Ancient Mesoamerica
Mesoamerica is recognized as one of the areas where state-level social complexity developed independently of other regions. Recall that a state is an "internally specialized and hierarchically organized political formation that administers large complex polities" which are socially and economically stratified (p. 305). Mesoamerican states developed over several thousand years in different ways across the region, varying in environment, languages and some cultural patterns. However, most Mesoamerican states shared some common cultural patterns:
1. similar staple foods (maize, beans, squash, avocado, chili peppers).
2. widespread trade networks for raw materials and finished goods.
3. symbolic system of writing using pictographs, ideographs, and phonetic elements, that documented the activities of elites and ritual activities, and counting and complex calendrical systems (pages 321, 340-341).
4. religious systems with shared deities, and ritual activities.
Mesoamerican states
The development of the early states followed a common path, with each phase building on the previous cultural changes. Plant domestication lead to the development of ceramic storage (pottery) technology, with permanent settlement occurring at the same time or soon thereafter leading to the formation of villages. Villages-level societies were the basis for the later cities and states. As village size increased architectural changes occurred including more monumental architecture, economic contacts through trade expanded and social differences in occupation and status become more evident (e.g., San José Mogote, Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico, pages 310-311; 1500 B.C.- A.D. 1500).
Mesoamerican states were structured around a principal capital and smaller subordinate towns, villages and farming communities, each of which provided material and human resources when required. Capitals of states became very large, the largest of which was Aztec capital of Tenochtitlan in the Basin of Mexico (A.D. 1325-1500, pages 354-358), where an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 people may have lived when Cortés arrived in 1473. Like other states, Tenochtitlan developed out of a smaller town, with expansion coming through the conquest of neighboring communities, and maintained through extensive trade networks, and alliances with powerful elites in other states and tribute from conquered states. Similar patterns were evident in smaller state capitals (e.g., Monte Albán at 25,000-30,000).
Mesoamerican states were structured in a hierarchy, reflecting differences in social roles, wealth, and social power. Primary power was in the hands of particular families or elites, who intermarried to maintain and gain power. These elites used their wealth and power to gain access to exotic goods, and built large residences and ceremonial structures. These structures were elaborately decorated with murals and painting, reflecting the ability of the family to organize and pay for such monumental works (to which they attached their names). With increasingly large states the scale of architecture also increases, as exemplified by Tenochtitlan. The largest and most elaborate structures, be they domestic residences, ceremonial structures, or tombs, were associated with the ruling elites, who had the ability to organize and fund these structures. In many instances buildings were associated with free standing carved stone, or stelae, which through glyphs and images glorified important ancestors or the accomplishments of specific rulers or elites (page 321), who were represented in full costume (e.g., Tikal figures on pages 340 and 341). The Maya employed stelae the most, indicating the symbolic value they place in identifying people and historical events. Archaeologists use such stelae to reconstruct the sequence of and lineages of rulers and elites, the age of buildings, and the timing and sequence of documented historical events (e.g., social and political history of Tikal; pages 341-342). The symbolic significance of the stelae for the Maya is supported by the fact that the declining influence of ruling elites tend to be associated with destruction of those stelae (in some places replaced by others).
Administration of the state was by elites and their officials, who controlled and oversaw much of the movement of goods through the state. For example, there were market judges in Tenochtitlan who oversaw the workings of the market, and long-distance traders who brought back tribute from subordinate states and groups. Elites were also central figures in the religious life, performing the role of priests.
States and warfare
With the development of regionalized states cultural patterns tend to be shared through intercommunity interaction or conquest. The latter seems to have been a common means by which cities developed into larger states, as illustrated by the rise of Monte Albán in the Valley of Oaxaca (500 B.C.- A.D. 1500; pages 322-325), the capital of the Zapotec state. At Monte Albán the military activities were displayed in carved stone reliefs that reflected the conquest of many settlements, and in the monumental construction that continued from 500 B.C. to A.D. 700, when its influence seemed to wane (perhaps due to the increasing influence of Teotihuacan in the Valley of Mexico; as shown in the video Out of the Past: new worlds).
Warfare was frequently represented in mural form, as shown at the Postclassic Mayan city of Chichén Itzá, Yucatán Peninsula (A.D. 900-1250; page 350-353), where carved skull racks (tzompantli) depicted decapitated captives (also found at sites affiliated with Monte Albán and known through historical document for the Aztec), and murals show warriors arriving by canoe (see figures on page 352).
The outcome of warfare tended to be the capture and death of the defeated leaders, the taking of captives (who frequently become sacrificial victims in religious rituals; see below), and the victors receiving tribute from the defeated groups. At Tenochtitlan, tribute was in the form of food, raw materials (e.g., wood), woven mats, utilitarian items (e.g., pottery), which included many items not locally available. More exotic tribute was directed towards the elites. Tribute to Tenochtitlan came in through long-distance traders (pochteca) associated with the governing elites, who also brought back military and political information. Such long-distance traders were not significant prior to state-level societies, when other methods like that of down-the-line exchange was more the norm (e.g., Hopewell Interaction Sphere).
