spores marital alliances

8/12/2019 Spores Marital Alliances

1/15

Marital Alliance in the Political Integrationof Mixtec KingdomsRONALD SPORES

V ander bil t University

Analys i s o f pic tographic and convent ional documen ta t ion f r om Prehi spanic andColonial t imes reveals mechanisms of success ion and al l iance operat ive in thefor ma t ion , expans ion , and in tegra t ion o f M i x t ec k i n g d o m s . I t is sugges ted thatmari tal al l iance be consid ered, along wi th other coercive and voluntar is t ic force s , int h e d yn a m i cs of s ta te for ma t ion and dev e lo pm en t . Ro ya l mar ita l a l liances wereexceed ingly impor tan t no t on ly in the main tenance o f ind iv idual Mix tec mini -s ta tes or kingdoms , bu t a l so in the crea t ion o f a soc ia l , po l i ti ca l , and econo micnetwork tha t l inked numerous com mun i t i es and po l i t i ca l dom ains in to a broadsocial f ield br idging varied geographical zone s ranging fr o m tropical lowla nds t ohighland valleys.

STUDIES O F ANCIENT Mesoamerican political systems have been few in number andhave tended to focus on the impressive Aztec state as it existed at the time of the Spanishconquest in 1519-1520 e.g., Moreno 1931; Barlow 1949; Soustelle 1956; L6pez Austin1961; Katz 1966; Adams 1966; Gibson 1971; Carrasco 1971). Consideration of Prehispanicgovernment and politics in other Mesoamerican societies has been limited in scope orembedded in more general or Prehispanic-to-Colonial culture change studies Roys 1943;Gibson 1952; Dahlgren 1954; L6pez Sarrelange 1965; Spores 1967). Despite the existence ofextensive documentation for the Contact period, analysis of ancient Mesoamerican politicalform, function, or process by ethnologists or ethnohistorians has been rare. Interestingly,archaeologists have shown less reluctance to consider Prehispanic political organization andpatterns of socio-economic interaction than have ethnohistorians e.g., Proskouriakoff 1960;Sanders and Price 1968; Flannery et al. 1967; Flannery 1968; Rathje 1971; Tourtellot andSabloff 1972; Marcus 1973). Although immensely stimulating of anthropological insights,propositions tend to derive from limited Mesoamerican archaeological data and processualmodels based on non-Mesoamerican ethnographic data. While such procedures have gainedwide acceptance, it does not necessarily follow that there are no alternative, and perhapsbetter, models and bases for explanation derivable from the Mesoamerican tradition itself.But archaeologists alone cannot be blamed for a failure to appreciate and to fully utilizedirect ethnohistorical data relating to the Contact period. The same can be said for generaland comparative ethnological studies of politics e.g., Almond and Powell 1966; Fried 1967;Lenski 1967; Southall 1965; Balandier 1972) that fail to consider the range of Mesoamericanpolitical experience. The burden of responsibility must rest with the ethnohistorianscompetent in the anthropological uses of documentary sources for their failure to provideappropriately documented descriptions of complex political systems as they existed inprotohistoric or early historic times. Such studies relevant to Mesoamerica have been slow toSubmitted for publication December 12, 1973.Accepted for publication January 4. 1974.

297


2/15

298 M E R I C N ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,1974come forth, and the eagerness to employ better delineated African, Polynesian, andSoutheast Asian models or overly generalized Aztec or Maya models, or no consciousethnographic or systemic model at all, is understandable if not always laudable or desirable.Ethnohistorians could furnish more adequate description and comparison of Mesoamericanpolitical systems. This would provide substance for testable hypotheses and inferential basesfor consideration of the origins, structure, and interrelationships of Prehispanic politicalinstitutions.When the Spaniards amved in Mexico in 1519-1520, the largest and most complex statesin 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 westernMexico. Between them, these two conquest states controlled an area extending from theGulf to the Pacific and from Jalisco and northern Veracruz in the north, t o Tabasco andChiapas in the south. Much is known of the Aztec state, but little has been written of theTarascans and their comparatively rigidly controlled political domain. But there were otherwell-established polities in the Valley of Mexico, Tlaxcala-Puebla, the Gulf Coast, the Mayadomain, and in Oaxaca and Guerrero. Some remained free of domination by either theAztecs or Tarascans, but others at one time or another were subordinated and subject totributary demands. The present article deals with a constellation of small but expandableand 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 westernOaxaca known as the Mixteca. These little polities were socio-economically interactive andwere politically integrated by a pattern of marriage among ruling elite families. Maritalalliance was a customary and persistent form of political integration even in cases of militaryconquest when such acquisitions were ordinarily validated by marriage between royalfamilies. Marriage between status-equal ruling caste families was a principal integrativemechanism in the Mixtec political system; it vectored the flow of goods and services, andfacilitated social interact ion between communities, states, and regions; and, coupled withflexible but regularized patterns of succession and inheritance, it ensured institutional andpatrimonial continuity and provided a distinctive adaptational response to diverseenvironmental and cultural conditions.

