Marital Alliance in the Political Integration of Mixtec Kingdoms

RONALD SPORES
Vander bil t University

Analysis o f pictographic and conventional documentation f r o m Prehispanic and Colonial times reveals mechanisms of succession and alliance operative in the formation, expansion, and integration o f Mixtec kingdoms. It is suggested that marital alliance be considered, along with other coercive and voluntaristic forces, in the dynamics of state formation and development. Royal marital alliances were exceedingly important not only in the maintenance o f individual Mixtec ministates or kingdoms, but also in the creation o f a social, political, and economic network that linked numerous communities and political domains into a broad social field bridging varied geographical zones ranging f r o m tropical lowlands t o highland valleys.

STUDIES OF ANCIENT Mesoamerican political systems have been few in number and have tended to focus on the impressive Aztec state as it existed at the time of the Spanish conquest in 1519-1520 (e.g., Moreno 1931; Barlow 1949; Soustelle 1956; L6pez Austin 1961; Katz 1966; Adams 1966; Gibson 1971; Carrasco 1971). Consideration of Prehispanic government and politics in other Mesoamerican societies has been limited in scope or embedded in more general or Prehispanic-to-Colonial culture change studies (Roys 1943; Gibson 1952; Dahlgren 1954; L6pez Sarrelange 1965; Spores 1967). Despite the existence of extensive documentation for the Contact period, analysis of ancient Mesoamerican political form, function, or process by ethnologists or ethnohistorians has been rare. Interestingly, archaeologists have shown less reluctance to consider Prehispanic political organization and patterns of socio-economic interaction than have ethnohistorians (e.g., Proskouriakoff 1960; Sanders and Price 1968; Flannery et al. 1967; Flannery 1968; Rathje 1971; Tourtellot and Sabloff 1972; Marcus 1973). Although immensely stimulating of anthropological insights, propositions tend to derive from limited Mesoamerican archaeological data and processual models based on non-Mesoamerican ethnographic data. While such procedures have gained wide acceptance, it does not necessarily follow that there are no alternative, and perhaps better, models and bases for explanation derivable from the Mesoamerican tradition itself. But archaeologists alone cannot be blamed for a failure t o appreciate and to fully utilize direct ethnohistorical data relating to the Contact period. The same can be said for general and comparative ethnological studies of politics (e.g., Almond and Powell 1966; Fried 1967; Lenski 1967; Southall 1965; Balandier 1972) that fail t o consider the range of Mesoamerican political experience. The burden of responsibility must rest with the ethnohistorians competent in the anthropological uses of documentary sources for their failure to provide appropriately documented descriptions of complex political systems as they existed in protohistoric or early historic times. Such studies relevant t o Mesoamerica have been slow to
Submitted for publication December 12, 1973. Accepted for publication January 4. 1974.

297

298

A M E R I C A N ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 76,1974

come forth, and the eagerness t o employ better delineated African, Polynesian, and Southeast Asian models or overly generalized Aztec or Maya models, or no conscious ethnographic or systemic model at all, is understandable if not always laudable or desirable. Ethnohistorians could furnish more adequate description and comparison of Mesoamerican political systems. This would provide substance for testable hypotheses and inferential bases for consideration of the origins, structure, and interrelationships of Prehispanic political institutions. When the Spaniards amved in Mexico in 1519-1520, the largest and most complex states in existence were the multiethnic tributary empires of the Culhua-Mexica, or Aztecs, centered in the Valley of Mexico and that of the Tarascans in Michoacan and western Mexico. Between them, these two conquest states controlled an area extending from the Gulf to the Pacific and from Jalisco and northern Veracruz in the north, t o Tabasco and Chiapas in the south. Much is known of the Aztec state, but little has been written of the Tarascans and their comparatively rigidly controlled political domain. But there were other well-established polities in the Valley of Mexico, Tlaxcala-Puebla, the Gulf Coast, the Maya domain, and in Oaxaca and Guerrero. Some remained free of domination by either the Aztecs or Tarascans, but others at one time or another were subordinated and subject to tributary demands. The present article deals with a constellation of small but expandable and interrelatable polities that evolved for at least 500 years before the Spanish conquest (AGI Escribania de CBmara 162; AGN Civil 669, exp. 1; Caso 1960) in an area of western Oaxaca known as the Mixteca. These little polities were socio-economically interactive and were politically integrated by a pattern of marriage among ruling elite families. Marital alliance was a customary and persistent form of political integration even in cases of military conquest when such acquisitions were ordinarily validated by marriage between royal families. Marriage between status-equal ruling caste families was a principal integrative mechanism in the Mixtec political system; it vectored the flow of goods and services, and facilitated social interaction between communities, states, and regions; and, coupled with flexible but regularized patterns of succession and inheritance, it ensured institutional and patrimonial continuity and provided a distinctive adaptational response to diverse environmental and cultural conditions. THE THREE MIXTECAS AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS The Mixteca extends from a narrow and irregular Pacific coastal plain some 250 kilometers north to southern Puebla state and from just west of the Guerrero-Oaxaca border approximately 150 kilometers to the east. It is composed of three subareas-the Alta, Baja, and Costa-which contrast in climate, altitude, and resources but which are comparable in their irregular topography and internal fragmentation (see Relaciones geograficas, PNE IV; RMEH 11; Burgoa 1934; Tamayo 1949; de la Peiia 1950; Vivo 1949; Kirkby 1972; Brandomin 1972; Spores 1965, 1967,1969). The internally diversified and greatly fragmented Alta is a temperate, moderately well-watered upland zone, with altitudes ranging from 2000 to 3000 meters. Temporal agriculture dominated the ancient agricultural complex, but slash-and-burn procedures and terracing were practiced in some areas. Supplementary collecting of wild plants and game was important in the Alta and throughout the Mixteca. Corn, beans, and squash were the main cultigens; some chile and avocados were raised, and nopal cactus, maguey, zapotes, and guaje-pod trees were tended. Important natural resources included obsidian from the Tlaxiaco-Achiutla-Teposcolula area, chert from the Chachoapan-Yanhuitlan-Coyotepec area, mica from the Zachio area, gold from Tlaxiaco and Pefioles, salt from Ixtapa-Teposcolula,

Spores ]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

299

and basalt, good potters clays, animal hides, and forest products from various areas. Cochineal production was widespread. All areas of the Mixteca produced deer, small game birds, edible rodents, insects, and reptiles in apparent abundance. Settlement was characterized by concentrated centers and satellites in the valleys and small loosely nucleated clusters in the more mountainous and fragmented areas. Population was moderately dense in the broader valleys (an estimated 50,000 in some twenty settlements in the Nochixtlan Valley) and relatively sparse in the more rugged areas (Spores 1969).

