T MESOAMERICAN TERRI ORIAL EOUNOARIES: RECDNSTRUCTIONS ffia.1 ARCHAEOLOJY AND HIEROOLYPHIC WRITING

Joyce Marcus

Introduction

Archaeologists working with Mesoamerican societies have long been interested in integrating textual data (hieroglyphic writing) with archaeological data (survey and excavation results), but so far there have been only a few efforts along these I ines. There are two reasons for this: firstly, both textual analysis and archaeology are fields a. requiring increasing specialisation; this trend has tended to work against scholars who wished to combine the two lines of information. Secondly, there are at least two possible ways that texts and archaeo­ logy can be related to each other:

1 . they may overlap in theme, scope, and content; 2. they may constitute non-overlapping, complementary sets of data.

One theme we can approach through texts and archaeology is that of territorial boundaries. In fact, several lines of evidence -- ethno­ historic, linguistic, archaeological, and textual -- can be brought to bear on this theme. While archaeologists in many parts of the world have often had to limit themselves to pottery styles and architecture to C. reconstruct territorial boundaries, Mesoamericanists are fortunate in having at their disposal the additional evidence mentioned above.

In this paper we wi 11 look at how texts and archaeology can be Figure 1 : Place signs from integrated to reconstruct territorial boundaries for the Aztec of (a) Nahuatl glyph for Tutute Central Mexico, the Mixtec and Zai:>otec of Oaxaca, and the Maya of glyph for Tututepec; (c) Mil Southern Mexico and Guatemala. In our conclusions, we will evaluate the glyph for Yaxchilan. degree of fit between these different lines of evidence.

Mesoamerican Place Signs the Zapotec area, we are als Spanish, Zapotec, and/or Nat Place signs are among the hieroglyphs most frequently encountered 1 than 40 hieroglyphic signs in preColumbian or early Colonial codices and carved stone monuments identify specific archaeol (Figure 1). While quite easy to classify as 'place signs', many remain occur on multi-ton stones ti to be 'deciphered' or identified. For the Aztec, more than 500 place since those monuments ofte signs are known, many of them identifiable only because of the Spanish 2 resident nobi1 ity of that� and/or Nahuatl glosses which were added to clarify the otherwise picto­ fying Maya place names, ! graphic signs. While several hundred place signs are also depicted in monuments. the Mixtec historical codices, only 20 to 40 have so far been identified 3 with confidence. For the Mixtec lienzos we have had much greater In Mesoamerica, place success in identifying localities, because they, like the Aztec docu­ areas, (2) conquered towns, ments, often include glosses added in Mixtec and/or Spanish. For the Zapotec, over 60 place signs are known from stone inscriptions, and some seats of dynastic power, a 1 0 or so have been identified. In the few lienzos or Colonial maps for limited political, admi territories. Thus, by plotl we are often in a positio (Archaeological Review from Cambridge 3: 2 [1984]) compared with the archaeolo 49

ARI ES: RECONSTRUCTIONS FR.aVI LYPHIC WRITING

oamerican societies have long been data (hieroglyphic writing) with vat ionresults), but so far there hese l i nes. There are two reasons alysis and archaeology are fields a. b. ; this trend has tended to work ine the two lines of information. ible ways that text· and archaeo-

ope, and content; pping, complementary sets of data.

texts and archaeology is that of everal 1 ines of evidence -- ethno­ and textual -- can be brought to gists in many parts of the world pottery styles and architecture to C. d. , Mesoamericanists are fortunate in 1 evidence mentioned above.

how texts and archaeology can be Figure 1: Place signs from four Mesoamerican writing systems. ial boundaries for the Aztec of (a) Nahuatl glyph for Tututepec (Hill of the Bird); (b) Zapotec otec of Oaxaca, and the Maya of glyph for Tututepec; (c) Mixtec glyph for Tututepec; (d) Mayan conclusions, we will evaluate the glyph for Yaxchilan. lines of evidence.

the Zapotec area, we are also fortunate in having some glosses added in Spanish, Zapotec, and/or Nahuatl. Finally, for the Maya we know of more glyphs most frequently encountered l than 40 hieroglyphic signs that refer to places; at least 25 of these tli�<'P� and carved stone monuments identify specific archaeological sites. Since the Maya place names stfy as 'place signs', many remain occur on multi-ton stones that were not moved from city to city -- and r the Aztec, more than 50 0 place since those monuments often include dynastic records refering to the fiable only because of the Spanish resident nobility of that city -- we have had some success in identi­ ed to clarify the otherwise picto- fying Maya place names, particularly at those sites with numerous � place signs are also depicted in monuments. p to 40 have so far been identified 3 � we have had much greater In Mesoamerica, place signs were used to designate (1) tributary ecause they, 1 ike the Aztec docu­ areas, (2) conquered towns, (3) shrines visited during pilgrimages, (4) in Mi xtec and/or Spanish. For the seats of dynastic power, and (5) frontier or boundary towns that de­ from stone inscriptions, and some limited political, administrative, or economically-controlled e few lienzos or Colonial maps for territories. Thus, by plotting the geographical extent of place signs, we are often in a position to suggest territorial boundaries to be 3:2 (1984)) compared with the archaeological evidence. 50

