Umberger 1996 Appendix 3 to Aztec Imperial Strategies

~-

I

t

AZTEC IMPERIAL STRATEGIES

[ ~

by Frances F. Berdan

Richard E. Blanton

Elizabeth Hill Boone

Mary G. Hodge

Michael E. Smith

Emily Umberger

Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection

Washington, D. C.

Appendix 3 Material Remains in the Central Provinces

Assembled by Emily Umberger

The following is a list of remains found or attributed to par­ ticular sites and/or described in post-Conquest sources as having been at those sites (see Fig. A3-1 for the sites' locations). These consist mostly of ceremonial-civic struc­ tures and sculptures, but other objects are mentioned. In some cases, comments on style and interpretive observa­ tions are included. Although the emphasis is on the Late Aztec period (Late Postclassic, ca. 1350-1521), some re­ mains included here date from earlier post-Toltec times (e.g., early phases of Tenayuca pyramid). Likewise, all post-Toltec sculptures are included, because even those that are known to be preimperial in date are interesting in relation to the development of the imperial style. Data come from archaeological surveys of the Valley of Mexico, written and pictorial sources from the early Colo­ nial period and other publications, as well as from museum records in the United States, Europe, and to some extent Mexico. Sculptures with known provenience in storage at the Museo Nacional de Antropologia, Mexico, regional museums, town squares, and churches are yet to be listed (with one exception: Solis 1976). Not all references are given; only those that give information relevant to this project are included. Mentions of artisans do not include the many instances of laborers who worked on building projects (Hodge 1984: 53, 58, 74-75, I I 2, 113; this vol­ ume, Chap. 2 and App. 2), but rather refer to skilled artists or architects. For sizes ofsites, population estimates, dimen­ sions of mounds, distribution of ceramics, and other such information, see the survey reports cited. Site names are given their sixteenth-century spellings. Variant and modern spellings are"in parentheses. Numbers in parentheses correspond to sites listed in the appendix of polities in the core by Hodge and Blanton (App. I). Some sites are named only by survey report numbers, as their Aztec period names are unknown. "Tx" numbers are from Jeffrey Parsons' (1971) survey of the Texcoco area. "Ix" numbers are from Richard Blanton's (1972) survey of the Ixtapalapa peninsula. "Ch" and "Xo" numbers are from the survey of the Chalco and Xochimilco areas (Parsons et aL 1982). The designation ofmounds as ceremonial-civic structures (temple pyramids and platforms, administrative/palace structures, schools, residences of priests, etc.) comes from the survey reports. In some cases the shape, location at site, great size, and other characteristics make this designation certain. In other cases, where these factors are not clear, the term is used for mounds above 2 or 2.5 m, the latter being in

the lakebed area where house mounds would have been more elevated. Abbreviations for Sources and Institutions: AI Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1975-77) AC = Anales de Cuauhtitlan (1975) INAH = Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Histo­ ria, Mexico Parsons (1971) JP MNA Museo Nacional de Antropologfa, Mexico Parsons, Brumfiel, Parsons, and Wilson PBPW (1982) RB Blanton (1972) WS Sanders (1965)

Part

1.

Sites in the Acolhua State

ACATETELCO: Royal Retreat

Remains: At the site on an island formerly on the shore of Lake

Texcoco (now El Contador federal park) are two ceremonial-civic

constructions, one large one with three superimposed platforms,

and the remains of a causeway, probably with canal, from the

mainland OP: 94-95, fig. 13).

ACOLMAN (3I)

Remains: The Aztec town is a large site under and around the

modern compound village of Santa Catarina Acolman and San

Antonio Tenaneo, located on a hill. A small ceremonial plaza on

top of the hill is Ranked by a pyramid 6 m high and three small,

low mounds (WS: 79-81).

Several monumental sculptures of the Aztec and probably Tol­ tee periods were found when the silt was cleaned out of the convent, which is not on the site proper, by archaeologists from INAH (WS: 79-81).

CEMPOALA (Cempoalla, Zempoala; 55) Written/Pictorial Evidence: In the Relaci6n de Zempoala the calme­ cae and telpochcalli are mentioned. In the accompanying map a building labeled "mexico tlatovani ytzcovatzi ycha" (the house of Itzcoatl, lord of Mexico), is identified by Mary Hodge and Frances Berdan as a building for tribute (Acuna 1984-87, 6: 75­ 76, map).

CERRO GORDO SITE Remains: In this dispersed villi age of a corporate land-holding macehualli community, 164 peasant houses are scattered on agricul­ tural terraces on the piedmont, with a group of very large

247

Appendix 3 mounds in the upper central part of the site, near a pond and

flanked by two major channels. Arranged on an east-west line,

Susan Evans (1985) tentatively identifies these as the administra­

tive house of the headman (tecpan) , the telpochcalli, a large resi­

dence with possibly public functions, and other unidentified pub­

lic buildings. She also suggests that the large structures in the east

and west halves of the site are the civic structures of the two

barrios, a residence with administrative functions and a temple

platform; each half also had a cemetery (Evans 1985: see figs. 2,

4-6 for layout).

CHICONAUTLAN (Chiconauhtla; 32)

Remains: The Aztec town is on the piedmont above the modem

village. A huge platform-plaza, presumably the civic center, is

flanked by a pyramid and mound (possibly the tlatoani's palace)

on opposite sides (WS: 77-79). George Valliant (1938; 1966: 120­ 121, 143-144, pI. 42a; n.d.) excavated a group of three houses

around a court at Chiconautlan, which William Sanders could not

locate. Valliant identified it as the palace, but Sanders believes the

houses were probably kin group residences.

CHIMALHUACAN (17)

Remains: Part of the modern town and a nucleated village are on

the site. However, a pyramid-plaza complex in modern Chimal­

huacan was partially restored in the years preceeding the survey.

It features a large pyramid platform built into the hillside OP:

143-145, pIs. SIb, )2a).

A decorated ball court ring was once located in the town (Peabody Museum photo 39-8-140), and a large stone sculpture of a coiled serpent in dark basalt was visible in a deep pit in the pyramid at the time of the survey UP: 144).

CIHUATECPAN

Remains: This large dispersed village around the base of Cerro

San Lucas (Teotihuacan Valley) has been surveyed, and eight

structures have been excavated. Of these. Structure 6 is identified

as probably the tecpan, the administrative building and residence

of the local headman. Made with much cut stone, its 21 rooms

cover an area about 24 x 25 m. It features a central room with a

stone hearth facing the entrance across a large courtyard (Evans

1988: 21-36; 1991).

COATEPEC (IS)

Remains: Most of the site is under the modern dispersed village of

Coatepec, but a ceremonial-civic structure was found OP: 140­ 141, pI. 51a).

A ball court goal marker was seen at one edge of the main plaza of the village at the time of the Parsons survey OP: 140-141). See Cerro Tonaitepec.

COATLINCHAN (22)

Remains: The south-central part of the site is occupied by modern

Coatlinchan, but at least 10 major ceremonial-civic structures

were noted UP: 139, pI. 52b).

The so-called "King of Coatlinchan," a standing male figure in a rough style similar to those found on Phase III at the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan is said to be from this town (PeiIafiel 1890: [Eng!. text] 105, pI. 135). A large ceramic figure ofXipe (possibly Middle-Late Postclassic) and the fragments ofothers were report­ edly found in a cave nearby (Saville 1897).

EPAZOYUCAN (56)

Written Evidence: In the Relaci6n de Zempoala (1949: 36), the

calmecac and telpochcalli are mentioned.

24 8

HUEXOTLA (23) Written Evidence: The wall in the ceremonial precinct was de­ scribed by Hernan Cortes as in ruins at the time of the Spanish Conquest and as part of a "house of recreation" and fortress (in Lorenzana 1770: 190, note 1). Remains: The site extends from the edge of the lakeshore plain into the upper piedmont. with the urban core. where most of the ceremonial-civic structures are located, on the west end. The modern town overlaps the northern part of the ceremonial-civic precinct. Although there are two published reports of the public structures (Batres 1904; JP: 136-139, 376-379, figs. 27C, D, 28­ 30, pis. 48-50) and some have been partially excavated and re­ stored, it is difficult to reconstruct the nature, interrelationship, and orientation of buildings, or match their descriptions between reports. Twelve ceremonial-civic structures were noted in Par­ sons' survey in the urban core, but there is one other in Leopoldo Batres' (1904) report, which seems not to have been noted, his "Templo Mayor." Except for a vague map locating structures by number OP: fig. 28), no real plan seems to have been published. Elizabeth Brumfiel (n.d.a: 43) identifies the three buildings ex­ plored by Batres with Parsons' survey numbers (but the descrip­ tions do not match in one case). She also notes that four other structures show evidence of partial excavation and reconstruction by unknown persons (Garcia Garda [1987: 11] names Pablo Men­ dez as one who did restorations that distorted the original forms). See also Brumfiel (n.d.a: map 2), who oulines the core and dispersed settlement areas. and Eduardo Noguera (1972) for pho­ tographs and local nicknames of the structures. The most impressive construction at the site is the large walled precinct (greatest height 6.9 m) on the north side of the urban core, which extends into the town as far as the main church. The construction of the (partially restored) wall, which appears to have been crenellated, consists of bands of river stones, little square pieces of tezontle, and conical stones arranged in lines with the round ends out (Batres 1904: 6; p!. 1). In the vicinity of the wall is what Batres (1904: pI. 2) called the great temple of the town, its remains consisting of the lower two bodies of the pyramid base, with a stairway on the west. On it were built the church of San Luis and the old Franciscan monastery. To the south are a group of three mounds, Tlateles 19, 20, and 21 OP: 376-377, fig. 29, pis. 48a-b), forming a large ceremonial­ civic complex. Brumfiel identified Tlatel 19 as one of the struc­ tures excavated by Batres, and Parsons (JP: 376) describes it as a large, rock-rubble platform supporting a flat-topped structure that was badly pitted (total h. 7 m, area 45 x 55 m). If this is the correct structure, Batres (1904: 11- 12, pis. 4-7) excavated a room made completely of adobes on its upper part, of which no traces were noted in the later survey. Further south, Tlatel 34, with stairway on the west, has an earlier phase visible within OP: 377). By its location (according to Batres 60 m south of the adobe room structure), description, measurements, and orientation, this seems to be Batres' "cuad­ rangular teocalli" (1904: 12, pis. 9-13). Brumfiel is probably incorrect in identifying the Batres structure as Tlatel 26, which is described by Parsons OP: 377) as a platform with a flat upper surface and remnants of walls on top. What remains ofthe round temple at the site (Tlatel43). 910 m to the southeast, is a stone and clay structure with an adobe brick stairway facing east. Batres removed the outer building, which was badly destroyed (Batres 1904: 14-15, pis. 14-17;JP: 378, pI. 50a). Parsons OP: 376-379) describes the other ceremonial-civic structures: Tlateles 26,27,31 OP: fig. 30, pI. 49b). 33, 36, and 37 in the core; Tiateles 64 and 52 in the area of dispersed settlement; and Tiateles 52 and 53. which are large pyramidal structures on the

r

Material Remains in the Central Provinces

IZTAPAN, not located on map

Excavations by INAH discovered a crude stone wall constructed to seal off the plaza of the Pyramid of the Sun from the main street to the west and on the south side. Built either in ToItec or Aztec times, it was probably used by the Aztecs (WS: 84). Aztec style objects said to have been found in the Teotihuacan area include: an incised bone rasp (Batres 1906: 29, figs. 24, 25); a sculpture of a seated hunchback from San Martin and a Tlaloc sculpture from San Francisco (Zerries 1977: nos. 65, 71); four fertility deities in the (then) Teotihuacan village museum (Beyer 1922: not illus.); and a fine late sculpture in the form of a sphere on sloped base with reliefs (Peiiafiel 1900: pIs. 49-51; Umberger 1987a: 89-90, fig. 31). A cylindrical stone with an imperial style sky band around the sides was in the Teotihuacan site museum in 19 8 7.

Remains: A rough amaca/li goddess is said to be from this place (Peiiafiel 1890: pI. 133).

TEPETLAOZTOC (26)

Huexotla-Coatlinchan frontier, midway between the two cities. A more recently published report by Marfa Teresa Garda Gar­ da (1987) also describes the structures at the site and proposes a building sequence. Artworks said to be from the site include a feathered serpent (Batres 1904: pI. 18, fig. 2), a serpent head (Batres 1904: pI. 18, fig. r), and an incised human bone (Barlow 1950: 28, fig. II). Batres (1904: 14-15) found on top of the round temple fragments of a large day figure. which had for a headdress five flowers placed horizontally on the front. A damaged seated animal (jag­ uar?) with "sky band" symbols around the base was seen in 1976 in front of the church.

OTOMPAN (OTUMBA; 39)

Remains: Although not covered by a modern town, this site is

poorly preserved. Most mounds are identified as residential, but

there are three possible ceremonial-civic structures OP: 100, 102,

329, 334, fig. 15).

A rough stone head was found near Tepetlaoztoc (Batres 1904: 10, pI. 19).

Remains: The large site is on the southern edge and outside the modern town, but the ceremonial center could not be located. Two large, low mounds could be the remains of pyramids or residential buildings. Or it is possible that the temple precinct was in the area of the church. If so, according to William Sanders, this would be unusual for an urban site, as the church is I km from the residential core (WS: 82-83). Sculptures said to be from the town include a figure of serpen­ tine (Anonymous 1962a: J 5, photo 13) and an amacalli goddess (Field Museum 164780).

TEPEXPAN (Tepechpan; 30)

SAN DIEGUITO (see Tetzcotzinco)

TEQUIZQUINAHUAC

SAN SEBASTIAN (see Texcoco)

Remains: Said to be from here is an amacalli goddess (Palacios

1935: 271, fig. 26).

