T

NÁHUATL

" por Fr. Bernardino de Saha­

mexicana, México, 1611. CONFLICT IN HISTORICAL INTERPRETATION lengua mexicana y castelkma, OF THE AZTEC STATE, SOCIETY AND CULTURE , mexicana, Colección de incu­ By LAWRENCE H. FELDMAN -latino, edici6n facsimilar, Ma· Many books have been written on the Aztee indians of Mexieo­ lungen im klassischen Aztekis­ ikerkunde, Herausgegeben vom Tenoehtitlan. AH of these aeeounts are built around the writers' uf Vorgeschichte, VI, Hamburg, interprerations of the Aztee way of life. The purpose of this paper is to compare, eontrast, and evaluate these often eonflicting in­ JI Cosas de Nueva España, edi­ terpretations. The earliest of our sourees were written by the Aztees them­ res Domingo de Muñón Chi· ittelamerikanischen V61kerkun­ selves. The Aztees possessed a strong historieal eonsciousness and [useum für V6lkerkunde und reeorded "the historical events of eaeh year ... by day, month, and hour," going far baek into the pasto However, Itzeoatl, the fourth ruler and the first great Aztee eonqueror, ordered the entire aeeumulation of historieal manuscripts (whieh assigned the Aztees a seeondary role) burnt, "for ... litl eontaineth many false­ hoods." 1 History was rewritten to eonform to the official view­ points of nationalism an religious imperialismo Paios were taken to show that the Aztees descended from the oldest aod most illustrious families in the land. Particularly stressed was the notion that the Aztees had a god-given duty to eonquer the world.2 Not aH subseribed to the dominant outlook. The merehants wished to aeeumulate dehes, not fight holy wars. But the view that war and eonquest were both good and neeessary was the one that prevailed in the literature.3 Non-Aztees interpreted Aztee society differently. The Spanish eonquistadors who eame to seize Aztee lands justified their greed

