The Rise and Fall of the Ancient City of Tula

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 DOI 10.
1007/s10814-011-9052-3
The Archaeology of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico

Dan M. Healan
Published online: 12 August 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011
Abstract The site of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico, is well known for its distinctive architecture and sculpture that came to light in excavations initiated some 70 years ago. Less well known is the extensive corpus of archaeological research conducted over the past several decades, revealing a city that at its height covered an area of c. 16 km2 and incorporated a remarkably diverse landscape of hills, plains, alluvial valleys, and marsh. Its dense, urban character is evident in excavations at over 22 localities that uncovered complex arrangements of residential compounds whose nondurable architecture left relatively few surface traces. Evidence of craft production includes lithic and ceramic production loci in specic sectors of the ancient city. Tula possessed a large and densely settled hinterland that apparently encompassed the surrounding region, including most of the Basin of Mexico, and its area s Potos . of direct inuence appears to have extended to the north as far as San Lu Tula is believed to have originated as the center of a regional state that consolidated various Coyotlatelco polities and probably remnants of a previous Teotihuacancontrolled settlement system. Its pre-Aztec history exhibits notable continuity in settlement, ceramics, and monumental art and architecture. The nature of the subsequent Aztec occupation supports ethnohistorical and other archaeological evidence that Tulas ruins were what the Aztecs called Tollan. Keywords Tula Tollan Toltec Cities Urbanism Archaeology Mesoamerica
Introduction To Mesoamericanists, Tula conjures up many topics that go far beyond the archaeological site itself in southern Hidalgo. Chief among these is its long-standing
D. M. Healan (&) Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA e-mail: healan@tulane.edu
123
54
J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115
association with Tollan, the legendary city of the Toltecs whose accounts in contactperiod sources have fascinated and puzzled generations of scholars and still provoke controversy today. No less controversial are its architectural and artistic parallels to n Itza (Fig. 1, E), which have been cited as proof of Tulas status as Tollan Chiche n Itza s conquest by Toltecs. and the veracity of ethnohistorical accounts of Chiche While it would be difcult to focus at length on Tula without considering both of these issues, I am not directly concerned with questions surrounding its identi n Itza , for which the interested reader is cation as Tollan or its relationship to Chiche urged to consult a recent collection of papers on both subjects (Kowalski and Kristan-Graham 2007). Instead, my primary concern is with our knowledge of Tula and the surrounding region based on archaeological investigations since Acostas pioneering work in the mid-20th century. Although the archaeological evidence indicates that Tula was indeed the site the Aztecs called Tollan, I simply refer to it as Tula in light of evidence that Tollan is a larger cultural construct whose origins may go back at least as far as Teotihuacan pez Luja n and Lo pez Austin 2009; Stuart 2000). For similar reasons, I do not use (Lo Toltec as a descriptor for Tula, despite its use as a formal time period in the Basin of Mexico. Tula is located in central Mexico (Fig. 1, A), an interior plateau with a long tradition of prehispanic (Mesoamerican) cities, beginning with Teotihuacan and n. A disproportionately large number were located within ending with Tenochtitla the 8,000-km2 lacustrine basin known as the Basin of Mexico, whose long and
Fig. 1 Mesoamerica and central Mexico (inset) showing (A) Tula and other sites and localities discussed n Itza ; F, Cerro Portezuelo; in text: B, Teotihuacan; C, D, Ucareo and Pachuca obsidian sources; E, Chiche G, Cerritos; H, Carabino; I, Villa de Reyes
123
55
vibrant urban tradition has been the subject of numerous studies (e.g., Millon 1973; Sanders et al. 1979; Wolf 1976). Tula lies c. 30 km north of the basin in an area bounded on three sides by mountain ranges and dissected by streams that provide passage into neighboring regions (Fig. 2). The site is situated on the southwest corner of a broad alluvial plain that is today productive agricultural land enhanced by irrigation systems, some of which go back at least to the colonial era. Volcanism has produced numerous prominent hills, including the centrally located Cerro Xicuco, and mesas along the eastern ank. The site core occupies an elongated northsouth upland along the Tula River that has been partially dissected to form two northsouth lobes upon which are situated three large mound/plaza complexes (Fig. 3, inset). The southernmost complex constituted Tulas political and religious center during its apogee; the northernmost is a smaller complex that appears to have been the political and religious center for Tulas earliest settlement. The overall similarity in plan between the two led Matos (1974a) to suggest that the earlier mound complex had served as the prototype for the later one; he designated the two complexes Tula Chico and Tula Grande,
Fig. 2 Topographic map of the Tula region showing Tulas urban limits (black) and other sites discussed in text: A, La Loma; B, Chingu; C, Acoculco; D, El Tesoro; E, La Mesa; F, Cerro La Ahumada (Mesa Grande)
123
56
Fig. 3 Topographic map of Tula (source: Yadeun 1974) showing mounds greater than 1 m in height and major monumental precincts (inset). Map appears to be oriented to magnetic north, which in 1973 was c. 8.2E
respectively. The Plaza Charnay is named for the French explorer who conducted excavations there in 1880. The three complexes occupy most of the 1.1-km2 area within the protected archaeological zone, although the site itself extends far beyond.
Previous archaeological research In many respects the rst archaeological investigations at Tula were conducted by a Cubas (1873) provided the earliest the Aztecs. In the post-conquest era, Garc accounts of the site. Charnay (1887) conducted exploratory excavations in and around Tula Grande in 1880. Although no major work was conducted until 1940,
123
57
Tula was visited periodically by various scholars, including Vaillant (1938), whose test excavations provided ceramic evidence for Tulas intermediate placement with respect to Teotihuacan and the Aztecs. a e Historia Beginning in 1940, Mexicos Instituto Nacional de Antropolog (INAH), under the direction of Jorge Acosta, conducted extensive investigations at Tula over an 18-year period that focused on Tula Grande. Although Acosta never wrote a denitive site report, he published numerous detailed interim reports and several syntheses (Acosta 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1956a, b, 1956 1957, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961a, b, 1964, 1974; see Diehl 1989a for a summary). During the late 1960 and 1970s, two comprehensive archaeological projects were conducted by INAH (Matos 1974b, 1976) and the University of Missouri (Diehl 1974, 1981, 1983; Healan 1989). Both projects involved mapping, surface survey, and excavation at Tula and regional survey and excavation in the surrounding area. Their major contributions include determination of Tulas overall size, elucidation of its settlement history and that of the surrounding region, and a comprehensive ceramic chronology. INAH (e.g., Abascal 1982; Cobean 1982; Mastache 1996a) and other institutions (Healan et al. 1983) have conducted numerous additional investigations at Tula and in the Tula region.
Chronology Acosta (1945, 19561957) provided the rst ceramic typology and chronology for Tula. He recognized two distinct ceramic/cultural complexes, one associated with the Aztec and the other an earlier, pre-Aztec complex he called Tula-Mazapan. odo Antiguo The latter complex contained two phases, or periods, designated Per odo Reciente, although most of the 17 ceramic types he dened for the and Per Tula-Mazapan complex were present in both phases (Acosta 1945, pp. 5556), so that each period had but two unique types. Acostas use of the term Mazapan has little to do with the pottery type of the same name and instead follows Vaillants (1941) use of the term to refer to the larger cultural complex embracing all of preAztec Tula, in much the same way that others use Toltec. The current use of Mazapa, or Mazapan, to refer not only to specic pottery and gurine types but also to larger ceramic and cultural complexes and a chronological period is an unfortunate and unending source of confusion. The current ceramic typology and chronology for Tula and the Tula region, as formulated by Cobean (1978, 1990), consists of eight ceramic complexes (Prado Tesoro) and corresponding temporal phases (Fig. 4), the last three of which pertain ) phases plus to Aztec period occupations. Two earlier (La Mesa and Chingu ceramics associated with even earlier occupations were identied in the surrounding ndez area. More recent studies (e.g., Bey 1986; Equihua 2003; Estrada 2004; Herna et al. 1999; Moncayo 1999) have introduced new types and other modications to Cobeans ceramic typology and chronology. One particularly signicant revision (Bey 1986, pp. 307314) involves splitting the Tollan phase, originally embracing all of Tulas Early Postclassic apogee, into two phases (Early Tollan and Late Tollan) based principally on the appearance and proliferation of Jara Polished
123
58
Fig. 4 Chronological chart of central Mexico. Portions of the Basin of Mexico and Teotihuacan chronologies are omitted
Orange (hereafter Jara) in the latter phase. In fact, Acosta had previously recognized the importance of Jara, which he called Naranja a Brochazos, as a temporal marker, odo Reciente (Acosta 1945, pp. 56). using it to dene his Per Cobeans ceramic chronology revealed that Mazapa Red on Brown, or Wavy Line Mazapa, a type commonly regarded as diagnostic of Tulas apogee, is far less prevalent at Tula than previously thought; it peaked in popularity well before its apogee. Its previously exaggerated importance at Tula is in part the result of the initial use of Mazapa by Vaillant and others to embrace a number of largely unrelated types. For example, Vaillant (1938) reported that the predominant ceramic type encountered in exploratory excavations at Tula was what he called Mazapa Laquer on Yellow, which almost certainly refers to Jara (R. Cobean, personal communication 2009) and has no direct relationship to Mazapa Red on Brown. For whatever reason, the mischaracterization of Mazapa Red on Brown as diagnostic of Tulas apogee obscures temporal relationships between Tula and the Basin of Mexico, where Mazapa refers not only to a pottery type and a larger ceramic/ cultural complex but also a time period that many assume to be contemporaneous with Tulas apogee (e.g., Smith 2007, p. 583).
123
59
Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for samples recovered from various excavation localities at Tula and other sites in the region discussed in text Lab/no. a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w UAZ/5399 UAZ/5038 UAZ/5396 UAZ/5040 UAZ/5398 UAZ/5039 UAZ/5856 UAZ/5855 UAZ/5852 UAZ/5853 INAH/1989 INAH/1990 QL/132 QL/1020 QL/1021 QL/130 INAH/1773 UAZ/5402 UAZ/5401 UAZ/5404 UAZ/5405 INAH/317 INAH/1174 bp 1490 1300 1320 1250 1040 1490 1260 1245 1265 1240 1164 1092 1130 1110 1070 1020 1021 1530 1040 1050 830 739 710 Sigma 50 100 70 50 60 50 130 55 30 35 25 16 70 40 70 50 54 60 70 55 50 32 30 Site La Mesa La Mesa La Mesa La Mesa La Mesa Tula Chico Tula Chico Tula Chico Tula Chico Tula Chico Tula Grande Tula Grande Canal Canal Canal Canal Vivero Tepetitlan Tepetitlan Tepetitlan Tepetitlan Vivero Vivero Source Healan and Cobean (2009, g. 21) Healan and Cobean (2009, g. 21) Healan and Cobean (2009, g. 21) Healan and Cobean (2009, g. 21) Healan and Cobean (2009, g. 21) Mastache et al. (2009, g. 316) Mastache et al. (2009, g. 316) Mastache et al. (2009, g. 316) Mastache et al. (2009, g. 316) Mastache et al. (2009, g. 316) Sterpone (2006a, tabla 5) Sterpone (20002001, p. 50) Diehl (1981, p. 281) Diehl (1981, p. 281) Diehl (1981, p. 281) Diehl (1981, p. 281) ndez (1994, p. 54) Ferna Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72) Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72) Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72) Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72) ndez (1994, p. 54) Ferna ndez (1994, p. 54) Ferna
There are 23 published radiocarbon dates with adequately documented contextual information for the Tula region (Table 1, Fig. 5), a relatively small number considering the nearly 900-year span of prehispanic occupation. This does not include some additional 24 dates (Paredes 2005, g. 3) from several gico Tula (Abascal Mac as 1982), localities excavated by the Proyecto Arqueolo although little contextual or other information is currently available for these samples.
The monumental center: Tula Grande Until recently, virtually all that was known archaeologically about Tula came from Acostas investigations at Tula Grande that recovered a wealth of sculpture and monumental architecture that for better or worse came to embody the entire city. Indeed, for various reasons Tula Grande is the only part of the ancient city of which most modern visitors to the site are aware.
123
60
Fig. 5 Two-sigma ranges of calibrated radiocarbon dates for samples recovered from various excavation localities at Tula and other sites in the region discussed in text (full information on each sample is listed in Table 1). Calibration was performed using CALIB5.1 software (Stuiver and Reimer 1993)
Architectural characteristics Tula Grandes main plaza measures c. 130 m 9 150 m and is anked by various monumental constructions (Fig. 6). Although there are numerous large pyramidal structures in the area surrounding Tula Grande (Fig. 3), there are few such structures within Tula Grande itself, but these include the two largest pyramids at the site. Designated Pyramids B and C, their placement and orientation are reminiscent of the Sun and Moon Pyramids at Teotihuacan; Pyramid C, at least 10 m high, is similar in form to the Sun Pyramid, including an abutting platform (cuerpo adosado) supporting its stairway. The only other temple/pyramid at Tula Grande is Building K on the south side of the main plaza, where ongoing excavations (Getino 2000; Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 113114) encountered portions of its superstructure containing a single colonnade anking an elongated columned gallery (Fig. 6). Although excavation encountered a stairway on the south side of Building K, subsequent investigations have revealed that this is part of a later Aztec structure and that the original stairway, of which only traces remain, was on the north (plaza) side (R. Cobean, personal communication 2009). Remains of a similar structure, designated Building J, were encountered atop a low platform immediately to the east that was likewise heavily damaged. A common architectural form at Tula Grande consists of a large building containing two or more prominent columned halls, each with a centrally located unroofed and often sunken patio or atrium (Fig. 6, Buildings 1, 3, and 4). The largest is Building 3, the so-called Palacio Quemado, which contains three contiguous columned halls lined with benches decorated with painted friezes. Each hall is unconnected to the others and enjoys its own access to the outside. Building 1, the partially excavated Palace of Quetzalcoatl, contains at least two columned halls anked by smaller rooms. Only a small portion of Building 4 was excavated by
123
61
Fig. 6 Plan of Tula Grande monumental precinct
Acosta, who nonetheless also interpreted it as a palace based on its size and grand (9 m wide) entranceway. Subsequent excavations (Mastache et al. 2009, pp. 301304) have exposed over half of Building 4, which measures c. 45 m northsouth and 60 m eastwest and contains two columned halls and smaller anking rooms. Some scholars have challenged Acostas interpretation of Buildings 1, 3, and 4 as palaces, chiey because the combination of large central halls and small peripheral rooms and their lack of interconnectivity make them poorly designed for residential life. The spacious columned halls suggest more public activities, likewise suggested by reliefs along benches in Buildings 3 and 4 that depict processions involving
123
62
numerous individuals. An unusual cache of c. 200 vessels grouped by type was encountered beneath a fallen roof at the east end of the vestibule on the north side (Acosta 1945, pp. 3437). These included serving vessels and braziers, censers, and tobacco pipes, suggesting activities involving groups of people. More recently, excavation beneath the oor of Building 3 encountered an elaborate offering containing marine fauna, a pyrite mirror, and a garment made of hundreds of nely carved shell plaques (Cobean and Mastache 2003; Mastache et al. 2009, g. 18). While Mastache and Cobean suggest that the plan of the excavated portion of Building 4 resembles that of Aztec palaces (Mastache et al. 2009, pp. 303304), a closer Aztec analog, as noted by Molina (1987), is the Temple of the Eagles at n. Both are located on the east side of an L-shaped colonnaded vestibule Tenochtitla and contain porticos with an altar along the interior wall at the main entrance anked by benches with procession scenes carved in relief; each contains at least one columned hall. Klein (1987, p. 307) suggests that the Temple of the Eagles was the scene of autosacrice and other activities associated with warfare. Two broken ollas encountered on the oor of a small room in Building 4 may have been associated with group activity. There is, therefore, no compelling evidence that any of the structures inside Tula Grande were residential in function. Rather, palaces and other elite residences may have been located elsewhere, perhaps in the surrounding Monumental Precinct, as noted below. Remains of c. 375 columns appear in various congurations at Tula Grande, including colonnades. Most columns were square and constructed of stone masonry, m. XV; Getino 2000, g. 3.24), leaving often with a timber core (Acosta 1960, la few intact remains other than a base or scar in the oor where they once stood. In fact, all of the extant masonry columns at Tula Grande were reconstructed in full by Acosta (1961a, p. 43) who intentionally gave them, in his own words, un aspecto ruinoso para no desentonar con el resto del edicio. Acostas artistic license in this regard has been rightly criticized by Molina (1982), who asserts that Acosta deliberately created them to enhance the resemblance between Tula and n Itza . However, Acosta provides abundant documentation, including Chiche m. XV), that his reconstructed photographic evidence (Acosta 1945, g. 18, 1960, la columns were erected where prehispanic columns had once stood and are an accurate reection of their size, shape, and mode of construction (Healan 2001). Tula Grandes columns include monolithic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic forms, including the so-called Atlanteans, warrior columns, and serpent columns atop Pyramid B. These were encountered disarticulated in the ruins of the pyramid, and their present location atop Pyramid B reects Acostas belief that they had been columns for its superstructure. The colossal (4.6 m) Atlanteans are among the best-known prehispanic sculptures in Mesoamerica, but parts of at least four other Atlanteans also have been found at Tula (de la Fuente et al. 1988, gs. 2023), including one illustrated by Charnay (1887, p. 94). Their original provenience is unknown, although Acosta (1944, p. 146) suggests they may have been atop Pyramid C. Tulas monumental construction utilized a variety of building materials, and in distinctive ways. A signature element is the use of small-stone veneer, or tabular pieces of stone laid in courses, mortared with lime or mud, and often covered with
123
63
lime plaster. Small-stone veneer was commonly applied to benches, columns, altars, and even whole pyramids (e.g., Acosta 1974, gs. 24). It also is encountered in domestic architecture, often on structures interpreted as domestic altars, for which an interesting variant involved courses of pottery sherds instead of tabular stone (e.g., Healan 1989, g. 12.17). Substructure platforms were constructed of ll enclosed by stone masonry, a common technique in Mesoamerica, but in some cases the ll involved courses of boulders, cobbles, and soil rather than unconsolidated rubble. Walls were commonly constructed of stone cobbles laid in courses, but at least Buildings 3 and 4 contain adobe-block walls. Adobe-block construction is also quite common in Tulas domestic architecture, but its use in monumental construction is more elaborate, involving walls up to a meter thick faced with mud or lime plaster, paint, smallstone veneer, or some combination of these. Particularly surprising is the widespread use of mud rather than lime as mortar in walls of stone construction, despite the abundance of lime and its widespread use as a decorative plaster. Tula Grandes use of mud-mortared stone or adobe-block walls covered with decorative facades prompted Covarrubiass (1957, p. 273) oft-cited dictum that these buildings were meant to impress, but not to last. The preference for adobe blocks and mud mortar at Tula Grande may be less a reection of hucksterism than an architectural tradition whose roots may be embedded in the cultural milieu of Tula Grandes builders. At the same time, Covarrubias is accurate in his assessment of the poor long-term durability of Tulas architecture. Compared to Teotihuacan, where structures constructed of stone and concrete have left ubiquitous, easily discernible surface remains, very few of Tulas structures, particularly domestic structures, are directly visible today. However, even adobe cities such as Tula leave surface traces, although a variety of methods are required to discern them. Probable skull rack During exploration of Ballcourt 2 in the 1960s, remains of a rectangular platform and an adjacent smaller one were encountered immediately to the east and appear to be a skull rack, or tzompantli, to judge from the numerous fragments of human teeth and crania that were found on top. Beyond what is mentioned in the ofcial INAH guidebook and in printed information at the archaeological zone, there is little published information about the structure other than a brief description (Matos 1972, p. 115). The extant platform is unreconstructed beyond consolidation of its outer wall, a single talud or sloping body faced with small-stone veneer with traces of lime plaster. Inside the platform Matos encountered what he described as an offering box containing a large blade or knife (my translations), terms that until recently usually referred to bifaces rather than prismatic or percussion blades. According to Matos, associated ceramics suggest the structure is Aztec, but the use of small-stone veneer, while highly characteristic of Tulas monumental construction, is not a feature of Aztec construction at Tula. As described below, numerous Aztec offerings have been encountered in the ruins of Tula Grande, including bifaces inside stone boxes or other containers. More precise dating of this structure
123
64
is important in order to determine whether the famous tzompantli at Tenochtitlan was copied from Tula, or vice versa. Monumental art Acosta recovered numerous sculptures that exhibit a corpus of distinctive artistic and stylistic traits often labeled Toltec, which I describe here only briey; there are two encyclopedic treatments of Tulas sculpture (de la Fuente et al. 1988; nez Garcia 1998) and several studies of more specic aspects (Kristan-Graham Jime 1989, 1993, 2007; Mastache et al. 2002). Tulas sculpture generally is made of volcanic rock, presumably of local manufacture, given at least one rural site with evidence of such (Mastache et al. 2002, g. 10.7). Some is free-standing, in-theround sculpture, including the colossal Atlanteans and serpent columns atop Pyramid B and the equally well-known chacmools, or reclining human gures. Most of Tulas sculpture, however, is bas relief, made on panels of soft volcanic rock that is easily carved and, unfortunately, easily weathered. Tulas monumental art stresses repetition, including the numerous reclininggure bas relief panels depicting elaborately attired humans in a supine pose typically clutching staffs or weapons (Mastache et al. 2009, g. 14). A large number of panels were recovered from the columned halls in Building 3, at least 20 from one hall alone, where they appear to have lined the open ceilings of the interior patios. The most dramatic forms of repetitive art include (1) painted reliefs in and around Building 3 depicting processions of elaborately attired individuals with paraphernalia that suggest merchants, rulers, or warriors (Kristan-Graham 1993; Mastache et al. 2009, pp. 300, 303); (2) processions of canines, felines, and raptoral birds along Pyramid B; and (3) processions of serpents engorging or disgorging human skeletons along the coatepantli, or serpent wall. Aside from the painted friezes, we have little other evidence of painting or murals at Tula Grande, although this is to some extent a result of poor preservation. Many of the mud or lime-plaster wall coatings retained traces of paint, including broad horizontal bands of red, yellow, and black in Building 3; portions of a mural depicting a procession of at least two individuals was encountered in Building 1 m. XVIa, XVIb). (Acosta 1964, la Acostas explorations documented a remarkably high degree of similarity in the n Itza . The use of columns in colonnades, art and architecture of Tula and Chiche atop pyramids, and inside columned halls and galleries and the use of benches constitute the most salient similarities between the two sites. Similarities in sculpture involve not only the same media and modes of human and animal representation but also highly specic details of costume and accoutrements. The nature of these similarities and who had them rst have been subject to debate among Mesoamerican archaeologists and art historians for more than a century. The debate has grown more complex with the discovery of colonnades, columned halls, and skull racks at sites in northern Mexico (Hers 1989; Kelley 1978; Nelson 1997) n Itza (Aveni et al. 1982). that may be older than those at either Tula or Chiche Although the Tula Grande mound/plaza complex is perhaps the most prominent feature, it is but one component of a larger zone of mounds and plazas that form a
123
65
larger monumental precinct covering most of the surrounding hilltop (Fig. 3). Excavations of three large mounds in this area (Fig. 7, a, b, k) encountered large, well-constructed buildings that appear to have been residential (Acosta 1944, p. 156; Charnay 1887), suggesting that palaces and other residences of Tulas ruling class were situated in the surrounding area.
