LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
1
Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant:
Household spaces and everyday practices at Xaltocan under Aztec imperial expansion
PROJECT SUMMARY
This dissertation project examines the social, political, and economic transition at the Postclassic
Central Mexican site of Xaltocan when it was conquered and integrated into the Aztec empire. It will shed
light on warfare, abandonment, and imperial formation and expansion, topics of perennial concern within
anthropology. The research will evaluate ethnohistoric statements that, having been conquered after a
long war, Xaltocan was abandoned by its native population and then resettled with Aztec tribute payers.
This research will also explore the ways in which commoners (re)formed everyday life in this new
context through changes in household spatial practices. Fieldwork will include horizontal excavations of
two house mounds known to contain stratified domestic deposits dating to before and after incorporation
into the Aztec empire. Careful excavation using the Harris Matrix System should reveal evidence of site
destruction, rapid abandonment, and a hiatus in occupation, if ethnohistoric statements are accurate. The
contextual analysis of architecture and artifact distributions, complemented by multi-element soil
chemical analysis and microartifact analysis, will facilitate the reconstruction of the spatial patterning of
daily practices before and after incorporation into the Aztec state. This project will make a theoretical
contribution by 1) offering a long-term case study of commoner experiences of war and conquest, and 2)
considering bottom-up processes and household decisions at Xaltocan, such as the decisions to flee or to
rebuild, that contributed to the character of the Aztec empire.
Intellectual merits
This project builds upon previous research on households and the political economy in Aztec
Central Mexico (Berdan et al. 1996; Brumfiel 2005a; Evans 1988; Hodge and Smith 1994; Smith 1992b),
but critically shifts the frame of analysis to focus on commoner choices within a changing political
economy, rather than on top-down elite constraints on commoner life. By tracing the residues of
commoner household spatial practices at Xaltocan, this project will shed light on a place in political and
economic transition. It will allow us to understand empires in a more comprehensive way that considers
the roles of all people in society. The proposed project has significance beyond Central Mexico because it
will broaden the literature of conquest and associated culture change that has to date focused primarily on
European colonialism (e.g. Deagan 1996; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Silliman 2001; Voss 2008).
The site of Xaltocan provides an ideal context in which to examine household spaces and
everyday practices under Aztec imperial expansion because of: 1) the presence of household deposits
dating to before and after Aztec imperial formation, unique within the Basin of Mexico and rare in all of
Central Mexico; 2) a rich ethnohistoric record that has been extensively studied (Hicks 1994, 2005); 3)
twenty years of archaeological research carried out by Brumfiel (Brumfiel 2005a, 2009), which has
defined the site’s occupational history; 4) extensive comparative data on temporal changes in productive
and ritual practices at the site level (e.g. Brumfiel 1991a, 1991b, 1996a, 1996b; Brumfiel and Overholtzer
2009; De Lucia 2009; Morehart 2009; Overholtzer 2008a, 2008b, 2009).
Broader impacts
Within Mexico a strong sense of pride rests on national heritage. The proposed project will create
knowledge of this heritage and distribute it in several contexts. At Xaltocan I will follow the excellent
example of community involvement set by Elizabeth Brumfiel by training residents in archaeological
methods, providing site tours to local schools, constructing an exhibit in the local museum, and
distributing research results through the local cultural center. More broadly, I will disseminate research
findings in the form of project reports to Mexico’s National Institute for Anthropology and History. I will
also distribute the dissertation and resulting publications to academic communities in Mexico.
In addition, the proposed project will promote teaching and learning internationally. It will
provide opportunities for two students from underrepresented groups—both female students, one Mexican
and one Mexican-American—to gain valuable field experience. Through the development of new multimedia curriculum materials and the dissemination of archaeological information via an internet website,
the proposed project will encourage learning in university classrooms and beyond.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
2
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This proposal outlines an archaeological research project that will study commoners’ lives under
imperial expansion, and will explore how inhabitants change their everyday household practices when
they are incorporated into an expanding empire. Funds are requested to support the analytical phase of the
project that will follow a field season consisting of six months of household excavations.
THEORETICAL UNDERPINNINGS:
Anthropologists have long been interested in empires, more specifically with abandonment and
displacement practices often associated with war and conquest, and with transformation and cultural
change in contexts of imperial formation and expansion. To date, most of this research has focused on
top-down processes, and the ways in which commoners were affected by war and conquest. Commoner
influences on such processes have remained unexplored. I argue that without understanding the active
roles of all people within society—including the ways in which commoner actions contribute to such
processes—we cannot fully understand the development and experience of war, conquest, and empire.
To examine the roles of commoners in these processes, my research draws upon a growing body
of anthropological archaeology literature on household dynamics, everyday life, and social practices.
Much of this work (Ashmore 2002; Dobres and Robb 2000; Hendon 1996; Robin 2002) has utilized
practice theory, which posits that people in the past were social agents who had goals and intentions, but
who lived in a social and historical context only partly of their own making (Bourdieu 1977; de Certeau
1984; Giddens 1984). In this view, the constrained practices of social agents construct society, and the
sequences of their practices structure the actions of later agents. As these actions become chains of
repeated practices over time, they constitute what we recognize as traditions (Joyce and Lopiparo 2005).
Given that all practices are spatial, researchers have begun to explore the continuous construction of place
as people build, rebuild, and experience the world around them (Pred 1984). Practice and space/place
theories and their emphasis on an “historical examination of repeated practices” are particularly amenable
to archaeological research since repeated practices are those that are inscribed in the archaeological record
(Joyce and Lopiparo 2005:370). Still, practice theory and its concept of agency has been criticized for
being ill-defined, abstract, and purely theoretical (see Dobres and Robb 2000:3-4; Silliman 2001:192). By
scientifically tracing the residues of agentive practice in the archaeological record, the proposed project
will provide material data that will shed light on abstract discussions of agency and practice.
I view agency as the ability to make choices and do things; in any decision carried out, the person
could have acted differently (Giddens 1984:9). Giddens suggests that any action may also have
unintended consequences that will structure future actions (1984:9-11; see Joyce 2004). Thus, the
practices of commoners, and their intended and unintended effects, have structural consequences. This
approach gives new meaning to the decisions commoners made in a given context, since all people,
including commoners, have agency or the ability to act, and their actions create the structural conditions
under which other future actors, including elites, live. Practice and space/place theories are well suited to
examine changes in practice that result from war or conquest, since war and conquest may lead to
dramatic changes in peoples’ lives (Deagan 1996; Lightfoot et al. 1998; Stahl 1994; Voss 2005, 2008).
Silliman (2001) demonstrates the productivity of exploring changes in daily practice in culture-contact or
conquest situations as people react to a rupture that can take place in doxa, the taken-for-granted
understandings of the political and cosmological order (Bourdieu 1977). Similarly, Dawdy (2006) argues
that disasters such as warfare can result in either continuity or upheaval; the ways in which people
re(form) a place after a disaster is revelatory about the disaster, its consequences, and the community
before the disaster. My research will use analytical techniques such as soil chemical and microartifact
analyses to reconstruct the household decisions made in times of war and conquest at Xaltocan.
BACKGROUND TO THE SITE OF XALTOCAN:
Xaltocan is located on a human-made island in the northern Basin of Mexico in what was
formerly a shallow, brackish lake (Lake Xaltocan) (Figure 1). Xaltocan is an ideal site to examine postconquest changes in household uses of space because it is one of the few sites in Central Mexico with
intact domestic architecture immediately preceding and following the development of the Aztec state. The
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
3
site has been mapped and surveyed (Figures 2-3). A site chronology has been established via a test-pitting
program directed by my advisor, Elizabeth Brumfiel (Figure 4) (2005b). However, household excavations
carried out by Brumfiel and her students have focused on earlier pre-Aztec periods that were not well
understood. While we now have a more complete understanding of the early period of Xaltocan’s political
autonomy, the periods preceding and following incorporation into the Aztec empire have not yet been
systematically examined. By studying daily life during these critical transitional periods, the proposed
project will not only advance our understandings of the site’s occupational history, but will also provide a
cross-culturally relevant case study of household change with conquest and imperial domination.
