puebla prehistory

8/10/2019 Puebla Prehistory

1/39

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, June 2005 ( C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s10804-005-2485-5

Recent Research in Puebla Prehistory

Patricia Plunket1,2 and Gabriela Urunuela1

This review of recent research in the state of Puebla, Mexico, focuses on six issues:(1) reevaluations of the Tehuacan Valley Archaic; (2) rural household archaeologyat Tetimpa; (3) the impact of Popocat epetls eruptions; (4) the city of Cholula;(5) the Nahua-Otomangue frontier; and (6) new perspectives on the Mixteca-Puebla art style. Not only do these topics illustrate the scope of archaeologicalwork, but they can be linked to broader anthropological themes like the originsand spread of agriculture, relationships between rural populations and emergentcities, the environmental, social, and cultural impact of natural disasters, the

operation of geographical frontiers and ethnic interfaces, the construction ofcultural landscapes, and the connections between political organization and artstyle. Pueblas location along numerous environmental and cultural divides makesit an excellent laboratory for the study of human interaction across diverse kindsof frontiers.

KEY WORDS: volcanism; Cholula; frontiers; Mixteca-Puebla.

INTRODUCTION

The central Mexican state of Puebla, located between the Basin of Mexico

and the Mixteca of Oaxaca, most often is treated as a footnote in surveys of

Mesoamerican prehistory. Key developments the evolution of agricultural sub-

sistence economies; the rise of elaborate chiefdoms; the emergence of major cities

and pilgrimage centers; the industrial production of ceramics, obsidian, basalt,

tecalli and salt; and the elaboration of international iconographic and stylistic

communication systemstook place here, yet with few exceptions, archaeological

1Departamento de Antropologa, Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Sta. Catarina Martir, Puebla,Mexico.

2To whom correspondence should be addressed at Departamento de Antropologa, Universidadde las Americas-Puebla, Sta. Catarina Martir, 72820 Cholula, Puebla, Mexico; e-mail: [email protected].

89

1059-0161/05/0600-0089/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.


2/39

90 Plunket and Urunuela

research of the last 50 years has not resulted in a clear, synthetic understanding

of Pueblas prehispanic past. In large part, this situation results from the enor-

mous environmental and cultural diversity of the states seven major regions

(Fig. 1).

Puebla sits at the very heart of the Mesoamerican culture area, straddling

the central highlands along the southeastern edge of the Mesa Central, and has

served as a major crossroad between north and south, east and west. The northern

Fig. 1. Geographic regions of the state of Puebla showing sites mentioned in the text (based onFuentes 1972, p. 129).


3/39

Recent Research in Puebla Prehistory 91

extreme includes the humid, forested Atlantic slope that leads down to the Gulf

Coast, whereas the southern area is composed of a series of small valleys separated

by dry mountain ranges that step down into the Rio Balsas drainage that empties

into the Pacific; the broad highland valleys of the center of the state lie along

the eastern side of the neo-volcanic axis, which forms a significant geographical

barrier between them and the Basin of Mexico. The frontier between the Nahua

and Otomangue worldsa major cultural divide within Mesoamericaspans the

eastern periphery, along the border with the states of Veracruz and Oaxaca.

Like the Basin of Mexico and the Valley of Oaxaca, the Puebla region was

the focus of major archaeological research programs during the 1960s and early

1970s. The first of these, Richard MacNeishs Tehuacan Archaeological-Botanical

Project, has been well published (Byers, 1967a,b; Johnson, 1972; MacNeish, 1970,

1972, 1981) and until recently has stood as the unquestioned sequence for our un-derstanding of the transition from hunting-gathering to agriculture subsistence

strategies during the Mesoamerican Archaic. The second investigation was the

Proyecto Arqueologico Puebla-Tlaxcala directed by Peter Tschohl for the Fun-

dacion Alemana para la Investigacion Cientfica (Tschohl, 1977; Tschohl and

Nickel, 1972). With the notable exception of Angel Garca Cooks (1981) sum-

mary in the first supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, the

German project did not result in a synthetic treatment of settlement patterns, ce-

ramic sequences, economic systems, or political development in the region, and to

date the results remain poorly published. The same is true of the second phase ofINAHs3 Proyecto Cholula,4 first directed by Miguel Messmacher (1967) and then

by Ignacio Marquina (1970, 1975; Lopezet al., 1976); consequently Cholula

one of the major cities of Mesoamericahas not played a significant role in any

anthropological consideration of the prehispanic past. Because its Great Pyramid

is the largest pre-Columbian structure in the New World (Fig. 2), Cholula is as-

sumed to have been a thriving metropolis and potential rival of Teotihuacan during

the Classic period (ca. A.D.200700) and a core zone with high population and

concentrated political power (Smith and Berdan, 2003a, pp. 2526) during the en-

tire Postclassic, but the archaeological evidence that might allow a reconstructionof urban planning, residential patterns, population size, craft specialization, or

socioeconomic variation lies buried beneath the modern city.

During the past decade there have been few attempts to remedy this situation.

The rate of development, particularly in the western part of the state, is extremely

intense, and archaeological sites are being impacted at an alarming rate. Most of

the archaeological research in the state of Puebla has been undertaken in response

to activities such as highway and airport construction, housing projects, water and

3Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, the government agency that oversees cultural patrimonyin Mexico.

4The first Proyecto Cholula, also directed by Ignacio Marquina (1981, pp. 115129), began work in1931.


4/39


Fig. 2. View of the south side of the Great Pyramid (Tlachihualtepetl) of Cholula, Puebla; thechurch dedicated to the Virgen de los Remedios crowns the prehispanic structure.

sewage installation, electrification, tourism initiatives, and mining; very little ofthe work has been research oriented, although this does not mean that research

interests have been ignored entirely.

Although it is difficult to find common themes in the archaeological research

undertaken during the past decade in the state of Puebla, in this short review

we focus on six specific issues: (1) the Mesoamerican Archaic and the Tehuacan

sequence; (2) household archaeology at the Formative village of Tetimpa; (3)

the impact of volcanic eruptions of Popocatepetl on prehispanic communities;

(4) Cholula; (5) the Nahua-Otomangue frontier; and (6) new perspectives on

the Mixteca-Puebla phenomenon. These topics not only illustrate the nature ofarchaeological work in Puebla during the last 10 years but they also can be used

to link the prehistory of this area to broader anthropological themes such as

the origins and spread of agriculture, the relationship between rural populations

and emergent cities, the impact of natural disasters on human communities, the

significance and operation of frontiers and ethnic divides, the construction of

cultural landscapes, and the connections between political organization and art

style.

TEHUACAN AND THE MESOAMERICAN ARCHAIC

For almost 40 years the Tehuacan Valley sequence has provided archaeolo-

gists with a model for the gradual development of maize agriculture in


5/39


Mesoamerica during the Coxcatlan phase (50003400 B.C. [uncalibrated]

[Johnson, 1972, p. 40]). These solid foundations were challenged by the publica-

tion of 12 Accelerator Mass Spectrometer (AMS) dates on corn cobspersonally

selected by Richard MacNeish from well-dated levels of the Coxcatlan and San

Marcos caves (Longet al., 1989, p. 1036)that were about 1500 years younger

than radiocarbon dates the original excavators had obtained on charcoal associated

with the same stratigraphic proveniences (Longet al., 1989; Long and Fritz, 2001;

MacNeish, 2001). Four of the AMS dates from Archaic contexts fell within the

Terminal Formative, Classic, and Postclassic periods. This discrepancy has led

several authors to suggest that some of the ecofacts recovered by the Tehuacan

Project are more recent intrusions into earlier levels (e.g., Benz and Long, 2000,

p. 464; Fritz 1994, p. 306). MacNeish (Flannery and MacNeish, 1997) first con-

sidered the AMS dates to be unacceptable due to sample contamination from theuse of bedacryl as a consolidant by INAH conservators; he later decided that the

problem was more likely a result of flawed protocols at the University of Arizona

radiocarbon laboratory, which processed these and other AMS dates he likewise

considered questionable (MacNeish, 2001, pp. 103104).

The Tehuacan Valley sequence also has been contested on other grounds. In

an attempt to take a fresh look at the preceramic period in central Mexico, Karen

Hardy (1993, 1996, 1999) questioned some of the basic premises, methodologi-

cal procedures, and final results of the Tehuacan Project, particularly Flannerys

(1967) faunal analysis and MacNeishs lithic typology (Byers, 1967b). In spite ofsome unfortunate problems with Hardys reevaluation (Fennell, 2001; Flannery

and MacNeish, 1997), she did draw attention to a very real need to promote further

study of the Mesoamerican Archaic.

As indicated above, the advent of AMS techniques has made it possible to

directly date the botanical remains from Middle Holocene sites in Mesoamer-

ica and elsewhere (e.g., Flannery, 1999; Kaplan and Lynch, 1999; Smith, 1997).

