Lake navigation: a key cultural feature of the Mexica (Aztecs)

In contrast to other civilisations of the ancient world such as those of the Mediterranean or SE Asia, Mesoamerican cultures are not particularly well known for their maritime history or naval architecture. Nevertheless, it was vital for two famous lakeside cities in the pre-Hispanic world, Tayasal (Maya) and Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco (Mexica), to exert strict and complex management and control of their aquatic environment in order for them to establish their prosperity. It was precisely because of its location that Cortés, en route to Honduras in 1521, came up against Tayasal’s excellent defense system, that allowed it to hold out against the Conquistadors for some considerable time.

Pic 1: Flores (formerly Tayasal) island, Guatemala - not finally conquered by the Spanish until 1697

The city of Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325 by the Mexica on a small island within Lake Texcoco. In order to establish themselves at the centre of the powerful empire later confronted by the Conquistadors, the city’s inhabitants had to learn to dominate their environment – to exploit it to economic, political and religious ends. Not only did they take maximum advantage, like their contemporaries and like others before them, of one-man canoes carved from a single log of wood, but they developed complex technological systems in order to control their lakeside world, the supply of goods and the growth of towns and cities.

Pic 3: The city of Tenochtitlan and surroundings - painting by Luis Covarrubias, National Anthropology Museum, Mexico City

The second objective of Mexica engineering was that of controlling the disastrous fluctuations in lake water levels, by constructing canals, dykes and even aqueducts - public works that also helped reduce the (previously high) saline [salt] levels in the water. The benefits that these environmental changes brought served to complement each other and needed daily maintenance, with the use of lake crafts and a large, well organized labour force.
The canals of the island of Tenochtitlan, which earned the city the nickname Venice of the New World, criss-crossed the entire metropolis, creating a grid-like structure for the landscape and allowing fast communication both within and without the city. Thanks to the historian Edward Calnek and the architect Jorge González Aragón, we know that two grades of canals existed: regular ones that followed labyrinthine [maze-like] routes and which measured up to two metres in width, and main canals, facing East-West and measuring 3-5 metres in width. When we consider that the largest Aztec monoliths – such as the goddess Tlaltecuhtli weighing 12 tons and measuring 4.19 x 3.62 m – were transported on the lake, it stands to reason that some of the principal canals must have been at least 6 metres wide.

Pic 5: Illustration of Tenochtitlan and lake landscape by Alberto Beltrán

The broad and lengthy causeways connecting the island of Tenochtitlan with the mainland served several purposes: firstly, as a means of communication by land; secondly, they acted as dykes to hold the water at bay, and complemented the great stone levee-bridge constructed under the leadership of Nezahualcóyotl, the wise king of Texcoco. The three main causeways were those from Tepeyac (to the north), Tlacopan (to the west) and Iztapalapan (to the south). It’s worth noting that this last one was built by the Xochimilcas, clear proof of the political power of the Mexicas and of their influence over neighbouring peoples.
A fourth, smaller, causeway was that of Chapultepec. This uniquely carried the aqueduct constructed in the decade following 1420 and re-built on the orders of Nezahualcóyotl two decades later, supplying fresh water to the island city of Tenochtitlan, surrounded by salty water. In the construction of these great public works it’s obvious that single-man canoes played a key role, helping to ferry materials and every-day goods.

Pic 7: Part of the map of Mexico City drawn by Juan Gómez de Trasmonte in 1628, showing the aqueduct bringing fresh water from Chapultepec Park (bottom right) into the city; notice how the lake is disappearing...

This level of organization demanded the construction and fitting-out of facilities and buildings tailor-made for the moving, storing and monitoring of goods and people by government authorities. These installations included:-
Harbours: natural or artificial havens suitable for the (un)loading of cargo and (dis)embarkation of passengers by boat, and for the carrying out of maintenance.
Quays: places suitable for loading goods and people.
Port installations are in effect groupings of architectural structures that combine several complementary roles: custom points for the receipt and control of goods; warehouses and storage facilities; stalls and posts for buying and selling; jetties for the transfer of goods from dry land to lake transports, etc. The construction of these facilities requires both manpower and materials (wood, stone, lime, etc.). Unfortunately to date no archaeological remains exist of such facilities, making it harder to draw firm conclusions regarding their construction and purpose.

