Ancient Mesoamerica http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM

Additional services for Ancient Mesoamerica:

Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here

EVERYDAY ACTION AND THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ANCIENT POLITIES: HOUSEHOLD STRATEGY AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN POSTCLASSIC XALTOCAN, MEXICO

Kristin De Lucia and Lisa Overholtzer

Ancient Mesoamerica / Volume 25 / Issue 02 / September 2014, pp 441 - 458 DOI: 10.1017/S0956536114000327, Published online: 22 January 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0956536114000327

How to cite this article: Kristin De Lucia and Lisa Overholtzer (2014). EVERYDAY ACTION AND THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ANCIENT POLITIES: HOUSEHOLD STRATEGY AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN POSTCLASSIC XALTOCAN, MEXICO. Ancient Mesoamerica, 25, pp 441-458 doi:10.1017/S0956536114000327

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/ATM, IP address: 149.151.180.95 on 23 Jan 2015 Ancient Mesoamerica, 25 (2014), 441–458 Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2015 doi:10.1017/S0956536114000327

EVERYDAY ACTION AND THE RISE AND DECLINE OF ANCIENT POLITIES: HOUSEHOLD STRATEGY AND POLITICAL CHANGE IN POSTCLASSIC XALTOCAN, MEXICO

Kristin De Luciaa and Lisa Overholtzerb aDepartment of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 109 Davenport Hall, MC-148, 607 South Mathews Avenue, Urbana, Illinois 61801 bDepartment of Anthropology, Wichita State University, 1845 Fairmount, Box 52, Wichita, Kansas 67260-0052

Abstract

Household archaeology conducted at the site of Xaltocan, an important regional center in the northern Basin of Mexico, illustrates how the everyday actions of ordinary people contribute to the rise and decline of ancient polities. Through a study of long-term change and variation from multiple household contexts, this article reconstructs how the economic and political activities of ordinary households were central to the construction and reproduction of political institutions, social structures, and regional systems of exchange from the period of Xaltocan’s founding around a.d. 900 through its conquest in a.d. 1395. Along with the other contributors to this volume we emphasize that households are not simply influenced by broader processes of change and development in a trickle-down fashion, but rather that micro- and macro-structures are mutually constituted, with household decisions and actions having both intended and unintended consequences at the macroscale.

The rise and fall of ancient polities are most often attributed to the Household archaeology conducted at the site of Xaltocan in the actions of the political elite, while the day-to-day activities of ordi- northern Basin of Mexico illustrates how the everyday actions of or- nary commoners fade into the background and are thought to have dinary people can contribute to the rise and decline of ancient pol- been merely affected by broader events. Yet the actions and choices ities. Founded by a.d. 900, Xaltocan quickly rose to become an made by the nonelite can condition, change, and actively construct important and powerful pre-Aztec city-state in the northern Basin. the structures that situate their everyday lives (Pauketat 2000; Robin Xaltocan’s supremacy, however, was rather short lived and, like 2003, 2013). For example, in his influential article, “Tragedy of the many other polities in central Mexico, it was ultimately incorporated Commoners,” Pauketat (2000) argued that through the unintended into the . Although when viewed in retrospect the consequences of the actions of commoners conditions were supremacy of the Aztec empire may seem inevitable, Morehart created that enabled the centralization of authority in the prehistoric (2012) recently argued that any number of circumstances could southeastern United States. Household archaeology has similarly have resulted in a different outcome, including one where sought to document the ways in which the everyday lives of ordi- Xaltocan could have become the dominant power within the nary people articulate with broader political and economic Basin of Mexico. Thus, in this article we ask, what factors contrib- change. Hendon (2004:272), cautions that we should avoid thinking uted to the rise and fall of Xaltocan? The numerous historical chron- of the household as “an analytical unit representative of some set of icles that document central Mexican history focus on the alliances, behaviors…and instead see households as the result of the interac- conquests, and genealogies of the political elite, constructing a tion of structure and agency, larger social forms, and the individu- “public transcript” (Scott 1990) that masks the daily actions of ordi- al.” She argues for a social approach to household archaeology nary commoners. We argue, however, that in order to comprehend that integrates a focus on the meanings of daily practice (rather the rise and fall of ancient polities such as Xaltocan, we need to than simply their functions), with a recognition of household vari- instead reconstruct a narrative that integrates the infrapolitics ability and settings, and an understanding of social interactions (Scott 1990), the strategies and actions of those not documented and processes (Hendon 2004). In this article, we take a social ap- in historical accounts, into our understandings of the past. proach to household archaeology that considers the recursive inter- Through a study of long-term change and variation from multi- action between households and broader political economies and the ple household contexts throughout Xaltocan, this article recon- ways in which ordinary people influence the path of history. structs how the economic and political activities of ordinary households were central to the construction and reproduction of political institutions, social structures, and regional systems of E-mail correspondence to: [email protected] exchange within central Mexico. First, we examine household 441 442 De Lucia and Overholtzer organization and strategies in the period of Xaltocan’s growth into a Xaltocan’s initial settlement, the initiation of raised field or chi- regional power and argue that Xaltocan’s rise to power may have nampa agriculture (Morehart and Eisenberg 2010; Morehart and been largely instigated by the economic and political activities of or- Frederick 2014), and its growth into the capital of the dinary households. We then examine continuity and change in com- nation. The Aztec II phase (a.d. 1250–1350) is characterized by moner daily practice as Xaltocan’s power waned and consider how the introduction of Aztec II Black-on-Orange pottery and increased households contributed to, and were affected by, Xaltocan’s decline consumption of redwares, and overlaps with the Middle Postlcassic in supremacy. We demonstrate that households were variable and period. The Aztec II phase is associated with Xaltocan’s political dynamic—they each employed their own unique economic strate- dominance, but also conflict and warfare with neighboring gies and made different decisions when faced with similar challeng- Cuauhtitlan. At this time, there was an expansion of the settlement es. The decisions made by individual households were likely related size (Chimonas 2005) and agriculture (Morehart and to immediate concerns affecting the household (Wilk 1997:30), but Eisenberg 2010; Morehart and Frederick 2014). Exchange with had intended and unintended consequences at the macro-scale. the southern basin, however, declined while exchange with the Household archaeology at Xaltocan thus ultimately reveals that middle Basin of Mexico increased (Brumfiel 2005a; Hodge and change is created by the actions of ordinary people acting in every- Neff 2005). The Aztec III phase (a.d. 1350–1521) coincides with day contexts. the Late Postclassic period and is characterized by the use of Aztec III Black-on-Orange pottery (Brumfiel 2005a; Overholtzer 2012). During this phase Xaltocan was conquered, abandoned, XALTOCAN: AN ISLAND CAPITAL and subsequently incorporated into the Aztec empire. This phase Xaltocan was an island community located in the middle of Lake is characterized by a decline in population and overall standard of Xaltocan in the northern Basin of Mexico (Figure 1). The site was living (Brumfiel 2005b; Chimonas 2005) and an abandonment of an artificially constructed island, rising approximately 6 m above chinampa farming (Morehart and Eisenberg 2010; Morehart and the lakebed, and was founded at the beginning of the Early Frederick 2014). Finally, the Aztec IV phase (a.d. 1521) is associ- Postclassic period (a.d. 900–1150) (Brumfiel 2005b:35). ated with Aztec IV Black-on-Orange pottery and is associated with According to historic accounts, by a.d. 1220, Xaltocan had the Colonial period (Overholtzer 2012, 2014; Rodríguez-Alegría become the capital of the Otomi nation, controlling much of the 2010). The phases outlined here are slightly modified from the northern basin and collecting tribute from surrounding villages phases originally proposed by Brumfiel (2005a) due to recent find- (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977:1:423; Carrasco Pizana 1950: ings discussed below and elsewhere (De Lucia 2011; Overholtzer 258–259; Gibson 1964:440). Pedro Carrasco Pizana (1950:116) 2012, 2014). Overholtzer (2014) used Bayesian statistical modeling suggests that during the Middle Postclassic period (a.d. of a corpus of 54 radiocarbon dates to further define this 1150–1350), the was dominated by Xaltocan, chronology. Culhuacan, and Tenayuca. By the mid-thirteenth century, Elizabeth Brumfiel conducted over 25 years of research on do- Xaltocan had become embroiled in a war with Cuauhtitlan, and mestic units at Xaltocan, including an intensive survey of the site, by a.d. 1395 it was conquered by the (Bierhorst 1992: the excavation of 25 test pits, horizontal excavations of several 75). Historic accounts state that upon its conquest the Otomi Aztec I houses, and the excavation of a group of Aztec II burials people fled Xaltocan (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977:2:36) and the (Brumfiel 2005b, 2010; Brumfiel and Rodríguez-Alegría 2010;De city remained uninhabited until a.d. 1435 when it was incorporated Lucia and Brumfiel 2004)(Figure 3). Brumfiel’s students and col- into the Aztec empire and was resettled by tribute paying Aztec leagues built upon her work at Xaltocan, investigating pre-Aztec peasants (Hicks 1994b). DNA analysis of burials from before and household economic and social strategies (De Lucia 2010a, 2011, after the Aztec period indicates that there was a demographic shift 2013, 2014), agricultural strategies (Morehart 2014, 2010; Morehart following Xaltocan’s incorporation into the Aztec empire and Eisenberg 2010; Morehart and Frederick 2014), household prac- (Mata-Míguez et al. 2012); however, it is unclear whether there tices under imperial and colonial rule (Millhauser et al. 2011; was complete abandonment of the site by its original inhabitants, Overholtzer 2012, 2013), and the aftermath of Spanish Conquest or if it only affected a segment of the population, such as elites (Brumfiel and Rodríguez-Alegría 2010; Rodríguez-Alegría 2008, (Hicks 1994b; Miller 2007:28; Morehart 2012). Archaeological ev- 2010, 2012; Rodríguez-Alegría et al. 2013). This paper seeks to syn- idence suggests that there may have been some occupational conti- thesize the household research conducted at Xaltocan to date in order nuity throughout this supposed period of abandonment (Miller to provide a multiscalar narrative of the relationship between house- 2007; Overholtzer 2013). In 1521, Xaltocan was conquered once holds and broader regional transitions in the northern Basin of again by Cortés (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977:2:247; Díaz del Mexico, focusing on household practices during Xaltocan’srise Castillo 1996 [1575]:357), and during the Colonial period the and fall as a prominent independent polity. To date, our understand- Spanish consolidated people from nearby towns into the settlement ing of political and economic change in pre-Aztec Xaltocan has (Rodríguez-Alegría 2010). largely derived from a public transcript presented in historic accounts Archaeological phases at Xaltocan are based on stylistic transi- recorded during the colonial period, but household archaeology at tions in Black-on-Orange pottery (Figure 2). The Aztec I phase Xaltocan offers new insight into the ways in which households and (a.d. 900–1250) is characterized by the production and ordinary people shaped history. consumption of Aztec I Black-on-Orange decorated pottery and strong economic ties with the southern Basin of Mexico XALTOCAN’S RISE TO POWER: AZTEC I HOUSES (Brumfiel 2000, 2005a; Hodge and Neff 2005). Recent excavations of Aztec I houses by De Lucia (2011) suggest that the exclusive use The Aztec I Phase corresponds with Xaltocan’s founding and rise to of Aztec I pottery extended from a.d. 900 through approximately power and spans the period from a.d. 900–1250. Five Aztec I a.d. 1250 in Xaltocan, coinciding with the Early to Middle houses have been excavated across Xaltocan including Casa G, Postclassic periods. The use of Aztec I pottery is associated with Casa Y, Casa Z Structure 1, Casa Z Structure 2, and Casa Zoc Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 443

