INTRODUCTIONAccording to Robert J. Sharer: "Archaic states are stratified into a series of classes including full-time occupational specialists, and are topped by a highly centralized, hierarchical government that rules a territory with more or less defined boundaries" (Sharer 1994:139). "The most powerful member of the elite class is the ruler or ‘king’ . . . In addition to his social standing, the ruler possesses considerable power by virtue of his position as head of the administrative hierarchy and its institutions of enforcement. Power is also based on economic and religious sanctions, such as the right of tribute collection, and the belief that their supernatural origins give the king and his family the divine right to rule" (Id. at 139-40). Kent Flannery has defined the state as, "a type of very strong, usually highly centralized government, with a professional ruling class, largely divorced from the bonds of kinship which characterize simpler societies" (Flannery et al. 1983:79-80). States can wage war, draft soldiers, levy taxes, exact tribute, build public works, and implement projects with professional architects, engineers, and bureaucrats including full time specialists in a state religion (Id.).
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
MAYA GOVERNMENT
Political, economic, and social institutions characteristic of the governmental form
In Sharer’s view, during the Classic Maya period (ca. A.D. 250-900) state-level political organization developed, particularly in the southern and central lowlands. During the Late Classic (ca. 600-800) new state polities emerged and population peaked. During the Terminal Classic (ca.800-900 the southern and central lowlands declined and the northern lowlands rose (Sharer 1994:138). An economic system of contributing labor and food to the state and acquiring tribute from neighboring polities developed. Political alliances could be strengthened through marriage of the ruler. The Classic Maya form of political organization, with no standing armies, appears to have emphasized the qualities of the individual leader, and was closer to the "big man" system of Papua New Guinea, rather than the Zapotec political organization which emphasized the office rather than the individual. The coercion that a Mayan leader like 18 rabbit could impose on a city state apparently had limits since he was perhaps forcibly "given up" during a neighboring polity’s conquest and sacrificed. The Zapotec considered the generic political office to be more important than the individual’s personal characteristics, and in Oaxaca powerful families ruled in a kind of confederacy with hereditary palaces and a disembedded capitol, which was both an administrative and ceremonial center supported through tribute and conquest. Similar to the Aztecs, each valley in this confederacy was semi-independent.
Principal political offices in the society
According to Sharer: "During the Classic period, the highest Maya political authority in a particular polity was given the title ahau, which can be translated as ‘lord’ or ‘noble’" (Id. at 139-40). The term k’ul ahau (supreme or sacred ruler) designated the heads of state during the Classic period (id. at 491). Individual women could be power brokers or become king, and other officials had special functions - usually relatives of the king. Relatives also might become warriors or priests. In theory, primogeniture was the most recognized principle of succession (Id. at 142). Maya leaders tended to need "charisma" to hold office however. Their personal qualities mattered - unlike the Aztec system where office and rank, rather than the individual's "charisma", seemed to matter the most. Although there were not standing armies, warfare and tribute were important to a ruler. Wars were initially fought to obtain tribute and captives for sacrifice. According to Sharer: "Although . . . some Maya polities did occasionally engage in limited conquests, or established new polities by breaking away from one another, the prevailing mode of warfare was a ritualized conflict or raiding without intent to gain territory, a practice common in Mesoamerican societies" (Id. at 143). As the environment deteriorated, the aim of war and militarism expanded to include territorial and resource acquisition, prestige, and increased power. During the Late Classic and Postclassic warfare became endemic and probably contributed to the "collapse" of the Maya system. Most people were "commoner" maize farmers, but other principle offices included the lesser lords or "batab," war captains, town councillors, deputies, town constables, high-priests, executioner-priests, speakers, prophets, shamen, and slaves.
