The colonial political economy of Xaltocan, Mexico

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397–414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/ locate/ jaa

Trade, tribute, and neutron activation: The colonial political economyof Xaltocan, Mexico

0278-4165/$ - see front matter � 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001

⇑ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 512 471 6535.E-mail addresses: [email protected] (E. Rodríguez-Alegría), millhau-

[email protected] (J.K. Millhauser), [email protected] (W.D. Stoner).

Enrique Rodríguez-Alegría a,⇑, John K. Millhauser b, Wesley D. Stoner c

a Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, 2201 Speedway C3200, Austin, TX 78712-1723, United Statesb Department of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina State University, 1911 Building, Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 27695, United Statesc University of Missouri Research Reactor, 1513 Research Park Dr., Columbia, MO 65203, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 16 October 2012Revision received 15 July 2013

Keywords:Colonial MexicoXaltocanINAACeramicsObsidianTradepXRFAztecSpanishEmpires

a b s t r a c t

In Trade, Tribute, and Transportation, Ross Hassig argues that indigenous towns in the northern Basin ofMexico during the colonial period were largely self-sufficient. They traded with Mexico City mostly inelite goods, but for the most part they produced for their own subsistence or traded with nearby towns.Chemical characterization by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and portable X-ray fluores-cence (pXRF) of ceramics and obsidian from post-conquest contexts in Xaltocan, a site in the northernBasin of Mexico, reveals that Hassig’s model is partly correct for describing Xaltocan. The town focusedon trade with nearby towns and it produced some ceramics for local consumption. However, Xaltocanwas hardly isolated and self-sufficient in the post-conquest period. Instead, the data suggest that the peo-ple of Xaltocan also obtained ceramics and obsidian from a greater variety of sources than under Aztecdomination. Rather than being an isolated rural site, Xaltocan either increased its external connectionsand number of trading partners after the Spanish conquest, or it managed to obtain a greater varietyof products than before through a bustling market system.

� 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Scholars who study states and empires are becoming increas-ingly interested in aspects of ancient economies that were not un-der the direct control of elites (e.g. Graff, 2012; Hirth, 2009;Millhauser, 2012; Morrison, 2001; Sheets, 2000; Sobel, 2012). Rev-enue extraction by elites in many situations certainly createdchanges in the work patterns of people producing tribute, oftencaused impoverishment and diseases due to overwork and exploi-tation, reshaped market systems, and reduced the quality of life forimperial subjects, among many other social and cultural effects(e.g. Barfield, 2001: 30–31; Brumfiel, 2005a; Fowler, 1993; Hassig,1985; Sinopoli, 1994; Van Buren, 1996). Given the abundance ofliterature that emphasizes elite control of ancient economies,Sheets (2000) has called for a shift in focus toward commoners’ ef-forts to provision their houses, produce surplus for exchange, andmaintain some measure of economic independence from elites. In-spired by Sheet’s call, we examine aspects of the economy in colo-nial Mexico that were not entirely controlled by Spanishcolonizers: production and exchange of ceramics and obsidian

tools. We build upon a model proposed by Hassig (1985), which re-mains one of the most influential studies of colonial economies inMexico.

In Trade, Tribute, and Transportation, Hassig (1985) provides amodel for the political economy of the Basin of Mexico in the fif-teenth and sixteenth centuries, as the region became incorporatedinto the Aztec empire, and a century later, conquered by the Span-ish. During this time period, the city of Tenochtitlan grew and in1428 it became the capital of the Aztec empire (Berdan and Smith,2003: 67). Spanish conquerors, aided by indigenous armies thatwanted to overthrow the Aztecs, conquered Tenochtitlan in 1521(Hassig, 2006). They put an end to the Aztec empire and beganan era of Spanish colonialism that lasted three centuries. The Span-ish ruled from Tenochtitlan, which came to be known as MexicoCity under Spanish domination (Gibson, 1964).

Hassig describes the changes in the political economy in the Ba-sin of Mexico beginning with the period when Tenochtitlan incor-porated other city-states and rural areas into its hinterland. Briefly,Hassig argues that Tenochtitlan created a relationship of interde-pendence with its hinterland, extracting agricultural produce,raw materials, and population (or labor) from rural areas. To ex-tract resources from the rural hinterland, the Mexica (the peoplefrom Tenochtitlan) used a variety of economic, political, and reli-gious strategies that bound the rural hinterland to the capital. This

http://crossmark.dyndns.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001&domain=pdf

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02784165

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

398 E. Rodríguez-Alegría et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397–414

relationship of interdependence continued into the colonial period,although it changed along with demographic collapse, new tech-nologies, the incorporation of European goods into the market sys-tem, and other factors that affected trade, tribute, andtransportation. Hassig’s model remains one of the most completestudies of the colonial political economy in central Mexico, and itisworth evaluating with fresh data.

We build upon Hassig’s model by focusing on ceramic andobsidian exchange in early colonial Xaltocan, a rural site approxi-mately 30 km north of Mexico City (Brumfiel, 2005a) (Fig. 1).Ceramics and obsidian were necessities in indigenous householdsbefore and after the Aztec and Spanish conquests (Smith, 2003:123). By studying the patterns of exchange of ceramics and obsid-ian, we can evaluate how well Hassig’s general political economymodel describes the effects of Spanish colonization upon the ex-change of everyday necessities in Xaltocan. We characterized 251ceramic fragments, and three clay samples from Xaltocan byinstrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). We also charac-terized 53 colonial obsidian samples and 50 Aztec obsidian sam-ples by portable X-ray fluorescence (pXRF), laboratory XRF(lXRF), and INAA (Millhauser et al., 2011). These three analyticaltechniques allowed us to identify the sources of different artifactsfound in Xaltocan in the period after the Spanish conquest (post-1521). To evaluate whether there were changes in the sources ofceramics and obsidian found in Xaltocan between the Aztec andthe post-conquest period, we compare the results to previoussourcing studies of artifacts from Aztec Xaltocan (1428 CE-1521;esp. Nichols et al., 2002; Peters, 2002). To provide a broader regio-nal context for the results, we provide comparisons with a study ofceramic exchange in the colonial period (Garraty, 2006). By com-paring where the artifacts were made or raw materials were ac-quired in the two time periods, we can understand changes andcontinuities in patterns of production of ceramics for local con-sumption in Xaltocan, changes and continuities in trade partners

Fig. 1. Map of the Basin of Mexico, showing Xaltocan and other sites mentioned in the tlevels at their lowest point in the sixteenth century. Light gray areas are an estimate of

and external connections, and how political changes under two dif-ferent empires affected the local economy.

Trade, Tribute and Transportation

Hassig’s goal in Trade, Tribute, and Transportation was to de-scribe how Mexico City grew and how it gained control of its ruralhinterland and exploited it economically (1985: 4). To achieve thisgoal, Hassig focused on the entire Basin of Mexico as a region andexamined four main aspects of the relationship between the cityand its hinterland: ‘‘population, the agricultural potential of theland, consumption rates, and transportation efficiency’’ (Hassig,1985: 6). While Hassig devoted much effort to developing a modelfor the Aztec political economy in the Basin of Mexico, we summa-rize here only the model pertaining to the early colonial period(post-1521), developed in the second part of the book. This is themodel that we can evaluate with the data collected in our study.

Hassig argues that in the early colonial period the relationshipbetween population, agriculture, consumption, and transportationwas in a state of flux for several reasons. First, Mexico City was nolonger the capital of the Aztec Empire, nor was it the center of theextractive system that brought in resources from rural areas. Spainwas the new core that extracted riches from Mexico City and itshinterland. Spanish authorities enacted laws that brought tributein money rather than agricultural goods, and tried to prohibit tradein European goods among indigenous people to maintain a monop-oly over its revenues (Hassig, 1985: 226–238). Second, new tradegoods and labor patterns introduced by Spaniards and the dramaticdemographic changes that resulted from the conquest forcedchanges upon the political economy (Hassig, 1985: 153–160). Incomparison with the Aztec, Hassig argues that the Spanish de-pended less on coercive labor or tribute, and more on market ex-change to provision Mexico City and extract resources from itshinterland (Hassig, 1985: 263).

ext (shown as triangles). Dark gray areas show an estimate of the extension of lakethe extension of lake levels at their highest point. Crosses denote obsidian sources.

1 Archivo General de la Nación, Mexico City. Tierras Vol. 1584 (Fojas 43r, 54v, 56v,and 58r). The definition of a league in this document is not entirely clear. The distancebetween Xaltocan and San Juan Atenango is reported between 1=4 and 3=4 of a leagueaway. Tonanitla, which is 3.6 km away from Xaltocan, is listed as 3=4 of a league awayfrom Xaltocan. This would make a league roughly 4.8 km. In the Yucatan peninsula, aleague is considered to be 4.2 km.

E. Rodríguez-Alegría et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397–414 399

A third factor that altered the colonial economy was related tochanges in transportation. In the few decades after the Spanishconquest, European draft animals, wheeled carts, and a newly-builtroad system improved land transportation. These factors expandedMexico City’s hinterland, and provided more expedient transporta-tion of bulk goods than tlamemes, or human carriers, had providedbefore the conquest. Colonial tlamemes then focused on areaswhere roads did not exist and wheeled carts could not reach. Butnot all changes made transportation and trade easier. Trade pat-terns changed in the colonial period as the lakes in the Basin ofMexico silted up because of deforestation and erosion in the sur-rounding piedmont and dried due to purposeful draining of thelakes by the Spanish. By 1543 the northern lakes were permanentlycut off from the southern part of the Basin (Hassig, 1985: 207–209). The new difficulties in transportation fostered more tradeamong the northern towns, and inhibited trade between the north-ern part of the Basin and Mexico City (Hassig, 1985: 253). The eco-nomic integration created by new roads in Mexico failed at somepoint during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, asepidemics reduced the indigenous work force in charge of trans-portation, and Spanish colonizers focused the development ofroads to connect major centers of resource extraction and produc-tion without linking the roads to areas they saw as marginal. With-out providing a specific chronology for this process, Hassig (1985:267) argues that ‘‘as transportation faltered and fragmented, thediverse regions of New Spain were left only tenuously linked byinadequate roads, permitting economic interaction only at the le-vel of elite goods and reducing the countryside to relatively iso-lated and necessarily self-sufficient regions.’’ According to thismodel, trade and tribute provided Spaniards with the revenue theydesired, but for the most part, rural towns produced for their ownsubsistence and traded in local or regional markets. Other authorshave also described rural towns in colonial Mexico as isolated(Socolow, 1996: 3), exchange as highly local, and production forsubsistence (Bauer, 1996: 24–25).

