Mexico-Tenochtitlan: origin and transformations of the last Mesoamerican imperial city

f

GERARDO GUTIERREZ

On the eve of the Spanish Conquest, the city of Tenochtitlan was the largest human settlement and most densely built space in North America. It was a lacustrine city, founded on a conglomeration of small islands in western Lake Texcoco.

Tenochtitlan as a city represents the spirit of the Aztecs, as well as the most refined expression of Mesoamerican urbanism. It was the product of all the natives of central and southern Mexico, Aztec and non-Aztec, who voluntarily or through coercion financed the construction of its large temples, fine palaces, and maintenance of its warrior and commoner popu­lation through tribute and labor. In addition, Tenochtitlan was the benefi­ciary of more than 2,000 years of Mesoamerican experience in construction and urban dwelling. After its explosive growth, it was largely destroyed by Spanish conquistadors during the siege of 1521.

My objective here is to analyze the layout and culture of Tenochtitlan, along with its ideology as the capital of the dominant Mesoamerican polity during the Late Postclassic period. I begin with a brief theoretical discussion to frame the urban experience of the Aztec Empire within a larger political and territorial arrangement. Then, I summarize the history of the Mexica- Tenochca tribe and review its complex tributary system that siphoned wealth and resources from a large hinterland. Finally, I address the internal structure of the city, its urban history, and daily life. Tenochtitlan became the political hub, commercial emporium, and religious axis mundi of Mesoa­merica, which was made possible by a change in the mentality and cultural practices on the part of the Mexica-Tenochca people, who regarded them­selves as the “Lords of All Created Things.” I conclude by analyzing how the mighty native city was torn apart by its Indian and European conquerors. It is noteworthy that Tenochtitlan was the first American city to be conquered by use of Old World siege craft, although the fall of Tenochtitlan cannot be reduced simply to the superiority of Spanish armaments.

Urban history of Postclassic central Mexico

Most approaches used by scholars of urbanism create models interpreting the urban experience from the Old World. Ancient, classic, medieval, mercantile, industrial, and modern cities are used and abused as models, consciously or unconsciously, to explain the origin, development, struc­tures, morphology, and functions of non-Western settlements throughout the world.

The urbanism of Postclassic central Mexico needs to be understood within the confines of a native political-territorial structure known as the altepetl in the Nahuatl language. Altepetl literally means “the waters, the mountains,” and it is what the Spaniards referred to as senorio indio, or “Indian kingdom.” The Spaniards also translated altepetl as “city”; thus, for decades, archaeologists have referred to these political units as “city-states.” These concepts are poor choices, since many altepetl^[452] or native states were so complex they encompassed several cities under their domain. The Span­iards soon realized that Indian seborios (kingdoms) had an intricate political organization. Most shocking for the Spaniards was the fact that an altepetl was governed by multiple rulers through councils, which formed loose confederations. Therefore, a critical element was how each segment of the altepetl was ruled by a particular tlatocamecayotl (ruling lineage). For tribu­tary purposes, after the conquest, the Spaniards split the largest and most complex altepetl into individual segments, which they called parcialidades (parts), each governed by a single native ruler, who was referred to as a cacique (using the Caribbean term for “chief"). The dissolution of Prehispa­nic polities into modular segments has created significant confusion for generations of scholars who engage in convoluted debates on the nature of the native polity. The Colonial era practice of breaking apart native states into their minimal segments based on a single ruler needs to be set aside when evaluating Prehispanic sociopolitical organization. Instead, the entire community of the altepetl, with its multiple ruling lineages and council of rulers, is the more accurate Prehispanic form. This complex view of native sociopolitical entity allows for a better understanding of the confederate nature, multi-centrism, and, most importantly, the political and territorial organization in Mesoamerica.^[453] The altepetl is composed of a network of settlements governed by a group of rulers tied together or bonded by kinship.

