!"#$"%&'()'*+(,-*+./0"*1+)$".,+.2,3"($)$#+(,4.)56*+)$".,"0

-75,859$#+,!"#$5):

&'()'*+(,;<"(')$".,+.2,!"#$"%3"($)$#+(,&"1=(59$):,"0,)75,859$#+

Bernardo López Marín

20/08/2012

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I) ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

II) INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 4

III) CULTURAL EVOLUTION AND SOCIO-POLITICAL COMPLEXITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

IV) ORIGINS OF THE MEXICA AND THEIR MIGRATION TO CENTRAL MEXICO . . .11

V) RISE OF TENOCHTITLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITS POLITICAL INTEGRATION …………………………………………………………………………... 19

VI) CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .24

VII) REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 26

What were the transformative processes and mechanisms of change that governed the socio-cultural

evolution of the Mexica society? How was the socio-political organization structured within the

Mexica society and which mechanisms of transformation defined its development of political

complexity?

4

EVOLUCIÓN CULTURAL Y COMPLEJIDAD SOCIOPOLÍTICA DELESTADO MEXICA

La sociedad Mexica evolucionó rapidamente a partir de su migración desde el mítico Aztlan.

Algunas fuentes etnohistóricas describen a los Mexicas como sociedad tribal, categorización algo

inacertada, ya que ésta pudo haber sido una sociedad de jefatura, agrícola, semi-sedentaria y

endógama. No solamente se constituía por relaciones consanguíneas, dependía también de la

organización propia del Calpulli y una estructura teocrática. El poder y orden sociales no estaban

centralizados, ya que la sociedad se dividía en Teomamaques, jefes de Calpulli y macehuales,

mientras que en una tribu la división es mínima y similar a una sociedad segmentaria. Asimismo,

los Mexicas poseían rasgos socioculturales asimilados de otros mesoamericanos a través del

intercambio cultural, comercial y lingüístico. El asentamiento territorial representó un paso

importante en la evolución cultural y mayor complejidad en la estructura social, marcando la

transición al sedentarismo, del cual surge el proto-Estado. La fundación de Tenochtitlan se basó en

relatos mitológicos reflejo de la cosmogonía Mexica y la ideología teocrática inspirada por

Huitzilopochtli; mientras que su planeación y arquitectura, reflejan una conexión cultural con

Teotihuacan y Tula. Así, una reconstrucción cronológica de continuidad cultural y lingüística

representaría una alternativa metodológica para fundamentar la idea del proceso de evolución

sociocultural Mexica a partir de su migración. La continuidad lingüística se ejemplifica por la

divergencia del náhuatl hacia el Centro de México desde 500-600 d.C. La continuidad cultural

conectaría Teotihuacan con la cultura de Coyotlatelco y las sociedades del Bajío, fundamentales en

el intercambio entre las culturas Chichimecas y las del México central, así como en la

consolidación del Estado Tolteca. Motores de formación del Estado Mexica fueron el crecimiento

demográfico y el desarrollo agrícola, impulsados por la economía sustentada por la pesca y la caza,

productos que eran intercambiados por grano, legumbres y materiales de construcción. Así, la

sociedad Mexica ascendió paulatinamente a la constitución del Estado, proceso que materializó

formas de complejidad social características de grupos altamente evolucionados.

INTRODUCTION

The Mexica state flourished in the Valley of Mexico following a group migration that arrived to the

Anahuac from the north during the 13th century. The Mexica embodied a substantial instance of

cultural evolution during their exodus and posterior settlement, when socio-political complexity

5

increased markedly. The Aztec groups shared linguistic patterns and Mesoamerican cultural traits,

as employing agriculture, a calendrical system, edifying temples and speaking the Nahuatl

language, although these societies comprised a diversification of ethnicities and a pluralism of

cultural identities. Social stratification appears as a constituent of inequality, being instrumental in

determining social relations as an interdependent social nucleus that supports a fabricated model for

perceiving the cosmos, the world, nature and human existence. Power relations among the

migrating Mexica society were not unilaterally centralized, but based on uncomplicated forms of

stratification, merely comprised by priests, Calpulli leaders and macehualtin. Theological

inculcation fostered social credence in supernatural forces and maintained social disparities based

on ideological, symbolic and mythological frameworks. Ideological structures and mythological

legends seem to have been strengthened by the use of historiographic revisionism that legitimized

miraculous events and validated ‘real historical events’, imposing a religious ideology that

substantiated the Mexica’s migration accounts. Although Aztlan’s existence and location is in part

mythological, it is possible that these migrations affirmatively occurred as indicated by

ethnohistorical sources, despite inconsistencies on its contents (Smith 2004:34-5).

Alternatively, an attempt to reconstruct a comparative chronology of socio-cultural

continuity could represent a methodological option to support the migration’s accurateness and

substantiate a hypothesis that recreates the processes of socio-cultural evolution and the emergence

of political complexity among the Mexica. This investigation examines some of the Mexica’s

socio-cultural relationships with other Mesoamericans and the socio-cultural transformations that

this society endured. Remarkably, several sources categorize the Mexica as a tribal group, although

this seems problematic, considering that this society was more evolved and not exclusively

prevailed by totemic or kinship relations. Furthermore, strong probability posits the Mexica as

surviving by combining farming with hunting gathering and their social organization reflects a

theocratic structure that particularly resembles a ranked, or an endogamous semi-sedentary

nucleated chiefdom-like society, suggesting that the Mexica constituted a more evolved type of

society than that of a tribe. An analysis of social organization and cultural practices during the

migration indicate that the Mexica depended on a mixed subsistence strategy and venerated a deity,

erected temples and was mainly ruled by priests and Calpulli leaders. Remarkably, the Mexica’s

settlement marked the evolutionary transformation of this society towards consolidating an

increasingly complex social unit that slowly emerged as a proto-state. Sedentism defined the

transition that resulted in environmental adaptation, while population growth, internal social

conflict and the escalating political autonomy attained by Tenochtitlan, anticipated the political

6

economy’s development and enhanced commercial interactions that provided for Tenochtitlan’s

payment of tribute to the polity of Azcapotzalco. Tenochtitlan’s erection was partially devised from

mythological narratives that epitomized the Mesoamerican cosmogony and reinforced the

theocratic ideology inspired by Huitzilopochtli’s prophecies. Furthermore, Tenochtitlan’s

architectural orientation attempted to symbolize the sun and moon’s movement, encapsulating the

creation myth of human existence, which depended on the ideology of warfare to substantiate

tribute offerings to the gods that were credited with creating life. Sedentism caused several

processes of socio-political transformation that increased political complexity and enhanced social

stratification, while it consolidated systems of power characterizing the enforcement of

subservience, which was based on religious dogmas and ideological frameworks, condoning the

existence of a growingly influential elite. Authoritarian leadership was strengthened by

mythological connotations that interconnected the gods with priests and rulers, attributing them

with supernatural powers that enabled a direct contact with the supernatural world.

This study examines theories of state formation and the emergence of social complexity to

investigate and analyze the ways in which the Mexica society carried out a migration as a social

organism that was complexly evolved socio-politically since its departure from Aztlan.

Additionally, an examination of the socio-cultural and political changes that instigated the

evolutionary transition of the Mexica endeavors to explain the factors that transformed this society

into a proto-state. The main questions to pursue are: What were the transformative processes and

mechanisms of change that governed the socio-cultural evolution of the Mexica society? How was

the socio-political organization structured within the Mexica society, and which mechanisms of

transformation defined its development of political complexity?

CULTURAL EVOLUTION AND SOCIO-POLITICAL COMPLEXITY

“Class-stratified societies with many different social orientations and occupations and with internallyspecialized political systems developed from societies in which kin-relations functioned to allocatelabor and access to resources; large and densely populated urban systems emerged over time fromsmall habitation sites and villages; ideologies that espoused egalitarian principles, gave way to beliefsystems in which the accumulation of wealth and high status was regarded as normal and natural, aswere economic subordination and slavery” (Yoffee 2004:5).

Socio-cultural evolution within stratified or complex societies1 reflects chronological processes of

change that transforms the social, political and ideological constitution of a human society. Socio-

1 “Archaeologists use ‘complex society’ to describe a society encompassing social groups and institutions of centralization” (Yoffee 2004:91). Evans(2004:23-5) distinguishes societies between: Egalitarian - “virtually no accumulation of individual wealth and social relations are family based”;Ranked - “some families enjoy material advantages over others”; Stratified - “classes of people are distinguished by marked differences in wealth andpower”.

7

political complexity causes the emergence of social phenomena such as demographic growth, social

stratification, intensification and control of agriculture, labor division, the establishment of

administrative bodies and the creation of symbolic and ideological structures (Evans 2004:19, 21-5;

Flannery 1972:400-6; Sanders & Price 1968:230; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:175; Dunnell 1980:66).

Humans transmit cultural knowledge through social behaviors and language usage, passed down

through generations of empirical socio-environmental awareness that leads to further acquisition of

new cultural practices. Individuals constantly gain knowledge from their own social groups and

others, shaping transformations that societies had inherited from their antecessors. These socio-

cultural modifications are reflected in interchangeable social practices and environmental

adaptations that transfigure a society’s subsistence strategy in its quest for survival (Henrich &

McElreat 2003:124). Socio-cultural evolution occurs in a chronological sequence of ongoing

processes of change, transforming social behaviors that further structuralize social organizations

and gradually transform a society into a complex one. Concomitantly, socio-cultural traits expose

new political modifications emerging from population growth and intensification of food

production, driven by environmental adaptation and improvement of agricultural technologies that

materialize in intricate socio-cultural and political manifestations (Steward 1952:24-6; Yoffee

2004:26; Dunnell 1980:52; Durham 1976:91). The mechanisms of environmental adaptation and

subsistence strategy’s accommodation can be analyzed by the theory of Cultural Ecology2. This

approach addresses the relationships between human populations and their socio-environmental

adaptation, leading to the development of a subsistence strategy that sustains the population’s

survival (Brumfiel 1983:262-3; Dunnell 1980:36, 53-4; Steward 1955:12-14; Renfrew & Bahn

2000:35).

