Texcoco Region Archaeology
Author(s): Richard E. Blanton
Source: American Antiquity , Apr., 1975, Vol. 40, No. 2 (Apr., 1975), pp. 227-230
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/279620
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to American Antiquity
This content downloaded from
189.147.39.85 on Sun, 20 Aug 2023 18:59:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
COMMENT 227
trying to examine the associations between ability
ability in
in the
the Mousterian
Mousterianof ofLevallois
LevalloisFacies.
Facies.InIn
ceramic vessels and activity areas is the use of Recent
Recent Studies
Studies in
in Paleoanthropology,
Paleoanthropology,edited
editedby by
J. Desmond Clark and F. Clark Howell. Ameri-
pottery types that include several different can Anthropologist 68:238-295.
vessel shapes. The five varieties of Snowflake Chayes, F.
Black-on-white that were used in the Broken K 1960 On correlation between variables of con-
analysis, for example, include both jars and stant sum. Journal of Geophysical Research
65:4185-4193.
bowls, which were presumably used for quite
Cowgill, George L.
different purposes. It would make more sense
1968 Archaeological applications of factor,
to begin with a pottery typology based on cluster and proximity analyses. American
attributes relating more directly to vessel use Antiquity 33:367-375.
and function, such as shape, size, surface Culbert, T. Patrick
treatment, etc., as explained by Culbert (1965) 1965 The ceramic history of the Central High-
lands of Chiapas. New World Archaeological
in his analysis of Highland Chiapas ceramics. Foundation Publication 14.
It may appear that I have been particularlyFreeman, Leslie G., Jr., and James R. Brown
critical of Hill's analysis of the Broken K 1964 Statistical analysis of Carter Ranch pottery.
pottery type distributions. Hill, however, was Fieldiana: Anthropology 55:126-154.
one of the first to use the method in the Harman, H. H.
1967 Modern factor analysis. University of
analysis of archaeological data. The several Chicago Press, Chicago.
applications of factor analysis made by archae- Hill, James N.
ologists since then have made researchers in- 1970 Prehistoric social organization in the
creasingly aware of the range of use of the American Southwest. University of Arizona,
Anthropological Papers 18.
method, the suitability of different techniques
Lischka, Joseph J.
for different kinds of data, and the problems
1972 A formal-functional analysis of ceramic
involved in interpreting results, a discovery distribution at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Ph.D.
process which will hopefully continue in the dissertation, University of Arizona. University
future. Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Nie, Norman H., Dale H. Bent, and C. Hadlai Hull
1970 Statistical package for the social sciences,
Acknowledgments. Computer time was made
McGraw-Hill, New York.
available by the Department of Anthropology at the
Rummel, R. J.
University of Arizona. Larry Manire was of particular
1970 Applied factor analysis. Northwestern
assistance in running the computer programs. I also
University Press, Evanston.
wish to thank George Cowgill for bringing the effects
of closed arrays to my attention and Michael B. Sackett, James E.
Schiffer and Robert Benfer for their helpful comments 1969 Factor analysis and artifact typology.
on a draft of this paper. Jim Hill's assistance in American Anthropologist 71:1125-1130.
obtaining the results of his computer runs was Schiffer, Michael B.
invaluable. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic con-
text. American Antiquity 37:156-165.
Benfer, Robert A. Tryon, R. C., and D. E. Bailey
1972 Factor analysis as numerical induction: how 1970 Cluster analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York.
to judge a book by its cover. American Anthro- Whallon, Robert, Jr.
pologist 74:530-554. 1973 Spatial analysis of occupation floors I:
Binford, Lewis, R., and Sally R. Binford application of dimensional analysis of variance.
1966 A preliminary analysis of functional vari- American Antiquity 38:266-278.
TEXCOCO REGION ARCHAEOLOGY
RICHARD E. BLANTON
Charlton (1973) argues that Parsons' (1969, 1970) explanation for the abandonment of the central Texco
region, Mexico, during the Early Toltec period, is misleading because Parsons considered only "non-ecological"
factors. Specifically, Parsons suggested that this zone was not occupied because it was the boundary between the
political spheres of two competing regional centers, Tula and Cholula. Charlton argues instead, that the region
was abandoned due to "ecological" faictors. Namely, he argues, the Early Toltec period was a period of low
population density, when only the most suitable agricultural land was occupied; thus the central Texcoco region
was not utilized because it is agriculturally marginal. Charlton's emphasis on the use of "ecological" factors to
This content downloaded from
189.147.39.85 on Sun, 20 Aug 2023 18:59:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
228 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 40, No. 2, 1975
explain the distribution of Early Toltec settlements is misleading because it does not allow
locations of other known Early Toltec settlements in the Valley of Mexico. Abandonment o
the Valley of Mexico was a general pattern during this period, due to "Balkanization" and co
local centers.