0 Oixaca

MIXTECA COSTA

50 km.

Figure 1. The Mixteca of western Oaxaca, showing some of the important Prehispanic political centers of the Alta, Baja, and Costa sub-regions.

3 00

A ME RIGAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[76,1974

The Baja is lower, warmer, and drier than the Alta; it is frost-free, and has supported temporal, slash-and-burn, and limited diversion-irrigation agriculture. Chile, cotton, zapotes, gourds, avocados, basketry reed, copal, paper, and a limited variety of fruits were produced. The Costa is tropically hot and dry in the south and somewhat better watered in the north. Chile, cotton, cacao, and a variety of fruits were produced in abundance. Other important Costa resources were hardwoods, tropical bird feathers, fish, ocean salt, shell fish, and reed. Settlement is less well known in the Costa and Baja than in the Alta, but present indications are that settlements were smaller and more dispersed and that population density was lower in the former two subareas. While the geographical conformation of the Mixteca tended to limit the extension of agriculture, it also served t o limit the size of population clusters and impeded social, and, obviously, verbal communication. This is reflected in modern as well as ancient times by considerable dialectical diversity (Jim6nez Moreno 1962:40-54), pronounced community endogamy within the common class (Spores 1967:ll-12, 235-236), and the tendency for consumers to depend largely on locally produced commodities. Intercommunity and interregional trade and markets were sponsored and probably, at least t o some extent, monopolized by the ruling elite. Tribute levies also channeled goods from one area to another for redistribution. There was no class of merchants similar t o the Aztec Pochtecameh. In fact, while there was regional and community specialization in resource production and in craft, there is no suggestion in either the documentation or in the archaeological remains that there was full-time occupational specialization. Although basic subsistence was essentially local, it is clear that there was a need for, and a brisk exchange of, Baja and Costa cotton, chocolate, and bird feathers for Alta cochineal dye and probably such minerals as obsidian, chert, gold, and mica. Salt was produced (at Ixtapa de Teposcolula) and distributed in the Alta but apparently in insufficient quantities to overcome the necessity for importation from the Costa. Fish and shellfish also moved from the Costa t o the Alta and Baja. THE MIXTEC POLITICAL SYSTEM htixtec kingdoms (Spanish singular: cacicazgo;Mixtec singular: siiiu y y a or sutonirie y y a ) were states with formally defined, hierarchically arranged political offices in which status positions were monopolized by (1) a supreme authority figure, the king (cacique, seiior natural; y y a , y y a canu, or y y a tonifie) or queen (cacica; yyadzehe) who derived titles by hereditary succession; and (2) a lower-ranking hereditary nobility (noble: principal; toho) which interacted personally, directly, and regularly with the ruler. The king and/or queen and the nobility controlled positions of power and authority, the lands and resources of the kingdom, the major means of production and distribution, formal ceremonial institutions, and had the right to extract tribute (tributo; daha) and personal services from subject populations (sujetos; tay ~ U U , tuyndahi, iiandahi). In return, subject peoples couLd expect protection, representation in external affairs, ceremonial sponsorship, usufruct title to agricultural and collecting lands of the kingdom, and access t o externally produced subsistence goods. In the midsixteenth century, natives of the kingdom of Yanhuitlan testified that: In the time of the infidelity of the Indians, natives of this pueblo and its hamlets recognized, obeyed, served, and respected their caciques and seiiores in every way and provided personal services, working the fields for the sustenance of their households, and they paid in tribute a great quantity of clothing, precious stones, and plumes of Guatemala and turkey feathers. Finally, they were given all that they requested, and they were obeyed in all that they commanded as seiiores absolutos of the said pueblo and its province until the arrival of the Spaniards [AGN Civil 5161.

Spores ]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

301

Once title had been assumed, the ruler of a Mixtec kingdom was entitled to: (1) tribute and services from his subjects; (2) specified lands (normally the most productive of the kingdom) and their proceeds; (3) the support of a nobility which advised, administered the royal patrimony and domain, enforced royal orders, and saw t o tribute collection and performance of services; (4) the respect, admiration, and obedience of the supporting nobility and commoners; (5) supervision and control of the religious cult and priesthood; (61 special and exclusive dress, food, housing, and personal property, and monopolies on certain commodities prominent in the local or regional commercial network; and (7) the right t o call up nobility and commoners for service in war. The ruler had the responsibility of providing for the protection of the community, adjudicating disputes among the nobility, and serving final appellate function in trouble cases involving commoners which had been adjudicated in the first instance by members of the nobility; the ruler also provided paraphernalia for the religious cult and furnished food, drink, and entertainment for the nobility on occasions when they were summoned or foregathered at the royal household. Finally, it was the ruler who represented the kingdom in negotiations and contacts with other groups. All of the delineated functions and responsibilities fell to the ruler and remained with him/her until death, abdication (sanctioned in the Mixteca), or removal from office, at which time these passed to an heir through appropriate mechanisms of succession. Mixtec kingdoms were socially stratified, so that members of the same sex and equivalent age status did not necessarily have equal access to the basic resources that sustain life (Fried 1967:186). Native political communities consisted of complementary social segments with differential norms and forms of behavior, social interaction, mutual relationship, and relationship to the total environment. As is generally the case in kingdoms, there was a clear differentiation between those who rule and those who are ruled. There were three major social strata: royalty, nobility, and the plebian or common class (plebian: macehaul; iiandahi tay riuu); in at least some kingdoms there existed a fourth grouping of bonded serfs (terrazguero; mayeque; tay situndayu). This was a strongly class-conscious society characterized by explicitly recognized social strata that were endogamous and highly formalized and structured in their interrelationships. Beyond domestic family units, considerations of social status consistently overrode kinship. Social, political, and economic behavior and interaction were highly correlated with social status. While cognatic descent reckoning was of extreme importance in the Mixteca, royal lineages or ramages did not exist as significant corporate units. Ruling families fixed their attention and allegiances on the localized family, their royal patrimonies and their subject communities, not on their extended kinship groupings. The divergence of means and goals between state and kin group and the resulting stresses and unstabilizing influences perceived in other royal state systems (Fallers 1965:17 and passim) did not evolve in the Mixteca. Political control of a kingdom depended on an administrative constellation radiating from the ruler to (a) his kinsmen, (b) affines, (c) noble clients, and (d) a very small group of specialists (overseers, priests, merchants, and court retainers) who served the ruler directly in administrative and service capacities. The ruler of Tilantongo, for example, is said t o have governed his extensive kingdom through four councilors, one of whom was designated chief councilor (PNE IV:73-74). The delegation of authority was direct from ruler to administrator or specialists. The graduated and extended delegation of authority characteristic of bureaucratic structures in most state systems was absent or only very minimally developed. Mixtec kingdoms were limited in physical extent and population, and, although socially stratified, they were neither urban nor occupationally specialized. Kingdoms would be