THE THREE MIXTECAS AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONSThe 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 borderapproximately 15 0 kilometers to t he east. It is composed of three subareas-the Alta, Baja,and Costa-which contrast in climate, altitude, and resources but which are comparable intheir 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, moderatelywell-watered upland zone, with altitudes ranging from 2000 to 3000 meters. Temporalagriculture dominated the ancient agricultural complex, but slash-and-burn procedures andterracing were practiced in some areas. Supplementary collecting of wild plants and gamewas important in the Alta and throughout the Mixteca. Corn, beans, and squash were themain cultigens; some chile and avocados were raised, and nopal cactus, maguey, zapotes, andguaje-pod trees were tended. Important natural resources included obsidian from theTlaxiaco-Achiutla-Teposcolula rea, chert from the Chachoapan-Yanhuitlan-Coyotepec rea,mica from the Zachio area, gold from Tlaxiaco and Pefioles, salt from Ixtapa-Teposcolula,


3/15

Spores ] M I XT E C M A R I T A L A L L I A N C E 99and basalt, good potters clays, animal hides, and forest products from various areas.Cochineal production was widespread. All areas of the Mixteca produced deer, small gamebirds, edible rodents, insects, and reptiles in apparent abundance. Sett lement wascharacterized by concentrated centers and satellites in the valleys and small looselynucleated clusters in the more mountainous and fragmented areas. Population wasmoderately dense in the broader valleys (an estimated 50,000 in some twenty settlements inthe Nochixtlan Valley) and relatively sparse in the more rugged areas (Spores 1969).

O i x a c a

MIXTECA C O S T A 50 km.

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


4/15

300 AM E RIGAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,1974The 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 importantCosta 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 indicationsare that settlements were smaller and more dispersed and that population density was lowerin the former two subareas.

While the geographical conformation of the Mixteca tended to limit the extension ofagriculture, i t also served to limit the size of population clusters and impeded social, and,obviously, verbal communication. This is reflected in modern as well as ancient times byconsiderable dialectical diversity (Jim6nez Moreno 1962:40-54), pronounced communityendogamy within the common class (Spores 1967:ll-12, 235-236), and the tendency forconsumers to depend largely on locally produced commodities. Intercommunity andinterregional 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 toanother for redistribution. There was no class of merchants similar t o the AztecPochtecameh. In fact, while there was regional and community specialization in resourceproduction and in craft, there is no suggestion in either the documentation or in thearchaeological remains that there was full-time occupational specialization. Although basicsubsistence 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 fo r Alta cochineal dye and probablysuch minerals as obsidian, chert, gold, and mica. Salt was produced (at Ixtapa deTeposcolula) and distributed in the Alta but apparently in insufficient quantities toovercome the necessity for importation from the Costa. Fish and shellfish also moved fromthe Costa to the Alta and Baja.

THE MIXTEC POLITICAL SYSTEMhtixtec kingdoms (Spanish singular: cacicazgo;Mixtec singular: s u y y a or sutonirie yya)

were states with formally defined, hierarchically arranged political offices in which statuspositions were monopolized by (1) a supreme authority figure, the king cacique, seiiornatural ; yya , yya canu, or y y a t o n if i e ) or queen cac ica; y y a d z e h e ) who derived titles byhereditary succession; and (2) a lower-ranking hereditary nobility (noble: principal; toho)which interacted personally, directly, and regularly with the ruler. The king and/or queenand the nobility controlled positions o f power and authority, the lands and resources of thekingdom, the major means of production and distribution, formal ceremonial institutions,and had the right to extract tribute t r i b u t o ; daha) and personal services from subjectpopulations sujetos; tay ~ U U uyndahi , iiandahi . In return, subject peoples couLd expectprotection, representation in external affairs, ceremonial sponsorship, usufruct title toagricultural and collecting lands of the kingdom, and access t o externally producedsubsistence 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 p u e b l o and i t s hamletsrecognized, obeyed, served, and respected their caciques and seiiores in every way andprovided personal services, working the fields for the sustenance of their households, andthey paid in tribute a great quantity of clothing, precious stones, and plumes ofGuatemala and turkey feathers. Finally, they were given all that they requested, and theywere obeyed in all that they commanded as sei iores absolutos of the said p u e b l o and itsprovince until the arrival of the Spaniards [AGN Civil 5161.


5/15

Spores ] MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE 301Once title had been assumed, the ruler of a Mixtec kingdom was entitled to: 1 ) tributeand services from his subjects; 2 ) specified lands normally the most productive of thekingdom) and their proceeds; 3) the support of a nobility which advised, administered theroyal patrimony and domain, enforced royal orders, and saw to tribute collection andperformance of services; 4) he respect, admiration, and obedience of the supportingnobility 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 certaincommodities prominent in the local or regional commercial network; and 7) the right t o callup 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 troublecases involving commoners which had been adjudicated in the first instance by members ofthe 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 orforegathered at the royal household. Finally, it was the ruler who represented the kingdomin 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, atwhich time these passed to an heir through appropriate mechanisms of succession.Mixtec kingdoms were socially stratified, so that members of the same sex and equivalentage status did not necessarily have equal access to the basic resources that sustain life Fried1967:186) . Native political communities consisted of complementary social segmentswith differential norms and forms of behavior, social interaction, mutual relationship, andrelationship to the total environment. As is generally the case in kingdoms, there was a cleardifferentiation between those who rule and those who are ruled. There were three majorsocial strata: royalty, nobility, and the plebian or common class plebian: maceha ul; iiandahit ay riuu); in at least some kingdoms there existed a fourth grouping of bonded serfsterrazguero; mayeque; t ay s i tundayu) . This was a strongly class-conscious societycharacterized by explicitly recognized social strata that were endogamous and highlyformalized and structured in their interrelationships. Beyond domestic family units,considerations of social status consistently overrode kinship. Social, political, and economicbehavior and interaction were highly correlated with social status.While cognatic descent reckoning was of extreme importance in the Mixteca, royallineages or ramages did not exist as significant corporate units. Ruling families fixed theirattention and allegiances on the localized family, their royal patrimonies and their subjectcommunities, not on their extended kinship groupings. The divergence of means and goalsbetween state and kin group and the resulting stresses and unstabilizing influences perceivedin 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 fromthe 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 inadministrative and service capacities. The ruler of Tilantongo, for example, is said to havegoverned his extensive kingdom through four councilors, one of whom was designated chiefcouncilor PNE IV :73-74) . The delegation of authority was direct from ruler toadministrator or specialists. The graduated and extended delegation of authority characteris-tic of bureaucratic structures in most s tate systems was absent or only very minimallydeveloped.Mixtec kingdoms were limited in physical extent and population, and, although sociallystratified, they were neither urban nor occupationally specialized. Kingdoms would be


