Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:30:11.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Huitzilopochtli's Conquest: Aztec Ideology in the Archaeological Record

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 December 2008

Elizabeth M. Brumfiel
Elizabeth M. Brumfiel
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and SociologyAlbion CollegeAlbion, MI 49224USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article was presented as the third David Clarke Memorial Lecture at Peterhouse College, Cambridge University, 1997. It examines the role of religious ideology in the Aztec state. Ideology is often regarded as a means of easing tension between a dominant and a subordinate group. Ideology, however, might also serve as a mechanism for achieving unity within the dominant group so that it can control subordinates through direct coercion. State-sponsored religion occupied a prominent position in Aztec culture. But, did tribute-paying commoners accept the state's religious rationale for warfare, conquest, and sacrifice? Or was the message primarily directed to higher-status elites? Archaeological material from the Aztec Great Temple and from village sites in the Aztec hinterland are used to assess the role ofrelgion in Aztec political life.

Type
Articles
Information
Cambridge Archaeological Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , April 1998 , pp. 3 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © The McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abercrombie, N., Hill, S. & Turner, B.S., 1980. The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Althusser, L., 1971. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses, in Lenin and Philosophy, trans. Brewster, B.. New York (NY): Monthly Review Press, 127–86.Google Scholar
Anawalt, P.R., 1992. A comparative analysis of the costumes and accoutrements of the Codex Mendoza, in The Codex Mendoza, vol. I, by Berdan, F.F. & Anawalt, P.R.. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press, 103–50.Google Scholar
Arana, R.M. & Cepeda, G., 1967. Rescate arqueológico en la Ciudad de México. INAH Boletín 30, 3–9.Google Scholar
Armillas, P., 1964. Northern Mesoamerica, in Prehistoric Man in the New World, eds. Jennings, J.D. & Norbeck, E.. Chicago (IL): University of Chicago Press, 291–329.Google Scholar
Berdan, F.F., 1982. The Aztecs of Central Mexico. New York (NY): Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Blanton, R.E., Feinman, G.M., Kowalewski, S.A. & Peregrine, P.N., 1996. A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boone, E.H. (ed.), 1987. The Aztec Templo Mayor. Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1983. Aztec state making: ecology, structure, and the origin of the state. American Anthropologist 85, 261–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1987. Élite and utilitarian crafts in the Aztec state, in Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, eds. Brumfiel, E.M. & Earle, T.K.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 102–18.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1994a. Factional competition and political development in the New World: an introduction, in Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, eds. Brumfiel, E.M. & Fox, J.W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1994b. Three incidents of resistance and class warfare in Aztec ethnohistory. Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Meeting, American Anthropological Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Brumfiel, E.M., 1996. Figurines and the Aztec state: testing the effectiveness of ideological domination, in Gender in Archaeology: Research in Gender and Practice, ed.Wright, R.P.. Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania Press, 143–66.Google Scholar
Caso, A., 1958. The Aztecs: People of the Sun. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Codex, Mendoza, 1990. The Codex Mendoza, eds. Berdan, F.F. & Anawalt, P.R.. Berkeley (CA): University of California Press. 4 vols.Google Scholar
Conrad, G.W. & Demarest, A.A., 1984. Religion and Empire: the Dynamics of Aztec and Inca Expansionism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cook, C, 1950. Figurillas de barro de Santiago Tlatelolco. Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la Historia (Tlatelolco a Través de los Tiempos) 9 (1), 93–100.Google Scholar
DeMarrais, E., Castillo, L.J. & Earle, T., 1996. Ideology, materialization and power strategies. Current Anthropology 37, 15–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Díaz del Castillo, B., 1956. The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico, trans. Maudslay, A.P.. New York (NY): Noonday Press.Google Scholar
Durán, D., 1967. Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espaňa. Mexico City: Porrúa.Google Scholar
