You are on page 1of 19

The Noble House in Colonial Puebla, Mexico: Descent, Inheritance, and the Nahua Tradition

Author(s): John K. Chance


Source: American Anthropologist, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Sep., 2000), pp. 485-502
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/683406
Accessed: 16-03-2016 04:10 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Anthropologist.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

JOHN K. CHANCE

Department of Anthropology

Arizona State University

Tempe, AZ 85287-2402

The Noble House in Colonial Puebla, Mexico:

Descent, Inheritance, and the Nahua Tradition

Claude Levi-Strauss's concept of the "house" has proven to be a viable alternative to traditional lineage theory in the study

of many societies, and this paper applies the house concept to a Mesoamerican case. The teccalli, or noble house, was an

important aspect of Nahua (Aztec) sociopolitical organization in prehispanic and early colonial central Mexico, particu-

larly in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley. It is often characterized as a lineage with rights in land and commoner labor, yet the

nature of descent, succession, and inheritance are little understood. Late colonial wills and lawsuits from the (formerly)

Nahua community of Santiago Tecali in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley provide valuable insights into these matters that can

also help us to understand earlier periods. It is argued that the Nahua noble house can be better understood as a house than

as a lineage. [house, kinship, inheritance, Nahuas, Mesoamerica]

of central Mexico at the time of the European invasion in

he concept of the lineage has been a basic element in anthropological treatments of social or-

the early sixteenth century has presented a challenge to an-

ganization for decades. While the notion of a

thropologists for many years. Fragmentary and ambiguous

ethnohistorical sources coupled with the contrasting theo-

lineage as a group of people who trace their descent

retical approaches of different researchers have led to dif-

from a common ancestor has been fruitful in some cases,

ferent views of the nature of descent in Nahua society and

in others it has proven difficult to apply. Moreover, the

comparative value of the lineage concept has been criti-

its relation to property-especially land-and political of-

cized for misrepresenting indigenous conceptions and

fice-holding. A related problem has been the definition and

not paying enough attention to extra-kinship variables

composition of the calpolli, a ubiquitous politico-territorial

subunit in many Nahua city-states. More recently, attention

such as locality, production, and political power (Kuper

has shifted to what Lockhart (1992:62) calls the "shadowy

1982, 1993). These are good reasons for exploring other

possibilities, and in this paper I wish to assess the utility

institution" of the teccalli, or noble house, which has often

of one leading alternative to the lineage model, namely

been portrayed as a lineage.

Claude L6vi-Strauss's (1982, 1987) concept of the

I will examine some of the problems involved in the

"house." The emphasis here will not be on the house as

analysis of the Nahua noble house and argue that, as its

an architectural entity, but rather, in line with Levi-

name suggests, it can be better understood as a house in the

Strauss's original usage, on the house as possessor of a

Levi-Straussian sense. The focus is on the Puebla-Tlaxcala

corporate estate that it strives to preserve intact through

Valley in the central Mexican highlands and specifically

kinship and other means. By taking the estate as primary

on my own research on the colonial Nahua community of

and kinship as one means among others of keeping it to-

Santiago Tecali. The data come from a variety of colonial

gether, some of the criticisms of lineage theory can be

archival sources, particularly lawsuits and wills from the

addressed and an alternative view put forth that is more

eighteenth century, though I hope to show that some of the

in line with local ideas in various parts of the world.

insights derived from them help us to understand earlier

While I am concerned with a single instance from

periods as well.' The discussion necessarily focuses on the

Mesoamerica, I offer this paper in the same comparative

noble members of the teccalli, for the historical record

spirit intended by Levi-Strauss. Detailed empirical in-

yields little information on the thoughts and actions of the

quiries are most meaningful, I believe, if they permit

commoners. But it is clear that commoners were part of the

comparison with others.

noble houses, too. As laborers on lands of the houses and

In this paper I employ the concept of house to illuminate

tributaries to their lords, the commoners could not fail to

the Nahua noble house of prehispanic and colonial Mex-

identify with the houses that shaped the parameters of

ico. The nature of kinship groups in Nahua (Aztec) society

much of their day-to-day existence.

American Anthropologist 102(3):485-502. Copyright ? 2000, American Anthropological Association

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

486 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

consciousness.... In the higher aristocracy, among the heads


The House Model

of principalities, the feeling of kinship bears every appearance

Levi-Strauss (1982:174) defines a "house" as

of attaching itself to a house, to a castle, as the basis of power

and of the association of individuals with which it was sur-

a corporate body holding an estate made up of both material


rounded. This attachment could be reliably traced back to the

and immaterial wealth, which perpetuates itself through the


ancestor, on whichever side it might be, who had built the for-

transmission of its name, its goods, and its titles down a real or
tress and by so doing laid the foundations of the power and the

imaginary line, considered legitimate as long as this continuglory of his line. Beyond that point all remembrance was lost.

ity can express itself in the language of kinship or of affinity

The European house provides an especially apt compariand, most often, of both.

son for the Nahua case, for it arose as an attempt to per-

He arrived at this idea while pondering the difficulties


petuate an estate from one generation to the next in a

Boas encountered in trying to characterize the Kwakiutl


society which until that time had been characterized by bi-

numaym (or numayma) as a clan. Combining patrilineal


lateral kinship and partible inheritance (Duby 1977:

and matrilineal descent, exogamy and endogamy, and a


100-103, 140-148; Herlihy 1983:122-124; Schmid 1957).

preoccupation with social ranking, the numaym did not fit


We shall soon see how the colonial Nahua noble houses of

any of the established anthropological categories of the


Santiago Tecali faced similar problems in the transmission

day; Boas eventually gave up and came to see it as unique.


of property and devised similar solutions to them.

In thinking about these contradictions, Levi-Strauss


The house is best conceived, then, not as a kinship group

turned for comparison to the noble houses of Europe in the


per se, but rather as a named, corporate body with an estate

twelfth and thirteenth centuries. This rather surprising juxthat it seeks to preserve intact through various, often con-

taposition reveals a characteristic common to both: an attradictory, means. Gillespie (2000a:9) has succinctly stated

tempt to disguise social or political maneuvers under the


the advantages of this point of view:

cloak of kinship. Like the numaym, the feudal European

houses also exhibited paradoxical traits when seen from

A focus on the house can thus enable anthropologists to move

beyond kinship as a "natural" and hence privileged compothe point of view of kinship theory. Fictive kinship was fre-

nent of human relationships. Houses are concerned with loquently employed, both patronyms and matronyms were

cale, subsistence, production, religion, gender, rank, wealth,


assumed and inherited, marriage with both close and dis-

and power, which, in certain societies, are expressed in princi-

tant relatives varied with changing political fortunes, and

ples and strategies of consanguinity and affinity.

hereditary rights coexisted with rights bestowed through

voting. Despite a widespread patrilineal bias, the European

The house in this sense can be fruitfully studied histori-

house did not abide by strict lineage rules for succession

cally, as its strategies for maintaining its estate and repro-

and inheritance, nor was it dependent on the biology of re-

ducing its members are best understood over the course of

production for its continuity (Levi-Strauss 1982:176-184).

multiple generations (Gillespie 2000a; Levi-Strauss 1987).

Perhaps the best known examples come from medieval

To date, the house model has been employed most exten-

France, where the higher ranking members of the nobility

sively in ethnographic studies of Southeast Asia (particu-

were very conscious of genealogy. Nobility in this context

larly Indonesia) and to a lesser extent in South America

"was before all else a question of remote and well authenti-

(e.g., Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995b; Macdonald 1987). It

cated ancestors" (Duby 1977:64), yet the ancestors in-

has just begun to find its way into Mesoamerican studies as

voked tended to be only those closely connected with the

a tool for understanding the social organization of the an-

patrimony. Surnames in use among the aristocracy often

cient Maya and Olmec and the modem Nahua of Veracruz

reflected the preoccupation with the inheritance of prop-

(Gillespie 1999, 2000c, 2000d; Gillespie and Joyce 1997;

erty. For example, in the 34 houses in the vicinity of the

Sandstrom 2000). A recent edited volume (Joyce and

monastery of Cluny in southern Burgundy at the end of the

Gillespie 2000) brings together essays by archaeologists,

eleventh century, 27 of the 31 surnames used were place

cultural anthropologists, and ethnohistorians that consider

names connected with a landed patrimony (Duby

the notion of the "house" and "house society" in diverse

1977:60). The European concept of the house did not im-

settings in Mesoamerica, the northwest coast of North

ply co-residence and was intermediate between a line of

America, Neolithic Europe, Polynesia, and Indonesia.

descent and the household. The house linked the continuity

Levi-Strauss and others have drawn a useful distinction

of the family with perennial settlement in a particular

between lineage-based societies and house-based societies,

place, and the use of the house name as a surname had the

the latter frequently found in settings where cognatic de-

advantage of maintaining continuity even in the face of up-

scent is emphasized (Gillespie 2000b). Waterson notes that

heavals in the social hierarchy (Flandrin 1979:13-14). In

in Southeast Asia the house was most salient in societies of

Duby's (1977:146) analysis,

intermediate sociopolitical complexity and suggests that

L6vi-Strauss's model may be especially fruitful for underThe patrimony seemed indeed to have been the essential sup-

port for the recollection of the forefathers and of the family

standing "societies which are in the throes of a political

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 487

Mexico

Detail

Otumba Locatn

Teotihuacan

, Tepetlaoztoc 0 5 10 15 Miles

Lake

Tetzcoco . 0 5 10 15 20 25Kms

STlacopan* . .

copan ~tTliatelolco
Mexico City Tenochtitlan

0- - - Tepeticpac

vALLE . 5 ' TifaCoyoacan tla

VC ALLE uacau n ' Quiahuiztlan Tigat/a

? a * Tlaxcala Huamantla

?O Toluca ? Xochimilco Chalco Atenco

Ocoteolco

Metepec 0 -

Amaquemecan Huexotzinco

-;~c t /.- Cholula

Tepoztlan 4 Chu

? ,,- Puebla

Cuernavaca Tepeaca

* cuCuauhtinchan

MalinalcoECAL

TECALI

Figure 1. The Central Mexican highlands in the early sixteenth century.

