The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic

8/2/2019 The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic

1/40

The study of empires in pre-Columbian

Mesoamerica has proved to be a difficulttask for archaeologists and ethnohistorians.In contrast to the Old World , where ancientempires are well attested in the writtenrecord, early empires in Mesoamerica aroseamong societies with rudimentary writingsystems that shed little light on politicalprocesses. Furthermore, most Mesoameri-can empires were hegemonic in character,

meaning that they relied u pon indirect con-trol and invested few resources in provin-cial infrastructure (Hassig 1985). As a re-sult, they left far fewer durable materialremains in their provinces than did territor-ial, or direct-rule, empires such as the Warior Inka empires of And ean South America(DAltroy 1992; Malpass 1993; Schreiber1992). In the absence of rigorous archaeo-

logical criteria for the identification of an-cient empires and imp erialism, Mesoameri-canists have been free to ascribe emp ires tosocieties that almost certainly lacked them(e.g., the Olmecs or the Toltecs), and todeny the existence of emp ires when th ere isin fact strong evidence that they existed

(e.g., the Zapotec or Teotihuacan empires).

Simplistic criteria such as ceramic similar-ity have too often been used to documentimperial conquest, a situation recently criti-cized by Zeitlin an d Joyce (1999).

The subject of ancient empires and impe-rialism has seen renewed interest in the pastdecade. A num ber of monographs have ap-peared recently on individu al empires (e.g.,Alcock 1993; Berdan et al. 1996; DAltroy

1992; Liverani 1993; Millett 1990; Morrison1995; Schreiber 1992). Comparative studiesare becoming more common (e.g., Alcock etal. 2001; Algaze 1993; Blanton 1996; Cherry1992; Schreiber 1999). As a result of in-creased attention to ancient empires, archae-ologists have made considerable progress ind evising m eth od s to analyze variou s as-pects of the expansion , organ ization , and

collap se of empires (e.g., Ad am s 1979;Cherry 1992; Costin and Earle 1989; DAl-troy 1992; Earle 1994; Morrison and Lycett1994; Schreiber 1999; Sinopoli 1994; Sinopoliand Morrison 1995; Smith and Berdan 1992;Stark 1990). One thing is lacking in this grow-ing body of literature, howevera rigorous

The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic

Central Mexico

Michael E. Smith and Lisa Montiel

Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, SUNY, A lbany, New York 12222

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]

Received Au gust 31, 1999; revision received Janu ary 6, 2000; accepted August 20, 2000;pu blished online June 1, 2001

The hegemonic-type emp ires of ancient Mesoamerica are d ifficult to study archaeologically be-cause they left fewer material traces than m ore territorially organized emp ires such as the Inka or

Roman cases. We present a ma terial cultu re mod el for the id entification of such emp ires using ar-chaeological data. The model, based u pon Michael Doyles analytical approach to imperialism, isdeveloped from historical and archaeological research on ancient emp ires from th e Old World andSouth America. Empires can be id entified from three typ es of evidence: characteristics of the capitalcity, evidence for varying typ es of political domination of provincial areas, and examples of the p ro-

jection of in flu ence in a larger, intern at ion al context. We apply this m od el to archaeological d ata onthree central Mexican casesTenochtitlan, Teotihuacan, and Tula. The results suggest that bothTenochtitlan and Teotihuacan ru led empires, whereas Tula d id not. 2001 Academ ic Press

245

Journ al of An thropological Archaeology 20, 245284 (2001)doi:10.1006/ jaar.2000.0372, available online at ht tp :// www.idealibrary.com on

0278-4165/ 01 $35.00Copyr ight 2001 by Academ ic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.


2/40

archaeological method for identifying em-pires using material remains. In most partsof the Old World, this is not a pressing need .One hardly needs to develop sophisticatedmethods to determine whether the Romans,

Assyrians, or Achaemenids ruled empires.But in Mesoamerica, with its hegemonicempires, there is a real need for such amethod (see Flannery 1998 for a similar ap-proach to the archaeological identificationof pristine or archaic states).

Our goal in th is paper is to present an ex-plicit material culture model for the identi-fication of empires and imperialism using

archaeological data, and to apply thatmodel to three central Mexican test cases,Teotihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan. Ourmodel is based on historical and archaeo-logical evidence from ancient empiresaround the world. When the model is ap-plied to archaeological evidence from thesethree Mesoamerican societies, the resultssuggest strongly that both Teotihuacan and

Tenochtitlan ruled empires, whereas Tuladid not. The so-called Toltec empirebased at Tula was an invention of theAztecs, and modern scholars have beenmisled by an overreliance on Aztec mythi-cal history a t the expense of archaeologicaldata. After discussing the three cases, webriefly explore the relevance of our modelto some other likely ancient empires of the

New World, including the Zapotec andTarascan empires of Mesoamerica and theWari empire of South Am erica.

AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODEL OF

EMPIRES AND IMPERIALISM

We follow political scientist MichaelDoyles (1986) definition of empires and im-

perialism: I favor the behavioral definitionof empire as effective control, whether for-mal or informal, of a subordinated societyby an imperial society (Doyle 1986:30).This definition, like most others in the litera-tu re (e.g., Larsen 1979; Luttwak 1976; Mann1986; Sinop oli 1994) stresses the political na-

ture of imperialism. Unfortunately, politicalprocesses are among the most difficult forarchaeologists to identify and analyze di-rectly. Our approach is to consider some ofthe social and economic expressions of an-

cient imperialism to identify material evi-dence of a typ e that archaeologists can use.We find Doyles analytical approach, whichincorporates spatial pro-cesses and vari-ables, useful for organizing our discussion:

Four intersecting sou rces accoun t for the imp er-ial relationship: the metropolitan regime, its ca-pacities and interests; the periph eral political soci-ety, its interests and weakness; the transnational

system and its needs; and the international con-text an d the incentives it creates. (Doyle 1986:46)

Doyles metropolitan regime refers tothe political, economic, and social dynam-ics of the imperial capital and core society.We modify this factor to create the first ofthree general criteria of imperialism, a capi-tal city, sufficiently large and complex torule an empire, that exhibits material evi-

dence of an imperial ideology. The p eriph-eral political society refers to the condi-tions in the provincial areas conquered ordominated by an empire. Although crucialto the analysis of any specific case of imp e-rialism, we do n ot find this factor useful forthe purpose of identifying the existence ofancient imperialism. Empires conquered allsorts of provincial polities, from small, non-

hierarchical groups to other empires, andthe archaeological identification of imperi-alism must start with imperial impact onthe provinces, not the indigenous situationthat p receded incorporation.

Doyles third factor, the transnationalsystem, refers to the nature of interactionsbetween the capital and the p rovinces. Weuse this element, und er the label, domina-

tion of a territory, as the second compo-nent of our m odel. We divide transnationalprocesses into tw o categories, economic ex-change (between capital and provinces)and political control. Doyles four th factor,the international context of an empire,refers to political and economic dynamics

246 SMITH AN D MO NTIEL


3/40

of the larger geopolitical setting in whichempires expand and operate. We narrowthis theme to the notion that empires pro-ject various kinds of influen ceeconomic,political, and culturalbeyond their bor-

ders.Table 1 presents a summary of our ar-

chaeological model for the identification ofancient empires. This is a polythetic defini-tion in the sense that most ancient empiresexhibited most of these traits, although notevery empire exhibited all of them. In thefollowing section we summarize the evi-dence for these traits among a variety of an-

cient empires, and after that w e app ly thismodel to the three case stud ies.

1. The Imperial Capital

Most ancient empires had a large andcomp lex urban center that served as the im-

perial capital, and these cities almost al-ways contained d urable displays of imper-ial ideology, many of which have survivedto the present. These two featuresurbansize and complexity, and material procla-

mations of imperial ideologyprovide astarting point in the archaeological identifi-cation of ancient em pires.

A . Large, Complex Urban Center

Imperial capitals were among the mostprominent settlements of the ancient w orld,and today the remains of cities such as

Rome, Athens, Xian, Persepolis, Vijayana-gara, and Cuzco survive as some of themost spectacular archaeological sitesaround the world. These capitals are im-pressive not only for their size andgrandeur, but also for the evidence of social

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 247

TABLE 1

Archaeological Criteria for the Identification o f Empires

Features Examples

1. The imperial capital

A. Large, complex urban centerB. Proclamations of imperial ideology 1. Militarism

2. Glorification of king or state

2. Domination of a territory

A. Economic exchange between capital and provinces 1. Provincial goods found at capital2. Imperial goods found in provinces

B. Political control of provinces 1. Military conquest2. Construction of imp erial infrastructu re3. Imp osition of tribu te or taxes4. Reorganization of settlement systems5. Imp erial co-option of local elites

3. Projection of influence in a larger international context

A. Economic influence 1. Trade with extraimperial regions

B. Political influence 1. Military engagement and activities along enemy

borders2. Centralization or militarization of extraimp erial

polities

C. Cultural influence 1. Adoption of imperial gods or rituals by d istantpeoples

2. Emulation of imp erial styles and traits by d is-tant p eoples


4/40

complexity revealed by excavations. Thisurban complexity typically includ ed the ex-istence of multiple social classes, occupa-tional specialization, and ethnic variation,among other types of social variability (e.g.,

Fritz et al. 1984; Hyslop 1990; Osborn e 1987;Owens 1991; Stambaugh 1988; Steinhardt1990). Although there are one or two casesof political empires without major capitalcities, such as the Carolingian empire(Moreland 2001), we suggest that inMesoamerica the opposite patternlargecomplex cities that were not imperial capi-talsis far more likely.