This dating is an essential part of reconstructing the domestication process and

improving our understanding of the origins of New World agriculture; it would

seem unwise, however, to throw out the Tehuacan Valley sequence (Fritz, 1994,p. 305) and interpretations (Hardy, 1996) just yet. The new dates do suggest that

the traditional, gradualist models for agricultural origins derived from the Tehua-

can data should be reconsidered in light of evidence that the Middle Holocene

consisted of two temporally and developmentally distinct cultural transitions

the initial domestication of plants and the subsequent emergence of economies

centered on food production (Smith, 1997, p. 379). New excavations in other

areas of Pueblasuch as the Valsequillo Depression (Garca Moll, 1977) or the

swamp lands of the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valleymight provide valuable information

on the apparently prolonged period of low-level food production (Smith, 1997,p. 379) and how this relates to both earlier hunting-gathering subsistence strategies

(Pichardo, 2000) and the subsequent settled agricultural villages of the Formative

period. Indeed, it may turn out that the accelerated rate of morphological change


6/39


in maize in the period between 3555 and 3370 B.C. that Benz and Long (2000,

p. 462) cite is evidence for both human selection and genetic drift involved in a

late and rapid origin of maize agriculture. But there are many new techniques to

be applied to both stored and recently excavated materials and many additional

questions to be asked before we should decide to adjust the period of earli-

est agriculture in Mesoamerica to 35003000 B.C. as suggested by Fritz (1994,

p. 308).

Chronological challenges to the long-established Tehuacan Valley Archaic

sequence demonstrate the importance of bolstering existing data on the transition

to agricultural subsistence economies in highland Mesoamerica. Although the dry

caves of Tehuacan and the Valsequillo Depression undoubtedly provide the best

situations for the preservation of organic materials, the natural swamp lands of the

Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley may present additional opportunities for research on thechanging nature of human subsistence patterns under less arid conditions between

5000 and 2000 B.C.

Linguists also have found reasons to reevaluate the Archaic of central Mexico.

In a recent study by Jane Hill (2001), Puebla is implicity, if not explicitly, sug-

gested as a homeland for the Proto-Uto-Aztecan speech community, which ac-

cording to her formed sometime between 5600 and 4500 BP and participated

in the primary domestication of maize. In opposition to the prevailing view that

Uto-Aztecan languages originated in the southwestern United States and moved

south at a much later date (Fowler, 1983), Hill and others (e.g., Diamond andBellwood, 2003) link the spread of this language group to a northward expansion

of early farmers out of the Mesoamerican heartland during the fourth millen-

nium B.C. Whether the specific merits of the linguistic argument are valid or

not, they concur with Bellwood and Renfrews (2003) claim that widespread,

multibranched language groups may represent the trace of human expansions

driven by Neolithic technological innovations, especially cultivation, not only in

Mesoamerica but worldwide (Diamond and Bellwood, 2003). Hills study implies

that many Aztecan speakers were central to the development of the Mesoamerican

worldview and not latecomers who acculturated to civilized patterns in recentprehistory.

Few projects have focused on the succeeding Early Formative period in

the state of Puebla. During the late 1980s, abundant Early Formative ceramics

like those described by Niederberger (1976) for the southern Basin of Mexico

were found in test excavations at Colotzingo in the Atlixco Valley (Urunuela,

1989b). More recently, Pailles (2000; Pailleset al., 2000) has undertaken a limited

program of test pitting and a small extensive excavation at the heavily looted

Olmec horizon site of Las Bocas. Early Formative remains include floors, a hearth

that was possibly used for firing ceramics, fragments of baby face figurines, andburials. In the adjoining state of Tlaxcala, Richard Lesure (2002) has initiated a

project to explore the transition to sedentary life around the lakes of the Apizaco

area. Both of these projects, however, are in their initial stages.


7/39


HOUSEHOLD ARCHAEOLOGY AT THE FORMATIVE

VILLAGE OF TETIMPA

About the middle of the first century A.D. a major Plinian eruption of

Popocatepetl devastated the agricultural communities settled along the volcanos

northeastern flank. This was a huge natural disaster. But by sealing the For-

mative period landscape under more than 1 m of pumitic ash, the remains of

fragile domestic buildings were protected from the predation of later groups and

the erosive natural forces that alter and destroy archaeological evidence. During

the past 10 years, archaeologists at the Universidad de las Americas in Cholula,

Puebla, have recorded data from 29 operations that include household units, de-

tached kitchens, ritual structures, and agricultural fields from the ancient village

of Tetimpa (Aguirre, 2000; Aguirre and Quintana, 1998; Clear and Plunket, 1998;Hernandez, 1998, 2000; Lopez, 2000; Panfil, 1996; Panfil et al., 1999; Plunket

and Urunuela, 1998a,b,c,e,f, 1999a,b, 2000a,b, 2001, 2002a, 2003; Urunuela and

Plunket, 1998, 2001, 2002a,b, 2003; Urunuelaet al., 1998).

Tetimpa was occupied from the late eighth century B.C. until the eruption

in the first century A.D. The site offers an opportunity to study the structure

and organization of a large, dispersed village during a period of colonization and

population build-up along both the eastern (Garca Cook, 1981, pp. 248262) and

western flanks (Sanderset al., 1979, pp. 97104) of the Sierra Nevada that peaked

just prior to the first century B.C. More importantly perhaps, Tetimpa witnessed thesucceeding demographic decline of this area, a process that was evidently related to

impressive population increases both at Teotihuacan (Sanders et al., 1979, p. 107)

in the northeastern corner of the Basin of Mexico and at Cholula (Plunket and

Urunuela, 2000a) in the western Puebla Valley during the following two centuries.

Thus, the data retrieved from Tetimpa relate to two important issues: (1) village

organization prior to and contemporary with the formation of the urban centers

at Teotihuacan and Cholula, and (2) unequivocal evidence of a natural disaster

that must have played a significant role in the abandonment of the Sierra Nevada

piedmont and the massive migrations to these emerging cities. In this section wefocus on the first of these two topics.

The houses of Tetimpa utilize a highly standardized building program (Plunket

and Urunuela, 1998a) that, as Flannery (2002, p. 431) has recently noted, combine

the flexibility of growth on demand with the formality of a stereotypic module

in a pattern suggesting population growth with segmentation at the nuclear family

level. The mature house uses the same format as Plaza One, a first century A.D.

Three Temple Complex in Teotihuacan (Cook de Leonard, 1957, 1971, p. 192;

Plunket and Urunuela, 2002c). This consists of a large central platform flanked

by two smaller lateral structures that together frame a courtyard (Fig. 3). An altaror shrine marks the midpoint of the courtyard, and in some cases, an elongated

platform located opposite the central building serves to restrict access to the com-

pound. The stone-faced platforms, usually about 0.72.0 m high, have a central


8/39


Fig. 3. Plan of Operation 2, a typical Terminal Formative house compound at the village of Tetimpa,Puebla.

staircase and usetalud-tablero architecture, a feature that although long consid-

ered diagnostic of Classic period Teotihuacan religious constructions, appears onboth domestic (Plunket and Urunuela, 1998a) and civic-ceremonial (Garca Cook,

1981, p. 252) structures in western Puebla during the Late Formative. The presence

of the talud-tablero temple diagnostic on the residential platforms of Tetimpa

leads us to believe that the earliest first century A.D. three-temple-complexes of

Teotihuacan were originally elite houses and not specialized religious structures,

although they subsequently seem to have acquired temple status (compare with

Grove and Gillespie, 2002; Kirch, 2000).

At Tetimpa, the three-to-four room modules apparently form clusters that

include one larger house and a nonresidential building. We have interpreted theseas social subdivisions of the village, perhaps extended lineages or maybe some

version of a social house (Joyce and Gillespie, 2000), where junior residential

compounds are grouped around a senior or elite house and a specialized structure


9/39


that may have been used for communal activities and/or as an ancestor hall for

lineage ritual (Plunketet al., n.d.).

At most houses the central room is distinguished from the lateral ones pri-

marily by size but also usually by the floor assemblages that include censers. In

a single casea house we have identified as a senior lineage residence based on

mortuary patternsatalud-tableroaltar was attached to the rear wall of the main

room (Urunuela and Plunket, n.d.-a). Thus it appears that certain rituals only took

place at the senior lineage house and not at the junior houses, and that ceremonial

activities, like the lineage itself, were hierarchically structured. The altar may have

been used to display the bundled corpse of an important individual for a period of

time before interment, but the singularity of this feature indicates that the largest

house was distinguished from other residences by more than size alone.

Although the courtyards of the Tetimpa houses were used for a variety ofdomestic tasks (Urunuela and Plunket, 1998), the midpoint is always marked by

a small shrine or at least a stone cobble; this is true for all houses and detached

kitchens. The shrines are highly variable and probably reflect aspects of individual

family history, but most include carved anthropomorphic or zoomorphic stones

set on top of subfloor chimneys. In five cases, shrine stones were placed on top

of effigy volcanoes, a reference that obviously relates to Popocatepetl (Smoking

Mountain) whose crater lies only 13 km to the southeast (Plunket and Uru nuela,

1998c). Ritual activity around these shrines is manifested in the presence of incense

burners (Urunuela and Plunket, 2002a, p. 28, Fig. 3.8), ash, reddened areas of burntearth, prismatic obsidian blades, concentrations of small stones, and cremated bird

remains inside the chimneys (Plunket and Urunuela, 2002a).

The village was probably composed of patrilineages. The orientation towards

the paternal line is reflected in the mortuary program. Only a few individuals,

almost always adult males, were buriedoften with abundant grave goodsin

tombs or pits located under the floor of the central room of each house compound

(Urunuela and Plunket, 2001, 2002a,b). The incense burners that frequently are

included in these interments also have been found on the floors of the room above

or at the patio shrine, providing a ritual link between the living and the dead withinthis structure and at the sacred center of the family compound. The few women

and children buried in the houses of Tetimpa were generally excluded from the

ritually significant central room.

