Calixtlahuaca Archaeological Project

We exported a bunch of artifacts

2012-01-16T17:30:00.000-07:00

Just before Christmas I received two boxes of artifacts, sent FedEx from Mexico. We exported a bunch of potsherds, obsidian tools, and charcoal for various technical analyses. Angela was working in the lab all fall, so she had the honor of lugging these boxes to Mexico City and hassling out the final steps of paperwork. To get artifacts out of Mexico, we have to document them thoroughly (with catalogs, descriptions, drawings, photos, etc.) and then convince the Mexican archaeology authorities that we are doing rigorous analyses and have a valid reason for exporting artifacts. Once they approve, officials have to seal up the boxes, and obtain the export forms for Mexican and U.S. Customs. Then someone (Angela in this case!) has to get the material either to the U.S. directly (by car or plane), or to a FedEx office for shipping.

So, now we will submit 20 or 30 charcoal samples for accelerator radiocarbon dating at the University of Arizona; we will send sherds off to Jenny Meanwell for thin sectioning and petrographic analysis (see Angela's post on selecting this sample), and Adrian Burke will get a shipment of obsidian for sourcing using X-Ray flourescence.

We sampled a couple of nearby obsidian sources that are not well documented in the literature in 2010. I thought we had a blog post on this sampling, but it looks like in all the haste and activity at the end of the lab season, no one got around to writing this up. I guess we were so overwhelmed at visiting the Otomi Ceremonial Center that everyone forgot that we only saw that place because we were in the area looking for obsidian. We found a hill completely covered with obsidian. It was wild, which is why I am having such fun in the nice photo that Brad took of me that day. Unfortunately, Brad and Adrian don't think that we have much obsidian from this source, which is pretty low quality material. But we did get source samples and the chemistry will tell......

Ceramic Attributes

2011-12-22T15:30:00.000-07:00

Angela Huster

I just finished up six months in the lab in Toluca. For the past four and a half of those (every since the end of the summer lab season, which I was also here for), I was collecting data for my dissertation project. Most of what I was doing was a more detailed recording of a sample of the ceramics from each of our domestic contexts (each chronological phase for each house or midden). I was recording number of more detailed attributes than our general ceramic classification covers, for an average of eight data points for each of five thousand sherds. These included details of vessel and rim form, rim diameter and percentage, slipping, particular decorative motifs, molcajete (grinding bowl) patterns, and paste type. At the same time, I was selecting a random sample from each context to export for INAA analysis.

I will be using the combination of the project’s basic ceramic classification, my attribute analysis, and the INAA results to investigate a number of changes resulting from the Aztec conquest of Calixtlahuaca. These include changes in the food preparation and serving vessel forms present in household assemblages (such as the comals discussed in an earlier post), changes in items used in household ritual, such as incense burners, and changes in the types and sources of imported ceramics. Stay posted for further updates as I start the number-crunching stage of analysis…

The Aztecs, 3rd edition

2011-12-11T21:28:00.001-07:00

The third edition of my book, The Aztecs, is now out. I just received my advance copies; it should be available for purchase in about a month (although you can go ahead and order it now!). Calixtlahuaca is discussed in a number of places in the book, and there are some photos and drawings from our project.

I managed to get a photo of Calixtlahuaca on the cover of my book, Aztec City-State Capitals (2008). For the new edition of The Aztecs, the cover shows the nice double-stair pyramid of Teopanzolco in Cuernavaca.

Sculptures of Calixtlahuaca

2011-10-09T13:51:00.003-06:00

By Jennifer Burley

The small collection of sculptures that we have from Calixtlahuaca reflects the diversity of sculpture production at the site.

(SS-00-01) A composite photograph of anthropomorphic heads, shown here, exemplifies the varying sizes and styles. The anthropomorphic body appears to be a common theme in sculptural representation.

(SS-00-04) In addition to heads, we also have a relatively large number of sculptures of clothing and body parts. The object in the upper left is part of a headdress, and the object in the upper right is a hand that could have held something. The hand would have been part of a seated anthropomorphic figure with the arms rested on his crossed knees. I was able to identify sculptures similar to both of these in local museums. The object on the bottom left, I believe, is a conical shaped headdress.

(SS-00-03) Many of the sculptures or fragments we have are unknown pieces; a large portion of these are badly damaged. This photograph clearly illustrates the varying styles, sizes, and types of rocks used in sculpture production.

Based on visual analysis, I would like to offer some preliminary conclusions. First, anthropomorphic figures make up nearly half of the collection. If we include heads, body parts, and clothing at least 10 of the 22 sculptures are of anthropomorphic figures. This percentage may be higher, as there were a number of the objects that I was unable to identify. This is indicative of a general interest in the body, either deities or human beings, or both. It is not possible to determine whether these sculptures represent humans or supernatural beings, since we do not have any intact pieces, and there are no defining marks of deities on any of them. Second, there is little uniformity in size, style, and type of stone used. This signifies that the sculptures were not obtained from an organized labor or distribution source. The quality and lack of uniformity reflect local, rather than imperial-style production. Although there are examples of later imperial-style sculptures found at the site, such as the Calixtlahuaca Ehecatl, these were displayed in large-scale ceremonial contexts, while common people likely utilized locally made, cruder sculptures in their homes.

References

Garcia Payón, José. 1936. La Zona Arqueológica de Tecaxic-Calixtlahuaca y los Matlatzincas. México: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación.

Umberger, Emily. 2007. “Historia del arte e Imperio Azteca: la evidencia de las esculturas.” Revista Española de Antropología Americana 37.2: 165-202.

Project Workshop

2011-09-18T21:59:00.000-06:00


Workshop, group photo (by Ryan S.)

Last week we had an informal workshop on the project in my lab at ASU. Emily Umberger came up from Tucson, Maelle Sergheraert attended (it was during the final days of her Postdoc year in my lab), and Brad Andrews came down from Pacific Lutheran University. Angela and Julie and Cindy were here, along with two undergrads: Mary Bowles and Ryan Smigielski. Barbara Stark and George Cowgill showed up—one in the morning and the other in the afternoon—to keep us in line.

Brad and Angela

Brad talked about his work on the obsidian industry. Why were they using bipolar technology, when most archaeologists thought it had gone out of fashion a thousand years earlier? See his blog post for the gory details. Angela reviewed her dissertation plans for investigating the effects of Mexica conquest on the households of Calixtlahuaca. She had just passed her proposal defense the day before, so her research design was really in order! She's back in the lab in Toluca now, working on those sherds.

Julie reviewed her current work, trying to relate the the surface collection data to neighborhood organization and to wealth levels. I talked a bit about the overall project, including the various analyses not represented at the workshop. Anyone out there interested in ground stone? We've got a nice collection just waiting for the right person!

Jennifer and Maelle

It was great having Maelle as a postdoc in my lab for the past year; she has been working on the altepetl in Aztec central Mexico. At the workshop, she summarized her SAA paper from last spring on the civic architecture at the site. She has evidence for four architecture stages at the site, and we have three ceramic phases. We are pretty sure that the last period in each sequence lines up, but for the earlier stages we still await more chronological research.

Emily Umberger's student Jennifer Burley talked about two things: the group of sculptures that we recovered in our excavations, and her MA thesis research on Ehecatl. Jennifer worked with us in the lab in Toluca for a while this past summer, helping us out in several ways. Emily talked about Aztec notions of sacred mountains, exploring why the Mexica may have taken such a great interest in Calixtlahuaca. She did NOT talk about cosmovision!

Emily and George

Barbara Stark was with us most of the time, providing some good comments, and George Cowgill joined us in time for pizza and the afternoon session. Cindy also participated in the discussion. Two ASU undergrads attended. Mary Bowles is working on a paper comparing Calixtlahuaca to other hilltop capital cities in Mesoamerica, and Ryan Smigielski is a new volunteer with the project.

We did not succeed in putting the two big parts of the project together--our fieldwork in 2006/07 on houses and terraces, and the study of Garcia Payon's findings of sculpture and civic architecture. One thing we agreed on was the need to get the ethnohistory onto a firmer footing so that we really know all that the sources say about topics like the Aztec conquest of Matlatzinco, the names of the rulers of the site, and the overall political, social, and religious context of Calixtlhauca and the Toluca Valley. So this week we put new volunteer Theresa Araque to work on this!

We will have a big symposium on the project at the 2013 SAA meetings (in Honolulu!!!). Stay tuned.....

Have You Seen This Sherd?

2011-08-30T09:06:00.002-06:00

By Angela Huster

I think every archaeological project must have a code for “other unidentified type” sherds, as well as box where said type of sherds all end up. This box is then waved in front of visiting archaeologists in the hope that they will go “Oh yes, that’s obviously a ……”

In a virtual version of box-waving, here are a few of our unidentified sherds. Any comments would be greatly appreciated, particularly from people working west of us.

C-2585/122 : The interior is the same color as the exterior undercolor. The vessel has straight, relatively vertical walls. It could be either a bowl or a relatively large copa – there isn’t enough to get a good rim diameter reading. The paste is medium-fine and light buff colored.

C-1028/122: The interior is dark red. The rim diameter measures 14cm and the vessel wall is outflaring and slightly recurve. This is probably a bowl, though a large copa is also a possibility. It has a very fine orangeish paste.

C-2033/122: The design in the picture is on the inside of the support and underside of the bowl base. All the other portions of the sherd are solid shiny brown. While this is clearly a tripod bowl, it is not a molcajete (grater bowl), and the support is hollow with a rattle. The paste is medium-coarse and light buff colored.

C-1504/122: This probably a large, simple hemispherical bowl. The rim diameter measures 27cm, and the exterior is plain. The interior design is negative. The paste is medium-coarse and medium brown colored.

C-2018/38: This is part of the body of an olla or pitcher. The design is probably negative, but the limited number of lines make it hard to tell. The paste is medium-coarse and medium brown colored.

Using an artistic touch to bring Calixtlahuaca to life

2011-08-15T13:18:00.014-06:00

By Dr. Brad Andrews

How can art and archaeology work together? Art is one of the humanities and archaeology is a social science – as such, most people do not realize they have the potential to connect in very useful ways. Artists can bring something very important to the archaeological table: the life-like, recreation of ancient human behavior as inferred from the lifeless remains of the archaeological record. Working together then, the archaeologist can inform the artist about what the artifacts indicate about how people lived – subsequently, the artist can apply artistic license to recreate a snap shot of daily life. The compatibility of both disciplines in this regard is an extremely valuable and effective way for the archaeologist to communicate with the public. One problem professional archaeologists have is that they either find it difficult to talk about what they do to the lay-person, or they simply do not think it is necessary to do so (even though public interest and support keep us employed!). Through the artist, the archaeologist can take advantage of pictures that are literally worth a thousand words. The artist benefits by being able to apply their artistic skills to subject matter they rarely get a chance to engage in – prehistory!

Lucky for us we have been able to turn to artist Michael Stasinos of Pacific Lutheran University to help us bring some of Post-classic Calixtlahauca to life. This endeavor is a collaborative process that involves dialog about archaeological information (artifacts, houses, monuments, etc.), use and consultation of ethnographic and ethnohistoric sources of information, and artistic imagination. As most folks probably know lots of pictures of Mexico, both past and present can be found online. Such content can be consulted to fuel artistic imagination, which is important because the responsible artist must fill in lots of blanks with reasonable and realistic content.

I first began chatting with Michael Stasinos about doing a scene of daily life in a Calixtlahuaca household. As mentioned in my first blog, my research on stone tools has revealed that bifaces were actually flintknapped in the city. Hence, I wanted to be able to bring that interpretation to life. Michael and I began by discussing the typical

layout of a Calixtlahuaca household using plan view maps and photographs of the houses that were excavated in 2006 (see P2 & P3). We also discussed how the buildings might have been walled and roofed. The excavations indicated that walls were probably wattle & daub (walls made of interwoven posts or laths and twigs plastered over with mud or clay) and the roofs were probably thatch. Artistic inspiration for these features was sought looking over photographs of modern thatched dwellings (see P4). Michael chose to depict a seated flintknapper and another young man (perhaps a son) and a woman and child focused on grinding corn. Photographs of pottery and baskets were used as inspiration to populate the area with a number of these items. Care was taken to use the photographs of the site as a basis for integrating masonry detail for the retaining wall and plants such as corn and the famous agave (Maguey – from whence comes tequila!). Finally, Michael added a dog and some turkeys (barely visible on the left side of the house) to complete the scene: voila – a day in the life at Post-classic Calixtlahuaca! (see P5).

Michael is now working on a site-wide scene that will show the Calixtlahuaca cityscape populated with house compounds, complete with a market area in the foreground. All of us working on the project agreed that it would be nice to see what Calixtlahuaca might have looked like with people in it. The actual marketplace has not been identified, but itwas an important economic institution at Calixtlahuaca like it was elsewhere in ancient Mesoamerica.

This city scene started by selecting a photograph of Cerro Tenismo, where the site is located, that could be used as a base (see P6). The challenge with projects like this is to chose a photo that shows a “sense” of the whole, but enables the incorporation of some details in the foreground; the tradeoff is that you lose some of the whole the more foreground details you bring in - a happy balance must be achieved. Michael removed the color in Adobe Photoshop and produced a large base sheet (1 m in width) that he could use to populate the hillside with houses (see P7). The market scene is now in the works, inspired by other ancient Mesoamerican market scenes that have been recreated and photographs of modern Mexican markets. Michael first began populating the market foreground by drawing block figures on a mylar overlay placed on the base sheet (see P8). In this way he is easily able to evaluate issues of space and adjust the content as needed. Now he is in the process of adding the details of market-focused daily activities (see P9 & P10).

These types of illustrations are not easy to do. It requires more than talented artistic license to do good reconstructions. There are way too many egregiously inaccurate renditions out there that smack more of fantasy than fact. The responsible collaboration between artists and archaeologist is a must. We consider ourselves lucky that Michael has been so generous with his time and skills, and has done so with an eye to being accurate and realistic. We will be sure to post the final cityscape version when it is finished.

Bipolar Lithic Technology at Post-Classic Calixtlahuaca?!

2011-08-10T08:57:00.012-06:00

By Dr. Bradford Andrews


P1: Bipolar technique

Analysis of the Calixtlahuaca stone tools has revealed that bipolar percussion was used to make stone tools in the city. So, what exactly is the bipolar technique (BP)? BP involves striking the top of a piece flakable stone placed on an anvil stone (see picture P1). As such, it enables the knapper to transmit force from both “poles” of a “focal” piece (Flenniken 1981). It is also effective for making implements out of small pieces of stone that are difficult to flake because the knapper is able to securely support them allowing for efficient flaking.
BP as a common technique for making stone tools is usually associated with the early Formative period (2000 B.C. to A.D. 250). By the late Formative, prismatic blade technology began to emerge, becoming the most important source of slicing, cutting and scraping tools in Mesoamerica in the centuries that followed (Clark 1981; Parry 1987). Hence, many people tend to think BP was largely absent in Mesoamerica after the Formative. So, the simple fact that the Calixtlahuacans were using it is somewhat of a surprise.
Of more than 6000 technologically diagnostic artifacts (those with features that indicate how they were produced), 11 percent were flaked with BP technology. This figure is not a majority, but it is significant. The BP artifacts we have identified include BP-flakes, “Scalar cores,” and bipolared blade sections. The BP-flakes (see picture P2) are variously shaped and have flake scars with ripples of force trending in opposite directions. Some were presumably flaked to make smaller tools - some were also used because they have use-wear on one or more edges.

P2: Bipolar flakes

The scalar cores are an odd, somewhat controversial artifact
because of the debate over their function (see picture P3). The term we use for this artifact is barrowed from Clark’s (1981) work in Formative period Chiapas. Artifacts similar to this one include the “scaled flake” (Parry 1987) and the piéce esquillées (Hayden 1980). One question is whether these three items were functionally different or had overlapping uses. They could have been used as 1) “bipolar cores” that yielded flakes, 2) and/or “chisels” or “wedges” used for some specific task, perhaps woodworking. My guess is that they had both functions.