Az tee Terri toria I Boundaries

Tributos, the� Mendoza, ar Rather than being a politically unified, highly integrated polity, Quesada. The Matr1cula de Trib the Aztec 'empire' was in fact a Triple Alliance between three cities paying tribute, with each page (Tenochtitlan, Tlacopan, and Texcoco) which jointly managed to conquer toponyms of the towns paying 489 towns, located in 38 provinces containing£_. 15 million people along the bottom of each page; speaking several different languages (Figure 2). Outside the Basin of speaking towns appear together :viexico, where all 3 cities lay, there were (1) territories not that the first town listed on• incorporated into the Aztec 'empire', which retained their autonomy; for its province. The second and (2) a mosaic of towns and provinces which paid tribute to the Aztec. also supplies us with the topo1 Newly-conquered or reconquered territories were expected to pay exacted from each subject prov specified amounts of tribute every 80 days, semi-annually, or annually. along the left margin and lnformacio'n of 1554 is a docu1 Tarascan Frontier Sites questions asked bythe Spaniar 1 Tlalpujal'lul 2 Tadmaroa early post-Conquest Mexico; 3 Zltlicuaro 4 Tuuntle regarding pre-Conquest tribute. 5 Cuturnalll e Ajuchlllin Aztec Frontier Sites The order of the pages 7 XocotiUin 8 Alahulztliin pattern. Provinces located i 9 Oztuma to To1ollaPt1c first, followed by provinces 11 Cuecalan 12 Chilapan then those in the east, and Triple Alliance Members provinces within a 200 km-radi 13 Tlaeopan 14 Tanochllllin give cotton mantles, maize, b TAR ASCAN ST ATE 15 Texcoco 1975, 109). An overwhelming pr factured iterns, such as clothi1 gold objects, necklaces of pre,

From the Matr(cula de Tri the tributary towns that defi Aztec tributary state. From� Alahuiztlan, Oztuma, Cuecala1 occurred where Aztec expansio i table Tarascan peoples. F Relaciones Geograficas de.!!_ Q! we know that both the Aztec 1 forts along their respective I W°&J Tributary provinces of the Triple Alliance man's-land inhabited by minori Matlatzinca, Chontales, Cuit c=J Autonomous areas groups occupied the 'buffer zo

0 20409010100 it appears that the Tarascan -=-=- ... tiguous, except perhaps in t estab! ished. Some of the Taras, centres were Tlalpujahua, Taxio Figure 2: Reconstruction of the territorial limits of the Aztec (Brand 1943; Armi I las 1951). tributary 'empire', including the Aztec-Tarascan frontier zone (adapted from Barlow 1949 and Brand 1943). Since al 1 of these Tarasc tributary 'empire' they are n tribute lists such as the Code For the purpose of reconstructing the territorial limits of the Also not mentioned are some Az Aztec 'empire', one can compile the names of these tributary towns, and support local Aztec garrisons. the quantities and kinds of goods they paid, using the Matr(cula de the Aztec tribute lists: 51

Tributes, the Codex Mendoza, and the Informaci6n de 1554 of Velasco and 1 tical ly unified, highly integrated polity, Quesada. The Matr7'c,u1a de Tributes is a pictographic display of towns t a Tri p 1 e A I 1 i an c e between three c i t i es paying tribute, with each page representing a tributary 'province'. The Texcoco) which jointly managed to conquer 15 toponyms of the towns paying tribute within that 'province' are listed vi11ces containing£.· million people along the bottom of each page; for example, most of the Matlatzinca­ languages (Figure 2). Outside the Basin of speaking towns appear together on one page. Barlow (1949, 2) suggested (1) s lay, there were territories not that the first town listed on each page was the administrative centre 'empire', which retained their autonomy; for its province. The second part of the Codex Mendoza (Clark 1938) provinces which paid tribute to the Aztec. also supplies us with the toponyms, and the amount and kind of tribute ered territories were expected to pay 80 exacted from each subject province; here place names are usually listed every days, semi-annually, or annually. along the left margin and bottom of each page (Figure 3). The Informacion of 1554 is a document that gives the Aztec answers to 15 Tarascan Frontier Silas 1 TlalpuJlhul questions asked by the Spaniards regarding tribute in pre-Conquest and 2 Tuimaroa 3 Zlticuaro early post-Conquest Mexico; the first nine questions request data 4 Tuzanua 5 Cu1z1maia regarding pre-Conquest tribute. e Ajuchlllin Aztec Fronlier Sites 7 Xoco1lt1in The order of the pages in al 1 3 documents tends to fol low a 8 Alahulztlin pattern. Provinces located in the area near the capital are listed 9 Ozturna to Totoltapec first, followed by provinces in the south of the tributary 'empire', 11 Cuecallln 12 Chilapan then those in the east, and finally those in the north. Almost all 200 Triple Alliance Members provinces within a km-radius of the Aztec capital were required to 13 Tlacopan 14 Tenochtl!lin give cotton mantles, maize, beans, chia (sage), and amaranth (Berdan 15 Taxcoco 1975, 109). An overwhelming proportion of the tribute goods were manu­ factured items, such as clothing, warriors' costumes, reed mats, bowls, gold objects, necklaces of precious stones, and mosaics (Figure 3).

