The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, Mexico: A world-system perspective 9781841716329, 9781407327006

Citation preview

BAR  S 1279  2004   FILINI   THE PRESENCE OF TEOTIHUACAN IN THE CUITZEO BASIN, MICHOACÁN, MEXICO

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, Mexico A world-system perspective

Agapi Filini

BAR International Series 1279 9 781841 716329

B A R

2004

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, Mexico A world-system perspective

Agapi Filini

BAR International Series 1279 2004

ISBN 9781841716329 paperback ISBN 9781407327006 e-format DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9781841716329 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

BAR

PUBLISHING

ABSTRACT

Until recently it was postulated that West Mexico was isolated from the cultural region defined as ‘Mesoamerica’ and especially during the apogee of the city of Teotihuacan, Central Mexico. Studies on the exchange network of Teotihuacan have not considered the relations between Teotihuacan and West Mexico despite the existence of a number of artifacts in West Mexico that either originated in Teotihuacan or were locally reproduced copies of Teotihuacan artifacts. In this work I investigate the relations between Teotihuacan and the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, from a world systemic perspective. Ideological factors seem to have been particularly important for the structuration of the Teotihuacan world-system, which extended over a broad area in Mesoamerica. The polarizing dichotomy between center and periphery has impeded our understanding of the dynamics of change for both the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan. I examine whether dependency can be inferred by the local and imported material culture with references to other parts of the Teotihuacan world-system. Consequently, I attempt to redefine the concept of complexity regarding peripheral areas and the role of important denominators such as trade, crafts specialization and namely, symbolic complexity as manifested through specific cognitive concepts. I conclude that the Cuitzeo Basin sites participated in the Teotihuacan symbolic factory in a very selective way, which allowed the maintenance of a relative degree of autonomy.

i

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A number of kind individuals and institutions supported me in a variety of ways. First and foremost my thanks go to my parents for their love and support. I am immeasurably indebted to my supervisors Dr. Elizabeth Graham, Institute of Archaeology, and Professor Michael Rowlands, Department of Anthropology, University College London, for having the patience to read various drafts and making substantive suggestions. From the Institute of Archaeology, I thank Professor Warwick Bray for guidance in the early stages and encouraging research in West Mexico, and Dr. José Oliver for insightful comments. I owe many thanks to Drs. Elizabeth Baquedano and Dominique Michelet for their constructive criticism. My profound gratitude to Professors Gillian Elinor, Jonathan Rosenhead, Drs. Ayo Salami, Dimitris Sariklis, Dimitris Papanikolaou and Maria Prats for their unconditional support. In Michoacán, Mexico, my warmest thanks go to my friend and colleague Efraín Cárdenas García, Director of the Centro de Estudios Arqueológicos, Michoacán and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Michoacán. I am most grateful for his generosity in sharing his expertise and facilitating my fieldwork in Michoacán. His wife, Eugenia, and my friends Mario and Elsa Retiz, and Armando Nicolau Romero made Michoacán a true home for me. Members of the same ‘family’ who were considerably supportive include Sergio Bautista Osuña, Marysol Alvarado, Ing. Rafael Aceves Reyes and Madre Soledad. Many thanks to my colleagues, Arturo Oliveros, Xavier Tavera, Phil and Celia Weigand, Eduardo Williams Martínez, Carlos Castañeda and Jorge Sanchez Montelongo. Carlos Hiriart Pardo, Director of INAH, Michoacán, aided my fieldwork with permits. I also owe many thanks to Gerardo Argueta Saucedo, Director of the Museum of Acámbaro, Guanajuato and Victor Hugo Valencia, Director of INAH, Puebla. Valuable information was provided by the people who actually live near many of the sites and helped me gain access to many collections. My profound thanks to Omar and Marielena Tapia Pérez, Dr. Fernado Perez Ferreyra, Benjamin and Coca García Durán, and my field colleagues Adolfo Nava and Pingüino. In México City, I am most grateful to my friends Drs. Lauro Bucio and José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil, Institute of Physics, National Autonomous University, Mexico, who performed laboratory analyses on ceramic samples and shared my enthusiasm for the archaeology of northern Michoacán. I owe many debts to Maria Antonieta Moguel Cos, Salvador Pulido and Rubén Manzanilla of the Dirección de Salvamento Arqueológico for engaging in full discussions and sharing unpublished material. Elba Nicolau Romero and Pepe Ramírez of the Consejo de Arqueología who helped me gain access to field reports. From the Teotihuacan area, Dr. Evelyn Rattray, Sergio Gómez Chávez and Miguel Angel Trinidad refined specific problems concerning ceramic chronology. My research was generously supported by a grant from the Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs; many debts are due to Eva Luz Hernández Durán, Director of the Department of Academic Exchange, and Dr. Carlos Herrejón Peredo, President of the Colegio de Michoacán. Finally, I would like to thank María Palomar, Mexican Embassy, Greece, and Vasiliki Chatsiou, Greek Embassy, Mexico.

ii

CONTENTS

Abstract.................................................................................................................................................. i Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ ii Contents ............................................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures........................................................................................................................................v List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... viii List of Charts..................................................................................................................................... viii Chapter 1 The Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan: a world-system perspective 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.4.1 1.4.2 1.4.3 1.4.4

Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1 The Marginalization of West Mexico within the Mesoamerican scheme................................ 1 The Teuchitlán Tradition, State of Jalisco: a case of complexity in West Mexico .................. 4 The Applicability of the world-system perspective in Mesoamerica....................................... 5 The Extent of the system .................................................................................................. 6 Measurement of coreness and peripherality ..................................................................... 7 The Structuration of core/periphery relations ................................................................... 7 The Cuitzeo Basin and the Teotihuacan world-system: validating the model .................. 8

Chapter 2 Backround 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.4

The Physical Setting: Michoacán and the Lake Cuitzeo Basin .............................................. 11 The Archaeology of the Cuitzeo Basin .................................................................................. 12 Delimiting the focus............................................................................................................... 14 Site chronology and locale.............................................................................................. 14 Site size and features ...................................................................................................... 14 Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 15

Chapter 3 Research Design 3.1 Methodological limitations .................................................................................................... 16 3.2 The present study ................................................................................................................... 17 3.3 Defining the style of the Classic period Teotihuacan ............................................................ 17 3.3.1 Why study style .............................................................................................................. 17 3.3.2 Is there a Teotihuacan style?........................................................................................... 18 3.3.2.1 Chronological framework........................................................................................ 18 3.3.2.2 Terminological specifications.................................................................................. 19 3.3.2.3 Diagnostic traits....................................................................................................... 19 3.3.3 Teotihuacan abroad: methodological underpinnings ...................................................... 24 3.4 Strategy.................................................................................................................................. 25 3.4.1 Compilation of dataset.................................................................................................... 25 3.4.2 Method of analysis.......................................................................................................... 26 3.4.3 Aims of ceramic analysis................................................................................................ 27 3.4.4 Analytical limitations...................................................................................................... 27 3.4.5 Classificatory scheme ..................................................................................................... 28 Chapter 4 The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7

Ceramic antecedents: the Chupícuaro Complex .................................................................... 30 Establishing the present typology .......................................................................................... 30 Local ceramics ....................................................................................................................... 31 Monochrome pottery ...................................................................................................... 31 Polychrome pottery......................................................................................................... 33 Miscellaneous local ceramic artifacts ............................................................................. 38 Teotihuacan-related ceramics ................................................................................................ 38 Local and Teotihuacan-related figurines................................................................................ 41 Miscellaneous Teotihuacan-related ceramic artifacts ............................................................ 43 Toward an evaluation of the Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex............................................... 44 iii

Chapter 5 Encoded identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations 5.1 Symboling as a means of knowledge structuration................................................................ 49 5.1.1 Material culture............................................................................................................... 49 5.1.2 Mesoamerican religion ................................................................................................... 50 5.1.3 The Praxis of symboling................................................................................................. 50 5.1.4 Symboling as a metalanguage ........................................................................................ 52 5.1.5 Symbolic value ............................................................................................................... 52 5.2 Iconographic themes .............................................................................................................. 53 5.2.1 Methodological underpinnings ....................................................................................... 53 5.2.2 The iconographic corpus................................................................................................. 54 5.2.2.1 Anthropomorphic motifs ......................................................................................... 56 5.2.2.2 Zoomorphic motifs .................................................................................................. 58 5.2.2.3 Geometric motifs ..................................................................................................... 61 5.2.2.4 Teotihuacan-related motifs ...................................................................................... 65 5.3 A matter of choice or coercion?............................................................................................. 73 Chapter 6 The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate? 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.3.1 6.3.2 6.3.3 6.3.4 6.4 6.4.1 6.4.2 6.4.3 6.4.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8

System Logic: Prestige goods and fertility rituals................................................................. 75 The extent of the system ........................................................................................................ 76 Comparative framework......................................................................................................... 79 Monte Albán ................................................................................................................... 79 Matacapan....................................................................................................................... 82 The Maya Area ............................................................................................................... 84 The Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán ...................................................................................... 89 Impact at Home: Ethnic Minorities in Teotihuacan ............................................................... 89 Tlailotlacan: the Zapotec Barrio ..................................................................................... 89 The Merchants’ Barrio.................................................................................................... 90 . . . And the Maya?......................................................................................................... 91 Structure 19: An incidence of interaction with Western Mexico................................... 91 Agency and Teotihuacan symbolic structure ......................................................................... 92 Trade and the Teotihuacan state............................................................................................. 94 Real Virtuality: a stratagem of Teotihuacan militarism ........................................................ 95 The Contraction (decline) of the system ................................................................................ 98

Chapter 7 Expansions, contractions and obsidian routes 7.1 7.2 7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.4

The prehistory of the Classic period interactional process: Chupícuaro ............................. 100 Obsidian and exchange networks......................................................................................... 103 The Zinapécuaro and Ucareo sources, northeastern Michoacán .................................. 104 The Teotihuacan-controlled green obsidian in the Cuitzeo Basin ............................... 105 The reestablishment of the Formative period exchange pattern........................................... 107 Who ‘controlled’ the Michoacán mines? ............................................................................. 108

Chapter 8 Concluding remarks 8.1 8.2

‘Can the exchange of information or ritual create a systemic interdependence?’ ................ 109 Future research..................................................................................................................... 115

Appendix I: List of museum and private collections ....................................................................... 117 Appendix II: Provenance of samples of PIXE and XRD analyses .................................................. 118 Appendix III: XRD results ............................................................................................................... 119 Bibliography ..................................................................................................................................... 121

iv

LIST OF FIGURES 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3

3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20

Archaeological map of Teotihuacan. Drawing by K.Sugiyama (htttp://archaeology.la.asu.edu) ................................................................................................ 1 The extent of the Teotihuacan exchange network (adapted from Berrin and Pasztory 1993:26, fig. 7)......................................................................................................................... 2 Chronology chart for Teotihuacan (adapted from Braswel 2001:4, fig. 1.2) ........................... 3 The State of Michoacán in Mexico (www.inegi.gob.mx) ...................................................... 11 Map of the Cuitzeo complex based on looted artifacts (after Pratt and Gay 1979) ............... 13 Map of the study area and sites mentioned in the text ........................................................... 15 The talud-tablero architectural feature, Teotihuacan ............................................................. 20 The almena, a Teotihuacan architectural decorative element (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:173, fig.7) ..................................................................................................................... 21 Thin orange ware: a. tripod vessel with rectangular slab supports, Teotihuacan (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:258, fig. 148); b. effigy vessel, Teotihuacan (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993, cat. Number 160)........................................................................................... 21 c. fragment of effigy vessel, Tres Cerritos, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán (photo E. Cárdenas García) ................................................................................................................................... 22 Cylindrical tripod vessel: a. Teotihuacan (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:256, fig.145); b. fragment of base and almena-like support of a cylindrical vessel, Santa Maria, Cuitzeo Basin ...................................................................................................................................... 22 Theater-type censer, Teotihuacan (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:218, fig. 70) .................. 23 Stuccoed and painted vessels, Teotihuacan; tripod vessel, Burial 14, Tetitla, Teotihuacan (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:252, fig. 137) ...................................................................... 23 Teotihuacan masks: a. Museum of the Archaeological Zone of Teotihuacan; b. Museo Regional, Morelia, Michoacán (photo: A. Nicolau Romero)................................................. 24 Green obsidian prismatic blades; Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacán (photo E. Cárdenas García) ................................................................................................................................... 24 Rim profiles of local monochrome utilitarian wares, La Terla, Cuitzeo Basin: a. light brown apaxtles (basins); b. black burnished bowl; c., e. brown bowls; d. orange bowl; f. light brown jar and g. burnished orange bowl ....................................................................... 31 Plain black ceramics, Santa Maria, Morelia, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) ... 32 Black incised ceramics: Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin ...................................................... 32 Red-on-buff ceramics: tripod bowl, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) ................................................................................................................................. 33 Red-on-buff with negative ceramics: a. bowl, Santa Maria, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero); b. Sherds, Santa Maria (photo: E. Cárdenas García); c. flat-bottomed bowl, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) .......................................................... 34 White-on-red ceramics: flat-bottomed steep walled bowl, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin . 35 Al secco ceramics: a. bowl, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán.................................... 35 b. motif of individual with bird, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán ............................. 36 Excised stuccoed vessel, unknown provenance, Michoacán, Barbier Mueller Museum, Geneva (after Ritual Arts of the New World. Pre-Columbian America 2000:268)............... 36 Clay ear-spools, Santa Maria, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán (photo: E. Cárdenas García)........ 38 Sinkers, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, private collection (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) ... 38 Thin Orange ceramics: a. semispherical ringbase bowl, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin; b. olla, La Terla, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) .............................................. 39 Floreros: a. and b. Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, private collection ................................. 40 Red burnished incised olla, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, private collection ................... 40 Red-on-brown-incised ceramics: a. tripod globular jar, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; b. flat-bottomed bowl, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato............... 41 Motifs of red-on-buff with incised rim, Cuitzeo Basin: a., b. and c. Zinapecuaro, private collection; d., f. Las Cintoras, surface collection; e. La Bolita, surface collection; g. El Coro, private collection and h. Los Puercos, surface collection ............................................ 41 Local figurines, all from Queréndaro, Cuitzeo Basin (photo: E. Cárdenas García)............... 42 Figurines similar to those encountered at Structure 19, Teotihuacan: a. Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero); b. Tiristarán (adapted from Pratt and Gay 1979, fig. 250)........................................................................................................................ 42 Cuitzeo Basin figurines with the Teotihuacan quexquemitl: Santa Maria, Cuitzeo Basin, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero) .................................................................................................. 42 Teotihuacan figurines, Cuitzeo Basin: a. Santa Maria, (photo: A. Nicolau Romero); b. Taimeo, private collection ..................................................................................................... 43 Sello, Alvaro Obregón, private collection ............................................................................. 44 v

4.21 5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

5.5

5.6 5.7

Reproductions of Tarascan ceramics, Familia Hernández Cano, San Juan Zinapécuaro, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán ..................................................................................................... 48 Anthropomorphic motifs, Cuitzeo Basin: a.-e. white-on-red ware, Santa Maria; f.-i. white-on-red ware, La Mina, private collection; j.-l. white-on-red, Santa Maria; m.-n. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria, o.-p. white-on-red, Santa Maria; q. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; r. red-and-black-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; s.-w. white-on-red, Santa Maria; x. al secco, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; y. al secco, Alvaro Obregón, private collection and z. central figure Mural 3, Tepantitla, Teotihuacan (after Miller 1973:100, fig. 171b) ..................................................................... 57 Anthropozoomorphic themes, Cuitzeo Basin: a. red-on-buff, Santa Maria, b. white-onred, Santa Maria; c. white-on-red, Chehuayo, surface collection; d. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; e. red-on-buff, Santa Maria; f.-g. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; h. red-on-buff, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; i. red-on-brown with negative, Zinapecuaro, private collection; j. white-on-red, La Mina, private collection; k. white-on-red, La Mina, private collection; l. red-on-buff, Museo del Estado; m. red-onbuff with negative, Santa Maria; n. red-on-buff with negative, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; o. red-on-buff, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; p. red-on-buff, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; q. red-on-buff with negative, Queréndaro (photo: E. Cárdenas García); r. red-on-buff with negative, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; s. red-on-buff with negative, Querendaro (photo: E. Cárdenas García) .................................... 58 Bird motif: a.-b. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; c. red-and-white-on-black, Zinzimeo, surface collection; d. white-on-red, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; e. redand-black-on-buff, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; f.-g. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; h. red-on-buff, Santa Maria; i.-j. red-on-buff with negative, Queréndaro, Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia (photo: E. Cárdenas García); k. figurine, Queréndaro, Cuitzeo Basin, (after Pratt and Gay 1979, fig. 241); l. figurine, Cuitzeo, (after Pratt and Gay 1979, fig. 182); m. figurine, Tlatilco (Niederberger 1987:II:473); no. clay sellos, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; p. sello Apatzingan (after Kelly 1947:103, fig. 57d); q.-r. shell pendants, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; s. shell pectoral, Emiliano Zapata, private collection; t. slate pectoral, Apatzingan, (after Kelly 1947, Plate 18c); u. slate disk, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; v. Mural, Templo de los Caracoles Emplumados, Teotihuacan (after Navarijo Ornelas 1996:335, fig.10)............ 59 w., x. and z. al secco, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato; y. Al secco, Zinapécuaro, private collection; aa. And bb. Al secco, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán.............................................................................................................................. 60 Serpent motif, Cuitzeo Basin: a. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; b.-d. red-onbuff with negative, Queréndaro (photo: E. Cárdenas García); e.-g. white-on-red, Santa Maria; h. white-on-red, Querendaro (photo: E. Cárdenas García); i. black incised, Santa Maria; j. red-on-buff, La Barranquilla; k. red-on-buff, Chicuata; l., n. white-on-red, Chehuayo; m. white-on-red, Santa Maria; o.-p. red-on-buff, Chehuayo; q. white-on-red, El Pedrillo; r. stone sello, Santa Maria; s. sello, Teotihuacan (after Séjourné 1966, fig. 140); t. light brown incised, Santa Maria; u. serpent eye motif (after Von Winning 1987:II:67, fig. 4e); v. Sello, Tres Cerritos, (adapted from Macías Goytia 1997:231, fig. 5:51); w. two sellos from Veracruz (after Field 1974:27-28, figs. 47 and 44)....................... 61 Linear motifs: a. red-on-buff, Araro, surface collection; b.-e. red-on-buff, Zinzimeo, surface collection; f. black incised, Santa Maria; g. red-on-buff, Araro, surfac collection; h. red-on-buff, Las Cintoras, surface collection; i. red-on-buff, El Calvario, surface collection; j. red-on-buff, El Pedrillo, private collection; k. red-on-buff, Araró, surface collection; l. red-on-buff, Chehuayo, surface collection; m.-n. red-on-buff, Zinzimeo, surface collection; o. black incised, La Terla; p. light brown incised, La Terla; q. al secco, Lomas del Valle; r.-t. al secco, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; u. red-onbuff with incised rim, El Coro; v. Comb motif, Teotihuacan (after Langley 1986:306) ....... 62 Triangle motifs: a. al secco, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; b. sello, (after Séjourné 1966:205, fig. 138) ................................................................................................. 62 Circle design element: a. red-and-black on orange, La Mina, surface collection; b. redand-black-on-orange, Santa Maria; c. red-and-black on orange, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; d. al secco, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato; e. al secco, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato; f. red-on-buff, San Lucas Pio, surface collection; g. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; h.-j. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; k. red-on-buff, Las Cintoras, surface collection; l. red-on-buff, Santa Maria; m.-n. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; o. red-on-buff, San Lucas Pio, surface collected; p. red-on-white San Lucas Pio, surface collection; q. red-on-buff

vi

5.8

5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12

5.13 5.14

5.15 5.16 5.17 5.18

5.19 5.20 5.21 5.22 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 7.1

with negative, Santa Maria; r. red-on-buff with negative, Alvaro Obregón, private collection ............................................................................................................................... 63 The solar motif on the al secco vessels, Cuitzeo Basin: a., b., l. Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato; c., h., n. Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; d. Museo Amparo, Puebla; e., i. Alvaro Obregón, private collection; f. Museo Regional, Morelia, Michoacán; g. Apatzingan (after Kelly 1947, plate 7f); j. Zinapécuaro, private collection; k. Lomas del Valle; m. Araró, private collection .................................................................. 64 The solar motif : a. sello (Séjourné 1966:205, fig. 138) and b. Sello, Cuitzeo Basin (after Field 1974:132, fig. 9) ........................................................................................................... 64 The solar motif at Teotihuacan: Mural 1, Platform 4, Conjunto del Sol, Zone 5A (after Miller 1973:88, fig. 141); ...................................................................................................... 64 Scroll design element: red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria............................................. 64 Stepped Fret: a. red-on-buff with negative, Santa Maria; b. red-and-black on orange, Santa Maria; c. red-and-black on orange, El Coro, surface collection; d. black incised El Pedrillo, private collection; e. white-on-red Chehuayo, surface collection; f. red-onbrown with incised rim, El Cerrito, private collection; g. red-on-brown with incised rim Las Cintoras, surface collection; h. red-and-white on black, Taimeo, private collection; i. red-and-black on buff, Santa Maria; j.-l. white-on-red, Santa Maria; m. red-on-buff with negative, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; n. excised red-on-buff, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; o. slate bar, Santa Maria; p. Mural 1, Portico 1, Conjunto de Quetzalpapalotl, Teotihuacan (after de la Fuente 1996:I:plate 4); q. Clay model of house on platform, Ixtán del Río, Nayarit (after Butterwick 1998:94, fig. 8) .................................. 65 The L glyph: a. stuccoed tripod vessel with almena-like supports, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato and b. doorjab of tomb, Oaxaca Barrio, Teotihuacan (after Marcus 1983:178, fig. 6.6 H.)................................................................................................ 65 The butterfly motif, al secco ceramics: a. Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato; b. Museo Amparo, Puebla; c., d. Alvaro Obregón, private collection; e. Zinapécuaro, private collection; f., h., i. Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán; g. Museo del Estado, Morelia (after Delgado 1999:29, fig. 30)............................................................................... 68 The butterfly motif at Teotihuacan: a. stuccoed cylindrical tripod vessel, (after Von Winning 1987:I:115, fig. 12); b. Mural 5, Cuarto 112, Conjunto del Sol, Zona 5A (after Miller 1973, fig. 110)............................................................................................................. 68 The half-star sign: a. Mural 1, Portico 22, (after Miller 1973:87, fig. 137)........................... 68 b. al secco cántaro (after Matos Moctezuma and Kelly 1974:203, fig. 1)............................. 69 Disc with Teotihuacan signs (Trapeze and Ray, Saltire, Comb and Bar and Flower Frontal Q) (after Piña Chán, n.d.) .......................................................................................... 69 Goggles: a. Burial 37, Huandacareo, (after Macías Goytia 1990:90, fig. 60); b. burial of a bundled male warrior, Margarita Structure, Copan, (after Sharer 2001:95, fig. 5.4); c. shell goggle, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; d. figurine fragment, Huandacareo, (after Macías Goytia 1990:90, fig. 61); e. figurine fragment, Alvaro Obregón, private collection; f. three figurine fragments, Teotihuacan (after Von Winning 1987:I) ................. 70 Representations of the Storm God: a. incense burner, Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato and b. stone sculpture, Museo Regional, Morelia, Michoacán........................... 71 Eye Elongated, detail of cántaro vessel (after Matos Moctezuma and Kelly 1974:203, fig. 4)............................................................................................................................................ 71 Hatching Fourway: detail of al secco vessel, Alvaro Obregón, private collection ................ 72 Trilobe: a. Trilobe, mural, Cuarto 18, Tetitla, (after de la Fuente 1996:I:267, plate 12); b. detail of red-on-buff with negative ceramics, Santa Maria; c. green obsidian eccentric, Lomas del Valle, (after Trejo, n.d.) ....................................................................................... 72 Presence of Teotihuacanos at Monte Albán; stone slabs: South Platform, Main Plaza (adapted from Marcus 1983:177, fig. 6.5) ............................................................................. 80 The Bazán slab, Monte Albán (adapted from Marcus 1983:180, fig. 6.7)............................. 81 Map showing the distribution of sites with Teotihuacan artifacts in the Maya area, (adapted from Martin and Grube 2000:10) ............................................................................ 85 Teotihuacan stuccoed vessels in the Maya area: a. cylindrical lidded tripod vessel, Margarita tomb, Copan (after Martin and Grube 2000:195).................................................. 86 b. stuccoed lidded ringbase bowl (after Martin and Grube 2000:33) .................................... 88 Maya stelae, Tikal: a. Stela 31 (after Borowicz 2001:144, fig. 8.4) ...................................... 88 Façade of Structure 5D-57, Central Acropolis, Tikal (after Miller 1978:66, fig. 4) .............. 89 Cuauhxicalli (sacrificial heart deposit), La Herradura, Tlaxcala (after Martínez Vargas and Jarquín Pacheco 1998:78, 19, fig.3)................................................................................ 96 Mesoamerican obsidian routes: a. Middle Preclassic; b. Late Preclassic; c. classic and d. Terminal Classic and Postclassic (adapted from Nelson 1994:59-67, Maps 2-5).................104 vii

8.1 8.2

Prestige goods: a. travertine (?) figure, Santa Maria, Michoacán and b. green-tinged aragonite figure (after Berrin and Pasztory 1993:183, fig. 22) ............................................ 113 Travertine vessels: a. animal effigy slab-support vessel, Puebla, (Museo del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Puebla) and b. tripod slab-feet animal effigy vessel, Museo del Estado, Morelia, Michoacán, (photo: E. Cárdenas García) ................................ 114

LIST OF TABLES 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 7.1

Ceramic counts, La Terla, Michoacán (based on Macías Goytia 1977)................................. 32 XRD results for red-and-black on orange ceramics, Cuitzeo Basin (courtesy L. Bucio)....... 38 Sherd counts from field survey, Cuitzeo Basin ..................................................................... 45 Counts for ceramic types, Cuitzeo Basin (based on Moguel Cos 1987) ................................ 48 List of Teotihuacan notational signs in the Cuitzeo Basin, (after Langley 1986) .................. 67 Green obsidian prismatic blades, Huandacareo (based on Macías Goytia 1990:107-114) .. 106

LIST OF CHARTS 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1

Percentages for ceramic types; Santa Maria and surface collections ..................................... 45 Tree diagram for 21 cases (courtesy J. L. Ruvalcaba Sil)...................................................... 46 XRD results for a suite of 20 samples (courtesy L. Bucio).................................................... 46 Iconographic themes, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán .................................................................. 55

viii

CHAPTER 1 THE CUITZEO BASIN AND TEOTIHUACAN: A WORLD-SYSTEM PERSPECTIVE

1.1

Introduction

The Teotihuacan exchange network has often been characterized as a world-system sensu Wallerstein (1974). Extended over an area of 20km2, Teotihuacan was characterized by a monumental ceremonial core, terraced platforms, multi-family residential compounds (fig. 1.1), population density (ca. 200,000 inhabitants), crafts specialization and trade (Spence 1987, Millon 1988, Pasztory 1997, Cowgill 2001). Based on the presence of Teotihuacan artifacts as far away as Guatemala and Belize, archaeologists have designated Teotihuacan as the ‘core’ and the sites that were interacting with it as ‘periphery’, because both ideas and products of these ideas are seen to originate in the core first and then ‘diffuse’ to the periphery (e.g., Blanton et al. 1982:167, Diehl 1989:15, Hassig 1992, Joyce 1993, Santley and Alexander 1996:183). A dominant role is assumed for Teotihuacan because the city is believed to have attempted to control exchange routes during the Classic period, and exercised its role as a civilizing agent upon its economically less privileged neighbors. This scheme, however, implies a subordinate status for the peripheral sites, obscuring any understanding of the nature of contacts established between Teotihuacan and areas outside it. It seems that the reason why none of the exchange contacts between Teotihuacan and other Mesoamerican sites has been empirically explored is the systematic lack of projects based on a research design that would focus on the analysis and intepretation of change as regards the sites that were interacting with Teotihuacan.

Fig.1.1: Archaeological map of Teotihuacan

relationships that have so far been characterized in the literature solely as core and periphery. The present study examines interactions between Teotihuacan and Northern Michoacán in order to investigate whether the distinction between core/periphery and semiperiphery is applicable. My focus in the large, hypothesized peripheral area is the Cuitzeo Basin in the north of the State of Michoacán, a little known archaeological area (e.g., Pulido et al. 1996, Macías Goytia 1997). Fieldwork by the author during the last two years offers substantial new data indicating that a number of sites in the above area were interacting with Teotihuacan during the Classic period in a variety of ways.

It is often assumed that Teotihuacan managed to exercise this control coercively with the presence of armies; this is especially true for the region circumscribed in the Valley of Mexico where sites were under direct control of the Teotihuacan state (Blanton et al. 1981:134, Hassig 1992:178, Carmack et al. 1996:60).

1.2

The marginalization of West Mexico within the Mesoamerican scheme

Interaction studies are based on the concept that ‘Individual societies or “cultures” are not viable but depend on inputs from other societies for survival and reproduction from generation to generation’ (Schortman and Urban 1992:3). These inputs are to be found within the realm of economic, social and ideational spheres of individuals.

Although the evidence regarding the organization of the Teotihuacan army is meagre, Hassig reports a range of Teotihuacan weaponry (1992:50) and estimates that the Teotihuacan army included commoners and elite alike and the succesful operations were determined by the use of battle standards. However, the characterization of Teotihuacan as a ‘core’ during the Classic period has not yet been empirically demonstrated and paradoxically we sill ignore the very nature of the Teotihuacan State.

Mesoamerican interaction studies have been concerned in particular with: a) The identification and description of exchanged items, b) Stylistic analyses that demonstrate variation in execution of specific motifs and/or the origins thereof, and c) The chronological assignment of the sites. It is important to emphasize two principles that seem to dominate still Mesoamerican studies at large: a) the concept of complexity in Mesoamerican studies is strictly associated with large sites where impressive architectural structures dominate, and b) the systematic marginalization of West Mexico in the archaeological

Here, I emphasize the need to reconsider the world system perspective and to examine which concepts of this model may be applicable for the explication of contacts between Teotihuacan and Northern Michoacán. The application of alternative models such as peer-polity interaction (e.g., Renfrew 1996) and heterarchy (e.g., Crumley 1995) might also offer new insights into the

1

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Fig. 1.2: The extent of the Teotihuacan network and the Cuitzeo Basin ●

West Mexico and the Mesoamerican core area has diverse aspects:

literature can be viewed as a politically mediated act in the sense that emphasizing the distinctiveness and otherness of Western Mexico compared to the rest of Mesoamerica has marginalised the region. As a result it receives less attention from both the archaeological community and national institutions, who prefer to invest research in areas of high cultures such as Central Mexico and southeastern Mesoamerica for example.

a) Absence of Olmec Influences in West Mexico. The absence of Olmec elements in the region is strongly associated with the concept that the Olmec culture is the Mother culture for all Mesoamerican populations (e.g., Willey 1978, Macías Goytia 1997). In fact, some authors insist on making this distinction rather sharp and divide Mesoamerica into two principal areas: the former is the region of high cultures and it is characterized by homogeneity in cultural traditions and includes the east, southeast and Central Mexico; the latter comprises the ‘remainder’ [West Mexico inclusive] inhabited by huntergatherers and structured by cultural patterns distinct from Mesoamerica (e.g., Mastache 1993:9).

The great number of Teotihuacan artifacts found throughout Mesoamerica during the Classic period (250650 CE) attests to contacts between the city of Teotihuacan and other Mesoamerican sites (fig. 1.2). Notwithstanding, the nature of the relationships is still not clear since research has been focussed on the objectives mentioned above, and processes of change are rarely addressed. Unfortunately, this is a general trend in Mesoamerican studies. Marcus (1983:454) notes, for instance, that Mayanists ‘are conservative in the face of archaeological change and their progress on major issues has often been, like the Maya view of time, cyclic rather than linear . . . references regarding or implying control of markets, production, or movement of goods are unknown’ (cited in Porter and King 1995:19-24).

b) Isolation of West Mexico during the Classic period. Archaeologists from both Central and West Mexico seem to agree that West Mexico was culturally isolated during the Classic period and lacked large population centres and monumental architecture (e.g., Schondube 1980:118, Cabrera 1989:143).1 It had therefore its own development. Some authors postulate that Teotihuacan did not have an interest in expanding into ‘unsophisticated’ areas such as West Mexico (Hassig 1992:59). Interestingly, the same author attributes the conquest of areas adjacent to Teotihuacan, such as Tlaxcala, Hidalgo and Morelos precisely to their backwardness! (Hassig 1992:61). The dichotomy between West Mexico and Teotihuacan is best

West Mexico, alias El Occidente (in archaeological parlance), is one of the least known archaeological areas in Mesoamerica (e.g., Hassig 1992) and it is usually considered a peripheral area. The degree of peripherality in West Mexico is determined by the lack of ‘typical’ Mesoamerican traits such as elaborate architecture, writing systems and calendars (Kirchhoff 1947:135, Willey 1978:159, Lamberg-Karlovsky and Sabloff 1979:302, Macías Goytia 1997:39). The polarizing of

1

Monumentality: ‘Scale and elaboration exceeding the requirements of any practical functions’ (Trigger 1990:119).

2

The Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan: a world-system perspective

part of the Mesoamerican cultural system’ (LambergKarlofsky and Sabloff 1979:302).

epitomized in the dilemma of Schmidt and King (1986), which is whether to exclude Guerrero from West Mexico because Teotihuacan elements are present in the area. Considerable stress has been placed on the absence of the Mazapan 800–

d) Lack of adequate periodizations. The problematic chronological periodization of cultural phases in Mesoamerica in general seems to have affected West Mexico as well. In any case it seems that the chronological classification suffers from what Kubler (1981:12) calls ‘hardening’ of the periods:

TERMINAL CLASSIC

700– Xometla 600– Oxtotipac Metepec

Whoever defines a period runs the risk of becoming its jealous guardian. The period acquires under the diligent care of its keeper an increasingly rigid character. Hence archaeological history is often written as though time turned itself on and off, stopping whenever the archaeologist demands, and beginning again with his renewed license to do business.

LATE CLASSIC

500– Late Xolalpan 400– Early Xolalpan

EARLY

In 1911, the International School of American Ethnology and Archaeology established three large cultural phases: a) the oldest or Archaic (following Spinden’s ‘archaic theory’ [1913 15-17] and challenged in 1926 by Lothrop), that includes ‘de los cerros’ (hill culture) [following Gamio 1913] and ‘sub pedregal’ (below lava floor) after the finds in Copilco [Gamio 1924]; b) intermediate, or ‘Toltec’ and ‘Teotihuacan’ (referring to finds in Azcapotzalco); and c) most recent, the Aztec, or ‘tipo del valle’ (of the valleys) [also in Gamio 1913] (Cook 1971:182). Along with ‘Lithic’, ‘Archaic’, ‘Formative’ and ‘Postclassic’ the term ‘Classic’ was created by Willey and Phillips in 1958 to denote distinct cultural phases in the New World; these terms prevail in Mesoamerican studies (e.g., Hill and Evans 1972:240). Paddock (1966:111-112) specifies three meanings for the word Classic:

CLASSIC 300– Late Tlamimilolpa Early Tlamimilolpa 200– Miccaotli 100– Tzacualli

TERMINAL PRECLASSIC

BCE/CE- Patlachique LATE 100– 200–

(Tezoyuca?)

PRECLASSIC

Late Cuanalan

For some it indicates a kind of culture resembling that of what Morley called the Old Empire in the Maya region, and the rather parallel developments of period II and III at Teotihuacan and periods IIIa and IIIb at Monte Alban . . . Later some writers began using the term classic to refer to the time of the Maya Classic: about AD 300 to 900. . . to complete the confusion, some prominent Mesoamericanists prefer to conceive the classic in a third and ‘Classic’ sense of the word: as referring to that which is most characteristic, essential, or typical.

Fig. 1.3: Chronology chart for Teotihuacan

principal Teotihuacan deities in West Mexico such as the Storm God and the Feathered Serpent. Kirchhoff (1943) in his list of typical Mesoamerican traits does not include gods and calendars for West Mexico (see also Armillas 1967:20 and Hassig 1992:177 for a critique of Kirchhoff’s definition of Mesoamerica). All the above generalizations have created a kind of ‘backround presupposition’ whereby West Mexico is categorized as ‘backward’ during the Classic period.

Despite the criticisms the term ‘Classic’ has received, it is common usage in the archaeology of Mesoamerica. The confusions and debate revolving around the term ‘Classic’ require either the reconsideration of the criteria that must be met to make the application of the term valid or the rejection of the term. Generating other ‘Classicrelated’ terms such as ‘Epiclassic’, that is, the period from 650-900 CE termed as such by Jiménez-Moreno (1966:49), further impedes our understanding of developmental processes since it is suggestive of a

c) The integration of West Mexico in Mesoamerica only after the Postclassic. As seen from a) and b) above, during the Formative and Classic periods, West Mexico is considered to have had its own development in isolation from the rest of Mesoamerica. The process of Mesoamericanization seems to have taken place only after influences from the center reached the area. This occurred during the early Postclassic period (circa 1000 CE) when ‘For the first time Western Mexico became 3

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

by Corona Nuñez (1955) and Long (1966), this association was further confirmed by Weigand’s research in combination with the accounts of looters. In the following Ahualulco Phase (200 BCE-400 CE), which is a transitional phase between the Late Formative and Early Classic, the circular architecture is characterized by eight platforms, and there are occasionally ballcourts adjacent to these circles. The tombs associated with the circles have walls often decorated with painted geometric designs. The differentiation between these chronological phases is demonstrable in a very explicit way in the section of pyramid ‘A’ of Ahualulco, where strata 17, 16 and 15 date to the Formative period, whereas 14, 13 and 12 to the Early Classic or Ahualulco Phase. Associated with the latter strata is a series of Thin Orange sherds, which have been identified by Pedro Armillas as pertaining to the Teotihuacan III phase (Weigand 1985:82-83). The presence of Thin Orange indicates that West Mexico was participating either directly or indirectly in the exchange network supposedly dominated by Teotihuacan, since there is a consensus that Teotihuacan monopolized the commerce of Thin Orange ware during this period (Millon 1988, Rattray 1992, Santley and Alexander 1996). Another ceramic type that made its appearance was the pseudo-cloisonné often associated with olla (jar) and copa (drinking vase) pairs (Aronson 1996:160).

cultural phase of lesser importance compared to the previous Classic (see Paddock 1994:2-3). The association of the terms Formative-ClassicPostclassic with developmental stages must be avoided. When these terms were established, the availability of data was limited and therefore the Classic represented indeed a florescence compared to the previous Formative phase. Nowadays, however, the usefulness of these terms lies rather in the fact that they denote broad chronological dates; for example the term Classic refers to the period circa 250-650 CE and not to evolutionary stages. Notwithstanding the above misconceptions, some authors cognizant of the lack of research in Western Mexico are more cautious in ascribing a marginal role for the area (Willey and Philips 1958:184, Chadwick 1971:678, Adams 1977:75, Carmack et al. 1996). Research conducted during the last two decades in West Mexico has demonstrated that from 250 to 650 CE West Mexico was characterized by an increase in settlements and exchange contacts, but aspects of sociocultural change have not been properly addressed. It has also been revealed that West Mexico not only shared in the Mesoamerican phenomenon, but some typical Mesoamerican traits such as the ballgame for instance, might well have originated in the West (e.g., Oliveros 1989). 1.3

The increase in population growth and the concomitant elaboration of circular architecture reached its peak during the Classic period, and is known as the ‘Teuchitlán Tradition’. The area surrounding the core of the Teuchitlán tradition comprises the two main access routes that connect the west coast to the highlands, from the central coast of Nayarit through the Río Grande de Santiago, and from the Bahía de Banderas through the Ameca river. It is a region with diverse environmental zones and rare resources. Obsidian, blue-greenstone, crystals, and salt abound in a vast area that is made of gullies, highlands, hills, lakeshores and swamps. Weigand’s (1993d:164) population estimates based upon ‘An assumption of sixty percent coevality in residents compounds are at the scale of 40,000-60,000 individuals, about half of whom were concentrated within the nucleus of the Teuchitlán-El Refugio zone’. The population was highly concentrated in the Tequila Valley and the core area was designated within 26.630km2. However, the intensity of architectural complexes in the core area of Teuchitlán assigns a peripheral role to all the aforementioned sites of the Teuchitlán hinterland. This entails a significant political role for the centre which was protected by a series of defensive sites: the La Venta site in the northeast, Santa Maria de las Navajas in the southeast, Pipiole in the southwest and Llano Grande in the northwest (Weigand 1992:13).

The Teuchitlán tradition, State of Jalisco: a case of complexity in West Mexico.

The extensive landscape surveys by Phil Weigand in the State of Jalisco during the last thirty years have registered a great number of monumental structures with a unique morphology within Mesoamerica: the guachimontones, otherwise known as ‘architecture of the five elements’. The distribution of the guachimontones includes the coast of the State of Nayarit, the Bolaños Canyon, the southwest of the State of Guanajato and the east of the State of Queretaro. The first guachimontones date to the Middle and Late Formative periods (San Felipe and El Arenal Phases, 1000 BCE and 200 BCE-200 CE respectively); the architecture of the former period consists of simple surface burial mounds located in the sites of San Marcos, Etzatlán, and Teuchitlán-Ahualulco-Tala. These mounds usually measure 28 to 30 meters in diameter and two meters high. During this period there are two types of tombs: shaft tombs of a depth of approximately ten meters, which were confined to the elite, and simple pit tombs for the commoners (Weigand 1992:5). In the Late Formative period a series of changes in architecture, artefacts and crafts specialization occurred. Although the habitational zones are still rather small, clay sculptures provide evidence for houses that surround patios, which in turn surround an altar. The shaft tombs of this period are monumental, e.g. at the sites of El Arenal (18m deep) and San Juan de los Arcos (22m deep) (Weigand 1992:7). An interesting issue is the association of the shaft tombs with circular mounds. First mentioned

During this period there was a significant falloff in the construction of monumental shaft tombs, implying that ‘monumental surface architecture replaced the monumental shaft tombs as the symbol of sociopolitical power within the region’ (Weigand 1992:13). In the core area of the Teuchitlán Tradition, there are at least fifty4

The Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan: a world-system perspective

two sites with monumental architecture. Ahualulco, Santa Quiteria, Tala, Las Pilas and Guachimonton are the major sites with similar elements such as: a) habitational zones of 3000 to 5000 ha, b) monumental complexes and multiple circular platforms, c) complexes of submonumental circles, d) occasional presence of ballcourts, and e) a residential elite architecture in the form of rectangular patios and platform groups (Weigand 1996b:92).

intermarriage, information) are important for the reproduction of the internal structures of the composite units and importantly affect changes that occur in these local structures.’ The principal characteristics of the system are that it is inherently spatial, multi-leveled and evolutionary (Peregrine 1996:1-2). Schortman and Urban (1994:403) consider the monopolization of the following relationships by the core as the condition under which core/periphery relations occur: a) The core controls all exports and distribution of imports within the boundaries of other interaction partners, b) Technologies of production and transport are controlled by the core, and c) Military threat by the core is effective over broad areas.

After the collapse of Teotihuacan, most of the aforementioned sites were abandoned. The Teuchitlán Tradition collapsed as well. This further supports Weigand’s position that the development of this tradition was somehow connected to the expansion of Teotihuacan. 1.4

The applicability of the perspective in Mesoamerica

Wallerstein’s concept of periphery must not be misinterpreted and peripheries are not seen as ‘voiceless’ entities with no agency. This misconception is more associated with diffusionism than world-system theory (Feinman 1996:117, Schortman and Urban 1994:402). However, some authors do see culture areas as world systems and the methods of traditional diffusionism simply were not able to see culture areas as the outcome of systematic large-scale interaction (e.g., Kowaleski 1996:34).

world-system

The world-system perspective (Wallerstein 1974) posits that the diverse autonomous political units of a system are linked into a larger unit by means of economic interdependence.2 Core states, sensu Wallerstein, tend to dominate by means of resource exploitation of the less privileged peripheries. Here, however, I take the point of view that the Teotihuacan world-system was by no means a world system sensu Wallerstein. Jane Schneider (1977:21) wrote one of the most insightful critiques of the early world-system theory, questioning Wallerstein’s emphasis on bulk to the neglect of luxury goods.

A distinct spatial unit is the semiperiphery, which lies somewhere between cores and peripheries with a less complex political system and more centralized than the peripheries. Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997:37) define the attributes for the semiperiphery:
A semiperipheral region may be one that mixes both core and peripheral forms of organization
A semiperipheral region may be spatially located between core and peripheral regions.
Mediating activities between core and peripheral areas may be carried out in semiperipheral regions
A semiperipheral area may be one in which institutional features are in some ways intermediate between those forms found in core and periphery.

For many authorities, Wallerstein among them, the difference between luxuries and bulk goods such as food or timber goes beyond their transportability. They are implicitly categorized as opposites: preciosities versus essentials or utilities. I suggest that this dichotomy is a false one which obscures the systemic properties of the luxury trade (emphasis added).

Schneider applied world-systems theory to the prehistoric, precapitalist world economy, a type of world economy based principally on exchanges of prestige goods, the main function of which is the legitimatization of local elites, who regard these items as political capital or controlled resources that can be used for the implementation of their political strategies (e.g., Schortman and Urban 1994:423). The world-system model has been considerably re-worked during the past twenty years and herein I adopt Chase-Dunn and Hall’s (1997:28) definition: ‘World systems are intersocietal networks in which the interactions (e.g., trade, warfare,

It is precisely the position of the semiperiphery that enables its stabilizing function as an economic and political buffer zone between the core and periphery, thereby ‘perpetuating the system as a whole’ (Stein 1999:11). Outside core, periphery and semiperiphery, Wallerstein (1974:301-302) defines the ‘external arena’ as a zone consisting of mini-systems connected to a world system through limited exchange of preciosities. Hall (1999:8), based on the distinction of cores, peripheries, semiperipheries, and system logic, that is the mode of accumulation of wealth, has established a typology of world-systems: a) Kin-ordered, normative-based, b) Tributary, politically coercive, state-based many of which were world-empires, and c) Capitalist, economically coercive, state-based world-systems. There is also a potential fourth kind of world-system, ‘a “socialist”

2

Hall (1999:2), would rather apply the term ‘perspective’ and/or ‘paradigm’ to ‘theory’ since there are already too many analytical variations in the literature: ‘In Kuhn’s (1970) use, a paradigm is logically more general than a theory. It is a set of guiding assumptions and approaches that direct researchers to ask questions, and develop theories (note plural) that attempt to answer those questions.’

5

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

economies are unstable and ephemeral (see also Hall and Chase Dunn 1996:18, Saitta 1999:136, Fotiadis 1999:392).

world-system, that is, one in which resources are used to promote collective, egalitarian welfare based on democratic participation.’ It seems that the unit of analysis is the key concept that makes the world-system perspective potentially useful, moving our focus from the society to broader units of analysis. It is precisely the unit of analysis that differentiates the world-system from any other (Hall and Chase-Dunn 1996:11-12, Peregrine 1996:2). The worldsystem as a unit of analysis does not say much in itself when prehistoric societies are concerned since in Wallerstein’s terms only economic interdependence links the constituent parties of the system. Chase-Dunn and Hall however view world-systems as composed of four spatially distinct interaction units a) bulk-goods network (BGN), b) political/military network (PMN), c) prestige goods network (PGN), and d) information network (IN). The above distinction is particularly useful since it does not assume that one kind of interaction is ‘causally more important for social change than others’ (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997:52).

In order to understand processes of change in West Mexico and how the area interacted with other Mesoamerican regions, it would be useful to consider whether the world-system perspective is applicable. In the following paragraphs I discuss some issues regarding the applicability of this model. 1.4.1

The extent of the system

How the world system is delimited is important to consider. The definition of spatial and temporal units is always essential but it is often overlooked (e.g., Kohl 1989:17). Certainly, in world systemic approaches, ‘world’ does not imply that it is a truly global system; rather it implies that there are important, systemic relations that transect regional, capital and political boundaries (e.g. Feinman 1996:117). Some authors have thus criticized the use of the word ‘world’ since the area in question is very sub-global in scale and often denotes a local trading system (Renfrew 1996:7). Nevertheless the application of world-system models implies exactly that we are dealing with a multidimensional phenomenon and allows the examination of other phenomena such as interregional interaction, peer polity interaction and so forth (Kardulias 1999:xviii).

Whether there is applicability of this model for precapitalist societies is clearly stated by Wallerstein: ‘For non-Western economies, the world-system can be sketchily defined as an entity that has within it a complete division of labor and a single cultural framework’ (Wallerstein 1974:390). However, this contrasts with the world-system perspective for capitalist societies in which the ‘world’ is defined by economic and not cultural boundaries (e.g. Peregrine 1996). The fact that Wallerstein includes cultural boundaries for the precapitalist world-system must not be understated. It is highly probable that culture and not economic interdependence may be the interaction link among precapitalist societies. It seems that information and ritual exchange are able to create a world-system with concomitant economic implications, but this possibility has never been addressed as such. In fact, the characterization of the Mesoamerican world as a coherent unit is based on the sharing of a number of cultural elements more than anything else (e.g., Kirchhoff 1943, Carmack et al. 1996).

Notwithstanding the terminological variations, I agree with Hall (1999) that the unit of analysis is the system itself since changes on a micro and macro level can be understood only with references to the system in its totality. Thus, ‘societies’ are not fundamental units of social organization, but are ‘crystallizations of systemic relations’ (Hall 1999:7). A simple question that must be addressed is ‘how large the system must be’ in order to be conceptualized as a world-system. A world-system can be viewed both on a regional and macro-regional scale. Some authors insist that the scale of analysis of worldsystem theory impedes our understanding of culture change:

Within the context of the present study I examine the presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, from a world systemic perspective, by examining how the Teotihuacan world-system is structured and how diverse cultural regions were incorporated in this unique cultural system.

Yet as long as world-systems scholars proclaim the macro-scale to be the most important unit of socio-historical analysis, I do not see worldsystems perspectives gaining their deserved attention in archaeology. The question of which scalar unit is most significant for human history is at least partially an empirical question . . . who is to say which scale is more important for understanding history? (Feinman 1996:118).

The Teotihuacan exchange system was based primarily but not solely on prestige goods. It is worth examining whether a limited number of prestige goods (as seems to have been the case between Teotihuacan and the Cuitzeo Basin sites) can affect political structures, leading to an increase of centralization and/or internal fragmentation. ‘Peripheries’ are often designated as dependent on ‘cores’ because peripheries are said to need symbolic objects of political legitimatization. But the core was also dependent on a number of resources from the periphery. Friedman and Rowlands (1977) have argued that core/periphery relations based solely on prestige-goods

Certainly, the world-system perspective cannot be invariably applied for every research question. However, when it is known that some kind of system was in operation, it is difficult to postulate that we can understand processes of change without reference to the system as a whole.

6

The Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan: a world-system perspective

1.4.2

shifted relations between competing cores (McGuire 1996:52).

Measurement of coreness and peripherality

What makes a core more ‘coreish’? For example, does access to a certain kind of resource make a site more of a ‘core’ and less of a ‘periphery’, or is it necessary for a core to display traits such as monumental architecture and population density? Research seems to downplay the fact that often the development and/or transformation of a society into a ‘core’ is conditioned by the existence of a periphery. The inherently dynamic property of world systems implies that both coreness and peripherality are not static values but are subject to change. Both require an empirical examination since interactions between core and periphery vary through time and so do their attributes (e.g., Feinman 1996:117). For example, Teotihuacan was attempting to monopolize the green obsidian mines of Pachuca, Hidalgo, possibly because of the high demand by the ‘peripheries’ (Spence 1981, 1987). During the succeeding Epiclassic period, there was a higher demand for the gray obsidian of the Ucareo source in Michoacán, and the production of green obsidian blades was minimized (e.g., Healan 1997, 1998). And this in sum may explain the collapse of Teotihuacan as a core in the Mesoamerican world-system. Of great importance is the measurement of complexity in peripheral areas and how complexity is defined.

Thus, coreness and peripherality are identifying concepts only when it is possible to explain the dynamics of societal change and to show how shifts in power can transform a core into periphery and vice versa. Given that the association of complexity with hierarchy has led to a rather static acceptance of core/periphery relations, the shift of power between cores and peripheries or among multiple cores on a vertical and horizontal level of societal organization could be analysed via the principle of heterarchy proposed by Crumley (1995:3): ‘Heterarchy may be defined as the relation of elements to one another when they are unranked or when they possess the potential for being ranked in a number of different ways. For example, power can be counterpoised rather than ranked.’ Therefore it becomes easier to define the various institutionalized roles that a given society may play. During the Classic period in Mesoamerica, the Cuitzeo Basin sites were possibly peripheral with reference to the Teotihuacan world-system, but had possibly a core status at the local level. It would be erroneous to postulate that there is a single core determining religious, social, economic and political relations. One group may be the center for one set of relations, e.g. religion, while a different group is the center for another set of relations, e.g. economic. It is noteworthy that the heterarchy principle does not negate hierarchy but subsumes it (Porter and King 1995:29, McGuire 1996:60). Relations between ‘cores’ and ‘peripheries’ (or among sites on the inter- or supraregional level) are dynamic phenomena and change over time, yet this dimension of change is rarely if ever addressed in Mesoamerica.

Simple societies are believed to demonstrate their egalitarian nature simply by displaying evidence of a lack of differentiation, and complex societies the inverse. However, it is by no means so obvious that this is or ever has been the case . . . a very particular notion of ‘complexity’ is used to describe ‘egalitarian’ and ‘stratified’ societies in general is consistent with the implication of its 19th –century derivation, that Western societies are its most advanced and superior exemplar (Rowlands 1989:29).

Abu-Lughod’s study of the thirteenth-century worldsystem illustrates at best the dynamics of world-systems and how diverse regions may be interconnected without a single hegemonic power. In the thirteenth century worldsystem, the participating units were highly diverse ranging ‘from monetized trading centers, to outpockets in the most depressed mountain ridges and valleys, untouched by the changes taking place’ and all benefited from their participation in it (1989:13-14).

The fact that in Mesoamerican studies complexity is very much a scalar concept further complicates the issue. Most archaeologists consider monumental architecture, for example, as a signpost of complexity. However, the confusion of scalar with control hierarchies is a common error among researchers and impedes the study of relationships that are certainly complex but not necessarily hierarchical (e.g., Crumley 1995:2-3). AbuLughod (1989:364-65) successfully demonstrates that the thirteenth-century world-system was not hierarchical and no single hegemon dominated but rather a number of coexisting cores that ‘via both conflictual and cooperative relations, became increasingly integrated.’ In addition, complexity can conceivably involve other common denominators, such as production beyond subsistence (e.g., Renfrew 1996:126), crafts specialization (e.g., Childe 1960, Santley 1994, Earle 1996) and trade, or symbolic complexity in religion or cosmology. For example, in Bronze Age West Asia, peripheries often

Based on the specific interests of the interactors and/or key individuals, peripherality becomes a negotiated value (Kardulias 1994:416, see also Kohl 1987:16), and it is this kind of negotiation that is so critical in the long and dynamic history of power relations between West and Central Mexico. 1.4.3

The structuration of core/periphery relations

Hall and Chase Dunn (1996:18) regard differentiation and hierarchization as key concepts in the organization of relationships between core and periphery, and although similar societies may not have a core/periphery 7

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

differentiation, they do have core/periphery hierarchy. Especially important is the consideration of information networks such as ideology, religion and technical information as bounding mechanisms that can exist independently from other networks (Hall and ChaseDunn 1996:14, see Stein 1999:37). This implies but does not answer whether economic interdependence may have cultural, political and other implications and how economic processes relate to the above aspects of social activities. If boundaries may not coincide (e.g., Hall 1999:7), what are the boundaries that define the ‘worldsystem’ as such? Even if we accept that different boundaries coexist, how are we to select the spatial unit of analysis?

probable, both agriculture and trade are implicated in the development and eventual structure of the city, the total energy harnessed or captured in the trade must have been considerably less than in the agriculture.

For Pasztory (1997:ix), the organization of the Teotihuacan state cannot be categorized at all because Teotihuacan developed an experimental system of political administration: ‘Teotihuacan has remained little known because its images consist so often of masks, and what is a mask if not a hider of the real self and the pretender of an artificial persona?’ It seems that research focused on multivariant causality would give a better perspective in understanding the nature and organization of the Teotihuacan state. Some authors have challenged the validity of using exogenous or infrastructual factors alone to explain the emergence of inequality in Teotihuacan, which is seen as the result of an interplay between agential strategies and socioenvironmental factors (e.g. Plog 1990:196, Feinman 1995:259). It is possible that one of the variants, such as irrigation, was at some point more important, but a prime mover does not suffice for a system to be viable. The complexity of any system, evidenced in the internal differentiation and hierarchization of its constituent subsystems, minimizes the validity of ‘prime movers’.

The answer to this question is of course related to the evidence available. Cultural boundaries might suggest that ideology played a primary role in the integration of the system when economic interdependence cannot be proved. However, is it possible to isolate the ideological component of one society from the economic and/or political? In doing so, it becomes possible to speculate that a peripheral society might participate in more than one ‘world-system’ (distinct spatial units), the first based on economic relations, the second on religious relations and so forth. The value of the world-system perspective lies exactly on the fact that it allows the study of the connections among different parts of the system because it is the connections that maintain the system as such; when connections weaken, the system is expected to contract. 1.4.4

Under a dialectical perspective, it must be possible to detect these mechanisms that account for changes observed in the study area. By dialectical approach it is meant a kind of discourse in which ‘The entity bracketed for analysis is analyzed in order to discover underlying, often hidden contradictions and inconsistencies and to reveal the ways in which it is not what it first appears to be, or fails to fulfill its own intent or purpose . . . continued analysis (however) reveals its relations, its connectivity to other entities at broader and narrower spatial and temporal scales’ (Marquardt 1992:110). A dialectical perspective requires the juxtaposition of opposed and/or contradictory ideas (theses and antitheses) in order to reach a valid assumption (synthesis) and the use of diverse theoretical perspectives (see also Conkey 1999:134).

The Cuitzeo Basin and the Teotihuacan world-system: Validating the model

In the case of Mesoamerica, the intense influence of Teotihuacan over a vast area presumes its coreness in an ideologically defined exchange system. However, ‘analysis of these phenomena by archaeologists has not systematically related the observations to political economy or to institutional structure’ (Price 1987:170). The emergence of the Teotihuacan state has been explained on the basis of endogenous factors such as population growth, irrigation and trade, and activities that require a mighty, centralized authority. Nonetheless, there is still no consensus regarding the evolution of sociopolitical and economic complexity in Teotihuacan. For Millon (1981) and Blanton et al. (1981:246), trade in prestige goods among distant elite groups triggered the formation of the Teotihuacan state. Price (1987:178), however, refutes the argument that trade was the prime mover in the emergence of the Teotihuacan state and posits that:

In attempting to characterize the nature of contacts between Teotihuacan and the Cuitzeo Basin sites for instance, the examination solely of resource exploitation does not suffice to understand other levels of interaction. It is equally important to consider how the integration of the Cuitzeo Basin sites in the Teotihuacan world-system was based on other factors such as ideology and religion that might have served other kinds of economy, such as ritual economy. A class-conscious state such as Teotihuacan might have utilized ritual and especially war symbolism in a very systematic way3. The sanctification

Given the size of the city only hydraulic agriculture can account for its development . . . Much of the long-distance trade . . . was largely in sumptuaries, involved in the labor of relatively small segments of the population in either procurement or consumption, and in general comprised a limited percentage of the total gross national product . . . If, as is

3

‘The Mesoamerican world system was not tied to capitalism . . . and, despite their importance, neither economics nor class conflict lie at the base of all international relations . . . I see the state as a meaningful actor with its own interests and goals rather than simply an ideological superstructure for an exploitative class-dominated economic system’ (Hassig 1992:181, note 3).

8

The Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan: a world-system perspective

of political power by means of organized rituals, for example sacrifices, was a necessity for the Teotihuacan macrostate’s expansionist vision (see Demarest 1984:235) and for the prevention of any crises of violence within its limits (see Girard 1977:8). The Western Mexican affiliated mass burials encountered in the Edifice 19, Teotihuacan (Sergio Gomez, personal communication 2000), indicates that Teotihuacan was possibly seeking captives from outside its domain for a number of reasons, notably the need to exert its power and maintain the social order in an urban environment of 200,000 individuals. Neither symbolic nor political economy differs significantly from a resources-oriented economy in essence or in aims. Since Teotihuacan had established relations with diverse regions on such a broad scale, the world-system perspective allows us to understand, in an explicitly cross-cultural approach, how these relations are manifested.

compartmentalizes them from the rest of the world; and differentiation within and among the components . . . Boundaries separate different holons from one another and from the world. Many separate holons can then exist side by side. Some of them undergo changes—damage or mutations. This differentiates their internal components and makes them potentially able to serve different functions within the Holon. It also makes the holons themselves different from one another, potentially adapted to different environments. All life is built of holons, in successive layers of complexity (cited in Jolly 1999:29).

In the Teotihuacan exchange network there is still no evidence of competition between Teotihuacan and sites of the ‘periphery’. Indisputably, the presence of Teotihuacan-related artifacts demonstrates that Teotihuacan was important for a number of reasons, but this does not ascribe a peripheral role for the sites afar. As far as the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin are concerned, two levels of analysis are undertaken: a) The ‘periphery’ in its own right and b) How dependency–if any–is manifested with relation to the ‘core’. Evidence indicates that the Cuitzeo Basin sites were culturally homogeneous and the abrupt increase in the number of sites during the Classic period must reflect frequent communication and interchange, and certainly a degree of cooperation among individuals. What triggered the cooperation is not yet known but societal changes are often considered a response to stress or for the benefits of participation in the same network (e.g., Service 1962:141, Flannery 1968). One of the benefits of that participation is the acquisition of commodities through ‘trade partnerships’ established by fictional kin ties.

The world-system perspective is a heuristically useful model of analysis, but it should proceed outside a core/periphery framework: a) The examination and analysis of the ‘periphery’ must not assume dependency on any core and on the conceptual constraint core/periphery often embeds in research (see McGuire 1996:55), b) Analysis should consider how dependency could be inferred from the archaeological record, and c) The boundaries of the spatial unit designated as ‘periphery’ should be clearly defined; can they be determined, and if so, under what circumstances? All the limitations discussed above underline the fact that core/periphery relations cannot be assumed solely on the grounds of scalar differentiation between sites or because of the differential presence of a number of prestige goods. Blanton and Feinman (1984:675) postulate that nonsystemic exchange of prestige goods in Mesoamerica took place in an area defined as external arena and no single polity politically dominated the system.

As yet, however, we do not have convincing ways of demonstrating trade partnerships archaeologically (Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1978:58). It is very likely, though, that individuals will establish relationships with groups whose culture does not considerably clash with their own. Hence, the ethnic identity of societal groups determines to a certain extent the decision regarding interactional links (e.g. Renfrew 1981:11). The presence of different ethnic groups might explain the pattern observed in the Cuitzeo Basin where, out of the total number of sites, some attest to the presence of relationships with Teotihuacan whilst others do not.

It is true that the concept of ‘dependency’ in the world system is inherently hierarchical and assumes that the viability of the periphery depends on its ‘exploitation’ by the core. However, competition is less efficient than collaboration as far as the evolution of any system is concerned. Schortman and Urban (1987) designated the network in which ‘individual polities are embedded in interaction networks, each one losing its ability to reproduce itself without inputs’ as coevolutionary. Nelson (1996) for example has designated the Chaco Canyon system as a ‘collaborative chiefdom’. It is worth remembering that evolution of a given system does not involve solely competition but also integration and cooperation (Jolly 1999:4, Key and Aiello 1999, Dunbar 1999:194). Koestler (1967) named the composite entities of a system holons and the cooperation among distinct parts is best exemplified below:

An important means of understanding changes within an area is the investigation of the way symbols and information are communicated, and how imported elements are integrated into the local tradition. The distribution of the highly standardized Greek kouros, for instance, illustrates the high degree of interaction among the independent Greek cities during the sixth-century BCE (Renfrew 1996:131). In Mesoamerica, the degree of interaction between Teotihuacan and areas afar is also determined by the distribution of Teotihuacan-related artifacts. The process of the selective adoption of

Assembled holons have three essential properties: cooperation among parts at the next lower level of the hierarchy; a boundary that

9

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Teotihuacan motifs in the local symbolic fabric of culturally diverse groups implies that the Teotihuacan symbolic structure did not conflict with the pre-existent local symbolic structures.4

systems, with local cores exploiting local peripheries. However, these independent world-systems might also exist within a larger world-system based on the dependent, but not necessarily exploitive, trade of elite symbols between independent polities. In the scenario of a multicore system, peripheries are no longer dependent on a single core and take advantage of competing cores by determining the conditions of exchange (Schortman and Urban 1994:403).

The concept of collaboration among distinct components of a symbolic system is illustrated also during the Epiclassic period. The Mesoamerican world during 650900 CE was (if we are to insist on the world-system perspective) a multicore system where a number of sites such as Xochicalco in the State of Morelos, El Tajin in Veracruz and Tula in Hidalgo were economically autonomous but ideologically attached to and participated in a broad ideological system. At the site of Xochicalco during 700 CE, priests from major sites met to correct a number of calendar dates on the occasion of the ritual of the New Fire Ceremony. The glyph forms resemble Aztec day signs, but they are enclosed by typical Maya cartouches, and the numerals bear similarities to the Zapotec inscriptions of Monte Albán (Kubler 1969:41).

In order to evaluate the world-system perspective in the so-called periphery of northern Michoacán, I examine how elements of the Teotihuacan symbolic structure is incorporated into the local symbolic fabric. Additionally, I investigate the ways Teotihuacan symbolism is manifested in other parts of Mesoamerica since I hypothesize that it was a single coherent unit based on exchange of prestige goods and information. Therefore it is necessary to view, in an explicitly comparative way, the operationalization of the Teotihuacan ideology in distinct culture areas such as the Gulf Coast, the Maya area and the Zapotec realm.

Kristiansen’s (1987) study of Bronze Age Scandinavia demonstrates that independent structures are small world-

4

Renfrew (1996:127) terms this process ‘symbolic entrainment’.

10

CHAPTER 2 MICHOACÁN AND THE LAKE CUITZEO BASIN

During 200-650 CE the archaeological site of Teotihuacan in Central Mexico, 50kms northeast of Mexico City, was the largest urban center in Mesoamerica. ‘Mesoamerica’ is a term used to denote the culturally unified vast geographical area that includes Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, western El Salvador and western Honduras (e.g., Kirchoff 1943, Armillas 1976, Pasztory 1978, Willey 1978). However, I must stress that the term ‘Mesoamerica’ does not represent a static cultural system but rather an entity composed of diverse regional cultures linked by common symbolic ideas (see Carmack et al. 1996:6). From 250-450 CE there was an increase in population growth, making Teotihuacan the largest city in Mesoamerica with a population of approximately 200,000 inhabitants in its full splendor. Extending over an area of approximately 20 sq km, it was laid out on a grid plan and characterized by a monumental ceremonial core surrounded by cardinally oriented streets and passages, multifamily residential compounds, drainage systems and zones for crafts specialization and trade. Teotihuacan kept control of obsidian sources in Central Mexico and from approximately 300 CE it was interacting with major Mesoamerican cities such as Monte Alban in the State of Oaxaca, Copán in Honduras, Tikal and Kaminaljuyu in Guatemala.

Fig. 2.1: Mexico and the State of Michoacan

del Sur or Coalcoman, c) the depression of the Balsas River or tierra caliente, d) The Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt or Sierra del Centro, and e) the Depression of the Lerma River or the region of the Valleys (e.g., Chadwick 1971:657, Oliveros 1975:75). The area under study is located in the region of the Valleys and precisely the area surrounding the Lake Cuitzeo, located in the north of Michoacán bordering with the State of Guanajuato. The Cuitzeo Basin is constituted by the municipalities of Cuitzeo, Huandacareo, Chucándiro, Copándaro, Alvaro Obregón, Queréndaro, Zinapécuaro and Santa Ana Maya. Its geographic position facilitates relations with Central Mexico and the region known as ‘El Bajío’ between the States of Guanajuato and Queretaro. The Cuitzeo Basin, located between the parallels 19°31’40’’ of north latitude and 101°14’15’’ of west longitude and at a range of 1600-1900m above sea level covers an area of 3, 618 sq km while 1, 269 sq km pertain to the surface of the Lake (Macías Goytia 1997). Although it is an enclosed basin, it is considered a sub-basin of the river Lerma because it is connected to it by two systems of tributary streams that unite the Lake Cuitzeo to the Lake Yuriria and this latter to the Lerma river (Atlas Geográfico 1974,. Moguel Cos 1987:16). The Lake is fed by the Río Grande and the Queréndaro River and its depth has been lowered significantly over the past half-century, to 0.10 to a meter from 3 to 4 meters in 1946 (Macías Goytia 1989b:133). Mean temperature is 18°C and annual precipitation hovers around 800mm (Moguel Cos 1987:16) but the lake dries up for seven months per year. The alluvial soils by the shore are high in salt content and include teaquesquite, salitre, potassium and calcites (Moguel Cos 1987:17). In 1927, Glinka classified the soil as ‘Black’ or ‘Chernozem’. This kind of soil is in the process of calcification and includes high contents of organic material while its grayish black color results from decreased humidity (Macías Goytia 1989:133). The area is rich in banks of cantera and tepetate. The high

Studies of the exchange networks of Teotihuacan have not considered the relationships between Teotihuacan and West Mexico, despite the existence of a number of artifacts in West Mexico that either originated in Teotihuacan or were locally reproduced copies of Teotihuacan. 2.1

The Physical Setting: Lake Cuitzeo Basin

Michoacán and the

The State of Michoacán in west central Mexico is situated between the parallels 20°23’27’’ and 17°53’50’’ of north latitude and 100°03’32’’ and 103° 44’49’’ of west longitude encompassing an area of 59,854 sq km. In the west, it is bordered by the Pacific Ocean, in the east by the State of Mexico, Guerrero on the southeast, Colima and Jalisco on the northwest, and Queretaro and Guanajuato on the north (fig. 2.1). Two mountain chains traverse the State running from east to west, the Sierra del Coalcomán near the Coast and the Sierra Madre Occidental in the interior of the State. These ranges have a number of significant peaks and the State is an area of great volcanic activity. Between the two mountain chains is the tierra caliente (hot country), humid tropical lowlands through which flow the Balsas and Tepalcatepec rivers. Numerous other rivers cross the State, including the Lerma River, which forms part of the State’s northern boundary. Michoacán shares Lake Chapala, Mexico’s largest lake, with neighboring Jalisco. In the archaeological literature the State is divided into the following regions: a) the Coast, b) the Sierra Madre 11

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Cuauhtitlán) during the same period is indicative of some kind of contact between the two areas. Although it is asserted that the Chupícuaro culture declined at the beginning of the Classic period, the evidence available for this period demonstrates that some forms and isolated motifs persisted throughout the Classic and Postclassic, thus suggesting some cultural continuity in the area. Information regarding the subsequent Classic period cultures of the Cuitzeo Basin has become only recently available. ‘As is true for most of the western area of Mexico, relatively little is known about pre-hispanic Cuitzeo and there is nothing published to guide one as to a more exact dating of the stylistic traditions of the culture’ (Field 1974:7).

alkalinity of the soil makes it unsuitable for agriculture especially near the shore. The flora include Prosopis juliflora (mezquite), Bursera, Euphorbia, Guazuma, Leucaena, Lysiloma, Acacia, Annona, Celtis, Opuntia and Lantama among others (Macías Goytia 1997:87) whereas the present fauna of the region includes: bat (Matalus mexicanus), rat (Mustrattus), hare (Lepus Callotis), tlacuache (Dilelphis mesamericana), squirrel (Citellus mexicanus mexicanus), coyote (Canis latrans), cacomixtle (Bassariscus astutus), zorrillo listado (Mephitis mephitica), and occasionally armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) and mapache (Procyon lotor Storr); snakes are highly abundant especially rattlesnakes (Crotalus durissus durissus), lizards (Aspen boulenger), scorpions (Hardruerus aztecus) and numerous species of spiders and insects (Macías Goytia 1997:88). According to the same author there is a great variety of avifauna including calandria (Icterus galbula), grouse (Collinus viginianus), colibri (Coeligena clemencia), cormoran or buzo duck (Flalacrocorax vigua mexicanus), crow (Corvus corax), golondrina (Hirundo rustica erythrogastra), cenizo duck (Anas diazi novimexicana), saltapared (Catherpes mexicanus) and zarceta (Nattion carolinensis). Fishing must have been of considerable importance and although currently four freshwater species exist (mojarra, tilapia, carpa and charal) charal (Goodea atripins luitpoldi) is the only local species (Macías Goytia 1997:88-89). There is no information regarding prehistoric fishing techniques but reworked sherds known as ‘cut-sherds’ and ‘sinkers’ (tejos) might have been used as net weights. Fieldwork by the author registered a contemporary fish net where several prehispanic ceramic fragments were tied. Unfortunately the prehistoric faunal remains of the region have never been analysed despite the number of bones and/or bone artifacts recovered from excavations. Inferences can be drawn from the existing species and the study of some iconographic elements that allows the identification of some animals such as duck, domestic turkey, frog, snake and squirrel. 2.2

The first and admittedly awkward attempt to define the Classic period in the State of Michoacán was offered by de la Borbolla (1947:31) in the 1947 Round Table of the Mexican Society of Anthropology on the archaeology of West Mexico. He defined it as Horizonte lacustre inferior (Lower Lacustrine Horizon) with the following attributes: a) little known ceramics but with apparent relations with Zinapécuaro (note: one of the first sites to be excavated in Michoacán), sharing simple negative and al fresco decoration; possible abundance of clay figurines, b) metallurgy unknown, c) use of pipes unknown, d) architecture almost unknown [sic] with the exception of rudimentary stone tombs, and e) stonework with an influence of Teotihuacanoid style figures on plaques, and jade beads, simple Olmecoid human figurines similar to those recovered from the El Opeño site. Jiménez Moreno (1966:51) gives a general, view on the archaeology of the region: Slight Teotihuacan influences seem to have extended to the shores of Lake Cuitzeo and Lake Patzcuaro by way of Tzinapecuaro and Tzintzuntzan. It seems likely that to the north of these lakes there were marauding groups of nomadic hunters comparable to those of the Tarascans, who still were nonsedentary in the 13th century, when from Zacapu, they invaded the lake region and then went on to dominate all of Michoacán. Beyond San Juan del Rio, there probably were groups of Otomi, who were nomadic except for some who may have reached a stage approaching agricultural life. Occasionally, warlike groups, inhabitants of distant regions, would have made incursions to the borders of the Teotihuacan Empire.

The archaeology of the Cuitzeo Basin

The later prehistory of the area commences with the Chupícuaro culture (700 BCE-300 CE) (e.g., Porter Weaver 1969). The site known as Chupícuaro is actually below the Solís Dam (State of Guanajuato) which was constructed in 1949. Before that date, a series of excavations took place and approximately four hundred burials were unearthed. This was sufficient according to the archaeologists to label as ‘people’ those who produced the typical pottery ‘Chupícuaro’, although no remains of settlements were recovered at the time. In the Cuitzeo Basin, the only evidence of a habitation of the Chupícuaro culture was found at the site of Chehuayo where a high percentage of Chupícuaro ceramics was associated with a single structure (Macías Goytia 1989:172). The presence of Chupícuaro ceramics in areas as far away as the Mexican Highlands (sites of Cuicuilco, Ticoman, Cerro del Tepalcate and

Paradoxically, the same author, based on the ‘sound’ evidence of a handful of figurines, postulates that ‘the strong influence of Teotihuacan culture on West Mexico began with phase I of Teotihuacan, and that this may have been transmitted through contacts with the Chupícuaro culture, which would have served as an intermediary [between West Mexico and the Central Highlands]’(Jiménez Moreno 1966:37 emphasis added). It is difficult, however, to perceive how the strong influence of the Teotihuacan Empire was not able to ‘civilize’ the marauding groups of the lake Cuitzeo!

12

Michoacán and the Lake Cuitzeo Basin

Fig. 2.2: Map of the Cuitzeo Basin complex based on looted artifacts

The ‘Cuitzeo Project’ was commenced in 1987 by A. Macías Goytia with the aim to investigate the ecology and archaeology of the Cuitzeo Basin. Two sites have been excavated to date, both located in the north of the Basin: Huandacareo (Macías Goytia 1990) and Tres Cerritos (Macías Goytia 1997). The value of both publications lies in the classification and description of the total artefactual assemblages. The site of Santa Maria in Morelia, Michoacán was unfortunately a short-lived rescue project (De Vega et al. 1982). The material evidence of this site indicates interaction with the site of Teotihuacan in Central Mexico.

In 1932 Corona Nuñez located some sites in the Basin such as Tres Cerritos, Cuitzeo, Piedra Grande and Huandacareo (Moguel Cos 1987) while in 1950 G. W. Hewes, surveyed the northeastern section of the Basin and recovered a number of fossilized mammoth bones and ceramics such as black and gray ware, associating the latter with the Chupícuaro ceramic complex. In another, unspecified, site he encountered some very fine sherds and bichrome and polychrome ceramics (Moguel Cos 1987:11). Moedano (1946) attempted a first classification of the ceramics of the municipality of Zinapécuaro while another brief analysis of the al secco polychrome tradition was undertaken by Torres Montes and Molina Montes (1973). Pratt and Gay (1978) provide surprisingly accurate information based solely on evidence from looted figurines from the Cuitzeo Basin. Their publication includes a distribution map of sites (fig. 2.2) where the Cuitzeo complex is present and includes the following sites: Tiristarán, Tarímbaro, Zapote (El Zapote), Chehuayo, Mina (la mina), Zinziméo [sic], Queréndaro1, Zinapécuaro (Cerrito de Zinapécuaro), Cuitzéo del Porvenir and San Agustin (San Agustin del Maíz). Additionally they mention other sites without being able to locate them: ‘Although the sites, La Loma and El Pedrillo, have also been mentioned, their exact locations are still unknown’ (Pratt and Gay 1978:175).2

1 2

The realization of two private works (a gas duct and a highway) led to rescue excavations that were reported in 1987 and 1996 respectively. Moguel Cos (1987) registered 143 sites (labelled C1 to C143) around the Lake and completed a ceramic analysis based on 4,617 sherds. Of all 143 sites, relative chronology is provided for 127 sites. The recently (1996) constructed highway that connects Central to West Mexico (known as the highway ‘MexicoGuadalajara’) traverses the southern section of the Basin. Rescue excavations were conducted by Pulido Mendez et al. (1996) and resulted in the identification of 127 sites for the southern section of the Lake labelled as M1 to M133 (with the exception of six sites [M84 to M89] located in the Valley of Maravatio farther to the east). Positive aspects of the reports of Pulido Mendez et al.

Erroneously plotted northwest of Zinapecuaro. The site of El Pedrillo is located in Zinapecuaro.

13

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

(1996) and Moguel Cos (1987) include the description of the setting, i.e. shore, hill, plateau, the identification of ceramic assemblages and their relative chronology.

the prehistory of the region, a change that looks ‘transformational rather than gradual’ (e.g., Yoffee 1993:67).

In addition to the limited number of archaeological references for the region there are three ethnohistoric sources: a) The History of the Province of San Nicolás Tolentino of Michoacán by Basalenque (Silva 1982), b) The Relación de Cuitzeo of 1519, and c) The Relación de Michoacán.

As far as the location of sites is concerned, during all phases, settlements were preferably located on slopes and lake shores (Moguel Cos 1987:40-44). Most of the sites are relatively small; some have direct access to water resources such as thermal springs and/or riverine streams. The archaeological visibility of the sites is limited due to the vegetation cover of the region and the excessive looting.

2.3

Delimiting the focus: the Cuitzeo Basin, northern Michoacán

2.3.2

Since there are many definitions for the term ‘site’ I decided to adopt Sanders, Parsons and Santley (1979:34) that reads ‘Anything from an isolated house . . . or ceremonial structure, dams, canal, terrace systems, to a city of 100,000 inhabitants.’ The important point is that a site is ‘a spatially isolatable unit.’ The focus of the present study is the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán. However, the study is not based on a static number of x sites since different research questions allow for different kinds of data. For example, as regards site locale I made recourse to data from archaeological reports and my field survey, whereas for the iconographic analysis of local and Teotihuacan motifs (Chap. 5) I used data from all available sources: archaeological reports, field work, museum and private collections.3 2.3.1

Site Size and Features

Research in the Cuitzeo Basin by various authors (Moguel Cos 1987, Pulido et al. 1996, Macías Goytia 1997, Hernández 2000) indicates that there is a considerable variation regarding size and features of sites during the Classic period. Pulido et al. (1996:38-39) established a hierarchization of sites based on architectural features. Some sites present mounds and associated plazas such as El Baño, Las Canoas, El Balneario, Cerro de la Bolita, Chehuayo, Los Cuervejones, Los Puercos, El Pedrillo, El Cenicero and Araró among others. Moguel Cos (1987) distinguishes between major, minor and habitational sites. Major sites include ‘pueblos’ (villages), that is settlements with a ceremonial centre; minor sites are designated as ‘villas’5which are permanent, but civic and/or religious structures do not necessarily result from internal processes. Habitational sites ‘aldeas’ (small villages) do not present architectural features to enable the detection of social differentiation among the inhabitants (Moguel Cos 1987:26). Moguel Cos’ survey (1987:29-34, Table 1) identified 115 habitational sites, 18 minor and 10 major sites. Among the latter are Chehuayo Grande (two platforms and a mound), C52 (three mounds), Tres Cerritos (three mounds and two ceremonial platforms), C66 (two mounds, a plaza and three platforms) and C110 (two mounds and two platforms).

Site Chronology and Locale

The specific location of a number of sites in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, argues for a definite change of pattern during the Classic period with respect to the previous Formative and following Late Classic periods. Pulido et al. (1996:36-40), based on relative (ceramic) chronologies, provide information as regards the location of the sites for the southern section of Lake Cuitzeo. During the Formative period, few sites are located near the shore of the Lake, two sites on islands and another two on the top of the mountains that enclose the Basin. Some of the Formative period sites continue into the succeeding Early Classic period. Most of the sites are located towards the center of the Basin and 11 sites (out of a total of 29 sites) present ceremonial structures (Pulido et al. 1996:37).4 During the Late Classic there is a significant growth, and the number of sites adds up to 79 (19 sites with ceremonial structures) located on the lacustrine shores, islands, hills and plateau. The above pattern therefore indicates that the abrupt increase in the number of sites during the Late Classic must have been a significant event for

My fieldwork focussed on the southeastern section of the Cuitzeo Basin. Surface collection was conducted at the sites of Araró, El Calvario, El Coro, Taimeo, Cerro Colorado, Zapata, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Las Trojes, Chehuayo, El Pedrillo, Belissario Dominguez and San Lucas Pio (fig. 2.3). I targeted rim and base sherds, handles, decorated body sherds, figurines, green obsidian prismatic blades, stone tools and gray and black/brown obsidian tools. Collection units were ‘hot spots’, i.e. loci where there were high concentrations of artifacts. Samples were bagged by either ‘hot spots’ or the larger field unit with their corresponding coordinates. The aforementioned (see Moguel Cos 1987, Pulido et al. 1996) differentiation regarding the sites’ size and features was recorded during fieldwork. For example the site of El Cenicero, located at 19°51’654’’ north latitude and 100°51’253’’ west longitude is the largest recorded site in

3

The inclusion of data with unknown provenance is an unfortumate necessity in the Archaeology of West Mexico but it is secure to a certain extent. I postulate a Cuitzeo Basin origin for types that have been already identified in a published source. For previously unidentified types I conducted PIXE and X-ray analysis in order to establish provenance (Chap. 4). 4 Pulido et al. (1996:32-33) designate ‘ceremonial’ the site which comprises various mounds distributed around a central plaza, occasionally associated with platforms and ball-courts.

5

‘Población que tiene algunos privilegios con los que se distingue de aldeas y lugares’ (Gendrop 1997:217).

14

Michoacán and the Lake Cuitzeo Basin

Fig. 2.3: The Lake Cuitzeo during the Classic Period and sites mentioned in the text (note: the map does not present the total number of registered sites)

meters), albeit limited, was highly varied, including imported elements.

the southeastern section of the Cuitzeo Basin. In fact it forms a complex with the adjacent site of El Pedrillo. By observation of a number of aerial photographs and field reconnaissance, the three settlement mounds at the site of El Cenicero were determined to be the type of terraced platforms and enclosed sunken patio. The configuration of all architectural elements, i.e. terraced platforms and sunken patio, is typical of the El Bajío cultural zone of the States of Guanajuato and Queretaro (E. Cárdenas Garcia, personal communication, 1998). Pulido et al. (1996:38) postulate that this site dominated the access to the obsidian sources of Zinapécuaro and Ucareo to the extreme east of the Basin.

2.4

Conclusions

The pattern that has emerged from the examination of archaeological reports indicates that there is a significant increase in the number of sites during the Classic and Late Classic periods (Moguel Cos 1987; Pulido et al. 1996). In addition, there is a notable hierarchization of sites based on architectural features because some of the sites display ceremonial structures which are absent in others. From the whole repertory of registered sites, only three have been excavated: Santa Maria (de Vega et al. 1982), Tres Cerritos (Macías Goytia 1997) and Huandacareo (Macías Goytia 1990). It is noteworthy that all the aforementioned sites present Teotihuacan artifacts in their artefactual inventory. Whether interactions with Teotihuacan was generalized in the area remains to be examined. It is important to define the main elements of the Cuitzeo Basin complex during this period in order to evaluate the presence of Teotihuacan and whether it effected changes in the material culture of the region.

A different kind of site, Taimeo, is located approximately five kms to the southeast of the aforementioned site. The architectural features consist of two mounds and a plaza. Its coordinates are 19°50’771’’ north latitude and 100°48’238’’ west longitude. From all the surface collected sites, it presents the highest concentration of obsidian (of the gray and black/brown variety) artifacts and debris per sq. meter, suggesting that it was possibly an obsidian workshop or a ‘debitage zone’. Despite the vegetation cover, it was possible to collect five fragments of green obsidian prismatic blades which were undoubtedly imported from Central Mexico (since this is the only known source of green obsidian in Mesoamerica) (e.g., Spence 1977, Santley 1989, Clark 1994). Other sites are more difficult to categorize, such as the El Calvario between the parallel of 19°48’027’’ north latitude and 101° 02’817’’ west longitutde. No architectural remains were observed and the ceramic evidence (concentrated on a locus of a radius of 25

15

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN

archaeology of West Mexico and Mesoamerica in general, there are some difficulties as far as methodological approach is concerned. These are that a) most of the sites in West Mexico have inadequate periodizations; b) the data for West Mexico are far less in comparison with other Mesoamerican areas; and c) there is great ambiguity surrounding the nature of Teotihuacan ‘influences.’

References made to the discovery of Teotihuacan material in the Cuitzeo Basin are very limited. Moguel Cos (1987:114) under the chapter ‘Other ceramic material’ cites among other things: ‘five fragments of thin orange’ while Pulido et al. (1996:101) present a photograph of a Teotihuacanoid figurine encountered in Burial 4 at the site M-1 (Cerro de la Bolita). Macías Goytia reports Teotihuacan artifacts for the sites of Tres Cerritos (1997) and Huandacareo (1990). Systematic references to Teotihuacan-related material are made in the report for the site of Santa Maria (de Vega et al. 1982) and the study of ceramics for this site (Manzanilla 1984). In fact, the chronology of the site of Santa Maria is based solely on the presence of ‘intrusive,’ that is, Teotihuacan artifacts. My survey registered a diverse range of artifacts suggesting that the presence of Teotihuacan is larger than previously hypothesized.

INADEQUATE PERIODIZATIONS IN WEST MEXICO A study of contacts requires a dataset with chronological limits and a precise geographical scope. In order to prove that there was an exchange network, the contemporaneity of such a network should be demonstrable. An additional difficulty lies in the fact that for Teotihuacan and beyond, the Classic Period is relatively well defined, whereas for West Mexico the term ‘Classic’ often covers the period from 250-900 CE i.e. both the Classic (250-650 CE) and Epiclassic (650-900 CE).

Fieldwork included: a) revision of archaeological reports and related literature, b) examination of museum and local collections and c) surface collections conducted at the following sites: Araró, El Pedrillo, Cerro Colorado, Zapata, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Las Trojes, Taimeo, El Calvario, Belissario Dominguez, San Lucas Pio and Chehuayo. The list of the above sites provides just a glimpse of the geographic spread and it is of course not exhaustive. All but one of these sites are looted. The total number of sherds collected is 3,217. In all sites the presence of gray and to a lesser extent brown/black obsidian tools and debris is attested.

POOR DATASET IN COMPARISON WITH OTHER AREAS It is suggested that a multivariate model of analysis be followed. A first step is the examination of the Teotihuacan style. Although so far there is no consensus concerning a list of Teotihuacan diagnostic features or stylistic traits that are known to have originated in Teotihuacan, the frequency of ‘Teotihuacan’ elements in a certain context should be indicative by itself. However, it is important to distinguish between ‘Teotihuacan’ and ‘Teotihuacan-like’elements. Whereas the former implies that the items were made in Teotihuacan and imported into West Mexico, the latter implies local production of Teotihuacan originals (homologies). Such a distinction is essential, but cannot be accomplished solely on the grounds of stylistic analysis. Hence I decided to conduct PIXE and XRD analyses of a number of sherds in order to determine the provenance of some vessels.

The increase in the number of sites and presumed population growth that commenced during the middle Classic and culminated during the Late Classic demonstrates a systematic and organized control of resources. The evidence collected during fieldwork suggests that the spatial configuration of the larger sites (for example, El Cenicero and Araró) was possibly determined by the access to the obsidian mines of Zinapécuaro and Ucareo which were considerably exploited during the Formative and Epiclassic periods. Artifacts made of obsidian from these sources have been documented for diverse regions of Mesoamerica (Chap. 7).

AMBIGUITY AROUND THE MEANING OF ‘TEOTIHUACAN ‘INFLUENCES’ Research revolved around the presence of Teotihuacan artifacts must define in a clear way what it is meant by ‘Teotihuacan artifact’. It is lamentable that it is still a general practice among archaeologists to attribute a priori the origin of certain types to specific regions. Therefore, many artifacts found in Teotihuacan are considered to originate in the city for lack of research that would point to a different area. This tendency affects our research framework to a great extent, positing that ‘influences’ are spread from a core area to the periphery when in fact a totally different process might have occurred. An example that illustrates this situation is the local al secco polychrome ware which is often mistakenly considered a Teotihuacan type (Chap. 4).

The material evidence for all sites shows a definite cultural homogeneity on the basis of similar ceramic types (both utilitarian and ‘ritual’) stone and obsidian tools and architectural features. Notwithstanding, there is a certain differentiation regarding the size of the sites and the fact that some seem to have been interacting with the site of Teotihuacan and other areas of Mesoamerica such as the El Bajío and West Mexico. 3.1

Methodological limitations

Although the study of contacts between West Mexico and Teotihuacan is a very important issue for both the

16

Research Design

3.2

complex was a distinct culture for the ethnic implications involved.1 Hence, I avoid the word culture at best.

The present study

I investigate the nature of a number of sites in the north of the State of Michoacán, and examine Classic Period contacts with Teotihuacan from a pan-Mesoamerican perspective using a range of methodologies such as iconographic analysis, ethnohistoric sources, crosscultural comparisons and inevitably ‘dirt’ Archaeology. By comparing the artefactual evidence of the Cuitzeo Basin sites with that reported for other interaction spheres, such as the Maya and the Zapotec, for instance, I attempt to distinguish exchange patterns for the Cuitzeo Basin within the context of macroregional or longdistance interaction networks. However, it must be emphasized that this study focusses not only on the larger sites or those where Teotihuacan influence is evidenced but rather on a number of sites with Classic period material culture. One of the issues to be investigated is whether only a limited number of Classic period sites participated in the Teotihuacan exchange network, implying that the Teotihuacan world-system did not include all the sites in the Cuitzeo Basin area.

Ideological denominators are also to be considered. According to Carmack the examination of ‘practices’, i.e. a kind of behavior wherein individuals respond to cultural ideas and change their material conditions, requires a certain ‘interactive theory’ which ‘Shifts our attention away from culture or material conditions per se toward the processes by which humans create and reproduce cultures in response to material conditions’ (Carmack et al. 1996:35). The way individuals of diverse Mesoamerican regions respond to the ‘Teotihuacan stimulus’ is indicative of specific social practices, beliefs and ideas which need to be defined if our goal is the understanding of the nature of the Teotihuacan presence in Mesoamerica. The most important initial step is the consideration of the Teotihuacan style since style might ‘talk loudly about individuals’ (Wobst 1999:121) but the message is not always clear. The same author makes an insightful critique of the abuse of uses of styles in archaeology: ‘Style is “acquired” before it is applied to artifacts and before these artifacts articulate with other cultural processes; therefore, the articulations of style are irrelevant to the dynamics of stylistic behavior, and style can be treated as if it were a phenomenon without function’ (Wobst 1977:318).

Of greater importance is to evaluate a number of hidden biases such as the assumption that West Mexico played a peripheral role in the network, or that Teotihuacan monopolized the trade in obsidian and ceramic artifacts, concepts that are still dominant in Mesoamerican studies. Interactional processes are highly dynamic and the worldsystem perspective allows the examination of change both at the micro and macroregional level. Another related problem is the assumption that Teotihuacan played a hegemonic role in the exchange network during 250-650 CE. For this reason the examination of various factors such as settlement patterns and architecture combined with artifact analysis is essential in attempting to determine whether there was military conquest, population movement, or exchange that prompted contacts between the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of artefactual assemblages may demonstrate that the same classes of objects do appear in most sites. Furthermore since I adopt a world systemic approach, it is important to examine whether the same Teotihuacan-related artifacts are manifested in other parts of the system and whether they were imported, locally made, or both (Chap. 6). The differential distribution combined with the diversity of artefacts within a macroregional perspective demonstrates the kind of contact that took place, and if there was an exchange network at all. The nature of Teotihuacan social organization is still not clear; did it represent a world empire or a world economy? Was it a military or a theocratic society or . . . ? In order to define the nature of the Teotihuacan presence in the area and whether it was a short-lived or a repeated event I considered necessary the coverage of a broad geographical area. Since this coverage is associated with a specific temporal context, I examine first whether the sites are homogeneous and therefore a single cultural complex was in operation. However, it would be presumptous to assume that this

3.3

Defining the style of the Classic Period Teotihuacan (250-650 CE)

3.3.1

Why study style

The present study aims at establishing inter and intraregional links within a broad area by means of the examination of a shared artifactual corpus. In this case style is considered as an appropriate tool since it is through and because of the Teotihuacan stylistic tradition that we know about the Metropolis’ presence in areas afar. Style is in its primary connotation a way of doing things but it can be also a complex, multidimensional and hierarchically organized structure (Hardin Friedrich 1970:342). Style alone however does not suffice for the identification of foreign elements in a given context. Other denominators are equally important, such as foreign materials and techniques (Shepard 1965:337). During the past two decades there has been an increasing use of provenance studies in order to determine origin of artifacts precisely because style in itself can be often misleading. Similar ceramic types can occur in diverse regions and in different time spans. Of equal importance is the study of techniques. Techniques are per se social and cognitive phenomena which are not always easy to detect in the archaeological record. By technique I adopt 1

Although there are many similarities between the material culture of the Cuitzeo Basin complex and those of Zacapu and the El Bajío region, more research needs to be done in order to designate this complex as a ‘culture’.

17

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Lemonnier’s (1980) definition: ‘Action socialisée sur la matière (qui) peut s’apprender a travers de trois ordres de faits: des suites de gestes et d’operations (processus techniques), des objets (moyens d’action sur la matière) et des connaissances spécifiques’ (cited in Van der Leuwe 1997).2 The definition of a particular style requires the recognition of distinct albeit interrelated units such as element, motif, and subject matter whereas style is the arrangement of these units (Rands 1971:138).

has suffered as a methodological tool, we must not underestimate its enormous potential as regards the study of interactional processes. 3.3.2

Is there a ‘Teotihuacan’ Style?

From approximately 150 to 600 CE Teotihuacan became an urban center, the greatest city not only in the northeast of the valley of Mexico but in all Mesoamerica. Its presence by means of ceramics, obsidian and miscellaneous artifacts is mirrored extensively in Mesoamerica, from the State of Colima in western Mexico to Guatemala to the south and Belize to the east (Millon 1993, Cowgill 2001). However, when discussing ‘Teotihuacan style’ one refers strictly to the style of the city’s Classic period – if not the middle Classic period – when the city was at its cultural and economic apogee. The Teotihuacan style may be defined as a Horizon style wherein a stylistic tradition expands onto a wide area within a relatively short period of time (e.g. Willey and Phillips 1958:32).

Style is undisputably related to a specific society in a certain time period whilst elements, motifs and subject matter may survive and recur after a long time period. This is the case with the iconographic traits of Teotihuacan, which appear in distant regions in the form of artifacts made of local materials during the same period as Teotihuacan’s apogee or a later period. An additional limitation lies in the fact that there is not always contemporaneity in the diffusion of forms, since some forms may arrive late in a relatively marginal area whereas others undergo processes of translation into the local fabric (e.g., Armillas 1948:214). In addition, the association of meaning to form does not remain the same. Very old meanings can be clothed in new forms. This is true when one examines the Tlaloc olla for example. This is a typical Teotihuacan vessel form that occurs throughout a great time span in various forms, but the concept nevertheless is the same: the Teotihuacan Storm God (Aztec Tlaloc).3 Despite its great variation, its subject matter allows it to be immediately recognised wherever encountered. To put it bluntly: ‘Style is pervasive and unavoidable because there is nothing to discuss or be interpreted without assigning or inferring style. Without style we have little or nothing to say’ (Conkey 1990:2).

When I refer to ‘Teotihuacan style’ I mean that there are particular ceramics, decorative techniques, architectural features, and other artifacts that we know originated in or are characteristic of Teotihuacan. That is, there are recognized norms characteristic of Teotihuacan that dominate forms and decoration. It is understandable that, since style is not a static phenomenon, different manifestations or variations may occur. This is also indicative of the varied role a mighty society, and in this case Teotihuacan, is able to perform. What is true, is that Teotihuacan had developed a great number of relationships with other Mesoamerican sites, the nature of which is, and for a long time will be, a question under fervid debate.

The ability to recognize stylistic traits often entails the burden that the ‘same’ objects may denote more than a few meanings in their different regional manifestations. In Mesoamerican studies, it is assumed that Teotihuacan objects express a particular ideology and are therefore charged with ritual meaning (Langley 1992, Pasztory 1997, Conides 2001). However, it is dangerous to assume that their presence confirms the participation of any society in the ritual practices of the Metropolis. It is our task to investigate whether the sites did participate in the same cults or whether they adopted Teotihuacanrelated elements for other, less archaeologically obvious reasons. Assumptions about iconographic similarities between distant regions should be based on the examination of the whole contextual framework rather than on isolated classes of archaeological evidence. Therefore, despite all the criticisms that stylistic analysis

Stylistic interpetations have often altered our view as far as economic and culture processes are concerned. For example, the observation that the supports of cylindrical tripod vessels (a diagnostic Teotihuacan feature) of the site of Matacapan, Veracruz, resemble the Maya rather than those of Teotihuacan led Rattray (1987:267) to suggest that the Gulf Coast had an intermediary role in an exchange network between Teotihuacan and the Maya. Even within the limits of the City there are variations of the same iconographic themes. There are, however, some typical traits that allow archaeologists and art historians alike to trace similarities and differences between artifacts made in Teotihuacan and those encountered in sites afar. 3.3.2.1 Chronological Framework

2

‘Socialized action on matter, (technique) can be apprehended by means of three orders of facts: suites of gestures and operations (technical processes), objects (means of action on matter) and specific knowledge.’ 3 Authors variously designate the Teotihuacan rain deity as ‘Storm God’, ‘Rain God’ and/or ‘Tlaloc’. However, because more is known about the Aztec Tlaloc, I designate the Teotihuacan rain deity as ‘Storm God’. Notwithstanding the above distinction, the Teotihuacan Storm God and the Aztec Tlaloc dominate the realm of water, rain and fertility.

The definition of any style requires a compilation of a list of characteristic features and their consequent analysis and interpretation within specified chronological limits. For Mesoamerica, the Classic period comprises the time span from 250-650CE. It is noteworthy that there is a problem in defining a ‘classic’ period or Horizon for the archaeology of West Mexico, where the Classic period is 18

Research Design

applying the term to describe artifacts of the middle Classic. Concerning Teotihuacan’s presence in the State of Queretaro, Nalda encountered Teotihuacan-style sherds which he calls ‘Teotihuacanoid’ and dates to between 200-400 CE (Saint-Charles Zetina 1996:148). Millon (1988:120), also, referring to the site of Altun Ha in Belize and its relations to the City during the Early Tlamimilolpa (200-300 CE) phase writes about ‘Teotihuacanoid ceramics among other evidence’. Writing about Teotihuacan artifacts within Aztec contexts (1427-1519 CE), Matos and López (1993:162-164) refer to 41 Teotihuacan-style and 23 Teotihuacanoid-style pieces and later on to 23 Guerrero-Teotihuacanoid style pieces.

often extended to 900 CE. Some authors, however, synchronize their phase characterizations in concert with the general Mesoamerican scheme, defining the period from 650-900 CE as Epiclassic. I concur that the period from 650-900 CE should be called Epiclassic, due to a number of significant events that occurred during this time which effected profound changes in the Mesoamerican scene and affected West Mexico as well. Chronological refinement is of considerable importance as far as the presence of Teotihuacan-related artifacts in West Mexico is concerned, because a profusion of sites has been dated to the Classic period based on a few intrusive Teotihuacan pot sherds. The contextual information, however, may indicate that this dating is inaccurate.

Despite the aforementioned misapplications of the term, the term Teotihuacanoid denotes the eclectic imitation of specific Teotihuacan forms and styles. Moreover, many of the sites that present Teotihuacan ‘imitations’ date to the seventh century, a period characterized by the emergence of new centres wherein eclecticism is one of the typical traits of the arts (Pasztory 1978). Hence, the term ‘Teotihuacanoid’ was first coined by Parsons to describe the arts of 550-700 CE when the influences from Teotihuacan became indirect and the arts of such centres as El Tajin, Cotzumalhuapa, and Xochicalco evolved (Pasztory 1978:7). Therefore before the Epiclassic period objects encountered far from Teotihuacan may be refer to as ‘Teotihuacan-like’, ‘Teotihuacan-style’ and those of the Epiclassic period ‘Teotihuacanoid’ and/or ‘Teotihuacan-derived.’ The usefulness of the above terms consists in their implication of a relationship of one kind or another with Teotihuacan, and their application is valid only after the characterization of the artifactual evidence.

3.3.2.2 Terminological Specifications The presence of Teotihuacan elements in areas outside the city is often described as Teotihuacan ‘influence’. However, the word ‘influence’ is best avoided since it attributes a dominant role to Teotihuacan or makes Teotihuacan the undisputable source of certain ideas (e.g., Paddock 1972). In addition, the adoption of specific features from a ‘donor’ culture does not necessarily imply that this culture effected significant changes on the receiver culture (e.g., Shepard 1965:348). When dealing with Teotihuacan style and its material manifestations, one comes across a considerable number of terms used to describe this material. Authors use interchangeably terms such as Teotihuacan, Teotihuacanlike, Teotihuacanoid, Teotihuacan derived and so forth. The same is true regarding another Mesoamerican culture, the Olmecs, for which we often encounter terms such as olmecoid, olmec-like and olmec style (see Grove 1989:9). I would suggest a careful use of the Teotihuacan-related terms since Teotihuacan vessel for example means that it was made in Teotihuacan whilst Teotihuacan derived implies that it was made away from the city, either as an imitation by local artists or by Teotihuacan artists who might have migrated at some point. For the site of Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacán there is a distinction between ceramics of the Teotihuacan tradition and ceramics related to Teotihuacan (Manzanilla 1984:40-42). This distinction is presumably based on the fact that the second category includes vessels that were not made in Teotihuacan but whose distribution was controlled by the City such as the Thin Orange ware which was manufactured in Puebla, but Teotihuacan presumably distributed it throughout Mesoamerica (Rattray 1990).

3.3.2.3 Diagnostic Traits It is true that there is no consensus concerning the full range of typical Teotihuacan traits. For example, ‘A surface find of a Teotihuacan-like vessel described as being decorated by polishing and champlevé technique is said to be evidence of a Teotihuacan infiltration of the area (note: La Villita, Ojo de Agua Phase). I recently examined this vessel . . . I could see no similarity between the Ojo de Agua vessel motifs and those from Teotihuacan’ (Chadwick 1971:677). Some authors facing the problem of identifying Teotihuacan traits have attempted to compile a list of diagnostic features. Santley (1983:84), for instance, lists the following: Thin Orange pottery, cylindrical tripod bowls, unflanged ringstand bowls, cream pitchers, floreros, candeleros, Teotihuacanoid architecture, green obsidian artifacts, ceramic figurines, Teotihuacan style sculpture, fresco painting, and representations of the deity Tlaloc. It is noteworthy that he distinguishes between ‘Teotihuacanoid architecture’ and ‘Teotihuacan-style’ sculpture albeit without clarifying either term, despite the fact that they are used in the literature to describe artifacts of different time periods (sec. 3.3.2.2). Santley (1983:85) stresses, however, that the above list is not accepted

There is unanimous agreement that the Teotihuacan style characterized the middle Classic period, that is from 250450 CE (e.g., Sanders 1978, Pasztory 1997, Cowgill 2001) but the elements and motifs that survived after the decline of Teotihuacan are known as Teotihuacanoid (650-700 CE). However, some authors still confuse the use of the term Teotihuacanoid when erroneously 19

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

ARCHITECTURE As far as architecture is concerned, the most typical architectural feature which is associated with Teotihuacan is the talud-tablero style of platform terrace construction (fig. 3.1). It consists of ‘rectangular frames or tableros that project horizontally from the façade of a building, with a sloping talus wall or talud, which is visible below’ (Chase 1993:142). It was introduced in Teotihuacan during the Miccaotli phase (150-300 CE) and first appeared on the Temple of Quetzalcoatl. Its presence is testified until the eighth century. Regarding the origin of the talud-tablero feature, opinions vary; some postulate that it may derive its form from the two-part platform articulation found in Oaxaca (Pasztory 1978b:141) whilst others believe that the earliest is found in Tlaxcala (Millon 1971:140, García Cook 1981, Braswell 2001, see Gendrop 1997:192-193, for the various kinds of taludtablero). In general, on those from Teotihuacan, the height of the tablero is double or triple that of the talud (Heyden and Gendrop 1980:32) whilst during the Epiclassic in sites such as Xochicalco and Cacaxtla, the proportion is reversed. Within Teotihuacan there is a large variation regarding size and proportions (Pasztory 1997:140, Cowgill 2001). Direct imitations of the Teotihuacan talud-tablero are found at Kaminaljuyu, Matacapan, Tikal, Dzibilchaltun and Ake whereas variations occur in Oaxaca, Puebla, and Veracruz (Pasztory 1978b:108). In both Kaminaljuyu and Tikal the talud-tablero feature is associated with rich tombs reflecting possibly interactions between the local elite and Teotihuacan (e.g., Chase 1993:149). To the above list we add sites from Michoacán such as Tres Cerritos, Tingambato and Santa Maria, which are considered contemporaneous with Teotihuacan. Within the studies of exchange contacts, the presence of intrusive architectural features is often regarded as an argument for intense contact, especially when compared to the presence of only portable objects, for instance, and some see intrusive architecture as evidence that the site in question was possibly a colony. However, a number of sites including Ake, Dzibilchaltun, Acanceh, and Tingambato present the talud-tablero feature but Teotihuacan-related ceramics are virtually nil (Pasztory 1978a, Piña Chan and Oi 1982).

Fig. 3.1: the talud-tablero architectural feature

universally and this lack of agreement is also a problem impeding the elaboration of a proper analytical framework. Berrin’s list (1993:77-85) comprises: Volcanic stone sculpture, semiprecious stone objects and masks; painted wall murals, clay sculptures; censers, ceramic figurines, and ceramic vessels such as Thin Orange, decorated plano-relief vessels, stuccoed and painted vessels. Although none of the above authors cites the criteria for the compilation of any of the above list, I assume that they are based empirically on what has been found in Teotihuacan first and then outside. Based on the aforementioned lists composed by Santley and Berrin, a short description follows of Teotihuacanrelated exchanged artifacts in order to compose the analytical framework for the research area. The following assemblage is based on chronological criteria, i.e. objects that characterize Teotihuacan during the Classic period (250-650 CE). Although there was a significant population concentration during earlier phases (for example, Tzacualli Phase, 1-100 CE), few ceramics from that phase have been found away from the Valley of Mexico (Blanton et al. 1981:129). Only during the Middle Horizon did Teotihuacan expand beyond the Valley of Mexico (Blanton et al. 1981:135).

The talud-tablero style survived the decline of Teotihuacan, and its later manifestations occurred during the Epiclassic at major sites such as El Tajin, Xochicalco, Tula and Cacaxtla. The architecture that characterizes this period is a result of highly selective use of distinct architectural elements. In the new emerging centers, the combination of talud-tablero, Tajinesque flaring cornices, and ballcourts occur together and it can be observed at a number of sites such as Tikal (Pasztory 1978:109) and at a recently excavated site Las Plazuelas in southern Guanajato where all the aforementioned architectural features coexist (Carlos Castañeda, personal communication, 1999). The talud-tablero has been often associated with sacred architecture whose purpose is to

20

Research Design

Thin Orange ware Within the ceramic tradition of Teotihuacan, Thin Orange ware is the trade ware par excellence. During the TMP (Teotihuacan Mapping Project) Thin Orange was surface-collected on 4,300 out of 5,000 sites (Krotser 1987:418). It is named after its typical bright orange color and its walls, which are Fig. 3.3a: tripod vessel with ‘eggshell’ thin (fig. rectangular slab supports (16 x 3.3). The most 26.5 cm) common forms are hemispherical and cylindrical bowls, jars, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic vessels. Its decoration consists of undulate and/or parallel incised lines and dots. Thin Orange vessels of the Miccaotli phase (150-200 CE) are always polished and do not present the incisions typical of the following phases (Vega Sosa 1981:48). Thin Orange saw an ‘enormous’ (Rattray 1981:59) increase during the II and III phases, and a more popular use during IV; during the latter phase, the variation of thick Thin Orange appears (Muller 1978:192).

Fig. 3.2: almena: architectural ornament placed on the upper area of a Teotihuacan building (pink stone, 81 x 98 x 9cm)

differentiate sacred from secular buildings (Kubler 1973:33). Distinctive architectural features are the almenas (fig. 3.2), which are merlons atop the walls of the buildings (Gendrop 1997:16). Besides Teotihuacan, they have been recovered at Toltec and Aztec sites. In the state of Michoacán, a single Teotihuacan-like almena was recovered from the site of Tiristaran and is currently exhibited at the Museo del Estado in Morelia. The geometric urban grid of Teotihuacan with a distinct elite center and surrounding apartment compounds is another architectural element of the city (Pasztory 1978a:7, Chase 1993:142). The preference for abstract and geometric forms may also be attributed to Teotihuacan. At the site of Chingu near Tula, the presence of apartment compounds is strikingly similar to those of Teotihuacan. The additional evidence of a large number of Teotihuacan figurines led Diaz (1981:109) to posit a Teotihuacan conquest of the region.

The distribution of Thin Orange ware includes the Esperanza tombs in Kaminaljuyu, Copán, Monte Albán (tombs IIIIIA), Tehuacán (Puebla, Palo Blanco phase), Chiapas, and Colima, Jalisco (Teuchitlán Tradition) and Michoacán in West Mexico (Bucio et al. 2001). From the Fig. 3.3b: Old God effigy availability of data for vessel (46 x 30.5 cm) West Mexico, the evidence for Thin Orange ceramics is more abundant in the state of Michoacán than in Colima, which is farther to the West. At the site of Ahualulco, Jalisco, Thin Orange sherds were found in the core of the central or circular pyramid of the A court, and appeared on the floors that divided the Ahualulco phase 200-400 CE from the Teuchitlán I phase 400-700 CE (Weigand 1992:228). The intriguing dog effigy Thin Orange vessels at Teotihuacan are indicative of some sort of relationships between West Mexico and Teotihuacan, because dogs have been associated with tombs and burials in the former area (Berrin and Pasztory 1993:266). Rattray’s research (1990:184) demonstrates that the source of Thin Orange orange ware lies outside Teotihuacan, in the Rio Carneiro region in the State of Puebla: ‘Both petrographic and neutron activation analysis have established a core-group composition so uniform that a single centre of production

CERAMICS According to Séjourné (1966:140) ‘The forms that characterize Teotihuacan are infinite and what we shall learn from them is just an approximation.’ My research at the sherd library of Teotihuacan validates the above statement. Nevertheless, despite the high variation among types, there are norms that dominate both forms and decoration. The high variation in ceramic forms may be regarded as a result of blending distinct techniques and motifs. As regards the presence of Teotihuacan abroad, some vessels are more likely to occur: flat-bottomed bowls, flat-bottomed jars, flat-bottomed cylindrical bowls, candeleros, floreros, decoration ‘al pastillaje’, and the use of molds (Paddock 1972:228-9). It is easy to appreciate that some of the above categories, such as flatbottomed bowls and flat-bottomed jars, are too vague to be conceived of as typical Teotihuacan. Notwithstanding, the ceramic types cited below do constitute characteristic Teotihuacan elements inasmuch as Teotihuacan is considered the center of manufacture and/or distribution. 21

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

the introduction of talud-tablero articulation in architecture which similarly serves to divide platforms into a support, the talud, and a supported segment, the

was hypothesized.’ Other possible clay sources are in the northeast of Toliman, in the State of Querétaro to the north of the State of Hidalgo; but closer to Teotihuacan are those in south of the States of Michoacán, Guerrero and Puebla (Rattray 1981:67). It is still uncertain, however, whether some of the vessels were produced at Teotihuacan as well. It can be postulated that there was a combination of both processes, i.e., it was manufactured in both the Rio Carneiro region in the State of Puebla, and at Teotihuacan, since 200 grams of clay were found near the Palace of Zone V-A at Teotihuacan (Muller 1978:192). Additionally, the form of the vessels encountered at Teotihuacan along with the clay is typical of Teotihuacan (Rattray 1988:249). Whether Thin Orange was produced by Teotihuacan artisans or not, it was abundantly used in Teotihuacan. It was a ware commissioned by the Teotihuacan elite as seen from the highly ritual imagery of some of the wares and it was the major ceramic type exported to areas outside the Metropolis. The fact that Teotihuacan was monopolizing access to the clay sources and therefore the production Fig. 3.3c: fragment of effigy of Thin Orange ceramics vessel, Tres Cerritos might account for the Michoacan presence of local imitations encountered at some sites. A number of local fine paste sherds recovered at Acapulco in the State of Guerrero imitate the form of the small hemispherical bowl with low annular base which is the most characteristic form of the Thin Orange ware (Ekholm 1947:100).

Fig. 3.4: Cylindrical tripod vessel: a. Teotihuacan (18cm); b. Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacán

tablero. In both cases, the upper part seems to “float”.’ Floreros Another distinct class of objects are the floreros (flower pots). A florero is a bowl-shaped vessel with a tall neck and flat flaring rim, characteristic of the Miccaotli (150200 CE) and Early Tlamimilolpa (200-250 CE) phases (Pasztory 1997:154). Since the earliest ones were found at the site of Atzcapotzalco, it is assumed that they were introduced from that area. At Teotihuacan floreros occur until the Xolalpan (400-650 CE) phase. Storm God vessels The Storm God vessel (a jar with features of the Storm God) is generally accepted as a trademark of Teotihuacan. It is a vessel that appears throughout a large time span, i.e. after the decline of Teotihuacan (Séjourné 1966:95).

After the collapse of the City, Thin Orange ceramics were never made again. It is thus a marker of the culture and aesthetic of Teotihuacan (Pasztory 1997:153). Additionally, the dates of its disappearance from West Mexico coincide with those from Teotihuacan, therefore it lasted as long as Teotihuacan was the major urban centre in Central Mexico (see Brambila 1988:221-223).

Hour-glass shaped incense burners A highly distinct type of the Teotihuacan ceramic tradition is the hour-glass incense burner (fig. 3.5). Its form consists of an hour-glass shaped vessel, a conical lid and a chimney or long tube. It is decorated with a number of adornos (ornaments) and a clay mask which is the central point of the vessel (Berlo 1984:27). A large number of incense burners was recovered from the Escuintla region in Guatemala, but they are stylistically different from those of Teotihuacan (Berrin and Pasztory 1993:272). Along with Thin Orange ceramics, incense burners of this form and style also disappear after the collapse of Teotihuacan (Cowgill 1996:329).

Cylindrical tripod bowl The cylindrical tripod bowl is another typical ceramic form, especially those that bear stuccoed and painted decoration (fig. 3.4). The form itself may have originated in Veracruz as indicated by the lustrous finish, the elaborate supports and designs including Tajinesque scrolls (Rattray 1977a, Berrin and Pasztory 1993:256, Pasztory 1997:159) but the best examples are those from Teotihuacan, Tikal and Uaxactun. They occur with or without lids and Pasztory (1997:156) makes an intriguing observation as far as the feet of these vessels are concerned: ‘Interestingly, its appearance coincides with 22

Research Design

pottery, the thin stucco surface dries during painting (cf. Berrin and Pasztory 1993:252). According to Séjourné (1966:78-79), the best examples of stuccoed vessels are those encountered in Teotihuacan, with the exception of those recovered from Maya sites such as Uaxactun and Tikal, which were nonetheless linked to Teotihuacan. There is disagreement whether the Teotihuacan stuccoed vessels were painted by the same artists that executed the murals. For Pasztory (1997:192) this is undeniable, and the only question seems to be that of precedence. Holien (1977:174), however, who has extensively studied the stuccoed and relevant decoration techniques argues that the technique of the stuccoed vessels is not associated with that of the murals. Other authors even suggest that the stuccoed technique originated in West Mexico and spread to Teotihuacan (Covarrubias 1967:96). Symbolic system and motifs The Teotihuacan symbolic system was manifested in a number of naturalistic and abstract motifs. In the former, there are elements from the flora and fauna universe executed in a rather naturalistic manner which is characteristic of the style of the Teotihuacan artisans. Some conventions include the frontal representation of deities, which is a distinct Teotihuacan element and it contrasts with the previous trend of representing both deities and human figures in profile (Pasztory 1978b:117).

Fig. 3.5: Theater-type censer, Teotihuacan (72 x 39 cm)

Candeleros There are other forms as well that occur with high frequencies in the City but are rare in other regions. One such form is the candelero (candle vessel); a vessel of irregular rectangular form with two cavities. Its decoration consists of modelling, scraping, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic motifs (Noguera 1965:122). The term, however, is erroneous since thus far there is no agreement upon the function of these objects. Some authors postulate they are either miniature incense burners or containers to collect blood drawn in penitential rites (e.g., Pasztory 1997:230). Séjourné (1966:32) holds that they were incense burners since some were carbonized inside whilst others preserve traces of copal (resin of the tree of the genus Bursera used as incense).

A number of abstract motifs seem to have been hieroglyphs, but since no written language is known from Teotihuacan they are termed either ‘motifs’ or ‘glyphs’. Authors often interpret the motifs in varied ways. The motifs and/or glyphs of year-sign, speech scrolls, meanders, water drops, and human eyes are some of more than fifty that had been registered by Kubler (1967). The study of the Teotihuacan motifs addresses the issue of information exchange between Teotihuacan and areas afar (Chap. 5). It is noteworthy that some ‘glyphs’ appear with higher frequency at some sites whilst their presence is rare in others; some appear only at Monte Albán and others only in Veracruz for example (Kubler 1967:5).

Techniques of decoration In addition to the diffusion of a certain repertory of ceramic types and forms, Teotihuacan contributed to the expansion of a number of decorative techniques, such as polishing with the use of palillos (sticks) (Noguera 1965:132), and the stucco technique, which is erroneously termed ‘al fresco’ as the studies of Holien (1977) and Castillo (1968) have demonstrated (fig. 3.6). Conides (2001a) suggests that the term ‘stucco painting’ is Fig. 3.6: Teotihuacan stuccoed and painted preferable to describe this vessel (15 x 16.3 cm) pottery, because the ‘al fresco’ describes the murals. On

LITHICS, GROUND STONE AND OBSIDIAN Stone masks One of the most typical class of Teotihuacan artifacts are the stone masks (fig. 3.7). Many are life-sized, manufactured in a variety of stones such as black limestone, jadeite, onyx marble and serpentine. Although some authors postulate that stone masks were not made to be exported outside Teotihuacan (e.g., Berrin 1993:77-85, Pasztory 1997), some have been recovered in the state of Michoacán, at the sites of Tiristaran, Tres Cerritos and Loma Alta, a fact that proves that they were traded or their style was exported. Despite the hypothesized ritual significance ascribed to them, none has been found within burial or other ritual contexts in Teotihuacan. 23

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

God, the Old God, and the Feathered Serpent. A number of such sculptures have been recovered in the north of the State of Michoacán and were locally made. 3.3.3

a

Teotihuacan abroad: Methodological underpinnings

The adoption of a specific corpus of motifs and/or symbols by different areas was a conscious process of eclecticism stimulated by a number of economic, political and ideological factors. The corpus of Teotihuacanrelated artefacts is considerably different among a varied number of polities that were interacting with Teotihuacan. Therefore, all evidence must be seen in context. It is not possible to understand contacts fully between West Mexico and Teotihuacan without considering other areas of the Teotihuacan exchange network, such as the Maya Lowlands and Oaxaca for example, since I hypothesize that the role of Teotihuacan was highly varied. The examination of Teotihuacan evidence in a number of different areas may reveal similarities and/or differences as regards the interactional process that characterizes the Cuitzeo Basin sites and Teotihuacan.

b

Fig. 3.7: Teotihuacan stone masks: a.Teotihuacan; b. Museo Regional, Morelia, Michoacan (granitic stone, 15.7 x 13.2cm )

Nevertheless at the site of Tres Cerritos, Michoacán, a green stone mask was deposited as a burial offering within a tomb (Macías Goytia 1997). Paradis holds that the Teotihuacan masks were made by Mezcala craft workers in Guerrero and then traded to Teotihuacan, and that some of these workers might have also worked in Teotihuacan (cited in Millon 1988:132, see also Covarrubias 1966:110-111). Green obsidian

Additionally, it is not always correct to assume that the larger the number of shared stylistic elements, the more intense the relationship, since ‘relationship between interaction intensity and stylistic similarity has been assumed rather than demonstrated’ (Plog 1976:255). Interaction intensity may be also determined by the decision of local actors not to adopt stylistic elements but participate nevertheless in a given exchange network. Bearing this limitation in mind, it is necessary to investigate appropriate methods for the demonstration of possible interaction units. As far as the analysis and distribution of Teotihuacan style is concerned, the following issues will be considered (not in order of importance necessarily): a) qualitative differentiation in the archaeological record, b) the significance of the Teotihuacan-related artifacts in areas beyond the Metropolis, c) the definition of Teotihuacan ideology, and d) directionality of influences.

Green obsidian prismatic blades from the Cerro de las Navajas source near Pachuca, in the State of Hidalgo, is equally important to Thin Orange as an exported item from Teotihuacan (fig. 3.8). It was worked into knives

Fig. 3.8: Green obsidian prismatic blades, Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacan (length 6-15 cm)

QUALITATIVE DIFFERENTIATION IN THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD

and scrapers, projectile points, mirrors, nose- and earplugs, masks, human and fantastic animal forms (Cook de Leonard 1971:212). In the State of Michoacán, however, artifacts made of green obsidian include only prismatic blades and beads both from excavations and surface collections (de Vega et al. 1982, Pulido et al. 1995, Macías Goytia 1997). Green obsidian was associated with ceremonial activity and trade at Teotihuacan; its industry involved 12% of the total population (Blanton et al. 1981:140).

At the site of Matacapan, Veracruz, there is a large number of Teotihuacan figurines whereas in another Teotihuacan affiliated site, Kaminaljuyu, they are virtually absent (Santley 1994). At the Cuitzeo Basin sites, the repertory of Teotihuacan artifacts is limited and differs from that of other Mesoamerican sites. It seems that the diverse Mesoamerican local elites were very selective in their choice of the Teotihuacan-related symbols, choosing those that would best suit their interests and capabilities. Each relationship seems to have been special with distinct meanings and associations. At this point the issue of selection must be addressed and it is appropriate to investigate the emulation mechanisms that were involved. The

Stone sculptures Also related to Teotihuacan are stone sculptures that depict certain deities and/or symbolic forms associated with the Teotihuacan ideational sphere such as the Storm 24

Research Design

examination of selection mechanisms that account for differences in the archaeological record must be viewed in a Pan-Mesoamerican perspective, which I consider the effective scale of analysis since it allows for the resolution of cultural patterns and associated meanings (Marquardt 1992:107). In order to observe this differentiation, the evidence of the Cuitzeo Basin sites will be considered along with evidence from other sites of the Teotihuacan outer periphery, such as Tikal, Matacapan and Monte Albán, among others.

exchange theory. Kubler (1967:12), examining relations between Monte Albán and Teotihuacan, posits that the relationship was close but the direction of influence is still undetermined, since only burial offerings and murals are involved. Michelet (1990:288), writing about the presence of Teotihuacan at the site of Zacapu, Michoacán, speculates that the Teotihuacan influences might have arrived via the El Bajío region in Guanajuato instead of a less economical southern route via the Teotihuacan-related site of Tinganio. This seems true for the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, which display many ceramic similarities with the El Bajío region. Before considering the manifestation of the Teotihuacan style in Michoacán it is important to examine the local ceramic tradition and how the cultural homogeneity of the region around the Lake Cuitzeo was established.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE TEOTIHUACAN-RELATED ARTIFACTS

Why do certain classes of artefacts occur only at some sites? For example, the Teotihuacan masks, which have not been reported for major Teotihuacan-related sites such as Tikal or Kaminaljuyu, have been found in Michoacán, a relatively marginal area, at the sites of Tiristaran, Tres Cerritos and Loma Alta. The observed variations in symbolic associations over space must reflect conscious decisions of exchange and emulation. Objects in any cultural context can only be defined as nodes in a dynamic social-cognitive system and it is precisely the system that often defines the meaning of artifacts (Donald 1998:185). Too, the distinction between prestige and utilitarian goods is not always clear, for goods acquire meaning in different contexts. For example the large quantity of Teotihuacan candeleros and figurines which have been found in agricultural fields near Teotihuacan occur in very low frequencies at other sites. From the broad array of sites interacting with Teotihuacan, only Matacapan, in the Gulf Coast presents a large inventory of figurines and candeleros. Therefore, many authors have designated the site as a Teotihuacan enclave established by Teotihuacanos in order to secure trade routes in the area (Millon 1988, Santley 1994, see sec. 6.3.2).

3.4

Strategy

3.4.1

Compilation of dataset

In the archaeological literature of West Mexico little is known about the Classic period material culture of the State of Michoacán. Michoacán is known archaeologically as the seat of the Postclassic Tarascan Empire (ca. 1350-1520 CE), whereas information regarding previous periods such as the Formative and the Classic is still a sort of ‘chaotic archaeological puzzle’ resulting in the isolation of Michoacán from events in other parts of Mesoamerica (Covarrubias 1966:94-95, Arnauld et al. 1993:13). No study has yet focussed on the systematization of the disparate ceramic and other material which has been recovered during the last twenty years in the Cuitzeo Basin and which is currently held at either museums and/or in private collections. In response to this lack of research, I carried out a ceramic and iconographic analysis aimed at defining the characteristic ceramic types of the Classic period and how Teotihuacan presence is manifested in the area. This is a first step towards clarifying the local ceramic tradition and understanding processes of adoption and emulation of non-local elements.

TEOTIHUACAN IDEOLOGY Ideology can be conceived of as a coherent system consisting of specific ideas and strategies that aim at maintaining or changing the societal order –that is, ‘political ideas in action’ (Carneiro 1992:176). The occurrence of specific Teotihuacan motifs on ceramics and monumental sculptures such as Maya stelae indicates that a certain kind of ideological interaction was taking place between Teotihuacan and other Mesoamerican sites. Notwithstanding, it is erroneous to ascribe a priori meaning to items dispersed throughout such a vast area as the Teotihuacan exchange network. Moreover, since Teotihuacan symbols, either glyphs or deities, appear long after the decline (for example the Teotihuacan Storm God precedes the Aztec Tlaloc), we must take into consideration the possible transformations of cultural meanings, however difficult that might seem.

Analysis of the ceramic evidence involved the detailed examination of all data available for the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin that have been reported by means of publications and excavation reports, and the quantification of ceramics from my fieldwork. In the north of Lake Cuitzeo, Macías Goytia excavated the sites of Huandacareo and Tres Cerritos and the outcomes were published in 1990 and 1997 respectively. She provides a detailed account, i.e. an inventory of all the material recovered, but no absolute counts for ceramic artifacts. Additional data for both sites are provided in the field reports (Technical Archive of the Archaeology Council, Mexico City).

DIRECTIONALITY OF INFLUENCES

On the outskirts of the town of Morelia, capital of the State of Michoacán, is the site of Loma Santa Maria, which was excavated in 1981. The material evidence for this site is, to a great extent, similar to that of the other

It is true that the determination of directionality of influences constitutes one of the most significant facets of 25

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

groups that have already been defined elsewhere (see Rice 1987:275). These broad groups were subsequently divided into distinct units conceived as potential ceramic types. The identification of each type was based on the available literature, but critically. Direct observation and hands-on analysis of distinct types created a corpus of information regarding forms and surface treatment along with a list of motifs for each type.

sites under study. The usefulness of the Loma Santa Maria report lies in the fact that a detailed analysis of the ceramic artifacts was undertaken by Rubén Manzanilla (1984), and it constitutes at present the best reference text for the Classic period ceramics for the north of Michoacán. Moguel Cos conducted a survey in the Cuitzeo Basin in 1987 and along with a descriptive ceramic analysis she provides counts per type for the whole region, which includes 143 sites. My analysis is partly drawn from the aforementioned sources.

A significant proportion of the decorative elements take the form of iconographic motifs. A different level of analysis involved the focus on iconography (Chap. 5). Motifs are divided into groups such as geometric, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic but the interpetation was limited to archaeological data. By this I mean that I minimized interpretations based on ethnographic data. I wish to avoid the methodological pitfall of unsupported and/or unsystematic ethnographic analogy that dominates archaeological research in Mexico. As Kubler (1981:21) posits: ‘To use Sahagún to explain the oldest Mexican urban societies is as unprofitable as to try to explain ancient Egypt by the Muslim historians.’

I compiled a corpus of information from the study of a number of museum and private collections. Needless to say, both museum and private collections are biased in that they are highly selective. A typical class of ceramics virtually absent from both museum and private collections is that of utilitarian monochrome wares. This includes monochrome jars, bowls and plates, the attributes of which do not appeal to collectors. The value of private collections consists in information potentially derived from polychrome vessels, monochrome anthropomorphic and/or zoomorphic vessels, miniature vessels and figurines. Unfortunately, provenance is secure only inasmuch as the information communicated by the owner is reliable. In order to assess the degree of reliability of this sort of information, I decided to conduct surface collections at or near sites where the vessels were illegally excavated.

Quantification Since quantification requires sound methodological precision, I was concerned with the suitability of my database. For this reason, quantification targeted two sets of data only: data from field reports and those from my surface collections. The quantification of ceramic data would ideally aim to compare local versus imported elements in order to answer the critical question as regards the degree (intensity) of interaction between Teotihuacan and the Cuitzeo Basin. In order to answer this question a strictly controlled dataset is required for the region, and as explained below (sec. 3.4.4) this control was not possible. However, it was possible to determine whether there was local manufacture of Teotihuacan ceramics. PIXE (Proton-Induced X-Ray Emission) and XRD (X-Ray Diffraction) analyses were conducted on a suite of samples at the Institute of Physics of the National Autonomous Univeristy of Mexico by José Luis Ruvalcaba Sil, Lauro Bucio, and the author. The analyses proved that imitations of imported vessels did occur, but the extent to which this occurred could not be established because the ceramic sampling was selective and does not represent the complete site inventory.

Needless to say, it is difficult to establish chronological sequences from surface sherds alone because I must rely on already established types. What became evident was that the information I recorded regarding forms, motifs etc. proved analogous to data reported for the excavated sites of Huandacareo, Tres Cerritos and Loma Santa Maria. An additional reason that prompted my decision to conduct surface collections was the assumption that any distribution study requires the examination of large collections from an extensive area. My dataset therefore includes several classes of material: archaeological publications, unpublished field reports and theses, artifacts from museum and private collections, and my surface collections (Appendix I). 3.4.2

Method of Analysis

Data analysis is simply a search for patterning (Sinopoli 1991:65). The patterning in the present case is the definition of the nature of interaction between the urban centre of Teotihuacan and the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán. Therefore, it must be stressed that this study does not adopt a ceramocentric perspective, and the ceramic typology presents initial ceramic units with the primary purpose of understanding the nature of interaction with Teotihuacan, and how interaction affected local material production. Hence, the results of my ceramic analysis and interpretation are intended to provide information on my research aim, which is the explication of contacts between Teotihuacan and Michoacán.

In order to account for, if not overcome, the analytical limitations, I sought additionally to emphasize the way in which different classes of vessels are related. Relevant to this is the examination of the contextual evidence—the deposits or locations from which ceramics were recovered—which explains how ceramic types are related to other classes of artifacts within specific contexts. By providing evidence that similar artefacts occur together in similar contexts at a given number of sites, a pattern can be demonstrated, and the contemporaneity and degree of relatedness of the sites under study is proposed.

My first analytical step involved identifying major ceramic groups based on what is known about local ceramic tradition and non-local elements. I aimed at categorizing previously unknown types and identifying 26

Research Design

3.4.3

3.4.4

Aims of Ceramic Analysis

Analytical limitations

Literature review combined with laboratory work at the Regional and State Museums in Morelia, Michoacán and Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán determined the following problems as far as the analysis of the ceramic material is concerned:

A limited number of archaeological projects in the north of the State of Michoacán during the last decade focussed on the excavation of a handful sites, but there has been no attempt to identify discrete cultural traditions (De Vega et al. 1982, Moguel Cos 1987, Macías Goytia 1990, Pulido et al. 1996, Macías Goytia 1997). The vast majority of the archaeological material, kept mostly in museums and private collections, has not been published, and archaeological projects have not been problemoriented. Additionally, the archaelogy of Michoacán is heavily affected by looting. The Regional branch of the National Institute of Anthropology, with a staff of four archaeologists only, is of course unable to control looting in a State of more than 1,500 archaeological sites. The inclusion of illegally excavated material is inevitable in the present study but it is solely used for purposes of iconographic analysis. My study therefore aims at creating a corpus of information regarding the yet largely unknown culture of the North of the State of Michoacán within the limits of the Cuitzeo Basin.

CONFUSION IN CHRONOLOGICAL AND TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CERAMIC EVIDENCE. According to Kelly (1947b:29) ‘In Western Mexico it generally is true that the bulk of archaeological data is ceramic and that any chronology is based almost exclusively upon successive change in pottery style.’ The above statement is reflected in the archaeology of Michoacán as well, where the sites have been ascribed a Classic period chronology by means of relative ceramic dating not of the local but the foreign ceramics. At the site of Santa Maria, within the limits of the city of Morelia, Michoacán, ceramics related to Teotihuacan are used as ‘diagnostic’ features, and the local production, which is expectedly abundant, is described as ‘associated’.4 Certainly, in archaeological studies there is a remarkable tendency to accept categories that have been previously established but the uncritical use of these categories, especially cross-dating from region to region, can be problematic (Cowgill 1989:132). West Mexican ceramic assemblages must be dated with materials from West Mexico as Monte Albán should be dated with materials from Monte Albán, and Teotihuacan with materials from Teotihuacan (Paddock 1983a:170). Chronologies provide the framework for the identification of ceramic cultures or horizons, and for many archaeologists, sherds may be used as time indicators. It is regrettable that, to date, the borrowing of the central Mexican scheme provides the principal ceramic framework for Michoacán. A systematic ceramic chronology based on local criteria does not yet exist.

Analysis and interpretation of the ceramic evidence is aimed, first, at the identification of the classes of local ceramics characteristic of the Classic period (250-650 CE), in order to distinguish between local and non-local vessels. My intent is to document systematically both local and non-local ceramic traditions with an emphasis on evaluating the cultural context of foreign elements of style and production. However, ceramic data alone do not suffice in order to determine the role of the Cuitzeo Basin sites in the Teotihuacan world-system. Other variables, such as the role of the obsidian mines of Zinapécuaro and Ucareo, Michoacán are important and will be discussed as well. The value of ceramic analysis is that it can provide information reflecting aspects of societal change on distinct levels such as changes in ritual, dietary habits, cooking customs, production techniques, exchange and so forth. Changes in ceramic patterns are often assumed to reflect changes in other aspects of societal life (Shepard 1956:350).

SOURCE OF TEOTIHUACAN MATERIALS Excavation reports indicate that archaeologists take it for granted that Teotihuacan ceramics came directly to Michoacán from Teotihuacan and do not suggest any possible alternatives routes. As a consequence, because these particular types are known to have been made in the Classic period (250-650 CE) in Central Mexico, they are ascribed a similar date in Michoacán without considering a later date, such as the Epiclassic period (650-900 CE) when Teotihuacan elements do also appear at a considerable number of sites in Mexico. For example, Teotihuacan ceramics are present at the site of Tula in the State of Hidalgo, and there are indications that this region was possibly interacting with northern Michoacán (e.g., Healan 1999). It is possible that Teotihuacan artifacts

By means of identification of local types and the analysis of stylistic, iconographic and functional elements it is possible to distinguish the relative degree of cultural homogeneity among sites. A second aim, after the distinction between local and non-local ceramics, is the qualitative and quantitative evaluation of Teotihuacan ceramics in the region in particular. By Teotihuacan ceramics is meant a corpus of ceramic types both the material and conceptual origin of which are attributed to Teotihuacan. Therefore I examine the kinds of Teotihuacan types that are present and their proportion in relation to local ceramic production. I also test the hypothesis that the number of sites where Teotihuacan (both imported and locally made) ceramics are present is very limited compared to the total number of sites of the Classic period. This permits inferences about the degree of penetration of Teotihuacan into northern Michoacán.

4

‘A description based on stratigraphic layers of all the material that has been previously identified in other prehispanic communities . . . we call them DIAGNOSTIC [sic] and they are principally Teotihuacan’ (De Vega et al 1982:83).

27

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

only in their own right but also to obtain a better understanding of inter- and intra-regional interaction in the Mesoamerican world.

reached the Cuitzeo Basin not directly from Teotihuacan but via the El Bajío zone in the States of Guanajuato and Queretaro or the Valley of Toluca in the State of Mexico, as I discuss in Chapter 7. For example Healan and Hernández (1997) suggest that the links that exist between the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin and Tula possibly reflect interactional processes between these areas and the El Bajío region.

ORIGIN OF CERAMIC TYPES There is no consensus among archaeologists on the origins of some of the Michoacán ceramic types. For instance, when similar objects are encountered in West Mexico and Teotihuacan, the origin of the objects is attributed to Teotihuacan because it is assumed ideas come from the ‘core’ and there is no evidence to refute this because of the lack of research in West Mexico that would create a reference database. My research in the north of Michoacán revealed that many types traditionally considered ‘Teotihuacan’ or ‘Puebla-Mixteca’ have in fact a West Mexican origin, and this entails the possibility that West Mexican types might have effected changes in the ceramic production of Teotihuacan as well (Chap. 4). For example, Braniff (1972) postulates that two types traditionally associated with Teotihuacan, the ring-base bowl and the copa, have their origins in West Mexico. They were at some time ‘diffused’ to Central Mexico and from there, they found their way back to West Mexico where they had originated. Too, types with a known western Mexican origin, such as red-on-white, red-on-buff, red-on-buff incised, black incised, and white-on-red are frequently attributed to Central Mexico (e.g., Pulido Mendez et al. 1996:38).

LACK OF CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION Local museums in the north of Michoacán teem with artifacts encountered at diverse sites around Lake Cuitzeo, but these museums can provide only relative provenance. In addition many archaeological projects are not completed, and data rarely published. Since looters are busier than archaeologists in this area, it is frequently wise to seek their ‘advice’ when conducting research. For example, at the site of Lomas del Valle, on the ouskirts of the modern town of Morelia, the archaeologist Lilia Trejo (nd, 2) decided to excavate following the looters’ dig. It is worth mentioning that excessive looting is typical of all West Mexico. In the States of Colima, Jalisco and Nayarit, where the highly valued (in the illegal antiquities market) shaft-tomb ceramics might be encountered, ninety five percent of the total estimated number of shaft-tombs have been destroyed by looters (Oliveros 1989:123). LACK OF QUANTIFIED DATA

An additional limitation is the fact that many of the types under analysis are unformulated; that is, there is no previous description and/or definition. Since the limited reference database for my study has been compiled by means of comparisons with ceramics that were classified in accord with the type-variety system, it seems practical at this stage to follow the established conventions (Orton, Tyers and Vince 1993:76). As a result of and in relation to the above, there is considerable confusion in the use of different terms to denote identical ceramic types, and the the study requires inevitably a hands-on analysis of the material. For the red-on-buff ware, for example, terms such as red-on-yellow, red-on-orange, red-on-cream and red-on-brown have all been used in the literature. The subjectiveness and arbitrariness in the selection of names for types is common ground in many ceramic classificatory systems. ‘Fish (1978) for example has found discrepancies in type identifications as high as 30% among archaeologists trained at one university by a single individual. It is questionable whether or not reliable information on stylistic distributions across broad areas can be extracted from such reports’ (Plog 1983:136). In order to foster interanalyst communication, a sound nomenclature based on agreed traits must be established.

During January 1999, I planned laboratory work at Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán, to classify and especially quantify the total number of ceramics of the ceremonial precinct of the site of Santa Maria, (see Manzanilla 1984 for an analysis of other classes of ceramics for the same site). For this reason, special record forms were prepared that would include such information as context number, type, size, and so forth. Unfortunately, this was not possible because the majority of sherds was not marked and, moreover, there were only a few labels in approximately ninety bags of sherds. For example, Box no. XV read “Loma Santa Maria 3, Burial no 13” and it contained the largest quantity of obsidian debris and blades and a profusion of vessel feet that certainly belonged to different contexts. It was possible however, to obtain qualitative information regarding types and to create a corpus of iconographic elements of polychrome painted wares. All the above problems reflect the lack of systematic research in the Cuitzeo Basin, as a result of the limited interest by the archaeological community in the region. This, in combination with meagre government funds for research in West Mexico, makes the study of the archaeology of the region an especially arduous task regarding not only the realization of archaeological projects, but also access to museum collections and excavation reports. Additionally, there has been no contextualization of the available information or integration on a regional level. Thus, we really know very little for the Classic period in the Cuitzeo Basin, and the hypothesized local cultures merit greater attention not

3.4.5

Classificatory scheme

According to Whallon (1972:13) ‘anyone who would write on typology in archaeology must either be presumptuous or have some concrete new material to present.’ The present study is meant to fall into the latter category. As far as the selection of the classificatory system is concerned, I follow the general guidelines of 28

Research Design

names for the same ceramic type. Once a type is published, few would question its validity (Whittaker et al. 1998:132). Nevertheless, some authors are more cautious, such as Manzanilla (1984) and Macías Goytia (1990, 1997).Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, the popularity of the type-variety scheme among researchers indicates that it is a particularly useful tool. The most important advantage is that the identification of specific features of apparently different ceramic types allows their incorporation into the same ceramic group. For example, the Cuitzeo Basin types of red-on-buff, red-on-buff with negative and white-on-red belong to same ceramic group for a number of shared elements. By showing similarities among different types it is even possible to make inferences regarding the ethnic affiliation of the potters (Chap. 4). Additionally, the nomenclature of the system permits a convenient comparison among ceramic assemblages from distinct areas.

the type-variety system. The type-variety scheme originated from studies in the Southwest United States (see Wheat, Gifford and Wasley 1958, and Phillips 1958 for the eastern United States). It is a hierarchical scheme based on surface (usually) similarities that constitute types and generates varieties based on established types. Therefore a single type may include different varieties, which are related by the shared similarities that constitute the type. This scheme prevails in the archaeology of Mesoamerica since it is considered the best way to describe ceramics (Hill and Evans 1972:238-239). Although the type-variety scheme attempts to create a regional framework for ceramic description (Sinopoli 1991:53), limitations of the type-variety system have been emphasized. First, paste composition and surface treatment are combined into a single level despite the fact that they pertain to distinct production sub-systems (Rice 1976:539). Second, type-variety does not take into account the reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire that was followed by the potter (Van der Leuuw 1997:11). In addition, the type-variety scheme overemphasizes the study of objects and neglects the role of the cultures that produced them either on a local or regional level, and people or ‘cultures’ become labels for artifacts (Conkey 1989:119).

I follow the general rules of the type-variety system as regards examination of local ceramic production, although my analysis does not actually name types but instead focuses on descriptions of attributes within the category of potential types or groups. Sometimes I use the term ‘ware’ in its old, non type-variety sense of a general grouping of like vessels. This leaves room for the actual naming of types, groups, and wares when more information becomes available through future work.

Archaeologists working in the north of Michoacán follow the type-variety system but it is flawed because there is sometimes no consensus regarsding the designation of names for similar types. It is possible to find different

29

CHAPTER 4 THE CUITZEO BASIN CERAMIC COMPLEX: 250-650 CE

4.1

Ceramic complex

antecedents:

the

According to Braniff the Morales phase is followed by the San Miguel phase, which coincides more or less with the Early Classic. This phase is of importance because many of the sherds of the red-on-buff ware (the highest percentage in all sites in the Cuitzeo Basin) pertain to this phase. However, Braniff (199:23) does not consider the San Miguel phase a direct derivation from the previous Morales phase and therefore suggests that its antecedents occur in some other area.

Chupícuaro

During the construction of the highway between Mexico City and Guadalajara, rescue excavations took place in the south of Lake Cuitzeo, and 127 sites were recorded (Pulido Mendez et al. 1996:37). The earliest ceramic traits belong to the Formative period (800 BCE-300 CE) and inclusive are Chupícuaro types of acanalado (fluting) early red, and red-on-buff, and types from the Basin of Mexico, such as those from the Formative sites of Ticoman and Cuicuilco.

4.2

Establishing the present typology

The present typology was established by means of comparisons with material from excavated sites and direct observation. The sources used principally as regards the ceramic production of the Classic period include: the reports of Macías Goytia for the sites of Huandacareo (1989) and Tres Cerritos (1997), which are located in the northern section of the Basin; the site of Santa Maria (De Vega et al. 1981 and Manzanilla 1984) in the town of Morelia; the report of Moguel Cos for the Cuitzeo Basin (1987) and the reports of Pulido et al. (1996) for the southern section of the Lake. Some of the aforementioned references present a number of weaknesses. For example, in the thesis of the site of Tres Cerritos, north of the Cuitzeo Basin, some contradictions are observable. On p.279 it is stated that the decoration by means of incisions occurs on light brown vessels only, but on page 312 the author cites a black incised bowl recovered from the north plaza, Burial 21 (cat.no 562). Also, for the presence of stuccoed ware at the site, on p.282 it is asserted that ‘. . . although no complete vessels have been recovered . . .’ later, on pp 305-306, four complete vessels of this type are documented (Macías Goytia 1997, emphasis added).

The site known as Chupícuaro is actually below the Solis Dam in the State of Guanajuato. The dam was constructed in 1949. Before that date, a series of excavations took place and approximately 400 burials were unearthed. Some traits that are present in Chupícuaro occur in sites of the Mexican Highlands during the same period, such as the pedestal base, red-onbuff and polychrome decoration, ceramic earplugs and H4 figurines (Porter Weaver 1969:8). Remnants of the Chupícuaro culture continued during the Early Classic period; some sherds of this culture had been recovered from stratigraphic layers corresponding to the same period, i.e. the Early Classic (300-500 CE), at the sites of Santa Maria, Araró and El Pedrillo. Pulido et al. (1996:37) report fragments of Chupícuaro figurines associated with the Classic period site M-14 at San Juan Tararameo in Cuitzeo, implying that the Chupícuaro tradition was extended until that period. Healan (1991b:3) also reports for the site of Araró various polychrome types similar to the Chupícuaro complex of the Late Preclassic. During the Early Classic period, a transformation in ceramic production bears vague resemblances to the previous tradition, that of Chupícuaro. Until recently this Early Classic ceramic tradition was unknown and it was often considered ‘Chupícuaro’ due to similarities regarding forms and motifs. Braniff (1999), however, demonstrates that this phase is different and follows Chupícuaro and designates the phase as Morales, after the site Morales in the State of Guanajuato. The Morales phase undoubtedly originated in the Chupícuaro tradition since both forms and motifs bear certain similarities (Braniff 1999:15). The Morales phase is thinly represented in the Cuitzeo Basin. During my fieldwork, five complete vessels and ten sherds were documented.

It should be mentioned that my typology includes ‘functional’ nomenclature without implying use; the real use of floreros (flower-pots) for example, is still unkown, but the designation is widespread and accepted. As for surface collections, forms are based on rims, base and body sherds. This implies also that some rim sherds could represent either jars or bowls, for instance, when there is no other information on the form of the vessel. In order to avoid discrepancies among colors, I followed Macías’ (1997:279) classification, which is based on the Munsell soil color chart: light brown [reddish brown (5YR 5/3) and light brown (7.5 YR 6/4)], dark brown [very dark gray (5YR3/1) and dark brown (7.5 YR 3/2)], polished red [red (10R 4/6) and red ( 2.5 YR 4/6 )], painted red [same as polished red], orange [reddish yellow (5YR 6/8) and yellow red (5YR 5/8) whereas average thickness of walls is defined as thin (2-5mm) and thick (6-12mm). Paste texture is based on direct observation and not microscopic examination. For this reason texture measurements below are only approximations or ‘apparent texture’ (e.g., Shepard 1956:119) based on Wentworth’s (1933) grade scale

Regarding the number of sites for the Early Classic, Pulido et al. (1996:80-82) registered thirty two sites and Moguel Cos (1987:29-34) forty four. A rather sudden change occurred during the middle and Late Classic periods, since there is a large increase in the number of sites, and the ceramic production of these periods is characterized by a considerable variety both in local and imported ceramics.

30

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

community surrounding the major site of Santa Maria since the evidence regarding architecture, burials and implements is similar (De Vega et al. 1982:236). Macías Goytia (1977), who also excavated at La Terla, reports (Table 4.1) the following ceramic types: Monochromes: a) Brown (polished, dark, polished dark, reddish and polished reddish), b) cream (polished and thick polished),c) orange (plain and polished), and d) red (dark and polished dark) and Polychromes: a) orange on cream (plain, polished and with negative decoration).

[diam. in mm]; Fine (1/4–1/8), medium or regular (1/2– 1/4), coarse or irregular (1–1/2). 4.3

Local Ceramics

Within the local ceramic tradition, utilitarian monochrome pottery is especially problematic. The fact that undecorated monochromes appear throughout Mesoamerica over a large time span combined with the lack of a comprehensive analysis of types and wares makes any classificatory attempt difficult. It is lamentable that exchange studies are more concerned with the examination of elite goods whereas locally produced coarse pottery does not receive proper attention (e.g., Rice 1987:197). Although the largest number of sherds collected during fieldwork comprises monochromes, more excavations need to be carried out to provide the necessary contextual information in order to assign them to a specific chronological phase. Nevertheless, the variables related to monochrome vessels (such as highest frequency of occurrence within the total ceramic population) suggest a local origin, although this remains to be established by paste analysis. My relative chronology of monochromes is based on contextual data reported for excavated sites.

During the examination of the sherds from this site, which are currently stored at the Local Museum of Tzintzuntzan, I observed that the counts presented in the above table (adapted from Macías 1977) refer to total number of sherds (i.e. rims, body and base sherds but no complete vessels) and some conclusions can be drawn regarding monochrome production. Orange monochrome is by far the most popular with a total count of 189 sherds whereas black monochrome presents only seven sherds. The latter is especially significant, because the same pattern occurs in other sites, such as Santa Maria and Alvaro Obregón. 4.3.1

Monochrome pottery

From the repertory of monochromes I date the following types to the Classic Period: polished red, light brown incised, and black (polished black and black incised). Plain red Color: red 10R 4/6-2.5 YR 4/6 Apparent texture: fine to irregular Surface treatment: slipped, polished Range of rim diameter: 10-25cms Wall thickness: 4-5mm

a

b

c

d

e

f

The red pottery of the Classic period Cuitzeo Basin, is, as a rule, well polished. The most typical form is the cylindrical bowl with a right angle or slightly obtuse basal junction, and it is rarely equipped with supports (Rattray 1966:125). The forms comprise bowls with vertical walls and jars. Polished red pottery has been recovered from the sites of Huandacareo (Macías 1990:54) Tres Cerritos (Macías 1997:306-310), Santa Maria, and in pit 36 of La Terla. De Vega et al. (1982:223) suggest that the manufacture of thin and brush-painted red is local and prior to the Teotihuacan elements (they were recovered from phase III, with no association to Teotihuacan material). However, brushpainted red ceramics are associated with Teotihuacan material, confirming their contemporaneity and their importance. During surface collections no samples of brush-painted red pottery were recovered.

g

Fig. 4.1: Rim profiles for local monochrome utilitarian ceramics, La Terla, Michoacan: a. light brown apaxtles (basins); b. black burnished bowl; c., e. brown bowls; d. orange bowl; f. light brown jar and g. burnished orange bowl (vessel interior to right)

Monochromes include orange, black, brown, red and gray (fig.4.1). The principal forms are jars and bowls. The jar (olla) is a globular shaped vessel with rounded bottom, restricted neck and out-curved rim, whereas the bowl form (cajete) is a flaring flat-bottomed bowl. The distinction between utilitarian and ritual ceramics is not desirable at this stage since the contextual data are limited or lacking. My preliminary statement based on presently available evidence is that undecorated monochromes seem to have been mostly utilitarian.

Light brown incised Color: light brown 7.5 YR 6/4. Apparent texture: fine Surface finish: polished unslipped Range of rim diameter: 12-25cms Wall thickness: 3-5mm

Excavations at the site of La Terla, located in the vicinity of the ceremonial site of Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacán, demonstrated that the site belonged to the 31

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Table 4.1 Ceramic counts for the site of La Terla, Michoacán Monochrome Brown Cream Black Orange Polished Dark Dark pol. Reddish Reddish pol. Totals

1 1 7 11 12 32

Polished 2 Pol.thick 8

10

Polychrome Orange/cream

Red

Polished 1 Thick 6

Plain 183 Polished 6

Dark 8 Dark pol 11

7

189

19

This type is known only in the form of hemispherical bowls. Some are tripod with handle-like supports. The repertory of incised motifs includes principally geometric patterns on the outer and inner walls such as parallel lines, triangles, undulating lines and in a few instances zoomorphic motifs. Complete bowls with incised base and handle-like supports were recovered from the west chamber of Mound 3 at Tres Cerritos and they were associated with Teotihuacan material (Macías Goytia 1997:189). In Offering 1 of the same site, Polished light brown constitutes 15% of the whole assemblage while red-on-buff ceramics comprised 85% (Macías Goytia 1997:209).

Plain Polished Negative

39 4 21 64

Incised Black Color: 7.5YR 3/0 Apparent texture: irregular Surface finish: slipped, burnished and incised Range of rim diameter: 10-14cms Wall thickness: 5-6mm For the Cuitzeo Basin sites, incised black vessels were recovered both from private and surface collections in one form: that of the hemispherical bowl. In contrast with the well polished plain black vessels, the incised black is burnished i.e. the luster is irregular (e.g. Sinopoli 1991:26, Rice 1987:138). Bowls and sherds of incised black were recovered from the sites of Araró, Alvaro Obregón (fig.4.3), El Pedrillo, El Calvario, Taimeo,

Light brown incised is characteristic of the ceramic tradition of the El Bajío region (in the States of Guanajuato and Queretaro). In Guanajuato it occurs along with Teotihuacan and/or Teotihuacan-related material at the site of Santa Maria del Refugio in Guanajuato (Saint Charles Zetina 1996:148-146). In the southeastern section of the Cuitzeo Basin, no sherds of this type were recovered during surface collections. A unique sample was recovered at the site of La Baranquilla which is 500 metres to the south of the site Tres Cerritos both in the northern shore of the Lake. Since this type is virtually absent in the southern section of the Lake and highly evidenced in the north of the Basin and in the adjacent El Bajío zone, it can be postulated that its presence in Michoacán may have resulted from interaction with the El Bajío area.

Fig. 4.3: Black incised bowls, Alvaro Obregón

Chehuayo and Belissario Dominguez. All the motifs are geometric such as parallel lines, grecas and triangles. According to Pulido et al. (1995:III:19) this black incised type belongs to the Late Classic, and their typology includes bowls with flat rim and parallel walls (16cm diameter) and bowls with beveled rim and parallel walls (14-5cm diameter).

Plain Black Color: black 7.5YR 3/0 Apparent texture: fine Surface finish: slipped and polished Range of rim diameter: 8-10cms Wall thickness: 4-5mm

At the site of Tres Cerritos, Burial 24 of the north chamber yielded a type of a black bowl with incised base with parallel lines and three handle-like supports (Macías Goytia 1997:306-310). At Cerro Tenayo, a Coyotlatelco site, Rattray (1966:118-120) encountered brown-black pottery (5.5 per cent of the total) with incised, carved low relief, stamped designs. The Cuitzeo Basin samples are similar in terms of both form and design to a black incised type from the site of Tula in the State of Hidalgo. Cobean illustrates a type of black incised designated as ‘Clara Luz Black Incised’ of the Prado complex (700-800 CE) and relates it to the Classic period incised black and gray ceramics encountered in the El Bajío which precedes the Prado (Cobean 1990:116).

Plain black is reported for Santa Maria and is denominated as such based on the surface treatment, which is well polished. This type includes the following forms: Square-shaped bowls (11 vessels) as seen on fig. 4.2, hemispherical bowls (10 vessels) and lids or plates (platos and tapaplatos) [number of vessels unknown], these latter Fig. 4.2: black squarebowl, being often associated with shaped Santa Maria Teotihuacan (Manzanilla 1984). 32

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

4.3.2

motifs of grecas, rectangles, sun and spirals (Macías Goytia 1997:280). The total number of red-on-buff sherds from surface collections is 675 which represents 23.9% of all sherds and excluding orange and brown utilitarian ceramics, Fig. 4.4: Red-on-buff tripod bowl, 65.7%. The Alvaro Obregón (12 x 17 cm) occurrence of the red-on-buff pottery at the sites of Santa Maria, Alvaro Obregón, El Pedrillo and El Cenicero is equally high. Red-on-buff is characteristic of some sites in the State of Guanajuato such as Ichamacuaro, San Nicolás and San Bartolo Aguacaliente. At Teotihuacan it crosscuts the Tzacualli, Cuanalan and Tezoyuca phases.

Polychromes

Polychromes are the second major group of the local ceramic production and include the following potential Cuitzeo Basin types: Red-on-buff, Red-on-buff-withnegative, White-on-red, Al secco or Stucco painted and Red-and-black-on-orange. The configuration of principal elements such as form, surface treatment and motifs permits the recognition of certain potential types which may be conceived as ‘local’. At the site of Santa Maria the presence of merely decorated vessels is indicative of the ceremonial precinct (de Vega et al. 1982:14). It is valid to hypothesize that different types of polychromes belong to the same ceramic group. By ‘ceramic group’ I follow the Smith and Gifford (1963:17) definition: ‘a ceramic group is a set of closely related and very similar pottery types that demonstrate a distinctive homogeneity in range of variation concerning form, base color, technological, and other allied attributes.’ I understand that the criteria different types must meet in order to pertain to the same group vary and are arbitrarily set by the researcher. Notwithstanding, a detailed analysis of iconographic elements demonstrates (Chap. 5) that the aforementioned potential types of red-on-buff, red-onbuff-with-negative and white-on-red belong to the same ceramic group.

All Cuanalan red-on-buff and most of that of Tezoyuca consist of solid areas of red on a buff or tan backround, red-banded rims, or red-onbuff combined with negative painting. However, a few sherds from Tezoyuca and most of the Tzacualli red-on-buff show a clear-cut resemblance to Classic San Martin red-on-buff with thin red bands on a yellow-brown or, more commonly, tan surface (West 1965:197).

Red-on-buff Color: reddish brown 5YR 5/3, light brown 7.5 YR 6/4 and red 2.5 YR 4/6 Apparent texture: regular Surface finish: burnished and slipped Range of rim diameter: 8-29cms Wall thickness: 4-9mm

A later type that seems to have derived from the red-onbuff is the red-on-brown, although this is rarely distinguished from the red-on-buff. Rattray (1966:125) exceptionally makes this distinction for the material she excavated at the Cerro Tenayo site in the Valley of Mexico. The differences consist of the following attributes: the form is a truncated cone with large hollow cylindrical supports and relatively thick walls, and the motifs are simple and rectilinear. Nevertheless, some of the motifs of the Coyotlatelco red-on-buff such as xicalcoliuhqui, rectangles, and large circles implies a certain kind of contact with the red-on-buff pottery of West Mexico.

One of the types that was possibly generated from the Late Preclassic Chupícuaro culture is the red-on-buff pottery. ‘I would like to point out that Chupícuaro pottery can be considered fundamentally a buff-ware . . . to date all indications point to this area as producing the greatest abundance of red-on-buff ware (Porter 1947:4246). It appears also very early (600 BCE) in Oaxaca (e.g., Ekholm 1947:49). It is type that occurs in a very extended area in Mesoamerica and the issue of its origin is still unresolved. Forms include hemispherical bowls, plates, cylindrical bowls and composite form vessels (fig. 4.4). The surface has an allover cream-buff slip and motifs (geometric, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic) are executed in red paint on either or both surfaces. Often the vessel is divided by red concentric circles on the base, body and rim. The red band on the rim seems a norm for all the vessels and no red-on-buff vessel or rim sherd is bereft of that feature. Most frequent motifs are red spots on the interior bottom of the vessel and geometric motifs such as parallel lines, triangles and hatched-lines. Zoomorphic motifs include birds, reptiles and so forth The site of Huandacareo presents very complex motifs, undoubtedly the most elaborate of all sites in the Cuitzeo Basin (Macías Goytia 1990:54) whereas at Tres Cerritos, the motifs consist of parallel and undulating lines on both walls of the vessel; the inner walls are decorated with

Red-on-buff with negative Color: reddish brown 5YR 5/3, light brown 7.5 YR 6/4, red 2.5 YR 4/6 and very dark gray 5YR 3/1 Apparent texture: fine to regular Surface finish: polished, slipped and negative Range of rim diameter: 8-24cms Wall thickness: 3-8mm This type is a combination of the red-on-buff decoration and negative technique. Along with red-on-buff, it is a typical local decorated type constituting 28.5% of surface collections. The negative painting technique was first termed as such by Tozzer (1921:53): ‘might more properly be called “negative painting” as the paint making the design has disappeared, and the figures come out as a negative on the colour of the base’. Shepard (1957:206) gives another definition of the technique: 33

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Pedrillo and Huandacareo. As a norm the negative decoration appears on hemispherical bowls and red is applied around the outer and inner surface of the rim and as a dot on either or both floors. Fig. 4.5c: Red-on-buff with The decoration is negative, Alvaro Obregón presented through geometric, anthropomorphic and zoomorphic motifs executed in negative technique.

‘painting the figure with a temporary protective material, applying an all-over coat or wash of darker color, and subsequently removing the protective material to expose the figures in the surface color of the vessel.’ The negative technique possibly has its antecedents in the tombs of El Opeño, Jacona, Michoacán (approximately 1500 BCE). A number of jars recovered from these tombs present negative decoration in red and black pigment (Oliveros 1989:127). Oliveros also Fig. 4.5a: Red-on-buff with (1971:189) negative bowl, Santa Maria (6 x states that various 16 cm) authors (Piña Chan 1958:111, Grove 1970:11) consider West Mexico as the source of this specific decorative technique. Ceramics with the negative technique have been also recovered from the earliest phases of Ayotla (Tlapacoya, State of Mexico) and are dated at circa 1100 BCE (Tolstoy and Paradis 1970:347) and Tlatilco during the Middle Preclassic (Porter Weaver 1967:32 see also Niederberger 1987:II:612).

Interestingly, although there is a large number of motifs, the total configuration of decorative elements is unique for each vessel. Therefore no identical vessels have been registered. A variation of this type, which may be considered as a potential variety, involves the application of black slip along with red; it might be termed red-andblack-on buff with negative. Fieldwork did not reveal this type but within the study area it has been reported for the site of Tres Cerritos. Three red-and-black-withnegative vessels were deposited as offerings in the north chamber of Mound 3 (Macías Goytia 1997:194). At Teotihuacan Negative painting is common in both Tezoyuca and Tzacualli ceramics but less at Cuanalan. In the former two phases the design is much more complex and it is associated with two forms, hemispherical bowls and flat-bottomed basalbreak bowls, which are rare at Cuanalan. Polychrome painting, including a combination of positive and negative painting occurs in all three phases, but it varies in style in each and reaches a peak of frequency and skill of execution during the Tzacualli phase (West 1965:197).

It is worth stating that the negative technique appears in distinct cultural areas in Mesoamerica, such as the Maya and Zapotec for example. At Monte Albán, it is found in the transition phase IIIII but it is rare in the III. This rarity suggests that the vessels encountered were imported (Caso et al. 1967:332—333), Fig. 4.5b: Red-on-buff with while in the Maya negative sherds, Santa Maria area the ware is known as Usulutan and Coe postulates that it might have originated in El Salvador (Coe 1993:60).

Vessels of this type were also discovered by Millon and Bennyhoff in 1957 in a platform on the south side of a three-temple complex at Oztoyahualco in the northeast sector of Teotihuacan, referred to as the ‘Old City’ (Pasztory and Berrin 1993:237). However, both the vessel forms and the motifs of the Cuitzeo Basin samples differ from those recovered at Teotihuacan. The Cuitzeo Basin specimens present a high variety and elaboration in motifs (abstract, zoomorphic and anthropomorphic) while those depicted on Teotihuacan vessels are geometric and less elaborate.

Found also in the Valley of Tlatilco (Porter 1953:25), Ticoman (Vaillant 1931:290), Teotihuacan (Séjourné 1959:136) Xico and Tenayuca (Rattray 1966:128), the negative technique reached its highest level of technological and design sophistication at the sites of the Cuitzeo basin at circa 250-650 CE to appear anew during the Late Postclassic within the Tarascan Empire in the Basin of the Lake Patzcuaro. For the State of Michoacán Rubín de la Borbolla, established three types of negative painted ceramics: a) simple negative based on two colors, one of which serves as the contrast element; b) medium negative based on three colors, being one the contrast color; and c) composite negative where negative is applied on a previously polychrome decorated vessel (Moedano 1946:43). During the Classic period, types a) and b) are characteristic for the sites of Alvaro Obregón, Santa Maria, Tres Cerritos, Araró, El Cenicero, El

White-on-red Color: red 2.5YR 4/6, 10R 4/6 and white 7.5YR 8/2 Apparent texture: fine to regular Surface finish: burnished, slipped and stuccoed Range of rim diameter: 6-12cms Wall thickness: 4-6mm

34

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

during Cuanalan, and the best examples date to Tzacualli (100 CE).

Along with the red-on-buff pottery, the white-on-red is a highly diagnostic potential type in the Cuitzeo Basin, even though it occurs in small numbers. Additionally, whenever this type is documented it always appears along with red-on-buff and/or red-on-buff-withnegative. The vessel is either painted on both the interior and exterior walls, or on the exterior only in a dark red slip, and motifs are executed in white paint, which is applied post-firing and can be easily scraped. Two potential varieties Fig. 4.6: White-on-red flat- have been documented. bottomed bowl, Alvaro The first presents an Obregón (11 x 8 cm) allover red slip, both on the inner and outer walls, whereas the second has its inner walls covered with a cream buff slip. Few complete vessels have been recorded (fig.4.6). From the study of rim sherds it may be assumed that principal forms are hemispherical and flat-bottomed with steep sided bowls. De Vega et al. (1982:166) opine that the origin of the white-on-red ceramic style may be established at the site of Santa Maria, where it appears first in layer VI in Pit 24 like a variation of the red-on-buff vessels—red-on-buff on the exterior and white-on-red on the interior surface of the vessel—and then it evolves as an independent type in Layer V to disappear in Layer IV thereafter. During fieldwork I collected two sherds from the site of Chehuayo with only the interior surface decorated in white-on-red decoration while the exterior is plain buff, which may confirm that the origin of this type is the redon-buff pottery.

Al Secco or stuccoed and painted vessels Color: dark brown 5YR 3/2, turquoise green 5GY 7/1, yellow 10YR 8/8, red 5R 5/6 Paste: irregular Surface finish: burnished, slipped and stuccoed Range of rim diameter: 8-25cms Wall thickness: 3-6mm From the local ceramic production of Michoacán the Al secco polychrome vessels may be considered as trade vessels par excellence. First, they are distributed in a wide area within the State of Michoacán, and two complete bowls and numerous sherds have been reported for as far afield as Teotihuacan at Structure 19 (Sergio Gómez Chávez, personal communication 1998) and others in the State of Jalisco (Weigand and Beekman 1998). Second, there is a high standardization in the production of vessels in forms, colors and motifs. Although the origin of this type is unknown, Porter Weaver (1969:11) mentions the connection between an al fresco vessel from Tlapacoya and its counterpart in

However, the majority of specimens registered during fieldwork and surface collections present decoration on the exterior surface only and inclusive are geometric motifs such as stepped fret, triangles, lines, and zoomorphic and anthropomorphic designs which parallel those from Huandacareo (Macías Goytia 1990:54), Alvaro Obregón, Araró and El Cenicero. At the site of Tres Cerritos only geometric motifs are present (Macías Goytia 1997:280). White-on-red vessels are included in the collection of Queréndaro, Michoacán, currently in store at the National Museum of Anthropology and History, Mexico City, in the form of small hemispherical bowls identical to ceramics encountered at Loma Alta, Michoacán which Carot denominates Agropecuario Blanco sobre Rojo. The repertory of iconographic motifs includes greca, arrows, undulating motifs, faces and halfpyramids (Carot 1991:76, 2001:65).

Fig. 4.7a: Al secco bowl, Museo del Estado, Morelia (8 x 10 cm)

Chupícuaro that dates to Cuicuilco IV and Tezoyuca i.e. circa 150 BCE. They resemble each other in form, motifs and supports, and the al fresco from Tlapacoya displays colors in pink, white, turquoise. For the Cuitzeo Basin sites, the archaeological record revealed only one form, that of the hemispherical bowl (fig. 4.7a) with either parallel walls and flat base or divergent walls with incipient annular base. It is not a true annular base but rather a thickening of the clay near the joint with the vessel walls. Therefore the vessel stands on a convex base (Molina Montes and Torres Montes 1974:32). Matos and Kelly (1974) report a cántaro form from the site of Queréndaro and a private collector from Alvaro Obregón confirmed that such form occurs in the Cuitzeo Basin.

Pulido et al. (1995:III:26) assign a Late Classic chronology for that type although the reasons are not clear. West (1965:196) reports white-on-red vessels for the early phases of Teotihuacan. Although it appears during the Tezoyuca and Tzacualli phases it is very rare

The al secco or stuccoed and painted ceramics have a polished dark brown, almost black, slip which is covered 35

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

by red paint. The subsequent application of white, turquoise-green and yellow on either the red paint (base coat) or directly on the polished surface of the vessel, divides the vessel into four panels of the same approximate size and the motifs are often repeated in two diametrically opposite sections. Geometric motifs are executed by means of scraping the white, yellow and turquoise-green paints to reveal the red backround, which is the base coat. The analysis of Molina Montes and Torres Montes (1974) brought about the following results on the nature of the pigments: red, a natural hematite ochre contaminated with feldspars; blue, malachite with impurities of calcite and hematite in a matrix of diatomaceous earth; white, diatomaceous earth with impurities of limonite clay; yellow, yellow ochre, limonite and hematite clays with rare calcite. Because the pigments are poorly adhered it seems that a material of some sort of organic origin was used, possibly tzacutli ‘extract of an orchid bulbous (epidendrum pastoris, Ll. Et Lex.) from which a substance is extracted as mentioned by Clavijero (1944:II:78) as “glutinant juice” was applied to give more consistency to the colors’ (Molina Montes and Torre Montes 1974:32). The execution of motifs was done through stripping, which appears to have been done with a fine touch using a relatively soft stylus (Holien 1977:154).

Although this technique is widely referred to as ‘cloisonné’, ‘pseudocloisonné’ and/or ‘al fresco’ the correct term is ‘al secco’ since colors are applied either directly on the surface of the vessel or on the red base coat after it has been dried. The first two terms i.e. ‘cloisonné’ or ‘pseudocloisonne’ are borrowed from the metalwork technique of pouring brightly colored enamels into ‘cloisons’ or compartments made from metal wires which form part of the final design. However, it is erroneous since in the Cuitzeo Basin specimens there is no alteration of the surface of the vessel as a real pseudocloisonné would imply. A distinct class of vessels involves the decoration of surface areas which have been previously excised (fig. 4.8). Carot (2001:figs. 38-39) reports some similar sherds for the site of Loma Alta. Two complete vessel have been encountered at Teotihuacan in Structure 19 and is related to Western Mexican materials (S. Gómez Chávez, personal communication, 1999). Some archaeologists (e.g., Trejo et al. 1981, Macías Goytia 1990, Pulido et al. 1995:III:25, Saint-Charles Zetina 1996) associate the al secco ceramics with the Teotihuacan ‘al fresco’ vessels but they differ both on technological and iconographic grounds. While in the West Mexican specimens motifs are applied on either a layer of dried red pigment or directly on the polished surface of the vessel, on the Teotihuacan vessels, colors are applied on a wet layer of stucco, hence the term ‘al fresco’. According to Caso, whilst the decoration al

The most frequent geometric motifs are: stepped fret, circular shapes divided into four by two straight lines, parallel lines and so forth. Rare exceptions include anthropomorphic and zoomorphic motifs (fig.4.7b). As far as the interpretation of the motifs is concerned, it seems that some connote astronomical symbols and cosmological concepts such as the solar motif or the quadripartite division of the cosmos, whereas other represent symbolic features such as the eye elongated, water and butterfly motif, which I associate with the Teotihuacan symbolic system. The surface of the vessel thus was utilized as a means of projecting specific symbols or emblems (Chap. 5). The high standardization, primarily in the form and motifs, indicates that they were destined for a very specific clientele. It is postulated that physical and/or social distance between potters and clients results in reduced variation in pottery manufacture since preexistent standards have to be maintained (Van der Leeuw 1997:29). The function of these vessels is unclear. Holien (1977:159) provides an insightful remark:

Fig. 4.7b: Al secco bowl; motif of individual and bird, Museo del Estado, Morelia

fresco is the one encountered at Kaminaljuyu, Uaxactun, Monte Alban and Teotihuacan, cloisonné painting is more recent and does not exist at Teotihuacan (cf. Noguera 1947:39). Among the al fresco decorated vessels from Teotihuacan, only one bowl with geometric motifs (Séjourné 1969:175) is similar to a vessel from Michoacán. The scarcity of this type of vessels within a Teotihuacan context may suggest that it was possibly imported from Michoacán like the two secco bowls Fig. 4.8: Excised stuccoed excavated by Gómez bowl, Michoacan Chávez in 1991 (personal

The unsuitability of the vessel for resting on its convex base suggests two general possibilities. The obvious alternative, that it was designed to rest on the rim, is unlikely since its design would be presented upside-down. Also, rims do not show signs of wear from such use and the base was always left unsmoothed...it may be more reasonably supposed that the jícaras were set on their bases using another artifact as a socketed pedestal so that the jícara rested on the flange.

36

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

In the Cuitzeo Basin, al secco vessels and sherds have been encountered at the sites of Araró, Alvaro Obregón, Santa Maria, El Pedrillo, El Calvario, Tres Cerritos, Huandacareo, La Bartolilla, El Cenicero, and Tzintzimeo.1 From the few excavated sites in the study area, they have always been encountered as offerings in burials or in ceremonial precincts. At the site of Huandacareo a complete bowl was recovered from Burial no 57 in Platform 1 (Macías Goytia 1990:58). At Tres Cerritos, two al secco bowls were found in Burials nos 5 and 8, two were deposited as part of the Offering no. 2, one in Offering no. 3, one in Offering no. 4 of Burial 8 of the North Plaza (Macías Goytia 1997:217-227, 305-306). From another excavated site in our area, Santa Maria, a sole complete vessel and a number of sherds were recovered. De Vega et al. (1982:54) designate the type as ‘estuco seco al fresco’ and consider it a copy of the Teotihuacan fresco whereas on a different occasion 4 rim sherds from pit 35, layer IV are labelled ‘stucco’ (De Vega et al. 1982:214).

communication 1998). Holien (1977:165) too postulates that a vessel from Teotihuacan (specimen 713) may be a trade piece from Michoacán. As regards the implications of interregional exchange, a vessel presented by Michelet (1984:282, fig.61a), is undoubtedly related to the Cuitzeo Basin specimens. In fact this specimen is a bowl with a true annular base in contrast to the Cuitzeo Basin samples, which have an ‘incipient’ annular base as mentioned above. The decoration consists of geometric motifs executed in green, yellow, white and red. Michelet (1984: 209), based on paste composition, posits that it is a local ware albeit of ‘foreign inspiration’ and I would consider it the result of two distinct traditions. The first would relate to the unique vessel registered at Lomas del Valle which is similar to that of Teotihuacan and the latter, the typical Cuitzeo Basin secco ware (see also Macías Goytia 1997:228, fig. 5.48). The al secco ware is erroneously designated as ‘Queréndaro’ type, since Molina Montes and Torres Montes published an article in 1974 entitled ‘La cerámica polícroma de Queréndaro’ (Polychrome Ceramics of Querendaro) because thirty vessels of this style were recovered from the municipality of Queréndaro, Michoacán and are currently stored at the National Museum of Anthropology, Mexico City. Holien (1977:122, 152) named this technique ‘basecoat with investment overlay, stripped following application (techniques I-B-2b and I-B-2-c)’ and designated it as the ‘Cherán style of investment’ assuming that it had not been previously mentioned in print. Hernández (2000:858) designates this type as ‘Tirzo Polychrome Overlay’ of the ‘Atzimba Ceramic Complex.’ Since I detected a large number of these vessels at the State Museum in Morelia, Michoacán and they are assigned to the site of Zinzimeo, also in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, would it be appropriate to denominate this style as the ‘Zinzimeo’ ceramic tradition? Certainly not. The presumptuous tendency of archaeologists to assign regional names to ceramic types is the least appropriate, especially for archaeological regions that are still largely unexplored.

I attribute the confusion revolving around the origin of this particular type to its low frequency. Nevertheless, there is now evidence indicating that the center of production is in the Cuitzeo Basin (see also Holien 1977:54). Although the al secco is dissimilar to the local red-on-buff with negative and white-on-red in surface treatment, XRD and PIXE analyses demonstrate that paste composition is similar (Charts 4.2 and 4.3). The association of the al secco ware with the red-on-buff with negative ware has been reported by Holien (1977:161): ‘Specimen 393, a conical flanged jícara is the polychrome negativo decorated member of the pair from Cherán. Its decoration follows some of the design canons of the invested counterparts. The design ground . . . is . . . divided into four segments by outlined rectangles in (fired) red paint. Canons are also violated by the subsequent decoration between cartouches rather than within them.’

Although Holien does not include figures for the above samples, a vessel from the site of Huandacareo (Macías Goytia 1990:73, fig. 42) shows precisely the association between the al secco and the red-on-buff with negative pottery as regards both form and iconographic motifs.

Nevertheless, since in Mexico it is easier to access Torres Montes and Molina Montes’ (1974) article rather than the more comprehensive Holien’s thesis (1977), the designation ‘Queréndaro style’ has persisted instead of the equally misleading ‘Cherán style.’ For example, Macías Goytia (1989a) states that the Classic period in the Cuitzeo Basin is best represented by ‘the ceramic tradition of Queréndaro’. Trejo (1977:24) too, writes that the ceramic tradition of Santa Maria is related to the ‘Queréndaro tradition.’ At the site of La Negreta, in the State of Queretaro, some vessels of the ‘Queréndaro type’ were reported along with Thin Orange ware (SaintCharles Zetina 1996:150; see also Brambila and Velasco 1988:294). Castañeda et al. (1996:166) propose that some sherds of a vessel from Santa Maria El Refugio are typical of the polychrome decoration of the Tlamimilolpa phase (250-350 CE), thus associating this technique with Teotihuacan.

Red-and-black-on-orange Color: orange 5YR 6/8, 7/8; red 10R 4/6, 4/4 and black 5YR 3/1 Paste: fine to regular Surface finish: slipped polished Range of rim diameter: 10-20cms Wall thickness: 3-5mm This is a potential type that occurs in the form of bowls only. It is rare in the area to the extent that Macías 1

At the Museo de Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato, some of the best preserved al secco vessels are exhibited.

37

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Table 4.2 XRD results for red-and-black-on-orange ceramics, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Samples Site Anorthoclase Quartz Cristobalite i Zinzimeo 486 205 ii La Bolita 474 193 iii Santa Maria 463 244 iv Santa Maria 133 480 v Las Trojes 70 168 89 vi Las Trojes 691 119 vii Araró 273 190 viii El Calvario 526 174 ix El Coro 232 152 81 x San Lucas Pio 223 185 78 xi Las Cintoras 99 293 xii El Coro 397 158

repertory of earspools and earplugs is broad and includes brown, black and red samples. Some are plain while others present highly elaborated geometric and zoomorphic elements. Fig. 4.9 shows a number of fragments of polished white-on-red earplugs; the surface finish and the corpus of the motifs is identical to those of the white-on-red pottery. The fact that white-on-red vessels were destined for rituals, in conjunction with the use of the white-on-red technique for the fabrication of highly elaborate ornaments suggests that objects and vessels decorated with this technique were destined for a limited number of individuals.

Goytia (1997:175, fig. 5.16) considers it ‘atypical’ in the Cuitzeo Basin. Pulido et al. (1995:III:36, 45, 125) postulate that it is of Tarascan, Puebla or Puebla-Mixteca origin and Moguel Cos reports 39 sherds from 28 sites (Moguel Cos 1987:103, fig. 30). During my fieldwork I encountered sherds of this potential type at the sites of Zinzimeo (2 sherds), La Bolita (2 sherds), Santa Maria (7 sherds), Las Trojes (2 sherds), Araró (2 sherds), El Calvario (1 sherd), San Lucas Pio (1 sherd), Las Cintoras (2 sherds) and El Coro (2 sherds) and an almost complete vessel is currently in store at the Museo del Estado, Morelia. I decided to conduct XRD analysis in order to determine paste composition.2 Dr. Lauro Bucio and I conducted the analysis at the Institute of Physics, National Autonomous University, Mexico and the results presented on Table 4.2 above indicate that it is consistent with what is expected for a local ware in that the high percentage of anorthoclase is also common in the Redon-buff with negative and White-on-red local types (see Chart 4.5) 4.3.3

The cut sherds (sinkers) are pot sherds of various ceramic types (fig.4.10) and present a quasi circular shape with two equidistant –off the center– marks on the border. They have been encountered at the sites of Santa Maria,

Miscellaneous local ceramic artifacts

This group includes beads, earplugs, spindle whorls, stamps and cut sherds/sinkers (tejos). Beads and spindle whorls are often associated with burials and are usually of local manufacture. Many are decorated with simple geometric motifs and are made in the following forms: spherical, hemispherical, truncated cones, truncated biconic, composite form, plane circular and biconical with Fig. 4.9: Clay ear-spools, grooves around the Santa Maria border (Macías Goytia 1990:82). A limited number of clay earspools and earplugs have been reported for Santa Maria and were also documented for the site of Alvaro Obregón. The

Fig. 4.10: tejos (sinkers, 2-5 cm), Alvaro Obregón

Huandacareo, Tres Cerritos, Alvaro Obregón, and Araró, and Macías Goytia (1990:58) proposes that they might have been used as weights for nets. Some of the present inhabitants around the Lake Cuitzeo use cut-sherds as weights for their fish-nets. 4.4

Teotihuacan-related ceramics

In this section I present the inventory of Teotihuacan ceramics that have been encountered in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán. For the previous section on local ceramic production I used terminology consistent with type-variety typology. As regards the corpus of Teotihuacan ceramics, the classification below is based on types or wares whose names are extant in the literature and which are assumed to be selectively exported from Teotihuacan during the Classic period. For example, the class of floreros refers to a form named on the basis of an assumed function. Thin Orange has been always called a ‘ware’ but its identifying attribute is surface treatment. Thus each of the following categories of Teotihuacan

2

X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis is a method of ceramic characterization based on identifying minerals by their crystalline structure (Rice 1987:382).

38

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

Alta, Zacapu, Michoacán where forty-eight sherds of an early type (100 BCE) were recovered; however, Carot (1992:77) postulates that this type is not present at Teotihuacan but occurs at the site of Los Teteles de Ocotitla in Tlaxcala, State of Puebla. At Loma Alta, Michoacán, it was found ‘only within burial contexts along with the only green prismatic blades and specimens of worked bone and shell . . . and they were associated with the local types of Tres Palos red-on-buff with negative, Tres Palos Tricromo, Agropecuario Tricromo and a sherd from the site of Morales, Guanajuato’ (Carot 1992:71-76).

ceramics is based on a cluster of non-random attributes (e.g., Spaulding 1953:1982) that do not conform to typevariety standards but are nonetheless familiar to archaeologists. The categories to be discussed are: Thin Orange; floreros; cylindrical tripods; polished reddishbrown incised ceramics; and red-on-burnished incised brown ceramics. Thin Orange ceramics According to Sotomayor and Tejero (1963:7) the importance of Thin Orange ceramics lies in the fact that when present even in small quantities it serves as a chronological marker. Its importance as a diagnostic trait was first stated by Seler, who named it dunnwandiger hellgelber. while Linné (1934-42) used ‘yellowish-red pottery’, Longyear (1940) ‘eggshell orange ware’, Vaillant ‘Thin Orange’ and Armillas (1944a) ‘anaranjada delgada’.

In the Cuitzeo Basin, Thin Orange sherds have been documented for the sites of La Terla, Alvaro Obregón, Tres Cerritos, and Santa Maria in three forms: undecorated polished ollas, hemipherical annular-base bowls decorated with incised lines, appliqué, and S shapes of incised dots and lines and a single anthropomorphic olla. The unique anthropomorphic vessel in the State of Michoacán was excavated at the site of Tres Cerritos. It is a molded globular anthropomorphic jar and was part of Offering no 1 of the North Plaza. Although it presents a surface finish identical to the Teotihuacan samples it belongs nevertheless to the type of ‘polished thick orange’ (Macías Goytia 1997:205).

Thin Orange was the most important commercial pottery at Teotihuacan, and appears throughout Mesoamerica as a sign of Teotihuacan occupation or influence (Rattray and Harbottle 1992:221, Rattray 1998a:11). It was manufactured in the Carneiro region in the State of Puebla, where Rattray (1990:192) detected more than three workshops, and the finest examples of this ware were encountered among utilitarian and defective types. 3 However, Teotihuacan seems to have had the control of the distribution of this ware in Mesoamerica. Within the city, sherds of Thin Orange were found in 4,300 of the 5,000 sites that were surface collected by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project Fig. 4.11a: Thin Orange semispherical (TMP); it was ringbase bowl; Alvaro Obregón the most (11x x 20 cm) abundant ware in the surface collection’ (Krotser 1987:418). However, at Teotihuacan, despite the enormous variety of forms, two thirds of the total of Thin Orange vessels are represented by the hemispherical annular-base bowl (Cowgill 1987:171). Often, depending on the status of the local rulers, more elaborate forms were commissioned, such as anthropomorhic and zoomorphic jars. As far as the distribution of Thin Orange ware in West Mexico is concerned, Brambila (1988:223) posits that sherds have been encountered in the Tierra Caliente region in Michoacán and Guerrero, in areas of the Balsas Basin and even in Colima, at the sites of El Coporo and Santa Maria, Guanajuato, and La Negreta, Queretaro.

During August 1999, I collected sherds of Thin Orange ware at the sites of Araró (five sherds), El Calvario (one sherd), Belissario Dominguez (one sherd), Chehuayo (one sherd), Taimeo (three sherds) and El Pedrillo (two sherds). Evelyn Rattray (personal communication 1999) examined these sherds and proposed a middle to Late Classic chronology. Pulido et al. (1995:III:120) propose an Early Classic date for Thin Orange sherds encountered in the south section of the Lake Cuitzeo). Compositional analysis on a suite of twenty two sherds from the sites of Santa Maria and Alvaro Obregón, Michoacán, demonstrated that some samples of the Thin Orange ware were produced in southern Puebla and were thus imported whilst others were made locally due possibly to limited access to originals (see Millon 1988:142). Thin Orange flaring-neck ollas were reported by McBride (1969) as far as the State of Colima in West Mexico. In the State of Guanajuato, a few sherds were recovered at the sites UR-87, Arturo Arredondo (Saint Charles Zetina 1996:145-146) and a complete annular base bowl at the site of La Negreta. Thin Orange is also scantily present at Santa Maria el Refugio and El Manantial (Castañeda et al. 1996:162-163). According to Rattray (1981:61), incised and Fig. 4.11b: olla, La punctate motifs [note: present on Terla (17 x 12 cm) the samples from Michoacán] characterize the Early Xolalpan phase (400-500 CE) and the most frequently occurring form is the hemispherical

The earliest documented evidence of Thin Orange ware in the State of Michoacán appears at the site of Loma 3

Carmen Cook de Leonard, in her 1957 master’s thesis suggests that the origin of this ware may lie in this region.

39

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

annular-base bowl. So, tentatively it may be suggested that all Thin Orange vessels from the study area date to the middle to Late Classic period. Also, during the same period, thick Thin Orange (grueso) appears and it seems that some of the specimens from Santa Maria belong to this group.

Cylindrical tripod vessels This class of ceramics is extremely rare in Michoacán. The only evidence from the region comes from Pit 11 in Santa Maria and it consists of three fragments from the lid of a tripod cylindrical vase of a dark brown burnished surface with champlevé decoration and red pigment in the incised areas ‘that possibly is not a local product but was brought from Teotihuacan’ (Piña Chán, personal communication to De Vega et al. 1982:137). The inclusion of such a ware in a burial in Santa Maria suggests its ritual significance. At Teotihuacan, many of the cylindrical vessels had ashes inside (Pasztory 1997:159).

Floreros From the inventory of monochrome black ware, floreros (‘flower pots’) is a Teotihuacan-associated vessel which presents a broad spatial distribution far from the city. In Michoacán, they have been encountered at the sites of Queréndaro, Arteaga, Santa Maria, Alvaro Obregón, Tres Cerritos and Huandacareo all in Michoacán. Based on the form of the vessel it is possible to distinguish two types of floreros: a flat-bottomed or tripod undecorated, large-necked jar with out-curved rim, and a flat-bottomed or tripod large-necked jar with a steep, flaring neck. For the former type, some sherds of a black polished florero are reported for Pit 11 at the site of Santa Maria, while at Pit 35, Layer IV, (of the same site) some rim sherds of a polished black florero with the palillo technique of Teotihuacan II were unearthed (De Vega et al. 1982:137, 214). At the site of Tres Cerritos, floreros are monochrome of the polished dark brown surface treatment, either with a flat or tripod base (Macías Goytia 1997:292).

a

Polished reddish brown incised ceramics Séjourné (1968:57) reports that these ceramics are very typical in Teotihuacan, and the repertory of forms comprises jars and flat-bottomed flaring-walled bowls. At the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin, only seven specimens were registered and the form is exclusively that of a jar (fig. 4.13). The polished incised ollas were recorded at the sites of Alvaro Obregón, Santa Maria and Tres Cerritos. They all bear incised motifs which are exclusively geometric. Form and surface finish of these ollas are identical to a jar exhibited at the Museum of the Teotihuacan Archaeological Zone, Teotihuacan, which is Fig. 4.13: Polished, reddish labelled ‘post- brown olla, Alvaro Obregón Teotihuacan’ [sic] and (19 x 15 cm) represents a transition between the Classic and Epiclassic periods (Rattray 1987:83). At the site of Santa Maria (Regional Museum Michoacán, cat. No. 10.421573) a reddish brown incised jar was recovered from Burial 4. Near Michoacán, in the State of Guanajuato other forms occur such as the bowl, for example, which is currently exhibited at the National Museum of Anthropology and History, Mexico City. At Teotihuacan, the incised motifs include flowers, grecas, parallel lines and the water drop motif (Von Winning 1987:II:7). A specimen from Alvaro Obregón presents a star which is also seen on a jar encountered in Teotihuacan (Von Winning 1987:II, 8, fig. 3f). The red burnished ollas characterize the Coyotlatelco phase of Teotihuacan. Rattray (1987a:82) speculates that the origins of this type may be diverse.

b

Fig. 4.12: Floreros, Alvaro Obregón (a. 10 x 8 cm; b. 10 x 9 cm)

Tripod floreros have been encountered in the Cuitzeo Basin at Alvaro Obregón (two vessels) and in contrast to the monochromes, which do not present any decoration, they are always decorated with either red and/or brown slip, incisions, geometric and abstract motifs (fig. 4.12). It is noteworthy that the vessel form does not resemble that of the Teotihuacan floreros but rather the bottle form reported for Tlatilco (Porter Weaver 1953, Plate 7:h, Niederberger 1987:II:620, fig. 546). For those excavated at the site of Huandacareo, Michoacán, Macías Goytia named them floreros but they are rather distinct from the typical Teotihuacan floreros in that they present large flaring necks. The specimens from the site of Huandacareo are decorated with cloisonné on polished red and the motifs are naturalistic and geometric (Macías Goytia 1990:64).

Red-on-burnished incised brown ceramics Like the reddish brown incised jars, the red-on-burnished incised brown vessels belong to an ambiguous type as far as its origins are concerned (fig. 4. 14). There are various forms such as bowls, vessels with vertical walls and flat base, tripod bowls, ollas and so forth. The brown polished surface of the vessel bears exclusively geometric 40

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

Despite the fact that this is considered a Teotihuacan type, it does not occur in other sites of the Teotihuacan network, such as the Maya area or Oaxaca for instance. As mentioned above, it is a type with great antiquity in Mexico. A vessel exhibited at the Museo Mexiquence, Toluca, which is from the Formative period culture of Tlatilco bears the same principles of decoration. During this period, the Chupícuaro culture developed intense interaction with the Basin of Mexico and the possibility that the Classic period examples of the Cuitzeo Basin are related to Preclassic prototypes must not be ruled out.

motifs in red paint; the motifs are delimited by post-firing incisions. It is unanimously considered a Teotihuacan type (Rattray 1987, Von Winning 1987) and related to the Late Classic period, when the decline of Teotihuacan began. González de la Vara (1999:76) reports this ware for the Valley of Toluca in the State of Mexico and labels it as ‘Painted Teotihuacan.’ It is common during the Late Tlamimilolpa (350-450 CE) but increases significantly during the Early Xolalpan phase (540-550 CE). It is thought to pertain to the Coyotlatelco tradition of Teotihuacan but its origins have not been yet established (Rattray 1987).

Red-on-buff with incised rim ceramics A similar albeit less elaborate type is found in sites of the Formative period, both in the Basin of Mexico and West Mexico. At the Museum of the site of Cholula, Puebla, there is a red-on-buff bowl with incisions delimiting the red painted motifs and it is dated at 100 BCE. Other sites where it occurs are Tlatilco, Tlapacoya and El Opeño in Michoacán where, according to Oliveros (personal communication 2000), it can be dated at 800 BCE. Local examples include a jar recovered at Fig. 4.14a: Museo del Estado, Morelia (32 x 25 cm) the site of Tres Cerritos, from Burial no 8, in the west side of Mound 1. It is a semiglobular red-onpolished brown jar with a flat base and three solid conical feet. A thick red line divides the whole jar into two sections each of which is subsequently compartmentalized into nine, equal-size red panels circumscribed by incisions (Macías Goytia 1990:229). At the same site two similar jars were unearthed from Burial no 7 (in front of the central Plaza ) and Burial no 8 (north Plaza) (Macías Goytia 1997:301, 391). A third jar was recovered Fig. 4.14b: Acambaro, from Offering No 1 Guanajuato (25 x 20 cm) (north Plaza) with the characteristic Teotihuacan motif of four hanging bolas simulating flowers (Macías Goytia 1997:295).

a

b

e

f

c

g

d

h

Fig. 4.15: Red-on-buff with incised rim motifs: a.-c. Zinapecuaro, d., f. Las Cintoras, e. La Bolita, g. El Coro and h. Los Puercos

For this type there is only one reference regarding its presence in the Cuitzeo Basin. Moguel Cos (1987:70) surface collected 37 sherds of this type and denominates it ‘red-on-buff incised Teotihuacanoid’ and she dates it to the Late Classic period. Field survey yielded sherds for the following sites, which are located in the southeastern section of the Lake Cuitzeo: Los Puercos, El Cerrito, La Mina, Zinapecuaro, Las Cintoras, and La Bolita. Surface collected samples come from the sites of El Coro (three sherds) and El Calvario (one sherd). A unique complete vessel was registered in Alvaro Obregón; the buff surface of the vessel is well polished and unslipped. Red slip covers the rim of the vessel on both walls but only the exterior bears geometric incised motifs (fig. 4.15). Some samples however, although of the same polished unslipped surface and dark red slip on the rim, do not present any incisions on the red rim but just below it. It is highly probable that these latter may constitute a distinct type but further evidence is required before any assumptions can be drawn. Its absence in the western section of the Lake where there is availability of excavated data (for example sites of Tres Cerritos and Santa Maria) indicates that it is a higly regionalized type occurring towards the east of the Basin.

In the field report of the project ‘Highway MexicoGuadalajara’, Pulido et al. (1995:III:16) report that the red-on-buff incised is a Teotihuacanoid type and also date it to the Late Classic. Among the forms recovered are bowls (14 to 21 cm diameter), molcajetes (18cm diameter), and bowls with beveled rim (17 to 18cm diameter). Four sherds collected during fieldwork at the site of Taimeo undoubtedly resemble specimens from Teotihuacan.

4.5

Local and Teotihuacan-related figurines

There is no systematic study of the figurine complex of the Cuitzeo Basin. In contrast to ceramics, figurines 41

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

spotted at the Museo Amparo in the State of Puebla and they are erroneously dated at 1200 BCE and one is even attributed to the Tlatilco Preclassic culture of the Basin of Mexico. The Cuitzeo Basin figurines are made of light brown and/or white clay, most are female via marked anatomical details. Many present cranial deformation of the type tabular fronto-occipital, a sharp-pointed nose, narrow eyes and the mouth is often demarcated by a thin groove. As far as those considered to be imports from Teotihuacan, with a few exceptions, most seem to be a result of fusion between local and foreign traits. The a b lack of imported Fig. 4.17: Local figurines Teotihuacan figurines similar to those encountered is not surprising; at Teotihuacan; a. Alvaro Barbour (2000) states Obregón and b. Tiristaran that the Teotihuacanos used figurines for quotidian purposes, because at Teotihuacan less than .01% have been found in burials. When Teotihuacan figurines are found abroad, almost all

follow their own distinctive pattern and it is not possible to isolate a clear figurine tradition that characterizes the Classic period, despite the fact that thousands of figurines have been encountered and are currently stored in various museums in Mexico and other parts of the world. For example, Pratt and Gay (1978:175), based solely on looted samples undertake the endeavor to classify the figurines of the Cuitzéo [sic] region and conclude that ‘it is one of the most provocative [figurine complex] developed west of the Mexico Basin during preclassic times.’ Their classification is accomplished in concert with the shape of the eye. Hence there are button-eyed, slant-eyed, diamond-eyed figurines and a choker variant. However, for a number of specimens there is no distinction between button and slant eyed types (Pratt and Gay 1978:175, fig.216). Oliveros (1989:131) postulates that the figurines of Queréndaro and Zinapécuaro may have their antecedents in the figurines encountered at the site of El Opeño. The El Opeño examples are made of a very fine cream, kaolin-like, clay. For the period under study, many types preserve traits that appeared first on Chupícuaro figurines (fig.4.16). The types of button-eyed and diamond-eyed figurines have been found as far as the Central Highlands. In Cuauhtitlán, for example, Chupícuaro figurines must have been brought in as trade items from Michoacán or southern Guanajuato and indicate the links between Central Mexico and this region (McBride 1969:36).

Fig. 4.16: Local figurines, Querendaro, Michoacan

Fig. 4.18: The Teotihuacan quexquemitl on local figurines, Santa Maria

are male and warriors. However, some local female figurines, such as those of Huandacareo, Tres Cerritos, Santa Maria and Queréndaro, have the typical Teotihuacan quexquemitl (a sort of cape that covers the arms to the waist) and skirt, but the features are rendered in the manner of the Cuitzeo Basin potters. The adoption of the Teotihuacan quexquemitl is possibly an indication of status and/or relationship between some of the Cuitzeo Basin individuals and Teotihuacan (fig. 4.18).

Although the Classic period Cuitzeo figurines resemble the Chupícuaro ones, they are more elaborate and seem to repeat specific traits such as the aforementioned types of eye modeling, the use of elaborate ornaments such as necklaces and earplugs and the way the hair is modelled. Thus, they form a distinct group and represent a later phase, and are often called of the ‘Queréndaro’ style’ (McBride 1969:38). Once more, ‘Queréndaro’ style is used as a reference of a particular style and it should be recalled that this ‘style’ has been –as a paradox– verbally established among archaeologists. The lack of systematic research is demonstrable by the fact I spotted three Classic period figurines from the Cuitzeo Basin area were

Many people assume that we invented clothing to keep warm . . . the earliest data for specially fashioned clothing—as opposed to a simple pelt

42

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

northeastern Michoacán, many of which belong to the types Cuitzeo I and Choker II and Choker H4 type (Manzanilla 1984:47). The Teotihuacan affiliated group demonstrates some resemblance to the ‘portrait’ type figurines (fig. 4.19) of the Metropolis, and those with the characteristic elaborate headdresses of the Xolalpan Phase (350-450 CE). Still, others present some Teotihuacanoid features in the shape of the head or the cleft on the front-head (Manzanilla 1984:47).

drawn around the shoulders against the wind— indicate that its primary purpose was to show social position . . . in Ukraine in the modern folk costumes a girl is not allowed to wear [a] wraparound back-apron (East Slavic panjova or plakhta) until she reaches puberty, since it signals sexual readiness (Barber 1999:118).

Anawalt (1981:89) confirms the association of the quexquemitl with high rank individuals. In the Relación de Michoacán the quexquemitl is worn by Tarascan noblewomen and female deities (Anawalt 1981:90). The majority of figurines in the Cuitzeo Basin form part of private collections, while those recovered from excavations are few. At Tres Cerritos less than ten female figurines were encountered; three were deposited as part of the Offering No 1 excavated in front of Mound 1. These are made of light, smoothed brown clay with the ‘pastillaje’ (appliqué) technique: that is, each part is made separately and then assembled together. However, some molded features such as the face and headdress are present and this indicates a knowledge of a mixed technique which occurs also during the end of the middle Classic in Teotihuacan. Traces of green pigment are visible on the skirts, quexquexmitl and earplugs; white is on headdresses, face and necklaces and red is visible on the thorax, arms and legs (Macías Goytia 1997:211). The application of various colors on separate sections of the figurines makes sense if we consider that white on the collar recalls the numerous conch necklaces encountered at the site whereas green possibly acts as an imitation of jade or jadeite earplugs.

Pulido et al. (1995:III:151) report that two fragments from the triangular shaped heads of Teotihuacan figurines were encountered, one in Congotzio (M-64) and one in Portrero de Enmedio (M-66). Both have mold-made big circular earspools and elaborate headdresses. There is another group called Fig. 4.19b: Taimeo, Michoacan Teotihuacanoid that includes two mold-made figurines with red, white, yellow and possibly black pigment found at the site of La Bolita. The first is an adult woman that bears the quexquemitl and measures 8.2cm height and 4cm width while the second is a child measuring 6.5 height and 3.4 width and it was found within a cradle-like basket (7.4x 5.9cm). The Old God of Fire (Von Winning 1987:II:22) is the most ancient god in Teotihuacan, where he was introduced from the Preclassic site of Cuicuilco. At the site of Cuicuilco, Basin of Mexico, this deity was venerated, as a large number of figurines testify. It is surprising that at Teotihuacan, this deity is not presented on the murals but only in stone sculptures and figurines. He always bears an incense burner on the head. Named Huehueteotl during the Late Postclassic he is associated both with fire and water (Von Winning 1987:II:23). At the Cuitzeo Basin site of Huandacareo, a fragment of a figure found in the debris of Mound 2 seems to represent the Old God, although Macías Goytia (1990:100) who excavated the site, speculates that it may depict the Postclassic Tarascan god Curicaueri.

The wide regional distribution of these figurines combined with an eclectic imitation of Teotihuacanassociated traits suggests that they were locally made. The same applies for another site, Huandacareo, where similar female figurines were recovered (Macías Goytia 1990:79). Possibly the presence of female figurines denotes an association with moon deities, agriculture and water (Macías Goytia 1989:180). Pratt and Gay (1978:256) posit that the high presence of female figurines in the Cuitzeo Basin is associated with the concept of symbolic passages from the world of the living to the world of the dead. For this reason female figurines were placed in the hands of the dead and would be ‘retrieved by the officiating shaman, possibly a woman, to be reused for the same purpose.’

Fig. 4.19a: Santa Maria

Animal figurines are rare. Some are musical instruments, mainly whistles and flutes. At the site of Tres Cerritos for instance their presence is minor and all represent dogs, despite the variety of fauna in the region (Macías Goytia 1990:80). 4.6

The ceramic tradition of the site of Santa Maria includes a limited number of figurines which—like the ceramic vessels—can be distinguished into local and foreign. The former group comprises some that are similar to those encountered in other sites of

Miscellaneous Teotihuacan-related ceramic artifacts

This category includes a number of clay sellos (stamps), the iconographic motifs of which relate to the ideational sphere of Teotihuacan (Chap. 5). Such is the sello recovered at Burial No 8, Tres Cerritos, which represents a serpent’s head (Macías Goytia 1997:229). At the site of Alvaro Obregón, two stamps present a bird motif in profile (fig.4.20); they resemble, albeit vaguely, some 43

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Carrillo Puerto and La Mina that can ba assigned to the Classic period since the repertory of local types is analogous to that of the remainder sites. Since percentages of types from surface collection is based on non-contextual data, it is useful to check whether there is correspondence between surface collection data and those from an excavated site. In Chart 4.1 data from two different sources—that is an excavated site (Santa Maria, Manzanilla 1984) and my surface collections—are compared in order to detect the degree of correspondence between the two. Percentages of local types such as orange, brown, red-on-buff and red-on-buff-withnegative do not deviate significantly. The percentages of types which are thinly present in both assemblages such as the white-on-red, and al secco (stuccoed) differ considerably but are nevertheless low for both cases. The significant difference among the percentages of black ceramics is attributable to the fact that for the assemblage of Santa Maria, all black vessels are included in the analysis of Manzanilla (1984) wheras in the surface collections sample only the incised black is included. The above charts suggest that: a) data collected during fieldwork can be integrated into the local ceramic tradition of the Classic period and b) Teotihuacan ceramics are thinly represented in surface and excavated assemblages.

bird motifs depicted on Teotihuacan murals. Regarding the use of sellos, Field (1967:8) states: There has come down to us virtually no evidence of the use of sellos. No textiles whatsoever exist that can be said to have been printed by sellos. The examples of clay, if any . . . are so rare . . . If human beings were decorated by them they are not around to demonstrate the fact.

In a different study, Field (1974:x) reports that out of a corpus of 3,000 stamps, he identified 49 sellos that were used to make a repeat design. Five were from Tlatilco, four from Las Bocas, and forty from Cuitzeo, Michoacán. At Teotihuacan, sellos were mostly found in refuse heaps (Séjourné 1966:206). Field (1967:46) recounts that once a collector suggested to him that the use of sellos— Fig. 4.20: sello, Alvaro among the Olmec—was the Obregón, (7 x 5 cm) identification of traders as marks of identity in the form of the design of a sello. Field is reluctant to accept this function, but sellos were nevertheless a very successful means of information exchange, especially when symbolic forms are depicted on them (Chap. 5). 4.7

THE CUITZEO COMPLEX Is it now possible to speak of a Classic period Cuitzeo culture (or Horizon) with its proper material culture tradition? Evidence from excavated sites (see de Vega et al. 1982, Moguel Cos 1987, Macías Goytia 1990 and 1997, Pulido et al 1996) indicates that there is a remarkable homogeneity regarding the material culture of the sites. The inhabitants of the Cuitzeo Basin region were interacting with other areas of Mesoamerica such as Central Mexico, El Bajío, and possibly other areas in West Mexico such as Colima for instance (Manzanilla 1984).

Toward an evaluation of the Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex

The present discussion, inferred from the examination of the ceramic evidence of the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán in conjunction with the analysis of iconographic motifs (Chap. 5), forms the basis for the characterization of the nature of exchange contacts between Michoacán and Teotihuacan (Chap. 7). It is observed that a large variety in forms characterizes the local ceramic production whereas the repertory of Teotihuacan-related ceramics is limited. The information regarding the ceramic production of the Cuitzeo Basin during the Classic period (250-650 CE) derives from excavation reports, private, museum and surface collections. It is understandable that vessels from museum and private collections are not included for quantification purposes, for the sole reason that it would be a highly biased sample. For example, utilitarian wares are rarely present in private collections because collectors have a preference for vasijas floreadas, that is, decorated vessels (F. Perez Ferreyra, personal communication, 1999). Nevertheless, information from artifacts from museum and private collections is valuable as regards the identification and analysis of iconographic motifs (Chap.5).

If we take into consideration that during the Middle and Late Classic periods the most traded Teotihuacan artifacts, i.e. Thin Orange ware and green obsidian prismatic blades, were distributed from the Gulf Coast to the east to Colima to the west, there is no sound reason to exclude northern Michoacán from the Teotihuacan exchange network. It is highly probable that certain individuals from the Cuitzeo Basin had established relationships with the Teotihuacan elite. A number of events point to that direction. The contextual data indicate that Thin Orange was encountered exclusively as part of burial offerings of high-rank individuals (e.g., De Vega et al. 1982, Macías Goytia 1997). The exchange of Thin Orange ware may have helped the local rulers legitimize their status by means of emphasizing their affiliation to the Teotihuacanos. In case there was no access to the original products, they imitate foreign types with local clays.

Table 4.1 shows counts for surface collected sherds (2,822 sherds) for the sites where Teotihuacan material was evidenced. Another 388 sherds (of local origin) were collected from the sites of Zapata, Las Trojes, Felipe

PIXE (Proton Induced X-ray Emission) and XRD (X-Ray Diffraction) analyses conducted at the Institute of Physics 44

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

Table 4.3: Sherd counts from field survey, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Araró Types Orange Brown Red-on-buff Red-on-buff with negative White-on-red Black inc. Al secco Thin Orange Red-on-buff with inc. rim Totals

El Calvario

35 67 45 22 2 2 2 5 0 180

Sites Taimeo Chehuayo

El Coro

19 35 14 9 1 1 3 1 1 84

34 56 20 8 2 0 2 1 3 126

122 134 43 15 3 1 1 3 0 322

94 76 112 67 5 2 0 1 0 358

B. Dominguez

66 18 23 7 2 1 3 2 0 122

S. Lucas Pio

366 334 253 89 5 1 0 1 0 1049

127 212 165 76 1 0 0 1 0 582

Totals 863 932 675 293 21 8 11 15 4 2822

A Tree Diagram (Chart 4.2) presents the elemental composition of all the cases that were submitted for analysis showing succesive linkages of similar entities. Samples come from two sites: Santa Maria and Alvaro Obregón (Appendix II). In addition to Thin Orange, I also submitted samples of local ceramics for analysis that include: al secco, red-on-buff with negative, white-on-red and a rare red on black with negative decoration in order to compare the composition between local and foreign types. In the Tree Diagram of Chart 4.2 the gray bars present the cases for the Thin Orange ware. It can be observed that samples AO1 and AO2, both from the site of Alvaro Obregón, are located on the extreme ends of

of the National Autonomous University of Mexico on a suite of 20 sherds demonstrated that some of the Thin Orange ceramics were locally produced. PIXE analysis by means of obtaining peak areas of spectra for each sample (or case), determines the presence of major elements and trace contents in order to characterize pottery material. Thin Orange ceramics are considered a highly diagnostic Teotihuacan ware because Teotihuacan is supposed to have monopolized the exchange of this ware. However, regarding its composition, Thin Orange is very distinctive from the Teotihuacan ceramics as far as the temper is concerned (e.g., Shepard 1946, Sotomayor and Castillo 1963, Lambert 1978). Galguera 35

El Pedrillo

33 30.5

30 25 20

Loma Santa Maria

23.9

23.2

Surface collections

20.5 15.2

15

10.4

10 6.2

k

th

in -o r

an

-re -o n wh

ff/

0.28

re

d-

on

-b u

ite

ne

on dre

ge

d

e ga tiv

ff -b u

n ow br

or

an

ge

0

3.4 0.06 0.38 bl ac

0.05 0.53

cc o

1.3 0.74

st u

5

Chart 4.1: Percentages for Santa Maria and surface collections

the Diagram, to the left the former and to the right the latter, which indicates that their composition is highly distinct. AO2, albeit a Thin Orange sample is closer to cases AO3, AO4 and SM16, which are all local types (the first two, are samples of the polychrome al secco ware, whereas the latter represents the local white-on-red ware). It can be postulated thus that cases SM10 and AO2 which represent Thin Orange sherds are local copies of the Teotihuacan Thin Orange ware. Another imported sample is case SM4, and the sherd was sampled from the site of Santa Maria. It is a light brown incised base sherd

(1989) states that the raw materials used by the potters were derived from very specific deposits: a sedimentary layer (breccia) superimposed discordantly on the Acatlan complex of probable Jurassic age, and composed of schist and micaceous schists fragments and quartzite particles cemented together by a clay mud containing pyroxenes, micas and amphiboles, along with hematite-rich clays of possible feldspathic origin. However since quartz has a high thermal expansion factor (being an unstable mineral temper) Thin Orange ceramics were unsuitable for culinary purposes (Kolb 1996:101). Thus, the production of this ware targeted principally ritual vessels. 45

20

20

18

18

16

16

14

14

12

12

10

10

8

8

6

6

4

4

2

2 0

0 B

AO1 SM13 SM4 SM1 SM6 SM11 SM14 SM15 SM12 SM7 SM9

SM2 SM3 SM5 SM8 AO3 AO4 SM16 SM10 AO2

Chart 4.2: Tree Diagram for 21 cases; Single Linkage, Euclidian distances

100%

x W u e s tite

80%

M u s c o v ite O r th o c la s e

60%

A n o r th o c la s e 40%

C r is to b a lite M o n tm o r illo n ite

20%

B io tite A lb ite AO2

SM3

AO4

SM15

AO3

SM12

SM6

SM16

SM13

SM5

SM14

SM1

SM8

SM4

SM9

AO1

SM2

SM10

SM7

0% SM11

Linkage Distance

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Q u a r tz

Chart 4.3: XRD results on a suite of 20 samples including local and imported ceramics

46

The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic complex: 250-650 CE

It is interesting to speculate on the reason why such a specific corpus of Teotihuacan artifacts was diffused. It seems that local actors determined the kinds of artifacts that were exchanged. In the Maya area, for instance, the Teotihuacan-related material evidence differs significantly from that of Michoacán; in addition to Thin Orange and green obsidian, for instance, there are large stone monuments (stelae) with representations of figures clad in Teotihuacan accoutrement. The selective adoption of Teotihuacan artifacts by distinct local cultures is examined in Chap. 6.

and the incision was filled with red pigment, possibly cinnabar. The form of the vessel suggested by the sherd, along with a slab support, is that of a cylindrical flatbottomed, steep-walled tripod vase which is a very typical vessel for the Gulf Coast area some 700kms to the east. This does not of course imply that the Cuitzeo Basin had established relations with the aforementioned region. As stated in sec. 4.4, it is a type that characterizes Teotihuacan as well. Another import from Teotihuacan is case SM3, which represents a dark brown excised vessel such as those encountered at Teotihuacan (e.g., Berrin and Pasztory 1993:245, fig. 124). One of the limitations of PIXE analysis is that the validity of results depends on the homogeneity of the samples. When polychrome sherds are analysed, the colored regions of the pottery are quite heterogeneous and may affect the results. For this reason I decided to conduct a complementary XRD (Xray Diffraction) on the same samples (Chart 4.3). Results coincide largely when Charts 4.2 and 4.3 are compared.

And, despite the popular (in archaeology) axiom that the number of exchanged items decreases when distance to the source increases, in the State of Colima farther to the west the repertory of Thin Orange is broader than that of Michoacán and includes decorated ollas with appliqué motifs and red spots (McBride 1974). But to say that y amount of pottery is found at a site because it is x distance from the source and because the relationship between y and x fits a regression formula is hardly an adequate explanation of the exchange process . . . Simulation studies of hypothetical exchange processes have shown that very different exchange mechanisms, such as redistribution and reciprocal exchange, may result in identical falloff patterns (Hodder 1982:202).

Local reproductions might be conceived of as the result of the impact and the significance the imported vessels had on the local population who used substitutes for lack of access to the original. Although the word diffusion has had an unfortunate history in archaeological studies, I consider local imitations a byproduct of what Davis (1983:56) calls stimulus diffusion. It seems that the production of local copies was common among the diverse cultures that were interacting with Teotihuacan. For example, tripod vessels from Acapulco (in the State of Guerrero) imitate not only the form but also the thin walls of Teotihuacan’s Thin Orange ware (Ekholm 1947:99).

The presence of far more elaborate Thin Orange vessels at some of the major Classic period sites such as Kaminaljuyu and Copán in the Maya zone, and Monte Alban in Oaxaca (Rattray 1990:181) possibly indicates that the presence of undecorated types in Michoacán is not accidental after all, but is rather consistent with the other classes of evidence (architecture and lithics) which is also ‘poor’. In a similar vein, the examination of interactional processes requires the assessement of present and absent foreign types as far as local assemblages are concerned (e.g. Orton et al. 1993:106). Although ceramic typologies involve the study of variation within each type that measures differences in size and decoration, I decided not to follow this path, since the focus of my research is rather the identification of the principal (characteristic) types which have not been heretofore reported and there is little that measurement of variation can provide in this respect. Too, the variation in the execution of specific attributes if often subconscious and does not always relate to societal interaction (Plog 1983:127).

Near the Cuitzeo Basin lies the kin area of the El Bajío where there was also local production of Teotihuacan ceramics. At the site of La Negreta, Queretaro, ninety percent of material from surface collections and excavations was manufactured with local clays, but the study of forms, surface treatment and decoration shows that sixty percent are of Teotihuacan style (Brambila and Velasco 1988:294). At Santa Maria el Refugio, in Guanajuato, Structure A revealed at least sixteen types that were locally elaborated with Teotihuacan criteria and models (Castañeda et al. 1996:166). Therefore, the production of local reproductions results from the conscious decisions of local actors to emulate Teotihuacan prototypes. It is noteworthy how culture and not resources may determine the manufacture of ceramic forms and types. Local imitation was the answer to the ideological and political needs of the particular groups in power. An additional significant parameter to consider is the differential manifestation of the ceramic evidence among the sites of the Cuitzeo Basin. At the intrasite level, a quantitative differentiation has been observed. At the site of Tres Cerritos for example, the only evidence for Thin Orange ceramics is the single anthropomorphic olla (Macías Goytia 1997). In contrast, at the site of Santa Maria three complete vessels and more than twenty sherds were recovered (de Vega et al. 1982).

Of greater importance is the identification of a pattern that allows for the characterization of the nature of contacts between the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan. For this reason the present study seeks to measure the extent of the Teotihuacan ‘influence’ in the Cuitzeo Basin, that is, the regional distribution and the kinds of Teotihuacan artifacts that are present. Certainly, we now know that this distribution covers the area surrounding the Lake Cuitzeo but more research is required in order to obtain 47

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

quantified data. Davis (1983:83) rightly posits that ‘interaction intensity is not a meaningful concept. It cannot be accurately measured and has little comparative value because interaction covers a multitude of social processes . . . the question is what kinds of interaction and social relationships promote the spread of stylistic traits?’ Archaeologists who have previously worked in the area have noticed the change that occurred during the Classic

Craft specialization has often been associated with the emergence of powerful centralized political centers (e.g., Service 1962, Peregrine, 1991). The variability within distinct types is strongly related to the nature of the societies along the shores of the Lake Cuitzeo. The evidence so far suggests that they might have functioned as a ‘key-area’ within the communication routes between Central and West Mexico. Neff (1992:168) has pointed out that both the cultural historical and ceramic sociology are not complete enough to explain the variability in ceramics observed for specific societies. In the Cuitzeo Basin case, the variability may be also considered as a result of migration and/or alliances wherein different traditions merge, others are displaced and new often emerge. The study of variability illuminates to a certain degree intersite relations and may refute the view that only large sites can have a complex organization. By a priori negating any degree of social, economic and political complexity for small sites, it is likely to miss important information.

Table 4.4:Counts for types in the Cuitzeo Basin No of Period Sherds % types 500BC /AD 300 6 171 5.17 AD 300-600 2 80 2.41 AD 600-900 12 618 18.68 AD 900-1200 6 1,007 30.45 AD 1200-1500 6 1,431 43.27 Totals 32 3,307 99.98

period and regards increase in number of settlements and manufacture of new ceramic types. Table 4.4 below is based on data provided by Moguel Cos (1987), and presents number of types for the local tradition only. The figure that draws our attention is the increase in number of ceramic types during the late Classic, a total of 13 types, while the early Classic presents only 2 types. During the Classic period there is a distinctive local production of both utilitarian and ritual wares and a group of foreign elements characteristic of Teotihuacan, the El Bajío zone and some States of West Mexico such as Colima and Jalisco. The increase in the number of types mirrors the increase in number of sites for the same period, a datum provided by Pulido Mendez et al. (1996) who state that the total number of sites for the late Classic is 106, 75 of which are new sites. In addition, some of the ceramic types which are present in the Classic, albeit originated in the Preclassic are characterized by a higher degree of specialization.

I also suggest, that the cultures of the Classic Period Michoacán shared a limited number of iconographic traits with Teotihuacan. It is not easy to determine whether the

Fig. 4.21: reproductions of Tarascan ceramics

Certainly, most of the dates provided in the above table have been refined and some types that Moguel Cos dates to the Late Postclassic, such as the red-and-black-on orange, can be dated to the Classic period (personal communication, 2000). The increase in the number of ceramic types during the Classic period, the elaboration (or advancement) of certain techniques such as the negative and the al secco, and the large scale standardization for some of the types indicate that some individuals were highly specialized. The negative decoration, for instance, is a very sophisticated technique and requires skillful knowledge of proper clays. The Family Hernández Cano from San Juan, Zinapécuaro, Michoacán are currently commissioned by the National Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico, to reproduce copies of pre-Hispanic Tarascan ceramics. They told me that it took them some time of experimentation in order to discover the process of applying the negative decoration (fig.4.21).4 4

In fact, they patented their technique Tarascan ceramics, they manufacture inspiration from pre-Columbian cultures And despite being called derogatorily

motifs in question had political and/or religious significance, especially because they appear along with intrusive ceramic types from other adjacent areas such as El Bajío for instance, making the ceramic complexes of the Classic period sites in the state of Michoacán highly diverse or ‘hybrid’ (González de la Vara 1993:106). Interpretation of the local and non-local symbolic system is of great importance and it is dealt with in extenso (Chap. 5). Undoubtedly, individuals used their material culture as a means of recording information. The projecting of this knowledge onto their external symbolic system denotes a cognizant effort to define territorial limits and/or ethnicity (e.g., Zubrow and Daly 1998:158). It can be argued however, whether it is possible to interpret this recorded information, especially when the sites considered had eclectic and heterogeneous artistic traditions (e.g., Pasztory 1978a:21).

and in addition to copies of excellent ceramics drawing of Meso and South America. ahumados, olleros and San

Juaneros they proudly continue a family tradition that commenced in 1815.

48

CHAPTER 5 ENCODED IDENTITIES: ICONOGRAPHY AS A MEANS OF DEMARCATING ELITE RELATIONS

ethnic identity. Teotihuacan motifs were executed on artifacts of diverse media such as clay, stone, conch, and obsidian. Special emphasis is placed on ceramics because ceramics contain the most abundant evidence.

Exchange studies often examine highly distinctive iconographic motifs. In world systemic perspective in particular, it is often postulated that information and cultural flows are the most important world systemic activity to be studied (McNeill 1993, 1995, Frank 1999:278). Carmack et al. (1996:60) hold that the ideological and religious influence of Teotihuacan was even more widespread than the trade system. Ideological factors can be equally important in determining the structuration of interregional interaction (e.g., Edens 1992). Additionaly, the economic, political, and ideological dimensions of core/periphery relations do not necessarily coincide, as was the case with Imperial China and its neighbours, or Rome and ‘barbarian’ Europe. (Stein 1999:18).

5.1

Symboling as structuration

5.1.1

Material Culture

a

means

of

knowledge

Material culture has an active role which must be deciphered by past and present individuals. The recognition of that role is common ground among researchers who investigate the dynamics of artifactindividual interaction within a broad cultural framework (e.g., Donald 1998; Renfrew 1998). Any given artifact can be viewed as an integrated part of a cultural system and as such it mirrors diverse aspects of cognition. In this vein, artifacts actively perform a varied number of functions from the merely aesthetic to the mediation of often-tense relations. Artifacts bear messages regarding past behaviours and are not passive remnants of such behaviours. The amount of information to be drawn by the examination of any class of artifacts is enormous: materials and techniques used, symboling and rituals, motorhabits, concepts about the categorization of artifactual culture and so forth. It is often postulated that the need for information communication is concomitant with an increase in social complexity (e.g., Wobst 1977).

The fact that the individuals of the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán had adopted a highly selective corpus of Teotihuacan cultic paraphernalia and motifs by no means suggests that they were politically and economically subject to the Teotihuacan state. The available data indicate that it was, rather, a conscious process of emulation whereby local agents increased their status by adopting symbols of political and ideological power (see Stein 1999). The process of emulation is a complex one and the diffusion of cultural traits may result in the attribution of new meanings to apparently similar artifacts. Hall (1999:7) for example posits that in instances of ‘down-the-line’exchange, that is when goods go from A to B to C, etc. information often becomes distorted. Additionally, the constituent elements of the Teotihuacan ideological system were not equally important for all the participants in its interregional network, and to ascribe ‘similar meanings to similar signs or symbols’ (contra Willey 1978:154) is a serious fallacy. Motifs and symbols in general can be conceived as manifestations of the ideational sphere of individuals and societies, and as the vehicle for the legitimization of both the ideological and political hierarchies which are reflected in turn in the artistic production, namely the style of each group. Style, a culturally construed value, is also indicative of cultural changes (e.g., Rice 1987:113). However, the interpretation of any symbolic realm of present and past societies is fraught with difficulty for the simple reason that such a symbolic realm resembles an encoded language constructed within a specific temporal and spatial context.

Within interaction studies, the aim is directed often to the identification of the exchanged items without considering the information that those items may represent. Wobst (1977:320-321) correctly posits that the archaeological literature does not deal properly with the role of artifacts in the exchange of information or with the symboling of social boundaries. Notwithstanding the above limitation, the importance of symbols in the archaeological record has been stressed by many authors during the last decade, and a new emphasis has been placed on iconographic analyses not as a means of defining art styles in general but as a device for identifying individual activities which reflect the cognitive map of past inhabitants, also known as mappa sensu Renfrew (1994). Material culture can be viewed as a language, and structure can be seen through the use of hermeneutics. Postprocessualists assert that material culture is comparable to spoken or written language in its ability to order human life (Hodder 1986, Leone 1986, Thomas 1996, Bawden 1996). ‘The ordering of objects through action can be used to communicate meanings in the same way that words, which also are symbols with a multitude of meanings, can’ (Van Pool and Van Pool 1999:39).

In the present chapter I analyse iconographic motifs. My analysis has enabled separation of the motifs into local and imported elements and the results of analysis indicate that although the Cuitzeo Basin sites participated in the ideological sphere of Teotihuacan, local ideologies were prevalent. Alternatively, many Teotihuacan iconographic elements were utilized by the local rulers as a means of power accretion, whereas local motifs clearly depict the local vision of the cosmos and are often used to demarcate cultural boundaries and therefore perpetuate

49

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

5.1.2

would use the term symboling, since it is suggestive of an active process within which individuals use diverse media and apparatus for their interplay with all that surrounds them (other individuals and the world) (e.g., Byers 1994). These tools can be called ‘symbols’, their function being the representation of the Other either by a) resemblance, b) association and/or c) convention. The representation of otherness is very specific and narrates symbolically a range of properties such as natural phenomena (for example sun, rain etc), other people (for example insignia as manifestation of membership to a special order), abstract categories and events (for example power, death etc.), an object (for example stone, temple, road), quantity (for example numbers), quality (beneficial and malevolent) and so forth. The structuration of the external and internal world is a routinely human process best justified by the designation of the human being as Animal symbolicum (Cassirer 1944:26 cited in Renfrew 1994a:6). In principal, the act of symboling manifests the need of individuals to structure the immense universe that surrounds them in order to make it comprehensible and communicate this knowledge to others. ‘(Both) perception and cognition serve to reduce the information overload (apparent chaos) of an un-cognized environment to manageable proportions. The reduction is achieved by searching for apparent symmetries (similarities)’ (Van der Leeuw 1994:135).1

Mesoamerican religion

In Mesoamerica, religion was a multifaceted sociocultural phenomenon including myths and history, which were blended into a form of recounting the memory of its people. Angulo (1998:27), for instance, refers to the Teotihuacan religious ideas as mythic-cosmogonic. It is highly probable that the prehispanic peoples did not hold a distinction between myth and history. In our twentieth-century Western culture, we make a distinction among three categories we call ‘myth, ‘history’ and ‘propaganda.’ For the cultures of ancient Mesoamerica no such distinction was made. In the true speech of their hereditary rulers, all three were combined . . . be assured however that propaganda, myth and history are all ancient; only the distinction between them is modern (Marcus 1992:8).

Another difficulty is the characterization of Mesoamerican cults either as polytheistic and/or monotheistic. It seems that the diverse cults were manifestations of a rather multifaceted phenomenon conditioned by the needs of individuals, groups and states. For example, the Mexica sacred realm had two interrelated aspects: a) it was the same as the profane realm of human existence; and b) it involved change and transformation and therefore cannot be described as eternally timeless (Read 1998:35).

It becomes, thus, an inherent action of the mind, a conscious process during which any single element of the external and internal life of the individual is attributed an abstract (in general arbitrary, subjective) value. The association between the real (the objective) and the attributed value (subjective) are codified. The deciphering of the symbolic values and the various associations in between reveal or aim at making apparent the objective, the diverse facets of the real world. ‘Religious ideas that are represented in material form gain survival value for the process of cultural transmission’ (Mithen 1999:164).

More or less secure inferences about cultic practices can be drawn primarily from the codices, hieroglyphic writing and Early Colonial texts. For the Classic period (250-650 CE), which is the period of our concern, data are solely based on artifacts and cross-cultural comparisons. Few sites present some kind of incipient hieroglyphic writing such as glyphs in Teotihuacan but even then there is debate regarding their meaning. The various facets of Mesoamerican ritual cults have frequently caused fervid debates regarding the significance of the participating symbols that are present in the form of what we, in archaeological parlance, define as ‘iconographic motifs’. These motifs can be present in a number of diverse configurations, which makes their interpretation rather dubious. Thus, Pollard (1991:167) postulates that the study of Prehispanic religion ‘has often been viewed as a “suspect” subject, full of unproven, or unprovable, speculations about an aspect of human behavior without theoretical significance’ (see also Demarest 1989). The term religion is inadequate to describe the complex Mesoamerican phenomenon in which cults, politics and ideology seem to blend and are part of the same system. The term is thus of limited applicability. 5.1.3

The transformation of the aforementioned categories into symbols, i.e. the act of symboling, is of course partly subjective, but this does not negate the existence of these categories in the realm of cognition (see Chase 1999:40 for a discussion of the justification of cultural imperatives by symbolic culture). The subjectiveness of symbolic usage is best demonstrated by the fact that agents define the vehicles of their symbolic culture from a wide repertory at their disposal. Symbols are thus socially construed and the tracing of their biography becomes our task. By biography is meant ‘The history of [their] past transferences and their embeddedness in social relationships’ (Melion and Kuchler 1991:34). The symboling process is being secured by means of perpetuation, which takes place within the mind of the individuals, and during specific individual and group ritual events. Sacred history becomes thus paradigmatic

The Praxis of Symboling

For the purposes of the examination and interpretation of the repertory of artifacts which, based on contextual evidence, express a certain aspect of ritual activity, I

1

For example, although humans are physiologically able to sense 7.5 million different colours, most cultures name –on average–from 2 to 10 (Jandt 2001:186).

50

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

the context of an unnatural environment’ (Chase 1999:39 see also Urban and Schortman 1999:134-135).

(e.g., Gillespie 1989) and it must be preserved and transmitted to the succeeding generations. Symbols are inherently performative in the sense that they may acquire a specific meaning in a given context. It would be presumptuous to propose a single meaning for a given symbol. ‘Although certain influential theorists of material culture have stressed the objectivity of the artifact, I can only recognize the reverse: the mutability of things in recontextualization’ (Thomas 1991:28 see also Dolgin et al. 1977). Therefore, the objectification of a meaning depends largely upon the agent(s) in charge.

According to Chase (1999:40-41) there are four aspects of symbolic culture that enable it to provide an environment in which cooperation with strangers is not only possible but potentially even required by the individual: 1. 2.

The manipulation of symbols is strictly associated with the dynamics of power relations. By projecting specific properties upon artifacts/symbols, individuals effect changes on all levels of societal life. Access to symbolic resources (religion and ritual) is equally important to access to objective resources (wealth and factors of production) (see Giddens 1984; Blanton et al. 1996:3). According to Peregrine (1999:39), a ‘prestige-system represents the myriad of ways in which prestige is accrued and maintained in the society. It includes knowledge, rituals, and symbols, which convey and display status. Elites help to “steer” the prestige-system through sumptuary laws, policies and regulations.’ The power of those symbols is best demonstrated via the temporal dimension of their existence. Such power is certainly equal to that of the subsistence economy, which is often overemphasized (Peregrine 1999:48).

3.

4.

Symbolic culture provides cultural imperatives for cooperation. Symbolic culture justifies cultural imperatives for cooperation. Symbolic culture provides for social enforcement of cooperation. Without symbolic culture, one individual has no motivation and no reason to interfere with the behaviour of another unless it threatens his own self-interest, either directly or indirectly by threatening the interests of a relative or personal ally. Symbolic culture provides emotional reinforcement of cooperation.

For Brumfiel (1988:133) symbols are used to forge factional groups: ‘Archaeologically, regions drawn into factional competition should produce symbolic artifacts in a single regional style. Factions try to make themselves appear better, not different.’ Related to the aforementioned aspect of social cooperation via the utilization of symbols is the issue of social and ethnic identities. In fact, one of the denominators of the structuration of social interaction is merely the ethnic identity of a group. However, the detection of ethnic identity (let alone ethnogenesis) has rarely been successful in archaeological studies. Within the context of the present study the definition of the elements that constituted the ethnic identity of the Cuitzeo Basin individuals is related to the degree of the intensity of the interaction with Teotihuacan. The analysis and interpretation of local symbolic elements demonstrate how the individuals of the Cuitzeo Basin succeeded in maintaining their own identity whilst making references (for their own purposes) to elements of foreign prestige. It is important to identify the means by which these ethnic groups objectify their identity. In the case of the individuals of the Cuitzeo Basin sites, they accomplished this endeavour by two means: a) selective emulation and b) transformation.

The utilization of artifacts as vehicles for ideological and other metaphors expresses relations between individuals. For example, some scholars make distinctions between ‘vertical’ propaganda, put out by the elite for the consumption of their subjects, and ‘horizontal’ propaganda, practiced among the members of the elite. Maya art has both, but a remarkable amount of it is ‘horizontal’ propaganda (Pasztory 1998:61). Within this spectrum it becomes easier to understand why, within the Teotihuacan exchange network, there is a differential manifestation of the artefactual evidence in quantitative and qualitative terms. Artifacts express the specific and often complex dialectic that takes place among individuals establishing a unique narrative and/or discourse that are memorized by the participants of that relationship. In this vein, artifacts can also replace or project the individuals that made or exchanged those artifacts in the mind of the receiving culture.

Symbols thus act as operators among different arguments. Among these arguments is information about the social identity of individuals, which is encoded by the makers of the symbols and will be decoded by ‘only those viewers who happen to know their meaning’ (Hays 1993:81).

It would be challenging to consider whether the need for symboling depends upon societal developmental stages. It is postulated, for example, that in cases of population growth and increased exchange, it is almost impossible to account for societal cooperation (Boyd and Richerson 1988, 1989). In order to secure cooperation, especially with strangers, the creation of a symbolic environment is an imperative that ‘can provide the individual with rewards and punishments that the natural circumstances themselves cannot provide . . . he or she must be acting in

Through time, however, the association of artifacts to individuals might change so as to suit personal and group interests at best: ‘So that we are able to present ourselves to the world as we would wish’ (Hinde 1998:178). Undoubtedly, it is erroneous to assume a priori that 51

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Hays 1993:82). Artifacts therefore have a special meaning which was created by their artisans to be read by a specific audience which did not necessitate any explanation upon the subjects (Frake 1994:119).

similar artifacts bear the same significance in different cultural frameworks. Obviously, the adoption of foreign cultic paraphernalia is conditioned by the degree of contacts between donors and recipients, the nature of exchange and the societal structure of both parties (e.g., Cavalli-Sforza and Feldman 1981:36). Some societies are more conservative with regard to the prospect of change, especially when local traditions are efficient in maintaining the established structures. Local cults are traditionally powerful and thus tend to be highly resistant to the prospect of change. The adoption of changes in ritual, if not coercively imposed, must correspond to the economic and political interests of the group in societies of different ranks, otherwise it may not succeed (e.g., Davis 1983:75, Whitley 1992:78). Discontinuities and/or changes in artefactual patterns are symptomatic of a varied number of factors including environmental and societal changes, and ideological disruptions and transpositions. The transformation of local cultural systems does not necessarily bring about the collapse of that system but it is necessary to view these transformations within the spectrum of new ideologies as a means of preventing ‘legitimation crises’ and maintaining the established political hierarchies (e.g., Peregrine 1999:49). 5.1.4

5.1.5

Symbolic Value

After the identification of the iconographic elements and the compilation of a repertory of symbols, the most difficult endeavour is the understanding of symboling meaning. In the archaeological record, symbols have been often associated with distinct aspects of sociocultural life such as status legitimation, ethnicity and demarcation of territorial/cultural boundaries. All the above categories nevertheless are mere reflections of power. For example, when symbols are used as signposts of ethnicity, they aim at the manifestation of a differential, conditionally autonomous, identity. Deciphering symbols does not always give a satisfactory response to questions such as why and how; often, the nature of the sacred remains hidden or incomprehensible to the outside observer for he/she ‘does not have the imagination to ask or the native does not have the initiative to say’ (Lupo 1993:86). Additionally, this value is often understood only by those who are acquainted with this symbolic language. For the rest, ourselves included, only an approximation to decipher this metalanguage can be accomplished. Therefore ‘Symbols may be misrepresented, lied about, inflated, deflated, twisted, spun, overvalued, or ignored, and they need constant inputs of human time and energy for their maintenance, renewal, and reinterpretation’ (Kowaleski 1996:31). Symbolic value suggests the value which is construed in a given temporal and spatial context and it is attributed to a specific symbol by the people who created or used it. As Thomas (1991:4) opines : ‘Objects are not what they were made to be but what they have become. This is to contradict a pervasive identification in museum research and material culture studies which stabilizes the identity of a thing in its fixed and founded material form.’ The recognition of that value enables us to understand the ‘reality’ which is inherent in any symbolic entity which is far from systemic. The objectification of any meaning and/or value is an inherently political act, which may even refute generally accepted criteria such as scarcity and cultural embeddedness (e.g., Thomas 1991:21). Additionally, there are often disjunctive situations where meaning separates from form and is recombined into different forms. Undoubtedly, meaning has its own existence in the mind of individuals. Post-processual archaeologists maintain that emphasis must be placed on deciphering the symbolic language of artifacts. However, no systematic method has been proved successful in such an attempt (e.g., Hays 1993).

Symboling as a Metalanguage

Symboling is strictly associated with human reasoning, a differential/subjective action that must become shared in order to render its value communicable in a common world (e.g., Johnson 1991:76). The communication of symbolic information requires materialized means such as objects, gestures and writing (Hodder 1986, VanPool and VanPool 1999:39). The creation of a symbolic language—as is the case with any language—is a result of a consensus among individuals. However, this is an encoded language, a metalanguage (semasiographic language) wherein symbols are governed by their own logic which reflects facts and reality. In order to understand the meaning of a symbolic language it is necessary to examine its ‘syntactic’ aspect, that is, the way symbols are articulated and structured so that meanings can be conveyed. Useful is the concept of symbols as containments (Johnson 1991:77) wherein ‘Some space or object is circumscribed or enclosed by a spatial expanse or volume . . . the containment schema pervades our understanding of all domains of our experience, physical and nonphysical alike.’ The unique arrangement of signs represents the gist of the meaning in a discursive manner, and for some researchers, Mesoamerican symbols are as eloquent as words (e.g., Read 1998:17) whilst for others there is a severe distinction between verbal description and symbolic/iconographic depictions (e.g., Frake 1994:119). It is true that each symbol, in our case, iconographic element, has an existence on its own, but only the consideration of the eventual syntax will let us know the value of that symbol. The archaeological record as a constituent part of the universe can be read as a ‘polysemous text’ (Hodder, Shanks and Tilley 1987a,

One initial step in the consideration of artifacts as bearers of a symboling meaning is the examination of their related context. By ‘context’ is meant the totality of the relevant environment (Halle 1998:52). In addition, Hodder (1992:14) posits that the context of an archaeological ‘object’ (including a trait, a site, a culture) 52

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

‘ideal’ situations while stating that the factors that account for the spread and distribution of stylistic innovation are complex and require other models of explication.

is all those associations which are relevant to its meaning and the practice of generalization from one culture to another should be avoided (Hodder 1986). The association of meaning to context is best illustrated via the study of mortuary practices. The arrangement of mortuary elements within a tomb can be viewed as a symbol in itself: the individuals, the position of the body and the offerings all can be conceived as configurative elements of x burial ‘motif’, for example. This motif/symbol is highly distinct from burial y; it either belongs to an individual of the same group but of lower rank, or same rank but distinct ethnic group, or so forth. The structuration/contextualization of data allows us to make valid inferences about meanings and associations. By data structure is meant the way material culture can be broken down into units so as to understand cultural patterns and motor habits.

In Mesoamerican studies, iconographic interpretations are often based on the DHA (Direct Historical Approach) (see Marcus and Flannery 1994, Nicholson 1976). The DHA involves the utilization of ethnohistorical texts for the analysis and interpretation of the Precolumbian past. I agree that for the Postclassic epoch this tool might have some applicability, but not for earlier periods of the Prehispanic past. Additionally, it presupposes a cultural continuity, a ‘Grand’ Mesoamerican religious tradition, neglecting myopically the importance of regional cults, denying the inherently idiosyncratic nature of individuals and finally promoting the idea of a Mesoamerican koine. Kubler (1972b:69-70) questions two factors that govern the interpretation of the iconography of Teotihuacan:

A clear methodological bias in any single study of symboling is the distinction between symbolic and nonsymbolic representation. The archaeological literature is teeming with examples of a priori designations of highly symbolic iconographic systems. As Renfrew (1994b:52) rightly posits: ‘If a feature cannot plausibly be explained in rational, “functional” terms, then it may be ascribed a “ritual” function . . . “ritual” thus often becomes an essentially residual [category] defined principally by the absence of something else, namely a good alternative explanation.’

The first, which I consider erroneous, supposes that there is a very strong relationship of continuity that connects the art of Teotihuacan with the Aztec and the first colonial documents, despite the interval of 800 years . . . the second hypothesis assumes that the primary preoccupation of the artists of Teotihuacan was the faithful representation of the biological species and ordinary objects, despite the prepoderance of composite forms in its arts that are not found in the visible reality . . . continuous are only those facts that belong to the realm of the biological and ecological, whilst the events that are situated in the field of the symbolic experience demonstrate a far greater instability and are prone to be transformed.

The presence of referential motifs for instance are often ascribed a symbolic meaning, and the reverse is also true. Carmichael’s study of Nasca iconography (1991) demonstrates that marine motifs on Nasca pottery were related to the symbolic rather than the economic realm. In a similar vein, piscine motifs are altogether absent from the Cuitzeo Basin iconographic corpus, despite the proximity of the sites to the Lake and the importance this species must have played in the daily life of its inhabitants. By the same token, simple motifs should not always be considered as referential, but their importance may lie in their function as representing something more complex. In fact, Mesoamerican cosmology provides many such instances of overly simplistic forms that nevertheless represent a complex concept such as the pair of discs which supposedly represent the Teotihuacan Storm God and/or the Aztec Tlaloc. Other examples can be found in Christian art with such symbols as the dove which represents the Holy Spirit, the fish with its association with St. Peter, and so forth (Carmichael 1992:193).

It has been proved that even in ethnographic studies the number of meanings assigned to objects is not exhaustive of the range of meanings they might have, and different peoples certainly present differential cognitive processes with concomitant results (van der Leeuw 1994:135, Halle 1998:52). In ascribing similar meanings to similar objects we impose a bias of the worst order, wherein meaning must respond to our expectations. 5.2

Iconographic themes

5.2.1

Methodological underpinnings

The present chapter presents a compilation of iconographic themes that dominate the production of material culture of the Cuitzeo Basin sites; it also attempts to understand processes of adoption and integration of Teotihuacan motifs by the local agents. By iconographic themes is meant that the ocurrence of some motifs, either in specific contexts or large numbers, allows us to speculate about the socio-cultural significance of these, otherwise, mute categories. The categorization of motifs and their designation as themes is of course an arbitrary procedure which depends largely

As regards the examination of symbolic meanings, the most one can achieve is interpretations based on elements with a broad spatial and temporal distribution. It is true that approximations of symbolic value require a large dataset, the examination of similar (apparently) symbolic units within a cross-cultural spectrum, and the rules and norms that govern any symbolic factory (e.g., Byers 1994:370). Davis (1983:82) questions the validity of contemporary models of diffusion as being based upon 53

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

geometric I include certainly local iconographic motifs and Teotihuacan-related when the conceptual unit is similar, albeit they differ in stylistic rendition. This categorization is useful as far as it offers a tool for immediate comparison. For example, in the sub-class serpent motif I present local depictions of this element along with renditions of the same thematic element but in Teotihuacan style. The fourth and last major class, Teotihuacan-related, presents in turn, the corpus of Teotihuacan design elements that occur in the Cuitzeo Basin and whose source is undoubtedly the Metropolis.

upon the observer’s perception and familiarity with the corpus of Mesoamerican symbolic elements. Since it is based on the assertion that motifs constitute an integral part of the local cognitive system, it is important to explore the possible connotative aspects of iconography (Shepard 1956:259). The local repertory comprises four major classes of iconographic themes: a) anthropomorphic, b) geometric, c) zoomorphic, and d) Teotihuacan-related. Information about these themes is drawn primarily from ceramics (sherds and complete vessels) which form inevitably the largest mine of evidence. Our knowledge regarding stone, conch, bone and obsidian is meagre when compared to ceramics. The provenance of this material is diverse: archaeological reports and publications, my own surface survey and museum and private collections. Since only three sites have been scientifically excavated in the area, the inclusion of artifacts with uncertain provenance was inevitable.

STYLE A second distinction is the way motifs are rendered, i.e. style. Although this distinction is often in the eye of the beholder, it is useful in determining stylistic differences which in turn reflect cultural differentials. For example, some local wares have been considered Teotihuacan imports based on their stylistic resemblance to other specimens from the city. However, PIXE and X-ray Diffraction analyses demonstrated their local origin.

Despite the denominators that provide each ceramic type with unique features, i.e. form, design elements and color, and although it has been demonstrated that there is an association between vessel form and design elements (e.g., Friedrich 1970:335, Rice 1987:260) local and Teotihuacan-related motifs often transcend the limits of artefactual categorization and make their presence on diverse media. For example, the trilobe and duck motif are depicted on clay but the trilobe was also worked in obsidian, and the duck motif in conch. Local ceramicists elaborated similar motifs on diverse vessel forms and used different styles for their execution. For some types, however, there is a high standardization in a number of constants regarding vessel type, form, repertory of designs and stylistic rendition. Coherent units of analysis and their subsequent interpretation resulted from three levels of observation: identification and classification of motifs, style, and interpretation of corpus.

INTERPRETATION OF CORPUS For this task I shall not follow the trend in Mesoamerican studies to interpret Classic period iconography solely with reference either to Aztec ‘parallels’ and/or postcolonial ethnographic sources. Thus, Classic period deities are not named after their Aztec equivalent; the Storm God is not denominated as Tlaloc, nor the Old God as Huehueteotl. It is demonstrated that the prevalence of some motifs speaks for their importance in the local ideology. 5.2.2

The iconographic corpus

For analytical purposes, each iconographic theme is considered as a combination of design elements organized into a pattern or design configuration. Design elements may be defined as the ‘smallest self-contained component of a design that is manipulated or moved around as a single unit’ (Rice 1987:248). Design elements are combined into a structured set known as design configuration. Configurations can either have a deliberately free structure or obey culture dependent norms. For well-documented databases it is worth exploring individual variations noted in ‘micro-element’ features such as line-width, distance between lines, brush stroke (Sinopoli 1991:65). Certainly, the distinction into design elements and motifs is often based on semantic criteria. For instance, a wavy line might be considered a simple decorative motif, but when examined in a different cultural framework it might be revealed that it stands for something else, for instance water. Thus, the differentials in thematic classifications are often based on a semantic discourse between observer and observed. The particular morphology of each theme is established by the arrangement (structure) of design elements and the specific cultural milieu that render apparent isolated units eloquent. Needless to say that simple designs are composed of one or two elements whereas in complex

IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF MOTIFS In order to classify the motifs in distinct categories I distinguish between primary and secondary iconographic units (Rice 1987:259). Primary are those motifs which constitute the apparent focus of the artefactual iconography, whereas secondary are these whose usage complements the decoration of the vessel. Secondary units are principally design elements whose usage is mainly functional, i.e. division of the vessel surface into distinct areas, such as space breakers, borders and so forth. Since this analysis deals with conceptual themes, it is understandable that only primary units are being explored. The criteria used for the generation of coherent conceptual units are based on their significata (Dunnell 1970) and allows the categorization of motifs into distinct classes which include: a) anthropomorphic, b) zoomorphic, c) geometric (simple and composite) and d) Teotihuacan-related. These classes include in turn subclasses of categories which are listed in Chart 5.1. I must stress that throughout the exploration of the first three categories i.e. anthropomorphic, zoomorphic and 54

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

Classes

Anthropomorphic

Stylized Zoomorphized Teotihuacan-related

Zoomorphic

Geometric

Avifauna

Lines

Local Teotihuacan-related Reptiles Local Teotihuacan-related Canidae/Cervidae

Parallel lines Comb motif Wavy Lines Local Teotihuacan-related Triangles Circles Circlets Hatched Solar motif Teotihuacan-related Scrolls

Teotihuacan

Butterfly Half-star Trapeze and Ray Saltire Comb and Bar Flower frontal Q Goggles Eye elongated Quatrefoil C Mountain triple Hatching Fourway Scroll Chain Trilobe Almena

Local Teotihuacan-related Stepped-fret Composite The L Glyph Chart 5.1 Iconographic themes, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

One type only, the al secco, seems to follow a strict set of rules regarding vessel form, spatial division of the decorated area, application of colour, association of motifs to colours and of course the range of motifs. These latter bear a kind of codified similarity to some Teotihuacan counterparts and for this reason it is worth exploring the likely relationships in between. It is true that this ware is very dissimilar from any other Michoacán specimens (e.g., Holien 1977:157-158) and as a result it has been systematically considered a variant of the Teotihuacan al fresco ceramics for their apparent ressemblance. It is also erroneously designated as pseudocloisonné by analogy to western Mexican vessels. However, for the reasons set out in Chapter 4, I suggest a local origin for this ware. Nevertheless, Teotihuacan influence is apparent via the manifestation of notational signs such as the Feathered Headdress, Eye Elongated,

designs we have whole configurations of group elements (Shepard 1985: 267). The Cuitzeo Basin ceramic style can be categorized as stylized and geometric to a certain extent. As a rule, the rendition of local motifs is highly stylized and naturalistic depictions of subject matter are rarely found. Nevertheless, abstract motifs can be also configured with naturalistic ones, when the latter occur. Figures are flat and two-dimensional. Iconographic themes are replicated on diverse pottery types but no exact copies have been documented. Nevertheless, the replication of motifs on vessels from either the same and/or different and often distant sites shows that similar motifs are used deliberately in various configurations.

55

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

display an array of large teeth (fig. 5.1:k–n). These animal features may indicate either ritual transformations or the use of ritual paraphernalia, apparel used during specific festivities. It would be interesting to examine the different structures of these movements. Figures 5.1:o-w present just some of these; a larger database would allow the creation of a vocabulary of different rythmic structures and address the question of their content which may in turn be determined by different kinds of rituals.

Butterfly, and certain cosmological symbolic aspects such as the sun and the four cardinal directions inter alia. The surface of the vessel is divided into 4 quadrants which serve as distinct narrative units. Each quadrant or cartouche is used by the potter as a framework for the narration of the aforementioned themes. This device i.e. the use of cartouches is encountered at Teotihuacan on murals and champlevé cylindrical tripod vessels (e.g., Holien 1977:157-158) where ‘the context or level of discourse is indicated by frames and borders’ (Kubler 1967:6). Another symbolic aspect of this ware is the usage of colour.

There are few instances of depictions of isolated individuals (fig. 5.1:x-y) both on al secco ceramics. The highly elaborate headdress of the personage in fig. 5.1:x possibly signifies a high-rank individual or priest. This personage is in fact clad in feathers, as seen from his enormous headdress and apparel. This depiction is unique in my database. The contrast between these individuals and the aforementioned assembly groups is striking. Although the al secco is a local type, it seems that the resemblance to the Teotihuacan al fresco is not accidental and precisely this affiliation made it such an important item for the Cuitzeo Basin individuals. Even the facial features of the personages (fig. 5.1:x-y) are rendered in typical Teotihuacan manner when compared with their Teotihuacan counterparts (fig. 5.1:z). Additionally, the plumed headdress in fig. 5.1:x, which forms the impressive focus of the composition, has been identified by Langley (1986) as a notational sign in Teotihuacan under the designation Array Feather (see Table 5.1:#2) which denotes high-rank individuals, spiritual authority (Langley 1986:34), and divinity (Acosta 1964:34, Kubler 1967:9).

The symbolic value of color usage has been stressed by Sahlins (1977). In the Cuitzeo Basin, certain classes of motifs appear strictly in one color. In Mesoamerica, colours have been variously associated with natural phenomena, cardinal directions, specific attributes and activities. For example yellow has been associated with the sun, red with blood and blue with water. The importance of color usage in Mesoamerica is emphasized by Arnold (2001:236); ‘The use of colors was part of the total sensual experience of being in the city . . . the affective use of color, therefore, gave people the sense of being intimately integrated into Mesoamerican social and cosmological realities.’ Ethnographic studies demostrate that the selective use of colors is practiced also nowadays; some Zuni potters, for instance, avoid using too much black: There should be a good deal of white showing. If you put on too many small designs, the jar is too black and that is not nice. I do not use too much black because it makes the jar dirty looking (Bunzel 1929:20).

A different sub-class of anthropomorphic motifs involves the incorporation of animal features representing a kind of anthropomorphized fauna, or part animals and part human figures (fig. 5.2:a–s). A category within this group includes some figures in a kind of squatting position (fig. 5.2:l-q). Field (1974:123) in his study of Mexican sellos designates these figures as ‘Hockers’ explaining:

Information about the local symbolic factory is drawn primarily from the following types: a) red-on-buff, b) redon-buff with negative, and c) white-on-red. Less frequent types such as black incised, light brown incised, red-andblack on orange present also local but mostly geometric motifs. The iconographic repertory of all types seems to be highly standardized, and various themes are being reconceptualized. This however does not refute withingroup homogeneity but it rather indicates a certain kind of artistic freedom which abides by general cognitive rules. The major classes of local motifs are discussed below.

‘Hockers’ or ‘hocker motif’ is the name given to the squatting, froglike creatures found in considerable number of Toltec and Aztec ceramic stamps. According to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary the word ‘hocker’ is a modification of hokra, a word in a Norwegian dialect meaning ‘to crouch’ which in turn derives form Old Norse hūka, ‘to squat’.

5.2.2.1 Anthropomorphic Motifs

Whether these figures represent deities or not is not important despite the long-held policy among researchers to designate apparently unfamiliar figures as deities (see also Von Winning 1987:I:60). What I do consider important is the prevalence of representation of collective groups in the local iconography and the information one may consequently derive about related social practices.

The depiction of the human form is highly stylized (fig. 5.1). The more naturalistic figures are generally naked, with round-shaped eyes (fig. 5.1:f-i), the torso wider than hip. There is no indication of the gender. It is important to stress that on red-on-buff, red-on-buff with negative and white-on-red vessels, individuals appear in assembly activities and rarely on their own. Individuals are portrayed —usually facing the same direction—holding hands, reaching forward, all executing the same movement as indicated by their posture (fig. 5.1:o-u). Some bear ‘horns’ and/or ‘antennae’, whilst others 56

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

z Fig. 5.1: Anthropomorphic motifs: a., e. stylized; f., j. head rendition; k., l. serrated teeth; m.,n. with mouth agape; o., w. assembly activities; x., y. Teotihuacan-related, z. mural (detail) Teotihuacan

57

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Basin) defines a motif as the homme-oiseau (bird man) and speculates that it might represent ‘an ancient expression of an Ehecatl, deity of the winds and firmament, related also to the clouds.’ The figurines of figs. 5.3:k-l wear, possibly, a feather costume. Compare with fig. 5.3:m from the Preclassic site of Tlatilco, Central Mexico, which bears a mask symbolizing the duality of life and death (Niederberger 1987:II:473). The use of animal features combined with anthropomorphic ones may suggest that animality was ‘an intrinsic component of original creator beings and mythical primordial eras when humans and animals were not differentiated and lived all together. . . and believed that human souls or the human dead . . . metamorphosed into animals’ (Helms 1999:60). Birds were also worked in other artifacts of clay such as the sellos. The purpose of these artefacts still eludes our understanding and for this reason Field (1967:5) warns against their designation as sellos. These of fig. 5.3:n-o were recovered at the site of Alvaro Obregón, while that of fig. 5.3:p some 100kms to the southwest at the site of Apatzingán (Kelly 1947:103, fig. 5.7d). Other raw material used for the depiction of birds was shell, slate and pyrite worked either in pendants or discs. Figure 5.3:q-s present shell pectorals. The pectoral of fig. 5.3:t was found on chest of Burial 36 at the site of Apatzingán (Kelly 1947: 127, Pl.18c).

Fig. 5.2 Anthropozoomorphic themes: a.-d. masked; e.-g. stylized standing figures; h.-j. elevated hands; m.q. squatting; r. tailed figure; s. man-cum-snake theme

5.2.2.2 Zoomorphic Zoomorphic motifs occur frequently on the Cuitzeo Basin vessels and some species seem to prevail. However, many are executed in such an abstract manner that the identification of the species becomes a difficult task. Other animals combine features of distinct species as in the Maya imagery, where eagles, vultures and hummingbirds interchangeably mix (Benson 2001: 349). Along with local representations of avifauna there are some artifacts in which a kind of Teotihuacan mannerism is observed. The disc2 on fig. 5.3:u is unique in the database in that it presents a bird–possibly an eagle–in a characteristic Teotihuacan frontal manner (see fig. 5.3:v). The motif was executed by means of incisions which were subsequently filled with cinnabar (?). The eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) is frequently represented on the Teotihuacan murals and for its predatory abilities it has been associated with warriors. Similarly, the Postclassic Mexica military elite consisted of Eagle and Jaguar warriors (Benson 2001:348). The distinction between different taxa is as follows:

Although it is difficult to distinguish among species, it can be stated nevertheless that bird motifs had a considerable importance among the inhabitants. Some authors speculate upon the sacredness of the duck, for example, for being an animal that can dive underwater. Favrot Peterson (1990:76) holds that for the Huichol natives, their gods often assume duck shapes in order to travel into the depths of the great Western Sea. In Colima, also in West Mexico, duck effigy vessels were buried with the dead. Birds could travel to the world of the dead. Pratt and Gay (1978:260) postulate that the overwhelming presence of female figurines in the Cuitzeo Basin Complex implies rituals of passage from the world of the living to the world of the dead. Birds would have possibly been auxiliary agents in the migration of the souls. For example, a figurine of the Cuitzeo Complex bears an elaborate headdress decorated with birds (Pratt and Gay 1978:259, fig.196).

AVIFAUNA

There is an enormous quantity of these birds in the arts of Teotihuacan and they are often related to individuals with attributes of the solar deity in its nocturnal phase or during its passage through the underworld (Angulo 1998:30). Similar discs (fig. 5.3u), albeit without the eagle motif, have been found at other sites in the vicinity, such as Huandacareo and Tres Cerritos, both northwest of Lake Cuitzeo. At Huandacareo, they are made of slate, have an average of 16cm diameter with two perforations near the circumference and often bear traces of red pigment; they were deposited in burials of individuals of possibly high status (Macías Goytia 1990:100).

This class includes mainly aquatic birds such as ducks, herons and spoonbills (fig. 5.3:h-i) and turkeys (fig. 5.3:f and j). Some display a certain position that looks human rather than animal (fig. 5.3:a-e) if we judge by the wide torso; the posture which is in profile and the extended wings resemble elevated hands. Carot (2001:127) in her comprehensive analysis of iconographic motifs for the site of Loma Alta (some 30kms to the west of the Cuitzeo 2 Karl Taube (1992) describes these objects as mirrors and in Teotihuacan they occur in diverse media such as mica, obsidian and iron pyrite.

58

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

Fig. 5.3 Various depictions of the bird motif: a.-e. bird-anthropomorphic; f.-j. stylized on ceramics; k.-m. figurines with feather (?) costume (k.-l. Cuitzeo Basin; n. Tlatilco, Central Mexico); n.-p. clay sellos; q.-s. shell pendants; t. slate pectoral; u. slate disc in Teotihuacan style and v. detail from a mural, Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan, discs are frequently encountered within burials (Sugiyama 1991:290):

The perforations may imply that they were meant to be fastened, possibly around the waist of the deceased as part of their insignia. The next site, Tres Cerritos, also north of Lake Cuitzeo, revealed similar objects in the looted burial chamber of Mound 2, and west chamber of Mound 3 (Macias Goytia 1997:155, 189). It is believed that the yellow unidentified material observed on the surface of these discs served as adhesive for the support of mosaic compositions (Macías Goytia 1997). Mosaic discs are artifacts often associated with male burials. Made either of pyrite or slate or both (e.g., Ekholm 1945), they might represent warriors’ shields as depicted in many Teotihuacan murals, or can be just a a hip ornament associated with high political office (Ostrowitz 1991:268). At the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl,

At Burial 190-L a complete disc of slate (with unknown yellowish material on the back side) had been placed vertically between the lumbar vertebrae. . . [it] had also three projectile points of grey obsidian and a blade . . . too, Burial 190K of a male adult on flexed position had dental mutilation of the type G-1, cranial deformation of the type tabular erecto and the offerings included worked shells, slate discs, two prismatic blades and four projectile points of grey obsidian underneath the skeleton in contact with the floor.

59

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

sacrificed dove. Another observation regards the structure of the images. Their association to other signs such as the multiple dots (fig. 5.3x-z), scrolls, sawtooth and stepped-fret might points to the particular setting where the narrative takes place.

At Huandacareo, Michoacan, those encountered in association with the burials, were also placed between the lumbar vertebrae (Macías Goytia 1997:358). The association of these discs to Teotihuacan material is suggested by Ekholm (1945:178), who describes a disc

REPTILES Snakes are by far the dominant zoomorphic iconographic element in the artistic production of Mesoamerica. Along with the bird motif, snakes seem to dominate in the iconography of local ceramics such as the red-on-buff with negative (fig. 5.4:a-d), white-on-red (fig. 5.4:e-h) and occasionally black incised. It is variously represented on the side walls of the vessel, forming a spiral motif on the base (fig. 5.4:h), and even worked in relief as that of the black incised sherd of fig. 5.4i. Figures 5.4:l-r may constitute more abstract renditions of this element. The representation of the serpent as an ‘s’ is seen both on sherds and sellos (stamps). ‘La serpiente puede ser símbolo del agua que ‘serpentea’ formando arroyos y ríos y los crotalos de la cascabel producen un sonido semejante al del agua de lluvia’ (Angulo 1996:92).3 Two almost identical sellos have been recovered from two sites about 400kms apart: the sello on fig. 5.4:r is from Santa Maria, Michoacán whilst that of fig. 5.4:s from Teotihuacan. The ‘s’ motif is also considered to represent the blue worm (Xonecuilli) ‘symbol of a constellation or the sceptre of Quetzalcoatl’ (Enciso 1953:55). Snakes are generally associated with the cult of the Feathered Serpent (nahua name Quetzalcoatl). This deity takes often the form of a composite mythological animal (bird feathers and serpent) but it can be also characterized by crocodilian/feline features. In Teotihuacan, the feathered serpent appears as early as 150 CE at the Temple of the Feathered Serpent (Ringle et al. 1998:192-193). In Michoacán, there are few instances of serpents (fig. 5.4:t-v) resembling samples from Teotihuacan but this does not necessarily imply that they were aware of the Teotihuacan cult of the Feathered Serpent.

Fig. 5.3 (cont’d): the bird motif on the local stuccoed and painted ware

for a site near Tequisquiapan, in the southeast of the state of Queretaro and compares it to those encountered by Kidder (1945:180) in the tombs of the Esperanza phase at the site of Kaminaljuyu concluding: Among the other objects in the collection to which the Queretaro mirror belongs is a cylndrical tripod vessel of the form common to Period III at Teotihuacan. We have no information as to the possible association of these two pieces, but supposedly they came from the same site. They certainly could have been associated because the similar mirror from Kaminaljuyú is from the Esperanza phase, definitely contemporary with the Teotihuacan III horizon.

Fig. 5.4:t is a unique sherd from the ceremonial precinct at the site of Santa Maria, Michoacán, and presents an incised serpent’s eye with a serrated feathered eyebrow. Next to it, I include a sherd from Teotihuacan (fig. 5.4:u) which also presents the characteristic eyebrow. At Tres Cerritos, Burial 8, North Plaza, revealed a clay sello (Macías Goytia 1997:229) that most likely represents the Feathered Serpent:

I was able to distinguish a second group of avian motifs related to Teotihuacan but in a less direct way. They all constitute iconographic elements of the al secco ware and the identification of the species is rather straightfoward: doves (Fig. 5.3:w), ducks (fig. 5.3z), and turkey (fig.5.3bb). Miller (1973:73) includes a similar dove in his study of the Teotihuacan murals. Interestingly, he states that such motifs are very rare in Teotihuacan. Regarding the Cuitzeo Basin al secco birds, some (fig. 5.3:w., aa.) have a triangular element attached to their neck, and the example in fig. 5.3w is presented with a blank ‘empty’ eye. Does this allude to a kind of sacrificial ceremony? The answer may be ‘yes’ if we look at the high-rank personage of fig. 5.1:x who is accompanied by (or holding?) a possibly recently

Tiene como motivo principal una cabeza de serpiente de donde salen dos cuerpos que se entrelazan y rematan en colas de cascabel. Tanto en los cuerpos como en la orilla de la pieza tiene una especie de rayos que bien

3

‘The serpent can be a symbol of water that “serpents”, forming brooks and rivers, and the rattle of the rattle-snake make a sound similar to that of the rain.’

60

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

a message about some sort of earthly manifestation’ of this deity. CANIDAE Less frequent is the depiction of canine-like animals, which could be either be coyotes (Canis latrans) or dogs (Canis familiaris) if we judge by their faces and long pointed tails with serration along the upper edge. It is noteworthy that a mural in Teotihuacan without a definitive provenance presents two coyotes or wolves ‘that inhabit the Michoacán region (Canis nubilus) attacking or devouring a white-tailed deer (Odocoileus dichotomus)’ (Angulo 1996:93). 5.2.2.3 Geometric motifs Geometric motifs comprise the class of visual representation that receives the least attention in iconographic studies. Their rendition makes their interpretation a difficult—if not futile—endeavor. The Cuitzeo Basin samples include a large amount of vessels that present solely geometric motifs, and their recurrence on other vessels juxtaposed with other elements indicates their relative significance. However, the degree of the successful interpretation of these motifs is conditioned by the provision of contextual information. Isolated geometric motifs are difficult to interpret as such but their contextual configuration may render this task attainable. Subclasses of geometric motifs are listed below.

Fig. 5.4: Serpent motif: a.-i. Stylized serpent motif on ceramics; j.-k. serpent’s eye (?); l.-o. abstract rendition; q. as an ‘s’; r. stone sello, Michoacan; s. sello, Teotihuacan ; t. sherd with feathered serpent, Cuitzeo Basin; and u. the same motif on a sherd from Teotihuacan

pudieran interpretarse como representación de plumas. En las partes excavadas de la pieza se conservaron restos de pintura roja, como si en esta se hubiera mojado para aplicarse como 4 sello.

LINEAR Lines appear in diverse configurations such as parallel lines (fig. 5.5:a-b,d-e,f), hatched lines (fig. 5.5:c-e) and are characteristic of the red-on-buff type. A combination of a number of parallel lines that are attached to a straight line forms a comb-like motif (fig. 5.5:g-k). A specific category of linear motifs is the wavy line. It occurs on many local vessels (fig. 5.5:l-u) but its occurrence on the al secco ware may have a significant symbolism. As stated above, this ware is associated for a number of reasons with Teotihuacan. Figure 5.5:q-t presents the wavy line/water motif associated with other symbolic forms such as almena and dots (fig. 5.5:q), sawtooth equilateral (fig. 5.5:r), and in the core of a solar motif against a turquoise-green backround (see Fig. 5.10 for representation of the solar motif of the al secco ware). Wavy lines are identified as Line Wavy in Langley’s (1986) list of notational signs (Table 5.1, #13) and authors agree (e.g., Linne 1942, Kubler:1967, Pasztory 1976, Von Winning 1987, Angulo 1996) that it symbolizes water. The art of Teotihuacan teems with elements representing water in all its aspects such as clouds, mountains with clouds, shells, waves, drops, storms, and rain. As such, the Line Wavy sign is widely used in Mesoamerica; an example is the glyph identified by Caso (1962:66) as ‘Agua’ (Water) at the site of Xochicalco, Morelos, and as glyph Z at Monte Albán, Oaxaca (Urcid 1994:83).

This sello from Tres Cerritos (fig. 5.4 v) is strikingly similar to one from Veracruz (fig. 5.4 w) (Field 1974:25 fig.44 and 27 fig.47); and Rattray (1998b:85) postulates that these kinds of sellos were imported in Teotihuacan.5 According to Von Winning (1987:II:70) ‘the feathers aim at exhalting the importance of the sign, in like manner feathered headdresses are used to indicate the rank of the personages or to call attention to the ritual character of cult images.’ Sugiyama (1992:220) associates the Feathered Serpent with sacrifice and authority, and the Feathered Serpent pyramid at Teotihuacan can be read ‘as

Fig. 5.4 (cont’d): sellos: v. Tres Cerritos; w. Veracruz

4

The principal motif is the head of a serpent from where two bodies emerge and interlace, ending in rattles. Along the bodies and the borders of the item, there is a kind of rays which may be interpreted as feathers. In the excised parts of the object there are still traces of red pigment, like if it had been applied in order to be used as a sello (stamp). 5 It is thus likely that the Cuitzeo Basin individuals acquired products from Veracruz.

61

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

possibly accomplished via the use of sellos. Sellos are light portable objects and could have been easily transported, despite the fact that some authors consider the use of sellos for pottery decoration an exceptional circumstance (Field 1967:21). CIRCLES A major class of design elements is made up of circles in various guises, such as circlets, dots, concentric circles, hatched circles, circle-cum-triangles, and so forth. Circlets (fig. 5.7a-e) are combined with various geometric elements such as straight lines, stepped-frets and they also appear as the eyes of the butterfly motif (see also fig. 5.14). Figs 5.7: f-j depict circlets associated with bars. In all cases, this compound motif appears on the rim of the vessel and although it alludes to the numerical bars and dots6, more evidence is needed from the Cuitzeo Basin. Langley (1986:246, 1991:295) maintains that multiple dots have a numerical function in Teotihuacan for they are frequently associated with notational signs and the number five or more. Fig. 5.5: Linear motifs: a.-b. parallel lines; c.-f. intersected lines; g.-k. comb motif (compare with v: comb motif in Teotihuacan); and l.-u. wavy lines

The solar motif must have had a considerable importance among the individuals of the Cuitzeo Basin sites, for it appears on the interior and often exterior bottom of vessels with red-on-buff and red-on-buff with negative decoration (fig. 5.7:o-r). It is also present on a sello from the Cuitzeo Basin in association with a stepped fret motif (fig. 5.9:b).

TRIANGLES Triangular motifs appear frequently on red-on-buff ceramics and black incised ware where it seems to be the norm. The structuration of equilateral triangles along a straight line constitutes a specific sign in Teotihuacan recognized as Sawtooth Equilateral. In Teotihuacan, the Sawtooth Equilateral notational sign is interchangeably interpreted as solar ray (Séjourné (1966c: 263), brilliance (Kubler 1967:9), fire and ‘radiant heat or brilliance’( Von

a

The specimens of the Teotihuacan-related al secco ware manifest a stylistically different depiction of this motif (figs.5.8:a-n). Its iconographic structure is identical for all samples: a series of concentric circles in a standard range of colours: dark red and yellow interchange at the level of the outer circles and turquoise-green is always the core of the composition with the exception of the last row (fig. 5.8:l-n). Here, the core is solid red and the reason might be that they decorate the exterior base of the vessel in contrast to samples a-k which are found on the side walls. The ray takes primarily the form of triangles (figs 5.8:a-h,k, l-n) and to a lesser extent, of the L element (figs 5.8:g-i) and/or scroll (fig. 5.8:j). The most common type of ray, the triangles, are structured around the outer circumference of the circle and the association of these triangles alias Sawtooth Equilateral (see Table 5.1, #17) with the sun is stressed by Von Winning (1987:II:17). In addition, concentric structures in Teotihuacan were used for the representation of deities who were often placed at the very core of the composition (e.g., Ostrowitz 1991). The prevalence of the solar motif on the al secco Teotihuacan-related ware may be well used as a chronological marker. In Teotihuacan, during the late Classic (550-650 CE) there is a shift from cults associated with fertility to that of a sun-worshipping warrior cult (Heyden 1975:143).

b

Fig. 5.6: triangle design element: a. stuccoed vessel, Cuitzeo Basin; b. sello, Teotihuacan

Winning 1987:II:17). Although the Teotihuacan-related al secco ware does present a similar motif the presence of the remainder associated design elements such as the L motif and the multiple dots renders the designation of this motif as Teotihuacan-derived uncertain. However, a sello from Teotihuacan (fig. 5.6b) seems to depict two diagonally opposed such motifs faced by two L motifs. Unfortunately the quality of this figure (Séjourné 1968) is rather poor and does not allow any further discussion. If the Teotihuacan sello is indeed identical to the Cuitzeo Basin ceramic sample, one might be tempted to think that the spread of certain Teotihuacan-related motifs to the Cuitzeo Basin was

6

In differentiation to our Western use of numbers, in Mesoamerica symbols represent numerical values; for example the dot for one, the bar for five.

62

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

Fig. 5.7 Circle design element: a.-e. circlet and dot; f.-j. bar and dot; k.-n. intersected circles; o.-r. circle and ray

experience of straight lines, angles, circles and other spatial concepts.’

The depiction of solar motifs in Teotihuacan both on murals and Teotihuacan ceramics is different with a sole exception: mural 1, Portico 3 at the Conjunto de los Edificios Superpuestos (fig. 5.10) presents a solar-like motif quasi-identical to those on the Cuitzeo Basin vessels. A vague similarity could be forwarded for the sello from Teotihuacan (fig. 5.9a) which makes us speculate anew about the means of diffusion of some Teotihuacan motifs into Cuitzeo. The innermost circle of the solar motif (figs 5.8:a-k) presents simple geometric forms like triangles, dots, wavy lines and quincunx against a turquoise-green backround. If we assume that this motif represents indeed the sun, the remainder might relate to phenomena generated from the solar activity such as day, seasons, and so forth. According to Zubrow and Daly (1998: 161) ‘Spatial concepts develop on the forge of trial and error and under the influence of motor and sensory mechanisms . . . the achievement of sensory information-gathering and motor activity may provide

The overall aspect of this motif and its variants may imply the use of a special device for measuring temporal and spatial phenomena, and self-positional awareness (Zubrow and Daly 1998:158). Digby (1974:271) postulates that the Trapeze and Ray sign (see fig. 5:17) represents in fact such an astronomical instrument which combines some of the properties of a sundial and those of an astrolabe. The pecked-cross motif, which has been located in various places in Teotihuacan, might confirm the use of such an instrument.7 This motif consists of a number of dots pecked on stone or stucco floors. The pecked design consists of two concentrical circles divided 7

Found near Cerro Gordo and Cerro Patlachique, and near the Avenue of the Dead they total 13. Their astronomical significance is furthered by the fact that the cross point to the north or the Teotihuacan deviation from true north (Pasztory 1997:97-98).

63

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

communication, 1998) and it is identical to those encountered at Teotihuacan.9 Nevertheless, the evidence for astronomical orientation of edifices in the Cuitzeo Basin is scant and the only case comes from the site of Santa Maria (De Vega et al. 1982:239): Esta disposición de los muros (difieren del norte magnético 1 o 2 grados) nos habla de su conocimiento del movimiento de los astros; del manejo de los 4 puntos cardinales que pudieron haber ligado a sus costumbres religiosas; de los diferentes movimientos del sol durante el año, que aprovecharon quiza para planear los ciclos 10 de sus siembras, etc.

We do not have enough evidence to demonstrate that during the Classic period, individuals of Michoacán had calendrical and numerical knowledge. Nevertheless, the ‘amazing cyclicality and predictability of celestial and astronomical movements’ (Helms 1999:58) must have had a certain impact on the individuals of the Cuitzeo Basin. More evidence is available for Postclassic Fig. 5.10 Mural 1, Portico 3, Michoacán. For the Conjunto de los Edificios Tarascans, the day Superpuestos, Teotihuacan itself was a solar unit, divided into four parts, as was the night. The solar year was also divided into seasons, including spring tzitziquicurarensuca (time of flowers), summer hozta(qua) (heat or star), autumn haniscua (or hanicua, rain), and winter iauanscua (iad) or emenda (Pollard 1991:172).

Fig. 5.8 Solar motif, al secco ware: a.-k. on vessel wall; l.-n. on exterior base

in four sections by two intersected lines. Morante López (1997:423) states that the average number of pecked dots per quadrant is twenty, which indicates the basic numerical unit of the Prehispanic computational system.8 The total configuration of the iconography of the al secco vessels combined with the variation in its constants may possibly demarcate different locations or used as a means of orientation. Thus the iconography of this ware resembles a dial and it may be associated with a specific device. The special function of dials is, according to Frake (1994:119), to represent mental schemata, cognitive

SCROLLS

a

The scroll has an aquatic connotation and was widely diffused during the Postclassic. (Langley 1986:282). It is associated with water in Teotihuacan, and the scroll motif (angular greca) in the Cuitzeo Basin, is affiliated to or generated from the snake motif (fig. 5.11). It appears on various ceramic Fig. 5.11: scrolltypes and a specimen from the site serpent motif, Santa Maria Lomas del Valle is very similar to a stuccoed vessel from Teotihuacan. This latter is rare in Teotihuacan (Séjourné

b Fig. 5.9: a. sello, Teotihuacan; b. Pattern of sello depicting solar motif and stepped fret

maps, for orientation and measurement. ‘Dials are essentially schemes for dividing the circle.’ What do they measure? Time, direction, distance.’ Astronomical factors must have played an important role in the orientation of the Teotihuacan edifices and the function of the pecked cross was primarily to mark long-distance sightlines used for orientation (Aveni 1989:91). More than 2,000 apartment compounds were cosmically oriented at Teotihuacan (Millon 1992:392). In Michoacán, a pecked-cross was identified near the village of Quiringuicharo, by Mario Retiz in 1996 (personal

9

Some other sites where pecked cross occur include Alta Vista, Zacatenco, Uaxactun (Pasztory 1997:98). 10 ‘The placement of the walls (they deviate from magnetic north 1 or 2 degrees) speaks of their knowledge about the movements of the stars; the use of the 4 cardinal directions maybe linked to their religious practices; of the different movements of the sun throughout the year, that they might have taken advantage of in order to plan the cycles of their sowings.’

8

Unlike the Western system which is decimal, in Mesoamerica the numerical system is vigesimal.

64

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

house from Nayarit, West Mexico, which ‘portrays both the world of the living in their earthy dwelling above, and the dead in their underworld below’ (Butterwick 1998:94).

1968) so it might have even made its way there from Michoacán. STEPPED FRET

COMPOSITE

The Xicalcoliuhqui (stepped fret) has been often associated with the fire serpent (Westheim 1965:102-03). It is a motif that appears throughout Meso and South

All the aforementioned classes of motifs are often combined into composite motifs that defy any classification. Until further evidence comes to light it is difficult to suggest whether the arrangement of specific motifs into compounds signifies other classes of iconographic themes. UNINDENTIFIED/ L GLYPH (?) The motif in fig. 5.13 has been encountered at diverse sites in the Cuitzeo Basin. It bears some similarity to one version of the stepped fret motif that Braniff (1970:40, fig. 43[17-19]) presents where a design of two central scrolls is generated by the combination of two stepped frets. It is difficult to place it securely within the Teotihuacan class of signs since it is not reported by any of the authors who have studied the symbolic language of Teotihuacan (e.g., Kubler 1967, Langley 1986, Von

Fig. 5.12 Stepped fret: a.-i.,m. design element on ceramics; j.-m. as architectural feature (merlon); n. fragment of excised clay vessel; o. slate sello with traces of cinnabar; o. mural, Conjunto de Quetzalpapalotl, Teotihuacan, and q. clay model of house on platfom, Ixtlan del Rio, Nayarit Fig. 5.13a The L glyph, stuccoed tripod vessel, Acambaro, Michoacan

America (Braniff 1988:108), but it is in northern Mesoamerica where the greatest variation and configurations of this motif occur (figs 5.12:a-n). Beyer (1924) first suggested the association of this motif with the snake which in turn might represent the deity Quetzalcoatl (cf. Braniff 1970:40). According to Braniff (1970:40) this motif is represented via a diverse number of forms: a squared or round hook, rectangular steps, meander-like steps, and/or two scrolls. In some specimens from the site of Alta Vista, Zacatecas, the frets bear eyes and heads, further suggesting their association with the serpent (Holien and Pickering 1978:155).

Winning 1987). Séjourné (1966:209, fig. 140) however includes two Teotihuacan sellos which clearly depict this sign and it is also found as a name 9 L on a doorjamb of a tomb in the Oaxaca Barrio in Teotihuacan (Urcid Serrano 2001:185).11 This sign is almost identical to the Zapotec L glyph (Ojo) which is in turn similar to the ollin (earthquake) glyph. Its presence in the region addresses the question of Fig. 5.13b interactions between Michoacán and Oaxaca (Chap. 7).

Some stepped-frets seem to assume the shape of terraced platform-cum-tomb structures (fig. 5.12:j-m), others of a turreted wall (fig.5.12:j-k). It resembles an almena (merlon) which decorates the uppermost part of the walls of edifices. Nuttall interpreted a simple form of the sign as ‘sky’ or ‘the beyond’ (Langley 1986:301). At the site of Tres Cerritos, north of the Lake Cuitzeo, a tomb was unearthed below Mound 3 (Macías Goytia 1997). The stepped-fret motif was also worked in pyrite and the artifact in fig. 5.12:o functioned possibly as a sello. A three-dimensional illustration of the same motif (fig. 5.12: q) can be seen as a section of the clay model of a

5.2.2.4 Teotihuacan-related motifs Some authors (e.g., Kubler 1967, Caso 1967, Langley 1986, Von Winning 1987) hold that the Teotihuacanos

11 ‘This is 9L and there is no doubt about it, even though the eye that usually occurs in the middle is missing here, replaced by a rather faint U-shaped incision’ (Paddock 1983a:172)

65

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

had developed a notational system which is observable on murals and ceramics.

It is noteworthy that the kind of signs present in the Cuitzeo Basin are different for other areas of Mesoamerica that were interacting with Teotihuacan at approximately the same time (Chap. 6). Although Pasztory (1991:247) criticizes Langley’s ‘search for writing at Teotihuacan’, postulating that the art of Teotihuacan is nonnarrative, I would suggest that the contextualization of signs and their recurrent usage both by the Teotihuacanos and people outside Teotihuacan points to their narrative function.13 Additionally, the signs on the floor of a patio of La Ventilla (de la Fuente 1996) might be considered a kind of writing very similar to that of the screenfolds. Langley (1986:12) cites three criteria for the designation of motifs as notational signs:

We can be confident that emblems of various kinds were widely used in the culture, that sign usage included the arrangement of signs in linear sequences characteristic of verbal texts, and that the sign system was capable of signifying concepts such as war, sacrifice, and probably, ritual events (Langley 1992:275).

Kubler’s study (1967:5) is particularly revealing in ascribing a narrative aspect to the iconographic program of Teotihuacan ‘in a quest for viable forms of writing.’ In this linguistic approach he distinguishes between nouns for the description of beings, substances and concepts; adjectives for qualities and rank, and less frequently, verbs that describe a certain action. Approximately one hundred distinct motifs revolve around specific themes: a) the raingod cluster, b) the butterfly complex, c) the owls complex, d) a cult-object flanked by worshippers or impersonators, and e) four element theme (Kubler 1967:9-10). Von Winning defined three categories within the iconographic repertory of Teotihuacan: a) anthropomorphic configurations, b) zoomorphic configurations, and c) signs and glyphs. He ramifies the first two categories into five thematic groups: 1) God of Rain (Tlaloc A) complex, 2) War-Sacrifice complex, 3) Jaguar complex, 4) Fire-Butterfly complex, and 5) Feathered Serpent complex (Von Winning 1987:I:62).

1. 2. 3.

It must be compact and self-contained and must approximate a standard conventionalised form. It must be divorced from its natural context. It must form part of a visual pattern compatible with the transmission of verbal messages.

In addition, Langley distinguishes between signs of confirmed notational status, probable notational signs and those of problematical status. For convenience of reference only I adopt his (1986) nomenclature for the signs. THE BUTTERFLY COMPLEX

Langley systematically compiles a compendium of 120 signs: ‘about three- quarters of these are pictographs, representing either man-made or natural objects. The remainder are either geometrical abstractions or motifs so conventionalized as to be unrecognizable in nature.’ Langley (1986:49) sees the repeated association of signs as an intentional coding of a coherent message without refuting that many notational signs have often a merely decorative purpose. Von Winning furthers the quest for writing in Teotihuacan and defines some signs as glyphs ‘these signs which are marked by a cartouche and that contain a message’ (Von Winning 1987:II:63). Other authors suggest that central Mexican writing as seen in the screenfolds has its origins in Teotihuacan from which it diffused to other sites during the Epiclassic such as Xochicalco, Teotenango, and Cacaxtla (Berlo 1989a:40, Baird 1989).12 The aforementioned studies of the iconography of Teotihuacan differ somehow in their perspective but seem to agree upon the notational usage of signs and that there are major thematic clusters.

The butterfly complex constitutes a major iconographic theme in the inventory of the al secco ware imagery. The enclosure of this motif in a quadrant/cartouche, makes it the focus of the narrative (figs. 5.14:a-i). Despite the fact that I designate this motif as ‘butterfly’ I have not been able to locate anything similar from the relevant Teotihuacan imagery. Possibly, local ceramicists decided to give their own interpretation of the motif or its counterpart in Teotihuacan still eludes my search. According to Zaslow (1981:39), ‘if a design is copied from one area into another the pattern will spread as the artist deciphers basic construction principles through visual recognition, but the embellishment is likely to be in the local style’ (cited in Rice 1987:264). These construction principles are present in the local imagery, at least partially, suggesting vague resemblances with the most abstract Teotihuacan samples (fig. 5.15:a.-b.). For a start, in Teotihuacan, the buttterfly bears its characteristic proboscis which is missing in Cuitzeo. Holien, who documented some al secco vessels at the modern pueblo of Cheran, Michoacán, was able to identify a proboscis on ‘The small blue-green cartouches . . . [which] contain a simplified form of the “wing” design element with a

Based on these classifications (Von Winning 1987, Langley 1986) I compile a corpus of Teotihuacan motifs/signs, numbering a total of twenty-two signs, which are present on a number of artifacts from the Cuitzeo Basin (Table 5.1).

13 ‘It cannot be postulated that the less they [graphic forms] rely on phonetic clues, the less their capability for and flexibility in transmitting large arrays of messages . . . Because the lack of writing is invariably perceived as the lack of history, the assertion that Mesoamerican indigenous groups had no writing promotes imperialistic attitudes and ultimately contributes to the continuous domination of contemporary Mesoamerican peoples’ (Urcid Serrano 2001:14-15).

12 Cowgill (1992) entertains the possibility that an early form of Nahuatl was in use at Teotihuacan.

66

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

*

Table 5.1 List of Teotihuacan notational signs occurring at the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Ref. No

Sign 1 Almena

Reference Langley (1986:301,ref. 514,72)

2 Array feather

Langley (1986:229, ref. 8)

3 Butterfly

Langley (1986:240, ref. 277), Von Winning (1987:I:116)

4 Circles concentric

Langley (1986:305, ref. 746, 8), Von Winning (1987:I)

5 Comb and Bar

Langley (1986:241, ref. 247), Von Winning (1987:II:17)

6 Dots Multiple

Langley (1986:246)

7 Eye elongated

Langley (1986:249, ref. 8), Von Winning (1987:II:68) Langley (1986:307, ref. 23), Von Winning (1987:I:77)

8 Eye Goggled A 9 Feathered Serpent

Von Winning (1987:II:67)

10 Flower Frontal Q

Langley (1986:256, ref. 408), Von Winning (1987:II:31)

11 Half-star

Langley (1986:261, ref. 787), Von Winning (1987:II:9)

12 Hatching fourway

Langley (1986:264, ref. 69)

13 Line wavy

Langley (1986:273, ref. 771)

14 Mountain triple

Langley (1986:274, ref. 275), Von Winning (1987:II:11)

15 Quatrefoil C

Langley (1986:317,ref. 2.:19)

16 Saltire

Langley (1986:282, ref. 86)

17 Sawtoothequilateral

Langley (1986:283, ref. 8), Von Winning (1987:II:16)

18 Scroll chain 19 Scrolls

Langley (1986:283, ref. 4), Von Winning (1987:II:11) Langley (1986:283)

20 Stepped fret

Langley (1986:336, ref. 451)

21 Trapeze and Ray

Von Winning (1987:II:25)

22 Trilobe

Langley (1986:296, ref. 786), Von Winning (1987:II:8)

67

Identification

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

spiral in one quadrant suggesting such a proboscis’ (Holien 1977:160). Other construction principles observed across various samples include: the goggled eyes (in three occasions – figs.5.14:c,g and i–they are solid circlets), the antennae on the top of the head, which almost always touch the upper part of the cartouche, and the wings.14 The wings are teamed with geometric motifs: triangles, multiples dots, scrolls, frets, sawtooth and an L-like element. The number of these elements differs from vessel to vessel as does their design configuration. For example, one sample presents two frets emerging symmetrically from the antennae (fig.5.14:a), whilst another lacks dots and frets altogether, and sawtooth motifs and triangles fill symmetrical spatial divisions (fig.5.14:i). In Teotihuacan, butterfly’s wings are used as attributes of individuals (Kubler 1967:4). Langley (1986:240) states that the notational usage of butterflies is very rare in Teotihuacan, and Von Winning (1987:I: 117) has demonstrated that the complete body is manifested on murals only, whereas ceramics present a rather ‘schematized’ form of this species.

butterfly to mortuary contexts and especially to a cult practiced by merchants and ambassadors, who comprise the section of society in charge of foreign affairs. He suggests that during their rites, they used incense burners with butterfly features (Von Winning 1987:I:111). Regarding other instances of the butterfly complex, it appears also in urns in Monte Alban IIIA that show a

a

b

Fig. 5.15: the Butterfly motif in Teotihuacan; a. cylindrical tripod stuccoed and painted vessel and b. Mural 5, Cuarto 12, Conjunto del Sol, Zona 5A

strong Teotihuacan influence (Boos 1964:78), but after phase III-B it gradually disappears (see Von Winning 1987:I:124).

An important common denominator between the local al secco and the Teotihuacan stuccoed wares is the prevalence of the butterfly imagery. Conides (2001b) studied 145 stuccoed and painted vessels from Teotihuacan and demonstrated the importance of butterfly imagery (representing approximately 25 percent out of a total of 145 vessels, see also Kubler 1967:9) and especially their association with rites of passage and/or emergence. She suggests, moreover, that the butterfly imagery was associated with a kind of popular religion, in

Later depictions of this complex relate to other cultural horizons such as the Toltec, Mixtec and Mexica (Manzanilla and Carreón 1993:876). During the Postclassic period butterflies were related to fire and the souls of the dead. The same association may hold true for Teotihuacan (Langley 1986:240). Manzanilla and Carreón (1993:892) state that a myth from Michoacán relates that the monarch butterflies are souls of the dead and this is the reason that the monarchs arrive in large quantities in November (the month of the Day of the Dead).15 HALF STAR The starfish is a frequent mural element at Teotihuacan (fig.5.16a, after Miller 1973:fig.137). Although it appears in half, it reserves nonetheless its five arms and the disc and it is always attached to a line of variable thickness that runs along the open section (Von Winning 1987:II:10). It is clearly an aquatic sign and Langley (1986:262) suggests also mortuary associations. Baird (1989:105) postulates Fig. 5.16a: the half-star sign, that the meaning of this Mural, Teotihuacan sign was initially associated with water but later on with death, war, sacrifice and Venus.16 Three specimens from the Cuitzeo Basin belong to the type of al secco ware. The first, is a bowl with the half-star in

Fig. 5.14: The Butterfly motif on al secco ceramics, Michoacan

contrast to the elite ritual practices, which revolved around major Teotihuacan deities such as the Feathered Serpent, the Storm God and the Goddess (Conides 2001a:162). Von Winning (1987:I:111) links the

15

Large North American butterfly (Danaus Plexippus) that migrates annually. It has orange-brown wings with black veins and borders. The aquatic association continued after the introduction of the military connotation (Baird 1989:111).

14

16

Compare with the solid eyes of the bird motif from other al secco vessels ( fig. 5.4:a)

68

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

is repeated four times around the border of the composition in equidistant places. This sign and the remainder relate to astronomical themes. Von Winning (1987:II:31-32) postulates that in Teotihuacan, this sign is often depicted with three petals only and it is associated with fertility. According to Langley (1986:256), Seler (1915:464) first noted this motif in the headdresses of pottery figurines, and he also compared it to the Maya Kin glyph (T544) interpreted by Thompson as ‘sun, day or time’ (see also Coe 2001:445).

association with other Teotihuacan-related signs, such as the Hatching Fourway and there is a similar sign on a sherd from Las Lagunillas (collected by Igor Cerda, 1999). The second example is a rare form, a vessel recovered at Queréndaro, Michoacán (fig. 5.16:b.). The half-star is here associated with a high-rank personage, very similar to examples presented on the Teotihuacan murals (Matos and Kelly 1974). An additional example includes the star presented on the ballcourt marker of the site of Tingambato, Michoacán (Piña Chán and Oi 1982:43, fig.2).17

COMB AND BAR (C&B) Next to the Flower Frontal Q sign is placed the Comb and Bar element (Langley 1986:241) which is also repeated four times (fig.5.17). Langley (1986) seems to accept Von Winning’s interpretation of this sign as the symbolism of the ‘binding of the years’ and its connection with the 52-year or shorter period (5 year) cycles. It constitutes part of the ‘four-sign’ glyph where it signifies fire (Von Winning 1987:II:70).

Fig. 5.16b: al secco cántaro, Queréndaro, Cuitzeo Basin

More significantly, the association of half-stars with high rank inidividuals, usually warriors, is present during the Late Classic period (Baird 1989:111). Eyed versions of the half star appear in many Epiclassic sites such as Cacaxtla, Xochicalco and Teotenango and are believed to be associated with Venus, whereas as a Maya glyph star-over-x appears on Stela 3, Caracol, Belize, 631 CE (Baird 1989:115-118). Carlson (1993) associates the star sign with a specific ‘Tlaloc Venus Warfare’ cult wherein human blood is transformed into water and fertility.

TRAPEZE AND RAY The focus of the composition in fig. 5.17 is the trapeze and ray sign. It consists of a trapeze topped with a triangle (ray sign). The combination of the trapeze and ray with numerals (in the form of bars and dots) is rare in Teotihuacan (Von Winning 1987:25). On this Cuitzeo Basin specimen, four dots are circumscribed in the trapeze. It is difficult to know whether these four dots represent numerals. The division of the disc into two concentric circles provides for the symmetrical structure of the design. The center of the design structure is occupied by the Saltire sign, which serves as the foundation/backround for the depiction of the Trapeze and Ray sign. This latter is placed exactly on the core of the disc where the diagonals of the Saltire meet. The configuration of this element is common at Teotihuacan and led Langley (1986) to treat it as a separate thematic cluster in his study. He does not consider it as a sign in itself and it does not therefore appear in his list of notational signs. The usage of this sign at Teotihuacan was related to the counting of time in general.

FLOWER FRONTAL Q Figure 5.17 shows a slate (?) disc presumably encountered in Queréndaro, Michoacán (Piña Chán nd). This disc is the only artifact recovered in the study area, where four notational signs are compound: a) Trapeze and Ray, b) Saltire, c) Comb and Bar, and d) Flower Frontal Q (Table 5.1, #21, #16, #5 and Fig. 5.17: Trapeze-ray and associated signs, slate (?), Cuitzeo Basin #10). The first thing one observes is the symmetrical design structure which is determined by the number four18. The Flower Frontal Q

SALTIRE This element comprises two intersecting bands which easily allude to the Mesoamerican concept of the four cardinal directions as known from Postclassic sources, namely the screenfolds. On the disc of Fig. 5.17, the bands seem to virtually transgress beyond the perimeter of the inner circle into the outer circle where they meet with the Flower Frontal Q sign.

17

The site of Tinganio or Tingambato is the most popular site in Michoacán as regards its association with Teotihuacan for the presence of the talud-tablero architectural feature. Nevertheless not a single ceramic type can be associated with Teotihuacan. 18 For some individuals the association of design structure with numerals is culturally dependent. For the Zuni artists, Bunzel (1929:23) states: ‘The importance of the number four in custom and belief is very marked. Furthermore, the literary pattern is always four, and, in a very

large measure, the ceremonial pattern. It is therefore perfectly fitting and logical that Zuni artists in talking of their painting should always express a preference for the number four.’

69

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Fig. 5.18: Goggles a. Burial 37, Huandacareo, Cuitzeo Basin; b. bundled male warrior, Margarita structure, Copán; c. shell goggle, Alvaro Obregón, Cuitzeo Basin; d.-e. figurine fragments, Cuitzeo Basin; f. figurine fragments, Teotihuacan

who fought under his insignia’ (Langley 1992:257). Although researchers unanimously agree that he/she was the deity of rain and fertility, there is often a manifestation of jaguar attributes (see Pasztory 1974). Therefore at Teotihuacan, ‘a constellation of ideas regarding rain, fertility, wealth, and prestige were combined with human sacrifice and warfare’ (Arnold 2001b:56). Goggles are found in the Cuitzeo Basin as circular shell discs (fig.5.18:a,c). A pair of such discs was recovered from Burial 19, North Plaza, of the site Tres Cerritos, and they had been deposited near the skull ‘possibly as part of the headdress’ (Macías Goytia 1997:352). This burial revealed two individuals, both with sacrificial marks. The tomb had been dug in the tepetate of the hill, and completed with stone walls that gave it a rectangular shape (Macías Goytia 1987:342).

GOGGLES The Storm God (Postclassic Tlaloc), which is considered by many as the major Teotihuacan deity, is not present as such in the Cuitzeo Basin during the Classic period, but some of his insignia are present, namely the Goggles which this deity wears on his/her eyes; ‘Most authorities agree with Franco Carrasco (1959: Lámina II) that goggles are simply the eyes of the butterfly.’ (Langley 1986:261). Klein (1976:210) suggests that they represent mirrors. Nevertheless, the association of the Goggles with the Storm God lies in the fact that this latter is often depicted with round ‘goggle’ eyes and fanged mouth. In this sense the goggles are related to the Storm God and this implies that this deity was the ‘patron of the warriors 70

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

similar to representations of the Teotihuacan Storm God. Anew we see the coexistence of the goggles and the jaguar fangs. A pair of copper bells from the site of Alvaro Obregón are also characterized by a pair of goggles and a series of sharp teeth. Six identical copper bells were recovered at the site of Fig. 5.19b: Storm God; Apatzingán by Kelly stone sculpture (1947) and she also associates them with the Storm God. Apatzingán lies approximately 300kms to the southwest of Michoacán, and Kelly (1947:139) places them in the Chila Complex, which can be tentatively dated to the Postclassic (after 1000 CE). The Postclassic manifestations of this cult indicate that the cult of the Storm God was known in Michoacán, but the available evidence cannot yet confirm whether it was diffused from Teotihuacan as early as the Classic period.

Also at Tres Cerritos, Offering 4, Burial 8, North Plaza yielded a pair of shell goggles (Macías Goytia 1997:235). A similar burial pattern is observed in fig. 5.19:b from the Maya site of Copán. Here, the individual was apparently a sacrificed bundled male warrior with shell goggles and atlatl darts (Sharer 2001:95). Goggled warriors are also shaped in clay, and these figurines (fig.5.19:c-f) are often associated with butterflies, among other things (Langley 1991:296). Von Winning states that the Teotihuacanos used the goggles to indicate that an individual was dead. Regarding the origin of this sign, he believes (1987:I:167–168) that it derives from the eyes of the butterflies: Entre las figurillas y en la cerámica decorada ocurren tambien individuos ataviados con elementos de la mariposa . . . que personifican al dios mariposa, deidad protectora de los mercaderes y embajadores, o sea la clase administrativa que se encargaba del intercambio de productos y de la difusión de conceptos ideológicos . . . tenían también una función militar lo que se expresa mediante las flechas y escudos que portan. Aparentemente los grandes incensarios decorados con elementos de la mariposa fueron utilizados en las ceremonias funerarias de este grupo de oficiales . . . El dios mariposa había sido introducido desde Oaxaca y es notable la semejanza de las figurillas teotihuacanas con atavio de mariposa y las urnas zapotecas del dios mariposa, cuya función es 19 netamente funeraria.

Interestingly enough, Corona Nuñez (1972) believes that the Teotihuacanos introduced the concept of Tlalocan20 to West Mexico for two reasons: first, the word Patzcuaro21 signifies ‘where black is generated’ or ‘place of darkness’ and secondly, the temple of San Juan Cajititlán, Jalisco. This temple is located in an area where, according to Corona Nuñez, many Teotihuacan traits have been encountered. The temple itself has angels, images and gargoyles with obsidian incrustations in the eyes ‘but the most remarkable is that on the façade, there are various personages bearing flowered branches which clearly alludes to Tlalocan, and they are there because the door of the Catholic churches is considered as the door to the sky’ (Corona Nuñez 1972:256).

A number of artifacts in the Cuitzeo Basin have a certain similarity with representations of the Storm God, but for lack of comparative basis it is only tentatively that I decided to include them in this study. Figure 5.19a presents a kind of incense burner. It bears the typical goggles and the fangs which are both elements of the Storm God in his Jaguar association (Pasztory 1974). Fig. 5.19a: clay incense Stylistically, I would burner, Acambaro associate this vessel with the Toltec rather the Teotihuacan horizon. Fig. 5.19b is a stone sculpture,

EYE ELONGATED This sign is very popular at Teotihuacan, but in the Cuitzeo Basin its usage is very limited. I recorded three only cases, two on al secco ceramics (figs 5.20) and one on a black incised sherd. Holien (1977:157-158, 355: fig. 6) also reports this motif for an al secco vessel from Michoacán and explicitly relates it to Teotihuacan:

Fig. 5.20

The two disembodied eyes attached to the cartouche band in front of the bird are remotely similar to eyes which appear at the proximal ends of some feathers in pseudo-cloisonné designs (e.g. #1228) or on the edges of

19 ‘Among figurines and decorated pottery we see individuals dressed with butterfly elements (head, wings and antennae) which personify the butterfly deity, guard of merchants and ambassadors, i.e. the administrative class that was in charge of the exchange of products and the diffusion of ideological concepts . . . they also had a military office which is expressed via the arrows and shields they bear. Apparently, the big incense burners decorated with butterfly elements were used during the funerary ceremonies of this group . . . The butterfly deity was introduced from Oaxaca and the similarity between the Teotihuacan figurines with butterfly garments and the Zapotec urns whose function is merely funerary, is striking.’

20

One of the Mesoamerican Underworlds. Town in Southwestern Michoacán, seat of the Postclassic Tarascan State. 21

71

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

SCROLL CHAIN

headdress plumes (#340). Where these eyes find exact counterparts is at Teotihuacan.

The single scroll is classified in the category of geometric motifs (sec. 5.3.2.3). The Scroll Chain however, is a Teotihuacan sign and consists of a row of linked scrolls and is associated with waves (Langley 1991:296) and water in motion; for example, at Tetitla, this motif frames the composition of the shell divers (Miller 1973, fig. 377).

This sign is associated with water (Von Winning 1987:II:70), since in Teotihuacan it is depicted together with acquatic elements. Kubler (1967:9) holds that it may indicate brilliance whilst for Pasztory it has a sacrificial connotation (Langley 1986:249). MOUNTAIN TRIPLE

TRILOBE

There is a unique vessel from Araró, where this sign is incised and filled with red pigment against the natural brown of the vessel. It consists of three arcs, two in a row which are consequently topped by another. It may signify mountains or clouds (Langley 1986:274). Von Winning (1987:II:11) also thinks that it may represent clouds, because some samples present wavy lines running across these motifs.

This element consists of three (and more) drops of water (von Winning 1947a: 340) and/or sacrificial blood (Séjourné 1959: 172). At Teotihuacan it is very often found in compound signs (Langley 1986: 297). Such a compound sign is present in a single sample from Fig. 5.22a: Trilobe, the Cuitzeo Basin (fig. 5.22), mural, Teotihuacan but some motifs on red-on-buff with negative ceramics may represent such an element (fig. 5.22b). The trilobe is also found worked in green obsidian, known as ‘trilobal eccentrics’, which are found at Teotihuacan, Tula and Azcapotzalco. These eccentrics are made on blades by edge retouching and measure approximately 18-29mm long, 5-15mm high and 34mm thick (Stocker and Spence 1973:195). Notched blade segments of gray obsidian excavated at the sites of Azcapotzalco and Fig. 5.22b: Trilobe (?), Tula possibly represent a Santa Maria stage in the manufacturing process (García Chávez 1990:229). Found also in the Maya area at sites such as Kaminaljuyu and Tikal, trilobal eccentrics characterize the middle Classic period and do not appear after the end of the Epiclassic for example, Stela III at Xochicalco (García Chávez 1990). It is thus a more or less secure chronological marker associated with Teotihuacan and precisely this association led Stocker and Spence (1973:195) to conclude that even after the decline of Fig. 5.22c: trilobal Teotihuacan, many elements eccentrics, Lomas were incorporated in del Valle succeeding cultures, namely the Toltec: ‘Not only the symbol, but to some degree its socio-ideological context, must have persisted from Teotihuacan times into the Late Toltec period.’

HATCHING FOURWAY It is either a circle or a square divided into four sections. Each section is hatched with four or five parallel lines. It seems that the earliest occurrences of this sign are to be found in the Preclassic Horizon. For example, Niederberger (1987:II:573-579, figs. 483, 485, 488 and 489) includes some vessels the interior bases of which present this motif. It is relatively rare Fig. 5.21: Hatching in Teotihuacan (Langley Fourway 1986:264). The unique sample from Michoacán is from an al secco vessel and it differs from the remainder in that it presents a circle in the center of the sign (fig. 5.22). Therefore I designate this motif as the Hatching Fourway with some reservation. It has been interpreted as the four cardinal directions (Seler 1915: 512, Langley 1986:101) and/or the surface of the earth with strong aquatic connotations (Von Winning 1987:II). In a study on Zapotec writing, it is identified as ‘petate’and/or glyph 152 (Urcid et al. 1994:5). Von Winning (1987:II:35) has identified this sign in many parts of Mesoamerica: Disponemos unicamente de cuatro ejemplos en cerámica procedentes de Teotihuacan y de su satélite, Santiago Ahuizotla, pero se trata de un signo importante porque se encuentra también en dos estelas teotihuacanas (Piedra Labrada en Veracruz, y Horcones en la vertiente del Pacífico), y en Xochicalco (estelas 1 y 2, y al lado de la escalinata de la pirámide de la Serpiente Emplumada). Además, el diseño, volteado 45 grados, constituye el glifo Maya 22 T656.

22 We have four only examples [of this sign] from Teotihuacan and its satellite, Santiago Ahuizotla, but it is an important sign since it occurs on two Teotihuacan stelae (Piedra Labrada in Veracruz, and Horcones

on the Pacific slope) and in Xochicalco (stelae 1 and 2, and next to the escalinata of the pyramid of the Feathered Serpent). Additionally, the design, rotated 45 degrees, constitutes the Maya glyph T656.

72

Encoded Identities: Iconography as a means of demarcating elite relations

unique relationship. However, the nature of interaction remains under consideration. Does the incorporation of the Teotihuacan signs indicate an ‘opennes to new ideas’ or the coercive imposition of the Teotihuacan political ideal?

In Michoacán green obsidian trilobal eccentrics were encountered at the sites of Santa Maria (Efrain Cárdenas Garcia, personal communication, 1998), and two (Offerings Nos 4 and 5, Burial II) have been reported for Lomas del Valle (fig. 5.22c) (Trejo, n.d.) and at the Central Plaza of Tres Cerritos (Macías 1997:369). 5.3

The incorporation of Teotihuacan signs could have been a conscious choice, for it was critical for the individuals in the Cuitzeo Basin to maintain their own deities and regional cults with the aim of securing their political and ideological identity. Alternatively, the incorporation was determined by other factors, beyond their control, such as limited access to resources. For some of the artifacts, the Cuitzeo Basin artists possibly had seen Teotihuacan prototypes23 which they fashioned in a distinct style that was still compatible with their own system (see Helms 1981:66). It is also possible to postulate that the diversity in iconographic motifs is indicative of societal complexity. Other factors which may account for the diversity in the record are the imperfect process of replication, lack of skills, and limited access to shapes and decorative patterns (see Rice 1989:111) or simply different interpretation of the same motif (Neff 1992:147).

A matter of choice or coercion?

During the Classic period, the symbolic factory in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán comprises local and foreign motifs, and also signs which appear on diverse media and were probably worked by the same artists (e.g., Wobst, 2000:46). Those sourced in Teotihuacan relate to specific cognitive spheres which were of major importance in Teotihuacan: astronomy, warfare and political hierarchization. Nonetheless, the assignation of each sign into such categories is vain, since the role of signs is often adjectival (Kubler 1967) which implies that a single sign could be embedded in diverse compounds. For example, the half-star which supposedly forms part of the natural world and denotes water is often found in relation to sacrificial imagery. On a specimen from Michoacán, the half-star signifies political office and is associated with a high-rank individual. But it is also compounded with other signs such as the Trilobe and the Eye Elongated, both associated with sacrifice. Even in Teotihuacan though, the same signs might have different meanings depending on their context. The Feathered Serpent for example, is a symbol for fertility, but also creativity and trade. It is not easy to assume that there is continuity in meaning until further evidence comes forward. A major issue that requires future exploration regards the notational value of these signs in the local setting and whether they had the same meaning as in Teotihuacan. According to Kubler (1967:11) ‘the easiest and most seductive historical patterns are those which assume simple continuity of happening . . . [however] events in the domain of symbolic experience show a much greater instability are more susceptible to transformation.’

