~IOS DE CULTURA NAHUATL
lestales doncellas. Esta ~ la noche, y a la salida ~s de) templo y hecho ~n los altares. James Robert Moriarty THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE A COMPARISON BETWEEN ~n austera gastaban los PROGRESSIVE EVOLUTIONISTS AND ¡Ue gustaban sus padres OTHER HISTORICAL INTERPRETATIONS ~ narración he andado ~istoria, sino de un co ~de sus principios hábi ¡lo que pueden serlo los It is fortunate for the researeher that the Aztecs possess sueh a !ando lo supersticioso y strong historical eonseiousness that they reeorded the "historical events of eaeh year ... by day, month and hour". Therefore, the I más reglados y obser ¡ earliest sourees on the eondition of the Aztee state in the pre eonquest era are derived from the writings of the Aztees them selves. 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 pur pose, 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 con taineth 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 t'1e 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; León-Portilla, 1963, p. 154, 155, ís de nuestro ms. acostum ni nada al convento de San 160-161). 1 Academia de la Historia Any attempt on the part of the investigator to reeonstruet an ¡estro estudio). Está éste a !te párrafo, y su texto es aceurate picture of the government of the Aztec peoples and Mexi a en los fols. 137 rO -142 rO. co City, partieularly that period whieh coincides with the arrival 258 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQllEST AZTEe of the Europeans, will find rumself in deep water. It has been evidence supports a , observed that even as late as today, "the Indian of today still nation by military or arms himself with dubious response and an inert attitude before of a democratic, triba the most simple question about his daily life. For him the racial as having insufficient pact of silence before the wrute invader is still valid" (Noriega, According to the feuc 1959). Presently we are left only with the obviously biased chron ed from commoner t4 ieles of the Spanish historians who accompanied Cortes. We of les ser and greater 1 know practically nothing of the Aztec historians who wrote per cial privileges. Thos fectly legible and readable manuscripts, most of which were itary estates wruch ... destroyed. It can be said with sorne authority that the Aztecs quite normal1y as fel had well planned polítical activity withín a military theocratic as there were very lal system and that trus was perhaps one of the most important rea inces he1d in vasse1a son s for their rapid development into a city-state. As it was to could be distinguishe , be expected, the Spanish conquerors viewed the exterior signs of mon people had no government from the standpoint of European governmental sys ernment and they h tems of that period. As a consequence, the terminology that we viewpoint is always ( use today reflects the nomenelature of European feudalism. ing, that is, that peri< The development of the beautiful and elegant city of Tenoch p. 2, 18; Caso, 1954, titlan grew out of two centuries of warfare and building. It was White, 1940, p. 32; S almost sixty years after the founding of that city that the Aztecs p. 21-52; Caso, 196~ launched their formal political career. It can be said with sorne The familiarity of assurance that not aH elements of the Aztec people subscribed to system or the feudal· the dominant outlook wruch was particularIy stressed in the his easy for them to iníe tories that were written under the direction of ItzcoatL Certainly dards, but they did the merchants, for example, had a far greater desire to accumulate to a second theory 1 wealth than fight Holy wars. Nevertheless, the view that war and of the earIy authorit conquests were both good and necessary is the one that remains Aztec cultures. The to us in the literature (Soustelle, 1962, p. 58, 66, 210). EarIy the Roman Empire Spanish writings at the !tme of the conquest refer to the "natural political implicatiom rudeness and inferiority of the Indians" (Hanke, 1959, p. 44; Mo an, 1956, p. 110-11J tolinia, 1950, p. 209; Prescott, 1886, p. 42). Both the earIy Span society formulated ~ ish as well as the Indian rustorians interpreted the Aztec govern religious orders to d ment in terms of the Spanish feudal system. Out of this reason intellectual achievem ing come the interpretation which has lasted perhaps longer than quemada as earIy as any other. Indeed, trus interpretation is still supported today by and indeed overwhe a sizable number of scholars, and may be called the feudal-impe that the Aztecs rep rialist's theory. The feudal-imperialists hold that the Aztec cul WorId. Later on his ture was comparable to that of medieval Europe. They feel the "In an atmosphere 1 :OS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 259