B. Proclamations of Imperial Ideology

Almost without exception, the rulers ofancient empires invested considerable en-ergy in p rodu cing pu blic statements of im-perial ideology. Although the content ofstate or imperial ideology varied with indi-vidu al cases, all know n cases included mili-

tarism and / or glorification of the king orstate among their p rominent them es. Thesepublic symbolic proclamations did not al-ways reflect reality, and they are bestviewed as examples of imperial propa-ganda. Empires relied upon military force,and militarism and military glory wereprominent them es in imp erial capitals. Thisexpression took a variety of forms in an-

cient empires, including public images ofbattle, soldiers, and military themes (e.g.,Cook 1983; Cotterell 1981), public royalproclamations (Larsen 1979), and the con-struction of sym bolic fortresses in the capi-tal (e.g., the Sacsahuaman fortress in Cu zcoor the inner compounds of Chinese imper-ial cities; Hyslop 1990, Steinhart 1990). Sim-ilarly, imperial capitals typically contained

public monuments designed to glorify theruler or the state, often by establishing acorrespondence between the city or em pireand the cosmos (Bauer 1998; Briggs 1951;Fritz et al. 1984; Root 1979). These publicproclamations of state messages served tomaterialize imperial ideology (DeMarrais

et al. 1996), often in a d urable form th at en-sured its survival from ancient times to thepresent.

2. Domination of a Territory

We consider issues in the imperial domi-nation or control of its territory under twoheadings, exchange and political control.All empires exhibited trade between thecapital or core zone an d their p rovinces, al-though the tw o d irections of exchange wereoften not equ ivalent in value (i.e., exchan gewas one means of domination). The politi-cal control of provinces forms the core of

the imperial relationship, but as mentionedabove this is one of the more difficultprocesses to monitor with archaeologicaldata.

A . Economic Exchange Between Capital and

Provinces

Written documents and archaeological

excavations reveal the presence of importedprovincial goods in virtually all known an-cient imperial capitals (e.g., Osborne 1987;Stambau gh 1988). For the p resent purposesit is not important whether these goodswere obtained through coercion (i.e., taxa-tion or tribute) or through commercial ex-change; what is imp ortant is that they pro-vide clear material evidence for economic

interaction between capital and provinces.Conversely, imperial goods are commonlyencountered in provincial contexts (Costinand Earle 1989; Millet t 1990; Woolf 1992).

B. Political Control of Provinces

Territorial empires and hegemonic em-pires employed different forms of provin-

cial control, and within individual empiresa variety of different m eans of control wereoften p resent. In th is section we review themost common forms of provincial controlused by ancient emp ires.

1. Military conquest. Most ancient emp iresexpanded through military conquest (or



5/40

threat of conquest), bu t this process left fewdirect material remains. Cities and townswere rarely destroyed entirely, since mostemp ires were more interested in controllingprovincial populations than in destroying

them. Damages to buildings and settle-ments from the process of conquest wereprobably repaired soon after the fact, leav-ing few or no archaeological traces. In d is-tinction to the low archaeological visibilityof initial military conquests, continuingmilitary control of provincial areas didleave archaeological traces in many cases;this is included u nd er our next category.

2. Construction of imperial infrastructure.Territorial emp ires such as the Roman andInca cases invested considerable resourcesin building a provincial infrastructure oftowns, garrisons, fortresses, roads,bridges, and the like (Alcock 1993; Hasel-grove 1987; Hopkins 1978, 1984, 1990; Mil-lett 1990; Wells 1984). The remains of th eseimp erial constru ction projects are typ ically

the most obvious and dramatic evidencefor ancient imperialism in such cases. Inhegemonic empires, by contrast, imperialinfrastructure was left to a minimum andarchaeologists must rely upon evidence ofa m ore ind irect natu re to docum ent politi-cal control.

3. Imposition of Tribute or Taxes. Nearly allancient empires taxed their subjects in

some form, and such taxation often pro-duces material remains that can be recov-ered archaeologically. Provincial peoplesmay have had to increase their agriculturalproduction to meet their taxes, resulting inthe intensification of farming through theadoption of new techniques or the expan-sion of existing methods. Many such meth-ods, including terracing and irrigation, are

archaeologically visible (Hopkins 1978;Hopkins 1980; Morrison 1995; Redmond1983; Sinopoli and Morrison 1995). Simi-larly, imperial subjects may have had to in-crease their production of manufacturedgoods for tax pu rposes, and changes in theintensity of craft production can be docu-

mented by archaeologists (Costin et al.1989). Imp erial taxation could lead to a low -ering of standards of living in provincialareas, and again this is a process that ar-chaeologists can document with excava-

tion. The difficulty with this kind of evi-dence for imperialism is that all of thesechangesagricultural intensification, craftintensification, and lowered standard of liv-ingcan also result from processes otherthan imperial taxation (see Smith andHeath-Smith 1994 for discussion). Thussuch changes alone do not constitute clearevidence for imp erial taxation.

4. Reorganization of settlement systems. Em-pires often move p eople around in order tobetter control them , to lessen chances of re-volt, or to achieve particular economicends. When such changes are systematicand / or large in scale they can be reflectedin archaeological settlement patterns (DAl-troy 1992; Topic and Top ic 1993). A commonpattern is forced nucleation, where rural

peoples are moved into towns where theyare more easily monitored and controlled.The 16th-century practice ofcongregacin inSpains New World imper ial provinces pro-vides some dramatic examples of forcednucleation whose results are still visible insettlement patterns today (e.g., Gerhard1977; Gibson 1966).

5. Imperial co-option of local elites. Empires,

whether territorial or hegemonic in natu re,typically buy off provincial elites withgifts and privileges in ord er to gain their co-operation in administering the provinces.In hegemonic empires, or on the frontiers ofvarious kinds of empires, this process canresult in the creation of client states that areonly weakly under the control of the em-pire (Braund 1984; Isaac 1990; Morkot 2001;

Postgate 1992); for example, client statesdid not pay taxes in the Roman empire.This situation can be iden tified archaeologi-cally by the emulation of imp erial styles byprovincial elites, or by the p resence of high-value imperial imports in provincial elitecontexts (Postgate 1992:258; Kuh rt 2001).



6/40

3. Projection of Influence in a Larger

International Context

Empires exist within a larger interna-tional context, and they interact in variousways with other independent polities. One

feature that differentiates empires fromsmaller states is that emp ires almost alwaysexert various kinds of identifiable influenceon other polities in the larger system. Theworld-systems approach, as modified forpremodern societies, provides a usefulframework for viewing the role of empireswithin their larger international context.1,*We discuss the extraimperial influences of

empires under the headings of economic,political, and cultural influ ence.

A . Economic Influence

Most ancient empires traded with exter-nal, independent polities, and these eco-nomic exchanges formed the backbone ofancient world systems. This kind of trade

has been most extensively studied for theRoman empire, whose goods traveled allover the world (Begley and de Puma 1991;Whittaker 1983, 1994). Another example isAkkadian and Ur III trade with distantareas in the Arabian Gulf and elsewhere(Edens 1992; Edens and Kohl 1993).

B. Political Influence

The expansion of empires often had po-litical effects on nearby independent poli-ties. When an emp ire encoun tered a pow er-ful enemy along its borders, militaryactivities were common occurrences in thefrontier zone (Whittaker 1994). If the fron-tier was stable for any length of time, fortifi-cations could be built by one or both sides

and these are common archaeological fea-tures on the edges of empires (Bartel 1980;Hyslop 1990; Millett 1990). Another com-mon effect of imp erialism w as a p rocess ofpolitical centralization among independent

states as they organized themselves to dealwith the threat of a nearby expanding em-pire (Edens 1992). This can be determinedarchaeologically through evidence for stateformation or centralization concomitant

with the expan sion of a nearby emp ire.

C. Cultural Influence

Because expand ing emp ires are often per-ceived by ou tsiders as prestigious or power-ful, d istant peoples may adopt imp erial godsor rituals in the absence of direct conquest orincorporation or p rior to conquest. Similarly,

distant elites or peoples may emulate imper-ial styles or adopt imperial practices or traits.Whittakers (1994) study of Roman frontiersshows that these processes were quite com-mon in extraimperial areas that w ere in con-tact w ith the empire or w ith frontier zones,and they can leave material traces for ar-chaeologists to recover. This evidenceshould not be confused with evidence for

political control within an empiresprovinces, however. We suggest below thatconfusion of this sort has hindered theproper evaluation of Teotihuacans role inClassic-period Mesoamerica.

INTRODUCTION TO TENOCHTITLAN ,

TEOTIHUACAN, AND TULA

Teotihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan wereall large urban centers whose influ ence wasfelt throughou t m any regions of Mesoamer-ica (Fig. 1), far beyond the extent of theirlocal polities. In this section w e p rovide anintroduction to these polities.

Tenochtitlan

Tenochtitlan is a good test case for our

model, since documentary sources clearlyind icate the existence of an empire centeredat this city. Some scholars have hesitated tocall the Aztec polity an empire (e.g., thiswas not an em pire at all in the very strictestsense (Davies 1973:110)) becau se of its lackof a provincial infrastructure and standing


*See Notes section at end of pap er for all footnotes.


7/40

army. Hassig, however (1985:90), showsthat such views merely reflect various au-thors inadequate un derstand ing of ancientemp ires; the Aztec empire was not a territo-rial empire like the Late Roman or Inca em-pires, but was a hegemonic empire whoseorganization (and material remains) werequite different. The lack of obvious archae-ological visibility of the Aztec empire in

comparison with territorial empires has ledsome scholars to suggest that without the

documentary record w e wou ld never knowthat the Aztec emp ire existed at all. We offerthe present analysis to counter this sugges-tion. Our map of the central portion of theAztec empire (Fig. 2) is based upon themaps presen ted in Berdan et al. (1996).

According to Aztec native historical tra-dition, Tenochtitlan was founded by theMexica people in the early 14th century,

A.D. on a sw ampy island in the salt lakes ofthe Basin of Mexico. In 1428 Tenochtitlan


FIG 1. Map of Mesoamerica showing distant cities that interacted with Tenochtitlan, Teotihuacan,and Tula. Key to obsidian sources: (1) Pachuca, (2) Otu mba, (3) Ucareo, (4) El Chayal.