Pic 9: Pre-Hispanic settlements around México-Tenochtitlan, painting (1953) by Luis Covarrubias, Hotel Majestic, Mexico City

Dockyards: military or private establishments given over to boat building, repair, maintenance, and equipment. These facilities had to be located near large bodies of water and must have resembled hangars, capable of housing small canoes as well as larger, more important vessels. Fray Bernardino de Sahagún refers to them in his description of the ceremonies and sacrifices at the disposal site of Pantitlán, in the centre of Lake Texcoco: ‘When all were sacrificed, we took all the offerings... and we carried them to the place where the lake is called Pantitlán, which is found not far from the dockyards.’ And later (Book 2, Florentine Codex) he indicates: ‘And when [the fire priest] had cast away [papers in an incense ladle], then they turned the boat about... And when they had come to reach Tetamaçolco, where there had been embarking at the place of embarkation, thereupon there was bathing; then there was [returning] on the part of each [boat].’

Pic 11: Pantitlán, Florentine Codex Book 1

Finally we should also recall the probable existence of large vessels for military use, as mentioned in the accounts of the Noche Triste (Sad Night) and of the victorious sally of the Mexica against the Spanish at the beginning of the siege of the city. The simple fact that the Conquistadors had to build brigantines proves the critical role these were to play in achieving eventual control of the lakes.

Vessel typology

16th century sources tell us much about the vessels used by the Mexica and their neighbours, from the construction materials they used, through their shape and trim, to details such as their form of propulsion, carrying capacity and uses. Careful analysis of the data suggests that, as in the case of the boats spotted by Columbus on the open seas, those of the Basin of Mexico were mainly one-man canoes.

Pic 13: Warriors disembark from war canoes, Florentine Codex Book XII

Our own research shows that all vessels sported a flat bottom, perfectly adapted to lake use, allowing their crews to manoeuvre them easily and speedily. When it comes to archaeological remains, the only examples of pre-Hispanic boats from the Basin of Mexico found to date are a wooden one-man canoe on display in the Mexica Hall of the National Anthropology Museum (pic 15) and a miniature model found in Offering 41 of the Templo Mayor, though we know other similar examples have been found in other parts of Mesoamerica. The single-person canoe in the Anthropology Museum was discovered in the 1960s along the Calzada de Tlalpan avenue; judging by its dimensions and load capacity we can estimate it was capable of carrying around a ton of weight – by our reckoning, after studying similar examples, a vessel able to transport a monolith as large as the Tlaltecuhtli figure. But this implies sufficient breadth, both of the canoe and of the canals along which it travelled.

Pic 15: Remains of an Aztec canoe, National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City. It measures 5 metres long and corresponds in our typology to type 1b

In conclusion, control of navigation and of the lake environment was essential for the inhabitants of the Basin in pre-Hispanic times, and vital in many respects for the Mexica. Single-person canoes were, without any doubt, the best proof of their adaptation to this geography, alongside the evidence for their prowess in hydraulic engineering. With the arrival of the Spanish and the ensuing technological, economic and political change, Mexica lake transport had to face a totally new challenge.

Pic 17: Alhóndiga square and bridge at the end of the ‘Canal de la Viga’, in the heart of Mexico City, early 1900s

Picture sources:-
• Pix 1, 4l, 8, 10, 14 (top), 15, 16, 17 & 18: images supplied by Alexandra Biar
• Pic 2: image scanned from our own copy (private collection)
• Pic 3: photo by Sean Sprague/Mexicolore
• Pix 4 (top R), 9 & 12: photos by Ian Mursell/Mexicolore
• Pix 4 (bottom R) & 5: images scanned from our own copy of The Sun Kingdom of the Aztecs by Victor von Hagen, Brockhampton Press, 1958
• Pix 6, 11, 13 & 14 (bottom R): Images scanned from our own copy of the Club Internacional del Libro facsimile edition of the Florentine Codex, Madrid, 1994
• Pic 7: image scanned from our own copy of La Ciudad de México (vol. 1) by Fernando Benítez, SALVAT, Mexico City, 1981 (photo by Armando Salas Portugal)
• Pic 14: graphic (top) supplied by Alex Biar; codex images from (L) Codex Azcatitlan fol. 1, (centre bottom) Lienzo de Tlaxcala fol. 42 (both supplied by Alex Biar), (centre top & right top) Codex Mendoza fols. 63 & 64 - images scanned from James Cooper Clark 1938 facsimile edition, (bottom R) image from the Florentine Codex Book XI (see above).

Pic 19: ‘Moctezuma’ exhibition, British Museum, London, 2010