Fig. 7 Planimetric map of Tula (source: Stoutamire 1975) showing urban limits as dened by Mastache et al. (2002) and excavation localities discussed in text: a, Toltec Palace (Charnay 1887); b, Building 2 guez 1976); d, Museo Acosta (Paredes 1992); e, Corral (Healan a and Rodr (Acosta 1944); c, Daini (Pen ndez 1994); g, Canal (Healan 1989); h, Cruz (Healan et al. 1982); i, El Corral 1989); f, Vivero (Ferna culo 1 (Paredes (Acosta 1974); j, La Nopalera (Paredes 1990); k, Toltec House (Charnay 1887); l, Mont ndez Reyes et al. 1999); o, Colonia Pemex 1990); m, U27-28 (Mastache et al. 2002); n, U98 (Herna (Matos 1976); p, Viaducto (Paredes 1990); q, Zapata II (Paredes 1990); r, Pozo 16 (Paredes 1990); s, Mormon Church (Mastache et al. 2002); t, Canadia School (Mastache et al. 2002); u, Zona Urbana Norte (Getino n.d.); v, Unnamed (Excelsior 1 December 2009)
123
66
Beyond Tula Grande: The Tollan phase city Since Acostas pioneering work at Tula Grande, three separate investigations (Healan and Stoutamire 1989; Mastache and Crespo 1982; Yadeun 1974, 1975) have focused on the larger city, including determination of its overall size. Although utilizing different approaches (Healan 2009a, pp. 6970), these investigations reveal that at its height Tula covered an area of about 16 km2, with a maximum north south length of c. 6 km and a maximum width of c. 4 km, encompassing a remarkably diverse landscape of hills, plains, alluvial valleys, and even brackish marsh (Figs. 3 and 7). INAHs photogrammetric mapping project (Yadeun 1974, 1975) identied over 1,000 mounds a meter or more in height whose distribution forms distinct clusters of varying size and density (Fig. 3). While a direct correlation between mound and occupation density might be assumed, this does not appear to be the case given that some of the highest densities of Tollan complex pottery from the Missouri project survey occur in areas where few mounds were identied. In addition, the photogrammetric map does not include mounds under a meter in height, which are the vast majority identied on the photogrammetric images (Yadeun 1975, p. 15), and likely represent residential structures. The paucity of visible structural remains has hampered efforts to estimate Tulas population at its height. Healan and Cobean (Healan 1989, p. 245) suggest a minimal population of 60,000 persons, a gure initially proposed by Stoutamire (1975) based on Tulas overall size, then estimated at 12 km2, and Sanders and Prices (1967) minimum urban density gure of 5,000 persons/km2. Other estimates, including Yadeuns (1975, p. 24) gure of 19,00035,000 and Diehls (1981, p. 284) gure of 32,00037,000, assume a smaller settlement and lower density than the survey data suggest. Residential life Residential structures have been encountered in excavations in at least 22 different localities within the ancient city (Fig. 7) and are the subject of several relatively detailed studies (Healan 1989, 1993, 2009a; Paredes 1990). Construction utilized the same methods and materials seen at Tula Grande but with greater use of adobe, featuring exterior walls of mud-mortared stone foundations overlain by courses of adobe blocks. Residential structures exhibit considerable variability in quality of construction, spaciousness, and use of plaster, paint, and other decorative elements that may reect differential status. Most of the 22 localities show clustered arrangements of rooms or whole buildings interpreted to be residential compounds that housed multiple families (Healan 2009a), some examples of which are shown in Fig. 8. I have previously characterized these as two distinct types: house compounds, or house groups, in which each component family occupied a separate building or house, and apartment compounds, in which each occupied a portion of a single building. In retrospect this distinction is probably of limited value, in part because the two are often not easy to distinguish, particularly with limited exposure. The clearest examples of apartment
123
67
Fig. 8 Plans of selected residential structures from various localities excavated at Tula. Letters refer to localities listed in Fig. 7
compounds at Tula are spacious, well-built structures with plaster-covered and possibly painted oors and walls that suggest elite residences, three of which are located within the monumental precinct (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8, a, b). House compounds, of which the best examples include three juxtaposed compounds exposed in the canal locality (Fig. 8, g), show considerable variability in form and quality, even among structures within individual compounds. A common feature in both house and apartment compounds is a centrally located interior or exterior courtyard that apparently served as common space and the focus of activity involving the entire compound. That these 22 localities were residential in function is indicated by associated artifacts and features that include utilitarian pottery, metates, hearths, and in situ braziers. In the canal locality, ve houses denitely contained hearths, while
123
68
possible food preparation areas, identied by whole metates and associated pottery vessels, were generally located in and around exterior courtyards (Healan 2009a, g. 4.5). The spatial and contextual segregation of possible cooking versus food preparation areas suggests that cooking and presumably eating were largely familyspecic activities while some food preparation was commonly performed outdoors, seemingly in the company of other families engaged in the same activity. Braziers, censers, and human gurines suggest household-level ritual activity, while ritual activity at a higher level is indicated by structures interpreted as altars in the courtyards of many residential compounds. Their central prominent location suggests activities that involved all member households, and at least three altars containing human burials suggest veneration of a common ancestor and the likelihood that the component families were related. A temple/pyramid in the canal locality may indicate ritual activity at the local neighborhood level. Economy and subsistence The most detailed information on diet and subsistence comes from rural sites in Tulas hinterland (see below), but maize and amaranth were encountered at several lez and Montufar 1980). localities within the city (Diehl 1981, p. 287; Gonza Metates recovered from many of Tulas excavated residential compounds suggest grinding of maize prepared by nixtamalization, probably the chief form in which maize was consumed in prehispanic Mesoamerica. The consumption of nixtamal at Tula and the Tula region is indicated by remains of pozol (i.e., balls of maize lez 1999, p. 147; Mastache et al. 2002, kernels), pozole, and possibly tamales (Gonza pp. 242243). Surprisingly, ceramic griddles (comales) used in the preparation of tortillas from ground nixtamal are infrequent in both the city and the hinterland compared to their relatively high frequency at contemporaneous sites in the Basin of Mexico. This led Mastache et al. (2002, pp. 234, 243) to suggest that cazuelas or some other vessel may have been used for this purpose, or, more intriguingly, that tortillas were not the principal form in which maize was consumed at Tula. It is reasonable to assume that some portion of Tulas residents were farmers, although the large basalt and rhyolite tools found at rural sites that may have been used in agricultural activity do not appear to have been part of the urban household assemblage. As discussed below, however, it is unlikely that the compounds in these 22 localities are a representative sample of Tulas households. Craft production Evidence for craft production consists largely of by-products of manufacture recovered in both excavation and survey. The most abundant evidence involves two utilitarian craft activities, obsidian core/blade and ceramic vessel production. Obsidian core/blade production Obsidian artifacts are second only to pottery sherds in abundance at Tula, and the vast majority, perhaps 9599%, consists of segments of prismatic blades
123
69
intentionally broken for uses that probably involved hafting (Healan 1992a, p. 451). Tulas earliest (Prado/Corral) settlement obtained most of its obsidian from the cuaro (Michoaca n) source c. 150 km to the west (Fig. 1, C). Over Ucareo-Zinape time Tula came to rely increasingly on the Pachuca (Hidalgo) source c. 70 km to the east (Fig. 1, D), constituting 8095% of Tulas obsidian by the Late Tollan phase. Probable obsidian production loci at Tula came to light when a surface survey encountered several anomalous concentrations of core/blade debitage in the eastern portion of the city (Fig. 7). A more systematic survey (Pastrana 1977) revealed numerous localized hot spots presumed to mark individual production loci, which subsequent excavations exposed at two localities within the larger surface concentrations. Excavations at the Cruz locality (Fig. 7, H) partially exposed a workshop that contained distinct living, working, and refuse dumping areas (Healan 1986; Healan et al. 1983) and produced prismatic cores and blades from imported polyhedral (percussion) cores (Healan 2002, 2003). Obsidian residue indicate that the actual core/blade reduction loci were located outdoors (Healan 1997), although core platform grinding appears to have taken place inside the residential compound (Healan 2009b). Both the residential compound and the outdoor work area were relatively free of production waste, most of which was encountered in a peripheral refuse dump underlying the highest surface obsidian densities in the locality. This suggests that surface hot spots generally mark dumps rather than actual work sites, although the two were probably not very far apart (Healan 1992b). A second core/ ndez 1986, 1994) was excavated at the Vivero locality to the blade workshop (Ferna north (Figs. 7 and 8, f). Unlike the Cruz locality, the Vivero work areas appear to have been located inside rooms and patios of the residential compound. Pottery production No evidence of pottery production loci was encountered in either the Missouri project or the Proyecto Tula urban surveys. However, during systematic reexamination of the sites boundaries, Mastache and Crespo (1982; Crespo and Mastache 1973; Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 167169) encountered overred and warped sherds and other wasters over an area of about 2.5 km2 along the extreme eastern edge of the site (Fig. 7), which they interpreted as a potters barrio. Highway salvage excavations in the U98 locality near the north end (Fig. 7, n) partially exposed a residential compound containing numerous wasters and other kiln furniture. This included a partially intact updraft kiln and loose, vitried adobe blocks presumed to ndez Reyes et al. 1999). have been parts of other kilns destroyed by plowing (Herna Of particular interest was the recovery of numerous fragments of red ceramic molds apparently used to make shallow bowls and dishes that form a major component of the Tollan phase ceramic assemblage. Associated wasters indicate that the U98 locality produced at least seven major Tollan phase ceramic types. While these are mostly various forms of plates and bowls, they embrace a wide variety of styles, forms, and pastes, including representatives of three different ceramic wares dened by Cobean. The locality apparently also engaged in limited manufacture of ceramic gurines, spindle whorls, and architectural decorative elements.
123
70
The localitys ceramic assemblage provides support for the proposed Early Tollan/Late Tollan phase division based on production rather than consumption. In the lowest levels, ceramic production involved mainly two types, Proa and Joroba, both of which are diagnostic Early Tollan types. In the upper levels, production involved principally other Tollan phase types, including Jara, the single most diagnostic Late Tollan type. Other craft production Possible production areas for mold-made ceramic (Mazapan) human gurines are indicated by surface concentrations of gurine fragments, including one gurine mold fragment in the northeastern portion of the city. Nearby is a surface concentration of obsidian unifaces (scrapers) that given the absence of debitage, suggests activities involving use rather than manufacture (Pastrana 1977). Evidence of possible tecali (travertine) vessel manufacture at Tula was previously reported by Castillo (1970). Additional evidence in the form of cylindrical drill plugs of tecali, a by-product of the drilling-out stage of vessel manufacture, was recovered in the Missouri project survey and in excavation at the canal locality (Diehl and Stroh 1978). The relatively small number (19) recovered in the latter locality and the absence of nished or unnished vessels suggest that the plugs were obtained elsewhere and reused in some fashion. On the other hand, 13 of 17 tecali plugs recovered in surface survey came from the monumental precinct north and west of Tula Grande, suggesting that this may have been an area where tecali vessel manufacture occurred. As noted above, elite residences may have been located in this area, tecali vessel manufacture may have been an activity associated with elite households, similar to high craft activities recently identied at Aguateca, Guatemala (Aoyama 2007; Inomata 2001) and Teotihuacan (Manzanilla 2006). Alternatively, tecali vessels may have been produced by nonelite craft specialists who were tethered to elite households, or perhaps these drill plugs are reused objects as was suggested for those in the canal locality. Nine of 36 spindle whorls recovered in the Missouri project survey are likewise clustered in the monumental precinct, suggesting cloth production, which was an important activity among the Aztec elite classes (Evans 2001). Evidence for other utilitarian craft activities at Tula include salt making, as indicated by salt-pan fragments recovered from around El Salitre marsh (Yadeun 1975, p. 29, g. 57) and the discovery of what appears to be a kiln where ceramic tubes used to drain or transport water were red (Healan 1989, pp. 254259). Discussion The relatively high quality of many of the residential compounds excavated to date, along with other indicators of afuence, including a cache of Tohil plumbate and Central American polychrome vessels in the canal locality (Diehl et al. 1974), suggest they were of relatively high status. It must not be assumed, however, that these 22 localities are representative of Tulas households because a disproportionately large number of them are from the central portion of the city (Fig. 7). None are from the fringe where lower-status individuals may have lived. Moreover,
123
71
in many localities, excavators intentionally selected prominent surface mounds that are likely associated with more substantial architectural remains of higher-status households. Thus the sample of localities excavated to date is probably biased towards relatively afuent households. This may explain Sanders and Santleys assertion (1983, p. 268) that Tulas populace appears to have been mostly nonfood producers, which I believe is unlikely. Craft production appears to have occurred generally in a domestic setting, which agrees with other evidence that household-based craft production was the norm in Mesoamerica (Feinman and Nicholas 2000). While some was probably nonspecialized activity engaged in by most households for their own consumption, ceramic and lithic production was more specialized and involved relatively few of Tulas households. This embodies the concept of workshop as the term has come to be used and is well illustrated by refuse dumps in the Cruz locality that show individual deposits containing mixed core/blade debitage and domestic refuse (Healan 2009b, g. 5). Surprisingly, it appears that the Cruz locality obsidian workshop engaged in a low volume of production, estimated at less than one core reduced per day (Healan 1992a, p. 453). Its location in one of the densest hot spots within the larger obsidian surface concentration suggests that a low volume was characteristic of the entire production zone. Similarly, low output was indicated for three core/blade workshops recently excavated at Xochicalco (Hirth 2006, table 8.5). This also may be true of Tulas ceramic workshops given the small size and small number of kilns in the U98 locality; it seems unlikely that the larger ceramic production zone would have escaped detection in two previous surveys had there been more substantial surface evidence. While the prospect of numerous workshops, each engaged in a low volume of production, seems counterintuitive, there is evidence that both ceramic and lithic workshops engaged in multiple craft activities, or multicrafting (Feinman and Nicholas 2000, p. 136; Hirth 2006, p. 276), apparently a common practice in prehispanic Mesoamerica (Hirth 2009). The Cruz locality obsidian workshop also contained evidence of the manufacture of shell and bone objects and various items made from prismatic blades, most notably trilobal eccentrics (Stocker and Spence 1973), while the U98 ceramic workshop also manufactured gurines, spindle whorls, and architectural decorative elements. Other possible evidence of multicrafting includes the surface concentration of obsidian unifaces in the same general area where there is evidence of gurine production. It is likely that evidence for other craft production at Tula went undetected, just as pottery production did, at least initially. Noting the small volume of extant craft production, however, it appears unlikely to have been a major source of wealth for the city. On the contrary, Tula was probably dependent upon its hinterland for much of what it consumed, as detailed below.
History of settlement of Tula and the Tula region Knowledge of Tulas settlement history comes from excavation at Tula and other sites and from regional survey. Of particular importance is Mastaches (1996a;
123
72
Mastache et al. 2002) intensive survey of the immediate region around Tula that grew out of a preliminary survey conducted as part of the Proyecto Tula (Mastache and Crespo 1974, 1982). Mastaches intensive survey covered the area within a 17-km radius of the ancient city, hereafter referred to as the survey area. Earliest settlement The earliest evidence of settlement consists of Early/Middle Formative pottery recovered from construction sites in downtown Tula de Allende in 1977 and 2008 (L. Gamboa, personal communication 2008; Mastache and Crespo 1982, pp. 1317). These remains, including a burial, suggest an Early/Middle Formative period settlement of unknown size. The earliest well-dened settlements are Late Formative, with four sites containing predominantly Ticoman III ceramics (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 44). Three of the four sites are small settlements, while the other, designated La Loma, covers c. 15 ha of a mesa at the south end of the survey area (Fig. 2, A). Exploratory excavations in La Lomas ceremonial center (Cook de Leonard et al. 1956) cuaro tradition of southern encountered burials with ceramics of the Chup cuaro Guanajuato. Subsequent excavations (Cobean 1974) revealed that Chup ceramics are not limited to burials and in fact constitute as much as 5% of the decorated pottery at the site (R. Cobean, personal communication 2006). If La Loma were a regional center, its sustaining area must have included more than the three small sites identied in survey; additional settlements may lie beneath alluvium or some of the later Classic period settlements. However, given its location, La Lomas supporting area may be the northern part of the Basin of Mexico immediately to the south (Fig. 1), where there are other sites with both cuaro ceramics (McBride 1969, 1974). Its location at the apex of Ticoman and Chup an area of major settlement to the south is consistent with that for gateway communities as dened by Hirth (1978). Classic period settlement phase, substantial settlement appeared in the During the Classic period Chingu survey area, exhibiting diagnostic Tzacualli through Metepec phase ceramics of Classic Teotihuacan located less than 70 km to the southeast (Fig. 1, B). The vast majority of settlements are what Mastache (1996a) calls dispersed sites, i.e., surface scatters that may represent homesteads, temporary camps, or other small sites. There also are 12 large, nucleated sites with dense surface artifact cover and , covers an area of over monumental architecture, the largest of which, Chingu 2 2.5 km (Fig. 2, B). phase sites suggests a The variability in size and complexity among the Chingu at the top. The latter site has possible four-tiered settlement hierarchy, with Chingu been heavily damaged but not before it was systematically investigated by INAHs az 1980). Numerous rectangular stone fragments suggest the use Proyecto Tula (D of the distinctive talud-tablero facade characteristic of Teotihuacan monumental architecture. The site contained c. 475 visible mounds, some of which are
123
73
rectangular in form and whose orientation approximates the 15300 east of north az 1980, g. 3). These mounds include two orientation of Teotihuacan (D rectangular enclosures, the largest of which, La Campana, is comparable in form to Teotihuacans Ciudadela, although smaller, and includes a prominent interior azs map suggests that mound like the Ciudadelas Feathered Serpent Pyramid. D structures were arranged along northsouth and eastwest axes that intersect in front of La Campana, as do the northsouth and eastwest avenues in front of the Ciudadela at Teotihuacan. Notable differences between the two sites include the of counterparts of Teotihuacans Sun and Moon Pyramids, which absence at Chingu may underscore their construction and perhaps greater importance before Teotihuacan became the center of a macroregional empire. Conversely, a second Ciudadela-like compound immediately east of La Campana has no obvious counterpart at Teotihuacan. phase settlement hierarchy includes three sites, The second level of the Chingu each about 80 ha, located north of Tula, at least one of which also exhibits evidence of talud/tablero architecture and a Ciudadela-like enclosure. The third level includes eight smaller nucleated sites of about 1015 ha, some of which contain monumental architecture. All eight are situated in the southern and eastern periphery of the survey area and include two sites with a strong Oaxacan afliation, as described below. The fourth level includes the numerous dispersed sites already noted. phase occupation at the There is currently no evidence for any signicant Chingu site of Tula itself, despite its favorable location at the conuence of two rivers and the relatively high density of settlement in the immediate vicinity, including a level 2 site less than 2 km to the north. phase settlement was under the control There seems little doubt that the Chingu of Teotihuacan. Indeed, its sheer magnitude compared to the previous Late Formative settlement suggests outright colonization by those with close ties to Teotihuacan. Similar instances of intrusive settlement systems attributed to Teotihuacan have been documented in Morelos (Angulo and Hirth 1981; Hirth a Cook 1981), and the Toluca Valley (Sugiura and Angulo 1981), Puebla (Garc appear to have been made in the image of 1993), although many aspects of Chingu Teotihuacan. Given the extensive calcareous deposits in the immediate region and the considerable volume of lime used at Teotihuacan (Barba and Frunz 1999), Mastache et al. (2002, p. 59) suggest that lime exploitation was a major activity of phase settlement in the region. This was conrmed by recent X-ray the Chingu uorescence (XRF) analysis that identied these deposits as the source of lime for at least one Teotihuacan apartment compound (Barba et al. 2009). Likewise, the agriculturally productive alluvial plain may have been an important resource, phase sites are situated along two irrigation particularly as a number of Chingu canals that are at least as old as the colonial period (Mastache and Crespo 1974; itself is situated at the terminus of Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 35, 59). Indeed, Chingu one of these canals (Mastache et al. 2002, g. 4.2). Thus it is reasonable to suggest phase settlement was the exploitation of lime and that a major activity of the Chingu agricultural resources, presumably for the Teotihuacan state.