1 Fray Bernardino de Sahagun, Florentine Codex, Book 8: Kings and Lords, transo Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble (Santa Fe, New Mexico: The School of American Research and the University of Utah, 1954), p. 191: M. Lean-Portilla (ed.), The Broken Spears, The Aztec accotmt 01 the Conquest 01 Mexico (Boston: Beacon Press, 1962), p. xx. 2 Alfonso Caso, "Instituciones Indígenas Precortesianas", Sobretiro de La Memoria del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, VI (1954), 15-27; Miguel Co­ varrubias, Indian Art 01 Mexico and Central America (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1957), p. 316; Miguel Leon-Portilla, Aztec Thought and Cul­ ture (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1963), p. 154, 155, 160·161. 3 Jacques Soustelle, The Daily Lile 01 the Aztecs (New York: Macmillan Company, 1961), p. 58, 66, 210. 168 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL AZTEC by speaking of the "natural rudeness and inferiority of the in­ toward European Civ dians." 4 Beeause they laeked money, did not use iron, and made stages. One of these s human saerifices, the Aztees were Ha brutal and bestial people eratie, and eommuna without understanding or with so little that they seareely merit relationships. AnotheJ the name of men." ¡¡ It was said that the Aztee was too stupid to property relationship! invent anything useful. If he did have something worthwhile, it intimately aequainted was only through the aid of sorne wandering Saint, Carthaginian the "state," assumed 1 adventurers, people from Atlantis, or the Ten Lost Tribes of never reaehed this SI Israel. Sorne thought that if the Aztees were the Ten Lost Tribes, followed his example. this would explain and solve everything. God said He would The Aztee ruler v punish the Ten Lost Tribes. The Spaniards destroyed the Aztee who did not live in a state; therefore, the Spaniards were intruments of the Lord! 6 oeeupied on equal ter Many of the c1ergy opposed this interpretation and vigorously with his own." He v eombated it. They claimed that "the indians have a natural eapa­ ehief of a tribal confe dty ro be taught, more so than many of our own people," and Early Spanish and even exalted the qualities of the Aztees as better than those of point. N o marter, i Europeans.7 But the long-lived ideas of Aztee savagery and stu­ nothing and knew r pidity are still alive. Books still are being written aseribing the Aztees in terms of t Aztee culture to emissaries from lost Atlantis, the aneient Phoeni­ disagreed with the Pro dans, or even the fleet of Alexander the Great.8 not the theory was o From a mixture of old ideas of Aztee savagery and the new diseredited the theol" one of human evolution, there arose in the 19th eentury a be found which refl; new interpretation of the Aztees, that whieh I eall the Progres­ have abandoned the 1 sive Cultural Evolutionist. Aztee sodety. Indee, The idea of cultural evolution developed at the same time as whole eoneept of Pro that of biological evolution. Supposedly all cultures were evolving Neo-EvoIutionary or usually subseribed to 4 Lewis Hanke, Aristatle and the American Indians (London: Hollis & Carter Ltd., 1959), p. 44. 9 Adolph F. Bandelie 5 Ibid., p. 90; John 1. Phelman, "Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Cen­ vernment of the Ancient tury and the Genesis of Mexican Nationalism," Cultftre in History, Essays Museum of American A in Honor 01 Paul Radin, edited by Stanley Diamond (New York: Columbia Manuel M. Moreno, La j University Press, 1960), p. 763. co: SeccÍon Editorial, 15 6 Hanke, p. 53; John 1. Phelan, The Millennial Kingdom 01 the Fran­ Anth1'opology, The BtIIl ciscans in the New World, A Study 01 the Writings 01 Ge1'Onimo de Men­ Hammond (Albuquerqu dieta (1525-1604) ("University of California Publications: History," LII; p. 52; Lewis H. Morga Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1956), p. 26. H!tman Pl"ogress Irom . 7 Hanke, p. 92; Motolinia, History 01 tIJe Indiam 01 New Spain, transo York: A. Holt and Co and ed. Elizabeth A. Foster (Berkeley, Calif.: The Cortes Society, 1950), Aztecs to the stage of tl p.209. ca", Acta Anthropologic. 8 Roben Wauchope, Lost Tribes & Sunken Continents (Chicago, Illinois: 10 George C. Vaillanl The University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 28-49; C. Irwin, Fair Gods and Inc., 1960), p. 119; F. Stone Faces (New York: Sto Martin's Press, 1963); Harold S. Gladwin, Properl'Y and Ihe State jHen Out 01 Asia (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1947). 11 Edgar L. Hewett, NÁHUATL AZTEC STATE, SOCIETY AND CULTURE 169

and inferiority of the in­ toward European Civilization by a single universal sequenee of id not use iron, and made stages. One of these stages was that of the classless, tribal, demo­ brutal and bestial people eratie, and eommunal "society", which was based on personal .e that they scareely merit relationships. Another of these stages, the "state," was based on le Altee was too stupid to properry relationships. An eariy member of this sehool, being something worthwhile, it intimately aequainted only with Indians laeking the attributes of dering Saint, Canhaginian the "state," assumed that aH other Indians including the Aztees, the Ten Lost Tribes of never reaehed this stage. Most other Progressive Evolutionists were the Ten Lost Tribes, followed his example.ll :ing. God said He would The Aztee ruler was ealled a demoeratieally elected official tiards destroyed the Aztee who did not live in a palaee but in a .. 'joint-tenement house' ... ruments of the Lord! 6 oecupied on equal terms by a hundred other families in eommon erpretation and vigorously with his own." He was not an emperor but merely the eleeted dians have a natural eapa­ ehief of a tribal eonfederacy.lO of our own people," and Eariy Spanish and Indian historians did not suppon this view­ es as better than those ol point. No matter, they were obviously people who "learned if Altee savagery and Stu­ nothing and knew nothing." They were only interpreting the eing written aseribing the Aztees in terms of the Spanish Feudal system. If the evidenee :lantis, the ancient Phoeni­ disagreed with the Progressive Evolutionary's theory, the evidenee le Great.8 not the theory was eonsidered wrong. This rype of methodology Cee savagery and the new diseredited the theory and, although a few popular books can ~ in the 19th eentury a be found which reflect this viewpoint, eontemporary specialists which 1 eaH the Progres.­ have abandoned the coneept of a tribal, classless, and demoeratic Aztee society. Indeed, exeept in the Communist eountries, the loped at the same time as whole eoneept of Progressive Evolutionism is in disrepute. Today,