P3: Scalar core, front and
back views

The bipolared blades are sections of prismatic blades (made with the blade technology), which were later “smacked” with bipolar percussion (see picture P4). Note the ripples of force coming from both ends towards the center of the segments. Also, some have a “burinated” fracture surfaces – what Clark (1981) calls bipolar corner flakes - along their lateral edges. These fractures are distinct in form. Similar features are visible on segments of experimentally bipolared blades (see pictures P5, P6). Archaeologists sometimes try to replicate the technological characteristics of archaeological artifacts, something called experimental archaeology. In this way, archaeologists are better able to interpret how tools were made. Other “bipolared” blade sections have been reported from Formative San Lorenzo (De León 2008) and the Valley of Oaxaca (Parry 1987:figure 22).

P4: Bipolared blades -top
dorsal, bottom ventral view

So why was bipolar technology used at Calixtlahuaca? The general perspective is that bipolar technology was a simple “non-specialized” way of making tools, and was primarily used in places where obsidian was relatively scarce (Clark 1981; Parry 1987). Therefore, it has been viewed as a means by which knappers worked or recycled tool stone (nodules, “used-up cores,” or used-up implements like bifacial knives, etc.) to maximize the amount of cutting edge available. Recent research, however, has shows that bipolar technology was present in areas of Formative Mesoamerica where obsidian was relatively abundant (De León 2008). Its use probably had less to do with scarcity, and more to do with the size of raw material available; in particular, it seems to have been used a lot when tool stone was available in small pieces. This interpretation may be consistent with its use at Calixtlahuaca.

P5: Experimental
bipolar flaking

As my previous post on stone tools indicates, 75% of the obsidian was gray. We still have yet to chemically source the gray obsidian, but we think much of it came from West Mexico. It is also the case that most of the obsidian artifacts are not large pieces (<10 cm maximum dimension, most are much smaller) and we have no evidence of blade production in the city; we think ready-made blades and blanks used to make bifaces arrived in the city, perhaps via the market system. As such, many of these imports were relatively small – if the inhabitants of the city wanted to flake any of this material further still, bipolar technology would have provided an efficient means for doing so.

P6: Experimental blade
sections - top ventral,
bottom dorsal

What is particularly interesting is that after Calixtlahuaca became part of the Aztec Empire in 1474, the amount of green obsidian from Pachuca rose significantly. Preliminary figures from dated houses indicate that from the Dongu (A.D. 1100-1300) to the Yata (A.D. 1470-1530) phases green obsidian increased from 11% to 48%. This shift is coincident with an increase in blade-core artifacts, more than 60% of which were green. This shift is also coincident with a decrease in the amount of bipolar artifacts, which dropped from a high of 17% in Dongu to a low of 7.6% by the Yata phase.
Calixtlahuaca’s incorporation into the Aztec Empire meant more Pachuca green obsidian reached the city. Moreover, if prismatic blades were preferred and were more readily available in the Yata phase, then perhaps there was less pressure to recycle using bipolar technology. Ongoing research, including a chemical study of the gray obsidian artifacts will be evaluating these trends and what we think they indicate about life at Post-classic Calixtlahuaca.

References
Clark, John E.
1981 The Early Preclassic Obsidian Industry of Paso de al Amada, Chiapas, Mexico. Estudios de Cultura Maya 13:265-283.

De León, Jason
2008 The Lithic Industries of San Lorenzo-Tenochtitlán: An Economic and Technological Study of Olmec Obsidian, Penn State University.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey
1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A Model Applied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the Hoko River Site. Washington State University Laboratory of Anthropology. Submitted to Reports of Investigations. Copies available from 59.

Hayden, Brian
1980 Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed Pebbles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9(1):2-7.

Parry, William
1987 Chipped Stone Tools in Formative Period Oaxaca, Mexico: Their Procurement, Production, and Use. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Day of Archaeology, 2011

2011-08-04T15:42:00.003-06:00

Angela Huster

Last Friday, the Day of Archaeology 2011 project collected blog entries from archaeologists around the world about their day. While not that different than my last posting on this blog, my description of a day in the Calixtlahuaca lab can be found at:

http://www.dayofarchaeology.com/aztec-archaeology-at-calixtlahuaca-or-not-one-of-my-better-days/.

Lab Reorganization

2011-07-19T09:48:00.005-06:00

By Angela Huster

Having finally worked out both context and chronology for most of our excavated lots, we’re now in the process of separating the material that we want to keep from that which will be discarded once we have permission from INAH. Ceramics currently fall into one of four categories – Already classified, to keep; Already classified, to discard; To classify, then discard; and To briefly skim, then discard. We are keeping classified material from the domestic context sample and a handful of other contexts, while most of the lots that are being skimmed and tossed are from plowzone, slopewash, modern terrace fill, or other mixed contexts. Like all archaeological collection storage, deciding what to keep is a fine balance between the available storage space (and cost), the research potential of the material, and the odds that anyone will actually get around to looking at it in the future.

This process has resulted in two simultaneous sets of activities. Judith, Delfina, and Janeth are consolidating the lots in each of the first three categories. They’re moving the lots that we’re keeping to the shelves against the back wall of the lab at the same time that they’re moving the lots to be discarded toward the front of the lab so that the boxes will be easier to haul out of the lab.

At the same time, Julia, Shelia, and I are skimming the lots from very marginal contexts for miscellaneous items (figurines, spindle whorls, pipes, molds, etc), and good examples of decorated types to add to the type reference collection. This has been unexpectedly productive, considering that the lots were skimmed once when they were originally washed. We have found three spindle whorls, at least four figurines, a ceramic lip plug, and a reconstructible (if highly eroded) tripod bowl, among other things.

At this point, the entire process has been going incredibly smoothly, and we owe the fact that we are ahead of schedule to the lab ladies.

The 1563 Calendrical Relief

2011-07-17T20:17:00.000-06:00

In talking about the 1563 calendrical relief shown in my previous post, Angela suggested that it could be a foundation monument. In 1561 the town of San Francisco Calixtlahuaca was founded following Spanish law (a decree from the Viceroy). If there were Nahuatl speakers among the new residents who retained a notion of ancient altepetl ceremonies and procedures, perhaps they had the relief carved to give the new town a measure of traditional legitimacy.

I was in the village Saturday, delivering copies of our reports to various people, and I realized that I wasn't sure where my photos were of the cemetery church and the relief. So I went over and took some new photos. The light was very good on the relief. Why is it incorporated into the church wall? When was it put there? What does it tell us? Wish I knew.

I'm not sure what year this church dates to. Its probably discussed in one of the books on Franciscan church architecture in the State of Mexico, but my copies are back home in Arizona. Here are some images of the front of the church. If you can date the church stylistically, let us know! My guess is 17th or 18th century.

And finally, here is a view of the site from in front of the cemetery:

What happened to the people of Calixtlahuaca after the Spanish conquest?

2011-07-14T19:50:00.001-06:00

Most Aztec-period cities and towns continued on as Spanish-colonial cities after the Spanish conquest of 1521. From Mexico City to Cuernavaca to Xochimilco to Texcoco, and many others, these towns were settled by Spaniards (sometimes only a few, sometimes many).. Christian churches were built and the towns flourished in the Colonial economy and on into modern times, where they still exist today.

But not Calixtlahuaca. This Matlatzinca city went from a populated urban center and political capital to an abandoned ruin within a few decades after the Spanish conquest. The city of Toluca, on the other hand, was either nothing or a small village in pre-Spanish times -- no credible archaeological site has been found for pre-Spanish Tollocan. But by the mid-1500s Toluca had a large Franciscan church and convent, and the city went on to become capital of the state of Mexico, and the country's fourth major industrial center today.

We know that the occupation of at least some of the houses at Calixtlahuaca continued for a couple of decades after 1521, because we find ceramic figurines with Spaniards in Spanish dress and poses (see photo). These are in the final occupation layers of the site. But we don't think the occupation continued much beyond a few decades, because we did not find colonial middens with cow and horse bones, glazed ceramics, iron nails, etc. This lack of 16th century colonial debris is not a definitive indication of abandonment, however. In the Teotihuacan Valley, Tom Charlton reported years ago that rural Aztec villages continued functioning for up to a century after 1521 without obvious colonial material remains like these. But Calixtlahuaca was not a rural village - it was the most powerful capital between Tenochtitlan and the Tarascan Empire. So if it HAD continued to be occupied, we would expect to find things like: (1) a sixteenth century church; (2) these kinds of Spanish colonial artifacts.

So, what happened? Most likely, the residents of the city were forcibly moved into Toluca. The Spanish authorities instituted a practiced called "congregación" in which they moved native peoples into towns and cities (the better to control them, to con vert them, and to tax them). Many of the congregaciones left evidence in Spanish official archives, but any documents describing a congregación to Toluca have unfortunately not survived (Jarquin 1994).

But the abandonment of Calixtlahuaca is likely, given that in 1561, the Spanish crown granted land to found the village of San Francisco Calixtlahuaca, which was the origin of the modern town of the same name. I looked at the official decree today in the Archivo General Agrario in Mexico City. The text is accompanied by a crude map, showing the lands granted to the new town. Not being a paleographer, I had trouble reading the sixteenth century handwriting. There is a brief description in a catalog of the archive, however (Olmedo 1998:84). If the residents of Calixtlahuaca had kept living at the site, or if they had moved down off the hill to the site of the historical town, one would not think that the crown would issue a decree founding the town.

This area was part of the "Marquesado del Valle" estate of the conqueror Hernando Cortés. Soon after 1521 he started raising cattle and pigs in the vicinity of Calixtlahuaca, and the new town in 1561 was probably populated by his employees or subjects.

The main church in San Francisco Calixtlahuaca today dates to the nineteenth century. But the small church at the cemetery, just outside of town, is much older. Perhaps this was the main church from the sixteenth century, or perhaps an older church was torn down to build the modern one. The cemetery church has a fascinating carved stone relief embedded in its wall. This drawing is by Hanns Prem from 1970 (see Prem 1980).. The relief shows the Christian date at top "1563 año", and the date for that year in the Aztec calendar at the bottom (6 Reed). We have no idea whether this relief is from the village or from another place entirely. It would be fascinating if 2years after the founding of the new colonial town, someone put up a carving in both the Spanish and Aztec calendars. By the 1700s, there were at least some Nahuatl speakers in San Francisco Calixtlahuaca, as evidenced by a will published by Caterina Pizzigoni (2007).

This model is still somewhat speculative. We would love to have more data on what happened to all those people in the early to mid sixteenth century. According to published catalog, the Archivo General Agrario supposedly has another map and document from San Francisco Calixtlahuaca, from 1575 (Esparza et al. 2000:160-161), but they could not find it at the archive today (even when I showed them the published catalog entry). Maybe we will find additional sixteenth century documentation. But for now, the outline sketched above makes sense out of both the archaeological and the historical data.

Two years ago, the newspaper Milenio published a nice article on Calixtlahuaca and our project. It was called "Calixtlahuaca: La nostalgia del poder," referring to the fact that the positions of Calixtlahuaca and Toluca were reversed during the colonial period. Before 1521, Calixtlahuaca was a big capital city and Tollocan (if it existed at all) was a small village. Today, Toluca is the state capital, and Calixtlahuaca just a village. But that village has some great ruins (our site!) and the big city has none.

References

Esparza, René, Rita Reséndez, and Arnulfo Embriz Osorio (editors)
    2000    Catálogo de mapas, planos, croquis e ilustraciones históricas de restitución y dotación de tierras y ampliación de ejidos del Archivo General Agrario. CIESAS, Mexico City.

Jarquín Ortega, María Teresa
    1994    Congregaciones de pueblos en el Estado de México. Colegio Mexiquense, Toluca.

Olmedo Gaxiola, Regina (editor)
    1998    Catálogo de documentos históricos del Archivo General Agrario. CIESAS, Mexico City.

Pizzigoni, Caterina
    2007    Testaments of Toluca. UCLA Latin American Studies, vol. 90. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Prem, Hanns J.
    1980    Chronolgische Miszellen I. Mexicon 2(2):20-21.

*** Check out Wide Urban World for a post on Calixtlahuaca ***

Visit to the site

2011-07-09T21:02:00.000-06:00

Structure 16 cleaning

Angela and I showed Jennifer Burley around Calixtlahuaca today. Jennifer is a student of art history at the University of Arizona, studying Aztec sculpture with Emily Umberger, our project art historian. In case we got lost there is a nice new blue pyramid sign pointing up the hill. One new development is that many of

Catalino surveying

the temples and public buildings are being cleared off and cleaned up. The biggest change is in structure 16, the big rectangular platform on the plain, east of the royal palace at the edge of the modern town. José García Payón did some superficial clearing of the structure, but did not really excavate much of it. The photo shows the south side of the structure, where two walls are visible. It wasn't clear to us whether these are two different construction stages, or else a two-step profile of the building. I'm sure that the archaeologist in charge, Arqueóloga María del Carmen Carbajal, will sort this out.

Angela & Jennifer on Str. 16

The work crew is headed by Calixtlahuaca resident Catalino Estrada Monte de Oca. Catalino was one of our best workers during the excavations in 2007. He spent much of the time helping out mapper, Max Farrer (see photo). If you visit Calixtlahuaca, be sure to stop in at Catalino's store, on the road up to the site, and say hi.

The work crew has cleared off part of a small platform on top of structure 16 (photo at right). The purpose of structure 16 remains a mystery. Was this a ballcourt? The form does not seem to fit. Perhaps a calmecac (school)? García Payón had labeled the royal palace as a calmecac, but that is an error; perhaps the school was here instead. We did notice a slab support from an Aztec III black-on-orange bowl in the fill of structure 16, suggesting that it was built (or enlarged) in either the Ninupi or Yata phases (Late Postclassic).

The site museum

The Calixtlahuaca bird

Another nice development at the site is that the small site museum has re-opened. It was closed in 2007 for repairs. The plan was to re-do the exhibits with new objects, new text, and a better exhibit. I was asked to participate, and I gladly agreed, but then no one ever contacted me! The leaks in the roof were fixed quickly, but the museum remained closed for several years. Then the old objects were simply put back, with minimal signs or explanation, and the museum opened again.

It's nice to see the materials back in the site museum. One is a nice stone relief of the Calixtlahuaca bird. As discussed in an earlier post, this seems to have been some kind of emblem of the city or dynasty, back before it was called Calixtlahuaca (that is, prior to the Mexica conquest of the 1470s, when the name Calixtlahuaca first appears in the historical sources), and perhaps even before the city was called Matlatzinco (its name during much of the Middle and Late Postclassic periods). Emily Umberger and Maëlle Sergheraert identified a number of examples this turkey-looking bird on stone reliefs recovered at the site in the 1930's by José García Payón.

Here is an old photo of García Payón's crew working on structure 4, the Tlaloc temple. Someone could do a seriation of old Mexican excavation photos, and date the photo by the size and shape of the workers' hats.

Restoring structure 4 in the 1930s

Neighborhoods at Calixtlahuaca

2011-06-20T17:26:00.005-06:00

How can we understand the social organization of an ancient city? One important way is by looking at the neighborhood. Neighborhoods are geographic areas within a city where people engage in daily face to face interaction (Smith 2010; Smith and Novic n.d). This definition works particularly well for archaeologists, because we can identify neighborhoods as a groups of houses based on the spatial proximity of the houses to each other. More interesting then simply identifying neighborhoods is finding it out what the people were like within in them.

Neighborhoods come in a wide variety of social forms. Throughout history, neighborhoods have shown various degrees of social clustering (of which social segregation is a type). Neighborhoods can be clustered along variables such as class, religion, place of origin, race, occupation, and position within the political hierarchy (Rapoport 1980; Garrioch and Peel 2006). Social clustering in many instances is viewed as a problem in modern urban environments. The ideal neighborhood is thought of as being one that contains a mixture of social and economic statuses (Congress for the New Urbanism 1996). A common assumption is that preindustrial cities were organized in such a way as to fit the neighborhood ideal. Whether or not this is true is yet to be determined through more research and analysis.

At Calixtlahuaca, we have twenty probable neighborhoods. I identified these by looking at the distribution of sherds across the landscape. Areas with a sherd density of three sherds per square meter or greater were assumed to be areas of more intense occupation. Here households would have been in close proximity to other households and formed the foundation of a neighborhood.