To create this model, Hassig relied mostly on historical docu-ments and to a lesser extent on a few archaeological reports (Has-sig, 1985: 7–8), and he focused on the entire Basin of Mexico as aregion. In this paper we build upon Hassig’s findings by focusing onarchaeological materials from Xaltocan, an approach that bringsnew insights into the colonial political economy in a number ofways. First, by focusing on Xaltocan we can gain a clear, more de-tailed picture of how this rural town’s relationship with MexicoCity and with nearby towns shaped its economy. This level of detailcan help us view the economy in a rural site (Xaltocan) moreclearly than Hassig’s general, regional model. Second, by focusingon archaeological data, we gain access to material culture thatwas of little interest to Spaniards and is therefore not particularlywell-documented in historical sources, but that was part of theeveryday life of indigenous people. This can help us understandhow well the documents, shaped strongly by the interests and lim-ited knowledge of the Spanish, characterized the daily life and eco-nomic life of indigenous people.

Third, by examining ceramics and obsidian specifically, we canstudy how the colonial political economy affected the productionand exchange of two specific goods that have been studied forthe Aztec period in Xaltocan (Brumfiel and Hodge, 1996; Hodgeand Neff, 2005; Millhauser, 2005; Nichols et al., 2002; Peters,2002). Although Hassig certainly focused on some specific goods(e.g. silver and agricultural produce), for the most part his analysiswas based on a dichotomy between what he called ‘‘elite goodsand bulk goods.’’ Hassig argued that trade between towns in thenorthern Basin and Mexico City was based mostly on elite goods,although he did not define specifically what elite goods were.The literature on luxury goods, a category that may or may notbe equal to Hassig’s elite goods, can be informative.

Anthropologists and other social scientists have been unable toagree on a definition for ‘‘luxury goods,’’ much less to agree whichgoods belong in the category of luxuries (e.g. Douglas and Isher-wood, 1979; Roche, 2000). In his classification of Aztec goods,Smith (2003: 122) follows a definition provided by Appadurai(1986: 38), who argues that luxury goods may be restricted toelites, difficult to acquire, useful for social signaling, and highlyassociated with the person who consumes them. Luxury goodsmay also require specialized knowledge for their appropriate con-sumption. Smith provides four other categories of goods, based ontheir social context: necessities, widely used goods, regionally lim-ited goods, and goods with specialized utilitarian uses. Smith(2003: 122) classified ceramics mostly as necessities, defined asthings that were required for the functioning of most or all house-holds. The main exception is fancy decorated polychrome pottery,which he classified as a luxury. Smith also classified obsidian toolsas a necessity when used in households, although they fall in othercategories if used for specialized industrial tasks.

We recognize the problems with dividing goods into elite andbulk goods, and we focus instead on specific goods—ceramics andobsidian—and their patterns of production and exchange. How-ever, we use Hassig’s categories in the article whenever necessaryto clarify the relevance of our data to the discussion of his model.Perhaps we can see overlapping networks of trade in differentitems, rather than clear distinctions between trade in bulk and elitegoods. Archaeological research is ideal to evaluate and build uponHassig’s general, regional, historical model.

Xaltocan

Xaltocan was, until the mid-twentieth century, an island sur-rounded by Lake Xaltocan in the northern Basin of Mexico. It hasbeen inhabited for eleven hundred years, and it was an indepen-dent regional capital until the Aztec conquered it in 1428 andmade it a tribute-paying province (Brumfiel, 2005a). Historicalsources contradict each other on whether Xaltocan paid tributeto Tenochtitlan or Texcoco, two of the capitals of the Triple Alli-ance, the other being Tlacopan (Hicks, 2005: 195), and perhaps itpaid tribute to both cities (Brumfiel, 2005a: 35). The town only ap-pears once in the Codex Mendoza as providing tribute for Aztecmilitary garrisons, but its tributary obligations are unclear fromthe historical record (Morehart and Eisenberg, 2010: 97).

In 1521, Spanish conquistadors attacked and burned Xaltocanon their way to Tenochtitlan (Cortés, 1970: 118; Hassig, 2006:142–143). Spanish conquistadors then made Xaltocan an encomi-enda, and the people of Xaltocan continued to pay tribute to theSpanish long after the conquest (Bejinez Juárez, 1999: 97; Hicks,2005). By 1543, transportation by canoe between Lake Xaltocanand Lake Texcoco was cut off. Lake levels in the Basin of Mexicohad dropped due to silting caused by deforestation and grazing,and strips of land separated what was once a system of intercon-nected lakes. By 1609 Spaniards began to drain the northern lakes,further reducing water levels. The Spanish conquistadors builtroads that connected Mexico City with Zumpango and Tecama(north and east of Xaltocan, respectively; Hassig, 1985: 207–210). The people of Xaltocan had to travel between 0.25 and 0.5leagues to San Juan Atenango, a subject of Xaltocan, to use theCamino Real for transportation to Mexico City.1


Although we have a document from 1569 that describes post-conquest Xaltocan, the description of economic life in Xaltocanand its surrounding region is limited to a comment that peoplewere generally poor in the entire area, and that people made a liv-ing from fishing, hunting waterfowl, and from processing lime-stone for sale in the market (Montúfar, 1897: 91–96). While thedocument supports the argument that Xaltocan was an indigenoustown (apparently no Spaniards lived there), it is of limited useful-ness in describing Xaltocan’s connections with Mexico City andother towns. To date, for example, none of the excavations or sur-veys of Xaltocan have produced evidence of lime processing in thearea, casting doubt about the accuracy of the documents.

Gibson (1964: 366) argued that Xaltocan’s economy improvedby the end of the sixteenth century, basing his comments on anofficial description of the town written in 1599. The people of Xal-tocan exploited the lake and sold salt, reed mats, and lime in themarkets. They also produced corn in such abundance that indige-nous people from nearby towns would go to Xaltocan for maizewhen their crops failed. The people of Xaltocan, according to thisreport, enjoyed a period of prosperity through the seventeenthcentury, by participating in the colonial market. The report pointsto the possibility that Xaltocan was not isolated in the colonial per-iod, and that it may have been active in market exchange, althoughit does not provide enough details to identify which markets thepeople of Xaltocan participated in.

Expectations

If Hassig’s model is correct, we have four main expectations forpatterns of ceramic production and exchange. First, we expect thatno utilitarian ceramics (including plain ware and lead-glazed cook-ing and storage vessels) will come from Mexico City or other sitessouth of Xaltocan. A previous study by Peters (2002) did not findtrade in plain ware between Xaltocan and Tenochtitlan, and wedo not expect trade in plain ware to begin in the colonial period.We do not expect trade in lead-glazed cooking and storage vesselswith Mexico City either, even though lead glazing was introducedby Spanish potters. Instead, we expect lead-glazed earthenware tocome from other sites in the northern Basin, due to the transporta-tion problems between Xaltocan and Mexico City mentionedabove.

Second, we expect that Aztec-tradition serving vessels, repre-sented mostly by Red Ware, will be of local manufacture. UnderAztec domination, the people of Xaltocan produced Red Ware lo-cally (Nichols et al., 2002), and if isolation from Mexico City in-creased in the colonial period due to transportation problems,trade in Red Ware should not increase.

Third, we expect that the only ceramics that were brought toXaltocan from Mexico City will be fine ceramics, including majolica(tin enameled serving vessels) and porcelain. Majolica and porce-lain were made by Spanish potters or imported from Europe andAsia. Figurines, even those that depict Spanish dress, should be lo-cally-made and not imported from Mexico City. Figurines are notpart of what we consider luxury goods, and thus, they are expectedto be local. Finally, our fourth expectation is a function of the pre-vious three: the proportion of ceramics produced in Xaltocanshould increase through time, and the proportion of ceramics pro-duced in other sites should decrease, as Xaltocan became moreself-sufficient.

It is difficult to fit obsidian into any expectations based on Has-sig’s model and categories. One could argue that if towns in thenorthern Basin of Mexico became increasingly self-sufficient, thenthe model would predict that the sources of obsidian found in Xal-tocan would be fewer in the colonial period than under Aztec dom-ination. This would be due to a reduction in trade between

Xaltocan and other towns, and an overall reduction in trade, whichprobably decreased the distance reached by obsidian from differ-ent sources. A study of obsidian in colonial contexts by Rodrí-guez-Alegría (2008a,b) in comparison with a study of obsidian inAztec contexts by Millhauser (2005) found an increase in obsidiantool production in colonial Xaltocan after a decrease in productionin the Late Aztec period. A study by Millhauser et al. (2011) found awider variety of sources of obsidian in colonial Xaltocan whencompared to the Aztec period. While the data from that studyare already published, we elaborate on the interpretations of thepattern discussed by Millhauser and colleagues and integrate thoseresults into a broader study of the colonial economy of Xaltocan.

Sampling and analysis

For the present study, we chose three clay samples, 251 ceramicfragments, and 103 obsidian artifacts (53 from colonial contextsand 50 from Postclassic contexts). We excavated all artifacts strati-graphically during the summers of 2003 and 2007 in Xaltocan. Allceramic samples are from strata that date to the sixteenth and sev-enteenth centuries based on the predominance of majolica (tin-enameled earthenware) produced during the first two centuriesafter the conquest (see Lister and Lister, 1982), and the much lowerfrequencies of decorated Aztec or eighteenth- and nineteenth-century ceramics (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2009). Elizabeth Brumfielprovided us with three raw materials (clay) samples from claysources in the vicinity of Xaltocan, collected in 2003. These sam-ples aid in determining whether at least some of the ceramics inour study were produced from local clay sources.

We selected a stratified random sample. Ceramics were selectedrandomly within a limited number of types. The results of the anal-ysis cannot, therefore, be generalized to all colonial ceramics at theXaltocan, but they can inform the relative proportions of each cera-mic type that derived from the various production sources aroundthe Basin of Mexico.

Ceramic types

The ceramics in this study included a variety of serving vesselsand utilitarian pottery, some of Aztec tradition, and some madewith techniques and forms introduced by the Spanish, such as leadand tin glazing (Table 1). Twenty-three of the ceramic artifacts inthe sample are classified as Aztec-tradition Red Ware (Fig. 2). Theyhave a paste that fires to a light gray or orange color, and are cov-ered on one or both sides with a bright red slip that is thensmoothed, and often burnished or polished to a high luster. Pottersoften decorated Red Ware vessels with motifs in black, white, yel-low, orange, or a combination of these, although black motifs arethe most common (Charlton et al., 1995; Parsons, 1966). Red Warewas made mostly into serving vessels, including bowls, dishes, andcopas (goblets), and its production continued, and perhaps even in-creased, in the colonial period until around 1625 (Charlton, 1968,1970, 1979; Charlton et al., 1995). We analyzed a sample of RedWare from colonial contexts to determine whether the people ofcolonial Xaltocan produced Red Ware, obtained it from MexicoCity, or obtained from other nearby towns. In PC1-PC5, five colonialunits excavated in Xaltocan, Red Ware makes up 13.37% of all rims(n = 1185) (all data on rim sherd frequencies in this section are ob-tained from Rodríguez-Alegría, 2009, Table 13.2).