According to ethnohistoric documents, Xaltocan was founded in the 11th century CE by Otomí
speakers and served as the capital of the Otomí city-state, controlling a domain that included 49 towns
and an additional 24 with tribute fields (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975-77 I:293, 423; Nazareo 1940; see
Carrasco 1950). After a war lasting from 1250 to 1395, Xaltocan was conquered by an alliance between
Cuauhtitlan and Azcapotzalco, and according to the documents, was abandoned by its inhabitants, who
fled to Metztitlan, Tlaxcala, and Otumba (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1992:60-61, 75; Alva Ixlilxóchitl 197577 II:36). Members of an enemy army reported seeing a squadron of Xaltocan warriors fleeing after
losing the war, escorting “many wretched people”, including women, children, and elderly people, in the
center (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975-77 II:36). This account implies a tense, rapid abandonment of the site. In
1428, Xaltocan was incorporated into the newly formed Aztec Triple Alliance, commonly called the
Aztec empire, and in 1435 was repopulated with tribute payers sent by the state, described as being
Acolman, Colhua, Tenochca, and Otomí peoples (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1992:104; Hicks 1994). Thus,
Xaltocan shifted from being the capital of a powerful city-state to belonging to an expansive imperial
system where power was located and priorities were set outside the community. The archaeological
chronology of the site identified by Brumfiel has correlated archaeological phases based on ceramic
typology and radiocarbon dates with this ethnohistoric chronology (Figure 5). The period of warfare
corresponds to Phase 3. During this period, dating to roughly 1300-1400, residents used Aztec II Blackon-Orange ceramics. Phase 4, dating to approximately 1400-1519, represents the re-occupation of the site
until the Spanish conquest. During Phase 4 residents used Aztec III and IV Black-on-Orange ceramics.
The abandonment of Xaltocan could have resulted from a profound rupture in the inhabitants’
world due to war and conquest. Residents likely took for granted that Xaltocan was a powerful, tributereceiving polity. Their continued residence in Xaltocan reflects this confidence. However, with each lost
battle and the movement of the polity boundaries closer to its capital (Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1992:59-61),
residents were faced with a now inevitable alternative reality—first, the likely burning and looting of their
homes and temples (Hassig 1988), and second, living in a subjugated, tribute-paying peripheral town. In
this context, residents may have decided to flee. However, site survey data have cast doubt on a complete
population replacement, and suggest that the abandonment cited in the texts may refer only to elites, with
most residents staying and re-building under Aztec rule (Chimonas 2005; Hicks 1994). The proposed
project will clarify this transition using archaeological evidence of commoner residence at Xaltocan.
PREVIOUS RESEARCH ON AZTEC PERIOD HOUSEHOLDS:
The proposed research will build upon ethnohistoric and archaeological studies of households in
Postclassic Central Mexico. The Florentine Codex, a colonial encyclopedia of native life, features
illustrations and descriptions of 23 types of houses, including possible regional variants (Sahagún 195082, Bk.11). Ethnohistoric studies suggest that the nuclear family was the basic organizational structure;
families lived in nuclear or joint households (Calnek 1972, 1976; Harvey 1986; Kellogg 1986a, 1986b,
1992; Lockhart 1992; McCaa 2003). In joint houses, rooms were grouped around an open patio and used
by a married couple for sleeping and some work activities, and as storage rooms or kitchens (Aguilera
1985; Evans 1992). Many activities would have taken place in the patio (Lombardo de Ruiz 1973;
Margain 1971). Rooms were added or demolished as needed. Excavations of houses have generally
confirmed the regional variability in architectural patterns seen in historical sources. Aztec-period
household excavations have been carried out in the Basin of Mexico at Cihuatecpan (Evans 1988, 1991,
2005), Cerro Gordo (Charlton 2001), Xochimilco (Ávila López 1995; González 1996), and Mexicaltzingo
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
4
(Ávila López 2006); in Morelos at Yautepec, Capilco, and Cuexcomate (Smith 1992a, 1992b; Smith et al.
1999); and in the Tehuacan Valley (Sisson 1973). The excavations in the Basin of Mexico and the
Tehuacan Valley have confirmed the predominance of the extended family multi-roomed house, while
those in Morelos have shown nuclear, single-roomed households to be the norm. All of these houses have
stone foundations and walls of adobe or stone, in contrast with Xaltocan’s pre-Aztec clay foundations.
These studies have also indicated that material culture was fairly consistent throughout Postclassic
Central Mexico because of the extensive market system, though Brumfiel (1994) identified lip plugs as a
possible Otomí ethnic diacritic in pre-Aztec Xaltocan. Only the Morelos studies have examined houses
from before and after Aztec imperial formation; the proposed project will provide the first such
comparison within the Basin of Mexico, and the first comparison with a purported population shift.
I will also expand upon archaeological research on the political and economic processes
associated with the formation of the Aztec empire (Berdan 1975; Berdan et al. 1996; Brumfiel 1980,
1983, 1986, 1987, 1991a, 1991b, 1996a, 1996b; Charlton et al. 1991; Garraty 2006; Hare 2001; Hassig
1985, 1988; Hicks 2005; Hodge and Neff 2005; Hodge and Smith 1994; Minc 1994; Nichols et al. 2000,
2002; Otis Charlton et al. 1993; Smith 1979, 1986, 2003, 2008; Smith and Berdan 1992; Smith and
Montiel 2001). This research has sought to address the implications of imperial expansion for residents of
the region, and has shed light on topics such as the production and specialization of goods, market trade,
and tribute impositions. One of the central debates of this research has been the amount of state
intervention and the degree to which the state affected household life. Brumfiel (1986, 1987, 1991a,
1991b) has argued that Aztec tribute demands resulted in a dramatic restructuring of production with an
increased burden on women. While acknowledging the effects of tribute exaction, Smith (1992b, 2003)
has argued that under Aztec rule commoners benefited from increased commercialization of an economy
in which productive activities such as crafts, farming, and exchange were not under elite control.
This research helps us understand how household activities might have been affected for residents
who chose to rebuild Xaltocan. However, by asking how the Aztec empire affected daily life, scholars
have focused on top-down regional-level processes. As a consequence, the choices that commoners had
and the decisions they made have been de-emphasized. By reframing the question to ask how commoners
altered daily practices within their changing social contexts—while taking into account the real structural
forces that accompanied imperial expansion—my research pays attention to the lives of all social actors.
It will explore the ways in which commoners both responded to political economic shifts and actively
shaped the nature of the Aztec empire. For example, residents of Xaltocan could have fled or stayed after
losing the war, and the choice they made changed the composition of the provinces, creating the structural
conditions under which the Aztec ruler decided how to integrate and govern the newly-conquered polity.
As Durán (1994:344-5) indicates, if the site was abandoned, the ruler would need to strategically plan the
city’s resettling so that this costly endeavor did not weaken the state. By tracing the actions Xaltocan’s
inhabitants took when they were conquered, and by acknowledging the structural conditions those actions
created, my research will provide new insight into the Aztec empire.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND HYPOTHESES:
This project will explore how Xaltocan changed with incorporation into the Aztec empire. It
will do so by exploring the following two questions:
Question 1. Was the disaster of losing the war so great as to lead to abandonment, or did residents
re-build? From this question, I have proposed two hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1: Xaltocan was completely abandoned and re-settled, as described in
the ethnohistoric documents.
Hypothesis 2: At least some of Xaltocan’s residents decided to stay after being
conquered, suggesting that ethnohistoric accounts refer only to elites.
Scholars studying abandonment in Mesoamerica have shown that abandonment practices vary by
socioeconomic status (Inomata 2003; Palka 1997, 2003). Central Mexican ethnohistoric accounts
sometimes specify whether the nobility and/or commoners fled, or state the percentage of the population
that remained (Chimalpahin 1998 Vol. 1:265, Vol. II:129; Anales de Cuauhtitlan 1992: 59-61, 67, 71).