Size of the territory controlled
The smallest Maya centers covered less than a square kilometer. Tikal, the largest, covered 123 square kilometers (Id. at 493). According to Marcus and Sharer, the size of polities dynamically grew and declined (Id. at 142). There are different viewpoints ranging from the idea that there were several dozen small polities in the Maya lowlands to the view that there were larger regional states that controlled hierarchies of smaller cities (Id.). There may also have been periods when the Maya lowlands were "Balkanized" and at other times were consolidated into larger units (Id.). The general size of city states was about the distance a person could walk in a day.
Kinds of data archaeologists have used to reconstruct the government
Archaeologists have used historical, epigraphic, iconographic, archaeological and ethnographic analogy to reconstruct the government system of the Maya. Road systems and causeways, the emblem glyphs, archaeological studies of settlement and population size, codices, and glyphs carved on stelae, carved and painted on buildings and walls and funerary artifacts have been used to reconstruct the government. Ethnographic analogy to Papua New Guinea suggests that "big men" became rulers. Mayan ethnohistory at the time of conquest suggests social division into nobles, priests, commoners, and slaves, and governmental systems of loose confederacies of allied cities who had related lineages, rule by a council or "multepal," and most commonly, rule by a single hereditary individual. In Sharer’s view: "A center’s size, together with the elaborateness of its buildings, the quantity of its monuments and hieroglyphic inscriptions, and its other characteristics, undoubtedly reflected its relative political and economic power" (Id. at 493). Theissen polygons have also been tried in an attempt to approximate territorial boundaries between centers.
Change over time of the governmental forms
According to one model, Maya society in the Early Preclassic was egalitarian and elders probably exercised the most power. During the Middle Preclassic, the society stratified and the centers were controlled by elites who were supported by the outlying peasant agriculturalists. A ruling class developed and a state form of government. Late in the Classic period, political power was probably less vested in a single ruler and became more vested in the multepal or council house system of shared power (Id. at 491). According to the "galactic model" of segmentary states, ideology and ritual rather than political mechanisms create an unstable political landscape of competing kingdoms (Id. at 511). The personal "charismatic" performance of the individual rulers in war, alliance making, and ritual, rather than control of land or the economic system would have been paramount in such a system (Id. at 512).
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
ZAPOTEC GOVERNMENT
Political, economic, and social institutions characteristic of the governmental form
Blanton’s model hypothesizes that Monte Alban was selected as an administrative center, like Washington D.C., because it was unoccupied and in politically neutral and centrally located area. The founding of the new center was due to the formation of a confederacy between previously autonomous chiefdoms from around the Valley of Oaxaca (Flannery, et al. 1983:81). Sanders and Santley have suggested the good land near Monte Alban allowed the leaders to dominate the surrounding areas (Id.). Both the Classic Maya and Zapotec systems linked politics, religion, economics, and social organization. Both systems required the effort of the masses to be harnessed in large community building projects related to religion and politics and justified wars against neighboring groups in cosmological terms that required human sacrifices to keep the universe in balance and food abundant. The Zapotecs, like the later Maya, undertook some wars for territorial conquest such as when the Zapotec conquered the Cuicatlan Valley to obtain valuable soils for agricultural production. Both constructed propagandistic artistic stelae (e.g. 18 rabbit’s larger than life sculptures) and temples to emphasize the successful conquests that the leaders had undertaken. 18 rabbit’s Structure 22 was estimated to have required 30,000 person hours or 30 days of work by 300 people as opposed to 100 hours to construct a commoner’s house. In both systems power, prestige, and wealth were displayed to generate and maintain centralized political power and religious authority. Leaders also could maintain power by redistributing resources and controlling the best agricultural lands. Bottom land controlled by Zapotec lineage heads was better farmland and farmers could be required to pay the landowners with labor rather than food. By reifying the cosmology in monument building projects, rulers in both societies could link themselves to religious as well as political and economic authority. Royal marriage alliances were a means of political consolidation and peacemaking.