The Mexica-Tenochca people

The people who founded Mexico-Tenochtitlan spoke the Nahuatl language, classified as part of the Uto-Aztecan family, which extended from the state of Utah to Central America. According to their mythology, these indigenous people came from a place called Aztlan, supposedly located somewhere in northwestern Mexico or the southwestern United States. From this Aztlan comes the popular name of Aztecs. By order of their tribal god Huitzilopochtli (Hummingbird on the Left), they departed from Aztlan in the native year ι Flint, corresponding to the European calendar year 1064 ce. Huitzilopochtli ordered them to seek a sacred land where they would be their own masters and “Lords of All Created Things.” After wandering for many decades, they entered the Basin of Mexico and settled in the Chapul- tepec area c. 1299 ce.^[454]

When the Mexica^[455] arrived in the Basin of Mexico, there already was an urban network of more than forty cities located around an interconnected system of shallow lakes covering roughly 1,300 square kilometers. Powerful ruling houses resided in these cities, and through diplomacy, marriage alliances, and warfare they formed at least five fragile confederations. The Tepaneca confederation dominated the western shore of the lake with at least twelve cities. The eastern side of the lake was under the control of the Acolhua confederation with some fourteen cities under the leadership of Texcoco. The Culhua confederation controlled the Ixtapalapa Peninsula with three cities under the leadership of Culhuacan. The Xochimilca con­federation also had three powerful cities including Xochimilco. Finally, the Chalca confederation controlled the rich hinterland of the western piedmont of the Popocatepetl volcano (Map 24.1).

When the Mexica tried to establish their own altepetl in Chapultepec, no one tolerated the newcomers. A combined force of Tepanecas and Culhuas attacked the Mexica position and overwhelmed them. The fleeing survivors were divided in two groups. The Mexica-Tenochca became captives of Culhuacan and were forced to settle in Tizapan located on the northern

Map 24.1 Location of the cities of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco in the Basin of Mexico. slope of the Ixtapalapa Peninsula. The other group, the Mexica-Tlatelolca escaped to a barren island in the lake where they became subjects of the ruler of Azcapotzalco. The Mexica-Tenochca and the Mexica-Tlatelolca were integrated into the political structures of their new masters. Primarily, they became tribute payers and provided military service in the wars of Culhuacan and Azcapotzalco.

In spite of having been accepted as subordinates of the Culhua confeder­ation, the Mexica-Tenochcawere expelled from Tizapanforhaving “married” a noblewoman of Culhuacan to their tribal god, Huitzilopochtli. Such a marriage involved the ritual flaying and killing of this unfortunate noblewoman. The Tenochca people took refuge in the low swampy island of Temazcaltitlan, just south of where the Mexica-Tlatelolca had been forced to settle earlier. While on the island, they allegedly saw a majestic eagle devouring a serpent atop a cactus (tenochtli). The Tenochca proclaimed that this was their promised land, and they won their altepetl in the native year of 2 House or 1325 ce. The island was renamed Tenochtitlan to reflect the portent of the eagle atop the cactus. Nonetheless, Tenochtitlan was located in a section of the lake claimed by the powerful city of Azcapotzalco, capital of the Tepanec confederation.

By the second half of the fourteenth century, the Mexica-Tenochca wanted their own tlatoani or ruler, in accordance with the altepetl political system of central Mexico. To attain this goal, they elected Acamapichtli as their first tlatoani, the grandson of a ruler of the prestigious Culhua confederation. When Acamapichtli died, his second son Huitzilihuitl was installed as ruler in 1391 ce. Huitzilihuitl was a great negotiator and managed to increase the status of Tenochtitlan within the Tepanec confederation by marrying the daughter of the ruler of Azcapotzalco. When Huitzilihuitl died his son Chimalpopoca became ruler of Tenochtitlan. In 1426 Tezozomoc, the old ruler of Azcapotzalco and leader of the Tepanec confederation, died and a war of succession ensued. Maxtlatl, the ruler of Coyoacan, seized power and implemented a policy of terror including systematic assassination of political rivals, including the Aztec ruler Chimalpopoca. Itzcoatl became the fourth tlatoani of Tenochtitlan in 1427, and, together with Texcoco and Tacuba, defeated Azcapotzalco in 1428. This is the beginning of the Triple Alliance or Aztec Empire. Tenochtitlan went from a humble settlement on the western side of the brackish Lake Texcoco to a city that surpassed all the former capitals of the old confederations in demographic size and political relevance.

