Ancient Mesoarnericu, 1 (1990), 153-169. Copyright 1990 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.

LONG-DISTANCE TRADE UNDER THE The archaeological evidence

Michael E. Smith Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Albany, New York 12222, USA

Abstract

This article presents archaeological data on Late Postclassic long-distance trade in central and northern . A~tectrade goods from the Basin of (ceramics and obsidian) are widespread, while imports from other areas are much less common, both in the Basin of Mexico and elsewhere. The artifactual data signal a high volume of exchange in the Late Postclassic, and while trade was spatially nucleated around the Basin of Mexico, most exchange activity was apparently not under strong political control. The archaeological findings are compared with ethnohistoric sources to further our knowledge of the mechanisms of exchange, the effect of elite consumption on trade, and the relationship between trade and imperialism.

Ethnohistory makes it clear that long-distance trade was an im- My emphasis here is on the archaeological evidence for Az- portant institution in . Exotic goods from all over tec long-distance trade, and I make rather limited use of the hlesoamerica were offered for sale in the Tenochtitlan market- abundant ethnohistoric data on Aztec exchange. I believe that place, the professional pochteca merchants traded extensively before useful correlations can be made between archaeology both inside and outside of the Aztec empire, trade was closely and ethnohistory, we need to analyze each data set separately linked to Aztec imperialism, and exotic luxury items played (for this approach, see Charlton 1981; Smith 1987a, 1990; crucial sociopolitical roles in Aztec society (see, for example, South 1977). In this article the term "Aztec" refers to the peo- Berdan 1978, 1982, 1987b). But what are the material manifes- ples and culture of the Basin of Mexico in the final centuries of tations of this extensive and culturally important system of ex- the Prehispanic era. The analysis is limited to the Late Postclas- change? In spite of numerous methodological and conceptual sic period, represented in the Basin of Mexico by the Late Az- advances in the archaeological analysis of prehistoric trade and tec phase, ca. A.D. 1350-1520 (Sanders, Parsons, and Santley trade goods (e.g., Earle and Ericson 1977; Hirth 1984; Nelson 1979). 1985; Zeitlin 1982), archaeology has so far made almost no con- tribution to our knowledge of Aztec trade. A recent review of AZTEC TRADE GOODS OUTSIDE archaeological studies of the Aztec economy (Smith 1987d) was THE BASIN OF MEXICO able to include little discussion of long-distance trade, and re- cent treatments of Late Postclassic exchange by archaeologists (e.g., Drennan 1984a; Sanders and Santley 1983) rely upon eth- Ceramic Exports nohistory, quantitative reconstructions, and comparisons with earlier periods, avoiding any discussion of archaeological evi- Aztec 111 Black-on-Orange ceramics. This is a common deco- dence for Late Postclassic exchange. rated ceramic type manufactured in the Basin of Mexico dur- There are two reasons for the lack of attention to material ing the Late Aztec phase (Griffin and Espejo 1950; Parsons evidence for Aztec trade: (I) the existing data are widely scat- 1966; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979:471ff; Tolstoy 1958). tered, much of it in obscure publications; and (2) most of the The fine, hard, orange Aztec paste coupled with the distinctive evidence is of poor quality, consisting simply of statements that "Tenochtitlan" style thin black line decoration make this an eas- particular trade goods were found at a site. This article assem- ily recognizable ceramic type, and this is the single most abun- bles much of the scattered evidence for Aztec long-distance ex- dant Aztec tradeware found outside of the Basin of Mexico. change in order to see what it can tell us about Late Postclassic The most common exported forms are tripod plates, shallow economics. While a general lack of contextual data for individ- bowls, and small spinning bowls. Although possible local imi- ual finds hampers interpretation of the socioeconomic signifi- tations of this ware have been reported from a few areas out- cance of trade goods, sufficient information is available to side of the central Mexican highlands (Bernal 1948; Barbara make a number of inferences about Aztec trade that go beyond Stark, personal communication), the distinctiveness of the Az- the data available from ethnohistory. tec orange paste implies that published reports of Aztec 111 are indeed Aztec imports and not local versions of the ware. I have Postclassic ceramics from the sites of Cuexcomate and Capilco never seen any examples of "local imitation" Aztec 111 in ce- in western Morelos indicates that some artifacts of the follow- ramic collections from central Mexico. The related types Aztec ing classes are Aztec imports, although most examples are lo- I and Aztec 11 Black-on-Orange date to the Early Aztec phase cally made: long-handled "frying-pan" incense burners, (ca. A.D. 1150-1350) and are not considered in this article. sometimes known as "Texcoco Molded/Filleted"; figurines; pitchers; copas or cups; and corrials. These cannot be quanti- Texcoco Fabric-Marked ralt vessels. These ceramic bowls and fied until the analysis stage of the Postclassic Morelos Archae- basins were used to manufacture and transport salt from the sa- ological Project is completed (see Smith et al. 1989). line lakes in the Basin of Mexico (Charlton 1969; Sanders, Par- sons, and Santley 1979:57ff, 172ff; Tolstoy 1958). Sherds are Ceramic Distribution Data easy to recognize from their crumbly fine pink-to-orange paste and rough, fabric-marked surfaces. In contrast to most other The spatial distribution of Aztec ceramics outside of the Basin ceramic categories, we can infer with confidence the material of Mexico is plotted in Figure 1; site names and citations are transported in these vessels and hence the economic purpose of provided in Table 1. These data indicate that imported Late the exchange. While these ceramics are quite abundant in Post- Postclassic Aztec ceramics are relatively widespread in north- classic contexts in Morelos, they are rarely reported from other ern and central Mesoamerica. Forty-six locations are noted, and areas outside of the Basin of Mexico; this is probably due to the many of these (circles with crosses in Figure I) represent surveys utilization of alternative salt sources (e.g., Sisson 1973). where a number of individual sites have Aztec ceramics. Finds are particularly dense in the Toluca Valley, Morelos, and Guer- rero, but a good number of sites on the Gulf Coast and in the Guinda or redware ceramics. This category represents a fam- highlands down to also have Aztec ceramics. ily of highly polished redware ceramics, often decorated with The simple occurrence of an imported ceramic, however, black and/or white designs; it is sometimes referred to as "Az- tells us almost nothing about the nature of the exchange system tec Polychrome" or as "Texcoco Black-on-Red," "Texcoco responsible for its transport or about the socioeconomic signif- Black-and-White-on-Red," and so forth (see Parsons 1966; icance of the import in its local setting. In order to address these Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979:167-473; Tolstoy 1958). questions, the first requirement of the distribution data is that While some varieties of these ceramics clearly comprised trade- they be expressed in quantitative form. When we examine the wares in the Late Postclassic period, they must be treated with distribution of quantified Aztec ceramics outside of the Basin caution for two reasons. First, these ceramics span the Middle of Mexico, we must work with a much smaller data set consist- and Late Postclassic periods. With the exception of a few dis- ing of I2 sites. These finds are plotted in Figure 2, with the fre- tinctive varieties, most examples of this category cannot yet be quencies and citations provided in Table 2. In all cases, the confidently phased. Thus the simple occurrence of Postclassic frequencies represent separate counts of Aztec and Guinda polished redwares does not imply any connection with Lufe sherds as percentages of all sherds; in a few cases I have in- Postclassic exchange systems. cluded only definite Late Postclassic levels from stratigraphic Second, these ceramics are relatively abundant not only in pits (these are indicated in the notes to Table 2). the Basin of Mexico, but also in Morelos, southern Puebla, and Several observations may be made on these data. Basin of possibly southern Hidalgo and the Toluca Valley; hence, it is Mexico imports and Guinda are far more common in the west likely that they were manufactured in some or all of these re- (Morelos, Toluca, and ) than in the east; the mean gions (see discussion in Smith 1983:307ff). If this turns out to percentage values for Aztec and Guinda sherds are 2.73010 and be the case, then the simple presence of redwares does not nec- 2.120'0, respectively, for the west and 0.53% (excluding Quauh- essarily indicate trade with the Basin of Mexico. For this rea- tochco) and 0.60% (excluding Quauhtochco and Coxcatlan) for son, the spatially neutral type name of "Guinda" (see DuSolier the east. This pattern is due largely to the effect of distance, 1949:35) is preferred over such designations as "Texcoco Black- as indicated in Figure 3. Clear patterns of monotonic decrease on-Red." This situation is in urgent need of investigation are expressed by these data, and the curves (which were fitted through petrographic and chemical characterization studies cou- by hand) resemble an exponential decay curve (see Renfrew pled with stylistic analysis to determine the number and loca- 1977:75). tion of manufacturing areas or sites.' The distribution of Late Several sites in the Figure 3 plots violate the pattern of Postclassic Guinda ceramics is discussed in this article, but the monotonic decrease; that is, they have higher or lower frequen- data are kept separate from the distribution of the categories al- cies of Aztec and/or Guinda ceramics than is expected given ready discussed. their distance from the Basin of Mexico. Considering the Az- tec ceramics first, the low frequency at Calixtlahuaca (site 2) is Other types. Polychrome is a class of painted surprising. One would expect higher frequencies if Aztec ceram- jars and basins probably manufactured in the southern Basin ics signal greater interaction between the Toluca Valley and the of Mexico (see SPjornC 1970:Figure 6; 1983:257-263). These are adjacent Basin of Mexico. Aztec ceramics are well represented found at Late Postclassic sites in Morelos, but have not been re- in at least one Late Postclassic site from this area, Tlacotepec, ported elsewhere outside of the basin. Current work on Late but these are whole vessels from burials in one small area of the site excavated by Frederick Starr in 1905 (see McVicker 1987). -- -- - However, these burials may pertain to an immigrant group 'Current research by the author and Susan Goodfello\r in Morelos, and by Mary Hodge and Leah Minc in the Basin of Meuico, has initi- from the basin (McVicker 1987), leaving the low frequency of ated the investigation of the regional configuration of production and Aztec ceramics at Calixtlahuaca unexplained; perhaps political distribution of the Guinda ceramics of Postclassic central Mexico. or ethnic factors are involved. The high value for the Teloloa- Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

-25 AZTEC CERAMICS

- SITE WITH AZTEC CERAMICS

+ AREA WITH AZTEC CERAMICS

A TENOCHTITLAN

A 5-+ .2 1 .$ 38. .5 2' il 19+ +1e . . 19. 13+*~, 43.

'+; +:, 'I+ ' '+ '_.

