Chiconautla, Mexico: A crossroads of Aztec trade and politics

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 1

CHICONAUTLA, MEXICO: A CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS Deborah L. Nichols, Christina Elson, Leslie G. Cecil, Nina Neivens de Estrada, Michael D. Glascock, and Paula Mikkelsen

Chiconautla, situated on the northeastern shore of Lake Texcoco and the southern edge of the Teotihuacan Valley, lay at an important juncture for east-west exchange in the Basin of Mexico with connections to as far away as the Gulf Coast. Recently, we completed an INAA study on ceramics from Chiconautla to examine marketing and exchange patterns from A.D. 950 to 1521. We present these data and contextualize them in light of contexts excavated at the site by George C. Vaillant, in particular materials from an Aztec noble residence he called “Casa Reales.” We also examine historical information regarding Chiconautla’s role in Aztec society as it existed at the eve of Spanish conquest. We evaluate the site’s particular position at the crossroads of important trade routes in light of recent models of Aztec markets and exchange and what these patterns say about shifting political affiliations in this critical region. Chiconautla, ubicado en el margen noreste del Lago de Texcoco y en el límite sur del Valle de Teotihuacan, se sitúa en un lugar estratégico para facilitar el intercambio este-oeste en la Cuenca de México con conexiones tan lejanas como la Costa del Golfo. Recientemente completamos un estudio de INAA en muestras cerámicas de Chiconautla para examinar los sistemas de mercado y patrones de intercambio entre 950 y 1521 d.C. Presentamos aquí estos datos, organizados de acuerdo a los contextos excavados por George C. Vaillant en el sitio de Chiconautla, en particular los materiales que provienen de una residencia noble Azteca de las que él llamó “Casas Reales.” También examinamos información histórica acerca del papel que jugó Chiconautla en la sociedad Azteca en la víspera de la conquista española. Evaluamos la posición particular del sitio en la confluencia de importantes rutas de comercio tomando como referencia los modelos recientes propuestos para entender los mercados e intercambios Aztecas, y lo que dicen estos patrones acerca de los cambios de afiliaciones políticas en esta crucial región.

C

hiconautla, the capital of a small Postclassic-period city-state or altepetl situated on the northeastern shore of Lake Texcoco and the southern edge of the Teotihuacan Valley, lay at an important juncture for exchange between the Basin of Mexico and the Gulf Coast (Blanton and Hodge 1996; Elson 1999:153, Gibson 1964:361; Hassig 1985:219; Sanders 1965:81–82; Sanders and Evans 2001:948–949).

Chiconautla may have been the Basin’s most important break-of-bulk center—a town where goods were transferred between land and waterborne transport (Blanton 1996:75) (Figure 1). Although archaeologists agree that commerce grew significantly in Postclassic Mesoamerica, they assign different weights to economic and political factors used to model market development. Blanton et al. (1993: 210–214) and Smith (2004:93)

Deborah L. Nichols ! 6047 Silsby Hall, Department of Anthropology, Dartmouth College Hanover NH 03755 [email protected] Christina Elson ! Anthropology Division, American Museum of Natural History, 79th St at Central Park West, New York City, NY 10024 [email protected] Leslie G. Cecil ! Stephen F. Austin State University, Box 13047-SFA Station, Nacogdoches, TX 75962 [email protected] Nina Neivens de Estrada ! Tulane University, Dept. of Anthropology, 1326 Audubon Ave., New Orleans, LA 70118 [email protected] Michael D. Glascock ! University of Missouri, 2032 Research Reactor Center, 1513 Research Park Drive, Columbia, MO 65211 [email protected] Paula Mikkelsen ! Division of Invertebrate Zoology, American Museum of Natural History, 79th St at Central Park West, New York, NY 10024 (Present address: Paleontological Research Institution, 1259 Trumansburg Road, Ithaca, NY 14850, [email protected]) Latin American Antiquity 20(3), 2009, pp. XX-XX Copyright ©2009 by the Society for American Archaeology 1

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

2

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 2

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Figure 1. Map of Basin of Mexico showing the location of placed mentioned in the text.

argue that commerce intensified during the era of political decentralization that followed the collapse of Classic period regional state systems (such as Teotihuacan) as specialists and entrepreneurs relied on markets to trade across political boundaries. Trigger (2003:403) also links the development of markets with city-state organization. Even under the political consolidation of the Triple Alliance, Trigger argues that the integration of Aztec citystates was as much, if not more, economic, than political. Aztec imperial rulers promoted trade and fostered markets while separating them from the control of rival local elites. For Berdan and Smith (1996:210), the “complex interlocking market system” that developed in the Aztec heartland in the Late Postclassic exemplifies a larger goal of all empires: to encourage economic growth while controlling resources. Several scholars including Blanton (1996), Brumfiel and Earle (1987), and Hodge and Minc (1990; Hodge et al. 1992, 1993, Minc 1994, 2006) emphasize politics in the development of markets as a means of financing emerging state economies.

They point to how Aztec city-state rulers (including Chiconautla) taxed sales on vendors and how it was in their interest to foster local-level commercial production and exchange. Rulers of citystates competed, fought, and allied with each other prompting the creation of an interconnected elite class in the Basin of Mexico that crosscut political boundaries. Conspicuous consumption of prestige goods and ritual paraphernalia, along with a dramatic rise in regional population, helped fuel trade. Garraty (2006) sees a close connection between the development and structure of Aztec market networks and elite interests. Our goal was to examine Chiconautla’s growth as a trading hub and its relationships with the Triple Alliance capitals of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco and with Otumba, the largest city-state in the Teotihuacan Valley and an important regional craft production center (e.g., Charlton et al. 2000; Nichols 1996; Otis Charlton et al. 1993). Our recent source study using instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) of ceramics from the site, many drawn from an Aztec noble residence or palace (locally

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 3

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

named “Casas Reales”) excavated in the 1930s (see Vaillant 1962; Elson 1999; Sanders and Evans 2001:983–988; Smith 2008:45), allows us to evaluate how ceramic exchange changed over time and what this says about shifting economic relations and political affiliations in this critical region. To begin, we present an overview of current Basin-wide political models derived from studies of the Postclassic period economy. We use these data to hypothesize what patterns we might expect to see at Chiconautla during the Postclassic period. In the second part of the article, we examine architecture and artifacts from Chiconautla’s palace including the results of INAA on serving and ritual ceramics. In the final section we discuss our results in light of regional economic models. Ceramic Studies and Models of the Postclassic Political Economy Recent stylistic and compositional studies of ceramics designed to examine systems of market exchange emerging after the decline of the Classic period state of Teotihuacan have greatly advanced our understanding of the Aztec economy in the Basin of Mexico. Early Postclassic During the Early Postclassic (A.D. 950–1150) ceramic exchange networks, particularly the exchange of decorated vessels with prestige value, expanded between urban centers (Nichols et al. 2002). Rural villagers in the Teotihuacan Valley mostly consumed locally made pottery (Crider et al., 2007). The influence that Tula (north of the Basin) and Cholula (south of the Basin) had in the Basin is unclear. Internal political boundaries did impose some limitations on exchange as ceramics fall into two major production and stylistic zones: (1) Mazapan/Tollan found in the eastern and northern Basin; and (2) Black-on-Orange Aztec I present in the southern Chalco-Xochimilco area, at Xaltocan in the north-central Basin, and farther east at Cholula and southwestern Puebla. Except at some sites in the southern Basin, these complexes generally have non-overlapping spatial distributions, suggesting the distributions can be tied to ethnic/political divisions among Early Postclassic city-state confederations (Brumfiel 2005; Crider 2008; García Chavez

3

2004: 353; Nichols et al. 2008; Parsons and Gorenflo 2009). Middle Postclassic Settlement pattern and documentary data led researchers to propose that Aztec city-state of the Middle Postclassic (A.D. 1150–1350) were associated with highly localized solar market systems— a system lacking a central place hierarchy where political control limits consumer choice (Charlton and Nichols 1997:199–202; Hassig 1985:73; Hicks 1978:93; Smith 1979). Recent composition and stylistic studies, however, indicate that Early Aztec (Aztec II) decorated wares (Red wares and Orange wares) were exchanged more commonly than expected from the solar market model. In addition to expanded exchange between adjoining market zones, exports of ceramics from production zones that included politically powerful city-states (e.g., Texcoco in eastern Basin, and Tenochtitlan and Azcapotzalco in the southwestern Basin) increased (García 2004; Garraty 2006; Minc 1994, 2006; Minc et al. 1994; Nichols et al. 2002; Ma 2003; Nichols et al. 2008). For example, during this time period Black-on-Orange Aztec II ceramics from the Texcoco region appear at Cerro Portezuelo and Black-on-Orange Aztec II ceramics produced in the Tenochtitlan region were exported to Chalco and Xaltocan. In both cases, ceramic data echo historical data suggesting Texcoco and Tenochtitlan and Azcapotzalco (both fall in the Tenochtitlan production zone) were expanding their spheres of political influence. From her data on Aztec Red wares, Minc (2006) posits a model of noncentralized overlapping market networks. In contrast Blanton (1996), Garraty (2006), and Nichols et al. (2002) see indications of Aztec market hierarchies beginning in the Middle Postclassic. Late Postclassic In the Late Postclassic (A.D. 1350–1521), exchange through both market and tribute systems intensified and the organization of market networks became more centralized in the core of the Basin of Mexico. The Texcoco and Tenochtitlan composition zones exported increasing amounts of Blackon-Orange Aztec III pottery (now the most common type of decorated service ware), and these imperial capitals also became the largest markets and

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

4

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 4

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

craft production centers in the Basin. Exports from the Chalco composition group to other regions of the Basin decreased sharply, possibly with the onset of nearly a century of hostility between Chalco and Tenochtitlan that culminated in Tenochtitlan’s conquest of Chalco in 1465 (Hodge et al. 1992, 1993; Nichols et al. 2002:69–70). While exports of Aztec III Black-on-orange pottery from the southwestern Basin expanded to the eastern Basin and beyond, ceramics made in the eastern Basin mostly circulated within the Texcocoheaded Acolhua domain (Garraty 2006; Hodge and Neff 2005; Minc 2006; Nichols and Charlton 2001; Nichols et al. 2002; Skoglund et al. 2006). The northeastern Basin in particular, although politically incorporated into the Acolhua confederation, may not have been as fully integrated into the regional system of interlocking markets (Blanton 1996; Charlton 1994; Charlton et al. 2000). In short, by the Late Postclassic, although the Tenochtitlan and Texcoco regions produced substantial amounts of Black-on-Orange Aztec III ceramics, those from the Tenochtitlan composition group appear across the Basin at a scale suggesting to some scholars that Tenochtitlan intervened to promote the growth of its own production system at the expense of others (Blanton 1996). The production and distribution of Aztec Red ware, primarily used as serving ware, may not mirror that of Black- on- Orange ware. Brumfiel (2004:251) suggests Red ware “bowls” were drinking containers and notes some of the painted designs on Red wares evoke Omacatl, the Aztec god of hospitality. In both the Middle and Late Postclassic, the production of low-fired Red ware appears more localized than Black-on-Orange wares (Charlton et al. 2008; Neff et al. 2000; Nichols et al. 2002). Minc’s (2006:108) recent analysis of Aztec Red ware from the eastern and southeastern Basin argues for a dual market system in the Late Postclassic Basin that was spatially congruent with the two major confederations of the empire, Tenochtitlan and Texcoco, as anticipated by Hassig (1985). Chiconautla and Models of the Postclassic Political Economy The current understanding of marketing and exchange patterns for the A.D. 650–1521 time

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

period indicates that ceramic production was multicentric throughout and suggests a shift from (1) a highly localized, solar marketing model to (2) increased movement of decorated vessels though a network of overlapping markets, perhaps also influenced by kinship, marriage, and political alliances, to (3) a hierarchical market system increasingly influenced by the Triple Alliance capitals of Texcoco and especially Tenochtitlan (Brumfiel 1987; Charlton et al. 2000; Nichols et al. 2002; Smith 1979, 1980, 2003a, 2003b, 2003c). Points of debate concern how much political control rulers exerted over the economy and the degree to which such control reduced or inhibited horizontal or lateral integration between subregional market zones (Garraty 2007; Minc 2006). How do data describing Chiconautla’s political history fit with this emerging pattern of market exchange? Sanders (1986:525) proposes that in the Early Postclassic the entire Teotihuacan Valley, including Chiconautla, formed a small state centered at Teotihuacan that was incorporated into the Toltec Tula sphere. In the Middle Postclassic (ca. A.D. 1150–1350/1400), Chiconautla grew into a large town with its own ruling family, although it is not clear if it was politically independent or was dominated by Xaltocan, one of eight large regional centers in the Basin (Sanders et al. 1979:137–149). By ca. 1430–1434 Chiconautla had a tlatoani (ruler) appointed during the reorganization of the Acolhua state under Nezahualcoyotl. As part of its tribute, Chiconautla provided labor and services to the palace at Texcoco (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–77. 2: 89–90; Hodge and Blanton 1966: 230). While Chiconautla’s rulers intermarried with Texcoco’s royal family, in the Late Postclassic they also may have had kinship ties to Tenochtitlan (Berdan and Anawalt 1992:2:222; Evans 2001; Gibson 1964: 43; Hodge 1991:134–135; Sanders and Evans 2001:948–949). Elson (1999:153) notes that the gloss on the depiction of Motecuhzoma’s palace in the Codex Mendoza lists Chiconautla as one of three polities called “friends of Motecuhzoma” (Berdan and Anawalt 1992:3:f69r). Following Sanders, for the Early Postclassic we expect that Chiconautla primarily consumed ceramics produced in the Teotihuacan region. At the same time, trace element analysis may tell us something about how Chiconautla’s economic relations expanded beyond the Teotihuacan Valley. For

