University of IowaIowa Research Online

Theses and Dissertations

2013

Detecting Ethnicity at Teotihuacan throughArchaeology: the West Mexican Presence atStructure N1W5:19Erica Martel BegunUniversity of Iowa

Copyright 2013 Erica Martel Begun

This dissertation is available at Iowa Research Online: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4821

Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd

Part of the Anthropology Commons

Recommended CitationBegun, Erica Martel. "Detecting Ethnicity at Teotihuacan through Archaeology: the West Mexican Presence at Structure N1W5:19."PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) thesis, University of Iowa, 2013.http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/4821.

DETECTING ETHNICITY AT TEOTIHUACAN THROUGH ARCHAEOLOGY: THE

WEST MEXICAN PRESENCE AT STRUCTURE N1W5:19

by

Erica Martel Begun

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Anthropology

in the Graduate College of The University of Iowa

August 2013

Thesis Supervisor: Associate Professor Glenn Storey

Graduate College The University of Iowa

Iowa City, Iowa

CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL

_______________________

PH.D. THESIS

_______________

This is to certify that the Ph.D. thesis of

Erica Martel Begun

has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Doctor of Philosophy degree in Anthropology at the August 2013 graduation.

Thesis Committee: ___________________________________ Glenn Storey, Thesis Supervisor

___________________________________ Helen P. Pollard

___________________________________ Scott Schnell

___________________________________ Art Bettis

___________________________________ Margaret Beck

ii

To the memory of Dr. Thomas H. Charlton; even though you were not here to see the end of this, you were there at the beginning. I am the scholar I am today because of your

guidance and teaching. Muchas gracias.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

First of all, I would like to thank Sergio Gómez Chávez for all of his help, insight,

and knowledge over the last few years. In addition, I would like to thank him for

allowing me access to the collections and the excavation forms. Thanks also go to Julie

Gazzola for allowing me access to the curated collection during my preliminary research

period.

Second, I would like to acknowledge and thank Rubén Abasol for teaching me the

Teotihuacan ceramic sequence, for doing most of the data entry and raw data gathering

for the household materials, and for putting up with my occasionally inadequate Spanish

vocabulary. Muchas gracias, Pek.

Third, I would like to acknowledge and thank the members of my committee for

their support and time: Dr. Glenn Storey, Dr. Helen Pollard, Dr. Scott Schnell, Dr. Elmer

A. Bettis, Dr. Margaret Beck, and Dr. Thomas Charlton. In particular, thanks go to

Glenn and Helen. Glenn, I would like to thank you for agreeing to chair my committee

after the death of Dr. Charlton. Helen, thank you for everything you’ve done for me

since my days as an undergraduate, I hope someday to know half as much as you know.

Thanks also go to Cynthia Charlton for acting as an outside reader.

Fourth, I would like to thank Mike Glascock and Hector Neff for their assistance

in the production and analysis of the XRF and INAA data (respectively). Furthermore, I

would like to thank NSF for the funding they provided the MURR laboratory to support

my work. In addition, thanks go to Amy Hirshman for her advice regarding these results

and suggestions for further avenues of analysis.

iv

I need to thank my husband, Robert Veenstra, for his love, his support, and his

amazing programming skills which helped me convert my data to useable forms.

Finally, thanks go to my family and friends. You know what you’ve done…and for all of

it, I thank you.

v

ABSTRACT

This dissertation seeks to explore the complex issue of ethnic identity in the

context of Classic period Mesoamerica at the urban center of Teotihuacan. Teotihuacan,

located in the central highlands region of Mexico, has revealed invaluable information

regarding the nature of the formation and maintenance of ethnicity and ethnic identity

during the Classic period. During its peak, Teotihuacan housed a number of foreign

populations, including groups with ties to Oaxaca, the Gulf Coast, the Maya region, and

Michoacán. While evidence for the first three is well documented, the Michoacán

presence at Teotihuacan has been for less straightforward. The major goal of this

research was to explore the complex nature of this presence at Teotihuacan with regards

to the N1W5:19 structure which was identified as having housed a potentially ethnic

Michoacán presence between 350-650 CE. Based on excavations from 1991, this

analysis uses both the household and burial assemblages as points of evidence for the

formation and maintenance of a Michoacán identity at Teotihuacan.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES…..……………………………………………………..……………..ix

LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………….x

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER I: GEOGRAPHY AND CULTURE HISTORY .............................................. 6

General Geography of the Region .................................................................................. 6

Culture History................................................................................................................ 8

CHAPTER II: ETHNICITY IN ARCHAEOLOGY ........................................................ 18

History of Ethnic Studies in Archaeology .................................................................... 18

How We Study Ethnicity .............................................................................................. 20

Style versus Function Debate........................................................................................ 29

Uses of Style ................................................................................................................. 33

Ethnohistory .................................................................................................................. 40

CHAPTER III: ETHNOHISTORY AND MESOAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY ........ 41

Selected Sources of Ethnohistoric Data in Mesoamerica ............................................. 45

Problems with Ethnohistory in Prehistory .................................................................... 47

CHAPTER IV: MESOAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR

ETHNIC DISTINCTIONS ............................................................................................... 50

General Sources of Data ............................................................................................... 51

Ethnicity in Michoacán ................................................................................................. 57

Archaeological Evidence .............................................................................................. 58

Ethnicity in Central Mexico .......................................................................................... 70

Archaeological Evidence .............................................................................................. 72

Maya Region ................................................................................................................. 83

Archaeological Evidence .............................................................................................. 85

Oaxaca........................................................................................................................... 89

Archaeological Evidence .............................................................................................. 91

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 96

CHAPTER V: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 98

The Configuration of the Burials .................................................................................. 98

Ceramic Complex ......................................................................................................... 99

Lithic Analysis ............................................................................................................ 106

vii

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 109

CHAPTER VI: RESULTS.............................................................................................. 111

Burial Configuration and Demographics .................................................................... 111

Summary of the Grave Configuration and Demographics ......................................... 114

Grave Goods ............................................................................................................... 116

Burial Complexes (Select Burials).............................................................................. 132

Summary of Burial Assemblage Results .................................................................... 137

Household Material Results ........................................................................................ 138

Other Household Material........................................................................................... 141

Summary of Household Results ................................................................................. 143

CHAPTER VII: DISCUSSION ...................................................................................... 145

Demographics ............................................................................................................. 145

Burial Ritual at N1W5:19 ........................................................................................... 147

Burial Assemblage ...................................................................................................... 148

Household Assemblage ............................................................................................... 149

Foreign Ceramics ........................................................................................................ 153

Implications of the Non-Local Materials .................................................................... 157

Lithics ......................................................................................................................... 160

Heirlooming at N1W5:19 ........................................................................................... 162

CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 165

APPENDIX A: SELECTED IMAGES OF XRF AND INAA SAMPLES ................... 175

A.1 Lithic Samples Sent for XRF at MURR: ............................................................. 175

A.2: Ceramic Samples Sent for INAA ........................................................................ 177

APPENDIX B: INAA RESULT REPORT FROM HECTOR NEFF ........................... 180

APPENDIX C: XRF ANALYSIS REPORT FROM MICHAEL GLASCOCK ............ 191

APPENDIX D: HOUSEHOLD CERAMICS ................................................................. 196

D.1: Base Counts for All Household Ceramics by Vessel Form ................................ 196

D.2: Base Ceramic Counts showing Totals by Phase ................................................. 200

D.3: Base Counts by Waregroup ................................................................................ 201

D.4: Household Ceramics Showing Phase, Waregroup, and Form ............................ 202

APPENDIX E: BURIAL CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE DATA ..................................... 240

E.1: Burial Ceramics Showing Counts and Percentages for Waregroups by

Phase ................................................................................................................... 240

viii

E.2: Ceramic Data Showing Counts and Percentages for Phase by Vessel Form

of the Burial Ceramic Assemblage. .................................................................... 243

APPENDIX F: BURIAL LITHIC DATA ...................................................................... 249

F.1: Total Lithic Assemblage from the Burials of N1W5:19 Showing Counts

and Percentages Based on Form, Material, and Phase. ........................................ 249

APPENDIX G: TOTAL BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE DATA .......................................... 254

G.1: Summary of Burials and Associated Grave Goods from N1W5:19 ................... 254

G.2: Total Burial Assemblage Counts and Percentages Based on Material and

Form .................................................................................................................... 275

G.3 Total Burial Assemblage of N1W5:19 Summary Counts and Percentages

Based on Material Only ....................................................................................... 280

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 281

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Age estimates for Classic Period burials from N1W5:19. ................................ 112

Table 2: Sex estimates for Classic Period burials from N1W5:19 as ............................. 113

Table 3: Age and burial type cross-tabulation for Classic Period burials from

N1W5:19 as recorded by excavators. ............................................................... 113

Table 4: Table showing the burials with Michoacán and Oaxacan materials................. 138

Table 5: Totals and percentages of household ceramic assemblage by phase.

Total N=40949 ................................................................................................. 141

Table 6: Total number and percentages of ware groups from the household

materials of N1W5:19. ..................................................................................... 142

Table 7: Comparison between burial demographics for age at death from

Tlajinga 33 and N1W5:19. ............................................................................... 146

Table 8: Showing a comparison of comal frequencies over time at various

locations in Teotihuacan between the Miccaotli and Metepec phases. .......... 152

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of Mesoamerica showing locations of key regions and sites

discussed. ............................................................................................................ 7

Figure 2: Map of Teotihuacan ......................................................................................... 11

Figure 3: Comparative chronology chart of Basin of Mexico, simplified for

Classic period only ............................................................................................ 12

Figure 4: Map showing the plan view of N1W5:19 ......................................................... 17

Figure 5: Sample of Tres Palos Red on Cream from Pollard’s 2001 excavations at

Erongaricuaro. .................................................................................................... 61

Figure 6: Agropecuaria rojo (plain variety) showing high gloss finish and reddish

slip ..................................................................................................................... 62

Figure 7: Al secco bowl from the N1W5:19 excavations. Bowl was

approximately 20cm diameter and 7.5 cm tall, measurements are visual

approximations due to the curated status of the vessel.. .................................. 64

Figure 8: Map of N1W5:19 showing locations of INAA samples ................................ 103

Figure 9: Map of N1W5:19 showing the locations of the five obsidian samples

sent for XRF. .................................................................................................. 110

Figure 10: Map showing locations of the burials within the N1W5:19 compound. ....... 115

Figure 11: Total counts for burial ceramic assemblage by phase. Total = 2572

sherds. ........................................................................................................... 118

Figure 12: Total percentages by phase for burial ceramics. Total N=2572 sherds. ...... 119

Figure 13: Total counts of burial ceramics by ware group. Total N=2752................... 120

Figure 14: Total percentages of burial ceramic assemblage by ware group. .................. 121

Figure 15: Bivariate plot showing comparative levels of Tantalum and Cobalt as

basis for inclusion/exclusion of the N1W5:19 ceramic samples into the

control groups (Teotihuacan and Patzcauro). Ellipses show a high

level of similarity and suggest similar sources for materials. Overall,

most of the N1W5:19 samples did not overlap with either control

group, however a small number (N1W5:19 Group 3) did overlap with

the Patzcuaro 1 and 4 control groups. ........................................................... 122

xi

Figure 16: Total counts of lithics from the N1W5:19 burial assemblage.

Total N=278. ................................................................................................. 126

Figure 17: Zinapécuaro-Ucareo blade found in burial 27.. ............................................. 127

Figure 18: Slate with red pigment from burial assemblage of N1W5:19. ...................... 127

Figure 19: Mica bird’s wing from burial 27. .................................................................. 128

Figure 20: Amethyst pendant from N1W5:19, burial 36. ............................................... 129

Figure 21: Pachuca obsidian beads found in association with amethyst pendant in

N1W5:19, burial 36. ..................................................................................... 130

Figure 22: Marine conch shell (Pleurploca sp.) from burial 34. .................................... 132

Figure 23: Pátzcuaro style figurines from Burial 27. Figurines are approximately

11cm tall......................................................................................................... 135

Figure 24: Graph of ware group frequencies from total household ceramic

assemblage. ................................................................................................... 143

Figure 25: Bivariate plot showing the exclusion of the Basin of Mexico as the

point of origin for the INAA sample analyzed by MURR............................ 159

1

INTRODUCTION

Ethnicity and ethnic contact between various societies is a central issue in the

field of Mesoamerican archaeology. While few people seem to deal with it directly, it

sits at the heart of much of what archaeologists deal with when examining the

interactions that occurred between the various cultural groups that have been identified in

Prehispanic Mesoamerica (e.g. Pendergast 1971; Rattray 1989; Gómez 1998; Spence

2005). Much of the discussion of ethnic contacts and colonization that is situated during

the Classic period (300 AD-900 AD) revolves around the central Mexican civilization of

Teotihuacan (e.g. Rattray 1989; Gómez 1998; Spence 2005) and its impact on and

relations with other areas of Mesoamerica (Pendergast 1971; Sanders and Michels

1969,1977). As with many studies of ethnic contact in an urban setting, the studies at

Teotihuacan have placed an emphasis on those who might be considered outsiders (see

Gómez 1998; Spence 2005; Rattray 1989).

While there is much discussion of the interactions between two ethnic groups in

both the academic literature and the news media, it is rare that people offer definitions of

what constitutes an ethnic group or ethnicity (Isajiw 1974:111; Emberling 1997:300).

Ethnicity is a means by which people associate with or distinguish themselves from other

groups of people (Barth 1969; Emberling 1997; Jones 1997; White et al 2004 a,b).

Laveda and Schultz (2007:104) define an ethnic group as being “distinguished from other

kinds of social groups based on attributes defining group membership that are cultural in

nature: shared language, shared religion, shared customs, shared history…ethnic identity

is often thought…to be rooted in some common biological origin.” This definition is

2

similar to that presented in other basic anthropological textbooks (Kottak 2000:114), in

which an ethnic group is defined as

a group that shares beliefs, values, customs, and norms because of their

common background…may speak a common language, practices the same

religion, and shares historical experience. Markers of an ethnic group may

include a collective name, belief in common ancestry, a sense of

solidarity, and an association with a specific territory, such as a homeland,

that the group may or may not hold (from Ryan 1990: xiii-xiv in Kottak

2000:114)

In general, the nature of ethnicity is a means by which humans group themselves and

others based on shared cultural traits. Unfortunately, this categorization can lead to inter-

group conflict. Genocide and discrimination often stem from the ethnic grouping of

people. Due to the often dramatic results from ethnic mixing, anthropologists have been

interested in understanding how people define identity and place themselves within an

ethnic group.

Early work on defining cultural groups focused on group identity as a bounded

phenomenon within which a specific group of people lived. However, anthropologists

soon discovered that cultural identity is not something that fits easily into boundaries, but

rather, is a changeable, fluid social construct (Lucy 2005). According to Barth (1969:10-

11) an ethnic group can be defined as:

a population which:

1. is largely biologically self-perpetuating

2. shares fundamental cultural values, realized in overt unity in cultural

forms

3. makes up a field of communication and interaction

4. as a membership which identifies itself, and is identifiable by others, as

constituting a category distinguishable from other categories of the same

order

3

Barth’s definition of ethnicity rejected earlier attempts to define ethnicity as a

concept with boundaries and sought, instead, to understand how groups themselves

define their unique identities. Furthermore, Barth (1969) sought to contextualize human

societies in terms of their interactions with, and relationships to, their neighbors and

themselves.

Recent work dealing with ethnicity and ethnic identity, both in the general field of

anthropology and in the subfield of archaeology, has been based on this “Barthian”

concept of ethnicity and has sought to understand how people define their own ethnicity

from within their own cultural perspective (Emberling 1997) or within a particular

situation (Stayman and Deshpande 1989:361). Studies on ethnicity, in both the past and

the present, seem well adapted to focusing on multicultural settings, such as urban

centers, in which a variety of cultural and ethnic groups interact and reside.

While anthropologists dealing with modern ethnic groups have the advantage of

first person accounts and direct observation and interaction, archaeologists are forced to

rely on other pieces of evidence when attempting such studies. As such, there are a

number of ways in which archaeologists have sought to understand ethnicity in

archaeological contexts. The most common of these is the use of stylistic analyses in

order to determine cultural and ethnic affiliations of artifacts. In addition, in the cases of

those cultures for which we have surviving texts that can be translated, there is the chance

for ethnohistoric information that may help unravel the complex nature of ethnicity and

cultural identity in the past.

The ancient city of Teotihuacan has been a focal point for the study of ethnic

relations and presences during the Classic period of central Mexico. Analyses of material

4

culture remains have identified the presence of at least three foreign groups at

Teotihuacan. Among these, is the N1W5:19 compound; located in the northwestern

quadrant of the site, this compound has revealed intriguing evidence of a connection

between Teotihuacan and Michoacán. While there has been a significant amount of work

done on the materials from the N1W5:19 compound by Archaeologist Sergio Gómez and

Dr. Julie Gazzola, their analyses have been mostly limited to the complete burial goods

and grave construction. In addition, Michael Spence and Christine White (2004) have

provided isotopic analysis of some of the human remains which has offered tantalizing

evidence for the Michoacán affiliation of the people of N1W5:19.

While this previous research provided a solid foundation for my work, I felt that a

better understanding of the Michoacán presence at Teotihuacan could be gained through a

more complete analysis of the burial and household assemblages. As such, the primary

goal of this research was to better understand the Classic period Michoacán presence at

Teotihuacan through the lens of the construction and maintenance of an ethnic identity by

the occupants of the compound. Specifically, I wanted to test whether stylistic and

chemical analyses of the material culture could be used to better understand the nature of

both the Michoacán presence at Teotihuacan and the connections the Michoacán

affiliated people at Teotihuacan had with Michoacán itself. To this end, ceramics

samples from both the burial offerings and household assemblage were selected for

Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) by the Missouri University Research

Reactor under the guidance of Mike Glascock. In addition to the ceramics samples, five

obsidian samples from the burial offerings were sent to MURR for XRF analysis. These

results combined with a general analysis of the burial offering assemblage and a portion

5

of the household material, in addition to an analysis of the burial ritual and grave

construction, provided the basis for my research into the role of ethnic identity within the

N1W5:19 compound.

Initially, I hoped that such an analysis would demonstrate that the occupants of

the compound were producing ceramic and/or lithic material in a manner which was

consistent with the material produced in Michoacán. The production of stylistically

Michoacán materials with local (Teotihuacan) clays would suggest an effort was being

made by the occupants to maintain “traditional” production techniques, and thus support

the idea that the inhabitants of N1W5:19 were seeking to maintain their cultural

affiliation and ethnic identity as being directly linked to northern/central Michoacán. It

soon became readily apparent that something very different had occurred. Rather than

finding evidence of production, I discovered a distinct lack of locally made, stylistically

Michoacán material.

Instead, evidence suggested that the people of the compound had either imported

or brought materials with them to Teotihuacan which were both stylistically and

physically originating in Michoacán. Furthermore, while such materials first showed up

in burial contexts, this practice seems to have quickly faded, leaving the Michoacán

materials to show up in household midden contexts instead. This, coupled with the

overwhelmingly local nature of the assemblage and majority of burial types, suggested

that the answer to what these Michoacán-affiliated people were doing at Teotihuacan was

much more complex than I had previously thought.

6

CHAPTER I: GEOGRAPHY AND CULTURE HISTORY

General Geography of the Region

The prehistoric city of Teotihuacan, located in the Teotihuacan Valley, lies about

45 km northeast of modern Mexico City (Figure 1). At the height of its power in the

Classic period, Teotihuacan was the largest urban settlement in Mesoamerica. Like most

of the central plateau region of Mexico, the area surrounding the Basin of Mexico and the

Teotihuacan Valley is comprised of volcanic mountains. The Basin itself covers nearly

5000 km2

and lies at an average of 2500 m above sea level. The fertile volcanic soils,

coupled with the temperate, if semi-arid, climate gives the Basin of Mexico an extensive

and productive growing season suitable for maize, beans, and many other staple crops of

the Mesoamerican diet (Cowgill 1997:134).

The city of Teotihuacan was supported by the San Juan River, which was fed by

springs in Pre-modern times and ran through the middle of the prehistoric city. While the

river still exists, it is no longer supported by the springs as the water table has dropped

too far due to the high water demands of nearby Mexico City. It was the major source of

water for the city, although it has been suggested that rain water collected in large

ceramic vessels would have been a vital augmentation for the river’s water supply,

especially during the months when rain is a near daily occurrence.

The climate of the Teotihuacan Valley is best described as semi-arid, with definite

seasonal changes in rainfall and temperature. During the winter months (December to

February), day time temperatures hover in the low 70s Fahrenheit, while nighttime

temperatures can dip close to and below freezing. Summertime temperatures reach the

low 90s during the day, but are eased by the daily rain showers that roll across the valley

7

in the late afternoons. Annual rainfall has been estimated at around 500 mm (Evans

2004:211). As such, Evans (2004) states that cultivation in the region required the

assistance of irrigation practices.

Figure 1: Map of Mesoamerica showing locations of key regions and sites discussed.

8

Culture History

The city of Teotihuacan (Figure 2) dominated the Basin of Mexico during the

Classic period of Mesoamerican prehistory. The height of its dominance over the region

has been placed between 250 CE and 650 A.D (Sugiyama 1993; Cowgill 2011). Based

on Rene Millon’s mapping project in the early 1970s, the site of Teotihuacan is estimated

to have covered approximately 20 km2 (Millon 1973; Spence 1981). At the peak of

occupation, it was the largest city in the Americas.

According to the archaeological record, the first evidence of occupation in the

Teotihuacan Valley dates to approximately 900 BCE (Weaver 1981, Evans 2004). These

small, scattered settlements were ultimately consolidated into one of the largest pre-

industrial cities in Mesoamerica. During the late Preclassic, Teotihuacan and its rival to

the south, Cuicuilco, vied for dominance of the Basin until the latter was abandoned

during the Tzacualli phase, due, at least in part, to the growing economic power of

Teotihuacan (Cowgill 2011). Following the abandonment and eventual destruction of

Cuicuilco by the Xitle eruption (Cowgill 2011) sometime between 400 BCE and 400 CE

(Evans 2004), the population center of the Basin shifted northeast to the Teotihuacan

Valley (Pasztory 1997:43). By 250-300 A.D (Figure 3), Teotihuacan dominated the

Basin of Mexico and controlled trade of obsidian from the Basin of Mexico sources via

routes throughout the greater Mesoamerican region, ranging as far away as highland

Guatemala (Spence 1981).

By the end of the Preclassic, there is evidence of a systematic consolidation of

population into the urban center. The leadership of the city (whose identity is still

unknown) seems to have ordered the razing of those buildings that were previously

9

present and had the city rebuilt on its present orientation of 15.5 degrees east of true north

along with many of the other major structures found in the core of the city (Cowgill

2011). Cowgill (2011:3-4) further suggests that the nature of the building projects at this

time suggests the tantalizing possibility of the presence of what he describes as “a strong,

very skilled, ambitious, and probably charismatic person with good rhetorical skills” who

may have taken over leadership of the political structure of the city. While some of the

evidence suggests the presence of such a leader, it is hardly conclusive. Current work by

Sergio Gómez seeks to discover the tombs of these early leaders under the Temple of

Quetzalcoatl in the Ciudadela region of the city. Following this realignment of the city,

the majority of the populace moved into apartment compounds within the city which

were built along the city’s grid pattern (Evans 2004). This pattern of occupation

continued through the remainder of the Teotihuacan sequence until the city’s eventual

collapse and subsequent depopulation around the year 650 CE.

Teotihuacan rose to its greatest power during the early and middle Classic period.

At its height, during the Xolalpan phase, it is estimated that nearly 125,000-150,000

people lived and worked in the urban center (Millon 1973, 1992:344; Spence 1981:769;

Cowgill 1997:133). Unlike many other urban centers of its ilk, the majority of the

population of Teotihuacan lived within the city proper, rather than in scattered

agricultural settlements in the hinterlands that fed the city (Cowgill 1997:133). The city

was supported by the agricultural lands that surrounded the city, allowing for craft

specialization and the presence of a large class of elites, which may have accounted for as

much as 35% of the city’s populace (Spence 1981:769). Many of the craft workshops

seem to be centers of local production. A small number of them are connected to elite

10

residences and the presence and distribution of raw materials within the city has been

used by some to suggest state sponsoring, especially over the production of obsidian

goods (Spence 1981). Overall, however, state control over production and distribution

within the city seems limited.

In addition to the local populace, Teotihuacan was home to a number of foreign

enclaves. These enclaves, located in the Merchants’ and Oaxaca Barrios represent a

small part of the population which may have had non-local ties. Archaeological evidence

has identified a Lowland Maya presence within the Merchants’ Barrio complex (Cowgill

1997), while the Oaxaca Barrio likely housed a Zapotec affiliated population along with

one with Michoacán origins (Gómez 1998, 2002). While the full scope of these foreigner

barrios is not yet understood, they play an important role in our understanding of the

cultural landscape which existed within the complex urban setting of Classic period

Teotihuacan.

Merchants’ Barrio

Located in the eastern part of the city, the area identified as the Merchants’ Barrio

has provided a good deal of evidence for ethnic ties to the Maya region. While the

majority of the ceramic evidence from the barrio is of Teotihuacan origins, there is a Gulf

Lowland ceramic complex found here as well (Cowgill 1997). Much of the work on the

Merchants’ Barrio was conducted by Evelyn Rattray (1987, 1989) and suggested that the

occupants of this ethnic enclave within Teotihuacan consisted of a diverse group of

classic Maya peoples from the Gulf Lowlands and Petén regions (Rattray 1989; Millon

1973; Clayton 2005).

11

Figure 2: Map of Teotihuacan (from Millon 1973).

12

Figure 3: Comparative chronology chart of Basin of Mexico, simplified for Classic

period only. From Rattray 2001; Cowgill 2011), Michoacán (from Pollard 1999), and the

Valley of Oaxaca (from Blanton et al 1999).

While the true purpose of this ethnically distinctive area within the city is only

partly understood, it has been commonly suggested that the area represents a section of

the city occupied by merchants moving between the Maya regions and Teotihuacan.

Interestingly, this compound exhibits one of the few cases of non-Teotihuacan

architecture being present within the city. While many of the buildings in the compound

seem to be constructed in the typical Teotihuacan fashions, there are a few circular

structures which are not typical of Teotihuacan architectural practices (Cowgill 1997).

13

These, it has been suggested, may have served as storage buildings for imported goods

from the Maya regions.

Tlailotlacan-Oaxaca Barrio

The Oaxaca Barrio (N1W6 and surrounding areas) gives evidence for the second

of the major foreign barrios at Teotihuacan (Cowgill 1997; Rattray 1993; Spence 1989,

1992). This cluster of buildings, while built in the typical Teotihuacan style of apartment

compounds, has a number of internal elements suggesting a Oaxacan/Zapotec affiliation.

The majority of the ceramics that have been studied from the compound suggest

extensive use of local clay sources (Cowgill 1997) by the occupants of the barrio for the

construction of ceramic vessels in the style of Late Monte Albán II. This makes up a

very small percentage of the total ceramic assemblage, which is typically Teotihuacan.

There are also a small number of foreign or imported vessels which have been linked to

Oaxaca. Genetic analysis by Spence has shown that there was a high degree of

relatedness among the members of the enclave and that intermarriage with the general

Teotihuacan populace was likely rare (Spence 1976 cf Marcus and Flannery 1996:233).

Interestingly, there seems to be a degree of disconnect between the pottery styles

found in the Oaxaca Barrio and the ceramic chronology of Monte Albán. While the

ceramic chronology in Oaxaca shifts over time, there seems to be a lag or stagnation in

the inclusion of these changing forms in the Zapotec affiliated barrio at Teotihuacan.

Cowgill (1997) goes so far as to determine that the styles remain unchanged within the

Oaxaca Barrio until well into the Metepec phase when the classic organization and

structure of Teotihuacan declines and eventually collapses. This maintenance of style has

been interpreted as evidence for “remarkable conservatism” (Cowgill 1997:139; Spence

14

1992) or may reflect problems with archaeological interpretation of the ceramic

sequence. In either event, it is worth noting that the general trend in the archaeological

assemblage is towards local consumption of locally produced materials, both of

Teotihuacan and Oaxacan styles. Overall, the evidence for importation of Zapotec

ceramics is rare. In this way, the Zapotec enclave is an excellent point of comparison for

the potential Michoacán occupation nearby.

Structure 19:N1W5

Located approximately 150 meters to the east of the Tlailotlacan (Zapotec)

complex (Spence 2005), the N1W5:19 (Figure 4) compound has provided the majority of

evidence for a Michoacán affiliated occupation at Teotihuacan during the Classic period.

Among the evidence reported by Gómez (1998), who excavated the compound in 1991 as

a salvage project for the Mexican government, are a number of ceramic vessels of al

secco, figurines, and burial types which are not found locally at Teotihuacan. He does

report that at least one of the figurines (from burial 27), seemed to have a non-local paste

and was similar to those described by Noguera (1944) at the Michoacán site of Jiquilpan

(located in the northwest part of the modern state of Michoacán) (Gómez 1998:1483;

Gómez 2002). In addition, he discovered two tombs at the compound which appear to

have been constructed in a style similar to the shaft tomb tradition of Early Classic West

Mexico (Gómez 1998; Cowgill 1997).

While, stylistically, the majority of the ceramics seem to be Teotihuacan in origin

(and thus, likely in production), there is a small number of ceramic pieces which

stylistically resemble those found in Michoacán. These include three small, everted rim

jars (about 6cm tall, 7cm at max width). A fourth pot was larger, although just as plain as

15

the three small ones. In addition to the four everted rim pieces, two bowls with al secco

decoration (on display in the small museum on site) were excavated from the burials at

Structure 19:N1W5. This style of decoration is rare in most of Michoacán, and seems to

be present only in Classic period deposits. While the typological specimens from Classic

period Michoacán were generally absent, the inclusion of a small number of stylistically

Michoacán vessels seems significant.

In addition, findings from a study on the oxygen isotope content of the skeletal

materials from N1W5:19 have supported the ties between the Teotihuacan apartment

complex and the Pátzcuaro region of Michoacán (White et al 2004 a, b). According to

these studies, a handful of the individuals buried at N1W5:19 spent a significant portion

of their lives living outside of Teotihuacan, likely in the Pátzcuaro region, before

returning to Teotihuacan later in life (Spence personal communication). Life at

Teotihuacan, for this small group, would have been remarkably different from what they

were accustomed to in Michoacán. Pollard (personal communication) likened it to “an

Amazonian in New York City.” During this time period (Loma Alta III), settlement sizes

in north-central Michoacán were relatively small. As such, the size of the city alone

would have been overwhelming.

It is important to point out that, as non-Teotihuacanos (if they indeed were not),

there would have been no hiding their foreign nature from the people of Teotihuacan.

Pollard (1994) points out that during the Late Postclassic, language played a distinct role

in the organization, identification, and formation of ethnic and social identity between

Michoacán and Central Mexico. As such, it is very likely that such linguistic differences

which identified Purepecha speakers from Nahua speakers in the Late Postclassic, would

16

have marked the early occupants of N1W5:19 as different. It is likely because of this that

they were located near the margins of the city and affiliated with another foreign presence

within the city. This marginal placement and association with other, more established,

foreigners at Teotihuacan supports a number of migration models in which small groups

immigrate with the assistance of other, already established, immigrants (MacDonald and

MacDonald 1964).

The purpose of this research was to delve deeper into the material record in an

attempt to better understand the nature of this recognizably foreign material presence at

Teotihuacan. Until this point, the majority of the research done on the material from the

compound has been focused on visual and stylistic analysis for the purpose of merely

identifying the presence of this material. It has not attempted a deeper understanding of

the cultural identity of these people or the ethnic affiliations which they may have been

constructing for themselves in the city’s cosmopolitan environment. As such, much of

the focus of this research has been on recognition of and understanding the ethnic

affiliation of the occupants of the N1W5:19 structure during its Classic period

occupation.

17

Figure 4: Map showing the plan view of N1W5:19 as drawn by Sergio Gómez (1998,

2002; with Gazzola 2007).

18

CHAPTER II: ETHNICITY IN ARCHAEOLOGY

History of Ethnic Studies in Archaeology

As with other aspects of anthropological inquest (i.e. biological race/origins),

ethnicity studies arise from ignoble origins. Studies of ethnic or cultural groups in

archaeological contexts go back to the early foundations of formal archaeological inquest

in Europe (Trigger 1990), and thus form a foundation for studies elsewhere in the world.

These early studies were oftentimes linked to nationalistic aims of those funding and

performing the research (Trigger 1990). Among the more infamous of these was the

work of Gustaf Kossina in the early 20th

century which was used by the Third Reich in

order to justify an agenda of German expansion and conquest into areas of Poland,

Russia, and the Caucasus (McCann 1990:83-4 in Jones 1997:3; Jones 1997:2-3; Trigger

1990: 163-167; Lucy 2005). While Kossina’s goals were to prove a deeply Germanic

root for the occupation of the region, and thus to justify German superiority following the

country’s defeat in World War I, it is in his work, that the foundations of systematic

ethnic studies in European archaeology can be found (Jones 1997; Trigger 1990).

Kossina was influenced by the chronological work of Montelius, which linked changes in

the archaeological record to temporal variation within a region (Trigger 1990).

Furthermore, Trigger points out (1990:165) that Kossina was the first to draw

connections between variation in material culture, geographical distribution, and distinct

ethnic or cultural groups; suggesting that by recognizing such variation over time and

space, one could sequence the cultural presence of a group of people.

Kossina’s work, while often condemned for its racist motives, had a lasting

impact on ethnic studies in archaeological contexts and laid the foundation for V. Gordon

19

Childe’s work (Trigger 1990; Lucy 2005:88). Childe rejected Kossina’s ideas that

equated culture and race, instead focusing on the identification of cultural affiliations

within the material record (Trigger 1990; Lucy 2005). This work led to an interpretation

of prehistory which linked specific cultures (or “peoples”) to distinct geographical

regions based on the presence or absence of certain key artifacts (Jones 1997; Trigger

1990: Lucy 2005), resulting in distinct, geographically bounded culture groups which

were identified by these type specimens. These artifact-specimens, in turn, became the

labels by which the prehistoric cultures of Europe were known. Furthermore, it is based

on these artifacts that the identities of the people themselves has been constructed, further

equating cultural affiliation with the geographical distributions of artifacts rather than the

social processes occurring in the past.

Ethnicity, and many of the other more ephemeral aspects of culture, took a

proverbial back-seat during the New Archaeology/Processual Archaeology movements of

the mid-20th

century (Lucy 2005:91). While not directly engaged in work dealing with

ethnicity, Binford’s processual archaeology nonetheless had an important impact on how

cultural identity is studied in prehistory by rejecting the culture-history model of group

identity through shared beliefs and characteristics, instead shifting the focus to the

generalized processes and relations between a group of people, the environment, and the

material record (Trigger 1990).

Since the 1980s, gender, ethnicity and other issues of cultural identity have once

again begun to appear in archaeological studies and literature (see Emberling 1997: 298

for a selected bibliography of such works). A major issue in many studies of ethnicity in

the past is the need for methods by which to assess largely ephemeral cultural

20

phenomenon in the material record. Much of the current work dealing with ethnicity

continues to rely on stylistic analyses as the basic method of analysis (e.g. Wobst 1977;

Sackett 1990) although, according to Emberling (1997:311) the materials used for such

studies has expanded. However, some researchers have begun attempting a synthesis

between stylistic analysis and a deeper understanding of the technological and social

forces that can be observed in the archaeological record (i.e. Wobst 1977; Weissner

1983; Stark, 1998; Drooker 2001). This, in turn, lays the foundation for modern studies

of ethnicity in the past.

How We Study Ethnicity

Ethnicity is a socially embedded phenomenon. As with other socially expressed

aspects of culture, such as gender, it is often difficult to see direct evidence of ethnicity in

the archaeological record. While some work has been done attempting to relate stylistic

analysis to interpretations of ethnicity and identity (e.g. Wobst 1977; Sackett 1990), it

remains difficult to assess ethnicity in purely archaeological contexts. Further

compounding the issue is the realization that while there have been some attempts to

decipher ethnicity from archaeological material (Reycraft 2005) these attempts are rare

and hampered by the lack of cultural contexts through which to make such

interpretations.

In such cases, archaeologists oftentimes turn to ethnohistoric documents for

assistance in analyzing and interpreting the archaeological record. While these

documents do not always detail the societies from prehispanic times, there are

applications of the information they present that can be projected into the past. This use

of ethnographic analogy adds depth to the interpretations made by archaeologists.

21

Stylistic Analysis

Style is one concept that tends to defy easy classification and definition (Sackett

1977:369). As such, there is some debate over what constitutes style in the

archaeological literature. Interest in concepts of style in archaeology has its root in the

late 19th

century (O’Brien and Leonard 2001:3). The use of style during this period was

as a means by which to develop culture histories for various assemblages and culture

areas. Style was used as a means by which to determine seriation (Dunnell 1972), and

thus to determine chronological sequences in the absence of absolute dating techniques.

Conkey (1990:5) points out that there has always been a strong interest in

archaeological inquiry directed towards understanding similarities and differences

between groups of artifacts and relating these to the ways in which the past is interpreted.

In prehistoric archaeology, archaeologists rely on material culture correlations for

interpretations of human behavior and culture. This is, admittedly, a difficult prospect

due to the ephemeral nature of many aspects of human culture and behavior. By studying

stylistic variations in aspects of artifacts such as ceramics (Janusek 2005) and lithics

(Weissner 1983) archaeologists have attempted to gain a better understanding of the ways

information can be embedded in material culture through an understanding of the

underlying decisions made by the makers of those objects (Washburn 1990).

Style has deep roots in archaeological (Hegmon 1992:517; O’Brien and Leonard

2001:2) and art historical inquiries (e.g. Lehmann 1922; Reynolds 1993; Pasztory 1996).

In archaeology, style has been relied upon as a tool for the definition of cultures and

cultural groups in prehistoric contexts (e.g. Conkey and Hastorf 1990:3; Gómez 1998;

22

Taube 2003). Similarly, art historians use notions of style and stylistic inquiry as a

means by which to categorize and date artistic trends (Bork 2001).

Additionally, it has been suggested that by analyzing the stylistic variation of

material culture, a deeper understanding of the thought processes and cognitive

frameworks of the makers might be attained (Washburn 1990, 1999). By looking at

issues of symmetry in design, Washburn (1999) has attempted to reconstruct the

unconscious thought processes which go into design elements of material culture. In

addition to issues of symmetry, Washburn (1990:6) has attempted to link stylistic

analysis to an understanding of how and why, in a cultural framework, people make the

decisions they make regarding “the unique manipulation of basic properties of form” by

analyzing the patterning of such design decisions. In this way, researchers can

potentially understand the cultural reasoning for stylistic variability in the material

record.

Definition of Style

Early work on the concept of style sought to define style as those aspects of

variation within an object that have no direct correlation to technologically based

decisions (Binford 1972; Sackett 1973; Hegmon 1992). Style was seen as the aspects of

an artifact that served no other functional purpose in the life of the artifact. For

archaeologists coming from the culture history tradition, style was a key tool for the

interpretation of chronological sequences and geographic relations (Schapiro 1953:287;

Hegmon 1992:518). Similarly, art historians sought to use style as a means by which to

assign artifacts and art to spatio-temporal categories in order to develop chronological

sequences (Schapiro 1953:287). Schapiro (1953:287) talks about style as the means by

23

which to assess the commonality between different works, suggesting that it is useful as a

tool of comparison.

This perception of style began to change during the latter half of the 20th century,

when some archaeologists turned to attempts to define the function of style (Wobst 1977;

Weissner 1983; Sackett 1990). Rather than argue that style and function exist in a

dichotomous relationship (Dunnell 1978), these researchers sought to prove that there are

aspects of style which serve a purpose. Conkey and Hastorf (1990: 1-2) point out that

very often there is a connection between style and the construction of typologies, which

detaches styles from the material being examined (Sauerländer 1983:254). Indeed, the

very ways in which style is sometimes discussed reflects the typological structuring of

the way in which archaeologists interpret style and stylistic inquiry (Conkey and Hastrof

1990:2).

Style is one of the messier concepts in archaeological analysis and theory due, in

part, to the fact that the conceptualization of what style means is as varied as the

applications of stylistic inquiry. As a result, archaeologists have struggled with a clear,

concise definition of what constitutes style. Rather than coming to a general consensus, a

variety of different types of style have come into the literature from the 1970s and early

1990s. In her overview analysis of how style has been discussed in archaeological

research, Michelle Hegmon (1992:517-518) suggests that most of the various concepts of

style can be simplified into two basic ideas: “[f]irst, style is a way of doing something,

and second, style involves choice among various activities” (emphasis in original). This

view of style takes into account many of the major issues surrounding archaeological

investigations into the role of style.

24

Art history and art historians offer a much clearer sense of what constitutes style

and, thus, stylistic inquiry. Davis (1990:19) defines the art historical concept of style as:

a description of a polythetic set of similar but varying attributes in a group

of artifacts, the presence of which can only be explained by the history of

the artifact, namely common descent from an archaeologically identifiable

artifact-production system in a particular state or states.

By thinking about style as the product of a society that exists within a large group

of artifacts, or polythetic set, art history attempts to see style as a comparative tool rather

than one for the definition of cultural groups and temporal phases in the past. It

recognizes that the patterns recognized by researchers doing stylistic research may not

encompass a suite of culturally meaningful messages intended to be transmitted by those

producing the artifacts or assemblages. This clarity is likely the result of the fact that

style is seen as a primary means by which to classify art (Kubler 1970:139) and thus has

necessitated a more universally accepted definition.

Types of Style

There are, perhaps, an infinite number of ways to break down the concept of style

(Hegmon 1992:517). Some see this ambiguity in definition as a problem inherent in

stylistic inquiry (Conkey and Hastorf 1990). However, there are others who see such a

thing as just part of the nature of style. Conkey and Hastorf (1990:3) suggest that the use

of style “must remain flexible and problematical. It will also remain ambiguous and

underdetermined. Archaeologists will have to accept both ambiguity and the relatively

underdetermined nature of our archaeological inferences” (Conkey and Hastorf 1990:3).

It is not my goal to solve the debate regarding the nature of style in archaeology

and art history. Such a thing is far beyond the scope of this chapter. A more complete

25

overview of the major discussions and suggestions that have been proposed for the

application of style in archaeology has been done by Michelle Hegmon (1992). However,

I feel that there are some classificatory distinctions that would be helpful for

understanding how style has been discussed in the literature. The following types of style

are ones that I have identified as sharing common themes throughout much of the

literature that deals with style.

Cultural Style

Cultural style applies to those things which seem to be associated with particular

cultural groups. Very often this is used by art historians and archaeologists to determine

cultural relatedness and cultural interactions between regional or ethnic groups. In this

view, style can be seen as those patterns and decisions which seem to have been greatly

influenced by choice rather than by necessity of form or function (Sackett 1982;

Weissner 1983; Hegmon 1992; Schortman et al. 2001:314). One aspect of this type of

style is what I have chosen to call formal style.

Formal style refers to those aspects of an artifact which influence its form without

impacting the function of the object. While there is some debate over what constitutes

formal variation, the variation itself is seen as an important factor of style in general

(Conkey and Hastorf 1990:4). This is the most traditional type of style that has been used

by both art historians and archaeologists to determine cultural affiliation and to answer

issues dealing with style (Ackerman 1963:199). Proskouriakoff (1971:131) suggests that

“analytical description of forms has also been used to define regional styles and schools

of art…[which] enables us to refer to a definite constellation of traits…” In this way,

style based on formal characteristics of artifacts has been useful in that it allows

26

archaeologists a means by which to compare the objects they excavate across time and

space.

Similarly, Webster (2002:65-71) discusses the link between formal stylistic

analysis and the conceptualization of what he terms the “Great Traditions,” those

civilizations which have risen to state-hood and left a major impression on the

archaeological and historical record. Early analysis of these regions, sought to use formal

stylistic analysis of the exceptional and rare elements of the past as icons of a culture in a

way that the “idiosyncratic forms of such elements and the ways that they are combined”

(Webster 2002:65) come to be the identifiers of the culture itself (i.e. the Great Pyramids

of Egypt or Grecian urns). Due to the iconographic nature of these objects or art

elements, they are useful in identifying cultural affiliation between people and objects

through stylistic analysis. Unfortunately, as he further points out, this sort of hyper-

focusing on the rare or exceptional elements of a culture tends to skew an analysis to only

take into account the lives of those who would have been socially or economically able to

engage with such items, namely, the elites. Despite this, formal style continues to play a

vital role in archaeological analyses precisely because such differences in non-functional

elements of an object are often the easiest to recognize.

Technological Style

Technological style deals with the decisions being made during the creation

process of an object, the use, and the discard of it (Chilton 1999b). The decisions used

in the production of material culture can leave a lasting impression on the nature of the

object being investigated. Studies into the style of technology (Lemonnier 1992, 1993;

Chilton 1999a) seek to orient technology and technological processes within the field of

27

socialized behavior (Lemonnier 1992:2). They treat material culture as a facet of cultural

behavior upon which observations regarding human behavior can be based (Lemonnier

1992:2). While it may not wholly apply to technological style, Sackett’s (1977, 1990)

concept of isochrestic style fits well into this type of stylistic inquiry due to the fact that it

takes into account the mental template of the craftsperson making an object.

Analysis of isochrestic style, or variation, relies on the fact that there are decisions

made when an object is being created which do not impact the active function of the

object and therefore do not necessarily require conscious decision making (e.g. the

sharpness of shoulder angle on a jar). Instead, these aspects are based on culturally held

notions of how something ought to be made which are unconsciously followed, like a

mental blueprint based on how a society or group engages in a particular constructive

activity (e.g. pottery production or weaving). Sackett (1990:33) suggests that the

decisions made by a particular group of people regarding the style of its produced objects

can be used as a measure of group relatedness due to the fact that it is unlikely that two

different groups would make the same choices regarding the production of those objects.

According to Sackett’s (1977) isochrestic model, it is impossible to separate style from

function because both are products of the group which produces them (Hegmon 1992).

Additionally, he suggests that by looking at the ways in which style and function

are constructed, one can attempt to identify individual groups and the relationships

between related groups based on the culturally defined decisions made about

construction. By looking at the decisions made in construction of an event, one can

better understand the transmission and replication of culturally defined crafts and

28

activities and can differentiate them from others on the basis of their unique construction

(and isochrestic) aspects.

