- -

EXCAVATIONSOF AZTECURBAN HOUSES AT YAUTEPEC,

Michael E. Smith, CynthiaHeath-Smith, and Lisa Montiel

Our recent excavations at the site of Yautepecin the Mexican state of Morelos have uncovered a large set of residential struc- turesfrom an Aztec city. Weexcavated seven houses with associated middens, as well as several middens without architecture. In this paper, we briefly review the excavations, describe each house, and summarizethe nature of construction materials and methods employed. Wecompare the Yautepechouses with other knownAztec houses and make some preliminary inferences on the relationship between house size and wealth at the site.

En nuestras excavaciones recientes en el sitio de Yautepecen el estado mexicano de Morelos, encontramosun grupo grande de casas habitacionales en una ciudad azteca. Excavamos siete casas con sus basureros,tanto como otros basurerossin arquitec- tura. En este artfeulo revisamos las excavaciones, decribimos cada casa y discutimos los patrones de materiales y me'todosde construccion. Hacemos comparaciones entre las casas de Yautepecy otras casas aztecas, y presentamosalgunas conclusiones preliminaressobre la relacion entre el tamanode las casas y la riqueza.

Most Aztec urban sites today lie buried Yautepec under modern towns, and, of those that still exist as intact archaeological sites, Socialand Economic Context most have been heavily plowed, causing the Yautepecwas thecapital of a powerfulcity-state, and destruction or heavy disturbance of residential its king ruled over severalsubject city-states in the structures(Smith 1996). Intensive surface collec- YautepecRiver Valley of central Morelos (Smith tions can provide important information about 1994). This area,separated from the Valleyof Mex- social and economic patternsat these plowed sites ico to the northby theAjusco Mountains(Figure 1), (e.g., Brumfiel 1996; Charlton et al. 1991), but was conqueredby the aroundA.D. they lack the contextualand chronologicalcontrol 1440. Yautepecand its subjectstates were included of excavations. Almost all prior knowledge of in theAztectributary province of Huaxtepec(Berdan Aztec houses has been derived from excavations andAnawalt1992:f24v-25r), althoughYautepec was at rural sites such as Cihuatecpanin the Basin of not subject to Huaxtepecin a political sense (see Mexico (Evans 1988) andCapilco and Cuexcomate Berdanet al. 1996 on patternsof territorialorgani- in Morelos (Smith 1992, 1993), although limited zationin theAztec provinces).TheYautepec area, at information about houses can be found in docu- an elevationof 1,200 m, has a semitropicalclimate, mentary sources (e.g., Calnek 1974) and other, with 1,000 mm of rainfallannually. Irrigation agri- smaller-scaleexcavations (see below). In 1993 we culturewas widespreadin Late PostclassicMorelos excavated seven Late Postclassic (Aztec-period) (Maldonado1990), and large portionsof alluvium houses at the urban site of Yautepec, Morelos. along the YautepecRiver were probablyirrigated. These structures,among the first excavatedAztec Intensiveagriculture was necessaryto feed the dense urbanhouses to be described,provide new insights populationsof the Yautepecarea and to supportthe into social andeconomic patterns at a majorprovin- elite class and the city-stateadministration. Smith's cial Aztec city. (1994) demographicreconstruction suggests an over-

Michael E. Smith, Cynthia Heath-Smith, and Lisa Montiel * Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY 12222. LatinAmerican Antiquity, 10(2), 1999, pp. 133-150 Copyright(C) 1999 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology

133

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . * --. <* . J .. J\; . * .A .ss .... '::#*-:*.-1..... t* '- . .:. .. T .\

134 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2,1999]

¢> ValJey of Maxico Yautepecarea was characterizedby dense popula- tions,intensive agriculture, active trade, and expand-

RS a X t' A t Moreios \ \ , * . , ing states,and these processes affected conditions in the city.

| . * - *, :; N r { : The YautepecPalace vj* | XC___ I * ... Our fieldworkwas precededby excavationsat the AnciontLakeshore . * s _ \ * * * Yautepecroyal palace by Hortensiade VegaNova of

isv__#--,/o-, S / '' ) theCentro INAH (kstituto Nacional deAntropologia e Historia)en Morelos.This studyfocused on a large .- . . Cuauhnahuac ,* /;7 mound in a residentialdistrict of the moderntown jg Yautepec ptHuaX:tepec /- of Yautepec,just outsidethe downtown area. To date, * * . * 1 / Morelos stafe torder * * .- .;it [ YautepecValley ( about40 percentof the outerperimeter and about 25 . . 0 Survey > : > J N percentof the uppersurface of the moundhave been .-- *. _9 r v cleared. The structure is a large, low platform, approximately65 by 95 m in extent and 4 to 6 m

. . . . * . . . . . * high. The cleared portionsof the top are covered

* ;-.- ....v... v * * *. .. *.. t * .-..-, km with rooms and passages that exhibit high-quality construction methods and materials (Figure 2). Figure 1. The location of Yautepec in Aztec central Floorsare made of severallayers of lime plaster,and Mexico. walls arebuilt of stonecovered with lime plasterthat all zonal populationdensity of around140 persons hadbeen paintedwith elaboratepolychrome murals persq krnfor the area of Morelos.Markets were com- (only fragmentsof the muralssurvive). The top of mon in Late PostclassicMorelos7 and sourcesfrom the platformis reachedby a single stairwayon the nearbyTepoztlan note an activetrade involving cot- west side (deVega 1996;deVega andMayer 1991). ton from Yautepec(Smith 1994). k summary7the There are historicalreferences to this structure,

Figure 2. Rooms in the Yautepec royal palace, looking north.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 135

