La reproduccin digital de este material es para fines de investigacin y docencia de los cursos

acadmicos que im parte El Colegio de Michoacn (COLM1CH), conforme a lo establecido en:

Lev Federal de Derechos de Autor. Ttulo VI De ias Limitaciones de Derecho de Autor y de ios
Derechos Conexos, Captulo II De ia Limitacin a ios Derechos Patrimoniales, Artculo 148
Apartado III:

Reproduccin de partes de ia obra, para ia crtica e investigacin cientfica, literaria o artstica.

THE CLOUD PEOPLE

Divergent Evolution
of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations

EDITED BY

KENT V. FLANNERY and JOYCE MARCUS

University of Michigan
Ann Arbor; Michigan

With a New Introduction by the Editors

PERCHERON PRESS
A Division of Eliot Werner Publications, Inc.
Clinton Corners, New York
BIBLIOTECA LUIS GONZALEZ

LA PIEDAD, MICH

SECTION 8a
The Buildup of
Mixtee Power
TOPIC 70
The Origin and Evolution of the Mixtec System of Social Stratification1
RONALD SPORES

Social stratification, most scholars would agree, is a pri

mary attribute of states. Several students of political evolu
tion (e.g., Fried 1960,1967: 224226,325; Dumond 1972;
Lenski 1966:160,164168,210219) do, in fact, hold that
one condition necessarily implies the other, that state orga
nization and social stratification go together. Fried
(1967:235) goes so far as to claim that the state is a collec
tion of specialized institutions and agencies, some formal
and others informal, that maintains an order of stratifica
tion. It is, however, one thing to observe the coexistence of
social stratification and the state, but quite another to dem
onstrate the relationship of certain social, political, and eco
nomic variables. Several descriptive, problem-oriented, and/
or comparative studies of the organization and/or develop
ment of specific states have been conducted in recent decades
(Nadel 1942; M. G. Smith 1960; Skinner 1964; Fallers
1965; Lloyd 1965; Katz 1972). Additionally, a few an
thropologists have contributed theoretical statements relat
ing to the rise of the state as an evolutionary process (e.g.,
Fried 1960, 1967; Adams 1966; Sanders and Price 1968;
Carneiro 1970; Service 1975) and on the variety, origins,
and concomitants of social stratification (e.g., Sahlins 1958;
Lenski 1966; Gould 1969; Harner 1970).
I wish to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the. editors and cocontribu
tors to this volume and to Thom as Gregor and David J. Thom as who raised
im portant questions and provided able criticism regarding the subjects treat
ed in this topic.

Despite obvious advances in analyzing, relating, and com

paring complex social and political systems, it is clear from
recent studies that a satisfactory articulation of sociopoliti
cal theory and analyses of specific developments of class and
state has yet to be achieved. Clearly, there is a need for better
understanding of social stratification and the state in all
areas of the world, Mesoamerica included; setting this as a
desirable goal, I wish to consider the class structure of an
cient Mixtec society, to consider its political implications,
and to grapple with the thorny problem of the origins of
social stratification and the development of Mixtec states in
western Oaxaca.
Development of social stratification and the state was nei
ther inevitable nor precluded by the relatively restrictive en
vironment of the Mixteca. Similar environments in other
areas of Mesoamerica supported autonomous egalitarian
communities (northeastern Oaxaca, HidalgoTamaulipas-northern Veracruz), a highly centralized imperial
state (Tarascan Michoacan), as well as the system of interre
lated states in the Mixteca. No single valley or region of the
Mixteca was capable of producing the massive surpluses
usually associated with large-scale class and state systems in
other parts of the world. Mixtec-speaking peoples did, how
ever, develop a social system that allowed effective integra
tion of localized clusters of communities and furnished
mechanisms whereby territorial boundaries, distance, and
even ethnic frontiers could be overridden. The formulation

of appropriate institutions made possible the adaptive radia

tion of Mixtec society through a system of social differentia
tion, marital alliance, a marketing network, conquest war
fare, concentration of decision-making power in the hands
of an elite group capable of controlling natural and human
productive resources and their allocation, and a supporting
ideological system. Impressive cultural achievements were
based on a technoenvironmental adaptation featuring a sim
ple agricultural and supplemental collecting pattern appro
priate to existence at the egalitarian village level or, with
appropriate sociopolitical and economic mobilization of so
ciety, to the level of the state.
Sixteenth-century Spanish documentation, Prehispanic
and Colonial manuscripts in native pictographic traditions,
and modern anthropological studies often project a view of
Mesoamerican societies as if they were composed primarily
of elites. Texts more often than not refer to the deeds, tradi
tions, relations, and concerns of the aristocratic elements of
native societies, and the Spanish administrative system tend
ed to favor the same groups, with the aristocracy being af
forded primary access to Spanish courts and offices.
The several studies of Mixtec society published as of this
writing (Jimnez Moreno and Mateos Higuera 1940;
Dahlgren 1954; Caso 1949,1960,1966; M. E. Smith 1963;
Spores 1965,1967,1974a) have emphasized the ruling class
and have devoted little attention to the overall structure of
native society, to lower aristocratic class or group organiza
tion, or to interclass or intergroup relations. Aristocratic
aspects of native life are, therefore, most easily extracted
from the documentation. Perception of broader patterns of
social relations requires considerably greater effort.

CLASS STRUCTURE
Concepts of social stratification permeated Mixtec soci
ety, regulating individual and group behavior and in
tergroup relations and figuring prominently in Mixtec
ideology and political organization. It is therefore crucial to
confront the problem of social stratification.
I have previously treated the concept and reality of Mixtec
social stratification in terms of regulation of access to pro
ductive resources; differential privilege, duties, and obliga
tions; and contrasting behavioral complexes in marriage,
residence, inheritance, ritual observance, language, and so
on, but with particular reference to the royal class. Clearly, a
more balanced treatment is required if we are to understand
the phenomenon of social stratification and its relationship
to environmental adaptation, economic institutions, oc
cupational specialization (or role differentiation), conquest,
mobility, ideology, and the political implications of stratifi
cation and social mobility.
Class, social hierarchy, and social etiquette receive atten
tion in the chronicles of Herrera (1947:Dec. 3, lib. 3, caps.
12-13), Burgoa (1674:1, 376-396), the Relaciones Geo-

grficas of 15791581 (Avendao 1579; Eras 1579; Pacho

1581; RMEH 1:174-178; RMEH 2:131-163; Caso 1949;
Bernal [Ed.] 1962), the Alvarado lexicon and the Reyes
grammar of the 1590s (Jimnez Moreno [Ed.] 1962), and in
the abundant pictographic and conventional administrative,
legal, and ecclesiastical documentation of the sixteenth cen
tury (Berlin 1947; Dahlgren 1954:127145; Spores
1967:914, 139141; Spores 1974b). The sources reveal
that ancient Mixtec society was organized into two major
social strata: (1) the hereditary rulers (casta linaje, yaa
tnubu), plus a hereditary noble or principal {tay toho) group,
and (2) a humble or plebian class also known by the Nahuatl
derivative macehuales or, in Mixteco, nanday tay uu, tay
yucu, or tay sicaquai (Spores 1965:977985; 1967:914;
1974b). In the lower stratum was a fourth group composed
of landless tenantservant-tributaries generally designated
terrazgueros or, in Mixteco, tay situndayu, present in at least
four of the larger and wealthier kingdoms, Yanhuitln
(AGN Civil 516; AGN Tierras 400; AGN Tierras 985-986)
and Achiutla (AJT 9, exp. 7) of the Mixteca Alta, Tecomaxtlahuaca in the Mixteca Baja (AGN Tierras 2692, exp. 16),
in Tutu tepee of the Mixteca de la Costa (AGN Mercedes 6,
fol. 404), and quite probably in Teposcolula (AGN Tierras
1433, exp. 1) and Tilantongo (AGN Mercedes 7, fol. 253v)
of the Mixteca Alta. Finally, there were the slaves who per
formed domestic service, functioned as concubines, and be
came sacrificial victims. Slaves figured in tribute assess
ments, were captured in battle (tay nicuvuinduq), were born
in the households of their elite masters (dzayadzana), were
bought and sold (dahasaha or tay noho yahui) (AGN In
quisicin 37; Herrera 1947: Dec. 3, lib. 3, cap. 13), but did
not constitute an identifiable social group. Insofar as can
presently be determined, no definable slave subculture or
social class developed in the Mixteca.
Returning to the upper end of the social order, suggestions
by early and more recent writers (Herrera 1947:Dec. 3, lib.
3, cap. 13; Dahlgren 1954:141) that there may have been a
privileged merchant or wealthy class (mercaderes y gente
rica) outside the hereditary aristocracy are not substantiated
by available documentation. There is little doubt that mer
chants and men of wealth did exist in Mixtec society, but
significant individual differences in wealth do not seem to
have led to the formation of social aggregates beyond the
major class groupings previously delineated. Ascribed social
status was the crucial criterion of power, wealth, and priv
ilege. Lacking appropriate class affiliation, one would be
denied access to productive resources that allowed the ac
quisition of wealth, economic advantage, or deferential
status.
It is axiomatic perhaps that the process of social stratifica
tionthe unequal distribution of social, political, and eco
nomic power among major identifiable strata of a society
is based on differential access to productive resources. This
was clearly the case in the Mixteca where the ruling class
controlled the most productive lands and the most impor
tant resources. Just as clearly, the landfarming landwas