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 5

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

the Middle and Late Postclassic, if economic data mirror historical evidence, then we would expect that developing kinship, marriage, and political alliances with the Triple Alliance capitals of Texcoco and Tenochtitlan increased the city-state’s participation with these production zones. We also anticipate seeing patterns in the forms and types of ceramics from the palace that suggest shared ritual behavior (Berdan and Smith 1996:214–215) and regional or intra-elite competitive displays and consumption to mark status among elites (Brumfiel 1987, 2004). At the same time, increasing commerce and Chiconautla’s growth as a trade center should have expanded the local availability of goods (Blanton 1996). In the following sections we present an overview of the archaeology of Chiconautla. We examine data on architecture and on local and imported nonceramic materials recovered during excavations. We describe the results of INAA on 200 ceramic materials, including decorated pottery (bowls and tripod bowls); fancy serving vessels (copas, pulque vessels); common decorated serving vessels (dishes, bowls, and molcajetes); ritual objects (figurines, temple models, incense burners, flutes, and pipes); and artifacts used in production (spindle whorls for weaving both cotton and maguey cloth). Our goal is to determine the origin of a wide array of goods and then examine how these goods might have flowed through trade networks. Chiconautla as a Postclassic Center Ethnohistoric and previous INAA data suggest Chiconautla’s primary economic ties would have been with pottery-producing places on the eastern side of the Basin. Yet, the town’s location allowed it access to the Basin’s most important transportation artery: Lake Texcoco. This is the primary reason that George Vaillant chose to excavate the site in 1935, and while he did not publish a detailed analysis of the work, he employed careful field methods and his data are useful today. Early Postclassic Data on Chiconautla’s Early Postclassic occupation were recovered during the excavation of a midden. Vaillant’s field notes document an absence of architecture but an abundance of sherds, animal bones, and broken tools (Table 1). Animal bone was not

5

Table 1. Ceramic Types and Forms Recovered from a Trench Cutting into a Midden That Dates to the Epiclassic and Early Postclassic. Type/Form Cream slip white Censer Comal Plain Bowl Coyoltlatelco Other Basin Jar Mazapan (Red-on-Buff) TOTAL

Number 244 265 779 833 966 1471 1795 3837 4466 14656

Percentage 1.66 1.81 5.32 5.68 6.59 10.04 12.25 26.18 30.47 100.00

analyzed by Vaillant in the field and was inconsistently collected so we cannot present those data. The context contained five complete human skeletons, but the date of the interments is not clear (Table 2). One individual was placed with a Graphite Black-on-Red bowl; the others were interred without offerings. The midden produced seven sherd disks, six Teotihuacan/Early Classic figurines, 97 MazapanTollan figurines, and 14,696 sherds. A small portion of the sample (6.59 percent) consists of Coyotlatelco ceramics (dated to A.D. 650–850), indicating some settlement in this area during the Epiclassic. The most abundant pottery types are domestic utilitarian vessels, lending support to the suggestion that the feature is a midden. Although jar body sherds were not uniformly counted in these proveniences, over 26 percent of the total number of ceramics in the trench is undecorated sherds from jars (necks, rims, and bodies). Other utilitarian ceramics recorded in the trench are comals (5.32 percent), undecorated bowls (5.68 percent), and undecorated basins (12.25 percent). Decorated Early Postclassic Mazapan/Tollan pottery, primarily Red-on-Buff wares in the form of tripod vessels, jars, and bowls, account for just over 30 percent of all ceramics. Middle and Late Postclassic Elsewhere Elson has argued that the structure dug by Vaillant at Chiconautla is best interpreted as a palace occupied in the Middle and Late Postclassic (Elson 1999; Elson and Smith 2001; see also Smith 1992; Smith 2008:chapters 2, 4; Sanders and Evans 2001:983–988; Vaillant and Sanders 2000).

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

6

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 6

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Table 2. General Data Recorded on Burials Recovered in the Early Postclassic Period Midden. Field No. 201

Condition fair

202 203 204 205

disturbed good disturbed fair

Sex/ Position young adult male/ flexed on left side with head south/ no information adult male/ no information adolescent/ semi-seated head SE and face NW Baby/ no information baby (about one year)/ buried in olla

Evans (1988, 1991, 2004:32–33) suggested that the structure warranted further discussion, and one goal of this paper is to comprehensively describe the structure, present a plan drawn directly from Vaillant’s field drawings, and determine if the material culture found in the building supports the assertion that it is indeed an example of palatial architecture occupied by local nobility (Figure 2). The Late Postclassic building detected found

Offering graphite black on polished red bowl at feet none none none none

by Vaillant lay below a poorly preserved building that might have been occupied into the Colonial era. These floors were dug away and a building dating to the Late Postclassic period emerged. Construction materials are one line of evidence attesting to the building’s function as a palace. Platforms supporting structures were made of tepetate (local bedrock made of compacted volcanic ash) with corners of dressed stone slabs. Exterior platform

Figure 2. The Aztec period palace at Chiconautla. In this plan, block lines show well-defined walls of rooms, dotted lines show proposed walls based on architectural remains, and solid lines show platform edges. The regions shaded in light gray illustrate the approximate location of proveniences described in the text. The sunken patio is shaded in dark gray.

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 7

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

walls and platform surfaces were plastered. Structure walls had stone foundations finished with adobe bricks and then plastered both inside and out. Many rooms contained internal pillars made of solid stone cobbles or stone rings (into which wooden beams could have been inserted). During the Late Postclassic the palace was modified as rooms and room blocks were leveled and rebuilt. At times (such as in the zone north of the East Platform rooms and in the zone between the Central Traverse rooms and South Platform rooms) clear plans could not be drawn out. The reconstruction of the Central Traverse rooms is based on Vaillant’s interpretation of fragmentary architecture atop the platform. The South Platform rooms were demolished, filled in with trash including ceramics and ash, and covered with a platform. Elsewhere, the archaeological deposit recovered from this provenience has been evaluated as a ritual dump made during the celebration of an event taking place every 52 years called the New Fire Ceremony (Elson and Smith 2001). It is unclear if rooms or an open platform surface were built here when the rooms were demolished. While some details of the palace’s ongoing remodeling and renovations are fuzzy, it is clear that by the Late Postclassic it encompassed both ritual and residential areas. The western end of thecomplex was a platform accessed via a wide stairway. This platform was expanded sometime in the Late Postclassic, at which point several room blocks (the West Platform rooms) were knocked down and buried under its surface. A trench excavated off the northwest corner of the platform discovered charcoal, obsidian blades, incense burners, and fragments of large baked ceramic tiles that may be a kind of crenellation adorning the roof. Three elongated cones of stone and baked clay—objects called tenones or clavos—were embedded in one of the platform’s stone-faced walls. In codices like Sahagún (1950–82 Bk 11:271, figs. 889, 890) houses described as elite residences (tlatocacalli and tecpilcalli) have stone facing, can have circular elements embedded in rows above the door frame, and can have a mosaic pattern of circular elements in panels above and on both sides of the door. The presence of decorative crenellations and clavos in this zone suggests to us that the North Platform was part of the palace and probably a center of ritual activity.

7

Evans (2004:33) (and recently Smith [2008:45]) have suggested that the building was a noble residence but perhaps not a tecpan—a building that functioned as an administrative palace and the home of a hereditary lord—because it had “small” rooms and lacks a dais or reception room (Evans 2004:8–9). Our interpretation of the Chiconautla residence is that it has a sunken patio surrounded on at least three sides by elevated blocks of rooms. Any of these rooms could have served as a “reception” room while other rooms could have served as residential quarters providing semiprivate living spaces for extended families (see also Smith 2008: Chapters 2, 4). The palace contained several key residential features. The North Platform rooms housed a shallow circular construction of plastered cobbles, probably a sweatbath or temazcalli, and a beehive-shaped structure constructed of rings of straw liberally coated with mud, probably a storage structure or cuexcomatl. Many rooms contained square-shaped hearths or tlacuilli (made of stone slabs projecting into the plaster floor), and at least one was filled with fine white ash. In the central sunken patio Vaillant uncovered a small stone construction that he interpreted to be an altar, and it may be that private rites were conducted here while more public events incorporating larger groups of people were carried out on the nearby platform. Vaillant did uncover some architecture that might date to the Middle Postclassic such as the West Traverse rooms, later buried under the platform. In addition, pits placed into the floors of the North Platform rooms show that this area had at least five levels of plaster floors. We do not know the plan of the Middle Postclassic building, but one hypothesis is that it was a smaller structure centering on the North Platform rooms. Ceramic Selection and INAA Procedures While in Mexico, Vaillant carefully analyzed all the ceramics from excavation (over 100,000 sherds) and tabulated the number of each ceramic type for each provenience unit. He brought a large sample collection (several thousand) of these sherds to New York. Because he coded and described a number of previously unknown or poorly defined ceramic types now recognized as having particu-

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

8

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 8

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

lar temporal or cultural significance, Chiconautla’s ceramics are a valuable data set that can be applied to current research questions. Some ceramic vessels brought to New York as part of the site’s type collection were marked with specific provenience information but we cannot exactly correlate all ceramics we sampled for INAA with particular excavation units. Elson and Nichols selected a sample of 200 ceramics from Vaillant’s original types and correlated these with types and variants in the current ceramic typology for the Teotihuacan Valley and eastern Basin of Mexico (Charlton 1968; Cyphers 2000; García Chávez 2004; Hodge and Minc 1991; Lopez 2003; Nicolás 2003; Nichols and McCullough 1986; Parsons 1966, 1971; M. Parsons 1972a, 1972b, 1975; Rattray 1966, 1996; Sanders 1986, 1994–96; Sanders and Evans 2001; Whalen and Parsons 1982). We decided to examine excavated data from the palace to look for general patterns of ceramic consumption over time and then see how these patterns compared with data on the loci of production for the 200 ceramics we sampled with INAA. The compositional affiliations of all ceramics are listed in Table 3 (Cecil and Glascock 2005). Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 show different distributions (by form and by type) of ceramic types tested (Figure 3). Pottery samples were prepared for INAA using procedures standard at MURR. Neutron activation analysis of ceramics at MURR, which consists of two irradiations and a total of three gamma counts, constitutes a superset of the procedures used at most other NAA laboratories (Glascock 1992; Neff 1992, 2000). The pottery samples from Chiconautla were compared to previously established compositional reference groups for the Basin of Mexico and Yautepec (Neff and Glascock 1998; Nichols et al. 2002, among others). Canonical discriminant analysis (CDA) was employed instead of the traditional principal components analysis (PCA) because the clays (and tempers) used to manufacture the pottery came from volcanic sediments within the interior drainage of the Basin of Mexico. These sediments show subtle differences in elemental composition that are difficult to detect with traditional principal components analysis (PCA). Canonical discriminant analysis is a pattern recognition technique that provides maximal separation by creating a ratio of between-group variation to within-group variation

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

based on previously assigned compositional groups (Davis 1986). For the Chiconautla project, we are using previously defined compositional groups established by Neff using CDA. Canonical discriminant analysis is the best method by which to illustrate the compositional differences between Basin of Mexico groups (Neff and Glascock 2000). In order to firmly establish the veracity of the compositional groups detected in the Chiconautla sample, each group was statistically verified by calculating Mahalanobis distances. Additional explanations of the interpretation of compositional data obtained from the analysis of archaeological materials are discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., Baxter 1992, 1994a, 1994b, 2000; Baxter and Buck 2000; Bieber et al. 1975; Bishop and Neff 1989; Bishop et al. 1982; Glascock 1992; Harbottle 1976; Neff 2000). The Tenochtitlan and Cuauhtitlan reference groups include archaeological materials from the western Basin of Mexico. Ceramics from this group have a high hafnium (Hf) to iron (Fe) ratios. The Tenochtitlan reference group consists of ceramics produced in the southwestern Basin that includes the archaeological site of Tenochtitlan and the surrounding area. The Cuauhtitlan reference group consists of ceramics produced in the northwestern Basin that includes the archaeological site of Cuauhtitlan and the surrounding area. In bivariate plots, the Tenochtitlan and Cuauhtitlan groups tend to intersect on all elements; however, slight, but still overlapping, separation occurs with bivariate plots of hafnium (Hf) and iron (Fe) and chromium (Cr) and hafnium (Hf). The Otumba Macro reference group is comprised of materials from the northeast Basin of Mexico with a probable source between Chiconautla and Otumba in the Teotihuacan Valley (Neff et al. 2000:Figure 6). Pottery and clay from this reference group tend to have lower concentrations of chromium (Cr) and higher concentrations of barium (Ba) and calcium (Ca) than the Cuauhtitlan and Tenochtitlan reference groups. Although there are differences, bivariate plots show that the Otumba Macro reference group intersects with the Cuauhtitlan and Tenochtitlan reference groups. In addition to these groups, six samples plot within the Yautepec reference group located south of the Basin of Mexico, in the state of Morelos (Neff and Glascock 1998). This reference group has