Figure 1. Basin of Mexico showing location of Xaltocan and other important sites. Map by Kristin De Lucia.

(Figure 3). The following discussion focuses primarily on Casa G exposing at least three rooms of the house and an outdoor patio and Casa Z Structure 1, which have been most extensively excavat- (Figure 4). The walls of Casa G were roughly oriented according ed and studied to date; however, we describe all of the excavations to the cardinal directions and were composed of sandy adobe of Aztec I domestic units below, with the exception of Casa Zoc, blocks (Brumfiel 2010). Floors were constructed of clay blocks, which is still under analysis (Brumfiel and Rodríguez-Alegría dirt, and adobe flagstones. In the uppermost level of Casa G, exca- 2010). While Aztec I Black-on-Orange pottery is the most vators encountered impressions of reed bundles and slabs of wood common pottery type associated with this phase, other frequent used in roofing. The house continued in all directions beyond the types include imported Chalco-Cholula polychromes and locally limits of excavation, so its full extent remains uncertain, but the produced and imported redwares (Brumfiel 2005a; De Lucia presence of multiple hearths in single levels suggests that it was oc- 2011; Nichols et al. 2002). cupied by multiple households at the same time. At least three phases of construction were identified in Casa G by Brumfiel (2010), and sequences of at least 12 stratified floors identified in ex- Casa G cavation profiles suggest that Casa G was continuously occupied for The first Aztec I house excavated by Brumfiel (2010) was Casa G, a long period of time. A radiocarbon date taken from a corn cob located on a small mound (Mound 79) on the north edge of the site. inside one room hearth provided a 2-sigma calibrated date range Seven 2 × 2 m-units were excavated over a period of several years, of a.d. 790–1170. 444 De Lucia and Overholtzer

Figure 2. Black-on-Orange pottery styles from Xaltocan: (a) Aztec I, (b) Aztec II, (c) Aztec III, (d) Aztec IV. Photos courtesy of Kristin De Lucia (a-b) and Lisa Overholtzer (c-d).

The Aztec I house rested upon a thick black clay foundation that the construction fill provided a 2-sigma calibrated date range of lacked artifacts. This clay foundation was an intentional construc- a.d. 800–985, suggesting that this mound was built at the end of tion that prevented moisture from the lakebed from seeping into the Epiclassic period (a.d. 650–900) or early in the Early the structure and created a stable surface (Brumfiel 2010). Under Postclassic period, possibly using fill redeposited from an earlier oc- the clay foundation was over a meter of lakebed and cultural fill cupation, and likely represents the first settlement of Xaltocan. that included Aztec I Black-on-Orange pottery, domestic refuse, Nearby lakebed shrine sites associated with Late Classic and and decayed organic materials. A radiocarbon sample taken from Epiclassic pottery investigated by Brumfiel (2010) and Morehart

Figure 3. Topographic map of Xaltocan showing locations of excavations discussed in text (adapted from Miller 2007). Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 445

Figure 4. Plan map of Casa G, during the final phase of occupation. Squares represent the seven 2 × 2 m units of excavation. Map by Santiago Juarez. et al. (2012) suggest that people had been visiting the region sur- obsidian blades, a figurine head, and two pieces of marine shell. rounding Xaltocan for ritual purposes since well before the site This cache may have been a ritual deposit or a storage pit given was settled. the utilitarian function of many of the artifacts. In addition to High frequencies of projectile points and rabbit bone identified ritual features, figurines and specialized ceramics were used in in Casa G reflect relatively intense hunting of wild game. These fre- ritual activities. In Xaltocan, censers, braziers, and effigy vessels quencies are higher than in the other Aztec I houses, and Brumfiel were associated with incense burning and are recovered from (2010) suggested that the inhabitants of Casa G were involved in Early Postclassic domestic contexts across the site (De Lucia hunting for exchange with other households. In addition, there 2014). These artifacts have been described in detail elsewhere and was evidence for the manufacture of tools for household-level con- will not be further elaborated upon here (Brumfiel and sumption including obsidian blades, cloth, and salt. It is likely that Overholtzer 2009; De Lucia 2014; Overholtzer and Stoner 2011). the occupants manufactured their own tools given the high frequen- cy of small obsidian flakes recovered from fill. Activity areas were Casa Z Structure 1 not identified, but ground stone tools clustered in the outdoor patio suggest that this may have been a space for household food Casa Z Structure 1 was an Aztec I house investigated by De Lucia production. using broad horizontal excavations to expose a large portion of the Features associated with different types of ritual activities were structure (Figure 5). Structure 1 was located on a large mound identified in Casa G. Three infants, all in seated positions, were (Mound 129) near the center of modern-day Xaltocan across from buried under floors in small pits located near adobe walls. None the town’s sixteenth-century church. Structure 1 is the only house- of the infants were directly associated with any grave goods. In ad- hold study in Xaltocan to employ microanalyses, including the anal- dition, in the patio area there was a hardened clay block coated with ysis of microartifacts and inductively coupled plasma atomic painted plaster that was interpreted by Brumfiel as an altar. emission spectroscopy (ICP-AES) analyses of anthropogenic soils Excavations also uncovered a cache of artifacts that included from earthen floors, in order to understand the organization of fifteen slingshot pellets, five projectile points, a chert biface, two space and diversity of production activities (De Lucia 2011, floor polishers, a chunk of groundstone, a bone needle, two bone 2013). Microartifacts are tiny remnants of artifacts (such as bits of spatulas, a ceramic pendant, a jasper borer, an onyx core, several bone, ceramics, or lithics) that result from everyday human 446 De Lucia and Overholtzer

Figure 5. Plan map of Casa Z Structure 1, Level 17 (160–170 cm). Map by Kristin De Lucia. activities. Because microartifacts become embedded in floors as a Within these phases many of the same walls were reused through consequence of trampling, they are not swept away or moved like time, although there were some modifications as some walls were macro-remains and therefore provide important insight into the or- torn down and others constructed through time. In addition, there ganization of activity areas. As at Casa G, Structure 1 extended was one major renovation when most of the adobe walls were recon- beyond the limits of investigation and, thus, the full extent of the structed with a new style of adobe block. Radiocarbon dates from structure is unknown. Excavations determined, however, that there Aztec I deposits of Structure 1 place occupation in the mid-eleventh were at least two separate households: one occupying the northern through mid-thirteenth centuries a.d., with 2-sigma calibrated half of the building and another occupying the southern half, with ranges from as early as a.d. 1000–1170 to as late as a.d. each household utilizing multiple rooms and having separate 1220–1290 (De Lucia 2011:Table 1.2). hearths and middens. The inhabitants of Structure 1 engaged in multiple and diverse Structure 1’s walls were roughly aligned with the cardinal direc- production activities. A comparison of activities between the two tions and were made of adobe blocks with clay foundations, similar households occupying Structure 1 reveal that each specialized in to those at Casa G. Within Structure 1 there were at least six phases the production of different types of goods and that each household of occupation represented by six levels of stratified earthen floors. produced multiple goods (De Lucia 2011, 2013). Production Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 447

Table 1. Spindle whorl frequency per 100 rim sherds one year of age were associated with grave goods (De Lucia 2010a, 2011). In addition to the burial of children, ritual activities Phase Casa Z Structure 1 Casa G Casa Y Mound 122 included the use of incense and figurines for daily household ritual, the sacrificial burials of puppies, and the burial of offerings Aztec I .30 .58 .4 – into walls and under floors (De Lucia 2014). Fragments of Aztec II .36 .50 .48 (midden) .49 Aztec III –––.81 incense burners and figurines were distributed throughout the struc- ture and were not restricted to the patio or altar.