I water. It has been evidenee supports a view of the Aztee empire as inferring domi [ndian of today still nation by military or theoeratic aristoeraey. The later theories inert attitude before of a demoeratic, tribal Aztee soeiety are rejeeted by these people :. For him the racial as having insufficient evidenee mainly to support sueh a theory. still valid" (Noriega, Aeeording to the feudal-imperialist's view, Aztee society streteh viously biased ehron ed from eommoner to emperor through a eomplicated hierarehy lpanied Cortes. We of lesser and greater nobility, many of whom possessed very spe rians who wrote per eial privileges. Those who were ennobled ruled private hered nost of whieh were itary estates whieh were worked by serfs and they funetioned )rity that the Aztees quite normally as feudal lords. The king was, however, eleeted a military theocratie as there were very large numbers of autonomous tributary prov most important rea inees held in vasselage to the city-state. This eleeted monareh y-state. As it was to eould be distinguished as an emperor during his reign. The eom the exterior signs of mon people had no effeetiv('j voice or representation in the gov il1 governmental sys ernment and they had few privileges. The feudal-imperialist's terminology that we viewpoint is always defined as the period of Aztee empire build ::>pean feudalismo ing, that is, that period in their history after 1430 (Moreno, 1931, gant eity of Tenoeh p. 2, 18; Caso, 1954, p. 22, 27; Wolf, 1959, p. 137, 141-142, 149; and building. It was White, 1940, p. 32; Sahagún, 1961, p. 15-22; López: Austin, 1961, t city that the Aztees p. 21-52; Caso, 1963, p. 863-878). LO be said with some The farniliarity of the early Spanish historians with the feudal people subseribed to system or the feudal-imperialist's system in Europe made it very 'Iy stressed in the his easy for them to interpret the Aztee's government by sueh stan ofItzeoatl. Certainly dards, but they did not leave ott at this point and that gives rise : desire to aeeumulate to a seeond theory whieh developed out of this eoneept. Some :he view that war and of the early authorities saw an analogy between the Roman and the one that remains Aztee cultures. They, therefore, eompared the Aztee's state to 58, 66, 210). Early the Roman Empire and this gave rise to so me very important refer to the "natural politieal implieations in the early days (Solís, 1738, p. 136; Phel nke, 1959, p. 44; Mo an, 1956, p. 110-111). The analogy between Roman and Aztee Both the early Span soeiety formulated as part of an attempt by some of the early ed the Aztee govern- religious orders to demonstrate that the Indians were eapable of Out of this reason intelleetual aehievements equal to that ofEuropeans. Father Tor . perhaps longer than quemada as early as 1615 made this eomparison on a systematie 1 supported today by and indeed overwhelming seale. The implieations of this were Jled the feudal-impe that the Aztees represented the c1assical antiquity of the New 1 that the Aztee eul World. Later on historians inc1uded Aztee deities in this eoneept. lfope. They feel the "In an atmosphere suggestive of the Gods of the Greeks and the THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEe ~ 260 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL Romans [and] the Aztees took on the virtues of heroie Roman George C. Vaillant emperors" (Phelan, 1961, p. 761). preecding from an oq The next evolutionary step in the development of theories ehief of lineage who a relating to Aztee soeiety and government was the eentral-impe says that within this ! rialist's interpretation (Feldman, 1966, p. 171). Thc elements trade flourished. The whieh led to this new interpretation, whieh is one that has aehiev tisans. The product e ed great popularity in Mexieo, began with the assumption of an ward religion and riú Aztee c1assieal antiquity. Gradually out of this assumption Span tíon of personal weal ish