123
74
Numerous sites with Teotihuacan ceramics also are present in the southern portion of the Valle del Mezquital along Tulas northern ank (Fournier 2007, pez Aguilar 1994; Lo pez Aguilar et al. 1998, pp. 3032) and are pp. 9396; Lo likewise interpreted as outright colonization by Teotihuacan, possibly for stone and forest products (Polgar 1998, pp. 4445). This region includes the Pachuca obsidian source (Fig. 1, D), which various authors have suggested was under Teotihuacans pez Aguilar et al. (1998) suggest that these sites, some of which control. Lo phase contained low frequencies of Oaxacan ceramics, were an extension of Chingu settlement from the Tula region, a reasonable assumption given the size of Chingu and its intermediate location. The Teotihuacan-related occupation is conned to the southern portion of the Valle del Mezquital, which may indicate the northern limits of rainfall agriculture. There is evidence, however, of preexisting settlements to the pez Aguilar et al. 1998, north that may have restricted Teotihuacan expansion (Lo pp. 2931). These settlements contain ceramics of the Xajay tradition, associated o that span the Classic and Epiclassic periods (Nalda with sites in the eastern Baj 1975, 1991). Teotihuacan and the Zapotec diaspora in the Tula region phase sites contain ceramics of Oaxacan afliation in addition to Many Chingu , where they are 7% of decorated diagnostic Teotihuacan ceramics including Chingu az 1981, p. 109). Oaxacan pottery constitutes 5060% of identiable ceramics (D ceramics at two level 3 sites, Acoculco and El Tesoro, which occupy nonadjacent o Tula near the southern limits of the region hilltops along a tributary of the R n II and IIIa (Fig. 2, C, D). Identiable Oaxacan ceramics are diagnostic Monte Alba types (Caso et al. 1967), and some appear to be locally made (Crespo and Mastache 1981, p. 102; Mastache et al. 2002, p. 57). At least two Zapotec-style tombs have been identied at El Tesoro, one of which was excavated, yielding skeletal remains and grave goods that included a variety of ndez 1994). The tomb was a narrow, slab-lined trench Oaxacan ceramics (Herna n II tombs, with steps at one end and a slab roof and similar in form to Monte Alba oor. Two other possible tombs were encountered in the wake of a recent housing development at El Tesoro (R. Cobean, personal communication 2009). El Tesoro and Acoculco may have been Zapotec enclaves given their predominantly Zapotec ceramic assemblage and funerary architecture. Mastache et al. (2002, pp. 5759) suggest that the Zapotec presence in the Tula region is likely linked to Teotihuacan, given the well-known Zapotec enclave there (Millon 1973; Spence 1992). This may explain the location of these two sites at the northern threshold of the Basin of Mexico, although there are other possible explanations for their location, noted below. The Tula region thus provides additional evidence of systematic interaction between central Mexico and the Valley of Oaxaca, although the reasons for what Spence (2005) has termed a Zapotec diaspora in central Mexico are not known. Sanders (personal communication 1976, cited in Crespo and Mastache 1981, p. 103) suggests that at least some of these immigrants may have been specialists in the production of lime, a craft that in Oaxaca goes back to the Early Formative period (Flannery and Marcus 1994). In this regard, the location of
123
75
El Tesoro and Acoculco may be explained by their proximity to the calcareous deposits in the southern portion of the survey area. Classic to Epiclassic The Classic/Epiclassic period transition in central Mexico is marked by two events: (1) the demise of Teotihuacan by the end of the Metepec phase and (2) the appearance of a distinctive ceramic complex known as Coyotlatelco throughout much of central Mexico. It was also during this time that initial settlement occurred at Tula. The demise of Teotihuacan was felt throughout Mesoamerica (Diehl and Berlo 1989) and is the dening event of the Classic/Epiclassic boundary (Diehl and Berlo nez Moreno 1959; Webb 1978). Although evidence of burning and other 1989; Jime destruction along the Street of the Dead suggests a sudden, rather violent end (Millon 1996), Teotihuacan may already have been in a state of decline by the pez Perez et al. 2006; Rattray 1996, p. 216). Until recently, the Xolalpan phase (Lo end of Metepec phase Teotihuacan was dated to c. A.D. 750 (Millon 1973, g. 12), but over a decade ago at least two researchers (Cowgill 1996; Rattray 1996, 2001) proposed pushing this date back at least a century (Fig. 4). Recent evidence (Manzanilla 2003, p. 94; Rattray 2006, p. 208) that at least some of the widespread burning occurred at the end of the Xolalpan phase provides additional support for an earlier end date. This revision appears to have gained general acceptance with relatively little fanfare or controversy, despite its profound impact on the timing of and relationships among various developments in the Classic and Epiclassic periods (Diehl and Berlo 1989; Manzanilla 2005; Mountjoy and Brockington 1987; Solar 2006). Despite its demise, there was occupation at Teotihuacan during the Epiclassic period that, like many other sites in the Basin of Mexico, is associated with Coyotlatelco ceramics. The size and nature of the Epiclassic occupation, however, still spark disagreement. Some investigators (e.g., Cowgill 1996, p. 330; Diehl 1989b, p. 12; Sanders 1986; Sanders et al. 1979, p. 129; Sugiura 2006, p. 148) believe that Epiclassic Teotihuacan not only functioned as a coherent settlement but a Cha vez et al. 2006; was still the largest settlement in the basin. Others (Garc Gomez and Cabrera 2006; Rattray 1996, pp. 216217, 2006, p. 206) argue that Teotihuacan was a discontinuous landscape of hamlets or villages with no central organization and large unoccupied zones in between (Rattray 1996, p. 217). Proponents of a substantial settlement appear to base their opinion on the surface distribution of Coyotlatelco ceramics, interpreted as evidence of relatively dense but less extensive occupation. On the other hand, opponents base their opinion on excavations at various localities that show either a lack of Epiclassic occupation or one involving insubstantial construction or reoccupation of Classic structures. First identied in excavations near Atzcapotzalco in the basin (Tozzer 1921), Coyotlatelcos Epiclassic dating is based largely on its occurrence in post-Metepec contexts at Teotihuacan (e.g., Armillas 1950, p. 56; Sejourne 1956) and in stratigraphically early contexts at Tula (Acosta 1945, pp. 5356). Rattray (1966) provided the rst denitive study of Coyotlatelco pottery, while more recent
123
76
comprehensive studies include those of Cobean (1990), Nichols and McCullough (1986), and Solar (2006). There is considerable debate over what is Coyotlatelco (e.g., Gaxiola 2006). Its chief characteristics include red-painted geometric and other designs applied to the interior and/or exterior of natural or cream-slipped hemispherical and at bottom bowls. Painted vessels are typically highly burnished and often have tripodal conical supports. Coyotlatelco assemblages also include undecorated monochrome vessels, comales, pipes, and censers. There is currently a lively debate regarding the origins of Coyotlatelco ceramics, and since the Tula region plays a signicant role in the debate, this is discussed below after the following section. Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region phase sites in the survey area were abandoned by the end of Virtually all Chingu Teotihuacans Metepec phase, although abandonment had apparently been underway since the Xolalpan phase (Mastache and Cobean 1989, p. 51). Abandonment of Teotihuacan-associated sites also occurred in the Valle del Mezquital (Cervantes and Torres 1991; Fournier 2007, p. 96; Polgar 1998, pp. 4548; Torres et al. 1999, p. 82). As in the Basin of Mexico, Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region is associated with the Coyotlatelco ceramic complex. The majority are dispersed sites, plus nine large, nucleated settlements, including Tula Chico. The Epiclassic and preceding phase settlement systems are notably different, with the latter Classic period Chingu occupying the center of the survey area while the ten Epiclassic nucleated settlements are situated on hilltops or elevated terrain mostly along the periphery. Although both Classic and Epiclassic dispersed sites were encountered on the alluvial plain, few sites exhibit both components (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 45). This mutually exclusive distribution suggests wholesale discontinuity between the Classic and Epiclassic settlement systems, perhaps reecting the breakup of the Teotihuacan political system. It also could indicate that the two settlement systems overlapped in time, as discussed below. In a systematic study over several decades (Cobean 1978, 1982, 1990; Cobean and Mastache 1989; Cobean et al. 1981; Mastache and Cobean 1989, 1990; Mastache et al. 2002), Cobean and Mastache divided the Coyotlatelco occupation in the Tula region into three successive (La Mesa, Prado, and Corral) phases (Fig. 4), of which the earliest (La Mesa) phase is believed to include all nine nucleated hilltop settlements except Tula Chico. These settlements include the site of La Mesa itself (Fig. 2, E), which covered an area of about 1 km2 (Bonl 2005; Mastache and Cobean 1989). La Mesa contains three distinct monumental centers anked by terraces containing both rectangular and circular structures, the latter uncommon in central Mexico. Many of the other La Mesa phase settlements exhibit monumental architecture and evidence of terracing, although none, including La Mesa, appear to have been densely occupied. Another nucleated Coyotlatelco hilltop settlement, known variously as Cerro la Ahumada and Mesa Grande (Fig. 2, F) was encountered during the Zumpango region survey immediately to the south
123
77
(Parsons 2008, pp. 174184; Sanders et al. 1979, p. 131), and may be the tenth and southernmost La Mesa phase hilltop settlement. The earlier dating of the La Mesa phase is based on ceramics whose painted motifs were perceived as simpler in form and execution than those of the subsequent Prado and Corral phases and of Coyotlatelco sites in the Basin of Mexico, thus interpreted as developmentally and temporally earlier (Cobean et al. 1981, p. 193; Mastache and Cobean 1989, p. 56). Although the La Mesa phase includes all ten nucleated hilltop settlements except Tula Chico, only two others, Cerro Magoni (Mastache and Cobean 1990, Mastache et al. 2002, p. 68) and Cerro Elefante nez 1994), have been explored by excavation. Surface pottery from all nine (Mart La Mesa phase sites apparently exhibit notable differences in form and decoration, including unique types that constitute at least 20% of the ceramics at each site (R. Cobean, personal communication 2008). Differences also are seen in site layout, architectural characteristics, and lithic assemblages (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 69; Rees 1990). Mastache and Cobean interpret the La Mesa phase settlement as a series of largely independent polities rather than a single integrated system, a pattern reminiscent of the Tezoyuca phase hilltop centers and surrounding settlements on the periphery of the Teotihuacan Valley during the Terminal Formative period (Sanders et al. 1979, pp. 104105). Excavation suggests that at least two hilltop settlements, La Mesa and Cerro Magoni, were single component sites, and Mastache and Cobean proposed from surface ceramics that the other La Mesa phase hilltop sites were as well. Thus the two subsequent Coyotlatelco-related (Prado and Corral) phases are restricted to Tula Chico and presumably the dispersed sites in the surrounding area. Epiclassic/Coyotlatelco settlement at Tula Chico Coyotlatelco ceramics were rst identied at Tula by Acosta (1945) in excavations at Tula Grande and apparently near Tula Chico. In both the Missouri and Proyecto Tula surface surveys, Coyotlatelco surface ceramics clustered around Tula Chico (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, g. 13.6; Yadeun 1975, g. 19), leading investigators to interpret it as the monumental center for the earliest settlement. Additional investigations have been conducted at Tula Chico in recent decades, virtually all by rez 1989; Mastache et al. Cobean and Mastache (Cobean 1982; Cobean and Sua 2009). Tula Chico contains a central plaza measuring c. 75 m eastwest and is anked by several pyramids, two ball courts, and large platforms comparable to those of Tula Grande (Fig. 3; see also Mastache et al. 2009, g. 19). Despite their similarity in layout, Tula Chico and Tula Grande differ in several ways, including the approximate northsouth orientation of the former versus the c. 17 east of north orientation of the latter. Equally distinctive is that Tula Chicos two principal pyramids are situated side by side at the north end, an unusual arrangement somewhat like the twin-temple/pyramidal complex of Tenochtitlans Templo Mayor. According to Mastache and Cobean, Tula Chicos ceramics resemble those described for Coyotlatelco sites in the Basin of Mexico (Blanton and Parsons 1971;
123
78
Nichols and McCollough 1986; Rattray 1966; Tozzer 1921) more than they do the La Mesa complex, sufciently so to merit their denition as a separate complex that they believe postdates the La Mesa phase. Two such complexes and phases (Prado and Corral) were dened, although most of Tulas Epiclassic settlement pertains to the Corral phase, with Prado as an earlier variant. The bulk of the ceramics used to dene these two phases came from four exploratory pits excavated by INAH at Tula Chico, three of which were located within Tula Chico and another located c. 180 m to the southeast (Cobean 1982, g. 2). In all three pits inside Tula Chico, Coyotlatelco ceramics predominated throughout, with small quantities of Tollan phase ceramics limited to the uppermost levels (gs. 79). This agrees with the relatively small quantity of Tollan complex ceramics recovered from Tula Chico in surface survey, suggesting the monumental center was unoccupied during the Tollan phase. In all four pits, Cobean identied a distinctive subassemblage co-occurring with Coyotlatelco ceramics that was most common in the lowest levels. This subassemblage, consisting of decorated serving vessels with no examples of utilitarian vessel forms (Cervantes and Fournier 1994, p. 110; Cobean 1982, p. 64), was used to dene an earlier ceramic complex. Designated the Prado complex and phase, this appeared to stratigraphically precede the full-blown Coyotlatelco manifestation during the Corral phase (Cobean and Mastache 1989, p. 42). Cobean (1990, p. 44) subsequently identied Prado in the lowest levels of two exploratory pits previously excavated by INAH at Tula Chico (Matos 1974a, gs. 8, 10) that had been described as Teotihuacanoid. It must be emphasized that the Prado complex consists of the above subassemblage, hereafter referred to as Prado ceramics, plus the suite of Coyotlatelco ceramic types that dene the Corral complex. Even in levels where Prado ceramics are at peak popularity, Coyotlatelco ceramics are still more numerous, and while Prado ceramics sharply decline in frequency in subsequent levels, small amounts were present even in the highest levels. Thus the distinction between the Prado and Corral phases is one of relative frequency and therefore somewhat arbitrary. This problem might be resolved if a larger study of Prado and Corral ceramics permitted the subdivision of one or more existing types into early and late variants by which the two complexes could be differentiated. Failing this, it may be preferable to consider Prado and Corral as early and late subphases, respectively, of a single (Corral) phase. Outside Tula Chico, Prado vessels were recovered from burials in salvage excavations by INAH near the Museo locality (Paredes 2005, pp. 211214). Few Prado ceramics were encountered in surface survey inside the city (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, g. 13.7) and few were encountered in regional survey (Cobean 1982, p. 66). Recently, however, Prado ceramics were identied at Chapantongo os 2007), an Epiclassic site about 2.5 km2 (Fournier 2007; Fournier and Bolan located c. 27 km northwest of Tula, whose ceramic assemblage includes most of Tulas Corral and Prado phase ceramic types. Unlike Tula Chico, Prado ceramics at Chapantongo show no variation in relative frequency over time (Cervantes and Fournier 1994, p. 108), which could indicate a relatively brief temporal duration.
123
79
While the extent of Tulas Prado phase settlement is unknown, the subsequent Corral phase settlement has been estimated as between 3 and 6 km2 (Cobean 1982; Mastache and Crespo 1982, p. 23; Yadeun 1975, p. 22). Outside Tula Chico, Corral phase occupation at Tula has been identied in excavations at the El Corral locality (Cobean 1990, p. 141) and the Museo and Cerro Malinche localities (Paredes 2005, pp. 209213). It is reasonable to assume that Corral phase settlement extended into Tulas monumental precinct, possibly including the area later occupied by Tula Grande given its commanding location. Various authors (Mastache and Crespo 1982, pp. 2324; Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 72, 129) have speculated on the existence of a Corral phase monumental center at Tula Grande given the recovery of Coyotlatelco ceramics from the lowest levels of several excavations there (Acosta 1945, p. 53; Mastache et al. 2002, p. 129). As discussed below, however, the earliest construction levels in which Coyotlatelco ceramics have been encountered at Tula Grande appear to date to the Terminal Corral rather than Corral phase, and it appears that the two monumental centers did not overlap in time. Recent investigations at Tula Chico During 2002 and 2003, Cobean and Mastache conducted excavations on the south facade and superstructure of the largest pyramid on the north side of Tula Chico. The superstructure, which had been burned in prehispanic times, was dated to the rez et al. Corral phase based on associated ceramics (Mastache et al. 2009; Sua 2007). Associated sculpture includes a relief panel depicting a reclining gure (Mastache et al 2009, g. 20), essentially identical in style, dress, and accoutrements to those from Building 3 at Tula Grande, thus extending one of Tula Grandes signature monumental art forms back into the Corral phase. Evidence of additional iconographic continuity between Tula Chico and Tula Grande was encountered in excavations in the southwest corner of Tula Chicos plaza, where sculptural fragments and architectural remains associated with Prado complex ceramics were encountered beneath more than a meter of rock ll that underlay the plaza (Mastache et al. 2009, g. 22). This included a relief panel fragment showing the foot and lower leg of a reclining personage, thereby extending this art form back into the Prado phase. Chronological issues According to Mastache and Cobean, Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region evolved from a landscape of small, competing polities to a single integrated system centered around Tula Chico, with an accompanying shift from largely peripheral, hilltop settlements to the alluvial plain. The proposed earlier dating of the La Mesa ` vis both the Prado/Corral phases and Coyotlatelco assemblages in the phase vis a Basin of Mexico raises the possibility that the former may have overlapped in time phase, Teotihuacan-associated settlement system. This also is with the Chingu suggested by the strikingly complementary distribution of the La Mesa and Chingu phase settlements that may explain why the former settlement system surrounds the area rather than occupying it (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 302). Overlap between
123
80
the two settlement systems would have obvious implications for the debate surrounding the origins of Coyotlatelco ceramics, discussed below. However, recently obtained radiocarbon dates for both La Mesa and Tula Chico (Fig. 5, aj) provide mixed results with respect to this issue. On the one hand, the two-sigma ranges for four of the ve samples from each of the two sites are os (2007, p. 511) strikingly similar, with almost total overlap. As Fournier and Bolan note, this provides no support for the premise that La Mesa and presumably the other La Mesa phase hilltop sites predate Tula Chico. At the same time, both sites have one date whose two-sigma range falls almost completely within the Classic period (Fig. 5, a, f). For Tula Chico, this date has stratigraphic integrity since it comes from ll beneath the plaza oor underlying the Ballcourt, while the other four dates are from stratigraphically later contexts associated with a later platform. Too few dates are involved, however, for overlap between Classic and Epiclassic settlement to be more than an interesting possibility. Tula and the origin of Coyotlatelco ceramics Although the debate regarding where, when, and how Coyotlatelco ceramics originated involves numerous points of discussion, it is often and somewhat inaccurately characterized as a dichotomy involving those who favor a nonlocal versus a local origin. Proponents of a nonlocal origin, originally proposed by nez Moreno (1959), Braniff (1972), and Rattray (1966), trace Coyotlatelco to Jime one or more red-on-buff ceramic traditions to the north and west as far away as the o region of Chalchihuites region of Zacatecas and Jalisco, or as near as the Baj taro (Fig. 1). Mastache and Cobean (1989, p. 65, southern Guanajuato and Quere 1990, p. 22; see also Cobean 1990, p. 500; Mastache 1996a, pp. 4750) favor a nonlocal origin, specically the Chalchihuites region given similarities in ceramics as well as architecture, settlement, and lithic assemblages. The primary reason given by Mastache for believing that the Chalchihuites region was the most likely source involves the disparity between the supposed abundance of Blanco Levantado o during the Epiclassic versus its absence in both the pottery in the Baj Chalchihiutes and Tula regions prior to the Early Postclassic period (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 71). However, several authors have recently noted that Blanco o (e.g., Levantado is likewise absent in much of the southern portion of the Baj Brambila and Crespo 2005, pp. 165167; C. Hernandez, personal communication 2009). The view that La Mesa phase sites were settled by immigrants from the Chalchihuites region has been soundly criticized by various authors (e.g., Fournier nez Betts 2006). Jime nez Betts notes that revised dating of et al. 2006; Jime Chalchihuites ceramic phases has made them contemporaries of the Coyotlatelco complex rather than earlier complexes from which the latter could have derived. os 2007, pp. 505509) question the validity Other authors (e.g., Fournier and Bolan of supposed architectural and other material ties between La Mesa phase and Chalchihiutes sites. In retrospect, the notion that the appearance of Coyotlatelco signals the arrival of peoples from over 500 km away seems unlikely, for these and
123
81
other reasons. At the same time, however, the settlement data strongly suggest that the Coyotlatelco settlements in the survey area were intrusive, as is discussed below. With respect to the other side of the debate, there are relatively few proponents of a purely local origin for Coyotlatelco (e.g., Dumond and Muller 1972, p. 1214; Sanders 2006, p. 190), who see its origins in red-on-buff ceramics at Teotihuacan or earlier traditions in the Basin of Mexico. Instead, there appears to be an emerging middle ground (e.g., Beekman and Christensen 2003; Fournier 2006, pp. 438439; pez Perez et al. 2006; Manzanilla 2005, p. 269; Sugiura 2006) that Gaxiola 2006; Lo sees Coyotlatelco as a fusion, hybridization, or syncretism of the preexisting Teotihuacan ceramic tradition with a nonlocal tradition possibly introduced by migrating populations, although more indirect forms of interaction also could have o is the most likely been responsible. As most of these authors note, the eastern Baj region of origin given its proximity (Fig. 1) and growing evidence of a rich and cuaro) widespread red-on-buff tradition that goes back to Late Formative (Chup o, particularly to the Tula region, times. Moreover, the proximity of the eastern Baj would facilitate regular interaction without necessarily involving migration or, if so, minimal population displacement. Prado and Corral ceramics have been recently taro by Saint-Charles and identied in burials at Cerro la Cruz in southern Quere quez (2006), who assert that one of the principal Prado ceramic types, Ana Enr a, is identical to Rojo Sobre Bayo El Mogote, a previously dened type Mar taro (Nalda 1975). common in southern Quere In addition, Coyotlatelco sites characteristically exhibit a lithic assemblage dominated by obsidian from the Ucareo obsidian source (Fig. 1, C) on the o (Healan 1997, table 1). Recent excavation of southeastern ank of the Baj habitation sites around the source (Healan 1997; Hernandez and Healan 2000) has documented a long-lived red-on-buff ceramic tradition (Hernandez 2000) whose origins go back to the Early/Classic period, as determined by recent chronometric dating (Hernandez and Healan n.d.). Post-Corral phase developments Abandonment and destruction of Tula Chico Survey and excavation reveal an absence of later construction or other occupation at Tula Chico itself, suggesting it was abandoned some time after the Corral phase. Recent exploration of structures on the north and east sides of Tula Chico rez encountered evidence of burning and intentional destruction (Cobean and Sua 1989). The discovery of a Terminal Corral ceramic assemblage on the oor of a burned structure atop the East Platform suggests the destruction occurred during the Terminal Corral phase. The destruction and abandonment appears to have been conned to Tula Chico itself given the presence of Tollan phase structures and ceramics in the immediate surrounding area. The apparent destruction and burning of Tula Chico was undoubtedly a major event, although continuity in ceramics and other traits suggests largely internal processes were involved. That Tula Chico remained in ruins as it was surrounded by the growing city, a situation not unlike the Acropolis surrounded by modern
123
82
Athens, is one of the most enigmatic aspects of Tulas settlement history. This anomaly has been interpreted in various ways, including that Tula Chico was hallowed ground because of events known or believed to have occurred there (Mastache and Crespo 1982). Alternatively, its destruction could have been the result of internal conict and its ruins left as a reminder of the triumph of one faction over the other(s). Whatever the reason, its destruction and abandonment and the construction of Tula Grande probably closely followed one another in time, as discussed below. Appearance of Mazapa Red on Brown I refer here specically to the distinctive pottery type called Mazapa or Mazapan by Linne (1934, p. 75; see also Elson and Mowbray 2005) that was rst identied in post-Metepec contexts at Teotihuacan and dened principally on its distinctive redpainted designs composed of parallel wavy lines. Although Mazapa resembles Coyotlatelco, unlike the latter its surface is not burnished at Tula and its red paint differs in both texture and color, often exhibiting a faded appearance (Cobean 1990, p. 273, personal communication 2008). At Tula, Mazapa Red on Brown, which Acosta referred to as ocre con n de lineas rojas ondulantes, was encountered in apparently all of decoracio Acostas stratigraphic test pits at Tula Grande. Published ceramic inventories for three of these pits (Acosta 1940, pp. 182186) show unusually high proportions of Mazapa, as much as 52% of non-olla sherds in some levels and abundant in virtually all but the highest levels of all three pits. By comparison, published ceramic and m. stratigraphic data from subsequent excavations, even others by Acosta (1945, la 1), consistently show Mazapa to be a far less prevalent type that appeared around the time that Coyotlatelco ceramics waned in popularity; Mazapa also waned in popularity prior to Tulas Late Tollan phase apogee. These anomalous seriations led Acosta to initially assume that Mazapa Red on Brown comprised a major part of Tulas ceramic assemblage for most of the citys existence, although he later corrected this assumption. Appearance of orange-and-cream wares One of the most signicant changes in Tulas post-Corral ceramic inventory was the appearance of what Cobean collectively calls Canales Polished Ware or orange-and-cream wares, given their distinctive orange and/or cream-colored slips comprising four distinct types. These have no clear relationship to previous ceramic types, hence they represent a new ceramic tradition at Tula. The two earliest types, Proa and Joroba, both cream-slipped, appear during the Terminal Corral phase, followed by Ira and Jara, both orange but actually double-slipped (cream and orange) wares, of which Jara comes to dominate Tulas ceramic assemblage during the late Tollan phase. According to both Cobean and Bey, Jara and Ira are wholly different from and unrelated to the later Aztec orange wares.