TEOTIHUACAN (38)

TETZCOTZINCO (Tetzcotzingo): Royal Retreat

Written Evidence: The 1580 Relacion de Tecciztlan (Paso y Troncoso 1905-06, 6: 221-222) notes regular ceremonial use of the Classic period Pyramids of the Sun and Moon as well as other platforms by the Aztecs of Tenochtitlan and peoples neighboring the site. According to the same source and AI (1: 272-273), there were also monumental sculptures set up in the center in Aztec times: an image of Tonacatecuhtli or the Sun god on the Pyramid of the Sun, Mictlantecuhtli on a small platform in front of the Pyramid, the Moon goddess on the Pyramid of the Moon, and the six siblings of the Sun and Moon on another platform. San Juan Teotihuacan had seven barrios (Hodge 1984: 120). Remains: Although documentary evidence indicates that the five present-day villages on or adjacent to Teotihuacan-San Juan Teotihuacan, San Sebastian, Santa Marfa Coatlin, San Martin de los Piramides, and San Francisco Mazapan-were all probably Aztec towns, survey of the area did not reveal their ceremonial and urban core zones (WS: 83-85). George Cowgill's map (M. Spence 1985: fig. 7b) of densities of Aztec ceramics collected in the area occupied by the Classic period city gives some indication of the outlines of Aztec period occupation at the site. On the basis of this data, Michael Spence (1985: 79-84) notes a low density of Aztec material in the ancient ceremonial center, indicating lack of domestic settlement there, and defines five areas of probable residential concentration: one to the northwest of the ceremonial precinct; one to the west covering the modern barrios of SanJuan Teotihuacan and Purificacion (the area of the Aztec cabecera); one or more to the east; one to the south identified by William Sanders (WS: 209) as sixteenth-century San Lorenzo Atezcapa; and one, the San Mateo community, to the southeast.

Written Evidence: According to the AC (pp. 52, 54), the structures at Tetzcotzinco were erected by Nezahualcoyotl between 1 Rabbit 1454 and 1 Reed 1467. The site is also noted for its waterworks and canals and, according to the evidence of the Titles ofTetzcot­ zinco, its construction was associated with the bringing of water from the sierra to the general Texcoco area (McAfee and Barlow 1945-48; seeJP: 146-151, figs. 31-32 for canals). AI (2: Il4-II6) describes the aqueduct to the site, which connected with a canal feeding three pools. Two of these pools he identifies as having had sculpted into the rock the "arms" of the cities of Tenayucan and ToHan; the third he describes as representing the lake with the three Triple Alliance cities symbolized by three frogs. He also says that water from the canal sprinkled on the gardens belo'w on the south side, and described a stairway down to the palace of the king below. AI and other early descriptions indicate that there were once a number of dynastic and commemorative sculptures at the site: a (seemingly) round monument with the dates and events of Nezahualcoyotl's life as well as "his coat of arms"l located in a basin somewhere on the east side of the hill; a sculpture of a coyote, representing the king's name, Fasting Coyote, with a human face emerging from the mouth (Davilla 1955, 2: chap. 81;

Remains: The modern town covers the Aztec town, with the

church located on the base of an Aztec pyramid; the modem plaza

was probably the ancient main plaza. The remains of a large

pyramid are located in the dependent barrio of Chimalpa (WS:

81-82).

I Alva Ixtlilxochitl's description of the"coat of arms" corresponds to the Europeanate heraldic device of the city of Texcoco of 1551 (Glass 1975a: fig. 15). He presumably inserted it into the text; the original sculpture most likely bore the king's name-glyph.

249

Appendix 3 AI, 2: 133); a portrait of Nezahualcoyotl, probably a standing figure (McAfee and Barlow 1945-48: 117; Hernandez 1986: 133; AI, I: 547, 2: 133);2 a sculpture ofa vessel with plumes, represent­ ing the name of the hill (AI, 2: I 15); and the date Nezahualcoyotl heard of the death of a friend who was lord of Huexotzinco inscribed on an alforda of the stairway to the palace (AI, 2: 116). Destruction of monuments was begun soon after the Spanish Conquest by order of Archbishop Zumirraga (McAfee and Bar­ low 1945-48: 126), but Francisco Hernandez (1986: 133) says that the portrait of Nezahualcoyotl was stilI visible in his time (late sixteenth centur y). Remains: Remaining at the site are the causeway and aqueduct from adjacent Cerro Metecatl and the adjoining walkway around Tetzcotzinco half-way between the top and base of the hill (for remains, see JP: 122-125, fig. 24 site plan, and pIs. 41­ 46). The canal running along the causeway and the walkway on the south side of the hill is connected to two pools and to small lead-off canals, which once watered the tropical plants on the hill slope below. Next to the pool on the south side is a sculp­ tured wall representing the hieroglyphic name of Tenayucan, and the pool at the western end of the canal has one frog remaining of the three described by AI. A third pool on the north side of the hill has a broad stairway next to it, probably a temple front to signify the city of Tollan (this is not attached to the canal). There are also very damaged rock carvings of two monumental figures, probably fertility goddesses, on the north­ west side of the hill below the summit; the fragments of one headdress are on the ground in front of the sculptures (Krickeberg 1949: 106-109; Pasztory 1983: figs. 71-72). The figures themselves, or similar ones, may also have been repre­ sented before destruction in an eighteenth-ceritury illustration, the C6dice Teotenantzin (Glass 1964: fig. 91). Architectural structures are found on the east side of the hill. One, a large room at the level of the aqueduct and canal (JP: pI. 45a), was possibly once the location of the portrait of Neza­ hualcoyotl. given the presence of a rock surface at the back of the room. Whatever occupied the wall was later destroyed. A terrace and possible structure are further up on the hill (JP: pI. 45b), and a series of rock-cut steps lead over the top of the hill from east to west (probably imitating the sun's course). On top ofthe hill are a terrace, the damaged remains of an animal sculpture (the coyote described by the sources), and the face of Tlaloc incised on a rock (Townsend I982b: figs. 10, 12). A series ofstairways carved in the rock on the south side (Pasztory 1983: color pI. 27) lead from the walkway down to the remains ofa walled courtyard, presumably part of the palace (JP: pI. 43a). There is also a terraced area at the base of the hill on the western side. Among artworks said to be from Tetzcotzinco are a fine impe­ rial style monkey-head waterspout (McAfee and Barlow 1945­ 48: pI. 5), a dog head and a greenstone frog (Museum of the American Indian 13/6915 and 8428), a jadeite bird's head bead (Metropolitan Museum ofArt 02. I 8.308), and three ceramic tem­ ples with seated figures of Xipe/Quetzalcoatl from San Dieguito (Seler 1960-61, 3: 453-455, figs. 3-5). Antonio Peiiafiel (1890: pis. 83, 85, 89) illustrates three other figurines from a grave at or near Tetzcotzinco.

'The texts on the latter two depictions of the king overlap and are confused. Nevertheless, there were probably two separate sculptures, an animal sculpture and a relief "portrait" of the king like those of the Tenochca kings at Chapultepec (for which, see Nicholson 1961).

25 0

There are also remains on hills adjoining Tetzcotzinco. On Cerro Metecatl are two areas with walled enclosures and mounds. On an outcrop are several boulder carvings representing temple stairways, probably symbolic of the sun's journey over the "mountain" of the sky (JP: 121-122, pI. 46b; Cook de Leonard 1955). There is also a platform near the causeway to Tetzcotzinco (JP: 135), and four mounds in a line on terraces on a spur extending from Cerro Purificacion (JP: 126-127).

TEXCOCO (2'4) Written/Pictorial Evidence: Nezahualcoyotl laid out and rebuilt Texcoco beginning in 1433. The city had six major sections, Culhuacan, Tepanecapan, Huitznahuac, Mexicapan, Chimalpan, and Tlailotlacan (AI, I: 380-381, 406-407, 444-445; 2, 84; AC: 177; see Hicks 1982: 236-237). AI (2: 92-98, 128) describes Nezahualcoyotl's palace as a huge walled complex (about I032 m from east to west by 817 m from north to south) with more than 300 rooms around twO main courtyards. The larger courtyard was "arcaded" and contained the market and ball court (see also Pomar 1964: 179; AI, 2: 96). The entrance to the "university" and archives was on the west side. The smaller courtyard was sur­ rounded by the center of government, living quarters, armories, tribute storage, kitchens, and so on. AI's description of the gov­ ernment chambers immediately around the courtyard can be matched to some extent with the pictorial representation in the Codex Quinatzin (Aubin 1849). There were three entrances to the palace with broad avenues, on the east, west, and south, and other entrances leading from the palace to the temples and priests' buildings to the north. Also in the central area, west of the temples, were the tlacateo for the education of the bng's many offspring; the smaller palace of Nezahualpilli (AI, 2: 150-151); granaries, gardens, zoos, resi­ dences for visiting kings, and other structures. Older palaces had belonged to Nezahualcoyotl's father and grandfather (AI, 2: 114). Another palace was built by Nezahualpilli for his brother Axo­ quentzin (AI, I: 448-449; 2: 142). Axoquentzin was the one who had led the Texcocan defeat of the Chalca by capturing the leader Toteotzintecuhtli (AI, I: 546; 2: 126). Thus, interestingly, archi­ tects and artisans were sent to Chalco to study the palaces of that king, which would have been in either Chalco Atenco or Xico (Chimalpahin 1965: 84, 98, 185; Durin 1967, 2: 89-90). See Fray Juan de Torquemada (1969, I: 304-305) and Juan Bautista Pomar (1964: 218-219) for other descriptions of the palaces. The Templo Mayor ofHuitzilopochtii and Tlaloc had a double stairway and two masonry-roofed shrines, at the time of the Spanish Conquest at least (AI, 2: 99; Codex Ixdilxochitl 1976: illus. on I12V). The tlacatecco next to it was where sacred bundles of Huitzilopochdi and Tezcatlipoca were stored (pomar 1964: 164-165). The nine-tiered temple of Tloque Nahuaque, "the high creator and unknown god, " was in front of and facing the Templo Mayor (AI, I: 405,546; 2: 126-127). The round temple of Quet­ zalcoatl (AI, 2: 99) was probably in the precinct, too, and there were temples for Cihuacoatl (Duran 1967, I: 125), and Xipe (pomar 1964: 170). Before the Tepanec War and the formation of the Triple Alliance, the principal god ofTexcoco was Tezcatlipoca (AI, I: 324); presumably the main temple was dedicated to him. After losing a supposed pseudo-war with Tenochtitlan in about 1440, Nezahualcoyotl is said to have burned the temple of Texcoco and declared his allegiance to the Mexica and their god Huitzilopochtli, and he speaks of preparing/constructing the place of his seat ("componer ellugar de su asiento"), presumably his temple (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 284-288; Duran 1967. 2: 129).

Material Remains in the Central Provinces It must have been after this date, when Huitzilopochtli be­ came the occupant of the Templo Mayor, that Nezahualeoyotl built a temple to Tezcatlipoca in the Huitznahuac section. The same type of temple as the Templo Mayor, but without the double stairway, it was in an enclosure with other temples and idols from all parts of the city were brought there (AI, I: 324; Pomar 1964: 163-164). The temple of Tloque Nahuaque was built after and in celebration of the victory over the Chalea and the birth of Nezahualpilli in 1465; it also represented a protest against the imposed Mexica gods (AI, I: 405, 546; 2: 126-127). Later phases of the Templo Mayor were completed in 1469 and 1481, by Nezahualcoyotl and Nezahualpilli, respectively. The 1481 phase was built afier warfare in Veracruz (AI, I: 72, 2: 124, 132, 149-150). Charles Dibble (Codex en Cruz 1981: 20-22) interprets some pictographs in the Codex en Cruz as indicating that a temple of Huitzilopochtli was dedicated in 1467 (he thinks at Tetzcotzinco, for no apparent reason; cf. AC: 54) and that a temple in Texcoco was dedicated to Tlaloc in 1471. Perhaps these dedications were of the separate shrines of the Templo Mayor. Work was being done on Nezahualeoyotl's palace in the 14605 (AI, 2: 128), the palace ofAxoquentzin was built in 1472­ 73 (AI, 1: 448-449; 2: 142), and that of Nezahualpilli in 1481 (AI, 2: 150-151). Juan Bautista Pomar (1964: 159-166) describes the main images of the gods Huitzilopochtli, Tlaloc, and Tezcatlipoca, which were of wood. He (1964: 169-170) describes the tema/acatl as a large round stone with a rope from the center on a platform with four stairways. In his description of Nezahualpilli's palace, AI (2: ISO) mentions that the name of Ahuilizapan, a recent conquest, was carved on a basin that faced a great room, and adds that "there was no building, garden, or labyrinth which was not made in memory of one of the deeds of this and other conquests which he made in his life." Sculptures in the "zoo" were made of stone or gold and depicted many animals, birds, and fishes of which the living examples were lacking (AI, 2: 96). Artisans: In the fourteenth-century reign of Quinatzin, a group of people called Tlailothques, who were of Toltec lineage and who were accomplished in the art of painting and making histories (i.e., in manuscript painting), settled in Texcoco and other parts of the Valley. They had reportedly come from the Mixteca and had spent "much time" in Chalco province (AI, 2: 32-33). The fifteenth-century ruler Nezahualeoyotl, who was of half-Mexican descent, had spent a number of years in Tenochtitlan and directed the building of major structures there (including a palace and the bosque ofChapultepec) in the late I420S and early 1430S, as well as important engineering projects (an aqueduct, a causeway, and a dike) then and later (AC: 49, 53-54; AI, I: 444-445; Chimalpahin 1965: 201; Torquemada 1969, I: 157-158). Apparently, he was the principal architect of structures built in Texcoco, for example, his palace as well as the "pleasure garden" at Tetzcotzinco (q.v.). He used artisans from Tenochtitlan as well as other lakeshore cities in the building of Texcoco (AI, I: 444-445; 2: 84; Anales de Tlate­ loleo 1980: 55). Later, after 1465, Chalcas were brought in for building activities in his palace (AI, 2: 128) and probably the temple area too, where there was a lot of construction during this period (the Templo Mayor and the temple of Tloque Nahuaque) as well as at Tetzcotzinco, which was being completed (q.v.). The Chalca brought stone with them. The two architects (obreros mayores) who helped Nezahualeoyotl in the construction of his palace were Moquihuix, the ruler of Tlatelolco after 1467, and Xiloman, the ruler of Culhuacan (AI, 2: 92). According to AI, Nezahualcoyotl settled the 30 different types of artisans (e.g., goldsmiths and silversmiths, painters, lapidary artists, featherworkers) in their own wards and brought the best