'I. *('

-- Figure 1. Distr~butionof Aztec ceramics outside of the Basin of Mexico (see Table I for site names and citations)

pan survey sites (location 12) is probably due to Lister's (1947) and the Guinda fall-off curve is quite similar to the Aztec curve sherd collection methods, which apparently emphazied deco- (Figure 3). This suggests that the two kinds of ceramics may rated and exotic wares; this has the effect of inflating the per- have been distributed through similar mechanisms of exchange, centages of Aztec 111 Black-on-orange, the only Basin of Mexico perhaps lending support to the interpretation that most of these import reported. The largest anomaly in the distribution data ceramics originated in the Basin of Mexico. It is also possible is the site of Quauhtochco. Over 15'4'0 of the ceramics in Medel- that some or even most of the distant Guinda ceramics were lin Zenil's extensive test pitting at this site are incensarios of the manufactured in Morelos or southern Puebla, and were then type Texcoco Molded/Filleted (counted here as an Aztec im- moved through the same exchange system as the Aztec ceram- port), suggesting some sort of strong relationship with Basin of ics. The very high frequency of Guinda at Coxcatlan Viejo (site Mexico ritual practices. The frequencies of Aztec 111 (5.2%) and 42) is difficult to account for. These ceramics may have been Guinda (4.6%) are also excessive for such a distant site, and manufactured locally, or perhaps Coxcatlan had some special there is undoubtedly something unique about Quauhtochco's in- exchange relationship with the . teraction with the Basin of Mexico. From Medellin Zenil's re- The next task beyond quantified distribution plots in the in- port (1952), we might suggest the presence of a population of vestigation of archaeological trade networks involves a consid- migrants rrom the Basin of Mexico at this fortified site. The eration of the nature of the specific archaeological deposits that clear Mexica style of the central temple, pointed out by Um- yield trade goods (e.g., middens vs. fill, or houses vs. temples) berger (1987b), supports such an interpretation. As discussed and inferences on their socioeconomic contexts (e.g., rural vs. below, the archaeological data on Quauhtochco fit well with urban, or elite vs. commoner; see Plog 1977). At this level, our available ethnohistoric documentation on the site's role in the sample of relevant Late Postclassic data drops to near zero. If Aztec empire. we eliminate surface collections (Teloloapan sites, Coxcatlan The frequencies of Guinda ceramics are very similar to those Viejo) and excavations with little documentation of context of the definite Basin of Mexico imports at most sites (Table 2), (Calixtlahuaca), we are left with mostly test pits (Malinalco, Table 1. Aztec ceramics outside of the Basin of Mexico ------~------Code Place Type\" Citation

1. West 1 Tula Acosla 1956- 1957; Griffin and Espejo 1950:152 2 Calixtlahuaca Garcia Payon 1956-1 957a 3 Tlacot epee Starr Collection, Field Museum 4 Teotenango Vargas 1975:260-264 5 Malinalco Galvan 1984; Garcia Payon 1956- 1957b 6 Tepecoacuilco Barlow 1948:92 7 Oztuma Li\ter 1947 Xochipala Schmidt 1986: 1 12 Huautla Weitlaner 1948:77 Sta. Elena Ibid. Yestla Ibid.:79 Teloloapan Area L~ister 1947 Me~cala/TetelaArea Rodriguez B. 1986: 168 Cocula Area Cabrera C. 1986: 193ff lguala Area Greengo 1971 Costa Grande Lister 197 1 :628 2. Morelos 17 Cuernavaca M. Smith 1987a; unpublished notes 18 Cuexcomate, Capilco M. Smith, unpublished notes 19 Coatlan Mason 1980 20 Chalma Area Hirth, unpublished notes 2 1 Puente de lxtla M. Smith, unpublished notes 22 Yauhtepec Ibid. 23 Ahuchuepan Ibid. 24 Southeast Morelos M. Smith and K. Hirth. unpublished notes 3. East 25 Panuco Griffin and Espejo 1950:152 26 Tuxpan [bid. 27 Zacate Colorado Medellin Zenil 1960: 166 28 Paxil Ibid.:l60 29 Quiahuiztlan Ibid. 30 Cempoala Ibid.; Garcia Payon 1971:540 3 1 Quauhtochco Mcdellin Zenil 1952:81 32 Orizaba Mines Stocker and Cobean 1984:86 33 Mictlancuauhtla Medellin Zenil 1960: 138 34 Cuetaxtlan I bid. 35 La Mixtequilla Area Stark n.d. 36 Tulancingo Muller 1956-1957 37 Rio Zahuapan Area Snow 1966 4. Sourheast 38 Cholula Geoff McCafferty, personal communication; Muller 1978:123 39 Cuauhtinchan Area Sisson 1984 40 Tepexi el Viejo Gorcnstein 1973 41 Tehuacan Valley MacNeish, Peterson, and Flannery 1970:227 42 Coxcatlan Viejo Sisson 1973 43 Tamazulapan Area Byland 1980: 167 44 Coixtlahuaca Bernal 1948-1949 45 Chachoapan, Yucuita Lind 1987:12 46 Monte Alban Blanton 1978:103

"Ceramic types: A, Azrec I11 Black-on-Orange; B, Orher Late Artec Batin of Mexico rypes; G, Guinda (polished reduares).

Cuernavaca, Tepexi Viejo, Tehuacan, Coixtlahuaca) whose yield contextual data, but they were still limited to a few value for socioeconomic interpretation is quite limited. Lind's trenches. For detailed contextual control of Aztec tradewares, (1987) excavations at Yucuita and Chachoapan are useful, but we will have to await Sisson's full publication of his excavations the elite households participated in Aztec trade networks in the Tehuacan Valley (Sisson 1973, 1974) and completion of to a very limited extent. Medellin's excavations at Quauhtochco my own work at Postclassic sites in Morelos (Smith et al. 1989). Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

QUANTIFIED AZTEC CERAMICS

Aztec Guinda

( L.T. I % #

4 1-54, b

( 5-10, )

( G.T. 20 % )

TENWHTITLAN

I 1 Figure 2. Map of the frequencies of Aztec ceramics from quantified deposits (see Table 2 for site names and citations)

Obsidian Exports Obsidian Distribution Data

Pachuca source-area obsidian. The distinctive green obsidian The distribution of Pachuca (green) obsidian in Late Postclassic from the Pachuca source area (Charlton and Spence 1982) had contexts outside of the Basin of Mexico is quite different from a wide distribution throughout northern and central Mesoamer- the distribution of Aztec ceramics. Figure 4 shows the locations ica throughout most of the Prehispanic epoch. For this analysis, of sites with Late Postclassic Pachuca obsidian; site names and only green obsidian found in secure Late Postclassic contexts is citations are provided in Table 3. Frequencies of this obsidian considered directly relevant to Aztec trade systems. Some of are related to distance in only the roughest way: the closest sites these data are reviewed in Spence and Parsons (1972), Charlton (all in Morelos) have very high percentages of green obsidian, and Spence (1982), Spence (1985), and Smith, Sorensen, and most over 9540, while the most distant sites (in the Maya zone) Hopke (1984). have only a few artifacts each. Beyond these gross patterns, dis- tance is not at all a good predictor of the amount of Pachuca obsidian that will be found in Late Postclassic sites. Other obsidian froni the Basin of Mexico. Because of the dif- These data suggest that the green Pachuca obsidian must ficulty (if not impossibility) of accurately sourcing gray obsid- have had some special cultural significance relative to obsidian ian without chemical characterization studies, artifacts from the from other sources. Obsidian is generally rarer in southeastern Otumba and Paredon source areas (Charlton and Spence 1982) Mesoamerica than in the central highlands, but there are sev- are not readily identifiable in contexts outside of the Basin of eral sources in Guatemala that were heavily exploited through- Mexico. However, neutron activation of obsidian artifacts from out the Prehispanic epoch. The low frequencies of Pachuca Morelos indicates that material from these sources was traded obsidian and its presence in ceremonial contexts like burials and out of the basin during the Late Postclassic period (Smith, caches (e.g. Berlin 1956:140ff; Proskouriakoff 1962:369ff) sug- Sorensen, and Hopke 1984). gest a symbolic or ritual use rather than a utilitarian use in Smith

Table 2. Percentages of Aztec ceramics at foreign sltes

Basin of Mexico Distance to Total Bl/Or Other Guinda Tenocht~tlan Site Total Sherd5 @In u'n 0'0 Vn K m

2 Calixllahuaca" 5 hlalinalco" 7 Ozturna' 12 Teloloapan Area' 17 Cuernavacad 18 PMAP Sites, Early' 18 PMAP Sires, Late' 3 1 Quauhtochco 40 Tepexi Viejor 41 Tehuacan Valley' 42 CoxcatIan Viejo" 44 Coixrlahuaca 45 Yucuita/Chachoapan

"There may hr tome n~i~ingof Middle and Late PostcIas(~cdeposits here, since Artec II \I~erd\are alto reported. l'~heserigurer are from tialban't excabations in the modern lc~unof Santa Maria Malinalc<>.I he e\cavaliont are descrlbrd in C;al\.in (IYX4), and the ccramic counts pertain to Lare Poslclassic le\els a preiented in Calvin's (lY741Y75) tables. 'Thetc data are Crom Lister's rurfacc collectionr. Figures for localion I?, Teloloapan area. repre\ent meall \slues for the eight Late Po%lclas\~csite\. I.he Oltuma data (one ol' [hose sites) are also Irk~rdseparately because of the e~hnohi\lrlricalimportance of rhis tettlemcnt a\ arl Artec frontier l'ortresr. d~heiedata are from Smith's (unpublished) analysis ol' ceramics from Late Pottclas?lc le\els In Jorgc Angulo's e\cnbations in the Palacirl dc Cortes stre. 'These dara are [he mean percenlages per houte in a randorn sample or Ilou\c\ ar thc siles of Capilco and Cl~ex~.omate,Morelos. For illc Earl! C'uauhnahuac phase there are 8 hourct In the randorn sample. 5 at Capilcu, and 3 at Cuexcomatr. Fot Lr~tcCuauhnahuac thc rc\l)ecti\e ligures arc X and I8 houtes. Only ceramics t'rorn sell-dated donic\iic rcfu3c depos~tsare Included here. 'Daia are Crom Ic\elr 11-15 only of C;orenstein'\ terl pil; loucr levclt appeal to he Middlc Poslclatsic in dale, while ~~ppc~le\els may he Colonial. gThese data represent the lneans of the percentage4 for exca~ated{.ate Postclassic deposits a1 e~ghttiles (MacNeish, Pererson, and Flannery 1970:227). Thc\c au~hors incorrectly idenril'y Aztec I11 Black-orl-Orange (Figure 137) ;I\ "'lena).uca Black-on-Orange" (p. ?2hit), another name for 4/tec II Black-on-Orange. "'lhesc data arc l'rom S~sson'stu1 tiice collections. Quantrfied data Ifrorn his euca\,arions ha\c !ct ~rihe published.

southeastern Mesoamerica. This agrees with recent interpreta- categories: (1) Ceratnics from the Huaxteca, central Veracruz, tions of the functions of obsidian by the Classic Maya, who ap- Oasaca, and Cholula (Ahuja 1982:246f). No information is parently used the tools in rituals such as autosacrifice (Freidel given on quantities, forms, context, or condition (sherds or ves- and Sheets 1990; Rice 1984; Schele 1984). sels). The remaining objects were all recovered in caches and of- Obsidian use in northern Mesoanlerica tended to stress util- ferings associated with the Templo Mayor. (2) Mixtecsculptures itarian tasks over ritual uses (e.g. Drennan 1984b), and the high (Umberger 1987b). (3) Large quantities of Mezcala-style sculp- frequencies of Pachuca obsidian at sites west of the isthmus are tures presumably from the Balsas/Mezcala region of Guerrero probably best explained by economic factors. At many sites, the (Gonzalez G. 1987). The conflict between the Late Postclassic material is very common in spite of the existence of closer provenience of these objects in Tenochtitlan and their prior For- sources of obsidian, The purported superior quality of Pachuca mative/Classic dating has yet to be resolved (Gonzalez G. obsidian for prismatic blade production (Spence and Parsons 1987); their manufacture may in fact date to the Postclassic, or 1972) may account for its high frequencies at these sites. The else their use may represent another example of the Mexica in- presence of low frequencies of Pachuca obsidian in the Taras- terest in antiques (see Umberger 1987a). (4) Many objects of can area (sites 6 and 7) is an interesting phenomenon which is jade/jadei/e, copper, and gold (Wagner 1982). (5) Large quan- discussed below. tities of vertebrate and inverlebrate faunal remains from marine species originating in both the Atlantic and Pacific (Matos Moc- tezurna 1982: 143-1 84). In addition to the Templo Mayor exca- TRADE GOODS FROM OTHER AREAS vations, foreign objects were uncovered in a number of the poorly reported early excavations in Mexico City (Mateos H. Foreign Goods Found in the Basin of Mexico 1979). For example, the so-called "volador offerings" of ce- ramic vessels include a number of polychron~evessels from the The only significant quantities of foreign goods encountered in Gulf Coast and Cholula and/or the Mixteca (Mateos H. Late Aztec phase archaeological contexts in the Basin of Mex- 1979:23Iff). The lack of full reporting for any of the above ico are from excavations in the ceremonial zone of Tenochtit- finds prevents confident analysis, but it is clear that these ob- lan. The recent Templo Mayor project recovered large jects were luxuries obtained for ceremonial uses in Tenochtit- quantities of foreign objects, but most of these have yet to be Ian. In addition, a few sherds of Tlahuica Polychrome bowls published in detail. Preliminary reports include the following from Morelos were recovered in recent excavations by the In- Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

sidian probably comes from the Otumba source area in the Valley (this needs to be tested with characterization studies). Even if obsidian from sources outside of the Basin of Mexico is found to be present (as it is in earlier periods; Hea- Ian 1986), it probably accounts for a small proportion of the to- tal amount used. In sum, importation of archaeologically visible goods from outside of the Basin of Mexico was apparently carried out at a very limited scale in the Late Aztec phase. Residential contexts have few or no imported artifacts, and most of the documented imports are from ceremonial deposits at Tenochtitlan. One per- ishable exotic item whose import can be fnferred is cotton.

