The Archaeology of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico

Dan M. Healan

Published online: 12 August 2011

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Abstract The site of Tula, Hidalgo, Mexico, is well known for its distinctivearchitecture and sculpture that came to light in excavations initiated some 70 years

ago. Less well known is the extensive corpus of archaeological research conducted

over the past several decades, revealing a city that at its height covered an area of c.

16 km2 and incorporated a remarkably diverse landscape of hills, plains, alluvial

valleys, and marsh. Its dense, urban character is evident in excavations at over 22

localities that uncovered complex arrangements of residential compounds whose

nondurable architecture left relatively few surface traces. Evidence of craft pro-

duction includes lithic and ceramic production loci in specific sectors of the ancient

city. Tula possessed a large and densely settled hinterland that apparently encom-

passed the surrounding region, including most of the Basin of Mexico, and its area

of direct influence appears to have extended to the north as far as San Lus Potos.

Tula is believed to have originated as the center of a regional state that consolidated

various Coyotlatelco polities and probably remnants of a previous Teotihuacan-

controlled settlement system. Its pre-Aztec history exhibits notable continuity in

settlement, ceramics, and monumental art and architecture. The nature of the sub-

sequent Aztec occupation supports ethnohistorical and other archaeological evi-

dence that Tulas ruins were what the Aztecs called Tollan.

Keywords Tula Tollan Toltec Cities Urbanism Archaeology Mesoamerica

Introduction

To Mesoamericanists, Tula conjures up many topics that go far beyond the

archaeological site itself in southern Hidalgo. Chief among these is its long-standing

D. M. Healan (&)Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA

e-mail: healan@tulane.edu

123

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

DOI 10.1007/s10814-011-9052-3

association with Tollan, the legendary city of the Toltecs whose accounts in contact-

period sources have fascinated and puzzled generations of scholars and still provoke

controversy today. No less controversial are its architectural and artistic parallels to

Chichen Itza (Fig. 1, E), which have been cited as proof of Tulas status as Tollan

and the veracity of ethnohistorical accounts of Chichen Itzas conquest by Toltecs.

While it would be difficult to focus at length on Tula without considering both of

these issues, I am not directly concerned with questions surrounding its identifi-

cation as Tollan or its relationship to Chichen Itza, for which the interested reader is

urged to consult a recent collection of papers on both subjects (Kowalski and

Kristan-Graham 2007). Instead, my primary concern is with our knowledge of Tula

and the surrounding region based on archaeological investigations since Acostas

pioneering work in the mid-20th century.

Although the archaeological evidence indicates that Tula was indeed the site the

Aztecs called Tollan, I simply refer to it as Tula in light of evidence that Tollan is

a larger cultural construct whose origins may go back at least as far as Teotihuacan

(Lopez Lujan and Lopez Austin 2009; Stuart 2000). For similar reasons, I do not use

Toltec as a descriptor for Tula, despite its use as a formal time period in the Basin

of Mexico.

Tula is located in central Mexico (Fig. 1, A), an interior plateau with a long

tradition of prehispanic (Mesoamerican) cities, beginning with Teotihuacan and

ending with Tenochtitlan. A disproportionately large number were located within

the 8,000-km2 lacustrine basin known as the Basin of Mexico, whose long and

Fig. 1 Mesoamerica and central Mexico (inset) showing (A) Tula and other sites and localities discussedin text: B, Teotihuacan; C, D, Ucareo and Pachuca obsidian sources; E, Chichen Itza; F, Cerro Portezuelo;G, Cerritos; H, Carabino; I, Villa de Reyes

54 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

vibrant urban tradition has been the subject of numerous studies (e.g., Millon 1973;

Sanders et al. 1979; Wolf 1976). Tula lies c. 30 km north of the basin in an area

bounded on three sides by mountain ranges and dissected by streams that provide

passage into neighboring regions (Fig. 2). The site is situated on the southwest

corner of a broad alluvial plain that is today productive agricultural land enhanced

by irrigation systems, some of which go back at least to the colonial era. Volcanism

has produced numerous prominent hills, including the centrally located Cerro

Xicuco, and mesas along the eastern flank.

The site core occupies an elongated northsouth upland along the Tula River that

has been partially dissected to form two northsouth lobes upon which are situated

three large mound/plaza complexes (Fig. 3, inset). The southernmost complex

constituted Tulas political and religious center during its apogee; the northernmost

is a smaller complex that appears to have been the political and religious center for

Tulas earliest settlement. The overall similarity in plan between the two led Matos

(1974a) to suggest that the earlier mound complex had served as the prototype for

the later one; he designated the two complexes Tula Chico and Tula Grande,

Fig. 2 Topographic map of the Tula region showing Tulas urban limits (black) and other sites discussedin text: A, La Loma; B, Chingu; C, Acoculco; D, El Tesoro; E, La Mesa; F, Cerro La Ahumada (MesaGrande)

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 55

123

respectively. The Plaza Charnay is named for the French explorer who conducted

excavations there in 1880. The three complexes occupy most of the 1.1-km2 area

within the protected archaeological zone, although the site itself extends far beyond.

Previous archaeological research

In many respects the first archaeological investigations at Tula were conducted by

the Aztecs. In the post-conquest era, Garca Cubas (1873) provided the earliest

accounts of the site. Charnay (1887) conducted exploratory excavations in and

around Tula Grande in 1880. Although no major work was conducted until 1940,

Fig. 3 Topographic map of Tula (source: Yadeun 1974) showing mounds greater than 1 m in height andmajor monumental precincts (inset). Map appears to be oriented to magnetic north, which in 1973 was c.8.2E

56 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

Tula was visited periodically by various scholars, including Vaillant (1938), whose

test excavations provided ceramic evidence for Tulas intermediate placement with

respect to Teotihuacan and the Aztecs.

Beginning in 1940, Mexicos Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia

(INAH), under the direction of Jorge Acosta, conducted extensive investigations at

Tula over an 18-year period that focused on Tula Grande. Although Acosta never

wrote a definitive site report, he published numerous detailed interim reports and

several syntheses (Acosta 1940, 1941, 1942, 1943, 1944, 1945, 1956a, b, 1956

1957, 1957, 1959, 1960, 1961a, b, 1964, 1974; see Diehl 1989a for a summary).

During the late 1960 and 1970s, two comprehensive archaeological projects were

conducted by INAH (Matos 1974b, 1976) and the University of Missouri (Diehl

1974, 1981, 1983; Healan 1989). Both projects involved mapping, surface survey,

and excavation at Tula and regional survey and excavation in the surrounding area.

Their major contributions include determination of Tulas overall size, elucidation

of its settlement history and that of the surrounding region, and a comprehensive

ceramic chronology. INAH (e.g., Abascal 1982; Cobean 1982; Mastache 1996a) and

other institutions (Healan et al. 1983) have conducted numerous additional

investigations at Tula and in the Tula region.

Chronology

Acosta (1945, 19561957) provided the first ceramic typology and chronology for

Tula. He recognized two distinct ceramic/cultural complexes, one associated with

the Aztec and the other an earlier, pre-Aztec complex he called Tula-Mazapan.

The latter complex contained two phases, or periods, designated Perodo Antiguo

and Perodo Reciente, although most of the 17 ceramic types he defined for the

Tula-Mazapan complex were present in both phases (Acosta 1945, pp. 5556), so

that each period had but two unique types. Acostas use of the term Mazapan has

little to do with the pottery type of the same name and instead follows Vaillants

(1941) use of the term to refer to the larger cultural complex embracing all of pre-

Aztec Tula, in much the same way that others use Toltec. The current use of

Mazapa, or Mazapan, to refer not only to specific pottery and figurine types but also

to larger ceramic and cultural complexes and a chronological period is an

unfortunate and unending source of confusion.

The current ceramic typology and chronology for Tula and the Tula region, as

formulated by Cobean (1978, 1990), consists of eight ceramic complexes (Prado

Tesoro) and corresponding temporal phases (Fig. 4), the last three of which pertain

to Aztec period occupations. Two earlier (La Mesa and Chingu) phases plus

ceramics associated with even earlier occupations were identified in the surrounding

area. More recent studies (e.g., Bey 1986; Equihua 2003; Estrada 2004; Hernandez

et al. 1999; Moncayo 1999) have introduced new types and other modifications to

Cobeans ceramic typology and chronology. One particularly significant revision

(Bey 1986, pp. 307314) involves splitting the Tollan phase, originally embracing

all of Tulas Early Postclassic apogee, into two phases (Early Tollan and Late

Tollan) based principally on the appearance and proliferation of Jara Polished

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 57

123

Orange (hereafter Jara) in the latter phase. In fact, Acosta had previously recognized

the importance of Jara, which he called Naranja a Brochazos, as a temporal marker,

using it to define his Perodo Reciente (Acosta 1945, pp. 56).

Cobeans ceramic chronology revealed that Mazapa Red on Brown, or Wavy

Line Mazapa, a type commonly regarded as diagnostic of Tulas apogee, is far less

prevalent at Tula than previously thought; it peaked in popularity well before its

apogee. Its previously exaggerated importance at Tula is in part the result of the

initial use of Mazapa by Vaillant and others to embrace a number of largely

unrelated types. For example, Vaillant (1938) reported that the predominant ceramic

type encountered in exploratory excavations at Tula was what he called Mazapa

Laquer on Yellow, which almost certainly refers to Jara (R. Cobean, personal

communication 2009) and has no direct relationship to Mazapa Red on Brown. For

whatever reason, the mischaracterization of Mazapa Red on Brown as diagnostic of

Tulas apogee obscures temporal relationships between Tula and the Basin of

Mexico, where Mazapa refers not only to a pottery type and a larger ceramic/

cultural complex but also a time period that many assume to be contemporaneous

with Tulas apogee (e.g., Smith 2007, p. 583).