From the Matr(cula de Tributos and Codex Mendoza we know some of the tributary towns that define part of the western frontier of the Aztec tributary state. From north to south, these were Xocotitlan, Alahuiztlan, Oztuma, Cuecalan, and Chilapan. This western frontier occurred where Aztec expansion was halted by the armies of the indom­ itable Tarascan peoples. From ethnohistorical sources (e.g. the Relaciones Geograficas de� Oiocesis de Michoacan: Corona Nunez 1958), we know that both the Aztec and the Tarascans maintained a chain of forts along their respective frontiers. The zone in between was a no­ man's-land inhabited by minority peoples known as the Otom(, Mazahua, Matlatzinca, Chontales, Cuitlatecos, and 'Chichimecs'. Since these groups occupied the 'buffer zone' between the Tarascans and the Aztec, it appears that the Tarascan and Nahua language areas were not con­ tiguous, except perhaps in those areas where Aztec garrisons were established. Some of the Tarascan frontier military and administrative centres were Tlalpujahua, Taximaroa, Tuzantla, Cutzamala, and Aj uchitlan .he territorial limits of the Aztec (Brand 1943; Armil las 1951). the Aztec-Tarascan frontier zone 1943). Brand Since all of these Tarascan frontier towns fell outside the Aztec tributary 'empire' they are not mentioned in the Aztec pictographic tribute lists such as the Codex Mendoza and the Matrfcula de Tributos. structing the territorial limits of the Also not mentioned are some Aztec frontier towns that were-required to e the na mes of these tributary towns, and support local Aztec garrisons. For example, Totoltepec is not listed in goods they paid, using the Matrfcula de the Aztec tribute lists: no les l levava trebuto las de Mechoacan y sus tenian, mexicanos, y a I g una s ve ze s de I ano mantas y piedras verc cobre ....

Totoltepec was apparently exe provided support for one Aztec of Oztuma; however, at certair 'presents' of blankets, jades, r

The Aztec built the fortre the rebellious Chantal provin with steep sides, was defend Another hi 11 nearby had a smal Oztuma was well defended, in Al through the walls and besiege t

About 10 mi !es to the nor Oztuma's command; this fort, ne by three concentric walls, es Oztuma with food, arms, an< Alahuiztllin, protected a forti

In other words:

1. from the tribute l is precision the limits of their 1 2. with the ethnohistoric to drawing the linguistic and p 3. from the archaeologies fied sites along or near the Ii

For example, archaeology can do town of Totoltepec; ethnohistor territory; and we note that t Totoltepec, since it was exen Oztuma does appear in the Co• historical data state that th archaeology has provided us w fortress (Armillas 1951). archaeology and texts we cot frontier in aeydetail.

Mixtec Territorial Boundaries C. d. The Lienzo de Jicayan is I show a town, place signs for i glosses added in the Mixtec ls Figure 3: Page from the Codex Mendoza showing tribute and tributary names of the border towns (F towns. The Aztec frontier towns include: (a) Chilapan ' (b) Oztuma, (c) Al ahuiztlan, (d) Cue1,alan. 53

no Jes llevava trebuto por questavan en frontera con Jos de Mechoacan y sustentaban los soldados que alli tenian, mexicanos, yen el fuerte de Oztuma, y que algunas vezes de! ano enbiaban presente a Mexico de mantas y piedras verdes y «hierro colorad�ues cobre.... (Pinto 1579, 149)

Totoltepec was apparently exempt from tribute payments because it provided support for one Aztec garrison there, and another at the fort of Oztuma; however, at certain times during the year Totoltepec sent 'presents' of blankets, jades, and copper to the Aztec capital.

The Aztec built the fortress at Oztuma after they had to reconquer the rebellious Chontal province. The principal fort, built on a hill with steep sides, was defended by moats and walls with parapets. Another hi I I nearby had a smal I fort surrounded by a wal I. Although Oztuma was we! I defended, in AD 1519 the Tarascans were able to storm through the walls and besiege the main fort (Armi !las 1951).

About 10 miles to the north of Oztuma was a fortified hill under Oztuma•s command; this fort, near Alahuiztlan, was on a hi II surrounded by three concentric walls, each with a moat. Alahuizt 16'.n supplied Oztuma with food, arms, and troops. lztapa, a town subject to AlahuiztJ{n, protected a fortified salt mine from the Tarascans.

In other words:

1. from the tribute lists of the Aztec we can draw with some precision the limits of their tributary 'empire'; •�ii'O­ 2. with the ethnohistoric da ta, we recover information essential to drawing the linguistic and political frontiers; � 3. from the archaeological record, we can actually map the forti­ fied sites along or near the limits of the Aztec and Tarascan states.

For example, archaeology can document the presence of the Aztec garrison - town of Totoltepec; ethnohistory tells us it fell ethnically in Chontal territory; and we note that the Aztec tribute lists do not refer to -�,,gi� Totoltepec, since it was exempt from payments. On the other hand, Oztuma does appear in the Codex Mendoza as a tribute payer; ethno­ historical data state that thisfortress was built in AD 1487, and archaeology has provided us with the plan and location of this border fortress (Armillas 1951). fhus, without the combined use of archaeology and texts we could not reconstruct the Tarascan-Aztec frontier in aeydetail.