Late Postclassic Trade Not Involving the Basin of Mexico Archaeological evidence for Late Postclassic long-distance trade in central and northern Mesoamerica that did no/ involve the 100 200 Basin of Mexico is not abundant. Quiahuiztlan and Cempoala Distance of sites from Tenochtitlan on the Gulf Coast utilized the nearby Zaragoza and Orizaba ob- sidian sources in addition to Pachuca (Jack, Hester, and Heizer 1972), and at least one unknown source is reported for Late Postclassic contexts in Morelos (source samples were included from nearly all of the known central Mexican obsidian source areas; Smith, Sorensen, and Hopke 1984). If it were possible to visually source gray obsidian with accuracy, we would undoubt- edly learn much more about the distribution networks focused on such important sources as Zaragoza and Orizaba. The only widespread non-Aztec trade ceramics in Late Post- classic central and northern Mesoamerica are the elaborate Cholula Polychromes. These are reported from a number of sites in Veracruz (Medellin Zenil 1960:160; Barbara Stark, per- sonal communication) and the Tehuacan Valley (MacNeish, Peterson, and Flannery 1970:227) and are present in Late Post- classic Morelos (M. Smith, unpublished notes). A problem in

I1 I I10 LOO 3110 Km tracing the distribution of Cholula Polychromes in the central highlands is their great si~nilarityto the contemporaneous Distance of sites from Tenochtitlan Chalco Polychrome of the southern Basin of Mexico (see Sejourne 1983); indeed, many archaeologists working in the Ba- Figure 3. Graphs of ceramic percentages by distance from Tenochtitlan. sin of Mexico prefer to speak of "Chalco/Cholula Polychrome" until these wares can be more easily distinguished (e.g., Brum- fie1 1976; Parsons et al. 1982). It is likely that not all of the elab- stituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia in the Mexico City orate polychromes in the Basin of Mexico are local and that zocalo (personal observations of the author). kessels were imported from Cholula (in line with ethnohistoric The paucity of excavations in Late Aztec nonceremonial data). contexts in the Basin of Mexico makes it difficult to assess the Beyond the Cholula case, ceramic evidence for other inter- distribution and significance of imported goods outside of regional contacts in central Mexico no/ involving the Basin of Tenochtitlan. No clear imports are present from test-pit exca- Mexico suggest the operation of at least three exchange spheres. vations in the southern Basin of Mexico (O'Neill 1962; Parsons First, interaction was common along the Gulf Coast, with ap- et al. 1982; Sejourne 1983), although one possible Tlahuica parent widespread exchange of local decorated ceramics (Medel- Polychrome sherd (from Morelos) is illustrated by Sejourne lin Zenil 1952:81, 1960; Stark 1990). Some of these wares (1970:Figure 7). Charlton and Nichols (1987) and Susan Evans reached the Basin of Mexico, and they comprise 5% of the im- (personal communication) report small frequencies of ceram- ported sherds in Late Venta Salada excavations in the Tehua- ics from the Huaxteca and possibly the central Gulf Coast in can Valley (MacNeish, Peterson, and Flannery 1970:227). Late Aztec contexts in the Teotihuacan Valley, and Brumfiel Second, parts of central Guerrero southeast of the Tarascan em- notes the presence of Huaxtec ceramics in her surface collec- pire were apparently linked to that polity through exchange. tions from Huexotla (1976:240) and Xaltocan (personal Tarascan ceramics have been recovered in the Teloloapan area communication). (Lister 1947) and in the central Balsas (Muller 1979:23). Third, Late Aztec chipped-stone inventories in the Basin of Mex- Morelos, the Toluca Valley, and northeastern Guerrero may ico are dominated by Pachuca obsidian (the data are reviewed have formed another exchange sphere; Toluca and Guerrero in Smith, Sorensen, and Hopke 1984), and most of the gray ob- wares were imported in small numbers into western Morelos 160 Smith

OBSIDIAN SOURCES PACHUCA OBSIDIAN

PACHUCA ZINAPECUARO

6

% OF TOTAL OBSIDIAN

G.T. 50 %

20 - 50 % 0 L.T. 2 % hm

Figure 4. Distribution of Pachuca obsidian in Late Postclassic concexts outside of the Basin of Mexico (see Table 3 for site names and citations).

Table 3. Lace Postclassic sites with Pachuca obsidian

Cuernavaca" Smith, Sorensen, and Hopke 1984 Xochicalco 1bid. Cuexcomate and Capilco J. Sorensen, unpublished dala Coatlan Viejo Mason 1980:9 1 CDR-27 Lewarch 1980 Villa Morelos" Hester, Jack, and Benfer 1973 TzintzuntzanL Pollard 1982:259 Apatzingan.',b Hester, Jack, and Benfer 1973 Coxcatlan Viejo Sisson 1984 Tamazulapan Valley Byland 1980 Valley of Oaxacab Spence 1985: 15 Quiahuiztlana Jack, Hester, and Heizer 1972 Cempoala" Ibid. Atasta' Berlin 1956: 140ff Laguna Zope Zeitlin 1982:270ff Canajaste Blake 1985:470f Zaculeu' Woodbury and Trik 1953,2:228ff Cozumel" Nelson 1985:644 Chalchuapah Sheets 1978:13 Naco, Hondurasb Wonderly 1986:327 Sta. Rita Corozal' Chase 1985: 109 Mayapan Proskouriakoff 1962:369ff ~oconusco~ Clark, Lee, and Salcedo 1989:271 La Mixtequilla' Stark 1990

"Frequencies are based on a very lirnired sample of obsidian. "A Late Postclassic dating for these contexts IS likely, but not certain 'Percentages cannot be calculared from the data as presented, but it is stated or lmpl~edthat Pachuca obsidian is found in very \mall arnounrs. h his source presents data on obsidian sources from several sites. The sltes and percentages for Pachuca obsidian are as follow,: La Palrna (32.3%),Acaperahua (18.2ub), Las Morcnas (10.4%),Ocelocaleo (57.1%), and El Aguacate (38.7%). 'This area is not shown in Figure 4 becau,e I received the data after final producr~on01 the figures Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

(Smith, unpublished notes), as were polychromes from Mali- evidence for Postclassic cotton production and trade is found nalco (Galvan V. 1984 incorrectly refers to clearly local poly- in Smith and Hirth (1988). The archaeologically documented chromes at Malinalco as "Tlahuica" Polychrome from Morelos). importance of cotton textiles fits well with the abundant ethno- Two or three sherds of Morelos Polychrome are illustrated from historic data for the production, distribution, and use of these Malinalco (Galvan 1984:Lamina 108). Ceramics from the Cuer- items in Aztec Mexico (e.g., Berdan 1987~). navaca area, Yautepec, and eastern Morelos were recovered in Another perishable good for which we have evidence of high my recent excavations in western Morelos, indicating trade on levels of production suggesting export is paper. Basalt "bark- a regional level. beaters" are common in Late Postclassic Morelos (e.g., Mason 1980), and the recovery of large numbers by the Postclassic Morelos Archaeological Project strongly suggests production of Other Goods paper for export (Szymborski 1987); again, this corresponds to A number of the durable valuables encountered in ceremonial the ethnohistorically documented importance of paper produc- deposits in Tenochtitlan are also reported from other Late Post- tion in this area (Codex Mendoza 1980:23v). classic sites in central and northern Mesoamerica. The most common of these are copper and jade. Their scarcity, degree of DISCUSSION OF ARTIFACT DISTRIBUTIONS labor investment, aesthetic quality, and presence in caches in Tenochtitlan all point to high economic and symbolic value (see Several conclusions should be drawn from this distribution data Smith 1987c on archaeological concepts of value), and the before comparisons are made with the relevant ethnohistoric mechanisms and patterns of their distributions are important to documentation for Aztec trade. First, these data indicate that an understanding of trade in the Late Postclassic period. How- ceramic exchange was widespread in Late Postclassic northern ever, archaeological data on these items is quite scarce and at Mesoamerica, and imported vessels comprised a significant this point very little can be learned from archaeological sources component of local ceramic inventories in many areas. The ce- alone. First, we have only a very incomplete understanding of ramic percentages listed in Table 2 are based upon total counts the places of origin for these items, and second, their archae- of sherds, and thus systematically underrepresent the numeri- ological occurrences are rare and often poorly reported, cal importance of imported wares. In most Postclassic ceramic preventing meaningful quantification. assemblages, the vast majority of the sherds are from ollas Copper objects are particularly tantalizing. While non-Maya (jars) because these are large common vessels that tend to break occurrences of the metal are clearly Postclassic in date (Pender- into many fragments. When vessel estimates based upon rims gast 1962), most examples cannot be phased firmly, although are used in place of raw sherd counts, the percentages of bowls Hosler's (1988) recent technological chronology of west Mexi- increase dramatically, and most imports are bowls. For exam- can metallurgy represents a major advance. More than 45 cop- ple, in a sample of excavated levels from Cuexcomate and per artifacts were recovered in Late Postclassic contexts by the Capilco in Morelos, the mean frequency of Basin of Mexico ce- Postclassic Morelos Archaeological Project; most of these are ramic imports for the Early Cuauhnahuac phase is 2.8% for tools (needles and chisels), with some luxury items (bells) as sherd counts and 8.3% for vessel counts (using a minimum well. However, we do not yet know where these objects may number of vessels estimate based upon rims). Similar transfor- have been manufactured, nor whence they arrived in Morelos. mations would probably apply to the ceramics of all sites listed If the copper is from west Mexico (a likely source), was it traded in Table 2, suggesting that Aztec vessels made up a far higher directly to Morelos or did it come by way of Tenochtitlan? (Sa- percentage of local inventories than the 0.1% to 3 VO generally hagun [1950-1982, book 9:18] mentions copper jewelry among reported. The significance of imported ceramics goes beyond the goods traded by the pochteca.) Current chemical anlayses this, however, since most sites also have vessels imported from of these artifacts by Dorothy Hosler may help resolve this ques- areas besides the Basin of Mexico. In Early Cuauhnahuac tion. In spite of the obvious importance of copper, jade, and Morelos, for example, frequencies of all imported ceramics (cal- other valuables, 1 must reluctantly exclude them from further culated from vessels, not sherds) are often above 10%. consideration in this article. Some discussion of archaeological This finding goes against Drennan's assertion that: occurrences of copper, jade, and turquoise may be found in Pendergast (1962), Bray (1977), Thouvenot (1982), Weigand, Despite the long archaeological tradition of stylistic identi- Harbottle, and Sayre (1977), and Hosler (1988). fication of "trade sherds" and the more recent accuracy of Archaeological analyses of trade must also take into consid- chemical identification of source materials, the Aztec case eration perishable goods for which we have evidence of man- does not provide any encouragement for the idea that pot- ufacture, although the goods themselves have not survived. For tery was a major item in long-distance rnovement of goods. Late Postclassic Mesoamerica, the most important of these is (Drennan 1984a:1 10) cotton textiles (see Berdan 1987~;Drennan 1984a). Cotton spin- ning is recognizable from spindle whorls and spinning bowls This assertion is not based on any archaeological data for Az- (Smith and Hirth 1988), and the former are common in the Ba- tec ceramic trade, but rather on ethnohistoric record^.^ Dren- sin of Mexico in spite of the lack of cotton cultivation (Parsons