colonial intelleetuals dcveloped a philosophy in whieh they gion for the Aztees w~ began to demand a return to Aztee virtues and in addition the worship with a few G( restoration of the Aztee Empire. The return, of eourse, to these in turn, brought the f c1assie virtues would not bring about any real revival of Aztec in his life on earth" culture nor was it really desired, but "this platform of ideas ... migration under the 1 provided a neat though historieally dubious rationale for in Tenoeheas evolved in dependenee ... " When Mexiean independenee did come about, result of their being this tendency to glorify the Aztee died out. There was sorne at development into an tempt after the 1910 Mexican revolution to revive it and the idea about until there was remains of sorne importanee in modern Mexiean historiography them psyehologically (Phelan, 1961, p. 768-769; Covarrubias, 1957, p. 312, 320; Pe ing of superioríty. 11 tróleos Mexicanos, 1961, p. 23; Guzmán, 1958, p. 58-64). It Itzeoatl, the fourth T should be noted that Alfonso Trueba disagrees strongly with this About 1300 there w view and attaeked this position in his Doña Eulalia, el mestizo Aztees were defeated y otros temas (Trueba, 1959, p. 7-10). eaped to the islands Following this period the central-imperialist's interpretation 1325. The town wa~ carne to the fore and, as 1 have said, aehíeved great popularity main chiefs presumal in MexÍco. This view considered the Aztee state to have been captured, were taken either an ineipient or fully developed empíreo This empire the placed in a feudal st oretieally was ruled by an absolute monareh who established eline of Culhuaean te colonies, controlled a number of provinees for the purpose of The Aztees then rejoi tribute, established garrisons and abolished local autonomy. Un city" of Tenoehtitlan der this system separate and special classes existed. There was a Jtzeoatl privilege and nobility based on merit rather than hereditary rights. Con but not elass in the sequentIy, any commoner if he was able eould advance through ownership of propert the c1ass stratum even to the highest rank. Aeeording to this viewpoint the emperor or king was not eleeted by either the peo and other possessiom pIe or the nobility; instead a eouncil previously eh osen by the tion. According to , former emperor from members of his fami1y made up the group ety was democratic ~ of eleetors (Caso, 1954, p. 20; Caso, 1958, p. 94; Soustelle, 1962, property was its ecO] p.45). ranl< attained was m !D¡OS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 261 i tues of heroic Roman George C. Vaillant saw the foundations of the Aztee state as r ¡ preeeding from an organizatíon where the Head of State was a ~elopment of theories ehief of lineage who also performed eeclesiastical funetions. He rwas the central-impe says that within this state craftsmanship was híghly skilled and ¡ 171). The elements trade flourished. The later produeed raw materials for the ar ~s one that has achiev tisans. The produet of the artisans, however, was directed to ! the assumption of an ward religíon and ritual rather than the accumulation or crea Ithis assumption Span tíon of personal wealth. According to Vaillant, therefore, reli psophy in which they gion for the Aztecs was an elaborate polythesism based on nature ~ and in addition the worship with a few Gods singled out for special adoration. These, 'n, of course, to these in turn, brought the full force of the divine powers "to aid man rreal revival of Aztec in his life on earth" (Vaillant, 1944, p. 97). After a períod of platform of ideas ... migration under the governmental system described before, the ous rationale for in Tenoehcas evolved into the condition of a feudal tributary as a nce did come about, result of their being eonquered by a neighboring group. The (~ ~ There was some at development into an independent state, he says, did not come f revive it and the idea about until there was a definÍte change of attitude which shífted ~eXÍcan historiogr~phy them psychologieally from a group sense of inferiority to a feel· ~57, p. 312, 320, Pe ing of superiority. This was brought about by the leadership of ~ 1958, p. 58-64). It Itzcoatl, the fourth Tenochcan ehief. ~es strongly with this About 1300 there was a split in tríbal contínuity when the ear1y ro Eulalia, el mestizo Aztecs were defeated at Chapultepec. A number