Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T16:25:25.599Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Compositional and Stylistic Analysis of Aztec-Era Ceramics: Provincial Strategies at the Edge of Empire, South-Central Veracruz, Mexico

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thanet Skoglund ,
Barbara L. Stark ,
Hector Neff  and
Michael D. Glascock
Thanet Skoglund
Affiliation:
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287 ([email protected])
Barbara L. Stark
Affiliation:
School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85297 ([email protected])
Hector Neff
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, California State University at Long Beach, Long Beach, CA 90840-1003 ([email protected])
Michael D. Glascock
Affiliation:
230 Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We use a provincial perspective combined with compositional and stylistic data and historic accounts to propose three provincial strategies for imperial interactions—bolstering, resistance, and emulation—and note a fourth, exodus. A sample of three Late Postclassic period (A.D. 1350–1521) pottery types differs in chemical composition between two localities in south-central Veracruz, Mexico. Sherds from the Aztec provincial capital of Cuetlaxtlan along the lower Cotaxtla River are compared to those from the Lower Blanco River where Callejón del Horno is located. The composition of stamped-base bowls, Texcoco Molded censers, and Aztec III-style Black-on-orange bowls is distinct in samples from the two localities, with only scant evidence of exchange. A few vessels of Aztec III Black-on-orange were imported from the Basin of Mexico to Cuetlaxtlan. The stylistic characteristics on Aztec III-style Black-on-orange vessels do not distinguish the two Veracruz localities, but there are differences between them and illustrated vessels from the Basin of Mexico. The Cuetlaxtlan province was subject to unusual imperial investments, which may account partly for the emulation of imperial styles. Despite documentary evidence of rebellions, another factor was local decisions to use a prestigious exogenous style.

Aplicamos una perspectiva provincial en combinación con los datos de composición y estilos y los documentos históricos para proponer tres estrategias provinciales para las interacciones imperiales—apoyo, resistencia, y emulación—y notamos una cuarta, éxodo. Una muestra de tres tipos de cerámica del período postclásico tardío (1350–1521 d.C.) indica diferencias en la composición química entre dos localidades en el centro-sur de Veracruz, México. Comparamos tiestos de la capital provincial de Cuetlaxtlan en el bajo Río Cotaxtla con otros del bajo Río Blanco donde se ubica Callejón del Horno. La composición de cuencos de Fondo Sellado, braseros de Texcoco Moldeado, y cuencos de estilo Negro sobre Anaranjado Azteca III es distinta en las dos localidades, con poca evidencia de intercambios. Unos cuantos cuencos de estilo Negro sobre Anaranjado Azteca III se importaron de la Cuenca de México a Cuetlaxtlan. Las características estilísticas de las vasijas de Negro sobre Anaranjado no se diferencian entre las dos localidades costeras, pero sí hay diferencias con la cuenca de México según las ilustraciones de vasijas publicadas. Cuetlaxtlan fue seleccionado para más inversiones imperiales de lo usual, posiblemente fomentando de esta manera un interés en imitar los estilos imperiales en la población local. Más allá de la evidencia documental de rebeliones, otro factor fue la decisión local en simular un estilo exógeno de prestigio.

Type
Reports
Information
Latin American Antiquity , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2006 , pp. 541 - 559
Copyright
Copyright © Society for American Archaeology 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Berdan, Frances F. 1996 The Tributary Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 115–135. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Berdan, Frances F., and Anawalt, Patricia Rieff (editors) 1992 The Codex Mendoza, vol. 3. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
Berdan, Frances F., Blanton, Richard E., Boone, Elizabeth H., Hodge, Mary G., Smith, Michael E., and Umberger, Emily 1996 Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Berdan, Frances F., and Smith, Michael E. 1996 Imperial Strategies and Core-Periphery Relations. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 209–225. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Braswell, Geoffrey E. 2003 Obsidian Exchange Spheres. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, pp. 131–158. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Carrasco, Pedro 1999 The Tenochca Empire of Ancient Mexico: The Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlán, Tezcoco, and Tlacopan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. (Originally published in Spanish: Estructura político-territorial del imperio tenochca: La triple alianza de Tenochtitlán, Tetzcoco y Tlacopan, El Colegio de México and Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1996.)Google Scholar