1972); this indicates a trade in raw cotton with producing areas ------pp like Morelos and the Gulf Coast. Cotton spinning was an inten- '~rennan's statement on Aztec pottery exchange is based upon sive and widespread activity in Late Postclassic Morelos (Smith quantities of bowls in tribute documents like the Codex Mendoza (1980). However. the~eitems are almost certainly gourds (many are and Hirth 1988), and many of the finished textiles must have glossed "xicaras") rather than ceramic bowls (Frances Berdan, personal been destined for export. Further discussion of archaeological communication). Smith nan's disparagement of the economic significance of pottery COMPARISONS WITH ETHNOHISTORY exchange in Prehispanic Mesoamerica (see also Drennan 1984b) is echoed by Sanders and Santley (1983). These authors argue Exchange Mechanisms that high production and transport costs would have limited ex- There is very little ethnohistorical information on long-distance change of ceramics (and most other subsistence and utilitarian exchange of ceramics in Aztec Mexico. I have found three ref- goods, but not obsidian) to relatively small local regions. While erences: (1) Diaz del Castillo (1983: 167) states that Moctezuma this may be true in many cases, the volume of ceramic transport was served meals in Cholula Polychrome vessels at Tenochtit- is an empirical issue and not all exchange systems will conform Ian (see also Torquemada 19751983, 1:387); (2) one of Saha- to cost constraints in the same way. The high volume of Aztec gun's lists (1950-1982, book 9:18) of goods traded by the ceramic trade will be discussed later. pochreca merchants3 includes "golden bowls for spindles" (teu- The falloff curves for Aztec and Guinda ceramics (Figure 3) cuitlatzaoalcaxitl) which [nay refer to Aztec Ill Black-on- conform closely to exponential curves, indicating that transport Orange spinning bowls (see Smith and Hirth 1988); and (3) distance is a major factor in explaining the distribution data (see Sahagun's (1950-1982, book 10:84) discussion of salt merchants Renfrew 1977). This suggests that the ceramic exchange systems (iztanarnacac) mentions that they traveled from market to mar- were relatively open (involving merchants and markets) and not ket selling salt and "salt ollas" (iztacomitl), which probably cor- under strong political control. These curves correspond more respond to the Texcoco Fabric-h~larkedsalt vessels. closely to Renfrew's "down-the-line exchange" model than to Beyond these, the only related data on ceramic trade are his "prestige-chain exchange" model (1977). The obsidian dis- some statements that ceramics were sold in markets (e.g., An- tributions are far more complex and require a combination of derson, Berdan, and Lockhart 1976: 138ff; Sahagun 1950- 1982, economic, political, and ideological factors for their explana- book 1033). While Sahagun's list (19501982, book 10:83) does tion. The contrasting quantitative distributions and the far include "merchants' bowls" (puch/ecaiocaxitl), most of the ce- greater spatial range of Aztec obsidian relative to ceramics sug- rarnics in any market were altnost certainly locally produced. gest that separate exchange networks or activities may have This suggests that merchants distinct from the pochteca were in- been involved. volved in the ceramic trade (or else the pochteca distributed Az- The widespread distribution of Aztec ceramics and obsidian tec and Guinda pottery and the surviving lists of pochteca implies a similarly extensive system of exchange of perishable merchandise are incomplete). goods. It is clearly dangerous to speculate on what might have Documentary references to obsidian exchange are slightly been traded if only we had greater evidence. However, some ar- more abundant; much of these data are reviewed by Isaac chaeologists have suggested that the extent of ceramic trade may (1986). Pachuca obsidian was moved to Texcoco and Tenochtit- serve as an index to the extent of exchange of perishable items Ian through both tribute and market channels (Isaac 1986; (e.g., Hopkins 1978:46), and thus while ceramics by themselves Spence 1985), and POC/I/L~C(Itraveling south carried obsidian as may have had limited economic significance, they do provide far as Xicalanco (Sahagun 1950-1982, book 9: 18). Berlin (1956: evidence of exchange routes and activities which probably in- 142) suggests that this Xicalanco obsidian trade was responsible volved many other commodities that have left no material for the origin of the green blades found at Atasta, a site located traces. Texcoco Fabric-Marked provides a good example; we in the vicinity of the Xicalanco port of trade. It is possible that know that these ceramics were used to transport salt from the some of the differences in the quantitative distributions of ob- Basin of Mexico, and their occurrence in foreign areas is strong sidian and ceramics are due to different merchants involved in evidence for salt trade. the two types of exchange-pochteccr for the obsidian and non- The overall spatial configuration of trade goods shows that pochteca merchants for the ceramics. Late Postclassic exchange systems were strongly nucleated with The foreign luxury objects excavated from ceremonial con- a focus on the Basin of Mexico. This mirrors the situation in the texts in Tenochtitlan probably originated in tribute payments, Classic period, when Teotihuacan was at the hub of a wide- given the symbolic importance of the Templo Mayor as the cen- spread exchange system involving both the transport of goods ter of the Aztec empire (see Matos M. 1982; Pasztory 1987). and the spread of styles (Sanders and Santley 1983; Santley The lack of objects like sculptures, crocodiles, or exotic ceram- 1983). These centralized configurations present a strong con- ics in the imperial tribute rolls (e.g., Codex Mendoza 1980) trast with the Early Postclassic () period, when Meso- should not be taken to indicate that these items were not ob- american exchange networks were highly decentralized. Smith tained through tribute channels. Berdan (1987b) emphasizes and Heath-Smith (1980) show that while Early Postclassic trade that the Mexica tribute system included both the regularly was extensive, most exchange routes bypassed the Basin of scheduled payments from tributary provinces recorded in the Mexico. Tula was not nearly the economic central place (on a tribute rolls and irregular payments of "gifts" from foreign no- macroregional scale) that Teotihuacan or Tenochtitlan was. As bles and rulers (many of whom ruled in strategic provinces Renfrew (1975) points out, spatial centralization does not nec- rather than tributary provinces; see Berdan 1987a; Smith essarily imply political centralization or control (Renfrew 1987b). On the other hand, Berdan (1987b) makes the point frames his discussion in terms of the spatial equivalence of cen- that ethnohistoric descriptions of tribute in luxury iterns show tral place markct exchange and central place redistribution). The falloff data suggest that the predominance of Tenochtitlan in Late Postclassic exchange networks was more economic than 'The pochteca were state-sponsored professional merchants orga- political in nature, but this cannot be firmly established from nized in a guildlike fashion. There is abundant ethnohistoric data on the poclrteca, much of which is discussed by Berdan (1982, 1987b) and Isaac distribution data alone. Further information on archaeological (1986). A basic qllestion in the ethnohistory of trade is whether contexts and nonceramic data is needed, and of course the eth- or not there were long-distance merchant ti01 part of the formal nohistorical record is of great relevance here. pochteccr organization. Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire relatively modest quantities relative to the probable high de- refinement of Late Postclassic ceramic chronologies prevents mand, and that consequently many such goods must have been detailed correlations with the ethnohistoric record on the em- obtained by means of trade. Finally, goods like Huaxtec ceram- pire (Smith 1987a), it is instructive to consider the data we have ics or obsidian from exterior sources found outside of at our current state of knowledge. Figure 5 presents a map of Tenochtitlan were most likely obtained through trade rather the extent of the Aztec empire (as developed by the 1986 Dum- than tribute. barton Oaks Summer Seminar on the empire4), superimposed on the distribution map of Aztec ceramics from Figure I. Tribu- tary provinces are the imperial units listed in the Codex Men- Elite Consumption doza (1980); their major responsibility was to provide regular Several recent studies have discussed the exchange of luxury payments of tribute to the Triple Alliance. Slrategic provinces items among Late Postclassic elites, emphasizing their role in in- were under Aztec control, but had a different kind of relation- terregional communication, social stratification, and political ship with the empire. They tended to fulfill military and defen- action (Blanton and Feinman 1984; Brumfiel 1987a, 1987b; sive roles, and their payments in kind to the empire were less Charlton and Nichols 1987; Smith 1986). It is possible that ex- regular and tended to be referred to as "gifts." These two types otic decorated ceramics, clearly relatively valuable commodities of provinces are discussed in Smith (1987b) and Berdan (1987a). in comparison with local wares in most areas, were used by the Figure 5 shows that most of the sites with Aztec ceramics elite as luxury consumption goods. The fact that most of the (83%) were included in the provinces of the Aztec empire in Aztec 111 and Cuinda vessels found outside of the Basin of 1519. Most of the provinces which have no published evidence Mexico are serving bowls with painted decorations is in line for Aztec trade goods have not yet seen intensive archaeologi- with such a suggestion (see Smith 1987c) as is the presence of cal fieldwork directed at Late Postclassic contexts. While at first Aztec goods in enemy areas like because elite interac- glance this may appear to support the interpretation that the tion cut across political borders (Smith 1986). movement of Aztec ceramics was associated with conquest and However, ceramic distribution data indicate that Aztec and the expansion of the empire, some caution is needed here. As other trade wares were not limited to elite contexts and were discussed in Smith (1987a), the Late Postclassic period as an ar- probably traded through market systems rather that through chaeologial entity includes intervals of time both before and af- limited or specialized channels of elite exchange. Excavations ter the formation of the Triple Alliance empire in 1428; hence, of refuse deposits from a random sample of Late Postclassic Late Postclassic Aztec ceramics outside of the Basin of Mexico houses at Capilco and Cuexcomate in Morelos revealed a wide- may date to either the pre- or postimperial periods. Further- spread distribution of ceramics (and obsidian) from the Basin more, ethnohistoric documentation clearly indicates that the of Mexico. In the Early Cuauhnahuac phase, both elite resi- polities of the Basin of Mexico were trading with exterior areas dences in the sample have Aztec ceramics, as do five of six non- both prior to and after conquering them, and the creation of ex- elite houses. In the Late Cuauhnahuac phase, all houses (2 elite port markets for ceramics was not an imperial strategy of the and 24 nonelite in the random sample) have Aztec ceramics. In Triple Alliance (Berdan 1982; Blanton 1987; Smith 1986, 1987a, both phases, the elite houses have higher frequencies of Aztec 1987b). In Morelos, two separate studies have documented Late 111 Black-on-Orange plates and bowls than nonelite houses, but Aztec imports both before and after the area was conquered by most houses have at least small numbers of these sherds. Other the Mexica (Smith 1987a, unpublished data). The data plotted Basin of Mexico imports like Texcoco Fabric-Marked salt ves- in Figure 5 only permit the inference that the Aztecs were inter- sels and Aztec I11 spinning bowls show no elite association. ested in many provincial areas for both their trade potential (as Similarly, Stark (1990) notes that Aztec imports are distrib- measured by ceramics) and their tributary potential (as known uted widely (though at low frequencies) among rural households from ethnohistory). Documentary sources clearly indicate that in the La Mixtequilla area of Veracruz. The widespread distri- long-distance trade was extensive within the empire, both be- bution of imports among houses in the two areas points tween the provinces and Tenochtitlan and within provincial strongly to the presence of market exchange according to areas (see Smith 1987b; Berdan 1978, 1987a). Hirth's (1990) models, and the higher frequencies of some im- As stated earlier, the ceramic distribution data by themselves ports in elite contexts is probably due to the economic and per- suggest that the goods were moved through exchange channels haps stylistic value of the goods. The falloff curves also support not strongly under political control. This interpretation is sup- the notion of independent merchants and market exchange as ported by the map in Figure 5. If the distribution of Aztec ce- mechanisms for the distribution of Aztec ceramics. In short, the ramics had been carried out by the state in relation to imperial connection between elites and decorated ceramics, often hy- policy and organization, one would expect far higher frequen- pothesized by archaeologists (e.g., Rice 1983; Smith and Heath- cies of Aztec ceramics at provincial capitals like Coixtlahuaca Smith 1980), may not be very strong in the Late Postclassic (site 44, Figure 2), coupled with low frequencies (or a lack of period due to the prevalence of market exchange (Hirth 1990). Aztec ceramics) at nonimperial sites in areas like the Tehuacan Durable luxury goods like jade, gold, or copper are more likely to have exclusive or strong associations with elites, but detailed - - -- ~ 4~heDumbarton Oaks project on the Aztec empire originated in a excavation data on these goods at a large sample of sites are summer seminar at Dumbarton Oaks in 1986. Frances Berdan was the lacking. organizer, and other participants were Richard Blanton, Elizabeth Boone, Mary Hodge, Emily Umberger, and myself. Justifications for our revision of Barlow's (1949) classic map of the empire and discus- Aztec Artifact Distributions and the Aztec Empire sions of our methods and sources are presented in Berdan (1987a) and Smith (1987b). The map shown in Figure 4 is provisional in character How do the artifact distribution data relate to the spatial orga- and we are still working out the details. Final results and detailed maps nization of the Aztec empire? While the lack of chronological will be published in monograph form in the near future. Smith