We also sampled 89 plain ware sherds, distinguished by thelack of any decoration besides a slip (Fig. 3). Indigenous pottersmade plain ware mostly into cooking and storage vessels, includingjars and comals (griddles), as well as bowls and other forms asso-ciated with serving and cooking. Plain ware is common in all pre-Columbian occupational phases in Xaltocan (Brumfiel, 2005b, c),

Table 1Ceramic types sampled.

Type or ware Type of good Tradition Main uses Sample

Red Ware Necessity Indigenous Serving 23Plain ware Necessity Indigenous Cooking and storage 89Black-on-orange Necessity Indigenous Serving 1Lead-glazed earthenware Necessity Spanish and indigenous Cooking and storage 76Majolica types

Columbia Plain Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 9Green-on-Cream Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 16Tlalpan White Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 1Red Paste Green-on-Cream Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 14Red Paste White Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 12

Figurines Widely used goods Indigenous (?) Domestic ritual 9

Fig. 2. Aztec-tradition Red Ware excavated in Xaltocan. (For interpretation of thereferences to color in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version ofthis article.)


and it is found in abundance in post-conquest contexts also. Plainware rim sherds make up 51.90% of all rims in the colonial units inXaltocan (n = 4597).

The sample also includes a fragment classified as probableBlack-on-orange pottery. Although it was originally included asplain ware, when photographing the samples we noticed that ithad very faded black paint. Aztec Black-on-orange pottery contin-ued to be made in the colonial period, although a single sample iscertainly not enough to study this ware thoroughly. The samplealso includes a single plain orange sherd, a ware that is generallylike plain ware, except that it is covered with an orange slip andit is made into serving vessels.

Fig. 3. Plain ware fragments excavated in Xaltocan.

Our ceramic sample also includes 76 lead-glazed earthenwarefragments (Fig. 4). Lead-glazed earthenware was made into a vari-ety of forms, including jars for storage and cooking, basins, bowls,and others (Charlton, 1976; López Cervantes, 1976; Sodi Miranda,1994). Lead glazing techniques were not used in Mexico beforeSpanish potters introduced them in the sixteenth century (Charl-ton, 1976; Charlton et al., 2005; Hernández Sánchez, 2012). Theearliest dates for lead-glazed ceramics from Xaltocan have notbeen established by radiocarbon dating; however, our sample con-sists of sherds recovered from contexts with abundant sixteenthand seventeenth-century majolica, and few or no decoratedceramics from the eighteenth century and later. Lead-glazedearthenware rims make up 7.37% of all rim sherds in the colonialunits in Xaltocan (n = 653).

The rest of the sample consists of a variety of glazed servingvessels and a few figurines. The glazed serving vessels include nineColumbia Plain fragments. Columbia Plain is an undecoratedmajolica (tin-enameled) type characterized by a chalky white orlight pink paste, and a thick white glaze that is full of firing bubblesand imperfections. It is one of the earliest pottery types brought bySpanish potters to the Spanish colonies. They made Columbia Plainmostly into plates, bowls, and other serving vessels during the six-teenth and seventeenth centuries. Columbia Plain vessels made inSpain are visually identical to those made in the Spanish colonies(Goggin, 1968: 117–126; Lister and Lister, 1982: 45–51). Colonialcontexts in Xaltocan do not contain any European majolica, andso far we have only found two Chinese porcelain sherds in Xalto-can. All of the majolica we have found in Xaltocan is from potteryworkshops in Mexico City, Puebla, or elsewhere in Mexico(Rodríguez-Alegría, 2009). However, Columbia Plain was the onlymajolica type found in Xaltocan that could potentially be imported

Fig. 4. Lead-glazed earthenware excavated in Xaltocan.


from Europe and eventually brought to Xaltocan. We characterizedthis small sample of Columbia Plain sherds to determine whetherthey were local or whether they were made in Europe. ColumbiaPlain rims make up 0.02% of rims in the colonial excavation units(n = 2), although there is a higher frequency of body sherds.

Another majolica type in the sample is Green-on-Cream majol-ica (n = 16; Fig. 5). It is a common-grade majolica type, defined assuch in part because of the low tin content of its glaze, which ren-dered the glaze somewhat transparent. Lister and Lister (1982) ar-gue that potters mixed white clays with the red clays from centralMexico to make the paste light cream or white. This way, the glazewould resemble the white ground of fine majolica types, eventhough the color of the paste was visible through the glaze. Thisparticular type has a cream or off-white glaze decorated in green.Lister and Lister argue that this type was made in Mexico City,and Fournier and Blackman (2007) argue that it was made in Pue-bla as well. The main reason to include this type in the presentstudy is to create a reference group to compare other commongrade types and other types decorated in green found in Xaltocan.A main question we had was whether other types decorated ingreen were brought to Xaltocan from Mexico City or whether theywere made locally in imitation of Green-on-Cream ceramics madein Mexico City. This type makes up 0.59% of all rims in the colonialexcavation units (n = 52).

The sample also includes one piece of Tlalpan White majolica. Itis a low-quality majolica type with a bright red paste covered witha glaze full of firing bubbles that is prone to flaking and discolor-ation. Lister and Lister (1982) argue that it was probably made inMexico City by indigenous potters. We include it in the sampleto check whether it can be sourced to Mexico City or if it came fromelsewhere, although we admit that we will need a larger sample tostudy this type thoroughly. Tlalpan White is a very low frequencytype in Xaltocan, with no rims and a total of 17 body sherds in theentire collection.

Another type of majolica included in the sample is provisionallynamed Red Paste Green-on-Cream majolica (n = 14; Fig. 5). It doesnot appear in the classification proposed by Lister and Lister(1982), and it was not part of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-tury materials analyzed by Rodríguez-Alegría (2002) in the Spanishhouses in Mexico City. Based on the attributes described by GómezSerafín and Fernández Dávila (2007: 131), it may be the type theycall Remedios Verde/Crema in Oaxaca, which they date to 1550–1750; however, we prefer to exercise caution and not claim thatour sample is definitely Remedios Verde/Crema. We have not seen

Fig. 5. Green-on-Cream, and Red Paste Green-on-Cream (bottom right corner)majolica excavated in Xaltocan. (For interpretation of the references to color in thisfigure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

the collections from Oaxaca or had a chance to compare our sam-ples with the ones in those collections. This type is characterizedby a red paste, much like the paste of fine grade majolica fromMexico City described by Lister and Lister (1982), a low-tin trans-lucent glaze (much like common grade majolica), and green deco-ration. Given the red color of the paste and the transparency of theglaze, this type can have a reddish tint, unlike the off-white orcream aspect of Green-on-Cream. We included it in the sampleto verify whether it was made in Mexico City or whether it wasmade in other locations, perhaps in imitation of types from MexicoCity. This type makes up 0.35% of all rims in the colonial units inXaltocan (n = 31).

Finally, a majolica type included in the sample was provision-ally labeled as Red Paste White (n = 12) majolica. It also combinesattributes typically associated with both, fine grade and common-grade majolica. On the one hand, it has the bright red paste char-acteristic of fine grade majolica. On the other hand, it has the thin,somewhat translucent glaze of common grade pottery, giving it areddish, low-quality appearance because the color of the pastecan be seen through the glaze. As is the case with Red PasteGreen-on-Cream majolica, it may be what Gómez Serafín andFernández Dávila (2007: 131) call Remedios Monocromo, but wehave not had a chance to verify whether these types are the sameor not. We included it in the sample to try to identify whether itwas also made in Mexico City, or made elsewhere in Mexico. Wehave not been able to secure a clear chronology for these lasttwo types. The archaeological contexts in which they were foundcontain ceramics mostly made in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturies, but it is difficult to prove that there was no intrusionof material from later centuries. If these two types are indeedRemedios types as described by Gómez Serafín and Fernández Dáv-ila, they most likely date between 1550 and 1750. But basedstrictly on the archaeological contexts in Xaltocan, they were mostlikely made the sixteenth or seventeenth century. This type makesup 0.03% of all rims in the colonial excavation units in Xaltocan(n = 3).

We tentatively classify the majolica in this study as luxurygoods. The majolica types found in Xaltocan are considered ‘‘com-mon grade’’ majolica, far from the more refined fine grade majolica(see Lister and Lister, 1982). They were not the most luxurioustypes produced by the Spanish. Still, we believe that they wereimportant objects for display among indigenous people, who didnot necessarily share Spanish definitions of luxury wares andwho ranked material goods according to different criteria of qualityand value. Majolica fulfilled several of the criteria that could helpdefine it as a luxury, as discussed above, including being difficultto acquire, being useful for social signaling, and being associatedwith the people who used it. Majolica in Xaltocan is not clearlyassociated with indigenous elites, based on its distribution in manyscattered areas at the site and on a lack of majolica in areas thatcould be considered elite. Still, majolica was likely associated withSpaniards, and could be seen as a luxury (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2010).

In this analysis we also include nine figurines. These includefour figurines depicting people in colonial (Spanish) dress, onehorse’s head, two other animal heads, and two possible supernat-ural animal heads. All of these figurines were excavated in colonialcontexts. The four humans and the horse’s heads are definitelycolonial, independently of the context in which they were found,given the presence of Spanish dress and animals. The chronologyfor the last four is entirely dependent on context and not on theformal attributes of the figurines. We included them in the studyto determine whether colonial figurines were traded or locallymade. Figurines do not fit clearly into the elite and bulk goods cat-egories used by Hassig. Smith (2003: 122) tentatively classifiesthem as ‘‘widely used goods,’’ that is, goods that can be found inmost households but that are not clearly essential for survival.


We expect that the colonial figurines will be locally-made, giventhat they are not luxury goods.

Obsidian sample

Our obsidian sample consists of 53 artifacts associated withcolonial pottery at Xaltocan, which were compared with 50 exca-vated in Aztec contexts (Millhauser et al., 2011). Obsidian tool pro-duction and use continued well into the colonial period in Mexico(Pastrana, 1998; Pastrana and Fournier, 1998; Rodríguez-Alegría,2008a,b). Both green and non-green (gray, black, brown, and red)obsidian is found in abundance in colonial contexts in Xaltocan(Millhauser et al., 2011; Rodríguez-Alegría, 2008a,b). Although atleast 12–15 sources of obsidian are known to have been consumedin central Mexico (Cobean, 2002), generally, green obsidian foundin the region is associated with the obsidian source at Cerro de lasNavajas,Pachuca, and non-green obsidian is associated with Otum-ba. However, Moholy-Nagy (2003) has demonstrated that sourceattribution of obsidian artifacts based on visual inspection alonecan underrepresent the number of sources of obsidian becausemany sources include far more color variation than our typologiesallow for. She recommends chemical analysis to source obsidianartifacts more accurately than is possible by visual inspection.Other less-exploited sources that yield green obsidian include ElPizarrín, Rancho Tenango, and El Encinal in the Tulancingo area.Other sources of non-green obsidian include the Tulancingo-areasources, El Paredón, and Malpaís, in and around the Basin of Mexico(40–85 km away) as well as Zacualtipan, Ucareo, Oyameles-Zara-goza, and Pico de Orizaba (110–200 km away) (Braswell, 2003;Clark, 1989; Cobean, 2002;Pastrana, 2007: 37–42). Cobean (2002)presents an excellent description of the obsidian sources in Mexico,including chemical characterization data for the different sources.Therefore, we decided to characterize a sample of green and non-green obsidian from Xaltocan, to determine whether it came frommajor sources, especially Pachuca and Otumba, or if it came fromother locations as well. Our methods for determining obsidiansources involved chemical characterization by X-ray fluorescenceand neutron activation analysis, the results of which we comparedwith the database of Mesoamerican obsidian sources at the Univer-sity of Missouri Research Reactor, following Glascock (2002) andelaborated by Millhauser et al. (2011).