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
5
Ethnohistoric documents about Xaltocan imply a complete abandonment. However, the elite authors of
these accounts, some of whom were from Cuauhtitlan, may have stood to gain from propaganda that
overemphasized the town’s defeat and destruction. If the ethnohistoric account of complete abandonment
is accurate, I would expect to find corroborating archaeological evidence from Phase 3 houses. First,
careful stratigraphic excavations using the Harris Matrix System should reveal evidence of a hiatus in the
site’s occupation. Such an interruption might be indicated by layers of sediment deposition without
evidence of occupation, or by an abrupt transition or discontinuity between construction stages
characterized by Phase 3 or 4 ceramics. Second, excavations should reveal evidence of the site’s rushed
abandonment. In contexts of rapid abandonment, inhabitants leave behind greater amounts of de facto
refuse, or still usable cultural materials (Stevenson 1982:241). Other factors that influence decisions
regarding which objects to take include the cultural meanings and symbolic values of the items, means of
transport, distance to the new settlement, and artifact size, weight, and cost (Inomata and Webb 2003:7;
Schiffer 1987:90-91). Given the speed with which residents of Xaltocan fled, the lack of draft animals,
and the long, partly overland journey to Metztitlan, Otumba, and Tlaxcala, it is likely that many items
(especially large and less valuable ones) were left behind. If the ethnohistoric accounts are accurate, we
should find higher quantities of de facto refuse in Phase 3 houses. Third, excavations of Phase 3 houses
might reveal a burned stratum resulting from the site’s conquest, and perhaps cultural materials trapped
on the floors when houses burned and roofs collapsed, as at Epiclassic Xochicalco (Hirth 2009).
Addressing Question 1 is crucial to understanding Xaltocan’s transition with its integration into
the Aztec empire. The changes in life at Xaltocan suggested by preliminary evidence from survey, test
pits, and chinampa excavations could be due to either the arrival of new settlers from elsewhere or to
decisions made by households rebuilding within the new political and economic context. Testing the
population replacement will permit a fuller interpretation of changes in household spatial practices.
Question 2. How was Xaltocan (re)formed through the everyday spatial practices of individual
households, composed of either previous inhabitants or new settlers? Given changes in the sociopolitical and economic context between Phases 3 and 4, I have proposed the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1: There were dramatic changes in household practices and use of space.
Hypothesis 2: No significant changes occurred in household spatial practices.
Hypothesis 1) Previous archaeological work has identified several changes in practices at
Xaltocan at the site level. Based on previous research and the distribution of stone on the surface, it is
likely that Phase 4 houses had adobe walls and stone foundations. Phase 3 construction techniques are
unknown, but houses from Phases 1 and 2 are constructed of adobe bricks with clay foundations (Espejel
2005). Test pit data at Xaltocan suggest a decreased reliance on water fowl hunting and salt-making and
an increased reliance on turkey in Phase 4 (Brumfiel 2005c). Recent excavations in the chinampas or
raised fields in Xaltocan yielded ceramics dating through Phase 3, but almost none from Phase 4
(Morehart 2009). All of these data provisionally support Hypothesis 1. However, no houses from Phases
3 or 4 have been excavated at Xaltocan. Consequently, we cannot understand how individual households
might have experienced conquest and incorporation. Archaeological evidence from Phase 3 and 4 houses
is needed to examine changes at the household level, and the population replacement account must be
tested before these changes can be interpreted. Based on whether the population replacement account is
confirmed or rejected, I have formed two test implications for this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1a) If the population replacement is confirmed, and changes are seen in
household spatial practices, this would suggest that the new settlers had a different history of
practices structuring their daily lives—they had different traditions, values, worldviews, cultural
logics (Hutson and Stanton 2007), or habitus (Bourdieu 1977). They had learned and lived a
different configuration of spatial practices (de Certeau 1984). If household excavations confirm the
adoption of stone, a material likely procured from a location farther away than nearby clay sources, in
domestic architecture in Phase 4, this would suggest that new settlers had distinct architectural traditions.
If faunal and ceramic data from household excavations confirm the shift in dietary practices seen in test
pit data—relying less on water fowl hunting and salt-making and more on turkey—this would imply that
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
6
residents had different culinary preferences and did not take advantage of their lacustrine setting to the
same extent as earlier inhabitants. The chinampas may not have been used during Phase 4 because the
new settlers were not familiar with chinampa agriculture. Additionally, I expect to see other changes in
the household data that would confirm Hypothesis 1a. Changes in the placement and orientation of burials
and ritual offerings underneath house floors might indicate the presence of new residents with distinct
ritual traditions. Changes in the spatial configuration of architecture might indicate that residents came
from areas with distinct architectural traditions. Changes in patterns of trash disposal might suggest that
new residents had different cultural logics (Hutson and Stanton 2007). I also expect changes in the use of
space for production and consumption activities as seen through soil chemical and microartifact analyses.
These analytical techniques will indicate the spatial patterning of activity, such as storage, food
preparation, cooking, eating, sleeping, shell working, and obsidian tool production. Changes in these
patterns, for example, in the presence or absence of segregation of activities into different rooms, or in
centralization or decentralization of food preparation or other activities within the joint house compound,
might indicate that residents had learned a different configuration of space while growing up.
Hypothesis 1b) If the population replacement is refuted, and changes are seen in household
spatial practices, this would suggest that existing residents made choices to change their domestic
practices in order to “get on” in their new political-economic context. Residents of Xaltocan newly
integrated into the Aztec empire might have become more familiar with other architectural traditions, and
may have incorporated stone into their houses, perhaps in a form of emulation of urban Tenochtitlan
residences. A shift in subsistence practices, if seen in the ceramic and faunal data from excavations,
would suggest that residents chose to alter their productive activities in their new context. They likely
moved away from the exploitation of lacustrine and forest resources through hunting and salt-making, and
towards more economically autonomous activities such as turkey-raising (Brumfiel 2005c). Households
might have had a different pattern of practices in the chinampas during Phase 4, or they might have
abandoned those agricultural fields upon their incorporation into the Aztec state. This might have resulted
from a break in the social relationships that had sustained such a labor-intensive activity or from an
intensification of other practices, such as the weaving of cloth, to meet tribute demands. I expect to see
other changes in the spatial patterning of daily life that would result from families altering their
productive activities or the division of household labor in order to meet tribute demands and ensure
functionality in times of stress. Such changes have been documented on the site level in the Late
Postclassic (Brumfiel 1991a), and on the household level in the colonial period in Morelos (Cabrera
1998). Changes might include forming larger households with more nuclear families, as indicated by
changes in house plans, in order to ensure the success of the household when men and women were
removed from the household to fulfill labor taxes of the state. A shift in the spatial patterning of
production and consumption activities, as seen through soil chemical and microartifact analyses, might
indicate that household labor was being divided differently, perhaps more communally, under Aztec rule.
Perhaps some activities such as cooking moved from the nuclear to the extended family level. I expect to
also see intensification of some forms of production, perhaps the salting of fish, working of shell, or
weaving of cloth, as residents labored to produce tribute or produce market commodities. This would be
evident archaeologically through an increase in the quantities of these artifacts and microartifacts.
Hypothesis 2) Archaeological work at the site has also identified numerous continuities in
practice, most notably in material culture. Aztec Black-on-Orange ceramics and redwares are present in
similar frequencies in both Phases 3 and 4. Jars, comals, and flat-backed figurines are similar in form in
both phases. In addition, botanical data from test pits shows no significant difference in plant usage
between Phases 3 and 4. All of these data provisionally support Hypothesis 2. Based on the confirmation
or rejection of the population replacement, I have formed two test implications for this hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a) If the population replacement is confirmed, and no significant changes are
seen in household spatial practices, this would suggest that the new settlers did not have distinct
traditions and household practices from those of the previous residents. If archaeological excavations
of households from Phases 3 and 4 reveal continuities in ceramic types, figurine types, agricultural and
hunting strategies, and tool use, this would suggest that the new settlers might have been relocated from a
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
7
site with similar norms, cultural logics, and configurations of household space. I would also expect to see
continuities in household architecture, for example, in the spatial configuration of rooms within the house
and of the spatial patterning of activities within those rooms. I might also see similar spatial patterns of
household ritual, such as ritual offerings or burials. Other continuities might be seen in production and
consumption practices, evidenced by no significant changes in artifact and microartifact counts.
Hypothesis 2b) If the population replacement is refuted, and no significant changes are seen
in household spatial practices, this would suggest that residents chose and were able to re-construct
household life following pre-conquest norms. If excavations suggest that the native inhabitants rebuilt
their homes after being conquered, and reveal continuities similar to those seen in survey and test pit
data—in ceramics, obsidian tools, and agricultural and hunting strategies—this would suggest that
residents chose not to change their practices when they were incorporated into the Aztec empire and were
introduced into a new political economy. In addition to those continuities seen in previous data, I would
expect continuities in household architectural patterns and construction methods, and in the use of space
for activities. I might also see similar forms and comparable intensity of production and consumption
activities, such as the salting of fish or shell working, as indicated by artifact and microartifact
frequencies. Finally, continuities might be seen in ritual practices such as offerings and burials.