the primary productive resource, and good lands have been

in both absolute and relative short supply in the Mixteca
since the area has been extensively occupied and inten
sively utilized by agriculturalists. Information on land ten
ure, so important an aspect of social stratification in agri
cultural societies, is by no means abundant for the Mixteca,
but several inferences can be drawn from available
information.
The royalty and the nobility held private, heritable title to
lands, and terrazgueros were bound to the privately owned
lands of the aristocracy but held no property in their own
right. The plebians, however, constitute a special problem
for analysis. Members of this worker-farmer-tributary
class worked upon and collected tribute from community
lands, but their relationship to the land is somewhat unclear.
Land claims and suits relative to macehual lands are ex
tremely rare during the Colonial period, most certainly dur
ing the sixteenth century. It is difficult to determine to what
extent this rarity may reflect lack of access to the Spanish
legal system, poorly developed concepts of private owner
ship of lands, or simply a lack of conflict over small private
holdings or traditional claims to community held lands. It is
not clear whether natives had perpetual or usufructory
rights to farmlands or whether rights pertained to indi
viduals, or to kinship or residence groups, or to all catego
ries. Neither do we know the kinds of levels of rights to
different kinds of land. The native rulers of Yanhuitln con
trolled the best alluvial bottomlands of the Nochixtln Val
ley from Yanhuitln to Yucuita and to Zahuatln, a gerry
mandered strip of the valleys best lands (AGN Civil 516;
AGN Tierras 400; Spores 1967:164171). The Tecomaxtlahuaca rulers lands were also said to be among the best in
the Mixteca. It is known that although the lower stratum of
society did have access to community collecting areas and to
firewood, wild plant resources, some mineral resources, ro
dents, small animals, and small birds taken there, only the
aristocracy ordinarily had the right to hunt and consume
deer and quail and to utilize certain hides, furs, teeth, feath
ers, and fibers on their wearing apparel. Such important
resources as irrigation waters and salt were controlled by the
aristocracy.
As in the case of any stratified society, rights to lands and
resources must be qualified and carefully scrutinized. It is my
present belief that private lands and resources were con
trolled by the ruling families and the nobility with the con
sent of their rulers, and that commoners did not hold private
title to farmlands. The macebuales were traditionally al
lowed to work relatively less-productive farmlands and col
lecting preservessubject to the whim of the ruling aristoc
racy and only as long as tribute and service were given. In
return for the privilege of land use, the maintenance of
shrines and temples, and protection provided by the aristoc
racy, commoners were expected to serve and to pay tribute
to the aristocracy and to the state. This differential access to
agricultural lands served as the economic base for the Mix
tec class system.

In the sixteenth century, land disputes involving caciques,

principales, and whole communities appeared in profusion
from around 1530 (e.g., AGN Indios 101, exp. 1) to the end
of the Colonial period (Spores and Saldana 1973:passim;
Spores and Saldana 1975passim; AJT, leg. 23, exp. 30), but
cases involving private lands held by Indian commoners are
quite rare, even in the seventeenth century. It is difficult, at
this point, to say just what the status of the Prehispanic
commoner relative to land might have been. Neither Taylor
(1972:67100), working in the Valley of Oaxaca, nor I have
arrived at definitive opinions regarding Prehispanic ma
cehual land tenure. I suggest, however, that private owner
ship of lands for commoners evolved in the Mixteca gradu
ally during the Colonial period. Large private holdings were
held by caciques and Spaniards, and when commoners did
obtain titles to lands, they were small and usually relatively
less-productive plots. While it is clear that macehuales were
obtaining and holding lands in the latter part of the sixteenth
century, their Prehispanic relationship to the land and the
precise manner by which they began to acquire it in Colonial
times remain uncertain.
The Prehispanic commoner was a citizen participating in
the life of his community to the extent allowable for his
status. He held usufruct rights to certain community lands
but he was required to pay tribute:, to respect, obey, and
serve his ruler, and to observe special restrictions and rules
of etiquette concerning his interaction with other classes, his
ritual and subsistence activities, and his dress, diet, profes
sional activity, and movement. Although the ruling aristoc
racy normally entered into marital alliances that extended
beyond the community and the kingdom, the commer ob
served patterns of local endogamy. Had it not been for mar
keting activities and religious peregrination, life for the Pre
hispanic commoner would have been totally restricted to his
community.
Reference has been made to the existence of serfdom in at
least six of the more important Mixtec communities, includ
ing Yanhuitlan, Tututepec, Tecomaxtlahuaca, Teposcolula,
and Tilantongo, but it is quite likely that the pattern was
more widespread. During the last quarter of the sixteenth
century, Spanish administrators attempted to remove this
special class of tenantservants from the traditional custody
and control of the rulers of at least two kingdoms in the
Mixteca and to place these individuals who had served and
paid tribute only to their rulers on regular Crown and encomienda tribute rolls. The caciques of; Yanhuitlan (AGN Civil
516; AGN Tierras 200; AGN Tierras 400; AGN Tierras
985-986) and Tecomaxtlahuaca (AGN Tierras 2692, exp.
16) brought suits claiming ancient, traditional, and exclu
sive rights to the services and tribute of numerous families
residing in specified barrios of the affected communities.
Elsewhere (Spores 1967:159-160), I have estimated that
some 2000 terrazgueros (tay situndayu) were in the service
of the rulers of Yanhuitlan at the time of the Conquest. By
1580, the number of such individuals had declined by at
least half, and native witnesses stated that

when the Spaniards came to this New Spain, they removed these
from the said caciques, and from other [caciques] and registered
them so that they would pay tribute like the rest of the people,
notwithstanding the fact . . . that the said barrios and the Indi
ans belonged to the said patrimony [of the cacique of
Yanhuitln] [AGN Civil 516].