Fig. 4 Chronological chart of central Mexico. Portions of the Basin of Mexico and Teotihuacanchronologies are omitted

58 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

There are 23 published radiocarbon dates with adequately documented

contextual information for the Tula region (Table 1, Fig. 5), a relatively small

number considering the nearly 900-year span of prehispanic occupation. This

does not include some additional 24 dates (Paredes 2005, fig. 3) from several

localities excavated by the Proyecto Arqueologico Tula (Abascal Macas 1982),

although little contextual or other information is currently available for these

samples.

The monumental center: Tula Grande

Until recently, virtually all that was known archaeologically about Tula came from

Acostas investigations at Tula Grande that recovered a wealth of sculpture and

monumental architecture that for better or worse came to embody the entire city.

Indeed, for various reasons Tula Grande is the only part of the ancient city of which

most modern visitors to the site are aware.

Table 1 Radiocarbon dates for samples recovered from various excavation localities at Tula and othersites in the region discussed in text

Lab/no. bp Sigma Site Source

a UAZ/5399 1490 50 La Mesa Healan and Cobean (2009, fig. 21)

b UAZ/5038 1300 100 La Mesa Healan and Cobean (2009, fig. 21)

c UAZ/5396 1320 70 La Mesa Healan and Cobean (2009, fig. 21)

d UAZ/5040 1250 50 La Mesa Healan and Cobean (2009, fig. 21)

e UAZ/5398 1040 60 La Mesa Healan and Cobean (2009, fig. 21)

f UAZ/5039 1490 50 Tula Chico Mastache et al. (2009, fig. 316)

g UAZ/5856 1260 130 Tula Chico Mastache et al. (2009, fig. 316)

h UAZ/5855 1245 55 Tula Chico Mastache et al. (2009, fig. 316)

i UAZ/5852 1265 30 Tula Chico Mastache et al. (2009, fig. 316)

j UAZ/5853 1240 35 Tula Chico Mastache et al. (2009, fig. 316)

k INAH/1989 1164 25 Tula Grande Sterpone (2006a, tabla 5)

l INAH/1990 1092 16 Tula Grande Sterpone (20002001, p. 50)

m QL/132 1130 70 Canal Diehl (1981, p. 281)

n QL/1020 1110 40 Canal Diehl (1981, p. 281)

o QL/1021 1070 70 Canal Diehl (1981, p. 281)

p QL/130 1020 50 Canal Diehl (1981, p. 281)

q INAH/1773 1021 54 Vivero Fernandez (1994, p. 54)

r UAZ/5402 1530 60 Tepetitlan Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72)

s UAZ/5401 1040 70 Tepetitlan Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72)

t UAZ/5404 1050 55 Tepetitlan Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72)

u UAZ/5405 830 50 Tepetitlan Cobean and Mastache (1999, p. 72)

v INAH/317 739 32 Vivero Fernandez (1994, p. 54)

w INAH/1174 710 30 Vivero Fernandez (1994, p. 54)

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 59

123

Architectural characteristics

Tula Grandes main plaza measures c. 130 m 9 150 m and is flanked by various

monumental constructions (Fig. 6). Although there are numerous large pyramidal

structures in the area surrounding Tula Grande (Fig. 3), there are few such

structures within Tula Grande itself, but these include the two largest pyramids at

the site. Designated Pyramids B and C, their placement and orientation are

reminiscent of the Sun and Moon Pyramids at Teotihuacan; Pyramid C, at least

10 m high, is similar in form to the Sun Pyramid, including an abutting platform

(cuerpo adosado) supporting its stairway.The only other temple/pyramid at Tula Grande is Building K on the south side of

the main plaza, where ongoing excavations (Getino 2000; Mastache et al. 2002,

pp. 113114) encountered portions of its superstructure containing a single

colonnade flanking an elongated columned gallery (Fig. 6). Although excavation

encountered a stairway on the south side of Building K, subsequent investigations

have revealed that this is part of a later Aztec structure and that the original

stairway, of which only traces remain, was on the north (plaza) side (R. Cobean,

personal communication 2009). Remains of a similar structure, designated Building

J, were encountered atop a low platform immediately to the east that was likewise

heavily damaged.

A common architectural form at Tula Grande consists of a large building

containing two or more prominent columned halls, each with a centrally located

unroofed and often sunken patio or atrium (Fig. 6, Buildings 1, 3, and 4). The

largest is Building 3, the so-called Palacio Quemado, which contains three

contiguous columned halls lined with benches decorated with painted friezes. Each

hall is unconnected to the others and enjoys its own access to the outside. Building

1, the partially excavated Palace of Quetzalcoatl, contains at least two columned

halls flanked by smaller rooms. Only a small portion of Building 4 was excavated by

Fig. 5 Two-sigma ranges of calibrated radiocarbon dates for samples recovered from various excavationlocalities at Tula and other sites in the region discussed in text (full information on each sample is listed inTable 1). Calibration was performed using CALIB5.1 software (Stuiver and Reimer 1993)

60 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

Acosta, who nonetheless also interpreted it as a palace based on its size and grand

(9 m wide) entranceway. Subsequent excavations (Mastache et al. 2009,

pp. 301304) have exposed over half of Building 4, which measures c. 45 m

northsouth and 60 m eastwest and contains two columned halls and smaller

flanking rooms.

Some scholars have challenged Acostas interpretation of Buildings 1, 3, and 4 as

palaces, chiefly because the combination of large central halls and small peripheral

rooms and their lack of interconnectivity make them poorly designed for residential

life. The spacious columned halls suggest more public activities, likewise suggested

by reliefs along benches in Buildings 3 and 4 that depict processions involving

Fig. 6 Plan of Tula Grande monumental precinct

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 61

123

numerous individuals. An unusual cache of c. 200 vessels grouped by type was

encountered beneath a fallen roof at the east end of the vestibule on the north side

(Acosta 1945, pp. 3437). These included serving vessels and braziers, censers, and

tobacco pipes, suggesting activities involving groups of people. More recently,

excavation beneath the floor of Building 3 encountered an elaborate offering

containing marine fauna, a pyrite mirror, and a garment made of hundreds of finely

carved shell plaques (Cobean and Mastache 2003; Mastache et al. 2009, fig. 18).

While Mastache and Cobean suggest that the plan of the excavated portion of

Building 4 resembles that of Aztec palaces (Mastache et al. 2009, pp. 303304), a

closer Aztec analog, as noted by Molina (1987), is the Temple of the Eagles at

Tenochtitlan. Both are located on the east side of an L-shaped colonnaded vestibule

and contain porticos with an altar along the interior wall at the main entrance

flanked by benches with procession scenes carved in relief; each contains at least

one columned hall. Klein (1987, p. 307) suggests that the Temple of the Eagles was

the scene of autosacrifice and other activities associated with warfare. Two broken

ollas encountered on the floor of a small room in Building 4 may have beenassociated with group activity. There is, therefore, no compelling evidence that any

of the structures inside Tula Grande were residential in function. Rather, palaces and

other elite residences may have been located elsewhere, perhaps in the surrounding

Monumental Precinct, as noted below.

Remains of c. 375 columns appear in various configurations at Tula Grande,

including colonnades. Most columns were square and constructed of stone masonry,

often with a timber core (Acosta 1960, lam. XV; Getino 2000, fig. 3.24), leaving

few intact remains other than a base or scar in the floor where they once stood. In

fact, all of the extant masonry columns at Tula Grande were reconstructed in full by

Acosta (1961a, p. 43) who intentionally gave them, in his own words, unaspecto ruinoso para no desentonar con el resto del edificio. Acostas artistic

license in this regard has been rightly criticized by Molina (1982), who asserts that

Acosta deliberately created them to enhance the resemblance between Tula and

Chichen Itza. However, Acosta provides abundant documentation, including

photographic evidence (Acosta 1945, fig. 18, 1960, lam. XV), that his reconstructed

columns were erected where prehispanic columns had once stood and are an

accurate reflection of their size, shape, and mode of construction (Healan 2001).

Tula Grandes columns include monolithic anthropomorphic and zoomorphic

forms, including the so-called Atlanteans, warrior columns, and serpent columns

atop Pyramid B. These were encountered disarticulated in the ruins of the pyramid,

and their present location atop Pyramid B reflects Acostas belief that they had been

columns for its superstructure. The colossal (4.6 m) Atlanteans are among the

best-known prehispanic sculptures in Mesoamerica, but parts of at least four other

Atlanteans also have been found at Tula (de la Fuente et al. 1988, figs. 2023),

including one illustrated by Charnay (1887, p. 94). Their original provenience is

unknown, although Acosta (1944, p. 146) suggests they may have been atop

Pyramid C.