FIG 2. Map of the extent of the Az tec empire in central Mexico (based u pon Berdan et al. 1996).


8/40

achieved political independence from itsTepanec overlords and immediately beganimperialist expansion by conqueringnearby city-states. In the traditional view,the Aztec empire was run by a Triple Al-

liance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlaco-pan (Carrasco 1996; Davies 1987), and overtime Tenochtitlan emerged as the d ominantpartner. In a recent paper, Gillespie (1998)has challenged the existence of the TripleAlliance, argu ing that Tenochtitlan w as thesole capital city all along. The conquests ofthe Mexica kings are recorded in a series ofprose and pictorial documents, as are the

tribute payments made by the Aztecprovinces (Berdan and Anawalt 1992;Berd an et al. 1996).

Prior studies of the material manifesta-tions of Aztec imper ialism have focused onthe art and architecture of Tenochtitlan(Broda et al. 1987; Townsend 1979; Um-berger 1996), sculpture and other art in theprovinces (Umberger and Klein 1993), the

distribution of trade goods (Smith 1990),and the effects of Aztec conquest on p rovin-cial society (Silverstein 2000; Smith 1992,1997b, 2001, 1992).

Teotihuacan

The great Classic-period metropolis ofTeotihuacan flourished in the northeastern

Basin of Mexico from the second throughseventh centuries, A.D. It has long beenclear that Teotihuacan had important eco-nom ic, stylistic, and perhap s political influ-ence throughout Mesoamerica, and thestudy of these influences has been a majorresearch theme by archaeologists and arthistorians (e.g., Berlo 1992; Pasztory 1978;Santley 1984). Early views of a Mesoamer-

ica-wide empire centered at Teotihuacan(e.g., Bernal 1966; Borhegyi 1971) wereabandoned in the 1960s and 1970s in favorof interpretations that stressed trade withOaxaca, the Guatemalan coast and high-lands, and other d istant regions, and stylis-tic influence in the Classic Maya low lands.

A number of archaeological stud ies pro-duced settlement pattern and artifactualdata suggesting that Teotihuacan exertedstrong political and economic control overthe Basin of Mexico and perhaps other

nearby areas (e.g., Charlton 1991; Hirth1980; Sanders et a l. 1979). Sanders an d oth-ers have remarked that Teotihuacan ap-pears to have maintained stronger, more di-rect political control over the Basin ofMexico than did Tenochtitlan in Aztectimes (Sanders et al. 1979; Sanders andSantley 1983), bu t non e of these authors ex-plicitly call the Teotihuacan polity an em-

pire. Millon (1988) was the first to assemblea range of data on Classic-period centralMexico and argue that Teotihuacan was thecapital of an emp ire in th e central Mexicanhighlands. He later stated that there wasno Teotihuacan empire (Millon 1994:28),but we assume that he is referring h ere to aMesoamerica-wide empire. New data onthe Teotihuacan affiliations of early rulers

of the Maya cities of Tikal and Copan havecaused at least some scholars to return tothe earlier m odel of Teotihuacan control ofthe Maya area (Coe 1999:8384), but we feelthat this interpretation is premature. Weshow below that Millons (1988) mod el bestfits the archaeological da ta.

Tula

Our discussion of Tula as a possible im-perial capital begins with the Aztec ac-counts of Tula and its Toltec rulers and in-habitants. The Aztecs had a highly inflatedview of the accomp lishments and gran deurof the Toltecs, and the scholars today whoaccept the existence of a Toltec emp ire basetheir views m ore on the exaggerated m ythi-

cal accounts of the Aztecs than on em piricalarchaeological data. The Aztec kings tracedthe legitimacy of their dynasties to their (al-leged) descent from the Toltec kings. Aztecaccounts of the Toltecs merge myth and his-tory, and the Toltecs were said to have in-vented the calendar and the various arts



9/40

and crafts, interpretations that are clearlyfalse. Here are some of the descriptions ofthe Toltecs given in Sahagns FlorentineCodex:

The Tolteca were wise. Their works were allgood, all perfect, all wond erful, all marvelous . . .They invented the art of medicine . . . And theseTolteca were very wise; they were thinkers, forthey originated the year count . . . These Toltecawere righteous. They were not deceivers. Theirword s [were] clear word s . . . They were tall; theywere larger [than the people today] . . . They werevery devout . . . They were rich. (Sahagn,19501982: book 10, 165170)

Most modern interpretations of a Toltecempire are based upon a speculative 1961study by Paul Kirchhoff (reprinted as Kirch-hoff 1985). Kirchhoff interpreted some vagueand contradictory accounts in Spanish colo-nial sources on Aztec native history (princi-pally Chimalpahin, the Anales de Cuauhtit-lan, and the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca) assuggesting the existence of a large empire

based at Tula that controlled mu ch of north-ern Mesoamerica. Davies (1977:296312) re-views the textual evidence and Kirchhoffsinterpretations and points out numerousproblems and points of confusion. He thenproceeds to ignore his own criticisms by pre-senting an imaginative reconstruction of thefragmentary and contradictory data, includ-ing a map of the purported Toltec empire

(1977:312328). Daviess map is shown inFig. 4, along with our reconstruction of theextent of the Toltec regional state (see discus-sion below). Feldman (1974) presents ananalysis similar to that of Davies. Kelley(1992) bases a claim for a Toltec empire upontenuous correlations among royal genealo-gies from the Mixtec region as depicted inpictorial codices.

Many scholars apparently accept the in-terpretations of Kirchhoff, Davies, andFeldman uncritically, speaking of a Toltecemp ire as if it were an established fact thatneeds no empirical justification. This de-scription applies to a number of membersof the University of Missouri Tula archaeo-

logical project (e.g., Cobean 1990:503510;Diehl 1993:283; Healan 1989:4), amongwhom the following statements are typical:The Toltecs were imperialists motivatedby economic goals . . . their brief but spec-

tacular career as an imperial power set thepattern for later Aztec ventures along thesame lines (Diehl 1983:140); Tula con-trolled a tributary empire comparable to thelater, larger Aztec empire (Healan 1993:459).Other scholars who accept uncritically theexistence of a Toltec empire include Carrasco(1999:59), Coe (1994:131132; 1999:167),Fowler (1989:274), Nicholson (2000:155),

Noguez (1995:206214), and Weigand et al.(1977:22). This trend continues unabated ; at arecent symposium at the 2000 Annual Meet-ing of the Society for American Archaeology(Tula and the Toltec World : Interregional In-teraction During the Early Postclassic, orga-nized by Robert Cobean), at least five partici-pants mentioned the Toltec empire inpassing as if it were an established entity.

Some scholars are more critical of the no-tion of a Toltec empire, invoking long-dis-tance trade to explain contacts between Tulaand distant areas rather than conquest andpolitical expansion. Hassig (1992:110120),for example, notes the lack of contemporarywritten accounts of the Toltec polity and con-cludes that The available evidence suggestsnot so mu ch a m ilitary as a trading empire,

one that operated through merchant en-claves and settlements rather than militarycolonization of outlying areas (Hassig1992:117); similar views are expressed byLee (1978:293), who suggests that Toltecsmay have controlled the trade of Plumbatepottery in Early Postclassic Mesoamerica.Among the few scholars openly critical ofthe notion of a Toltec empire are Prem

(1997:142); Weaver (1993:405), who states,It is best to think of a Toltec sphere of in-fluence rather than an empire; Cowgill(2000:295), who suggests that the areadominated by the Tula state was probablynever very extensive; and Lpez Austinand Lpez Lujn (2000:69), who state that



10/40

Tula was not the capital of a pan-Mesoamerican empire. Jones (1995:4460)provides a usefu l historical review of schol-arly attitud es toward the Toltecs, includ ingchanging opinions on the existence of a

Toltec empire.Most scholars accept the iden tification of

the Early Postclassic archaeological site ofTula, Hidalgo, with the Toltec capital cityTollan as described in the Aztec histories,2

and the archaeological evidence that wediscuss is from Tula and other Early Post-classic sites in central Mexico.

The Yautepec Valley as a Provincial A rea

We have conducted several fieldworkprojects in the Yautepec Valley, includingexcavations of Aztec-period houses at thecity of Yautepec (Smith et al., 1999), a full-coverage survey of the Yautepec Valleywith inten sive sur face collections (Cascio etal. 1995; Hare et al. n.d .; Hare 2000; Mon tiel

n.d.), and test excavations at a sample ofClassic and Postclassic sites (Hare 2000;

Montiel n.d.). As indicated in Fig. 24, thisarea was part of the Aztec empire (Berdanet al. 1996); it was part of the Teotihuacanempire in the models of Millon (1988) andMontiel (n.d .); and it was part of the Toltec

empire as reconstructed by Davies (1977).The Yautepec Valley therefore provides agood test case for the incorporation of pre-sum ed provincial areas into the three poli-ties und er consideration. Although many ofthe analyses from these fieldwork projectsare not yet complete, we do have enoughdata available to evalua te mod els of imp er-ial incorporation. Because we d id n ot exca-

vate any Early Postclassic contexts, we willuse single-component surface collectionsfrom that period to comp are to our Classicand Late Postclassic excavations.

THE IMPERIAL CAPITAL

Tenochtitlan

Although Aztec Tenochtitlan today liesburied u nd er Mexico City, available archae-


FIG 3. Map of the extent of the Teotihuacan em pire (based u pon Millon 1988 and Montiel n.d.).