After his death, Itzcoatl was succeeded by his nephew Moctezuma Ilhuicamina (1440-68), then by his three grandsons Axayacatl (1468-81), Tizoc (1481-6), and Ahuitzotl (1486-1502). Moctezuma Xocoyotzin (1502-20), Itzcoatl's great-grandson was the last Aztec emperor, who extended the boundaries of the empire and beautified the imperial capital before the arrival of the Spanish conquistadors. He then became a key player in the fall of his own city and empire. The last two rulers of Tenochtitlan, Cuitlahuac (1520) and Cuauhtemoc (1520-5) were great grandsons of Itzcoatl too, but their role in history was to defend the city until it was impossible to resist the combined assault of Spaniards, Old World diseases, and not least the armies of its former native enemies.

The Aztec tributary system

Before the Aztecs coalesced into an empire, the typical tributary organiza­tion of the Postclassic period was structured at the local level, where each segment (calpulli or tlaxilacalli) of a political unit had at least one tequitlato who was a local officer in charge of organizing all things related to tribute. This tequitlato was responsible for allocating and collecting the tribute owed by each tributary unit, usually defined as a composite group of houses and co-residents. Tribute was paid in goods or in labor based on lists of tributar­ies. Once the Aztecs began a successful program of political expansion, they created a network of political operators and tribute collectors to oversee compliance by local lords to their demands. Imperial governors and native tribute collectors (calpixque) operated with autonomy, living in the prov­inces with their family and a few retainers.^[457]

Based on Aztec tributary data as reported in the Informacion de 1554,^[458]1 have attempted to calculate an acceptable proxy for the total Aztec tributary revenue on the eve of the Spanish Conquest. The Informacion de 1554 is the only tributary tally that provides exchange rates for tribute goods based on items of native cloth (mantas) at the time of the conquest. This provides the unique opportunity to standardize all the various types of tributary goods into one abstract unit based on mantas and capture a broad picture of the Aztec Empire. Thus, the total amount of tribute paid to the Aztecs is estimated to be some 652,246 items of cloth per year (Table 24.ι). When the data on the quantity of mantas paid by each province per year are grouped more broadly into classes with a range of 10,000 items of cloth (Table 24.2 and Figure 24.ι), it is easier to distinguish that there were a few giant provinces paying considerable tribute, while there were many small prov­inces providing only a minor percentage of the total revenue.

The spatial distribution of tributary revenue is insightful as well (Map 24.2 and Table 24.ι). Although there were twenty-six provinces within a distance of 200 kilometers from Tenochtitlan, contributing 54 percent of the tribute (351,981 mantas), another thirteen provinces located beyond the radius of 200 kilometers provided 46 percent of the total revenue (300,265 mantas). This indicates that provinces closer to Tenochtitlan were supporting its staple finance in grains and in bulky mantas to maintain the liquidity of the exchange system of the Aztec economy (Table 24.3).^[459] In contrast, the primary wealth finance needed to support the sumptuous ideological and political life of the Aztecs was coming from exterior provinces located in the tropical coasts or in mountainous regions with abundant metamorphic rocks such as green serpentines. These tribute items were not as heavy or bulky, while offering great exchange value in the market system, as well as high desirability in the political and religious realms, specifically: gold, cacao, feathers, and precious stones.^[460]

The cyclical concentration of tributary wealth and its subsequent ritual and political consumption had direct and indirect effects throughout Mesoa­merica. A large tribute component was siphoned from a radius of 400 kilo­meters around Tenochtitlan, ending up in the Basin of Mexico. This constantly depleted the Aztec hinterland of staples and wealth, creating artificial scarcity. At the other end of the system, the flow of resources, as exemplified in enormous quantities and great diversity of goods, subsidized the urban population of the Basin of Mexico. Ideological practices were designated to absorb any excess supply of tribute, especially through destruction of vast quantities of goods in lavish rituals and feasting, in addition to calculated gift-giving and the assignment of war prizes to valiant warriors. In spite of these mechanisms and the supposed imposition of rigid etiquette prohibitions for the display of wealth, tributary goods were widely

Table 24.1 Estimated value of the tribute paid annually by each province standardized in mantas.

GERARDO GUTIERREZ

Table 24.2 Percentage of annual tribute paid to Aztec Empire grouped by classes with a range of 10,000 mantas

Figure 24. ι Percentage of annual tribute paid to Aztec Empire grouped by classes with a range of 10,000 mantas and the number of provinces in the class.

traded in the marketplaces and made Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tacuba splendid and wealthy cities.

