Egalitarian Ideology and Political Power in Prehispanic Central Mexico: The Case of Tlaxcallan

Abstract

During the central Mexican late Postclassic period, the Aztec Triple Alliance became the largest and most powerful empire in Mesoamerica. Yet ancient Tlaxcallan (now Tlaxcala, Mexico) resisted incorporation into the empire despite being entirely surrounded by it and despite numerous Aztec military campaigns aimed at the defeat of the Tlaxcaltecas. How did it happen that a relatively small (1,400 km²) polity was able to resist a more powerful foe while its neighbors succumbed? We propose a resolution to this historical enigma that, we suggest, has implications for the broader study of social and cultural change, particularly in relation to theories of state formation and collective action. We find it particularly interesting that the Tlaxcaltecas abandoned a key tenet of traditional Nahua political structure in which kingship was vested in members of the nobility, substituting for it government by a council whose members could be recruited from the ranks of commoners. To achieve such a significant deviation from typical Nahua authority structure, the Tlaxcaltecas drew selectively from those aspects of Nahua mythic history and religion that were consistent with a comparatively egalitarian and collective political regime.

Alternative pathways to power in late Postclassic Highland Mesoamerica

“…The most visible exotic good, obsidian, was uniformly distributed across the city, as was highly decorated polychrome pottery. In addition, the teccalli functioned more like administrative territories controlled by the state than private estates (see Fargher et al, 2010). Even in the early Colonial period, Tlaxcaltecan teccalli were classified as corporate entities, partially controlled by the indigenous cabildo, and were not to be divided and sold as personal property (Hicks, 2009;Lockhart, 1992: p. 106;Lockhart et al, 1986: pp.…”

“…The Tlaxcalteca rejected both the altepetl and tlahtocayotl structure, building a novel system around a ruling council consisting of somewhere between 50 and 200 titled officials (see Fargher et al, 2010 andFargher et al, 2011). We refer to the political system of Tlaxcallan as a ''teccalli-council state'' (Fargher et al, 2010) in which political officials, called teteuctin, were equally ranked (politically) and political decision-making was achieved through consensus.…”

“…This state empowered commoners, limited the power of principals and the nobility, and delivered voice and public goods, including military defense, public security, roads, public feasts, and social justice across social sectors. Importantly, the social construction of Tlaxcallan entailed the reclassification of teccalli as corporate administrative districts controlled by the state (breaking with the Tolteca-Chichimeca traditions embodied by the tlahtocayotl), the promotion of an egalitarian ideology, the development of a decidedly inclusive ruling council (at least by pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican standards), and the promotion of a transcendent Tlaxcaltecan identity based around the worship of Tezcatlipoca (see Fargher et al, 2010).…”

“…We refer to the political system of Tlaxcallan as a ''teccalli-council state'' (Fargher et al, 2010) in which political officials, called teteuctin, were equally ranked (politically) and political decision-making was achieved through consensus. The ruling council maintained sway over military matters, international diplomacy, as well as maintaining control over political officials and their recruitment to the governing council, the latter based primarily on merit and only to a limited degree 1 However, we note that Lockhart (1992:106-107) claimed that the teteuctin did in fact pay tribute but he offers no documentary evidence and instead generalizes based on information from Tlaxcallan, the Basin of Mexico, and Morelos (regions we demonstrate had different political economies) to support his claim regarding the tlahtocayotl of Puebla.…”

“…In particular, the new alternate pathways theoretical orientation revised the neoevolutionist assertion that the evolution of social complexity reflects principally the construction of strongly hierarchical forms of government dominated by a powerful elite class. Most importantly, alternate pathways theorists gave consideration to alternatives to vertical political hierarchies, moving research away from the idea that social change could be understood as a series of step-like transformations in the direction of more political centralization (e.g., Blanton, 1998;Crumley, 1995;Earle, 2002;Fargher et al, 2010Fargher et al, , 2011Feinman, 1995;Hayden, 1995;Liu, 2004;McIntosh, 1999;Southall, 1988;Stein, 1980Stein, , 1995Tambiah, 1977).…”