11/40

ological evidence confirms the ancientcitys imperial status (for a description ofTenochtitlan from historic sources, seeRojas 1986). Salvage excavations along theroutes of Mexico Citys expanding under-ground metro, although poorly published,are sufficiently extensive to demonstratethe large size of Tenochtitlan. An imperial

level of social complexity is suggested bythe variability in architecture excavated atTenochtitlan, including simple houses,small temp les, and massive state pyram idsand other civic-religious buildings (MatosMoctezuma 1979, 1988, 1999). The p resenceof an explicit imperial ideology is indicatedby massive stone carvings that portray im-ages of militarism, sacrifice, and the cosmic

glorification of the state and key emperors(Townsend 1979; Umberger 1996). This ide-ology has been a central focus of investiga-tion by scholars working on the Aztec Tem-plo Mayor (Broda et al. 1987; MatosMoctezuma 1988), and Brumfiels (1998)analysis explores the social context of imp e-

rial ideology at Tenochtitlan. The existenceof an orthogonal grid plan covering the is-land city is also consistent with Tenochtit-lans imperial status (Calnek 1976; Smith1997a).

Teotihuacan

The huge size and high level of social com-plexity at Classic-period Teotihuacan are wellattested in the abundant record of recentarchaeological fieldwork at the site (e.g.,Cabrera Castro et al. 1991a; Cowgill 1997; Mil-lon 1981). An imperial ideology that includedprominent militaristic themes is evident inmany of the polychrome mu ral paintings, fig-urines, and sculptures found throughout the

ancient city (Barbour 1979; Cabrera Castro etal. 1991b; Cowgill 1997; Miller 1967, 1973;Sugiyama 1998). The military iconography inmurals includes figures with tasseled head-dresses and ringed eyes (Millon 1973),bird/ owl imagery, and representations of theStorm/ War God, felines, spears, and shields


FIG 4. Map of the extent of the Tula p olity and Daviess map of the tentative bound ary of the Toltecempire (Davies 1977; see text for d iscussion).


12/40

(Berrin 1988; Cabrera Castro 1992). Militaryorders are associated with owl, eagle, coyote,jaguar, and serpent imagery (Miller 1967;Von Winning 1948; Von Winning 1987:94).Unlike in many ancient empires, individual

leaders were not depicted publicly at Teoti-huacan, a situation much d iscussed in the re-cent literature (e.g., Blanton et al. 1996;Cowgill 1997; Pasztory 1997). As at Tenochti-tlan, the high degree of urban planning sug-gested by the extensive orthogonal grid lay-out of Teotihuacan is consistent with citysstatus as an imperial capital.

Tula

Although much smaller and less sociallycomplex than Teotihuacan or Tenochtitlan,Tula was still an impressive urban center of11 sq. km, with 30,000 to 40,000 inhabitants(Diehl 1983:5860). Excavations have re-vealed evidence of social complexity in theform of varied residential architecture

(Healan 1989) and workshops for obsidianand ceramics (Healan et al. 1983; Hernn-dez et al. 1999). The large central plaza issurrounded by various monumental struc-tures, including two temple-pyramids, aballcourt, and other civic build ings. Carvedstone reliefs with depictions of w arfare, sac-rifice, and other militaristic themes areprominent in the urban core of Tula (de la

Fuente et al. 1988; Kristan-Graham 1999).An orthogonal grid layout was also presentat Tula, but it may not have covered th e en-tire extent of the city. The center of the early,Corral-phase, city at Tula exhibited a gridlayout. When the later, Tollan-phase citycenter was built, a new gr id orientation w asestablished, at least for the central city lay-out (Mastache and Crespo 1982; Mastache

and Cobean 1985:274285, 1989:6263).

Discussion

Teotihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan wereall sufficiently large and complex to haveserved as capitals of empires. Each was laid

out following a grid that covered p art of all ofthe urban area, a pattern otherwise quite rarein ancient Mesoamerica (most Mesoamericancities exhibited formal planning only in theirceremonial cores, and residential zones do

not show evidence of planning). Compara-tive historical research suggests that the useof urban grids is usually related to stronglycentralized political control (Carter 1983;Lynch 1981). All three of the cities und er con-sideration here also contained prominentpublic art with themes of militarism and theglorification of the state.

In the case of Tenochtitlan, documentary

and art historical evidence shows that itsMexica rulers deliberately imitated the artand architecture of Teotihuacan, Tula, andXochicalco, a large urban center in Morelosthat flourished between the dominant peri-ods of Teotihuacan and Tula (Umberger1987, 1996).

The Toltec rulers of Tula may similarlyhave imitated Teotihuacan in their use of the

grid pattern and other urban features. Thesethree cities participated in a central Mexicantradition of imperial city planning in whichart and architecture made references to thepast and were used by rulers to proclaim po-litical messages of pow er, greatness, and cos-mic legitimacy (Smith 1997a). For the Toltecs,however, we believe that these messageswere more empty propaganda than social re-

ality, since the notion of a Toltec empire failson the criterion of domination of a territory.

DOMINATION OF A TERRITORY:

EXCHANGE BETWEEN CAPITAL AN D

PROVINCES

Tenochtitlan

There is overwhelming archaeologicalevidence for economic exchange betweenTenochtitlan and its provinces, and this is atopic for which archaeology surpasses eth-nohistory in the quan tity and quality of theevidence. The most spectacular archaeolog-ical find s are the offerings from th e Temp lo



13/40

Mayor, which contained Mezcala-stylestone sculptu res from Gu errero, a variety ofspecies of marine fauna from the Atlanticand Pacific coasts, and ceramics from di-verse regions (Lpez Lujn 1994; Romn

Berrelleza and Lpez Lujn 1999). The of-ferings in the so-called volador depositnear the Templo Mayor included ceramicsfrom Morelos and other provincial areas(Smith n.d.b; Sols Olgun and MoralesGmez 1991), and sherds from a variety ofprovincial ceramic types have been recov-ered in various salvage excavations in Mex-ico City (seen by Smith in the laboratories

of the Departamento de Salvamiento, Insti-tuto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia,Mexico City). Obsidian from several sourceareas in the Aztec provinces is abundant inMexico City excavations, and the presenceof ceramic spind le whor ls for spinning cot-ton in residential contexts (Cepeda Crde-nas et al. 1977) points strongly to th e imp or-tation of raw cotton from provincial areas

like Morelos and the H uaxteca (cotton d oesnot grow in the Basin of Mexico).

The m ost secure evidence for the exporta-tion of goods from Tenochtitlan to the Aztecprovinces is provided by Aztec III black-on-orange ceramics. Characterization researchby Mary Hodge and colleagues (Hodge et al.1993) has shown that vessels of this distinc-tive ceramic type were produced in several

parts of the Basin of Mexico, includingTenochtitlan. Aztec III sherds from theprovincial city of Yautepec include examplesfrom the Tenochtitlan production area, aswell as other areas (Neff and Glascock 1996).This type is found in many parts of the em-pire (Smith 1990), and many of those vesselswere produced in the Tenochtitlan area(Smith, Neff and Fauman-Fichman 1999).

Smiths excavations at Yautepec and otherAztec provincial sites in Morelos uncoverednumerous other artifacts originating in theBasin of Mexico, but given our uncertaintyabout Aztec exchange mechanisms and net-works it cannot be assumed that all of thesewere imported directly from Tenochtitlan

and not from other places in the Basin ofMexico. Several ceramic types (e.g., TexcocoFabric-Marked salt vessels and XochimilcoPolychrome jars) probably originated inother p arts of the Basin, whereas Aztec-paste

ceramic figurines could be from eitherTenochtitlan or other places in the Basin.Guinda or redw are bowls, pitchers, and cupswere probably manufactured in both More-los and the Basin of Mexico, and both typesare found at sites in Morelos. Chalco/Cholula Polychrome tripod plates were im-ported from a number of areas, includingChalco in the Basin of Mexico and various lo-

cations in the Puebla/ Tlaxcala region (Smithet al., 1999). Green obsidian from Pachucapredominates at Aztec sites in Morelos(where it generally comprises over 90% of allobsidian), and gray obsidian from theOtumba source area in the Basin of Mexico isalso abundant (Smith, unpublished data).The Basin of Mexico was the Aztec core zone,and even if a Tenochtitlan origin cannot be

established , these varied imports do provideevidence for exchange between the core andthe provinces. Although we suggest that thiscommerce in ceramics, obsidian, and othergoods was related to Aztec imperialism, wedo not mean to suggest that this exchangewas controlled by the state; in fact it was al-most certainly conducted through commer-cial channels independent of direct state con-

trol (Isaac 1986; Smith n.d.b, 2001; Smith andBerdan 2000). Against this view, Pastrana(1998) argues that the Aztec empire con-trolled the mining, tool production, and ex-change of obsidian, although he cites no evi-dence for this supposed control.

Teotihuacan

The exchange of goods between Teoti-huacan and its provinces differed from theexchange outside of the empire in quantityand context. In the provinces, goods origi-nating from or controlled by Teotihuacaninclude Thin Orange ceramics, censers, fig-urines, and Pachuca obsidian (particularly



14/40

in blade form). Rattray and Harbottle (1992)have dem onstrated that the manu facture ofThin Orange took place in Puebla, an areaRattray claims w as outside of the Teotihua-can empire due to the lack of intrusive

Teotihuacan cultural elements (Rattray1990). The overwhelming monopolizationby Teotihuacan of the distribution of ThinOrange does, however, strongly suggestthat this area was giving Thin Orange astribute to Teotihuacan. While Thin Orangewas traded outside of the empire in ex-tremely low quantities as a prestige item, amuch higher frequency of this import in

Teotihuacans periphery coincides with in-tegration into the empire. Thin Orangecomprises 18% of the Classic period ceram-ics at the provincial administrative site ofChingu during the Early Classic period(Daz 1980:36) and 24% of the ceramicsfrom the Classic period in the Yau tepec area(Montiel n.d .). Rattray (1981, 1998) reports aThin Orange frequency of 313% from test

excavations of the Teotihuacan MappingProject. The distribution of Thin Orange isalso an important indicator of its imperialnatu re. At sites within the imperial periph-ery, Thin Orange is present throughoutmost residential sites, yet at distant siteslike Kaminaljuyu, Copan, and Tikal, ThinOrange is mainly found in isolated (elite)funerary contexts.