THE AZTEC EMPIRE I

Figure 5. Map of the Aztec ernpire showing sites with Aztec ceranlics (see footnote 4 on the origin of this map)

Valley (nos. 41 and 42). There are even Aztec ceramics in the huacan, an independent area.) The site of Quauhtochco, pro- enemy territory of Tlaxcala and Pachuca obsidian in the Taras- vides a unique example of an imperial town with considerable can realm. Cholula has limited quantities of Aztec ceramics (Ta- archaeological evidence of contact with the Basin of Mexico. ble I), and Snow's survey in the Rio Zahuapan area of northern Quauhtochco was an Aztec garrison and provincial capital (CO- Tlaxcala recovered Aztec 111 (12 sherds at 7 sites) and Guinda dex hlendoza 1980:17v, 4%; see Berdan 1987a; van Zantwijk (541 sherds at 21 sites) ceramics (Snow's methods of data pre- 1967), and it is encouraging that the archaeological remains ex- sentation prevent the calculation of percentages of types by cavated by Medellin Zenil (1952) lead to similar conclusions on site). Again, these data suggest the importance of exchange their own. mechanisms independent of the control of the Triple Alliance The effects of the Tarascan empire on trade are relevant to states. the patterns of Pachuca obsidian distribution in Michoacan. The political and military situation in central Mexico also Tzintzuntzan and Villa Morelos, both included in that empire, helps explain the distribution of Pachuca obsidian in Late Post- have very small amounts of green obsidian, while Azpatzingan, classic sites. Zeitlin (1982) demonstrates the importance of po- a far more distant site not part of the Tarascan domain (Chad- litical factors in shaping obsidian production and exchange wick 1971:686), has large quantities of green obsidian (Table 3). systems throughout the Prehispanic epoch in Mesoamerica, and The relied upon obsidian from the Zinapecuaro his insights apply to the current data. Two political/strategic source area, which is located in Tarascan territory (Figure 4). factors appear to be relevant to the obsidian distribution data: At Villa Morelos, 96% of the sourced obsidian (96 out of 100 the imperial status of receiver towns and the effects of the artifacts) is from Zinapecuaro (Hester, Jack, and Benfer 1973), Tarascan empire on exchange in west Mexico. Along the Gulf while Apatzingan has only I of 17 artifacts from the Tarascan Coast, Cempoala had considerably more Pachuca obsidian than source. the nearby town of Quiahuiztlan (Table 3), which rnay relate to It is interesting to note that the Aztec/Tarascan frontier was Cempoala's inclusion in the Aztec empire and the independence not impermeable to trade. Gorenstein (1985: 104ff) comments of the Quiahuiztlan area (Figure 4; see Berdan 1987a). (An ex- on possible exchange activities between groups on opposite sides ample contrary to this interpretation is the similarity in green of the frontier, and obsidian took part in this trade. In addition obsidian levels between Tamazulapan, an imperial area, and Te- to Pachuca obsidian at Tarascan sites (Table 3), Zinapecuaro Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

material was recovered in Late Postclassic contexts at Xoclii- down" forces like political centralization and an expanding elite calco and El Ciruclo in western Morelos (Smith, Sorensen, and (Blanton 1983), and both sets of factors were prevalent in Post- Hopke 1984). The vast majority of the obsidian at a workshop classic central Mexico. Demographic increase and agricultural at El Ciruelo is green, but 6 out of the 7 gray artifacts sourced intensification were significant processes in the Basin of Mex- from the workshop pertain to Zinapccuaro (Smith. Sorensen, ico, Morelos, and other areas (Sanders, Parsons, and Santley and Hopke 1984). Howevcr, this is the only known cxa~npleof 1979; Smith 1990). and city-states with hereditary elites were ex- Zinapecuaro obsidian outsidc of the Tarascan zone in the Late panding all over northern Mesoamerica (Charlton and Nichols Postclassic period (D. Healan, personal communication), a sit- 1987; Hodge 1985; Smith 1986). These processes were operat- uation in contrast to earlier periods when this material was quite ing throughout central Mexico, but one arca-the Basin of widespread in Mesoamerica. Zinapecuaro material was eben Mexico-achieved a significant demographic and politico- traded as far a5 Yucatan in the Early-Middle Postclas5ic (Ncl- economic advantage over other areas, leading to imperialistic son 1985). This suggests that the Morelos situation may rcpre- expansion and the nucleated spatial pattern of long-distance sent an anomaly, ancl that TarascaniA~techostilities may have trade noted earlier. These processes had reached critical levels drastically reduced thc distribution of Zinapecuaro obsidian by the start of the Late Postclassic (well before the formation outsideof Michoacan. It is probably significant that Aztec ce- of the .4ztec empire), and they are therefore more relevant to ramics ha~enot been reportcd lroni Tarascan rites (Moedauo the explanation of the volume of Late Postclassic trade than are 1941, 1946). the ethnohistorically documented effects of Aztec imperialisrn.

CONCLUSIONS The Relationship between Archaeology and Ethnohistory The most common approach to the joint use of archaeology The High Volume of Trade in the Late Postclassic Pel-iod ant1 ethnohistory in the study of contact-period populations in The transition from the Middle Postclassic period (post-Toltec. Mcsoarnerica is to set up models and hypotheses based upon pre-Mexica; ca. A.D. 1150-1350) to the Latc Postclassic wit- ethnohistory and then use archaeology to evaluate and extend nessed a dramatic increase in exchange betacen the Basin of these moclels. Whilc this method has generated much useful Mexico and other parts of Me5oamerica. The quite extenxivc work (e.g.. Brumfiel 1987a; Byland 1980; Gorenstein 1973; Ma- distributions of Late Aztec ceramics and obsidian doc~~mcnted son 1980), it assigns ethnohistory an epistemological and pro- here contrast strongly with the situation in the Middle Postclas- cedural priority over archaeology, and as a result it can place sic. Early Aztec (Rliddle Postclassic) ceraniics are rarely found li~nitationson tlie scope of archaeological research and expla- outside of the Basin of Mexico (see Parsons 1966:398-447), al- nation. An alternative approach gives archaeology and ethno- though the common type A/.tec I Black-on-Orange (Griffin and history cquivalent status in thc investigation of the past. The Espejo 1950) participated in a wider zonc of stylistic inrcraction. archaeological and ethnohistorical records are first analyzed There are ceramics identical to A~tecI in form and decoration. separately to yicld their own conclusions before correlation is but with a coarser, softer, non-Aztec paste; rhcse ceramics are attempted (Charlton 1981; Pasztory 1987; Smith 1987a, 1990; found in Middle Postclassic contexts in Mo~.elosand southern South 1977). Puebla where they are termed "Morelos-Pucbla Black-on- In this view, the only justification for the predominant role Orange" (Smith 1983:407-410; see also Plunkett 1989). In the that ethnohistory has played in Aztec studies is the abundance case of obsidian, a number of authors have notcd a dramatic of data. However, now that archaeology is gaining a foothold increase in the occurrence of green obsidian in the Late Post- in the lnalysis of conquest-period societies, we must insist upon classic period relative to earlier times (e.g., Clark, Lcc, and its independence of, and epistemological equivalence to, ethno- Salcedo 1989; Nelson 1985; Smith, Sorcnsen, ancl Hopke 1984; history. This is an empirical as well as a conceptual issue-we Stark 1990). need more excavation of Late Postclassic sites to provide ade- The data presented in this article point strongly to indcpcn- quate contextual and quantified data so that archaeology can dent merchants and market system5 as the rnechanirms by reach its potential in the study of Postclassic Mesoamerica. This which Aztec ceramics and other goods Lvere moved to distant article suggests some of the potential of Late Postclassic archae- areas. The widespread distribution of Aztcc ceramics (Fig- ological data in their own terms, while at the same time the ure I), including enemy arcas never conquered by tlie Aztecs, analysis indicates the clear neecl for more archaeological data suggests the activity of merchants independent of 5tare control. and higher quality data for studies of Late Postclassic The use of these objects by most households, both clite ancl economics. commoner, is an indication of market distribution (Hirtli 1990), In conclusion, there were a number of fundamental pro- and the exponential falloff curves provide aclditional support ccsscs of socioeconomic change occurring in Postclassic central for this interpretation. The lack of a direct association betwecn Rle\ico, including population increase, the spread of city-states, ceramic exchange and Aztec imperialism is shown by the wide- the development of elite networks, and a major intensification spread trade both before and aftcr the formation of thc empirc. of political and economic evolution in the Basin of Mexico In light of these patterns, we may po,it a relationship betwccn (Smith 1986:82, 1990). These processes produced both the po- the increase in archaeological evidence for long-distance tradc litical/tcrritorial configuration known through ethnohistory as between Middle and Late Postclassic times and the growth of the Aztec empire, and an economic configuration known market systems and indepenclcnt tradc as docunicnted by cth- through archaeology and documented in this article. Rather nohistory (Berdan 1978, 1985; Isaac 1986). than using the ethnohistoric record to explain the archaeolog- The growth of market systems and market exchange is stim- ical record (or vice versa), we need to use both sets of data to ulated primarily by the "bottom-up" forces of population tlocumcnt and explain the socioeconomic processes that shaped growth and production intensification and secondarily by "top- the Mesoamerican past. SUMARIO