302

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 76,1974

maintained without a complex administrative hierarchy and without standing armies for policing or war-making. Individual Mixtec kingdoms were potentially expandable in their capacity for political acquisition, fusion, and integration but only to the point where such polities could be controlled through the existing political structure with its direct lines of authority. Mixtec kingdoms were normally confined t o an area that could be traversed in a day; most, in fact, consisted of three to four settlements and a total land area of no more than thirty to fifty square kilometers. The kingdoms of Tiltepec, Etlatongo, Chachoapan, Soyaltepec, and Tejupan were of these general dimensions, The kingdom of Yanhuitlan, on the other hand, contained fifteen t o twenty settlements (depending on the time frame) and controlled an estimated 500 square kilometers at the time of the Spanish conquest. The kingdoms of Teposcolula, Coixtlahuaca, Tamazulapan, and Tilantongo were extensive but, at the Spanish conquest at least, were somewhat smaller, poorer, and ecologically less diversified than Yanhuitlan. While Tlaxiaco may have been even larger in size than Yanhuitlan, the lands controlled by the Tlaxiaco rulers were far less productive agriculturally than those of Yanhuitlan. While kingdoms could expand through colonization, annexation, or conquest, they could also contract through revolution and fissioning of subject communities which in time could, through a complex process, emerge as new kingdoms in their own right. The linking of discrete kingdoms under the aggregated leadership of a ruling couple inheriting separately and each in his own right was a more characteristic form of expansion than was conquest warfare. As early as the eleventh century, the ruler 8 Deer of Tilantongo held or controlled no less than six titles through inheritance, multiple marital alliance, and military conquest (Caso 1960a:38-42;Caso 1966; Smith 1963; Caso and Smith 1966; Clark 1912; Dahlgren 1954). 8 Deers kingdoms extended from the Pacific coast to northern Oaxaca and included Tututepec, largest and most important of the Costa kingdoms, and Tilantongo, perhaps most important of the eleventh century Alta kingdoms. Other Prehispanic family-held constellations included Tilantongo-Teposcolula-Yanhuitlan, all extensive and incorporating numerous micro-environments in the Mixteca Alta; Tamazola of the intermediate Alta and Yanhuitlan and Chachoapan of the high Alta; Tilantongo of the high Alta and Teozacoalco of the low Alta; Achiutla of the intermediate Alta and Tlaxiaco of the high Alta; Tilantongo-Etlatongo-Yucuita (Caso 1949; Caso 1960a; Caso and Smith 1966; Spores 1967:131-139). Such aggregates were common in the Mixteca on the eve of the Spanish conquest and persisted to the end of the Spanish colonial period in the early nineteenth century. In 1764, for example, Don Martin Villagbmez and his wife claimed thirty-one titles, including Acatlan and Petlacingo in southern Puebla, Tonall and Silacayoapan in the Baja of Oaxaca, Yanhuitlan, Tilantongo, and Teposcolula in the Alta, and Tututepec in the Costa (AGN Indios 48, exp. 155). In 1776, one of Don Martins sons held titles to eight kingdoms obtained through inheritance and marriage, and in 1804 Don Martins grandson, Martin Jod de Villagbmez Pimentel de la Cruz Guzmln, sought to verify possession of ten titles held jointly with his wife (AGN Tierras 400, exp. 1; AGN Tierras 985-986). Similar colonial period constellations were Tututepec-JamiItepec-JicayanMichoacan-Pinotepa-Zacatepec; Tamazulapan-Soyaltepec-Texupa-Cuilapan (of the Valley of Oaxaca); Achiutla-Tlaxiaco; and Yanhuitlan-Achiutla (Caso and Smith 1966; Caso 1966; Spores 1967:131 172). SOCIAL STRATIFICATION, SUCCESSION, AND MARITAL ALLIANCE Mixtec ruling families belonged to an extensive ruling caste that resided throughout the three major subareas. In every known instance of Prehispanic succession t o title, royal caste a s an absolute and invariable prerequisite (Spores 1967:131-154). This membership w