and interpretationsof its function are based on the othy S. Hareconducted a full-coveragesurvey of the results of the excavations.The structuredoes not entireYautepec Valley, resulting in the discoveryof resembleknown Aztec templesin the proportionsof severalhundred sites. We took severaltypes of sur- the platform,the layout and contents of the rooms face artifactcollections (including"grab-bag" sam- on top, or thenature of refuseand burials found along ples, 2 x 2 m collections, and severalhundred 5 x 5 the outer walls. The large size of the and m collections), conducted stratigraphictest pits at high qualityof the architecturesupport the hypoth- severalsites, and carriedout an "off-sitesurvey" of esis thatit servedas apalace (Evans 1991 andSmith the valley (Cascio et al. 1995; Hare 1998; Montiel 1992:315-319 discussAztec palaces).The building 1998). dwarfsother known Aztec palacesin size; theYaute- The pec palace is largerthan the combinedareas of the 1993 Excavations five palaces illustrated in Smith and Berdan The 1993 season (Februarythrough August 1993) (1992:Figure1). The excavationof this structurehas was devotedto the excavationof houses and other not been completed,and many of the artifactsand domestic contexts in Yautepec.Archaeologists in featureshave yet to be studied,so a full functional Mesoamericaand elsewhere have found that resi- analysiscannot be conductedat this time. dential excavations provide rich information on ancient social conditions (e.g., Santley and Hirth The Albany Project 1993). Ourprevious excavations of houses andtheir Duringthe first season of the palace excavationsin associatedmiddens at theAztec sites of Cuexcomate 1989,we wereinvited to workinYautepec by deVega and Capilco in westernMorelos allowed for a fine- Nova and otherarchaeologists of the CentroINAH grained reconstructionof changing activities and Morelos.Our plan was to studythe Aztec urbancen- social conditions at these ruralsites (Smith 1992, ter as a whole and to locate and excavateresidential 1993;Smith and Heath-Smith 1994). One goal of the structuresapart from the palace. In additionto the Yautepec project was to generate a comparative benefits of having two projects at the same site, datasetfrom an urban site. We originally had planned Yautepecoffered several advantages.Unlike most to focus a major part of our efforts on the fields centralMexican towns, where the Aztec town cen- immediatelywest of the royalpalace, which are con- ter is buriedunder that of the moderntown, the cen- tained within the INAH Yautepec archaeological ter of colonial andmodern Yautepec lies to the north zone. The 1992 survey showed these fields to have of the centerof the Aztec city, leaving a majorpor- very dense surface artifactconcentrations, and the tion of the archaeologicalsite only partiallydamaged remainsof severalstone structurefoundations were (Smithet al. 1994). In 1989, we notedthe existence visible on the surface.Owing to a sudden,but well- of dense surface artifact deposits from the Aztec planned, invasion of the Yautepec archaeological period in large open fields in front of the palace. zone by squattersin fall 1992, we were unable to These surface artifactssuggested the presence of excavatein this area(Smith 1997). Nevertheless,we buried houses in what was probably the central, obtainedpermission to dig in a numberof open lots "downtown,"area of ancientYautepec. and fields scatteredthroughout the Late Postclassic site. The results The SurveyProjects of these excavations are summa- rized below. In our first season at Yautepec(summer 1992) we conductedan intensivesurface survey in andaround Chronology the moderntown. The goal of this urbansurvey was TheAztec period,from the twelfththrough sixteenth to define the bordersof the Late Postclassic settle- centuriesA.D., is dividedinto threeceramic phases ment, and that goal was met successfully (Smith et atYautepec.These phases, established through strati- al.1994). Wetook severalhundred collections of sur- graphicanalysis and quantitativeceramic seriation face artifacts,and the compositionsof these collec- methods,are datedthrough radiocarbon dating and tions are currentlybeing analyzedwith spatialand ceramiccross-ties (Hare and Smith 1996).Yautepec statisticalmethods. This articledescribes the work was foundedin thePochtlaphase (A.D.110>1300), of the second field season, during 1993. Subse- which correspondsto the MiddlePostclassic period. quently,in 1994 and 1996, Smith,Montiel, andTim- Its founderswere membersof the Tlahuicaethnic

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATIN 136 AMERICANANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999] group (Duran 1967, v.2:23), one of the - speakingAztec groupsthat migrated to centralMex- ico in Postclassictimes from an unknownhomeland area to the north (Smith 1996:3841). The inhabi- tants of Pochtla-phaseYautepec established com- mercial relations with other peoples throughout centralMexico. Our excavations uncovered imported ceramicsfrom many areasand obsidianfrom most of the centralMexican source areas. The Late Postclassic period at Yautepecbegan with the Atlan phase (A.D. 130>1440). The city expandedin size (concurrentwith a majorpopula- tion expansion in the YautepecValley), imported ceramics increased in frequency,and rare, exotic importssuch as bronzetools andgreenstone jewelry appearedfor the first time. The transition to the Molotlaphase(A.D.144s1520) coincidedwith the conquestof Yautepecand the rest of Morelosby the expandingAztec Empire.The city continuedto grow duringthis phase,and commercial and stylistic con- Figure 3. Location of excavation areas at Yautepec. tactswith other areaspersisted with little change. The positedvolcanic ash cemented with silicatesand car- Santiago phase (ca. A.D. 152s1650) markedthe bonates,forms the C horizonin many partsof cen- transitionto Spanishcolonial society afterthe con- tral Mexico). Naturalsoil zones were followed as quest of 1519. much as possible; thick zones or deposits with unclearstratigraphy were House Excavations excavatedin 10 cm levels. Sedimentsfrom most deposits were screenedwith Methods 1/4"wire mesh;some plow-zonedeposits and a few sterilecontexts were not screened. Forthe most part, surfaceevidence for the locations We located seven houses. The architectural of individual Postclassic structuresat Yautepecis remains were cleared, and exterior midden areas absent.Because the site is situatedin a moderntown, were excavatedadjacent to all structures.Walls and we used contemporary landparcels (lots and fields) floors were brokenthrough in key areasto examine with surface artifacts as sampling frames in our architecturalhistory and fill deposits.In additionto searchfor houses; these parcelsare termedexcava- the seven houses, each with at least one excavated tionareas. We excavated a total of 17 units or oper- midden, we found seven dense domestic midden ationswithin 11 excavationareas. The locations of deposits,several architectural features not obviously theexcavation areas in relationto the bordersof the partof houses, nineteenburials, and three deposits siteare shown in Figure3. Withtwo exceptions,all of deep alluvial sediments that date to sometime excavationswere aligned and recordedwith refer- betweenthe Epiclassicand Late Postclassic periods. enceto the UTM coordinate system as depictedon Overall the excavations yielded dense artifact Mexicangovernment maps of Yautepec;in the two deposits(the mean ceramic density was above3,000 churchyards,we used separate grid systems aligned sherds per m3 we recovered over 1.2 million withthe sixteenth-century . sherds).The artifactsare still undergoinganalysis in Except in the few cases where the locations of ourfacility in modernYautepec. buriedstructures were obvious or stronglysuggested byvisible surfacearchitecture or mounds,we sam- ExcavationAreas pledthe excavationareas with grids of test pits.Most AreaA is a large walled propertythat houses the testpits were excavatedto bedrock, which consists EscuelaSecundaria Federal Ignacio Manuel Altami- ofbasalt flows in the western portionof the site and rano(see Figure3 for the locationsof the excavation tepetatehardpan in the remainder (tepetate,a rede- areas).We began the field season there,excavating