Mexico-Tenochtitlan and its ideological template

Tenochtitlan and Tlaltelolco began as entirely new settlements that did not have to adapt to previous urban forms. Since Tenochtitlan militarily subju­gated Tlatelolco in 1473, the name of the former has achieved primacy;

Table 24.3 Spatial distribution of the tributary revenue paid to Aztec Empire by distance from Tenochtitlan

Map 24.2 Map showing the spatial distribution of Aztec tribute converted into individual items of cloth (mantas). The axes radiate out from Tenochtitlan, have as their center the juncture of the old Tacuba and Ixtapalapa causeways (the corner of Guatemala and Argentina Streets today), and are oriented approximately 8 degrees from true north, as is the general layout of Mexico City's downtown area.

nonetheless, the existence of Tlatelolco is important in any discussion of Tenochitlan. The urban space of both cities not only coalesced as they expanded over several small islets, creating a large semi-artificial island, but also the urban duality endured throughout the entire history of the Mexica people. These twin cities were each planned with their own cosmological layout, and the organization of space responded primarily to negotiations between the two groups in the appropriation and allocation of scarce land in the swampy terrain and micro-topography.

According to their own lore, the founding of Tenochtitlan was embedded within an elaborate rituality that involved finding the “right place” for the future settlement and the performance of specific ceremonies for taking possession of the land. The Mexica practice of place-making began before the foundation of the altepetl of Tenochtitlan by invoking memories of an actual or mythical migration full of significant incidents. Elements in the landscape of their new home needed to fit within the narrative of ancient prophecies and previous foundation events, such as the “bent-shape” moun­tain, the cave, the V-shaped crag providing access to a mountain range, and clear spring waters had to be present to fulfil mythic parameters. In addition, the potential location for any new settlement also required a sense of sacredness. A place was perceived as sacred by the occurrence of extraordin­ary and supernatural events, which were interpreted as propitious omens. Many suitable locations were discarded if bad omens occurred, like the sudden falling of trees or a dispute between tribal factions. For the Mexica the portentous sight of the eagle atop the cactus marked the holiness of the place selected as the foundational node and cosmic axis of the new city. In Nahuatl this sacred place is referred as altepeyolloco or the “kidney” of the city, referencing its central religious district. The Mexica-Tenochca initially built three elements as part of the foundation of their city and to legitimize their taking possession of the land: (ι) a ball court, (2) an earthen mound, and on top of it (3) an earthen altar. The mound was built at the edge of two natural caves, which were later buried under subsequent construction stages. Since many tribal gods were perhaps deified ancestors, the vertical axis created by the underworld cave and the main temple projecting into the sky was the ideal meeting point for the ancestor cult: the place where the living could communicate spiritually with ancient founding fathers. A cosmic axis was laid out with an azimuth of some 8 degrees, and the city was divided into four quarters: Moyotlan (southwest), Teopan (southeast), Atzacualco (northeast), and Cuepopan (northwest). On this humble first temple, each Mexica-Tenochca ruler committed to enlarging it, although that depended on the political fortunes of each ruler.

During the government of Ahuitzotl, the eighth tlatoani of Tenochtitlan (1486-1502), the Aztec capital acquired a more stable layout and operation. The Great Temple was expanded and the religious district became an enormous complex known as the sacred precinct. This was the symbolic heart of the Aztec Empire, grouping at least seventy-eight specialized buildings, temples, and shrines. Four walls surrounded the entire complex, embracing an area of some 14 hectares. The sacred area could only be entered through four gates oriented to the cardinal directions, as were the great causeways that led out of the city. Tenochtitlan was a symbolically planned city, following the template of the native cosmic map. Although Mexican archaeologists continue finding better information on the nature and organization of the sacred precinct,¹¹ we still have a sketchy plan of its former self. The main temple is the best-understood construction in this precinct. On February 21, 1978, workers from the Electric Light Company were digging at the corner of Guatemala and Argentina Streets and dis­covered a large stone carved with a series of reliefs. Excavations on the spot revealed an enormous monolith 3.25 meters in diameter, with a representa­tion of a decapitated and dismembered female nude carved in relief. It was a depiction of the goddess Coyolxauhqui who, according to Aztec myth, had been killed by her brother, the war-god Huitzilopochtli. The discovery of the Coyolxauhqui stone led the authorities to order further work to expose this central area of Tenochtitlan.