transition towards a greater concentration of power in the

hands of a few, with a shift from kinship-based to more

complex political, economic, and religious structures of or-

the Valley of Mexico, I am concerned here with particular

aspects of Nahua culture that were distributed across the

core Nahuatl-speaking region, without regard to political

ganization" (Waterson 1995:67). The Nahuas of central


affiliation. Figure 1 shows the main areas of settlement and

Mexico were in precisely such a situation at the beginning


some important towns and cities in the sixteenth century,

of the sixteenth century. Over 100 years of warfare and


including Mexico City (formerly Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco)

conquest had led to an increase in political centralization,


and the Spanish city of Puebla. The town of Tecali, the

sharper contrasts between nobles and commoners, and


main focus of this paper, is located in the lower right. In the

highly developed patronage networks that stood apart from


discussion of the Nahua noble house, I will follow Lock-

the kinship system.

hart (1992:102-110) in distinguishing between the western

Nahua region (including the Valleys of Toluca and Mexico

The Noble House in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley


and the Cuernavaca region) and the eastern region (the

Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley).
I use the term Nahuas to refer to speakers of Nahuatl, the

The prehispanic and early colonial Nahua teccalli did


Uto-Aztecan language spoken by a majority of the people

not begin to receive serious treatment from scholars until


living in the core regions of central Mexico by the fifteenth

the 1960s, and it is still little known compared to the


century. Originally migrants from the north, the Nahuas

calpolli, a local territorial unit frequently mentioned in Nafounded a series of altepetl, or ethnically distinct city-

hua native histories and the subject of an ample, if inconstates, that were often at war with those of older inhabitants

of the region and with one another. Conquests and unstable

political alliances made for a constantly shifting series of

clusive, anthropological literature (see below). Indeed,

many general treatments of Aztec society fail to mention

imperial confederations, the most powerful of which was

the teccalli at all (e.g., Smith 1996). Yet ethnohistorical re-

the so-called Aztec Empire, the Triple Alliance of the three

search in the large Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley over the past

city-states of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan. While the

empire they fashioned reached far beyond their homeland in

four decades has shown beyond a doubt that the noble

house was a fundamental institution of this eastern Nahua

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

488 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

Table 1. Glossary of Nahuatl terms.a

and Prem 1976:173). An especially illuminating 1554

document from Tlaxcala uses the term tecpan (palace) to

Altepetl City or ethnic state

refer to the largest houses. It describes the

Calpolli "Big house," politico-territorial

house and mayorazgo [entailed estate] called Ayapanco

subunit of an altepetl

Tecpan in Ocotelulco.... said house and tecpan is our may-

Macehualli, pl. macehualtin Commoner, subject

orazgo and had as its subjects eight other mayorazgo houses.

Pilli, pl. pipiltin Noble

These eight houses had 30 houses of nobles, each one of

Teccalli Noble house

which was a barrio. [quoted in Carrasco 1976a:24, my transla-

Tecpan Palace, noble house

tion]

Teuctli, pl. teteuctin Lord, head of a teccalli

Tlacamecayotl Rope of people, descent

This passage clearly indicates the segmentary nature of

Tlatoani, pl. tlatoque King, ruler


these houses and equates the larger ones with the Spanish

Tlatocayotl, pl. tlatocayoh Rulership


mayorazgos, or entailed landed estates, which were com-

mon among propertied Spaniards of the day. The number


a Classical Nahuatl uses plural forms only for animate nouns.

of houses could sometimes grow quite large. In Tlaxcala,

the polity of Ocotelulco alone had as many as 48 houses of

region. On the basis of early colonial sources, Carrasco

(1963, 1966, 1969, 1973, 1976a, 1979) has defined the tec-

varying size, while the other three communities each had

between 14 and 52 (the four polities of Tlaxcala were con-

calli as a landholding lineage headed by a teuctli (pl.

solidated as the city of Tlaxcala in the sixteenth century;

teteuctin), or noble lord, with a number of his descendants,

see Figure 1). Huexotzinco in 1560 possibly had as many

or pipiltin (sing. pilli), as lesser nobles, and a much larger

as 70 (Anguiano and Chapa 1976:143-147, 151-152;

number of commoners, the macehualtin, who worked the

Dyckerhoff and Prem 1976:172; Hicks 1986:41). The

lands of the house (commoners were referred to in Spanish

heads of houses had the power to distribute land and com-

texts as macehuales or terrazgueros). His type case came

from postconquest Tepeaca in 1580, where, according to

the document, the cacica (noblewoman) dofia Francisca de

moner retainers to work it to their noble underlings. The

genealogical depth of the houses was shallow, sometimes

up to six generations, but often fewer. Nor were there

many nobles in each house: examples range from 47 and


la Cruz had living on her lands 47 "nobles that derive from

22 in two houses in Tepeaca to 30 in one in Tlaxcala. A


her and recognize her and are her relatives" (quoted in Car-

small noble house in the sixteenth century could have even


rasco 1963:114, 1976a:20; my translation). There were 25

fewer, sometimes only one (Carrasco 1976a:23, 30).


other caciques in Tepeaca who also had noble relatives liv-

Thus in the eastern Nahua region the teccalli was anying on their lands. (See Table 1 for a glossary of common

thing but shadowy: it was the fundamental political subunit


Nahuatl terms employed in this paper.)

of the city-state and also played a crucial role in the econNoble houses were the fundamental political compo-

omy. The vast majority of the population belonged to a nonents of many city-states in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley,

ble house, whether large or small. Indeed, a case can be


and they had a high, perhaps even unusual, degree of

made that in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley in the early sixautonomy. The Chichimec conquerors of Cuauhtinchan in

teenth century the city-state was less salient politically and


the twelfth century comprised seven groups, each of which

economically than its constituent noble houses (Martfnez

founded a teccalli with its own tlatoani (pl. tlatoque), or

Baracs 1998:50; see also Chance 1996a, 1998; Martifnez

king, and acquired land and commoner subjects (Reyes

1984; Olivera 1978; Reyes Garcia 1977). For nobles and

Garcia 1977:53, 121). In the sixteenth century, the polity of

commoners alike, the teccalli was the principal means of

Tepeaca was composed of four noble houses referred to as

access to land and livelihood. Families of both strata held

tlatocayoh, or rulerships, each with its own tlatoani

usufruct rights in land only by dint of their house member-

(Martinez 1984:43, 55, 77). The neighboring city-state of

ship and all were politically subject to a teccalli lord as well

Tecali had three noble houses at the time of the Spanish

as a king (unless the two were the same person).

conquest. Spaniards in the region never settled on a single

term for the teccalli, referring to them variously as partes,

The Noble House in Santiago Tecali

parcialidades, casas, sefiorios, or barrios.

Noble houses of varying size and scope were often

The altepetl of Tecali (Tecalco in prehispanic times)

linked by ties of descent and political authority, and segcontained three noble houses at the time of the Spanish in-

mentation was common. Some of the best examples come

vasion, the largest headed by a tlatoani, the other two by

from Huexotzinco and the four polities of Tlaxcala, where

teteuctin. A fourth was created in the mid-sixteenth century

if a newly founded house lacked people and lands it might

be called a pilcalli (nobleman-house). There were also

huehuecalli (old houses) and tequihuacacalli (captain's

houses) (Anguiano and Chapa 1976:151-152; Dyckerhoff

when the king divided his domain between two sons.

These four entities, all named for kinds of "palaces"-

Tecpan, Chichimecatecpan, Piltecpan, and Tlacatecpan-

comprised the political structure of the city-state and

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 489

controlled nearly all of its lands.2 All nobles, the pipiltin,

offspring was a bequest of a substantial holding in the mid-

belonged to one of the four houses, as did most of the com-

sixteenth century by a father, a ranking noble in the house

moners, the macehualtin. The commoners lived on the land

of Tecpan, to a daughter "because she was the eldest

they worked, their access to it secured through payment of

child" (my emphasis).4

tribute, including personal service, to a particular lord. The

Since all these examples postdate the Spanish conquest,

heads of the houses, the tlatoani and three teteuctin, con-

it is entirely possible that these cases of patrilineal succes-

trolled their own lands and commoner retainers, distribut-

sion and inheritance by the firstborn represented a con-

ing the remainder to their noble underlings, who in some

scious imitation of the preference for male heirs and im-

cases made further subdivisions among their dependents.

partible transmission of land among high-status Spaniards.

On the whole, land was unequally distributed among the

We have already seen that in sixteenth-century Tlaxcala,

nobility; some nobles had extensive holdings, while a few

were landless. The lands of each house were dispersed and

interdigitated, and while noble residences clustered in a nu-

cleated settlement, most of the population lived scattered

about the countryside until pueblos were formed in the

Spanish congregaciones of the 1550s and in 1599-1607. In

a general way, the local indigenous conception of the quad-

large noble houses were explicitly compared to Spanish

mayorazgos. At a time when the indigenous nobility was

struggling to maintain its position in the face of demo-

graphic decline and Spanish political interference, adopt-

ing European tactics for keeping noble houses together

could have been effective. Indeed, primogeniture was the

legally prescribed mode of succession for formally entailed

ripartite organization of the noble houses fits Lockhart's


Spanish mayorazgos and the Indian cacicazgos modeled

(1992:15) model of Nahua cellular organization, which


on them (see below). As Kellogg (1995:128) points out,

downplays hierarchy and emphasizes instead "a series of


while the Mexica (of Tenochtitlan in the Valley of Mexico)

relatively equal, relatively separate and self-contained consystem of bilateral inheritance was superficially similar to

stituent parts of the whole." Each noble house was a disthe Spanish practice, the latter had more ways of keeping

tinct political entity, sometimes referred to as a tlatocayotl


landed property intact, either through legal entailment or

(rulership). While conceptually autonomous and equivaby stressing the inheritance rights of spouses and children

lent, the four houses were far from equal in practice, howand, contrary to preconquest Nahua practice, limiting the

ever. The largest, Tecpan, controlled up to three-quarters


rights of adult siblings. In Tecali, however, incentives for

of the community's land and commoner population in the


keeping house estates intact and under the control of a sin-

mid-sixteenth century, the other three houses dividing up


gle family would diminish in the seventeenth century in the

the rest (Chance 1996a:110; Olivera 1978:146). The role


face of a disastrous population decline that reduced the size

of the king was complex: in one sense he was head of just


of the laboring population and Spanish colonial policies

one noble house, albeit the largest; in another, he was the


that stripped the houses of their political power.

acknowledged ruler of the entire city-state.