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 9

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

9

Table 3. Chemical Group Assignments for Ceramics from Chiconautla, Mexico. Chemical Group MURR ID AMNH Cat. No.Ceramic Ware Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Cuauhtitlan Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro

CHC002 CHC006 CHC020 CHC026 CHC027 CHC040 CHC059 CHC060 CHC061 CHC062 CHC063 CHC064 CHC065 CHC079 CHC082 CHC085 CHC089 CHC090 CHC095 CHC097 CHC100 CHC104 CHC138 CHC141 CHC144 CHC147 CHC150 CHC152 CHC157 CHC158 CHC159 CHC161 CHC162 CHC179 CHC191 CHC198 CHC001 CHC004 CHC015 CHC018 CHC022 CHC024 CHC032 CHC034 CHC043 CHC047 CHC048 CHC049 CHC050 CHC051 CHC052 CHC053 CHC054 CHC055 CHC056 CHC058

30.1/9958 A 30.2/1040 30.2/2481 A01 30.2/2506 A01 30.2/2506 A02 30.2/2531 A01 30.2/2564 A01 30.2/2564 A02 30.2/2564 A03 30.2/2565 A01 30.2/2565 A02 30.2/2565 A03 30.2/2565 A04 30.2/2643 A04 30.2/2643 A07 30.2/2643 A10 30.2/2643 A14 30.2/2643 A15 30.2/2649 A01 30.2/2649 A03 30.2/2649 A06 30.2/2654 A02 30.2/2688 A01 30.2/2688 A04 30.2/2691 A03 30.2/2691 A06 30.2/2691 A09 30.2/2691 A11 30.2/2711 A01 30.2/2711 A02 30.2/2711 A03 30.2/2728 A01 30.2/2731 A01 30.2/2802 A01 30.2/630 30.2/901 30.1/9654 30.1/9998 30.2/2469 A01 30.2/2480 A01 30.2/2490 A01 30.2/2501 A02 30.2/2515 A01 30.2/2524 A01 30.2/2536 A04 30.2/2544 A01 30.2/2546 A02 30.2/2548 30.2/2549 A01 30.2/2552 A01 30.2/2554 A02 30.2/2555 30.2/2556 A01 30.2/2557 30.2/2558 30.2/2561 A04

Aztec Orangeware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware

Ceramic Type Black on Orange black/white on red black/white on red black/white on red black on red black/white on red black/white on red black/white on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange

Mazapan Buffware Wavy line Red-on-Buff

Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware

black/white on red black/white on red black/white on red black/white on red black on red black on red black on red black/white/orange on red black/white on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red black/white/orange on red orange/brown on red orange/brown on red black/brown on red black/orange on red black/brown on red

Form

Culture

Figurine spinning bowl bowl hourglass form/pulque hourglass form/pulque bowl hourglass form/pulque hourglass form/pulque hourglass form/pulque bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl bowl bowl-pointed foot bowl-slab foot bowl-pointed foot bowl-molcajete bowl bow basin basin bowl Incense burner-handled Incense burner-handled bowl Flute Spindle whorl Figurine Figurine bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl copa bowl bowl copa copa copa

Mazapan Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Mazapan Aztec Aztec Mazapan Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

7/6/09

3:42 PM

10

Page 10

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Table 3. Chemical Group Assignments for Ceramics from Chiconautla, Mexico (continued). Chemical Group MURR ID AMNH Cat. No.Ceramic Ware

Ceramic Type

Form

Culture

Otumba Macro CHC066 Otumba Macro CHC067 Otumba Macro CHC069

30.2/2566 A01 Aztec Redware 30.2/2566 A02 Aztec Redware 30.2/2569 Aztec Redware

copa bowl copa

Aztec Aztec Aztec

Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Otumba Macro Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan

30.2/2570 30.2/2574 A01 30.2/2574 A02 30.2/2643 A16 30.2/2643 A17 30.2/2643 A18 30.2/2643 A19 30.2/2649 A02 30.2/2649 A04 30.2/2649 A05 30.2/2649 A07 30.2/2649 A08 30.2/2658 30.2/2665 A01 30.2/2665 A11 30.2/2666 A02 30.2/2667 A04 30.2/2667 A06 30.2/2667 A07 30.2/2667 A08 30.2/2691 A01 30.2/2691 A10 30.2/2740 A02 30.2/2742 30.2/2743 A01 30.2/2743 A02 30.2/2743 A03 30.2/2744 A01 30.2/2745 30.2/2790 A01 30.2/2790 A02 30.2/2790 A03 30.2/2796 A01 30.2/2796 A02 30.2/2805 30.2/2806 A01 30.2/412 30.2/518 30.2/1049 30.2/1052 30.2/175 30.2/2525 A02 30.2/2534 30.2/2540 A01 30.2/2540 A02 30.2/2540 A03 30.2/2643 A03 30.2/2643 A05 30.2/2643 A06 30.2/2643 A08 30.2/2643 A11 30.2/2643 A13

white/black/yellow on red orange/black on red black/white/orange/ brown on red black/orange/brown on red black/orange/brown on red black/orange/brown on red Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange

CHC070 CHC071 CHC072 CHC091 CHC092 CHC093 CHC094 CHC096 CHC098 CHC099 CHC101 CHC102 CHC108 CHC109 CHC118 CHC125 CHC129 CHC131 CHC132 CHC133 CHC142 CHC151 CHC164 CHC165 CHC166 CHC167 CHC168 CHC169 CHC170 CHC174 CHC175 CHC176 CHC177 CHC178 CHC181 CHC182 CHC187 CHC188 CHC008 CHC009 CHC012 CHC037 CHC041 CHC044 CHC045 CHC046 CHC078 CHC080 CHC081 CHC083 CHC086 CHC088

Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware

Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware Mazapan Buffware

Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware

copa bowl bowl bowl bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl bowl bowl bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl bowl bowl bowl-slab foot bowl-slab foot bowl-slab foot bowl-slab foot plate bowl-molcajete w/slab foot Incense burner-lobed Incense burner-basin Incense burner-basin Incense burner-basin Incense burner-basin Incense burner-basin Incense burner-basin Wavy line Red-on-Buff bowl Wavy line Red-on-Buff bowl Wavy line Red-on-Buff bowl Mazapan Red-on-Buff bowl Mazapan Red-on-Buff bowl Red and White on Buff bowl Joroba Orange on Cream bowl Figurine Figurine Black on Orange spinning bowl Black on Orange spinning bowl Figurine black on red bowl black on red bowl black on red copa black on red bowl black on red bowl Black on Orange bowl-molcajete Black on Orange bowl-molcajete Black on Orange bowl-molcajete Black on Orange bowl Black on Orange bowl Black on Orange bowl-molcajete

Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 11

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

11

Table 3. Chemical Group Assignments for Ceramics from Chiconautla, Mexico (continued). Chemical Group MURR ID AMNH Cat. No.Ceramic Ware

Ceramic Type

Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Tenochtitlan Yautepec Ref. Yautepec Ref. Yautepec Ref. Yautepec Ref. Yautepec Ref. Yautepec Ref. Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned

Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange

CHC105 CHC111 CHC112 CHC114 CHC115 CHC116 CHC117 CHC119 CHC121 CHC122 CHC123 CHC126 CHC127 CHC130 CHC135 CHC137 CHC139 CHC140 CHC143 CHC145 CHC153 CHC172 CHC173 CHC189 CHC192 CHC031 CHC035 CHC074 CHC146 CHC197 CHC200 CHC003 CHC005 CHC007 CHC010 CHC011 CHC013 CHC014 CHC016 CHC017 CHC019 CHC021 CHC023 CHC025 CHC028 CHC029 CHC030 CHC033 CHC036 CHC038 CHC039 CHC042 CHC057 CHC068 CHC073 CHC075

30.2/2654 A03 30.2/2665 A03 30.2/2665 A04 30.2/2665 A07 30.2/2665 A08 30.2/2665 A09 30.2/2665 A10 30.2/2665 A12 30.2/2665 A14 30.2/2665 A15 30.2/2665 A16 30.2/2667 A01 30.2/2667 A02 30.2/2667 A05 30.2/2667 A10 30.2/2682 30.2/2688 A02 30.2/2688 A03 30.2/2691 A02 30.2/2691 A04 30.2/2692 30.2/2755 A02 30.2/2762 30.2/540 30.2/632 30.2/2514 A02 30.2/2524 A02 30.2/2574 A04 30.2/2691 A05 30.2/870 30.2/934 30.1/9987 30.2/102 30.2/1048 30.2/113 30.2/138 30.2/188 30.2/21 30.2/2469 A02 30.2/2473 A02 30.2/2480 A02 30.2/2485 A01 30.2/2501 A01 30.2/2501 A03 30.2/2507 A01 30.2/2507 A02 30.2/2514 A01 30.2/2515 A02 30.2/2525 A01 30.2/2528 A01 30.2/2528 A02 30.2/2535 30.2/256 30.2/2568 30.2/2574 A03 30.2/2575 A01

Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware

Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Orangeware

Aztec Orangeware

Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware Aztec Redware

Form

bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl-molcajete bowl-slab foot bowl-molcajete bowl bowl-slab foot bowl-slab foot bowl-pointed foot bowl-molcajete bowl bowl-molcajete Incense burner-handled Black on Orange copa Whistle Flute black on red bowl black on red bowl black/brown/yellow on red bowl Black on Orange bow Spindle whorl Spindle whorl Figurine Figurine Black on Orange spinning bowl Figurine Figurine Figurine Figurine black/white on red bowl black/white on red bowl black/white/orange on red bowl black/white on red bowl black/white on red bowl black/white on red bowl black/white on red hourglass form/pulque black/white on red hourglass form/pulque black on red bowl black on red bowl black on red bowl black on red bowl black on red bowl black on red bowl Figurine white/black on red bowl gray/red bowl White on buff jar

Culture Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

7/6/09

3:42 PM

12

Page 12

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Table 3. Chemical Group Assignments for Ceramics from Chiconautla, Mexico (continued). Chemical Group MURR ID AMNH Cat. No.Ceramic Ware

Ceramic Type

Form

Culture

Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned Unassigned

Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange Black on Orange

bowl-molcajete bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl bowl-slab foot bowl-slab foot bowl-molcajete bowl bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete bowl-molcajete Incense burner-handled Incense burner-lobed Incense burner-handled bowl bowl jar jar Figurine Whistle Pipe Pipe Spindle whorl Spindle whorl Spindle whorl

Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Mazapan Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec Aztec

CHC076 CHC077 CHC084 CHC087 CHC103 CHC106 CHC107 CHC110 CHC113 CHC120 CHC124 CHC128 CHC134 CHC136 CHC148 CHC149 CHC154 CHC155 CHC156 CHC160 CHC163 CHC171 CHC180 CHC183 CHC184 CHC185 CHC186 CHC190 CHC193 CHC194 CHC195 CHC196 CHC199

30.2/2643 A01 30.2/2643 A02 30.2/2643 A09 30.2/2643 A12 30.2/2654 A01 30.2/2654 A04 30.2/2654 A05 30.2/2665 A02 30.2/2665 A05 30.2/2665 A13 30.2/2666 A01 30.2/2667 A03 30.2/2667 A09 30.2/2667 A11 30.2/2691 A07 30.2/2691 A08 30.2/2693 A01 30.2/2693 A02 30.2/2693 A03 30.2/2727 A01 30.2/2740 A01 30.2/2755 A01 30.2/2802 A02 30.2/2807 30.2/2812 30.2/2819 A01 30.2/405 30.2/574 30.2/680 30.2/682 30.2/746 30.2/779 30.2/924

Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware Aztec Orangeware

Mazapan Buffware Wavy line Red-on-Buff Mazapan Orangeware Black/Brown Ware Mazapan Buffware Red and Black on Buff

AMNH is the catalogue number of the American Museum of Natural History. Complete INAA data on each speciemen are available at http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/datasets/datasets.html. Table 4. Number of Ceramics Tested and Percentage of Ceramics that Belong to One of Four Composition Groups or Were Unassigned by Time Period for All Time Periods. Time Period/ Source Mazapan Aztec II/ Early Aztec Aztec II? Aztec II-III/ Early-Late Transitional Aztec III/ Late Aztec Aztec Total

Cuauhtitlan 2 14.3% 7 24.1% 1 100.0% 2 16.7% 20 18.9% 4 10.5%

Otumba Macro 8 57.1% 9 31.0%

Tenochtitlan 0

Yautepec 0

5 17.2%

1 3.4%

Unassigned 4 28.6% 7 24.1%

Total 14 29 1

3 25.0% 31 29.2% 10 26.3%

2 16.7% 28 26.4% 4 10.5%

1 8.3% 2 1.9% 2 5.3%

4 33.3% 25 23.6% 18 47.4%

12 106 38 200

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 13

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

13

Table 5. Percentage of Early Postclassic Ceramics that Belong to One of Two Composition Groups or Were Unassigned . Form or type Cuauhtitlan Figurine 50.0% (1) Incised Black/Brown Ware 0 Joroba Orange/Cream 0 Red & Black/Buff 0 Red-on-Cream (White) 0 Toltec Red/Buff 0 Cream Slipped 0 Wavy Line Red/Buff 20.0% (1) Total 14.3% (2) Number of samples in parenthesis.