Although the Otum ba obsid ian source isonly about 15 km from Teotihuacan, thePachuca obsidian source, located 50 kmnortheast of the city, appears to have beenof more interest to the empire (Charlton1978). The manufacture of tools fromPachuca obsidian took place mainly inworkshops associated with public build-ings in Teotihuacan, suggesting state con-

trol (Spence 1987). This monopoly includ edextraction, suggested by Teotihuacan sitessuch as Huapalcalco and Zazacula locatedclose to Pachuca (Charlton 1978; Santleyand Pool 1993), production, distribution tothe provinces, and trad e with external part-ners. In the Teotihuacan p rovinces, Pachuca

obsidian became the d ominant lithic mate-rial in the Classic period, a trend that re-versed in the Epiclassic period (after the fallof Teotihuacan). The evidence from More-los suggests that Pachuca obsid ian w as im-

ported into the area already in blade form(Montiel n.d .).

Decorated censers were also importedinto the provinces (Daz Oyarzbal 1980;Montiel n.d.). The censers from the Yaute-pec area are so similar stylistically and tech-nologically to Teotihuacan censers, that inthe absence of characterization analysis it isdifficult to determine if they were locally

made imitations or imports. We considerthese censers as imp erial goods based up onthe identification of a large censer work-shop associated with the Ciudadela inTeotihuacan (Sugiyama 1998). AlthoughTeotihuacan-type censers are found in dis-tant areas outside of the empire (Berlo1984), their presence is isolated from otherindicators of Teotihuacan contact and such

examples are probably local imitations ofTeotihuacan censers. Figurines have beenextensively described for two areas in theTeotihuacan empire, Chingu (DazOyarzbal 1991) and the Yautepec Valley(Montiel 1999). These are identical to fig-urines found at Teotihuacan (Barbour1979). The presence of molds in these areassuggests that at least some of these fig-

urines w ere produ ced in the p rovinces. It ispossible that Teotihuacan supplied themolds.

Teotihuacans interest in its provincesvaried w ith the economic and strategic im-portance of each area. Chingu was probablyvalued for its lime, which was needed formu ral production and plaster manu facturefor floors and walls at Teotihuacan. The

Yautepec and Amatzinac valleys wereprobably cotton growing areas as they areknown to have been in the Late Postclassicperiod (Maldonado Jimnez 1990; Smith1994). A few possible crud e spind le whorlsand weaving picks have been found inTeotihu acan although they are not common



15/40

(Cabrera 1999). There are many bone nee-d les imp lying that some form of textile wasbeing p rodu ced. Cotton can not grow in theBasin of Mexico du e to the colder env iron-ment, and Morelos is the closest cotton

growing area. Morelos was also favored forits strategic location along a trade routewith Guerrero. Granular ware, probablyfrom Guerrero, is found in Teotihuacan, butthere are higher frequencies in central andeastern Morelos (Hirth 1980; Montiel 1998,n.d.), suggesting that Granular w are movedthrou gh Morelos on its way to Teotihuacan.

Teotihuacan dominated trade routes to

northern Mexico and Veracruz by control-ling select tow ns in Puebla, Tlaxcala (GarcaCook 1981), Hidalgo (Garca Cook andTrejo 1977), and Queretaro. In the Valley ofQueretaro, goods that may have been con-trolled by the state, such as red-on-buffbowls in cylindrical and annular-basedforms, are found in a few large sites instrategic locations to control trade routes

from Teotihuacan to areas in the north . Theconcentra tion of populations in these settle-ments by the Late Classic period is inter-preted by the investigators as a response tothe collapse of Teotihuacan (Brambila andCasta eda 1993; Crespo 1998; Saint-CharlesZetina an d Argelles Gamboa 1991).

Tula

Several areas w ithin the central Mexicanhighlands exhibit Early Postclassic potterysimilar to that of Tollan-phase Tula (ceram-ics at Tula are described by Cobean 1990and Acosta 1956, 1957), and most archaeol-ogists suggest that this material indicatessome form of link with the Toltec city. Theclosest parallels are found in the Bajo area

of Guanajuato and Queretaro, where ElCerrito, Morales, and other sites sharemany ceramic types with Tollan-phase Tula(Flores an d Cresp o 1988; Cresp o 1991; Bran-iff 1999). Flores and Crespo (1988) suggestthat these similarities ind icate la existenciade una poblacin que en alguna forma es-

tuvo unida a Tula (p. 218; see also Braniff1975:281). We suggest below that th ese sim-ilarities may have resulted from the incor-poration of this area into the Tula polity.

The Early Postclassic ceramics of the Basin

of Mexico were part of the Mazapan ceramicsphere (Whalen and Parsons 1982; Cobean1990), which shares many types (but withdifferent frequencies) with the local Tollanceramic sphere of the Tula region (Cobean1990:3840). Although no chemical charac-terization studies have been published, it islikely that vessels of some of the common ce-ramic types were exchanged between Tula

and settlements in the Basin of Mexico.In our survey of the Yautepec Valley we

collected low frequ encies of several ceram ictypes similar to Tollan-phase types at Tulasuch as Macana Red-on-Brown and ProaPolished Cream (Cascio et al. 1995). Thetype Macana Red-on-Brown, a very raretype in Yautepec, app ears to be a distinctiveTula-based type that was probably traded

from Tula. Cream-slipped ceramics, on theother hand, are more common in Morelosand also have a much more widespreaddistribution in Early Postclassic centralMexico (Cobean 1990:357364; Whalen andParsons 1982:437; Tolstoy 1958). It seemsmore likely that they may have been pro-duced in the Basin of Mexico and Morelosin addition to the Tula area. None of the

Toltec-like ceramics from Guanajuato,Queretaro, the Basin of Mexico, or Moreloshave been subjected to chemical characteri-zation, however, and our suggestionsshould be seen as highly preliminary. So-called Mazapan-style ceramic figurinesare not uncommon in the Yautepec Valley,and we believe that these are better seen asevidence for p articipation in a central Mex-

ican style zone that included Morelos, theBasin of Mexico, the Tula region, and partsof west Mexico (Schondube 2000) than asevidence for direct exchange betweenYau tepec and Tula.

In contrast to these likely cases of stylisticsimilarity is the site of Tlalpizahuac, near



16/40

Chalco in the southern Basin of Mexico,whose limited Early Postclassic depositsproduced burial vessels and sherds verysimilar to the ceramics of Tula that m ay rep -resent imports (Pfannkuch Wachtel et al.

1993). Most of the architecture and depositsat this site date to the terminal Classic andEpiclassic per iods, how ever (Tovaln 1998),with Early Postclassic vessels found pri-marily in some intrusive burials. Tlalpiza-huac also yielded ceramic imports frommore distant areas, including Plumbatefrom Pacific coastal Guatemala and FineOrange and other Gulf Coast types, indicat-

ing that the inhabitants of Tlalpizahuacwere trading with diverse areas. The evi-dence does not suggest conquest or domi-nation by Tula, and Tovaln (1998:177) con-cludes that the site was not occupied byToltecs from Tula.

One of the few clear examples of hinter-land goods imported into Tula is obsid ian,although the mechanisms are not yet clear.

The city had num erous w orkshops p roduc-ing prismatic blades, bifaces, and othertools from obsidian. The raw material camefrom several source areas, including thenearby Pachuca source and the distantUcareo/ Zinapecuaro source area in Mi-choacan (Healan 1993; Healan et al. 1983).Analysis of Early Postclassic ceramics inthis source area revealed no definite Toltec

imports but rather an intrusive ceramiccomplex (called Cumbres) linked to eitherHuamango in the Bajo region (Pia Chn1981; Lagu nas 1997) or to sites in th e TolucaValley (Healan and Hernan dez 2000). Theseauthors suggest that populations fromthese latter areas may have quar ried obsid-ian at Ucareo, part of which was then deliv-ered to Tula as tribute. Alternatively, local

groups in either the Ucareo or the Bajo re-gion could have sent obsidian to Tulathrough commercial exchange networks.Kristan-Graham (1993, 1999) has inter-preted figures carved in relief on a promi-nen t frieze at Tula as merchants rath er thanas soldiers or chiefs (an alternative interp re-


TABLE 2

Frequencies of Imported Ceramics in the Yautepec

Valley, Morelos

Area of origin Teotihuacan Tula Tenochtitlan

Local 70.8 93.3 91.6Imperial imports 1.8 0.1 2.3Imperial style, 3.9 0.1

local originImperial style, 9.5 6.4 5.1

un certain originOther imports 14.0 1.0Total sherds 14,697 1,684 57,051

tation), providing further evidence for theimportance of commerce at Tula. Not sur-prisingly, excavations a t the site of Teptitlnin the immediate vicinity of Tula (Cobeanand Mastache 1999) reveal a level of ex-

change between the city and its inner hin-terland far higher than between Tula andany d istant area.

Discussion

Because the Yautepec Valley of Moreloswas included in the Tenochtitlan and Teoti-huacan empires and in Daviess model of

the Tula empire (see above), it is instructiveto compare the frequencies of imperialimports from these three cities at sitesarou nd Yau tepec (see Table 2). For Teotihua-can and Tenochtitlan, we use sherd countsfrom our excavations; because we did notexcavate any Early Postclassic sites, we usedata from single-component surface collec-tions for the Tula period .3 The lower level of

probable imperial imports at Yautepecduring Tulas reign compared to the earlierand later empires is striking. It should benoted that if some or all of the cream-slipped ceramics (comprising the category,imperial style, uncertain origin) were im-por ted from Tula, this would bring that citymore in line with the frequencies of theother tw o cities. Although w e consider this

un likely, it cannot be ru led out un til chemi-cal characterization research is done on theEarly Postclassic ceramics. In contrast,


17/40

many of our attributions of Classic and LatePostclassic types to local vs imported cate-gories are based upon recent neu tron activa-tion stud ies (Smith et al. 1999; Montiel n.d.).The presence of imported ceramics from

areas other than the imperial capital inTeotihuacan and Tenochtitlan times (Table2) points to higher levels of regional ex-change in those periods.