In Tecomaxtlahuaca, the number of terrazgueros given over

to the exclusive use of the ruler was said to have declined
from some 800 indios at the time of the Conquest to 60
males (or an estimated 240 individuals) in 1578 (AGN Tier
ras 2692, exp. 16). The cacica of Teposcolula, Doa Luca
Corts y Orozco, still claimed rights to services of ter
razgueros in 1704 but complained of a serious erosion of her
traditional rights to goods and services (AGN Tierras 1433,
exp. 1, fs. 113121).
The terrazgueros worked the rulers private irrigated land
(nuhundoyo) (said in both Yanhuitlan and Tecomax
tlahuaca to be the best lands in each kingdom), provided
services in the households of ruling families, and resided in
special, named barrios. The terrazgueros appear to have
been dependents who were probably excluded from public
affairs in their respective communities and kingdoms. There
are explicit references in the Tecomaxtlahuaca case to maceguales terrazgueros and esclavos y indios forasteros y ven
id izos. The implication is that the tay situndayu originated
outside the affected kingdoms, or at the very least that they
occupied a quite special status relative to the rest of Mixtec
society. It would be totally erroneous, however, to equate
the statuses of serf and slave.
Although the Prehispanic origins of the terrazgueros re
main problematic, it is my strong impression that they de
rived from five sources: (1) captives in the wide-ranging
raiding and warfare of the Late Postclassic period; (2) slaves
purchased by the rulers; (3) local macehuales who placed
themselves in servitude to the ruler for the privilege of
working and deriving some benefit from the rich agricultural
lands of the royal patrimony; (4) migrants, or displaced for
eigners who either chose or were forced to accept ter
razguero status for the advantages it provided; and (5) off
spring of terrazgueros.
The role and function of terrazgueros or mayeques in
Mesoamerica remains uncertainnot only for the Mixteca,
but even for areas such as Mxico-Tenochtitln (Caso
1963:871-874; Katz 1972:144-148, 224-227; Carrasco
1971:355356; Sanders 1971:1222). I believe that al
though upward and downward mobility were possible in
this class, the status of terrazguero generally placed the indi
vidual and his family at an economic advantage. The land
less remained landless, but there were fields to be worked
and shares to be derived from some of the most fertile lands
in the Mixteca. Further, the onus of servitude was offset by
the advantages of protection offered by the lord. It is clear
that the tay situndayu represented a significant so
cioeconomic component of Mixtec society and that their
composition, their origins, and their relationship to other
classes and groups must be further analyzed in the ongoing
study of Mixtec social structure.

THE ORIGINS OF SOCIAL

STRATIFICATION
Even under ideal circumstances in which historical re
cords are plentiful, it is difficult to explain the origins and
early course of development of any system of stratification.
In the case of the Mixteca, information can be derived from
archaeological and linguistic materials, from patterns ob
servable through the documentary record, and from mythicohistorical accounts. Herrera, Reyes, Torquemada, Burgoa, Orozco y Berra, and Martinez Gracida have given
varying interpretations of origin myths. Burgoa, depending
on written and oral sources, recounted a mythicohistoric
account suggesting conquest-related origins for Mixtec so
cial stratification:
[Along the Apoala River] were born the trees that produced
the first caciques, male and female. . . . And from here by suc
cession they grew and extended to populate an extensive king
dom. Others agree with Father Torquemada that the first men
who settled this very rugged and mountainous region came from
the west, like the Mexicans. . . . The first settlers were attracted
to the lands located in high ramparts and inaccessible moun
tains . . some believing that the original population was in the
meadows of the town which the Mexicans called Sosola. . . .
Others assert that the first seores and capitanes came from the
northwest, where they originated, after the Mexicans came, and
they came guided by their gods and penetrated these mountains
and arrived in a rugged site which is between Achiutla and Tilantongo in a spacious plain, formed in the nearby lofty mountains,
and that they settled here, making fortresses. They made impreg
nable walls of such magnitude that for more than six leagues
around the people of the garrison went to settle. . . . And all the
mountains and barrancas today are marked by stepped and ter
raced fields from top to bottom and looking like stone-edged
stairways. These were the pieces of4and that the seores gave to
the soldiers and macehuales for the sowing of their seed, the size
and quality of the land depending on the size of each family. . . .
It can be inferred, then, that the ancient capitanes or seores
were dominated by a greater power and searched for a site which
would aid them in their defense, and motivated by this fear they
struggled valiantly. They cultivated and worked the steep slopes
where they grew and harvested seeds because they did not ven
ture forth to hunt or go beyond the walls where they could
remain hidden. This appears to be the most reasonable theory
because the greatest Seoro of these Mixtecas was preserved
from its antiquity up until the light of the gospel shone on Tilantongo (that was the frontier of that settlement) and touched one
of the sons of that Seor; and the conquistadores, in baptizing
him, gave him the name of the King, our Seor, don Felipe de
Austria, thus indicating the royal blood of this great cacique
[Burgoa 1674:2 7 4-2 7 6],

The Burgoa account relies rather heavily on earlier ac

counts by Reyes and Torquemada, but pictographic ac
counts in codices Nuttall, Bodley, and Vindobonensis pro
vide important parallel evidence of the widespread
acceptability of these conquestmigrationalradiational
views. This evidence suggests that conquest and unequal
allocation of productive resources according to rank did
contribute to social stratification in the Mixteca. While
mythicohistorical accounts are difficult to substantiate, con
ventional documentary and pictographic sources leave little
doubt that warfare had been an important aspect of Mixtec

culture since Classic times. In the case of the Kingdom of

Tututepec, it is quite clear that as political expansion by
military conquest occurred, representatives of the Tututepec
ruling family were placed in control of conquered commu
nities as governors, administrators, and tribute collectors
(Avendao 1579; Eras 1579; Pacho 1581; RMEH
1:174178; RMEH 2:131163; Berlin 1947). In time, such
high-status individuals must have coalesced into a signifi
cant stratum of society, a self-conscious, identifiable social
class. This coalescence can be viewed as an adaptive strategy
aimed at expanding and consolidating control over a large
ecologically diverse and productive geopolitical sphere to
satisfy the needs of an increasingly demanding aristocracy.
Conquest and marital alliance, then, were not aimed at
meeting basic subsistence needs, but at the maintenance of a
social system based on social stratification.
Elsewhere, I have attempted to demonstrate that the Mix
tees attained a significant level of social and political organi
zation without the development of true occupational spe
cialization that is normally found in state societies and
which is a frequent concomitant or progenitor of social
stratification (Gould 1969). It is true that sixteenth-century
documentation does mention specialized endeavor. Herrera
(1947:Dec. 3, lib. 3, cap. 12) states that habia en la tierra
muchos capitanes y caballeros, maestros de su Ley; tenan
sortlegos y mdicos, and the Alvarado lexicon provides
terms for physician (tay tatna), priest (aha nie or tay sa
que), merchant (mercader: tay cuica), peddler (merchante:
tay dzata, tay yosai), artisan (tay huisi), and scribe (tay
toatutu).
It is quite clear that craftsmen, scribes, potters,
weavertailors, body servants, and domestics were drawn
into part-time or periodic service from the common class.
Major retainers, advisors, and courtiers, however, were of
noble and royal rank. A semblance of full-time specializa
tion may have existed among the priests, but even this is a
doubtful assumption. Herrera (1947:Dec. 3, lib. 3, cap. 13)
indicates that boys who had reached at least their seventh
year were eligible to enter a monastery for special re
ligious training. Practitioners, observing celibacy, rose
through a series of grades in the monasteries, and after 4
years they left the monasteries, dropped vows of celibacy,
and entered the service of the native ruler.
The tenure of the religious practitioner would appear to
have been limited, but at least some who had performed as
priests continued to serve in ritualistic capacities as royal
counsellors. When a priest achieved the status of noncelibate
advisor to the ruler, it is likely that his religious advice (cere
monial form, reading of omens, soothsaying, prognostica
tion, etc.) continued to be provided to the royal patron as an
important component of the political role of the priestly
pasado.
Unlike the ascribed statuses of members of the ruling and
noble classes and of the rulers advisory council, priests were
drawn from both the plebian and principal classes (Avendao 1579; Eras 1579; Pacho 1581; RMEH 1:174-178;
RMEH 2:131-163; Caso 1949; Bernal 1962; AGN Inquisi-