Otumba Macro 50.0% (1) 0 100.0% (1) 0 100.0% (1) 100.0% (2) 0 60.0% (3) 57.1% (8)

Unassigned 0 100.0% (1) 0 100.0% (1) 0 0 100.0% (1) 20.0% (1) 28.6% (4)

No. samples 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 14

Table 6. Percentage of Early Aztec Serving Wares that Belong to One of Four Composition Groups or Were Unassigned .

Type Cuauhtitlan Aztec II Black/Orange 26.9% (7) Aztec II? Black/Orange 100.0% (1) Early Aztec Black/Red 0 Early Aztec Black & White/Red 0 Aztec II-III Black/Orange 40.0% (2) Early/Late Transitional Black/Red 0 Early/Late Transitional Black/Red Incised/ 0 Early/Late Transitional Black & White/Red 0 Number of samples in parenthesis.

Otumba Macro 30.8% (8) 0 0 50.0% (1) 20.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 50.% (1) 0

Tenochtitlan Yautepec Unassigned 19.2% (5) 0 23.1% (6) 0 0 0 0 100.0% (1) 0 0 0 50.0% (1) 20.0% (1) 0 20.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 25.0% (1) 0 0 50.0% (1) 0 0 100.0% (1)

Number of samples 26 1 1 2 5 4 2 1

Table 7. Percentage of Late Aztec Serving Wares that Belong to One of Four Composition Groups or Were Unassigned.

Cuauhtitlan Aztec III Black/Orange 15.8% (9) Late Aztec Black/Red 10.0% (1) Late Aztec Black & White/Red 40.0% (6) Late Aztec Black & White &Orange/Red 40.0 (4) Late Aztec Black & Orange/Red 0 Late Aztec Black & Orange & Brown/Red 0 Late Aztec Black & Brown/Red 0 Late Aztec Black & Brown & Yellow/Red 0 Late Aztec Black & White & Orange 0 & Brown/Red Late Aztec Gray/Red 0 Late Aztec Orange & Black/Red 0 Late Aztec Orange & Brown/Red 0 Late Aztec White & Black/Red 0 Late Aztec White & Black & Yellow/Red 0 Late Aztec? White/Buff 0 Number of samples in parenthesis.

Otumba Macro 17.5% (10) 10.0% (1) 26.7% (4) 50.0 (5) 100.0 (1) 100.0% (3) 100.0% (2) 0 100.0% (1) 0 100.0% (1) 100.0% (2) 0 100.0% (1)` 0

Tenochtitlan Yautepec 42.1% (24) 1.8% (1) 40.0% (4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 100.0% (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

Unassigned 22.8% (13) 40.0% (4) 33.3% (5) 10.0% (1) 0 0 0 0 0

Number of Samples 57 10 15 10 1 3 2 1 1

100.0% (1) 0 0 100.0% (1) 0 100.0% (1)

1 1 2 1 1 1

Table 8. Percentage of Aztec Period Incense Burners that Belong to One of Three Composition Groups or Were Unassigned. Cuauhtitlan Incense burner-basin 0 Incense burner handled 40.0% (2) Incense Burner-lobed 0 Number of samples in parenthesis.

Otumba Macro

Tenochtitlan

Unassigned

No. Samples

100.0% (6) 0 50.0% (1)

0 20.0% (1) 0

0 40.0% (2) 50.0% (1)

6 5 2

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

7/6/09

3:42 PM

14

Page 14

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Table 9. Percentage of Aztec Figurines and Other Ceramics that Belong to One of Four Composition Groups or Were Unassigned. Otumba Macro 25.0% (3) 0 0 0 0

Aztec Cuauhtitlan Figurines 0 Flute 50.0% (1) Pipe 0 Whistle 0 Spindle Whorl 16.7% (1) Number of samples in parenthesis.

Tenochtitlan 8.3% (1) 50.0% (1) 0 50.0% (1) 0

Yautepec 0 0 0 0 33.3% (2)

Number of samples 12 2 2 2 6

Unassigned 66.7% (8) 0 100.0% (2) 50.0% (1) 50.0% (3)

Table 10. Number and Percentage of All Ceramics for Particular Ceramic Types and Forms Recorded in Three Proveniences Excavated in the Chiconautla Residence. West Traverse

NT 3

North rooms

Type/Form Plain Orange Early Black-on-Orange Late Black-on-Orange Early Red ware Late Red ware & polychrome Mazapan Gulf Coast Other

No. 140 112 102 214 50 730 4 11

% 5.87 4.69 4.27 8.97 2.10 30.60 .17 .46

No. 33 25 33 101 15 84 0 0

% 5.13 3.89 5.13 15.71 2.33 13.06 .00 .00

No. 125 1 149 55 111 46 0 1

% 17.19 0.14 20.50 7.57 15.27 6.33 .00 0.14

Undecorated bowl/basin Fabric Marked Comal Jar Massive bowl

411 56 361 83 3

17.23 2.35 15.13 3.48 .13

140 37 111 51 4

21.77 5.75 17.26 7.93 .62

80 16 87 30 9

11.00 2.20 11.97 4.13 1.24

Lobed brazier 7 .29 Long handled incense burner 37 1.55 Floor brazier 65 2.72 Total 2386 100.00 See figure 2 for the location of the proveniences listed.

0 5 4 643

.00 .78 .62 100.00

0 17 0 727

.00 2.34 .00 100.00

higher chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), scandium (Sc), iron (Fe), and calcium (Ca) concentrations than the above reference groups. The Yautepec reference group is distinct from the Cuauhtitlan, Tenochtitlan, and Otumba Macro groups and does not intersect with any of the Basin of Mexico groups. Chronology and Ceramic INAA Results from the Aztec Palace Context of INAA Samples We examined three distinct excavated proveniences from the palace to provide a point of comparison for the INAA data (Table 10). All three areas contain food production and storage vessels, decorated serving wares, and incense burners (artifacts used

to burn incense in households and temples). All three areas probably are chronologically distinct and tell us something about ceramic consumption over time. The first provenience is a sample of ceramics incorporated into the fill of the West Traverse Rooms upon their demolition and burial beneath a platform. These rooms should belong to the earliest phase of palace construction. We examined 2,386 sherds from the West Traverse Rooms and found the context contained just over 30 percent decorated Mazapan/Tollan ceramics, almost 9 percent Early (Aztec II) and Late (Aztec III and Aztec III/IV) Black-on-Orange, and almost 9 percent Early Red wares (Black-on-Red and White/Blackon-Red). Thus, these rooms may well have been built during the Middle Postclassic and demolished

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 15

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

A

15

D

B E

C

Figure 3. Major ceramic types identified in the analysis: (A) Early Postclassic Mazapan Wavy-line (30.2/2790A01), (B) Early Aztec Black on Orange ware (30.2/2643A07), (C) Late Aztec Black on Orange ware (30.2/2688A04), (D) Early Aztec Black &White/Red ware (30.2/2469A01), (E) Late Aztec Black& White/Red ware (30.2/2501A02). The AMNH catalogue number is in parenthesis. For ceramic affiliations see Table 3

during the Late Postclassic, at which time a substantial amount of Early Postclassic (Mazapan) rubbish was used as construction fill. Another sample that may date to early in the palace’s history comes from a pit placed under the floor of a corridor (“NT 3”) in the North Platform Rooms. A total of 643 sherds were sealed below five plaster floors. Here Mazapan sherds account for just over 13 percent of the fill. Most of the ceramics are utilitarian vessels (jar rims and handles, plain bowls, and comals). Surprisingly, Aztec Red wares and polychromes (18.04 percent) are twice as frequent as Black-on-Orange wares (9.02 percent). Aztec Red wares and polychromes also predominated in a sample of 727 sherds of fill exca-

vated inside the North Rooms. This context dates to the Late Postclassic. About 30 percent of these sherds are from utilitarian vessels (jar rims and handles, plain bowls, and comals), Black-onOrange were just over 20 percent of the sample, and Red wares and Polychromes accounted for almost 23 percent of the sample. If these contexts contain vessels indicative of types used in the palace, the data suggest a substantial occupation in this zone in the Early Postclassic and that Middle Postclassic people had access to networks supplying Red wares and they preferred these ceramics over more commonly available Black-on-Orange wares. Additionally, the presence of domestic (undecorated bowl, comals, jars, etc.) and ritual pottery (braziers and

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

7/6/09

3:42 PM

16

Page 16

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

censers) further substantiates architectural evidence that residential and ritual activities took place in the building. INAA Results on Serving Vessels Our INAA selection focused on decorated serving vessels dating to the Aztec period. The 148 Aztec period vessels we sampled include plates, bowls, bowls with tri- or tetra-pod supports (some with scored interiors called molcajetes), hourglassshaped cups, and cups with pedestals. Four of the bowls—miniature Black-on-Orange bowls were used in spinning thread—not as serving vessels (two of these grouped with Tenochtitlan, one with Cuauhtitlan, and one was unassigned). We sampled 12 Early Postclassic serving vessels. We do not know if the Mazapan pottery we analyzed came from Trench Z or the fill of the palace. The INAA sample included several types of decorated serving bowls and jars: one incised Black-on-Brown jar, one Joroba Orange-on-Cream bowl, one Red & Black-on-Buff jar, a Red-onCream (white) slipped flat bottom bowl with nubbin supports, two Toltec Red-on-Buff bowls, a stamped cream-slipped bowl, and five Mazapan Wavy-Line bowls. The only import, a Mazapan Wavy-Line bowl, was assigned to the nearby Cuauhtitlan composition group. The majority of the Mazapan ceramics (57.1 percent) were assigned to the local Teotihuacan Valley, Otumba-Macro group. Four sherds, including one Incised Black-on-brown jar, one Red and Black-on-Buff jar, one stamped cream slipped bowl, and one Mazapan Wavy-Line Red-on-Buff bowl are unassigned. The Middle Postclassic sample of Early Aztec pottery includes both decorated Orange wares and Red wares. About one-third (30.8 percent) of the Aztec II Black-on-Orange bowls and molcajetes were made in the Teotihuacan Valley and assigned to the Otumba-Macro group. Black-on-Orange bowls and molcajetes from the Cuauhtitlan composition group are nearly as common (26.9 percent). This is the first time that ceramic imports from the Tenochtitlan composition group are represented in the INAA sample from Chiconautla, and all are Black-on-Orange, both bowls and molcajetes. Overall, Black-on-Orange vessels made outside the Teotihuacan Valley are more common than those from the local composition group. The INAA sample included only three Early Aztec Red wares:

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

a Black-on-Red bowl imported from Morelos, one Black-and-White-on-Red bowl assigned to the Otumba-Macro group, and one Black & White-onRed bowl that is unassigned. The Aztec II-III Black-on-Orange (Parsons 1966:90) specimens show a similar distribution to Aztec II with both bowls and molcajetes assigned to the Cuauhtitlan (40 percent) and Otumba Macro (20 percent) groups and one Black-on-Orange bowl imported from the Tenochtitlan group. Black-onRed bowls defined as ”Early-Late transitional” (see Minc 1994, 2006) include one import from the Tenochtitlan group, one bowl imported from Morelos, and one bowl that is unassigned, along with an incised Black-on-Red bowl from Otumba Macro and one incised bowl that is unassigned. The only ”Early-Late transitional” Aztec Black & White-onRed bowl is not assigned to a composition group. Imports of Aztec III Black-on-Orange serving wares from the Tenochtitlan composition group jump to 42.1 percent in the Late Postclassic, more than double the frequency of Black-on-Orange serving wares from the local Otumba-Macro group (17.5 percent) or the Cuauhtitlan group (15 percent). Both Aztec III Black-on-Orange basins in the INAA sample come from the Cuauhtitlan group. Imports from Morelos continue in low frequencies (1.8 percent). Four miniature Aztec III bowls for spinning cotton were included in the INAA sample: one from the Cuauhtitlan group, two from the Tenochtitlan group, and one spinning bowl is unassigned. Five Aztec III Black on-Orange molcajetes and two bowls are unassigned. Occupants of Chiconautla’s palace used a wide variety of Late Aztec Red wares. Black-on-Red serving wares show a similar distribution pattern to decorated Orange wares with the Tenochtitlan composition group representing the source of 40 percent of the vessels. Otumba Macro and Cuauhtitlan each account for 10 percent of the Black-onRed. Four Black-on-Red bowls are unassigned. Of Black & White-on-Red bowls, four (or 50 percent) are assigned to the Otumba-Macro group, one bowl is from the Cuauhtitlan group, and three Black & White-on-Red bowls are unassigned. Interestingly, most of the remaining fancy Red wares consisting of bowls of various color combinations were made in the Teotihuacan Valley and assigned to the Otumba-Macro group. Four elaborately decorated Black & White & Orange-on-Red