The existence of exchange relationshipsbetween a city and provincial areas is a nec-essary but not sufficient criterion for thepresence of imperialism, and it is difficult toimagine an em pire having the low level of

capitalprovinces exchange indicated forTula. The larger sizes of Tenochtitlan andTeotihuacan relative to Tula were associ-ated with much higher levels of economicactivity in these cities (including craft pro-duction and exchange), with greater ex-change between the cities and their hinter-lands, and with greater exchange betweenthe provinces and areas other than the im-

perial capitals.

DOMIN ATION OF A TERRITORY:

POLITICAL CONTROL OF PROVINCES

Tenochtitlan

In contrast with the topic of exchange,the political control of provinces by

Tenochtitlan is far more heavily docu-mented in written sources than in the ar-chaeological record (Berdan et al. 1996; Car-rasco 1996). Tenochtitlan relied on pro-vincial city-state rulers for local rule in m ostcases (Smith 2000), and this ind irect form ofcontrol epitomizes the archaeological diffi-culties in studying the emp ire. The militaryconquest of provincial polities is hinted at

by the existence of locally built Postclassicfortresses in several parts of the Aztec em-pire (Smith n.d.a), but problems withchronology and the lack of excavations ru lethese out as unequivocal evidence for im-perial conquest. The Aztec military settle-ments at Quauhtochco (Medilln Zeil

1952) and Oztom a (see below) suggest con-quest, or at least control, of these p rovincialareas, but again the picture is clouded bypoor data. The two strongest indicators ofAztec imperial domination are the decline

in stand ard of living at sites in Morelos fol-lowing Aztec conquest and suggestions ofthe co-opting of p rovincial elites by th e im-perial ru lers.

The transition from the Late Postclassic-A period (prior to Aztec conquest) to theLate Postclassic-B period (following Aztecconquest) was marked by a consistent low-ering of the standard of living at sites in

Morelos as inferred from a quantitativewealth ind ex based up on frequencies of im-ported and local decorated ceramics. Al-though this trend was p robably due in partto local demographic and agrarianprocesses (Smith and Heath-Smith 1994),the fact that it w as consistent across a nu m-ber of sites in d ifferent p olities and environ-mental zones (Smith n.d .b) suggests a com-

mon origin in Aztec conquest. Currentresearch by Jan Olson is examining issuesof wealth levels and standard of living onthe household level at three of those sites,Yautepec, Cuexcomate, and Capilco. Smithand Heath-Smith (1994) argue that al-though the direct effects of the impositionof imperial tribute at the household levelwere minor, Aztec imperialism had signifi-

cant indirect effects that combined to pro-duce major economic and social impacts onprovincial households. One of these indi-rect effects was the support of provincialelites.

The co-opting of provincial elites, a com-mon process in hegemonic empires, was amajor component of the imperial strategiesof the Aztecs (Berdan et al. 1996). Current

research on excavated elite compounds inMorelos suggest that p rovincial elites at theimportant p olitical center of Yautepec w erebetter off economically after Aztec con-quest, whereas contemporary elites at therural town of Cuexcomate suffered greatly(Jan Olson and M. Smith, unpublished



18/40

data); this fits what we know of Aztecstrategies in co-opting powerful provincialelites. Additional evidence for this processmay be found in the scattered occurrence ofMexica-style sculptures in the provinces

(Umberger and Klein 1993). For example,the presence of the carved name glyph ofthe Mexica emperor Ahuitzotl in the an-cient provincial temple of Tepozteco inMorelos suggests a proclamation of imper-ial control and a statement of alliance withthe local elites who p robably controlled thetemple.

Teotihuacan

A lack of fieldw ork at relevant sitesmakes it difficult to identify extensive evi-dence for control of a territory by Teotihua-can. There are a number of sites that arelikely Teotihuacan administrative centerswithin its provinces (Table 3 and Fig. 3).These sites exhibit talud-tablero architec-

ture, pyramid-plaza complexes, and or-thogonal grid layouts, all features associ-ated with Teotihuacan (Charlton 1991; DazOyarzbal 1998; Nalda 1997; Torres Cabello1998). The evidence in the provinces con-sists of urban planning influenced by Teoti-huacan, the reorganization of settlements

around imperial regional centers exhibitingTeotihuacan state ideology, and state-con-trolled goods present at settlements sur-round ing these centers.

Ocoyoacac in the valley of Toluca has a

northsouth orientation, probable grid p at-tern, talud-tablero architecture, as well asTeotihuacan ceramics includ ing cylindricaltripod and flat-bottom, flaring w all vessels,Thin Orange, imitation Thin Orange,censers, and figurines (Daz Oyarzbal1998). The site was abandoned in the LateClassic with the collapse of the empire. Te-peapulco in southeastern Hidalgo is a re-

gional center that also exhibits Teotihuacaninfluence in its urban planning and con-tains a h igh frequency of Teotihuacan styleceramics and Thin Orange (MatosMoctezuma et al. 1981). In Tlaxcala, Teoti-hu acan ceramics and figurines are found inassociation with the apartment-type com-pounds and pyramid-plaza groups at thesite of Calpulalpan (Linn 1942:5689).

While Teotihuacan influ ence in u rban p lan-ning is absent in Tlaxcala outside of theTeotihuacan Corridor (Garca Cook1981), a grave was foun d in the site of Tete-les de Ocotitla containing a large offering ofTeotihuacan ceramics (Vega Sosa 1981).From the p reliminary w ork in the valley of


TABLE 3

Urban Characteristics of Adminis trative Centers in the Teotihuacan Empire

State- Effect of Com pact/ Ap artm en t Grid Cerem on ial Pyr./ p laza Talu d- con trolled Teo collap se

Provincial city Nucleated compounds plan avenues complexes tablero goods present

Basin of Mexico:Central Basin X X X X X X X XSouthern Basin X ? ? X X XNorthern Basin X ? ? X X

Other areas:Calpulalpan X X ? ? X ? X ?

Tepeapulco X X ? X X X X ?Ocoyoacac X X ? X X X XChingu X X X X X X X XHacienda Calderon X ? ? X X X XSan Ignacio X ? ? X ? X X

Sources. Charlton (1991: Table 15.2); Daz (1998); Nald a (1997); Torres Cabello (1998).

Note. Key: (X) trait is presen t, () trait is absent, (?) presence of trait is u nkn own.


19/40

Queretaro, there appear to be many siteswith strong ceramic and architectural simi-larities with Teotihuacan, including SanBartolo Aguascaliente (Brambila and Cas-ta eda 1993), El Cerr ito (Cresp o 1991, 1998),

and La Negreta and El Rosario (Saint-Charles Zetina 1998).

Chingu, near Tula, and San Ignacio inMorelos display many of the material corre-lates of Teotihuacan regional centers andwere also abandoned with the collapse of theempire. Chingu is the only distant provincialcenter that contains all of the evidence forurban planning illustrated in Table 3 as well

as a majority of Teotihuacan ceramics andfigurines (Daz Oyarzbal 1980, 1991). InMorelos, the surveys of the Amatzinac (Hirth1978, 1980, 1996) and Yau tepec valleys (Mon-tiel n.d.), and intensive investigations at LasPilas (Martnez Donjuan 1979) and Haciend aCalderon (Nalda 1997) provide the most de-tailed portrayal of a provincial area of theTeotihuacan empire. San Ignacio in the Am-

atzinac Valley (Hirth 1978, 1980, 1996) andHacienda Calderon in the Cuautla Valley areregional centers exhibiting urban planningand a concentration of state goods. All re-ported Early Classic sites in the eastern halfof Morelos contain numerous examples ofTeotihuacan material culture, both importedand locally made, including Thin Orangeand other ceramic wares, figurines, and

Pachuca obsidian blades. Changes in settle-ment patterns reflect a nucleation of popula-tions in fertile cotton growing areas and/ orstrategic positions, both conditions probablydue to the effect of the empire. The Teotihua-can empire appears to have controlled itsprovinces outside of the Basin of Mexicousing indirect rule, and recent fieldwork inthese provincial areas points to a diversity of

imperial interactions (Montiel n.d.).

Tula

Two kinds of evidence suggest that theTula state may have controlled settlementsin the Bajo region. First, the extensive simi-

larities between Early Postclassic ceramicsin the Bajo region and Tula, discussedabove (see Flores and Crespo 1988), suggestclose interaction between these areas. Bothwere par t of the Tollan ceramic sphere, and

on this basis Cobean (1990:507) suggeststhat the Bajo was part of the Tula empire.More impressive, however, is the presenceof stone sculptures at the site of El Cerrito(Crespo 1991) that are virtually identical tosculptures at Tula (de la Fuente et al. 1988).These suggest local elite emulation ofstate/ imperial styles, probably resultingfrom close communication between elites in

the two areas. The regional polity extend-ing from Tula to the El Cerrito area (Fig. 4)could be considered a large regional state,or perhap s a miniemp ire similar to the pre-Tenochtitlan states or empires of Texcocoand Azcapotzalco in the Basin of Mexico(Davies 1973; Carrasco 1996).

A few Tula-style stone carvings w ere alsopresent at Tlalpizahuac in the southern

Basin of Mexico (Granados Vzquez et al.1993), but compared to El Cerrito there arefar fewer examples and they exhibit fewersimilarities with sculptu res at Tula itself; infact these could pred ate the Early Postclas-sic period (Tovaln 1998). The largest EarlyPostclassic sites encountered by the Basinof Mexico archaeological survey projectsare fairly small and unassuming sites classi-

fied as secondary regional centers (Par-sons 1971:8788; Sanders et al. 1979). Al-though these have yet to be investigated inany d etail, none of them app ear to resembleTeotihuacans regional administrative cen-ters (Table 3) in size, com plexity, or likenessto the political capital. We therefore see noreason to include the Basin of Mexico,Morelos, or other areas outside of the nar-

row corridor from Tula to El Cerrito inmodern reconstru ctions of the Toltec polity.

