Umberger 2012 Art in the Aztec Empire, 2012, Part 5, Section 4, Chapter 62, in Oxford Handbook of...

chapter 6 2

ART IN THE AZTEC EMPIRE

Emily Umberger

Archaeological remains testify to the spread of goods and ideas over broad areas of Mesoamerica at different times throughout its prehispanic history (Rice 1993). However, most material expansions are unaccompanied by texts, so it is dif-ficult to identify which resulted from empires, and which from other types of inter-action, like trade, gift giving, and emulation (Stone-Miller 1993: 31–36). In contrast, the Aztec Empire, which dominated central Mexico during its final pre-conquest years, is known to us mostly through documents written during and after its over-throw by Spaniards in 1521 (Barlow 1949; Berdan et al. 1996; Carrasco Pizana 1996; Davies 1987; Hassig 1988). Ironically, the material remains do not match the expec-tations raised by the documents. More relics have been excavated and studied in the last few decades than previously, but relatively few scholars have yet engaged with their evidence (however, see Ohnersorgen 2001; Sergheraert 2009; Smith 1990, 2001; Smith and Montiel 2001; Umberger 1996, 2007b; Umberger and Klein 1993). The objective of this chapter is to show how the imagery of sculptures can supplement and refine our notions of Aztec strategies.

The Imperial Capital

The capital of the Aztec Empire was Tenochtitlan, now under Mexico City, in the highland Valley of Mexico. The central precinct, the propagandistic focus of the empire, was decorated with a plethora of monumental sculptures explicating

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – FIRST-PROOF, 04/17/12, NEWGEN

62_Nichols_Ch62.indd 81962_Nichols_Ch62.indd 819 4/17/2012 10:45:56 PM4/17/2012 10:45:56 PM

820 institutions, beliefs, and practices

ideological issues at the time of their creation. The precinct’s remains reveal Tenochtitlan to have been a true imperial capital (Broda, Carrasco, and Matos Moctezuma 1988; López Austin and López Luján 2009; López Luján 2006; Matos Moctezuma 1981). The Aztec Empire was established in 1431 after the defeat of the local Tepanec Empire by three allied city-states. By the late 1470s Tenochtitlan dominated its allies, as well as its “twin city” Tlatelolco, which it absorbed. During this time the Aztecs displayed their increasing power with public ceremonies fea-turing militaristic imagery and the sacrifice of captives from conquered areas (Brumfiel 1987, 2001).

The most important monuments in the ceremonial center visualized the Aztec charter myth. The main feature was the Templo Mayor, which symbolized the sacred mountain of the earth. In the myth, the actors were deified personifications of competing cosmic forces—the sun, moon, and stars—conceived as members of a royal family. Coatlicue, the mother of the gods, who, like the pyramid, personified the earth, gave birth to her youngest child, the Aztec patron god Huitzilopochtli, at the sacred mountain. Immediately after his birth this god defeated an enemy army of older siblings and sent them to the underworld. In his meteoric rise, Huitzilopochtli was compared to the sun, the defeated siblings became stars, and their leader, Coyolxauhqui, the moon.

In Tenochtitlan, these characters first appeared in sculptural form after 1450, in tandem with the reconception of the city as an imperial capital. The best-

(a) (b)

Figure 62.1 Monumental victory sculptures from the Central Precinct of Tenochtitlan, the Aztec imperial capital: (A) Great Coyolxauhqui Stone, carved ca. 1473 for

Axayacatl, east-west diameter, 326 centimeters, Museo del Templo Mayor, Mexico. (B) Stone of Tizoc with a close-up of Tizoc grasping the ruler-god of Matlatzinco, the Matlatzinca area in the Toluca Valley, carved ca. 1485 for Tizoc, Museo Nacional de

Antropología, Mexico (drawings by the author).



art in the aztec empire 821

known examples are the Great Coyolxauhqui Stone of 1473 and the Tizoc Stone of 1484, both of which used mythic and cosmic imagery to justify the defeat of contemporary enemies. The Coyolxauhqui Stone (Figure 62.1A), for instance, cel-ebrated the defeat of the Tlatelolca, and the forms and imagery of the dismembered enemy leader referred to multiple metaphors about failed rulership. Because defeat revealed the enemy ruler’s lack of the masculine qualities necessary for military dominance, the figure is of a woman wearing a male loincloth (Umberger 2007a).