Tulas monumental construction utilized a variety of building materials, and in

distinctive ways. A signature element is the use of small-stone veneer, or tabular

pieces of stone laid in courses, mortared with lime or mud, and often covered with

62 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

lime plaster. Small-stone veneer was commonly applied to benches, columns, altars,

and even whole pyramids (e.g., Acosta 1974, figs. 24). It also is encountered in

domestic architecture, often on structures interpreted as domestic altars, for which

an interesting variant involved courses of pottery sherds instead of tabular stone

(e.g., Healan 1989, fig. 12.17).

Substructure platforms were constructed of fill enclosed by stone masonry, a

common technique in Mesoamerica, but in some cases the fill involved courses of

boulders, cobbles, and soil rather than unconsolidated rubble. Walls were commonly

constructed of stone cobbles laid in courses, but at least Buildings 3 and 4 contain

adobe-block walls. Adobe-block construction is also quite common in Tulas

domestic architecture, but its use in monumental construction is more elaborate,

involving walls up to a meter thick faced with mud or lime plaster, paint, small-

stone veneer, or some combination of these. Particularly surprising is the

widespread use of mud rather than lime as mortar in walls of stone construction,

despite the abundance of lime and its widespread use as a decorative plaster.

Tula Grandes use of mud-mortared stone or adobe-block walls covered with

decorative facades prompted Covarrubiass (1957, p. 273) oft-cited dictum that

these buildings were meant to impress, but not to last. The preference for adobe

blocks and mud mortar at Tula Grande may be less a reflection of hucksterism

than an architectural tradition whose roots may be embedded in the cultural milieu

of Tula Grandes builders. At the same time, Covarrubias is accurate in his

assessment of the poor long-term durability of Tulas architecture. Compared to

Teotihuacan, where structures constructed of stone and concrete have left

ubiquitous, easily discernible surface remains, very few of Tulas structures,

particularly domestic structures, are directly visible today. However, even adobe

cities such as Tula leave surface traces, although a variety of methods are required

to discern them.

Probable skull rack

During exploration of Ballcourt 2 in the 1960s, remains of a rectangular platform

and an adjacent smaller one were encountered immediately to the east and appear to

be a skull rack, or tzompantli, to judge from the numerous fragments of human teethand crania that were found on top. Beyond what is mentioned in the official INAH

guidebook and in printed information at the archaeological zone, there is little

published information about the structure other than a brief description (Matos

1972, p. 115). The extant platform is unreconstructed beyond consolidation of its

outer wall, a single talud or sloping body faced with small-stone veneer with tracesof lime plaster. Inside the platform Matos encountered what he described as an

offering box containing a large blade or knife (my translations), terms that

until recently usually referred to bifaces rather than prismatic or percussion blades.

According to Matos, associated ceramics suggest the structure is Aztec, but the use

of small-stone veneer, while highly characteristic of Tulas monumental construc-

tion, is not a feature of Aztec construction at Tula. As described below, numerous

Aztec offerings have been encountered in the ruins of Tula Grande, including

bifaces inside stone boxes or other containers. More precise dating of this structure

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 63

123

is important in order to determine whether the famous tzompantli at Tenochtitlan

was copied from Tula, or vice versa.

Monumental art

Acosta recovered numerous sculptures that exhibit a corpus of distinctive artistic

and stylistic traits often labeled Toltec, which I describe here only briefly; there

are two encyclopedic treatments of Tulas sculpture (de la Fuente et al. 1988;

Jimenez Garcia 1998) and several studies of more specific aspects (Kristan-Graham

1989, 1993, 2007; Mastache et al. 2002). Tulas sculpture generally is made of

volcanic rock, presumably of local manufacture, given at least one rural site with

evidence of such (Mastache et al. 2002, fig. 10.7). Some is free-standing, in-the-

round sculpture, including the colossal Atlanteans and serpent columns atop

Pyramid B and the equally well-known chacmools, or reclining human figures. Mostof Tulas sculpture, however, is bas relief, made on panels of soft volcanic rock that

is easily carved and, unfortunately, easily weathered.

Tulas monumental art stresses repetition, including the numerous reclining-

figure bas relief panels depicting elaborately attired humans in a supine pose

typically clutching staffs or weapons (Mastache et al. 2009, fig. 14). A large number

of panels were recovered from the columned halls in Building 3, at least 20 from

one hall alone, where they appear to have lined the open ceilings of the interior

patios. The most dramatic forms of repetitive art include (1) painted reliefs in and

around Building 3 depicting processions of elaborately attired individuals with

paraphernalia that suggest merchants, rulers, or warriors (Kristan-Graham 1993;

Mastache et al. 2009, pp. 300, 303); (2) processions of canines, felines, and raptoral

birds along Pyramid B; and (3) processions of serpents engorging or disgorging

human skeletons along the coatepantli, or serpent wall.Aside from the painted friezes, we have little other evidence of painting or

murals at Tula Grande, although this is to some extent a result of poor preservation.

Many of the mud or lime-plaster wall coatings retained traces of paint, including

broad horizontal bands of red, yellow, and black in Building 3; portions of a mural

depicting a procession of at least two individuals was encountered in Building 1

(Acosta 1964, lam. XVIa, XVIb).

Acostas explorations documented a remarkably high degree of similarity in the

art and architecture of Tula and Chichen Itza. The use of columns in colonnades,

atop pyramids, and inside columned halls and galleries and the use of benches

constitute the most salient similarities between the two sites. Similarities in

sculpture involve not only the same media and modes of human and animal

representation but also highly specific details of costume and accoutrements. The

nature of these similarities and who had them first have been subject to debate

among Mesoamerican archaeologists and art historians for more than a century. The

debate has grown more complex with the discovery of colonnades, columned halls,

and skull racks at sites in northern Mexico (Hers 1989; Kelley 1978; Nelson 1997)

that may be older than those at either Tula or Chichen Itza (Aveni et al. 1982).

Although the Tula Grande mound/plaza complex is perhaps the most prominent

feature, it is but one component of a larger zone of mounds and plazas that form a

64 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

larger monumental precinct covering most of the surrounding hilltop (Fig. 3).

Excavations of three large mounds in this area (Fig. 7, a, b, k) encountered large,

well-constructed buildings that appear to have been residential (Acosta 1944,

p. 156; Charnay 1887), suggesting that palaces and other residences of Tulas ruling

class were situated in the surrounding area.

Fig. 7 Planimetric map of Tula (source: Stoutamire 1975) showing urban limits as defined by Mastacheet al. (2002) and excavation localities discussed in text: a, Toltec Palace (Charnay 1887); b, Building 2(Acosta 1944); c, Daini (Pena and Rodrguez 1976); d, Museo Acosta (Paredes 1992); e, Corral (Healan1989); f, Vivero (Fernandez 1994); g, Canal (Healan 1989); h, Cruz (Healan et al. 1982); i, El Corral(Acosta 1974); j, La Nopalera (Paredes 1990); k, Toltec House (Charnay 1887); l, Montculo 1 (Paredes1990); m, U27-28 (Mastache et al. 2002); n, U98 (Hernandez Reyes et al. 1999); o, Colonia Pemex(Matos 1976); p, Viaducto (Paredes 1990); q, Zapata II (Paredes 1990); r, Pozo 16 (Paredes 1990);s, Mormon Church (Mastache et al. 2002); t, Canadia School (Mastache et al. 2002); u, Zona UrbanaNorte (Getino n.d.); v, Unnamed (Excelsior 1 December 2009)

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 65

123

Beyond Tula Grande: The Tollan phase city

Since Acostas pioneering work at Tula Grande, three separate investigations

(Healan and Stoutamire 1989; Mastache and Crespo 1982; Yadeun 1974, 1975)

have focused on the larger city, including determination of its overall size. Although

utilizing different approaches (Healan 2009a, pp. 6970), these investigations reveal

that at its height Tula covered an area of about 16 km2, with a maximum north

south length of c. 6 km and a maximum width of c. 4 km, encompassing a

remarkably diverse landscape of hills, plains, alluvial valleys, and even brackish

marsh (Figs. 3 and 7).

INAHs photogrammetric mapping project (Yadeun 1974, 1975) identified over

1,000 mounds a meter or more in height whose distribution forms distinct clusters of

varying size and density (Fig. 3). While a direct correlation between mound and

occupation density might be assumed, this does not appear to be the case given that

some of the highest densities of Tollan complex pottery from the Missouri project

survey occur in areas where few mounds were identified. In addition, the

photogrammetric map does not include mounds under a meter in height, which

are the vast majority identified on the photogrammetric images (Yadeun 1975,

p. 15), and likely represent residential structures.

The paucity of visible structural remains has hampered efforts to estimate Tulas

population at its height. Healan and Cobean (Healan 1989, p. 245) suggest a

minimal population of 60,000 persons, a figure initially proposed by Stoutamire

(1975) based on Tulas overall size, then estimated at 12 km2, and Sanders and

Prices (1967) minimum urban density figure of 5,000 persons/km2. Other estimates,

including Yadeuns (1975, p. 24) figure of 19,00035,000 and Diehls (1981,

p. 284) figure of 32,00037,000, assume a smaller settlement and lower density than

the survey data suggest.

Residential life

Residential structures have been encountered in excavations in at least 22 different

localities within the ancient city (Fig. 7) and are the subject of several relatively

detailed studies (Healan 1989, 1993, 2009a; Paredes 1990). Construction utilized

the same methods and materials seen at Tula Grande but with greater use of adobe,

featuring exterior walls of mud-mortared stone foundations overlain by courses of

adobe blocks. Residential structures exhibit considerable variability in quality of

construction, spaciousness, and use of plaster, paint, and other decorative elements

that may reflect differential status.