Over a six-year period, Mexican archaeologists uncovered the material remains of seven construction phases of the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan.^{[461] [462]} Stage I was the sanctuary built by the Aztecs when they first founded Tenochtitlan in 1325. Stage II survived in excellent condition and has pro­vided the best information on the religious ideology of the Mexica people. The temple of Stage II was more a platform than a pyramid. Nonetheless, it contains all the prototypical elements of the later stages. This temple was crowned by two shrines, each with its own stairway up the face of the pyramid, dedicated to the gods Tlaloc (north) and Huitzilopochtli (south). Each shrine faced west and had a sculpture associated with these deities. In front of the shrine of Tlaloc, there was a “chac-mool” (stone representation of a man lying on his back with a receptacle resting on his abdomen). Before the shrine of Huitzilopchtli, there was a blocky stone called a techcatl, upon which many were sacrificed in honor of that god. It is believed that Stage II corresponds to the reigns of either Acamapichtli, Huitzilihuitl, or Chimal- popoca, that is, before 1428 (the year of Aztec independence from Azcapotzalco).

II

12

On the back wall of the Stage III pyramid of the Great Temple, at the base of the side devoted to Huitzilopochtli, there is a stone carved with the calendrical glyph 4 Reed. This probably references the date 1431, placing this construction stage in the reign of Itzcoatl (1427-40). The architecture and sculptures of Stage IV are the most spectacular of the Great Temple. The pyramidal base was enlarged and adorned with braziers and serpent heads on all four sides. Stage IVb is labeled as such because it designates a partial enlargement of the temple: the main facade, on the west side, was amplified and adorned with undulating serpent bodies wrapping around its corners and terminating in snake heads. In the middle of Huitzilopochtli's side, at the foot of the stairway, Coyolxauhqui's dismembered body is carved in low-relief on a huge stone. Little has survived from Stages V and VI. What has been uncovered is stucco plaster on the platform, and part of the floor of the ceremonial precinct, the latter formed by stone slabs joined by stucco. Stage VII of the Great Temple was seen by the Spaniards at the beginning of the sixteenth century. All that remains of this period is a section of stone flooring in the ceremonial precinct.

Mexico-Tenochtitlan and its urban infrastructure

At the founding of the city, Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco had a total of twenty-nine calpulli, thus one can estimate an original population size of c. 3,000 people (assuming each migratory calpulli had a fluctuating popula­tion of some 100 people). Based on oral accounts of Spaniards who lived in Tenochtitlan from November of 1519, to June of 1520, Cervantes de Salazar reported the existence of 60,000 “houses” on the island. This figure has provoked debate on the definition of “house,” leading to some estimates of 240,000-300,000 people (four to five persons per house).^[463] Based on Calnek's work,^[464] Sanders reanalyzed all the information available on the area occu­pied by Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco, the size and nature of their households, and the possible land use of each sector of the city. He proposed a more

Mexico-Tenochtitlan: origin and transformations conservative figure ranging from 125,000 to 140,000 people^[465] allocated among sixty-nine calpulli (forty-nine for Tenochtitlan and twenty for Tlatelolco). The final surface of the island would have reached some 13 square kilo­meters. If we take the figure of 3,000 individuals as the original founders and 140,000 people as the maximum population on the eve of the Spanish Conquest, the annual growth rate of the island's population is estimated at 2 percent - the city was doubling its population every thirty-five years. This growth is impressive given the high mortality rates usually associated with pre-industrial populations. What were the factors underlying this demographic growth? Natural growth does not explain this rate of increase, which must have included a significant and steady flow of immigrants from outside the island. Population movements were likely driven by factors associated with the expansion of the empire as well as from nearby settle­ments of the Basin of Mexico. Hernan Cortes relates how the Mexica forced the rulers of all subject polities to send and maintain permanently a son or close relative to live in Tenochtitlan.^[466] This policy would have resulted in at least 400 small palaces representing conquered states, adding greatly to the urban layout of the city.