cion 37). Despite such references, there is little compelling

evidence to indicate the existence of professional classes of
priests, warriors, craftsmen, curers, administrators, scribes,
service personnel, or tradesmen, or of full-time commitment
to such endeavor. In fact, there is little evidencehistorical,
archaeological, or ethnographicto suggest the existence of
full-time occupational specialization at any time during the
Prehispanic period.
In addition to inferences derived from historic and linguis
tic sources, it is probable that archaeological investigations
may provide insights into origins, movements, and relations
of various Mixtec groups. Archaeological researches in the
Nochixtlan Valley (Spores 1972:171194; 1974b) suggest
that observable settlement and socioeconomic differentia
tion evolved in the Ramos phase (approximately 200
B.C.a . d . 300) when the first large, complex settlement de
veloped at Yucuita. The valley settlement pattern prior to
this time, in the Cruz phase, had been characterized by sever
al relatively small, homogeneous, and widely spaced vil
lages. Although knowledge of the Formative period in the
valley is relatively limited, there are clearly no sites of the size
and complexity of Formative settlements in the Valley of
Oaxaca, in the Valley of Mexico, in Guatemala, or on the
Gulf Coast. Thus far, indicators of the marked social com
plexity, elaborate ceremonialism, or extended political inte
gration inferred for Formative developments in other areas
are not present in the Nochixtlan Valley. Although ritualism
is strongly indicated by the appearance of numerous figurine
fragments, decorated ceramics, and brazier fragments, the
Nochixtlan Valley appears lacking in unusual ceremonial
complexes, elite dwellings, differential distribution of exotic
goods, sumptuary burials, or the sculpturalhieroglyphic
indicators of either status differentiation or conquest and
political integration found in other areas (Sanders and Price
1968:2629; Coe 1965; Bernal 1965; Flannery 1968b;
Marcus 1974).
Expansion of settlement size and complexity occurred
during the Ramos phase when a large, complex (functionally
diversified) center worthy of the designation urban
emerged at Yucuita (sites N 203, N 204, N 217, N 218, N
220, N 225). Whereas the main Cruz phase occupation at
Yucuita was apparently confined to an area approximately
4 ha, the Ramos-phase settlement covered at least 1.5 km2.
Nearly continuous structural remains may be observed
extending along and across the entire lomacerro system
just east of the Yucuita community center, and four adjacent
satellites (sites N 208, N 226, N 227, N 229) are located
within 3 km of Yucuita. Included in the large but highly
concentrated Yucuita structural complex are at least 10 ma
jor mound complexes containing floors and alignments of
quartered stone and associated ritual deposits (such as heavy
ash and charcoal, braziers and incensarios, skull burials, and
anthropophagic remains), plazas, a subterranean vaultedroof tunnel system, quarries, terraces, single-celled and mul
tiroomed buildings with masonry block foundations and
walls, and adobe-block tombs with stone slab covers. Deep
refuse containing culinary remains of deer, rabbit, dog, and

human bone, corn, beans, avocados, zapotes and chile are

found in association with heavy deposits of Yucuita Tan,
Yucuita Red-on-tan, Yucuita Thin Tan and lesser quantities
of Gray, Rust, and Brown wares. The ceramic complex is
typical of the Ramos phase here and at other Nochixtln
Valley sites such as Nochixtln Panten (N 606), Etlatongo
(N 810), and Atrs de la Concha (N 009), as well as sites
outside the valley such as Huamelulpan (Gaxiola 1976);
there are even similarities with Monte Negro in Tilantongo
(Caso 1938; Acosta n.d.a). Distinctive Ramos-phase incised-bottom bowls, anthropomorphic and anthropozoomorphic figurines, siliceous gray chert tools and flakes, obsi
dian blades, sheet mica, marine shell objects, and carved
bone beads and pendants are also found in unprecedented
abundance at Yucuita. Block-adobe tombs containing ex
tended burials, grouped secondary burials (one at N 203 F
containing remains of seven individuals), and individual
skull burials recovered in excavations at Yucuita are similar
to manifestations at Huamelulpan and Monte Negro.
Of the 35 Ramos-phase sites known thus far in the
Nochixtln Valley, Yucuita is by far the largest and most
complex, and I believe that it was the primary center of
political and economic power in the valley and probably in
the Mixteca Alta. Nearly half of the Ramos-phase sites are
located in the Yucuita arm of the valley and most of the
larger town sites cluster quite near the primary center.
Deposits are deeper; architecture and material goods are
more heavily concentrated, diverse, and complex; and more
elite goods, obsidian, sheet mica, Monte Albn-like Type
G-12 incised bowls, and braziers are found at Yucuita than
elsewhere in the valley. The site is extremely large for its time
and by comparison with earlier settlements. In fact, only one
siteLate Classic Yucuudahuiapproaches it in size, and
no site is richer in content or more complex in organization.
Etlatongo (N 810) in the south-central portion of the valley
contained massive earthworks and was undoubtedly of sub
stantial importance in the Ramos phase, but it is both small
er and less diversified in its structure than Yucuita. Yucuita
became the primary source of a cultural pattern that I believe
characterized life in the central Mixteca from Ramos times
to the Spanish Conquest. This early urban center served an
integrative function as no site had before its time (Spores
1972:177182), for it was the first center where sufficient
demographic, technological, economic, and political power
was concentrated to make possible urban life and an un
precedented level of functional divergence in settlement
(hamlets, towns, and a city) and regional integration. A prin
cipal feature of the new urban orientation of Yucuita was an
emphasis on public architecture, much of it ceremonial,
that completely outstrips such manifestations in the pre
vious period. Formal religion was a dominant theme in the
center, suggesting the integration of political and sacred
activities.
The Ramos-phase emphasis on ritualism appears in the
form of large special-function areas containing dense depos
its of ritual waste in association with monumental architec
ture, adjacent to (but separable from) associated domiciliary

remains. By contrast, goods with probable ritual functions

or connotations (figurines, effigy vessels, inscribed ceramics,
etc.) from earlier periods are found with household goods in
dwellings with boulder-stone foundations and/or stone-andadobe lower walls. The only Formative mound yet ex
plored (at Coyotepec, site N 233) was a multilevel occupa
tional deposit dating to both the Formative and Classic peri
ods, but the complex recovered in and around the mound
was quite similar to complexes found associated with dwell
ings at Yucuita (N 203 B, N 203 K). In contrast, at least some
of the mounds, probably the majority, in later centers such
as Yucuita, Yucunudahui, Etlatongo, and Cerro Jasmin,
were certainly ritual rather than domiciliary foci (Caso
1938; Spores 1972, 1974a). Although ceremonial activity
areas are immediately adjacent to habitational areas in
Yucuita, architectural and artifact complexes can be rather
easily differentiated for the two types of functional areas.
The emphasis on ceremonialism in Ramos and Las Flores
times suggests that urbanism and social stratification
emerged in the Mixteca as part of an ideological transforma
tion whereby formalized religion became a central integra
tive feature of Mixtec society. I suggest that religious practi
tioners, in effect, created a situation of social inequality and
then, in order to reinforce and perpetuate the system, em
phasized and strengthened their spiritual, political, and eco
nomic hold on the greater society. This is one of several
strategies that could have been adopted in an environment
allowing various subsistence and sociopolitical adaptations.
Such adaptations ranged from scattered extended family
homesteads to small economically, socially, and politically
independent clusters of comparable egalitarian commu
nities; to a hierarchically integrated cluster of simply orga
nized villages; to a ranked regional complex of differentiated
settlements; to an extensively organized interregional so
ciopolitical system. Late FormativeEarly Classic Mixtecs
pursued an adaptive strategy that ensured continuation of a
system of social stratification and reinforced the decision
making power of the new elite. Religious practitioners of the
Formative period became the priests of the Classic period.
It is logical to assume, in the absence of evidence indicat
ing true division of labor or military overthrow, that politi
cal power also rested with the religious elite. The status of
religious mediator in an expanding society with increasing
needs and increasing dependence on ritual manipulation,
rather than technological innovation, was of special adap
tive significance to the Mixtecs. Survival of mankind and of
a cultural system depended on religious power; a demon
strated ability to understand and control the supernatural
universe placed great temporal power in the hands of the
religious practitioner.
According to our argument, the first special status to
emerge was the religious specialist having the ability to con
trol sacred and, increasingly, secular activities. The first
large and complex architecture at Yucuita is associated with
material remains that suggest, beyond doubt, formalized rit
ualistic activity. As religious practitioners became priests,
they were able to control and direct the effort and output of