6/15

3 2 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76 1974maintained without a com plex administrat ive hierarchy an d withou t standing armies forpolicing or war-making. Individual Mixtec kingdoms were potentially expandable in theircapacity for political acquisition, fusion, and integration but only to the point where suchpolities could be controlled through the existing political structure with its direct lines ofauthority. Mixtec kingdoms were normally confined to an area that could be traversed in aday; most, in fact, consisted of three to four set t lements an d a total land area of n o m orethan thi r ty to fifty square kilometers. The kingdoms of Tiltepec, Etlatongo, Chachoapan,Soyaltepec, and Tejupan were of these general dimensions, The kingdom of Yanhuit lan, onthe other han d, contained f if teen to tw enty se t t lements depending o n the time frame) andcontrolled an estimated 500 square ki lometers at the t ime of the Spanish con quest . Thekingdoms of Tep oscolula, Coixtlahu aca, Tam azulapa n, an d Tilantongo were extensive but, atthe Spanish conquest at least, were somewhat smaller, poorer, and ecologically lessdiversified than Yanhuitlan. While Tlaxiaco may have been even larger in size thanYanhuitlan, the lan ds controlled b y the Tlaxiaco rulers were far less produc tive agriculturallythan those of Yanhuit lan.While kingdoms could expand through colonization, annexation, or conquest, they couldalso contract through revolution and fissioning of subject comm unit ies which in t ime could,through a com plex process, emerge as new kingdoms in their ow n right.

The linking of discrete kingdoms under the aggregated lead ership of a ruling coupleinheriting separately and each in his ow n right was a more characteristic for m ofexpansion than was con que st warfare. As early as th e eleventh centu ry, the ruler 8 Deer ofTilantongo held or controlled no less than six titles through inheritance, multiple maritalalliance, and m ilitary conq uest Caso 1960a:38-42;Caso 1966; Smith 1963; Caso and Sm ith1966; Clark 1912; Dahlgren 1954). 8 Deers kingdoms extended from the Pacific coast tonorthern Oaxaca and included Tutu tepec , largest and most important of the Costakingdoms, and Tilantongo, perhaps most impo rtant of the eleventh ce ntury Alta kingdoms.Other Prehispanic family-held constellations included Tilantongo-Teposcolula-Yanhuitlan,llextensive and incorporat ing num erous m icro-environments in the Mixteca Alta; Tamazola ofthe intermediate Alta and Yanhuit lan and Chachoapan of the high Alta; Tilantongo of thehigh Alta and Teozacoalco of the low Alta; Achiut la of the intermed iate Alta an d Tlaxiacoof the high Alta; Tilantongo-Etlatongo-Yucuita Caso 1949; Caso 1960a; Caso and Smith1966; Spores 1967:131-139). Such aggregates were common in the Mixteca on the eve ofthe Spanish conquest and persisted to t he end of the Spanish colonial period in the earlynineteenth century. In 1764, for example, Don Martin Villagbmez and his wife claimedthirty-o ne titles, including A catlan an d Petlacingo in southe rn Puebla, Ton al l an dSilacayoapan in th e Baja of Oaxaca, Yanhu itlan, Tilantong o, an d Teposcolula in the Alta,and Tututepec in the Costa AGN Indios 48, exp. 155). In 1776, o n e of Don Martins sonsheld titles to eight kingdoms obtained through inheritance and marriage, and in 1804 DonMartins grandson, Martin Jod de Villagbmez Pimentel de la Cruz Guz ml n, sought to verifypossession of te n titles held jo intl y with his wife AGN Tierras 400, exp. 1; AGN Tierras985-986). Similar colonial period constellations were Tututepec-JamiItepec-Jicayan-Michoacan-Pinotepa-Zacatepec; Tamazulapan-Soyaltepec-Texupa-Cuilapanof the Valley ofOaxaca); Achiutla-Tlaxiaco; and Yanhuitlan-Achiutla (Caso and Smith 1966; Caso 1966;Spores 1967:131 172).