Castellón Huerta, Bias Román, and López, Alfredo Dumaine 2000 La cerámica de fondo sellado de Tepexi, Cuthá, y Tehuacán, Puebla. Arqueología 24:61–84.Google Scholar
Curet, L. Antonio, Stark, Barbara L., and Sergio Vásquez, Z. 1994 Postclassic Change in South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 5:13–32.Google Scholar
Daneels, Annick 1995 La cerámica postclásica de la cuenca baj a del Jamapa-Cotaxtla. Arqueología 13–14:85–88.Google Scholar
Farriss, Nancy M. 1984 Maya Society under Colonial Rule: The Collective Enterprise of Survival. Princeton University Press, Princeton.Google Scholar
Franco, C., Luis, José 1953 Cenefas en la cerámica Azteca. In Motivos decorativos en la cerámica Azteca, by José Luis Franco C. and Fredrick A. Peterson, pp. 7–35. Serie Cientffica 5, Museo Nacional de Antropología. Mexico City.Google Scholar
Franco, C., Luis, José, and Peterson, Fredrick A. 1957 Motivos decorativos en la cerámica azteca. Serie Cieníffica 5, Museo Nacional de Antropología. Mexico City.Google Scholar
García Márquez, Agustín 2005 Los aztecas en el centro sur de Veracruz. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.Google Scholar
García Payón, José 1951 La cerámica de fondo “sellado” de Zempoala, Ver. In Homenaje al Doctor Alfonso Caso, organized by Juan Comas, Eusebio Dávalos Hurtado, Manuel Maldonado-Koerdell, and Ignacio Marquina, pp. 181–198. Imprenta Nuevo Mundo, S.A., Mexico City.Google Scholar
Garraty, Christopher P., and Stark, Barbara L. 2002 Imperial and Social Relations in Postclassic South-Central Veracruz, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 13:3–33.Google Scholar
Glascock, Michael D. 1992 Characterization of Archaeological Ceramics at MURR by Neutron Activation Analysis and Multivariate Statistics. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramics Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hector Neff, pp. 11–26. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Glascock, Michael D. 2006 MURR Archaeometry Laboratory. Electronic document, www.missouri.edu/∼reahn/, accessed June 26,2006.Google Scholar
Hassig, Ross 1984 The Aztec Empire: A Reappraisal. In Five Centuries of Law and Politics in Central Mexico, edited by Ronald Spores and Ross Hassig, pp. 15–24. Vanderbilt University Publications in Anthropology 30. Nashville.Google Scholar
Hodge, Mary G. 1992 Aztec Market Systems: The Geographical Structure of Aztec Imperial-Period Market Systems. National Geographic Research and Exploration 8:428–445.Google Scholar
Hodge, Mary G., and Mine, Leah 1990 The Spatial Patterning of Aztec Ceramics: Implications for Prehispanic Exchange Systems in the Valley of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 17:415–437.Google Scholar
Hodge, Mary G., Neff, Hector, James Blackman, M., and Mine, Leah D. 1992 A Compositional Perspective on Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire. In Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology, edited by Hector Neff, pp. 203–220. Prehistory Press, Madison, Wisconsin.Google Scholar
Hodge, Mary G., Neff, Hector, James Blackman, M., and Mine, Leah D. 1993 Black-on-Orange Ceramic Production in the Aztec Empire’s Heartland. Latin American Antiquity 4:130–157.Google Scholar
Kelly, Isabel, and Palerm, Angel 1952 The Tajin Totonac, pt. 1: History, Subsistence, Shelter, and Technology. Institute of Social Anthropology Publication No. 13. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Medellín Zenil, Alfonso 1949 Primer exploración en Cotaxtla, Cueva Pintada, y Mictlancuauhtla, Ver. Archivo Técnico 928–1. Institute Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Medellín Zenil, Alfonso 1952 Exploraciones en Quauhtochco, temporada I. Gobierno del Estado de Veracruz, Xalapa, Veracruz.Google Scholar
Melgarejo Vivanco, José Luis 1984 El fondo sellado de un plato. La Palabra y el Hombre 51:43–14.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector 1994 RQ-Mode Principal Components Analysis of Ceramic Compositional Data. Archaeometry 36:115–130.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector 2000 Neutron Activation Analysis for Provenance Determination in Archaeology. In Modern Analytical Methods in Art and Archaeology, edited by Enrico Ciliberto and Giuseppe Spoto, pp. 81–134. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector 2002 Quantitative Techniques for Analyzing Ceramic Compositional Data. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 15–36. Monograph 44, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector, and Glascock, Michael D. 1998 Compositional Analysis of Ceramics from Yautepec, Morelos, Mexico. Unpublished report. MS on file at the Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector, Glascock, Michael D., McVicker, Donald E., and Lambertino-Urquizo, Laurene 1991 Aztec Colonial Presence at Tlacotapec in the Valley of Toluca, Mexico. MS on file at the Missouri University Research Reactor, Columbia.Google Scholar