artisans from different parts. Eight artisans are illustrated in Mapa Tlotzin-a painter, lapidary artist, shield maker, metalworker, featherworker, stone mason, sculptor, and woodworker (Aubin 1885: pl. 2). Nezahualeoyotl's sons learned all the arts in the tlacateo: gold, stone, and featherworking, among other skills. (AI, I: 406-407; 2: 98, 101). The sculptors of Texcoco are recorded as having gone to Tenochtitlan to make images ofconquered gods in the time of Motecuhzoma I (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356). Men from Texcoco worked on the cuauhxicalli made in the time of Axayacatl, seemingly on the platform built to support the stone, which also was decorated (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 417). In 1472, Nezahualpilli sent an architect, a mason, a carpenter, and a painter to the province of Chaleo to study the palace of the ruler, possibly located in Xico (AI, 2: 142), on which was to be modeled the palace of his brother Axoquentzin (see Xico entry, below). Remains: Modern Texcoco covers much of the site, but several large, unexcavated ceremonial-civic structures remain in the town and on the perimeter. In the central part of town, the "Los Melones" site features four large mounds, three of them joined and with room complexes around them. To the west and outside of modern Texcoco is a ceremonial-civic structure, Tlatel I at site TX-A-49; on the north and northeast edges of Texcoco are Tlateles 92, 93, and 95; and to the east and southeast are Tlateles 18 and 65. The "Los Melones" site was the civic center and the more peripheral mounds were section centers OP: 117-120,361­ 362; Hicks 1982: fig. I). Eduardo Noguera (1972) describes the structures at Los Melones in more detail, noting a change from earlier adobe to later stone construction. Frederic Hicks (1982) suggests that the temple and palace structures, which contained the ceremonial, administrative, judicial, and market centers of the kingdom, occupied the whole densely settled part mapped by Jeffrey Parsons. He also located the royal retreats and the cere­ monial-civic centers of the six sections, suggesting that Culhua­ can was in the west, Tepanecapan in the south, Huitznahuac in the north, Mexicapan in the northeast, Chimalpan in the east, and Tlailotlacan in the southeast. Among the sculptures said to be from Texcoco are a large fragment of a major, imperial style monument depicting a figure with a sun disk on its back (Chavero 1887= 665; Bernal 1969: VIII, no. 35); two carved ball court rings at Los Melones (Chavero 1887: iIlus. on p. 344; Noguera 1972: figs. on 87 and 88); a life-size nude female figure (Anonymous 196I: 12 and photo 14); an eagle warrior head (Bernal 1969: V, no. 22); a basalt head of a pulque god broken from a figure (Mena I912-I4: 275-279); a large stone box with xiuhcoatl designs (Felipe Solis Olguin, personal commu­ nication, 1976; Chavero 1887: illus. on p. 746, without prov.); a black obsidian monkey vessel (Boban 1884; Bernal 1969: VIII, no. 34); a broken fragment with the sun and earth monster (American Museum of Natural History 30/8002); a Xipe mask (British Mu­ seum I902.1 1-14. I); a fantastic animal, a rough standing amacalli goddess, and a rough seated Ehecatl (Basler and Brummer I928: pIs. I06b, 99a, and 96); a Xipe figure (Nicholson 1977: 164; Chavero 1887: 317); a seated monkey (Becker-Donner 1965, no. 84, 13); a small standing nude male (Bernal 1969: VIII, no. 32); a head of a male figure and a coiled rattlesnake (Field Museum 167586 and 48100); a pair of fertility deities (Peiiafiel 1890: pI. 136); and a rough standing male figure (Noguera 1972: 75, fig.). Among objects in other materials are a skull necklace made of shell (Dumbarton Oaks 1963: no. I I 5, fig.) and a ceramic Xipe mask from San Sebastian (Seler 1960-61, 3' 453, fig. 2). A pair of late style wooden sculptures, Chalchiuhtlicue and a male figure, were found in the lakeshore area, not far west ofTexcoco (Nichol­ son and Berger 1968). The fourteenth-century date given these on the basis of radiocarbon testing must be incorrect, as there is no

251

Appendix 3 other evidence that figures in this typical Aztec style could be that early. Edward Tylor (1861: 262) mentioned a small collection that he saw in Texcoco, containing a nude female figure of "alabaster," four or five feet tall (is this the sculpture mentioned above?), a figure of a man wearing a "jackal's" head as a mask, and an "alabaster" box, elaborately worked, which the owner presented to the wife of President Santa Ana. Antonio Pefiafiel (1890: [Engl. text] 25, pIs. 124-126) suggested that a well-carved box (now in the MNA and identified as having Motecuhzoma II's name-glyph on it) is one of two boxes with lids found in Texcoco in the time of Santa Ana. Eduard SeIer (1960-61, 2: 742) suggested that the other is the Hackmack Box (now in Hamburg), which also bears the hieroglyph of Motecuhzoma II (see also Umberger n.d.: 103-104).

TLALOCAN/POYAUTECATL (Cerro Tlaloc): Ceremonial Site Written Evidence: Fray Diego Duran described the temple On the mountain as enclosed within a merloned and stuccoed courtyard and having a finely worked wooden roof. Inside on a platform, the "idol" of Tlaloc was surrounded by smaller images represent­ ing the hills surrounding the mountain. Cerro Tlaloc was the object of yearly ceremonies of child sacrifice attended by Triple Alliance rulers, priests, and lords, as well as those from other cities in the Valleys of Mexico and Puebla (Duran 1967, I: 82ff). Juan Bautista Pomar describes the image of Tlaloc, which he suspects was made by the "ToItecs," as made of a light, white stone, like pumice, seated on a square block, and with a vase on his head. Nezahualpilli (1472-1516) removed the older image and replaced it with a larger one made of a harder and heavier black stone (probably basalt) and of human stature. However, when the new sculpture was hit by lightning, the old one, which had been buried nearby, was reinstalled. The sculpture was destroyed in the time of Archbishop Zumarraga (Pomar 1964: 165-166). Remains: Still standing on the mountain is the enclosure, ofTol­ tec or Aztec date, with a very long, walled entryway facing north. Inside the precinct are the remains of walls and the top of the head of a sculpture ofTlaloc (Wicke and Horcasitas 1957: figs. 37-39, 41 of temple and sculpture). Tlaloc's name means "Path through the Earth" (Sullivan 1972), and perhaps the long en­ tryway symbolized a cave entrance. Its orientation seems to be aligned toward the shrines in the area of Cerro Tepeyac (Broda 199r: 92). A circle of boulders in the precinct may be the "idols" of mountains surrounding Tlaloc that Fray Diego Duran referred to (Townsend 1991: 28).

TONALTEPEC: Ceremonial

~ite

Written Evidence: On top of Cerro Tonaltepec, which had ritual significance for the population of Coatepec, the Relaci6n de Coatepec describes a cave with a stone statue that was consulted by priests (Paso y Troncoso, 1905-06, 6: 46). Remains: The cave was not located, but a large mound is identified as a ceremonial-civic structure OP: 141).

TX-A-19, -20, and -29: Ceremonial Sites in Tepetlaoztoc Area Remains: Remains of isolated ceremonial structures have been found on Cerro Azteca (sites TX-A-19 and -20) and Cerro Tezontepec (site TX-A-29) to the west and east, respectively UP: 98, 106, fig. 14).

TX-A-25, -28, -30, -31, -32, -38, and -40: Village Sites in Tepetlaoztoc Area Remains: Ceremonial-civic structures were identified at six large, unnamed dispersed village sites in the piedmont areas to the east and southeast of Aztec Tepetlaoztoc. There are small ceremonial­ civic structures at TX-A-30, TX-A-3 I, and TX-A-38 UP: 106, a ceremonial­ 347,349; 106, 352; III, 356; ro8, 355}. At civic cluster of four mounds is at the southeast corner of the site OP: 102, 336-337). At TX-A-28 there is a small plaza-pyramid complex in the central part of the site and at least three other possible ceremonial-civic structures OP: 104-105, 341, 344, and fig. 20). At TX-A-40 there are significant remains including five mounds forming a small pyramid-plaza complex at the eastern end of the site; a very large pyramidal structure at the southwest­ ern edge, locally known as El Gavilan (Batres 1904: 9); and another large pyramid in the south-central area near the edge of the Rio Papalotla, which bisects the site OP: II3, 359-360, pI. 37a). TX-A-32 is a hamlet with a possible ceremonial-civic struc­ ture at the east end OP: 108). A rough style head with "top hat" was found in Papalotla, 2 km northeast oLEI Gavihin (Batres 1904: pI. 19).

TX-A-49 (see Texcoco) TX-A-roo: Isolated Ceremonial-Civic Site in Coatepec Area Remains: To the west on the lower piedmont below Cerro Tonaltepec are seven ceremonial-civic structures in a line over a distance of about 2.5 km OP: 141, 379-380, pIs. 53-54).

Part

2.

Sites in the Tenochca State

AHUEHUEPAN (San Juan Ahuehuepan), not located on map Remains: of a standing Xipe figure and an amacalli goddess head seen by Guillermo Dupaix (1969, 2: figs. 51-52).

AMECAMECAN (AMECAMECA; 2) Written Evidence: Mentioned in the Relaciones Originales de Chalco Amequemecan (Chimalpahin 1965: 53, 77,2°3-204) are a temple of the god Nauhyotecuhtli in the town and a temple on the hill next to the city. The temple may perhaps have been dedicated to the goddess Chalchiuhtlicue inasmuch as it was called Chal­ chiuhmomozco (Hodge 1984: 37). Remains: Only the southwest corner of the site is visible, the rest covered by modem construction; an area of vague mound­ ing was noted in the southeast sector (PBPW: 162). Carmen Cook de Leonard and Ernesto Lemoine Villicafia (1954-55: 290, fig. 2, map) located on the modern map the six barrio sections of Amecamecan, which were arranged in pairs from north to south. Said to be from Amecamecan are a greenstone Xipe head (Haberland 1984: figs. 3-4) and a crudely carved nude female sculpture (Museum of the American Indian 8090).

AYOTZINCO (Ayotzingo)

Remains: There are no visible remains in or around the modern

town, under which the Aztec site presumably is located (PBPW:

238). On the lower piedmont to the east are two isolated plat­

forms at sites Ch-Az-179 and Ch-Az-I80, which may be de­

tached, associated shrines (PBPW: 193,195).

252

I

Material Remains in the Central Provinces

CHALCO ATENCO (5) Written Evidence: The Chalca built a temple to Tezcatlipoca in

1323 (Chimalpahin 1965: 176). In 1467, with the permission of Motecuhzoma I, the Chalca dedicated their temple (presumably after renovation), which had been abandoned (and probably dese­ crated) during the war of their conquest (AC: 54). See the discus­ sion of the palace of the Texcocan prince, Axoquentzin (AI, I: 448-449, 2: 142), built around 1472 and modeled after a palace in the Chalco province (possibly here or at Xico). Artisans: The sculptors of Chalco are recorded as having gone to Tenochtitlan to make images of conquered gods in the time of Motecuhzoma I (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356). After their conquest by the Aztecs (1465), the Chalcas built "rooms of in­ credible grandeur" in the palaces of the Triple Alliance kings and lords of Texcoco, bringing the wood and stone with them (AI, 2: 128). Remains: Much of the site is covered by modern Chalco, but Aztec remains are found in the north, west, and southwest. Vague mounding in the latter two areas indicates subsurface architecture; a single distinct mound was noted in each of these sectors (PBPW: 192-193). Site Ch-Az-187 with its mound may be a detached pyramid associated with Chalco or site Ch-Az-186. This is the largest pyramid in the ChaIco-Xochimilco survey area (diam. 50 m, h. IO m), and is made oflayers of adobe bricks and rock rubble (PBPW: 195, 197, pis. 19b, 20a). Said to be from Chalco are a stone disk sculpture with reliefs (Chavero 1887: 737; Felipe SoIls Olguin, personal communica­ tion, 1976) and a tiny jadeite skull (Dumbarton Oaks 1963: no. I II).

CH-AZ-47: Isolated Ceremonial-Civic Site in Amecamecan Area Remains: Site Ch-Az-47, east of Amecamecan, features a large triangular enclosure (ca. 710 x 650 x 440 m) with massive walls. Inside near the northern apex is a very large boulder with carved steps to the top and carvings on one side. These include a figure, a IO Rabbit date, and the 13 day-signs of the first trecena of the 260­ day count (Dupaix 1969, I: 94-95; 2: fig. 49 [sic., 45]; Krickeberg 1969: 157-179, fig. 179, pIs. 75-79; PBPW: 162-164, pIs. 14b, IS). The last day of the series, 13 Reed, is the day of the sun's birth. The date IO Rabbit is important on some Tenochca monu­ ments as the year of the death of Ahuitzotl (1502), but there is nothing here to connect this monument with that event, and as the carvings are not in the imperial style, it is difficult to know . when they were carved within the Late Aztec period.

CH-AZ-67 (see Mihuacan) CH-AZ-74, -76, -113, -140: Small Sites with Public Architecture in Tenanco Sub-Valley Remains: Sites Ch-Az-74. Ch-AZ-76, Ch-Az-II3, and Ch-Az­ 140 are hamlets with one or two mounds that are possibly ceremonial-civic architecture (PBPW: 167. 171, 184. 353-356, figs. lSd, 28).

CH-AZ-167: Isolated Ceremonial Precinct in Tenanco Area Remains: Site Ch-AZ-I67, which has a large mound, may be a focus of the Tenanco polity or an isolated precinct with resident population (PBPW: 191, 353-356).