of the tribe es caped to the islands in the lake and founded a rown around ~a1ist's interpretation 1325. The town was ruled under a tribal council and elected ved great popularity main chiefs presumably. The other group, who were in a sense state to have been captured, were taken to Tizapan by the victors where they were ~ire. This empire the plaeed in a feudal status as the vassals of Culhuacan. The de ~reh who established cline of Culhuacan took place sometime between 1351 and 1403. for the purpose of ~s The Aztees then rejoined the group on the islands and the "stone local autonomy. Un I city" of Tenochtitlan was constructed. With the aseendeney of ~ eXÍsted. There was a Itzcoatl privilege and honor in the society was viewed as rank, ~ditary rights. Con but not class in the hereditary sense. As wealth did exist, the buld advance through ~. According to this ownership of property in the form of the right to use land, tools !red by either the peo and other possessions did create a social and economic stratifica rous1y ehosen by the tion. Aeeording to Vaillant, "in theory and practice Aztec soci ly made up the group ety was democratic and the communal ownership of,productive p. 94; Soustelle, 1962, property was its economic base". The ladder to power and the I r rank attained was measured by the amount of tribal service one 262 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTG could perform. If aman demonstrated superior skills, wisdom is broken up. In its . or judgement, he could well be e1ected a clan representative to this society the contre the tribal council or even the chief. One of the other routes to 5-6). With some moc rank and high social position would be that of the Priest or Med that later writers such : icine Man. The learning of magic rituals with which to placate The progressive cut the Gods playing such an important roll in the society offered tec state developed o privileges and prestige to the man who knew these practices. that arose in the 19th The semi-materialistic examination of history, particularly re pIe as Marx, Engels, ] lating to the Aztecs made byVaillant had its origins in the latter evolutionary and prol part of the 19th century. Frederíck Enge1s, compatriot and close of cultural evolution I friend of Karl Marx, after having made a careful study of Lewis biological evolution " H. Morgan's pioneering work Ancient Society concluded that that lay the foundati( both Morgan and Marx had independent1y developed the mate idea that European c ríalistic concept of history. Engels felt that both Marx and Mor all cultures were supp~ gan, in the main points, had arrived at the same conclusions. this was being done t According to the materialistic concept of history, the determin Adolph F. BandeU ing factor is, in the final instance, the production and reproduc school of thoughí. f tion of the immediate essentials of life. This leads, of course, to reasoning along thes< a positive social organization and further to the structure of the Morgan had studied state and organization control of the state. This control extends "state" according to also to the entities within the state. The theory behind this is, the prímary stages of quite simply, that the social organization under which a people bal, democratic, and in any historical time, regardless of the particular country in personal relationship. which they live, is determined by the two kinds of production. and this was based 01 The first being .the production of the means for existence, that the lack of property is, the construction of tools, the gathering of food, making c1oth sumption, along with ing, constructing dwellings, etc. The other aspect being the pro tion" did not have ti pagation of the species itself. The societal organization then can then applied to all be determined by what stage of development there is of labor isphere. Progressive on one hand, and of the family on the other. This type of society the present time (Ba] would be based on kinship groups. The productivity, therefore, 3; White, 1940, p. 5: of its labor within the kinship group increasingIy develops. As p. 5-90). this increase occurs, prívate wealth is accumulated in the form of One of the most f property and articles of exchange. Engels sees these differences tionist concept was F as the elements that create c1ass antagonisms. When these antag tions he discussed thl