I aH cultures were evolving Neo-Evolutionary or avowedly Non-Evolutionary theories are r ll I usually subseribed to by the specialist. ~ ¡ndíans (London: Hollis & 11 Adolph F. Bande1ier, "On the Social Organizaríon and Mode oE Go­ itecism in the Eighteenth Cen­ vernment oE the Ancient Mexicans," Twelfth Annual Report 01 the Peab.od, ¡n," Culture in History, Essays Museum 01 American Archaeology and Ethnology, n (1880), p. 557-699; ~ond (New York: Columbia Manuel M. Moreno, lA Organizacion Politica y Social de los Aztecas (Mexi­ co: Secdon Editorial, 1931), p. 3; Leslie A. White, Proneers in American ~~nial Kingdom 01 the Fran­ Anthropology, The BandeUer-Morgan Letters, 1873-1883, ed. George P. F:itings of Geronimo de Men­ Hammond (Albuquerque: The University oE New Mexico Press, 1940),1, la Publications: History," LII; p. 52; Lewis H. Morgan, Ancie11t Society¡ 01' Researches in the Laws of 'ornia Press, 1956), p. 26. Human Progress from Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization (New I¡ndíans of New Spain, traos. York: A. Holt and Company, 1877), p. 186.214; Negrete advances the ~: The Cortes Society, 1950), Aztees to the stage oE the "state," in "Estructura y dinamica de Mesoameri­ ca", Acta Anthropologica, epoca 2, v. 1, numo 3 (1958), p. 116. rContinents (Chicago, Illinois: 10 George C. Vaillant, The Aztecs 01 Mexico (Baltimore: Penguin Booles 18-49; C. Irwin, Fa" Gods ana Ine., 1960), p. 119; Frederiek Engels, The Origin of the Family, Priva/e ¡ 1963); Harold S. Gladwin, Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1942), p. 96. ~ Book Company, Inc., 1947). 11 Edgar 1. Hewett, Andent Lile in Mexico and Central America (New r

170 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL AZTEC STK

Neo-Evolutionists share with Progressive Evolutionists the idea It was very easy for tl of a sequence of stages in the development of a single culture the Aztecs in terms of S or a group of related cultures, but differ in that they reject the they were familiar with idea of progress. They do not believe a culture has to evolve pared the Aztec State to toward any particular goal, nor that aH cultures must necessarily carne to have very import pass through the same sequence of stages. They take into account The analogy between . many causes and do not claim any one as the only factor needed part of the attempt of e to define a stage. Only a few books have explicitly interpreted after aH, hwnan beings. F the Aztecs this way, but it is often implicit in many modern to make this comparison discussions. 12 whelming scale. The fri: An interpretation long discussed and stiH supported today by was the classical antiquit a sizable nwnber of scholars is that of the Feudal-Imperialists. enveloped the Aztec deit They hold that the Aztec culture was comparable to that of the gods of the Greeks a medieval Europe. Claiming or inferring an Aztec Empire domi­ on the virtues of heroic R nated by a military or theocratic aristocracy, they reject aH thought GraduaHy out of the as of a democratic, tribal, Aztec society. From commoner to emperor arose a demand among SF stretched a complicated hierarchy of greater and les ser nobility to the Aztec virtues, for : who possessed many special privileges. As feudal lords, the nobles that a real revival of Azte ruled private hereditary estates worked by serfs. They elected the of ideas ... provided a nel] king. He in turn reigned as emperor over many largely autono­ for independence..." Th mous, tributary provinces. eommon people had few privileges out with the winning of and no effective voice in their government.13 This viewpoint Revolution it was revive, refers usuaHy to the period of Aztec empire building (that is modern Mexican historiog after 1430). Partly as a result of t: original preoccupation of York: Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers, 1936), p. 71; White, 1, p. 12, sons, what I caH the Cen 24; A. Goldenweisser, "Recent Trends in American Anthropology," Ameri­ mulated at an early date can Anthropologist, XLIII (April-June, 1941), p. 152. Mexico. It considers the A: 12 Gordon R. Willey, "The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre­ or fuHy developed empire columbian Civilizations," American Anthropologist, LXIV (February, 1962), p. 10; Gordon R. Willey and Philip Phillips, Method and Theory in Ame­ only controHed tributary rican Archaeology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), p. 77, shed garrisons, and abolisl 196-199; William D. Strong, "Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America - Parallelism or Diffusion?," The Civilizations 01 Ancient America, ed. Sol 14 Antonio de Solis, The n Tax (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951),1, p. 278, 279; John C. mas Townsend and Nathan Greene, Darwin and the Modem World View (New York: The New 1738),1, p. 136; Phelan, Mili American Library of World Literature, Inc., 1963), p. 98; James J. Hester, 15 Ibid., see also Phelan's . "A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures," American Anthropo¡' 16 Ibid., p. 768-769; Cova! ogist, LXIV (October, 1962), p. 1014. in Mexico Today (Mexico: Pe 13 Moreno, La Organizacion, p. 2, 18; Leon-Portilla, Broken Spears, p. man, Relaciones de Hernan I xxiii, 91; Caso, "Instituciones Indigenas Precortesianas", p. 22, 27; Eric R. lviii-lxiv, cxix; for an attack Wolf, Sons 01 the Shaking Earth (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, Eulalia, El Mestizo y otros TI 195.9), p. 137, 141-142, 149; White, Bandelier-Morgan Letters, 1, p. 32; 17 White, Bandelier-MQrgal Sahagun, Ftorentine Codex, Book 10; The People, p. 15-22. Constitucion real de Mexico-' ilÁHUATL AZTEC STATE, SOOIETY AND CULTURE 171