SOCIAL STRATIFICA TION, SUCCESSION, AND MA RITAL ALLIANCEMixtec ruling families belonged to an extensive ruling caste that resided throughout thethree m ajor subareas. In every k now n instance of Prehispanic succession to title, royal castemembership was an absolute and invariable prerequ isite Spores 1967:131-154). This


7/15

Spores] MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE 3 0 3contrasts with marriage, descent, and succession rules in the Aztec Carrasco1971:369-370;Katz 1966; L6pez Austin 1961), Texcocan Pomar 1941:24-29) and Tarascan Relaci6n deMichoacdn 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 therequirement for succession to royal title. In these systems, titles might be conferred on sonsof a former ruler and any one of several wives even offspring of commoner or slave wivesbeing eligible in some cases) or a nearest direct descendent son might be passed over in favorof 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, andin a direct line @or linea recta) from former rulers. Only the legitimate offspring of aroyal caste father and a royal caste mother could claim title AGN Tierras 29, exp. 1; Spores

Plural royal caste marriage occurred but does not seem to have complicated patterns oflegitimacy, descent, and succession. A wifes kingdoms were maintained in the descent lineof the female and her offspring and would not be transferable to the offspring of theprimary wife or other secondary wives. Although it is not certain that such a procedure wasobserved in each case of plural marriage, no exceptions have been noted in thedocumentation. In early Spanish colonial times, a given male ruler was required to select forCatholic marriage one from among his plural wives and to renounce claims to the rejectedwives titles. This led to serious difficulties in succession cases and t o long and complex suitsin the Spanish courts e.g., AGN Civil 669, exp. 1).Royal titles could be vacated by death, incapacity, or abdication. When vacanciesoccurred, 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 ashistorical and mythological events, were recorded in polychrome picture manuscriptscod ices; Nuandeye or ton indeye) . Several of these pictographic manuscripts, along withsimilar documents from early Spanish colonial times, have been preserved, and are utilized inthe present study e.g., Caso 1949; Caso 1952; Caso 1960a; Caso and Smith 1966; CodexNuttall 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 ofsuccession, such factors as death, competency, parental choice, advantage to be gained, andmultiple title-holding influenced patterns of succession. The order of succession amongchildren depended quite substantially on situational factors. Pragmatics rather thanadherence to inflexible principle governed matters of succession and figured prominently inthe formation of political alliances. A fixed residence rulewas lacking, and alliance strategycalled for deployment of children to the best and mutual advantage of the contractingparties. Making good marriages and insuring orderly and continuing succession to titleswere primary concerns of Prehispanic rulers and their successors in Colonial times AGNCivil 516; Spores 1967:148-149).The documentation repeatedly indicates tha t although proper marriage was required,titles were not jo intly held by a royal couple but were held separately by husband and wifethroughout the course of their marriage. But, and it is an important consideration, royaltitles could be transmitted as an aggregate to a single heir, split among two or more heirs, orrevert t o the principal lineage tronco principal) for assignment to the individual mosteligible to succeed. While primogeniture may have been the favored form of succession insome areas AGN Civil 669, exp. l , his was by no means universal throughout the Mixtecae.g., AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 400); second sons could inherit titles; daughters wereeligible and could succeed even when they had male siblings AGN Civil516). When several

1967 ~139-145).


8/15

3 4 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 176,1974kingdoms 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 oldestmales, over females in matters of succession.

Order of succession was decided at the time of marriage through agreement of the tworuling 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 andseiiorios of the Mixteca is that when a cac iqu e and a cacica possess cacicazgos andseiiorios between them, before they marry they consider and agree upon the method thatwill be observed in the succession to their cacicazgos and which children will be obligedto inherit them, and the said inheritance and cac i cazgo will be as it has been agreedamong them [ AGN Civil 5161.Great care and planning went into royal marriages to ensure the most advantageous alliancesand proper recognition by all actually or potentially affected individuals and groups. Theperpetuation of the political system depended upon effective planning and execution ofmarriage contracts between equivalent social units, t he individual ruling families.

In reference to marriage, preexisting relationship of the marrying pair was not uniformlystressed. Consistent preferential patterns have not yet been ascertained. Royal caste malesmarried cross-cousins, parallel cousins, aunts, nieces, sisters, half-sisters, and females whowere unrelated or so distantly related that kinship was ignored or forgotten. Actually, inreviewing two hundred Prehispanic mamages, approximately 20 are found to have takenplace among near kin (based on Dahlgren 1954: 149-150 and review of genealogicalformulations provided in Caso 1960a). A sample of thirty royal marriages where relationshipcould be determined were as follows (male ego): 2 BD; 3 FBD; 4 FFBD; MSD; 8 SD; 1FSD; 1 FFSD; 4 MBD; 4 S; 1 half-sister. The most obvious tendency is the preference forsisters daughter marriage, which would tend t o perpetuate alliances between two royalfamilies and their respective patrimonies.

Crucial considerations in arranging royal caste marriages were: (1) that the prospectivemate belong to the royal caste; (2) that the prospective mate be a legitimate member of arecognized royal caste ruling family with an actual or potent ial claim to title; 3) that theoffspring resulting f rom the marriage be eligible to succeed to titles in their own right or tomarry recipients of titles and produce offspring who were eligible to recieve, hold, andtransmit titles; 4) that the marriage contribute to the wealth, stability, prestige, andpersistence of the estates of the contracting families.

Royal marriages frequently and ideally resulted in the joining of t w o or more kingdoms.This was obviously one of the primary objectives of royal marriage. A family that coulddraw on the productive resources of two kingdoms, often in complementary ecologicalniches, would be economically better off than a one-kingdom family and would be in amore advantageous position in terms of being provided with more flexible alternatives insuccession and alliance strategies.

As stated above, although a concept of cognatic lineage was utilized to recruitsuccessors t o royal titles and to substantiate legitimacy and right of succession, the lineageitself was not a significant corporate unit. Mixtec society placed far more emphasis onlocalized two- or three-generation families and alliances between royal families than ondescent or 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 inheri tors of titles) of the ruling families of specific,localized kingdoms, and hence potential marriage partners. Marital exchanges depended onthe total configuration of the Mixtec ruling elite rather than on persisting dyads between


9/15

Spores M I X T E C MARITAL A L L I A N C E 305specified families or lineages. Marital arrangements were as flexible as alliance strategies andparticular circumstances required.