onisms reach a stage where there is a total incompatibility be 10, 140; Marx and E tween new developing conditions and the old social order there to Aztec government is a complete upheaval. The kinship society or the old society refers to the Aztec rDlOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST UTEC STÁTI 263 Isuperior skills, wisdom is broken up. In its place will appear a new society and with ~ clan representative to this society the control is centered in the state (Engels, 1942, p. ~ of the other routes to 5-6). With sorne modification it is from this background, then, 't of the Priest or Med that later writers such as Vaillant began to interpret Aztec society. with which to placate The progressive cultural evolutionist interpretation of the Az ~ in the society offered tec state developed out of the theories of biological evolution knew these practices. that arose in the 19th century. It was not difficult for such peo btory, particularly re pie as Marx, Engels, Bandelier and Morgan to see culture as an aits origins in the latter evolutionary and progressive entity. As a consequence, the idea s, compatriot and close of cultural evolution developed shortly after the early works on careful study of Lewis biological evolution were published. One of the earliest theories Society concluded that that lay the foundation for the basis of such reasoning was the y developed the mate idea that European civilization was the ultimate toward which t both Marx and Mor aH cultures were supposedly evolving. Another postulate was that the same conclusions. this was being done by a single universal sequence of stages. ,if history, the determin Adolph F. Bandelier was one of the first advocates of this . duction and reproduc school of thought. His relationship with Morgan influenced his , 's leads, of course, to reasoning along these lines to a great extent. The Indians that ~ to the structure of the Morgan had studied demonstrated a lack of the attributes of a . This control extends "state" according to the progressive evolutionist theory. One of theory behind this is, the primary stages of development was that of the classless, tri under which a people bal, democratic, and communal "society" which was based on particular country in personal relationship. Another of these stages was the "state" o kinds of production. and this was based on property re1ationships. It was precisely on ans for existen ce, that the lack of property relationships that Bandelier made the as of food, making cloth sumption, along with Morgan and Engels, that the Iroquois "na r aspect being the pro tion" did not have the attributes of a "state". The concept was I organization then can then applied to aH cultures indigenous to the Western Hem ment there is of labor isphere. Progressive evolutionists have adhered to this view to , ero This type of society the present time (Bandelier, 1880, p. 557-699; Moreno, 1931, p. productivity, therefore, 3; White, 1940, p. 52; Morgan, 1877, p. 186-214; Engels, 1942, easingly develops. As p. 5-90). mulated in the forro of One of the most famous advocates of the progressive evolu s sees these differences tionist concept was Frederick Engels. In a number of his publica . When these antag tions he discussed the construction of a "state" (Engels, 1937, p. tal incompatibility be 10, 140; Marx and Engels, 1963, p. 54-57, 69-102). In reference old social order there to Aztec government, Engels, following the concepts of Morgan, ,~ety or the old society refers to the Aztec ruler as a "democratically elected official". 264 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL TIlE PRE-CONQUEST Al
Engels felt that the Aztec ruler did not live in a palace but in a ernment as being "joint-tenement house . .. occupied on equal terms by a hundred tems: third, the pi other families in common with his own". The Aztec ruler was ed out of the ead: nothing more or less than an elected official who was the chief as well as sorne ( of a tribal confederacy and that this confederacy had as yet not opment. reached a high enough stage of evolutionary deveIopment suffi Today, in Mex cient to be called a "state" by the progressive evolutionist defini in sorne cases ayo tion (Vaillant, 1960, p. 119; EngeIs, 1942, p. 96; Negrete, 1958, Aztec governmen: p. 116). presently hold to The answer of the progressive evolutionary theorists to the