Principal political offices in the society
A ruling elite with kin ties to their home areas may have eventually become a ruling class at Monte Alban (Id.). The conquest slabs suggest an aggressive military dominating and subduing other communities (Id.). The office rather than the individual was important to a degree but as Marcus and Flannery point out, "the Zapotec had a notion of primogeniture, but their throne frequently passed to the most competent prince, regardless of birth order" (Marcus and Flannery 1983:218).
Size of the territory controlled
"By 200 B.C. Monte Alban covered more than a square kilometer and . . . was, presumably the only administrative center of valley-wide significance" (Flannery and Marcus 1983: 82). Other Period II secondary centers e.g. San Jose Mogote "may have been over 70 ha.. Its significance may have extended throughout the Etla arm of the valley" (Id.).
Kinds of data archaeologists have used to reconstruct the government
Kinds of archaeological evidence used to reconstruct Zapotec political organization include: 1) settlement information such as building size, building function, number of hours to construct, number of occupants, population size, spatial position and what buildings are closest to the central plaza or central ceremonial district e.g. the large elite houses/administrative buildings at Monte Alban; 2) artistic representations which frequently portrayed political symbols, propaganda, conquests of neighboring polities, and the capture and sacrifice of nearby rulers - such as appears at Structure J of Monte Alban with the danzante figures of eviscerated leaders; 3) Mesoamerican writing systems, such as the Zapotec place signs that represent places conquered; 4) the position of a "disembedded capital" in a region - such as Monte Alban, placed in a middle position in a large valley - much as Washington D.C. was originally selected to be the neutral middle administrative center for a larger political region; 5) ethnographic analogies to the "big man" political system, where individual charisma and energy created authority (Mayan) rather than holding office (Zapotec); 6) elaborateness of elite tombs and temples and the number of person-hours invested in the construction of tombs and religious buildings; and, 7) the elaborateness and energy expenditure for a ruler’s house. Big men can often get the population to work on a community temple but cannot get others to build them a large personal house. State leaders can coerce commoners to build elaborate personal houses which may also serve as administrative buildings.
Change over time of the governmental forms
Flannery and Marcus, indicate that during the Rosario period in the Valley of Oaxaca (700-500 B.C.) there is no archaeological evidence of state institutions and during Monte Alban II (200 B.C. -A.D. 100 there is clear evidence of statehood. The period of Monte Alban I (500-200 B.C.) is therefore when they think the origins of the state began in the Valley of Oaxaca (Flannery, et al, 1983:80). During the period A.D. 600-900 politics changed with the presence of Teotihuacan, the largest city in Mexico. By 700 A.D. the main square of Monte Alban was in disrepair and in decline (Flannery et al. 1983:183). A "Balkanization" of Oaxaca occured between A.D.950-1530 (Marcus and Flannerys 1983:217). It continued to be a nucleated settlement as late as 1400 A.D. (Id.).
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
MIXTEC GOVERNMENT
Political, economic, and social institutions characteristic of the governmental form
As Marcus and Flannery have observed: "The Postclassic Mixtec evolved what may have been the most highly stratified society in Mesoamerica, if we judge by the pattern by which kings were recruited. While other Postclassic states were also characterized by a class-endogamous professional ruling class, few placed as much emphasis on birth order and nearness to the main trunk of elite parentage as did the Mixtec. . . . Only the Mixtec valued main trunk descent so highly that rulers occasionally married their full siblingsto ensure the high rank of their offspring. Among the descendants of the Mixtec lord 8 Deer "Tiger Claw" alone, there are four cases of brother-sister marriage" (Marcus and Flannery 1983:218). The economic system was as highly stratified as the political system and with the population explosion, agriculturally marginal land was terraced into cropland (Id. at 219). The Mixtec attempted to create alliance corridors between themselves and other nearby polities through marriage and alliances in order to buffer their borders and protect themselves from outside expanding powers such as the Aztec Empire.