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 17

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

bowls came from the Cuauhtitlan group and one Black & Brown & Yellow- on- Red bowl was imported from Morelos. Four miscellaneous Red ware bowls are unassigned. Unassigned Most of the 58 unassigned ceramic samples show a greater than 1 percent probability of belonging to more than one group; most ambiguities of this type are the result of affinities with the Otumba Macro and Tenochtitlan groups or with the Otumba Macro and Texcoco and Chalco reference groups. Such ambiguities are expected given that there is no clear division of the reference groups in canonical or elemental space. Although the unassigned samples cannot be assigned to a reference group with statistical certainty, all but nine of the samples plot within the Cuauhtitlan, Tenochtitlan, and Otumba Macro reference groups. Additionally, when the unassigned samples are compared with all other samples from the Basin of Mexico through Euclidean distances, they have membership within the established reference groups where they plot. What we can say with certainty is that the unassigned samples represent local production of the different Basin of Mexico groups and are not imports. INAA Results on Drinking Vessels Vaillant included hourglass-shaped pulque vessels and copas, pedastaled cups or goblets, in the field as part of the total ceramic count. Fortunately, he separately coded Red ware pulque vessels because of their form, and we can provide additional data on their frequency as a portion of Red ware, on their decoration, and on the INAA results of the vessels sampled. Unfortunately, Vaillant did not code copas (most of these also are Aztec Polychromes) separately by form (in other words Polychrome copas were coded with Aztec Red wares), so we can only have information on their decoration and on the INAA results of the vessels sampled. Hourglass vessels are depicted in ethnohistoric sources as containers for pulque, a fermented beverage made from maguey that was consumed at ceremonial events. Officially, pulque drinking was restricted to the elderly and nobles, although in actuality it was more widely consumed (Berdan 2005:24; Smith et al. 2003:245). The pulque vessels coded at Chiconautla are Red ware (either Black-on-Red or White/black-on-

17

Red). Most have either “sun” (Figure 4A) motifs or “spiral/step-fret” motifs (Figure 4B), but some have more elaborate designs (see Brumfiel 2004:251–252 for a discussion of the iconography of pulque vessels). In the three contexts we analyzed from the palace excavations, pulque vessels appeared as a significant portion of all Red ware ceramics coded: 8 percent of the vessels coded from the WT excavation, 5 percent of the vessels coded from the NT 3 excavation, and 25 percent of the vessels coded from the NT 6, 7, and 10 excavations. For INAA, we sampled three beautifully decorated pulque vessels with flower and skull motifs (Figure 4C) and all three grouped with Cuauhtitlan. Two vessels with spiral-step motifs also grouped with Cuauhtitlan. The production area for two vessels with sun motifs could not be pinpointed. Excavation and INAA data allow us to suggest that Chiconautla’s elites used pulque cups in palace rituals and obtained them from the Cuauhtitlan area. Copas were used to consume cacao-based drinks (Smith et al. 2003:249). The copas we sampled cover the range of decoration we observed in the sample collection. Most are polychrome Aztec Red ware with black, white, orange, yellow, and brown designs on a red background. Seven of the nine sherds sampled were made in the Teotihuacan Valley (Otumba-Macro group) (Figure 4D). One Black-on-Red copa and one Black-on-Orange copa (Figure 4E) grouped with Tenochtitlan production zone. INAA results on Ritual and Other Ceramics Ritual ceramics found in the Chiconautla collection include long-handled incense burners, braziers, flutes, rattles, rasps, bells, and figurines. Data on these artifacts drawn from excavations and INAA support our suggestion that the palace was the center of domestic rituals involving just a few family members and public “popular” rituals involving extended families or the community (see Smith 2002). Incense Burners and Braziers Palace excavations recovered three types of ceramics used to burn incense: long-handled “frying pan” incense burners, braziers that would have sat on the floor, and lobed braziers (that also could have been

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

18

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 18

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

A

B

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

D

E

C Figure 4. Ceramics for consuming liquids: (A) Black-on Re- hourglass-shaped cup with a sun motif used to consume pulque (30.2/2507A02), (B) a Black-on-Red pulque cup with a spiral motif (30.2/2506A02), (C) a Black on White pulque cup with skull and flower motifs (30.2/2564A02), (D) a Black-on-Red pedestal cup used to consume cacao-based drinks (30.2/2540A01), (E) a Blackon-Orange pedestal cup used to consume cacao-based drinks (30.2/2762). The AMNH catalogue number is in parenthesis. For ceramic affiliations see Table 3.

used as lamps). As Smith (2002:98) points out, artifacts like long-handled incense burners were used in both domestic and public “state” ceremonies. Taube (2001) suggests that both domestic and state rituals often were constructed around an Aztec notion regarding the conceptual importance of centering space by moving, sweeping, lighting incense to the directions, and through circumambulation. For example, Motolinía (1996:443) describes a daily ceremony preformed by Aztec women who raised a long-handled incense burner of coals to the four directions thereby making a general offering to the sun, fire, earth, and gods. We might expect

daily rites in the Chiconautla palace required the use of incense burners. We sampled three handles of long-handled incense burners that were made in the shape of a serpent that were not notably different to the eye in manufacture (Figure 5A). Workshops at Otumba made such censers (Charlton et al. 1991), but of three handles sampled, one grouped with the Cuauhtitlan production zones, one with the Tenochtitlan zone, and the third was unassigned. A handle with a folded paper fan motif also grouped with Cuauhtitlan (another was unassigned). Floor censers or braziers are larger vessels more

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 19

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

commonly described in documents as used in temple contexts to burn fires or incense (López Luján 2005). Brazier fragments in the Chiconautla collection come from vessels of different sizes and finishes, some of them decorated with appliqués in the form of flowers, circles, and spirals (Figure 5B). All six of the floor censer fragments we sampled fell into the local Otumba group. Lobed braziers could have been suspended by cords tied around the vessel’s body or through its handles and could have been used to burn incense or to light rooms (Figure 5C). We sampled two black carved lobed braziers that appeared similar in manufacture and one grouped with Cuauhtitlan; the other was unassigned.

19

A

B

Spindle Whorls Spinning cotton and maguey cloth was a task Aztec women worked at regularly and it is not surprising noble ladies may have imported their spinning bowls. Three of the six spindle whorls (small weights used to spin thread) we sampled also were imports (one grouped with Cuauhtitlan, two with Morelos and three were unassigned). Flutes, Rattles, Rasps, and Bells Chiconautla excavations recovered ceramic flutes with cylindrical stems, often with decorations attached to the sound-producing ends. One such flute is painted with red and black spirals, designs interpreted as symbolizing the role of music and breath to conjure wind and rain (Both 2002, 2007; Taube 2001). Another flute has a probable depiction of the Aztec sun symbol and a third has a redpainted circle and cross pattern that may represent the cardinal directions and conceptual shape of the world. Most ceramic fragments in the collection are carved with patterns or have decorations such as spirals and flowers. We tested two flute pieces for INAA and one (a flower) grouped with Cuauhtitlan and one (a circular design) grouped with Tenochtitlan. Whistle fragments generally are not complete enough for a detailed analysis. One of the two whistles we tested, a human effigy, grouped with Tenochtitlan. The second whistle was not assigned to a production zone. Palace excavations also uncovered fragments of rattles often decorated with incised concentric circles and ceramic bells. We did not include these

C

Figure 5. Ritual ceramics for burning incense: (A) a handle in the shape of a snake from a long-handled incense burner (30.2/2755A02), (B) a floor censer (30.2/2744A01), (C) a lobed brazier (30.2/2740A02). The AMNH catalogue number is in parenthesis. For ceramic affiliations see Table 3.

types of artifacts in the INAA sample. Ceramic Pipes and Bone Tubes Excavations at Chiconautla recovered fragments of ceramic pipes used to smoke tobacco. Most pipe fragments are painted red or black. Two fragments are pieces shaped like human feet. A red-painted and a black-painted pipe tested for INAA were

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

20

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 20

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Figure 6. A fragment of a stone “idol” recovered from inside the North Platform of the Chiconautla palace (30.2/1355). The AMNH catalogue number is in parenthesis.

unassigned. The Chiconautla collection also contains six polished bones made into hollow tubes. Some of the tubes are burnt at one end and may have been used as smoking tubes. Sahagún’s informants (1950–82 Bk 4:117) describe “bowls with smoking tubes” as one amenity offered to guests during feasts. In their description of the markets, Sahagún’s informants (1950–82 Bk 8:69) state that vendors sold “smoking tubes, pipes, and cigars (some) quite resinous and aromatic.” Figurines Aztec figurines are commonly small, massproduced objects that one could hold in one’s hand. Scholars suggest a wide range of interpretations for figurines stemming from ideas about whether clay figures of humans represent mortals or gods (see Millian 1981; Parsons 1972; Pastory 1983; Smith 2002). In general, figurines might have been employed in domestic rituals such as fertility rites, healing rites, and in acts propitiating divine beings (gods or ancestors). Figurines also represent animals and temple buildings. Many documents also describe larger wood or stone “idols” as objects used primarily in temples (see Smith 1992:331). Vaillant’s palace excavations produced the head of such a stone idol that is carved in soft stone and covered in stucco (Figure 6).

Most figurine fragments in the Chiconautla collection date to the Aztec period and are females whose dress and hairstyles evoke motifs associated with deities including Coatlicue (a goddess of spring), Cihuacoatl (invoked in childbirth), and Xochiquetzal (patroness of love, flowers, and embroidery). The collection also contains solid temple models, animals, and male figures dressed like warriors. Fourteen figurines (two dating to the Early Postclassic) were sampled for INAA. Eight of these were unassigned, four assigned to the Otumba Macro group are similar to those mass produced in workshops at Otumba (Otis Charlton 1994), one grouped with Cuauhtitlan, and one grouped with Tenochtitlan. Nonceramic Imported Goods Our data show that Chiconautla’s nobles were interested in acquiring nonlocal goods for personal consumption and for use in community ritual activities. The use of imported ceramic goods in feasting and public rituals also was a way for nobles to reinforce their position vis-à-vis commoners and lowerranking local elites. Exotics like copper, shell, and turquoise probably were in great demand. For example, several copper bells—artifacts often associated with the gods Tlaloc, Xipe Totec, Quetzal-

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 21

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

coatl, and Coyolxauqui—were recovered in the palace (Hosler 1994; Martí 1968; Vargas 2001:197). Items of personal adornment manufactured from jadeite, turquoise, copper, and obsidian are recoverable in archaeological contexts. These items exemplify luxury goods found at marketplaces or obtained by rulers from incorporated regions as tribute sent to the capital annually, semi-annually, or quarterly (Berdan 1983:161; Smith and SmithHeath 1994:360). At Chiconautla, the presence or absence of these goods offers another line of evidence for trade and exchange. Copper Copper bells were produced in the Mixtec area from sources in Oaxaca. Copper also came from more far-flung sources in western/northwestern Mexico and the southwest U.S. (Berdan 1983:168; Hosler 1994; Weigand and Weigand 2001). Two bells of the three bells recovered at Chiconautla are elongated and decorated with simulated wirework while a third has an ovoid or flattened globular shape; both are similar to objects illustrated in the Codex Mendoza (Berdan and Anawalt 1997; Vargas 2001:198). Turquoise Turquoise was imported to the Basin of Mexico through long-distance trade and marketplace exchange from northern Mexico and New Mexico/Arizona (Berdan 1983:169; Weigand and de Weigand 2001: 190). Excavations at Chiconautla produced six turquoise disks (five with holes drilled through he center) and one turquoise bead. Shell One of us, Mikkelsen, identified that the palace shell was imported from the Gulf Coast, and included both freshwater and marine (and in one case terrestrial) species, primarily from groups commonly called mussel, olive, and arks (Table 11). A marine conch shell and a marine cockle came from palace excavations. Eight worked shells are fragments of decorative objects meant to be strung onto jewelry or sewn onto clothing. Obsidian The nearest obsidian source to Chiconautla, Otumba (at the eastern end of the Teotihuacan val-

21

ley), produces primarily gray obsidian. Collections from sites including Xico, Huexotla, and Otumba show that over the course of the Postclassic green obsidian, and in particular green prismatic blades and cores made from Pachuca (state of Hidalgo) obsidian, predominate the obsidian assemblage even though gray obsidian was considerably closer (Brumfiel 1986; Milhauser 2005; Parry 1990; Spence 1985). We have not yet chemically sourced obsidian artifacts from Chiconautla. Both grey and green obsidian were collected at Chiconautla and the assemblage shows the same predominance of green obsidian detected at other sites—about 80 percent green vs. 20 percent gray obsidian. In general, green obsidian is used to make blades and gray obsidian is used to make scraperlike tools (green prismatic blades account for just over 60 percent of the green obsidian assemblage while blades account for only 16 percent of the gray obsidian assemblage). A number of finely worked personal adornments came from the palace including an earspool; a rodshaped lip plug, a style worn by Otomí and others in Central Mexico (Brumfiel et al. 1994; Smith 2006); a button-shaped lip plug, similar to a type produced in workshops at Otumba (Otis-Charlton 1994); and three small E-shaped eccentrics, possibly made at the Otumba workshops. Discussion Our analysis has allowed us to develop ideas about exchange and consumption at Chiconautla, a site historically noted as a tlatoani center and an important Aztec trade node. We consider its patterns of trade and exchange over time with the Triple Alliance capitals of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco and with other city-states, including Otumba, the largest city-state in the Teotihuacan Valley and a regional craft production center. We will describe major patterns we see for each time period in light of current models. Early Postclassic Sanders (1986) suggested that the Mazapan WavyLine Red-on-Buff style perhaps originated at Teotihuacan, the largest Early Postclassic settlement in the Teotihuacan Valley. For Sanders (1986), the appearance of Orange and cream slipped wares that have strong parallels to pottery at Tula (and belong

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

22

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 22

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

Table 11. Shell Identified in Collections from Chiconautla. AMNH Cat. # 30.2/1116 30.2/1117 30.2/1118 30.2/1119 30.2/1120 30.2/1121 30.2/1122 30.2/1123 30.2/1124 30.2/1125 30.2/1126 30.2/1127 30.2/1128 30.2/1129 30.2/1130 30.2/1131 30.2/1132 30.2/1133 30.2/1134 30.2/1135 30.2/1136 30.2/1137 30.2/1138 30.2/1139 30.2/1140 30.2/1141 30.2/1142 30.2/1143 30.2/1144 30.2/1145 30.2/1146