Once a ruling couple succeeded to titles aqd children were born, the quest for royal castemarriage partners was initiated. Over two hundred Prehispanic marriages can be observed inthe 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. InA.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 GoldBead, Mitlantongo, and Teozacoalco. The fifth daughter, 3 Rabbit, who married 9 House ofTeozacoalco, mothered three daughters; they married the lords of Mouth-Drum,Xipe-Bundle, and Belching Mountain. In A.D. 1345 a marriage occurred between 2Water, a male of Tilantongo and 3 Alligator, a female of Yanhuitlan, and they producedthree sons and two daughters. The same 2 Water, ruler of Tilantongo, also married 2 Vultureof Monkey and 12 Flint of Fringes with Beads. 2 Water and 1 2 Flint produced threedaughters and two sons; the three daughters married the lords of Monkey, MouthSpiderweb, 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 BelchingMountain. One of the male offspring of 6 Deer and 13 Wind named 4 Flower married 7Vulture 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 threemales and three females who entered into marital alliances with White Flowers, BelchingMountain, (Yucuita, and Observatory. One of these children, 10 Rain, born in A.D.1424, succeeded to the royal title at Tilantongo, and with his wife 5 Wind of WhiteFlowers produced three sons, one called 4 Deer who was ruler of Tilantongo at the time ofthe Spanish Conquest, and 7 Reed who married 4 Alligator from Temple with CoyoteClaws; the third son, 8 Death married 1 Flower of Yanhuitlan (living in 1533); 10 Rain and5 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 inthe Mixtec Codices. Although these are crucial to the study of Mixtec royal marriage andsuccession, the pictographic sources must be combined with conventional written docu-mentation of the sixteenth century in order to grasp the particulars and the ramifications ofthe 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 gainedthrough 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 whoproduced only a single offspring-a daughter. After prolonged negotiations throughintermediaries (Herrera 1947, dec. 3, lib. 3, caps. 12-13; Spores 1965), a marriage wasarranged between the daughter, heir to the Tiltepec title, and the heir apparent ofTeposcolula and Tejupan, two well-established and wealthy kingdoms.

The married rulers of Tiltepec and Teposcolula-Tejupan produced t w o sons. I t was agreedat the time of marriage by the concerned families and attendant rulers and nobility that themanner of succession would be that the first offspring, male or female, would inheritTeposcolula, the second offspring Tejupan, and the third would receive Tiltepec. But onlytwo children were born, and i t was determined ( or predetermined, assuming that suchcontingencies were considered at the time of marriage) that the first born would receiveTeposcolula and Tiltepec and that the second child, a son, would receive Tejupan. In theabsence of a fixed residence rule and in conformity with established custom, bilocalresidence was practiced in both Teposcolula and Tejupan, and as the time of transmission b ysuccession approached, each child was established in residence in the capital center of hisrespective kingdom.


10/15

6 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST 1 7 6 , 1 9 7 4The ruler of Teposcolula and Tiltepec was fortunate to marry a royal caste female of thelarge, prestigious, and ecologically diverse kingdom of Yanhuitlan; but the latter did notinherit a title in her ow right. This couple gave birth t o eight children. The first soninherited Teposcolula, and the firstborn daughter received Tiltepec. The third child, adaughter, did not inherit title but was married t o her cousin, who had received Tejupan fromhis 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 ofYucuiiama and Yodzodeiie of Teposcolula. Child 4 a male) was married t o the heiress to theroyal title at Etlatongo; child 6, a daughter, married a principal in the kingdom ofYanhuitlan; child 7, a male, became a principal advisor in his brothers court. And thus werealliances, assignments, appointments, and inheritances made in the Mixteca in ancient times.DISCUSSIONAND CONCLUSIONS

The existence of an extensive corpus of pictographic and conventional documentation hasmade it possible to reconstruct certain aspects of native Mixtec kingdoms and forms ofalliance and interrelationship. The operation and fuiiction of marital alliances observed inless complex societies e-g., Leach 1954; Barth 1959; Needham 1971) has stimulatedconsideration of possibly comparable insti tutions in Mixtec society and has promptedanalysis of the role of such structural arrangements as a means of creating, enlarging, andintegrating political systems in relatively complex societies. In the case of the relatively lowlevel of state organization observable in Mixtec kingdoms, elite marital alliance served notonly to 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 theessential mechanisms for the operation, adaptation, and persistence of Mixtec kingdoms fora t least five hundred years before the Spanish conquest and in gradually modified form tothe end of the Spanish colonial period. Marital alliance figured prominently in themaintenance, perpetuation, and expansion of complex political institutions in this stratifiedmultistate society spanning one of Mexicos most diversified geographical regions.Mixtec kingdoms were characterized by limited extension of authority, reliance onvoluntary compliance with royal directives, dependence on reciprocal arrangements amongruling families for filial continuity of individual families and patrimonies, and a dependencyon alliance formation through spouses, through offspring, and through the existence oflatent, potential, negotiable partnerships. Although interkingdom warfare did exist, Ibelieve it safe to postulate a significant positive correlation between intermarriage andpolitical alliance at the time the marriages were contracted in this regard, see Barth1959:107) .A complex administrative, economic, and war-making apparatus comparable to that ofthe Aztecs, Tarascans, or the Inca of Peru was not developed. When integrative expansionoccurred beyond the marital alliance network as in the case of the eleventh centuryimperialist 8 Deer, sixteenth century Tututepec, or fifteenth and sixteenth centuryexternal conquest by the Aztec confederacy) local political patterns and the royal castemarriage-succession-alliance complex continued t o function. Centralized systems weresimply superimposed on the traditional system of localized corporate kingdoms. Potentiali-ties for expansion, consolidation, and perpetuation were affected more by the choices madein formulation of rules for political succession and alliance than by environmental,technological, or demographic determinants. Looking elsewhere in Mesoamerica, it is clearthat geographic and demographic fragmentation did not prevent the riseof an extensive andhighly centralized tributary empire in Michoach Relacion de Michoaccin 1956; Relaciones


