The sMesoamtask forIn contrempiresrecord, among systems that shed little light on politicalprocesses. can empiremeaning thtrol and incial infrastsult, they remains in ial, or direcor Inka em(DAltroy 1992). In thlogical critecient empircanists havsocieties th(e.g., the Odeny the exin fact stro

s

a

s

decade. A number of monographs have ap-

The Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-Hispanic

U

n

2

T ecau Ro dcha de nSo fcit ojecthr nTen d

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 245284 (2001)doi:10.1006/jaar.2000.0372, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Furthermore, most Mesoameri-s were hegemonic in character,at they relied upon indirect con-vested few resources in provin-ructure (Hassig 1985). As a re-left far fewer durable materialtheir provinces than did territor-t-rule, empires such as the Waripires of Andean South America

peared recently on individual empires (e.g.,Alcock 1993; Berdan et al. 1996; DAltroy1992; Liverani 1993; Millett 1990; Morrison1995; Schreiber 1992). Comparative studiesare becoming more common (e.g., Alcock etal. 2001; Algaze 1993; Blanton 1996; Cherry1992; Schreiber 1999). As a result of in-creased attention to ancient empires, archae-ologists have made considerable progress intudy of empires in pre-Columbianerica has proved to be a difficult

archaeologists and ethnohistorians.ast to the Old World, where ancient are well attested in the writtenearly empires in Mesoamerica arosesocieties with rudimentary writing

(e.g., thSimpliity havimpericized b

The rialism

Central MexicoMichael E. Smith and Lisa

Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, S

E-mail: mesmith@csc.albany.edu; mo

Received August 31, 1999; revision received January 6published online June 1,

he hegemonic-type empires of ancient Mesoamerica arse they left fewer material traces than more territorially

man cases. We present a material culture model for the ieological data. The model, based upon Michael Doyles

veloped from historical and archaeological research on auth America. Empires can be identified from three types oy, evidence for varying types of political domination of prtion of influence in a larger, international context. We appee central Mexican casesTenochtitlan, Teotihuacan, aochtitlan and Teotihuacan ruled empires, whereas Tula 1992; Malpass 1993; Schreibere absence of rigorous archaeo-ria for the identification of an-es and imperialism, Mesoameri-e been free to ascribe empires toat almost certainly lacked themlmecs or the Toltecs), and to

istence of empires when there isng evidence that they existed

devisinpects ocollapseCherrytroy 191994; Scand MoStark 19ing bod

245e Zapotec or Teotihuacan empires).tic criteria such as ceramic similar-e too often been used to documentl conquest, a situation recently criti-

y Zeitlin and Joyce (1999).ubject of ancient empires and impe-has seen renewed interest in the past

Montiel

NY, Albany, New York 12222

tiellisa@aol.com

, 2000; accepted August 20, 2000; 001

difficult to study archaeologically be-organized empires such as the Inka orentification of such empires using ar-

analytical approach to imperialism, iscient empires from the Old World and evidence: characteristics of the capitalvincial areas, and examples of the pro-

ly this model to archaeological data ond Tula. The results suggest that bothid not. 2001 Academic Pressg methods to analyze various as-f the expansion, organization, and

of empires (e.g., Adams 1979;1992; Costin and Earle 1989; DAl-

92; Earle 1994; Morrison and Lycetthreiber 1999; Sinopoli 1994; Sinopolirrison 1995; Smith and Berdan 1992;90). One thing is lacking in this grow-y of literature, howevera rigorous

0278-4165/01 $35.00Copyright 2001 by Academic PressAll rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

archaeological method for identifying em-pires using material remains. In most partsof thOne methAssyBut empimethproaof pr

OuplicitficatiarchamodeTeotimodelogicarounpliedthreesuggTenodid basedAztemislecal hdata.brieflto soNewTarasWari

AN

WeDoylperiaof emmal by aThis ture (1986;

ture of imperialism. Unfortunately, politicalprocesses are among the most difficult for

op

me

s

e

aa

oe

t

246 SMITH AND MONTIELl to three central Mexican test cases,huacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan. Ourl is based on historical and archaeo-

al evidence from ancient empiresd the world. When the model is ap-

to archaeological evidence from these Mesoamerican societies, the resultsest strongly that both Teotihuacan andchtitlan ruled empires, whereas Tulanot. The so-called Toltec empire at Tula was an invention of the

cs, and modern scholars have beend by an overreliance on Aztec mythi-istory at the expense of archaeological After discussing the three cases, wey explore the relevance of our modelme other likely ancient empires of the World, including the Zapotec andcan empires of Mesoamerica and the empire of South America.

ARCHAEOLOGICAL MODEL OFEMPIRES AND IMPERIALISM

follow political scientist Michaeles (1986) definition of empires and im-lism: I favor the behavioral definitionpire as effective control, whether for-

or informal, of a subordinated societyn imperial society (Doyle 1986:30).definition, like most others in the litera-e.g., Larsen 1979; Luttwak 1976; Mann Sinopoli 1994) stresses the political na-

Dthe ics oWe thretal cruledenceral tionsdomto thrialithe pancisortshierthe alismthe pthat

Dsystbetwuse tionnentprocchanand the refere Old World, this is not a pressing need.hardly needs to develop sophisticatedods to determine whether the Romans,rians, or Achaemenids ruled empires.in Mesoamerica, with its hegemonicres, there is a real need for such aod (see Flannery 1998 for a similar ap-ch to the archaeological identificationistine or archaic states).r goal in this paper is to present an ex- material culture model for the identi-on of empires and imperialism usingeological data, and to apply that

archarectlythe scientdencWe fiincorables

Fial pacety,systtexteologists to identify and analyze di-. Our approach is to consider some ofocial and economic expressions of an- imperialism to identify material evi-e of a type that archaeologists can use.nd Doyles analytical approach, whichporates spatial pro-cesses and vari-, useful for organizing our discussion:

our intersecting sources account for the imper-relationship: the metropolitan regime, its ca-ities and interests; the peripheral political soci- its interests and weakness; the transnationalem and its needs; and the international con- and the incentives it creates. (Doyle 1986:46)

yles metropolitan regime refers toolitical, economic, and social dynam-

f the imperial capital and core society.odify this factor to create the first of

general criteria of imperialism, a capi-ity, sufficiently large and complex toan empire, that exhibits material evi-e of an imperial ideology. The periph-political society refers to the condi- in the provincial areas conquered orinated by an empire. Although cruciale analysis of any specific case of impe-m, we do not find this factor useful forurpose of identifying the existence ofnt imperialism. Empires conquered all of provincial polities, from small, non-rchical groups to other empires, andrchaeological identification of imperi- must start with imperial impact onrovinces, not the indigenous situation

preceded incorporation.yles third factor, the transnationalm, refers to the nature of interactionseen the capital and the provinces. Wehis element, under the label, domina-of a territory, as the second compo- of our model. We divide transnationalesses into two categories, economic ex-ge (between capital and provinces)political control. Doyles fourth factor,international context of an empire,s to political and economic dynamics

of the larger geopolitical setting in whichempires expand and operate. We narrowthis theme to the notion that empires pro-ject vapoliticders.

Tablchaeolanciention inexhibievery followdence cient emodel

Moscompl

perial capital, and these cities almost al-ways contained durable displays of imper-ial ideology, many of which have survived

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 247

Feature

1. The imA. LaB. Pro

2. DominA. Eco o

p

B. Poli ilnpop

3. ProjectA. Eco a

B. Poli ilrnl

C. Culo

nation of a territorynomic exchange between capital and provinces 1. Pr

2. Im

tical control of provinces 1. M2. Co3. Im4. Re5. Im

ion of influence in a larger international contextnomic influence 1. Tr

tical influence 1. Mbo

2. Cepo

tural influence 1. Adpe

2. Emtavincial goods found at capitalerial goods found in provinces

itary conqueststruction of imperial infrastructureosition of tribute or taxesrganization of settlement systemserial co-option of local elites

de with extraimperial regions

itary engagement and activities along enemyderstralization or militarization of extraimperial

ities

option of imperial gods or rituals by distantplesulation of imperial styles and traits by dis-t peoplesrious kinds of influenceeconomic,al, and culturalbeyond their bor-

e 1 presents a summary of our ar-ogical model for the identification oft empires. This is a polythetic defini- the sense that most ancient empirested most of these traits, although notempire exhibited all of them. In theing section we summarize the evi-for these traits among a variety of an-mpires, and after that we apply this to the three case studies.

1. The Imperial Capital

t ancient empires had a large andex urban center that served as the im-

to the present. These two featuresurbansize and complexity, and material procla-mations of imperial ideologyprovide astarting point in the archaeological identifi-cation of ancient empires.

A. Large, Complex Urban Center

Imperial capitals were among the mostprominent settlements of the ancient world,and today the remains of cities such asRome, Athens, Xian, Persepolis, Vijayana-gara, and Cuzco survive as some of themost spectacular archaeological sitesaround the world. These capitals are im-pressive not only for their size andgrandeur, but also for the evidence of social

TABLE 1Archaeological Criteria for the Identification of Empires

s Examples

perial capitalrge, complex urban centerclamations of imperial ideology 1. Militarism

2. Glorification of king or state

complexity revealed by excavations. Thisurban complexity typically included the ex-istentionaamonFritzOwe1990)of pocities(MorMesocomptals

B. Pr

Alancieergy periastatevidutarismstatepublwaysviewgandand promexprecientbattleCookproclstructal (eor thial ciilarlypublirulercorreand Fritzproclmate

et al. 1996), often in a durable form that en-sured its survival from ancient times to the

248 SMITH AND MONTIELce of multiple social classes, occupa-l specialization, and ethnic variation,g other types of social variability (e.g.,

et al. 1984; Hyslop 1990; Osborne 1987;ns 1991; Stambaugh 1988; Steinhardt. Although there are one or two caseslitical empires without major capital, such as the Carolingian empireeland 2001), we suggest that inamerica the opposite patternlargelex cities that were not imperial capi-is far more likely.

oclamations of Imperial Ideology

most without exception, the rulers ofnt empires invested considerable en-in producing public statements of im-l ideology. Although the content of or imperial ideology varied with indi-al cases, all known cases included mili-

and/or glorification of the king or among their prominent themes. Theseic symbolic proclamations did not al- reflect reality, and they are bested as examples of imperial propa-a. Empires relied upon military force,militarism and military glory wereinent themes in imperial capitals. Thisssion took a variety of forms in an-

empires, including public images of, soldiers, and military themes (e.g., 1983; Cotterell 1981), public royalamations (Larsen 1979), and the con-tion of symbolic fortresses in the capi-.g., the Sacsahuaman fortress in Cuzcoe inner compounds of Chinese imper-ties; Hyslop 1990, Steinhart 1990). Sim-, imperial capitals typically containedc monuments designed to glorify the or the state, often by establishing aspondence between the city or empirethe cosmos (Bauer 1998; Briggs 1951; et al. 1984; Root 1979). These publicamations of state messages served torialize imperial ideology (DeMarrais

prese

WenatioheadAll ecapitthouoftenwas cal cthe imabovprocedata.