Family Name, Genus/species (common name) Conidae (cone) Noetiidae, Noetia ponderosa (ponderous ark) Noetiidae, Noetia ponderosa (ponderous ark) Chamidae (jewelbox clam) (land snail) Olividae (olive) Tellinidae (tellin) Not identifiable Veneridae, Dosinia discus (disk dosinia) Unionidae (mussel) Neritidae, Neritina sp. (nerite) Noetiidae, Noetia ponderosa (ponderous ark) Arcidae (ark) Unionidae (mussel) Strombidae, Strombus raninus (hawk-wing conch) Unionidae (mussel) (mussel) Not identifiable Cardiidae (cockle) Veneridae, Dosinia discus (disk dosinia) Olividae (olive) (mussel) (mussel) Olividae (olive) Olividae (olive) (mussel) (mussel) Not identifiable Olividae (olive) Arcidae (ark) Olividae and Arcidae pieces with same number

to a late subphase of the Early Postclassic called Atlatongo) mark the incorporation of the Teotihuacan Valley into the Early Postclassic Toltec state centered at Tula in Hidalgo (cf. Smith and Montiel 2001). As Sanders anticipated, a majority of Mazapan Wavy-line Red-on-buff bowls originated in the Teotihuacan Valley; however, Teotihuacan did not have a monopoly on this production. No imports of Early Postclassic Orange or cream-slipped pottery from a composition group outside the Teotihuacan Valley were identified in our Chiconautla INAA sample; however, the sample size was small and we will consider expanding our sample of this type in future studies. Ongoing analyses of Mazapan/Tollan ceramics from Cerro Portezuelo in the eastern Basin show that the Teotihuacan Valley exported this Early Postclassic pottery to urban centers elsewhere in the eastern Basin (Nichols et al. 2008). Mazapan/Tollan ceramics were found in a mid-

Environment marine marine marine marine terrestrial marine marine marine freshwater marine, brackish marine marine freshwater marine freshwater freshwater marine marine marine marine freshwater freshwater marine marine freshwater freshwater

Worked? worked

worked

worked

worked, worked

worked worked worked

marine marine marine

den and in an early structure (West House Rooms) sealed under Late Postclassic construction. It is not clear if the association of Mazapan/Tollan and Early Aztec (Aztec II) pottery in palace fill was caused by intermixing or indicates chronological overlap. (See Nichols and Charlton [1996]; Parsons and Gorenflo [2009] for a discussion of related chronology issues.) The presence of Mazapan/Tollan ceramics suggests continuity of occupation at Chiconautla from the Early to Middle Postclassic. Mazapan buildings might have been razed as newer structures were put up. Studies of Early Postclassic ceramics from urban centers show a marked increase in exchange between centers compared to the Epiclassic (García 2004; Nichols et al. 2002, 2008). Chiconautla, which was a village and possibly a local ceremonial center at this time, however, has only minor amounts of imported pottery (from the Cuauhtitlan composition group). Overall, this is consistent

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 23

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

with patterns at rural sites in the Teotihuacan Valley where people mostly consumed ceramics made locally (Crider et al. 2007). Perhaps as expected, the pattern suggests limited market exchange of pottery and figurines between Chiconautla and other subregions of the Basin of Mexico during the Epiclassic. Middle Postclassic Prior to Hodge and Minc’s studies, most scholars associated Middle Postclassic city-states with solar markets (Charlton and Nichols 1997:199–202; Hassig 1985:73; Hicks 1987:93; Smith 1979). Hodge and Minc suggest that the presence of multiple subregional market systems in the Middle Postclassic coincides with the boundaries of citystate confederations (Hodge 1992, Hodge and Minc 1990, Hodge et al. 1993, Minc et al. 1994). Nichols et al. (2002:70) see evidence that an overlapping marketing pattern was emerging in the Early Postclassic. They found that although subregional market systems might have coincided with city-state confederations, pottery also moved across political boundaries at least along the southern and western margins of the Basin. They, along with Blanton (1996) and Garraty (2006), date the beginnings of Aztec market hierarchies to this time. Middle Postclassic Chiconautla does not fit either the solar market or confederation market model. The palace received imports from almost all the Aztec pottery-making areas in the Basin described in documentary sources—Texcoco, Cuauhtitlan, and Tenochtitlan (this composition group actually includes the pottery-making centers of Culhuacan, Tenochtitlan, and Azcapotzalco [Nichols et al. 2002:31]). The only major exception is Chalco, but our INAA sample included no Aztec I or early Chalco-Cholula polychrome— pottery types made at Chalco. The Cuauhtitlan and Tenochtitlan production zones were important suppliers of Aztec II Blackon-Orange pottery to Chiconautla; together these two account for 46 percent of the vessels sampled (vs. 31 percent of locally made vessels). Inland sites in the Teotihuacan Valley, including rural villages, also received imports of Aztec II Black-onOrange pottery from the Cuauhtitlan, Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Chalco production zones (Nichols and Charlton 2001). Some, if not most, of these vessels probably moved through Chiconautla. The

23

island center of Xaltocan also saw an increase in imports from the Cuauhtitlan area, along with imports from the southern and southwestern Basin (Nichols et al. 2002:40, Table 5). At the same time, Early Aztec Red ware from the Tenochtitlan composition group began to make its way to Chiconautla. Chiconautla also obtained locally manufactured Early Aztec Red ware, perhaps from workshops at Otumba (Charlton et al. 1991, 2000; Nichols 1994). For the first time the palace’s occupants acquired Black-on-Red bowls from Morelos. Palace occupants consumed a relatively high percentage of Red ware in comparison to more commonly made Orange ware. Chiconautla’s trade networks expanded in the midst of a volatile political environment of competition, shifting alliances, and conflicts among city-states in the Basin. Notwithstanding the political environment, substantial amounts of pottery moved across confederation boundaries to reach Chiconautla (about 44 percent of the decorated Early Aztec pottery in our sample came from outside the Teotihuacan Valley). Garraty (2006:136) reports that about half of the Early Aztec Plain Orange pottery he analyzed from Chiconautla was imported from the Texcoco composition group. To us, these findings signal several interrelated developments (1) increased pottery manufacturing for export; (2) market expansion in the Middle Postclassic that was linked to the growth of lake transportation and trade, with Chiconautla becoming an important hub; and (3) in the case of Chiconautla, dual economic ties with the western Basin and its ethnically Tepaneca (Atzcalpotzalco-headed) confederation and with the eastern Basin and its ethnically Acolhua (Texcoco-headed) confederation. Our findings provide further evidence for the pattern of overlapping markets and increased subregional exchange documented by Nichols et al. (2002:72) during the Middle Postclassic and perhaps also exchange via networks of marriage and kinship and political alliances. Late Postclassic For the Late Postclassic, Hodge and Minc (Hodge 1992; Hodge and Minc 1990; Hodge et al. 1993; Minc et al. 1994) argue that the political boundaries of confederations continued to constrain market exchanges of decorated pottery. Minc (2006) concludes that the Basin was divided into two hier-

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

24

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 24

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

archical dendritic networks that conformed to the boundaries between the Acolhua and Mexica territories (who took over the Tepenaca region by defeating Atzcalpotzalco). Hassig (1985:130–144) sees greater regional market integration in the Late Postclassic and attributes it to Tenochtitlan’s restructuring of the economy in a core-periphery relationship. The increased reliance on canoe transport and growth in trade with Tenochtitlan as the major production center “had the effect of shifting the secondarymarket centers toward the lakeshore” (Hassig 1985:135). Rather than a dendritic model, Hassig interprets centers such as Chiconautla as gateways, located at one end of their hinterlands at nodes where the shift from canoes to porters were both a major transportation break and break of bulk point (Hassig 1985:136). Texcoco’s continuing importance as a market and production, despite its inland location, Hassig argues, was not so much due to its political position as caused by the seasonal lowering of lake levels that reduced canoe traffic and segmented the regional market system (Hassig 1985:142–144). Other archaeologists see less political control over the economy and argue that by the Late Postclassic a complex interlocking market system had developed in the Basin (Blanton et al. 1993; Smith 2003). Still others recognize increasing commercialism and greater market integration, but also point to persisting regionalism, especially on the Basin’s peripheries, along with increased exchange between imperial capitals and hinterlands (Charlton et al. 2000; Nichols et al. 2001). Given the increasing complexity of the Postclassic economy, perhaps it is not surprising that scholars working with different data sets and looking at the production and exchange of different classes of goods draw different conclusions about market organization. We expected that the Texcoco composition group would be well represented in our INAA sample of decorated ceramics from Chiconautla. Minc (2006) had found that Aztec Red ware in the eastern and southern Basin tended to circulate within confederation boundaries. Additionally, in Nichols and Charlton’s (2001) regional INAA sample, onefifth of the Aztec II Black-on-Orange and about one-quarter of the Aztec III Black-on-Orange pottery from sites in the Teotihuacan valley came from the Texcoco composition group. Garraty’s (2006)

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

study of Aztec plainwares determined that Chiconautla’s palace elites used Aztec Plain Orange ware from the Texcoco composition group during both the Middle and Late Postclassic (Garraty 2006). Moreover, we know that in the 1430s Chiconautla had a tlatoani linked to Texcoco’s through marriage (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–77: 2:89–90; Hodge and Blanton 1966:230). Yet, despite Chiconautla’s incorporation into the Acolhua confederation, palace occupants obtained relatively little decorated pottery from Texcoco area workshops. Over 40 percent of the Aztec III Black-on-Orange pottery in the palace came from the Tenochtitlan composition group. By comparison, Nichols and Charlton (2001) in their regional INAA sample from the Teotihuacan Valley found that imports from the Tenochtitlan composition group accounted for about 20 percent of the Aztec III Black-on-Orange for the Teotihuacan Valley as whole and about 15 percent at the urban center of Otumba. Our data show that the palace’s residents continued to import ceramics, and now they drank pulque in Black & White-on-Red vessels from the Cuauhtitlan region and used elaborately decorated Red ware bowls that were manufactured in the Teotihuacan Valley, Cuauhtitlan, and Tenochtitlan production zones, and even in Morelos. Chiconautla obtained incense burners, braziers, and figurines from Cuauhtitlan, the Teotihuacan Valley, and Tenochtitlan. We attribute the large volume of Tenochtitlan production zone imports to several factors: (1) increased production and marketing of pottery, especially Black-onorange, made in the southwest Basin; (2) Chiconautla’s lakeshore location and growth as a trade center; and (3) preferences of Chiconautla’s palace elites. Our findings support some aspects of Hassig’s core- periphery model, but not others. Although imports of ceramics from the Tenochtitlan production zone increased dramatically, Chiconautla continued to obtain pottery from other production zones in the Basin. We do not know the consumption patterns of commoners at the site. Unfortunately, the only comparative information from outside Chiconautla’s palace come from surface collections at the site made in the 1960s. Nichols and Charlton’s (2001) analysis of 23 specimens of decorated pottery (using INAA) from surface collections at Chiconautla found two (two Black-on-Orange dishes

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 25

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

typed as Aztec III and Aztec IV) of 23 samples came from the Texcoco composition group. Thus, Chiconautla imported some decorated as well as Plain Orange ware pottery from the Texcoco area. The high proportion of Tenochtitlan imports in the palace sample may reflect preferences of Chiconautla’s elites, as well as production factors. Our interpretation of these data is that the expansion of a regional market system, combined with Chiconautla’s strategic location in the lake transportation system and growth as a trading hub, meant that Chiconautla had broad access to imports from the western Basin and from the far reaches of the empire. At the same time, the Late Postclassic saw an especially dramatic increase in the volume of pottery exported from the Tenochtitlan composition group. Charlton et al. (2008:265) argue that in the Late Postclassic, full-time professional potters made Black-on-Orange Aztec III pottery. The expansion of production in the Tenochtitlan area coupled with overall growth in the market system allowed ceramic exports from the Tenochtitlan composition group and to a lesser extent the Cuauhtitlan composition group to penetrate market areas in the eastern Basin. However, further inland in the Teotihuacan Valley import levels were lower and regionalism persisted (Charlton et al. 2008). Chiconautla’s elites probably used their wealth (some derived from taxing the local market and some derived from tribute [Minc 2006:93]) to fund architectural expansions of the palace and to engage in elite activities. We have marshaled excavation data on the palace’s architecture and ritual objects to show that by the Late Postclassic, this building included domestic and public ritual spaces. Public rituals used incense burners, braziers, and obsidian blades, and elsewhere Elson and Smith (2001) have suggested that one public ritual taking place in the palace was the celebration of an event called the New Fire ceremony that took place every 52 years. Other more regularly celebrated rituals incorporated copas, pulque vessels, pipes, and bone smoking tubes (possibly used in elite feasts). Rasps, bells, and flutes produced music to accompany feasts as well as religious celebrations. Private domestic ceremonies employed long-handled censers and figurines. Thus, palace elites carried out private events and sponsored events for others. INAA indicates that some objects needed to con-