Most of the 22 localities show clustered arrangements of rooms or whole

buildings interpreted to be residential compounds that housed multiple families

(Healan 2009a), some examples of which are shown in Fig. 8. I have previously

characterized these as two distinct types: house compounds, or house groups, inwhich each component family occupied a separate building or house, and apartmentcompounds, in which each occupied a portion of a single building. In retrospect thisdistinction is probably of limited value, in part because the two are often not easy to

distinguish, particularly with limited exposure. The clearest examples of apartment

66 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

compounds at Tula are spacious, well-built structures with plaster-covered and

possibly painted floors and walls that suggest elite residences, three of which are

located within the monumental precinct (e.g., Figs. 7 and 8, a, b). House

compounds, of which the best examples include three juxtaposed compounds

exposed in the canal locality (Fig. 8, g), show considerable variability in form and

quality, even among structures within individual compounds. A common feature in

both house and apartment compounds is a centrally located interior or exterior

courtyard that apparently served as common space and the focus of activity

involving the entire compound.

That these 22 localities were residential in function is indicated by associated

artifacts and features that include utilitarian pottery, metates, hearths, and in situ

braziers. In the canal locality, five houses definitely contained hearths, while

Fig. 8 Plans of selected residential structures from various localities excavated at Tula. Letters refer tolocalities listed in Fig. 7

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 67

123

possible food preparation areas, identified by whole metates and associated pottery

vessels, were generally located in and around exterior courtyards (Healan 2009a, fig.

4.5). The spatial and contextual segregation of possible cooking versus food

preparation areas suggests that cooking and presumably eating were largely family-

specific activities while some food preparation was commonly performed outdoors,

seemingly in the company of other families engaged in the same activity.

Braziers, censers, and human figurines suggest household-level ritual activity,

while ritual activity at a higher level is indicated by structures interpreted as altars in

the courtyards of many residential compounds. Their central prominent location

suggests activities that involved all member households, and at least three altars

containing human burials suggest veneration of a common ancestor and the

likelihood that the component families were related. A temple/pyramid in the canal

locality may indicate ritual activity at the local neighborhood level.

Economy and subsistence

The most detailed information on diet and subsistence comes from rural sites in

Tulas hinterland (see below), but maize and amaranth were encountered at several

localities within the city (Diehl 1981, p. 287; Gonzalez and Montufar 1980).

Metates recovered from many of Tulas excavated residential compounds suggest

grinding of maize prepared by nixtamalization, probably the chief form in which

maize was consumed in prehispanic Mesoamerica. The consumption of nixtamal at

Tula and the Tula region is indicated by remains of pozol (i.e., balls of maize

kernels), pozole, and possibly tamales (Gonzalez 1999, p. 147; Mastache et al. 2002,

pp. 242243). Surprisingly, ceramic griddles (comales) used in the preparation oftortillas from ground nixtamal are infrequent in both the city and the hinterland

compared to their relatively high frequency at contemporaneous sites in the Basin of

Mexico. This led Mastache et al. (2002, pp. 234, 243) to suggest that cazuelas orsome other vessel may have been used for this purpose, or, more intriguingly, that

tortillas were not the principal form in which maize was consumed at Tula.

It is reasonable to assume that some portion of Tulas residents were farmers,

although the large basalt and rhyolite tools found at rural sites that may have been

used in agricultural activity do not appear to have been part of the urban household

assemblage. As discussed below, however, it is unlikely that the compounds in these

22 localities are a representative sample of Tulas households.

Craft production

Evidence for craft production consists largely of by-products of manufacture

recovered in both excavation and survey. The most abundant evidence involves two

utilitarian craft activities, obsidian core/blade and ceramic vessel production.

Obsidian core/blade production

Obsidian artifacts are second only to pottery sherds in abundance at Tula, and

the vast majority, perhaps 9599%, consists of segments of prismatic blades

68 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

intentionally broken for uses that probably involved hafting (Healan 1992a, p. 451).

Tulas earliest (Prado/Corral) settlement obtained most of its obsidian from the

Ucareo-Zinapecuaro (Michoacan) source c. 150 km to the west (Fig. 1, C). Over

time Tula came to rely increasingly on the Pachuca (Hidalgo) source c. 70 km to the

east (Fig. 1, D), constituting 8095% of Tulas obsidian by the Late Tollan phase.

Probable obsidian production loci at Tula came to light when a surface survey

encountered several anomalous concentrations of core/blade debitage in the eastern

portion of the city (Fig. 7). A more systematic survey (Pastrana 1977) revealed

numerous localized hot spots presumed to mark individual production loci, which

subsequent excavations exposed at two localities within the larger surface

concentrations. Excavations at the Cruz locality (Fig. 7, H) partially exposed a

workshop that contained distinct living, working, and refuse dumping areas (Healan

1986; Healan et al. 1983) and produced prismatic cores and blades from imported

polyhedral (percussion) cores (Healan 2002, 2003). Obsidian residue indicate that

the actual core/blade reduction loci were located outdoors (Healan 1997), although

core platform grinding appears to have taken place inside the residential compound

(Healan 2009b). Both the residential compound and the outdoor work area were

relatively free of production waste, most of which was encountered in a peripheral

refuse dump underlying the highest surface obsidian densities in the locality. This

suggests that surface hot spots generally mark dumps rather than actual work sites,

although the two were probably not very far apart (Healan 1992b). A second core/

blade workshop (Fernandez 1986, 1994) was excavated at the Vivero locality to the

north (Figs. 7 and 8, f). Unlike the Cruz locality, the Vivero work areas appear to

have been located inside rooms and patios of the residential compound.

Pottery production

No evidence of pottery production loci was encountered in either the Missouri

project or the Proyecto Tula urban surveys. However, during systematic reexam-

ination of the sites boundaries, Mastache and Crespo (1982; Crespo and Mastache

1973; Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 167169) encountered overfired and warped sherds

and other wasters over an area of about 2.5 km2 along the extreme eastern edge of

the site (Fig. 7), which they interpreted as a potters barrio. Highway salvage

excavations in the U98 locality near the north end (Fig. 7, n) partially exposed a

residential compound containing numerous wasters and other kiln furniture. This

included a partially intact updraft kiln and loose, vitrified adobe blocks presumed to

have been parts of other kilns destroyed by plowing (Hernandez Reyes et al. 1999).

Of particular interest was the recovery of numerous fragments of fired ceramic

molds apparently used to make shallow bowls and dishes that form a major

component of the Tollan phase ceramic assemblage.

Associated wasters indicate that the U98 locality produced at least seven major

Tollan phase ceramic types. While these are mostly various forms of plates and

bowls, they embrace a wide variety of styles, forms, and pastes, including

representatives of three different ceramic wares defined by Cobean. The locality

apparently also engaged in limited manufacture of ceramic figurines, spindle

whorls, and architectural decorative elements.

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 69

123

The localitys ceramic assemblage provides support for the proposed Early

Tollan/Late Tollan phase division based on production rather than consumption. In

the lowest levels, ceramic production involved mainly two types, Proa and Joroba,

both of which are diagnostic Early Tollan types. In the upper levels, production

involved principally other Tollan phase types, including Jara, the single most

diagnostic Late Tollan type.

Other craft production

Possible production areas for mold-made ceramic (Mazapan) human figurines are

indicated by surface concentrations of figurine fragments, including one figurine

mold fragment in the northeastern portion of the city. Nearby is a surface

concentration of obsidian unifaces (scrapers) that given the absence of debitage,

suggests activities involving use rather than manufacture (Pastrana 1977).

Evidence of possible tecali (travertine) vessel manufacture at Tula was previouslyreported by Castillo (1970). Additional evidence in the form of cylindrical drill plugs

of tecali, a by-product of the drilling-out stage of vessel manufacture, was recovered in

the Missouri project survey and in excavation at the canal locality (Diehl and Stroh

1978). The relatively small number (19) recovered in the latter locality and the absence

of finished or unfinished vessels suggest that the plugs were obtained elsewhere and

reused in some fashion. On the other hand, 13 of 17 tecali plugs recovered in surfacesurvey came from the monumental precinct north and west of Tula Grande, suggesting

that this may have been an area where tecali vessel manufacture occurred. As noted

above, elite residences may have been located in this area, tecali vessel manufacture

may have been an activity associated with elite households, similar to high craft

activities recently identified at Aguateca, Guatemala (Aoyama 2007; Inomata 2001)

and Teotihuacan (Manzanilla 2006). Alternatively, tecali vessels may have been

produced by nonelite craft specialists who were tethered to elite households, or

perhaps these drill plugs are reused objects as was suggested for those in the canal

locality. Nine of 36 spindle whorls recovered in the Missouri project survey are

likewise clustered in the monumental precinct, suggesting cloth production, which

was an important activity among the Aztec elite classes (Evans 2001).

Evidence for other utilitarian craft activities at Tula include salt making, as

indicated by salt-pan fragments recovered from around El Salitre marsh (Yadeun

1975, p. 29, fig. 57) and the discovery of what appears to be a kiln where ceramic

tubes used to drain or transport water were fired (Healan 1989, pp. 254259).