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 137

six units in variousparts of the lot. In Unit 501, we of the yard of Escuela PrimariaFederal Nicolas tested a low wall segment and uncovereda small Bravo.This is the only excavationin one of the small house, Structure4, that was partiallydamaged by settlements that ringed the main site of Yautepec plowing (see discussionof architecturebelow). Sev- (Figure 3). In all four of the scatteredtest pits, we eral burialswere found next to the house on three encounteredshallow erosionaldeposits with heavy sides. In Unit 502, begun as a trenchto test heavy Molotla-phaseartifacts on top of basalt. surfaceartifacts in the northend of the schoolyard, Area F (UnitSl l ) is a largeirrigated cornfield on we camedown on a rockpavement that covered Bur- the floodplainadjacent to the YautepecRiver. This ial 3. This burial,dated to the Molotla phase, con- area is immediatelyoutside the site boundarywe tainedtwo individuals,one of whomhad an obsidian defined in 1992. The excavationwas conductedto projectilepoint embeddedin the vertebralcolumn. test the boundaryand to look for evidence of Post- Unit503 consistedof threetrenches, also in the north classic irrigation.We discovereda light Postclassic end of the schoolyard.There we encountereda very depositthat could be the remainsof cultivatedfields dense middenwith stratifieddeposits from all three underabout 40 cm of alluvium,but found no evi- Aztec phases. In Unit 504, we tested an artificial dence of Postclassicirrigation canals. slope breakon a gentle hill andfound a stoneterrace Area G(UnitS13), acornfieldimmediatelysouth wall, a midden, and a series of poorly preserved of the southerntip of the site, also was excavatedto infant burials. In Unit 505, a test of a small, low test the site boundary.Very few artifactswere recov- moundadjacent to a school building,we uncovered ered there. a poorly preservedplaster floor and an associated Area H (Unit 514) is the yard of the sixteenth- plaster-lined,tublike feature from the Atlan phase. centurybarrio chapel of San Juan.We dug four test Below these featureswas a dense middenfrom the pits,both adjacent to the churchand at some distance Pochtlaphase. In Unit 512 we excavateda series of from it, but failed to find evidence of Postclassic trenchesin a low moundwith exposed plaster floors. structuresunder or nearthe church. We did encounter Thisexcavation uncovered a largestructure that prob- a depositfrom the Epiclassicperiod (A.D. 70>900) ably was an elite residence(Structure 6). coveredby 2 m of alluvium. Area B (Unit 506) is a walled lot, adjacentto the AreaI (UnitSI S) is the yardof the sixteenth-cen- archaeologicalzone, whose ownerwas preparingto turychurch and convent,the Iglesia de la Asuncion constructhomes on it. Using a series of 2 x 4-m test de NuestraSenora deYautepec. Test pits were exca- pits, we discoveredthe partialremains of Structure vated adjacentto the main church,in front of and 5, a low platformthat may have been an elite resi- insideof the open chapel(the earliest Spanish build- dence. This areaalso containeddense middens,two ing), and at a distancefrom the buildingsbut in the burials,and an unusualpit feature. churchyard.As in the case of Unit 514, we failed to Area C (Unit 507) is a nearbywalled lot where findevidence for Postclassicbuildings under or near constructionof an athleticcourt had begun.Most of the church.We did encountertwo walls and several the depositsencountered in ourtest pits consistedof burials from the Colonial period and at least one a plow-zone stratumthat rested directly on basalt refuse deposit from the Molotlaphase. bedrock,although patches of an Atlanmidden were Area J (Unit 516) is a privatelot wherewe tested uncoveredin two areas. for occupationon the eastbank of theYautepecRiver. Area D (Units 508 and 509) consists of two adja- A small amountof Postclassic refuse was encoun- cent modernlots, in one of which new housing was tered above a deep alluvial deposit that contained underconstruction. In Unit 509, test pits led to the small amounts of Formative and Classic-period discoveryof a patiogroup with threehouses (Struc- ceramics.This east bankalluvium within the Yaute- tures 1, 2, and 3) as well as middens,two burials, pec site may have been an areaof cultivationduring and other features.In Unit 508, test pits revealed Postclassictimes. mostly plow-zone deposits. An unusual crushed Area K (Unit 517) is a portionof a streetwhere tepetate floor, not obviously part of a house, was a municipal work crew uncovered a plaster floor locatedin the southwestcorner of the lot, in associ- while gradingthe road.We were approachedto set- ationwith a middenfrom the Atlan phase. tle an argumentover whetherthis surface was an Area E (Unit 510) is located in the southernend ancientplaster floor or a moderncement pavement.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions : g y:::::: :;:: - : i:

138 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

CERAMIC PHASE DATE, A. D.

2:::S: E::

::: - i:E |j:0:f---f0--::| Domestic Occupation :: :: :7: o | 7 7: ::S :f f f:00 * House Construction : : :: 0 Quantified Midden ;: :; i ;: z D: ; : : : f :E : * ;N :: :: :: u) a E::: 1520 t: Xy ::i40 i:f DA. f :fif :: it: ::iD fffT:: :gE:f:iSiS |i: - t::f:S j i: ::: iLL :::: :: j 0- :4 :: i; ::: t:: t:- :il: iNTe:^i:iR X ::: ;;: 4: :: 0 04;:f.j : :: : iliSD: : idj_j: d:d : :: ::: :: : : 0: : i : ::: : :; 7: 07 f: id t: :S; d ?fid f f S: :::f ::iD 4 :fid:f: :::::f:; : :::i:::: :::: : 77 ::: :::: i: :

:: X (E | tSt10 Ei:: iE:Li:: |4 0 L i t i . .: t ; E t i E L : :i:id t10:: :: | t :iA ! i -S :i ::::::: : 0 | : E:::E-:: 0:E:

:iS-: : - a: - o: f - .: t;4- 4:: ::f: - . j:: : T:j: A;:: :-iS fiL- f ::::- :D:: i - :o ::iE - E :: :S ::: - ::: :::: : ; : :- ;:: ::E:-!=: :7 g E i S T ::::::: ::::::::s igEL F::: :i: idE Si iVE (: T E [EE:iTH::E y :g: .:E i: LEi C ::: :: ::: ::: :: u::: :i:: : L :S aAL iS :: (:i\E o : ;:|7:: ::f: : t; :fiD::S:;::: S: : f f f :i S u ;00iS: ;::: ::::: 77: 72 :: :: ::: ::: t: :E ::: :D::: :; ;l :: :! i t E j0 L f i i: V i::t: :: S S: :; :: i: iL::

o ( :d iS E: f:: :::i:i::::ft :::E ::: ::::S: :S::: :f: f: ::E :::: 7: :: ::: 7

:f:: ::: :: :: : i:F !E:: E fiS g j i; ;T:; : : :: :: :: ::: ::::::::: :::::: 1440 : :y :::: 2 i t :0: : :: ::: :: :: ::::: : :iEi::: :::: *: f0 :\: i: :: *:: :::::5:U;: :: id;:; fE:: t0 SE:; : a:E:- i.itt:: i:i: - :f:::- ;: :: :::- :fE!ARE ::: : 7 i::d i::79:E iTH:if :S #twi: L:E-::: :E :: :: :V3.;tiS: Tit: ::D : E [: i-i iE i :: iCrEE:: LE:i4ji . TH: :f : ; i t ::E f E ::: :i:: f: :: f S ff: ::i \ ::: :: : :: - AS:f:;:::}::000::::S iEi:E:f: 755: D ::DE:: :::: :::::: :::::: : :; iE ::::: te:: ::Ef i: :f::f::fi::S:::g: D: ;E::ft ::; : :: :: :i: f-:: 0 :: :::i: :::: E- E : i g- [d W1:tl: ::: CE f f i._ .. 7: :: - S t;;::0 fi: . - 0R i C : FE - : z :- ;: f:::Ef: :::::;f: :t :::; t::- ;: f:0:;::fA::0: ;::d :: ::E :E

:::: :iS: 4:E i: :: j :T 00if :::: : : : :: :: S: ::; E t000:: t ; : 04 : ;f idS 0: ::::: :: :: ::::: :f77: :::: 0 ::: ::: : ::E : ttStES:ff00:t;} :iA:::L:; i00 :V: i i: :::E: ::: iE ::::: ::::: f:E 0 ;; : :::f Ad t::E Sf: 1300