¡ive Evolutionists the idea It was very easy for the early Spanish Historians to interpret ment of a single culture the Aztecs in terms of such a Feudal-Imperialists system, since er in that they reject the they were familiar with trus system in Europe. They also com­ a culture has to evolve pared the Aztee State to the Roman Empire, a eomparison wieh , cultures must necessaray carne to have very important politieal implications.14 !s. They take into account The analogy between the Roman and the Aztee cultures was as the only factor needed part of the attempt of early friars to show that Indians were, ave explicidy interpreted after aH, human beings. Friar Torquemada, in 1615, was the fírst mplicit in many modern to make this eomparison on a systematie and indeed an over­ whelming seale. The friars implied that the Aztee civilization I still supported today by was the dassieal antiquity of the New World. Later historians f the Feudal-Imperialists. enveloped the Aztee deities ".. .in an atmosphere suggestive of 5 comparable to that of the gods of the Greeks and the Romans [and] the Aztees took ~ an Aztee Empire domi­ on the virtues of heroie Roman emperors." 15 leY, they reject aH thought Gradually out of the assumption of an Aztec classÍCal antiquity )m commoner to emperor arose a demand among Spanish Colonial intelleetuals for a returo reater and lesser nobility to the Aztee virtues, for a restoration of the Aztee Empire. Not ls feudal lords, the nobles that a real revival of Aztec culture was desired, but "trus platform by serfs. They elected the of ideas ... provided a neat although histodcaHy dubious rationale ~er many largely autona­ for independence ..." This tendency to glorify the Aztees died rople had few privileges out with the winning of independence. After the 1910 Mexican nment.13 This viewpoint Revolution it was revived and still is an important influenee in ~mpire building (that is modero Mexican historiography.16 Partly as a result of this program and partly because of the original preoecupation of the friars with Roman-Aztec compad­ ~6), p. 71; White, 1, p. 12, sons, what 1 caH the Central-Imperialists interpretation was for­ ~rican Anthropo10gy," Amen· mulated at an early date and has aehieved great popularity in ~ p. 152. Mexico. It considers the Aztec state to have been either an incipient ~les and the Rise of the Pre· or fully developed empire ruled by an absolute monarch, who not tgist, LXIV (February, 1962), '¡Method and Theory in Ame. only controlled tributary provinces but planted colonies, establi­ ~icago Press, 1962), p. 77, shed garrisons, and abolished local autonomy.r¡ 'lances in Nuclear America ­ 101 Ancient America, ed. Sol 14 Antonio de Solis, The History 01 the Conquest 01 Mexico, transo Tho­ l), 1, p. 278, 279; John C. mas Townsend and Nathan Hook (London: Printed for T. Woodward, (New York: The New 1738),1, p. 136; Phelan, Millennial Kingdom 01 the Franciscan, p. 110-111. 63), p. 98; James J. Hester, 15 lbid., see also Phelan's "Neo-Aztecism," p. 761. tures," American Anthropol· 16 lbid., p. 768-769; Covarrubias, lndian Art, p. 312, 320; Archaeology in Mexico Today (Mexico: Petro1eos Mexicanos, 1961), p. Eulalia Guz­ '~-~orti~.a, Broken Spea~s, p. man, Relaciones de Hernan Cortes (Mexico: Libros Anahuac, 1958), p. eSlanas , p. 22, 27; Enc R. Iviii-1xiv, cxix; for an attack on this position see Alfonso Trueba, Doña 5niversity of Chieago Press, Eulalia, El Mestizo y otros Temas (Mexieo, Editorial Jus, 1959), p. 7-10. !ter.Morgan Letters, 1, p. 32; 17 White, Bandelier·Morgan Letters, II, p. 32; Alfredo Lopez Austin, La ~e, p. 15-22, Constitucion real de Mexico·Tenochtitlan (Mexico: Universidad Nacional