Spores]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

303

contrasts with marriage, descent, and succession rules in the Aztec (Carrasco 1971:369-370; Katz 1966; L6pez Austin 1961), Texcocan (Pomar 1941:24-29) and Tarascan (Relaci6n de Michoacdn 1956:224-230; L6pez Sarrelangue 1965:34-35) states where the caste principle, direct linear descent, and nearest direct descendent rules were not inflexible features of the requirement for succession to royal title. In these systems, titles might be conferred on sons of a former ruler and any one of several wives (even offspring of commoner or slave wives being eligible in some cases) or a nearest direct descendent son might be passed over in favor of a brother, nephew, or even an uncle of a ruler. In the Mixtec system, the successor t o a title had to be the nearest direct descendent, male or female, of a former ruler, and he had to be descended cognatically, legitimately, and in a direct line @or linea recta) from former rulers. Only the legitimate offspring of a royal caste father and a royal caste mother could claim title (AGN Tierras 29, exp. 1; Spores 1967 ~139-145). Plural royal caste marriage occurred but does not seem t o have complicated patterns of legitimacy, descent, and succession. A wifes kingdoms were maintained in the descent line of the female and her offspring and would not be transferable to the offspring of the primary wife or other secondary wives. Although it is not certain that such a procedure was observed in each case of plural marriage, no exceptions have been noted in the documentation. In early Spanish colonial times, a given male ruler was required to select for Catholic marriage one from among his plural wives and t o renounce claims to the rejected wives titles. This led to serious difficulties in succession cases and t o long and complex suits in the Spanish courts (e.g., AGN Civil 669, exp. 1). Royal titles could be vacated by death, incapacity, or abdication. When vacancies occurred, title reverted to the next closest direct lineal descendent with caste status. Transverse succession would occur only when a more direct descendent was unavailable. Regencies were instituted in the event of succession by a child. Royal genealogies, as well as historical and mythological events, were recorded in polychrome picture manuscripts (codices; Nuandeye or tonindeye). Several of these pictographic manuscripts, along with similar documents from early Spanish colonial times, have been preserved, and are utilized in the present study (e.g., Caso 1949; Caso 1952; Caso 1960a; Caso and Smith 1966; Codex Nuttall 1902; Jimbnez Moreno and Mateos Higuera 1940; Berlin 1947; Spores 1964). While male over female and older over younger do seem to have dominated in matters of succession, such factors as death, competency, parental choice, advantage t o be gained, and multiple title-holding influenced patterns of succession. The order of succession among children depended quite substantially on situational factors. Pragmatics rather than adherence to inflexible principle governed matters of succession and figured prominently in the formation of political alliances. A fixed residence rule w a s lacking, and alliance strategy called for deployment of children to the best and mutual advantage of the contracting parties. Making good marriages and insuring orderly and continuing succession to titles were primary concerns of Prehispanic rulers and their successors in Colonial times (AGN Civil 516; Spores 1967:148-149). The documentation repeatedly indicates that although proper marriage was required, titles were not jointly held by a royal couple but were held separately by husband and wife throughout the course of their marriage. But, and it is an important consideration, royal titles could be transmitted as an aggregate to a single heir, split among two or more heirs, or revert t o the principal lineage (tronco principal) for assignment to the individual most eligible to succeed. While primogeniture may have been the favored form of succession in some areas (AGN Civil 669, exp. l),this was by no means universal throughout the Mixteca (e.g., AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 400); second sons could inherit titles; daughters were eligible and could succeed even when they had male siblings (AGN Civil 516). When several

304

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

176,1974

kingdoms were involved, estates could be held together or split among several children. Despite this flexibility, there was a general tendency to favor males, most especially oldest males, over females in matters of succession. Order of succession was decided at the time of marriage through agreement of the two ruling families and with concurrence of other royalty and the nobility. The custom that has always been observed in succession to all o f the cacicazgos and seiiorios of the Mixteca is that when a cacique and a cacica possess cacicazgos and seiiorios between them, before they marry they consider and agree upon the method that will be observed in the succession to their cacicazgos and which children will be obliged to inherit them, and the said inheritance and cacicazgo will be as it has been agreed among them [AGN Civil 5161. Great care and planning went into royal marriages to ensure the most advantageous alliances and proper recognition by all actually or potentially affected individuals and groups. The perpetuation of the political system depended upon effective planning and execution of marriage contracts between equivalent social units, the individual ruling families. In reference to marriage, preexisting relationship of the marrying pair was not uniformly stressed. Consistent preferential patterns have not yet been ascertained. Royal caste males married cross-cousins, parallel cousins, aunts, nieces, sisters, half-sisters, and females who were unrelated or so distantly related that kinship was ignored or forgotten. Actually, in reviewing two hundred Prehispanic mamages, approximately 20% are found to have taken place among near kin (based on Dahlgren 1954: 149-150 and review of genealogical formulations provided in Caso 1960a). A sample of thirty royal marriages where relationship could be determined were as follows (male ego): 2 BD; 3 FBD; 4 FFBD; 2 MSD; 8 SD; 1 FSD; 1 FFSD; 4 MBD; 4 S; 1 half-sister. The most obvious tendency is the preference for sisters daughter marriage, which would tend to perpetuate alliances between two royal families and their respective patrimonies. Crucial considerations in arranging royal caste marriages were: (1) that the prospective mate belong to the royal caste; (2) that the prospective mate be a legitimate member of a recognized royal caste ruling family with an actual or potential claim to title; (3) that the offspring resulting from the marriage be eligible to succeed t o titles in their own right or to marry recipients of titles and produce offspring who were eligible to recieve, hold, and transmit titles; (4) that the marriage contribute to the wealth, stability, prestige, and persistence of the estates of the contracting families. Royal marriages frequently and ideally resulted in the joining of two or more kingdoms. This was obviously one of the primary objectives of royal marriage. A family that could draw on the productive resources of two kingdoms, often in complementary ecological niches, would be economically better off than a one-kingdom family and would be in a more advantageous position in terms of being provided with more flexible alternatives in succession and alliance strategies. As stated above, although a concept of cognatic lineage was utilized to recruit successors to royal titles and to substantiate legitimacy and right of succession, the lineage itself was not a significant corporate unit. Mixtec society placed far more emphasis on localized two- or three-generation families and alliances between royal families than on descent o r lineal organization for social, political, and economic action and ritual purposes. The significant corporate kinship units were the localized ruling families. Close kindred, FB, FS, MB, MS, Cousin, would be viewed not as lineage mates, but as potential affines: members (Le., holders or possible inheritors of titles) of the ruling families of specific, localized kingdoms, and hence potential marriage partners. Marital exchanges depended on the total configuration of the Mixtec ruling elite rather than on persisting dyads between

Spores 1

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

305

specified families or lineages. Marital arrangements were as flexible as alliance strategies and particular circumstances required. Once a ruling couple succeeded to titles aqd children were born, the quest for royal caste marriage partners was initiated. Over two hundred Prehispanic marriages can be observed in the pictographic manuscripts from the Mixteca, the so-called Mixtec Codices (Caso 1960b). An actual series of royal caste marriages can be observed for the kingdom of Tilantongo. In A.D. 1291 Lady 6 Water of Tilantongo married 4 Death of the kingdom of Observatory. They had five daughters who married males from Monkey, Yucuita, River of the Gold Bead, Mitlantongo, and Teozacoalco. The fifth daughter, 3 Rabbit, who married 9 House of Teozacoalco, mothered three daughters; they married the lords of Mouth-Drum, Xipe-Bundle, and Belching Mountain. In A.D. 1345 a marriage occurred between 2 Water, a male of Tilantongo and 3 Alligator, a female of Yanhuitlan, and they produced three sons and two daughters. The same 2 Water, ruler of Tilantongo, also married 2 Vulture of Monkey and 12 Flint of Fringes with Beads. 2 Water and 1 2 Flint produced three daughters and two sons; the three daughters married the lords of Monkey, Mouth Spiderweb, and of Human Head-Speaking Mouth; one of the sons, 6 Deer, born in A.D. 1357, established the Fourth Dynasty at Tilantongo and married 13 Wind of Belching Mountain. One of the male offspring of 6 Deer and 13 Wind named 4 Flower married 7 Vulture of Etlatongo and the second son married the heiress to titles at White Flowers, Stone with Eyes, and (Xipe Bundle. 4 Flower and his Etlatongo wife produced three males and three females who entered into marital alliances with White Flowers, Belching Mountain, (Yucuita, and Observatory. One of these children, 1 0 Rain, born in A.D. 1424, succeeded to the royal title at Tilantongo, and with his wife 5 Wind of White Flowers produced three sons, one called 4 Deer who was ruler of Tilantongo at the time of the Spanish Conquest, and 7 Reed who married 4 Alligator from Temple with Coyote Claws; the third son, 8 Death married 1 Flower of Yanhuitlan (living in 1533); 10 Rain and 5 Wind also had a daughter, born in 1466, who married 4 Serpent of Belching Mountain. The above are examples of the dozens of such royal caste marriages that can be found in the Mixtec Codices. Although these are crucial t o the study of Mixtec royal marriage and succession, the pictographic sources must be combined with conventional written documentation of the sixteenth century in order to grasp the particulars and the ramifications of the Mixtec social and political system as discussed elsewhere (Dahlgren 1954; Spores 1967). A fuller comprehension of salient features of the alliance system can perhaps be gained through an exemplary synthesis derived from conventional and pictographic documentation. First let us say that we are dealing with the ruling couple of the kingdom of Tiltepec who produced only a single offspring-a daughter. After prolonged negotiations through intermediaries (Herrera 1947, dec. 3, lib. 3, caps. 12-13; Spores 1965), a marriage was arranged between the daughter, heir to the Tiltepec title, and the heir apparent of Teposcolula and Tejupan, two well-established and wealthy kingdoms. The married rulers of Tiltepec and Teposcolula-Tejupan produced two sons. It was agreed at the time of marriage by the concerned families and attendant rulers and nobility that the manner of succession would be that the first offspring, male o r female, would inherit Teposcolula, the second offspring Tejupan, and the third would receive Tiltepec. But only two children were born, and it was determined (or predetermined, assuming that such contingencies were considered at the time of marriage) that the first born would receive Teposcolula and Tiltepec and that the second child, a son, would receive Tejupan. In the absence of a fixed residence rule and in conformity with established custom, bilocal residence was practiced in both Teposcolula and Tejupan, and as the time of transmission by succession approached, each child was established in residence in the capital center of his respective kingdom.

3 06

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

176,1974

The ruler of Teposcolula and Tiltepec was fortunate to marry a royal caste female of the large, prestigious, and ecologically diverse kingdom of Yanhuitlan; but the latter did not inherit a title in her own right. This couple gave birth t o eight children. The first son inherited Teposcolula, and the firstborn daughter received Tiltepec. The third child, a daughter, did not inherit title but was married to her cousin, who had received Tejupan from his father and Tamazulapan and Teotongo from his mother. Offspring 5 and 8, males, were sent by their brother to become noble administrators in the dependent hamlets of Yucuiiama and Yodzodeiie of Teposcolula. Child 4 (a male) was married to the heiress to the royal title at Etlatongo; child 6, a daughter, married a principal in the kingdom of Yanhuitlan; child 7, a male, became a principal advisor in his brothers court. And thus were alliances, assignments, appointments, and inheritances made in the Mixteca in ancient times.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The existence of an extensive corpus of pictographic and conventional documentation has made it possible to reconstruct certain aspects of native Mixtec kingdoms and forms of alliance and interrelationship. The operation and fuiiction of marital alliances observed in less complex societies (e-g., Leach 1954; Barth 1959; Needham 1971) has stimulated consideration of possibly comparable institutions in Mixtec society and has prompted analysis of the role of such structural arrangements as a means of creating, enlarging, and integrating political systems in relatively complex societies. In the case of the relatively low level of state organization observable in Mixtec kingdoms, elite marital alliance served not only t o perpetuate individual kingdoms but to link them into larger, but fissionable, cooperative-reciprocal political constellations. Such strategies and structural arrangements as have been described constituted the essential mechanisms for the operation, adaptation, and persistence of Mixtec kingdoms for at least five hundred years before the Spanish conquest and in gradually modified form to the end of the Spanish colonial period. Marital alliance figured prominently in the maintenance, perpetuation, and expansion of complex political institutions in this stratified multistate society spanning one of Mexicos most diversified geographical regions. Mixtec kingdoms were characterized by limited extension of authority, reliance on voluntary compliance with royal directives, dependence on reciprocal arrangements among ruling families for filial continuity of individual families and patrimonies, and a dependency on alliance formation through spouses, through offspring, and through the existence of latent, potential, negotiable partnerships. Although interkingdom warfare did exist, I believe it safe to postulate a significant positive correlation between intermarriage and political alliance at the time the marriages were contracted (in this regard, see Barth 1959:107). A complex administrative, economic, and war-making apparatus comparable to that of the Aztecs, Tarascans, or the Inca of Peru was not developed. When integrative expansion occurred beyond the marital alliance network (as in the case of the eleventh century imperialist 8 Deer, sixteenth century Tututepec, or fifteenth and sixteenth century external conquest by the Aztec confederacy) local political patterns and the royal caste marriage-succession-alliance complex continued t o function. Centralized systems were simply superimposed on the traditional system of localized corporate kingdoms. Potentialities for expansion, consolidation, and perpetuation were affected more by the choices made in formulation of rules for political succession and alliance than by environmental, technological, or demographic determinants. Looking elsewhere in Mesoamerica, it is clear that geographic and demographic fragmentation did not prevent the rise of an extensive and highly centralized tributary empire in Michoach (Relacion de Michoaccin 1956; Relaciones

Spores]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

307

Geogrdficas de Michoacdn 1958; Brand 1971; Chadwick 1971; Tamayo 1949; Vivo 1949). In the Mixteca, as in the Tarascan domain, social mechanisms could overcome the restrictive influences of the natural environment and provide not only for the internal integration of each community and each kingdom but, as well, for the linking of localized communities and kingdoms into even larger socio-economic configurations. The adaptable Mixtec system allowed a variety of alternative responses to socio-economic exigencies. In the absence of external threat, the system functioned flexibly but with consistent regularity. When a concerted attack did come, important kingdoms like Tlaxiaco, Yanhuitlan, Tamazulapan, and Coixtlahuaca proved easy prey for the Aztec imperialists, but the system did not collapse. The decentralized flexibility of the system allowed adaptation, but it discouraged enduring, centralized administrative hierarchies, long-range planning for development, organized defense, and extended control by force of arms. The inability of the various kingdoms to effectively combine their resources to ward off the Mexican armies in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries points up the instability of the alliance system for sustained or extended collective action and the lack of centralized power and authority. By contrast, the Tarascans, in a comparable environment, with similar patterns of settlement and technology, but with a centralized government, easily turned back Aztec armies attacking the eastern frontier. But, whereas the Tarascan state quickly fell when its central core was destroyed by the Spaniards, Mixtec kingdoms and their component communities persisted through both Aztec and Spanish colonial domination as largely self-governing but systemically interacting political entities. The system, although composed of integrated but mechanically opposable socio-economic units, was sufficiently adaptable to persist through major external conquest as the major focus of local power and authority and as a political bridge between communities and regions. Larger, highly centralized and urbanized states, while more visible, are not necessarily the most durable and adaptable of complex political systems. Aztec, Inca, (Rowe 1946; Murra 1958), and Tarascan states existed a relatively short time, and their centralized organization contributed substantially to their vulnerability and downfall at the hands of their technological and military superiors, the Spaniards, and provided the conquerors with a ready-made system of imperial control and exploitation. The Mixtec political system with its network of tiny states functioning separately but interdependently, was for the most part maintained by voluntary marital alliances and a flexible pattern of inheritance, and i t endured nearly a thousand years. And while the basic and primary political units were the individual kingdoms, the existence and protracted persistence of these states through time and space depended upon the configuration of macrostructural relationships that constituted the Mixtec political system.
NOTES Research for this paper has been supported by generous grants from the National Science Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Vanderbilt University Center for Latin American Studies, and Vanderbilt University Research Council. The author is indebted to Joanna Kaplan, France V. Scholes, Carlos Arostegui, Bruce Mayhew, Aubrey Williams, and Mary E. Smith for their contributions to this research and its published results. The content, structure, and relationship of twenty-one Prehispanic kingdoms have been examined and compared. Specifically, these are as follows. Mixteca A h : Yanhuitlan, Chachoapan, and Nochixtlan in the Nochixtlan Valley (AGI Escribanca de CBmara 162; AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 400, exp. 1; AGN Tierras 985-986; Tierras 3343, exp. 12; AGN General de Parte 1053; AGN Indios 6, 2a parte, exps. and 212; PNE IV, 206-216; Jimenez Moreno y Mateos Higuera 1940; Caso 1966; Spores 1967); Tejupan (AGN Tierras 34, exp. 1 ; PNE IV, 53-57)and Tamazulapan (AGN Civil 726, exp. 7 ) in the Tamazulapan Valley; Teposcolula in the Teposcolula Valley (AGN Tierras 24, exp. 6; AGN Tierras 34, exp. 1 ; AGN Tierras 1443, exp. 1 ) ; Tilantongo (Caso 1949; Caso 1952;

308

AMERICAN A N T H R O P O L O G I S T

[76,1974

Cam 1960; PNE IV, 72-73, 77-78; AGN Tierras 24, exp. 6; AGN Tierras 34, exp. 1; AGN General d e Parte 1, exps. 832 and 1047); Achiutla (AGN Tierras 400, exp. 1;AGN Indios 6, la parte, exp. 369), Tlazultepec (Spores 1964; AGN Tierras 59, exp. 2 ) ; Tlaxiaco (AGN Tierras 44; AGN Indios 1 , exp. 157; AGN Tierras 3030, exp. 6); Atoyaquillo (AGN Tierras 44); Tamazola (AGN Tierras 3343, exp. 12); Teozacoalco (Caso 1949); Tequecistepec (AGN Civil 726, exp. 7 ) ; Soyaltepec (AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 24, exp. 6; AGN General de Parte 1, f . 200v). Mixteca Baja : Mixtepec (RMEH 11, 142-146), Tecomastlahuaca (AGN Tierras 2692, exp. 16), Juxtlahuaca (RMEH 11, no. 5, 135-136), Putla (RMEH 11, no. 5, 135-136), and Cuyotepexi (AGN Civil 669, exp. 1). Mixteca d e la Costa: Tututepec (AGN Tierras 29, exp. 1 ; AGN Vinculos 272; Berlin 1947; Burgoa 1934, vol. 1 , 135; RMEH I, 114-120; PNE IV, 158, 232-251; Spores 1965). REFERENCES CITED

Documentary Sources
AGI (Archivo General d e Indias, Sevilla) Escribanfa de Cimara 162 1582-1584 Los Indios del pueblo d e Tecomatlan, Distrito de MBxico c o n el Governador, alcaldes, y comhn del de Yanhuitlan sobre q u e se declarase ser cabecera de por si, y no sujeto d e Yanhuitlan. AGN (Archivo General d e la Nacibn, MBxico) Civil 516 1580-1581 Diligencias para declarar a cacique d e Yanhuitlan a Don Gabriel de Guzmrin. AGN Civil 669, Exp. 1 1584 Pleito de Don Francisco de Mendoza c o n Don Juan d e Mendoza sobre el cacicazgo d e Coyotepec. AGN Civil 726, Exp. 7 1543-1547 Pleito del cacique d e Tamazulapan contra 10s principales, etc., d e Coixtlahuaca y Tequecistepeque. AGN General d e Parte Various documents. AGN Indios Various documents. AGN Mercedes Various documents. AGN Tierras 24, Exp. 6 1566-1569 Pleito d e Diego d e Mendoza, cacique d e Tamazulapa, sobre el cacicazgo de Teposcolula. AGN Tierras 29, Exp. 1 1559 Papeles de informaci6n sobre puestos del cacicazgo d e la costa (Tututepec). AGN Tierras 34, Exp. 1 1573-1581 Pleito de Gregorio d e Lara y Juan d e Zhiiiga sobre el cacicazgo de Tejupa. AGN Tierras 44 1580-1583 Autos q u e siguieron 10s indios d e Tlaxiaco d e la Mixteca Alta con 10s del pueblo de Atoyaquillo sobre estancias y tierras d e Acatlixco. AGN Tierras 59, Exp. 2 1597 Don Juan d e Guzmcin y Velasco sobre el cacicazgo d e Tlazultepec. AGN Tierras 400, Exp. 1 1567-1758 Tftulos y probanzas d e la descendencia d e Teresa de la Cruz y Francisco de Guzma'n, caciques d e 10s pueblos d e Yanhuitlan, San Francisco Jaltepetongo y San Pedro Aiiaiie. Martin Jose de Villag6mez, cacique de 10s pueblos d e Acatlan, Petlalcingo, Yanhuitlan, Silacayoapan, Jaltepetongo y Suchitepec, contra 10s naturales del pueblo de Yanhuitlan sobre propiedad d e tierras, etc. AGN Tierras 985-986 1567-1820 Los naturales del pueblo d e San Miguel Tecomatlan contra 10s del d e San Francisco Jaltepetongo y Martin Jose d e VillagBmez, cacique d e Yanhuitlan, sobre propriedad de tierras. AGN Tierras 2692, Exp. 16 1578 Tecomastlahuaca. Diligencias d e informaci6n sobre el patrimonio que pide Don Francisco de Arellano, cacique del pueblo d e Tecomastlahuaca.

Spores ]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

309

AGN Tierras 3030, Exp. 6 1573 Testamento d e Don Felipe de Saavedra, cacique de Tlaxiaco. AGN Tierras 3343, Exp. 12 1580-1581 Diligencias hechas por la justicia del pueblo de Yanhuitlan sobre el seiiorio y cacicazgo d e 10s pueblos d e Tamazola y Chachuapa en Don Pedro d e Velasco.

Published References
Adams, R. M. 1966 The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago: Aldine. Almond. G. A.. and G. B. Powell. Jr. 1966 Comparative Politics. A Development Approach. Boston: Little, Brown. Alvarado, Fray Francisco d e 1962 Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca. Wigberto Jimknez Moreno, Ed. MCxico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. (Original publication 1593.) Balandier, Georges 1972 Political Anthropology. Baltimore: Penguin Books. Barlow, R. H. 1949 The Extent of t h e Empire of t h e Culhua-Mexica. Ibero-Americana, No. 28. Barth, Fredrik 1959 Political Leadership among Swat Pathans. London School of Economics Monographs o n Social Anthropology, No. 19. Berlin; HI 1947 Fragmentos Desconocidos del C6dice de Yanhuitlan. Mexico: Antigua Libreria Robredo. Brand, D. D. 1971 Ethnohistoric Svnthesis of Western Mexico. I n Handbook of Middle American Indians. R. Wauchope, G. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol 11. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 632-656. Brandomin, Jose M. 1972 Monografia del Estado d e Oaxaca. Mexico: La Impresora Azteca. Burgoa, Fray Francisco d e 1934 Geogrlfica Descripcibn. Mexico: Archivo General d e la Nacibn. Carrasco, Pedro 1971 Social Organization of Ancient Mexico. I n Handbook of Middle American Indians. R. Wauchope, G. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol. 10. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 349-375. Caso, Alfonso 1949 El Mapa d e Teozacoalco. Cuadernos Americanos 5(5):145-181. 1952 ExDlicacidn del Reverso del Codex Vindobonensis. Memorias del Colegio Nacional 5 (5 ) :9-26. 1960a Interpretation of t h e Codex Bodley 2858. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologfa. 1960b The Historical Value of t h e Mixtec Codices. Boletin de Estudios Oxaquefios, No. 16. 1966 The Lords of Yanhuitlan. I n Ancient Oaxaca. J. Paddock, Ed. Stanford: Stanford University Press. pp. 313-335. Caso, Alfonso, and Mary E. Smith 1966 El C6dice Colombino. MBxico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia. Chadwick, Robert 1971 Archaeological Synthesis of Michoacln and Adjacent Regions. I n Handbook of Middle American Indians. R. Wauchope, G. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol. 11. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 632-656. Clark, J. C. 1912 The Story of Eight Deer in Codex Colombino. London: Taylor Co. Codex Nuttall 1902 Cambridge: - Peabody Museum of Harvard University. Dahlgren, B. 1954 La Mixteca: su Cultura e Historia Prehiswinica. MBxico: ImDrenta Universidad. Fallers, Lloyd A.

310

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST

[ 76,1974

1965 Bantu Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Flannery, K. V. 1968 The Olmec and t h e Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction in Formative Times. I n Dumbarton Oaks Conference o n t h e Olmec. Washington: Trustees f o r Harvard University. Flannery, K. V., M. Kirkby, A. Kirkby, and A. Williams 1967 Farming Systems and Political Growth in Ancient Oaxaca. Science 158:445-454. Fried, Morton 1967 The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House. Gibson, Charles 1952 Tlaxcala in t h e Sixteenth Cenlury. New Haven: Yale University. 1971 Structure of t h e Aztec Empire. I n Handbook of Middle American Indians, R. Wauchope, G. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol. 10. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 376-394. Herrera Y Tordesillas, Antonio d e 1947 Historia General de 10s Hechos d e 10s Castellanos en las Islas y Tierrafirme del Mar OcBano. Vols. 1-15. Madrid: Academia de la Historia. Jimdnez Moreno, W., Ed. 1962 Vocabulario e n Lengua Mixteca por Fray Francisco d e Alvarado. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Jimdnez Moreno, W., and Y. S. Mateos Higuera 1940 CBdice de Yanhuitlan. MPxico: Museo Nacional. Katz, F. 1966 Situaci6n Social y Econ6mica d e 10s Aztecas durante 10s Siglos XV y XVI. Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma d e Mexico. Kirkby, M. 1972 The Physical Environment of t h e Nochixtlan Valley. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology. -- No. 2 . Leach, E. 1954 Political Svstems of Highland Burma. Boston: Beacon Press. Lenski, G. 1967 Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill. L6pez Austin, Alfredo 1961 La Constituci6n Real d e MBxico-Tenochtitlan. Mexico : Universidad Nacional Autonoma d e Mexico. LBpez, Sarrelangue, D. 1965 La Nobleza Indigena d e Patzcuaro e n la Epoca Virreinal. MPxico: Universidad Nacional AutBnoma d e MPxico. Marcus, Joyce 1973 Territorial Organization of t h e Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180 :911-916. Moreno, M. M. 1931 La Organizaci6n Politica y Social de 10s Aztecas. MQxico: Universidad Nacional Autdnoma d e MBxico. Murra, J. V. 1958 On Inca Political Structure. In Systems of Political Control and Bureaucracy in Human Societies. V. F. Ray, Ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press. pp. 30-41. Needham, R. 1971 Introduction. I n Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. R. Needham, Ed. London: Tavistock Publications. pp. xiii-cxvii. Peiia, Moises T. d e la 1950 Problemas Sociales y Econ6micas de las Mixtecas. Memorias del Instituto Nacional Indigenista. Vol. 2, No. 1 . PNE (Papeles d e Nueva Espafia) 1905-1906 Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, Ed. Madrid: Sucesores d e Rivandeneyra. Pomar, Juan B. 1941 Relaci6n de Texcoco. Mdxico: Editorial Salvador Chivez Hayhoe. Prosko uria k o f f, T. 1960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates a t Piedras Negras, Guatemala. American Antiquity 25 :454-475. Rathje, W. L.
1

Spores]

MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE

311

1971 T h e Origin and Development of Lowland Classic Maya Civilization. American Antiquity 36 :275-285. Relaci6n d e las Ceremonias y Ritos Y Poblaci6n y Gobierno d e 10s Indios d e Michoaca'n 1956 Madrid: Apuilar. Relaciones Geograficas d e la Di6cesis d e Michoacrin, 1579-80 1958 Guadalajara. Vols. 1-2. RMEH (Revista Mexicana d e Estudios Historicos) 1927-1928 (Publication suspended 1929; resumed as Revista Mexicana d e Estudios Antropolbgicos in 1 9 3 9 . ) Rowe, J. H. 1946 Inca Culture a t t h e Time of t h e Spanish Conquest. I n Handbook of South American Indians. J. Steward, Ed. Vol. 2 . Washington: Bureau of American Ethnology. pp. 183-330. Sanders, W., and B. Price 1968 Mesoamerica. New York: Random House. Service, E. R. 1964 Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House. Smith, Mary E. 1963 The Codex Colombino. A Document of t h e South Coast of Oaxaca. Tlalocan 4( 3): 27 6-288. Soustelle, J. 1956 La Vida Cotidiana d e 10s Aztecas en Visperas d e la Conquista. MCxico: Fondo de Cultura Econbmica. Southall, A. 1965 A Critique of Typology of States and Political Systems. I n Political Systems and t h e Distribution of Power. M. Banton, Ed. London: Tavistock. p p . 113-140. Spores, Ronald 1964 The Genealogy of Tlazultepec: A Sixteenth Century Mixtec Manuscript. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 20:15-31. 1965 The Zapotec and Mixtec a t Spanish Contact. I n Handbook of Middle American Indians. R. Wauchope and G. Willey, Eds. Vol. 3 . Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 962-987. 1967 The Mixtec Kings and Their People. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1969 Settlement, Farming Technology, and Environment i n t h e Nochixtlan Valley. Science 166 :557-569. 1972 An Archaeological Settlement Survey of t h e Nochixtlan Valley, Oaxaca. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology, No. 1. Tamayo, J . 1949 Geografia General d e MCxico. Vols. 1-2. MBxico. Tourtellot, Gair, and Jeremy Sabloff 1972 Exchange Systems Among t h e Ancient Maya. American Antiquity 37 :126-135. Vivo, J . 1949 Geografia de MBxico. Mexico: F o n d o d e Cultura Econ6mica.