A. EcPro

WrexcavprovcientStamit is weretion chanvide interConvencoand E

B. Po

Terpirescial ca varoftenmostused

1. Mexpant.

2. Domination of a Territory

consider issues in the imperial domi-n or control of its territory under twoings, exchange and political control.mpires exhibited trade between theal or core zone and their provinces, al-gh the two directions of exchange were not equivalent in value (i.e., exchangeone means of domination). The politi-ontrol of provinces forms the core of

perial relationship, but as mentionede this is one of the more difficultsses to monitor with archaeological

onomic Exchange Between Capital andvinces

itten documents and archaeologicalations reveal the presence of imported

incial goods in virtually all known an- imperial capitals (e.g., Osborne 1987;baugh 1988). For the present purposesnot important whether these goods

obtained through coercion (i.e., taxa-or tribute) or through commercial ex-ge; what is important is that they pro-clear material evidence for economic

action between capital and provinces.ersely, imperial goods are commonly

untered in provincial contexts (Costinarle 1989; Millett 1990; Woolf 1992).

litical Control of Provinces

ritorial empires and hegemonic em- employed different forms of provin-ontrol, and within individual empiresiety of different means of control were present. In this section we review the common forms of provincial control by ancient empires.

ilitary conquest. Most ancient empiresnded through military conquest (or

threat of conquest), but this process left fewdirect material remains. Cities and townswere raempiresprovincthem. Dments fprobabling fewtinctionof initimilitaryleave athis is in

2. CoTerritorInca casin buildtowns, bridgesgrove 1lett 199imperiathe mofor anchegemoinfrastrarchaeoa more cal cont

3. Impancient some foduces mered armay haproductthe inteadoptiosion of ods, incarchaeoHopkin1983; Slarly, imcrease goods fintensit

mented by archaeologists (Costin et al.1989). Imperial taxation could lead to a low-

aohfsfiamShcofcor

Wr a9 srth

stieipr

lyd

iom

sne

rtet

tuycimts

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 249rely destroyed entirely, since most were more interested in controllingial populations than in destroying

amages to buildings and settle-rom the process of conquest werey repaired soon after the fact, leav- or no archaeological traces. In dis- to the low archaeological visibilityal military conquests, continuing control of provincial areas did

rchaeological traces in many cases;cluded under our next category.

nstruction of imperial infrastructure.ial empires such as the Roman andes invested considerable resourcesing a provincial infrastructure of

garrisons, fortresses, roads,, and the like (Alcock 1993; Hasel-987; Hopkins 1978, 1984, 1990; Mil-0; Wells 1984). The remains of thesel construction projects are typicallyst obvious and dramatic evidenceient imperialism in such cases. Innic empires, by contrast, imperial

ucture was left to a minimum andlogists must rely upon evidence ofindirect nature to document politi-rol.osition of Tribute or Taxes. Nearly allempires taxed their subjects inrm, and such taxation often pro-aterial remains that can be recov-

chaeologically. Provincial peoplesve had to increase their agriculturalion to meet their taxes, resulting innsification of farming through then of new techniques or the expan-existing methods. Many such meth-luding terracing and irrigation, arelogically visible (Hopkins 1978;s 1980; Morrison 1995; Redmondinopoli and Morrison 1995). Simi-perial subjects may have had to in-

their production of manufacturedor tax purposes, and changes in they of craft production can be docu-

ering oareas, chaeoltion. Tdence changeintensiingcthan iHeath-such ceviden

4. Repires obetter volt, oends. and/oin archtroy 19patternpeopleare moThe 16Spainsvides nucleasettlem1977; G

5. Imwhethetypicalgifts anoperatIn hegevariouresult ionly wpire (BPostgadid noThis sically bprovinvalue contexf standards of living in provincialnd again this is a process that ar-gists can document with excava-e difficulty with this kind of evi-

or imperialism is that all of theseagricultural intensification, craftcation, and lowered standard of liv-n also result from processes other

perial taxation (see Smith andmith 1994 for discussion). Thusanges alone do not constitute cleare for imperial taxation.rganization of settlement systems. Em-ten move people around in order tontrol them, to lessen chances of re- to achieve particular economichen such changes are systematic

large in scale they can be reflectedeological settlement patterns (DAl-2; Topic and Topic 1993). A commonis forced nucleation, where rural

are moved into towns where theye easily monitored and controlled.-century practice of congregacin in

New World imperial provinces pro-ome dramatic examples of forcedon whose results are still visible innt patterns today (e.g., Gerhardbson 1966).erial co-option of local elites. Empires, territorial or hegemonic in nature, buy off provincial elites with privileges in order to gain their co-n in administering the provinces.onic empires, or on the frontiers of

kinds of empires, this process can the creation of client states that areakly under the control of the em-

aund 1984; Isaac 1990; Morkot 2001; 1992); for example, client states

pay taxes in the Roman empire.ation can be identified archaeologi-

the emulation of imperial styles byial elites, or by the presence of high-

perial imports in provincial elite (Postgate 1992:258; Kuhrt 2001).

3. Projection of Influence in a LargerInternational Context

Empires exist within a larger interna-tional context, and they interact in variouswaysfeatusmalexerton oworlpremframwithWe demppolit

A. Ec

Monal, nomanciehas bRomoverWhitAkkaareas(Ede

B. Po

Thliticaties. ful activfronttier wcatioand turesHyslmonpolit

states as they organized themselves to dealwith the threat of a nearby expanding em-pire (archa

u

c

turnyt

w

ol

u

s

R

l

c

c

t e

250 SMITH AND MONTIEL

*See with other independent polities. Onere that differentiates empires fromler states is that empires almost always various kinds of identifiable influencether polities in the larger system. Thed-systems approach, as modified forodern societies, provides a usefulework for viewing the role of empiresin their larger international context.1,*iscuss the extraimperial influences of

ires under the headings of economic,ical, and cultural influence.

onomic Influence

st ancient empires traded with exter-independent polities, and these eco-ic exchanges formed the backbone ofnt world systems. This kind of tradeeen most extensively studied for the

an empire, whose goods traveled all the world (Begley and de Puma 1991;taker 1983, 1994). Another example isdian and Ur III trade with distant in the Arabian Gulf and elsewherens 1992; Edens and Kohl 1993).

litical Influence

e expansion of empires often had po-l effects on nearby independent poli-When an empire encountered a power-enemy along its borders, militaryities were common occurrences in theier zone (Whittaker 1994). If the fron-as stable for any length of time, fortifi-

ns could be built by one or both sidesthese are common archaeological fea- on the edges of empires (Bartel 1980;op 1990; Millett 1990). Another com- effect of imperialism was a process ofical centralization among independent

formwith

C. C

Beceiveful, dor riincodistaial stWhishowmontact and chaeshoupolitprovconfpropClas

INT

Teall lafelt tica (locaintro

Teno

Temodindiat thcall wassensof a Notes section at end of paper for all footnotes.ical control within an empiresinces, however. We suggest below thatsion of this sort has hindered the

er evaluation of Teotihuacans role inic-period Mesoamerica.

ODUCTION TO TENOCHTITLAN,TEOTIHUACAN, AND TULA

otihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan wererge urban centers whose influence washroughout many regions of Mesoamer-Fig. 1), far beyond the extent of their polities. In this section we provide anduction to these polities.

htitlan

nochtitlan is a good test case for ourel, since documentary sources clearlyate the existence of an empire centeredis city. Some scholars have hesitated tohe Aztec polity an empire (e.g., thisnot an empire at all in the very strictest (Davies 1973:110)) because of its lack

provincial infrastructure and standingEdens 1992). This can be determinedeologically through evidence for stateation or centralization concomitantthe expansion of a nearby empire.

ltural Influence

ause expanding empires are often per-d by outsiders as prestigious or power-istant peoples may adopt imperial godsals in the absence of direct conquest or

poration or prior to conquest. Similarly,t elites or peoples may emulate imper-les or adopt imperial practices or traits.

takers (1994) study of Roman frontierss that these processes were quite com-in extraimperial areas that were in con-ith the empire or with frontier zones,

they can leave material traces for ar-logists to recover. This evidenced not be confused with evidence for

army. Hthat sucthors inempiresrial emppires, borganizquite diologicalcomparsome sc

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 251

FIand

FIG 2. Map of the extent of the Aztec empire in central Mexico (based upon Berdan et al. 1996).assig, however (1985:90), showsh views merely reflect various au-adequate understanding of ancient; the Aztec empire was not a territo-ire like the Late Roman or Inca em-

ut was a hegemonic empire whoseation (and material remains) werefferent. The lack of obvious archae- visibility of the Aztec empire inison with territorial empires has ledholars to suggest that without the

documentary record we would never knowthat the Aztec empire existed at all. We offerthe present analysis to counter this sugges-tion. Our map of the central portion of theAztec empire (Fig. 2) is based upon themaps presented in Berdan et al. (1996).

