Priests, Slaves, common people and then the people they performed rituals on and murdered. Quite a mix of people there, huh.
2006-08-24 10:43:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by educated guess 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The highest class were the pilli or nobility. Originally this was not hereditary, although the sons of pillis had access to better resources and education, so it was easier for them to become pillis. Later the class system took on hereditary aspects.
The second class were the mÄcehualli, originally peasants. Eduardo Noguera [5] estimates that in later stages only 20% of the population was dedicated to agriculture and food production. The other 80% of society were warriors, artisans and traders. Eventually, most of the mÄcehuallis were dedicated to arts and crafts. Their works were an important source of income for the city [6].
Slaves or tlacotin also constituted an important class. Aztecs could become slaves because of debts, as a criminal punishment or as war captives. Slavery was not hereditary: a slave's children were free. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they were able to show they had been mistreated or if they had children with or were married to their masters. Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance.
so basically slaves >> merchants >> wealthy people >> nobility
2006-08-24 17:47:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by ♥ £.O.V.€. ♥ 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The highest class were the pilli or nobility. Originally this was not hereditary, although the sons of pillis had access to better resources and education, so it was easier for them to become pillis. Later the class system took on hereditary aspects.
The second class were the mÄcehualli, originally peasants. 20% of the population was dedicated to agriculture and food production. The other 80% of society were warriors, artisans and traders. Eventually, most of the mÄcehuallis were dedicated to arts and crafts. Their works were an important source of income for the city.
Slaves or tlacotin also constituted an important class. Aztecs could become slaves because of debts, as a criminal punishment or as war captives. Slavery was not hereditary: a slave's children were free. A slave could have possessions and even own other slaves. Slaves could buy their liberty, and slaves could be set free if they were able to show they had been mistreated or if they had children with or were married to their masters. Typically, upon the death of the master, slaves who had performed outstanding services were freed. The rest of the slaves were passed on as part of an inheritance.
2006-08-29 23:31:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by BethS 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Aztecs did have two clearly differentiated social classes. At the bottom were the macehualles, or "commoners," and at the top the pilli, or nobility. These were not clearly differentiated by birth, for one could rise into the pilli by virtue of great skill and bravery in war.
2006-08-24 17:48:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Aztecs were very cruel unlike others that justified their killings and not for Greed.
Aztecs to me are the sorriest ever to walk the face of the earth because the killed their own.
2006-09-01 08:21:46
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Hmmmm let me see now... lol I would say there were three classes that the Azctecs had....... they consisted of upper rich class, the religious group like the priests and then you had the slaves which were the workers...... I think that should answer your question......... what do you think.?
2006-08-24 17:46:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by goldensunshine48 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Priests at the top. Then, Nobles, then warriors, then Artisans/ Merchants, then slaves.
2006-08-31 14:09:27
·
answer #7
·
answered by student 8 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
all the way from hostages for sacrifice to a god.
Someone forgot the warrior and artesian classes.
2006-08-24 17:46:38
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
you see, the same division, always the same division :)
an interesting point of view that about killing "their own".
i suppose killing "the others" it's ok
i cant find any culture not killing their owns.
2006-09-01 10:38:31
·
answer #9
·
answered by marumaar 3
·
0⤊
0⤋