How were neighborhoods at Calixtlahuaca organized? Were they clustered or did they fit the modern neighborhood ideal? These are the questions that my research addresses. I'll look at 1) whether neighbors were procuring goods from the same production source, 2) whether they had shared tastes for the same styles and forms of ceramics, 3) whether they shared domestic ritual practices, and 4) whether there was similarities in wealth among people in the same neighborhood. I'll be sure to let you all know my results when I get them!

Congress for the New Urbanism

1996 Charter of the New Urbanism, Vol. 2008: Congress for the New Urbanism.

Garrioch, David, and Mark Peel

2006 Introduction: The Social History of Urban Neighborhoods. Journal Of Urban History 32(5):6

Rapoport, Amos

1980 Neighborhood Homogeneity or Heterogeneity: The Field of Man-Environment Studies. Architecture and Behavior 1(1):65-77.

Smith, Michael E.

2010 The Archaeological Study of Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Cities Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 29(2):137-154

Smith, Michael E., and Juliana Novic

n.d. Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Mesoamerica In Neighborhoods in Mesoamerican Cities: The Assessment of Intermediate Units of Spatial and Social Analysis. L. Manzanilla, M.E. Smith, and C. Arnauld, eds. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.

Comals and Cuisine

2011-05-18T14:52:00.007-06:00

by Angela Huster

Comals are large, round, flat clay (or today, metal) griddles. Ethnographic work shows that comals are usually used for cooking tortillas (with occasional double use for toasting coffee or seeds, or reheating tamales). I’ve never come across a description of traditional tortilla production that didn’t involve a comal; there’s no Mesoamerican equivalent of the piki stones found in the US Southwest. The archaeological distribution of comals is highly variable in frequency across time and space in Mesoamerica (Fournier 1998), suggesting that tortillas weren’t nearly as ubiquitous as you might think based on modern Mexican cuisine.

Back during the excavation season in 2007, we had noted that the overall frequency of comals (tortilla griddles) at Calixtlahuaca seemed to be very low, when compared to comparable sites in Morelos or the Basin of Mexico. As our chronological control at the site has improved, this has proved to be both true and false, depending on what phase of the site’s occupation we are looking at.

During the Dongu Phase (~1100-1300 CE), only a few contexts had comals, and even when present, the frequencies were very low. During the subsequent Yata Phase (~1300-1470 CE), the frequency of comals remains low, but the ubiquity goes up, with a few comal sherds present in most contexts. The big change occurs with the shift to the Ninupi phase (~1470-1530 CE). The average frequency of comals rims quintuples, from just over 1% of all rim sherds, to almost 6%. In addition, the distribution of the frequencies is very strongly bimodal, with half of the contexts looking pretty similar to the preceding phases, and half of them looking more like the 7-10% frequencies found in Morelos or the Basin of Mexico.

Since the Ninupi Phase approximates the period between the Aztec and Spanish conquests of Calixtlahuaca, the change in comals use raises interesting questions. It suggests that some of the residents of Calixtlahuaca started eating way more tortillas after they became part of the Aztec Empire. One possibility is that the occupants of these households were interacting with Aztec officials. Eating a meal together served to officially “seal a deal” in Postclassic Mesoamerica (Rodríguez-Alegría 2005), so maybe these households were trying to produce Aztec cuisine for their Aztec business partners. Alternatively, the households with high comal frequencies might belong to immigrants from the Basin of Mexico, who brought their own ways of preparing maize with them to their new homes. Teasing apart these scenarios will require comparing the changes in comal frequencies to changes in other types of ceramics as well as other artifact types.

Works Cited:

Fournier, Patricia

1998 El complejo nixtamal/comal/tortilla en Mesoamerica. Boletin de Antropologia Americana 32:13-40.

Rodríguez-Alegría, Enrique

2005 Eating Like an Indian: Negotiating Social Relations in the Spanish Colonies. Current Anthropology 46:551-574.

New blog on excavations at Maya city of Ceibal (Seibal)

2011-02-24T09:28:00.000-07:00

Takeshi Inomata and Diana Triadan have returned to the Maya city of Ceibal/Seibal, first excavated by Harvard in the 1960s. They are excavating right now, and they have an excellent blog at the New York Times in the series "Scientist at Work: Notes from the Field."

Start with their first entry, from Feb 17, 2011; from that site you can follow the subsequent posts. Or go to the general site, Scientists at Work, for the current post.

There are several posts now. This is an outstanding chronicle of an excavation; check it out.

Ancient neighborhoods

2011-02-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

The organization of Calixtlahuaca into neighborhoods is one of the themes of our project. Julie Novic is focusing on this issue in her dissertation project, and maybe she will write a post on her research soon.

For comparative discussion of urban neighborhoods, see my new blog, Wide Urban World.

There is a post on the universality of neighborhoods
And there is a post on Mark Twain's description of London neighborhoods.

The Aztecs of Calixtlahuaca

2011-01-05T10:19:00.001-07:00

I've blogged before about whether it makes sense to call Calixtlahuaca an Aztec city. My answer is yes, of course. My definition of "Aztec" is the peoples who lived in central Mexico in the final centuries before the Spanish conquest. This is a wider definition than many scholars are comfortable with. In my perspective, the "Aztecs" included:

Speakers of Nahuatl, as well as speakers of some Oto-Pamean languages
People living in Tenochtitlan (the Mexica).
People living in other places in the Valley of Mexico (there is no good indigenous term for these people).
People living in the surrounding valleys (Morelos, Puebla, Tlaxcala, Toluca, etc.) who interacted heavily with those in the Valley of Mexico and shared many social and cultural trains with them.

I am now working on revisions for the third edition of The Aztecs. I used this opportunity to re-visit my own thinking about terms and definitions, and decided that I am satisfied with the definition of "Aztec" that I have been using. Therefore I am adding some material to the book from our excavations at Calixtlahuaca. These were "Aztecs" just as they were the "Matlatzincas" and probably a series of other named categories as well.

I realize that some colleagues, who want to limit the term Aztec to the inhabitants of Tenochtitlan, will probably jump on me for my decision. But those of Tenochtitlan have TWO good names that they used themselves: Mexica, and Tenochca. But since the word "Aztec" was rarely used before the Spaniards arrived, and because there is no native term for the peoples of central Mexico at that time (although they clearly formed a significant social and cultural entity), and because no one has proposed a succinct alternative label, Aztec remains the term. Also, I doubt that Blackwell would want me to change the name of the book to "The peoples of central Mexico in the final centuries before AD 1519, including speakers and Nahuatl and other native languages."

Neighborhoods at Mesoamerican Hilltop Cities

2010-12-06T14:58:00.001-07:00

How does Calixtlahuaca compare to other Mesoamerican hilltop cities? We have written about this in a couple of places. In a paper from the SAA meetings in 2010, I compared Calixtlahuaca, Xochicalco, and a few other examples Smith (2010). If you want a copy of the paper, email me. One interesting difference is in the configuration of the terraces, and houses on terraces. This schematic diagram is from that paper:

(This drawing is by Miriam Cox, ASU student)

Smith, Michael E.
2010 Xochicalco and Calixtlahuaca as Mesoamerican Hilltop Political Capitals. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis.

Julie and I have also make a very brief comparison of Calixtlahuaca to other hilltop cities in terms of their neighborhood organization. The passage below is from our book chapter, now under review:

Smith, Michael E. and Juliana Novic
n.d. Neighborhoods and Districts in Ancient Mesoamerica. In Neighborhoods in Mesoamerican Archaeology: The Assessment of Intermediate Units of Spatial and Social Analysis, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Charlotte Arnauld, (book in preparation).

"The hilltop capital city was a common urban form in ancient Mesoamerica, and researchers have investigated neighborhoods and districts at several of these settlements. In one of the first studies of residential zones at a Mesoamerican city, Richard Blanton (1978:66-93) analyzed districts for both early and late periods at Monte Alban. In early Monte Alban three zones had subtle differences in the ceramic assemblage suggesting that neighborhoods or districts may have had distinctive patterns of shared material culture, possibly signaling some form of spatially based identity. Later periods saw an increase in urban division to fifteen architecturally visible districts. These areas were of mixed social class, with elite and commoners living near one another. Few craft activities were identified at the level of the district, although, Blanton (1978:95) did identify zones of obsidian and groundstone production. In a more recent study, González Licón (2009) discusses inequality among households at Monte Albán, with a consideration of the role of neighborhoods.

At the Oaxaca site of El Palmillo in the Classic period, residential zones were topographically distinguished and shared some economic and ritual activities (Feinman and Nicholas, chapter 7). Residents of nearby houses most likely engaged in joint work activities on common facilities such as terraces and stairs, which Feinman and Nicholas interpret in terms of collective action.

On the basis of a program of intensive surface collection and mapping at the Epiclassic period (AD 600-800) hilltop city of Xochicalco, Kenneth Hirth (2000:234-239) identified fourteen residential zones that he calls “wards” and “ward subdivisions” (figure 3). These were identified on the basis of features of the natural and built environments that impeded movement within the city, such as ravines, ditches, defensive walls, walled causeways, and steep terrace walls. When Hirth plotted the distribution of civic architecture outside of the hilltop epicenter, he found that all but one of his fourteen zones contained one or more temples or civic structures. These units correspond to districts as defined in this paper. In a recent paper, Hirth (2009) compared the distribution of obsidian tool workshops to his map of districts, and found a lack of spatial association between the two. This suggests to him that “(1) artisans did not collaborate in corporate craft activities outside the household, and (2) a craft guild did not exist at the barrio [ward or district] level” (Hirth 2009:58). In both of these works, Hirth compares the Xochicalco data to the Aztec calpolli as described in documentary sources.

Fieldwork by the authors at the hilltop city of Calixtlahuaca (Smith et al. 2009) suggests a division of the city into two districts based on topological considerations. On the basis of surface artifact densities, Novic identified twenty-four smaller zones—most likely neighborhoods—at Calixtlahuaca. The nature and dynamics of these spatial units is the focus of ongoing research (Novic 2008)."

Blanton, Richard E.

1978 Monte Alban: Settlement Patterns at the Ancient Zapotec Capitol. Academic Press, New York.

González Licón, Ernesto

2009 Ritual and Social Stratification at Monte Albán, Oaxaca: Strategies from a Household Perspective. In Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine, pp. 7-20. Memoirs, vol. 46. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

Hirth, Kenneth G.

2000 Public Architecture, Site Planning, and Urban community Organization. In Archaeological Research at Xochicalco. Volume 1, Ancient Urbanism at Xochicalco: The Evolution and Organization of a Pre-Hispanic Society, edited by Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 210-243. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.

2009 Household, Workshop, Guild, and Barrio: The Organization of Obsidian Craft Production in a Prehispanic Urban Center. In Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, edited by Linda Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine, pp. 43-66. Memoirs, vol. 46. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.

Novic, Juliana

2008 Reaching the City Limits: Identifying Settlement Boundaries at Calixtlahuaca, Toluca, Mexico. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

Smith, Michael E., Juliana Novic, Angela Huster, and Peter C. Kroefges

2009 Reconocimiento Superficial y Mapeo en Calixtlahuaca. Expresión Antropológica 36:39-55.

Old Xochimilco canal photo

2010-10-30T11:15:00.001-06:00

This is an old photograph of women ~~harvesting crops~~ selling goods from a boat in a canal connected to the chinampas south of Mexico City, probably in the 1920s. My daughter purchased it from a dealer in old photographs, who has no information about its origin. Does anyone have a clue about who might have taken the photo, when and where? The name "Scott" is penciled in at the lower right.

Please contact me if you know anything about this. ~~I am thinking about using this in the 3rd edition of my book, The Aztecs, but I'd like to know more about the photo before deciding to include it.~~

I have found an alternate old photo, this one with a chinampero along the chinampas. Maybe I will post it at some point.

And what does this have to do with Calixtlahuaca, you might ask. Well, the lakes around Tenochtitlan, and in the southern part of the Basin of Mexico, were filled with chinampas in Aztec times. The high productivity of this form of agriculture is one reason why Tenochtitlan conquered Calixtlahuaca, rather than the other way around.

Ceramics from Teotenango

2010-09-30T13:29:00.000-06:00

Anthropology major Anne Beyens is scanning some of the drawings of ceramics from Teotenango to use in our ceramic type guidebook. Teotenango (see photo) is a large site in the southern part of thToluca Valley.

The first pot shown here is an E-1 tripod bowl, a type whose decoration is similar to the Macana red-on-brown type from Tollan-phase Tula. The second bowl is a Malinalco import (type D-1). These drawings are nice - very clear, good reproduction in black-and-white. They are from:

Tommasi de Magrelli, Wanda
1978 La cerámica funeraria de Teotenango. Biblioteca Enciclopédica del Estado de México, vol. 61. Estado de México, Toluca.

In 2002, I photographed the Teotenango vessels and recorded attributes, and some day I'll find time to work this material up for publication. Some preliminary information is found in:

Smith, Michael E., and Jennifer Wharton
2003 Postclassic Funerary Ceramics from the Toluca Valley, Central Mexico. Paper presented at the 2003 Annual Conference, Society for American Archaeology, Milwaukee.

The Teotenango ceramics are from a series of burials in the plazas of the site. The plazas shown in the site photo at the top were filled with burials. The photo on the right is a reconstruction of a burial, in the museum at the site (which is a great museum, well worth a trip). The monumental architecture was probably built during the Epiclassic period, then perhaps abandoned during the Early Postclassic (this isn't clear), and then during the Middle/Late Postclassic period, people put in all these burials. The ceramics are very similar to Calixtlahuaca, although with different quantities (e.g., red-on-white, our grouop D, is common at Teotenango but rare at Calixtlahuaca).

New paper on political geography of the Toluca Valley

2010-08-17T14:48:00.000-06:00

A new paper by Brian Tomaszewski and I on the political geography of the Toluca Valley is in press at the Journal of Historical Geography. The proof copy is now online.

Tomaszewski, Brian M. and Michael E. Smith
2010 Politics, Territory, and Historical Change in Postclassic Matlatzinco (Toluca Valley, central Mexico). Journal of Historical Geography (in press).

ABSTRACT:

Historical interpretation of political dynamics in pre-conquest central Mexico from indigenous records is fraught with difficulties. Beyond the basic challenges involved in interpreting fragmentary evidence is the fact that the majority of evidence comes from the dominant imperial polity (Tenochtitlan) and paints a biased and overly generalized view of political and social dynamics in provincial areas.We present a reconstruction of the political geography of the Toluca Valley of central Mexico in Aztec times that avoids these biases by focusing not on the events described in native histories, but on the individual towns and their spatial locations. We find that a theoretical perspective that defines political entities by networks and relations among people more adequately captures the historical situation than traditional models that define polities based on territory and boundaries.

2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserve

Our final two hectic weeks in the lab

2010-07-31T22:01:00.000-06:00

Here I am in the pacific port city of Guaymas, Sinaloa. After a nice norrth Mexican arrachera steak and a margarita, I'm resting up for the final day of the drive home. Whew, that was a hectic final 2 weeks in the lab. The previous post, by Angela, describes our petrographic sherd sample, one of our three massive sampling programs, all carried out during the last 2 weeks. We also picked a couple of hundred sherds for INAA analysis, and Adrian Burke picked around 250 pieces of obsidian for XRF source analysis. Each sampling program involved numerous searching through bags and boxes, cross-checking, measuring, etc. We take sampling seriously on this project, since we want the results of our technical analyses to represent various contexts, time periods, and artifact categories as well as possible. Why the rush during these 2 weeks? We needed to complete the seriation, so that we could assign the excavated deposits to phases, so that we could pick intelligent samples to monitor change through time (and other things). The seriation was not completed till just recently (I think we were too busy to post a description of this; maybe Angela or I can do this from ASU in the next few weeks).