According to Aztec native historical tra-dition, Tenochtitlan was founded by theMexica people in the early 14th century,A.D. on a swampy island in the salt lakes ofthe Basin of Mexico. In 1428 Tenochtitlan

G 1. Map of Mesoamerica showing distant cities that interacted with Tenochtitlan, Teotihuacan,Tula. Key to obsidian sources: (1) Pachuca, (2) Otumba, (3) Ucareo, (4) El Chayal.

achieved political independence from itsTepanec overlords and immediately beganimpernearbthe Aliancepan (Ctime Tpartnhas cAlliansole cthe MprosetributproviBerda

Priotions the a(Brodbergeprovidistriband thcial s1997b

Teotih

TheTeotihBasinsevenclear nomicence studyresearhistorSantleica-w(e.g., abandof intOaxaclandstic infl

A number of archaeological studies pro-duced settlement pattern and artifactual

Bb;hs

islt ni

l

o

ee

h

t

p cae

u e

252 SMITH AND MONTIELialist expansion by conqueringy city-states. In the traditional view,ztec empire was run by a Triple Al- of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlaco-arrasco 1996; Davies 1987), and over

enochtitlan emerged as the dominanter. In a recent paper, Gillespie (1998)hallenged the existence of the Triplece, arguing that Tenochtitlan was theapital city all along. The conquests ofexica kings are recorded in a series of and pictorial documents, as are thee payments made by the Aztecnces (Berdan and Anawalt 1992;n et al. 1996).r studies of the material manifesta-

of Aztec imperialism have focused onrt and architecture of Tenochtitlana et al. 1987; Townsend 1979; Um-r 1996), sculpture and other art in thences (Umberger and Klein 1993), the

ution of trade goods (Smith 1990),e effects of Aztec conquest on provin-

ociety (Silverstein 2000; Smith 1992,, 2001, 1992).

uacan

great Classic-period metropolis ofuacan flourished in the northeastern

of Mexico from the second throughth centuries, A.D. It has long beenthat Teotihuacan had important eco-, stylistic, and perhaps political influ-throughout Mesoamerica, and the of these influences has been a majorch theme by archaeologists and artians (e.g., Berlo 1992; Pasztory 1978;y 1984). Early views of a Mesoamer-

ide empire centered at TeotihuacanBernal 1966; Borhegyi 1971) wereoned in the 1960s and 1970s in favorerpretations that stressed trade witha, the Guatemalan coast and high-

, and other distant regions, and stylis-uence in the Classic Maya lowlands.

datastronthe near1980ers pearrect MextimeSantplicipire.a raMexcapithighno Tbut wMesthe Tof thcausthe ethe Mthat showfits t

Tula

Ouperiacounhabiviewof thaccetheircal aarchthe llegedaccotory,ventsuggesting that Teotihuacan exertedg political and economic control overasin of Mexico and perhaps othery areas (e.g., Charlton 1991; Hirth

Sanders et al. 1979). Sanders and oth-ave remarked that Teotihuacan ap- to have maintained stronger, more di-political control over the Basin ofco than did Tenochtitlan in Aztec (Sanders et al. 1979; Sanders andey 1983), but none of these authors ex-ly call the Teotihuacan polity an em-Millon (1988) was the first to assemblege of data on Classic-period centralco and argue that Teotihuacan was theal of an empire in the central Mexicanands. He later stated that there waseotihuacan empire (Millon 1994:28),e assume that he is referring here to aamerica-wide empire. New data oneotihuacan affiliations of early rulers Maya cities of Tikal and Copan haved at least some scholars to return to

arlier model of Teotihuacan control ofaya area (Coe 1999:8384), but we feel

this interpretation is premature. We below that Millons (1988) model beste archaeological data.

r discussion of Tula as a possible im-l capital begins with the Aztec ac-ts of Tula and its Toltec rulers and in-ants. The Aztecs had a highly inflated of the accomplishments and grandeure Toltecs, and the scholars today whot the existence of a Toltec empire baseviews more on the exaggerated mythi-counts of the Aztecs than on empiricaleological data. The Aztec kings tracedgitimacy of their dynasties to their (al-) descent from the Toltec kings. Aztecnts of the Toltecs merge myth and his-and the Toltecs were said to have in-d the calendar and the various arts

and crafts, interpretations that are clearlyfalse. Here are some of the descriptions ofthe TolCodex:

The good, aThey inToltecathey orwere riwords were lavery d195019

Most empire study bhoff 198and connial soupally Chlan, andsuggestbased aern Mesviews tinterpreproblemproceedsenting fragmening a m(1977:31Fig. 4, aextent osion beanalysis(1992) btenuousgies fropictoria

ManyterpretaFeldmaempireneeds nscriptioof the U

logical project (e.g., Cobean 1990:503510;Diehl 1993:283; Healan 1989:4), among

tTnr

li arsc9

r z2sth aonym

gef risalm

t ma

aza179aygt4e

e 9av

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 253tecs given in Sahagns Florentine

Tolteca were wise. Their works were allll perfect, all wonderful, all marvelous . . .vented the art of medicine . . . And these

were very wise; they were thinkers, foriginated the year count . . . These Toltecaghteous. They were not deceivers. Their[were] clear words . . . They were tall; theyrger [than the people today] . . . They wereevout . . . They were rich. (Sahagn,82: book 10, 165170)

modern interpretations of a Toltecare based upon a speculative 1961y Paul Kirchhoff (reprinted as Kirch-5). Kirchhoff interpreted some vaguetradictory accounts in Spanish colo-rces on Aztec native history (princi-imalpahin, the Anales de Cuauhtit- the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca) as

ing the existence of a large empiret Tula that controlled much of north-oamerica. Davies (1977:296312) re-

he textual evidence and Kirchhoffstations and points out numerouss and points of confusion. He thens to ignore his own criticisms by pre-an imaginative reconstruction of thetary and contradictory data, includ-ap of the purported Toltec empire2328). Daviess map is shown inlong with our reconstruction of thef the Toltec regional state (see discus-low). Feldman (1974) presents an similar to that of Davies. Kelleyases a claim for a Toltec empire upon correlations among royal genealo-m the Mixtec region as depicted inl codices. scholars apparently accept the in-tions of Kirchhoff, Davies, andn uncritically, speaking of a Toltec as if it were an established fact thato empirical justification. This de-

n applies to a number of membersniversity of Missouri Tula archaeo-

whomThe by ecotaculapatternsame trolledlater, laOther existen(1999:5FowleNogue(1977:2recent ing of (Tulateractinized bpants passin

Somtion otance tand dpoliticfor exawrittencludesnot soone thclavescoloni1992:1Lee (1may hpotterAmonthe no(1997:1It is bfluenc(2000:2dominnever and Lhe following statements are typical:oltecs were imperialists motivatedomic goals . . . their brief but spec-career as an imperial power set thefor later Aztec ventures along thenes (Diehl 1983:140); Tula con- tributary empire comparable to theger Aztec empire (Healan 1993:459).cholars who accept uncritically thee of a Toltec empire include Carrasco), Coe (1994:131132; 1999:167),(1989:274), Nicholson (2000:155),

(1995:206214), and Weigand et al.). This trend continues unabated; at aymposium at the 2000 Annual Meet-e Society for American Archaeology

nd the Toltec World: Interregional In- During the Early Postclassic, orga- Robert Cobean), at least five partici-entioned the Toltec empire in

as if it were an established entity. scholars are more critical of the no-a Toltec empire, invoking long-dis-ade to explain contacts between Tulatant areas rather than conquest and expansion. Hassig (1992:110120),ple, notes the lack of contemporary

accounts of the Toltec polity and con-hat The available evidence suggests

uch a military as a trading empire,t operated through merchant en-nd settlements rather than militarytion of outlying areas (Hassig); similar views are expressed by

78:293), who suggests that Toltecsve controlled the trade of Plumbate in Early Postclassic Mesoamerica. the few scholars openly critical ofion of a Toltec empire are Prem2); Weaver (1993:405), who states,st to think of a Toltec sphere of in-rather than an empire; Cowgill5), who suggests that the areated by the Tula state was probablyery extensive; and Lpez Austin

pez Lujn (2000:69), who state that

Tula was not the capital of a pan-Mesoamerican empire. Jones (1995:4460)provarly achanTolte

Mothe ETula,Tollaand discuclass

The Y

Weprojeexcavcity ocoverwith al. 19n.d.),Class

Montiel n.d.). As indicated in Fig. 24, thisarea was part of the Aztec empire (Berdan

254 SMITH AND MONTIELFIG 3. Map of the extent of the Teotihuacan empire (based upon Millon 1988 and Montiel n.d.).ides a useful historical review of schol-ttitudes toward the Toltecs, including

ging opinions on the existence of ac empire.st scholars accept the identification ofarly Postclassic archaeological site of Hidalgo, with the Toltec capital cityn as described in the Aztec histories,2

the archaeological evidence that wess is from Tula and other Early Post-

ic sites in central Mexico.

autepec Valley as a Provincial Area

have conducted several fieldworkcts in the Yautepec Valley, includingations of Aztec-period houses at thef Yautepec (Smith et al., 1999), a full-age survey of the Yautepec Valleyintensive surface collections (Cascio et95; Hare et al. n.d.; Hare 2000; Montiel and test excavations at a sample ofic and Postclassic sites (Hare 2000;

et al. 1996); it was part of the Teotihuacanempire in the models of Millon (1988) andMontiel (n.d.); and it was part of the Toltecempire as reconstructed by Davies (1977).The Yautepec Valley therefore provides agood test case for the incorporation of pre-sumed provincial areas into the three poli-ties under consideration. Although many ofthe analyses from these fieldwork projectsare not yet complete, we do have enoughdata available to evaluate models of imper-ial incorporation. Because we did not exca-vate any Early Postclassic contexts, we willuse single-component surface collectionsfrom that period to compare to our Classicand Late Postclassic excavations.

THE IMPERIAL CAPITAL

Tenochtitlan

Although Aztec Tenochtitlan today liesburied under Mexico City, available archae-

ologicacitys iTenochRojas 1routes groundare sufthe larglevel othe varTenochsmall teand othMoctezof an exby masages ofglorific(Townsology htion byplo MMoctezanalysi

i

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 255

F pempl evidence confirms the ancientmperial status (for a description oftitlan from historic sources, see

rial ideof an oland c

IG 4. Map of the extent of the Tula polity and Daviess maire (Davies 1977; see text for discussion).986). Salvage excavations along theof mficie s

f soiabtitlamper

umplisiv miatioendas

schayoums ex

lans imology at Tenochtitlan. The existencerthogonal grid plan covering the is-ty is also consistent with Tenochtit-

of the tentative boundary of the Toltecperial status (Calnek 1976; Smith

Mexico Citys expanding under-etro, although poorly published,ently extensive to demonstrateize of Tenochtitlan. An imperialcial complexity is suggested byility in architecture excavated atn, including simple houses,les, and massive state pyramids

civic-religious buildings (Matosa 1979, 1988, 1999). The presencecit imperial ideology is indicatede stone carvings that portray im-litarism, sacrifice, and the cosmicn of the state and key emperors 1979; Umberger 1996). This ide-

been a central focus of investiga-olars working on the Aztec Tem-r (Broda et al. 1987; Matosa 1988), and Brumfiels (1998)plores the social context of impe-

1997a).