123
83
Cobean (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 46) suggests that Tulas orange-and-cream wares are related to ceramic traditions of the Gulf Coast. Other possible evidence of Gulf Coast ties comes from the U98 ceramic workshop, where all four types were manufactured and found in association with similar ceramics said to be very ndez probably from the Gulf Coast that may have served as prototypes (Herna Reyes et al. 1999, p. 78). Still other evidence comes from the Cruz locality obsidian workshop, which contained numerous probably imported Gulf Coast ceramics, including a type so similar to the Proa and Joroba that Bey (1986, pp. 307314; Bey and Ringle 2007, p. 385) suggested it was the prototype from which the latter were derived. The Terminal Corral and Early/Late Tollan phases As initially formulated, the post-Corral, pre-Aztec portion of Cobeans ceramic chronology consisted of two phases: a relatively brief, transitional (Terminal Corral) phase, followed by a much longer (Tollan) phase. I have already noted Beys (1986, pp. 307314) proposed subdivision of the Tollan phase, based on the Cruz locality obsidian workshop where, in the earliest levels, the ceramic assemblage consisted largely of Tollan complex ceramics plus up to 15% Mazapa Red on Brown pottery but lacked Jara. In subsequent levels, Mazapa rapidly wanes and ultimately disappears while Jara appears and waxes until it becomes the predominant ceramic type in the workshop and for Tula in general. Bey proposes using the relative frequencies of Mazapa and Jara to subdivide the Tollan phase into early and late subphases or phases. Jara may be the most useful of the two given its ultimate ubiquity and the speed with which this occurred, making its absence in Tollan phase assemblages as diagnostic as its presence. The preceding Terminal Corral phase is problematic, in part because of its transitional character, containing low frequencies of Coyotlatelco as well as several succeeding Tollan phase types. One of its two principal ceramic types is Mazapa Red on Brown, which, as noted above, is also a signicant component of the Early Tollan phase. The other type, Joroba, one of the two cream-slipped wares, is potentially the most diagnostic Terminal Corral type since it is largely restricted to this phase, but it is not very common and could easily be absent in small samples (e.g., Equihua 2006, p. 288). Cobean based his denition of the Terminal Corral phase on two excavations: one was principally an exploratory pit c. 150 m southeast of Tula Chico where it was identied in levels that overlay Corral phase deposits and underlay a Tollan phase structure. The other occurrence, in the lower levels of the Corral locality, likewise underlay a Tollan phase structure. Given its highly eclectic nature, the small number of excavated contexts, and its occurrence beneath Tollan phase construction in both pits, one can question whether Terminal Corral is a real, albeit transitional phase or merely an artifact of mixed deposits. The above mentioned discovery of an in situ Terminal Corral assemblage on the oor of a burned structure at Tula Chico may validate its integrity, but the ability to distinguish bona de Terminal Corral phase deposits from mixed Corral and Early Tollan phase deposits remains a problem.
123
84
Construction of Tula Grande odo Reciente, Acosta (1945, p. 60) dated Tula Grandes construction to his Per which generally corresponds to the Late Tollan phase. However, neither Late Tollan phase type, Jara or Ira, appears until the uppermost levels of his stratigraphic test pits at Tula Grande (Acosta 1940, pp. 182186), suggesting that construction began earlier. At present the most detailed ceramic and stratigraphic data pertaining to Tula Grande come from two 4-m 9 4-m pits excavated by Sterpone (20002001) atop the North Platform (Fig. 6, A, B). These excavations revealed that the North Platform was a massive undertaking involving several stages that probably began in the Terminal Corral or Early Tollan phase. The earliest evidence of occupation was a shallow depression or pit-like feature containing sherds and a lenticular deposit of charcoal near the bottom of one pit excavated to bedrock (Fig. 6, A). Sterpone (20002001, p. 169) interpreted the feature as a storage pit, while Equihua (2003, p. 61) interpreted it as a re pit, but both believed it was a domestic feature given the associated utilitarian ceramics. The pit-like feature was overlain by ll capped by ooring, part of a low (c. 1 m) basal platform that occupies much of the north end of Tula Grande. This in turn was overlain by three stages of the North Platform, of which stage 1 is ill-dened while stage 2 is a two-tiered talud/tablero platform c. 1.7 m high and faced with small-stone veneer and painted plaster (Sterpone 2000 2001, gs. 3337). The nal, stage 3 platform was a massive undertaking involving a grid of intersecting walls (cajones) whose interstices were lled with courses of boulders, cobbles, and soil nearly 4 m thick (Sterpone 20002001, gs. 2931). This massive structure not only covered the stage 2 platform but extended northward, perhaps beneath Ballcourt 1, and apparently abutted the west side of an early stage of Pyramid B (Cruz y Cruz 2007, p. 81). Neither stage 1 nor 2 was excavated, but the later stage 3 platform and the prestage 1 basal platform both contain Coyotlatelco, Mazapa, and a number of Tollan complex types, while both diagnostic Late Tollan phase types, Jara and Ira, are either absent or appear only in the uppermost levels of Sterpones pits (Equihua 2003, pp. 152178). This suggests that construction at the north end of Tula Grande began either during the Terminal Corral or Early Tollan phase, depending upon whether the assemblage of Coyotlatelco, Mazapa, and Tollan complex ceramics in both the stage 3 and basal platform lls represent bona de Terminal Corral phase deposits or a mixture of Early Tollan, Terminal Corral, and perhaps Corral phase deposits dating to the Early Tollan phase. Sterpone (2006a, p. 274) apparently believes these deposits are unmixed assemblages deposited as ll, but in two recent articles he proposes that they be assigned to a new phase designated Tula-Mazapa, a name originally coined by Acosta, rather than the existing Terminal Corral phase. Notwithstanding the problems with the denition of the Terminal Corral ceramic complex and phase detailed above, the ceramic data from Sterpones excavations offer no new perspective on these problems. His proposed name change is not only unnecessary but would introduce a phase name already used in the Basin of Mexico, begging the question of contemporaneity and cultural continuity and making worse an already confusing chronological situation. Acosta himself ultimately rejected Tula-Mazapa
123
85
as a meaningful term, referring to it as esa falla en la nomenclatura (Acosta 19561957, p. 83). There are currently three published radiocarbon dates for Tula Grande, although one, of a sample from a remnant column timber in Edicio 3 (Crane and Grifn 1964, p. 14), is given little attention due to its extremely wide (A.D. 137981) twosigma range; it is not included in Fig. 5. The other two dates were obtained from Sterpones exploratory excavations, one of which (Fig. 5, k) came from the shallow pit-like feature beneath the basal platform, whose two-sigma range spans the Corral, Terminal Corral, and the Early Tollan phases as currently dated. The other date (Fig. 5, l) came from platform ll along the eastern ank of Pyramid B believed to be contemporaneous with the stage 3 platform, given the similar use of cajones (Cruz y Cruz 2007, pp. 141154), and whose two-sigma range is consistent with a presumed later construction date. Although too few to be denitive, both dates support a Terminal Corral or Early Tollan phase date for initial construction at the north end of Tula Grande (Fig. 4). In three separate publications, however, Sterpone (20002001, 2006a, b) claims that the radiocarbon date of the pit-like feature beneath the basal platform (Fig. 5, k) indicates that monumental construction began in the latter half of the eighth century, which at least one author (Smith 2007, pp. 583584) has cited as possible evidence that the construction of Tula Grande, and by extension the citys apogee, began during the Epiclassic period. However, Sterpone derived this earlier date through a questionable set of procedures. The sample date was rst pooled with those of four other samples, three from sites in the Basin of Mexico judged to be contemporaneous by virtue of their ceramic assemblages, yielding a bimodal probability curve for the recalibrated pooled date. He then ignored the later of the two modes, asserting that s apropriada (Sterpone 2006a, p. 275). Finally, Sterpone the earlier was la ma associated the radiocarbon sample itself with stage 2 of the North Platform, which he concluded would put initial construction activity back into the eighth century (Sterpone 2006b, pp. 267, 276), although his own stratigraphic data show that the shallow pit-like feature containing the radiocarbon sample predates both stages 2 and 1 as well as the underlying basal platform (Sterpone 20002001, g. 28). The construction date for Tula Grande is of obvious importance as an indicator of the citys apogee, but it is only a part of a larger zone of monumental construction on the surrounding hilltop (Fig. 3), about which surprisingly little is known outside of exploratory investigations by Charnay and Acosta. The escarpment on the southern and western anks of Tula Grande enjoys a commanding view of the surrounding valley and would seemingly have been a desirable location early on, hence the numerous mounds in this area could include components that predate the construction of Tula Grande. Fortunately, all of this area lies within the protected archaeological zone so that future investigation could determine whether earlier monumental construction may lie outside the connes of Tula Grande itself. Urban growth Despite a prevailing pattern of continuity throughout Tulas pre-Aztec history, its growth to perhaps the largest city in Early Postclassic central Mexico is
123
86
accompanied by a number of changes in the archaeological record that may reect responses to population growth and other aspects of Tulas urban trajectory. Innovation and change in ceramic and lithic production Accompanying the appearance of new ceramic wares noted above was a variety of innovations in how ceramics were produced, as documented in Beys (1986, pp. 318325) comparative study of ceramics from Tula and nine rural sites. All of these innovations involved vessels whose form suggests a probable serving function; they may reect signicant changes in the social, economic, and political milieu in which ceramics were produced, distributed, and consumed. One of the most signicant innovations was the use of molds to replace all or part of the vessel fabrication process previously done with coiling or hand modeling. While Bey and others initially inferred the use of molds from ceramic data (Bey 1986, p. 321; Cobean 1978, 1990), this was conrmed by the recovery of actual molds from the U98 ceramic workshop. Molds are known to have been used previously in other aspects of ceramic manufacture in central Mexico, including gurines and composite braziers at Teotihuacan, but their extensive use in vessel manufacture at Tula may signal mass production of utilitarian pottery. Another development was the proliferation of shallow, at-bottomed bowls and dishes lacking supports or with tiny nubbin feet that made them easily nestable, possibly facilitating their transportability en masse from producer to consumer. As Bey notes, nestability may have been an indirect consequence of the use of molds, but the reverse could also be true: that the need for vessel uniformity to facilitate nesting promoted the use of standardized molds. Yet another innovation noted by Bey was a shift to simpler designs or modes of painting that required less time than previous designs. This trend began with Mazapa ceramics, in which multiple brushes were arranged in tandem to produce complex patterns of parallel wavy lines with relatively few strokes. Other examples include simplifying the designs themselves, including orange-and-cream and other ceramics on which painted designs were absent or reduced to rim bands or very simple designs. Reducing the time spent in decorating vessels may have decreased production time almost as much as the use of molds, and for at least one type (Ira), complicated stamped designs were apparently incorporated into the mold itself. Finally, Bey noted evidence of improved ring technology in the decrease in the incidence of re-blackened cores and re clouding, suggesting better control over ring temperatures and contact with ame. This was initially noted with orangeand-cream wares and other later types and could, as Bey noted, reect an improvement in the design or operation of kilns. An obvious common denominator among these various innovations is their capacity to increase rates of vessel production while maintaining aesthetic appeal. This and a greater capacity for transportation en masse could reect responses to growing demand and also greater commercialization in the marketing of ceramics (Bey 1986, p. 322). A number of Tulas most common ceramic types exhibit a similar range of shapes and sizes that Bey calls ceramic sets (Bey 1986,
123
87
pp. 285291; Bey and Ringle 2007, g. 3), suggesting alternative services that raise the intriguing prospect of competition in the marketing of utilitarian ceramics. Tulas post-Corral phase obsidian industry experienced a shift in source utilization from predominantly Ucareo during Epiclassic times to predominantly Pachuca during the Early Postclassic (Healan 2007, pp. 431434). The initial predominance of Ucareo obsidian, a characteristic of many Epiclassic sites in central Mexico, may represent a preexisting distribution system that lled the void left by the collapse of the Pachuca distribution system following the demise of Teotihuacan. The subsequent resurgence of a distribution system involving Pachuca obsidian may signal Tulas growing control of that source, although other explanations also are possible (Healan 1992a). An important innovation in obsidian core/blade technology that appeared sometime after the Corral phase is platform grinding, a labor-intensive process whose advantages are often assumed to have been higher blade production rates and consequently greater output. However, I have previously suggested (Healan 2009b), noting the apparently low production volume of Tulas workshops, that ground platforms were of greatest value to blade makers whose low volume of production made it difcult to maintain adequate levels of skill. Recalling that the Tula workshops were apparently involved in multiple craft activities, not only was the use of ground platforms an adaptation to multicrafting, but it may in turn have fostered multicrafting by making blade making attractive to other craft specialists seeking to diversify production. Indeed, ground platform preparation could have originated in workshops engaged in multiple craft activities that juxtaposed core/ blade and lapidary production. Settlement expansion The widespread, dense surface distributions of undecorated body sherds and diagnostic Tollan complex pottery (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, g. 13.9) stand in sharp contrast to the much more restricted distributions of Corral and Terminal Corral complex ceramics (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, gs. 13.6, 13.8), creating an impression of explosive growth between Tollan and previous phases. This is probably an illusion given that some of the Tollan phase types apparently originated during the Terminal Corral phase. Hence, Tulas maximum limits (Fig. 7) probably represent urban growth over three (Terminal Corral, Early Tollan, and Late Tollan) phases currently estimated to span 2.5 centuries or more. Two excavated localities settled at different times in Tulas history provide some perspective on its growth over time. The Cruz locality (Fig. 7, h) appears to have been settled during the Early Tollan phase. At that time the locality was barren, eroded terrain along the western ank of El Salitre marsh (Healan et al. 1983, pp. 132, 144), suggesting it lay outside or on the citys periphery. Its marginal character may have been a factor in its settlement by obsidian workers and/or its peripheral location perhaps a reection of their relative status. The canal locality (Fig. 7, g) does not appear to have been settled until the Late Tollan phase (Healan 1989, p. 163), prior to which the locality appears to have been exploited for construction materials (p. 96).
123
88
Urban planning at Tula: A reevaluation Nearly three decades ago, Mastache and Crespo (1982), using special aerial stereophotographs, identied numerous aligned surface lineations believed to represent commonly oriented roadways, terraces, platforms, and other constructions within Tulas urban limits, indicating Tula exhibited an overall plan. No fewer than three different orientation schemes were identied, which, based on their supposed correspondence to orientations of various structures of different ages, were believed to represent three temporally distinct episodes of construction activity. Each scheme (i.e., northsouth, c. 17 east, and c. 18 west) covers a progressively larger area than its predecessor, which was presumed to reect the citys growth over time. Evidence that Tula possessed a formal plan, indeed, three such plans, is as enigmatic as it is intriguing, although I and others have expressed the need to conrm these ndings by verifying the lineations on these and other aerial imagery and by ground-truthing. Unfortunately, recent efforts to do so (Healan n.d.) have not met with success. With the untimely deaths of both Mastache and Crespo in 2004, it has not been possible to access the imagery on which their study was based, and most of the lineations they identied are not visible in other aerial photographs. Attempts at ground-truthing the published lineations (e.g., Mastache et al. 2009, gs. 2628) have been thwarted by several decades of intensive mechanized cultivation that has destroyed much of Tula outside the archaeological zone, while the lack of cultivation within the archaeological zone during the nearly 30 years since its creation has given rise to dense, thorny vegetation that made it impossible to access most localities where lineations were calculated to lie. At the same time, systematic examination of the orientations of excavated structures in various localities using available plan drawings, on-site measurements, and high-resolution Google Earth imagery revealed that, with the exception of Tula Grande itself, apparently no orientations correspond to any of the three orientation schemes proposed by Mastache and Crespo. In fact, a majority of the 17 localities for which data were available are oriented between c. 7 and 12 east of true north, while structures in most of the remaining localities are oriented between 7 and 15 west of true north (Healan n.d., g. 2). To summarize, at present most of the surface lineations identied by Mastache and Crespo can be neither conrmed nor refuted. The three orientation schemes, however, are not shared by any structures excavated outside Tula Grande to date, suggesting that they represent something other than citywide systems of structural orientation in use at various times in Tulas history. Several lineations that were conrmed in the eld are terraces supporting modern roads and eld walls, at least one of which lies directly over prehispanic plaster oors (Healan n.d., g. 3). The multiplicity of orientations among structures excavated to date, most of which are Tollan phase structures, suggests that no common citywide orientation was followed, although in most excavated localities virtually all structural remains, from earliest to latest, exhibit the same general orientation. This is perhaps an indication that some policy of orientation was followed at the local level, although it could as well reect the incorporation of existing walls and foundations into later construction.