Discussion

The relatively high quality of many of the residential compounds excavated to date,

along with other indicators of affluence, including a cache of Tohil plumbate and

Central American polychrome vessels in the canal locality (Diehl et al. 1974),

suggest they were of relatively high status. It must not be assumed, however, that

these 22 localities are representative of Tulas households because a dispropor-

tionately large number of them are from the central portion of the city (Fig. 7).

None are from the fringe where lower-status individuals may have lived. Moreover,

70 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

in many localities, excavators intentionally selected prominent surface mounds that

are likely associated with more substantial architectural remains of higher-status

households. Thus the sample of localities excavated to date is probably biased

towards relatively affluent households. This may explain Sanders and Santleys

assertion (1983, p. 268) that Tulas populace appears to have been mostly nonfood

producers, which I believe is unlikely.

Craft production appears to have occurred generally in a domestic setting, which

agrees with other evidence that household-based craft production was the norm in

Mesoamerica (Feinman and Nicholas 2000). While some was probably nonspe-

cialized activity engaged in by most households for their own consumption, ceramic

and lithic production was more specialized and involved relatively few of Tulas

households. This embodies the concept of workshop as the term has come to be

used and is well illustrated by refuse dumps in the Cruz locality that show individual

deposits containing mixed core/blade debitage and domestic refuse (Healan 2009b,

fig. 5).

Surprisingly, it appears that the Cruz locality obsidian workshop engaged in a low

volume of production, estimated at less than one core reduced per day (Healan 1992a,

p. 453). Its location in one of the densest hot spots within the larger obsidian surface

concentration suggests that a low volume was characteristic of the entire production

zone. Similarly, low output was indicated for three core/blade workshops recently

excavated at Xochicalco (Hirth 2006, table 8.5). This also may be true of Tulas

ceramic workshops given the small size and small number of kilns in the U98 locality;

it seems unlikely that the larger ceramic production zone would have escaped

detection in two previous surveys had there been more substantial surface evidence.

While the prospect of numerous workshops, each engaged in a low volume of

production, seems counterintuitive, there is evidence that both ceramic and lithic

workshops engaged in multiple craft activities, or multicrafting (Feinman andNicholas 2000, p. 136; Hirth 2006, p. 276), apparently a common practice in

prehispanic Mesoamerica (Hirth 2009). The Cruz locality obsidian workshop also

contained evidence of the manufacture of shell and bone objects and various items

made from prismatic blades, most notably trilobal eccentrics (Stocker and Spence

1973), while the U98 ceramic workshop also manufactured figurines, spindle

whorls, and architectural decorative elements. Other possible evidence of multic-

rafting includes the surface concentration of obsidian unifaces in the same general

area where there is evidence of figurine production.

It is likely that evidence for other craft production at Tula went undetected, just

as pottery production did, at least initially. Noting the small volume of extant craft

production, however, it appears unlikely to have been a major source of wealth for

the city. On the contrary, Tula was probably dependent upon its hinterland for much

of what it consumed, as detailed below.

History of settlement of Tula and the Tula region

Knowledge of Tulas settlement history comes from excavation at Tula and other

sites and from regional survey. Of particular importance is Mastaches (1996a;

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 71

123

Mastache et al. 2002) intensive survey of the immediate region around Tula that

grew out of a preliminary survey conducted as part of the Proyecto Tula (Mastache

and Crespo 1974, 1982). Mastaches intensive survey covered the area within a

17-km radius of the ancient city, hereafter referred to as the survey area.

Earliest settlement

The earliest evidence of settlement consists of Early/Middle Formative pottery

recovered from construction sites in downtown Tula de Allende in 1977 and 2008

(L. Gamboa, personal communication 2008; Mastache and Crespo 1982,

pp. 1317). These remains, including a burial, suggest an Early/Middle Formative

period settlement of unknown size.

The earliest well-defined settlements are Late Formative, with four sites

containing predominantly Ticoman III ceramics (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 44).

Three of the four sites are small settlements, while the other, designated La Loma,

covers c. 15 ha of a mesa at the south end of the survey area (Fig. 2, A). Exploratory

excavations in La Lomas ceremonial center (Cook de Leonard et al. 1956)

encountered burials with ceramics of the Chupcuaro tradition of southern

Guanajuato. Subsequent excavations (Cobean 1974) revealed that Chupcuaro

ceramics are not limited to burials and in fact constitute as much as 5% of the

decorated pottery at the site (R. Cobean, personal communication 2006).

If La Loma were a regional center, its sustaining area must have included more

than the three small sites identified in survey; additional settlements may lie beneath

alluvium or some of the later Classic period settlements. However, given its

location, La Lomas supporting area may be the northern part of the Basin of

Mexico immediately to the south (Fig. 1), where there are other sites with both

Ticoman and Chupcuaro ceramics (McBride 1969, 1974). Its location at the apex of

an area of major settlement to the south is consistent with that for gateway

communities as defined by Hirth (1978).

Classic period settlement

During the Classic period Chingu phase, substantial settlement appeared in the

survey area, exhibiting diagnostic Tzacualli through Metepec phase ceramics of

Classic Teotihuacan located less than 70 km to the southeast (Fig. 1, B). The vast

majority of settlements are what Mastache (1996a) calls dispersed sites, i.e.,

surface scatters that may represent homesteads, temporary camps, or other small

sites. There also are 12 large, nucleated sites with dense surface artifact cover and

monumental architecture, the largest of which, Chingu, covers an area of over

2.5 km2 (Fig. 2, B).

The variability in size and complexity among the Chingu phase sites suggests a

possible four-tiered settlement hierarchy, with Chingu at the top. The latter site has

been heavily damaged but not before it was systematically investigated by INAHs

Proyecto Tula (Daz 1980). Numerous rectangular stone fragments suggest the use

of the distinctive talud-tablero facade characteristic of Teotihuacan monumentalarchitecture. The site contained c. 475 visible mounds, some of which are

72 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

rectangular in form and whose orientation approximates the 15300 east of northorientation of Teotihuacan (Daz 1980, fig. 3). These mounds include two

rectangular enclosures, the largest of which, La Campana, is comparable in form

to Teotihuacans Ciudadela, although smaller, and includes a prominent interior

mound like the Ciudadelas Feathered Serpent Pyramid. Dazs map suggests that

structures were arranged along northsouth and eastwest axes that intersect in front

of La Campana, as do the northsouth and eastwest avenues in front of the

Ciudadela at Teotihuacan. Notable differences between the two sites include the

absence at Chingu of counterparts of Teotihuacans Sun and Moon Pyramids, which

may underscore their construction and perhaps greater importance before Teotihuacan

became the center of a macroregional empire. Conversely, a second Ciudadela-like

compound immediately east of La Campana has no obvious counterpart at

Teotihuacan.

The second level of the Chingu phase settlement hierarchy includes three sites,

each about 80 ha, located north of Tula, at least one of which also exhibits evidence

of talud/tablero architecture and a Ciudadela-like enclosure. The third levelincludes eight smaller nucleated sites of about 1015 ha, some of which contain

monumental architecture. All eight are situated in the southern and eastern

periphery of the survey area and include two sites with a strong Oaxacan affiliation,

as described below. The fourth level includes the numerous dispersed sites already

noted.

There is currently no evidence for any significant Chingu phase occupation at the

site of Tula itself, despite its favorable location at the confluence of two rivers and

the relatively high density of settlement in the immediate vicinity, including a level

2 site less than 2 km to the north.

There seems little doubt that the Chingu phase settlement was under the control

of Teotihuacan. Indeed, its sheer magnitude compared to the previous Late

Formative settlement suggests outright colonization by those with close ties to

Teotihuacan. Similar instances of intrusive settlement systems attributed to

Teotihuacan have been documented in Morelos (Angulo and Hirth 1981; Hirth

and Angulo 1981), Puebla (Garca Cook 1981), and the Toluca Valley (Sugiura

1993), although many aspects of Chingu appear to have been made in the image of

Teotihuacan. Given the extensive calcareous deposits in the immediate region and

the considerable volume of lime used at Teotihuacan (Barba and Frunz 1999),

Mastache et al. (2002, p. 59) suggest that lime exploitation was a major activity of

the Chingu phase settlement in the region. This was confirmed by recent X-ray

fluorescence (XRF) analysis that identified these deposits as the source of lime for at

least one Teotihuacan apartment compound (Barba et al. 2009). Likewise, the

agriculturally productive alluvial plain may have been an important resource,

particularly as a number of Chingu phase sites are situated along two irrigation

canals that are at least as old as the colonial period (Mastache and Crespo 1974;

Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 35, 59). Indeed, Chingu itself is situated at the terminus of

one of these canals (Mastache et al. 2002, fig. 4.2). Thus it is reasonable to suggest

that a major activity of the Chingu phase settlement was the exploitation of lime and

agricultural resources, presumably for the Teotihuacan state.