Also, Adrian ran around looking for obsidian sources (one trip with Brad and Akiko and I to Las Palomas; and one trip just Adrian). The above photo shows Akiko and I on the hill of obsidian at Las Palomas. Brad and Akiko worked on the technological analysis of obsidian. Brad found some time to knap some of the Las Palomas obsidian (the preliminary report is, ok for bifaces, but not for blades). We got a bunch of miscellaneous cataloging done. Charles and Maria Stapleton stopped by for a day to finalize their report on censers. Kristin Nado spent several days cleaning human bone. I picked some more charcoal samples for C14 dating. Two Mexican students from the new archaeology program at UAEM, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México, in Tenancingo (Rosario Endañú and Ali Sarabia) stopped by to help us for a while, and ended up with thesis topics. AND we reboxed the gound stone (it had been stored by provenience, and now it is stored by functional type). AND we got a number of new ceramic bags sorted. AND we pulled out ALL of the Aztec black-on-orange (even from already-analyzed bags) and re-sorted it (which had to be done before we pulled the sherd samples). All in the final 2 weeks of lab work. Wow, I'm amazed that we got it all done. Well, actually we only got 1/2 of the petrographic sample pulled. Now we could say that we ran out of time, but I'd rather say that we decided on a two-stage sampling and analytical process, so that results from the first batch will affect how we sample for the second batch. I could even come up with a citation or two to support multi-stage sampling. That sounds much better, doesn't it?

Thin-Section Sampling – or – the Invasion of the Sherds

2010-07-24T09:30:00.005-06:00

Now that we have a basic handle on the seriation, we are picking samples of sherds from each phase to export for thin-sectioning and petrographic analysis. This analysis, which will be done by Dr. Jennifer Meanwell, will hopefully tell us two things. First, it will let us know whether the variation we think we are seeing in ceramic pastes is real at a structural level. Second, we should be able to look at changes in the frequencies of the different paste types (provided that they exist!) over time, which could relate to changing patterns of trade.
Thin-sectioning and petrographic analysis is both expensive and time consuming, so we have developed a rather elaborated sampling strategy in an effort to get a representative sample of each phase. Julie Novic and I are taking rims sherds only, dividing them into categories based on vessel types (bowls, jars, and other vessels), and then dividing each of those categories into two groups, based on paste. (This has been a good opportunity for Julie to teach me how to recognize the various paste groups, but I clearly have a ways to go!) I then get a list of randomly generated numbers and use those to pick sherds from each of the six stratified groups. So far the random selections seem to be a pretty good representation of their parent groups. Since we also have a couple of specific ceramic types that we’re interested in, I go and pull out examples of them if they weren’t chosen during the randomized selection process.
Because we are sampling by phase, our sampling unit is the stratigraphic layer, rather than the excavated lot, which is how our material is stored. Since the former usually consists of several of the latter, we have to have several different lots open at the same time, which means that we are labeling every rim sherd to avoid confusion. The practical result is that all the ceramics tables in the lab are covered with neat lines of sherds, and we are starting to eye the patches of open space on the lithics table enviously!

The photos show Julie with her trusty pliers for checking paste types, and a portion of the bowl rims from a single group.

The Centro Ceremonial Otomi

2010-07-22T19:12:00.002-06:00

While Brad, Adrian, Akiko, and I were driving around the wooded mountains northeast of Toluca, looking for an obsidian source (which we found! more on this later, I hope), we stopped in at the "Centro Ceremonial Otomi." This is one of the more bizarre built environments I have ever experienced. It is a huge monumental complex built of stone, located in the mountains northeast of Toluca (in the municipio of Temoaya) with a beautiful view down into the Toluca Valley.

The Centro was built in 1980, by Jorge Jiménez Cantú, governor of the State of Mexico. Its purpose was supposedly to provide a tribute to the Otomi peoples of the state. The design seems to have nothing to do with Otomi culture or history, from the pictorial mosaics to the architectural arrangement and elements To me, it looks like the modernist architectural monuments built by 20th century authoritarian regimes (huge monuments that dwarf human visitors, abstract decoration, large open area for ceremony, etc.).

This complex was used in the James Bond flick "License to Kill" as the "Olympatec Meditation Institute" (see photo below).

Residents of Toluca said that at one time there was a museum featuring Otomi culture at the monument, but all we saw was a big empty room. There is a small market with traditional crafts. We didn't see much evidence of Otomi activity at the site, although the Wikipedia entry on Temoaya says that Otomi ceremonies are held regularly at the Centro.

The Centro Ceremonial Otomi is open to tourists, and it houses dormitories for athletes who come to train at the high altitude (more than 3,000 meters ASL).

If I were governor and wanted to do something for the Otomi residents of the state, I'd spend my money on education, health, and jobs. If you want to know more about the Otomi, see some of these sources:

Carrasco, Pedro (1950) Los Otomíes: cultura e historia prehispánica de los pueblos mesoamericanos de habla otomiana. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Fournier García, Patricia (2007) Los Hñähñü del Valle de Mezquital: maguey, pulque y alfarería. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Galinier, Jacques (1987) Pueblos de la Sierra Madre: Ethnografía de la comunidad otomí. INI, CEMCA (Centre d'études mexicaines et centraméricaines), Mexico City.

García Castro, René (editor) (1999) Códice Xiquipilco-Temoaya y títulos de tierras otomíes: edición facsimilar. El Colegio Mexiquense, Toluca.

Lagarriga Attias, Isabel and Juan Manuel Sandoval Palacios (1978) Otomies del norte del Estado de México: una contribución al estudio de la marginalidad. Serie de Antropología Social. Gobierno del Estado de México, Toluca.

Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda (2006) El Códice Huichapan (Compact Disk). Serie Códices de México vol. 4. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Lastra de Suárez, Yolanda (2006) Los otomies: su lengua y su historia. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Mexico City.

Muñoz Samayoa, Fernando and Irma Ramírez González (2008) Artesanías mazahuas y otomíes en el Estado de México. In Homenaje a Noemí Quezada: VI Coloquio Internacional sobre Otopames, edited by Verónica Kugel and Ana María Salazar, pp. 335-348. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional de México, Mexico City.

Wright Carr, David Charles (2005) Lengua, cultura e historia de los otomíes. Arqueología Mexicana 13(73):26-29.

Wright Carr, David Charles (2008) La sociedad prehispánica en las lenguas Náhuatl y Otomí. Acta Universitaria (Universidad de Guanajuato) 18(especial):15-23.

Our lab is in the newspaper

2010-07-17T07:10:00.003-06:00

The Mexican newspaper Milenio just ran a full-page spread of photos taken in our lab (at the Colegio Mexiquense). For a pdf of the article, click here.

The article is called: "Desentierran varias piezas arqueológicas en la entidad." Milenio, July 15, 2010. Section: Milenio Edomex, page 8. It is a "fotoreportaje" with photos by Iván Carmona, and text by Caludia Hidalgo. They visited us July 14 (Bastille Day). The photos in this post were taken by Carmona, but not used in the article; they are reproduced here with his permission. A longer text piece by Ms. Hidalgo is scheduled to appear in the newspaper Tuesday July 20.

These photos show Brad with his obsidian, Angela checking Janeth's classification of sherds, Julie recording ceramic attributes, the someone's hand with a spindle whorl (probably Angela's).

Milenio ran a story on Calixtlahuaca last year, by Ernesto de la Cueva, and it is probably the best journalistic account of my research I have yet encountered. It was called "Calixtlahuaca: La Nostalgia del Poder." The title relates the the observation that 600 years ago Calixtlahuaca was a large powerful capital city and Tollocan (Toluca) was a small village subject to the capital, whereas today the situation is the exact reverse.

Dongu

2010-07-14T19:34:00.002-06:00

Angela and I have isolated three ceramic phases for Calixtlahuaca through our seriation work. We'll post something soon on the new chronology. Here I want to talk about some linguistic research I've been doing. Our earliest period covers the Middle Postclassic period (ca. AD 1100-1300, but don't quote me yet), and the other two correspond to the Late Postclassic period. We have decided to use indigenous terms in the three local Oto-Pamean languages to name these phases. It is almost certain that the original builders and residents of Calixtlahuaca spoke one (or more) of these languages: Otomi, Mazahua, and Matlatzinca (see my previous post on this issue). The use of native terms for our time periods is one way of showing respect for the peoples of these groups. All three languages are still spoken today.

For the earliest phase, we will use the term "Dongu," which is an Otomi term for ancient or old house. This seems appropriate for the earliest occupation period at the site. Dongu is also a placename in the Otomi region in the north-western State of Mexico. The photo above was taken at the tiny hamlet of Dongu, located between the town of Acambay and the archaeological site of Huamango (thanks to Emily Root-Garey for taking the photo during our trip to Huamango a week ago).

René García Castro suggested to me yesterday that Dongu has another sense in Otomi native histories: it may refer to ancestral locations of the Otomi ruling families or ruling "houses" of the Postclassic period. This would make the term even more appropriate for Calixtlahuaca, the Middle- and Late-Postclassic capital of the Toluca Valley.

Speaking of Otomi toponyms, I just read an interesting new article on the topic (Lastra 2008). Two place names jumped out at me:

(1) Calixtlahuaca: n-dahni, "viento, pega el aire." This toponym was collected in 2002 from San Andrés Cuexcontitlán (just north of Toluca, and northeast of Calixtlahuaca). Could this be a clue to the ancient name of the city? As I started to get excited about this, it occurred to me that this could be merely a modern reference to the archaeological site, where it is well known that the main temple was dedicated to the wind god, Ehecatl. Interesting, though.....

(2) Huamango: karendó, gran escalera de piedra. This was also collected in 2002, in the town of Acambay (heading south from Huamango, past Dongu). This is another appropriate-sounding toponym. For information on the site of Huamango, see my previous post.

Lastra, Yolanda
2008 Topónimos otmíes. Estudios de Cultura Otopame 6:381-314.

** PS - I apologize to the linguists out there for not including the proper diacritics for these Otomi words. Not only am I a linguistically-challenged researcher, but my computer cannot handle the necessary symbols and diacritics needed to properly render Otopamean terms.

Sounds From the Past: The Bird-Whistle from Calixtlahuaca

2010-07-12T18:55:00.000-06:00

By Arnd Adje Both

Favourable circumstances sometimes allow a sound of the past to be recovered and brought to our ears again. This is the case of a little bird-whistle from Calixtlahuaca, so far the only instrument from the site found intact (many fragmentary instruments were recovered in the excavations).

Its little high-pitched sound is the only one that has survived until today. The whistle (a globular flute without a fingerhole) is in the shape of a bird, and it is not surprising that it produces bird-like cries, which reminded us of a raptor. Does this whistle resemble the bird shown on the shield carried by the local king? We don’t know.

When I made a recording of the whistle in the patio of the ex-Hacienda of the Colegio Mexiquense in Zinacántepec (site of the Calixtlahuaca laboratory), Mike and Angela noted a definite effect on the many birds around. These birds made a lot of noise (or song, as the Aztecs would say), and notably were attracted by the sound produced by the whistle.

Click below for a short excerpt from my

recording of this whistle.

For more information on whistles like this and other Aztec musical instruments, see:

Both, Arnd Adje (2002) Aztec Flower-Flutes: The Symbolic Organization of Sound in Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. Studien zur Musikarchäologie III:279-289. Rahden/Westf.

Both, Arnd Adje (2005) Aerófonos mexicas de las orfrendas del recinto sagrado de Tenochtitlan. PhD dissertation. Lateinamerika-Institut, Freue Universität Berlin.

Both, Arnd Adje (2006) On the Context of Imitative and Associative Processes in Prehispanic Music. Studien zur Musikarchäologie V, pp. 319-332. Rahden/Westf.

Martí, Samuel (1968) Instrumentos musicales precortesianos. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Calixtlahuaca Obsidian

2010-07-10T17:47:00.001-06:00

By Bradford Andrews

At Calixtlahuaca (like most prehispanic societies in Mesoamerica), obsidian was the most common type of stone used to make tools for a wide variety of domestic, militaristic, and ritualistic purposes. More than 94% of the tools and debitage (byproducts of stone tool manufacture and use) from the site are composed of obsidian. Analysis of the obsidian materials was initiated by me and two of my Pacific Lutheran University students, Elisa Hoelter and David Treichel, during the summer of 2009. To date almost 9,000 artifacts have been analyzed.

Obsidian is a volcanic stone made of silica that is created by the rapid cooling of volcanic ejecta. Because it cools so rapidly, it lacks a true crystalline structure (Cobean 2002). This quality makes obsidian ideal flaking sharp implements used for numerous slicing, cutting, and scraping activities. Most of the obsidian found on Aztec sites comes from relatively recent volcanic deposits scattered across Central Mexico, stretching from Veracruz on the Gulf to the western Mexican state of Michoacan bordering the Pacific Ocean (Glascock et al. 1988).

The Calixtlahuaca obsidian artifacts show some interesting variation concerning flaked stone tool production and use in Aztec period Central Mexico. Here are three patterns that stand out:

First, the collections are composed almost exclusively of gray obsidian (75%). Although data are limited, this contrasts with has been reported for other Aztec sites outside the Basin of Mexico, the location of modern day Mexico City and the heartland of the Aztec Empire. In Morelos more than 90% of the artifacts are made of obsidian from the Pachuca source in the modern state of Hidalgo, northwest of the Basin. Pachuca obsidian is typically green in color. We think, therefore, that Calixtlahuaca was supplied with obsidian by means of a different system than was the case for some of the other Aztec dominated sites in Mesoamerica. It is probable that much of it came from sources west of Calixtlahuaca, many of which are located in Michoacan. Future chemical analysis will be conducted to evaluate this proposition.

Second, most of the tools (66%) were derived from obsidian blades that do not appear to have been produced by craftsmen who lived at Calixtlahuaca. The Mesoamerican blade technology consisted of shaping a cylindrical “core” from which blades were then removed by “pressing” them off with a wooden implement (Hirth and Andrews 2002). Such a process results in byproducts of blade production that are minimally represented at Calixtlahuaca. This finding is interesting because at numerous Mesoamerican sites evidence suggests that blades were made in workshops by resident craftsmen. It seems likely, therefore, that blade tools arrived at the site ready-made for use, or were produced by traveling craftsmen who periodically visited the site and plied their wares in the market.

Third, many of the artifacts that were made using a biface technology (23%) do appear to have been shaped into various tools in Calixtlahuaca households Biface technology entails the removal of flakes from two sides, or “faces” of a relatively flat piece of obsidian to make items such as projectile points (arrowheads) and other scraping and chopping tools. This finding is interesting because in Central Mexico evidence for the production biface tools in the majority of a city’s households is the exception rather than the rule.

These preliminary observations on the obsidian artifacts from Calixtlahuaca provide important new comparative information on flaked stone tool production and use in the provinces of the Aztec Empire.

I presented these observations at the recent Society for American Archaeology meetings:

Andrews, Bradford W. (2010) Calixtlahuaca Obsidian: Initial Reflections of Lithic Technology on the Western Aztec Periphery. Paper Presented at the 75th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis, Missouri.

Artist’s reconstruction of Biface production in a Calixtlahuaca Household, illustration by Michael Stasinos.

References cited

Cobean, Robert H. (2002) A World of Obsidian: The Mining and Trade of a Volcanic Glass in Ancient Mexico. Serie Arqueología De México. Pittsburgh: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia/University of Pittsburgh.

Glascock, Michael D., J. Michael Elam, and Robert H. Cobean. (1988) Differentiation of Obsidian Sources in Mesoamerica. Archaeometry '88. Eds. R. M. Farquhar, G. V. Hancock and L. A. Pavlish. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 245-51.

Hirth, Kenneth G., and Bradford W. Andrews (2002) Introduction." Pathways to Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican Obsidian Core-Blade Technology. Eds. Kenneth G. Hirth and Bradford W. Andrews. Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 1-14.

Ceramics and chronology

2010-06-29T20:34:00.000-06:00

Angela and I are working on ceramic seriation right now. We are using counts of ceramic types to define ceramic phases (time periods), and we will use the results to assign as many of our excavated and surface contexts to a time period. I'll post more details when we have made more progress. But for some time how we have noticed an interesting chronological pattern that is very different from the ceramic situation at the provincial sites I excavated previously in Morelos.