CH-AZ-I69: Ceremonial Site on Cerro Cocotitlan Remains: On top of Cerro Cocotitian, Ch-Az-169 is an isolated

ceremonial site with a large mound of uncertain date (PBPW; [91-192, pI. I2b). There are ruins of a large pyramid, which was being dismantled recently for local use. This was one of the places ofchild sacrifices to Tlaloc in the month of atlcahualo (Broda 1991: 93; Aveni 1991: 69).

CH-AZ-I79 and CH-AZ-ISO (see Ayotzinco) CH-AZ-IS7 (see Chalco Atenco) CH-AZ-I90, CH-AZ-I9S, and CH-AZ-2I7 (see Xico) CH-AZ-244 (see Mixquic) CH-AZ-2S0 (see Cuitlahuac) CHAPULTEPEC: Royal Retreat Written Evidence: There are many references to the portraits of Tenochca rulers' on the hilI at the site (see Nicholson 1961). All rulers were reportedly represented starting with Motecuhzoma I, and including Tlacaelel, and they were dressed as warriors in the flayed-skin costume ofXipe Totec. AI (I: 444-445) indicates that before returning to Texcoco (in 1433), Nezahualcoyotl made the "bosque ofChapultepec" and redesigned the aqueduct from there to Tenochtitlan. Remains: In addition to the nearly obliterated remains of the imperial portraits ofMotecuhzoma II and an earlier king (Nichol­ son 1961; Umberger n.d.: 147-151), a Tlaloc figure similar to a sculptural type found at Tenayuca was excavated here, as were other figural sculptures (Cabrera, Cervantes, and Solis 1975; Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum 1986, 2: no. 145; cf Palacios 1935: no. XIX).

CHIMALHUACAN (I)

Remaills: Guillermo Dupaix saw two round stones with reliefs

and a seated amacalli goddess here (1969, I: 96-97; 2: figs. 47-49).

COCOTITLAN

Remains: A square container with date-glyphs is used as a font in

the church (Caso 1967: 15-19, fig. 6).

CUITLAHUAC (Tlahuac; 7)

Written Evidence: The town had four political divisions, Tizic,

TeopancaIcan, Atenchicalcan, and Tecpan (AC: 37, 63). In the

entry for 1441 in the AC, the temple of Camaxtli Mixcoatl of the

Tizica Cuitlahuacas is mentioned, as is the taking of the image of

Teohcatl, god of Tizic, whose accouterments were like Mix­

coatI's, to Mixcoatepec in Tenochtitlan. The CuitIahuacas en­

larged the temple of Mixcoatl in 1504 (AC: 5 I, 59).

Remaills: The site of Cuitlahuac is covered by modern Tlahuac

except for some areas around the southeastern edge; one cere­

monial-civic mound was recorded (PBPW: 213-214). Two large

mounds and three smaller ones at Ch-Az-280 to the southeast

may be detached public buildings outside Cuitlahuac (PBPW;

214-215, fig. 33, plan).

Imperial style works said to be from the site are a large ring-like sculpture with skeletal figures around the inside (Dupaix 1969, I: 83-S4; 2: fig. 25); an incised human femur with an Ehecatl­ Quetzalcoatl figure (Henning 1913: fig. 3; Nicholson 1973: 83, fig. 12); and possibly a stone vessel with skulls around the outside

253

Appendix 3 (label on MNA photo). Also seen by Guillermo Dupaix were two

ball court rings (one with reliefs remaining) and a large drum­

shaped monument with reliefs around the sides (1969, I: 82-83; 2:

figs. 23-24).

CULHUACAN (10)

Written/pictorial evidence: A single temple with probable straw

roof is depicted at the time of the 1491(?) Mexica conquest of

Culhuacan (Codex Telleriano-Remensis 1899: 29r).

Artisans: The Culhua who moved to Cuauhtitlan in 1347 were

skilled in pottery-making and other "civilized" trades (AC: 3 I).

One of the two architects (obreros mayores) who helped Nezahual­

coyotl in the construction of his palace in Texcoco was Xiloman,

lord of Culhuacan (AI, 2: 92). Later he and Moquihuix of

Tlatelolco (the other architect) were allies in the 1473 war be­

tween Tlatelolco and Tenochtitlan (AI, 2: 141; Torquemada 1969.

r: 176-180) (see Tlatelolco below). Remains: The site is under the modern town of Culhuacan, and only two remnants of Aztec structures have been located, one badly destroyed and the other a small pyramid-platform under the church. Large pieces of shaped basalt were noted on and around the church. one carved but very eroded (RB: 160-164, pI. 30). Among objects said to be from Culhuacan are: a large ceramic brazier (Roemer- and Pelizaeus-Museum 1986: no. 236); a fine painted ceramic panel with the face of a female deity (Gondra 1846: no fig. or page number); a clay temple model (Noguera 1950: pis. 6 and 7B); an amacalli goddess (Roemer- und Pelizaeus­ Museum 1986, 2: no 149); a bone rasp with a warrior, Xipe, sun, and earth monster (Von Winning 1959: fig. 2); and a stone stela with five figures, sun, and earth monster (Nuttall 1928: 140-142, fig. 15b).

ECATEPEC (33)

Remains: A cave painting of Ehecatl sitting on a temple platform

was/is in a cave near here (Krickeberg 1969: 94-95, fig. 53;

Villagra 1971: fig. 32).

HUITZILOPOCHCO (Churubusco; 12)

Remains: Said to be from this town are a fine imperial style

standing male figure (Nicholson 1988a: 90, note 19; Caso 1940)

and possibly a kneeling Chalchiuhtlicue sculpture (Nicholson

1973: fig. 9)·

HUIXACHTECATL (Cerro de la Estrella): Ceremonial

Site

Written/Pictorial Evidence: This is the hill where the New Fire

Ceremony was performed every 52 years (for which, see Sa­

hagun 1950-82, 4: 143- 144; T 25-32; Codex Borbonicus 1974:

34, 36). The temple, which was. called Ayauhcalli, was built

(presumably rebuilt) in 1507 before the celebration of the New

Fire Ceremony of that year (Torquemada 1969. I: 210; Codex

Telleriano-Remensis 1899: 42r, illus.).

Remains: A pyramid-mound is on the hilltop and a small plat­

form is to the west and downhill (Noguera 1970; RB: 164-165,

pI. 33).

IX-A-r: Fortress in Ixtapalucan Area

Remains: Site, Ix-A- I, about 2.5 km northeast of San Francisco

Acuautla, consists of a large platform on top of a steep-sided hill.

on which several long platforms stand. Richard Blanton suggests

that it was a fortress in the zone between Acolhua and Chalca

territories (RB: I24-12S, fig. 27 plan).

254

IX-A-13, IX-A-14, IX-A-I5. IX-A-I7, IX-A-2o, and IX­ A-30: Ceremonial Sites on Cerro Pino Massif Remains: Sites Ix-A-13, Ix-A-I4. Ix-A-IS, and Ix-A-2o are iso­ lated ceremonial sites, each with a single mound. Ix-A-17 is

interesting in being an irregular rock enclosure analogous to that

on Mt. Tlaloc. Ix-A-30, overlooking lxtapaluca Viejo. consists of

a series of straight lines oflarge stones, probably the foundations

of perishable structures (RB: 129-131, 139).

IX-A-35 (see Tlapitzahuayan)

IX-A-37: Village Site on Cerro Pino Massif

Remains: Three structures were recorded also at the village site of

Ix-A-37 on the western piedmont (RB: 141-142).

IX-A-41 and IX-A-59: Village Sites in Cerro Sta Catarina

Massif Area

Remains: Pyramids were recorded at the village sites of Ix-A-4 1

(western part of modern town of Los Reyes), and Ix-A-S9, both

to the north of the mountain (RB: 142-143, 148).

IXTACCIHUATL: Ceremonial Sites

Written Evidence: Fray Diego Duran (1967, I: IS9ff) mentions a

statue of the goddess Ixtaccihuatl kept in a cave on the mountain

and surrounded by statues representing the surrounding hills.

Ceremonies performed there were like those on Cerro Tlalocan.

Remains: Near the summit there are five sites with architecture

and one with rock art (Lorenzo 1957: 19-25; Iwaniszewski 1986:

258-259, fig. 4 map).

IXTAPALAPAN (Ixtapalapa; 14) Written Evidence: Alvarado Tezozomoc (1975: 547) mentions that Ahuitzotl visited a temple ofHuitzilopochtli at Ixtapalapan on his return from Oaxaca. Hernan Cortes (1986: 82-83) and Bernal Diaz del Castillo (1984. I: 311) describe the new (actually unfin­ ished) palace of the ruler Cuitlahuac, the brother of Motecuh­ zoma and future ruler of Tenochtitlan, as large and of elaborate stone and woodwork, with great rooms (upper and lower), court­ yards, and a garden containing a large pool that could be entered by canoe from the lake. Also mentioned are many kinds of stones "with pictures on them." Remains: The site is located under the modern town ofIxtapalapa (RB: 152-156). Several large mounds or remnants, probably cere­ monial-civic structures, were found in the center. One on the west side of the Zocalo, exposed in connection with a new building, had four building phases. all with Late Aztec ceramics. The construction consisted of a mud-brick core covered with pumice blocks and plaster. About Y2 km to the west are one or more low mounds, and Y, km further west is a group of four mounds (RB: fig. 78, plan). All were adobe and pumice construc­ tions, probably once covered with pumice or basalt. A fine imperial style standing male figure with elaborate head­ dress is said to be from Ixtapalapan (Field Museum 48306). IXTAPALUCAN (Ixtapaluca Viejo) Remains: The site, which until the mid-1970S was not under modern settlements, has been explored by David Grove and H. B. Nicholson (1965). who excavated the ball court there; Richard Blanton and his crew, who surveyed the site (RB); and an INAH group under Eduardo Contreras Sanchez (1976), which excavated and restored several of the ceremonial-civic structures, after stopping further destruction by developers. Blanton (RB: 133-138, figs. 64, 65-72, pIs. 27-28) describes the site as

Material Remains in the Central Provinces consIstmg of two parts separated by several hundred meters. Section A covers a ridgetop and has 19 ceremonial-civic struc­ tures and four high-status residences, most of which are in the southern part, section A2. Section B is to the northeast on the lower piedmont and has two ceremonial-civic structures. Blanton (RB: 178-182) hypothesizes that Ixtapalucan comprised a single falpulli with three "barrios pequenos," with section A2 being the ceremonial-civic center. His site plan (RB: fig. 64) locates structures and indicates approximate relative sizes, but does not give outlines, orientations, or names. Grove and Nicholson (1965: photo 25) published a rough plan that locates three structures in A2 (the "Templo Mayor," round temple, and ball court), and one of Contreras' photos (1976: 26) shows a grou ping of restored struc­ tures at the north end, but no real site plan has been published. The ball court, the only one known in the Valley of Mexico, has three construction phrases and is open-ended. Some ceramic pieces found were possibly decorative almenas. The round struc­ ture, which was reconstructed by INAH, also has three construc­ tion phases and resem bles the round temple found under the Cathedral in Mexico City in having a rectangular section abutting the circular platform, but the stairway ascends in several flights. The "Palace, .. also reconstructed by INAH, is of rectangular plan, faces west, and has a series of rooms, galleries, and patios at different levels. The "Templo Mayor" faces east, has three con­ struction phases, and is approximately 10-12 m high. Between the "Templo Mayor" and the circular temple is a plaza with a surface of 150 m by 90 m. Three altars and a platform there were also restored.

IXTAYOPAN (Sanjuan Ixtayopan)

Remaills: Carvings on a boulder/boulders appear to represent a 2

Reed date and a frontal image of Chalchiuhtlicue. The date is

clearly in imperial style (Gonzalez-Blanco 1988: photos 5. 6).

MEXICATZINCO (Mexicaltzinco; 13)

Written Evidence: Alvarado Tezozomoc (1975: 547) mentions a

temple of Huitzilopochtli, which Ahuitzotl visited on his return

from Oaxaca.

Remains: Most of the site is covered with modern structures,

except for the southern part, where the remnant of a platform has

been excavated in the churchyard of San Marcos (Matos 1967;

RB: 156-159, pI. 31).

MIHUACAN

Remains: Site Ch-Az-67, with two platforms, a large conical

mound (h. 7.5 m), and a high percentage of ceremonial wares,

may be the sociopolitical focus of the Mihuacan polity (PBPW:

166, 353-356).

NATIVITAS, STA. MARIA

Remaills: A carved block with dates and a smoking mirror on the

sides is cemented into the base of the cross in the churchyard

(Nicholson 1958). The modern town is adjacent to and perhaps

on an Aztec settlement (Xo-Az-33) (PBPW: 221).

OZUMBA

Remaills: Guillermo Dupaix saw a cylindrical stone with a sun

disk on top and a standing male figure (1969, I: 96-97; 2: figs. 46,

50).

PEDREGAL DE SAN ANGEL

Remains: A feathered serpent relief is carved on a rock

(Krickeberg 1969: 86-92, fig. 43, pI. 56).

POPOCATEPETL: Ceremonial Sites

Remains: Near the summit there are two sites with architectural

remains and one with rock art (Lorenzo 1957: 16; Casanova

1984: 35; Iwaniszewski 1986: 259, fig. 4 map). Virve Pijo and

Carlos Hernandez (1972) identify the rock paintings as represent­

ing the deities (Tlaloc, Ehecatl, and others) and ceremonies

associated with the celebration of atlcahualco or similar festivities

to the rain gods. Their narrative quality recalls the monthly feast

illustrations in the Primeros Memoriales, but the paintings them­

selves are grafitti. They are on the Valley of Mexico side of the

mountain.

SAN RAFAEL AREA: Isolated Ceremonial Site

Remaills: Figures of Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue modeled in resin

were found in a cave on the slopes ofIxtaccihuati near San Rafael

(Navarrete 1968).

