Different In Mesoamerica Political System

Different In Mesoamerica Political System

RESEARCH QUESTION: How did the political and the government system developed in ancient times?

Chase, Arlen F. et al. “STATES AND EMPIRES IN ANCIENT MESOAMERICA.” Ancient Mesoamerica, vol 20, no. 2, 2009, pp. 175-182. Cambridge University Press (CUP)

This article describes the differences in Mesoamerican political systems. The archeology of the ancient Mesoamerican is described in brief. I found the material relevant because the information in it represents the real government systems of the Mesoamerican. According to archeology, Mesoamerica is the geographical area covering southern as well as central Mexica, including the other parts of Central America (Chase et al., 2009). The data collection method used was interviewing the inhabitants of the area. The results of the research were then analyzed to hypothesize the findings. After an in-depth analysis of the Data, it was discovered that kings or emperors ruled the two groups, but the political systems were not the same. The Aztecs had a monarchial type of government, while the Mayans had a hierarchical government structure.

Dixon, B. (1992). Prehistoric Political Change on the Southeast Mesoamerican Periphery. Ancient Mesoamerica, 3(1), 11-25.

The primary purpose of this article is to explore the political structure and legislative changes among the people of Mesoamerican. This reading is unique as it cross-examines the culture of the ancient Mesoamerican. The main finding was that the different ethnic groups in the geographical area have different political systems. Their government structures differ in several ways (Dixon, 1992). The data was collected mainly using interviews and observation. Therefore, the data is qualitative and can be relied on while presenting your arguments. The study can be said to be valuable as it provides us with information regarding the Aztecs and the Mayans. In conclusion, according to anthropology, the Mesoamerican region has two main groups that have different political systems. However, they have ruled any kings; the ruling criteria are not the same for the two groups.

Seus, J. (1969). Aztec Law. American Bar Association Journal, 55(8), 736-739. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/25724867

The article primarily focuses on the uniqueness of the law in the Basin of Mexico with the existence of a tax court, a somewhat lenient legal system in an era that had strictness as the norm and presence of the international law. The article analyses historical literature and pictorial as a means of data extraction. From the text, the rule was not hereditary, but the throne was retained with the relatives of the ruler. Some locations in the locality had military and tax courts. The oath was a must in every case, and the proceeding was recorded and documented for safekeeping. Enslavement of offenders and damage settlement were acceptable in civil cases, but a close elaborated on how slaves could win back their freedom. Their international laws included military engagement, ambassadorial protection, and rest days for hostilities. Physical punishments were also acceptable, but that did not involve killing, whipping was not allowed, and promiscuous women were not killed. Though not being enough to enable full description as a world legal system, but it is a legal system that emerged from a developing state without external influence. That served to strengthen the article. The article indicates how legal and political systems grew and advance in ancient times with a definition of power transfer and enforcement of law and order.

Cocom, J., & Luviano, S. (2012). Hot and Cold Politics of Indigenous Identity: Legal Indians, Cannibals, Words, More Words, More Food. Anthropological Quarterly, 85(1), 229-256. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/41427094

This article is built upon the principal idea of preaching against hypocrites of Mayaness that is State-sanctioned turning to Maya officials in Yucatan’s bordering state called Quintana Roo. The co-authored article takes am approach of a response to an unknown reviewer. The applies fieldwork and analysis of newspaper reports, according to them, the legal positions were instituted to solve the people’s problems using the legal system that existed. The scholars accuse the Maya Dignitaries of being a hoax out to advance the state needs through essentialization of the Maya culture. Performance is an essential element, and the authors also speak about ethnography. The in-depth analysis of the ethnographical concept is particularly exciting. It builds on the idea of the paper proposing the existence of a pervasive ethnography where the Maya have to conform to the desired aesthetics of clothing speaking and ceremonies. Failure to comply renders them to be idiots. The article gives a traditional perspective of how the governments used ethnography as a means of power consolidation in ancient times and even in the modern context.