But it is the internal organization of the noble house that

Descent and Inheritance in Late Colonial Tecali

most concerns us here. Tecali originated as a conquest soci-

While relevant data from the sixteenth and seventeenth


ety, with incoming groups of Nahuatl-speaking Chichimec

centuries are slim, information on noble descent and inoutsiders subjugating the local peasantry, and relationships

between nobles and commoners were fashioned through

political patronage rather than kinship. Among the nobles

themselves, however, kinship ties were very important.3

Olivera (1978:185) states that "the most important lords"

(she does not say how many) in each noble house in the late

sixteenth century were related to their teteuctin through

heritance in eighteenth-century Santiago Tecali is much

more abundant. Extrapolating back from the eighteenth to

the sixteenth century is admittedly a hazardous undertak-

ing, for Tecali's noble houses did not survive as political

units much beyond 1600. A lethal blow to the political

power of the houses arrived in 1591 in a series of viceregal

the male line. This provides some support for the view

grants of land to 55 nobles, the elite of the entire commu-

that teccalli nobles were members of corporate patrilin-

nity, including the tlatoani, the teteuctin, and the high rank-

eages. Yet very little of substance is known about the actual

inheritance of rights over land and labor in Santiago Tecali

during the early colonial period. Male links were definitely

important when the king and head of the house of Tecpan

divided his holdings between two sons in the early six-

teenth century, and the larger of the two estates (still called

Tecpan) was transmitted intact through primogeniture for

two more generations until bilateral inheritance became the

norm after 1650 (Chance 1998). Yet the only other reported

instance of the transmission of a large noble estate to one

ing pipiltin of all four houses. These Spanish grants totally

ignored the teccalli and redefined the ownership rights to

indigenous patrimonial lands as private property of spe-

cific individuals. The number of plots granted varied

greatly, but under the terms of the grants, nobles were now

property-owning individuals and no longer dependent on

the houses and their heads for access to land and com-

moner labor. In time, these 55 grants became known as ca-

cicazgos, and together they encompassed most of the land

in the pueblo. In the eighteenth century, descendants of the

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

490 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

that they are successors of Bernardino de Burgos; they say

55 original grantees or founders were known in Spanish as

that the property is undivided and a cacicazgo, which distorts

caciques.

their claims and their rights.


Thus at the end of the sixteenth century, Tecali seemed

to be in transition from an estate society in which land was


Licenciado Le6n went on to disparage the rusticity and stu-

held corporately by noble houses to a class society in


pidity of the Indians and noted that since the estate had

which private ownership of resources would be the norm.


never been legally entailed as a cacicazgo, there was no

At least this was the goal of Spanish policy. Yet looking


justification for keeping it intact. He recommended that the

ahead about 120 years, this is not what happened. The sur-

three parcels be auctioned off and the proceeds divided

prising feature of cacique land tenure in the eighteenth cen-

equally among the sons of the four children of Juan de Bur-

tury is that contrary to earlier Spanish design, land was still

gos. The magistrate was quite willing to follow this advice,

held collectively by groups of relatives descended from the

but the litigants strenuously objected to selling off their

original 1591 grantees. The approximately 45 surviving

patrimonial lands, and in the end they settled out of court,

grants or cacicazgos still bore their founders' names, and

agreeing to divide up the 85-peso annual rental income

usufruct rights within each were dispersed among many

from the land among themselves-less than two pesos per

kin in different households by means of bilateral inheri-

year to each of the 48 heirs. Ownership of the land itself re-

tance. Rights to this land could be obtained through either

mained undivided.

descent or marriage. I have located information on 26 caci-

The Burgos case demonstrates several salient aspects of

cazgos in the eighteenth century, mainly from court re-

cacicazgo in late colonial Tecali. While Licenciado Le6n

cords of the many disputes they brought against one an-

was correct in noting that the Burgos estate had never been

other. These estates are listed in Table 2, grouped into 19

legally declared a cacicazgo, Indians and Spaniards alike in

entities that take into account several late colonial mergers.

the region had been in the habit of referring to them as such

Of these 19, only seven are known to have undergone for-

since the beginning of the eighteenth century. Despite the

mal partitioning among heirs, and only three of these parti-

significant degree of acculturation among many Tecali ca-

tions were done judicially. The case of the cacicazgo of

ciques by this time-most of the Burgos men in 1790

Bernardino de Burgos (no. 18 in Table 2) in the late eight-

knew Spanish and could sign their names-the lawyer's

eenth century provides a vivid example of how even a

bewilderment with Indian practices is obvious. Other

small, impoverished estate remained an identifiable unit

Spaniards, including some of Tecali's own district magis-

despite strains brought on by bilateral inheritance.5

trates, were more tolerant of the community's cacicazgo

In 1787, 48 male and female heirs (and their spouses) to

system, but they nonetheless viewed it as a culturally alien

the cacicazgo of don Bernardino de Burgos were divided

mode of land tenure and inheritance. As for the Burgos

over how to apportion their land among themselves. The

heirs, the invocation of cognatic descent, through either


property consisted of three pieces of land granted to the

male or female links, from their 1591 founder was fundafounder by the viceroy of New Spain in 1591. The 48 par-

mental, even though they could not demonstrate the links


ties agreed that all had a share in the cacicazgo, but they

precisely.
had failed in their attempt to distribute the land equitably.

Comparing the late colonial cacique estates with the sixThe heirs could not accurately trace their descent from the

teenth-century grants, we can see how the people of Santifounder of the estate, but they divided themselves into four

ago Tecali fashioned their cacicazgos in accord with their


branches, or "trunks," of descendants of four Burgos sib-

own cultural principles. Members of the 26 eighteenthlings who had died about 40 years (two generations) ear-

century cacicazgos (see Table 2), without exception, traced


lier. The problem the heirs faced was how to divide up

descent from their founders cognatically, and inheritance


three plots of land four ways.

was bilateral. All the politically influential caciques were


The dispute remained stalled in the Tecali district court

men, but women retained their property rights. Apart from


for five years. In 1790, the Spanish magistrate (subdele-

a tendency toward virilocal post-marital residence and a


gado), at a loss to break the stalemate, sought an inde-

not infrequent practice of leaving the house to a son rather


pendent legal opinion from Licenciado Jos6 de Le6n, a

lawyer in the city of Puebla. I quote from the lawyer's

than a daughter, there was no pronounced patrilineal bias

in the reckoning of descent. All legitimate children inher-

reply:

ited equally from both parents, and any legitimate descent

This is evidently a mixture and confusion of claims, a muddle

tie to any cacicazgo founder, whether through male or fe-

of doubts, and a tumultuous manner of proceeding. The multi-

male links, could potentially establish a valid claim to caci-

tude of speakers makes it unclear who is in possession of each

cazgo lands.
piece of land, on what title they base their rights ... and from

Many late colonial caciques claimed descent from more

which of the four children of Juan de Burgos the different par-

ties are descended. They are content to claim they are of one

than one founder (that is, they claimed rights to multiple

branch or another, but do not specify the degree of kinship or

cacicazgos), and marriage ties also gave each spouse rights

the reasoning by which they make their claims. All they say is

of survivorship in each other's cacicazgo holdings. The

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 491

Table 2. Cacicazgos of Santiago Tecali in the eighteenth century.

No. of Date last

Group Cacicazgo/1591 founder(s) plots mentioneda Source(s)

1 Miguel de Santiago 73 1781 Chance 1998

Martin de Santiago 34

Total 107

2 Felipe de Calzada 25 1806 AGN Indios 5, exps. 359, 437; Tierras 392,

Alonso de Mendoza 2 exp. 5; Tierras 488, exp. 3; Tierras 500, exp.

Total 27 4; Tierras 1442, exp. 8; Tierras 2972, exp. 30;

BN Puebla caja 32, exp. 850; caja 35, exp. 911;

caja 41, exp. 1112;

AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 50; paq 4, rollo 2, exp. 131;

AGNP Tepeaca caja 29, exp. 1, fols. 177-183r;

caja 53, exp. 18; Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fols.

40v-44v

3 Juan Garcia Chichimecateuctli 23 1733 AGN Indios 5, exp. 343; Tierras 533, exp. 6

4 Baltasar, Gaspar, y Felipe 22 1752 AGN Indios 5, exp. 445; Tierras 1865, exp. 1;

L6pez Padianos (45 in 1710) AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 44; paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 49;

AGNP Tepeaca caja 35, exp. 9, fol. 89v

5 Bernardino Hernmndez 18 1726 AGN Indios 5, exps. 344, 414, 444;

Joaquin de San Crist6bal 8 AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 35

Zacarfas de San Crist6bal 7

Total 33

6 Diego de San Ambrosio 15 1787 AGN Indios 5, exp. 436;

AJT paq 3, rollo 2, exp. 121; paq 6, rollo 3,

exps. s/n, 167

7 Bernardino de Tejeda 12 1802 AGN Indios 5, exp. 321; Tierras 1328, exp. 3;

Tierras 1449, exp. 7;

AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 199

8 Juan Bautista 11 1808 AGN Indios 5, exp. 322; Tierras 1868, exp. 16;

Genealogfa y Herildica JIT rollo 3718;

BN Puebla caja 35, exp. 928;

AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 40; paq 4, rollo 2, exp.

125; paq 6, rollo 3, exp. s/n;

AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fols. 30-33v

9 Joaquin de Tapia 13 1726 AGN Indios 5, exp. 443;

AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 42

10 Melchor Cort6s 8 1755 AGN Indios 5, exps. 372, 435; Tierras 26, exp.

Gaspar Cort6s 11 1, fol. 28r;

Total 19 AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 97

11 Martfn Romano 19 1730 AGN Indios 5, exp. 446;

AMT caja 1, exp. 2, no. 3

12 Hip6lito de Morales 5 1783 AGN Indios 5, exps. 360, 376; Tierras 1029, exp. 1

Gabriel de Morales 5

Total 10

13 Francisco Flores 3 1824 AGN Indios 5, exps. 324, 336; Tierras 27, exp. 2;

Fabitin Flores 5 AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 190;

Total 8 AGNP Tepeaca caja 22, exp. 4, fols. 86-94v

14 Diego P6rez Alcalde 7 1792 AGN Indios 5, exp. 323;

AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 199

15 Sim6n de Zamora 6 1777 AGN Indios 5, exp. 341; Tierras 881, exp. 1

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

492 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

Table 2. Continued.

No. of Date last

Group Cacicazgo/1591 founder(s) plots mentioneda Source(s)

16 Pedro Calixto 6 1755 AGN Indios 5, exp. 334; Tierras 26, exp. 1, fol. 28r;

AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 90

17 Felipe de Contreras 4 1799 AGN Indios 5, exp. 418;

AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 255

18 Bernardino de Burgos 3 1792 AGN Indios 5, exp. 419;

AJT paq 6, rollo 3, exp. 154

19 Gaspar Jui.rez 2 1805 AGN Indios 5, exp. 401; Tierras 2730, exp. 2

a My research extends only to 1821, but Olivera (1978) makes clear that a number of cacicazgo landholdings survived through the nineteenth

century.