Teotihuacan

The huge size and high level of social com-plexity at Classic-period Teotihuacan are wellattested in the abundant record of recent archaeological fieldwork at the site (e.g.,Cabrera Castro et al. 1991a; Cowgill 1997; Mil-lon 1981). An imperial ideology that includedprominent militaristic themes is evident inmany of the polychrome mural paintings, fig-urines, and sculptures found throughout theancient city (Barbour 1979; Cabrera Castro etal. 1991b; Cowgill 1997; Miller 1967, 1973;Sugiyama 1998). The military iconography inmurals includes figures with tasseled head-dresses and ringed eyes (Millon 1973),bird/owl imagery, and representations of theStorm/War God, felines, spears, and shields

(Berrin 1988; Cabrera Castro 1992). Militaryorders are associated with owl, eagle, coyote,jaguaVon Unlileadehuaccent Cowtlan,gesteout ostatu

Tula

AlcomTula11 sq(Dievealeform(Heaand dez surroturesballcstonrificepromFuenAn oat Tutire eCorrlayocenteestabout and

Discu

Teall sserve

out following a grid that covered part of all ofthe urban area, a pattern otherwise quite rare

c

h

haifi

i

e

c

256 SMITH AND MONTIELr, and serpent imagery (Miller 1967;Winning 1948; Von Winning 1987:94).

ke in many ancient empires, individualrs were not depicted publicly at Teoti-an, a situation much discussed in the re-literature (e.g., Blanton et al. 1996;

gill 1997; Pasztory 1997). As at Tenochti- the high degree of urban planning sug-d by the extensive orthogonal grid lay-f Teotihuacan is consistent with citys

s as an imperial capital.

though much smaller and less sociallyplex than Teotihuacan or Tenochtitlan, was still an impressive urban center of. km, with 30,000 to 40,000 inhabitants

hl 1983:5860). Excavations have re-d evidence of social complexity in the of varied residential architecturelan 1989) and workshops for obsidianceramics (Healan et al. 1983; Hernn-et al. 1999). The large central plaza isunded by various monumental struc-, including two temple-pyramids, aourt, and other civic buildings. Carvede reliefs with depictions of warfare, sac-, and other militaristic themes areinent in the urban core of Tula (de late et al. 1988; Kristan-Graham 1999).rthogonal grid layout was also presentla, but it may not have covered the en-xtent of the city. The center of the early,al-phase, city at Tula exhibited a gridut. When the later, Tollan-phase cityr was built, a new grid orientation waslished, at least for the central city lay-

(Mastache and Crespo 1982; MastacheCobean 1985:274285, 1989:6263).

ssion

otihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan wereufficiently large and complex to haved as capitals of empires. Each was laid

in ancitiesceremnot stive of urcentrLyncsiderpublglori

Inand Mexand Xochthat ods 1987

Thhavegrid threetradiart apast liticamic lhowwereality,on th

DEXC

Teno

ThevidTenotopicnohievidical fiarchitecture of Teotihuacan, Tula, andicalco, a large urban center in Morelosflourished between the dominant peri-of Teotihuacan and Tula (Umberger, 1996).e Toltec rulers of Tula may similarly imitated Teotihuacan in their use of thepattern and other urban features. These cities participated in a central Mexicantion of imperial city planning in whichnd architecture made references to theand were used by rulers to proclaim po-l messages of power, greatness, and cos-egitimacy (Smith 1997a). For the Toltecs,ver, we believe that these messages

more empty propaganda than social re- since the notion of a Toltec empire failse criterion of domination of a territory.

OMINATION OF A TERRITORY:HANGE BETWEEN CAPITAL AND

PROVINCES

htitlan

ere is overwhelming archaeologicalence for economic exchange betweenchtitlan and its provinces, and this is a for which archaeology surpasses eth-story in the quantity and quality of theence. The most spectacular archaeolog-nds are the offerings from the Temploient Mesoamerica (most Mesoamerican exhibited formal planning only in theironial cores, and residential zones do

how evidence of planning). Compara-istorical research suggests that the use

ban grids is usually related to stronglyalized political control (Carter 1983; 1981). All three of the cities under con-tion here also contained prominent

c art with themes of militarism and thecation of the state.

the case of Tenochtitlan, documentaryart historical evidence shows that itsca rulers deliberately imitated the art

Mayor, which contained Mezcala-stylestone sculptures from Guerrero, a variety ofspeciesand Paverse rBerrelleferingsnear thfrom M(Smith Gmezprovincered inico Cityof the Dtuto NMexicoareas inMexicoof ceramton in nas et atation olike Monot gro

The mtion of provincorange by Mar1993) htive cerparts oTenochprovincfrom thwell as This typpire (Smwere p(Smith,

SmithAztec pnumeroBasin oabout Aworks iwere im

and not from other places in the Basin ofMexico. Several ceramic types (e.g., Texcoco

Mract

ar

ua i 1

na

bse

shcvrw nen

a a

t

fo

a

e gn e,

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 257 of marine fauna from the Atlanticcific coasts, and ceramics from di-egions (Lpez Lujn 1994; Romnza and Lpez Lujn 1999). The of-

in the so-called volador deposite Templo Mayor included ceramicsorelos and other provincial areasn.d.b; Sols Olgun and Morales

1991), and sherds from a variety ofial ceramic types have been recov-

various salvage excavations in Mex- (seen by Smith in the laboratoriesepartamento de Salvamiento, Insti-

acional de Antropologa e Historia, City). Obsidian from several source the Aztec provinces is abundant in City excavations, and the presence

ic spindle whorls for spinning cot-residential contexts (Cepeda Crde-l. 1977) points strongly to the impor-f raw cotton from provincial areasrelos and the Huaxteca (cotton doesw in the Basin of Mexico).

ost secure evidence for the exporta-goods from Tenochtitlan to the Azteces is provided by Aztec III black-on-ceramics. Characterization research

y Hodge and colleagues (Hodge et al.as shown that vessels of this distinc-amic type were produced in severalf the Basin of Mexico, including

titlan. Aztec III sherds from theial city of Yautepec include examplese Tenochtitlan production area, as

other areas (Neff and Glascock 1996).e is found in many parts of the em-ith 1990), and many of those vesselsroduced in the Tenochtitlan area

Neff and Fauman-Fichman 1999).s excavations at Yautepec and otherrovincial sites in Morelos uncoveredus other artifacts originating in thef Mexico, but given our uncertaintyztec exchange mechanisms and net-t cannot be assumed that all of these

ported directly from Tenochtitlan

Fabric-Polychother pceramiTenochGuindwere plos andare foCholulportedChalcocationset al., predom(whereobsidiaOtumbalso aThe Baand evestablievidenthe procommegoods do notwas comost ccial chatrol (IsBerdan(1998) trolledchangedence

Teotihu

The huacanexchanand conatingincludurinesarked salt vessels and Xochimilcoome jars) probably originated inrts of the Basin, whereas Aztec-paste figurines could be from eitheritlan or other places in the Basin. or redware bowls, pitchers, and cupsobably manufactured in both More-the Basin of Mexico, and both typesnd at sites in Morelos. Chalco/ Polychrome tripod plates were im-from a number of areas, includingn the Basin of Mexico and various lo-in the Puebla/Tlaxcala region (Smith999). Green obsidian from Pachucainates at Aztec sites in Morelosit generally comprises over 90% of all), and gray obsidian from the source area in the Basin of Mexico isundant (Smith, unpublished data).in of Mexico was the Aztec core zone,n if a Tenochtitlan origin cannot beed, these varied imports do provide

e for exchange between the core andinces. Although we suggest that thisce in ceramics, obsidian, and otheras related to Aztec imperialism, we

mean to suggest that this exchangetrolled by the state; in fact it was al-rtainly conducted through commer-nels independent of direct state con-

ac 1986; Smith n.d.b, 2001; Smith and2000). Against this view, Pastranargues that the Aztec empire con-he mining, tool production, and ex-of obsidian, although he cites no evi-r this supposed control.

can

xchange of goods between Teoti-and its provinces differed from thee outside of the empire in quantitytext. In the provinces, goods origi-

from or controlled by Teotihuacan Thin Orange ceramics, censers, fig-and Pachuca obsidian (particularly

in blade form). Rattray and Harbottle (1992)have demonstrated that the manufacture ofThin Rattrcan eTeoti1990)by TeOranthat tribuwas trememuchTeotitegracompics atChin(Dazfrom (MonThin excavProjealso anaturery, mostlike KOranfuner

Altonly Pachunorthof m1978)Pachuworkings trol (Sextrasuch closeand Pthe pners.

obsidian became the dominant lithic mate-rial in the Classic period, a trend that re-

u

t

gb

e

d hh

)a

h

h

)e

i

od

e

ea

)

h

258 SMITH AND MONTIELOrange took place in Puebla, an areaay claims was outside of the Teotihua-mpire due to the lack of intrusive

huacan cultural elements (Rattray. The overwhelming monopolizationotihuacan of the distribution of Thinge does, however, strongly suggestthis area was giving Thin Orange aste to Teotihuacan. While Thin Orangetraded outside of the empire in ex-ly low quantities as a prestige item, a higher frequency of this import in

huacans periphery coincides with in-tion into the empire. Thin Orangerises 18% of the Classic period ceram- the provincial administrative site ofgu during the Early Classic period 1980:36) and 24% of the ceramicsthe Classic period in the Yautepec areatiel n.d.). Rattray (1981, 1998) reports aOrange frequency of 313% from testations of the Teotihuacan Mapping

ct. The distribution of Thin Orange isn important indicator of its imperial

e. At sites within the imperial periph-Thin Orange is present throughout residential sites, yet at distant sites

aminaljuyu, Copan, and Tikal, Thinge is mainly found in isolated (elite)ary contexts.hough the Otumba obsidian source isabout 15 km from Teotihuacan, theca obsidian source, located 50 km

east of the city, appears to have beenore interest to the empire (Charlton. The manufacture of tools fromca obsidian took place mainly in

shops associated with public build-in Teotihuacan, suggesting state con-pence 1987). This monopoly included

ction, suggested by Teotihuacan sitesas Huapalcalco and Zazacula located to Pachuca (Charlton 1978; Santleyool 1993), production, distribution to

rovinces, and trade with external part-In the Teotihuacan provinces, Pachuca

verseof Telos sporte(Mon

Deinto Monpec anolothe adifficmadthesethe ishopTeotiTeotitant 1984indicexamTeotiextenTeotiOyar(Monurine1979suggurinepossmold