The use of Teotihuacan-related symbolism by the ruling elite must have commanded respect from subordinates. The evidence available does not allow us to suggest that the two distinct religious cults co-existed harmoniously. Teotihuacan’s successful subsistence for some hundreds years depended largely upon the efficient use of power. This power is evidenced in the monopolization of some obsidian sources, the mobilization of individuals for the construction of large scale edifices, the highly complex imagery of murals and ceramics, the huge artefactual diversity, the connections with major sites of the period, and so forth. Another feature of the art of the Classic period is its great quantity. There was much more monumental architecture and figurative art in the Classic than in either the Preclassic or Postclassic periods. In the polities of the Classic period art was essential a means of contacting the supernatural and of influencing society. Whether depicting enthronements, sacrifices, or deities, art was a way of comprehending and controlling the world. In that sense art was effectively a ‘technology’ (Pasztory 1998:75).

This transformation—at least in form—is evidenced in the Cuitzeo Basin sample. Imports underwent a process of acculturation and were gradually incorporated into the local symbolic factory. The wide distribution of the local symbolic language, which covers approximately the area surrounding the Lake, indicates that residents certainly developed a unique kind of language that facilitated their communication in the spheres of ritual and of course more quotidian matters. The recurrence of the corpus of iconography on diverse media indicates that the individuals had created a number of accepted forms of communication and that an operation of some coherent system was in use (e.g. Renfrew 1994b:53). Certainly, some signs seem to convey more complex ideas than others. The absence of a pure Teotihuacan language, i.e. wholesale adoption of Teotihuacan signs, is attributed to the terms of the relationship itself. The symbiosis of local and Teotihuacan motifs is symptomatic of this

Another means for the exertion of power included the use of violence manifested in various ways (sec. 6.6). To a great extent the Teotihuacan murals narrate events related to sacrifices and warfare, albeit not as overtly as the Aztec iconography of war symbolism. The art of Teotihuacan is rather discreet; there is no depiction of heart removals, and depictions of skulls are relatively rare 23 ‘The dutch term for images fashioned in this way is uyt den geest or ‘from the mind’, by which is meant ‘from the memory of things seen’. The term designates the process by which images are executed from the memory of intense visual experiences (Melion and Kuchler 1991:16).

73

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán (e.g., Soustelle 1984)24. We should also entertain the possibility of the organization of sacrificial ceremonies where war was re-enacted25 in a kind of ‘mock warfare’ (e.g., Brown 1984:203). Nevertheless, religion was Teotihuacan’s effective tool in revealing its significance at home and abroad (see e.g. Millon 1992).

prevention of social conflict and maintainance of the social order. Although we do not yet know the ethnic identity of the sacrificial victims in Teotihuacan26, sacrifice must have also served ‘to protect the entire community from its own violence . . [and] prompt the entire community to choose victims outside itself.’ (Girard 1977: 8). Teotihuacan was the first city in Mesoamerica to recruit from all classes of society; and this mass recruitment was reflected in the use of specific weaponry, arms strategies and even some chain of command. (Hassig 2001:317).

The Teotihuacan sacrificial economy was smaller in scale compared to the Aztec ‘ “big-budget” sacrificial spectacles with casts of thousands of victims and foreign leaders invited as guests of the Aztec producers’ (Demarest 1984: 230). In Teotihuacan, it was revealed recently that as many as 126 individuals were sacrificed at the temple of Quetzalcoatl as a foundation sacrifice, and another 272 individuals represented in remains were associated with this building (Sugiyama 1989, Coggins 1993:143, González Torres 2001:103). The use of sacrificial victims for the sacralization of public buildings may be seen as a legitimation of the state rather than of individuals (see Burkert 1983:23, Demarest 1984;). In ancient Japan there was a special word, hito-bashira, meaning ‘human pillar’, for foundation victims (Davies 1984:214). Another dimension of power regards the

Many elements of the Teotihuacan war symbolism were embedded in the local Cuitzeo Basin religious fabric. These include the Butterfly Complex, the Goggles and Eagle representations. Some of these elements survived well into the succeeding Postclassic period. The major Tarascan deity, Curicaueri, bears the typical goggles; the butterfly, however, vanished from the region, but continued in other areas of Mesoamerica. Other cognitive concepts, namely cosmological, remained unaltered for centuries (Pollard 1991).

24 ‘Military power and sacrifice were the principal subjects of the Teotihuacan notational system’ (Langley 1992:274). 25 ‘All those spectacular Mesoamerican sites Teotihuacan, Tikal, Palenque, Monte Albán . . . were once ritual theaters. They are laid out with plazas for people to stand and watch, pyramids and platforms on which the various dramas and sacrifices were performed. This theatricality is one of the most important characteristics of Mesoamerican life. The sites are giant stage sets, and a tremendous amount of attention went into the costume and dress of the participants’ (Pasztory 1998: 25).

26 The evidence relating the presence of Michoacán in Teotihuacan includes a tomb in Western Mexican style with eleven dismembered and decapitated individuals.

74

CHAPTER 6 THE TEOTIHUCAN SYSTEM: HOW DID IT OPERATE?

6.1

resources to be competed for (e.g., Baumann 1992:109). In the Maya area, too, Teotihuacan-related rituals must have served as a means of royal lineage justification among competing groups by reference to the categorical entity ‘Teotihuacan’ (sec. 6.2.3).

System Logic: Prestige goods and fertility rituals

‘System logic’ refers to the self-sustaining property of world systems. There is no agreement among worldsystem theorists regarding the principles of systemic logic, that is modes of production and accumulation. In fact, there is a broad division among those who postulate that system logic remains the same and those who maintain that it will be transformed (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997:20).1

Arnold (2001b:57) argues convincingly on the pervasive nature of Mesoamerican rituals and the way ceremonies articulate the workings of the natural world: The accuracy with which ceremonies were integrated with the movements of the stars, the turning seasons, the circulation of water, the migration of birds and animals, and other phenomena indicate a deep knowledge of the workings of particular environments throughout Mexico . . . the dynamic nature of the ceremonial interactions between Mesoamericans and their rain deities can be described as a feeding relationship, and the mythic world of the Aztec as an ‘eating landscape’.

The Teotihuacan world-system can be characterized as a prestige goods system wherein the state control of certain resources and products reinforced Teotihuacan’s position in Mesoamerica. Hundreds (maybe thousands) of sites participated in this system, all vying for green obsidian and Teotihuacan ceramics.2 Teotihuacan ritual objects were deposited in local burials next to artifacts of local cultic significance, and both contributed to the reproduction of the local societal order. It is precisely the ideological value of prestige items that entails the potential for transformative changes within the structures of sites that were interacting with Teotihuacan (e.g., Stein 1999:16). Therefore, I consider the role of prestige goods determinative as regards the structure of the Teotihuacan world-system during the Classic period.

The systematic organization of rituals in Mesoamerica, is indicated by the fact that Ochpaniztli and Tlacaxipehualiztli, the Aztec ceremonies ladden with war symbolism were celebrated half-year apart ‘at controlled intervals of time’ (Brown 1984:206). Certainly, the performance of these rituals was conducted by a specific class of rulers/priests who officiated the presence of deities onto this world. Their claims of participating in both worlds justified their status and means of accumulating power. Facing the irrevocable event of death, individuals need to react. ‘The air becomes thus saturated with invisible presences’ (Koestler 1967:311). Death is overwhelming in that it is a natural phenomenon beyond human control. While individuals may survive even the worst of natural phenomena, for example an earthquake, death is the only entity of power that ever eludes human manipulation. And it is exactly this power that humans find unpalatable. In order to make the event of death comprehensible and ‘circumvent [their] innate necrophobia!’ (Pratt and Gay 1978:255), the Mesoamerican people transgressed the event of death in specific ways as manifested in their cosmology. Hence the creation of sacred space and time where semi-divine (?) priests impersonate deities and possess their might to conduct sacrifices among other rituals. Sacrificial victims also underwent a process of ‘deification.’ For example the Mexica slaves who were destined for sacrifice, after having a ritual bath, were invested as teixiptla (‘living images’) of the gods, apt to be offered in sacrifice (González Torres 2001:III:103).

The fact that culturally diverse regions incorporated Teotihuacan ritual objects into the most intrinsic manifestation of their ethnic identity, that is mortuary practices, implies the spread of specific Teotihuacan ritual concepts related to agricultural fertility in conjunction with sacrificial rituals. And ‘Unlike the questionable sustainability of modern industrial civilization, Mesoamerican world knowledge sustained its cultures for millennia’ (Arnold 2001b:57). Additionally, the presence of Teotihuacan artifacts well beyond the limits of the city reveals the aspirations of local actors towards change. The adoption of Teotihuacan-related paraphernalia in particular derives from the need of individuals to refer to ‘Others’ whether present or absent. In such cases, rituals can serve to negotiate the differing relationships of its participants with these ‘Others’, and in the process ‘reformulate cultural values and self-knowledge and to whom their relationships need to be negotiated’ (Baumann 1992:99). Even within the limits of Teotihuacan, the inhabitants of the different ethnic Barrios, such as the Zapotec for instance (sec. 6.4.1), performed Teotihuacan rituals. Therefore, the performance of rituals by Teotihuacanos and foreigners alike indicates the use of rituals as

Since the distinction between political and religious power is rather blurred, any given power of the leading authority at the moment must extend to death. The principal apparatus of the Teotihuacanos was the constitution of a new corpus of ideas relating to death, the order of the cosmos and the regeneration of life. Carlson

1

‘In the case of systemic logics those who attempt to explicate the nature of logics usually assume that logics become transformed, whereas those theorists who only imply systemic logic usually assume continuity’ (Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997:257, note 7). 2 Possibly green obsidian symbolized water and is associated with the Storm God in like manner with turquoise (Xihuitl) during Mexica times.

75

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

always remain’ (Bloch and Parry 1982:6-11). However, the acceptance of sacrifice by the commoners must have depended largely on its ritualization. Through repetition and performance, sacrifice became accepted by the Teotihuacanos and ‘the fact of understanding [was] more important that what [was] understood. Above all, then, ritual creates and affirms social interaction’ (Burkert 1983:23). Additionally, among the praxeological implications of sacrifice would be the prevention of violence by those who are not authorized to exert it (e.g., Girard 1986:17, see Chapter 6:sec.6.6).

(1993:226) terms the Teotihuacan religious ideology which was carried throughout Mesoamerica as ‘Tlaloc Venus warfare’ and it is evidenced by the cultic paraphernalia that accompany the portrayal of the Teotihuacan individuals on monuments far from Teotihuacan. The sine qua non apparatus of this new religion was sacrifice. In the town of Santiago Nuyoo (small Mixtecspeaking town in the state of Oaxaca, 10km west of Oaxaca City) the Nuyootecos define sacrifice soko as ‘presenting something to a god’ (Monaghan 1995:213). For the pre-Columbian Mesoamerican people that ‘something’ was blood. The transfusion of human blood to the otherworld was the only means to secure the continuation of life; ‘The fundamental archetype involves the transformation of human blood into water and fertility, shed under the auspices of these [Rain] deities through Venus-regulated warfare and sacrifice’ (Carlson 1993:209). Hence, collectivity would avenge death (e.g., Bloch and Parry 1982:4). At Teotihuacan there was a direct association of warfare and sacrifice with the planet Venus. Carlson (1993:209) posits that the star sign represents Venus and the Trapeze-and-Ray sign ‘embodies the eight-year Venus Almanac that regulated this cult of warfare Tlaloc who was both the fertility and the patron of the warriors’. The warfare-sacrificial rituals would take place in specific sacred spaces possibly denoted by Venus enclosures, such as these depicted on murals where two goggle-eye priests carry sacrificial knives on which are impaled hearts dripping eyed droplets and incense bags.’ Carlson (1993:235) additionally, postulates that these rituals involved choreographed processions and were conducted before dawn or after sunset ‘when the sacrificial blood could be offered directly to Venus in the east or in the west.’

The emphasis on warfare and fertility continued for a thousand years until Aztec times. The Aztec rain deity Tlaloc along with other agricultural deities were assigned the largest number of monthly feasts. Equally important were the feasts of war deities such as Huitzilopochtli (Matos 1984:149). The most illustrative exemplar of the duality of this warfare-fertility concept are the twin sanctuaries at the Templo Mayor, Tenochtitlan, pertaining to Tlaloc and Huitzilopochtli, the deities of agriculture and warfare respectively, who represent the economic basis of the Aztec state (Matos 1984:135). The connection between sacrifice and water-fertility rituals was equally important to the Aztec: Children with two whorls of hair on their heads were particularly favored by Tlaloc [rain deity]. They were killed in the first month of the year on four hills surrounding Tenochtitlán and in the lake’s whirlpool to propitiate rain and the growth of maize. When the maize was ripe, an adolescent girl was chosen as Chicomecoatl, the living image of the goddess of corn. She was dressed as the goddess and worshipped, surrounded by all sorts of vegetables. After various ceremonies, her head was cut off as if it were a corncob . . . the skin [was] carefully removed and donned by people who had made a vow, or by priests who themselves became the impersonators of the goddess. Wearing the skin, they performed further rites. (Sahagún cited in González Torres 2001:103-104)

There were diverse manifestations of fertility rituals, the Feathered Serpent and Storm God deities being the most prominent. The pyramid of the Feathered Serpent at Teotihuacan constitutes the materialization of the need for continuity of the social order. The nature of the offerings, for example shell and green stone artifacts, implies a strict association with fertility rituals and water symbolism (Sugiyama 1993:120). Carlson (1993:244) views the Feathered Serpent pyramid as a sacred watermountain (Altepetl) ‘devoted to the highly successful Teotihuacan Sacred War cult of water and fertility, springing from the hearts of the sacrificed captives taken in the Tlaloc Venus wars.’ At present, when the Nuyootecos of the Mixteca Alta (Oaxaca) perform sacrifices, they aim among other things to invoke agricultural forces as ‘A stimulus to growth and generative of life, the way we might speak of fertilizer’ (Monaghan 1995:213).

Therefore, the Mesoamerican world-system was enmeshed in warfare-water-fertility symbolism for more than 1,500 years. During the Classic period, for the first time in the history of Mesoamerica, a state (Teotihuacan) extended onto an unprecedentedly vast area due to its ability to manipulate trade routes and a systematized corpus of ritual concepts that must have had a significant value for the other Mesoamerican people. 6.2

The extent of the system: routes and resources Since the whole is more than the sum of its parts, we cannot satisfactorily account for events—let alone the responses—in any constituent part without reference to how other parts and the whole [system] itself impinge on it (Frank 1999:281).

Sacrifices seem to underlie the very logic of the Teotihuacan system. The world would expand and life perpetuated with the condition that sacrificial rituals, too, are perpetuated. The Teotihuacan fertility rituals, albeit appearing as an external force, was able to maintain the social order for things ‘have always been and must 76

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

includes Teotihuacan style compartment compounds, talud-tablero architecture articulation and figurines. The decline of Teotihuacan brought about the abandonment of the site (Diehl 1989:15, Mastache and Cobean 1989:51, Hassig 1992:54). Other sites in the area include El Tesoro, Villagrán and Acoculco. The collaboration between Teotihuacan and Monte Albán is manifested by the presence in the sites of Chingú, El Tesoro and Acoculco of Zapotec ceramics. In Chingú, Zapotec ceramics total 6.82% (Diaz Oyarzabal 1981:108) of the entire assemblage, and the percentages for El Tesoro and Acoculco are 63% and 54% respectively, whereas Teotihuacan ceramics is less represented with 15% for the former and 17% for the latter site (Crespo and Mastache 1981:100-101, Mastache and Cobean 1989:51). Diaz Oyarzabal concludes that ‘la situación en Chingú se presenta como una conquista del sitio y del area, en la cual cabe la posibilidad de que entrara un factor militar’ (Diaz 1981:111).5 The El Tesoro site in the area of Tepeji del Rio, State of Hidalgo, contains a ceremonial precinct and several edifices on a plaza. It displays a large quantity of Zapotec pottery similar to that recovered from the Oaxaca Barrio (also known as Tlailotlacan) in Teotihuacan (Marcus 1983:181).

The Teotihuacan exchange system extended over a vast area and operated via diverse modes. Santley categorizes the sites that were interacting with Teotihuacan in three ways. Enclaves (least common) are established centres with resident Teotihuacanos who exploited resources directly; they are situated near major trade routes and their presence is evidenced not only in portable items but also in Teotihuacan style architecture. Examples of Teotihuacan enclaves are Matacapan and Kaminaljuyu. An additional feature of these sites is the presence of diverse ethnic groups normally segregated into neighbourhoods or barrios, such as the Maya barrio in Matacapan distinguished by large quantities of Maya trade ceramics. Interactive nodes are sites that maintain a collateral relationship with Teotihuacan and are capitals of major independent political systems as manifested in dualdirectional influences in iconography, sculpture, and artifacts. Examples are Cholula, Tikal, and Monte Albán. Receiver nodes (the most common) are places where Teotihuacan influence was absorbed by the local cultures and is manifested via imports from Teotihuacan and/or by the manufacture of local imitations (homologies). There seems to be a one-way flow of products, and this kind of interaction only rarely leaves evidence in iconography and architecture (Santley 1983:74-80, see also Santley and Alexander 1996:181).

The eastward expansion departed from the Valley of Mexico, to western Tlaxcala and Puebla. Martínez Vargas and Jarquín Pacheco accurately designate the Tlaxcala route as paso obligado (forced passage, corridor) between the Gulf Coast, the south and southeast of Mexico toward the Basin of Mexico (1998:11).6 Also known as the ‘Teotihuacan corridor’or ‘commerial route’ it was surveyed by García Cook and Merino Carrión in 1972-1976 (1977:71-82, 1996) and they encountered Teotihuacan materials in Otumba, Tepeapulco, Tlaxco and Apizaco.7 The cultural phase Tenanyecac characterizes the time of contact between Teotihuacan and the area. The continuation of this corridor leads to Huamantla and the Oriental Basin until Alchichica. Angulo (1996:131) postulates that this corridor might have continued through Perote to Veracruz, where the Teotihuacan enclave of Matacapan and other Teotihuacan-related sites are located.8

The exchange network of Teotihuacan stretched from an inner to an outer hinterland. The development of the Teotihuacan state required the exploitation of its inner hinterland, i.e. the Valley of Mexico, from which it commenced its expansion to an outer hinterland, during the second half of the Tlamimilolpa phase or earlier (300 CE) (Millon 1981:222). I shall commence with the northeastern extension of this system. Charlton’s survey in the area encompassing the plains of Apan revealed that large quantities of Thin Orange ware were transported with frequencies as high as 50% from seven sites and 20-50% for another two sites (Charlton, 1977:287).3 Farther to the northeast, Teotihuacan evidence has been documented near Tepeapulco and Tulancingo in the State of Hidalgo (Noguera 1965:9192). West of Tepeapulco and 10km from the site of Tula lies the site of Chingú.

Major sites in the Tlaxcala-Puebla region include Cahchicomula (Puebla), Calpulapan, Las Colinas, San Jose Zoquiapan (10km east of Tlaxcala), San Nicolás el Grande (5kms farther to the east), Cholula, and Tehuacán (Noguera 1965:91-92).9 The Valley of Puebla is literally overwhelmed by Teotihuacan artifacts to the extent that Paddock includes this area within the ‘metropolitan zone’

Chingú (size:200-250ha) is considered a product of Teotihuacan’s expansion to the north (300 CE) for the procurement of locally mined lime.4 The Teotihuacanos had a specific interest in the area as reflected in the large irrigation systems in the central valley alluvium and numerous limestone extraction zones in the southern part (Mastache 1976:68, Crespo and Mastache 1981:100, Millon 1988:130). The Teotihuacan evidence specifically

5

‘The situation in Chingú looks like a conquest of the site and the area, whereby a military factor was possibly involved.’ 6 Teotihuacan materials have been recovered at the sites of Herradura, Zultepec (Tecoaque), Los Cerritos, Zotoluca, Santal Isabel, Yahualica (Matínez Vargas and Jarquín Pacheco 1998). 7 According to García Cook and Merino Carrión (1996:315) this route was established by people originating in the Gulf Coast area or the site of Cantona, both in the east. 8 At Alchichica, Seler found Teotihuacan material (Angulo 1996:131). 9 In the Calpulapan region the Teotihuacan presence continued even during the Later Classic (Rattray 1981:66).

3

Maybe the contents and not the vessels were the items exchanged (Charlton 1977:287). Lime was used in building construction and to soften maize kernels (Millon 1981:202).

4

77

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

of Teotihuacan (Paddock 1972b:226). Through this eastern corridor Teotihuacan would eventually reach its interactants in the Maya and the Zapotec areas (see secs. 6.3.1-6.3.3 for a discussion on Teotihuacan’s links with these areas).

established settlements along the Rio Laja and further to the north at San Felipe (Bejarano 1977:341). Following Teotihuacan’s routes to the north, I shall continue with the area which presents many similarities with the Cuitzeo Basin; i.e., the El Bajío, in southern Guanajuato and Queretaro, where the expansion of Teotihuacan has not been as systematically investigated as in the other areas.13 In Queretaro, Noguera (1931:77) explored the sites of Toluquilla and Las Ranas, where Teotihuacan ceramics were recovered. Cinnabar, which was a valuable resource used in funerary rites, pottery and murals, is believed to have been extracted from mines in the state of Queretaro, some 120 miles away (Millon 1976:232, Berrin and Pasztory 1993:250).

In the southeast, in eastern Morelos, lies the Amatzinac region where Teotihuacan is supposed to have established a large center at San Ignacio. San Ignacio was the seat of administration in a local network of sites, which produced products channelled to Teotihuacan such as as cotton, mamey, zapotes, avocados and cacao (Millon 1981:202, Diehl 1989:15, Hassig 1992:55). To the southwest, Teotihuacan made its strong (Jiménez Moreno 1966:47, emphasis added) presence in the State of Guerrero. An extension of this corridor would continue to the Balsas river, through western Morelos, into the valley of Mexico (Hassig 1992:55). Via this corridor, Teotihuacan sought the Pacific varieties of shell as indicated by the presence of Teotihuacan-related material along the Río Balsas and the Pacific Coast. In addition to the Pacific Coast, north central Guerrero was also of interest to Teotihuacan presumably for the lapidary tradition in the Mezcala region and the granular ware. According to Paradis, it was possibly Mezcala craftsmen who made the Teotihuacan stone masks and diffused the white granular ware into Teotihuacan. This possiblity is supported by the presence in the region of Teotihuacan-style stone artifacts, which are rare in Teotihuacan (Covarrubias 1947:87-88). Paradis asserts that the area was under Teotihuacan economic and political might (Paradis 1987 after Millon 1988:131-132, Reyna Robles and Rodriguez Betancourt 1994:95-97).10

In the southwest of Queretaro lies the site of La Negreta. The material culture of the site shows a considerable Teotihuacan presence by way of stuccoed habitational floors, ceramics, shell objects from the Atlantic and tortoise shells, among other items (Brambila and Velasco 1988:291-292). Santa Maria del Refugio is a ceremonial center with plazas and terraced platforms, whereas mounds, plazas and apartment compounds are reported for the site of Inchamacuaro. The former site is a large ceremonial site (25ha) with plazas, a funerary platform and an altar. Despite the absence of the talud-tablero, the total architectural configuration reflects a central Mexican concept (Castañeda et al. 1996:163-175). San Bartolo Aguacaliente was an important politico religious center that emerged during 200-450 CE. Although there are ceramic elements that indicate Teotihuacan presence, ‘esto no se refleja de manera clara en la arquitectura, no obstante la complejidad arquitectoncia que presenta’ (Saint-Charles Zetina 1996:151).

From Guerrero, Teotihuacan expanded westward— possibly following the Río Balsas—to the Tierra Caliente region and include sites such as Tanganhuato and Huetamo (Jimenez Moreno 1966:47). Further to the west is the site of El Otero, near Jiquilpan, where Noguera (1944) conducted excavations and encountered some Teotihuacan related material such as cloisonné ollas, an al fresco decorated shell and a double alabaster vessel (Oliveros 1971b:209).11 In a clockwise manner we reach the Cuitzeo Basin, northern Michoacán, where Teotihuacan presence is evidenced in various ways, such as the talud-tablero feature, green obsidian, Thin Orange ceramics and so forth.

The northwest expansion of Teotihuacan reached the Chalchihuites region at the site of AltaVista about 1,000km far from Teotihuacan. This site presents links with Teotihuacan as early as 1-250 CE (The Canutillo Phase) that continued through 250-500 CE (The Alta Vista Phase). The exploitation of the mines was far beyond local needs, and regional development is seen as a result of Teotihuacan’s ‘imperial’ strategies (Holien and Pickering 1978:145, Pasztory 1978a:13). All minerals that could have been exploited are present in Teotihuacan: hematite, malachite, limonite, cinnabar, pyrite and chalcopyrite, cherts and chrysocolla (Turner 1992:105).14 A very characteristic ware of the site is the cloisonné which Kelley and Kelley (1987:177) relate to the Teotihuacan fresco for its origins cannot be considered local.15 Notwithstanding the above observations, I agree with Gómez Chávez (nd) that the

A western route expands through the El Bajío region in southern Guanajuato; This route was possibly used by ‘Proto-Toltec Groups.’12 This route was extended further northward to the basins of the San Felipe and La Laja Rivers. This northern sub-route was used during the decline of Teotihuacan, and Teotihuacanos seem to have

13

One of the aims of the ‘El Bajio’ Project by CEMCA is to address the connection between Teotihuacan and this area. 14 These and other resources were absorbed by the crafts specialists (even sub-specialists) who occupied 500 out of a total of 2,000 compounds during the Xolalpan Phase (Sanders 1978:40). 15 Kelley and Kelley (1987:177) suggest that the trocadores, a group of ceramicists, travellers-merchants-ceremonialists, upon demand traded or locally produced this ritual ware.

10

Teotihuacan items and talud-tablero architecture is documented for the sites of Cerrito Chico, Teticpac el Viejo, Mexiquito y Pirámides de Contlalco (Reyna Robles and Rodriguez Betancourt 1994:104). 11 The two cloisonne ollas are very unlikely related to Teotihuacan; they are technically associated with West Mexico and thematically with Postclassic imagery. 12 ‘Grupos prototoltecas’ (Bejarano 1977:314).

78

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

Monte Albán II-IIA (200-350 CE), increasing during Monte Albán IIIA (350-500 CE) and during the Early Xoo phase (500-600 CE) the contact became ‘weak and indirect’ (Winter et al. 2001). ‘However, Teotihuacan’s influence was confined almost exclusively to Monte Albán, with little impact in the valley below’ (Hassig 1992:68). Yet, Joyce’s (1993) survey in the Lower Río Verde Valley on the Oaxacan coast revealed that a number of sites were also participating in the Teotihuacan exchange network such as Piedra Parada, Bajos de Chila, Barra Quebrada and Rio Viejo. At this latter site, green obsidian from Central Mexico adds up to 80%, indicating that the exchange was possibly directly with Teotihuacan (Joyce 1993:75).

evidence indicating a direct contact with Teotihuacan is meagre and the supposed interest in turquoise cannot be sustained since the presence of this mineral is nil at Teotihuacan. Additionally, the cloisonné type, which is so characteristic in the area, is related to farther West Mexico rather than Teotihuacan.16 Further to the west, in the state of Jalisco, Phil Weigand’s intensive research of the Teuchitlán tradition revealed evidence–some sherds of Thin Orange ware–of interaction with Teotihuacan. He speculates that the abrupt increase in the number of settlements during the Ahualulco phase may be a response to an external socioeconomic pressure possibly exerted by Teotihuacan (Weigand 1996a:193).

In contrast to Matacapan (sec. 6.3.2) and concertedly with Kaminaljuyu (sec. 6.3.3), Monte Albán lacks any evidence for Teotihuacan domestic elements (Winter et al. 1998:465-466). The talud-tablero articulation—so typical in Teotihuacan—is also absent, but the edifices D, E and VG of the Complex VG, north platform, form a three-temple complex similar to those at Teotihuacan (Winter et al. 1998:471). Ceramics are by-and-large ritual: cylindrical tripod vessels with slab supports and covers, censers with coffee bean appliqué decoration, candeleros, Tlaloc or Cocijo jars, Thin Orange vessels, cooking pots, floreros, and some show the reptilian eye motif (Santley 1983:81). The Teotihuacan-related ceramics are associated with Monte Albán IIIA ceramics both in burials and stratigraphic pits (Rattray 1981:63). During the ‘Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 1992-1994’, a debris deposit in area B, North Platform yielded various Teotihuacan types made with local clays (gray, cream, brown and yellow). These include types such as cylindrical bowls, censers, candeleros. Coffee bean appliqué decoration was applied on cylinders and braziers (Martínez López 1994:45-47). Although the ‘finest’ Teotihuacan wares are not present, it seems that a selection of Teotihuacan-related symbolic ideas was adapted to their own ideational sphere (e.g., Berlo 1984:208).

Based on knowledge to date, the westernmost extension of Teotihuacan seems to be Colima, as the presence of Thin Orange ollas and Old God censers indicates (McBride 1969). Teotihuacan indeed covered most of Mesoamerica, but there are still large centers –for example Cantona, in Puebla– that, although they are contemporaneous with Teotihuacan, lack any Teotihuacan material (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:282). Therefore it is important to reconsider the reasons that account for the interactions observed among these sites, since the material evidence differs from site to site (see Sabloff and LambergKarlofsky 1975:292). A world systemic perspective allows the examination of the ways the Teotihuacan ideology was operationalized in distinct areas. A closer examination and cross-cultural comparisons may enhance our understanding of the nature of the Teotihuacan system. 6.3

Comparative framework

6.3.1

Monte Albán

At an altitude of 1900m and 350km from Teotihuacan lies Monte Albán, State of Oaxaca, the seat of the Zapotec culture. It rose very early, at approximately 500 BCE, by exerting control over a series of locally organized sites, a phenomenon which can be possibly explained as a response to a threat from the southern Highlands. It seems that this control was ‘of a political nature and little else’ (Hassig 1992:39-66). By 400 CE Monte Albán’s population was 16,500 and that of the valley 75,000 (Kowaleski et al. 1989:212). The site covered some 650ha and its peak occurred during period III (200-600 CE).

The most vivid information about Teotihuacan missions in the area is sourced in the iconographic program of murals and carved stones. Murals include those from tombs 104 and 105 with distinct Teotihuacan iconography. Another Teotihuacan-related program is presented on the stone slabs of the south platform in the Main Plaza (fig. 6.1). Interestingly, a number of stone boxes with identical offerings were discovered by Acosta in the northwest, northeast and southwest corners of this platform. The offerings consist of spiny oyster shells, necklaces of jade beads, ten olive shells painted with red pigment and Zapotec IIIA ollas. On all corners of the platform, stones carved on either or both edges present inscriptions and depict named figures from Teotihuacan who visit Monte Albán (Marcus 1983:175–176). The representation of Teotihuacanos in Monte Albán involves one figure wearing a Feathered Serpent headdress with a

Teotihuacan evidence has been recorded at Monte Albán since the works of Caso and Bernal (Caso 1935, Caso and Bernal 1952, Caso, Bernal and Acosta 1967). This evidence was manifested first for the transitional phase 16 Paint remains of gourd vessels were found in burials at Guasave whose technique resembles that of the cloisonné from Chalchihuites’ (Ekholm nd:13).

79

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Fig. 6.1: stone slabs, South Platform, Main Plaza, Monte Albán

name glyph with an inscribed heart symbol. Sugiyama postulates that these symbols indicate the links of these figures to a ‘royal family’ and that they possibly ‘were reminiscent of an event that had taken place at the Pyramid of the Feathered Serpent’ at Teotihuacan (Sugiyama 1992:222). These stone reliefs were facing the pyramid and were therefore invisible as ‘if there was a need to hide this diplomatic relationship’ (Pasztory 1997:101). ‘These “hidden” carvings in the corners of the south platform all seem to relate to the same event: eight persons, wearing typical Teotihuacano headdresses, leave a place with temples decorated in typical Tetitla style (Room 12 mural), and arrive at a place called ‘the Hill of 1 Jaguar’ where they are greeted by a lord wearing a typical Zapotec headdress’ (Marcus 1983:176, 180).

found in a deposit near the west side of Mound X. This Zapotec travertine slab portrays two individuals: a Teotihuacano and a Zapoteco, each accompanied by a column of inscribed text of a narrative rather than calendrical nature, since it lacks calendrical glyphs (fig. 6.2). Teotihuacan is mentioned twice: first by a glyphlike Tassel Headdress and second by the sign of a foot in a Teotihuacan-style sandal. The column next to the Teotihuacano can be read ‘representative from Teotihuacan came to confer’. The slab possibly functions as a memorial of a specific agreement between these two personages and the presence of a sign of a hand holding a single bean and the copal pouch held by the Teotihuacano supports this interpretation (Marcus 1983:179, Hassig 1992:69).17 Alternatively, the fact that these two figures

A similar event with fewer protagonists is presented on the Lápida de Bazán (Monte Albán IIIA), which was

17

‘. . .beans were cast by Zapotec diviners (colanij) to help decide important issues, and the single bean may indicate that an ‘odd number’

80

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

are not facing each other—as a formal agreement would have required—but the Teotihuacano is rather following the Zapoteco emphasizes the role of the Zapoteco as the leading figure in the composition, in the sense that he guides the Teotihuacano.18 The act of guidance presupposes an advantage based on knowledge by the one who guides to the detriment of the guided. Moreover, many scholars believe that the Teotihuacanos sought a kind of esoteric knowledge in Monte Albán. In 1967, Millon (1967:44) proposed that the Teotihuacanos were interested in the Zapotec calendar and their relationship was ambassadorial and peaceful. Coggins concurs with Millon stating that Monte Albán possibly taught Teotihuacan calendrical knowledge and especially the 260-day ritual calendar. ‘The earliest documented appearance of such dates is carved upon the stone monuments of Monte Albán I times . . . there is furthermore no evidence of any calendar nor of any writing system at Teotihuacan until at least the fifth century when a few glyphlike forms are found in murals and on ceramics’ (Coggins 1983:59). The pecked cross motif found throughout Mesoamerica is indicative of the teachings of astronomical knowledge, which would have been possibly transmitted by means of a wooden instrument.

Fig. 6.2: the Bazán Slab, Monte Albán (stone, 49 x 49 x 12 cm)

Nevertheless some economic and political considerations are not out of order. Teotihuacan was additionally interested in establishing relationships with Monte Albán for the presence of specific resources in the area. First, there are banks of mica in the area surrounding Monte Albán, near the villages of Arrazola and Tiracoz, which were valuable for the manufacture of prestige goods (Martínez 1994, Cabrera 1998:65). Second, Teotihuacan was able to obtain shell from the Pacific Coast of Oaxaca via its connections with Monte Albán (Chase 1993:152).

It was knowledge of this accurate, light-weight instrument that was introduced at Tikal and at Uaxactun in conjuction with pecked circles. This led to the abandonment of the great Maya solar observatories . . . in association with this observational innovation the inauguration of katun celebration may have paid structural homage to the ancient and sacred Oaxacan 260day calendar, rather than to the indigenous Teotihuacan one for which there is so little evidence (Coggins 1983:63).

Were the Teotihuacanos aware of the militaristic prowess of the Zapotec? I would think so. Although I do agree that the Zapotec had a kind of sophisticated or advanced astronomical knowledge, their military deeds during the Late Formative period might have been equally known to the Teotihuacanos. The absence of evidence for writing in Teotihuacan and our inability to decipher what is considered as incipient Teotihuacan writing makes us often forget about the role of the Teotihuacan collective memory. Concrete evidence suggests that militarism and territorial expansionism were a matter of life for the Zapotec.

Thus, the Teotihuacanos would begin to measure time and ‘inaugurate the age of Teotihuacan.’ This might explain the presence of the year sign in areas interacting with Teotihuacan. Additionally, Zapotec astronomy might have even determined the orientation of Teotihuacan (Marcus 1998:469). The need of the Teotihuacanos to acquire this knowledge led them to Monte Albán as early as 200 CE and Coggins (1993:150) postulates that they established themselves there by intermarriage. Although the nature of the relationship still eludes us (Hassig 1992:69), it has been described as ‘friendly’ (Millon C. 1988:127) and ‘special’ (Millon 1973:42): ‘I have suggested that Teotihuacan and the powerful Zapotec center of Monte Albán . . . had a “special relationship” very different from any so far discussed’ (Millon 1988:129). Marcus (1983:179-180) suggests that there was a kind of ambassadorial relationship based especially on the iconography of the Lápida de Bazán.

From about 500 BCE Monte Albán possibly became the first conquest state in Mesoamerica as the ‘disembedded capital’ (Blanton 1983) of a confederation of chiefdoms which extended from the Cuicatlán Cañada to the north to the Tutupec region in the Oaxacan coast and possibly to the Isthmus of Tehuantepec (Zeitlin 1990:250). By 200 BCE Monte Albán was fortified with an earthen wall running three kilomenters along the north to west portions of the city. Three to four meters high, ‘the wall had a maximum width of twenty meters and had gatehouses to control entry. A reservoir was also built that could hold up to 67,500 cubic meters of water, enough to sustain all the residents of Monte Albán for years and virtually eliminating siege as a threat’ (Hassig 1992:41). The Zapotec invaded the Cuicatlán Cañada in

decided the issue—being the one bean left over after removing beans by twos, threes, fours and so on’ (Marcus 1983:179). 18 Pasztory postulates that they are shown as ‘equal powers’ (1997:101).

81

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

the north after 200 BCE with the aim of controlling the movement of goods from the Tierra Caliente region, and their northernmost expansion was the fortified site of Quiotepec. The conquest at the Cuicatlan Cañada is indicated by the destruction and abandonment of villages, relocation of population, single level community system and abandonment of previous ranked system, presence of Zapotec architecture and elimination of local ritual paraphernalia (Spencer 1982, Zeitlin 1990:252-253).

environmentally favorable and conducive to trade whereas Monte Albán was somehow isolated from the major trade routes that linked the peripheral coastal lowlands to northern and southern Mesoamerica (Pasztory 1978a:13). The flow of prestige goods from Teotihuacan increased the power of Monte Albán at the regional level, especially since Monte Albán was largely dependent upon its periphery for primary resources. I conclude that this relationship must have served the political economy of both states. On the one hand, the Teotihuacanos drew a wide array of knowledge from Monte Albán and on the other, Monte Albán used Teotihuacan goods in order to increase its own prestige at the local level.

The earliest known Mesoamerican skull rack (a highly visible power exhibit), containing sixty-one human heads was erected at the village of La Coyotera. Another medium of power display is the—more than fifty— carved slabs on Structure J depicting slain or sacrificed captives. Some authors posit that these captives represent conquered towns (Hassig 1992:65, Joyce 1994:67). The acquisition of captives who were possibly slaves implies a certain kind of social inequality. Not only the fact of the acquisition of captives and slaves but the permanent display of the slabs represent a tangible means of societal containment ‘images of power that truly demonstrate the power of images’ (Borrowicz 2001:149) These carved stones are a clear message of what the Zapotec leaders were capable of, which is the marginalization of individuals for outsiders and insiders alike when societal structures would be at risk.19

During the decline of Teotihuacan, Monte Albán received fewer goods from the great city, and ‘without them, local allegiance declined . . . Because Monte Albán had never been self-supporting, once it lost control of elite goods, it lacked the power to compel obedience, and its decline was drastic and nearly complete’ (Hassig 1992:90–91). By 650-700 CE only 4,000 inhabited the site. 6.3.2

Matacapan

The site of Matacapan is located in the Tuxtlas Mountains, in southern Veracruz, in a zone of rich resources. The history of the site shows that in its initial stage, circa 300-450 CE, the community was centered on the Teotihuacan-related edifices known as the ‘Teotihuacan Barrio’ covering 43ha (Pool 1992:47). It saw a dramatic increase in building construction during 450-650 CE covering more than 700ha. Its population consisted initially of a group of Teotihuacanos, and the dramatic increase in the size of the site may be explained by the centripetal migration of people from the neighboring areas (Pool 1992:51).

In addition to the early territorial expansion, Monte Albán invested in trade as early as 1500 BCE. Ornamental marine and freshwater shells, thought to have originated in the South Isthmian site of Laguna Zope, were transported to the highland Valley of Oaxaca, along with obsidian from farther south at El Chayal in what is now Guatemala. Also, the Relaciones Geográficas of 1580 for Oaxaca (del Paso y Troncoso 1905) list sea salt and cottton among the items imported from the southern Isthmus to the Valley of Oaxaca (Zeitlin 1990:253). Joyce (1994:76) posits that the Zapotec expansionism during the Late Formative did not have economic motives but it was ‘rather part of an elitistic strategy of “social deceit” that was heading toward the legitimation of the nascent power of the nobility.’

Matacapan consists of seventy one mounds and hundreds of house mounds over an area of 4km2, whereas the core comprises thirty-three public buildings surrounding a central plaza (Santley 1983:76) with population estimates at the range of 15,000-20,000 inhabitants (Santley 1989:214). Its strategic position between the east coast and the Papaloapan and Cotzacoalcos Rivers undoubtedly was a factor that led the Teotihuacanos to establish the site. Some twenty years ago, Matacapan was considered a port of trade along with two other sites, Matacanela and Piedra Labrada (Parsons 1978:29) but the current literature unanismously designates the site as an enclave.

Nevertheless, Monte Albán did not become a state as did Teotihuacan for several reasons: Teotihuacan developed from small villages into the region's dominant site, whereas Monte Albán was founded ‘de novo in period Ia’; and second, Teotihuacan was centrally placed in a large exchange network, whereas Monte Albán’s distribution of resources was very circumscribed (Sanders and Santley 1978:303 cf. Blanton 1983b:167). Despite the fact that both sites seem to have been capitals of primate systems, Teotihuacan was much more of a primate center than Monte Albán (Kowaleski 1983:169).20 The Central Highlands were

Clarifying the presence of Teotihuacan at the site was one of the aims of the ‘Matacapan Project’ (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:307). The items in Teotihuacan style can be dated from Late Tlamimilolpa to Metepec (400-700 CE) phases and are locally produced copies of Teotihuacan originals; practically all Teotihuacan style artifacts are locally made and appear both in private and public contexts (Pool 1992:46). Artifacts include cylindrical tripod vessels of various pastes, figurines—some with representations of the Old God Huehueteotl—censers, sellos, metates with

19

As Arnold (1995:97) posits slaves might be considered the ‘extreme marginalization of one sector or a society.’ 20 ‘If the size of the leading center is much larger than expected, or if the second order site is much smaller, the distribution is termed primate’ (Kowaleski 1983:168).

82

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

1996:186). Chemical analysis of sherds from Matacapan and two other sites in the vicinity, Matalapan and El Picayo indicates that Fine Orange vessels were traded to these areas (Pool 1992:48). Fine paste ceramics are rich in kaolin and possibly the clay was traded over long distances.22 In addition to kaolin, Matacapan provides other resources such as cacao beans, which were possibly used as currency, and also tobacco, cotton and salt (Rattray 1987b:267, Spence 1996a:344). The acquisition of these products would have certainly furthered Teotihuacan’s relationships to the southeast and the Maya area (Millon 1988:124).

supports, Storm God ceramic sculptures and floreros. Rattray observed a difference between the Matacapan cylindrical tripod vessels and those of Teotihuacan; in Matacapan the orientation of the angle of the vessel walls is curved, slightly divergent, whereas in Teotihuacan they are more cylindrical. Additionally, the feet of the Matacapan examples are globular, like those of Kaminaljuyu. In other words they are mayanized (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:314). The architectural evidence indicates that two types of buildings are present: multi-staged temple mounds and low, rectangular platform mounds that presumably housed the community’s top-ranking elite and their retainers. The excavation of one platform structure— Mound 61—indicates that the structure consisted of a complex of rooms arranged around patios and separated by intervening corridors. Distributed around this central core is a large area of suburban occupation covering at least 20km2 (Santley 1994:94). Mound 2 presents two tiers of the Teotihuacan-related talud-tablero, a frontal stairway flanked by balustrades and a clay-surfaced exterior painted in red. This structure is paired with Mound 1 of similar size, and both have temples and platforms but no tombs.21 Mounds 3 and 22 were residential structures with room complexes separated by a corridor around a patio. Mounds 1, 2, 3 and 22 form the ‘Teotihuacan Barrio.’ Wall orientations differ approximately one degree from the standard Teotihuacan orientation (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:309-311, Spence 1996a:344).

Although defined as an enclave, nothing is yet affirmative regarding Matacapan’s relationships with Teotihuacan. Opinions vary; for Santley, for example, Matacapan was never part of the political domain of Teotihuacan but was possibly established by the Teotihuacanos (Santley 1983:76, 1989:214), whereas Sanders maintains that Matacapan and Teotihuacan had a kind of imperial relationship (Sanders 1989:213).23 Whether the Matacapanos work for the interests of the Teotihuacan state is difficult to infer (e.g., Millon 1988:125). Spence concurs with Santley that Matacapan was not under Teotihuacan political control. ‘It may have initially been a terminal in a diaspora, a trade network operating outside the formal political structure of Teotihuacan while depending on a constructed Teotihuacanoid identity to maintain links between communities’ (Spence 1996a:350).24 Additionally, Matacapan was possibly established by Teotihuacan as a means of controlling and distributing the obsidian in the area. Santley estimates that 8 to 10 metric tons of this material per year entered the Tuxtlas region (Santley 1989:144).25 This argument is supported by the study of ceramic assemblages from Central and Southern Veracruz which demonstrates ‘that there is a distinct falloff in the incidence and variety of Teotihuacan-style materials relative to Matacapan and not Teotihuacan . . . [suggesting] that ties with the Teotihuacan presence in the Tuxtlas may have been more important than affiliations with Central Mexico’ (Santley and Alexander 1996:189).

Large quantities of Teotihuacan material were recovered in a residential area west of the principal plaza. Burials present Teotihuacan patterns in which the deceased individuals were placed below the floors of the buildings in flexed positions. Some foetuses or newborns were put in vessels, also a Teotihuacan custom. The offerings accompanying these burials were cylindrical vessels decorated with Teotihuacan imagery. In the same area, utilitarian wares include types such as Fine buff bowls, cream pitchers and plates of divergent rim, Fine Orange, and Fine Gray vessels. What characterizes the Teotihuacan-affiliated material culture of Matacapan and distinguishes it from other areas is the heavy presence of candeleros and figurines, which are rare or nonexistent in other sites (Millon 1988:124, Sanders 1989:213)

In addition to Matacapan, some other sites on the coast and near Lake Catemaco evidence some Teotihuacan materials, but generally the Teotihuacan presence is 22 Kaolin is a fine usually white clay formed from decomposed feldspar that is used especially in the manufacture of pottery and china - called also China clay [from Gaoling (Kao-ling), hill in SE China]. The area around Matacapan contains extensive series of fine-grain marine sediments exceptionally rich in kaolinite that have been upwarped by recent volcanism (Santley 1989:134). 23 ‘Santley’s exaggerated claims about a Teotihuacan outpost at Matacapan have created much confusion’ (Cowgill 1997:135). 24 ‘Although one Matacapan structure does have talud-tablero architecture, there is no iconographic or other evidence to suggest the involvement of the Teotihuacan state’(Spence 1996a:349) 25 Three kinds of obsidian are present in Matacapan: green obsidian from Pachuca, Hidalgo; gray-black with internal banding from Zaragoza and Oyameles, Central Veracruz, and translucent gray from Pico de Orizaba and Guadalupe Victoria in south central Veracruz. 90% of the Middle Classic core-blade assemblage comes from the source of Zaragoza (Santley 1989:139-140).

There was a special investment in the ceramic industry and the excavations revealed 41 production zones that include both households and specialists’ workshops, indicating a differentiation in production (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:312, Santley 1994:94). The political economy of Matacapan—possibly organized as a dendritic central place system—may have directed this large ceramic production to an outer periphery around the Tuxtlas and the south Gulf Coast plain (Santley and Alexander 21 The debris from Mounds 1 and 2—with the exception of some tripod supports—did not yield significant Teotihuacan material (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:311).

83

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Teotihuacan prototype (Pasztory 1997).27 Rare Teotihuacan style murals are recorded for the site of XelHa in Quintana Roo (Rattray 1987b:267).

limited outside the central Tuxtlas area. The limited amount of Teotihuacan material in this zone indicates that ties with Teotihuacan were localized events and not a common phenomenon along this coast (Ortiz Ceballos 1988:313). 6.3.3

The architecural evidence indicates that contact commenced early, possibly around 250-300 CE. Tomb F-8/1 from Structure F-8, in Altun Ha Belize revealed a post-interment offering consisting of 258 obsidian artifacts (Pendergast 1971). The total configuration of the offering is very similar to two offerings at Teotihuacan: an offering of the Miccaotli phase (ca. 150200 CE) in the plataforma adosada of the Sun Pyramid and an extensive series of sacrificial burials that marked the construction of the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl (Spence 1996b:29–30). However, the fact that it was a single offering indicates that the relationship with Teotihuacan was not meant to last (Millon R. 1988:120, Marcus 2001:200). Pendergast suggests that the incident at Altun Ha aimed to honor the person in the tomb rather than the polity. ‘Once the F-8 ruler’s tomb was capped and sealed, Teotihuacan presence at Altun Ha sank beneath the Caribbean waves without so much as a ripple’ (Pendergast 2001:157). Also early dates are provided for the sites of Montana and Balberta along the Pacific coast of Guatemala, Nohmul in Belize and Becan (Braswell 2001b:59).

The Maya Area

The Maya lowlands (fig. 6.3) present Teotihuacan artifacts of diverse sorts and in various contexts: architecture with the talud-tablero element, carved stone monuments, ceramics, green and gray obsidian from Central Mexican sources, shell items and so forth. In contrast to the two sites just examined i.e. Monte Albán and Matacapan, Teotihuacan imagery in the Maya area reaches a propagandistic apex of a clear military nature. It can be postulated that the Teotihuacanos invested their maximum efforts in creating the finest artifacts destined for the Maya elites. In some cases the quality of products surpasses those created in Teotihuacan.26 Certainly such a degree of investement is a calculated economic act whereby the expected profit is much higher than the ‘objective’ value of things invested. And it paid off for both sides: Teotihuacan succeeded in obtaining subsistence resources (some 1000km away from the homeland) and Maya sites with a clear Teotihuacan affiliation held an eminent political role among their peers.

The evidence from the fortified site of Becan is also highly specific but is said to be somewhat later, roughly coeval with the time Teotihuacan and Tikal were most closely linked (i.e. 5th century). It consists of a cache that included a cylindrical tripod pottery vessel decorated in Maya style, in which a large, two-part, hollow figurine was placed. Within the figurine were ten, solid, miniature, mold-made figurines, and some green obsidian was also found (Millon 1988:121). Other short-lived Teotihuacan incidences have been noted for sites such as the El Mirador Group, seven km west of the center of Dzibilchatun, dating to ca. 600 CE and Acanceh, where the stucco façade of Structure I has been ascribed a 5th to 6th century date (Millon 1988:128).

Some Maya regions, however, did not get involved with the Teotihuacanos whereas others seem to have had a kind of brief encounter. For example, Yucatán presents meagre evidence for Teotihuacan contact at the sites of Ake, Dzibilchaltun and Oxkintok (Pasztory 1978a:13, Millon 1988:129). Varela Torrecilla (2001:171), for instance, suggests that the talud-tablero at Oxkintok is related to the Maya lowlands rather than Teotihuacan. The site of Frutal, which is very close to Teotihuacanridden Kaminaljuyu, does not present any evidence at all (Marcus 2001:205). Central Mexican green obsidian reached the lowlands in the form of blades, sequins, knives, eccentrics, bifacially worked points and needles, and Teotihuacan-related ceramics include Thin Orange ware; stuccoed, lidded cylindrical tripod vessels; and miniature vessels. Some of the sites with large numbers of green obsidian are El Mirador, Chiapas, Altun Ha, Kaminaljuyu, Balberta (90km southwest of Kaminaljuyu), Tikal, with more than 500 artifacts, Uaxactún and Río Azul. Other Teotihuacan-related material is present at the sites of Solano, Escuintla, Yaxha, Altar de Sacrificios, Ake, Dzibilchatun (Santley 1983:83-84, Spence 1996b).

A different situation has been noted for the Tiquisate region in Pacific Guatemala, an area located southsouthwest of Lake Atitlan. Unearthed tombs and caches yielded more than 1,000 ceramic objects including biconic censers, tripod cylindrical vessels, hollow moldmade figures and candeleros inter alia. The evidence of fired clay molds implies that these were mass-produced from Teotihuacan prototypes (Coe 1993:78). This region produced the most extensive corpus of Teotihuacan-influenced artifacts in all Mesoamerica (Hellmuth 1978:71). The incense burners stand out for being invested with military symbolism such as the Butterfly Complex (Berlo 1984). Von Winning (1977) suggests that these objects are associated with specific kinds of ambassadors and merchants. Nevertheless, elements from other cultural areas are present, rendering the art of Tiquisate a hybrid

The talud-tablero architectural feature is manifested at Kaminaljuyu, Dzibilchatun, Tikal, Acanceh and Ake where it is considered a direct imititation of the

26 For example the al fresco vessels of Tikal and Uaxactun (Séjourné 1966:78–79).

27 Other sites are Becan, Rio Azul, Cerro Palenque, Ixtinto and La Naya (Laporte 2001:128).

84

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

Fig. 6.3: Distribution of sites with recorded Teotihuacan artifacts in the Maya area (note: the map does not present the total number of sites)

along with ceramic effigies of cacao beans (used as currency?), foreign and local imitations of Thin Orange, fine paste ceramics possibly from the Gulf Coast. However Balberta was abruptly abandoned by 400 CE. The site of Montana is a monumental complex unparalleled on the south coast of Guatemala. All Teotihuacan-related artefacts are locally reproduced and include candeleros, warrior figurines, tripod cylinder supports with ‘Storm God’ imagery and only two pieces of green obsidian (out of a total of 6,500 artifacts) and no

manifestation of different regional and local styles: Teotihuacan, Monte Albán, Veracruz and the Maya area (Pasztory 1978a:12, Millon 1988:123, Berrin and Pasztory 1993:273). Further, to the south of Escuintla, the ‘Balberta’ and ‘Montana’ Projects documented a series of sites related to Teotihuacan. At the site of Balberta (established at about 200-250 CE) green obsidian reaches the highest frequency in Guatemala and interestingly it was found 85

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Thin Orange at all28 (Bove and Medrano Busto 2001:3941).

(2001:95) posits, based on neutron activation analysis, that the origin of this vessel (the ‘Dazzler’) is unidentified but it must be somewhere in Central Mexico.

COPÁN KAMINALJUYU

At the site of Copán, Western Honduras, the Teotihuacan elements of the founder of the Classic dynasty Yax Kuk Mo were possibly imported from Kaminaljuyu (Coggins 1993:149). Based on the hieroglyphic evidence of Altar Q, carved 350 years after his reign, the founder of Copán was K’inich Yax K’uk’Mo’ (‘Great-Sun First Quetzal Macaw’); if he was not Mexican himself ‘then a Maya steeped in Mexican traditions.’ Additionally, the Hunal Tomb of Temple 16 revealed a burial which appears to be his. Bone (strontium isotope) analysis indicates that he was indeed a foreigner (Martin and Grube 2000:193). The offerings deposited in his tomb include some Teotihuacan-related artifacts, and others very similar to those encountered at Kaminaljuyu and in Tikal’s Burial 10 (Sharer 2001:93).

Shortly after AD 400, the highlands fell under Teotihuacan domination . . . (Sanders 1989:212) An intrusive group of central Mexicans from that city [Teotihuacan] seized Kaminaljuyu and built for themselves a miniature version of their capital’ (Coe 1993:74)

Certainly both statements are unsustained and archaeologists at present have radically different views. The evidence for the Teotihuacan-Kaminaljuyu connection revolves around two sections of the site: the Palangana (Mounds C-II-12,-13, and –14) and the Acropolis (Group C-II-4), where platform façades display the talud-tablero feature. In later stages, talud-tablero architecture was introduced at both the Palangana and the Mounds A and B complexes.30 Some platforms had balustraded stairs with remates, a rectangular projecting cap on the top of the balustrade that is a common feature of Teotihuacan stairways (Spence 1996a:345). During the later phase of contact 550-600 CE (when the Teotihuacan decline was taking shape), the Mound A-B precinct is abandoned and the Acropolis, also in Teotihuacan style was built. However, the number of Teotihuacan-related offerings is less compared to that recovered from Mounds A and B (Santley, 1983:75–6).31

An additional indication of Central Mexican affiliations is the find of a sacrificed individual wrapped in a bundle and bearing warrior gear such as shell goggles and atlatl darts. Strontium isotope analysis indicates that he also, was neither from Copán nor Teotihuacan (Sharer 2001:95).29 From the same site, the Margarita tomb yielded the richest female burial in the whole Maya area. Among the offerings were Thin Orange ceramics (both imported and homologies), fine orange, and the ‘Dazzler,’ a clear Teotihuacan cylindrical tripod vessel (fig. 6.4). This tomb possibly belonged to the widow of the founder (Martin and Grube 2000:195). Sharer

Among the Teotihuacan-related ceramics are Thin Orange ware, which was ‘intensively controlled,’ for being encountered only in tombs A, B, B1 and X, whereas at Teotihuacan it is found in burials, dedicatory offerings, residential units and apartment compounds (Rattray 1981:6, 1997:72). Too, Cowgill and Sugiyama noted similarities between the burials in the Feathered Serpent Pyramid at Teotihuacan and the tombs in Mounds A and B (Cowgill 2001:211). Braswell (2001b:57) does not consider the Teotihuacan presence at Kaminaljuyu so important: ‘no project conducted during the past 30 years—i.e. after the initial research by Kidder et al.—has recovered more than a handful of central Mexican-style sherds or exposed additional examples of talud-tablero architecture. Moreover, the quantity of Thin Orange is highly limited. From both Mounds A and B out of total of ca. 337 vessels only 16 are Thin Orange, and even outside the Valley, the presence of Teotihuacan ceramics is limited (Braswell 2001c:68 see also Brown 1977:342).

Fig. 6.4a: the ‘Dazzler’, a stucccoed lidded tripod cylindrical vessel, Margarita tomb, Copán

28 ‘When satellite centers such as Manantial, Paraiso, Loma Linda, Las Victorias, Las Hortencias, and La Fronda are considered together with district capitols, secondary centers, and myriad lesser sites, Montana represents an impressive regional polity’ (Bove and Medrano Busto 2001:31). 29 Isotopic analyses support the foreign origin of the founder of Copan (Braswell 2001a:14).

30

The Mound A-B occupies nevertheless a peripheral position related to the main population area indicating a ‘lack of direct political control’(Santley 1983:75–76). 31 Nevertheless, monumentality in itself ‘makes visible differences in power’(e.g., Hendon 1991:905).

86

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

that there were two groups of foreigners at Kaminaljuyu. Sixteen individuals were sampled from Mounds A and B, and White et al. (2000) conclude that only one indivual presents a δ18Οp value in late childhood, which is similar to Teotihuacan values. This contradicts the archaeological data for the presence of Teotihuacan rulers at Kaminaljuyu. The individual might have lived at Teotihuacan but was born at Kaminaljuyu (White el al. 2000:552-553)33.

In contrast to the ‘exclusionary’ use of Thin Orange ware as a burial artifact in elite tombs, incense burners were used in public rituals at Kaminaljuyu whereas at Teotihuacan, these burners were used in association with residential structures (Sanders 1978:39). Stuccoed cylindrical tripod vessels present individuals clad in Teotihuacan apparel; others display both Teotihuacan and Maya deities and the butterfly motif. The absence of Teotihuacan figurines at the site implies the elite nature of the contact (Paddock 1972b:236).

TIKAL The arrival of Teotihuacanos may be a fact at Kaminaljuyu, but the effect of the contact has not been properly addressed. Just before the ‘arrival’ there was a change in local ritual practices, since typical objects such as mushroom stones, three-pronged incense burners, figurines, frog effigy altars, and stelae in the IzapaKaminaljuyu style ceased to be made (Sanders 1978:39, Coe 1993:76).

Teotihuacan lies some 1013 km to the west, but distance was not an issue regarding Teotihuacan’s interests in the largest city in the Maya lowlands, with a population of 49,000 and the size of the main residential area of 23km2. Over 3,000 structures have been mapped at Tikal. Tikal emerged as the dominant center of the central lowlands after defeating its major rival, neigboring Uaxactún (Hassig 1992:77, Carmack et al. 1996:64).

Some authors ascribe a political role for the Teotihuacanos as supporting the local elite (Coggins 1983:49, Hassig 1992:57) whereas others see an economic intervention in order to control obsidian and cacao resources (Sanders and Price 1968, Cheek 1977:158-66, Rattray 1981:62, Hassig 1992:56). Braswell (2001c:84) maintains that war symbolism and sacrifice is the link between Kaminaljuyu and Teotihuacan.

Public displays of Teotihuacan affiliation include architectural structures and stone stelae. Beyond the Central Acropolis, two complexes have been considered as Teotihuacan inspired: Mundo Perdido and Group 6CXVI, with both talud-tablero terraces and staircases with balustrades. The earliest talud-tablero appears in Manik I, ca. 250-300 CE, in the Mundo Perdido complex, on each of the four sides of the fifth version of Structure 5C54, the Great Pyramid (Laporte 2001:126). Another tablero is seen on Structure 5C-49 ‘that lacks a frame and was painted black . . . diverging from the stylistic norms established at this time at Teotihuacan’ (Laporte 2001:126).34 The date proposed for these talud-tableros are in concert with Pendergast’s Altun Ha early date for the presence of Teotihuacanos in the region, i.e. 250 CE (Spence 1996b:28, Pendergast 2001, Laporte 2001).

What is clear is that the abruptness with which Teotihuacan evidence is manifested at Kaminaljuyu must in itself have a significance (Cheek 1977:447, Millon 1988:122). Possibly Spence (1996a:346) provides a better approximation of the nature of the TeotihuacanKaminaljuyu interaction: The purest and most blatant display of Teotihuacan identity was on the façades of the major public structures . . . their principal concern being the representation of Teotihuacan’s interest to the Kaminaljuyu elite rather than the maintenance of a local island of Teotihuacan culture . . . a Teotihuacan domestic environment was apparently considered unnecessary because the political function of the enclave demanded Teotihuacan trappings only on major public occasions and perhaps because the enclave personnel maintained regular contact with Teotihuacan.

Group 6C-XVI was possibly used for rituals. Laporte (2001) associates this complex with ballgame rituals, owing to the additional discovery of murals representing Maya ballplayers and foreigners. In addition to the Teotihuacan architectural features, a ballcourt marker encountered atop the altar is identical to a marker found at La Ventilla, Teotihuacan. This marker bears an inscription of 36 hieroglyphs that include significant dates such as 416 CE (the date of erection) and the ‘critical’ date 378 CE, which is mentioned in other monuments (Laporte 2001:133, see also Carlson 1993:232). Hence, the total configuration of the elements of Group 6C-XVI implies that ‘it is in short, a Teotihuacan complex, out of place in a Maya city’ (Spence 1996b:28, Martin and Grube 2000:28).

The crux of the question is of course whether Teotihuacanos did indeed live in Kaminaljuyu. White et al. (2000) conducted bioarchaeological analysis of oxygen-isotope ratios of enamel phosphate. Samples of first and third molars from burials were used in order to identify the origin of the individuals.32 Results indicate

significant interregional variability in oxygen isotopes created by environmental variables’ (White et al. 2000:536–541). 33 However, not all individuals from the Mounds were sampled (Cowgill 2001:212, emphasis added). 34 Though many authors stress the different ratios between the taludtablero at Teotihuacan and those abroad I do not believe that this is a valid argument against interaction with Teotihuacan since even at Teotihuacan ratios differ (see also Cowgill 2001).

32 ‘The measurement of oxygen-isotope ratios in skeletal phosphate is a recently developed technique that has the potential to identify the geographic origins of individuals in mortuary contexts. . . based on two main assumptions: (1) that ‘you are what you drink’ and (2) that there is

87

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán Mexican garb.37 The glyphic text above the figures makes it clear that the side personages are two views of the same man, that is, ‘Curl-Nose’, father of ‘Stormy Sky,’ present on the stela to give legitimacy to his son (Coe 1993:81, Coggins 1993); ‘in sum, Stela 31 proclaims the rebirth of orthodox kingship, neither sullied nor diluted by its foreign blood, but reinvigorated’ (Martin and Grube 2000:34).38 However, Borrowicz (2001:145) argues that the depiction of the side figures

Nevertheless, some Maya features are expectedly present such as Structure 39, which appears in stage 8 to be more Maya than Teotihuacan in form, with a long inner room with two entries along one side (Laporte 2001). Too, the burials of C6-XVI follow Maya norms but include Teotihuacan offerings such as green obsidian, Thin Orange ceramics, and cylindrical tripod vessels (Spence 1996:348). Teotihuacan elements are also found in Problematical Deposits.35 The early Classic period Manik deposit PNT019 of group 6C-XVI presents a high proportion of green obsidian at 30% (Spence 1996b:27). Another problematical deposit PNT-21 in group 6D-V is the largest found at Tikal, in which 90-95% of sherds are utilitarian, and the Teotihuacan-related elements include Thin Orange sherds (four sherds from two vessels), two figurines and 7.6% green obsidian (Iglesias Ponce de León 2001:112-114). Relationships with Teotihuacan seem to have been established during the rule of Chak Tok Ich’aak (‘Great Burning Claw’), the 9th successor in the Tikal dynasty (Martin and Grube 2000:28). ‘Great Burning Claw’ attacked nearby Uaxactún, which fell on 16 January 378, and ‘Smoking Frog’ (brother of ‘Great Burning Claw’) was installed as king or ahau. Stela 4 was erected in 379 CE and relates to the rulership of ‘Curl Nose’ (his son) as do the materials in Burial 10, his tomb (dated 426CE) (Braswell 2001b:59). Burial 10 yielded stuccoed vessels with quadripartite designs painted in the style found at Teotihuacan and Fig. 6.4b: stuccoed lidded ringbase depicting the bowl, Burial 10, Tikal goggle-eyes, fangs, kan crosses, year signs, chalchiuitls, and dart-throwers. 36 However, artifacts from other regions were also found (Coggins 1983:50-1).

Fig. 6.5: Stela 31, Tikal (right, central and left side)

follows old canons: ‘the two attendant figures on the sides of the stela . . . are rendered in Maya style, have Maya proportions, and stand in Maya postures.’ Later on, Stela 40, which was erected at 468 CE, shows a total abandonment of Mexican features, which is also indicated by lack of Teotihuacan elements in the ceramic evidence of the site (Borrowicz 2001:145). A different public monument recording the interaction is found on Structure 5D-57 at the Central Acropolis (fig. 6.6). The structure has a façade sculpture on the east end consisting of deeply carved masonry applied with thin stucco. The figure to the left depicts a captive Maya with his arms tied around his back, whereas the personage to his right is possibly a Teotihuacano, as implied by two Teotihuacan iconographic canons: frontality and angularity. As Miller notes, the distinction between captor (Teotihuacan) and captive (Maya) is materialized through the juxtaposition of Maya and Teotihuacan styles (Miller 1978:66-67).39

STELA 31 In 415 CE, ‘Stormy Sky’ son of ‘Curl Nose’ erected a public monument, Stela 31, to honor himself and his father (fig. 6.5). ‘Stormy Sky’ himself is depicted on the front side as a Maya ahau and on either side of the stela there are representations of figures clad in central

Military symbolism is also found at the site of Yaxha, the third biggest site after El Mirador and Tikal. Situated at the southeast of Tikal, it yielded a stela in pure 37 Some authors postulate that Curl Nose arrived from the southern Highlands, possibly from Kaminaljuyu based on the similarities between the tomb of Curl Nose, who died about 426, and the tombs AIII and A-IV at Kaminaljuyu (Santley 1983:79, Coggins 1983:55-56). 38 The side figures may have been ‘Teotihuacan ambassadors’ so important that their presence was thus invoked by ‘Stormy Sky’ (Pasztory 1997:101). 39 The iconography of this monument demonstrate how ‘otherness’ serves as a reminder of difference (e.g., Jordanova 2001:245).

35

Large concentrations of various kinds of artifacts. Another burial possibly associated with a Teotihuacan personage is that found on the center line of the north acropolis PD22 and accompanied by stela 32, bearing the carved figure with the tassel headdress that may have been his portrait (Millon 1988:117 see also Clara Millon 1988). 36

88

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

Teotihuacan style depicting a deity with a Storm God mask. Also, the city plan seems to be a combination of the amorphous Maya pattern with formal ‘streets’ laid out as in Teotihuacan (Coe 1993:84-87, Martin and Grube 2000:72). Regarding the nature of Teotihuacan presence at Tikal, opinions certainly vary. For example, some authors ascribe a political dominance to ‘foreigners’ who arrived sometime around the ‘critical’ date 378 CE. The ‘foreigners’ married into Tikal’s elite lineages which was a requisite for effective rule at the site; these foreigners held control of the obsidian sources of El Chayal, Guatemala (Hassig 1992:79, Coggins 1993:146). Tikal

6.3.4

The Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Previous archaeological projects in the area (De Vega et al. 1982, Moguel Cos 1987, Macías Goytia 1990, 1997, Pulido et al. 1996) see the presence of Teotihuacan artifacts as intrusive and indicative of certain contacts between the two areas. The information they provide served as the comparative framework for my fieldwork during 1998-2000. Specifically, they describe local and foreign ceramic types and provide approximate chronology for settlements. Therefore the general pattern of the Classic period sees a highly homogeneous local

Fig. 6.6: façade of Structure 5D-57, Central Acropolis, Tikal

was therefore a distribution point for obsidian (Santley 1983, Millon 1988). Out of a total of 56.000 pieces 98% are prismatic blades from the El Chayal source (Millon 1988:118). An alternative interpretation considers the Teotihuacan presence minimal. For example, the evidence from problematical deposits is no more than a ‘molehill.’ ‘From my perspective, a control by force is assumable only if we believe that a Teotihuacan presence at Tikal was somehow similar to the Spanish Conquest’ (Iglesias Ponce de León 2001:121). Possibly it was Teotihuacan ideas that shape the evidence as we see it today, especially on the large public monuments. Laporte and Fialko (1995:66-67) believe that the people of 6CXVI were simply linked into a widespread network of symbols and ideas that drew on Teotihuacan to some extent, without implying Teotihuacan domination or even direct influence over the Maya participants (Spence 1996:348).

culture sharing similar ceramic types, mortuary practices and architectural features. Not all the sites participated in the Teotihuacan phenomenon. For the sites that did, their material culture speaks of a highly selective adoption of foreign elements, namely, Thin Orange ware, green obsidian prismatic blades and sequins, red-on-brown incised ceramics, and stone sculptures. A limited corpus of Teotihuacan ideational concepts was translated into the local fabric (see Chap. 5). Certainly, with the nature of the data available, it would be unproductive to expect to infer the full nature of contacts or to make sound comparisons with sites in distinct cultural areas such as the Zapotec and the Maya. A full discussion of possible models of interaction between the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan follows in Chapter 7.

Nevertheless, Teotihuacan-related warfare symbolism was revoked in Tikal’s later history. Between 550-700 CE a ‘crisis’ shook Tikal and there was a cessation in monumental cosntruction. The crisis may be attributed to the defeat of Tikal by nearby Caracol (Carmack et al. 1996:64) and/or to the loss of control by Tikal of Teotihuacan-linked trade network (Hassig 1992:92). Around 700 CE, Tikal assumed its previous might under the rulership of Ah Cacaw (Carmack et al. 1996: 64). However, this second period of Teotihuacan ‘influences’ was more clearly generated by internal processes, rather than the presence of still (?) unidentified foreigners (Puleston 1977:380).

6.4.1

6.4 Impact at Home: Teotihuacan

Ethnic Minorities at

Tlailotlacan: the Zapotec Barrio

On the western outskirts of Teotihuacan lies Tlailotlacan, a barrio of predominantly Zapotec culture.40 It is estimated that approximately 600 people inhabited the structures, which are arranged in the square-like style of the Teotihuacan apartment compounds (Millon 1967:43, Santley 1983:82, Spence 1996a:339). Rattray (1992:4) however, does not consider the architectural pattern either Teotihuacan or Monte Albán inspired. The Zapotecos 40

‘. . . ubicado en la parte marginal del oeste de la ciudad’ (Paddock 1983a:170, emphasis added).

89

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

established themselves sometime around 200 CE and future generations stayed for some 300 years (Rattray 1978a, 1986, Spence 1989, Rattray 1992:4).

Crespo and Mastache 1981:103, White and Spence 1998:653). Hard evidence on the origin of the inhabitants is provided by the estimates of oxygen isotope ratios of bone phosphate. White and Spence (1998) compared samples from Tlajinga site 33:S3W1 of the Teotihuacan map (11 individuals), Monte Albán (16 individuals) and Tlailotlacan (11 individuals). The values of δ18O (oxygen isotopic ratios) are different by 2% for those at Tlajinga (White and Spence 1998:650). Those of Tlailotlacan appear to be closer to those from Tlajinga possibly, suggesting ‘a generationally established group at Tlailotlacan’ (White and Spence 1998:651).

Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) demonstrated that the majority of ceramics were elaborated in specialized workshops with local clays following Zapotec prototypes (Crespo y Mastache 1981:102, Spence 1996a:341). Every sherd of Oaxaca style from the barrio fits ‘without forcing into a Transition II-III date at Monte Albán’ (Paddock 1983a:170), now called Late Monte Albán II (Cowgill 1997:139). During the first season of excavations at the Barrio (1966), Paddock and Rattray unearthed a tomb with a stone doorjamb and Zapotec glyphs. The tomb had an antechamber and this feature, combined with the extended burials and two Monte Albán funerary urns, indicates a clear Zapotec affiliation as well as the importance of Zapotec rituals in a ‘foreign’ setting (Paddock 1983a, Santley 1983:81, Rattray 1987b, Spence 1996a:339). Spence resumed excavations at the barrio at Site 6: N1W6, where the stratigraphy indicates eight architectural stages. The material record includes both Teotihuacan and Zapotec offerings deposited in two tombs and a stone-lined cist among other features. Extended burials are an additional ritual feature from the Zapotec homeland. Notwithstanding, these tombs were reserved for the elite whereas the commoners were buried in single graves (also in extended position). Spence argues that the function of the tombs was not so much to symbolize the ethnic identity of the inhabitants but rather to underscore the ranking inequality within the Barrio. ‘The intended audience for the display may have been internal, not external’ (Spence 1996a:335).

Although the adult means of Tlajinga and Tlailotlacan are virtually indistinguishable, the Tlailotlacan data present a picture of much greater variability in δ18O than that found at Tlajinga. The patterning at the Oaxacan barrio might support a model of initial immigration, with little or no further inflow from the valley of Oaxaca over the succeeding five centuries (White and Spence 1998:651).

This is further supported by the ceramic data of Monte Albán II-IIIA phase which remained unchanged throughout the occupation of the barrio (White and Spence 1998:652). 6.4.2

The Merchants’ Barrio

On the other, eastern, end of the City lies the Merchants’ Barrio, which was occupied since the Late Tlamimilolpa (300-450 CE) for some 350 years by people from the Gulf Coast.43 It covers 4 hectares, and eleven circular structures (5-9.5 meters in diameter with ramps on one side) have been unearthed in an area of 1800m2.44 Population estimates are at a range of 300 individuals (Spence 1996a:351). In contrast to the Zapotec Tlailotlacan, foreign ceramics were regularly imported, but Teotihuacan vessels still constitute the majority (Spence 1996a:341).45 Nine to twelve percent of the total inventory of foreign ceramics originate in the Maya area (Rattray 1988:173). The individuals performed foreign mortuary practices such as multiple secondary burials (Rattray 1992:127-128, Spence 1996a:337). The Gulf Coast was an important source of prime resources and manufactured materials such as shell, cotton, stamps, and weaving tools. Such evidence may indicate that the individuals of the Merchants’ Barrio manufactured textiles (Rattray 1998b: 85).46

Whether these Zapotecos maintained contacts with Monte Albán has not been proved yet, and the fact that the ceramics produced in the Barrio would be considered anachronistic in the homeland may indicate that contact would have been limited: ‘their principal purpose may have been to provide a thoroughly Zapotec domestic environment to support the enculturation of the young’ (Spence 1996a:341). The role of this group regarding their status in Teotihuacan society is still unknown.41 The ceramic assemblage (apaxtles, strainers, jars) may indicate that they were engaged in the exploitation of the insect cochineal for the production of red pigment (Sprager 1979, Rattray 1992: 72).42 A different hypothesis regards the Zapotecos as expert masons, since the use of stucco was an earlier tradition in Monte Albán. This hypothesis is also based on the exploitation of lime deposits in the State of Hidalgo, where both Teotihuacan and Zapotec materials (similar to those encountered in the Barrio) were unearthed at a number of sites (see also

43

However, δ18O values for five individuals produced a means almost identical to that of Teotihuacan (White and Spence 1998:649). 44 These were latter covered by other rectangular structures of the Late Xolalpan phase, indicating a process of slow acculturation (Gómez Chávez 2001b). 45 Despite a few similarities with Matacapan ceramics observed by Rattray (1992), the Gulf Coast terminal for the Merchants’ Barrio has not been identified (see Spence 1996:339). 46 The remarkable absence of malacates suggests that Teotihuacan imported textiles (Gómez Chávez nd).

41

Millon (1967) speaks of a ‘modest social status.’ Cochineal (Dactylopius coccus Costa) is a sessile parasitic insect living on cladodes of prickly pear and has been used as a source of natural dyes in Mesoamerica and the Andean area. It was introduced to Mexico from South America via sea routes (Rodríguez et al. 2000). 42

90

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

Classic in Teotihuacan (bulbous and cotton headdresses) have closer analogies to the southern Maya region. However, in the southern Maya region these kinds of headdresses appear quite early; this either poses a problem in the Teotihuacan chronology or indicates that some Teotihuacan features may have originated in the Maya area and then spread to Teotihuacan.