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 73

123

Numerous sites with Teotihuacan ceramics also are present in the southern

portion of the Valle del Mezquital along Tulas northern flank (Fournier 2007,

pp. 9396; Lopez Aguilar 1994; Lopez Aguilar et al. 1998, pp. 3032) and are

likewise interpreted as outright colonization by Teotihuacan, possibly for stone and

forest products (Polgar 1998, pp. 4445). This region includes the Pachuca obsidian

source (Fig. 1, D), which various authors have suggested was under Teotihuacans

control. Lopez Aguilar et al. (1998) suggest that these sites, some of which

contained low frequencies of Oaxacan ceramics, were an extension of Chingu phase

settlement from the Tula region, a reasonable assumption given the size of Chingu

and its intermediate location. The Teotihuacan-related occupation is confined to the

southern portion of the Valle del Mezquital, which may indicate the northern limits

of rainfall agriculture. There is evidence, however, of preexisting settlements to the

north that may have restricted Teotihuacan expansion (Lopez Aguilar et al. 1998,

pp. 2931). These settlements contain ceramics of the Xajay tradition, associated

with sites in the eastern Bajo that span the Classic and Epiclassic periods (Nalda

1975, 1991).

Teotihuacan and the Zapotec diaspora in the Tula region

Many Chingu phase sites contain ceramics of Oaxacan affiliation in addition to

diagnostic Teotihuacan ceramics including Chingu, where they are 7% of decorated

ceramics (Daz 1981, p. 109). Oaxacan pottery constitutes 5060% of identifiable

ceramics at two level 3 sites, Acoculco and El Tesoro, which occupy nonadjacent

hilltops along a tributary of the Ro Tula near the southern limits of the region

(Fig. 2, C, D). Identifiable Oaxacan ceramics are diagnostic Monte Alban II and IIIa

types (Caso et al. 1967), and some appear to be locally made (Crespo and Mastache

1981, p. 102; Mastache et al. 2002, p. 57).

At least two Zapotec-style tombs have been identified at El Tesoro, one of which

was excavated, yielding skeletal remains and grave goods that included a variety of

Oaxacan ceramics (Hernandez 1994). The tomb was a narrow, slab-lined trench

similar in form to Monte Alban II tombs, with steps at one end and a slab roof and

floor. Two other possible tombs were encountered in the wake of a recent housing

development at El Tesoro (R. Cobean, personal communication 2009).

El Tesoro and Acoculco may have been Zapotec enclaves given their

predominantly Zapotec ceramic assemblage and funerary architecture. Mastache

et al. (2002, pp. 5759) suggest that the Zapotec presence in the Tula region is likely

linked to Teotihuacan, given the well-known Zapotec enclave there (Millon 1973;

Spence 1992). This may explain the location of these two sites at the northern

threshold of the Basin of Mexico, although there are other possible explanations for

their location, noted below. The Tula region thus provides additional evidence of

systematic interaction between central Mexico and the Valley of Oaxaca, although

the reasons for what Spence (2005) has termed a Zapotec diaspora in central

Mexico are not known. Sanders (personal communication 1976, cited in Crespo and

Mastache 1981, p. 103) suggests that at least some of these immigrants may have

been specialists in the production of lime, a craft that in Oaxaca goes back to the

Early Formative period (Flannery and Marcus 1994). In this regard, the location of

74 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

El Tesoro and Acoculco may be explained by their proximity to the calcareous

deposits in the southern portion of the survey area.

Classic to Epiclassic

The Classic/Epiclassic period transition in central Mexico is marked by two events:

(1) the demise of Teotihuacan by the end of the Metepec phase and (2) the

appearance of a distinctive ceramic complex known as Coyotlatelco throughout

much of central Mexico. It was also during this time that initial settlement occurred

at Tula.

The demise of Teotihuacan was felt throughout Mesoamerica (Diehl and Berlo

1989) and is the defining event of the Classic/Epiclassic boundary (Diehl and Berlo

1989; Jimenez Moreno 1959; Webb 1978). Although evidence of burning and other

destruction along the Street of the Dead suggests a sudden, rather violent end

(Millon 1996), Teotihuacan may already have been in a state of decline by the

Xolalpan phase (Lopez Perez et al. 2006; Rattray 1996, p. 216). Until recently, the

end of Metepec phase Teotihuacan was dated to c. A.D. 750 (Millon 1973, fig. 12),

but over a decade ago at least two researchers (Cowgill 1996; Rattray 1996, 2001)

proposed pushing this date back at least a century (Fig. 4). Recent evidence

(Manzanilla 2003, p. 94; Rattray 2006, p. 208) that at least some of the widespread

burning occurred at the end of the Xolalpan phase provides additional support for an

earlier end date. This revision appears to have gained general acceptance with

relatively little fanfare or controversy, despite its profound impact on the timing of

and relationships among various developments in the Classic and Epiclassic periods

(Diehl and Berlo 1989; Manzanilla 2005; Mountjoy and Brockington 1987; Solar

2006).

Despite its demise, there was occupation at Teotihuacan during the Epiclassic

period that, like many other sites in the Basin of Mexico, is associated with

Coyotlatelco ceramics. The size and nature of the Epiclassic occupation, however,

still spark disagreement. Some investigators (e.g., Cowgill 1996, p. 330; Diehl

1989b, p. 12; Sanders 1986; Sanders et al. 1979, p. 129; Sugiura 2006, p. 148)

believe that Epiclassic Teotihuacan not only functioned as a coherent settlement but

was still the largest settlement in the basin. Others (Garca Chavez et al. 2006;

Gomez and Cabrera 2006; Rattray 1996, pp. 216217, 2006, p. 206) argue that

Teotihuacan was a discontinuous landscape of hamlets or villages with no central

organization and large unoccupied zones in between (Rattray 1996, p. 217).

Proponents of a substantial settlement appear to base their opinion on the surface

distribution of Coyotlatelco ceramics, interpreted as evidence of relatively dense but

less extensive occupation. On the other hand, opponents base their opinion on

excavations at various localities that show either a lack of Epiclassic occupation or

one involving insubstantial construction or reoccupation of Classic structures.

First identified in excavations near Atzcapotzalco in the basin (Tozzer 1921),

Coyotlatelcos Epiclassic dating is based largely on its occurrence in post-Metepec

contexts at Teotihuacan (e.g., Armillas 1950, p. 56; Sejourne 1956) and in

stratigraphically early contexts at Tula (Acosta 1945, pp. 5356). Rattray (1966)

provided the first definitive study of Coyotlatelco pottery, while more recent

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 75

123

comprehensive studies include those of Cobean (1990), Nichols and McCullough

(1986), and Solar (2006).

There is considerable debate over what is Coyotlatelco (e.g., Gaxiola 2006).

Its chief characteristics include red-painted geometric and other designs applied to

the interior and/or exterior of natural or cream-slipped hemispherical and flat bottom

bowls. Painted vessels are typically highly burnished and often have tripodal conical

supports. Coyotlatelco assemblages also include undecorated monochrome vessels,

comales, pipes, and censers. There is currently a lively debate regarding the origins

of Coyotlatelco ceramics, and since the Tula region plays a significant role in the

debate, this is discussed below after the following section.

Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region

Virtually all Chingu phase sites in the survey area were abandoned by the end of

Teotihuacans Metepec phase, although abandonment had apparently been under-

way since the Xolalpan phase (Mastache and Cobean 1989, p. 51). Abandonment of

Teotihuacan-associated sites also occurred in the Valle del Mezquital (Cervantes

and Torres 1991; Fournier 2007, p. 96; Polgar 1998, pp. 4548; Torres et al. 1999,

p. 82).

As in the Basin of Mexico, Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region is associated

with the Coyotlatelco ceramic complex. The majority are dispersed sites, plus nine

large, nucleated settlements, including Tula Chico. The Epiclassic and preceding

Classic period Chingu phase settlement systems are notably different, with the latter

occupying the center of the survey area while the ten Epiclassic nucleated

settlements are situated on hilltops or elevated terrain mostly along the periphery.

Although both Classic and Epiclassic dispersed sites were encountered on the

alluvial plain, few sites exhibit both components (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 45). This

mutually exclusive distribution suggests wholesale discontinuity between the

Classic and Epiclassic settlement systems, perhaps reflecting the breakup of the

Teotihuacan political system. It also could indicate that the two settlement systems

overlapped in time, as discussed below.

In a systematic study over several decades (Cobean 1978, 1982, 1990; Cobean

and Mastache 1989; Cobean et al. 1981; Mastache and Cobean 1989, 1990;

Mastache et al. 2002), Cobean and Mastache divided the Coyotlatelco occupation in

the Tula region into three successive (La Mesa, Prado, and Corral) phases (Fig. 4),

of which the earliest (La Mesa) phase is believed to include all nine nucleated

hilltop settlements except Tula Chico. These settlements include the site of La Mesa

itself (Fig. 2, E), which covered an area of about 1 km2 (Bonfil 2005; Mastache and

Cobean 1989). La Mesa contains three distinct monumental centers flanked by

terraces containing both rectangular and circular structures, the latter uncommon in

central Mexico. Many of the other La Mesa phase settlements exhibit monumental

architecture and evidence of terracing, although none, including La Mesa, appear to

have been densely occupied. Another nucleated Coyotlatelco hilltop settlement,

known variously as Cerro la Ahumada and Mesa Grande (Fig. 2, F) was

encountered during the Zumpango region survey immediately to the south

76 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

(Parsons 2008, pp. 174184; Sanders et al. 1979, p. 131), and may be the tenth and

southernmost La Mesa phase hilltop settlement.