123
89
The Tollan phase hinterland The dramatic growth of the post-Corral phase city was accompanied by an equally dramatic growth of settlement in the surrounding region. Regional survey encountered extensive Tollan phase settlement, much more than was seen for the preceding periods. Using a largely siteless-survey approach, Mastache (1996a) identied 304 sites and nine different settlement types exclusive of the city itself, of which the most common type was dispersed sites while the other eight settlement types were various categories of habitation sites differing in size and structure (Mastache et al. 2002, g. 7.6). For the present discussion, I have merged these into three categories: dispersed sites, unnucleated and small nucleated settlements, and large nucleated settlements. As in previous time periods, the bulk of Tollan phase settlement in the survey area is situated in the alluvial plain immediately east of the city, but it extends into peripheral areas that saw little or no previous occupation. Surprisingly, all large, nucleated rural sites, most estimated to be 1020 ha, are situated along the periphery of the survey area, whereas smaller, mostly unnucleated and dispersed sites occupy the interior. This is a strategy often used in alluvial regions to maximize the use of productive land while keeping farmers in close proximity to their elds, but the location of many large nucleated sites on elevated terrain along principal routes of access suggests a possible defensive strategy as well. Using methods of population estimation developed by Sanders et al. (1979) for the Basin of Mexico, Mastache et al. (2002, pp. 210211) estimated Tulas hinterland population at c. 30,00050,000. Given Tulas estimated Tollan phase population of c. 60,000, this would mean that between 33% and 45% of the regions population lived outside the city, of which perhaps 6580% lived in nucleated rather than small or dispersed settlements (Mastache et al. 2002, tables 7.5, 7.6). Tulas hinterland has been the focus of two other studies, one of which (Cobean and Mastache 1999) involved excavation of a residential compound at Tepetitlan, a large nucleated settlement near the northwestern limits of the survey area. Strikingly similar in form to those of Tulas canal locality, the Tepetitlan residential compound contained several multiroom houses arranged around a courtyard with a prominent central altar (Cobean and Mastache 1999, g. 1.18). Numerous well-preserved oral and faunal remains presumably reect various subsistence and other activities, as discussed below. The other hinterland study (Bey 1986) involved intensive surface survey of eight rural sites ranging in size from dispersed to large nucleated settlements and located in various parts of the survey area. Beys study included typological and modal comparisons of rural site ceramics with those from several excavated residential localities at Tula. Ceramics from these two studies as well as Mastaches survey exhibit a high degree of similarity to the urban ceramic assemblage. The rural sites in Beys study contained all of Tulas major ceramic types, and in roughly the same proportions, suggesting that rural sites generally enjoyed access to the same ceramic production and distribution or marketing systems as the city (Bey 1986, p. 330). This also is true of obsidian, with both rural and urban Tollan phase obsidian assemblages
123
90
nchez showing a predominance of prismatic blades and green (Pachuca) obsidian (Sa 1999a). There are, however, notable differences between the urban and rural ceramic assemblages, including substantially fewer imported and ritual-related ceramics in rural sites. Assuming that these differences are not an artifact of sampling error, they suggest social, ideological, and other differences between urban and rural households. It is not the case, however, that imported and ritual-related ceramics are altogether absent in rural sites, and given relatively high-status households in Aztec rural sites (Evans 1988; Smith 1992, 1997), it is reasonable to assume that at least some households in the hinterland settlements were comparable to middle- and perhaps upper-class urban households. This would include the excavated compound at Tepetitlan given its close resemblance to house compounds at Tula, a ceramic assemblage that includes both imported and ritual-related ceramics, and the presence of two exotic food items, peanut and cacao. Bey (1986, pp. 352354) identied various modal differences in Jara pottery between urban and rural sites that suggest that households in the two realms may have acquired some of their ceramics through separate production and marketing systems. This also is suggested by evidence of ceramic production at various sites in the survey area (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 297, g. 10.7), indicating rural components of ceramic production that may have operated independently of those in the city. Subsistence The Tepetitlan house compound yielded numerous fragments of maize (Benz 1999) lez 1999), a tribute item for the region during Aztec times and amaranth (Gonza (Mastache 1996b). Domesticated beans also were identied (Kaplan 1999), lez notes that these may have been imported given the small although Gonza quantity involved. The paucity of comals noted for the city is also true of hinterland sites. Another cultigen of importance in prehispanic central Mexico was maguey, whose sugary sap is today consumed fresh or fermented (pulque), and its roasted leaf and trunk are eaten as well. Maguey also is a major source of cordage and thread, sharp spines, building material, and fuel. The production of pulque is currently an important industry in the Tula region and the surrounding area (Fournier 2007; Mastache 1996b, g. 4; Parsons and Parsons 1990), which provided maguey sap as tribute to the Aztec state (Bey 2007, pp. 137138; Fournier 2007, cuadro 15). Numerous carbonized remains, chiey spines but also leaf and ber, were encountered at Tepetitlan, but additional evidence of maguey cultivation is largely indirect. Both Mastache and Bey found that rural sites exhibit much higher frequencies of Blanco Levantado, a necked olla with distinctive white, watery painting on the body often arranged as crisscrossing bands, than does the city (Cobean 1990, p. 449). Its greater importance in rural sites, where it constitutes as much as 10.5% of identiable surface ceramics (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 229), also is indicated by Blanco Levantado production loci in a cluster of rural sites along the south ank of Cerro Xicuco (Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 229, 297, g. 10.7). Its center of production may have been outside the city. Both Bey (2007) and Mastache
123
91
(1996a, p. 238) suggest that the greater importance of Blanco Levantado in rural sites reects its association with maguey sap production. Noting their characteristic rounded base, restricted neck, and mouth seemingly designed to be capped, Bey (2007) characterizes Blanco Levantado ollas as a New World amphora, i.e., an all-purpose necked container of uniform size and form used to store, transport, and perhaps collect and serve maguey sap. Bey notes that various Aztec codices depict vessels holding maguey sap as elongated, roundbottomed, necked ollas with crisscross banding on the vessel body that resembles the distinctive decoration of Blanco Levantado. This includes the Codex Mendoza, which specically deals with maguey sap as an item of tribute from the Tula region. Some vessels may instead have been used to store and carry water, a practice that continues in the region today (Fournier 2007, p. 205). Artifacts at Tepetitlan and other rural sites possibly used in maguey cultivation include two distinctive forms of unifacial tools of basalt and obsidian that Parsons and Parsons (1990, pp. 291292, 300302) suggest were used to extract ber and to create and maintain the cavity for sap collection, respectively. The complex of cultigensmaize, amaranth, and magueydiscussed above is precisely that cited in recent arguments (Parsons and Goreno in press; Parsons and Darling 2000; Parsons and Parsons 1990) that the expansion of Mesoamerican civilization into the dry highland regions of northern central Mexico was made possible by the integration of seed-based cultivation and specialized maguey production (Parsons and Darling 2000, p. 82). Critical features of this strategy include not only the high caloric and nutritional levels of maguey sap and esh, but the adaptability of maguey cultivation to marginal soils and climates and its yearround availability that make it a near-perfect complement to seed-based cultivation in this region. According to these authors, an agricultural system that featured interplanting of maguey and seed crops and the scheduling of maguey sap and/or leaf harvesting around the more seasonal regime of seed-crop cultivation could a plot (Parsons and have doubled the annual caloric yield of a typical tierra fr Parsons 1990, p. 345). Following the strategy suggested by these authors, agricultural plots in Tulas alluvial plain would have included interplanted seed crops and maguey, with maguey becoming the predominant cultigen in more marginal, peripheral lands. Among the preserved organic remains at Tepetitlan were a variety of wild plant and animal remains, suggesting that the rural populations supplemented their diet by hunting and collecting such items as chenopodium, sunower, wild beans, deer, and lez 1999; Polaco 1999). This may have been particularly important for rabbit (Gonza households located in more marginal terrain. Craft activities As one of two (along with cotton) principal ber sources in prehispanic central Mexico, maguey also provided textiles and cordage. Although Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 303) suggested that carbonized remains at Tepetitlan indicate consumption of roasted maguey leaf, they may instead indicate ber extraction using the penca asada method described by Parsons and Parsons (1990). This in fact
123
92
seems the more likely activity given the lack of quids that result from chewing brous maguey esh (e.g., Smith 1967, p. 250) and the numerous basalt unifaces and associated production debitage that may have been used in maguey ber nchez 1999b, pp. 399424). extraction (Sa In addition to the above-mentioned Blanco Levantado production loci, Mastache identied probable ceramic production loci at four other sites in the alluvial plain (Mastache et al. 2002, g. 10.7), three of which were located near the ceramic production zone along the citys eastern limits. Other sites had evidence of basalt and rhyolite tool production, and evidence of chert biface production was encountered at several sites near the eastern limits. Finally, lime production may have been an important activity for sites located near the calcareous deposits in the southern half of the survey area, as it is presumed to have been for the Classic period phase settlement. Chingu The outer hinterland Hinterland refers specically to the area and settlements that probably provided Tulas occupants with most of its food and labor and in turn were dependent on the city for various goods and services. City and hinterland are thus interdependent components of the larger state, as indicated by their shared ceramic assemblage that reects not only a common cultural tradition but the existence of markets and other linking infrastructure. Tulas hinterland almost certainly extended beyond the 17-km radius covered in Mastaches intensive survey, although the outer portion may include preexisting polities incorporated into the expanding state that probably exhibited their own identity as well as evidence of Tulas hegemony. Tollan phase ceramics are common at sites in the Valle del Mezquital to the pez Aguilar et al. 1998, northeast and northwest (Fournier 2007, p. 111; Lo pez Aguilar et al. note a sharp increase in pp. 3234, g. 11). Fournier and Lo settlement during the Early Postclassic period, with little continuity with previous Epiclassic settlement, and suggest that this region came under Tulas hegemony for its lime, forest, agricultural, and lithic resources, including the Pachuca obsidian source area. Maguey cultivation is a major activity in the Valle del Mezquital today and was during the Aztec period (Fournier 2007). Lithic artifacts from Postclassic sites in the region include examples of implements believed to have been used to extract maguey ber and sap (Fournier 2007, gs. 30, 32, and 33). It appears that Tulas outer hinterland incorporated most if not all of the Basin of Mexico. A buildup of settlement associated with Tollan phase ceramics in the north and north-central portion, including the Zumpango and Temascalapa regions and the Teotihuacan Valley, is believed to reect its incorporation into Tulas hinterland as well (Nichols and Charlton 1997, p. 194; Parsons 2008, pp. 7276; Sanders and Santley 1983, p. 269, g. 11.4). Recent stylistic and chemical analyses of Early Postclassic pottery from excavations at Cerro Portezuelo (Fig. 1, F) have revealed a predominantly Tollan phase ceramic assemblage that indicates full participation in the Mazapan/Tollan pottery complex extending from Tula, through Teotihuacan, and into southern Texcoco (Crider n.d., p. 1). Tollan phase ceramics also were an
123
93
integral part of sites in the Chalco region at the southern edge of the basin (Parsons n 1998). et al. 1982; Toval If these regions are included, Tulas hinterland would extend for c. 125150 km in a northsouth direction, with Tula near the middle. Its eastwest extent, which probably includes the Pachuca obsidian source area and the upper Teotihuacan Valley to the east and Jilotepec and possibly the Acambay Valley (Folan 1981; Hernandez and Healan 2000) to the west, is estimated to be 135 km. It does not appear that the Toluca Basin immediately west of the Basin of Mexico was part of Tulas hinterland given the apparent absence of Tollan complex ceramics (Sugiura 2006). As tentatively delineated, Tulas hinterland would roughly approximate a circle missing the southwest quadrant and have a maximum area of c. 13,000 km2. This is considerably smaller than the 25,000-km2 area Nichols and Charlton (1997, p. 196) suggested was under Tulas control, although these are not necessarily equivalent terms. Beyond the hinterland Tulas ethnohistorical legacy includes Aztec accounts that it (Tollan) controlled a large empire purported to cover much of western Mesoamerica (Davies 1977; nez Moreno 1966; Kirchhoff 1985), although there is in fact little supporting Jime archaeological evidence for this claim (Smith and Montiel 2001). Tollan phase ceramics are generally absent in the Toluca Valley to the west and they are not common in Morelos to the south (Smith and Montiel 2001, p. 259) or in southern Puebla to the east (McCafferty 2001; Muller 1970). Diehl (1993) suggests various traits or objects constituting a horizon style emanating from Tula, but there is no denitive evidence that any of the traits involved specically originated in Tula. In fact, several are proposed to have been part of a pan-Mesoamerican cult associated with the veneration of Quetzalcoatl (Ringle et al. 1998). There is, however, evidence that Tulas hegemony extended to the north and west taro, some 130 km to the well beyond its hinterland. Near the modern city of Quere northwest, are three sites previously reported to contain Tula-like ceramics and architectural features (Flores and Crespo 1988). Excavations at the largest of these, El Cerrito (Fig. 1, G), recovered Terminal Corral/Tollan phase ceramics and Tula Grande-style sculpture, including a chacmool, the foot of an Atlantean-style colossal sculpture, and various diagnostic decorative architectural elements (Brambila 2001; Crespo 1991). Still farther north are several other sites, including Carabino (Fig. 1, H) in northern Guanajuato (Braniff 1972; Flores and Crespo 1988) s Potos (Braniff 1992; Crespo and Villa de Reyes (Fig. 1, I) in southern San Lu 1976), whose ceramic assemblages likewise contain substantial proportions of Terminal Corral and Tollan phase types. Bey conducted a systematic surface survey at Carabino and identied 19 Tollan phase types (Bey 1986, table 24), noting that the site appears as Toltec as some of the sites within [Tulas] heartland (p. 149). Like El Cerrito, these are hilltop sites with monumental architecture and nucleated settlements, and the substantial representation of Terminal Corral and Tollan phase ceramics indicates regular, direct contact possibly involving enclaves from Tula (Brambila 2001, p. 329).
123
94
The existence of an archipelago of settlements with a strong Tula afliation o and into the arid interior of north-central Mexico as far as across the eastern Baj s Potos recalls earlier arguments (Armillas 1969) of a northern oriented San Lu Toltec state based on initial accounts of sedentary sites in this area (Braniff 1961). Armillas (1969, p. 700) attributed these sites to climatic change during Early Postclassic times that favored a northward displacement of the agricultural frontier. However, recent lake core sediments (Metcalf and Davies 2007) indicate that this was one of the driest periods of the Holocene in central Mexico, although one core from a lake c. 120 km northeast of Tula showed a climate much like today. Even todays climate, however, would pose serious challenges to prehispanic settled life in the northern interior, perhaps somewhat mitigated by a subsistence strategy using a combination of seed and maguey cultivation and perhaps other xerophytic crops. There also is evidence suggesting some type of direct interaction between Tula and areas of eastern and southern Mesoamerica, including the numerous architec n Itza . In addition, Fowlers (2011) tural and sculptural elements shared with Chiche recent investigations of two Early Postclassic Pipil settlements in El Salvador encountered evidence of close afnities with Tula. This includes a ceramic complex that apparently includes the principal forms, decorative modes, and technological characteristics of Tulas Tollan complex that Fowler argues indicates direct ties, perhaps of a commercial nature, that may have included colonization from Tula.
Tula and the Tula region following the Tollan phase The Tollan complex is followed by three successive (Fuego, Palacio, and Tesoro) phases whose component ceramics show little or no continuity with the preceding ceramic complexes; instead, they correspond to the Aztec II, III, and IV ceramic complexes, respectively, of the Basin of Mexico. The disruption in ceramic continuity is accompanied by an apparent cessation of occupation in most of the excavated localities in the city outside Tula Grande where information is available. Even in those localities where post-Tollan phase occupation is evident, it is limited in scale and exhibits a clear break with the previous occupation. The Fuego phase appears to represent a time of demise, destruction, and depopulation at Tula, while the subsequent Palacio phase appears to represent a period of repopulation and relative stability. The post-Tollan period is arguably the least understood part of Tulas settlement history. A critical problem is the paucity of excavation and chronometric dating that forces reliance on the dating of the Aztec ceramic sequence in the basin. This sequence, whose origins date to the work of Boas and Gamio (see Cervantes et al. 2009 for a comprehensive overview), consists of four sequential (Aztec IIV) ceramic complexes that show some temporal overlap but are commonly grouped into Early Aztec (I/II) and Late Aztec (III/IV). Although there are differences of opinion concerning the duration and degree of overlap among the four, their chronological placement in Fig. 4 reects an apparent consensus among current
123
95
investigators (Cowgill 1996; Evans and Freter 1996; Nichols and Charlton 1996; Parsons et al. 1996). Fuego phase The Fuego phase is associated with Aztec II ceramics and evidence of destruction and burning at Tula Grande. This includes Building 3, where Acosta encountered burning so intense it left portions of the adobe outer walls brick-like in color and hardness (e.g., Sterpone 2000, gs. 3b, 4), hence its popular nickname Palacio Quemado. Burning also was encountered in recent excavations of both Building 4 (Mastache et al. 2009, p. 304) and Building K (Getino 2000, pp. 8990, 95, 131137), and Pyramids B and C were both found in a heavily damaged state. There also was extensive damage to sculpture suggestive of iconoclastic activity, although this should not be assumed a priori to date to the Fuego phase given evidence of widespread disturbance of Tollan phase deposits during the following Palacio phase. Acosta attributed Tula Grandes destruction to users of Aztec II ceramics because he encountered grandes cantidades de [Aztec II] tiestos, tanto sobre los pisos como encima del escombro de las estructuras (Acosta 19561957, p. 75). Aztec II ceramics also are associated with destruction and burning in Building K (Getino 2000, p. 181; Mastache et al. 2002, p. 42). Rather than new construction, Fuego phase activity at Tula Grande appears largely conned to the reoccupation and subsequent destruction of Tollan phase buildings. Outside Tula Grande, the only other evidence of burning was encountered in the Daini locality, likewise associated with Aztec pottery, although few of these sherds guez 1976). Few Aztec II a and Rodr (c. 5%) were identied as Aztec II (Pen ceramics were noted in other excavated localities where ceramic inventories are reported. Only 230 Aztec II sherds, less than 1% of classied prehispanic ceramics, were identied in the Missouri project urban surface survey (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, table 13.2), and similarly small quantities were recovered in the INAH urban survey (Yadeun 1975, p. 28). It would appear that Fuego phase peoples did not attempt to occupy the city or remain in Tula Grande very long after the destruction occurred. Aztec II pottery is similarly scarce in the surrounding hinterland. Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 73) encountered few Aztec II sherds in their excavations at Tepetitlan. Likewise, Mastache and Crespo (1974, p. 76) encountered little Aztec II pottery during their preliminary regional survey, and although Mastache did not have the opportunity to analyze the Aztec settlement data from her regional intensive survey before her death, her databank contains only 81 sherds identied as Aztec II. Little Aztec II pottery was encountered in the neighboring Valle del Mezquital (Fournier 2007, pp. 115, 116), and Parsons (2008, p. 89) notes a scarcity of Aztec IIassociated occupation in the Zumpango region compared to more substantial occupation farther to the south (Sanders et al. 1979, p. 151), which he interprets as evidence of drastic population decline between the Late Toltec and Early Aztec periods (Parsons 2008, p. 77, g. 5.1). Likewise, there is little Aztec II-associated occupation in the Teotihuacan Valley and the nearby Temascalapa region (Goreno and Sanders 2007). In a recent paper, Parsons and Goreno (in press, p. 33) conclude
123
96
that the scarcity of Aztec II-associated settlement in the northern Basin of Mexico and the Tula region represents a real absence of population, which they associate with the collapse of Tula. There seems little doubt that Tula Grande was destroyed and that its destruction occurred at the hands of Fuego phase peoples whose Aztec II ceramics bracket the destruction horizon. Other events surrounding post-Tollan phase Tula, however, including the apparent abandonment of the city and the depopulation of its hinterland and perhaps the entire northern portion of the Basin of Mexico, are less clear. The paucity of Aztec II ceramics may be more an artifact of relatively few diagnostic Aztec II types than it is an indication of sparse occupation (M. Smith, personal communication 2010). A larger issue is the relative timing of the end of the Tollan phase, specically the time when the Tollan ceramic complex ceased to be produced, Tulas demise, and the beginning dates for the Fuego phase and the Aztec II complex in general, all of which are not necessarily coterminous events. Although the estimated end date for the Tollan phase of A.D. 1150 appears to be based on the generally accepted beginning date for Aztec II in the Basin of Mexico at the time Cobean (1978) formulated his ceramic chronology, this date is supported by subsequent chronometric dating. All but three of ten published radiocarbon dates from post-Corral contexts at Tula and Tepetitlan (Fig. 5, kt), of which at least ve are nonarchitectural specimens, have two-sigma ranges that fall short of or do not extend signicantly beyond A.D. 1150. Of the other three samples, two (Fig. 5, v, ndez 1994, p. 54). w) are from contexts associated with Aztec III ceramics (Ferna Similarly, most of the two-sigma ranges for the other 24 radiocarbon dates for Tula reported by Paredes (2005, g. 3) do not extend signicantly past A.D. 1150. These data are consistent with a recently reported (Stahle et al. 2011) dendrochronological sequence based on millennium-old trees from southern Queretaro that revealed a severe and sustained drought in central Mexico from A.D. 1149 to 1167, which the authors suggest contributed substantially to the decline of the Toltec state (p. 1). There also are two archaeomagnetic dates provided by Wolfman (1990), one of which is based on clay samples collected inside Building 3 at Tula Grande from postholes he described as baked at the time the Palacio Quemado burned (p. 292). The four samples yielded an average estimated date of A.D. 1140 for the burning of Building 3, although he noted that this extrapolated date may be a little early (p. 293). This is a particularly important date since it pertains specically to the burning at Tula Grande, although it is subject to several potential errors unique to archaeomagnetic dating, as Wolfman notes. The other archaeomagnetic date was obtained from the structure in the canal locality believed to have been used to re ceramic drain tubes (Healan 1989, appendix II), which yielded a date of A.D. 11401190 for the last time it was used. It may seem logical to assume, as did Acosta, that the destruction and burning of Tulas monumental center was part of the conquest of the larger city, a common tactic in Late Postclassic warfare (Hassig 1998, p. 105). However, Tulas demise as a functioning city and the destruction of its monumental center did not necessarily occur at the same time. It is possible that Tula Grande was already abandoned when Fuego phase peoples left Aztec II ceramic debris inside buildings and apparently
123
97
burned them. This possibility also is raised by Sterpone (2000), who notes the apparent removal of sculpture and architectural elements from Building 3 and the collapse of adjacent structures, possibly from lack of maintenance, prior to its burning. If this is true, and Wolfmans archaeomagnetic date for the burning of Building 3 is accurate, this would mean that the demise of the city and the end of the Tollan phase actually occurred some time before A.D. 1150, a possibility that obviously requires additional investigation. The dating of the Early Aztec phase in Fig. 4 reects the apparent consensus, noted by Parsons and Goreno (in press), that Aztec II dates to c. A.D. 12001350. Some 32 recently obtained radiocarbon dates from Aztec II and mixed Aztec I/II contexts at ten different sites in the Basin of Mexico generally range between A.D. a Cha vez 2004, tabla 3.5; Manzanilla et al. 1996; Nichols and 1150 and 1400 (Garc Charlton 1996; Parsons et al. 1996). In fact, however, the majority cluster in the late 13th to the early 15th century, leading some authors to suggest a redating of Aztec II a Cha vez 2004, g. 3.8; Parsons and in the basin to as late as A.D. 13001450 (Garc Goreno in press, p. 33). While the implications of such a redating are not fully comprehended, a post-A.D. 1200 beginning date for Aztec II would not only increase the likelihood that Tula Grande had been abandoned for some time prior to the Fuego phase but would prolong the apparent hiatus in settlement following Tulas demise that currently exists for the entire region. Palacio phase The Late Aztec (Aztec III/IV) period in central Mexico was a time of considerable population expansion that reached its climax in the era of the Triple Alliance, when population in the Basin of Mexico alone is estimated to have reached one million (Sanders et al. 1979, p. 176). There was substantial Late Aztec settlement in the northern portion of the Basin of Mexico (Goreno and Sanders 2007; Parsons 2008) pez Aguilar et al. 1998, and the Valle del Mezquital (Fournier 2007, pp. 116117; Lo pp. 3436), which agrees with Cooks (1949) characterization of the latter region as a populous area during late Aztec times. Likewise, the Tula region appears to have had substantial population during Late Aztec times. In fact, Mastache and Crespo (1974, pp. 7677) encountered more sites with Aztec III ceramics during preliminary regional survey than they did sites with Tollan phase ceramics. However, the vast majority were small or dispersed occupations, and Mastaches regional intensive survey databank contains one fth as many Aztec III as Tollan complex sherds; hence, the overall Aztec III population in the region was almost certainly smaller than the preceding Tollan phase population. A similar pattern is seen at Tula itself, where the distribution of Late Aztec ceramics is as extensive as that for Tollan ceramics (Healan and Stoutamire 1989, gs. 13.9, 13.10, table 13.2) but far less dense. Indeed, only about half as much Aztec III as Tollan complex pottery was identied in the Missouri project survey, hence it appears that Late Aztec settlement was far less dense and probably not urban in nature. Palacio phase occupation was encountered in only 6 of the 22 excavation localities shown in Fig. 6 and mostly involved reoccupation and
123
98
modication of existing Tollan phase structures. Aztec burials, some of them inside mez et al. urns, were encountered at the Daini, Museo, and Zapata II localities (Go 1994; Paredes 2005). There are currently two radiocarbon dates (Fig. 5, v, w) from probable Palacio phase contexts, both of which are from the upper levels of the Vivero locality ndez 1994, p. 54). Both dates have two-sigma ranges consistent with the (Ferna current dating for Aztec III. A third date from this locality (Fig. 6, q), from Tollan phase contexts, is consistent with current dating for the latter phase. At Tula Grande, Acosta and others encountered extensive Aztec III construction pez Luja n and other activity inside or over Tollan phase buildings (Diehl 1989a; Lo pez Austin 2009, pp. 395399). However, two consistent features of Palacio and Lo phase occupation at Tula Grande include (1) a generally inferior quality of construction and (2) a frequently intrusive character involving excavations unrelated to construction activity. The latter are often associated with burials or caches, but many appear instead to represent the removal of objects from Tulas ruins alluded to in ethnohistorical documents. Indeed, recent excavations in Tenochtitlans sacred precinct encountered a headless but otherwise complete chacmool sculpture that so closely resembles the whole and numerous fragmentary specimens at Tula that pez Luja n and Lo pez Austin 2009, there seems to be no doubt as to its origins (Lo p. 401). Several authors have suggested that some diagnostic Tollan complex ceramic types may have continued into Aztec times, although the evidence is far from mez (1994, p. 89) and Go mez et al. (1994, p. 21) note that Jara and denitive. Go other diagnostic Tollan phase ceramics were found alongside Aztec III ceramics on the oors of unspecied structures at Tula, which they interpret as evidence of their contemporaneity. However, Aztec reoccupation and reuse of Tollan phase structures and the intentional disturbance of Tollan phase deposits also could explain their cooccurrence. Similarly, Mastache and Crespo encountered what they described as a variety of Jara Polished Orange (Cobean and Mastache 1989, p. 39) associated with Aztec III pottery in rural Aztec sites, which Cobean (personal communication 2009) subsequently identied as Aztec Orange ceramics with a surface treatment similar to Jaras distinctive a brochazos nish. Finally, some of the 19 Aztec period urn burials encountered in a Tollan phase residential compound in the Museo locality are reported to have been capped with diagnostic Tollan phase bowls and mez et al. 994, p. 129). This would certainly appear to indicate the cazuelas (Go contemporaneity of Tollan and Aztec ceramic types, although there are other possible explanations, as discussed below. On the nature of the Palacio phase occupation at Tula Some authors have interpreted Palacio phase Tula as a large settlement comparable to the Tollan phase city (e.g., Yadeun 1975, pp. 2429), but in reality the two occupations appear to have little in common. Tulas Palacio phase occupation appears to be discontinuous and of low density, essentially the same pattern of relatively dispersed occupation characteristic of Late Aztec settlement
123
99
in the surrounding region. Outside Tula Grande, the majority of the 22 localities excavated to date at Tula show no evidence of Aztec occupation, and those that do often involve reuse of existing Tollan phase buildings. While this would appear to indicate a relatively brief interval between abandonment and reoccupation, these structures need not have been fully standing when reoccupied. Tollan phase residential construction often incorporated foundations of previous buildings. Likewise, there appears to be little continuity between the Tollan and Palacio phase occupations in the manner in which Tula Grande was occupied. Palacio phase construction at Tula Grande appears to be a collection of insubstantial platforms and other ill-dened structures associated with the burial of Aztec objects and the exhumation of Toltec objects from Tulas ruins. Noting specic ethnohistorical references to the removal of relics from the ruins of Tollan by the Aztec (e.g., Duran 1984, p. 511; Sahagun 1961, p. 165), Healan et al. (1989, p. 247) suggest that the Aztec occupation at Tula Grande was part of a cult dedicated to the veneration of Tula that involved both the placement of offerings and the removal of sacred pez Luja n and Lo pez Austin (2009) suggest that the objects. More recently, Lo Aztecs apparent preoccupation with Tulas ruins and relics involved several different factors, including the belief that they were imbued with the power of gods who once dwelled in Tollan. A related aspect, which these authors describe as a sort of neo-toltecism (p. 403) involves the deliberate imitation of sculpture and other artifacts from Tula in the belief that they would be likewise imbued with power, as well as to strengthen their claim to being Tulas rightful heirs (p. 393). The belief that Tulas ruins were imbued with the power of gods and ancestors may explain the numerous Aztec burials encountered at several localities with otherwise little evidence of Aztec occupation, at least some of whom may have been brought from elsewhere specically for interment in Tulas ruins. The Tollan phase vessels reported to have been used to cap Aztec urn burials in the Museo locality may have been previously recovered objects reused as burial furniture for their presumed power. Notwithstanding evidence that Tollan was a name applied to many cities and whose origins go back at least as far as Teotihuacan, it seems almost certain that the ruins of Tula, Hidalgo, were what the Aztecs called Tollan. Contrary to Gillespies (2007, p. 112) suggestion that references to Tula as Tollan in Aztec sources may have been the work of some Aztec literati who did so for specic purposes, the extensive, systematic disturbance of Tulas ruins and the originals ns sacred and numerous copies of Tulas sculpture and architecture in Tenochtitla precinct reect a widely held preoccupation rather than the contrivance of a few intermediaries.