Este articulo discute dato5 arqtleolbgico sobre el intc~i~~nihi~~ilc lal-ga ALIIICILIC104 patro~ics c\paciales de este comercio era nuclcado alredcdor distancia en la kpoca Po\tcl;isico Tardio en 1;ts ireas I~OI.I~! ci,~it~;rl ile de la ('ucnca de hlk\ico, parece que la mayoria del intercamhio no era la Me\oamkrica. AI-tefacto\ A/tcco\ de la Cuenca dc klC\ico (ce~-liiii- haja un control admi~~i\~rclti\oI'uerte. Se cornparan los re\ultados ar- ica y ohsidiana) mue\trnn una di\11ih~1ci61ia~ii]>lia. per0 artcl'ait~\Je q~~colOgico\COI~ fue~ite\ et11ohis161ica\ para atranzar el conocimiento de o[ros Arm5 so11 riie~io\conlilne\ ell la cucllca 1 cr~~1rra3 repione\. E\to\ la\ ~iiecnnis~nosde comcrcio, los efectoa del elite sobre el intercamhio. dato\ indican 1111 nivel alto de intcrc;uiit>io ell cl l'os[clii\~co Tarilio. ! I:(\ rclz~cionc\entre el interca~nbio! el impcrialisrno.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A version ol'this article \\as presenteil at the 3rd An~iualhlccti~ig of Elizahctli Hoone, Mary Hodse, and Emily Umbergcr. Da~idt.reidel, the Society for Arnerican Archaeoloe.. f'lioeni\. .4l. kluch 01 (he a1 Kenneth Hirth, Llonald Mc\'~cker.Serrel Sorensen, Barbara Stark, and tifactual distribution data upon \\ hich [hi\ article i\ bawd \\ere asscni- En~il! Uniberger kindly pro~idedunpublished data and/or papers used bled and organized at Ilumbartorl Oak\ iri \L'a\hington, DC', during 1r1) in [hi\ article. Cynthia Heath-Smith and two anonymouf referees made participation in a summer 5erninai on the 4~1c.ceriipi~c iri 1086. 1 \\.ant hclpiul comment\ on an earlier draft of this article. Figure 3 wapro- to thank Dumbarton Oak\ for the ol>portunil>10 attc.rid the seminal-, ducetl h! tlic Loyola IJniver\ity Center for In\tructiori:rl Design, which and (hanks are due to the other ~>articipant\1'01- tlici~Iiell) \vith d;ua. ~~lsoaided in the ~>rotluctionof the other figure\. interpretation\, arid volleyball-Iyra~ice\ l3eril;11i. U~clii~~.ill3li111to11,

REFERENCES

Aco5ta. Sorgc R. 1983 I.ac'tor\ Underlying the (31-iginand Evolution of Market Sy\- 1956-1957 I~iterprctz~citi~idc nlpu~iu\ ilc It)\ il:~to\obtcniilos ell lula ie111\. 111 L<~~IIOIIII~~A1ill71-opolo,y~~: 7i1pic.~ untl Theorir.~,edited reI:ili\o\ :I lit cpoc~itolteca. KOI~~\I~.lIc~vicCI~IU (I(, t::51i/(/io$,.I//- b! Si~itiOrti/, pp. 51-66. Uni\cr\ily ]'re\\ of America, Lanham, /ropol(j,ric'oc 14:75- 1 10. \lL>. Ahuja 0..(iuillerrn~) I087 . I ('o~~rl~trru/ii~c~I'o/i/ic~u/ Ec~ono111~1 o/' E~rrpirc~.,.Paper pre- 1982 La cerlimica prchispiliica en el 'Ic~iil>lo\la)o~. 111 111 Te./1//11o se~~teilat the 86th i21inual Cleeting 01' the American .411tlir~)polog- "Mr7yvr: Evc,ur.erc,io~rc,,I, '.c/i/c//os,edited by Ld~rar~ic)21;110\ \lo(- ic:~l.4\sociation. ('l~icago. te/.uma, pp. 245-25'7. In\tituto Nacional tle ,\ntropolo:i;r c t3lariton, Richard E., and Gal-. I.ein~nan Historia, Mexico C'ity. I9S4 The Jlesoamc~ican\Lorlil System. /1111rricunAn/l~ropolo,qi.s~ ./\ndc.r\on, Artti~~rJ.O.. l.iance\ Bcrdan. anil .I:trnc\ lockhart S6:673-682. 1976 Brvo~~cl/he, Cor1ic.c.v: The .VU/II~IICic~n. o/ C'olo~lililL1c.vit.o 13r;1!, \V:ir\\ ick Univer\ity of C'alil'orni:i 1'1-e5s. Licrkele>. 1477 Jlaya Rlctal\\ork and Its Exter~i;ilConnections. In Sociul Pro- Barlow, Rot3er1 H. ccJs.silr .\I(,I,UlJrr~lii.slo/:r., edited hy No]-man Ham~nond,pp. 365- 1948 Trej cornplqo\ de cerimica ilcl norlc del rio lini\a\. 111 LI (I<.- 404. Acadcriiic 1'1c$s, New York. c,iclmle I/(, ,MC\ie.o, 4/11 .bIc,str Kctlor~rlu,pp. 1x0-100. Sc~c~c~lail B~unil'icl,Elirahrtli Mexicans de Antropoloeia. Jlc.;~coC'ity. 1976 Sl)cc~~rili:lii/ot~cltlrl E.vcliu~igctrl ihr Luie Po.slcltrs.~ic./A:~rjc.) I949 The, E.t-ir111u/ 111r EIIIII~~Co/' /11(, C.I///II/U,tIc,.v~(~ci. I bcio- ('o~i~///~it~ipq///~/r.\-o/I~r. Mot-~c.o. Ur~published doctoral disserta- Americ:~na,no. 28, Hel-kclc! tion. Ljepal-lmcnt 01' 4111Iiropolopy. University of Mii,l~igan,U~ii- Berdan, t:rar~ces 1.. \C~\IIhlicrofilms. Ann .4rho1. 1978 Ports of Trade in Mc\~);rniei~ca:i\ Ke:~pprai\al. In (~'i/l/rrrc/l IOX7a L.litc ant1 Iltilitarian C'~ait\ill the A~tecState. In Sl~eciulizu- C'onlirr~//(vin ;Meou/~~c~ric~tr,edited by lla\ iil BI o\\ 111311. ]?I>.170- rio~r.L:\-c,l~u~~ge, u11t1 C'oii~l~lr.\- Socielicc. edited by Elizabeth M. 198. Mouton. The H:rg[~e. lir11111l'i~Iand Ti~i~othyK. Earle, pp. 102118. C nriibridge Univer- 1982 7he A ,-I(,(.\ (!/ ('c'~ili.ul.Mevic,o: '1 11 l~iil~c~i.iolSoc.icj/~.. Hol r , \it!. PI-^$\, Nc\\ Yo~.k. Rinehart and M'irifton. Nc\\ YorL. I0X7b C'on,uniplio~iarid l'olitic. ;it Artec Hucxotla. .A~r~eric.unAn- 1985 Markets ill the Econoriiy of A/tec R1i.ii.o. In .'lllirhc/r (/II(/ l1irol)oloy is/ 80:676-686. Markcling, editcd b! Stl~ailPlattner, pp. 339-367. U~ii\ci\ityI'ie\\ Byland. HI-ucc E. of America, Lanht~m. I OX0 /'oli/ic~~/lc/rrtl O'OII~I~II~.Il'r'olulion in lhe 7uinu:~rlu/1un Vullc.~, 1987a Polilicul uncl Ec'c.ono/rlic. C;oo;./~ul~l~vq/ thc~Lu.rlc,~-~i ..1 .lli~lc~cu.-I//(/, O[I.VU~II, .M(,.vi(.o. Unpubli\lied doctoral dissertation. Krcrltt~.Paper proented at the X6111 .Ailnu:tl leeting of' the ,4111~1- Ilcpartmcnt 01' ,\nth~-opolog~.I'cn~i\yl\ar~ia State U~iiversity,Uni- ican Anthr-opological Associatioll. C'liic;~gt). \,crsi~! Park. U~iiver>ityMicrol'ilrii$. .~IIII!\rbor. 1987h The Ecoriomics of Aztec I.II\II~! 1 rade a~~dTrihu~e. In 711(, C;~bie~-aC ;c\lro. Ruh& Az1r.c. Trtt~plo.ilu.vor, edited by El~zahethH. Booiie. pp. I6 1-1 83. 8 El pra!cc.to arclueoldgico "Cocula:" Kr\ultados generales. Durnbarton Oaks. Wa\hingro~~.DC. In .lrc~~~~'vIvr'i/j, el~~ol~ivlorio clrl eslurlo clr Guc,rroro, pp. 173- 1987~ Cotton in Aztec Mexico: PI-oduction. Di\trib~~lion.and Ire\. 200. In\titutc) Nncional dc Aritropologia c Flihtoria. llcxico Alexirun Sl~~dier/E.\lutlio,.\lo.\-ic~c~~/os 3:235-262. ('it! . Berlin. Heinrich C'hail\r icL, Robert 1956 Lule Pollrr.v Hori;o~i,vJ' 7uhc1.rc,o.;W(,.vic.o. C'ontrihutio~i\to 107 1 Arcliacological S!~~tlicsi\c1I' \lichoacan and Adjacmt Regions. Arnerican Anthropology and Hijtor). \.ol. 12, no. 50. C'arncgie In- 111 ~Irc~liurolopvq/'.Yori/~r~-~r ,Mrsotr/nericu, part 2, edited hy C;ol-- stituiion of U'ashirrpton, Washington, I)( ili111 t. tLholm and Ignacio Bernal, pp. 657-693. Hundhook of Bernal, Ignacio ~11~l~Ilc~,,I /~/c,ric(it/ lti(liut~.\, \ 01, I I . Uni~ersityof Texas Pres5, 1948-1949 E\ploraciones en ('oixtlahu;ii.;~, Oa\aca. Kei,l.\lcl .Me.\-- Au\tin. icanu rlr E,r/crtlios .A t~lropolci,yic~o.s1 0: 5 -76. C'l~arlton, rhom;i\ 11. Blake, Michael 1969 Tevcoco I ahlie-Marked Pottery, Tlalrlcs, and Salt-Making. 1985 Canujusl6: -117 /ivolr'it~,yf'orlc.ltr\aic ,ifqvu Silc~.UnpubIi\hcil /111rrr1co11:IIII~~LI~~ 34:73-76. doctoral dissertation, Depart~i~entof .4ntli1-opolopy, IJrii\e~\i~!ot' 1981 Archaeology. Ethnohistor). ar~dEthnology: Interpl-eli~eIn- Michigan, University Miciofil~n\.4rin Ai-bor. terfaces. Ac1vunce.s in .-li~c~hurolo:i.it.u/Mrlhod und Theory Blanton. Richard E. 3: 129- 176. 1978 .\lotile Alhun: Srllle~/irt~lI'~III~~II, ul I/?(, ,-1nc.ie11l Znl)olrc C'lia~ltori. rhomas H., and Dchvr;ih L. Nichols Capilol. Academic Pres,. New York. 1987 Ltr/c8l'oslc~lussic. unrl C'olotriul Perlot1 Niles ul Olu/r~bu,,Vex- Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