Casa Z Structure 2 activities included fish processing, mat-making, bone working, util- itarian pottery production, and obsidian blade production. In addi- Casa Z Structure 2 was partially excavated over two seasons by tion, household members engaged in farming, maguey fiber Brumfiel (Brumfiel 2010; De Lucia and Brumfiel 2004) and was processing, weaving, and pulque production for household con- located approximately 3 m to the south of Structure 1 on Mound sumption (De Lucia 2011, 2013; De Lucia and Morehart 2015). 129. The structure was constructed after Structure 1 in Aztec I In contrast to Casa G, low frequencies of projectile points in times. The house rested on a thick clay foundation, as seen in Structure 1 compared to the other Aztec I houses (Brumfiel Casa G. Part of this clay foundation to the east appears to have 2010), combined with intensive consumption of meats, suggest been an outdoor workspace as suggested by the presence of flat that the inhabitants of Structure 1 obtained meat through exchange lying artifacts on the surface. Under the clay foundation were rather than hunting. layers of sand and clay mixed with Aztec I pottery and organic Each household occupied multiple rooms organized by function. refuse. These deposits were likely shallow lakebed fill, representing For example, in the southern household there were separate rooms the accumulation of layers of natural silts, sand, and clay mixed for production activities, sleeping, and entertaining guests. with trash probably associated with the early occupation of Chemical and microartifact analyses from Structure 1 indicate that Structure 1. The presence of a few features within this area, includ- all rooms with adobe flagstones were not used for production activ- ing a hearth and a small adobe platform, suggests that this area was ities and have been interpreted by De Lucia (2011, 2013)as“recep- periodically exposed during the dry seasons and used as an activity tion areas” or social spaces. Analysis of microartifacts also indicates area possibly by the inhabitants of Structure 1. These features also that a large outdoor courtyard was used for both production and suggest that the accumulation of refuse in this area was a gradual ritual activities. Excavations of the patio floor recovered micro- process and did not occur in a single construction event. Two artifacts associated with everyday activities involving ceramic and carbon samples taken from the trash deposits under Structure 2 lithic objects, but also unusual microartifact types such as turtle car- provided 2-sigma calibrated dates of a.d. 1010–1180 and a.d. apace, mica, and pigments. The patio also had a central square-cut 990–1270, which correspond to the early phases of occupation stone that was likely an altar (De Lucia 2014). To summarize, the of Structure 1, supporting the interpretation that these deposits rep- organization of space suggests that high-intensity activities were re- resent the trash associated with the earliest occupation of Structure stricted to particular rooms of the house and were segregated from 1. family and social space. The outdoor patio is the only space that Only a single room of Structure 2 was exposed through excava- appears to have been multipurpose, with evidence for both house- tion (Figure 6a), as well as part of an outdoor workspace, although it hold production and ritual activities. is likely that the structure extended beyond the limits of excavation In Structure 1, infants and children were buried under house to the south and west. Adobe walls were oriented to the cardinal di- floors. The remains of eight subadults, all less than three years of rections as in the other houses. Three superimposed plaster floors age, were recovered from Structure 1, five of which were interred were encountered in Structure 2, one associated with Aztec I ceram- directly into the structure walls (De Lucia 2010a, 2014). All of ics and two associated with Aztec II ceramics, in addition to an the burials from Structure 1 were located along the southern walls earthen floor associated with Aztec I pottery. All of the floors or in the southwest corners of rooms and only children older than were associated with adobe brick walls (Figure 6b).

Figure 6. (a) Plaster floor from Casa Z Structure 2, and (b) adobe wall of Casa Z Structure 2 showing multiple stratified floors spanning the Aztec I to Aztec II periods (adapted from De Lucia and Brumfiel 2004). 448 De Lucia and Overholtzer

Because of the limited extent of excavations in Structure 2, the abandonment or that people returned to the structure to perform only clear evidence for intensive production came from a pit ritual activities soon after it was abandoned. outside the house with a high density of obsidian (5.41 pieces per Casa Y residents engaged in the intensive exploitation of water- 100 rim sherds compared to an average of 1.29/100 sherds in fowl, with significantly more waterfowl remains recovered than in Structure 1). The obsidian deposit was composed of debitage and any of the other houses excavated (Brumfiel 2010). Despite this ev- mostly unused obsidian, with only 16% displaying evidence of idence for waterfowl exploitation, there was little evidence for the use wear (compared to upwards of 96% in activity areas), indicating use or production of projectile points or obsidian tool production. that this was production debris rather than an activity area or midden. This is consistent with historic and ethnographic studies, however, This deposit was likely associated with Structure 1 given that it was which suggest that waterfowl were hunted primarily using nets dumped prior to the construction of Structure 2. Weaving tools and and traps (Parsons 2006:80; Rojas Rabiela 1985:72; Sugiura groundstone implements were only recovered from the outdoor area Yamamoto 1998:114). The location of Casa Y, at the edge of the and not from the interior space, suggesting that these activities took island looking out over the lake, would have facilitated the place outside. As in the other houses, Structure 2 had evidence for hunting of waterfowl using nets on posts and traps, which could spinning, salt making, hunting, and food processing for household have been observed from the house. In addition to waterfowl consumption. No burials were recovered from the Structure 2 exca- hunting, low intensity salt production, spinning, and bone tool pro- vations, which is not surprising since most of the excavated area was duction took place. Casa Y lacked stone maguey fiber scrapers, sug- outdoor space and lakebed fill, and burials typically occur within gesting that inhabitants obtained maguey fiber from elsewhere. houses during the Aztec I period. Summary of Aztec I Households Household archaeology at Xaltocan reveals several patterns that can Casa Y help us to understand organization at the household, community, Casa Y was located on a mound on the eastern edge of Xaltocan and even regional levels. First, during the Aztec I occupation (Mound 54) (Brumfiel 2010; De Lucia and Brumfiel 2004). A there was a common pattern of house construction and organization large trench was bulldozed through Mound 54 in the late 1980s to across the site. The layouts of Casa G and Casa Z Structure 1 are build a grain silo. The silo was never constructed, but the abandoned remarkably similar; both houses are oriented to the cardinal direc- trench profile revealed that the mound was constructed of 60 cm of tions and have a central outdoor patio with rooms to the west, clay and sandy fill upon which a 50 cm high clay platform was con- east, and south and with middens located to the south of the struc- structed. Occupational debris associated with an Aztec I house ture immediately outside of room walls. The remains of an adobe (Casa Y) rested upon this platform. A radiocarbon sample taken wall to the west of the patio in Structure 1 indicate that there from Casa Y provided a 2-sigma range with a bimodal distribution would have been a room here, but it was destroyed by intrusive de- of a.d. 1060–1080 ( p = .07) and a.d. 1150–1290 ( p = .86). posits. In addition, both structures also appear to have been occu- The excavations of Casa Y revealed four rooms and an outdoor pied by multiple households, suggesting that these houses do not patio (Figure 7). The adobe walls were oriented roughly according represent single-family dwellings, but instead are apartment-like to the cardinal directions with a central wall running east-west compounds. Rooms were divided functionally, with family and across the unit, slanting slightly to the southeast. Floors of dirt social space largely divided from production work areas. Only the and black clay and adobe cobbles were encountered. One infant outdoor patios served multiple functions. In all of the houses burial was found under a house floor, partially dug into the wall studied, house walls were used over long periods of time and are as- in the southeast corner of the house. Finally, a large irregular-shaped sociated with multiple stratified floors. The fact that walls were also burned area high in organic content (especially corn cobs) lay on top built and torn down over time to reconfigure room space reflects flu- of the structure. This burned area yielded an unusually high frequen- idity in household social organization, likely associated with chang- cy of ceramic balls and ritual vessels, including censer and brazier ing family composition over time. fragments. The combination of burned organic matter and ritual In addition to household organization, there was similarity in vessels suggest that the structure was either ritually burned upon ritual practices between houses. Both Casa G and Casa Z

Figure 7. Plan map of part of Casa Y as uncovered in a single 2 × 4 m excavation. Map by Santiago Juarez. Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 449