The Stone of Tizoc (Figure 62.1B) expands the Huitzilopochtli myth to the greater world outside the Valley of Mexico by depicting the defeated ruler-war-riors of both the valley and far-flung territories (Umberger 2008). This giant vessel was first used in 1485 for the sacrificial blood of prisoners from the Matlatzinca area, and then again for the blood of captives from all over the empire, sacrificed to proclaim Tenochca dominance during the Templo Mayor dedication of 1487 (Umberger 2002). On it, conquered rulers are presented as landless Chichimecs (meaning barbarians, migrants, and commoners) in contrast to Tenochca war-riors, whose ancient Toltec clothing signaled their noble heritage and right to con-trol territories (Umberger 2008).

The Empire

The empire was a hegemonic empire, in which local hierarchies and cultures of formerly independent polities were left in place where possible (Berdan et al.1996; Calnek 1982; Hassig 1984; Scheidel 2006; Smith 2001). While Tenochtitlan remained the stage for demonstrations of military power, imperially sponsored projects in the empire emphasized the sacred, cosmic underpinnings of territorial expansion. In other words, although its objective was appropriation, the empire was aware of the supernatural powers of new lands as well as the traditional rulers, who negoti-ated with the sacred. As Alfredo López Austin (1997: 259) has stated, “When a town was established the patron gods occupied the hills or changed themselves into hills. . . . Taking possession of a territory implied extending the different manifestations of divine force to it.” Thus, the Aztecs did not create new administrative centers (cf. Schreiber 2001), but rather they installed shrines at sites of supernatural power, and high officials, tax collectors, and colonists alike moved into already existing communities and structures. They used whatever artists were available, whether skilled artists trained in imperial workshops or in foreign styles, less talented pro-fessionals, or part-time amateur carvers.

As elsewhere, the closer provinces formed an inner empire, more tightly linked to the center than more recently conquered, distant provinces. In areas to the north of the Valley of Mexico, sons and grandsons of the Tenochca royal family were installed as rulers, and the local Otomi, a group whose original culture was



umberger

Cross-Out

umberger

Cross-Out

umberger

Inserted Text

gods


very different from the Nahuatl-speaking Aztecs, seem to have been converted to Aztec-style religious practices (Umberger 1996: 151). This type of conversion probably started with the valley Otomi who lived in close proximity to the Aztec Nahuatl-speaking groups, and conversion may have been limited to this group. In contrast, Aztec incorporation of areas to the south and east of the capital (the modern states of Morelos and Puebla) was based on similar preexisting practices among Nahuas, for instance, the traditional feasting and gift giving that tied allied and enemy elites together in a network of common interests (see Pohl 1998; Smith 1986). Motecuhzoma I himself was born from a dynastic intermarriage between a princess from this area (Cuernavaca) and a Tenochca prince. Early Aztec remains in the vicinity probably pertain to his reign; an example may be the rock art near a reported palace and tropical garden that he created at Huaxtepec in the 1440s or 1450s (Alvarado Tezozomoc 1975: 370–371). It is possible that the Tenochca dynasty also appropriated the famous Pulque God temple above Tepoztlan for use as a funerary monument.

To the west of the capital, after its conquest in the 1470s the Toluca Valley was made a territorial extension of the Valley of Mexico and a buffer zone between the Aztecs and the Tarascans further west. Aztec colonists settled in the Toluca Valley both to provide food for Valley of Mexico residents and to serve as part-time soldiers during Aztec warfare on people further west.. Colonists came from different Valley of Mexico towns and settled on blocks of land distributed to these towns. Among these blocks were properties pertaining to Aztec administrators and tax collectors; others belonged to members of the Tenochca royal family, such as Motecuhzoma I’s grandson Axayacatl and his relatives (Barlow 1950). Like the Otomi, the Matlatzinca who had controlled the Toluca Valley before Aztec arrival were not Nahuas (García Payón 1936). However, there is no evidence that they were Nahuatized by the Aztecs. In fact, it is unclear how they were incorporated into the heartland and whether conquest involved sudden, imposed cultural changes or the less choreographed changes that accompany close contact over time. This type of information is also lacking for the more distant provinces.