There are subjects having no more than one [Spanish] surcacicazgos of the Tejeda, Bautista, Cort6s, Romano, Flo-

name and sometimes none at all who in no time end up with


res, P6rez Alcalde, Calixto, Burgos, and L6pez Padianos

three or four. And when they are careless with their land titles,

managed to keep their holdings in the hands of direct de-

others come and take them and use the papers to demand rent

scendants of their founders during much of their colonial

from the [Spanish] farmers.6

history. The remainder listed in Table 2 came to be dis-

persed more widely among families of different surnames.

Comparisons across Time


In many cases, though, individuals and families were more

loyal to one principal cacicazgo in which they had the most


Cacique land tenure and inheritance in Santiago Tecali

holdings and participated less in the affairs of the others in


thus attest to the vitality of certain indigenous preferences

which they also held rights.


and cultural practices in the late colonial context. Were

The emphasis on descent from a founding ancestor was


these similar to the practices that informed the organization

counterbalanced by another principle, just as strongly folof the noble houses at the time of Spanish contact? Differ-

lowed, that all siblings should inherit equally, and often


ent interpretations are possible, but there are some grounds

jointly, from both parents. As Table 2 indicates, separate

grants made to brothers in 1591 (groups 1, 5, 10, 12, and

13) had by the eighteenth century combined into single ca-

cicazgos held by each pair of brothers' combined descen-

dants (group 4 was different in that the original grant was

for answering in the affirmative. On the basis of his review

of Nahuatl documents from many parts of central Mexico,

Lockhart (1992:92) has observed that while the bilateral

character of colonial Nahua inheritance was "suspiciously

close" to the Spanish system, on the whole "there seems no

need to posit that inheritance as we see it in Nahuatl documade jointly to three brothers). Most of the approximately

ments was (other than the adjustments to monogamy) the


one hundred land litigation cases I have reviewed involved

result of Spanish influence." Especially relevant is Kelnot individuals, but groups of relatives, most commonly

logg's persuasive analysis of shallow cognatic descent


siblings, with joint rights in common.

groups in sixteenth-century Tenochtitlan, a pattern similar


Inheritance practices were also reflected in naming con-

to the one I have just described for Tecali's caciques in the

ventions. By late colonial times, all of Tecali's caciques

eighteenth century. Kellogg (1995:64, 72, 188) notes that

used Spanish surnames exclusively, and it was common

the "corporate sibling-based kin group," often augmented

for individuals to string together all the surnames of the ca-

by cousins, appeared frequently in legal proceedings, and

cicazgos to which they claimed inheritance rights (e.g., don

that inheritance rights were traced back two to five genera-

Cayetano de Tovar Ramirez Romano, don Laureano

tions, through sibling groups, to a founding male or couple.

Tllez de Santiago y Xim6nes, dofia Bernarda Santiago

Genealogies were strongly cognatic, often including

Rojas y Mendoza, and don Jos6 L6pez del Castillo y Con-

women as links through whom rights were traced.

treras de San Ambrosio). An expansive approach to nam-

Much the same can be said for late colonial inheritance

ing was also common enough among the Spaniards of the


in Santiago Tecali, though there were also signs of the

time, but Tecali's parish priest in 1783 was of the opinion


Spanish emphasis on the nuclear family which favored

that local caciques abused the naming convention for ecospouses and children as heirs, to the neglect of adult sib-

nomic gain. Some caciques, he said, arbitrarily adopted the


lings, nephews, and nieces. Wills, in both Nahuatl and

surname(s) of the cacicazgo(s) whose titles they held in


Spanish, are one of the best available windows on cacique

their possession, even though neither of their parents had

used the name(s).

property in colonial Tecali. In Table 3 is a list of 83 cacique

wills that I have located for the period 1594-1821, 53 of

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 493

Table 3. Cacique wills from Santiago Tecali, 1594-1821.

No. Date(s) Name(s) Source(s)

In Nahuatl with a Spanish translation

1 1616 Miguel de Santiago AJT paq 3, rollo 1, exp. 101

2 1618 Fabian Flores AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 190

3 1620 Miguel de Santiago AGNP Tepeaca caja 22, exp. 11, no. 5

4 1629 Magdalena de Mendoza AGN Tierras 500, exp. 4

5 1652 Francisco de Mendoza AGN Tierras 500, exp. 4, fol. 134; BN Puebla caja 35, exp. 911

6 1654 Juana Mendoza AGN Tierras 1449, exp. 7, fols. 126-29

7 1656 Joseph Flores AGNP Tepeaca caja 22, exp. 11, fol. 4

8 1658 Francisca Martha de Santiago AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 101, fols. 7, 106

9 1674 Francisco Juan Rasc6n AGN Tierras 2730, exp. 2

10 1683 Francisco de Mendoza AGN Tierras 1449, exp. 7, fols. 5r-v

11 1692 Antonio Bautista AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 40

12 1699 Antonia Isabel Ambrosio AJT paq 3, rollo 2, exp. 121

13 n.d. Bernardino de Tejeda (17th century) AGN Tierras 1449, exp. 7, fols. 16-20

14 1706 Francisco Rasc6n AGN Tierras 2730, exp. 2, fol. 36

15 1716 Jos6 L6pez del Castillo y Contreras AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 44

de San Ambrosio

16 1737 Gaspar Flores AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 95

In Spanish or Spanish translation

17 1594 Felipe de Calzada Tecpanhecal BN Puebla caja 41, exp. 1112

18 1617 Gaspar Juarez AGN Tierras 2730, exp. 2, no. 28

19 1662 Maria de Rojas Ramirez Romano AMT caja 1, exp. 2

20 1664 Salvador de Santiago AMT caja 1, exp. 2

21 1671 Ana Luisa Bautista AGNP Tepeaca caja 25, exp. 8

22 1691 Ana Jim6nez AJT paq 18, rollo 8, exp. 61

23 1691 Joseph de Rojas AGNP Tepeaca caja 29, exp. 1

24 n.d. Antonio de Santiago AGN Tierras 1216, exp. 2, fols. 19-20

25 1700 Antonia Catarina de Santiago AGNP Tepeaca caja 33, exp. 3, fols. 126-127r

26 1701 Jacobo Ramfrez AGNP Tepeaca caja 33, exp. 4

27 1706 Antonia Catarina de Santiago AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 9

28 1714 Roque de Santiago y Rojas AGN Tierras 500, exp. 4, fol. 224; Tierras 488, exp. 3

29 1717 Maria de Santiago AGN Tierras 1216, exp. 2

30 1720 Mateo Flores AJT paq 7, rollo 3, exp. 190, fols. 8-9v

31 1725 Pedro de Santiago Rasc6n y AGNP Tepeaca caja 35, exp. 5

Bustamante

32 1729 Alonso de Leyba AGN Tierras 1029, exp. 1, fol. 43

33 1733 Ana de Rojas AMT caja 1, exp. 14

34 1736 Elena de Santiago AJT paq 18, rollo 8, exp. 59

35 1737 Elena de Santiago Hemrnndez AGN Tierras 1216, exp. 2, fol. 94

36 1737 Juan Cort6s de las Nieves BN Puebla caja 32, exp. 850

(Tlacotepec)

37 1737 Pedro Calixto AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 90

38 1737 Antonio Gregorio Rasc6n AJT paq 6, rollo 3, exp. s/n, fols. 63-68v

39 1739 Tomis de Tovar AJT paq 2, rollo 1, exp. 70

40 1747 Teresa L6pez AJT paq 1, rollo 1, exp. 44

41 1750 Juan Gonzalo T611ez AGNP Tepeaca caja 43, exp. 34

42 1750 Agustin Melo y Flores AGNP Tepeaca caja 43, exp. 34

43 1750 Tomis de San Li.zaro AMT caja 1, exp. 9

44 1762-65 Joseph de Santiago AGN Tierras 1216, exp. 2, fols. 76-83

45 1771 Crist6bal de Leyba AGN Tierras 1029, fol. 47

46 1774 Miguel Mirquez AGN Tierras 1029, exp. 1, fol. 11

47 1780 Manuela T611ez de Santiago AJT paq 4, rollo 2, exp. 143

48 1799 Rosa de Luna y M6ndez AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 1-3

49 1800 Laureano de Escalona AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 25-29v

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

494 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

Table 3. Continued.

No. Date(s) Name(s) Source(s)

50 1801 Juliana Maria Escalona AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 42-44

51 1801 Manuel Bautista AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 44-47

52 1802 Laureano de Escalona AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 49-53

53 1802 Alejandro Bautista AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 75-77v

54 1803 Rosalia de Tovar AGNP Tecali caja 1, exp. 1, fols. 99-102v

55 1804 Alonso de Leiba y Morales AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 15

56 1805 Felipe Jim6nez AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16

57 1805 Vicenta Rasc6n de Santiago AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16

58 1805 Rosa de San L6.zaro AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16

59 1806 Antonia de Santiago AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16

60 1807 Vicente Antonio Gonzdilez AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16

61 1807 M6nica Jim6nez AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fol. 100v

62 1808 Maria Felipa Hemrnndez Flores AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fol. 106

63 1808 Miguel Sanchez AMT caja 5, exp. 11

64 1809 Juan de la Cruz S anchez Samora AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fols. 165-69

65 1810 Crist6bal de Rojas AGNP Tecali caja 1, libro 16, fol. 187

66 1812 Antonia Catarina de Santiago AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 17, fol. 2

67 1812 Maria Antonia Sanchez AMT caja 6, exp. 3

68 1813 Jos6 Maria L6pez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 17, fol. 14

69 1814 Cayetano de Tovar AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 17, fol. 48

70 1815 Maria Ygnacia Rasc6n AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 18, fol. 12

71 1816 Lorenzo de la Cruz Bautista AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 19, fol. 5

72 1817 Dominga Maria Rasc6n AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 19, fol. 66v

73 1817 Leonardo Carri6n y Flores AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 19, fol. 85v

74 1817 Jos6 de los Santos Torijos AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 19, fol. 90v

75 1818 Est ban Antonio Tllez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 20, fol. 68

76 1820 Manuela V isquez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 9

77 1820 Francisco Antonio M irquez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 13

78 1820 Vicente P6rez Ramirez Romano AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 22

79 1820 Anastacio Tllez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 34

80 1820 Juan Aniceto Tllez de Santiago AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 48v

81 1820 Juan de Dios Tllez de Santiago AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 21, fol. 59

82 1821 Maria Guadalupe L6pez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 22, exp. 2, fols. 1-4