Tevarieportavalumurafor flYautprobknowperio1994and Teotid in the Epiclassic period (after the fallotihuacan). The evidence from More-ggests that Pachuca obsidian was im-d into the area already in blade formtiel n.d.).corated censers were also importedthe provinces (Daz Oyarzbal 1980;iel n.d.). The censers from the Yaute-rea are so similar stylistically and tech-ically to Teotihuacan censers, that insence of characterization analysis it is

ult to determine if they were locally imitations or imports. We consider censers as imperial goods based uponentification of a large censer work-associated with the Ciudadela inuacan (Sugiyama 1998). Althoughuacan-type censers are found in dis-

areas outside of the empire (Berlo, their presence is isolated from othertors of Teotihuacan contact and such

ples are probably local imitations ofuacan censers. Figurines have been

sively described for two areas in theuacan empire, Chingu (Daz

zbal 1991) and the Yautepec Valleytiel 1999). These are identical to fig-s found at Teotihuacan (Barbour. The presence of molds in these areassts that at least some of these fig-

s were produced in the provinces. It isble that Teotihuacan supplied thes.tihuacans interest in its provinces with the economic and strategic im-

nce of each area. Chingu was probablyd for its lime, which was needed forl production and plaster manufactureoors and walls at Teotihuacan. Thepec and Amatzinac valleys werebly cotton growing areas as they aren to have been in the Late Postclassicd (Maldonado Jimnez 1990; Smith. A few possible crude spindle whorlsweaving picks have been found inuacan although they are not common

(Cabrera 1999). There are many bone nee-dles implying that some form of textile wasbeing pBasin oment, agrowingits strawith Gfrom Guthere areastern n.d.), suthrough

Teotihnortherling seleCook 1Trejo 19Queretatrolled bowls forms, strategifrom Teconcentments bpreted bthe collCastaeZetina a

Tula

Severhighlansimilar ics at Tand Acoogists ssome foclosest of GuaCerrito,many ce(Flores iff 1999that thede una

tuvo unida a Tula (p. 218; see also Braniff1975:281). We suggest below that these sim-

s

Ei w

c

ohtt

s

u

su

siiilae

t

cy

tce

i

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 259roduced. Cotton can not grow in thef Mexico due to the colder environ-nd Morelos is the closest cotton area. Morelos was also favored for

tegic location along a trade routeuerrero. Granular ware, probablyerrero, is found in Teotihuacan, but

e higher frequencies in central andMorelos (Hirth 1980; Montiel 1998,ggesting that Granular ware moved Morelos on its way to Teotihuacan.uacan dominated trade routes to

n Mexico and Veracruz by control-ct towns in Puebla, Tlaxcala (Garca981), Hidalgo (Garca Cook and77), and Queretaro. In the Valley ofro, goods that may have been con-by the state, such as red-on-buffin cylindrical and annular-basedare found in a few large sites inc locations to control trade routesotihuacan to areas in the north. Theration of populations in these settle-y the Late Classic period is inter-y the investigators as a response to

apse of Teotihuacan (Brambila andda 1993; Crespo 1998; Saint-Charlesnd Argelles Gamboa 1991).

al areas within the central Mexicands exhibit Early Postclassic potteryto that of Tollan-phase Tula (ceram-ula are described by Cobean 1990sta 1956, 1957), and most archaeol-

uggest that this material indicatesrm of link with the Toltec city. The

parallels are found in the Bajo areanajuato and Queretaro, where El Morales, and other sites shareramic types with Tollan-phase Tula

and Crespo 1988; Crespo 1991; Bran-). Flores and Crespo (1988) suggestse similarities indicate la existenciapoblacin que en alguna forma es-

ilaritieporatio

The of Mexsphere1990), differencerami1990:38terizatilikely tramic and set

In oucollectetypes ssuch aPolishetype Mtype inTula-bafrom Tother hand aldistribMexicoParsonmore lduced in addToltec-Querethave bzation,shouldcalled are noand weevidenican stBasin oof wesevidenYautep

In cosimilar may have resulted from the incor-n of this area into the Tula polity.arly Postclassic ceramics of the Basinco were part of the Mazapan ceramic(Whalen and Parsons 1982; Cobean

hich shares many types (but witht frequencies) with the local Tollan sphere of the Tula region (Cobean40). Although no chemical charac-n studies have been published, it isat vessels of some of the common ce-

ypes were exchanged between Tulalements in the Basin of Mexico.r survey of the Yautepec Valley wed low frequencies of several ceramicimilar to Tollan-phase types at Tula Macana Red-on-Brown and Proa

d Cream (Cascio et al. 1995). Theacana Red-on-Brown, a very rareYautepec, appears to be a distinctivesed type that was probably tradedla. Cream-slipped ceramics, on the

and, are more common in Moreloso have a much more widespreadtion in Early Postclassic central

(Cobean 1990:357364; Whalen and 1982:437; Tolstoy 1958). It seemskely that they may have been pro-n the Basin of Mexico and Morelostion to the Tula area. None of theike ceramics from Guanajuato,ro, the Basin of Mexico, or Morelosen subjected to chemical characteri-however, and our suggestions

be seen as highly preliminary. So-Mazapan-style ceramic figurines uncommon in the Yautepec Valley, believe that these are better seen ase for participation in a central Mex-le zone that included Morelos, the

f Mexico, the Tula region, and parts Mexico (Schondube 2000) than ase for direct exchange betweenc and Tula.

ntrast to these likely cases of stylisticty is the site of Tlalpizahuac, near

Chalco in the southern Basin of Mexico,whose limited Early Postclassic depositsprodsimiresen1993at thEpicwithmarihuacmorefromOraning weredencnatiocludTolte

OnlandalthoThe ing toolsfromnearUcarchoaAnathis impocomHua1981Valleauththeseian aeredgrougionthrouKristpretenentas so

260 SMITH AND MONTIEL

o

rrarc

s

tation), providing further evidence for theimportance of commerce at Tula. Not sur-

n

nd

u

oona

v

n

d

eerkhyuced burial vessels and sherds verylar to the ceramics of Tula that may rep-t imports (Pfannkuch Wachtel et al.

). Most of the architecture and depositsis site date to the terminal Classic andlassic periods, however (Tovaln 1998), Early Postclassic vessels found pri-ly in some intrusive burials. Tlalpiza- also yielded ceramic imports from distant areas, including Plumbate Pacific coastal Guatemala and Finege and other Gulf Coast types, indicat-that the inhabitants of Tlalpizahuac trading with diverse areas. The evi-e does not suggest conquest or domi-n by Tula, and Tovaln (1998:177) con-

es that the site was not occupied bycs from Tula.e of the few clear examples of hinter-

goods imported into Tula is obsidian,ugh the mechanisms are not yet clear.

city had numerous workshops produc-prismatic blades, bifaces, and other from obsidian. The raw material came several source areas, including theby Pachuca source and the distanteo/Zinapecuaro source area in Mi-can (Healan 1993; Healan et al. 1983).lysis of Early Postclassic ceramics insource area revealed no definite Toltecrts but rather an intrusive ceramic

plex (called Cumbres) linked to eithermango in the Bajo region (Pia Chn; Lagunas 1997) or to sites in the Tolucay (Healan and Hernandez 2000). Theseors suggest that populations from latter areas may have quarried obsid-t Ucareo, part of which was then deliv- to Tula as tribute. Alternatively, localps in either the Ucareo or the Bajo re- could have sent obsidian to Tulagh commercial exchange networks.

an-Graham (1993, 1999) has inter-d figures carved in relief on a promi-

frieze at Tula as merchants rather thanldiers or chiefs (an alternative interpre-

Freq

Area

LocalImpeImpe

locImpe

unOtherTotal

prisiin thand chanterlaany

Disc

Bewas huacthe Tto cimparoucan fromexcadatationsprobduriand noteslippimpportmorotheunlical cEarlTABLE 2uencies of Imported Ceramics in the Yautepec

Valley, Morelos

f origin Teotihuacan Tula Tenochtitlan

70.8 93.3 91.6ial imports 1.8 0.1 2.3ial style, 3.9 0.1l originial style, 9.5 6.4 5.1ertain origin imports 14.0 1.0herds 14,697 1,684 57,051

rts from these three cities at sitesd Yautepec (see Table 2). For Teotihua-nd Tenochtitlan, we use sherd counts

our excavations; because we did notate any Early Postclassic sites, we usefrom single-component surface collec- for the Tula period.3 The lower level ofable imperial imports at Yautepecg Tulas reign compared to the earlier

later empires is striking. It should be that if some or all of the cream-

ed ceramics (comprising the category,erial style, uncertain origin) were im-d from Tula, this would bring that city in line with the frequencies of the two cities. Although we consider thisely, it cannot be ruled out until chemi-aracterization research is done on the Postclassic ceramics. In contrast,gly, excavations at the site of Teptitlne immediate vicinity of Tula (CobeanMastache 1999) reveal a level of ex-ge between the city and its inner hin-d far higher than between Tula andistant area.

ssion

cause the Yautepec Valley of Morelosincluded in the Tenochtitlan and Teoti-an empires and in Daviess model ofula empire (see above), it is instructivempare the frequencies of imperial

many of our attributions of Classic and LatePostclassic types to local vs imported cate-gories tion stuThe prareas Teotihu2) poinchange

The betweeessary presenimagincapitalTula. TTeotihuated wactivityductionchangelands, the properial c

DOPOLIT

Tenocht

In cothe pTenochmentedchaeolorasco vincialcases (Scontrolculties conqueby the fortresspire (Schronothese operial ments

1952) and Oztoma (see below) suggest con-quest, or at least control, of these provincial

a

t

hlue

e

d

cf

crcAh

a

wo

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 261ICAL CONTROL OF PROVINCES

itlan

ntrast with the topic of exchange,olitical control of provinces bytitlan is far more heavily docu- in written sources than in the ar-gical record (Berdan et al. 1996; Car-

1996). Tenochtitlan relied on pro- city-state rulers for local rule in mostmith 2000), and this indirect form of

epitomizes the archaeological diffi-in studying the empire. The militaryst of provincial polities is hinted atexistence of locally built Postclassices in several parts of the Aztec em-mith n.d.a), but problems with

logy and the lack of excavations ruleut as unequivocal evidence for im-

conquest. The Aztec military settle-at Quauhtochco (Medilln Zeil

the hoYautepand Hthoughof impwere mcant induce mprovinrect efelites.