Mixtec Territorial Boundaries C. d. The Lienzo de Jicay{n is one of several Colonial period maps that show a town, place signs for its boundaries, and a series of annotated glosses added in the Mixtec language, which are intended to supply the e doza showing tribute and tributary � names of the border towns (Figure 4). The coastal town of Jicayan, s include: (a) Chi Japan, (b) Oztuma, depicted in the centre of th signs, all of which face inw, represent the names of bounda glosses were added subsequent at a later date. By consulting period, we can see that the place sign and gloss on thi boundaries constitutes one constitutes another 'synchron.

The 20th-century boundar i ca I unit than the one t ha Conquest. Generally character Conquest were multiple admini cac i cazqos, kingdoms, or prov po I i t ies. Pri or to the 16th c even larger. Such a regional was administered by a Mixtec

Lord Eight Deer -- a rul or highland Mixtec region in first Mixtec ruler to establi unlike that of some Aztec expansionistic states may h state.) As Eight Deer's ol Tilantongo, Eight Deer put al on the Oaxaca coast.

In the Mixtec codices -· Becker I and 11, Sanchez Soli versions of Eight Deer's life his story from the perspecti Colombino presents a Pacific

Eight Deer conquered m depicted in the Mixtec codi, arrow thrust into the hill. analogue in the 16th-century expression for "to conquer" 1 of another person" (Smith 197

Once we can p Iot the 1, Deer, we should be able control led. From some codic Deer eventually came to rul consolidation of coast and hi Mixtec ruler, and it apparer marriage alliance that took f daughter of a ruler from Juqu

Figure 4: The Lienzo de Jicayan, a coastal Mixtec map showing the limits of Jicayan's territory in the 16th century (red;awn from Smith 1973, Figure 144). 55

depicted in the centre of the cotton cloth, is encircled by 52 place signs, al I of which face inward toward Jicayan. While the place signs represent the names of boundary towns at the time of the Conquest, the glosses were added subsequently and give the names of the border towns at a later date. By consulting other written documents from the Colonial period, we can see that there is no one-to-one relationship between place sign and gloss on this particular lienzo. The map with its boundaries constitutes one •synchronic record'; the set of glosses constitutes another 'synchronic record'.

The 20th-century boundaries of Jicayan reveal a much smaller polit­ ical unit than the one that obtained at the time of the Spanish Conquest. Generally characteristic of Mesoamerica at the time of the Conquest were multiple administrative units (variously called seiior(os cacicazgos, kingdoms, or provinces) that were reasonably large regional polities. Prior to the 16th century, these polities seem to have been even larger. Such a regional polity, which apparently included Jicayan, was administered by a Mixtec ruler named Eight Deer.

Lord Eight Deer -- a ruler born in Ti lantongo in the Mixteca Al ta or highland Mixtec region in the 11th century AD -- may have been the first Mixtec ruler to establish such a large bureaucratic state, one not uni ike that of some Aztec rulers. (Both the Aztec and the Mixtec expansionistic states may have been patterned on the earlier Toi tee state.) As Eight Deer's older ha! f-brother had a prior claim to Tilantongo, Eight Deer put al I his efforts into the colony of Tututepec on the Oaxaca coast.

In the Mixtec codices -- Nuttall, Bodley, Selden, Vienna Reverse, Becker I and II, Sanchez Solis, and Colombino -- we encounter different versions of Eight Deer's life. For example, the Codex Nuttall presents his story from the perspective of the Mixteca Alta, while the Codex Colombino presents a Paci fie coastal version (Smith 1963; 1973).

Eight Deer conquered more than 50 places. These conquests are depicted in the Mixtec codices as toponyms, often hill signs with an arrow thrust into the hill. This pictographic representation has an analogue in the 16th-century Mixtec language (Alvarado 1962), where one expression for "to conquer" translates "to put an arrow into the lands of another person" (Smith 1973, 33).

Once we can plot the locations of the towns conquered by Eight Deer, we should be able to delimit the political territory he controlled. From some codices there is evidence to suggest that Eight Deer eventually came to rule Tilantongo as well as Tututepec. This a consolidation of coast and highland had never been achieved before by a Mixtec ruler, and it apparently was perpetuated for a time through a marriage alliance that took place between the son of Eight Deer and the daughter of a ruler from Juquila, another coastal town.

an, a coastal Mixtec map, showing the in the 16th century (redrawn from Smith 56

Hundreds of additional Mixtec place signs remain unidentified, so we are unable to document the 'hometowns' of scores of other dynasties; nor can we pinpoint yet the locations of all of Eight Deer's conquered towns, or the precise limits of his kingdom. However, from the ethno­ historical accounts we do know that the coastal kingdom of Tututepec was powerful enough to resist incorporation into the Aztec tributary state, and we know that it had only one capita!.

�e also suspect that Jicayan was one of Eight Deer's conquests. 1;1uua After his fall, it came to have a territory of its own, one which D/ seemingly shrank prior to the adding of the Mixtec glosses to the Lienzo de Jicayan. The history of changing boundaries, as derived from texts, could serve as a directive for future archaeological research. The first task might be to discover the degree of fit between boundaries given by the 16th-century texts and those that could be reconstructed on the basis of ceramic, architectural, and settlement pattern data for that period. Still more time would be needed to investigate the boundaries for earlier times.