“A certain size of settlement and density of population is determined by the food supply which in turn is

limited by natural resources, the techniques for their exploitation and the means of transport and food-

preservation available [that] allowed an expansion of population and enormously increased the carrying

capacity of suitable land” (Childe 1950:4).

Population growth is a primary motor for socio-cultural change that entails the emergence of

political complexity and generates the appearance of labor division and administrative institutions

that excused elite members from evenly contributing through labor, whilst differentiating social

members in a systematic hierarchy of social inequalities. Additionally, trading activities and

2 “Human culture and the biophysical environment are linked in a dynamic feedback relationship [and] change originating in one part of thisinteractive system will prompt a response in another. […] The belief system of any culture plays an important role in shaping events and processes,[as] complex society develops and is sustained when large and dense populations can be provided for. […] For any given subsistence strategy, aparticular landscape will have a productive potential, measuring how much food can be supplied. […] The key features of a culture are called theculture core” (Evans 2004:51-2). “The culture core consists of technological, organizational and ideological features, most directly related to meetingthe most important material needs of a society” (Steward 1955:16).

8

diplomatic relations consolidated political and economic systems of power that depended on the

centralization of institutional authority. These socio-political jurisdictions were attained, by

endorsing theological and bureaucratic institutions that concentrated resources and wealth

(Brumfiel 1983:261; Childe 1950:4-6; Carneiro 1970:733; Adams 1956:228-9; Yoffee 2004:32-6,

196-7; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:165-9, 474-7).

“Ideals of order, legitimacy and wealth in society were created and/or redefined, as were the

mechanisms for the transmission of such ideals. Control over the sources and distribution of subsistence

and wealth, the segregation and maintenance of the symbols of social integration and incorporation and

the ability to impose obedience by force, both in the governmental level and also within local groups,

together constitute the main dimensions of power. […] The means from agricultural production to

economic power lies in the conversion of stored wealth to a system of dependencies arising from

restricted access to land and labor. [Another] major source of economic power is through mercantile

activity. Long distance, regular networks of exchange are generally found to accompany the first

inequalities in access to production in agricultural societies” (Yoffee 2004:34-5).

The refinement of agrarian technologies that augmented food productivity and consolidated trade

and economic systems, assisted in the accumulation of wealth, which culminated in the growth and

management of alimentary surpluses (Childe 1950:6; Brumfiel 1983:262). A political apparatus of

economic systems monitored, collected, assigned and redistributed available resources and

managerial centralization was divided into organizational subsystems, whilst the social economy3

managed existing resources within the population. The political economy was an institutionally

centralized subsystem that conducted governmental resource management and secured an intensive

production of goods and supplies. The authorities’ collection of tribute encouraged the flourishing

of marketplaces and enhanced long-distance trade that supplied the population with additional

products and services (Sharer & Traxler 2006:80).

“The state is a powerful, specialized institution for political administration. […] Recognition of the

superior managerial capacity of state government has been one of the major insights supplied by the

ecological approach. It is also the basis from which the ecological hypothesis of state formation is derived:

states arise in socio-environmental contexts where effective management is either necessary or especially

beneficial” (Brumfiel 1983:262).

A society’s cultural evolution and growth of political complexity display variations in its

social organization and settlement patterns, configuring an integrated community that constantly

increases in size, influence and institutional centralization (Childe 1950:3-4). Derivatively, more

3 “Economic systems refer to the allocation of resources available to a society, [which] were collectively managed by its members (the socialeconomy) or centrally managed by a privileged elite (the political economy). […] The growth of complex societies lies in the development of thepolitical economy – the degree to which the political elite controls labor, production and distribution of goods, and the ways the political economy isintegrated with the social economy” (Sharer & Traxler 2006:80).

9

complex forms of political organization controlled the economic flow and maintained social order

by concentrating socio-political jurisdictions that implemented legislative forms of authority and

codes of conduct, while instigating socio-political hegemony and expansionist warfare practices

(Carneiro 1970:736-7; Adams 1956:228-30; Yoffee 2004:91). Socio-political complexity condenses

within urban concentrations that incorporate political and religious organizations, monumental

buildings and community services, while religious and governmental institutions support the state’s

symbolic and ideological frameworks that legitimize social inequalities and substantiate a

leadership of influential power, which constantly increases its manipulative authority (Childe

1950:8-9; Sanders & Price 1968:140, 151, 158; Yoffee 2004:196-7; Adams 1956:228). An

oligarchic administration imposed absolutist systems of power that legitimized the state’s

institutions and its ostentatious rulers and bureaucrats, while ideological and religious systems of

power divided society and segregated social identities by dissociating the central urban entities

from their peripheries (Evans 2004:136-7; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:494-5). State officials used

ethnicity and identity to strategically indoctrinate the commoners into a state religion that attempted

to validate the elite’s higher social status, by exploiting credence in supernatural forces and

fabricated mythological frameworks to substantiate the abysmal social inequalities (Emberling

1999:277-80; Yoffee 2005:91-4). Political maneuvers entailed jurisdictional forms of social

hegemony that functioned as manipulative devices of coercive authority and oppressed the lower

social classes, while simulating a socio-political apparatus that operated in a form of center-

periphery administrative centralization (Brumfiel 1983:261; Langholm 1971:273-8; Cohen 1988:2-

6). The institutionalization of socio-economic and jurisdictional systems of power carried along the

need of an everlasting leading hierarchy that concentrated the administration of control and

coexisted with the coercive authority of socio-political hegemony (Yoffee 2004:32-5; Flannery

1972:403-4). Consequently, the reinforcement of symbolic structures and ideological frameworks

that legitimized labor division and maintained social stratification, condoned disproportionate social

inequalities and hegemonic mechanisms of administration that were strengthened to fragment social

relations and manipulate the availability of resources. Ideological frameworks tactically disguised

the state’s shortcomings, by hiding its discriminatory contradictions and simulating a harmony with

the gods and the supernatural world (Uribe 2006:94-5; Flannery 1972:407-11). Mythological

recreations of historical events are powerful and effective tools to successfully monopolize

authority and manipulate entire populations. Those who endure impositions on cultural and

religious beliefs through coercive inculcation involuntarily perpetuate the higher status of few

individuals who dictate the divine truth. New rituals and ceremonies were created to consolidate a

10

designed belief system of identity, law and social obligations, which sustained the cosmogony of

human existence while mythological and religious ideologies corrupted the historiographic

narrative, which was instrumentally employed by elite members to create a purported direct contact

between the gods, governors and elites. The endorsement of such belief systems involved strategies

that justified the existence of centralized power and authority, corroborated by religious

celebrations and the increasing construction of ceremonial buildings (Yoffee 2005:91-9; Adams

1956:230-1; Cohen 1988:5-8; Flannery 1972:402-6; Brumfiel 1983:261; Steward 1949:5-6).

While these processes of socio-cultural transformation appear in a chronological sequence,

they are comprised of various levels of socio-political complexity that emerge interconnected and

occur independently at successive phases and different times, although not arising simultaneously

in advancement phases, nor progressively in evolutionary typologies. Alternatively, these changes

occur through successive ‘stages’ of cultural and socio-political transformation, separated from one

another and manifesting independently at different times (Johnson & Earle 2003:18-9; Steward

1949:4-8; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:27; White 1947:166-7). Significantly, a monocausal

contextualization of change and progressive stages disregards cultural uniqueness4 and the

variability within processes of socio-political evolution, lacking an explanation of the factors and

causes for such changes, as the mechanisms of socio-cultural transformation do not appear

simultaneously on a scheduled basis of consecutive cause and effect (Sahlins & Service 1960:12-3;

Flannery 1972:409; White 1947:168-78; Wenke 1981:83-5; Steward 1949:1-6; Boas 1887:589;

Neumann 1997:74, 79; Abercrombie, et al. 1994:97; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:476-9). Alternatively,

socio-cultural transformations emerge and expand in correlation with nature, although occurring

independently and never in predetermined subsequent patterns, since cultural evolution does not

unfold vertically or unilaterally and neither follows a progressively fixed prototype that directs its

tangent (Johnson & Earle 2003: 18-9; Steward 1955:16-7). The ‘Theory of Culture Change’ defines

socio-cultural transformation as a corollary of environmental adaptations that impulse the social

nucleus toward a higher integration of complex socio-political factors such as technologies,

ideologies, the economy and political systems (Steward 1955:11-4, 178-81). The methodology of

‘Multilinear Evolution’ stresses that sequential, socio-political transformations represent

independent units, changing discontinuously as society evolves in numerous directions and generate

long-term modifications that follow ramifying patterns of multidirectional change (Steward

1955:19-20). Multilinear Evolution substantiates an analysis of causality and variability that seeks 4 “The main object of ethnological collections should be the dissemination of the fact that civilization is not something absolute, but that it is relativeand that our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes. […] Each and every civilization is the outcome of its geographical andhistorical surroundings” (Boas 1887:589).

11

to explain socio-political transformations, while the Ecological Approach explores the mechanisms

of social adaptation and means of subsistence (Flannery 1972:409; Steward 1949:2-4, 16; Sharer &

Traxler 2006:73-4; Wenke 1981:83; Brumfiel 1983:262-3).

ORIGINS OF THE MEXICA AND THEIR MIGRATION TOCENTRAL MEXICO

“From a theoretical perspective, we find that important factors for migration include environmentalinstability, the fluidity of migrants’ social organization, the shifting nature of ethnicity, prior contactand information flow and the recursive link between migration and political stability” (Beekman &Christensen 2003:116).