Principal political offices in the society
"In contrast to the Aztec, most Mixtec and Zapotec states show little bureaucratization. The ruler resided at the capital, and he selected the nobles who were to rule specific subject communities. The sixteenth-century relaciones list very few terms that could describe lower-order bureaucrats in such communities, and are almost universal in their statements that there was no law except what the lord directed" Marcus and Flannery 1983:218). The Mixtec social strata included the lord, the nobles, the commoners, and the servants and slaves (Id. at 219).
Size of the territory controlled
The reign of 8 Deer suggests that Mixtec conquest of small neighboring polities occurred. The size of the territory probably varied, and as Monte Alban declined in power the Mixtec, either through royal marriages or invasion, entered the Valley of Oaxaca (Marcus and Flannery 1983:219,221).
Kinds of data archaeologists have used to reconstruct the government
The 8 Deer codex, archaeological analysis of agricultural and settlement systems, and 16th century ethnohistoric accounts from the Spanish era have been used to reconstruct the Mixtec government. Ceramics and architectural style have also been used to suggest the ethnicity of archaeological remains (Id. at 223).
Change over time of the governmental forms
The Postclassic expansion of the Mixtec into the Valley of Oaxaca took place in a society already highly centralized and socially stratified. These developments must have developed over time. 8 Deer’s reign of expansion and the rise of Teotihuacan may have triggered a change to a more imperialistic governmental focus on expansion. This seems to have resulted in an increased emphasis on ritualism and religious practice and specialization (Id. at 232).
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
AZTEC GOVERNMENT
Political, economic, and social institutions characteristic of the governmental form
War and tribute were central to the Aztec empire, which gained territory, subjects, and economic power as it expanded (Berdan 1982:35). War was a nearly constant activity requiring a large bureaucracy supported by tribute (Id. at 38). "Aztec rulers were chosen from eligible royal offspring by a council of noble elders" (Marcus and Flannery 1983:218). Manufacturing, trade, and agriculture were the main economic institutions for the creation of tribute. Traders were used as a kind of spy network outside the empire and provided information for future areas of conquest. The form of government at the time of the Triple Alliance was a confederacy that bonded together militarily, politically, and economically. The Aztec empire was a multiethnic and multilingual political organization. Near the end of the empire, religious and military activity may have resulted in the astounding figure of 20,000 human sacrifices per year.
Principal political offices in the society
The ruler was supported by warriors, governors, ambassadors, high priests, administrators, advisors, judges, stewards, and other "lesser officials" (Id.). Each city state was ruled by a tlatoani responsible for the area (Id. at 99).
Size of the territory controlled
The Aztec Empire eventually covered most of central Mexico with some 50 to 60 city states of different sizes (Id. at 99).
Kinds of data archaeologists have used to reconstruct the government
The Codex Mendoza and historic period Spanish conquest and missionary accounts are major sources of information about the Aztec - along with archaeological materials, Aztec art, and Aztec writing.
Change over time of the governmental forms
As Berdan has pointed out: "During the century-long process of empire building, the Aztecs developed complex governmental and military structures. At the core of these institutions was the city-state, the prevailing mode of political organization in central Mexico during at least the fourteenth through early sixteenth centuries. The city-state was composed of a large community and its surrounding dependent areas. In most cases, the community was of considerable size, some in fact being true cities. Each served as the political, economic, and religious center of its city-state" (Id.)
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
Topics
- Mesoamerican writing systems
- Mesoamerican governments
- Mesoamerican religions
- The Maya Calendar System
- The Collapse of the Maya
- Reconstructiong Maya and Zapotec political organization
- How the Sky Works
- Definitions
- References Cited
- Home
Index to this topic: |Maya |Mixtec |Zapotec |Aztec |Photo |Other Topics|
Photo may be slow loading
Chichen Itza's Temple of the Warriors (Maya, north-central Yucatan)
The basal colonades were once roofed with timber and plaster
Copyrighted photograph taken by Clive Ruggles
Articles © 1997 Kevin L. Callahan
Email: call0031@tc.umn.edu