Zapotec Territorial Boundaries

To determine the Limits of the Zapotec state administered by the city of Monte Alban during the period 200 OC - AD 100, we are fortunate to have more than 50 carved stones that provide the names of conquered places. These carved slabs also include dates in the Zapotec calendar as well as various noncalendrical hieroglyphs that may provide additional data on the places subjugated. While we are still unable to identify all the places mentioned, those that have been identified so far fall outside the Valley of oaxaca, whose geographical centre is occupied by the hi 11 top capita!, Monte Alban. These 'conquest slabs' provide us with clues to the I imi ts of Zapotec-controlled territory. Thus, places such as Miahuatlan, Cuicatlan, Tututepec, and Ocelotepec were most probably located near the frontiers of the Zapotec state administered by Monte Alban ('.\1arcus 1976a; 1980).

In the Zapotec writing system, territorial boundaries were fre­ quently given as geographical landmarks such as named mountain peaks or rivers. This tradition of delimiting Zapotec territory by named topo­ gr·aphic features persisted into the early Colonial period. One Zapotec lienzo, produced in AD 1540 and copied in AD 1820, provides the territ­ �limits of communities surrounding the Zapotec coastal community of Santiago Guevea. The town of Guevea is depicted in the centre of a ring of boundary landmarks (Figure 5). Eighteen place signs with bi I ingual glosses added in Zapotec and Spanish encircle the glyph for Guevea. In the Lower ha! f of the l ienzo we find the genealogy of several Zapotec rulers as well as a list of eight named individuals offering tribute to them (Marcus 1983a, 307).

If we assume that the 50 places depicted on carved stones at Monte Alban were conquered during the period 200BC - AD 100, one would expect to find some archaeological evidence of strong Zapotec influence Figure 5: The Lienzo de Guev limits of Guevea's territory 1983a, Figure 8.34). tee place signs remain unidentified, so hometowns' of scores of other dynasties; at ions of al 1 of Eight Deer's conquered his kingdom. However, from the ethno- that the coastal kingdom of Tututepec was poration into the Aztec tributary state, e capital. yan was one of Eight Deer's conquests. ave a territory of its own, one which ding of the Mixtec glosses to the Lienzo changing boundaries, as derived from ive for future archaeological research. ver the degree of fit between boundaries and those that could be reconstructed on tural, and settlement pat tern data for would be needed to investigate the

f the Zapotec state administered by the eriod 200 OC - AD 100, we are fortunate nes that provide the names of conquered include dates in the Zapotec calendar as hieroglyphs that may provide additional While we are still unable to identify e that have been identified so far fall hose geographical centre is occupied by n. These 'conquest slabs' provide us with controlled territory. Thus, places such epec, and Ocelotepec were most probably he Zapotec state administered by Monte

tern, territorial boundaries were fre­ ndmarks such as named mountain peaks or miting Zapotec territory by named topo- the early Colonial period. One Zapotec copied in AD 1820, provides the territ­ ounding the Zapotec coastal community of evea is depicted in the centre of a ring 6). Eighteen place signs with bi 1 ingual ani sh encircle the glyph for Guevea. In find the genealogy of several Zapotec ht named individuals offering tribute to laces depicted on carved stones at Monte the period 200BC - AD 100, one would al evidence of strong Zapotec influence Figure 5: The Lienzo de Guevea, a coastal Zapotec map, showing the limits of Guevea's territory in the 16th century (redrawn from Marcus 1983a, Figure 8.34). 58 at those places. Such evidence does appear at the only three areas that have been investigated seriously, namely Miahuatlan, Tututepec, and cuicatlan. Of these three, the most extensive work has been carried out series of polities for the peri by Redmond and Spencer in the Cuicatlan region. Their data (Spencer 2 5,000 to 1 2,000 km (Marcus 1973 1982; Redmond 1983) tend to support the proposition that the Cuicat Ian area was subjugated by Monte Alban, and, for a time, became a frontier zone on the edge of the Zapotec state (Marcus 1976a). At the fortified site of Quiotepec, located at a natural pass through a mountain ridge separating Cuicatlan from the more northerly Tehuacan Valley, Redmond (1983) found abundant ceramics with strong stylistic affinities to those used at Monte Alban between 200 BC - AD 100. Some 7 km north of the pass, on the other hand, Redmond began recovering pottery typical of the Tehuacan Valley during this same time period. Therefore, it appears that in this case the hieroglyphic inscriptions listing areas subjugated by Monte Alban and the archaeological data on the limits of Zapotec ceramics are in agreement, both lines of evidence indicating that Cuicatl{n stood near the northern limits of Zapotec expansion. Redmond and Spencer (1983) suggest that the Zapotec wanted to control the pass to Tehuac{n, claiming for themselves a whole series of tropical pro­ ducts which could not be grown in the temperate climate of the area around :vlonte Alban. This suggestion is supported by a se t tlement shift from the high alluvium to nearby piedmont ridges, apparently for the purpose of enab I ing more Iand to be brought under cultivation (Redmond Lowland Maya regions 1983), and by an increase in the carbonised remains of tropical fruits and nuts. based on 'place sign' distributions One additional discovery leads us to believe that the subjugation of Cuicatlan was not a peaceful event, In front of one bui!ding there, Politica l boundaries Spencer (1982 ) recovered 61 skulls, aligned in rows, which he inter­ Utilitaria n pottery dis preted as the remains of a toppled-over skul !rack. This skul!rack may have served as a symbol of Zapotec mi Iitary power, for the purpose of • Primary regional cen dissuading rebellion and promoting compliance by the people of Lower-order centers Cuicatia'n. .. .. I km Maya Territorial Boundaries 0 25 50 75100