the members of a formerly egalitarian society. These efforts

were directed toward ritual enterprises, including construc
tion of impressive ceremonial complexes and the provision
of vast quantities of tribute and services, ostensibly in sup
port of cult activities, but in fact consumed and redirected in
large part by the emergent elite. The amount and diversity of
exotic goods obtained in and around Ramos-phase remains
at Yucuita is impressive (Spores 1972, 1974a) and the pat
tern is repeated at Las Flores-phase Yucuriudahui. Someone
had the ability and power to demand goods and services and
to channel them in specified directions.
Observing the archaeology of the Early Classic, it is clear
that significant social transformations occurred, but the
sources and supportive mechanisms of social inequality are
more difficult to ascertain. Although there are ample indica
tions of contact between the Nochixtlan Valley and such
outlying areas as the Valley of Mexico, Puebla-Tehuacan,
Veracruz, Chiapas, and the Valley of Oaxaca from Forma
tive times to the Spanish Conquest (Spores 1972, 1974a),
there is no conclusive evidence of external conquest for the
Classic period. The movement of Nochixtlan Valley settle
ments from valley floor to mountain- and ridgetops, as seen
in at least 88 of 113 Las Flores sites (Spores 1973:165-168),
may indicate widespread conflict in the Mixteca Alta, but if
there was extensive warfare, it is by no means clear who may
have been fighting whom. Given only the archaeological
evidence, it is difficult to say whether movement to high
ground was prompted by military, economic, or primarily
ideological determinants. Neither, 1 must add, is there any
material evidence of the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century
subordination of the Nochixtlan Valley to the Culhua
Mexica Confederacy (settlement during the Postclassic
being divided between low-ground and medium-altitude
sites), yet we know from historical sources that numerous
towns in the valley were reduced to tributary status by the
Aztecs. The Bodley, Nuttall, and Colombino codices cer
tainly do suggest that intercommunity conflict and internal
warfare, raiding, and conquest were well established
throughout the Mixteca by a .d . 900, and the codices and
conventional documentation indicate the persistence of this
pattern through the Postclassic period.
So, while the case for a conquest basis for social stratifica
tion is quite inconclusive, certainly warfare coexisted with
an extensive system of aristocratic marital alliance and un
derlay, reinforced, and amplified the social status quo in the
Mixteca from mid-Classic times to the Spanish Conquest.
Further, while there is no convincing evidence for the
emergence of full-time occupational specialization in the
Mixteca from the Formative period to the Conquest, I do
believe that a particular kind of specialization did emerge
during the Late FormativeEarly Classic transition and that
herein may lie at least a partial explanation for the origins of
social stratification in the Mixteca.
I would hypothesize that the first specialists to emerge
in Mixtec society were individuals possessing specialized rit
ual, magical, or curing knowledge. Such individuals stand
out, even in simple egalitarian societies where shamans oc

cupy what may be their societies only specialized, if not

necessarily privileged, status. Latent, if not active, political
power may accrue to such statuses, and, depending on so
cial, economic, and ideological circumstances and the per
sonal attributes and abilities of the practitioner, latent
power may be translated into active localized or extended
political power.2 Netting states the case rather well and in a
way that I believe is applicable to Mixtec society:
Let us suggest that political development in many cases takes
place internally and voluntarily rather than by imposition or
wholesale borrowing from neighboring groups, and that the
main lines of development and channels for change are pre
figured in existing institutions and patterns of behavior. I would
claim that on the road to statehood, society must first seek the
spiritual kingdom, that essentially religious modes of focusing
power are often primary in overcoming the critical structural
weaknesses of stateless societies.
These weaknesses are by definition those of a society based on
localized, highly autonomous units. To integrate a number of
such units or to allow an existing unit to expand without fission,
ways must be found to keep the peace while enlarging personal
contacts beyond the range of kin group and locality. . . . The
new grouping must be united, not by kinship or territory alone,
but by belief, by the infinite extensibility of common symbols,
shared cosmology, and the overarching unity of fears and hopes
made visible in ritual. A leader who can mobilize these senti
ments, who can lend concrete form to an amorphous moral
community, is thereby freed from complete identification with
his village or section or age group or lineage [1972:233].

To emphasize the point I wish to make, it is advantageous

to quote from the continuation of Nettings argument:
A leader who can simultaneously reassure farmers worried
about their harvest, adjudicate their quarrels, and profitably
redistribute or promote the exchange of valued goods is ob
viously not the same as other men. He occupies a central social
position. A higher social status is both functionally necessary to
his activities and an appropriate reward for his services. . . .
Political chiefship may be dignified by titles and inherited
through more rigidly defined kinship links. Regular differences
in access to resources, control of services, and possession of
valued goods may emerge. Privilege becomes both more overt
and increasingly ascribed. Both the powers and the prerequisites
of a highly ranked individual or group are justified by ritual
status. Such people are singled out fundamentally by their rela
tionship to sacred things and suprahuman potency
[1972:236-237; 1972 by the MIT Press].

I believe that Nettings inferences and conclusions apply

specifically to Mixtec society. I would argue that the origins
of social stratificationand coincidentally the statein the
Mixteca are attributable to internal processes of social dif
ferentiation based on the emergence of religious practi

21 have consciously used and emphasized m ay, for I am quite aware that
political power does not necessarily fall to those holding supernatural or
ritual power and that latent power is not necessarily translated into active
political power. There are too many cases to the contrary. With reference to
the Mixteca, however, archaeological and historical evidence converge, sug
gesting convincingly that the relationships among ritual, social, a nd political
power, power-holders, and institutions evolved as 1 have hypothesized. On
the basis of data presently available, 1 believe this to be the best explanation of
the rise of social stratification in the Mixteca. I make no pretense of attem pt
ing to generalize for society at large.

tioners as political powerholders. Power to mediate between

man and the supernatural world could be translated into
power to demand goods and labor services from believers, to
control scarce resources, to divert resources to private as
well as public ends, to concentrate decision-making and co
ercive power in the hands of a small group, and to make
possible the expansion of political dominion through war
fare, alliance, or by voluntary aggregation. Eventually,
wealth in goods and services, privileges, and entitlement to
lands and productive resources accumulated to a significant
degree in the hands of a few families. Ritual power and
authority were transformed into political power and author
ity. Through religious and economic control and through a
combination of alliance, annexation, and conquest, mem
bers of the Mixtec elite were able to reinforce their privileged
status, to establish their royal charters, to perpetuate sup
portive mythologies, and to expand their power and
influence.
Once such social and political systems had been estab
lished, elite status depended on the nearness or directness of
relationship to elite ancestors, both real and fictive. In time
there arose a gradation of most direct descendants (royal
class), collateral or secondary descendants or kinsmen (no
ble class), and unrelated (common class) status groups. His
toric and protohistoric usage suggests that conquered peo
ples could be assimilated into any one of the three major
social categories or attached as mayeques (tay situndayu) or
slaves. Eventually, priestly and political functions became
differentiated (again, I do not see these as occupations in the
sense of Gould 1969). Architectural manifestations of this
changing relationship may be perceived in the archaeologi
cal sites. Dwellings in Ramos-phase Yucuita, many of them
containing numerous contiguous rooms, were built within
and immediately adjacent to ceremonial precincts. There is
no clear demarcation of dwelling and monumental cere
monial activity areas. In Las Flores-phase Yucuudahui, the
distinctions between dwelling areas and ceremonial archi
tecture is far clearer; I do not deny the existence of possible
domiciliary structures in ceremonial areas, but insofar as the
main central complex of ballcourt, plazas, courts, and
mounds is concerned, the area at Yucuudahui is more
clearly aligned and set apart as a special activity area as
opposed to the adjacent, but separable, dwelling areas. The
dozens of smaller Late Classic sites scattered about the peaks
and ridges of the Nochixtln Valley show a similar pattern
of a central ritual activity area surrounded concentrically by
habitations.
Interesting parallels might be drawn between Ramosphase Yucuita and Yagul, the Valley of Oaxaca site. Yagul is
smaller than Yucuita but comparable in general orientation
and complexity. Yucuita and Yagul are squeezed into com
pact, multifunctional units; they can be contrasted with
Classic Yucuudahui or with Monte Albn or, even though
placement is quite different, with Teotihuacn. The latter
three centers contain elaborated central ceremonial com
plexes surrounded by dwellings and service areas. Other
early centers in the Mixteca AltaMonte Negro,