Structure 1 had outdoor patios with small domestic altars. More sig- this hypothesis. Contemporaneous northern lakebed sites demon- nificantly, burial practices were identical among all of the houses, strate a similar pattern of organization, with clusters of residences with only subadults under the age of four buried beneath Aztec I separated by “empty” space (Parsons 2008:243). Over time the house floors. Infants under one year of age were less likely to spaces between mounds would have been progressively filled in, al- have grave goods than older children, and in all houses some indi- though some documents suggest that at the time of conquest some of viduals were interred into adobe walls (De Lucia 2010a). Burial Xaltocan’s houses were built in the water and that there were canals practices varied widely throughout Early Postclassic period (a.d. in the city (Hicks 1994b). In sum, Aztec I period Xaltocan repre- 900–1150) Mexico. For example, at Tlalpizahuac in the southeast- sents a phase of settlement, autonomy, and economic and political ern Basin of Mexico (Ahumada 1998; Cisneros and Garcia growth. Sánchez 2002) and at Tepetitlan in the Tula area (Cobean and Mastache 1999) both adults and subadults were buried under HOUSEHOLDS DURING XALTOCAN’S HEIGHT AND floors. The Early Postclassic domestic structure UA-1 at Cholula DECLINE had primarily subadults buried under house floors, with only one burial identified as an adult (McCafferty and McCafferty 2006). The subsequent Aztec II phase of Xaltocan is characterized by the In other regions, such as Early Postclassic coastal Oaxaca, only introduction of Aztec II Black-on-Orange pottery and spans the adults were buried under house floors (King 2006). As burial prac- period from a.d. 1250–1350. This period corresponds with tices are closely entwined with identity and world view, the similar Xaltocan’s period political dominance, but is also characterized burial practices observed across all of the Aztec I houses in Xaltocan by prolonged conflict and warfare. As noted earlier, during the likely reflects embedded cultural practices and a shared identity Aztec II period at Xaltocan, we see the first evidence for public ar- between the Aztec I inhabitants. Thus, the above similarities in chitecture, an increase in settlement size, and the expansion of household organization, construction, and ritual suggest that the raised-field agriculture. Xaltocan’s prominence soon declines, Aztec I houses studied across Xaltocan held shared cultural practic- however, and the following Aztec III period (a.d. 1350–1521) is es, cosmological views, and possibly even a common ethnic identity characterized by Xaltocan’s conquest and integration into the that was distinct from other sites in the surrounding region. Aztec I Aztec Empire. All of the Aztec I houses had overlying Aztec II Xaltocan was therefore likely occupied by a relatively homogenous period deposits, but during the Aztec II phase new houses also ap- cultural or ethnic group, very possibly the Otomi, as suggested by peared that did not have a prior occupation. Contrasts between the historical chronicles (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977; Bierhorst original Aztec I–II houses and the new Aztec II houses provide im- 1992; Carrasco Pizana 1950). portant insights into household strategies during this important Although there are many similarities between the Aztec I houses period in Xaltocan’s history. from Xaltocan, household production activities varied. All house- holds had some evidence for low-intensity production activities in- Aztec I–II Houses cluding hunting, maize grinding, salt production, lithic production, bone tool production, and maguey fiber production. Each household All of the Aztec I houses discussed above had overlying deposits studied, however, also specialized in the production of different containing Aztec II Black-on-Orange pottery and increased quanti- goods. For example, Casa G focused on the hunting of wild ties of redwares, but the Aztec II contexts were largely disturbed by game, particularly rabbits, while Casa Y focused on waterfowl ex- later occupation or subsequent plowing. In Casa G, a radiocarbon ploitation, and Casa Z focused on fishing, mat production, and sample taken from an intact Aztec II hearth provided a 2-sigma cal- lithic production along with other activities. The detailed microanal- ibrated date range of a.d. 1180–1450, but the Aztec II deposits yses conducted in Casa Z Structure 1 further indicate that different above Casa G mostly lacked clear strata, suggesting that much of households within the same structure specialized in different pro- the Aztec II occupation was destroyed by plowing. Aztec II deposits duction activities. Thus, rather than only household-based subsis- also lay on top of, and were intrusive into, Casa Z Structure 1, and tence production, commoners were specializing in the production provided a 2-sigma calibrated date range of a.d. 1260–1390. The of surplus goods (De Lucia 2013; De Lucia and Morehart 2015). Aztec II deposits in Structure 1 also lacked clear strata, but fragmen- Finally, the excavation of Aztec I houses from Xaltocan provides tary remains of an in situ plaster floor in the levels above the Aztec I insight into the founding of the site. The remains recovered in Casa house indicate that there had been an Aztec II occupation that was G, Casa Y, and Casa Z, indicate that artificially constructed fill com- subsequently destroyed. A single-room, clay-walled colonial struc- posed of vegetation and domestic refuse formed the base of the ture lay directly on top of the Aztec I house and is likely responsible house mounds in Xaltocan. The fill was then capped with a thick for the destruction of the Aztec II occupation. In Casa Y, about 1 m layer of solid clay, which formed house foundations. Parsons of mixed fill containing Aztec II and Colonial period pottery rest (2006:34) suggests that natural islands made of reeds and masses upon the Aztec I house, but due to extensive disturbance no of aquatic vegetation in the basin lakes may have been expanded sealed Aztec II contexts were encountered. A group of Aztec II to form more permanent islands through filling with soil, vegetation, burials recovered to the west of Casa Y on Structure 54 were intru- and refuse. This interpretation is supported by excavations of sive into deposits with Aztec II refuse (De Lucia 2010b; De Lucia Operation I excavated by Brumfiel (2005b:59), in which a dense and Brumfiel 2004). Only Casa Z Structure 2 had intact Aztec II layer of matted vegetation lacking artifacts was under several floors above Aztec I living areas. Because most of these Aztec II de- meters of Aztec I fill and provided a 2-sigma calibrated date of posits were disturbed and intrusive into prior Aztec I occupation, a.d. 550–800, well prior to human occupation of the site. Given there was mixing of Aztec I and Aztec II Black-on-Orange the intensive nature of this process of mound construction, Aztec pottery, but there is no conclusive evidence to suggest that there I Xaltocan was likely a series of closely spaced artificial mounds was substantial overlap of the two pottery types. Where there is separated by water, rather than one large island. The presence of no underlying Aztec I occupation (Overholtzer 2012), Aztec I trash mixed with lakebed fill just outside of Structure 1 supports pottery is rare. All of the Aztec I–II houses were abandoned by 450 De Lucia and Overholtzer a.d. 1350, as indicated by the relative absence of Aztec III pottery 1240–1270 estimated at a 95% confidence for this occupation, sug- associated with the fill above these houses. gesting that this earliest occupation on Mound 122 overlaps in time The study of Aztec II contexts suggests that substantial changes with the Aztec I–II houses described earlier. A second construction took place during Aztec II times. First, during the Aztec II period we episode is represented by another single-room structure with clay see that Xaltocan’s existing residents became wealthier. They em- foundations and a nearby small circular stone structure (possibly a bellished their homes, increased investment into house construction storage bin or sweat bath). This house was also associated with quality, and increasingly consumed display goods. For example, the Aztec II pottery and radiocarbon dates taken from two burials asso- Aztec II occupation is associated with a shift to plaster floors in ciated with the house provided 2-sigma calibrated date ranges of Casa Z Structure 1 and Structure 2. Furthermore, fragments of a.d. 1290–1400 and a.d. 1300–1430. A overlying third phase is plaster with red, blue, or yellow paint were recovered from Aztec represented by the fragments of walls with stone foundations. An as- II deposits of Casa Z, Casa Y, and Casa G suggesting that these sociated midden with Aztec II–III transitional and Aztec III ceram- houses had painted plaster murals or floors (Brumfiel 2010;De ics provided a 2-sigma calibrated date range of a.d. 1300–1410. A Lucia 2011). Plaster would have been imported to Xaltocan (al- fourth overlying structure was a single-room house with another though it is not certain from where) and represents a substantial in- nearby circular stone structure, a midden, and a group of 13 crease in labor investment over the earthen floors and clay-covered burials of adults and subadults located outside to the northwest of adobe walls associated with the earlier Aztec I period. In addition, the structure. This occupation phase was associated with Aztec III households consumed greater quantities of decorated pottery as Black-on-Orange ceramics. The midden produced a radiocarbon the ratio of decorated to plain pottery increased in Aztec I to sample calibrated at 2-sigma to a.d. 1280–1400. Many of the accel- Aztec II times from .30 to .45 in Structure Z, from .34 to .51 in erator mass spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dates taken from the Casa G, and from .46 to .64 in the domestic refuse to the west of burials had a bimodal distribution at 2-sigma, ranging from as Casa Y, a pattern also observed in Brumfiel’s site-wide survey early as a.d. 1310–1360 to as late as a.d. 1390–1440, with the (2005a). Increased consumption and labor investment into houses latter range being statistically favored in all cases. One burial had associated with the Aztec I–II transition thus suggests that these a unimodal distribution of a.d. 1400–1470 at 2-sigma, and two household economies thrived during the height of Xaltocan’s others had bimodal or trimodal distributions wherein the earliest power. range began at a.d. 1420, firmly indicating that this occupation The reuse of the same adobe walls from Aztec I through Aztec II phase continues after the period of Xaltocan’s conquest. During times in Casa Z Structure 2 indicates that there was continuity of oc- the Colonial period, residents continued to occupy the same cupation through time (Figure 6b). In addition, an intact Aztec II house constructed in the previous phase. neonate burial from Structure 1 was interred in a simple grave There were significant continuities in the placement of houses near an adobe wall in the same manner as the burials from the pre- and burials through time. Each house constructed was similar in vious Aztec I occupation, further suggesting continuity though time. placement, orientation, and form as the previous one (see Thus, the adoption of Aztec II pottery does not appear to coincide Figure 8), but each was leveled before the construction of a new with a shift in population within these structures. All of the Aztec house. Throughout the occupation phases, domestic features, such I–II houses were abandoned by a.d. 1350, before Aztec III ceramics as burials, circular stone structures, informal hearths, and fragments spread to Xaltocan. of adobe pavers were consistently located to the north and west of the house in what appears to be an exterior patio. Given the small size of the structures, it is likely that most production activities would have taken place on the patio. Aztec II–III Houses While intact floor contexts were not well preserved on Mound Recent excavations conducted by Overholtzer on Mounds 122 and 122, sealed middens in association with domestic architecture 124, located on the southeastern periphery of the former island, un- provide evidence of household production activities. Small quanti- covered successive houses and burials dating to Aztec II and III ties of shell debitage and worked shell fragments provide evidence times (Overholtzer 2012)(Figure 8). Both mounds were composed for small-scale shell ornament production during the Aztec II phase. of fill made up of Aztec I and II pottery and thus were constructed Furthermore, the presence of worked bone fragments, heat-treated after the other mounds discussed thus far. Here we focus on the ex- bone, and bone debitage indicate small-scale bone working in cavations on Mound 122, which revealed the remains of four suc- Aztec II and III times. Finally, an increase in frequency of spindle cessive single-roomed houses and six middens: three dating to the whorls from .49 whorls per 100 rim sherds in Aztec II contexts to Aztec II phase, two dating to the Aztec III phase, and one dating .81 per 100 in Aztec III contexts reflects an intensification of spin- to the Early Colonial period (Overholtzer 2012, 2014). Although ning activities (Table 1). Approximately 80% of the spindle whorls Brumfiel (2005a) originally divided the Aztec II phase into two dis- were used for spinning cotton fiber thread in both phases (Table 2). tinct periods, according to dates recently obtained by Overholtzer Other activities, however, reflect a decline through time. A (2014), there appears to have been a single Aztec II phase where decline in salt consumption on Mound 122 from Aztec II to the houses on Mound 122 overlap temporally with the Aztec II Aztec III times is indicated by the decline of Texcoco fabric-marked houses described above. pottery from 15.8/100 rim sherds to 2/100. Salt was used as a pre- The earliest structure encountered on Mound 122 was a single servative for meats and fish and as a mordant for textile dyes and room house with packed earth floors and clay foundations and asso- was purchased as blocks stored in fabric-marked vessels in Aztec ciated with Aztec II pottery (Figure 8). This house was associated Mexico (Castellón Huerta 2011; Charlton 1969; Parsons 1994; with a midden that contained Aztec II Black-on-Orange ceramics Williams 1999). During the previous Aztec I period, it is likely and produced a 2-sigma calibrated date range of a.d.1170–1280 that inhabitants produced their own salt, possibly using commonly (Overholtzer 2012:Table 4.1). Bayesian statistical modeling con- recovered plain crude bowls, since fabric-marked pottery does not ducted by Overholtzer (2014) indicates a date range of a.d. appear until Aztec II times in Xaltocan. Given Xaltocan’s lacustrine Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 451

Figure 8. Map of architecture, middens, and burials on Mound 122 demonstrating superimposed structures (adapted from Overholtzer 2012). environment and the intensity of fish production and waterfowl ex- the Aztec II phase on Mound 122 likely reflects specialized house- ploitation during the previous Aztec I period (De Lucia 2013), it is hold production of either salted fish or dyed cloth. The marked re- likely that the Aztec II inhabitants of Mound 122 also exploited duction in salt consumption during the Aztec III phase would thus these resources, which would have required large quantities of reflect a decline in importance of these activities. Paralleling this salt. The high frequency of Texcoco fabric-marked pottery during shift, obsidian use fell through time. Aztec I Casa Z had an average of 1.29 pieces of obsidian per 100 rim sherds. On Mound 122 obsidian declined in Aztec II times to .67/100 and again in Table 2. Spindle whorl type according to context Aztec III times to .48/100 rim sherds. This trend may reflect reduced access or less need for obsidian due to a decline in produc- Maguey Maguey Cotton Cotton (n) (%) (n) (%) tive activities that required obsidian blades. In contrast, an increase in frequency of spindle whorls over time Casa Z Aztec I 8 100 0 0 likely reflects an increased focus on cloth production during the Casa G Aztec I 6 67 3 33 Aztec III phase (Table 1). There is also an increase in cotton Casa Y Aztec I 3 75 1 25 spindle whorls through time. Researchers have demonstrated that Casa Z Aztec II 3 75 1 25 large spindle whorls with wider diameters were used for spinning Casa G Aztec II 2 50 2 50 maguey fiber, while small whorls with smaller diameters were Mound 122 Aztec II 1 20 4 80 used for spinning cotton thread (Brumfiel 1996; McCafferty and Mound 122 Aztec III 2 17 10 83 McCafferty 1991; Parsons and Parsons 1990; Parsons 1972). Although spindle whorls were used for spinning thread and not 452 De Lucia and Overholtzer directly for cloth production, the recovery of weaving tools and and the construction of a new house. In contrast, in the Aztec I–II cloth production tools from our excavations1 suggests that cloth houses, walls were renovated but were not torn down, suggesting was indeed being produced in household contexts. Spindle that the house itself was important to the maintenance of social whorls, however, are more likely to preserve in archaeological con- identity (De Lucia 2010a, 2014). The burial practices were texts and are therefore better for comparative purposes across exca- also different. On Mound 122, individuals were buried outside vations; thus, here we use spindle whorls as a proxy for cloth of the structure, and both infants and adults were recovered. production. In Aztec I contexts, large spindle whorls for spinning Moreover, on Mound 122 infants were often buried in cooking maguey fiber were more common but relatively low in frequency, jars during the Aztec II phase and were more likely than adults suggesting that maguey cloth was being produced in low quantities to have offerings (Overholtzer 2012). In contrast, in the Aztec for household consumption. The frequency of spindle whorls in- I–II houses, infants and subadults only were buried in simple creases only slightly during Aztec II times, but there is a shift graves under house floors and in walls, and infants rarely had towards the spinning of cotton fiber (Table 2). In the Aztec III grave goods. The final contrast is that the original inhabitants of phase, however, cotton spindle whorls predominate. The introduc- Xaltocan abandoned the site prior to a.d. 1350, while the later tion of Aztec III pottery is associated with the expansion settlers of Mounds 122 and 124 persisted through the Colonial (Hodge and Neff 2005); thus, it is possible that Xaltocan’s house- period. holds intensified cotton cloth production following its conquest in Some of the observed differences between Aztec II populations order to meet tribute demands first imposed by the Tepanecs and could be attributed to differences in status. For example, the inhab- later by the , as suggested by Brumfiel (1996, 2006). itants on Mound 122 did not have plaster floors, which require Cotton cloth was the most common form of tribute in later Aztec greater labor investment, and they had a lower ratio of decorated times, and plain cloth mantas also served as a form of currency to undecorated ceramics (.38) compared to the Aztec II occupation (Hicks 1994a). This increase in cloth production may have compen- of Casa Z (.45) and Casa G (.51) suggesting that this may have been sated for declines in food surpluses resulting from the abandonment a lower status household. But, status does not explain the fundamen- of Xaltocan’s chinampa fields following its conquest (Morehart tal differences in household organization or burial practices. We 2014). argue that that the differences observed between the descendants In sum, evidence for production activities from Mound 122 sug- of the original Aztec I settlers and the occupants of Mound 122 gests that households continued to engage in part-time production reflect a shift from a culturally homogenous Aztec I community, activities during the Aztec II period but also became increasingly towards a more diverse settlement during the Aztec II phase result- focused on cotton cloth production through time, as other household ing from the influx of a new population. production activities declined in importance. As we do not have The houses on Mound 122 are similar to single-roomed houses comparable data from other Aztec III houses, it is difficult to deter- inhabited by members of the Tlahuica, a -speaking ethnic mine how these activities varied between households. This pattern group, at the sites of Capilco and Cuexcomate in Morelos matches regional trends noted by Brumfiel (1996), however, (Smith 1992). According to historic documents, the basic Nahua where after Aztec conquest, towns closer to the imperial capital in- commoner household unit was a calli or single-roomed house tensified agricultural production, while more distant locales pro- that opened onto a patio. Sometimes, kin-related nuclear families duced more cloth. placed several calli around one patio to form a patio group (Kellogg 1993; Lockhart 1992). Lockhart (1992:62) notes that during the Colonial period, “nuclear families with a single building Comparison of Aztec II Houses may have been the most common type,” though this pattern may be the result of demographic collapse and disease. Houses could be The Aztec II houses on Mound 122 overlap temporally with the added or torn down as needed, and each family would have – Aztec I II houses described earlier, but they demonstrate remark- been responsible for the maintenance of its own house. Further, able contrasts. First, these houses do not have a prior Aztec I oc- the circular storage structures associated with each house on cupation but were newly constructed in Aztec II times toward Mound 122 reflects a certain degree of “separateness” (Lockhart the periphery of the site. Second, we see new house construction 1992). This pattern of household organization is quite distinct — techniques unlike the multiroom, multihousehold dwellings asso- from the conjoined houses of the Aztec I period where multiple – ciated with the Aztec I II houses, the houses on Mound 122 are households likely shared in the construction and maintenance of simple, one-room structures that have earthen floors with adobe buildings. Horizontal excavations of houses and burials thus or clay walls and stone foundations and no plaster floors or reveal very distinct differences in cultural practices and worldview murals. Moreover, while there is significant continuity in the place- in Aztec II times, variability that was not previously visible using ment of the structures through time on Mound 122, each construc- surface survey and test pitting methods alone. tion episode was represented by the leveling of the previous house

1 ’ Spindle whorls are used here as an indicator of textile production since RECONSTRUCTING XALTOCAN S HISTORY FROM they are the abundant and well preserved in the archaeological record and THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOUSEHOLDS therefore ideal for comparative purposes. Tools associated with weaving cloth are also found in household contexts at Xaltocan but are often fragmen- Household archaeology at Xaltocan has yielded a dynamic history tary and are less likely to preserve. For example, in Casa Z Structure 1, at of household and community settlement, organization, and change least nine bone needles, one awl, and one batten were recovered from in the Basin of Mexico. Household excavations have revealed that middens and floor contexts. In addition, excavations on the Structures 122 Xaltocan was settled at the end of the Epiclassic period, a period and 124 recovered five needles and five brocade picks, all made of bone, as well as four copper bronze needles and a copper bronze awl. These data characterized by political and economic fragmentation following indicate that cloth production took place within the home in addition to spin- the collapse of the Classic period state of Teotihuacan (Crider ning thread. 2011; Diehl and Berlo 1989; Hirth 2000). The site may have been Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 453 chosen for settlement because of its access to lake resources, its (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977:1:423). Finally, the range of defensible location, or its proximity to important Epiclassic Xaltocan’s former domain closely overlaps with modern day shrines (Morehart et al. 2012), or perhaps a combination of all of Otomi-speaking populations in the northern Basin of Mexico these. Regardless of the reason, Xaltocan’s first inhabitants accom- (Carrasco Pizana 1950:259; Morehart 2012). plished a monumental task: constructing house mounds in the Multiple lines of evidence suggest that by the Aztec II period, middle of the lake and founding a new community. Xaltocan’s political and economic climate shifted and that power The patterns of construction of house mounds in the Aztec I was consolidated. First, Brumfiel’s(2005b) excavations revealed occupation of Xaltocan have important implications for under- two Aztec II stone platforms originally covered with painted standing the social and political organization of early Xaltocan. plaster murals that likely served as the foundations for public build- The initial construction of house mounds at Xaltocan was likely ings. In addition, it was during this period that the expansion of organized similar to modern labor exchange groups (see Wilk Xaltocan’s took place (Morehart and Eisenberg 2010; 1997), where individuals from multiple households voluntarily Morehart and Frederick 2014). Finally, historical chronicles join together to perform mutually beneficial labor intensive suggest that Xaltocan became an important political center starting tasks. Stanish (2004:14) argues that people are “predisposed to co- in the Aztec II period. Xaltocan was said to have been the cabecera operation” provided that all individuals receive greater benefits (head) of the Otomies and a dominant power in the Basin of Mexico than they could through working independently. To date, public between a.d. 1220 and 1398 (Carrasco Pizana 1950:258). architecture or elite structures have not been associated with the Seventeenth-century chronicler Fernando de Alva Ixtliloxóchitl Aztec I occupation of Xaltocan and, thus, there is no evidence (1975–1977:1:306) noted that all of the kings and nobles of for a centralized political authority at this time. Moreover, there Mexico were descended from a handful of “houses,” including is little evidence to support a model of social differentiation Xaltocan, suggesting that rulership was centralized by the Middle during Aztec I period Xaltocan, given the apparent similarities Postclassic period. in house size, construction techniques, and ritual practices Yet it is the household excavations at Xaltocan that provide among the four Aztec I houses studied. Instead, the presence of novel insight into this important period of transition. Archaeology multifamily apartment-like compounds in the Aztec I occupation reveals that the descendants of the site’s original inhabitants phase would support a corporate model of social organization became wealthier as they consumed greater quantities of decorated (Blanton et al. 1996; De Lucia 2011; Wolf 1955). In addition to pottery and some embellished their homes with plaster floors and cooperating in daily tasks and rituals, multiple households occu- murals. The most dramatic shift was an influx of a new population. pying the same structure also would have worked cooperatively Possibly attracted by Xaltocan’s growing success, the new group to construct and maintain their houses through time. The construc- constructed their own mounds and settled towards the periphery tion of Xaltocan’s mounds was likely organized by a system of of the site, likely because the center of the site was already occupied communal leadership early in its history. During the Colonial by the descendants of the earlier Aztec I inhabitants. These immi- period there is reference to the persistence of communal gover- grants had new ways of organizing their homes, burying their nance in some Basin of Mexico communities. Durán (1971: dead, and conceptualizing their everyday lives and worldview, 314), for example, parenthetically mentions that some towns factors that are closely associated with ethnic differences (Stanish were “ruled by...the community” in contrast to others ruled by 1989). While the new settlers maintained their distinct household lords, and López de Gómora (Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin organizations and ritual practices, representing perhaps more con- 2010:450) similarly makes reference to “those republics governed servative, nondiscursive cultural traits, they adopted the tau-shaped communally.” Thus, the precedent for a corporate community or- obsidian lip plugs that served as an outward marker of Otomi ethnic- ganization existed in the Basin of Mexico. ity when they settled in Xaltocan (Overholtzer 2012). The new pop- Xaltocan’s Aztec I and Aztec II households were also actively in- ulation also appears to have been less wealthy, perhaps as a volved in production activities and marketplace exchange with each consequence of their recent immigration, their lack of an established house specializing in the production of different types of goods, kin-network, or their status as a minority group. Research at other rather than simply engaging in household-based subsistence produc- Mesoamerican sites similarly has demonstrated that founding inhab- tion. Household specialization and exploitation of the surrounding itants tend to become the wealthiest households in later periods lake environment very likely contributed to Xaltocan’s success and (Robin et al. 2010:331) suggesting that established kin and social rapid growth (De Lucia 2013; De Lucia and Morehart 2015; networks may have been important factors in household economic Morehart 2010, 2014). Such active participation in market systems success. of exchange ultimately would have contributed to the development The privileged status of the original Aztec I/Otomi inhabitants of economic differences between households, and potentially the of Xaltocan was, however, short lived. It appears that they aban- rise of inequality as households became increasingly involved in ex- doned the site by a.d. 1350, while the new immigrants continued ternal systems of exchange (Wilk 1982; Wolf 1955). to occupy the site possibly through the colonial period. This The original Aztec I inhabitants of Xaltocan were possibly of exodus may be the historically documented “abandonment” of Otomi ethnicity as suggested by several lines of evidence. Xaltocan by the Otomi following Xaltocan’s conquest by the Brumfiel et al. (1994) found a widespread distribution of tau-shaped Tepanecs in a.d. 1395. This date is almost 50 years later than obsidian lip plugs across Xaltocan, which they argue were associat- the archaeologically observed exodus, though the range of error in- ed with Otomi ethnicity. Further, the Aztec I inhabitants of Xaltocan herent in dating methods and oral histories could account for the spun primarily maguey fiber thread as suggested by the predominance discrepancy. Alternatively, it is also possible that the original of spindle whorls for spinning maguey during this period. Sahagún Aztec I/Otomi inhabitants of Xaltocan started to become wary (1950–1982 [1575–1577]:10:180) states that “the Otomi women con- as they watched Xaltocan’s power diminish. rose cerned themselves only with maguey fiber.” Additionally, historic ac- to supremacy in the Valley of Mexico with its conquest of counts indicate that Xaltocan was the capital of the Otomi people Colhuacan in a.d. 1347 and began its expansion towards 454 De Lucia and Overholtzer