We have noticed a strong association between the three ceramic types pictured here:

comals (tortilla griddles)
Texcoco fabric-marked (salt transport vessels), and
Aztec III black-on-orange.

In Morelos this correlation does not exist. There, salt vessels and comals ran throughout the sequence (Middle and Late Postclassic periods), whereas Aztec III was only found in the Late Postclassic. Most comals were locally made, and there are lots of them at the Morelos sites. The other two types were imported from the Basin of Mexico (as we showed with chemical analysis).

At Calixtlahuaca, however, the strong correlation among these types suggest that people were not using comals in the Middle Postclassic, and that they were not importing their salt from the Basin of Mexico at that time either. Then in the Late Postclassic, they started importing Aztec III bowls, Texcoco fabric-marked vessels, AND comals. All of our comals resemble closely the Late Postclassic comals from the Basin of Mexico; also, comals are much, much rarer at Calixtlahuaca than in Morelos.

So what does this mean? Until our seriation work is complete I don't want to speculate too much. Howeever these three types suggest very different patterns of trade and interaction between center and provinces than I documented in Morelos. And if they didn't have comals prior to the Late Postclassic, then they weren't eating torillas. Unfortunately we have been unable to identify vessels for steaming tamales, the logical tortilla alternative.

Stay tuned......

What are we up to?

2010-06-24T17:41:00.004-06:00

Adje Both, expert in Aztec and Mesoamerican musical instruments, spent a day looking at our flutes and such. He recorded the sounds of the whole examples. He and I then went to Morelos to look at the material from my excavations there. When he gets back to Germany, he will write up a blog entry on the Calixtlahuaca material, with a link to his recording. These musical instruments are special - we can play them today, and hear the same sounds that the ancient inhabitants of the site heard.
We are slogging through burned daub again, getting ready to throw out the stuff we don't need and save the informative pieces.
Julie is measuring attributes on surface ceramics.
Angela and I are working on the seriation. Stay tuned, this will be hot news when we are done.
I gave a lecture today, a featured speech at an annual convention of Mexican archaeology students (at the archaeology facility of the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México in Tenancingo). Several of the UAEM students worked with us during our excavations. And several visiting students from the Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potisí had taken classes with Peter Kroefges, who worked at Calixtlahuaca in 2006.

New articles and papers on Calixtlahuaca

2010-06-17T17:50:00.002-06:00

I just posted an article on our 2006 season, the surface survey:

Smith, Michael E., Juliana Novic, Angela Huster and Peter C. Kroefges (2009) Reconocimiento Superficial y Mapeo en Calixtlahuaca. Expresión Antropológica 36:39-55.

Also, there is a link to this at the right, under "Links".

I plan to put this and other papers onto our project website, but I am having trouble editing the html here in Mexico (I don't have my regular editing program, and the one I downloaded is difficult to work with). This is one reason why blogs and wikis, etc., are easier than traditional websites.

We've had some recent papers at meetings.

Huster, Angela (2008) Scraping and Spinning: Maguey Fiber Production at Calixtlahuaca, Mexico. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

Novic, Juliana (2008) Reaching the City Limits: Identifying Settlement Boundaries at Calixtlahuaca, Toluca, Mexico. Paper presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

And there are a couple of papers accepted for publication and now in press:

Smith, Michael E. (2010) Las ciudades prehispánicas: su traza y su dinámica social. In Nueva Historia General del Estado de México, tomo 2, periodo postclásico (IN PRESS), edited by Rosaura Hernández Rodríguez and Raymundo César Martníez García. El Colegio Mexiquense, Toluca.

Tomaszewski, Brian M. and Michael E. Smith (n.d.) Politics, Territory, and Historical Change in Postclassic Matlatzinco (Toluca Valley, central Mexico). Journal of Historical Geography (accepted for publication).

If you need copies of any of these, email the author(s).

A new look

2010-06-16T20:47:00.003-06:00

Blogger offers some new design templates, so I am trying one out. In addition to the colors and such, the text frame is now wider.

We are working in the lab at the Colegio Mexiquense now, and should be posting more frequently!

Here is a very low-resolution version of the plan of unit 307, the house that yielded most of the Spaniards with hats.

Let me know if you like or dislike this new format for the blog.

Amy Karabowicz is honored by SHESC

2010-05-13T16:31:00.001-06:00

Amy Karabowicz, who wrote her senior honors thesis on the burned daub from Calixtlahuaca, has received several honors at her ASU graduation this month. First, she received the "Undergraduate Award for Academic Achievement" from SHESC (the School of Human Evolution & Social Change). Check out the page on her award. Amy was also given the University's "Moeur Award," for "those individuals who have attained the highest academic standing in any four-year curriculum during their undergraduate years at ASU."

Amy's senior honors thesis, "Wattle and Daub Architecture at Calixtlahuaca, Mexico," was written for the Barrett Honors College. We hope it will become available in some fashion before too long. Stay tuned.

Congratulations, Amy!

The "King of Calixtlahuaca" cake

2010-05-08T16:36:00.006-06:00

We had a party last night for the archaeologists, and Alanna Ossa made this awesome cake, decorated with a Calixlahuaca relief. Her model was Emily Umberger's drawing of the monument (see Umberger 2007). Emily was given the honor of cutting the cake, I got to eat the bird emblem, and a good time was had by all. No one fell into the pool.

Alanna is quite a cake artist. Check out her blog, "Cake and Empire" for more excellent cakes (including the Aztec Calendar stone, a skull rack, and other cool cakes). Ace of Cakes watch out!

Umberger, Emily
2007 Historia del arte e Imperio Azteca: la evidencia de las esculturas. Revista Española de Antropología Americana 37:165-202.

Tarascan urbanism in the news

2010-04-13T17:11:00.005-06:00

West Mexico seems to be the exciting place for new archaeological research on Postclassic urbanism See my prior post on the French work in Michoacan. And now Chris Fisher's fieldwork at early Tarascan urban, or proto-urban, sites is making the news (LA Times). Read more about his project on his website, the "Legacies of Resilience Foundation."

I'm sure that the people of Calixtlahuaca were in touch with Tarascans, but why haven't we found any Tarascan pottery at the site? When we analyze the obsidian, we will probably find that a good part of it comes from sources near Lake Cuitzeo, and it is also very likely that much of our copper-bronze is from Tarascan territory. But the lack of ceramics remains puzzling.

How big are those pyramids?

2010-03-30T16:56:00.005-06:00

I like to talk about the "monumental architecture" at Calixtlahuaca as if the pyramids and palace were truly large and impressive structures. I realize that the temples at Calixtlahuaca are much smaller than the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, or the other big Aztec twin-temple pyramids such as Tlatelolco or Tenayuca. This fits a general expectation that the scale of civic architecture should match up with the scale of the polity. Joyce Marcus (2003) has pointed out that this assumption is not always true, but I think it holds up reasonably within a cultural tradition such as Aztec central Mexico. As the capital of a big empire, it is not surprising that Tenochtitlan has bigger temples than Calixtlahuaca, the capital of a smaller regional state.But Chris Fisher just sent me an image that makes even the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan look puny. He has merged a model of that temple into the main platform at Tzintzuntzan, the Tarascan capital (Pollard 1993; Fisher 2005):
(image by Christopher Fisher)

The oddly shaped temples on top of the great platform are called yacatas. The Templo Mayor fits right in the line of yacatas. Well, since the Tarascans beat the Aztecs soundly in the only major direct battle they fought, I guess we can say that Tzintzuntzan was the more powerful city. So then it makes sense that their main religious structure was bigger than the Templo Mayor.

The sizes of things are important, and differences in scale can teach us important lessons. These may not be simple or obvious lessons, but it is always important to keep in mind how big things are.

Fisher, Christopher T.
2005 Demographic and Landscape Change in the Lake Pátzcuaro Basin, Mexico: Abandoning the Garden. American Anthropologist 107:87-95.

Marcus, Joyce
2003 Monumentality in Archaic States: Lessons Learned from Large-Scale Excavations of the Past. In Theory and Practice in Mediterranean Archaeology: Old World and New World Perspectives, edited by John K. Papadopoulos and Richard M. Leventhal, pp. 115-134. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Pollard, Helen Perlstein
1993 Tariacuri's Legacy: The Prehispanic Tarascan State. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Smith, Michael E.
2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Burning Incense at Calixtlahuaca

2010-02-28T16:08:00.011-07:00

Incense burners (or censers) are a regular part of household artifact inventories at Aztec-period sites in central Mexico. People made offerings to the gods by burning copal, an aromatic resin made from the sap of various trees of the genus coparifera. The censers we found in domestic contexts at Calixtlahuaca are interesting; their form is uncommon at other sites. The first few images show some of our sherds, and a reconstruction drawing (made by ASU student Will Russell). Caitlin Guthrie did a preliminary study of these censers and presented a poster at the 2008 SAA meetings:

Guthrie, Caitlin
2008 The Censers of Calixtlahuaca. Poster presented at the 2008 Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, Vancouver.

We are still working on comparing these items to other central Mexican censers. They seem to most closely resemble some censers from the Tollan phase (Early Postclassic) at Tula. This is interesting, becuase the Calixtlahuaca deposits are all from the Middle and Late Postclassic periods. Perhaps people adopted the Toltec censers, and then kept using them while other Aztec-period peoples in central Mexico changed to the long-handled censer style.

Here is an example of the long-handled censers that are most typical of Aztec sites in the Basin of Mexico and Morelos. There are many images in the codices of priests using these things at public cereminies (this image is from the Codex Mendoza). In Morelos, these were the dominant form of domestic censer. I describe these and talk about possible links between domestic ritual and state ritual in this paper:

Smith, Michael E.
2002 Domestic Ritual at Aztec Provincial Sites in Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp. 93-114. Monograph, vol. 46. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Back to Calixtlahuaca: We also have some long-handled censers (see the photo), but they are very different from the Aztec examples. In fact, these forms (which are much rarer than the spiked censers shown above) also resemble censer forms from Tollan-phase Tula. Hmmmmmm. I guess the Calixtlahuaca folks really liked those Toltec incense burners. Were they making a delberate social statement about their linkages to the Toltec past, their adherence to Toltec values and ideas? Or were they country bumpkins who were so out of it that they didn't realize that everyone else in central Mexico was now using the new Aztec-style censer? Can we decide between these two views? Or do we need to consider additional kinds of evidence before making complex interpretations like this?

And here is one final example, an unusual decorated basin censer from Garcia Payon's excavations at Calixtlahuaca. The color photo shows the vessel when we photographed the collections in 2002 (thanks to the Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura and the Museo de Antropología in Toluca for permissions and help). But when it was first found, it looked like the second image, taken from the Illustrated London News in 1931:

Gann, Thomas
1931 New Light on Aboriginal America: Interesting Discoveries on Toltec Sites in Mexico: Temples and Art Treasures at Calixtlahuaca and Teotihuacan. In Illustrated London News, pp. 330-331. August 29, 1931 ed, London.

My guess is that this was used in temple ceremonies, not in domestic ritual.

New blog on Postclassic urban sites in Michoacan

2010-02-18T08:17:00.002-07:00

Marion Forest has just started an informative blog on "Le Projet Uacusecha." This project is investigating some very interesting urban sites in an area of lava flows near Zacapu, Michoacan.As you can see from the photo, many of the stone foundation walls are very well preserved at these sites. This is an important project for expanding our understanding of the forms and organization of urbanism in Postclassic Mesoamerica.

Mysterious Calixtlahuaca: Memo to TV producers

2010-02-03T07:56:00.005-07:00

Memo to TV producers:

Tonight I watched the PBS/National Geographic show, “Ghosts of Machu Picchu” that emphasized the mysterious nature of this Inca site. When you make your million-dollar documentary on Calixtlahuaca, here are some of the mysteries you could emphasize. Based on the fact that many of the so-called “mysteries” that structured the Machu Picchu show have not been at all mysterious since John Rowe’s 1990 paper (Rowe 1990), I will list some “mysteries” of Calixtlahuaca and their solutions (so that you can avoid the real information until the end of the show, for dramatic effect).

Why was the main pyramid circular in form? Was this a sacred shape, perhaps a symbol of the cosmos? Might the shape relate to the statue of the wind god found buried in the pyramid? Could it indicate that the people of Calixtlahuaca were in tune with the weather and the cosmos? You can use haunting and spooky flute music in this segment.

Reality check: The role of circular temples and the wind god has been known since the first codices were studied, and the topic was thoroughly analyzed in Pollock (1936).

Why did so many of the human long bones excavated at Calixtlahuaca in the 1930s have deep parallel notches? Could these have been sacred musical instruments that produced an eerie percussion sound used in secret rituals? Why did these skeletons disappear after 1935?

Reality check: The uses of these objects as musical instruments has been understood at least since Seler’s work over a hundred years ago (Seler 1992). We don’t know what happened to the bones, though.

Why was this city built on a hill? Was it to worship the gods of the sky, or perhaps the sun god? Can this be explained by the “sacred landscape theory” that explains Machu Picchu according to Nova last night? (actually I prefer Rowe’s more prosaic explanation). Just like Machu Picchu, there were sacred volcanoes to the south and the east of Calixtlahuaca (and probably to the north and west, although I haven’t looked yet).

Well, I guess I have to admit that the placement of the city on a hill is really a mystery of sorts, something that we are working on. But it is hard to attribute the location to a “sacred landscape theory” when nearly all other Aztec-period cities were NOT built on mountains, whereas the basic belief system was widespread.

Sincerely yours,

M. E. Smith, skeptical archaeologist

Now, here are some REAL mysteries, but probably not the kind of mystery that TV producers would be interested in:

Why do so many people insist in attributing mystery to archaeological sites and ancient peoples? Weren’t ancient people humans like you and me, living regular lives like people all over the world? Why must the past be portrayed as mysterious and so very different from the present?
Why do people seem amazed that ancient peoples did the things they did? Inka stonework is admirable for its skill and aesthetics, but there is nothing mysterious about it. They put thousands of people to work cutting stone, they had expert masons, and they took whatever time was needed to do things right. The Mayas had an advanced calendar and writing system, and they were pretty smart people, but there is nothing mysterious about this. (And no, the world will NOT end in 2012). The Aztecs used one of the most highly productive agricultural systems known to the preindustrial world (chinampas, or raised fields), but this is not mysterious. They had the skills, the labor, and the economic and political structure to do what they needed to do.

REFERENCES:

Pollock, Harry E. D.

1936 Round Structures of Aboriginal Middle America. Publications, vol. 471. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC.

Rowe, John H.

1990 Machu Picchu en la luz de documentos del siglo XVI. Histórica (Lima) 14(1):139-154.

Seler, Eduard

1992 Ancient Mexican Bone Rattles. In Collected Works in Mesoamerican Linguistics and Archaeoalogy, pp. 62-73, vol. 3. Labyrinthos, Culver City.

Calixtlahuaca structure 3 is on YouTube

2009-12-18T10:04:00.002-07:00

Max Farrar has posted an animated 3-D rendering of structure 3, the Ehecatl temples, on You Tube. Click here.

What language was spoken at Calixtlahuaca?

2009-12-10T12:52:00.003-07:00

I seem to get asked this question quite a bit. People want to know how to label the people who built and lived in the city of Calixtlahuaca. During the excavations, a group of people from the group "Unión de los Pueblos del Valle de Toluca" visited us and asked if we knew which language was spoken. They represented indigenous people from the western part of the State of Mexico, including speakers of the Mazahua, Matlatzinca, and Otomi languages. It turns out that these three languages, plus Nahuatl, were all present in the Toluca Valley at the time of the Spanish conquest. Here is René García Castro's map of the non-Nahuatl language distribution at that time.
Calixtlahuaca is just above Toluca. It is within the area of Matlatzinca, near its northern border, and also within the area of Otomi (near its southern border). The Mazahua area is not far to the northwest. And we know that Nahuatl was spoken in much of the valley also.

It seems that we cannot answer this question about languages on the basis of present data. My guess is that the city was founded by non-Nahuatl speakers, but by the time the Mexica king Axayacatl conquered the city in the 1470s, there were speakers of all four languages. But that is mostly a guess. Perhaps better data from historical linguistics could help provide a more precise answer. Perhaps if we had better information on the Calixtlahuaca bird, we might be able to narrow down the choice of languages, at least for the ruling dynasty.