Chemical characterization methods

A thorough description of the ceramic analysis methods em-ployed in this study can be found elsewhere (Glascock, 1992; Neff,1992, 2000; Stoner and Glascock, 2011). All samples were preparedin the same way. Outer slips, glazes, paint, and contaminantsadhering to the surfaces of the pottery sherds were removed witha silicon carbide burr. Samples were crushed in an agate mortarand weighed for short and long irradiations at the University ofMissouri Research Reactor. Thirty-three elements were measured,but nickel (Ni), arsenic (As), and antimony (Sb) were removed fromconsideration due to missing values (in the case of Ni) or remnantcontamination from glazes (in the cases of As and Sb).

The approach used to interpret the compositional data involvedhierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal components anal-ysis to establish initial groupings within the sample. The initialchemical groups were then compared to the Basin of Mexico datato determine if any specimens within the current data set couldbe assigned to established Basin of Mexico chemical groups. Thefirst step of this procedure was to conduct a Euclidean distancesearch of the unknowns compared to the Mesoamerican INAAdatabase housed at MURR, consisting of over 20,000 referencesamples. This technique compares the sample to the entire MURR

database and returns the 10 most chemically similar specimens(Glascock, 1992). Particular attention was given to samples fromXaltocan previously analyzed by this laboratory (Nichols et al.,2002; Stoner et al., 2008). The sample was then compared to cera-mic chemical reference groups previously established in the Basinof Mexico using discriminant analysis (Hodge et al., 1992; Nicholset al., 2002). Minor adjustments were then made to the initialgroup assignments. Finally, Mahalanobis distance-based probabil-ities were used to calculate the probability of membership withinany of the existing Basin groups (following Nichols et al., 2002).

NAA results

The chemical characterization study reveals that the ceramicsin the sample were produced in a variety of locations (Tables 2and 3). Fifty-nine samples were most likely made in Xaltocan(belonging in the Xaltocan 1a group, n = 25; and the Xaltocan 1bgroup, n = 34), indicating that it was a site of production for localconsumption. Some of the samples belong to pottery traded withtowns in the northern Basin of Mexico, including Cuauhtitlan(n = 25), and Otumba (n = 7). Other samples were traded from thecentral Basin of Mexico, including pottery from Mexico City(n = 53 [Tenochtitlan, n = 30; Xal_C, n = 23]), the southern Basinof Mexico (probably Chalco [Southern Basin 1, n = 1]; and else-where in the southern Basin [Southern Basin 3, n = 3]); and fromTexcoco (n = 1) (Fig. 6). A highly variable cluster of lead-glazedearthenware sherds were provisionally assigned to a group namedXAL_D (n = 17) (Fig. 7). These were distinct from all other knownpaste recipes in the Basin of Mexico. As is usual in chemical char-acterization studies, a portion of the samples remain unassigned: atotal of 85 sherds, which account for 34% of the specimens ana-lyzed. The majority of the unassigned specimens likely pertain tolocal production. They show a high probability of belonging inmore than one of the local Xaltocan groups, making it difficult toassign them to a specific group.

In some ways, the results conform to the expectations based onHassig’s model: the ceramic types sampled from Xaltocan weremade locally or were exchanged with nearby centers in the north-ern Basin, such as Cuauhtitlan and Otumba. The very low frequen-cies of pottery from Texcoco and sources in the southern Basin alsomeets Hassig’s expectations; however, the presence of ceramicsfrom Mexico City contradicts Hassig’s model, which predicted thatpottery consumers in the northern Basin of Mexico would be self-sufficient and largely (but not completely) isolated from potteryproducers in Mexico City. Still, most of the ceramics found in Xal-tocan that were produced in Mexico City were majolica and notplain ware, which fits Hassig’s model in terms of the movementof elite vs. utilitarian goods, assuming that majolica would havebeen an elite good, as argued above.

Our results are also consistent with Christopher Garraty’s studyof Aztec plain ware in various sites in the northern Basin of Mexico.He found that plain ware in the northern Basin of Mexico wasmostly made locally and exchanged in regional markets ratherthan exchanged over long distances (Garraty, 2006: 218–223). Tofacilitate comparisons with previous studies, and given that thesample was drawn at random within types, we discuss the resultsby ceramic type. We then discuss the ceramic results in compari-son with sources of obsidian.

Aztec tradition Red Ware

Aztec tradition Red Ware was made in Xaltocan (n = 13), Cuauh-titlan (n = 1), and the southern Basin of Mexico (n = 2). Seven RedWare samples remain unassigned. In keeping with the expecta-tions of Hassig’s model, the pattern mostly shows that trade

Table 2Ceramic samples and their chemical groups.

ANIDa Provenienceb Chem_groupc Probabilityd Type

XAL097 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Black-on-orangeXAL001 PC1 Lv4 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL002 PC2A Lv3A XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL003 PC1 Lv4 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL004 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL005 PC2B Lv1A XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL006 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL007 PC1 Lv1 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL009 PC1 Lv3 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL008 PC1 Lv3 XAL_C N/A Columbia PlainXAL236 PC4A Lv5A Probable Otumba N/A Figurine: flat backXAL239 OpZ2 Lv5A Unassigned N/A Figurine: hollowXAL232 PC4A Lv5B Unassigned N/A Figurine: mold madeXAL234 PC4A Lv5A Cuauhtitlan 58.299 Figurine: solidXAL231 PC5 Lv14I Probable Otumba N/A Figurine: solidXAL233 PC4B Lv7B Unassigned N/A Figurine: solidXAL238 PC4C Lv6A Unassigned N/A Figurine: solidXAL235 PC4A Lv3B Xaltocan 1a 17.512 Figurine: solidXAL237 PC4A Lv5B Xaltocan 1a 90.935 Figurine: solidXAL113 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 62.747 Green-on-CreamXAL121 PC2B Lv1A Unassigned N/A Green-on-CreamXAL101 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL102 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL103 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL104 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL105 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL106 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL107 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL116 PC2A Lv5I XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL119 PC2B Lv2A XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL247 OpY1 Lv4A XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL248 OpY1 Lv4A XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL249 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL250 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL251 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-CreamXAL032 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 16.153 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL035 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 19.012 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL038 PC2B Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 3.674 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL039 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 6.149 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL044 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 32.193 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL045 PC1 Lv4 Cuauhtitlan 26.452 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL046 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 44.302 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL054 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 33.587 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL055 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 2.541 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL056 PC1 Lv4 Cuauhtitlan 52.435 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL061 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 22.906 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL130 PC4B Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 12.027 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL178 Op I Lv2 Cuauhtitlan 35.32 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL192 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 65.805 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL194 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 0.544 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL200 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 61.135 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL201 PC2B Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 40.424 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL203 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 69.909 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL205 PC2A Lv4H Cuauhtitlan 12.887 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL184 Op Z1 Lv5B Otumba 44.321 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL186 Op Z1 Lv5B Otumba 12.512 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL189 OpZ1 Lv7-8A Otumba 55.776 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL195 PC2A Lv4I Otumba 14.202 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL197 PC2A Lv5B Otumba 91.145 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL182 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Tenochtitlan 13.543 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL033 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL034 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL036 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL037 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL040 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL041 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL053 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL057 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL058 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL059 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL060 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL062 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL064 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL065 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware


Table 2 (continued)


XAL131 N77 W882 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL133 Op G7 Lv1 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL135 PC4B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL137 PC4B Lv6A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL140 PC4B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL177 N210 W1155 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL179 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL181 OpZ1 Lv5B Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL185 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL187 Op H Lv7-8A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL190 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL193 OpZ1 Lv7-8 H Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL199 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL202 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL204 OpZ1 Lv5B Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL207 PC4C Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL042 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL043 PC1 Lv4 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL048 PC2A Lv5I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL049 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL050 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL051 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL052 PC1 Lv1 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL063 PC2A Lv3A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL132 Op. T Lv3 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL134 S21 W819 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL136 Op T Lv1 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL138 Op I Lv2 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL139 Op T Lv2 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL183 PC2B Lv3A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL188 PC2A Lv5I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL196 PC2A Lv4I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL198 PC4A Lv5A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL047 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 32.207 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL180 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Xaltocan 1b 11.813 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL191 PC4A Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 18.707 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL206 PC4C Lv4A Xaltocan 1b 69.22 Lead-glazed earthenwareXAL075 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 63.804 PlainXAL083 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 38.658 PlainXAL094 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 27.57 PlainXAL217 PC2B Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 48.848 PlainXAL146 Zoc B Lv9G Southern Basin 1 N/A PlainXAL142 Zoc A Lv8D Southern Basin 3 N/A PlainXAL092 PC2A Lv5I Tenochtitlan 21.603 PlainXAL066 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL067 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL070 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL071 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL074 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL077 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL079 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL082 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL086 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL087 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL091 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL096 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL099 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL141 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL143 Zoc A Lv12O Unassigned N/A PlainXAL144 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL145 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL148 Zoc B Lv9G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL149 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL150 Zoc A Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL151 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL152 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL154 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A PlainXAL155 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL156 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A PlainXAL157 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL160 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A PlainXAL163 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL164 Zoc B Lv11G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL166 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL167 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A Plain

(continued on next page)


Table 2 (continued)