Xaltocan’s domain at this time (Carrasco Pizana 1950:266). Some Shifts in political economy would influence the symbolic meanings of Xaltocan’s Otomi residents may have decided to leave in antic- and definitions of material culture, ideology, and social roles as each ipation of the events that lay ahead, thereby perhaps even contrib- group attempted to legitimize its social position and undermine that uting to Xaltocan’s conquest. The apparent continuity of of others. occupation on Mounds 122 and 124 throughout the Late Ultimately, those households that stayed greatly altered their ex- Postclassic period, suggests that the new immigrants to Xaltocan ternally oriented production after the site’s defeat and the rise of did not feel this same pressure. the Aztec empire changed the direction and intensity of the flow Interestingly, while the inhabitants of Mounds 122 and 124 of goods throughout central Mexico, leaving Xaltocan in a more adopted Otomi-style lip plugs during the height of Xaltocan’s peripheral location in an expanded, -centered ex- power, they subsequently abandoned them around a.d. 1350, change economy. Domestic economies declined during the Aztec before the polity’s downfall and the site’s incorporation into the III period as households were saddled with higher tribute Aztec empire (Overholtzer 2012). Brumfiel et al. (1994) argue demands, narrowed their range of production activities, abandoned that the reduced frequency of lip plugs recovered from Late chinampa agriculture, and obtained fewer goods through exchange. Postclassic contexts across Xaltocan suggests that Otomi ethnicity Xaltocan ceased to produce locally made decorated ceramics and had become devalued and that Xaltocan’s inhabitants rejected this even drastically reduced its production of plainwares, primarily im- ethnic marker and the associated Otomi identity they had previously porting plain ceramics from the central basin (Hodge and Neff embraced. Instead, they adopted larger button-shaped lip plugs 2005; Peters 2002). Xaltocan’s interaction with regional exchange worn by people of all ethnic groups, including the systems was thus diminished following its conquest, fostering its (Overholtzer 2012). The inhabitants of Mounds 122 and 124 thus dependency on outside markets for the consumption of everyday proactively distanced themselves from Otomi identity at the same goods. time that Xaltocan’s Otomi inhabitants fled. Ethnicity was therefore The increased production of cloth, a more portable good, as re- fluid in Postclassic period Mexico as Xaltocan’s commoners active- flected by the rise in spindle whorl frequency in Aztec III times is ly negotiated their social identities in the face of changing political likely in part a result of increasing tribute demands by the contexts. Tepanecs and, subsequently, the Aztec Triple Alliance (Brumfiel We also argue that there was a shift in Xaltocan’s economic or- 1991, 1996). Assuming that only women were producing cloth, ganization over the course of the Postclassic period from moderately Hicks (1994a:99) estimates that it would have taken about 20 closed to a more open economy. Drawing from the research of Wolf weeks for households to supply their own cloth needs and an addi- (1955), Wilk (1982) defined two types of community economies: tional 14 weeks to meet tribute demands, with 18 weeks left over for closed communities that are inward looking and mostly autono- surplus cloth production. If cloth production involved the collabora- mous, and open communities that are focused outward and linked tive labor of all household members, including children, households to the emergence of external exchange systems. In a closed commu- may have been able to produce even greater surpluses. The intensi- nity, households have little involvement with outside economic fication of cloth production in Aztec III times may thus represent systems. They rely on neighbors for support in times of hardship, production at a level higher than necessary for payment of imperial for sharing risk, and for collaboration on major projects such as taxes in order to produce more cloth for surplus exchange. Increased house construction. Cooperation and participation in labor groups cloth production would reflect changing market strategies of provide a sense of community solidarity and equality. This sense Xaltocan’s commoners, as households focused more on producing of group membership is symbolically represented by attempts to cloth for market sale and less agricultural production or the extrac- suppress expressions of status and wealth in the construction of tion of resources from the lake. Xaltocan’s residents may have had houses and material possessions (Wilk 1982; Wolf 1955). In con- few other options for surplus production. The fresh water source that trast, Wilk (1997) argues that as villages become increasingly inte- fed Xaltocan’s chinamapa fields in earlier times had been diverted grated into a market economy and excess income exceeds a certain by the Aztecs (Brumfiel 2005b; Morehart and Frederick 2014), threshold, variability in household status emerges. Because of trade making large-scale intensive agriculture and its complementary with external markets, households are less dependent upon commu- lake exploitation activities a less viable option in Xaltocan’s brack- nity support so there is less motivation to conform to community ish lake. Thus, Xaltocan’s recent immigrants persisted through the standards since maintaining an appearance of equality is no site’s fall and Otomi abandonment, renegotiating their identities, longer essential (Wilk 1982). Thus, material possessions and economic strategies, and their place in this once powerful kingdom. houses begin to openly express differences in wealth between households. CONCLUSION Aztec I-period Xaltocan appears to have been an economy in transition. As would be expected in closed village communities, Household archaeology at Xaltocan has demonstrated that shifts in we find that households likely engaged in cooperative labor and political, economic, and social organization through time were there was little differentiation in house construction quality, furnish- closely tied to the decisions and strategies of commoners acting ings, and organization. Aztec I households, however, were not con- within structural constraints. As noted by Wilk (1997:8), “while cerned primarily with subsistence production as might be expected, social change viewed from the distance of history can be envisioned but, rather, were specializing in the production of goods for ex- as abstract forces acting upon each other, change that is observable change and were actively involved in the consumption of trade in daily life is generated by patterns of individual and group deci- goods. During the Aztec II period, we see increased investment sions.” It was the actions of ordinary commoners that founded the into house construction quality and the consumption of imported island site of Xaltocan, contributed to its rise to power, the develop- display goods such as decorated pottery among Xaltocan’s early in- ment of economic inequality, and ultimately the institutionalization habitants. We also see the emergence of inequality at this time, as of hierarchy. Although Xaltocan’s Aztec I inhabitants appear to new groups settling at the site did not have these same luxuries. have been relatively homogenous and suppressed differences in Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 455 wealth and status, they diversified their production strategies and ac- plugs during the Aztec II period, but they maintained their dis- tively engaged with external markets. During the Aztec I period, tinctive burial practices and house construction techniques. Xaltocan’s households processed fish, hunted wild game, trapped Once the Tepanec expansion towards Xaltocan began and waterfowl, wove mats, and produced pottery (among other activi- Xaltocan’s original inhabitants fled the town, however, they re- ties) for exchange. They also consumed different goods through ex- jected these ethnic markers and shifted their social strategies. change. For example, the inhabitants of Casa Z purchased meat, These new immigrants ultimately contributed to Xaltocan’s while Casa Y’s inhabitants obtained maguey fiber through ex- growth, development, and long-term settlement continuity. change instead of processing it themselves. These strategies likely The eventual abandonment of Xaltocan by the descendants of continued into the Aztec II period when exchange, household its earliest inhabitants, rather than being a consequence of wealth, and agriculture all expanded. Household excavations at Xaltocan’s conquest, may have in actuality helped to contribute Xaltocan thus demonstrate that rather than a consequence of abstract to its downfall. Xaltocan, thus, may have had its own tragedy of forces acting upon each other, economic growth and development in the commoners (Pauketat 2000). But all residents did not make Xaltocan was a direct result of the strategies and decisions made by the same choices; some decided to resist Tepanec control by ordinary people. fleeing, while others persisted—despite conquest, increasing tribute Household excavations also underscore the significance of demands, and a declining standard of living—by altering their eco- ethnic interaction with the broader political economy and reveal nomic and social strategies. Xaltocan’s dynamic history thus demon- the means by which individuals negotiate identities in multiethnic strates how micro- and macro-structures work to constitute one settings. The new immigrants to Xaltocan adopted outward ex- another during periods of rapid change and development in ancient pressions of Otomi ethnicity by wearing tau-shaped obsidian lip polities.