The existence of patrilineages at Tetimpa is supported further by the dis-

tribution of imported ceramics associated with the burials (Plunket et al., n.d.).

Members of senior lineage houses appear to have engaged in a variety of reciprocal

trading partnerships that are evidenced by the ceramics brought back home and

ultimately inhumed with important individuals who may have been lineage heads.

Neutron activation analyses of these ceramics indicate that the villages tradedlocally for most of their serving vessels, but a significant number of items were

imported from the northeastern Basin of Mexico, the area between Huejotzingo

and Tlaxcala and the Tepexi region of southern Puebla, which provided early


10/39


(ca. 300B.C.) examples of Thin Orange wares (Plunketet al., n.d.). Although each

cluster of houses was affiliated with two or more distinct regions, all of them forged

alliances to the north in order to procure obsidian from the mines of Otumba and

Paredon.

Although we know next to nothing about the domestic organization of Classic

period Cholula, the city of Teotihuacan offers many intriguing parallels to Tetimpa

that seem to reflect the village on a monumental scale. The very specific triadic

format of the three-temple-complex at Teotihuacan is a mirror of the residential

architecture at Tetimpa and probably other Formative villages and towns. We and

others have suggested links between this architectural format and lineage struc-

tures, both along the Street of the Dead and within the apartment compounds of

Teotihuacan (Headrick, 1999, 2001; Plunket and Urunuela, 1998a, 2002c). The

talud-tablero system used on every platform at Tetimpa served no practical pur-pose. Thetableroembellishment that wraps around the facade of the sloping wall

of the platform can be viewed best as a symbolic divide between the underground

quarters of deceased family members and those of their living descendants who

occupy the surface (Urunuela and Plunket, n.d.-a). Urban Teotihuacan adopted

this ancient symbolic device (dated as early as 300 B.C. at Tlalancaleca, Puebla

[Garca Cook, 1984]) for use on most of the citys temples, enhancing thetablero

with a thin stone frame and painted stucco. Rather than create an entirely new

symbol, Teotihuacan drew upon the canons of the pastthe emblem of house and

lineagein order to deal with the problems of continuity and change in a complexurban environment.

We believe that the city embraced this traditional configuration as one of

several strategies designed to incorporate the tremendous influx of immigrants

that arrived at the beginning of the first century A.D.; the modular nature of the

building program was well suited to rapid growth and could bridge the imposing

chasm between village and city, between past and present. At the same time,

Teotihuacan appears to have established this triadic structure as a cornerstone

of its emerging state ideology, converting it into a formula that was repeated on

a monumental scale along the Street of the Dead, perhaps to provide lineagerepresentation at the very heart of the city (see Headrick, 1999).

Traces of ancient agricultural systems are usually not preserved in the ar-

chaeological record, their imprint having been erased long ago by more recent

activity. The furrowed fields of the Tetimpa region, however, have provided new

insights into prehispanic agricultural systems. There are two temporally distinct

sets of fields, one that was covered by the first century A.D. eruption (Plunket

and Urunuela, 1998a) and a second that was impacted by a later volcanic event

sometime between A.D.700 and 850 (Hirth, 2001; Panfil, 1996). The early fields

occupy all of the space between house compounds, and they were designed toarrest the erosive force of torrential rains on the sandy piedmont soil. The majority

of the furrows are spaced regularly at intervals of 1.0 to 1.3 m apart and prob-

ably represent milpa agriculture (Aguirre, 2000). Others are more compact with


11/39


12/39


The first century event has been classified as a VEI-6 eruption (Volcanic

Explosivity Index) (Siebe, 2000, p. 61). It produced over 3.2 km3 of pumitic

lapilli that collapsed across an area extending at least 25 km east of the crater;

the eruption column has been estimated at between 20 and 30 km (Panfil, 1996,

p. 16). Following this Plinian phase, lava flows covered 50 km 2 of the eastern

piedmont of the volcano with between 30 and 100 m of rock that dammed and

diverted drainages, altering the surface hydrology of the western Puebla Valley

(Panfil, 1996, pp. 1620).

Although the eastern slopes of the volcano were strongly impacted by the

Plinian fallout and lava, the northwestern sector (the southeastern corner of the

adjacent Basin of Mexico) was devastated by pyroclastic flows that led to mas-

sive migrations of survivors (Siebe, 2000, p. 61). Indeed, archaeological surveys

of this area have documented an enormous population decline between 100 B.C.

and A.D. 100 (Sanders et al., 1979, p. 183). We believe that the first century

eruption was ultimately responsible for the displacement of some 50,000 people

in the Basin of Mexico and that these refugees contributed heavily to the ex-

traordinary population build-up at Teotihuacan, situated far from the volcanically

active mountains that ring the southern basin. Although Millon (1981, p. 217)

and Sanders (Sanders et al., 1979, p. 107) both argue that Teotihuacans ag-

gressive bid for political control of the countryside was the principal factor in-

volved in the rapid growth of the city, we believe that the emergent state was

confronted with an ecological disaster of unprecedented proportions that accel-erated social and ideological processes already underway, including population

nucleation and modifications of prevailing belief systems (Plunket and Urunuela,

2002d).

According to Siebe et al. (1996), the second volcanic event dated to the eighth

century A.D.resulted in massive lahars that rushed into the western Puebla Valley

and destroyed the city of Cholula. They base their reconstruction on an inspection

of the deposits that overlie the Classic period architecture on the southern side of

Cholulas Great Pyramid; they identify these as the lahars. Although it is unques-

tionable that the eruptions would have impacted Cholula socially, politically, andenvironmentally, it is very doubtful that the city was buried under immense mud

flows. Excavations in the low-lying fields at the northeastern corner of the pyramid

(Lopezet al., 2002a) show no sign of destructive lahars, nor do explorations in the

area between the Great Pyramid and the Palacio Municipal located to the west of

the monumental architecturebetween the Pyramid and the volcano a zone that

would necessarily show remains of these deposits if they had covered the Pyramid

(Lopez et al., 2002b; Plunket and Urunuela, 1993, 2002b; Plunket et al., 1994).

Although the volcano has been invoked by geologists in a wave of catastrophism

stimulated by present-day activity, it is unlikely that Cholula was devastated in theway Siebe and his colleagues propose. Integrating archaeological and geological

observations of Cholulas complex stratigraphy will form an important part of

assessing the effects of volcanic activity on this pre-Columbian city.


13/39


With the advent of Schiffers (1987) work on formation processes and subse-

quent publications by Cameron (1991; Cameron and Tomka, 1996), abandonment

has evolved into an important area of investigation, particularly for household

archaeology. Tetimpa has provided an excellent laboratory for understanding both

rapid and gradual abandonment (Plunket and Urunuela, 2000b, 2003; Urunuela

and Plunket 2003). Our analysis of the distribution and placement of artifacts at

the first century houses demonstrates that some families were absent when the

eruption occurred while others were immersed in their daily chores, perhaps indi-

cating that inhabitants were aware of the imminent danger posed by the volcano

and were already establishing alternate living arrangements elsewhere (Plunket

and Urunuela, 2000b). The scarcity of portable, exotic goods in relation to large or

heavy craft items at most houses points to the possibility that householders were

selectively removing valuables while leaving behind items useful for daily lifeduring the relocation process; the presence of high proportions of improvised,

recycled or waiting-to-be-recycled artifacts that would not be taken to new homes

and the lack of caching behavior are both consistent with our interpretation that

abandonment was imminent and there was little anticipation for return (Plunket

and Urunuela, 2003).

CHOLULA

Archaeological work in Cholula almost always occurs in response to develop-

ment projects or maintenance of protected areas around the Great Pyramid (Fig. 2),

and most of what has been done can be found only in unpublished technical re-

ports (e.g., Hernandez et al., 1998; Lopez et al., 2002a,b; Plunket et al., 1994;

Plunket and Urunuela, 1993), theses (e.g., Edelstein, 1995; Hermosillo, 1992;

McCafferty, 1992), or abbreviated summaries published in symposia memoirs

(e.g., Suarez, 1992). One exception to this pattern is McCaffertys (1992, 1994,

1996b, 2001c; McCafferty and McCafferty, 2000) analysis of Daniel Wolfmans

1968 excavations on the Universidad de las Americas campus at the eastern edgeof the city (Wolfman, 1968). The random nature and limited extent of salvage-

generated exploration, however, makes it difficult to find common themes in

this work.

The Great Pyramid, or Tlachihualtepetl, was the focus of archaeological

research from the 1930s until the 1970s; since then most efforts have been directed

at the maintenance of this enormous structure (e.g., Rodrguez, 1999, 2000, 2001;

Vela and Solanes, 1991). Recent work in fields abutting the northeast corner

of the pyramid (Lopez et al., 2002a) has produced evidence of early colonial

and Postclassic houses constructed on top of the ruins of earlier Classic periodplatforms that represent the initial occupation of this swampy zone; however,

Noguera (1956) reported Late Formative materials from the adjacent Templo

Rojo so earlier buildings may have existed in this area.


14/39


Until last year, the dating of the pyramid relied entirely on ceramic studies

of materials from selected areas of fill, a situation that has created controversy

about the buildings construction sequence (Marquina, 1970, 1975; McCafferty,

1996a). In an effort to assess the possibility that the first century A.D. eruption

of Popocatepetl led to enhanced strategies of tempering divine justice and new

political agendas that were partially manifested in an acceleration of monumen-

tal construction within the city, the Tetimpa Project has begun to explore the

developmental sequence of the Great Pyramid (Urunuela and Plunket, 2002b).

