The Spatial Patterning of Aztec Ceramics: Implications for Prehispanic

Exchange Systems in the Valley of Mexico STOR ®

Mary G. Hodge; Leah D. Mine

Journal oj Field Archaeology, Vol. 17, No.4. (Winter, 1990), pp. 415-437.

Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0093-4690%28199024%2917%3A4%3C415%3ATSPOAC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3

Journal of Field Archaeology is currently published by Boston University.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR' s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/aboutiterms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you
have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and
you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www .j stor .org/journals/boston.html.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or
printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive of
scholarly journals. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

http://www .j stor.org/
Tue May 23 22:31: 13 2006
 415

The Spatial Patterning of Aztec Ceramics:

Implications for Prehispanic Exchange
Systems in the Valley of Mexico

MaryG. Hodge
University of Houston-Clear Lake
Houston, Texas

LeahD. Mine
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Data gathered by regional archaeological surveys in the Valley ofMexico are used in the fol-
lowing study to investigate patterns ofexchange during Aztec times. Decorated ceramics
from 130 sites in the Texcoco) Ixtapalapa) and Chalco Survey Regions were tabulated) and
the relative concentrations ofceramic wares and types (six dating to the Early Aztec period)
eight to the Late Aztec) at sites in 12 polities were mapped. Ceramic distributions in the
Early Aztec period (A. c. 1150-1350)) when the valley was divided into a number of au-
tonomous polities) are compared to those of the Late Aztec period (A.c. 1350-1520)) a time
ofgreater political unification brought about by the emergence of the Aztec empire. Results
for the Early Aztec period indicate an overlapping series oflocal market systems) in which
neighboring city-states exchanged ceramics more frequently than did polities at a greater
distance. The results further identified two sub-regions ofgreater internal exchange) with
reduced exchange between these regions. Spatially) these areas are congruent with the terri-
tories known to have been occupied by two regional political confederations) suggesting that
Early Aztec confederations constrained economic interaction across their boundaries. In the
Late Aztec period) more similar ceramic assemblages overall indicate a greater level of ex-
change among all polities. The restricted spatial distribution ofparticular ceramic types in
the southern lakeshore polities) however, argues for the continued operation oflocal produc-
tion and exchange systems in this area and a lesser degree of integration into the regional
Late Aztec exchange system. Documentary evidence indicates that these polities were con-
quered and incorporated into the empire later than others in the study area) and thus they
may represent an area of the Valley ofMexico where tribute outweighed trade as an impe-
rial strategy for economic integration.

Introduction whether all areas of the capital's hinterland were similarly

Previous investigations of production and distribution
systems within the Aztec empire have relied largely on
documentary sources. The documents emphasize imperial-
level economic relationships and the movement of sump-
tuary goods but provide less information about economic
subsystems involving the production and distribution of
utilitarian goods within the empire. Particularly important
for understanding this early empire's origin and develop-
ment is information about the relationships between the
imperial capital ofTenochtidan and setdements in its hin-
terland: whether Tenochtidan came to dominate produc-
tion and distribution in the empire's core rone, and
affected by incorporation into the empire.
The study described below is an initial and exploratory
use of ceramic collections made by regional archaeological
surveys to investigate one segment of Aztec economic
organization: ceramic production and exchange. The
study concentrates its efforts on decorated ceramics from
the eastern half of the valley (FIG. 1) collected by the Valley
of Mexico Survey Projects during the 1970s (Parsons
1971; Blanton 1972; Sanders, Parsons, and Sandey 1979;
Parsons et al. 1982). Decorated ware and type counts
were tabulated, and their geographic ranges determined.
We then examined these ceramic data from two perspec-
 416 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine

@ City-state Center

e Large Village
e Small Village

• Hamlet
... Ceremonial Center

Figure 1. Aztec sites included in the study. Bold outline delimits the area designated for the initial study. This area
corresponds to the Texcoco regional survey areas, and the eastern portions of the Ixtapalapa and Chalco survey regions
(after Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979: map 18).

tives. First, the study area was divided into sub-areas cor-
responding to historically-documented political units, and
the intensity of interaction among these polities was mea-
sured, based on the relative similarity or dissimilarity
among ceramic assemblages of the different polities. Sec-
ond, the spatial distribution of particular exchanged ce-
ramics was examined, to identifY the form ofexchange system
that might have produced such patterning.
The structure of economic interactions was evaluated
for two periods: the Early Aztec (ca. A.C. 1150-1350),
which preceded the formation of the Aztec empire, and
the Late Aztec (ca. A.C. 1350-1520), during which the
Aztec empire emerged (Vaillant 1937: 314-324; Sanders,
Parsons, and Santley 1979). Comparison of data from
these two periods has allowed us to examine the organi-
zation of ceramic production and exchange within two
distinct forms of regional political organization, and to
determine whether the increasing centralization of politi-
cal control under the Aztec empire influenced existing
systems of economic interaction.
The Political Context of Aztec Economic
Organization
Our study of Aztec ceramic exchange takes place in a
context of changing regional political organization. In late
prehispanic times, the Valley of Mexico was divided
among ca. 40 political units that may be regarded as "city-
states." Each city-state (Nahuatl: altepetl) in the valley
consisted of an urban center (the locus of political admin-
istration and elite residence) and a discrete territory con-
taining dependent villages and hamlets. Historical chron-
icles report that groups of city-states formed alliances or
regional confederations for purposes of defense and mili-
tary campaigns (Gibson 1964; Bray 1972; Calnek 1978;
Davies 1981; Hodge 1984).
Beginning around A.C. 1428, a coalition of three city-
states (the "Triple Alliance" ofTenochtitlan, Texcoco, and
Tlacopan) conquered the polities comprising the north-
ern, central, and sw portions of the Valley of Mexico,
forming an imperial core. This Triple Alliance attempted
to defeat the still-independent SE part of the valley (the
Chalco region) in A.C. 1440. The polities in this area
resisted, however, and the entire Chalco region was not
brought into the empire until A.C. 1465 (Chimalpahin
Quauhtlehuanitzin 1965 [ca. 1606-1631]: 199-207).
Meanwhile, aided by their dependencies, the Triple Alli-
ance capitals conducted a series of military campaigns out-
side the Valley of Mexico, eventually extending their do-
main to the Gulf coast of Mexico and the Pacific coast of
Guatemala. By the late 1400s, Tenochtitlan emerged as
the capital of the Triple Alliance empire, with the collec-
Journal ofField Archaeologyl Vol. 17, 1990 417
tion of imperial tribute and military affairs directed by its
ruler (Gibson 1971: 388; Davies 1987).
The influence of local (city-state) and regional (impe-
rial) political structures on the production and exchange
of basic utilitarian goods such as ceramics is described in
only the broadest terms by the documentary sources. Un-
der Aztec imperial rule, goods were primarily produced
for, and moved through, two different systems: tribute
and market exchange (Barlow 1949; Berdan 1975; Hodge
1984; Hassig 1985; Hicks 1987). Utilitarian commodi-
ties, such as the painted ceramics that are the focus of this
study, moved most frequently through market exchange
(SahagUn 1950-82 [ca. 1578-1580], Book 10: 83; An-
derson, Berdan, and Lockhart 1976: 139-149), and to a
much lesser extent, through tribute collection and distri-
bution. 1 While the operation of the tribute collection sys-
tem is fairly well documented, the development of the
local and regional market system and its relation to chang-
ing political circumstances are still largely unknown.
The primary markets were located in city-state centers,
although some commodity exchange probably occurred in
communities of all sizes. At the time of the Spanish con-
quest, a huge daily market operated at Tlatelolco, adjacent
to the imperial capital of Tenochtitlan (Diaz del Castillo
1956 [ca. 1568]: 218; Cortes 1971 [1519-1526]: 103-
105; Berdan 1975; Hassig 1982; Hicks 1987). This re-
gional market drew people and goods from throughout
the valley into the imperial center. Cortes reported (1971
[1519-1526]: 104) for the Tlatelolco marketplace, "They
sell much earthenware, which for the most part is very
good; there are both large and small pitchers, jugs, pots,
. . . and many other sorts of vessels, all of good clay and
most of them glazed [burnished] and painted" (FIG. 2).
Compared to exchange, ceramic production in Aztec
society is much less well-documented. Plain (undecorated)
ceramics may have been made in almost every village.
Decorated wares, in contrast, are thought to have been
produced by workshops in a limited number of centers,
with apparent standardization of production and decora-
tion techniques specific to individual wares (Vaillant
1. At the city-state level, ceramics were included with daily and weekly
provisions provided to city-state rulers by their dependents (Guzman
1938: 94). As city-states in the Valley of Mexico became dependencies
of the empire, they were in turn compelled to furnish both manufactured
goods and agricultural produce for the support of the Triple Alliance
capitals. Although decorated ceramics such as those examined by this
study are not reported by the major tribute registers (such as the Codex
Mendoza [1925] [ca. 1541-1542]) to have been sent as tribute to
Tenochtitlan, they may have been one of the classes of goods sent by
nearby communities to the capital on demand (Scholes and Adams
1957). Overall, the volume of ceramics moved through tribute collection
probably represented a minor component of the distribution of this
commodity.
418 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge andMinc

