Social Organization.
Spanish historians often liken Tenochtitlan to the seat of an empire and speak of the ruler as one who had the power of an absolute monarch while other and more recent writers have declared that the tribal organization of the Aztecs was essentially democratic. The truth doubtless lies between these extremes. The people were warlike by nature and all men, except a few of the priesthood, were soldiers. Honors depended largely upon success in war and warriors were arranged in ranks according to their deeds. The common warriors formed one rank and next came those who had distinguished themselves by definite achievements which gave the right to wear certain articles of dress or to bear certain titles. The chiefs were elected for an indefinite term of office from the most distinguished fighters and could be removed for cause.
But while the offices of state were elective there was, nevertheless, a tendency to choose from certain powerful families and at least the foundation of an aristocratic policy. A chief was succeeded by his son or brother except when these candidates were manifestly unfit. In the actual succession of the great war chiefs of Tenochtitlan, a peculiar system seems to have been followed in that the candidates from the older generation were ordinarily exhausted before the next lower generation became eligible. Thus Huitzilihuitl, Chimalpopoca, and Itzcouatl were all sons of Acamapichtli, and the last and greatest was born of a slave mother. Then followed Moctezuma Ilhuicamina I, the son of Huitzilihuitl. This chief had no male heirs but the children of his daughter ruled in order: Axayacatl, Tizoc, and Ahuitzotl. Moctezuma II was the son of the first of these as was Cuitlahua, while Cuauhtemoc, the last Aztec ruler, was the son of Ahuitzotl. This peculiar succession was not in vogue in Texcoco, where son succeeded father and the lawful wife was chosen from the royalty of Tenochtitlan. In the various annals, the genealogies are often indicated and the evidence that aristocracies existed is too strong to be overthrown. There are even cases of queens who succeeded to the chief power after the death of the royal husband.
It is extremely doubtful whether the Aztecs ever had what might be called clans. We have seen that there were originally eight closely related tribes constituting the Mexica or Mexici nation. The Aztecs themselves are said to have been divided into seven groups that were first reduced to four or five and then increased to about twenty. It is not clear that these were exogamic kinship groups. They were probably military societies taking into their membership all the men of the tribe. The name Calpolli, or “great house,” which was applied to them seems to have referred to a sort of barracks or general meeting place in each ward or division of the city where arms and trophies were kept and the youth educated in the art of war. The title in land was held by the calpolli and the right of use distributed among the heads of families who held possession only so long as the land was worked. Each calpolli seems to have had a certain autonomy in governmental matters as well as a local religious organization. It is curious to find in Salvador, far to the south, the word calpolli applied to the platform mounds that surround courts in the ancient ruins. This use of the word may indicate that the “great houses” of the different societies were ordinarily the principal buildings of the city and that they were used for civil, military, and religious purposes.
In forming judgment on the fundamentals of social organization among the Aztecs we must remember that no clear case of kinship clans has been reported south of the area of the United States. Among the Cakchiquels, a Mayan tribe of the Guatemalan highlands, two royal houses are reported from which the ruling chief was alternately drawn. The Zotzils have been explained as a bat clan because their name is associated with the word for bat and because a bat god appears to have been their patron deity. The Mazatecas and Mixtecas, Deer people and Cloud people, also have clanlike names but in all cases these are designations of entire tribes, not of subdivisions of tribes.
[Plate XLI.]
Sahagun’s Plan of the Tecpan in Mexico City. After Seler. Among the details shown are: (a) The two great temples; (b) The Quauhxicalli or eagle bowl; (c) One of the Callimecatl, or priest houses; (e) An eagle house or warriors’ shrine; (f) The Teotlachtli or ball court of the gods; (g) Tzompantli or skull rack; (h) The temple of Xipi; (i) The Temalacatl or Gladiator Stone; (k) The Colhuacan Teocalli or temple of Colhuacan; (l-m) The gods 5 Lizard and 5 House respectively; (n) Dance courts; (o) Coatenamitl or Serpent Wall, so called because it was decorated with heads of serpents.
Tenochtitlan was divided into four quarters and each quarter subdivided into a number of wards. An under chief was elected from each of the subdivisions which are doubtless to be identified with the calpolli, and an over chief from each of the four quarters. Above these stood the war chief of the entire tribe who was likewise elected, but within the limits of a fixed aristocracy. A second great chief, who seems to have been a peace officer with some important relation to the priesthood, was nominally equal to the war chief, but practically much less powerful. The real center of the home government was a council made up of all the chiefs. In time of war the war chief was in supreme command and could either delegate his rights or act in person. Just how much the priesthood intervened in governmental affairs cannot be definitely put in words, but their power was doubtless great. Certain lands were cultivated in common for the officers of church and state and much of the tribute from conquered provinces was devoted to their needs.