EFFIGY VESSELS, RELIGIOUS INTEGRATION,AND THE ORIGINS OF THE CENTRALMEXICAN PANTHEON

David M. CarballoCotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles, A210 Fowler Building, Box 951510, Los Angeles,CA 90095-1510, USA

Abstract

Investigations into the evolution of early religious institutions should emphasize how the ritual manipulation of symbolically chargedobjects generated shared understandings regarding divine entities among religious communities of practice. This study demonstrates thatthe origins of two distinctively central Mexican deities—the Old God of Fire and the Storm God—can best be understood throughcontextual analysis of effigy vessels depicting them during later Formative periods (ca. 600 B.C.–A.D. 100). By presenting new examples ofsuch effigy vessels and assembling contemporary counterparts from other central Mexican sites, we can better appreciate the Formativereligious integration of the region and its legacy for the religious systems of later societies. Specifically, the primacy of the Old God of Fireand the Storm God to Aztec dedicatory offerings, and the private/domestic associations of the former and public/monumentalassociations of the latter at Teotihuacan were elaborations on patterns apparent in Formative ritual practices.

Most scholars of pre-Hispanic central Mexico consider religion tohave been one of the major structuring frameworks within whichsocial practices and transformations were realized. It is somewhatsurprising therefore how little we understand the origins of theClassic-period religious system centered on the city ofTeotihuacan and the potential continuities in religious beliefs andpractices that may have extended from the Formative period to theSpanish Conquest. In the three decades since the publication of aseminal volume edited by H.B. Nicholson (1976), titled Originsof Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica,little new archaeological data relevant to these issues have madetheir way to press.

This study is intended to advance current understanding of earlycentral Mexican religious practices and the origins of theClassic-period pantheon by reporting on the discovery of twostyles of effigy vessels depicting what appear to be renditions ofthe Old God of Fire and the Storm God. The effigies originatedfrom Middle to Terminal Formative-period domestic contexts atLa Laguna, a midsize regional center in northern Tlaxcala.Stylistically similar examples from contemporaneous sites incentral Mexico are assembled to demonstrate that the region’sinhabitants were increasingly integrated in their religious practicesand that renditions of these two deities were manipulated in dom-estic contexts across the settlement and socioeconomic spectrumduring the Middle to Terminal Formative period (Figure 1). Animportant distinction in the representations and correspondingritual practices of the two deities was further elaborated atTeotihuacan, where the Old God remained primarily in the domestic

sphere while the Storm God was venerated in domestic contexts butwas also central to public rituals conducted by state rulers.

DIVINE EFFIGIES AND RITUAL PRACTICES

This study focuses on effigy vessels dating to between circa 600 B.C.and A.D. 100 that depict representations of deities recognizable fromlater central Mexican societies of circa A.D. 100–1521 (Figure 2). Iuse the term effigy vessel broadly to denote the depiction of ananimate being on a container or receptacle. Following this defi-nition, effigy vessels were present in much earlier central Mexicanceramic assemblages, circa 1300 B.C. The early villagers of thePuebla-Tlaxcala region primarily used zoomorphic effigy vessels,possibly depicting an opossum, as incense burners until the latterpart of the first millennium B.C. (Garcıa Cook 1981; see alsoLopez Austin 1993). A different form of incense burner, depictingan elderly male, became part of ritual practices in Puebla-Tlaxcalaas early as 600 B.C. This personage is identifiable as the Old Godof Fire, and was similarly depicted on effigy incense burners,usually called braziers, in Classic-period Teotihuacan. The StormGod is the second deity who began to be depicted on effigyvessels during this period. He is depicted on jars designed to holdliquids and on ceramic objects that may correspond to the lids ofcensers, used for burning incense, or small masks to be wornduring ritual dances or processions. Both effigy forms of theStorm God are described in this study; however, only the censer-lidor mask type has been found at La Laguna.

In focusing on effigy vessels, I emphasize the ritual practicesinvolving these artifacts as the means by which religious under-standings were created, perpetuated, and transformed. Thisapproach follows Catherine Bell (1992, 1997) in emphasizing

53

E-mail correspondence to: cabby@ucla.edu

Ancient Mesoamerica, 18 (2007), 53–67Copyright # 2007 Cambridge University Press. Printed in the U.S.A.DOI: 10.1017/S0956536107000028

what people do in rituals as the critical component to forming whatthey think about them, or how they conceptualize their individualrelationships to the natural and supernatural forces associated withthe rituals they perform. “In this view, ritual is more complexthan the mere communication of meanings and values; it is a setof activities that construct particular types of meanings and valuesin specific ways” (Bell 1997:82).

The perspectives of Roy Rappaport are also incorporated intothis study. Rappaport (1975, 1979:173–221) interpreted ritualpractices and performances as simultaneously involving themes ofsocial contract, moral structure, sacredness, divinity, and creationin ways that integrate disparate groups of people. Similar perspec-tives extend back most notably to Emile Durkheim (1912), butare more compelling when, as in Rappaport, they recognize ritualpractices as potential settings for both the expression of social soli-darity and the legitimization of social inequality (e.g., Beezley et al.1994; Giddens 1979:92–113). Such an understanding is central tocontemporary agent-based models regarding the role of moralisticnorms in the evolution of large-scale human cooperation (Axelrod1986; Boyd and Richerson 1992; Richerson et al. 2003). Theseresearchers accentuate ritual activities that communicate moralsentiments as potentially integrative mechanisms that fostercooperation and coordination among self-interested and competitiveindividuals, provided that breeching such norms is socially costly.Archaeologists have been investigating the social roles of integrativerituals for decades (Drennan 1976; Hegmon 1989) and recentlyhave begun to incorporate agent-based evolutionary models moreexplicitly (Stanish and Haley 2005).

The evolution of widespread religious institutions likelyinvolved integrative notions of collective moral norms as well asdivisive legitimizations of social asymmetries. These contradictorydimensions of religious institutions were constructed through ritualpractices involving widely shared, but contested, conceptualizationsof how ritual objects should be manipulated by specific individualswithin built environments structured by ritual architecture. This per-spective is especially relevant to investigations of the proto-urbanperiod in central Mexico, when communities in the Basin of

Figure 1. Eastern central Mexico depicting sites mentioned in the text.

Figure 2. Ceramic phases for northern Puebla-Tlaxcala, the Basin ofMexico, and Teotihuacan during the periods discussed in the text.

Carballo54

Mexico and the Puebla-Tlaxcala region began showing heightenedeconomic integration centuries before the political integration of theTeotihuacan state (Carballo et al. 2007). In this study, I suggest thatthe inhabitants of the two areas also showed heightened religiousintegration during the period.