11/15

Spores] MIXTEC MARI TAL ALLIANCE 307Geogrdficas d e Michoacdn 1958; Brand 1971;Chadwick 1971; Tamayo 1949; Vivo 1949). Inthe Mixteca, as in the Tarascan domain, social mechanisms could overcome the restrictiveinfluences of the natural environment and provide not only for the internal integration ofeach community and each kingdom but, as well, for the linking of localized communitiesand kingdoms into even larger socio-economic configurations.

The adaptable Mixtec system allowed a variety of alternative responses to socio-economicexigencies. In the absence of external threat, the system functioned flexibly but withconsistent regularity. When a concerted attack did come, important kingdoms like Tlaxiaco,Yanhuitlan, Tamazulapan, and Coixtlahuaca proved easy prey for the Aztec imperialists, butthe system did no t collapse. The decentralized flexibility of the system allowed adaptation,but it discouraged enduring, centralized administrative hierarchies, long-range planning fordevelopment, organized defense, and extended control by force of arms. The inability of thevarious kingdoms to effectively combine their resources to ward off the Mexican armies inthe fifteenth and sixteenth centuries points up the instability of the alliance system forsustained or extended collective action and the lack of centralized power and authority. Bycontrast, the Tarascans, in a comparable environment, with similar patterns of settlementand technology, but with a centralized government, easily turned back Aztec armiesattacking the eastern frontier. But, whereas the Tarascan state quickly fell when its centralcore was destroyed by the Spaniards, Mixtec kingdoms and their component communitiespersisted through both Aztec and Spanish colonial domination as largely self-governing butsystemically interacting political entities. The system, although composed of integrated butmechanically opposable socio-economic units , was sufficiently adaptable to persistthrough major external conquest as the major focus of local power and authority and as apolitical bridge between communities and regions. Larger, highly centralized and urbanizedstates, while more visible, are not necessarily the most durable and adaptable of complexpolitical systems. Aztec, Inca, (Rowe 1946; Murra 1958), and Tarascan states existed arelatively short time, and their centralized organization contributed substantially to theirvulnerability and downfall at the hands of their technological and military superiors, theSpaniards, and provided the conquerors with a ready-made system of imperial control andexploitation. The Mixtec political system with its network of tiny states functioningseparately but interdependently, was for the most part maintained by voluntary maritalalliances and a flexible pattern of inheritance, and i t endured nearly a thousand years. Andwhile the basic and primary political units were the individual kingdoms, the existence andprotracted persistence of these states through time and space depended upon theconfiguration of macrostructural relationships that constituted the Mixtec political system.

NOTESResearch for this paper has been supported by generous grants from the NationalScience Foundation, the Ford Foundation, Vanderbilt University Center for Latin AmericanStudies, and Vanderbilt University Research Council. The author is indebted to JoannaKaplan, 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 beenexamined and compared. Specifically, these are as follows.M i x t e c a A h : Yanhuitlan, Chachoapan, and Nochixtlan in the Nochixtlan Valley (AGIEscribanca 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, a 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 A G N Tierras 24, exp. 6;AGN Tierras 34, exp. 1; AGN Tierras 1443, exp. 1 ) ; Tilantongo (Caso 1949; Caso 1952;


12/15

308 A M E R I C AN A N T H R O P O L O G I S T [76,1974Cam 1960; PNE IV, 72-73, 77-78; AGN Tierras 24, exp. 6; AGN Tierras 34, exp. 1; AGNGeneral de 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 (AGNTierras 44; AGN Indios 1 , exp. 157; AGN Tierras 3030, exp. 6);Atoyaquil lo (AGN Tierras44); Tamazola (AGN Tierras 3343, exp. 12);Teozacoalco (Caso 1949);Tequecistepec (AGNCivil 726, exp. 7 ) ; Soyaltepec (AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 24, exp. 6; AGN General deParte 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), andCuyotepexi (AGN Civil 669, exp. 1 .M i x t e c a d e l C o s t a : Tututepec (AGN Tierras 29, exp. 1; AGN Vinculos 272; Berlin1947; Burgoa 1934, vol. 1, 135; RMEH I, 114-120;PNE IV, 158, 232-251;Spores 1965).