Linguistic investigations vis-à-vis the glottochronological5 divergence of the Uto-Aztecan

languages suggest that Nahuatl was introduced to central Mexico by A.D. 400-500, long before the

Aztec’s arrival to the area (Kaufman & Justeson 2008:63, 73; Luckenbach & Levi 1980:458;

Beekman & Christensen 2003:118; Mastache & Cobean 1989:49-56; Evans 2004:275-6; Coe &

Koontz 2005:19; Renfrew & Bahn 2000:124). The linguistic diffusion of Nahuatl happened during

the second half of the Early Classic period and expanded rapidly in the Basin of Mexico (Kaufman

1976b:115; Kaufman & Justeson 2008:78; Beekman & Christensen 2003:120-1; Smith 1984:153,

175). The arrival of Nahuatl speakers to this area might be accredited as partial evidence

corroborating various theories associated with the Nahua groups’ migrations during the Post-

Classic period and sustain various historical descriptions documented in the conflicting information

provided by ethnohistorical sources. These migrations could have originated as a consequence of

climatic changes in the arid northern frontier and northwestern Mexico during the Epiclassic and

Early Post-Classic, motivating farmers to search for arable lands to the south (Evans 2004:349-53,

418-26; Mastache & Cobean 1989:49-56; Smith 1984:157; Coe & Koontz 2005:9).

“La retracción de la frontera norte de Mesoamérica hizo que se volcaran sobre esta área quienes antes

habían podido subsistir del cultivo en zonas que ya no lo permitían, mayormente grupos Yotonahuas y

Otopames” (Manrique Castañeada 2004:57).

During the Epiclassic and Early Post-Classic periods, various Chichimec6 and Toltec7

groups immigrated to central Mexico from the northwest, Teotihuacan, the Gulf Coast and the

5 “La glotocronología, método exclusivamente lingüístico para fechar fenómenos lingüísticos sin tener que incurrir a informaciones de otro típo. Lasfechas lingüísticas son independientes y pueden compararse con dataciones de otro caracter” (Manrique Castañeda 1993:54).6 The Chichimecs, “people of the dog lineage” originally came from the arid zones north of the Mesoamerican borders. (Evans 2004:358; Coe &Koontz 2005:151; Durán 1994:16. Sahagún describes the Teochichimeca, as nomadic ‘wild’ peoples who lived in caves, used animal skins forclothing and subsisted on wild foods, roots seeds and wild animal meat (Sahagún 1569: X-f.22-23).7 The Toltecs, “cultured persons or skilled artisans” were in part descendants of migrants from Teotihuacan after the city’s demise (Coe & Koontz2005:152; Evans 2004:358).

12

Bajío that presently occupies the Mexican states of Hidalgo, Querétaro and Guanajuato (Beekman

& Christensen 2003:122-5; Mastache & Cobean 1989: 55-6). Sedentary groups occupied the Bajío,

which interconnected the Chichimec societies with other Mesoamerican regions. The Bajío hosted

a juncture between societies that comprised a region of commerce and migration, as evidenced

archaeologically by the incursion of Coyotlatelco’s cultural tradition from the Bajio to central

Mexico (Castañeda López 2008:44-5; García Moreno: 2008:48-51; Mastache & Cobean 1989:49,

55). Furthermore, the Coyotlatelco ceramic style is chronologically related to Classic period

Teotihuacan, whilst the Toltecs subsequently inherited it during the Epiclassic and Post-Classic

periods (Weaver 1981:369; Mastache & Cobean 1989:51-5).

“Coyotlatelco […] cultural elements […] suggest that at least one segment of [this] population

consisted of immigrants from the northern Mesoamerican periphery, Querétaro and Guanajuato or

Zacatecas and Jalisco. Elements shared by Coyotlatelco and the northern Classic cultures include […]

ceremonial precinct layout, construction techniques and artifact types. The ceramic styles of […]

Coyotlatelco and many northern cultures are extremely similar (Mastache & Cobean 1989:55-6).

The Teochichimec group spoke Otomí8 and was described as socio-culturally similar to the

segmentary societies9 that inhabited the northern deserts and endured the agricultural limitations of

arid areas (Davis 1980:94-101; Adams 1965:63; Mastache & Cobean 1989:64-5; Weaver

1981:418; Soustelle 1970:228-30; Coe & Koontz 2005:151; Durán 1994:16; Sahagún 1569:X, f.22-

23). In juxtaposition, the Tamime10 was a Nahualt speaking Chichimec group that possessed a

Calpulli-like social organization, knowledge of the 52-year calendar cycle, cultivation of crops and

specialization in stone masonry and lapidary, which related them with La Quemada and Alta Vista

(Adams 1963:63-4; Weaver 1981:418-20; Coe & Koontz 2005:149-52). These northern state-

societies acquired attributes of the Mesoamerican culture core and developed complex forms of

social organization that reveal their strong political influence (Davis 1980:162-4; Evans 2004:352;

Smith 2004:36). Archaeological evidence indicates socio-cultural features dating from the Classic

period, such as one of the oldest tzompantli, colonnaded halls and specialization in lapidary art,

suggesting that such cultural patterns originated in these northern commercial centers (Coe &

Koontz 2005:149-52). The Chichimecs constituted a multiplicity of societies with distinct ethnic

and cultural traditions that integrated a multiethnic population, suggested by their relationship with

8 The Otomí language belongs the Oto-Mangueyan family and it was spoken before the arrival of Nahuatl to central Mexico (Smith 1984:176; Davis1980:9; Beekman & Christensen 2003:14-16).9 Segmentary societies […] may be nomad with a mobile economy based on the intensive exploitation of livestock. These are multicommunitysocieties […] integrated into the larger society through kinship ties. Although some segmentary societies have officials, [they] lack the economicbase necessary for effective use of power” (Renfrew & Bahn 2000:175-7).10 The Tamime combined a lifestyle practice that resembled the Teochichimec and the civilized peoples “who wore the cast-off rags of civilizationand did farming to supplement their wild diet. [They] could engage in complex forms of society [and] those prosperous northwestern farmers andurban-dwellers immigrated to central Mexico bringing along innovative cultural traits” (Coe & Koontz 2005:150-1).

13

Alta Vista and La Quemada, discrepancies in their social organization and the linguistic differences

between Nahuatl and Otomí speakers (Weaver 1981:418-20; Beekman & Christensen 2003:124;

Christensen 1997:1).

“The two ethnic groups […] attempted to [be identified] in the archaeological record possibly

correspond to groups mentioned in the chronicles. The Tolteca-Chichimeca may be the northern

group related to the Bajío, while the Nonoalca may have been the Teotihuacan-related remnants

described in the sixteenth-century histories as the founders of Tula (Jimenez Moreno 1941:81).

Various ethnic groups constituted the Toltec state, among them were the Nonoalca, who were

immigrants and distinguished artisans, lapidaries and sculptors from Teotihuacan that brought

along their cultural tradition to Tula (Mastache & Cobean 1989:65; Coe & Koontz 2005:152; Davis

1980:94-101; Evans 2004:358; Smith 2004:33-4; Sahagún 1569:X, f.22-23; Durán 1994:16).

Linguistic and archaeological evidence suggest that the Toltecs spoke both Nahuatl and Otomí,

practiced irrigated agriculture and developed socio-political integration, as indicated by their

monumental architecture, ball game courts, apartment compounds and agricultural terraces found

within the city-state of Tula (Kaufman 1976b:115; Weaver 1981:359-61; Coe & Koontz 2005:152;

Smith 1984:156-8, 176). During the Epiclassic and Early Post-Classic periods, the Toltecs achieved

an elevated level of socio-cultural evolution and developed a strong political complexity, reflecting

a cultural continuity that was in part inherited from Teotihuacan, El Bajío, La Quemada and Alta

Vista (Smith 2003:33-4; Mastache & Cobean 1989:51-5). The origins and lifestyle of the

Chichimecs and Toltecs are essential in the analyses of the Mexica’s mythological origin and past

and entail an integral part in the examination of historical events that possibly ensued during their

migration from Aztlan.

“On many occasions, real historical events are converted over the course of time into myths. […]

Places are made sacred by the society, which experienced the event and it becomes the center for

future orientation. Once the place is made sacred, […] it becomes necessary to reproduce what took

place in what has now become mythic time. […] Occasionally, there is behind the myth a real,

historical fact” (Matos Moctezuma 1985:809).

The Mexica’s mythical origins possibly originated from historical reality in times now considered

legendary, as ‘historical miracles’ were then reformulated over time and detailed descriptions

appeared later in historical descriptions of the migrations. Derivatively, the anachronistic

positioning of historical accounts in a mythological context served as an instrument that validated

the Mexica chronological accounts of the past and was subsequently converted into substantive,

historical narrative, such as the Mexica’s exodus (Smith 1984:155-8, 165-7; López Austin

1990:669-73). The mythological origins of the Mexica correlate them with the Chichimecs and

14

Toltecs, entailing a legendary socio-cultural inheritance that was transformed into genealogical

history (Matos Moctezuma 1985:809-10; Christensen 1997:1; López Austin 1990:664-5). This

correlation suggests that a myth validated the perception of the Mexica’s origin that represented

them as tribal groups, dressing in animal skins and hunting with bows and arrows (Codex

Telleriano-Remensis 1995:f.25-29v, f.26-28r; Codex Vaticanus A 1979:f.61-70v, f.68-70r).

Notwithstanding, the Mexica are described by other sources, as an evolved society that shared

evolved Mesoamerican cultural traits as agriculture practices, the use of calendrical notations and

the erection of temples to worship their gods (Tezozomoc 1949:23-9; Durán 1984:II, 29-30).

“[The Mexica], derived their warlike qualities from their nomadic ancestors and the high civilization

that they were so proud of from their settled ancestors. […] The barbarian and the civilized man,

answer two conceptions made up of combined history and myth – the Chichimeca and the Tolteca”

(Soustelle 1970: 220-1).