I 172 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL AZTEC ST.

The Central-Imperialists state that separate classes existed, trolling an empire com1 including a nobility based on merit, not hereditary rights. Any and provinces ruled by , commoner, if he was capable, could work his way up into the This does not mean ~ higher nobility. The emperor was elected, not by the people or is no evidence to prove the nobility, but by a small group of electors previously chosen from, or were, Israelites, by the late emperor from members of the reigning family.18 does not support the cor Many modern historians in adopting this interpretation have bestial people without \ not found it incompatible with the Neo-Evolutionary scheme of scarcely medt the name successive stages. They reason, and 1 think quite truly, that the 1 believe that the Ne main defect with all these interpretations of the Aztec way of lile Central-Imperialist and 1 is that they are non-temporal and unicausal. The Aztec state lasted lutionary interpretations about two hundred years, and semi-historical records take their and Culture, but they '\ temporal periods into w history, (before the formation of the Aztec state), back almost the tribal democracy of another two cemuries. Four hundred years ago the ancestors of very important, it was States lived quite differently the inhabitants of the United history in the time of It2 from the way their successors do today. Why can't we assume that period of great conquest the Aztees also experienced many changes in their way of life in ditary military aristocrac an equal length of time? 19 conquer the world. The Neither are all of these interpretations necessarily incompati­ tezuma, was a time of COI ble with each other. The Aztecs could have had both a hereditary over the provinces. Allie: and non-hereditary nobility ruling over a common people that government and Mexico e1ected their own local offidals. Both the nobles and commoners political center of her e be1ieved in the!r god-given duty to conquer the world, while con- arrival of the Spanish forever.22 Autonoma de Mexico, 1961)1 p. 49, 90; William H. Prescott, History 01 the Conquest ef Mexico (New York: J. B. Alden and Crowell, 1886), 1, p. 42; Sahagun, Florentine Codex, Book 8: Kings and Lords, p. 53-54; Robert • H. Barlow, The Extent 01 the Empire 01 the Culhua Mexica ("Ibero-Ame­ ricana," v. 28; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Archaeology in Mexico Tod 1949), p. 18-19, 76, 98; Caso, "Instituciones Indígenas Precortesianas", p. Acosta Saignes, MigueL "1 27; "Anales of Chimalpahin" in Paul Radin, The Sources and Authenticity (1945 ). 01 the History 01 the Ancient Mexicans ("Universíty of California Publica­ Bandelier, Adolph F. "On lb tions in American Archaeology and Ethnology," XVII, No. 1; Berkeley: Uní­ of the Ancient Mexicans," versity of California Press, 1920), p. 129, 130. 01 American Archaeology 18 Alfonso Caso, The Aztecs, People 01 the Sun (Norman: University Barlow, R. H. The Extent j of Oklahoma Press, 1958), p. 94; Soustelle, p. 45; Caso, "Instituciones In­ dígenas Precortesianas", p. 20. 20 Lopez Austin, p. 49; ( 19 Lopez Austin, La Constitucion Real, p. 21-52; Soustelle, The Daily p. 863-878. Lile, p. 36; Caso, "Instituciones Indigenas Precortesianas", p. 19; Radin, The 21 Hanke, p. 90; Waucho Sources and Authenticity, p. 148; Alfonso Caso, "Land Tenure Among 22 Lopez Austin, p. 52; F the AncÍent Mexicans," American Anthropologist, LXV (August, 1963), p. nando Cortes, 5 Lelten o/ ( 863-878. York: W. W. Norton and ( i

