Mesoamerican Terri Torial Eounoaries
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T MESOAMERICAN TERRI ORIAL EOUNOARIES: RECDNSTRUCTIONS ffia.1 ARCHAEOLOJY AND HIEROOLYPHIC WRITING Joyce Marcus Introduction Archaeologists working with Mesoamerican societies have long been interested in integrating textual data (hieroglyphic writing) with archaeological data (survey and excavation results), but so far there have been only a few efforts along these I ines. There are two reasons for this: firstly, both textual analysis and archaeology are fields a. requiring increasing specialisation; this trend has tended to work against scholars who wished to combine the two lines of information. Secondly, there are at least two possible ways that texts and archaeo logy can be related to each other: 1 . they may overlap in theme, scope, and content; 2. they may constitute non-overlapping, complementary sets of data. One theme we can approach through texts and archaeology is that of territorial boundaries. In fact, several lines of evidence -- ethno historic, linguistic, archaeological, and textual -- can be brought to bear on this theme. While archaeologists in many parts of the world have often had to limit themselves to pottery styles and architecture to C. reconstruct territorial boundaries, Mesoamericanists are fortunate in having at their disposal the additional evidence mentioned above. In this paper we wi 11 look at how texts and archaeology can be Figure 1 : Place signs from integrated to reconstruct territorial boundaries for the Aztec of (a) Nahuatl glyph for Tutute Central Mexico, the Mixtec and Zai:>otec of Oaxaca, and the Maya of glyph for Tututepec; (c) Mil Southern Mexico and Guatemala. In our conclusions, we will evaluate the glyph for Yaxchilan. degree of fit between these different lines of evidence. Mesoamerican Place Signs the Zapotec area, we are als Spanish, Zapotec, and/or Nat Place signs are among the hieroglyphs most frequently encountered 1 than 40 hieroglyphic signs in preColumbian or early Colonial codices and carved stone monuments identify specific archaeol (Figure 1). While quite easy to classify as 'place signs', many remain occur on multi-ton stones ti to be 'deciphered' or identified. For the Aztec, more than 500 place since those monuments ofte signs are known, many of them identifiable only because of the Spanish 2 resident nobi1 i ty of that� and/or Nahuatl glosses which were added to clarify the otherwise picto fying Maya place names, ! graphic signs. While several hundred place signs are also depicted in monuments. the Mixtec historical codices, only 20 to 40 have so far been identified 3 with confidence. For the Mixtec lienzos we have had much greater In Mesoamerica, place success in identifying localities, because they, like the Aztec docu areas, (2) conquered towns, ments, often include glosses added in Mixtec and/or Spanish. For the Zapotec, over 60 place signs are known from stone inscriptions, and some seats of dynastic power, a 1 0 or so have been identified. In the few lienzos or Colonial maps for limited political, admi territories. Thus, by plotl we are often in a positio (Archaeological Review from Cambridge 3: 2 [1984]) compared with the archaeolo 49 ARI ES: RECONSTRUCTIONS FR.aVI LYPHIC WRITING oamerican societies have long been data (hieroglyphic writing) with vation results), but so far there hese l i n es. There are two reasons alysis and archaeology are fields a. b. ; this trend has tended to work ine the two lines of information. ible ways that text· and archaeo- ope, and content; pping, complementary sets of data. texts and archaeology is that of everal 1 ines of evidence -- ethno and textual -- can be brought to gists in many parts of the world pottery styles and architecture to C. d. , Mesoamericanists are fortunate in 1 evidence mentioned above. how texts and archaeology can be Figure 1: Place signs from four Mesoamerican writing systems. ial boundaries for the Aztec of (a) Nahuatl glyph for Tututepec (Hill of the Bird); (b) Zapotec otec of Oaxaca, and the Maya of glyph for Tututepec; (c) Mixtec glyph for Tututepec; (d) Mayan conclusions, we will evaluate the glyph for Yaxchilan. lines of evidence. the Zapotec area, we are also fortunate in having some glosses added in Spanish, Zapotec, and/or Nahuatl. Finally, for the Maya we know of more glyphs most frequently encountered l than 40 hieroglyphic signs that refer to places; at least 25 of these tli�<'P� and carved stone monuments identify specific archaeological sites. Since the Maya place names stfy as 'place signs', many remain occur on multi-ton stones that were not moved from city to city -- and r the Aztec, more than 50 0 place since those monuments often include dynastic records refering to the fiable only because of the Spanish resident nobility of that city -- we have had some success in identi ed to clarify the otherwise picto- fying Maya place names, particularly at those sites with numerous � place signs are also depicted in monuments. p to 40 have so far been identified 3 � we have had much greater In Mesoamerica, place signs were used to designate (1) tributary ecause they, 1 ike the Aztec docu areas, (2) conquered towns, (3) shrines visited during pilgrimages, (4) in Mi xtec and/or Spanish. For the seats of dynastic power, and (5) frontier or boundary towns that de from stone inscriptions, and some limited political, administrative, or economically-controlled e few lienzos or Colonial maps for territories. Thus, by plotting the geographical extent of place signs, we are often in a position to suggest territorial boundaries to be 3:2 (1984)) compared with the archaeological evidence. 