One of the puzzling aspects of the relationship between the two sites is that the public architecture of Chichén Itzá is actually more monumental than that at Tula, leading at least one Meso-American specialist to believe that Tula’s style was derived from Chichén. Many of the stylistic features themselves, however, have prototypes in Classic Teotihuacán, whereas there is little in Classic Maya culture that could be considered as the source. What is more probable—and this agrees with the Toltec version of the relationship—is that the Toltec state in Yucatán was politically independent from Tula and was larger in area and population. The presence of rival states in central Mexico such as Xochicalco and Cholula may have kept the core of the Toltec polity relatively restricted in space. The much larger area and population controlled by the Toltec state at Chichén would explain the differences in the scale of architecture. The superior military organization and equipment of the Toltec perhaps explains their apparent success in Yucatán.
Chichén Itzá: El CastilloEl Castillo (“The Castle”), Chichén Itzá, Yucatán, Mexico.© Ron Gatepain (A Britannica Publishing Partner)
Archaeological unity of the Postclassic
The Postclassic period of Meso-American archaeology generally is a period characterized by considerable regionalism combined with a certain degree of uniformity. To a great extent, the latter was the product of the large states and extensive trade networks centred in the central plateau region. The Early Postclassic in some areas may be described as a continuation of the Late Classic; on the Gulf coast, for example, sites like El Tajín continued to be occupied, while in the Valley of Oaxaca (although Monte Albán was abandoned) the Zapotec tradition continued with the new centre at Mitla. In other areas, new styles either began or reached their climactic development, such as the Mixteca–Puebla style in painting, ceramics, and metallurgy, which evolved either in western Oaxaca or, more probably, at Cholula in Puebla. On the Guatemalan Pacific piedmont and in Tabasco, two specialized ceramic traditions (both of which began in Late Classic times) evolved: (1) plumbate (so called because of its slip, which had an unusually high iron content in the natural clay that fired to a lead-colour glaze); and (2) Fine Orange (so called because of its fine-grained, temperless paste). Wares of these two styles were widely traded.
The unity of the Postclassic consisted primarily of the diffusion of religious ideology, particularly the sun god–warfare–sacrificial complex and of the related institutional development such as the military orders (the latter probably originated at Classic Teotihuacán). This ideology clearly originated in central Mexico, at either Cholula or Tula or both. The specific artistic style of representation of the themes in painting and sculpture spread as well. Along with this was diffused a specific style of representation of the social calendar and writing generally and much greater emphasis on the 52-year cycle. The specific style most probably originated at Cholula.
In the highland areas of Meso-America the Late Postclassic was a period of maximum population growth. The Early Postclassic was, however, the period of maximum expansion of sedentary peoples on the northern frontier, probably the product of minor changes in climate as a result of increased rainfall. This frontier retracted substantially in Late Postclassic times, possibly because the rainfall decreased. This was perhaps the major factor in the precipitate arrival of barbarous tribes into the plateau, as the annals state.
The Postclassic, over large areas of the lowlands, on the other hand, was strikingly different. One of the most intriguing problems of Meso-American archaeology is the peculiar sequence of events in the lowland Maya area. At the time of European contact much of the northern portion of Yucatán was well settled. A narrow band of densely settled country also extended along the east coast south to modern Belize City and along the entire length of the west coast (where it joined another area of substantial settlement in the south Gulf coast). Most of the heart of the peninsula, the department of Petén in Guatemala, and large portions of the states of Campeche and Quintana Roo in Mexico (the most densely settled portion of the Classic Maya territory) were virtually abandoned.
One of the major problems of Meso-American archaeology is the explanation of this massive population decline. The immediate causes are clear: it must have been the product of migrations out of the area or a set of internal factors that caused a decline in situ or both. Various hypotheses as to processes and causes have been suggested. These may be grouped in the following categories: natural disasters (earthquakes, famines, epidemics, and hurricanes have all been suggested); ecological processes (primarily the deterioration of the natural environment by overintensification of land use in response to population pressure); and sociopolitical processes (internal warfare, invasion from outside, peasant revolts, breakdown of critical trade networks). Some of these hypotheses are clearly derivations from others or are not explanations but rather are descriptions of events that were produced by other processes. It seems certain that the causes were multiple and in some way related. Of great interest is the fact that at least one other lowland area, the Pacific Coastal Plain of Guatemala, experienced a comparable Postclassic decline. William T. Sanders Aztec culture to the time of the Spanish conquest The nature of the sources
At the time of the Spanish conquest the dominant people of Meso-America were the Aztec. This description is based primarily on written documents from the 16th century but also includes some archaeological data. The literature, both published and unpublished, of the 16th century is enormous and takes in all aspects of Aztec culture. Much of it covers the period within a few decades after the conquest, and it is uncertain how much change had occurred because of the introduction of Spanish culture. Some Aztec institutions, such as the military orders, were immediately abolished by the Spaniards; and the sources, therefore, give only the barest outline of their organization. This information, however, combined with archaeological data, gives a fairly detailed picture of Aztec culture at the time of the Spanish conquest. The sources can be classified by content and purpose into five categories, each of which is described below. Accounts written by the conquistadores
Eyewitness accounts of Aztec culture on the eve of the conquest are, of course, the most directly pertinent sources because they describe Aztec culture before it became transformed by the Spanish conquest. Important among these are the Cartas de Relación (“Letters of Information”), sent by Hernán Cortés to the Holy Roman emperor Charles V, and the Historia verdadera de la conquista de la Nueva España (1632; The True History of the Conquest of New Spain) by Bernal Díaz del Castillo. Religious rites and ceremonies, temples, and paraphernalia of the cults are often described in these accounts. Their value, however, is lessened by the writers’ ignorance of Náhuatl (the Aztec language at the time of the conquest), their lack of understanding of the Indian way of thinking, and their deep hostility to the native religion, which they considered to be inspired by the devil. These documents, therefore, have been interpreted with utmost caution.