The earlier dating of the La Mesa phase is based on ceramics whose painted

motifs were perceived as simpler in form and execution than those of the subsequent

Prado and Corral phases and of Coyotlatelco sites in the Basin of Mexico, thus

interpreted as developmentally and temporally earlier (Cobean et al. 1981, p. 193;

Mastache and Cobean 1989, p. 56). Although the La Mesa phase includes all ten

nucleated hilltop settlements except Tula Chico, only two others, Cerro Magoni

(Mastache and Cobean 1990, Mastache et al. 2002, p. 68) and Cerro Elefante

(Martnez 1994), have been explored by excavation. Surface pottery from all nine

La Mesa phase sites apparently exhibit notable differences in form and decoration,

including unique types that constitute at least 20% of the ceramics at each site

(R. Cobean, personal communication 2008). Differences also are seen in site layout,

architectural characteristics, and lithic assemblages (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 69;

Rees 1990). Mastache and Cobean interpret the La Mesa phase settlement as a series

of largely independent polities rather than a single integrated system, a pattern

reminiscent of the Tezoyuca phase hilltop centers and surrounding settlements on

the periphery of the Teotihuacan Valley during the Terminal Formative period

(Sanders et al. 1979, pp. 104105).

Excavation suggests that at least two hilltop settlements, La Mesa and Cerro

Magoni, were single component sites, and Mastache and Cobean proposed from

surface ceramics that the other La Mesa phase hilltop sites were as well. Thus the

two subsequent Coyotlatelco-related (Prado and Corral) phases are restricted to Tula

Chico and presumably the dispersed sites in the surrounding area.

Epiclassic/Coyotlatelco settlement at Tula Chico

Coyotlatelco ceramics were first identified at Tula by Acosta (1945) in excavations

at Tula Grande and apparently near Tula Chico. In both the Missouri and Proyecto

Tula surface surveys, Coyotlatelco surface ceramics clustered around Tula Chico

(Healan and Stoutamire 1989, fig. 13.6; Yadeun 1975, fig. 19), leading investigators

to interpret it as the monumental center for the earliest settlement. Additional

investigations have been conducted at Tula Chico in recent decades, virtually all by

Cobean and Mastache (Cobean 1982; Cobean and Suarez 1989; Mastache et al.

2009).

Tula Chico contains a central plaza measuring c. 75 m eastwest and is flanked

by several pyramids, two ball courts, and large platforms comparable to those of

Tula Grande (Fig. 3; see also Mastache et al. 2009, fig. 19). Despite their similarity

in layout, Tula Chico and Tula Grande differ in several ways, including the

approximate northsouth orientation of the former versus the c. 17 east of northorientation of the latter. Equally distinctive is that Tula Chicos two principal

pyramids are situated side by side at the north end, an unusual arrangement

somewhat like the twin-temple/pyramidal complex of Tenochtitlans Templo

Mayor.

According to Mastache and Cobean, Tula Chicos ceramics resemble those

described for Coyotlatelco sites in the Basin of Mexico (Blanton and Parsons 1971;

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 77

123

Nichols and McCollough 1986; Rattray 1966; Tozzer 1921) more than they do the

La Mesa complex, sufficiently so to merit their definition as a separate complex that

they believe postdates the La Mesa phase. Two such complexes and phases (Prado

and Corral) were defined, although most of Tulas Epiclassic settlement pertains to

the Corral phase, with Prado as an earlier variant. The bulk of the ceramics used to

define these two phases came from four exploratory pits excavated by INAH at Tula

Chico, three of which were located within Tula Chico and another located c. 180 m

to the southeast (Cobean 1982, fig. 2). In all three pits inside Tula Chico,

Coyotlatelco ceramics predominated throughout, with small quantities of Tollan

phase ceramics limited to the uppermost levels (figs. 79). This agrees with the

relatively small quantity of Tollan complex ceramics recovered from Tula Chico in

surface survey, suggesting the monumental center was unoccupied during the Tollan

phase.

In all four pits, Cobean identified a distinctive subassemblage co-occurring with

Coyotlatelco ceramics that was most common in the lowest levels. This

subassemblage, consisting of decorated serving vessels with no examples of

utilitarian vessel forms (Cervantes and Fournier 1994, p. 110; Cobean 1982, p. 64),

was used to define an earlier ceramic complex. Designated the Prado complex and

phase, this appeared to stratigraphically precede the full-blown Coyotlatelco

manifestation during the Corral phase (Cobean and Mastache 1989, p. 42). Cobean

(1990, p. 44) subsequently identified Prado in the lowest levels of two exploratory

pits previously excavated by INAH at Tula Chico (Matos 1974a, figs. 8, 10) that had

been described as Teotihuacanoid.

It must be emphasized that the Prado complex consists of the above

subassemblage, hereafter referred to as Prado ceramics, plus the suite of

Coyotlatelco ceramic types that define the Corral complex. Even in levels where

Prado ceramics are at peak popularity, Coyotlatelco ceramics are still more

numerous, and while Prado ceramics sharply decline in frequency in subsequent

levels, small amounts were present even in the highest levels. Thus the distinction

between the Prado and Corral phases is one of relative frequency and therefore

somewhat arbitrary. This problem might be resolved if a larger study of Prado and

Corral ceramics permitted the subdivision of one or more existing types into early

and late variants by which the two complexes could be differentiated. Failing this, it

may be preferable to consider Prado and Corral as early and late subphases,

respectively, of a single (Corral) phase.

Outside Tula Chico, Prado vessels were recovered from burials in salvage

excavations by INAH near the Museo locality (Paredes 2005, pp. 211214). Few

Prado ceramics were encountered in surface survey inside the city (Healan and

Stoutamire 1989, fig. 13.7) and few were encountered in regional survey (Cobean

1982, p. 66). Recently, however, Prado ceramics were identified at Chapantongo

(Fournier 2007; Fournier and Bolanos 2007), an Epiclassic site about 2.5 km2

located c. 27 km northwest of Tula, whose ceramic assemblage includes most of

Tulas Corral and Prado phase ceramic types. Unlike Tula Chico, Prado ceramics at

Chapantongo show no variation in relative frequency over time (Cervantes and

Fournier 1994, p. 108), which could indicate a relatively brief temporal duration.

78 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

While the extent of Tulas Prado phase settlement is unknown, the subsequent

Corral phase settlement has been estimated as between 3 and 6 km2 (Cobean 1982;

Mastache and Crespo 1982, p. 23; Yadeun 1975, p. 22). Outside Tula Chico, Corral

phase occupation at Tula has been identified in excavations at the El Corral locality

(Cobean 1990, p. 141) and the Museo and Cerro Malinche localities (Paredes 2005,

pp. 209213). It is reasonable to assume that Corral phase settlement extended into

Tulas monumental precinct, possibly including the area later occupied by Tula

Grande given its commanding location. Various authors (Mastache and Crespo

1982, pp. 2324; Mastache et al. 2002, pp. 72, 129) have speculated on the existence

of a Corral phase monumental center at Tula Grande given the recovery of

Coyotlatelco ceramics from the lowest levels of several excavations there (Acosta

1945, p. 53; Mastache et al. 2002, p. 129). As discussed below, however, the earliest

construction levels in which Coyotlatelco ceramics have been encountered at Tula

Grande appear to date to the Terminal Corral rather than Corral phase, and it

appears that the two monumental centers did not overlap in time.

Recent investigations at Tula Chico

During 2002 and 2003, Cobean and Mastache conducted excavations on the south

facade and superstructure of the largest pyramid on the north side of Tula Chico.

The superstructure, which had been burned in prehispanic times, was dated to the

Corral phase based on associated ceramics (Mastache et al. 2009; Suarez et al.

2007). Associated sculpture includes a relief panel depicting a reclining figure

(Mastache et al 2009, fig. 20), essentially identical in style, dress, and accoutre-

ments to those from Building 3 at Tula Grande, thus extending one of Tula Grandes

signature monumental art forms back into the Corral phase.

Evidence of additional iconographic continuity between Tula Chico and Tula

Grande was encountered in excavations in the southwest corner of Tula Chicos

plaza, where sculptural fragments and architectural remains associated with Prado

complex ceramics were encountered beneath more than a meter of rock fill that

underlay the plaza (Mastache et al. 2009, fig. 22). This included a relief panel

fragment showing the foot and lower leg of a reclining personage, thereby extending

this art form back into the Prado phase.

Chronological issues

According to Mastache and Cobean, Epiclassic settlement in the Tula region

evolved from a landscape of small, competing polities to a single integrated system

centered around Tula Chico, with an accompanying shift from largely peripheral,

hilltop settlements to the alluvial plain. The proposed earlier dating of the La Mesa

phase vis a` vis both the Prado/Corral phases and Coyotlatelco assemblages in theBasin of Mexico raises the possibility that the former may have overlapped in time

with the Chingu phase, Teotihuacan-associated settlement system. This also is

suggested by the strikingly complementary distribution of the La Mesa and Chingu

phase settlements that may explain why the former settlement system surrounds

the area rather than occupying it (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 302). Overlap between

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 79

123

the two settlement systems would have obvious implications for the debate

surrounding the origins of Coyotlatelco ceramics, discussed below.