METHODS:
To test these hypotheses requires the collection of archaeological data that would indicate a
resettlement or population continuity, archaeological data on the spatial organization of domestic
architecture and activity areas, and artifactual data on production, consumption, and ritual activities. In
order to collect these data, I propose broad-scale horizontal excavations of two low house mounds on the
eastern edge of the site, called Structures 122 and 124 in Brumfiel’s 1987 survey (Figures 6-9). These
structures were chosen because they are the best preserved mounds with indications of Phase 3 and 4
occupation. Structure 122 is a low lying 0.7 meter high oblong mound measuring 39 by 12 meters.
Structure 124 is a low lying 1-meter high oval mound measuring 38 by 30 meters. The surfaces of both
mounds contain stone, a material that does not naturally occur on this human-made island, and had to be
brought in for construction. Surface collections on both mounds included Phase 3 (Aztec II) and Phase 4
(Aztec III and IV) ceramics (Brumfiel 2005a). Operation K, a test pit placed on Structure 124, revealed
Phase 4 household deposits from the surface to 60 cm, and Phase 3 household deposits from 60 to 120 cm
before reaching the lakebed (Brumfiel 2005a). Based on the survey, test pits, and presence of stone on the
surface, it is probable that these mounds contain Phase 3 and 4 domestic architecture. Based on the size of
the mounds, each mound likely contains two multi-roomed houses, one dating to Phase 4 constructed on
top of one dating to Phase 3, or one multi-roomed house, occupied and renovated during both phases.
Excavation of these houses will provide necessary detailed data from broad excavation contexts,
data that will allow the reconstruction of the decisions made by people from several households in times
of transition at Xaltocan. These data can then be compared with site-wide evidence for changes with state
formation from the extensive survey and test-pitting programs carried out by Brumfiel, and will provide a
contextual dimension to the representative data from those earlier stages of research. The proposed
household excavations will also provide a methodological model for future excavations at the site.
In October 2009, the mounds and surrounding area will be topographically mapped with a total
station on a finer scale than previous site-wide projects, and geophysical remote sensing will be used to
identify buried architectural features such as walls as part of a collaborative project with Luis Barba of the
National Autonomous University of Mexico. This work will include non-intrusive geophysical techniques
such as magnetometry and resistivity. Since the excavation of the two mounds will likely be partial due to
time and budget constraints, this collaborative project will provide crucial data for the placement of
excavation units to make excavations more efficient and maximize architectural exposure.
Horizontal Excavations of Houses: During a six-month field season, I will carry out complete, horizontal
excavations of houses and associated middens dating to Phases 3 and 4. Three teams of three local
workers will begin excavating 2x2m units that will be placed where remote sensing and/or the presence of
stones on the mound surface suggests that buried house walls are located. Once architectural features are
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
8
encountered, additional 2x2m units will be placed in order to excavate the structure horizontally. Based
on previous projects at Xaltocan, I estimate that I will excavate 500 cubic meters of soil. At the depth of
1.2 meters indicated in Operation K, this amounts to 200 square meters, or a 14x14m area, per mound.
Given that houses in the Basin of Mexico range from 50 to 100 square meters in size, the proposed
excavations will completely uncover the domestic architecture likely contained in the area—one house
rebuilt over time or two stratigraphically superimposed houses per mound, for a total of 2-4 houses.
Excavation in 2x2 meter units allows for greater horizontal control of non in-situ artifacts, such as
those in fill contexts, over a large horizontal area. All in-situ artifacts will be mapped in three-dimensional
space. Architectural features will be documented, mapped, and consolidated. All units will be excavated
to the sterile lakebed. Units will be excavated in natural and cultural levels. Thick deposits will be
subdivided and excavated in 10 cm levels. The Harris Matrix system, a diagramming tool that depicts the
relative position and stratigraphic contacts of excavated contexts, will be used during excavations to
ensure stratigraphic control. Features will be excavated as separate units. All soil will be screened through
¼” mesh screens. Paleoethnobotanical material will be collected in the form of macrobotanical remains
when encountered and soil flotation samples collected from all excavated contexts.
Excavation units will be directed with the assistance of Victoria Menchaca and Georgina Ibarra
Arzave. Ms. Menchaca, a Mexican-American young woman, recently graduated with a bachelor’s degree
in anthropology from the University of Texas, Austin with several field seasons of field experience in
Mesoamerica. She plans to attend graduate school in anthropology. Ms. Ibarra, a Mexican young woman,
recently graduated from the National School for Anthropology and History with a bachelor’s degree, has
directed excavations of an Aztec palace in Mexico City. She also plans to continue as an archaeologist.
Digital photographs and video will be taken during excavation and analysis to document the
archaeological process. The use of video in this project is designed to fulfill several broader impact goals.
In its inclusion in university courses and placement on a project website under development, video will
bring students and online viewers into the process of discovery in archaeology, thereby educating students
and the general public regarding the realities of archaeological research. I have already taken several steps
towards fulfilling these goals, including participation in a month-long “Teaching, Learning, and
Technology” seminar at Northwestern in which participants innovate their teaching by creating
curriculum materials that incorporate technology. I have purchased the videocamera with university
funding, and have taken footage of two field seasons of other archaeological projects in Central Mexico.
Laboratory Analysis: Tight chronological control over the excavated deposits is key to understanding the
historical sequence and the social context in which residents of Xaltocan acted and reacted to Aztec
imperial policies, and thereby to interpreting the archaeological evidence recovered through excavations.
Within the Basin of Mexico, Postclassic chronologies have remained relatively unchanged since the
settlement pattern research of Sanders et al. (1979). Sanders created 200-year ceramic phases in order to
address questions of long-term change. However, as Smith (Smith and Doershuk 1991; Hare and Smith
1996) has argued, those chronologies are inadequate for many questions of interest, such as the impact of
Aztec imperialism, because of the short temporal span of the associated periods.
Conventional methods of interpreting calibrated radiocarbon dates often produce imprecise
chronologies with date ranges spanning over a century. However, a robust method of constraining this
imprecision has recently been developed (Buck et al. 1996): “The Bayesian approach is a way of
combining archaeological knowledge – of context, stratigraphy, and sample character – with explicit,
probabilistic, modeling of date estimates, which, other things being equal, can result in much finer
chronologies” (Whittle and Bayliss 2007:22). This method is routinely used within the United Kingdom
(Bayliss and Bronk Ramsey 2004; Bayliss et al. 2007a, 2007b; Meadows et al. 2007; Whittle et al. 2007;),
and has recently been applied to Classic period Central Mexico (Beramendi-Orosco et al. 2009). Alasdair
Whittle and Alex Bayliss have demonstrated that it is possible using Bayesian modeling to provide a date
estimate on the scale of half centuries and sometimes single decades (Whittle and Bayliss 2007).
The proposed project will use Bayesian statistical modeling to date the occupation periods of the
houses excavated, providing a more refined and precise chronology of occupation in the Middle and Late
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
9
Postclassic periods at Xaltocan. Twenty radiocarbon samples will be selected from features, sealed
deposits, and stratified middens associated with the excavated houses and analyzed by AMS at the
University of Arizona. Several samples that predate house construction and several samples dating to
each occupation period of each house will be selected in order to provide an internal relative chronology.
OxCal software will be used for calibration and to create models and percentage probabilities.
All excavated materials will be processed in a museum annex laboratory space in Xaltocan. Two
local residents will assist in the washing and organizing of artifacts. Analysis of ceramics and lithics will
be carried out in late afternoons as excavations proceed, and will continue full-time for an additional six
months. Ceramics and lithics will be analyzed by the principal investigator in the museum annex
laboratory space with the assistance of Juana Arenas, a local resident who is trained and has previously
assisted Brumfiel with analysis. All other analyses will be performed after excavations have ended.
Botanical and faunal remains will be analyzed at UNAM under the supervision of Dr. Emily McClung
and Dr. Raúl Valadéz Azúa, respectively. Shell will be analyzed by Dr. Adrián Velázquez Castro of the
Templo Mayor Museum. After analysis, all materials will be stored in the museum annex storage facility.
Artifacts in refuse deposits and those lying directly on floors will be interpreted according to their
association with the occupational history of the house. Analysis of these artifacts will shed light on the
production, consumption, and ritual practices of the particular household. Artifacts in fill and other
deposits that cannot be securely associated with the excavated house will indicate the practices of
households across the surrounding neighborhood during the period to which the deposits date.