The dual notion that describes the Mexica’s origin and form of social organization is contradictory

in ethnohistorical sources since their veracity is opaque, making it difficult to extract legendary

connotations that disguise genuine historical episodes by veiling history with myth (Moreno

1962:36-40; Matos Moctezuma 1988:42-3; Smith 2004:36). It is likely that the course of Mexica

history and mythological conception was distorted by ancient historical revisionists such as

Tlacaelel11 who manipulated historical information to discredit former accounts and re-wrote

history in an attempt to glorify the ethnic dualism of the Mexica and their origins (Christensen

1997:1; Coe & Koontz 2005:187; Matos Moctezuma 1985:811). According to López Austin

(1990:664), the fusing of mythology and history served as a justifier, which effectively positioned

historiography in a context that was used to legitimize miraculous events. Several mythological and

historical episodes purportedly occurred by a cosmic force, or divine intervention whilst religious

morals lent credibility to mythological incidents:

“La historiografía relativa al Postclásico mesoamericano, tiene […] la frecuente fusión de narración

histórica y narración mítica. [Esta] exigía del relato histórico un aranque legitimador, […] por tanto se

recurría a la instancia divína. Cada pueblo debía hacer resaltar en su historia tánto el orígen

legitimador que lo situaba en el contexto económico y político, como los destellos milagrosos que lo

revinculaban con los dioses. Esto hacía que el relato histórico se iniciara con referencia al orígen

mítico y [así] la historia integraba legítimamente a los pueblos en un medio político en el que la

religión se había convertido en el código cumún de las relaciones” (López Austin 1990:664).

11 Tlacaelel consolidated the administration of Tenochtitlan’s economy and designed reforms that changed the Mexica society and politics. Heordered to burn documents and libraries of conquered city-states, commanding a process of historical revisionism that deified the Mexica origins andrise to power (Coe & Koontz 2005:187-8; Smith 2005:44-6).

15

Ethnohistorical sources assert that various contingents of Nahua migrants departed from

Aztlan12 during 1 Técpatl–A.D. 1168 (Tira de la Peregrinación 1957:I; Historia de los Mexicanos

por sus Pinturas: 2005:41; Codex Aubín 1963:f.3v; Tezozomoc 1949:14-17, 21-2; Durán 1994:21;

Joyce 1914:12; Johansson 2007:18-25). After departure, an effigy of Huitzilopochtli ordered the

Mexica to drift independently from the other calpoltin13, given that the Mexica were

Huitzilopochtli’s elected people (Tezozomoc 1949:19-20; Tira de la Peregrinación 1957:III; Codex

Aubín 1963:f.4v; Johansson 2007:26-9; Smith 1984:179-80). The Mexica continued their exodus

independently and took up a twenty-year residence in Tula (Codex Borgia 1981:XIX-XX; Durán

1984:II, 32-3; Tira de la Peregrinación 1957:III-VII; Codex Aubín 1963:f.4r-7v; Historia de los

Mexicanos por sus Pinturas: 2005:42-7; Joyce 1914:12; Evans 2004:418-9; Johansson 2007:26-39).

According to Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:I-XVIII), this migration lasted for 165 years until the

Mexica’s arrival to Chapultepec in 9 Tecpatl–A.D.1332. In contrast, Historia de los Mexicanos por

sus Pinturas (2005:40-7) only recognizes its length to 91 years, although both sources assert 1

Tecpatl–A.D.1168 for the Aztlan’s departure. Provided that this migration lasted for 91 years, the

Mexica’s arrival to Chapultepec would occur accordingly on approximately 3 Tecpatl–A.D.1248.

Contradictorily, Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:X) and Codex Aubín (1963:f.10r) specify 3 Tecpatl-

A.D.1248 as the Mexica’s arrival to Tzompanco, within the vicinity of Tula, although long before

their register of the Mexica’s arrival to Chapultepec. These data suggest that 9 Tecpatl–A.D.1332

given by Tira de la Peregrinación (1957: XVIII) for the arrival to Chapultepec may be inaccurate.

According to Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas (2005:42-7), the arrival to Tula happened

53 years after departing Aztlan, although calculations give an approximate date of A.D.1221. In

juxtaposition, Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:VII) denotes the arrival to Tula at 4 Calli–A.D.1197

and its calendrical glyphs depict a 20 years occupation, ending in 9 Acatl–A.D.1215. This 20 year

permanence in Tula is absent in Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas, although Codex Aubín

(1963:f.7v-8r) confirms it, as analogously described in Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:VII). The

aforementioned dates given by Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:XIX) marking the Mexica’s

departure from Chapultepec suggest that 2 Ácatl–A.D.1351, exceedingly differs from the

migration’s time-length stipulated by Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas (2005:42-7) that

estimates their presence at Chapultepec already by 3 Tecpatl–A.D.1248. Consequently, the

migration’s time-length seems more accurate in Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas

12 Aztlan = ‘place of herons’ has been hypothetically located in Nayarit, northwestern Mexico (Tello 1971:II, 150-8; Tezozomoc 1949:21-2; Tibón2005:15-21, 355-62; Van Young 2000:142; Durán 1994:21).13 The groups that departed Aztlan were: the Mexica, Huexotzinca, Chalca, Xochimilca, Malinalca, Tlahuica, Tepaneca and Matlatzinca (Tira de laPeregrinación 1957:II; Johansson 2007:25).

16

(2005:42-7), since Tira de la Peregrinación (1957:XVIII-XIX) marks Chapultepec’s occupation

ranging from 9 Técpatl–A.D.1332 to 2 Ácatl– A.D.1351, which also lasted for 20 years.

Remarkably, Smith (1984:179-80) calculated the Mexica’s arrival to the Anahuac by A.D.1250 and

coincidently, 3 Tecpatl–A.D.1248 is given by Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas (2005:42-

7), suggesting that a correlation between 3 Tecpatl–A.D.1248 of the ethnohistorical record and

Smith’s date of A.D.1250, give greater credibility to the date of the Mexica’s arrival to the valley of

Mexico.

Despite hypotheses speculating the nomadic nature14 of the migrating Mexica, it is unlikely

that this society were purely constituted of nomadic hunter-foragers, since their political leadership

was hosted by priests and was not socially egalitarian, suggesting that the Mexica society entailed at

this time an evolved, although fairly simple form of a ranked social nucleus (Tezozomoc 1949:27;

Moreno 1962:35-6, 121-3; Evans 2004:427; Coe & Koontz 2005:185).

“La composición política y social de los Aztecas en un principio era demasiado simple, sin que por

esto queramos decir que constituyesen un mero conglomerado tribal, […] puesto que ya desde el

tiempo de su peregrinación los Mexicas presentan una diferenciación de clases y un nivel cultural

muy superiores a los que corresponden a una tribu” (Moreno 1962:122).

Concomitantly, the Mexica society’s structure does not appear to conform to the constitution of a

tribal unit, but rather a type of endogamous ranked society, linked by kinship ties and similar to a

social organizational form defined by Sanders & Price (1968:140-1) as a “semi-sedentary

agricultural nucleated chiefdom15”. Considering the migration’s mythological nature and presuming

that this exodus affirmatively occurred, it could be suggested that during the journey, agricultural

practices were limited by the Mexica’s nomadic nature and their subsistence strategy appears to

have been agricultural, combined with hunting and gathering. Furthermore, the Mexica possessed

socio-cultural features equivalent to complex societies such as the practice of agriculture, erecting

temples and recording calendrical events that indicate a more dynamic societal structure than that of

a tribal society16 (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:42-7; Evans 2004:427; Smith

2004:36). Additionally, glottochronologies indicate evidence of human movements that brought

14 Possibly, the Aztec groups were evolved ‘semi-sedentary agricultural chiefdoms’ and not tribes. In a tribal society, “members are kinsfolk, relatedby descent or marriage and lack formal leaders, so there are not marked economic disparities” (Renfrew & Bahn 2000:176).15 Chiefdoms “operate on ranking differences in social status between people, graded on a scale of prestige and the senior chief governs the society.Prestige and rank are determined by how closely related one is to the chief, and there is no true stratification into classes. […] One of thecharacteristic features of the chiefdom is the existence of a ritual and ceremonial center that acts as the central focus for the entire polity” (Renfrew &Bahn 2000:176).16 The migration’s level of socio-cultural integration indicates features of a chiefdom as: “food production’ - farming and intensive collecting,supplemented by hunting and foraging; ‘Economy’- differential access to key resources; ‘Territory’- related groups sharing a common ethnic identityand language; ‘Politics’- no community is ruled by another, there are few or no formal offices; leaders use authority and charisma, but have norecognized right to enforce policy through coercion; ‘Religion and ideology’ - belief system may venerate ethnic deities; special buildings and ritesmay unite the whole community” (Evans 2004:24-5).

17

linguistic elements to central Mexico, suggested by the presence of Nahuatl locally since A.D.500-

600. A chronology of linguistic continuity substantiates the veracity of intermittent migrations,

indicating the Mexica’s arrival to the valley of Mexico, when Nahuatl had already been established

as the Anahuac’s lingua franca (Kaufman & Justeson 2008:63, 73; Manrique Castañeada 2004:57;

Beekman & Christensen 2003:115-9; Evans 2004:437). The migrations are a fundamental factor in

the transformational processes that defined the course of the Mexica socio-cultural evolution, since

adaptive socio-environmental mechanisms involved a process of relocation and dramatic changes in

their social organization. The resettlement could be attributed to overpopulation or consequential to

climatic variations in the Gran Chichimeca during the Epiclassic and Post-Classic periods (Evans

2004:414-8; Manrique Castañeda 2004:57).