LA LAGUNA, TLAXCALA, AND THE LATEFORMATIVE PROTO-URBAN CENTRAL MEXICANSOCIAL LANDSCAPE

The La Laguna archaeological site is located in the northeasterncorner of the Puebla-Tlaxcala region on the former hacienda ofthe same name. The site was first documented in archaeologicalliterature by Dean Snow (1966, 1969), who recorded it as thelargest Formative-period center in his 1,500 km2 survey area,covering portions of central and northern Tlaxcala. La Lagunawas also included in the survey of northern Tlaxcala directed byAngel Garcıa-Cook (1981), and was documented as the largestTexoloc- and Tezoquipan-phase (600 B.C.–A.D. 100) center inthis 2,000 km2 survey area (Merino Carrion 1989; for recentchronological revisions see Lesure et al. 2006)

The first excavations at La Laguna were undertaken as part of theUniversity of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), Formative Projectin the Apizaco region, directed by Richard Lesure and involvingAleksander Borejsza (2003–2004) and the author (2004) as fielddirectors. The materials discussed in this article were excavatedduring the 2005 season of the Proyecto Arqueologico La Laguna,under the direction of the author. The Formative occupation ofthe site covers approximately 100 ha, centered on a ceremonialcore consisting of masonry temple platforms and a central plaza(Figure 3). Recent radiocarbon dates obtained by Lesure andBorejsza show a bimodal distribution for the Formative occupationof the site, with features dug into tepetate (sterile substrate) spanningapproximately 600–400 B.C. and features close to the surface datingto circa 100 B.C.–A.D. 100. Either the site was temporarily aban-doned during the early Late Formative period or areas of the siteexcavated thus far witnessed significant remodification episodes,leaving preserved pit features associated with only the earliest andlatest levels of occupation.

Based on these attributes, La Laguna may be identified as thelargest Late to Terminal Formative regional center in northernTlaxcala, yet it is significantly smaller than contemporaneouscenters in southern Puebla-Tlaxcala and the Basin of Mexico. Insouthern Puebla-Tlaxcala, Tlalancaleca and Xochitecatl wereconsiderably larger in population and monumental construction,as, most likely, was Cholula (Garcıa Cook 1981; Plunket andUrunuela 2005; Serra Puche 1998). Occupation at Tlalancalecacovered 700 ha, likely corresponding to more than 10,000 inhabi-tants (Garcıa Cook 1981:252). Cuicuilco and Tlapacoya wereprimary centers earlier in the Basin of Mexico sequence, supersededby Teotihuacan at its end (Barba de Pina Chan 1956; Niederberger2000; Sanders et al. 1979). Cuicuilco and Patlachique-phaseTeotihuacan housed populations in the tens of thousands. LaLaguna was of a similar size to Guadalupita las Dalias, also innorthern Puebla-Tlaxcala (Garcıa Cook and Rodrıguez 1975), andboth sites may be considered representative of an intermediate tierin the regional settlement hierarchies of Late Formative centralMexico, smaller than the largest sites but larger than the abundantvillages of the period. The effigy vessels discussed in this articlehave been recovered from all three tiers within this hierarchy.

EARLY DEPICTIONS OF THE OLD GOD OF FIRE ANDSTORM GOD IN CENTRAL MEXICAN EFFIGY VESSELS

Scholars agree almost unanimously that the antecedents of theAztec Storm God (Tlaloc) and Fire God(s) (Huehueteotl, the OldGod, and/or Xiuhtecuhtli, the Lord of Fire) were present inTeotihuacano religion (Gamio 1922; Lopez Austin and LopezLujan 2001; Millon and Drewitt 1961; Pasztory 1997; vonWinning 1987). However, there is currently less consensus regard-ing how far back into the Formative period these deities extend.Figure 4 depicts two ceramic artifacts recovered from LateFormative-period domestic contexts at La Laguna. They share thegeneral characteristic of being parts of effigy vessels that wereused in ritual activities; one depicts a seated figure attached to anincense burner, and the other depicts an anthropomorphic facewith an up-curving mouth full of sharp teeth. I argue that theiconographic attributes of these pieces are consistent with theirbeing predecessors of well-known incarnations from Classic- andPostclassic-period pantheons. I avoid using Nahuatl names in refer-ring to them so as not to implicate the suite of attributes associatedwith them during the Postclassic and Colonial periods.

The Old God of Fire

Figure 5 depicts the proposed Old God of Fire incense burner fromLa Laguna. Its incomplete fragments were recovered from the centerof the site (labeled excavation Area I in Figure 3) associated with alate Tezoquipan occupation surface, dated elsewhere at the siteto between circa 100 B.C. and A.D. 100. This layer covered are-deposited burial and two shallow trash-pit features in four adja-cent excavation units. The fragments were located 4 m northwestof a series of insubstantial stone walls that I interpret as correspond-ing to the patio of an upper-status household, based on the presenceof domestic features and refuse, and of higher quantities of finepersonal ornamentation and non-local resources than have beenencountered in other domestic areas.

The ceramic fragments correspond to an anthropomorphic figureattached to the cylindrical base of a whitewashed, pedestaledincense burner, usually called braziers in central Mexico. Such bra-ziers without attached figures, and with vented composite-silhouettereceptacles, first date to the Middle Formative period in Tlaxcala(Serra Puche et al. 2004). Simpler out-slanting receptacle fragmentsfrom similar braziers were also encountered in Area I; however,none can be connected to the attached figure, and it is possiblethat they correspond to undecorated braziers or that their basesand attached figures were discarded elsewhere.

The La Laguna figure is seated with his legs drawn up and withcrossed arms resting on flexed knees. The position was often associ-ated with authority in Mesoamerica, and the Aztecs depicted anumber of male deities in this fashion, including both fire gods:the Old God (Huehueteotl) and the (Turquoise) Lord of Fire(Xiuhtecuhtli) (Lopez Lujan 1994:171–298, 2001; MatosMoctezuma 1988:85–121; Pasztory 1983:222–227). At leastseven other comparable figures have been reported from Middleto Terminal Formative-period contexts in central Mexico and ident-ified by their excavators as depicting the Old God. These includeexamples from Tlalancaleca (Garcıa Cook 1981:Figures 8-4, 8-5),Copilco (Gamio 1920:Figure 8, 1922:Plate IIIb), and Ticoman(Vaillant 1931:Plates LXXIXc, LXXXIX), as well as two exampleseach from Xalapazco (Seler 1915:Plate LXVIa, Figures 1, 3; seealso Taube 2004:Figure 47) and Cuicuilco (Cummings 1923:210).

Effigy vessels 55

Beatriz Barba de Pina Chan (1956:37) reported a piece from Tlatilcothat appears to be an old-man effigy in the naturalistic style of otherwell-known effigy vessels from the site, such as the acrobaticfigures, but lacks the seated posture and large brazier receptaclecharacteristic of later Old God effigies (see Pina Chan 1971:Figure 6e).

The previously reported depictions of the Old God share manyattributes, but are stylistically heterogeneous in certain respects.The example from Tlalancaleca consists of a male head and twonubbin arms emanating from the pedestal of the burner(Figure 6a). Garcıa Cook and Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrion(1988:287) described the piece as white-slipped with traces of red

Figure 3. La Laguna, Tlaxcala, depicting excavation Areas F and I. Architectural reconstructions are projected based on the dimensionsof mounds visible from the surface. Surface visibility is limited, however, by the site’s location in the saddle of three hills, where colluvialdeposits cover most domestic structures.

