444 UNIT 4 MESOAMERICAN CULTURAL FEATURES
Figure 12.3 In addition to domestic responsibilities such as weaving (left), Mexica women
held a variety of roles in their society, from trading in the markets (right) to performing
agricultural and priestly duties, and prophesying the future. After Bernardino de Sahagún,
Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, Códice florentino.Facsimile of the Codex
Florentinusof the Biblioteca Medicea Laurenciana, supervised by the Archivo General de la
Nación (AGN) de México, Florence, Italy, Book 10. Left figure is from “... de otros oficiales
como los sastres y texedores” Chapter 10, fs. 22v and 24r; right figure is from “... de los que
venden mantas” Chapter 17, fs. 44v and 45 r.standards of behavior; men who were defeated or who acted cowardly on the bat-
tlefield were said to behave like women.
Not only did Aztec women peddle their goods in the marketplace, but they also
shared market administrator positions with men; in this capacity they supervised the
pricing of products, assigned tributes, and prepared war provisions. Women and
men acted as leaders and administrators of their barrios(wards) and the song houses
attached to temples or palaces. Aztec women executed important authority func-
tions, although the highest political and religious offices were restricted to men.
Some authors argue that as Aztec society became increasingly militarized and im-
perialistic, women lost status (Nash 1978). Noble women saw their economic and rit-
ual activities increasingly circumscribed when social stratification increased and royal
lineages emerged. On the other hand, the productive roles of common women re-
mained important. The dominance of Huitzilopochtli, the Sun War deity—which dis-
placed the previous pantheon of androgynous and male-female progenitor
deities—provides an important clue to changes in the gender system (see Chapter 2).
Some studies maintain that because Aztec men began to control the new sources
of wealth (tribute) and the spoils of conquest, war automatically marginalized women,
households, and domestic production. Others argue that although women did not
fight on the battlefield and were thereby excluded from essential sources of status and
wealth, their rituals and activities at home had a definite bearing upon the fate of men
on the front (Burkhart 1995). Furthermore, warfare did not devalue domestic pro-
duction or activities. Rather, homes and women’s activities were invested with military
symbolism. For example, labor in childbirth was equivalent to fighting, and the suc-