1941: 121-123). Docwnentary sources identifY at least

six cities in the Valley of Mexico-Tlatelolco, Texcoco,
Cuauhtitlan, Huitzilopochco, Azcapotzalco, and Xochi-
milco-which remained major pottery-making centers in
early colonial times (Barlow 1951; Gibson 1964: 350;
Branstetter-Hardesty 1978: 26); Aztec-period production
sites for decorated ceramics, however, have yet to be iden-
tified or located. We asswne, given the early colonial tex-
tual evidence indicating that traditional Aztec pottery was
made in or near a few larger towns, that the very stan-
dardized precolonial Aztec decorated pottery was also
made in or near major centers. This asswnption must be
subjected, in the future, to direct archaeological testing.
Questions Concerning Aztec Ceramic Production
and Exchange
Although the docwnents provide generalizations con-
cerning production and movement of utilitarian goods,
some basic aspects of the organization of production and
exchange relative to political systems are still unclear.
These include: 1) the spatial patterning and organization
of production and exchange systems at the local and re-
gional levels; 2) the relation of these systems to known
political boundaries; and 3) the effect of both political
decentralization and centralization on the spatial scale and
structure of exchange interactions. Figure 2. Drawing by a 16th-century artist of goods, including ce-
As noted, the ceramic collections on which this study ramic vessels, displayed in the Tlatelolco market place (Plate 96, Saha-
gUn 1950-82, Book 8). Reprinted by permission.
is based represent two archaeological periods: the Early
Aztec and the Late Aztec. 2 These two periods were char-
acterized by different political systems; accordingly, our local producers exchanged goods most often at markets in
analyses of the relation of commodity exchange to political the urban center with which they were politically and
organization during these periods were guided by two culturally affiliated (Gibson 1964: 356). These documents
different sets of questions. do not record in any detail the economic relationships
Our first set of questions concerns the organization of within or between these city-state polities, however. Anal-
commodity distribution during the Early Aztec period yses of ceramic data were therefore undertaken to identifY
(A.C. 1150-1350), when the Valley of Mexico was occu- the geographic patterning of exchange systems for deco-
pied by a nwnber of autonomous and competing city- rated wares along the eastern side of the valley and to
states. Docwnentary evidence suggests that conswners and determine whether or not exchanges of decorated ceramics
were constrained by political boundaries in the Early Aztec
2. The current periodization and dating of Aztec ceramics is based
period.
on the correlation of cyclical ceramic dumps with Aztec centuries of 52 Our second set of questions addresses the effect of in-
years (Vaillant 1938). According to this chronology, the Late Aztec creasing political integration resulting from the consoli-
archaeological period began ca. A.C. 1350 and preceded the founding of
the Aztec empire (ca. A.C. 1430) by roughly 80 years. Although we
dation of the Aztec empire during the Late Aztec period
cannot definitely correlate Late Aztec ceramics with any particular polit- (A.C. 1350-1520) on existing ceramic production and
ical center, we would argue that the entire archaeological period is distribution systems. Some researchers have concluded
characterized by increasing political and economic consolidation within that many economic functions, including exchange of craft
the Valley of Mexico, beginning with the conquests of Azcapotzalco (ca.
A.C. 1371-1428) and culminating under the Triple Alliance after A.C. goods, came to be centered at Tenochtitlan (Sanders, Par-
1430_ We also note that the dating of the Late Aztec period and its sons, and Santley 1979: 181-182), while others have in-
correlation with other archaeological sequences is currently being re- terpreted the same data as evidence of the operation of a
evaluated (Smith 1987), and Susan Evans (personal communication
1989) is currently using obsidian hydration analyses to date excavated hierarchically-organized market system in the Valley of
deposits containing Early and Late Aztec ceramics. Mexico during the Late Aztec period (Smith 1979; Blan-

ton et al. 1981: 153-164). Still others have found evi-
dence that parts of the valley were differentially affected
by Tenochtitlan's policies for agricultural intensification
and the distribution of manufactured goods to its depen-
dencies (Brumfiel 1976, 1980, in press; Parsons 1976;
Parsons et al. 1982). The Triple Alliance's creation of
specialized markets in several cities has been interpreted
as one of several strategies designed to make dependencies
in the valley less insular (Hicks 1987: 102-103). In this
study, Late Aztec ceramic data were examined for evi-
dence, or lack of evidence, of the integration of polities in
the eastern portion of the valley into a centralized eco-
nomic system or, conversely, of differential economic in-
tegration of communities.
Survey Collections from the Eastern Valley of
Mexico
This study represents an initial use of the Valley of
Mexico Survey ceramic collections as a source of data on
exchange patterns. We have accordingly limited this ex-
ploratory phase of research to a region of the valley from
which comparable archaeological survey data are available
and for which ethnohistoric descriptions are adequate.
This investigation focuses on a 1280 sq km strip along
the eastern side of the valley (FIG. 1). The study area
encompasses the Texcoco Survey Region (Parsons 1971)
and the eastern portions of the Ixtapalapa and Chalco
survey areas (Blanton 1972; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley
1979; Parsons et al. 1982; Parsons, Kintigh, and Gregg
1983).
The surveys identified sites ranging from small hamlets
to large urban centers. Procedures for gathering the pot-
tery at these sites consisted of demarcating one or more
collection areas within each site, followed by a 100%
pickup of diagnostic sherds within the area. At small sites,
a single collection area was the rule; at larger sites, several
collection areas were designated to ensure chronological
control over subdivisions of the site (Parsons 1971; Sand-
ers, Parsons, and Santley 1979: 28-30; Parsons et al.
1982). The ceramic collections are comparable in that they
represent a standard collection procedure in all areas. The
method employed contains several possible sources of bias,
however. Collection areas may not be representative of
the ceramic assemblages of an entire site, and the size of
the samples varies depending upon the number of diag-
nostic sherds present and the density of ceramics at each
site.
For this analysis three strategies were used to offset
possible biases introduced by the collection procedures.
These include 1) restricting the analysis to the best-rep-
resented and best-known types; 2) pooling collections of
Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17, 1990 419
decorated ceramics by polity to increase collection size and
to minimize local sampling bias; and 3) using relative
measures of abundance (percentages), as opposed to raw
counts, as the basis of comparison. Although the Valley
of Mexico survey data present clear problems for quanti-
tative analyses, these data are currently, and are likely to
remain, our best source of information for studies on a
regional scale in the valley. This is due both to the survey's
comprehensive, regional coverage and to the fact that it
constitutes our sole source of information on many sites
now lost to urban growth.
The data for this study consist of counts of sherds from
decorated serving vessels. For this preliminary study, our
sample of 130 sites was defined as all sites in the study
area with both significant Early and Late Aztec occupa-
tions, as determined from the field data forms. This sam-
pling strategy was implemented to ensure a comparable
spatial distribution of data points for both the Early and
Late Aztec periods. The sample represents 75% of all Early
Aztec and 37% of all Late Aztec occupations identified in
the study area. 3 The ceramic counts were retrieved from
data sheets on file at the University of Michigan Museum
of Anthropology (provided by Jeffrey R. Parsons and by
Richard E. Blanton).
The ceramics included in this study (see TABLE 1 and
FIG. 3) are well-known Aztec wares and types, which have
been identified and assigned chronological placement
based on excavated and surface collections (Noguera
1930; Brenner 1931; Vaillant 1938, 1941; Griffin and
Espejo 1947, 1950; Franco 1945, 1947; Franco and Pe-
terson 1957; Tolstoy 1958; O'Neill 1953-54, 1962; Par-
sons 1966, 1971; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley 1979;
Whalen and Parsons 1982). Aztec wares have been distin-
guished on the basis of general uniformity of paste and
modal surface color and finish (Parsons 1966). Aztec ce-
ramic types within each ware have been distinguished on
the basis of basic decorative tradition, including the pres-
ence and type of paint, incising, and specific motifs. 4
3. The condition of surface collections varies considerably within the
valley due to differences in ground water chemistry and current land-use
practices. As a result of poor preservation, the percentage of sherds which
could be identified to type is quite low for some areas of the valley.
Although a large number of collections were included in the study, our
sample of identified decorated ceramics remains small for some polities.
4. In most cases, Aztec ceramic types have been further combined
with vessel forms (bowls, basins, dishes, plates, 11Wlcajetes [grater bowls),
and copas [goblets)) to create a single type-shape unit. Variants have then
been distinguished within each type-shape class unit on the basis of
specific decorative patterns such as consistencies in the choice and ex-
ecution of design motifs (see Noguera 1930; Franco and Peterson 1957;
Parsons 1966). Vessel shapes and design variants are not analyzed in
this study, because all surveys of the study area did not record these
ceramic attributes in a comparable way.
This study uses counts of standard wares and types as tabulated by
420 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine

Table 1. Aztec period ceramic wares and types included in study (see also FIG. 3).
Ware Early Aztec types Late Aztec types
Orange Culhuacan Black-on-Orange Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange
Tenayuca Black-on-Orange Late Aztec White-and-Purple-on-Orange
Red Early Aztec Black-on-Red Late Aztec Black-on-Red
Early Aztec Black-and-White-on-Red Late Aztec Black-and-White-on-Red
Early Aztec Black-on-Red Incised Late Aztec Black-and-White-and-Yellow-on-Red
Late Aztec White-on-Red
Chalco-Cholula Early Aztec Chalco-Cholula Polychrome Late Aztec Chalco-Cholula Polychrome
Polychrome
Other Huastec tradeware

Placing Ceramic Assemblages in Geographical [completed in 1581]; Alva IxtlilxochitlI975-77; Parsons