TENANCO (Tenango)

Remains: Sites Ch-Az-156, Ch-Az-I61, and Ch-Az-162 may rep­

resent the sociopolitical foci of the Tenanco polity. At site Ch-Az­ 156, there are three mounds (largest 9 m h.) around a plaza (1,000

x 150 m) on the eastern side of the site; Ch-Az- 16 I has a large

pyramid mound on the northern part of the site; Ch-Az-162 has

three modest ceremonial-civic structures clustered on the north­

ern half of a residential site. All had resident populations. It is also

conceivable that similar remains are under modern Tenanco 4 km

away. Other large structures in the general area and possibly

associated with Aztec Tenanco are at sites Ch-LT-36 and Ch-TF­ 36 (PBPW: 122, 189-191, 353-356).

TEPEPAN

Remains: Said to be from Tepepan is a fme imperial style standing

Xipe (Easby and Scott 1970: no. 277, illus.). Only hamlets were

noted during a survey of the vicinity (PBPW: 235).

MIXQUIC (6)

Remaills: No remains are visible in and around the modern town,

which presumably covers the Aztec site (PBPW: 238). Site Ch­

AZ-244, a small hamlet with one mound, may represent a de­

tached public building associated with Mixquic (PBPW: 208, pI.

22a).

Said to be from Mixquic are a roughly carved standing female death goddess, actually a janus figure (Baquedano 1988: 196, fig. 5), and a ball court ring (Dupaix 1969, I: 87; 2: fig. 28; Flores 1962: 83, fig. 5). Guillermo Dupaix also saw a large cylindrical basin with reliefs around the rim, a large tenoned serpent head, an animal (canine?) relief, a small cylindrical stone with rattlesnake relief, a tenoned human head, two small figures of dead men. and others (1969, I: 85-91; 2: figs. 26-34).

TEPETZINCO (Tepetzingo, Penon de los Banos) Written Evidence: The Mist House (Ayauhcalco) was an oratorio on the west side of the hill (Sahagun 1950-82, 2: chap. 20 app.). Remaills: There were once three scenes of unknown arrangement carved in low relief on rocks on the south side of the hill. They were destroyed sometime before 1939 (Krickeberg 1969: 131­ 147, figs. 86-88; pIs. 63-66; Seler 1960-61, 2: 804. fig. lIb, drawings of two scenes, third scene is incomplete; old photo­ graphs dated 1887 by Nicolas Islas y Bustamante in unpublished volume at INAH, Arqueologfa, Var/os, 4, 1914-15). The reliefs represent conquest scenes like those on the newly discovered sacrificial stone and the Stone of Tizoc, both from Tenochtitlan. Place-glyphs and dates. as well as the identity of the deity cap­

255

Appendix 3 tures in one scene indicate commemoration of the conquest of the

Tepanecs and perhaps places in the Chalca domain (Umberger

n.d.: 151-156, figs. 115 a-c).

TEPOPULAN (Tenanco-Tepopula, 3)

Remains: Site Ch-Az-I31 seems to be a small dispersed village

with a possible ceremonial-civic structure. perhaps the sociopoliti­

cal focus of the Tenanco-Tepopula polity. It is also conceivable

that similar remains are under modern Tepopula as well (PBPW:

180, 353-356).

TLALPAN

Remains: Said to be from Tlalpan is a coiled rattlesnake sculpture

(Dumbarton Oaks 1963: no. 105. fig.).

TLALTECAHUACAN (San Antonio Tlaltecahuacan)

Remains: Discovered under the main street of the town were an

offering and associated high-status burial. There were two male

and two female (amacalli) deity figures, ceramic vases (some

Tlaloc effigies). plates, and figurines (Anonymous 1986: 2-3.

iIlus. ).

TLALMANALCO (4)

Written Evidence: A temple was finished in Tlalmanalco in 1503

(AC: 59).

Remains: Most of the site is covered by modern Tlalmanalco;

only the northern edge is visible. but there are no structural

remains (PBPW: 160).

A number of fine imperial style sculptures are said to be from Tlalmanalco. to which the Chalca capital was moved during the Mexica scige of Chalco in the time of Motecuhzoma I. in 1464 (Chimalpahin 1965: 101, 279). These fine sculptures include a famous seated XochipiIli sculpture (Bernal 1969: 9. no. 43), the base on which the sculpture is now displayed. which was found nearby (Bernal 1969: 9, no. 43); an upright stone drum with reliefs (Casteneda and Mendoza 1933: 298); a stone box with the name-glyph of Motecuhzoma II (MN Berlin IV Ca 26921ab; Umberger n.d.: 106. fig. 75). a stone box with quincunxes and dates in relief (Field Museum 23916; Umberger n.d.: 106-108. fig. 76). and a near life-size amacalli goddess (Penafiel 1890: pI. 134). These sculptures in the Late Aztec imperial style probably date from after 1464. Sculptures could have been moved from the old capital. but the style itself was still in the process of formation even in the capital in these years. Guillermo Dupaix saw there fragments of a life-size female deity (in greenstone) and a male sculpture. the head of a female sculpture, an unknown animal, two seated male figures. a kneel­ ing amacalli goddess, and three relief sculptures, one a pyramidal form (possibly a box if Dupaix did not look below to see the hollow part) with the date 4 Hou~e (1969, I: 9 I -94; 2: figs. 35­ 44)·

TLAPITZAHUAYAN (Tlapitzahua) Written Evidetlce: Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc (1975: 547) says that Ahuitzotl. on his return from conquests in Oaxaca. "went to spend the night in Tlapitzahuayan where there was the temple of Tezcatlipoca" and performed bloodletting. The Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-82, 2: 10, 68) states that during the toxcatl cere­ mony in Tenochtitlan, the imitator of Tezcatlipoca was sacrificed at a small temple called Tlacochcalco near Tlapitzahuayan. which was reached by canoes landing at Caualtepec (modern Acahual­ tepee, which was once on the lake shore; no. 10 in RB: fig. 8). Remains: Richard Blanton found no mounds at site Ix-A-34, a

256

hamlet that is partially covered by the modern town of Tlapiza­ hua(c). However, there is an isolated pyramid at site Ix-A-35. I km or so to the north on the lower piedmont of the Cerro Pino Massif, which could be the Tlacochcalco temple. It is a roughly circular mound. 22 m in diameter and 6 m high, on a platform of two levels, approximately 60 m square and 8 m high. A staircase is evident on the western face (RB: 140-141).

TLATELOLCO (18) Written/Pictorial Evidence: Tlatelolco had 15 to 20 "barrios grandes," subdivided into "barrios menores" (Calnek 1976: 300­ 30r), or tlaxilacalli. A number of the "barrios grandes," barrio centers, and other features have been located on the basis of Colo­ nial documents, maps, and churches (see Barlow 1947c; Carrera Stampa 1962; Gonzalez Aparicio 1973: map; Lombardo de Ruiz 1973: 169-173. pI. 23; and especially Caso 1956). Early Colonial evidence locates the main temple precinct under and to the west of the church of Santiago (and this is confirmed by archaeology) with the great market to the east. See the Cortes map (Alcocer 1935: 12, map). the Florentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-82, 12: fig. 159), and the Santa Cruz map (Linne 1948). The calmecac (priestly school) may have been between the tem­ ple and the market (where the church and the Indian College of Santa Cruz were located), and the pre-Hispanic palace was proba­ bly on the east side of the market, at the site of the Colonial tecpan (Lombardo de Ruiz 1973: 161; Martinez del Rio I944a: 206, 1944b; Linne 1948; Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 119 and ms. foldout; Kubler 1948: 213-214). For modern locations before urban renewal in the area, see Pablo Martinez del Rio (1944b); for locations after urban renewal, see Francisco Gonzalez Rul (1961: photo 13). The market was a huge space with a central platform and buildings for the market judges (Anonymous Conqueror 1941: 43-44; Cortes 1986: 256-257; Diaz 1984, I: 332; Sahagun 1950-82, 12: fig. 159). On the Cortes map four avenues emanate from the market. The Templo Mayor was probably dedicated to Tlaloc as well as Huitzilopochtli (Barlow 1944). The first shrine, like that of Tenochtitlan, was a humble "altar of sod," built at the time of the foundation of the city in 1337 (Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 43, 45). Perhaps the temple built by Cuacuahtzin in 3 Rabbit, 1378, for the sacrifice of victims from Xochimilco and Quauhtinchan (Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 52). refers to the Templo Mayor. Two later phases are illustrated in several manuscripts at the time of the 1473 war with Tenochtidan and during the Spanish Conquest. Frontal depictions in Codices Mendoza (1992,3: lor), Cozcatzin (14-15). and Telleriano-Remensis (1899: 36v) show the 1473 temple with two shrines with high masonry roofs on a pyramid with a double stairway (illus. in Barlow 1944: after p. 544). This phase was probably the temple fmished in about 1467 (Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 5). Fray Diego Duran (1967, 2: 264) states that after the defeat of the Tlatelolca. their image ofHuitzilopochtii was taken to Tenoch­ titian, and the temple became a "privy and dung heap for the Mexicans." Hernando Alvarado Tezozomoc (1975: 395, 397) adds to this Axayacad's words that the Tlatelolca did not need a palace or a temple of Huitzilopochtli, and that from then on it would serve as a place for animals. Later, when the Tlatelolca were reinstated with their titles, Motecuhzoma II allowed them to rebuild the temple. which was then in ruins (Duran 1967, 2: 420). According to Sahagun (1950-82, 8: 7-8), the royal line resumed only after the Spanish Conquest. The temple at the time of the Spanish Conquest is supposedly described in Bernal Diaz del Castillo (1984, r: 333ff), as are other

Material Remains in the Central Provinces structures in the precinct, but there is dear evidence that the author confused the precincts ofTlatelolco and Tenochtitlan (Mar­ tinez del Rio 1944a: 214-215, note 8). Hernan Cortes (1986: 255) says he saw from a distance the burning of "two very high towers" in Tlatelolco, at the beginning of fighting in that area. Fray Juan de Torquemada (1969, 1: 564) mentions a straw roof. Given the archaeological evidence of a single stairway (see below) and the mention of two towers by Cortes who was an eyewit­ ness, the temple may have looked like the illustration in the Aorentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-82, 12: fig. 159 following p. 45) depicting two shrines on a platform with a single wide stairway. It should be noted, however, that all double temples are repre­ sented this way in Book 12, and we know that the temple of Tenochtitlan had two stairways rather than one. The palace was built and market moved to its final location early in the reign of Tlacateotl, who succeeded to the throne in 8 House, 1409 (Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 53-54). Other important structures were built in Tlatelolco in the years before the 1473 war: a tzompantli (skull rack) and a coacalli (temple for conquered gods) were built between 1466 and I471 (Anales de Tlatelolco 1980: 59; ms. 1528, cited in Barlow 1948: 138; see also Torquemada 1969, I: 173; Brundage 1972: 174, 180, 318-319, notes 1 and 15). Other buildings are mentioned in the sources: a temple called Tlillan in an unknown location at the time of the war of 1473 (Torquemada 1969, I: 178); a palace ofAxayacatl. the conqueror ofTlatelolco, in the Acozac barrio (Gonzalez Aparicio 1973: map); the palace of Cuauhtemoc, who was a tlacatecatl (military governor) of Tlatelolco before his ascendancy to the Tenochca throne, in the Atenantitech barrio at the time of the Spanish Conquest (Caso 1956: 35); and several telpochcalli and houses of named nobles in other barrios also in late times (see Caso 1956: 35-37, 39,46). For further evidence, see Fray Juan de Torquemada (1969, I: 564ff), the Aorentine Codex (Sahagun 1950-82, 12: 107ff) , and other accounts of the final battle of the Conquest, which raged in different parts ofTlatelolco. As for reports of other artworks. the Tlatelolca brought a sculpture of the god Tlacahuepan from Tollan in the 1420S (Histo­ ria de los mexicanos 1973: 60). A cuauhxicalli (eagle/sun's vessel), or great round sacrificial stone. with a central cavity for blood, was on top of the great temple in 1473 (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 392; Torquemada 1969. I: 177). Bernal Diaz del Castillo (1984. I: 333ff) described the deity images in the great temple, but there is the same problem as in his description of the temple itself-the confusion with Tenochtitlan (Nicholson 1988b: 239). An anthropomorphic sculpture is mentioned at a place called Atlanmican on the 1523 map of Tlatelolco made by order of Cuauhtemoc (Espejo and Barlow 1944). Artisans: One of the two architects who helped Nezahualcoyotl in the construction of his palace in Texcoco during the 1460s was Moquihuix of Tlatelolco (AI. 2: 92): the ruler who was defeated in the 1473 civil war. In this project he worked with Xiloman. the lord of Culhuacan, who was later his ally in the 1473 war (e.g., Torquemada 1969, I: 176-180). Moquihuix must also have been involved in building the structures con­ structed in Tlatelo1co before the war: the Templo Mayor, skull rack, and coacalli. In the time of Motecuhzoma II. the featherworkers from Tlatelolco seem to have been brought together with those (or some) from Tenochtitlan and placed in a separate building to work for the ruler and state (Sahagun 1950-82. 9: 91). RemaitlS: The central temple precinct and some structures farther beyond were excavated between 1944 and the mid-1960s (Tlate­ lolco a traves de los tiempos 1944-57, archaeological reports