The Spaniards always referred to Tenochtitlan as “another Venice,” due to the lacustrine nature of its urbanization, with some 20 kilometers of navigable water courses and a similar number of raised dry roads. The romantic character of the city, however, prevented Tenochtitlan from prospering initially due to lack of cultivable lands. The Tenochca were forced to trade with the people living along the shores of the lakes and in the piedmont. Originally the island's inhabitants specialized in the com­merce of lacustrine resources, which were exchanged with their neighbors to acquire wood and stone. These materials were used by the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan to anchor a group of shallow islands in the lake for an artificial platform that achieved an area of some 13 square kilometers (Map 24.3). Millions of cubic meters of sediment were used to artificially raise this platform above the level of the lake. The chinampa system first developed in the lakes of Xochimilco and Chalco was used to create the raised fields connecting the islands. Lines of willow trees, brush, wooden stakes, and rocks consolidated the walls of these artificial blocks of the city. Deep canals were dug to allow canoe navigation; thus wooden bridges were necessary to

Map 24.3 GIS reconstruction of the island of Mexico based on the Nuremberg Map of 1524, Mapa de Uppsala of 1550, the Plano Ignographico of 1776-8 of Ignacio Castera, and Plano de la Ciudad de Mexico by the Direccion de Catastro of 1929. This map shows the approximate shape of the island on the eve of the Spanish Conquest with the surviving network of primary canals in 1554. In the background in light gray is the layout of modern Mexico City in what used to be Lake Texcoco.

cross from one block to another. Moving through the city of Tenochtitlan would have involved a combination of canoes and walking through a complex network of streets and alleys connected by hundreds of bridges (Figure 24.2).

The most extraordinary projects, however, were the artificial causeways connecting the island to the main cities on shore, the aqueduct that brought fresh water to the city, and the dikes that regulated the level of Lake Texcoco. All these engineering projects were formidable tasks that would have been impossible without the forced labor of the conquered polities around the lake. The Xochimilcas were burdened with the construction of the first causeway during the rule of Itzcoatl. This causeway is known as Ixtapalapa Street and is some 10 kilometers long. Cortes reported that it was

Figure 24.2 Schematic drawing of an unidentified sector of Tenochtitlan or Tlatelolco, based on the Plano en Papel de Maguey, which was painted c. 1557-62. Note the complex network of canals, dikes, streets, chinampa fields, and house plots in the margins of the artificial island at that time. Moving through the different neighborhoods of the city would have been an exciting experience involving the crossing of dozens of bridges and negotiating veritable labyrinths of narrow alleys often ending in deep canals or levees.

as wide as the width of eight horses.^[467] Another three causeways were built, one to Tacuba (west), the other to Tepeyac (north), and a short one to the eastern side of the island. I would highlight that the four causeways con­verged in the sacred ceremonial precinct and were used for long religious processions, especially during the primary ceremonies when dozens of captives had to walk to their sacrifice.

The most famous hydraulic projects involved the construction of an aque­duct 5 kilometers in length connecting the springs of Chapultepec to the island. This was a great sanitary achievement for the city, and it would have helped to reduce mortality rates caused by gastrointestinal bacteria. Moctezuma Ilhui- camina ordered the construction of a 16-kilometer dike in the middle of Lake Texcoco to regulate tidal flooding. A second dike was built during the reign of Ahuitzotl on the eastern side of the island, but despite these efforts, the city was prone to floods and the Mexica people learned to cope by building houses with sturdy flat roofs, some with two stories where they could take refuge.

Moctezuma Xocoyotzin (1502-20), the last great emperor, proudly presented his city and all the other cities in the Basin of Mexico to Hernan Cortes from the summit of the Temple of Tlatelolco. Down in the marketplace, thousands from all over central Mexico were busily bartering, trading, and exchanging.^[468] Tenochtitlan was a city in the broadest sense of the concept. Ideologically it was the most important center of native power in Mesoamerica. It also possessed the most elaborate religious precinct, the largest concentration of native nobility, the largest population, and the highest density of inhabitants per square kilometer. Tenochtitlan had become a cosmopolitan city, and all of its inhabitants likely felt the same pride in living in this important city and state. Lavish ceremonies accompanied by redistribution of resources, feasting, trade, as well as the large construction projects that directly and indirectly involved thousands of people from a radius of more than 300 kilometers would have provoked a mixture of emotions from all those subject to Tenochtitlan. Admiration, fear, and rancor are reported in multiple sources. Still, the Mexica people were slow to create a social and political identity embracing the entire empire or even the other states in the Basin of Mexico.^[469] While the people of the Triple Alliance seemed to have enjoyed special privileges for being part of this partnership, loyalties and identities created at the level of the altepetl were never broken, hence an imperial identity was never forged.