Carballo56

and yellow pigment, and Raziel Morza (1996 [1975]:290) noted thatit was discovered in a stratigraphic pit associated with the earlyTexoloc phase. The open arms and lack of depiction of a torso sep-arates the Tlalancaleca brazier from the others. The absence of atorso makes it impossible to determine whether the individual isseated or standing, although the latter appears more likely becauseof the height of the head and hands relative to the base of the ped-estal. A standing figure would also differ from the other reportedexamples.

The figure from Copilco (Figure 6b) differs from the others innot being attached to a brazier; nevertheless, it was identified byManuel Gamio (1920, 1922) as the Old God of Fire. It is ahunched male seated cross-legged with his arms crossed andresting on his knees. The individual’s upper back is unnaturally flat-tened, which may indicate that a receptacle once rested on his back,possibly supported by three or four companion figures. GeorgeVaillant (1931:307) suggested a Middle Zacatenco-phase desig-nation for the piece, which would make it roughly contemporaneouswith the example from Tlalancaleca.

Three examples made of stone, rather than clay, include thefigure from Ticoman and the two figures from Xalapazco (Figures6c and 6d). The Ticoman figure was identified as the Old/FireGod by Vaillant (1931:307–309) because of the receptacle attachedto its head, which was burned in its interior. The figure represents anincomplete specimen, broken at the neck, and was encounteredabove a floor level in a domestic context. Vaillant compared thepiece to the stone examples from Xalapazco and suggested aTicoman-phase designation for all of them (see also Nicholson1971:96).

The figures from Cuicuilco differ from each other but share thegeneral characteristics of depicting a male seated cross-legged witharms resting on the inner knees and hands clasped in front. The indi-vidual depicted in Figure 6e is smaller but attached to a largerbrazier than the individual depicted in Figure 6f, and its composite-silhouette form is similar to the example from Tlalancaleca butwithout vents. Garcıa Cook (1981:250) reported the existence of

Figure 4. Ceramic artifacts from La Laguna, including the Old God effigy (left), and Storm God effigy (right).

Figure 5. Brazier fragment depicting the Old God of Fire from La Lagunaexcavation Area I, viewed from the front and side.

Effigy vessels 57

Figure 6. Formative-period Old God braziers from: (a) Tlancaleca (based on Garcıa Cook 1981:Figure 8–4); (b) Copilco (based onGamio 1920:Figure 8); (c) Ticoman (based on Vaillant 1931:Plate LXXIXc); (d) Xalapazco (based on Nicholson 1971:Figure 6); (e–f)Cuicuilco (based on von Winning 1976:Figure 3).

Carballo58

other, unillustrated examples from Puebla-Tlaxcala, consideringthem the antecedents of the types found at Cuicuilco. He alsonoted that the early examples from Puebla-Tlaxcala emphasize thebrazier more than the figure and that the pattern is reversed atCuicuilco.

Examples of the Old God from Teotihuacan were primarilysculpted from stone and are larger than the Late Formative stonespecimens, often measuring between 20 cm and 50 cm(Figure 7a). Ceramic effigies continued to be produced, however(Figure 7b). The Teotihuacano Old God was usually depicted

sitting cross-legged with his arms resting on his thighs and hishands on his knees. In the examples made of stone, his left fist isclenched while his right remains open, with palm facing up. Inthe ceramic vessel illustrated in Figure 7b, his hands rest on hisknees. Although it depicts a younger individual, an almost identicalpiece excavated from Kaminaljuyu is on display at the MuseoNacional de Arqueologıa in Guatemala City. The receptacles ofboth effigy vessels were incised with representations of shells,which were elements of dress associated with Xiuhtecuhtli-Huehueteotl by the Aztec (Sahagun 1970:30).

The Teotihuacano and Aztec Old/Fire Gods were conceptual-ized as an old man, a precedent that exists in certain Formativeexamples. While there is nothing on the La Laguna, Ticoman, orXalapazco examples to identify their age or gender, the otherexamples have discernible wrinkles on their faces and appearmale. The advanced age of the Copilco figure is denoted by hisfew remaining teeth, a representation that is continued atTeotihuacan and in Aztec Xiuhtecuhtli-Huehueteotl stone statuesfound at the Templo Mayor (Figure 8a), which, unlike theirFormative predecessors, were clearly part of public ritual practices(Lopez Lujan 1989, 1994, 1999, 2001; Matos Moctezuma 2002).

Ear spools adorn the Teotihuacano depictions of the Old God,and the ceramic example illustrated in Figure 7b also wears abead necklace. The simplicity of his adornments contrasts sharplywith most depictions of deities in Teotihuacan art, who usuallywear elaborate regalia that include feathered headdresses and intri-cate textiles. A conscientious effort may have been made byTeotihuacano artisans to retain subtle references to the social rankof the Old God, employing the posture and simple ornamentationof the Formative period without elaborating on them muchfurther. As Esther Pasztory (1997:165) has suggested, the OldGod may have been conceptualized as mortal, or more mortal,than other deities at Teotihuacan. Alternatively, the simple orna-mentation may support her interpretation of the effigy vessels aspurposeful efforts to maintain continuity in popular ritual(Pasztory 1992:297, 1997:162–166). George Cowgill (1997:141)has convincingly argued that any continuity in the deity atTeotihuacan seems more likely to have been perpetuated withinthe domestic sphere, without significant involvement of stateleaders.

Of the depictions of the Formative Old God, the two fromCuicuilco clearly wear ear spools, but the others do not appear to.The brazier from Tlalancaleca and the stone examples have unnatu-rally large ears that could represent adornments, but none are perfo-rated. The figure from Copilco clearly does not wear ear spools.Nevertheless, the stylistic continuity between Formative- andClassic-period vessel form and figure posture is strong, and trendsin depicting age and social rank at Cuicuilco were transferreddirectly to Teotihuacano artistic canons.

In addition to the stylistic continuities in the Old God of Firefrom the Formative period to the Classic period, indicating continu-ities in his conceptualization, there is further continuity in how heformed part of central Mexican religious practices, serving as aneffigy incense burner in domestic rituals (Cowgill 2002;Manzanilla 2002; Sanders 1994:42–49). I contend that thesecond form of continuity is as meaningful, or more, to investi-gations of the origins of central Mexican religion than the first.The Old God developed his Classic-period associations with thehearth and household through religious practices involvingburning materials, likely incense, in the brazier on his head orback. While pan-Mesoamerican conceptualizations of an

Figure 7. Teotihuacano Old God vessels: (a) stone brazier in NaturalHistory Museum of Los Angeles County (based on Berrin and Pasztory1993:175); (b) Thin Orange vessel from the National Museum of theAmerican Indian, Smithsonian Institution (based on Berrin and Pasztory1993:88).

Effigy vessels 59

anthropomorphized fire deity may have been represented in differentmedia by earlier cultures (Taube 2004:98, 102–104), centralMexican societies formalized a particular conceptualization andset of practices related to a distinctly central Mexican Old God ofFire, beginning as early as circa 600 B.C. His prevalence on braziersin domestic contexts at sites along the settlement spectrum demon-strates increasing regional integration in the ideology and ritualactivities associated with him on the part of Middle to TerminalFormative central Mexican communities.