Huamelulpan, and probably Yatachioshare the multiplex

core features of Yucuita. The large site of Cerro Jazmn
appears to have begun in Ramos times as a relatively small
but multiplex center, grew during the Las Flores period as
much the same kind of settlement, and continued to be uti
lized during the Postclassic period as a ceremonial center but
only quite marginally as a dwelling area.
In the Postclassic period, there was even greater distinc
tion between civicceremonial centers and dwelling areas.
Ceremonial sites were often located at some distance from
socially differentiated dwelling zones. Many Postclassic sites
contained numerous household structures and indications
of ceremonial activity (braziers, offering cups, incensors, of
fering blades, etc.) but very little in the way of obvious cererponial architecture. Other sites, many of them formerly oc
cupied as dwelling centers, show signs of intensive
ceremonial activity in and around moundplaza complexes
but little or no indication of permanent settlement.
It is clear that there were substantial increases in popula
tion in the Nochixtln Valley from the Cruz phase (18
known localities, 8 intensively occupied) to the Ramos phase
(35 localities, 27 intensively occupied) (Spores 1972:165
194). There were not only more sites, and more intensively
occupied sites, in the Ramos period, but settlements were
larger and, at least in several instances, more complex than
in the Cruz phase. I would hold to my previous estimate of
12,000 for Ramos (see Note on Population Estimates in
this topic). One site aloneYucuitahad a population that
must have approached 8000 persons (5 of 35 Ramos lo
calities, all intensively utilized, are now considered to con
stitute one large complex settlement, Yucuita).3 By Las Flo
res times, the number of sites (113), localities intensively
occupied (74), and large (approximately 1 km2 or larger)
centers (e.g., Yucuudahui, Cerro Jazmn, Jaltepec,
Etlatongo) were sufficiently developed to support a popula
tion of 35,000. The maximum population for the valley,
however, was in the Postclassic Natividad phase when 159
sites were occupied, 113 of them intensively. Many
Postclassic sites were quite large, though less monumental
in plan and construction than Classic sites, and we believe
that a population estimate of 50,000 is not out of line with
available archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence.
Continuing with archaeological data, there are certain
manifestations of cultstate differentiation in that major
Postclassic ceremonial precincts are often quite distantly re
moved from civic centers (Spores 1967:90108,
1972:175192). Shrines were constructed in the compact
centers, as we have observed in such Postclassic sites as
3ln the case of complex settlements, such as Yucuita, w ithout historical
documentation as a basis of inference it is quite difficult to say w here the city
of Yucuita leaves off and other nearby communities begin. With this point in
mind, 1 have raised an earlier estimate of the population of Ramos-phase
Yucuita from 7000 to 8000 because I have decided that I had rather a r
bitrarily excluded an adjacent but n ot totally contiguous site, Tindehuehano
(N 220), which lies some 2 50 m across an irrigated valley from the main site
but is culturally directly related. It now seems inconceivable that this 100by-200-m site could be outside the social, political, and economic realm of
Yucuita just because it is separated from the center by a corn patch.

Yucuita, Chachoapan, Nochixtln, and Loma de Ayuxi in

Yanhuitln. But many ceremonial sites were set apart from
the main population centers, in caves, on high mountains,
and, in several instances, in old, abandoned, or nearly aban
doned Classic sites that continued to be used, not as habita
tion zones, but as religious centers (Spores 1972:189). This
placement tends to confirm ethnohistorically derived in
ferences that in Postclassic times the religious cult and its
practitioners were differentiated from, under control of, and
supported by, the ruler (Spores 1967:9, 22-27; 1974b).
During the Postclassic period, males of the ruling class
served a 1-year religious apprenticeship in a hermitage.
Subsequent to assumption of title, rulers served important
functions as sponsors of cult activities, but others drawn
from both the common and noble classes served as priests in
cult activities supported by the ruling family of each king
dom. As far as I am concerned, the combined weight of
documentary and archaeological evidence clearly indicates
the separation of duties between ruler and priest, even
though the ruler, as the primary patron of the religious cult,
did from time to time perform ritualistic functions.
Further archaeological and ethnohistorical research will, I
believe, reinforce the view that the Mixtec class system be
gan in the terminal Formative or Early Classic period,
around a . d . 1. As increasing numbers of people adapted
themselves to the Nochixtln Valley and the surrounding
mountains and valleys of the Mixteca, skilled religious prac
titioners took advantage of their specialized roles in super
natural mediation, exercised increasing control over goods,
lands, resources, and the productive services of their fol
lowers, and rose to positions of political authority. Special
forms of social interaction, marriage, and creation of heredi
tary charters led to a differentiation of the religiouspoliti
cal sector from the mass of Mixtec society. An ideological
reorientation emphasized recognition of and reliance upon a
religious elite; complex settlement and cultural systems
arose in conjunction with a system of social stratification
based not on further differentiation of the labor force or on
military conquest but on consanguineal and affinal propin
quity to members of the religiouspolitical elite. Ritual and
economic power (through the right to demand goods and
services for ritual services rendered) were transformed into
political power. Localized sociopolitical elites evolved true
social groupings (classes), and diversified, multicommunity
political networks (Mixtec kingdoms) emerged. During the
Classic period, social, political, and economic ties between
elite families and communities were further extended and
intensified through intermarriage, military conquest, and
annexation. Eventually, probably some time in the later
Classic or Postclassic periods, the political elite (the ruling
families and the principales) became differentiated from,
and exercised control over, the religious professionals and
cult activities.
By Postclassic times, social and political power, initially
based on ritual power, transcended this traditional base and
became far more secular and oriented toward (1) traditional
rights and privileges and a supporting ideology that rein

forced the social order, (2) control of productive resources

and systems of tribute, redistribution, and market exchange,
and (3) extension and consolidation of political power and
domain through marital alliance, economic control, and
conquest-annexation. As population increased (Spores
1969,1972; Sanders 1972) and perceived needs of the aris
tocracy and basic needs of the general population changed,
institutions underwent adjustments. Adaptation was
achieved through extension of spheres of influence and con
trol by sociopolitical means rather than through technologi
cal innovation, organized conflict over resources, or inter
regional migration. Converging ethnohistoric and archae
ological data indicate the differentiation of religious and
political institutions, but, clearly, formal ritual activities
were controlled and sponsored by the political elite. To
speak of a priestly state in Late Formative and Early Clas
sic times may not be far from the truth, but to ignore the
transformation to a secular state in later times would be
erroneous. While occupational specialization in the form of
the religious practitioner with his specialized knowledge and
power may have stood at the base of the stratification pro
cess, such an occupation was not subsequently prominent in
the rise of the Mixtec class system. Once the social system
began to take on its characteristic form and became fully
established, secular concerns and secular supports and the
weight of tradition furnished the sustaining foundation of
the Mixtec social system. Religion and its ritual and ideolog
ical extensions (e.g., reflections and justifications for social
stratification in creation myths and elite genealogical my
thology) provided supernatural validation for the so
ciocultural system and justification and reinforcement for
the political order.