mostly by Antonieta Espejo and Pablo Martinez del RIO [see various entries in bibliography]; Gonzalez Rul 1961, 1963, 1964; Gonzalez Rul and Garcia Mejia 1962; Noguera 1966). A round wind god temple is the object of current excavations. The most important plans are those published by Antonieta Espejo (1956: II4) and Francisco Gonzalez Rul (1964: facing p. 18); the latter is more complete in the outlines of features, but the former has phases labeled, an elevation as well as a plan. and a metric scale. A later aerial photo (Revista Cam-Sam 1968: 43) reveals additional unreported features after further reconstruction. Archaeologists found an early shrine and eight additional phases; in seven of these the entire pyramid structure was re­ built. Tlatelolco I. the earliest identified structure. consists of the remains of walls of a room or rooms on top of the platform, several layers of floors, and possibly the base of the lower wall of the pyramid on the east side (Espejo 1944a: 507, 510; I944b: 524; 1945C: 21-22, pIs. I, 3; 1950: IIO-III). The fin contains water-worn volcanic rocks, probably from Zacatenco (Espejo 1948: 115). Below one floor were found "a moderate number" of Aztec II Black-on-Orange (B/O) sherds (Espejo 1945C: 22, pI. 4). TIatelolco II was found almost complete and was excavated to the base at the northeast corner. It is a four-tiered structure with a double stairway facing west (Espejo 1944b). The pyramid base is about 39 m wide by 20 m deep; the platform is 32 X 15m (Martinez del Rio 1944C: 518). and the height is 9.1 m (Espejo 1948: II7). The alfordas change slope but lack the molding oflate Aztec architecture (Espejo 1944a: 500. pI. 4). As in later phases, all comers of the structure are quoined with alternating vertical and horizontal stones (Espejo 1944a: pI. 4). The sides of the tiers of Tlatelolco II are relatively vertical. On the northern half of the pyramid, beginning at the center of the east wall, the tiers have band cornices (Espejo 1945a: 92-93; Espejo 1946b: fig. 2, after p. 400). The walls of the southern half are decorated with small stones carved with geometric designs (Espejo 1945a: 92; 1946b: 402; 1947: 129. fig. 5; 1950: II 5). The fill is the same as that of Tlatelolco I (Espejo 1948: I I 5). No ceramics were noted as spe­ cific to this structure (Espejo I944a: 510). Subsequent phases are known from fragments of their west­ facing stairways and parts of walls of pyramid platforms. There are two stairways associated with Phase III, one immediately on top of the Phase II stairway (later found to be just an addition to II) and one farther west. The pyramid measures approximately 43 X 25 m, but it is unknown to which tier of the original pyramid the remaining fragments pertain. It is also not possible to tell from the remains whether "I1a" and III were double or single stairways. The most interesting aspects of this phase pertain to the fill found in the ditch dug at the northeast corner of Phase II. As a base for III, a foundation was laid around the lowest tier of II consisting of mud I m deep with wooden stakes driven into it. Above this was a fill of dirt mixed with closely packed stones of basalt and red tezontle, the latter probably from Penon del Mar­ quez. The stakes extended up to the top of the lowest tier of the pyramid, and the fill continued to the top of the second tier (Espejo 1948: I 14-II6 and pI. 4). Ceramics were also found in an undisturbed context in the fill. Apparently Aztec II BIO and Guinda were mixed with the stone fill around the stakes, and Aztec III BIO sherds were found in the fill above the stakes as well as for 2-3 m above the stone 611 (Espejo 1947: 130, 1948: II6-117; relationship of ceramic strati­ graphy to fill reconstructed using elevation in Espejo 1956: 114; allowing for lowering of cota ["0" point from which measure­ ments were taken] by 1.2 m between excavation and drawing of

257

Appendix 3 map, Espejo 1950: II4). This stratigraphy is difficult to explain. Either the Aztec II and Aztec III levels correspond to different phases, or the dirt part (with ceramics) was from a different source. Antonieta Espejo implies that the fill is all from Phase III, in which case the latter explanation would be more likely. The remains of Phase IV are also too fragmentary to know whether it had a single or double stairway. The excavated tier measures about 44 X 28 m, and the fill is like that of Phase III. From the aerial photo of Phase V after reconstruction, apparently this structure had a single broad stairway rather than a double one. The fill is also similar to III and IV (Espejo 1948: lIS). No walls pertaining to the pyramid seem to have been found. Phase VI likewise has a single stairway in all plans, and the excavated tier measures about 56 x 36 m. A floor was found at the foot of this stairway (Espejo 1945b: 192). There is a distinct change in the composition of the fill, which contained loose dirt with some irregular basalt stones (Espejo 1948: IIS). Remaining from VII is a double stairway with a central alfarda and a floor at its base (Espejo I946a: 163-165, fig. 5). The excavated tier measures about 64 X 64 m. The central alforda changes to vertical near the top forming a platform. This could not have marked the top of the pyramid because it is too low in relation to Tlatelolco II (Espejo 1956: 114, elevation). There may have been some sort of landing above the steps or a terrace, like those in front of Tenochtitlan IVb and VI. Because no floor was found above, it is also possible that the steps were a section of the pyramid stairway in which the alfardas featured pedestals, as in the Teopanzolco pyramid in Cuernavaca. Espejo (1948: lIS) states that the fill is like VI but with "natural accumulations," seeming to indicate construction after an abandonment of the temple. Phase VIII has a single stairway about 60 m wide with a floor at the base (Espejo 1956: 113). It is wider than the VII stairway; so the rest of the pyramid must have been expanded too. The fill had the same "natural accumulations" as VII (Espejo 1948: II5). Tlatelolco IX is mentioned in the archaeological reports (Es­ pejo 1956: 115) and was later reconstructed; part ofa stairway (the north end) appears in the aerial photo. It has a type of short sloped panel on it, but not in the right location for a central alforda. Steps reconstructed above the panel indicate that it did not extend up the whole stairway. Because the stairway does not appear to be wider than that of the previous phase, it may represent an expan­ sion on just the facade side. The dating of the phases of the Tlatelolco pyramid is very difficult. At the beginning of the excavations, both Espejo (1944b, 1948) and Martinez del Rio (1944c: 518-519; 1945: 16-18) remarked on the similarity of Tlatelolco II to Tenayuca II, a pyramid probably dating to the late twelfth or early thirteenth century (see Tenayucan in Part 3, below). And they suggested their contemporaneity, in contrast to the written sources, which give a fourteenth-century date for the foundation of the city and temple (see also Noguera 1966; Davies 1980: 194-195, 207; Mo­ lina Montes £987: 100; and Graulich n.d.). In support of this assertation, Martinez del Rio cites the statement of Cortes' secre­ tary and biographer, Francisco Lopez de G6mara (1964: 189), that Tlatelolco was established before Tenochtitlan. An earlier occupa­ tion of Tlatelolco may be suggested by ceramic evidence. The stratigraphy in Pozo X shows clearly that there was a period with just Aztec II BfO, below and separated by a floor from a level with both Aztec II and III B/O (Espejo I946b: 399). Stratigraphies in Pozo IX and the ditch and the northeast corner of Phase II both indicate a possibly earlier occupation during which thousands of gray "impressed" sherds were discarded, below the level of Aztec II B/O (Espejo 1946a: 165-166, figs. 2-4, 6, tables 1-3; 1950: llD-II I; Martinez del Rio 1946: 173-175). In contrast, in

25 8

Tenochtitlan Aztec II B/O is mixed with Aztec III BfO, even in the earlier level of construction found under the Cathedral (Vega 1979: 51). Whatever the significance of Gamara's remark, and notwith­ standing the probability of pre-Mexica settlement at the site, the ceramic evidence does not really argue against a fourteenth­ century date for the pyramid itself. Only Phase I contained Aztec II without Aztec III. In contrast, at Tenayuca three phases con­ tained Aztec II alone and one contained an earlier ware (Coyot!a­ telco). No undisturbed ceramics were found in Tlatelolco II, and both Aztec II and III B/O seem to have been found in the fill of Phase III, indicating a post-1350 date, and this could be by a number of years. Because the initiation of Aztec III B/O is cur­ rently dated to about 1350, it would not be found in pyramids built in the early years of the fourteenth century, as the sources say Tlatelolco was, or even soon after the appearance of the new ceramic in mid-century. Likewise, the traits of the pyramid itself do not necessarily point to contemporaneity with Tenayuca II. In fact, those traits on which Espejo focused are also characteristic of Tenochtitlan II, which is currently believed, for good reasons, to have been built around 1390 (Matos 1981a: 50). Tenochtitlan II is a double pyramid of about the same size (although height and number of tiers are unknown) with the same two-slope alforda (actually not visible on Tenayuca I-IV) and relatively vertical sides. In addi­ tion, it has the same vertical/horizontal-style quoining and the band cornice on the north side of the platform. The latter characteristic seems not to have been found on Tenayuca II, and its presence is noted for the first time on Tenayuca VI, an imperial period phase (see Tenayucan, below). The geometric motifs decorating both Tlatelolco II and Tenayuca II are not found in great numbers on the Tenochtitlan pyramids, but as Espejo herself states (1948: lIS), similar stones in the walls of the church at Tlatelolco would have been taken from late phases at the site. Thus, there was probably a pre-Mexica occupation of the site, the Tlatelolco temple may possibly have been built before the Tenochtitlan temple, and the city's foundation date could be the result of historical manipulation (see Umberger n.d.: 222-223). However, until better evidence is presented to the contrary, it can still be suggested that the seven or eight phases ofthe Tlatelolco pyramid be seen as roughly contemporary with the seven phases of Tenochtitlan. There was obviously some variation in the dates and events celebrated and in the size and form of enlargements. The Tenochca always built double stairways, whereas the Tlatelolca preferred single stairways in a number ofphases. In the early years, the Tenochca added three stairways to Phase II, before rebuilding the whole temple again in Phase Ill. In contrast, the Tlatelolca added only one stairway ("lIa") and then rebuilt the pyramid on all sides (III and IV). According to written sources, an important phase of the Tlatelolco pyramid was completed in 1467, but the contemporary IVb phase at Tenochtitlan (ca. 1469) was only an addition to the stairway and terrace. In the following years, there was apparently a lack ofbuilding in Tlatelolco because ofthe defeat in the civil war, during which time the Tenochtitlan pyramid was greatly expanded (Phases V and VI). According to Fray Diego Duran (1967, 2: 420), this prohibition lasted until the reign of Motecuhzoma II (1502-20). Final questions relate to the identification of the later pyramids built before and after the civil war. The 1467 phase standing during the civil war is depicted in a number of codex illustra­ tions with a double stairway, and Phase VII is the only later one with a double stairway. However, Espejo (1948: II5) seems to have found "natural accumulations" in the fill of VII as well as

Material Remains in the Central Provinces VIII, which would seem to indicate construction after a period of abandonment, rather than before. Is this an error in wording? Espejo is often unclear and does make errors (for instance, earlier on the same page. where she confuses phase numbers). At any rate, if VI, with its single stairway, was the pre-civil war temple, Phases VII and VIII, both expansions of the entire structure, and IX, probably a stairway, would have been built after the war (in the 18 years of Motecuhzoma's reign, if Durin is to be believed). Excavations of the 1960s concentrated on small structures around the temple in the precinct and further away: foundations of structures and a small circular adoratorio on Guerrero Street to the west of the temple (Gonzalez Rul and Garda Mejia 1962); a low platform, identified as a tzompantli, and a round temple to the immediate northeast of the temple (Gonzalez Rul 1963); low adjacent platforms forming an esplanade on the north side of the temple precinct and a platform with hieroglyphic date-plaques adjacent to the temple on the south (Gonzalez RuI 1964). No detailed excavation report has been published. Architectural reliefs include small geometric motifs set into the walls of the right side of Phase II (Espejo 1947: fig. 5 and else­ where, see above), and date-plaques representing the first three trecenas of the 26o-day count set into the tablero of the platform next to the great temple (Gonzalez Rul I964). A mural has been found on the facade of this building; it depicts (probably) the fourth trecena and a couple representing Oxomoco and Cipactonal (Guil'liem 1991). A roughly carved Ehecatl has been excavated along with human remains, ceramic vessels, figurines, and other materials in front of the round temple southwest of the Templo Mayor (Roman 1991). Sculptures found or attributed to the site include a large, rough female figure (Bernal 1966: photo 46), a fragment of a ball court ring (Martinez del Rio 1944a: 205), a fragment of a chacmool (Espejo [945a: 96; Garda Granados 1945: 6-7; Mateos 1945: pI. 2), a large. rough standard-bearer (Hernan­ dez Pons 1982: fig. 14), an imperial style block in the form of an arrow bundle (Beyer 1965a: fig. 72; Mateos 1979: 236-237), a human head broken from a sculpture, a large serpent head, a stone with concentric circles, a stone with a lizard, a large effigy pulque vase with pulque insignia, a slab with a Tlaloc-like face, and a tenoned serpent head (Mateos I945). The pulque vase (also mentioned by Martinez del Rio I944a: 205) may perhaps repre­ sent the hieroglyph of the name ofMoquihuix (cf. Barlow I945b: 38-39, fig. f). Two monumental ceramic effigy urns and another somewhat smaller were discovered in the nineteenth century (Mayer 1844: 100-101, illus.; Pefiafiel 1890: pI. 127); a large ceramic brasero was found in the 1960s (Anonymous 1962b: 14, photo 20). Minor artworks include a "baton" carved ofantler representing a hand (Hamy 1897, I: 33, pI. 13, no. 50; Musee de l'Homme 1947: no. 54, 25), an incised bone with th~ date 2 Reed (Caso 1967: 138, fig. IO), a bone rasp incised with an eagle head (Musee de l'Homme 78. r. 108; Seier 1960-61, 2: 690, fig. 18), Xipe figu­ rines (Anonymous 1968: 48, photos 55-56; Flores Garda 1970: figs. 46-5 I), painted figurines (Anonymous 1966: 5 I, photo 58), ceramic skull urns (Anonymous 1962C: 19, photo 18), a red ware parrot pipe (Roemer- und Pelizaeus-Museum 1986, 2: no. 225), and a stone mask (Mayer 1844: 274, illus.).