In a recent article, Charlton (1973) criticizedcontrol by Tula. That is, the "greater the
Parsons' interpretation of the Early and Late distance between the centralizing dominant
Toltec settlement patterns of the Texcoco center and the areas controlled, the greater the
region, in the Valley of Mexico (Parsons 1969, possibility for small populations to remain"
1970, 1971:202-208). Parsons argued that the (Charlton 1973:420).
abandonment of the central portion of the In recent years more settlement pattern data
Texcoco region during the Early Toltec period have been collected in portions of the Valley of
reflected warfare and competition between two Mexico outside the Texcoco region (Blanton
large regional centers, Tula, to the north, and 1972a, 1972b; Parsons n.d.). These new data
Cholula, to the south, both of which had suggest that Charlton's interpretations of the
emerged following the decline of Teotihuacan. settlement patterns of the Early Toltec period
The central Texcoco region, he suggested, was in athe Texcoco region are misleading because of
no-man's-land between the political spheres of his over-emphasis on "ecological" factors. The
these two large expansionist centers. This major problems with Charlton's interpretations
situation was further reflected, he argued, in are the following:
the Late Toltec dichotomy between the 1. Population density. Charlton argues that
Mazapan ceramic complex, found in the north- one of the reasons for the non-use of the
ern Valley of Mexico, and the Aztec I ceramic central Texcoco region during the Early Toltec
complex, found in the southern valley. Charl- period was that this was a time of "low
ton (1973) agrees that the differential distribu- population pressure." This argument is difficult
tion of Mazapan and Aztec I ceramics in the to follow, given that this period in the valley as
valley may be due to the Texcoco region's a whole, and in the Texcoco region in
status as a frontier zone between the political particular, was a time of population growth, i
and economic spheres of Tula and Cholula, but some areas to levels higher than any prior
he suggests this factor cannot be used to period (Parsons 1971:157-163, n.d.; Blanton
explain the Early Toltec settlement pattern of 1972a, 1972b:432). The only portion of the
the region. Valley of Mexico so far studied where there was
In particular, Charlton disagrees with Par-a population decline during this time is the
sons' use of "non-ecological" factors to explain Teotihuacan Valley, and here the decline was
the Early Toltec settlement patterns. Charlton's mostly due to the diminution in size of
argument is as follows. The Early Toltec period Teotihuacan (Sanders 1965, Fig. 14). It is
was a time when local "centralizing states" difficult to explain the abandonment of a large
were attracting rural populations into towns area in part because of "low population
and cities. These towns and cities, he argues, pressure" during a period characterized by
were located near the best agricultural land in substantial population growth. Charlton's in-
the valley. Less productive land was not used terpretation is further complicated by the fact
because of "low population pressure." That is,that during periods of low population density
during the Early Toltec period, given "condi-in the Texcoco region, the Classic and Late
Toltec periods, the "agriculturally marginal"
tions of low population pressure and abundant
land, only the best areas were selected" central zone was occupied.
(Charlton 1973:420). The reoccupation of the 2. Agricultural potential. Charlton further
central Texcoco region during the Late Toltecargues that the central Texcoco region was
period was the result of the breakdown of theabandoned because it lacks optimal agricultural
Early Toltec political unit in the northern land. The Early Toltec population concentra-
tions, he argues, were only where the best
portion of the zone, concomitant with the rise
agricultural land was located. If Charlton's
of Tula as the dominant center in the central
highlands of Mexico. Rural populations could
suggestion has general utility, we should be able
now persist in the central Texcoco region to use this criterion to predict the locations of
because this area was outside the area of direct other Early Toltec centers in the Valley of
This content downloaded from
189.147.39.85 on Sun, 20 Aug 2023 18:59:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
?.{
COMMENT 229
.>-
._ *
/ -ft 46
t
*Tula /
i
ee~e k
.% e - .
N so ? I .. .00
Ii!
I m _ O^
**
op 11
e * Teotihuacan
.I
/TEOTIHUACAN ,'
?
/
. --,VALLEY
--% a 0/ I
( *
% --
I
It TEXCOCO 1 I .
' REGION ' I -, % i~~~~~~~
/, ..1
I ...-
,y
./
IXTAPALAPA PENINSULA
I ', REGION
CHALCO REGION
1 . . l- - - :
I
I ..
I * Cholula
0 10 20 30 40
KILOMETERS
Fig. 1. The Valley of Mexico showing the locations of the survey regions (after Lorenzo 1968:54; and
Charlton 1973, Fig. 1).