Both Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco were destroyed during the Spanish siege of the island. Whatever was left standing, pyramids and stone monu­ments, was used as foundation stones in the houses later built for the European conquerors. Notably, the features that made Tenochtitlan an undefeatable city for their native enemies - its size, its location in the middle of a lake, its long streets with moveable bridges - ultimately became its major weaknesses during their battles with the Spaniards. In the fall of 1520, the Spanish conquistadors and their Indian allies began planning the assault on the city. This involved the latest siege craft techniques of the time. Cannons, firearms, lances, swords, cross-bows, and even a failed stone­thrower catapult were used. Special brigantines were built to be used in Lake Texcoco; this single action gave Cortes naval superiority on the lake. No longer was the lake a defense for the city, but instead allowed the Spanish brigantines to fire cannons at a city lacking defensive walls. The causeways in the lake became the roads of conquest for the Spanish- Tlaxcalan forces. The aqueduct was broken and food supplies were cut off by land and naval blockade. Suddenly the large population of Tenochtitlan was a liability. Starving people began to flee. Native lords from subject polities who had initially taken refuge on the island deserted the Mexica and became Spanish allies. Even the cities of Texcoco and Tacuba deserted the Mexica, ending a ninety-year-old alliance. Only the Tlatelolca remained with the Tenocha. Once again facing adversity, the people of Huitzilopochtli united to fight their last battle. At one point, even women and children took shields and swords and climbed to the roofs of their homes to simulate the appearance of a large army, when in reality there were not enough warriors left to stop the last assault.

Conclusion

The destruction of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco led to the creation of a new city that emerged on the same sacred locale where the Mexica immigrants first witnessed the signs to found their city and state. This new city, however, became the center for the Spanish colonization of Mexico, Central America, the southern half of the United States, and the Philippines. The Mexica, the Tlatelolca, the Tlaxcala, and all the rest of the Nahuatl-speaking people of central Mexico became foot soldiers for the Spanish expeditions throughout New Spain - another irony of history. The short lifespan and rapid emergence of Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco provide the unique oppor­tunity to analyze the rise of a Native American empire and the construction of its imperial capital. The ideology and symbolic elements of the Triple Alliance Empire were as important as the economic factors associated with its expansion. Tenochtitlan people endured difficult origins requiring them to adapt to a new ethos of warfare, diplomacy, and trade. They were very successful and solved the primary needs of the early city, including subsist­ence and construction materials - particularly the commoners who became the traders and merchants. The Tenocha exploited opportunities that other more established groups of Mesoamerica did not recognize. Ambitious elites were created from a combination of tribal leaders and prestigious Mesoa­merican ruling lineages. Although over time they became more distanced from the commoners, they never completely separated themselves. Redistri­bution of tribute based on merit earned in battle helped to maintain social cohesion between elites and commoners. A state-run educational system helped to consolidate a Tenochca identity for those who lived in the imperial city at the calpulli level. The Tenocha relationship with their provinces, however, was exploitative, since they were interested in the appropriation of wealth produced by other Mesoamerican states. Nonethe­less, they did respect regional ruling dynasties and thus minimized their impact on local affairs. Tenochtitlan became for other Mesoamericans a place with great power and wealth. “Culhua, Culhua, Mexico, Mexico” were the words the Spaniards heard when they asked the people of Tabasco for a place abundant in wealth.

Indeed, Mexico-Tenochtitlan was a place of power and wealth according to the Spaniards, but also for the Mexica people and their conquered subjects. Mexico was the place

where the rock nopal stands, where the eagle reposes, where it rests; where the eagle screeches, where it whistles; where the eagle stretches, where it is joyful; where the eagle devours, where it gluts; where the serpent hisses, where the fishes swim; where the blue waters join with the yellow, where the waters are afire - there at the navel of the waters, where the waters go in; where the sedge and the reed whisper; where the white water snakes live, where the white frog lives; where the white cypress stands, where the most precious white willow stands.²⁰

Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Codex Chimalpahin, Vol. ι, p. 27.

further readings

Armillas, Pedro, “Gardens on Swamps,” Science 174 (1970), 653-61.