The Storm God

Figure 9a depicts the proposed Storm God effigy from La Laguna.The fragment was recovered from a domestic context on the periph-ery of the site, labeled excavation Area F on Figure 3. It was withinan anthropogenic stratum directly above the mouth of a bell-shapedpit excavated into tepetate. The pit feature dates to the earliest occu-pation surface of the site (ca. 600–400 B.C.). Three smaller frag-ments with the noses and mouths of similar pieces were recoveredfrom other Formative contexts in both excavation Areas F and I. Iinterpret the Area F house platform that the Figure 9a artifact wasdeposited beside as a lower-status residence, based on its position-ing near the periphery of the community and the lower incidence ofnonlocal materials and fine personal ornaments in its associatedassemblages.

The distinctive features of the face are a mustache-like upper lipand a mouth that curls up at the corners and is full of sharp teeth,

both with remnants of black paint. These attributes are commonlycited as attributes of the Storm God (Miller and Taube 1993:162,166; Pasztory 1974:3; von Winning 1976:150). The iconicgoggles often associated with the central Mexican Storm Godwere, in fact, depicted on a number of other personages atTeotihuacan. More important, the ceramic effigy vessels depictingthe Storm God at Teotihuacan (called “Tlaloc” pots) usually donot wear goggles, making this attribute nonessential for hisidentification.

The Storm God appeared on a much more diverse set of materialmedia than the Old God during the Formative and Classic periods(see Taube 1995 for an overview that includes regions outside ofcentral Mexico). Most relevant to this discussion are the effigyvessels depicting his toothy grin or snarl. An almost identicalpiece to the one discovered at La Laguna was documented atTicoman by Vaillant (Figure 9b). Vaillant (1931:393, PlatesLXVIII, LXXIXe–f) identified the vessel fragment as an effigy ofthe Storm God and interpreted it as part of a censer lid based onits being concave, possessing regularly spaced holes that mayhave served as vents, and evidence of burning in its interior. Hisextrapolation for the form of a completed piece is depicted inFigure 9c. The excavation context at the base of a late wall in aresidential area led Vaillant (1931:371) to date the piece to laterin the Ticoman sequence.

The stylistic similarity between the La Laguna and Ticomanfragments is remarkable, with only subtle differences in the LaLaguna example, including its incised upper lip and sharper

Figure 8. Aztec effigies of the Old God of Fire and Storm God: (a) Xiuhtecuhtli-Huehueteotl sculpture from Templo Mayor offeringin Stage IVb, ca. A.D. 1469 (based on photograph by Leonardo Lopez Lujan); (b) Tlaloc pot from Templo Mayor Offering 56 (based onSolis and Leyenaar 2002:197, Figure 142).

Carballo60

teeth. The similarities are indicative of a strong shared conceptu-alization of this form of Storm God effigy in central Mexicoduring the Late to Terminal Formative periods. Unified norms

regarding appropriate domestic ritual practices involving the effi-gies are likely to have existed, as well. Such practices may haveinvolved burning, as Vaillant proposed; however, it would be

Figure 9. Formative-period depictions of the Storm God: (a) censer-lid or mask fragment from La Laguna excavation Area F; (b–c)almost identical censer-lid or mask fragment from Ticoman and Vaillant’s extrapolation for its complete form (based on Vaillant1931:393, Plate LXXIX e–f); (d) petroglyph on monolith from Tlalancaleca (based on Garcıa Cook 1981:Figure 8–12).

Effigy vessels 61

desirable to have a larger sample that includes more completespecimens to verify the idea. Alternative possibilities for theirusage include serving as decorations on water jars or as ritualmasks. As masks, such pieces would not cover a person’s face,but they are consistent with the size of ceramic masks thatKent Flannery (1976) interpreted as functioning in inter-household or sodality rituals in Formative-period Oaxaca. Theywould also relate to conceptualizations of Mesoamerican andSouthwestern rain deities as masked beings, as is suggested byPolly Schaafsma and Karl Taube (2006).

Storm God effigy braziers were part of Classic-period materialculture, including a Teotihuacan-style example from a Metepec-phase context at Xochitecatl (Dumond 1997 [1978]:Figure 28).Nevertheless, effigy vessels intended to hold water played a morecentral role in Teotihuacano religion. Water would more likely bethe basic element most closely associated with the Storm God,rather than fire, the basic element associated with the Old God(Lopez Lujan 1999). Pre-Hispanic central Mexican art often com-municated multiple meanings simultaneously, however, anddeities were not conceptualized as single fundamental elements(Lopez Austin 1983). It is possible that the Formative-periodStorm God was also associated with fire through lightning, as wasthe case at Teotihuacan and as was true of other Mesoamericancivilizations (Marcus 1983; Taube 1986, 1988:115), and/orthrough the rain-bringing smoke emanating from the cigars of hiscave-dwelling attendants, as the Aztec believed of the Tlaloque(Klein 1980:174).

Direct predecessors of the Classic-period Storm God effigy potswere discovered at Tlapacoya (Barba de Pina Chan 1956, 2002).Five polished black jars with elongated vertical necks, called botel-lones in central Mexico, were recovered in the three rock-linedburial offerings within Mound 1, the main temple platform of thesite. Barba de Pina Chan (1956:Plates 15, 18, Photographs 4, 17,2002:38; Pina Chan 1971:Figure 10a) designated the jars fromTombs 1 and 3 as Late Formative-period forerunners of Tlaloc, orthe Tlaloque, but was rightly more cautious with the jars fromTomb 2. All three pieces were intended to hold liquid, probablywater, and they all have the head of the figure attached to theelongated neck of the vessel, with the torso rendered followingthe contours of the globular body. However, while the examplesfrom Tombs 1 and 3 have exaggerated mouths—one also bearingsharp teeth (Figure 10b)—the examples from Tomb 2 possessfully human attributes (see also Ochoa Castillo and Orueta 1994:236, 264–267).

A precedent for polished-black anthropomorphic effigy jarswithout exaggerated mouths or sharp teeth exists at Tlatilco (PinaChan 1958; Serra Puche 1993:32). The general continuity invessel type and form is strongly suggestive of an evolution of theidentifiable Storm God pots from anthropomorphic effigieslacking the distinguishing facial characteristics of the later deity(Figure 10a). The most compelling line of evidence regarding con-tinuity, however, is their deposition as part of the dedicatory offeringcomplexes within the nucleus of Mound 1 at Tlapacoya. WhereasTomb 2, containing the anthropomorphic jar, was made to conse-crate the earliest construction phase of the monument, Tombs 1and 3, containing the discernible early Storm God pots, consecratedthe later construction phase (Figure 10c; Barba de Pina Chan 1956:78–80, Map 8, 2002:33). At Tlapacoya, then, the identifiablecentral Mexican Storm God was, or the precursors of the Tlaloquewere, substituted in a social context of nearly identical ritual prac-tices involving an anthropomorphic effigy vessel lacking the

diagnostic mouth attributes, deposited to consecrate an earlierphase of the same ritual structure.