NOTE ON POPULATION
ESTIMATES
A general statement relative to population is in order.
Population estimates for the prehistoric period in the
Nochixtln Valley are necessarily based on projections from
the historic period of the sixteenth century. On the basis of
demographic data taken from Spanish documentation I have
estimated that the population of the valley was around
50,000 in a . d . 1520 (Spores 1969).
Even though we now know that there were at least 159
Natividad sites occupied (113 intensively), instead of the
111 sites that were known up to 1 9 6 9 ,1 am not persuaded
that the population of the valley was any greater than
50,000. The population was simply dispersed over more
space than we formerly realized. Additionally, we obviously
do not know with certainty that all of the Postclassic sites
were occupied simultaneously, despite the fact that struc
tures and ceramic and artifact complexes look contempo
raneous. The census data from the sixteenth century, diffi
cult to interpret at their best, allow one to arrive at total
population for a given communityYanhuitln, for exam-

piebut seldom is there an indication of precisely where the

population was located on the ground (see Borah and Cook
[1960] for a detailed treatment of Mixtec population trends
since 1520). The community of Yanhuitlan may have had
a population of 24,000, but it is not clear how the popula
tion was dispersed over the landscape. I believe that the
political community of Yanhuitln consisted of as many as
15 settlements or clusters, some contiguous and some lo
cated 10 km or farther from the capital.
It is possible to arrive at population figures for various
communities at a given point in time, say a .d . 1540, but it is
exceedingly difficult to equate community and archaeologi
cal sites. It is safe to assume that families lived in certain
settlements and that they related to one another somehow,
in some way. It is difficult to say how individuals and fami
lies within a settlement were related and just as difficult
but just as importantto say how one contiguous cluster of
dwellings may have related to others. How many settlements
constitute a community? How many communities a king
dom or other sociopolitical unit? How were communities or
kingdoms linked into larger socioeconomic networks or sys
tems? How do we correlate settlement units of components
with socioeconomic or political communities, or interac
tion spheres ?
What I am saying is that the town-by-town census mate
rials for the sixteenth century can provide reasonably reli
able community population estimates, but it is quite difficult
in many cases to say whether given archaeological localities
were associated with one community or another, or whether
certain sites were occupied before, during, or after the Con
quest, or at all three points in time. We can say that a popula
tion of 50,000 in a .d . 1520 is correlated with 159 sites of
certain width, length, complexity, and orientation relative to
natural and cultural features. In time, I hope, archaeological
analysis will become precise enough for us to work out polit
ical configurations and socioeconomic relations among
sites, particularly cabeceras and their political satellites.
When and if that can be done, it is at least conceivable that
archaeological and ethnohistoric evidence will allow identi
fication of Yanhuitlns aboriginal center and each, or most,
of its subject settlements. Until that time, to imply that de
mographic precision is possible is counterproductive.
Although villages of about 100 souls can consistently be
differentiated from a Tikal or a Monte Albn, I fear that 1 am
chronically skeptical of procedures that yield exact popu
lation figures for particular prehistoric archaeological sites
at particular points in time. There is too much room for
distortion of the physical remains, too many complexities of
constructiondestruction-reconstruction to be dealt with
in the usual time available to the archaeologist, too little
methodological aptitude, too much left unexcavated, too
much leeway in artifact chronologies, too little geochronological precision, too much pseudorigorous statisti
cal manipulation of excavated complexes which may be
quite revealing in a collector bands camp site but hardly so
for complex sites characteristic of Mesoamerican civiliza
tion. The painstaking excavation of two or three foci in

medium or large settlements is simply inadequate to reveal

the kind of demographic data that archaeologists care to
discuss but are hard put to substantiate. Furthermore, can
we ever be quite sure that configurations of sites with com
parable cultural complexes were actually occupied simul
taneously, or years, decades, or centuries apart? They may
appear to be contemporaneous settlements, but are they?
Population figures for prehistoric sites are too inexact to
satisfy normal scientific requirements, and this is regretta
ble. I believe, however, that when we can correlate number,
size, and general orientation of a series of sites with known
population figures (not to imply that I am by any means
satisfied with even the historical demographic data from the
Mixteca Alta or that either Borah and Cook or I interpret
them properly or adequately), that it will be possible, by
exercising some care, to project relative numbers, sizes, and
orientations into prehistoric time and arrive at reasonable
approximations of population. Until better methodologies
are found, I believe not only that the procedure is reasonably
sound but that the figures are fair ballpark estimates of
total population in the valley at various points in time. We
must now move forward with better paleodemographic
studies for the greater Mixteca and for Mesoamerica as a
whole.

CONCLUSION
A differentiation of religious practitioners qua political
leaders is postulated for the Late Formative and the Ramos
phase in the Mixteca. (Settlement patterns and sociopolitical
organization are diagrammed in Figure 8.1.) While the rise
of religious specialists to positions of secular power may
have been fundamental to the origins of the Mixtec class
system, occupational specialization does not appear to have
been a significant causal factor in the rise and maintenance
of social stratification. Moreover, conquest of Mixtec com
munities by outside powers does not appear to have played a
significant role in the stratification process. The emergence
of religious practitioners as a political elite undoubtedly was
associated with a complex of reinforcing marital and politi
cal alliances and internal military conquest that promoted
exploitation of widespread resources and contributed to the
overall integration of the social system.
These factors, coupled with a relatively low population
density, the ecology of the Mixteca, the economic system,
and the ideology, did not encourage development of a true
division of labor and an occupationally based system of
stratification. The system was, rather, what could be called
traditional patrimonial, whereby once an elite element was
established, it maintained social and political dominance as
much through ritual and ideological management as out
of economic necessity. This is not to say that control of land,
resources, wealth, and power symbols did not figure in
maintenance of the system; they did. But physical or eco
nomic coercion do not loom large in this development. The

F O R M A T IV E
Low population density
Simple settlement system
Egalitarian society
Religious practitioners
with quasi-political
function
Village social, political,
economic autonomy

5]
A

EARLY CLASSIC
Medium population density
Complex settlement system
("urbanism")
Social status inequality
Religious-political
leadership

L A TE CLASSIC
Medium to dense population
Complex settlement system
("urbanism")
Social stratification
Political leadership and
religious specialists

POSTCLASSIC
Dense population
Complex settlement system

Localized regional social,

political, economic,
integration

Developing areal (in te r

regional) social,
political, economic
integration

Developed areal social,

political, economic
integration

Residential area
Ritual activity area

Delineation of
ceremonial precinct
/'" 'N Delineation of
' ' settlement

Social stratification
Political leadership and
religious specialists

^ __ ) Political affiliation

FIGURE 8.1. Diagrams show ing evolving settlement patterns and sociopolitical organization in the Mixteca Alta: time, space,
and functional relationships.

force of tradition and sanctified social custom were as perva

sive and fundamental to the maintenance of the system as
were economic considerations.
In late times, conquest of one kingdom by another seems
not to have affected significantly the societal status quo es
tablished in Classic and Early Postclassic times. While there
were undoubtedly individual differences in wealth, power,
and prestige, as far as the class system was concerned, new
rulers were the social equals of displaced rulers, principales
remained principales, and commoners remained com
moners. Even external control of Mixtec kingdoms by the
CulhuaMexica tripartite confederacy was far more eco
nomic than sociopolitical or ideological in its impact on
native society and does not seem to have altered the class
system, the integration, the authenticity, and func
tional-adaptive persistence of the Mixtec social system.
Regarding claims that the Mixtec social system was highly
adaptive, I must make it clear that I am emphasizing the

sociopolitical, rather than the technoenvironmental, adap

tation of an evolving society. The ideological, social, and
political aspects of adaptation are primary in the develop
ment of the system of stratification, and technoenvironmen
tal adaptation is secondary. The environment of the Mix
teca, while somewhat limited in total productive potential, is
internally dversified, allowing a variety of adaptations. Simi
lar environments have supported similar and dissimilar so
cial systems. Why, then, did the Mixtec system develop as it
did?
The adaptive radiation of Mixtec society from a gener
alized Oaxacan or Mesoamerican Formative base can be
seen as a result of a series of choices made by people both
within and outside Mixtec society relative to the assignment
of values or emphases to particular aspects of their culture.
The power to make things grow, to ensure fertility, to main
tain good health, to ensure the continuity of life in the super
natural world, and the power to mediate between super

natural forces and man rested in the hands of religious

practitioners who converted their powers to deal with the
supernatural world into power to deal with the natural
world and to make decisions having a binding effect on
increasingly larger numbers of people. Control of resources,
the ability to ally, conquer, and control, and, we must not
forget, the ability to deal with external threats both super
natural and political, operated in shaping Mixtec society
and in the creation and maintenance of the class system. The
fact that the rulers of Yanhuitln and Tecomaxtlahuaca con
trolled by far the most productive lands in their respective
domains was determined not by the existence of certain technoenvironmental relationships but by the existence of a
highly evolved set of social mechanisms that allowed those
highest-status individuals to take charge of and maintain
control of those resources. The environment, so to speak,
was adapted to preexisting social institutions rather than
those institutions being the product of a special technoenvironmental relationship. The Mixtec sociopolitical system
developed in the Classic period and, evolving through the
Postclassic and Colonial periods, allowed for adaptations to

diverse environments, cold and dry, temperate and moist,

hot and dry, hot and humid, mountaintops and slopes, nar
row and broad valleys, and coastal plains. Evolving mecha
nisms allowed for the bridging and integration of diverse
regions and, eventually, ethnic domains consisting of speak
ers of various Mixtec dialects as well as Chochones, Triques,
Amuzgos, Chatinos, Nahuas, coastal Zapotec, and, finally,
Zapotec speakers of the western portion of the Valley of
Oaxaca.
I believe that we might go far toward a response to the
ethnologists query, Why do some societies endure and hold
together while others are changed radically and disinte
grate?, by examining carefully the evolution of the Mixtec
social system and by observing the sequence of options
including the delegation of power to particular individuals,
the creation and maintenance of a system of social stratifica
tion, and the development of a flexible but effective and
highly integrative political and economic systemwhich
were exercised by Mixtecs between the end of the Formative
period and the Spanish Conquest.