~ NÁHUATL AZTEC STATE, SOCIEl'Y AND CULTIJRE 173

~t separate c1asses existed, trolling an empire eomposed of autonomous tributary kingdoms not hereditary rights. Any and provinees ruled by Aztee governors.20 f work his way up into the This does not mean all interpretations eouId be eorrect. There fíed, not by the people or is no evidence to prove that the Aztees obtained their knowledge f electors previously ehosen from, or were, Israelites, Phoenicians, or Atlanteans. The evidenee 'the reigning family.18 does not support the eontention that the Aztees were Ha brutal or ~g this interpretation have bestial people without understanding or with so little that they r~o-Evolutionary seheme of scareely merit the name of men." 21 Lthink quite truly, that the 1 believe that the Neo-Evolutionist, Aztee, Feudal-Imperialist, ~ns of the Aztee way of life Central-Imperialist and possibly elements of the Progressive Evo­ ~usal. The Aztee state lasted lutionary interpretations are applieable to the Aztee State, Sociery Hstorical record s take their and Culture, but they were differently emphasized in the three iAztee state), baek almost temporal periods into which one can subdivide Aztee history. If !years ago the aneestors of the tribal demoeracy of the Progressive Evolutionists was ever ~s lived quite differently very important, it was in the earliest period. The rewriting of ; Why can't we assume that history in the time of Itzeoatl, marking the beginning of a seeond period of great eonquests, was dominated by a strong semi-here­ pges in their way of life in ditary military aristoeracy and motivated by a religious dury to eonquer the world. The third period, the reign of the last Mon­ ~ons necessarily ineompati­ tezuma, was a time of eonsolidation. Stricter eontrols were imposed ¡have had both a hereditary over the provinees. Allied stares were subordinated to the central ter a eommon people that government and Mexico-Tenochtitlan became the single absolute :the nobles and commoners polítical center of her empíreo The end carne in 1519 with the lquer the world, while eon- arrival of the Spanish eonquistadors, and the Aztee State fell forever. 22 Villiam H. Prescott, History 01 ~lden and Crowell, 1886), 1, p. ~gs and Lords, p. 53-54; Robert ~ Culhua Mexica ("Ibero-Ame. BIBLIOGRAPHY iUniversity of California Press, les Indigenas Precortesianas", p. Arohaeology in Mexico Today. Mexico: Petroleos Mexicanos, 1961. r I Aeosta Saignes, MigueL "Los Pochteca," Acta Anthropologica, :e, No. 1 ~ The SafJrces and Authenticity fniversity of California Publica­ (1945). Bandelier, Adolph F. "On the Social Organízation and Mode of Government ,," XVII, No. 1; Berkeley: Uní­ pO. of the Andent Mexicans;' Twellth Ammal Report 01 the Peabody Museum 01 American Archaeology and Ethnology, II (1880), p. 557-699. ~he Sun (Norman: University Barlow, R. H. The Extent 01 the Empire 01 the Culhua Mexica. ("Ibero­ r p. 45; Caso, "Instituciones In­

I 20 Lopez Austin, p. 49; Caso, "Land Tenure Among Ancient Mexicans," ~. 21-52; Soustelle, The Daily p. 863-878. ~ortesianas", p. 19; Radin, The 21 Hanke, p. 90; Wauehope, p. 28·68. ¡Caso, "Land Tenure Among 22 Lopez Austin, p. 52; Radin, p. 56, 150; Wolf, p. 132-134, 142; Her­ pgist, LXV (August, 1963), p. nando Cortes, 5 Letters 01 Cortes to the Emperor, transo J. B. Mortis (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Ine., 1962), p. 94. 174 ESTUDIOS DE CULTURA NÁHUATL