Because people in ancient Mesoamerica kept their floors clean through regular sweeping and took
some of their belongings with them when they abandoned the house, few in-situ macroartifacts remain in
houses we excavate. Michael Schiffer and others have demonstrated that remaining artifact distributions
may not accurately reflect in-situ activities or the intensity of household practices due to these routine
sweeping and post-depositional processes (Deal 1985; Manzanilla and Barba 1996; Schiffer 1972, 1976;
Seymour and Schiffer 1987). Excavations in Morelos have confirmed the lack of intact in situ refuse
deposits in Aztec period houses (Smith 2002:98). This makes the interpretation of changes in daily
activities over time difficult. However, such processes do not affect microresidues—chemical and
artifactual—and thus, microanalyses provide evidence for practices that are no longer visible in the
macroarchaeological record, but which are crucial for reconstructing the spatial configuration of domestic
life. To date no archaeological studies of in situ Aztec household activities using microanalyses have been
realized, nor have any Aztec houses that were rapidly abandoned and therefore had more complete artifact
assemblages been excavated. Thus, ethnohistoric sources, often elite- and capital-centric, provide our
primary line of evidence regarding the spatial patterning of daily life. Unfortunately, these sources do not
provide detailed information on the spatial location of household practices. The proposed research will
contribute the first archaeological evidence of this patterning. Excavations at the Epiclassic Central
Mexican site of Xochicalco, where nearly complete artifact assemblages were found on house floors
because of warfare and rapid abandonment, revealed interesting patterns of both corporate and nuclear
family behavior, including shared water and cooking, but family-level corn grinding. While Phase 3
houses at Xaltocan may possibly have large amounts of in situ domestic goods, Phase 4 houses likely will
not. Microanalyses will enable me to acquire comparable information for both Phases 3 and 4 on the
distributions of household practices, information similar to that recovered at Xochiclco. Specifically, I
will employ multi-element soil chemical and microartifact analyses of samples from floors to identify
otherwise invisible in situ activity patterns. These two analyses are complementary, since they provide
two distinct lines of evidence resulting from different formation processes. When used in combination
with macroartifact analyses, these two analytical techniques offer a robust method of determining past
activity areas. In addition, microartifact analysis informs us of the intensity of activity, for example, of
stone tool production or shell working, through the quantification of the microdebris imbedded in floors.
Microartifacts, or artifacts less than ¼” in size, are not removed by sweeping and become
imbedded in soft floor sediments, such as earth, clay, or plaster, with trampling (Gifford 1978; O'Connell
1987; Schiffer 1983). Microartifact remains such as obsidian microflakes or shell production debitage
would have been missed when ancient people swept their floors, and thus provide in-situ evidence that is
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
10
missing from the macroartifact assemblage. Microartifact analyses have been successfully used
worldwide for several decades to trace patterns of many activities, including burning, cooking, shell
working, stone tool production, and storage (Metcalfe and Heath 1990; Middleton 1998; Miller-Rosen
1989; Rainville 2000; Sherwood et al. 1995; Simms and Heath 1990; Stahl and Zeidler 1990; Widmer
1991). Microartifacts will be recovered from the heavy fraction of seven-liter soil flotation samples taken
at two-meter intervals across floor surfaces. Additional “spot” microartifact samples will be collected
from features as needed based on the type and scale of the feature. Microartifact samples will be
processed in the field using bucket flotation, and heavy fraction samples will be brought to Northwestern
University for analysis. Using a stereomicroscope at high magnification (30X), the samples will be
examined and microartifacts (including ceramics, bone, shell, obsidian, chert, etc.) will be classified and
sorted by size and material, then counted and weighed. Analyzed spatially, the counts and weights of each
microartifact type will allow the inference of activity areas and the intensity of those activities.
Some practices, such as pigment preparation and some food processing activities, do not leave
behind micromaterial remains that would be evident through microartifact analysis. Fortunately, these
practices (and many of those that do leave behind microartifacts) leave behind chemical signatures that
are evident through soil chemical analysis. Activities such as food production and burning that are
performed in one place over long periods of time leave residues that penetrate into the soil or floor surface
and become trapped or fixed, altering the chemical composition of the soil matrix. Soil chemical analysis
is used to measure these chemical changes in the soil composition, and when analyzed in terms of spatial
distributions, allows the delimination of activity areas. I will use ICP-AES (Inductively Coupled PlasmaAtomic Emission Spectrometry), a technique that has been utilized with great success in Mesoamerica
(Hutson and Terry 2006; Middleton 1998; Parnell and Terry 2002; Terry et al. 2004; Wells et al. 2000).
Four-ounce soil samples will be taken of each floor at 50-cm intervals and compared to off-site samples.
Additional “spot” chemical samples will be taken from features as needed based on the type and scale of
the feature. Samples will be analyzed at the University of Wisconsin, Madison in order to determine
absolute levels of 12 elements (Al, Ba, Ca, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Na, P, Sr, Ti, and Zn). Chemical signatures of
various activities identified by ethnoarchaeological projects in Mexico (Barba and Ortiz 1992; Manzanilla
and Barba 1996; Middleton 1998; Middleton and Price 1996) will aid interpretation of the data. These
projects have demonstrated that activities such as wood-burning, preparation of nixtamal or masa,
maguey processing, animal butchering, preparation or use of pigments, walking, and sleeping each have
distinctive chemical signatures that are identifiable using the elements measured by ICP-AES.
All of these data (artifact, microartifact, and soil chemical) will be entered into a Geographic
Information System (GIS) for spatial analysis. In combination with point-proveniencing and macroartifact
analysis, the soil chemical and microartifact analyses will allow the reconstruction of the spatial
patterning and intensity of repeated practices in the household. A comparison of this patterning between
Phases 3 and 4 will indicate possible changes in the daily routines of household life at Xaltocan.
PRELIMINARY RESEARCH AND PREPARATIONS:
I have already taken several preliminary steps towards the proposed field season. In 2007, I
completed a brief survey of the area, confirming that the mounds have not been destroyed by modern
occupation and verifying the presence of ceramics from Phases 3 and 4 on the surface. I photographed the
area and took notes on the distributions of artifacts. I have also created a GIS that will be used to map the
excavated materials, and have entered the survey and test pit data to be used for comparative purposes.
I have also taken many logistical preparations for my work in Xaltocan. I have obtained
excavation permission from the property owner and local municipal organization. I have a working
relationship with many residents with substantial archaeological experience who have expressed interest
in participating in the project. The local museum director and I are planning a community event to present
my previous research and promote community involvement in the project. I have established an affiliation
with the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and with Luis Barba, the director of the
Laboratory for Archaeological Prospection at UNAM. Dr. Barba will coordinate the remote sensing study
and provide the necessary equipment. I have also secured funding for fieldwork from the Wenner-Gren
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
11
Foundation, National Geographic, Sigma Xi, and Northwestern University. My travel and living expenses
will be covered by a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship.
Three aspects of my graduate and undergraduate education have prepared me to carry out this
project. First, an undergraduate second major in Spanish and four field seasons working in Spanishspeaking countries with local crews have provided me with the language competence needed to carry out
my research in Mexico and make my results accessible to Spanish speakers. In addition, I have gained
technical skills from graduate courses such as archaeological methods laboratory, archaeometry, and GIS.
These courses have given me the skills necessary to perform the proposed ceramic, lithic, and
microartifact analyses, to interpret the soil chemical analysis data, and to interpret the radiocarbon data
using Bayesian statistical modeling. Second, I have participated in two field seasons of household
excavations and analysis at Xaltocan, and one season of mapping, site survey, and ceramic analysis at
Tlaxcala, Mexico. These field seasons have afforded me knowledge of Postclassic Central Mexican
material culture, and an understanding of the site-specific depositional processes and logistical realities of
research in Xaltocan. Third, I have benefited from the guidance of my advisor, who has worked at
Xaltocan for twenty years. Her mapping, surface survey, and test pit programs have laid the foundations
for my research, and she has assisted me in the process of designing my project.
The proposed study will build upon two research projects that I have completed at Xaltocan. In
2007, I conducted a study of the life histories of Xaltocan figurines (Overholtzer 2008a, 2008b, 2009). I
have also collaborated with my advisor on research at Xaltocan, completing a study of embodiment and
the use of figurines in 2006 (Brumfiel and Overholtzer 2009). Both of these projects examined temporal
patterns of household ritual practices, and they reflect my commitment to exploring how commoners
altered their household practices given changes in their social, political, and economic context.