25

duct these activities came from the Tenochtitlan and Cuauhtitlan production zones. Chiconautla fits a model suggesting that as the Triple Alliance took shape, an important factor fueling market growth was the demand for status-linked goods that, in turn, increased and intensified linkages between elites across city-state boundaries. INAA data (especially data from Black-on-Orange pottery) may support historical documentation indicating direct political and perhaps social ties to Tenochtitlan, but we also can make a good case that Chiconautla’s elites, even if not related, were strongly influenced by the likes and desires of capital elites. Simply put, as Tenochtitlan solidified its position as the capital of the Aztec empire, ceramic production expanded in the southwest Basin. This idea is outlined in the work of prior scholars who have found that decorated Aztec pottery in the Late Postclassic flowed west to east and that little pottery made in the Acolhua domain (Texcoco region and Teotihuacan Valley) was consumed in significant amounts in the western Basin (Garraty 2006; Hodge 1992; Hodge and Minc 1990; Hodge et al. 1993; Ma 2003; Minc 2006; Minc et al. 1994; Nichols and Charlton 2001; Nichols et al. 2002). At the same time, products made near the center of political power became more popular in the Basin, including among provincial elites like those occupying Chiconautla’s palace. Conclusions An analysis of excavated data and INAA on pottery from Chiconautla detects a shift from a pattern of exchange through restricted subregional markets for ceramics in the Early Postclassic; to continuing expansion of market exchange with substantial amounts of decorated serving wares being traded beginning in the Middle Postclassic through overlapping exchange networks that became more hierarchical; to a continuation of these trends in the Late Postclassic in conjunction with the emergence of Tenochtitlan and to a lesser degree Texcoco as dominant markets, craft producers, and political centers. Based on Chiconautla’s political history and previous studies of Aztec ceramics in the eastern Basin, we expected to find significant imports of decorated wares from the Texcoco region, mirroring data produced from recent INAA studies of

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

26

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 26

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

plain orange ware (Garraty 2006). That we did not indicates that the flow of pottery and choices of consumers also were influenced by the manufacturing power and political status of urban centers and by geography. The persistent regionalism seen in the Otumba city-state and elsewhere in the northeastern periphery of the Basin (Charlton and Nichols 1991, 2001) is not evident at Chiconautla because of its lakeshore location and importance as a trading center. We suspect that the predominance of fancy decorated vessels, including bowls, copas, and pulque vessels from producers other than Texcoco reflects Chiconautla’s strategic location, expanded pottery manufacturing in the southwestern Basin (especially in and around Tenochtitlan), and the fact the nobles were very keen to acquire nonlocal items for use in their feasts and other activities that demonstrated status to members of their own social stratum. Chiconautla elites were well-integrated into Basin-wide modes of elite ritual behavior. We propose that they probably were less constrained by the political and physical landscape than commoners and elites in other area of the eastern Basin. Our research also adds to a growing base of compositional and stylistic studies showing that different types of ceramics had different market spheres and patterns of production and consumption. Much research has focused on comparing changes from the Middle to the Late Postclassic, an era associated with the development of the Aztec empire. Although the sample of Early Postclassic pottery analyzed from Chiconautla is small, the findings are consistent with other studies indicating that equally substantial economic changes took place from the Early to the Middle Postclassic and that such changes can be explored and explained in future studies. Acknowledgments. This research was supported by a grant from the Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc. At the American Museum of Natural History we thank Charles Spencer, Curator of Mexico and Central America, for granting access to the materials and Ananda Cohen, Anthropology Intern, for imaging and drawing the ceramics. The William J. Bryant 1925 Professorship of Anthropology, Dartmouth College, also provided assistance. Elizabeth Brumfiel and Michael Smith provided helpful suggestions, as did an anonymous reviewer. The abstract was translated by Oralia Cabrera C. and Kristin Sullivan prepared the map of the Basin of Mexico.

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

References Cited Alva Ixtlilxóchitl, Fernando de 1975–77 Obras históricas, 2 vols. (Edmundo O’Gorman, ed.). Universidad Autónoma Nacional de México, Mexico. Baxter, Michael J. 1992 Archaeological Uses of the Biplot—A Neglected Technique? In Computer Applications and Quantitative Methods in Archaeology, 1991, edited by G. Lock and J. Moffett. BAR International Series S577, 141–148. Tempvs Reparatvm, Archaeological and Historical Associates, Oxford. 1994a Exploratory Multivariate Analysis in Archaeology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. 1994b Stepwise Discriminant Analysis in Archaeometry: A Critique. Journal of Archaeological Science 21:659–666. 2000 Statistical Modelling of Artefact Compositional Data. Archaeometry 43:131–147. Baxter, Michael J., and Caitlin E. Buck 2000 Data Handling and Statistical Analysis. In Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, edited by Enrique Ciliberto and Giuseppe Spotto, pp. 681–746. John Wiley, New York. Berdan, Frances F. 1983 The Economics of Aztec Luxury Trade and Tribute. In The Aztec Templo Mayor edited by Elizabeth Hill Boone, pp. 161–183. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, DC. 2005 The Aztecs. Thomson Wadsworth, Belmont, California. Berdan, Frances F., and Patricia R. Anawalt, eds. 1992 Codex Mendoza. 4 vols. University of California Press, Berkeley. Berdan, Frances F., and Michael E. Smith 1996 Imperial Strategies and Core-Periphery Relations. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 209–218. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Bieber, Alan M. Jr., Dorothea W. Brooks, Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre 1976 Application of Multivariate Techniques to Analytical Data on Aegean Ceramics. Archaeometry 18:59–74. Bishop, Ronald L. and Hector Neff 1989 Compositional Data Analysis in Archaeology. In Archaeological Chemistry IV, edited by R. O. Allen, pp. 576–586. Advances in Chemistry Series 220. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC. Bishop, Ronald L., Robert L. Rands, and George R. Holley 1982 Ceramic Compositional Analysis in Archaeological Perspective. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 5, edited by**, pp. 275–330. Academic Press, New York. Blanton, Richard E. 1996 The Basin of Mexico Market System and the Growth of Empire. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 47–84. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Blanton, Richard and Mary Hodge 1996 Appendix 2: Date on Market Activities and Production Specialization of Tlatoani Centers. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E.

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 27

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 243–246. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, DC. Both, Arnd Adje 2002 Aztec Flower Flutes: The Symbolic Organizaton of Sound in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Orient Archäeologie 10:279–289. 2007 Aztec Music Culture. In Music Archaeology: Mesoamerica, edited by Max Peter Baumann, Arnd Edje Both, and Julia L. J. Sanchez, pp. 91–194. The World of Music, Vol. 49 (2). University of Bamberg, Bamberg. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., 1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 102–118. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 2004 Meaning by Design: Ceramics, Feasting, and Figured Worlds in Postclassic Mexico. In Mesoamerican Archaeology Theory and Practice, edited by Julia A. Hendon and Rosemary A. Joyce, pp. 238–263. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford. 2005 Opting In and Opting Out: Tula, Cholula, and Xaltocan. In Settlement, Subsistence, and Social Complexity: Essays Honoring the Legacy of Jeffrey R. Parsons, edited by Richard E. Blanton, pp. 63–88. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology UCLA, Los Angeles. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Mary D. Hodge 1996 Interaction in the Basin of Mexico: The Case of Postclassic Xaltocan. In Arqueología Mesoamerican: Homepage a William T. Sanders, edited by Alba Guadalupe Mastache, Jeffery R. Parsons, Robert. S. Santley, Mari Carmen Sera Puce, pp. 417–437. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., Tamara Salcedo, and David K. Schafer 1994 The Lip Plugs of Xaltocan. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge, and Michael E. Smith, pp. 113–131. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-Albany, Albany. Cecil, Leslie G., and Michael D. Glascock 2005 Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis of Pottery from Chiconautla, Mexico. Archaeometry Laboratory, Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia. Electronic document, http://archaeometry.missouri.edu/ datasets/datasets.html Charlton, Cynthia Otis 1994 Plebeians and Patricians: Contrasting Patterns of Production and Distribution in the Aztec Figurine and Lapidary Industries. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, pp. 195–220. Studies on Culture and Society Vol. 6, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-Albany, Albany. Charlton, Cynthia Otis, Thomas. H. Charlton, and Deborah L. Nichols 1993 Aztec Household-Based Craft Production: Archaeological Evidence from the City-State of Otumba, Mexico. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies in Household, Compound, and Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth. G. Hirth, pp. 147–172. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. Charlton, Thomas H. 1968 Post-Conquest Aztec Ceramics: Implications for Archaeological Interpretation. Florida Anthropology 21:96–101. 1994 Economic Heterogeneity and State Expansion: The Northeastern Basin of Mexico during the Late Postclassic Period. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael. E. Smith, pp. 221–256. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-

27

Albany, Albany. 2000 The Aztecs and Their Contemporaries: The Central and Eastern Mexican Highlands. In The Cambridge History of the Native Peoples of the Americas Volume II Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Richard E. W. Adams and Murdo J. Macleod, pp. 500–558. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Charlton, Thomas H., and Deborah L. Nichols 1997 Diachronic Studies of City-States: Permutations on a Theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600. In The Archaeology of City- States: Cross- Cultural Approaches, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Thomas H. Charlton, pp. 169–208. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. Charlton, Thomas H., Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton 1991 Craft Specialization within the Aztec City-State of Otumba, Mexico: The Archaeological Evidence. World Archaeology 23:98–114. 2000 Otumba and Its Neighbors: Ex Oriente Lux. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:247–266. Charlton, Thomas H., Cynthia L. Otis Charlton, Deborah L. Nichols, and Hector Neff 2008 Aztec Otumba, AD 1200–1600: Patterns of the Productiono, Distribution, and Consumption of Ceramic Products. In Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica, edited by Christopher A. Pool and George J. Bey III, pp. 237–266. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Coe, Sophie D. 1994 America’s First Cuisines. University of Texas Press, Austin. Crider, Destiny 2002 Coyotlatelco Phase Community Structure at Teotihuacan. MA Paper in Anthropology. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Crider, Destiny, Deborah L. Nichols, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock 2007 In the Aftermath of Teotihuacan: Epiclassic Pottery Production and Distribution in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 18:123–144. Cyphers, Ann 2000 Cultural Identity and Interregional Interaction during the Gobernador Phase: A Ceramic Perspective. In The Xochicalco Mapping Project, edited by Kenneth Hirth, pp. 11–16. Archaeological Research at Xochicalco Vol. 2. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Elson, Christina M. 1999 An Aztec Palace at Chiconautla, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 10:151–167. Elson, Christina M., and Michael E. Smith 2001 Archaeological Deposits form the Aztec New Fire Ceremony. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:157–174. Evans, Susan T. 1988 Excavations at Cihuatecpan: An Aztec Village in the Teotihuacan Valley. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology No. 36. Nashville, Tennessee. 1991 Architecture and Authority in an Aztec Village: Form and Function of the Tecpan. In Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico: A Two Thousand Year Perspective, edited by Herbert R. Harvey, pp. 63–92. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 2001 Aztec Period Political Organization in the Teotihuacan Valley: Otumba as a City-State. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:89–100. 2004 Aztec Palaces and Other Elite Residential Architecture. In Palaces of the Ancient New World, edited by Susan Toby Evans, and Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 7–58. Dumbarton

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

28

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 28

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. García Chavez, Raul E. 2004 De Tula a Azcapotzalco: characterization arqueológica de los Altepetl de la Cuenca de México del Posclásico Temprano y Medio, a travéz del studio cerámico regional. Tesis doctoral, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico D.F. Garraty, Christopher P. 2006 The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and Exchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1200–1650. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Gibson, Charles 1964 The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto. Glascock, Michael D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hector Neff, pp. 11–26. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. Harbottle, Garman 1976 Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:33–72. The Chemical Society, London. Hassig, Ross 1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Hick, Frederic 1978 Los calpixque de Nezahualcoyotl. Estudios de Cultural Náhuatl 13:129–152. 1987 First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated Economy in Aztec Mexico. In Early State Development, edited by Henri J. M. Classen and Peiter van de Velde, pp. 91–107. E. J. Brill, Leiden Hodge, Mary G. 1984 Aztec City-States. Museum of Anthropology Memoir 18. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1991 Land and Lordship in the Valley of Mexico: The Politics of Aztec Provincial Administration. In Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico, edited by Herbert R. Harvey, pp. 113–139. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1992 The Geographical Structure of Aztec Imperial-Period Market Systems. National Geographic Research & Exploration 8:428–445. 1996 Political Organization of the Central Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 17–45. Dumbarton Oaks Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. 1997 When Is a City-State? Archaeological Measures of Aztec City-States and Aztec City-State Systems. In The Archaeology of City-States: Cross Cultural Approaches, edited by Deborah L. Nichols and Thomas H. Charlton, pp. 209–228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C. 1998 Archaeological Views of Aztec Culture. Journal of Archaeological Research 6:197–238. Hodge, Mary G., and Richard E. Blanton 1996 Appendix I: Data on Political Organization of the Aztec Empire’s Central Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 229–241. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. Hodge, Mary G., and Leah Minc