XAL168 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL169 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL170 Zoc B Lv11G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL174 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A PlainXAL208 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A PlainXAL216 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL218 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A PlainXAL219 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A PlainXAL220 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL225 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL226 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A PlainXAL073 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 75.057 PlainXAL078 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 68.399 PlainXAL153 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 15.865 PlainXAL159 Zoc B Lv13G Xaltocan 1a 21.382 PlainXAL161 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 16.931 PlainXAL162 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 14.766 PlainXAL172 Zoc B Lv10 Xaltocan 1a 30.192 PlainXAL211 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1a 78.055 PlainXAL214 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 23.899 PlainXAL068 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 83.028 PlainXAL069 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 76.452 PlainXAL072 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 10.859 PlainXAL076 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 35.517 PlainXAL080 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 43.596 PlainXAL081 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 74.181 PlainXAL084 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 37.282 PlainXAL085 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 96.817 PlainXAL088 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 79.796 PlainXAL089 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 95.681 PlainXAL093 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 30.44 PlainXAL095 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 55.334 PlainXAL098 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 57.649 PlainXAL100 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 54.181 PlainXAL147 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1b 59.942 PlainXAL158 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1b 33.763 PlainXAL165 Zoc B Lv10 Xaltocan 1b 57.144 PlainXAL171 Zoc B L8G Xaltocan 1b 28.88 PlainXAL209 PC2A Lv4G Xaltocan 1b 9.929 PlainXAL210 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 30.323 PlainXAL212 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1b 70.765 PlainXAL213 PC4B Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 44.948 PlainXAL215 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1b 66.491 PlainXAL221 PC4A Lv5A Xaltocan 1b 10.044 PlainXAL222 PC4B Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 8.971 PlainXAL223 PC2B Lv3A Xaltocan 1b 37.905 PlainXAL224 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 89.123 PlainXAL227 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 14.362 PlainXAL228 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 26.972 PlainXAL229 OpZ1 Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 9.777 PlainXAL230 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 95.618 PlainXAL173 PC5 Lv4F Texcoco 20.244 Plain orangeXAL029 PC2B Lv4B Cuauhtitlan 14.487 RedXAL018 PC2A Lv5I Southern Basin 3 N/A RedXAL030 PC2A Lv5I Southern Basin 3 N/A RedXAL011 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A RedXAL016 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A RedXAL017 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A RedXAL019 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A RedXAL023 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A RedXAL026 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A RedXAL090 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A RedXAL010 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 21.278 RedXAL012 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 77.2 RedXAL013 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 38.679 RedXAL014 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 92.947 RedXAL015 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 78.706 RedXAL020 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 66.704 RedXAL021 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 64.18 RedXAL022 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 17.848 RedXAL024 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 75.386 RedXAL025 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 58.169 RedXAL027 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 6.333 RedXAL028 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 28.498 RedXAL031 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 30.76 Red


Table 2 (continued)


XAL115 PC2B Lv2A Tenochtitlan 57.816 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL118 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 69.296 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL120 PC2A Lv2A Tenochtitlan 45.756 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL124 PC2A Lv2A Tenochtitlan 37.882 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL127 PC2A Lv3B Tenochtitlan 91.869 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL175 Pc2A Lv3B Tenochtitlan 31.39 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL176 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 35.165 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL108 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 84.949 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL109 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 86.335 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL110 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 48.239 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL111 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 45.241 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL112 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 59.979 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL244 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 21.513 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL246 Op Y1 Lv4A Tenochtitlan 31.049 Red Paste Green-on-CreamXAL114 N0 W840 Tenochtitlan 38.895 Red Paste WhiteXAL117 PC4B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 27.01 Red Paste WhiteXAL240 G7 Lv1 Tenochtitlan 31.851 Red Paste WhiteXAL241 OpH Lv6 Tenochtitlan 71.86 Red Paste WhiteXAL242 PC4B Lv6A Tenochtitlan 80.667 Red Paste WhiteXAL243 G7 Lv1 Tenochtitlan 26.042 Red Paste WhiteXAL245 PC4B Lv6A Tenochtitlan 67.182 Red Paste WhiteXAL123 Op. H Lv5 Tenochtitlan 81.943 Red Paste WhiteXAL125 Op. H Lv6 Tenochtitlan 58.325 Red Paste WhiteXAL126 PC4B Lv? Tenochtitlan 99.544 Red Paste WhiteXAL128 Op H Tenochtitlan 60.602 Red Paste WhiteXAL129 Op G Lv3 Tenochtitlan 75.329 Red Paste WhiteXAL122 PC4B Lv1A Tenochtitlan 87.045 Tlalpan White

a Analytical code used at MURR to organize samples.b Excavation context in Xaltocan.c Chemical composition group assigned at MURR.c Mahalanobis Distance calculation of probability of membership in the chemical composition group. Some probabilities are not available due to high probability of

membership in more than one group.


focused on the northern Basin of Mexico. Sixty-one percent of thesample was either made locally or in Cuauhtitlan. Still, 39% of thesample was made outside of these two towns, which is a surpris-ingly high figure.

A previous study characterized sixteen Red Ware sherds fromPhase 4 in Xaltocan (1430–1521 CE) by INAA (Nichols et al.,2002: 68). In the Aztec sample, eleven were of local manufacture,one was from the southern Basin, and four remain unassigned. Nic-hols and colleagues did not find any evidence of trade in Red Warewith Cuauhtitlan when Xaltocan was under Aztec control. Thiscould indicate a change in items traded in the colonial period, orit could be a function of small sample size, which would make itless likely to find sherds from Cuauhtitlan if their frequencies werelow in comparison with sherds from Xaltocan. Regardless, the colo-nial pattern shows continuity with the Late Aztec pattern, with thepossible exception of new trade in Red Ware with the southern Ba-sin of Mexico and with Cuauhtitlan in the colonial period. Moresampling will be needed to determine whether there was signifi-cant new trade in Red Ware in the colonial period.

Plain ware

Plain ware excavated in Xaltocan was produced locally (n = 40),and in Cuauhtitlan (n = 4). In addition, one sample was made inMexico City, and two were made in the southern Basin. A total of42 samples remain unassigned. This finding indicates the continu-ation of ceramic production in Xaltocan after the Spanish conquest.The continuation of trade with Cuauhtitlan, and the fact that mostof the plain ware was made in Xaltocan after the conquest is lar-gely consistent with Hassig’s model, and the expectation of localproduction and regional trade.

Peters (2002) characterized a sample of Aztec plain ware fromXaltocan by INAA. She found that when Xaltocan was under Azteccontrol, 70% of the plain ware sample came from Cuauhtitlan and

only 15% was made in Xaltocan. None of the plain ware analyzedby Peters came from Tenochtitlan. In our study the ratio is different,and we find a higher proportion of plain ware made in Xaltocan(45%) compared to plain ware made in Cuauhtitlan (4%) in the colo-nial period. We see a definite increase in local production of plainware in the colonial period, which was predicted by Hassig’s model.

The presence of plain ware pottery from the southern Basin ofMexico and from Mexico City is surprising, even in such low fre-quencies. The samples from the southern Basin are jar fragments,and they could have been traded primarily as containers of foodor other substances. The sample from Mexico City is a basin, andit was probably not traded as a container, given its wide, openmouth. Only one sample is assigned to the Texcoco group. It is aPlain Orange bowl. The presence of this sample is not enough to ar-gue that trade with Texcoco included non-elite goods. A largersample would be needed to evaluate Texcoco’s role as a tradingpartner with Xaltocan. Still, there was some non-local trade inplain ceramics in the colonial period, and trade in cooking vesselseven included vessels made in towns outside of the immediatevicinity of Xaltocan. This result is consistent with Garraty’s(2006: 221) findings, which indicated some exchange betweenTexcoco and areas to the south, but not much exchange betweenTexcoco and sites to the north or the west.

The unassigned samples are most likely of local production. Theyremain unassigned due to their high statistical probability of belong-ing in more than one of the chemical groups, making it difficult to jus-tify assigning them to one group over another. Future studies mayprovide clearer statistical justification for assigning them to any ofthe local chemical groups, or otherwise clarify their provenance.

Lead-glazed earthenware

Lead-glazed earthenware was made locally (n = 4), in Cuauhtit-lan (n = 19), Otumba (n = 5), and Mexico City (Tenochtitlan

Table 3Summary of NAA results by type.

Type Chemical group Total

Cuauhtitlan Otumba ProbableOtumba

SouthernBasin 1

SouthernBasin 3

Tenochtitlan/Mexico City

Texcoco Unassigned XAL_C XAL_D Xaltocan 1a Xaltocan 1b

Black-on-orange Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Columbia Plain Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Figurine Count 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 9% within type 11.1 .0 22.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 44.4 .0 .0 22.2 .0 100.0

Green-on-Cream Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 0 0 16% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 .0 6.3 87.5 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Lead-glazed earthenware Count 19 5 0 0 0 1 0 30 0 17 1 3 76% within type 25.0 6.6 .0 .0 .0 1.3 .0 39.5 .0 22.4 1.3 3.9 100.0

Plain Count 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 42 0 0 9 31 89% within type 4.5 .0 .0 1.1 1.1 1.1 .0 47.2 .0 .0 10.1 34.8 100.0

Plain orange Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Red Count 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 13 0 23% within type 4.3 .0 .0 .0 8.7 .0 .0 30.4 .0 .0 56.5 .0 100.0

Red Paste Green-on-Cream Count 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Red Paste White Count 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Tlalpan White Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0

Total Count 25 5 2 1 3 30 1 85 23 17 25 34 251% within type 10.0 2.0 .8 .4 1.2 12.0 .4 33.9 9.2 6.8 10.0 13.5 100.0

408E.R

odríguez-Alegría

etal./Journal

ofA

nthropologicalA

rchaeology32

(2013)397–

414

Fig. 6. Canonical discriminant (CD) functions 1 and 2 of colonial ceramics from Xaltocan. Ellipses represent 90% probability of membership in the named chemical groups.

Fig. 7. Scatterplot of Co (ppm) and Na (ppm) of colonial ceramics from Xaltocan. Ellipses represent 90% probability of group membership.


compositional group, n = 1). Thirty samples of this type remainunassigned. In addition, 17 samples belong in the XAL_D chemicalgroup, a highly variable group. This group has the lowest concen-trations of Ca and Sr and relatively low concentrations of transitionmetals. This group also displays unusually high concentrations ofrare earth elements (REE); however, the specimens within thechemical group do not display homogeneous REE composition. In-stead, each specimen falls on a gradational range of REE concentra-tions that varies from values similar to the remainder of the sampleto maximum REE concentrations four to five times those displayed

by the other chemical groups (on a linear scale). This may be sug-gestive of contamination, differential weathering/leaching, or someother source of chemical variation that is not directly related to thepotting behavior. Given that XAL_D is made up entirely of Lead-glazed earthenware, with known contamination issues pertainingto As and Sb, contamination likely has something to do with thehighly variable REE concentrations observed. Thirty lead-glazedsamples did not resemble any known reference group in the Basinof Mexico. Such a high proportion of unassigned samples is notunusual in chemical characterization studies.

2 To be precise, Lister and Lister (1982) considered Green-on-Cream to be common-grade majolica from Mexico City. They classified Columbia Plain as Morisco Ware.Still, it can be considered a common-grade kind of majolica, given its light paste,coarse forms, and semitransparent glaze. The comment that it is common-grade is notmeant to be an attempt at reassigning it in the classification proposed by Lister andLister (1982) but rather to emphasize the low quality of the type.