fact evoIutionist sees that early Spanish as well as Indian historian s did not support single culture or i this viewpoint was to discount any such non-supportive data. sive evolutionists According to EngeIs, these were obviously people who "learned p. 71; White, 19< nothing and knew nothing", they were only interpreting the Az According to the tecs in terms of the Spanish feudal system anyway. It becomes toward any spcci evident from reading Engels that if evidence disagreed with pro cultures must ne gressive evolutionist theory, the evidence therefore was wrong, although they arf not the theory. Progressive evolutionary ideas on the formation point out that nc and development of cultures has little support today. It is a view a reasonably ne\\ point that the majority of eontemporary specialists on this sub thirties. Basical1y ject have abandoned (Radin, 1920, p. 129). time early in 195 The eoncept of a tribal, classless, and demoeratic Aztee so ley, 1962, p. 10;' ciety based on the type of methodology used by sueh peopIe as 1951, p. 278, 27' Engels, as well as Vaillant to a lesser extent, discredits the pro As to be expe gressive evolutionary theory in the minds of most investigators. and sorne variati To east out any evidenee which disagrees with a theory is no paper. A rising e longer eonsidered even slightly acceptable in scientific eircles. As of the feudal-imI a matter of fact, there is an entire school developing among eer earlier viewpointi tain scientific methodoIogists where negative evidenee beeomes inite correlation It assumes that . the primary focus for their attention. Today the entire eoneept or theocratic aris of progressive evolution is in disrepute. In sorne eommunist tec society are r countries, however, there is still an oceasionaI paper being member of the s produeed whieh reflects this viewpoint. greater and lessc In summary, the foregoing was an attempt to represent sorne lived on and ru of the historieal background of the major interpretations of Az man labored. T tee governmental development. First is the interpretation of the ruler was electec Aztee government in terms of the Spanish feudal system: seeond, the latter days e the eentral-imperialist interpretation which viewed the Aztee gov- tributary provin lOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL TIIE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATJ: 265
in a palace but in a ernment as being very suggestive of both Greek and Roman sys l terms by a hundred tems: third, the progressive evolutionist viewpoint which deve1op l The Aztec ruler was ed out of the early works on biological evolution. These theories ~al who was the chief as well as sorne of their methods were applied to culture deve1 ~deracy had as yet not opment. ~ry development suffi Today, in Mexico, there has deve10ped a neo-cvolutionary or ~ve evolutionist defini in sorne cases avowedly non-evolutionary theories of pre-conquest fp. 96; Negrete, 1958, Aztec government. The major people in thc field, in my opinion, 1 presentIy hold to the neo-evolutionist idea. Although the neo ~ theorists to the fact evolutionist sees a sequence of stages in the development of a ~rians did not support single culture or in a group of re1ated cultures, unlike the progres ~ non-supportive data. sive evolutionists, he rejects the idea of progress (Rewett 1936, rpeople who "learned p. 71; White, 1940, p. 12 and 24; Goldenweisser, 1941, p. 152). ~y interpreting the Az According to the neo-evolutionists, cultures do not have to evolve ~ anyway. It becomes toward any special goals. The neo-evolutionist argues that al] ¡ce disagreed with pro cultures must necessarily pass through a sequence of stages and Itherefore was wrong, although they are willing to take into account many causes, they Ideas on the formation point out that no one factor is needed to define a stage. This is ~rt today. It is a view a reasonably new theory, elements of which were initiated in the ~pecialists on this sub thirties. Basically, however, the total concept has its origin sorne ,). time early in 1950 or shortly after the Second World War (Wil l dernocratic Aztec so lcy, 1962, p. 10; Willey and Phillips, 1962, p. 17, 196-199; Strong, ~sed by such people as 1951, p. 278, 279; Green, 1963, p. 98; Rester, 1962, p. 1014). 