Examples of Aztec art are relatively abundant in this inner empire and along a territorial band that extends east through Puebla to the Gulf Coast of modern Veracruz. Remains are most numerous in the Toluca Valley and around the town of Castillo de Teayo in northern Veracruz (Seler 1960–1961b; Solís Olguin 1981; Umberger 1996, 2007b). They are found also in significant numbers as far south as central Veracruz (Medellín Zenil 1952; Ohnersorgen 2001; Stark 1990). Most images in these areas have little to do with the frightening and humiliating motifs of cos-mic terror and sacrifice so prominent in the capital’s ceremonial center. Rather, many depict nature and agricultural deities. Their creation can be divided, hypo-thetically, between commissions for Aztecs living in an area and commissions for the state. The former usually correspond to local concerns, while the latter show links to broader imperial concerns. Of course, the line between the two catego-ries is blurry. Similar deity images are seen in both, but the imperial commis-sions are found at more prominent places, may include architectural structures,



umberger

Cross-Out


and may feature monuments in the distinctive imperial styles of the capital. They are located at ancient cities, on hills, at water sources, near caves, or locations that combine such features.

Some places in the inner empire, like Malinalco, Calixtlahuaca, and Tepoztlan, feature major temples built over older, locally important hill shrines. The shrines at all three places are obviously imperial productions for use by the empire. In the case of two other well-known pyramids in Veracruz, at Castillo de Teayo and Huatusco, it is unknown whether they were imperial commissions or were the productions of local communities for their only purposes. More archaeological research is required to determine the circumstances. At sites without architecture, the evidence of Aztec presence is within individual images on rocks (Krickeberg 1969). Some feature Aztec deity images newly installed at the places associated with their powers. An example is a water deity carved in 1507 on a rock at the

(a)

(b)

(c) (d)

Figure 62.2 Aztec rock carvings in the empire: (A) Water Being enlarged from an antique picture plaque, 1506–1507, spring at Acacinco, southern Toluca Valley (draw-ing from photo in Barlow 1946). (B) Xipe shield on Chimalli Stone, probably ca. 1469, near Cuernavaca (drawing after Seler 1960–1961a: Figures 76–77) (now in front of the Palacio de Cortés, Cuernavaca). (C) Tula relief of Quetzalcoatl petitioning the water

goddess Chalchiuhtlicue, 1500, in situ (drawing by author). (D) Image of the water god-dess Chalchiuhtlicue over a fountain spring, at the site of Tusapan, 1450–1521, northern Veracruz, seen by Carl Nebel in the nineteenth century and now lost (drawing after a

lithograph in Nebel 1836).



umberger

Cross-Out

umberger

Inserted Text

;

umberger

Cross-Out

umberger

Inserted Text

;

umberger

Cross-Out

umberger

Inserted Text

;


Acacinco spring in the Toluca Valley (Figure 62.2A). Some consist of accumula-tions of symbols and dates relating to Aztec rituals (Cerro de la Campana, Acatlan, Puebla); some are animals in the round (Huacachula, Puebla); and some feature shields, the most famous being the Chimalli Stone near Cuernavaca (Figure 62.2B). Images like the shields and ferocious animals were reminders of Aztec militarism, but most others, although signaling Aztec appropriation, were not so obviously intimidating.

The only life-sized Aztec temple image found in the empire is the free-stand-ing Ehecatl (Figure 62.3A) that the Aztecs installed in the Wind God temple at Calixtlahuaca. Images of the Wind God (Figure 62.3B) who occupied the temple before the Aztec deity are very different in appearance and supply rare evidence of a local cult at a conquered site.

Most remains in the empire lack obvious connections to the imperial heart-land, but several refer to events in the capital through a combination of imagery and hieroglyphic dates. Most notable is a series of reliefs on the Malinche Hill near the ancient site of Tula (and in Figure 62.3C) northwest of Tenochtitlan. The principle deity is the Aztec water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue in a frontal image. An inscribed date next to her refers to the great flood that almost destroyed Tenochtitlan in 1500. To her right the legendary Quetzalcoatl, the prototypical model of Aztec ruler behavior, draws blood from his ear, presumably a petition to the goddess to control

(a) (b)

Figure 62.3 Wind gods at Calixtlahuaca, northern Toluca Valley: (A) Aztec Ehecatl, after 1476, H. 176 centimeters (photograph by the author, courtesy of the Museo de

Antropología del Estado de México, Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, Toluca). (B) One of four reliefs of the Matlatzinca Wind God, before 1476, H. 89 centimeters

(drawing after a photo by Michael E. Smith; Museo de Antropología del Estado de México, Toluca).