XICO/ACXOTLAN CALNAHUAC Written Evidence: See Texcoco for the discussion of the palace of the Texcocan prince, Axoquentzin (AI, I: 448-449; 2: 142), which was said to have been built in 1472-73 and modeled after the palace of the ruler Toteotzintecuhtli in the province of Chalco (possibly at Xico, since Toteotzintecuhtli was the ruler of Xico

and resided there [Chimalpahin 1965: 185]). Chimalpahin (1965: 206) mentions the next supreme ruler of the Chalca as having a palace (presumably the same one) in Xico. This structure may have continued to be used by a Spaniard in Colonial times (Chimalpahin I965: [85). In the early nineteenth century, Guil­ lermo Dupaix ([ 969, I: 85, note 92) heard rumors in San Juan Acuescomatl of remains at Xico of what were popularly known as "palacios de Moctezuma," possibly indicating a once famous palace. Remains: Most of the site is on the lakebed east of Xico Island (formerly on chinampas). In the southern part is an elevated area 600 x 300 m, with rock rubble and mounding indicating some architectural structures (could a palace be among them?). There are 13 low mounds and some fossil chinampas to the immediate north. In the northern half of the site, mounds are numerous (29 on the map). The surveyors do not designate any as ceremonial­ civic structures, because, even though five mounds at the site are 2.5 m high, they estimate that domestic structures in the lakebed area are higher than on the lakeshore (PBPW: [98-201, 355, pIs. 20b, 21a, fig. 32; see also Brumfiel n.d.e). On Xico Island there is a possible isolated ceremonial site with a mound, site Ch-Az-198 (PBPW: 202). Two other sites may represent detached sections of Xico with possible ceremonial-civic mounds: site Ch-Az-I90 to the southeast, a small dispersed village with eight mounds, and site Ch-Az-2I7 to the southwest, a hamlet with two mounds (PBPW; 198-199, 205).

XO-AZ-29, XO-AZ-36, XO-AZ-84, XO-AZ-8S, and XO-AZ-88: Ceremonial Sites in Xochimilco Area Remains; There are five isolated ceremonial sites in the piedmont south ofXochimilco. Sites XO-AZ-29, Xo-Az-36. Xo-Az-84, and Xo-Az-85 each has one or two mounds; Xo-Az-88 is a carving of a miniature stairway on a boulder (PBPW: 220, 225, 235-237, pI. 27a).

XO-AZ-3 I: Ceremonial Site on Cerro Cuailama Remains: Site Xo-Ax-31 is an isolated ceremonial site 200 m southeast of modern Acalpixca. Imperial style reliefs of dates and other motifs are carved on individual rocks around the base of the hill in the lower piedmont; above are a series of terraces and a mound. The carvings consist of a feline, a butterfly, a 4 Move­ ment sign, a I Crocodile sign, a deity baton, and flowers, all of these consistent with the imperial style in imagery as well as in carving, although in respect to the latter there are variations between carvings. Of unclear affiliations are carvings of a temple in profile, stairways on boulders (seen also at Tetzcotzinco and other hill sites), and incised figures on a boulder broken in at least two parts (Cook de Leonard 1955; Beyer 1965C; Krickeberg 1969: 78-85, figs. I, 4, 5, pIs. 46-53, 55; PBPW: 220-221, fig. 34, pIs. 23-25; J. Marcus 1982). Although individual motifs are identifiable and some are com­ parable to Aztec rock art elsewhere, attempts to relate the motifs to each other are unsatisfactory. Nor do the inscriptions give a clue to the historical circumstances or whether the carvings are of local, Tenochca, or more general import. Fray Diego Duran (1967, I: 125) describes ceremonies in which images from the temple of Cihuacoatl, the patroness of nearby Xochimilco, were taken to the woods, mountains, or caves for which they were named. Although it is unclear to what extent the text applies to ceremonies in Xochimilco itself, this was a general practice, and Mary Hodge (1984: 85) suggests that such processions may have gone to Acalpixcan. Given the variety of carvings, Joyce Marcus (1982) and Mary Hodge (1984: 85) also believe that it could have been a multipurpose pilgrimage/ceremonial spot.

259

I

Appendix 3

XOC.HIMILCO (8) Written Evidence: The Xochimilca image and temple of the patron deity, Cihuacoatl, are mentioned by Fray Diego Duran (1967, I:

I25ff). The rest of the text describing the temple and ceremonies to the goddess seems to focus on Tenochtitlan; so the extent to which it applies to Xochimilco is unknown. Fray Bernardino de Sahagun describes four deity images of Xochimilco, those of the lapidaries (Chiconaui itzcuintli, Naualpilli, Macuilcalli, and Cinteod) (Sahagun 1950-82, 9: 79-80). Artisans: The lapidary artists of Tenochtitlan came from Xochimilco (Sahagun 1950-82, 9: 79-80), AI (1: 411) states that the Xochimilca were great masters of architecture, carpentry, and other mechanical arts. The sculptors of Xochimilco are recorded as having gone to Tenochtitlan to make images of conquered gods in the time of Motecuhzoma I (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356). According to the Carta de los Caciques (1563 [1970): 296), carpen­ ters, masons, metalworkers, and featherworkers lived in the city in early Colonial times. Remains: No remains are visible in or around the modern town, which presumably covers the Aztec site (PBPW: 238). Eduardo Noguera excavated figurines (1970: 108). Imperial style sculptures said to be from the area include: a fine greenstone mask of Tezcadipoca (Dumbarton Oaks 1963: 23, no. lO8); a fine feath­ ered serpent sculpture (Nicholson 1971a: 115, fig. 37), and a small cylindrical stone with a sun disk on top (Noriega 1955: 187ff, illus.) A bone incised with two deity heads was found there; also, in the local museum is a fine imperial style, stone model! receptacle of a smoking mirror (Wendy Schonfeld, personal com­ munication, 1989). A round plaque with the date 12 Reed is (or was) set into the wall of a house on Avenida Morclos (not known if pre-Conquest) (Garcia Granados 1934: 47). Constantino Reyes­ Valerio (1978: 291, pI. 257) illustrates a cut shell relief set into a church wall. Guillermo Dupaix saw a number of sculptures in Xochimilco: a block with a chalchihuitl relief, a lizard sculpture, two seated animals once part of waterworks, a boulder with shield, a fish sculpture, small stones with geometric motifs, two matched tenoned serpent heads, a frog (?) sculpture, a rabbit relief. a coiled serpent sculpture. tenoned skulls, a fish relief, a kneeling female figure, a Chalchiuhtlicue, a skull (dhuateotl head?), and others, a few of which may not be pre-Conquest (Dupaix 1969, I: 71-82; 2: figs. 1-22).

ZAPOTITLAN (Zapotida), not located on map Remains: A standing amacalli goddess sculpture is said to be from here (Corona 1964: 61, fig. 29).

Part 3. Sites in the Tepaneca State ACATITLA (Santa Cecilia Acatidan) Remains: The west-facing, double pyramid at the site has been reconstructed twice and seems to have had at least three building phases. Ignacio Marquina (1928: 80, unnumbered fig.), in his early description (seemingly before reconstruction), mentions two phases, the inner, better preserved one being approximately 35 X 15 m and having three tiers with almost vertical taludes. He pictures the remaining central alfardas as having the two-slope profile. Later reconstructed. this phase measured 24127 X 17 X 8 m high and had four levels (INAH 1960: 31-32, fig. 22). In the more recent reconstruction of 1961, a shrine was built on top of the southern side and an earlier platform on the north side was uncovered (Pina Chan 1963: 58 and facing fig.; Stierlin 1968: 179);

260

thus the structure's present, odd appearance. Excavations are unpublished, and the dates of phases are unknown. A number of very rough sculptures of unknown date, includ­ ing some anthropomorphic figures, deity images of Tlaloc and Ehecatl, and skulls (architectural decorations), were found during explorations at the site (Solis 1976: nos. 21, 31, 33, 37-39, 51, 54, 59, 69, 87. 88, 91).

AHUITZOTLA (see Azcapotzalco) AMANTLAN (see Azcapotzalco) ATEPETLA (Santiaguito Atepetlac)

Remains: A roughly carved amacalli goddess was found at the foot

of a staircase of a pre-Hispanic spring or fountain (Corona 1964:

22, photo 2).

ATLACUIHUAYAN (Tacubaya)

Remains: Said to be from the site are a seated monkey sculpture

(Cleveland Museum of Art 59. I25) and possibly an imperial style

earth monster relief (Seier 1960-61, 2: 827-832, fig. 23).

AZCAPOTZALCO (20)

Written Evidence: A palace was built for the Coyoacan ruler

Tayauh by Tenochca and Coyoacanbuilders in the Atempan

barrio (AI, I: 354-355). The main god before the Tepanec war

was Tezcatlipoca, and the main temple was dedicated to him (AI,

I: 350-351). A temple is depicted in profile on the page recording the defeat of Azcapotzalco in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis (1899: 3 If). The image of Huitzilopochtli at the time of the Spanish Conquest is mentioned as having had ajade face (that is, mask). and those of Tlalocantecuhtli (Tlaloc) and Cialeuque (Coadicue?) were of turquoise mosaic (Proceso ... Azcapotzalco 1912: lOO). Artisans: In the reign of Motecuhzoma I the sculptors of Azcapot­ zalco were considered excellent carvers, and they were called to Tenochtitlan on at least two occasions, to make the sacrificial stone for victims from the Huaxtec conquests, probably around 1450, and later to make the images of gods conquered by Huitzilopochtli (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 318-JI9. 356). Ber­ nal Diaz del Castillo (1984, I: 327) testifies that Azcapotzalco had many fine metalsmiths at the time of the Conquest. Remains: For mounds and early twentieth-century archaeological explorations in this general area, see Manuel Gamio (1917: esp. map, pI. 9; 1909-IJ). Gamio located an unexplored mound at the southwest corner of the town (his site II, Monticulo de Santa Apolonia). On his map he also indicates sites of excavated Aztec materials at nearby Santiago Ahuitzotla (explored by Clarence Hay), San Miguel Amantlan, Santa Lucia, and Coyotlatelco (the latter is mostly Toltec and was explored by Alfred Tozzer [1921]). Four mounds were found, one at each site, except Ahuitzotla. The mound at Santa Lucia was explored by Gamio. Several of Gamio's manuscripts on Azcapotzalco are in the Archivo Tec­ nico, INAH (Garcia Moll 1982: nos. 298-301). Among works said to be from the area are a rough standing amacalli goddess and a ceramic rattle-staff from Azcapotzalco (Bas­ ler and Brummer 1928: no. 98A; Corona 1964: 64. photo 3); two roughly carved standard-bearers from Santiago Altepetlac, Azca­ potzalco (Solis 1976: 7, nos. 9-lO); the head of an eagle warrior sculpture from Azcapotzalco (Solis 1976: 14, no. 29); and an incised bone from Ahuitzotla (British Museum 1946.AmI6.57). Large braseros like ones with sculptured deity faces from a late Aztec context at Tula and those found in Tlatelolco in the nineteenth

Material Remains in the Central Provinces century were discovered in the barrio of Ahuacatitlan, north ofthe

parish of Azcapotzalco (Acosta 1956: 114).

imperial style round stone vessel with reliefs (Seler 1960-61, 2: 752, fig. 33; Solis 1976: 34, no. 78).

COYOACAN (I I)

NAUCALPAN (San Bartolo Naucalpan)

Written Evidence: The city had two major divisions, which con­

tained 14 and 18 wards, or tlaxilacalli (Hodge 1984: 99).

Artisans: In the reign of Motecuhzoma I the sculptors of Coyoa­

Remains: Manuel Gamio (1917: map) indicated an unexplored mound at Cerro del Conde to the southeast of the town (site XI), and two mountain shrines with mounds (sites XII and XIII) to the west. The El Conde pyramid was well preserved and huge (90 x 60 x 19 m high); the interior was of courses of adobes alternating with layers of dirt and cobblestones. Gamio identifies it as the main pyramid of Naucalpan and matches this and other mounds in the area with te'.llples mentioned by Cortes (Gamio 1909-13).

can were considered excellent carvers. Their carving of Tenoch­

titian monuments is recorded on two occasions: the making of the

sacrificial stone for victims of Huaxtec conquests, probably

around 1450, and the making of the images of gods conquered by

Huitzilopochtli (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 318-319; 356).

Remains: Said to be from Coyoacan is a carved ball court

(MNA 1986: no. II6. illus.).

PYRAMID OF MIXCOATL (see Mixcoac)

CUAUHTEPETL

SANTA LUCIA (see Azcapotzalco)

Remains: A probable temple and multiroom structure cover an

area of more than several hundred square yards (Broda 1991: 85,

88-89; Aveni 1991: 64).

CUAUHTITLAN (Quauhtitlan; 35) Written Evidence: The history of building in the city is given in the AC (29-32, 34, 36, 44, 59; Hodge 1984: 57-60). The original Chichimec inhabitants were joined in 1347 by people from Culhuacan, who immediately built a temple for their goddesses, Tod, Chiconauho~omatli (9 Monkey), and Xochiquetzal. The Chichimecs and the Culhuas then built together a second tem­ ple, which "is still in the town today" (AC: 30). In 1349, a straw house was built for the king next to the temple of Mixcoatl (presumably the second temple), a palace that was to be occu­ pied by several successors (Hodge 1984: 58, 62). The Culhuas also "gave form" to the town. Between 1395 and 1400, King Xaltemoctzin enlarged the temple and at the same time appar­ ently divided the city into four parts. In 1418 a new king from TIatelolco built a palace, called Huexocalco. which was used by successive rulers. In 1430 the city was burned by the Tepanecs. Later. well after conquest by the Triple Alliance, a large house for tribute was built (1505) and a round sacrificial stone (temalacatl) was dedicated (1507). Artisans: The Culhua who moved to Cuauhtitlan were skilled in pottery-making and other "civilized" trades (AC: 3 I). Remains: Harold McBride (n.d.: 17-20, pI. 21) found Aztec archi­ tectural features in his excavations at the Sanjuan brickyard in the San Jose barrio of Cuauhtitlan, including three mounds cut through by railroad tracks. They were roughly circular and var­ ied from 2.5 to 3.5 m high and were 45-55 m in diameter. The stone and rubble fill of other Aztec structures was seen through­ out the site.

LA MALINCHE: Ceremonial Site Remains: Garda Moll (1968: 24-27, photo 26, figs. 5-6) de­

scribed a mountain shrine on Cerro La Malinche, which featured a (probable) platform and two large cylindrical sculptures of Tlaloc and Chalchiuhtlicue. Perhaps this is one of the sites located by Manuel Gamio, but under a different name (see Naucalpan).