AZTEC S1 Americana: 28.") Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1949. Caso, Alfonso. "Instituciones Indigenas Precortesianas", Sobretiro de La Me­ Mexican Nationalísm," G moria del Instituto Nacio1Ut1 Indigenista, VI (1954), p. 15-27. din, Stanley Diamond ( ----o The Aztecs, People 01 the Sun. Norman: University of OkIahoma 1961. Press, 1958. Prescott, W. H. History 01 ¡ ----o "Land Tenure Among the Ancient Mexicans," American An­ and Crowell, 1886. thropologisl, LXV (August, 1963), p. 863-878. Radin, P. The Sources and . Cortes, Hernando. 5 Letters 01 Cortes lO Ihe Emperor, transo J. B. Morris. cam. ("University of G New York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1962. and Ethnology," V. 17, r­ Covarrubias, MigueL Indian Are 01 Mexico and Cenlral America. New York: 1920. Alfred A. Knopf, 1957. Sahagun, Fray Bernardino , Engels, Frederick. The Origin 01 the Fami'y, Private Property and the State. Codex. Translated by A New York: International Publishers, 1942. ("Monographs of The S( Gladwin, H. S. Men Out 01 Asia. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Santa Fe, New Mexico: lne., 1947. and The University of Ut Goldenseiser, A. "Recent Trends In American Anthropology," American Codex. ("Monographs Oi Anthropologisl, XLIII (April-June, 1941), p. 151-163. Pan XI.) 1961. Greene, John C. Darwin and the Modero World View. New York: The New Solis, Antonio de. The His American Library of World Literature, lne., 1963. Townsend and Nathan 1 Guzman, Eulalia. Relaciones de Her1Utn Cortes. Mexico: Libros Anahuac, 1738. 1958. Soustelle, J. Daily Lile 01 ti Hanke, L. Aristotle a?ld the American lndians. London: Hollis and Caner 1962. Limited, 1959. Strong, William D. "Cultur¡ Hester, James J. "A Comparative Typology of New World Cultures," Ame­ or Diffusion?," The Ci~ rican Anthropologist, LXIV (October, 1962), p. 1001-1015. Chicago: University of ( Hewett, Edgar L. Ancient Lile in Mexico and Central America. New York: Trueba, Alfonso. Doña EUM Bobbs-Merrill Company Publishers, 1936. Jus, 1959. Irwin, C. Fair Gods and Slone Faces. New York: Sto Martin's Press, 1963. Vaillant, George C. The A. Leon-Portilla, M. Aztec Thought and Culture. Norman, Oklahoma: Univer­ 1960. sity of Oklahoma Press, 1963. Wauchope, Robert. Lost T, ----o The Broken Spears, The Aztec Aecount 01 the Conquest 01 Mexi­ The University of Chica,!l eo. Boston: Beacon Press, 1962. White, Leslie A. Pioneers i? Lopez Austin, Alfredo. La Constitucion Real de Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Mexi­ Letters 1873-1883, Geor University of New Mexi, co: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1961. Willey, Gordon R. and Pl Moreno, Manuel M. La Orgtmizacion Politica y Social de los Aztecas. Mexi­ Archaeology. Chicago: U co: Seccion Editorial, 1931. Willey, Gordon, R. 'ihe E Morgan, Lewis H. Aneient Society:or Researches in the Laws of Human bian Civilizations," Am(f1 Progress Irom Savagery, through Barbarism to Civilization. New York: 1-11. A. Holt and Company, 1877. Wolf, E. R. Sons 01 Ibe Sha Motolinia. History 01 the lndians 01 New Spain, transo and ed. Elizabeth A. 1959. Foster. Berkeley, Calif.: The Cortes Society, 1950. Negrete. "Estructura y dinamica de Mesoarnerica", Acta Anthropologica, epo­ ca 2, 1, No. 3 (1958). Phelan, J. L. The Millennial Kingdom 01 the Franciseans in the New World, A Study 01 the Writings 01 Geronimo de Mendieta (1525-1604). ("Uni­ versity of California Publications in History," V. 52.) Berke1ey and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1956. ----o "Neo-Aztecism in the Eighteenth Century and the Genesis of 1 AZTEC STATE, SOCIETY ANO OJL11JRE NÁHUATL 175