A surprising finding of this study is the local production of lead-glazed pottery. We have not found artifacts or facilities associatedwith lead glazing in Xaltocan so far, perhaps due to sampling prob-lems resulting from the modern occupation in the town, whichmakes it difficult to excavate in most of the core of the site (Rodrí-guez-Alegría, 2010). The finding shows that the absence of Span-iards in the town was not an obstacle to the adoption of glazingtechnologies. Hernández Sánchez (2012: 143) argues that of all as-pects of Spanish ceramic technology, lead glazing was the one thatwas most widely adopted by indigenous potters. Xaltocan was oneof many sites all over New Spain where indigenous people adoptedglazing technologies, as demonstrated clearly by the INAA data.The people of Xaltocan also imported a higher proportion oflead-glazed earthenware from Cuauhtitlan in comparison to plainware. Perhaps this can account for the reduced percentage of plainware from Xaltocan: exchange focused on lead-glazed potteryrather than on plain ware.

The lack of plain ware from Otumba, given the presence of fivelead glazed samples, is consistent with the pattern found by Peters(2002), who did not find trade in plain ware with Otumba during theAztec period. The pattern indicates that lead-glazed earthenwareand plain ware, in spite of being made mostly into cooking vessels,were not necessarily traded in tandem in the colonial period.

The lead-glazed sample made in Mexico City is a jar with a widemouth. Although we do not have the data necessary to prove this, itis most likely that it was not used for transporting foodstuffs, giventhe wide orifice, which would have made it improper as a containerfor foodstuffs. This sample was most likely from a cooking vessel.

Seventeen samples belong to a chemical group provisionallynamed XAL_D, of unknown provenience. The group is highly vari-able, in a way that is difficult to understand. It is possible that thevariability is the result of a large number of production loci supply-ing lead-glazed pottery to Xaltocan. Fournier and Blackman (2007)have argued that lead glazing was adopted in an unknown numberof production centers all over New Spain, and our finding couldindicate that Xaltocan obtained glazed ceramics from many ofthose production centers.

While we believe that this interpretation is the most likely,Dean Arnold (2008: 226) provides an ethnoarchaeological examplethat makes our interpretation tentative. In Ticul, Yucatan, changesin the chemical composition of pastes through time were reflectedin a larger number of compositional groups identified by INAA. Thegreater variability in clay composition was not clearly related tochanges in production loci, or to the presence of more producers.It was simply due to changes in clay procurement strategies andlocations to supply clay to potters. Clay mining specialists changedthe locations where they obtained clays for different historical, so-cial, and political reasons. Potters altered the temper that theyused to adapt to the different clays they obtained. These adjust-ments are unrelated to a greater variety of production loci, but af-fected clay composition in ways that could be detected by chemicalcharacterization. Thus, until we can assign the samples to specificprovenances, it will be difficult to determine whether the greatervariability in the composition of clays from Xaltocan has to do witha greater number of places supplying lead-glazed pottery to Xalto-can at any period in time, changes in clay procurement, changes inpottery production over potentially five centuries of use of lead-glazed earthenware in the town, or possibly experimentation andinnovation involved in the adoption of a new technology.

Majolica

None of the majolica types were produced locally, indicatingthat the people of Xaltocan must have traded to obtain them.Almost all of the different types of majolica excavated in Xaltocanhave been assigned to chemical groups from Mexico City. The

samples with bright red paste fall into the Tenochtitlan group,including Red Paste White (n = 12), Red Paste Green-on-Cream(n = 14), one Tlalpan White, and one Green-on-Cream sample.One of the Green-on-Cream samples remains unassigned.

The samples with the off-white or pink paste fall into the XAL_Cgroup, and they consist of two majolica types, as defined by Listerand Lister (1982): Green-on-Cream and Columbia Plain. This groupis differentiated from the Tenochtitlan group mostly based on con-sistently high Ca values that cannot be explained by post-deposi-tional processes. Both Green-on-Cream and Columbia Plain canbe considered common-grade majolica,2 which is distinguished inpart by its translucent glaze, a product of low tin concentrations inthe glaze. To approximate a white color in the ceramics, pottersmixed the red-firing clays found in the Basin of Mexico with calcar-eous clays, which helped lighten the color of the finished productsignificantly. The higher concentration of Ca in these samples isprobably due to the effect of clay mixing. We assigned this groupto Mexico City based on the work of Lister and Lister, who identifiedit as a product of potters living in Mexico City, as well as on thegreater abundance of these types in the capital when compared toother sites. Fournier and Blackman (2007) have argued based onINAA studies that Mexico City Green-on-Cream was made in MexicoCity as well as in Puebla. Regardless of whether the samples are fromMexico City or Puebla, theyprovide evidence of long distance tradewith sites outside of the northern Basin of Mexico.

Hassig’s model predicts that trade between Mexico City and thenorthern Basin would focus on what he called luxury goods. As dis-cussed above, we tentatively classify majolica as elite goods. In thatsense, the data provided by this study largely confirm the expecta-tions of Hassig’s model. Regardless, it is important that the peopleof Xaltocan imported these types from Mexico City. Red PasteWhite, and Red Paste Green-on-Cream are not the products of ruralworkshops in the northern Basin that imitated products from Mex-ico City. It remains to be seen whether rural indigenous pottersadopted the production of any types of majolica at all, but the datafrom Xaltocan do not support this idea.

Figurines

Colonial figurines were made locally (n = 2), in Cuauhtitlan(n = 1), and possibly Otumba (n = 2). The other four figurines remainunassigned. One of the figurines made in Xaltocan was an animalhead, and the other represents a colonial person’s head. The figurinemade in Cuauhtitlan represents a person in Spanish colonial dress.One of the figurines tentatively assigned to Otumba is a person incolonial garb, and the other is a horse’s head. The unassigned figu-rines include two supernatural animals (one resembling a gargoyleand one resembling a devil), a crudely-made horse’s head, and aperson dressed in colonial garb. This pattern clearly demonstratestrade was not limited to household necessities alone because therewas trade in figurines. Regardless of the expectations derived fromHassig’s model, it is interesting that figurine producers outside ofMexico City made figurines depicting individual in Spanish cloth-ing, and that people traded in these figurines.

Obsidian

A study of 103 obsidian samples from Postclassic and Colonialcontexts at Xaltocan (Millhauser et al., 2011) complements the


ceramic characterization study. Of these, 53 samples were exca-vated in post-conquest (post-1521) strata, and 50 were excavatedin contexts dating to the Aztec and pre-Aztec era in Xaltocan. Thedata are presented in detail by Millhauser et al. (2011), and we fo-cus here on summarizing the results and integrating the discussionwith the results of the ceramic study.

The results indicate that in Postclassic (pre-conquest) Xaltocan,there was obsidian from Pachuca-1 (one of the main compositionalsubsources of obsidian from Pachuca), Otumba, Tulancingo, Uca-reo, and San Juan de los Arcos (Fig. 8). The Tulancingo sourcewas represented by only one specimen from Phase 1 in Xaltocan,before the Aztecs conquered the site and incorporated it into theirempire. In the colonial period, there was obsidian from Pachuca-1,Pachua-3, Otumba, Ucareo, Zacualtipan, Oyameles-Zaragoza, andan unknown source of gray obsidian. In part, the results of thestudy reveal much continuity in obsidian procurement over a spanof 800 years or more in Xaltocan. Millhauser et al. (2011: 3149) ar-gue that if states—especially the Aztec empire—ever controlledobsidian procurement in central Mexico, they did so by takingadvantage of obsidian procurement traditions that had existedfor centuries rather than by eliminating them. Obsidian exchangenetworks were more durable than the political systems that viedfor control in the Basin of Mexico (Hirth, 1998: 452; Millhauseret al., 2011: 3150).

The sources of obsidian in Xaltocan indicate an emphasis onsources to the north and east of the Basin of Mexico, especiallyPachuca and Otumba. The entire sample (n = 10) from the periodwhen Xaltocan was under Aztec domination (1428–1521), belongsto the Pachuca-1 and Otumba sources, although there is one sam-ple from an unidentified source. This pattern was not surprising gi-ven the predominance of green obsidian in the entire assemblage.However, what is surprising is that among the fraction of theassemblage that is non-green, other sources of obsidian that hadbeen used in low frequencies in Xaltocan before the Aztec conquest(Tulancingo, Ucareo, and San Juan de los Arcos) are not present inthe sample after the Aztec conquest. This pattern is difficult tointerpret due to the small sample size (n = 10; Millhauser et al.,2011: 3150). Small sample sizes may be sufficient to identify majortrends in the data set, but they may also miss some of the variabil-

Fig. 8. Map of central Mexico showing sources of obsidian represented in

ity in the data set, especially low frequency artifacts, and in thiscase, sources (Cowgill, 1964). Some of the sources that are presentin the colonial period are also absent from the earlier sample,including Pachua-3, Ucareo, Zacualtipan, and Oyameles-Zaragoza.

In spite of the small sample size from the pre-conquest period,we offer a tentative explanation for this pattern integrating the re-sults of the chemical characterization study and the results oftypological studies of chipped-stone tools in Xaltocan (Brumfieland Hodge, 1996; Millhauser, 2005; Rodríguez-Alegría, 2008a,b).Briefly, under Aztec domination, the chipped-stone sample is con-sistent with the sample one would find if there was a reduction inlocal production of chipped-stone tools. The collection consistsmostly of finished tools, including prismatic blades, projectilepoints, scrapers, and other formal tools. There is little evidence oflocal tool production and the abundance of obsidian decreased sig-nificantly in Xaltocan (Brumfiel and Hodge, 1996; Millhauser,2005). A reduction in the availability of obsidian, a decrease in toolproduction, and a reduction in the number of sources of obsidianused in Xaltocan is the pattern one would expect if the Aztecs con-trolled the availability of obsidian as well as obsidian tool produc-tion in a subject state like Xaltocan. Pastrana (1998; Pastrana andDominguez, 2009) has argued that the Aztecs controlled theexploitation of obsidian at Pachuca, and perhaps elsewhere,although not all scholars agree (e.g. Clark, 1986). The data fromXaltocan are consistent with the pattern of Aztec imperial controlover obsidian exploitation and distribution, but not sufficient toprove that such control existed. Alternatively, changes to local pat-terns of work to meet Aztec imperial demands for tribute in laborand goods may have decreased the local demand for obsidian toolsand raw material, a pattern that Brumfiel (1986) also noted at Xico.

The data from the colonial period in Xaltocan are also consistentwith what one would expect if Aztec imperial control over obsidianprocurement and tool production existed and was eliminated afterthe Spanish conquest. Colonial contexts in Xaltocan contain fin-ished tools (prismatic blades, scrapers, projectile points, etc.) andalso evidence of tool production, including exhausted cores, firstseries blades, and production debitage (Rodríguez-Alegría,2008a,b). There is also an increase in the abundance of obsidianin colonial contexts when compared to the period of Aztec

the sample from Xaltocan. Obsidian sources are marked with crosses.


dominance (Rodríguez-Alegría and Obledo, 2007). Finally, there aremore sources of obsidian represented in the sample analyzed inthis study when compared to the sample from the period of Aztecdominance. Changes in labor patterns are unlikely to explain thesepatterns because tribute in labor continued during the 16th cen-tury in tandem with the massive loss of life that depleted the laborpool. Rather, these patterns indicate a probable reduction in con-trol of obsidian procurement and tool production after the Spanishconquest.