Durán, D., 1971. Book of the Gods and Rites and the Aztec Calendar, trans. Horcasitas, F. & Heyden, D.. Norman (OK): University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Ferguson, L., 1991. Struggling with pots in colonial South Carolina, in The Archaeology of Inequality, eds. McGuire, R.H. & Paynter, R.. Oxford: Blackwell, 28–39.Google Scholar
Fligstein, N., 1994. The cultural construction of political action: the case of the European Community's Single Market Program. Working paper. Harvard University Center for European Studies.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., 1977. Discipline and Punish, trans. Sheridan, A.. New York (NY): Pantheon.Google Scholar
Gilman, A., 1989. Marxism in American archaeology, in Archaeological Thought in America, ed.Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilman, A., 1996. Comments on ‘Ideology, materialization, and power strategies’. Current Anthropology 37, 56–7.Google Scholar
Gingerich, W., 1988. Chipahuacanemiliztli, ‘The purified life,’ in the discourses of Book VI, Florentine Codex, in Josserand & Dakin (eds.), 517–44.Google Scholar
Hicks, F., 1994. The middle class of ancient Mexico. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting, American Society for Ethnohistory, Tempe.Google Scholar
Johnson, M., 1997. The medieval castle and the fashioning of agency. Paper presented at the 62nd annual meeting, Society for American Archaeology. Nashville.Google Scholar
Josserand, J.K. & Dakin, K. (eds.), 1988. Smoke and Mist: Mesoamerican Studies in Memory ofThelma D. Sullivan. (British Archaeological Reports, International Series 402.) Oxford: BAR.Google Scholar
Kelly, R.C., 1993. Constructing Inequality: the Fabrication of a Hierarchy of Virtue among the Etoro. Ann Arbor (MI): The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Klein, C.F., 1987. The ideology of autosacrifice at the Templo Mayor, in Boone (ed.), 293–370.Google Scholar
Klein, C.F., 1988. Rethinking Cihuacoatl: Aztec political imagery of the conquered woman, in Josserand & Dakin (eds.), 237–77.Google Scholar
Lewis, M.E., 1990. Sanctioned Violence in Early China. Albany (NY): State University Press of New York.Google Scholar
Matos, M.E., 1988. The Great Temple of the Aztecs. London: Thames and Hudson.Google Scholar
Molina Montes, A.F., 1987. Templo Mayor architecture: so what's new?, in Boone, (ed.), 97–107.Google Scholar
Miller, D. & Tilley, C. (eds.), 1984. Ideology, Power and Prehistory. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson, H.B. with Keber, E.Q., 1983. Art of Aztec Mexico. Washington (DC): National Gallery of Art.Google Scholar
Ortner, S.B., 1984. Theory in anthropology since the sixties. Comparative Studies in Society and History 26, 126–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Otis Charlton, C.L., 1994. Plebeians and patricians: contrasting patterns of production and distribution in the Aztec figurine and lapidary industries, in Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, eds. Hodge, M.G. & Smith, M.E.. Albany (NY): State University of New York at Albany, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, 195–219.Google Scholar
Parsons, M.H., 1972. Aztec figurines from the Teotihucán Valley, Mexico, in Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory, by Spence, M.W., Parsons, J.R. & Parsons, M.H.. (Anthropological Papers 45.) Ann Arbor (MI): Museum of Anthropologyy, University of Michigan, 81–117.Google Scholar
Pasztory, E., 1983. Aztec Art. New York (NY): Abrams.Google Scholar
Sahagún, B. de, 1950–1982. Florentine Codex, trans. Dibble, C.E. & Anderson, A.J.O.. Santa Fe (NM): The School of American Research and the University of Utah.Google Scholar
Shanks, M. & Tilley, C., 1982. Ideology, symbolic power and ritual communication: a reinterpretation of Neolithic mortuary practices, in Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, ed. Hodder, I.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snow, D.A., JrRochford, E.B., Worden, S.K. & Benford, R.D., 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51, 464–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, J.B., 1990. Ideology and Modern Culture. Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, R.F., 1979. State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan. (Studies in Pre-Columbian Art & Cosmology 20.) Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks.Google Scholar
Tuberville, A.S., 1929. Heresies and the inquisition in the Middle Ages, c. 1000–1305, in Cambridge Medieval History, vol. 6, eds. Panner, J.R., Previté-Orton, C.W. & Brooke, Z.N.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 699–726.Google Scholar
Umberger, E., 1996. Art and imperial strategy in Tenochtitlan, in Aztec Imperial Strategies, by Berdan, F.F. et al. Washington (DC): Dumbarton Oaks, 85–106.Google Scholar
Wolf, E.R., 1969. Peasant Wars of the Twentieth Century. New York (NY): Harper & Row.Google Scholar