Garcia-Zamor, J. (2003). Latin American Ancient Civilizations and Their Administrative Legacies. Public Administration Quarterly, 27(1/2), 65-86. Retrieved March 12, 2020, From Www.Jstor.Org/Stable/41288188

The paper examines the stories around civilization with a particular focus on Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas. The article reviews existing literature and solutions to problems devised with a keen interest in whether the model applied to contemporary public administration. The issues examined include unorganized as well as inefficient bureaucracy, ineffective and insufficient tax collecting techniques, inadequate agricultural practices, judicial order, and weak educational system. The context of the three different locations was also included. The author is keen on citing theoretical frameworks from credible sources. The administrative techniques enshrine technical competency, behavior, and attitude that incorporated the human element depending on the period and the place. A significant variation can be examined with the various aspects observed by the author, but one also notices consistent structural similarities. Watching step by step approach in addressing the individual elements offering a general introduction and then delving deeper into the particular subgroups gives readers a broader perceptive and deeper understanding allowing them to make a critical distinction of the elements. The old systems provide a logical background through which one can understand the developments and identify variation when it comes to specific segments of governance.

Vaillant, G. (1943). The Aztecs Their Cultural and Historical Position in Middle American Archaeology: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 86(2), 320-322. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/985111

The articles focus on the Aztecs, and it is dedicated to examining their culture and history in the American archeology context. The author divides the reconstruction into three categories. The first method was based on archive materials of Spanish and Indian origin, and the second method involved testimonials from the archeology remains, and lastly, an analysis that was founded on archeology and social practice. The Author suggests that religion then was ritualized and highly organized, and it was a critical part of civilization. The first two pages are not known, but the middle period was punctuated with uniting and technical unity. The third era is the golden age characterized by sedentary agricultural life, recording of seasons use of the calendar, sizeable religious organization including the temples being built, and formative writing and symbols. Though similar in mist elements, the different tribes showed variation in speech, politics, and intellectual background. Later, two groups emerged on being rude savages and other civilized dynasties. The culture then spread as the arable land became less with the bulge in population. The distinction between culture and religion was difficult in Indian cultures. A significant strength of the work is when the author initiates the discussion by definitions, including defining Aztec. The chronological alignment of events offers readers with ample time to connect events and track changes. The evolution of civilization gives the insight to change process and process through which politics and religious practices can transcend physical boundaries and spread.

West, R. (2003). Aztec Society. In Schweizer B. (Ed.), Survivors in Mexico (pp. 58-74). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Retrieved March 12, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vm3h5.12

The chapter of the book primarily focuses on Aztec society. The author conceptualizes that there was no monetary system that was nationalized, but the emperor was the only capitalist. The administrative personnel required were vast, and that is likened to the case of Washington. Society was split into five classes, with none being leisure, which means everybody worked. The emperor was elected from the dynasty, and the natural resources were minimal. The Aztecs did not tolerate torture as a means o punishment. The author agrees that the slaves were the lowest calls, sometimes winning their freedom. The trading class was the most crucial pillar of the economy at that time, considering the little number of natural resources. Other courses include the landless peasants and actually. The diet of the people lacked sufficient proteins and fats. Taxation was a common phenomenon.  The author keenly goes through the social structure, and the life of the people occasionally applying storytelling techniques and reverences to explain some occurrence. The narration and examples used the paper serve as strengths, and the use of the simplistic approach of storytelling and simple choice of words further adds to the power that is entrenched in the story. Social is one critical aspect of ancient developments, and the author takes time to expand on the social issue and the way the people lived.

Summary

The first two articles have a primary focus on Mesoamerica organization. While Chase et al. take time to describe the variations of the political systems around Mesoamerica (Chase et al., 2009). Dixon contends with exploring the ancient political systems and tries to track the changes in the political landscape in Mesoamerica. Seus (1969), in his article, takes a different approach to examining the distinguishing factors of the law in the Mexican basin and is keen enough to highlight the existence of a tax court and the presence of international law as per the study. Cocom & Luviano (2012) take a somewhat unique approach and, for the first time in the literature, present the ethnic perspective. The authors seem to be attaching the officials in the Maya context. The article offers a critical view of ethnography as a concept of politics and power. GARCIA-ZAMOR (2003) then takes us through the Latin American civilization making comparisons between the groups of Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas, highlighting similarities and differences. Vaillant (1943) then brings on board the archeological concept of tracing culture and history. The piece is the only section of the paper that brings the element of archeology in historical and cultural tracking. I feel the inclusion of his work doses the archeology community justice in enriching the research. West (2003) then closes the discussion with the social stratification of the Aztec society in what seems like a pinpoint accurate and in-depth review of the social stricture.

The entire portfolio of authors critically contributes to enriching the discussion of the development of government and political systems in the ancient era. The diverse views and presentation anchored the numerous authorship builds a robust conversation that broadens to include political, government and social aspects of the old society. Unlike modern society, one notices unity of purpose and a clear structure in society. The research was a success considering in-depth knowledge of how did the political and the government system developed in ancient times was gained.