Mexican Nationalism," Cttlture m History, Essays in Honor of Paul Ra­ ~les: University of California din, Stanley Díaruond (ed.). New York: Columbia University Press, rtesianas", Sobretiro de La Me­ 196L Prescott, W. H. History 01 the Conquest 01 Mexico. New York: J. B. Alden (l (1954), p. 15-27. and Crowell, 1886. ltman: University of Oklahoma Radin, P. The Sources and Authenticity 01 the History 01 the Ancient Mexi­ cam. (HUniversity of California Publications in American Archaeology ¡ent Mexicans," American An­ ,-878. and Ethnology," v. 17, No. L) Berkeley: University of California Press, 1920. ? Emperor, trans. j. B. Morris. Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de. Kings and Lords. Book 8 of the Florentme Ine., 1962. Codex. Translated by Arrhur j. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. rd Central Amel'ica. New York: (HMonographs of The School of American Research," No. 14, Part IX.) Prívate Property and the State. Santa Fe, New Mexico: Published by The School of American Research !. and The University of Utah, 1954; The People. Book 10 of the Florentme Codex. ("Monographs of The School of American Research," No. 14, : McGraw-Hill Book Company, Part XI.) 1961. ¡can Anthropology," American Sotis, Antonio de. The History 01 the Conquest 01 Mexico, transo Thomas Townsend and Nathan Hook. 2 v. London: Printed fo! T. Woodward, , p. 151-163. rU View. New York: The New 1738. Soustelle, J. Daily Lile 01 the Aztecs. New York: The Macmillan Campany, C., 1963. 1962. rtes. Mexico: Libros Anahuac, Strong, Wil1iaru D. "Cultural Resemblances in Nuclear America - Parallelism or Diffusion? ," The Civilizations 01 Anciem America, Sol Tax (ed.). ns. London: Hollis and Carter Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 195 L Trueba, Alfonso. Doií-a Eulalia, El Mestizo y Otras Temas. Mexico: Editorial ti New World Cultures," Ame­ jus, 1959. 2), p. 1001-1015. Vaillant, George C. The Aztecs 01 Mexico. Baltimore: Penguin Book lne, 1 Central America. New York: 1960. Wauchope, Robert. Lost Tribes and Sunken Continen/s. Chicago, Illinois: k.'ork: Sto Martin's Press, 1963. The University of Chicago Press, 1962. '. Norman, Oklahoma: Univer­ White, Leslie A. Pioneers in American Anthr-opology, The Bandelier-Morgan Letters 1873-1883, George P. Harumond (oo.). 2 v. Albuquerque: The forme 01 the Conquest el Mexi­ University of New Mexico Press, 1940. WilIey, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips. Method and Theory in American t,_de Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Mexí­ Archaeology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962. ~xíco, 1961. WilIey, Gordon, R. uThe Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre-Caluro­ ,í'J Social de los Aztecas. Mexí­ bian Civilizations," Amet'ican Anthr·opologist, LXIV (February, 1962), p. I 1-11. rches in the Laws 01 Human Wolf, E. R. SOn! 01 the Shaking Ea'rth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, ¡" to Civilizntion. New York: 1959. ,transo and ed. Elizabeth A. , 1950. o ", Acta Anthropologica, epo- I franciscctns in the New World, I\fendieta (1525-1604). ("Uní­ ,,, v. 52.) Berkeley and Los 56. ~Cenmry and the Genesis of r t

SIMBOLISMO DE 1 Dibl FOtOgI

Los colores, núm mordíal en los co mágico del nativo una función precis~ prema trinidad del días, la fusión de 11 La vida materia antoja un mural CI en que se logra la a y cada uno de los y su razón de ser, ) dad y belleza al co: dad indígena. No CI armoniosa y total I base de la integrid El simbolismo de sado en observaciol \¡ parte esencial de lo exotéricas: el canto Las observacione! miento y Religión, turas clásicas mesol