Mexico. In fact, in the two other instances zone. Further, the main center in this region,
where Early Toltec centers have been located Cerro de la Estrella (Ix-ET-13), is located on a
and studied in detail, the data indicate that low volcanic cone which lacks permanent
local agricultural productivity may have been streams or springs suitable for irrigation, and
relatively unimportant as a factor in deter- because the hill is low and small, it does not
mining their locations (Blanton 1972a, 1972b; have a major drainage system and therefore has
Parsons n.d.). In the Ixtapalapa Peninsula little potential for flood-water irrigation except
region, I found that the optimal agricultural on a small scale. Similarly, another large Early
zone (the "Acuahtla Plain") was not occupied Toltec center, Xico, studied by Parsons (n.d.) is
during the Early Toltec period, while there was located on a small island in Lake Chalco. The
settlement along the narrow lakeshore plain island is far from being agriculturally optimal.
adjacent to the saline Lake Texcoco, along the Additionally, there is no evidence to date that
north edge of a large agriculturally marginal at this early time the valley lakes were being
This content downloaded from
189.147.39.85 on Sun, 20 Aug 2023 18:59:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
230 AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 40, No. 2, 1975
exploited agriculturally by the construction following of(Blanton 1972a, 1972b): the Early
chinampas; this seems to have been done Toltecalmost
period was a time of "Balkanization" in
exclusively during Aztec times (Blanton 1972a,
the Valley of Mexico, following the decline of
1972b). I argued (1972a, 1972b) that the Teotihuacan, when there was a series of discrete
location of Ix-ET-13 could be understood by socio-political units, each in competition with
reference to its function as a central place for each other, and each surrounded by a "shatter-
its local sustaining population, and because its zone" of abandoned, contested land. The
location is central to the bulk of the Valley of central Texcoco region is one of several such
Mexico. The locations on islands of both abandoned zones. Other localities in the valley
Ix-ET-13 and Xico would have been desirable which were similarly abandoned include the
from the point of view of defense. These data area north and east of Teotihuacan, the
suggest that a variety of factors will probably southern and eastern portion of the Ixtapalapa
have to be taken into consideration in ex- Peninsula region, and most of the Chalco region
plaining the distribution of Early Toltec (with the exception of Xico island). As these
populations in the Valley of Mexico; simple socio-political units were assimilated into the
"ecological" explanations will probably not be expanding Tula state, local competition was
sufficient. ended, and the abandoned zones were again
3. Settlement patterns. The recent settle- colonized (during the Late Toltec period).
ment pattern surveys done in the Valley of
Mexico have supplied us with a view of the LateBlanton, Richard E.
Toltec period which is different from that 1972a Prehispanic adaptation in the Ixtapalapa
proposed by Parsons. He suggested there was a Peninsula region, Mexico. Science
175:1317-1326.
dichotomy between the Mazapan ceramic com-
1972b Prehispanic settlement patterns of the
plex, in the northern valley, and the Aztec I Ixtapalapa Peninsula region, Mexico. Penn-
complex, found in the southern valley. This, he sylvania State University, Occasional Papers in
argued, represented the economic and political Anthropology 6.
spheres of influence of Tula, on the one hand, Charlton, Thomas H.
and Cholula, on the other, with the Texcoco 1973 Texcoco region archaeology and tlhe Codex
Xolotl. American Antiquity 38:412-422.
region as the frontier zone between them. In
Lorenzo, Jos6 L.
the Ixtapalapa Peninsula region, to the south of 1968 Clima y agricultura en Teotihuacan. In
the Texcoco region, (Blanton 1972a, 1972b), Materiales para la arqueologia de Teotihuacan,
numerous small sites were found with Mazapan edited by Jos6 L. Lorenzo. Instituto Nacional
ceramic components. Further to the south, in de Antropologia e Historia, Investigaciones
17:51-72.
the Chalco region, Parsons (n.d.) also en-
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
countered numerous small sites with Mazapan
1969 Prehispanic settlement patterns in the
ceramics. This pattern of ruralization (i.e., Texcoco region, Mexico: preliminary conclu-
decline in the size and numbers of cities and sions. Museum of Anthropology, University of
towns) and population decline seems to have Michigan. mimeographed.
been characteristic of the Late Toltec period all 1970 An archaeological evaluation of the Codice
Xolotl. American Antiquity 35:431-440.
over the Valley of Mexico. I have argued that 1971a Prehistoric settlement patterns of the
this pattern reflects the growth of Tula as the Texcoco region, Mexico. University of Michigan
dominant center in the central highlands of Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 3.
Mexico; local centers declined in importance as 1971b Prehispanic settlement patterns of the
Chalco region, Mexico, 1969 season. Report
Tula usurped most or all of their central-place
submitted to Departamento de Monumentos
functions. This resulted, in areas under the Prehispanicos, Instituto Nacional de Antropol-
direct control of Tula, in a rural-looking settle- ogia e Historia, Mexico D.F. Museum of
ment and population decline. Anthropology, University of Michigan.
This leaves unanswered the question of why mimeographed.
Sanders, William T.
the central Texcoco region was abandoned in
1965 The cultural ecology of the Teotihuacin
the Early Toltec period. Although we lack the valley. Department of Sociology and Anthro-
information necessary to offer a final explana- pology, Pennsylvania State University. multi-
tion for this phenomenon, I have suggested the lithed.
This content downloaded from
189.147.39.85 on Sun, 20 Aug 2023 18:59:27 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