ico. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the American Healan, Dan M. Anthropological Association, Chicago. 1986 Technological and Nontechnological Aspects of an Obsidian Charlton, Thomas H., and Michael W. Spence Workshop Excavated at Tula, Hidalgo. In Ecunomic Aspecls of 1982 Obsidian Exploitation and Civilization in the Basin of Mex- Prehisponic Highland Mexico, edited by Barry L. Isaac, pp. 133- ico. In Mining and Mining technique.^ in .Ancient Mesoatnerica, 152. Research in Economic Anthropology, supplement no. 2. JAI edited by Phil C. Weigand and Gretchen Gwynne, pp. 7-86. An- Press, Green\\ ich. CT. lhropologj 6(1/2). Hester, Thomas R., Robcrt N. Jack, and Alice Benfer Chase, Diane Z. 1973 Trace Element Analysis of Obsidian frorn hfichoacan, Mex- 1985 Ganned but Not Forgotten: Late Postclassic Archaeology and ico: Preliminary Results. Univer.ri/y q/'C~ili/'orr~iaArchaeological Ritual at Santa Rita Corozal, Belize. In The Lowland Maya Posl- Research FociliN, Cotllrtl~rrlions,no. 18: 167-1 76. classic, edited by Arlen I.. Chase and Prudence M. Rice, pp. 104- Hirlh, Kenneth G. (ed.) 125. Universit! of Texas Press, .4ustin. 1984 Trade and E.~~~/i~tlg~it1 Early Mecoarrrerico. University of New Clark, John E., Thornas A. Lee. Jr., and Tamara Salcedo Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 1989 The Dihtributio~iof Obsidian. In ilnc~ict~lTrode and Tribuie: 1990 Ancient Urbutli.st?~ol Xoc'hicalco. Book in preparation. Econotnie.~q/'~he Soconurc.~ Region oj 12,fesoott7erica,edited by Hodge, Mary Barbara Voorhies, pp. 268-284. University of Utah Press, Salt 1985 Aztec City-Stales. Universi~yof Michigan, l'fuseum ofAn- Lake City. lhropologv, hlrtnoirs, no. 18. Codex Mendo~a Hopkins, Keith 1980 Colcccion cie Mendoza o Ccirlice Mendocino, edited by Fran- 1978 Economic Grouth and Towns in Classical Antiquity. In Towns cisco del Paso y Troncoro. Edilorial Inovacibn, Mexico City. (Re- in Socie~i~s,edited by Philip Abrams and E.A. Wrigley. pp. 35- print of 1925 edition) 77. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dia~del castillo, Bernal Hosler, Dorothy 1983 Hisloria vercladera cie la conquislo de lo Nueva ESL)NIIN,13th 1988 Ancient \Vest Mexican Metallurgy: A Technological Chronol- ed.. edited by Joaquin Kamire~Cabaiias. Editorial Porrila, hles- og y. .lo~irt~olof Field Archaeolog,~15: 19 1-2 17. ico C'ity. Isaac. Barry L. Drennan. Robert D. 1986 Notes on Obsidian, the Pochteca, and the Position of 1984a Long-Distance Tran\port Costs in Pre-Hispan~c!vleroanier- Tlatelolco in thc Aztec Empire. In Economic Aspeels of Prehis- ica. .Atnericon An//rropolo,~i,s/86: 105-1 12. panic Highlat~dMe,uico,edited by Barry 1. Isaac, pp. 319-343. Re- I984b I.ong-Distance Movement of Goods in the Mesoamerican \carch in Economic Anthropology, Supplement no. 2. JAl Press. I;or mativc and Classic. Atnericon At~iiq~iiiv49:27-43. Cireenwich, CT. DuSolier. Wilfrido Jack. Robert N., Thomas R. Hester, and Robert F. Heizer 1949 C'crlirnica arqueol6gica de San Cristobal Ecatepec. .-lrraler del 1972 Cieolo_eicalSources of Archaeological Obsidian from Sites in lns~i~u~u.Vucional rle Anlrol~ologiae Hislot.ia 3:27-57. Northern and Central Veracruz, Mexico. In Universily o/'Cali/'or- Earle, Timothy K., and Jonathon E. Ericson (ed5.) nia Archaeological Research ficilily, Conlribuiions, no. 16:117- 1977 Exchange Sys/rrti.s in Prehi~lory.Academic Press, Neu York. 122. I;rcidel, David A., and Payson D. Sheets Lcwarch, Dennis E. 1990 Obsidian in the Maya Lowland\: Utilitarian Luxury or Ritual 1980 A Late Postclassic Lithic Industry from Western hforelor. Necessity. In Pu/hitPujslo Po~,er:cVew illotiels Jor /he Polilicol Lilhic Technology 9: 10-1 I. Econott~y?/pi-6,-Col~rttibian Poli~re.~, editcd by Patricia Netherly 1 ind, Michael and David A. 1;reidel. Unpublished rnanuscript. 1987 The Sociocultural Dimensions of Mixtec Ceramics. I.?~nderbill Galvan Villegas, Luis Javier Universily Publica/ions it7 .-lt71hropolu~,no. 33. 1974- 1975 Lo arc{rreolo,ylir [/el Valle rle 12~fcilit1ulco.2 vols. Profes- Lister, Robert H. sional thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Meu- 1947 An Archaeological Surkey of the Region About Teloloapan, ico City. Guerrero. In El occidmlr lie Mhico, 41h Mesa Rerlot~tir,pp. 107- 1984 Aspeclos g~tlertrlerde lo orqueologia tle 12lulinolco, estodo dc 122. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Mexico City. Me.uico. lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Colccci6n 1949 Excavations at Cojumatlan, Michoacan, Mexico. Ut~iversily Cientifica, no. 137, Mexico City. of ~VewMexico Public~r~ionsin Anlhropology, no. 5. Garcia Payon, Jose 1971 Archaeological Synthesis of Guerrero. In Archaeology of 1956-1957a Sintesis de la\ invertigaciones estratigrificar practicadas ~VorlhernMesoamerica, part 2, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and en Tecauic-Caliutlahuaca. Revisla Mexicana de Esludio~An- Ignacio Bernal, pp. 619-631. Hutldbook of Middle American In- ~ropologicoa14(2): 157-1 59. dians, vol. I I. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1956-1957b Sintesis de las excavaciones en Malinalco. Revisla Me.u- MacNeish, Richard S., F.A. Peterson, and Kent V. Flannery icuna de Esludio~Anlropo1rigico.s 14(2):16 1-1 65. 1970 The Prehi.r/ory oj /he Tehuacan Valley, vol. 3, Ceramics. Uni- 1971 .4rchaeology of Central Veracruz. In Archaeologj of Norlh- ver5ity of Texaj Press. Austin. err! ~~fecoutt~erico,part 2, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and Igna- hlcvicker, Donald cio Bernal, pp. 505-542. Handbook ofM~ddleAtnerican Indians. 1987 The Twenlielh-Cenlliry Value of a ~VineleenlhCmlury Col- vol. I I. Urliversity of Texas Press, Austin. Irc~ion.Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the Amer- Gon~ilezGonzilez, Carlos J. ican Anthropological Association, Chicago. 1987 hlezcala Style Anthropomorphic Artifacts in the Templo hlason, Roger D. Mayor. In The Azlec Templo Mayor, edited by Eli~abethH. 1980 Econornic ond Social Orgonizalion of an Azlec Provincial Boone, pp. 115-160. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Cenler: Archaeologic~iIResearch a/ Coallon Vtejo, Morelos, Mex- Gorenstein, Shirley ico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Anthropol- 1973 Tepexi El Viejo: A Postclassic Fortified Site in the Mixteca- o_ey, Univerrity of Texas, Austin. University Microfilms, Ann Puebla Region of Mexico. American Philosophical Sociely, Trans- Arbor. orlions 63(1). Mateos Higuera, Salvador 1985 Acambaro: Frontier Settlement on the Tarascan-Aztec Border. 1979 Herencia arqueologica dr Mexico-Tenochtitlan. In Trabqjos Vanderbill Universi,r. Publicu/ion.s in Anlhropology, no. 32. arqueologicos en el cenlro de la ciudod de Mexico, edited by Edu- Greengo, Robert E. ardo Matos Moctezuma, pp. 205-275. Instituto Nacional de An- 197 1 Lale Ceramic Cottlplex-(7sin cVor/heu.,/ern Gurrrero, 12lexico. tropologia e Historia, Mexico City. Paper presented at the 36th Annual Meeting of the Society for Matos Mocte~uma,Eduardo (ed.) American Archaeology. t 982 El Terrrplo Mayor: Excavaciones j esludios. I nst it uto Nacional Griffin, James B., and Antonieta Espejo de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City. 1950 La alfareria del ultirno periodo de ocupaci6n del valle de Mex- Medellin Zenil, Alfonso ico, 1: Culhuacan, Tenayuca, Tenochtitlan, y Tlatelolco. 12,femorias t952 Exploraciones de Quauh!ochco. Gobierno del Estado de Ver- de la Academia Mexictrtl~c/e lo Hisloria 9( 1): I I R- 169. acruL, Jalapa. 1960 Cerat~ricusdel Toionacu/~un.Universidad Veracruzana, Jalapa. Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de Moedano, Hugo 1950- 1982 Norerrfir~eCorlex, General Hislor-s of ihe Things of New 1941 Estudio preliminar de la ceramica de T7intzuntzan: Tem- Spain. 12 Books. Edited and translated by A.J.O. Anderson and porada 11, 1939-1940. Revisia Mexicarra de Esiudios An- C.E. Dibble. School of American Research, Santa Fe and Univer- iropoldgicos 5 :2 1-42. sity of Utah, Salt Lake City. (Firbt published in 1569.) 1946 La cerarnica de Zinapecuaro, Michoacan. Anu1e.c del hllrseo Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley Michoucano 4:39-49. 1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecologicul Proces.ses in ihe Evoluiion hluller, Florencia of u Civilizaiion. Academic Press, New York. 1956-1957 El valle de Tulancingo. Revi.sia Mexicunu de Esiudios Sanders, William T.. and Robert S. Santley At~rropoldgicos14(2): 129-1 37. 1983 A Tale of Three Cities: Energetics and Urbanization in Pre- 1978 Lu alfareria rle Cholulu. lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia Hispanic Central Mexico. [n Prehi.sioric Seiilenrerri Puiierns: Es- e Historia, Mexico City. .sa.vs rn Horror c?f G.R. Willey, edired by Evon Z. Vogt and Richard 1979 Esirrdio ii/~ologicoprovrsional rle la cerurnicu del Bulsas rne- L.c.venthal, pp. 243-291. University of New Mexico Press, dio. Instituto Nacional de Antroplogia e Historia, Colecci6n Cien- Albuquerque. tifica, no. 78, Mexico City. Santley, Robert S. Nelson, Fred W. 1983 Obsidian Trade and Teotihuacan Influence in Mesoamerica. 1985 Summary of the Results of Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts In Highlutld-Lowland Inieruciion in Mesoutt~errcu:Inierdisci/~linury from the Maya Lowlands. Scurrrrirr,q Eleciron Microscopy Al~~~rouches,edited by Arthur G. Miller, pp. 69-124. Dumbarton 2:631-649. Oaks, Wahhington, DC. O'Neill, George C. Schele. Linda 1962 Posiclassic Cerur~~icSiruiigru/~hy at Chalco in il~ebirlley of 1984 Human Sacrifice among the Classic Maya. In Riiual Hurnun Mexico. Unpublished doctoral disser~ation,Department of Anthro- Sucrrfice in Mesoar~rericu,edited by Elizabeth H. Boone. pp. 7- pology, Columbia University. New York. University Microfilnis, 48. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington DC. Ann Arbor. Schmidt, Paul Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1986 Secuencia arqueologica de Xochipala. In Arq~reologlhy eino- 1966 The Aziec Cerarrric Sequence it7 [he Teoiihuacun I-alley, Me.r- hisioriu del esiurlo rle Guerrero, pp. 107-1 17. lnstituro Nacional ico. 2 vols. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of An- de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City. thropology, University of Michigan, University Microfilms, Ann Sejourne, Laurette Arbor. 1970 Arqueologia del vulle de Me.ric,o, I: Culhuucun. lnstituto Na- Parsons, J., E. Brumfiel, M.Parsons, V. Popper, and M. Taft cional de Antropologia e Historia. Mexico City. 1982 Laie Prehispanic' Cl~itrampaAgriculrlrre on Lake Chulco- 1983 .-lre]ueolog,b e historia del valle de Mexico: De Xochirnilco a Xochirnilco, hle.rico: Prelirninur~Repori. Unpublished report sub- Arnecrrrnecu. Siglo Veintiuno, Mexico City. mitted to the National Science Foundation, Ann Arbor. Sheers, Payson D. Parsons, Mary H. 1978 Artifacts. In The Prehisrorv of Chulchuupa, El Salvurlor, 1972 Spindle Whorls from the Teotiliuacan Valley, Mexico. In Mis- vol. 2, Ariuuc,is and Figurines, edited by Robert Sharer, pp. 2- cell(~neousSiudies in Mexicun Prehisionz by M.W. Spence, J.R. 107. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. Parsons and M.H. Parhons, pp. 45-80. l!r~iversity of Micliigurr, Sisson, Edward B. Museum of Anihropology, Anihro/~olo~ic~ulPu/~ers, no. 45, Ann 1973 Firsi Annuul Repori of ihe Co.u,ailan Project. Robert S. Pea- Arbor. body Foundation for Archaeology, Andover, MA. Pasztory, Esther 1974 Second Annuul Kepori of ihe Coxcailan Projeci. Robert S. 1987 Texts, Archaeology, Art, and History in the Tcmplo Mayor: Peabody Foundarion for Archaeology, Andover, MA. Reflections. In The Aziec Tetnplo Muyor, edited by Elizabeth H. 1984 Archueologicul Evidence ,for Azrec Espunsion in Sorrthern Boone, pp. 451-462. Dumbarton Oaks. Washington, DC. Puehlu unrl Norihern Oaxuca. Paper presented at the 1984 Annual Pendergast, David M. Meeting, American Society for Ethnohistory, New Orleans. 1962 Metal Artifacts in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Arwericur~An- Smi~li.Michael E. tiquiiy 27:520-545. 1983 Posiclas.~icCullrrre Change in M'esiern Morelos, Mexico: The Plog, Fred Dei~elo/~rrrentand Correlaiion of Archaeologicul und Eilinohisior- 1977 Modeling Economic Exchange. In E,rchonge Sy.riem.s in Pre- irul Chronologies. Unpublished doctoral dissertarion, Department liisrory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Ericson, of Anthropology, University of Illinois, Urbana. University pp. 127-140. Academic Press, New York. Microfilms. Ann Arbor. Plunket, Patricia 1986 The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A Vie\v 1989 L,a poblacidn del valle rle Ailizc'o: Fronieras cerurrricus (/el from the Provinces. Americ.on .4nihropologi.st 88:70-91. Posiclusic~o.Paper presented at the 21st Annual Mesa Redonda, So- 1987a The Expansion of the Aztec Empire: A Case Study in the ciedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Merida, Yucatan. Correlation of Diachronic Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Proskouriakofl'. Tatiana Data. Arnerrcan .-tntiquiiy 52:37-54. 1962 The Artifacts of Mayapan. In Muyupun. Yucatan, Mexico, 1987b Ir?~l~eriulSiruiegies in ihe Wesiertr Portion of ihe Aziec Em- edited by H.E.D. Pollock et al., pp. 321-442. Carnegie Institution pire. Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the American of Washington, pub. 619. Anthropological Association, Chicago. Renfrew, Colin 1987c Household Possessions and Wealth in Agrarian States: Ini- 1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and plications for Archaeology. Journal of Anrl~ropologiculArchue- Communication. In Arrc.ie111 Civilizaiiorr and Trucle, edited by ology 6:297-335. Jeremy A. Sabloff and C.C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 3-59. Uni- 1987d Archaeology and the Aztec Economy: The Social Scien- ~ersityol' New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. tific Use of Archaeological Data. Social Science Hisior.~1 1 :237- 1977 Alternative hlodels for Exchange and Spatial Distribution. In 259. Exchunge Sysietns in Prehisiory, edited by Timothy K. Earle and 1990 Rhythms of Change in Postclassic Central Mexico: Archaeol- Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 71-90. Academic Press, New York. ogy, Ethnohistory, and the Braudellian Model. To appear in AII- Rice, Prudence M. nales, Archaeology, and Ethnohisiory, edited by A. Bernard 1983 Serpents and Styles in Peren Postclassic Pottery. .-ltrrerican An- Knapp. Cambridge University Press, New York. thropologisi 85:866-880. Smith, Michael E., and Cynthia Heath-Smith 1984 Obsidian Procurement in the Central Peten Lakes Region. 1980 Waves of Influence in Postclassic Mesoamerica? A Critique of Guatemala. Jo~irtralof Field Archaeology 1 1 : 18 1194. the h,lixteca-Puebla Concept. Anthropology 4(2): 15-50. Rodriguez Betancourt, Felipe Smith, Michael E., and Kenneth G, Hirth 1986 Desarrollo cultural en la region de Mezcala-Tetela del Rio. In 1988 The Development of Cotton Spinning Technology in Postclas- Arqueologiu y ernohisioria del esrado de Guerrero, pp. 155-170. sic Morelos, Mexico. Journal of Field .4rchueology 15:349-358. Inctitl~tnNucinnnl de Antrnnnlnviu P Hictnriu h4euicn ritv Smith Michael F Ierrel H Cnrencen nnrl Philin K Hnnke Long-distance trade under the Aztec Empire