REFERENCES CITEDDocumentary SourcesAGI (Arch ivo General de Indias, Sevilla) Escribanfa de C imara 1621582-1584 Los Indios del pueblo de Tecomatlan , Distrito de MBxico co n el Governador,alcaldes, y comhn del de Yanhuitlan sobre qu e se declarase ser cabecera de por si, y nosujeto de Yanhuitlan.AGN (Archivo General de la Nacibn, MBxico) Civil 516AGN Civil 669, Exp. 11580-1581 Diligencias para declarar a cacique de Yanhuitl an a Don Gabriel de Guzmrin.1584 Pleito de Don Francisco de Mendoza con Don Ju an de Mendoza sobre el cacicazgod e Coyotepec.AGN Civil 726, Exp. 71543-1547 Pleito del cacique de Tamazulapan contra 10s principales, etc., d e Coixt-lahuaca y Tequecistepeque.AGN General de ParteVarious documents.AGN IndiosVarious documents.AGN MercedesVarious documents.AGN Tierras 24, Exp. 61566-1569 Pleito de Diego d e Mendoza, cacique de Tamazulapa, sobre el cacicazgo deTeposcolula.AGN Tierras 29, Exp. 11559AGN Tierras 34, Exp. 11573-1581AGN Tierras 441580-1583

Papeles de informaci6n sobre puesto s del cacicazgo de la costa (Tutu tepec ).Pleito de Gregorio de Lara y Juan d e Zhiiiga sobr e el cacicazgo de Tejupa.Autos qu e siguieron 10s indios de Tlaxiaco de la Mixteca Alta con 10s delpueblo d e Atoyaquillo sobr e estancias y tierras d e Acatlixco.AGN Tierras 59, Exp. 2

AGN Tierras 400, Exp. 115971567-1758 Tftulos y probanzas d e la descendencia d e Teresa d e la Cruz y Francisco deGuzma n, caciques de 10s pueblos d e Yanhuitlan, San Francisco Jaltepetongo y SanPedro Aiiaiie. Martin Jose de Villag6mez, cacique de 10s pueblos de Acatlan,Petlalcingo, Yanhuitlan, Silacayoapan, Jaltepetongo y Suchitepec, cont ra 1 s naturalesdel pueblo de Yanhuitlan sobre propiedad de tierras, etc.

Don Juan de Guzmcin y Velasco sobre el cacicazgo de Tlazu ltepec.

AGN Tierras 985-9861567-1820 Los naturales del pueblo de San Miguel Tecomatlan contra 10s del de SanFrancisco Jaltepetongo y Martin Jose de VillagBmez, cacique de Yanhuitlan, sobrepropriedad de tierras.AGN Tierras 2692, Exp. 161578 Tecomastlahuaca. Diligencias d e informaci6n sobr e el patrimonio que pide DonFrancisco de Arellano, cacique del pueblo d e Tecomastlahuaca.


13/15

Spores] M IX TE C M A R I T A L A L L I A N C EAGN Tierras 3030, Exp. 61573 Testamento de Don Felipe d e Saavedra, cacique de Tlaxiaco.

309

AGN Tierras 3343, Exp. 121580-1581cacicazgo de 10s pueblos d e Tamazola y Chachuapa en Don Pedro de Velasco.Diligencias hechas p or la justicia del pueblo de Yanhuitlan s obr e el seiiorio y

Published ReferencesAdams, R. M.Almond. G. A.. and G. B. Powell. Jr.1966 The Evolution of Urban Society. Chicago: Aldine.1966 Comparative Politics. A Development Approach. Boston: Little, Brown.

1962Alvarado, Fray Francisco deVocabulario en Lengua Mixteca. Wigberto Jimknez Moreno, Ed. MCxico: Ins titu toNacional Indigenista. (Original publication 1593.)Balandier, GeorgesBarlow, R. H.Barth, Fredrik

1972 Political Anthropology. Baltimore: Penguin Books.1949 The Extent of t he Empire of the Culhua-Mexica. Ibero-Americana, N o . 28.1959 Political Leadership among Swat Pathans. London School of Economics Mono-

graphs on Social Anthropo logy, N o . 19.Berlin; HI1947 Fragmentos Desconocidos del C6dice de Yanhuitlan. Mexico: Antigua LibreriaRobredo.Brand, D. D.1971 Ethnohistoric Svnthesis of Western Mexico. I n Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians. R. Wauchope, G. Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol 11. Austin: University ofTexas Press. pp. 632-656.Brandomin, Jose M.Burgoa, Fray Francisco deCarrasco, Pedro

197219341971

Monografia del Estado de Oaxaca. Mexico: La Impresora Azteca.Geogrlfica Descripcibn. Mexico: Archivo General de la Nacibn.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 TexasPress. pp. 349-375.Caso, Alfonso19491952 El Mapa d e Teozacoalco. Cuadernos Americanos 5(5):145-181.ExDlicacidn del Reverso del Codex Vindobonensis. Memorias del Colegio Nacional5(5 :9-26.1960a Interpretation of the Codex Bodley 2858. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana deAntropologfa.1960b16.1966University Press. pp. 313-335.

The Historical Value of th e Mixtec Codices. Boletin de Estudios Oxaquefios, No.The Lords of Yanhuitlan. I n Ancient Oaxaca. J. Paddock, Ed. Stanford: Stanford

Caso, Alfonso, and Mary E. SmithChadwick, Robert

19661971

El C6dice Colombino. MBxico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia.Archaeological Synthesis of Michoacln and Adjacent Regions. In Handbook ofMiddle American Indians. R. Wauchope, G . Ekholm, and I. Bernal, Eds. Vol. 11.Austin: University of Texas Press. pp. 632-656.Clark, J. C.1912Codex Nuttall1902The Story of Eight Deer in Codex Colombino. London: Taylor Co.Cambridge: Peabody Museum of Harvard University.Dahlgren, B.1954 La Mixteca: su Cultura e Historia Prehiswinica. MBxico: ImDrenta Universidad.Fallers, Lloyd A.