The first part of the work has involved the detailed recording of an unreported

excavation of a tunnel about 2 m underneath what has been referred to as the

initial construction phase (Marquina, 1970). The tunnel terminates in a room

with remains of wooden beams that McCafferty (1996a, p. 5) has referred to as

an interior chamber . . .that may relate to an artificial cave as a symbolic portalto the underworld (see also McCafferty, 2001a, p. 286). In fact, the stratigraphy

of the tunnel clearly indicates that it was excavated into an adobe construction

that predates the first stage (A) of the Great Pyramid; a 14C determination on

the remnants of the beams provided a date of 110 50 BP (Beta-162996). It

appears that the modern tunneling ended in an adobe-walled celltypical of plat-

form construction in Cholulathat may have contained an offering that merited

the reinforcement of the ceiling with beams for excavation. Charcoal from the

adobe fill underneath the chamber has been dated to 1810 40 BP (AMS Beta-

162997), providing a 2 sigma range of cal A.D.110330, considerably later thanMcCaffertys (2001a, p. 285) second century B.C.estimates. A third date that was

obtained from the fill placed directly on top of Marquinas initial construction

phase (A) yielded a determination of 1700 60 BP (Beta-162998) with a 2 sigma

range of calA.D.220450, suggesting that the first pyramid was built during the

second centuryA.D.More dates are necessary to validate these initial findings, but

the construction of an independent chronological sequence for the pyramid and

surrounding structures is essential for our understanding of Early Classic urban

development in the central highlands.

Other monumental architecture in Cholula also has been dated to this timeperiod. Salvage excavations immediately south of the junction between the kitchen

of the Franciscan monastery of San Gabriel and its Portal de Peregrinos uncovered

a well-preserved staircaseover 12-m wide with more than 13 stepsof a large

east-facing platform that continues under the 16th century building and the adjoin-

ing school yard (Plunket and Urunuela, 2002b). A 14C determination on charcoal

from a hearth associated with the superstructure of this platform provided a date

of 1890 80 BP (I-17,627) with a 2 sigma range of cal 41B.C.to A.D.268 and cal

A.D.273 to 336. Importantly, this platform is constructed directly on top of sterile

tepetate, and no Formative period remains were found in the excavations. Fartherto the northwest, in the patio of the building adjacent to the Casa del Caballero

Aguila, salvage excavations found no evidence of monumental architecture and


15/39


no occupation prior to the latter part of the Classic (Lopez et al., 2002b). The

Formative and Classic remains of the city center apparently lie primarily to the

east and south of the present-day main square of Cholula.

The eastern limits of the settlement coincide with the campus of the Uni-

versidad de las Americas. Salvage excavations there have documented Classic

period burials and midden deposits, but the soil is so thin that most structural

remains have been destroyed by agricultural activities. The western edge of the

campus is pocked with huge pits excavated into the tepetate during Classic times

apparently to extract building material for platform constructionthat were then

filled with trash during the subsequent centuries. One of these mines was filled

with broken drinking vessels and other elements of a ceramic assemblage similar

to that depicted in the mural of Los Bebedores (Uriarte, 1999), and it appears that

this deposit resulted from the discard of artifacts used on a single ritual occasion(Salomon et al., 2001, 2002). McCafferty (1996b, 2001b; see also Edelstein, 1995)

has briefly reported on Sergio Suarezs INAH salvage excavation of a Classic pe-

riod house, but there is still very little that can be said about Cholula during this

epoch.

The transition between the Classic and Postclassic in Cholula represents

an extremely complex problem (Garca Cook and Merino, 1991; Urunuela and

Plunket, n.d.-b). Excavations in Cholula (Dumond and Muller, 1972)in addition

to work at nearby Cerro Zapotecas (Mountjoy, 1987), Cacaxtla-Xochitecatl (Serra,

1998), and the various surveys of the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valleysuggest importantchanges at the beginning of the seventh century A.D.that included a cessation of

monumental construction in the city, the establishment of a new political ideol-

ogy linked to the Olmeca-Xicalanca of Cacaxtla (Ringle et al., 1998), and the

Teotihuacan diaspora (however, see McCafferty, 1996a). Some of this turbulence

may have been caused by the second eruption of Popocatepetl (Siebeet al., 1996).

Excavations on the campus of the Universidad de las Americas have demonstrated

that in areas where stratigraphy is intact, the black clay deposits of the Classic

are consistently sealed by a sterile layer of sandy volcanic ash; materials on top

of this ash include Early Postclassic ceramics, specifically black-on-orange waressimilar to Aztec I.

As in so many other areas of Mesoamerica, the Postclassic of Cholula is gen-

erally dealt with from an ethnohistoric perspective rather than an archaeological

one (e.g., Lind, 1994b; McCafferty, 2001a; McCafferty and McCafferty, 2000;

Pintoet al., 2001; Suarez and Martnez, 1993). Most of the important exceptions

have to do with ceramic studies that stem from Michael Linds seminal work on

Cholula polychrome wares (Lind et al., n.d.). On the basis of form and decora-

tion, Lind seriated the complex decorated Postclassic ceramics of Cholula into

three phases: Aquiahuac (A.D.10001200), Tecama (A.D.12001350), and Martir(A.D.13501519). Although his work is still being tested and verified (Hern andez,

1995a; Plunket, 1995; Suarez, 1994, 1995), his basic divisions have been modified


16/39


by McCafferty (1992, 1994, 2001c) in his analysis of the assemblage from UA-1,

a residence located at the eastern limits of the Postclassic city. McCafferty (2001c,

p. 14) has published a detailed chronological sequence, with new phase names

Early Tlachihualtepetl (A.D.700900), Middle Tlachihualtepetl (A.D.9001050),

Late Tlachihualtepetl (A.D. 10501200), Early Cholollan (A.D. 12001400), and

Late Cholollan (A.D.14001520)based on four radiocarbon dates. Cholula now

has three different Postclassic chronologies, none of which is grounded in suffi-

cient temporal information. We return to a discussion of the Postclassic ceramics

below.

THE NAHUA-OTOMANGUE FRONTIER

Although the linguistic frontier between Uto-Aztecan (Nahuatl) and

Otomangue speakers probably developed late in Mesoamerican culture history

(Hopkins, 1984; however, see Hill, 2001, and Manrique, 2000), it evolved along a

major geographic transition. The Plains of San Juan as well as the southeastern and

southern regions (Fig. 1) lead out of the broad central valleys and into the broken

terrain occupied by Otomangue groups like the Mixtec and Popoloca, or Totonacs.

With the exception of the Tehuacan Valley, these are poorly explored areas even

though they should be considered vital to any discussion of frontiersparticularly

fortified frontiersduring the latter part of the Classic and the Postclassic. We

briefly review several sets of research on two frontier areas: the city of Cantona

situated at the northern rim of the Plains of San Juan (Garca Cook and Merino,

1998), and the nahuatized Popoloca kingdoms of Tepexi (Castillo, 1997, 1998a,b),

La Mesa (Alducn, 1998; Arana, 1995, 1998; Castillo, 1995, 1998c; Chacon, 1995,

1998; Sisson and Lilly, 1994a,b), and Cutha (Castellon, 1995, 1999; Castellon and

Dumaine, 2000) located in the southeastern section of the state.

Cantona

The fortified city of Cantona spreads across 12.6 km2 of rugged volcanic

topography west of Cofre de Perote near the border between the states of Puebla

and Veracruz (Garca Cook and Merino, 1996, 1998). Obsidian from the nearby

mines of Oyameles-Zaragoza was converted into prismatic cores and bifaces in

its numerous obsidian workshops. Rojas (2001, pp. 69, 107) considers Cantona to

have been a major competitor of Teotihuacans obsidian industry, and in certain

areas of Mesoamerica this may have been the case. However, a study of the

distribution of obsidian from Classic contexts in the Tehuacan Valley demonstrates

that while Cantona was the major supplier for this area, Teotihuacans materials

moved through the Tehuacan Valley and on to the Gulf Coast and the Maya


17/39


lowlands where more exotic luxury goods could be obtained (Drennan et al., 1990).

Cantona may have participated on a limited scale in the long-distance exchange

of obsidian for prestige commodities during the Classic since Oyameles-Zaragoza

artifacts have been identified as far away as Tikal (Moholy-Nagy and Nelson,

1990, pp. 7374), but its role as an important international exporter appears to have

mushroomed primarily during the post-Teotihuacan era. Its workshops contributed

significant percentages of obsidian to the lithic assemblages at sites in the Puebla

Valley, along the Gulf Coast, in the Valley of Oaxaca, and across the southern

Isthmus; its products also occur in minute quantities in the northern Maya area

at sites like Chicanna, Chichen Itza, Uxmal, Ek Balam, and Labna (Braswell,

2003, Table 20.1). Use of Oyameles-Zaragoza obsidian declined at the beginning

of the Postclassic as Cantona was abandoned around A.D.1000 (Garca Cook and

Merino, 1998, p. 213).The city was constructed upon a series of superimposed andesitic flows that

form natural terraceseach about 10-m high (Ferriz, 1985)using asymmetrical

architectural layouts to adapt building plans to the highly irregular ground (Garca

Cook and Merino, 1998, p. 197). Most of Cantonas civic and religious buildings

are located on the upper terrace, or Acropolis, that rises at the southern end of

the site while the habitation areas cover the lower two flows along the southern

and western boundaries of the geological formation. The citys public architecture

includes 24 ballcourts and more than 100 plazas. Twelve of the ballcourts were

embedded into an entirely new architectural complex that consists of a plaza witha stepped platform at one end and the I-shaped ballcourt at the other (Fig. 4); most

of these complex architectural configurations are located on the Acropolis (Garca

Cook and Merino, 1998, pp. 200201). Thirty of Cantonas plazas also were built

on the Acropolis while the remainder were scattered among the residential patio

groups, perhaps functioning as civic and religious hubs for the citys subdivi-

sions. Garca Cook and Merino (1998, p. 197) identified two large rectangular

open areas defined by low walls and platformscovering 11,200 and 16,000 m2,

respectivelythat may have functioned as marketplaces.