Economics of states
A significant factor in the size of cities like Tenochtitlan and Teotihuacan was the ability to attract and maintain full-time craftsmen, which lead to greater centralization of these skills and more control over the trade of the finished goods by the ruling elites. A consequence of this is the greater dependence on the core of the state for specific skills and resources, as the more peripheral areas lose some of the skilled workers. Evidence of this movement have come from the recognition of ethnic differences within craft and residential areas. At Teotihuacan compounds of people from Oaxaca (Monte Albán) were identified from regional styles in pottery and symbols, and from local production of exotic pottery styles. Traders and craftspeople seem to be represented at Teotihuacan (as seen in the video Out of the Past: new worlds).
At Tenochtitlan, much of the goods coming into the city were sold in large markets (see page 359), where the exchange process involved goods by bartering, and the use of currencies, the most common of which was cacao beans. Cacao was used as payment for goods and labour, and hence was a form of money. The philosophy at such markets seemed to have been profit-based, with the emphasis on minimizing costs and making a profit.
The agricultural base to feed the Mesoamerican states came from the primary plant crops (see above). However, as populations expand, and the number of non-food producers increase (traders, craftspeople, religious and administrative specialists, non-producing elites), the ability to feed such a population becomes an issue. Different methods of food production seem to have been employed (pages 338-339). The Aztec state was built in a swampy environment, and here there was an effort at intensive agriculture using raised fields (chinampas; see figure on page 339). By draining swampy areas around Tenochtitlan, and controlling the movement of water through canals (which also allowed water transportation to increase away from rivers and lakes), it became possible to get more yield per season for more seasons. These raised fields have been identified throughout Mesoamerica, though they have not been widely studied outside the Basin of Mexico.
In other, steeper areas, the construction of terraces allowed more land to come under cultivation (e.g., the Maya). A traditional method of farming was that of slash-and-burn, where families would clear land and use it for several years before moving on to another plot, allowing the land time fo fallow and rejuvenate the nutrient content. Evidence suggests that most Mayan states were able to get a sufficient food base for its state hierarchy; it is an extensive rather than a intensive method.
Ideology and state
Much remains to be understood about the religious life of Mesoamericans, as historical information is difficult to use due to biases in interpreting what the Europeans were describing, and the lack of preservation. Most religious or ceremonial life was controlled by elites who filled many of the principal roles in activities. Large ceremonial structures related to religious and astronomical activity points to a central position in the activities and maintenance of the state, and are seen in all large towns and cities. Some structures, like that of the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan was built over caves in which important rituals took place. Caves are an important component in the cosmology of Mesoamericans, and are associated with the creation of the sun and moon.
In some cases settlements were political and ceremonial centers, as seems to be the case for Monte Albán, given its unusual city plan and absence of significant market and craft activities.
Central to public religious life were sacrifices, human and otherwise. For the Maya natural sink holes, or cenotes, were important locations for the giving of offerings, as was the case for the Cenote of Sacrifice at Chichén Itzá (page 353). The most contentious issue surrounding Mesoamerican ritual is that of human sacrifice. Contrary to early European accounts, human sacrifice had deep symbolic meaning, in both religious and political terms (the elites participated in both). Human sacrifice did not have anything to cannibalism; rather its significance lay in the offering of human blood to the gods, central to the maintenance of cosmological balance (blood was a sacred substance). Such practices occurred for a range of reasons, among them dedicatory, calls for rain, and thanksgiving ceremonies. For the Aztec, additional significance seems to have been given to the use of captives: mass sacrifices suggest that the message included showing the power of the Tenochtitlan elites, for internal and external consumption (especially symbolic to tribute states) (see pages 360-361).
Less dramatic ritual was clearly evident in burial practices, where offerings were placed in with the body (the more elaborate ones reflecting the relative status of the individual).
False analogies: pyramids of the Old and New Worlds
One of the similarities pseudoarchaeologists have used to connect many of the state-level societies are large structures such as "pyramids." While loosely pyramidal structures do occur in Central and South America, they are different from those in the Old World (especially those in Egypt and to a lesser extent Sumeria). Specifically, Egyptian pyramids differed in many ways from those of the New World (see pages 440-441):
1. they have a more perfect pyramidal shape and can be larger.
2. They were built in a single effort, not through the expansion of previous buildings by subsequent rulers (see figure on page 419), and
2) they were designed as tombs, and thus not meant to be climbed or used for ritual activities (as was the case for the platforms at the top of Mesoamerican pyramids).
These differences thus represent different cultural patterns, especially with regard to the symbolism attached to them (e.g., sacred royal tomb versus temple for ritual activities), and hence do not represent an example of specific analogy.