This lack of precision is frustrating, but it does not both me unduly. The language(s) spoken and ethnic identity of the inhabitants of Calixtlahuaca are less interesting to me than are their activities and accomplishments.

The map shown above is from García Castro (2000); see his 1999 book for documentation.

García Castro, René
1999 Indios, territorio y poder en la provincia matlatzinca: la negociación del espacio político de los pueblos otomianos, siglos XV-XII. CIESAS, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, and El Colegio Mexiquense, Mexico City and Toluca.

García Castro, René
2000 Los grupos indígenas del valle de Toluca. Arqueología Mexicana 43:50-55.

Calilxtlahuaca lectures draw a big crowd !

2009-11-15T19:27:00.005-07:00

The AIA lecture that Emily and I gave last week drew a big crowd (see photo). Now either Calixtlahuaca is becoming hip and popular among the in-crowd, or else some professors bribed their intro classes into coming by giving extra credit points. Hmmm ........The actual attendance was 217, perhaps not enough to fill a big arena like this, but a good crowd nevertheless. And people asked some excellent questions:

Q: Were the terraces centrally planned and built by the state, or were they organized and built by individual households?
A: Very good question by Cinthia Carvajal. I'll let my grad students figure out an answer to that one. This is an important issue in both the terracing/agriculture literature, and in the urban literature.

Q: Was there some special local weather condition related to the winds on Cerro Tenismo that may have influenced the placement of the wind-god temple half-way up the hill?
A: Another good question. My answer was "I have absolutely no idea!"

Calixtlahuaca lectures at ASU

2009-11-02T14:36:00.002-07:00

On November 12, Emily Umberger and I will each give a half-hour talk on our research at Calixtlahuaca. This is part of the Archaeological Institute of America lecture series, called "Notes From the Field: Aztecs."

New and Old Excavations at Calixtlahuaca, an Aztec Regional Capital
Speaker: Michael E. Smith

Reassembling the Calixtlahuaca Sculptural Corpus
Speaker: Emily Umberger

This even will be Thursday Nov 12, 6:30 - 7:30, in Business Administration C, Room 316.

Why Build a City on a Mountain?

2009-10-29T21:35:00.006-06:00

Why was the city of Calixtlahuaca (3 square km of occupation, probably 10,000+ inhabitants) built on a mountain? Most Mesoamerican cities built on mountains (think of Monte Alban or Xochicalco) were placed there for reasons of defense. Images of mountaintop cities in Mesoamerican codices (see my earlier blog entry on these) tend to show battles and defensive walls. But for several reasons, we don't think that defense was a major factor in the layout of Calixtlahuaca:

We did not find any defensive walls or ditches.
The largest civic buildings were not built in a protected location.

The second factor is quite striking. The royal palace was at the base of the hill, completley unprotected, as was a large unexcavated platform (a possible ballcourt). The two largest temples, structure 3 (circular temple, dedicated to Ehecatl) and structure 4 (rectangular temple, dedicated to Tlaloc) were built part-way up the hill, but closer to the base. Again, these were relatively unprotected. When defense is an issue, the main civic buildings are almost always built at the top of the mountain or hill (again, think Monte Alban or Xochicalco).

Well, what is so surprising about building a city on a mountain if defense was NOT a major consideration? The answer is the effort required to build the site. Every house that was built had to be accompanied by the construction (and constant maintenance) of stone terraces. Temples 3 and 4 required massive platforms and large excavations into the hillside to build level areas for these temples and their groups.

I have some hunches about why Calixtlahuaca may have been built on a mountain, but I will refrain from saying them now. One thing I am doing is looking for other ancient cities around the world whose residential zones were built on mountainsides, with the civic architecture at the base of the hill. Ephesis (the Roman occupation) is one example (see photo), and I am looking for others. If you have suggestions, let me know.

Project update

2009-10-27T10:49:00.003-06:00

Sorry, the blog has not been active lately. Well, we will soon have a bunch of new posts, so stay tuned. I have been very busy with several things:

(1) A trip to France and Sweden. In Paris, I participated in the the doctoral dissertation hearing of project member Maëlle Serghereaert at the Université de paris I-Sorbonne-Panthéon. Maëlle passed at the highest level. Here she is drawing stone on structure 4:Here is her thesis, a truly excellent study of the organization of the Aztec emire:

Serghereaert, Maëlle
2009 L'expansion mexica (1430-1520 après J.-C.): La question du contrôle impérial dans les provinces extérieures de l'Empire. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeology, Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne.

In Paris, I also gave a lecture on the Calixtlahuaca project, and Cindy and I also found time for museums, medieval churches, and pastries.

(2) I was working on our final report for the National Science Foundation for the first grant (funding for the fieldwork). This is now submitted, and we can get on to publications and a report for the Mexican government.

(3) Here is a positive development. This blog has been an inspiration for a new blog on excavations at Xaltocan in the Basin of Mexico. Lisa Overholtzer, a graduate student of Elizabeth Brumfiel at Northwestern University, as started a blog on her current excavations of Aztec-period houses at Xaltocan. These are important excavations, and it is a very nice blog. Please check it out!

Virtual tour of Malinalco

2009-08-31T11:56:00.003-06:00

I have just seen a nice virtual tour of the site of Malinalco, on the INAH web site (thanks to Dave Grove for the suggestion).

Click here for the tour.

Malinalco was contemporaneous with Calixtlahuaca, and it is possible that it fell within the political domain of our site (prior to Axayacatl's conquests in the 1470s, that is).

This map is from my book, Aztec City-State Capitals, where I have a short discussion of Malinalco:

Aztec pyramids on the Discovery Channel

2009-08-20T14:17:00.003-06:00

In 2008 I was filmed by a crew from the Discovery Channel for a new series called "Out of Egypt." The idea was to compare Egypt with other ancient civilizations, based on real ideas and research, something more sophisticated than the normal simplistic and sensationalist archaeology on TV. The host, Dr. Kara Cooney, is an Eygptologist at UCLA. I tried to get them to come shoot at Calixtlahuaca, but for various reasons the work had to be done in Mexico City, so we filmed at Tlatelolco, together with Salvador Guilliem Arroyo (the archaeologist in charge of Tlatelolco).

The first two episodes of this series will air Monday, August 24, from 9:00-11:00 pm (EDT and PDT). My segment on Aztec pyramids will be in the second show.

Below is a view of the main double-stair pyramid at Tlatelolco, with a 16th century Christian Church and a 20th century apartment building in the background. (This is called the "Plaza of the Three Cultures"). For more information on Tlatelolco, see my book, Aztec City-State Capitals.

Workshop on the Calixtlahuaca project

2009-07-27T20:17:00.003-06:00

Today we held a workshop on the project at the Colegio Mexiquense. It was called, "Mesa de trabajo: Los artefactos de Calixtlahuaca y las interpretaciones sociales.” Here is the program:

Presentación

Mtro. Raymundo C. Martínez García/ El Colegio Mexiquense

Introducción a la ciudad antigua de Matlatzinco (Calixtlahuaca), y al Proyecto Arqueológico Calixtlahuaca

Dr. Michael E. Smith / Arizona State University

Artefactos de superficie y reconstrucción de la forma y organización urbana

Mtra. Juliana Novic / Arizona State University

Tecnología de la producción de herramientas de obsidiana e implicaciones para la economía de Calixtlahuaca

Dr. Bradford Andrews / Pacific Lutheran University

Raspadores, malacates y el uso económico de maguey en Calixtlahuaca

Mtra. Angela Huster /Arizona State University

La producción e intercambio de cerámica en el Valle de Toluca y Guerrero

Dr. Jennifer Meanwell / Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Las terrazas agrícolas y habitacionales de Calixtlahuaca

Dr. Aleksander Borejsza / Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

La cerámica de Calixtlahuaca y las actividades domésticas: alimentos, artesanías, e ritual

Dr. Michael E. Smith / Arizona State University

Comentarios finales

Arqlgo. Víctor Osorio Ogarrio/ Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura

Mtro. Rubén Nieto / Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México

Dr. Xavier Noguez / El Colegio Mexiquense

This was an interesting session, and we all learned something from it. Thanks go to the Colegio Mexiquense for organizing and hosting the event.

Anthropological Archaeology and Saying Goodbye

2009-07-23T12:48:00.008-06:00

Hello Calixtlahuaca Blog Readers!

This Juliana Novic here. I am the graduate student working with the Calixtlahuaca survey materials from the 2006-2007 field seasons. Mike has been after me for awhile to post something on the blog about the results of our survey analysis. While I plan to get to that post eventually, this time around I am going to post about something near and dear to my heart. That is the importance and relevance of anthropological archaeology as an approach to field research. Putting aside the theoretical and epistemological issues straining relations between archaeology and anthropology as disciplines, the experience of the archaeologist as anthropologist can be a rewarding one both personally and intellectually. For the last few years Mike has been posting about the great work that the women from Calixtlahuaca have been doing for the project as tepelcateras (sherd classifiers). They also have been wonderful cultural informants, mentors, teachers, and friends to project staff and visiting students.

One of our visiting students, Beth Taylor, took advantage of the opportunity to have both a cultural and archaeological experience while here. Judith, Julia, Janeth, Delfina, Asusena, and Beth developed a close friendship and cultural exchange. This despite the fact that Beth spoke very little Spanish and the women spoke no English!

Before Beth returned home, the women wanted to surprise her with a good-bye party at Calixtlahuaca. It was a

wonderful, if bittersweet, experience for us all.

A very full lab

2009-07-17T16:07:00.005-06:00

Our lab this week was very full - lots of people here at once, working on various projects.

(1) Mary Beth Taylor has been down for six weeks or so, helping with a variety of tasks. One of her skills is artifact drawing, so we put her to work on the figurines. Here are three of her drawings: A typical Aztec female head; A Spanish colonial robed figure (headless); and one I call the Matlatzinca Cyclist.

(2) Maelle Sergheraert spent part of the week sorting miscellaneous materials. She participated in both seasons of fieldwork, and is in Mexico (from Paris) for the Americanists conference next week.

(3) Jennifer Meanwell, who will be doing ceramic petrography, is here looking at ceramic pastes, and helping the rock identifications and such.

(4) Angela Huster arrived a week ago, and is working on ceramics and chronology in preparation for her dissertation project.

(5) Brad Andrews, prof at Pacific Lutheran University, has been down for a while now with 2 students, Dave and Allissa (oops, I forget their last names!). They are working on obsidian technology and classification.

(6) Julie Novic has been down all summer, working on general ceramic classification and on her dissertation material from the survey.

Plus, don't forget our five "tepalcateras" from Calixtlahuaca, keeping the ceramic classification moving right along.

Its fun with a lot of people in the lab, all working on interesting aspects of the project. But its also hectic and crowded.

Thanks to Mary Beth Taylor for her help this summer, and for her very nice drawings of figurines and spindle whorls!

Human sacrifices to Ehecatl -OR- The importance of context

2009-07-15T18:37:00.009-06:00

I want to illustrate the importance of the context of objects. Ancient objects are often considered as art objects, fine examples of ancient art and craftsmanship. While there is nothing wrong with this, it is a very limited view of artifacts and finds. A broader perspective considers the context of objects--where they were found and what they were found associated with. This enriches our understanding of artifacts and ancient art objects greatly.

Consider this circular stone object. Becuase it is upside-down in the photo, here is a right-side-up drawing of the reliefs on the sides: (drawing by Hanns Prem).

If we interpret this object without context, here is what we learn. This is an Aztec sacrificial altar, about one meter in diameter. Its form and the style of the carvings conform to the Mexica style of Tenochtitlan. The relief emblem is the symbol of precious blood. If one had to guess, the most likely place of origin would be Tenochtitlan. The object provides an additional example of Aztec sacrificial altars and give us a few insights into the symbolism of blood and sacrifice.

Now let us consider this object in context. The photo below shows the location of this altar as it was excavated in the 1930s by José García Payón in front of structure 3 at Calixtlahuaca:
What else can we say about the object now that we know where it came from?

(1) An object in the Mexica style was used at Calixtlahuaca in the Toluca Valley. This brings up a number of questions: Was this stone lugged all the way from Tenochtitlan, or was it carved locally? Who carved it--a local artist familiar with the Mexica style, or a Mexica artist who went to Calixtlahuaca? How can we explain the implied interaction between Calixtlahuaca and Tenochtitlan? There are interesting and important questions, but they had no meaning until we knew where this altar came from.

(2) A sacrificial altar was excavated, and presumably had been used, at a temple dedicated to Ehecatl, the god of wind. Most prior archaeological evidence of Aztec human sacrifice has come from rectangular temples dedicated to other gods, not the circular temples of Ehecatl. So it seems that sacrifice may have been part of the cult of Ehecatl, which may be a new interpretation. (I must admit my somewhat limited knowledge of Aztec religion here; I hope that some of the experts will evaluate this statement and set me straight it it is not correct).

(3) Human sacrifice, at a temple built in the Aztec style using an altar carved in the Mexica style, was practiced in provincial areas like Calixtlahuaca. This find corroborates other evidence excavated at Calixtlahuaca by García Payón.

It is clear that context provides a much richer and more extensive interpretation of objects like this than when they are presented and considered in isolate as art objects.

I am thankful to Arquitecta Ana Luisa Elías Moreno of the Centro INAH Toluca for this photo from the 1930s excavations at Calixtlahuaca. I already had a copy of the first photo at the top, showing the alter in place, but it was not completely certain where at the temple the altar was found. The photo from the INAH office confirms this.

What are these weird little vessels?

2009-07-03T17:25:00.005-06:00

Here are some photos of one of our mystery ceramic types. We call these type 134, "Crude unfinished," which is descriptive of their shapes (crude, not symmetrical) and surface treatment (unfinished or poorly finished). They look like some kind of industrial objects, things used in a craft process and not in domestic or public serving activities. The trouble with that interpretation is that they are found in virtually all of the excavated domestic contexts. If they were used for a special craft process (metallurgy?? paints or pigments for some kind of product??), we would expect them to be concentrated in high frequencies in a few locations and rare in most places. Hmmmmm.......

I have tentatively identified several different form-based groups: bowls (top left in the top photo); jars (middle row in the bottom photo); ladles (right side of the top photo); and small vessels, the most abundant category (bottom rows of the top photo). Not sure where this gets us, but we sure have a lot of these items (thousands of pieces so far).

If you have any suggestions, please let me know!

31 bags of sherds

2009-06-29T20:38:00.004-06:00

We have just finished classifying the second-largest collection of sherds from a single excavated level. We got through the largest batch, 34 bags of sherds, in 2008. But here is the next-largest collection, 31 bags of sherds from a single 20-cm level in unit 323.

The photo shows four of our experienced "tepalcateros" (tepalcate is the Nahuatl term for potsherds, used frequently in modern central Mexican Spanish). These women are from San Francisco Calixtlahuaca, and they have become very proficient at ceramic classification and other analytical tasks. All of these sherds arefrom this one level. The big pile are undecorated jar sherds (always the biggest category). the women are holding up some of the partial vessels they were able to fit together.

This summer we are working our way through ceramics from some of the deposits that are important for chronological purposes. Unit 323 consisted of some trenches on a terrace quite high on the hill. We have some good stratigraphy, with Early Aztec sherds at the base and what we think are late markers at the top. But deep in the trench, in the final days of the field season, we hit the edge of a burned house associated with a rich artifact deposit. Most of the house went into the side wall, and at nearly 2 meters deep at the end of the field season we did not have time to expose it further. But we did get some rich floats full of seeds or beans or something (these are being processed by Emily McClung at UNAM in Mexico City), a bunch of burned daub, and nice dense trash deposits with the kinds of sherds shown here.

Calixtlahuaca in the newspaper

2009-06-22T16:45:00.003-06:00

A full-page article on Calixtlahuaca just appeared in the newspaper, Milenio, June 18, 2009. Written by Ernesto de la Cueva, the article is a nice summary of what we know about the site from both earlier excavations and from our project. There are several color photos.

Click on the title to see the article.