'tnt, discredits the pro As to be expectcd, thcre have been modifications, additions of rnost investigators. and sorne variations in the viewpoints expressed earlier in this with a theory is no paper. A rising or at least a relatively new interpretation is that scientific circ1es. As of the feudal-imperialists. This is a modification of sorne of the . eveloping among cer earlier viewpoints. In this interpretation Aztec culture has a def ~.'ve evidence becomes inite correlation to the structure of society in medieval Europe. It assumes that the Aztec empire was dominated by a military y the entire conce.pt or theocratic aristocracy. All thoughts of a democratic tribal Az . In sorne commulllst tec society are rejected. Prom the Emperor down to the least asional paper being t member of the society, there existed a complicated hierarchy of ! greater and lesser nobility. Viewed as feudal lords, the nobles pt to represent sorne lived on and ruled over private estates on which the common interpretations of Az man labored. The estates would have been semi-hereditary. The e interpretation of the ruler was elected by the nobles from their rank and became in feudal system: second, the latter days of Aztec dominance an emperor ruling over large viewed the Aztec gov- tributary provinces. 266 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST Ul As Fe1dman pointed out in a recent paper (Feldman, 1966, p. 1963 "Land Tel 173), all of these interpretations have an application to what is Anthropolo~ known of the Aztec state, society and culture. They all have been Covarrubias, Migue indifferently or differently emphasized at various periods in the 1957 Indian Art last four hundred years. Ifone views Aztec history as being strat fred A. Kn ified into three temporal periods, then the progressive evolutionist Engels, Frederick ideas of such men as Vaillant and Engels were important prima 1937 Engels on ( rily in the earliest periodo With the rise of Itzcoatl and the begin tary Mater ning the period of great conquest there is little doubt that the national PI Aztec government was a strong military aristocracy with over 1942 The origin tones of theocratic influence and was very probably semi-hered Marxist Lil itary in structure. The last period which preceded the arrival of p. 5-176. the Spanish in 1519 was the time of political consolidation. At Feldman, L.H. this time all of the allied states were subordinated to the gov 1966 "Conflict iJ ernment at Tenochtitlan and Moctezuma taking increasing power Society", 1 for himself imposed strict controls over the provinces and made 167-175. Tenochtitlan the single, absolute political center of what can be Green, John C. defined as an empíreo 1963 Darwin a1l4 American. Goldenweisser, A. 1941 "Recent T QUOTED BOOKS thropologis Guzmán, Eulalia Anderson, A.J. and Dibble, C.E. (See Sahagún). 1958 Relaciones Hanke, L. Bandelier, Adolph F. 1959 Aristotle al 1880 On the Social Organization and Mode of Government of the ter Limite( Andent Mexicans, Twelfth Annual Report of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology, p. 557 Hester, James J. 699. 1962 "A Com~ Barlow, R. H. kan Anthr 1949 The Extent o( the Empire of the Culhua Mexica. Berkeley Hewett, Edgar L. and Los Angeles, Universíty of California Press (Ibero-Ame 1936 Anden! L ricana: 28). Bobbs-Me Caso, Alfonso León-Portilla, M. 1954 "Instituciones Indígenas Precortesianas", sobretiro de la Me 1963 Aztec Tho moria del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, VI, p. 15-27. of Oklabc 1958 The Aztees, People of the Sun, Norman, Oklahoma, Univer 1962 The Brokj sity of Oklahoma Press. Mexico, I ~IOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL THE PRE-CONQUEST AZTEC STATE 267 I r (Feldman, 1966, p. 1963 "Land Tenure Among the Ancient Mexicans". American pplication to what is Anthropologist, LXV, August, p. 863-878. e. They all have been Covarrubias, Miguel arious periods in the 1957 Indian Art 01 Mexico and Central America, New York, AI ~ fred A. Knopf. histOry as being strat~ rogr~ssive evoluti~nist Engels, Frederick ~ere Important pnma 1937 Engels on Capital, Synopsis, Reviews, Letters and Supplemen ~tzcoatl and the begin~ tary Material, Marxist Library, v. XXXIV, New York, Inter little doubt that the national Publishers, p. 3-147. [istocracy with over 1942 The origin 01 the Family, Priva te Property and the State, probably semi-hered Marxist Library, v. XXII, New York, International Publishers. receded the arrival of p. 5-176. 