If the Aztecs controlled obsidian procurement and tool produc-tion, they may have done so to force people to go to markets topurchase obsidian and thereby increase the movement of goodsin marketplaces, although we admit that this possibility needs fur-ther research. If such controls existed under Aztec domination, thenew colonial powers eliminated them. Spanish miners did not careto control obsidian, instead focusing their attention on the extrac-tion of metals, such as gold and silver. This resulted in increasedaccess to obsidian in the colonial period, increased trade in obsid-ian from minor sources, and the continuation in the use ofchipped-tone tools well after the Spanish conquest. As indicatedabove, this interpretation should be evaluated with larger samplesizes and other data in the future.

Two final observations are important. First, in both the Aztecand the Colonial periods, Pachuca and Otumba remain the domi-nant sources of obsidian used in Xaltocan. Any changes in accessto markets in Mexico City had little effect on the availability ofthese sources of obsidian for the people of Xaltocan. There aretwo ways to interpret this. Either we have overemphasized howimportant Mexico City was for trade in the north in the Aztec per-iod, or the breakdown of canoe traffic between the northern Basinand Mexico City had far less effect on trade of obsidian than wemight expect. Second, the small quantities of obsidian found fromrather distant sources in the colonial period imply that there weretrade relationships or networks that existed independently of pot-tery exchange networks. In other words, trade networks weremore complex than Hassig believed, and they reached long dis-tances without the need for an urban center that would stimulateor manage the trade.

Discussion

This study provides a good basis to evaluate Hassig’s character-ization of the political economy of the northern Basin of Mexico.The data from Xaltocan only partially support the description oftowns in the northern Basin of Mexico as mostly isolated andself-sufficient, and trading less than before with Mexico City. Thesources of ceramics excavated in Xaltocan are linked mostly totowns in the northern Basin of Mexico. Xaltocan was a main siteof production for local consumption and some export (Stoneret al., 2013). Two other sites that produced ceramics analyzed inthis study were Cuauhtitlan and Otumba. Cuauhtitlan shows somecontinuity as a trading partner with Xaltocan since before theSpanish conquest. In both periods Red Ware was mostly producedin Xaltocan, but the proportion of plain ware that was produced lo-cally in comparison with what was imported from Cuauhtitlanchanged (see Nichols et al., 2002; Peters, 2002). Otumba becamea source of lead-glazed earthenware in the post-conquest period,even though the data indicate that Xaltocan also produced itsown lead-glazed pottery. These patterns indicate a focus on potterytrade with towns in the northern Basin. These towns supplied pot-tery for daily use, including cooking necessities, such as jars andcomals. Towns in the northern Basin also produced some of the fig-urines used in Xaltocan.

The people of Xaltocan used majolica made in Mexico City,including Columbia Plain, Green-on-Cream, Red Paste White, and

Red Paste Green-on-Cream. They also used some plain ware madein Mexico City and in the southern Basin of Mexico. However,majolica imported from Europe was not included in trade with Xal-tocan. Asian porcelain is found in Xaltocan in very low frequencies:only two fragments have been found (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2010).Because of their scarcity and the cost of importing European andAsian serving vessels, they may have been considered luxury goodsby Smith’s (2003: 122) definition (see also Lister and Lister, 1982),although it is difficult to determine whether they were more desir-able to indigenous people in Xaltocan than majolica made in Mex-ico. Regardless, the patterns in the data indicate that even if luxurygoods, however defined, were traded between Mexico City and rur-al towns in the northern Basin of Mexico, trade certainly did not in-clude all goods defined as luxury goods by the Spanish, whohoarded some, if not most, scarce imports, including ceramics(Rodríguez-Alegría, 2010). Even if trade extracted resources, reve-nues, and luxuries (such as silver) from the hinterlands into MexicoCity and Spain, it did not always move luxury goods from overseasinto rural areas of Mexico. Factors that could explain this patterninclude a power imbalance and different economic status betweenSpanish colonizers and indigenous populations, different access toimported goods when they first arrived in Mexico, and perhaps alack of interest in these imports on the part of indigenous people.

Obsidian tools were not luxury goods, but rather a necessity inMesoamerican households (Smith, 2003). The data indicate thatobsidian was widely traded in the colonial period in a manner thatreflects continuity with pre-Hispanic patterns: there was a relianceon obsidian from Pachuca and Otumba. The data also indicate thatthere was an increase in the number of sources of obsidian used inXaltocan in the colonial period, compared to the Aztec era. In asense, this pattern is not compatible with the pattern of isolationand self-reliance predicted by Hassig’s model. Of course, the datawe have do not help us determine whether any of the obsidianwas traded through markets in Mexico City. Currently we can onlyidentify sources but not markets or trading partners—this will onlybe addressed with more studies of obsidian sources from colonialcontexts around the Basin of Mexico. Still, an increase in the num-ber ofsources that provided obsidian to Xaltocan, coupled with anincrease in access to obsidian and an increase in obsidian tool pro-duction (Rodríguez-Alegría, 2008a,b) show that the town washardly isolated, and that trade in obsidian flourished in the colonialperiod. In addition, if trade with Mexico City decreased in the colo-nial period, as was predicted by Hassig’s model, this had little ef-fect upon the supply of obsidian to Xaltocan.

Conclusion

The data obtained in this study, rather than providing a basis todismiss Hassig’s model, help build on it. The data mostly agreewith Hassig’s idea that towns in the northern Basin of Mexico fo-cused on trading with each other. The people of Xaltocan tradedpottery with nearby Cuauhtitlan and Otumba, which were aboutas far from Xaltocan as Tenochtitlan, and probably seemed fartherif one considers that canoe transportation was not possible be-tween Xaltocan and Otumba at any point in time. The people ofXaltocan also produced much of their utilitarian pottery locally.The main difference between the patterns observed and Hassig’smodel is that Xaltocan was neither isolated nor self-sufficient inthe colonial period. In fact, we see more sources of obsidian repre-sented in the data set, an increase in the number of sources thatproduced the plain ware used in Xaltocan, and trade in newlyavailable ceramic types, including lead-glazed earthenware, andmajolica. Lead-glazed earthenware was produced locally in Xalto-can, and obtained from a variety of sources, many of which remainunidentified. People in Xaltocan imported majolica made in Mexico


City. We even find a few pottery samples that were imported fromthe southern Basin of Mexico, although these are in low frequen-cies in our sample. There was also trade in and local productionof figurines.

Data from historical documents can aid the interpretation. Theyindicate that the people of Xaltocan sold reed mats, salt, and otherproducts in the colonial market. It seems that the people of Xalto-can benefitted from market exchange in a greater diversity of prod-ucts in the colonial period compared to the Aztec period. Themarket system of colonial Mexico supplied a variety of productsto Xaltocan, and the variety even increased through time. It in-cluded obsidian from more sources, lead-glazed earthenware,and majolica serving vessels.

Xaltocan may not be representative of economic changes inother towns in the northern Basin of Mexico during the post-con-quest period, but by definition, nobody trades in isolation. Othertowns probably formed the same complex webs of exchange thatwe have seen in Xaltocan by studying ceramics and obsidian. Gar-raty (2006) also found much trade in plain ceramics between colo-nial sites in the northern Basin of Mexico. This is an example ofhow local histories can help us understand broad historical pat-terns in greater detail. In this case, simply by shifting the focusaway from Mexico City, we see a more complex pattern of ex-change and connections than expected in a rural site. Instead ofan isolated rural site, we discovered a site with plenty of externalconnections that provided it with necessities and luxury goods.In fact, Xaltocan received products made in a greater variety ofplaces in the colonial period when compared to the Aztec period.Perhaps the countryside in colonial Mexico was not as isolated asit has seemed. Even though transportation by water was easierduring the Aztec period, the people may not have been able totrade with as many partners due to impoverishment under Aztectributary demands, or they may have been less willing to go tothe markets, perhaps resisting the system of economic exploitationof the Aztecs.

More data are needed to unravel the complex patterns of eco-nomic change in colonial Mexico. These data should include localand regional historical sources, as well as archaeological data fromregional surveys and excavations at other sites. We expect that fur-ther research will indicate that rural towns in colonial Mexico,rather than being economically isolated, were part of a bustlingmarket system that moved goods across the countryside and con-nected people through diverse and overlapping networks. Perhapsthe image of rural isolation is a result of reliance on Spanish histor-ical documents, written by colonizers who focused their life andattention on Mexico City, and were isolated from indigenous peo-ple, missing out on what was going on in the countryside aroundthem.

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study for Rodríguez-Alegría provided by theNational Science Foundation (SES-0309796 and BCS-0612131),the University of Texas at Austin, a Big XII Fellowship, and a How-ard Foundation Fellowship. This research was made possible, inpart, through NSF Grant 1110793 awarded to the University ofMissouri Research Reactor. The authors thank the Instituto Nacion-al de Antropología e Historia in Mexico, which graciously facili-tated permissions to export the samples for analysis. We thankthe people of Xaltocan and the Casa de Cultura for their supportfor our research and their hospitality. Patrick Ryan Williams andLaure Dussubieux guided Millhauser and provided access to thepXRF analyzer at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.The pXRF analyzer was purchased with a grant from the GraingerFoundation. Michael Glascock performed the lXRF analysis of someof the samples and Chris Oswald did the INAA study.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001.These data include Google maps of the most important areas de-scribed in this article.

References

Appadurai, A., 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In:Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in CulturalPerspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–63.

Arnold, D.E., 2008. Social Change and the Evolution of Ceramic Production andDistribution in a Maya Community, University Press of Colorado; Boulder.

Barfield, T.J., 2001. The shadow empires: imperial state formation along theChinese-Nomad frontier. In: Alcock, S.E., D’Altroy, T.N., Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli,C.M. (Eds.), Empires. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 10–41.

Bauer, A., 1996. The colonial economy. In: Hoberman, L.S., Socolow, S.M. (Eds.), TheCountryside in Colonial Latin America. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque, pp. 19–48.

Bejines Juárez, J.M., 1999. Nextlalpan de Felipe Sánchez Solís. Mongrafía Municipal,Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, Morelos.

Berdan, F.F., Smith, M.E., 2003. The Aztec empire. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.),The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 67–72.

Braswell, G.E., 2003. Obsidian exchange spheres. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.),The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,pp. 131–158.

Brumfiel, E.M., 1986. The division of labor at Xico: the chipped stone industry. In:Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, Research inEconomic Anthropology. Suppl. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 245–280.

Brumfiel, E.M., 2005a. Introduction: production and power at postclassic Xaltocan.In: Brumfiel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan.University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 27–42.

Brumfiel, E.M., 2005b. Conclusions: production and power at Xaltocan. In: Brumfiel,E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University ofPittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 349–368.

Brumfiel, E.M., 2005c. Ceramic chronology at Xaltocan. In: Brumfiel, E.M. (Ed.),Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press,Pittsburgh, pp. 117–152.