Concluding remarks The post-Acosta era of investigations at Tula began around the time of the New Archaeology, which in Mesoamerica included the rst systematic investigation of settlements considered urban. Various studies (e.g., Fox 1977; Sjoberg 1960;
123
100
Wheatley 1972) suggest that preindustrial cities are a strikingly diverse array of communities, which appears to be true of Mesoamerica as well. The few characteristics shared by the array of sites considered to have been prehispanic cities are functional rather than physical in nature, most notably the centralization of political and economic functions (Fox 1977, pp. 2429). That prehispanic cities were the centers of ancient states underlies a dominant theoretical approach that views them as centralized manifestations of regional social, political, and economic institutions (Blanton 1976; Hirth 2003; Marcus 1983; Smith 1989), blurring the distinction between a city and its hinterland and potentially assigning city status to a wide range of settlements in terms of size and density. While there is ongoing debate over how inclusive the category of prehispanic cities should be (e.g., Sanders and Webster 1988; Smith 1989), there is little disagreement that it includes at least the largest, densest, and most complex sites such as Teotihuacan, n, Tikal, and Copan. One of the most signicant contributions of the Tenochtitla post-Acosta era of investigations is conrmation of Tulas urban character, based on surface survey that encountered an undulating landscape littered with building stone, ceramics, and prismatic blade fragments extending up to 3 km from Tula Grande. Densely packed residential structures encountered in excavation at 22 different localities provide additional evidence of Tulas large size and dense, urban character. Some of these remains are less than 20 cm below the surface (Healan 1989, gs. 7.5, 7.6) yet left few topographic manifestations (e.g., Healan 2009a, g. 4.10). The extant remains of Tulas adobe city pale in comparison to the durable stone and concrete wall architecture of cities like Teotihuacan, but evidence of c. 16 km2 of dense settlement place Tula among the largest and densest Mesoamerican cities. These ndings refute previous characterizations of Tula as a modest settlement, based partly on the premise that Tula Grande was lacking in scale and artistic complexity to have been the center of a large city (e.g., Kubler 1961, p. 49; Weaver 1981, p. 374). Recent exploratory excavations in the North Platform, however, show that the visible structures at Tula Grande are merely the gurative tip of an architectonic iceberg, in some places 5 m or more in depth. Moreover, Fig. 3 shows that Tula Grande, while likely the core of Tulas political and religious center, is but part of a larger, mostly unexplored monumental precinct whose omission from published plans understates its extent when compared to that of other cities (e.g., Smith 2007, g. 1). Another major contribution of the post-Acosta era of research is the discovery of Tulas large, relatively dense hinterland. The shared ceramic, lithic, and other material traits among the city and hinterland sites reect the ow of goods and information over the regional network of the larger state. Tula and its hinterland appear to be the product of a highly successful mode of adaptation to the dry highlands involving integrated seed and maguey cultivation, in light of which its location in a seemingly marginal environment is no longer an enigma, nor an obstacle to accepting its status as the urban capital of a state that now appears to have extended into northern Mexicos arid interior. Considering the latter evidence, along with evidence that its hinterland incorporated most if not all of the Basin of Mexico, Tulas direct inuence appears to have extended over a considerably larger
123
101
area than the so-called mini-empire delineated by Smith and Montiel (2001, p. 263, g. 4). In addition, the recent evidence of strong afnities between Tollan phase Tula and settlements in western El Salvador raises intriguing questions about direct connections between Tula and the Nahua-speaking Pipil. Tulas physical domination of its hinterland while depending on it for food and revenue are dening characteristics of administrative cities in Foxs (1977) ve-part urban typology, although in fact most prehispanic cities were either of this type or what Fox called regal-ritual cities. Compared to the politico-religious centers of other prehispanic administrative cities, however, Tula Grande is distinctive in the apparent absence of palaces and few temple/pyramids. Instead, it has several buildings with large columned halls that may have been venues for libation, feasting, and other group activities. Surrounding benches are embellished with procession scenes, and ollas and nested ritual and serving vessels and tobacco pipes were found in Buildings 4 and 3, respectively. These great halls suggest a disproportionately large role for secular activity, and their presence in lieu of palaces may imply group leadership typical of corporate political strategies in which power is shared by different groups or sectors of society (Blanton et al. 1996; Feinman 2001). Corporate leadership also may be reected in some of the repetition in Tulas monumental art, including the columns atop Pyramid B with bas reliefs of warriors associated with various glyphs that might identify various military or other sodalities (Acosta 19561957, p. 100). This also may be true for the numerous bas reliefs of elaborately attired reclining individuals that line the columned halls of Building 3. Current evidence suggests that Tula arose as the center of a regional state that consolidated various Coyotlatelco polities and probably the remnants of the phase settlement system. However, there are few if any Teotihuacan-related Chingu traces of the latter in the Prado/Corral ceramic complex, whose roots lie clearly in the former. Coyotlatelco ceramics are widespread in central Mexico (e.g., Solar 2006) and may have multiple origins, but in the Tula region Coyotlatelco settlement o is almost certainly intrusive, most likely involving populations from the Baj phase. Models of whose settlements may overlap in time with those of the Chingu cultural discontinuity involving migration have been generally out of favor for at least a generation, particularly in Mesoamerica where ethnohistorical accounts of repetitive migration are widely discounted. More recent perspectives on migration (e.g., Anthony 1990), however, take a more systematic approach that in Mesoamerica involves less monolithic models involving smaller scale and more diverse processes (e.g., Beekman and Christensen 2003; Nelson and Crider 2005). In the present case, the Coyotlatelco intrusion probably involved short distances, hence minimal displacement of populations already familiar with the Tula region and intermittent episodes of migration and even return migration between source and destination, as suggested by the sites with strong Tula afliation in southern taro. Quere That Tulas origins possibly lay in the consolidation of various regional factions suggests that a corporate power strategy may have been in place from its very beginning. This possible consistency in political strategy over time may explain the similarities in layout between Tula Chico and Tula Grande and the
123
102
common presence of at least one form of repetitive sculpture (i.e., bas reliefs of reclining heroic gures). The architectural and artistic continuity between Tula Chico and Tula Grande agrees with ceramic evidence of strong cultural continuity throughout Tulas pre-Aztec occupation. Even the destruction and abandonment of Tula Chico occurred within an uninterrupted succession of waxing and waning ceramic types, suggesting that wholly internal processes, possibly of a nonbellicose nature, were involved. It was after this event that Tulas major growth and the ambitious program of construction at Tula Grande probably began, again within a framework of ceramic continuity. Tulas demise is a complex set of events. The events surrounding the end of the Tollan phase occupation, the destruction of Tula Grande, and the Aztec occupation of the site are unclear, as are their timing and interrelationships. Nevertheless, at least for Tula, survey and excavation indicate that the Aztec period occupation was oddly limited and selective, often coexisting and interacting with the ruins of the Tollan phase city rather than supplanting them. In this regard, the archaeological record agrees with ethnohistorical and archaeological evidence of an Aztec preoccupation with Tulas ruins. As with most sites, Tula has numerous issues that obviously require additional eldwork to resolve, and here we confront the most serious of Tulas problems: its ongoing destruction in the wake of modern development that followed construction of the nations largest oil renery over three decades ago. While it is fortunate that some 1.1 km2 of the site core lies within the protected archeological zone, we will never have a better picture of the overall city than what was obtained from surveys conducted in the 1970s. Given intense development in the immediate area, the situation will only worsen. With this in mind, I propose three urgent priorities for future research: Because of its sheer size and density, many parts of the ancient city outside the protected zone are apparently still intact, which we know from an active salvage program that has brought several new and exciting nds to light. These include excavations in November 2009 of a Tollan phase residential structure (Fig. 6, v) that encountered a whole ceramic statue nearly 1 m tall of a representation of the deity the Aztecs called Xipe Totec (Excelsior 2009). Many opportunities for investigations outside the protected zone still exist, not only at Tula itself but for sites in the hinterland, and this is what demands attention for the near future. More programmatic investigations based on published survey data should certainly include the apparent ceramic production zone, much of which is still undeveloped farmland. Not only would this shed light upon urban ceramic workshops, but in situ assemblages from production loci are invaluable for conrming and rening ceramic chronology. Additional excavation of the apparent obsidian production zone would shed more light on its extent and its internal variability. Similar exploration of other possible craft production loci is possible given their documentation by previous researchers, and published distribution maps and databases provide numerous opportunities to identify and explore other areas of interest. This also applies to sites in the Tula region that are likewise being destroyed by modern development.
123
103
Notwithstanding the urgency of eldwork in the unprotected parts of the ancient city, archaeological investigations within the archaeological zone should and will continue as the focus of tourism and the most direct opportunity for high impact outreach. Tula Grande is not the totality of the Tollan phase citys political/religious center, however, and this must be made clear to scholar and nonscholar alike. I suggest beginning with the creation of a high-resolution topographic map of the larger monumental precinct to provide detailed imagery of the arrangements of mounds and plazas that are obvious to the trained eye. This map also would inform archaeologists investigating the range of architectural and functional variation within the larger precinct, including possible palaces and temples associated with Tulas pantheon, of which little is currently known. Two other obvious benets of systematic stratigraphic excavation is the opportunity to collect additional ceramics and associated carbon and other materials for chronometric dating from in situ contexts, which may resolve some of the chronological issues noted in this paper. On a related note, it seems clear that the term Mazapa has lost most of any utility it may have had through overuse and misuse, and in fact impedes Tulas proper temporal placement in the chronology of the Basin of Mexico. The name should be restricted to refer only to the ceramic type of this name.
Acknowledgments I thank Gary M. Feinman and T. Douglas Price for inviting me to contribute this article to the Journal of Archaeological Research. I am grateful to many colleagues who have generously shared the results of previous and/or ongoing research at Tula and the Tula region, including Richard Diehl, Blanca Paredes, Patricia Fournier, and Luis Gamboa, as well as researchers in neighboring areas, including Destiny Crider, Linda Manzanilla, Jeff Parsons, and Evelyn Rattray. My paper has beneted immeasurably from the comments and suggestions of Ben Nelson, Deb Nichols, Mike Smith, and four other, anonymous reviewers. To my friend and colleague Robert Cobean I owe special thanks, not only for his comments and suggestions and for sharing published and unpublished data from his many years of research at Tula and in the Tula region, but for our ongoing dialogue on Tula for what has been almost 40 years. I owe a considerable debt to the late Alba Guadalupe Mastache, whose scholarship, collegiality, and friendship have left their mark on these pages. To my wife Nancy I am especially grateful, for her shared love of Mexico both past and present and for her genuine interest and enthusiastic support during the research and writing of this review.
References cited
as, R. (1982). Proyecto arqueolo cnico de la Coordinacio n Nacional gico Tula, Archivo Te Abascal Mac a, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico City. de Arqueolog Acosta, J. R. (1940). Exploraciones en Tula, Hidalgo, 1940. Revista Mexicana de Estudios gicos 4: 172194. Antropolo gicos en Tula, Hidalgo, 1941. Revista ltimos descubrimientos arqueolo Acosta, J. R. (1941). Los u gicos 5: 239243. Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo Acosta, J. R. (1942). La ciudad de Quetzalcoatl. Cuadernos Americanos 1: 121131. Acosta, J. R. (1943). Los colosos de Tula. Cuadernos Americanos 2: 133146. gicas en Tula, Hgo. Revista Acosta, J. R. (1944). La tercera temporada de exploraciones arqueolo gicos 6: 125164. Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo gicas en Tula, Hgo. Revista Acosta, J. R. (1945). La cuarta y quinta temporada de exploraciones arqueolo gicos 7: 2364. Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo gicas en Tula, Hidalgo Acosta, J. R. (1956a). Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones arqueolo durante las Vl, Vll y Vlll temporadas 19461950. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 8: 37115.
123
104
gicos publicados en Acosta, J. R. (1956b). El enigma de los Chac Mooles de Tula. In Estudios antropolo noma de Me xico, Mexico City, homenaje al Dr. Manuel Gamio, Universidad Nacional Auto pp. 159170. n de algunos de los datos obtenidos en Tula relativos a la e poca Acosta, J. R. (19561957). Interpretacio gicos 14: 75110. tolteca. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo gicas en Tula, Hidalgo, Acosta, J. R. (1957). Resumen de los informes de las exploraciones arqueolo durante las lX y X temporadas, 195354. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 9: 119169. cnicas de reconstruccio n. Esplendor de Me xico Antiguo 11: 501518. Acosta, J. R. (1959). Te Acosta, J. R. (1960). Las exploraciones en Tula, Hidalgo durante la Xl temporada, 1955. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 11: 3972. Acosta, J. R. (1961a). La doceva temporada de exploraciones en Tula, Hidalgo. Anales del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 13: 2958. tides de Tula. In Homenaje a Pablo Martnez del Ro, Acosta, J. R. (1961b). La indumentaria de los caria a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 221228. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog cimotercera temporada de exploraciones en Tula, Hgo. Anales del Instituto Acosta, J. R. (1964). La de Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 16: 4576. mide del Corral de Tula, Hgo. In Matos, E. (ed.), Proyecto Tula, 1a. parte. Acosta, J. R. (1974). La Pira n Cient ca No. 15, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 2756. Coleccio Angulo V., J., and Hirth, K. G.(1981). Presencia teotihuacana en Morelos. In Rattray, E., Litvak King, L., az Orizbal, C. (eds.), Interaccio n cultural en Me xico central, Universidad Nacional and D xico, Mexico City, pp. 8197. noma de Me Auto Anthony, D. W. (1990). Migration in archaeology: The baby and the bathwater. American Anthropologist 92: 894914. Aoyama, K. (2007). Elite artists and craft production in Classic Maya society: Lithic evidence from Aguateca, Guatemala. Latin American Antiquity 18: 326. Armillas, P. (1950). Teotihuacan, Tula y los toltecas. RUNA 3: 3770. Armillas, P. (1969). The arid frontier of Mexican civilization. Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences, Series II, 31: 697704. Aveni, A. F., Hartung, H., and Kelley, J. C. (1982). Alta Vista (Chalchihuites), astronomical implications of a Mesoamerican ceremonial outpost at the Tropic of Cancer. American Antiquity 47: 316335. rdova Frunz, J. L. (1999). Estudios energe ticos de la produccio n de cal en tiempos Barba, L. A., and Co teotihuacanos y sus implicaciones. Latin American Antiquity 10:168179. Barba, L., Blancas, J., Manzanilla, L. R., Ortiz, A, Barca, D., Crisci, G. M., and Miriello, D. (2009). Provenance of the limestone used in Teotihuacan, Mexico: a methodological approach, Archaeometry 51: 525545. Beekman, C. S., and Christensen, A. F. (2003). Controlling for doubt and uncertainty through multiple lines of evidence: A new look at the Mesoamerican Nahua migrations. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10: 111164. Benz, B. F. (1999). Morphological studies of maize from Tula, Tepetitlan and Tula Chico. In Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 157169. Bey III, G. J. (1986). A Regional Analysis of Toltec Ceramics, Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans. Bey III, G. J. (2007). Blanco Levantado: A New World amphora. In Pool, C. A., and Bey III, G. J. (eds.), Pottery Economics in Mesoamerica, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 114146. n Bey III, G. J., and Ringle, W. M. (2007). From the bottom up: The timing and nature of the Tula-Chiche exchange. In Kowalski, J., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds.), Twin Tollans: Chiche n Itza , Tula, and Itza the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 377427. Blanton, R. E. (1976). Anthropological studies of cities. Annual Review of Anthropology 5: 249264. Blanton, R. E., and Parsons, J. R. (1971). Ceramic markers used for period designations. In Parsons, J. R. (ed.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mexico, Memoirs, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 255313. Blanton, R. E., Feinman, G. M., Kowalewski, S. A., and Peregrine, P. N. (1996). A dual-processual theory for the evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current Anthropology 37: 114. sico en la regio n Bonl Olivera, A. (2005). Cultura y contexto: el comportamiento de un sitio del Epicla sico en el centro de modos demogra cos del Cla sico al Poscla de Tula. In Manzanilla, L. (ed.), Reaco
123
105
gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico, xico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolo Me Mexico City, pp. 227259. sico. In Manzanilla, L., and Lo pez Luja n, L. Brambila Paz, R. (2001). La zona septentrional en el Poscla a e Historia, xico, Volumen III, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog (eds.), Historia antigua de Me Mexico City, pp. 319345. n de territorios en Brambila Paz, R., and Crespo, A. M. (2005). Desplazamientos de poblaciones y creacio o. In Manzanilla, L. (ed.), Reaco modos demogra cos del Cla sico al Poscla sico en el centro el Baj gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de xico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolo de Me xico, Mexico City, pp. 155173. Me gicas en el Tunal Grande. Boletn del Instituto Nacional de Braniff, B. (1961). Exploraciones arqueolo Antropologa e Historia 5: 68. gicas en Guanajuato y la cuenca de Me xico. In Teotihuaca n: Braniff, B. (1972). Secuencias arqueolo a, Mexico City, pp. 273324. Onceava Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropolog gica de Villa de Reyes, San Lus Potos, Instituto Nacional e Braniff, B. (1992). La estratigrafa arqueolo a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog a de una vasija en travertino. Boletn del Instituto Nacional de Castillo Tejero, N. (1970). Tecnolog Antropologa e Historia 41: 4852. mica de Monte Alba n, Memorias 13, Instituto Nacional Caso, A., Bernal, I., and Acosta, J. (1967). La cera a e Historia, Mexico City. de Antropolog n y consumo: una aproximacio n a los Cervantes Rosado, J., and Fournier, P. (1994). Regionalizacio micos Epicla sicos del Valle del Mezquital. Boletn de Antropologa Americana 29: complejos cera 105130. Cervantes Rosado, J., and Torres, A. (1991). Consideraciones sobre el desarrollo Coyotlatelco en el centro-norte del altiplano central. Cuicuilco 27: 2534. mica del Poscla sico en la cuenca de Cervantes Rosado, J., Fournier, P., and Carballal, M. (2009). La cera xico. In Merino Carrion, B. L., and Garcia Cook, A. (eds.), La produccion alfarera en el Me xico Me n Cient ca 508, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico Antiguo, Vol. V, Coleccio City. Charnay, D. (1887). The Ancient Cities of the New World, Chapman and Hall, London. Cobean, R. H. (1974). Archaeological survey of the Tula region. In Diehl, R. (ed.), Studies of Ancient Tollan, University of Missouri Monographs in Anthropology, No. 1, Columbia, pp. 610. Cobean, R. H. (1978). The Pre-Aztec Ceramics of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Cobean, R. H. (1982). Investigaciones recientes en Tula Chico, Hidalgo. In Estudios sobre la antigua n Cient ca No. 121, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico ciudad de Tula, Coleccio City, pp. 37122. a e Historia, mica de Tula, Hidalgo, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Cobean, R. H. (1990). La cera xico City. Me Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. (1989). The Late Classic and Early Postclassic chronology of the Tula region. In Healan, D. M. (ed.), Tula of the Toltecs, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp. 3446. stico rural en el a rea de Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.) (1999). Tepetitlan: un espacio dome Tula, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. (2003). Turquoise and shell offerings in the Palacio Quemada of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. In Jansen, D. K., and de Bock, E. K. (eds.), Latin American Collections: Essays in Honour of Ted J.J. Leyenaar, Tetl, Leiden, pp. 5165. rez, M. E. (1989). Informe de las excavaciones en Tula Chico, Temporada 1989, Cobean, R. H., and Sua n Nacional de Arqueolog a, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Archivo de la Coordinacio Mexico City. az, C. L. (1981). La cronolog a de la regio n de Cobean, R. H., Mastache, A. G., Crespo, A. M., and D az Orizbal, C. (eds.), Interaccio n cultural en Me xico Tula. In Rattray, E., Litvak King, L., and D noma de Me xico, Mexico City, pp. 187214. central, Universidad Nacional Auto Cook, S. F. (1949). The Historical Demography and Ecology of the Teotlalpan, IberoAmericana 33, Berkeley. mide de El Tesoro de Cook de Leonard, C., Leonard de Orellana, J., and Soto Soria, A. (1956). La pira o, Estado de Hidalgo. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropolo gicos 14: 117120. Tepeji del R Covarrubias, M. (1957). Indian Art of Mexico and Central America, Knopf, New York. Cowgill, G. L. (1996). Discussion. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 325331.