To establish the limits of Maya political territories during the period from AD 731-751, we can use the distribution of emblem glyphs or Figure 6: Maya political terr i 'site. names' (Berlin 1958). Stela A at Copan, which dates to AD 731, distribution of monuments with lists 4 major :Vlaya cities -- Copan, Tikal, calakmul (?), and Palenque Figure 8). in one clause, followed by another listing the four world directions: E, W, Sand N. Preceding these clauses is one that could be interpreted as reading "four on high", or "divided into four quarters" (Marcus 1976b). If we turn to the archa, It would seem that the :vlaya regarded these four cities as paramount construct additional boundar centres, each administering a large region (Figure 6). Within each of arian pottery. Thin sections these four regions, we can detect the presence of a mu!ti-level Palenque reveal that many of t hierarchy of administrative centres in which the lower-order centres within a 15-20 km radius of P mention the emblem glyphs of the centre to which they are subject (i.e., the serving dishes and bowls � 4th-level centres mention 3rd-level centres; 3rd-level centres mention major city. These patterns su1 2nd-level centres; and 2nd-level centres mention one of the four major cities mentioned above). The use of such textual data establishes a 1. that the lower-order pottery consumed at major cent 2 . there was some conmun 59 appear at the only three areas that namely Miahuatlan, Tututepec, and extensive work has been ca rried out s e ri es o f po I i t i e s for t he p e r i o d AD 7 3 1 -7 5 1, w h ic h va r y in s i ze fr om ca tlan region, Their data (Spencer 5,000 to 12,000 km 2 (Marcus 1973; 1983b). t the proposition that the Cuicat Ian and, for a time, became a frontier te (Marcus 1976a). At the fortified tural pass through a mountain ridge northerly Tehuac�n Valley, Redmond strong stylistic affinities to those C - AD 100, Some 7 km north of the an recovering pottery typical of the ti me period, Therefore, it appears Cala_kmul region inscriptions listing areas subjugated gical data on the I imits of Zapotec lines of evidence indicating that O imits of Zapotec expansion, Redmond ' Zapotec wanted to control the pass ka l es a whole series of tropical pro­ region c�ilan • the temperate climate of the area eg,on I is supported by a settlement shift , iedmont ridges, apparently for the brought under cultivation (Redmond etexbatun Maya regions confedera cy rbonised remains of tropical fruits Lowland based on 'place sign' distributions us to believe that the subjugation nt, In front of one bui I ding there, Q Political boundaries (approx.) , aligned in rows, which he inter­ Utilitaria n pottery distribution boundaries over skul I rack. This skul I rack may mi 1 itary power, for the purpose of • Primary regional center at A.D. 731 ng compliance by the people of Lower-order centers

I km 0.. 25 50� 75 100

a political territories during the the distrib ution of emblem glyphs or Figure 6: Maya political territories at AD 731, reconstructed from the at Copan, which dates to AD 731, distribution of monuments with 'site names' (redrawn from Marcus 1983b, Tikal, Calakmul (?), and Palenque Figure 8). isling the four world directions: E, is one that could be interpreted as into four quarters" (Marcus 1976b). Jf we turn to the archaeological data for these areas, we can ed these four cities as paramount construct additional boundaries, based on the distribution of utilit­ e region (Figure 6). Within each of arian pottery, Thin sections of sherds from sites in the region of ct the presence of a mu! ti-level Palenque reveal that many of the uti Iitarian jars and bowls were made s in which the lower-order centres within a 15- 2 0 km radius of Palenque itself (Rands 196 7). For Tikal, tre to which they are subject (i.e., the serving dishes and bowls were made at sites within 8-10 km of that centres; 3rd-level centres mention major city. These patterns suggest: ntres mention one of the four major of such textual data establishes a 1. that the lower-order centres produced much of the utilitarian pottery consumed at major centres; 2. there was some community specialisation by vessel shape. 60 addition, without ethnohistor that the 'buffer zone' betweE Otomanguean speakers, speakin However, when we reconstruct regional uni ts on the basis of the distrib­ and Nahuatl (the language of ution of different types of utilitarian pottery, such units turn out to when one can call on all thre be much smaller than those established by using emblem glyphs or 'site historic, and archaeological. names'; obviously, many such ceramic production regions could fit within the t e r rtor i y of one of the four ma j or c i t esi . Notes