Assumptions/Conclusions in Isochrestic Style (Lemonnier 1992:89-90):

1) Isochrestic style refers to ranges of shapes or forms that are adapted, with

equivalent efficacy, to a given (physical) function or aim;

2) The craftsperson makes choices in these ranges

3) The probability is small of finding similar combinations of choices in two

different societies;

4) These choices are socially transmitted

Artistic Style

Most often used by art historians, artistic style relies on the assessment of style

within the realm of art. In some ways, this type of style is associated with cultural style

in that the culture is seen as having a direct impact on the nature of the art produced by a

group of people. Lehmann (1922: 6) defines style as “the peculiar form of a work of art.”

Closely linked to the way style is discussed in art literature is the concept of aesthetics

(Pasztory 1996). Pasztory (1996) discusses the role that aesthetics has had in how pre-

Columbian art (a distinction made by art historians rather than anthropological

archaeologists) has been studied. While aesthetics deals with the emotional values of art,

it is difficult to disconnect this from the broader definition of art and style.

Despite this, art history has a fairly clear definition of style in that it is simply a

way of doing something that does not seem to have impact on function, but rather

changes the form (Lehmann 1922:6). While this reflects the way style was used by

culture historians, the issue of style in art history has not become as problematic as it has

for archaeologists. They continue to see style as a particular way of doing something

which has cultural associations. Style is, therefore, a way of explaining “the similarities

[and differences] between the attributes of artifacts” (Davis 1990:23). Stone-Miller

29

(1993:31) suggests that the major difference between how art history and archaeology

have sought to conceptualize style is that art history seeks to define the differences in

comparisons while archaeology looks for the similarities.

Style versus Function Debate

A distinction in the archaeological literature regarding the conceptualization of

style sees the stylistic aspects of an artifact as standing in opposition to those features

which have functional or utilitarian purpose (Sackett 1977:370-371). Sackett (1977:370)

offers some helpful distinctions regarding the way style is formulated within the

archaeological literature. He suggests that style “(a) concerns a highly specific and

characteristic manner of doing something, and (b) that this manner is always peculiar to a

specific time and place” (Sackett 1977:370). In this way, no matter how else style is

viewed; the contextual framework within which it is being observed becomes vital to the

interpretation of those things which are seen as constituting style.

Many of the discussions regarding style revolve around the distinction between

style and function. There seem to be two major schools of thought regarding this issue,

one which places style and function in a dichotomous relation (Dunnell 1978; O’Brien

and Leonard 2001) and the other which assigns a function or meaning to stylistic

variation (Wobst 1977; Weissner 1983; Sackett 1990). The first position, that style and

function are dichotomous, reflects a Darwinian based evolutionary model of culture and

cultural decision-making. The second position, that of style as having function, reflects

changes in the way style has been conceptualized within the archaeological community.

30

Style as Oppositional to Function

The more traditional approach to definitions of style deals with style as those

aspects of an object which do not convey functionality (Dunnell 1978). This view of

function and style seeks to use style as an analytical tool within a more culture history

model of analysis. Style, in this case, is used as a marker of difference within the cultural

framework surrounding the production of an item. The classification event involved in

defining style is seen as the act of the archaeologist (Dunnell 2001:xiv) rather than as the

conscious, or unconscious, actions of the creator of the artifact. While those elements of

choice may still be present, archaeologists who ascribe to the notion that style and

function are dichotomous (e.g. Dunnell 1978) suggest that such things cannot be

interpreted without the cultural context of the creator. Furthermore, Dunnell (2001:xx)

suggests that the distinction of style and function is a matter of context rather than a hard

and fast category.

One of the most important articles dealing with the role of style and function in

this regard, Robert Dunnell’s “Style and Function” (1978) offers a great deal of insight

into the role that both elements play in archaeological interpretation. In this piece,

Dunnell (1978) attempts to explain the ways in which archaeologists conceptualize the

event of classification by looking at the way such events have been structured depending

on theoretical paradigm. Dunnell (1978:196) points out that classificatory units which

are seen as functional are those allowing for an understanding of the archaeological

record, citing the classification of artifacts as “axes, hoes, potsherds, and figurines”

(Dunnell 1978:196) as examples of such units. O’Brien and Leonard (2001:3) cite

Dunnell (1978) as suggesting that the term function applies to those elements of form

31

which have a direct impact on the success of the form, whereas style refers to those

elements of an object which seem to have no “detectable selective values” (O’Brien and

Leonard 2001:3). This view of style and function attempts to apply both concepts to an

evolutionary model, such as was suggested by Dunnell (1978).

In the evolutionary paradigm, style is seen as oppositional but not contradictory to

function. However, Dunnell (2001) is careful to point out that the context of the elements

is an important consideration due to the fact that something can be formal and functional

in one context and stylistic in another, depending on the type of inquiry being done. He

points out that while a slip can be functional, the color of that slip can be understood in

terms of style due to the fact that the color of the slip does not necessarily influence the

evolutionary “success” of the pottery (Dunnell 2001:xx). Similarly, he points out that

because of the dichotomous nature of style and function, style cannot have function

(Dunnell 1978: 1999; 2001), because this would make the subject of the inquiry

functional rather than stylistic.

Style as Having Function

Many times style, and by extension stylistic inquiry, is defined as that which does

not fulfill a functional role in the life and usage of an object (Wobst 1977: 317-318). In

contrast to what he sees as the commonly accepted definition of style, Wobst (1977)

suggests that style should be looked at in terms of having its own function. Rather than

being the added on features of an object, Wobst (1977:321) suggests that the role of style

is as a means of communication. Despite the fact that Wobst oversimplifies the role that

style has in material culture by limiting it to the scope of information exchange, he does

suggest that style can act as a mode of information transmission. By limiting style and

32

the symbolism of objects to issues of information exchange, information regarding the

form and function of a particular object or event gets lost. Much of what is determined to

be style comes from the interactions between form, function, and decoration, and that the

use of these, while they can serve as a mode of communication of simple, symbolically

represented things, are not so simple in and of themselves. The majority of the

information he suggests to be transmittable through style falls into the two categories

proposed by Wiessner (1983), such as group identity and affinity, authorship and

ownership, and socio-political symbols.

The idea that style can serve as a mode of communication is expanded upon by

Polly Weissner (1983) in her discussion of projectile points among the !Kung people of

the Kalahari. Weissner (1983: 259) points out that items containing style can be

distinguished as viable for stylistic analysis in that they contain information which helps

to convey messages, often related to social identity. She identifies two different ways in

which style can been seen as a means for communication: emblemic style and assertive

style (Weissner 1983).

Emblemic style is defined as the “formal variation in material culture that has a

distinct referent and transmits a clear message to a defined target population (Wobst

1977) about conscious affiliation or identity” (Weissner 1983:257) (emphasis in

original). In other words, it is the construction and assertion of identity under a symbol

which represents the thing being identified. This type of style is slow to change and can

serve as a marker of social or cultural boundaries.

The second type of style is that of assertive style. Weissner (1982; 1983:258)

defines this as the “formal variation in material culture which is personally based and

33

which carries information supporting individual identity, by separating persons from

similar others as well as by giving personal translations of membership in various

groups” (emphasis in original). While emblematic style is used to represent a group,

assertive style is used to define individuality. It is the personal flair that an individual

uses to separate from the norm and to define uniqueness and individuality within society.

Additionally, the fact that assertive style does not have direct, discrete referents makes it

hard to pin-point the boundaries between individuals. Despite the difficulties inherent in

identifying individual style within the archaeological record, the notion that style can be

used in assessing issues of agency in prehistory has not been abandoned (e.g. Lesure

2005).

Uses of Style

The issue of how to apply style in archaeological contexts centers the debate over

whether style should be seen as a complimentary opposite to function or as an aspect of

an object which has function in and of itself. It is not the goal of this chapter to solve this

debate. Rather, it will turn instead towards a discussion of how style and stylistic

analysis has been applied in archaeology and art history. Despite the debate regarding

the nature of style, there are ways in which style has been used in the pursuit of

archaeological research. As Hegmon (1992:517) suggests, although there are many ways

in which archaeologists seek to define style, most seem to have some concept of style and

stylistic analysis.

Traditionally, style was the means by which changes over time were traced within

a particular geographical and cultural area (Kubler 1970:139). Due to the association

between regional and culturally associated ways of making things (Sackett 1977), such

34

styles were applied to interregional interactions as a means by which to assign

cultural/ethnic affiliation to artifact assemblages. As previously discussed, this use of

style was applied to the creation of chronologies for much of archaeological history prior

to the 1950s introduction of radiometric dating. More recently the focus of style has

turned away from chronological sequencing to assessment of cultural affiliation and

contact across the landscape. These make up the major applications of style within the

Mesoamerican literature.

Chronologies/Seriation

The development of early stylistic analysis was closely linked to the culture-

history paradigm which dominated archaeological research and inquiry during the 19th

and early 20th

century (Conkey and Hastorf 1990:3; Trigger 1990:297-299). Much of the

research from this period of archaeological history relied heavily on seriation for the

development of chronologies (Trigger 1990). The use of ceramic styles in chronological

sequencing was problematic in that they did not always match up with other stylistic

chronological sequences (or more modern chronometric dating techniques) (Smyth and

Rogart 2004:20). The use of style in defining chronological sequences depends on “the

assumption that every style is peculiar to a period of a culture” (Schapiro 1953:288).

This further assumes that styles are limited to a particular time and place and that they

cannot and are not repeated or produced in other times and places (Schapiro 1953:288).

Despite the long-standing relationship archaeology has had with seriation and

stratigraphically based relative dating techniques for artifact assemblages, there are those

in the art history community who caution against such periodicity being so liberally

applied (Kubler 1970; Bork 2001). Bork (2001:186) points out that human agency can

35

act much like erosion upon a geological deposit in that it can move and disturb the

“deposits” so as to make chronological sequencing difficult. The reliance on style to

define cultural and temporal units reflects the impact of culture history on the way

archaeologists conceptualize style (Conkey and Hastorf 1990:3). This periodization of

the past “privileges certain tools, technologies, ‘styles’ of ceramics or of other materials”

(Conkey and Hastorf 1990:3) and thus can be seen as limiting the way archaeologists

look at the archaeological record.

Ethnicity/Cultural Affiliation

Another way in which style has been applied in archaeological and art historical

situations is through the assessment of cultural affiliation for artifact assemblages (e.g.

Berrin 1993; Gómez 1998). For those societies which lack a formal, identifiable

recording system, one of the best way archaeologists have to determine cultural

affiliation is through the artifact assemblages associated with that society. While

archaeometry has allowed for other means by which to trace the origins of an object

through techniques such as neutron activation (INAA), stylistic analysis remains a key

technique for how archaeologists interpret the material record (e.g. Gordus et al 1968;

Cobean et al 1991; Moholy-Nagy 1999). Style, as a pattern that can be observed in the

archaeological record, offers archaeology a means by which to interpret things such as

“ethnic geography” (Conkey 1993:9).

This is, perhaps, the most common way that style is used in archaeology (and art

history) today. Since the discipline has other means by which to date deposits, it no

longer relies on relative dating techniques, such as seriation, for those assemblages for

which chronometric dating techniques can be applied. Instead, archaeology has turned

36

to the “meaning” behind what archaeologists interpret as style (see Sackett 1990; Conkey

and Hastorf 1990). Sackett’s (1977, 1990) isochrestic style offers an intriguing means by

which to understand how ethnicity can be studied archaeologically. Due to the fact that

style can be seen as a series of choices made by the creator of the artifact, and that those

choices are based on cultural knowledge, there can be an association drawn between the

style of an artifact and the culture that produced it (Sackett 1977, 1990; Washburn 1990;

Lemonnier 1992). In this way, style is perhaps one of the best ways archaeology has of

determining ethnic affiliation within the archaeological record. Furthermore, it is through

an understanding of these decision making processes that a better understanding of how

the people of the past might have constructed their identities can be achieved (i.e.

Washburn 1990, 1999).

Another application for the use of style in issues of ethnicity and cultural

affiliation comes from the studying of human migration patterns. There exists a

significant body of literature regarding studies of human movement both in the past and

in the present. Within this there is a heavy debate over the appropriateness of applying

modern migration theory to the past (see Anthony 1990). While it can be difficult to

accurately pinpoint points of origin for human populations, especially highly mobile

ones, by examining the objects associated with those groups, it may be possible to better

understand their cultural origins, and thus, narrow down their geographical origins as

well. Even in highly mobile hunter-gatherer societies, there are objects which travel with

people. By turning to those objects, it may be possible to trace what Anthony (1990)

terms “human streams” in archaeological contexts.

37

Acculturation and Cultural Continuity

Despite the culture historic roots of ethnicity studies, it is increasingly apparent

that cultures, both past and present, cannot be neatly bundled into easily labeled

categories. Rather, research has shown that cultural interactions in the past were

potentially just as complex as those of modern times. In those situations where ethnic

groups of differing cultural affiliation come into contact, isochrestic models for style are

particularly useful in allowing archaeologists to trace the movement of cultural ideas and

cultural interactions in the past.

One way in which style is helpful in this is through evidence of acculturation

within the design characteristics of an object. When making things, people rely on their

cultural blueprints for what designs and forms are appropriate for consideration, which

are gained through experience and acculturation (Lemmonier 1986; Hitchcock and

Bartram 1998). In instances where there are two or more cultures or ethnic groups

coming into contact, some of these ideas regarding the construction of things move

between groups. This mixing of styles can lead to situations where the objects being

made are a representative blending of materials and styles from different regions. This

mixing or change in the way objects are produced due to cultural adaptation occurs most

readily in those situations for which adaptation is the most advantageous choice for

people based on social and economic factors (Burmeister 2000). In the case of ceramics,

due to the impracticality of transporting raw clay materials between regions, most pottery

is made locally from local clay sources before being consumed either locally or through

exchange, both intra- and interregionally. This impacts the options available for raw

material selection and influences what materials are selected. In cases where people are

38

seeking to continue to make objects in their culturally defined ways, they must turn to the

raw materials present locally. The result is a blending of local materials with non-local

styles, such as in the case of the Zapotec enclave at Teotihuacan (Spence 2005).

Conversely, there are instances where production was not the goal of the

population, but rather consumption of culturally affiliated objects. In these cases, people

living away from their places of origin might chose to bring pieces with them from

elsewhere, or import them into the places where they eventually come to reside. These

objects then take on a unique role as symbols of another time and place within the ethnic

community, becoming part of what Burmeister (2000) terms the “internal domain” of an

immigrant population, for which private consumption/use becomes paramount to public

display. They represent a connection to a homeland for which there is still meaning and

importance. In this way, objects which were of no great importance in the cultural core,

might end up in situations where they take on an artificially elevated symbolism, which

may extend into generations with increasingly more tenuous connections to their place of

origin.

Heirlooming behavior is difficult to see in many archaeological contexts. Due to

the highly emic nature of heirlooming and the life histories of objects used as heirlooms,

without ethnohistoric accounts, it is almost impossible to fully understand how such

objects may have fully related to the people who owned and used them. However, Lillios

(1999:252) outlines a number of important characteristics that can be used to distinguish

potential heirlooming behavior in archaeological materials; primarily, the “out of time”

nature of materials from earlier periods of activity. These items, for which the value

extends beyond simple market economics, are involved in a “lateral-cycling” (Lillios

39

1999 c.f. Schiffer 1976:37-39; 1987:35) process in which the items of importance are

passed from one individual to another with very little modification of the object or its use.

As such, their value extends beyond their worth as a commodity, although many of them

may be constructed of rare or valuable materials (Lillios 1999). Rather, heirlooms

function as objects of remembrance, rather than as objects of ritual or household use.

Given the nature of this thesis is directed at investigating issues of ethnicity in a

prehistoric context, stylistic analysis remains the most appropriate tool upon which to

build further analysis. While an intensive analysis of the artistic styles of the pottery is

beyond the scope of this thesis, I drew upon many of the above style types over the

course of this analysis. In particular, formal style, technological style, and the subset of

emblemic style prove beneficial when engaging in ceramic analysis of this type. These

types of style in particular offer a glimpse into the decision making processes, both

conscious/intentional and unconscious/unintentional, utilized by the makers of such

objects and assist in the recognition of such materials when compared to the general

Teotihuacan material.

By better classifying and analyzing the materials themselves it may be possible to

gain a better understanding of the identification and significance of Michoacán style

objects at the N1W5:19 compound at Teotihuacan. Since none of these objects were

made at Teotihuacan, it is useless to attempt to understand the reasoning behind their

construction. Rather, the importance and focus of analysis shifts to the reasoning behind

their transport and use. As such, they become extremely valuable sources of information

regarding the communication of social identity within the N1W5:19 compound.

40

Ethnohistory

One of the tools that many archaeologists (e.g. Rogers and Wilson 1993) have

used to better understand archaeological contexts is that of ethnohistoric documents and

ethnographic data. The true utility of ethnohistory for archaeological interpretation

comes from a deep integration of what Rogers and Wilson (1993:7) call “complementary

investigative routes.” In this way, researchers use ethnographic and ethnohistoric data to

augment and supplement archaeological data and vice versa. Through the use of analogy,

archaeologists may be better able to understand the complex relationships that exist

between human culture and material remains. Conversely, by correlating ethnographic

and ethnohistoric data with the archaeological record, we may be better able to

understand and sort through human biases in recording events in the past. In these ways,

one investigative approach can complement the other, thus providing a more complete

picture of the past.

41

CHAPTER III: ETHNOHISTORY AND MESOAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY

Ethnohistoric documents are an important source of information regarding the

societies that they detail. These documents are sometimes consulted by archaeologists in

order to gain a better understanding of prehistoric contexts. There is temptation in such

analyses to consult ethnographic texts as a means to interpret the archaeological record.

While ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents can offer a more complete

understanding of the less visible aspects of culture, one must always be aware of the

inherent biases present in such documents. Rather than relying solely on one source, or

another, many of these analyses of Mesoamerican cultures involve a synthesizing of

archaeological and ethnohistoric data (Wilson and Rogers 1993:7; Shuman 1997:1).

Commonly, ethnographic and ethnohistoric documents are used in conjunction

with archaeological data and investigations to answer questions about the past (e.g.

Brumfiel 1996; Pollard 1993). There is some debate over the role that ethnohistory can,

and should, play in archaeological interpretations (e.g. Gillespie 2000:486). This is, in

part, a result of the dubious reliability of many of these documents, not in terms of

authenticity, but in terms of the inherent biases present in them.

One major problem facing the use of ethnohistoric data is the lack of time depth

associated with these documents (Smith and Berdan 1992:364). This becomes especially

problematic when investigating time periods prior to the Late Postclassic. Aside from the

few surviving Maya texts, no textual works have been recovered dating to and dealing

with the Classic period. As a result, much of the ethnohistoric information regarding this

time period is based on centuries of oral tradition for groups which were not present in

the region at the time (such as Aztec accounts of Tula and Teotihuacan). Additionally, it

42

has been suggested that the application of ethnohistoric documents on archaeological

investigations has been greatly hindered by the fact that in many cases very few

documents survived and thus have skewed the potential importance of events and people

(Shuman 1977:2). Furthermore, Shuman (1977:2) suggests that the correlations between

archaeological data and ethnohistoric data can be further skewed due to the scale of the

records. Ethnohistory, he claims, resides on a “microhistoric” level, while archaeology

seeks to answer broader questions about larger cultural and geographic issues on the

“macrohistoric” level (Shuman 1977:2).

A second challenge facing research based on ethnohistoric documents arises from

the very nature of the documents themselves. When the Spaniards began their attempts

to chronicle the native peoples with whom they were interacting, they often conflated and

confused ethnic and linguistic groups, using common language as a means by which to

identify ethnic and cultural groups. In doing this, they often overlooked the more

nuanced ways in which people classify themselves within society. Espejel (2007) points

out, additionally, that much of the information presented in these documents is heavily

influenced by the cultural biases and understanding of the people doing the recording.

Further complicating the issue is the fact that these chroniclers were only interacting with

a limited portion of the population. Much of the cultural information present in such

documents is limited to the elites, who had their own political agendas regarding the

information that was, or was not, being shared with the chroniclers.

However, ethnohistoric data are still used by archaeologists as they attempt to

unravel the clues to facilitate their interpretations of the past. While most discussions of

the ethnohistory of Mesoamerica tend to focus on post-colonial cultural interactions

43

between the Spanish missionaries and the native peoples of Mesoamerica, there are

applications of such accounts that may be applied to prehistoric contexts. In this,

ethnographic analogy plays an important role in how the archaeological record might be

interpreted. Through such use of analogy, archaeologists seek to understand the

archaeological record by relating it to similar examples from the ethnographic and

ethnohistoric record (Pollard 1993:22).

One of the most common ways in which archaeologists have sought to use

ethnohistoric documents is to validate the events and accounts in the documents with

evidence in the archaeological record. Rosemary Joyce (2000) suggests that due to the

general cultural conservatism throughout the “longue durée” of occupation and culture in

the region of Central Mexico it may be possible to apply observations from the Aztec

culture into the formative period. She further suggests that there is abundant evidence in

the archaeology of the region to support this longue durée (Joyce 2000:474). This is, to

some degree, problematic because there is much in ethnohistoric documents and accounts

that cannot be seen in the archaeological record or for which the archaeological record

offers direct contradiction (Gillespie 2000:486).

Conversely, there is not always ethnographic and ethnohistoric data that can be

used to interpret things seen in the archaeological record. However, the importance of

ethnohistoric documents should not be ignored when attempting archaeological

interpretation of the material record.

A second way in which archaeologists have used ethnohistoric documents in

archaeology is as a means to find the location of unknown sites (e.g. Gorenstein and

Pollard 1983; Pollard 1993; Espejel 2007). Due to the fact that many of the ethnohistoric

44

documents refer to places on the geographic and cultural landscape (e.g. Relación de

Michoacán 2000), they can sometimes be used to identify sites which have been found or

to help find sites that are, as yet, undiscovered. The problem with this arises from the

fact that many of the ethnohistoric documents make little distinction between physical

and mythical geography, such as the example of the Aztec’s Aztlan (Smith 1984). A

further problem arises from the fact that place names can change over time and the

original names of many settlements may not have survived to the present day or may

have changed over the course of time, such as Teotihuacan.

A third way in which ethnohistory and archaeology have been used in conjunction

is through ethnographic analogy. Ethnohistoric documents are important sources of

information regarding some of the less visible aspects of culture, such as gender, identity,

ethnicity, and social organization. Often, in order to gain understanding of these things,

archaeologists turn to ethnographic analogy as a source of interpretation (e.g. Sanders

1977; Binford1983). Ethnographic analogy is a key tool in the way archaeologists seek

to interpret the archaeological record (Ascher 1961; Schuyler 1968). Through it,

archaeologists can gain a better understanding of the material record by comparing what

can be seen archaeologically to that which is there in ethnographic and ethnohistoric

accounts.

This reliance on analogy becomes problematic when researchers use the analogy

itself as means for gathering data rather than using it as a source of hypotheses to be

tested. By focusing on the documents as a source by which to interpret archaeological

material in contexts outside those presented in the documents, one faces the potential of

false interpretation. That is not to say that archaeologists should reject ethnographic and

45

ethnohistoric analogy as a tool for assisting in interpretation. There are some clear ways

in which such application of analogy are vital to our understanding of the past, making

analogy “fundamental to archaeological interpretations” (Gillespie 2000:468). Instead,

archaeologists need to use the ethnohistory and ethnographic data to provide a framework

for interpretation, building upon this with both archaeological and ethnographic

coordination.

While no direct texts exist in either Michoacán or Central Mexico from the

Classic period, there are important applications of the later ethnohistoric texts which

provide clues for the identification of ethnic traditions at Teotihuacan. This is especially

true for the Michoacán presence, given the high degree of cultural continuity between the

Classic and Postclassic culture of north-central Michoacán. Indeed, many of the elements

of life detailed in the Late Postclassic documents from Michoacán have allowed

archaeologists working in the region a deeper understanding of earlier times. This

understanding of the Classic period culture of Michoacán, in turn, aids in an

understanding of the Michoacán presence at Teotihuacan. In addition, the application of

analogy within the Basin of Mexico has helped in our understanding and interpretation of

the cultural practices present at Teotihuacan.

Selected Sources of Ethnohistoric Data in Mesoamerica

Florentine Codex [1547-1577]-Basin of Mexico

The Florentine Codex is a compilation of the 12 “books” that were written by

Fray Bernadino de Sahagún and his associates in their attempts to chronicle the history

and cultures of the natives peoples of the Basin of Mexico (Anderson and Dibble 1982).

As with many of the contemporary ethnohistoric documents from the period following

46

the Conquest of Mexico, the Florentine Codex was compiled by a Franciscan priest.

Bernadino de Sahagún spent a good deal of his time in Mexico attempting to translate

and transcribe Nahuatl into Spanish. Along with the help of native informants, the

Historia de Nueva España (often referred to as the Florentine Codex) emerged as one of

the more detailed ethnohistoric accounts of the Mexica people and their surviving

neighbors (Anderson and Dibble 1982:11-12).

Relación de Michoacán [1541]-Michoacán

The Relación de Michoacán is often seen as the primary historical document

regarding the Tarascan peoples at the time of contact with the newly arrived Spaniards.

Fr. Martín de Jesús de la Coruña, along with five Franciscans, is credited with the

compilation of the information presented in the Relación de Michoacán during the middle

of the 16th

century. Others have suggested that Fray Jeronimo de Alcalá was the original

author of the text (Warren 2000). There exist four copies of the original documents and

eight editions of its reproduction (Mendoza 2000). Unlike many of the Conquest period

documents dealing with the native people of Mesoamerica, the Relación de Michoacán

details a number of aspects of Tarascan Pre-Conquest culture. This makes it an

invaluable resource for gaining an understanding of Tarascan culture at the time of

European contact and presumably Tarascan culture during the Late Postclassic.

Hernán Cortes [1519-1525] and Bernal Diaz del Castillo[1568]-Central Mexico

While brutal and violent, the initial contacts that the Spanish conquistadors had

with the people of Central Mexico are well documented in the words of Hernán Cortes

[1519-1525] (2001) and Bernal Diaz del Castillo [1568] (1963). In the letters he wrote to

47

the Spanish monarchy during his conquest of Mexico, Cortes [1519-1525] offers a

detailed account of his interaction with the Mexica peoples of Tenochtitlan. He offers

detailed descriptions of many aspects of Aztec society through his observations regarding

warfare, ritual, and other social practices. While not always favorable, he does offer a

vivid picture of what life was like in the Basin of Mexico during the Late Postclassic.

Another document that is often used as a primary source for Aztec life at the time

of Conquest is the account of Bernal Diaz [1568] (1963). Unlike Cortes, who wrote his

letters at the time of the encounters, Diaz compiled his account much later in his life

while he served as the territorial governor of Guatemala. Recent work has suggested that

Diaz may have been illiterate and that much of the accounts for which he is credited may

have been written by other authors (Pollard, personal communication). These are both

used as primary sources because they written by participants in the conquest of Central

Mexico. While they only present one side of the conquest, they do offer a good deal of

vital description of Tenochtitlan, Aztec society, and the social sphere within which the

Central Mexicans lived during the Late Postclassic.

Problems with Ethnohistory in Prehistory

There is much that can be learned from a look at ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and

archaeological data with regards to how ethnicity and ethnic markers can be identified in

ancient prehistory. Ethnography and ethnohistory can offer ways by which to interpret

and understand aspects of the archaeological record that would be impossible to interpret

without a key to crack the cultural code. Due to the fact that the ethnohistoric documents,

in many cases, attempt to offer an emic view of the cultures they deal with, it may be

possible to gain an understanding of how the indigenous peoples of Mesoamerica may

48

have constructed their own identities. However, there are limits to the application and

reliability of their application when you attempt to extend cultural interpretations farther

back than can be supported by the archaeological and cultural data.

While there are uses for ethnographic analogy, one must remain careful of

misinterpretation of the archaeological record. Attempts to directly correlate the

ethnohistoric accounts and documents to what can be seen archaeologically can be

invaluable to the way the past is interpreted. However, it can be problematic in situations

where there exists no apparent cultural continuity between the prehistoric civilization and

the documents. In this case, analogy can be a useful tool for archaeological interpretation

given that the interpretation has archaeological evidence to support the analogy. This is

the case for the majority of the Classic period civilizations of Mesoamerica. While there

is some continuity that can be seen in the Maya region, Central and West Mexico show a

disconnect between their Classic periods and the people from whom the Spanish gathered

their ethnographic/ethnohistoric accounts.

Furthermore, recent research has suggested that much of the ethnohistoric

accounts recorded by Sahagún regarding the Mexica of Central Mexico were heavily

influenced and impacted by the cultural interactions between two generations of Mexica

nobles and the Spanish Missionaries with whom they were interacting (Pollard, personal

communication). Thus, the “purity” of such iconographic examples of ethnohistoric

accounts in Central Mexico has come into question, further complicating an already

complicated issue.

As previously stated, this does not mean there is no utility in applying

ethnographic analogy to interpretations of the Classic period. Rather, archaeologists need

49

to rely more heavily on the archaeological record for the bases of their interpretations,

using the documents to support their assumptions rather than as sources for these

conclusions. In this way, ethnohistory and ethnography can support the archaeological

record and vice versa rather than leading to false interpretations.

50

CHAPTER IV: MESOAMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE FOR ETHNIC

DISTINCTIONS

There are a number of important sources of data that have been used to

archaeologically study ethnicity. Of particular importance have been ceramics, both in

the form of pottery and other types of ceramic artifacts (Arnold 1995:192). In addition to

ceramics, there is some information that comes from the analysis of lithics (e.g.

Pendergast 1971; 2003). Such studies have been augmented and enhanced by the use of

neutron activation to source them to the various deposits around the region. A third

source of information that has been used in assessing ethnic identity comes in the form of

personal adornment (Marcus 1998). While exceptionally rare in some parts of

Mesoamerica, there is some textual evidence that has come from other regions which has

offered intriguing insight into the ways people conceptualized ethnicity in the past. In

particular, stelae from the Maya region have enhanced our understanding of cross cultural

interactions in ancient Mesoamerica (Proskouriakoff 1993). A fifth source of data

regarding ethnicity that archaeologists have relied upon comes from architecture (Sanders

and Michels 1969, 1977; Noguera 1944 and Oliveros 1975 cf Pollard 1993:7, 2000:63).

Distinctive building styles and construction methods have been used to support

assessments of ethnicity and cultural affiliation. Finally, burials have been analyzed in

terms of the cultural meanings that can be imbedded in the way people bury their dead

(Rattray 1992, 1993; Pereira 1999; Carot 2001).

51

General Sources of Data

Ceramics

Perhaps the most commonly relied upon artifact for the assessment of cultural

affiliation (Arnold 1995:192), ceramics hold amazing amounts of information regarding

the lives and ways of the people who made and used them. Due to this, and the potential

quantity of ceramic material in the archaeological record, archaeology’s relationship with

ceramic analyses goes back to the early days of the field (Arnold 1995:191-192).

Ceramics have historically been used to not only assign cultural and ethnic affiliation, but

also as a method of categorizing and assessing temporal variation and thus attaining a

chronological sequence of ceramic styles that can be used to help date things. Such

dating chronologies offer a sequential, relative dating system which can be very useful in

the absence of radiocarbon dates. This ability to relate ceramics to particular peoples and

places in time relies heavily on stylistic analysis of the ceramics. While this usually

means an analysis of pottery, since it is often the most abundant source of ceramic data,

these chronologies can also apply to other types of ceramics, such as figurines and

spindle-whorls.

In addition to being important sources of information regarding the origins of

sedentary communities, ceramics have been used throughout the Maya region to support

claims of Teotihuacano presence in the Maya region. Ceramics described by Sanders

and Michels (1969) and Cheek (1977) in the Esperanza phase tombs at Kaminaljuyu were

used as evidence of a link between the Maya city and Teotihuacan on the basis that the

ceramics held stylistic similarities to those from Teotihuacan. However, as Demarest

(2004:60) points out, it is easy to “over interpret ceramics…[going] too far in seeing the

52

spread of ceramic forms and art styles as indicators of the success and physical expansion

of hypothetical ethnic and linguistic populations.” Furthermore, he suggests that

archaeologists need to take into account other means by which “styles and technologies”

can be transmitted between groups of people (Demarest 2004:60).

Lithics

While lithics are not often relied upon for ethnic information, there is some utility

to their inclusion in studies of contact between regions (and by extension, the people

involved in such interactions). The best evidence that can be had from a study of lithic

technology comes from sourcing studies on the obsidian artifacts (Gordus et al 1968;

Cobean et al 1991; Moholy-Nagy 1999). Through this, researchers are able to understand

origin and transportation of goods between the obsidian sources and the final deposit of

the material (Spence 1996).

Obsidian is commonly used as evidence of connections with Teotihuacan during

the Early Classic due to the fact that the city controlled an easily identifiable type of

green-gold obsidian (Pachuca) in nearby Hidalgo (Filini 2004:105). Excavations at Tikal

have unearthed a small sample of Central Mexican obsidian in the Maya region (Moholy-

Nagy et al 1984; Moholy-Nagy 1999). In addition, earlier work by Pendergast (1971) at

the Belize site of Altun Ha uncovered Pachuca obsidian that has been tied even more

directly to interactions with Teotihuacan.

Personal Adornment

Personal adornment is a highly visible means of asserting one’s cultural

affiliation. There exist two important sources of information regarding the personal

53

adornment of ancient peoples. When present, burials are a vital source of data regarding

what clothing, jewelry, and other decoration people may have used. However, because

burials do not always reflect the way people present themselves in life, they may not be

the best source of information regarding cultural notions of how to decorate one’s body.

In addition to studying human remains in burials, archaeologists can turn to

depictions of people in order to better study how bodies were decorated in a time and

place. These depictions can be in the form of paintings (murals, vessel decoration, etc.)

or in the more portable form of figurines. Anthropomorphic figurines are depictions of

human forms in a fire-hardened clay medium. As a result of this embodiment of the

human form, there is a good deal of cultural information that can be deciphered from

them.

One way in which figurines have been linked to cultural identity and concepts of

person is through correlations with ethnographic data regarding personal adornment and

style. An interesting example is presented by Joyce Marcus (1998) regarding hairstyles

depicted on formative Oaxacan figurines and those of historic and modern Zapotec

women. She suggests that hairstyles historically hold special importance in many

Mesoamerican cultures and that many of these styles are seen in figurines as well. These

hairstyles may offer a correlation between cultural and ethnic styles from historic times

and pre-Hispanic communities to which the figurines are linked (Marcus 1998:31).

Marcus suggests that hair and hairstyles played similar roles in the social and status

identities of women during the Formative period in Mesoamerica as they did for women

from these regions during historical times.

54

Texts/Language

Texts can be vital sources of information regarding the ways in which a people

with an ethnic identity different from the ethnic majority are presented. In addition to

being examples of language, texts such as codices and stelae often depict other aspects of

a culture including ritual, clothing, weaponry, personal style, and daily activities.

Stelae have been very important in the interpretations of Teotihuacan-Maya

interactions because they provide visual depictions and written hieroglyphic texts that

give vital insight into the nature of such interactions. Among these stelae depictions are

individuals who have been interpreted as individuals from central Mexico, assumedly

Teotihuacan, based on the types of weapons with which they are shown (Proskouriakoff

1993:4-10). The importance of the representation of Central Mexican elements has been

one of the key pieces of evidence for the presence of Teotihuacan at a number of Maya

sites.

Furthermore, the use of ethnographic and ethnohistoric analogy through the texts

of the 16th

century has served to enhance our understanding of the archaeological record.

While the majority of the Classic period civilizations and societies seem to lack a formal

writing system, there are aspects of their cultures that seem to continue through the

succeeding cultural phases.

Architecture

Another point of evidence for ethnicity relies on distinctive architecture. Some of

the most significant evidence that has been used to suggest the presence of Teotihuacanos

in the Maya region comes from the site of Kaminaljuyu, near present day Guatemala

55

City, Guatemala (Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946; Sanders and Michels 1969, 1977).

Two major excavation projects were done at the site, both of which identified a

significant quantity of material that can be linked to Teotihuacan (Kidder, Jennings, and

Shook 1946; Sanders and Michels 1969, 1977). Sanders and Michels (1969, 1977) details

the findings at the Palangana portion of the site in which the greatest amount of

Teotihuacan material seems to be present. Of particular importance in these

investigations was the presence of talud-tablero style architecture in this part of the site.

The presence of this architectural style has been used as the key evidence for a

Teotihuacano presence in Kaminaljuyu during the Early and Middle Classic.

The extent of architectural impact that Teotihuacan had is not confined to the

Maya region. There is good evidence for the incorporation of Teotihuacan architecture in

Michoacán as well. These architectural styles include a ball court, plazas with associated

pyramids, stucco painting, and large group tombs” at the site of El Otero (Noguera 1944

and Oliveros 1975 in Pollard 1993:7, 2000:63). Among the early architectural styles

coming into the region from Teotihuacan is that of talud-tablero. The site of Tingambato

(near the Pátzcuaro basin in Michoacán) also contains a good deal of Teotihuacan style

architecture (Filini 2004:20) in the form of a ball court and pyramid with talud-tablero

style elements.

Burials

The way the dead are treated is a highly personal, high culturally embedded

activity. Often times, the nature of what it means to be a person and ideas of life after

death are connected closely to the burial practices of a people. Studying the ways in

which people construct and execute burials can offer a plethora of data regarding how the

56

living might construct their relationships to the dead and how the deceased individual

may relate to the living community. In this it is possible to see how culture is identified

through the burial practices of a group of people.

There are a number of factors that can be studied in order to understand how

people bury their dead within a cultural framework. Although there is a lot of

information that can be gleaned from studying the human remains directly, there is also

information present in grave construction and associated burial assemblages. Spence

(2005) offers a useful analysis of mortuary ritual practice in the Tlailotlacan compound

(Oaxaca Barrio). He distinguishes the differences in adult and sub-adult burials in

addition to relating the overall mortuary practices of the Tlailotlacan people to those of

the larger Teotihuacano population (Spence 2005), suggesting that the practices were

more Oaxacan than Teotihuacano in nature (Spence 2005).

Overall, there seems to be a focus in the literature regarding interactions between

Teotihuacan and the Maya region beyond the presence of artifacts and architecture.

While some mortuary studies have been done (e.g. Gillespie 2001), there seems to be a

serious lack of emphasis on human remains, although many of the artifacts that have been

linked to Teotihuacan have been found in burial contexts. While Braswell (2003:17)

touches briefly on the issues that have been raised regarding the potential for variability

in mortuary practices, the majority of the literature dealing with the Teotihuacan presence

in the Maya region fails to take mortuary practice into account. Christine White (White

et al 2001; White et al 2004 a,b) has done some work on oxygen isotope analysis to try

and determine the origins of a number of the human remains that have been associated

57

with Central Mexican materials. Unfortunately, this technique has not been widely

applied, although Strontium Isotope Analysis has seen a rise in support (Price et al 2008).

Ethnicity in Michoacán

Oftentimes, Michoacán is seen as a region peripheral to much of Mesoamerican

society (Filini 2004:2-5). It is recognized as a culturally distinct region in which certain

aspects of the Pan-Mesoamerican ideologies, iconographies, and cultural identifiers do

not always exist (Filini 2004:2). Much of what has been done in this region has focused

on the Preclassic (Formative) Period and the Late Postclassic period. Unfortunately, less

work has been done trying to unravel the mystery of the societies of Michoacán (Stone

2004:11), especially during the Classic period. Pollard (1993:19) describes the

archaeology of Michoacán as “limited and sporadic.” However, recent work by Pollard

(2008) suggests that the origins of the Tarascan state have firm roots in the Classic period

occupation of central and northern Michoacán.

Due to the fact that not much is known about the Classic period, archaeology and

ethnohistory have been used in conjunction in order to potentially gain an understanding

of pre-Tarascan ethnicity. As such, stylistic analysis and burials have been relied upon

for assessment of cultural affiliation with the peoples of Michoacán (e.g.; Gómez 1998).

However, ethnicity is a multivalent phenomenon. There is more to its expression and

conceptualization than can be seen simply in the ritual practices of a society. Small clues

may be gained through looking at the documents and through understanding the contexts

of the archaeological material. However, we must be cautious when attempting to project

such things beyond the scope of the cultural context in which they are set. The fact that

the Uacúsecha, as the ruling elites of the Tarascan state were called, were an invasive

58

people colors the nature of social practice in ways that may not reflect the archaeological

record or the expression of such things in the deeper past. As such, the majority of the

evidence for ethnicity in the Classic period must be inferred from the archaeological

record.

Archaeological Evidence

Ceramics

As with many parts of Mesoamerica, ceramics have been seen as a valuable

source of cultural information for Michoacán. Many of the associations that have been

made linking Michoacán to the Basin of Mexico during the Classic Period have relied, at

least in part, on ceramics (e.g. Gómez 1998). There are a handful of ceramic types that

have been archaeologically linked to the Loma Alta (Classic period) of Michoacán which

corresponds to the Mixtlán phase of Chapala and the Bajío. Pollard (2007) and Carot

(2001) offer detailed paste and type descriptions (respectively). Interestingly, some of

these vessel forms continue to be seen throughout the prehispanic chronology. In addition

to traditional vessel forms, such as the punctate molcajete, there are some representative

decorative styles which can be used to further this identification.

It is during the Classic period Loma Alta phase when the ceramic complex of

central Michoacán reaches a peak in technical and stylistic expression. Earlier decorative

techniques from the preceding Chupicuaro phase are adapted and included in the general

ceramic complex rather than just being used for the decoration of specific figurine

elements. As such, there is a dramatic increase in other decorative techniques which are

applied to the ceramics. Pollard (2007) and Carot (2001) both identify a number of

increasingly complex decorative elements which are incorporated into the Loma Alta

59

ceramics. These elements include new slip colors (white) and the appearance of negative

resist techniques into the potters’ repertoire.

The pottery of Michoacán has been studied and organized differently from that of

other regions of Mexico. First, emphasis has been placed on the identification and

correlation between decorative styles and paste composition by Pollard (2007). This has

allowed for a more detailed sequencing of ceramic types, in addition to allowing for more

finely controlled identification of place of manufacture for the ceramic complex of

central Michoacán.

As with any ceramic complex, that of central Michoacán is comprised of both

decorative styles and forms that are unique to the region, making stylistic identification of

the complex possible. While most of the forms found in Michoacán are of the standard

varieties (bowls, jars, ollas, etc.) there are aspects of this complex which stand apart from

other ceramic complexes at the time. Most notable, are the Michoacán molcajetes.

One of the most easily identified and useful vessel types is that of the molcajete,

which was traditionally used for the grinding of chili peppers and, as such, have a

roughened surface on the interior of the vessel. Throughout most of Mesoamerica, by the

Classic period, the grinding surface of molcajetes were formed by cross hatching. In

Michoacán, however, they were formed by roughening up the bottom of the bowl with

circular indentations (punctates) that provided a grinding surface not unlike modern

cheese graters. While functionally these differences do not seem to have a great impact

on the molcajetes’ ability to grind, stylistically they provide a highly distinctive

characteristic by which to identify molcajetes with central Mexican origins (Pollard

2008). Pollard (2008) has suggested that the absence of this transition in Michoacán may

60

represent a conscious decision on the part of the makers of the molcajetes not to conform

to the styles of their neighbors, and thus, of establishing a molcajete tradition unique to

this region of Michoacán.

Decoration Styles/Surface Finishes

Tres Palos (Red on Cream)

One of the more characteristic of decoration styles within the Pátzcuaro and

Zacapu (Loma Alta) assemblages is the presence of Red/Orange on Cream wares (Figure

5). These are found on both open vessels, such as bowls and closed ones, such as jars

and small ollas and are part of the red on buff tradition found throughout this part of

Michoacán. Decorations are usually on the exterior of the bowl and range from simple

geometric designs to more elaborate imagery. Interiors of these vessels are usually cream

slip with a red band surrounding the rim. Decoration on jars tends to be simple,

geometric designs or bands that encircle the vessel (although there can be some very

elaborate variations and imagery). Both closed and open vessels have red painted/slipped

bands on the rims ranging from 1-3 cm. Among variants of this ceramic type are the

simple red on cream and a polychrome which involves either black paint or negative

resist for the darker pigmentation.

61

Figure 5: Sample of Tres Palos Red on Cream from Pollard’s 2001 excavations at

Erongaricuaro.

62

Agropecuaria Rojo (var.)

Another common type of pottery originating in the Pátzcuaro and Zacapu basins

is the Agropecuaria type (Figure 6). Characterized by a polished rusty red slip, the major

variants of this type include one with negative resist and one with cream/white paint.

Decorations tend to be geometric designs. The paint tends to be thickly applied and

flakes off easily, suggesting it may have been more common when the vessels were first

decorated.

Figure 6: Agropecuaria rojo (plain variety) showing high gloss finish and reddish slip

(from Pollard 2007).

63

Negative

While there is some use of black paint at this time, the majority of blackened

decoration seems to be in the form of negative. This negative resist appears on both red

and cream slipped vessels (both polished and matte finished), however there seems to be

a higher degree of association between negative/resist and the Tres Palos ceramics. The

designs seem to be the result of additional firings, perhaps with wax being used to keep

areas from being further charred in the firing process.

Al Secco

A final ceramic type that has been used to identify Michoacán presence in the

Classic period is that of the al secco variety (Figure 7). Generally found on bowls, the al

secco seems to represent a ceramic tradition centered on the South eastern shore of Lake

Cuitzeo in Michoacán (Pollard, personal communication). While, stylistically, they

appear similar to the stucco vessels of Central Mexico and the Gulf Coast, the actual

decorative technique differs. It is defined by a polished slip, usually of red or black, that

has been etched back post firing in places. After the initial firing, paint has been applied

to the slipped and excised regions. While most common in West Mexico, bowls with this

decorative style have been found at the Structure 19 compound at Teotihuacan (Gómez

1998), supporting the connection between the people who lived there during the Early

Classic and Michoacán.

64

Figure 7: Al secco bowl from the N1W5:19 excavations. Bowl was approximately 20cm

diameter and 7.5 cm tall, measurements are visual approximations due to the curated

status of the vessel. Photo courtesy of Sergio Gómez.

Figurines

I have recently defined several types of figurines that seem to have temporal and

ethnic roots in the Classic period of Michoacán (Begun 2008). I call the basic style of

figurines the Pátzcuaro style with a sub-type defined as the Loma Alta type of figurine.

These figurines first appear during the Loma Alta phase, and while features of these

figurine types seem to continue through the sequence, the Loma Alta type (Begun 2008)

seems to be limited to the Classic Period. Figurines of this style have been discovered in

association with two of the burials from Structure 19 at Teotihuacan (Gómez 1998).

65

While the association with the burials is not all that common, the figurines themselves are

nearly type specimens for the figurine style. In addition, figurines of this type have been

found at the sites of Jiquilpan (Gómez 1998:1483; Gómez 2002) and Loma de Santa

Maria in the Cuitzeo basin region of Michoacán (Manzanilla Lopez 1984).

Lithics

There has been limited work looking at the stylistic variations that might be used

to define lithic production from Michoacán (Filini 2004:105). Obsidian sourcing is one of

the most common techniques by which archaeologists have attempted to affiliate obsidian

with cultural groups. There are a number of obsidian sources that exist within the

Michoacán region. The Ucareo and Zinaparo sources represent major sources of obsidian

for the region, especially during the Classic and Epiclassic period (Filini 2004:104).

However, there is a surprising amount of Pachuca obsidian that has been excavated from

Classic period sites in the Pátzcuaro Basin. In addition, evidence for the production of

bezotes (lip plugs) has been seen at the site of Erongaricuaro suggesting there may be

some evidence for their production that might offer some future insight into production

technology from the region.

Clothing/Personal Adornment

Due to the fact that there are no known documents or texts from this part of

Mexico during the prehispanic occupation, Michoacán lacks some of the cultural clues

present in other regions of Mexico. Additionally, the figurines, for the most part lack

much in the way of clothing until the Late Postclassic when, even still, clothing on

66

figurines is limited. Much of the evidence for personal adornment during the Classic

period comes from burials in which jewelry has been interred with the deceased.

One aspect of personal adornment for which there seems to be both ethnohistoric

(Relación de Michoacán 2000:336) and archaeological evidence is the importance of the

lip plug in the establishment and identification of the Michoacán elites. Lip plugs, or

bezotes, are documented in the Relación de Michoacán as being primarily made of

turquoise (Relación de Michoacán 2000:336). However, work at Erongaricuaro has

suggested that obsidian, especially from the Pachuca source, may have been a desired

source of raw materials for the production of bezotes during the Late Postclassic.

Architecture

While the best evidence for a Preclassic occupation comes from excavated burial

materials, recent work in the region has sought to explore the architectural traditions of

Michoacán. The first major architecture to appear in the region that has survived to

present times appears in the Classic period with stone houses and the beginnings of

public architecture in the Zacapu basin at the site of Loma Alta (Carot 1993). These

buildings, comprised of rectilinear structures, were completely buried at the time of their

discovery.

In addition to linear walls, a number of sites in the region have yielded evidence

of a wide-spread tradition of sunken patio construction (García 1997). There has been

some suggestion that these changes in architecture represent evidence of and emergence

of social stratification (Pollard 1993). In addition to emerging stratification between

settlements, Pollard (1993) notes the emergence and presence of elites during the Classic

and Epiclassic period. Associated with these elites is a new type of sunken plaza house

67

structure, types of which have been discovered at the site of Loma Alta (Carot 2001),

Loma de Santa Maria in the Cuitzeo Basin (Manzanilla Lopez 1984) and at

Erongarícuaro in the Patzcuaro Basin (Pollard 2008). Burials beneath the floors and

walls of these structures have yielded a number of elaborate grave goods including finely

made Pachuca blades, jewelry made of obsidian and whole vessels. The apparent

association of richness of burial goods and proximity to the center of the house platforms

at the site of Loma Alta in the Zacapu Basin has been suggested by Pereira (1999) as an

indication of social ranking (Pollard 2008).

Burial Ritual

There appears to be a deep level of continuity in the burial practices of Michoacán

during the prehistoric chronology. The first tomb construction, for which significant

amounts of data have been recorded, date to the Formative period (Chupicuaro Phase)

(Darras and Faugère 2010) and link Michoacán to other parts of West Mexico (Porter

1956). These tombs were comprised of a vertical shaft that served as the entrance into

the tomb, which according to Taylor (1970) were generally rectangular in shape, and a

horizontal chamber to which the shaft led. This chamber could be either “vaulted or

spherical” and vary greatly in terms of size and depth (Taylor 1970). While there seem to

be four basic tomb shapes reported by Disselhoff (1932: 528) the lack of controlled

chronological analysis of these tomb types has hindered any analysis of there being a

correlation between tomb shape and time (Taylor 1970:161). These shapes, coming from

the area of Colima include: “(1) a square pit, (2) a bell-shaped variety, (3) a shaft and

vaulted chamber, and (4) a shaft and double-vaulted type” (Disselhoff 1932 in Taylor

68

1970). While these basic shapes find use in Michoacán, in general, the tomb construction

of the Michoacán shaft tombs is more variable (Darras and Faugère 2010).

Associated with these tombs are a number of burial vessels and figurines which

further serve to connect the El Opeño site to the cultures in Jalisco and Nayarit, if not

Colima as well. However, the tombs from El Opeño differ from those found in other

parts of West Mexico in that the shafts descend at an angle rather than being positioned at

a truly vertical orientation. Furthermore, while figurines are an important part of the

grave offerings of Chupicuaro origin, they are not found in most of the Classic period

burials. These changes to the tomb style have further complicated an understanding of

their nature with relation to other parts of West Mexico, but serve as a potential marker of

a distinctly Michoacán style of grave construction.

During the late Chupicuaro period, there seems to be a shift in grave construction

from shaft tomb burials to sub-floor burials in and around house structures. This pattern

of burials being placed under floors of house structures seems to continue throughout the

Classic (Carot 2001) and into the Postclassic (Pollard personal communication). Grave

construction consisted of a pit lined with large, flat rocks (lajas) which were then placed

over the interred remains as well (Periera 1999; Carot 2001). While the shape and size of

the pit may vary considerably, the important element is the placement of large, flat stones

(lajas) over the opening of the tomb (Pollard 1999; Darras and Faugère 2010). Arnauld

(1993) reports a number of cremation burials in which the cremated remains were placed

in large covered urns before being deposited. Burial goods included ceramics, often

times in the form of two small jars placed near the head, and occasionally obsidian

blades. Figurines are rarely found associated with Classic period burials. However, they

69

have been documented in one burial at the site of Loma Alta (Carot 2001). Along with

the ceramic types discussed above, Gómez (1998) relied on the burial construction as a

means to link the Teotihuacan Structure 19 material to Michoacán.

Ethnohistory

Much of what is known about the archaeology of Michoacán comes from a

combination of ethnohistoric, historic, and archaeological sources. The Relación de

Michoacán [1541] has been vital in our present understanding of the Tarascan society of

the Late Postclassic. While there exist eight editions of the Relación de Michoacán (for a

detailed listing and discussion see Mendoza 2000:18-31), some are considered to be more

accurate reproductions than others. Through attempts to correlate observations presented

in the Relación de Michoacán with archaeological data, both have served to enhance the

greater understanding of cultural practices in the Tarascan state (e.g. Pollard 1993). In

addition, there has been some success in expanding these interpretations back to the

earlier times for which patterns of cultural behavior seem continuous throughout much, if

not all, of the cultural sequence for the region.

Problematic in attempts to apply depictions from the Relación de Michoacán is

the fact that much of the culture that is presented in this document comes from the

accounts of the ruling elites of the Tarascan Empire (known as the Uacúsecha) after the

conquest of the region had occurred (Krippner-Martínez 2001:49). As with the Mexica,

the ethnohistory of their origins puts the ruling class of the Tarascans as recent arrivals

into the region (Relación de Michoacán 2000). Much of the ethnographic work that has

been done in the region has been done in an attempt to correlate modern/ethnographic

and ethnohistoric technologies and customs to those for which archaeological evidence

70

exists (Pollard 1993:22). Ethnohistoric documents have also been used to locate

important places that are recorded in the Relación de Michoacán (Pollard 1993:19).

Similarly problematic is the brief description of the “Michoaque” from Sahagún’s

work. The description of the Michoaque describes them as coming from a place with lots

of fish (the meaning of Michoaque). In the Florentine Codex, the people from

Michoaque are referred to as the Tarascos. One defining characteristic that is given is

that these Tarascos, named for their god “Taras” who is said to be a Chichimec god

(Sahagún 1961:189), wear large lip and ear plugs (Sahagún 1961:189). This importance

on the lip plugs is echoed by accounts in the Relación de Michoacán (2000:336). Little

else is given about them aside from the fact that the men wear sleeveless jackets (cicuilli)

(Sahagún 1961:188) and the women wear only knee-length skirts (Sahagún 1961:189).

The Relación de Michoacán offers a detailed accounting of the ethnohistoric

origins of the Tarascan elites. The drawings that are associated with the text show

depictions of many facets of Uacúsecha life, including dress, ritual, architecture, and

weaponry. From these, important clues regarding the conceptualization of cultural (and

ethnic) identity can be gained. However, these drawings, as with the documents

themselves, are filtered through a European lens.

Ethnicity in Central Mexico

Central Mexico exists somewhere between Michoacán and the Maya region in

terms of ethnohistoric documents that have and can be utilized in archaeological

interpretation for Classic period contexts. The majority of the surviving Prehispanic

documents are detailed tribute lists rather than deeper pictures of Aztec society.

However, there has been some success in determining the economy of the Aztec Imperial

71

state based on such things, in addition to gaining a better understanding of the extent of

the Empire.

Unlike the Maya region, the cultural time depth is trickier to decipher. It has been

suggested that:

[o]ne of the limitations of central Mexican ethnohistory is its lack of time

depth. The written sources usually have little information on pre-imperial

society, beyond the narrow range of phenomena in the imperial core area.

However, a deeper temporal perspective is one of the strengths of

archaeology, and the archaeological data…help document the conditions

that preceded and even facilitated the expansion of the empire (Smith and

Berdan 1992:364).

We know from ethnohistoric accounts of their history, that the Aztecs did not originate in

the Basin of Mexico, but rather represent an intrusive ethnic group that eventually gained

control of the Basin during the Middle/Late Postclassic and project their heritage into the

civilizations that came before them (Smith 1998: 31-41). As such, there is some

difficulty in using the ethnohistoric documents and accounts to understand the Classic

period civilizations. However, as Joyce (2000) suggests, there is some evidence that the

time depth of occupation in the Basin of Mexico may have led to some degree of

continuity existing between the Aztec state and the cultures and societies from earlier

times.

Much of the information that has been acquired regarding the nature of ethnicity

at Teotihuacan comes from the Maya region and from contrasting the culture of

Teotihuacan against that of foreign occupants and neighboring civilizations. As such,

ethnicity has been something few have sought to discuss in any great depth, despite its

apparent centrality to the issue of Teotihuacan’s presence in other parts of Mesoamerica.

72

Among those factors that have been used to define Teotihuacan ethnicity include

ceramics (both style and production), lithics, architectural style, and burial types.

Archaeological Evidence

Ceramics

As with many other parts of Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan ceramic sequences can be

found at the center of any discussion of ethnicity. There are a number of typologically

recognizable ceramic styles that have traditionally been used to define Teotihuacan

presence (and thus, have been used as ethnic markers). Rattray (2001) offers the most

comprehensive and complete descriptions of the Teotihuacan sequence. There are,

however, a number of highly distinctive and indicative ceramic types which can be used

to identify Teotihuacan origins or connections. These include both locally produced and

imported wares. Among the locally produced wares the most readily identifiable include

coarse matte incensarios, fine matte miniatures, polished out-curving bowls, and red

painted basins. Despite the abundance of locally produced ceramics in the Teotihuacan

complex, it is the imported wares which were controlled and distributed by Teotihuacan

for which the site is best known. These include San Marin Orange ware and Thin Orange

ware

Matte wares

The matte ware complex is comprised of two different and distinct general types:

fine matte and crude matte wares. Fine matte wares (mate fino) made from fine clay with

relatively few inclusions. It has been suggested that the temper used in the clay mixture

was that of cattail fluff, given the presence of small voids within the clay matrix where

73

the fluff would have burned away during the firing process. This would have served to

support the clay bodies in the drying process while leaving them lighter and less dense

post-firing (Rattray 2001:91). The mate fino group is comprised of three main forms:

cover plates (tapaplatos), appliqué decorations (adornos), and miniatures of the common

Teotihuacan vessel forms.

Tapaplatos in the mate fino group come in two main varieties, one with handles

and one without. Both types have similar profiles and are best identified by the presence

of burning marks or clouding on the interior surfaces. The handles are composed of loop-

like, circular handles applied to the exterior surface in a triangular configuration.

Adornos are most commonly found in conjunction, and as decoration for, the larger

incense burners (incensarios) (see below).

Rattray (2001:113) points out a strong correlation between the presence of mate

fino miniatures and burial caches. They have been found in many different burial

contexts within Teotihuacan and come in many varied shapes and sizes. Among the

more common shapes are ollas/jars, plates, bowls, vases, and amphorae. She further

points out that it has been difficult to assign chronological phasing to the miniatures,

outside of that made based on the burials with which they are found.

The coarse matte (mate burdo) group is comprised of three main forms: incense

burners (incensarios), three pronged burners (anafre de tres protuberencías/púas) and

candle holders (candeleros). As with the other matte types, the coarse matte wares have

an unfinished/matte surface treatment. Unlike the fine wares, the coarse ware contains

many large inclusions which give it a sandy/gritty appearance.

74

The most common form for the coarse matte ware is that of the incensarios

(Rattray 2001:113). These are generally molded and comprised of two main pieces; the

base, which looks not unlike a modern flowerpot with a flanged rim, and the top which

can be decorated with fine matte adornments and shaped to look like a face or mask, as

discussed above. The bases are occasionally adorned with an indentation pattern that

resembles an ear of corn with kernels present. These are often painted with white paint,

although paint is sometimes present without the indentations.

In addition to the incense burners, the coarse matte ware was also used for the

three-pronged burners (anafres) which are believed to have been used as a portable

means of food preparation (Rattray 2001:113). Rattray (2001:113) further points out a

close connection between the burners and household compounds, beginning during the

Early Tlamimilolpa phase.

Another common type in the coarse matte group is that of the candeleros. While

it was once believed that these served as portable incense burners or as small light

sources, recent work has suggested they served other ritual function within the city of

Teotihuacan (Gutiérrez 2011). They are found in many contexts throughout the city, but

Rattray (2001:113) points out they are rarely found in burials. They make good temporal

markers given the stylistic changes that occur in them.

Burnished Wares

The burnished wares are defined more from their surface treatment than from

paste analysis. As the name suggests, these vessels were treated by rubbing the surface

smooth at the leather hard stage of drying (Rattray 2001:115). It creates a mostly

impermeable exterior and hardens the surface of the pot, making it more durable and less

75

porous. Burnishing was the main surface finishing technique used for much of the

locally produced utilitarian wares. As such, the majority of burnished wares come in the

form of ollas and comals.

Ollas are large, wide mouthed closed form vessels generally believed to have

served as storage containers, although they are also found as containers for infant and

secondary adult burials. Comals are flat, circular objects with a burnished top surface

and a roughened underside. They were used for cooking, most likely tortillas and chilies,

as is often the case with modern indigenous people (Redfield 1929:174 cf Rattray

2001:113).

Rattray (2001:115) points out that burnished wares are more common in the

Tzacualli phase, making up 56 to 57 percent of the ceramic complexes with a secondary

peak in the Early Xolalpan phase (46%) before tapering off to 30% during the Metepec

phase. This seems to coincide with an increase use of San Martin Orange for storage

containers (see below).

Polished wares

While they are occasionally easy to confuse with burnished wares, polished wares

make up a large, distinctive set of the Teotihuacan ceramic complex. As with any of the

more highly decorated wares in a ceramic complex, the stylistic distinctness of these

vessels makes them excellent cultural (and temporal) markers of the Teotihuacan

sequence. Consequently, the most distinctive phase for polished wares comes early in the

Teotihuacan complex, with the polished black wares of the Miccaotli phase being among

the most readily recognizable.

76

The polished group contains the greatest variety and variability of the

Teotihuacan ceramics. Among the most common forms, according to Rattray (2001:115)

are “out-curving bowls, simple bowls, low walled plates, fluted bowls, vases, floreros,

and Tlaloc vessels.” The polishing of the surface is likely an extension of the burnishing

technique, often on a slipped surface rather than simple burnishing of the clay used to

form the vessel. It can be distinguished from burnished wares by the higher degree of

luster and the presence of crazing marks on the polished surface (the result of the slipping

and polishing techniques used). During the Xolalpan phase, the technique of “pattern

polishing” (al patron) (where only sections of the vessel surface are treated) emerges and

becomes wide spread during the following Metepec phase (Rattray 2001:115).

The most common vessel form in the polished ware group is that of the out-

curving (divergent rim) bowl. These first appear during the Miccaotli phase (although,

these lack the nubbin supports found in later bowls according to Rattray (2001:157) and

continue through the sequence with a peak during the Tlamimilolpa phase (Rattray

2001:115). They can serve as temporal markers based on paste color (red versus brown),

decorative motifs, and placement of the supports when present. Their exact purpose is

unknown, but Rattray (2001:115) suggests it to be likely that they served as ceremonial,

service, or ornamental pieces. Their presence in burial contexts further supports this

interpretation.

A subset of the divergent rim bowl that has been found at Teotihuacan is

comprised of those bowls with feet. Unlike the more common divergent rim bowl, the

cylindrical tripod bowls present a more vertical wall with only a slight out-curving at the

lip/rim. They tend to have rectangular feet which have a high degree of standardization

77

suggesting mold production. These vessels seem to replace the out curving bowl in many

burial contexts beginning in the Late Tlamimilolpa phase (Rattray 2001:115). Filini

(2004:22) suggests there might be Veracruz origins for this vessel shape due to “the

lustrous finish.” These vessels, which can appear with or without associated lids

(Pasztory 1997:156), offer clear connections between Teotihuacan, Tikal, and Uaxactun,

given that the best examples of this pottery style come from these three sites (Filini

2004:22). Furthering this connection is the fact that this vessel form seems to mimic

those from the Gulf Coast region.

Another of the locally produced wares found at Teotihuacan, which have been

used as indicators of Teotihuacan presence, is that of San Martin Orange. This ware

shows up in the Xolalpan phase and quickly dominates many of the archaeological

contexts at Teotihuacan. This ware seems to have been produced in the Tlajinga area

(Rattray 2001:119) and becomes a major Teotihuacan utilitarian ware starting in the

Xolalpan phase, continuing in popularity during the subsequent Metepec phase.

Throughout its use, San Martin Orange wares were used as large storage containers,

cooking vessels, and amphorae.

When fired, it has a distinctive orange coloration that ranges from red (2.5YR 4/8)

to strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) often with a light red (2.5YR 6/6; 2.5YR 6/8) core (Rattray

1990:99). In many parts of Teotihuacan, the San Martin ware replaces earlier burnished

wares for storage containers. There seems to be a degree of cost or importance being

applied to these vessels due to the degree of repair that occurs. A number of the San

Martin pieces show bored holes where pieces of a broken vessel were lashed together so

that they might be reused following a breakage.

78

Thin Orange

Thin Orange wares are among some of the more distinctive wares that can be seen

during the Classic period (Smith 1958; Kolb 1977:534). True to the name, vessels of

Thin Orange paste are finely constructed and decidedly orange in color (Kolb 1977:534).

The orange coloration, as defined by Rattray (2001:99), ranges from pink (2.5 YR 7/4) to

light red (2.5 YR 6/8, 7/8, 7/6) to the most common, reddish yellow (5YR 6/6, 7/6, 7/8)

with some pinkish gray variation (5YR 6/2). While the coloration of the paste is fairly

distinctive, the presence of white particles in the paste best identifies this ceramic type

from other, orange colored types. Despite the fact that it was an imported ware from

Puebla (Rattray 1990:184), the presence of Thin Orange wares has been used as one of

the key lines of evidence for the presence of or interactions with Teotihuacan (Carot

2001; Cublert 2003:62; Filini 2004). As with the green obsidian from the Pachuca

(Hidalgo) source, it is seen as a potential trade ware throughout much of the sphere of

contact that Teotihuacan had with the rest of Mesoamerica (Filini 2004:21).

Thin orange vessels come in a number of common forms. These include annular

base bowls, which often are inscribed with geometric designs. In addition, bowls with

simple (non-annular) bases are found. Effigy jars and simple jars are also present, though

not in the same quantities as the open vessel forms.

Lithics

Perhaps one of the most readily identifiable pieces of evidence that has been used

to indicate the presence of Teotihuacan in other regions is that of the green obsidian from

the Pachuca mine in Hidalgo. While there are four varieties of obsidian that come from

the Sierra de las Navajas obsidian sources (Pastrana 2002), the most readily recognizable

79

obsidian from the Pachuca mine is highly distinctive in terms of its green-gold color.

Spence (1967) offers a detailed analysis of the obsidian complex for much of the

Teotihuacan sequence. There seems to be definite patterns in the obsidian used for

blades and non-blade technologies. Throughout much of the Classic period sequence, the

majority of the non-blade production seems to be comprised of gray obsidian (Spence

1967). Indeed, many of the workshops that have been identified at Teotihuacan were

involved in the production of prismatic blades or durable and transportable blanks for

other types of tools (Spence 1981).

This pattern changes following the collapse of Teotihuacan and the subsequent

control of the Pachuca source by Tula, at which time preformed scrapers and eccentrics

become much more common (Pastrana 2002). This trend towards early stage production

of performs continues through the Late Postclassic Aztec occupation of the mining areas

(Pastrana 2002). Blade production at Teotihuacan shows a clear shift during the

Tlamimilolpa phase (200-400 CE) from gray obsidian to being predominantly of green

obsidian (Spence 1967:511). Despite the overwhelming evidence of green obsidian at the

site of Teotihuacan, the Classic period procurement is poorly studied due to subsequent

use of the mines in later periods, low visibility on the surface of Classic Period materials,

and difficult terrain (Pastrana 2002).

Green obsidian eccentrics have been tied closely to Teotihuacan as well.

Evidence for interactions with Teotihuacan found at Altun Ha (Belize) consists primarily

of obsidian eccentrics, made from prismatic blades, in the form of small humanoids

(Pendergast 1971; 2003). The eccentrics, along with a number of other burial goods,

were found in a tomb located at the top of a stepped pyramid structure. Pendergast

80

(1971:456) suggests that the entire cache, of which the eccentrics were a part, represent

an assemblage of artifacts that are often found in Miccaotli phase (CE 150-200) deposits

at Teotihuacan. The fact that a number of the figures are made of green obsidian

(presumably Pachuca from the report) suggests that either they or the material from

which they were made originated in the Teotihuacan area (Pendergast 1971:457).

Architecture

Architecturally, Teotihuacan (and thus Classic period Central Mexico) is often

defined by the presence of the talud-tablero facades. In talud-tablero architecture there

is a stepped series of slanted vertically oriented (tablero) sections separated by the

sloping (talud) sections (Filini 2004:20). This style of architecture has been found as far

from the Basin of Mexico as Michoacán (Filini 2004:20) and Kaminaljuyu (Kidder,

Jennings, and Shook 1946; Sanders and Michels 1969, 1977). This presence has been

used as evidence for contact with Teotihuacan and, when coupled with other

archaeological evidence, has been used to suggest the contact be more than indirect, long

distance links.

Another aspect of Teotihuacan architecture that is used as a defining characteristic

of Teotihuacan identity through architecture is the carefully laid out grid upon which the

city was oriented. The entire city is oriented along an axis that runs 15.5o east of true

north (Cowgill 1997:137). In addition to this imposed orientation, there is a high degree

of conformity in the residential buildings throughout the city. This plan is believed to

have been instituted around 300 CE and has been used to suggest increase state control

over the population of the city. The compounds express a degree of standardization in

size and design, along with internal and external decoration. While some of the

81

excavated compounds contain murals (Cowgill 1997:138; Taube 2003), most seem to

have white plaster walls (Cowgill 1997:138).

Burial Ritual

Much of the work that has been done compiling data about the burial patterns and

rituals at Teotihuacan has been done by Evelyn Rattray (1992, 1997). In these volumes,

she offers a detailed assessment and inventory of the burial patterns and burial goods

from throughout Teotihuacan. Her work has done much to change the notion that

Teotihuacan mortuary practices involved wrapping and cremating the remains (Weaver

1981:203). Rattray (1992:53) claims that cremation was not common, but rather the

practice of burying the dead in the house compound, associated with house shrines,

seems more widespread.

Furthermore, she details the shift from Formative burial practices in the region to

those of the Classic period, at which point there seems to be some emphasis on the burial

of the dead in the household compound. These burials are usually found within the patio

areas, although the Tlajinga 33 burials seem to be associated with floors and walls rather

than patios (Rattray 1992). In the La Ventilla complex, burials are associated with a

large ceramic complex including Thin Orange and cylindrical tripod bowls (Rattray

1992:27).

Ethnohistory

Early attempts to understand the nature of Teotihuacan civilization relied on

ethnohistoric accounts of the ancient city from the view point of the Aztecs. While a

number of glyphs have been identified, they have yet to be translated (Langley 1993).

82

Presently, the original name for the city is unknown, although some have suggested the

use of a distinctive headdress on monuments in both Oaxaca and the Maya region may

serve as a pictographic connection between the individuals depicted and the city of

Teotihuacan (Chase Coggins 1993). As such, the Nahua word for the city remains in

place (Taube 1993:10). To the Aztecs, Teotihuacan was the place where they believed

their pantheon of gods came together at the creation of the world to determine the order

of things (Taube 1993:41). While no known texts exist from this Classic period

civilization, there are accounts in the Maya region that seem to relate to or depict people

with affiliation to Teotihuacan (Proskouriakoff 1993). Among such association with

Teotihuacan in the Maya region are distinctive headdresses and the presence of held

atlatl-like spear throwers (Chase Coggins 1993). In addition, there is a suggestion that

butterfly imagery may correspond to a Teotihuacan ideological presence outside the

Basin of Mexico (Chase Coggins) along with a glyph which has been interpreted as

representing the Storm God (Langley 1993). Cowgill (1997) details a number of signs

and symbols which have been discovered at Teotihuacan. However, since no

grammatical or syntactical findings have been made, interpretation of these symbols

remains difficult.

There is some evidence for this continuity in the form of iconography with origins

in the Early/Middle Classic that continues through the Postclassic (Nicholson 2000;

Sugiyama 2000). While it may be that the states of Tula and the Mexica sought to co-opt

the earlier iconography, it may also be an attempt to declare association with the earlier

glory of Teotihuacan. Due to its scarcity and the fact that much of what does exist lacks

83

translation, iconography is rarely relied upon, although when it is, it is often referenced in

relation to architecture or the presence of the goggle-eyed Tlaloc deity (Filini 2004: 19).

Maya Region

During the Classic period of Mesoamerican prehistory, the majority of the work

looking at ethnicity has been in identification of various ethnic, and thus cultural, groups.

The focal point of this discussion, more often than not, has been to attempt to decipher

Teotihuacan’s impact throughout Mesoamerica (see Braswell 2003). Central in many of

the investigations that have addressed the Central Mexican presence in the Maya region

has been the issue of how much and what kind of power Teotihuacan may have exerted

over the Maya region during the Classic period. The earliest work on the Maya-

Teotihuacan interaction focused on interpretations of the Teotihuacan presence in the

Maya region as being of a militaristic or conquest nature (e.g. Stuart 2000;

Proskouriakoff 1993). As such, researchers sought to explain the presence of Central

Mexican artifacts, architecture and iconography as evidence for a Teotihuacan presence

in the region. More recent interpretations have turned away from the Conquest model of

regional interactions. Rather, these interpretations suggest a more internal view of Maya-

Teotihuacan interactions (Fash and Fash 2000; Braswell 2003)

There is a wide breadth of evidence suggesting that there was, at the very least,

contact between the Maya region and the city of Teotihuacan during the Classic period

(Kidder, Jennings, and Shook 1946; Sanders and Michels 1969, 1977; Pendergast 1971;

Braswell 2003). The majority of this evidence has been found, surprisingly, in the Maya

region rather than in Teotihuacan itself. The debate regarding Teotihuacan’s role in the

formation of the Classic Period Maya has been central to the discussion of such cultural

84

interactions. There are two major arguments regarding the interactions between the

regions. One side of the debate argues that Teotihuacan played an active role in the

regional politics of the Maya region. This “externalist” view (Stuart 2000:465-466;

Braswell 2003:11-13) claims that Teotihuacan represented an empire, in which colonies

and garrison outposts would have existed in strategic locations. The opposing,

“internalist” (Stuart 2000:465-466; Braswell 2003:11-13) viewpoint gives a greater

degree of agency to the Maya elites, making them active participants rather than passive

recipients. According to this view, the Maya elite were experts at appropriating and co-

opting imagery and symbolism from the neighboring Teotihuacan state as internal shows

of power.

It is important, however, to discuss the markers that have been used to define the

Maya as a broad cultural unit. One aspect of Maya culture that has facilitated such

endeavors is the presence of textual works that have offered, albeit slowly, clues to the

way the ancient people of the Maya cultures may have sought to define themselves. In

addition to the stelae and codices that have survived, there are other means by which

ethnicity has been assessed archaeologically. As with any other cultural group, there are

culturally influenced production techniques and stylistic variations which have come to

define the Maya complex.

Much of the work that has been done to define the features of Maya ethnicity has

focused on the Merchants’ Barrio compound at Teotihuacan. This compound, located in

the northern part of the city (Rattray 1992:51), has been linked through ceramics,

architecture, iconography and art, and burial patterns to the Gulf Coast and Maya regions,

in particular the area of Matacapan in Southern Veracruz, which served as an important

85

trade center for Teotihuacan (Evans 2004). As with Teotihuacan ethnicity being

identified through its presence in other places, much of the Early Classic period Maya

ethnic markers are distinguished at the site of Teotihuacan.

Archaeological Evidence

Ceramics

According to Sharer and Traxler (2006), one of the more widespread and

indicative pottery styles from the Early Classic period in the Maya region is that of

polychrome decorative techniques. This type of pottery, usually red and black on

orange/cream base, tends to include linear and geometric designs and can be found

throughout much of the Maya region (Sharer and Traxler 2006:288).

One type of Maya pottery that has been referenced as a typological specimen that

can be used to identify ceramics as being of Maya origin is that of the basal flanged

bowls (Rattray 1989:123; Taube 2003:275). Also identified by Rattray (1989) is the

presence of a style called Dos Arroyos Orange Polychrome.

Initially discovered at the site by Sejourne (1966) in her Tetitla excavations, many

of the ceramics from the compound show a high degree of stylistic similarity to those

from the Maya region while also incorporating aspects of the local, Teotihuacan,

traditions. Taube (2003:305-308) discusses Plano-Relief vessels found at Tetitla

(Teotihuacan) as being clear evidence of connections to the Maya of southern

Mesoamerica which also bear evidence of Teotihuacan elements. These vessels are

cylinder vessels with three registers within which Classic Maya imagery are found. The

vessel shape and imagery are stylistically Maya, however Taube (2003) suggests that the

appearance of the registers is a feature not seen in most Maya pottery styles.

86

In general, the key factor for the assignment of ceramics into a Classic Maya

category is the decorative and iconography/hieroglyphic inclusion. Taube (2003) uses

evidence of Maya imagery as a key source of association between material found at the

Tetitla compound of Teotihuacan and the Maya region. Also found in the compound

were two almenas (plaques associated with burials) which are associated with

Teotihuacan burials, but were decorated with Maya iconography (Taube 2003:274).

Taube (2003:274-275) uses this as evidence that the pieces were being made locally, but

in a foreign style that reflects ethnic affiliation between the makers of the almenas and

the people of the Maya region.

Architecture

Evidence for the Maya presence at Teotihuacan has not been limited to ceramics.

Assessment of ethnicity through architecture at Teotihuacan is difficult due to the state

influenced layout of the city. Despite the rather rigid control Teotihuacan seemed to

exert over the architecture and building construction within the boundaries of the city,

Sharer and Traxler (2006:293) suggest that there may have been a complex similar to the

E Group complex first defined at Uaxactun (Guatemala) present within the parts of the

city that have Maya associations. This building complex is comprised of a specific

alignment of buildings that places three temples in lines with the various solstices and

equinoxes when viewed from a distance (Sharer and Traxler 2006:320-321).

Furthermore, there have been a number of circular, adobe structures that have

been excavated from the Merchants’ Barrio compound (Rattray 1992). The purpose of

these structures has been the subject of much debate, including interpretations of the

structures as burial platforms, habitations, and as storage areas (Rattray 1992:51).

87

Rattray (1992:52) further points out that “the persistent spatial association of foreign

goods with round houses and family shrines symbolically represents the ethnic unity

cohesiveness of the Merchants’ Barrio.” These structures seem to have been

incorporated into the more typical architectural layout of Teotihuacan sometime during

the late Xolalpan period (CE 550-650) (Taube 2003:277).

Iconography/Art

A full discussion of Maya iconography and art is far beyond the scope of this

thesis. Due to the complexity and abundance of both textual and artistic documents and

pieces from the Maya, it has been possible to gain a much deeper understanding of many

aspects of their culture. Much of the evidence for Maya presence at Teotihuacan

revolves around iconography and art found there (e.g. Taube 2003). It is through analysis

of the iconography that clear distinctions and associations between the merchant’s barrio

and the Maya region become apparent. Among the evidence for Maya presence at

Teotihuacan has been the presence of murals and decorated ceramics (Taube 2003). The

assessment of these art styles as being of Maya origins has been facilitated by the

overwhelmingly abundant art from the Maya region.

Taube (2003) discusses a number of murals which have been discovered at the

Tetitla apartment complex in the northern part of Teotihuacan. He states that many of the

murals “allude to distant lands and precious materials” (Taube 2003:280). In addition to

depictions of far-away places and goods, the Tetitla murals are interpreted as being in the

Maya style of art. Much of this interpretation comes from the poses, glyphs, adornment,

and physical characteristics of the people and figures presented in the paintings (Taube

88

2003). In this, it is possible to see the stylistic and artistic association between the Tetitla

populace and the broader Maya culture.

Burial Ritual

Early Classic burials at the Merchants’ Barrio were located under the floors or in

deep shaft tombs within the circular compounds found in this proposed ethnic enclave

(Rattray 1992:51). Many of these burials were either secondary contexts or part of

multiple individual interments and were often associated with shrines (Rattray 1992:51).

Rattray (1992) offers a thorough overview, inventory, and analysis of the burials and

offerings associated with the Maya people living at Teotihuacan. In this piece she states

that the burial rituals/customs were reconstructed base on the “religious paraphernalia”

(Rattray 1992:51) found in the context of the Merchants’ Barrio. As a result of these

reconstructions, further evidence emerged for the association between the Merchants’

Barrio and the Maya people.

Ethnohistory

The Maya were prolific writers of their own civilization. As such, there is a

sizable body of literature that spans much of Maya history and prehistory both about the

Maya and written by Maya authors. While many of the original texts have deteriorated to

the point of illegibility, many Classic period writings have survived to modern times in

the form of carved stelae and murals or building facades. Ethnohistoric evidence for the

Maya people comes, often, from these stelae and other depictions for which translations

have been obtained. Much of the early epigraphical work that was done on these texts

was done to attempt to decipher the meaning of the glyphs. However, some work has

89

been done trying to decipher other meaning from the accompanying iconography and

imagery (Proskouriakoff 1993). In this, there have been important observations

regarding dress styles, weaponry, personal adornment, ritual, and cosmology.

As a result of archaeologists having access to these texts, much is known about

the socio-political organization of the Classic Maya. Lineages and inter-polity politics

are clearly documented on the stelae, which seem to have been Classic Period political

propaganda. While there is little direct discussion of Maya ethnicity in the prehispanic

texts, there are clear examples of imagery that can be seen as representing a cultural

conceptualization of certain aspects of what it meant to be Maya. Many of the depictions

of people (often of elites with regards to the stelae), include aspects such as cranial

deformation, clothing, personal adornment (jewelry and body modifications), and ritual

or martial paraphernalia. Effectively, “reconstructions of Maya culture histor[ies] are

usually syntheses of data from archaeological sources and native historical tradition”

(Shuman 1977:1), which has led to a much richer understanding of Maya prehistory.

Some work has been done attempting to gather ethnographic data from modern Maya

populations regarding their perceptions of their own history and to understand what of

modern Maya culture may offer analogy for those from the past (Fox et al 1996). There

is thought to be a remarkably high degree of continuity within some existing Maya

populations that may allow ethnographic data to be projected into the past (Fox et al

1996).

Oaxaca

During the Classic Period, the Zapotec state came to control the region of the

Valley of Oaxaca in the modern state of Oaxaca. The center of this state was the hilltop

90

site of Monte Albán, which controlled the populace of the valley for nearly a millennium.

While there is strong evidence for occupation in the valley before the Classic period,

much of the population is spread through the three arms of the valley. During the Classic

period, there seems to have been a resettlement of much of the valley up onto the hilltop

steppes of Monte Albán.

While the true nature of the interactions between Monte Albán and the rest of

Oaxaca and Teotihuacan remains unclear, there is clear evidence for such interactions

during the Classic period. Blanton (1978) suggests that Teotihuacan may have had an

interest in the subjugation of the Valley of Oaxaca, however current evidence does not

support an intense military presence by Teotihuacan at Monte Albán, or that the cities

were ever engaged in warfare against one another (Marcus and Flannery 1996). Instead,

it has been suggested that Teotihuacan’s interest in Oaxaca may have revolved around

resources, such as shell and/or religious ideology (Chase Coggins 1993), or with access

to the Maya region through Zapotec territory (Marcus and Flannery 1996). Whatever the

reasoning behind the relationship between Monte Albán and Teotihuacan, the evidence

for it the interactions can be found in both cities.

Among the evidence for contact with Teotihuacan found at Monte Albán comes in

the form of stylistic variants in pottery and architecture (cf. Blanton 1978). However,

Blanton (1978) points out that such evidence is sparse and that none of the buildings

found at Monte Albán show clear Teotihuacan (talud-tablero) style. However, there

evidence of Teotihuacan’s presence has been interpreted from a number of stone

monuments at Monte Albán which are believed to be depicting individuals with a

Teotihuacan ethnic affiliation (Chase Coggins 1993, Marcus and Flannery 1996). This

91

evidence is carved on stone stelae (e.g. Estela Lisa and Stela I) which are located along

the South Platform and are hidden from direct view (Marcus and Flannery 1996:219-220,

Evans 2004).

While the evidence for a Teotihuacan presence at Monte Albán is scarce, there is

a larger body of evidence for a Zapotec presence at Teotihuacan. The Oaxaca Barrio is

located on the western margin of the city (N1W6) and consists of approximately a dozen

apartment compounds (Cowgill 1997; Rattray 1993; Spence 1989, 1992). These

apartments have been associated with an Oaxacan cultural presence through ceramics and

burial styles. Chase Coggins (1993) suggests that this population may represent a group

of Oaxacans with Teotihuacan affiliation who left Monte Albán following the defeat of

their lineage in the Monte Albán power structure. Others have suggested that the Oaxaca

Barrio may represent an intermediate point between Monte Albán and routes westward

through the Lerma area around the site of Chingú which also had an ethnically Zapotec

enclave (Rattray 2001). It is possible these Oaxacans represented artisans who specialized

in lime plaster techniques which were prized at Teotihuacan (Rattray 2001). Also

possible is that the population at Teotihuacan was there to act as trade network

“middlemen” for the movement of obsidian from Teotihuacan to Monte Albán in

exchange for Zapotec mica (Marcus and Flannery 1996).

Archaeological Evidence

Ceramics

The initial ceramic typology for the Monte Albán region of Oaxaca was

developed by Alfonso Caso and Ignacio Bernal during the 1960s (Caso et al 1967). This

initial ceramic sequence was established as the result of their excavations in the valley,

92

and more specifically at the site of Monte Albán. This sequence was based on three

criteria which included vessel construction (paste color, finish, and slip), decorative style,

and vessel form (Caso et al 1967). Fargher (2007) offers a brief overview of the five

ceramic phases established based on these excavations and the changes that were seen

within the stratigraphy. While some standard types of vessels emerge in the Formative

period, the ceramics of the Classic period (Monte Albán III A/B) are considered to show

a high degree of standardization that Fargher (2007) has suggested as evidence for

potential state-level control over their production and distribution, although the true

extent (if any) of this control remains uncertain. Petrographic analysis by Feinman et al

(1989) supports a shift from dispersed household level production throughout the valley

to more highly standardized production which made use of more localized clay sources

after the Formative period.

There seems to have been a high degree of continuity within the Monte Albán

sequence. While this leads to difficulty in identifying chronological markers within the

sequence (Blanton 1978), some key makers have been identified (Caso et al 1967).

Furthermore, the early shift towards standardization allows for cultural markers to be

recognized fairly early on. Among those pottery styles which have been used to identify

Classic period presence of Monte Albán origins are anthropomorphic urns, which likely

have earlier origins, and seem to proliferate during this phase. Caso et al (1967) identify

a significant influx of foreign ceramics which indicate extra-regional interactions with

Teotihuacan and the surrounding areas. However, there does not seem to be a high

degree of integration of these foreign styles into the local ceramic production, suggesting

maintenance of traditional styles despite foreign contact and trade.

93

At Teotihuacan, there is a small ceramic presence that has been traced to Oaxacan

origins, mostly occurring within the Oaxaca Barrio. Cowgill (1997) suggests that most of

the Oaxacan stylistic associations are locally made varieties which resemble the ceramics

of the Late Monte Albán II phase. Among those aspects of Oaxacan ceramics that have

been found at Teotihuacan include the presence of grayware pottery and the incorporation

of the serpent tongue motif in some pieces.

Grayware

While other paste coloration types exist, it is for the gray ware (gris) varieties that

Monte Albán and Oaxaca are best known (The G type as defined by Caso et al 1967).

This ceramic paste type results from the reduction fire technology of kiln firing found in

the valley of Oaxaca. The reduction environment of the kilns produced a distinctive gray

coloration to the pastes. Caso et al (1967:23) identified two types of grayware. The first

is the typical “Gray” ware which is the most common paste type found at Monte Albán,

the second is “Gris-blanquecina” which is suggested to be an under oxidized variant of

the cream paste type (Caso et al 1967). They grayware varieties begin in the Formative

and continue through the Monte Albán sequence with some chronological distinctions

being possible.

Anthropomorphic Urns

In addition to the utilitarian grayware types, funerary urns have been identified as

one of the characteristic Zapotec ceramic types (Whitecotton 1984). Unsurprisingly, this

vessel form has its roots in the Monte Albán I (Formative) phase and persisting through

the Monte Albán IV (Epi/Postclassic) phase. Urns are defined as “cylindrical vessel[s]

94

with a figure on the front and with the rear of the vessel generally open to the top”

(Whitecotton 1984:49). Furthermore, Whitecotton suggests that they are generally void

of contents suggesting ritual use rather than a more utilitarian function for storage.

During the Classic period (Monte Albán III A/B), Whitecotton points out the presence of

Teotihuacan-esque influences on the decorative styles and techniques of these urns. This

shift seems to incorporate a number of the elements of the Teotihuacan incensarios,

including the prominence of a headdress and face/mask with less detailed bodies for the

figures on them during the Classic period (Whitecotton 1984). This has been used as a

point of evidence for Teotihuacan-Monte Albán interaction. It is suspected that many of

these urns depict Zapotec deities which are usually depicted seated with legs crossed and

hands on knees (Whitecotton 1984).

Iconography/Art

Iconography and art styles are a key component to discussions of ethnic

relatedness and cultural interactions. As with many areas of Mesoamerica during the

Classic period, ancient Oaxaca had its own unique styles of representation. Of particular

interest during the Classic period are the styles of decoration used for the

anthropomorphic urns. One motif that has been of particular interest and note is that of

the serpent tongue motif. This decorative style appears on many of the anthropomorphic

urns and consists of a bifurcated tongue that curls back on itself on the sides. It is often

free standing and has been interpreted as representing an Oaxacan earth deity. In

addition to these decorative motifs, the styles of hieroglyphic writings found at Monte

Albán serve as a distinctive indicator of Oaxacan presence.

95

In addition to the Maya imagery present at the Tetitla compound, Chase Coggins

(1993) suggests that some of the elements present there, including the shell motifs and

what he terms “Monte Albán-style figures” (Chase Coggins 1993:151), may suggest a

strong connection to Monte Alban and the Pacific Coast.

Lithics

During the late middle Formative and into the early Classic period, the Valley of

Oaxaca is associated with the production of magnetite mirrors. These served as key trade

objects with the people of the Olmec heartland along the Gulf Coast may have been a

factor in the regional success of the valley during its early development. Obsidian also

factors heavily into the lithic complex of the people of Monte Albán and the Valley of

Oaxaca, despite the apparent lack of an obsidian source within the modern state of

Oaxaca (Joyce et al 1995:4). An analysis of obsidian artifacts from the Rio Verde Valley

in Southern Oaxaca (Joyce et al 1995) showed obsidian coming from the sources of

Zaragoza and Pachuca during the Early/Middle Classic (250-500 CE). Following the fall

of Teotihuacan, there was a broadening of obsidian sources being used in this part of

Oaxaca which might suggest a decline in Teotihuacan control over obsidian trade in the

area.

Architecture

Among the important architectural features of Monte Albán was the Main Plaza

(Blanton 1978). As with many plazas, it is believed that the Main plaza at Monte Albán

served as a military staging ground, a center of ritual and commerce, and many other

important daily functions. The origins of the plaza complex that dominates the city of

96

Monte Albán are in the Late Formative/Early Preclassic phases. It was at this time that

the famous Danzante carvings were placed in the plaza. During the Classic period,

Blanton points out evidence for segregation of potential ritual areas from the public

sector.

As with all of the cultural groups present in Teotihuacan, there is a scarcity of

non-local architecture due to the state imposed building plan of the city. Buildings in the

Oaxaca Barrio are built in the Teotihuacan fashion (Cowgill 1997). This makes it

difficult to determine if there were elements of Oaxacan architecture that may have been

included in the apartment complexes, but it seems unlikely.

Burial Ritual

Of particular importance for the identification of the Oaxacan presence at

Teotihuacan is that of the burial styles found in the barrio. Rather than utilizing the local

traditions of singular burials, the people of the Oaxaca Barrio made use of group tombs at

their apartment compounds (Cowgill 1997). This difference in burial style and the

inclusion of foreign ceramics in some of the tombs has led to the interpretation of an

ethnically distinct presence within the Oaxaca Barrio.

Summary

It is through a detailed analysis of the archaeological record that a better

understanding of the complex social, political, and economic interactions taking place

during the Classic period can be gained. Furthermore, it is due to the very fact that the

Classic period is rife with intricate trade and social networks linking the various

geographical regions of Mesoamerica that we can see the role of ethnicity and ethnic

97

identity appear in the archaeological record with greater clarity. By comparing the ways

in which different ethnic groups worked, either consciously or unconsciously, to maintain

their cultural identity it may be possible to gain a better understanding of the cultures

themselves. In this, it is necessary to undertake such a task through systematic analysis

of the material record so that the similarities, differences, and changes over time might be

recognized and studied.