83 1821 Ana Maria Visquez AGNP Tecali caja 2, libro 22, exp. 2, fol. 17v

them by men and 30 by women. Most list only modest sorts

The 1780 will (in Spanish) of the cacica dofia Manuela

T6llez de Santiago, while exceptional for its detail and the


of possessions, and many caciques, like some prehispanic

wealth of its subject, illustrates some of the key aspects of


nobles, were landless. Male heirs to cacicazgos sometimes

descent, inheritance, and property ownership in Tecali that


listed their holdings and assigned specific plots to their

have been discussed thus far.7 Dofia Manuela was an heir

wives, children, and other heirs. Others, especially women,

to part of the large Santiago cacicazgo that derived from

simply stated that the unspecified lands they held were to

the powerful house of Tecpan. Her deceased husband, don

be divided equally among their offspring. Still others, even

Juan Romero, had served several terms as gobernador and

when they had rights in land, did not mention them at all in
had been politically influential in the community. He was

their wills. Then there were those whose cacicazgo claims


fully literate in Spanish and dressed as a Spaniard. In her

had been usurped by others, usually gobernadores (indigewill, precisely written in the Spanish style, dofia Manuela

nous political officials) or unscrupulous relatives; frequently

the executors of the estate were asked to try to recover the

provided the following information about the land she held

(the summary is mine):

property for the testator's heirs. Very few testators provided

* Three years after she married, her brother gave her two

detailed listings or descriptions of their property. Indeed,


plots from the titulo (cacicazgo) of her ancestor don

many wills exhibit a lack of attention to detail that stands in


Martin de Santiago, and one from the titulo of another

sharp contrast to the vehemence with which land claims


ancestor, don Benito de Le6n. One of these plots was

were litigated in court.

previously held by her mother, and dofia Manuela also

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 495

held it until the death of her husband, when another ca-

cique usurped it.

* Another piece of land from the same titulo of don Martin

none was formally entailed. Yet at the same time it was

also understood that all siblings should inherit their fair

shares from both parents. There is no indication that colo-

de Santiago was part of a package of community lands

nial Tecalenses perceived any conflict between these op-

that were sold to a hacienda, but her husband protested

posing principles. Where Spanish courts saw ambiguities,

the sale and it was annulled. This land rightfully belongs

they saw none. I believe these "ambiguities" stemmed

to the Santiago titulo and thus to her, her brother Pedro,

from the Nahuas' (usually successful) attempts to adjust to

and her cousin don Juan T6llez. Her portion of it should

the expectations of Spanish courts without abandoning

be distributed to her heirs.

their own received cultural categories.

* Various pieces (no number is given) from the titulos of

her ancestors don Miguel and don Martin de Santiago


The Teccalli as House

are located in the Doctrina of Tochtepec. These lands

Perhaps the best point of departure for exploring the

have not been divided up among the heirs, as they

relevance of the house model for the case at hand is to ask,


should have been, owing to the litigation between To-

with Carsten and Hugh-Jones (1995a: 15), "why are houses

chtepec and the caciques of Tecali. Her heirs are to so-

not lineages?" There are three answers to this question for


licit her portion of these lands and divide it up among

the case of Tecali, starting with the name itself. As noted


her daughters.

above, the terms used to describe the noble house in the


* Acting on his own, her brother Anastasio sold a piece of

Nahuatl language, as in many other languages, do not have


land without her permission to a cofradia (religious so-

kinship referents. The terms teccalli (noble house) and


dality), which later resold it to a Spaniard. Part of this

tecpan (palace) employ place and architectural metaphors,


land was hers and her executors should recover her

while tlatocayotl (rulership), another equivalent, is a politirightful portion of the proceeds.

cal term. Thus one advantage of the house over the lineage
* A piece of land belonging to the titulo of don Bernardino

model is that it is closer to how Nahua actors themselves


de Burgos is currently in the hands of her brother Pedro.

talked and wrote about the noble house. Levi-Strauss's noIt should be divided among her heirs and those of her

tion that the language of the house is "about kinship," even


brother Anastasio.

when its activities are not, has been criticized by Carsten


* Through her parents, she has rights to land in the three

and Hugh-Jones (1995a:19), who argue that it is no less


titulos of Poy6n, G6mez, and Ana Isabel, which are cur-

"about" the economy. In the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley, the


rently controlled by various caciques. Her brother Pedro

language of the house was also equally "about" politics. Incurrently has usufruct to the land in the tiftulo of Ana Isa-

deed, the noble houses were so influential there that I


bel.

would suggest that in this region we can speak of a full-

Other property listed by dofia Manuela included three

houses and part of a fourth; five lots, two of them planted

with maguey cactus; 80 head of sheep and goats; 12 oxen;

24 cows; 28 threshing horses; and Spanish-style household

fledged "house society" in the LUvi-Straussian sense. This

may turn out to be a principal difference between the east-

ern and western Nahua regions. In the Valley of Mexico,

for example, the term tlatocayotl referred to the rulership

furniture and clothing. She instructed that all her property,

of a tlatoani, and after the conquest the Spanish generally

including the land, was to be divided equally among her six

took the presence of a tlatocayotl as the criterion for their

children, all of them daughters.

political recognition of an altepetl (Horn 1997:45). But this

While dofia Manuela was wealthier than many caciques

of her time, her will exemplifies several aspects of land

criterion would be misleading in places like Tecali and

Tepeaca where, as we have seen, a tlatocayotl could be

tenure and inheritance in late colonial Tecali: (1) she was

simply one large noble house among several in a single al-

heir to several cacicazgos, though her principal holdings

tepetl. Here, as Lockhart (1992:106) notes, the teccalli had

were in the two Santiago estates; (2) she and her siblings

ethnic and political allegiance to the altepetl, but it was suf-

had equivalent inheritance rights; (3) her late husband had

ficiently powerful and independent to stand "outside the

some control over her inherited property, but the cacicazgo

land was allocated among siblings by an elder brother; (4)

another relative took advantage of her vulnerability when

her husband died and usurped some of her land; and (5) a

significant portion of her land was in litigation and pro-

duced no income.

framework of altepetl obligations."

A second sense in which the teccalli was more like a

house than a lineage lies in its integration of contradictory

traits. L6vi-Strauss (1982:184; 1987:160-167) points to

the contradictions between patrilineal and matrilineal de-

scent, filiation and residence, hypergamy and hypogamy,

It is fair to say that no clear distinction was made be-

tween individual and group (cacicazgo) land ownership.

close and distant marriage, heredity and election. In Tecali,

the basic contradiction was between descent from found-

Cacicazgos were thought of as wholes, and this was the leing ancestors (lineality) and an equally strong emphasis on

gal status of most of them in the eighteenth century, though

siblingship (laterality), as discussed above.8 Recognizing

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

496 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

'genealogy' that organizes a branching lineage, of the kind


that contradictory kinship strategies could be employed to

analysed prototypically by Evans-Pritchard for the Nuer....


preserve the teccalli's estate suggests that both patrilineal

Clearly there are points in common (e.g. 'agnaticism') beand cognatic descent and bilateral inheritance, in differing

tween the two usages. But the differences are very marked

historical contexts, may not be such strange bedfellows af-

and arise from differences in the social systems, especially in

ter all. The Tecali case shows how cacicazgos remained in-

the modes of livelihood and the type of polity. [Goody

tact even though all children inherited usufruct rights from

1983:231]

both of their parents (if both had land rights to transmit). I

The kinship aspect of the house is thus a line of agnatic or


have called these "dispersed" cacicazgos, in contrast to the

cognatic filiation organized around a narrow pedigree,


better known "consolidated" type in which an entailed es-

while the branching, segmental lineage, in contrast, is more


tate was transmitted to a single heir in each generation

concerned with genealogy (see also Carsten and Hugh(Chance 1998:729). One remaining problem of teccalli

Jones 1995a: 15).


formation concerns the manner in which commoners were

In my previous work, I did not hesitate to apply the linerecruited to the houses. There are few details, yet it is clear

age model to Tecali's noble houses and to the colonial barthat this was accomplished through political rather than

rios and cacicazgos which derived from them (Chance


kinship means. Olivera (1978:127-128) has shown that

1996a, 1996b, 1998). But it appears to me now that both


late sixteenth-century marriage records in Tecali invari-

ideology and practice were actually closer to "lignage" and


ably noted whether the bride and groom were nobles or

the idea of the house. The strongly cognatic nature of decommoners. Just as significantly, the names of their lords

scent, the shallowness of genealogies, and the inability of


were also recorded for all the commoner parties. Thus pa-

many litigants to trace descent from the founding ancestors


tronage was without a doubt a central part of the social or-

they claimed should not necessarily be seen, in the absence


ganization of the community and an important means for

of better evidence, as a change from a prehispanic patrilintegrating commoners into the houses. This in itself points

ineal arrangement. Very likely both cognatic and patrilto a principal inadequacy of the lineage model for inter-

ineal tendencies were present. Moreover, we have little dipreting the teccalli.

rect information on descent and inheritance before the


A return to the example of the medieval European noble

arrival of the Spanish, and if there was a patrilineal emphahouse leads to a third sense in which the teccalli was not a

sis in the sixteenth century, it could have stemmed in part


lineage. It is no coincidence that much of the debate over

from Spanish influence, as I have suggested. I also find it


the structure of European kin groups turns on some of the

significant that while Tecali caciques were eager to discuss


same issues that have bedeviled the study of Nahua kin-

genealogy in Spanish courts when defending their land


ship, especially the relative importance of bilateral kinship

claims, when drawing up their wills in more private ciron the one hand and the strength of the lineage principle on

cumstances they discussed "titulos" and "cacicazgos" but


the other. Both Nahua and medieval European aristocrats

faced the problem of how to transmit an estate from one

generation to the next in a situation where kinship was

reckoned bilaterally. Part of the French solution to this

problem in the eleventh and twelfth centuries was the con-

cept of "lignage," which according to Goody (1983:228)

referred to "an aristocratic 'house' (maison) whose identity

over time is assured by a landed estate, claims to office, ti-

tles or other relatively exclusive rights." This is to be dis-

tinguished from the anthropological sense of "lineage" as a

line of ascendants traced through men, women, or a combi-

nation of both. In the feudal European aristocracy, names

rarely mentioned descent lines any more than was neces-

sary to establish ownership. Founding ancestors were fre-

quently invoked, but the precise links to them were rarely

known in detail. In every will, the emphasis was on the es-

tate, not on genealogy.