Sonia Bracamones Quintana (2002) has assembled an extensivetreatment of 98 Teotihuacan Storm God pots. She demonstrates thatfour to six variants of the vessel form served a central role in ritualsat multiple levels of the Teotihuacano social hierarchy, including inthe dedicatory offerings commissioned by state leaders in the majortemples of the city and as domestic burial offerings for non-elitesliving in the apartment compounds surrounding the ceremonialcore (see also Cowgill 2002; Manzanilla 2002). Storm God potswere also deposited in smaller temple complexes (Cook deLeonard 1971:191). The earliest complete example yet recoveredfrom Teotihuacan was deposited in the Sun Pyramid during theTzacualli phase (Millon and Drewitt 1961:Figure 5). Thisexample possesses an up-curving mouth with no visible teeth andbulbous eyes (Figure 11a). Examples from the Miccaotli phaseonward continue with bulbous, or disc, eyes but also usuallydepict teeth (Figure 11b). Relatively few examples of Storm Godpots from Teotihuacan show any features that could be construedas goggles (Bracamontes Quintana 2002:104).

Although Teotihuacano Storm God effigy vessels were used indomestic rituals, the deity was unmistakably connected to the statereligious system and public rituals (Manzanilla 1996, 2002). TheStorm God was iconic of the Teotihuacan polity in theClassic-period Maya Lowlands (Fash and Fash 2000), and Tlalocpots were central to Aztec dedicatory rituals at the Templo Mayor(Figure 8b; Lopez Lujan 1994, 1997, 1999). Unlike the Old Godof Fire, the Storm God apparently was important in the publicsphere of central Mexican polities prior to Teotihuacan, as well.The dedicatory offerings within Mound 1 at Tlapacoya, discussedearlier, are clear predecessors to similar ritual practices undertakenwithin the pyramids of Teotihuacan and at the Aztec TemploMayor, all of them involving Storm God effigy vessels. In addition,Garcıa Cook (1981:252–254, Figure 8-12) illustrated a Storm Godpetroglyph, featuring sharp teeth and large disc eyes, on a monolithat Tlalancaleca associated with talud-tablero temples dating from thelate Texoloc phase (Figure 9c) (see also Garcıa Moll 1976). Thetalud-tablero architectural style also became iconic of Teotihuacanbut has well-documented roots in Late Formative Puebla-Tlaxcala(see also Plunket and Urunuela 2002a, 2005). Public water ritualswere prevalent in central Mexico during the Late Formative period(Barba de Pina Chan 2002; Manzanilla 2000:92–95), and it islikely that the conceptualizations of the Storm God by the inhabitantsof the region involved, and were shaped by, rituals in both the dom-estic and public spheres.

DISCUSSION

The origin and evolution of the central Mexican Old God of Fire andStorm God illustrate how ritual practices shape religious beliefs inways that generate change or perpetuate continuity in how individ-uals conceptualize their relationships with divine forces. Among thecategories of ritual action outlined by Bell, the Formative-periodeffigy vessels depicting the Old God and Storm God appear tobest conform with having been manipulated in rites of exchangeand communion (Bell 1997:108–114). Such ritual practices entailactions that “praise, please, and placate divine power, or they mayinvolve an explicit exchange by which human beings provide suste-nance to divine power in return for divine contributions to humanwell-being” (Bell 1997:108). They often involve anthropomor-phized depictions of the deities to enforce reciprocal obligations

Carballo62

between practitioner and deity through the attentive care given to theeffigy representation.

The archaeological contexts of Formative-period Old God ofFire effigy vessels indicate that rituals involving burning materialsin their receptacles were undertaken across a large portion ofcentral Mexico—spanning at least from the Oriental Valley to thesouthwestern Basin of Mexico—at large, intermediate, and smallcommunities and by households along the socioeconomic spectrum.Such rituals would have been socially integrative, as the rapidlyexpanding populations of the Late Formative were increasinglyunited concerning the proper deities, vessels, and associated prac-tices for domestic rituals. The confluence of form and function inOld God braziers highlights the importance of conventionality inritual practice as a purposefully alternative form of deferential

communication, intended to access alternative forms of meaningand understanding (Bloch 2005). The formal Old God brazierconventions supplanted earlier variants, such as the zoomorphicbraziers of Puebla-Tlaxcala, during a period that witnessed the evol-ution of larger-scale social institutions and greater economic inter-connectivity. Unity in belief and practice concerning the Old Godand the meaning of his associated ritual practices would promotesolidarity by fostering sentiments of trust in increased entangle-ments of mutual dependence (e.g., Richerson et al. 2003). Thisimportant social role appears to have changed little during theClassic period, possibly having been consciously preserved byTeotihuacanos.

In contrast, Storm God effigy vessels were manipulated in ritualsat multiple scales of inclusiveness at Teotihuacan, including in both

Figure 10. Formative-period effigy vessels and Mound 1 at Tlapacoya: (a) earlier effigy form similar to those from Tlalilco and Tomb 2 inTlapacoya’s Mound 1 (based on Serra Puche 1993:32); (b) later, Storm God, effigy form from Tomb 3 in Tlapacoya’s Mound 1 (based onPina Chan 1971:Figure 10a); (c) Mound 1 at Tlapacoya, showing construction phases and Tombs 1–3 (based on Barba de Pina Chan1956:Map 8).

Effigy vessels 63

private and public settings. They were integral to burial rituals at low-status households, as well as in the sacrificial dedicatory offeringsundertaken by state politico-religious leaders at the monumentaltemple complexes of the city’s ceremonial core (Sugiyama 2004).It would be possible also to interpret such practices as relating torites of exchange and communion and as being socially integrativein various respects. Nonetheless, public state rituals involving theStorm God at Teotihuacan visibly accentuated differences in socialpower through their practice on these elevated, monumental stages.Performed in this context, they match the criteria of political ritualsas “ceremonial practices that specifically construct, display, andpromote the power of political institutions” (Bell 1997:128).

The religious systems of complex societies are composed ofcertain suites of ritual practices that encourage social integrationand others that promote social differentiation. The co-occurrenceof both categories of practices is characteristic of societies withoutcoercive state institutions (e.g., Knight 1986), as well as of highlycentralized polities such as Teotihuacan. It is apparent that integra-tive and divisive practices already existed in the religious systems ofcentral Mexican societies prior to Teotihuacan, with rituals relatingto water figuring prominently in the public sphere (Manzanilla2000; Serra Puche and Palavicini Beltran 1996) and rituals relatedto fire, including volcano altars at Tetimpa (Plunket and Urunuela2002b), figuring more prominently in the domestic sphere.Although the more public or private associations with theseelements is not as evident among the Aztec—who practiced thevery public New Fire ceremony and made both Xiuhtecuhtli-Huehueteotl and Tlaloc central to Templo Mayor dedicatoryofferings—their duality and complementarity was elaborated inpublic expressions of cosmology (Lopez Lujan 1999).

The central Mexican Storm God was given his identifiableClassic-period form within a Formative-period context of ceramic

effigies used in household rituals, as well as in dedicatory offeringsthat consecrated major public ritual structures and as freestanding artdisplayed in public ritual spaces. Formative-period veneration of theStorm God would have encouraged solidarity in certain practices,but it also would have provided an arena within which socialpower was contested, with practitioners potentially drawing fromconceptualizations first developed in the domestic sphere toadvance political agendas in the public sphere (cf. Lucero 2003).Within the context of these social practices, political aspirantscould espouse collective and differentiating ideologiessimultaneously.

CONCLUSION

In assembling examples of Formative-period effigy vessels fromcentral Mexico, this study has demonstrated that earlier articula-tions of the Classic-period Old God of Fire and Storm God wereritually manipulated in domestic contexts spanning a large geo-graphic area by individuals representing households of differingsocial statuses. As a community of religious practice, the inhabi-tants of the Basin of Mexico and the Puebla-Tlaxcala regionbecame progressively more integrated during this period (ca. 600B.C.–A.D. 100). The origins of these members of the centralMexican pantheon lie within a social milieu of accelerating inte-gration and differentiation. Formative ritual practices involvingthe Old God played a socially integrative role; those involvingthe Storm God were more varied, occupying both the domesticand public spheres. These trends continued in Classic-periodTeotihuacan, when central Mexico was largely unified politically.Teotihuacano religion was a dynamic system that transformed sig-nificantly over seven centuries, yet certain fundamental elements of

Figure 11. Teotihuacano Storm God vessels: (a) from Sun Pyramid (based on Berrin and Pasztory 1993:241, Figure 117); (b) in site museum(based on Matos Moctezuma 1995:118).

Carballo64

that system originated in the centuries preceding the foundation ofthe city and developed through more incremental processes whileothers were deliberately chosen by individuals to reinforce

continuities with the past. The deities remained central to theAztec pantheon, where they represented an essential dualism inthe order of the world.

RESUMEN

Los orıgenes del Dios Viejo y del Dios de la Tormenta del centro de Mexico(el Huehueteotl y el Tlaloc de los aztecas) tienen sus raıces en practicasrituales de los periodos formativo medio a formativo terminal (ca. 600a.C–100 d.C.). Este artıculo reporta el descubrimiento de dos clases devasijas efigie en contextos domesticos de La Laguna, Tlaxcala, centro cere-monial de tamano medio, cuya ocupacion data precisamente de estos peri-odos. Se consignan varios ejemplos de vasijas-efigie contemporaneas parademostrar que las practicas rituales relacionadas con estos dioses jugaronun papel integrador en las comunidades del Altiplano Central siglos antesde la integracion polıtica teotihuacana. Ambos dioses fueron venerados encomunidades de diversa jerarquıa por familias de distintas condicionessocioeconomicas.

Mientras que el papel del Dios Viejo estaba limitado a la esfera domes-tica, las imagenes del Dios de la Tormenta fueron manipuladas en contextospublicos y privados. Esta diferencia importante continua en Teotihuacan,donde el Dios de la Tormenta fue prominente en los rituales polıticos reali-zados por los lıderes del estado, mientras que los braseros del Dios Viejocontinuaron su asociacion con el hogar y la vivienda. Aunque es probableque algunos conceptos panmesoamericanos acerca de dioses del fuego yde la tormenta precedieron estas vasijas-efigie del formativo, este estudiopropone que se puede entender mejor los orıgenes de tradiciones religiosasparticulares considerando los sistemas religiosos como comunidades depractica, con particulares rituales asociados que crean significados compar-tidos entre sus creyentes.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the Foundation for the Advancement for Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.(FAMSI), for supporting Proyecto Arqueologico La Laguna excavations in2005 and the Consejo de Arqueologıa of the Instituto Nacional deAntropologıa e Historia, Mexico, for authorizing them. AleksanderBorejsza, Jennifer Carballo, Cecelia Klein, Richard Lesure, and LeonardoLopez Lujan graciously read earlier versions of the manuscript and provided

insightful comments to strengthen it. I also thank John Clark, Karl Taube,and an anonymous reviewer for their input. Any inaccuracies in interpret-ation remain my own. Jennifer Salazar’s skilled hand inked the artifactillustrations. Lopez Lujan kindly provided the photograph used for theillustration in Figure 9c. I am grateful to the De Haro Gonzalez family fortheir immense hospitality at La Laguna.

REFERENCES

Axelrod, Robert1986 An Evolutionary Approach to Norms. American Political Science

Review 80(4):1095–1111.Barba de Pina Chan, Beatriz

1956 Tlapacoya: Un sitio preclasico de transicion. Departamento deTurismo, Toluca, Mexico.

Barba de Pina Chan, Beatrız2002 Tlapacoya, probable centro de peregrinaciones a las deidades del

agua. In Pasado, presente y futuro de la arqueologıa en el Estado deMexico: Homenaje a Roman Pina Chan, edited by Argelia Montesand Beatriz Zuniga, pp. 27–40. Coleccion Cientıfica 440. InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico City.

Beezley, William H., Cheryl English Martin, and William E. French1994 Introduction: Constructing Consent, Inciting Conflict. In Rituals of

Rule, Rituals of Resistance: Public Celebrations and Popular Culturein Mexico, edited by William H. Beezley, Cheryl Englishm Martin,and William E. French, pp. xiii–xxvii. SR Books, Wilmington, DE.

Bell, Catherine1992 Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.1997 Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford University Press,

Oxford.Berrin, Kathleen, and Esther Pasztory (editors)

1993 Teotihuacan: Art from the City of the Gods. Thames and Hudsonand the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, New York andSan Francisco.

Bloch, Maurice2005 Essays on Cultural Transmission. London School of Economics

Monographs on Social Anthropology Vol. 75. Berg, Oxford.Boyd, Robert, and Peter J. Richerson

1992 Punishment Allows the Evolution of Cooperation (or AnythingElse) in Sizable Groups. Ethology and Sociobiology 13:171–195.

Bracamones Quintana, Sonia2002 Las vasijas Tlaloc de Teotihuacan. Unpublished professional

thesis, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de las Americas,Puebla.

Carballo, David M., Jennifer Carballo, and Hector Neff2007 Formative and Classic Period Obsidian Procurement in Central

Mexico: A Compositional Study Using LA-ICP-MS. Latin AmericanAntiquity 18(1):27–43.

Cook de Leonard, Carmen1971 Ceramics of the Classic Period in Central Mexico. In Handbook of

Middle American Indians, Volume 10: Archaeology of NorthernMesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and IgnacioBernal, pp. 179–205. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Cowgill, George L.1997 State and Society at Teotihuacan, Mexico. Annual Review of

Anthropology 26:129–161.2002 Contextos domesticos en Teotihuacan. In Ideologıa y polıtica a

traves de materiales, imagines y sımbolos: Memoria de la PrimeraMesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, edited by Marıa Elena Ruiz Gallut,pp. 61–74. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia/Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

Cummings, Byron1923 Ruins of Cuicuilco May Revolutionize Our History of Ancient

America. National Geographic 44(2):202–220.Drennan, Robert D.

1976 Religion and Social Evolution in Formative Mesoamerica. InThe Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V. Flannery,pp. 345–368. Academic Press, New York.

Dumond, Donald E.1997 (1978) Ceramica del relleno del Montıculo 4, cerro Xochitecatl,

Tlaxcala. In Antologıa de Tlaxcala, vol. III, edited by Angel GarcıaCook and Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrion, pp. 167–191 (translatedby Patricia Escandon). Originally in Las piramides del cerroXochitecatl, Tlaxcala (Mexico), edited by Bodo Spranz, Donald E.Dumond and P. P. Hilbert, Proyecto Mexico de la FundacionAlemana de Investigacion Cientıfica, no. 12, Wiesbaden, Germany.

Durkheim, Emile1912 Les formes elementaires de la vie religieuse, le systeme totemique

en Australie. F. Alcan, Paris.

Effigy vessels 65

Fash, William L., and Barbara W. Fash2000 Teotihuacan and the Maya: A Classic Heritage. In Mesoamerica’s

Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs, edited by DavıdCarrasco, Lindsay Jones and Scott Sessions, pp. 433–463. UniversityPress of Colorado, Boulder.

Flannery, Kent V.1976 Contextual Analisis of Ritual Paraphernalia from Formative

Oaxaca. In The Early Mesoamerican Village, edited by Kent V.Flannery, pp. 333–345. Academic Press, New York.

Gamio, Manuel1920 Las excavaciones del Pedregal de San Angel y la cultural Arcaica

del Valle de Mexico. American Anthropologist 22(2):127–143.1922 La poblacion del Valle de Teotihuacan: Representativa de las que

habitan las regiones rurales del Distrito Federal y de los estados deHidalgo, Puebla, Mexico y Tlaxcala. Tomo 1, Volumen Primero.Secretaria de Agricultura y Fomento, Direccion de Antropologıa,Mexico City.

Garcıa Cook, Angel1981 The Historical Importance of Tlaxcala in the Cultural

Development of the Central Highlands. In Supplement to theHandbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 1: Archaeology, editedby Jeremy A. Sabloff, pp. 244–276. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Garcıa Cook, Angel, and Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrion1988 Notas sobre la ceramica prehispanica en Tlaxcala. In Ensayos

sobre alfarerıa prehispanica e historica: Homenaje a EduardoNoguera, edited by Mari Carmen Serra Puche and Carlos NavaretteCaceres, pp. 275–342. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia,Mexico City.

Garcıa Cook, Angel, and Felipe Rodrıguez1975 Excavaciones arqueologicas en “Guadalupita Las Dalias”, Puebla.

Comunicaciones, 12:1–8, FAIC, Puebla.Garcıa Moll, Roberto

1976 El Monumento 13 de Tlalancaleca, Puebla. Boletın del InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia 2:47–50.

Giddens, Anthony1979 Emile Durkheim. Viking Press, New York.

Hegmon, Michelle1989 Social Integration and Architecture. In The Architecture of Social

Integration in Prehistoric Pueblos, edited by William D. Lipe andMichelle Hegmon, pp. 5–14. Occasional Papers of the Crow CanyonArchaeological Center, no. 1., University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Klein, Cecelia F.1980 Who Was Tlaloc? Journal of Latin American Lore 6(2):155–204

Knight, Jr., Vernon James1986 The Institutional Organization of Mississippian Religion.

American Antiquity 51(4):675–687.Lesure, Richard G., Aleksander Borejsza, Jennifer Carballo,Charles Frederick, Virginia Popper, and Thomas A. Wake

2006 Chronology, Subsistence, and the Earliest Formative of CentralTlaxcala, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 17:474–492.

Lopez Austin, Alfredo1983 Nota sobre la fusion y la fision de los dioses en el panteon mexica.

Anales de Antropologıa 20:75–87.1993 The Myths of the Opossum: Pathways of Mesoamerican

Mythology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.Lopez Austin, Alfredo, and Leonardo Lopez Lujan

2001 Mexico’s Indigenous Past. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Lopez Lujan, Leonardo

1989 La recuperacion mexica del pasado teotihuacano. InstitutoNacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico City.

1994 The Offerings of the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan. UniversityPress of Colorado, Boulder.

1997 Llover a cantaros: El culto a los dioses de la lluvia y el principio dedisyuncion en la tradicion religiosa mesoamericana. In PensarAmerica: Cosmovision mesoamericana y andina, edited by AntionioGarrido Aranda, pp. 89–109. Obra Social y Cultural Cajasur/Ayuntamiento de Montilla, Cordoba.

1999 Water and Fire: Archaeology in the Capital of the Mexica Empire.In The Archaeology of Mesoamerica: Mexican and EuropeanPerspectives, edited by Warwick Bray and Linda Manzanilla,pp. 32–49. British Museum Press, London.

2001 Old Gods. In The Oxford Encyclopedia of MesoamericanCultures, vol. 2, edited by Davıd Carrasco, pp. 404–405. OxfordUniversity Press, New York.

Lucero, Lisa J.2003 The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic Maya Rulers.

Current Anthropology 44(4):523–558.Manzanilla, Linda

1996 Corporate Groups and Domestic Activities at Teotihuacan. LatinAmerican Antiquity 7(3):228–246.

2000 The Construction of the Underworld in Central Mexico:Transformations from the Classic to the Postclassic. InMesoamerica’s Classic Heritage: From Teotihuacan to the Aztecs,edited by Davıd Carrasco, Lindsay Jones and Scott Sessions,pp. 87–116. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.

2002 Living with the Ancestors and Offering to the Gods:Domestic Ritual at Teotihuacan. In Domestic Ritual in AncientMesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp. 43–52. CotsenInsitute of Archaeology Monograph 46. University of California, LosAngeles.

Marcus, Joyce1983 Zapotec Religion. In The Cloud People: Divergent Evolution of

the Zapotec and Mixtec Civilizations, edited by Kent V. Flannery andJoyce Marcus, pp. 345–351. Academic Press, New York.

Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo1988 The Great Temple of the Aztecs: Treasures of Tenochtitlan.

Thames and Hudson, London.1995 Museo de la Cultura Teotihuacana. Instituto Cultural Domecq,

Mexico City.2002 Huehueteotl-Xihutecuhtli en el centro de Mexico. Arqueologıa

Mexicana X(56):58–63.Merino, Carrion, Beatriz Leonor

1989 La Cultura Tlaxco. Serie Arqueologica, Coleccion Cientıfica 174.Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico City.

Miller, Mary, and Karl Taube1993 The Gods and Symbols of Ancient Mexico and the Maya: An

Illustrated Dictionary of Mesoamerican Religion. Thames andHudson, London.

Millon, Rene, and Bruce Drewitt1961 Earlier Structures within the Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan.

American Antiquity 26(3):371–380.Morza, Raziel

1996 (1975) El preclasico de Tlaxcala: Fases Tzompantepec,Tlatempa y Texoloc. In Antologıa de Tlaxcala, vol. 1, edited byAngel Garcıa Cook and Beatriz Leonor Merino Carrion,pp. 281–291. Originally in Arqueologıa I, XIII Mesa Redondade la Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologıa, Mexico City,pp. 97–106.

Nicholson, H.B.1971 Major Sculpture in Prehispanic Central Mexico. In Handbook of

Middle American Indians, Volume 10: Archaeology of NorthernMesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon F. Ekholm and IgnacioBernal, pp. 92–134. University of Texas Press, Austin.

1976 Preclassic Mesoamerican Iconography from the Perspective of thePostclassic: Problems in Interpretational Analysis. In Origins ofReligious Art and Iconography in Preclassic Mesoamerica, edited byH.B. Nicholson, pp. 159–175. University of California, Los Angeles,Latin American Center Publications, Ethnic Arts Council ofLos Angeles.

Nicholson, H.B. (editor)1976 Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in Preclassic

Mesoamerica. University of California, Los Angeles, Latin AmericanCenter Publications, Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles.

Niederberger, Christine2000 Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic

Wealth in the Basin of Mexico toward 1200 B.C. In Olmec Art andArchaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and MaryPye, pp. 169–191. Studies in the History of Art 58, Center forAdvanced Study in the Visual Arts, Symposium Papers 35. YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CT.

Ochoa Castillo, Patricia, and Oscar Orueta1994 La sala del preclasico del Altiplano. Instituto Nacional de

Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico City.Pasztory, Esther

1974 The Iconography of the Teotihuacan Tlaloc. Studies inPrecolumbian Art and Archaeology, No. 15, Dumbarton Oaks,Trustees for Harvard University, Washington, D.C.

1983 Aztec Art. Harry N. Abrams, Inc., New York.

Carballo66

1992 Abstraction and the Rise of a Utopian State at Teotihuacan. In Art,Ideology, and the City of Teotihuacan, edited by Janet Catherine Berlo,pp. 281–320. Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University,Washington, D.C.

1997 Teotihuacan: An Experiment in Living. University of OklahomaPress, Norman.

Pina Chan, Roman1958 Tlatilco I. Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia, Mexico

City.1971 Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of

Mexico. In Handbook of Middle American Indians, Volume 10:Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Part 1, edited by Gordon F.Ekholm and Ignacio Bernal, pp. 157–178. University of Texas Press,Austin.

Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Urunuela2002a Antecedentes conceptuales de los conjuntos de tres templos.

Primera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan: Ideologıa y polıtica a travesde materiales, imagines y sımbolos, edited by Marıa Elena RuizGalliut, pp. 529–546. Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes,Instituto Nacional de Antropologıa e Historia, and UniversidadNacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

2002b Shrines, Ancestors, and the Volcanic Landscape at Tetimpa,Puebla. In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited byPatricia Plunket, pp. 31–42. Cotsen Institute of ArchaeologyMonograph 46. University of California, Los Angeles.

2005 Recent Research in Puebla Prehistory. Journal of ArchaeologicalResearch 13:2:89–127.

Rappaport, Roy A.1975 The Obvious Aspects of Ritual. Cambridge Anthropology 2:3–61.1979 Ecology, Meaning, and Religion. North Atlantic Books, Berkeley,

CA.Richerson, Peter J., Robert Boyd, and Joseph Henrich

2003 The Cultural Evolution of Human Cooperation. In The Geneticand Cultural Evolution of Cooperation, edited by Peter Hammerstein,pp. 357–388. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.

Sahagun, Fray Bernardino de1970 Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain,

Book 1: The Gods, edited and translated by Arthur J.O. Andersonand Charles E. Dibble School of American Research and Universityof Utah Press, Santa Fe, NM.

Sanders, William T.1994 The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Volume 3: The

Teotihuacan Period Occupation of the Valley, Part 1: TheExcavations. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 19. MatsonMuseum of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, UniversityPark.

Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley1979 The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a

Civilization. Academic Press, New York.Schaafsma, Polly, and Karl A. Taube

2006 Bringing the Rain: An Ideology of Rain Making in the PuebloSouthwest and Mesoamerica. In A Pre-Columbian World: Searchingfor a Unitary Vision of Ancient America, edited by Jeffrey Quilter,pp. 1–54. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C.

Seler, Eduard1915 Die Teotihuacan-Kultur des Hochlands von Mexiko. Gesammelte

Abhandlungen zur Amerikanischen Sprach- und Alterthumskunde 5:405–585.

Serra Puche, Mari Carmen1993 Daily Life: A Day, a Year, a Millennium: Formative Period in the

Basin of Mexico 1000 B.C. to A.D. 100. Floresta Ediciones, Cuervavaca,Morelos, Mexico.

1998 Xochitecatl. Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala, Mexico.Serra Puche, Mari Carmen, Jesus Carlos Lazcano Arce, and Manuel de laTorre Mendoza

2004 Ceramica de Xochitecatl. Universidad Nacional Autonoma deMexico, Mexico City.

Serra Puche, Mari Carmen, and Beatriz Palavicini Beltran1996 Xochitecatl, Tlaxcala, en el periodo formativo (800 a.C.–100

d.C.). Arqueologıa 16:43–57.Snow, Dean Richard

1966 A Seriation of Archaeological Collections from the Rio ZahuapanDrainage, Tlaxcala, Mexico. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene.University Microfilms, 66–12, 984, Ann Arbor, MI.

1969 Ceramic Sequence and Settlement Location in PrehispanicTlaxcala. American Antiquity 34(2):131–145.

Solis, Felipe, and Ted Leyenaar2002 Art Treasures of Ancient Mexico: Journey to the Land of the Gods.

Waanders Publishers, Lund Humphries, Amsterdam.Stanish, Charles, and Kevin J. Haley

2005 Power, Fairness, and Architecture: Modeling Early ChiefdomDevelopment in the Central Andes. In Foundations of Power in thePrehispanic Andes, edited by Kevin J. Vaughn, Dennis Ogburn andChristina A. Conlee, pp. 53–70. Archaeological Papers of theAmerican Anthropological Association, No. 14. AmericanAnthropological Association, Arlington, VA.

Sugiyama, Saburo2004 Governance and Polity at Classic Teotihuacan. In Mesoamerican

Archaeology: Theory and Practice, edited by Julia A. Hendon andRosemary A. Joyce, pp. 97–123. Blackwell, Malden, MA.

Taube, Karl A.1986 The Teotihuacan Cave of Origin: The Iconography and

Architecture of Emergence Mythology in Mesoamerican and theAmerican Southwest. RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 12:51–82.

1988 The Albers Collection of Pre-Columbian Art. Hudson Hills Press,New York.

1995 The Rainmakers: The Olmec and Their Contribution toMesoamerican Belief and Ritual. In The Olmec World: Ritual andRulership, edited by Jill Guthrie, pp. 83–103. Art Museum,Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

2004 Olmec Art at Dumbarton Oaks. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington,D.C.

Vaillant, George C.1931 Excavations at Ticoman. Anthropological Papers of the American

Museum of Natural History, Vol. 32, Part 2. American Museum ofNatural History, New York.

von Winning, Hasso1976 Late and Terminal Preclassic: The Emergence of Teotihuacan.

In Origins of Religious Art and Iconography in PreclassicMesoamerica, edited by H.B. Nicholson, pp. 143–156. University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles, Latin American Center Publications, EthnicArts Council of Los Angeles.

1987 La iconografıa de Teotihuacan: Los dioses y los signos, vol. 1.Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico City.

Effigy vessels 67