98

CHAPTER V: METHODOLOGY

One major goal of this project was to determine if there was a methodology that

could be applied to an investigation of ethnic affiliation and identity in the archaeological

record of the N1W5:19 compound. In order to do this, a number of lines of evidence

were analyzed, including the grave construction, the ceramic assemblages (burials and

household), and the lithic assemblages (burials and household).

The Configuration of the Burials

Grave construction, the burials within, and the associated cultural assemblages

were examined and compared to the burial practices found in several areas of

Mesoamerica, including West Mexico (Michoacán), Oaxaca (Zapotec), and from

residential areas within Teotihuacan, such as the Oaxaca Barrio and Teotihuacan

residences. The burial assemblages were examined when possible, with reliance on

published material when access to the collections was unattainable. Due to the fact that

these excavations were undertaken as an INAH run salvage project in 1991 (and the site

is currently under the foundations of a military barracks) it was impossible to do a

physical review of the burial locations. Rather, the data forms and drawings done by the

investigation team at the time of excavations were used as the primary source of

information regarding the burials.

There were several key features of the burials that were examined:

1. First, the construction of the graves was looked at with regard to

building materials, grave size, grave shape, and grave location.

99

2. Second, the arrangement of the remains, with close attention paid to

patterns in facing, orientation, and basic analyses of the remains when

possible (especially sexing and age).

Although some of this information for some of the burials has been published by Gómez

(1998; 2002; Gómez and Gazzola 2007), he focuses on reporting some of the more

complete burials (burials 27, 30, 36, and 43). I felt that a reassessment of the entirety of

the burials would be beneficial to a broader understanding of the mortuary practices for

the compound.

In the course of the investigations, an emphasis was placed on the artifact

assemblages associated with the burials. Placement of the material, construction, style,

and inclusion of the various artifacts were taken into consideration when assessing the

degree of cultural/ethnic influence on the burial patterns. A focus was placed on the style

of the ceramics found in the burials, although objects of personal adornment, lithics, and

metal objects were taken into account when and where they made up parts of the burial

assemblages. These were then compared with the burial patterns found in other

Teotihuacan apartment compounds (Sempowski and Spence 1994; Rattray 1992).

Ceramic Complex

There is much information that can be gathered through detailed analyses of

ceramics. The analysis of ceramic technology can be broken into three categories of

analysis: formal, technological, and chemical. Formal analysis involves those methods of

analysis which seek to understand the physical characteristics of the ceramics that deal

with the shape of the object being investigated. Measurements of size, shape, and density

are all important aspects of formal analysis. Through formal analysis, researchers seek to

gain a better understanding of the function of a vessel in order to understand the role such

100

vessels played in the technological complex. An important aspect of formal analysis is

the study of stylistic variation. Stylistic analysis involves those features of the ceramics

which have no obvious functional implications. While this can fall under the category of

formal analysis, it is important to recognize some of the distinctions between these types

of analysis. While the majority of formal analyses deal with the form of the vessel,

stylistic analysis seeks meaning and information from the decoration. By understanding

the decisions people have made about those aspects of their pottery which do not

influence the function of the vessels, important cultural information can be unlocked.

Technological analysis involves studies of the technological processes utilized in the

production of ceramics. Among technological analyses that have been undertaken are

studies into the actual production of ceramics, including the manufacturing and

processing techniques used (Rice 1984:165-170; e.g. Steinberg and Kamilli 1984).

Technical studies have been expanded to include some research into the stylistic aspects

of the technological decisions made by potters.

Chemical analysis offers a deeper understanding of the composition of ceramics

and has become increasingly important in archaeological investigations (Rice 1984:167).

One commonly used method of chemical analysis is trace element analysis, most often

through Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) (see Harbottle 1976, 1982).

The purpose of chemical analysis is to discover the chemical composition of the ceramics

being investigated and hence the origins of the ceramics in terms of the regional sources

of clay used to construct the vessels. This has shed light on issues of trade, migration,

and cultural complexity the world over (Stross and Asaro 1984:179-180). Archaeometry

of this sort has much to offer the field in an understanding of relationships between

101

regions as reflected in the distribution of clay-based objects whose origins are known

(Rice 1984:167). It has also allowed for a better understanding of the chemical properties

of the pastes from which ceramics are constructed and thus, has granted deeper insight

into the decisions people make when producing ceramics (e.g. Stross and Asaro 1984).

With the assistance and services of Mike Glasscock at the Missouri Reactor lab, the

samples taken from the excavated collections of Structure 19:N1W5 were compared to

the chemical signatures from known clays sources from the Basin of Mexico and the

Valley of Oaxaca in addition to being compared to the clay samples held by Helen

Pollard and Amy Hirschman from the Pátzcuaro Basin and those reported by Bucio,

Filini and Ruvalcaba (2005). A total of 59 samples were selected from household context

for neutron activation with emphasis being placed on those ceramics with the potential

for being either stylistically or materially foreign.

General Ceramic Analysis Methodology

Ceramics were spread out so that they could be easily viewed and sorted into their

appropriate type categories based on the typology published by Evelyn Rattray (2001).

The first sorting pass was done to sort out easily recognized types based on quick visual

analysis. Among those types sorted in this first pass were San Martin orange types,

foreign materials, closed vessels from open vessels, matte wares (both fine and coarse)

and painted (decorated) wares. A second sorting was then done within these initial

sorting categories. This sorting pass differentiated more finely within the initial

categories. San Martin types were sorted into vessel form, closed vessels were sorted by

surface treatment (burnished or polished) and based on vessel form (olla, amphora, jar,

etc.). Painted wares were separated by vessel form (jar, bowl, and basin). Within certain

102

form categories, further sorting into more specific vessel form was attempted (i.e. out

curving bowls from straight walled bowls).

Once the entire ceramic assemblage was sorted into the appropriate ceramics

types, the pieces were examined for identifiable stylistic features. Among those features

were surface decoration, surface treatment, and vessel form. These allowed for further

determination of ceramic type and potential dating based on the established ceramic

chronology (see Rattray 2001). All materials that were selected for inclusion in the

Teotihuacan type collection and those selected for INAA (Figure 8) were recorded and

documented with photos when possible (See Appendix A).

The Ceramic Burial Assemblages

As a result of my initial examination of the ceramics from Structure 19:N1W5, I

proposed two related studies. One sought to analyze all the ceramics associated with the

burial contexts. The other involved the submission of a small number of the pieces with

similarities to Michoacán ceramics for INAA sourcing. In the first study I chose to focus

on the identification of decorative/stylistic techniques, paste composition and structure

(petrographic analyses) (e.g. Steinberg and Kamilli 1984), and manufacturing technique.

Drawings and photographs were taken in addition to more detailed measurements of

those pieces for which stylistic similarity could be claimed. Decorated and Plain wares

were looked at in terms of color (with Munsell readings being taken when possible), in

addition to vessel shape, form, and construction/firing technique if possible. Due to the

fact that most of the ceramics in the burials are plain, buff wares, detailed analysis of the

decorative techniques was limited. Chronological determinations based on style and

103

manufacturing technique were carried out for both the Teotihuacan and the “foreign”

ceramics.

Figure 8: Map of N1W5:19 showing locations of INAA samples. (Map based on

original drawn by Sergio Gómez 1998, 2002; with Gazzola 2007).

104

In the second study a small sample of the paste from these vessels was submitted

for INAA to determine whether the pottery found at the Structure 19:N1W5 apartment

compound was made from local Teotihuacan Valley clays or may have had its origins

outside the basin, perhaps from as far away as the Lake Pátzcuaro or Lake Cuitzeo Basins

of Michoacán. Arqlgo. Sergio Gómez agreed to these studies. Ceramics with high

potential for being stylistically or materially linked to Michoacán were favored in the

sample collection process.

Selected Domestic Ceramic Assemblages

The burial assemblage ceramic materials were compared to a sample of the

ceramics found in the larger context of the Structure 19:N1W5 compound. The goal of

this was to gain an understanding of the differences and similarities between the burial

and domestic assemblages to determine if differential proportions of ceramics were

present in each context. Further comparisons were then made with analyzed ceramic

complexes from other Teotihuacan residences such as Tlajinga 33 and with selected West

Mexican ceramic complexes of the same period.

A sample of ceramics from the domestic assemblages from Structure 19:N1W5

was sent for INAA testing to determine clay origins. These were selected from the larger

domestic assemblage based on their potential for stylistic and visual paste assessment

characteristics. Emphasis was placed on those ceramics for which visual analysis of

paste and forms suggest non-local production (both potentially west Mexican and

Oaxacan). As with the burial assemblage, visual analysis for phasing and style was

attempted before the sherds were selected for chemical analysis. This initial analysis used

105

Rattray’s ceramic typology (2001) for identification. The goal of this was to provide a

secondary data set with which to determine the extent to which the people of Structure

19:N1W5 were integrated into Teotihuacan life. Five samples were selected from the

burial material. The low number of samples was the result of limitations for sampling

placed upon the research by the collection curators, and the general lack of potential

samples.

Sample analysis

Burial goods

The whole artifacts reside in boxes within the main bodega at Teotihuacan. They

are labeled and sorted. The fragmentary artifacts are stored in provenienced bags within

storage boxes. These were sorted for inclusion or exclusion based on phasing. Any

material that could be identified as Postclassic in origin was not included in this study as

it falls outside the temporal consideration and is intrusive. A quick viewing of these

materials was done to determine if there was Classic period material associated with

them.

In those cases were there was Classic period material mixed with Postclassic

material, they were included in the study. This identification was done based on the

presence of Postclassic ceramic material and burial provenience when possible. In

addition, the burial materials from the associated “Pozo de Agua” burials, which were

identified by Sergio Gómez as Aztec phase in origin, were not analyzed. Once selected,

material was opened and spread out for viewing and cleaning if necessary. The ceramics

were separated from the non-ceramic materials, which were set aside for later study.

106

Household material

The household materials are held in large costales (4 foot deep sacks) in the main

storage bodega at Teotihuacan. Unfortunately, the documents telling what material can

be found in which costal have been lost. Therefore, it was impossible to know, until

opening, what material was held within. Costales were pulled out of the bodega based on

ability to access, making the material selection highly random. Within the costales,

materials were stored in plastic bags with labels giving provenience information. In the

case of multiple broken bags, material was set aside as unprovenienced.

The material was sorted into ceramics and non-ceramics, which were set aside for

later study. The ceramic assemblage was sorted into its appropriate types based on

Rattray’s (2001) ceramic typology. Pieces were occasionally set aside for inclusion in a

growing type collection when deemed important or unusual. These were labeled and

removed from the material, but included in the sherd counts for the materials. Non-

ceramic material was noted and counted, but little more than this was attempted.

Lithic Analysis

Obsidian analysis

Despite the low frequency of obsidian from the overall assemblage of Structure

19:N1W5, obsidian comprised the third data set for this investigation. The obsidian from

Structure 19:N1W5 was investigated using a number of analytical techniques, including

visual analysis, artifact typing, and chemical analysis. Obsidian from the general

domestic assemblage and from the burials was looked at in terms of color, form, function,

and manufacturing techniques. The analyzed obsidian was then compared to other

107

obsidian deposits found at other compounds at Teotihuacan, such as Tlajinga 33, and

with analyzed obsidian complexes from domestic residences in Michoacán. It was hoped

that, in this way it may be possible to detect any variations in the domestic assemblage of

obsidian at Structure 19:N1W5 and hence to see if there was any non-Teotihuacan

influence present in the household in addition to the burials.

While sometimes problematic due to recovery of materials, a brief, typologically

oriented analysis of the lithic artifacts was attempted in order to further compare the

Structure 19:N1W5 burial material with those found in Teotihuacan and Oaxacan

domestic and burial contexts. In order to do this, certain classifications of tool/artifact

types needed to be established. Tools were categorized as prismatic blades, reworked

blades, unworked flakes, bifaces, cores, eccentrics, or lapidary tools. It was hoped that

these classifications encompassed the range of possibilities found in the lithic

assemblages from the Structure 19:N1W5 burials. The percentages of the components of

the assemblage were ultimately compared to those found more broadly in Teotihuacan

(e.g. Spence 1967).

While there is some debate over the effectiveness of visual sourcing of obsidian

(Moholy-Nagy 2003; Odell 2004), it still remains one of the fastest ways to assign

cursory classification to obsidian. Due to the unique coloration of obsidian from the

Sierra de Navajas, Hidalgo (Pachuca) obsidian source, it is quickly and rather easily

distinguished from other local sources (such as that of Otumba) (Ponomarenko 2004).

While harder to distinguish visually, the non-green obsidian still holds important

information regarding the movement of goods and people across regions of Mesoamerica.

As such, it was included in the examined sample, although visual distinctions between

108

potential sources of gray and meca obsidian were not attempted. Based on these visual

classifications, counts of the obsidian artifacts were made in order to determine whether

they fell within expected ratios for Teotihuacan during this period.

Chemical analysis of the obsidian through XRF sourcing was undertaken as a

primary measure for source data with regards to the obsidian. The obsidian analyzed was

then compared to those presented in the literature (e.g. Cobean et al 1991) and those held

by the MURR laboratory in order to help determine with a higher degree of certainty

where the obsidian originated. The samples chosen for XRF consisted of the majority of

the gray obsidian (five pieces) from the burials (Figure 9). No green obsidian was

selected for XRF, as it was felt that visual analysis was sufficient to determine source.

All of the obsidian samples come from burial contexts due to the absence of gray

obsidian from the household deposits analyzed.

Sample Lithic Analysis

Obsidian was sorted and washed when necessary to allow for better viewing. The

initial sorting of the lithic artifacts was done for material. Obsidian was subjected to

basic visual analysis for color in order to discriminate green (Pachuca) obsidian from the

gray obsidian which was to be sent off for INAA. When possible, the artifacts were

sorted into basic formal categories (blades, flakes, worked pieces, etc.). These were

counted and recorded. From the burial material, five samples of gray obsidian (nearly all

of the gray obsidian found with the burials) were selected for INAA. These were bagged

and photographed before being sent to the MURR lab.

109

Summary

Overall, the above methodology proved satisfactory. Due to the overwhelming

volume of household ceramic materials, only approximately 1/3 of the material could be

analyzed for this project. From this, and from the complete analysis of the burial

offerings, arose interesting trends in the consumption and origins of both ceramics and

lithics at the N1W5:19 compound which has given rise to both a better understanding of

some aspects of the lives of the people living there in the Classic period, even as it has

opened up avenues to more questions.

110

Figure 9: Map of N1W5:19 showing the locations of the five obsidian samples sent for

XRF. Map based on original drawn by Sergio Gómez (1998, 2002; with Gazzola 2007).

111

CHAPTER VI: RESULTS

Burial Configuration and Demographics

Skeletal analysis without direct access to the osteological materials is always

difficult. Due to the fact that it was impossible to view the skeletal material directly, the

burial demographics were determined based on the excavation reports and field forms

from the 1991-1993 excavations. According to these forms, a total of fifty-four

individuals were identified within the burial material for the compound. These fifty-four

individuals were found in forty-three burial features with a number of associated burial

elements. Further analysis of the skeletal materials held by Mike Spence may reveal this

number to be greater.

Age Demographics

Of the fifty four individuals recovered from the excavations, age data was missing

for six (11.1%) and could not be determined for two (3.7%). Over half of the remaining

skeletons were those of infants or perinatal children (N=27). This group comprised

twenty seven individuals, in contrast to the eight sub and young adults (14.9%) and

eleven identifiable adults (20.4%). Because of their small sample numbers and the

potential difficulty in differentiating between them, sub-adults and young adults were

considered one statistical group for the purposes of analyses. Mike Spence (personal

communication, 2011) offered more detailed age information on one individual from

Feature 30 and another from Feature 30A, identifying the remains as belonging to an

adult of approximately 45-55 years and 60 years respectively.

112

AGE Frequency Percent

Missing 6 11.1

Infant 27 50.0

Sub-adult 3 5.6

Young Adult 5 9.3

Adult 11 20.4

Indeterminate 2 3.7

Total 54 100.0

Table 1: Age estimates for Classic Period burials from N1W5:19 as recorded by

excavators.

Sex Demographics

Sexing information remains scarce for the burials of N1W5:E19 (Table 2). Of the

54 burials, only ten have potential sexing information based on the feature forms and

analysis by Mike Spence. Three of the individuals are likely female, seven exhibit

masculine features and have been identified as male. For the remaining skeletal material,

there is no sex data present or the analysis of the remains has not determined it. Due to

these low numbers, it was very difficult to gain a clear understanding of the potential

relationship between sex of skeletal material and the information that was desired

regarding the burials.

Context

Accurate orientation information for a number of the burials was difficult to

determine due to the disturbed nature of many of the burials and the incomplete recording

of this data at the time of excavation. The disturbance in many of the burials is likely the

result of reburial efforts or movement and displacement of the remains for the interment

113

of new remains. There is a high degree of association between secondary burial status

and the age of the interred individual with (N=9) of adult burials being in secondary

context with the majority of infant burials (N=20) being in primary context.

SEX Frequency Percent

Data Missing 16 29.6

Male 7 13.0

Female 2 3.7

Indeterminate 29 53.7

Total 54 100.0

Table 2: Sex estimates for Classic Period burials from N1W5:19 as recorded by

excavators.

AGE

Type

Total Primary Secondary

Missing 0 6 6

Infant 20 7 27

Sub-adult 2 1 3

Young Adult 3 2 5

Adult 2 9 11

Indeterminate 0 2 2

Total 27 27 54

Table 3: Age and burial type cross-tabulation for Classic Period burials from N1W5:19 as

recorded by excavators.

Grave Construction

With the exception of an invasive burial pit from the Postclassic located just

outside the compound and not associated with the Teotihuacan occupation of the

structure, all of the burials excavated by Gómez occurred within the walls of the

114

Structure 19 compound. The majority of the burials excavated at the N1W5:E19 structure

were constructed as simple pit burials dug into the floors of the compound. A number of

these are associated with open courtyards. Major focus in the published literature

regarding the studies done on the Structure 19 material has focused on the two pit burials

which Gómez (1998) regards as strong evidence for the connection between the

compound and the cultural region of Michoacán. Indeed, there seems to be a high degree

of similarity between the construction of Burials 5 and 30 to those from Michoacán.

A few burials, in particular those that have previously been identified as having

potential connection to the Michoacán region (see Gómez 1998), have large, flat stones

(lajas) associated with the graves (Gómez 2002). This mode of grave construction is

similar to that described by Perierra (1999) at the site of Loma Alta in the Zacapu Basin

and those found at Erongaricuaro in the Patzcuaro Basin.

Summary of the Grave Configuration and Demographics

There was a definite clustering of burials in the northern half of the compound,

with the highest concentration located in the northwestern quarter (Figure 10). Grave

construction reflects that practiced by much of Teotihuacan, with the exception of those

graves/tombs reported on by Gómez (1998, 2002, and Gazzola 2007). There was a

higher than normal (for other compounds at Teotihuacan) number of infant burials at the

compound. Unfortunately, since the graves and remains could not be directly studied, the

data is based on previously published information and field report forms for which

accuracy cannot be personally verified. In addition, a more detailed understanding of the

demographics of the burials was impossible given that the remains are no longer held at

Teotihuacan.

115

Figure 10: Map showing locations of the burials within the N1W5:19 compound.

Michoacán associated burials are identified by number. Original map by Sergio Gómez

(1998, 2002, with Gazzola 2007).

116

Grave Goods

Much of the analysis of the burials that has been done to date has centered on the

whole ceramic artifacts, along with some of the lithic and shell materials, held in the

main warehouse at Teotihuacan. The rest of the grave goods were stored in a nearby

storage area and, prior to this analysis, have not been closely analyzed. Analysis was

done on as much of the burial materials as could be accessed, both those in the main

storage space and the auxiliary storage area. Burials which were clearly of Post-

Teotihuacan (Post-Classic) occupation were eliminated from study.

Burial Ceramics

A total of 2571 sherds and vessels were analyzed. This comprises the entire

ceramic burial assemblage with Teotihuacan era association found at N1W5:E19.

Materials were sorted based on Rattray’s ceramic typology and phasing was attempted

when diagnostic materials were present. The greatest volume of ceramics was identified

as being from the Xolalpan phase (N=793 from Early Xolalpan; N=816 from Late

Xolalpan)(see Figure 11, 12). 15.7% (N=403) of the material dated to the Late

Tlamimilolpa phase, while the Metepec phase materials account for 9.9% (N=254) of the

burial ceramics. While the majority of this material is clearly of Teotihuacan origin

(88%), a small handful of pots have been identified as having potential Michoacán

association based on stylistic characteristics which differentiate them from the standard

Teotihuacan assemblage (N=6; .2%) (Figure 13, 14).

Among these, simple bowls seem to be the most common form associated with

the burials (N=5). These differ from the local Teotihuacan bowls in a number of key

ways. Primarily, they are of non-local clay bodies. Samples from three of these were

117

sent with the INAA samples. Two of them came back with a high degree of similarity to

the known Pátzcuaro Group 1 ceramics as identified by MURR and Dr. Hector Neff (See

Appendix B) (Figure 15). In addition, the basic shape of the bowls differs from those of

local manufacture. While the common bowl form at Teotihuacan for polished wares is

that of the flat bottomed, everted rim bowl (often with incision on the exterior surface

and/or button supports on the base), the bowls with Michoacán association have a

rounded base (occasionally with a thumb print sized depression on the bottom surface)

and have a only a slight outward curve to the walls and rims.

In addition to the handful of vessels with potential Michoacán association, three

figurines of clear Michoacán cultural association were discovered in the N1W5:19

burials. These figurines, currently on display in the site museum, are stylistically

identifiable as Pátzcuaro type figurines (Begun 2008). Unfortunately, due to their

museum status, these figurines were unavailable for INAA.

Teotihuacan associated ceramics made up 88% (2262 sherds) of the burial

material assemblage (Figure 14, 15). The Burnished (N=1003) and Polished (N=736)

ware groups accounted for the vast majority of this material. Thin Orange (N=139) and

Fine Matte Ware (N=144) made up a second major grouping of materials. The San

Martin Orange ware group only accounted for 5.9% (N=152) of the total burial materials.

A further 4.6% (N=117) of the burial materials were identified as Painted Wares, while

the Coarse Matte ware group represented 3.0% (N=76) of the assemblage.

Burnished Ollas made up the largest group of ceramics in the burial assemblage

(N=714) with polished out-curving bowls accounting for the second largest group

(N=446). Among the Thin Orange ware group, simple and annular base bowls accounted

118

for 80% of the vessels in the ware group (N=112; 4.3% of total assemblage). Among the

San Martin Orange vessels, craters accounted for just over 40% of the ware group (N=62;

2.4% of total burial ceramics) and comales comprised another 32.2% of the ware group

(N=49; 1.9% of total burial ceramics).

Figure 11: Total counts for burial ceramic assemblage by phase. Total = 2572 sherds.

119

Figure 12: Total percentages by phase for burial ceramics. Total N=2572 sherds.

120

Figure 13: Total counts of burial ceramics by ware group. Total N=2752

121

Figure 14: Total percentages of burial ceramic assemblage by ware group.

122

Figure 15: Bivariate plot showing comparative levels of Tantalum and Cobalt as basis for

inclusion/exclusion of the N1W5:19 ceramic samples into the control groups

(Teotihuacan and Patzcauro). Ellipses show a high level of similarity and suggest similar

sources for materials. Overall, most of the N1W5:19 samples did not overlap with either

control group, however a small number (N1W5:19 Group 3) did overlap with the

Patzcuaro 1 and 4 control groups. (From Neff 2011).

123

Burial Lithic Assemblage

A total of 278 lithic artifacts were recovered from the N1W5:19 burials (Figure

16). The majority of these were made from Pachuca green obsidian (N=122; 43.9% of

total lithics), although other obsidian was present, along with slate, basalt, limestone,

mica, indeterminate rock/pebbles, and semi-precious stones.

Obsidian

Obsidian was, by far, the most frequent of the lithic materials found in the burials

at the N1W5:19 compound. Obsidian artifacts accounted for about 51% (N=144) of the

lithic assemblage. Among the obsidian assemblage, Pachuca far outweighed the Otumba

materials (N=122). Prismatic blade fragments make up nearly three-quarters of the green

obsidian. The remaining material comprised of cores (N=1), non-prismatic blades

(N=2), shaped knives (N=2), flakes (N=5), shatter (N=8), and beads (N=7). Due to the

fact that Pachuca obsidian is easily visually sourced, no samples were sent for INAA.

Gray obsidian made up 7.5% percent of the lithic assemblage (N=21) of which

five samples were sent to the MURR lab for analysis. All of the samples of gray obsidian

that were sent for chemical analysis reported as being sourced to the local obsidian

sources (Glascock 2011). Three of the samples sourced to the Otumba source. One

sample was sourced to the Paredon obsidian source and the final sample came from the

Malpais obsidian source. Furthermore, while no XRF analysis was done on it, a large

prismatic blade from Burial 27 was visually sourced by Dan Healan to the Zinapécuaro-

Ucareo obsidian area (Gómez, Personal Communication) (Figure 17). This blade seems

to have been the only recognizably foreign obsidian from the burials.

124

Slate

Slate artifacts accounted for 12.9% of the lithic assemblage (N=36). Many of

these were simple flakes of slate material with no forming or shaping apparent (N=18).

The other half of the slate materials had been carved or formed into laurel leaf shapes,

some containing a reddish pigment on at least one of the surfaces (Figure 18). No direct

analysis of this material was attempted, as it was assumed to be pigment intentionally

applied for decorative purposes. However, recent work by Gómez and Gazzola (in press)

suggests that the red pigment might be the oxidized remains of hematite.

Basalt

Another common lithic material found in the N1W5:19 assemblage came in the

form of basalt materials, which made up 11.5% of the lithic assemblage (N=32). Both

porous and non-porous basalt were present. Many of the basalt artifacts were carved or

shaped into tools which were associated with a number of the burials. Metate fragments

made up the largest category of artifacts (25%, N=8). Six of these metates were carved in

miniature forms and were located, along with four miniature manos, in Burial 27. The

other two metate fragments were found in Burial 4. In addition, there were a total of five

lajas (flat, worked stones) (15.6% of the lithic assemblage) associated with some of the

burials. One basalt core was excavated from Burial 38 and two basalt flakes were found

in Burials 33 and 43. No basalt points, knives, or scrapers were recovered from the

N1W5:19 burials.

Limestone

No whole chunks of raw limestone were recovered from the burials; however, a

small number of the burials had lumps of limestone based plaster in their associated

125

matrix. A total of 33 fragments of limestone material were recovered from the burials,

making limestone debris the third most common non-ceramic material found (11.9% of

burial assemblage). All of the limestone found appeared in the form of small (1-5mm)

lumps which were assumed to be the remains of stucco, plaster, or other similar building

material debris from the compound, rather than intentional parts of the grave offerings.

Mica

While rare, mica artifacts were present in one of the burials. Burial 27 contained

a representation of a bird’s wing carved from flakey mica (Figure 19). Overall, mica

made up .4% of the total lithic materials (N=1) and did not occur in the household

assemblage that was studied for this project.

Other Rocks and Pebbles

Other rock material included pebbles and rock fragments that were recovered

along with the burials. In general, it should be assumed that these were not directly part

of the burial offerings, but rather a product of human activity within the compound. A

total of 31 small rocks and pebbles were identified from the burials. No further analysis

was attempted on these.

Semi-Precious Stone

Very little was discovered in the way of semi-precious or precious stones. In

Burial 36, a small amethyst pendant was recovered (Figure 20). Sergio Gómez (personal

communication 2011) believes that the amethyst originated in West Mexico, although no

chemical sourcing has been attempted. The amethyst is mostly clear with a purple tint to

the proximal end, which was thinned and drilled through with a single perforation by

126

which it could have been hung. This color patterning most closely resembles the

amethyst from the Amatitlan source in Guerrero (Ontiveros et al 2004), rather than that

found in Las Vigas source from Veracruz (Lieber and Frenzel 2003).

Figure 16: Total counts of lithics from the N1W5:19 burial assemblage. Total N=278.

127

Figure 17: Zinapécuaro-Ucareo blade found in burial 27. Photo courtesy of Sergio

Gómez and Julie Gazzola. Blade is approximately 13cm long and 1.3 cm wide.

Figure 18: Slate with red pigment from burial assemblage of N1W5:19.

128

Figure 19: Mica bird’s wing from burial 27.

129

Figure 20: Amethyst pendant from N1W5:19, burial 36.

130

Figure 21: Pachuca obsidian beads found in association with amethyst pendant in

N1W5:19, burial 36.

131

Other Materials

While the vast majority of burial goods were ceramic, a number of non-ceramic

materials were recovered from the N1W5:19 burials. In addition to the above mentioned

lithics; the burials contained marine shells, jewelry, and (rarely) animal bones. Among

these were a number of prestige grave goods, many of which have been reported in the

N1W5:19 literature (e.g. Gómez 1998).

Most striking, was an amethyst pendant (as mentioned above) with seven

associated beads of crudely carved green obsidian found in Burial 36 (Figure 21). The

obsidian beads appeared to have been made from Pachuca obsidian which had been

formed into beads through knapping and grinding processes. It should be reported that

this burial contained other items with Michoacán association, including a bowl (obj. 4) of

Michoacán Polished Blackware.

In addition to the amethyst pendant, a single marine shell (Figure 22) was present

in the burial assemblage of N1W5:19. It was found in Burial 27 and is has been

tentatively identified as a Granose Horse Conch (Pleuroploca granosa) or Salmon Horse

Conch (Pleuroploca salmos) (Natural History Museum Rotterdam), both of which are

Pacific species. The shell was approximately 3.6cm in length with no sign of alteration

or perforation attempts.

A final artifact of interest from the compound was a large pyrite ring which

Gómez has identified as an earspool discovered in Burial 27. Earspools are of particular

importance in Mesoamerican cultures due to their association with noble/elite status and

the gods. This is one of the few clear indicators of high status found at the N1W5:19

132

compound and resembles others from richer parts of the city, such as La Ventilla B (see

Rattray 1997:32).

Figure 22: Marine conch shell (Pleurploca sp.) from burial 34.

Burial Complexes (Select Burials)

Burial 5

Gómez (2002) reports this burial as similar to the shaft tombs of the West

Mexican Preclassic. Indeed, the tomb has a characteristic L shape (see Gómez 2002)

which does not occur in Oaxacan or Teotihuacan style burials, but does occur in the shaft

133

tomb tradition of the Chupicuaro and Loma Alta periods. However, no artifacts of

Michoacán association were found in the tomb. Gómez (2002) suggests this may be the

result of looting which may have occurred during the Postclassic period.

The association between Burial 5 and the shaft tomb tradition is further complicated by

the shallowness of the tomb’s entrance and the lack of C14 dating for the tomb’s context.

The majority of the ceramics associated indirectly with the tomb appeared to be from the

early Xolalpan occupation. One sherd (a piece of a vase) appeared to be from the Late

Tlamimilolpa phase

Burial 27

Burial 27 represents the best material evidence for a Michoacán link with

N1W5:19. However, due to the nature of reused pit burial contexts, it is almost

impossible to untangle the burial goods and human remains to identify a direct

association between individuals and the offerings.

The one meter deep tomb contained the remains of at least eleven individuals

(based on MNI from cranial evidence) and was associated with two other burials (10 and

26) (Gómez 2002). Gómez (2002) further reports that the majority of the human remains

lack primary context, likely due at least in part to the reuse of the tomb for interment of

later burials. Based on the construction of the burial and the nature of the reuse, he has

linked this tomb to those found at the Epiclassic (Lupe Phase) site of Guadalupe in the

Zacapu basin region of Michoacán (Gómez 2002). A further connection can be drawn

between this mass burial and one discovered at Tingambato in Michoacán, for which

there exists an Epiclassic talud-tablero architectural complex and a mass grave.

134

Overall, the burial goods from Burial 27 were of Teotihuacan origin and dated the

tomb to the Late Tlamimilolpa phase (Gómez 2002). However, there was a segment of

the burial cache which was not of local make. These pieces provided some of the most

conclusive evidence used by Gómez for identifying the N1W5:19 compound as having

Michoacán affiliation. Among these were two al secco bowls, similar in design to the al

secco complex identified by Filini (2004) and Holien (1977). While INAA was not

allowed for the whole vessels from the tomb, it is with a high degree of confidence that

these vessels can be linked to the Cuitzeo region of north-central Michoacán based on

stylistic similarities. In addition, two figurines of the Loma Alta figurine type were found

in the tomb, adding strength to the N1W5:19-Michoacán association (Figure 23). A final

piece of ceramic evidence linking the tomb to Michoacán came in the form of a sharp

shouldered everted rim jar which seemed to be of the Agropecuaria groups. Again,

INAA was impossible given that the jar was on display in the site museum. In addition to

the ceramics, an obsidian blade which has been sourced by XRF analysis to Michoacán

was found in the burial cache (Gómez 2002).

Overall, the burial offering suggests that at least some of the individuals buried in

the group tomb had at least some connection to Michoacán which was being identified in

their burials. Gómez (2002) further associates the remains in Burial 27 with Michoacán

through cranial deformation patterns which differ from those practiced in the rest of

Teotihuacan, but may reflect those practiced in parts of Michoacán. He does not report

these from the other burials with Michoacán association or from other burials from

N1W5:19.

135

Figure 23: Pátzcuaro style figurines from Burial 27. Figurines are approximately 11cm

tall. (Photo courtesy of Sergio Gómez).

136

Burial 30

Located directly to the north of Burial 5, Gómez discovered another tomb which

he has used as evidence of connection between the N1W5:19 population and Michoacán.

While the construction of the tomb shaft (which is described as a 2.7 m vertical shaft) is

unremarkable, the presence of a large flat stone covering the entrance to the shaft is worth

noting (Gómez 1999). Unfortunately, the tomb seems to have been looted during the

Aztec period occupation. Despite this, the tomb contained a burial cache with ties to

Michoacán along with the burned remains of an individual who has been identified as

most likely an adult male.

Among the evidence for a West Mexican link in the burial offerings was a simple

curved bowl with a paste composition which seems consistent with the Michoacán

blackware found in other parts of the compound. Three thin walled bowls with what

appears to be a pseudo-cloisonné surface finish were also recovered from this tomb.

INAA of these was impossible as they were on display in the museum collection, but

visual analysis suggests they are of a similar origin as other al secco found at the

compound. Gómez suggests they are similar to those reported by Molina and Torres

(1975) as being from the Querendaro region of Michoacán, supporting a Cuitzeo point of

origin for the al secco materials. In addition, a figurine was recovered from the tomb

which is clearly recognizable as being of the Pátzcuaro figurine tradition (Begun 2008).

While INAA was not possible on the figurine, stylistically, the similarity to figurines

from the north-central part of Michoacán is remarkable.

137

Burial 36

The final burial which can be linked to Michoacán is Burial 36 (Gómez 1999).

The burial contained the remains of an infant in a poor state of conservation which

Gómez has dated to the Late Tlamimilolpa phase. This dating seems consistent with the

ceramics found in the T-shaped tomb. While many of the grave goods were of local

origins, there was one bowl which seems to have originated in Michoacán based on

stylistic and visual analyses. In addition to the bowl, Gómez recovered an amethyst

pendant along with six carved obsidian beads. The amethyst has not been chemically

sourced, but based on visual analysis, it is probably from the Guerrero amethyst sources

(see above).

Summary of Burial Assemblage Results

The majority of the material found in the burial offerings was of local origin

(88%). While foreign/imported wares made up 12% of the overall burial assemblage, the

majority of this was Thin Orange. Only .2% of the burial ceramics could be stylistically

linked to Michoacán. Despite its rarity, key evidence for Michoacán association was

found in a number of burials which have been reported by Gómez (1998, 2002, and

Gazzola 2007) in numerous publications. Of particular interest are the blackware al

secco vessels, the figurines, and some of the prestige goods found in these burials which

have ties or points of origin in West Mexico (Table 4). The figurines’ presence in the

burial contexts is of particular importance since figurines of these types rarely occur in

burial contexts in Michoacán. Unfortunately, INAA was not possible for a number of key

artifacts due to their status as part of the permanent museum collection on site. While

INAA data could not be obtained for most of the Michoacán associated ceramics, the

138

results from the burial complex remain intriguing, especially when contrasted with those

from the general household assemblage.

Burial Foreign Materials Cultural Association

27 1 Jar, Obsidian blade, marine

shell, pyrite earspool Michoacán

30/30A 4 bowls Michoacán

36 1 bowl, 1 amethyst Michoacán

43 3 unidentified pieces Oaxaca

28 1 Granular, 1Gulf coast vase Oaxaca?

Table 4: Table showing the burials with Michoacán and Oaxacan materials.

Household Material Results

The total household ceramic assemblage analyzed consisted of 40,989 individual

sherds. This accounted for approximately 1/3 of the entire ceramic assemblage.

Household materials appear commonly and are mostly from local manufacture, with

some inclusion of Zapotec materials during the Early and Late Xolalpan phases.

Evidence for Michoacán material in the household contexts was limited to a few isolated

cases, mostly in midden or house-fill situations. The majority of the materials come from

the Late Xolalpan phase occupation (Table 5).

139

Ceramics

The vast majority (almost 82%) of the ceramics from the household material were

of local manufacture (Table 6; Figure 24). Burnished wares accounted for 25.9% of the

household assemblage with another 22.8% being accounted for by polished wares.

Painted wares total 11.7% of the assemblage, while San Martin Orange makes up another

10.8% of the total household ceramic materials. All of the ware groups, both local and

foreign, peak during the Late Xolalpan phase (N=36382; 88.9%) (Table 5). During the

Late Xolalpan phase there is a significant decrease in the frequency of Burnished wares

and an increase in the use of San Martin Orange ware storage vessels.

Of the non-local ceramic material, the majority was of Oaxacan origin (N=115;

.3%) or style (N=256; .6%). The designation of Oaxacan style was defined as material

that had been made of local pastes but in Oaxacan styles. In addition to the Oaxacan and

Oaxacan style ceramics, a number of sherds which appear to have originated in West

Mexico were identified among the household assemblage. These constitute about .2% of

the total household ceramic material (N=65) and were found almost entirely as broken

sherds in household fill context or just outside the walls of the compound.

The material is unlike that which would be expected from a connection to the

Lake Pátzcuaro region where previous Oxygen Isotope analysis of human bone has

suggested the people of N1W5:19 had spent part of their lives (White et al 2004 a;

Pollard 2008). Rather than the expected ceramic styles from the Pátzcuaro region, the

majority of the ceramic material that has been linked to Michoacán was of a highly

distinctive black polished variety (Michoacán Black Polished). The paste for these

ceramics was a dense, fine grained paste with large pumice inclusions. It was usually

140

black with thin borders of tan closer to the interior and exterior surfaces due in all

likelihood to the reduction firing process necessary for many black wares. Despite this,

the surface of the vessels possessed a high gloss polishing uncommon in the general

Teotihuacan ceramic complex. Furthermore, the extremely fine grain of the clay body

lent itself to very thin walled, finely crafted vessels.

In addition to the black polished ceramics, a number of burnished red slip sherds

were found in the household material. These possessed a paste unlike any found in the

Basin of Mexico, but looked remarkably similar to the Yaguarato Cream paste type found

in the Pátzcuaro region (Pollard et al 2005). Based on the surface treatment and visual

paste analysis, I determined these sherds to be of the Agropecuaria rojo type from central

Michoacán.

While it did eliminate the Basin of Mexico and Oaxaca as sources for the

questionably Michoacán material, INAA analysis of the samples was inconclusive as to a

definite origin in the Pátzcuaro basin in most of the samples. However, Hector Neff

(2011) did determine that one sample group (Group 3) had a high likelihood of matching

in the Pátzcuaro Basin Group 1 and 4 materials (Figure 15). This group (Group 3)

contained four samples from burial contexts (3 bowls and a figurine) and a single sample

from the household context. This determination was made on the basis of the Tantalum

and Cobalt compositions of the N1W5:E19 material which was extremely high compared

to the local Teotihuacan wares, but is somewhat indicative of clays coming from the

Pátzcuaro region (Neff 2011). The majority of the other stylistically Michoacán

materials were grouped (Group 2) in a group for which a geographical point of origin

could not be established (Neff 2011).

141

Other Household Material

There was very little lithic material recovered from the household assemblage and

no official counts were available at the time of analysis. Of the obsidian material that

was observable, the vast majority of it was green Pachuca in the form of small blades; no

accurate count is available at this time since no counting or analysis of the lithic materials

was attempted at the time of data collection.

Phase Sum % of Total Sum

No Data/Unknown 83 .2%

Tza Temp 67 .2%

Tza Tardio 19 .0%

Miccaotli 127 .3%

Tlami Temp 155 .4%

Tlami Tardio 614 1.5%

Xol Temp 1983 4.8%

Xol Tardio 36382 88.8%

Metepec 745 1.8%

Coyotlatelco 641 1.6%

Mazapan 133 .3%

Total 40949 100.0%

Table 5: Totals and percentages of household ceramic assemblage by phase. Total

N=40949

142

Grupo Sum % of Total Sum

No Data 80 .2%

Mate Burdo 2099 5.1%

Mate Fino 1033 2.5%

Brunido 18888 46.1%

Acabado Mate 48 .1%

Pulido 6561 16.0%

Pintado 1069 2.6%

Estuco Pintado 19 .0%

Copa 16 .0%

Cafe Compacta Densa 13 .0%

Figurilla 129 .3%

Miscelanea 71 .2%

Naranja San Martin 8441 20.6%

Anaranjado Delgado 1676 4.1%

Granular 324 .8%

Del Gulfo 31 .1%

Estilo Oaxaqueno 256 .6%

Oaxaqueno 115 .3%

Michoacáno 65 .2%

Maya 10 .0%

Cholula 1 .0%

Foraneo 4 .0%

Total 40949 100.0%

Table 6: Total number and percentages of ware groups from the household materials of

N1W5:19.

143

Figure 24: Graph of ware group frequencies from total household ceramic assemblage.

Summary of Household Results

Overall, the household assemblage yielded a slightly higher percentage of foreign

materials than the burial offerings (18%). Michoacán style materials in the household

account for .2% of the total household assemblage as well, but were concentrated in

specific areas of the compound rather than scattered evenly throughout. The highest

concentrations of Michoacán materials were found in a midden contexts just outside the

western wall of the compound and in the middle of the compound. It was from these that

the majority of the INAA samples were taken (Figure 8). Overall, the household

materials peak during the Late Tlamimilolpa-Early Xolalpan occupation, with very little

material predating the Early Tlamimilolpa phase. Unfortunately, non-ceramic materials

144

were rare and it was not possible to gather quantitative data on them during this study.

Of the limited lithics associated with the household complex, most of it was green

Pachuca blades which were set aside and stored for later analysis.

145

CHAPTER VII: DISCUSSION

Demographics

Unfortunately, the physical remains could not be accessed for analysis, and thus,

reliance on both the published information and that from the excavation forms was all

that was available for analysis, leaving the results and subsequent analysis of the burial

demographics of N1W5:19 limited in scope. However, from the data present, a few

interesting observations could be made.

While both sexes were present, males seemed more common among those skeletal

remains for which sexing information could be obtained. Unfortunately, the majority of

the physical remains were unsexed at the time of analysis. As a result, clear

interpretations of any possible associations between the burials goods and the sexes of the

individuals are lacking. Storey (1992) suggests that there is a pattern of differential

treatment of male and female remains in other parts of Teotihuacan. Her

paleodemographic analysis of Tlajinga 33 demonstrated that there was a significant

difference in the proportions of male and female burials compared to what she refers to as

“refuse interment” (Storey 1992:102) in which there is little to no formal burial

association for the human remains. Given the presence of a number of incomplete burials

(such as Burial 26), that rather than representing sacrificial burial offerings, these burials

may represent more casual burial events at N1W5:19 which lack the preservation levels

found with the formal burials.

It is impossible to say without better sex information for the skeletal material,

whether a differentiation within the compound existed between ethnic identity and

geographical origins between the sexes. The implications for such are manifold and

146

highly intriguing when considering how parental ethnic affiliations can and do impact

those of their children, and thus, of future generations within a community.

While gender and sex specific ethnic affiliation is impossible to decipher at this

time, due to the presence of both infant and female remains, it is possible to conclude that

the population of N1W5:19 had the potential for biological continuation and growth.

High infant mortality rates are common in pre-industrial urban settlements and seem to

have been a very real issue within the compound, given the high numbers of infant

burials in comparison with those of adults. Compared to Tlajinga 33, another non-elite

residence at Teotihuacan during the Early-Middle Classic period, infant mortality at

N1W5:19 was higher than expected (Table 7). The infants were generally found without

many grave goods. Those that did have grave offerings associated with their remains had

small numbers of objects, all of local Teotihuacan make with the exception of Burial 36.

Ages Tlajinga 33a N1W5:19

Perinatals/Infants 23 34.1% 27 50%

Children 9 13.4% 3 5.6%

Adults 35 52.2% 16 29.6%

aSource: Storey, Rebecca, 1992, Life and Death in the Ancient City of

Teotihuacan, University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Table 7: Comparison between burial demographics for age at death from Tlajinga

33 and N1W5:19.

147

Burial Ritual at N1W5:19

Gazin-Schwartz (2001) points out that while archaeologists have traditionally

seen ritual use and daily use of material culture as dichotomous, the reality is far more

complicated. Rather than looking at the larger ritual scene of Teotihuacan and the

N1W5:19 occupants’ place in that ritual scene, it seems relevant to consider how daily

ritual may have played a role in the lives of the people living in this compound.

Unfortunately, the context of the N1W5:19 material does not follow many of

Renfrew’s (1994) distinctions for ritual activity or ritual use of cultural materials. Due to

the nature of Teotihuacan’s urban planning, there are no major buildings or constructions

in the N1W5:19 compound which were used solely for ritual purpose. Instead, there

were a few rooms and patios which contained altar structures. These were often

associated with burials, but the relationship was not exclusive. Some burials exist away

from these altars, and some of these presumably ritual spaces do not contain burials.

Rather, there seems to be an association with public spaces within the compound and the

burials found therein. This placement of the dead in communal spaces is not unusual for

Teotihuacan burial practices, nor is the interment of individuals within more private

spaces (Storey 1992). Interesting too, is the fact that there is very little evidence for

cremation burials with the complex, which serves as a point of divergence between the

N1W5:19 compound and some of the mortuary patterns found in other parts of the city.

The majority of the burials at N1W5:19 seemed to be associated with either a

Oaxacan or Teotihuacan affiliation. The exceptions to this were the burials previously

identified by Gómez as being tied to the Michoacán people through both grave

construction (Burial 5 and 30) and grave goods (Burial 27, 30, 36, 43). These ties are,

148

overall, scarce. Gómez (1998; with Gazzola 2007) has suggested that the construction of

some of the pit burials can be a link between the N1W5:19 compound and Michoacán.

While there are some similarities between Burials 5 and 30 and the shaft tomb traditions

of West Mexico, the graves are not wholly constructed in the shaft tomb tradition (with a

characteristic L shape). Rather, they can be seen to resemble some of the other pit burials

found in other parts of Teotihuacan (as detailed by Rattray 1997). Overall, this

connection is difficult given the high degree of variability in Loma Alta period burials. It

is in the presence of the laja stones in conjunction with these burials that the evidence for

a potential Loma Alta period Michoacán/West Mexico link can be observed most

conclusively.

The vast majority of the burial goods are coming from the local market system, as

there is no evidence for their production within the N1W5:19 compound at this time.

This scarcity might reflect the importance of these items as having ritual association with

a place of origin for those individuals for whom they were deposited. The fact that not all

of the burials at N1W5:19 are associated with Michoacán materials, is, perhaps of greater

significance than previously considered.

Burial Assemblage

Some of the most conclusive evidence for Michoacán goods comes from the

burial complex of the Late Tlamimilolpa phase. Among this evidence is that found in the

Burial 27 tomb, providing some of the strongest material evidence that has been used to

link the population of N1W5:19 to a Michoacán point of origin. Surprisingly, in contrast

to much of the data gained from the household assemblage, the burial material has a

much higher number of elite/prestige goods. Gómez (1998) points out that among the

149

burial materials from the compound is one of the only instances of amethyst being found

at Teotihuacan.

It should be noted that the Patzcuaro style figurines which were found at the

N1W5:19 complex occurred almost exclusively in burial contexts. Figurines do not

usually appear in the burials of the Loma Alta phase in Michoacán, with one major

exception occurring at the site of Loma Alta (Carot 2001). The rest of the Loma Alta

period figurines are normally found in household refuse assemblages, suggesting that the

people of the compound were using the figurines for a different purpose.

The inclusion of distinctly Michoacán grave goods suggests that those being

buried (or at the very least, those doing the burying) acknowledged some measure of

association between the deceased and Michoacán. How direct this association was, may

never be fully understood, but it is increasingly clear that the members of the earlier

occupation of N1W5:19 were more closely linked to Michoacán than those who came

later. By the Late Xolalpan occupation, Michoacán materials have disappeared from the

burial complex and the burials themselves appear to have a greater similarity to those

found in other parts of Teotihuacan and in the Oaxaca Barrio.

Household Assemblage

Overall, the evidence for a clear Michoacán presence in the household material of

the compound is scarce. Unsurprisingly, the ceramics found at the N1W5:19 compound

were overwhelmingly of local manufacture. At this time, there is no evidence of ceramic

production activities around or in the compound dating to the Teotihuacan period

occupation of the site. The one kiln pit that was excavated by Gómez and his team dates

to an Aztec period occupation of the area and was not closely examined for this analysis.

150

This strongly suggests that the people living in the compound were not making their own

ceramics for daily life or ritual use, but rather obtained them from the local market

system.

While the general trend of frequency in terms of mass/total number of sherds does

follow the general trends of growth at Teotihuacan (with peaks during the Late

Tlamimilolpa and Early Xolalpan phases), the percentages of the assemblage differs from

the expected frequencies found at Teotihuacan (based on Rattray 2001). While Rattray

(2001) reports a shift in the frequencies between Burnished and Polished wares starting in

the Late Tlamimilolpa phase, with polished wares coming to dominate the general

Teotihuacan assemblage, this is not the case at N1W5:19. Instead, we see burnished

wares continuing to dominate the N1W5:19 assemblage until the Late Xolalpan phase,

when the frequency of burnished ware shifts from nearly 52% (Late Tlamimilolpa) to

32% (Early Xolalpan) to 22% (Late Xolalpan). In contrast, the frequencies of Polished

wares stays fairly consistent (between 17-22%) throughout these three phases.

The major difference in the assemblage comes with the appearance of San Martin

Orange ware into the ceramic complex. Thin Orange, while present in the household,

never reaches the frequencies found in other parts of the general Teotihuacan ceramic

complex. Rattray (2001) reports a 6-9% frequency during the Late Tlamimilolpa phase,

which contrasts with the mere 1.6% frequency at the N1W5:19 compound. Similarly, in

the subsequent phases, Rattray (2001) reports Thin Orange ware at frequencies of 11-

17% during the Early Xolalpan phase, but Thin Orange only makes up 5.7% of the

N1W5 assemblage for this phase.

151

Another point of interest is in the presence of comales within the N1W5:19

compound. Comales are a flat, often circular ceramic form used in the preparation of

tortillas, which are not found in West Mexican contexts (Pollard, personal

communication). They account for 2.16% of the total household assemblage (N=877)

and 6.02% of the burial assemblage (N=155). While the overall number of comal

fragments is higher during the Late Xolalpan phase, this is deceptive since the overall

assemblage from this period is larger. In looking just at the comal frequencies by phase

(Table 8) we see that comal frequency peaks during the Late Tlamimilolpa phase in the

household and during both the Early Tlamimilolpa and Late Xolalpan phases in the

burials. The Early Tlamimilolpa spike is likely the result of a small sample size skewing

the percentages.

It is hard to compare these frequencies to the overall frequencies of comal sherds

at Teotihuacan since there has been no systematic study of comal frequencies.

Unfortunately, the raw data presented by Rattray does not include a compound that would

be comparable to that of N1W5:19. While Oztoyahualco offers a good model as a

“typical” Teotihuacan compound (Manzanilla 1996), the ceramic data presented by

Rattray only covers the early phases of occupation at Teotihuacan (Patlachique and

Tzacualli). From what can be gathered from the data regarding the Tetitla compound

(Rattray 2001), the frequencies of comales are actually higher at the N1W5:19 compound

than in other parts of the city. Tetitla, however, is not an ideal comparison given the high

status of the apartment and its inhabitants. Data regarding comal frequencies at the

Oaxaca Barrio was not possible, but would make for an ideal point of comparison.

Overall, the comal fragments at N1W5:19 are more common as burial offerings than they

152

are in the household compound. It does, however, suggest that the people of the

compound were engaging in local food preparation methods.

N1W5:19

(Household)

N1W5:19 (Burials) Tetitla (Rattray

2001)

Comal

count

% of total

assem.

Comal

count

% of total

assem.

Comal

count

% of

total

assem.

Miccaotli 2 1.57 0 0 14 1.49

Tlamimilolpa

Temprano

2 1.29 13 18.06 Nd nd

Tlamimilolpa

Tardio

29 4.72 19 4.67 34 1.80

(avg)

Xolalpan

Temprano

37 1.87 38 4.79 8 .98

Xolalpan

Tardio

788 2.17 55 6.74 5 .72

Metepec 10 1.34 12 4.72 246 8.35

Table 8: Showing a comparison of comal frequencies over time at various locations in

Teotihuacan between the Miccaotli and Metepec phases.

Due to the overall ceramic frequencies, it is highly plausible that the people of

N1W5:19 were of low status within Teotihuacan. The overall household assembles does

not show high percentages of fine wares (polished/painted) until after the general

disappearance of the Michoacán identifiers and the appearance of those found amongst

the Oaxacan population of the district. Even still, the frequencies do not align with those

expected in an elite residence, nor are there any other significant markers of elite status

within the household complex.

153

There were, however, a handful of ceramics that were clearly of non-local

production, which are not readily seen in the general Teotihuacan ceramic complex

(which does include some trade ware/foreign wares). Many of these seemed to be of

Oaxacan style or make, which is not surprising given the proximity of the N1W5:19

compound to the Oaxaca Barrio and the later occupation of the compound by a Oaxacan

presence. What is remarkable is the presence of materials which seem to have originated

in West Mexico, specifically in the region of present day Michoacán. As reported above,

materials with possible links to Michoacán were discovered in the household materials.

These materials peaked during the Late Xolalpan occupation of the compound (1% of the

Late Xolalpan assemblage) with some presence in the Early Xolalpan (.4%) and Metepec

phases (.8%). They appeared to be of two major variety types, fine black ware,

occasionally with incision and paint, and a polished redware with a high luster and a

paste that resembles the Agropecuaria complex from Michoacán (Pollard 2003). INAA

determined that neither type was of local manufacture, nor did they match the known

imported wares found at Teotihuacan.

Foreign Ceramics

The most distinctive of the Michoacán ceramics found at Teotihuacan comes in

the form of a Polished Blackware. While not common, the presence of this ware has

been closely associated with a potential Michoacán presence in the city.

Michoacán Polished Blackware

Surface Color: Black

Paste Fabric: The paste for the Michoacán Black Polished ware is highly

recognizable and very distinct when compared to the broader Teotihuacan

154

assemblage. The paste is fine grained and highly compact with large granular

inclusions.

Paste Color: Paste is usually blackened from incomplete firing. Margins

occasionally have a buff/tan coloration.

Finish: High polish. Black exterior, interiors range from blackened tan to

blackened red.

Decoration: Type A: No additional decoration aside from surface finishing.

Type B: Excision only. Excised designs are linear or geometric in

nature with rough margins.

Type C: Incision and Paint (Pseudo-Cloisonné). Excised areas are

filled with pigment. Pigment colors range from Red (10R 5/8; 10R

4/8; 2.5YR 5/8; 2.5 YR 4/8), to Green (GLEY1 8/5G; GLEY1

7/5G), to Yellow (2.5Y 8/8) and can occur in any combination of

the above. In some cases, there appears to have been a layer of

greenish-blue “pigment” under the upper red layer. It is possible,

however, that what appears to be pigment is merely the result of

chemical oxidation of cupreous materials in the red paint.

Type D: Paint only. Pigment colors range from Red (10R 5/8; 10R

4/8; 2.5YR 5/8; 2.5 YR 4/8), to Green (GLEY1 8/5G; GLEY1

7/5G), to Yellow (2.5Y 8/8) and can occur in any combination of

the above.

Vessel Forms: Mostly gently curving bowls and jars

INAA Results

A number of Blackware samples were sent for INAA at the Missouri University

Research Reactor lab (MURR). According to the MURR report, the clay was definitively

not of Teotihuacan origins. Unfortunately, MURR was unable to pinpoint an origin for

the material due to a lack of comparative samples from much of Michoacán and West

Mexico. Future research to collect clay samples for comparison to the pottery samples is

necessary.

155

It has been suggested that the Michoacán Blackware originated in the Lake

Cuitzeo region (Pollard, personal communication), due to the presence of stylistically

similar ceramics which have been found in high quantities in that part of Michoacán.

Furthermore, the Lake Cuitzeo basin lies along the likely routes which would have

connected central Michoacán to the central Highlands/Hidalgo region via what is

presently referred to as the Bajío (northern Michoacán) along the Lerma River.

A brief analysis of the survey material from Gorenstein and Pollard’s work at

Acambaro (Gorenstein 1985) resulted in a potential presence of Michoacán Polished

Blackware at the site. While INAA has not been attempted on these sherds, stylistically

and visually, they are similar to those found throughout Michoacán and at Teotihuacan,

strengthening the evidence of the Lerma River basin and northern Michoacán as the

likely route of contact between west and central Mexico in Prehispanic times.

Contexts

The contexts in which the Michoacán Polished Blackware can be found vary

greatly over time. The Michoacán Blackware first shows up during the middle to Late

Tlamimilolpa phase when occupation of the compound was first expanding. During this

phase, the Michoacán Blackware is found exclusively in burial contexts. These burials,

which are reported on by Sergio Gómez and Julie Gazzola (2007), mark the clearest

evidence of direct ethnic association between the people of N1W5:19 and West Mexico.

While the majority of the burials from the compound contain items which were easily

acquired in the general market system of Teotihuacan (local ceramics and lithics) there

are a handful of burials which contained higher status, prestige goods in addition to the

foreign ceramics. Direct association with specific individuals is made more difficult by

156

the fact that one of the best sources for Michoacán associated goods was a pit burial

(Burial 27) which contained the mixed remains of a number of individuals.

The majority of the Blackware recovered from N1W5:E19 date to the Xolalpan

phase. All of the sherds from this period are broken fragments of larger vessels,

particularly jars and bowls, and are found in household contexts. Many of these were

discovered in a midden context outside the exterior walls of the apartment compound in

what appears to have been a briefly used dump site for household refuse.

Agropecuaria Rojo Varieties

Surface Color: Red

Paste Fabric: The pastes for the Agropecuaria varieties is described in detail by

Pollard and Gorenstien (Gorenstein 1985). At Teotihuacan, the Agropecuaria

variety seems to occur on a Yaguarato Cream (Pollard personal communication

2011) paste. In general, the background matrix is granular and brown with many

black inclusions (mica) giving it a “peppery” appearance.

Paste Color: Paste is brown with black inclusions.

Finish: High gloss polish. Red exterior.

Decoration: All varieties of Agropecuaria Red have red slipped surfaces which

have been polished to a high luster. In many cases, paint or negative resist

have been applied to the surface to add decoration to the otherwise plain

red surface. None of the examples from the N1W5:19 assemblage had

noticeable decorations.

Vessel forms: Mostly closed vessels, jars and small ollas.

INAA Results

A number of sherds which appeared to be of the Agropecuaria Red variety were

sent off for INAA at the MURR lab. Upon visual analysis of the pastes, it was clear that

they were not of local (Teotihuacan) origin and there was a high degree of similarity

157

between the Teotihuacan samples and the Yaguarato Cream paste type (Pollard 2003).

Unfortunately, the majority of these could not be accurately sourced to a specific place of

origin through neutron activation analysis.

However, a handful of the samples did test with a high degree of similarity to one

of the major ceramic groups from the Lake Pátzcuaro basin (Appendix B). Given the

widespread nature of the Agropecuaria groups throughout Northern and Central

Michoacán during the Preclassic period, it is likely that further sampling of the clay

sources within the region will result in more definitive sourcing of these sherds.

Contexts

The red polished sherds were found almost exclusively in household fill and

midden debris contexts. All of the sherds come from closed vessels, most likely jars or

small ollas. One red polished jar was found in burial context which, stylistically has been

linked to Michoacán based on the sharp shoulder angle present in the pot.

Implications of the Non-Local Materials

Unfortunately, many of those vessels that did appear to be of non-local make and

style could not be accurately sourced due to a lack of existing exemplars at the MURR

lab for clay sourcing. It was, however, determined that those materials which have been

stylistically identified as being of Michoacán origins are clearly not of local manufacture

(Figure 25) due in particular to the high Tantalum levels present in some of the samples

(Neff 2011). While the exact point of origin could not be determined by INAA, the

combination of certainty for non-Teotihuacan production and the stylistic characteristics

linking these samples to Michoacán points strongly towards a Michoacán origin for

158

which known exemplars do not yet exist. These pieces were rare within the ceramic

complex (.3% of the total assemblage).

Given this rarity, Sergio Gómez has suggested that they were kept and used

primarily for ritual purpose, including their use in burials (personal communication

2009). This seems a plausible scenario at this time, however it does not wholly rule out

the idea that perhaps these objects were kept as social status markers, keepsakes, or

heirloom objects. In this way, the importance of the objects is not directly linked to the

enactment of ritual, but rather relates to the objects’ roles in the formation of a social or

ethnic identity for which the objects serve as a physical symbol of a distant place of

origin.

Michoacán Blackware / Al secco

While exemplars might not exist within the MURR collection, visual analysis of

other Michoacán ceramics has suggested a link between the materials found at

Teotihuacan and those from northern/central Michoacán. In particular, there are great

stylistic similarities between the al secco materials at Teotihuacan and those found in and

around the Lake Cuitzeo region of Michoacán. While it is unclear if the Cuitzeo basin is

the point of origin of these ceramics, it seems to have been a point of distribution both

within Michoacán and with neighboring regions. Al secco pottery is found throughout

northern Michoacán.

It should be noted that the Cuitzeo Basin lies along the traditional trade routes

linking central Mexico to northern Michoacán via the Bajío region and the Lerma River.

Furthermore, this route between central and west Mexico skirts close to Tula and Chingú

159

in Hidalgo. In addition, visual paste comparisons between the Michoacán Blackware

found at Teotihuacan and those found at the site of Acambaro (Gorenstien 1985) have

shown remarkable similarities.

Figure 25: Bivariate plot showing the exclusion of the Basin of Mexico as the point of

origin for the INAA sample analyzed by MURR (From Neff 2011).

Agropecuaria Redware:

Pollard (2007) and Carot (2001) have both identified the Agropecuaria redware

complex in the Pátzcuaro and Zacapu basins respectively. This ceramic complex is

160

commonly found in the Loma Alta phase (150 BC-550AD), which correspond to the

foundation and growth of Teotihuacan from the Patlachique phase through the Late

Xolalpan phase. Despite this wide temporal range, the Agropecuaria complex is

especially common during the Loma Alta 3 phase (350-550 AD) which corresponds to

the Late Tlamimilolpa through Late Xolalpan phases at Teotihuacan when the potential

Michoacán presence at the site is strongest.

It is important to note that while the Agropecuaria complex in Michoacán consists

of a number of highly decorated wares, the Agropecuaria varieties found at Teotihuacan

were all of the highly polished, plain red variety. Furthermore, only one vessel

potentially of this type was found in the burial assemblage (and was unavailable for

INAA), the rest were found in the household fill contexts.

The Agropecuaria sherds from Teotihuacan were visually similar in both

decoration and paste composition to those from the Pátzcuaro basin type collection held

by Pollard at Michigan State University. While visual analysis suggested the sherds to be

of the Yaguarato cream paste type, INAA could not identify many of the sherds as having

clear Pátzcuaro or Zacapu basin origins. However, I continue to feel that this does not

wholly rule out the Pátzcuaro and/or Zacapu basins as points of origin for the sherds

given the potential for regional variability within the paste composition.

Lithics

The lithics found at N1W5:19 were overwhelmingly of local origins. The gray

obsidian tested from the burials was sourced to both the Otumba and Paredon sources.

To date, the only non-local obsidian identified from the compound was the long prismatic

161

blade from Burial 27 cache. The high frequency of Pachuca obsidian found at the

compound reflects the use of the green obsidian citywide as a source of prismatic blades.

The low numbers of obsidian artifacts from the household fill and midden contexts is

worth noting. Given the vast quantities of obsidian found throughout the city it seems

unusual that so little would be found in the household materials. It is possible that the

majority of the household obsidian was removed during a later occupation/abandonment

period at the compound. Equally perplexing was the absence of gray obsidian from both

the burial and household materials. The majority of the gray obsidian that was found was

in the form of small (1-2cm wide) flakes associated with the burial materials. The

proximity of N1W5:19 to one of the obsidian workshops identified by Spence (1981)

suggests that obsidian (of both the green and gray varieties) would not have been overly

difficult to acquire and thus, access to the materials does not account for the scarcity of

obsidian in the assemblage.

There exists no evidence that the people of the compound were engaged in the

production of obsidian artifacts. No cores or primary blades (those with cortex on their

distal surface) were found; suggesting the people of the compound acquired their

obsidian products through the local market systems.

The remaining non-obsidian lithic materials were found exclusively in burial

contexts suggesting they were viewed as prestige goods rather than sought out for daily

use/presence within the compound. Slate was the most common non-obsidian material

among the lithics recovered from the burials, much of which contained traces of what has

been assumed to have been red pigment. These are not unknown in Teotihuacan burials

162

(see Rattray 1997) although most of the slate reported by Rattray is not distinguished into

shapes or decoration.

The presence of the amethyst pendant with the Pachuca beads is a strong tie

between West Mexico and the N1W5:19 compound. According to the limited literature

regarding amethyst sources in Mexico, the pendant is most likely from the Amatitlán

source in north-central Guerrero (Ontiveros et al 2004), forging a potential link between

the N1W5:19 and other parts of West Mexico. However, it is likely that the connection

between Teotihuacan and this amethyst source was via Morelos, rather than the Lerma

river area. Regardless of the source, this pendant, along with the pyrite earspool,

represent some of the higher status goods from the burial assemblage and suggest that at

least a few of the members of the N1W5:19 community had some small measure of status

not common to the majority of the Zapotec barrio part of the city.

Heirlooming at N1W5:19

The majority of the Michoacán affiliated materials occurred in what can be

interpreted as ritual contexts. While there is little evidence that the people of N1W5:19

were engaging in the use of Michoacán materials for ritual worship, their presence in

many of the Tlamimilolpa period burials remains significant; as does the lack of

Michoacán associated materials in the later period burials.

It seems plausible that due to their rarity, important vessels which linked the

occupants of N1W5:E19 back to Michoacán ancestry may have been treated as heirloom

objects (see Lillios 1999). While the initial use of the Michoacán materials in ritual

context may have been in their use in burial rituals, this use pattern seems to change over

time. As the more direct connections between the people of N1W5:19 shifted, with the

163

more direct lines ending when those members of the community who had spent parts of

their lives in the Pátzcuaro area or surrounding areas died, the importance of the vessels

with similar origins in the west changed as well. Their value moved away from a marker

of direct interaction or personal affiliation to the west to a more ephemeral social identity

of the people of the compound who were trying to maintain a connection to an

increasingly more removed place of ancestry.

Thus, it is possible that they were passed down from one generation to the next,

displayed, or used as markers of ties to a distant homeland. As heirlooms, their presence

in the compound is indicative of an attempt by the occupants to maintain their ethnic

origins through the keeping of what Lillios (1999) terms “objects of memory.” The fact

that these vessels disappear from the archaeological record around the time when the

compound becomes more fully occupied by people with an Oaxacan cultural affiliation

cannot be ignored. Nor can the fact that from the Xolalpan period onward, these vessels

appear solely in household fill and midden context with very little variation in form from

earlier times. While there seems to be no evidence that the people of N1W5:19 attempted

to repair such vessels when broken, it is possible that as the populace of the compound

became more removed from their Michoacán origins, the value of the pottery as a point

of ethnic identity lessened so that when such vessels broke (or were intentionally broken)

they were discarded rather than repaired.

This seems a fitting assessment which further suggests that the local ties to West

Mexico might have been tenuous at best. Rather than actively associating themselves

with Michoacán, it seems that the population of N1W5:19 maintained a minimal material

cultural tie to their lands of origin. Whether this was unintentional (due to issues of

164

distance and transport difficulty) or intentional (a conscious effort towards assimilation

into local customs and traditions) remains unclear. While the existing material record

does not support a long lasting ethnic enclave of Michoacán people within the Oaxaca

Barrio it remains possible that the people of the N1W5:19 compound may have exhibited

and displayed their ethnic ties to Michoacán in more ephemeral ways, such as through

language, food, or clothing styles, which have not left a lasting presence in the

archaeological record.

165

CONCLUSIONS

There are few cultural phenomena as difficult to study in an archaeological

context as those dealing with issues of personal and cultural identity. The ephemerality

of identity makes its scientific and anthropological presence uniquely challenging.

Unlike modern anthropological research, which can use living populations and ask direct

questions of people, archaeology is often limited to investigating the cultural material

which remains after a population has vanished. As such, the usual clues used by

anthropologists to study the complex fabric of cultural and personal identity may be

difficult to recognize or missing from the archaeological record. This does not, however,

make such lines of inquiry foolhardy or impossible. Rather, it is vital that methodologies

be developed that allow archaeologists to tease out the cultural information from the

remains of the past, using the archaeological record to investigate questions regarding

ancient identities. The clues to answering culturally embedded questions are subtle and

so the methods used to investigate need to allow us access to the subtle nuances of

cultural practices as they appear in the archaeological record.

One of the most useful tools for this sort of investigation is the application of

stylistic analyses. Through such analyses, focused on the unconscious and culturally

relevant decision making processes, it is possible to reconstruct, at least in part, the

cultural influences of a people. Based on Barth’s (1969) definition of an ethnic group

and on the work of Sackett (1973,1977, 1982, 1990) into the unconscious cultural

decision making processes present in material production, it is possible to gain an

understanding of how people consciously and unconsciously engage with social and

cultural identity in material culture. By investigating such influences and decision

166

making processes, it is possible to identify culturally significant practices which can, in

turn, be used to differentiate between different groups of people.

It was within such a theoretical framework that this research into the ethnic and

cultural identity of the N1W5:19 population was conducted. Through stylistic analysis of

mortuary practices and the burial and household assemblages, coupled with chemical

analysis (INAA and XRF) of both lithic and ceramic materials, a better understanding of

the ways in which the occupants of the N1W5:19 apartment compound at Teotihuacan

constructed their social identities was obtained. After the initial disappointment of

discovering no locally made materials in a style that reflected a Michoacán point of origin

for the population, a deeper look at the use patterns of the materials themselves gave rise

to something much more complex and exciting, as the cultural identities of those living at

the compound during the Classic Period shifted in response to their lives within the

ancient city.

Overall, the archaeological evidence suggests that while, initially, there may have

been an emphasis placed on ties between members of the community and a perceived

Michoacán homeland, this association rapidly disappeared. Furthermore, the small

quantity of materials that can be linked directly to Michoacán suggests that the

population of the compound was not engaging in consistent or frequent contact with the

Classic period societies of Michoacán. Rather, the ceramic and lithic materials linking

the compound to Michoacán likely represent objects that were brought to Teotihuacan in

small quantities to be used in household and ritual consumption rather than as exotic

trade goods to be distributed to the wider Teotihuacan population.

167

The unexpected combination of Teotihuacan and Michoacán material culture and

patterning raises further questions regarding the nature of cultural identity maintenance

versus assimilation at the compound. The population size of the compound would have

been small compared to that of other ethnic enclaves at Teotihuacan, which incorporated

much larger areas. This raises issues concerning the viability of assigning broad ethnic

identity to such a small group. Certainly, given the evidence, the N1W5:19 population

cannot be considered a full scale ethnic enclave. However, there are clear elements of

behavior and material culture which suggest that the people living at the compound were

not engaging with their cultural identity in the same manner as the other inhabitants of

the city of Teotihuacan.

Further complicating the matter is the fact that it remains unclear as to whether or

not the people of N1W5:19 were actually of Michoacán origins. The isotopic analyses of

the bones (White et al 2004 a, b; Spence personal communication) suggest that some of

the people at the compound may have been born at Teotihuacan, spent a good deal of

their lives in central and northern Michoacán, and eventually returned to Teotihuacan in a

“return migration” scenario (Gmelch 1980). Such analyses have been vital in developing

a better understanding of the migratory patterns of the past (Price et al 2008). As such, it

is possible that they acted as ambassadors to northern/central Michoacán, and thus

adopted practices and material culture from their host areas, which were then transported

back to Teotihuacan. This interpretation, however, is not fully supported by the

peripheral location of the N1W5:19 compound near another of Teotihuacan’s foreign

barrios, nor the overall scarcity of prestige goods at the compound.

168

Given their peripheral settlement within the city, it is likely that the small

Michoacán affiliated population of Teotihuacan was viewed as inherently foreign. The

proximity of the N1W5:19 compound to the Oaxaca Barrio remains unexplained, but is

likely reflective of this perceived foreignness. Indeed, while they may have spoken the

local language of Teotihuacan, the influence of the Purepecha language on their linguistic

patterns would have marked them as outsiders as it did for Tarascan people speaking

Nahuatl during the Late Postclassic period (Pollard 1994). However, linguistic affiliation

cannot be seen in the present archaeological record of the compound.

Conversely, there are those elements of life at N1W5:19 which are inherently

local. The majority of the ceramic and lithic assemblage reflects procurement from the

local market systems. Furthermore, the presence of comal technology at the compound

suggests local food production methods were rapidly adopted by the occupants of the

compound, either through intermarriage with Teotihuacan women or as a conscious

decision to incorporate Teotihuacan food production into their lives. The notion of

intermarriage would further explain the rapid changes in social identity within the

compound. While some “traditional” (Michoacán) customs might have been maintained

for a generation or two, eventually these would have faded away as they were

overwhelmed by the incorporation of local traditions and customs into the lives of the

household occupants.

This shift in cultural use is readily apparent in the spatial and temporal changes

for the locations and presence of the Michoacán materials. As those individuals with

closer ties to Michoacán died, their cultural affiliation to Michoacán was represented in

their burial offerings, especially during the Late Tlamimilolpa and Early Xolalpan

169

phases. Given their rarity within the compound, and the issues involved in their

acquisition (distance, time, fragility of the pieces), their placement in burials would have

had significant meaning. By including such goods with the deceased, those constructing

the burials would have been making a clear statement regarding both the role of the

individual within the compound and their connection to Michoacán. However, as these

more direct ties to Michoacán lapsed with the subsequent generations (during the Early to

Late Xolalpan phases), the role of the objects themselves as markers of a distant

affiliation became more important and thus, they were maintained within the household.

It is worth noting that there are distinct differences in some of the patterns of the

burials found at N1W5:19 and what is seen in the Loma Alta phase sites in Michoacán.

In particular, the presence of figurines in the N1W5:19 burials raises questions regarding

the role these objects may have played in the lives and rituals of the people of N1W5:19.

While such objects usually appear in household or refuse contexts in Michoacán, the fact

that they are found in the burials of N1W5:19 remains significant. In addition, the

presence of Michoacán pottery in these burials does support an interpretation that the

individuals found within had some degree of direct connection to Michoacán. The

difference in context for these pottery and figurine pieces suggests that the ritual use of

these objects as markers of this connection outweighed their normal use patterns for the

people of the compound resulting in their inclusion in such burial contexts. The fact that

these direct links in the burials between individuals and the Michoacán materials rapidly

disappears deserves to be emphasized.

While a handful of the burials do contain elements that harken back to the

Michoacán styles of burial, the majority of the burials are not of Michoacán style, even

170

though there are Michoacán elements present on occasion. The presence of a number of

highly intact Michoacán associated vessels in burial contexts suggests that the people

performing the burial rituals were interested in maintaining the cultural or ethnic ties

between the deceased and a Michoacán identity. Rather than attempting to recreate the

traditional burial rituals in full, the people of N1W5:19 were putting an emphasis on the

identity of the objects, and perhaps the people, themselves. In this way, the placement of

these Michoacán-originating objects within the tombs likely had a greater significance

than the specifics of objects themselves, suggesting the importance was the material

connection, rather than the ritual or tradition. These instances are more common in the

earlier occupation of the compound (Tlamimilolpa phase), although conclusive data is not

available at this time, suggesting that the people of the compound were shifting their

cultural notions of “proper” burial practices. The fact that the majority of the burials are

of Teotihuacan or Oaxacan style suggests that the small population of Michoacán

affiliated people may have been interacting closely with their neighbors and that over

time, through intermingling and intermarriage, the less represented Michoacán presence

faded and eventually vanished as the Oaxacan presence in the compound grew.

As time progressed, due to the fact that the number of Michoacán people living at

the compound was likely low, assimilation and acculturation into either the Oaxaca

Barrio or into the general Teotihuacan society likely occurred. With this shift in ethnic

affiliation, the materials associated with Michoacán lost their ritual homeland-connection

importance and eventually fade entirely from the material record. Overall, the majority

of the Michoacán materials are located in the northern half of the compound, with a

distinctly Oaxacan influence on the material from the southern half of the compound,

171

suggesting encroachment by, co-habitation with, or intermarriage between the

neighboring Oaxacans and the populace of N1W5:19. Within the span of one to two

centuries, all traces of a Michoacán presence vanish from the archaeological record at the

N1W5:19 compound, replaced by local Teotihuacan materials and those from the nearby

Oaxacans.

Unfortunately, while the archaeological record suggests some sort of Michoacán

presence at Teotihuacan, it does little to help explain that presence. While the idea that

N1W5:19 served as a nexus for trade between Michoacán and Teotihuacan cannot be

ruled out, due to the lack of storage facilities and evidence of Michoacán based trade

goods, the evidence for such trade is limited. This does not entirely rule out the

possibility that the populace of N1W5:19 were in the city of Teotihuacan, initially to

facilitate trade between the regions, however, the nature of these trade relations, with

regards to the materials moving between the areas remains unclear. Gómez (1998) has

suggested that Teotihuacan may have been importing valuable, but more perishable

resources, such as textiles and lumber from Michoacán, but the archaeological evidence

for either of these trade goods is absent from the N1W5:19 compound.

It is possible that the populace of N1W5:19 were at Teotihuacan in order to

procure and export Pachuca blades, which appear in the archaeological record of

Michoacán during the Classic period. Current work being done on the lithic complex of

Michoacán shows that during the Classic period, blades (and only blades) were being

imported into areas such as the Pátzcuaro basin with surprising frequency (Pollard 2003).

This may explain the dearth of obsidian found at the N1W5:19 complex, as the majority

of it was being exported to Michoacán or was removed from the compound for some

172

other reason in ancient times. This does not wholly explain the lack of obsidian materials

in the household assemblage, due to the fact that the occupants of the compound would

have needed some obsidian for daily use, but it does offer a reason for the overall scarcity

of obsidian materials in the compound.

There seems very little evidence from the N1W5:19 compound to support a strong

model for recurrent or wave migration into the city from Michoacán. Many of the major

models for human migration patterns (see Anthony 1990) involve connections between

the migrant populations and their kin. MacDonald and MacDonald (1964) discuss chain

migration pattering with regard to ethnic neighborhoods, suggesting that while initial

migrants who arrive in a locale may have little kinship connection to the second wave of

arrivals, eventually the second wave migrants tend to bring their kingroups (wives and

children) to their new locales. This model does not seem applicable to the N1W5:19

situation. While it may be an initial migration of a few individuals to the city, likely

younger males (Burmeister 2000), the “push-pull” factors (Anthony 1990; Burmeister

2000) do not seem to have favored the arrival of larger kin-groups from Michoacán.

Indeed, the archaeological record suggests that it is more likely that N1W5:19 represents

a situation of return migration (Gmelch 1980) on the part of foreign ambassadors from

Teotihuacan who spent a significant portion of their lives living abroad in Michoacán.

It is readily apparent that this was not a large scale presence. The small

population of immigrants into Teotihuacan from Michoacán would have necessitated

either future waves of migration or a higher degree of internal continuity of behavior for

it to have persisted for more than a generation or two. Given that this compound seems

to represent the majority of the Michoacán presence known to have been in the city at this

173

time, it is unlikely that they were part of a larger immigrant population from Michoacán.

Consequently, given the small size of the group, they did not have a dramatic effect on

the overall culture of the city, rather they sought “assimilation and integration”

(Burmeister 2000:546) as a means of surviving in a significantly foreign environment to

the one they had experienced in Michoacán. Furthermore, the subtle, but significant

shifts in ritual and burial patterning with regard to the grave goods suggests that there

was a rapid shift in cultural environment within the compound (Burmeister 2000).

More research is needed in order to better understand the nature and origins of the

foreign elements of the N1W5:19 ceramics complex. Through future research it may be

possible to better identify the places where the Michoacán style pottery originated and

thus, offer a better understanding of the origins of the occupants of the compound.

Furthermore, it may reveal a stronger motive for the presence of this group at

Teotihuacan. At this time, the evidence does not support a strong link between the

people of N1W5:19 and their Michoacán origins.

In general, the evidence for a Teotihuacan-Michoacán connection remains

problematic, both in visibility and in actual presence. At this time, no evidence has been

found to support the idea that the N1W5:19 population was attempting to maintain their

cultural heritage through production of stylistically Michoacán ceramics. It is possible,

however, given the nature and limitations of the sampling techniques, that a complete

study of the N1W5:19 household ceramics will yield more evidence for a Michoacán

ceramic complex at Teotihuacan. A complete analysis of the household materials may

offer clarification as to the nature of occupation at the compound since only

approximately 1/3 of the total household assemblage was analyzed for this thesis.

174

In addition, recent research by Hirshman and Ferguson (2012) has shown that

many of the clay varieties found in northern and central Michoacán are highly variable

due to the presence of volcanic ash as a tempering agent. They have suggested that this

ash content can radically change the INAA results, making it difficult to properly identify

place of origin. As a result, in addition to INAA, petrographic analysis of future

materials should be attempted. Furthermore, future research to explore the Cuitzeo clay

sources may yield a better understanding of the origins of the Michoacán materials found

at Teotihuacan.

Additionally, the limited lithic evidence from the compound further complicates

the matter. While one blade from the burial assemblage could be linked to the Zinaparo-

Ucareo source area in Michoacán, the fact that most of the household lithic assemblage is

absent raises more questions regarding the interactions between the N1W5:19 populace

and both Teotihuacan and Michoacán. It is possible that some lithic material may show

up in the ceramic collection bags. Analysis of what lithic material does exist should be

undertaken in the future.

Due to the many limitations of this project, a more conclusive analysis regarding

the ethnic affiliation of the N1W5:19 compound remains impossible. Further research is

needed, both on the household materials and the skeletal remains to better determine the

extent of the Michoacán presence at Teotihuacan and the nature of that presence within

the urban setting of a Classic period Mesoamerican city.

175

APPENDIX A: SELECTED IMAGES OF XRF AND INAA SAMPLES

A.1 Lithic Samples Sent for XRF at MURR

1.

2.

3.

4.

176

5.

177

A.2: Ceramic Samples Sent for INAA

EMB008: Al secco on polished redware

EMB011: Black resist on polished

redware

EMB013: Al secco/paint on polished

redware

EMB018: Channeled blackware jar rim

sherd

178

EMB019: Black polished jar rim with

carving

EMB020: Polished red bowl with paint

EMB021 Polished red bowl with al

secco design

EMB022: Figurine

EMB023: Black polish bowl

179

EMB026: Polished Black Cylinder vase

EMB047: Black polished jar

180

APPENDIX B: INAA RESULT REPORT FROM HECTOR NEFF

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, LONG BEACH

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

January 14, 2011

Erica Begun

4205 Southport Circle

Apt. 3-D

Okemos, MI 48864

Dear Erica:

As you know, Mike Glascock asked me to generate a letter report on the recent neutron

activation analyses of ceramic artifacts from Structure 19:N1W5 at Teotihuacan. The

reason why he asked me is that I have done most of the work with the thousands of Basin

of Mexico pottery analyses undertaken over the past two decades. As it turned out, your

pottery does not appear to be from the Basin of Mexico. Nonetheless, I did complete an

analysis of the data, and I present the results here.

The analyses were completed using routine MURR procedures for INAA, which are

described in many publications. Mike sent me the data as an Excel file, and he also

provided copies of your proposal and other correspondence. I undertook a variety of

statistical comparisons to Basin of Mexico groups and to compositional reference groups

from elsewhere in Mexico in order to try to track down the origin of the 19:N1W5

material. As it turns out, however, the compositions are different enough from all other

Mexican compositions that statistical comparison is unnecessary: these samples

essentially show 0 probability of belonging to any previously established groups in the

MURR data base. In the discussion below, I first establish the compositional

distinctiveness of the 19:N1W5 samples and then present the evidence for subgroup

structure within the new data.

As I believe I mentioned to you, cobalt concentrations in the 19:N1W5 samples are quite

high in comparison to other Mexican pottery. Because the samples were prepared at

MURR, I cannot attribute this difference to sample contamination, and therefore it must

be a real compositional difference. Bivariate plots of cobalt and tantalum clearly

181

discriminate the 19:N1W5 analyses from the five major Basin of Mexico groups on the

one hand (Figure 1) and from the main Oaxaca/Mixteca Alta reference groups on the

other hand (Figure 2). Again, multivariate comparison would be superfluous here because

the compositions are so clearly distinct.on numerous bivariate projections. Based on this

evidence, I would rule out a local Basin origin or a Oaxaca origin for all of the 19:N1W5

samples.

One unassigned specimen, EMB051, has a lower cobalt concentration than the other

samples from 19:N1W5. Although it falls within the range of variation of both Basin and

Oaxaca groups on cobalt (Figures 1 and 2), multivariate comparisons do not assign it to

any of the regional reference groups. Thus, I hesitate to conclude that it originates either

in the Basin or in Oaxaca.

Comparison of the 19:N1W5 burial ceramics to compositional profiles from Michoacan,

a region to which they show some formal affinities, provides suggestive but inconclusive

evidence of origin. As shown in Figure 3, cobalt concentrations in the Patzcuaro Basin

ceramics and clays overlap with the range of values in the 19:N1W5 samples, although

the centroids of the Patzcuaro reference groups tend to be lower. Multivariate comparison

to the Main Patzcuaro Basin group fails to identify any 19:N1W5 samples that could

plausibly be assigned to this best-defined compositional group from the region.

Parenthetically, I also compared the 19:N1W5 analyses to the Colonial-Period "Romita

ware" groups defined by Fournier et al. (2007) and attributed to Michoacan, but these

groups are also distinct from the Teotihuacan samples. The best case for a Michoacan

origin is for 19:N1W5 Group 3, which, like Patzcuaro Basin Groups 1 and 4, shows

enriched tantalum concentrations (Figure 3). Some of the Patzcuaro Basin clays also

show high tantalum (Figure 3). Other projections of the data make it clear that 19:N1W5

Group 3 is closest in composition to Patzcuaro Group 1.

In light of (1) the formal similarities of the 19:N1W5 specimens to Michoacan ceramics,

(2) the strong evidence against a Basin of Mexico origin, and (3) the tentative

compositional evidence that at least some of the samples (Group 3) pertain to the

Patzcuaro Basin, a reasonable hypothesis is that the analyses from 19:N1W5 provide an

expanded understanding of ceramic compositional variation in the Patzcuaro Basin and/or

surrounding regions of Michoacan. Under this interpretation, patterns of compositional

variation within this region can be illustrated by combining the Patzcuaro Basin and

19:N1W5 analyses into a single database and performing a principal components analysis

on the combined data set. The results of this analysis are shown in Figures 4 and 5.

In Figure 4, coordinates for the variables (elemental concentrations) are connected to the

origin in order to depict the pattern of inter-element correlation in the data and the

contribution of the individual elements to group separation. This make it possible to

appreciated the enrichment of cobalt in the 19:N1W5 data (which are pulled low on

PC2), and the fact that europium, scandium, and chromium also contribute to this

difference. Similarly, the correlated enrichment of tantalum, hafnium, and zirconium in

Patzcuaro Basin Group 1 pulls that group to the high end of both PC1 and PC2. Figure 5

shows the same PCA space as Figure 4, but without the element coordinates.

Many projections of the data (e.g., Figures 1 - 5) show little separation between

19:N1W5 Groups 1, 2, and 4, and these groups are, in fact, chemically similar to each

182

other. A barium-antimony bivariate plot (Figure 6) discriminates them, but caution is

warranted about the interpretation of these chemical differences. For instance, barium is

often enriched in pottery relative to clays, the enrichment apparently being due to barium

uptake by volcanic glass or other glass phases in the ceramic paste (Neff et al. 2003).

Analysis of a larger sample of pottery and clay from Michoacan would be needed to

evaluate whether these groups represent distinct source zones, different production

practices, differential diagenesis, or some combination of these effects. Such a project

would also address the main hypothesis generated by this project, namely that the

19N1W5 pottery is derived from sources in Michoacan that are as yet unrepresented by

other INAA projects undertaken in Mexico.

I hope this information and the attached figures are useful to you. I wish we could have

established a more secure connection between your pottery and other ceramics of known

origin in the MURR database. At least we know with a fair amount of certainty that they

are non-local to the region around Teotihuacan and, in fact, are not made in the Basin of

Mexico at all. I suspect that this information will be of fairly wide interest, and I

encourage you to publish it expeditiously. When you do so, in addition to including Mike

Glascock and myself as co-authors, you should acknowledge Helen Pollard and Amy

Hirshman, Arthur Joyce, Deborah Nichols and Tom Charlton, and Patricia Fournier, Jim

Blackman, and Ron Bishop for their effort on projects that provided comparative

evidence for this project.

Sincerely,

Hector Neff

References

Fournier, P., Blackman, M. J. and Bishop, R. L. (2007) Los alfareros Purépecha de la

Cuenca de Pátzcuaro: producción, intercambio y consumo de cerámica vidriada

durante la época virreinal. In Fournier, P., Wiesheu, W., and Charlton, T. (eds.),

Arqueología y Complejidad Social. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,

ciudad de México, pp. 195-221.

Joyce, A. A., H. Neff, M. S. Thieme, M. Winter, J. M. Elam, and A. Workinger (2006)

Ceramic production and exchange in Late/Terminal Formative Period Oaxaca. Latin

American Antiquity 17(4): 579-594.

Neff, H., J. W. Cogswell, and L. M. Ross, Jr. (2003) Supplementing bulk chemistry in

archaeological ceramic provenance investigations. In Patterns and Process: Essays in

Honor of Dr. Edward V. Sayre, edited by L. van Zelst and R. L. Bishop, pp. 201-234.

Smithsonian Center for Materials Research and Education Publication Series.

Nichols, Deborah L., Hector Neff, and George L. Cowgill (2011) Cerro Portezuelo: An

overview. Ancient Mesoamerica (accepted).

Pollard, Helen P., Amy Hirshman, Hector Neff & Michael D. Glascock (2005).

Exchange, elites, and the emergence of the Tarascan core. In Archaeology Without

183

Limits, edited by Brian D. Dillon and Matthew A. Boxt, pp. 295-307. Labyrinthos,

Lancaster, CA.

184

Table 1: Chemical group assignments for 19:N1W5 samples analyzed on this Project.