Neff, Hector, and Glowacki, Donna M. 2002 Ceramic Source Determination by Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis in the American Southwest. In Ceramic Production and Circulation in the Greater Southwest: Source Determination by INAA and Complementary Mineralogical Investigations, edited by Donna M. Glowacki and Hector Neff, pp. 1–14. Monograph 44, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology at University of California, Los Angeles. Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Nichols, Deborah L., Brumfiel, Elizabeth M., Neff, Hector, Charlton, Thomas H., Glascock, Michael D., and Hodge, Mary G. 2002 Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective on Ceramic Production and Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21:25–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohnersorgen, Michael Anthony 2001 Social and Economic Organization of Cotaxtla in the Postclassic Gulf Lowlands. Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1966 The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Parsons, Jeffrey R., Brumfiel, Elizabeth, Parsons, Mary H., and Wilson, David J. 1982 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Region. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology 14. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Katharina J. 1992 Wari Imperialism in Middle Horizon Peru. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sejourné, Laurette 1970 Arqueología del Valley de México, vol. 1: Culhuacan. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Sejourné, Laurette 1983 Arqueología e Historia del Valle de Mexico de Xochimilco a Amecameca. Siglo Veintiuno Editores, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Skoglund, Thanet 2001 Imports and Imitations: Compositional and Stylistic Analysis of Aztec-Style Ceramics from Veracruz, Mexico. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
Smith, Michael E. 1990 Long-Distance Trade under the Aztec Empire: The Archaeological Evidence. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:153–169.Google Scholar
Speaker, John Stuart 2001 Settlement and Agricultural Land Use in Ancient Mixtequilla, Veracruz, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, New Orleans. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1990 The Gulf Coast and the Central Highlands of Mexico: Alternative Models for Interaction. In Research in Economic Anthropology, edited by Barry L. Isaac, Vol. 12:243–285. JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1995 Introductión a la Alfarería del Postclásico en la Mixtequilla, Sur-central de Veracruz. Arqueología 13–14:17–36.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1997 Gulf Lowland Styles and Political Geography in Ancient Veracruz. In Olmec to Aztec: Settlement Pattern Research in the Ancient Gulf Lowlands, edited by Barbara L. Stark and Philip J. Arnold III, pp. 278–309. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1998a Estilos de volutas en el período clásico. In Rutas de Intercambio en Mesoamérica, edited by Evelyn C. Rattray, pp. 215–238. III Coloquio Pedro Bosch Gimpera. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1998b Las implicaciones sociales de la cerámica suntuaria en La Mixtequilla, centro-sur de Veracruz, durante el período clásico. XI Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte and Héctor L. Escobedo, Vol. 1:841–849. Ministerio de Cultura y Deportes, Instituto de Antropología e Historia and Asociación, Tikal.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L. 1999 Finely Crafted Ceramics and Distant Lands: Classic Mixtequilla. In Pottery and People: A Dynamic Interaction, edited by James M. Skibo and Gary M. Feinman, pp. 137–156. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Google Scholar
Stark, Barbara L., and Johns, Kevin M. 2004 Veracruz sur-central en tiempos Teotihuacanos. In La Costa del Golfo en Tiempos Teotihuacanos: Propuestas y Perspectivas. Memoria de la Segunda Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by María Elena Ruiz Gallut and Arturo Pascual Soto, pp. 307–328. Centro de Estudios Teotihuacanos, Teotihuacan.Google Scholar
Suárez Cruz, Sergio 1995 La cerámica lisa cholulteca. Arqueología 13–14:109–120.Google Scholar
Tolstoy, Paul 1958 Surface Survey of the Northern Valley of Mexico: The Classic and Postclassic Periods. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 48, Pt. 5. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Umberger, Emily 1996 Aztec Presence and Material Remains in the Outer Provinces. In Aztec Imperial Strategies, by Frances F. Berdan, Richard E. Blanton, Elizabeth H. Boone, Mary G. Hodge, Michael E. Smith, and Emily Umberger, pp. 151–179. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Umberger, Emily, and Klein, Cecelia F. 1993 Aztec Art and Imperial Expansion. In Latin American Horizons, edited by Don S. Rice, pp. 295–336. Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collections, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Vásquez, Sergio 1990 El modelo de prospección en la región de La Mixtequilla: Epoca Postclásica. Degree thesis, Facultad de Antropología, Universidad Veracruzana, Jalapa.Google Scholar
Vega Sosa, C. 1975 Forma y decoración en las vasijas de tradición azteca. Colección Científica, Arqueología, No. 23. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.Google Scholar