TOPIC 71
The Mixtec Writing System
MARY ELIZABETH SMITH

The Mixtec writing system is usually described as a lim

ited or partial writing system because it uses signs prin
cipally to record names of -persons and places. The
remainder of the story is conveyed through symbols and
pictorial conventions that appear to have only occasional
relationship to language. In addition, as far as can be deter
mined at the present time, the signs utilized to express names
are based on whole words in the Mixtec language rather
than on syllables or single sounds (phonemes). This type of
writing, sometimes called logographic (Gelb 1963:99107),
is considered by historians of writing to be an early or forma
tive stage of writing.
The Mixtec writing system discussed in this topic is that
seen in a group of Late Postclassic painted manuscripts, or
codices, that set forth genealogical and historical data. Stone
monuments and wall paintings from earlier periods and
found within the present-day Mixtec-speaking region have
been excluded because it is still uncertain which native lan
guage is depicted in the writing on these earlier monuments.1

'Some of the stone sculpture and painting from the Mixtec-speaking region
has been discussed briefly by Alfonso Caso (1956, 1965b). A distinctive
group o f stone monuments from the Mixteca Baja region of northern O a x
a ca -s o u th e rn Puebla, presumably Late Classic in date, has been named
N uifte and studied in most detail by Paddock (1 9 6 6 a :1 7 4 -2 0 0 , 1970a,
1970b) and Moser (1977). The stone sculpture of the O axaca coast (the
western section of which is Mixtec speaking) has been treated in depth by
Maria Jorrin (1974).

Also omitted are such objects as carved bones, goldwork,

and polychrome ceramics (Caso et al. 1967; Caso 1969;
Ramsey 1975) that exhibit Mixtec style and often contain
short texts. Here, too, it is still a question whether the texts
on these objects reflect the Mixtec or some other language.
For the same reason, the wall paintings of Mida (Len 1901;
Seler 1904) will not be discussed in detail, although they, as
well, are considered to be Mixtec in style. The painted manu
scripts, on the other hand, are very definitely based on the
Mixtec language, and they form a substantial corpus that
amply illustrates the Mixtec system of writing in use at the
time of the Spanish Conquest.
Included in the group of Mixtec manuscripts painted in a
Preconquest style are Codices Nuttall (Nuttall 1902),
Bodley (Caso 1960), Selden (Caso 1964), Colombino (Caso
and Smith 1966; Troike 1974), Becker I and II (Nowotny
1961a), Vienna (Nowotny 1948; Caso 1950; Adelhofer
1963), and Snchez Solis (also called Egerton 2895 [Burland
1965]). From the Mixtec-speaking region, there have also
survived numerous Postconquest pictorial manuscripts (list
ed in Glass 1975:67) that retain elements of Prehispanic
style and whose precise provenience is known. In some in
stances, these Postconquest manuscripts are accompanied
by glosses written in European script or can be related to
Colonial legal documents, and hence these later manuscripts
are invaluable in interpreting the specific motifs found in the
Preconquest manuscripts.

The origins of the Mixtec writing system are unknown,

although this system or adaptations of it seem to have been
utilized in other regions of Mesoamerica in the late
Postclassic period. It has been suggested, for example, that
the system being used by the Aztecs and other groups in and
around the Valley of Mexico at the time of the Spanish
Conquest is based on the Mixtec system (Robertson
1959a: 13). In the manuscripts from the Valley of Mexico,
however, the writing system is used to express the Nahuatl
language, whereas in the Mixtec manuscripts the system
reflects the Mixtec langauge.
The Mixtec writing system, as it is exhibited in the genealogical-historical manuscripts, uses three means of convey
ing information: signs, symbols, and pictorial conventions.
Signsor pictorial motifs that represent one or more words
in the Mixtec languageare found principally in the names
of persons and places.
Symbols, in my definition, are motifs that do not depend
on language for their interpretation and that are often dis
tributed in more than one region of Mesoamerica. For exam
ple, I would consider the Mesoamerican speech scroll to
be a symbol. The speech scrolla volute usually shown
being emitted from the mouth of a human being or animal
represents speech or sound in many regions of Mesoamerica,
and, as far as I know, the name of this motif is not known in
any native language. What I call a symbol some historians of
writing call an ideograph or ideogram.
Pictorial conventions have little relationship to language
and, in common with symbols, are found in regions of Meso
america where various languages are spoken. Examples of
pictorial conventions include a mummy bundle to indicate a
dead person, the confrontation of a male and a female figure
to indicate marriage, and the grasping of the hair of one
person by another to indicate conquest or prisoner-taking.

although occasionally as many as three or four or as few as

one are used. From glosses in the Mixtec language written on
Codices Snchez Solis and Muro (M. E. Smith 1973b), we
know that most personal names are composed of two or
three motifs that represent nouns only, such as Rain De
ityFlint Blade (Snchez Solis 23). Occasionally, however,
the personal name is a noun-verbobject combination,
such as The Tiger Who Burns the Sky (Muro 3).
Deities and Mythological Figures in
Personal Names
Although the motifs used in personal names have yet to be
studied completely as a system of nomenclature, the vocabu
lary of signs that appears in these names is very definitely a
finite one. For example, very few of the rich variety of deities
and mythological figures depicted on the obverse or ritual
side of the Codex Vienna are included as motifs in personal
names. The deity motif that occurs most frequently in the
names of persons who are historical and neither priests nor
mythological personages is the rain deity known in Nahuatl
as Tlaloc and in Mixtec as Dzavui. This deity is part of the
names of 56 different rulers in the Mixtec genealogies (50
men and 6 women). The prevalence of the rain deity motif in
Mixtec names is not surprising because the Mixtec people
call themselves in their own language uu dzavui, or the
people of the rain deity.
A mythological figure that is also a fairly frequent compo
nent of personal names is the fire-serpent, whose name is

SIGNS
Signs are used to express both the names of persons and of
places, although the place-name signs seem to be more com
plex in their composition than personal-name signs. In addi
tion, a more extensive vocabulary of signs is used to depict
names of places than is used in the names of persons.
Most of the persons who appear in the Mixtec histories
have two types of names: the calendrical name, which indi
cates the day on which they were born, and the so-called
personal name or nickname, which was supposedly given to
a child at the age of 7 by a priest (Herrera 1947:321). Utiliz
ing the traditional Mesoamerican calendar system, calendri
cal names of persons are composed of 20 day-signs which
combine with the numbers 1 through 13 for a possible 260
day-names.2 Personal names usually consist of two motifs,
2Emily Rabin (1975) has demonstrated that the lucky and unlucky
days seen in the calendrical names in Mixtec manuscripts are very different
from the lucky and unlucky day-dates recorded by Sahagun for the Valley of
Mexico.

a.

FIGURE 8.2. "Ollin figures, "Xolotls," or "Earth men": (a)

Codex Vienna 52; (b) Codex Selden 14-IV. (Drawing prepared
by Caren Walt.)