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

1990 The Spatial Patterning of Aztec Ceramics: Implications for Prehispanic Exchange Systems in the Valley of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:415–437. 1991 Aztec-Period Ceramic Distribution and Exchange Systems. Final Report to the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. Hodge, Mary G., and Hector Neff 2005 Xaltocan in the Economy of the Basin of Mexico: A View from Ceramic Tradewares. In La producción local ye el poder en el Xaltocan Posclásico, Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 320–348. INAH and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico D.F. and Pittsburgh. Hodge, Mary G., Hector Neff, M. James Blackman, Leah D. Minc 1992 A Compositional Perspective on Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 203–231. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 7. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1993 Black-on-Orange Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire’s Heartland. Latin American Antiquity 4:130–157. Hosler, Dorothy 1964 The Sounds and Colors of Power: The Sacred Metallurgical Technology of Ancient West Mexico. MIT Press, Cambridge. Ixtlilxóchitl, F. de Alva 1975/1977 Obras históricas, edited by Edmundo O’Gorman. 2 vols. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. López Luján, Leonardo 2005 The offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. Translated by B. R. Ortiz and T. O de Montellano. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. López Pérez, Claudia M. 2003 Análisis cerámico de las areas de actividad el la “Cueva de las Varillas,” Teotihuacan. Tesis de Licenciada en Arqueología, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico D.F. Ma, Marina K. S. 2003 Examining Prehispanic Ceramic Exchange in the Basin of Mexico: A Chemical Source Analysis from Azcapotzalco. Senior Honors Thesis in Anthropology, Dartmouth College, Hanover. Martí, Samuel 1968 Instumentos musicales precortesianos. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Mexico D.F. Milhauser, John 2005 Classic and Postclassic Chipped Stone at Xaltocan. In Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 267–317. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historica and Department of Anthropology University of Pittsburgh, Mexico D.F. and Pittsburgh. Minc, Leah D. 1994 Political Economy and Market Economy Under Aztec Rule: A Regional Perspective Based on Decorated Ceramic Production and Distribution Systems in the Valley of Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 2006 Monitoring Regional Market Systems in Prehistory: Models, Methods, and Metrics. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25:82–116. Minc, Leah D., Mary G. Hodge, and M. J. Blackman 1994 Stylistic and Spatial Variability in Early Aztec Ceramics: Insights into Pre-Imperial Exchange Systems. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 29

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, pp. 134–173. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State University of Albany, Albany. Moctezuma, Eduardo Matos, and Felipe Solis Olguin 2002 Aztecs. Thames and Hudson Ltd., London. Neff, Hector 1992 Introduction. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by H. Neff, pp. 1–10. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin. 1994 RQ-mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36:115–130. 2000 Neutron Activation Analysis for Provenance Determination in Archaeology. In Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, edited by Enrico Ciliberto and Giuseppe Spoto, pp. 81–134. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In Ceramic Source Determination in the Greater Southwest, edited by Deborah M. Glowacki and Hector Neff,pp. **. Monograph 44, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles. Neff, Hector, Ronald L. Bishop, Edward B. Sisson, Michael D. Glascock, and P. R. Sisson 1994 Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Postclassic Polychrome Pottery from Central Mexico. In Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology, edited by H. B. Nicholson and Eloise Quiñones Keber, pp. 117–142. Labyrinthos, Culver City, California. Neff, Hector, and Michael D. Glascock 1998 Compositional Analysis of Ceramic from Yautepec, Morelos, Mexico. Missouri University Research Reactor, University of Missouri, Columbia. 2000 Provenance Analysis of Aztec Period Ceramics from the Basin of Mexico. Missouri University Research Reactor, University of Missouri, Columbia. Neff, Hector, Michael D. Glascock, Thomas H. Charlton, Cynthia Otis Charlton, and Deborah L. Nichols 2000 Provenience Investigation of Ceramics and Obsidian from Otumba. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:207–322. Neff, Hector, and Mary G. Hodge *2009 Serving Vessel Production at Chalco: Evidence from Neutron Activation Analysis. In Place of Jade: Society and Economy in Ancient Chalco, edited by M. G. Hodge. Latin American Archaeology Report. Department of Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Pittsburgh and Mexico D.F., in press. Nichols, Deborah L. 1994 The Organization of Provincial Craft Production and the Aztec City-State Otumba. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, pp. 175–194. Studies on Culture and Society Vol. 6, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, SUNY-Albany, Albany. 1997 Post-Classic Period in Mesoamerica. In The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, edited by Charlotte Beck, George Michaels, Chris Scarre, and Neil Asher Silberman, pp.447–448. Oxford University Press, New York. 2004 The Rural and Urban Landscapes of the Aztec State. In Mesoamerican Archaeology, edited by Rosemary Joyce and Julia Hendon, pp. **. Blackwell, Oxford. Nichols, Deborah L., Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Hector Neff, Mary Hodge, Thomas H. Charlton, and Michael D. Glascock 2002 Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective on Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological

29

Archaeology 21:25–82. Nichols, Deborah L., and Thomas H. Charlton 1996 The Postclassic Occupation at Otumba: A Chronological Assessment. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:231–244. 2001 Processes of Aztec State Formation in the Northeastern Basin of Mexico: Materials Analysis. Final Report to the National Science Foundation. Washington, D.C. Nichols, Deborah L., and John McCullough 1986 Excavations at Xometla (TT–21). In The Teotihuacan Valley Project—Final Report Vol. IV: The Toltec Occupation of the Valley, edited by W. T. Sanders, pp. 53–194. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 13. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Nichols, Deborah L., Mary Jane McLaughlin, and Maura Benton 2000 Production Intensification and Regional Specialization: Maguey Fibers and Textiles in the Aztec City-State of Otumba. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:267–292. Nichols, Deborah L., Hector Neff, and Destiny Crider 2008 Cerro Portezuelo and the Development of Postclassic City-States in the Eastern Basin of Mexico. Paper presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver. Nicolás Careta, Claudia 2003 Análisis cerámico del la Cueva del Pirul: Transición entre el complejo Coyotlatelco y el complejo Mazapa en Teotihuacan. Tesis de Licenciada en Arqueología, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Mexico D.F. Parsons, Jeffery R. 1966 The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mexico. Museum of Anthropology Memoir 3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parsons, Jeffery R., Elizabeth Brumfiel, Mary H. Parsons, and David J. Wilson 1982 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Region. Museum of Anthropology Memoir 14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Larry J. Gorenflo 2009 Why is Aztec II Black-on-Orange Pottery so Scarce in the Zumpango Region?: A Regional Perspective from the Basin of Mexico on Tula’s Collapse and Its Aftermath. In Homenaje a Guadalupe Mastache, edited by Robert Cobean. INAH, Mexico DF, in press. Parsons, Mary Hrones 1972a Aztec Figurines from the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. In Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory, edited by Michael W. Spence, Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Mary H. Parsons, pp. 81–125. Museum of Anthropology Papers 45. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1972b Spindle Whorls from the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. In Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory, edited by Michael W. Spence, Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Mary H. Parsons, pp. 45–80. Museum of Anthropology Papers 45. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1975 The Distribution of Late Postclassic Spindle Whorls in the Valley of Mexico. American Antiquity 40:207–215. Rattray, Evelyn C. 1966 An Archeological and Stylistic Study of Coyotlatelco Pottery. Mesoamerican Notes 7–8:87–211. 1996 A Regional Perspective on the Epiclassic Period in Central Mexico. In Arqueología Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders, edited by Alba Guadalupe Mas-

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

30

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 30

LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

tache, Jeffrey R. Parsons, Robert S. Santley, Mari Carmen Serra Puche, pp. 213–231. INAH, Mexico D.F. 2001 Teotihuacan: Ceramics, Chronology, and Cultural Trends. I.N.A.H. and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico D.F. and Pittsburgh. Rautman, Marcus L., Basil Gomez, Hector Neff, and Michael D. Glascock 1993 Neutron Activation Analysis of Late Roman Ceramics from Kalavasos-Kopetra and the Environs of the Vasilikos Valley. In Report of the Department of Antiquities, Cyprus 1993. Pp. 233–265. press and location? Robinson, David G. 2004 Petrographic Analysis of Prehistoric Ceramics from two sites in La Junta Archaeological District, Presidio County, Trans-Pecos, Texas. In The Arroyo de la Presa Site: A Stratified Late Prehistoric Campsite Along the Rio Grande, Presidio County, Trans-Pecos Texas. Reports in Contract Archaeology 9. Center for Big Bend Studies, Sul Ross State University, Texas. Sahagún, Bernardino de 1950–82 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Translated by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. University of Utah Press and School of American Research, Salt Lake City and Santa Fe. Sanders, William T. 1965 The Cultural Ecology of Teotihuacan Valley. Department of Anthropology Pennsylvania State University, University Park. 1986 Ceramic Chronology. The Teotihuacan Valley Project, Final Report, Volume 4: The Toltec Period Occupation, edited by William T. Sanders, pp. 367–373. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No.13. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Sanders, William T. (Editor) 1994–96 The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Vol. 3. The Teotihuacan Period Occupation of the Valley. 4 parts. Occasional Papers in Anthropology Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Sanders, William T., and Susan Toby Evans (Editors) 2001 The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Vol. 5. The Aztec Period Occupation of the Valley. 3 parts. Occasional Papers in Anthropology Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Sanders, William T., Jeffrey Parsons, and Robert S. Santley 1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Process in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York. Sanders, William T., and Robert S. Santley 1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. In Prehispanic Settlement Patterns: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, edited by Evon Z. Vogt and Richard M. Levanthal, pp. 243–291. University of New Mexico Press and Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge. Sayre, Edward V. 1975 Brookhaven Procedures for Statistical Analyses of Multivariate Archaeometric Data. Brookhaven National Laboratory Report BNL-23128. New York. Skoglund, Thanet, Barbara L. Stark, Hector Neff, and Michael Glascock 2006 Compositional and Stylistic Analysis of Aztec Era Ceramics: Provincial Strategies at the Edge of Empire, South-central Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 17:541–560. Smith, Michael E. 1979 The Aztec Marketing System and Settlement Pattern

[Vol. 20, No. 3, 2009

in the Valley of Mexico: A Central Place Analysis. American Antiquity 44:110–125. 1980 The Role of the Marketing System in Aztec Society and Economy: Reply to Evans. American Antiquity 44:110–124. 1992 Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico, Volume 1. Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology No. 4, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. 2002 Domestic Ritual at Aztec Provincial Sites in Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp. 93–114. Cotsen Insititute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 2003a The Aztecs. 2nd ed. Basil Blackwell, Oxford. 2003b Small Polities in Postclassic Mesoamerica In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Francis F. Berdan, pp. 35–39. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. 2003c Aztec City-States in the Basin of Mexico and Morelos. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Francis F. Berdan, pp. 58–60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake. 2006 Excavaciones de cases postclásicas en la zona urbana de Yautepc, Morelos: informe final. 2 vols. Report submitted to the Consejo de Arqueología, Insituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University of Florida Press, Gainesville. Smith, Michael E., and Cynthia Smith-Heath 1994 Rural Economy in Late Postclassic Morelos: An Archaeological Study. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, pp. 349–376, University of Texas Press, Austin. Smith, Michael E. and Lisa Montiel 2001 The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:245–284. Smith, Michael E., Jennifer B. Wharton, and Jan Marie Olson 2003 Aztec Feasts, Rituals, and Markets: Political Uses of Ceramic Vessels in a Commercial Economy. In The Archaeology and Politics of Food and Feasting in Early States and Empires, edited by Tamara L. Bray, pp. 235–270. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York. Spence, Michael W. 1985 Specialized production in rural Aztec society: Obsidian workshops of the Teotihuacan Valley. In Contributions to the Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Greater Mesoamerica, edited by William J. Folan. pp.76–125. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale. Steponaitis, Vincas, M. James Blackman, and Hector Neff 1996 Large-scale Compositional Patterns in the Chemical Composition of Mississippian pottery. American Antiquity 61:555–557. Taube, Karl 2001 The Breath of Life: The Symbolism of Wind in Mesoamerica and the American Southwest. In The Road to Aztlan: Art From A Mythic Homeland, edited by Victoria M. Fields and Victor Zamudio-Taylor, pp. 102–123. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Vaillant, George C. 1962 The Aztecs of Mexico. Doubleday, New York. Vaillant, George C., and William T. Sanders 2000 Excavations at Chiconautla. In The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Vol. 5: the Aztec Period Occupation of the Valley, Pt. 2: Excavations at T.A. 40 and Related Projects, edited by William T. Sanders and Susan

LAQ20(3) Nichols:Layout 1

Nichols et al.]

7/6/09

3:42 PM

Page 31

CROSSROADS OF AZTEC TRADE AND POLITICS

Toby Evans, pp. 757–787. Occasional Papers in Anthropology 26. Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Vargas, Victoria D. 2001 Mesoamerican Copper Bells in the pre-Hispanic Southwestern United States and Northwestern Mexico. In The Road to Aztlan; Art From A Mythic Homeland, edited by Victoria M. Fields and Victor Zamudio-Taylor, pp. XX. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre 1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Mesoamerica and the Southwestern U.S.A. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, pp. 15–34. Academic Press, New York. Weigand, Phil C., and Acelia Garcia de Weigand 2001 A Macroeconomic Study of the Relationships between the Ancient Cultures of the American Southwest and Mesoamerica. In The Road to Aztlan; Art from A Mythic

31

Homeland, edited by Victoria M. Fields and Victor Zamudio-Taylor, pp. XX. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Whalen, Michael E., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1982 Ceramic Markers Used for Period Designations. In Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Region, edited by Jeffrey R. Parsons, Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Mary H. Parsons, and David J. Wilson, pp. 385–460. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology No. 14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Submitted: March 11, 2008; Revised: June 23, 2008; Accepted: July 12, 2008