I found only two errors, an excellent rating for newspaper journalism. One was calling the occupation Classic, instead of Postclassic indate. The other was attributing the project to the "Universidad de Arizona", rather than Arizona State University. Oh well. I corrected these on the pdf of the article, posted at the above address.

Coatequitl (labor tribute) again

2009-06-17T20:19:00.009-06:00

Here are a few more illustrations of labor tribute (see my previous post for the context here). I love Aztec codices, both for their information content and for their graphical style. Both are from the Codex Kingsborough, an account of encomienda tribute in the decades immediately following the Spanish conquest of 1521.

The first illustration shows the labor tribute paid by two towns, Mazahuacan and Caltecoya (the toponyms are in the left register). The clothing signals these guys as macehualli (commoners), and the digging stick indicates that this is coatequitl labor. Mazahuacan supplied one hundred laborers everh 80 days. The flag stands for 20, which is multiplied by the five dots. We know the period of collection from some latin words written on the document. Caltecoya was responsible for 40 workers, at the same schedule. Perhaps the guy from Mazahuacan looks sadder than his colleague becuaes of the heavier burden on his town. This corvee labor is only part of each town's payment; there are also payments in goods.

The second illustration is part of a listing of tribute paid to local indigenous nobles. A number of small named groups were subject to each noble; this illustration shows three such groups (these were probalby calpolli). The top row has the toponyms, and the names are also written in European letters above the toponyms. Sorry, I can't read the glyphs OR the European script. The lower register has the number of laborers (note the diging sticks); these three groups paid 20, 15 and 15 workers respectively

I was in the library of the Colegio Mexiquense looking at the codex (our Calixtlahuaca lab is at the Colegio, where I have an affiliation), when I realized that it was published by the Colegio. So I went round the corner to the bookstore and bought a copy! For some discussion on the theoretical context of this kind of labor taxation, see my post, "A 'new' kind of agency theory."

Valle, Perla (editor)
1995 Códice de Tepetlaoztoc (Códice Kingsborough), Estado de México: Edición facsimilar. 2 vols. El Colegio Mexiquense, Toluca.

Who built the temples and palace at Calixtlahuaca?

2009-06-10T07:18:00.006-06:00

Many people will probably interpret this question in ethnic terms. Were the buildings built by the Otomis, the Nahuas, the Matlatzincas, or someone else? Unfortunately, we don’t have an answer to the question of the ethnic or linguistic affiliations of the people of Calixtlahuaca. This question, on the other hand, is meant to address the kinds of people and the kinds or labor organization behind the construction of large buildings at Calixtlahuaca and other Aztec-period cities. I discuss this issue briefly in my book, Aztec City-State Capitals (Smith 2008), but here I will elaborate on the issue of labor taxation.

I should first justify using the term “taxation” for Aztec society. In reading both the primary sources and the entire scholarly literature on the Aztecs, one rarely encounters the term “tax.” Aztec specialists (including myself) typically use the term “tribute” to refer to the obligations people had to their local king or to the Aztec Empire. But if one wants to compare the Aztecs to other early states, then it makes sense to use standard comparative terminology. Most of the obligations that are typically called “tribute” are in reality taxes – payments that were regular, specified, organized, and recorded.

Of the many types of taxes in Aztec society, the one most relevant to building large buildings was called coatequitl, an example of the category of corvée labor. One definition of corvée labor is: “compulsory, unpaid labor demanded by a lord or king and the system of such labor in general.” The best analysis of coatequitl in Aztec society is by Teresa Rojas (Rojas Rabiela 1979). To summarize a complex set of information, each commoner household owed a certain number of days of labor each year to their local king. People were organized into groups or squads of 20 workers called a centecpantli, each with an overseer.

These work squads were sometimes further organized into larger groups of 100 or 200 workers, again under an overseer. The Codex of San Andrés (Galarza 1963) shows a group of 400 laborers, divided into 20 squads of 20 workers each (see first figure). The flag (“pantli”) is a sign for 20. These 400 workers face the overseer, who stands in front of a public building.

In early colonial Mexico City, Spanish officials adapted the Aztec system of coatequitl and work squads to their own purposes, obtaining the labor to build churches, houses, and other buildings. In the second figure here, the Codex Osuna (Códice Osuna 1973) shows a group of workers who owed service to the Viceroy (pictured at the bottom). There are 20 unspecialized laborers (note the flag; the digging stick signals coatequitl labor), as well as a stonemason, a carpenter, and a plasterer. At the right is shown an emblem for 20 “indios de servicio,” personal servants for the Viceroy’s household.

We do not have any specific documents from Calixtlahuaca that talk of labor service or temple construction. But from a general knowledge of Aztec systems of labor and taxation, we can conclude that the large buildings were built by the commoner residents of the city, perhaps aided by residents of nearby towns subject to the king of Calixtlahuaca. People were expected and required to provide this labor service, which was a regular part of life for Aztec-period commoners. The situation is somewhere in between two popular views: (1) The old National-Geographic-Magazine view that ancient temples were built by gangs of slave laborers; and (2) the view that people willingly contributed their labor voluntarily to build temples to the gods (just as today people voluntarily give up their taxes to the IRS out of patriotic devotion to one’s country).

For more information on coatequitl labor in Aztec society, see: (Hicks 1978; Rojas Rabiela 1979; Rojas Rabiela 1986; Valle 2003). For some discussion of a theoretical context for this kind of labor taxation, see my publishing blog.

References

Códice Osuna (1973) Pintura del Gobernador, Alcaldes y Regidores de México: "Códice Osuna". 2 vols. Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia, Direccíon General de Archivos y Bibliotecas, Madrid.

Galarza, Joaquín (1963) Codex San Andrés (juridiction de Cuautitlan): Manuscrit Pictographique du Musée de l'Homme de Paris (II). Journal de la Société des Amréicanistes 52:61-90.

Hicks, Frederic (1978) Los calpixque de Nezahualcoyotl. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 13:129-152.

Rojas Rabiela, Teresa (1979) La organización del trabajo para las obras públicas: el coatequitl y las cuadrillas de trabajadores. In El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de México, edited by Elsa Cecilia Frost, Michel C. Meyer and Josefina Zoraido Vázquez, pp. 41-66. El Colegio de México, Mexico City.

Rojas Rabiela, Teresa (1986) El sistema de organización en cuadrillas. In Origen y formación del estado en Mesoamérica, edited by Andrés Medina, Alfredo López Austin and Mari Carmen Serra, pp. 135-150. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Smith, Michael E. (2008) Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Valle, Perla (2003) Por obra pública y coatequitl: mano de obra indígena en códices jurídicos del siglo XVI. In Proyecto etnohistoria: visión alternativa del tiempo pp. 17-21. Diario de Campo, Supplement. vol. 25.

The Urban Economy of Aztec-Period Calixtlahuaca, Mexico

2009-05-11T20:59:00.002-06:00

(a kind of press release)

With National Science Foundation support, Dr. Michael E. Smith and an international team of colleagues will conduct a series of technical analyses of archaeological artifacts and deposits excavated at the Aztec site of Calixtlahuaca. NSF-supported excavations uncovered a series of houses and terraces that present a unique opportunity to answer important questions about ancient urban centers. Like the shantytown areas that surround many Latin American cities today, the residential zones at Calixtlahuaca extended up steep slopes, with houses built on stone terraces. Yet the residents of this Aztec city were not poor rural immigrants; instead, their houses and artifacts reveal that they forged a prosperous way of life. Many families engaged in the production of textiles, stone tools and other craft items, and most houses contained ceramic vessels, stone tools, and bronze jewelry imported from distant zones. How did a hilltop city in a provincial area achieve such a high and sustainable standard of living for its residents? The analyses will help answer this question.

The NSF funds will be used for three major types of study. First, the excavated artifacts need to be counted, classified, and described. Professionals and students from the U.S., Mexico, Europe, and Canada will spend two months in each of the next three years doing this work. The results will shed light on the lifestyles, activities, and social conditions of the urban residents of Calixtlahuaca. All such research will take place in a laboratory facility in Toluca, Mexico. The second type of study will be technical scientific analyses of artifacts. Chemical analysis and other techniques will allow researchers to determine the places of origin of imported objects, to reconstruct the procedures of manufacture of local items, and to determine the ages of the houses and features of the sites through radiocarbon dating. The third group of analyses will be scientific studies of the soils and plant remains excavated in terraces and other deposits. This work will shed light on a unique Aztec form of successful agriculture: urban terraced cultivation. An understanding of this ancient sustainable farming system may help agronomists design appropriate small-scale agricultural strategies for the hilly areas of Mexico today.

When the analyses are completed, Dr. Smith will compare the results to his former excavations in Morelos, another region of central Mexico. Both were prosperous areas conquered by the Aztec Empire for their resources. Together, the two sets of results will clarify the processes of ancient imperial expansion and its impact on cities, farming, and society.

Numerous graduate and undergraduate students—U.S., Mexican, and European—will receive laboratory training and experience on this project. International cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico will be promoted through the work of several Mexican collaborators as well as through interactions with local archaeologists and historians working in the Toluca area. Dr. Smith’s laboratory facility at the Colegio Mexiquense in Toluca contributes to an improved scientific infrastructure in this Mexican city.

Stay tuned for more information.................................

The project is funded for 3 more years!

2009-05-09T16:47:00.002-06:00

I just got word from the National Science Foundation that the Calixtlahuaca Archaeological Project will be funded for another three years! The new grant will cover sherd sorting over the summers of 2009 - 2011, other artifact classification and analysis, and a series of technical studies, from chemical analyses of obsidian to grain-size analysis of soil samples. Student research is continuing, and maybe some of the students can be enticed to contribute some of their experiences and ideas to the blog.

Now I will be busy for the next few weeks getting the new grant up and running and then off to Toluca for June and July in our lab at the Colegio Mexiquense. If you are in the vicinity, stop by and see us.

Felipe Solís, 1944-2009

2009-04-27T14:16:00.003-06:00

Please see my entry on Felipe Solís in my other blog:

Publishing Archaeology.

Before Calixtlahuaca: the site of Huamango

2009-02-08T21:04:00.008-07:00

According to our excavations, the city of Calixtlahuaca was founded at the beginning of the Middle Postclassic period (ca. A.D. 1100) and flourished until the Spanish conquest (1519-1521). García Payón’s excavations in the 1930s evidently turned up remains from earlier periods, including a group of Epiclassic vessels from Oaxaca (described in (Smith and Lind, Ancient Mesoamerica, 2005). With the exception of a few eroded Classic-period sherds at the bottom of a barranca, we failed to find ceramics earlier than Middle Postclassic in our excavations or surface collections. Thus the question of an earlier occupation at the site remains clouded. Perhaps García Payón’s materials came from another nearby site (I think this is the most likely explanation), or perhaps we simply failed to find earlier occupations.

Nevertheless, there was a major Early Postclassic site an hours drive north of Calixtlahuaca at Huamango. Huamango was excavated by Román Piña Chán and William Folan in the 1970s (see references below). It consists of a small ceremonial zone with some temples, located on a ridge overlooking the Valle de los Espejos, just north of the city of Acambay. The dating of Huamango is not as certain as one would like; there are no radiocarbon dates and the regional ceramic chronology is not well developed. Various lines of evidence, however, point to an Early Postclassic (Toltec period) date for the site.

The polychrome ceramics look post-Teotihuacan in date (see photo). The lack of Coyotlatelco ceramics is a good sign that the site does NOT date to the Epiclassic period (AD 700-900), and the presence of some types similar to Tollan-phase Tula supports the Early Postclassic dating. Finally, the LACK of Matlatzinca ceramics (the Middle to Late Postclassic ceramics of Calixtlahuaca and Teotenango) at Huamango suggests that the occupation did not extend into that period. Not the strongest evidence, to be sure, but it’s the best we have to go on right now.

Huamango was likely a major political capital in the area immediately north of the Toluca Valley during Early Postclassic times, perhaps subsidiary in some way to the Toltec polity to the northeast. It is hard to say yet whether its zone of control included the region around Calixtlahuaca in the Northern Toluca Valley. The origin of the distinctive Matlatzinca polychrome and bichrome ceramic style is not known, but perhaps it developed out of the geometric Huamango style (see photo).

To read up on Huamango, see:

Folan, William (1979) San Miguel de Huamango: un centro tolteca-otomí. Boletín de la Escuela de Ciencias Antropológicas de la Universidad de Yucatán 6(32):36-40.

Folan, William J. (1989) More on a Functional Interpretation of the Scraper Plane. Journal of Field Archaeology 16:486-489.

Folan, William J. (1990) Huamango, estado de México: un eslabón en la relación norte-sur de la gran Mesoamérica. In Mesoamérica y norte de México, siglos IX-XII, edited by Federica Sodi Miranda, pp. 337-362. vol. 1. 2 vols. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Folan, William J., Lynda Florey Folan and Antonio Ruiz Pérez (1987) La iconografía de Huamango, municipio de Acabay, Estado de México: Un centro regional otomí de los siglos IX al XIII. In Homenaje a Román Piña Chán, edited by Barbro Dahlgren, Carlos Navarrete, Lorenzo Ochoa, Mari Carmen Serra Puche and Yoko Sugiura Yamamoto, pp. 411-453. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Granados Reyes, Paz and Miguel Guevara (1999) El complejo Huamango y su área de interacción. Paper presented at the III Coloquio Internacional Otopames, Toluca.

Lagunas Rodríguez, Zaid (1997) Costumbres funerarias y características bioculturales de la población prehispánica de Huamango. Expresión Antropológica (Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura) 6:7-28.

Piña Chán, Román (1981) Investigaciones sobre Huamango y región vecina (Memoria del Proyecto). 2 vols. Dirección de Turiso del Gobierno del Estado de México, Toluca.

The site is maintained by the Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, a branch of the State of Mexico. It is easy to reach by car, about an hour's drive north of Toluca, and a few km north of Acambay.

Here are some web resources (en español):

Article in México Desconocido

Information from the State of Mexico

Project Update

2009-01-25T17:42:00.003-07:00

Although we don’t have a lot of exciting news or hot discoveries to announce, the Calixtlahuaca Archaeological Project is moving ahead on several fronts. This is the “quiet” stage of an archaeological project. The fieldwork, with its constant excitement and new finds, is done (except for some minor activities planned for the next few summers). We are moving ahead with various analyses, but these have not proceeded far enough to yield results. We are busy, but it won’t be obvious to outsiders for a while.

Here is a summary of what is happening during the 2008-2009 academic year. Most of these activities are taking place at ASU.

Project Director Michael Smith is involved in two major tasks: (1) Writing grant proposals to fund a large group of expensive analyses (from chemical studies of obsidian and sediments to the recording of music played on reconstructions of our flutes and whistles). (2) Working on our excavation report to the Mexican government.

Emily Umberger continues her analysis of the sculptures and reliefs; she and Casandra Hernández are working on a paper on this material.

Juliana Novic is continuing her GIS-based spatial analyses of the surface collection data. She has updated our initial map of the site and is starting to piece together the nature of social and economic variation across the urban landscape.

Angela Huster has started on our quantitative ceramic seriation. Eventually this will allow us to assign the excavated deposits to chronological phases, and then the C14 dates will provide calendar dates for the phases and deposits. Angela is also working on several other analyses of the Calixtlahuaca data and graphics.

Amy Karabowicz is analyzing a sample of burned daub that we exported last summer. She will soon have information on the nature of the clays used for house construction, and the temperature at which the houses burned down.

Victoria Bevolden is hard at work digitizing our excavation plans and profiles.

Aleksander Borejsza (at UNAM in Mexico City) has initiated the geoarchaeological analysis of soils and sediments from the terrace excavations; most of his work will be done if and when we get funding in the form of a major grant.

Stay tuned for more.....

Where Were the Elites?

2008-12-23T11:48:00.005-07:00

First in a series of discussions of interpretive problems

We had hoped to locate and excavate at least one elite residence at Calixtlahuaca, but none of the houses we dug are obviously elite houses. So, where did the elites live? One possibility is that we just happened to miss the elite houses at the site, and all of our houses were residences of commoners. Another possibility is that one or two of our excavated houses were indeed the abodes of elite households; they just don’t stand out architecturally like elite houses in other areas. Solving this puzzle is an important part of our analytical research.