A complex network of elevated stone-paved streets meanders through theresidential patios that occupy more than 3000 terraces, while clearly defined

roads linked the settlement with a number of neighboring towns (Garca Cook

and Merino, 1998). Over 20 14C dates place the occupation between the Late

Formative and Epiclassic. The site seems to have become more fortified through

time, reinforcing its frontier status and perhaps reflecting the political turmoil of

the Epiclassic.

Both Cantonas building program and ceramic assemblage are unique in

Mesoamerica and do not employ the canons of the central valleys or Gulf Coast

sites, although certain similarities to the styles of Veracruz, Oaxaca, the cen-tral highlands, and West Mexico are present (Garca Cook and Merino, 1998,

pp. 210, 213214). The ethnic composition of Cantona and the nature of the


18/39


Fig. 4. Plan of ballcourt complex no. 7 at Cantona (redrawn from Talavera et al., 2001, Fig. 50).

settlements outside contacts and alliances remain unresolved; further analysis of

the excavated materials and their contexts (e.g., Rojas, 2001; Talaveraet al., 2001)should provide important insights about this frontier polity and its interaction

with other parts of Mesoamerica. In many ways, the city is like other Epiclassic

centers (e.g., Xochicalco, Cacaxtla, and El Tajn): It is located on a prominent

hill with fortified architecture; it possess a road network with controlled ac-

cesses; it focuses strongly on ballcourt ritual; and its artifact assemblages includes

reworked human bone. Unlike the above-mentioned cities, however, Cantona

has little public artwork, which makes ideological and symbolic comparisons

difficult.

Popoloca Region

Ethnic identity also represents an important issue for archaeologists working

in the southeastern corner of the state. Not only are the small polities centered at

sites like La Mesa (Tehuacan Viejo), Cutha, and Tepexi located in a region of both

geographic and cultural transitions, but the area was subject to an influx of Nahuatl

speakers from the northwest early in the 13th century, and two hundred years later

much of it became subject to the Aztec empire (Castillo, 1997, p. 239; Sisson

and Lilly, 1994a, p. 33). Although some authors stress the relevance of an ancient

Popoloca identity (Castillo, 1998c), others have given more importance to the Post-

classic Nahua migrants (Sisson and Lilly, 1994a,b). La Mesa has been described


19/39


as being occupied by either Popoloca (Castillo, 1998c) or Nahua refugees (Sisson

and Lilly, 1994a, p. 33), while Tepexi and Cutha have traditionally been classified

as Popoloca. Some authors propose that the Popoloca kingdoms flourished after

the fall of Tula (Castillo, 1994, p. 18), but Castellon (1999) has recently suggested

that Cutha, one of the most important sites in the area, reached its peak during the

Epiclassic.

Researchers who have worked in the region during the last dozen years

agree that its population was not homogeneous but rather a complex mixture of

the various ethnic groups whose geographic boundaries coalesce in southeastern

Puebla (Castellon, 1999; Castillo, 1998c; Sisson and Lilly, 1994a). Surrounded

by Nahua groups to the north and Mixtecs, Chochos, and Mazatecs to the south,

the Popoloca kingdoms were linked to one another and to their outside neighbors

through marriage alliances (Castillo, 1998c, p. 1876; Sisson and Lilly, 1994a,p. 33), although they were simultaneously engaged in local conflicts that resulted

in the fortification of many of the majorcabeceras, such as Cutha and Tepexi

(Castillo, 1994).

Although a great deal of the recent archaeological work has centered on map-

ping and the excavation of public architecture at La Mesa (Alducn, 1998; Arana,

1995, 1998; Chacon, 1995, 1998; Sisson and Lilly, 1994a,b), Tepexi (Castillo,

1996, 1997), and Cutha (Castellon, 1999), much of the interpretation reviewed

above is based primarily on legendary accounts in ethnohistoric documents and

ceramic studies. The fact that the ceramics and murals found in the region belongto the generalized Mixteca-Puebla tradition does not help clarify issues of ethnic

identity. Surface collections at La Mesa include not only local bichromes and

polychromes but also ceramics from Acatlan, Tepeaca, Cholula, Cuauhtinchan,

Tlaxco, the Basin of Mexico, the Mixteca Alta, the Chinantla, and the Huasteca

(Marquez, 1994)a situation paralleled at Cutha (Castellon, 1999). In addition

to ethnic diversity, this suggests the existence of complex exchange networks and

marriage alliances that were fundamental to the social, political, and economic

organization of these often fortified polities that occupied the small valleys of the

region. Ceramics are not particularly good indicators of ethnicity, and more workneeds to be done at the household level to investigate the population mix at these

settlements and how the Nahua migrants affected the political and demographic

structure of the region.

Southeastern Puebla also has witnessed research on productive systems.

Neelys (Neely and Castellon, 2003) continuing work on the fossilized canal

systems of the Tehuacan Valley has shown that spring water was being channeled

to agricultural fields by the beginning of the Late Formative, and organic mate-

rials sealed between the travertine layers of the canals should provide important

environmental data for this initial period of agricultural intensification. The canalwater also was employed in salt making that was a major industry of the area

around Cutha (Castellon, 1999).


20/39


During the Classic period the Popoloca regions interaction with the great

power centers, especially Teotihuacan, revolved around the production of Thin

Orange ceramics (Plunket and Urunuela 1998d) made from clay deposits along

the Ro Carnero drainage. Rattrays survey (Rattray, 1990a,b, 1995) of about

100 km2 of an area between Tepexi and San Juan Ixcaquixtla was designed

to study the production of this ware and the interaction between the Popoloca

and Teotihuacan. She located 83 sites, including three regional centers and nine

cabeceras (Rattray, 1998, p. 80, Fig. 2), and partially excavated a house compound

with a Thin Orange workshop (Rattray, 1990a). Although Rattray (1998, p. 81)

places the earliest appearance of this highly traded ware around A.D.200, neutron

activation analyses of pink-orange paste vessels from Late Formative contexts at

Tetimpa demonstrate that ceramics chemically identical to Classic period Thin

Orange were in circulation much earlier (Plunketet al., n.d.).

Atlixco

The northern frontier of the Popoloca and Mixtec areas is located at the

southern edge of the Atlixco Valley. Here studies have focused not so much on

the nature of this boundary but rather on the political division that developed be-

tweencabeceras conquered by the Aztec empire and the independent kingdoms

of Puebla-Tlaxcala after 1465 (Plunket, 1990; Plunket and Urunuela, 1994). Hos-tilities between these two groups, known as the xochiyaoyotl or Flowery Wars,

apparently resulted in the episodic abandonment of settlements in the Atlixco

Valley, particularly in the southern area near Quauhquechulan where the Aztecs

installed a garrison (Dyckerhoff, 1988, p. 26). As opposed to the situation in the

Popoloca region, ceramics and probably other goods did not cross this frontier

easily. Aztec III and the cream wares typical of the Mixteca are absent or scarce

in the Puebla Valley to the north, while Cholula polychromes are very uncommon

around Quauhquechulan to the south.

The nature of the Nahua-Otomangue divide seems to have varied consider-ably according to the political and economic relations between bordering groups.

Internal regional hostilities among peer polities, like those indicated for the south-

eastern area, seem to be reflected in the defensive position and frequent fortification

ofcabeceraswithout major or long-term effects on economic exchange. Threats

of conquest by a major foreign military alliance, however, appear to have affected

both settlement continuity and commercial activity.

THE MIXTECA-PUEBLA PHENOMENON

In a recent synthesis, Nicholson (2001) reminds us that the origins of the

Late Postclassic International Stylealso known as the Mixteca-Puebla Horizon


21/39


Styleare still unclear. One group of researchers associates it with the emergence

of the Mixtec kingdoms in Oaxaca and southern Puebla, while others argue for

roots in the turbulent Early Postclassic of Cholula in the western Puebla Valley,

or in the highland-lowland interaction along the Gulf Coast. For many years,

interest in the origins of this art style was interwoven with diffusionist models that

posited a culture core in central Mexico from which Mixteca-Puebla culture

spread (Nicholson, 1960; Vaillant, 1940). Smith and Heath-Smith (1980, p. 15)

challenged this traditional view, arguing that it confuses three distinct phenomena:

(1) the Religious Style of the Early Postclassic; (2) the Mixtec Codex Style of the

Late Postclassic; and (3) the Mixteca-Puebla Regional Ceramic Sphere composed

of local central Mexican ceramic complexes that share certain stylistic features.