Sample

NO artifact ID Vessel form Costal Bag Location

Chemical

Group

EMB023 23 Basin 58 2726 N1W5 Group 1

EMB026 26 Vase 56 2724 N1W5 Group 1

EMB027 27 Bowl 53 2540 N1W5 Group 1

EMB028 28 Bowl 65 2733 N1W5 Group 1

EMB029 29 Maceta 37 2327 N1W5 Group 1

EMB030 30 bowl 56 2724 N1W5 Group 1

EMB031 31 jar 102 1876 N1W5 Group 1

EMB032 32 bowl 37 2327 N1W5 Group 1

EMB034 34 maceta 86 2827 N1W5 Group 1

EMB035 35 bowl 59 2727 N1W5 Group 1

EMB036 36 Crater 39 2329 N1W5 Group 1

EMB037 37 maceta 53 2540 N1W5 Group 1

EMB038 38 jar 73 2741 N1W5 Group 1

EMB039 39 Maceta 70 2738 N1W5 Group 1

EMB040 40 Maceta 65 2733 N1W5 Group 1

EMB041 41 Maceta 63 2731 N1W5 Group 1

EMB047 47 Jar 50 2537 N1W5 Group 1

EMB050 23 cup? 2319 N1W5 Group 1

EMB004 4 Jar - - N1W5 Group 2

EMB005 5 Bowl - - N1W5 Group 2

EMB006 6 Bowl 46 2343 N1W5 Group 2

EMB010 10 Jar 75 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB012 12 Bowl/Vase 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB013 13 Bowl 85 2819 N1W5 Group 2

EMB014 14 Jar 44 2334 N1W5 Group 2

EMB015 15 Jar 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB016 16 Jar 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB017 17 Jar 45 2357 N1W5 Group 2

EMB018 18 Bowl 44 2334 N1W5 Group 2

EMB019 19 Bowl 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB021 21 Bowl 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB022 22 Figurine 44 2335 N1W5 Group 2

EMB024 24 Vase 32 2321 N1W5 Group 2

EMB045 45 Vase 62 2730 N1W5 Group 2

EMB048 48 Bowl 32 2319 N1W5 Group 2

EMB049 49 Jar 44 2338 N1W5 Group 2

EMB001 1 Bowl - - N1W5 Group 3

EMB002 2 Bowl - - N1W5 Group 3

EMB003 3 Bowl - - N1W5 Group 3

EMB020 20 Bowl 44 2340 N1W5 Group 3

EMB052 ? Figurine 2743 N1W5 Group 3

EMB011 11 Jar 69 2737 N1W5 Group 4

EMB025 25 Cooking Urn 56 2724 N1W5 Group 4

EMB042 42 Olla 42 2332 N1W5 Group 4

EMB043 43 Jar 38 2328 N1W5 Group 4

EMB044 44 Olla 59 2727 N1W5 Group 4

EMB046 46 Jar 32 2319 N1W5 Group 4

EMB007 7 Jar 50,52 2539, 2537 N1W5 Unassigned

EMB008 8 Bowl 75 2743 N1W5 Unassigned

EMB009 9 Jar 38 2328 N1W5 Unassigned

EMB033 33 Comal 49 2536 N1W5 Unassigned

EMB051 24 Vase 2724 N1W5 Unassigned

185

Figure 1: Bivariate plot of cobalt and tantalum concentrations in 19:N1W5 samples

together with the Tenochtitlan, Chalcoco, Texcoco, Otumba, and Cuauhtitlan reference

groups from the Basin of Mexico (e.g., Nichols et al. 2011). Ellipses represent 90%

confidence level for membership in the groups.

186

Figure 2: Bivariate plot of cobalt and tantalum concentrations in 19:N1W5 samples

together with reference groups defined for the Valley of Oaxaca and Mixteca Alta (Joyce

et al. 2006). Ellipses represent 90% confidence level for membership in the groups.

187

Figure 3: Bivariate plot of cobalt and tantalum concentrations in 19:N1W5 samples

together with reference groups defined for the Patzcuaro Basin (Pollard et al. 2005).

Ellipses represent 90% confidence level for membership in the groups.

188

Figure 4: Biplot (objects together with variables) derived from principal compnents

analysis of the variance-covariance matrix of the MURR Patzcuaro Basin data plus

19:N1W5 samples analyzed on this project. Ellipses represent 90% confidence level for

membership in the groups, and variable coordinates are connected to the origin in order

to illustrate the pattern of interelement correlation.

189

Figure 5: Same PCA space as Figure 4, but without variable coordinates and with

individual groups labeled.

190

Figure 6: Bivariate plot of barium and antimony log concentrations in 19:N1W5 Groups

1, 2, 4, and unassigned specimens (labeled). Ellipses represent 90% confidence level for

membership in the three groups.

191

APPENDIX C: XRF ANALYSIS REPORT FROM MICHAEL GLASCOCK

Archaeometry Laboratory

X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Obsidian Artifacts from Structure 19:N1W5 at

Teotihuacan by Michael D. Glascock

Archaeometry Laboratory

1513 Research Park Drive

University of Missouri

Columbia, MO 65211

for

Erica Begun

University of Iowa

Department of Anthropology

January 15, 2011

Introduction Five obsidian artifacts associated with Structure 19: N1W5 at Teotihuacan, Mexico were

submitted to the Archaeometry Lab for chemical analysis and source identification by

XRF. The samples are interesting because there is evidence that individuals with cultural

origins in

Michoacan lived in Structure 19.

Analytical methods for obsidian provenance A variety of physical, chemical, and isotopic methods have been employed for obsidian

provenance research. However, the three analytical methods most often used today are

neutron activation analysis (NAA), X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and laser ablation-

inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS). Each of the methods has

specific advantages and disadvantages with respect to the analysis of obsidian (Glascock

et al. 1998). For example, NAA offers excellent sensitivity, precision and accuracy for a

large number of elements, and it can be used to analyze the very smallest of samples

(e.g., 5 mg). Although NAA is the most reliable and accurate method, it requires that a

portion of the artifact to be destroyed and thereby making the irradiated sample

radioactive. NAA is also more expensive and time-consuming than the other analytical

methods. XRF offers good sensitivity and accuracy for several of the incompatible trace

elements (i.e., Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and Nb) which Shackley (1998, 2008) has identified as

among the most important for discriminating between obsidian sources. XRF can be

performed non-destructively, and it is both a rapid and inexpensive method. However,

XRF has limitations if the samples are too small, thin, and/or irregularly-shaped. These

types of samples may require corrections when analyzed by XRF. Most XRF labs in the

world will not attempt to source artifacts smaller than 8mm in diameter and 2 mm thick.

The third method of LA-ICP-MS is capable of measuring a large number of elements on

very small samples in a relatively short period of time. However, LA-ICP-MS has

limitations regarding standardization and instrument stability so the data may suffer from

errors in accuracy. XRF was the method of choice for this investigation.

192

The history of obsidian provenance research at MURR The Archaeometry Lab at MURR has been conducting obsidian provenance research for

almost 30 years. During this time, more than 12,000 source samples from around the

world have been collected and analyzed. In addition, more than 12,000 artifacts have

been analyzed, and more than 95% of the artifacts have been assigned to sources

currently known to the Archaeometry Lab. A majority of this work has been concentrated

on Mesoamerica and South America and the western USA. But in recent years, data for

obsidian sources in the Mediterranean, Russian Far East, and East African regions has

also been collected. Initially, our obsidian work employed neutron activation analysis

(NAA) and with limited use of LA-ICP-MS.

In recent years, we have made increasing use of X-ray Fluorescence (XRF) due to its

non-destructive nature, lower costs, and the vastly improved capabilities of modern XRF

instrumentation. Many modern XRF instruments are portable which makes them

convenient to use in the field. XRF is usually successful unless the samples are small, the

possible sources are chemically similar to one another, or the artifacts come from as yet

unknown or totally unexpected sources. In the case of small samples, the physics of XRF

must be well understood in order to properly interpret the data and make corrections. But,

if any of these particular difficulties or limitations occur, NAA or LA-ICP-MS are still

options to consider.

Analysis Procedures The XRF analysis of the samples described in this report was conducted using a hand-

held XRF spectrometer made by Bruker Corporation (Tracer III-V, serial number

K0557). The portable XRF is equipped with an air-cooled, Rhodium target anode tube

with 140 micron Be window and a thermoelectrically cooled Si-PIN diode detector. The

detector has a resolution of 180 eV for the 5.9 keV peak from iron. The X-ray tube is

operated at 40 kV using a tube current of about 17 microamps. The beam dimensions are

about 2 x 3 mm. Measurement times were 180 seconds, and the counting rate was

approximately 1,200 counts per second for most samples.

Peak deconvolution was accomplished using the Bruker spectral analysis package which

enabled

measurement of thirteen elements in most samples, including K, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn, Ga, Rb,

Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Pb, and Th. The instrument was calibrated using compositional data from a

series of well-characterized source samples in the MURR obsidian reference collection,

including eleven Mesoamerican sources (El Chayal, Ixtepeque, San Martin Jilotepeque,

Guadalupe Victoria, Pico de Orizaba, Otumba, Paredon, Sierra de Pachuca, Ucareo,

Zaragoza, and Zacualtipan) and three Peruvian sources (Alca, Chivay, and Quispisisa).

Consensus values for the obsidian calibration sources were previously determined at

MURR (using both NAA and XRF) and other laboratories (XRF only). Concentration

ranges for the reference samples span the range of probable concentrations for obsidian

from different sources around the world.

Characterization of Obsidian Sources in the Region Multiple samples from the sources located in eastern and central Mexico have been

characterized by NAA and XRF and the data are readily available (Glascock 2010). The

193

XRF source data are successful at separating most of the sources using either one of two

bivariate plots.

Analysis of the artifacts in this study Table I lists the chemical data obtained for the elements: Fe, Zn, Ga, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and

Nb.

Although K, Ti, Mn, Pb and Th were observed they are not particularly useful and are not

listed in the table. Examination of the XRF data obtained the sources in eastern and

central Mexico region shows that most, of sources in the region could be differentiated

from one another through the use of one or two bivariate plots. Plots for Rb versus Zr and

Sr versus Y are shown in Figures 2 and 3, respectively. Samples 1 thru 3 are from the

Otumba source which is located nearby to Teotihuacan. Sample 5 is from the Malpais

source also located in the vicinity of Teotihuacan. Sample 4 is from Paredon which

happens to be the third closest source to Teotihuacan.

Table I. Concentrations of elements in parts per million measured by XRF in obsidian

artifacts

from Structure 19:N1W5 at Teotihuacan and the source names.

194

Figure 1. Plot of Rb versus Zr for obsidian artifacts from Structure 19 compared to

sources in eastern and central Mexico. Individual sources are represented by the shaded

ellipses calculated at the 90% confidence interval.

Results and Conclusions XRF measurements on five obsidian artifacts from Structure 19:N1W5 at Teotihuacan

find that the artifacts came from three sources local to Teotihuacan. Three of the artifacts

came from Otumba, one from Malpaís, and one from Paredon.

Acknowledgements The assistance of Alex Brechbuhler in measuring these artifacts is acknowledged. This

work was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation (#0802757)

to the Archaeometry Lab at MURR.

References Glascock, M.D. (2010).

Comparison and contrast between XRF and NAA: Used for characterization of

obsidian sourcesin Central Mexico. In X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) in

Geoarchaeology, edited by M.S. Shackley. Springer, New York, pp. 161-192.

Glascock, M.D., G.E. Braswell and R.H. Cobean (1998).

A systematic approach to obsidian source characterization. In Archaeological

Obsidian Studies: Method and Theory, edited by M.S. Shackley, pp. 15-65.

Plenum Press, New York and London.

195

Shackley, M.S. (1998).

Gamma rays, X-rays and stone tools: Some recent advances in archaeological

geochemistry. Journal of Archaeological Science 25(3): 259-270.

Shackley, M.S. (2008)

Archaeological petrology and the archaeometry of lithic materials. Archaeometry

50(2): 194-215.

196

APPENDIX D: HOUSEHOLD CERAMICS

D.1: Base Counts for All Household Ceramics by Vessel Form

Form

% of

Total

Sum Sum

No Data .2% 80

Incensario 4.8% 1982

Anafre de 3 Protub. .3% 116

Candelero .0% 18

Tapaplato 1.5% 627

Comal 2.1% 877

Aplicacion .1% 42

Olla 36.6% 14982

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .1% 57

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 14

Olla Miniatura .1% 29

Jarra 5.1% 2090

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 11

Palangana .8% 308

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 11

Palangana Pintada .0% 4

Cazuela 2.5% 1019

Crater 13.1% 5364

Vaso 1.9% 786

Vaso Inciso .1% 37

Vaso al Patron .0% 17

Vaso Miniatura .1% 24

Cajete .7% 273

Cajete CC Sencillo 1.2% 471

Cajete Base Anular 1.9% 776

Cajete Inciso .0% 6

Cajete RD .2% 66

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 20

Cajete CD 10.6% 4357

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .2% 86

Cajete CD al Patron .2% 75

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 38

Cajete CD Inciso .9% 383

Cajete CD Miniatura .8% 311

Cajete CC .7% 284

197

Cajete CC al Patron .1% 44

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 2

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 11

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 19

Cantaro .1% 47

Anfora 7.1% 2903

Cuenco .0% 16

Plato .3% 120

Plato esgrafiado .0% 1

Tapadera .0% 7

Florero .1% 25

Copa .1% 27

Antropomorfa .6% 251

Zoomorfa .0% 4

Tejo .1% 32

Placa Rectangular .0% 4

Sello .0% 2

Instrumento Musical .0% 1

Molde .0% 4

Tubo .0% 7

Soporte .0% 1

Vasija de Efigies .0% 5

Jarra Efigies .0% 18

Almena .0% 4

Maceta .8% 312

Plato Miniatura .1% 22

Cajete Miniatura .1% 28

68 .3% 105

Cazuela/Crater 2.1% 878

Jarra Incisa .1% 33

Cajete Arrinonado .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 8

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 10

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta Miniatura .0% 1

Soporte Conico .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 15

Jarra al Patron .1% 48

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 5

Vaso Pintado Inciso .0% 2

Cajete CD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Cajete RD Patron .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 10

Sahumador .0% 3

198

Crater Miniatura .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 10

Olla Acanalada .0% 3

Cajete CC Inciso

punzonado .0% 6

Vaso Patron .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .1% 24

Barro Cocido .0% 1

Jarra Punzonada .0% 1

Base de Cajete .0% 10

Palangana raspbalado

esgrafiada .0% 1

Cilindro .0% 2

Cuenco punzonado .0% 1

Vaso acanalado .1% 21

Palangana Incisa .0% 3

Jarra acanalado patron .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 10

Palangana Negativa .0% 4

Palangana Patron

Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra Incisa Zonificada .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 2

Urna Cocijo .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 5

Mesa de trabajo .0% 1

Herramienta .0% 1

Vaso Reborde basal .0% 2

Cajete CD negativo .0% 2

Cajete Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete K7 .0% 1

Posible Colador .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra acanalada .1% 22

Jarra Zonificada .0% 6

Vaso Plano Relieve .0% 2

Cajete Lustroso .0% 1

Tubo de Drenaje .0% 4

Vaso al Negativo .0% 1

Olla Patron .0% 1

Cajete de Base Anular

Esgrafiado .1% 22

Cajete CC Soporte

Boton .0% 3

199

Cajete Zonificado .0% 5

Cajete RD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Jarra Pulida Patron .0% 2

Tecomate Acanalado .0% 3

Cajete RD Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 3

Cajete RD Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete RD Inciso .0% 3

Jarra Negativo .0% 1

Macizo .0% 1

Cajete CD esgrafiada

Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete RD Acanalado .0% 2

Soporte de Vaso .0% 2

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 6

Cajete soporte conico .0% 1

Cajete concavo .1% 28

orejera .0% 1

Cilindro macizo .0% 2

Cuchara .0% 1

Cajete Esgrafiada .0% 1

Rueda .0% 1

Placa Rectangular .0% 1

Vaso Moldeado .0% 1

Cuenco Miniatura .0% 1

Esfera .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Miniatura .0% 1

Vaso Zonificado .0% 1

Anfora Miniatura .0% 1

Tecomate Miniatura .0% 3

CAJETE CD

PATRON

MINIATURA

.0% 1

Cajete CD Falso

Closone .0% 3

Figurilla .0% 1

Total 100.0% 40949

200

D.2: Base Ceramic Counts showing Totals by Phase

Phase % of Total Sum Sum

No Data/Unknown .2% 83

Tza Temp .2% 67

Tza Tardio .0% 19

Miccaotli .3% 127

Tlami Temp .4% 155

Tlami Tardio 1.5% 614

Xol Temp 4.8% 1983

Xol Tardio 88.8% 36382

Metepec 1.8% 745

Coyotlatelco 1.6% 641

Mazapan .3% 133

Total 100.0% 40949

201

D.3: Base Counts by Waregroup

Waregroup % of Total Sum Sum

No Data .2% 80

Mate Burdo 5.1% 2099

Mate Fino 2.5% 1033

Brunido 46.1% 18888

Acabado Mate .1% 48

Pulido 16.0% 6561

Pintado 2.6% 1069

Estuco Pintado .0% 19

Copa .0% 16

Cafe Compacta Densa .0% 13

Figurilla .3% 129

Miscelanea .2% 71

Naranja San Martin 20.6% 8441

Anaranjado Delgado 4.1% 1676

Granular .8% 324

Del Gulfo .1% 31

Estilo Oaxaqueno .6% 256

Oaxaqueno .3% 115

Michoacano .2% 65

Maya .0% 10

Cholula .0% 1

Foraneo .0% 4

Total 100.0% 40949

202

D.4: Household Ceramics Showing Phase, Waregroup, and Form

Phase Waregroup Form

% of

Total

Sum Sum

No

Data/Unknown

No Data No Data .2% 80

Total .2% 80

Brunido Cazuela .0% 2

Total .0% 2

Pulido Cajete CD .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total No Data .2% 80

Cazuela .0% 2

Cajete CD .0% 1

Total .2% 83

Tza Temp Brunido Comal .0% 1

Olla .1% 25

Jarra .0% 4

Cazuela .1% 27

Crater .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 3

Total .1% 61

Acabado Mate Cazuela .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Pulido Olla .0% 1

Jarra .0% 1

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cuenco .0% 1

Total .0% 4

Pintado Cuenco .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total Comal .0% 1

Olla .1% 26

Jarra .0% 5

Cazuela .1% 28

Crater .0% 1

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cuenco .0% 2

Cazuela/Crater .0% 3

Total .2% 67

Tza Tardio Brunido Olla .0% 7

203

Jarra .0% 1

Palangana .0% 1

Cazuela .0% 2

Crater .0% 3

Anfora .0% 1

Total .0% 15

Acabado Mate Olla .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Pulido Cajete CD .0% 1

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 1

Total .0% 2

Pintado Cajete CD .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total Olla .0% 8

Jarra .0% 1

Palangana .0% 1

Cazuela .0% 2

Crater .0% 3

Cajete CD .0% 2

Anfora .0% 1

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 1

Total .0% 19

Miccaotli Mate Burdo Incensario .0% 3

Total .0% 3

Brunido Comal .0% 2

Olla .1% 40

Jarra .0% 2

Palangana .0% 3

Cazuela .1% 35

Crater .0% 5

Cajete RD .0% 1

Cantaro .0% 1

Anfora .0% 5

Cuenco .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 8

Total .3% 103

Acabado Mate Olla .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Pulido Cajete .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 3

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 1

Florero .0% 2

Total .0% 10

204

Pintado Jarra .0% 3

Palangana .0% 2

Cajete CD .0% 3

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 1

Total .0% 9

Miscelanea Tejo .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total Incensario .0% 3

Comal .0% 2

Olla .1% 41

Jarra .0% 5

Palangana .0% 5

Cazuela .1% 35

Crater .0% 5

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete RD .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 6

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 1

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 1

Cantaro .0% 1

Anfora .0% 5

Cuenco .0% 1

Florero .0% 2

Tejo .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 8

Total .3% 127

Tlami Temp Mate Burdo Incensario .0% 5

Total .0% 5

Brunido Comal .0% 2

Olla .1% 60

Jarra .0% 7

Cazuela .1% 22

Crater .0% 6

Vaso .0% 4

Anfora .0% 1

Total .2% 102

Pulido Jarra .0% 8

Vaso .0% 1

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 20

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 1

Florero .0% 6

Placa Rectangular .0% 1

Total .1% 41

205

Pintado Olla .0% 1

Jarra .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 2

Total .0% 4

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 3

Total .0% 3

Total Incensario .0% 5

Comal .0% 2

Olla .1% 61

Jarra .0% 16

Cazuela .1% 22

Crater .0% 6

Vaso .0% 5

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 22

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 1

Anfora .0% 1

Florero .0% 6

Antropomorfa .0% 3

Placa Rectangular .0% 1

Total .4% 155

Tlami Tardio Mate Burdo Incensario .0% 13

Candelero .0% 2

Total .0% 15

Mate Fino Tapaplato .0% 2

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 2

Total .0% 4

Brunido Comal .1% 28

Olla .7% 288

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .0% 15

Palangana .0% 8

Cazuela .1% 31

Crater .1% 38

Vaso .0% 6

Cantaro .0% 1

Anfora .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 4

Total 1.0% 422

Acabado Mate Olla .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Pulido Candelero .0% 1

Vaso .0% 3

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

206

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 41

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 4

Cajete CD Acanalado .0% 1

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 6

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .0% 9

Florero .0% 1

Cajete Miniatura .0% 2

Jarra Incisa .0% 6

Vaso acanalado .0% 10

Jarra Zonificada .0% 4

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Miniatura .0% 1

Total .2% 93

Pintado Olla .0% 4

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .0% 17

Palangana .0% 8

Vaso .0% 5

Cajete CD .0% 6

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 2

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 2

Plato .0% 1

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 2

Total .1% 52

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 7

Zoomorfa .0% 1

Total .0% 8

Miscelanea Sello .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Naranja San Martin Comal .0% 1

Crater .0% 1

Total .0% 2

Anaranjado

Delgado

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 5

Cajete Base Anular .0% 6

Total .0% 11

Granular Anfora .0% 4

Total .0% 4

Del Gulfo Cajete .0% 1

207

Total .0% 1

Total Incensario .0% 13

Candelero .0% 3

Tapaplato .0% 2

Comal .1% 29

Olla .7% 293

Olla Miniatura .0% 2

Jarra .1% 32

Palangana .0% 16

Cazuela .1% 31

Crater .1% 39

Vaso .0% 14

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 5

Cajete Base Anular .0% 6

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 47

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 7

Cajete CD Acanalado .0% 1

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 6

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 11

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 2

Cantaro .0% 1

Anfora .0% 5

Plato .0% 1

Florero .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 8

Zoomorfa .0% 1

Sello .0% 1

Cajete Miniatura .0% 3

Cazuela/Crater .0% 6

Jarra Incisa .0% 6

Vaso acanalado .0% 10

Jarra Zonificada .0% 4

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Miniatura .0% 1

Total 1.5% 614

Xol Temp Mate Burdo Incensario .1% 38

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 1

Candelero .0% 2

Total .1% 41

208

Mate Fino Tapaplato .0% 12

Aplicacion .0% 9

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 19

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 5

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 1

Total .1% 47

Brunido Comal .1% 27

Olla 1.7% 677

Jarra .1% 32

Palangana .0% 4

Cazuela .3% 138

Crater .1% 47

Vaso .0% 16

Cajete CC .0% 2

Cuenco .0% 2

Copa .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 2

Total 2.3% 948

Pulido Candelero .0% 2

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .0% 7

Jarra .1% 21

Vaso .1% 29

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Vaso al Patron .0% 2

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 3

Cajete CD .6% 226

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 7

Cajete CD al Patron .0% 5

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 20

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .0% 14

Tapadera .0% 2

Florero .0% 1

Plato Miniatura .0% 2

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 3

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra al Patron .0% 1

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 1

Olla Acanalada .0% 1

Jarra acanalado patron .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 1

209

Soporte de Vaso .0% 1

Cajete Esgrafiada .0% 1

Total .9% 356

Pintado Olla .1% 34

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra .1% 46

Palangana .1% 27

Vaso .0% 16

Vaso al Patron .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Cajete Inciso .0% 2

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 2

Cajete CD .2% 71

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 2

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 6

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 2

Cuenco .0% 1

Plato .0% 2

Plato esgrafiado .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 12

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 2

Palangana raspbalado

esgrafiada .0% 1

Vaso acanalado .0% 1

Total .6% 235

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 12

Total .0% 12

Miscelanea Tejo .0% 1

Placa Rectangular .0% 4

Tubo .0% 2

Rueda .0% 1

Total .0% 8

Naranja San Martin Comal .0% 10

Jarra .0% 7

Crater .3% 143

Anfora .1% 38

Total .5% 198

Anaranjado

Delgado

Jarra .0% 2

Cazuela .0% 7

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 20

Cajete Base Anular .1% 31

210

Cajete CD .0% 4

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 13

Cajete CC .0% 1

Plato .0% 2

cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .0% 3

Cajete Acanalado .0% 7

Total .2% 92

Granular Olla .0% 3

Anfora .0% 12

Total .0% 15

Del Gulfo Vaso .0% 6

Cajete .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

Total .0% 8

Estilo Oaxaqueno Jarra .0% 7

Maceta .0% 8

Total .0% 15

Oaxaqueno Maceta .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Michoacano Jarra .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 2

Maya Cajete .0% 5

Total .0% 5

Total Incensario .1% 38

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 1

Candelero .0% 4

Tapaplato .0% 12

Comal .1% 37

Aplicacion .0% 9

Olla 1.7% 714

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .0% 7

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra .3% 116

Palangana .1% 31

Cazuela .4% 145

Crater .5% 190

Vaso .2% 67

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Vaso al Patron .0% 3

Vaso Miniatura .0% 2

Cajete .0% 12

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 20

211

Cajete Base Anular .1% 32

Cajete Inciso .0% 2

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 2

Cajete CD .7% 301

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 9

Cajete CD al Patron .0% 5

Cajete CD Inciso .1% 33

Cajete CD Miniatura .1% 23

Cajete CC .1% 23

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 2

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 5

Anfora .1% 50

Cuenco .0% 3

Plato .0% 4

Plato esgrafiado .0% 1

Tapadera .0% 2

Florero .0% 1

Copa .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 12

Tejo .0% 1

Placa Rectangular .0% 4

Tubo .0% 2

Maceta .0% 9

Plato Miniatura .0% 2

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 14

Jarra Incisa .0% 3

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra al Patron .0% 1

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 2

Olla Acanalada .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .0% 3

Palangana raspbalado

esgrafiada .0% 1

Vaso acanalado .0% 1

Jarra acanalado patron .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 7

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 1

Soporte de Vaso .0% 1

Cajete Esgrafiada .0% 1

212

Rueda .0% 1

Total 4.8% 1983

Xol Tardio Mate Burdo Incensario 4.6% 1892

Anafre de 3 Protub. .2% 98

Candelero .0% 7

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 1

Total 4.9% 1998

Mate Fino Tapaplato 1.5% 596

Comal .1% 23

Aplicacion .1% 31

Olla Miniatura .0% 20

Vaso Miniatura .0% 5

Cajete CD Miniatura .6% 231

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 6

Plato Miniatura .0% 17

Cajete Miniatura .0% 18

Jarra Miniatura .0% 6

Sahumador .0% 1

Cuenco punzonado .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 4

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 4

Cajete RD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CD esgrafiada

Miniatura .0% 1

Cuenco Miniatura .0% 1

Tecomate Miniatura .0% 3

Total 2.4% 970

Brunido Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal .9% 374

Olla 31.7% 13001

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra 2.3% 945

Palangana .3% 104

Cazuela 1.6% 656

Crater .5% 196

Vaso .1% 44

Vaso al Patron .0% 1

Cajete .0% 2

Cajete RD .0% 2

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 16

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 2

Cajete CC .0% 11

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 2

213

Cantaro .1% 39

Anfora .8% 316

Cuenco .0% 4

Plato .0% 2

Florero .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater 1.9% 798

Tecomate .0% 3

Crater Miniatura .0% 1

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Total 40.4% 16525

Acabado Mate Olla .0% 18

Jarra .0% 4

Cazuela .0% 3

Vaso .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 7

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 5

Total .1% 41

Pulido Incensario .0% 1

Olla .1% 50

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .1% 50

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 12

Olla Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra 1.3% 519

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 10

Vaso .9% 382

Vaso Inciso .1% 33

Vaso al Patron .0% 13

Vaso Miniatura .0% 14

Cajete .3% 139

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Cajete RD .1% 52

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 11

Cajete CD 8.3% 3404

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .1% 56

Cajete CD al Patron .2% 68

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 27

Cajete CD Inciso .7% 289

Cajete CD Miniatura .1% 40

Cajete CC .3% 121

Cajete CC al Patron .1% 44

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 1

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 1

214

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 2

Cuenco .0% 5

Plato .1% 59

Tapadera .0% 5

Florero .0% 14

Copa .0% 3

Plato Miniatura .0% 3

Cajete Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra Incisa .0% 9

Cajete Arrinonado .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 3

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 8

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 6

Jarra al Patron .1% 45

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 4

Cajete CD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Cajete RD Patron .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

Olla Acanalada .0% 2

Vaso Patron .0% 1

Jarra Punzonada .0% 1

Base de Cajete .0% 10

Vaso acanalado .0% 9

Jarra Incisa Zonificada .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 1

Vaso Reborde basal .0% 2

Jarra acanalada .1% 22

Jarra Zonificada .0% 2

Vaso Plano Relieve .0% 2

Vaso al Negativo .0% 1

Olla Patron .0% 1

Cajete Zonificado .0% 5

Cajete RD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Jarra Pulida Patron .0% 2

Tecomate Acanalado .0% 3

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 2

Cajete RD Acanalado .0% 2

Soporte de Vaso .0% 1

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 4

Vaso Zonificado .0% 1

215

CAJETE CD

PATRON

MINIATURA

.0% 1

Total 13.7% 5594

Pintado Tapaplato .0% 10

Olla .1% 52

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .2% 98

Palangana .3% 112

Crater .0% 1

Vaso .1% 36

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 3

Cajete Inciso .0% 2

Cajete RD .0% 5

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 2

Cajete CD .3% 125

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 7

Cajete CD al Patron .0% 2

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 5

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 6

Cajete CC .1% 21

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 6

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 1

Anfora .0% 1

Cuenco .0% 1

Plato .1% 41

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .1% 32

Jarra Incisa .0% 5

Tecomate .0% 1

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 2

Jarra al Patron .0% 2

Vaso Pintado Inciso .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 5

Palangana Incisa .0% 3

Palangana Negativa .0% 4

Palangana Patron

Esgrafiada .0% 1

Cajete CD negativo .0% 2

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 1

Total 1.5% 600

Estuco Pintado Vaso .0% 12

Copa .0% 7

Total .0% 19

216

Copa Vaso .0% 1

Copa .0% 13

Total .0% 14

Cafe Compacta

Densa

Jarra .0% 1

Cajete .0% 2

Cajete CD .0% 8

Cajete CC .0% 1

Total .0% 12

Figurilla Antropomorfa .2% 91

Zoomorfa .0% 3

68 .0% 1

Total .2% 95

Miscelanea Tejo .1% 29

Sello .0% 1

Instrumento Musical .0% 1

Molde .0% 4

Tubo .0% 3

68 .0% 3

Barro Cocido .0% 1

Cilindro .0% 2

Herramienta .0% 1

Tubo de Drenaje .0% 4

Macizo .0% 1

orejera .0% 1

Cilindro macizo .0% 2

Esfera .0% 1

Total .1% 54

Naranja San Martin Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 14

Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal 1.0% 391

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .3% 135

Palangana .0% 3

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 9

Palangana Pintada .0% 3

Crater 11.7% 4799

Vaso .4% 179

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 38

Cajete CC .0% 2

Anfora 6.0% 2472

Antropomorfa .3% 123

217

Crater Miniatura .0% 1

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Anfora Miniatura .0% 1

Total 20.0% 8175

Anaranjado

Delgado

Olla .0% 7

Jarra .2% 102

Cazuela .0% 11

Crater .0% 3

Vaso .0% 15

Cajete .0% 4

Cajete CC Sencillo 1.1% 443

Cajete Base Anular 1.7% 710

Cajete Inciso .0% 1

Cajete RD .0% 3

Cajete CD .3% 103

Cajete CD Acanalado .0% 10

Cajete CD Inciso .1% 42

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .0% 1

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 1

Cantaro .0% 6

Anfora .0% 1

Vasija de Efigies .0% 5

Almena .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 8

cajete CC Inciso .0% 6

Cajete CC Inciso

punzonado .0% 6

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .1% 21

Vaso acanalado .0% 1

Cajete Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete de Base Anular

Esgrafiado .1% 22

Cajete CC Soporte

Boton .0% 3

Cajete RD Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete RD Inciso .0% 3

Total 3.8% 1542

Granular Olla .3% 110

Jarra .1% 22

Cazuela .0% 10

Crater .0% 1

Cajete .0% 6

Anfora .1% 39

218

Antropomorfa .0% 3

Jarra Efigies .0% 18

Almena .0% 3

68 .2% 87

Total .7% 299

Del Gulfo Olla .0% 1

Vaso .0% 6

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 6

Cajete CD .0% 5

Cajete Lustroso .0% 1

Total .0% 20

Estilo Oaxaqueno Jarra .0% 1

Cajete .0% 5

Cajete RD .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 1

Maceta .6% 230

68 .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 1

Sahumador .0% 1

Total .6% 241

Oaxaqueno Vaso .0% 1

Cajete .1% 26

Cajete CD .0% 2

Maceta .2% 68

68 .0% 11

Sahumador .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 1

Urna Cocijo .0% 1

Mesa de trabajo .0% 1

Cajete K7 .0% 1

Total .3% 113

Michoacano Olla .0% 5

Jarra .1% 24

Vaso .0% 1

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 9

Cajete CD .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 8

Copa .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 2

Jarra Negativo .0% 1

Cajete CD Falso

Closone .0% 3

Figurilla .0% 1

219

Total .1% 60

Maya Aplicacion .0% 1

Vaso .0% 2

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 5

Cholula Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Foraneo Maceta .0% 4

Total .0% 4

Total Incensario 4.6% 1893

Anafre de 3 Protub. .3% 112

Candelero .0% 7

Tapaplato 1.5% 608

Comal 1.9% 788

Aplicacion .1% 32

Olla 32.3% 13244

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .1% 50

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 13

Olla Miniatura .1% 26

Jarra 4.5% 1851

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 11

Palangana .5% 219

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 9

Palangana Pintada .0% 3

Cazuela 1.7% 680

Crater 12.2% 5000

Vaso 1.7% 680

Vaso Inciso .1% 35

Vaso al Patron .0% 14

Vaso Miniatura .1% 21

Cajete .5% 205

Cajete CC Sencillo 1.1% 443

Cajete Base Anular 1.7% 711

Cajete Inciso .0% 3

Cajete RD .2% 63

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 15

Cajete CD 9.1% 3712

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .2% 63

Cajete CD al Patron .2% 70

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 37

Cajete CD Inciso .8% 336

Cajete CD Miniatura .7% 283

220

Cajete CC .4% 170

Cajete CC al Patron .1% 44

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 2

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 7

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 11

Cantaro .1% 45

Anfora 6.9% 2829

Cuenco .0% 10

Plato .2% 102

Tapadera .0% 5

Florero .0% 15

Copa .1% 24

Antropomorfa .5% 218

Zoomorfa .0% 3

Tejo .1% 29

Sello .0% 1

Instrumento Musical .0% 1

Molde .0% 4

Tubo .0% 3

Vasija de Efigies .0% 5

Jarra Efigies .0% 18

Almena .0% 4

Maceta .7% 302

Plato Miniatura .0% 20

Cajete Miniatura .1% 23

68 .3% 103

Cazuela/Crater 2.0% 830

Jarra Incisa .1% 23

Cajete Arrinonado .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 8

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 10

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 12

Jarra al Patron .1% 47

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 4

Vaso Pintado Inciso .0% 2

Cajete CD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Cajete RD Patron .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 7

Sahumador .0% 3

Crater Miniatura .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 7

Olla Acanalada .0% 2

221

Cajete CC Inciso

punzonado .0% 6

Vaso Patron .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .1% 21

Barro Cocido .0% 1

Jarra Punzonada .0% 1

Base de Cajete .0% 10

Cilindro .0% 2

Cuenco punzonado .0% 1

Vaso acanalado .0% 10

Palangana Incisa .0% 3

Cajete Acanalado .0% 3

Palangana Negativa .0% 4

Palangana Patron

Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra Incisa Zonificada .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 1

Urna Cocijo .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 4

Mesa de trabajo .0% 1

Herramienta .0% 1

Vaso Reborde basal .0% 2

Cajete CD negativo .0% 2

Cajete Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete K7 .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra acanalada .1% 22

Jarra Zonificada .0% 2

Vaso Plano Relieve .0% 2

Cajete Lustroso .0% 1

Tubo de Drenaje .0% 4

Vaso al Negativo .0% 1

Olla Patron .0% 1

Cajete de Base Anular

Esgrafiado .1% 22

Cajete CC Soporte

Boton .0% 3

Cajete Zonificado .0% 5

Cajete RD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Jarra Pulida Patron .0% 2

Tecomate Acanalado .0% 3

Cajete RD Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 3

222

Cajete RD Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete RD Inciso .0% 3

Jarra Negativo .0% 1

Macizo .0% 1

Cajete CD esgrafiada

Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete RD Acanalado .0% 2

Soporte de Vaso .0% 1

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 4

orejera .0% 1

Cilindro macizo .0% 2

Cuenco Miniatura .0% 1

Esfera .0% 1

Vaso Zonificado .0% 1

Anfora Miniatura .0% 1

Tecomate Miniatura .0% 3

CAJETE CD

PATRON

MINIATURA

.0% 1

Cajete CD Falso

Closone .0% 3

Figurilla .0% 1

Total 88.8% 36382

Metepec Mate Burdo Incensario .1% 26

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 2

Candelero .0% 4

Total .1% 32

Mate Fino Tapaplato .0% 2

Aplicacion .0% 1

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 3

Total .0% 8

Brunido Comal .0% 7

Olla .7% 278

Jarra .0% 7

Palangana .0% 1

Cazuela .0% 11

Crater .0% 13

Cajete CC .0% 2

Total .8% 319

Acabado Mate Olla .0% 2

Total .0% 2

Pulido Olla .1% 23

Jarra .0% 11

223

Vaso .0% 9

Cajete .0% 6

Cajete RD .0% 2

Cajete CD .2% 71

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 6

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 1

Cajete CC .0% 13

Plato .0% 4

Total .4% 146

Pintado Tapaplato .0% 2

Olla .1% 33

Jarra .0% 13

Palangana .1% 34

Vaso .0% 5

Cajete .0% 3

Cajete CD .0% 17

Cajete CC .0% 8

Anfora .0% 1

Plato .0% 5

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 2

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Total .3% 126

Copa Copa .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Cafe Compacta

Densa

Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 5

Total .0% 5

Miscelanea Tejo .0% 1

Posible Colador .0% 1

Total .0% 2

Naranja San Martin Comal .0% 3

Jarra .0% 3

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 2

Palangana Pintada .0% 1

Crater .1% 48

Anfora .0% 8

Total .2% 65

Anaranjado

Delgado

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 2

Cajete Base Anular .1% 22

Cajete CD .0% 2

224

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 1

Vaso Moldeado .0% 1

Total .1% 28

Granular Olla .0% 4

Anfora .0% 2

Total .0% 6

Del Gulfo cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Michoacano Vaso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 2

Total .0% 3

Total Incensario .1% 26

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 2

Candelero .0% 4

Tapaplato .0% 4

Comal .0% 10

Aplicacion .0% 1

Olla .8% 340

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .1% 34

Palangana .1% 35

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 2

Palangana Pintada .0% 1

Cazuela .0% 11

Crater .1% 61

Vaso .0% 15

Cajete .0% 12

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 2

Cajete Base Anular .1% 22

Cajete RD .0% 2

Cajete CD .2% 90

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 6

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 2

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .1% 23

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 3

Anfora .0% 11

Plato .0% 9

Copa .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 5

Tejo .0% 1

Cajete Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 2

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

225

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Posible Colador .0% 1

Vaso Moldeado .0% 1

Total 1.8% 745

Coyotlatelco Mate Burdo Incensario .0% 4

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 1

Total .0% 5

Mate Fino Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal .0% 1

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Total .0% 4

Brunido Comal .0% 1

Olla .5% 217

Jarra .0% 18

Cazuela .1% 47

Crater .1% 46

Cajete CD .0% 5

Cajete CC .0% 3

Anfora .0% 1

Cazuela/Crater .0% 15

Total .9% 353

Acabado Mate Cajete CC .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Pulido Olla .0% 3

Jarra .0% 8

Vaso .0% 4

Cajete .1% 38

Cajete Base Anular .0% 3

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .3% 142

Cajete CC .1% 34

Cuchara .0% 1

Total .6% 234

Pintado Olla .0% 1

Jarra .0% 1

Palangana .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete Inciso .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 15

Cajete CC .0% 7

Plato .0% 3

Total .1% 30

Copa Copa .0% 1

Total .0% 1

226

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 4

68 .0% 1

Total .0% 5

Miscelanea Tubo .0% 2

Soporte .0% 1

68 .0% 1

Soporte Conico .0% 1

Total .0% 5

Naranja San Martin Comal .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Anaranjado

Delgado

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Del Gulfo Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total Incensario .0% 4

Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 1

Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal .0% 3

Olla .5% 221

Jarra .1% 27

Palangana .0% 1

Cazuela .1% 47

Crater .1% 46

Vaso .0% 4

Cajete .1% 40

Cajete Base Anular .0% 4

Cajete Inciso .0% 1

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .4% 162

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .1% 45

Anfora .0% 1

Plato .0% 3

Copa .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 4

Tubo .0% 2

Soporte .0% 1

68 .0% 2

Cazuela/Crater .0% 15

Soporte Conico .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Cuchara .0% 1

Total 1.6% 641

Mazapan Brunido Comal .0% 5

227

Olla .0% 2

Cazuela .0% 16

Crater .0% 13

Cajete CC .0% 2

Total .1% 38

Pulido Olla .1% 28

Jarra .0% 3

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 10

Cajete CC .0% 7

Plato .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 1

Cajete soporte conico .0% 1

Cajete concavo .1% 28

Total .2% 80

Pintado Olla .0% 4

Vaso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 4

Cajete CC .0% 1

Total .0% 11

Figurilla Antropomorfa .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Anaranjado

Delgado

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Total .0% 2

Oaxaqueno Maceta .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Total Comal .0% 5

Olla .1% 34

Jarra .0% 3

Cazuela .0% 16

Crater .0% 13

Vaso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 2

Cajete CC Sencillo .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 14

Cajete CC .0% 10

Plato .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 1

Maceta .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 1

Cajete soporte conico .0% 1

Cajete concavo .1% 28

228

Total .3% 133

Total No Data No Data .2% 80

Total .2% 80

Mate Burdo Incensario 4.8% 1981

Anafre de 3 Protub. .2% 102

Candelero .0% 15

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 1

Total 5.1% 2099

Mate Fino Tapaplato 1.5% 613

Comal .1% 24

Aplicacion .1% 41

Olla Miniatura .1% 21

Vaso Miniatura .0% 6

Cajete CD Miniatura .6% 254

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 14

Plato Miniatura .0% 17

Cajete Miniatura .0% 18

Jarra Miniatura .0% 7

Sahumador .0% 1

Cuenco punzonado .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 5

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 4

Cajete RD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CD esgrafiada

Miniatura .0% 1

Cuenco Miniatura .0% 1

Tecomate Miniatura .0% 3

Total 2.5% 1033

Brunido Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal 1.1% 447

Olla 35.6% 14595

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 1

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra 2.5% 1031

Palangana .3% 121

Cazuela 2.4% 987

Crater .9% 368

Vaso .2% 70

Vaso al Patron .0% 1

Cajete .0% 2

Cajete RD .0% 3

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 21

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 2

229

Cajete CC .0% 20

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 2

Cantaro .1% 41

Anfora .8% 325

Cuenco .0% 7

Plato .0% 2

Florero .0% 1

Copa .0% 1

Antropomorfa .0% 2

Cazuela/Crater 2.0% 830

Tecomate .0% 3

Crater Miniatura .0% 1

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Total 46.1% 18888

Acabado Mate Olla .1% 23

Jarra .0% 4

Cazuela .0% 4

Vaso .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 7

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 6

Total .1% 48

Pulido Incensario .0% 1

Candelero .0% 3

Olla .3% 105

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .1% 57

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 12

Olla Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra 1.4% 571

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 10

Vaso 1.0% 428

Vaso Inciso .1% 35

Vaso al Patron .0% 15

Vaso Miniatura .0% 16

Cajete .5% 188

Cajete Base Anular .0% 4

Cajete RD .1% 54

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 14

Cajete CD 9.6% 3919

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .2% 73

Cajete CD al Patron .2% 73

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 28

Cajete CD Inciso .8% 322

Cajete CD Miniatura .1% 42

230

Cajete CC .5% 200

Cajete CC al Patron .1% 44

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 1

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 1

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 2

Cuenco .0% 6

Plato .2% 64

Tapadera .0% 7

Florero .1% 24

Copa .0% 3

Plato Miniatura .0% 5

Cajete Miniatura .0% 7

Jarra Incisa .0% 19

Cajete Arrinonado .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 3

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 8

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 7

Jarra al Patron .1% 46

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 5

Cajete CD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Cajete RD Patron .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 1

Olla Acanalada .0% 3

Vaso Patron .0% 1

Jarra Punzonada .0% 1

Base de Cajete .0% 10

Vaso acanalado .0% 19

Jarra acanalado patron .0% 1

Jarra Incisa Zonificada .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 2

Vaso Reborde basal .0% 2

Jarra acanalada .1% 22

Jarra Zonificada .0% 6

Vaso Plano Relieve .0% 2

Vaso al Negativo .0% 1

Olla Patron .0% 1

Cajete Zonificado .0% 5

Cajete RD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Jarra Pulida Patron .0% 2

Tecomate Acanalado .0% 3

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 2

231

Cajete RD Acanalado .0% 2

Soporte de Vaso .0% 2

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 6

Cajete soporte conico .0% 1

Cajete concavo .1% 28

Cuchara .0% 1

Cajete Esgrafiada .0% 1

Placa Rectangular .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Miniatura .0% 1

Vaso Zonificado .0% 1

CAJETE CD

PATRON

MINIATURA

.0% 1

Total 16.0% 6561

Pintado Tapaplato .0% 12

Olla .3% 129

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 1

Olla Miniatura .0% 2

Jarra .4% 179

Palangana .4% 184

Crater .0% 1

Vaso .2% 63

Vaso al Patron .0% 1

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 9

Cajete Base Anular .0% 1

Cajete Inciso .0% 5

Cajete RD .0% 5

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 4

Cajete CD .6% 244

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .0% 13

Cajete CD al Patron .0% 2

Cajete CD Inciso .0% 5

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 9

Cajete CC .1% 45

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 10

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 1

Anfora .0% 2

Cuenco .0% 3

Plato .1% 52

Plato esgrafiado .0% 1

Cajete Miniatura .0% 3

Cazuela/Crater .1% 48

232

Jarra Incisa .0% 5

Tecomate .0% 1

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 2

Jarra Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra al Patron .0% 2

Vaso Pintado Inciso .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 8

Palangana raspbalado

esgrafiada .0% 1

Vaso acanalado .0% 1

Palangana Incisa .0% 3

Palangana Negativa .0% 4

Palangana Patron

Esgrafiada .0% 1

Cajete CD negativo .0% 2

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 1

Total 2.6% 1069

Estuco Pintado Vaso .0% 12

Copa .0% 7

Total .0% 19

Copa Vaso .0% 1

Copa .0% 15

Total .0% 16

Cafe Compacta

Densa

Jarra .0% 1

Cajete .0% 3

Cajete CD .0% 8

Cajete CC .0% 1

Total .0% 13

Figurilla Antropomorfa .3% 123

Zoomorfa .0% 4

68 .0% 2

Total .3% 129

Miscelanea Tejo .1% 32

Placa Rectangular .0% 4

Sello .0% 2

Instrumento Musical .0% 1

Molde .0% 4

Tubo .0% 7

Soporte .0% 1

68 .0% 4

Soporte Conico .0% 1

Barro Cocido .0% 1

Cilindro .0% 2

Herramienta .0% 1

Posible Colador .0% 1

233

Tubo de Drenaje .0% 4

Macizo .0% 1

orejera .0% 1

Cilindro macizo .0% 2

Rueda .0% 1

Esfera .0% 1

Total .2% 71

Naranja San Martin Anafre de 3 Protub. .0% 14

Tapaplato .0% 1

Comal 1.0% 406

Olla Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra .4% 145

Palangana .0% 3

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 11

Palangana Pintada .0% 4

Crater 12.2% 4991

Vaso .4% 179

Cajete .0% 1

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 1

Cajete CD .1% 38

Cajete CC .0% 2

Anfora 6.1% 2518

Antropomorfa .3% 123

Crater Miniatura .0% 1

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 1

Anfora Miniatura .0% 1

Total 20.6% 8441

Anaranjado

Delgado

Olla .0% 7

Jarra .3% 104

Cazuela .0% 18

Crater .0% 3

Vaso .0% 15

Cajete .0% 5

Cajete CC Sencillo 1.2% 471

Cajete Base Anular 1.9% 771

Cajete Inciso .0% 1

Cajete RD .0% 3

Cajete CD .3% 109

Cajete CD Acanalado .0% 10

Cajete CD Inciso .1% 56

Cajete CD Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete CC .0% 2

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 1

234

Cantaro .0% 6

Anfora .0% 1

Plato .0% 2

Vasija de Efigies .0% 5

Almena .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 8

cajete CC Inciso .0% 7

Cajete CC Inciso

punzonado .0% 6

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .1% 24

Vaso acanalado .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 7

Cajete Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete de Base Anular

Esgrafiado .1% 22

Cajete CC Soporte

Boton .0% 3

Cajete RD Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete RD Inciso .0% 3