the flow of water. The key to the location of these images is nearby Tula, the ruined ancient city that Quetzalcoatl once ruled. Along with Teotihuacan, Xochicalco, and other ancient sites, Tula was visited by Aztec delegations seeking supernatural aid on important occasions (Umberger 1987; see Paso y Troncoso 1905‒1906: 6:221–222). Motecuhzoma I reportedly sent sorcerers to the Tula area to find Coatlicue in the 1450s, and Motecuhzoma II sent Aztec priests to the same site with a piece of Spanish bread as a temple offering in about 1519 (Durán 1967: 2:217, 510–511). The extent to which the Aztecs used ancient and natural sites in these ways in the outer empire is unknown. Imperial-style rock carvings in Veracruz (Figure 62.2D) hint at similar concerns.

Most Aztec-style remains seem not to have been commissioned by impe-rial administrators, but rather were made for and by colonists. Colonists settled in groups of thousands in five large areas of the empire (for smaller enclaves, see Sergheraert 2009). In addition to the Toluca Valley, large groups were sent to Oaxaca to the far southeast of the capital and to Guerrero to the southwest after conquest of these areas in the 1450s and 1480s, respectively (Durán 1967: 2:238–239, 352–353). Motecuhzoma I’s instructions to the colonists bound for Oaxaca were few and gen-eralized. Selected from multiple towns in the heartland, they were told to resettle in barrios of the same composition in the new territory. Further, they were to move into existing structures, and, given the distance to Oaxaca, they were not to carry things that could be made for them locally (Durán 1967: 2:238). In contrast, the first colonies around Castillo de Teayo in northern Veracruz seem to have been founded by immigrants escaping the Valley of Mexico during the great famine of the 1450s (Durán 1967: 2:244). Later Castillo de Teayo was taken over by the state. Reportedly, areas in central Veracruz were colonized by imperial command on several occa-sions after depopulation by disease in these tropical areas (Stark 1990: 252).

The most intensively studied sculptural corpuses at colony areas to date are those from the Toluca and Castillo areas (García Payón 1979: 275–287; Seler 1960–1961b; Solís Olguin 1981; Umberger 1996, 2007b). Although the colonies had stratified societies, the majority of the inhabitants were commoner-farmers. Correspondingly, the great majority of the images are deities promoting agricul-tural fertility, but they are of less polished manufacture than the imperial shrines. In the Toluca area, sculptures are relatively small and probably pertained to indi-vidual house groups; strangely, no two are alike, meaning that there are no signs of ensembles or local workshops. In contrast, at Castillo de Teayo, the sculptures form a recognizable local style. Many figures are almost life-sized and can be paired (Figure 62.4A), meaning they were probably installed together at barrio shrines. Similar deity images have been found at humble hill shrines (Figure 62.4B).

Thus far, my arguments about patronage correlate imperial-style sculptures with the activities of the state, and less refined, or provincial-style, sculptures with resident colonists. Although generally appropriate, this distinction cannot be applied without other evidence. Exceptions are sculptures at imperial sites that were made by lesser artists: for instance, the exterior sculptures decorating the rock-cut temple at Malinalco. At Castillo de Teayo, the dates inscribed on a




stela (Figure 62.4C) refer to imperial imagery in Tenochtitlan, but the style indi-cates a provincial artist. Finally, two deity sculptures found at Coxcatlán in the Tehuacan Valley closely resemble the Aztec deities Huitzilopochtli and his mother Coatlicue in style and imagery, but written evidence argues against their having been imposed by the empire. The Coxcateca were politically independent allies of the empire (Berdan et al. 1996), but because they shared the Aztecs’ Nahua culture, their patron god, Xelhua, and his mother, Cihuacoatl, were functionally similar to their Aztec counterparts (Umberger 1996: 169–171; see also Pohl 2003). However, the Aztec style of the sculptures indicates a more complex situation. The Coxcateca apparently had access, through their alliance, to a trained Aztec artist.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Walter Scheidel for inspiring me to rethink the interrelationship of art and politics in hegemonic empires; Michael Smith and Barbara Stark for personal com-munications and discussions throughout the years; and Michael Smith and Maëlle Sergheraert for insightful comments on a draft of this chapter.