Brumfiel, E.M., Hodge, M.D., 1996. Interaction in the Basin of Mexico: the case ofpostclassic Xaltocan. In: Parsons, J.R., Mastache, A.G., Santley, R.S., Serra Puche,M.C. (Eds.), Arqueología Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders.Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico, City, pp. 417–438.

Charlton, T., 1968. Post-conquest Aztec ceramics: implications for archaeologicalinterpretations. Florida Anthropologist 21, 96–101.

Charlton, T., 1970. El Valle de Teotihuacan: cerámica y patrones de asentamiento,1520–1969. Boletín del Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia 41, 15–23.

Charlton, T., 1976. Contemporary Mexican ceramics: a view from the past. Man 11,517–525.

Charlton, T., 1979. The Aztec-Early Colonial Transition in the Teotihuacan Valley. Acts ofthe XLIV International Congress of Americanists, Paris, 1976, vol. 9b, pp. 203–208.

Charlton, T.H., Fournier, P., Cervantes, J., 1995. La cerámica del periodo ColonialTemprano en Tlatelolco: el caso de la Loza Roja Bruñida. In: Presencias yEncuentros: Investigaciones arqueológicas de salvamento. Dirección deSalvamento Arqueológico, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,México, D.F., pp. 135–155 (Note: the book does not identify an editor).

Charlton, T.H., Otis Charlton, C.L., Fournier García, P., 2005. The Basin of Mexico A.D.1450–1620: archaeological dimensions. In: Kepecs, S., Alexander, R.T. (Eds.),The Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: ArchaeologicalPerspectives. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 49–64.

Clark, J.E., 1986. From mountains to molehills: a critical review of Teotihuacan’sobsidian industry. In: Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of Prehispanic HighlandMexico. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 23–74.

Clark, J.E., 1989. Obsidian: the primary Mesoamerican sources. In: Gaxiola, M.,Clark, J.E. (Eds.), La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica. Instituto Nacional deAntropología e Historia, Mexico, pp. 299–330.

Cobean, R.H., 2002. A World of Obsidian: The Mining and Trade of Volcanic Glass inAncient Mexico. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.

Cortés, H., 1970. Cartas de Relación. Porrúa, Mexico City.Cowgill, G.L., 1964. The selection of samples from large sherd collections. American

Antiquity 29, 467–473.Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of

Consumption. Norton, New York.Fournier, P., Blackman, M.J., 2007. Producción, intercambio y consumo de lozas

vidriadas en Nueva España: Conformación de una base de datos decomposiciones elementales mediante INAA. Report submitted to FAMSI.<http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014es/index.html> (accessed 20.07.12).

Fowler, W., 1993. The living pay for the dead: trade, exploitation and social changein Early Colonial Izalco, El Salvador. In: Wilson, S., Rogers, J.D. (Eds.),Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 181–199.

Garraty, C. P., 2006. The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production andExchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 1200–1650. Ph.D. Dissertation, ArizonaState University.


http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0278-4165(13)00042-1/h0005




















































http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014es/index.html





Gibson, C., 1964. The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of theValley of Mexico, 1519–1810. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Glascock, M.D., 1992. Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR byneutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In: Neff, H. (Ed.),Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press,Madison, pp. 11–26.

Goggin, J. M., 1968. Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Sixteenth toEighteenth Centuries. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, NewHaven.

Gómez Serafín, S., Fernández Dávila, E., 2007. Las cerámicas coloniales del exconvento de Santo Domingo de Oaxaca: pasado y presente de una tradición.Colección Científica 496. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México,D.F.

Graff, S.R., 2012. Culinary preferences: seal-impressed vessels from Western Syriaas specialized cookware. In: Graff, S.R., Rodríguez-Alegría, E. (Eds.), The MenialArt of Cooking: Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation.University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 19–46.

Hassig, R., 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century PoliticalEconomy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Hassig, R., 2006. Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. University of Oklahoma Press,Norman.

Hernández Sánchez, G., 2012. Ceramics and the Spanish Conquest: Response andContinuity of Indigenous Pottery Technology in Central Mexico. Brill, Leiden.

Hicks, F., 2005. Mexico, Acolhuacan, and the rulership of Late Postclassic Xaltocan:insights from an Early Colonial legal case. In: Brumfiel, E.M. (Ed.), Productionand Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp.195–206.

Hirth, K.G., 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplaceexchange in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39, 451–476.

Hirth, K.G., 2009. Craft production, household diversification, and domesticeconomy in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Archaeological Papers of the AmericanAnthropological Association 19, 13–32.

Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., 2005. Xaltocan in the economy of the Basin of Mexico: a viewfrom ceramic tradewares. In: Brumfiel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power atPostclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 319–348.

Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., Blackman, M.J., Minc, L.D., 1992. A compositional perspectiveon ceramic production in the Aztec empire. In: Neff, H. (Ed.), ChemicalCharacterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison,pp. 203–220.

Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1982. Sixteenth-Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley ofMexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

López Cervantes, G., 1976. Cerámica colonial en la Ciudad de México. InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Millhauser, J.K., 2005. Classic and postclassic chipped stone at Xaltocan. In:Brumfiel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. Universityof Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 267–318.

Millhauser, J.K., 2012. Saltmaking, Craft, and Community at Late Postclassic andEarly Colonial San Bartolome Salinas. Doctoral Dissertation, Department ofAnthropology, Northwestern University.

Millhauser, J.K., Rodríguez-Alegría, E., Glascock, M.D., 2011. Testing the accuracy ofportable X-ray fluorescence to study Aztec and Colonial obsidian supply atXaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 3141–3152.

Moholy-Nagy, H., 2003. Source attribution and the utilization of obsidian in theMaya area. Latin American Antiquity 14, 301–310.

Montúfar, A., 1897. Descripción del Arzobispado de México Hecha en 1570. JoséJoaquín Terrazas e Hijas, Impresores, Mexico City.

Morehart, C.T., Eisenberg, D.T.A., 2010. Prosperity, Power, and Change: modelingmaize at postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology29, 94–112.

Morrison, K.D., 2001. Coercion, resistance, and hierarchy: local processes andimperial strategies in the Vijayanagara empire. In: Alcock, S.E., D’Altroy, T.N.,Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli, C.M. (Eds.), Empires. Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, pp. 252–278.

Neff, H., 1992. Introduction. In: Neff, H. (Ed.), Chemical Characterization of CeramicPastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 1–10.

Neff, H., 2000. Neutron activation analysis for provenance determination inarchaeology. In: Ciliberto, E., Sporto, G. (Eds.), Modern Analytical Methods inArt and Archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 81–134.

Nichols, D.L., Brumfiel, E.M., Neff, H., Hodge, M., Charlton, T.H., Glascock, M.D., 2002.Neutrons, markets, cities, and empires: a 1000-year perspective on ceramic

production and distribution in the postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal ofAnthropological Archaeology 21, 25–82.

Parsons, J.R., 1966. The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley. PhDDissertation, University of Michigan, University Microfilms International,Mexico.

Pastrana, A., 1998. La explotación azteca de la obsidiana en la Sierra de las Navajas.Colección Científica 383. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, MexicoCity.

Pastrana, A., 2007. La Distribución de la Obsidiana de la Triple Alianza en la Cuencade México. Colección Científica 517. INAH, Mexico City.

Pastrana, A., Dominguez, S., 2009. Cambios en la estrategia de la explotación de laobsidiana de Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula y la Triple Alianza. AncientMesoamerica 20, 129–148.

Pastrana, A., Fournier, P., 1998. Explotación colonial de obsidiana en el yacimientode Sierra de las Navajas. In: Fernández Dávila, E., Gómez Serafin, S. (Eds.), PrimerCongreso Nacional de Arqueología Histórica: Memoria. Consejo Nacional para laCultura y las Artes and Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, MexicoCity, pp. 486–496.

Peters, J.M., 2002. A compositional analysis of plainwares from Xaltocan, Mexico.Lux Fiat: Journal of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity1, 149–157.

Roche, D., 2000. A History of Everyday Things: The Birth of Consumption in France,1600–1800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2002. Food, Eating, and Objects of Power: Class Stratificationand Ceramic Production and Consumption in Colonial Mexico. PhD Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2008a. Narratives of conquest, colonialism, and cutting-edgetechnology. American Anthropologist 110, 33–41.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2008b. De la Edad de Piedra a la Edad de más Piedra.Cuadernos de Arqueología Mediterránea XVII, 15–30.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2009. La Etapa Colonial en Xaltocan, México: Informe final deexcavaciones de 2003 y 2005. Final Project Report Submitted to the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., 2010. Incumbents and challengers: indigenous politics andthe adoption of Spanish material culture in Colonial Xaltocan, Mexico. HistoricalArchaeology 44, 51–71.

Rodríguez-Alegría, E., Obledo, M., 2007. La obsidiana colonial en Xaltocan. In:Rodríguez-Alegría, E. (Ed.), La Etapa Colonial en Xaltocan, México: Informe deMateriales Excavados en 2003 y 2005. Lab report submitted to the InstitutoNacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

Sheets, P., 2000. Provisioning the Ceren Household: the vertical economy, villageeconomy, and household economy in the southeastern Maya periphery. AncientMesoamerica 11, 217–230.

Sinopoli, C.M., 1994. The archaeology of empires. Annual Review of Anthropology23, 159–180.

Smith, M.E., 2003. Key commodities. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.), ThePostclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp.117–125.

Sobel, E.A., 2012. An archaeological test of the ‘‘Exchange Expansion Model’’ ofcontact era change on the Northwest Coast. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 31, 1–21.

Socolow, S.M., 1996. Introduction to the rural past. In: Hoberman, L.S., Socolow, S.M.(Eds.), The Countryside in Colonial Latin America. University of New MexicoPress, Albuquerque, pp. 3–18.

Sodi Miranda, F., 1994. La cerámica novohispana vidriada y con decoración selladadel siglo XVI. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Stoner, W.D., Glascock, M.D., 2011. Neutron Activation Analysis of Colonial CeramicSamples from Xaltocan in the Basin of Mexico. University of Missouri ResearchReactor Report Prepared for Enrique Rodríguez of the University of Texas,Austin.

Stoner, W.D., Glascock, M.D., Ferguson, J.R., 2008. Instrumental Neutron ActivationAnalysis of Aztec and Other Figurines from the Site of Xaltocan, Valley ofMexico. Report Written for Client Lisa Overholtzer. University of MissouriResearch Reactor (MURR), Archaeometry Laboratory.

Stoner, W.D., Millhauser, J.K., Rodríguez-Alegría, E., Overholtzer, L., Glascock, M.D.,2013. Taken with a grain of salt: experimentation and the chemistry ofarchaeological ceramics from Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 20.

Van Buren, M., 1996. Rethinking the vertical archipelago: ethnicity, exchange, andhistory in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 98, 338–351.


















































































































Documents

The colonial political economy of Xaltocan, Mexico