The estate itself did not only consist of economically

productive property, but could include items of symbolic

significance as well. Don Miguel de Santiago, for example,

the last king of Tecali and head of the house of Tecpan, had

little to say about his ancestors in his wills of 1616 and

1620, but dwelled at length on his collection of chalchi-

were handed down from one generation to the next and

huites (precious jade stones) that symbolized his leadership

there was a strong sense of genealogy, but the focus of this

and were set in small shrines scattered throughout the lands

attention was the house itself and its estate, not the descent

line per se. Goody's argument parallels that of Levi-

Strauss:

of his teccalli. Similarly, in the 1780s, over 150 years after

don Miguel's death, a house and shrine dedicated to Santa

Elena, erected by one of his descendants, had come to sym-

bolize the faded glory of the Santiago cacicazgo-which

these lignages have little to do with the lineages of the Bed-

derived from the house of Tecpan--and became the object

ouin of North Africa, the Nuer of the southern Sudan and the

of extensive litigation among heirs that ultimately cost


Tallensi of northern Ghana. For this reason it would perhaps

considerably more than the value of the property itself


be better to speak of them as 'houses' or alternatively to pre-

serve the French form. They are organized around a 'pedi-

(Chance 1998:725-726). Likewise, the colonial conven-

tion mentioned above of adopting the surnames of the cacigree' of the kind by which the House of Windsor sometimes

traces its fanciful descent from Brut of Troy; contrast the

cazgos from which one inherited is reminiscent of a similar

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 497

practice in medieval European noble houses. Members of a

This is not the place for a detailed discussion of Nahuatl

European house would adopt the names of their landhold-

kinship terms, a topic which has been ably treated by oth-

ings and castles, which could be paternal or maternal, upon

ers (e.g., Carrasco 1966; Lockhart 1992:72-85; Offner

receiving the inheritance. "The territorial names conse-

1983:163-226). Relevant here, however, is Lockhart's

quently became the true names at the same time as the resi(1992:73) observation that Nahuatl texts rarely employ any

dence's character as center of political action asserted it-

collective kinship terms at all: "Again and again, the Nahua

self' (L6vi-Strauss 1982:180).


kinship system seems to deemphasize larger units of any

kind, and look at the totality of relationships as an ordered

The Problem of Descent and Regional

scheme in which each relative or class of relative occupies

a specific, distinct place as seen from the common center


Differences

of ego." Thus he sees little evidence for the existence of de-

The case of Tecali has a bearing on the broader ques-

scent groups in Tenochtitlan, and Offner (1983:129,

tions of Nahua concepts of descent and the supposed exist-

166-168) would go further and rule out the presence of a

ence or absence of descent groups. These have been peren-

concept of descent in Aztec (Nahua) society.

nial issues in central Mexican ethnohistory, beginning with

The Nahuatl term that most closely approximates the

the debate over the nature of the calpolli. The calpolli was

anthropological concept of descent is tlacamecayotl, a

assumed in the past to have been a clan or lineage, the

"rope of people," or "human cordage." Often translated

members of which were primarily, if not entirely, com-

into Spanish as linaje (lineage), in Nahuatl texts it some-

moners (e.g., Caso 1963; Kirchhoff 1954; Monz6n 1949).

times refers to a line of descent connecting an ancestor

More recent studies, however, have overturned this view

with a particular person. In plural form it refers to a group

and shown that the term applied to communities of various

of relatives (Carrasco 1976a:21), but it seems clear that the

kinds at different levels and that calpolli members were

term never designated an actual kinship group. Some

ordinarily unequal and under the control of a particular no-

would stress the egocentric nature of tlacamecayotl, point-

ble (Carrasco 1972, 1976b:104-105, 116; Hicks 1982:

ing out that in some contexts it encompassed both lineal

230-244; Lockhart 1992:98; Smith 1996:145-146, 312).

and collateral relatives. From this vantage point, it looks

Calpolli means "big house" in Nahuatl, and it might be ar-

something like a personal kindred, the egocentric set of

gued on linguistic and other grounds that the house concept

relatives associated with bilateral kinship.

should apply to this unit as well as to the teccalli. Hicks

Others have argued, however, that tlacamecayotl was

(1982:238, 1986:38) has even suggested that in the Cuer-

used to stress descent through a line of ancestors through

navaca region and possibly in Tetzcoco, a noble house with

whom rights were inherited (Calnek 1974:195-200;

its attached commoners was called a calpolli rather than a

Kellogg 1995:176-177). Most recently, Kellogg (1995:


teccalli. More research is clearly needed. The internal

175-186) has shown that tlacamecayotl in sixteenth-censtructure of the calpolli and its relation to the teccalli re-

tury documents from Tenochtitlan expresses linked ideas


main poorly understood, and I will suggest below that there

about birth, consanguineal relationship, and descent. While


were significant differences between the eastern and west-

she agrees that tlacamecayotl does have an ego-oriented


ern Nahua regions. In any case, some of the central unre-

aspect, she finds that it was also used in discussions of insolved problems in Nahua kinship studies have to do with

heritance to refer to those kin (children, grandchildren, sibthe relative saliency of descent (lineality) versus bilateral

lings, nephews, and nieces) who received property rights


kinship (laterality) and with attempts to apply or deny the

from ancestors extending back from two to five generalineage principle. I believe that use of the concepts of

tions. In such cases it is possible to speak of shallow cognahouse and lignage can potentially resolve some of the dif-

ferences in interpretation.

Turning to the Nahuatl language, we find that it has no

word equivalent to family, emphasizing instead the house-

hold composed of co-resident kin. Indeed, the central term

for relatives in Nahuatl is -huanyolque, "those who live

tic kin groups whose members may have shared legal obli-

gations. Kellogg (1995:178) thus defines tlacamecayotl as

"a kinship concept, combining features of kindreds and de-

scent groups, that expressed a relationship between ascen-

dant relatives and descendant relatives with the focus up-

with one" (Lockhart 1992:72). Like those of other Uto-

ward from a given Ego to a bilateral and flexibly defined

Aztecan languages, Nahuatl kinship terminology approxi-

set of ascendant relations."

mates the Hawaiian type in which siblings and cousins are

referred to by the same terms. This is consistent with what

we know about indigenous family structure in the Aztec

capital of Tenochtitlan (Mexico City) in the early colonial

years, where two, three, or more married couples typically

The use of female links for tracing inheritance rights is

thus abundantly attested for early colonial Tenochtitlan in

the Valley of Mexico, yet ethnohistorians of the Puebla-

Tlaxcala Valley to the east have tended to emphasize pa-

trilineal descent among the nobility, though not exclu-

shared a household compound and were bound by generasively (Carrasco 1976a; Olivera 1978). The chronicler

tional, lateral, and affinal ties (Kellogg 1995:168-169).

Mufioz Camargo claimed that only male offspring could

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

498 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

inherit teccalli lands in Tlaxcala, though he also mentions a

case where a son of a sister succeeded for lack of a male

1992:59). Particularly puzzling is the fact that while some

sources indicate a preference for impartible patrilineal in-

child (cited in Carrasco 1976a:28). Genealogies and cen-

heritance among the elite, the most detailed studies avail-

suses of noble houses in Tlaxcala and Huexotzinco some-

able on Nahua inheritance in the early sixteenth century all

times mention women, but much less frequently than men

agree that property transmission was bilateral and partible,

(Carrasco 1976a:28). At the same time, however, six-

at least in the Valley of Mexico (Cline 1986:59-85; Kel-

teenth-century lawsuits from the region clearly indicate

logg 1995:125; Lockhart 1992:72-85). These are matters

that noblewomen brought lands of their own to their mar-

that need further research, but I hope to have shown how

riages and that women could both inherit and transmit land

the use of the house model can accommodate the contra-

(Anguiano and Chapa 1976:143).

diction between lineal and lateral relationships and reduce

The manner of succession to the office of teuctli, the

head of the noble house, also contains ambiguities. The

chronicler Alonso de Zorita claimed that the office did not

automatically pass from father to son, but that the tlatoani

could interfere and name any successor he chose (Carrasco

1976a:23). Yet election to office by all the noble relatives

of the house is reported for Huexotzinco (Carrasco

1976a:23). Attempting to generalize, Lockhart (1992:103)

notes that succession to the office of teuctli

some of the confusion. The model points us away from

either/or choices and focuses our attention more on indige-

nous conceptions and on how contradictory means may be

employed toward the end of estate preservation among

elites. The house concept also implies that we can expect

some real differences in kinship practices between elites

and commoners (the latter with no estates to preserve),

something many scholars have long suspected. The chal-

lenge for research is the relative paucity of data pertaining

to the commoner population, always a problem in histori-

varied from direct descent in some situations to emphasis on


cal studies.

brother succession in others, always depending on the capac-

Another unresolved issue concerns the nature of the no-

ity of the candidates and the difference in their outside con-

ble house in the western Nahua region. The status of the

nections, with the whole body of nobles of the teccalli making

noble house is more opaque in the west, including the Val-

the final choice, at least in cases of doubt. The process would

leys of Mexico, Toluca, and the Cuernavaca region, where

thus have been hardly distinguishable from that of tlatoani

it is not clear whether the teccalli existed in the same way


succession at a higher level.

as it did in the east. While some have sought to generalize

These competing interpretations of Nahua kinship also

complicate our understanding of the noble house. Carrasco

(1976a:29) suggests that the pipiltin of a teccalli formed a

for Nahua central Mexico as a whole (Carrasco 1976a;

Hicks 1986), Lockhart (1992:104) notes that the term tec-

calli fails to appear in early colonial Nahuatl documenta-

lineage in the anthropological sense, a corporate kin group

tion from the west even a single time. One suggestion is

that was sometimes structured by cognatic (ambilineal) de-

that tecpan (palace) meant the same thing in the west as

scent, but was more often than not patrilineal. Lockhart

teccalli did in the east (though tecpan was also used in the

(1992:102-103), while recognizing the lineage-like quali-

east as well, as we have seen in Tecali). On this interpreta-

ties of the upper strata of the noble house, notes that in the

tion, references to the tecpanpouhque (palace people)

larger cases not all pipiltin are likely to have been direct de-

would be similar to those the Spaniards called ter-

scendants of the current teuctli or his predecessor. He sees

razgueros, i.e., all those commoners who worked the lands

a place for collateral relatives as well, and goes on to state

of or were otherwise dependent on a particular lord (Car-

flatly: "Nahua descent and inheritance were bilateral" (p.

rasco 1976a:22; Hicks 1986:38). Indeed, the terms teccalli

103). Were there perhaps regional differences in kinship

reckoning between the eastern and western Nahua regions?