(a) (b) (c)

Figure 62.4 Aztec sculptures at the colony site of Castillo de Teayo, northern Veracruz, 1450–1521, all made of local sandstone: (A) Pair of fertility goddesses, Earth Goddess with Paper Headdress, 156 centimeters, and the water goddess Chalchiuhtlicue, 146

centimeters (now in the central plaza of Castillo de Teayo). (B) Pair of fertility deities, Paper Headdress Goddess, carved surface of 152 centimeters, and Tlaloc,

size unknown, found on a small pyramid on Cerro de Zapotitlan (present locations unknown, drawings after Seler 1960‒1961b: Figures 19 and 30). (C) Four sides of a stela with dates 1 Crocodile, 13 Reed, 13 Flower, and 1 Flint, the years of the birth of the sun and the god Huitzilopochtli and the first and last days of the sacred 160-day count, all comparable to inscriptions on the Calendar Stone of Tenochtitlan, H. 311 centimeters

(drawing after Seler 1960‒1961b: Figure 8).




REFERENCES

Alvarado Tezozomoc, Hernando. 1975. Croníca mexicana [ca. 1598], annotated by Manuel Orozco y Berra. 2nd ed. Porrúa, Mexico.

Barlow, Robert H. 1946. The Malinche of Acacingo, Edo. de Mexico. Notes on Middle American Archaeology and Ethnology 65:31–32.

Barlow, Robert H. 1949. The Extent of the Empire of the Culhua Mexica. Ibero-Americana 28, University of California Press, Berkeley.

Barlow, Robert H. 1950. Documentos relacionados con San Bartolomé Tlatelolco. Memorias de la Academía Mexicana de la Historia 9(1):233–250.

Berdan, Frances F., Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger. 1996. Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Broda, Johanna, David Carrasco, and Eduardo Matos Moctezuma. 1988. The Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, Center and Periphery in the Aztec World. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 1987. Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and Timothy Earle, pp. 102–118. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. 2001. Aztec Hearts and Minds: Religion and the State in the Aztec Empire. In Empires, Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, pp. 283–310. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Calnek, Edward E. 1982. Patterns of Empire Formation in the Valley of Mexico, Late Postclassic Period, 1120–1521. In The Inca and Aztec States 1400–1800, Anthropology and History, edited by George A. Collier, Renato I. Rosaldo, and John D. Wirth, pp. 43–62. Academic Press, New York.

Carrasco Pizana, Pedro. 1996. Estructura político territorial del Imperio Tenochca: La Triple Alianza de Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, y Tlacopan. Colégio de México/Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico.

Davies, Nigel. 1987. The Aztec Empire: The Toltec Resurgence. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Durán, Diego. 1967. Historia de las indias de Nueva España e islas de la Tierra Firme [ca. 1580], edited by Angel María Garibay K. 2 vols. Editorial Porrúa, Mexico.

García Payón, José. 1936. La zona arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzincas, primera parte. Talleres Gráficos de la Nación, Mexico.

García Payón, José. 1979. La zona arqueologica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los matlatzinca: etnología y arqueología (textos de la segunda parte), edited by Wanda Tommasi de Magrelli and Leonardo Manrique Castañeda. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, tomo 30, Mexico.

Hassig, Ross. 1984. The Aztec Empire: A Reappraisal. In Five Centuries of Law and Politics in Central Mexico, edited by Ronald Spores and Ross Hassig, pp. 15–24. Publications in Anthropology 30, Vanderbilt University Press, Nashville, Tennessee.

Hassig, Ross. 1988. Aztec Warfare, Imperial Expansion and Political Control. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Krickeberg, Walter. 1969. Feldsplastik und Felsbilder Altamerikas, Vol. II. Verlag von Dietrich Reimer, Berlin.




López Austin, Alfredo. 1997. Tamoanchan, Tlalocan: Places of Mist. University Press of Colorado, Niwot.

López Austin, Alfredo, and Leonardo López Luján. 2009. Monte Sagrado-Templo Mayor. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia/Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, D.F.

López Luján, Leonardo. 2006. La Casa de la Aguilas, Un ejemplo de la arquitectura religiosa de Tenochtitlán. Conaculta/Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia/Fondo de Cultura Económica, Mexico.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo. 1981. Una visita al Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlán. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico, D.F.

Medellín Zenil, Alfonso. 1952. Exploracones en Quauhtochco. Gobierno de Veracruz and Instituto Nacional de Antropología, Jalapa.