Vaso Moldeado .0% 1

Total 4.1% 1676

Granular Olla .3% 117

Jarra .1% 22

Cazuela .0% 10

Crater .0% 1

Cajete .0% 6

Anfora .1% 57

Antropomorfa .0% 3

Jarra Efigies .0% 18

Almena .0% 3

68 .2% 87

Total .8% 324

Del Gulfo Olla .0% 1

Vaso .0% 12

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 9

Cajete CD .0% 5

cajete CC Inciso .0% 2

Cajete Lustroso .0% 1

Total .1% 31

Estilo Oaxaqueno Jarra .0% 8

Cajete .0% 5

Cajete RD .0% 1

Cajete CD .0% 1

Maceta .6% 238

235

68 .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 1

Sahumador .0% 1

Total .6% 256

Oaxaqueno Vaso .0% 1

Cajete .1% 26

Cajete CD .0% 2

Maceta .2% 70

68 .0% 11

Sahumador .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 1

Urna Cocijo .0% 1

Mesa de trabajo .0% 1

Cajete K7 .0% 1

Total .3% 115

Michoacano Olla .0% 5

Jarra .1% 25

Vaso .0% 2

Vaso Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete .0% 12

Cajete CD .0% 3

Cajete CC .0% 8

Copa .0% 1

Jarra Incisa .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 2

Jarra Negativo .0% 1

Cajete CD Falso

Closone .0% 3

Figurilla .0% 1

Total .2% 65

Maya Aplicacion .0% 1

Vaso .0% 2

Vaso Inciso .0% 1

Cajete .0% 6

Total .0% 10

Cholula Cajete .0% 1

Total .0% 1

Foraneo Maceta .0% 4

Total .0% 4

Total No Data .2% 80

Incensario 4.8% 1982

Anafre de 3 Protub. .3% 116

Candelero .0% 18

Tapaplato 1.5% 627

Comal 2.1% 877

Aplicacion .1% 42

236

Olla 36.6% 14982

Olla Incisa y

Zonificada .1% 57

Olla Esgrafiada .0% 14

Olla Miniatura .1% 29

Jarra 5.1% 2090

Jarra Tlaloc .0% 11

Palangana .8% 308

Palangana Esgrafiada

y Pintada .0% 11

Palangana Pintada .0% 4

Cazuela 2.5% 1019

Crater 13.1% 5364

Vaso 1.9% 786

Vaso Inciso .1% 37

Vaso al Patron .0% 17

Vaso Miniatura .1% 24

Cajete .7% 273

Cajete CC Sencillo 1.2% 471

Cajete Base Anular 1.9% 776

Cajete Inciso .0% 6

Cajete RD .2% 66

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta .0% 20

Cajete CD 10.6% 4357

Cajete CD Esgrafiado .2% 86

Cajete CD al Patron .2% 75

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 38

Cajete CD Inciso .9% 383

Cajete CD Miniatura .8% 311

Cajete CC .7% 284

Cajete CC al Patron .1% 44

Cajete CC Esgrafiada .0% 2

Cajete CC Acanalado .0% 11

Cajete CC Miniatura .0% 19

Cantaro .1% 47

Anfora 7.1% 2903

Cuenco .0% 16

Plato .3% 120

Plato esgrafiado .0% 1

Tapadera .0% 7

Florero .1% 25

Copa .1% 27

Antropomorfa .6% 251

Zoomorfa .0% 4

Tejo .1% 32

237

Placa Rectangular .0% 4

Sello .0% 2

Instrumento Musical .0% 1

Molde .0% 4

Tubo .0% 7

Soporte .0% 1

Vasija de Efigies .0% 5

Jarra Efigies .0% 18

Almena .0% 4

Maceta .8% 312

Plato Miniatura .1% 22

Cajete Miniatura .1% 28

68 .3% 105

Cazuela/Crater 2.1% 878

Jarra Incisa .1% 33

Cajete Arrinonado .0% 1

Tecomate .0% 8

Vaso Esgrafiado .0% 10

Cajete Silueta

Compuesta Miniatura .0% 1

Soporte Conico .0% 1

Jarra Miniatura .0% 15

Jarra al Patron .1% 48

Vaso al Patron con

inciso .0% 5

Vaso Pintado Inciso .0% 2

Cajete CD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Cajete RD Patron .0% 1

cajete CC Inciso .0% 10

Sahumador .0% 3

Crater Miniatura .0% 2

Palangana esgrafiada .0% 10

Olla Acanalada .0% 3

Cajete CC Inciso

punzonado .0% 6

Vaso Patron .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Inciso .1% 24

Barro Cocido .0% 1

Jarra Punzonada .0% 1

Base de Cajete .0% 10

Palangana raspbalado

esgrafiada .0% 1

Cilindro .0% 2

Cuenco punzonado .0% 1

238

Vaso acanalado .1% 21

Palangana Incisa .0% 3

Jarra acanalado patron .0% 1

Cajete Acanalado .0% 10

Palangana Negativa .0% 4

Palangana Patron

Esgrafiada .0% 1

Jarra Incisa Zonificada .0% 1

Vaso Bajo Relieve .0% 2

Urna Cocijo .0% 1

Tapaplato Miniatura .0% 5

Mesa de trabajo .0% 1

Herramienta .0% 1

Vaso Reborde basal .0% 2

Cajete CD negativo .0% 2

Cajete Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete K7 .0% 1

Posible Colador .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 1

Cazuela Miniatura .0% 4

Jarra acanalada .1% 22

Jarra Zonificada .0% 6

Vaso Plano Relieve .0% 2

Cajete Lustroso .0% 1

Tubo de Drenaje .0% 4

Vaso al Negativo .0% 1

Olla Patron .0% 1

Cajete de Base Anular

Esgrafiado .1% 22

Cajete CC Soporte

Boton .0% 3

Cajete Zonificado .0% 5

Cajete RD Inciso

Patron .0% 1

Jarra Pulida Patron .0% 2

Tecomate Acanalado .0% 3

Cajete RD Miniatura .0% 1

Jarra Esgrafiada .0% 3

Cajete RD Corrugado .0% 1

Cajete RD Inciso .0% 3

Jarra Negativo .0% 1

Macizo .0% 1

Cajete CD esgrafiada

Miniatura .0% 1

Cajete RD Acanalado .0% 2

Soporte de Vaso .0% 2

239

Cajete CD Base

Anular .0% 6

Cajete soporte conico .0% 1

Cajete concavo .1% 28

orejera .0% 1

Cilindro macizo .0% 2

Cuchara .0% 1

Cajete Esgrafiada .0% 1

Rueda .0% 1

Placa Rectangular .0% 1

Vaso Moldeado .0% 1

Cuenco Miniatura .0% 1

Esfera .0% 1

Cajete Base Anular

Miniatura .0% 1

Vaso Zonificado .0% 1

Anfora Miniatura .0% 1

Tecomate Miniatura .0% 3

CAJETE CD

PATRON

MINIATURA

.0% 1

Cajete CD Falso

Closone .0% 3

Figurilla .0% 1

Total 100.0% 40949

240

APPENDIX E: BURIAL CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGE DATA

E.1: Burial Ceramics Showing Counts and Percentages for Waregroups by Phase

WareGroup Phase

% of Total

Sum Sum

No Data/Unknown No Data/Unknown .3% 7.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .2% 5.00

Xolalpan Temprano 1.0% 25.00

Xolalpan Tardio .8% 20.00

Metepec .3% 8.00

Total 2.6% 68.00

Mate Burdo No Data/Unknown .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .2% 4.00

Xolalpan Temprano 1.7% 44.00

Xolalpan Tardio .8% 20.00

Metepec .1% 2.00

Total 3.0% 76.00

Figurilla Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .4% 11.00

Xolalpan Temprano .1% 2.00

Xolalpan Tardio .1% 2.00

Metepec .1% 3.00

Total .7% 19.00

Miscelaneo No Data/Unknown 1.9% 49.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .1% 3.00

Xolalpan Temprano .2% 4.00

Xolalpan Tardio .9% 22.00

Metepec .0% 1.00

.0% 1.00

Total 3.1% 80.00

Naranja San Martin No Data/Unknown .2% 6.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio 1.4% 35.00

Xolalpan Temprano 1.1% 28.00

Xolalpan Tardio 2.6% 66.00

Metepec .6% 15.00

.0% 1.00

Total 5.9% 152.00

Anaranjado Delgado No Data/Unknown .3% 7.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .9% 23.00

241

Xolalpan Temprano 2.0% 52.00

Xolalpan Tardio .7% 17.00

Metepec 1.3% 33.00

.2% 4.00

Total 5.4% 139.00

Granular Tlamimilolpa Tardio .1% 2.00

Xolalpan Temprano .1% 3.00

Xolalpan Tardio .0% 1.00

Total .2% 6.00

Del Gulfo Xolalpan Temprano .0% 1.00

Xolalpan Tardio .0% 1.00

Total .1% 2.00

Estilo Oaxaqueno Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Oaxaqueno Xolalpan Tardio .1% 3.00

Total .1% 3.00

Michoacano No Data/Unknown .2% 4.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .0% 1.00

Total .2% 6.00

Mate Fino No Data/Unknown .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio 1.9% 49.00

Xolalpan Temprano 1.8% 46.00

Xolalpan Tardio 1.1% 29.00

Metepec .7% 17.00

Total 5.6% 144.00

Azteca Monocromia Azteca .1% 2.00

Total .1% 2.00

Bruñido No Data/Unknown 1.6% 42.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano 1.2% 32.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio 5.4% 140.00

Xolalpan Temprano 11.1% 285.00

Xolalpan Tardio 14.7% 379.00

Metepec 4.7% 122.00

Coyotlatelco .1% 2.00

.0% 1.00

Total 39.0% 1003.00

Acabado Mate Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .0% 1.00

Xolalpan Tardio .1% 2.00

Total .2% 4.00

Pulido No Data/Unknown 2.7% 70.00

Miccaotli .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano 1.0% 25.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio 4.1% 106.00

242

Xolalpan Temprano 10.4% 267.00

Xolalpan Tardio 8.4% 216.00

Metepec 1.8% 47.00

.1% 2.00

Total 28.6% 736.00

Pintado No Data/Unknown .9% 23.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .7% 18.00

Xolalpan Temprano 1.4% 35.00

Xolalpan Tardio 1.4% 35.00

Metepec .2% 6.00

Total 4.6% 117.00

Copa No Data/Unknown .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano .0% 1.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio .1% 2.00

Xolalpan Temprano .0% 1.00

Total .3% 7.00

Cafe Compacta Densa Tlamimilolpa Tardio .1% 3.00

Xolalpan Tardio .1% 3.00

Total .2% 6.00

Total No Data/Unknown 8.4% 217.00

Azteca .1% 2.00

Miccaotli .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano 2.8% 72.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio 15.7% 403.00

Xolalpan Temprano 30.8% 793.00

Xolalpan Tardio 31.7% 816.00

Metepec 9.9% 254.00

Coyotlatelco .1% 2.00

.4% 9.00

Total 100.0% 2571.00

243

E.2: Ceramic Data Showing Counts and Percentages for Phase by Vessel Form of the

Burial Ceramic Assemblage.

Phase Form

% of Total

Sum Sum

No Data/Unknown Unknown/No Data 2.2% 56.00

Incensario .1% 2.00

Mini Olla .0% 1.00

Jarra .6% 15.00

Palangana .1% 2.00

Cazuela .2% 5.00

Crater .7% 17.00

Vaso .4% 10.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .0% 1.00

Mini Vaso .7% 18.00

Cajete .2% 5.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .1% 3.00

Cajete base anular .2% 4.00

Cajete RD .1% 3.00

Cajete CD 1.5% 39.00

Cajete CD esgrafiada .1% 2.00

Cajete CD Al patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .0% 1.00

Cajete CD inciso .0% 1.00

Cajete CC Patron .0% 1.00

Tapaplato .0% 1.00

Anfora .0% 1.00

Tapadera .1% 3.00

Florero .0% 1.00

Copa .1% 3.00

Comal .2% 6.00

Olla .5% 14.00

Total 8.4% 217.00

Azteca Jarra .0% 1.00

Cajete base anular .0% 1.00

Total .1% 2.00

Miccaotli Vaso .1% 2.00

Florero .0% 1.00

Total .1% 3.00

Tlamimilolpa Temprano Unknown/No Data .1% 3.00

Incensario .1% 3.00

Jarra .5% 12.00

244

Cazuela .1% 2.00

Crater .1% 2.00

Vaso .2% 4.00

Mini Vaso .0% 1.00

Cajete .2% 4.00

Cajete CD .6% 16.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .2% 4.00

Copa .0% 1.00

Antropomorfa .0% 1.00

Comal .5% 13.00

Olla .2% 6.00

Total 2.8% 72.00

Tlamimilolpa Tardio Unknown/No Data .2% 5.00

Incensario .1% 2.00

Mini Olla .0% 1.00

Jarra .5% 13.00

Palangana .2% 4.00

Cazuela .2% 5.00

Crater 1.4% 37.00

Vaso .3% 8.00

Mini Vaso .4% 10.00

Cajete .5% 14.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .2% 4.00

Cajete base anular .2% 5.00

Cajete inciso .1% 2.00

Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .0% 1.00

Cajete CD 3.2% 83.00

Candelero .1% 2.00

Cajete CD esgrafiada .0% 1.00

Cajete CD inciso .2% 4.00

Mini Cajete CD .9% 22.00

Cajete CC .2% 4.00

Mini Cajete CC .2% 5.00

Tapaplato .5% 12.00

Anfora .4% 10.00

Cuenco .0% 1.00

Plato .0% 1.00

Tapadera .1% 2.00

Copa .1% 2.00

Antropomorfa .4% 10.00

Comal .7% 19.00

Zoomorfa .0% 1.00

Aplicacion .0% 1.00

Mini Florero .0% 1.00

Mini Plato .2% 4.00

245

Mini Cajete .0% 1.00

Other .1% 2.00

Asa .0% 1.00

Olla 3.9% 101.00

Cazuela/Crater .0% 1.00

Total 15.7% 403.00

Xolalpan Temprano Unknown/No Data .9% 24.00

Incensario 1.7% 44.00

Mini Olla .3% 8.00

Jarra 1.3% 34.00

Palangana .2% 4.00

Cazuela 1.0% 26.00

Crater .9% 24.00

Vaso .4% 10.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .0% 1.00

Mini Vaso .0% 1.00

Cajete 2.8% 73.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .2% 5.00

Cajete base anular .4% 10.00

Cajete inciso .2% 4.00

Cajete CD 7.2% 186.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 2.00

Cajete CD inciso .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CD .5% 14.00

Cajete CC 1.4% 35.00

Mini Cajete CC .2% 6.00

Tapaplato .6% 15.00

Anfora .2% 5.00

Florero .8% 21.00

Copa .0% 1.00

Antropomorfa .0% 1.00

Comal 1.5% 38.00

Tejo .1% 3.00

Suporte .0% 1.00

Other .0% 1.00

Olla 7.5% 192.00

Olla Incisa y zonificada .0% 1.00

Total 30.8% 793.00

Xolalpan Tardio Unknown/No Data .9% 23.00

Incensario .4% 9.00

Mini Olla .2% 4.00

Jarra 1.5% 38.00

Palangana esgrafiada y

pintada .1% 2.00

Cazuela .4% 11.00

246

Crater 1.7% 43.00

Vaso .8% 20.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .7% 18.00

Mini Vaso .7% 18.00

Cajete 1.4% 37.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .2% 4.00

Cajete base anular .1% 2.00

Cajete inciso .1% 2.00

Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .1% 2.00

Cajete CD 4.9% 126.00

Candelero .0% 1.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .1% 3.00

Cajete CD inciso .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CD .6% 15.00

Cajete CC .2% 5.00

Cajete CC Patron .0% 1.00

Cajete CC anacalado .0% 1.00

Mini Cajete CC .0% 1.00

Tapaplato .4% 10.00

Anfora .2% 5.00

Tapadera .1% 3.00

Florero .0% 1.00

Antropomorfa .1% 2.00

Comal 2.1% 55.00

Aplicacion .1% 2.00

Mini Plato .1% 2.00

Mini Cajete .0% 1.00

Asa .0% 1.00

Olla 12.3% 315.00

Miniatura solida .8% 21.00

Mini Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Mini Anfora .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CC .2% 4.00

Total 31.7% 816.00

Metepec Unknown/No Data .3% 8.00

Incensario .0% 1.00

Mini Olla .1% 2.00

Jarra .1% 3.00

Palangana .1% 3.00

palangana pintada .0% 1.00

Cazuela .1% 2.00

Crater .8% 21.00

Vaso .2% 5.00

Anafre de tres .0% 1.00

247

protuberncias

Cajete .9% 22.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .2% 6.00

Cajete base anular .2% 6.00

Cajete inciso .1% 2.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .0% 1.00

Cajete CD .7% 19.00

Mini Cajete CD .2% 4.00

Cajete CC .9% 22.00

Mini Cajete CC .1% 3.00

Tapaplato .1% 3.00

Anfora .1% 3.00

Antropomorfa .1% 2.00

Comal .5% 12.00

Zoomorfa .0% 1.00

Tubo .0% 1.00

Aplicacion .2% 5.00

Olla 3.7% 95.00

Total 9.9% 254.00

Coyotlatelco Comal .0% 1.00

Olla .0% 1.00

Total .1% 2.00

Jarra .0% 1.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .1% 2.00

Cajete base anular .0% 1.00

Cajete CD .1% 2.00

Cajete CD inciso .0% 1.00

Comal .0% 1.00

Molde .0% 1.00

Total .4% 9.00

Total Unknown/No Data 4.6% 119.00

Incensario 2.4% 61.00

Mini Olla .6% 16.00

Jarra 4.6% 117.00

Palangana .5% 13.00

Palangana esgrafiada y

pintada .1% 2.00

palangana pintada .0% 1.00

Cazuela 2.0% 51.00

Crater 5.6% 144.00

Vaso 2.3% 59.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .8% 21.00

Mini Vaso 1.9% 48.00

Cajete 6.0% 155.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .9% 24.00

248

Cajete base anular 1.1% 29.00

Cajete inciso .4% 10.00

Cajete RD .2% 5.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .2% 4.00

Cajete CD 18.3% 471.00

Candelero .1% 3.00

Cajete CD esgrafiada .1% 3.00

Cajete CD Al patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .4% 10.00

Cajete CD inciso .5% 12.00

Mini Cajete CD 2.1% 55.00

Cajete CC 2.6% 66.00

Cajete CC Patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CC anacalado .0% 1.00

Mini Cajete CC .6% 15.00

Tapaplato 1.6% 41.00

Anfora .9% 24.00

Cuenco .0% 1.00

Plato .0% 1.00

Tapadera .3% 8.00

Florero .9% 24.00

Copa .3% 7.00

Antropomorfa .6% 16.00

Comal 5.6% 145.00

Zoomorfa .1% 2.00

Tejo .1% 3.00

Molde .0% 1.00

Tubo .0% 1.00

Suporte .0% 1.00

Aplicacion .3% 8.00

Mini Florero .0% 1.00

Mini Plato .2% 6.00

Mini Cajete .1% 2.00

Other .1% 3.00

Asa .1% 2.00

Olla 28.2% 724.00

Cazuela/Crater .0% 1.00

Miniatura solida .8% 21.00

Mini Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Mini Anfora .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CC .2% 4.00

Olla Incisa y zonificada .0% 1.00

Total 100.0% 2571.00

249

APPENDIX F: BURIAL LITHIC DATA

F.1: Total Lithic Assemblage from the Burials of N1W5:19 Showing Counts and

Percentages Based on Form, Material, and Phase.

Phase Material Form Sum

% of

Total

Sum

No Data/Unknown Basalt Metate 2.00 .7%

Total 2.00 .7%

Obsidian - Gray Flake 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Obsidian - Green Prismatic Blade 4.00 1.4%

Total 4.00 1.4%

Total Prismatic Blade 4.00 1.4%

Metate 2.00 .7%

Flake 1.00 .4%

Total 7.00 2.5%

Tlamimilolpa

Temprano

Limestone (Cal) Building

material/stucco 26.00 9.4%

Unmodified 1.00 .4%

Total 27.00 9.7%

Obsidian - Gray No Data 2.00 .7%

Total 2.00 .7%

Obsidian - Green No Data 1.00 .4%

Bead 7.00 2.5%

Total 8.00 2.9%

Semi-Precious

Stone

Pendant 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Slate Flake 12.00 4.3%

Total 12.00 4.3%

Total No Data 3.00 1.1%

Pendant 1.00 .4%

Building

material/stucco 26.00 9.4%

Bead 7.00 2.5%

Unmodified 1.00 .4%

Flake 12.00 4.3%

Total 50.00 18.0%

Tlamimilolpa Tardio Basalt No Data 1.00 .4%

Metate 6.00 2.2%

Mortar/Pestel 1.00 .4%

Bowl 2.00 .7%

Laja 2.00 .7%

Mano 4.00 1.4%

250

Total 16.00 5.8%

Rock Unmodified 8.00 2.9%

Total 8.00 2.9%

Obsidian - Gray Prismatic Blade 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Obsidian - Green Prismatic Blade 15.00 5.4%

Total 15.00 5.4%

Mica Carved 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Slate No Data 3.00 1.1%

Carved 8.00 2.9%

Total 11.00 4.0%

Total No Data 4.00 1.4%

Prismatic Blade 16.00 5.8%

Metate 6.00 2.2%

Mortar/Pestel 1.00 .4%

Bowl 2.00 .7%

Carved 9.00 3.2%

Unmodified 8.00 2.9%

Laja 2.00 .7%

Mano 4.00 1.4%

Total 52.00 18.7%

Xolalpan Temprano Basalt No Data 4.00 1.4%

Core 1.00 .4%

Flake 1.00 .4%

Total 6.00 2.2%

Rock Unmodified 5.00 1.8%

Total 5.00 1.8%

Limestone (Cal) Building

material/stucco 6.00 2.2%

Total 6.00 2.2%

Obsidian - Gray Prismatic Blade 4.00 1.4%

Shatter 1.00 .4%

Total 5.00 1.8%

Obsidian - Green Prismatic Blade 40.00 14.4%

Core 1.00 .4%

Blade 1.00 .4%

Knife 2.00 .7%

Shatter 2.00 .7%

Total 46.00 16.5%

Slate Carved 5.00 1.8%

Total 5.00 1.8%

Total No Data 4.00 1.4%

Prismatic Blade 44.00 15.8%

Core 2.00 .7%

Blade 1.00 .4%

251

Knife 2.00 .7%

Shatter 3.00 1.1%

Building

material/stucco 6.00 2.2%

Carved 5.00 1.8%

Unmodified 5.00 1.8%

Flake 1.00 .4%

Total 73.00 26.3%

Xolalpan Tardio Basalt Flake 1.00 .4%

Laja 3.00 1.1%

Total 4.00 1.4%

Rock Unmodified 10.00 3.6%

Total 10.00 3.6%

Obsidian - Gray Blade 2.00 .7%

Shatter 2.00 .7%

Flake 4.00 1.4%

Total 8.00 2.9%

Obsidian - Green Prismatic Blade 17.00 6.1%

Blade 1.00 .4%

Shatter 5.00 1.8%

Total 23.00 8.3%

Slate No Data 3.00 1.1%

Carved 5.00 1.8%

Total 8.00 2.9%

Total No Data 3.00 1.1%

Prismatic Blade 17.00 6.1%

Blade 3.00 1.1%

Shatter 7.00 2.5%

Carved 5.00 1.8%

Unmodified 10.00 3.6%

Flake 5.00 1.8%

Laja 3.00 1.1%

Total 53.00 19.1%

Metepec Basalt Carved 4.00 1.4%

Total 4.00 1.4%

Rock Unmodified 8.00 2.9%

Total 8.00 2.9%

Obsidian-

Unknown

Groundstone 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Obsidian - Gray No Data 1.00 .4%

Prismatic Blade 1.00 .4%

Shatter 1.00 .4%

Flake 1.00 .4%

Total 4.00 1.4%

Obsidian - Green No Data 5.00 1.8%

252

Prismatic Blade 15.00 5.4%

Shatter 1.00 .4%

Flake 5.00 1.8%

Total 26.00 9.4%

Total No Data 6.00 2.2%

Prismatic Blade 16.00 5.8%

Groundstone 1.00 .4%

Shatter 2.00 .7%

Carved 4.00 1.4%

Unmodified 8.00 2.9%

Flake 6.00 2.2%

Total 43.00 15.5%

Total Basalt No Data 5.00 1.8%

Metate 8.00 2.9%

Core 1.00 .4%

Mortar/Pestel 1.00 .4%

Bowl 2.00 .7%

Carved 4.00 1.4%

Flake 2.00 .7%

Laja 5.00 1.8%

Mano 4.00 1.4%

Total 32.00 11.5%

Rock Unmodified 31.00 11.2%

Total 31.00 11.2%

Obsidian-

Unknown

Groundstone 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Limestone (Cal) Building

material/stucco 32.00 11.5%

Unmodified 1.00 .4%

Total 33.00 11.9%

Obsidian - Gray No Data 3.00 1.1%

Prismatic Blade 6.00 2.2%

Blade 2.00 .7%

Shatter 4.00 1.4%

Flake 6.00 2.2%

Total 21.00 7.6%

Obsidian - Green No Data 6.00 2.2%

Prismatic Blade 91.00 32.7%

Core 1.00 .4%

Blade 2.00 .7%

Knife 2.00 .7%

Shatter 8.00 2.9%

Bead 7.00 2.5%

Flake 5.00 1.8%

Total 122.00 43.9%

253

Mica Carved 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Semi-Precious

Stone

Pendant 1.00 .4%

Total 1.00 .4%

Slate No Data 6.00 2.2%

Carved 18.00 6.5%

Flake 12.00 4.3%

Total 36.00 12.9%

Total No Data 20.00 7.2%

Prismatic Blade 97.00 34.9%

Metate 8.00 2.9%

Core 2.00 .7%

Groundstone 1.00 .4%

Blade 4.00 1.4%

Knife 2.00 .7%

Mortar/Pestel 1.00 .4%

Bowl 2.00 .7%

Pendant 1.00 .4%

Shatter 12.00 4.3%

Building

material/stucco 32.00 11.5%

Bead 7.00 2.5%

Carved 23.00 8.3%

Unmodified 32.00 11.5%

Flake 25.00 9.0%

Laja 5.00 1.8%

Mano 4.00 1.4%

Total 278.00 100.0%

254

APPENDIX G: TOTAL BURIAL ASSEMBLAGE DATA

G.1: Summary of Burials and Associated Grave Goods from N1W5:19

Burial 1

Location: Indeterminate

Depth: Capa III

The exact location of Burial 1 could not be determined based on the information

provided. It was found at the Capa III depositional layer and was identified as an adult in

primary context. While the orientation of the remains as a whole could not be identified,

the skull was found to be oriented towards the northwest. Burial 1 had no associated

grave goods for analysis.

Burial 2

Location: 6O W4

Depth: Capa IV

Burial 2 was found in the 6O W4 quadrant, in the Capa IV deposit layer. Neither

age nor sex could not be determined. The burial was in a secondary context and the

original orientation of the remains could not be identified. The remains were found in

association with a number of grave goods. In addition to the ceramics, two prismatic

blades (one green and one gray) were found along with two bone fragments (potentially

from the burial itself) and one piece of carbon. The ceramic assemblage consisted of the

following:

Assemblage:

1 Mate fino Tapaplato (object 7)

20 Mate fino Mini out curving bowl (object 1,4, 10)

2 Mate fino Min incurving bowl (object 5, 2 or 3)

1 Mate Fino Mini florero vase (object 8)

4 Mate Fino Mini plate

13 Burnished Olla, including 1 handle

3 Burnished Cazuela

2 Burnished Crater

2 Pulido Bowl

14 Pulido Outcurving bowl

1 Pintado Vase

1 Pintado Miniature Bowl

2 Figurines One anthropomorphic, one zoomorphic

4 Thin Orange Incurving bowl

Burial 3:

Location: 7E E7,8

Depth Capa II

255

Burial 3 contained the remains of an infant in secondary context. It was located in

the Capa VI deposits in the 6B E7 quandrant. No sexing data was available, nor could

the orientation of the remains be determined by excavators.

5 Mate Burdo Incensario fragments

9 Mate Fino Mini Cajete CD fragments

4 Mate Fino Mini Cajete CC fragments

7 Mate Fino Mini Olla fragments

43 Bruñido Olla fragments

1 Bruñido Jarra fragments

16 Bruñido Cazuela fragments

2 Bruñido Crater fragments

2 Bruñido Comal fragments

1 Pulido Jarra fragments

30 Pulido Cajete fragments

9 Pulido Cajete CD fragments

2 Pulido Vaso fragments

1 Pintado Jarra fragments

1 Pintado Vaso (3 fragments of same vessel)

1 Copa

1 Figurilla

2 Naranja San Martin Crater fragments

1 Naranja San Martin Cajete CD fragments

2 Naranja San Martin Comal fragments

2 Anaranjado Delgado Jarra fragments

3 Anaranjado Delgado Cajete inciso fragments

5 Anaranjado Delgado Cajete Sencillo CC fragments

4 Anaranjado Delgado Cajete base anular fragments

1 Anaranjado Delgado Cajete CD inciso fragments

1 Anaranjado Delgado Vaso fragments

1 Granular Olla fragments

1 No Data/Unknown

Burial 4

Location: 6K E9

Depth: ?

Burial 4 consisted of a burial in secondary context which lacks sex, age and

orientation data. There was no material directly associated with the burial. There was a

small bag of material labeled as having indirect association with burial 4 (partially to the

side of the patio). It contained a fragment of floor, two metate pieces (including a

support), a non-human bone, four Pachuca blades, and one gray obsidian flake.

Burial 5

Location: 6J E4,5

256

Depth: Capa IIA

Burial 5 contained the remains of an adult of unknown sex in secondary context.

While orientation could not be determined due to the secondary nature of the burial, the

construction of the grave is of interest. The tomb consists of an intrusive pit with a

distinct L shape (FIGURE).

Assemblage:

1 Polished Outcurving bowl

1 gray prismatic blade

1 small bone fragment

Burial 6

Location: 5Ñ-O E6

Depth: Capa III

Burial 6 contained the remains of a female adult in secondary context. Her

orientation was indeterminate, most likely due to the disturbance of not being in primary

context. There were no associated grave goods for this burial.

Burial 7

Location: 5N E26

Depth: Capa III

This burial contained the remains of an infant. While sex was indeterminate, the

infant’s remains were identified as being placed in a west to east orientation with the

skull facing south. There were no associated grave goods for this burial.

Burial 8

Location: 6B E7

Depth VIII

Burial 8 contained the remains of an infant of indeterminate sex and positioning.

The remains were found to have been placed within a Thin Orange bowl. The burial had

a number of ceramic artifacts associated with the human remains. These included:

Assemblage:

1 miniature mate fino vase,

3 burnished olla fragments,

1 burnished palangana fragment,

4 pieces of burnished comals,

1 burnished incurving bowl fragment,

33 pieces of out curving polished bowls, including a number of refittable pieces,

3 pieces of painted wares (1 incised bowl, 1 incurving bowl, and 1 palangana fragment)

1 Outcurving bowl fragment of San Martin Orange

3 Thin Orange jar pieces

257

1 Thin Orange bowl piece

1 Annular base bowl of Thin Orange

2 prismatic blades made from Pachuca obsidian

1 piece of slate

Burial 8A

Location: 6B E6

Depth VIII

8A, likewise contained the remains of an infant, this one with a NE/SE

orientation. This burial had one green obsidian prismatic blade fragment, a figurine, and

one unidentifiable artifact in association with the remains.

Burial 9 and 9A

Location: Pozo 6 E7 transect

Depth: VIII

Burial 9 and 9A were found in Pit 6. Burial 9 was discovered in an out curving

Pulido ware bowl. The burial assemblage consisted of three piece of slate, one fragment

of a pulido ware vase, and one outcurving Painted ware bowl fragment. There was a bag

of sediment associated with the material examined, but no analysis of it was undertaken

aside from making sure no grave goods may have been mixed in.

Burial 10

Location: 6B E19-20

Depth: Capa III

The individual interred in this burial has been identified as an adult of unknown

sex. Burial 10 is a primary context burial with a SE/NE orientation. No facing for the

skull was recorded. This burial had a number of artifacts associated with the remains.

These included fragments of mate fino tapaplatos (3) and comals (2);

14 burnished olla fragments;

1 burnished crater,

5 pieces of burnished comales;

2 fragments of burnished amphorae;

1 fragment of a Pulido ware jar,

2 fragments of Pulido bowls

11 pieces of Pulido out curved bowls

2 pulido vase fragments, one with incision

1 fragment of a Pintado jar

1 Thin Orange bowl fragment

1 unidentifiable sherd

Burial 11

Location: 6C E9

258

Depth: Capa VI

Burial 11 contained the burial of an infant of undetermined sex in secondary

context. The burial assemblage for this infant is surprisingly large and consisted of 6

rocks, 1 flat stone (laja), 1 Pachuca blade fragment, a piece of slate, and fragments of the

following vessels:

Assemblage:

1 tapaplato

1 applique

1 Minature Out curving bowl

17 pieces of Burnished ollas

1 Burnished cazuela

3 Burnished crater fragments

2 Burnished Comal pieces

1 Burnished vase

1 channeled Pulido jar (made up of 15 refitted pieces)

6 pieces of Out curving Pulido bowls

1 Pulido vase fragment

1 Pintado olla

3 fragments of a Compact Dense bowl

1 incensario handle

2 San Martin comal pieces

3 fragments of Thin Orange bowls

4 Unidentifiable sherds

Burial 12, 12A, 12B

Location: 6A E7

Depth: Capa VIII

Burial 12 was a group burial which contained the remains of three infants, all in

primary context. No sex data exists for any of the infants. Burial 12 had a S/N

orientation with the skull facing East. 12 A was oriented S/N and faced West. 12B’s

orientation was indeterminate, but the skull faced NW. The burial goods for all three

infants were scarce, consisting of two Pachuca blades in each of the 12A and 12B

assemblages. Those associated with burial 12B were found within the associated Pulido

outcurving bowl. In addition, one refitted sherd that may have come from a Oaxacan

crater was also associated with the burials.

Burial 13

Location: 6B E7

Depth: VIII

Burial 13 contained a single infant burial with no sex information. It was found

with a W/E orientation with the skull potentially oriented to the East. There was no

burial assemblage found associated with this burial.

259

Burial 14, 14 A

Location: 6A W8

Depth: Capa II

Burials 14 and 14A contained the remains of two youths, one masculine, one

feminine. Both were in primary context. The male faced east, while the female faced

north.

Assemblage:

1 mate fino tapaplato sherd

38 olla burnished fragments

2 burnished cazuela sherds

7 burnished crater fragments

1 Burnished comal sherds

1 burnished amphora sherds

1 Pulido jar sherds

3 Pulido bowl sherds

17 Pulido outcurving bowl sherds

3 Pulido vase sherds

1 Pintada basin sherds

2 figurines

1 tubo which may have been a spoon

1 San Martin jar sherd

6 San Martin crater sherds, including 1 handle

2 San Martin Amphora sherds

1 San Martin incurving bowl sherd

1 San Martin outcurving bowl sherd

1 San Martin painted basin sherd

2 San Martin comal fragments

4 Thin Orange bowl sherds

8 unidentifiable sherds

5 green obsidian piece

1 gray obsidian piece

1 groundstone obsidian piece

Burial 16

Missing Provenience data

This burial contained the remains of an infant of unidentifiable sex and orientation in

primary context.

Assemblage:

1 Burnished comal sherd

2 Pulido outcurving bowl fragments

260

1 mold fragment

1 San Martin jar fragment

2 Thin Orange simple curved bowl sherds

1 Thin Orange Annular based bowl fragment with incision

1 Thin Orange miniature Outcurving bowl fragment with incision

Burial 18

Location: 6M-N E34

Depth: Capa II

Another potentially post-Teotihuacan burial, Burial 18 contained the remains of

an infant in secondary context. No sex or orientation data exist.

Assemblage:

4 Burnished olla sherds

1 Painted outcurving bowl

1 San Martin crater fragment

13 Thin Orange bowl sherds

1 Annular base Thin Orange bowl in pieces

Burial 21

Location: 6Q-R E17-18

Depth: Capa II/III

Burial 21 contained the remains of an adult of unknown sex in secondary context.

The human remains consisted of a human crania associated with the burial of a canid. No

grave goods were associated with this burial.

Burial 22

Location: 6 I-J E17-18

Depth: Nivel 6

Burial 22 was found in association with an altar. It contained the remains of a

young adult of undetermined sex in secondary context. It was part of a collective burial.

Assemblage:

12 incesario fragments

3 Mate fino tapaplato sherds

4 Mate fino miniature out-curving bowl sherds

2 Mate fino miniature in-curving bowl sherds

1 Mate fino miniature olla sherd

73 Burnished Olla fragments

10 Burnished Cazuela fragments

5 Burnished Crater sherds

14 Burnished comal sherds

1 Pulido olla with sections of incision

10 Pulido jar fragments

261

49 Pulido Outcurving bowl sherds

1 Pulido Outcurving bowl sherd with incision

2 Pulido Vase fragments

3 Painted jar sherds

3 Painted Outcurving bowl sherds

1 Painted Basin sherd

2 Painted Incurving bowl sherds

3 ceramic discs

9 San Martin crater pieces

5 San Martin amphora sherds

1 San Martin 3 pronged burner

1 San Martin Jar sherd

2 San Martin Comal sherds

17 Thin Orange bowl sherds

6 Thin Orange annular base bowl sherds

1 Thin Orange incised bowl sherd

1 Granular olla sherd

4 Unidentified sherds

Burial 23

LocationL 6F E18

Depth: CapaV/VI

This burial was of an adult male in secondary context. Orientation was

undeterminable from the excavation reports. His burial was associated with a number of

artifacts.

Assemblage:

1 Mate burdo candelero (pulled for type collection)

19 Burnished olla sherds

3 Burnished crater fragments

3 Burnished comal sherds

Burial 24

Location: 6D,E E10

Depth: III

Burial 24 contained the remains of a young adult male in primary context. The

remains were oriented North to South with the skull facing to the East.

Burial 25

Location 7E E6,7,8

Depth: Capa II/III

262

Burial 25 has been identified as a Oaxacan style tomb that was part of a collective burial.

The remains are those of an adult of unknown sex in secondary context. Orientation for

the remains is undetermined.

Burial 26

Location 6A E23-24

Depth: Capa III/IV

A young adult of unknown sex was found in Burial 26. Gomez (DATE:586)

reports that the remains are of a left foot in primary context with a South to North

orientation. This burial is indirectly associated with the Burial 27 collective burial pit.

Burial 27

6A-B, E23-24

Depth: Capa II- IV

Burial 27 contained the remains of at least eleven individuals (based on MNI from

crania). One infant’s cranium was identified with the remainder of the interred being

adult. At least two have been identified as male. All of the remains were in secondary

context with their associated grave goods mixed to some degree, but the majority of the

burial goods were found in the bottom of the burial pit. Some of the grave goods suggest

evidence for a Michoacan connection within this burial.

Assemblage:

Whole artifacts in permanent collection:

2 Mate fino miniature vases

3 Mate Fino Miniature incurving bowls

1 Mate Fino Miniature Olla with punctates (10-600657)

1 Burnished compound silloutte bowl with incision and rough zones (al patron) (10-

600642)

2 Polished jars (10-600632 1/2, 2/2 and 10-600622)

1 Polished plate (10-600643)

9 Polished outcurved bowls (including 10-600645, 10-600627 1/2, 2/2, 10-600644)

1 Polished straight walled bowl (10-600654 2/2)

1 Polished outcurved bowl with incision (10-600638)

2 Polished Tapaderas (lids) (10-600654 1/2 ; 10-411402 2/2)

6 polished miniature vases (10-622197, 10-411402 1/2)

2 Painted outcurving bowls (10-600641 1/2 and 2/2 )

1 Painted outcurving bowl with excision (10-600655)

2 Polished Copa ware cups

1 Thin Orange outcurving bowl with incision (obj. 29)

1 Thin Orange Annular base bowl

1 Jar with probable Michoacan origins (10-411220)

2 Pachuca prismatic blades

263

1 shell bead

2 carved bone pieces

1 small disc (weight?)

1 metallic earspool

1 necklace

6 miniature groundstone basalt mutates

4 miniature manos

1 pestle

2 stone miniature bowls

5 pieces of slate

1 painted slate piece

1 piece of mica shaped and decorated to look like a bird’s wing

The mixed burial material not held in type/permanent collection

1 mate burdo incensario fragment

1 mate burdo candle holder

2 mate fino tapaplato pieces

19 burnished olla fragments

4 burnished crater sherds

3 burnished amphora sherds

1 acabado mate olla fragment

2 Polished vase sherds

1 painted basin fragment

1 painted crater fragment

19 San Martin Orange crater sherds

7 San Martin Orange amphora sherds

2 Thin Orange annular base bowl sherds

1 Pachuca knife (with cortex)

1 Pachuca knife

1 piece of gray obsidian

Burial 27 e specific assemblage

2 Burnished Olla fragments

1 burnished crater fragment

1 burnished comal sherd

1 Polished Incurving bowl with incision

1 Polished outcurving bowl with incision

1 Painted miniature vase (3 sherds refitted into one piece)

1 piece of slate

1 piece of basalt

264

Burial 28

Location: 6K-L E4-5

Depth: Capa IV/V

Cultural association: Oaxaca?

This burial contained the remains of an unsexed adult in secondary context. It

was found in close proximity to Burial 30 and Burial 5. The tomb contained a relatively

large assemblage compared to the other burials from the compound.

Assemblage:

4 mate burdo incensarios

1 mate burdo anafre

1 mate fino tapaplato

1 mate fino applique fragment

1 mate fino miniature vase

1 mate fino miniature outcurving bowl

3 mate fino miniature olla fragments

63 burnished olla fragments

3 burnished jar sherds

6 burnished cazuela fragments

5 burnished crater fragments

11 burnished comal sherds

1 burnished tapaplato sherd

1 acabado mate cazuela sherd

1 acabado mate olla sherd

1 polished bowl sherd

33 fragments from polished outcurving bowls

2 polished outcurving bowl fragments with incision

7 polished vase fragments

2 polished lids to a vase

1 Miccaolti phase black polished vase with incision

4 painted jar sherds

2 painted and incised bowl sherds

3 painted outcurving bowl sherds

1 Painted incurving bowl sherd

1 painted channeled bowl

15 fragments of painted miniature vases, one with incision, some refitted

1 painted miniature compound silhouette bowl

3 Compact Brown bowl sherds

1 anthropomorphic figurine

21 solid miniatures shaped like human flanges

3 San Martin Orange amphora sherds

1 San Martin Orange comal sherd

4 Thin orange bowl fragments

1 sherd from a Granular jar with paint

265

1 sherd from a Gulf Coast vase with incision

1 Mate Fino miniature vase

1 polished outcurving bowl (with associated soil sample)

Burial 29

Location: 6O Este 4

Depth: Capa III

Burial 29 contained the remains of an infant of undetermined sex in primary

context. The remains were found with a West to East orientation with the skull

potentially facing to the East. No grave goods were found with the remains.

Burial 30 and 30A

Location: 6H-I E4-5

Depth: IV

Burial 30 and 30A contained the remains of two individuals. Gomez (DATE)

identifies them as adults of unknown sex. The excavation reports one to be a young

adult/youth. Both are in secondary context.

Assemblage

2 mate burdo incensario fragments

1 mate burdo candle holder

1mate fino comal piece

89 fragments of burnished ollas

3 burnished jar sherds

2 burnished cazuela sherds

9 burnished crater sherds

3 burnished comal sherds

2 burnished vase sherds

7 polished jar sherds

1 polished bowl sherd

33 fragments of polished outcurving bowls

1 polished straight walled bowl

2 polished outcurving bowls with “al patron” decoration

1 sherd from an channeled outcurving bowl

1 polished outcurving bowl with incision

2 polished vase sherds

1 painted olla sherd

1 painted jar sherd

2 painted outcurving bowl sherds

2 sherds from painted palanganas

2 copa fragments

2 anthropomorphic figurines

266

1 San Martin Orange crater sherd

1 San Martin Orange amphora sherd

1 San Martin Orange comal fragment

3 simple curved Thin Orange bowl sherds

1 Thin orange bowl with annular base

2 bowls of potential Michoacan origin (10-600673 1/2 and 2/2) 7 unidentifiable sherds

Capa III assemblage

12 burnished olla sherds

2 burnished jar sherds

3 burnished cazuela fragments

3 burnished crater sherds

1 burnished comal fragment

1 polished jar fragment

2 polished outcurving bowl sherds

Capa IV assemblage

1 mate fino tapaplato piece

1 mate fino miniature olla fragment

1 burnished olla sherd

1 burnished crater fragment

1 polished jar (10-600672)

3 polished outcurving bowls

2 straight walled polished bowls, one with a lid

1 incurved bowl with sectional polishing and incision

3 polished vases (10-600668 2/2)

3 polished lids, 2 with handles (10-600668 ½)

1 polished florero vase (10-600674)

1 polished miniature vase

17 painted miniature vase fragments, 4 with incision, 1 with punctates

49 Miscellaneous ceramic pieces

3 San Martin Orange crater fragments

1 Thin Orange annular base bowl

2 Thin Orange miniature annular base bowls

2 bowls of Michoacan origins, one with pseudo-cloisonne (10-600673 1/2 and 2/2)

1 basalt laja/polisher

1 bone fragment

1 Pachuca blade

Capa VII

10 burnished olla fragments

1 burnished jar fragment

267

3 polished outcurving bowl sherds

3 polished vase pieces (2 from Miccaotli phase)

1 Thin orange bowl piece

Burial 31

Location: 6J O6

Depth: Capa VII

Phase: Tlami

While there are no burial goods associated with Burial 31, the remains have been

identified as those of a young adult male. He was found with a South to North

orientation in primary context.