One of the few narrative murals in Teotihuacan is that of the Temple of Agriculture. It presents 8 men and 3 women making offerings in front of two images of a Teotihuacan deity. Their ethnic origin—Gulf Coast—is indicated by their apparel and the nature of their offerings: rubber balls, green quetzal feathers, a guacamaya (Ara militaris), a cylindrical tripod vessel and a biconic censer. The latter two offerings are of Teotihuacan style and this may suggest that, despite the fact that the individuals depicted are foreigners, their residence in Teotihuacan might have involved a certain kind of acculturation or simply openness to new ideas (e.g., Von Winning 1987:1:46). This mural seems to reflect ritual practices because Teotihuacan censers with Teotihuacan religious iconography were deposited as offerings in the burials (Spence 1996a:338). 6.4.3

6.4.4 Structure 19: An Incidence of Interaction with Western Mexico Cowgill (1993:123) stresses the need for more data regarding the ethnic barrios in Teotihuacan ‘. . . especially since it seems unlikely that people from other parts of Mesoamerica (e.g. western Mexico) were not well represented at Teotihuacan.’ Almost ten years after this statement, we can now speak of a Western Mexican edifice located in the northwest outskirts of the City. Western Mexican material has been recovered in various areas at Teotihuacan but it was ignored most of the time.49 Sergio Gómez Chavez (2001a, 2001b, 2002) excavated a complex – Structure 19 – in the section N1W5 in the west of the city near the Zapotec Barrio. The architectural configuration of the complex is the typical Teotihuacan apartment compound with enclosed spaces delimiting plazas or patios, and it was initiated during the early Tlamimilolpa phase. The ceramic evidence includes material from West Mexico, Teotihuacan and Oaxaca. The West Mexican origin was established by a certain type of cranial deformation, which occurs in many sites of West Mexico such as Loma Alta, Portrero de Guadalupe and Tingambato and it does not occur anywhere else in Teotihuacan (Gómez Chávez 2001b).50

. . . . . . . . . And the Maya?

The presence of a Maya Barrio is nil at Teotihuacan, and the existent artefactual evidence has not been systematically investigated.47 However, Laporte (2001:134) postulates that in the core of the Ciudadela Group at Teotihuacan, the eastern platform supports three structures which are known as the E-group in the Maya area. Some disparate artifacts have been recovered in various contexts, such as Maya ceramics in tombs of a residential complex, a jade ornament depicting a Maya figure and certainly the Maya style murals at the Complex of Tetitla and figurines from Tepantitla and La Ventilla (Miller 1978:69). The Merchants’ Barrio, however, includes some Maya ceramics, which were possibly imported from Belize and/or the Yucatán Peninsula (Rattray 1987b:264–267). Therefore such ceramics could have arrived at Teotihuacan via the Gulf Coast without requiring direct contact with the Maya area. Pasztory (1997:111) sees a certain degree of similarity between the Temple of the Feathered Serpent and Maya architecture, namely the ornamentation with pairs and contrasting heads, and she speculates that the architectural concept may be attributed to contacts with Maya dynastic rulers. Maya style murals are more telling; a mural in the Saenz collection presents two figures in dancing postures, both facing the same direction, dressed in elaborate costumes (Miller 1978:69). At Tetitla there is a number of murals related to Maya iconography; the mural in Room 7 shows old men emerging from shells whilst the mural in Room 27 portrays a seated figure in profile with legs crossed in Maya style of the Late Classic period (Miller 1978:6869).48

Many elements of the complex indicate a certain relationship to the Zapotec culture, such as tableros of inversed U form and the use of a drainage tube of granular fired ceramic. Additionally, various sections present floors with geometric designs or mosaics, which in Teotihuacan occur almost exclusively in the Zapotec barrio. Although the majority of ceramics pertain to the Teotihuacan tradition, many were imported from West Mexico and Oaxaca. These imports were deposited as offerings in some burials (Gómez Chávez 2002). The West Mexico related types have been associated with the tradition of the Queréndaro region.51 A pair of female figurines is identical to those recovered from Noguera (1944) at the site of Jiquilpan, Michoacán; such figurines are also present in other sites of the Cuitzeo Basin.

Evidence for a late dating of these Maya artifacts at Teotihuacan is furthered by Barbour’s (2000) observations that the headdresses of figurines of the Late 49 In burials at Tetitla, in La Ventilla B (Burial 100), in the Complex of the Glyphs (Burial 20) in the La Ventilla, in a Complex NE of the Ciudadela (Burials 147 and 148) (Gómez Chávez 2001b). 50 ‘Deformación mimética-tabular erecta, con fuertes asimetrías, depresión sagital y lámdica y variedades bilobadas’ (Rosaura Yeped cf. Gómez Chávez 2001b). 51 See Chapter 4 for a discussion upon the origin of this ‘tradtion’.

47

Taube (2001) argues for a strong Maya presence at Tetitla, Teotihuacan. 48 ‘The aged Maya deity known as God N, or Pawahtun, frequently emerges from a shell, although typically from a conch, rather than a clam’ (Taube 2001:178).

91

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Burial patterns (a total of 51 registered burials) indicate that the majority of the deceased were buried in shallow pits. Toward the north of the complex, three tombs were unearthed, the construction and mortuary practices of which indicate foreign styles. The tomb of Burial 30 (architectural unit 5) is a deep (2.7m) shaft dug in the tepetate, and it was covered with worked stones. Two lids indicate the reuse of the tomb.52 In the same unit, the tomb of Burial 5 is also a shaft made of reused worked stones and a small cavity. The tomb of Burial 27 (architectural unit 3) was located in the core of a temple and was formed by a pretil of stones which delimit a hole dug in the tepetate. This tomb yielded at least 10 adults and one infant, all dispersed; ‘. . . they were dismembered and decapitated and thereafter placed in the tomb. The finding of other corporal segments outside the tomb indicates that this event was realized during or after the construction of the temple’ (Gómez Chávez 2001b).

(1999:16) rightly posits, these intersubjective dynamics and their role in the creation of material variability ‘are never considered causal factors of anthropological relevance.’ However, the asymmetry in the distribution of artifacts is an important factor, and explanations based on terms of trade do not suffice (e.g., Sanders 1989:212). Although the data for the Cuitzeo Basin is still scant, other Mesoamerican sites provide the desirable milieu to detect the agential operations whereby variations in symbolic associations of single artifact types occur. For example, the investigation of specific contexts of Thin Orange ware at Michoacán and Tikal may reveal the cultural value of this traded ware (e.g., Hodder 1982:208). Does it acquire a different value depending on its location and context and therefore point to different kinds of interactions (e.g., Hays 1993:82) ? One must endeavor to answer the simple question: why these artifacts and not others? I agree with Hodder (1982:199) in that the items exchanged are not arbitrary, and the potential of their symbolism enables the construction of social strategies, although the significance is not easy to grasp. An additional path of inquiry—which I shall not follow here—regards the temporal dimension of the adoption of foreign symbols, namely their duration in the local fabric. It would be interesting to examine the reasons why a number of symbols persist whereas others disappear altogether and new ones are being introduced (e.g., Zubrow 1994b:189).

The differential burial pattern of Structure 19, i.e., simple pits and stone line tombs, possibly illustrates a certain kind of hierarchization as noted by Spence (1996a:335) for the Tlailotlacan Barrio. In fact, Gómez Chávez considers that immigrants from West Mexico arrived sometime around 300 CE and ‘suffered a rapid process of acculturation by the dominant society in which they were immersed, and with which they had various kinds of relations’ (Gómez Chávez 2001b). For this reason they established themselves close to the Zapotec barrio in order to forge alliances by means of intermarriages and so forth. In addition to longdistance commercial activities, Gómez Chávez (nd) suggests –very tentatively– that these West Mexican people were possibly engaged in the work of dental incrustation, owing to the presence of 39 incrustations of green stone recovered from the tomb of Burial 27. 6.5

The identification of diverse cultural responses reveals primarily the role of artifacts in these varied contexts. The process of selectionism by which social agents decide upon which kinds of items are to be traded with different individuals was in intensive operation during the Classic period (see Hays 1993:83). ‘Although produced in the workshops of Teotihuacan as commodities, in the course of their journey to the Maya region, most of the artifacts had become gifts’ (Spence 1996b:32–33, see also Conkey 1999:138).53 This active role of artifacts underlines their function as agents; depending on the audiences, they acquire a different value.

Agency and Teotihuacan symbolic structure

The examination of the evidence from distinct cultural areas stems from a world systemic principle that local processes cannot be understood in isolation from other parts of the system because ‘That wider context may also have accompanied, influenced or even determined the development of, and contributed to the eventual “decline and fall” of the site in question’ (Frank 1999:286-287, see also Blanton et al. 1996:7, Price 1983:173). In the previous sections, for example, it was observed that most of sites in the Maya area participated in a number of exchange networks including, of course, that of Teotihuacan. It is precisely the unequal structure of the system that accounts for the obvious asymmetry observed in the material culture of the sites that participated in the ideational/symbolic sphere of Teotihuacan, despite the fact that there is still ‘little understanding about the variability in those responses’ (e.g., Schortman and Urban 1994:424, Barker 1999:402). As Dobres

Diverse variables account for the differential manifestation of the exchanged items. First, there is the the contact situation itself. Jandt, for example, distinguishes between diffusion and convergence processes. In both processes ‘the key is to adapt to the local culture, localize thinking, localize the product . . .’ (Jandt 2001:315).54 Second, the receiver culture’s ‘preferences’ might have often determined the kinds of goods exchanged. For example, at the site of Uaxactún in the Maya area, green obsidian blades occur in laurel-leaf shape because it was a favored Maya ritual form, commonly rendered in chert (Spence 1996b:33). In the 53 ‘The meaning of material culture often depends on the context of use rather than solely on the context of production or on the “author” of the object’ (Hodder 1991:154). 54 Dissanayake (1995:108) posits that all humans have an urge to ‘make special’: ‘making special refers to the fact that humans, unlike other animals, may intentionally shape, embellish, and otherwise fashion or regard aspects of their world to make them more than ordinary.’

52 Among the offerings of this tomb were two lidded cylindrical tripod vessels which are very likely imported imitations of Teotihuacan ceramics (Gómez Chávez 2002).

92

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

(being-elsewhere) (e.g. Baudrillard 1996:77). The process of othering is, of course, complex because the other is not something given or encountered, but created (Fabian 1991 cited in Hallam and Street 2001:1).

Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, a frequent Teotihuacan type was the red-on-brown with Teotihuacan incised motifs, which is virtually absent in all other Mesoamerican sites. Its popularity in northern Michoacán may be attributed to the fact that the Teotihuacan red-on-brown incised is very similar to the local type of red-on-buff, the ritual (?) type with the highest frequency in Northern Michoacán. Another factor recognized as playing an important role in the selection of cultural elements when contact is involved are culturally conditioned ‘senses’ or aesthetic perceptions.55 Jandt posits that the effect of culture is even greater on perception, which consists of three denominators: selection, organization and interpretation (Jandt 2001:182).

In this vein, Teotihuacan objects (and their conceptual value) were instrumental in the creation of social distance between the local rulers and their subjects by means of internalizing ‘the agency of social control and its norms in the very process of consuming [these objects]’(Baudrillard 1996:176).56 The same symbol might be used in different ways when it presents a range of possibilities for transformation. The symbol can thus be differentially interpreted and generate different rituals. The authors of such transformative processes, agents (or players), consciously take advantage of attractive ideas and strategies in order to condition, reproduce or change structure.57 The localized transformation of these rules in differing contexts may in fact increase the potential of actors for action (e.g., Marquardt 1992: 109). Herein agency follows Sewell’s (1992:19–20) definition:

Does sameness in form imply sameness in meaning? Even if there was only one item traded, for instance, green obsidian blades, it would be difficult to assume that its value had a straightforward universality implying communication of the same ideas (e.g., Baudrillard 1996:195). Borhegyi (1971) attributes the widespread diffusion of Teotihuacan religious values precisely to the fact that they had a universal relevance (deities related to agriculture, rain, feritlity, warfare) in contrast to lowland Maya religion which was focused on ancestral cults. Others claim that Teotihuacan offered a new cognitive orientation in Mesoamerica (e.g., Bove and Medrano Busto 2001:45).

Agency is the actor’s capacity to reinterpret and mobilize an array of resources in terms of cultural schemas other than those that initially constituted the array. . .To be an agent means to be capable of exerting some degree of control over the social relations in which one is enmeshed, which in turn implies the ability to transform those social relations to some degree . . . The capacity for agency is as much a given for humans as the capacity for respiration.

Through time, that ‘sameness’ needs to be modified so that is continuous to be read or recognized as such. For example, that with which sameness has been contrasted might have changed . . . forcing a change in the symboling of sameness. Or the given signal might fail to attract the same attention as before. Or the intended readers might be getting bored, so the amplitude of what is to be read has to be changed. Or there might be competition along the axis of sameness, which would force continuous fine-tuning of an individual’s scores on the group’s histogram for sameness (Wobst 1999:128).

Sewell—based on Giddens’ concept of the duality of structure, i.e. structures are both the medium and the outcome of practices which constitute social systems— makes a valuable point postulating that people’s practices also constitute and reproduce structures: ‘In this view of things, human agency and structure, far from being opposed, in fact presuppose each other’ (Sewell 1992:4).58 The diverse interaction units within the Teotihuacan exchange network develop a dialectic relationship with the Teotihuacan symbolic structure wherein local actors had a number of choices. Symbolic structure is conceived as the totality of ritual practices, ideas and norms that define the individuals’ position in a specific cultural milieu and determine the number of choices he/she may have for action. Artefacts, for being enmeshed in these conceptual categories, have an active role to play, namely in the absence of the authors of the symbolic structure.

What is universal is the fact that the adoption of ‘exotics’ stems from the need to differentiate by means of transposition to an unmeasurably distant realm. ‘The insistence on univocal reference merely exacerbates the desire to discriminate: within the very framework of their homogeneous system, a perpetually renewed obsession with hierarchies and distinctions is to be observed’ (Baudrillard 1996:195). The adoption of foreign symbolic forms which are extrinsic to the symbolic factory of a given culture, often results in the transposition of their own identities. Teotihuacan objects belonged to the realm of the Teotihuacan powerful state and possibly fulfilled the Teotihuacanos’ need for an alibi

56 See also Giddens’ (1984:262) time-space distanciation by means of information storage. 57 ‘A participant in a game who is capable of rational calculation and can make conscious choices; a player need not by a single individual but may represent any autonomous decision-making unit’ (Brams 1975:285). 58 Structure: ‘Rules and resources, recursively implicated in the reproduction of social systems. Structure exists only as memory traces, the organic basis of human knowledgeability, and as instantiated in action’ (Giddens 1984:377).

55

Although someone in a given setting may be aware of all stimuli ‘most data from the retinas are handled on a subconscious level by a variety of specialized systems. Parts of our brains produce output from the retinas that we cannot ‘see’. No amount of introspection can make us aware of those processes (Jandt 2001:183).

93

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

The Teotihuacan symbolic structure was siphoned into the regional prestige structure (e.g. Ortner and Whitehead 1981). The structuration of the Teotihuacan prestige system put into action certain social (exclusionary at best) mechanisms that enabled or restricted the role of certain individuals. I assume that the Teotihuacan symbolic structure as existed and practiced at Teotihuacan was apparently different, when in action, within the hybrid symbolic structures in areas afar. The translation of the Teotihuacan symbolic structure into the local fabric does not necessarily imply, though, that there was a subversion of the original rules and resources.

greatest degree of political integration yet achieved in Mesoamerica’ (Hassig 1992:61). Some authors attribute Teotihuacan’s success in its endeavors to advantages inherent in its institutional structure compared with those of its contemporaries. The advantages included: a large and well integrated urban population, a highly developed craft industry based on the relatively large production units, and a professional merchant class (Sanders 1989:214). The first two advantages are well documented for Teotihuacan.60 Craft specialization resulted in a very efficient use of energy that allowed surpluses to be exported to the inner and outer hinterlands (see Rowlands 1989:32).61 Closely related to crafts specialization is the less visible advantage that a city environment provides: as an information storage and retrieval device (Johnson 2001:108-109).

The manipulation of the Teotihuacan symbolic structure was accomplished via incorporation, resistance, and reinvention, resulting in localized meta-structures (see Hallam and Street 2001). In any single local ‘node’ of the network, all three aforementioned mechanisms are detected. For example, the sites located in the inner Teotihuacan hinterland incorporated rules and resources, and the outcomes were as real as in Teotihuacan (see Sewell 1992:8, Plog, 1977b:28-29). The diverse local reproductions of the Teotihuacan symbolic structure are the conscious result of agential practices; ‘indeed, part of what it means to conceive of human beings as agents is to conceive of them as empowered by access to resources of one kind or another’ (Sewell 1992:10)

Cities bring minds together and put them in coherent slots. Cobblers gather near other cobblers, and button makers near other button makers. Ideas and goods flow readily within these clusters, leading to productive crosspollination . . . cities store and transmit useful new ideas to the wider population, ensuring that powerful new technologies don’t disappear once they’ve been invented.

However, power is not a resource in itself but is exercised through different kinds of resources. Giddens (1984:258) distinguishes between allocative and authoritative resources; the former includes the material environment and mechanisms related to the exploitation of that environment, whereas the latter relates to the organization of social time-space, the production/reproduction of the body, and the organization of life chances ‘The second type is as “infrastructural” as allocative resources are’ (Giddens 1984:258).59 Teotihuacan succeeded in the exploitation of both kinds of resources. 6.6

In a similar way, at Teotihuacan, a certain kind of collective behavior may have initially determined the organization of the city, which was the ‘sum of thousands of local micro-interactions: clustering, sharing, crowding, trading . . . and all these micro-motives combine to form macrobehavior’ (Johnson 2001:109). With regard to the Teotihuacan merchant class, it is still doubted how professional it was and if there was any class at all, and if so, whether soldiers protected them during their missions abroad (Pasztory 1990:185). Hassig (1992:56) makes a case for the mission of Teotihuacan soldiers:

Trade and the Teotihuacan State

Because food supply was the limiting factor in projecting force, the increasing costs of travel with distance reduced the number of nonessential personnel. For armies, greater effectiveness is achieved at the same cost by sending more elite soldiers, and the same may have been true for merchants. The net result is that the farther away a site is from center, the higher the percentage of elites in the contracting party, which may partially account for the exalted image of Teotihuacan throughout Mesoamerica

The appearance in the middle part of the early Classic of powerful waves of influence from the site of Teotihuacan in central Mexico . . . So mighty was the city that it held dominion over most of Mexico in the early Classic as the center of a military and commercial empire which may well have been greater than that of the much later Aztec. From what economic base such political and cultural power derived is unclear . .

The fact that the organization of the Teotihuacan state is still unknown accounts, in part, for our lack of understanding of the exchange system. The above statement by Coe is definitely extreme (1993:73-74). However, if we regard the distribution of Teotihuacan artifacts in Mesoamerica, the center did succeed in ‘the

How was the Teotihuacan trade organized? Manzanilla (1992:231) believes that trade was strictly controlled by the priesthood, but the logistics of Teotihuacan trade have not generally been properly addressed. As noted in the previous paragraphs, few items were traded, and the two

59 Blanton et al. (1996:3) distinguish between objective sources (wealth and factors of production) and symbolic sources (religion and ritual).

60 Shennan (2000:819) points out that the subsistence strategies of large populations are favorable to expansion. 61 The presence of specialists in Teotihuacan indicates the commercial nature of the interaction (Gómez Chávez 2001b).

94

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

Possibly it is the existence of these alternative sources that accounts for such a wide distribution of the Teotihuacan network. Needless to say, the creation of this network requires: the identification of the source, the knowledge to reach the source, and the ability to obtain products from a previously unknown (or not?) field. The common denominator that underlies these three categories is, to put it simply, knowledge. And the knowledge of trade routes was not something new to the Teotihuacanos. As I argue in Chapter 7 what changed during the Classic period was the emergence of new strategies that allowed the manipulation of these routes in the hands of the Teotihuacanos. Therefore trade and the acquisition of products were important resources for the Teotihuacan state, but it was the use of new strategies that accounts for the Teotihuacan expansion.63

principal items—that is Thin Orange ceramics and green obsidian prismatic blades—are very light weight. It may not be accidental that the most common form of the traded Thin Orange Ware was the semispherical annularbase bowl, which was made in graduated forms for easy transport (Rattray 1981:66)..62 Additionally, items were carried by human carriers, which is not the most costeffective system of trade, especially when long distances (see Maya area) are involved (Blanton et al. 1981:248, Hassig 1985, Santley 1994:93). However, not all products were exported, and in some sites there was large-scale production of local ceramics on a Teotihuacan model, for example, at Matacapan. This must have required widespread communication of technological knowledge either through craft endogamies or intermarriages and possible contacts at regional ‘markets’ or redistribution centers (e.g., McBride 1969:45).

6.7

In order to maintain its position in Central Mexico, Teotihuacan must have developed certain strategies. It is now unanimously accepted that Teotihuacan had control of the green obsidian sources in the State of Hidalgo, but the maintenance of this apparent monopoly requires control of alternative sources as well, and/or the people who exploited these sources. The stress generated by the knowledge of the existence of alternate sources could be reduced either by Teotihuacan’s forging links with other sites or by undertaking the trade of these goods (Santley (1983:110). For example, it is assumed that the role of Teotihuacan at Kaminaljuyu is related to the control of the El Chayal source. Price (1983:183) rightly observes that Teotihuacan did not need the obsidian from that source since it had access to Central Mexican sources; nevertheless, the control exercised on Kaminaljuyu would offer to Teotihuacan ‘a virtual monopoly of the Mesoamerican obsidian business.’

In order to increase their potential, agents must make recourse to a number of strategies, knowledge being by far the most valuable (e.g., Arnold 1995:100, Feinman 1995:263). The potential of agents is therefore at risk when playing or acting with imperfect knowledge, owing either to other players sharing this knowledge or to the particular setting in which their actions take place. Under these circumstances, the potential for action is reduced and uncontrollable events may ensue (e.g., Joyce 2000:73). Millon stresses that Teotihuacan ideology was an apparatus of social control that served to ‘rationalize the reality of domination, to foster social cohesion . . . to stress the unity in this diversity’ (Millon 1992:389, emphasis in original). Unity was also strengthened by the rejection of foreign ‘influences’ at Teotihuacan. No Teotihuacano was buried with foreign symbols at Teotihuacan (Paddock 1983a:175, Berlo 1984:215, Cowgill 1997).64 This exclusionary policy enabled the Teotihuacanos to proclaim supremacy over their contemporaries (e.g., Nagao 1989:100). Nevertheless, the existence of foreign enclaves at Teotihuacan at least indicates that the Teotihuacanos did not exert assimilation pressures (e.g., Spence 1996a:333).

What we do know about the Teotihuacan trade are the products that Teotihuacan was interested in acquiring from distant areas, such as salt from Belize, shell and lime-plaster from Copán (Lucero 1999:234), cacao and copal from Kaminaljuyu (Diaz 1981:110). For some of these products there were alternative sources; lime could be also acquired from southeastern Hidalgo, and cacao from the Gulf Coast area. Many authors stress the importance of cacao for Teotihuacan, extrapolating from cacao’s importance in the 16th century (García Bárcenas 1972:153). For instance, at the Early Classic site of Balberta in the South Coast of Guatemala, there is evidence of cacao processing. In four separate caches, consisting of large urns and flaring rim jars, ceramic cacao beans were recovered. This combined with the discovery of more than a hundred green obsidian artifacts both in household and ceremonial contexts may indicate that cacao was indeed processed in the area and possibly destined for Teotihuacan (Bove 1990).

62

Real Virtuality: a Stratagem of Teotihuacan Militarism

The Teotihuacan ruling class successfully manipulated sacred space. The monumental public works at Teotihuacan are direct manifestations of such sacred space and would, on a daily basis, remind the public about religious and state structures (Sugiyama 1993:122).65 We do not yet know how the Teotihuacan state succeeded in containing violence ,‘. . . Structure is always violent, and distressingly so . . . it threatens to 63 Cowgill argues that the scale of trade postulated by Santley (1983, 1984) is not supported by the data and other factors such as military and ideational must be considered (Cowgill 1997:144). 64 One is tempted to think whether this was a kind of cultural nearsightedness (Jandt 2001:53). 65 Ideology in this case is used to create social structure (see DeMarrais et al. 1996).

In Teotihuacan other forms occur as well.

95

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

compromise the individual’s relationship to society. To pacify reality, an appearance of peacefulness must be preserved’ (Baudrillard 1996:170, emphasis added). The ‘peacefulness’ in Teotihuacan was certainly accomplished through special public rituals. Additionally, Teotihuacan militarism is not clearly expressed in the early murals, whose iconographic programs focus on fauna, flora and deity imagery. Lack of portraiture in the iconography of Teotihuacan has been attributed to the hypothesized cultural heterogeneity of the city (Hassig 1992:49). Human beings are shown subordinate only to deities (Cowgill 1997:136).

was encountered with 20 sacrificed victims and one of the largest offerings in the history of Teotihuacan: thousands of unworked spiral shells and bivalves, Storm God vessels, obsidian eccentrics in the form of feathered serpents, and ca 1,000 green-stone objects, all associated with water symbolism (Sugiyama 1993:120). It seems that the Teotihuacanos practiced sacrifice in other areas as well. In the southeast of the city of Calpulapan, state of Tlaxcala, the site of La Herradura yielded a certain evidence of human sacrifice as a Teotihuacan practice. A stone Cuauhxicalli (sacred

Fig. 6.7: Cuauhxicalli (heart deposit), La Herradura, Tlaxcala (detail below)

A shift is observed, however, during the Xolalpan phase (from about 400 CE) with a notable increase in depiction of militarism, and powerful state members are portrayed (Hassig 1992:82, Pasztory 1997:222-225, Santley and Alexander 1996: 182).66 There was also a growing emphasis on the orders of coyote, jaguar, and owl/eagle, reflecting the rise of military sodalities (Cowgill 1997:148). Violence was present in Teotihuacan as early as 200 CE, but it was only occasionally visible. Hard evidence on the early (200-300 CE) militaristic domain of Teotihuacan was provided by the excavations in the temple of the Feathered Serpent (Cabrera et al.1991). Two hundred individuals were sacrificed as part of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid construction; many were in military garb and were accompanied by weapons, whereas others had their arms tied behind their backs (Sugiyama 1993:117, Cowgill 1997:145).67 Some wore a collar of human jawbone (maxillae) trophies, which are either real or facsimiles worked in shell (Pasztory 1997:116). In the center of the pyramid another burial

deposit where they placed the hearts of the sacrificial victims) was found near the north platform (fig. 6.7). This item presents iconographic motifs such as the jaguar-serpent, four four-pointed stars, and a central circle in the upper part indicates the cavity where the heart was placed. 68 A small canal allows the flow of blood, aliment for the gods. It is still not known whether the Teotihuacanos procured sacrificial victims from areas afar, a practice that would be definitely considered impractical by the Aztecs (Pasztory 1990:185). The sites interacting with Teotihuacan accepted military symbolism and put the content of the symbols into practice perpetuating the value enmasked in these symbols. The ability of the Teotihuacan symbolic structure to affect the lives of individuals suggests how powerful the system was: ‘Symbols derive their meaning not from any correspondence to an objectively measurable source in reality but from the symbol system in which they are embedded’ (Ninkovich 1994:192). Although the Teotihuacan’s ideational sphere was a multifaceted phenomenon, the dominant facet abroad was that of militaristic symbolism and its paraphernalia. The sudden appearance of Teotihuacan military uniform in the lowlands has been noted by many authors, although the practice does not reach the eloquence and scale of the Postclassic period (Langley 1991, Coggins 1993: 149, Santley and Alexander 1996: 182). The deployment of Teotihuacan militaristic imagery is suggestive of a kind of symbolic interventionism that is a

66

Murals representing commoners are documented for the Temple of Agriculture, the murals of Tepantitla, and some fragments from Tetitla (Pinturas Realistas) (Pasztory 1997:225). 67 “These skeletons were deposited in groups of one, four, eight, nine, eighteen, and twenty skeletons, distributed symmetrically to the north, east, and south sides of the building, both inside its massive pyramidal base and alongside its exterior”(Cabrera Castro 1993:102).

68 ‘Es una alusión al jaguar-serpiente (sujeto mítico), se relaciona con el culto acuático, deidad a la que “alimentaban” con corazones humanos, para que proporcionara la lluvia y con ella la cosecha de suficientes alimentos’ (Martínez Vargas and Jarquín Pacheco 1998:19).

96

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

negotiating or ‘selling’ their symbols to areas afar. ‘A picture is often worth a thousand words of description, but Hegel was closer to the mark in his contention that words provide a higher order of conceptual knowledge than sensuous pictures or images . . . metaphors are deceptive in their simplicity, and they both organize and conceal linguistic concepts (Ninkovich 1994:xvi). Cowgill (2001) rightly posits that a foreign cult does not make an impact as strong as Teotihuacan’s lest ‘earthy’ matters are considered: ‘I suspect that what was most impressive about central Mexican concepts related to war is that Teotihuacan armies, which must have played an important role in the early consolidation of the city’s power within the Basin of Mexico, thereafter won a stunning series of victories futher afield’ (Cowgill 2001:219). At the site of Copán there is evidence that force might have also been used. If indeed the bones in the Hunal tomb belong to the founder of the city (a foreigner), he had suffered combat-type injuries, all of which healed before his death. His depiction on Altar Q also shows him clad in Teotihuacan warrior accoutrement (Sharer 2001:97).

highly ‘symbolic approach to the management of power’ (Ninkovich 1994:xv). Projecting their own interests with ‘traditional’ tools would be very impractical, hence the construction of a virtual instrument of expansion that is a selective iconographic program projecting consciously chosen ideals. The most prominent military gear is posssibly the Teotihuacan tasselled headdress. It is present at Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, Yaxha and Monte Albán, but in the latter site there are no weapons attached to the figures (Marcus 1983c, C. Millon 1988). Militarism seems to have been the most efficient instrument for expansion in the Maya region (e.g., Cowgill 1997:145). The Teotihuacan ideology was materialized on stone monuments which depict Teotihuacan figures in military gear, such as those in Tikal, Yaxhá and Uaxactún. The imagery of the Teotihuacan figures persists in later periods at some other sites, such as Aguateca and Dos Pilas (Pasztory 1990:184-5). Thus Teotihuacan’s propaganda serves as Maya propaganda. However, no military imagery so far depicts a violent scene between the Maya and Teotihuacanos. At this point a distinction between force and power is required. ‘Force is direct physical action—typically military might—that is depleted as it is used. Power is not necessarily force, operates indirectly, and is not consumed in use because it is psychological, the perception of the possessor’s ability to achieve its ends’ (Hassig 1992:57-58). Yoffee (1993:69) posits that there are three only dimensions of power: economic power, societal/ideological power, and political power. The combination of these three categories ‘marks the essential qualities of states.’ Therefore, force is conceived as an instrument of political power. As seen in the previous sections, the depiction of ‘foreigners’ in military garb on Maya stelae served as a constant reminder that power could potentially be translated into force if the circumstances required. A good modern parallel can be found in US-Korean relations:

It is typical of western political thought to distinguish different sources of power because in modern secular societies power is an abstraction that describes relationships, and as such it can derive from heterogeneous sources (Anderson 1972:5-6). While such distinctions as objective versus symbolic have analytic and comparative utility, they do not necessarily account for the nature of power as it is understood in non-Western societies. Benedict Anderson (1972:4-8), demonstrates that the idea of power in Java for example, differs from the traditional western view, for power is highly homogeneous, originating in a single primordial source but it is nevertheless embedded in places, persons, and things (cited in Gillespie 1999:232). The social dimensions of power symbolism definitely effected changes in the daily lives of individuals. For example, the use of grand stone monuments depicting Maya lords side by side with their Teotihuacan peers in public spaces created a remarkable public statement of social inequality. ‘Power is itself dependent upon the extent to which marginalised subjects are cognisant of the fact that they may be observed and defined by those who occupy more central normative positions’ (Mason 2002:127).

Even prior to the invasion, the State Department had used Korea’s symbolic importance as an argument against the military’s desire to withdraw totally from the peninsula. After the occupation ended in 1948, it continued to advocate an American presence because South Korea was an American creation whose collapse would damage American prestige . . . In 1950, the American Embassy in Seoul, with a staff of about two thousand, was the largest in the world, so large that it included a mortuary icebox (capacity five) (Ninkovich 1994:193, emphasis added).

In the initial stages of the expansion of the network, Teotihuacan possibly consciously did not choose to rely upon force because it was too dangerous. In any case it would not be logistical to exercise force some 1000km away from home. Obviously, the initialization of force exercised by the Teotihuacanos must have been their ultimate strategy when everything else failed. On the other hand, the exertion of violence is symptomatic of serious structural weaknesses. ‘Indeed, if certain types of violence . . . emerge when power is in jeopardy, the very existence of such violence must function as a sign of the vulnerability or disintegration of that power. This

By the same token, the Teotihuacan military symbolism was a creation—possibly a global psychology of power. It existed in the forms of symbols associated with a different realm, but its existence was very real in the minds of individuals. Thus these symbols of power were equally part of the reality. It would be naive to assume that these spheres are divided and that Teotihuacan did not have an economic and political interest when 97

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

knowledge, in turn, is capable of undermining the authority of power by revealing its constant need for maintenance’ (Manson 2002:134). Does the increase in public displays of power at Teotihuacan, just at the eve of its decline, indicate that social structures were already in jeopardy and that ‘whereas formerly symbolism had been seen as only a form of power . . . power had now become a servant of symbolism’ (Ninkovich 1994:193). Unfortunately, it seems that the adoption of force as a metastrategy did not work over the long term and Teotihuacan declined.69 6.8

intriguing possiblity that (1) it might refer to a place in or around the city itself, and (2) that the Cacaxtla people may have played a significant role in the ultimate conflagration that destroyed the center of Teotihuacan.

By 500 CE trade began to decline, the influence vanished from Kaminaljuyu by 550 CE, Chalchihuites by 500 CE, eastern Morelos by 650 CE (Diehl and Berlo 1989:3, Hassig 1992:85). The decline of Tula (650-750 CE) in particular has been directly related to Teotihuacan’s decline as a political and economic center (Mastache and Cobean 1989:55). In the inner Teotihuacan hinterland, there was a cessation in edifice construction, and a complete disintegration of societal structures is observed for some sites, such as Azcapotzalco, which was the largest site in Basin of Mexico after Teotihuacan (García Chávez 2001). In the Tlaxcala region, the wellestablished Eastern corridor is closed by 750 CE, most sites were abandoned and a new culture, the Texcalac emerged (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:306, Martínez Vargas and Jarquín Pacheco 1998:16).

The Contraction (decline) of the system

Within Teotihuacan studies the term ‘decline’ is invariably used to describe the contraction that the system suffered during the seventh century. Circa 650 CE a ‘category shift’, that is a change ‘in the cultural definition of prestige goods’ took place in Mesoamerica and there was no demand for the green obsidian and other prestige goods monopolized by Teotihuacan (e.g., Edens 1992:125, Hassig 1992:91).

The Classic Maya ‘collapse’ has been also associated with the ‘decline’ of Teotihuacan. Hard data indicate that in late sixth century there was a paucity in stelae erection and intentional destruction of public monuments. There might have been internecine warfare or perhaps even a popular revolt (Coe 1993:84-87). The Maya ‘collapse’ was a rather complex phenomenon and monocausal explanations cannot account for the lengthy decline. Additionally, the timing of the decline of the diverse Maya sites was different among sites (Fash and Sharer 1991:184, Martin and Grube 2000:226). Other authors do not see a collapse at all but a transitional period into different kinds of societal organization (Lucero 1999:241).

The decline for some of the sites was a fact, and has been often considered, in a domino-like manner, a consequence of the decline of Teotihuacan; ‘Whether the chain reaction starts in the center or in the remotest, farthest end of the chain, and however circuitous the patterns and alignments, once the disturbance begins, the last domino . . . will fall . . . if the chain reaction cannot stop itself, it must be checked by a force capable of analyzing the domino process and subverting its dynamics’ (Ninkovich 1994:xvi). As seen in Chapter 6 Teotihuacan was not able to reverse the course of events. It seems that early world systems are characterized by a cyclical process of expansion and contraction (pulsation) which affect simultaneously many parts of the system, for example the thirteeth century world system, which ‘in spite of . . . [its] promising beginnings’ contracted as well (Abu-Lughod 1989:37).

Teotihuacan did not of course ‘vanish’ from the Mesoamerica scene; the population was as high as 35,000 individuals and it maintained its central position in the Basin of Mexico. It was only less ‘coreish’ when compared to the previous Classic period. The contraction of the Teotihuacan system brought about a shift in the world-system pattern, that is instead of a single ideological core there were many cores during the Epiclassic period. Additionally, as regards the obsidian exchange networks there was a remarkable return to the patterning of the Formative period, wherein the gray obsidian from Michoacán held a prominant position among all known obsidian sources in Mesoamerica.

At Teotihuacan, there was a systematic albeit selective destruction of temples and residential units (Millon 1988, Cowgill 1997:156). A destruction of a Teotihuacan temple is evidenced at the Templo Rojo, in Cacaxtla, one of the major sites that emerged after the contraction of the Teotihuacan system (Carlson 1993:245). Toward the south end of the Templo Rojo, there are representations of emaciated captives, dressed in sacrificial garb, painted directly on the floor for one to walk upon. One of these figures has the symbol of a burning temple, with Teotihuacan-style flames, painted between his legs. On a step riser just below these victims, the remains of seven toponyms are recorded in the context of conquest and sacrifice. One toponym in partiuclar, in the form of Teotihuacan-style temple, suggests the

Who were the authors of the destruction of the Teotihuacan monuments? Possibly insiders (Millon 1988, Pasztroy 1997:249) or surrounding polities (Cowgill 1997:157).70 Or, the system logic itself. The accumulation of wealth for the Teotihuacanos was circumstantial and not a form of production based on

69 Metastrategy; in game-theoretic parlance a strategy conditional on knowledge (or expectations) about the strategy choices of the other player(s) (Brams 1975:283).

70 An ecological explication of the ‘decline’ suggests that deforestation of the surrounding areas caused poor retention of water in the soil leading to reduced agricultural production (Pasztory 1997:250).

98

The Teotihuacan System: How did it operate?

(Rattray 1966:87, Braniff 1972, Cobean and Mastache 1989, Pulido Mendez et al. 1995:I:66, Cárdenas García 1999:162). Thus, these Coyotlatelco people originated from an area which had previously a kind of relatioship with Teotihuacan, but on the same time were independent enough as to impose their own will in the event of a crisis with the Teotihuacanos. A different scenario would hypothesize that the Coyotlatelco people had always lived in Teotihuacan but an opportune crisis led them assume anew their identity (e.g., Friedman 1992:367).

division of labor. The rise of the Teotihuacan state and its maintenance was due to ‘purely personal circumstances . . . and [this] explains why all large enterprises had a peculiarly unstable, evanescent character’ (Weber 1976:66). Additionally, the flow of Teotihuacan artefacts involved the transmission of technological knowledge. When local actors learnt how to re-produce Teotihuacan ceramics (we saw homologies in many sites) there was less demand from the core. The reduced demand for Teotihuacan originals combined with the emergent distribution of the exquisite gray obsidian from Michoacán, lessened the need for Teotihuacan products. In fact it was Teotihuacan’s attempts of control of the green obsidian from Pachuca, which actually caused the disruption of the Michoacán network during the Late Formative period. In the Epiclassic period, the renewed demand for the obsidian of Michoacán points exactly to the fact that individuals are able to select products that would best fit their interests. If the highlyvalued green obsidian maintained its value after the contraction of the Teotihuacan system, at least one of the might emergent centers of this epoch would have undoubtedly assumed control of the mines.

It is unfortunate, that the El Bajío region is so poorly understood (with some notable exceptions, e.g. Cárdenas García 1999, Saint Charles Zetina 1996, and the current project by CEMCA is hoped to elucidate more on local developments and interactional processes with Central Mexico). Notwithstanding the aforementioned limitations, there is evidence that the area was interacting with Teotihuacan during the Classic period (sec. 6.1). The geographic position of the El Bajío facilitates contacts with northern and western Mexico. The El Bajío sites possibly occupied a semiperipheral position on the edge of the Teotihuacan world-system. As a semiperiphery it could not only eliminate core competitors but also dominate the system. ‘This, incidently, is one of the reasons behind Elman’s Service observation (1975) that early civilizations did not fall, but were pushed. Thus, semiperipheral states often play a crucial role in system change’ (Hall 1999:13 see also Carmack et al. 1996:95). Explications regarding the association of the Coyotlatelco culture and the contraction of the Teotihuacan system require special focus on processes of change in small, semiperipheral areas. It is often postulated that the interaction between ‘small localized conditions’ is able to effect changes on a greater scale ‘that might not otherwise have occurred’ (Abu-Lughod 1989:369). For whatever reason the small localized condition of the Coyotlatelco culture disrupted the successful Teotihuacan world-system and dominated the Basin of Mexico from 650 CE onwards.

Another reason that may account for the ‘decline’ is that the expansion of Teotihuacan onto such a large territory increased state expenditures in order to maintain its armies and administrative corps (see Weber 1976:405, Hassig 1992:175). ‘Actors manipulating long-distance networks eventually face the structural limitations previously alluded to, namely, the inability to control exchange partners at a distance and the inevitable competition from other similarly striving individuals’ (Blanton et al. 1996:4). As a result, Teotihuacan would have faced the necessity to recruit foreigners in a like manner with the Roman empire: As a result of these developments the army which controlled the Empire became a host of barbarians with increasingly fewer ties to the native populations. When the victorious barbarians from outside the Empire crossed its borders their invasions at first meant little more to the provincials than a change in the troops billeted on them (Weber 1976:307).

Was the Coyotlatelco culture which appeared at Teotihuacan during its contraction phase, symptomatic of a similar event? Although the Coyotlatelco culture falls outside the scope of the present work, it is impossible to ignore it entirely. It is surprising that the period of the Teotihuacan ‘decline’ in conjunction with the appearance of the Coyotlatelco culture has received so little attention by the Teotihuacanists (e.g., Mastache and Cobean 1989:55). During the Coyotlatelco period there were no building programs, a new ceramic complex appeared and typical Teotihuacan artefacts were no more produced. It is also very likely that there was a return to rural developments. There is a general agreement that the origin of the Coyotlatelco culture lies in Western Mexico and especially the El Bajío region in southern Guanajuato 99

CHAPTER 7 EXPANSIONS, CONTRACTIONS AND OBSIDIAN ROUTES

7.1

The prehistory of the Classic interactional process: Chupícuaro

Zinapécuaro, Zacapu, Pureparo and Jerecuaro (Diehl 1976:270), Coporo, Morales and Valley of Santiago in the El Bajío culture area (McBride 1969).

period

Many authors see the initiation of the presence of Teotihuacan in West Mexico as early as 200 CE and posit that the arrival of the ‘influences’ was via the Chupícuaro culture (Jiménez Moreno 1966, Braniff 1972:296; Schondube 1980:167, Gómez Chávez 2001b).1 For example, Jiménez Moreno (1966:37) argues that the strong influence of Teotihuacan in West Mexico commenced with phase I of Teotihuacan by means of contact with the Chupícuaro culture. He further correlates the final phase of Chupícuaro with Teotihuacan II.

Frierman (1969:xvi) reports Chupícuaro artifacts as far as Copán and Dzibilchaltun in the Maya area. Other areas of Chupícuaro presence include Tulancingo, Hidalgo, and La Quemada, Zacatecas (Jiménez Moreno 1966:37). In southeast Mesoamerica, Chupícuaro artifacts were found near Cuernavaca Morelos and San Jerónimo, Guerrero (McBride 1969b:33-41). In the Valley of Mexico many sites bear evidence that attest to intense interaction with Chupícuaro: at the Cerro del Tepalcate, south of Tlatilco (black, red, brown polychromes and red-on-buff types), at Cuicuilco, Ticoman, (shallow incurving rim tripod bowls and very shallow shouldered bowl with near vertical walls and small conical tripod legs), Zacatenco, (highly polished red ware), Tlapacoya (double body vessels, huge mammiform tripod), Cuauhtitlán and Cuanalán (McBride 1969:41).

The Chupícuaro culture is principally known for highly elaborate ceramics and figurines. There is little information regarding settlement patterns and more quotidian issues. Scant information about architectural practices relates that a rectangular platform with superimposed structures registered in the south of the state of Guanajuato resembles the platform in Tlapacoya (Basin of Mexico). Remains of circular pyramids have been located at Chupícuaro and Salvatierra, Guanajuato.

Our knowledge of the distribution of the Chupícuaro culture is nevertheless disparate and there has been no systematic study of this culture. For example, at the state of Puebla, some 600km to the southeast of Chupícuaro, Uruñuela (1989:44-45) states:

Estrada Balmori and Piña Chán (1947:41) explored 173 Chupícuaro burials located between the Lerma River and the Arroyo del Tigre where they found 23 tlecuiles, surrounded by the burials. ‘It is undoubted that those tlecuiles were of great importance to the funerary rites, we suppose that they served as small altars where they offered sacrifices. The difference in the levels indicates that their construction corresponds to that of the burials. They contain large quantities of ash and calcinated bones.’ A similar tlecuil was unearthed at the site of Tres Cerritos, Cuitzeo Basin, which dates possibly to the Classic period. Another facet of mortuary practices are dog burials and associated offerings. Dog burials appear also at the Central Mexican site of Tlatilco (Schondube 1980:161). Part of the Chupícuaro mortuary tradition was the application of red, yellow, green and black pigments on the skulls and teeth of the deceased (Estrada Balmori and Piña Chan 1947:41)

We discovered a site of the Middle-Late Preclassic that had a clear Olmec influence for the Middle Preclassic; for the Late Preclassic, we encountered a series of objects from West Mexico . . . it seems that –regardless of what everybody has heard: about Chupícuaro in Teotihuacan, the Cerro de Tepalcate in Central Mexico and that of García Cook in Tlaxcala– there is an enormous quantity of material of West Mexico that is not only Chupícuaro . . . unfortunately, this is only reported in smallest technical reports-of those that are never published.

In the north of Tlaxcala from approximately 600 BCE there is evidence for a significant cultural development. García Cook and Merino Carrión (1996) registered 21 villages or primary centres, 8 of which are big villages or cities and can be considered macro-regional centers. One of these cities is fortified and its population was integrated by people from West Mexico (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:285, emphasis in original). From 500 BCE the evidence speaks of strong commercial ties with Tehuacan, the Central Gulf Coast, the Basin of Mexico and West Mexico. Three sites were occupied by people from West Mexico (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:287). By 350 BCE there is a real Classic in the area represented by the Tezoquipan culture for the Tlaxcala bloque, and Tezoquipan del Valle or protoCholula for the Puebla valley (García Cook and Merino

THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CHUPÍCUARO CULTURE IN MESOAMERICA The Chupícuaro culture, which must have flourished between 300 BCE and 300 CE, seems to have played a role in West Mexico comparable to that of the Olmec culture in the rest of Mesoamerica (Jiménez Moreno 1966:25). The distribution of Chupícuaro artifacts in Mesoamerica extends from Chametla in Sinaloa, and Nayarit (Porter Weaver 1947:45) in West Mexico, and reaches Tepeji del Rio, San Juan del Rio, Celaya, Leon, 1

The Chupícuaro culture is knowl primarily for fine ceramic assemblages but the biography of the culture is poorly defined.

100

Expansions, contractions and obsidian routes

Carrión 1996:287).2 The site of Gualupita las Dalias, with strong West Mexican affiliations was fortified and located towards the west. Its occupation continued well into the Classic independently of the Tezoquipan groups but receiving ‘proto-Teotihuacan influences’ that appear during this time (100-400 CE). During the early Tenayecac phase, although this site was abandoned, the figurines still observe strong traits of the West Mexico cultures, namely red lines on the natural brown of the clay. Nevertheless, the weakened (100-250 CE) influence of West Mexico would totally disappear during the late Tenayecad phase (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:291-301).3

introduced from the southeast, initiating new constructions (Von Winning 1987:I:31)4

Therefore Cuicuilco IV is the phase during which Chupícuaro materials are present and also characteristic are vessels with negative and white-on-red decoration. Additionally present are pedestal bases, Cuanalan olla rims, high-and-medium-walled basal-break bowls, with round bottoms, H4 figurines, large multibodied supports, and semispherical bowls.5 Similar material exists at Tlapacoya in the southeastern Valley of Mexico (West 1965:199). Bennyhoff (1966:20) postulates that the decline of the Cuicuilco tradition was possibly due to extreme pressure from the north or northwest by a culture of the Chupícuaro tradition and simultaneous pressure from the south by a group of the Cholula tradition.6

In 1993, some 300km east of Chupícuaro, a burial was recovered in a house in the Tepeyac neighbourhood, in Tulancingo, Hidalgo. The offerings include polychrome vessels, figurines and jadeite artifacts. All ceramics come from Chupícuaro. Hernández Reyes (1996), who conducted the excavations, maintains that people from Chupícuaro occupied Tepejí del Río and Atitalaquia. Further to the southeast, at the late Preclassic site of Cuanalan near Teotihuacan, figurines present many resemblances to the Chupícuaro figurines (West 1965:194). In the same cultural region Chupícuaro becomes very important during Tezoyuca or Cuicuilco IV phase, ‘flooding the Valley with slant-eye or H4 figurines and the characteristic polychrome pots’ (Porter Weaver 1969:9).

Lister (1955:55) also suggests that some of the traits in the Basin of Mexico during the Classic originate in West Mexico and they were diffused when the Formative cultures of the Basin were in decline. Therefore ‘the Teotihuacan culture would be a result of the fusion of Formative cultures both from West Mexico and the Valley of Mexico (Beltrán 1991:42). The co-existence of Chupícuaro ceramics and those from other Preclassic sites in the Basin of Mexico is also evidenced in areas outside the Basin. For example, at Tepeji del Río, Cook de Leonard (1956) reports that Chupícuaro ceramics were encountered associated with Ticoman in 8 layers of more than 20 pits, but Chupícuaro disappears during the middle Classic. As a result many Central Mexican items were introduced to West Mexico. Braniff suggests that various elements of the Middle Preclassic from the Basin of Mexico were distributed as far as Oasisamérica, namely from Tlatilco such as the asa de estribo y de canasta, hollow zoomorphic and anthropomorphic vessels, high annular base copa and possibly the concept of decorating vessel interiors by dividing the surface into four sections with parallel lines and red-on-buff decoration. Some of these features would appear anew in the Basin of Mexico during the

The strong presence of Chupícuaro in the Basin of Mexico has been variously associated with the decline of the Preclassic major center of Cuicuilco. In fact the emergence of the Teotihuacan state is often considered as a result of the decline of the Cuicuilco site: During the last phase of the preclassic period, that is the final preclassic or protoclassic (ca. 200 BC-AD 250) Cuicuilco proffers the supremacy over the Basin of Mexico to its rival in the Teotihuacan Valley. Insurrections end with the uniformed phase of the Cuicuilco III and various local cultures emerge during 200 BC-AD 100 (Cuicuilco IV). H-4 figurines which derive from the ceramic tradition of Chupícuaro, indicate influences or intrusions from the north. A new ceramic complex was introduced, possibly from the Puebla region. Additionally there are indices of destruction of the ceremonial platforms on the pyramid (Group A) and on two mounds of Group B. During the phase Cuicuilco V-A (ca. 100 BC) there is a cessation of northern influences, since the Chupícuaro tradition declined, and the Cuicuilco tradition re-emerge modified by elements

4

Parallels between Teotihuacan and Cuicuilco-talud and balustrade in Cuicuilco’structures 6 and 7, serpentine figurines and orange ceramics found at this site suggest the possibility that residents of the southern part of the Valley of Mexico moved northward, toward Teotihuacan after the eruption of the Xitli volcano (ca. 200 BCE) in the Cuicuilco area (F. Muller personal communication to Hayden 1975: 139). 5 ‘The pedestal base which is well represented at Chupicuaro, is lacking at Cuanalan, becoming common in Tezoyuca and Patlachique site . . . the ubiquitous red-on-buff and polychrome decorations, ceramic earplugs and H4 figurines, are all found at both Chupicuaro and in the Valley phases of Tezoyuca and Patlachique’ (Porter Weaver 1969:8). 6 Braniff (1998:101) postulates that the pressure exerted in the Basin of México is not associated with Chupícuaro but with the later Morales phase. A ceramic type, the white-on-red, which in present both in the Tezoyuca and Morales phase is absent in the Chupícuaro ceramic assemblage. She proffers the ‘extraordinarily looted and vandalized site of Queréndaro’ as the seat of power during the Morales phase (note: the site of Queréndaro in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán is another site also known for its ceramic assemblage which is similar –if not identical– to those of Santa Maria and Tres Cerritos, also in the Cuitzeo Basin. The reason why Braniff suggests Queréndaro as the seat of power is not clear).

2 “Classic is understood as a technological and cultural splendor based on intensive agriculture, with large irrigation works . . . active commerce . . . ceremonial and urban centers . . . theocracy . . . advance in crafts . . . [and] control of time (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:287). 3 García Cook and Merino Carrión (1996) do not specify the origin of these Western Mexican influences.

101

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

in the early levels at Tlapacoya. The Chupícuaro influence on the Valley of Mexico cultures seems clear, and it certainly involved the flow of Central Mexican items towards West Mexico.

Late Classic and Early Postclassic (Braniff 1972:296). Sherds of the Central Mexican sites of Ticomán and Cuicuilco have been also reported for the Cuitzeo Basin (Pulido Mendez et al. 1995:I: 38). I do not consider ‘decline’ a proper word to describe the cessation in production of highly elaborate Chupícuaro ceramics because many Chupícuaro elements persisted through the Classic period and it is highly probable that some kind of cultural transformation took place during the early Classic period.

The continuation of the Chupícuaro culture in the Cuitzeo Basin is demonstrated by the fact that Chupícuaro ceramics appear in the lower strata of excavations at a number of predominantly Classic period sites. Healan (1991b:2) reports that at the site of La Bartolilla three ceramic groups are distinguished: the upper level is characterized by the presence of red-on-buff ceramics, the Classic presents polychrome ceramics, whereas the lower stratum shows links with the Chupícuaro assemblage. Chupícuaro ceramics have been also encountered at the sites of Zinapécuaro, Chehuayo and as far as Zamora (Porter 1947:45). Regarding the site of Santa Maria, Trejo (1977:24) suggests that some local types seem to have maintained links with the traditions of Zinapécuaro and Queréndaro which might suggest in turn that the Chupícuaro style persisted in the early phase of the site of Santa Maria. Especially significant is the persistance of specific iconographic motifs, which indicates that both the Chupícuaro and the Cuitzeo Basin individuals shared a ‘semantic field’ (Braniff 1998:103, see also Carot 2001).

CLASSIC PERIOD MICHOACÁN AND THE CHUPÍCUARO CULTURE

‘Descent with modification [is] the operation of a somewhat imperfect inheritance system, provided in biology by a genetic transmission mechanism which includes the possibility of mutations occurring and being passed on to future generations’ (Shennan 2000:812). It seems that the cultures of the Classic period Michoacán inherited a number of cultural elements from the Chupícuaro culture. It is likely that this information transmission occurred partly owing to a shared history and possibly common descent. If we conceive of culture as ‘an inheritance system’ it is important to reconstruct the cultural phylogeny in the region in order to grasp processes of change from the late Formative to the Classic period (e.g., Shennan 2000:813).

During the construction of the highway MexicoGuadalajara, Pulido et al. (1996:37) also recovered fragments of the Chupícuaro culture from sites along the shores of Lake Cuitzeo, for example, at the site M-14 (San Juan Tararameo), which indicates that the Chupícuaro culture extended until the early Classic. At the site of Loma Alta, some 30km west of the Cuitzeo Basin, Carot (2001:74) undertook a major iconographic analysis of ceramics and demonstrated that the similarities between the Chupícuaro and Loma Alta complexes consist of: red-on-buff, white-on-red, and polychrome decoration, schematized zoomorphic motifs and H4 figurines.

None of the Chupícuaro ceramics ‘survived’ into the Classic period. However, many symbolic elements that characterize the Classic period in Michoacán, originate in the Chupícuaro culture. This implies that the maintenance of cultural features over almost a thousand years corresponded to the need for continuation of this cultural unit. For example, Rattray (1966) postulates that the form of ringbase bowls, the most popular Thin Orange ware form, has a preclassic antecedent. Interestingly, the form of the ringbase bowl is rarely found in other classic wares from Teotihuacan (Rattray 1966:117 see also Cook de Leonard 1956:41 and fig.3). Whether the origin of this form lies in Chupícuaro or Central Mexico is not known. Another type whose origins are also debated is the red-on-brown incised. It is known as a Teotihuacan type, but its origins can be also established much earlier. It was encountered at the site of El Opeño, in western Michoacán but also at Tlatilco, in Central Mexico. The negative decoration, which is so popular during the Classic in the Cuitzeo Basin, is scantily present in the Chupícuaro assemblage (Porter Weaver 1969:13; Schondube 1980:168). It is a ware that claims antiquity both in West and Central Mexico. In West Mexico Oliveros found vessels as old as 1500 BCE at the tombs of El Opeño, whereas in Central Mexico it is present at various sites and even during the early phase at Teotihuacan (Smith 1987).

However, the inventory of Chupícuaro ceramics not only in West Mexico (where this complex presumably originates) but also in Central Mexico is so disparate that any further consideration would be inappropriate because all we know about this complex is the ceramic assemblage and the ritual contexts from which these ceramics were recovered. The situation parallels that of the El Opeño complex, which is also known solely for ceramics recovered from burials. Therefore the evidence does not reflect the total sociocultural complex (e.g., Pulido Mendez et al. 1995:1:62-63). Pulido et al. (1996) are rightly inclined to consider the Cuitzeo Basin as a ‘natural’ expansion area of the Chupícuaro culture. Nevertheless the poor results of their survey does not answer the question of whether the Cuitzeo Basin complex is a direct descendent of the Chupícuaro complex. Possibly the groups that populated the area during the Classic period were culturally distinct, and incorporated elements of the Chupícuaro tradition. The Chupícuaro tradition is best survived at the Morales

Bennyhoff (1966) points out that negative painting was important in the southern Cholula complex, which mingled and competed with Chupícuaro influence in the Valley of Mexico during the Tezoyuca phase. But negative painting predated Tezoyuca and has been found 102

Expansions, contractions and obsidian routes

conducted Neutron Activation Analysis (NAA) of 600 samples from 20 geological sources and 422 archaeological samples of the Early and Middle Formative Mesoamerica. During the Early Formative period obsidian from the Zinapécuaro mines was the primary source in Mesoamerica (1978a:51, fig.1). In Oaxaca, (including the sites of Tierras Largas and San José Mogote) obsidian from the Zinapécuaro source represents 20.60 and 11.10 percent for the Early and Middle Formative respectively. Interestingly, for the Middle Formative period, gray obsidian from Michoacán occurs also in Morelos (14.30%) and the Valley of Mexico (4.50%) despite the availability of local sources (Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1978:57, Table 2).

phase of Guanajuato. Actually, the similarities are so striking that Braniff (1998:72) considered Morales as contemporaneous with Chupícuaro. Nevertheless, she now identifies Morales as a phase succeeding Chupícuaro in southern Guanajuato and the similarities between Morales and Chupícuaro consist of ceramic types and design elements. According to Braniff (1998:90) Chupícuaro declined circa 350 CE and this date correlates with dates for the Mixtlán Complex in Acámbaro and C14 dates for Morales. The expansion of the Chupícuaro culture in Central Mexico must have involved militaristic tactics. Evidence that the Chupícuaro people used violence is provided by mortuary practices, which include trophy skulls, decapitated skeletons, and isolated skull burials (Porter Weaver 1969:8, Schondube 1980:160). Was the expansion of the Chupícuaro culture in the Mexican Highlands correlated to an incipient state formation? Although we observe a number of incidences that would suggest that this must have been the case, the lack of adequate data postpones answers to the future. For example, the decline of Chupícuaro coincides with the apogee of Teotihuacan (Jimenez Moreno 1966, Gómez Chávez 2001b). Is this event coincidental or consequential?7 The major shift in obsidian routes during the Classic period, that is, from the Michoacán obsidian sources to the Teotihuacan controlled source indicates that it was rather consequential. 7.2

Figure. 7.1 shows a set of comparative maps where changes in obsidian trade routes may be observed. It is notable that during the Early and Middle Classic, the Ucareo source, Michoacán, was not participating in the Mesoamerican obsidian network. The production of obsidian artifacts from the Ucareo source must have been principally absorbed by the local population as it is evidenced from its high occurrence in Michoacán during this period. However, recent evidence possibly suggests that there was limited long-distance trade of the northern Michoacán obsidian during the Early and Middle Classic as well. In the interior of the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl (Early Classic), recovered fragments of gray obsidian possibly originate in the Ucareo source (Sarabia A, personal communication to Gómez Chávez 2001a). Also, Burial 27 from the Western Mexican affiliated Structure 19 at Teotihuacan (sec. 6.4.4) yielded an offering of a clay cylindrical box containing a gray obsidian prismatic blade; results from PIXE analysis indicate that it was possibly sourced in the deposits of Cerro El Varal, Zinaparo, northern Michoacán (R. Esparza 1999 personal communication to Gómez Chávez nd).

Obsidian and exchange networks

In the previous section I discussed briefly the presence of the Chupícuaro culture in the Central Highlands. During the same time gray obsidian from northeastern Michoacán was traded to virtually every corner of Mesoamerica.

Early and Middle Classic deposits at El Mirador in Guatemala produced three artifacts of Otumba material, two from the Zaragoza and Ucareo sources, one from the Zinapécuaro and one from the Paredon source. Although the Otumba and Pachuca, and possibly also the Tulancingo and Paredon sources were under Teotihuacan control, the Puebla-Veracruz sources such as Zaragoza, and the Michoacán sources of Ucareo and Zinapécuaro were very probably independent of Teotihuacan. Artifacts from the Michoacán sources may have entered the Maya region through the same networks as the Teotihuacan materials, but it would be erroneous to consider them indicators of Teotihuacan influence (Spence 1996b:23). At the Maya site of Tikal various kinds of obsidian are present: green obsidian, mottled red, black, and gray. Of 14 Tikal gray obsidian bifaces tested, eight (57. 1%) were of Otumba material, two were from the Zaragoza and Ucareo sources . . . two of Ixtepeque (Guatemala) . . . and two unassigned (Spence 1996b:23). Gray obsidian from the Michoacán source is also present at the Classic period sites of Wild Cane, Ambergris Cay and Edzna, Lubaantun and other sites (Healan 1997, Lucero 1999:233). Nevertheless, long-distance trade of

In Michoacán, gray obsidian artifacts from the Ucareo mine are ubiquitous and the mine was exploited since Pre-classic times until the Conquest. It was traded as far as Oaxaca and Morelos during the Early Formative circa 1000 BCE (Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1978a:72) and San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan, Veracruz, in the form of prismatic blades along with green obsidian from Central Mexico (Healan:1997). In Oaxaca, during the Middle Formative circa 900 BCE gray obsidian reached 20.2 percent of the total obsidian population; ‘a suggestion of the possible importance of the Zinapécuaro source area as a second center of prismatic blade manufacture and export is seen in the equal proportions of Barranca de los Estetes and Zinapécuaro prismatic blades in Oaxaca’ (Wheeler PiresFerreira 1978a:72).8 Wheeler Pires-Ferreira (1978a:50) 7

Gómez Chávez (2001b) expects to find more data associated with Chupícuaro in the Teotihuacan ceramics of the Patlachique and Tzacualli phases 8 ‘The area surrounding the source is archaeologically unknown, so that the network through which Oaxaca obtained 20.2 percent of its total obsidian supply fromt his source (located at a distance of approximately 530 kilometers) cannot be determined’ (Wheeler Pires-Ferreira 1978:71).

103

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Fig. 7.1: Mesoamerican obsidian routes: a. Middle Preclassic; b. Late Preclassic; c. Classic and d. Terminal Classic and Postclassic

includes red-mahogany (streaked red by hematite) obsidian. Surface collections conducted by the author (July-September 1999) registered an unpublished kind of obsidian of a dark brown-black obsidian locally known as meco and the source is located in the Zinapécuaro area (O. Tapia, personal communication, 1999). It can be preliminarily stated that this meco dark brown-black obsidian was worked into projectile points and thin prismatic blades.

Michoacán gray obsidian was limited during this period, possibly because Teotihuacan had control of the popular green obsidian from the Pachuca source. Whereas for other Teotihuacan-related artifacts such as Thin Orange Ware and cylindrical tripod vessels there might have been alternative sites of production and distribution, green obsidian prismatic blades are the single Teotihuacan artifact that was monopolized by the City. 7.2.1

The Zinapécuaro and northeastern Michoacán

Ucareo

sources, More is known about the gray obsidian from the Ucareo and Zinapécuaro mines although some archaeologists still consider Ucareo and Zinapécuaro the same source: ‘as far as the provenance . . . we know it (gray obsidian) comes from the mine of Zinapécuaro, that is the same as Ucareo. . .’ (Macías 1990:102, 1997:358). However, it has been confirmed that obsidian from Ucareo and Zinapécuaro present a similar albeit distinct chemical composition

During the Late Classic and Epiclassic periods (400-700 CE) there was anew a major exploitation of the Michoacán obsidian mines of Zinapécuaro, Ucareo and Zinaparo, Michoacán, thus reestablishing the pattern of the Late Formative period. All were sources of a dark gray almost black obsidian, and the Zinaparo mine 104

Expansions, contractions and obsidian routes

over a rather extensive area during the Classic period. What can be demonstrated however is the material source. Additionally, the regrettable lack of a corpus of obsidian types can be attributed to the fact that the sources of Michoacán obsidian have been only recently identified. Until 1978 obsidian from Ucareo was identified as ‘type F’ from samples collected at the sites of Cholula, Puebla, El Tajin, La Venta and Tres Zapotes, Veracruz (Hester et al. 1978:184).11

(García Chávez et al. 1990:228). Additionally, the majority of obsidian which is encountered outside Michoacán comes from the Ucareo rather than the Zinapécuaro source (García Chávez et al. 1990:228, Healan 1998:102). 9 Dan Healan (1996) who has conducted a major research in the Ucareo-Zinapécuaro area, attributes the preference for the Ucareo obsidian to the following qualities: ‘First, the raw material is very fine, it does not contain many inclusions nor fractures or fissures, second, a great deal of the raw material exists in massive form that allows its use in the fabrication of large objects, third it seems that the majority of the deposits of the obsidian in the Zinapécuaro-Ucareo region lies near the surface, and permits therefore its extraction, excavating through simple pits instead of deep mines such as those of the mines of Pachuca Hidalgo and Pico de Orizaba in Veracruz.’10

7.2.2

The distribution of the Teotihuacancontrolled green obsidian in the Cuitzeo Basin

The study of green obsidian artifacts in the Cuitzeo Basin presents the same methodological problems as ceramics, for most of the samples recovered yield limited stratigraphic information; at the site of Loma Santa Maria, from a total of 5 trenches and 39 pits only 9 pits presented a sequenced stratigraphy (De Vega et al. 1982:67). However, similarities among sites in the study area reveal a consistent pattern in the regional tradition. The principal difference among distinct obsidian collections is their quantity. For example Tres Cerritos yielded 2 green obsidian prismatic blades while Huandacareo 17 complete and 18 fragments (Macías Goytia, 1997 and 1990) and Loma Santa Maria 7 of green obsidian and 20 gray (López Wario, nd, 10). During the Middle and Late Classic periods there was a major distribution of green obsidian in Mesoamerica principally in the form of parallel-edged thin (0.3-0.4cm thick) prismatic blades.

Since both the Zinapécuaro and Ucareo mines are located within the eastern limits of the study area, expectedly all sites present artifacts of gray obsidian in the form of projectile points and thin prismatic blades. Within Michoacán the southernmost reported limit of the distribution of gray obsidian is the site of Villa Madero, 175km. south of Zinapécuaro (Hester 1978:132). Principal techniques applied for the manufacture of tools were pressure and percussion, pressure being the dominant one resulting in long multifaceted cores after the removal of prismatic blades. Prismatic blades were used as cutting and scraping implements, and blades and flakes were either laterally-trimmed like the pressure blades, or converted into unifacial and bifacial tools (Hester 1978:135). Evidence demonstrates that nuclei were worked near the source and then transported to the site. At Loma Santa Maria, 16 polyhedral cores were collected and only five presented cortex; nine were of gray obsidian, three of quartz, two of chert and two of andesite. The samples were dated by means of relative ceramic chronology ‘. . . it could be confirmed from the stratigraphy that the apogee of the site was marked by an increase in ceramics, burials, etc. and the presence of Teotihuacan (or Teotihuacanoid) material is mirrored on the lithics with the presence of green and the most pure gray obsidian’ (De Vega et al. 1982:79).

Extensive studies on green obsidian admit unanimously that their distribution was controlled by Teotihuacan, since there is only one source located at Sierra de las Navajas, between Pachuca and Tulancingo in the State of Hidalgo. Green obsidian is widely used as a chronological marker and indicator of the presence of Teotihuacan in several parts of Mesoamerica. Lack of settlement patterns and ceramics near the source of raw material suggests that Teotihuacan had direct access and exploitation of the mines (Price 1986:181).12 Along with Thin Orange ceramics it was the most significant trade item during the Middle and Late Classic periods and Blanton et al. (1981:141) posit that the production of green obsidian artifacts was the largest industry in the Metropolis absorbing as much as twelve per cent of the population during Xolalpan times (400-650 CE). Since most of the green obsidian blades have been recovered from burial contexts they are assigned a higly symbolic and ritual value. Being a diagnostic trait, it has been reported as far as Altun Ha, Belize where 245 eccentrics and 13 points were deposited as an offering (Pendergast

I must emphasize that there has been no study on the typology of obsidian artifacts in Michoacán despite the presence of a distinct local tradition manifestated in projectile points, blades, burins and eccentrics. Hence, the present state of knowledge on the obsidian and stone tradition of the State of Michoacán does not permit any ethnic or social suggestion related to the exploitation and manufactuing techniques. Identical forms are distributed

11

The problem of identifying the source of ‘type F’ is a typical paradox within the Archaeology of West Mexico and resulted from the general lack of interest in the area. For example for the site of Tula, ‘far more can potentially be said about long distance obsidian exchange –defined for Tula as exchange across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec– than interregional exchange (Healan 1993:456). 12 Nevertheless, green obsidian artifacts appear as early as 1000 BCE at San Lorenzo Tenochtitlan and La Venta, Veracruz (Millon 1976:231).

9

‘it seems that the deposits of obsidian in the area of Ucareo are much more extense than those at Zinapecuaro . . . in Ucareo . . . the deposits at the mines that exploited them extend over 6kms’(Healan 1991b:9). 10 Pachuca and Zinapecuaro have the highest and lowest manganese concentrations, respectively, among all of the Mexican sources that have been chemically characterized (Sidrys 1977:47).

105

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

1971), Tikal, where it represents 1.6 percent of a total of 457 artifacts and Kaminaljuyu, where 15 points, 8 blades and one knife were recovered from the tombs of structures A and B (Spence 1977:295). The exploitation of this source continued through Aztec times; ‘the Aztec exploitation which is present at Minillas, was quantitatively and qualitatively more complex than that of Teotihuacan’ (Cruz Antillon, 1994:81).

cm) were encountered at Burial 44, Huandacareo. It is worth mentioning that green obsidian earspools have not been reported for any other site in Michoacán. At Tres Cerritos green obsidian was also worked in beads; Burial Table 7.1: Green obsidian prismatic blades, Huandacareo BurialNo. Quantity Length Context

Another major source controlled by Teotihuacan was that of the gray obsidian of Otumba, also in the State of Hidalgo, and it was principally worked in bifacials. Excavation at Tikal has led to the identification of Teotihuacan-made stemmed points of Otumba obsidian (Spence 1987:438). It seems though that there was a higher preference for green obsidian since ‘ . . . trace element analyses of collections that included Middle Horizon materials from Cholula and Tres Zapotes revealed no Otumba material’ (Hester et al. 1971:72). Additionally, gray obsidian from the Otumba source did not possibly possess the symbolic value of the green obsidian and therefore there was no demand from the Teotihuacan ‘peripheries.’

34 41

1 fragment 2 fragments

4cms 4cms

Platform 1 debris

62

6

2cms

Platform 1

63

9

11cms

Platform 1

64 69

2 15 fragments

10cm 5cms

Platform 1 Platform 1

1 revealed 33 green obsidian beads along with 13 jadeite beads with Teotihuacan-related ceramics while the offering of Burial 8 included five projectile points of black obsidian from the Zinapécuaro mine, two green obsidian blades, three globular beads of the same material (Macías Goytia 1997:217). Pulido et al. (1995, vol. 3) report green obsidian for the sites of Los Puercos (M-57); one fragment, Palma Mocha II (M-62); one fragment and La Plaza (M-94); one prismatic blade.

In the State of Michoacán green obsidian artifacts were scientifically excavated from the sites of Loma Santa Maria (De Vega et al. 1982), Tres Cerritos (Macías Goytia 1997), Huandacareo (Macías Goytia 1990), Loma Alta (Darras 1993) Lomas del Valle (Trejo 1977) and various sites surveyed during the construction of the highway Mexico-Gudalajara (Pulido et al. 1995). At the site of Loma Alta, four excavation units yielded 85 fragments of green obsidian (i.e. 92.4%), whereas from unit S3 green obsidian represents 95.5% of the total population (Darras 1993:174). At Tres Cerritos, two prismatic blades were deposited as part of the offering of Burial 8 in the North Plaza and thirty three round ‘sequins’ as part of Offering 2 in the same Plaza.13 At Huandacareo, prismatic blades were recovered only from Platform 1 as shown on Table 7.1. None of the blades present use-wear and the fact that they were recovered from burials ‘manifests the high social rank of the personage’ (Macías Goytia 1990:103). Among all structures, Platform 1 presents four tombs which possibly pertained to the elite of the site and the prismatic blades encountered in Burials 62 and 63 were associated with Teotihuacan ceramics. However, Macías Goytia (1990:207) considers Huandacareo a Postclassic Tarascan site. Regardless of the presence of green obsidian prismatic blades and Teotihuacan ceramics at both Tres Cerritos and Huandacareo, she opines that the sites date to the Tarascan period and the non-Tarascan artifacts belong to ‘local groups that coexisted with the Tarascans when the Cuitzeo Basin was dominated by this group . . .’ In addition to prismatic blades, Macías Goytia (1990:109) relates that two tubular earspools of green obsidian (2 x 2

Green obsidian prismatic blades are present along with Teotihuacan associated ceramics at the site of La Negreta, in the State of Queretaro, and they seem to have arrived ‘via Teotihuacan’ (Saint-Charles Zetina 1996:150) while at Santa Maria del Refugio in the adjacent State of Guanajuato, Structure A revealed chert implements and some prismatic blades ‘from the sources that were exploited by Teotihuacan’ (Castañeda et al. 1996:170). THE NEGOTIATED VALUE OF GREEN PRISMATIC BLADES IN MICHOACÁN

OBSIDIAN

Although black and green obsidian are technologically similar, their coexistence within the Cuitzeo Basin burials must have a specific significance. At the excavated sites in the Cuitzeo Basin, gray and green prismatic blades seem to coexist and they are both ritual. This intriguing association of gray –from the Ucareo mine– and green – from the Cerro de las Navajas– sources, is also noticed at Loma Santa Maria for their contextual co-ocurrence and the fact that ‘in the upper strata of the site where there is no green obsidian, the gray which is present is of poor quality (with impurities) and the techniques are less sophisticated like if the access to determined sources of raw materials had been interrupted’ (De Vega et al. 1982:241). Macías (1997:232) posits that the black obsidian points at Tres Cerritos were manufactured with great technological sophistication indicating their use as symbols of power. The evidence concludes that when gray obsidian appears along with green, it is of high quality and this possibly indicates the ritual functioning of both. Since green obsidian was imported from afar and rarely presents usewear, its function belonged to the realm of Teotihuacan symbolism. Surface collection (September 1999) at the

13

Identical ‘sequins’ were unearthed at the burials of Tombs A-II and A-IV in Kaminaljuyu and Tikal. They are perforated disks of green obsidian manufactured by piercing and edge retouching segments of prismatic blades possibly ornaments sewn to clothing (Spence 1996b:25, 27).