SIGNIFICANCE:
This project will complement anthropological theories of imperial expansion by 1) offering a
long-term case study of commoner experiences of war and conquest; and 2) considering the choices
commoners had, the decisions they made, and the real bottom-up effects of those decisions on the state.
While studies of commoner life under Aztec rule have been undertaken using ethnohistoric
documents, commoners have long been neglected within Aztec archaeological studies in favor of
explorations of monumental architecture and sculpture. When commoners have been studied
archaeologically, it has been through a top-down perspective in which elites constrain and manipulate the
everyday practices of commoners by exacting tribute, conscripting men for military service, and requiring
women to weave. In contrast, the proposed project is founded on the working assumption that the daily
choices of commoners enabled, constrained, and impacted the decisions of rulers and elites. The proposed
project affords epistemological privilege to the activities of commoners, for it is those very activities that
sustained and continually reshaped the Aztec empire. The choices that residents of Xaltocan made when
they were conquered—whether to leave or to rebuild—and after their incorporation into the Aztec
empire—such as focusing on the production of food or cloth to sell in the market—changed the nature of
the polity. Thus, the proposed project’s focus on commoners has the potential to significantly change our
understanding of imperial development by providing a more complete view of Central Mexican society
during this process. It will reconstruct those everyday practices at Xaltocan through archaeological
methods. In addition, because this research provides a pre-Columbian conquest case study, it will broaden
the scope of conquest studies beyond European colonial contexts, potentially challenging current models.
The results of the proposed project will also be applicable to members of the local community in
Xaltocan and to the broader archaeological community in Mexico. The Mexican government has strongly
encouraged a sense of pride and interest in the country’s cultural heritage through the installation of local
cultural centers. In Xaltocan this pride and interest has been augmented over the past twenty years by the
inclusion of residents in archaeological projects. I will continue this tradition of community involvement
by giving site tours and lectures, curating museum exhibits, and by distributing research results written in
Spanish. I will also disseminate my dissertation and subsequent publications to Mexican colleagues, and
will present project results in the form of annual and final project reports to the Mexican government.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
Figure 1. Map of the Basin of Mexico
12
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
Figure 2. Site mapping. Circles indicate structures or mounds.
Figure 3. Systematic site survey.
13
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
Figure 4. Test pitting program. Also includes layout of modern streets.
Figure 5. Site chronology
14
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
Figure 6. Mounds and area proposed for study
15
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
Figure 7. Structure 122, mound proposed for study, looking northeast
Figure 8. Structure 124, mound proposed for study, looking east
Figure 9. Structures 122 (foreground) and 124 (background), looking south
16
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
17
Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant:
Household spaces and everyday practices at Xaltocan under Aztec imperial expansion
REFERENCES CITED
Aguilera, Carmen
1985 Mueble Prehispánico. In El Mueble Mexicano: Historia, Evolución e Influencias. Pp. 14-24.
Fomento Cultural Banamex, Mexico City.
Alva Ixtlilxóchitl, Fernando de
1975-77 Obras Históricas, 2 vol, edited by Edmund O’Gorman. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, México.
Anales de Cuauhtitlan
1992 History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chimalpopoca, translated by John Bierhorst.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Ashmore, Wendy
2002 ‘Decisions and dispositions’: Socializing spatial archaeology. American Anthropologist
104:1172-1183.
Ávila López, Raúl
1995 Excavaciones arqueológicas en San Gregorio Atlapulco, Xochimilco. Subdirección de
Salvamento Arqueológico, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
2006 Mexicaltzingo: Arqueología de un reino culhua-mexica. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia, Mexico City.
Barba, Luis and Agustín Ortiz
1992 Analisis Quimico de Pisos de Ocupacion: Un Caso Etnografico en Tlaxcala, Mexico. Latin
American Antiquity 3(1):63-82.
Bayliss, Alex and Christopher Bronk Ramsey
2004 Pragmatic Bayesians: a decade integrating radiocarbon dates into chronological models. In
Tools for Constructing Chronologies: Tools for Crossing Disciplinary Boundaries, edited by
Caitlin E. Buck and Andrew R. Millard, pp. 25-41. Springer, London.
Bayliss, Alex, Don Benson, Dawn Galer, Louise Humphrey, Lesley McFadyen, and Alasdair Whittle
2007a One Thing After Another: the Date of the Ascott-under-Wychwood Long Barrow. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 17(1):29-44.
Bayliss, Alex, Alasdair Whittle, and Michael Wysocki
2007b Talking About My Generation: the Date of the West Kennet Long Barrow. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 17(1):85-101.
Beramendi-Orosco, Laura E., Galia Gonzalez-Hernandez, Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Linda R.
Manzanilla, Ana M. Soler-Arechalde, Avto Goguitchaishvili, and Nick Jarboe
2009 High-resolution chronology for the Mesoamerican urban center of Teotihuacan derived from
Bayesian statistics of radiocarbon and archaeological data. Quaternary Research 71:99-107.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
18
Berdan, Frances
1975 Trade, Tribute and Market in the Aztec Empire. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of Texas Press, Austin.
Berdan, Frances, Richard Blanton, Elizabeth Hill Boone, Mary Hodge, Michael Smith, and Emily
Umberger
1996 Aztec Imperial Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.
Bourdieu, Pierre
1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
1980 Specialization, Market Exchange, and the Aztec State: A View from Huexotla. Current
Anthropology 21:459-78.
1983 Aztec State-Making: Ecology, Structure, and the Origin of the State. American Anthropologist
85:261-84.
1986 Consumption and Politics at Aztec Huexotla. American Anthropologist 89:676-686.
1987 Elite and Utilitarian Crafts in the Aztec State. In Specialization, Exchange, and Complex
Societies, edited by Elizabeth Brumfiel and Timothy K. Earle, pp. 102-118. Cambridge University
Press, New York.
1991a Weaving and Cooking: Women’s Production in Aztec Mexico. In Engendering Archaeology,
edited by Margaret Conkey and Joan Gero, pp. 224-255. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
1991b Tribute and Commerce in Imperial Cities: The Case of Xaltocan, Mexico. In Early State
Economics, edited by Henri J.M. Claessen and Pieter van de Velde, pp. 177-198. Political and
Legal Anthropology Series, Vol. 8. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ.
1994 Ethnic groups and political development in ancient Mexico. In Factional competition and
political development in the New World, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel and John W. Fox, pp. 89102. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
1996a Figurines and the Aztec State: Testing the Effectiveness of Ideological Domination. In Gender
in Archaeology, edited by Rita P. Wright, pp. 143-166. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia.
1996b The Quality of Tribute Cloth: The Place of Evidence in Archaeological Argument. American
Antiquity, 61(3):453-462.
2005a Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
2005b Ceramic Chronology at Xaltocan. In Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by
Elizabeth Brumfiel, pp. 117-152. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and University of
Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
2005c Conclusions: Production and Power at Xaltocan. In Production and Power at Postclassic
Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth Brumfiel, pp. 349-368. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
2009 Estrategias de las Unidades Domésticas en Xaltocan Posclásico, México. Final report submitted
to the National Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico City.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth M. and Lisa Overholtzer
2009 Alien Bodies, Everyday People, and Internal Spaces: Embodiment, Figurines and Social
Discourse in Postclassic Mexico. In Mesoamerican Figurines: Small-Scale Indexes of Large-Scale
Phenomena, edited by Christina T. Halperin, Katherine A. Faust, and Rhonda Taube. University
Press of Florida, Gainesville.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
19
Buck, Caitlin E., William G. Cavanaugh, and Clifford D. Litton
1996 Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaeological Data. Wiley, Chichester.
Cabrera, Oralia
1998 XVI Century Textile Tribute in Central Mexico: Colonial Census Data from Morelos. Paper
presented at the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle.
Calnek, Edward E.
1972 Settlement pattern and chinampa agriculture at Tenochtitlan. American Antiquity 37:104-115.
1976 Conjunto urbana y modelo residencial en Tenochtitlan. In Ensayos sobre el desarrollo urbano
de México, edited by Woodrow Borah, pp. 11-65. Secretaria de Educación Pública, Mexico City.