and Political Context
In Aztec times, sites in the study area fell within the
boundaries of 12 city-states. 5 These polities were Tepe-
tlaoztoc, Chiautla, Texcoco, Huexotla, Coatlinchan, Chi-
malhuacan, Coatepec, Ixtapaluca, Tlalmanalco, Chalco,
Tenango, and Amecameca (FIG. 4).
During the Early Aztec period, the study area was di-
vided into two regional political confederations: the
Chalca league in the south, represented by the city-states
of Chalco, Tenango, Tlalmanalco, and Amecameca, (Gib-
et al. 1982: 81).
During the Late Aztec period, the Early Aztec political
confederations were incorporated into the Aztec empire,
Figure 3. Examples of major Early and Late Aztec-period ceramic
types included in this study. For detailed type descriptions, see Parsons
(1966, 1971) and Whalen and Parsons (1982).
ORANGE WARE RED WARE POLYCHROME WARE

~~~
son 1964: 13-16; Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin
1965), and the Acolhua league in the north, represented
by the city-states of Tepetlaoztoc, Chiautla, Texcoco,
Huexotla, and Coatlinchan (Gibson 1964: 17-19; Alva Culhuacan Chalco-Cholula
~ Black-on-Orange Polychrome
Ixtlilxochitl 1975-77 [ca. 1600-1640]). The three city- I-
states located between these two areas-Chimalhuacan, ~
>
Coatepec, and Ixtapaluca-were allied in earlier times with ...J
a:
the Chalca, but were later incorporated into the Acolhua «
w
state (Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin 1965; Durin 1967 Tenayuca
Black-on-Orange

Black-and-White-
on-Red
the Valley of Mexico Surveys. Examination of the actual ceramics was
not possible for this study, but the promising results of this trial study
have led us to begin further analyses of the collections themselves.
5. Establishment of most of the city-state centers included in this
study is explicitly reported by historical chronicles, and the existence of
all 12 centers is further documented by reports of their rulers' partici-
Tenochtitlan
pation in militaty actions or diplomatic activities, or their defeats and Black-on-Orange
victories. Documentaty sources report the existence of all the centers in Chalco-Cholula
ow Polychrome
the study area by A.D. 1350 (Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1975-77 [ca. 1600-
~w
1640]; Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1938 [1570], 1945; Chimalpahin Quauht-
lehuanitzin 1965 [ca. 1606-1631]; Paso y Troncoso 1905-06 [1579-
1582], Vol. 6; Caso 1961; Davies 1981; Hicks 1982; Otfuer 1983; Black-and-White-
~ on-Red
Parsons 1971; Parsons et aI. 1982). ...J

Archaeological evidence also artests to the presence of these centers in

the Early Aztec period, except for the two centers at which no collections
could be taken because of heavy modem occupation: Tlalmanalco and
Coatlinchan (Parsons 1971; Parsons et aI. 1982). In keeping with eth-
nohistorical accounts, Texcoco appears archaeologically as a dispersed White-on-Red
series of settlements in the Early Aztec period and as a larger, more
concentrated center in the Late Aztec period (Parsons 1971; Hicks
1982: 231-232).
 Journal ofField Archaeologyl Vol. 17) 1990 421

,
.... -~'~''''''''''''''

,t"'
i.
.. ,~
!
J

t
........
",
....."...
'.
......... -- ---- - ----........ ',,',,:;
Tepella?ztoc.---'-

____l
i
.f
:
i
)
~.#.

..... ........
{ ............,
. ., .',:.:"

i....-···
TENOCHTITLAN

I'"'W_____--;;a10
012345

kilometers

Figure 4. Aztec city-state centers and reconstructed political territories in the eastern Valley of Mexico.
Archaeological sites that were found to be ethnohistorically-documented dependencies of city-state cen-
ters are shown within the city-state territories. (Base map is Map 18, from Sanders, Parsons, and
Sandey 1979.)

with some polities gaining status and others losing it. these changes in the political hierarchy, all 12 city-state
Texcoco became one of the Triple Alliance capitals, while centers included in this study continued to function as
Ixtapaluca and Coatepec were demoted to rulerless, ad- market or administrative points for their territories during
ministered territories governed by Texcoco. In spite of the Late Aztec period (Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin
422 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine
1965; Paso y Troncoso 1905-06 [1579-1582], Vol.
6: 41-65; Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1975-77, Vol. 2: 89-90).
Thus, we treat them as city-states in both periods.
To assess the distribution of ceramics in the context of
city-state economic systems, it was necessary first to iden-
tify the extent of Aztec city-state territories and then to
assign archaeological sites in the study area to their re-
spective polities. The locations of Aztec city-state centers
are well documented, but identifying polity boundaries is
more difficult. Accordingly, we reconstructed city-state
territories based on direct historical evidence: documents
that enumerate city-states' dependencies in prehispanic
and early colonial times.
To delineate prehispanic city-state territories, as many
dependencies as possible were identified for each of the
12 city-state centers, through a search of published his-
torical chronicles, early colonial administrative documents,
and recent studies of these sources (Paso y Troncoso
1905-06; COdice Kingsborough 1912 [ca. 1555]; Linne
1948 [1550]; Alva IxtlilxochitlI975-77; Carrasco 1961;
Lemoine Villicafia 1961 [1599]; Vetancurt 1961 [1697];
Gibson 1964; Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin 1965;
Duran 1967; Gerhard 1972; Gonzilez Aparicio 1973;
Hicks 1982; Parsons et al. 1982; Offner 1983). Names
of dependencies, their locations, and information on
changes in political affiliation were recorded. The towns
were then located on colonial and modern maps, taking
into account information on resettlement of communities
or changes in dependent status. Boundaries of the 12 city-
states in the study area were then approximated from the
geographic spread of historically-identified dependencies
clustered around each city-state center (FIG. 4). After the
city-state boundaries had been delineated, archaeological
sites from which ceramic data were recorded were assigned
to city-state territories. 6
6. Following Gerhard (1970), in identifying prehisp~c P?litical ter-
ritories, we emphasized Aztec historical texts ~d administrative records
relating to the prehispanic period. Early colom~ documents ~ere ~so
employed, but later colonial records were us.ed With more caution, s~ce
communities were moved and/or renamed ill the later colomal penod.
Likewise, parochial records were used with cauti~n, ~ince co~oni~ period
civil boundaries were often different from eccleSiastical terntones (Ger-
hard 1970: 31).
Although historical records document the location of city-state c~nters
and their major dependenCies, as we have noted ill the text, small villa.ges
and hamlets appear less frequently on colonial maps or lists of subject
towns. By necessity, then, the boundaries enclosing hamlets and small
villages at the peripheries of city-state territories have been reconstructed
using the methodology described in the text.. ..
Documents from the srudy area report changes ill the political affili-
ation of entire city-states and in regional political boun~aries. Although
changes in the political affiliation of individual commUnIties are reported
in other areas of the valley in Aztec times (see Parsons et al. 1982: 82;
Hodge 1984: 85-86), documents consulted for this srudy lack such
Intensity of Interaction between Polities in the
Early and Late Aztec Periods
Because of time-energy constraints on transport, it has
been argued that the primary factor conditioning the de-
gree of economic interaction between communities is sep-
arating distance (Hodder 1974: 172-174). In the absence
of other constraints, a given community is more likely to
share exchange interactions with neighboring communi-
ties than with those at a greater distance. Thus, the degree
of interaction should decrease monotonically as separating
distance increases. In contrast, a political, cultural, or geo-
graphic boundary which limits economic interaction will
appear as a marked discontinuity in the level of interaction,
with substantially higher levels of interactions occurring
within the border than across it (Kimes, Haselgrove, and
Hodder 1982). The rate of fall-off in interaction over
distance and the presence of boundary discontinuities are
useful for characterizing the scale of the exchange network
as well as those factors which determine its spatial limits.
Lack of congruence with the expected pattern of fall-
off with distance may indicate that goods did not move
along direct lines of transport between communities. One
possible alternative is that of centralized marketing, in
which goods are transported in bulk to a central location
for further redistribution. In this case, distance from the
production source has less effect on access to a commodity
than does distance from its point of redistribution, and
no strong correlation between the frequency of exchange
interactions and separating distance between producers
and consumers as measured over direct transport routes
would be expected (Fry 1979: 497-498).
In order to establish the relative intensity of interaction
between polities and to determine the effect of distance
on economic interaction, we developed archaeological
measures of separating distance and indices of economic
interaction.
Calculating the Separating Distance between Aztec
Markets
In prehispanic times, goods were transported by two
means~ither carried overland by people on foot or
shipped by canoe across the shallow lake system that cov-
ered much of the valley floor (Vaillant 1941; Linne 1948;
Hassig 1985). To evaluate the influence of interpolity
distance on economic interaction, it was therefore neces-
.
information. Therefore, the political affiliations of the 130 communities
examined in this srudy have been treated as constant from the Early to
the Late Aztec periods. In the future, archaeologic~ data gathered for
the purpose of detecting city-state political boundaries ~oul.d be ~e~ to
evaluate the ethnohistoric accounts of the extent of political terntones.

sary to calculate separating distances between city-state
centers for both overland and water routes.
Overland routes between pairs of city-state centers were
identified from roads depicted on the Santa Cruz map
dating from ca. 1555 (Linne 1948), since this early co-
lonial document depicts transportation routes of the late
prehispanic era (Gibson 1964: 360-361). Distances along
these routes were then measured on the Valley of Mexico
Survey maps, and the influence of changing elevation on
effective travel distance was estimated using elevation mea-
surements from the same maps (Parsons 1971; Blanton
1972; Parsons et al. 1982; Sanders, Parsons, and Santley
1979: map 18). Changes in elevation (either up or down)
that would have added to the effective travel distance were
calculated by counting the number of 50 m contour in-
tervals crossed, and adding the equivalent of 0.4 km over
level ground for each 50 m contour (following Alden
1979: 175). Thus, land route distance = (overland
distance) + 0.4 (number of 50 m contours).
Water route distances between polities were estimated
following open water routes or canals (Linne 1948; Sand-
ers, Parsons, and Santley 1979: map 18). Water transport
is estimated to be 40 times more efficient for the trans-
portation of bulk goods than is land transport, in that an