They concluded that the conflation of these phenomena has led to inappropriate

models and flawed interpretations, and they propose that trade and developingcommunication networks provide better explanations.

A recent volume on Postclassic Mesoamerica (Smith and Berdan, 2000,

2003b) examines the Mixteca-Puebla phenomenon from a world-systems per-

spective. To distinguish between style and iconography, two categories are used:

(1) the Postclassic International Style (painting styles of codices, murals, and ce-

ramics), and (2) the Postclassic International Symbol Sets (iconography) that have

early and late components (Boone and Smith, 2003). The world-systems approach

reverses the culture core concept that held that traits diffuse outward from a center

and instead contends that the styles and symbols originate outside central Mexico,but were incorporated into the exchange networks of the Postclassic world system

(Smith, 2003, p. 183). Mixteca-Puebla style is used now to refer to ceramic

decoration, murals, and codices in Puebla, Tlaxcala, and Oaxaca (Smith, 2003,

p. 182).

In Puebla, recent work has sought to separate and define substyles (Castellon

and Dumaine, 2000; Castillo, 1994; Dennis, 1994; Lind, 1994a; McCafferty, 1994,

2001c; Quinones-Keber, 1994; Smith and Berdan, 2000, 2003b), identify loci

where materials were made (Neffet al., 1994; Urunuela et al., 1997), determine the

styles application in different mediacodices, ceramics, and mural(Contreras,1994; Sisson and Lilly, 1994b), read the iconographic references (Hernandez,

1995a,b; Nicholson, 1994; Sisson and Lilly, 1994a), and understand how this ritu-

ally charged symbolism was woven into the social fabric (Pohl, 1998, 2003a,b,c,d;

Pohl and Byland, 1994).

Several studies have demonstrated strong relationships between regional sub-

styles and certain codical traditions, lending weight to arguments about the origins

of particular manuscripts. For example, there is such a strong correspondence be-

tween the Late Postclassic polychrome wares and murals of the Puebla-Tlaxcala

Valley and the Codex Borgia that it is highly probable that this pre-Columbiandocument was produced in that area (Boone, 2003; Contreras, 1994; Hernandez,

1995a,b; Nicholson, 1994; Pohl, 1998; Quinones-Keber, 1994; Urunuela et al.,

1997).


22/39


These links between the Codex Borgia and the codex-style ceramics from

the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley have led several researchers to isolate elements and

motifs in the complex compositions in an attempt to create vocabularies that can

be translated or tied to culturally specific meanings (Hernandez, 1995a,b; Lind,

1994a; Lind et al., n.d.; Nicholson, 1994). Based on Linds (1994a, pp. 9495)

comparative dictionary of motifs that occur on Late Postclassic Mixtec Pilitas

and Cholula Catalina polychromes, these ceramics functioned within two signif-

icantly different political systems. According to Lind (1994a, p. 97) the Mixtec

vessels served as drinking vessels at royal weddings and other gatherings of the

political elite; consequently they illustrate distinctive Mixtec rituals, anthropo-

morphic representations of royalty, and mythological themes that are similar to

those found in the Mixtec Codex Vindobonensis. The Cholula ceramics, on the

other hand, use design motifs that reflect bloody rites, including human and animalsacrifice; they focus on the ritual paraphernalia like maguey thorns and bone awls

used in these events. Occasional references to deities like Xochipilli, Xochiquet-

zal, or Tezcatlipoca on drinking vessels and plates are achieved through esoteric

symbols rather than anthropomorphic representations; likewise, representations

of jaguars and eagles allude to the two high priests of Cholula, the Tlalchiach

and the Aquiach, respectively. For Lind, the elegant Catalina polychrome (Fig. 5)

is thematically related to the interests of the religious bureaucracy of the holy

city of Cholula and was not employed in the aggrandizement of the political elite

like the Mixtec Pilitas ware appears to have been. If Lind is correct in his in-terpretation, an intensive study of vocabularies depicted on the codex style

ceramics produced in the other kingdoms of the Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley should

reveal patterns similar to those of the Mixtec Pilitas polychromes since the sacred

pilgrimage city of Cholula is probably a unique case. Neutron activation analysis

of ceramics decorated with Mixteca-Puebla iconography has shown that these

were made at a number of locations in the Basin of Mexico, the Puebla-Tlaxcala

Valley, the Popoloca area, the Mixteca Alta, the Oaxaca Valley, and the Chinantla

(Neffet al., 1994, p. 129); therefore the signs and symbols should reflect the rituals

and mythology used by the local elites.In a recent article on the Late Postclassic painted altars in Tlaxcala, Pohl

(1998, pp. 194195) proposes that some of the sacrificial references in these

murals and on local ceramics are related to the Tzitzimitl, fearsome spirits that

personified disease, drought, war, sacrifice, death, and divine castigation who serve

as emblems of the chaos caused by drunkenness and violent discord. He suggests

that drunkenness was common at the palace feasts that played such an important

role in maintaining social relations among the multiethnic kingdoms of highland

Mexico (Pohl 2003a,b,c,d), and that the movable feasts of the 260-day sacred

calendar were celebrated in these palaces and dedicated to the Tzitzimime (Pohl,1998, pp. 197, 200). In effect, he suggests that, like their Mixtec counterparts,

the Tlaxcalan kingdoms also used ceramics and other art forms depicting the

ritual and mythological themes that were specifically relevant to their own social


23/39


Fig. 5. Catalina polychrome pulque goblet (courtesy of theMuseo de la Ciudad de Cholula en la Casa del CaballeroAguila, Cholula, Puebla).

milieu. Hernandez (1995a,b) comparison of the motifs of Cholula, Huejotzingo,

and Tlaxcalan ceramics shows that the Tzitzimitl referencesthe severed hands,

the skulls, and human heartsfrequently appear in Cholula, so it is likely that the

sacred city used the polychrome wares not only as a vehicle for the interests ofthe religious bureaucracy but also for promoting the political elite.

The discovery of codex-style murals at La Mesa (Tehuacan Viejo) in 1991

provides significant information about how Mixteca-Puebla style iconography


24/39


was used in nonpalatial architectural settings. On the back wall of the west room

in a courtyard group, Edward Sisson (Sisson and Lilly, 1994a,b) uncovered a

well-preserved mural painted on mud plaster that depicts eight shields (originally

9) surmounted on diagonally crossed lances and banners. The building has been

interpreted as an armory decorated with the symbolism of the night sun where the

elaborate costumes, shields, and lances of elite warriors were stored (Sisson and

Lilly, 1994a, p. 43). The shields themselves make reference to deities like Xipe

Totec, Tezcatlipoca, and Mixcoatl-Camaxtli and employ metaphors for warfare

and sacrifice like the atl-tlachinolli(burning water), the mitl-chimalli(a shield

on top ofatlatl darts), anthropomorphized sacrificial knives, and the aztamecatl

(a feathered rope for binding sacrificial victims). The paintings were probably

made by a Nahuatl-speaking component of the Popoloca region since there are

strong iconographic similarities between the murals and the Codex Borgia (see,Boone, 2003). Sisson and Lilly (1994a, p. 42) stress that the full meaning of the

murals could be better understood if the surrounding rooms were excavated, but

difficulties in the conservation of the paintings have made archaeologists reluctant

to undertake this exploration. As opposed to the Tlaxcalan palace murals that

emphasize the Tzitzimime motifs, the La Mesa artwork demonstrates that the

Mixteca-Puebla style also articulated military themes for warrior societies whose

ranks probably included members of the political elite.

FINAL COMMENTS

As this review demonstrates, the amount of research-oriented archaeology in

the state of Puebla during the past dozen years has been limited. With the exception

of the Tehuacan Archaeological-Botanical Project, this situation results from the

failure of the large-scale projects of the 1960s and 1970s in the Puebla-Tlaxcala

Valley to produce and publish a coherent chronological framework (however, see

Garca Cook, 1981, 1988), well-established ceramic sequences, and a detailed,

comprehensive analysis of settlement patterns that could serve as a platform from

which to launch more specific research. Forty years ago modern settlement was

not an important impediment to archaeological research, but today the problems

caused by population growth and resource use have made it much more difficult

to obtain the kind of information needed to create the broad outlines that can

generate theoretical discussions. Not only have important sites been impacted by

development projects and squatters settlements, but also the topsoil of a large

section of the western Puebla Valley has been removed and used by cottage

industries to make bricks. It is now almost impossible to record small villages and

hamlets in these zones.

Other areas of the state remain virtually unknown archaeologically. The

Sierra Norte and the Atlantic slope that leads into the Totonac area have many


25/39


important sites such as Yohualichan and Xiutetelco, but little systematic explo-

ration has been undertaken. The Izucar-Chiauhtla area to the southwest and the

Mixteca Baja to the south are unexplored with the exception of limited work at

Las Bocas (Pailles, 2000; Pailles et al., 2000). The Mixtec kingdom of Acatlanthat apparently produced the Codex Tulane (Smith and Parmenter, 1991) has seen

little archaeological research. The Plains of San Juan around Cantona have been

and continue to be the subject of archaeological survey by Angel Garca Cook

in spite of Leonor Merinos untimely death. The western extreme of the central

valleys around Tepeaca-Acatzingo was intensively surveyed by James Sheehy;

unfortunately, this work remains unpublished and can only be consulted in two

licenciatura theses (Maldonado, 1997; Medina, 2001) and in technical reports to

the Mexican government (Sheehy, 1994; Sheehyet al., 1995, 1996).