14/15

310 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST [76,197419651968

B a n t u Bureaucracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: A Model for Inter-Regional Interaction inFormative Times. In Dumbar ton Oaks Conference on th e Olmec. Washington: Trusteesfo r Harvard University.

Flannery, K. V.

Flannery, K. V., M. Kirkby, A. Kirkby, and A. WilliamsFried, MortonGibson, Charles

1967 Farming Systems and Political Gr owth in Ancient Oaxaca. Science 158:445-454.1967 The Evolution of Political Society. New York: Random House.1952 Tlaxcala in the Sixteenth Cenlury. New Haven: Yale University.1971 Structure of the 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, Ant onio d e1947 Historia General de 10s Hechos de 10s Castellanos en las Islas y Tierrafirme del MarOcBano. Vols. 1-15.Madrid: Academia de la Historia.Jimdnez Moreno, W., Ed.1962 Vocabulario en Lengua Mixteca por Fray Francisco de Alvarado. Mexico: InstitutoNacional Indigenista.Jimdnez Moreno , W., and Y. S. Mateos Higuera1940 CBdice de Yanhuit lan. MPxico: Museo Nacional.Katz, F.1966 Situaci6n Social y Econ6mica de 10s Aztecas durante 10s Siglos XV y XVI.Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autonoma d e Mexico.Kirkby, M.1972 The Physical Environment of the Nochixtlan Valley. Vanderbilt UniversityPublications in Anthropology. No. 2 .--Leach, E.1954 Political Svstems of Highland Burma. Boston: Beacon Press.Lenski, G .1967L6pez Austin, Alfredo1961 La Constituci6n Real de MBxico-Tenochtitlan. Mexico : Universidad NacionalAuton oma d e Mexico.1965 La Nobleza Indigena d e Patzcuaro en la Epoca Virreinal. MPxico: Universidad

Power and Privilege. New York: McGraw-Hill.

LBpez, Sarrelangue, D.Nacional AutBnoma de MPxico.Marcus, J oyce

Moreno , M. M.1973 Territorial Organization of the Lowland Classic Maya. Science 180 :911-916.1931 La Organizaci6n Politica y Social de 10s Aztecas. MQxico: Universidad NacionalMurra, J. V.1958

Autdnoma d e MBxico.On Inca Political Structure. I n Systems of Political Control and Bureaucracy inHuman Societies. V. F. Ray, Ed. Se attl e: University of Washington Press. pp. 30-41.

1971 Introduction. I n Rethinking Kinship and Marriage. R. Needham, Ed. London:Needham, R.Tavistock Publications. pp . xiii-cxvii.Peiia, Moises T. de la1950 Problemas Sociales y Econ6mica s de las Mixtecas. Memorias del In st itu to NacionalIndigenista. Vol. 2, No. 1 .

PNE (Papeles de Nueva Espafia)Pomar , Juan B.Prosko uria ko f , T.

1905-1906 Francisco del Paso y Troncoso, Ed. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivandeneyra.19411960 Historical Implications of a Pattern of Dates at Piedras Negras, Guatemala.

Relaci6n de Texcoco. Mdxico: Editorial Salvador Chivez Hayhoe.

American Antiquity 25 :454-475.Rathje, W. L.


15/15

Spores] MIXTEC MARITAL ALLIANCE 311The Origin and Development of Lowland Classic Maya Civilization. AmericanAntiquity 36 :275-285.1971Relaci6n de las Ceremonias y Ritos Y Poblaci6n y Gobierno de 10s Indios d e Michoaca n

Relaciones Geograficas de la Di6cesis d e Michoacrin, 1579-80RMEH (Revista Mexicana d e Estudios Historicos)

1956 Madrid: Apuilar.1958 Guadalajara. Vols. 1-2.

1927-1928 (Publication suspended 1929; resumed as Revista Mexicana de EstudiosAntropolbgicos in 1939 . )Rowe, J. H.1946 Inca Culture at the Time of the Spanish Conquest. In Handbook of SouthAmerican Indians. J. Steward, Ed. Vol. 2 . Washington: Bureau of AmericanEthnology. pp. 183-330.Sanders, W., and B. PriceService, E. R.Smith , Mary E.

196819641963 The Codex Colombino. A Document of th e South Coast of Oaxaca. Tlalocan

Mesoamerica. New York: Random House.Primitive Social Organization. New York: Random House.

4(3):27 6-288.Soustelle, J.1956

Southall, A.1965La Vida Cotidiana de 1 s Aztecas en Visperas de la Conquista. MCxico: Fondo deCultura Econbmica.A Critique of Typology of States and Political Systems. In Political Systems andth e Distribution of Power. M. Banton, Ed. Londo n: Tavistock. pp. 113-140.Spores, Ronald1964 The Genealogy of Tlazultepec: A Sixteenth Century Mixtec Manuscript. South-western Journal of Anthropology 20:15-31.1965 The Zapotec and Mixtec at Spanish Contact. I n Handbook of Middle AmericanIndians. 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 th e Nochixtlan Valley.

1972 An Archaeological Settl ement Survey of t h e Nochixtlan Valley, Oaxaca. Vander-Tamayo, J.1949Tourtellot , Gair, and Jeremy Sabloff1972Vivo, J.1949

Science 166 :557-569.bilt University Publications in An throp ology, No. 1.

Geografia General de MCxico. Vols. 1-2. MBxico.Exchange Systems Among th e Ancient Maya. American Antiq uity 37 :126-13 5.Geografia de MBxico. Mexico: Fo nd o d e Cultura Econ6mica.

spores marital alliances

Documents