RESUMEN

La arqueología de las unidades domésticas en el sitio de Xaltocan en el norte cómo las actividades económicas y políticas de los hogares plebeyos fueron de la cuenca de México ilustra cómo las acciones cotidianas de la gente común fundamentales para la construcción y reproducción de las instituciones pudieron contribuir al surgimiento y caída de los sistemas políticos antiguos. políticas, las estructuras sociales y los sistemas regionales de intercambio en Fundada alrededor del año 900 d.C., Xaltocan se elevó rápidamente para con- el centro de México. Primero, analizamos la organización y las estrategias vertirse en un estado importante y poderoso en el período preazteca. Sin domesticas en el período Azteca I, el tiempo de crecimiento de Xaltocan embargo, la supremacía de Xaltocan fue de corta duración y, como muchas para convertirse en un poder regional, y afirmamos que el ascenso al poder otras organizaciones políticas en el centro de México, finalmente fue incorpo- de Xaltocan pudo haber sido en gran parte instigado por las actividades rada al imperio azteca. En este artículo preguntamos qué factores contrib- económicas y políticas de los hogares ordinarios. Luego, examinamos la con- uyeron al surgimiento y la caída de Xaltocan. Las crónicas históricas que tinuidad y el cambio en las actividades diarias durante el auge de Xaltocan, la documentan la historia de México se concentran en las alianzas, conquistas, época Azteca II, e interpretamos que hubo un influjo de una nueva población y genealogías de la élite política, y construyen un “discurso público” (Scott durante este tiempo. Finalmente, analizamos el período Azteca III, cuando el 1990), que enmascara las acciones cotidianas de la gente común. Sin poder de Xaltocan se desvaneció, y consideramos cómo los plebeyos contrib- embargo, sostenemos que, para comprender el ascenso y la caída de los siste- uyeron y fueron afectados por el descenso en la supremacía de Xaltocan. mas políticos antiguos como Xaltocan, debemos reconstruir una narrativa que Concluimos que las unidades domésticas no fueron simplemente influencia- integre la infrapolítica (Scott 1990), las estrategias y las acciones de las perso- das por los procesos regionales de cambio y desarrollo, sino que las micro nas no documentadas en relaciones históricas para nuestra mejor comprensión y macroestructuras se constituyeron mutuamente, y que las decisiones y del pasado. Utilizando un estudio de larga duración sobre el cambio y la acciones de la gente común tuvieron consecuencias intencionales y no inten- variación de los contextos domésticos en Xaltocan, este artículo reconstruye cionales a mayor escala.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was conducted with the permission of Mexico’s Instituto Dissertation Improvement Grant (2009:0968551), a Young Explorer Grant Nacional de Antropología e Historia, the town of Xaltocan, and the from the National Geographic Society, a Grant-in-Aid of Research from González-Sánchez and Arenas Ramírez families. The projects also benefited the Sigma Xi Foundation, a National Science Foundation Graduate from support of the Xaltocan cultural center and the Gran Señorio de Research Fellowship, a Graduate Research Grant from the University Xaltocan Historical Society. This material is partially based upon work sup- Research Grants Committee at Northwestern University, and a Research ported by the National Science Foundation under a Minority Postdoctoral Grant from the LeCron Foster and Friends of Anthropology at Research Fellowship grant (De Lucia 2011:1103522). De Lucia’s research Northwestern. This paper was previously presented in a session organized was also made possible through funding by a Dissertation Fieldwork by Scott Hutson and Cynthia Robin at the AAA meetings in 2012 and we Grant (2007:7706) from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological would like to thank them both for inviting us to participate in the session Research, a National Science Foundation Doctoral Dissertation and volume. We would like to thank Santiago Juarez for helping to create Improvement Grant (2007:0742249), an Association for Feminist the figures and maps. We would also like to thank Cynthia Robin, Scott Anthropology Dissertation Award, Graduate Research Grants from the Hutson, Santiago Juarez, Stacie King, and several anonymous reviewers University Research Grants Committee at Northwestern University, and re- for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this manuscript. Any errors search grants from the LeCron Foster and Friends of Anthropology at are strictly our own. Finally, this article would not have been possible Northwestern. Overholtzer’s research was supported by a Dissertation without the previous research and support of Elizabeth Brumfiel, who intro- Fieldwork Grant (2009:7797) from the Wenner-Gren Foundation for duced us to Xaltocan and helped us develop our projects there. We dedicate Anthropological Research, a National Science Foundation Doctoral this article to her memory. 456 De Lucia and Overholtzer

REFERENCES

Ahumada, Alejandro Tovalín Francisco López de Gómora’s La Conquista de México. Edited 1998 Desarrollo arquitectónico del sitio arqueológico de Tlalpizáhuac. and translated by Susan Schroeder, Anne J. Cruz, Christián Serie Arqueología Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Roa-de-la-Carrera, and David E. Tavárez. Series Chimalpahin. Mexico City. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Alva Ixtlilxóchitl, Fernando de Chimonas, Susan 1975–1977 Obras Históricas. 2 vols. Universidad Nacional Autónoma 2005 Occupational History of Prehispanic Xaltocan. In Production and de México, Mexico City. Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Bierhorst, John (editor) pp. 169–194. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the 1992 History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca. University of Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh. Translated from the Nahuatl by John Bierhorst. University of Arizona Cisneros, Héctor Favila, and Soledad Garcia Sánchez Press, Tucson. 2002 Un acercamiento al estudio de las costumbres funerarias del sitio Blanton, Richard E., Gary M. Feinman, Stephen A. Kowalewski, and Peter arqueológico de Tlalpizáhuac en el posclásico temprano (950–1200 N. Peregrine d.C.) Expresión Antropológica 16:36–51. 1996 A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Cobean, Robert H., and Alba Guadalupe Mastache Civilization. Current Anthropology 37:1–14. 1999 Tepetitlán: Un espacio doméstico rural en el área de Tula. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the University of 1991 Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh. Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Crider, Destiny L. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 224–251. Blackwell, Oxford. 2011 Epiclassic and Early Postclassic Interaction in Central Mexico as 1996 The Quality of Tribute Cloth: The Place of Evidence in Evidenced by Decorated Pottery. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Human Archaeological Argument. American Antiquity 61:453–462. Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe. 2000 The Imperial Subversion of Aztec Xaltocan. In Precious De Lucia, Kristin Greenstone, Precious Quetzal Feather in Chalchihuitl in Quetzalli: 2010a A Child’s House: Social Memory, Identity, and the Construction Mesoamerican Studies in Honor of Doris Heyden, edited by Eloise of Childhood in Early Postclassic Mexican Households. American Quiñones Keber, pp. 169–182. Labyrinthos, Lancaster. Anthropologist 112:607–624. 2005a Ceramic Chronology at Xaltocan. In Production and Power at 2010b Informe preliminar de los entierros en el Cementerio Aztec II. In Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 117–151. Estrategias de las unidades domésticas en Xaltocan postclásico, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the University of México: Informe final al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh. Historia, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 110–119. Report on 2005b Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. Instituto file at the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the University of Pittsburgh, Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Mexico City and Pittsburgh. 2011 Domestic Economies and Regional Transition: Household 2006 Cloth, Gender, Continuity, and Change: Fabricating Unity in Production and Consumption in Early Postclassic Mexico. Ph.D. dis- Anthropology. American Anthropologist 108:862–877. sertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, 2010 Estrategias de las unidades domésticas en Xaltocan postclásico, Evanston, IL. México: Informe final al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e 2013 Domestic Economies and Regional Transition: Household Historia. Report on file at the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Multicrafting and Lake Exploitation in Pre-Aztec Central Mexico. Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32:353–367. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Lisa Overholtzer 2014 Everyday Practice and Ritual Space: Household Ritual in 2009 Alien Bodies, Everyday People, and Hollow Spaces: Embodiment, Pre-Aztec Xaltocan, Mexico. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 24: Figurines, and Social Discourse in Postclassic Mexico. In 1–25. Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indices of Large-Scale Social De Lucia, Kristin, and Elizabeth M. Brumfiel (editors) Phenomena, edited by Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, 2004 Space and Social Organization at Postclassic Xaltocan, 2003 Rhonda Taube, and Aurore Giguet, pp. 297–323. University Press of Annual Report. Report on file at the Consejo de Arqueología, Florida, Gainesville. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., and Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría (editors) De Lucia, Kristin, and Christopher T. Morehart 2010 Estrategias de las elites y cambios politícos en Xaltocan, México: 2015 Surplus and Social Change: The Production of Household and Informe anual de 2007 al Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Field in Pre-Aztec Central Mexico. In Rediscovering Surplus: The Historia. Report on file at the Consejo de Arqueología, Instituto Politics of Production and the Strategies of Everyday Life, edited by Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Christopher T. Morehart and Kristin De Lucia. University Press of Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., Tamara Salcedo, and David K. Schafer Colorado, Boulder. 1994 The Lip Plugs of Xaltocan: Function and Meaning in Aztec Díaz del Castillo, Bernal Arcaheology. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited 1996 [1575] The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico 1517–1521.Da by Mary C. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, pp. 113–131. Studies in Capo Press, New York. Culture and Society, Vol. 6, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Diehl, Richard A., and Janet Catherine Berlo (editors) University at Albany, New York. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1989 Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan a.d. 700–900. Carrasco Pizana, Pedro Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. 1950 Los otomíes: Cultura e historia prehispánicas de los pueblos mes- Durán, Fray Diego oamericanos de habla otomiana. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e 1971 Book of the Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar. Translated Historia, Mexico City. by Fernando Horcasitas and Doris Heyden. University of Oklahoma Castellón Huerta, Blas Press, Norman. 2011 Procesos tecnológicos y especialización en la producción de panes Gibson, Charles de sal en el sur de Puebla. In Producción artesanal y especializada en 1964 The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the mesoamérica: Áreas de actividad y procesos productivos, edited by Valley of Mexico 1519–1810. Stanford University Press, Stanford. Linda R. Manzanilla and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 282–311. Hendon, Julia A. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México and the Instituto 2004 Living and Working at Home: The Social Archaeology of Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City. Household Production and Social Relations. In A Companion to Charlton, Thomas H. Social Archaeology, edited by Lynn Meskell and Robert W. Preucel, 1969 Texcoco Fabric-Marked Pottery, Tlateles, and Salt Making. pp. 272–286. Blackwell, Malden. American Antiquity 34:73–76. Hicks, Frederic Chimalpahin Cuauhtlehuanitzin, Domingo Francisco de San Antón Muñón 1994a Cloth in the Political Economy of the Aztec State. In Economies 2010 Chimalpahin’s Conquest: A Nahua Historian’s Rewriting of and Polities in the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary G. Hodge and Michael Everyday Action and the Rise and Decline of Ancient Polities 457