123
106
Crane, H. R., and Grifn, J. B. (1964). University of Michigan radiocarbon dates IX. Radiocarbon 6: 124. Crespo, A. M. (1991). El recinto ceremonial de El Cerrito. In Crespo, A. M., and Brambila, R. (eds.), a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 163223. taro prehispa nico, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Quere rea de Tula, Hgo. In Crespo, A. M., and Mastache, A. G. (1973). Reconocimiento de supercie en el a a, Jalapa, Balance y perspectiva de la antropologa, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropolog pp. 365371. ca 42, Instituto Nacional Crespo Oviedo, A. M. (1976). Villa de Reyes, San Lus Potos, Coleccion Cient a e Historia, Mexico City. de Antropolog rea de Tula, Hgo. de grupos Crespo Oviedo, A. M., and Mastache, A. G. (1981). La presencia en el a n. In Rattray, E., Litvak King, L., and D az relacionados con el Barrio de Oaxaca en Teotihuaca noma de n cultural en Me xico central, Universidad Nacional Auto Orizbal, C. (eds.), Interaccio xico, Mexico City, pp. 99106. Me Crider, D. (n.d.). Shifting alliances: Epiclassic and Early Postclassic interactions at Cerro Portezuelo, Manuscript on le, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. n: estudio de las cimentaciones del Edicio 3, el Edicio B y Cruz y Cruz, T. (2007). Construendo Tolla las plataformas anexas al Edicio B del recinto monumental de Tula, Hidalgo, Tesis profesional, a e Historia, Mexico City. Escuela Nacional de Antropolog Davies, N. (1977). The Toltecs Until the Fall of Tula, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. rrez Solana, N. (1988). Escultura en piedra de Tula, Universidad De la Fuente, B., Trejo, S., and Gutie noma de Me xico, Mexico City. Nacional Auto az, C. (1980). Chingu n Cient ca No. 90, Instituto : un sitio cla sico del a rea de Tula, Hidalgo, Coleccio D a e Historia, Mexico City. Nacional de Antropolog az, C. (1981). Chingu n teotihuacana. In Rattray, E., Litvak King, L., and D az Orizbal, C. y la expansio D noma de Me xico, Mexico n cultural en Me xico central, Universidad Nacional Auto (eds.), Interaccio City, pp. 107112. Diehl, R. A. (ed.) (1974) Studies of Ancient Tollan: A Report of the University of Missouri Tula Archaeological Project, Monographs in Archaeology No. 1, University of Missouri, Columbia. Diehl, R. A. (1981). Tula. In Bricker, V. R., and Sabloff, J. (eds.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 277295. Diehl, R. A. (1983). Tula: The Toltec Capital of Ancient Mexico, Thames and Hudson, London. Diehl, R. A. (1989a). Previous investigations at Tula. In Healan, D. (ed.), Tula of the Toltecs: Excavations and Survey, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp. 1329. Diehl, R. A. (1989b). A shadow of its former self: Teotihuacan during the Coyotlatelco period. In Diehl, R. A., and Berlo, J. C. (eds.), Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan A. D. 700900, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 918. Diehl, R. A. (1993). The Toltec horizon in Mesoamerica. In Rice, D. (ed.), Latin American Horizons, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 263294. Diehl, R. A., and Berlo, J. C. (eds.) (1989). Mesoamerica After the Decline of Teotihuacan A.D. 700900, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. Diehl, R. A., and Stroh, E. G. (1978). Tecali vessel manufacturing debris at Tollan, Hidalgo. American Antiquity 43: 7379. Diehl, R. A., Lomas, R., and Wynn, J. (1974). Toltec trade with Central America: New light and evidence. Archaeology 22(2): 182187. Dumond, D. E., and Muller, F. (1972). Classic to Postclassic in highland central Mexico. Science 175: 12081215. n, D. (1984). Historia de las indias de Nueva Espan a, a e islas de Tierra Firme, Editorial Porr Dura Mexico City. Elson, C. M., and Mowbray, K. (2005). Burial practices at Teotihuacan in the Early Postclassic period. Ancient Mesoamerica 16: 195211. Equihua Manrique, J. C. (2003). La alfarera de Tula, Tesis profesional, Escuela Nacional de a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog Equihua Manrique, J. C. (2006). El Coyotlatelco y las primeras manifestaciones culturales en Tula meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, Grande. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno a e Historia, Me xico City, pp. 281289. espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog z, M. (2004). La cera n de Tula, del precla sico al poscla sico mica prehispa nica de la regio Estrada Vazque tardo, Tesis profesional, Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Instituto Nacional de a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog
123
107
Evans, S. T. (1988). Excavations at Cihuatecpan, an Aztec Village in the Teotihucan Valley, Publications in Anthropology No. 36, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN. Evans, S. T. (2001). Aztec noble courts. In Inomata, T., and Houston, S. (eds.), Royal Courts of the Ancient Maya, Westview Press, Boulder, CO, pp. 237273. Evans, S. T., and Freter, A. (1996). Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico, Postclassic chronology: Hydration analysis of obsidian from Cihuatecpan, an Aztec period village. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 267280. Excelsior. (2009). Hallan adoratorio a Xipe-Totec en Tula. Excelsior, December 1. Feinman, G. M. (2001). Mesoamerican political complexity: The corporate-network dimension. In Haas, J. (ed.), From Leaders to Rulers, Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, New York, pp. 151176. Feinman, G., and Nicholas, L. (2000). High-intensity household-scale production. In Feinman, G., and Manzanilla, L. (eds.), Cultural Evolution, Contemporary Viewpoints, Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 119140. ndez Da vila, E. (1986). Nivel de produccio n y especializacio n artesanal en un taller de produccio n Ferna a e de artefactos lticos en Tula, Hidalgo, Tesis profesional, Escuela Nacional de Antropolog Historia, Mexico City. ndez Da vila, E. (1994). La produccio n de artefactos l ticos en Tula, Hidalgo. In Ferna ndez Da vila, Ferna E. (ed.), Simposium sobre arqueologa en el estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, Instituto a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 4768. Nacional de Antropolog Flannery, K. V., and Marcus, J. (1994). Early Formative Pottery of the Valley of Oaxaca, Memoirs No. 27, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. micos de asentamientos toltecas Flores Morales, L. M., and Crespo Oviedo, A. M. (1988). Elementos cera taro. In Serra Puche, M. C., and Navarrete Ca ceres, C. (eds.), Ensayos de en Guanajuato y Quere noma de Me xico, nica e histo rica de Mesoame rica, Universidad Nacional Auto alfarera prehispa Mexico City, pp. 205220. Folan, W. J. (1981). San Miguel de Huamango: un centro regional del antiguo estado de Tula-Jilotepec. In n vecina, Vol. I, Gobierno del Estado a Chan, R. (ed.), Investigaciones sobre Huamango y regio Pin xico, Toluca, pp. 205349. de Me a, P. (2006). Lo Coyotlatlco: la construccio n de narrativas arqueolo gicas acerca del Fournier Garc sico. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, epicla a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 431441. espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a, P. (2007). Los Hn a u del valle del Mezquital: maguey, pulque y alfarera, Instituto Fournier Garc hn a e Historia, Mexico City. Nacional de Antropolog os, V. H. (2007). The Epiclassic in the Tula region beyond Tula Chico. Fournier, P., and Bolan n Itza , Tula, and the Epiclassic In Kowalski, J., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds), Twin Tollans: Chiche to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 481529. a, P., Cervantes Rosado, J., and Blackman, M. J. (2006). Mito y realidad del estilo Fournier Garc sico Coyotlatelco. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de epicla a e Historia, Mexico City, xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Me pp. 5582. spora tolteca y las migraciones pipiles. Fowler, W. R. (2011). El complejo Guazapa en El Salvador, la dia La Universidad 14: 120. Fox, R. H. (1977). Urban Anthropology, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. a Cha vez, R. (2004). De Tula a Atzcapotzalco: caracterizacio n de los altepetl de la cuenca de Garc noma de Me xico, Mexico City. xico, Tesis doctoral, Universidad Nacional Auto Me n y a Cha vez, R., Gamboa, L., Va ldez Saldan a, N., and Moragas Segura, N. (2006). Clasicacio Garc lisis para que? La cera mica de fase Coyotlatelco de la cuenca de Me xico. In Solar Valverde, L. ana meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto (ed.), El feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 97126. Nacional de Antropolog a Cook, A. (1981). The historical importance of Tlaxcala in the cultural development of the central Garc highlands. In Bricker, V. R., and Sabloff, J. A. (eds.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Vol. 1, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 244276. a Cubas, A. (1873). Ruinas de la antigua Tollan. Boletn de la Sociedad de Geografa y Estadstica Garc blica Mexicana 1: 173187. de la Repu lez, M. (2006). Tradicio n y estilo en el estudio de la variabilidad cera mica del Epicla sico Gaxiola Gonza xico. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de en el centro de Me a e Historia, Mexico City, xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Me pp. 3154.
123
108
Getino Granados, F. (2000). El edicio K de Tula, Hidalgo, Tesis profesional, Escuela Nacional de a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog logicas en la zona urbana norte de la antigua ciudad de Getino Granados, F. (n.d.). Excavaciones arqueo Tula, Manuscript on le, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. Gillespie, S. D. (2007). Toltecs, Tula, and Tollan: Changing perspectives on a recurring problem in Mesoamerican archaeology and art history. In Kowalski, J., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds.), Twin n Itza , Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Tollans: Chiche Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 85127. mez Cha vez, S., and Cabrera Castro, R. (2006). Contextos de la ocupacio n Coyotlatelca en Go n. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, Teotihuaca a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 231256. espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog mez Seraf n, S. (1994). Costumbres funerarias prehispa nicas en Tula, Hidalgo. In Ferna ndez Da vila, E Go n Cient ca, (ed.), Simposio sobre arqueologa en el estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 8191. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog mez Seraf n, S., Sansores, F. J., and Ferna ndez Da vila, E. (1994). Enterramientos humanos de la e poca Go a e Historia, Mexico City. nica en Tula, Hidalgo, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog prehispa lez Quintero, L. (1968). Tipos de vegetacio a No. 2, n del valle del Mezquital, Paleoecolog Gonza a e Historia, Mexico City. Departamento de Salvamento, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog lez Quintero, L. (1999). The identication of oral remains and the social implications. In Cobean, Gonza R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 139147. pez, A. (1980). Interpretacio n paleoecolo gica del contenido lez Quintero, L., and Montufar Lo Gonza nico de un nu nchez, F. (ed.), III coloquio sobre paleobota cleo cercano a Tula, Hgo. In Sa nica y pol n Cient ca No. 86, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, palinologa memorias, Colleccio Mexico City, pp. 2740. Goreno, L. J., and Sanders, W. T. (2007). Archaeological Settlement Pattern Data from the Cuautitlan, Temascalapa, and Teotihuacan Regions, Mexico, Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. Hassig, R. (1998). Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Healan, D .M. (1986). Technological and nontechnological aspects of an obsidian workshop excavated at Tula, Hidalgo. Research in Economic Anthropology 2: 133152. Healan, D. M. (ed.) (1989). Tula of the Toltecs: Excavations and Survey, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City. Healan, D. M. (1992a). Local versus non-local obsidian exchange at Tula and its implications for postFormative Mesoamerica. World Archaeology 24: 449466. Healan, D. M. (1992b). A comment on Moholy-Nagys The misidentication of lithic workshops. Latin American Antiquity 3: 240242. Healan, D. M. (1993). Urbanism at Tula from the perspective of residential archaeology. In Santley, R. S., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp. 105120. cuaro obsidian source area. Ancient Healan, D. M. (1997). Prehispanic quarrying in the UcareoZinape Mesoamerica 8: 77100. mica coyotlatelca y la explotacio n de la obsidiana de UcareoZinape cuaro. Healan, D. M. (1998). La cera n, Centro de Estudios MesoamerIn Darras, V. (ed.), Genesis, culturas, y espacios en Michoaca icanos, Mexico City, pp. 101112. Healan, D. M. (2001). Acostas Tula Grande: Fact or falsication? Paper presented at the 66th Annual Meeting, Society for American Archaeology, New Orleans, LA. Healan, D. M. (2002). Prismatic core/blade technology in Epiclassic/Early Postclassic Tula and Ucareo. In Andrews, B., and Hirth, K. (eds.), Pathways to Prismatic Blades: Sources of Variation in Mesoamerican Lithic Technology, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 2736. Healan, D. M. (2003). From the quarry pit to the trash pit: Comparative core/blade technology at Tula, Hidalgo and Ucareo, Michoacan. In Hirth, K. (ed.), Mesoamerican Lithic Technology: Experimentation and Interpretation, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 153169. n Itza . Healan, D. M. (2007). New perspectives on Tulas obsidian industry and its relationship to Chiche n Itza , Tula, and the Epiclassic In Kowalski, J., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds.), Twin Tollans: Chiche to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 429447.
123
109
Healan, D. M. (2009a). Household, neighborhood, and urban structure in an adobe city: Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico. In Manzanilla, L. R., and Chapdelaine, C. (eds.), Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, Memoirs No. 46, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michican, Ann Arbor, pp. 6788. Healan, D. M. (2009b). Ground platform preparation and the banalization of the prismatic blade in western Mesoamerica. Ancient Mesoamerica 20: 103111. Healan, D. M. (n.d.). A reevaluation of evidence for urban planning at Tula, Manuscript on le, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. Healan, D. M., and Stoutamire, J. W. (1989). Surface survey of the Tula urban zone. In Healan, D. M. (ed.), Tula of the Toltecs: Excavations and Survey, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp. 203236. Healan, D. M., Kerley, J., and Bey III, G. (1983). Excavation and preliminary analysis of an obsidian workshop in Tula, Hgo., Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 10: 127145. Healan, D. M., Cobean, R. H., and Diehl, R. A. (1989). Synthesis and conclusions. In Healan, D. M. (ed.), Tula of the Toltecs: Excavations and Survey, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, pp. 239251. Hernandez, C. (2000). A history of Prehispanic Ceramics, Interaction, and Frontier Development in the cuaro Obsidan Source Area, Michoacan, Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of UcareoZinape Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. Hernandez, C., and Healan, D. M. (2000). The Toltec world as seen from northeast Michoacan. Paper presented at the 65th annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Philadelphia. Hernandez, C., and Healan, D. M. (n.d.). Chronometric dating and the ceramic chronology of the Ucareo cuaro, Michoacan obsidian source area, Manuscript on le, Department of Anthropology, Zinape Tulane University, New Orleans, LA. ndez Reyes, C. (1994). Rescate de una tumba zapoteca en Tepeji del R o. In Ferna ndez, E. (ed.), Herna Simposium sobre arqueologa en el estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, Instituto Nacional de a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 125142. Antropolog ndez Reyes, C., Cobean, R. H., Mastache, A. G., and Sua rez, M. E. (1999). Un taller de alfareros en Herna la antigua ciudad de Tula. Arqueologa 22: 6988. Hers, M. A. (1989). Los toltecas en tierras chichimecas, Cuadernos de Historia del Arte, 35, Instituto de ticas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico, Mexico City. Investigaciones Este Hirth, K. G. (1978). Interregional trade and the formation of prehistoric gateway communities. American Antiquity 43: 3545. Hirth, K. G. (2003). The altepetl and urban structure in prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Sanders, W., Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, Vol. 1, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, pp. 5885. Hirth, K. G. (ed.) (2006). Obsidian Craft Production in Ancient Central Mexico, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Hirth, K. G. (ed.) (2009). Housework: Craft Production and Domestic Economy in Ancient Mesoamerica, Archeological Papers, Vol. 19, American Anthropological Association, Washington, DC. Hirth, K. G., and Angulo, J. (1981). Early state expansion in central Mexico: Teotihuacan in Morelos. Journal of Field Archaeology 8: 135150. Inomata, T. (2001). The power and ideology of artistic creation: Elite craft specialists in Classic Maya society. Current Anthropology 42: 321349. nez Betts, P. (2006). La problema tica de Coyotlatelco vista desde el noroccidente de Mesoame rica. Jime meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 3592. signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog nez Garc a, E. (1998). Iconografa de Tula: el caso de la escultura, Instituto Nacional de Jime a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog nez Moreno, W. (1959). S ntesis de la historia pretolteca de Mesoame rica. Esplendor del Me xico Jime Antiguo 2: 10191108. nez Moreno, W. (1966). Mesoamerica before the Toltecs. In Paddock, J. (ed.), Ancient Oaxaca: Jime Discoveries in Mexican Archaeology and History, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp. 182. Kaplan, L. (1999). Analysis of archaeological phaseolus from Tepetitlan and Tula. In Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 148155. Kelley, E. A. (1978). The Temple of the Skulls at Altavista, Chlachihuites. In Riley, C. L., and Hendrick, B. C. (eds.), Across the Chichimec Sea, Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 102126.