individual can pole 40 times more weight in a canoe than
he can carry on his back, in roughly the same amount of
time (Sanders 1957; Hassig 1985: 133). Distances in km
over water were accordingly divided by 40 to estimate the
effective transport distance between city-state centers. To
this figure was added the sum of the overland distances in
km between the lakeshore edge and each of the pairs of
city-state centers at either end of the water route, taking
into account elevation changes, as noted above.
CeramicAssemblage Similarity as an Index of
Economic Interaction
The volume or intensity of economic interactions be-
tween communities can be operationally defined as the
number of exchange transactions between those popula-
tion centers involving a specific class of goods (Plog
1976). To reconstruct the movements of specific goods in
prehistoric exchange systems, the ideal method involves
identifying their point of origin and then mapping the
distribution and frequency of artifacts from this source.
In cases where individual workshops or their products
cannot be readily distinguished, however, measures of as-
semblage similarity have been employed to monitor the
volume of exchange interactions (Fry and Cox 1974; Plog
1976; Fry 1979, 1980). Such studies are based on the
premise that sites interacting in the same exchange system
with access to the same array of goods have more similar
Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17, 1990 423
artifact assemblages, whereas those participating in com-
pletely different exchange networks have totally dissimilar
assemblages. Greater and lesser degrees of overlap in the
similarity of sites' artifact assemblages can serve as mea-
sures of the intensity of interaction among sites (Pires-
Ferreira 1976; Fry 1979).
In this study, the sources of decorated ceramics cannot
be identified, but their distributions at sites are known.
Hence, similarity or dissimilarity among ceramic assem-
blages was used as a measure of the volume or intensity
of exchange within the study area.
The intensity of exchange interaction between polities
was measured from the similarity among assemblages of
decorated ceramics summed across all sites within each
polity as a whole. The degree of similarity between pairs
of polities was then calculated from the relative proportion
of specific decorated ceramic wares and types within each
polity's total assemblage of decorated ceramics, using the
Brainerd-Robinson agreement coefficient (Robinson
1951). The Brainerd-Robinson coefficient can range in
value from 0 (when pairs of polities share no types in
common) to 200 (when pairs of polities share all types in
common and in the same proportions). Using this mea-
sure, a high agreement coefficient indicates a high degree
of economic interaction. Conversely, a low coefficient sug-
gests a lower degree of interaction.
The similarity between polities' assemblages was calcu-
lated separately for the Early and Late Aztec periods, using
six standard wares and types from the Early Aztec period,
and eight from the Late Aztec period (TABLE 1), as tabu-
lated by the Valley of Mexico Survey Projects. Observed
interpolity agreement coefficient values ranged from 20 to
187 in the Early Aztec period and from 90 to 190 in the
Late Aztec period. 7
The Relationship Between Distance and Economic
Interaction in Early and Late Aztec Times
Based on historical descriptions, we expected that the
Early Aztec data would show patterning representative of
geographically small-scale economic interactions resulting
from the operation of local markets within city-states. If
distance was the primary factor structuring exchange re-
lations between Early Aztec polities, we expected that our
measure of the intensity of economic interaction (i.e.,
ceramic assemblage agreement coefficients) would de-
crease as distance between polities increased. Alternatively,
political borders between city-states or confederations that
7. Coatlinchan has been removed from this analysis and from Figures
6-10, because of the small sample sizes of decorated ceramics from this
polity.
424 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine

200 200

180 -
0
0
0
180 0
0
0
..
0

0
o 0
160 >- 160 • ' e.
>- t::
t:: 0:::
0::: «
«
-'
140 -' 140 0
0
00
:?:
o 0
:?: (fJ
.. 0

(fJ
120 o 0 UJ
(9
120
UJ
(9 0
«
« 0
-'
a:J
100
-'
a:J
100
00 «
:?:
00
:?:
UJ UJ
(fJ (fJ
(fJ
80 (fJ 80
« «
u u
60 60
:?: :?:
«
0:::
«
0:::
UJ UJ
U 40 00 U 40

00

20 20

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
INTER-POLITY DISTANCE (km) INTER-POLITY DISTANCE (km)

A. EARLY AZTEC B. LATE AZTEC

Figure 5. Economic interaction (as measured from ceramic assemblage similarity) vs. overland distance
separating city-state centers. A) The graph for the Early Aztec period shows a marked fall-off in similar-
ity or economic interaction with distance. B) The graph for the Late Aztec period shows much more
overall similarity among city-state ceramic assemblages, denoted by the cluster of points at the top of
the graph.

limited exchange interactions were expected to appear as
marked discontinuities in the ceramic assemblage agree-
ment coefficients. In contrast, we expected the Late Aztec
data to show patterning indicative of more centralized,
regional economic organization, in which the operation
of regional market centers generated greater similarity
throughout the study area. Given the degree of political
integration imposed by the Aztec empire, no internal
boundaries on exchange interactions were expected.
In the Early Aztec period, the intensity of exchange
interaction appears to decline sharply as overland distance
between city-state centers increases. When measures of
economic interaction (ceramic assemblage agreement coef-
ficients) are plotted against overland separating distance
for each pair of polities (FIG. SA), the graph displays a
general fall-off in ceramic assemblage similarity with in-
creasing distance. The apparent fall-off in interaction is
substantiated by a significant negative rank-correlation
(rho = -0.76) between the index of decorated ceramic
assemblage similarity and overland distance and reflects a
gradient in the intensity of interpolity exchange interac-
tions within the study area. This gradient confirms that
communities interacted more with their nearer neighbors
and is consistent with the expectation that exchange was
organized through local rather than regional networks.
A more striking aspect of the Early Aztec data, however,
is the presence of two subsets of cases, visually apparent
as two clusters in Figure SA, one representing pairs of
ceramic assemblages with high agreement coefficients
(80-187), and a second with low coefficients « 60). An
examination of the polities falling into these clusters re-
vealed that the cases with the higher ceramic assemblage
agreement coefficients correspond to pairs of polities
within the same political confederation of city-states, while
those with low agreement coefficients represent pairs of
polities on opposite sides of the confederation border
between the northern Acolhua and southern Chalca
leagues. The high agreement coefficients within a confed-
eration indicate that individual city-state borders posed
little impediment to exchange among allied polities, al-
though the dampening effect of distance on exchange still
held in a general way, in that polities' ceramic assemblages

are most similar to those of their nearer neighbors. In
contrast, comparisons between confederations indicate
that assemblages are strongly dissimilar once a confeder-
ation border has been crossed, and no further decrease in
similarity accompanies increased separating distance.
The geographic position of the polities lying along the
border between the northern and southern confederations
(Chimalhuacan, Coatepec, Ixtapaluca, and Tlalmanalco)
might suggest mixed economic ties for these city-states.
Based on the evidence for ceramic assemblage similarity,
however, Chimalhuacan and Coatepec fell firmly within
the economic sphere of the northern confederation. Ixta-
paluca and Tlalmanalco, in contrast, appear to have main-
tained links to both the northern and southern confeder-
ations. As will be discussed in greater detail below, the
composition of Ixtapaluca's Orange Ware assemblage
bears stronger affinities to the north, while its Red Ware
assemblage conforms better with those of the southern
polities. Tlalmanalco's assemblage appears more truly tran-
sitional, with a nearly even division of northern and south-
ern types.
The Early Aztec results thus indicate that the political
border between northern (Acolhua) and southern
(Chalca) confederations of city-state polities inhibited ce-
ramic exchange between these regions. In contrast, within
each political confederation exchange occurred freely, al-
though most intensively among neighboring polities and
less intensively among polities at a greater distance from
one another. Finally, most exchanges of ceramics in this
period were apparently brought about through land,
rather than lake, transport, as a substantially lower rank-
correlation (rho = -0.41) was obtained between mea-
sured economic interaction and water route distances than
between measured economic interaction and overland dis-
tances.
In the Late Aztec period, in contrast, the intensity of
economic interaction does not show a strong relationship
to interpolity distance. The rank-correlation between the
decorated ceramic assemblage agreement coefficients and
distance between city-state centers is extremely weak,
whether distance is measured over land routes (rho =
-0.54; FIG. 5B) or water routes (rho = -0.28). Irrespec-
tive of separating distance, the ceramic assemblages of the
12 polities examined are more similar to one another
overall in the Late Aztec than in the Early Aztec, as evi-
denced by the higher agreement coefficients for the later
period. This closer relationship between all polities in the
Late Aztec period is graphically apparent in Figure 5B, in
which the points representing the similarity between pairs
of city-state ceramic assemblages cluster together.
Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17) 1990 425
Two observations emerge from the Late Aztec results.
First, the poor correlation of ceramic assemblage similarity
with distance suggests that factors other than geographic
proximity influenced exchange in the Late Aztec period.
Secondly, the increased similarity among Late Aztec ce-
ramic assemblages indicates that greater economic inter-
action occurred during this period among all polities in
the study area. Both of these findings are consistent with
those expected for a centralized exchange economy. In
general, it is the presence ofTenochtitlan Black-on-Orange
ceramics in all collections of this period that makes them
more similar to one another overall. Other researchers
have interpreted the valley-wide presence of this ceramic
type as evidence of a distribution system centered at Te-
nochtitlan (Vaillant 1938; Tolstoy 1958; Sanders, Par-
sons, and Santley 1979). Below, we explore the degree to
which the distributional pattern of this ceramic type con-
forms to that generated by a centralized exchange system.
Forms of Economic Systems Distributing Early
and Late Aztec Ceramics
Archaeologists have identified specific artifact distribu-
tion patterns produced by a number of forms of exchange
systems (Renfrew 1975, 1977; Fry and Cox 1974; Fry
1979, 1980; Feinman 1980). We selected four types of