MIXCOAC Remains: The ruins ofa "Temple of Mixcoati" indicated as nearby

(Gonzalez Aparicio 1973: map) may be the excavated pyramid photographed by George C. Valliant (in volume of notes dated 1928, American Museum of Natural History). Sculptures said to be from Mixcoac include a rough amacal/i (paper headdress) goddess (Palacios 1935: 271, fig. 25) and an

TENAYO, CERRO: Ceremonial Site

Remains: On Cerro Tenayo near Tenayuca is a stone block with

hieroglyphic dates, possibly associated with an altar and an offer­

ing (Krickeberg 1969: pI. 41).

TENAYUCAN (Tenayuca; 21) Written Evidence: Bernal Diaz del Castillo (1984, I: 538) calls Tenayucan "the town of the serpents, because in the principal adoratory there were two great images of serpents ... which were the idols they adored." Toribio de Benavente Motolinia (1971: 82) gives the measurements of the base of the pyramid as 40 brazas (ca. 67 m). The rest of his description of a princi­ pal pyramid, in which he mentions two great altars in their own "chapels" on top, may also pertain to Tenayucan. Fray Juan de Torquemada (1969. 3: 150) says that the palace of the ruler at the time of the Spanish Conquest, who was a son of Motecuhzoma II, was situated where the church of San Hipolito now stands (Departamento de Monumentos Artisticos 1935: 18). Remains: The west-facing. double pyramid was extensively exca­ vated and the results are published, but little is known of the rest of the town (Departamento de Monumentos Artisticos 1935). Ignacio Marquina (1935: 77-102: 1964: 164-180) studied the archi­ tectural features of the different phases of the pyramid, ascer­ tained through tunneling the interior (see his pis. 2-21 and esp. color diagrams in pis. 24-26, for areas explored). Jorge Acosta (1965) studied ceramic types in the fill, giving a basis for dating the phases. Five of the excavated pyramid phases (Phases I and 1Il-VI) definitely featured double stairways. Only in the case of Phase II was the central aljarda area not reached, but it too is assumed to have been a double pyramid. The best explored parts were the sides of the lowest tier of Phase II, the stairway and flanking walls of Phases IV IV, and all of Phase VI. The earliest structure, Phase I, probably had four vertical tiers and measured about 3 I m wide X 19 m deep x 8 m high. Phase II (base 34.5 x 18m) was very similar in form and had small stones carved with geometric motifs set into the walls (see Palacios 1935: 266-267, figs. In Phase III, a pyramid probably of three tiers, there is also supposedly a change in slope from vertical to more inclined taludes, a trait that continued in the later structures. The base is 48 x 22 m and the height was about I2 m. On Phase IV, thought to be a similar structure, excavation of the stairway revealed carved motifs on the steps, including belt "brooches," serpents, earplugs, noseplugs, year-signs, chalchihuitl, flags, and shields (see Caso 1935: 3°1-307). The base is 58 x 38 m, and the height is II.6 m.

261

Appendix 3 The stairway of Phase V, which was preserved in its totality, coincides with that of Phase IV for most of its length. However, the height is greater, the alfordas change at the top from sloped to vertical, and moldings mark the junctures. The pyramid again had four tiers, as on Phases I and II, and there are remains of a floor on top. Here for the first time are stepped buttresses in the angles formed between the taludes of the pyramid and the stair­ way. Also noteworthy are the fme stonework and distinctive quoining on the alfordas and buttresses, in which one vertical stone alternatives with two horizontals. Small stones project from the buttresses to represent serpent heads. The altars and great xiuhcocoa on the north and south sides were probably constructed at this time also. The base ofV is 60 x 39 m, not much larger than IV, but the height is 16 m. The base of Phase VI, the pyramid visible at the time of the Spanish Conquest, measures 64 x 64 m and is on a platform 68 x 76 m (cf Motolinfa's measurement of about 67 m). It had four tiers and was more than 16 m high (the height of Phase V). The stairway of VI has carved stones with motifs like those on IV IV, and on the taft/des are little tenoned serpent heads in rows. There are no cornices on the south side, but on the north a slightly raised band is visible. Like other traits that indicate the division of the pyramid into north and south halves, this band begins at the mid-point of the east side. Surrounding the base are a series of rattlesnakes, with bodies of stone and clay mamposter{a and heads of stone. The bodies on the south side were painted blue-green, and those on the north were painted black. The altars and xiuhcocoa (perhaps the serpents noted by Dfaz) were still visible. Phase VII saw the addition of buttresses to VI, and Phase VIII may have been an addition to the platform in front of the pyramid or possibly the beginning of a new structure. As Alfonso Caso (1935) has noted, the final phase of the pyramid is oriented 17° north of west, marking the zenith passage, and the xiuhcocoas are aligned with the winter and summer solstice setting of the sun. From the plans, it appears that it was on Phase IV that the orientation shifted from the more northerly axis of the earlier temples. This is about the same orientation established for the main, west-facing pyramids at Teotihuacan and Tula (Grande) (Aveni 1980: 237). Early dating of the phases was based on the assumption that rebuilding occurred every )2 years or in subsequent reigns (e.g., Marquina 1935: WI; INAH 1960: 23-24). However, more recent evidence that Central Mexican pyramids were renovated on a variety of other occasions makes the first idea uncertain (see Chap. 4, note 5, on Templo Mayor phases, and the dates of structures at other sites in this appendix). Jorge Acosta (1965) found Coyotlatelco sherds (750-9001950) along with other Toltec and Teotihuacan types in the fill of Phase I, but no B/O. Mazapan (900-1000) was not recorded at the site, and Naranjo a Brochazas (Jara Naranja Pulida, 1000-1200) was found only in very small amounts in later phases (see Mastache and Cobean 1985: 283-284 for new dating ofTollan phase wares). Aztec II wares, both B/O and Guinda, appear in Phases n, III, and IV, seemingly indicating dates of construction between 1150 and 1350. No sherds were identified as from Phase V, because of its construction immedi­ ately on top of IV. Aztec III sherds appear for the first time in Phase VI, indicating a post-1350 date. Unfortunately, the results of exploration are unclear in regard to when a number of traits first appeared at Tenayuca, mostly because the investigators could not explore comparable parts of the different phases. The distinctive quoining on Phase V and VI is called an "Aztec" characteristic, but Ignacio Marquina (1935: 82-83) seems to include it among construction traits that appear

262

on all phases. Materials in the fill and revetment also apparently remained constant. Marquina (1935: 82-83) describes VI specifi­ cally as having a fill of dirt mixed with stones from nearby Cerro Tenayo o:md local river rocks on a 1.5 to 2 m thick base of stones. Likewise, all phases had a revetment of stone from Cerro Tenayo. Also, Marquina (1935: 96) was not sure if the two-slope a[farda appeared for the first time on Phase V and favored an earlier date, but the reconstruction drawings do not include this trait before V, probably because it is lacking on Phase IV. The two-slope aUiuda is now known to be present on Phase II at Tenochtitlan, ca. 1390, and is present during Early Postclassic times in many parts of Mesoamerica (see Umberger and Klein 1993). Regardless of whether it was on early phases at Tenayuca, it cannot be seen as a trait distinguishing early from late Aztec architecture. Marquina does seem to be certain on the change to more sloped taludes on Phase III (although the evidence is not clear in the diagrams) and the addition of buttresses on Phase V, both of which he sees as temporal changes. Another possible late charac­ teristic seems to be the band-cornice on VI, a trait appearing on Tenochtitlan II (ca. 1390) and Tlatelolco II (date unknown, proba­ bly fourteenth century). Marquina does not indicate when it first appeared at Tenayuca. However, because he also does not men­ tion it for earlier phases, not even II, where the walls were studied, it is probable that it does not appear on the earliest phases. Comparison of traits with Tenochtitlan's Templo Mayor sug­ gests a closer dating for Phase V at least, and this dating is later than that implied by the ceramic evidence. A distinctive trait of Tenayuca V is the horizontal molding on the two-slope alforda. The molding is lacking on the two-slope alforda ofTenochtitlan II (ca. 1390), but appears by IVb (1460s). Whether it was present before the I460s is unknown, but probable. Buttresses, which are also on Tenayuca V, seem to be absent from earlier phases. At Tenochtitlan, buttresses are absent on II and appear for the fust time on III. Thus, Tenayuca V was probably built after 143 I, the date of Tenochtitlan III, and by this time Tenochtitlan was the more likely place of innovation. The influence of Tenochtitlan is also apparent in a change in the style and material of sculptures, which were found at the site (outside the pyramid), to typical Aztec imagery and basaltic stones imported from the southern lake area. As for the earliest structure at the site, the close similarity noted by Marquina of Phases I and II to each other and to later phases should indicate that they were all built by the same people (Marquina 1935: 97). Thus, Tenayuca I must have been con­ structed at the beginning of Xolotl's occupation, and not in C0yoltlatelco or later Toltec times. Xolotl's arrival at Tenayucan, which served as his capital and that of his son and grandson, was sometime between the late eleventh and early thirteenth centu­ ries. The temple would have been built early in the period, before Aztec II B/O (the ceramic associated with their occupation) had accumulated in the area where the fill was collected. The lack of Tollan Phase ceramics at Tenayuca seems to indicate an abandon­ ment of the area between about 900 and 1200 (Sanders, Parsons, and Sandey 1979: 1)2). Who were the deities worshiped in the temple? One would guess Tezcatlipoca during part ofits history, given the importance of this god to both the Acolhua and Tepanecs (the latter had gained possession of the city before the Tepanec war), and then Huitzilopochtli in later years. The large stone shields attached to the exterior of the latest phase of the temple could pertain to either god (Caso 1935: 298). In addition to sculptures still attached to the structure (the

Material Remains in the Central Provinces geometric motifs on Phase II, the emblematic reliefs on the stairs

ofPhases IV IV and VI, and the surrounding serpents), sculptures

found at the site include: the three 1 m wide stone shields that

were once attached to the pyramid body, presumably Phase VI

(Caso 1935: 298, figs. 5a, 9; Palacios 1935: 273; Marquina 1935:

pI. 33); the fragment of a large imperial style image ofChalchiuh­

tlicue, probably a major temple image (Palacios 1935: 277, figs.

38-39, figs. 19-20 facing p. 265); and fragments of reliefs mostly

of basalt (probably imported) with motifs similar to those in

Tenochtitlan (Palacios 1935: nos. II-XII, xx, all illustrated). Pre­

imperial style sculptures of local andesite found inside the pyra­

mid include small anthropomorphic figures (Palacios 1935= nos.

XIII-XVII), one identifiable as Tlaloc (no. XIX). Most other figures

in the same style are of unknown provenience (i.e., Palacios 1935:

fig. 29; Solis 1976: 5, nos. I, 2). Representative of another pre­ 1450 style of larger anthropomorphic figures is a standard-bearer

said to be from Tenayuca (Solis 1976: 7, no. 8), which is similar to

others found at Azcapotzalco. Tenochtitlan (Templo Mayor Phase

III [1431-1454)), and Coatlinchan.

to Tenochtitlan to make images of conquered gods in the time of Motecuhzoma I (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 356). Men from Tlacopan worked on the cuauhxicalli made in the time ofAxaya­ cad, seemingly on the platform built to support the stone, which also was decorated (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 417). Remains: Manuel Gamio (1909-13, 19[7) located an unexplored mound, his VIII, which he called "Teocalli de Tacuba," on the southwest edge of the town and two mounds sites (IX and X) to the west. The "Teocalli" he believes was the main pyramid of Tlacopan. Mound X, Cerro Cernidero/Cerro de Sanctorum, was 47 x 32 X 5 m high and had adobe courses alternating with layers of earth and cobblestones. Mound IX, Torre Blanca, was 12 to 15 m high and also made of adobes. Gamio matched these mounds with temples mentioned by Cortes.

TLALNEPANTLA Remains: A block with reliefs, now in the MNA, was once set into the corner wall of the parish church (Pefiafiel 1890: [Eng!. text] 107, pis. 302-3°3); and a rough female figure is said to be from here (Solis 1976: no. 44).

TEPEYAC

Remains: There are the remains of probable temples on

Yoaltecatl, and Tepeyac was probably the site of a temple to the

mother goddess Toci, according to Broda. The sites are at the

north end of a significant axis formed with Cerro Zacatepetl,

which was an important mountain shrine in the southern Valley

area (Broda 1991: 88-90, I07-1I2; Aveni 1991: 64).

TIZAPAN

Remains: Said to be from Tizapan are two painted stone boxes,

one with a small greenstone figurine inside (Villagra 1971: 153­ 154, fig. 31).

TLACOPAN (Tacuba; 19) Written/pictorial evidence: The double temple of Tlacopan is de­ picted below the year 1491 in the Codex Telleriano-Remensis as a four-tiered pyramid with two stairways supporting a single large shrine with two doors and a straw roof (1899: 40r). Artisans: The sculptors of Tlacopan are recorded as having gone

ZACATEPETL (Zacatepec): Ceremonial Site Written Evidence: This was the site of Tlatelolca and Tenochca ceremonies during the month of quecholli. A shrine was dedicated to Mixcoatl, and ceremonies focused on that god, the mother goddess, and references to the Chichimec past (Duran 1967, I: 28I-282; Sahagun 1950-82, 2, I24-127, 204; Broda 1991: 102­ 1II). Remains: The hill site is now in the southwestern suburbs of Mexico City. A large temple platform, composed of two tiers, is at the center of the site, and another large platform is at the northwest end of the plaza. A causeway leads downslope from the central pyramid to an enclosure with a large mound; another causeway continues beyond (PBPW: 238 and fig. 39; Noguera 1940a; Martinez del Rio 1934). The site has a significant align­ ment and was conceptually paired with Tepeyac in the north as well as with other mOuntains. There is also a significant corre­ spondence with the orientation of the Prec1assic Cuicuilco pyra­ mid that is in the area (Broda 1991).

263