E. Smith, pp. 89–112. Studies in Culture and Society, Vol. 6. Institute Morehart, Christopher T., Abigail Meza Peñaloza, Carlos Serrano Sánchez, for Mesoamerican Studies, University of Albany, New York. Emily McClung de Tapia, and Ibarra Morales Emilio University of Texas Press, Austin. 2012 Human Sacrifice During the Epiclassic Period in the Northern 1994b Xaltocan under Mexica Domination, 1435–1520. In Caciques Basin of Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 23:426–448. and Their People: A Volume in Honor of Ronald Spores, edited by Nichols, Deborah, Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Hector Neff, Mary C. Hodge, Joyce Marcus and Judith F. Zeitlin, pp. 67–85. University of Thomas H. Charlton, and Michael D. Glascock Michigan Anthropological Papers, No. 89. Museum of Anthropology, 2002 Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective Ann Arbor, MI. on Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Hirth, Kenneth G. Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:25–82. 2000 Archaeological Research at Xochicalco: Ancient Urbanism at Overholtzer, Lisa Xochicalco. Vol. 1. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2012 Empires and Everyday Material Practices: A Household Hodge, Mary C., and Hector Neff Archaeology of Aztec and Spanish Imperialism at Xaltocan, Mexico. 2005 Xaltocan in the Economy of the Basin of Mexico: A View from Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Northwestern Ceramic Tradewares. In Production and Power at Postclassic University, Evanston, IL. Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 319–348. Instituto 2013 Archaeological Interpretation and the Rewriting of History: Nacional de Antropología e Historia and the University of Pittsburgh, Deimperializing and Decolonizing the Past at Xaltocan, Mexico. Mexico City and Pittsburgh. American Anthropologist 115:481–495. Kellogg, Susan 2014 A New Bayesian Chronology for Postclassic and Colonial 1993 The Social Organization of Households among the Tenochca Occupation at Xaltocan, Mexico. Radiocarbon 56:1077–1092. Mexico before and after Conquest. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Overholtzer, Lisa, and Wesley D. Stoner Western Mesoamerica: Studies of the Household, Compound, and 2011 Merging the Social and the Material: Life Histories of Ancient Residence, edited by Robert S. Stantley and Kenneth G. Hirth, Mementos from Central Mexico. Journal of Social Archaeology 11: pp. 207–224. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 171–193. King, Stacie M. Parsons, Jeffrey R. 2006 The Marking of Age in Ancient Coastal Oaxaca. In The Social 1994 Late Postclassic Salt Production and Consumption in the Basin of Experience of Childhood in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Traci Mexico. In Economies and Polities of the Aztec Realm, edited by Mary Ardren and Scott R. Hutson, pp. 169–200. University Press of C. Hodge and Michael E. Smith, pp. 257–290. Studies in Culture and Colorado, Boulder. Society, Vol. 6. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, University of Lockhart, James Albany. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1992 The after the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of 2006 The Last Pescadores of Chimalhuacán, Mexico: An the Indians of Central Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteeth Centuries. Archaeological Ethnography. Anthropological Papers, No. 96. The Stanford University Press, Stanford. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Mata-Míguez, Jaime, Lisa Overholtzer, Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría, Brian 2008 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Northwestern Valley of M. Kemp, and Deborah A. Bolnick Mexico: The Zumpango Region. Memoirs, No. 45. Museum of 2012 The Geneteic Impact of Aztec Imperialism: Ancient Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Mitochondrial DNA Evidence from Xaltocan, Mexico. American Parsons, Jeffrey R., and Mary Hrones Parsons Journal of Physical Anthropology 149:504–516. 1990 Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico: An McCafferty, Geoffrey G., and Sharisse D. McCafferty Archaeological Ethnography. Anthropological Papers, No. 82. 2006 Boys and Girls Interrupted: Mortuary Evidence of Children from Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Postclassic Cholula, Puebla. In The Social Experience of Childhood in Parsons, Mary Hrones Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Traci Ardren and Scott R. Hutson, 1972 Spindle Whorls from the Teotihuacán Valley of Mexico. pp. 25–52. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Anthropological Papers, No. 45. Museum of Anthropology, McCafferty, Sharisse D., and Geoffrey G. McCafferty University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 1991 Spinning and Weaving as Female Gender Identity in Postclassic Pauketat, Timothy R. Mexico. In Textile Traditions of Mesoamerica and the Andes, edited 2000 The Tragedy of the Commoners. In Agency in Archaeology, edited by Margot B. Schevill, Janet C. Berlo, and Edward B. Dwyer, by Marcia-Anne Dobres and John E. Robb, pp. 113–129. Routledge, pp. 19–44. University of Texas Press, Austin. London. Miller, Alexandra Peters, Jennifer M. 2007 Water Mountain: A GIS Analysis of Xaltocan’s Integration into 2002 A Compositional Analysis of Plainwares from Xaltocan, Mexico. the Aztec Empire. Unpublished Senior Thesis, Anthropology Lux Fiat 1:149–157. Department, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. Robin, Cynthia Millhauser, John K., Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría, and Michael D. Glascock 2003 New Directions in Classic Maya Household Archaeology. Journal 2011 Testing the Accuracy of Portable X-Ray Fluorescence to Study of Archaeological Research 11:307–356. Aztec and Colonial Obsidian Supply at Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of 2013 Everyday Life Matters: Maya Farmers at Chan. University Press Archaeological Science 38:3141–3152. of Florida, Gainsville, FL. Morehart, Christopher T. Robin, Cynthia, Jason Yaeger, and Wendy Ashmore 2010 The Archaeology of Farmscapes: Production, Place, and the 2010 Living in the Hinterlands of a Provincial Polity. In Classic Maya Materiality of Landscape at Xaltocan, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Provincial Politics: Xunantunich and its Hinterlands, edited by Lisa Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. LeCount and Jason Yaeger, pp. 315–333. University of Arizona 2012 What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? The Prerequisites of Press, Tucson. Empire and the Politics of Plausible Alternative Histories. American Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique Anthropologist 114:267–281. 2008 Narratives of Conquest, Colonialism, and Cutting-Edge 2014 The Potentiality and the Consequences of Surplus: Agricultural Technology. American Anthropologist 110:33–41. Production and Institutional Transformation in the Northern Basin of 2010 Incumbents and Challengers: Indigenous Politcs and the Adoption Mexico. Economic Anthropology 1:154–166. of Spanish Mateiral Culture in Colonial Xaltocan, Mexico. Historical Morehart, Christopher T., and Dan T. A. Eisenberg Archaeology 44:51–71. 2010 Prosperty, Power and Change: Modeling Maize at Postclassic 2012 The Discovery and Decolonization of Xaltocan, Mexico. In Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29: Lost in Transition: Decolonizing Indigenous Histories at the 94–112. “Prehistoric/Colonial” Intersection in Archaeology, edited by Morehart, Christopher T., and Charles D. Frederick Maxine Oland, Siobhan Hart, and Liam Frink, pp. 1–15. 2014 The Chronology and Collapse of Pre-Aztec Rasied Field University of Arizona Press, Tucson. (Chinampa) Agriculture in the Northern Basin of Mexico. Antiquity Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique, John K. Millhauser, and Wesley D. Stoner 88:531–548. 2013 Trade, Tribute, and Neutron Activation: The Colonial Political 458 De Lucia and Overholtzer

Economy of Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Stanish, Charles Archaeology 32:397–414. 1989 Household Archaeology: Testing Models of Zonal Complementarity Rojas Rabiela, Teresa in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 91:7–24. 1985 La cosecha del agua: Pesca, caza de aves y recolección de otros 2004 The Evolution of Chiefdoms: An Economic Anthropological productos biológicas acuáticos de la cuenca de México. In La Model. In Archaeological Perspectives on Political Economies, cosecha del agua en la cuenca de México y la pesca en el medio edited by Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nicholas, pp. 7–24. The lacustre y chinampero de San Luis Tlaxialtemalco, edited by Teresa University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Rojas Rabiela and Jose G. Pérez Espinoza, pp. 1–109. Centro de Sugiura Yamamoto, Yoko Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social, 1998 La caza, la pesca, y la recolección: Etnoarqueología del modo de Mexico City. subsistencia lacustre en las ciénegas del alto Lerma. Universidad Sahagún, Bernardino Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. 1950–1982 [1575–1577] Florentine Codex: General History of the Wilk, Richard R. Things of New Spain. 12 vols. Translated and edited by Arthur J. O. 1982 Little House in the Jungle: The Causes of Variation in House Size Anderson and Charles E. Dibble. School of American Research, among Modern Kekchi Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology Monograph No. 14. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 2:99–116. Scott, James C. 1997 Household Ecology: Economic Change and Domestic Life among 1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. Yale the Kekchi Maya in Belize. Northern Illlinois University Press, Dekalb. University Press, New Haven. Williams, Eduardo Smith, Michael E. 1999 The Ethnoarchaeology of Salt Production at Lake Cuitzeo, 1992 Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Michoacán, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 10:400–414. Mexico. Vol. 1: Excavations and Architecture. Instituto Nacional de Wolf, Eric R. Antropología e Historia and the University of Pittsburgh Press, 1955 Types of Latin American Peasantry: A Preliminary Discussion. Mexico City and Pittsburgh. American Anthropologist 57(3:1):452–471.