The mon pmajor of the researcMoreloimportbetter quest, rural t(Jan Oare based upon recent neutron activa-dies (Smith et al. 1999; Montiel n.d.).esence of imported ceramics from

other than the imperial capital inacan and Tenochtitlan times (Tablets to higher levels of regional ex- in those periods.existence of exchange relationshipsn a city and provincial areas is a nec-but not sufficient criterion for the

ce of imperialism, and it is difficult toe an empire having the low level ofprovinces exchange indicated forhe larger sizes of Tenochtitlan andacan relative to Tula were associ-ith much higher levels of economic in these cities (including craft pro- and exchange), with greater ex-

between the cities and their hinter-and with greater exchange betweenvinces and areas other than the im-apitals.

MINATION OF A TERRITORY:

areas, bpoor dAztec iin standlowingthe co-operial r

The A perioLate Poconqueering oMorelowealth ported thoughto locprocessthe factber of smentalmon oresearcof weaut again the picture is clouded byta. The two strongest indicators of

mperial domination are the declineard of living at sites in Morelos fol-Aztec conquest and suggestions ofpting of provincial elites by the im-

ulers.ransition from the Late Postclassic-d (prior to Aztec conquest) to thestclassic-B period (following Aztec

st) was marked by a consistent low-f the standard of living at sites ins as inferred from a quantitativeindex based upon frequencies of im-and local decorated ceramics. Al-

this trend was probably due in partal demographic and agrarianes (Smith and Heath-Smith 1994), that it was consistent across a num-ites in different polities and environ-zones (Smith n.d.b) suggests a com-rigin in Aztec conquest. Current by Jan Olson is examining issues

th levels and standard of living onsehold level at three of those sites,c, Cuexcomate, and Capilco. Smith

eath-Smith (1994) argue that al- the direct effects of the impositionrial tribute at the household levelinor, Aztec imperialism had signifi-irect effects that combined to pro-

ajor economic and social impacts onial households. One of these indi-ects was the support of provincial

o-opting of provincial elites, a com-ocess in hegemonic empires, was aomponent of the imperial strategiesztecs (Berdan et al. 1996). Current on excavated elite compounds in

s suggest that provincial elites at thent political center of Yautepec were

off economically after Aztec con-hereas contemporary elites at the

wn of Cuexcomate suffered greatlylson and M. Smith, unpublished

data); this fits what we know of Aztecstrategies in co-opting powerful provincialelitemayMex(Umthe the cienMorial cthe tem

Teot

Amakdencan.likely Teotihuacan administrative centerswithThesture,thogated Oyar1998sists huac

around imperial regional centers exhibitingTeotihuacan state ideology, and state-con-

association with the apartment-type com-

ole t)eih

262 SMITH AND MONTIEL

te

lProvin

Basin CenSouNor

OtherCalTepOcoChiHacSan

Sou ; Not oin its provinces (Table 3 and Fig. 3).e sites exhibit talud-tablero architec- pyramid-plaza complexes, and or-onal grid layouts, all features associ-with Teotihuacan (Charlton 1991; Dazzbal 1998; Nalda 1997; Torres Cabello). The evidence in the provinces con-of urban planning influenced by Teoti-an, the reorganization of settlements

pounsite WhiningTeo1981les dTeotFrom

TABLE 3Urban Characteristics of Administrative Cen

Compact/ Apartment Grid Ceremoniacial city Nucleated compounds plan avenues

of Mexico:tral Basin X X X Xthern Basin X ?thern Basin X ? areas:pulalpan X X ? ?eapulco X X ? Xyoacac X X ?ngu X X X Xienda Calderon X ? ? Ignacio X ? ?

rces. Charlton (1991: Table 15.2); Daz (1998); Nalda (1997)e. Key: (X) trait is present, () trait is absent, (?) presence ds and pyramid-plaza groups at thef Calpulalpan (Linn 1942:5689). Teotihuacan influence in urban plan-is absent in Tlaxcala outside of theihuacan Corridor (Garca Cook, a grave was found in the site of Tete- Ocotitla containing a large offering ofuacan ceramics (Vega Sosa 1981).

the preliminary work in the valley of

rs in the Teotihuacan Empire

State- Effect of Pyr./plaza Talud- controlled Teo collapse complexes tablero goods present

X X X X? X X X

? X X

X ? X ?X X X ?X X X XX X X XX X X XX ? X X

Torres Cabello (1998).f trait is unknown.s. Additional evidence for this process be found in the scattered occurrence ofica-style sculptures in the provincesberger and Klein 1993). For example,presence of the carved name glyph ofMexica emperor Ahuitzotl in the an-t provincial temple of Tepozteco inelos suggests a proclamation of imper-ontrol and a statement of alliance withlocal elites who probably controlled theple.

ihuacan

lack of fieldwork at relevant siteses it difficult to identify extensive evi-

ce for control of a territory by Teotihua- There are a number of sites that are

trolled goods present at settlements sur-rounding these centers.

Ocoyoacac in the valley of Toluca has anorthsouth orientation, probable grid pat-tern, talud-tablero architecture, as well asTeotihuacan ceramics including cylindricaltripod and flat-bottom, flaring wall vessels,Thin Orange, imitation Thin Orange,censers, and figurines (Daz Oyarzbal1998). The site was abandoned in the LateClassic with the collapse of the empire. Te-peapulco in southeastern Hidalgo is a re-gional center that also exhibits Teotihuacaninfluence in its urban planning and con-tains a high frequency of Teotihuacan styleceramics and Thin Orange (MatosMoctezuma et al. 1981). In Tlaxcala, Teoti-huacan ceramics and figurines are found in

Queretaro, there appear to be many siteswith strong ceramic and architectural simi-larities Bartolotaeda and LaCharles

ChinMorelolates owere alempire.center urban pas a mfigurineMorelo1978, 19tiel n.dPilas (MCalderotailed pTeotihuatzinacHacienregionaand a cported of MorTeotihuand locand otPachucment ptions instrategidue to tcan emprovincusing ithese pimperia

Tula

Two Tula stain the B

larities between Early Postclassic ceramicsin the Bajo region and Tula, discussed

(

sem

o

m

omb

zs

t

b

i

x

9

t

p

n

a

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 263with Teotihuacan, including San Aguascaliente (Brambila and Cas-1993), El Cerrito (Crespo 1991, 1998), Negreta and El Rosario (Saint- Zetina 1998).

gu, near Tula, and San Ignacio ins display many of the material corre-f Teotihuacan regional centers andso abandoned with the collapse of the Chingu is the only distant provincialthat contains all of the evidence forlanning illustrated in Table 3 as well

ajority of Teotihuacan ceramics ands (Daz Oyarzbal 1980, 1991). In

s, the surveys of the Amatzinac (Hirth80, 1996) and Yautepec valleys (Mon-

.), and intensive investigations at Lasartnez Donjuan 1979) and Haciendan (Nalda 1997) provide the most de-ortrayal of a provincial area of theacan empire. San Ignacio in the Am- Valley (Hirth 1978, 1980, 1996) andda Calderon in the Cuautla Valley arel centers exhibiting urban planningoncentration of state goods. All re-

Early Classic sites in the eastern halfelos contain numerous examples ofacan material culture, both importedally made, including Thin Orangeher ceramic wares, figurines, anda obsidian blades. Changes in settle-atterns reflect a nucleation of popula- fertile cotton growing areas and/orc positions, both conditions probablyhe effect of the empire. The Teotihua-pire appears to have controlled itses outside of the Basin of Mexico

ndirect rule, and recent fieldwork inrovincial areas points to a diversity ofl interactions (Montiel n.d.).

kinds of evidence suggest that thete may have controlled settlementsajo region. First, the extensive simi-

above close inwere pon thithat thMore iof ston(CrespsculptuThese state/ifrom clthe twing frocould or perhTenochand A(Davie

A fewpresenBasin o1993), far fewsimilarfact thesic perPostclaof Meare fairfied assons 1thoughany deTeotihuters (Tato the reasonMorelorow comoder

Discuss

As nmaterisee Flores and Crespo 1988), suggestteraction between these areas. Both

art of the Tollan ceramic sphere, and basis Cobean (1990:507) suggests Bajo was part of the Tula empire.pressive, however, is the presence

e sculptures at the site of El Cerrito 1991) that are virtually identical tores at Tula (de la Fuente et al. 1988).suggest local elite emulation ofperial styles, probably resulting

ose communication between elites in areas. The regional polity extend- Tula to the El Cerrito area (Fig. 4)

e considered a large regional state,aps a miniempire similar to the pre-titlan states or empires of Texcococapotzalco in the Basin of Mexico 1973; Carrasco 1996). Tula-style stone carvings were also

at Tlalpizahuac in the southernf Mexico (Granados Vzquez et al.ut compared to El Cerrito there areer examples and they exhibit fewerities with sculptures at Tula itself; inse could predate the Early Postclas-od (Tovaln 1998). The largest Earlyssic sites encountered by the Basinico archaeological survey projects

ly small and unassuming sites classi- secondary regional centers (Par-71:8788; Sanders et al. 1979). Al-

these have yet to be investigated inail, none of them appear to resembleacans regional administrative cen-ble 3) in size, complexity, or likenessolitical capital. We therefore see noto include the Basin of Mexico,

s, or other areas outside of the nar-rridor from Tula to El Cerrito in reconstructions of the Toltec polity.

ion

oted above, it is very difficult to findl evidence of provincial control in

empires that were organized in an indirector hegemonic fashion. Such polities did notinvesand tcial eof imcan iperia(Whieastevide of indpendall ptrol. Yuatio1995)

Evencescial ahuacan, on one hand, and Tula, on theothertionsdenceand Tof goour kin neand typic

ME

Tenoc

Meits ofchaeosourcfamobeen numbIII bprobaside traderete

U.S. Southwest (Weigand et al. 1977;Weigand and Harbottle 1993) is common at

c) m

d

dP)aeeti

goodmne

r

Ag c

u S

o

r

b

in

l

264 SMITH AND MONTIEL, is striking. Our surveys and excava- in Morelos turn up considerable evi- of goods or styles from Tenochtitlaneotihuacan, but many fewer examplesods or styles from Tula. Furthermore,nowledge of the archaeological recordarby areas such as southern Puebla

Toluca suggests that this situation isal.