No one has suggested anything of the sort, but it may be a

hypothesis worth exploring. For the moment, the signifi-

cance of the Tecali case presented above lies in its accent

on both descent and bilateral inheritance. This is closest to

Kellogg's (1995) analysis for Tenochtitlan, with the caveat

that the central units in Tecali are best conceived as houses

rather than kin groups, as I have argued.

It should now be clear that the view of the teccalli noble

stratum as lineage is more imposed by scholars than articu-

and tecpan are linguistically related, the former conjoining

"lord" with "house," and the latter meaning literally

"where a lord is." The two terms may in fact have been

roughly equivalent in the Puebla-Tlaxcala region, but the

problem in the west is that the tecpan "is primarily re-

stricted, in the sources for that area, to the establishments

(relatives, followers, buildings, lands) of altepetl tlatoque"

(Lockhart 1992:104). Indications of a wider use of tecpan,

in a fashion that would also encompass the teteuctin and all

their commoner dependents-as in the east-are rare.

Lockhart (1992:105-108) sees the east-west differences

lated by the Nahuas themselves. As we have seen, none of

as turning on different sorts of relations between the tec-

the terms for the noble house-teccalli, tecpan, tlato-

calli and calpolli. In the east, the teccalli was dominant and

cayotl-has a kinship referent, nor do preconquest or post-

conquest Nahua naming conventions express descent ties

through surnames as those of the Maya often do (Lockhart

stood outside the calpolli; here the teccalli held land corpo-

rately, dependents received land from lords, and in parts of

the Valley of Puebla, at least, the calpolli was peripheral to

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 499

Given the dominance of the noble house in this city-

the organization of the altepetl (as in Cuauhtinchan, Tecali,

state, we can speak of prehispanic Tecali as a "house soci-

and Tepeaca). In the west, on the other hand, the calpolli

ety." The Spanish colonial regime put an end to that domi-

was dominant and the teteuctin and their landholdings

nance, and by the end of the sixteenth century the teccalli

were integrated into the calpolli-altepetl structure. "The

had lost most of its political relevance. Yet aspects of its in-

holdings of a Cuernavaca-region teuctli," for example,

ternal organization were reproduced as vital elements of

"appear to be calpolli land, and he and his followers consti-

the colonial Indian culture: the sense of a shared estate

tute one of several wardlike sets of people and land within

among related nobles, cognatic descent from founding an-

his calpolli subdivision" (Lockhart 1992:105). Lockhart

cestors, bilateral inheritance, strong sibling ties, and pa-

cautions that these differences should not be overdrawn.

tron-client relationships between nobles and commoners.


There was tension between the two principles of organiza-

The 1591 grants to nobles that laid the basis for the colo-

tion and particular arrangements varied from place to

nial cacicazgos amounted, in retrospect, to the founding of


place, but both principles were usually present. He goes so

a series of new, smaller houses that would come to replace

far as to say that they may have been two ways of looking

the old. Thus we might say that Tecali was transformed


at the same thing, "the western view emphasizing ethnic-

from a prehispanic "house society" to a late colonial "sociity, with the lords seen primarily as officers and leaders of

ety with houses." The late colonial houses lacked the pothe ethnic group, the eastern view emphasizing noble line-

litical and economic power of their predecessors, but they


ages, with the broader ethnic group relegated to the back-

rested on and kept alive similar indigenous notions of deground and imagined as dependent on the lineages"

scent and inheritance.


(1992:108). Terminology aside, it has been pointed out that

While I believe the house model applies to other parts of


political relations between nobles and commoners may

the prehispanic Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley, the fashioning of a


have been broadly similar in both east and west. In both re-

late colonial "society with houses" based on persisting cagions, commoners paid tribute to nobles not only by virtue

cicazgo units may be more unique to Santiago Tecali and a


of the public offices the nobles held, but also because they

handful of other places such as Santa Cruz Tlacotepec


inherited patrimonial lands with associated rights to labor

(Perkins 2000). As I have pointed out elsewhere (Chance


and tribute (Perkins n.d.:12-13; see also Carrasco

in press), the Tecali district remained very much an Indian


1977:229). Nonetheless, the cultural elaboration of the tec-

zone during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Spancalli in the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley was quite distinctive.

ish ranchers and agriculturalists were little interested in Te-

cali until the eighteenth century, long after haciendas and


Conclusion

ranchos had been established in other surrounding districts.

Levi-Strauss (1982:180) asserts that a dialectic of filiThe main reason for this may lie in the simple fact that in

ation and residence is a fundamental feature of all house


the earlier years better land for Spanish-style farming and

societies. I have not dealt explicitly with the house as a


ranching could be acquired elsewhere in locations more

dwelling or place in this paper, for there is little relevant inconvenient to Tepeaca and the city of Puebla. When Te-

formation available for Tecali. In prehispanic times all the


cali's land did become attractive to outsiders after 1700, a

nobles resided in a nucleated settlement that contained


legal prohibition on the sale of Indian lands to non-Indians

separate barrios for each teccalli. Yet the noble house as a


helped preserve the cacicazgo holdings, many of which

whole had no geographical unity nor precise boundaries,


were rented out to Spanish and mestizo rancheros. Thus

for its lands and commoners were scattered about the counwhile much cacicazgo land entered the colonial market

tryside, intertwined with those of other houses (Chance


economy through rentals, it remained in indigenous hands.

1996a:110; Olivera 1978:105, 146). Indeed, I have argued


The presence of an entrenched indigenous landholding

that prehispanic Tecali was a society based on personal


elite coupled with the delayed arrival of Spanish agricul-

loyalties, and that the more territorially oriented system of


ture and ranching led to a class alliance between caciques

pueblos and barrios that arose in the colonial period was

and Spanish labradores (farmers) to keep resources in the

contingent on the political eclipse of the noble house and

hands of Indian nobles (and thus available for Spanish use)

the decay of many of the interpersonal ties associated with


and deny them to the emergent independent communities

it (Chance 1996a:134). The prehispanic noble residence

of Indian commoners. Thus colonial Tecali may have been

pattern may well have resembled the multi-household


exceptional in its retention of indigenous forms of descent

compounds among present-day Nahuas in Veracruz or in

contact-period Tenochtitlan (Kellogg 1995:170; Sand-

and land tenure, but it may also provide insights into the

nature of prehispanic noble houses in other altepetl in the

strom 2000). The palace of the head of each teccalli was a

Puebla-Tlaxcala region.

place of much significance, yet it appears that the noble

house in Tecali had less to do with residence than with po-

Where does this leave the lineage model with respect to

Nahua central Mexico? Its applicability has always been

litical power and agricultural production.

uncertain and there are issues in the study of Nahua kinship

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

500 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

Foundation, with supplementary funding from Arizona State


(some of them commented on in this paper) that remain

University.
unresolved. These issues mirror those in discussions of the

1. Abbreviations for archival citations in the notes and in

history of European kinship and in the discipline at large.

the Tables are as follows:

Ever since The Nuer (Evans-Pritchard 1940), we have

AGN Archivo General de la Naci6n, Mexico City

known that lineages often fuse descent and alliance with

AGNP Archivo General de Notarias del Estado de Puebla,


non-kinship factors, particularly residence and other sorts

Puebla
of personal ties, ranging from slavery to fictive kinship.

AJT Archivo Judicial de Tecali, microfilm collection of


The solution, I would argue, lies not in jettisoning the line-

the Museo Nacional de Antropologia e Historia,

age concept altogether, but in refining it, paring it down,

Mexico City

making it more precise, and better determining where it

AMT Archivo Municipal de Tecali de Herrera, Puebla

does and does not apply, much as anthropologists have

BN Biblioteca Nacional, Mexico City. Section: Tenencia

done with the concept of culture over the past century. The

de la Tierra en Puebla

concept of the house does not replace that of the lineage,

2. The calpolli had only a marginal presence in Tecali.


but stands alongside it and is intended to account for differ-

Eleven are known, all of them small entities of Cholulan orient, if overlapping, phenomena. It also has the additional

gin scattered throughout the hinterland. They played no dis-

advantage of being closer to the folk models of many

cernable role in community politics, and their peripheral status

groups, which often stress ties to land and locality rather

resembled that of their counterparts in neighboring Cuauhtin-

than genealogy. The house concept thus affords us an op-

chan (Chance 1996a:108-114; Olivera 1978:94-116; Reyes

portunity to look at property-owning groups over time

Garcia 1977:113-117).

from a different vantage point, and it is proving to be a use3. Little is known about kinship and descent among Te-

ful tool in the study of Mesoamerican societies. Its applicacali's commoners. Since they had a long history in the region

tion to the Classic and Post-Classic Maya has helped clarand were ethnically distinct from the conquering nobles in the

ify the problems that surround the analysis of the Maya


twelfth century, the commoners could have had a somewhat

lineage and also led to a better understanding of the nested,

different kinship system of their own. Most of the commoners

were Nahuas, though there were also small numbers of

overlapping symbolic structures of field, house, altar, and

Popoloca and Otomif speakers. My impression is that these

cosmos (Gillespie 1999, 2000c, 2000d). The use of the

older cultural and ethnic differences, while not forgotten, had


house model in Nahua ethnography helps make sense of

narrowed considerably by the time the Europeans arrived in


contradictions that have long resisted analysis in terms of

the early sixteenth century.


anthropology's traditional kinship categories (Sandstrom

4. BN Puebla caja 41, exp. 1112.

2000; see also Monaghan 1995 for a related discussion of a

5. AJT paquete 6, rollo 3, exp. 154, fols. 154, 93v-97v.

Mixtec "great house"). Just as importantly, the house con-

6. AGN Tierras 1110, exp. 22, fol. Iv.

cept opens up new possibilities for integration and collabo-

7. AJT paquete 4, rollo 2, exp. 143.

ration among the too often separate enterprises of archaeol8. Sandstrom (2000:58-68) notes a similar contradiction

ogy, ethnohistory, and ethnography.


among the modern Nahuas of northern Veracruz, where a ver-

tical, lineage-like extended family and a strong patrilateral

Notes

bias in post-marital residence and land inheritance coexist to-

day with a bilateral kinship ideology and strong ties among

Acknowledgments. This is a revised version of a paper en-

sets of siblings. He defines the "embryonic" house in this set-

titled "Descent and the Nahua Noble House" presented at the

ting as a "well-defined precinct containing kinsmen and non-

Annual Meeting of the American Anthropological Associa-

kinsmen who share a common interest in the property and who

tion in Philadelphia, PA, December 2-6, 1998. A Spanish ver-

interact with each other as if they were kinsmen" (97). He

sion entitled "Descendencia y la casa noble nahua" was pre-

goes on to suggest that in all house societies a "currency of in-

sented at the conference "Historia de la etnicidad india en

teraction" other than descent should be present, and in the case

M6xico," sponsored by the Direcci6n de Estudios Hist6ricos

of the Nahuas of northern Veracruz (among others) this cur-

of the Instituto Nacional de Antropologifa e Historia, Mexico

rency emerges out of the sharing of labor in the process of ag-

City, December 10-11, 1998. I wish to thank Matthew Restall

ricultural production. Thus distant kin or non-kin may partici-

and Francisco Gonzailez Hermosillo Adams for their invita-

pate fully in a Nahua house as long as they demonstrate "a


tions to present the papers. I am especially indebted to Susan

willingness to work in cooperation with other members of the

Gillespie for her insight and encouragement, and to her and

group" to replenish the lives of all concerned (71).