123
110
da. In Brambila, R., and Pe rez-Rocha, E. (eds.), Kirchhoff, P. (1985). El imperio tolteca y su ca a e Historia, Mexico City, rica y el centro de Mexico, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Mesoame pp. 249272. Klein, C. F. (1987). The ideology of autosacrice at the Templo Mayor. In Boone, E. H. (ed.), The Aztec Templo Mayor, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 293370. n Itza , Tula, and the Epiclassic Kowalski, K., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds.) (2007). Twin Tollans: Chiche to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC. n Itza , Kristan-Graham, C. (1989). Art, Rulership, and the Mesoamerican Body Politic at Tula and Chiche Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Art History, University of California, Los Angeles. Kristan-Graham, C. (1993). The business of narrative at Tula. Latin American Antiquity 4: 321. Kristan-Graham, C. (2007). Structuring identity at Tula: the design and symbolism of colonnaded halls n Itza , Tula, and sunken spaces. In Kowalski, J., and Kristan-Graham, C. (eds), Twin Tollans Chiche and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 531578. n Itza y Tula. Estudios de la Cultura Maya 1: 4780. Kubler, G. (1961). Chiche Linne, S. (1934). Archaeological Research at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Ethnographic Museum of Sweden, Stockholm. pez Aguilar, F. (1994). Historia prehispa nica del valle del Mezquital. In Ferna ndez Da vila, E. (ed.), Lo Simposium sobre arqueologa en el estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, Instituto Nacional de a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 113123. Antropolog pez Aguilar, F., Solar Valverde, L., and Vilanova de Allende, R. (1998). El valle del Mezquital, Lo encrucijadas en la historia de los asentamientos humanos en un espacio discontinuo. Arqueologa 20: 2140. pez Luja n, L., and Lo pez Austin, A. (2009). The Mexica in Tula and Tula in Mexico-Tenochtitlan. In Lo pez Luja n, L. (eds.), The Art of Urbanism: How Mesoamerican Kingdoms Fash, W. L., and Lo Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 384422. s Careta, C., and Manzanilla N., L. (2006). Atributos morfolo gicos y estil sticos pez Perez, C., Nicola Lo mica Coyotlatelco en el centro ceremonial de Teotihuacan. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), de la cera meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional El feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 216230. de Antropolog Manzanilla, L. (2003). The abandonment of Teotihuacan. In Inomata, T., and Webb, R. (eds.), The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 91101. modos demogra cos del Cla sico al Poscla sico en el centro de Me xico, Manzanilla, L. (ed.) (2005). Reaco noma de Me xico, Mexico City. Universidad Nacional Auto n en escenarios Manzanilla, L. (2006). Estados corporativos arcaicos: organizaciones de excepcio excluyentes. Cuicuilco 13: 1345. pez, C., and Freter, A. (1996). Dating results from excavations in quarry tunnels behind Manzanilla, L., Lo the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 245266. Marcus, J. (1983). On the nature of the Mesoamerican city. In Vogt, E. Z., and Leventhal, R. M. (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 195242. nez Magan n, Hidalgo. In Ferna ndez a, R. (1994). Un rescate en el Cerro del Elefante, Tunititla Mart vila, E. (ed.), Simposium sobre arqueologa en el estado de Hidalgo: trabajos recientes, Instituto Da a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 143149. Nacional de Antropolog n sobre su proceso de desarrollo y estructura Mastache, A. G. (1996a). El estado tolteca, una investigacio noma de Me xico, mica y poltica, Ph.D. dissertation, Universidad Nacional Auto social, econo Mexico City. Mastache, A. G. (1996b). El amaranto y el maguey en el dieta Tolteca. In Mastache, A. G., Parsons, J. R., Santley, R. S., and Sera Puche, M. C. (eds.), Aqueologa mesoamericana: homenaje a William T. a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 355373. Sanders, Vol. 1, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (1989). The Coyotlatelco culture and the origins of the Toltec state. In Diehl, R. A., and Berlo, J. (eds.), Mesoamerica after the Decline of Teotihuacan, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 4968. rea de Tula. In Mastache, A. Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (1990). La cultura Coyotlatelco en el a rea de Tula, G., Cobean, R. H., Rees, C., and Jackson, D. (eds.), Las industrias Coyotlatelco en el a n Cient ca No. 221, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 922. Coleccio
123
111
n prehispa nica de Tula, Hgo. In Matos Mastache, A. G., and Crespo, A. M. (1974). La ocupacio n Cient ca No. 15, Instituto Nacional de Moctezuma, E. (ed.), Proyecto Tula, 1a. Parte, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 71103. Antropolog lisis sobre la traza general de Tula, Hgo. In Estudios Mastache, A. G., and Crespo, A. M. (1982). Ana n Cient ca No. 121, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e sobre la antigua ciudad de Tula, Coleccio Historia, Mexico City, pp. 1138. Mastache, A. G., Cobean, R. H., and Healan, D. M. (2002). Ancient Tollan: Tula and the Toltec Heartland, University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Mastache, A. G., Healan, D. M., and Cobean, R. H. (2009). Four hundred years of settlement and cultural pez Luja n, L. (eds.), The continuity in Epiclassic and Early Postclassic Tula. In Fash, W. L., and Lo Art of Urbanism: How Mesoamerican Kingdoms Represented Themselves in Architecture and Imagery, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 290329. rica. In Religio n en Mesoame rica, XII Mesa Matos Moctezuma, E. (1972). El tzompantli en Mesoame a, Cholula, Puebla, pp. 109116. Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropolog rea: Tula Chico y la Plaza Charnay. In Matos Matos Moctezuma, E. (1974a). Excavaciones en la microa a e Historia, Moctezuma, E. (ed.), Proyecto Tula, 1a. parte, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Mexico City, pp. 6169. n Cient ca No. 15, Instituto Matos Moctezuma, E. (ed.) (1974b). Proyecto Tula, 1a. parte, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City. Nacional de Antropolog n Cient ca No. 33, Instituto Matos Moctezuma, E. (ed.) (1976). Proyecto Tula, 2a. parte, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City. Nacional de Antropolog cuaro tradition. In Frierman, J. D. (ed.), The Natalie McBride, H. W. (1969). The extent of the Chup Wood Collection of Pre-Columbian Ceramics from Chupcuaro, Guanajuato, Mexico, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 3349. McBride, H. W. (1974). Formative Ceramics and Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Cuauhtitlan Region, Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Los Angeles. McCafferty, G. G. (2001). Ceramics of Postclassic Cholula, Mexico, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Metcalfe, S., and Davies, S. (2007). Deciphering recent climate change in central Mexican lake records. Climatic Change 83: 169186. Millon, R. (1973). Urbanization at Teotihuacan, Mexico, Volume 1: The Teotihuacan Map, University of Texas Press, Austin. Millon, R. (1996). The last years of Teotihuacan. In Yoffee, N., and Cowgill, G. (eds.), The Collapse of Ancient States and Civilizations, Unversity of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 102164. Molina Montes, A. (1982). Archaeological buildings: Restoration or misinterpretation? In Boone, E. (ed.), Falsications and Misconstructions of Pre-Columbian Art, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 125141. Molina Montes, A. (1987). Templo Mayor architecture: So whats new? In Boone, E. H. (ed.), The Aztec Templo Mayor, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 97107. Moncayo Ochoa, R. E. (1999). Ceramic analysis. In Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 75110. n. In Mountjoy, J. B., and Brockington, D. L. Mountjoy, J. B., and Brockington, D. L. (1987). Introduccio a e sico en el Me xico central, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog (eds.), El auge y la cada del Cla Historia, Mexico City, pp. 720. mica de Cholula. In Marquina, I. (ed.), Proyecto Cholula, Serie Investigaciones Muller, F. (1970). La cera a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 129142. 19, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog o: trabajos arqueolo gicos preliminaries, Tesis profesional, Escuela Nalda, E. (1975). UA San Juan del R a e Historia, Mexico City. Nacional de Antropolog mica del sur de Quere taro. In Crespo, A. M., and Brambila, R. (eds.), Nalda, E. (1991). Secuencia cera n Cient ca No. 238, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e taro prehispa nico, Coleccio Quere Historia, Mexico City, pp. 3157. Nelson, B. A. (1997). Chronology and stratigraphy at La Quemada, Zacatecas, Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 24: 85109. xico y el suroeste de Nelson, B. A., and Crider, D. (2005). Posibles pasajes migratorios en el norte de Me modos demogra cos del Cla sico al Poscla sico en los Estados Unidos. In Manzanilla, L. (ed.), Reaco
123
112
gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma xico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolo el centro de Me xico, Mexico City, pp. 75102. de Me Nichols, D. L., and Charlton, T. L. (1996). The Postclassic occupation at Otumba: A chronological assessment. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 231244. Nichols, D. L., and Charlton, T. L. (1997). The Archaeology of City-States, Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Nichols, D. L., and McCullough, J. (1986). Excavations at Xometla. In Sanders, W. T. (ed.), The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Vol. 4, Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, pp. 5394. n Cient ca No. 210, o, B. L. (1990). Unidades habitacionales en Tula, Hidalgo, Coleccio Paredes Gudin a e Historia, Mexico City. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog lisis de ujos migratorios y composicio n multie tnica de la poblacio n de o, B. L. (2005). Ana Paredes Gudin modos demogra cos del Cla sico al Poscla sico en el centro Tula, Hgo. In Manzanilla, L. (ed.), Reaco gicas, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de xico, Instituto de Investigaciones Antropolo de Me xico, Mexico City, pp. 203225. Me Parsons, J. R. (2008). Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Northwestern Valley of Mexico: The Zumpango Region, Memoirs No. 45, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parsons, J. R. (2010). The pastoral niche in prehispanic Mesoamerica. In Staller, J., and Carrasco, M. (eds.), Pre-Columbian Foodways: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Food, Culture, and Markets in Mesoamerica, Springer, New York, pp. 109137. Parsons, J. R., and Darling, J. A. (2000). Maguey (Agave spp.) utilization in Mesoamerican civilization: nica de Me xico 66: 8191. A case for precolumbian pastoralism. Boletn de la Sociedad Bota Parsons, J. R., and Goreno, L. (in press). Why is Aztec II Black/Orange so scarce in the Zumpango a e region? In Cobean, R. (ed.), Homenaje a Guadalupe Mastache, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog xico City. Historia, Me Parsons, J. R., and Parsons, M. H. (1990). Maguey Utilization in Highland Central Mexico, Anthropological Papers No. 92, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parsons, J. R., Brumel, E., Parsons, M., and Wilson, D. (eds.) (1982). Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Region, Memoirs No. 14, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Parsons, J. R., Brumel, E., and Hodge, M. (1996). Developmental implications of earlier dates for early Aztec in the Basin of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7: 217230. n de instrumentos en obsidiana, divisio n del trabajo, M.A. thesis, Pastrana Cruz, A. (1977). Produccio a e Historia, Mexico City. Escuela Nacional de Antropolog guez, M. C. (1976). Excavaciones en Daini, Tula, Hgo, Informe Preliminar. In Matos a, A., and Rodr Pen n Cient ca No. 33, Instituto Nacional de Moctezuma, E. (ed.), Proyecto Tula, 2a. parte, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 8590. Antropolog Polaco, O. (1999). Analysis of the faunal remains. In Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 125138. a en la continuidad y el colapso. Arqueologa 20: 4152. Polgar Salcedo, M. (1998). La perifer Rattray, E. C. (1966). An archaeological and stylistic study of Coyotlatelco pottery. Mesoamerican Notes 78: 87211. Rattray, E. C. (1996). Regional perspective on the Epiclassic period in central Mexico. In Mastache, A. G., Parsons, J. R., Santley, R. S., and Serra Puche, M. C. (eds.), Arqueologa Mexicana: Homenaje a a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 213231. William T. Sanders, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Rattray, E. C. (2001). Teotihuacan Ceramics: Chronology and Cultural Trends, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. sico de Teotihuaca n y Atzcapotzalco. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El Rattray, E. C. (2006). El epicla meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 201214. Antropolog Rees, C. (1990). Estudio sobre la canterataller del sitio Magoni. In Mastache, A. G., Cobean, R. H., rea de Tula, Instituto Rees, C., and Jackson, E. (eds.), Las industrias lticas Coyotlatelco en el a a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 23143. Nacional de Antropolog n, T., and Bey III, G. J. (1998). The return of Quetzalcoatl: Evidence for Ringle, W. M., Gallareta Negro the spread of a world religion during the Epiclassic period. Ancient Mesoamerica 9: 183232. n, B. de (1961). Florentine Codex, General History of the Things of New Spain, Book 10, School Sahagu of American Research, Santa Fe, NM.
123
113
quez Far as, R. (2006). Cera mica del Epicla sico en el sur de Saint-Charles Zetina, J. C., and Enr taro. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, Quere a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 309326. espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog nchez, M. G. (1999a). Analysis of chipped stone. In Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: Sa A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 171238. nchez, M. G. (1999b). Descriptive analysis of basalt and rhyolite scrapers and high-backed scrapers. In Sa Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (eds.), Tepetitlan: A Rural Household in the Toltec Heartland, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 399424. Sanders, W. T. (1986). The Toltec period occupation of the valley. In The Teotihucan Valley Project Final Report, Vol. 4, Occasional Papers in Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, pp. 117189. Sanders, W. T. (2006). Late XolalpanMetepec/OxtotipacCoyotlatelco: Ethnic succession or changing meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de patterns of political economy? In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El feno a e Historia, Mexico City, xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Me pp. 183200. Sanders, W. T., and Price, B. J. (1967). Mesoamerica: The Evolution of a Civilization, Random House, New York. Sanders, W. T., and Santley, R. S. (1983). A tale of three cities: Energetics and urbanization in preHispanic central Mexico. In Vogt, E. Z., and Leventhal, R. M. (eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 243292. Sanders, W. T., and Webster, D. (1988). The Mesoamerican urban tradition. American Anthropologist 90: 521546. Sanders, W. T., Parsons, J. R., and Santley, R. S. (1979). The Basin of Mexico, Academic Press, New York. Sejourne, L. (1956). Informe sobre el material exhumado en Ahuizotla, Azcapotzalco. Revista Mexicana gicos 15: 3335. de Estudios Antropolo Sjoberg, G. (1960). The Preindustrial City, The Free Press, Glencoe, IL. Smith, Jr., C. E. (1967). Plant remains. In Byers, D. S. (ed.), The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 1, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 220260. Smith, M. E. (1989). Cities, towns, and urbanism: Comment on Sanders and Webster. American Anthropologist 91: 454461. Smith, M. E. (1992). Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico, Vol. 1, Monographs in Latin American Archaeology No. 4, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh. Smith, M. E. (1997). Life in the provinces of the Aztec empire. Scientic American 277: 5663. n Itza : Are we asking the right questions? In Kowalski, J., and Smith, M. E. (2007). Tula and Chiche n Itza , Tula, and the Epiclassic to Early Postclassic Kristan-Graham, C. (eds.), Twin Tollans: Chiche Mesoamerican World, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 579617. Smith, M. E., and Montiel, L. (2001). The archaeological study of empires and imperialism in preHispanic central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20: 245284. meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y Solar Valverde, L. (ed.) (2006). El feno a e Historia, Mexico City. signicado, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog Spence, M. W. (1992). Tlailotlacan, a Zapotec Enclave in Teotihuacan. In Berlo, J. C. (ed.), Art, Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 5988. Spence, M. W. (2005). A Zapotec diaspora network in Classic-Period central Mexico. In Stein, G. (ed.), The Archaeology of Colonial Encounters, School of American Research Press, Santa Fe, NM, pp. 173206. az, J., Burnette, D. J., Cerano Paredes, J., Heim Jr., R. R., Fye, F. K., Acuna Stahle, D. W., Villanueva D Soto, R., Therrell, M. K., Cleaveland, M. K., and Stahle, D. K. (2011). Major Mesoamerican droughts of the past millennium. Geophysical Research Letters 38: 14. n estratigra phica, Dimensio n Sterpone Canuto, O. (2000). El palacio Quemado de Tula: una evaluacio gica 18: 727. Antropolo Sterpone Canuto, O. (20002001). La quimera de Tula. Boletn de Antropologa Americana 37: 141204. genes de Tula Grande. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El Sterpone Canuto, O. (2006a). Coyotlatelco y los or meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 257279. Antropolog Sterpone Canuto, O. (2006b). TulaMazapa entre Coyotlatelco y Tollan. Cuicuilco 13: 7196. Stocker, T. L., and Spence, M. W. (1973). Trilobal eccentrics at Teotihuacan and Tula. American Antiquity 38: 195199.
123
114
Stoutamire, J. W. (1975). Trend Surface Analysis of Survey Data from Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri, Columbia. Stuart, D. (2000). The arrival of strangers: Teotihuacan and Tollan in Classic Maya history. In Carrasco, D., Jones, L., and Sessions, S. (eds.), Mesoamericas Classic Heritage from Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, University of Colorado Press, Boulder, pp. 465513. Stuiver, M., and Reimer, P. J. (1993). Extended (super 14) C data base and revised CALIB 3.0 (super 14) C age calibration program. Radiocarbon 35: 215230. rez Cortes, M. E., Healan, D. M., and Cobean, R. H. (2007). Los or genes de la dinast a real de Tula. Sua Arqueologa Mexicana 85: 4850. Sugiura Yamamoto, Y. (1993). El ocaso de las ciudades y los movimientos poblaciones en al altiplano xico: una visio n histo ricodemogra phica, central. In Serra Puche, M. C. (ed.), El poblamiento de Me n, Mexico City, pp. 190215. Vol. 1, Consejo Nacional de Poblacio mica? discussio n acerca del Sugiura Yamamoto, Y. (2006). Cambio gradual o discontinuidad en la cera sico al Epicla sico, visto desde el Valle de Toluca. In Solar Valverde, L. (ed.), El paso del Cla meno Coyotlatelco en el centro de Me xico: tiempo, espacio y signicado, Instituto Nacional de feno a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 127162. Antropolog guez, A., Cervantes, J., and Fournier, P. (1999). Las relaciones entre el centro y la periferia, Torres Rodr sico en la regio n de Tula, Me xico. Boletn de Antropologa el caso de las comunidades del Cla Americana 35: 7393. n Ahumada, A. (1998). Desarrollo arquitecto nico del sitio arqueolo gico de Tlalpizahuac, Toval n Cient ca 348, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico City. Coleccio Tozzer, A. M. (1921). Excavations of a Site at Santiago Ahuitzotla City, Mexico, Bulletin 74, Bureau of American Ethnology, Washington, DC. Vaillant, G. C. (1938). A correlation of archaeological and historical sequences in the Valley of Mexico. American Anthropologist 40: 535573. Vaillant, G. C. (1941). Aztecs of Mexico, Doubleday, New York. Weaver, M. P. (1981). The Aztecs, Maya, and Their Predecessors, Academic Press, New York. Webb, M. C. (1978). The signicance of the epiclassic period in Mesoamerican prehistory. In Browman, D. L. (ed.), Cultural Continuity in Mesoamerica, Mouton, The Hague, pp. 155178. Wheatley, P. (1972). The concept of urbanism. In Ucko, P., Tringham, R., and Dimbleby, G. (eds.), Man, Settlement, and Urbanism, Gerald Duckworth, London, pp. 601637. Wolfman, D. (1990). Mesoamerican chronology and archaeomagnetic dating, A.C. 11200. In Eighmy, J. L., and Sternberg, R. S. (eds.), Archaeomagnetic Dating, University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 261391. Wolf, E. (1976). The Valley of Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. lisis espacial de la zona arqueolo gica de Tula, Hgo. In Matos Moctezuma, E. (ed.), Yadeun, J. (1974). Ana n Cient ca No. 15, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Proyecto Tula, 1a. parte, Coleccio Mexico City, pp. 5359. n Cient ca No. 25, Yadeun Angulo, J. (1975). El estado y la ciudad: el caso de Tula, Hgo, Coleccio a e Historia, Mexico City. Instituto Nacional de Antropolog
Bibliography of recent literature

ez Urincho, F. (2008). El Edico 4, un palacio en Tula Grande, el aposento del rey tolteca. Online Ba article published at http://www.famsi.org/reports/07026es/index.html. Beekman, C. S., and Christensen, A. F. (2011). Power, agency, and identity: Migration and aftermath in the Mezquital area of north-central Mexico. In Cabana, G., and Clark, J. (eds.), Current Developments in the Anthropological Study of Past Human Migration, University Press of Florida, Gainesville, pp. 147171. n Cient ca, Instituto Nacional de n tolteca, Coleccio Braniff, B. (1999). Morales, Guanajuato y la tradicio a e Historia, Mexico City. Antropolog a tolteca. In Merino Carrio n, B. L., and Garc a Cook, A. (eds.), Cobean, R. H. (2007). La alfarer n Cient ca, Instituto Nacional de n alfarera en el Me xico antiguo IV, Coleccio La produccio a e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 5776. Antropolog pez Luja n, L., Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. Cobean, R. H., and Mastache, A. G. (1995). Tula. In Lo (eds.), Xochicalco y Tula, Jaca Book, Milan.
123
115
Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (1999). Jorge R. Acosta. In Murray, T. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Archaeology: The Great Archaeologists, Garland Press, New York, pp. 425434. Cobean, R., and Mastache, A. G. (2001). Toltec. In Carrasco, D. (ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of Mesoamerican Cultures, Vol. 3, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 239241. Crespo, A. M., and Viramontes, C. (eds.) (1996). Tiempo y territorio en arqueologa: el centro norte de a, Instituto Nacional de Antropolog a e Historia, Mexico City. xico, Serie Arqueolog Me nguez, S., and Pastrana, A. (2009). Cambios a la estrategia de la explotacio n de la obsidiana de Dom Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula, y la Triple Alianza. Ancient Mesoamerica 20: 129148. Evans, S. T., and Webster, D. L. (eds.) (2001). Archaeology of Ancient Mexico and Central America: An Encyclopedia, Garland, New York. n y ADN os de silencio: cosmovisio Fournier, P., and Vargas Sanders, R. (2002). En busca de los duen s epicla sicas de la regio n de Tula. In Estudios de cultura Otopame, antiguo de la poblaciones otomie noma de Me xico, Mexico City, pp. 3776. Universidad Nacional Auto cadas de investigaciones. Arqueologa Gamboa Cabezas, L. (2007). El palacio quemado, Tula: seis de Mexicana 85: 4247. ez, J. R. (2000). Astros y montan as, elementos rectores para el trazo Getino Granados, F., and Cid Bez urbano en Teotihuacan y Tula. Arqueologa 24: 87106. n cultural entre el centro y el occidente de Me xico Healan, D. M., and Cobean, R. H. (2009). La interaccio n de Tula. In Williams, E., Lo pez Mestas, L., and Esparza, R. (eds.), Las vista desde la regio xico en el mundo mesoamericano, El Colegio de sociedades complejas del occidente de Me n, Morelia, pp. 327348. Michoaca Hodge, M. G., and Minc, L. D. (1990). The spatial patterning of Aztec ceramics: Implications for prehispanic exchange systems in the Valley of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 17: 415437. co de Tula, Hidalgo: sus imagines en piedra. nez Garc a, E. (2008). Cata logo escultorio-iconogra Jime Online article published at http://www.famsi.org/reports/07027es/index.html. n Itza , University Jones, L. (1995) Twin City Tales: A Hermeneutical Reassessment of Tula and Chiche Press of Colorado, Boulder. Kristan-Graham, C. (1999). Architecture of the Tula body politic. In Kowalski, J. K. (ed.), Mesoamerican Architecture as Cultural Symbol, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 162175. Marcus, J., and Sabloff, J. (eds.) (2008). The Ancient City, School for Advanced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM. Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (2000). Ancient Tollan: The sacred precinct. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 38: 100133. Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (2003). Urbanism at Tula. In Sanders, W. T., Mastache, A. G., and Cobean, R. H. (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, Vol. 1, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, pp. 217256. a Cook, A., and Hirth, K. G. (eds.) (2008). Urbanism in Mastache, A. G., Cobean, R. H., Garc Mesoamerica, Vol. 2, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. n del per odo Coyotlatelco en la zona arqueolo gica o, B. L. (1998). Evidencias de ocupacio Paredes Gudin xico, XXIV Mesa Redonda, Sociedad de Tula. In Antropologa e historia del occidente de Me a, Universidad Nacional Auto noma de Me xico, Mexico City, Mexicana de Antropolog pp. 16291644.
123

The Rise and Fall of the Ancient City of Tula

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Rise and Fall of the Ancient City of Tula

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 DOI 10.

The Archaeology of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico

Published online: 12 August 2011 Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

Fig. 6 Plan of Tula Grande monumental precinct

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115