The publication of detailed analyses of salvage work has been very inade-quate. Major excavations were undertaken during the 1980s in response to the

construction of the Huejotzingo airport. The only published mention of the air-

port project (Cepeda, 1997) summarizes in one paragraph evidence of an Early

Classic occupation that included the remains of an urban settlement with palaces

surrounded by walls and separated by streets 1.5-m wide, a drainage system to

recycle rainwater, canals for irrigation, domestic artifacts, ceremonial burials, and

more than 4000 ceramic vessels. There are no maps, drawings, or photographs.

During this same period a modern drainage system cut a 4 km long east-west

trench through Cholula two blocks south of the Great Pyramid. With the excep-tion of three midden deposits (Fajardo, 1985) and the burials (Urunuela, 1989a),

the excavated materials from this salvage project were never analyzed and no re-

port was prepared. Occasionally, however, results from these kinds of excavations

are published (e.g., Suarez, 1990, 1995).

In spite of the problems we have mentioned, the state of Puebla has tremen-

dous potential for archaeological research. The Middle and Late Formative saw

impressive population growth and the establishment of numerous chiefdoms. Re-

lations between Teotihuacan and Cholula are still not clearly understood for the

Classic period, and this is an important research problem that needs to be ad-dressed. To the east of Cholula there are several important centers (Hirth and

Swezey, 1976; Medina, 2001, pp. 124132) that may provide significant data

about Teotihuacans relations with lesser highland political structures, a subject

that, having been overshadowed by research on the Teotihuacan-Maya interaction,

requires attention. And finally, Pueblas location along the fringe of the Nahuatl-

speaking worldat least during the Postlcassicprovides archaeologists with

excellent opportunities to investigate social, economic, and political interaction

along frontier zones and ethnic divides.

This short review brings together various sets of the recent archaeologicalwork in the state of Puebla. We have attempted to show that, in spite of the sporadic

and opportunistic nature of many projects, there is much to be learned from this


26/39


central area; its exclusion from general considerations of Mesoamerican prehistory

due to a lack of regional synthesis shows that our reconstruction and understanding

of basic culture history and social process in this cradle of civilization is far

from adequate.

As Richard MacNeish recognized long ago, certain parts of the state provide

excellent prospects for the study of agricultural origins and the spread of Neolithic

lifeways. Chronological challenges to the long-established Tehuacan Valley Ar-

chaic sequence demonstrate the importance of bolstering existing data bases on

the transition to agricultural subsistence economies in highland Mesoamerica.

Although the dry caves of Tehuacan and the Valsequillo Depression undoubt-

edly provide the best preservation of organic materials, the swamp lands of the

Puebla-Tlaxcala Valley also may present opportunities for research on the chang-

ing nature of human subsistence patterns under less arid conditions between 5000and 2000 BP. More and better archaeological and linguistic data from the Ar-

chaic period will help trace the Neolithic expansion so that the Mesoamerican

experience can be compared to similar processes worldwide.

Almost 30 years ago, Flannery (1976) wrote about the early Mesoamerican

village. Some of these early villages in Puebla were tested by the German ar-

chaeological project of the 1960s (Aufdermaeur, 1970), but along the eastern base

of the Sierra Nevada there is a string of villages that developed into important

chiefdoms during the Middle and Late Formativesites like Tlalancaleca, San

Francisco Coapan, and Colotzingothat need intensive study in order to makebetter sense of the political and economic processes documented in the Basin of

Mexico to the northwest and the Valley of Oaxaca to the southeast. Our studies at

Tetimpa have shown that even the rural settlements that dotted the piedmont were

active participants in Formative exchange networks, and we might expect that the

centers located on the valley floor were prime movers in the political development

of central Mexico.

The population declines documented for both sides of the Sierra Nevada

during the first century A.D.including the large chiefdoms of the western Puebla

Valleymay have been a consequence of a huge eruption of the Popocatepetlvolcano. This natural disaster has direct bearing on the rapid growth of the two

major urban centers of highland Mesoamerica, Teotihuacan, and Cholula, in that

it provides a specific set of circumstances under which decision making took

place at both the impacted communities and the powerful political centers closest

to them. Generally, it has been assumed that the emergent cities of the central

highlands coerced the inhabitants of the towns and villages of their respective

regions to relocate to the urban environment, yet the dating of the VEI-6 eruption

provides an alternate explanation for the massive population movements of the first

century A.D. and requires us to reconsider our ideas about population implosionand the nature of the Terminal Formative/Early Classic transition in the central

highlands.


27/39


Ethnic and environmental diversity played major roles in the political and

economic development of Puebla. The northern, eastern, and southern sectors of

this macroregion constitute major linguistic and environmental divides that create

excellent opportunities to study the interaction between environmentally and/or

ethnically distinct territories. In spite of internal regional hostilities, the small

polities of the Postclassic developed communication systems that could function

in multiethnic circumstances to promote alliance formation and maintain active

exchange networks. This kind of social and commercial interaction appears to

have been curtailed, however, by the emergence of the Triple Alliance and the

imperialistic designs of the Aztec empire.

Puebla sits at the crossroads of Mesoamerica, and in a sense, it divides the

ancient culture area in two rather distinct parts, just as it divides the modern nation

of Mexico into the developed north and the impoverished south. The transitionsin environment and language are complex and obviously have deep temporal

roots, but these transitions make Puebla an important laboratory for the study of

interaction across frontiers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank the Mesoamerican Research Foundation, the Sistema Regional

Ignacio Zaragoza, the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologa, and the De-canatura de Investigacion y Posgrado of the Universidad de las Americas, Puebla,

for their generous support of our research. Kent Flannery, Kenneth Hirth, James

Sheehy, Gary Feinman, and Linda Nicholas all provided helpful suggestions and

sound advice that were much appreciated.

REFERENCES CITED

Aguirre, Z. (2000). Estudios qumicos y paleoetnobotanicos en unidades domesticas arqueologicas delsitio de Tetimpa, Puebla. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universidadde las Americas-Puebla, Cholula.

Aguirre, Z., and Quintana, N. (1998). Analisis qumico de cationes de un espacio domestico ar-queologico de la region de Tetimpa, Puebla. In Brambila, R. (ed.), Antropologa e historia deloccidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa andUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, pp. 17991820.

Alducn, R. (1998). La Plaza B de Tehuacan Viejo La Mesa. In Brambila, R. (ed.),Antropologae his-toria del occidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologaand Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, pp. 19391946.

Arana, R. (1995). Sistemas constructivos y consolidacion del Conjunto A de Tehuacan el Viejo, LaMesa.Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol ogicosXLI:129148.

Arana, R. (1998). Estructura 4, Plaza C de Tehuacan Viejo La Mesa. In Brambila, R. (ed.),Antropologa e historia del occidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, Sociedad Mexi-cana de Antropologa and Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, pp. 19091926.


28/39


Aufdermaeur, J. (1970). Excavaciones en dos sitios preclasicos de Moyotzingo. Comunicaciones 1:924.

Bellwood, P., and Renfrew, C. (eds.) (2003).Examining the Framing/Language Dispersal Hypothesis,McDonald Institute Monographs, McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cambridge.

Benz, B. F., and Long, A. (2000). Prehistoric maize evolution in the Tehuacan Valley. Current Anthro-pology41:459465.

Boone, E. H. (2003). A web of understanding: Pictorial codices and the shared intellectual cultureof Late Postclassic Mesoamerica. In Smith, M. E., and Berdan, F. F. (eds.), The PostclassicMesoamerican World, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 207221.

Boone, E. H., and Smith, M. E. (2003). Postclassic international styles and symbol sets. In Smith,M. E., and Berdan, F. F. (eds.), The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, University of Utah Press,Salt Lake City, pp. 186193.

Braswell, G. E. (2003). Obsidian exchange spheres. In Smith, M. E., and Berdan, F. F. (eds.), ThePostclassic Mesoamerican World, University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp. 131158.

Byers, D. S. (ed.) (1967a). The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 1: Environment and Subsistence,University of Texas Press, Austin.

Byers, D. S. (ed.) (1967b). The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 2: Nonceramic Artifacts,University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cameron, C. M. (1991). Structure abandonment in villages. In Schiffer, M. (ed.), ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory, Vol. 3, University of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 155194.

Cameron, C. M., and Tomka, S. A. (eds.) (1996).Abandonment of Settlements and Regions: Ethnoar-chaeological and Archaeological Approaches, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Castellon, B. R. (1995). Trabajos arqueologicos en Cutha, antiguo senoro popoloca en ZapotitlanSalinas, Puebla.Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol ogicosXLI:165175.

Castellon, B. R. (1999). Cutha, Zapotitlan Salinas, Puebla: arqueologa y etnicidad en el areapopoloca, Doctoral thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.

Castellon, B. R., and Dumaine, A. (2000). La ceramica de fondo sellado de Tepexi, Cutha y Tehuacan,Puebla.Arqueologa24: 6185.

Castillo, N. (1994). Los popolocas y la region mixteca-puebla. In Nicholson, H. B., and Quinones-Keber, E. (eds.), Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Research in Mesoamerican Art and Archae-ology, Labyrinthos, Culver City, pp. 175187.