50 Az tee Terri toria I Boundaries Tributos, the� Mendoza, ar Rather than being a politically unified, highly integrated polity, Quesada. The Matr1cula de Trib the Aztec 'empire' was in fact a Triple Alliance between three cities paying tribute, with each page (Tenochtitlan, Tlacopan, and Texcoco) which jointly managed to conquer toponyms of the towns paying 489 towns, located in 38 provinces containing£_. 15 million people along the bottom of each page; speaking several different languages (Figure 2). Outside the Basin of speaking towns appear together :viexico, where all 3 cities lay, there were (1) territories not that the first town listed on• incorporated into the Aztec 'empire', which retained their autonomy; for its province. The second and (2) a mosaic of towns and provinces which paid tribute to the Aztec. also supplies us with the topo1 Newly-conquered or reconquered territories were expected to pay exacted from each subject prov specified amounts of tribute every 80 days, semi-annually, or annually. along the left margin and lnformacio'n of 1554 is a docu1 Tarascan Frontier Sites questions asked bythe Spaniar 1 Tlalpujal'lul 2 Tadmaroa early post-Conquest Mexico; 3 Zltlicuaro 4 Tuuntle regarding pre-Conquest tribute. 5 Cuturnalll e Ajuchlllin Aztec Frontier Sites The order of the pages 7 XocotiUin 8 Alahulztliin pattern. Provinces located i 9 Oztuma to To1ollaPt1c first, followed by provinces 11 Cuecalan 12 Chilapan then those in the east, and Triple Alliance Members provinces within a 200 km-radi 13 Tlaeopan 14 Tanochllllin give cotton mantles, maize, b TAR ASCAN ST ATE 15 Texcoco 1975, 109). An overwhelming pr factured iterns, such as clothi1 gold objects, necklaces of pre, From the Matr(cula de Tri the tributary towns that defi Aztec tributary state. From� Alahuiztlan, Oztuma, Cuecala1 occurred where Aztec expansio i table Tarascan peoples. F Relaciones Geograficas de.!!_ Q! we know that both the Aztec 1 forts along their respective I W°&J Tributary provinces of the Triple Alliance man's-land inhabited by minori Matlatzinca, Chontales, Cuit c=J Autonomous areas groups occupied the 'buffer zo 0 20409010100 it appears that the Tarascan -=-=- ... tiguous, except perhaps in t estab! ished. Some of the Taras, centres were Tlalpujahua, Taxio Figure 2: Reconstruction of the territorial limits of the Aztec (Brand 1943; Armi I las 1951). tributary 'empire', including the Aztec-Tarascan frontier zone (adapted from Barlow 1949 and Brand 1943). Since al 1 of these Tarasc tributary 'empire' they are n tribute lists such as the Code For the purpose of reconstructing the territorial limits of the Also not mentioned are some Az Aztec 'empire', one can compile the names of these tributary towns, and support local Aztec garrisons. the quantities and kinds of goods they paid, using the Matr(cula de the Aztec tribute lists: 51 Tributes, the Codex Mendoza, and the Informaci6n de 1554 of Velasco and 1 tical ly unified, highly integrated polity, Quesada. The Matr7'c,u1a de Tributes is a pictographic display of towns t a Tri p 1 e A I 1 i an c e between three c i t i es paying tribute, with each page representing a tributary 'province'. The Texcoco) which jointly managed to conquer 15 toponyms of the towns paying tribute within that 'province' are listed vi11ces containing£.· million people along the bottom of each page; for example, most of the Matlatzinca languages (Figure 2). Outside the Basin of speaking towns appear together on one page. Barlow (1949, 2) suggested (1) s lay, there were territories not that the first town listed on each page was the administrative centre 'empire', which retained their autonomy; for its province. The second part of the Codex Mendoza (Clark 1938) provinces which paid tribute to the Aztec. also supplies us with the toponyms, and the amount and kind of tribute ered territories were expected to pay 80 exacted from each subject province; here place names are usually listed every days, semi-annually, or annually. along the left margin and bottom of each page (Figure 3). The Informacion of 1554 is a document that gives the Aztec answers to 15 Tarascan Frontier Silas 1 TlalpuJlhul questions asked by the Spaniards regarding tribute in pre-Conquest and 2 Tuimaroa 3 Zlticuaro early post-Conquest Mexico; the first nine questions request data 4 Tuzanua 5 Cu1z1maia regarding pre-Conquest tribute.