a veces se le ce Diario de Meacutexico tado en 1815 fue minoacute hasta 1820 No regresoacute a la e

iquest Quieacuten habraacute

I

DE CULTURA IdHUATL

YltlLltlJJll New York

aztecas Meacutexico UnishySeccioacuten Editorial

Laws of Human Progshyto Civilization New

and ed Elizabeth Society

de Investigaciones Anshy 195) (Quotcd from

~C Acta Anthopoloshy

~o p 23

bcans in the New Worldbo de Mendieta (1525shy~niversity of California tEstory v 52) ~enturyand the Genesis History Essays in Honor J) New York Columbia iexcl

New York JB Alden

TIlE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 269

Radin P 1920 The Sourees and Authenticity of the History of lhe Anclent

Mexieans Berkeley University of California Press (Unishyversity of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology v 17 n 1) p 1-132

Reed Alma M 1966 The Anclen past of Mexieo New York Crown Publishers

Inc p 1-140

Sahaguacuten Fray Bernardino de 1961 Kings and Lords Book 8 of the Florentine Codex Translated

by Arthur JO Anderson and Charles E Dibble Santa Fe New Mexico published by The School of American Research of The University of Utah 1954 (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part IX) The People Book 10 of the Florentlne Codex (Monographs of The School of American Research n 14 Part XI)

Soliacutes Antonio de 1738 The History of the Conquest of Mexico transo Thomas Townshy

send and Nathan Hook 2 V Londqn Printed for T Woodshyward

Soustellc J 1962 Daily Lije of the Aztees New York The Macmillan Comshy

pany

Strong William D 1951 Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America-Parallelism or

Diffusion The Civilizations of Andent Ameriea Sol Tax (ed) Chicago University of Chicago Press

Trueba Alfonso 1959 Dontildea Eulalia el mestizo y otros temas Meacutexico Editorial Jus

Vaillant George C 1944 History and Stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico Annual

Report Smithsonian Institution Washington DC p 521shy530

1962 The Aztecs of Mexico Baltimore Penguin Book Inc p 21shy333

White Leslie A 1940 Pioneers in American Anthropology The Bandelier-Morgan

bull

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL270

Lelters 1873-1883 George P Hammond (ed) 2 V Albushyquerque The University of New Mexico Press

Willey Gordon R and Philip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology Chicago Unishy

versity of Chicago Press 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations American Anthropologist LXIV February p 1-11

Wolf E R 1959 Sons o the Shakmg Earth Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Fernando Horcas

Bajo el tiacutetulo prov( Carlos Mariacutea de Bl indiacutegenas de habla

Agradezco al

Chicago el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos nuacutemeros de a m2 1820

En la primera h

Esta es publicaci seguridad eacutel no j

el idioma 10 qUl Leoacuten Es de gra

En la misma he

This is a publica tainly was not ti that language ~ The pamphlet is this N Leoacuten

El licenciado e 1774 y murioacute en y a veces se le ce Diario de Meacutexico tado en 1815 fue minoacute hasta 1820 No regresoacute a la e

iquest Quieacuten habraacute

bull

ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NAacuteHUATL270

Lelters 1873-1883 George P Hammond (ed) 2 V Albushyquerque The University of New Mexico Press

Willey Gordon R and Philip Phillips 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology Chicago Unishy

versity of Chicago Press 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Columbian

Civilizations American Anthropologist LXIV February p 1-11

Wolf E R 1959 Sons o the Shakmg Earth Chicago University of Chicago

Press

Fernando Horcas

Bajo el tiacutetulo prov( Carlos Mariacutea de Bl indiacutegenas de habla

Agradezco al

Chicago el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos nuacutemeros de a m2 1820

En la primera h

Esta es publicaci seguridad eacutel no j

el idioma 10 qUl Leoacuten Es de gra

En la misma he

This is a publica tainly was not ti that language ~ The pamphlet is this N Leoacuten

El licenciado e 1774 y murioacute en y a veces se le ce Diario de Meacutexico tado en 1815 fue minoacute hasta 1820 No regresoacute a la e

iquest Quieacuten habraacute