Brumfiel, Eizabeth M., “Specialization, Market Exchange, and the Aztec State,” Current Anthropology 21 (1980), 459-78.

Calnek, Edward, “Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco: The Natural History of a City,” in William T. Sanders, Alba Guadalupe Mastache, and Robert Cobean (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoa­merica, State College: The Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 149-202.

Caso, Alfonso, “Los barrios antiguos de Tenochtitlan y Tlatelolco,” Memorias de la Academia Mexicana de la Historia, Tomo 15 (1956), 7-62.

Chanfon Olmos, Carlos (ed.), Historia de la arquitectura y el urbanismo mexicanos, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico and Fondo de la Cultura Eco­nomica, 1997, Vol. ιι.

Christaller, Walter, Die Zentralen Orte in Siiddeutschland, Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1933.

Gibson, Charles, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Valley of Mexico, 1519-1810, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1964.

Gonzalez Aparicio, Luis, Plano reconstructivo de la region de Tenochtitlan, Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1973.

Gutierrez, Gerardo, “Territorial Structure and Urbanism in Mesoamerica: The Huaxtec and Mixtec-Tlapanec-Nahua Cases,” in William T. Sanders, Alba Guadalupe Mas­tache, and Robert Cobean (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, State College: The Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 85-118.

Harris, Chauncy D., and Edward L. Ullman, “The Nature of Cities,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 242 (1945), 7-17.

Hassig, Ross, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.

Hicks, Frederick, “Cloth in the Political Economy of the Aztec State,” in Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith (eds.), Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, Albany: Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York, 1994, pp. 88-ιιι.

Hirth, Kenneth G., “The Altepetl and Urban Structure in Prehispanic Mesoamerica,” in William T. Sanders, Alba Guadalupe Mastache, and Robert Cobean (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, State College: The Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 57-84.

Hodge, Mary G., Aztec City-States, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 1984.

Katz, Friedrich, “A Comparison of Some Aspects of the Evolution of Cuzco and Tenochtitlan,” in Richard P. Schaedel, Jorge E. Hardoy, and Nora Scott Kinzer (eds.),Urbanization in the Americas from its Beginnings to the Present, The Hague: Mouton Publishers, 1978, pp. 202-13.

Lockhart, James, The Nahuas after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992.

Lopez Lujan, Leonardo, The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo, “Buildings in the Sacred Precinct of Tenochtitlan,” in William T. Sanders, Alba Guadalupe Mastache, and Robert Cobean (eds.), Urban­ism in Mesoamerica, State College: The Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 119-47.

“The Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan History and Interpretation,” in Johanna Broda, David Carrasco, and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma,The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan: Center and Periphery in the Aztec World, Berkeley: University of California Press, 1987, pp. 15-60.

Miranda, Jose, El tributo indigena en Nueva Espana durante el siglo XVI, Mexico City: Colegio de Mexico, 1952.

Ouweneel, Arij, “Altepeme and Pueblos de Indios: Some Comparative Theoretical Perspectives on the Analysis of the Colonial Indian Communities,” in Simon Miller and Arig Ouweneel (eds.), The Indian Community of Colonial Mexico: Fifteen Essays on Land Tenure, Corporate Organizations, Ideology and Village Politics, Amsterdam: Centro de Estudios y DocumentackSn Latinoamericanos, 1990, pp. 1-37.

Reyes, Luis, “La vision cosmo½gica y la organizaci(5n del imperio Mexica,” in Barbaro Dahlgren (ed.), Mesoamerica, Homenaje al DoctorPaul Kirchoff, Mexico City: Secretaria de Educacion Publica and Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1979, pp. 34-40.

Sanders, William T., “The Population of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco,” in William T. Sanders, Alba Guadalupe Mastache, and Robert Cobean (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoa­merica, State College: The Pennsylvania State University, 2003, pp. 203-16.

Smith, Michael E., Aztec City-State Capitals, Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2008. Wirth, Louis, “Urbanism as a Way of Life,” American Journal of Sociology 44 (1938), 1-24.