economic systems, each with corresponding distributional
patterns (Fry 1979: 497) that might have operated in
Early and Late Aztec times, and against which the ceramic
distribution data could be compared. These models are
described briefly below.
1. Supply zone. In a supply rone system, exchange occurs
between a producer and consumer at the place of produc-
tion. This type of exchange produces a highly localized
clustering of goods near the production source, with a
sharp drop-off in occurrence with distance from that
source.
Based on ethnohistorical reports that ceramics were ex-
changed in marketplaces, we did not expect to find this
very basic pattern in the spatial distributions of either
Early or Late Aztec decorated ceramics. Rather, we felt
that it would appear only if there were cases where market
exchange or other redistributive activities were not in-
volved in the movement of ceramics.
2. Simple centralized market exchange. In this form of
exchange system, goods move from a production source
to an economic center or marketplace, and there they are
redistributed to a wider area by individuals participating
in the market system. The sphere of distribution of a
product is spatially coterminous with the area served by a
simple centralized market. If a number of producers con-
426 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Minc
tribute to this system, their products will have nearly iden-
tical, overlapping patterns of spatial distribution. Ceramic
assemblages of communities participating in the same mar-
ket system will appear homogeneous in composition but
distinct from those served by neighboring market systems.
If exchange of ceramics in the study area were central-
ized at the city-state level, then the boundaries of market
systems would be apparent as sharp discontinuities in type
distribution, corresponding to polity borders.
3. Non-centralized market exchange. In a regional system
where producers and consumers have access to several
independent exchange centers, no sharp boundaries are
visible between systems, when observed from the distri-
bution of goods circulated through those centers. Rather,
a gradient in similarity of assemblages extends along a line
between exchange centers, as the frequency of each prod-
uct declines with distance from its original source. Within
the boundaries of each market area, goods are distributed
uniformly and artifact assemblages from different sites are
similar.
If the ceramics examined in this study were distributed
through a non-centralized market system in which several
independent exchange systems interacted, then individual
ceramic types would likely form overlapping patterns, with
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of Early Aztec ceramic wares, expressed as percentages of total decorated
ceramic assemblage, relative to polity borders. Each ware shows one area of greater concentration,
with frequencies diminishing with distance from that area. For polity names, see Figure 4.
EARLY AZTEC WARES
D 0- 10%
1<>1 10 - 30%
l~tt~tM 30 - 50%
1m 50- 70%
• 70- 90%
.90-100%
? Insufficient Data
A. ORANGE
no sharp boundaries, and they would be represented in
increasingly smaller proportions with distance from their
source. This is a form of exchange that might have oper-
ated in the Early Aztec or Late Aztec period, if ceramics
did not circulate through a regional market hierarchy.
4. Regionally centralized) hierarchical exchange. In more
complex and hierarchically-organized distribution systems,
goods are channeled through a series of local and regional
centers, serving overlapping market regions of various spa-
tial scales. In such systems, goods are distributed through
a geographically-widespread exchange system, creating a
higher degree of similarity in artifact assemblages through-
out the region served by the system. Local variations in
the availability of goods from a given source may persist,
however, generating minor differences in assemblage com-
position between local market systems. For example, the
continued presence of local distribution systems would be
evident from distinct dusters of types within the more
homogeneous scatter.
If Aztec ceramics were distributed in either period
through a hierarchy of centers, a pattern showing wide-
spread distribution of ceramic types throughout the region
served by the market system would emerge. In addition,
minimal intra-regional variation in type frequencies would
B. RED C. CHALCO-CHOLULA
POLYCHROME
 Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17, 1990 427

Table 2. Composition of decorated ceramic assemblages for polities in the study area.
Early Aztec assemblage Late Aztec assembll1fJe
% Cha1co- % Chalco·
% Orange % Red Cholula Assemblage % Orange % Red Cholula Assemblage
City·State Ware Ware Polychrome size Ware Ware Polychrome % Other Stze

Tepetlaoztoc 46 54 0 467 77 22 <1 <1 613

Chiautla 43 52 5 74 69 26 5 0 39
Texcoco 39 60 1 392 60 35 5 <1 447
Huexotla 59 38 3 789 63 35 1 1 446
Coatlinchan - - - 6 - - - - 16
Chimalhuacan 65 34 1 388 78 17 5 <1 309
Coatepec 74 25 1 136 60 39 1 0 74
Ixtapaluca 56 37 7 87 26 61 13 0 609
Tlalmanalco 59 35 6 80 53 39 8 0 51
Chalco 22 40 38 196 25 70 5 0 44
Tenango 24 37 39 553 42 54 4 0 431
Amecarneca 6 76 18 67 32 64 4 0 96

occur, although pockets of locally-produced ceranucs then examine their correspondence to the spatial distri-
might appear. bution patterns expected with four forms of economic
Our investigations into the form of economic systems exchange.
structuring interaction between polities in the Early and
Late Aztec periods were based on the spatial distribution
and relative abundance of decorated ceramics. To assess
economic interaction among these polities in as much Spatial Patterning ofEarly Aztec Decorated Ceramics
detail as possible, the ceramic assemblage compositions of
polities were examined on two levels of increasing speci- EARLY AZTEC WARES

ficity, through the designations of wares and types into
which Aztec ceramics have been divided (Parsons 1966).
For Aztec-period decorated ceramics, three major wares
have been identified (Whalen and Parsons 1982: 440-
455) on the basis of paste, surface color, and finish: 1)
Orange Ware, characterized by a buff to natural paste and
burnished but unslipped orange surface; 2) Red Ware,
identified by its red-slipped surfaces; and 3) Chalco-
Cholula Polychrome, distinguished by a basal white or
gray slip, overlain with geometric designs executed in
orange, red, brown, and black. Several less common wares
occur as well, but only the distributions of the three major
wares are discussed here.
Within each ware, types are defined on the basis of
surface decoration, including paint, incising, and the use
of specific motifs. The most common decorated types of
Orange Ware are Culhuacan Black-on-Orange, Tenayuca
Black-on-Orange, and Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange, all
of which are decorated with black painted designs. Com-
mon Red Ware types are Black-on-Red and Black-and-
White-on-Red, in which the basal red slip is overlain with
black or black and white painted motifs, respectively.
Black-on-Red Incised bears incised motifs in addition to
those applied in black paint. (For examples of the major
types, see FIG. 3.)
Below, we discuss the spatial distributions of the major
Early Aztec and Late Aztec ceramic wares and types. We
The distributions of three Early Aztec ceramic wares
are examined here: Orange Ware, Red Ware, and Chalco-
Cholula Polychrome. The relative contributions (ex-
pressed in percentages) of each of these wares to the
decorated ceramic assemblages as a whole of Early Aztec
polities in the eastern Valley of Mexico are mapped in
Figure 6 and summarized in Table 2.
The distributions of these three wares show a series of
overlapping concentrations. Orange Ware predominates
in the central polities and comprises from 56% to more
than 70% of the decorated ceramic assemblage in the
polities ofHuexotla, Chimalhuacan, Coatepec, Ixtapaluca,
and Tlalmanalco (FIG. 6A). In the northernmost polities
(Tepetlaoztoc, Chiautla, and Texcoco), Red Wares pre-
dominate slightly (52-60%; FIG. 6B). Red Wares also
appear in abundance in the extreme south of the study
area, comprising 76% of the decorated ceramic assemblage
in Amecameca. Chalco-Cholula Polychrome appears al-
most exclusively in the southern portion of the study area,
in the polities of Chalco and Tenango, where it comprises
38% and 39% of the total ceramic assemblage, respec-
tively, and in Amecameca, where it constitutes 18% of the
decorated ceramic assemblage (FIG. 6C).
The mapped distributions demonstrate that each Early
Aztec ware displays an area of greatest concentration and
that each ware diminishes in relative abundance as distance
from this area of concentration increases. This patterning
428 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Minc

EARLY AZTEC BLACK-ON-ORANGE TYPES

D 0- 10%

[f2] 10- 30%

I I 30- 50%
mmm
~ 50- 70%

•
•
70 - 90%

90-100%

? Insufficient Data

A. CULHUACAN B. TENAYUCA

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of Early Aztec Black-an-Orange ceramic types, expressed as

percentages of total Early Aztec Orange Ware, relative to polity borders. Tenayuca Black-on-
Orange ceramics decrease in relative abundance with distance from their area of greatest
concentration in the north, while Culhuacan Black-on-Orange ceramics are distributed only
in the southern portion of the srudy area, corresponding to the Chalca political confedera-
tion. For polity names, see Figure 4.

is consistent with that generated by the operation of sev-
eral overlapping production and distribution systems. The
higher proportions of Red Ware in two widely separated
areas, however, suggest the presence of two production
sources for this ware, and as we will see below, each of
these two areas represents a concentration of a distinct
Red Ware type.
EARLY AZTEC TYPES
Two primary decorated types have been defined within
Early Aztec Orange Ware (Parsons 1966; Whalen and
Parsons 1982: 437-438): Culhuacan Black-on-Orange
and Tenayuca Black-on-Orange (see TABLE 3 for the per-
centage of each type by polity). It is clear from the mapped
distributions of these types (FIG. 7) that Culhuacan Black-
on-Orange dominates the decorated Orange Ware assem-
blages in the southernmost polities. In Chalco, Tenango,
and Amecameca (cf. Parsons et al. 1982: 345-351), it
contributes from 81 to 100% of the Orange Ware assem-
blage, while in Tlalmanalco it constitutes 51 % of Early
Aztec Orange Ware. Tenayuca Black-on-Orange, on the
other hand, comprises 94 to 99% of the decorated Orange
Wares in the remaining polities to the north.
Within Early Aztec Red Ware, three types have been
defined: Black-on-Red, Black-and-White-on-Red, and
Black-on-Red Incised (see Parsons 1966). The relative
contributions of these types to Early Aztec Red Ware
assemblages are mapped by polities in Figure 8. Black-on-
Red constitutes over half of the decorated Red Wares in
the northernmost polities of Tepetlaoztoc, Chiautla, and
Texcoco, with abundance falling off rapidly to the south.
Black-and-White-on-Red is more evenly distributed
throughout the northern polities (where it contributes
36-48% of total Red Ware), but is nearly absent in the
south. In contrast, Black-on-Red Incised dominates the
Red Ware assemblages ofIxtapaluca (97%) and the south-
ern polities (57-88% in Chalco, Tlalmanalco, Tenango,