'cal consolidation. At Feldman, L.H. rdinated to the gov 1966 "Conflict in Historical Interpretation of the Aztec State and king increasing power Society", Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl, v. VI, Mexico City, p. ~e provinces and made 167-175. ¡center of what can be 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 An thropologist, v. XLII, April-June, p. 151-163. ! Guzmán, Eulalia ~n). 1958 Relaciones de Hernán Cortés, México, Libros Anáhuac. r Hanke, L. 1959 Aristotle and the American Indians, London, Hollis and Car 01 Government 01 lhe ~e ter Limited. ~eport of the Peabody Iand Ethnology, p. 557 Hester, James J. 1962 "A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures", Amer I ican Anthropologist, LXIV, October, p. 1001-1015. ~lhua Mexica, Berkeley Hewett, Edgar L. ,ornia Press (Ibero-Ame 1936 Andent Lije in Mexico and Central America, New York, Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers. León-Portilla, M. ~", sobretiro de la Me 1963 Aztec Thought and Culture, Norman, OkIahoma, University ~ta, VI, p. 15-27. of Oklahoma Press. ~, Oklahoma, Univer- 1962 The Broken Spears. The Aztec Account 01 the Conquest 01 Mexico, Boston, Beacon Press. 268 'ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁliUATL TIlE PRE-CONQUEST ,UTE tópez Austin, Alfredo Radin, P. 196] La constitución real de México-Tenochtitlan, México, Univer 1920 The Sources sidad Nacional Autónoma de México, p. 21-52. Mexicans. 1 Marx, K. and Engels, Frederick versity of e 1963 The Communist Manifesto, Ed., D. Ryazanoff, New York, and Ethnolo Russell and Russell, Inc., p. 2-365. Reed, Alma M. Moreno, Manuel M. 1966 The Andent 1931 La organización política y social de los aztecas, México, Uni Inc., p. 1-1L versidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Sección Editorial, Sahagún, Fray Bem~ p.87. 1961 Kings and L Morgan, Lewis H. by Arthur J 1877 Ancienl Society: or Researches in tlle Laws of Human Prog New Mexicc ress from Savagery, througlz Barbarism lO Civilization, New of The UI York, A. Hoh and Company. The Sehool Motolinía People BooA 1950 History of the lndians of New Spain, transo and ed. Elizabeth The School· A. Foster, Bcrkeley, Calif., The Cortes Society. Solís, Antonio de Noriega, Raúl, Co-editor 1738 The llistory 1966 Esplendor del México Antiguo, Centro de Investigaciones An send and N: tropo16gicas de Méxic:o, Mexi:;:) City, 195) (Quoted from ward. Reed, p. 79). Soustelle, J. Olivé Negrete, Julio César 1962 Dai/y Lije, ( 1958 "Estructura y dinámica de Mesoamérica", Acta Anlhropolo pany. gica, época 2, 1, n. 3. Petróleos Mexicanos Strong, William D. 1961 Archaeology in Mexico Today, Mexico, p. 23. 1951 "Cultural II Diffusion1" Phelan, J. L. (ed.), Chica 1956 The Millennial Kingdom of the Franciscans in the New World. A study of the Writings of Geronimo de Mendieta (1525 Trueba, Alfonso 1604), Berke1ey and Los Angeles, University of California 1959 Doña Eulali Press ("University of California in History", v. 52). Vaillant, George C. 1961 "Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Centuryand the Genesis 1944 llistory anG of Mexiean Nationalism", Culture in History, Essays in Honor Report, Sm of Paul Radin, Stanley Diamond (ed.) New York, Columbia 530. University Press. 1962 The Aztecs Prescott, W. H. 333. 1886 History of the Conquest of Mexico, New York, J.B. Alden Whitc, Leslie A. and Crowell. 1940 Pioneers in DE CULTURA IdHUATL 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. ("Uni versity of California Publications in American Archaeology
Y
Lelters 1873-1883, George P. Hammond (ed.), 2 V., Albu querque, The University of New Mexico Press. Willey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips Fernando Horcas 1962 Method and Theory in American Archaeology, Chicago, Uni 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. Bajo el título prov( 1959 Sons o/ the Shakmg Earth, Chicago, University of Chicago Carlos María de Bl Press. indígenas de habla Agradezco al ! Chicago, el haberr nal que se conserv~ dos números de a m2. 1820. En la primera h
Esta es publicaci seguridad él no j el idioma: 10 qUl León. Es de gra
En la misma he
This is a publica tainly was not ti that language, ~ The pamphlet is this. N. León.
El licenciado e 1774 y murió en • y a veces se le ce Diario de México tado en 1815, fue minó hasta 1820, No regresó a la e ¿ Quién habrá