INFLUENCE IN THE WIDERSOAMERICAN WORLD SYSTEM

htitlan

xica trade with places beyond the lim- their empire is well documented ar-logically. Obsidian from the Pachucae area, almost certainly carried by theus pochteca merchants (Isaac 1986), hasfound in Late Postclassic contexts in aer of distant areas (Smith 1990). Azteclack-on-orange ceramics, althoughbly less common than obsidian out-of the empire, were nevertheless

d as far south as El Salvador (Navar-1996). Turquoise, imported from the

and Lujactivperia

Peencethe mder. up a15thbuilttomaaccoonlysite (fortifisomechaetheseRive

Thpire sinceMexbegaand cientt much in provincial infrastructure,hey relied on the co-option of provin-lites for control. The simple presenceperial goods in distant elite contexts

ndicate either imperial control or im-l interaction with extraempire elitesttaker 1994). The client states of thern Roman empire (Braund 1984) pro-a textually well-documented exampleirect rule. Although nominally inde-

ent of Rome, these kingdoms were forractical purposes under Romes con-et archaeological evidence for this sit-

n is quite elusive (Isaac 1990; Millar.en with these difficulties, the differ- in the quantity of evidence in provin-reas between Tenochtitlan and Teoti-

Teno1922bellsbeen1990com(Hosobsiand/monobsithe 1994porttradbordmenactivhtitlan and other Aztec sites (Saville. Several caches of copper or bronzefrom Michoacan and/or Jalisco have

recovered in Tenochtitlan (Seler1996), and bronze objects are not un-on in other parts of the Aztec empire

ler 1994, 1996). In addition to bronze,ian from Michoacan (the Ucareoor Zinapecuaro sources) is not uncom-at Aztec sites in Morelos, and Pachucaian has been found at Tarascan sites inatzcuaro Basin (Pollard and Vogel

. These materials are particularly im-nt, for they document the existence of across the Aztec/Tarascan imperialr (a process not described in docu-

ary sources, which emphasize hostileties along the border). Other exotics found at Aztec sites, including jade

arine shell (Thouvenot 1982; Lpez 1994), provide additional evidence of commercial exchange with extraim-

l areas.haps the clearest case of political influ-beyond the Aztec imperial borders isilitarization of the Aztec/Tarascan bor-s these two expanding empires cameainst one another in the mid- to lateentury, a number of fortifications wereon each side. The Aztec fortress of Oz-, described in a number of ethnohistoricnts, is the best known, although to date

limited fieldwork has been done at theilverstein 2000). There are many othered sites along both sides of this border, quite large and impressive, and ar-logists are only beginning to study

sites (Gorenstein 1985; Hernndezo 1994b; Silverstein 2000).e cultural influence of the Aztec em-eyond its borders is difficult to assess,

the transmission of many centralcan styles and traits to distant areas before the formation of the empire

existing chronologies are not suffi-y refined to pinpoint the dates of indi-

vidual occurrences (Smith 2001). One of themost visible examples of central Mexicaniconogrthe Po(Smith n.d.), afar awaother sison 197nationaThe sprnaled thtural nMesoamwell as pire), afor impcontext(1996) ctraits fodate thprobabcan origtermineculturaempire or to a situatioTeotihuence waMesoam

Teotihua

Teotithroughfound iand Grand cacware frPeten, the Gulsidian, tainly iSantley1987, 1modityMoholy

ramics (discussed below). Teotihuacan-typedecorated censers have been found with

elt

m

or

sd

a

oo

htnn

io

b

crs

aclneao

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 265aphic elements in distant areas isstclassic International Symbol Setand Berdan 2000; Boone and Smith group of visual elements found asy as Maya murals at Tulum andtes on the coast of Yucatan (Robert-0 labeled these elements the Inter-l style of the Postclassic period).ead of these symbols probably sig-e expansion of commercial and cul-etworks in the Late Postclassicerican world system (prior to as

after the expansion of the Aztec em-nd thus it is only a weak candidateerial influence in the international

. Many of the items in Navarretesatalog of presumed central Mexicanund in southern Mesoamerica pre-

e Aztec empire (and many of themly do not even have a central Mexi-in at all). In sum, it is difficult to de- whether the apparent lack of Aztec

l and stylistic influence beyond theis due to chronological imprecisionsimple lack of such influence. Thisn contrasts greatly with the earlieracan empire, whose cultural influ-s widespread and deep throughouterica.

can

huacan had commercial contactsout most of Mesoamerica. Importsn Teotihuacan include stone masksanular ware from Guerrero, shellao from the Pacific coast, Lustrousom El Tajin, Polychromes from theand other fine ware ceramics fromf Coast (Rattray 1979). Pachuca ob-whose distribution was almost cer-n Teotihuacan hands (Sanders and 1983; Santley and Pool 1993; Spence996), is a rare but consistent com- at Classic Maya sites (Spence 1996;-Nagy 1999) as are Teotihuacan ce-

local cAmatitdrical huacanMesoamade v

Surrto the Teotihuaca wacial anhuacanreliefs huacantradersTeotihuneighbably frthe Teodeclinecan, wtween tion iindepeinto laras respof Teotca CoEven dfected other pproduc

Matagested presenstructusuch acensers1998; SceramiCowgisemblaas closThis pgroup there wnser types in Escuintla and Lakean, Guatemala (Berlo 1984). Cylin-ripod vessels, a hallmark of Teoti-, appear in sites throughout

erica, although many are locallyariants.unding areas responded politicallyise, domination, and collapse of theacan empire. Monte Alban in Oax- a powerful state that had commer-/or diplomatic relations with Teoti-

. Marcus (1983) interprets stonet Monte Alban as records of Teoti-

visitors, probably diplomats or. The so-called Oaxaca barrio atacan (Spence 1989, 1992) was arhood where foreigners, presum-m Monte Alban, were living withintihuacan urban zone. Monte Alband about the same time as Teotihua-ich suggests a close connection be-he two states (Blanton 1983). Migra-to areas of Puebla that weredent of Teotihuacan and nucleation

ger settlement have been interpretedonses to the increasing dominationhuacan (Garca Cook 1981:263; Gar-k and Merino Carrin 1997:369).

istant areas in Michoacan were ef-y increasing mining of cinnabar and

igments used for Teotihuacan muraltion (Weigand 1982).capan in Veracruz has been sug-as a Teotihuacan enclave due to thee of talud-tablero architecture on onee and Teotihuacan type ceramics, candeleros, tripod vessels, floreros,, and effigy vessels (Ortiz and Santleyntley 1989; Santley et al. 1987). Theses are locally made, however, andl (1997:135) has noted that their re-ce to Teotihuacan ceramics are not as some had previously implied.ttern may reflect the presence of ariginating from Teotihuacan, just as

ere residents from the Gulf Coast liv-

ing in the Merchants Barrio of the capital(Rattray 1979). The collapse of the Teotihua-can eCoasand the T

Kahad lof talTeoti(Sandgest ties othansion huacacropare ftradi

Remon(2000(agaiin th909gins rulerdividwherclaimnastygrouTikalappeing S11th Thingreenalongchanman(Ratthuacpopu5D-4(the archithat

the later cities of El Tajn and Xochicalcothan Teotihuacan (Jones 1996:3235; Schele

M

s,

t

na c

:

aor

am

it

dn

:bii

266 SMITH AND MONTIELmpire did not appear to affect the Gulft greatly, however (Arnold et al. 1993),we doubt if this area was ever part ofeotihuacan empire.minaljuyu, near Guatemala City, alsoinks to Teotihuacan, evident in the useud-tablero architecture and goods fromhuacan present in some burialsers and Michels 1977). The data sug-

that the two cities were related throughf elite exchange and interaction rather

through imperial conquest (see discus-of these processes in Stark 1990). Teoti-an traits are restricted to parts of theolis and elite burial contexts, and they

ound together with the regional Mayations.cent epigraphic decipherments ofuments from Tikal by David Stuart) have brought up the old argumentn) that Teotihuacan conquered this citye Early Classic period (Coe 1999:

7). In Tikal, the relevant evidence be-with texts associated with the ninth

. Stuarts reading indicates that this in-ual may have been from Teotihuacan,eas Schele and Freidel (1990:156159) that the ruler is from the Tikal dy- but had close associations with a

p of Teotihuacanos. At Early Classic, the warrior costume of Teotihuacanosars on important monuments includ-tela 31, the accession monument of theruler. Royal tomb offerings include