and Amecameca). The abundance of Black-on-Red Incised
then diminishes to low percentages further north, where
it accounts for 24% of Red Wares in Coatepec, 16% in
Huexotla, and 5% or less in the other northern polities.
 Journal ofField Archaeologyl Vol. 17, 1990 429

Table 3. Relative frequency of Early Aztec ceramic types by polity.

Orange Ware types Red Ware types
(% of Orange Ware) (% ofRed Ware)
Culhuacan Tenayuea Black-and-White- Black-on-Red
City-State Black-on-Orange Black-on-Orange Black-on-Red on-Red Incised

Tepetlaoztoc 1 99 60 39 1
Chiautla 6 94 53 42 5
Texcoco 3 97 60 36 4
Huexotla 2 98 39 45 16
Coatlinchan
Chimalhuacan 1 99 47 48 5
Coatepec 5 95 35 41 24
lxtapaluca 4 96 3 0 97
Tlalmanalco 51 49 18 25 57
Chalco 91 9 24 0 76
Tenango 81 19 18 9 73
Amecameca 100 0 8 4 88

The mapped distributions indicate that two spatially-
distinct distribution systems involving Red Ware types
operated in the study area in the Early Aztec period. A
northern system distributed Black-on-Red and Black-and-
White-on- Red, both of which are most concentrated in
the northern polities (cf. Tolstoy 1958: 46) and diminish
in concentration to the south. A second system distributed
Black-on-Red Incised, which was exchanged almost exclu-
sively in the southern valley.
The distributions of both Early Aztec wares and types

Figure 8. Spatial distribution of Early Aztec Black-on-Red, Black-and-White-on-Red, and Black-on-Red

Incised ceramic types, expressed as percentages of total Early Aztec Red Ware assemblage, relative to
polity borders. Both Black-on-Red and Black-and-White-on-Red are concentrated in the northern poli-
ties and decrease in relative abundance to the south. Conversely, Black-on-Red Incised is concentrated
in the south and decreases in concentration markedly in the northern portion of the study area. The
dinal fall-off of Early Aztec Red Ware types from areas of greatest concentration suggests that they
were distributed through a series of overlapping market systems. For polity names, see Figure 4.

EARLY AZTEC RED-WARE TYPES

0 0- 10%

E2J 10- 30%

•
III 50-
30- 50%

70%

•• 70 - 90%

90 -100%

? Insufficient Data

A. BLACK-aN-RED B. BLACK-AND-WHITE- C BLACK-aN-RED

ON-RED INCISED
430 Spatial Patterning ofAztee Ceramics/Hodge and Mine

indicate two sub-regional areas of greater interaction. Spe-
cific wares and types are concentrated heavily in either the
northern or the southern parts of the study region, with
marked discontinuities in abundance occurring at or near
the border between Ixtapaluca and Coatepec. Culhuacan
Black-on-Orange, Early Aztec Black-on-Red Incised, and
Chalco-Cholula Polychrome ceramics appear most abun-
dantly in the Chalca polities. In contrast, Tenayuca Black-
on-Orange, Early Aztec Black-on-Red, and Early Aztec
Black-and-White-on-Red are more concentrated in the
Acolhua polities. Since each Early Aztec type is relatively
more abundant in one of the two Early Aztec political
confederations, and since concentrations of particular
wares diminish abruptly on either side of the Chalca-
Acolhua border, it appears that this political boundary
inhibited exchange.
Spatial Patterning ofLate Aztec Decorated Ceramics
LATE AZTEC WARES
Three wares dominate the Late Aztec decorated ceramic
assemblage. As in the Early Aztec period, these are 1)
Orange Wares (predominantly Tenochtitlan Black-on-Or-
ange, but also including minor types such as White-and-
Purple-on-Orange); 2) Red Wares (chiefly Black-on-Red
and Black-and-White-on-Red, but also including the low
frequency types White-on-Red and Black-and-White-and-
Yellow-on-Red); and 3) Late Aztec Chalco-Cholula Poly-
chrome. The percentages of each of the Late Aztec wares
in the total decorated ceramic assemblage of the study area
are presented in Table 2.
Orange Wares predominate in the northern polities (Te-
petlaoztoc, Chiautla, Texcoco, Huexotla, Chimalhuacan,
and Coatepec), where they comprise 60-78% of the pol-
ities' total ceramic assemblages, and in neighboring Tlal-
manalco, where they constitute 53% of the decorated ce-
ramic assemblage (FIG. 9A). Within this northern bloc,
there is neither apparent spatial concentration nor clinal
fall-off in frequency that would indicate a specific distri-
bution source for Orange Ware. Although Orange Wares
appear in every polity in the study area, they appear in
much smaller percentages (25-42%) in Ixtapaluca,
Chalco, Tenango, and Amecameca.
Late Aztec Red Ware ceramics are concentrated in the

Figure 9. Spatial distribution of Late Aztec wares, expressed as percentages of total Late Aztec deco-
rated ceramic assemblage, relative to polity borders. Orange Wares are distributed throughout the study
area, suggesting they were distributed through a centralized market system; conversely, Red Wares are
concentrated in the southern lakeshore portion of the study area, while Chalco-Cholula Polychrome
appears in significant quantities only in the polity of Ixtapaluca. For polity names, see Figure 4.

LATE AZTEC WARES

D 0- 10%

1.\>1 10 - 30%

Ir~tttl 30 - 50%

III 50- 70%

. 7 0 - 90%

.90-100%

? Insufficient Data

A. ORANGE B. RED C. CHALCO-CHOLULA

POLYCHROME
 Journal ofFieldArchaeologylVol. 17, 1990 431

Table 4. Relative frequency of Late Aztec ceramic types by polity.

Orange Ware types Red Ware types
(% of Orange Ware) (% ofRed Ware)
Tenochtitlan Other Black-and-White- Other
City-State Black-on-Orange Orange Ware Black-on-Red on-Red Red Ware
Tepetlaoztoc 100 0 91 7 2
Chiautla 100 0 90 10 0
Texcoco 100 0 90 10 0
Huexotla 100 0 82 14 4
Coatlinchan
Chimalhuacan 100 0 78 11 11
Coatepec 100 0 79 21 0
Ixtapaluca 100 0 57 43 0
Tlalmanalco 89 11 55 35 10
Chalco 100 0 58 42 0
Tenango 100 0 65 35 0
Amecameca 100 0 98 0 2

southern portion of our study area, complementary to the
lower percentages of Orange Ware in this area. In the
polities of Ixtapaluca, Chalco, Tenango, and Amecameca,
Red Ware constitutes 54-70% of the ceramic assemblages.
Red Ware frequencies show a general decline with distance
from this area of concentration (FIG. 9B).
Finally, Chalco-Cholula Polychrome has a much nar-
rower distribution in the study area in the Late Aztec than
in the Early Aztec period (FIG. 9C). It appears in signifi-
cant quantities only in the polities of Ixtapaluca (13%)
and its neighbor, Tlalmanalco (8%). Elsewhere in the
study area, this ware constitutes 5% or less of decorated
ceramic assemblages.
The distributions of Late Aztec decorated ceramic wares
point to two major and one minor ceramic production
and exchange systems operating in the valley. These are
the following: 1) an area-wide system, within which the
percentages of Orange Ware show no linear decline with
distance; 2) a southern system, in which Red Ware pre-
dominates; and 3) a minor system responsible for the
distribution of Chalco-Cholula Polychrome, which ap-
pears concentrated in the polity of Ixtapaluca.
LATE AZTEC TYPES
A single type, Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange, comprises
most of the decorated Late Aztec Orange Ware (TABLE
4). As noted earlier, the predominance and near ubiquity
of this one type has been interpreted as resulting from
distribution through a regional exchange system centered
on Tenochtitlan. Our results support this conclusion only
in part. Throughout the area of Orange-Ware dominance
(i.e., the northern and central polities), Tenochtitlan
Black-on-Orange is distributed without any evidence of
fall-off with distance from an area of concentration. This
distribution suggests that these polities were participating
in a wider, centralized system for the distribution of Black-
on-Orange ceramics. In contrast, the lower proportions
of Late Aztec Orange Ware in the city-states ofIxtapaluca,
Chalco, Tenango, and Amecameca (TABLE 2; FIG. 9A),
argues that participation in the valley-wide exchange sys-
tem of Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange was not uniform,
nor was it coterminous with the extent of imperial political
control. The slight predominance of Tenochtitlan Black-
on-Orange in Tlalmanalco's ceramic assemblage (FIG. 9A)
shows this northern Chalca polity to have been active in
the region-wide exchange system to a greater degree than
other Chalca polities. Tlalmanalco's position as the ad-
ministrative center for Chalco province under the Aztec
empire (Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin 1965: 279; Par-
sons et al. 1982: 86) may account for its greater access to
ceramics typical of the regional economic system.
Two dominant types comprise Late Aztec Red Wares:
Black-on-Red and Black-and-White-on-Red. A compari-
son of the spatial distributions of these two types reveals
that Black-on-Red ceramics constitute more than half of
Late Aztec Red Ware assemblages throughout the study
area, and comprise 90-98% of the Red Ware assemblages
in Tepetlaoztoc, Chiautla, Texcoco, and Amecameca (FIG.
10; TABLE 4). In contrast, Black-and-White-on-Red is
abundant in only four polities-Ixtapaluca, Tlalmanalco,
Chalco, and Tenango)-where it comprises from 35% to
43% of the Red Ware assemblage. The sharp decline in
the relative abundance of Black-and-White-on Red ceram-
ics outside of the area of the southern lakeshore and its
inland neighbor Tlalmanalco suggests the presence of a
localized production and distribution system for this type.
The patterning of Late Aztec decorated types indicates
that they were exchanged through two distinct systems.
Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange is distributed throughout
the study area, suggesting that it was exchanged through
432 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine

LATE AZTEC RED WARE TYPES

D 0- 10%

1).1 10- 30%

Itttt:! 30 - 50%

. 5 0 - 70%

• 70- 90%

• 90-100%

? Insufficient Data

A. BLACK-ON-RED B. BLACK-AND-WHITE-ON-RED

Figure 10. Spatial distribution of Late Aztec Red Ware types, expressed as percentages of
total Late Aztec Red Ware assemblage, relative to polity borders. Black-on-Red shows a
widespread distribution throughout the study area, suggesting it traveled through a central-
ized distribution system. Black-and-White-on-Red is concentrated in four southern polities
and faIls off with distance from that area of concentration, suggesting that it was produced in
this area, and was distributed from it, but not through a regionally centralized market sys-
tem. For polity names, see Figure 4.

a centralized system. Similarly, the widespread occurrence
of Black-on-Red argues that this type circulated regionally,
perhaps through exchange mechanisms identical to those
through which Tenochtitlan Black-on-Orange circulated.
In contrast, Black-and-White-on-Red is distributed within
a concentrated area. It clusters in the south and declines
in abundance with distance from this area, thus appearing
to have been distributed through a sub-regional system.
By extension, this finding indicates that the southern pol-
ities ofIxtapaluca, Chalco, Tenango, and Tlalmanalco par-
ticipated to a lesser extent in the regional Late Aztec
exchange system.
Comparison ofEarly and Late Aztec Exchange
Patterns
Our analysis of the spatial distribution of Aztec deco-
rated ceramic wares and types has revealed distinct changes
in the organization of ceramic exchange from the Early
Aztec to the Late Aztec period. Below, we discuss the
exchange mechanisms identified with reference to chang-
ing regional political organization and the spatial models
for exchange systems presented previously.
The Early Aztec period is characterized by a series of
overlapping ceramic exchange systems. The Early Aztec
wares show a decline in relative abundance as distance
from their area of greatest concentration increases. This
general patterning is consistent with a model of regionally
non-centralized market exchange (i.e., a series of localized
markets with overlapping service areas) unaffected by in-
dividual city-state boundaries. This patterning was also
observed when overall ceramic assemblage similarities
were compared, further suggesting that exchange occurred
through a non-centralized series of markets located in city-
state centers.
A more detailed examination of the ceramic data, how-
ever, based on the distributions of specific ceramic types
within wares, revealed that at the level of ceramic types
there is spatial patterning in response to confederation
boundaries. Early Aztec Black-on-Red, Black-and-White-
on-Red, and Tenayuca Black-on-Orange predominate in
ceramic assemblages of polities in the northern portion of

the study area, that is, within the territory of the Acolhua
confederation. In contrast, Culhuacan Black-on-Orange
and Black-on-Red Incised occur almost exclusively in the
southern section of the study area, within the territory of
the Chalca league. These findings suggest that boundaries
between regional political confederations did indeed con-
strain (though they did not entirely curtail) exchange dur-
ing the Early Aztec period.
In the Late Aztec period, two distinct forms of ceramic
production and exchange systems were observed: a region-
wide system, and a more localized production and ex-
change system in the southern area. Tenochtitlan Black-
on-Orange vessels are distributed throughout the valley.
Similarly, Black-on-Red ceramics occur throughout the
study area. This distribution pattern attests to the partic-
ipation of all polities in a regional ceramic distribution
system. 8
A more localized distibution system is indicated by the
presence of Black-and-White-on-Red ceramics, which ap-
pear most plentifully in the southern region. Although
this ware does occur outside this area, its frequency di-
minishes sharply as one goes north or south, which sug-
gests it was exchanged directly from a Chalco-Ixtapaluca
center of production and did not necessarily enter into the
larger valley-wide system. The high percentages of this
type and of Chalco-Cholula Polychrome in lakeshore com-
munities indicate that these southern polities maintained
a local production and exchange system for decorated
ceramics even after they were incorporated into the empire
in the Late Aztec period.
Overall, the spatial distributions of Late Aztec ceramics
indicate more intensive exchange among all polities, and
the presence of a region-wide, centralized exchange system
through which several ceramic types apparently moved.
But our analyses also distinguished one localized produc-
tion and exchange system for decorated ceramics, centered
on Ixtapaluca, Tlalmanalco, Chalco, and Tenango.
Conclusions
Our analyses demonstrate that data from ceramic col-
lections gathered by regional archaeological surveys can
provide significant information about spatial patterns of
commodity distribution among Aztec polities. The anal-
yses have shown that in the Early Aztec period, ceramic
exchange occurred in a regional pattern best described as
non-centralized market exchange. Although exchange oc-
8. Assumptions about production sources of Tenochtitlan Black-on-
Orange and Black-on-Red ceramics still need to be tested further with
physical analyses of ceramics and clay sources, and with analyses of the
spatial distribution of stylistic variants within these types.
Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17) 1990 433
curred freely among polities within political confedera-
tions, exchange was constrained by confederation bound-
anes.
In the Late Aztec period, most of the study area was
drawn into a centralized exchange system, as the valley
became politically unified, but within our study area ce-
ramic distributions display areas of greater and lesser in-
corporation into the centralized economic system. The
polities most integrated into the regional exchange system
are those in the north of the study area, polities that were
part of the Acolhua political system. In contrast, the pol-
ities bordering on Lake Chalco appear to have been par-
ticipating in another, more localized exchange system. To
establish definitely the geographic limits of both exchange
systems will require analysis of ceramic data from a larger
geographic area. Our exploratory study, however, indi-
cates that the region examined was not uniformly inte-
grated into the larger, centralized exchange system. The
results suggest that the portion of the valley incorporated
into the empire at a late date (i.e., the Chalca polities),
participated less fully in the valley-wide exchange system.
This border may represent the edge of the empire's core
wne and the boundary beyond which tribute collection
was implemented to a greater degree than exchange as an
imperial strategy for economic integration.
Although the results of this initial study are promising,
they provide a somewhat coarse-grained and geographi-
cally limited view of Aztec ceramic production and ex-
change systems. Further research will address additional
questions. Our current re-study of the ceramic collections
focuses on a reappraisal of Aztec ceramic types and on the
spatial distribution of stylistic variants and includes a
larger geographic area and a larger sample of collections.
This further research will identify sub-regional workshop
styles and determine more precisely the areas where these
workshops were located. Our ongoing analyses of the
physical composition of Aztec ceramics will also help to
verify the locations of decorated ceramic workshops. The
final results of these ceramic studies will provide a line of
evidence complementary to existing studies of the distri-
bution of other classes of utilitarian goods within the
Valley of Mexico during Aztec times (for instance, Parsons
1975; Brumfiel in press; Spence 1985), and should con-
tribute to a more comprehensive understanding of eco-
nomic organization within the Aztec empire.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Jeffrey R. Parsons and Richard
E. Blanton for making their survey field notes and ceramic
tabulations available to us for this study. Dumbarton Oaks
434 Spatial Patterning ofAztec Ceramics/Hodge and Mine
Pre-Columbian Studies Center provided Mary Hodge
with a Summer Research Fellowship, during which much
of the ethnohistorical research was accomplished. The on-
going analyses of ceramic collections are funded by the
Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research,
the National Geographic Society, the National Science
Foundation, the Texas Higher Education Coordinating
Board, and the University of Houston-Clear Lake. The
University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology pro-
vided access to comparative collections and computer fa-
cilities. We extend our thanks to John R. Alden, Elizabeth
S. Brumfiel, George L. Cowgill, Susan T. Evans, Gary M.
Feinman, Robert E. Fry, Joyce Marcus, Jeffrey R. Parsons,
Henry T. Wright, and the anonymous reviewer, who dis-
cussed our results with us and provided comments on
various drafts of this paper. We are indebted to Kay Cla-
hassey for her skillful drafting of Figure 3 and to Dennis
Albert for preparing Figures 6-10.
Mary G. Hodge is an Assistant Professor ofAnthropology at
the University ofHouston~lear Lake) and an Assistant Re-
search Scientist at the University ofMichigan Museum ofAn-
thropology. She has published a monograph) Aztec City-States
(1984)) and other studies relating to the Aztec empire1s for-
mation and political O1;ganization. A current) joint project
with Leah Mine continues stylistic and technological studies of
Aztec ceramic production and exchange. Mailing address:
School ofHuman Sciences and Humanities) University of
Houston~lear Lake) 2700 Bay Area Blvd.) Houston) TX
77058-1058.
Leah D. Mine is a doctoral candidate and research associate
affiliated with the University ofMichigan Museum ofAnthro-
pology and has an MA. in Anthropology from the University
of Chicago. At the University ofMichigan) she has worked
with quantitative approaches to Aztec ceramic typology and
seriation. She has also participated in excavations in Guate-
mala and Belize) and in analyses ofClassic Maya ceramics.
Mailing address: Museum ofAnthropology) University of
Michigan) Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
Alden, John R.
1979 "A Reconstruction ofToltec Period Political Units in the
Valley of Mexico," in Colin Renfrew and Kenneth L.
Cooke, eds., Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to
Culture Change. New York: Academic Press, 169-200.
Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Fernando de
1975- Obras Hist6ricas. 2 vols. (written ca. 1600-1640). Mex-
1977 ico: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan
1938 Die Geschichte der Konigreiche von Culhuacan und Mexico
(written ca. 1570). Walter Lehmann, trans. Quellenwerke
zur alten Geschichte Amerikas in den Sprachen der Einge-
borenen 1. Stuttgatt: Kohlhammer.
1945 C6dice Chimalpopoca. Anales de Cuauhtitlan y Leyenda de
los Soles. Primo Feliciano Velazquez, trans. Mexico: Univ-
ersidad Nacional Aut6noma de Mexico, Instituto de In-
vestigaciones Hist6ricas (reprinted 1975).
Anderson, Arthur J. 0., Frances F. Berdan, and James Lockhart
1976 Beyond the Codices: The Nahua View of Colonial Mexico.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barlow, Robert H.
1949 The Extent of the Empire of the Culhua Mexica. Ibero-
Americana 28. Berkeley: University of California Press.
1951 "El C6dice de los Alfareros de Cuauhtitlan," Revista Mex-
icana de Estudios Antropo16gicos 12: 5-8.
Berdan, Frances F.
1975 Trade) Tribute) and Market in the Aztec Empire. Ph.D.
dissettation, University of Texas, Austin. Ann Arbor:
University Microfilms.
Blanton, Richard E.
1972 Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the Ixtapalapa Region)
Mexico. The Pennsylvania State University Occasional Papers
in Anthropology 6. University Park.
Blanton, Richard E., Stephen A. Kowalewski, Gary Feinman, and
Jill Appel
1981 Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three
Regiom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Branstetter-Hardesty, Barbara
1978 The Ceramics of Cerro Portezuelo) Mexico. An Industry in
Transition. Ph.D. dissertation, University of California,
Los Angeles. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Bray, Warwick
1972 ''The City-State in Central Mexico at the Time of the
Spanish Conquest," Journal of Latin American Studies
4: 161-185.
Brenner, Anita
1931 The Influence of Technique on the Decorative Style in the
Domestic Pottery of Culhuacan. Columbia University Con-
tributiom to Anthropology 13. New Yark.
Brurnfiel, Elizabeth S.
1976 Specialization and Exchange at the Late Postclassic (Aztec)
Community ofHuexotla) Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Uni-
versity of Michigan. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
1980 "Specialization, Market Exchange, and the Aztec State:
A View from Huexotla," Current Anthropology 21: 259-
278.
in press ''The Organization of Agricultural Labor at Aztec Xico,"
in Herbert R. Harvey and Ursula Dyckerhoff, eds., Land
and Politics in the Valley ofMexico. Albuquerque: Univer-
sity of New Mexico Press.
Calnek, Edward E.
1978 ''The City-State in the Basin of Mexico: Late Prehispanic
Period," in Richard P. Schaedel, Jorge E. Hardoy, and
Nara Scott Kinzer, eds., Urbanization in theAmericas from
Its Beginnings to the Present. The Hague: Mouton, 463-
470.
 Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17, 1990 435

Carrasco, Pedro 1980 "Models of Exchange for Major Shape Classes of Low-
1961 "El Barrio y la Regulaci6n del Matrimonio en un Pueblo land Maya Pottery," in Robert E. Fry, ed., Models and
del Valle de Mexico en el Siglo XVI," Revista Mexicana Methods in Regional Exchange. SAA Papers I. Washington,
de Estudios Antropo16gicos 17: 7-26. D.C.: Society for American Archaeology, 3-18.
Caso, Alfonso Fry, Robert E., and Scott C. Cox
1961 "La Bpoca de los Senorfos Independientes, 1232-1427," 1974 ''The Structure of Exchange at Tikal, Guatemala," World
Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropo16gicos 20: 147-154. Archaeology 6: 209-225.
Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin, Don Francisco de San Ant6n Gerhard, Peter
Mun6n 1970 "A Method of Reconstructing Pre-Columbian Political
1965 Relaciones Originales de ChalcoAmequemecan (written ca. Boundaries," Journal des SociitC des Amiricanistes 59: 27-
1606-1631). Sylvia Rend6n, ed. and trans. Mexico: 41.
Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica. 1972 A Guide to the Historical Geography of New Spain. New
Codex Mendoza York: Cambridge University Press.
1925 ColeccWn de Mendoza 0 C6dice Mendocino (ca. 1541- Gibson, Charles
1542). Jesus Galindo y Villa, ed. Mexico: Museo Na- 1964 The Aztw Under Spanish Rule. Palo Alto: Stanford Uni-
cional de Antropologia (reprinted by Editorial Cosmos). versity Press.
C6dice Kingsborough 1971 "Structure of the Aztec Empire," in Gordon F. Ekholm
1912 C6dice Kingsborough (ca. 1555). Francisco del Paso y and Ignacio Bernal, eds., Handbook of Middle American
Troncoso, ed. Madrid: Hauser y Menet. Indians, Vol. 10, Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica,
Cortes, Hernan Part 1. Austin: University of Texas Press, 376-394.
1971 Letters from Mexico (written 1519-1526). Anthony R. Gonzalez Aparicio, Luis
Pagden, trans. New York: Grossman. 1973 Plano Reconstructivo de la RegiOn de Tenochtitlan. Mexico:
Davies, Nigel Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
1981 The Toltec Heritage: From the Fall if Tula to the Rise if Griffin, James B., and Antonieta Espejo
Tenochtitlan. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. 1947 "La Alfareria Correspondiente al Ultimo Perfodo de
1987 The Aztec Empire: The Toltec Resut;gence. Norman: Uni- Ocupaci6n Nahua del Valle de Mexico: I," Tlatelolco a
versity of Oklahoma Press. Travis de los Tiempos 9: 10-26.

Diaz del Castillo, Bernal
1972 The Discovery and Conquest of New Spain, 1517-1521
(completed 1568; originally published 1632). Genaro
Garcia, ed., Alfred P. Maudslay, trans. New York: Farrar,
Strauss, and Giraux.
Duran, Fray Diego
1967 Historia de las Indias de Nueva Espana e Islas de la Tierra
Firme (completed in 1581). Angel Marfa Garibay K., ed.
Mexico: Editorial Porrua.
Feinman, Gary M.
1980 The Relationship Between Administrative Ot;ganization and
Ceramic Production in the Valley of Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D.
dissertation, The City University of New York Graduate
Center. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Franco c., Jose Luis
1945 "Comentarios sobre Tipologia y Filogenia de la Deco-
raci6n Negra sobre Color Natural del Barro en la Cer-
arnica 'Azteca II'," Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropo-
16gicos 7: 163-186.
1947 "Algunos Problemas Relativos a la Cerarnica Azteca," El
Mexico Antiguo 7: 162-208.
Franco c., Jose Luis, and Frederick A. Peterson
1957 Motivos Decorativos en la CeramicaAzteca. Serie Cientifica
5. Mexico: Museo Nacional de Antropologia.
Fry, Robert E.
1979 ''The Economics of Pottery at Tikal, Guatemala: Models
of Exchange for Serving Vessels," American Antiquity
44: 494-512.
1950 "La Alfarerfa Correspondiente al Ultimo Perfodo de
Ocupaci6n Nahua del Valle de Mexico: II," Tlatelolco a
Travis de los Tiempos 11: 15-66.
Guzman, Eulalia
1938 "Un Manuscrito de la Colecci6n Boturini que Trata de
los Antiguos Senores de Teotihuacan," Ethnos 3(4-
5): 89-103.
Hassig, Ross
1982 "Periodic Markets in Precolumbian Mexico," American
Antiquity 47: 346-351.
1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth Century
Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: Uni-
versity of Oklahoma Press.
Hicks, Frederic
1982 ''Tetzcoco in the Early 16th Century: The State, the City,
and the Calpolli," American Ethnologist 9: 230-249.
1987 "First Steps Toward a Market-Integrated Economy in
Aztec Mexico," in Henri J. M. Claessen and Pieter Van
de Velde, eds., Early State Dynamics, Studies in Human
Society 2. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 91-107.
Hodder, Ian R.
1974 "Regression Analysis of Some Trade and Marketing Pat-
terns," World Archaeology 6: 172-189.
Hodge, Mary G.
1984 Aztec City-States. Studies in Latin American Ethnohistory
andArchaeology 3. Memoirs if the Museum ofAnthropology,
University of Michigan 18. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan.
436 Spatial Patterning ofAztee Ceramics/Hodge and Mine
Kimes, T., C. Haselgrove, and I. Hodder
1982 "A Method for the Identification of the Location of
Regional Cultural Boundaries," Journal ofAnthropological
Archaeology 1: 113-13l.
Lemoine Villicaiia, Ernesto, ed.
1961 ''Visita, Congregacion y Mapa de Amecameca de 1599"
Boletin del Archivo General de la NaciOn, Segunda Se~e
2: 5-46.
Linne, Sigvald
1948 "EI Valle y la Cuidad de Mexico en 1550" The Ethno-
graphical Museum ofSweden, Publication No.' 9, n.s. Stock-
holm.
Noguera, Eduardo
1930 "Decorative Aspects of Certain Types of Mexican Pot-
tery," Proceedings of the XXIII International Congress of
Americanists, New York, 1928: 85-92.
Offner, Jerome
1983 Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
O'Neill, George
1953- "Preliminary Report on Stratigraphic Excavations in the
1954 Southern Valley of Mexico: Chalco-Xico," Revista Mexi-
cana de Estudios AntropolOgicos 14(2): 45-5l.
1962 Postclassic Ceramic Stratigraphy at Chalco in the Valley of
Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, New
York. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
Parsons, Jeffrey R.
1966 The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley,
Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor. Ann Arbor: University Microfilms.
1971 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Texcoco Region, Mex-
ico. Memoirs of the Museum of Anthropology, University of
Michigan 3. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
1976 "The Role of Chinampa Agriculture in the Food Supply
of Aztec Tenochtitlan," in Charles E. Cleland, ed., Cul-
tural Change and Continuity: Essays in Honor ofJames B.
Griffin. New York: Academic Press, 233-262.
Parsons, Jeffrey R., Elizabeth S. Brurnfiel, Mary H. Parsons, and
David J. Wilson
1982 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of
Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Regions. Memoirs of the Mu-
seum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan 14. Ann Ar-
bor: University of Michigan.
Parsons, Jeffrey R., Keith W. Kintigh, and Susan A. Gregg
1983 Archaeological Settlement Pattern Data from the Chalco,
Xochimilco, Ixtapalapa, Texcoco and Zumpango Regions,
Mexico. University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology,
Technical Reports 14. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Parsons, Mary H.
1975 ''The Distribution of Late Postclassic Spindle Whorls in
the Valley of Mexico," American Antiquity 40: 207-215.
Paso Y Troncoso, Francisco del, ed.
1905- Papeles de Nueva Espana. Segunda Serie, Geografia y Es-
1906 tadistica. 7 vols. (Vol. 6, Relaciones Geogrdficas de la Di-
ocesis de Mexico. Manuscritos de la Real Academica de His-
tona de Madrid Y del Archivo de Indias en Seville. Ams
1579-1582.) Mexico: Tipgrafico Sucesores de Rivade-
neyra (reprinted 1979).
Pires-Ferreira, Jane W.
1976 "Obsidian Exchange in Formative Mesoamerica," in
Kent V. Flannery, ed., The Early Mesoamerican Village.
New York: Academic Press, 292-306.
Plog, Stephen
1976 "Measurement of Prehistoric Interaction between Com-
munities," !n Kent V. Flannery, ed., The Early Meso-
amerzean Vtllage. New York: Academic Press, 255-272.
Renfrew, Colin
1975 ''Trade as Action at a Distance: Questions ofIntegration
and Communication," in Jeremy A. Sabloff and Carl C.
Lamberg-Karlovsky, eds., Ancient Civilization and Trade.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 3-59.
1977 "Alternative Models for Exchange and Spatial Distribu-
tion," Timothy K. Earle and Jonathan E. Ericson, eds.,
Exchange Systems in Prehistory. New York: Academic
Press, 71-90.
Robinson, W. S.
1951 "A Method for Chronologically Ordering Archaeological
Deposits," American Antiquity 16: 293-30l.
SahagUn, Fray Bernardino de
1950- Florentine Codex: A History of the Things of New Spain
1982 (wrirten ca. 1578-1580). Arthur J. O. Anderson and
Charles E. Dibble, eds. and trans. 12 vols. Santa Fe:
School of American Research and The University of
Utah.
Sanders, William T.
1957 ''Tierra y Agua," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Har-
vard University, Cambridge, MA.
Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley
1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of
a Civilization. New York: Academic Press.
Scholes, France v., and Eleanor B. Adams, eds.
1957 InformaciOn sobre los Tributos que los Indios Pagaban a
Moctezuma -Am de 1554. Documentos para la Historia
de Mexico Colonial 4. Mexico: Jose Porma Turanzas.
Smith, Michael E.
1979 ''The Aztec Marketing System and Settlement Parterns
in the Valley of Mexico: A Central Place Analysis," Amer-
ican Antiquity 44: 110-125.
1987 ''The Expansion of the Aztec Empire: A Case Study in
the Correlation of Diachronic Archaeological and Eth-
nohistorical Data," American Antiquity 52: 37-54.
Spence, Michael
1985 "Specialized Production in Rural Aztec Society: Obsi-
dian Workshops of the Teotihuacan Valley," in William
J. Folan, ed., Contributions to the Archaeology and Ethno-
history of Greater Mesoamerica. Carbondale: Illinois Uni-
versity Press, 76-125.
Tolstoy, Paul
1958 Surface Survey of the Northern Valley ofMexico: The Classic
and Postclassic Periods. Transactions of the American Philo-
sophical Society, n.s. 48 (Part 5).
 Journal ofField ArchaeologylVol. 17) 1990 437

Vaillant, George C.
1937 "History and Stratigraphy in the Valley of Mexico," Sci-
entific Monthly 44: 307-324.
1938 "A Correlation of Archaeological and Historical Se-
quences in the Valley of Mexico," A merican Anthropologist
40: 535-573.
1941 The Aztecs of Mexico: Origin, Rise, and Fall of the Aztec
Nation. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Vetancurt, Fray Agustin de
1961 Teatro Mexicano, Descripcifm Breve de los Sucesos Exemplares
de la Nueva Espana en el Nuevo Mundo Occidental de los
Indias. Vol. 3: Cr6nica de la PrlJlJincia del Santo Evangelo.
Mexico: Jose Porma Turanzas. (Originally published
1697.)
Whalen, Michael E., and Jeffrey R. Parsons
1982 "Ceramic Markers Used for Period Designations," Ap-
pendix I, in Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Southern
Valley of Mexico: The Chalco-Xochimilco Regions. Memoirs
of the Museum ofAnthropology, University of Michigan 14.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 385-459.