Well ladies and gents, we have now arrived in the Americas on the eve of invasion. This will be a short time period dominated by two empires in two different locations with no apparent contact-- the Aztecs and the Incas. Let's take a closer look at the Aztecs through some documentary evidence. Aztec warriors, extending their rule outward from Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), conquered the other city-states of Central Mexico between 1420 and 1480. When the Spaniards arrived in 1519, the Aztecs governed an area inhabited by about 18 million people. Despite their recent military success, the Aztecs, when they first appeared on the historical scene about 1250, were uncouth barbarian invaders from the north. They were not responsible for creating civilization in Central Mexico but were its inheritors.Before the Aztec appearance, the rulers of Teotihuacan (1-900 CE) and the subsequent Toltec Empire (1000-1200) established the essential features of civilization. Cultivation of maize was highly developed, particularly through the use of irrigation channels. Surplus production was obtained from local villages through a tribute system that funneled grain, and other products, to central government warehouses. This surplus supported a hierarchy of officials, who not only ran the government, but also devised calendars, built monumental shrines, created a religious literature, and led ritual observances that bound society together. Although these societies succumbed to barbarian invasions, civilization itself did not disappear.
After the demise of the Toltec Empire, civilization in Central Mexico consisted of competing city-states scattered around Lake Texcoco in the Central Valley. When the Aztecs conquered these city-states, they repeated the experience of previous intruders. Specifically the Aztecs took control of the a centuries-old tribute system. Spanish observer Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés described that system and the poverty it caused. Secondly, because they were unwelcome conquerors, the Aztecs devised a politico-religious system that was based on terror. They demonstrated their power by obtaining human sacrificial victims for their war god Huitzilipochtli. I would like you to read the words of Gonzalo Fernández de Oviedo y Valdés by clicking here. When you are finished reading I would like you all to discuss the following: What evidence can you find in this document that shows social stratification prior to the arrival of the Aztecs? How did the Aztec tribute system work? What does such a tribute system indicate about social organization in ancient Mexico? After the Spanish conquest, how might the Spaniards view the operation of the tribute? How might that view contribute to the structure of a new society? Finally, how did Aztec social structure compare with social structures in other traditional societies such as India or China? Your thoughts...
7 comments:
The social system was very stratified. The document details the life of peasants; they had very little, and much of what they did have was taken by the lords. Artisans, musicians, and craftsmen that lived in the lords's houses did not pay tribute, but weren't paid. Much of the document describes the nature of tribute. The titquitlatos would calculate how much each household should pay tribute. If they failed to pay they were sold into slavery. The Aztecs thus ruled through fear.
It almost seems like feudalism. The warriors were greatly rewarded. The peasants owed tribute to their lords. It mentions that each calpulli communually provided for the orchilobo , or temple, offifcials.
What exactly will we be comparing in the essay? The Social Structures?
be prepared for anything mr. livaditis. it will be revealed on friday.
darn
ok I'll look over everything
If I want to find primary Aztec and Inca documents, other than the ones you posted here and the ones in the book, where should I look? Google?
yeah, that'd be your best bet. unfortunately because the spanish destroyed aztec texts and the incas didn't have a written text, primary doc information is not as readily available for these societies, and what we do have was written by the spanish. i'll put a couple more things up tomorrow as well. still trying to find that doc on aztec gender relations online. i have it here, but can't find it online, so i may just have to scan it tomorrow. cheers.
i found a spannish account of the moral thought refferred to in the text book from Bernabe Cobo
http://books.google.com/books?id=FlBpZDF7-XUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=inca+religion#PPA122,M1
So there was definitely a huge gap between the peasants and the higher social rankings. Peasants were charged and had to pay tribute to their land owners. Musicians, artisans, and such were not required to pay any tribute. Then again, they also didn't get paid for what they did from what I managed to interpret from the reading. The peasants were basically at the bottom of the totem pole in this situation. If they didn't pay their tribute, they'd be sold into slavery.
If I remember correctly, this kind of reminds me of the Indian social structure. Weren't peasants at the bottom of the barrel as well? Also, it relates back to Europe even though they had no contact with them as far as we know before the Spanish invaded. Feudalism almost? Peasants over in Western Europe had to pay their lords and such too in order to be able to live and maintain that land to make a living.
This was a more or less confusing document. Why did the auther refer to the Aztecs as Indians? Is that a term now used in refrence to all Natives of the North American continent becuase ot Columbus, because this is a full history text written fairly recently.
The people lived in little clusters around pieces of land on which they were doing agriculture. A lord supervised, and owned the property. That person collected tribute from the peasants and others living on his land. This system reminds me a lot of fudalism. Except I don't think those lords sold their peasants into slavery that could not pay? They just let them die?
Post a Comment