However, recently obtained radiocarbon dates for both La Mesa and Tula Chico

(Fig. 5, aj) provide mixed results with respect to this issue. On the one hand, the

two-sigma ranges for four of the five samples from each of the two sites are

strikingly similar, with almost total overlap. As Fournier and Bolanos (2007, p. 511)

note, this provides no support for the premise that La Mesa and presumably the

other La Mesa phase hilltop sites predate Tula Chico. At the same time, both sites

have one date whose two-sigma range falls almost completely within the Classic

period (Fig. 5, a, f). For Tula Chico, this date has stratigraphic integrity since it

comes from fill beneath the plaza floor underlying the Ballcourt, while the other four

dates are from stratigraphically later contexts associated with a later platform. Too

few dates are involved, however, for overlap between Classic and Epiclassic

settlement to be more than an interesting possibility.

Tula and the origin of Coyotlatelco ceramics

Although the debate regarding where, when, and how Coyotlatelco ceramics

originated involves numerous points of discussion, it is often and somewhat

inaccurately characterized as a dichotomy involving those who favor a nonlocal

versus a local origin. Proponents of a nonlocal origin, originally proposed by

Jimenez Moreno (1959), Braniff (1972), and Rattray (1966), trace Coyotlatelco to

one or more red-on-buff ceramic traditions to the north and west as far away as the

Chalchihuites region of Zacatecas and Jalisco, or as near as the Bajo region of

southern Guanajuato and Queretaro (Fig. 1). Mastache and Cobean (1989, p. 65,

1990, p. 22; see also Cobean 1990, p. 500; Mastache 1996a, pp. 4750) favor a

nonlocal origin, specifically the Chalchihuites region given similarities in ceramics

as well as architecture, settlement, and lithic assemblages. The primary reason given

by Mastache for believing that the Chalchihuites region was the most likely source

involves the disparity between the supposed abundance of Blanco Levantado

pottery in the Bajo during the Epiclassic versus its absence in both the

Chalchihiutes and Tula regions prior to the Early Postclassic period (Mastache

et al. 2002, p. 71). However, several authors have recently noted that Blanco

Levantado is likewise absent in much of the southern portion of the Bajo (e.g.,

Brambila and Crespo 2005, pp. 165167; C. Hernandez, personal communication

2009).

The view that La Mesa phase sites were settled by immigrants from the

Chalchihuites region has been soundly criticized by various authors (e.g., Fournier

et al. 2006; Jimenez Betts 2006). Jimenez Betts notes that revised dating of

Chalchihuites ceramic phases has made them contemporaries of the Coyotlatelco

complex rather than earlier complexes from which the latter could have derived.

Other authors (e.g., Fournier and Bolanos 2007, pp. 505509) question the validity

of supposed architectural and other material ties between La Mesa phase and

Chalchihiutes sites. In retrospect, the notion that the appearance of Coyotlatelco

signals the arrival of peoples from over 500 km away seems unlikely, for these and

80 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

other reasons. At the same time, however, the settlement data strongly suggest that

the Coyotlatelco settlements in the survey area were intrusive, as is discussed below.

With respect to the other side of the debate, there are relatively few proponents of

a purely local origin for Coyotlatelco (e.g., Dumond and Muller 1972, p. 1214;

Sanders 2006, p. 190), who see its origins in red-on-buff ceramics at Teotihuacan or

earlier traditions in the Basin of Mexico. Instead, there appears to be an emerging

middle ground (e.g., Beekman and Christensen 2003; Fournier 2006, pp. 438439;

Gaxiola 2006; Lopez Perez et al. 2006; Manzanilla 2005, p. 269; Sugiura 2006) that

sees Coyotlatelco as a fusion, hybridization, or syncretism of the preexisting

Teotihuacan ceramic tradition with a nonlocal tradition possibly introduced by

migrating populations, although more indirect forms of interaction also could have

been responsible. As most of these authors note, the eastern Bajo is the most likely

region of origin given its proximity (Fig. 1) and growing evidence of a rich and

widespread red-on-buff tradition that goes back to Late Formative (Chupcuaro)

times. Moreover, the proximity of the eastern Bajo, particularly to the Tula region,

would facilitate regular interaction without necessarily involving migration or, if so,

minimal population displacement. Prado and Corral ceramics have been recently

identified in burials at Cerro la Cruz in southern Queretaro by Saint-Charles and

Enrquez (2006), who assert that one of the principal Prado ceramic types, Ana

Mara, is identical to Rojo Sobre Bayo El Mogote, a previously defined type

common in southern Queretaro (Nalda 1975).

In addition, Coyotlatelco sites characteristically exhibit a lithic assemblage

dominated by obsidian from the Ucareo obsidian source (Fig. 1, C) on the

southeastern flank of the Bajo (Healan 1997, table 1). Recent excavation of

habitation sites around the source (Healan 1997; Hernandez and Healan 2000) has

documented a long-lived red-on-buff ceramic tradition (Hernandez 2000) whose

origins go back to the Early/Classic period, as determined by recent chronometric

dating (Hernandez and Healan n.d.).

Post-Corral phase developments

Abandonment and destruction of Tula Chico

Survey and excavation reveal an absence of later construction or other occupation at

Tula Chico itself, suggesting it was abandoned some time after the Corral phase.

Recent exploration of structures on the north and east sides of Tula Chico

encountered evidence of burning and intentional destruction (Cobean and Suarez

1989). The discovery of a Terminal Corral ceramic assemblage on the floor of a

burned structure atop the East Platform suggests the destruction occurred during the

Terminal Corral phase. The destruction and abandonment appears to have been

confined to Tula Chico itself given the presence of Tollan phase structures and

ceramics in the immediate surrounding area.

The apparent destruction and burning of Tula Chico was undoubtedly a major

event, although continuity in ceramics and other traits suggests largely internal

processes were involved. That Tula Chico remained in ruins as it was surrounded

by the growing city, a situation not unlike the Acropolis surrounded by modern

J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115 81

123

Athens, is one of the most enigmatic aspects of Tulas settlement history. This

anomaly has been interpreted in various ways, including that Tula Chico was

hallowed ground because of events known or believed to have occurred there

(Mastache and Crespo 1982). Alternatively, its destruction could have been the

result of internal conflict and its ruins left as a reminder of the triumph of one

faction over the other(s). Whatever the reason, its destruction and abandonment

and the construction of Tula Grande probably closely followed one another in

time, as discussed below.

Appearance of Mazapa Red on Brown

I refer here specifically to the distinctive pottery type called Mazapa or Mazapan by

Linne (1934, p. 75; see also Elson and Mowbray 2005) that was first identified in

post-Metepec contexts at Teotihuacan and defined principally on its distinctive red-

painted designs composed of parallel wavy lines. Although Mazapa resembles

Coyotlatelco, unlike the latter its surface is not burnished at Tula and its red paint

differs in both texture and color, often exhibiting a faded appearance (Cobean

1990, p. 273, personal communication 2008).

At Tula, Mazapa Red on Brown, which Acosta referred to as ocre con

decoracion de lineas rojas ondulantes, was encountered in apparently all of

Acostas stratigraphic test pits at Tula Grande. Published ceramic inventories for

three of these pits (Acosta 1940, pp. 182186) show unusually high proportions of

Mazapa, as much as 52% of non-olla sherds in some levels and abundant in virtuallyall but the highest levels of all three pits. By comparison, published ceramic and

stratigraphic data from subsequent excavations, even others by Acosta (1945, lam.

1), consistently show Mazapa to be a far less prevalent type that appeared around

the time that Coyotlatelco ceramics waned in popularity; Mazapa also waned in

popularity prior to Tulas Late Tollan phase apogee. These anomalous seriations led

Acosta to initially assume that Mazapa Red on Brown comprised a major part of

Tulas ceramic assemblage for most of the citys existence, although he later

corrected this assumption.

Appearance of orange-and-cream wares

One of the most significant changes in Tulas post-Corral ceramic inventory was

the appearance of what Cobean collectively calls Canales Polished Ware or

orange-and-cream wares, given their distinctive orange and/or cream-colored

slips comprising four distinct types. These have no clear relationship to previous

ceramic types, hence they represent a new ceramic tradition at Tula. The two

earliest types, Proa and Joroba, both cream-slipped, appear during the Terminal

Corral phase, followed by Ira and Jara, both orange but actually double-slipped

(cream and orange) wares, of which Jara comes to dominate Tulas ceramic

assemblage during the late Tollan phase. According to both Cobean and Bey,

Jara and Ira are wholly different from and unrelated to the later Aztec orange

wares.

82 J Archaeol Res (2012) 20:53115

123

Cobean (Mastache et al. 2002, p. 46) suggests that Tulas orange-and-cream

wares are related to ceramic traditions of the Gulf Coast. Other possible evidence of

Gulf Coast ties comes from the U98 ceramic workshop, where all four types were

manufactured and found in association with similar ceramics said to be very

probably from the Gulf Coast that may have served as prototypes (Hernandez

Reyes et al. 1999, p. 78). Still other evidence comes from the Cruz locality obsidian

workshop, which contained numerous probably imported Gulf Coast ceramics,

including a type so similar to the Proa and Joroba that Bey (1986, pp. 307314; Bey

and Ringle 2007, p. 385) suggested it was the prototype from which the latter were

derived.

The Terminal Corral and Early/Late Tollan phases

As initially formulated, the post-Corral, pre-Aztec portion of Cobeans ceramic

chronology consisted of two phases: a relatively brief, transitional (Terminal Corral)

phase, followed by a much longer (Tollan) phase. I have already noted Beys (1986,

pp. 307314) proposed subdivision of the Tollan phase, based on the Cruz locality

obsidian workshop wh