Carrasco, Pedro
1950 Los Otomies: Cultura e Historica Prehispánica de los Pueblos Mesoamericanos de Habla
Otomiana. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
Charlton, Thomas
2001 Excavation of Tlatel 15, T.A. 40. In The Teotihuacán Valley Project Final Report, Vol 5. The
Aztec Period Occupation of the Valley, edited by William T. Sanders and Susan T. Evans.
Occasional Papers in the Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University
Park.
Charlton, Thomas, Deborah L. Nichols, and Cynthia Otis Charlton.
1991 Aztec craft production and specialization archaeological evidence from the city-state of
Otumba, Mexico. World Archaeology 23:98-114.
Chimalpahin, Domingo
1998 Las Ocho Relaciones y el Memorial de Colhuacan, 2 vols. CONACULTA, Mexico City.
Chimonas, Susan
2005 Occupational History of Prehispanic Xaltocan. In Production and Power at Postclassic
Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth Brumfiel, pp. 169-194. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia
and University of Pittsburgh: Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
Dawdy, Shannon Lee
2006 The Taphonomy of Disaster and the (Re)Formation of New Orleans. American Anthropologist
108(4):719-730.
Deagan, Kathleen
1996 Colonial Transformation: Euro-American Cultural Genesis in the Early Spanish-American
Colonies. Journal of Anthropological Research 52(2):135-160.
Deal, Michael
1985 Household Pottery Dispersal in the Maya Highlands: An Ethnoarchaeological Intepretation.
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 4:243-291.
De Certeau, Michel
1984 The Practice of Everyday Life. University of California Press, Berkeley.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
20
De Lucia, Kristin
2009 Investigación de producción y consumo en unidades domésticas en Xaltocan, México, durante
el posclásico temprano. Report submitted to the National Institute of Anthropology and History,
Mexico City.
Dobres, Marcia-Anne and John Robb
2000 Agency in Archaeology. Routledge, London
Durán, Fray Diego
1994 The History of the Indies of New Spain. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Espejel, Claudia
2005 Domestic Structures in Xaltocan. In Production and Power in Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by
E.M. Brumfiel, pp. 255-266. INAH and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
Evans, Susan T.
1988 Excavations at Cihuatecpan, An Aztec Village in the Teotihuacán Valley, Vanderbilt University
Publications in Anthropology No. 36, Nashville.
1991 Architecture and Authority in an Aztec Village: Form and Function of the Tecpan. In Land and
Politics in the Valley of Mexico, edited by H. Harvey, pp. 291-319. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque.
1992 Aztec Household Organization and Village Administration. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in
Western Mesoamerica, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 173-189. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
2005 Men, Women, and Maguey: The Household Division of Labor Among Aztec Farmers. In
Settlement, Subsistence, and Social Complexity: Essays Honoring the Legacy of Jeffrey R. Parsons,
edited by Richard E. Blanton, pp. 198-228. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of
California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles.
Giddens, Anthony
1984 The Constitution of Society: Outline of a Theory of Structuration. University of California Press,
Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Garraty, Christopher P.
2006 The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and Exchange in the Basin of Mexico,
A.D. 1200-1650. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Gifford, Diane P.
1978 Behavioral Archaeology and Refuse Patterns: A Case Study. Norwegian Archaeological Review
11:118-131.
González, Carlos Javier
1996 Excavaciones arqueológicas en “El Japón”: sitio chinampero en Xochimilco. Arqueología
16:81-93.
Hare, Timothy
2001 Political Economy, Spatial Analysis, and Postclassic States in the Yautepec Valley, Mexico.
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York, Albany.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
21
Hare, Timothy S. and Michael E. Smith
1996 A New Postclassic Chronology for Yautepec, Morelos. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:281-297.
Harvey, Herbert R.
1986 Households and Family Structure in Early Colonial Tepetlaoztoc: An Analysis of the Codice de
Santa Maria Asuncion. Estudios de Cultural Nahuatl 18:275-294.
Hassig, Ross
1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth Century Political Economy of the Valley of
Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
1988 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Hendon, Julia A.
1996 Archaeological approaches to the organization of domestic labor: Household practice and
domestic relations. Annual Review of Anthropology 25:45-61.
Hicks, Frederic
1994 Xaltocan under Mexica Domination. In Caciques and their People: A Volume in Honor of
Ronald Spores, edited by Joyce Marcus and Judith Francis Zeitlin, pp. 67-85. Anthropological
Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, No. 89, Ann Arbor.
2005 Mexico, Acolhuacan, and the Rulership of Late Postclassic Xaltocan: Insights from an Early
Colonial Legal Case. In Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M.
Brumfiel, pp. 195-206. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and University of Pittsburgh,
Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
Hirth, Kenneth G.
2009 Household, Workshop, Guild, and Barrio: The Organization of Obsidian Craft Production in a
Prehispanic Urban Center. In Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization,
Hierarchy, and Ethnicity, edited by Linda R. Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine, pp. 43-65.
University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor.
Hodge, Mary G. and Hector Neff
2005 Xaltocan in the Economy of the Basin of Mexico: A View from Ceramic Tradewares. In
Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan, edited by Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, pp. 319-348.
Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and University of Pittsburgh, Mexico City and
Pittsburgh.
Hodge, Mary G. and Michael E. Smith, editors
1994 Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm. Studies on Culture and Society, Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York-Albany, Albany.
Hutson, Scott R. and Richard E. Terry
2006 Recovering social and cultural dynamics from plaster floors: chemical analyses at ancient
Chunchucmil, Yucatan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 33:391-404.
Hutson, Scott R. and Travis W. Stanton
2007 Cultural Logic and Practical Reason: the Structure of Discard in Ancient Maya Houselots.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(2):123-144.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
22
Inomata, Takeshi
2003 War, Destruction, and Abandonment: The Fall of the Classic Maya Center of Aguateca,
Guatemala. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited by T.
Inomata and R. Webb, pp. 43-60. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Inomata, Takeshi and Ronald W. Webb
2003 Archaeological Studies of Abandonment in Middle America. In The Archaeology of Settlement
Abandonment in Middle America, edited by T. Inomata and R. Webb, pp. 1-10. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Joyce, Rosemary A.
2004 Unintended consequences? Monumentality as a novel experience in Formative Mesoamerica.
Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 11:5-29.
Joyce, Rosemary A. and Jeanne Lopiparo
2005 PostScript: Doing Agency in Archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory
12(4):365-374.
Kellogg, Susan
1986a Kinship and social organization in Early Colonial Tenochtitlan. In Supplement to the
Handbook of Middle American Indians, edited by R. Spores, pp. 103-121. University of Texas
Press, Austin.
1986b Aztec inheritance in sixteenth-century Mexico City: Colonial patterns, Prehispanic influences.
Ethnohistory 33(3):313-330.
1992 The Social Organization of Households Among the Tenochca Mexica Before and After
Conquest. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, edited by Robert S. Santley
and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 207-224. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Lightfoot, Kent G., A. Martinez, and A.M. Schiff
1998 Daily Practice and Material Culture in Pluralistic Social Settings: An Archaeological Study of
Culture Change and Persistence from Fort Ross, California. American Antiquity 63(2):199-222.
Lockhart, James
1992 The Nahuas After the Conquest: A Social and Cultural History of the Indians of Central
Mexico, Sixteenth through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Lombardo de Ruiz, Sonia
1973 Desarrollo Urbano de Mexico-Tenochtitlan Según las Fuentes Históricas. SEPINAH, México.
Manzanilla, Linda and Luis Barba
1996 The Study of Activities in Ancient Mesoamerica: Two Case Studies from Coba and
Teotihuacan. Ancient Mesoamerica 1:41-49.
Margain, Carlos R.
1971 Pre-Columbian Architecture of Central Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians,
edited by Jeremy Sabloff, Vol. 1, pp. 198-243. University of Texas Press, Austin.
McCaa, Robert
2003 The Nahua calli of ancient Mexico: household, family, and gender. Continuity and Change
18(1):23-48.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
23
Meadows, John, Alistair Barclay, and Alex Bayliss
2007 A Short Passage of Time: the Dating of the Hazleton Long Cairn Revisited. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 17(1):45-64.
Metcalfe, Duncan and Kathleen M. Heath
1990 Microrefuse and Site Structure: The Hearths and Floors of the Heartbreak Hotel. American
Antiquity 55(4):781-796.
Middleton, William
1998 Craft Specialization at Ejutla, Oaxaca, Mexico: An Archaeometric Study of the Organization of
Household Craft Production. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Middleton, William and T. Douglas Price
1996 Identification of Activity Areas by Multi-Element Characterization of Sediments from Modern
and Archaeological House Floors Using Inductively Coupled Plasma Emission Spectroscopy.
Journal of Archaeological Science 23:673-687.
Miller-Rosen, Arlene
1989 Ancient Town and City Sites: A View from the Microscope. American Antiquity 54(3):564578.
Minc, Leah D.
1994 Political economy and market economy under Aztec rule. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, The
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Morehart, Christopher
2009 Chinampas of Xaltocan, Mexico: An Exploration of an Economic, Political, and Sacred
Landscape. Presentation given at the Midwest Mesoamericanists Meeting, University of Illinois at
Chicago, March 14, 2009.
Nazareo de Xaltocan, don Pablo
1940 Carta al rey don Felipe II. In Epistolario de Nueva España, edited by Francisco del Paso y
Troncoso, 10:109-29. Antigua Librería Robredo, Mexico City.
Nichols, Deborah L., Mary Jane McLaughlin, and Maura Benton
2000 Production Intensification and Regional Specialization: Maguey Fibers and Textiles in the
Aztec City-State of Otumba. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:267-292.
Nichols, Deborah L., Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, Hector Neff, Mary Hodge, Thomas H. Charlton, and
Michael D. Glascock
2002 Neutrons, Markets, Cities, and Empires: A 1000-Year Perspective on Ceramic Production and
Distribution in the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(1):2582.
O’Connell, James F.
1987 Alyawara Site Structure and its Archaeological Implications. American Antiquity 52:74-108.
Otis Charlton, Cynthia, Deborah L Nichols, and Thomas H. Charlton
1993 Aztec household-based craft production archaeological evidence from the city-state of Otumba,
Mexico. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, edited by Robert S. Santley and
Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 141-171. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
24
Overholtzer, Lisa
2008a Men and Women in the Household in Postclassic Central Mexico: Insight from Ceramic
Figurines at Xaltocan. Presentation given at the 107th Annual Meeting of the American
Anthropological Association in San Francisco, California, November 19-23, 2008.
2008b Trading Faces: INAA results from Ceramic Figurines from Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico.
Presentation given at the 73th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in
Vancouver, B.C., March 26-30, 2008.
2009 Molding Materiality and Producing Place: The Life Histories of Ceramic Figurines at
Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Presentation made at the Braunstein Figurine Conference in Las
Vegas, Nevada, January 16-17, 2009.
Palka, Joel
1997 Reconstructing Classic Maya Socioeconomic Differentiation and the Collapse at Dos Pilas,
Peten, Guatemala. Ancient Mesoamerica 8(2):293-306.
2003 Social Status and Differential Processes of Abandonment at the Classic Maya Center of Dos
Pilas, Peten, Guatemala. In The Archaeology of Settlement Abandonment in Middle America, edited
by T. Inomata and R. Webb, pp. 121-134. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
Parnell, J. Jacob and Richard E. Terry
2002 Soil Chemical Analysis Applied as an Interpretive Tool for Ancient Human Activities in
Piedras Negras, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 29:379–404.
Pred, Alan R.
1984 Place as Historically Contingent Process: Structuration and the Time-Geography of Becoming
Places. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 74(2):279-97.
Rainville, L.
2000 Microdebris Analysis in Early Bronze Age Mesopotamian Households. Antiquity 74: 291-92.
Robin, Cynthia
2002 Outside of Houses: the practices of everyday life at Chan Nòohol, Belize. Journal of Social
Archaeology 2(2):245-268.
Sahagún, Friar Berdardino de
1950-82 The Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain. Translated and edited by
Arthur Anderson and Charles Dibble. School of American Research and University of Utah Press,
Salt Lake City.
Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley
1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press,
New York.
Schiffer, Michael B.
1972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context. American Antiquity 37:156-165.
1976 Behavioral Archeology. Academic Press, New York.
1983 Toward the Identification of Formation Processes. American Antiquity 48:675-706.
1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological Record. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
25
Seymour, Deni J. and Michael B. Schiffer
1987 A Preliminary Analysis of Pithouse Assemblages from Snaketown, Arizona. In Method and
Theory for Activity Area Research: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach, edited by S. Kent, pp. 549603. Columbia University Press, New York.
Sherwood, Sarah. C., Jan F. Simek, and Richard R. Polhemus
1995 Artifact Size and Spatial Process: Macro- and Microartifacts in a Mississippian House.
Geoarchaeology 6:429-455.
Silliman, Stephen
2001 Agency, practical politics and the archaeology of culture contact. Journal of Social
Archaeology 1:190-209.
Simms, Steven R. and Kathleen M. Heath
1990 Site Structure of the Orbit Inn: An Application of Ethnoarchaeology. American Antiquity
55(4):797-813.
Sisson, Edward B.
1973 First Annual Report of the Coxcatlan Project. Phillips Academy, Andover.
Smith, Michael E.
1979 Aztec Marketing System and Settlement Patterns in the Valley of Mexico: A Central Place
Analysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125.
1986 Role of Social Stratification in the Aztec Empire: A View from the Provinces. American
Anthropologist 88:70-91.
1992a Houses and the Settlement Hierarchy in Late Postclassic Morelos: A Comparison of
Archaeology and Ethnohistory. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica, edited by
Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, p. 191-206. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
1992b Archaeological Research at Aztec-Period Rural Sites in Morelos, Mexico, Volume 1,
Excavations and Architecture. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia and University of
Pittsburgh Press, Mexico City and Pittsburgh.
2002 Domestic Ritual at Aztec Provincial Sites in Morelos. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient
Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp. 93-114. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, Los
Angeles.
2003 Economic Change in Morelos Households. In The Postclassic Mesoamerican World, edited by
Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan, pp. 249-58. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City.
2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Smith, Michael E. and Frances F. Berdan
1992 Archaeology and the Aztec Empire. World Archaeology 23(3):353-367.
Smith, Michael E. and John F. Doershuk
1991 Late Postclassic Chronology in Western Morelos, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2(4):291310.
Smith, Michael E. and Lisa M. Montiel
2001 The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Prehispanic Central Mexico. Journal
of Anthropological Archaeology 20:245-284.
LISA OVERHOLTZER
NSF DDIG #6948381
26
Smith, Michael E., Cynthia Heath-Smith, and Lisa M. Montiel
1999 Excavations of Aztec Urban Houses at Yautepec, Morelos, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity
10:133-150.
Stahl, Ann B.
1994 Change and Continuity in the Banda Area, Ghana: The Direct Historical Approach. Journal of
Field Archaeology 21(2):181-203.
Stahl, Peter W. and James A. Zeidler
1990 Differential Bone-Refuse Accumulation in Food-Preparation and Traffic Areas on an Early
Ecuadorian House Floor. Latin American Antiquity 1(2):150-169.
Stevenson, Marc G.
1982 Toward an Understanding of Site Abandonment Behavior: Evidence from Historical Mining
Camps in the Southwest Yukon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(3):237-265.
Terry, Richard E., Fabián G. Fernández, Jacob J. Parnell, and Takeshi Inomata
2004 The story in the floors: Chemical signatures of ancient and modern Maya activities at
Aguateca, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:1237-1250.
Wells, E. Christian, Richard E. Terry, J. Jacob Parnell, Perry J. Hardin, Mark W. Jackson, and Stephen D.
Houston
2000 Chemical Analyses of Ancient Anthrosols in Residential Areas at Piedras Negras, Guatemala.
Journal of Archaeological Science 27:449-462.
Whittle, Alasair and Alex Bayliss
2007 The Times of their Lives: from Chronological Precision to Kinds of History and Change.
Cambridge Archaeological Journal 17(1):21-28.
Whittle, Alasdair, Alex Bayliss, and Michael Wysocki
2007 Once in a Lifetime: the Date of the Wayland’s Smithy Long Barrow. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal 17(1):103-121.
Widmer, Randolph J.
1991 Lapidary Craft Specialization at Teotihuacan: Implications for Community Structure at
33:S3W1 and Economic Organization in the City. Ancient Mesoamerica 2:131-147.
Voss, Barbara L.
2005 From Casta to Californio: Social Identity and the Archaeology of Culture Contact. American
Anthropologist 107(3):461-474.
2008 The Archaeology of Ethnogenesis: Race and Sexuality in Colonial San Francisco. University of
California Press, Berkeley.