Nebel, Carl. 1836. Voyage pittoresque et archéologique dans la partie la plus intéressante du Méxique. Chez M. Moench, Paris.

Ohnersorgen, Michael Anthony. 2001. Social and Economic Organization of Cotaxtla in the Postclassic Gulf Lowlands. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del. 1905‒1906. Papeles de Nueva España. Segunda Serie, Geografía y Estadística, 6 vols. (vols. 1 and 3–7). Tipográfico Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, Madrid.

Pohl, John M. D. 1998. Themes of Drunkenness, Violence, and Factionalism in Tlaxcalan Altar Paintings. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 33:184–207.

Pohl, John M. D. 2003. Creation Stories, Hero Cults, and Alliance Building: Postclassic Confederacies of Central and Southern Mexico from ad 1150‒1458. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael Smith and Frances Berdan, pp. 61–66. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Rice, Don Stephen, ed. 1993. Latin American Horizons. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Schreiber, Katharina. 2001. The Wari Empire of Middle Horizon Peru: The Epistemological Challenge of Documenting an Empire without Documentary Evidence. In Empires, Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, pp. 70–92. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Scheidel, Walter. 2006. Republics between Hegemony and Empire: How Ancient City-States Built Empires and the USA Doesn’t (Anymore). Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics. Electronic document, http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc (accessed May 10, 2010).

Seler, Eduard. 1960–1961a. Die Ruinen von Xochicalco. In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, Vol. II, pp. 128–167. Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz. Originally published 1902–1923, A. Asher und Co. and Behrend und Co., Berlin, from article of 1888.

Seler, Eduard. 1960‒1961b. Die Alterthümer von Castillo de Teayo. In Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde, Vol. III, pp. 410–449. Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, Graz. Originally published 1902–1923, A. Asher und Co. and Behrend und Co., Berlin, from article of 1904.

Sergheraert, Maëlle. 2009. L’expansion mexica (1430–1520 après J.-C.), La question du contrôle impérial dans les provinces extérieures de l’Empire. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Université de Paris I.



umberger

Inserted Text

i


Smith, Michael E. 1986. The Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View from the Provinces. American Anthropologist 88(1):70–91.

Smith, Michael E. 1990. Long-Distance Trade under the Aztec Empire: The Archaeological Evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:153–169.

Smith, Michael E. 2001. The Aztec Empire and the Mesoamerican World System. In Empires, Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D’Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, pp. 128–154. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Smith, Michael E., and Lisa Montiel. 2001. The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Prehispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20:245–284.

Solís Olguin, Felipe R. 1981. Escultura del Castillo de Teayo, Veracruz, México, Catálogo. Instituto de Investigaciones Estéticas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico, D.F.

Stark, Barbara. 1990. The Gulf Coast and the Central Highlands. Research in Economic Anthropology 12:243–285.

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 Stephen Rice, pp. 15–39. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Umberger, Emily. 1987. Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in Aztec Art. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 18:62–105.

Umberger, Emily. 1996. Aztec Presence and Material Remains in the Outer Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, edited by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 151–179. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.

Umberger, Emily. 2002. Notions of Aztec History: The Case of the 1487 Great Temple Dedication. Res: Anthropology and Aesthetics 42:86–108.

Umberger, Emily. 2007a. Metaphorical Underpinnings of Aztec History: The Case of the 1473 Civil War. Ancient Mesoamerica 18:11–29.

Umberger, Emily. 2007b. Historia del arte y el Imperio Azteca: La evidencia de las esculturas. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 37(2):165–202 [English translation: http://www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9/calix.]

Umberger, Emily 2008. Ethnicity and Other Identities in the Sculptures of Tenochtitlan. In Ethnic Identity in Nahua Mesoamerica: The View from Archaeology, Art History, Ethnohistory, and Contemporary Ethnography, by Frances F. Berdan, John Chance, Alan Sandstrom, Barbara Stark, James Taggart, and Emily Umberger, pp. 64–104. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

Umberger, Emily, and Cecelia F. Klein. 1993. Aztec Art and Imperial Expansion. In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don Stephen Rice, pp. 295–336. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC.



Umberger 2012 Art in the Aztec Empire, 2012, Part 5, Section 4, Chapter 62, in Oxford Handbook of...

Documents

Transcript of Umberger 2012 Art in the Aztec Empire, 2012, Part 5, Section 4, Chapter 62, in Oxford Handbook of...