What I expected elite houses to look like

My initial expections were based on my prievious fieldwork in the state of Morelos, southeast of the Toluca Valley. One of the nice features of Postclassic sites in Morelos is that its easy to tell commoner houses from elite houses. Commoners lived in small (ca. 25 square meters), one-room adobe houses built at the level of the ground. Elites, on the other hand, lived in large (ca. 500 square m) sumptuous compounds with better construction methods and many rooms. I excavated two such elite houses, at Cuexcomate (Smith 1992) and Yautepec (Smith, et al. 1999); the Yautepec structure is shown here. It is not possible to confuse elite and commoner houses at these sites in Morelos. Yautepec also has a royal palace (ca. 7,000 square meters), again impossible confuse with other kinds of houses.

So why didn’t we find any large elite structures at Calixtlahuaca? I am excluding consideration of the royal palace here, a huge compound not too different from other Aztec palaces. Could it be that there were simply no elites beyond the royal family at the site? This is extremely unlikely; all known Aztec cities had significant number of elites, generally around 5% of the total population (Smith 2008). So, we either just missed the elite houses, of some of the ones we did excavate did pertain to the elite.

Could units 507 or 509 be elite houses?

The excavations of these two structures are described in earlier posts from the fieldwork season. These are not any larger than other houses at the site, leading to our initial hypothesis that they were commoner houses. But after we had excavated a bunch of houses and none were much larger than the others, the thought comes up that perhaps some of our houses were indeed elite residences.

House 507 was in poor condition. It did yield the densest midden deposit (the infamous 34 bags of sherds). We have not yet analyzed enough of the ceramics and other artifacts to evaluate whether they could suggest elite consumption patterns. But one thing immediately stood out at this house: lots of copper-bronze objects (mostly bells and bell fragments). A few are shown in the photo. This house yielded nearly half of all the copper we excavated at Calixtlahuaca. Copper bells and tweezers were elite items in Aztec-period Mesoamerica, so perhaps this material indicates an elite status for the residents of unit 509.

House 509 was in somewhat better condition than 507. It showed a pattern found at some other excavations: the house itself had an earth floor, but exterior areas were covered with well-made stone pavements. The distinctive thing about the material recovered in unit 509 was the presence of a number of stone architectural ornaments. Some of these are shown in the photo. They include “clavos,” tapered cylinders used as architectural ornamentation on Aztec temples and palaces, as well as a stone with thin-line reliefs in a glyph-like pattern. Other excavated houses did not produce anywhere near the quantity of architectural ornaments recovered in unit 509. So perhaps this suggest an elite presence.

How will we evaluate these possibilities? Domestic artifacts are typically good markers of wealth (Smith 1987), and we will use quantified measures based on the artifact inventories of these and other houses to evaluate wealth distributions at the site. We will also consider other likely material indicators of wealth and status (architecture, location within the city, etc.). First, however, we need to get our chronology in order so that we can compare houses and artifacts from particular time periods. Stay tuned.

References

Smith, Michael E. (1987) Household Possessions and Wealth in Agrarian States: Implications for Archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6:297-335.

Smith, Michael E. (1992) Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico. Volume 1, Excavations and Architecture / Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Sitios Rurales de la Época Azteca en Morelos, Tomo 1, Excavaciones y Arquitectura. University of Pittsburgh Memoirs in Latin American Archaeology vol. 4. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Smith, Michael E. (2008) Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Smith, Michael E., Cynthia Heath-Smith and Lisa Montiel (1999) Excavations of Aztec Urban Houses at Yautepec, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 10:133-150.

Animation of the Ehecatl pyramid

2008-11-06T10:59:00.002-07:00

Raúl Miranda Gómez, a Mexican student who worked on the project in 2007, created a short animation file that shows Structure 3, the Ehecatl pyramid.

View the animation here

Open Access Day

2008-10-14T09:14:00.001-06:00

Today, October 14, 2008, is "Open Access Day." Please see my Publishing Archaeology blog about this. Open Access is important for many reasons, including the fact that we plan to post all papers and reports from the Calixtlahuaca Project on our web site (when we have time......).

Calixtlahuaca Project Wedding!

2008-09-30T10:54:00.004-06:00

On Saturday (September 27, 2008), Calixtlahuaca project members Mellissa Ruiz and Tim Brown got married in Kenosha, Wisconsin. The tables at their reception were labeled with the names of archaeological sites (Monte Alban, etc.), and the head table was labelled Calixtlahuaca.

Mellissa and Tim met on the project in 2006 and both excavated with us in 2007. Here are photos of them in the field.

If other project members want to add details, please feel free - this is just a quick post right after the wedding.

Calixtlahuaca Around the World

2008-09-23T12:47:00.005-06:00

For many decades, Calixtlahuaca was a regular stop on the circuit for artifact collectors in central Mexico. In the late 19th and early 20th century, visitors purchased hundreds (and perhaps thousands) of objects at the site, and many of these ended up in museums in Mexico, the U.S., and Europe.

The objects pictured here are just a few of these. We have been gathering information on such museum collections outside of Mexico for some time, and now ASU student Lindsay Davis is organizing this information. When she is done we hope to have a good idea of how many objects, and what kinds of objects, from Calixtlahuaca are in museums outside of Mexico. This will help the project in a number of ways.

Stay tuned for more information on this and other student projects on Calixtlahuaca.

"Lantern censer"

2008-08-12T13:03:00.011-06:00

Marc Levine sent me a citation for a vessel that matches our odd "fondue-pot" pretty closely. Several of these have been excavated at Cholula. Geoff McCafferty (2001:43) calls these "lantern censers" within his type Xicalli Plain, and illustrates two complete examples from the Universidad de las Américas excavations at Cholula.The vessel in the drawing shown here (from p.43) is from UA-79. This is a "minor vessel form" at Cholula, with 56 sherds excavated (table, p. 44). The overall type Xicalli Plain (with numerous vessel forms) is found in the entire sequence from Epiclassic through Late Postclassic, but its not clear whether the lantern censers occur in a more limited time span.

Geoff cites Muller (1978:129) for a photo of another example (see photo here). Muller calls this a brazier lid of the type "Cerámica Fresco Seco." She dates it to the Cholulteca III period, but her chronological assignments are often wrong.

This is as close to our odd ceramic type 180 as I have seen yet. Thanks to Marc Levine for pointing out the discussion in Geoff McCafferty's Cholula ceramics report.

This bring up the larger issue of using the internet to help identify unusual archaeological objects. In this case some good comparative materials were published, but we had yet to locate the descriptions. But in many cases the relevant comparative material is either not published or is published in obscure places that are difficult to find. Archaeologists always have a box of weird sherds that they can't identify, and when colleagues visit the lab one is sure to pull out the box to see if any of the sherds can be identified. I have found Tlahuica polychrome sherds (from Postclassic Morelos) in many such collections at labs outside of Morelos. Woudln't it be nice if there were a central website where people could post their odd sherds and get help identifying them? Perhaps something like "The Weird Aztec Sherd Site." Until that happens, though, I guess a blog like this can help in a small way.

McCafferty, Geoffrey G. (2001) Ceramics of Postclassic Cholula, Mexico: Typology and Seriation of the Pottery from the UA-1 Domestic Compound. Monographs vol. 43. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, UCLA, Los Angeles.

Muller, Florencia (1978) La Alfarería de Cholula. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

3-Prong Brazier

2008-08-02T11:33:00.006-06:00

Our odd vessel (photo at right; see prior post) is probably some kind of 3-prong brazier. We had figured this out in general terms, but the only examples I knew were the "3-prong burners" from Teotihuacan, which are very different from our "fondue-pot." But thanks to a tip from Liz Brumfiel I looked at the article in Latin American Antiquity by Joe Ball and Jennifer Taschek (2007), and found some vessels not too different from the Calixtlahuaca forms. (I should have been familiar with this myself, but I was several months behind in my journal reading.....).

Ball and Taschek note that these vessels from Belize had been confused in the literature with incense burners that share some similar traits. But their finds from a number of sites suggest that these 3-prong braziers were stoves, not censers: "The three-prong brazier was an article of everyday domestic service, not of mystical ritual use" (p.454). The illustration here (one of several very nice drawings) is from p. 452 of their article. Note that the flat base of this and other Maya examples have "a solid, center-point 'wing-nut' or 'bow-tie' applique" (p.451), just like the circular base of the Calixtlahuaca examples.

We are still trying to figure out what the top of the vessels were like. Our "prongs" open up on top into some kind of upper framework, but we haven't figured out yet what it may have looked like. But for our continuing work on this (and other) ceramic mysteries, the very informative (and witty) article by Ball and Taschek has been a great help. I tip my hat to Mayanists like Ball and Taschek for doing a much better job of publishing their ceramics than we Aztec folks (see also Borhegyi 1959, and other sources cited by Ball and Taschek).

Ball, Joseph W., and Jennifer T. Taschek
2007 Sometimes a "Stove" Is "Just A Stove": A Context-Based Reconsideration of Three-Prong "Incense Burners" from the Western Belize Valley. Latin American Antiquity 18:451-470.

Borhegyi, Stephan F. de
1959 The Composite or Assemble-it-Yourself Censer: A New Lowland Maya Variety of the Three-pronged Incense Burner. American Antiquity 25:51-58.

Has William Sanders been to Calixtlahuaca?

2008-07-23T20:16:00.004-06:00

One of the reasons we are working at Calixtlahuaca is to try to understand the site as an urban center. This was a major Aztec-period city, and not to many such sites have been intensively studied. I've been working on and off on Mesoamerican urbanism since my first fieldwork in Mexico, with William T. Sanders in 1974. I'm sure that Bill Sanders visited Calixtlahuaca during his long archaeological career. But the title of this entry refers to the influence of Sanders's thought on my own approach to urbanism in general and to Calixtlahuaca in particular.

William Sanders passed away a few weeks ago. I've already blogged about my relationship with Sanders and about his impressive publication record, and I just sent in a post to H-Urban, a listserv on urban history, that outlines Sanders's work on urbanism. I often argued with Sanders, in person and in print, and I frequently criticized his approach to urbanism as too limiting and confining for ancient Mesoamerican cities. That said, much of what we are doing at Calixtlahuaca are things that Sanders would consider important activities for urban archaeology.

After two seasons of fieldwork, we are still not in a position to make a credible population estimate for the site. This is completely unacceptable to me--probably because of the influence of Sanders on my thinking. Yes, it is limiting to put too much emphasis on urban population levels. But we certainly do need those data. So in our next grant we will include funds for some geophysical prospecting that will allow us to figure out how many people lived at Calixtlahuaca. We are also working to document the houses of Calixtlahuaca, and the entire spectrum of the urban economy, from gardening to using imported bronze bells, topics that Bill Sanders would want to know about the site.

So apart from any personal visits he may have made, the ideas and inspiration of William Sanders have certainly been to Calixtlahuaca, and they continue to influence this project.

Has Indiana Jones Been to Calixtlahuaca?

2008-07-19T17:00:00.003-06:00

The site of Calixtlahuaca has been the target of looting for over 100 years. It’s impossible to calculate how many pots, figurines, copper bells, and obsidian lip plugs have been removed from the site. But several observations point to a long-time looting of the site. Perhaps Indiana Jones is responsible. After all, he is a looter and plunderer, not an archaeologist. I used to think that Indiana Jones was all right. He is a Hollywood character, designed to make money for film studios, and one should not confuse Hollywood fantasy with reality. The films are great fun, and perhaps the publicity they generate for archaeology is a good thing. The Archaeological Institute of American seems to think this way, because they recently made Harrison Ford a member of their Board or Directors. Hey, if the movies increase enrollments in archaeology courses, this is a good thing, isn’t it?

After reading the comments on Indiana Jones and the AIA on the very interesting blog Safe Corner: Cultural Heritage in Danger, however, I started thinking about the relationship between Indiana Jones and the looting of Calixtlahuaca. I doubt that any big-time looter like Jones (or his real-world counterparts) has ever found any treasures at the site. The looting has been very small in scale. I know about this from three sources. (1) Calixtlahuaca was a popular stop on the antiquities-collecting circuit of Mexico in the later 19^th and early 20^th centuries. A number of collectors (including some major names in mid-20^th century Mesoamerican archaeology) sold or donated their collections from the site to the Smithsonian Institution and the American Museum of Natural History, where I have studied the material and the acquisition records. I’ve published on one such collection, made by Wilhelm Bauer around 1900 (Smith, Michael E. (2001) Postclassic Ceramics from the Toluca Valley in U.S. Museums: The Bauer and Blake Collections. Mexicon 23:141-146).

(2) Numerous elderly residents of San Francisco Calixtlahuaca have told me that in their youth, the surface of the site was littered with whole pots, partial vessels, and other ancient remains. But now, they say, most of this is gone. “There is nothing left” I was informed on several occasions (well, we did manage to excavate over a half million potsherds in one season). These informants noted that foreigners would come to the site, often camping out for several days, to buy pots and other objects from local farmers. (The apparent abundance of whole and partial vessels on the surface may be due to the disturbance of burials and offerings when the terraces were enlarged a century or more ago).

(3) Several people tried to sell me, or other project members, ceramic pots. This was mostly during our first season, before word got out that not only did we not purchase such items, but we gave lectures on the legality of selling ancient artifacts, not something that the sellers wanted to hear.

So, what does this have to do with Indiana Jones?

Archaeological sites like Calixtlahuaca cannot be protected from looting by fences and guards. There just isn’t enough money to protect this and the thousands of other sites in Mexico (and elsewhere) that can yield commercially valuable artifacts. The main protection for the site lies in the attitudes and actions of the people of San Francisco Calixtlahuaca. If they want to protect the site, then looters will have a hard time operating. If local people don’t care about the site as their patrimony or heritage, then destruction and looting would be encouraged. During our fieldwork at Calixtlahuaca (and continuing during out lab analyses) we spent a fair amount of time and effort in public education—lectures and tours to school classes, presentations in the town hall, numerous conversations in town and at the site, free distribution of brochures and guidebooks we wrote, etc. There are reasons to believe that the people of Calixtlahuaca are in fact doing well by the site (this is a topic for a future post).

But against our modest academic activities stands the huge media publicity of Indiana Jones. What are its messages in relation to archaeological sites and research? Plundering and looting are just fine. In fact they are exciting and sexy. The goal of archaeology is to bring home goodies (that is, bring them across international borders, illegally). Generating knowledge about past societies is not important, nor is the preservation of cultural heritage. Of course few viewers are going to confuse the activities of Indiana Jones with those of real archaeologists. But the context or the framing of his activities (i.e., the messages listed above) comes across very clearly. This is the pernicious part of these movies.

Although I cannot prove this empirically, my suspicion is that people who watch the Indiana Jones movies are more likely to take a casual attitude toward looting and the preservation of the archaeological heritage. Now maybe I’m all wet. Maybe I underestimate the intelligence or good sense of the movie-going public. But still, I’m not comfortable with a media hero who is a looter and plunderer at a time when such activities continue to do irreparable harm to the archaeological record and to our understanding of the human past.

So, even if Indiana Jones has never set foot in Calixtlahuaca, I fear that his influence may extend to the site, and that is not a happy thought.

10,182 potsherds

2008-07-18T18:55:00.006-06:00

Sorry if I'm still obsessing about this one ceramic collection, but in its size, good preservation, and diversity it tops any single sherd collection I've ever worked on. These piles of sherds on a lab table (probably 700 or so) are JUST THE DECORATED SHERDS from our big midden. This is somewhere near the total size of an average sherd collection.

The next photo shows a couple of piles of sherds by type (Red rim bowls o the left, and polished red, type B-0, on the right). The classification of these sherds is done by our excellent sherd wizards. These women, from the village of San Francisco Calixtlahuaca, started off last year washing sherds and other artifacts as they came in from the excavations. Our lab director, Cindy, had the women start working on some classification and cataloging in addition to the washing, so we hired them again this year, and they are doing a great job.

Here is another photo, with all four included this time. It took all week to get this level done, and we can now move on to a few of the other one thousand or so collections that need to be sorted.