106

Expansions, contractions and obsidian routes

traded to the emergent political centers such as Xochicalco, Tula, and many Coyotlatelco sites in the Basin of Mexico; ‘The evidence from Cerro Portezuela and Tula indicates that the societies of the Highlands during the Late Classic and Postclassic had a preference for the obsidian of Zinapécuaro to that of Otumba’ (Hester et al. 1973, Sidrys 1977, Spence 1977:297). Specifically at Tula, Healan distinguishes three phases in the obsidian procurement pattern. During stage 1, the time of Tula’s earliest (Coyotlatelco) settlement, virtually all obsidian appears to be from Zinapécuaro, a pattern noted for other Coyotlatelco sites in the region. The stage 1 obsidian assemblage contains more bifacial points than do subsequent stages. During stage 2, corresponding to early Postclassic Tula prior to the Tollan phase, Zinapécuaro still predominates, but significant amounts (ca. 20-40 per cent) of Pachuca obsidian also occur; this stage exists in the earliest levels of both the workshop and residential excavations described above. In stage 3, probably during the Tollan phase, Pachuca comes to comprise ca. 80-90 per cent of the obsidian utilized in the workshop and households at Tula. The majority of nongreen obsidian still comes from Zinapécuaro, but 2 to 5 per cent is from Otumba (Healan 1993:454, see also Hassig 1992:115). The same pattern, that is a shift from Zinapécuaro to Pachuca obsidian, occurs at the site of Isla Cerritos. Unlike Tula, the Isla Cerritos assemblages also include highland Guatemalan obsidian commonly found at sites in eastern Mesoamerica. Isla Cerritos is believed to have been the main port for Chichen Itza, capital of the Terminal Classic/Early Postclassic Itza state, whose strong architectural, artistic and ethnohistorical ties to Tula are well known . . . data from Cozumel [Quintana Roo] and Ambergris Cay [Belize] suggest this material was also directly or indirectly (i. e., through local [Itza?] traders) involved in circumpeninsular exchange’ (Healan 1993:456).

site of Taimeo, Michoacán, further supports the ritual significance of green obsidian prismatic blades. Despite the high concentration of obsidian tools and flakes of the gray and dark brown-black varieties, five fragments of green prismatic blades were collected. At the site of Loma Alta, Zacapu, Michoacán, ‘. . . some products had a specific function, such as prismatic blades, that are presented in direct association to the burials’ (Darras 1992:169) and only 28.3% (26 samples) versus 70.6% (65 samples) of green obsidian blades had use-wear (Darras 1993:174). On the contrary, most of local gray prismatic blades present use-wear (Macías Goytia 1997, Darras 1992:169) and gray obsidian was also used for the manufacture of blades and projectile points. The red mahogany obsidian was also highly valued and it is evidenced in the form of lunate shaped eccentrics and a limited number of projectile points. A unique sample of a parallel-edged long blade with a trapezoidal section (the typical form of the prismatic blades) and an exhausted core were detected in a private collection from the site El Pedrillo. Certainly, green obsidian prismatic blades are far less than the Ucareo gray obsidian. A representative example is the lithic assemblage from the site of Loma Santa Maria and includes: obsidian: 82. 9% [gray 79.3%, green 3.15%, mahogany .45%], chert:7.2%, basalt:4%, quartz:2.7%, andesite:2.3%, diorite:45% and rhyolite:45%. Since no workshop was identified at the site and stone artifacts were recovered in direct association with ceramics and residential structures, De Vega et al. (1982:82) conclude that the manufacture of stone artifacts was a household level occupation. The identification of obsidian sources is of considerable importance for the determination of trade routes. It can be postulated that the sites near the shores of the Lake Cuitzeo procured their obsidian from the Ucareo mines in the east while another site in Michoacán, Loma Alta, manufactured its tools with obsidian from the nearby Zinaparo mines of Cerro Varal and Cerro Prieto. The procurement of obsidian from different and distant sources within a culturally defined area such as the Lake Cuitzeo is indicative of the grave societal and economic changes that took place during the Epiclassic period. However, the role of obsidian procurement in the evolution of the complex local societies has not been yet addressed. 7.3

In Central Mexico at the Coyotlatelco site of Azcapotzalco, the largest center in the Basin of Mexico after Teotihuacan, polyhedral cores were imported from Ucareo and were used for the production of prismatic blades (García Chávez et al. 1990:228). The most striking characteristic of the Azcapotzalco lithic assemblage is that only 10.6% of the 604 obsidian artfiacts are of green Pachuca source obsidian, while 89.4% are of gray obsidian. As we have seen, predominantly gray Central Mexican obsidian assemblages are characteristic of the Preclassic and the Epiclassic periods, while Classic and Postclassic assemblages range between 63-90% green obsidian (Otumba lies 55km northeast of of Azcapotzalco, while Zinapécuaro 250km northwest) (García Chávez et al. 1990:228).

The reestablishment of the Formative Period exchange pattern

After the contraction of the Teotihuacan exchange system, the Ucareo-Zinapécuaro obsidian sources emerge anew in the prominent place as major sources of gray prismatic blades in Mesoamerica. It seems that the most intense period of exploitation occurred during the late Classic and the succeeding Coyotlatelco period (Healan 1991b:10).

At Xochicalco, Morelos, a major Epiclassic centre, the percentage of Zinapécuaro obsidian is as high as ninety seven percent (Norberto González 1998) and there are also artifacts of red obsidian from the Zinaparo mine, Michoacán. At the same site there is also a change regarding the obsidian routes: during the early and middle

Data available for the Late Classic and Epiclassic periods suggests that Michoacán participated anew in the Mesoamerican obsidian network and gray obsidian was 107

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

presence of diagnostic Tula ceramics (Healan 1993:454). Healan postulates that there are no substantial settlements prior to the late Classic period in the vicinity of the Ucareo Valley. However, during the late Classic there is an increase in the number of sites which share a ceramic tradition among these sites, the largest, ‘Las Lomas’, comprises over 50 mounds and terraces over an extension of at ‘least 2km along the south flank of the Ucareo Valley near its only permanent water sources.’ The abundant surface debitage indicates the large scale of core and blades production. Near Las Lomas there are another six sites ‘several hectares in size each . . . located on prominent elevations.’ Healan concludes that all these settlements constitute ‘a single polity based at the site of Las Lomas . . .[and that] a major determinant of settlement may have been exploitation of the Ucareo obsidian source’ (Healan 1997:96).

Classic the vast bulk of obsidian came from the Valley of Mexico but after 650 it arrived from Zinapécuaro and by 750 CE ceramics and obsidian from the Valley of Mexico would completely disappear. Thereafter, Xochicalco’s four main obsidian sources were Zinapécuaro, Michoacán, Zacualtipan, Veracruz, Otumba, Mexico and Cerro de las Navajas, Hidalgo, which indicates a change in trade patterns and possibly relations among sites (Hassig 1992:107). By 800 CE Xochicalco declined and it was completely abandoned by 900 CE; Temple A and its three associated stelae, dating to the end of the site’s occupation were destroyed. The temple walls were broken and the stelae were painted red and shattered (Hassig 1992:107). The presence of Michoacán obsidian at Xochicalco is signifant as regards the distances involved: 197km, while the Otumba and Pachuca sources in Central Mexico are only 98 and 125km from the site. Obsidian from Ucareo probably reached western Morelos by trade routes on the western edge of the Basin of Mexico (Hirth 1989:79). Remains of Pacific Coast shell at the same site also indicate a preference for western routes (Nagao 1989:97). At Tula, Hidalgo, gray obsidian from Michoacán is estimated at ninety percent during the Coyotlatelco period (650-750 CE) until the apogee of the city during the Early Epiclassic (Healan 1998:101). Healan posits that during the Early Postclassic (800-1000 CE) the obsidian from Ucareo was used in various Maya sites in Belize and Yucatan and ‘was the principal obsidian source for Chichen Itza and Isla Cerritos’ (Healan and Hernández 1998). At the Maya site of Oxkintok, Yucatan, Braswell studied 487 obsidian artifacts from contexts that date to the late and terminal Classic: 63 proximal fragments come from the Ucareo, Zaragoza, Paredon, and Otumba sources (J. Braswell 1999, personal communication to Varela Torrecilla 2001:168-169). 7.4

Who ‘controlled’ the Michoacán mines?

The exploitation of the northern Michoacán mines was in operation since the Formative period. Were the Chupícuaro people involved in the exploitation of these mines? Even for the Epiclassic period, there is no evidence regarding the ethnic identity of the individuals who traded the gray obsidian from the Ucareo and Zinapécuaro sources. Some authors have suggested that both the Pachuca and Zinapécuaro mines were under Tula’s direct control (e. g., Diehl 1981:290, Spence and Parsons 1972:29), but preliminary data from archaeological investigations currently under way in both source areas provide no evidence for the control of the mines by Tula. Survey at Zinapécuaro and Ucareo (Healan 1990) covered both the quarry areas and the surrounding region, and found evidence of particularly intensive settlement and exploitation beginning around the Epiclassic period (ca. 600-900 CE), the same time that large amounts of Zinapécuaro obsidian appear at sites in Central Mexico. Preliminary analysis of ceramics does not indicate the 108

CHAPTER 8 INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND SYSTEMIC INTERDEPENDENCE

8.1

strategy. ‘In the exclusionary power strategy, political actors aim at the development of a political system built around their monopoly control of sources of power . . . In the corporate political strategy, in contrast, power is shared across different groups and sectors of society in such a way as to inhibit exclusionary strategies’ (Blanton et al. 1996:2).

‘Can the exchange of information or ritual create a systemic interdependence?’

The present study sought to answer the above question posed by P. Peregrine (1996:6). Certainly the Classic period exchange network was multidimensional with more participants than a single core and a passive periphery. What characterizes the system as a whole is the large-scale ‘necessity’ for Teotihuacan artifacts. Sites of various scales and societal complexity display Teotihuacan related artifacts in public spaces and burial contexts. Possibly the use of world-system models to interpret processes of change at a multiscalar level is attributed to the lack of alternative models. ‘Since the demise of culture-history and its diffusionist theory and waves of influence, archaeologists have had no other conceptual framework except world-systems for treating macroregional-local interaction’ (Kowaleski 1996:28).

Teotihuacan is designated as ‘the foremost manifestation of the corporate strategy’although key characteristics that they cite for the network strategy are also present at Teotihuacan, that is: a) Preeminence is an outcome of the development and maintenance of individual-centered exchange relations, b) Action on a large spatial scale through manipulation of distant social connections, and c) Social relationships outside local groups are created and maintained through . . . exotic goods and knowledge whose value is recognized cross-culturally (Blanton et al. 1996:4, emphasis added). In addition, all the characteristics they ascribe to Teotihuacan as a corporate state are not fully sustained by the available archaeological data. First, they mention lack of portrayal of named rulers but there is evidence for named individuals in murals and the large number of artifacts deposited as burial offering in the Temple of the Feathered Serpent for instance, aimed undoubtedly at honoring the individual who was buried there. Secondly, they state that state cults emphasized cosmological principles, but these principles are governed by specific deities, who in turn were impersonated by either highrank individuals and/or priests who had the legitimate power to conduct rituals and sacrifice hundreds of individuals in honor of these ‘cosmological principles.’ A third feature of the corporate strategy of Teotihuacan is the standardization of artistic conventions. Archaeological evidence supports partially this argument. There was indeed standardization but only for a handful of ceramic types, namely the Thin Orange ware which was one major exported item. In fact, the standardization of this ware in the nearly exclusive form of hemispherical annular base bowl may be related to economical reasons, since this form was the most cost-effective way of transporting this ware. Additionally, a visit to the Sherd Library at Teotihuacan would definitely convince Blanton et al. how the presence of hundreds of distinct ceramic types recovered at Teotihuacan defies any argument about standardization. 1 Blanton et al. (1996:10) last point on the corporate nature of Teotihuacan sees direct control into peripheral zones through the establishment of trade enclaves and extractive outposts as far as Guatemala. It is true, though, that they recognize that elements of both corporate and exclusionary strategies may coexist

However, the heuristic value of the world systemic approach consists of seeing how human interaction crosscuts cultural borders, investigating processes of change at the local and supralocal level, determining factors that account for the integration of x number of distinct cultural units in a single system and defining the nature of changes that these interactions effect both on the centre and the periphery (Ekholm 1980, Wolf 1982, Blanton and Feinman 1984, Santley and Alexander 1996). An additional interpretative advantage of the world-system model (as refined by the pertinent literature of the past ten years) is that it is dynamic, and examines process of change in a continuum; cores may be ‘demoted’ to a peripheral role in the system and vice versa (e.g., Schortman et al. 1996:62). Power is circumstantial, and the ability to exert power in a given context derives from strategic knowledge and specific resources whereby a core or a periphery accomplishes its aims. The continuous tension and competition among states in the ‘cores’ and ‘peripheries’ is thus recognized, bringing about the potential for change in the relative positioning of each region or polity (e.g., Blanton and Feinman 1984:675). The world systemic approach contrasts sharply with the myopic categorization of societies into ‘chiefdoms’ and ‘states’ for example, as if ‘they [archaeologists] actually know something more about a prehistoric society having so stuck a label on it’ (Yoffee 1993: 72). The world system is characterized by expansion and contraction in the same way as populations expand and contract: ‘Innovations are spreading through them, local artefactual lineages are changing, and our archaeological record is sampling all these processes in a very irregular way, with more often than not, a decidedly coarse-grained chronology’ (Shennan 2000:817). Blanton et al. (1996:13) attempt to grasp the dynamic of processes of societal change by proffering ‘one grand theory’ under the label ‘dual-processual theory’ whereby societies adopt either a corporate or exclusionary

1

The fact that Teotihuacan produced specific vessels as objects to be traded abroad raises the question of whether it was a capitalist economy since ‘capital always means wealth used to gain profit in commerce’ (Weber 1976:48). However, we still do not know whether these artifacts were traded for profit or were simply gifts.

109

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán changes or remains the same’ (Chase-Dunn 1992:319)2. As regards the Teotihuacan exchange system, two strategies are distinguished.

(Blanton et al. 1996:5-6). As Demarest (1996:56) rightly posits, ‘below the “corporate” surface . . . there were many competing units practicing indivisualizing practices.’ Just four years before the publication of this ‘grand theory’, Blanton et al. (1992 note: with the exception of P. Peregrine) designated the Classic period world system as a multicored system characterized by two contrastive strategies ‘only one of which produced a hierarchical core-periphery structure in the world-system (‘core–building strategy’). The other strategy, the ‘boundary strategy’, blurred core-periphery hierarchy during periods when core polities were weaker (Blanton et al. 1992:419-421). Teotihuacan developed a core strategy via intensification of core-zone agricultural production, growth of market systems and regional specializations, institutions of urban management linked to the state and its cults and ideologies legitimating state and state-cult appropriation of surplus agricultural production, placement of state-administered military outposts, extractive and trade enclaves and rejection of ethnicity as a basis of political ideology (Blanton et al. 1992:423).

Teotihuacan had an inner primary periphery in its inner hinterland. This area is located within a 40-60km radius from the city. Primary products were extracted to support the city and its craft industries. Both utilitarian and high status artefacts were exported to this area from Teotihuacan. Some authors distinguish a second periphery ‘outer primary periphery’ extending some 100150km from Teotihuacan (Santley and Alexander 1996:181). Teotihuacan obtained products from its inner hinterland in the Basin of Mexico such as agricultural grains from the Cuauhtitlán region; forest and lake products from the Texcoco region and the southern Basin; limestone derivatives from the northern Zumpango and Tula regions; and obsidian from the source region northeast of the Basin of Mexico (Santley and Alexander 1996:180). Data on Teotihuacan’s central industry, obsidian working, point to the same conclusion. Obsidian working in the city involved three major classes of production entities: local workshops; precinct workshops; and regional workshops (Spence 1981). Most of the city’s obsidian production was probably destined not for local consumers but mainly for a hinterland situated in Central Mexico.

In order to understand the Teotihuacan system logic, it is important to refer to the previous Formative period. It can be said that the ‘prehistory’ of the Teotihuacan system goes back to the Late Formative period network (see Allen 1992:455). Data regarding the transition from the Late Formative to the early Classic period is still meagre but I do consider processes seen in Teotihuacan as a result of long-term processes affecting the Mesoamerican scene. The late Formative period and the Teotihuacan interaction spheres overlap to a certain degree. Relying solely on obsidian evidence, it is possible to postulate that the Teotihuacanos simply took advantage of a shared system wherein Mesoamerican people had been already enmeshed for at least a thousand years and restuctured trade routes for their benefit. Therefore it is presumptuous to explain the rise of the Teotihuacan system by disregarding the changes that took place in the preexistent Mesoamerican world-system. Trade during the late Formative period represented a ‘highly complex political panorama, constituted by political units with diverse degrees of complexity that for moments competed or co-operated in between’ (Joyce 1994:68). Similarly, during the contraction period of the Teotihuacan system, that is the Epiclassic, a major restructuration of trade routes took place in order to serve the interests of the emergent multicored system which comprised powerful sites such as Xochicalco, El Tajin, Tula and Teotenango. The restructuration of world systems usually occurs when agents in the periphery increase their might and as a result, previously marginal sites may become ‘control centers of such interchanges’ (Abu-Lughod 1989:367).

Teotihuacan adopted a different strategy for its outer hinterland. The basis of this strategy involved the production and exchange of prestige goods which are exclusively found in burial contexts (Santley and Pool 1993, Santley and Alexander 1996:185). The role of Teotihuacan in areas more than 200km away from the core and the question of whether Teotihuacan had an empire is a much debated and as yet unresolved issue. It does not seem to have been a conquest empire like the Aztec which was organized to systematically collect tribute (García Bárcena 1972:153, Pasztory 1997:100). The designation of the Teotihuacan exchange system as a prestige system often renders the distinction between core and periphery blurred (Friedman 1992:341).3 For Wallerstein (1974:41-42) a prestige goods economy does not contribute to interconnectedness but the ability of leaders to monopolize prestige is a source of stability and change in local structures, since prestige goods effect political and economic changes (Blanton and Feinman 1984:676, Chase Dunn 1992:316, Friedman 1992:340, Edens 1992:121).4 ‘That this kind of system relied primarily on elite-rank contact means that it rather easily spread over space . . . In this way the boundaries of Mesoamerica could change markedly, at times extending 2

‘Among those who say that nothing changes there are five different descriptions of that which does not change’ (Geopolitics, Accumulationist, Rational Choice, Cultural Ecology, and Population Pressure approaches) (Chase-Dunn 1992:320). 3 It is important to distinguish between two types of luxury goods: those that were mere sumptuary items and those that served as symbols of elite political-religious authority (Porter and King 1995:29). 4 In some cases it can be postulated that the political, social and economical cannot be sepatated (Habermas 1976, Peregrine 1999).

However, understanding the logic that underlies the different cycles of the single Mesoamerican world system is the ‘thorniest theoretical problem . . . and it refers to the mode or production or accumulation and how it

110

Information exchange and systemic interdependence

and Chingú in the Tula area, Hidalgo, implies they were indeed Teotihuacan enclaves, then interactional processes would have also comprised exploitation beyond the primary periphery of the City as a strategy of the Teotihuacan state.

down into Central America or, especially in Toltec times, into the southwestern part of the United States’ (Blanton et al. 1981:246). More important Chase-Dunn and Hall (1997:53) stress that prestige-goods exchange links larger regions containing one or more political/military nests. However, Kowaleski (1996:31) warns against the uncritical use of the prestige-goods model, especially when ‘eliteness’ is based solely on a handful of preciosities and cannot be supported by independent evidence. Therefore, a world systemic approach requires the examination of a number of parameters such as scale, system logic and systemness of the system.

The asymmetrical nature of the system is illustrated by the differential manifestation of artifactual assemblages and can be explored by means of a varied number of exegetical models of interaction. For example, Marcus (2001:203-205) suggests four models: 1.

During the Classic period world-system, Teotihuacan was undoubtedly more coreish than other sites in that it is the single site in Mesoamerica whose exported goods are found in every—culturally distinct—corner of the system. It was precisely the ability of the Teotihuacanos to manipulate resources at the macroregional scale that enabled the Teotihuacan state to reach a central position in the Classic period exchange network. The Teotihuacan state expanded and was reinforced by deepening this interstate network connecting distinct spatial units: Monte Albán, the Maya, the Gulf Coast, West Mexico are some among these units. Certainly, some of these sites held a prominant place at the local and supralocal level such as Monte Albán and Tikal, but none can be said to have reached the overarching scale of the operationalization of the Teotihuacan prestige system. And it is exactly the extent of the system that leads to the characterization of the Teotihuacan system as a world-system.

2.

3. 4.

Single-Event Interaction such as Altun Ha and Becan, Monte Albán. Multi-Stage Interaction that involves symmetrical and asymmetrical relationships; possible candidates for that model are Tikal and Copán. Simple Dyadic Interaction assuming Teotihuacan dominant role in Maya sites (less plausible). Multiple Partners or Interactions Mediated through Multiple Sites. This model seems to fit better with the available data and indicates both direct and indirect interactions.

I attempted to demostrate that the system logic in the Teotihuacan system was the accumulation of capital by means of projecting a specific state ideology in areas afar and manipulating various exchange networks. Through materialized ideology (e.g., DeMarrais et al. 1996:27) Teotihuacan was able to establish a network covering more than 2,000 km from east to west and north to south and certainly its strategies would vary according to the local political economies. For example, at the site of Cholula, Puebla, Teotihuacan did not need to exert force. Cholula was both geographically and culturally important, but its size posed a dilemma for Teotihuacan and a possible attack would have failed. ‘If [Teotihuacan] was already engaged in some profitable relationship with Cholula through peaceful means, such as trade—and the archaeological data indicate a longstanding relationship of some sort—conquest migh have been unnecessary. Instead, Teotihuacan apparently incorporated Cholula into its economic network and expanded around it’ (Hassig 1992:55). Evidence indicating the lack of coercion in the Teotihuacan systemic strategy is provided by the example of a major site in the State of Puebla, Cantona. Cantona, a wholly fortified site with 24 ballcourts was one of the largest sites of the Classic period. It developed relationships with the Gulf Coast, the center and south of Veracruz, the El Bajío region and West Mexico (García Cook and Merino Carrión 1996:282, Cowgill 1997:134). However, the ‘Cantona culture was preoccupied with negating everything that was in fashion in the remainder contemporary cities’, that is Teotihuacan (Garcia Cook and Merino Carrión 1998:214).

The Teotihuacan world system was by no means a world system sensu Wallerstein; neither a single division of labor nor dependency of peripheries to cores based on the exploitation of resources occurred. There was nonetheless a single ideological system in operation and the crux of the question is whether the ideological system enmasked economic processes (see Allen 1992 for a discussion on the hidden structure of trade). The fact that the diverse regions adopted the Teotihuacan symbolic structure means that it must have had an impact on the regional cultures. No Maya site would invest in constructing monumental edifices with prominent Teotihuacan features such as the talud-tablero architecture and elaborate monumental stone stelae for merely aesthetic purposes. It is very likely that there was a convergence of interests, a kind of interethnic agreements ‘made independently from, if not in open contrast to the norm imposed from the center’ (Sacchi 2000:304).5 Most of the secondary periphery was not overly reliant on goods produced in the city, but some centers in this region consistently made imitations of Teotihuacan products which were likely destined for local consumption (e.g., Culbert 1993, Santley and Alexander 1996:182). However, if the evidence for some Teotihuacan related sites such as Matacapan, Veracruz, 5

In fact, a given periphery profits more than the core when the core demands from imports exceeds the periphery’s demands for exchange goods (Stein 1999:23).

The Mexica on the contrary used violence when other means would fail. Totepec and Quatzaltepec were 111

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

social structures in another locality’ (Chase-Dunn 1992:317). It is understandable that systemness’ prerequisites involve not only that interaction between Teotihuacan and the sites in question is repeated (this could be simply a result of trade) but also a certain degree of change in the sites. Interactions between sites and Teotihuacan were highly varied; for some sites it was a short-lived event (so nothing can be said about incorporation) whilst for others it lasted centuries. For example, the one-shot presence of Teotihuacan at some Maya sites such at Altun Ha, Belize did not make a difference as regards the local development of the site (Pendergast 2001). Whitehouse and Wilkins (1995:121) postulate that Greek imported goods in southeast Italy in the sixth century BCE led to increased difference in wealth and status of individuals without concomitantly affecting the social structures.

conquered by the Mexica when the Tenochcan lapidaries complained about high prices of raw materials from these areas. Although the Mexica ruler Moctezuma attempted to negotiate better prices, he failed and used the Aztec army to conquer both sites and enforce the flow of the materials as tribute (Blanton and Feinman 1984:677). The Inkas not only conquered sites but also removed local cult objects to their capital Cuzco where they were ‘effectively held hostage to minimize the chance of rebellion’ (DeMarrais 1996:28). Therefore, the Teotihuacanos possibly avoided conflict, but the adoption of their symbols of power in the local fabric would have required a strategic knowledge and respect of the recipient cultures so as to maintain a certain code of propriety whilst securing their economic interests. ‘Teotihuacan had little interest in altering existing local systems. The nature of Teotihuacan’s expansion . . . was primarily a function of power, the friction of distance, and the suitability of contacted societies to sustain the sort of asymmetrical trade typical of imperial exchange’ (Hassig 1992:81).

The pattern in northern Michoacán is contrastive in that a) culturally homogeneous sites that participated in the Teotihuacan network were distributed in the area surrounding Lake Cuitzeo, b) The process of adoption and translation of Teotihuacan symbolic forms into the local fabric is seen as a result of endogeneous processes, and c) There was an increase in settlements during the middle Classic period with concomitant increase in social inequality as seen in architectural structures, burial practices and associated offerings. The Cuitzeo Basin people not only accepted Teotihuacan artifacts in their religious factory but re-produced many of them using local resources. Although many authors consider the reproduction of Teotihuacan originals in a negative way, I suggest that local reproduction implies that the need to preserve Teotihuacan prestige goods was of considerable significance for the maintenance of local societal structures, especially when access to the original is –for whatever reason– impossible. Additionally, local reproduction of prestige goods is, to a certain extent, antisystemic in that, in reducing the need for importation, it halts the centralization of resources in the core.

Most important, Teotihuacan succeeded in ‘persuading’ hundreds of culturally diverse regions on the symbolic value of green obsidian and other cultic paraphernalia. Certainly, their persuasion was aided by the fact that there is a single source of green translucent obsidian in Mesoamerica and its distribution was controlled by Teotihuacan. The process of negotiating value of preciosities will possibly remain unknown to us, but it is undoubtedly conditioned by the relative power of actors at either end of the spectrum. A wonderful example is the ship’s biscuit conveyed from the arriving Hernando Cortis [sic] through Indian emissaries to the Aztec king Motecuhzoma. This biscuit was so exotic and valuable seeming, in the context of Aztec ideology, that, it is said, Motecuhzoma had it buried in the Quetzalcoatl temple at Tula (Duran 1967:510-511; another version has colored glass beads instead of a biscuit [Sahagzn (sic)1975:724-725] (cited in Kowaleski 1996:31).

When changes result from external processes, they cannot be considered systemic since they may affect the system without being part of it. Only internal processes are interactive and systemic. The stone monuments in the Maya area with significant Teotihuacan elements illustrate how local processes were affected by interaction with Teotihuacan. The inhabitants of the Cuitzeo Basin sites locally reproduced Teotihuacan symbols of power, deposited Teotihuacan-related artifacts as burial offerings, and added Teotihuacan architectural details on a number of terraced platforms. For example, at the site of Santa Maria, Cuitzeo Basin, Manzanilla (1984:67) reports that high rank individuals were buried in the ceremonial zone in contrast to commoners who were buried under the floors of the rooms. The Teotihuacanrelated offerings were deposited exclusively in the elite burials along with local artifacts. Some of the imported prestige goods include amber earspools, turquoise and jade beads and the sculpted figure of a cross-legged

In addition to the rarity of green obsidian, the Teotihuacan system involved the production of highly elaborate decorated ceramic vessels which required specialized skills. These ‘labor-value-added’ (Peregrine 1991) artefacts may increase interdependency and even regulate the exchange in subsistence goods in periods of trade and demographic unstableness (Wheeler PiresFerreira 1978a:59, Feinman et al. 1996:67). The additional value of prestige goods economy is that transport energetics would not have been a major problem since preciosities possess a high value per unit of weight (e.g., Santley and Alexander 1996:193). The exchange of preciosities requires the examination of the systemness of the system; ‘systemness implies that things which happen in one locality have important consequences for either the reproduction or the change of 112

Information exchange and systemic interdependence

Therefore there was a process of conscious stylistic channelization so as to control the degree of Teotihuacan ‘influence’ and ensure ‘that it remains objectifiable, and thus, observable, controllable, and censurable’(Wobst 1999:122). Change is often unpredictable, and the ‘fear of cultural hegemony often leads to certain strategies such as limiting the amounts and kinds of products, for example, India did not allow Coke to be sold between 1977-1993’ (Jandt 2001:336). In strict world systemic parlance the Cuitzeo Basin fits into the category of a semi-periphery for the following reasons: a) It does not resemble in any way the peripheral sites in Teotihuacan’s inner hinterland (‘primary periphery’) where the vast majority of material culture is purely Teotihuacan and whose agricultural production was destined for Teotihuacan, b) They maintained a relative degree of autonomy and deliberately transformed Teotihuacan elements into the local fabric, c) Foreign elements are present from other regions as well such as West Mexico and the El Bajío culture in southern Guanajuato, and d) Nothing so far indicates that Teotihuacan or any other societal unit held control of the sites. And as Hall and Chase Dunn (1996:18) postulate, when the nature of intersocietal stratification is not supported by military coercion, the adoption of core-like features is rather quick. As a semi-periphery, the Cuitzeo Basin would have facilitated Teotihuacan’s Fig. 8.1b: green-tinged connections farther to Western aragonite figure, and Northern Mesoamerica.

individual very similar to examples from Teotihuacan (figs. 8.1 and 8.2).6 At the site of Tres Cerritos, Cuitzeo Basin, Offering 1 was deposited in front of Mound 2 of the North Plaza and yielded: 50 Teotihuacan-related items, shell artifacts and 1,725 circular conch beads among other items. At the same site, Burial 8 of the North plaza also presented Teotihuacan-related artifacts in association with local materials: from a total of 51 bowls, some types are Teotihuacan related such as one al secco bowl, 2 red-on-brown incised tripod bowls and three red-on-brown incised jars, a sello with the representation of the Feathered Serpent, and two fragmented green obsidian prismatic blades (Macías Goytia 1997:227). In the adjacent State of Guanajuato, Teotihuacan artifacts are also encountered within burial contexts indicating the ideological significance of the imported items (Saint Charles Zetina Fig. 8.1a: travertine (?) figure, Santa Maria, 1996:155). The individuals of Michoacán the Cuitzeo Basin not only adopted Teotihuacan artifacts in the local repertory but also, as did individuals from Oaxaca and the Gulf Coast area, went to Teotihuacan, established foreign barrios and interacted with the Teotihuacanos on a daily basis. This interaction was not a negligible event. The archaeological record reflects the need of all individuals involved to register the change that occured. When a change occurs individuals most certainly have the desire to ‘come to terms with, express and record change. . . there is also a movement towards forging a revitalised identity . . . given substance and a fleeting sense of permanence by expressing experience materially’ (Taçon 1999:122).

Teotihuacan

Exegetical models regarding Teotihuacan’s expansion into other regions argue that local resources were of interest to the Teotihuacanos. However, it is difficult to propose what kinds of resources may have been of interest to the Teotihuacanos in the Cuitzeo Basin. Possibly it was cinnabar which was used as pigment and they had to import it. Cinnabar can be found in a zone that comprises the States of Michoacán and Chiapas (Sierra Madre del Sur), and it also occurs in the States of Guanajuato and Queretaro (Castillo Tejero 1969:50, Millon 1976:232).

Sites’ differentials regard also how much of Teotihuacan was present. Was this determined by the Teotihuacan or by the local actors? Possibly both, since the corpus of Teotihuacan artifacts exchanged had a symbolic value which should be negotiated in order to be compatible with their interests. At Monte Albán for example, Teotihuacan imagery was present for the elite but hidden from the populace. In contrast, in the Maya area, some Teotihuacan-related monuments such as the stelae constituted public statements of the relationship with Teotihuacan. In the Cuitzeo Basin, Teotihuacan ideology was manifested in a very discreet way, encoded in symbolic imagery possibly to be read only by those who were acquainted with Teotihuacan symbols. It implies, in addition, some resistance to the wholesale adoption of the Teotihuacan ideology since their own ethnic identity would be at stake by the presence of foreign elements.

Dependency cannot be postulated for the Maya area as well. The Maya area was inhabited by thousands of people with a common cultural and linguistic system, but continuous warfare caused political segmentation. Large sites such as Tikal and Copán were consumers rather than producers of craft products. Data, however, do not suggest that there was a hierarchical dependency among sites (Porter and King 1995:24). Maya sites interacting with Teotihuacan attest to interactions with other areas as well. For example, Marcus (2001:200) postulates that the site of Copán had ties with Tikal and Kaminaljuyu and that they were as important as Teotihuacan regarding the material evidence. ‘Tikal and Kaminaljuyu (or some

6

At the sherd library at Teotihuacán, there are sculptures of the same material (M.A. Trinidad, personal communication, 2000).

113

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

intervening sites) may have been mediators in a multi-site network that ultimately linked Copán with the central Mexican highlands’ (Marcus 2001:200). Nevertheless, the material evidence available for other – than Teotihuacan – sites does not indicate appropriation of their ideologies. The only appropriation of a foreign ideology by the Maya sites was that of Teotihuacan, namely the militarysacrifice complex and the Storm God imagery (Schele and Miller 1986:184, C. Millon 1988:130). Possibly Teotihuacan took advantage of the widespread warfare that was taking place among the Maya but this does not necessarily imply that the a deployment of Teotihuacan imagery indicates that the Teotihuacanos influenced directly the course of events.7 Most Maya stelae record rulers’ claims of conquest and these conquests were sources of royal power; ‘As with any institution, divine kingship involves . . . human mortals b fulfilling divine roles that Fig. 8.2: Travertine vessels: have to be “continually a.Puebla and b. Michoacán renegotiated and redefined” ’ (Houston and Stuart 1996:308 see also Hassig 1992:71, Martin and Grube 2001).

secondary periphery clienteles situated around them. It was not because of the interaction with Teotihuacan that the Maya sites were in a cultural and economical apex. Sites such as Tikal and Copán were fully developed by 100-400 CE, that is, before the arrival of ‘foreigners’ (Marcus 2001:202). In conclusion, the picture that has emerged involves an asymmetrical network with a varied number of systemic articulations. In some sites, Teotihuacan possibly established enclaves with economic implications and a core/periphery dependency can be inferred. Tight political, ideological and economic control was exercised on its inner hinterland which also served as a ‘shield’ of the core against potential threats. In areas beyond its inner periphery, transport costs would not allow Teotihuacan to either expand territorially or impose political dominion (Allen 1992, Santley and Alexander 1996). Hence the need arose to develop alternative stratagems which, though undoubtedly successful for a while, were not meant to last. 8.2

Future research

This work is, I hope, a starting point for investigating an aspect of the prehistory of the Occidente, and it regards interactions between the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan. The geographic coverage and the range of data indicate that interaction between the two regions is much larger than previously suspected. Moreover, the world system perspective shows that the Mesoamerican world system during its Teotihuacan phase was characterized by a corpus of shared ideological and ritual concepts. This study also proposes that the structure of this system was uneven and there was a remarkable differential response to the Teotihuacan phenomenon. As with any research project, a few interesting points emerged.

Another advantage regarding Teotihuacan’s presence in the Maya area is the rainforest environment of the southern lowlands which did not allow the emergence of a single site in a central position that would have possibly resisted the presence of Teotihuacan in the area (Sabloff 1986:113). Price (1983:186) follows the world-system model and sees the Valley of Guatemala’s position as ‘weaker’ vis-à-vis Teotihuacan: ‘A peripheralized region, in Wallerstein’s terms, is politically weak, and the peripheral coastal lowlands in the Middle Classic bears out this generalization. The total size and scale of all architecture in the Valley of Guatemala, though greater than once assumed, strongly implies ‘that at no time in its pre-conquest history was this area ever the nucleus of a state, either pristine or secondary.’ It should be emphasized that ‘weak’ by no means implies that the Maya sites were subordinate to Teotihuacan (e.g., Stein 1999:37). Rather, in the Classic period world-system, Maya sites can be viewed as secondary cores surrounded by their own peripheries (Blanton et al. 1992). Their political economies thus may have involved the distribution of lesser quantities of Teotihuacan goods to

First, the Cuitzeo Basin dataset is of course less than ‘perfect’ for the reasons cited in sec. 3.2. For example, more is known about ceramic vessels, less about figurines and stone implements. We know nothing about the ethnic identity of the individuals who inhabited the region, and whether they are related to the previous Chupícuaro and Postclassic Tarascan cultures. Of greater priority is the contextualization of the information available at present for West Mexico in general. This requires the collaboration of researchers working in distinct areas in West Mexico, and especially the establishment of a certain consensus regarding the nomenclature of ceramic types, which is a problem in itself. Many archaeologists follow the unproductive practice to ascribe regional names to pottery they excavate. The implications of this practice involve confusion as regards provenance of types and tend to dichotomize not only types but cultures, especially when there are strong indications that the same culture system was in operation. Also important is the delimitation of the sphere of the Cuitzeo Basin complex. I attempt to demonstrate that the

7

The distribution of Teotihuacan artifacts in the unstable Maya political milieu is just another facet of the success of the system.

114

Information exchange and systemic interdependence

Teotihuacan-related artifacts was clearly important since such a large number of sites manifest a certain kind of relationship with the City. Another problem—which is true for all regions interacting with Teotihuacan—is the lack of precise contemporaneity. More fine-grained periodizations are required, and also new projects focussing on the mechanisms and circumstances under which the local elites become aware of Teotihuacan symbolic ideas. Also, there is no information regarding the geographic coverage of the Teotihuacan phenomenon. To put it another way, what is the precise number of sites interacting with Teotihuacan in its inner and outer periphery?

area surrounding Lake Cuitzeo is homogeneous at large, but more evidence is required before assigning the label ‘culture’ to this complex. This area presents many artefactual similarities with the El Bajío zone in southern Guanajuato and Querétaro. Since the Cuitzeo Basin represents just a fraction of the vast area defined in Mesoamerican studies as West Mexico, research must expand to other areas where evidence for interaction with Teotihuacan has been also documented, such as the El Bajío, Colima and Jalisco. A question that needs further consideration is the nature of contacts between the Cuitzeo Basin and Teotihuacan. The available evidence relates that Teotihuacan artifacts were deposited as offerings in elite burials. The local reproduction of Thin Orange ceramics may indicate, however, that a larger number of individuals possibly had access to Teotihuacan-related items. Additionally, was the aquisition of Teotihuacan-related prestige goods motivated by status considerations or profit? Neither do we know whether the contraction of the Teotihuacan system had an impact on the local sites. Further research is needed in order to establish the reasons that triggered the interaction between the two areas.

Key-concepts of the world-system perspective are instrumental in order to understand processes of interaction that crosscuts cultural boundaries. Peripherality is definitely a ‘negotiated value’ because cores are also dependent on peripheries. Teotihuacan’s dependency, for instance, on its inner and outer periphery for the procurement of important resources was of utmost importance for the maintenance of the system. In addition many of the sites interacting with Teotihuacan had developed relations with other areas and this constitutes another question for further consideration. How do peripheries shape their strategies in a competing multicored system?

Equally important is the systematization of the evidence regarding the chronological phases that precede and succeed the apogee of the Teotihuacan state, if our aim is understanding processes of expansion and contraction of the Teotihuacan system. I discuss the distribution of the Preclassic Chupícuaro culture in Mesoamerica and suggest that interaction between West and Central Mexico was well estalished long before the emergence of the Teotihuacan state. In fact, many of the Cuitzeo Basin types, which are traditionally associated with Teotihuacan, might have their origin in the Preclassic period. To my knowledge, there is no systematic study regarding the presence of West Mexico in areas beyond the Basin of Mexico to the east.

The distribution of Teotihuacan prestige goods over a vast area and the expansion of this system was shaped by a particular ideology, but we still ignore the significance of Teotihuacan ideas in the local fabric. We also know that the Teotihuacan system suffered a contraction during the Epiclassic period and obsidian routes were realigned. In the same cultural milieu, that is Mesoamerica, new centers emerged, and the obsidian of Michoacán sources regained its Formative period preeminence. However, we do not know the origin of the people who exploited and/or controlled the Michoacán mines. Nevertheless, it would be presumptuous to postulate that the gray obsidian from Michoacán had a prestige value similar to the Teotihuacan-controlled green obsidian.

One of the thorniest problems in the archaeology of Mesoamerica is that of the ethnic composition of the Epiclassic Coyotlatelco culture. Research has not focussed on how the Coyotlatelco people settled in the Basin of Mexico during the contraction phase of the Teotihuacan system. In addition, the origin of the Coyotlatelco people and their relation to areas such as the El Bajío remains a postulate.

It is regrettable that the archaeology of northern Michoacán seems to be particularly ill-fated with incomplete archaeological projects, lack of interest by students and academics alike, and limited government funds. As a result, vast areas remain unexplored. It is ironic that looters from all over the country are well aware of the ‘archaeological potential’ of the region and systematically engage in illegal excavations.

Another lacuna involves the nature of Teotihuacan interaction with other areas. The evidence available for the Cuitzeo Basin is distinct from other cultural areas of Mesoamerica. Certainly, it seems that the data fit the ‘semi-periphery’ model in world systemic parlance. Despite the fact that major archaeological projects have been conducted during the past decade in other areas, such as the Maya for instance, there is still no agreement as regards the nature of interaction with Teotihuacan. Although we noticed the variation of responses to the Teotihuacan stimulus, we do not yet know the reasons that may account for this differentiation. The use of

. . .the right or ability to produce and disseminate accounts of the past can be constrained by law, custom, the existence of socially sanctioned competitors, and by financial resources. Although it would be wrong to claim that a denial of access to physical resources would silence popular unpopular interpretations, it would most definitely privilege those interpretations which

115

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

could engage more directly with physical data. By the same token, poorly resourced alternative pasts are difficult to produce, let alone disseminate (Murray 1993:108).

The above statement clearly illustrates the way research has been shaped in West Mexico. Until recently, many archaeological maps of Mesoamerica did not include West Mexico and researchers defined West Mexico as a ‘marginal area’ with little in common with the rest of Mesoamerica. Information regarding the cultures of this region remains still inaccessible to researchers within and outside Mexico. However, archaeologists investigating in particular processes of change in Central Mexico can no longer ostracize the Occidente from their research projects.

116

Appendix I

Museum and private collections Museum 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

Regional Museum of Michoacán, Morelia, Michoacán Museum of the State of Michoacán, Morelia, Michoacán National Museum of Anthropology and History, Mexico City Local Museum of Tzintzuntzan, Tzintzuntzan, Michoacán Museum of the Site of Teotihuacan, Teotihuacan, Mexico Regional Museum of Acámbaro, Acámbaro, Guanajuato National Institute of Anthropology and History Museum, Puebla Amparo Museum, Puebla Site Museum, Xochicalco, Xochicalco, Morelos Site Museum, Tula, Tula, Hidalgo Nuevo Chupícuaro Museum, Nuevo Chupícuaro, Guanajuato Local Museum, Felipe Carrillo Puerto, Michoacán

Private (name of owner and/or locality ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

Dr. O. T., Zinapécuaro, Michoacán Dr. P. F., Alvaro Obregón, Michoacán ‘Armando’, Emiliano Zapata, Michoacán ‘Martin’, Emiliano Zapata, Michoacán Municipal Church of Araró, Michoacán La Piedad Museum, La Piedad, Michoacán U. L. C., Zinapécuaro, Michoacán E. P., Zinapécuaro, Michoacán B. G. D., Taimeo, Michoacán J., Taimeo, Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán R. G., Queréndaro, Michoacán Fernando, Indaparapeo, Michoacán ‘El Pollo’, Chehuayo, Michoacán ‘El Gallo’, Chehuayo, Michoacán D. G., Ucareo, Michoacán J. M. S. C., Tiristarán, Michoacán J. S., La Presa, Michoacán S. G. B., Jeráhuaro, Michoacán

117

Appendix II

Provenance of samples of PIXE and XRD analyses Sample Type Context/Site No SM1 thin orange Santa Maria SM2 thin orange Burial 8, SM3, Santa Maria SM3 dark brown SM3 PI/3, Santa Maria excised SM4

light brown tripod cylindrical vase

Santa Maria

SM5 SM6 SM7 SM8

thin orange thin orange thin orange thin orange

SM9

orange

SM10

orange

SM11

orange

SM12 AO1 AO2 SM13

orange thin orange thin orange Red-on-black with negative

Santa Maria Santa Maria Santa Maria SM9, layer 3, Santa Maria Sm3 structure I, Santa Maria Sm3 Burial N8, Santa Maria SM3 strucutre5, layer 1, Santa Maria Santa Maria Alvaro Obregón Alvaro Obregón Santa Maria

SM14

red-on-buff with negative al secco white-on-red al secco al secco

SM15 SM16 AO3 AO4

Santa Maria Santa Maria Santa Maria Alvaro Obregón Alvaro Obregón

118

Comments Incised with motifs of ‘s’ Incised with parallel lines The excised parts are filled with a red pigment (see Berrin and Pasztory 1993:245, fig.124) Fragment of a cylindrical tripod vessel with rectangular supports. The motifs are incised and filled with a red pigment possibly cinnabar Rim of a miniature olla Motifs in negative decoration

Base sherd Base sherd

Motifs in negative decoration Incised motifs with dots and ‘s’ Red motifs executed with the negative technique against a black backround.

119

Quartz 75 81 16.7 72 66.2 36.6 99 72 80.8 87.7 94.6 27.8 45.1 61.6 18.8 43.8 83.5 11.2 18.9 17.5

Albite 13 6.9 7 4.9 31 56.1 -

Source: after Bucio et al. 2001:Table 2

sm1 sm 2 sm 3 sm 4 sm 5 sm 6 sm 7 sm 8 sm 9 sm 10 sm 11 sm 12 sm 13 sm 14 sm 15 sm 16 ao1 ao2 ao3 ao4

Sample Biotite 5.5 5.1 10.6 -

Composition (%) of mineralogical phases determined by XRD Montmoril. Cristobalite Anorthoclase Orthoclase Muscovite 6.7 6.7 25.4 30 6 15 10.1 12.9 43.9 19.4 28 7.2 5.3 72.1 54.8 24.5 13.8 50.1 7.5 8.9 23.7 23.9 22.3 58.7 40.3 42.1 Wuestite 19.1 -

X 27.7 1 41 -

Appendix III: XRD Results

120

Ca 15.9 8.16 4.01 4.80 4.72 4.91 3.97 20.3 5.65 5.43

Ti 27.0 32.8 27.2 34.9 32.5 22.6 25.4 37.5 27.5 35.3 46.8 41.0 52.8 42.8 42.3 35.7 15.1 38.0 38.7 32.4

Mn 36.4 37.4 53.3 34.3 50.7 67.5 58.6 46.8 59.2 42.7 37.0 33.4 25.9 33.7 33.5 42.4 49.6 41.2 41.8 47.9

Source: after Bucio et al. 2001:Table 3

sm1 sm2 sm3 sm4 sm5 sm6 sm7 sm8 sm9 sm10 sm11 sm12 sm13 sm14 sm15 sm16 ao1 ao2 ao3 ao4

Sample

Normalized X rays with respect to Fe (%) identified by PIXE Cu Zn Ga As Rb Sr Y 1.33 7.89 0.95 2.07 5.76 1.32 9.11 0.99 2.97 2.83 1.21 5.06 1.20 0.26 6.06 1.42 8.48 1.17 0.35 6.63 0.36 1.40 6.64 1.38 2.90 1.42 0.20 0.16 2.94 1.07 0.72 3.00 0.87 6.45 1.33 2.42 2.18 0.69 4.33 1.96 0.42 4.22 1.09 3.92 1.16 3.12 2.01 2.16 5.76 1.46 2.67 3.36 1.65 4.53 1.85 3.05 1.73 0.15 1.55 6.90 2.29 0.32 1.43 5.52 0.28 1.69 6.70 1.83 1.92 6.09 2.26 6.02 2.06 2.52 6.79 2.26 6.01 0.86 0.87 7.46 1.08 5.03 0.95 0.74 8.01 0.75 5.80 0.61 0.85 1.56 2.99 1.53 6.60 1.98 0.51 1.76 6.64 0.92 3.85 0.64 0.84 5.41 1.14 4.37 1.00 0.94 4.95 Zr 1.59 2.52 1.24 2.52 1.60 1.28 1.62 3.07 1.68 1.55 1.97 2.59 2.39 2.75 1.35 1.47 1.72 1.86 1.49 1.27

Pb 1.08 1.86 0.49 1.08 1.20 0.74 1.12 1.03 1.30 0.78 1.08 0.51 0.55 0.68 0.71 0.57

Hg 8.8 -

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abercrombie, N., Hill S. and B. S. Turner 1980 The Dominant Ideology Thesis. London: George Allen & Unwin.

Mexicana I, ed. B.Barba de Piña Chán, 27–36. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Abu-Lughod, J. L. 1989 Before European hegemony: The world system, AD 1250–1350. New York: Oxford University Press.

Armillas, P. 1948 Arqueología Central, Occidental y de Guerrero. In El Occidente de México.Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda sobre Problemas Antropológicos de México y Centro America, 211–216. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1967 Tecnología, Formaciones SocioEconómicas y Religión en Mesoamerica. In The Civilizations of Ancient America, ed. Sol Tax, 19–30. New York.

Acosta, J. 1972 El Epilogo de Teotihuacán. In Teotihuacan XI Mesa Redonda, 149–156. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Adams, R.E.W. 1977 Prehistoric Mesoamerica. Brown and Company.

Arnauld, C., Carot, P and M.F. Fauvet-Berthelot 1993 Arqueología de Las Lomas en la Cuenca Lacustre de Zacapu, Michoacán, México. Cuadernos de Estudios Michoacanos 5. México: CEMCA. 1996 Investigaciones Palioambientales en la Cuenca Lacustre de Zacapu: Programas “Michoacán II” y “Laguna”. In Las Cuencas del Occidente de México, ed. P. Weigand and E. Williams, 61–81. México: El Colegio de Michoacán.

Boston: Little

Adams, W.Y. and E.W. Adams 1991 Archaeological typology and practical reality. A Dialectical Approach to Artifact Classification and Sorting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Aguilera, C. 2001 Turquoise. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D.Carrasco, 276– 277. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.

Arnold, J. E. 1995 Social Inequality, Marginalization, and Economic Process. In Foundations of Social Inequality. A Focus on Strategies and Processes, ed. T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, 87–103. New York: Plenum Press.

Algaze, G. 1993 Expansionary Dynamics of Some Early Pristine States. American Anthropologist 95 (2): 304– 333.

Arnold, P. P. 2001a Colors. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D.Carrasco, [1]: 236. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc. 2001b Rain deities. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D.Carrasco, [3]:56–57. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.

Allen, M. 1992 The Mechanisms of Underdevelopment. An Ancient Mesopotamian Example. Review: 453– 76. Anawalt, P. R. 1981 Indian clothing before Cortés: Mesoamerican costumes from the codices. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1984 Memory Clothing: Costumes Associated with Aztec Human Sacrifice. In Ritual Human Sacrifice In Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th , ed. E. H. Boone, 165–193. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Aveni, A. 1989 The Role of Astronomical Orientation in the Delineation of World View: A Center and Periphery Model. In The Imagination of Matter. Religion and Ecology in Mesoamerican Traditions, ed. D. Carrasco, 85–102. Oxford: BAR International Series. Baird, E. T. 1989 Stars and War at Cacaxtla. In Mesoamerica after theDecline of Teotihuacan: AD 700–900, ed. R. A. Diehl and C. J. Berlo, 105–122. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Angulo Villaseñor., J. 1996 Teotihuacán. Aspectos de la cultura a través de su expresión pictórica. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México. I TEOTIHUACAN. Tomo II Estudios, ed. B. de la Fuente, 65–186. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1998 Disquisiciones sobre el ave falconiforme representada en Teotihuacán. In Iconografía

121

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

167. Ajijic: Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de México.

Baker, C. M. 1978 The Size Effect: an Explanation of Variability in Surface Artifact Assemblage Content. American Antiquity 43 (2):288–293.

Bell, J.A. 1994 Interpretation and testability in theories about prehistoric thinking. In The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. Zubrow, 15–21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ball, J. W. 1974 A Teotihuacan-Style Cache from the Maya Lowlands. Archaeology 27(1):2–9. 1983 Teotihuacán, the Maya, and Ceramic Interchange: A Contextual Perspective. In HighlandLowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks Oct. 18th and 19th, 1980. ed. A. Miller 125–145. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Bennyhoff, J. A 1966 Chronology and Periodization: continuity and change in the Teotihuacán ceramic tradition. In Teotihuacán XI Mesa Redonda, 19–29. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Benson, E.P. 1997 Birds and Beasts of Ancient Latin America. Gainesville: University Press of Florida. 2001a Frogs and Toads. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D. Carrasco, [1]: 421. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc. 2001b Eagles. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D.Carrasco, [1]:349–350. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.

Barber, E. J. W. 1999 Colour in Early Cloth and Clothing. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):117–120. Barbour, W. T. D. 2000 More Human and Divine: Understanding the Changing Roles of Figurines in Teotihuacán society (http://archaeology.la.asu.edu/Teo/SS/notesI/1.htm). Barker, A. W. 1999 Digging Through Material Symbols. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 399–406. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Berdan, F. F. 1977 Ports of Trade in Mesoamerica: a Reappraisal. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts ed. T.A. Lee and C. Navarrete, 187–198. Utah: New World Archaeological Foundation.

Baudrillard, J. 1996 The System of Objects. Translated by J. Benedict. London and New York: Verso. Baumann, G. 1992 Ritual implicates ‘Others’: rereading Durkheim in a plural society. In Understanding Rituals, ed. D. de Coppet, 97–116. London and New York: Routledge.

Berdan, F. F. and M. E. Smith 1996 Imperial Strategies and Core–Periphery Relations. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, ed. F. F. Berdan, R. E. Blanton, E. H. Boone, M. G. Hodge, M. E. Smith and E. Umberger, 209–217. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Beekman, C. 1996a El Complejo El Grillo del Centro de Jalisco: Una revisión de su cronología y significado. In Las Cuencas del Occidente de México, ed. P. Weigand and E. Williams, 247–292. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1996b Political Boundaries and Political Structure. The Limits of the Teuchitlán Tradition. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 135–147. Bejarano, E. J. 1977 Presencia Teotihuacana en Guanajuato. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, 335–342. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato.

Berlo, J. C. 1984 Teotihuacan Art Abroad: A Study of Metropolitan Style and Provincial Transformation in Incensario Workshops. Oxford: B.A.R. International Series. 1989a Early Writing in Central Mexico: In Tlilli, In Tlapalli before AD 1000. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700–900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 19–47. Washington D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1989b The Concept of the Epiclassic: A Critique. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacán AD 700–900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 209–210. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Bell, B. 1971 Excavations at El Cerro Encantado, Jalisco. In The Archaeology of West México, ed. B. Bell, 147–

Berlo, J. C. (ed.) 1992 Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 122

Bibliography

Blanton, R. E., Kowaleski S. A. and G. M Feinman 1992 The Mesoamerican World–System. Review 15:3 (Summer):418–426.

Bernal, I. 1969 The Olmec World. Berkeley: University of California Press. Berrin, K. 1993 Unknown Treasures: The Unexpected in Teotihuacan Art. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 75–87. London: Thames and Hudson.

Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowaleski and P. N. Peregrine 1996 A Dual–Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization. Current Anthropology 37[1]: 1–85.

Berrin, K. (ed.) 1988 Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees. Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacán. The Fine Arts Museums of San Fransisco.

Blanton, R., Kowaleski S., Feinman, G. and J. Appel 1981 Ancient Mesoamerica. A Comparison of Change in Three Regions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berrin, K. and E. Pasztory (eds.) 1993 Teotihuacán. Art from the City of the Gods. London: Thames and Hudson.

Boone, E. H. 1992 Foreword. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan. A Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks 8th and 9th October 1988 ed. J. C. Berlo, vii–ix. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Beyer, H. 1922 Relaciones entre la Civilización Teotihuacana y la Azteca. In La Población del Valle de Teotihuacan, ed. M. Gamio, 273–293. México: Instituto Nacional Indigenista.

Boone, E. H, (ed.) 1984 Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th, 1979. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Binford, L. 1999 Forces that Shaped the Past. Origins of the New Archaeology. Archaeology (Jan/Feb):54.

Borhegyi, S. F. 1971 Pre-Columbian contacts—the dryland approach: the impact and influence of Teotihuacan Culture on the pre-Columbian civilizations of Mesoamerica. In Man across the sea, ed. C. Riley, 79–105. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Birken, L. 1999 Chaos Theory and “Western Civilization”. Review XXII (1): 17–30. Bloch, M. and J. Parry 1982 Introduction: death and the regeneration of life. In Death and the regeneration of life, ed. M. Bloch and J. Parry, 1–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Borowicz, J. 2001 Images of Power and the Power of Images: Early Classic Iconographic Programs of the Carved Monuments of Tikal. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 137–150. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bloch, M. and J. Parry (eds) 1982 Death and the regeneration of life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bove, F. J. 1990 The Teotihuacan-Kaminaljuyú-Tikal Connection: A View from the South Coast of Guatemala. In The Sixth Palenque Round Table 1986, ed. M. G. Robertson and V. M Fields, 135–142. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Blanton, R. E. 1983a The Founding of Monte Albán. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 83–87. New York: Academic Press. 1983b Some differences in Urban and Rural Settlement Patterns between Monte Albán and Teotihuacan. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 166–167. New York: Academic Press. 1983c The Urban Decline of Monte Albán. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 186. New York: Academic Press. Blanton, R. and G. Feinman 1984 The Mesoamerican World American Anthropologist 86:673–682.

Bove, F. J. and S. Medrano Busto 2001 Teotihuacan, Militarism, and Pacific Guatemala. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 25–46. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bradley, R. 1991 Ritual, time and history. World Archaeology 23 (2): 209–219. 1993 Archaeology: the loss of nerve. In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda?, ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 131–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

System.

123

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

1999 Morales, Guanajuato, y la tradición Tolteca. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Brambila, R. 1988 Los estudios de la cerámica anaranjada delgada: ensayo bibliográfico. In Ensayos de alfareria prehispánica e histórica de Mesoamerica. Homenaje a Eduardo Noguera, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and C. Navarrete Caceres, 221–247. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. 1996 La delimitación del Territorio en el México Prehispánico y el Concepto de la Frontera. In Tiempo y Territorio en Arqueología. El Centro Norte de México, ed. A. M. Crespo and C. Viramontes, 15–21. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Braswell, G. E. 2001a Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 1–24. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2001b Dating Early Classic Interaction Between Kaminaljuyú and Central Mexico. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 47–62. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2001c Understanding Early Classic Interaction Between Kaminaljuyú and Central Mexico. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 63–86. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Brambila, R. Castañeda C., Crespo A. M., Duran T., Flores L. M. and J. C. Saint-Charles Zetina 1988 Problemas de las sociedades prehispánicas del Centro Occidente de México. Resumen. In Primera Reunión sobre las Sociedades Prehispánicas en el Centro Occidente de México. Memoria Cuaderno de Trabajo 1, 11–21. México: Centro Regional de Queretaro and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Brown, B. 1984 Ochpaniztli in Historical Perspective. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th, 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 195–210. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Brambila, R. and R. Cabrera (eds.) 1998 Los ritmos de cambio en Teotihuacán: reflexiones y discusiones de su cronologia. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Brown, K. L. 1977 The Valley of Guatemala: a Highland Port of Trade. In Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyú: a Study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, ed. W. T. Sanders and J. W. Michels, 411–439. College Park: Pennsylvania: State University Press.

Brambila, R. and M.Velasco 1988 Materiales de La Negreta y la expansión de Teotihuacán al norte. In Primera Reunión sobre las Sociedades Prehispánicas en el Centro Occidente de México. Memoria, 286–297. Mexico: Centro Regional de Queretaro and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Brumfiel, E. M. 1988 Factional competition in complex society. In Domination and Resistance, ed. D. Miller et al., 29–39. London: Unwin Hyman. 1994 Factional Competition and political development in the New World: an introduction. In Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World, ed. E. M. Brumfiel and J. W. Fox, 3– 13. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies: Comments. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies ed. R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley and J. C. Levy, 125–130. Archaeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 6.

Brams, S. J. 1975 Game Theory and Politics. New York: The Free Press. Braniff, B. 1970 Greca escalonada en el norte de Mesoamérica. Boletín 42: 38–40. 1972Secuencias Arqueológicas en Guanajato y La Cuenca de México: Intento de Correlación. In Teotihuacan XI Mesa Redonda, 273–324. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1975 Algunas representaciones de la greca escalonada en el norte de Mesoamérica, (Segunda parte). Anales del INAH (1972-73): 23–30. 1988 Oscilación de la Frontera Norte Mesoamericana: un nuevo ensayo. Arqueología 1:99–114. 1993 Arqueología en la Gran Chichimeca. In Antropología e Interdisciplina. XXIII Mesa Redonda, Homenaje a Pedro Carrasco, ed. M. H. Ruz and J. Arechiga, 133–7. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1998 Morales, Guanajuato, y la tradición Chupícuaro. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Brumfiel, E. M. and T. K. Earle 1987 Specialization, exchange, and complex societies: an introduction. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, ed. E. M. Brumfiel and T. K. Earle, 1–9. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Brumfiel, E. M. and J.W. Fox (eds.) 1994 Factional Competition and Political Development in the New World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

124

Bibliography

Bucio, L., Filini, A. and J. L. Ruvalcaba Sil 2001 Estudios PIXE y de Difracción de Rayos X de Cerámicas de la Cuenca de Cuitzeo. In Arqueometría, proyectos y técnicas de investigación arqueológica, ed. E. Cárdenas García, 22–34. México: El Colegio de Michoacán.

1993 La tradición arquitectónica de los patios hundidos en la Vertiente del Lerma Medio. In Las Cuencas del Occidente de México, ed. P.C. Weigand and E.Williams, 157–183. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1999 El Bajío en el Protoclásico (300-650 d.C.). Análisis regional y organización política. Mexico: El Colegio de Michoacán.

Bunzel, Ruth L. 1929 The Pueblo Potter. A Study of Creative Imagination in Primitive Art. New York: Columbia University Press.

Carlson, J. B. 1993 Venus-regulated Warfare and Ritual Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. In Astronomies and Cultures, ed. C. L. N. Ruggles and N. J. Saunders, 202–252. Niwot: University Press of Colorado.

Burkert, W. 1983 Homo Necans. The Anthropology of Ancient Greek Sacrificial Ritual and Myth. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Carlson, J. D. 2001 Broadening and Deepening: Systemic Expansion, Incorporation and the Zone of Ignorance. Journal of World-Systems Research VII(2):225–263 (http://csf.colorado.edu./jwsr)

Butterwick, K. 1998 Food for the Dead. The West Mexican Art of Feasting. In Ancient West Mexico. Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past, ed. R. F. Townsend, 89–105. London: Thames and Hudson.

Carmack, R. M., Gasco, J. and G. H. Gossen 1996 The Legacy of Mesoamerica. History and Culture of a Native American Civilization. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Byers, M. 1994 Symboling and the Middle-Upper Palaeolithic Transition. Current Anthropology 35(4): 360–399.

Carmichael, P. 1991 Interpreting Nasca Iconography. In Ancient Images, Ancient Thought. The Art of Ideology, ed. A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D. Selin and J. Smith, 187–197. Canada:University of Calgary.

Cabrera Castro, R. 1989 La costa de Michoacán en la epoca prehispánica. In Historia General de Michoacán vol.1, ed. E. Florescano, 137–153. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán e Instituto Michoacano de Cultura. 1993a Human Sacrifice at the Temple of the Feathered Serpent. Recent Discoveries at Teotihuacán. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 101–107. London: Thames and Hudson. 1993b Objetos de molienda de Carapan, Michoacán, que sugieren relaciones con culturas de Centroamerica. In Arqueología del Occidente y Norte de México, ed. E. Williams and P. C. Weigand, 65– 92. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1998 Teotihuacán. Nuevos Datos para el estudio de las rutas de comunicación. In Rutas de Intercambio en Mesoamerica. III Coloquio Pedro Bosch Gimpera, ed. E. Childs Rattray, 57–75. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México e Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.

Carneiro, R. L. 1970 A Theory of the Origin of the State. Science 169: 733–738. Carot, P. 1990 La Originalidad de Loma Alta, Sitio Protoclásico de la Cienega de Zacapu. In La Época Clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas, ed. A. Cardos de Mendez, 293–306. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1992 La cerámica protoclásica del sitio de Loma Alta, Municipio de Zacapu, Michoacán: nuevos datos. In Origen y Desarrollo en el Occidente de México, ed. B. B. de Lameiras and P. C. Weigand, 69–101. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1994 Loma Alta, Antigua Isla Funeraria en la Cienega de Zacapu, Michoacán. In Arqueología del Occidente de México, ed. E. Williams and R. Novella, 93–121. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. Le site de Loma Alta, Lac de Zacapu, 2001 Michoacan, Mexique. BAR International Series 920. Oxford: BAR Publishing

Cabrera Castro, R. and G. Cowgill 1993 El Templo de Quetzalcoatl. Arqueología Mexicana 1: 21–26.

Caso, A. 1962 Calendario y Escritura en Xochicalco. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Cárdenas García, E. 1992 Avance y perspectivas de la investigación de las fuentes de abastecimiento de obsidiana. In Origen y Desarrollo en el Occidente de México, ed. B. B. de Lameiras and P. C. Weigand, 41–68. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 125

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

C. Knight and C. Power, 34–49. Edinburgh University Press.

Caso, A., Bernal, I. and J.Acosta 1967 La cerámica de Monte Albán. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Edinburgh:

Chase-Dunn, C. 1992 The Comparative Study of World-Systems. Review 15:3 (Summer):313–333.

Castañeda, C. Crespo, A. M. and L. M. Flores 1996 Santa Maria del Refugio: Una Ocupación de la fase Tlamimilolpa en el Bajío. In Tiempo y Territorio en Arqueología. El Centro Norte de México, ed. A. M. Crespo and C. Viramontes, 161– 178. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Chase-Dunn, C. and T. D. Hall 1997 Rise and Demise: Comparing WorldSystems. Boulder: Westview Press. Cheek, C. D. 1977 Teotihuacán Influence at Kaminaljuyú. In Teotihuacán and Kaminaljuyú: a study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, ed. W. T. Sanders and J. W. Michels, 441–452. Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.

Castillo Tejero, N. 1969 Algunas técnicas decorativas de la cerámica arqueológica de México. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1974La Llamada Cerámica Polícroma Mixteca no es un Producto Mixteco. Comunicaciones (Proyecto Puebla-Tlaxcala) 11:7–11.

Chilton, E. S. (ed.) 1999 Material Meanings. Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Castillo Tejero, N. and J. Litvak King 1968 Un sistema de estudio para formas de vasijas. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Clark, J. E. 1994 Instrumentos y ornamentos de obsidiana. In Cristales y obsidiana prehispánicos, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and F. Solis Olguin, 41–51. México: Siglo XXI Editores.

Castro Leal, M. 1988 Introducción. In Historia General de Michoacán, ed. E. Florescano, 1:113–119. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán e Instituto Michoacano de Cultura.

Clark, J. E. and M. Blake 1996 The Power of Prestige: Competitive Generosity and the Emergence of Rank Societies in Lowland Mesoamerica. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, 259–281. Oxford: Blackwell.

Chadwick, R. 1971 Archaeological Synthesis of Michoacán and Adjacent Regions. In Handbook of Middle American Indians vol. 10 Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, ed. G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal, 657– 693. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Cobean, R. 1990 La Cerámica de Tula, Hidalgo. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Charlton, T. H. 1977 Teotihuacán: Trade routes of a multi-tiered economy. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, 285–299. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato. 1991 The influence and legacy of Teotihuacán on regional routes and urban planning. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, ed. C. D. Trombold, 186–197. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cobean, R. and A. G. Mastache 1988 The Late Classic and Early Postclassic Chronology of the Tula Region. In Tula of the Toltecs. Excavations and Survey, ed. D. M. Healan, 34–46. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. Cobean, R., A. G. Mastache, A. M. Crespo, and C. L. Diaz 1981 La Cronología de la Región de Tula. In Interacción Cultural en México Central, ed. E. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 187–214. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Chase, D. Z. 1988 Caches and Censerwares: Meaning from Maya Pottery. In A Pot for All Reasons. Ceramic Ecology Revisited. A Special Publication of Cerámica de Cultura Maya ed. C. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey, 81–104. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Coe, M.D. 1993 The Maya. London: Thames and Hudson. 2001 Supernatural Patrons of Maya Scribes and Artists. In The Decipherment of Ancient Maya Writing, ed. S. Houston, O. Chinchilla Mazariegos and D. Stuart, 433–448. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

Chase, P. G. 1999 Symbolism as Reference and Symbolism as Culture. In The Evolution of Culture, ed. R. Dunbar,

126

Bibliography

Coggins, C. C. 1983 An instrument of Expansion: Monte Albán, Teotihuacán, and Tikal. In Higland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches, ed. A. Miller, 49–68. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1993 The Age of Teotihuacan and Its Mission Abroad. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 141–155. London: Thames and Hudson.

Corona Esquivel, R. 1993 Vidrio y cristales en la naturaleza. In Cristales y obsidiana prehispánicos, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and F. Solis Olguin, 13–17. México: Siglo XXI Editores.

Cohodas, M. 1989 The Epiclassic Problem: A Review and Alternative Model. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 219–240. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Corona Sánchez., E. 1970 Hallazgo arqueológico en Tiristarán. Boletín 42: 31–33. 1977 El sistema de chinampas y las formaciones de estado en la Cuenca de México. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, 253–263. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato.

Corona-Nuñez, J. 1972 Los Teotihuacanos en el Occidente de México. In Teotihuacán, XI Mesa Redonda, 253–256. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Conides, C. A. 2001a The Stuccoed and Painted Ceramics from Teotihuacán, México: A Study of Authorship and Function of Works of Art From an Ancient Mesoamerican City. PhD dissertation. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, Columbia University. 2001b New Interpretations of Pictorial Themes on Teotihuacán Stuccoed and Painted Ceramics. (http://archaeology.la.asu.edu/teo/notes/SS/notesI_1.h tm)

Covarrubias, M. 1948 Tipología de la Industria de Piedra Tallada y Pulida de la Cuenca del Río Mezcala. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 86–90. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1966 Indian Art of Mexico and Central America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Conkey, M. 1988 The Use of Diversity in Stylistic Analysis. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, ed. R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones, 118–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1991 Experimenting with style in archaeology: some historical and theoretical issues. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 5–17. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1999 An End Note. Reframing Materiality for Archaeology. In Material Meanings. Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. S. Chilton, 133–139. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Cowgill, G. L. 1977 Processes of Growth and Decline at Teotihuacán: the City and the State. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, 183–193. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato. 1987 Métodos para el estudio de relaciones espaciales en los datos de la superficie de Teotihuacán. In Teotihuacán. Nuevos datos, Nuevas sintesis, Nuevos problemas, ed. E. McClung de Tapia and E. C. Rattray, 161–189. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1989 The Concept of Diversity in Archaeological Theory. In Quantifying Diversity in Archaeology, ed. R. D. Leonard and G. T. Jones, 131– 141. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 Teotihuacan Glyphs and Imagery in the Light of Some Early Colonial Texts. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, 231–246. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1993 What We Still Don’t Know about Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacán. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 117–125. London: Thames and Hudson. 1996 Discussion. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:325– 331. 1997 State and Society at Teotihuacán, México. Annual Review in Anthropology 26:129–61. 2001 Teotihuacan and the Maya. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic

Conkey, M. and C. A. Hastorf 1991 Introduction. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 1–4. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Conkey, M. and C. A. Hastorf (eds.) 1991 The Uses of Style in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cook de Leonard, C. 1956 Algunos Antecedentes de la cerámica Tolteca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos XIV:37–41. 1957 El origen de la cerámica anaranjada delgada. M.A. thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

127

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 209–221. University of Texas Press.

Davis, W. 1988 Style and history in art history. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 18–31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Austin:

Crespo, A. M. 1996 La Tradición cerámica del Blanco Levantado. In Tiempo y Territorio en Arqueología. El Centro-Norte de México, ed. A. M. Crespo and C. Viramontes, 77–91. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Delgado, A. 1999 Gráfica prehispánica de Michoacán, aproximación al diseño gráfico ancestral. México: Instituto Michoacano de Cultura y Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.

Crespo, A. M. and A. G. Mastache 1981 La Presencia en el area de Tula, Hidalgo, de grupos relacionados con el Barrio de Oaxaca en Teotihuacán. In Interacción Cultural en México Central, ed. E. C. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 100–106. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Demarest, A. A. 1984 Overview: Mesoamerican Human Sacrifice in Evolutionary Perspective. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th, 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 227–247. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1996 Comment on ‘A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization’ by R. E. Blanton, G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowaleski and P. N. Peregrine. Current Anthropology 37(1):56

Crespo, A. M. and C. Viramontes (eds.) 1996 Tiempo y Arqueología. El Centro Norte de México. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Crumley, C. 1995 Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, ed. R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley and J. C. Levy, 1–31. Archaeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 6.

DeMarrais, E., L. J. Castillo and T. Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37(1):15–31. De Vega Nova Hortensia et al. 1977 Informe de los trabajos realizados en los lotes numeros 8 y 9 de la Calle Bugambilias en el fraccionamiento Jacarandas en Morelia, Michoacán. Archivo Centro INAH, Michoacán. 1982 Informe Arqueológico Loma de Santa Maria de Guido Morelia, Michoacán, (MS), Archivo Centro INAH, Michoacán.

Cuevas García, M., Ramos de la Vega, J. and A. Macias Goytia 1982 Rescate de Megafauna Pleistocénica en la Cuenca Lacustre de Cuitzeo, Michoacán, (ms). Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Diaz Oyarzabal, C. L. 1981 Chingú y la Expansión Teotihuacana. In Interacción Cultural en México Central ed. E. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 107–112. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1991 Cerámica de sitios con influencia teotihuacana. Catálogo de las colecciones arqueológicas del Museo Nacional de Antropología. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1998 Ocoyoacac: un sitio con influencia teotihuacana en el valle de Toluca. In Los ritmos de Cambio en Teotihuacán: reflexiones y discusiones de su cronología, ed. R. Brambila and R. Cabrera, 353– 375. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Darras, V. 1992 La Lítica Tallada de las Lomas. In Arqueología de Las Lomas en la Cuenca Lacustre de Zacapu, Michoacán, México, ed. C. Arnauld, P. Carot and M. Fauvet Berthelot, 168–190. Mexico: CEMCA. 1998 La obsidiana en la Relación de Michoacán y en la realidad arqueológica: del símbolo al uso o del uso de un símbolo. In Genesis, culturas y espacios en Michoacán, ed. V. Darras, 61–87. México: CEMCA. Davies, N. 1984 Human Sacrifice in the Old World and the New. Some Similarities and Differences. In Ritual Human Sacrifice In Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 211–226. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Diehl, R. 1976 Pre-Hispanic Relationships between the Basin of Mexico and North and West Mexico. In The Valley of México. Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, ed. by E. R. Wolf, 249–286. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1987 Tollan y la Caída de Teotihuacán. In El Auge y la Caída del Clásico en el México Central, ed.

Davis, D. 1983 Investigating the Diffusion of Stylistic Innovations. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:53–89.

128

Bibliography

and C. Power, 194–213. University Press.

J. Mountjoy and D. Brockington, 129–143. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico. 1989 A Shadow of its Former Shelf: Teotihuacán during the Coyotlatelco Period. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacán AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Edinburgh: Edinburgh

Dunbar,R., Knight, C. and C. Power (eds.) 1999 The Evolution of Culture. Edinburgh University Press.

Edinburgh:

Dunnell, R. C. 1975 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity 43(2):192–201.

Diehl, R. and J. C. Berlo 1989 Introduction. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacán AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 1–8. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Dunnell, R. C. and W. S. Dancey 1983 The Siteless Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 6:267–285.

Diehl, R. and E. G. Stroh, Jr. 1978 Tecali vessel manufacturing debris at Tollan, México. American Antiquity 43 (1):73–79.

Earle, T. 1987a Style and Iconography as Legitimation in Complex Chiefdoms. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 73–81. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987b The Evolution of Chiefdoms. In Chiefdoms: Power, Economy and Ideology, ed. T. Earle, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1993 How Chiefs Come to Power. The Political Economy in Prehistory. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1996 Specialization and the Production of Wealth: Hawaiian Chiefdoms and the Inka Empire. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, 165–188. Oxford: Blackwell.

Digby, A. 1974 Crossed Trapezes: a pre-Columbian astronomical instrument. In Mesoamerican Archaeology: new approaches, ed. N. Hammond, 271–283. Austin: University of Texas Press. Dissanayake, E. 1995 Chimera, spandrel, or adaptation: conceptualizing art in human evolution. Human Nature 6(2):99–117. Dobres, M. A. 1999 Of Paradigms and Ways of Seeing. Artifact Variability as if People Mattered. In Material Meanings. Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. S. Chilton, 7–23. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. 2000 Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice Framework for Archaeology. Oxford: Blackwell.

Edens, C. 1992 Dynamics of Trade in Mesopotamian “World System”. Anthropologist 94:118–139.

the

Ancient American

Ekholm, G. 1945 A Pyrite Mirror from Queretaro, Mexico. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 53(2):178–181. 1948 Ceramic Stratigraphy at Acapulco, Guerrero. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 95–104. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. n.d. Prehistoric “Lacquer” from Sinaloa. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos IV (1– 2):10–15.

Dolgin, J. L., Kemnitzer, D. S., and D. M. Schneider (eds.) 1977 Symbolic Anthropology. A Reader in the Study of Symbols and Meanings. New York: Columbia University Press. Donald, M. 1998 Material Culture and Cognition: Concluding Thoughts. In Cognition and Material Culture the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 181–187. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs, University of Cambridge.

Emberling, G. 1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research 5 (4):295–344.

Dumond, D. E. 1977 Science in Archaeology: the Saints go marching in. American Antiquity 42 (3):330–349.

Enciso, J. 1953 Design motifs of Ancient Mexico. York: Dover.

Dunbar, R. 1999 Culture, Honesty and the Freeride Problem. In The Evolution of Culture, ed. R. Dunbar, C. Knight

129

New

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Fisher, J. 1971 Art Styles as Cultural Cognitive Maps. In Antropology and Art. Readings in Cross-cultural Aesthetics, ed. C. Otten, 141–161. New York: The Natural History Press.

Ensor, B. E. 2000 Social Formations, Modo de Vida, and Conflict in Archaeology. American Antiquity 65 (1):15–30. Estrada Balmori, E. 1945 La decoración en la cerámica de Chupícuaro. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos VII:103–112.

Flannery, K. V. 1971 Summary Comments: Evolutionary Trends in Social Exchange and Interaction. In Social Exchange and Interaction, ed. E. N. Wilmsen, 129– 135. Michigan: University of Michigan. 1972 The Cultural Evolution of Civilizations. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3:399– 425. 1999 Process and Agency in Early State Formation. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):3–21.

Estrada Balmori, E. and R. Piña Chán 1948 Complejo Funerario en Chupícuaro. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 40–41. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. Fash, W. L. and R. J. Sharer 1991 Sociopolitical Developments and Methodological Issues at Copán, Honduras: a Conjunctive Perspective. Latin American Antiquity 2(2):166–187.

Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus 1996 Cognitive Archaeology. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, 350–363. Oxford: Blackwell.

Favrot Peterson, J. 1990 Flora and Fauna as Metaphor in Precolumbian Mesoamerica. In Precolumbian Flora and Fauna. Continuity of Plant and Animal Themes in Mesoamerican Art. A Mingei International Museum Exhibition Documentary Publication, 10– 108. San Diego, CA: Mingei International Museum of World Folk Art.

Flannery, K. V. and J. Marcus (eds.) 1983 The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations. New York: Academic Press. Flannery, K. and J. Marcus 1983 A Possible Oaxacan Enclave near Tula. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 181. New York: Academic Press.