*: ;: :-:: N t N o: :$X.:; E o o o o ::; : : f i In m Ln In

:: ) In I :: n o o U Ln In o f aV::; 25:D:05 1100 Other Deposits I Houses Figure 4. Phases of occupation for structures and other deposits. We cleared the floor (which was indeed ancient), ities may have been related to the constructionof traced the outlines of Structure7, and excavated Structure3 in the Molotla phase. There may have some exteriorrefuse deposits. been anotherroom northeastof the others;we were preventedfrom following some poorly preserved Descriptions of IndividualHouses walls by a modernhouse located next to the exca- Figure 4 presents the dates of occupation for the vation. South of Structure1, we found an exterior houses and otherdeposits at Yautepec;this graphic patioarea with a badlyeroded plaster floor. Just north updates and supersedesa similar illustrationpub- of the centralroom, we found a midden. lished as Figure 6 of Hare and Smith (1996). The Structure2 (Unit 509; Area D). This structure, term"quantified middens" denotes unmixed deposits immediatelywest of Structure1, was a low plaster- with abundantartifacts that are being quantifiedand coveredplatform built inAtlan times (Figure5). The analyzedin detailfor comparisons among houses and platformwas constructedof cut stone walls, a sin- betweenphases. gle course high, and filled with rocks and soil. The StructureI (Unit 509; Area D). This structure,a plaster floor was not preservedin all areas, but it ground-level construction with several rooms, apparentlyhad coveredthe cut stonescompletely. A formedpart of a patio groupwith Structures2 and 3 small plasteredstep on the easternwall led down to (Figure 5). The walls on the north and east sides an exteriorplaster floor betweenStructures 1 and 2. were disturbedby plowingand consequently are not The exteriorfloor predatedthe westernaddition to well defined. Structure1 underwentseveral stages Structure1. We found no evidence for walls of any of modification.In the Atlan phase, a large central type on top of the platform,but since the structure room and a smallereast room were built.At some was located at the base of the plow zone, any walls point,in eitherthe lateAtlan or earlyMolotla phase, probablyhad been destroyed. A poorlydefined stone the northernwalls were dismantled,leaving only the wall between Structures2 and 3 predatedboth con- lowest coursesof stonesin the ground.A small addi- structions,but its purposeand relationshipto other tion to the west was addedat this time. These activ- constructionare unclear.Structure 2 has a midden

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 139

Figure5. Plan of Structures1, 2, and 3 (Unit 509, Area D). off its southwestcorner. 1 and2 (FigureS) precedethe constructionof Struc- Structure3 (Unit509; AreaD). This structure, ture 3 and are not associatedwith it. The structure locatedon the northside of the Unit 509 compound, was built in the Molotla phase. Thereis a Molotla- was a ground-levelstructure with typical double- phase middenjust south of the house. Occupation row stone foundationwalls. The east wall is miss- continuedinto the Santiagophase, with a densemid- ing, probablydestroyed by plowing.Structure 3 was den west of the structure. built at a slightly higherelevation than Structures1 Structure4 (UnitSOl;AreaA).This structurewas and2. The stonewalls thatrun north from Structures a low platformwhose west side had been destroyed

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2,1999] 140

Figure6. Plan of Structure4 (Unit 501, AreaA). by plowing (Figure6). The structurewas not buried plasterfloor fragments)under the structureand in verydeeply. The east portionwas preservedbecause the fill of the platform,along with mixed artifacts a north-southstone field wall covered it until the from the Atlan and Molotla phases. The construc- 1970s when a secondaryschool was built.The entire tion debris is probably from an earlier structure remainsof the structurelie withinthe walled school- destroyed or dismantled prior to construction of yard(Area A), andrecent destruction has been min- Structure4. Structure4 itself was builtin theMolotla imal.Like Structure2, Structure4 lackswall remains phase.The platformwas edged with a single row of on top of the platform. Unit 501 is one of three large, irregularstones that were faced on one side. deposits in which all three Postclassic phases are Traces of lime plaster on stones suggest that this present(Figure 4). The Pochtlaphase is represented platformmay have been plasteredlike Structure2. by a middenin a wide pit on the west side of the unit; Four areas of burnedearth and carbonwere found thereis no architectureassociated with this occupa- in themiddens on theeast and south sides of the struc- tion. The Atlanphase is representedby a middenon ture.No stones were associatedwith these features, the northside of the structureand several burials, one which may representthe remainsof temporaryfires of which (Burial 1) predatesthe constructionof the ratherthan regularlyused hearths These features platform. pertainto the Molotlaphase on the basis of stratig- A trenchthrough the structureencountered con- raphy and radiocarbon dates (Hare and Smith structiondebris (stones andheavy concentrationsof 1996:288-289).A multipleburial (Burial 2) also was

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 141

Figure7. Plan of Structure5 (Unit 506, Area B). associatedwith the burntfeatures. wall on its exteriorside (Figure7). The placement StructureS (Unit506; AreaB). This structure, of platform walls over a narrow pavement is an anotherlow platformdestroyed on the westernedge, unusualtechnique that we have not seen used else- was the second largeststructure we excavated.The where. preservedportion of the structure(Figure 7) was The top of the platformhad been heavily dis- only slightlybelow the plow zone, andplowing was turbed,and no intactfloor was present.The platform responsiblefor the destructionof partof the build- fill consisted of clay embedded with many small ing. The platform,one coursehigh, was edged with stones (ca. S to 10 cm in diameter).This fill proba- a wall of finely cut stones coveredwith plaster.This bly served as a preparationlayer for a plasterfloor wall was builtover a narrowstone pavement (ca. 1.5 (numerousfragments of brokenplaster were recov- m wide) that served as a base or foundationfor the ered in the plow zone above and aroundthe struc- wall. Sometimeafter the constructionof theplatform ture).A dense middendeposit east of the structure wall, a second layer of paving stones was placed containeda layer with manystones thatappeared to over the originalpavement adjacent to the platform be constructioncollapse. If this identificationis cor-

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions N1835*Plairo.nm J : ruezJ rwus / { L e J <+><>J --- ] * * t * | { * * * - L E-