Discussion

As noted above, it is very d ifficult to findmaterial evidence of provincial control in



20/40

emp ires that were organized in an indirector hegem onic fashion. Such polities did notinvest much in provincial infrastructure,and they relied on the co-option of provin-cial elites for control. The simple presence

of imperial goods in distant elite contextscan indicate either imperial control or im-perial interaction with extraempire elites(Whittaker 1994). The client states of theeastern Roman empire (Braund 1984) pro-vide a textually well-docum ented exampleof indirect rule. Although nominally inde-pendent of Rome, these kingd oms w ere forall practical purposes under Romes con-

trol. Yet archaeological evidence for this sit-uation is quite elusive (Isaac 1990; Millar1995).

Even with these difficulties, the differ-ences in the quantity of evidence in provin-cial areas between Tenochtitlan and Teoti-huacan, on one hand, and Tula, on theother, is striking. Our surveys and excava-tions in Morelos turn up considerable evi-

dence of goods or styles from Tenochtitlanand Teotihu acan, but man y fewer examplesof goods or styles from Tula. Furthermore,our knowledge of the archaeological recordin nearby areas such as southern Pueblaand Toluca suggests that this situation istypical.

INFLUENCE IN THE WIDER

MESOAMERICAN WORLD SYSTEM

Tenochtitlan

Mexica trade with places beyond the lim-its of their empire is well documented ar-chaeologically. Obsidian from the Pachucasource area, almost certainly carried by thefamouspochteca merchan ts (Isaac 1986), has

been found in Late Postclassic contexts in anu mber of d istant areas (Smith 1990). AztecIII black-on-orange ceramics, althoughprobably less common than obsidian out-side of the empire, were neverthelesstraded as far south as El Salvador (Navar-rete 1996). Turquoise, imported from the

U.S. Southwest (Weigand et al. 1977;Weigand and Harbottle 1993) is common atTenochtitlan and other Aztec sites (Saville1922). Several caches of copper or bronzebells from Michoacan and / or Jalisco have

been recovered in Tenochtitlan (Seler19901996), and bronze objects are not un-comm on in other parts of the Aztec empire(Hosler 1994, 1996). In addition to bronze,obsidian from Michoacan (the Ucareoand / or Zinapecuaro sources) is not uncom-mon at Aztec sites in Morelos, and Pachucaobsidian has been found at Tarascan sites inthe Patzcuaro Basin (Pollard and Vogel

1994). These materials are particularly im-portant, for they document the existence oftrade across the Aztec/ Tarascan imperialborder (a process not described in docu-mentary sources, which emphasize hostileactivities along the border). Other exoticgoods found at Aztec sites, including jadeand marine shell (Thouvenot 1982; LpezLujn 1994), provide additional evidence of

active commercial exchange with extraim-perial areas.

Perhap s the clearest case of political influ-ence beyond the Aztec imperial borders isthe militarization of the Aztec/ Tarascan bor-der. As these two expanding empires cameup against one another in the mid- to late15th century, a nu mber of fortifications w erebuilt on each side. The Aztec fortress of Oz-

toma, described in a num ber of ethnohistoricaccoun ts, is the best known, although to dateonly limited fieldwork has been done at thesite (Silverstein 2000). There are m any otherfortified sites along both sides of this border,some quite large and impressive, and ar-chaeologists are only beginning to studythese sites (Gorenstein 1985; HernndezRivero 1994b; Silverstein 2000).

The cultural influence of the Aztec em-pire beyond its borders is d ifficult to assess,since the transmission of many centralMexican styles and traits to distant areasbegan before the formation of the empireand existing chronologies are not suffi-ciently refined to p inpoint the d ates of indi-



21/40

vidual occurrences (Smith 2001). One of themost visible examples of central Mexicaniconographic elements in distant areas isthe Postclassic International Symbol Set(Smith and Berdan 2000; Boone and Smith

n.d.), a group of visual elements found asfar away as Maya murals at Tulum andother sites on the coast of Yucatan (Robert-son 1970 labeled these elements the Inter-national style of the Postclassic period).The spread of these symbols probably sig-naled th e expansion of commercial and cul-tural networks in the Late PostclassicMesoamerican world system (prior to as

well as after the expansion of the Aztec em-pire), and thus it is only a weak candidatefor imperial influence in the internationalcontext. Many of the items in Navarretes(1996) catalog of presumed central Mexicantraits found in southern Mesoamerica pre-date the Aztec empire (and many of themprobably do not even have a central Mexi-can origin a t all). In sum, it is d ifficult to d e-

termine whether the app arent lack of Azteccultural and stylistic influence beyond theempire is due to chronological imprecisionor to a simple lack of such influence. Thissituation contrasts greatly with the earlierTeotihuacan empire, whose cultural influ-ence was widespread and deep throughoutMesoamerica.

Teotihuacan

Teotihuacan had commercial contactsthroughout most of Mesoamerica. Importsfound in Teotihuacan include stone masksand Granular ware from Guerrero, shelland cacao from the Pacific coast, Lustrousware from El Tajin, Polychromes from thePeten, and other fine ware ceramics from

the Gulf Coast (Rattray 1979). Pachuca ob-sidian, whose distribution was almost cer-tainly in Teotihuacan hands (Sanders andSantley 1983; San tley and Pool 1993; Spence1987, 1996), is a rare but consistent com-modity at Classic Maya sites (Spence 1996;Moholy-Nagy 1999) as are Teotihuacan ce-

ramics (discussed below). Teotihuacan-typedecorated censers have been found withlocal censer types in Escuintla and LakeAmatitlan, Guatemala (Berlo 1984). Cylin-drical tripod vessels, a hallmark of Teoti-

huacan, appear in sites throughoutMesoamerica, although many are locallymade variants.

Surround ing areas respond ed politicallyto the rise, domination, and collapse of theTeotihuacan empire. Monte Alban in Oax-aca was a powerful state that had comm er-cial and / or dip lomatic relations with Teoti-huacan. Marcus (1983) interprets stone

reliefs at Monte Alban as records of Teoti-huacan visitors, probably diplomats ortraders. The so-called Oaxaca barrio atTeotihuacan (Spence 1989, 1992) was aneighborhood where foreigners, presum-ably from Monte Alban, were living w ithinthe Teotihuacan urban zone. Monte Albandeclined about the same time as Teotihua-can, which suggests a close connection be-

tween the two states (Blanton 1983). Migra-tion into areas of Puebla that wereindependent of Teotihu acan and nu cleationinto larger settlemen t have been interp retedas responses to the increasing dominationof Teotihuacan (Garca Cook 1981:263; Gar-ca Cook and Merino Carrin 1997:369).Even distant areas in Michoacan were ef-fected by increasing m ining of cinnabar and

other pigments used for Teotihuacan mu ralproduction (Weigand 1982).

Matacapan in Veracruz has been sug-gested as a Teotihuacan enclave due to thepresence oftalud-tablero architecture on onestructure and Teotihuacan type ceramics,such as candeleros, tripod vessels, floreros,censers, and effigy vessels (Ortiz and Santley1998; San tley 1989; San tley et al. 1987). These

ceramics are locally made, however, andCowgill (1997:135) has noted that their re-semblance to Teotihuacan ceramics are notas close as some had previously implied.This pattern may reflect the presence of agroup originating from Teotihuacan, just asthere were residents from the Gulf Coast liv-



22/40

ing in the Merchan ts Barrio of the capital(Rattray 1979). The collapse of the Teotihu a-can empire did not appear to affect the GulfCoast greatly, however (Arnold et al. 1993),and we doubt if this area was ever part of

the Teotihuacan emp ire.Kaminaljuyu, near Guatemala City, also

had links to Teotihuacan, evident in the u seof talud-tablero architecture and goods fromTeotihuacan present in some burials(Sanders and Michels 1977). The data sug-gest that the tw o cities were related throughties of elite exchan ge and interaction ratherthan through imperial conquest (see discus-

sion of these processes in Stark 1990). Teoti-huacan traits are restricted to parts of theacropolis and elite burial contexts, and theyare found together with the regional Mayatraditions.

Recent epigraphic decipherments ofmonuments from Tikal by David Stuart(2000) have brought up the old argument(again) that Teotihuacan conqu ered this city

in the Early Classic period (Coe 1999:9097). In Tikal, the relevant evidence be-gins with texts associated with the ninthruler. Stuarts read ing ind icates that th is in-d ividual m ay have been from Teotihu acan,whereas Schele and Freidel (1990:156159)claim that the ruler is from the Tikal dy-nasty but had close associations with agroup of Teotihuacanos. At Early Classic

Tikal, the warrior costume of Teotihuacanosappears on important monuments includ-ing Stela 31, the accession m onu ment of the11th ruler. Royal tomb offerings includeThin Oran ge, cylind rical tripod vessels, andgreen obsidian blades from Teotihuacanalong with Maya ceramics. The Mer-chants Barrio at Teotihuacan containsmany Maya sherds probably from Tikal

(Rattray 1979, 1989), indicating that Teoti-hu acan may have had a small residen t Tikalpopulation. At Tikal, a small structure (no.5D-43) connected to the Central Acropolis(the royal palace) exhibits talud-tablero stylearchitecture, although it has been claimedthat the style may more closely resemble

the later cities of El Tajn and Xochicalcothan Teotihuacan (Jones 1996:3235; Scheleand Math ews 1998:72).