Feinman, G. M. 1995 The Emergence of Inequality. In Foundations of Social Inequality. A Focus on Strategies and Processes, ed. T. D. Price and G. M. Feinman, 254–279. New York: Plenum Press. 1996 Conclusions. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P .N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 115–119. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. 1999 The Changing Structure of Macroregional Mesoamerica: The Classic-Postclassic Transition in the Valley of Oaxaca. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 53–62. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Florance, C.A. 1985 Recent Work in the Chupícuaro Region. In The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mesoamerica, ed. M. S. Foster and P. C. Weigand, 9– 46. Boulder and London: Westview Press. Flores Morales, L. M. and A. M. Crespo Oviedo 1988 Elementos cerámicos de asentamientos toltecas en Guanajuato y Queretaro. In Ensayos de alfareria prehispánica e histórica de Mesoamerica. Homenaje a Eduardo Noguera, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and C. Navarrete Caceres, 204–220. México: Universidad Autónoma de México.

Feinman, G. M., Nicholas, L. M. and S. Upham 1996 A Macroregional Comparison of the American Southwest and Highland Mesoamerica in Pre-Columbian Times: Preliminary Thoughts and Implications. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 65–76. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Flores Villatoro, D. 1992 Ofrendas funerarias de Chupícuaro, Guanajuato. Catálogo de las colecciones arqueológicas del Museo Nacional de Antropología. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Foncerrada de Molina, M. 1980 Mural Painting in Cacaxtla and Teotihuacán Cosmopolitism. In Third Palenque Round Table, 1978, Part 2, ed. M. Greene Robertson, 172–183. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Field, F. V. 1967 Thoughts on the Meaning and Use of PreHispanic Mexican Sellos. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1974 Prehispanic Mexican Stamp Designs. New York: Dover. 130

Bibliography

Fotiades, M. 1999 Comparability, Equivalency, and Contestation. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 385–398. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Gandara V., M. 1981 Tradición, influencia y area de interacción. In Interacción Cultural en México Central, ed. E. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 13–20. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Frake, C. O. 1994 Dials: a study in the physical representation of cognitive systems. In The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, 119–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

García-Bárcena, J. 1972 Dioses Mesoamericanos de la Lluvia y su relación con las Rutas de Intercambio Prehispánicas. In Religion en Mesoamerica. XII Mesa Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. García Chávez, R. 2001 La relacion entre Teotihuacan y los centros provinciales del clásico en la cuenca de México (http://archaeology.la.asu.edu/teo/centro/index.htm)

Frank, A.G. 1999 Abuses and Uses of World-Systems Theory in Archaeology. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange ed. N. P. Kardulias, 275–295. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

García Chávez, R. and L. Cordoba Barradas 1990 Comparación arqueológica entre varios sitios Coyotlatelco del Centro de México. In Mesoamerica y Norte de México. Siglo IX-XII. Seminario W.J. Moreno, ed. F. S. Miranda, 289–319. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Freddolino Kimball, M. 1973 An Investigation into the “Pre-Tarascan” Cultures of Zacapu, Michoacán, México. PhD Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Yale University.

García Chávez, R., Glascock, M. D., Elam J. M. and H. B. Iceland 1990 The INAH Salvage Archaeology Excavations at Atzcapotzalco, México. An analysis of the lithic assemblage. Ancient Mesoamerica 1: 225–232.

Frei Berdan, F. 1975 Ports of Trade in Mesoamerica: A Reappraisal. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts, ed. T. A. Lee Jr and C. Navarrete, 187–198. Utah: New World Archaeological Foundation.

García Cook, A. 1982 Análisis Tipológico de Artefactos. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Freidel, D. A. 1986 Maya warfare: an example of peer polity interaction. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 93–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

García Cook, A. and L. Merino Carrión 1977 Notas sobre caminos y rutas de intercambio al este de la Cuenca de México. Comunicaciones 14:71–82. 1996 Situación cultural en Tlaxcala durante el apogeo de Teotihuacan. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 281–317. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. 1998 Cantona: Urbe Prehispánica en el Altiplano Central de México. Latin American Antiquity 9(2):189–216.

Friedman, J. 1992 General Historical and Culturally Specific Properties of Global Systems. Review 15:3 (Summer):335–72. Friedman, J. and M. Rowlands 1977 Notes Towards an Epigenetic Model of the Evolution of ‘Civilization’. In The Evolution of Social Systems, ed. J. Friedman and M. Rowlands, 201–278. London: Duckworth.

Gendrop, P. 1997 Diccionario de Mesoamericana. México: Trillas.

Frierman, J. D. (ed.) 1969 The Natalie Wood Collection of PreColumbian Ceramics from Chupícuaro, Guanajuato, México at UCLA. Los Angeles: University of California Museum and Laboratories of Ethnic Arts and Technology.

Arquitectura

Giddens, A. 1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Gage, J. 1999 Did Colours Signify? Symbolism in the Red. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):110– 112. 131

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Gifford, J. C. 1976 Prehistoric Pottery Analysis and the Ceramics of Barton Ramie in the Belize Valley. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 18. Cambridge: Peabody Museum.

Graham, E. 1994 The Highlands of the Lowlands: Environmental and Archaeology in the Stann Creek District, Belize, Central America. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Gillespie, S. D. 1989 The Aztec Kings. The Construction of Rulership in Mexican History. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1999 Olmec Thrones as Ancestral Altars: The Two Sides of Power. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 224–253. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Graham, J. (ed.) 1981 Ancient Mesoamerica. Selected Readings. California: Peek Publications. Grave Tirado, L. A., Pulido Mendez, S., Araiza Gutierrez, A. and F. Ortuno Cos 1995 Patron de Asentamientos Prehispánicos en la Cuenca de Cuitzeo, Michoacán (MS). Mexico: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Gills, B. K. and A. Gunder Frank 1992 World System Cycles, Crises, and Hegemonial Shifts, 1700BC to 1700AD. Review 15:4 (Fall):621–687.

Guidon, N. and B. Arnauld 1991 The chronology of the New World: two faces of one reality. World Archaeology 23 (2):167– 178.

Girard, R. 1986 Violence and the Sacred [1986] Translated by Patrick Gregory. Baltimore and London: The Hopkins University Press.

Guevara Fefer, F. 1989 Los factores físico-geográficos. In Historia General de Michoacán (vol.1), ed. E. Florescano, 9– 34. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán, Instituto Michoacan de Cultura.

Gómez Chávez, S. 2002 Presencia del Occidente de México en Teotihuacán. Aproximaciones a la política exterior del Estado teotihuacano. In Ideología y política a través de materiales, imágenes y símbolos. Memorias de la Primera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacán, ed. M. E. Ruiz, 563–625. México: UNAM, IIA, IIE e INAH.

Gunder Frank, A. and B. K.Gills (eds.) 1993 The World System. Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand?, ed. A. Gunder Frank and B. K. Gills. London: Routledge.

Gómez Chávez, S. and J. Gazzola 2001a Interacción Cultural entre Teotihuacán y el Occidente de México. Paper presented at the Meeting of Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans. 2001b Grupos Étnicos del Occidente de México en Teotihuacán. Paper presented at the Mesa Redonda de Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología, Zacatecas, México.

Gunder Frank, A. and B. K.Gills 1993 The 5,000-Year World System. An interdisciplinary introduction. In The World System. Five Hundred Years or Five Thousand?, ed. A. Gunder Frank and B. K. Gills, 3–55. London: Routledge. Habermas, J. 1976 Communication and the Evolution of Society. Boston: Beacon Press. 2001 The Liberating Power of Symbols. Philosophical Essays. Cambridge: Polity Press.

González de la Vara, F. 1988 El Occidente durante el Clásico. In Atlas Histórico de Mesoamerica, ed. L. Manzanilla and L. L. Luján, 103–106. México: Larousse. 1999 El valle de Toluca hasta la caída de Teotihuacán. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Halle, D. 1998 Material Artifacts, Symbolism, Sociologists and Archaeologists. In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 51–59. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

González Torres, Y. 2001 Sacrifice and Ritual Violence. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D. Carrasco, 3:102–104. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.

Hall, T. D. 1999 World-Systems and Evolution: An Appraisal. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 1–23. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Gorestein, S. and H. P. Pollard 1987 Xanhari: Protohistoric Tarascan routes. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, ed. C. D. Trombold, 169–185. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 132

Bibliography

Excavavations and Survey, ed. D. M. Healan, 3–6. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press. 1990 Informe mensual (julio) del Proyecto “Investigaciones del Asentamiento prehispánico y la exploitación de obsidiana en la Región de yacimientos de Zinapecuaro y Ucareo, Michoacán (Proyecto Zinapecuaro-Ucareo)”, (ms) Mexico: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1991a Investigaciones en la región de Zinapecuaro, (ms). México: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1991b Informe mensual (diciembre) del Proyecto Investigaciones del Asentamiento prehispánico y la exploitación de obsidiana en la Región de yacimientos de Zinapecuaro y Ucareo, Michoacán (Proyecto Zinapecuaro-Ucareo), (ms) Mexico: Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1993 Local versus non-local obsidian exchange at Tula and its implications for post-Formative Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 24 (3):449–466. 1996 En busca de la obsidiana y el encuentro del material divino en la región de Zinapecuaro Ucareo. Paper presented at the Palacio Municipal of Zinapecuaro, 22 June 1996. 1997 Pre-Hispanic Quarrying in the UcareoZinapecuaro Obsidian Source Area. Ancient Mesoamerica 8 (1):77–100. 1998 La cerámica Coyotlatelco y la exploitación del yacimiento de obsidiana de Ucareo Zinapécuaro. In Genesis, culturas y espacios en Michoacán, ed. V. Darras, 101–111. México: Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y de Centro America

Hall, T. D. and C. Chase-Dunn 1996Comparing World-Systems: Concepts and Hypotheses. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 11–25. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. Hallam, E. and B. V. Street 2000 Introduction. In Cultural Encounters. Representing Otherness, ed. E. Hallam and B. V. Street, 1–11. London: Routledge. Hammond, Norman (ed.) 1974 Mesoamerica archaeology: approaches. Austin: University of Texas Press.

new

Hardin, M. 1970 Design Structure and Social Interaction: Archaeological Implications of an Ethnographic Analysis. American Antiquity 35 (3):332–343. 1983a The Structure of Tarascan Pottery Painting. In Structure and Cognition in Art, ed. D. K. Washburn, 8–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1983b Models of Decoration. In The Many Dimensions of Pottery. Ceramics in Archaeology and Anthropology, ed. S. E. Van der Leeuw and A. C. Pritchard, 575–601. Amsterdam: Universiteit van Amderdam. Harris, P. L. 1993 Mimesis, Imagination and Role-play. In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 61– 66. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs. Hassig, R. 1992 War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press. 1994 Village Approaches to Complex Societies. In Archaeological views from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 198–206. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 2001 Warfare. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures. The Civilization of Mexico and Central America (3 vols.), ed. D. Carrasco, (3):317–320. New York: Cambridge University Press, Inc.

Healan, D.and C. Hernández 1997 Asentamiento prehispánico y cronología cerámica en el noreste de Michoacán. Paper presented at the symposium “El Bajío”, El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacan. Hellmuth, N. 1975 The Escuintla Hoards. Teotihuacan Art in Guatemala. Foundation for Latin American Research Reports 1(2). 1978 Teotihuacan Art in the Escuintla, Guatemala Region. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400–700, ed. E. Pasztory, 71–85. New York: Columbia University Press.

Hays, K. A. 1993 When is a symbol archaeologically meaningful? Meaning, function, and prehistoric visual arts. In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 81–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Helms, M. W. 1981 Cuna Molas and Cocle Art Forms. Reflections on Panamanian Design Styles and Symbols. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues. 1999 Why Maya Lords Sat on Jaguar Thrones. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in

Healan, D. 1989 Tula, Tollan, and the Toltecs in Mesoamerican Prehistory. In Tula of the Toltecs. 133

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 56–69. Southern Illinois University.

Mesa Redonda, 247–257. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato. 1979 El “signo del año” en Tehuacán, su supervivencia y el sentido sociopolítico del símbolo. In Mesoamerica: Homenaje al doctor Paul Kirchhoff, ed. B. Dalhgren, 61–86. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Carbondale:

Hendon, J. A. 1991 Status and Power in Classic Maya Society: An Archaeological Study. American Anthropologist 93:894–918. 1999 Multiple Sources of Prestige and the Social Evaluation of Women in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Material Symbols. Culture And Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 257–275. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Heyden, D. and P. Gendrop 1975 Pre-Columbian Architecture Mesoamerica. Mexico: Faber and Faber, Electa.

Hernández , C. 2000 A History of Prehispanic Ceramics, Interaction, and Frontier Development in the UcareoZinapécuaro Obsidian Source Area, Michoacán, México. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University.

Hinde, R. A. 1998 Mind and Artefact: a Dialectical Perspective. In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 175–179. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

Hernández Reyes, C. 1996 Abstract of paper delivered at the XXIV Mesa Redonda, 4–11 August, Tepic Nayarit.

Hirth, K. G. 1982 Transportation Architecture at Xochicalco, Morelos, México. Current Anthropology 23(3): 322– 324. 1977 Toltec-Mazapan Influence in Eastern Morelos, México. Journal of New World Archaeology 2(1): 40–46. 1989 Militarism and Social Organization at Xochicalco, Morelos. In Mesoamerica after the decline of Teotihuacan: AD 700–900, ed. R. A. Diehl and C. J. Berlo, 69–81. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1996 Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives on Exchange and Production. Journal of Archaeological Research 4(3):203–239.

Hernández Sánchez, G. 1995 Un Acercamiento a la Iconografía de la Cerámica Polícroma Tipo Códice de Cholula. Licentiate thesis in Anthropology. México: Facultad de Antropología, Universidad de las Americas, Puebla. Hers, M. A. 1988 Caracterización de la cultura Chalchihuites. In Primera Reunión sobre las Sociedades Prehispánicas en el Centro Occidente de México. Memoria, Cuaderno de Trabajo 1, 23–37. México: Centro Regional de Queretaro, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

of

Hill, J. and R. K. Evans 1972 A model for classification and typology. In Models in Archaeology, ed. D. Clarke, 231–273. London: Methuen.

Hester, T. R. (ed.) 1978a Archaeological Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian. New Mexico: Ballena Press. 1978b Preliminary Notes on the Technological Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Villa Morelos, Michoacán, México. In Archaeological Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, ed. T. R. Hester, 131–158. New Mexico: Ballena Press.

Hodder, I. 1982 Toward a Contextual Approach to Prehistoric Exchange. In Contexts for Prehistoric Exchange, ed. J. E. Ericson and T. K. Earle, 199–211. New York and London: Academic Press. 1986 Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987 The contextual analysis of symbolic meanings. In The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings, ed. I. Hodder, 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London: Routledge. 1996 Comment on ‘A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization’ by R. E. Blanton, G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowaleski and P. N. Peregrine. Current Anthropology 37(1):57–59. 2000 Agency and individuals in long-term processes. In Agency in Archaeology, ed. M. Dobres

Hester, T. R, Jack, R. N. and A. Benfer 1978 Trace Element Analyses of Obsidian from Michoacán, Mexico: Preliminary Results. In Archaeological Studies of Mesoamerican Obsidian, ed. T. R. Hester, 184–194. New Mexico: Ballena Press. Heyden, D. 1975 An Interpretation of the Cave Underneath the Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacán, México. American Antiquity 40: 131–147. 1977 El culto a los ancestros. Su posible presencia en Teotihuacán. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV 134

Bibliography

Hodder, I. (ed.) 1987 The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989 The Meanings of Things. Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London: Routledge.

Jiménez Moreno, W. 1966 Mesoamerica Before the Toltecs. In Ancient Oaxaca. Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History, ed. J. Paddock, 1–82. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1983 El Occidente de México. In XVIII Mesa Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Hodges, H. 1976 Artifacts. An Introduction to Early Materials and Technology. New Jersey: Humanities Press.

Jolly, A. 1999 Lucy’s Legacy. Sex and Intelligence in Human Evolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Holien, T. and R. B. Pickering 1977 Analogues in Classic Period Chalchihuites Culture to Late Mesoamerican Ceremonialism. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A.D. 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, 145–157. New York: Columbia University Press.

Johnson, J. 2001 Emergence. The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software. London: The Penguin Press.

and J. E. Robb, 21–33. Routledge.

London and New York:

Houston, S. and D. Stuart 1996 Of gods, glyphs and kings: divinity and rulership among the Classic Maya. Antiquity 70: 289–312.

Johnson, M. 1991 The Imaginative Basis of Meaning and Cognition. In Images of Memory. On Remembering and Representation, ed. W. Melion and S. Kuchler, 74–86. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Hubert, H. and M. Mauss 1964 Sacrifice: Its Nature and Function (Translated by W. D. Halls). London: Cohen and West.

Jones, A. and R. Bradley 1999 The Significance of Colour in European Archaeology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 (1):112–114.

Hunt, E. 1977 The Transformation of the Hummingbird. Cultural Roots of a Zinacatencan Mythical Poem. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Jordanova, L. 2000 History, Otherness and Display. In Cultural Encounters. Representing Otherness, ed. E. Hallam and B. V. Street, 245–259. London: Routledge.

Iglesias Ponce de León, M. J. 2001 Problematical Deposits and the Problem of Interaction: The Material Culture of Tikal During the Early Classic Period. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 103–124. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Joyce, A. A. 1993 Interregional Interaction and Social Development on the Oaxaca Coast. Ancient Mesoamerica 4:67–84. 1994 Monte Albán en el contexto pan-regional. In Monte Albán, Estudios Recientes, ed. M. Winter, 63–76. Oaxaca: Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 1992-1994. 2000 The founding of Monte Albán. Sacred propositions and social practices. In Agency in Archaeology, ed. M-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, 71–91. London and New York: Routledge.

Irwin-Williams, C. 1976 A Network Model for the Analysis of Prehistoric Trade. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, ed. T. K. Earle, 141–151. New York: Academic Press. Jandt, F. E. 2001 Intercultural Communication. Introduction (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Kardulias, N. P. 1999a Multiple Levels in the Aegean Bronze Age World-System. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 179–201. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1999b Conclusion. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 309–313. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

An

Jiménez Betts, P. 1992 Una Red de Interacción del Noroeste de Mesoamerica: una Interpretación. In Origen y Desarrollo en el Occidente de México, ed. B. B. de Lameiras and P. C. Weigand, 177–204. México: El Colegio de Michoacán.

135

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. E. Falconer, 64– 90. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kardulias, N. P. (ed.) 1999 World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production and Exchange. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kirchhoff, P. 1940 Los Pueblos de la Historia ToltecaChichimeca: sus migraciones y parentesco. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos IV(1-2):77–10. 1943 Mesoamerica. Sus límites geográficos, composición étnica y caracteres culturales. Acta Americana 1(1):92–107. 1948 Etnografía Antigua. El Occidente de México. In Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 134– 136. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1977 Mesoamerica: Its Geographic Limits, Ethnic Composition, and Cultural Character. In Ancient Mesoamerica. Selected Readings, ed. J. Graham, 1–10. California: Peek Publications.

Kardulias, N. P. and R. W. Yerkes 2001 World Systems Theory and Regional Survey: The Malloura Valley Survey on Cyprus. Paper delivered at the 66th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Kelley, J. C. 1988 The Classic Epoch in the Chalchihuites Culture of the State of Zacatecas. In La Época Clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas, ed. A. Cardos de Mendez, 11–14. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Klein, C. F. 1976 The Face of the Earth: Frontality in TwoDimensional Mesoamerican Art. New York: Garland.

Kelley, J. C. and E. Abbot Kelley 1987 Florecimiento y Decadencia del Clásico desde la Perspectiva de la Frontera Noroccidental de Mesoamerica. In El Auge y la Caída del Clásico en el México Central, ed. J. Mountjoy and D. Brockington, 145–197. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Knight, C., Dunbar, R. and C. Power 1999 An Evolutionary Approach to Human Culture. In The Evolution of Culture, ed. R. Dunbar, C. Knight and C. Power, 1–11. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kelly, I. 1947 Excavations at Apatzingán, Michoacán. New York: Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology. 1948 Ceramic Provinces of Northwest México. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 55–71. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1977 Ceramic Sequence in Colima: Capacha, an Early Phase. Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona Press, No37. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

Koestler, A. 1967 The Ghost in the Machine. Hutchinson and Co.

London:

Kohl, P. 1987 The Ancient economy, transferable technologies and the Bronze Age world-system: a view from the northeastern frontier of the Ancient Near East. In Center and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. J. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, 13–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1992 Limits to a post-processual archaeology (or, The dangers of a new scholasticism). In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 13–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Key, C. A. and L. C. Aiello 1999 The Evolution of Social Organization. In The Evolution of Culture, ed. R. Dunbar, C. Knight and C. Power, 15–33. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Kolb, C. 1988a The Cultural Ecology of Classic Teotihuacan Period Copoid Ceramics. In A Pot for all Reasons. Ceramic Ecology Revisited, ed. C. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1988b Preface. In A Pot for All Reasons. Ceramic Ecology Revisited. A Special Publication of Cerámica de Cultura Maya, ed. C. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey, pp.ix–xxiii. Philadelphia:Temple University Press. 1996 “Firing” as the Critical Stage of Pottery Manufacture: A Ceramic Ecology and Materials Science Perspective. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 97–

Kidder, A. V., J. D. Jennings and E. M. Shook 1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyú, Guatemala. Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Kidder, A. V. and A. O. Shepard 1944 Stucco Decoration of Early Guatemala Pottery. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology vol.II (35):23–30. King, E. and D. Potter 1994 Small Sites in Prehistoric Maya Socioeconomic Organization: A Perspective from Colha, Belize. In Archaeological Views from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex

136

Bibliography

110. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana.

240. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Kolb, C. (ed.) 1988 Ceramic Ecology Revisited 1987. The Technology and Socioeconomics of Pottery. BAR International Series. Oxford: BAR Publishing.

Lackey, L. M. 1988 Traditional Mexican Pottery Technology and Thin Orange Wares. In A Pot for All Reasons. Ceramic Ecology Revisited. A Special Publication of Cerámica de Cultura Maya, ed. C. Kolb and L. M. Lackey, 199–211. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Kowaleski, S. A. 1983 Differences in the Site Hierachies below Monte Albán and Teotihuacan: A Comparison Based on the Rank–Size Rule. In The Cloude People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 168– 169. New York: Academic Press. 1996 Clout, Corn, Copper, Core-Periphery, Culture Area. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 27–37. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

LaLone, D. 1999 Does World-Systems Theory Work? An Ethnographer’s Perspective. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 297–307. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Langley, J.C. 1986 Symbolic Notation of Teotihuacan. Elements of writing in a Mesoamerican culture of the Classic period. BAR International Series 313. Oxford: BAR Publishing. 1991 The Forms and Usage of Notation at Teotihuacán. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:285–298. Teotihuacan Sign Clusters: Emblem or 1992 Articulation? In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, 247–280. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Kramer, C. 1994 Scale, Organization, and Function in Village and Town. In Archaeological views from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 207– 212. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Kristiansen, K. 1987 Centre and Periphery in Bronze Age Scandinavia. In Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. Rowlands, M. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, 74–86. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C. C. and J. A. Sabloff 1979 Ancient Civilizations. The Near East and Mesoamerica. Illinois: Waveland Press. Laporte, J. P. 2001 Architectural Aspects of Interaction btween Tikal and Teotihuacan during the Early Classic Period. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 125–136. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Kristiansen, K. and M. Rowlands (eds.) 1998 Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and local perspectives. London: Routledge. Kubler, G. 1967 The Iconography of the Art of Teotihuacán. Studies in Pre-Columbian Art and Archaeology Number Four. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1972 La iconografía del arte de Teotihuacán. In Teotihuacán XI Mesa Redonda, 69–85. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1973 Iconographic Aspects of Architectural Profiles at Teotihuacán and in Mesoamerica. In The Iconography of Middle American Sculpture, 24–39. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. 1981 Period, Style and Meaning in Ancient American Art. In Ancient Mesoamerica. Selected Readings, ed. J. Graham, 11–23 . California: Peek Publications.

Lincoln, B. 1991 Death, War and Sacrifice. Studies in Ideology and Practice. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Lindholm, C. 1999 Logical and Moral Dilemmas of Postmodernism. J. Roy. Anthrop. Inst. 3: 747–760. Linne, S. 1965 The Ethnologist and the American Indian Potter. In Ceramics and Man, ed. F. R. Matson, 20– 42. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company.

Kuznar, L. A. 1999 The Inca Empire: Detailing the Complexities of Core/Periphery Interactions. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 223–

Lister, R. H. 1948 Summary of the excavations at Cojumatlán, Michoacán. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta

137

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

México: Universidad Autónoma de Queretaro, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1990 Huandacareo: lugar de juicios, tribunal. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1991 Investigaciones arqueológicas en un ecosistema: Cuitzeo. Anales del Museo Michoacano 3:101–141. 1994 Antes de la Conquista en una Región. Nuevo Barro, (edición especial, Octubre) ed. A. Olay. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y El Gobierno del Estado de Colima. 1997 Tres Cerritos en el Desarrollo Social Prehispánico de Cuitzeo. Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 26–27. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1949 Excavations at Cojumatlán, Michoacán, México. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Litvak King, J. 1972 Las relaciones externas de Xochicalco: una evaluación de su significado. Anales de Antro pología IX:53–76. 1974a Algunas Observaciones acerca del Clásico de Xochicalco, México. In Anales de Antropología XI:9–17. 1974b El Torno al Problema de la Definición de Mesoamerica. Anales de Antropologia XII:171–195. 1987 Xochicalco del Preclásico al Posclásico. In El Auge y la Caída del Clásico en el México Central, ed. J. Mountjoy and D. Brockington, 199–208. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Macías Goytia, A. and K. Vackimes Serret 1987 Tres Cerritos, Cuitzeo, Michoacán. In Primera Reunión sobre las Sociedades Prehispánicas en el Centro Occidente de México. Memoria, Cuaderno de Trabajo 1, 1161–1164. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Centro Regional de Querétaro.

López de Molina, D. 1977 Cacaxtla y su relación con otras areas mesoamericanas. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas), XV Mesa Redonda, 7–12. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajato.

Manson, G. 2002 The Spectacle of Violence. Homophobia, gender and knowledge. London: Routledge.

López Wario, L. A. n.d. La lítica de Loma Santa María. México: Archivo Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Michoacán.

Manzanilla López, R. 1984 Loma de Santa Maria I, Morelia Michoacán. Un sitio del Período Clásico Mesoamericano. Licenciate thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México. 1988 Salvamento Arqueológico en Loma Santa Maria, Morelia, Michoacán. In Primera Reunión sobre las Sociedades Prehispánicas en el Centro Occidente de México. Memoria Cuaderno de Trabajo 1, 151–159. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro Regional de Querétaro. 1996 La Cerámica Arqueológica de Loma de Santa Maria I, Morelia. In Tiempo y Territorio en Arqueología. El Centro Norte de México, ed. A. M. Crespo and C. Viramontes, 179–190. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Lucero, L. J. 1999 Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization: A Review. Journal of World Prehistory 13 (2):211–263. Lupo, A. 1993 The Importance of Prayers in the Study of the Cosmologies and Religious Systems of Native Oral Culture. In The Sociology of Sacred Texts ed. J. Davies and E. Wolaston. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Macías Goytia, A. 1977 Fraccionamiento Terla. Morelia, Mich. In Bitácora 1977, ed. R. Piña Chan, 28–30. México: Centro Regional México-Michoacán, SEP, INAH. 1981 Informe de los trabajos arqueológicos llevados a cabo por la arqueóloga: Angelina Macias Goytia en el sitio denominado “La Nopalera”, Municipio de Huandacareo estado de Michoacán, (MS). Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de Arqueología, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México. 1989a La cuenca de Cuitzeo. In Historia General de Michoacán, vol.1, ed. E. Florescano, 171–190. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán e Instituto Michoacano de Cultura. 1989b Generalidades arqueológicas de la Cuenca de Cuitzeo. Memorias de la XIX Mesa Redonda de la SMA “La validez teórica de Mesoamerica”, 133–144.

Manzanilla, L. 1987 Algunas opiniones sobre el concepto de “tipo” en Arqueología. Cuicuilco 18: 92–103. 1993 Armonia en el tiempo y espacio. Arqueología 1: 16–19. 1992 The Economic Organization of the Teotihuacan Priesthood: Hypotheses and Considerations. In Art , Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, 231–246. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1995 Perspectivas de la Interdisciplina en Arqueología. In Antropología e Interdisciplina XXIII Mesa Redonda Homenaje a Pedro Carrasco, ed. M. H. Ruz and J. Arechiga V, 492–508. Mexico: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

138

Bibliography

Mastache, A. and R. Cobean 1989 The Coyotlatelco Culture and the Origins of the Toltec State. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 49–66. Washington, D.C. Dumbarton Oaks.

Manzanilla, L. (ed.) 1993 Anatomía de un conjunto residencial Teotihuacano en Oztoyahualco (2 vols.). México: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas. Manzanilla, L. and E. Carreón 1993 Un incensario Teotihuacano en contexto doméstico. Restauración e interpretación. In Anatomia de un conjunto residencial Teotihuacano en Oztoyahualco (2vols.), ed. L. Manzanilla, 876–897. México: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas.

Mastache, A., Crespo A., Cobean, R. and D. Healan 1982 Estudios sobre la antigua ciudad de Tula. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Matos Moctezuma, E. and L. L. Lujan 1993 Teotihuacán and its Mexica Legacy. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 157–165. London: Thames and Hudson.

Marcus, J. 1983 Teotihuacan visitors on Monte Albán Monuments and Murals. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 175– 181. New York: Academic Press. 1992 Mesoamerican Writing Systems. Propaganda, Myth and History in Four Ancient Civilizations. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1996 From Centralized Systems to City-States: Possible Models for the Epiclassic. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 201–208. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 2001 The Maya and Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 197–208. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Matos Moctezuma, E. 1978 The Tula Chronology: a Revision In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400–700, ed. E. Pasztory, 172–177. New York: Columbia University Press. 1984 The Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlán: Economics and Ideology. In Ritual Human Sacrifice In Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th And 14th, 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 133– 164. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1989 El uso de materiales olmecas en ofrendas postclasicas en Mesoamerica. In El preclásico o formativo. Avances y perspectivas. Seminario de Arqueología “Dr. Román Piña Chan”, ed. M. Carmona Macías, 481–484. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Marcus, J. and K. V. Flannery 1994 Ancient Zapotec ritual and religion: an application of the direct historical approach. In The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B.W. Zubrow, 55–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matos, Moctezuma E. and I. Kelly 1974 Una vasija que sugiere relaciones entre Teotihuacán y Colima. In The Archaeology of West México, ed. B. Bell, 202–205. Ajijic: Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de México.

Martin, S. and N. Grube 2000 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. London: Thames and Hudson.

Matson, F. R. (ed.) 1965 Ceramics and Man. Publishing Company.

Martínez López, C. 1994 La cerámica de estilo teotihuacano en Monte Albán. In Monte Albán, Estudios Recientes, ed. M. Winter, 25–54. Oaxaca: Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 1992-1994.

McBride, H. 1969 Teotihuacán Style Pottery and figurines from Colima. Katunob, VII (3):86–91. 1968 The Extent of the Chupícuaro Tradition. In The Natalie Wood Collection of Precolumbian Ceramics from Chupícuaro, Guanajuato, México at UCLA, ed. J. D. Frierman, 33–49. Los Angeles: University of California.

Martínez Vargas, E. and A. M. Jarquín Pacheco 1998 Materiales Arqueológicos del Noroeste de Tlaxcala. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Marquardt, W. T. 1992 Dialectical Archaeology. Method and Theory 4:101–140.

Chicago: Aldine

McGuire, R. H. 1996 The Limits of World-Systems Theory for the Study of Prehistory. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 51–64. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

Archaeological

Mastache, A. 1993 El México Antiguo. Mundo enigmático y complejo. Arqueologia Mexicana 1:5–11.

139

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1967 Urna de Monte Alban IIIA encontrada en Teotihuacán. Boletin INAH:42–44. 1971 Cronología y periodificación: datos estratigráficos sobre períodos cerámicos y sus relaciones con la pintura mural. In Teotihuacán, Onceava Mesa Redonda, 1–18. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología e Historia. 1976 Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacán. In The Valley of México. Studies in Pre-Hispanic Ecology and Society, ed. E. R. Wolf, 205–248. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1981 Teotihuacan: City, State, and Civilization. In Handbook of Middle American Indians supplement vol. 1 “Archaeology”, ed. J. A. Sabloff , 198–243. Austin: University of Texas Press. 1988 The Last Years of Teotihuacan Dominance. In The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, ed. N. Yoffee and G. L. Cowgill, 102–164. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, 339–419. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1993 The Place Where Time Began. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 17–43. London: Thames and Hudson.

Melion, W. and S. Küchler 1991 Introduction: Memory, Cognition and Image Production. In Images of Memory. On Remembering and Representation, ed. W. Melion and S. Kuchler, 1–46. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press. Michelet, D. 1984 Río Verde, San Luis Potosí (Mexique). México: CEMCA. 1988 El Centro-Norte de Michoacán en el Clasico: Algunas Reflexiones. In La Epoca Clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas, ed. A. Cardos de Mendez, 279–291. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1989 La parte centro-norte de Michoacán. In Historia General de Michoacán vol.1, ed. E. Florescano, 157–167. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán e Instituto Michoacano de Cultura. 1993 La Cerámica de las Lomas en la secuencia cerámica regional. In Arqueologia de Las Lomas en la Cuenca Lacustre de Zacapu, Michoacán, México, 149–155. México: CEMCA Michelet, D. and P. Carot 1996 Arqueología de la Región de las Cuencas Lacustres de Michoacán (1946 – 1996). In XXIV Mesa Redonda-SMA. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Miranda, F. 1988 La relación de Michocán. (Fray Jerónimo de Alcalá). México: SEP.

Michels, J. 1974 Political Organization at Kaminaljuyú: its implications for interpreting Teotihuacán Influence. In Teotihuacán and Kaminaljuyú: a study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, ed. W. T. Sanders and J. W. Michels, 454–467. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Mithen, S. 1999 Symbolism and the Supernatural. In The Evolution of Culture, ed. R.Dunbar, C.Knight and C. Power, 147–169. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Miller, A. G. 1978 A Brief Outline of the Artistic Evidence for Classic Period Cultural Contact Between Maya Lowlands and Central Mexican Highlands. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, 62–70. New York: Columbia University Press. Miller, D. 1985 Artefacts as Categories. Cambridge University Press.

Modelski, G. and W. R. Thompson 1999 The Evolutionary Pulse of the World System: Hinterland Incursions and Migrations, 4000 BC to AD 1500. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange ed. N. P. Kardulias, 241–274. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Cambridge:

Moedano Koer, H. 1946 La Cerámica de Zinapécuaro, Michoacán. Anales del Museo Michoacano época II (4):39–49.

Millon, C. 1988 A Reexamination of the Teotihuacán Tassel Headdress Insignia. In Feathered Serpents And Flowering Trees. Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacán, ed. K. Berrin, 114–134. The Fine Arts Museums of San Fransisco.

Moguel Cos, M. A. 1987 Trabajos de salvamento arqueológico en las cuencas de Cuitzeo, Patzcuaro y Zirahuén: un intento de interpretación cultural. Licentiate thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Millon, R. 1961 The Northwestern boundary of Teotihuacán: a Major Urban Zone. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el XXV Aniversario de la edición de los Origenes Americanos, 311–318.

Molina Montes, A. and L. Torres Montes 1977 La cerámica policroma de Queréndaro (estudio preliminar). Anales del INAH época 7ª IV: 31–36. 140

Bibliography

Nelson, B., Darling, J. A. and D. A. Kice 1992 Mortuary Practices and the Social Order at La Quemada, Zacatecas, México. Latin American Antiquity 3(4):298–315. 1993 Outposts of Mesoamerican Empire and Architectural Patterning at La Quemada, Zacatecas. In Culture and Contact. Charles C. Di Pesos’s Gran Chichimeca, ed. A. I. Woosley and J. C. Ravesloot, 173–189. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Monaghan, J. 1995 The Covenants with Earth and Rain. Exchange, Sacrifice, and Revelation in Mixtec Sociality. Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press. Morante López, Ruben B. 1997 ¿El Ábaco Teotihuacano? Cultura Nahuatl 27:419–433.

Estudios de

Morris, G. and A. Von Hagen 1993 The Inka Empire and its Andean Origins. New York: American Museum of Natural History and Abbeville Press Publishers.

Nelson, F. W. Jr. 1994 Redes de intercambio de obsidiana en Mesoamerica. In Cristales y obsidiana prehispánicos, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and F. Solís Olguin, 53–70. México: Siglo XXI editores.

Mountjoy, J. and D. L. Brockington (eds.) 1987 El Auge y la Caída del Clásico en el México Central. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Nicholson, H. B. 1976 Preclassic Mesoamerican Iconography from the Perspective of the Postclassic: Problems in Interpretational Analysis. In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, ed. H. B. Nicholson, 159–175. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles.

Muller, F. 1974 Cerámica de Xochicalco, Morelos, Temporada 1962. Cultura y Sociedad: 54–60. 1978 La Cerámica del Centro Ceremonial de Teotihuacán. México: SEP e Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Nicholson, H. B. and E. Q. Keber (eds.) 1995 Mixteca-Puebla. Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archaeology. California: Labyrinthos.

Murray, T. 1993 Communication and the importance of disciplinary communities: who owns the past? In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 105–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Niederberger Betton, C. 1987 Paléopaysages et archeologie pré-urbaine du Bassin de México (2 vols.). Mexico: CEMCA. Ninkovich, F. 1994 Modernity and Power. A History of the Domino Theory in the Twentieth Century. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

Nagao, D. 1989 Public Proclamation in the Art of Cacaxtla and Xochicalco. In Mesoamerica after the decline of Teotihuacan: AD 700–900, ed. R. A. Diehl and C. J. Berlo, 83–104. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Noé Porter, M. 1953 Tlatilco and the Pre-Classic Cultures of the New World. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology Number Nineteen. New York: Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research.

Nalda, E. 1987 A Propósito de la cerámica Coyotlatelco. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos XXXIII-1:175–187. Navarijo Ornelas, L. 1996 La presencia de las aves en la pintura mural teotihuacana. In La Pintura Mural Prehispánica en México, vol II, ed. B. de la Fuente, 325–341. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México e Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas. Neff, H. 1992 Ceramics and Evolution. Method and Theory 4:141–193.

Noguera, E. 1931 Vestigios de Cultura Teotihuacana en Queretaro. Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueología, Historia y Etnografía. Época 4a VII(1):71–78. 1940 Excavations at Tehuacán. In The Maya and their Neighbors, 306–319. New York and London: D. Appleton–Century Company. 1948 Estado actual de los conocimientos acerca de la Arqueología del Noroeste de Michoacán. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 38–39. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1965 La cerámica arqueológica de Mesoamerica. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Archaeological

Nelson, B. 1996 Complexity, Hierarchy, and Scale: A Controlled Comparison Between Chaco Canyon, New Mexico and La Quemada, Zacatecas. American Antiquity 60:597–618. 141

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

de los Orígenes Americanos, 323–335. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1972a Relaciones de la Sección sobre extensión de la Cultura Teotihuacana. In Teotihuacán XI Mesa Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1972b Distribución de Rasgos Teotihuacanos en Mesoamerica. In Teotihuacán XI Mesa Redonda, 223–239. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1972c El Ocaso del Clásico. In Teotihuacán XI Mesa Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1976 Oaxaca in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Ancient Oaxaca. Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History, ed. J. Paddock, 83–242. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 1978 The Middle Classic Period in Oaxaca. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400–700, ed. E. Pasztory, 45–62. New York: Columbia University Press. 1983a The Oaxaca Barrio at Teotihuacan. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 170–175. New York: Academic Press. 1983b Some Thoughts on the Decline of Monte Albán. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 186–188. New York: Academic Press.

1994 Exploraciones en Jiquilpan. In La Arqueologia en Los Anales del Museo Michoacano (Épocas I y II), ed. A. M. Goytia and L. M. Silva, 323–366. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Originally published 1944 Anales del Museo Michoacano segunda época (3):37–54, Morelia, Michoacán. O’Brien, M. J. and D. E. Lewarch 1992 Regional analysis of the Zapotec empire, Valley of Oaxaca, México. World Archaeology 23 (3):264–281. Oliveros, J. A. 1971a Nuevas Exploraciones en El Opeño, Michoacán. In The Archaeology of West Mexico, ed. B. Bell, 182–201. Ajijic: Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de México. 1971b Arqueología del estado de Michoacán. In Los pueblos y senoríos teocráticos. El Período de las ciudades urbanas. Primera parte, ed. R. Piña Chán, 207–214. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Secretaría de Educación Pública. 1989 Las tumbas mas antiguas de Michoacán. In Historia General de Michoacán, vol.1, ed. E. Florescano, 123–134. México: Gobierno del Estado de Michoacán e Instituto Michoacano de Cultura. Ortiz Ceballos, P. 1988 Los Teotihuacanos en Matacapan. In La Época Clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, Nuevas Ideas, ed. A. Cardos de Mendez, 307–328. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Paredes, B. G. 1998 Inferencias de relaciones comerciales a través de la iconografía en Tula, Hidalgo (un sitio). In Iconografía mexicana I, ed. B. Barba de Piña Chan, 37–49. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Ortiz, P and R. Santley 1998 Matacapan: un ejemplo de enclave teotihuacano en la costa del Golfo. In Los ritmos de Cambio en Teotihuacán: reflexiones y discusiones de su cronología, ed. R. Brambila and R. Cabrera, 377– 460. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Parsons, L. A. 1978 The Peripheral Coastal Lowlands and the Middle Classic Period. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, 25–34. New York: Columbia University Press.

Orton, C., P. Tyers and A. Vince 1993 Pottery in Archaeology. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Pastrana, A. 1994 Yacimientos de obsidiana y técnicas de extracción. In Cristales y obsidiana prehispánicos, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and F. Solís Olguín, 19–39. México: Siglo XXI editores.

Ostrowitz, J. 1991 Concentric structures and gravity as represented in Teotihuacán art. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:263–274.

Pasztory, E. 1976 The Murals of Tepantitla, Teotihuacán. New York and London: Garland Publishing. 1978a Historical Synthesis of the Middle Classic Period. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400700, ed. E. Pasztory, 3–22. New York: Columbia University Press. 1978b Artistic Traditions of the Middle Classic Period. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400700, ed. E. Pasztory, 108–142. New York: Columbia University Press.

Otten, C. (ed.) 1971 Anthropology and Art. Readings in CrossCultural Aesthetics. American Museum source-books in Anthropology. New York: The Natural History Press. Paddock, J. 1961 A Neglected View on Humanity and Science in Archaeologyy. In Homenaje a Pablo Martínez del Río en el XXV Aniversario de la edición 142

Bibliography

Peregrine, P. N. and G. M. Feinman (eds.) 1996 Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press.

1988 Large Birds. In Feathered Serpents and Flowering Trees Reconstructing the Murals of Teotihuacán, ed. K. Berrin, 163–167. The Fine Arts Museums of San Fransisco. 1990 El poder militar como realidad y retórica en Teotihuacan. In La época clásica: Nuevos Hallazgos, nuevas ideas, ed. A. Cardos de Méndez, 181–204. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1992 Abstraction and the Rise of a Utopian State at Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. C. Berlo, 281–320. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1997 Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. Norman: Oklahoma University Press. 1998 Pre-Columbian Art. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

Pereira, G. 1996 Nuevos Hallazgso funerarios en Loma Alta, Zacapu, Michoacán. In Las Cuencas del Occidente de México, ed. P. Weigand and E. Williams, 105–129. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. Peterson, D. A. 1977 El fin de la época clásica: cambios prehistóricos en el Valle de Oaxaca y sus relaciones con cambios prehistóricos en el Valle de Teotihuacán. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas); XV Mesa Redonda, (II), 369–375. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato.

Pasztory, E., (ed.) 1978 Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400– 700. New York: Columbia University Press.

Phillips, P. 1958 Application of the Wheat-Gifford-Wasley taxonomy to Eastern ceramics. American Antiquity 24(2):117–25.

Pelham, W. N. 1963 A thousand years of cochineal: a lost but traditional Mexican industry is on its way back. American Dyestuff Reporter 52: 53–61.

Piña Chán, R. 1958 Tlatilco 2. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Secretaría de Educación Pública. 1971 Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of México. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol.10 Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1, ed. G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal, 157–178. Austin: University of Texas Press. n.d. Acerca del viejo Cuitzeo. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Pena de Davila, E. and D. Davila Rico 1983 Resumen. In El Occidente de México. XVIII Mesa Redonda.(program) Taxco, Guerrero, 14 a 19 agosto de 1983. SMA, 123–124. Peña Delgado et. al. 1991 Bosquejo Arqueológico del norte de Michoacán. Anales del Museo Michoacano 3:11–25. Pendergast, D. M. 1971 Evidence of Early Teotihuacán-Lowland Maya Contact at Altun Ha. American Antiquity: 36(4):455–460. 2001 Teotihuacan at Altun Ha: Did it make a Difference? In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 151–158. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Piña Chán, R. and Kuniaki Oi 1982 Exploraciones Arqueológicas Tingambato. México: Instituto Nacional Antropología e Historia.

en de

Plog, F. 1977a Modeling Economic Exchange. In Exchange Systems in Prehistory, ed. T. K. Earle, 127– 140. New York: Academic Press. 1977b Explaining Change. In Explanation of Prehistoric Change, ed. J. N. Hill, 17–57. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Peregrine, P. N. 1991 Some political aspects of craft specialization. World Archaeology 23(1):1–11. 1996 Introduction: World-Systems Theory and Archaeology. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in World Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 1–10. Madison, Wisconsin: Prehistory Press. 1999 Legitimation Crises in Prehistoric Worlds. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 37– 52. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Plog, S. 1976 Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between Communities. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, ed. K. V. Flannery, 255–272. New York: Academic Press. 1980 Stylistic Variation in Prehistoric Ceramics. Design Analysis in the American Southwest. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

143

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Navarrete, 231–245. Utah: New World Archaeological Foundation. 1983 Teotihuacan as World-System: concerning the applicability of Wallerstein’s model. In Orígen y Formación del Estado en Mesoamerica, ed. A. Medina, A. L. Austin and M. C. Serra, 169–194. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

1983 Analysis of Style in Artifacts. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:125–42. 1995 Equality and Hierarchy. Holistic Approaches to Understanding Social Dynamics in the Pueblo Southwest. In Foundations of Social Inequality. A Focus on Strategies and Processes, ed. T. D. Price and G.M. Feinman, 190–205. New York: Plenum Press.

Price, T. D. and G. M. Feinman (eds.) 1995 Foundations of Social Inequality. York: Plenum Press.

Pollard, H. 1991 The Construction of Ideology in the Emergence of the Prehispanic Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:167–179.

New

Puleston, D. E. 1977 The Discovery of the talud-tablero architecture at Tikal. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda (II), 377–381. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato.

Pool, C. A. 1992 Strangers in a Strage Land: Ethnicity and Ideology at an Enclave Community in Middle Classic Mesoamerica. In Ancient Images, Ancient Thought. The Art of Ideology, ed. A. S. Goldsmith, S. Garvie, D. Selin and J. Smith, 43–55. Calgary: University of Calgary.

Pulido Mendez, S., Araiza Gutierrez, A. and L. A. Grave Tirado 1995 Proyecto Carretera México-Guadalajara Tramo Maravatio-Zapotlanejo, (3vols.). México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Dirección de Salvamento Arqueológico. 1996 Arqueología en el norte de Michoacán. Investigación de salvamento en una carretera. Grupo Ingenieros Civiles Asociados, Operadora de la Autopista del Occidente, S.A. de C.V.. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Porter Weaver, M. 1948 Pottery found at Chupícuaro, Guanajato. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 42–47. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1967 Tlapacoya Pottery in the Museum Collection. New York: Museum of the American Indian Heye Foundation. 1969 A Reappraisal of Chupícuaro. In The Natalie Wood Collection of Precolumbian Ceramics from Chupícuaro, Guanajuato, México AT UCLA, ed. J. D. Frierman, 5–15. Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1993 The Aztecs, Maya, and their Predecessors: Archaeology of Mesoamerica (3rdedition). New York: Academic Press.

Ratnagar, S. 2001 The Bronze Age. Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial World System? Current Anthropology 42(3):351–379. Rattray, E. 1966 An archaeological and stylistic study of Coyotlatelco pottery. Mesoamerican Notes 7-8: 87– 181. 1977a Los Contactos entre Teotihuacán y Veracruz. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda (II), 301–311. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajato. 1977b Seriación de Cerámica Teotihuacana. Anales de Antropología 14:37–48. 1981 Anaranjado Delgado: Cerámica de Comercio de Teotihuacán. In Interacción Cultural en México Central, ed. E. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 55–80. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1987a Evidencia Cerámica de la Caída del Clásico en Teotihuacán. In El Auge y la Caída del Clásico en el México Central, ed. J. Mountjoy and D. Brockington, 77–85. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1987b Los Barrios Foráneos de Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan. Nuevos Datos, Nuevas Síntesis, Nuevos Problemas, ed. E. McClung Tapia and E. Childs Rattray, 243–273. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Porter, D. and E. King 1995 A Heterarchical Approach to Lowland Maya Socioeconomies. In Heterarchy and the Analysis of Complex Societies, ed. R. M. Ehrenreich, C. L. Crumley and J.C. Levy, 17–31. Archaeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association No 6. Pratt, F and C. Gay 1979 Ceramic Figures of Ancient Mexico. Guerrero, Guanajuato, Michoacán 1600BC–300AD. Graz: Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsantstalt. Preucel, R. and I. Hodder (eds.) 1993 Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A Reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder. Oxford: Blackwell. Price, B. 1978 Commerce and Cultural Process in Mesoamerica. In Mesoamerican Communication Routes and Cultural Contacts, ed. T. A. Lee and C.

144

Bibliography

1978 Trajectory Discontinuity and Morphogenesis: the Implications of Catastrophe Theory for Archaeology. American Antiquity 43(2):203–206. 1986 Introduction: peer polity interaction and sociopolitical change. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio–Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 1–18. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1987 The Simulator as Demiurge. In Simulations in Archaeology, ed. J. A. Sabloff, 283– 306. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1994a Towards a cognitive archaeology. In The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. Zubrow, 3–12. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994b The archaeology of religion. In The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, 47–54. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996 Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-political Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, 114–142. Oxford: Blackwell. 1998 Mind and Matter: Cognitive Archaeology and External Symbolic Storage. In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 1–6. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

1988 Un taller de cerámica anaranjado San Martin en Teotihuacán. In Ensayos de alfarería preHispánica e histórica de Mesoamerica. Homenaje a Eduardo Noguera, ed. M. C. Serra Puche and C. Navarrete Caceres, 249–266. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1990 New Findings on the Origins of ThinOrange Ceramics. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:181–195. 1992a The Oaxaca Barrio at Teotihuacán. Monografías Mesoamericanas Numero 1. México: Universidad de las Americas, Puebla. 1992b The Teotihuacán Burials and Offerings: a Commentary and Inventory. Nashville:Vanderbilt University. 1996 A Regional Perspective on the Epiclassic Period in Central Mexico. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C.Serra Puche, 213–231. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. 1997 Entierros y ofrendas en Teotihuacán: excavaciones, inventario, patrones mortuarios. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1998a Introducción. In Rutas de Intercambio en Mesoamerica. III Coloquio P. Bosch-Gimpera, ed. E. C. Rattray, 7–20. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1998b Rutas de intercambio en el período clásico en Mesoamerica. In Rutas de Intercambio en Mesoamerica. III Coloquio P. Bosch-Gimpera, ed. E. C. Rattray, 77–99. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Renfrew, C. and E. B. Zubrow (eds.) 1994 The ancient mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Rattray, E. and G. Harbottle 1992 Neutron Activation Analysis and Numerical Taxonomy of Thin Orange Ceramics from the Manufacturing Sites of Rio Carnero, Puebla, México. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, ed. H. Neff, 221–231. New York: Prehistory Press.

Renfrew, C. and P. Bahn 1996 Archaeology. Theories, Methods and Practice, (2nd ed.). London: Thames and Hudson. Reyna Robles, R. M. 1971 Las figurillas preclásicas. Licentiate thesis. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

Read, D. W. 1982 Toward a Theory of Archaeological Classification. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, ed. R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, 56–92. Illinois: Center for American Archaeology Press.

Reyna Robles, R. M. and F. Rodriguez Betancourt 1994 Elementos teotihuacanos en el estado de Guerrero: nuevas evidencias. In Matices y Alcances. Nuevas Investigaciones en Salvamento. México: Subdirección de Salvamento.

Redman , C. 1977 The “Analytical Individual” and Prehistoric Style Variability. In The Individual in Prehistory. Studies of Variability in Style in Prehistoric Technologies, ed. J. N. Hill and J. Gunn, 41–53. New York: Academic Press.

Rice, P. M. 1976 Rethinking the Ware Concept. American Antiquity 41 (4):538–543. 1987 Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Renfrew, C. 1975 Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions of Integration and Communication. In Ancient Civilizations and Trade, ed. J. A. Sabloff and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, 3–59. A School of American Research Book. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Riley, C. (ed.) 1971 Man across the sea. Austin: University of Texas Press.

145

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Reunión de Mesa Redonda, 48–49. Socidedad Mexicana de Antropología.

Ritual Arts of the New World 2000 Ritual Arts of the New World. Pre columbian America. Museu Barbier-Mueller Art PreColombí, Barcelona. Italy: Skira Editore. Robb, J. E. (ed.) 1999 Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

México:

Sabloff, J. A. 1986 Interaction among Classic Maya polities: a preliminary examination. In Peer Polity Interaction and Socio-Political Change, ed. C. Renfrew and J. F. Cherry, 109–116. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Robb, J. E. 1999 Secret Agents: Culture, Economy, and Social Reproduction. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 3–15. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.

Sabloff, J. A. and C.C. Lamberg-Karlofsky (eds.) 1975 Ancient Civilization and Trade. A School of American Research Book. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Sacchi, D. 2000 Gathering, Organization and Production of Information in Sixteenth-Century Surveys in Hispanic America. Review 23(2):293–308.

Robertson, D. 1983 Some differences in Urban Layout between Monte Albán and Teotihuacan. The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, ed. K. V. Flannery and J. Marcus, 167– 168. New York: Academic Press.

Sackett, J. R. 1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: a General Model. American Antiquity 42 (3): 369–380.

Rodríguez, L. C., Mendez M. A. and H. M. Niemeyer 2000 Direction of dispersion of cochineal (Dactylopius coccus Costa) within the Americas. Antiquity 75:73–77.

Sahlins, M. 1977 Colors and Cultures. In Symbolic Anthropology. A Reader in the Study of Symbols and Meanings, ed. J. L. Dolgin, D. S. Kemnitzer and D. M. Schneider, 165–180. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rodriguez Shadow, M. and M. Monzon Flores 1990 El epiclásico en el Valle de Teotihuacán. In Mesoamerica y Norte de México. Siglo IX-XII. Seminario de Arqueología “Wigberto Jiménez Moreno”, ed. F. Sodi Miranda, 143–154. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Saint-Charles Zetina, J.C. 1996 El Reflejo del Poder Teotihuacano en el Sur de Guanajato y Queretaro. In Tiempo y Territorio en Arqueología. El Centro Norte de México, ed. A. M. Crespo and C. Viramontes, 143–169. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Rowlands, M. 1987 Center and Periphery: A Review of the Concept. In Center and Periphery in the Ancient World, ed. M. J. Rowlands, M. T. Larsen and K. Kristiansen, 1–11. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989a A question of complexity. In Domination and Resistance ed. D. Miller, M. J. Rowlands and C. Tilley, 29–39. London: Unwin Hyman. 1989b The Archaeology of colonialism and constituting the African peasantry. In Domination and Resistance ed. D. Miller, M. Rowlands and C. Tilley, 261–283. London: Unwin Hyman. 1997 Teoría de la Arqueología: Tendencias recientes e implicaciones futuras. Paper presented at the symposium Desarrollo y perspectivas de la arqueologia europea, Museo Nacional de Antropología, México City, México. 1998 Centre and Periphery. A review of a concept. In Social Transformations in Archaeology. Global and local perspectives, ed. K. Kristiansen and M. Rowlands, 219–242. London and New York: Routledge.

Saitta, D. J. 1994 Agency, Class and Archaeological Interpretation. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 13:201–227. 1999 Prestige, Agency, and Change in MiddleRange Societies. In Material Symbols. Culture and Economy in Prehistory, ed. J. E. Robb, 135–149. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Sanders, W. 1977 Ethnographic Analogy and the Teotihuacán Horizon style. In Teotihuacán and Kaminaljuyú: a study in Prehistoric Culture Contact, ed. W. T. Sanders and J. W. Michels, 454–467. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State University Press. 1978 Ethnographic Analogy and the Teotihuacan Horizon Style. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400–700, ed. E. Pasztory, 35–44. New York: Columbia University Press. 1989 The Epiclassic as a Stage in Mesoamerican Prehistory: An Evaluation. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo, 211–218. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Rubín de la Borbolla, D. 1948 Problemas de la arqueología de Chupícuaro. In El Occidente de México. Cuarta

146

Bibliography

Schmidt, P. and J. Litvak King 1986 Problemas y perspectivas de la arqueología de Guerrero. In Arqueología y Etnohistoria del Estado de Guerrero, 28–51. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Gobierno del Estado de Guerrero.

Sanders, W. T and B. J. Price 1968 Mesoamerica. The Evolution of a Civilization. New York: Random House. Santley, R. 1983 Obsidian Trade and Teotihuacan Influence in Mesoamerica. In Highland-Lowland Interaction in Mesoamerica: Interdisciplinary Approaches. A conference at Dumbarton Oaks Oct. 1818th and 19th, 1980, ed. A. Miller, 69–124. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1989 Obsidian Working, Long-Distance Exchange, and the Teotihuacán Presence on the South Gulf Coast. In Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan AD 700-900, ed. R. A. Diehl and J. C. Berlo,131–151. Washington, D.C. : Dumbarton Oaks. 1991 The structure of the Aztec transport network. In Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World, ed. C. D. Trombold, 198–210. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994 Specialized Commodity Production in and around Matacapan: Testing the Goodness of Fit of the Regal-Ritual and Administrative Models. In Archaeological views from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 91–108. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Schondube-Baumbach, O. 1971a Religión en Mesoamerica. In XII Mesa Redonda. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. 1971b Deidades Prehispánicas en el Area de Tamazula-Tuxpan-Zapotlán en el Estado de Jalisco. In The Archaeology of West México, ed. B. Bell, 168– 181. Ajijic: Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de México. 1971c Introducción: Algunas Consideraciones sobre la Arqueología del Occidente de México. In The Archaeology of West México, ed. B. Bell, 1–4. Ajijic: Sociedad de Estudios Avanzados del Occidente de México. 1980 Historia de Jalisco. Desde los tiempos prehistóricos hasta fines del sigle XVI. Jalisco: Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco e Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Schortman, E. M. and P. A. Urban 1994 Living on the Edge. Core/Periphery Relations in Ancient Southeastern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 35 (4): 401–430. 1996 Actions at a Distance, Impacts at Home: Prestige Goods Theory and a Pre-Columbian Polity in Southeastern Mesoamerica. In Pre-Columbian World Systems. Monographs in Archaeology No. 26, ed. P. N. Peregrine and G. M. Feinman, 97–114. New York: Prehistory Press.

Santley, R. and R.Alexander 1996 Teotihuacan and Middle Classic Mesoamerica: A Precolumbian World System? In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W.T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 173–194. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. Sapir, D.J. and J.C. Crocker (eds.) 1977 The Social Use of Metaphor. Essays on the Anthropology of Rhetoric. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Schortman, E. M., Urban, P. A. and M. Ausec 1996 Comment on ‘A Dual-Processual Theory for the Evolution of Mesoamerican Civilization’ by R. E. Blanton, G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowaleski and P. N. Peregrine. Current Anthropology 37(1):61–63.

Schele, L. and P. Mathews 1991 Royal Visits and other intersite relationships among the Classic Maya. In Classic Maya Political History: Hieroglyphic and Archaeological Evidence, ed. P. Culbert, 226–252. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Schwartz, G.M. and S. Falconer 1994 Rural Approaches to Social Complexity. In Archaeological views from the countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 1–9. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Schiffer, M. B. 1999 A behavioral theory of meaning. In Pottery and People. A dynamic interaction, ed. J. M. Skibo and G. M. Feinman, 199–217. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press.

Sejourné, L. 1966 Arqueología de Teotihuacán. La Cerámica. México: Fondo de Cultura Económica. Seler, E. 1998 Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeology, 6 vols, ed. Frank E. Comparato. Culver City, CA: Labyrinthos.

Schneider, J. 1977 Was There a Pre-Capitalist World-System? Peasant Studies VI (1): 20–29.

147

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Sherratt, 119–130. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sempowski, B. 1987 Differential Mortuary Treatment: its Implications for Social Status at Three Residential Compounds in Teotihuacan, México. In Teotihuacán. Nuevos datos, Nuevas síntesis, Nuevos Problemas, ed. E. McClung de Tapia and E. C. Rattray, 115–131. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Serra Puche, M. C. (ed.) 1994 Cristales y obsidiana México: Siglo XXI editores.

Shutes, M.T. 1999 Goodnes of Fit: On the Relationship Between Ethnographic Data and World-Systems Theory. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange ed. N.P. Kardulias, 25–35. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Prehispánicos.

Sidrys, R. 1977 Trace-Element Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Portezuelo, México. Journal of New World Archaeology II (1): 47–51.

Serrano Sánchez, C. 1993 Funerary Practices and Human Sacrifice in Teotihuacan Burials. In Teotihuacan. Art from the City of the Gods, ed. K. Berrin and E. Pasztory, 109– 115. London: Thames and Hudson.

Sinopoli, C.M. 1991 Approaches to Archaeological Ceramics. New York: Plenum Press.

Sewell, W. H. Jr 1992 A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation. American Journal of Sociology 8(1):1–28.

Síntesis Geográfica de Guanajuato n.d. Síntesis Geográfica de Guanajuato. México: Secretaría de Programación y Presupuesto.

Shanks, M. and C. Tilley 1992 Re-constructing Archaeology. Theory and Practice. London: Routledge.

Síntesis Geográfica del Estado de Michoacán 1985 Síntesis Geográfica del Estado Michoacán. México: Instituto Nacional Estadística, Geografía e Informática.

Sharer, R. J. 2001 Founding Events and Teotihuacan Connections at Copán, Honduras. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 89–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Smith, M. E. 1994 Social Complexity in the Aztec Countryside. In Archaeological Views from the Countryside. Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M. Schwartz and S. Falconer, 143– 159. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Sharp, R. 1978 Architecture as Interelite Communication in Preconquest Oaxaca, Veracruz, and Yucatán. In Middle Classic Mesoamerica: AD 400-700, ed. E. Pasztory, 158–171. New York: Columbia University Press.

Smith, M. E. and F. F. Berdan 2000 The Postclassic Mesoamerica World System. Current Anthropology 41(2):282–287. Smith, R. E. 1987 A Ceramic Sequence from the Pyramid of the Sun, Teotihuacan, Mexico. Papers of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, vol. 75. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Shennan, S. 1993 After social evolution: a new archaeological agenda? In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 53–59. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996 Cultural Transmission and Cultural Change. In Contemporary Archaeology in Theory. A Reader, ed. R. W. Preucel and I. Hodder, 283–296. Oxford: Blackwell. 2000 Population, Culture History, and the Dynamics of Culture Change. Current Anthropology 41(5):811–835. Shepard, A. O. 1956 Ceramics Washington, D.C.: Washington.

for the Carnegie

de de

Solís Chávez, L. E. n.d. Una Visión del Michoacán Prehispánico. México: Casa de la Cultura, Morelia, Michoacán. Sotomayor, A and N. Castillo Tejero 1963 Estudio Petrográfico de la Cerámica “Anaranjado Delgado”. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Soustelle, J. 1984 Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica: an Introduction. In Ritual Human Sacrifice in Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th, 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 1–5. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Archaeologist. Institution of

Sherratt, A. 1993 The relativity of theory. In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. 148

Bibliography

Stocker, T. L. and M. W. Spence 1973 Trilobal Eccentrics at Teotihuacán and Tula. American Antiquity 38: 195–199.

Spence, K. 1999 Red, White and Black: Colour in Building Stone in Ancient Egypt. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9(1):114–117. Spence, M. W. 1977 Teotihuacán y el Intercambio de Obsidiana en Mesoamerica. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda (II), 293–299. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato. 1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacán. American Antiquity: 46 (4):769–87. 1987 The scale and structure of obsidian production in Teotihuacán. In Teotihuacán. Nuevos Datos, Nuevas Sintesis, Nuevos Problemas, ed. E. McClung de Tapia and E. Childs Rattray, 429–450. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. 1992 Tlailotlacan, a Zapotec Enclave in Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. K. Berlo, 59–88. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1996a A Comparative Analysis of Ethnic Enclaves. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 333– 353. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. 1996b Commodity or Gift: Teotihuacan obsidian in the Maya region. Latin American Antiquity 7(1):21–39.

Stuart, D. 1998 The Arrival of Strangers. Pre-Columbian Art Research Institute Newsletter No 25, July, 10–12. Sugiura Yamamoto, Y. 1996 El Epiclásico y el problema del Coyotlatelco vistos desde el Valle de Toluca. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 233–255. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. Sugiyama, S. 1989 Burials Dedicated to the Old Temple of Quetzalcoatl at Teotihuacan, México. American Antiquity 54(1):85–106. 1991 Descubrimiento de entierros y ofrendas dedicadas al Templo Viejo de Quetzalcoatl. In Teotihuacán 1980-1982. Nuevas interpretaciones, ed. R. C. Castro, I. Rodriguez García and N. Morelos García, 275–326. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1992 Rulership, Warfare, and Human Sacrifice at the Ciudadela: An Iconographic Study of Feathered Serpent Representations. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. K. Berlo, 205–230. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 1993 Worldview Materialized in Teotihuacán, México. Latin American Antiquity 4(2):103–129.

Spencer, C. S. 1982 The Cuicatlán Cañada and Monte Albán. New York: Academic Press. Spranz, B. 1982 Archaeology and the Art of Mexican Picture Writing. In The Art and Iconography of Late Post-Classic Central México. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 22nd and 23rd 1977, ed. E. H. Boone, 159–171. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Taçon, P. S. C. 1999 All Things Bright and Beautiful: the Role and Meaning of Colour in Human Development. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 9 (1):120–125. Taube, K. A. 1992 The Iconography of Mirrors at Teotihuacan. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. K. Berlo, 169–204. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks. 2001 Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 173–196. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Stein, G. 1993 Segmentary States and Organizational Variation in Early Complex Societies: A Rural Perspective. In Archaeological views from the countryside.Village Communities in Early Complex Societies, ed. G. M . Schwartz and S. Falconer, 10– 19. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1999a Rethinking World-Systems: Power, Distance, and Diasporas in the Dynamics of Interregional Interaction. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 153–177. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 1999b Rethinking World-Systems. Diasporas, Colonies and Interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.

Thomas, D. H. 1991 Entangled Objects. Exchange, Material Culture and Colonialism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Townsend, R. F. 1979 State and Cosmos in the Art of Tenochtitlan. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

149

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Van der Leeuw, S. 1994 Cognitive aspects of ‘technique’. In The ancient mind. Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, 135–142. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1997 Nuevas direcciones en los estudios cerámicos. Paper presented at the symposium Desarrollo y perspectivas de la arqueología europea. México City: Museo Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Trejo de la Rosa, L. 1977 Loma de Santa Maria. Morelia, Mich. In Bitácora 1977, ed. R. Piña Chan, 22–24. México: Centro Regional México-Michoacán e Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. n.d.Informe sobre el rescate arqueológico efectuado en Lomas del Valle, en Morelia, Michoacán (Manuscript). México: Centro Regional e Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Trigger, B. 1990 Monumental Architecture: a Thermodynamic Explanation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 22 (2): 119–130.

VanPool, C. S. and T. L. VanPool 1999 The Scientific Nature of Postprocessualism. American Antiquity 64 (1): 33– 53.

Turner, M. H. 1992 Style in Lapidary Technology: Identifying the Teotihuacan Lapidary Industry. In Art, Ideology and the City of Teotihuacan, ed. J. K. Berlo, 89–112. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Varela Torrecilla, C. 2001 Teotihuacan and Oxkintok: New Perspectives from Yucatán. In Teotihuacan and the Maya. Reinterpreting Early Classic interaction, ed. G. E. Braswell, 159–172. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Upham, S., G. M. Feinman and L. M. Nicholas 1992 New Perspectives on the Southwest and Highland Mesoamerica: A Macroregional Approach Review 15:3 (Summer):427–51.

Vega Sosa, C. 1981 Comparaciones entre Los Teteles de Ocotitla, Tlaxcala y Teotihuacán a través de materiales Cerámicos. In Interacción Cultural en México Central, ed. E. Rattray, J. Litvak King and C. Diaz O., 43–53. México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Uruñuela, G. 1989 Arqueología. In El Occidente de México, arqueología, historia, antropología, ed. R. Avila Palafox, 44–45. México: Editorial Universidad de Guadalajara.

Vierra, R. K. 1982 Typology, Classification, and Theory Building. In Essays on Archaeological Typology, ed. R. Whallon and J. A. Brown, 163–174. Center for American Archaeology Press.

Uruñuela Ladrón de Guevar, G. and P. Plunket 2001 Antecedentes Conceptuales de los Conjuntos de Tres Templos (http: //archaology.la.asu.edu/ teo/centro/index.htm).

Von Winning, H. 1977 Los Incensarios Teotihuacanos y los del Litoral Pacífico de Guatemala: su iconografía y función ritual. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, II, 327–334. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y University of Guanajuato. 1987 La iconografia de Teotihuacán. Los dioses y los signos, (2 vols). México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.

Urban, P. A. and E. M. Schortman 1999 Thoughts on the Periphery: The Ideological Consequences of Core/Periphery Relations. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 125– 152. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Urcid Serrano, J. 1994 Monte Albán y le escritura Zapoteca. In Monte Alban: Estudios Recientes, ed. M. Winter, 25– 54. Oaxaca: Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 19921994. 2001 Zapotec Hieroglyphic Writing. Washington, D. C.: Dumbarton Oaks.

Wallerstein, I. 1974 The Modern world system I. San Diego: Academic Press. 1979a The Capitalist World-Economy. Essays by I. Wallerstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l’ Homme. 1979b A world-system perspective on the social sciences. In The Capitalist World-Economy. Essays by I. Wallerstein. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Fondation de la Maison des Sciences de l’ Homme.

Urcid, J., M. Winter, and R.Matadamas 1994 Nuevos monumentos grabados en Monte Albán, Oaxaca. In Escritura Zapoteca Prehispánica. Nuevas Aportaciones. Proyecto Especial Monte Albán, ed. J. Marcus et al, 2–52. Oaxaca: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.

150

Bibliography

Weigand, P. and C. S. Beekman 1998 The Teuchitlán Tradition. Rise of a Statelike Society. In Ancient West México: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past, ed. R. Townsend, 35–51. London: Thames and Hudson.

Washburn, D. K. 2001 Remembering Things Seen: Experimental Approaches to the Process of Information Transmittal. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 8(1):67–99.

Wells, P. S. 1994 Comments on Schortman and Urban, Core and periphery in Southeastern Mesoamerica. Current Anthropology 35 (4):420. 1999 Production Within and Beyond Imperial Boundaries: Goods, Exchange, and Power in Roman Europe. In World-Systems Theory in Practice. Leadership, Production, and Exchange, ed. N. P. Kardulias, 85–101. Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Webb, M. 1975 The Flag Follows Trade: An Essay on the Necessary Interaction of Military and Commercial Factors in State Formation. In Ancient Civilization and Trade, ed. J. A. Sabloff and C. C. LambergKarlofsky, 155–209. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. 1977 The Significance of the “Epiclassic” Period in Mesoamerican Prehistory. In Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, ed. D. L.Browman, 155–178. Paris: Mouton.

Werbner, R. P. (ed.) 1977 Regional Cults. London: Academic Press.

Weber, M. 1976 The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. Translated by R. I. Frank. London: NLB.

Werbner, R. P. 1977a Introduction. In Regional Cults, ed. R. P. Werbner, ix–xxxvi. London:Academic Press. 1977b Continuity and Policy in Southern Africa’s High God Cult. In Regional Cults, ed. R. P. Werbner, 179–218. London:Academic Press.

Webster, D. 1996 Economic Differentiation, Stratification, and the evolution of Complex Societies: A Teotihuacán Case Example. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 111–134. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana.

West, M. 1965 Transition from Preclassic to Classic at Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 31(2): 193–201. Wheat, J. B., Gifford, J. C. and W. W. Wasley 1958 Ceramic variety, type cluster, and ceramic system in Southwestern pottery analysis. American Antiquity 24(1):34–47.

Weigand, P. 1985 Evidence for Complex Societies during the western Mesoamerican Classic Period. In The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mesoamerica, ed. M. S. Foster and P. C. Weigand, 47–91. Westview Press. 1992 The Evolution and Decline of a Core of Civilization: the Teuchitlán Tradition and the Archaeology of Jalisco. Paper presented at the symposium Cultural Dynamics in Precolumbian West and Northwest Mesoamerica, Phoenix, Arizona. 1993 Las Influencias del Centro de México en Jalisco y Nayarit durante el Clásico. In Evolución de una Civilización Prehispánica, ed. B. B. de Lameiras and P. Weigand, 163–175. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1996a La Evolución y Ocaso de un nucleo de civilización: la tradiciónTeuchitlán y la Arqueología de Jalisco. In Las Cuencas del Occidente de México, ed. E. Williams and P. Weigand, 185–245. México: El Colegio de Michoacán. 1996b The Architecture of the Teuchitlán Tradition of the Occidente of Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 91–101. 1996c Los codices preshispánicos de la zona de Teuchitlan, Jalisco. In Antropología en Jalisco. Una vision actual (vol.4), 19–26. México: Secretaría de Cultura y Gobierno de Jalisco.

Wheeler Pires-Ferreira, J. 1978a Obsidian Exchange Networks: Inferences and Speculations on the Development of Social Organization in Formative Mesoamerica. In Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, ed. D. L. Browman, 48– 78. Paris: Mouton. 1978b Shell Exchange Networks in Formative Mesoamerica. In Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, ed. D. L.Browman, 79–100. Paris: Mouton. White, C. D. and M. W. Spence 1998 Oxygen Isotopes and the Identification of Geographical Origins: The Valley of Oaxaca Versus the Valley of Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 25:643–655. White, C. D., Spence, M. W., Longstaffe F. J. and K. R. Law 2000 Testing the Nature of Teotihuacán Imperialism at Kaminaljuyú Using Phosphate Oxygen-Isotope Ratios. Journal of Anthropological Research 56: 535–558.

151

The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán

Teotihuacán: reflexiones y discusiones de su cronología, ed. R. Brambila and R. Cabrera, 461–475. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Whitehouse, R. D and J. B. Wilkins 1995 Greeks and natives in south-east Italy: approaches to the archaeological evidence. In Centre and Periphery. Comparative Studies in Archaeology, ed. T. C. Champion, 102–126. London: Routledge.

Winter, Marcus, Martínez López, C. and A. Herrera Muzgo 2000 Monte Albán y Teotihuacán: política e ideología (http://archaeology.la.asu.edu/teo/centro/).

Whitley, D. S. 1992 Prehistory and Post-Positivist Science. A Prolegomenon to Cognitive Archaeology. Archaeological Method and Theory 4:57–98.

Wobst, M. H. 1977 Stylistic behavior and information exchange. In For the Director: Research essays in honor of J. B. Griffin, ed. C. E. Cleland, 317–342. Anthropological Papers no.61. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. 1999 Style in Archaeology or Archaeologists in Style. In Material Meanings. Critical Approaches to the Interpretation of Material Culture, ed. E. S. Chilton, 118–132. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. 2000 Agency in (spite of) material culture. In Agency in Archaeology, ed. M-A. Dobres and J. E. Robb, 40–50. London and New York: Routledge.

Widmer, R. 1996 Procurement, Exchange, and Production of Foreign Commodities at Teotihuacán: State Monopoly or Local Control. In Arqueología Mesoamericana. Homenaje a W. T. Sanders I, ed. A. G. Mastache, J. R. Parsons, R. S. Santley and M. C. Serra Puche, 271–279. México: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia y Arqueología Mexicana. Wiessner, P. 1990 Is There a Unity to Style? In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, ed. M. Conkey and C. Hastorf, 105–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Yoffee, N. 1993 Too many chiefs? (or, Safe texts for the ’90s). In Archaeological theory: who sets the agenda? ed. N. Yoffee and A. Sherratt, 60–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wilkerson, S. J. K. 1984 In Search of the Mountain of Foam: Human Sacrifice in Eastern Mesoamerica. In Ritual Human Sacrifice In Mesoamerica. A Conference at Dumbarton Oaks October 13th and 14th, 1979, ed. E. H. Boone, 101–129. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Willey, G. R. 1999 Styles and State Formations. American Antiquity 10(1):86–90.

Yoffee, N. and A. Sherratt (eds.) 1992 Archaeological Theory: who sets the agenda? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Latin Zeitlin, R. N. 1990 The Isthmus and the Valley of Oaxaca: Questions about Zapotec Imperialism in Formative Period Mesoamerica. American Antiquity 55(2):250– 261.

Willey, G. R. and P. Philips 1958 Method and Theory in American Archaeology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Zubrow, E. B.W. 1994a Knowledge representation and archaeology: a cognitive example using GIS. In The Ancient Mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, 107–118. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994b Cognitive archaeology reconsidered. In The Ancient Mind. Elements of cognitive archaeology, ed. C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, 187–190. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Winter, M. C. 1977 El impacto Teotihuacano y procesos de cambio en Oaxaca. In Los Procesos de Cambio (en Mesoamerica y areas circunvecinas). XV Mesa Redonda, II, 359–367. México: Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología y Universidad de Guanajuato. Winter, M. et al. 1994 Escritura Zapoteca Prehispánica. Nuevas Aportaciones. Proyecto Especial Monte Albán 19921994. Oaxaca: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. 1995 Entierros Humanos de Monte Albán. Dos Estudios. Proyecto especial Monte Albán 1992-1994. Oaxaca: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.

Zubrow, E. B. W. and P. T. Daly 1998 Symbolic Behaviour: the Origin of a Spatial Perspective. In Cognition and Material Culture: the Archaeology of Symbolic Storage, ed. C. Renfrew and C. Scarre, 157–174. Cambridge: McDonald Institute Monographs.

Winter, M., C. Martinez López and D. E. Peeler 1998 Monte Albán y Teotihuacán: cronología e interpretaciones. In Los ritmos de cambio en 152