“Estando poblados los mexicanos en un pueblo que se dice aztlan y que es al occidente de esta Nueva

España, volviendo hacia el norte, y teniendo este pueblo mucha gente y en medio de el un cerro, del

cual sale una fuente que hace un río […] y de la otra parte del río está otro pueblo muy grande, que se

díce Culhuacan. […] Culhuacan y que es muy grande pueblo y tiene alrededor de si muchos lugares y

gente y por no caber determinaron de venir a buscar tierras do poblasen” (Historia de los Mexicanos

por sus pinturas 2005:40-1).

An alternative clarification of this relocation originates in Spanish historical chronicles, revealing

that a hurricane passed through the Jalisco-Nayarit region where Aztlan purportedly existed. This

calamity surprised Nuño de Guzmán and his troops during their expeditions throughout the Nueva

Galícia, coercing the survivors to endure times of misery and disease (Tello 1971:II-152; Tibón

2005:368-70). Derivatively, López-Portillo y Weber (1935:281-3) inferred that a similar cataclysm

possibly occurred in the 13th century and caused environmental constraints that perturbed the

Mexica’s subsistence means, suggesting that this tragedy instigated their migration as a result of

analogously devastating environmental changes that brought along alimentary scarcity and disease.

Accordingly, the causes of this migration and the mechanisms of change that followed could be

analyzed by examining a speculative framework that addresses the population’s nourishment

deficiencies, which arose from overpopulation or environmental perturbations that led to

interdependent socio-cultural transformations. Carneiro (1970:733-5) proposes that fundamental

factors which impulse processes of migration emerge as a consequence of excessive population

growth or dramatic climatic variations resulting in internal socio-political resource conflicts that

generate insufficiencies within a society’s subsistence means, while emerging conflict divides

populations (Carneiro 1970:733-5; Beekman & Christensen 2003:116). These theories suggest that

social or environmental transformations occurred in the past, compromising the Mexica’s

livelihood and presumably also created social conflict, as a consequence of spontaneous

18

environmental transformations. Concomitantly, the Mexica would have been coerced to migrate

and endure transformative processes, where intermittent periods of nomadism and sedentarism

became relevant. The combination of these socio-cultural patterns of human subsistence and

environmental adaptation are identified as a “mixed subsistence strategy, combining food

production with continued foraging and hunting for wild resources” (Evans 2004:26). Additionally,

it is probable that the Mexica had inherited fundamental socio-cultural traits from the

Mesoamerican culture core through contacts with other Mesoamerican groups. An inspection of the

trading routes that operated directly preceding Teotihuacan’s collapse, continuing into the

Epiclassic and Early Post-Classic periods could sustain the aforementioned hypothesis. Long-

distance trade and commercial routes interconnected central Mexico beyond the Mesoamerican

frontier with Paquimé and the Pueblo cultures of southwestern U.S.A. These mercantile routes

provided the Mesoamericans with turquoise and minerals transported from the north, while this

merchandise was traded for jade and feathers transported from the south (Coe & Koontz 2005:184;

Evans 2004:408-12). These routes of trade and commerce passed through northwestern Mexico,

suggesting that during the Late Classic and Epiclassic periods, the locals inherited extensive

cultural knowledge and practices that were widely established within Mesoamerica. Furthermore,

archaeological evidence indicate that northwestern Mexico’s inhabitants pioneered in metallurgy,

which probably arrived from South America via the Pacific Ocean by A.D. 800–900 and

subsequently diffused southwards all along Mesoamerica (Coe & Koontz 2005:149; Smith

2005:95-6; Weaver 1981:222-3). Fundamentally, the Mexica society inherited Mesoamerican

socio-cultural attributes from interconnections with other societies, reflecting a complex and

evolved social nucleus that conjectures a dichotomy, which describes the Mexica migrants as

nomadic tribes attempting to disguise their ‘Paleolithic horizon’.

“La historia Azteca es una historia ejemplar. En ella se relata cómo una horda de nómadas,

cazadores y depredadores, agijoneados por el hambre y vestidos con pieles animales, logran acceder

a las mas altas címas de la cultura, saliendo brutalmente de los horizontes paleolíticos para

convertirse en los refinados señores de un imperio poderoso y dinámico, cuyos límites van de un

océano a otro” (Duverger 1987:17).

Evidently, Duverger overstresses the course of Mexica cultural evolution by describing the

Mexica’s origins and social organization, epitomizing a ‘rags to riches’ process of socio-cultural

transformation. Nonetheless, the Mexica constituted instead, a society that was socio-culturally

more complex than a Paleolithic nomadic group upon their departure from Aztlan and during their

migration (López Austin 1990:669; Evans 2004:418-19; Coe & Koontz 2005:11). Affirmatively, it

is relevant to reiterate Smith’s (2004:36) proposed “dual conception” of the Aztecs: “The Aztlan

19

migrants [are] part of the dual conception of the cultural origins of the Aztecs, who believed

themselves descended from both savage Chichimecs and civilized Toltecs”. This proposal

illustrates the probable evolutionary trajectory of the Mexica society, which utilized myth to

validate its manipulative historiographic revisionism that intentionally positioned the Mexica, as

divinely elected and culturally superior among the Aztec groups.

“The migrations played a significantly ideological role in later Mexica political cosmology (Davis

1980:85) [having] been consciously manipulated by the Mexica nobility. […] Because this and other

native historical chronicles were used by the Mexica to justify their rule through an elaborate state

cosmology, they should not be interpreted as historically valid texts” (Smith 1984:154).

RISE OF TENOCHTITLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF ITSPOLITICAL INTEGRATION

“Complex society indicates a social formation that is internally heterogeneous and that has pervasiveinequality with regard to differential access to basic resources, ranking or stratification” (McGuire1983:91; Fowler 1991:2). “The ecological-functionalist approach [analyzes] ecological factors […]in state formation, [such as] demographic pressure, agricultural intensification, trade and symbiosis,external conflict and circumscription, and ideology. [The] historical materialist approach explainssocio-political complexity […] since it considers certain variables such as class interests,maladaptation and socio-cultural collapse. […] The Marxist approach views cultural evolution as theconjunction of social, political, economic and ideological processes occurring within a historicallydetermined context (Fowler 1991:9).

The Mexica arrived to the Anahuac during the 13th century, finding its lakeshores and surroundings

occupied by various groups that had consolidated a network of small city-states17 and assured

political alliances (Durán 1984:II-27; Joyce 1917:17; Brumfiel 1983:266-7; Smith 1986:71; Matos

Moctezuma 1988:42; Evans 2004:428). Plagued by intermittent conflict, the unstable political

panorama was exposed by the city-state coalitions’ volatility and their inconsistent socio-political

integration, which created discordant tributary relationships between contiguous polities (Sanders,

Parson & Stanley 1979:149-52; Smith 1986:72; Brumfiel 1983:266; Evans 2004:445-6). The

Mexica’s social stratification at this time comprised the ranking between priests, calpulli18 leaders

and macehualtin, suggesting that the commitment to Huitzilopochtli was further strengthened

among the macehualtin, by inculcating them with new religious feasts and rituals that reinforced

ideological structures of warfare (Durán 1984:II-35, 39; Moreno 1962:35; Coe & Koontz 2005:187;

17 “The ãltepetl was the basic building block for all larger political entities in the Anahuac, […] characterized as a ‘socially stratified statecommunity’ that occupied a definite, bounded territory with a capital and subject settlements and lands. […] Although often composed of ethnicallydiverse populations, city-states were corporate units strongly integrated by religious and social bonds in addition to their class-structured political andeconomic integration” (Smith 1986:71-2).18 All society members shared certain equalities within a ranked society or chiefdom-like organization. A council and calpulli leaders determined theMexica society’s decision-making processes that entailed a power constraint between their interests (Rounds 1979:74-5).

20

Rounds 1979:74-5; Evans 2004:448). A theocratic belief system bolstered and perpetuated an

ideological cosmology, conceptualizing the Mexica’s destiny, as prescribed by divinity, warfare

and political hegemony (López Austin 1990:670-2; Smith 2003:38; Coe & Koontz 2005:185-6).

Cultural identity was a decisive factor for the Mexica society’s evolutionary trajectory, sustaining

ideological frameworks, such as the practice of human sacrifice, which served to consolidate

fundamental socio-political institutions, particularly within the ambits of ideology and religion

(Smith 2003:192-3; Evans 2004:437-8). “The fact that the Aztec’s principal god was created

precisely in order to do battle may be a theological justification for the warlike character of Aztec

society” (Matos Moctezuma 1988:42).

“Los capitanes funcionando en forma colegiada, constituian durante la época anterior al

establecimiento de la tribu en el lago de México, el gobierno de los antiguos mexicanos. No hay

noticia de que existiese un órgano especial ejecutivo permanente de los acuerdos del concejo, que

asumiese la dirección de toda la tribu. […] El Estado tiene su orígen en el estableimiento definitívo

de una tribu sobre un terrirorio determinado; la convivencia continuada y permanente de todos los

miembros pertenecientes a una misma colectividad sobre un territorio hace que se modifique la

naturaleza del lazo que los mantenía unidos y que se convierta de familiar en politico” (Moreno

1962:24, 34).

Legend affirms that Huitzilopochtli indicated the Mexica to raise their city where a prickly pear

cactus grew, on which an eagle perched, devouring a snake (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus

Pinturas 2005:49-51, 56; Tezozomoc 1949:65-70; Durán 1984:II-29, 38, 44-5; Bernal 1959:108-9;

Coe & Koontz 2005:186). Significantly, Azcapotzalco’s lord granted the Mexica usufructuary

rights, letting them establish themselves on an islet in Lake Texcoco in exchange for subservience,

becoming hence Azcapotzalco’s mercenaries and tributary vassals to the Tepanec regime (Codex

Mendoza 1992:f.2v-f.2r; Berdan & Anawalt 1992:II-6; Joyce 1917:18; Bernal 1959:113; Matos

Moctezuma 1988:42-3; Evans 2004:442-9). Tenochtitlan’s foundation is a decisive chronological

marker within the Mexica’s process of socio-cultural evolution and entails a boost of political

complexity toward consolidating the foundations of a city-state. This transformative process

represents the exodus’ conclusion and instates a mechanism of political reorganization that defines

the conversion into a sedentary lifestyle (Evans 2004:448; Smith 2004:56-7; Childe 1950:3-5).