1984 Obsidian Exchange in Posrclassrc Cenrrol Mexrco: New Dora sic and Post-Classic Periods. ..lt?rerican Philosophical Sociery, ,frottr Morelos. Paper presented at the 1984 International Sympo- Tronsrrctions, vol. 48, no. 5. sium on Archaeornetry, Washington, DC. Torquemada, Frav Juan de Smith, hlichael E.. et al. 1975-1983 hlonarc~lrioindiono. 7 vols. Edited by Miguel Leon- I989 Architectural Pattern, at Three Aztec Period Sites in Morelos, Portilla. Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City. Mexico. Jorrrnol of Field Archaeology 16:185-203. Umberger, Emily Snow, Dean R. 1987a Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in Aztec Art. 1966 .Serialion of Archoeologicul Collecrronsfrom rhe Rio Zahu- Res 13:62-105. upon Droinoge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of 1987b .Sryle in the Azrec Empire. Paper presented at the 86th An- Anthropology. University of Oregon, Eugene. University Micro- nual Meeting of the American Anthropological Association, films. Ann Arbor. Chicago. Sourh, Stanley van Zantwijk. Rudolf A.M. 1977 Merhod find Theory rn His/orrc.aI Archaeology. Academic 1967 La organization de once guarniciones aztecas: Una nueva in- Preqs, New York. terpretacion de los folios 17v y 18r del Codice Mendocino. Jour- Spence, Michael W. no1 de lo SociPrP del .At~ericonis/esde Paris 56: 149- 160. 1985 Specialized Production in Rural Aztec Society: Obsidian Vargas Pacheco, Ernesto Workshops of the Teotihuacan Valley. In Conrrihurions ro the 1975 La ceramica. In Teorenango: El antiguo lugar de la muralla, Archaeology and Erhnohistory of Greater Mesoa~trerrcu,edited vol. 1, edited by Roman Pifia Chan, pp. 189-264. Gobierno del Es- by William J. Folan, pp. 76-125. Southern Illinois Press. Car- tado de Mexico, Mexico City. bondale. Wagner, Diana Spence, Michael W., and Jeffrey R. Parsons 1982 Reporte de las ofrendas excavadas, 1978. In El T'~?rploMaj30r: 1972 Prehispanic Obsidian Exploitation in Central hlexico: A Pre- Excavaciones y e.~rudios,edited by Eduardo hlatos hloctezuma, liminary Synthesis. In Miscellaneous .Srudies in hle.1-icon Prehi~rory, pp. 119-142. lnstituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mex- by M.W. Spence, J.R. Parsons, and M.H. Parsons, pp. 1-43. Uni- ico City. versiry of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Anrhropological Weigand, Phil C., Garman Harbottle, and Edward V. Sayre Papers, no. 45, Ann Arbor. 1977 Turquoise Sources and Source Analysis: Meroa~nericaand the Stark, Barbara L. Southwestern USA. In Exchange Systems in Prehi~tory,edited by 1990 The Central Highlands of Mexico and the Gulf Coast: Alter- Timothy K. Earle and Jonathon E. Ericson, pp. 15-34. Academic native Material Culture Models for Interaction. Research in Eco- Press, New York. nomic Anrhropology, edited by Barry L. Isaac. JAl Press, Weitlaner, Robert J. Greenwich, CT. (in preparation) 1948 Exploration arqueologica en Guerrero. In El ocridenre de Stocker, Terence L., and Robert H. Cobean Mexico, 4rh Mesa Redonda, pp. 77-84. Sociedad hleuicana de An- 1984 Preliminary Report on the Obsidian Mines at Pico de Ori~aba, tropologia, Mexico City. Veracruz. In Prelristoric Quarries and Lirhic Producrion, edited by Wonderly, Anthony Jonathan E. Ericson and Barbara A. Purdy, pp. 83-95. Cambridge 1986 Naco, Hondura\: Some Aspects of a Late Precolumbian Com- Uni\ersity Press, New York. munity on the Eastern Maya Frontier. In The Sourheasr Maya Szymborski, Deborah .I. F'eri/~lrery,edited by Patricia Urban and Edward Schortman, 1987 Grorrlrd Stone Anulysis. Unpublished senior thesis, Depart- pp. 313-332. University ol' Texas Press, Austin. ment of' Sociology and Anthropology, Loyola University of Woodbury, Richard B.. and Aubrey S. Trik Chicago. 1953 The Rui1r.r ofZac~uleu,Guuretriula. 2 vols. United Fruit Com- Thouvenot, hlarc pany, New York. 1982 CI~oIchihlir~l:Le jude chez les Azreques. lnstitut d'Ethnologie, Zeitlin, Robert N. Paris. 1982 Toward a hlore Comprehensive Model of Interregional Com- Tolhtoy. Paul modity Distribution: Political Variables and Prehistoric Obsidian I958 Surface Survey of the Northern Valley of Mexico: The Clas- Procurement in hleqoamerica. American Anrrqurry 47:260-275.