Alan Sandstrom for generously sharing with me their work in

progress. I also wish to thank Donald Bahr, Susan Kellogg,

John Monaghan, Stephen Perkins, Barbara Price, and five

References Cited

anonymous reviewers for this journal for their helpful com-

ments on earlier drafts. Any shortcomings that remain are my

own responsibility. My archival research in Mexico was

funded by grant BNS-9020551 from the National Science

Anguiano, Marina, and Matilde Chapa

1976 Estratificaci6n social en Tlaxcala durante el siglo XVI.

In Estratificaci6n social en la Mesoamdrica prehispainica.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

CHANCE / THE NOBLE HOUSE IN COLONIAL PUEBLA 501

Pedro Carrasco, Johanna Broda, et al., eds. Pp. 118-156.

Dyckerhoff, Ursula, and Hanns S. Prem

1976 La estratificaci6n social en Huexotzinco. In Estratifica-

Mexico City: INAH.

Calnek, Edward

ci6n social en la Mesoamrrica prehispainica. Pedro Carrasco,

1974 The Sahagdin Texts as a Source of Sociological Informa-

tion. In Sixteenth-Century Mexico: The Work of Sahagtin.

Johanna Broda, et al., eds. Pp. 157-80. Mexico City: INAH.

Evans-Pritchard, E. E.

1940 The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and

Munro S. Edmonson, ed. Pp. 189-204. Albuquerque: Univer-

Political Institutions of a Nilotic People. Oxford: Oxford Uni-

sity of New Mexico Press.

versity Press.

Carrasco, Pedro

1963 Las tierras de los indios nobles de Tepeaca en el siglo

Flandrin, Jean-Louis

1979 Families in Former Times: Kinship, Household, and

XVI. Tlalocan 4(2):97-119.

1966 Sobre algunos trrminos de parentesco en el nihuatl

Sexuality. Richard Southern, trans. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

clasico. Estudios de Cultura Ndhuatl 6:149-166.

1969 Mais documentos sobre Tepeaca. Tlalocan 6(1): 1-37.

Gillespie, Susan D.

1999 Olmec Thrones as Ancestral Altars: The Two Sides of

1972 La casa y hacienda de un sefior tlalhuica. Estudios de

Power. In Material Symbols: Culture and Economy in Prehis-

Cultura Nhuatl 10:22-52.

1973 Los documentos sobre las tierras de los indios nobles de

tory. J. E. Robb, ed. Pp. 224-253. Center for Archaeological

Tepeaca en el siglo XIV. Comunicaciones 7:89-92.

Investigations, Occasional Paper, 26. Carbondale: Southern

1976a Los linajes nobles del Mexico antiguo. In EstratificaIllinois University.

ci6n social en la Mesoamrrica prehispainica. Pedro Carrasco,

2000a Beyond Kinship: An Introduction. In Beyond Kinship:

Johanna Broda, et al., eds. Pp. 19-36. Mexico City: INAH.

Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rose-

1976b Estratificaci6n social indigena en Morelos durante el

mary A. Joyce and Susan Gillespie, eds. Pp. 1-21. Philadel-

siglo XVI. In Estratificaci6n social en la Mesoamrrica pre-

phia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

2000b L6vi-Strauss: Maison and Socidtd ja Maisons. In Be-

hispainica. Pedro Carrasco, Johanna Broda, et al., eds. Pp.

102-117. Mexico City: INAH.

yond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House

1977 Los sefiores de Xochimilco en 1548. Tlalocan 7:

Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan Gillespie, eds. Pp.

229-265.

22-52. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

1979 The Chiefly Houses (Teccalli) of Ancient Mexico. In

2000c Maya "Nested Houses": The Ritual Construction of

Actes du XLII Congres International des Americanistes

Place. In Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction

(Paris, 1976). Vol. 9B. Pp. 177-185. Paris.

in House Societies. Rosemary A. Joyce and Susan Gillespie,

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones


eds. Pp. 135-160. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

1995a Introduction. In About the House: LUvi-Strauss and BePress.

yond. Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 1-46.

2000d Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Re-

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

placing "Lineage" with "House." American Anthropologist

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds.


102(3):19-36.

1995b About the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. CamGillespie, Susan D., and Rosemary A. Joyce

bridge: Cambridge University Press.

1997 Gendered Goods: The Symbolism of Maya Hierarchical

Caso, Alfonso
Exchange Relations. In Women in Prehistory: North America

1963 Land Tenure among the Ancient Mexicans. American


and Mesoamerica. Cheryl Claassen and Rosemary A. Joyce,

Anthropologist 65:863-878.
eds. Pp. 189-207. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

Chance, John K.
Press.

1996a The Barrios of Colonial Tecali: Patronage, Kinship,


Goody, Jack

and Territorial Relations in a Central Mexican Community.


1983 The Development of the Family and Marriage in Europe.

Ethnology 35(2): 107-39.


Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

1996b The Caciques of Tecali: Class and Ethnic Identity in


Herlihy, David

Late Colonial Mexico. Hispanic American Historical Review

1983 The Making of the Medieval Family: Symmetry, Struc-

76(3):475-502.

1998 La hacienda de los Santiago en Tecali, Puebla: Un caci-

ture, and Sentiment. Journal of Family History 8(2): 116-130.

Hicks, Frederic

cazgo nahua colonial, 1520-1750. Historia Mexicana

1982 Tetzcoco in the Early Sixteenth Century: The State, the

47(4):689-734.

City, and the Calpolli. American Ethnologist 9:230-249.

In press Haciendas, Ranchos, and Indian Towns: A Case from

1986 Prehispanic Background of Colonial Political and Eco-

nomic Organization in Central Mexico. In Supplement to the

the Late Colonial Valley of Puebla. Ethnohistory.

Cline, S. L.
Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 4. Victoria R.

1986 Colonial Culhuacan, 1580-1600. Albuquerque: UniverBricker and Ronald Spores, eds. Pp. 35-54. Austin: Univer-

sity of New Mexico Press.


sity of Texas Press.

Duby, Georges
Horn, Rebecca

1977 The Chivalrous Society. Cynthia Postan, trans. London:


1997 Postconquest Coyoacan. Stanford, CA: Stanford Uni-

Edward Arnold.
versity Press.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

502 AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST * VOL. 102, No. 3 * SEPTEMBER 2000

Joyce, Rosemary A., and Susan D. Gillespie, eds.

Monz6n, Arturo

2000 Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in

1949 El calpulli en la organizaci6n social de los tenochca. In-

stituto de Historia, 1st ser., 14. Mexico City: Universidad Na-

House Societies. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania

cional Aut6noma de Mexico.

Press.

Offner, Jerome A.
Kellogg, Susan

1983 Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco. Cambridge: Cam-

1995 Law and the Transformation of Aztec Culture,

bridge University Press.


1500-1700. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Olivera, Mercedes
Kirchhoff, Paul

1978 Pillis y macehuales. Mexico City: Casa Chata.


1954 Land Tenure in Ancient Mexico: A Preliminary Sketch.

Perkins, Stephen M.
RevistaMexicanadeEstudios Antropol6gicos 14:351-361.

2000 The Nahua Teccalli of the Valley of Puebla, Mexico: An


Kuper, Adam

Indigenous House Society under Spanish Rule. Ph.D. disser1982 Lineage Theory: A Critical Retrospect. Annual Review

tation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State Univerof Anthropology 11:71-95.

sity.
1993 The "House" and Zulu Political Structure in the Nine-

N.d. The Calpolli: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Con-

teenth Century. Journal of African History 34:469-487.

ceptions of Late Postclassic Central Mexican Social Organi-

Levi-Strauss, Claude

zation.

1982 The Way of the Masks. Sylvia Modelski, trans. Seattle:

Reyes Garcia, Luis

University of Washington Press.

1977 Cuauhtinchan del siglo XII al XVI. Wiesbaden: Franz

1987 Anthropology and Myth: Lectures, 1951-1982. Roy

Steiner Verlag GMBH.

Willis, trans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Sandstrom, Alan

Lockhart, James

2000 Toponymic Groups and House Organization: The Na-

1992 The Nahuas after the Conquest. Stanford, CA: Stanford

huas of Northern Veracruz, Mexico. In Beyond Kinship: So-

University Press.

cial and Material Reproduction in House Societies. Rosemary

Macdonald, Charles, ed.

A. Joyce and Susan Gillespie, eds. Pp. 53-72. Philadelphia:

1987 De la hutte au palais: Socidt6s "a maison" en Asie de

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Sud-Est insulaire. Paris: Editions du Centre National de la Re-

Schmid, Karl

cherche Scientifique.
1957 Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht,

Martinez, Hildeberto
Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel. Vorfragen

1984 Tepeaca en el siglo XVI. Mexico City: Casa Chata.


zum Thema "Adel und Herrschaft im Mittelalter." Zeitschrift

Martinez Baracs, Andrea


fur die Geschichte des Oberrheins 105(1): 1-62.

1998 El gobierno indio de la Tlaxcala colonial, 1521-1700.


Smith, Michael E.

Ph.D. dissertation, Centro de Estudios Hist6ricos, El Colegio


1996 The Aztecs. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

de Mexico.
Waterson, Roxana

Monaghan, John
1995 Houses and Hierarchies in Island Southeast Asia. In

1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain: Exchange, SacriAbout the House: Levi-Strauss and Beyond. Janet Carsten

fice, and Revelation in Mixtec Society. Norman: University

of Oklahoma Press.

and Stephen Hugh-Jones, eds. Pp. 47-68. Cambridge: Cam-

bridge University Press.

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Wed, 16 Mar 2016 04:10:45 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

You might also like