Sedentism delineates the transition into the intensification of social complexity and political

integration that transformed this society into a form of proto-state, which developed political

centralization and manifested the emergence of theocratic and kinship-related elites, whilst Calpulli

leaders increasingly enhanced their authority and influence over trade and commerce (Weaver

1981:459-60; Moreno 1962:24-6; Brumfiel 1983:266-8; Smith 2004:148; Rounds 1979:75; Sanders

21

& Price 1968:153-5). Evidently, the institutionalization of religion and the appearance of an

endogamous nobility accentuated discrepancies in diet, dress and wealth that distinguished class

disparities between social identities and decreed the division of their correspondent labor tasks

(Adams 1965:111; Evans 2004:448-9; Moreno 1962:25). Emerging administrative institutions such

as the political economy and the Calpulli19 encompassed the Mexica tributary system that fomented

tribute payments in alimentary supplies, utensils, clothing and specialized crafts from the lower

classes, to subsequently redistribute these goods unequally among influential social members,

while wealth’s accumulation incremented trade relations and fortified Tenochtitlan’s political

economy (Smith 1986:71-2; Adams 1963:63-4, 86-7; Sanders & Price 1968:153-5; Rounds

1979:75).

“The institutions of sale were poorly developed and largely limited to the nobility, while the bulk of

the population enjoyed only a portion of the [food distribution], minus tribute and labor service. […]

The growth of social stratification seems to have been preeminently a politically induced process

associated with [elitist] largesse in the distribution of [resources]” (Adams 1963:63-6).

Furthermore, the commoners’ tributary payments partially provided sustentation for Tenochtitlan’s

populace and supplied goods for tribute disbursements to Azcapotzalco, suggesting that a territory’s

tenure boosted the economy and enhanced theological ideologies by substantiating further

construction and enlargement of temples to venerate the gods (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus

Pinturas 2005:57, 98, 103-4; Smith 2004:125-6; López Austin 1990:664; Matos Moctezuma

1985:803-5). The mythological symbolism encapsulated in the construction and orientation of

Tenochtitlan elucidates Huitzilopochtli’s legendary visions, asserting that the Mexica would find a

land to populate (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:55-6; Codex Aubín 1963:f.5r;

Tira de la Peregrinación 1957:IV; Caso 1988:37). Tenochtitlan’s orientation was deliberately placed

according to the east-west axis solar and lunar movement, depicting a symbolic myth that placed

Tenochtitlan as the center of the universe (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:69-70;

Codex Mendoza 1992:f.2v-f.2r; Matos Moctezuma 1985:811; Smith 2004:185). For the Mexica,

Huitzilopochtli symbolized the daytime sky as the sun’s incarnation, always existing in constant

battle with the moon and the night powers that must be defeated daily to protect the sun’s

destruction by the obscurity lords and keep humanity alive (Historia de los Mexicanos por sus

Pinturas 2005:33-8, 43-5; Sahagún 1569:III-f.1v-4v, 1r-4r; Caso 1988:33; Macazaga Ordoño

1978:8-13). Such mythological accounts constitute a theological ideology that legitimized the

19 “The calpulli comprised the fundamental unit of Aztec social structure. Endogamy may well be related to an ecological situation of intensiveagriculture and population pressure; serving as an admirable device of minimizing disputes that would otherwise be likely to result. [The calpulli]was non-egalitarian in terms of the statuses of its members, and […] not only ranking but [also] stratification was the principle involved” (Sanders &Price 1968:153-5).

22

Mexica’s commitment to warfare, which sought war prisoners to substantiate the offering of blood

and human hearts to nourish the sun and preserve the existence of humanity (Durán 1984:II-34-5;

Tira de la Peregrinación 1957:IV; Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:33-4; Caso

1988:12-3; Smith 2004:192-3).

“Human sacrifice was essential in Aztec religion, for if man could not exist except through the

creative force of gods, the latter in turn needed man to sustain them with human sacrifice. Man must

nourish the gods with the magic sustenance of life itself, found in human blood and in the human

heart” (Caso 1988:12).

This ideology originated from myth and was condensed in the Templo Mayor’s west-facing

orientation, exemplifying the sun’s path and idolizing warfare, rain, agriculture, trade and tribute-

flow, as epitomized in the veneration to Tlaloc20 and Huitzilopochtli, who were the symbolic

foundations of Mexica ideological existence (López Austin 1990:664; Matos Moctezuma

1985:799-800; Evans 2004:452-3). Similarly, Tenochtitlan’s quadripartite subdivision symbolized

the four cardinal points and recreated a myth that authenticated the Mexica cosmology and

interconnected the terrestrial and supernatural worlds, by symbolically eluding to the axis mundi

(Codex Mendoza 1996:f.2v-f.2r; Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:42-4, 102-4;

Calnek 1970:109; Matos Moctezuma 1985:799; Matos Moctezuma 1988:42-4; López Austin

2008:33). Additionally, the cardinal points discernible in the symbolism of Tenochtitlan attempted

to embody the divinity of Ometecuhtli and Omecihuatl21 in the midpoint and signified the

uppermost heaven and the lower earth, whilst their four sons inhabited the cardinal points (Historia

de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:23-8; Smith 2004:185-6, 196). Distinctive colors

characterized these four gods, Xipe-Totec corresponded to the east and was symbolized by red,

Tezcatlipoca the black representing north, Huitzilopochtli signified blue, indicating the south and

white was attributed to Quetzalcoatl, who represented the west (Caso 1988:10-11; López Austin

2008:33; Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:23-6, 69-70, 102-3).

“The universe itself was conceived in a religious rather than in a geographic sense, and it was divided

horizontally and vertically into areas of religious significance. The horizontal universe, possibly the

older concept, recognized five directions, the four cardinal points and the centre” (Vaillant 1956:170).

Given that Teotihuacan was intended to function as a theocratic centre planned to resemble the

cosmic movements, Tenochtitlan’s erection seemingly recreated Teotihuacan’s layout on a grid

arrangement, suggesting an architectonically typological comparative marker that denotes a cultural

20 Tlaloc was worshiped as the god of rain and subsistence agriculture (Matos Moctezuma 1985:799-800).21 These gods of duality were also called Tonacatecuhtli and Tonacacihuatl and they procreated four gods whom created the world and human kind(Caso 1988:10; Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas 2005:23-8).

23

continuity, inherited by the Mexica from Classic Period Teotihuacan (Sugiyama 1993:102-4; Smith

2004:184-6; Coe & Koontz 2005:185-6; Weaver 1981:420, 521; Adams 1965:18-9; Millon

1993:17, 25-6; Manzanilla 2004:122). Sedentism and urbanism were indispensable factors in

Mexica state formation and essential to the mechanisms involved in its development of political

centralization, as well as the creation of institutionalized administrative jurisdictions that fortified

the economy, predominantly comprised of trade and tribute collection (Smith 1986:72; Weaver

1981:459; Childe 1950:4-6).

“Sedentism permits the storage of food and accumulation of goods, two powerful elements in social

ranking, economic organization and political power in complex societies. […] The elaboration of

more complex stratified societies with highly specialized economies, autocratic political organization,

and ideology institutionalized into state-sponsored religious cults” (Evans 2004:53).

Tenochtitlan’s location facilitated trade and commerce with vicinal city-states, creating a network

of exchange that further improved the local economy, whilst the city gradually managed to

consolidate a barter-like political economy that gave the Mexica increasing political autonomy and

self-sufficiency. The trading of fish, frogs, algae and wild birds in exchange for grain, vegetables

and building materials primarily substantiated the economy, considering that the Mexica did not

practice enough agriculture at this time to have completely subsisted auto sufficiently from farming

(Palerm 1966:69-71; Calnek 1972:104-6; Rounds 1979:75; Smith 2004:44).

“The Mexica, establishing themselves on their islands, represented something of an anomaly because

they had no land-based agrarian population. […] There were severe limitations in Tenochtitlan as a

site [and] lack of arable land was one problem, eventually overcome by the development of the

drained-field cultivation system known as chinampas” (Evans 2004:446).

The Mexica intensified agriculture at a later time by utilizing Chinampa cultivation, an ancient

farming method of environmental adaptation that is an exceptionally fertile farming technique,

since water and minerals are constantly supplied from the subsoil onto the surface (Calnek

1972:104; Sanders & Price 1968:146-8; Coe & Koontz 2005:186-7; Smith 2004:187; Evans

2004:444-5). Furthermore, Tenochtitlan was artificially enlarged by the development of new terrain

platforms that were destined for architectural structures, temples and habitation complexes (Durán

1984:50-2; Calnek 1972:105; Morales 1934:27-8). Tenochtitlan’s establishment of a political

economy based on exchange, the administration and control over vital supplies and escalating

centralization of wealth were key motors of state formation, although population growth and

agricultural intensification played a lesser fundamental role in the development of political

complexity (Rounds 1979:75; Adams 1965:91).

24

“The development of rigid class-stratification in Tenochtitlan was a result of the economic, legal and

symbolic stratagems employed in the struggle for power between the traditional lineage leaders of the

pre-state polity and a newly created central dynasty. […] As a stratagem for centralizing power, the

[Mexica] dynasty adopted measures encouraging the traditional local leaders to develop a new self-

identity as members of a ruling elite” (Rounds 1979:73-4).