The Teotihuacan influence at EarlyClassic Tikal is restricted to the royal lin-

eage, and w e agree with others (Schele andFreidel 1990; Schele and Mathews 1998)that this influ ence w as probably not a re-sult of conquest by Teotihuacan. Specificrulers of Tikal more likely had allianceswith a group from Teotihuacan, perhapsthrough elite intermarriage. Tikal certainlyhad its own reasons for seeking powerfulalliances at this time when it was probably

at w ar w ith its close neighbor, Uaxactun. Infact, the victory of Tikal over Uaxactun isassociated with the introduction of Teoti-huacan weapons, warrior costumes, andmilitary iconography (Schele and Freidel1990: 130165).

The founder of the royal lineage inCopan also appears to have had close asso-ciations with ind ividuals from Teotihuacan.

Altar Q, dedicated 350 years after the royallineage began, depicts the founder withringed eyes, reminiscent of TeotihuacanTlaloc imagery. An Early Classic structurewith talud-tablero architecture was foundbeneath Structure 16 (Sharer 1995). Thisstructure, called H unal by archaeologists,contains the burial of the dynastic founderaccompanied by Teotihuacan-style ceram-

ics. Ongoing stable isotope analysis of theskeletal remains suggest that he may havehad Teotihuacan ancestry. As with Tikal,Teotihuacan influence at Copan is re-stricted to a limited interval during theEarly Classic period and occurs within spe-cific elite contexts. The relationships con-sisted m ainly of elite alliances and the emu-lation of Teotihuacan military symbols for

the cult of war by local ru lers (Schele andFreidel 1990:130165; Schele and Mathews1998:18). Maya kings aligned themselvessymbolically with the distant Teotihuacanempire to legitimize or reinforce their au-thority. These relationships may also havebeen an attempt by individuals from Teoti-



23/40

huacan to establish footholds in the Mayaarea for economic gain, although there isnot a lot of evidence from Teotihuacan of alarge-scale trade network with the Mayalowlands.

By the Late Classic period , there is no ev-idence of direct contact between the Mayalowlands and Teotihuacan. However, evenafter the imperial collapse, Teotihuacanmilitary iconography continues to appearon royal monu ments at Maya sites. Yaxchi-lan Lintel 24 show s the qu een w ith a Tlalochead dress, and Lintel 25 depicts her havinga vision of a serpent with the lineage

founder dressed as a Teotihuacan warrioremerging from its mouth. Piedras Negras,Stela 8, and Dos Pilas, Stela 2, both depictthe rulers with balloon headdresses, Tlalocand Mexican year sign imagery reminiscentof Teotihuacan warrior costumes (Scheleand Friedel 1990:Fig. 4.17). Centuries afterthe fall of the Teotihuacan em pire, its sym-bolic importance in the Mesoamerican

world w as still strong.Much of the confusion in the literature

about Teotihuacans imperial status can beattributed to its widespread cultural influ-ence in Mesoamerica. Traits derived fromor related to Teotihuacan were noted byearly scholars, who attributed them to theconquest of much of Mesoamerica by thehighland city. This was a time when con-

quest and emp ires were invoked to explainmuch of the Mesoamerican past; as an ex-ample, the Classic and Postclassic periodsin the Maya lowlands w ere given the labelsof old empire and new empire. Laterscholars revised their interpretations ofTeotihuacan elements in distant Mesoamer-ica, rightly arguing that they d id not signalimperial control but rather processes of

trad e, stylistic emu lation, and political ma-nipulation of foreign sym bols by local elites(e.g., Stark 1990). In our model, such traitsdo not signal imperial conquest of areaslike Oaxaca or the Maya lowlands, bu t theirprevalence in these areas does provide sup -port for our interpretation of the power and

prestige of Teotihuacan, some of whichprobably derived from its rule of an emp irewithin highland central Mexico.

Tula

Although Tulas economic and politicalimportance within central Mexico was farless than one would expect for an empire,several lines of evidence suggest that thecity was heavily involved in the largerMesoamerican world system during theEarly Postclassic period. Sherds of TohilPlumbate, a widespread Mesoamerican

trade ware produced in Pacific coastalGuatemala, are not uncommon at Tula;Diehl calls this ware especially abundantat Tula (Diehl 1993:268). Strangely, how-ever, the other major Early Postclassic tradeceramic, Silho Fine Orange from the GulfCoast, is absent from Tula. A cache of Cen-tral American polychromes excavated atTula (probably the Las Vegas type from

Hond uras; see Lange 1986) provide fur therevidence for the citys participation in ex-change with the distant reaches ofMesoamerica, and the prevalence of Zi-napecuaro obsidian at Tula shows an ad di-tional commercial connection. The quantityof exotic imports at Tula is not matched byToltec exports in more distant areas, how-ever. The Pachuca obsidian found at Maya

sites in Yucatan in this period (Coe 1999:165169) was probably obtained throughtrade with Tula, but Mazapan-style fig-urines from Apatzingan, Tizapan, andother sites in west Mexico (Mastache andCobean 1985:295; Cobean 1990:506508)may represent stylistic interaction ratherthan exchange (Schondube 2000).

The Early Postclassic period w as a time of

widespread trade and communicationthroughout Mesoamerica, and the inhabi-tants of Tula m ust have participated in thesenetworks. A number of scholars, however,have stressed the noncentralized nature ofEarly Postclassic exchange systems. Smithand Heath-Smith (1980), for example, show



24/40

that during the Epiclassic and Early Post-classic periods most Mesoamerican long-distance trade systems followed coastalroutes, with only limited involvement bythe cities of central Mexico (in strong con-

trast to the Classic and Late Postclassic peri-ods, when Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlanwere far more heavily involved in long-dis-tance exchange than Tula). Diehl (1993) pro-poses the existence of a Toltec horizon inEarly Postclassic Mesoamerica marked byopenwork censers, wheeled toys, and otherritual objects, and he notes that Tula partici-pated in this horizon bu t was p robably not

the place of origin of the objects or the ex-change networks.

Given Tulas quite limited political rolewithin central Mexico, it is not surprisingthat there is no clear evidence for politicalimpact on m ore distant areas. When we turnto cultural influence, how ever, the data tell adifferent story. Tula and the Toltecs wererenowned throughout Mesoamerica, and

Tula clearly played a major role in the largerMesoamerican world system. Diehls (1993)Toltec horizon suggests the inhabitants ofTula were active participants in the interac-tion networks that created and maintainedthe horizon style. We would rephrase hisdiscussion in world system terms; the wide-spread occurrence of this ritual complexpoints to important systems of stylistic in-

teraction and information exchange. Tulawas an important participant in these inter-action systems, even if the major traits didnot d iffuse outward from there.

The most w idely d iscussed case of stylis-tic interaction involving Tula is the relation-ship between that site and Chichen Itza.Detailed architectural similarities betweenthese two Early Postclassic sites have long

been noted, and a strongly polarized d ebatehas emerged over the nature and directionof influ ence between the tw o cities. The tra-ditional argument combines the architec-tural data with origin myths from the twoareas suggesting that the god-king Qu etzal-coatl left Tula and arrived in Yucatan as the

leader of the Itza peoples who conqueredChichen Itza and imposed their architec-tural styles (Tozzer 1957). An opposingmod el, based u pon an earlier dating of theso-called Toltec architecture at Chichen

Itza, holds that architectural styles eitherspread from Yucatan to Tula or spread toboth areas from an unidentified originplace (e.g., Andrews 1990). Many scholarsnow date most of the Chichen Itza architec-ture prior to A.D. 1000 (e.g, Schele andMathews 1998:198201, 357360; Ringle etal. 1998), throwing the former model intodoubt. Given the uncertain chronological

resolution at Chichen Itza, however, thisdebate cannot yet be resolved with confi-dence. Following Kepecs et al. (1994) andothers, we believe that the direction of ar-chitectural influence is less important thanthe fact that Tula and Chichen Itza wereclearly interacting with one another bothcommercially and stylistically. These weretwo of the largest and most influ ential cities

in the Early Postclassic world system, andthis two-way interaction is not surprising.

Discussion

All three cities had important economicand stylistic influence throughout largeparts of Mesoamerica. This kind of long-distance influence is typical of powerful

emp ires, but it can exist in th e absence of anemp ire. World h istory has num erous exam-ples of large cities that had wide-ranginginfluences bu t were not capitals of emp ires.These includ e religious cities (e.g., Rome inpost-imperial times or Mecca) and citiesthat were trade centers (e.g., Venice andGenoa in early m odern times). This is com-mon in periods with vigorous world sys-

tems, defined as systems of widely sepa-rated polities that are linked throughcommercial exchange and often otherforms of interaction (Abu-Lughod 1989;Chase-Dunn and Hall 1997; Peregrine andFeinman 1996). We suggest that all threemajor cities participated in world systems



25/40

(see note 1) that linked most or all ofMesoamerica through trade and stylisticcommunication. The relevance of the w orldsystems approach for present purposes isthat it provides a framework for under-

standing the ways in which long-distancestylistic and commercial influences canexist independently of the presence of em-pires.

CONCLUSIONS

The Nonexistent Toltec Empire

The material culture ind icators of ancientimperialism reviewed above suggest thatTenochtitlan and Teotihuacan ruled em-pires covering large areas of highland cen-tral Mexico, but Tula did not. Our interpre-tation of Tenochtitlan is hardly surprising,since the documentary record is clear aboutthe existence of an empire centered at thiscity (e.g., Berd an et al. 1996; Carrasco 1996).

This case lends support to our model byshowing that a historically known Meso-american empire can indeed be identifiedfrom its material remains alone. The exis-tence of a central Mexican empire based atTeotihuacan has been less widely accepted ,but there have been few explicit argum entsagainst such an interpretation. Most schol-ars have been too preoccupied with Teoti-

huacans interaction with the Maya statesto worry about the Teotihuacan polity incentral Mexico. We feel that the data pre-sented above provide strong support forMillons (1988) model of a Teotihu acan em-pire, and Montiels (n.d.) dissertation elabo-rates on the nature and local effects of Teoti-hu acan imperialism.

The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic

Documents

Transcript of The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic