published various articles about it (CARRASCO 1964a; 1976). A partial edition ... He gives one çotl of tribute in textiles to the calpoleËqueË." (MS. 551, f.
Eike Hinz Land Use and Household Composition in Yauhtepec in the 16th Century Paper read at the International Congress of Americanists in Bogota, 1985 July 2. See References for the various editions.
My reconstruction is based upon the "Libro de tributos", a census of towns pertaining to Fernando Cortés. The census manuscript has been written in Náhuatl around 1540 and is kept in the Archivo Histórico, Museo Nacional de Antropología, México (Archivo Histórico (AH), Colección Antigua, MS 549-551). Identification of the towns mentioned in this part of the census as "estancias" of Yauhtepec is based upon the fact - as first noticed by CARRASCO - that the three "estancias" Molotla, Tepetenchic and Panchimalco are also listed in the litigation records of Yauhtepec against Cortés (Archivo General de la Naci6n (AGN), Ramo Hospital de Jesús, leg. 289, exp. 100). The census has been discovered by Pedro CARRASCO who has published various articles about it (CARRASCO 1964a; 1976). A partial edition in Náhuatl and German has been published by HINZ et al. (1983). In this paper I will outline a reconstruction of some dynamic processes, mostly on the basis of data for Tepetenchic. I would like to begin with some contextual considerations. First, the data obviously refer to rural "estancias" which in turn depend upon a central place, a "cabecera", probably Yauhtepec. These rural data should be compared with the Nahuatl summary of the population of Cuernavaca and the surrounding "estancias". Second, the data seem to refer to commoners rather than to nobles though the nobility is mentioned in the text. Third, demographic changes after the conquest should be taken into consideration. It is possible that more land was available at the time the census was taken, due to a higher rate of mortality.
1
1. Land tenure and political structure There are at least three categories of people mentioned who distributed land to other people. (a) One category of people is called calpoleˀqueˀ (either "heads" or "members of a calpolli"). This term is used only in the Molotla data: "This is their land, 40 units. The tlacatecpanecatl (the ward chief) has given them 20 units. Likewise, the capoleˀqueˀ have given them 20 units. Altogether, he has 40 units of irrigated land" (MS. 551, f. 31r; HINZ et al. 1983/I:109). This term is used in the census of Tepoztlan, too: "Here begins Tlacatecpan. It consists of 4 parts. They call themselves calpoleˀqueˀ" (MS. 550, f. 33r). Further data are discussed later. It seems that this group of calpoleˀqueˀ distributes land to people who are going to live in a certain calpolli. (b) Another category of people is called pipiltin (nobles): "This is his land, 20 units of irrigated land, 3 matl wide. The pipiltin (the nobles) have given it to him. Therefore, he only serves as a messenger in the calpixcan (tribute district)" (MS. 551, f. 25v; HINZ et al. 1983/I:86). Another example in which both nobles and members of a calpolli (calpoleˀqueˀ) are mentioned as land-giving authorities: "This is his land which the pipiltin (the nobles) have given to him, 30 units long, 10 matl wide. The tlayacanqui's milpa which he cultivates, is situated in another place. Moreover, the calpoleˀqueˀ have given him 10 matl also. Altogether 40 units. This is all his milpa. This is his tribute. He gives one çotl of tribute in textiles to the calpoleˀqueˀ." (MS. 551, f. 30r; HINZ et al. 1983/I:100). It seems that the pipiltin (nobles) give land to persons who serve in lower administrative positions: such as tlayacanqui (workers' headman); tequitlaˀtoˀ (tribute inspector); low-level calpixqui (perhaps guardian of the tribute magazine). 2
(c) A third category consists of individuals who give part of their land to other individuals: for example ward chiefs who hold the title of tecutli (the persons depending upon the ward chief are called itech pouhqueˀ = "who pertain to him"; this term may be an equivalent to the term mayeˀqueˀ known from other sources of the Marquesado). Moreover individual commoners (called "tributaries", tequitqueˀ) may give land to other commoners who in turn help these tributaries in producing the tribute (they are called tetequinanamicqueˀ). 2. Some dynamic processes of household composition Let us now turn to the elementary unit, to the household or domestic group. The census gives us a static structural snapshot of social and economical micro-patterns which are difficult to convert into dynamic processes. As a first dynamic process, I will consider the transmission of the household head's position. Kinship relations within the domestic group are so complicated that any reconstruction in terms of a linear decision-making process must remain speculative. Methodically, information on kinship relations, duration of a couple's marriage and the age of children as well as the amount of time passed since the death of one of the partners is to be taken into consideration. A basic decision seems to be required by a widow: to keep up an independent household or to join the household of a close relative; the decision seems to depend upon the other surviving members of the household. If the head of a household dies, his married son will succeed, the elder married son precedes the younger married sons; if there is only a married daughter, the son-in-law will succeed. If there is no married child, the widow will become head of the household. Because of the high number of married nephews it is conceivable that the married brother of the dead household head might be considered first as successor. 3
Let us consider the choice of residence after marriage and the foundation of new households. In Tepetenchic 104 couples have their own households (vs. 88 couples who live in other persons' households). Two passages seem to be revealing: a) the information that a certain person received his own land (and, correspondingly, formed his own household) when he married; b) the information that a son is still living with his father and has no land of his own though he is already married. In conjunction with the statistical data this seems to point to an ideal rule: a married couple should have land of its own and should form an independent household which pays tribute. Deviations from the ideal might be explained in terms of kinship solidarity and, especially, in terms of economic optimization (in general, if you don't have your own land, you need not pay your own tribute). It should be kept in mind that this analysis is based upon the assumption supported by the census that there was enough land available for distribution to recently married couples. Let me summarize the inferences on the process of post-nuptial residence selection. 1) A couple's residence could have been neolocal, patrivirilocal (in the husband's father's house) or patriuxorilocal (in the wife's father's house). 2) In the majority of the census, choice of residence has been neolocal or patrivirilocal. 3) The choice of patriuxorilocal residence seems to have been determined by economic factors, for example, if the household head had died and the son-in-law would succeed as household head. 4) It seems that married nephews or nieces left their uncle's household as soon as the uncle's son succeeded as head of the household. The very low number of cousins suggests such a break-off point. 4
3. Land use and tribute Let us now consider the interrelationship between land use and tribute. The following information in the census is relevant: a) Land has been given to somebody recently; he will have to pay tribute in the years to come. b) A person has just planted corn for the first time; from now on he has to pay tribute. c) A woman who had become a widow ceased to pay tribute; again, she will receive land in the near future and from that time on she will have to pay tribute (MS. 551, f. 10v; HINZ et al. 1983:1:35). All these data suggest a direct relationship between utilized land and payment of tribute: if you have your own land you have to pay your own tribute. The land-utilizing and tribute-paying unit was the couple. The tribute was produced on the basis of sexual division of labor: textiles and services within the house were produced and given by women; crops and services outside of the house were produced and given by men. While there seems to be a general relationship between the amount of land used and tribute in textiles, principles for the payment of tribute in food are difficult to discover. Two features are difficult to explain: 1) The large number of internal divisions of land (in this case people are working together - this means, they don't produce their tribute separately; this could have been an advantage). 2) The amount of land utilized by different households varies considerably. No correlations for the Tepetenchic data between the amount of land utilized by different households and (1) the number of persons in a household or (2) the number of couples in a household or (3) the number of adults in a household could be detected. Social statuses as suggested 5
by Aztec titles or offices are significant in the following sense: They are not sufficient characteristics for holding an unusual amount of land but there is some degree of correlation to be noted (they are almost necessary features). Ethnic background is definitely another source of unequality in terms of land distribution: Matlameˀ (or Matlatzincaˀ) households do have significantly smaller plots of land, whereas Mexiˀcaˀ from Tenochtitlan who came two or three generations ago often have larger plots. There seems to be some connection with the external power structure of the Aztec empire, i. e. these people served in the administrative bureaucracy and continued to do so around 1540. Another factor might be that plots are unequal because of geographical factors. It is a completely open question whether internal divisions of land within a household might have become independent units in the past and might have been preserved as such. 4. Conclusion There is a direct relationship between married couple - separate household and separate plot of land - separate tribute. This relationship seems to me to be the key of an integrated description of the dynamic processes considered in this paper. The more land that is available to a commoner household, the more labor that is required to produce tribute, but also the more economic surplus is yielded. It is possible that we can conceptualize decisions to be made as a task of optimizing the variables "amount of land", "amount of tribute" (and labor required), "surplus" and "amount of labor force in the household" . Only in very few specific cases do households hold more than two plots of the same category (irrigated or non-irrigated / piedmont land). The exceptions are explained in terms of additional duties (of administrative work). This might indicate that no accumulative inheri6
tance of land was possible; rather, land was distributed and redistributed by the local central organization, the calpolli or its representatives. References Libro de Tributo. Museo Nacional de Antropología, México, Archivo Histórico (AH), Colección Antigua, MS 549-551. Litigation records of Yauhtepec against Cortés. Archivo General de la Nación (AGN), México, Ramo Hospital de Jesús, leg. 289, exp. 100). CARRASCO, PEDRO (1964a): Family structure of sixteenth century Tepoztlan (in: MANNERS, R.A. [Ed.]: Process and pattern in culture. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964:185-210); CARRASCO, PEDRO (1976); The joint family in ancient Mexico: The case of Molotla (in: NUTINI, P. / CARRASCO, P. / TAGGART, J. [Eds.]: Essays in Mexican kinship. Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1976:45-64. HINZ, EIKE, et al.: Aztekischer Zensus. Zur indianischen Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft im Marquesado um 1540 (2 vol.). Hannover, Verlag für Ethnologie, 1983/I: Molotla, II: Tepetenchic. HINZ, EIKE (1985): Land use and household composition in Yauhtepec in the 16th century (Ms.). 1st edition in: ILLIUS, B. / LAUBSCHER, M., Ed.s. (1991): Circumpacifica. Festschrift für Thomas S. Barthel. Frankfurt, Peter Lang, vol 1:233-237. 2nd edition in: Eike Hinz (2002): Mesoamerikanistik als Sozialwissenschaft. Hamburg, Wayasbah, p 89-95. 3rd edition: Research Gate 2017. Archival note: As my 2 copies of Karttunen’s An Analytical Dictionary of Náhuatl (1983) had been stolen from my library in Hamburg I was unable to check the vowel length in Náhuatl words.
7