Marital alliances between neighboring Aztec elites enhanced the centralization of power that

minimized conflict between city-states and strengthened a system of solidarity, which protected the

interests that enabled authority and prestige for those involved (Brumfiel 1983:270; Evans

2004:449-50; Weaver 1981:420-2). Acamapichtli was named Tenochtitlan’s first Tlatoani in

A.D.1372, implementing as law a hereditary genealogical tree that conducted the Mexica towards

consolidating a state-society (Rounds 1979:75; Evans 2004:450; Coe & Koontz 2005:185-6;

Weaver 1981:420; Matos Moctezuma 1988:803-5). The establishment of a dynastic lineage

suggests that although the governmental structure of this society was not entirely consolidated, it

had now abandoned the proto-state phase and evolved towards the consolidation of an important

state society in the valley of Mexico.

CONCLUSIONSSeveral ethnohistorical sources inaccurately describe the migrating Mexica as a tribal unit, although

their social organization was ostensibly more complex and analogous to a ranked society or a semi-

sedentary agricultural nucleated chiefdom. This migration was decisive to the socio-cultural

evolutionary process endured by the Mexica. Concomitantly, the combination of semi-sedentism

and nomadism defines the substance of the Mexica’s mixed subsistence strategy, epitomizing a

highly evolved society that materialized the Mesoamerican culture core in farming, constructing

temples and celebrating religious rituals using calendrical notations. This investigation advocates

for the notion suggesting that the Mexica society of the 12th century was highly evolved, and

comprised extensively complex socio-cultural attributes that were inherited from other

Mesoamericans. As a result, this study scrutinizes the dichotomy that defines the migrant Mexica

society merely as a tribal unit. The mixed subsistence strategy employed by the Mexica before their

settlement, demonstrably reflects the ‘dual conception’ that characterize their cultural origins, as

plausible descendants of the Chichimec segmentary societies and the civilizations of Teotihuacan

and Tula. Interestingly, the Mexica society evolved from being a semi-sedentary agricultural

nucleated chiefdom-like society into a proto-state, by the acquisition of a territory and its

subsequent settlement. This decisive socio-cultural transformation reorganized the Mexica society

as a politically integrated social unit that developed its socio-political organization and increased

25

significantly in political complexity by the adoption of sedentism and the establishment of a city-

state that rapidly enhanced its size and influence.

Predictably, the veracity of Mexica ethnohistorical sources must be examined discerning

manipulative frameworks that encapsulated myth into historical narratives. Essentially, the

deconstruction of narratives that exploited ideological systems of power to legitimize the political

influence achieved by the Mexica, should be carefully considered due to the fictitious implications

of its tacitly perpetrated historical revisionism by ancient historiographers, to anachronistically

situate history in a mythological context and validate accounts from the distant past to subsequently

convert them into substantive historical narratives. Considering the migration’s lack of

archaeological evidence, a methodological chronology of cultural continuity was partially

reconstructed and supported by regional divergences of the Nahuatl language, confirming

intermittent migrations to central Mexico since the Classic Period. Comparative typologies and

architectural similarities with Teotihuacan were typified in Tenochtitlan’s architectonic style,

orientation and symbolism, which reflect a cultural acquisition inherited by the Mexica from the

Classic Period, that was subsequently reenacted in their capital city. Furthermore, the incidence of

Coyotlatelco’s cultural attributes and ceramic styles in Tula and Teotihuacan defines a cultural

continuity that links these civilizations with the societies of the Bajío, considering that at list a

segment of the Coyotlatelco culture’s population originally came from this area of cultural and

linguistic convergence. Additionally, the extensive trading routes that linked Teotihuacan with the

northern cultures possibly contributed to the spread of Mesoamerican socio-cultural traits that were

inherited by the northwestern Aztec societies before their departure from Aztlan and further

consolidated long distance trade routes that extended into the Epiclassic Period and linked Tula

with north and northwestern Mexico. Providing that Aztlan’s location was in northwestern Mexico,

it is likely that these commercial routes had strong influence on developing socio-political

complexity among the pre-migration groups, suggesting that these societies acquired evolved

Mesoamerican socio-cultural traditions long before their departure from Aztlan. The hypothetical

causes for the Mexica migration suggest that possible environmental changes, climatic alterations

or overpopulation, led to internal resource conflict that arose from environmental constraints and

coerced the Mexica to migrate in search for improved living conditions on an alternate territory.

Although population growth and agricultural intensification are symptomatic of state formation,

they were not the primary causes in Tenochtitlan’s case, considering that the Mexica economy was

an important factor within this transformation, even when the economy was initially based on

exchange with neighboring city-states and trading commercial relationships of local products.

26

Power and authority were divided between Calpulli leaders and priests, who were fundamental

actors within the administration of the political economy, the growth of political centralization and

the institutionalization of ideological frameworks. While decision-making was based on many

layers of consideration, complete monopolization of centralized power occurred only after

Tenochtitlan’s independence from Azcapotzalco, when the Mexica dynasty was instated. The

cultural evolutionary sequence of the Mexica society was marked by the acquisition of a territory,

followed by its transitional increase in political complexity that created new institutions and

administrative bodies, strengthening social stratification and transforming Tenochtitlan into a form

of state-society. Finally, our reconstruction of the Mexica’s socio-cultural evolution during their

migration and arrival to the Anahuac propose that the 13th and 14th centuries’ Mexica society was a

social unit that possessed more evolved and complex forms of social organization than a tribal

society and strongly reflected advanced Mesoamerican cultural traits.

REFERENCES

Abercrombie, N., S. Hill & B. S. Turner1997: The Penguin Dictionary of Sociology; Penguin Books, London.

Adams, R. M.1956: Some Hypotheses in the Development of Early Civilizations; American Antiquity,

Vol. 21, no. 3; Society for American Archaeology, Washington D.C.: 227-232.

1965: The Evolution of Urban Society: Early Mesopotamia and Prehispanic Mexico;

Weidenfeld & Nicholson, London.

Aguilar Moreno, M.2006: Handbook to Life in the Aztec World; Oxford University Press, New York.

Alvarado Tezozomoc, F.1949: Crónica Mexicayòtl; Imprenta Universitaria, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; Mexico City.

Athens, J. S.1977: Theory Building and the Study of Evolutionary Processes in Complex Societies; in L. Binford (ed.) Theory Building in Archaeology. Academic Press. New York: 355-384.

Beekman, S. C. & Christensen A. F.2003: Controlling for Doubt and Uncertainty Through Multiple Lines of Evidence: A New Look at the Mesoamerican Nahua Migrations. Journal of Archaeological Method and

Theory, vol. 10, no. 2: 111-164.Bernal, I.

1959: Tenochtitlan en una Isla; Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

27

Boas, Franz1887: Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification, Science 9. 587-589.

Brumfiel, E. M.1983: Aztec State Making: Ecology, Structure and the Origin of the State; American

Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 85, no. 2; American Anthropological Association, Arlington: 261-284.

Calnek, E. E.1972: Settlement Pattern and Chinampa Agriculture in Tenochtitlan; American Antiquity 37: 104-115.

Carneiro, R. L.1970. A Theory of the Origin of the State, Science 169: 733-739.

Caso, A.1988: The Aztecs: People of the Sun; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman & London.

Castañeda López, C.1998: Plazuelas Guanajuato; in Arqueología Mexicana, vol XVI, no. 92; Editorial Raíces, Mexico City: 44-47.

Childe V. G.1950: The Urban Revolution; Town Planning Review, 21: 2-17.

Christensen, A. F.1997: History, Myth and Migration in Mesoamerica, American Society for Ethnology, Portland.

Cohen, R.1988: Introduction; in R. Cohen and E. R. Service (eds.) Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution; Institute for the Study of Human Issues, Philadelphia:1-20.

Codex Aubín1963 - [1576]: História de la Nación Mexicana: Reproducción a Todo Color del Códice de

1576 – (Códice Aubín); in Dibble, C. E. (ed.); Ediciones José Porrúa Turanzas, Madrid.

Codex Azcatitlan1995: Codex Azcatitlan; in R. H. Barlow (ed.). Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Société des Américanistes, Paris.

Codex Borgia1981: Codex Borgia: Descripción Historica y Exposición del Códice Borbónico; in F. Del Paso y Troncoso (ed.), Editorial Fascimilar, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Codex Mendoza[1541] - 1997: The Essential Codex Mendoza, in F. Berdan & Rieff Anawalt, P. University of California Press, Los Angeles.

Codex Telleriano-Remensis1995: Codex Telleriano-Remensis: Ritual Divination and History in a Pictorial Aztec Manuscript, in E. Quiñones-Keber (ed.) University of Texas Press, Austin.

28

Codex Vaticanus A 37381979: Codex Vaticanus A ‘Códice Rios’; in P. De los Rios (ed.), Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana; Akademische Druck-u Verlagsanstanstalt, Graz.

Coe, M. and R. Koontz2005: Mexico: From the Olmecs to the Aztecs, Thames & Hudson. London.

Cowgill, G. L.2003: The ancient civilizations of Mesoamerica; in M. E. Smith & M. A. Manson; Blackwell Publishers, Malden.

Durán, F. D.1951- [1581]: História de las Indias de la Nueva España y Islas de Tierra Firme; Porrúa,Mexico City.

1984- [1581]: Historia de las Indias de la Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme; in A. M. Garibay (ed.), Editorial Purrúa S.A., Mexico City.

1994 - [1581]: [Historia de las Indias de Nueva-España y islas de tierra firme]; in Heyden, D. (ed.) The History of the Indies of the New Spain: by Fray Diego Durán; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Flannery, K. V.1972: The Cultural evolution of Civilizations; in Annual Review of Ecology and

Systematics, vol 3; Annual Reviews, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor: 399-426.

Fowler, W. R.1991: Approaches to the Study of the Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica; in The Formation of Complex Society in Southeastern Mesoamerica;

CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton: 1-13.Davis, N.

1980: The Toltec Heritage: From the Fall of Tula to the Rise of Tenochtitlan; University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Dunnel, R. C.1980: Evolution Theory and Archaeology; in Advancements in Archaeological Method and

Theory, vol. 3; Academic Press, New York: 38-99.