Burial 32

Location: Pozo 6 E31-32

Depth: Capa III

Burial 32 contained the remains of at least four infants in primary context.

Assemblage:

6 polished jar fragments

14 polished bowl fragments

15 polished outcurving bowl fragments

21 polished florero fragments

2 Pachuca prismatic blades

Burial 33 and 33a

Location: 6K O4-5

Depth: Capa VI

Burial 33 and 33a contained the remains of two infants in secondary context. Sex

for both is undetermined and there are no orientation data for either.

Assemblage:

21 mate burdo incensario fragments

9 mate fino tapaplato fragments

4 mate fino comal pieces

1 mate fino mini vase fragment

1 mate fino mini outcurving bowl fragment

27 burnished olla fragments

3 burnished crater fragments

10 burnished comal fragments

1 polished jar sherd

68 polished outcurving bowl fragments

1 polished channeled outcurving bowl sherd

268

8 painted outcurving bowl fragments

1 piece to a painted basin (palangana)

1 anthropomorphic figurine of Teotihuacan style

1 San Martin Orange crater sherd

2 San Martin Orange comal pieces

1 Thin Orange bowl fragment

Burial 34

Location: 6H-I O5

Depth: Capa III (level 1 and 2)

Burial 34 was found in close association to an altar. The remains are in a

secondary context and have not been identified in terms of sex or age.

Level 1 Assemblage:

1 mate burdo incensario fragment

1 mate burdo anafre fragment

2 mate fino tapaplato pieces

5 mate fino appliqué

4 mate fino mini out curving bowl sherds

1 mate fino mini incurving bowl

2 mate fino mini olla pieces

51 burnished olla fragments

7 burnished crater sherds

9 burnished comal sherds

1 burnished incurving bowl fragments

2 polished bowl sherds

20 polished outcurving bowl sherds

1 polished vase sherd

2 fragments from painted olla

2 painted jar pieces

1 painted outcurving bowl sherd

2 painted incurving bowl sherds

2 painted vase sherds

2 painted palangana sherds

7 anthropomorphic figurines (3 pulled for type collection)

1 zoomorphic figurine

2 San Martin orange jar sherds

6 San martin orange crater sherds

8 San Martin Anafre sherds

3 San Martin comal fragments

1 Aztec Monochrome annular base bowl sherd *

1 Aztec Monochrome jar sherd *

1 Thin Orange Jar sherd

12 Thin Orange bowl fragment with incision

6 Thin Orange simple curved bowl sherds

269

1 Thin Orange compound silhouette bowl sherd

4 basalt objects

1 gray obsidian prismatic blade

1 piece of gray obsidian shatter

12 Pachuca prismatic blades

5 Pachuca flakes

3 pieces of stucco (wall or floor fragments), 1 with paint

8 small bones

8 rocks/pebbles

1 small bag of crumbling mica fragments

Associated with Object 1:

2 mate fino mini incurving bowl sherds

1 bone

1 piece of floor

1 piece of painted slate

1 human tooth (probably part of the remains)

1 shell

1 piece of mica

Level 2 Assemblage:

3 mate burdo anafre sherds

3 mate fino tapaplato sherds

1 mate fino appliqué

18 Burnished olla sherds

1 burnished cazuela fragment

2 burnished crater pieces

18 polished outcurving bowl sherds

1 painted incurving bowl sherd

1 painted vase sherd

4 San Martin Orange crater fragments

1 Thin Orange jar sherd

4 Thin Orange simple bowl sherds

1 Thin Orange annular base bowl sherd

1 gray obsidian flake (INAA sample)

3 Pachuca prismatic blades

2 bones

8 rocks

1 piece of Pachuca shatter

Burial 35

Location: 6A-B E15

270

Depth: Capa VIII/IX

Burial 35 contained the remains of an infant in primary context. The remains had

a South to north orientation with the skull facing to the west.

Assemblage:

5 mate fino tapaplato sherds

1 San Martin Orange comal sherd

Burial 36

Location: 6A-B E15

Depth: Capa VIII

Burial 36 was found associated with an altar in a plaza of the compound. The

skeleton was reported to be in poor condition (GOMEZ DATE:598). It is believed to

have been the remains of an infant of unknown sex in secondary context.

Assemblage:

3 mate burdo incensario fragments

12 burnished jar fragments

1 burnished cazuela fragment

1 burnished crater fragment

12 burnished comal fragments

1 acabado mate cazuela fragment

15 polished outcurving bowl sherds

4 polished vase fragments

1 polished miniature vase (object 3)

1 copa fragment

1 anthropomorphic figurine

1 San martin Comal sherd

3 Thin Orange bowl sherds

1 Michoacan bowl (object 4) 3 unidentified sherd

1 amethyst/rock crystal pendant

7 Pachuca obsidian beads

2 pieces of gray obsidian

1 pachuca obsidian piece

12 pieces of slate

1 piece of lime

Burial 37

Location: 6B E16

Depth: Capa VIII

271

The remains of an infant in primary context were found in burial 37, which was

found near the southeast corner of the Plaza altar. No sex is recorded for the infant, nor is

there a record of the orientation of the remains. Gomez reports (DATE:598-600) that

there was a seated figure with incurving, lidded bowls in each hand in the pit where the

remains were found.

Assemblage:

4 polished outcurving channeled bowl sherds (likely from the same vessel)

26 pieces of lime/stucco

Burial 38

Location 6B E 15-16

Depth: Capa VI

As with the other burials associated with the plaza altar, burial 38 contained the

remains of an infant of undetermined sex. This one appeared in primary context with and

East/West orientation.

Assemblage:

6 mate burdo incensario fragments

37 burnished olla fragments (18 refitted into one piece)

2 burnished comal sherds

30 burnished incurving bowl sherds (24 probably from the same vessel)

2 polished jar sherds

1 polished bowl sherd

30 polished outcurving bowl pieces

1 polished channeled outcurving bowl sherd

1 painted incurving bowl sherd

2 painted basin sherds

2 painted tapaplato sherds

1 San Martin Orange crater sherd

6 Thin Orange bowl sherds

1 Thin Orange outcurving bowl with incision

1 Granular bowl sherd

1 Gulf Coast bowl sherd

15 unidentified sherds

6 pieces of lime/plaster

2 rocks

1 basalt core

12 pachuca prismatic blades

30 bone fragments

1 slate piece that may have been a bead

Burial 39

Location 6B E 15-16

Depth: Capa VI

272

Burial 39 contained the remains of an unsexed infant in primary context with and

East to West orientation of the remains. No burial goods were found associated with the

burial.

Burial 40

Location 6B E 15-16

Depth: Capa VI

Burial 40 contained the remains of an unsexed infant in primary context with and

Southeast to Northewest orientation of the remains. No burial goods were found

associated with the burial.

Burial 41

Location 6A-B E16

Depth: Capa VI

Burial 41 contained the remains of an unsexed infant in primary context with and

South to North orientation. No burial goods were found associated with the burial.

Burial 42

Location: 6F E8

Depth: Capa V

Burial 42 was found in a ceramic vessel (which was unavailable for analysis) with

a southeast to northwest orientation. No sex information was determined for the infant.

Burial 43

Location 7F-G E4-5

Depth: Capa III

Burial 43 contained the remains of two adults. A preliminary sex determination

suggested that one of the individuals may have been a male. The remains were in

secondary context with no recorded orientation.

Assemblage:

4 mate burdo incesario fragments

6 mate burdo anafre sherds

2 mate fino tapaplato sherds

6 mate fino min outcurving bowls

62 burnished olla fragments

11 burnished crater fragments

3 burnished comal sherds

9 polished jars (including 10-600616 and 10-600622)

21 small polished bowls (10-600618)

273

33 polished outcurving bowls (includes a number of whole pots)

1 polished straight walled bowl with lid (10-600632 1/3 and 3/3)

1 polished compound silhouette bowl with incision (10-600621)

2 polished channeled outcurving bowls (10-600631)

1 incurving sectional polishing bowl with punctates (10-600620)

2 miniature polished vases

1 polished miniature straight walled bowl (10-600632 2/3)

1 polished florero

6 mini polished outcurving bowls

2 polished mini plates

3 polished miniature amphorae

4 polished miniature incurving bowls

1 painted jar

2 painted incurving bowls

1 painted miniature vase

9 ceramic pieces (9 with paint)

1 San Martin orange jar sherd

6 San martin orange crater sherds

1 San martin orange incurving bowl sherds

1 san martin comal piece

3 thin orange bowl sherds

1 Thin Orange annular base sherd

1 Thin Orange incised outcurving bowl sherd

3 unidentified pieces of potential Oaxacan origins

16 unidentified sherds (4 pulled for type collection)

Burial 48

Location 6N E1

Depth Capa IV/V

Burial 48 is believed to have had Oaxcan affiliation based on the information

present in the excavation feature forms.

Assemblage:

1 Mate Burdo Candelero

6 Burnished Olla sherds

3 Burnished Cazuela fragments

1 Burnished vase sherd

1 Polished outcurving bowl

2 Inscribed and painted San Martin Orange Palangana fragment

3 Pachuca obsidian shatter pieces

Burial 49

Location No Data

Depth No Data

274

No burial form recorded

11 Burnished Olla fragments

1 Burnished cazuela fragment

2 Burnished crater fragment

1 Burnished comal fragment

5 Polished outcurving bowl fragments

Burial 50

Location Tramo 5 E1

Depth Capa V

No burial form recorded

1 Mate Fino Tapaplato

2 Burnished Olla fragments

2 Polished outcurving bowl fragments

1 San Martin Orange fragment

Burial 51

Location Tramo 5 E3

Depth

No burial form recorded

1 Mate Fino mini outcurving bowl

24 Burnished Olla fragments

1 Burnished Jar fragment

2 Burnsied crater fragments

1 Burnished Comal fragment

1 Polished outcurving bowl fragment

1 Unknown sherd

1 Gray obsidian shatter piece

1 Pachuca obsidian shatter piece

1 piece of slate

275

G.2: Total Burial Assemblage Counts and Percentages Based on Material and Form

Material Form

% of

Total

Sum Sum

No Data/Unknown Cazuela .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Ceramic Unknown/No Data 4.1% 119.00

Incensario 2.1% 61.00

Mini Olla .5% 16.00

Jarra 4.0% 117.00

Palangana .4% 13.00

Palangana esgrafiada y

pintada .1% 2.00

palangana pintada .0% 1.00

Cazuela 1.8% 51.00

Crater 4.9% 144.00

Vaso 2.0% 59.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .7% 21.00

Mini Vaso 1.6% 48.00

Cajete 5.3% 155.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .9% 26.00

Cajete base anular 1.0% 29.00

Cajete inciso .3% 10.00

Cajete RD .2% 5.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .1% 4.00

Cajete CD 16.2% 471.00

Candelero .1% 3.00

Cajete CD esgrafiada .1% 3.00

Cajete CD Al patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .3% 10.00

Cajete CD inciso .4% 12.00

Mini Cajete CD 1.9% 55.00

Cajete CC 2.3% 66.00

Cajete CC Patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CC anacalado .0% 1.00

Mini Cajete CC .5% 15.00

Tapaplato 1.4% 41.00

Anfora .8% 24.00

Cuenco .0% 1.00

Plato .0% 1.00

Tapadera .3% 8.00

Florero .8% 24.00

Copa .2% 7.00

276

Antropomorfa .6% 18.00

Comal 5.0% 145.00

Zoomorfa .1% 2.00

Tejo .1% 3.00

Molde .0% 1.00

Tubo .0% 1.00

Suporte .0% 1.00

Aplicacion .3% 8.00

Mini Florero .0% 1.00

Mini Plato .2% 6.00

Mini Cajete .1% 2.00

Other .1% 3.00

Asa .1% 2.00

Olla 24.9% 724.00

Cazuela/Crater .0% 1.00

Miniatura solida .7% 21.00

Mini Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Mini Anfora .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CC .1% 4.00

Olla Incisa y zonificada .0% 1.00

Total 88.4% 2575.00

Bone - Non-human Not Applicable .0% 1.00

Unmodified .1% 2.00

Total .1% 3.00

Bone - Unknown

Source

Carved .1% 2.00

Unmodified 1.3% 38.00

Total 1.4% 40.00

Metal Earspool .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Floor Building Material/Stucco .0% 1.00

Unmodified .0% 1.00

Total .1% 2.00

Stucco/Plaster Building Material/Stucco .1% 3.00

Total .1% 3.00

Basalt Not Applicable .2% 5.00

Metate .3% 8.00

Core .0% 1.00

Mortar/Pestel .0% 1.00

Bowl .1% 2.00

Carved .1% 4.00

Flake .1% 2.00

Laja .2% 5.00

Mano .1% 4.00

Total 1.1% 32.00

Rock Unmodified 1.1% 31.00

Total 1.1% 31.00

277

Obsidian-Unknown Groundstone .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Limestone (Cal) Building Material/Stucco 1.1% 32.00

Unmodified .0% 1.00

Total 1.1% 33.00

Obsidian - Gray Unknown/No Data .0% 1.00

Not Applicable .1% 2.00

Prismatic Blade .2% 7.00

Blade .1% 2.00

Shatter .1% 4.00

Flake .2% 6.00

Total .8% 22.00

Obsidian - Green Unknown/No Data .2% 5.00

Not Applicable .0% 1.00

Prismatic Blade 3.1% 91.00

Core .0% 1.00

Blade .1% 2.00

Knife .1% 2.00

Shatter .3% 8.00

Bead .2% 7.00

Flake .2% 5.00

Total 4.2% 122.00

Mica Carved .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Semi-Precious Stone Pendant .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Shell Bead .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Slate Not Applicable .2% 6.00

Carved .6% 18.00

Flake .4% 12.00

Total 1.2% 36.00

Carbon Unmodified .0% 1.00

Total .0% 1.00

Bone - Human Unmodified .1% 3.00

Cranium .0% 1.00

Rib .1% 2.00

Total .2% 6.00

Total Unknown/No Data 4.3% 125.00

Not Applicable .5% 15.00

Incensario 2.1% 61.00

Mini Olla .5% 16.00

Jarra 4.0% 117.00

Palangana .4% 13.00

278

Palangana esgrafiada y

pintada .1% 2.00

palangana pintada .0% 1.00

Cazuela 1.8% 52.00

Crater 4.9% 144.00

Vaso 2.0% 59.00

Anafre de tres

protuberncias .7% 21.00

Mini Vaso 1.6% 48.00

Cajete 5.3% 155.00

Cajete Sencillo CC .9% 26.00

Cajete base anular 1.0% 29.00

Cajete inciso .3% 10.00

Cajete RD .2% 5.00

Cajete Silueta compuesta .1% 4.00

Cajete CD 16.2% 471.00

Candelero .1% 3.00

Cajete CD esgrafiada .1% 3.00

Cajete CD Al patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CD Acanalado .3% 10.00

Cajete CD inciso .4% 12.00

Mini Cajete CD 1.9% 55.00

Cajete CC 2.3% 66.00

Cajete CC Patron .1% 2.00

Cajete CC anacalado .0% 1.00

Mini Cajete CC .5% 15.00

Tapaplato 1.4% 41.00

Anfora .8% 24.00

Cuenco .0% 1.00

Plato .0% 1.00

Tapadera .3% 8.00

Florero .8% 24.00

Copa .2% 7.00

Antropomorfa .6% 18.00

Comal 5.0% 145.00

Zoomorfa .1% 2.00

Tejo .1% 3.00

Molde .0% 1.00

Tubo .0% 1.00

Suporte .0% 1.00

Aplicacion .3% 8.00

Mini Florero .0% 1.00

Mini Plato .2% 6.00

Mini Cajete .1% 2.00

Other .1% 3.00

Asa .1% 2.00

279

Olla 24.9% 724.00

Cazuela/Crater .0% 1.00

Miniatura solida .7% 21.00

Mini Cajete RD .0% 1.00

Mini Anfora .1% 3.00

Mini Cajete CC .1% 4.00

Prismatic Blade 3.4% 98.00

Metate .3% 8.00

Core .1% 2.00

Groundstone .0% 1.00

Olla Incisa y zonificada .0% 1.00

Blade .1% 4.00

Knife .1% 2.00

Earspool .0% 1.00

Mortar/Pestel .0% 1.00

Bowl .1% 2.00

Pendant .0% 1.00

Shatter .4% 12.00

Building Material/Stucco 1.2% 36.00

Bead .3% 8.00

Carved .9% 25.00

Unmodified 2.6% 77.00

Flake .9% 25.00

Laja .2% 5.00

Mano .1% 4.00

Cranium .0% 1.00

Rib .1% 2.00

Total 100.0% 2912.00

280

G.3 Total Burial Assemblage of N1W5:19 Summary Counts and Percentages Based on

Material Only

Material

% of Total

Sum Sum

No Data/Unknown .0% 1.00

Ceramic 88.4% 2575.00

Bone - Non-human .1% 3.00

Bone - Unknown Source 1.4% 40.00

Metal .0% 1.00

Floor .1% 2.00

Stucco/Plaster .1% 3.00

Basalt 1.1% 32.00

Rock 1.1% 31.00

Obsidian-Unknown .0% 1.00

Limestone (Cal) 1.1% 33.00

Obsidian - Gray .8% 22.00

Obsidian - Green 4.2% 122.00

Mica .0% 1.00

Semi-Precious Stone .0% 1.00

Shell .0% 1.00

Slate 1.2% 36.00

Carbon .0% 1.00

Bone - Human .2% 6.00

Total 100.0% 2912.00

281

REFERENCES

Ackerman, James

1963 Western Art History. In Art and Archaeology, edited by James Ackerman

and Rhys Carpenter, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

Anderson, Arthur and Dibble, Charles

1982 Introductory Volume: Introductions, Sahagún’s Prologues and

Interpolations, General Bibliography, General Indices. In Florentine

Codex, General History of the Things of New Spain. Translated and

Edited by Arthur J. O. Anderson and Charles Dibble. School of American

Research and University of Utah Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Anthony, David

1990 Migration in Archaeology: The Baby and the Bathwater. American

Anthropologist 92(4):895-914.

Arnold, Philip J. III

1995 Ethnicity, Pottery, and the Gulf Olmec of Ancient Veracruz, Mexico

The Biblical Archaeologist, 58(4):191-199.

Ascher, Robert

1961 Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation. Southwestern Journal of

Anthropology 17(4):317-325.

Barth, Fredrik

1969 Ethnic groups and boundaries: the social organization of culture

difference. (Results of a symposium held at the University of Bergen, 23rd

to 26th February 1967.) Allen & Unwin, London.

Begun, Erica

2008 The Many Faces of Figurines. Ancient Mesoamerica, 19:311-318.

Berrin, Kathleen

1993 Unknown Treasures: The Unexpected in Teotihuacan Art. In

Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods, edited by Kathleen Berrin and

Esther Pasztory, pp. 74-89. Thames and Hudson, New York.

Binford, Lewis

1972 An Archaeological Perspective. Seminar Press, New York.

1983 In Pursuit of the Past. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Blanton, Richard

282

1978 Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capital.

Academic Press, New York.

Bork, Robert

2001 Pros and Cons of Stratigraphic Models in Art History. RES 40:178-186.

Braswell, Geoffrey E.

2003 Introduction: Reinterpreting Early Classic Interaction. In The Maya and

Teotihuacan, edited by Geoffrey Braswell. Pp. 1-44. University of Texas

Press: Austin.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth

1996 Figurines and the Aztec State: Testing the Effectiveness of Ideological

Domination. In Gender and Archaeology. Edited by Rita P. Wright.

University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennsylvania.

Bucio, Lauro; Filini, Agapi; and Ruvalcaba, José Luis

2005 “Estudios de PIXE y difracción de rayos X en cerámicas de la Cuenca de

Cuitzeo” In Arqueometría, edited by Rodrigo Esparza López and Efraín

Cárdenas García. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacán.

Burmeister, Stefan

2000 Archaeology and Migration: Approaches to an Archaeological Proof of

Migration. Current Anthropology 41(4).

Carot, Patricia.

2001 Le site de Loma Alta, Lac de Zacapu, Michoacán. Mexique. Paris

Monographs in American Archaeology. BAR International Series. Archaeopress,

Oxford.

Caso, Alfonso; Bernal, Ignacio; and Acosta, Jorge

1967 La Cerámica de Monte Albán. INAH, Mexico.

Chase Coggins, Clemency

1993 The Age of Teotihuacan and Its Mission Abroad. In Teotihuacan: City of

the Gods. Pp. 140-155. Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Ester Pasztory. San

Francisco, CA.

Cheek, Charles

1977 Teotihuacan influence at Kaminaljuyu. In Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu,

edited by William Sanders and Joseph Michels, Pennsylvania State

University, University Park, PA.

Chilton, Elizabeth

283

1999a Material Meanings, edited by Elizabeth Chilton, University of Utah Press,

Salt Lake City.

1999b Material Meanings and Meaningful Materials: An Introduction. In

Material Meanings. Edited by Elizabeth Chilton, pp. 1-6, University of

Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Clayton, Sarah

2005 Interregional Relationships in Mesoamerica: Interpreting Maya Ceramics

at Teotihuacan. Latin American Antiquity 16(4):427-448.

Cobean, Robert H.; Vogt, James R.; Glascock, Michael D.; Stocker, Terrance L.

1991 High-Precision Trace-Element Characterization of Major Mesoamerican

Obsidian Sources and Further Analyses of Artifacts from San Lorenzo

Tenochtitlan, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity, 2(1): pp. 69-91.

Coe, Michael D.

2005 The Maya (seventh edition). Thames and Hudson, New York.

Conkey, Margaret

1990 Experimenting with style in archaeology: some historical and theoretical

issues. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey

and Christine Hastorf, pp. 5-17. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Conkey, Margaret and Hastorf, Christine

1990 Introduction. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret

Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 1-4. Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge.

Cortes, Hernán [1519-1525]

2001 Hernán Cortes: Letters from Mexico. Trans. Anthony Pagden in 2001 .

Yale University Press, New Haven

Cowgill, George

1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of

Anthropology 26:129-161.

2011 A Speculative History of Teotihuacan. Paper presented at The Fifth

Round Table on Teotihuacan. Used with author’s permission.

Culbert, T. Patrick

2003 The Ceramics of Tikal. In Tikal: Dynasties, Foreigners, and Affairs of

State, edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff. School of American Research Press,

Santa Fe.

Darras, Veronique and Faugère, Brigitte

284

2010 Chupicuaro and the Preclassic Shaft Tomb Tradition. Mexicon Vol.

XXXII:22-30

Davis, Whitney

1990 Style and History in Art History. In The Uses of Style in Archaeology,

edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf, pp. 18-31. Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Demarest, Arthur

2004 Ancient Maya: The Rise and Fall of a Rainforest Civilization. Cambridge

University Press: New York.

Diaz, Bernal [1568]

1963 The Conquest of New Spain. Trans. J.M. Cohen in 1963. Penguin Books,

NY.

Disselhoff. H.D.

1932 Note Due le Resultat de Quelques Fouilles Archéologiques faites à

Colima. Revista del Instituto de Etnología de La Universidad Nacional de

Tucuman. 2:526-537.

Dunnell, Robert

1978 Style and Function: A Fundamental Dichotomy. American Antiquity

43(2):192-202.

2001 Foreward. In Style and Function: Conceptual Issues in Evolutionary

Archaeology, edited by Teresa Hurt and Gordon Rakita, pp. xiii-xxiv.

Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.

Drooker, Penelope (editor)

2001 Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological

Research. Center for Archaeological Investigation, Southern Illinois

University Carbondale.

Emberling, Geoff

1997 Ethnicity in Complex Societies: Archaeological Perspectives. Journal of

Archaeological Research, 5(4): 295-344.

Fargher, Lane

2007 A Microscopic View of Ceramics Production: An Analysis of Thin-

Sections from Monte Alban. Latin American Antiquity. 18(3):313-332.

285

Fash, William; and Fash, Barbara

2000 Teotihuacan and The Maya: A Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica’s Classic

Heritages: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs. Eds. David Carrasco,

Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions. Pp. 433-464. University press of

Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Feinman, Gary; Banker, Sherman; Cooper, Reid; Cook, Glen; and Nicholas, Linda

1989 A Technological Perspective on Changes in the Ancient Oaxacan

Grayware Ceramic Tradition: Preliminary Results. Journal of Field

Archaeology 16:331-344.

Filini, Agapi

2004 The Presence of Teotihuacan in the Cuitzeo Basin, Michoacán, Mexico.

BAR International Series 1279. Archaeopress, Oxford.

Fox, John W; Cook, Garrett; and Demarest, Arthur

1996 Constructing Maya Communities: Ethnography for Archaeology.

Current Anthropology 37(5):811-830.

García, Efraín Cárdenas

1997 La Arquitectura de Patio Hundido y las Estructuras Circulares en el Bajío:

Desarrollo Regional e Intercambio Cultural. In Arqueología y

Ethnohistoria: La Region del Lerma, edited by Eduardo Williams and Phil

C. Weigand. El Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Mexico.

Gazin-Schwartz, Amy

2001 Archaeology and Folklore of Material Culture, Ritual, and Everyday Life.

International Journal of Historical Archaeology 5(4):263-280

Gillespie, Susan

2000 Rethinking Ancient Maya Social Organization: Replacing “Lineage” with

2001 Personhood, Agency, and Mortuary Ritual: A Case Study from the

Ancient Maya. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology, 20:73-112.

Gmelch, George

1980 Return Migration. Annual Review of Anthropology 9:135-159.

Gómez Chavez, Sergio

1998 Nuevos datos sobre la relación de Teotihuacan y el Occidente de México.

Antropología e Historia del Occidente de México. XXIV Mesa Redonda

de la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropología. pp. 1461-1493. Sociedada

Mexicana de Antropología, Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico,

Mexico.

286

Gomez Chavez, Sergio (cont.)

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, edited by Maria Elena Ruiz Gallut,

pp563-625, Memoria de la primera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacán.

Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional

Autónoma de México, Mexico City

Gómez, Sergio and Gazzola, Julie

2007 Análisis de las Relaciones Entre Teotihuacan y el Occidente de Mexico.

In Dinámicas Culturales entre el Occidente, el Centro-Norte y la Cuenca

de México, del Preclásico al Epiclasico, edited by Brigitte Faugère.

Pp.113-135. Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, El

Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora.

Gordus, Adon; Wright, Gary; Griffin, James

1968 Obsidian Sources Characterized by Neutron-Activation Analysis. Science,

New Series, 161(3839):382-384.

Gorenstein, Shirley

1985 Acambaro: Frontier Settlement on the Tarascan-Aztec Border.

Publications in Anthropology, No. 32, Vanderbilt University, Nashville.

Gorenstein, Shirely and Pollard, Helen

1983 The Tarascan Civilization: A late Prehispanic cultural system. Vanderbilt

University, Nashville.

Gutiérrez, Nidia Ortiz

2011 Estudio de la function del candelero en Teopancazco. Presented at El

Primer Coloquio de Tecnología Cerámica at UNAM, Mexico.

Espejel, Claudia

2007 Etnohistoria y Arqueología Tarasca. FAMSI report. Accessed online.

Evans, Susan Toby

2004 Ancient Mexico and Central America. Thames and Hudson, London.

Harbottle, Garman

1976 Activation Analysis in Archaeology. Radiochemistry. 3:33-72

1982 Comparison of Data Obtained by Neutron Activation Analysis: The Role

of Standardization. In Archaeological Ceramics. Eds. Jacqueline S. Olin

and Alan D. Franklin. Pp. 67-78. Smithsonian Institution Press:

Washington, D.C.

287

Hegmon, Michelle

1992 Archaeological Research on Style. Annual Review of Anthropology

21:517-536.

Hirshman, Amy and Ferguson, Jeffery

2012 Temper Mixture Models and Assessing Ceramic Complexity in the

Emerging Tarascan State. Journal of Archaeological Science 39:3195-

3207)

Hitchcock, Robert K., and Laurence E. Bartram.

1998 Social boundaries, technical systems, and the use of space and technology

in the Kalahari. The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Pp. 12-49.

Miriam Stark (editor). Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Holien, Thomas

1977 Mesoamerican Pseudo-Cloisonné and Other Decorative Investments.

Doctoral thesis. University of Southern Illinois, Carbondale, Department

of Anthropology.

Isajiw, Wsevolod W.

1974 Definitions of Ethnicity. Ethnicity 1(2):111-124.

Janusek, John Wayne

2005 Of Pots and People: Ceramic Style and Social Identity in the Tiwanaku

State. In Us and Them: Archaeology and Ethnicity in the Andes, edited by

Richard Martin Reycraft, pp. 34-53. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,

University of California: Los Angeles, CA.

Jones, Sian

1997 The Archaeology of Ethnicity: constructing identities in the past and

present. Routledge, NY.

Joyce, Arthur; Elam, Michael; Glascock, Michael; Neff, Hector; and Winter, Marcus

1995 Exchange Implications of Obsidian Source Analysis from the Lower Rio

Verde Valley, Oaxaca, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 6(1):3-15.

Joyce , Rosemary

2000 Girling the Girl and Boying the Boy: The Production of Adulthood in

Ancient Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 31(3):473-483.

Kidder, Alfred; Jennings, Jesse; Shook, Edwin

1946 Excavations at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Carnegie Institute of

Washington. Pub 561.

288

Kolb, Charles C.

1977 Technological Investigation of Mesoamerican “Thin Orange” Ceramics.

Current Anthropology 18(3):534-536.

Kottak, Conrad

2000 Anthropology: The Exploration of Human Diversity. McGraw Hill, New

York.

Krippner-Martínez, James

2001 Rereading the Conquest: Power, Politics, and the History of Early

Colonial Michoacán, Mexico,1521-1565. The Pennsylvania State

University Press, University Park, Pennsylvania.

Kubler, George

1970 Period, Style and Meaning in Ancient America Art. New Literary History

1(2):127-144.

Langley, J.C.

1993 Symbols, Signs, and Writing Systems. In Teotihuacan: City of the Gods.

Pp. 128-139. Edited by Kathleen Berrin and Ester Pasztory. San

Francisco, CA.

Laveda, Robert and Schultz, Emily

2007 Core Concepts in Cultural Anthropology. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Lehmann, Walter

1922 The History of Ancient Mexican Art. Brentano’s Publishers, New York.

Lemonnier, Pierre

1992 Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Ann Arbor, MI.

1993 Technological Choices: Transformation in material cultures since the

Neolithic. Edited by Pierre Lemonnier. Rutledge, New York

Lesure, Richard

2005 Linking Theory and Evidence in an Archaeology of Human Agency:

Iconography, Style and Theories of Embodiment. Journal of

Archaeological Method and Theory 12(3):237-255.

Lieber, Werner and Frenzel, Gerhard

2003 Las Vigas: Veracruz, Mexico. Mineralogical Record 34(6): 55-91

Lillios, Katina

1999 Objects of Memory: The Ethnography and Archaeology of Heirlooms.

Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 6(3): 235-262.

289

Lucy, Sam

2005 Ethnic and Cultural Identities. In Archaeology of Identity, edited by

Margarita Díaz-Andreu, Sam Lucy, Staša Babić, and David N. Edwards.

Rutledge, New York.

MacDonald, John and MacDonald, Leatrice

1964 Chain Migration Ethnic Neighborhood Formation and Social Networks.

The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 42(1):82-97.

Manzanilla Lopez, Ruben

1984 Loma de Santa Maria I, Morelia, Michoacán: Un sitio del period clasico

mesoamericano. Tesis de licenciado en arqueologia. INAH, Mexico.

Marcus, Joyce

1998 Women’s Ritual in Formative Oaxaca: Figurine-making, Divination,

Death and the Ancestors. Prehistory and Human Ecology of the Valley of

Oaxaca, vol 4. No. 11. Edited by Kent Flannery and Joyce Marcus.

Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann

Arbor, Michigan.

Mendoza, Moisés Franco

2000 Ediciones de la Relación de Michoacán. In Relación de Michoacán. El

Colegio de Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacán.

Millon, René

1973 Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, vol. 1: The Teotihuacan Map, part

1: Text. University of Texas Press: Austin, Texas.

1992 Teotihuacan Studies: From 1950 to 1990 and Beyond. In Art, Ideology,

and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet C. Berlo. Pp. 339-419.

Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula

1999 Mexican Obsidian at Tikal, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity, 10

(3):300-313.

2003 Source Attribution and the Utilization of Obsidian in the Maya Area.

Latin American Antiquity 14(3): 301-310.

Moholy-Nagy, Hattula; Asara, Frank; Stross, Fred

1984 Tikal Obsidian: Sources and Typology American Antiquity, 49(1): 104-

117.

Molina Montes, Augusto and Torres Montes, Luis

1975 “La Ceramica Polícroma de Queréndaro. Estudio preliminary.” Anales

del INAH. pp. 31-36. INAH, Mexico.

290

Natural History Museum Rotterdam website

n.d. http://www.nmr-pics.nl/ accessed online 3/9/13

Nicholson, H.B.

2000 The Iconography of the Feathered Serpent in Late Postclassic Central

Mexico. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritages: From Teotihuacan to the

Aztecs, edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp.

145-164. University press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Noguera, Eduardo

1944 Exploraciones en Jiquilpan. Anales del Museo Michoacano 3:37-52.

O’Brien, Michael and Leonard, Robert

2001 Style and Function: An Introduction. In Style and Function: Conceptual

Issues in Evolutionary Archaeology, edited by Teresa Hurt and Gordon

Rakita, pp. 1-24. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, CT.

Odell, George

2004 Lithic Analysis. Springer Science and Business Media, New York.

Oliveros, José Arturo

1975 Arqueología del Estado de Michoacán. In Los Pueblos y Señoríos

Teocrático. Vol 7. pp. 207-214. INAH, Mexico.

Ontiveros, Manuel; Wilson, Wendell; and Megaw, Peter

2004 The Guerrero Amethyst Deposits. Mineralogical Record 35(6):29-37.

Pastrana, Alejandro

2002 Variation at the Source: Obsidian Exploitation at Sierra de las Navajas,

Mexico. In Pathways to Prismatic Blades, Edited by Kenneth Hirth and

Bradford Andrew, pp. 15-26. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology,

University of California, Los Angeles.

Pasztory, Ester

1993 An Image is Worth a Thousand Words: Teotihuacan and the Meanings of

Style in Classic Mesoamerica. In Latin American Horizons, edited by

Don Rice, pp. 113-146. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and

Collection, Washington, D.C.

1996 Aesthetics and Pre-Columbian Art. RES 29/30: 319-325.

1997 Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. University of Oklahoma Press,

Norman, OK.

Pendergast, David M.

1971 Evidence of Early Teotihuacan-Lowland Maya Contact at Altun Ha.

American Antiquity 36 (4): 455-460.

291

Pereira, Grégory

1999 Potrero de Guadalupe: Anthropologie funéraire d’une communauté pré-

tarasque du nord du Michoacán, Mexique. Paris Monographs in

American Archaeology 5. BAR International Series 816. Archaeopress,

Oxford.

Pollard, Helen

1993 Tariacuari’s Legacy. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, Oklahoma.

2000 Tarascans and Their Ancestors: Prehistory of Michoacán. In Greater

Mesoamerica: The Archaeology of West and North Mesoamerica. Eds.

M. Foster and S. Gorenstein. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,

Utah.

2007 Manual Visual de la Cerámica Prehispánica. Cuenca de Patzcuaro,

Michoacán. Unpublished.

2008 A Model of The Emergence of The Tarascan State. Ancient Mesoamerica,

19:217-230

.

Ponomarenko, Alyson

2004 The Pachuca Obsidian Source, Hidalgo, Mexico: A Geoarcheaological

Perspective. Geoarchaeology. 19(1):71-91.

Price, T. Douglas; Burton, James; Fullager, Paul; Wright, Lori; Buikstra, Jane; and

Teisler, Vera

2008 Strontium Isotopes and the Study of Human Mobility in Ancient

Mesoamerica. Latin American Antiquity 19(2):167-180.

Proskouriakiff, Tatiana

1971 Studies on Middle American Art. In Anthropology and Art, edited by

Charlotee Otten, pp. 129-136. The Natural History Press, Garden City,

New York.

1993 Maya History. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Rattray, Evelyn

1987 “Los barrios foráneos de Teotihuacan.” In Teotihuacan: Nuevos datos,

nuevos síntesis, nuevos problemas. pp. 243-274, edited by Emily

McClung de Tapia and Evelyn Rattray. UNAM, Mexico.

1989 El barrio de los comerciantes y el conjunto Tlamimilolpa. Arqueología

5:105-129.

1990 New Findings in the Origins of Thin Orange Ceramics. Ancient

Mesoamerica 1(2):181-195

1992 The Teotihuacán Burials and Offerings. Vanderbilt University

Publications, Nashville, TN

1993 The Oaxaca Barrio at Teotihuacan. Monographs in Mesoamerica 1.

University of the Americas, Puebla, Mexico

1997 Entierros y ofrendas en Teotihuacan: excavaciones, inventario, patrones

mortuorios. Instituto de Invesitgaciones Antropológicas, UNAM, Mexico.

292

Rattray, Evelyn (cont.)

2001 Teotihuacan: Ceramics, Chronology, and Cultural Trends. Series

Arqueológica de Mexico, INAH, Mexico/University of Pittsburgh,

Pittsburgh, USA.

Redfield, Margaret

1929 “Notes on the Cookery of Tepotzlan, Morelos” Journal of American

Folklore 42.

Relación de Michoacán [1541]

2000 Relación de Michoacán, edited by Moises Franco Mendoza. El Colegio

de Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacán, Mexico.

Reynolds, Richard

1993 The Ancient Art of Colima, Mexico. Squibob Press Inc., Walnut Creek,

California.

Reycraft, Richard Martin (editor)

2005 Us and Them: Archaeology and Ethnicity in the Andes, edited by Richard

Martin Reycraft. The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of

California, Los Angeles, CA.

Rice, Prudence

1984 Part III Introduction. In Pots and Potters, edited by Prudence M. Rice.

Pp. 165-170. Institute of Archaeology, University of California: Los

Angeles, CA.

Rogers, Daniel and Wilson, Samual (editors)

1993 Ethnohistory and Archaeology: Approaches to Postcontact Change in the

Americas. Springer Publishing.

Ryan, Stephan

1990 Ethnic Conflict and International Relations. Dartmouth: Brookfield, MA.

Sahagún, Bernardino de [1577]

1982 General History of the things of New Spain: Florentine Codex (1577).

Translated by Arthur Anderson and Charles Dibble. Monographs of the

School of American Research, Santa Fe, NM.

Sackett, James

1973 “Style, function, and artifact variability in paleolithic assemblages” In The

Explanation of Culture Change. Pp. 317-325.

1977 The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American

Antiquity 42(3):369-380.

293

Sackett, James (cont.)

1982 Approaches to Style in Lithic Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological

Archaeology 1:59-112

1990 Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isocrestism. In The Use

of Style in Archaeology, edited by Margaret Conkey and Christine Hastorf,

pp. 32-43. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Sanders, William and Michels, Joseph

1969 The Pennsylvania State University Kaminaljuyu Project-1968 Season.

Dept. of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University: University Park,

PA.

1977 Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu, edited by William Sanders and Joseph

Michels. Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.

Sauerländer, W.

1983 From stylus to style: reflections on the fate of a notion. Art History 6:253-

270.

Schapiro, Meyer

1953 Style. In Anthropology Today, edited by Alfred Kroeber, pp. 287-312.

The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Schortman, Edward, Urban, Patricia, and Ausec, Marne

2001 Politics with Style: Identity Formation in Prehispanic Southeastern

Mesoamerica. American Anthropologist 103(2):312-330.

Schuyler, Robert L.

1968 The Use of Historic Analogs in Archaeology. American Antiquity

33(3):390-392

Schiffer, Michael

1976 Behavioral Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Sharer, Robert J. and Traxler, Loa P.

2006 The Ancient Maya. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Shuman, Malcolm K.

1977 Archaeology and Ethnohistory: The Case of the Lowland Maya.

Ethnohistory 24(1):1-18.

Smith, Michael

1984 The Aztlan Migrations of the Nahuatl Chronicles: Myth or History?

Ethnohistory 31:153-186

1998 The Aztecs. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford.

294

Smith, Michael and Berdan, Douglas

1992 Archaeology and the Aztec Empire. World Archaeology 23(3):353-367.

Smith, Robert E.

1958 The Place of Fine Orange Pottery in Mesoamerican Archaeology.

American Antiquity 24(2):151-160.

Smyth, Michael and Rogart, Daniel

2004 A Teotihuacan Presence at Chat II, Yucatan, Mexico: Implications for

early political economy of the Puuc region. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:17-

24.

Spence, Michael

1967 The Obsidian Industry of Teotihuacan. American Antiquity 32(4):507-

514.

1981 Obsidian Production and the State in Teotihuacan. American Antiquity

46:769-788.

1989 Excavaciones recientes en Tlailotlacan, el barrio oaxaqueño de

Teotihuacan. Arqueología. 5:82-104.1992 Tlailotlacan, a Zapotec

enclave in Teotihuacan. Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan. pp.

59-88. Dumbarton Oaks: Washington D.C.

1992 “Tlailotlacan, a Zapotec Enclave in Teotihuacan.” In Art Ideology and the

City of Teotihuacan. Pp. 59-88. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington D.C.

1996 Commodity or Gift: Teotihuacan Obsidian in the Maya Region. Latin

American Antiquity, 7(1): 21-39.

2005 A Zapotec Diaspora Network in Classic-Period Central Mexico. In The

Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. Pp. 173-205, edited by Gil J. Stein.

School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Stark, Miriam (editor)

1998 The Archaeology of Social Boundaries. Smithsonian Institution Press,

Washington D.C.

Stayman, Douglas M.; and Deshpande, Rohit

1989 Situational Ethnicity and Consumer Behavior. The Journal of Consumer

Research, 16(3):361-371.

Steinberg, Arthur and Kamilli, Diana

1984 Paint and Paste Studies of Selected Halaf Sherds from Mesopotamia. In

Pots and Potters, edited by Prudence M. Rice. Pp. 187-208. Institute of

Archaeology, University of California: Los Angeles, CA.

Stone, Cynthia L.

2004 In Place of Gods and Kings: Authorship and Identity in the Relación de

Michoacán. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, OK.

295

Stone-Miller, Rebecca

1993 An Overview of “Horizon” and “Horizon Style” in the Study of Ancient

American Objects. In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don Rice, pp.

15-40. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington,

D.C.

Storey, Rebecca

1992 Life and Death in the Ancient City of Teotihuacan. University of Alabama

Press, Tuscaloosa.

Stross, Fred and Asaro, Frank

1984 Time’s Wheel Runs Back or Stops: Potter and Clay Endure. In Pots and

Potters, edited by Prudence M. Rice. Pp. 179-186. Institute of

Archaeology, University of California: Los Angeles, CA.

Stuart, David

2000 The Arrival of Strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya

History. In Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritages: From Teotihuacan to the

Aztecs, edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions. Pp.

465-514. University press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Sugiyama, Saburo

1993 Worldview Materialized at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Latin American

Antiquity 4(2):103-129.

2000 Teotihuacan as an Origin for Postclassic Feathered Serpent Symbolism. In

Mesoamerica’s Classic Heritages: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs.

Edited by David Carrasco, Lindsay Jones, and Scott Sessions, pp. 117-

144. University press of Colorado, Boulder, CO.

Taube, Karl

2003 Tetitla and the Maya Presence at Teotihuacan. In The Maya and

Teotihuacan, edited, edited by Geoffrey Braswell, pp. 273-314. University

of Texas Press, Austin.

Taylor, R.E.

1970 The Shaft Tombs of Western Mexico: Problems in the Interpretation of

Religious Function in Nonhistoric Archaeological Contexts. American

Antiquity 35(2):160-169.

Trigger, Bruce

1990 A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge University Press: New

York.

296

Warren, J. Benedict

2000 Fray Jeronimo de Alcala, Autor de la Relación de Michoacán. In Relación

de Michoacán, edited by Moises Franco Mendoza. El Colegio de

Michoacán, Zamora, Michoacán, Mexico.

Washburn, Dorothy

1990 Style, Classification, and Ethnicity: Design Categories on Bakuba Raffia

Cloth. Transaction of the American Philosophical Society. 80(3):i-157.

1999 Perceptual Anthropology: The Cultural Salience of Symmetry. American

Anthropologist. 101(3):547-562.

Weaver, Muriel Porter

1981 The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors: Archaeology of Mesoamerica.

Academic Press, New York, NY.

White, Christine; Longstaffe, Fred; and Law, Kimberley

2001 Revisiting the Teotihuacan Connection at Altun Ha: Oxygen Isotope

Analysis of Tomb f-8/1. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:65-72.

White, Christine; Spence, Michael; Longstaffe, Fred; and Law, Kimberley.

2004a Demography and ethnic continuity in the Tlailotlacan enclave of

Teotihuacan: the evidence from stable oxygen isotopes. Journal of

Anthropological Archaeology 23(4):385-403.

White, Christine; Storey, Rebecca; Longstaffe, Fred; and Spence, Michael

2004b Immigration, Assimilation, and Status in the Ancient City of Teotihuacan:

Stable Isotope Evidence from Tlajinga 33. Latin American Antiquity

15(2):176-198.

Whitecotton, Joseph

1984 The Zapotecs: princes, priests, and peasants. University of Oklahoma

Press, Norman, OK.

Weissner, Polly

1983 Style and Social Information in Kalahari San Projectile Points. American

Antiquity 48(2):253-276.

Wobst, H. Martin

1977 Stylistic Behavior and Information Exchange. In Papers for the Director:

Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin, edited by Charles E.

Cleland. Anthropology Papers 61:317-342. Museum of Anthropology,

University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.