Castillo, N. (1995). Proyecto Sur del estado de Puebla: area central popoloca.Revista Mexicana deEstudios AntropologicosXLI:115128.

Castillo, N. (1996). Las popolocas de Tepexi El Viejo, Puebla. In Brambila, R., and Monjaras-Ruiz,J. (eds.), Los arque ologos frente a las fuentes, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia,Mexico City, pp. 171179.

Castillo, N. (1997). Tepexi El Viejo: un senoro popoloca al sur de Puebla, y los mexicas. In Manrique,L., and Castillo, N. (eds.),Homenaje al doctor Ignacio Bernal, Instituto Nacional de Antropologae Historia, Mexico City, pp. 237249.

Castillo, N. (1998a). Iconografa en vasijas de Tepexi El Viejo, Puebla. In Barba, B. (ed.),Iconograf amexicana I, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 93104.

Castillo, N. (1998b). Iconografa en vasijas de Tepexi el Viejo, Puebla: representaciones de serpi-ente y jaguar. In Barba, B. (ed.), Iconograf a mexicana II: el cielo, la tierra y el inframundo:aguila, serpiente y jaguar, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 247258.

Castillo, N. (1998c). La zona arqueologica de Tehuacan, Puebla: avances y perspectivas del proyectoTehuacan, un senoro popoloca del Postclasico. In Brambila, R. (ed.), Antropologa e historiadel occidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa andUniversidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City, pp. 18751886.

Cepeda, G. (1997). El salvamento arqueologico en el aeropuerto de Puebla. In de la Lama, E., andLanda, M. E. (eds.),Simposio internacional de investigacion de Huexotzinco, Instituto Nacionalde Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City, pp. 2735.

Chacon, J. C. (1995). Excavacion de la Estructura 5, altar central de la Plaza C de Tehuac an el Viejo,La Mesa.Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropol ogicosXLI:149164.

Chacon, J. C. (1998). Estructura 6, Plaza C de Tehuacan Viejo La Mesa. In Brambila, R. (ed.),Antropologa e historia del occidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, Sociedad


29/39


30/39


Garca Cook, A., and Merino, L. (1988). Notas sobre la ceramica prehispanica en Tlaxcala. In Serra,M. C., and Navarrete, C. (eds.), Ensayos de alfarer a prehispanica e hist orica de Mesoamerica:Homenaje a Eduardo Noguera Auza, UNAM, Mexico City, pp. 275342.

Garca Cook, A., and Merino, B. L. (1991). El Epiclasico en la region Puebla-Tlaxcala. In GarcaCook, A., and Merino, B. L. (eds.),Tlaxcala: textos de su historia: 2. Los or genes; arqueologa,Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, Consejo Nacional Para la Cultura y las Artes, Mexico City,pp. 387394.

Garca Cook, A., and Merino, B. L. (1996). Investigacion arqueologica en Cantona, Puebla. Arque-ologa15: 5578.

Garca Cook, A., and Merino, B. L. (1998). Cantona: urbe prehispanica en el altiplano central deMexico.Latin American Antiquity9: 191216.

Garca Moll, R. (1977). Analisis de los materiales arqueol ogicos de la Cueva de Texcal, Puebla,Coleccion Cientfica 56, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia-Secretara de EducacionPublica, Mexico City.

Grove, D. C., and Gillespie, S. D. (2002). Middle Formative domestic ritual at Chalcatzingo, Morelos.In Plunket, P. (ed.),Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, Monograph 46, The Cotsen Instituteof Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, pp. 1119.

Hardy, K. (1993).Preceramic Lithics in Central Mexico: An Examination of the Tehuacan and OaxacaChronological Sequences, Ph.D. dissertation, University of London, London.

Hardy, K. (1996). The pre-ceramic sequence from the Tehuacan Valley: A reevaluation. CurrentAnthropology37: 700716.

Hardy, K. (1999). On the Tehuacan project: Reply to Flannery and MacNeish. Current Anthropology40:6369.

Headrick, A. (1999). The street of the dead . . . It really was: Mortuary bundles at Teotihuacan.AncientMesoamerica10: 6985.

Headrick, A. (2001). Merging myth and politics: The three temple complex at Teotihuacan. In Koontz,R., Reese-Taylor, K., and Headrick, A. (eds.), Landscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica,Westview Press, Boulder, co, pp. 169195.

Hermosillo, A. (1992). Malacates e industria textil prehispanica de Cholula, Puebla. UnpublishedLicenciatura thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Cholula.

Hernandez, G. (1995a). Iconografa de las copas polcromas cholultecas. Arqueologa 1314: 110120.

Hernandez, G. (1995b). Un acercamiento a la iconografa de la ceramica polcroma tipo codicede Cholula. Unpublished Licenciatura thesis, Department of Anthropology, Univesidad de lasAmericas-Puebla, Cholula.

Hernandez, G. (1998). Forma, funcion, y estilo ceramico en el entorno domestico. In Brambila,R. (ed.), Antropologa e historia del occidente de M exico: XXIV Mesa Redonda, Vol. III, So-ciedad Mexicana de Antropologa and Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City,pp. 18591871.

Hernandez, G. (2000). La organizacion domestica en el Formativo Medio-Tardo: el caso de Tetimpa,Puebla. Unpublished Masters thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Cholula.

Hernandez, G., Quintana, N., Urunuela, G., and Plunket, P. (1998). Informe sondeo UA98B:area parainstalacion de un sistema de riego. Report submitted to the Consejo Nacional de Arqueolog a,Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Archivo Tecnico del INAH, Mexico City.

Hill, Jane H. (2001). Proto-Uto-Azteca: A community of cultivators in central Mexico? AmericanAnthropologist103:913934.

Hirth, K. (2001). Practicas agrcolas y el reclamo del campo en un ambiente volcanico. Paper presentedat the symposium Entre coas y milpas: en busqueda de la diversidad agrcola prehispanica, XXVIMesa Redonda of the Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa, Zacatecas.

Hirth, K., and Swezey, W. (1976). The changing nature of the Teotihuacan Classic: A regional perspec-tive from Manzanilla, Puebla. In Las fronteras de Mesoamerica, Tomo 2: XIV Mesa Redonda,Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa, Mexico City, pp. 1123.

Hopkins, N. A. (1984). Otomanguean linguistic prehistory. In Josserand, J. K., Winter, M., andHopkins, N. (eds.),Essays in Otomanguean Culture History, Publications in Anthropology No.31, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, pp. 2564.


31/39


Johnson, F. (ed.) (1972). The Prehistory of the Tehuacan Valley, Vol. 4: Chronology and Irrigation,University of Texas Press, Austin.

Joyce, R. A., and Gillespie, S. D. (eds.) (2000).Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction inHouse Societies, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Kaplan, L., and Lynch, T. F. (1999). Phaseolus (Fabaceae) in archaeology: AMS radiocarbon datesand their significance for pre-Columbian agriculture.Economic Botany53: 261272.

Kirch, P. V. (2000). Temples as holy houses: The transformation of ritual architecture in tradi-tional Polynesian societies. In Joyce, R. A., and Gillespie, S. D. (eds.), Beyond Kinship: Socialand Material Reproduction in House Societies, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia,pp. 103114.

Lesure, R. G. (2002). Segundo informe tecnico parcial del proyecto Investigaciones del Formativo yPreceramico en Apizaco, Tlaxcala. Report submitted to the Consejo Nacional de Arqueologa,Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Archivo Tecnico del INAH, Mexico City.

Lind, M. D. (1994a). Cholula and Mixteca polychromes: Two Mixteca-Puebla regional sub-styles. InNicholson, H. B., and Quinones-Keber, E. (eds.),Mixteca-Puebla: Discoveries and Research inMesoamerican Art and Archaeology, Labyrinthos, Culver City, CA, pp. 7999.

Lind, M. D. (1994b). The obverse of the Codex of Cholula: Defining the borders of the kingdom ofCholula. In Marcus, J., and Zeitlin, J. (eds.), Caciques and Their People, Anthropological PapersNo. 89, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 87100.

Lind, M. D., Barrientos, C., Turner, C., Caskey, C., McCafferty, G., Mart nez, C., and Orea, M. (n.d.).Cholula polychrome. Unpublished manuscript on file, Archaeology Laboratory, Department ofAnthropology, Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Cholula, MS 1990.

Long, A., Benz, B. F., Donahue, D. J., Jull, A. J. T., and Toolin, L. J. (1989). First direct AMS dateson early maize from Tehuacan, Mexico.Radiocarbon31: 10351040.

Long, A., and Fritz, G. J. (2001). Validity of AMS dates on maize from the Tehuacan Valley: Acomment on MacNeish and Eubanks.Latin American Antiquity12: 8790.

Lopez, A. (2000). Dos mil anosde tradicionagrcola: tecnologa y organizacion social durante el Forma-tivo Terminal en Tetimpa, Puebla. Unpublished Licenciatura thesis, Department of Anthropology,Universidad de las Americas-Puebla, Cholula.

Lopez, A., Plunket, P., and Urunuela, G. (2001). Campos y huertos prehispanicos en la Sierra Nevada: latecnologa agrcola de Tetimpa, Puebla. Paper presented at the symposium Entre coas y milpas:en busqueda de la diversidad agrcola prehispanica, XXVI Mesa Redonda of the SociedadMexicana de Antropologa, Zacatecas.

Lopez, A., Talavera, S., Urunuela, G.,

puebla prehistory

Documents