If, on the other hand, we were to reconstruct regions based on the 1. Codices are screenfolds geographic distribution of polychrome vase with hieroglyphic writing we both sides with a coat of would end up with regions much larger than any based on the use of colours and often contf emblem glyphs. In other words, the distribution of polychrome vessels data . represents an interregional circulation of elite goods beyond the ter­ 2. Glosses or Annotations a ritories of even the largest centres, We know some of the mechanisms for write words in the nativ this circulation; for example, it took place when a member of the nobi I­ 3. Lienzos are often early ( i ty attended the funeral of a noble in another region (e.g., Adams on large cotton sheet 1977). Such burial vessels serve as tangible evidence of the elite historical-cartographic gift-giving that linked nobles across administrative and territorial uni ts. References

Thus, the boundaries we generate using the distribution of (1) Adams, R.E.W. 1977. Comm utilitarian pottery and (2) polychrome burial vases are not isomorphic; vase'. In Hammond, N. additionally, neither is coextensive with the limits of (3) the admin­ Studies J..E. Honour£!� istrative realm, as determined by the distribution of 'site names' in 409-420 . hieroglyphic texts. Complicating the issue further is the fact that we Al varaoo, F. de. 1962 [ 1593 cannot assume that any of these boundaries stayed the same for any W.J. Moreno. Mexico, !NA substantial period of time. Armillas, P. 1951. Mesoame 86. Summary and Conclusions Barlow, R.H. 1949. The� Ibero-Amer icane 28. Ber We have looked at the problem of territorial boundaries among the Berdan, F.M.F. 1975. Trade, Aztec, Mixtec, Zapotec, and �aye peoples of Mesoamerica. To what extent University of Texas, Au: do the boundaries deduced from hieroglyphic texts correspond to bound­ Berlin H. 1958. El glil aries deduced from archaeological studies of settlement patterns, Jo'urnal de la Societe � architecture, and ceramics? Brand, O.D. 1943. An histo1 in the Tarascan region, We have seen that in the Maya case, distributional study of utilit­ (2), 37-10 8. arian ceramics would yield territories much smaller than those deduced Clark, J.C. (ed.) 1938. Code from place-name glyphs, while distribution of polychrome burial vessels Sons. would yield territories much larger than those derived from glyphs. In Corona Nu°nez, J. (ed.) 1958 the case of the Zapotec conquest of Cuicatlan, on the other hand, we saw Di6ces is de Michoacifn. that ceramic style boundaries do seem to conform to the boundaries Marcus, J. 1973. Territor deduced from carved monuments of conquered places, and that settlement Maya. Science 180, 911· pattern survey recovered at least one fort on the presumed territorial Marcus, J. 1976a. The ico border. The example of the coastal Mixtec warned us that boundaries are neighboring sites in thE not static: a place such as Jicayln can be incorporated into a larger The Origins £! � polity at one time, achieve its own smaller realm at a later period, and Mesoameri ca. Los Angell see its territory shrink still further following the Spanish Conquest. Marcus, J. 1976b. �mblen Finally, in the Aztec case, we saw that the Aztec-Tarascan frontier An Epigraphic Approach could be partially defined by combining a textual study of tribute lists D.C., Dumbarton Oaks. and an archaeological survey for Aztec and Tarascan border forts. Even in this example however, we saw that some important archaeological sites were never mentioned by the Aztec because they did not pay tribute; in 61

addition, without ethnohistoric documents we would never have guessed that the 'buffer zone' between the Aztec and Tarascans was occupied by Otomanguean speakers, speaking a set of languages unrelated to Tarascan nal uni ts on the basis of the distrib­ and Nahuatl (the language of the Aztec). Boundaries are best understood arian pottery, such units turn out to when one can call on all threelines of evidence -- hieroglyphic, ethno­ shed by using emblem gl yphs or 'site historic, and archaeological. c production regions could fit within jor cities. Notes

to reconstruct regions based on the 1. Codices are screenfolds of animal skin or bark paper covered on ome vase with hieroglyphic writing we both sides with a coat of lime plaster; they are painted in several arger than any based on the use of colours and often contain genealogical, historical, and ritual e distribution of polychrome vessels data. ation of elite goods beyond the ter­ 2. Glosses or Annotations are written using the European alphabet to •s. We know some of the mechanisms for write words in the native languages. ook place when a member of the nobil­ 3. Lienzos are often early Colonial 'maps' drawn in pre-Conquest style oble in another region (e.g., Adams on large cotton sheets. These 'maps' constitute important as tangible evidence of the elite historical-cartographic documents. cross administrative and territorial References

Adams, R.E.W. 1977. Comments on the Glyphic Texts of the 'Altar erate using the distribution of (1) ome burial vases are not isomorphic; Vase'. In Hammond, N. (ed.) Social Process .!...!!_ Maya Prehistory: ve with the limits of (3 ) the admin- Studies.!...!!_ Honour£.!� Eric Thompson. London, Academic Press, the distribution of 'site names' in 409-420. he issue further is the fact that we Alvaraoo, F. de. 1962 [1593) Vocabulario en lengua mixteca,edi ted by boundaries stayed the same for any W.J. Moreno. Mexico, INAH. Armillas, P. 1951. Mesoamerican fortifications. Antiquity 25(98) 77- 86. Barlow, R.H. 1949. The Extent of.!..!!!���£.!.!..!!!Culh ua-Mexica. Ibero-Americana 28. Berkeley, University of California Press. of territorial boundaries among the Berdan, F.M.F. 1975. Trade, Tribute and Market i_.!!Aztec .!..!!! Em�. oples of Mesoamerica. To what extent University of Texas, Austin. Unpublished Ph.D. di sser tati on. roglyphic texts correspond to bound­ Berlin, H. 1958. El glifo 'emblema' en las inscripciones mayas. ! studies of settlement patterns, Journal de la Societe des Americanistes n.s. 47, 111-119. Brand, D.D. 1943. An historical sketch of geography and anthropology in the Tarascan region, Part I. New Mexico Anthropologist 6-7 case, distributional study of utilit­ (2), 37-108. ries much smaller than those deduced Clark, J.C. (ed.) 1938. Codex Mendoza. 3 vols. London, Waterlow and ribution of polychrome burial vessels Sons. r than those derived from glyphs. In Corona Nu'iiez, J. (ed.) 1958 [1579-80) Relaciones geograficas -de -la Diocesis de Michoacan. Guadalajara, no publisher stated. Cuicatlan, on the other hand, we saw seem to conform to the boundaries Marcus, J. 1973. Territorial organization of the Lowland Classic onquered places, and that settlement Maya. Science 180, 911-916. one fort on the presumed territorial Marcus, J. 1976a. The iconography of militarism at Monte Alban and Mixtec warned us that boundaries are neighboring sites in the Valley of oaxaca. In Nicholson H.B. (ed.) /n can be incorporated into a larger The Origins £.! Regligious � and Iconography in Preclassic smaller realm at a later period, and Mesoamerica. Los Angeles, UCLA, 123-139. ther following the Spanish Conquest. Marcus, J. 1976b. �mblem and State.!...!!_.!..!!!Classic 1!'!!1.!!. Lowlands: w that the Aztec-Tarascan frontier An Epigraphic Approach to Territorial Organization. Washington ning a textual study of tribute lists D.C., Dumbarton Oaks. tee and Tarascan border forts. Even t some important archaeological sites because they did not pay tribute; in 62

.\larcus, J. 1980. Zapotec writing, Scientific American 242 50- 64. \larcus, J. 1983a. The reconstructed chronology<>fthe 1a'ter Zapotec rulers, A.O. [415-1563. In Flannery, K.V. and Marcus, J. (eds) The Cloud People. New York, Academic Press 301-308. TEXT AND CONTEXT: LEVELS OF 1 ,\larcu's;-J-:-T983�wland Maya archaeology at the crossroads. American ARCHAEOUXllCAL AND TEXTUAL Di Ant iqui t y � 8 ( 3), 4 5 4-4 8 8. Pinto, L. et al. 1579. Relacidn de Toto! tepee de Guerrero. In John I Papeles de Nueva Espana, Sequnda Serie, Geograf(a 'i.. Estad(stica, Torno VI, 148-152. Introduction Rands, R.L. 1967. Ceramic technology and trade in the Palenque region, :vlexico. In Carroll , L.R. and Taylor, W.W. (eds) American The aim of this article is to Historical Anthropology. Carbondale, Southern Illinois UniversitY, ionships that exist between texts a 137-151. specifically the situation where Redmond, E.M. 1983. �Fuego'j_Sangr e: �Zapotec Imperiaiism.!..E_ society's material culture. It the the Cuicatlan Canada, Oaxaca. :vle moirs of the Museum of the situation where texts refer Anthropology 16, Studies .!..E_ Latin �i:!!erican Ethnohistory and situation (cf. Barnes, Chakrabarti I Archaeology Vol. 1. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. equally, with the situation where Redmond, E.M. and Spencer, C.S. 1983. TheCuicatlanca'i'lada and the direct historical information, s1 Period II Frontier of the Zapotec State. In Flannery, K.V. and Mesopotamia, is not considered t .\larcus, J. (eds) The Cloud People. New York, Academic volume). The specific example used Press, 117-120. from the Aegean Late Bronze III per Smith, M.E. 1963. The Codex Colombino: a document of the south coast the Linear B texts discovered in se of Oaxaca. Tlalocan 4 (3 ), 276-288. Aegean area. Firstly, a brie f int Smith, :vI.E. 1973. Picture �� from Ancient Southern ---Mexico. and their general historical contex Norman, University of Okl ahoma Press. introduction, see, e.g., Chadwick J Spencer, C.S. 1982. The Cui catIan Cai'i'ada and Monte Alban: � Study .!..E_ way in which we handle texts of th Primary State Formation. New York, Academic PreSS:-- provide -- is briefly analysed and context and integration. The firs as not to over lap with the more de1 Shelmerdine (this volume). Final!) value of this approach, and possiblt

Background

The Linear B wr iting sy stem, asyllabary. That is, each phoneti< stands for a sy llable: a, da, je, I to represent an early form of Greek 1967) and, for this reason, shoul but chronologically antecedent, L deciphered. In addition to signs 1 the script contains a number, cal represent commodities such as olive sheep (and other I ivestock), ever 10,000s) and units of measurement bs

To date, examples of the script ing complexes which pr obably fulfil (conventionally referred to as 'pali in buildings closely associated i seems, the script was used to reco centres both in Greece and at Knos

(Archaeological Review fromCSmbrid@