Orange, cylindrical tripod vessels, and obsidian blades from Teotihuacan with Maya ceramics. The Mer-

ts Barrio at Teotihuacan containsy Maya sherds probably from Tikalray 1979, 1989), indicating that Teoti-an may have had a small resident Tikallation. At Tikal, a small structure (no.3) connected to the Central Acropolisroyal palace) exhibits talud-tablero styletecture, although it has been claimedthe style may more closely resemble

and Th

ClaseageFreidthat sult rulerwiththrouhad alliaat wfact,assohuacmilit1990

ThCopciatiAltalinearingeTlalowithbenestruccontaccoics. Oskelehad TeotstricEarlycific sistelatiothe Freid1998symempthorbeenathews 1998:72).e Teotihuacan influence at Earlyic Tikal is restricted to the royal lin- and we agree with others (Schele andel 1990; Schele and Mathews 1998)his influence was probably not a re-of conquest by Teotihuacan. Specifics of Tikal more likely had alliancesa group from Teotihuacan, perhapsgh elite intermarriage. Tikal certainly

its own reasons for seeking powerfulces at this time when it was probablyr with its close neighbor, Uaxactun. Inthe victory of Tikal over Uaxactun isiated with the introduction of Teoti-an weapons, warrior costumes, andary iconography (Schele and Freidel 130165).e founder of the royal lineage inn also appears to have had close asso-ns with individuals from Teotihuacan. Q, dedicated 350 years after the royalge began, depicts the founder withd eyes, reminiscent of Teotihuacanc imagery. An Early Classic structuretalud-tablero architecture was found

ath Structure 16 (Sharer 1995). Thisture, called Hunal by archaeologists,ins the burial of the dynastic founderpanied by Teotihuacan-style ceram-ngoing stable isotope analysis of the

tal remains suggest that he may haveTeotihuacan ancestry. As with Tikal,huacan influence at Copan is re-ed to a limited interval during the Classic period and occurs within spe-elite contexts. The relationships con- mainly of elite alliances and the emu- of Teotihuacan military symbols for

cult of war by local rulers (Schele andel 1990:130165; Schele and Mathews18). Maya kings aligned themselvesolically with the distant Teotihuacanre to legitimize or reinforce their au-ty. These relationships may also have an attempt by individuals from Teoti-

huacan to establish footholds in the Mayaarea for economic gain, although there isnot a lolarge-sclowland

By thidence lowlandafter thmilitaryon royalan Lintheaddrea visiofounderemerginStela 8,the ruleand Meof Teotand Frithe fall bolic iworld w

Muchabout Tattributence inor relatearly scconqueshighlanquest anmuch oample, in the Mof oldscholarsTeotihuica, righimperiatrade, snipulati(e.g., Stdo not like Oaxprevaleport for

prestige of Teotihuacan, some of whichprobably derived from its rule of an empire

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 267t of evidence from Teotihuacan of aale trade network with the Mayas.

e Late Classic period, there is no ev-of direct contact between the Mayas and Teotihuacan. However, evene imperial collapse, Teotihuacan iconography continues to appearl monuments at Maya sites. Yaxchi-el 24 shows the queen with a Tlalocss, and Lintel 25 depicts her having

n of a serpent with the lineage dressed as a Teotihuacan warriorg from its mouth. Piedras Negras,

and Dos Pilas, Stela 2, both depictrs with balloon headdresses, Tlalocxican year sign imagery reminiscentihuacan warrior costumes (Scheleedel 1990:Fig. 4.17). Centuries afterof the Teotihuacan empire, its sym-mportance in the Mesoamerican

as still strong. of the confusion in the literatureeotihuacans imperial status can beed to its widespread cultural influ- Mesoamerica. Traits derived fromed to Teotihuacan were noted byholars, who attributed them to thet of much of Mesoamerica by the

d city. This was a time when con-d empires were invoked to explain

f the Mesoamerican past; as an ex-the Classic and Postclassic periodsaya lowlands were given the labels

empire and new empire. Later revised their interpretations of

acan elements in distant Mesoamer-tly arguing that they did not signall control but rather processes oftylistic emulation, and political ma-on of foreign symbols by local elitesark 1990). In our model, such traitssignal imperial conquest of areasaca or the Maya lowlands, but their

nce in these areas does provide sup- our interpretation of the power and

within

Tula

Althoimportless thaseveralcity wMesoamEarly PPlumbatrade GuatemDiehl cat Tulaever, thceramicCoast, tral AmTula (pHonduevidencchangeMesoamnapecutional cof exotToltec eever. Tsites in165169trade wurines other sCobeanmay rethan ex

The Ewidespthroughtants ofnetworhave stEarly Pand Hehighland central Mexico.

ugh Tulas economic and politicalance within central Mexico was farn one would expect for an empire,

lines of evidence suggest that theas heavily involved in the larger

erican world system during theostclassic period. Sherds of Tohilte, a widespread Mesoamerican

ware produced in Pacific coastalala, are not uncommon at Tula;

alls this ware especially abundant (Diehl 1993:268). Strangely, how-e other major Early Postclassic trade, Silho Fine Orange from the Gulf

is absent from Tula. A cache of Cen-erican polychromes excavated at

robably the Las Vegas type fromras; see Lange 1986) provide furthere for the citys participation in ex-

with the distant reaches oferica, and the prevalence of Zi-

aro obsidian at Tula shows an addi-ommercial connection. The quantityic imports at Tula is not matched byxports in more distant areas, how-

he Pachuca obsidian found at Maya Yucatan in this period (Coe 1999:) was probably obtained throughith Tula, but Mazapan-style fig-from Apatzingan, Tizapan, and

ites in west Mexico (Mastache and 1985:295; Cobean 1990:506508)present stylistic interaction ratherchange (Schondube 2000).arly Postclassic period was a time of

read trade and communicationout Mesoamerica, and the inhabi-

Tula must have participated in theseks. A number of scholars, however,ressed the noncentralized nature ofostclassic exchange systems. Smithath-Smith (1980), for example, show

that during the Epiclassic and Early Post-classic periods most Mesoamerican long-distanroutethe ctrast ods, weretanceposesEarlyopenritualpatedthe pchang

Givwithithat timpato culdifferrenowTula cMesoToltecTula tion nthe hdiscuspreapointteractwas aactionnot d

Thtic inship Detaithesebeen has eof inflditiontural areascoatl

leader of the Itza peoples who conqueredChichen Itza and imposed their architec-

l e

a, a e h9blu

cerc

frlm o

t

u

ll saii e

se- o

s,dm

sm

268 SMITH AND MONTIELce trade systems followed coastals, with only limited involvement byities of central Mexico (in strong con-to the Classic and Late Postclassic peri-when Teotihuacan and Tenochtitlan

far more heavily involved in long-dis- exchange than Tula). Diehl (1993) pro- the existence of a Toltec horizon in Postclassic Mesoamerica marked bywork censers, wheeled toys, and other objects, and he notes that Tula partici- in this horizon but was probably notlace of origin of the objects or the ex-e networks.en Tulas quite limited political role

n central Mexico, it is not surprisinghere is no clear evidence for politicalct on more distant areas. When we turntural influence, however, the data tell aent story. Tula and the Toltecs werened throughout Mesoamerica, andlearly played a major role in the largeramerican world system. Diehls (1993) horizon suggests the inhabitants of

were active participants in the interac-etworks that created and maintainedorizon style. We would rephrase hisssion in world system terms; the wide-d occurrence of this ritual complexs to important systems of stylistic in-ion and information exchange. Tulan important participant in these inter- systems, even if the major traits did

iffuse outward from there.e most widely discussed case of stylis-teraction involving Tula is the relation-between that site and Chichen Itza.led architectural similarities between two Early Postclassic sites have longnoted, and a strongly polarized debatemerged over the nature and directionuence between the two cities. The tra-al argument combines the architec-data with origin myths from the two suggesting that the god-king Quetzal-left Tula and arrived in Yucatan as the

turamodso-cItzasprebothplacnowtureMatal. 1douresodebadenothechitethe cleacomtwoin ththis

Disc

AandpartdistempempplesinfluThepostthatGenmontemratecomformChaFeinmajostyles (Tozzer 1957). An opposingl, based upon an earlier dating of the

lled Toltec architecture at Chichenholds that architectural styles eitherd from Yucatan to Tula or spread toareas from an unidentified origin

(e.g., Andrews 1990). Many scholarsdate most of the Chichen Itza architec-prior to A.D. 1000 (e.g, Schele andews 1998:198201, 357360; Ringle et98), throwing the former model intot. Given the uncertain chronologicaltion at Chichen Itza, however, this

te cannot yet be resolved with confi-. Following Kepecs et al. (1994) and

s, we believe that the direction of ar-tural influence is less important than

act that Tula and Chichen Itza werey interacting with one another bothercially and stylistically. These were

f the largest and most influential citiese Early Postclassic world system, andwo-way interaction is not surprising.

ssion

three cities had important economicstylistic influence throughout large of Mesoamerica. This kind of long-nce influence is typical of powerfulres, but it can exist in the absence of anre. World history has numerous exam-of large cities that had wide-rangingnces but were not capitals of empires. include religious cities (e.g., Rome in

imperial times or Mecca) and citieswere trade centers (e.g., Venice anda in early modern times). This is com-in periods with vigorous world sys- defined as systems of widely sepa- polities that are linked throughercial exchange and often other

s of interaction (Abu-Lughod 1989;e-Dunn and Hall 1997; Peregrine and

an 1996). We suggest that all threer cities participated in world systems

(see note 1) that linked most or all ofMesoamerica through trade and stylisticcommunsystemsthat it standingstylistic exist indpires.

The Non

The mimperiaTenochtpires cotral Mextation osince thethe exiscity (e.gThis casshowingamericafrom itstence ofTeotihuabut theragainst ars havehuacanto worrcentral sented Millonspire, andrates onhuacan

Our iparts most strongly from currently acceptedinterprescholarsToltec pochaeologever, prthat Tula

trol over a large hinterland in central Mex-ico. Tula does appear to have maintained

o

o,ala

el

al

lnm

c

f

no

.

Postclajli

s

ARCHAEOLOGICAL STUDY OF EMPIRES 269tations. As mentioned above, most who have dealt with the issue of thelity classify it as an empire. The ar-ical evidence reviewed here, how-

ovides little support for the notion exerted political or economic con-

the Badifficugreat shuacanSanderbeen aication. The relevance of the world approach for present purposes isprovides a framework for under- the ways in which long-distanceand commercial influences can

ependently of the presence of em-

CONCLUSIONS

existent Toltec Empire

aterial culture indicators of ancientlism reviewed above suggest thatitlan and Teotihuacan ruled em-vering large areas of highland cen-ico, but Tula did not. Our interpre-f Tenochtitlan is hardly surprising, documentary record is clear about

tence of an empire centered at this., Berdan et al. 1996; Carrasco 1996).e lends support to our model by that a historically known Meso-

n empire can indeed be identified material remains alone. The exis- a central Mexican empire based atcan has been less widely accepted,

e have been few explicit argumentssuch an interpretation. Most schol- been too preoccupied with Teoti-

s interaction with the Maya statesy about the Teotihuacan polity inMexico. We feel that the data pre-above provide strong support for (1988) model of a Teotihuacan em- Montiels (n.d.) dissertation elabo-

the nature and local effects of Teot