Durham, W. H.1976: The Adaptive Significance of Human Behavior; Human Ecology 4. 89-121.

Duverger, C.1987: El Orígen de los Aztecas; Grijalbo, Mexico City.

Evans, S. T.2004: Ancient Mexico and Central America. Thames & Hudson, London.

Emberling G.1999. The Value of Tradition: The development of Social Identities in Early Mesopotamian States, in J. E. Robb (ed.) Material Symbols: Culture and economy in prehistory; Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale: 277-301.

García Moreno, G. Z.2008: Cañada de la Virgen, Guanajuato; in Arcqueología Mexicana, vol XVI, no. 92;

Editorial Raíces, Mexico City: 48-51.

29

Henrich J. & McElreat R.2003: The Evolution of Cultural Evolution in Journal of Evolutionary Anthropology 12. Willey Periodicals Inc., Malden: 123-135.

Historia de los Mexicanos por sus Pinturas2005: in Garibay K. A. M., (ed.) Teogonía e Historia de los Mexicanos: Tres Opúsculos del Síglo XVI, Porrúa, México City.

Isbell, W. H.1978: Environmental Perturbations and the Origin of the Andean State; in C. L. Redman; M. J. Berman; E. V. Curtin; W. T. Langhorne; N. M. Versaggi and J. C. Wanser (eds.) Social Archaeology: Beyond Subsistence and Dating; Academic Press, New York: 303-113.

Jiménez Moreno, W.1941: Tula y los Toltecas, Según las Fuentes Historicas; Revista Mexicana de Estudios

Antropológicos 5; Mexico City: 79-83.

Johnson, A. W. & T. K. Earle2003: The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State; Stanford University Press. Stanford.

Johansson K., P.2007: Tira de la Peregrinación (códice Boturini): Estudio Introductorio; Arqueología Mexicana edición especial, no. 26; Editorial Raíces, Mexico City.

Joyce, T. A.1914: Mexican Archeology: An Introduction to the Archaeology of the Mexican and Mayan Civilizationsof Pre-Spanish America; Philip Warner, London.

Karttunen, F.1992: An Analytical Dictionary of Nahuatl; University of Oklahoma Press. Oklahoma.

Kaufman, T.1976b: Archaeological and Linguistic Correlations in Mayaland and Associated Areas of Mesoamerica; World Archaeology 8: 100-118.

Kaufman, T. & J. Justeson2008: The Epi-Olmec Language and its Neighbors; in P. J: Arnold & C. A. Pool (eds.); Classic Period Cultural Currents in Southern and Central Veracruz; Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C: 55-83.

Langholm, S.1971: On the Concepts of Center and Periphery, in Journal of Peace Research vol. 8 no.

3/4. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks: 273-278.

López Austin, A.1990: Del Orígen de los Mexicas: ¿Nomadísmo o Migracíon? Historia Mexicana vol. 39, no. 3; El Colegio de México, Mexico City: 663-675.

2008: Los Mexicas Ante el Cosmos; in Arqueología Mexicana, vol. XVI, nr. 91; Editorial Raíces, Mexico City: 24-35.

30

López-Portillo y Weber, J.1935: História de la conquista de la Nueva Galícia; Porrúa, Mexico City.

Luckenbach, A. H. & Levy R. S.1980: The Implications of Nahua (Aztecan) Lexical Diversity for Mesoamerican Culture- History. American Antiquity 45: 455-461.

Macazaga Ordoño, C.1978: Mito y simbolismo de Coyolxauhqui; Editorial Cosmos, Mexico City.

Manrique Castañeda, L.2004: Lenguas y Escrituras de Mesoamerica; in Arqueología Mexicana vol. XII, no. 70;

Editorial Raíces, Mexico City.

Manzanilla, L.2004: Social Identity and Daily Life in Classic Teotihuacan; in J. A. Hendon & R. A. Joyce (eds.), Mesoamerican Archaeology; in Blackwell publishing, Malden.

Mastache, A. G. & R. H. Cobean1989: The Coyotlatelco Culture and the Origins of the Toltec State; in R. A. Diehl & Berlo, J. C. (eds.); Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan: A.D. 700-900;

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.: 49-68.

Matos Moctezuma, A.1985: Archaeology and Symbolism in Aztec Mexico: The Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan; Journal of the American Academy of Religion, vol. 53, no. 4, 75th Anniversary. Oxford Journals, Oxford University Press, Oxford: 797-813.

1988: The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan; C. Renfrew (ed.), Thames & Hudson Ltd., London.

1999: Excavaciones en la Catedral y el Sagrario Metropolitanos: Programa de

Arqueología Urbana; Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.McGuire, R.

1983: Breaking Down Cultural Complexity: Inequality and Heterogeneity; in M. B. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 6. Academic Press, New York.

Millon, R.1992: Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1960 and beyond; in J. C, Berlo (ed.); Art

Ideology and the City; Dumbarton Oaks, Washington.Millon, R.

1993: Teotihuacan - Art From the City of Gods: The Place Where Time Began; in K. Berrin & E. Pasztory (eds.), Thames & Hudson, London.

Molina, J. A.[1555], 2008: Vocabulario en Lengua Castellana-Mexicana : Mexicana-Castellana, Porrúa, México City.

Morales, J. V.1934: Historia Gráfica de México; Rotaprint, Menuel Quezada Brandi, Mexico City.

31

Moreno M., M.1962: La Organización Política y Social de los Aztecas; Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Manrique Castañeda, L. 2004: Lingüística y Arqueología; in Manzanilla L. & López Luján L. (eds.) Arqueología Mexicana, vol. XII, no. 70. Editorial Raices, Mexico City: 54-59.

Neuman, W. L.1997: Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Allyn and Bacon, Needham Heights.

Palerm, A.1966: The Agricultural Basis of Urban Civilization in Mesoamerica; in Ancient

Mesoamerica: Selected Readings; Peek Publications, Palo Alto: 60-74.Rounds, J.

1979: Lineage, Class and Power in the Aztec State; American Ethnologist, vol. 6: 73-86.

Sahagún, B.1979: Historia General de las Cosas de la Nueva Espana: Códice Florentino; Manuscrito 218-220 de la Colección Palatina de la Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana, Florence.

Sahlins, M & E. Service1960: Evolution and Culture; University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Sanders, W. T. & B. J. Price1968: Civilizations in Mesoamerica; in W. T. Sanders & Price B. J. Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization; Randon House, New York: 139-170.

Sanders, W. T; J. R. Parsons, & R. S. Stanley1979: The Basin of Mexico, Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization;

Academic Press, New York.Service, E.

1968: Origins of the State and Civilizations; Norton, New York.

Sharer, P. & Traxler, L.2006: The Ancient Maya; Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Smith, M. E.1984: The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History? Ethnohistory, 31: 153-186.

1986: The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View From the Provinces; American Anthropologist, New Series, vol. 86, no. 1; American Anthropological Association, Arlington: 70-91.

2004: The Aztecs; Blackwell Publishers, Malden.

Soustelle, J.1962: Civilized Life: Barbarism and Civilization, in J. Soustelle (ed.) Daily Life of the Aztecs

on the Eve of the Spanish Conquest. Stanford University Press, Stanford: 216-244.

32

Steward, J. H.1949: Cultural Causality and Law: A trial Formulation of the Development of Ancient Civilizations; American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 51 no. 1; American Anthropological Association, Arlington: 1-27.

1955: Multilinear Evolution: Evolution and Process, in H. J: Steward (ed.) Theory of

Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution; University of Illinois Press, Urbana & Chicago: 11-29.

Sugiyama, S.1993: Worldview Materialized in Teotihuacan Mexico; Latin American Antiquity, vol. 4,

no.2: 103-129.

Tello, A.1971-[1891]: Crónica Miscelánea en que se Trata de la Conquista Espiritual y Temporal de

la Sancta Província de Xalixco en el Nuevo Reino de la Galícia y la Nueva

Viscaya; República Literaria, Guadalajara.

Tibón, G.2005: Historia del Nombre y de la Fundación de México, Fondo de Cultura Económica,

México City.

Tira de la Peregrinación – Codex Boturini1957: Tira de la Peregrinación Mexicana: Códice Boturini; Editorial Porrúa, Mexico City.

Uribe, R. M.2006: Acerca de Complejidad, Desigualdad Social y el Complejo Cultural Pica-Tarapacá en los Andes Centro-Sur 1000-1450 D.C.; in Estudios Atacameños: Arqueología y

Antropología Surandinas , no. 31; Instituto de Investigaciones Arqueológicas, Univesidad Católica, Santiago: 91-114.

Vaillant, G. C.1956: The Aztecs of Mexico; Penguin books Inc., Baltimore.

Van Young, E.2000: The Indigenous Peoples of Western Mexico: From the Spanish Invasion to the Present; in Adams, R. E. W. & Macleod, M. J. (eds.) The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas: Vol. II, Mesoamerica Part 2; Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 136-186.

Viramontes Anzures, C.2000: De Chichimecas, Pames y Jonaces: Los Recolectores-Cazadores del Semidesierto de

Querétaro; Instituto Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City.

Weaber, M. P.1981: The Aztecs, Maya and their predecessors: Archaeology of Mesoamerica; Academic Press, San Diego.Renfrew C. and Bahn P. 2004: Archaeology Methods and Practice,

3rd. ed. Thames & Hudson. London.

Wenke, R. J.1981: Explaining the Evolution of Cultural Complexity: A Review; in Advances in

Archaeological Method and Theory 4: 79-127.

33

White, L. A.1947: Evolutionary Stages, Progress and the Evaluation of Cultures. Southwestern Journal

of Anthropology, 3(3): 165-192.Yoffee, N.

2005: Myths of he Archaic State: Evolution of the Earliest Cities, States and Civilizations;

Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.