142 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

. Unit 512

- N11545

Midden

- N1

S S f- . - -- . J J / ,

ES__S.8 ' - ' > te W.,;_,4. < ,1/ , X S

,-,> sr s s, r S

/>- Early Wall < ftJr _ Middle Wall >> - ¢1SS

9(tif>l 1]111@Wlil - }[ o 5

n { Plsixr Flnnt 9 < E f@05 E610 CHE

E | | * F * 1 I X * E [ s | | | | r S S | | E t I * h * , Figure8. Plan of Albanyexcavations of Structure6 (Unit 512, AreaA). rect, the structurewas rebuiltor modified, perhaps encountereddense, stratified midden deposits. In one afterdestruction or dismantling,at some point mid- area, we excavatedthrough the floors of the struc- way through its history; Molotla-phase midden turedown to sterilesoil. Afterthe terminationof our depositshad accumulated both below andabove this field season, FranciscaRosas Sanchez (1996) from stone layer.A small midden from the Atlan phase the CentroINAH Morelos took over the operation was encounteredat the base of excavationson the and clearedmuch of the structure(Figure 9). east side of the structure,but the architectureand all The outer walls of Structure6 were destroyed otherdeposits date to the Molotla phase. long beforeour excavations. This areahad been cul- Structure6 (Unit512; AreaA).This structurewas tivatedin recentyears, before the constructionof the a large, low mound in the yard of the secondary school,and plowing was probablyresponsible for the school (Figure 8). Priorto excavation,two plaster destruction.The erectionof boundarywalls around floors were visible where the mound had been cut the schoolyardand the constructionof the basket- into during construction of a basketball court. ball courtalso may have contributedto the destruc- Because of its large size and the complexity of its tion of the south and west walls respectively.We architecture,we only were able to excavate a por- reconstructedthe locationsof thenorth and east walls tion of Structure6. We dug two long intersecting from the presenceof middensthat were almostcer- trenchesacross the moundthat uncovered numerous tainly on the exteriorof the structure. floors and walls. At the northend of the north-south Structure6 was by far the largestand most com- trenchand at the east end of the east-westtrench, we plex structurewe excavated,with numerous episodes

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 143

Figure9. Photo of roomsin Structure6 excavatedby FrancescaRosas Sanchez, looking west. of constructionand remodeling. On the basis of strati- roughpiles of stone rubbleand soil were plastered graphicand ceramicdata from our excavations,we overwith lime to formcrude, uneven walls andplat- organizedthe construction history of Structure6 into forms.From their stratigraphy, the middendeposits three major stages. Rosas (1996) independently on the northand east sides of the structureappear to definedfour constructionstages from the architec- correspondto themiddle and late architectural stages. turethat she cleared.The earlyand late stagesof the Each deposit has a dense midden from the Atlan two sequences correspond,whereas Rosas divides penod. This middenis followed by a layer of rocks ow middlestage into two. The earliestconstruction and constructiondebns that contains a mixtureof stageis representedby two deeplyburied walls found Atlanand Molotla materials. Finally, a denseMolotla at the east end of our east-westtrench. These walls middencapped each deposit.Few of the individual are associatedwith ceramicsthat date to the Atlan walls andfloors can be assignedwith confidenceto andlorPochtla phases. The size and natureof the a ceramicphase, but an associationbetween the two structurein the earlystage are unknown. These walls Late Postclassic ceramic phases and the two Late were buriedby latermidden deposits. Postclassicconstruction stages seems reasonable. The Late Postclassicperiod witnessed two con- Atlan-phaseceramics were widely distnbutedin structionstages. The middleconstruction stage was thelowest fill levels, suggestingthat the structurewas characterizedby high-qualityarchitecture. Lime- of similarsize in bothAtlanand Molotlatimes. Based plasterfloors were well made,with carefully laid sub- on ourreconstruction of wall locations,we estimate floors consistingof small stones overlaidby several thatthe area of the structurewas about425 m2 for thin layers of plaster,often paintedred. Walls were bothphases. Stratigraphyin the northmidden sug- built with closely fitted, faced stones. Many minor gests that the floor of the structurewas built 50 to episodesof remodelingtook place duringthis stage. 100 cm abovethe level of the ground.This elevated The late constructionstage, on the otherhand, was constructionwas probablyresponsible for the nearly characterizedby sloppy methods. For example, completedestruction of the outerstructure walls. We

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 144 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

Figure 10. Plan of Structure7 (Unit 517, Area K). hypothesizethat the walls and floors were built on easternmostwall was destroyed,either by construc- plaster-coveredplatforms similar to those employed tion of the streetor by plowing. (This streetis less in the elite residence(Patio Group 6) at Cuexcomate than 15 years old; the site was formerlycultivated.) in westernMorelos (Smith 1992). We did locate a lip in the floor indicatingthe former Structure7 (Unit 517; Area K). This was a house placementof a wall at the easternedge of the floor. discovered by municipal workerswhile grading a There is evidence for at least two stages of con- street(Figure 10). We cleareda large areaof plaster struction,both in the Molotlaphase. Refuse deposits floor in the streetand followed out floors and walls west and northof the structurewere far less dense to define the western portionof the structure.The thanmost of the othermiddens excavated.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 145

Table 1. ArchitecturalData on Excavated Houses at Yautepec.

House Excav. Size ArchitecturalTraits: No. Unit Area Phases (m2) Orientation Type A B C D E Function 1 509 D A 58 14 1 - x - - x commoner house 1 509 D M 40 14 1 - x - - x commoner house 2 509 D A, M 16 14 2 x x x x - commoner house 3 509 D M, S 16 14 1 - x - - - commoner house 4 501 A M 23 18 2 (x) - x x x commoner house 5 506 B M 77 18 2 (x) x x x - possible elite house 6 512 A A, M 425 21 3 x x - x x elite house 7 517 K M 35 13 1 x - - - x commoner house Palace - M 6,175 21 3 x ? ? x x royal palace Phase: A = Atlan, M = Molotla, S = Santiago. Type: 1 = Ground-levelhouse with double-row foundation walls; 2 = Low-platformhouse; 3 = Palace Architecturaltraits: A = Plaster floors (parenthesesindicate evidence for destroyedfloors); B = Adobe brick fragmentsrecov- ered; C = Burnt daub fragmentsrecovered; D = Extensive use of cut and faced stone; E = More than one stage of construction. ConstructaonMaterzals and Methods 3). This type of wall is identical to the walls of ground-levelhouses at the ruralsites of Cuexcomate Theexcavated houses can be dividedinto three archi- andCapilcoin westernMorelos(Smith 1992), where tecturaltypes: ground-level houses with double-row adobe fragmentsalso were recovered.The double- foundationwalls, low-platformhouses, andpalaces row stonefoundation wall is still used in ruralMore- (Table1). The stonefoundation walls ofthe ground- los today for the constructionof houses of adobe level houseshave two rows of stonesand an average bricks.The two rows of stoneprovide a flat base for widthof 60 cm (Figure1 1). In most cases only one the adobes,which today are made in woodenmolds. or two courses of stones have survived.We recov- The majordifference between the modernandAztec eredpartially dissolved adobe bricks adjacent to the house walls is thatthe modernexamples are some- stone walls at two of these houses (Structures1 and whatthinner, with a mean widthof 25 cm (Smithet

Figure 11. Photo of ground-levelhouses, Structures 1 (top), 2 (right),and 3 (front),looking south.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 146 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

Figure 12. Photo of Structure 4 (Unit 501), a low-platform house, looking southwest. al. 1992).Drawing ananalogy with the modern peas- persour understandingof the natureof these struc- anthouses, Smith (1992) arguesthat the foundation tures.We interpretthem as houses because they walls at Cuexcomateand Capilco were bases for resemblethe ground-levelhouses in size, and each adobebrick walls. The sameargument can be applied is associatedwith dense domesticmidden deposits to theYautepec houses. comparableto those encounteredin the otherexca- One of theYautepec ground-level houses (Struc- vations. ture7) had lime-plasterfloors. The other two ground- Structure2 had a plasterfloor. The back (west) levelhouses had no clearlydefined floors. We suspect wallof the structure,only partiallypreserved, was a thatthe floors of these houses were of packedearth. double-rowstone wall (Figure5). The low platform Ifthey had been constructedof plasteror stone, we onthe east side, with a plasteredstep in the center, shouldhave found brokenplaster fragments or exten- servedto level the floor of this structuregiven the sivedeposits of stone cobbles. These patternscon- slopeof the groundto the east. Structure4 had sev- trastwith the houses at Cuexcomateand Capilco, erallarge, faced stones along its edge, some of which mostof which had floors of sandy soil spreadover showedtraces of lime plaster(Figure 12). A layerof stoneriver cobbles. At the ruralsites, only the elite smallstones on top of this platformprobably served residencehad floors of lime plaster. asthe preparationlayer for a plasterfloor, fragments The structureswe arecalling low-platform houses ofwhich were recoveredin the plow zone around consistedof low stoneplatforms that averaged 40 cm thehouse. StructureS was larger than the other inheight (Figure 12). All threeof thesehouses (Struc- ground-leveland low-platform houses. The best-pre- tures2, 4, and5) were encounteredat the base of the servedwall, on the east side, was a double-rowstone plowzone, and any tracesof walls or otherfeatures wallof a single coursebuilt over a narrowpavement ontop of the platformshad been destroyed;further- ofmedium-sized stones (Figure7). At the level of more,portions of Structures4 and 5 also had been thetop of the large wall stones, we encountereda destroyedby plowing.This poor preservationham- layerof small stones similarto those in Structure4.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 147

This excavation also yielded considerablebroken strawroofs. Some have flat roofs. [Inthis area]there plasterfragments in the plow-zone deposits. are constructionmaterials: stone, wood, sand; and The floors in the low-platformhouses were built lime is brought in from Huaxtepec" (Acuna aboutao cm above the level of the ground.Several 198>1987, vol. 8:164; authors'translation). The of these structureshad one or moredouble-row stone Relaciones geograficas from central Mexico walls thatmay have supportedadobe bricks as in the describesuch small adobehouses as the normfor a ground-levelhouses (adobe fragmentswere recov- large area south and west of the Basin of Mexico eredat two structures).The walls of thesehouses also including Morelos (see data presentationand dis- could have been wattle-and-daubconstruction. The cussion in Smith 1992:303-309). threelow-platform houses were the only ones where Mapsand descriptions of houses fromearly colo- we recoveredfragments of burntdaub (Table 1). We nial lawsuitsare yet a thirdethnohistoric source for did not observe any postholes on top of the plat- Aztec housing.Calnek (1974) has publishedseveral forms, but plowing could have obliterated such examples from Tenochtitlan(), and he traces. Only one low-platformhouse was found at is currentlyworking on a largercorpus of such doc- Capilco. Cuexcomatehad several houses built on uments (EdwardCalnek, personalcommunication platforms,but the platformswere higherthan those 1997). Most of the commonerhouses in Tenochtit- atYautepecand probably represented a differentkind lan were small structuresarranged in walled com- of structure(Smith 1992). pounds.Each structurehoused a nuclearfamily or a The royal palace and the elite residencethat we joint family, and the membersof compoundswere excavatedare described briefly above. They stand out often relatedthrough kinship (see also Cline 1986). relativeto the ground-leveland low-platform houses Most commoner houses at Yautepec, Cuexco- in overall size, size of rooms, amountof lime plas- mate, and Capilco were small, single-room struc- ter on floors andwalls, andthe generalquality of the tures. Comparisonswith Nahuatl-languagecensus stone constructionmethods and materials. documentsfrom Morelos (e.g., Cline 1993; Hinz et al. 1983) indicatethat individual houses were home Socioeconomic Context to eithernuclear or joint families (Smith 1993). Many of the houses at Cuexcomateand Capilcowere part Comparisonswith Other Aztec Houses of patio groupsin which each structurewould have Thenumber of documentedAztechouses is notlarge, containeda separatehousehold (i.e., patiogroups did but a brief review of the corpushelps put the Yaute- not have functionallyspecialized structures used by pec houses in perspective.Written records contain a single householdunit; see Smith 1992, 1993). three types of contemporarydescriptions of Aztec Aztec commonerhouses in the Basin of Mexico houses. First,some of the early Spanishchroniclers outsideTenochtitlan were much larger than the small provide generalized accounts of housing. Friar houses in Morelos and Tenochtitlan.The best-doc- Bernardino de Sahagun (1950-1982, bk. 12: umented group, six houses excavated by Evans 269-275), for example,lists 23 kinds of commoner (1988,1993) at Cihuatecpanin the TeotihuacanVal- houses. These include both adobe and wattle-and- ley, averaged 88 m2. Houses mapped by Blanton daub structures. Flat pole-and-beam roofs and (1972:18(}181, 257-267) at IxtapalucaViejo were peaked strawroots are both mentioned.Sahagun's quite large, with "averageresidences" over 100 m2 account suggests that, although most commoner in size, and many "largeresidences" over 300 m2. houses were small, simplestructures, there was con- Other Aztec houses in the Basin of Mexico are siderablearchitectural variation. describedin Charlton(1972), Otis Charltonet al. Spanishregional administrative documents pro- (1993), and variousarchaeological survey reports. vide a second type of informationon housing.They The ethnohistoric and archaeological data on describe architecture in specific, named towns, Aztec commonerhouses summarizedabove suggest although they often were written several decades threedistinct spatial zones. afterthe Spanishconquest of 1521. Forexample, the (1) In Morelosand adjacent areas of centralMex- Relaciongeografica from Totolapan (from A.D. ico outside of the Basin of Mexico, houses were 1579), a town in Morelos nearYautepec, states that small, single rooms with adobe or wattle-and-daub "Thehouses are built of adobebricks, covered with construction.Plaster floors were very rare in rural

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions -

148 LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

fromAztec centralMexico; for preliminarydiscus- HOUSESIZE sions, see Evans (1988, 1991), Smith (1992: 187-218), and Elson (1999). House Size and Wealth MostMesoamerican cities exhibitedsignificant vari-

u ationsin wealth,power, and status among their inhab- itants,andYautepec was no exceptionto thispattern. Using the size and quality of residentialstructures as measuresof wealthand power (e.g., Abrams 1994; ; Blanton1994), the size distributionofthe excavated structurespoints to the existence of three ranked social categories at Yautepec(Figure 13, Table 2). 2 1 6 2 3 4 7 1 5 6 Structure6 clearly standsout among the excavated AtlanPhase MolotlaPhase houses in bothphases. Its areaof approximately425 m2 is an orderof magnitudelarger than that of the Figure 13. Graphof house size at Yautepec. otherhouses, with the exception of Structure5. Its commonerhouses andmore frequent in urbancom- size and the high qualityof its architecture(at least monerhouses at Yautepec. in the middle stage) suggest thatStructure 6 was an (2) In the Basin of Mexico, houses were large, elite residence.By comparison,an elite residenceat multiroomadobe structureswith plasterfloors. the town site of Cuexcomatein westernMorelos had (3) In the imperialcapital Tenochtitlan,houses an area of 540 m2 (Smith 1992). Moreover,Struc- were small, like those in Morelos, probablyowing ture6 is the only one of the seven structureswe exca- to the effects of crowding and limited land in the vatedwhose compassorientation (21 degreeseast of island city. Comparedwith commonerhouses, far truenorth) corresponds with thatof the royalpalace. fewer palaces and otherelite residencesare known The Yautepecroyal palace (6,175 m2) is in turnan

Table 2. Sizes of Aztec Houses.

Site Perioda No. of Houses MeanArea StandardDeviation Coefficient of Variation 1. Nonelite houses Yautepec LPC-A 2 37.0 29.7 .80 Yautepec LPC-B 6 34.5 23.0 .67 Yautepec, excluding str. 5 LPC-B 5 26.0 11.0 .42 Cuexcomate LPC-A 4 18.5 2.0 .11 " LPC-B 25 23.8 7.6 .32 Capilco LPC-A 6 19.6 4.1 .21 " LPC-B 9 21.9 5.0 .23 Cihuatecpan LPC 6 88.1 29.2 .33 2. Elite house compounds Yautepec, royal palace LPC-B 1 6,175 - - Yautepec, Structure6 LPC-A,B 1 425 Cuexcomate, Group 6 LPC-A 1 536 Cuexcomate, Group 7b LPC-B 5 39.5 17.7 .45 Cihuatecpan,Structure 6 LPC 1 363 Chiconautlapalace LPC 1 444 Sources: Yautepec:Yautepec project notes; Cuexcomate and Capilco: Smith (1992); Cihuatecpan:Evans (1993); Chiconautoa: Elson (1999). a Key to Period: LPC = Late Postclassic, A.D. 1350-1520; LPC-A = Late Postclassic A, A.D. 1300/1350-1440 (Atlan phase at Yautepec, Early Cuauhnahuacphase at Cuexcomate and Capilco); LPC-B = Late Postclassic B, A.D. 1440-1520 (Molotla phase at Yautepec, Late Cuauhnahuacphase at Cuexcomate and Capilco) b Group 7 at Cuexcomate was composed of five separate small platformhouses arrangedaround two patios, unlike other Aztec elite residences, which were single integratedconstructions. The total area of the five platforms of group 7 is 198 m2.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions REPORTS 149 orderof magnitudelarger than Structure 6. This size prehensive analysis of archaeological and docu- distributionsuggests to us the existence of a com- mentarydata on Aztec houses. This articleinitiates monerclass plus at least two gradesof elite atYaute- sucha taskby presentinga new body of urbanhouses pec: the ruler and royal family who inhabitedthe from a provincialAztec city. royalpalace, and a lowerelite groupwho wouldhave Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the Instituto inhabitedbuildings such as Structure6. Nacional de Antropologia e Historia for help and support The social significance of the size variation during this project. Permission was granted by the Consejo among the other six excavatedstructures is not yet de Arqueologia, Dr. Mari Carmen Serra Puche, president. clear.Taken as a group,these six housesexhibit more The Centro INAH Morelos, directed by Arqlga. Hortensia de variabilitythan do the commonerhouses at the rural Vega Nova, provided help in numerous ways. In Yautepec, we wish to thank the PatronatoPro-Restauraci6n de la Zona sites of Cuexcomate,Capilco, or Cihuatecpan(Table Arqueol6gica de Yautepec, the landowners who gave us per- 2). Among the six apparentlynonelite houses at mission to excavate, and the people of Yautepec. Funding for Yautepec,Structure 5 (77 m2) is far largerthan the the excavations was provided by the National Science others.If Structure5 is removedfrom consideration, Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities, theremaining five structuresare all quitesmall. Their and the University at Albany. Smith directs the Albany Yautepec project. Heath-Smith and Montiel excavated most mean size (26 m2)is not muchlarger than the means of the houses described here, and they have been involved in at the rural sites, although they still exhibit more the continuing analyses of the project. Other members of the variabilityin size thanthe ruralhouses. These data 1993 field crew included graduate students Ruth Fauman- suggestthat there may have been greaterwealth vari- Fichman, Susan Norris, and MargaretShiels, and undergrad- ationwithin the commonerclass atYautepecthan at uate students Robert Austin, Nili Badanowski, Elizabeth DiPippo, and Brian Tomaslewski. Figures 1 and 3 were pro- known Aztec rural sites, a hypothesis that will be duced by Montiel; Figures 5-8 and 10 by Ellen Cesarski; and tested in the future with data on domestic artifact Figures 4 and 13 by Smith. We would like to thank Gary assemblages. Feinman, Susan Kepecs, and Linda Nicholas for their rapid, efficient, and helpful processing and reviewing of this paper, Conclusions and we thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions. The excavationsof residentialstructures atYautepec providenew dataon Aztec architecturefrom which References Cited we make some inferencesabout the natureof social Abrams,E. M. organizationat this urban center. The quantitativepat- 1994 How theMaya Built Threir World: Energetics and Ancient ternsof house size and qualitysupport the hypothe- Architecture.University of Texas Press,Austin. Acuna, R. (editor) sis of a strongdifferentiation between the elite and 1984- 1987 Relacionesgeograficas del siglo XVI.9 vols. Uni- commonerclasses, a featureof Aztec societyknown versidadNacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Mexico City. from ethnohistoricsources. The architecturalevi- Berdan,F. F., and P. R. Anawalt(editors) 1992 ThreCodex Mendoza. 4 vols. Universityof California dencefortwo gradesof elite atYautepecalso fits gen- Press, Berkeley. eral models of (e.g., Smith Berdan,F.F.,R.E.Blanton,E.H.Boone,M.G.Hodge,M.E. 1996:153-161). Oursuggestion of wealth variation Smith, and E. Umberger 1996 Aztec ImperialStrategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washing- within the commonerclass, based upon the house ton, D.C. size data,moves the analysisinto an areapoorly doc- Blanton,R. E. umentedin theethnohistoric record: the activitiesand 1972 PrehistoricSettlementPatterns of theIxtapalapa Region, Mexico. OccasionalPapers in AnthropologyNo. 6. Depart- socialconditions oftheAztec commonerclass.Other ment of Anthropology,Pennsylvania State University, Uni- membersof the Yautepecproject are pursuingthis versityPark. topic throughdistributional and statisticalanalyses 1994 HousesandHouseholds:AComparatlveStudy. Plenum, New York. of the artifactsrecovered in associationwith these Brumfiel,E. M. houses. When completed,these studieswill expand 1996 Figurinesand theAztec State:Testing the Effectiveness ourunderstanding of life in ancientYautepecgreatly. of Ideological Domination. In Gender and Archaeology, edited by R. P. Wright,pp. 143-166. Universityof Penn- Even withoutthe artifactualdata, however, quanti- sylvaniaPress, Philadelphia. tative studies of residential architecturecan con- Calnek,E. tributeimportant new informationon Aztec society. 1974 Conjuntourbana y modelo residencialen Tenochtitlan. In Ensayos sobre el desarllo urbanode Me'xico,edited by Our brief comparativediscussion of Aztec housing W. Borah,pp.11-65. Secretariade Educaci6nPublica, Mex- patternsis only a start,and there is a need for a com- ico City.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions LATINAMERICAN ANTIQUITY 150 [Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]

Cascio (Montiel),L. M., T. S. Hare,and M. E. Smith at the 63rdAnnual Meeting, Society for AmericanArchae- 1995 ArchaeologicalSurvey of the YautepecValley, Morelos, ology, Seattle. Mexico. Paperpresented at the 60th AnnualMeeting of the Otis Charlton,C., T. H. Charlton,and D. L. Nichols Society for AmericanArchaeology, Minneapolis. 1993 Aztec Household-BasedCraft Production: Archaeolog- Charlton,T. H. ical Evidencefrom the City-stateof Otumba,Mexico. In Pre- 1972 Post-ConquestDevelopmentsin the TeotEhuacanValley, hispanicDomestic Units in WesternMesoamerica: Studies Mexico:Part I, Excavations.Office of the StateArchaeolo- of the Household,Compound, and Residence,edited by R. gist, Iowa City. S. Santleyand K. G. Hirth,pp. 147-171. CRC Press, Boca Charlton,T. H., D. L. Nichols, and C. Otis Charlton Raton. 1991 Aztec Craft Productionand Specialization:Archaeo- Rosas Sanchez,F. logical Evidence from the City-Stateof Otumba,Mexico. 1996 Excavacionde la unidad 512 ProyectoYautepec. In WorldArchaeology 23:98-114. Memoria,III CongresoInterno del CentroINAH Morelos, Cline, S. L. Acapantzingo,Cuernavaca, 1994, pp. 169-180. Instituto 1986 Colonial Culhuacan,1580-1600:A Social History of Nacional de Antropologiae Historia,Centro INAH More- an Aztec Town. University of New Mexico Press, Albu- los, Cuernavaca,Morelos. querque. Sahagun,Fray B. de 1993 TheBook of Tributes:Early Sixteenth-Century Nahuatl 195>1982 FlorentineCodex, General History of the Things Censusesfrom Morelos. UCLA LatinAmerican Center, Los of New Spain. 12 books. Translatedand edited by A. J. O. Angeles. Andersonand C. E. Dibble. School of AmericanResearch, de Vega Nova, H. SantaFe, and the Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1996 Proyecto de investigacion arqueol6gico en Yautepec, Santley,R. S., and K. G. Hirth(editors) Morelos.In Memoria, III Congreso Interno del CentroINAH 1993 PrehispanicDomestic Units in WesternMesoamerica: Morelos, Acapantzingo,Cuernavaca, 1994, pp. 149-168. Studiesof the Household,Compound, and Residence.CRC InstitutoNacional de Antropologiae Historia,Centro INAH Press, Boca Raton. Morelos, Cuernavaca,Morelos. Smith,M. E. de Vega Nova, H., and P. MayerGuala 1992 ArchaeologicalResearch atAztec-Period Rural Sites in 1991 ProyectoYautepec.Boletin del ConsejodeArqueologia Morelos, Mexico. Volume1, Excavations and Architec- 1991:79-84. ture/Investigacionesarqueolo'gicas en sitios rurales de la Duran,Fray D. e'pocaazteca en morelos,tomo 1, excavacionesy arquitec- 1967 Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana. Translatedby tura.Memoirs in LatinAmerican Archaeology No. 4. Uni- A. M. GaribayK. 2 vols. Porrua,Mexico City. versityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh. Elson, C.M. 1993 Houses and the SettlementHierarchy in Late Postclas- 1999 An Aztec Palace at Chiconautla,Mexico. LatinAmeri- sic Morelos:A Comparisonof Archaeologyand Ethnohis- canAntiquity10:151-167. tory. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Evans, S. T. Mesoamerica:Studies of the Household, Compound,and 1988 Excavations at Cihuateepan,an Aztec Village in the Residence, edited by R. S. Santley and K. G. Hirth, pp. TeotihuacanValley. Publications in AnthropologyNo. 36. 191-206. CRC Press, Boca Raton. VanderbiltUniversity, Nashville. 1994 Economies and Polities in Aztec-PeriodMorelos: Eth- 1991 Architectureand Authorityin an Aztec Village: Form nohistoricIntroduction. In Economies and Polities in the andFunction of the Tecpan.In Landand Politics in the Val- Aztec Realm, edited by M. G. Hodge and M. E. Smith,pp. ley of Mexico, edited by H. R. Harvey,pp. 63-92. Univer- 313-348. Institutefor MesoamericanStudies, Albany. sity of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque. 1996 TheAztecs. Blackwell, Oxford. 1993 Aztec HouseholdOrganization and Village Administra- 1997 WorkingTogether: Archaeology in the Middle of Polit- tion. In PrehispanicDomestic Units in WesternMesoamer- ical ConflictinYautepec, Mexico. SAA Bulletin 15(4): 12-14. ica: Studies of the Household, Compound,and Residence, Society for AmericanArchaeology, Washington, D.C. editedby R. S. Santleyand K. G. Hirth,pp. 173-189. CRC Smith,M. E., and F. F. Berdan Press, Boca Raton. 1992 Archaeologyand theAztec Empire.WorldArchaeology Hare,T. S. 23:353-367. 1998 ChangingPolitical Boundariesin the Peripheryof the Smith,M. E., and C. Heath-Smith Aztec Empire.Paper presented at the 63rdAnnual Meeting 1994 RuralEconomy in LatePostclassic Morelos: AnArchae- of the Society for AmericanArchaeology, Seattle. ologicalStudy. In Economiesand Polities in theAztecRealm, Hare,T. S., and M. E. Smith editedby M. G. Hodge andM. E. Smith,pp.349-376. Insti- 1996 A New PostclassicChronology for Yautepec,Morelos. tute for MesoamericanStudies, Albany. AncientMesoamerica7:281-297. Smith,M. E., C. Heath-Smith,R. Kohler,J. Odess, S. Spanogle, Hinz, E., C. Hartau,and M. Heimann-Koenen andT. Sullivan 1983 AztekischerZensus: Zur IndianischenWirtschaft und 1994 The Size of the Aztec City of Yautepec:Urban Survey Gesellschaftim Marquesadoum 1540. Verlagfur Ethnolo- in CentralMexico. AncientMesoamerica 5: 1-11. gie, Hanover. Smith,M. E., O. Sterpone,and C. Heath-Smith MaldonadoJimenez, D. 1992 ModernAdobe Houses in Tetlama,Morelos. In Archae- 1990 Cuauhnahuacy Huaxtepec:Tlalhuicas y Xochimilcas ological Researchat Aztec-PeriodRural Sites in Morelos, en el MorelosPrehispanico. Centro Regional de Investiga- Mexico,Part I: Excavationsand Architecture, edited by M. ciones Multidisciplinarias,Universidad Nacional Autonoma E. Smith, pp. 405418. Monographsin Latin American de Mexico, Cuernavaca. ArchaeologyNo. 4. Universityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh. Montiel,L. 1998 On the Borderof the TeotihuacanEmpire: Archaeolog- Received April 15, 1998; accepted May 20, 1998; revised ical Investigationsin the YautepecValley. Paper presented October 5, 1998.

This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions