Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa

Trade, tribute, and neutron activation: The colonial political economy

of Xaltocan, Mexico
Enrique Rodrguez-Alegra a,, John K. Millhauser b, Wesley D. Stoner c
a
Department of Anthropology, University of Texas at Austin, 2201 Speedway C3200, Austin, TX 78712-1723, United States
b
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, North Carolina State University, 1911 Building, Campus Box 8107, Raleigh, NC 27695, United States
c
University of Missouri Research Reactor, 1513 Research Park Dr., Columbia, MO 65203, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In Trade, Tribute, and Transportation, Ross Hassig argues that indigenous towns in the northern Basin of
Received 16 October 2012 Mexico during the colonial period were largely self-sufcient. They traded with Mexico City mostly in
Revision received 15 July 2013 elite goods, but for the most part they produced for their own subsistence or traded with nearby towns.
Chemical characterization by instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA) and portable X-ray uores-
cence (pXRF) of ceramics and obsidian from post-conquest contexts in Xaltocan, a site in the northern
Keywords: Basin of Mexico, reveals that Hassigs model is partly correct for describing Xaltocan. The town focused
Colonial Mexico
on trade with nearby towns and it produced some ceramics for local consumption. However, Xaltocan
Xaltocan
INAA
was hardly isolated and self-sufcient in the post-conquest period. Instead, the data suggest that the peo-
Ceramics ple of Xaltocan also obtained ceramics and obsidian from a greater variety of sources than under Aztec
Obsidian domination. Rather than being an isolated rural site, Xaltocan either increased its external connections
Trade and number of trading partners after the Spanish conquest, or it managed to obtain a greater variety
pXRF of products than before through a bustling market system.
Aztec 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Spanish
Empires

Introduction
Scholars who study states and empires are becoming increas-
ingly interested in aspects of ancient economies that were not un-
der the direct control of elites (e.g. Graff, 2012; Hirth, 2009;
Millhauser, 2012; Morrison, 2001; Sheets, 2000; Sobel, 2012). Rev-
enue extraction by elites in many situations certainly created
changes in the work patterns of people producing tribute, often
caused impoverishment and diseases due to overwork and exploi-
tation, reshaped market systems, and reduced the quality of life for
imperial subjects, among many other social and cultural effects
(e.g. Bareld, 2001: 3031; Brumel, 2005a; Fowler, 1993; Hassig,
1985; Sinopoli, 1994; Van Buren, 1996). Given the abundance of
literature that emphasizes elite control of ancient economies,
Sheets (2000) has called for a shift in focus toward commoners ef-
forts to provision their houses, produce surplus for exchange, and
maintain some measure of economic independence from elites. In-
spired by Sheets call, we examine aspects of the economy in colo-
nial Mexico that were not entirely controlled by Spanish
colonizers: production and exchange of ceramics and obsidian
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 512 471 6535.
E-mail addresses: chane@austin.utexas.edu (E. Rodrguez-Alegra), millhau-
ser@ncsu.edu (J.K. Millhauser), stonerw@missouri.edu (W.D. Stoner).
tools. We build upon a model proposed by Hassig (1985), which re-
mains one of the most inuential studies of colonial economies in
Mexico.
In Trade, Tribute, and Transportation, Hassig (1985) provides a
model for the political economy of the Basin of Mexico in the f-
teenth and sixteenth centuries, as the region became incorporated
into the Aztec empire, and a century later, conquered by the Span-
ish. During this time period, the city of Tenochtitlan grew and in
1428 it became the capital of the Aztec empire (Berdan and Smith,
2003: 67). Spanish conquerors, aided by indigenous armies that
wanted to overthrow the Aztecs, conquered Tenochtitlan in 1521
(Hassig, 2006). They put an end to the Aztec empire and began
an era of Spanish colonialism that lasted three centuries. The Span-
ish ruled from Tenochtitlan, which came to be known as Mexico
City under Spanish domination (Gibson, 1964).
Hassig describes the changes in the political economy in the Ba-
sin of Mexico beginning with the period when Tenochtitlan incor-
porated other city-states and rural areas into its hinterland. Briey,
Hassig argues that Tenochtitlan created a relationship of interde-
pendence with its hinterland, extracting agricultural produce,
raw materials, and population (or labor) from rural areas. To ex-
tract resources from the rural hinterland, the Mexica (the people
from Tenochtitlan) used a variety of economic, political, and reli-
gious strategies that bound the rural hinterland to the capital. This

0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001
398 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
relationship of interdependence continued into the colonial period,
although it changed along with demographic collapse, new tech-
nologies, the incorporation of European goods into the market sys-
tem, and other factors that affected trade, tribute, and
transportation. Hassigs model remains one of the most complete
studies of the colonial political economy in central Mexico, and it
isworth evaluating with fresh data.
We build upon Hassigs model by focusing on ceramic and
obsidian exchange in early colonial Xaltocan, a rural site approxi-
mately 30 km north of Mexico City (Brumel, 2005a) (Fig. 1).
Ceramics and obsidian were necessities in indigenous households
before and after the Aztec and Spanish conquests (Smith, 2003:
123). By studying the patterns of exchange of ceramics and obsid-
ian, we can evaluate how well Hassigs general political economy
model describes the effects of Spanish colonization upon the ex-
change of everyday necessities in Xaltocan. We characterized 251
ceramic fragments, and three clay samples from Xaltocan by
instrumental neutron activation analysis (INAA). We also charac-
terized 53 colonial obsidian samples and 50 Aztec obsidian sam-
ples by portable X-ray uorescence (pXRF), laboratory XRF
(lXRF), and INAA (Millhauser et al., 2011). These three analytical
techniques allowed us to identify the sources of different artifacts
found in Xaltocan in the period after the Spanish conquest (post-
1521). To evaluate whether there were changes in the sources of
ceramics and obsidian found in Xaltocan between the Aztec and
the post-conquest period, we compare the results to previous
sourcing studies of artifacts from Aztec Xaltocan (1428 CE-1521;
esp. Nichols et al., 2002; Peters, 2002). To provide a broader regio-
nal context for the results, we provide comparisons with a study of
ceramic exchange in the colonial period (Garraty, 2006). By com-
paring where the artifacts were made or raw materials were ac-
quired in the two time periods, we can understand changes and
continuities in patterns of production of ceramics for local con-
sumption in Xaltocan, changes and continuities in trade partners
Fig. 1. Map of the Basin of Mexico, showing Xaltocan and other sites mentioned in the text (shown as triangles). Dark gray areas show an estimate of the extension of lake
levels at their lowest point in the sixteenth century. Light gray areas are an estimate of the extension of lake levels at their highest point. Crosses denote obsidian sources.
and external connections, and how political changes under two dif-
ferent empires affected the local economy.
Trade, Tribute and Transportation
Hassigs goal in Trade, Tribute, and Transportation was to de-
scribe how Mexico City grew and how it gained control of its rural
hinterland and exploited it economically (1985: 4). To achieve this
goal, Hassig focused on the entire Basin of Mexico as a region and
examined four main aspects of the relationship between the city
and its hinterland: population, the agricultural potential of the
land, consumption rates, and transportation efciency (Hassig,
1985: 6). While Hassig devoted much effort to developing a model
for the Aztec political economy in the Basin of Mexico, we summa-
rize here only the model pertaining to the early colonial period
(post-1521), developed in the second part of the book. This is the
model that we can evaluate with the data collected in our study.
Hassig argues that in the early colonial period the relationship
between population, agriculture, consumption, and transportation
was in a state of ux for several reasons. First, Mexico City was no
longer the capital of the Aztec Empire, nor was it the center of the
extractive system that brought in resources from rural areas. Spain
was the new core that extracted riches from Mexico City and its
hinterland. Spanish authorities enacted laws that brought tribute
in money rather than agricultural goods, and tried to prohibit trade
in European goods among indigenous people to maintain a monop-
oly over its revenues (Hassig, 1985: 226238). Second, new trade
goods and labor patterns introduced by Spaniards and the dramatic
demographic changes that resulted from the conquest forced
changes upon the political economy (Hassig, 1985: 153160). In
comparison with the Aztec, Hassig argues that the Spanish de-
pended less on coercive labor or tribute, and more on market ex-
change to provision Mexico City and extract resources from its
hinterland (Hassig, 1985: 263).
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
A third factor that altered the colonial economy was related to
changes in transportation. In the few decades after the Spanish
conquest, European draft animals, wheeled carts, and a newly-built
road system improved land transportation. These factors expanded
Mexico Citys hinterland, and provided more expedient transporta-
tion of bulk goods than tlamemes, or human carriers, had provided
before the conquest. Colonial tlamemes then focused on areas
where roads did not exist and wheeled carts could not reach. But
not all changes made transportation and trade easier. Trade pat-
terns changed in the colonial period as the lakes in the Basin of
Mexico silted up because of deforestation and erosion in the sur-
rounding piedmont and dried due to purposeful draining of the
lakes by the Spanish. By 1543 the northern lakes were permanently
cut off from the southern part of the Basin (Hassig, 1985: 207
209). The new difculties in transportation fostered more trade
among the northern towns, and inhibited trade between the north-
ern part of the Basin and Mexico City (Hassig, 1985: 253). The eco-
nomic integration created by new roads in Mexico failed at some
point during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth century, as
epidemics reduced the indigenous work force in charge of trans-
portation, and Spanish colonizers focused the development of
roads to connect major centers of resource extraction and produc-
tion without linking the roads to areas they saw as marginal. With-
out providing a specic chronology for this process, Hassig (1985:
267) argues that as transportation faltered and fragmented, the
diverse regions of New Spain were left only tenuously linked by
inadequate roads, permitting economic interaction only at the le-
vel of elite goods and reducing the countryside to relatively iso-
lated and necessarily self-sufcient regions. According to this
model, trade and tribute provided Spaniards with the revenue they
desired, but for the most part, rural towns produced for their own
subsistence and traded in local or regional markets. Other authors
have also described rural towns in colonial Mexico as isolated
(Socolow, 1996: 3), exchange as highly local, and production for
subsistence (Bauer, 1996: 2425).
To create this model, Hassig relied mostly on historical docu-
ments and to a lesser extent on a few archaeological reports (Has-
sig, 1985: 78), and he focused on the entire Basin of Mexico as a
region. In this paper we build upon Hassigs ndings by focusing on
archaeological materials from Xaltocan, an approach that brings
new insights into the colonial political economy in a number of
ways. First, by focusing on Xaltocan we can gain a clear, more de-
tailed picture of how this rural towns relationship with Mexico
City and with nearby towns shaped its economy. This level of detail
can help us view the economy in a rural site (Xaltocan) more
clearly than Hassigs general, regional model. Second, by focusing
on archaeological data, we gain access to material culture that
was of little interest to Spaniards and is therefore not particularly
well-documented in historical sources, but that was part of the
everyday life of indigenous people. This can help us understand
how well the documents, shaped strongly by the interests and lim-
ited knowledge of the Spanish, characterized the daily life and eco-
nomic life of indigenous people.
Third, by examining ceramics and obsidian specically, we can
study how the colonial political economy affected the production
and exchange of two specic goods that have been studied for
the Aztec period in Xaltocan (Brumel and Hodge, 1996; Hodge
and Neff, 2005; Millhauser, 2005; Nichols et al., 2002; Peters,
2002). Although Hassig certainly focused on some specic goods
(e.g. silver and agricultural produce), for the most part his analysis
was based on a dichotomy between what he called elite goods
and bulk goods. Hassig argued that trade between towns in the
northern Basin and Mexico City was based mostly on elite goods,
although he did not dene specically what elite goods were.
The literature on luxury goods, a category that may or may not
be equal to Hassigs elite goods, can be informative.
399
Anthropologists and other social scientists have been unable to
agree on a denition for luxury goods, much less to agree which
goods belong in the category of luxuries (e.g. Douglas and Isher-
wood, 1979; Roche, 2000). In his classication of Aztec goods,
Smith (2003: 122) follows a denition provided by Appadurai
(1986: 38), who argues that luxury goods may be restricted to
elites, difcult to acquire, useful for social signaling, and highly
associated with the person who consumes them. Luxury goods
may also require specialized knowledge for their appropriate con-
sumption. Smith provides four other categories of goods, based on
their social context: necessities, widely used goods, regionally lim-
ited goods, and goods with specialized utilitarian uses. Smith
(2003: 122) classied ceramics mostly as necessities, dened as
things that were required for the functioning of most or all house-
holds. The main exception is fancy decorated polychrome pottery,
which he classied as a luxury. Smith also classied obsidian tools
as a necessity when used in households, although they fall in other
categories if used for specialized industrial tasks.
We recognize the problems with dividing goods into elite and
bulk goods, and we focus instead on specic goodsceramics and
obsidianand their patterns of production and exchange. How-
ever, we use Hassigs categories in the article whenever necessary
to clarify the relevance of our data to the discussion of his model.
Perhaps we can see overlapping networks of trade in different
items, rather than clear distinctions between trade in bulk and elite
goods. Archaeological research is ideal to evaluate and build upon
Hassigs general, regional, historical model.
Xaltocan
Xaltocan was, until the mid-twentieth century, an island sur-
rounded by Lake Xaltocan in the northern Basin of Mexico. It has
been inhabited for eleven hundred years, and it was an indepen-
dent regional capital until the Aztec conquered it in 1428 and
made it a tribute-paying province (Brumel, 2005a). Historical
sources contradict each other on whether Xaltocan paid tribute
to Tenochtitlan or Texcoco, two of the capitals of the Triple Alli-
ance, the other being Tlacopan (Hicks, 2005: 195), and perhaps it
paid tribute to both cities (Brumel, 2005a: 35). The town only ap-
pears once in the Codex Mendoza as providing tribute for Aztec
military garrisons, but its tributary obligations are unclear from
the historical record (Morehart and Eisenberg, 2010: 97).
In 1521, Spanish conquistadors attacked and burned Xaltocan
on their way to Tenochtitlan (Corts, 1970: 118; Hassig, 2006:
142143). Spanish conquistadors then made Xaltocan an encomi-
enda, and the people of Xaltocan continued to pay tribute to the
Spanish long after the conquest (Bejinez Jurez, 1999: 97; Hicks,
2005). By 1543, transportation by canoe between Lake Xaltocan
and Lake Texcoco was cut off. Lake levels in the Basin of Mexico
had dropped due to silting caused by deforestation and grazing,
and strips of land separated what was once a system of intercon-
nected lakes. By 1609 Spaniards began to drain the northern lakes,
further reducing water levels. The Spanish conquistadors built
roads that connected Mexico City with Zumpango and Tecama
(north and east of Xaltocan, respectively; Hassig, 1985: 207
210). The people of Xaltocan had to travel between 0.25 and 0.5
leagues to San Juan Atenango, a subject of Xaltocan, to use the
Camino Real for transportation to Mexico City.1
1
Archivo General de la Nacin, Mexico City. Tierras Vol. 1584 (Fojas 43r, 54v, 56v,
and 58r). The denition of a league in this document is not entirely clear. The distance
between Xaltocan and San Juan Atenango is reported between 1=4 and 3=4 of a league
away. Tonanitla, which is 3.6 km away from Xaltocan, is listed as 3=4 of a league away
from Xaltocan. This would make a league roughly 4.8 km. In the Yucatan peninsula, a
league is considered to be 4.2 km.
400 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
Although we have a document from 1569 that describes post-
conquest Xaltocan, the description of economic life in Xaltocan
and its surrounding region is limited to a comment that people
were generally poor in the entire area, and that people made a liv-
ing from shing, hunting waterfowl, and from processing lime-
stone for sale in the market (Montfar, 1897: 9196). While the
document supports the argument that Xaltocan was an indigenous
town (apparently no Spaniards lived there), it is of limited useful-
ness in describing Xaltocans connections with Mexico City and
other towns. To date, for example, none of the excavations or sur-
veys of Xaltocan have produced evidence of lime processing in the
area, casting doubt about the accuracy of the documents.
Gibson (1964: 366) argued that Xaltocans economy improved
by the end of the sixteenth century, basing his comments on an
ofcial description of the town written in 1599. The people of Xal-
tocan exploited the lake and sold salt, reed mats, and lime in the
markets. They also produced corn in such abundance that indige-
nous people from nearby towns would go to Xaltocan for maize
when their crops failed. The people of Xaltocan, according to this
report, enjoyed a period of prosperity through the seventeenth
century, by participating in the colonial market. The report points
to the possibility that Xaltocan was not isolated in the colonial per-
iod, and that it may have been active in market exchange, although
it does not provide enough details to identify which markets the
people of Xaltocan participated in.
Expectations
If Hassigs model is correct, we have four main expectations for
patterns of ceramic production and exchange. First, we expect that
no utilitarian ceramics (including plain ware and lead-glazed cook-
ing and storage vessels) will come from Mexico City or other sites
south of Xaltocan. A previous study by Peters (2002) did not nd
trade in plain ware between Xaltocan and Tenochtitlan, and we
do not expect trade in plain ware to begin in the colonial period.
We do not expect trade in lead-glazed cooking and storage vessels
with Mexico City either, even though lead glazing was introduced
by Spanish potters. Instead, we expect lead-glazed earthenware to
come from other sites in the northern Basin, due to the transporta-
tion problems between Xaltocan and Mexico City mentioned
above.
Second, we expect that Aztec-tradition serving vessels, repre-
sented mostly by Red Ware, will be of local manufacture. Under
Aztec domination, the people of Xaltocan produced Red Ware lo-
cally (Nichols et al., 2002), and if isolation from Mexico City in-
creased in the colonial period due to transportation problems,
trade in Red Ware should not increase.
Third, we expect that the only ceramics that were brought to
Xaltocan from Mexico City will be ne ceramics, including majolica
(tin enameled serving vessels) and porcelain. Majolica and porce-
lain were made by Spanish potters or imported from Europe and
Asia. Figurines, even those that depict Spanish dress, should be lo-
cally-made and not imported from Mexico City. Figurines are not
part of what we consider luxury goods, and thus, they are expected
to be local. Finally, our fourth expectation is a function of the pre-
vious three: the proportion of ceramics produced in Xaltocan
should increase through time, and the proportion of ceramics pro-
duced in other sites should decrease, as Xaltocan became more
self-sufcient.
It is difcult to t obsidian into any expectations based on Has-
sigs model and categories. One could argue that if towns in the
northern Basin of Mexico became increasingly self-sufcient, then
the model would predict that the sources of obsidian found in Xal-
tocan would be fewer in the colonial period than under Aztec dom-
ination. This would be due to a reduction in trade between
Xaltocan and other towns, and an overall reduction in trade, which
probably decreased the distance reached by obsidian from differ-
ent sources. A study of obsidian in colonial contexts by Rodr-
guez-Alegra (2008a,b) in comparison with a study of obsidian in
Aztec contexts by Millhauser (2005) found an increase in obsidian
tool production in colonial Xaltocan after a decrease in production
in the Late Aztec period. A study by Millhauser et al. (2011) found a
wider variety of sources of obsidian in colonial Xaltocan when
compared to the Aztec period. While the data from that study
are already published, we elaborate on the interpretations of the
pattern discussed by Millhauser and colleagues and integrate those
results into a broader study of the colonial economy of Xaltocan.
Sampling and analysis
For the present study, we chose three clay samples, 251 ceramic
fragments, and 103 obsidian artifacts (53 from colonial contexts
and 50 from Postclassic contexts). We excavated all artifacts strati-
graphically during the summers of 2003 and 2007 in Xaltocan. All
ceramic samples are from strata that date to the sixteenth and sev-
enteenth centuries based on the predominance of majolica (tin-
enameled earthenware) produced during the rst two centuries
after the conquest (see Lister and Lister, 1982), and the much lower
frequencies of decorated Aztec or eighteenth- and nineteenth-
century ceramics (Rodrguez-Alegra, 2009). Elizabeth Brumel
provided us with three raw materials (clay) samples from clay
sources in the vicinity of Xaltocan, collected in 2003. These sam-
ples aid in determining whether at least some of the ceramics in
our study were produced from local clay sources.
We selected a stratied random sample. Ceramics were selected
randomly within a limited number of types. The results of the anal-
ysis cannot, therefore, be generalized to all colonial ceramics at the
Xaltocan, but they can inform the relative proportions of each cera-
mic type that derived from the various production sources around
the Basin of Mexico.
Ceramic types
The ceramics in this study included a variety of serving vessels
and utilitarian pottery, some of Aztec tradition, and some made
with techniques and forms introduced by the Spanish, such as lead
and tin glazing (Table 1). Twenty-three of the ceramic artifacts in
the sample are classied as Aztec-tradition Red Ware (Fig. 2). They
have a paste that res to a light gray or orange color, and are cov-
ered on one or both sides with a bright red slip that is then
smoothed, and often burnished or polished to a high luster. Potters
often decorated Red Ware vessels with motifs in black, white, yel-
low, orange, or a combination of these, although black motifs are
the most common (Charlton et al., 1995; Parsons, 1966). Red Ware
was made mostly into serving vessels, including bowls, dishes, and
copas (goblets), and its production continued, and perhaps even in-
creased, in the colonial period until around 1625 (Charlton, 1968,
1970, 1979; Charlton et al., 1995). We analyzed a sample of Red
Ware from colonial contexts to determine whether the people of
colonial Xaltocan produced Red Ware, obtained it from Mexico
City, or obtained from other nearby towns. In PC1-PC5, ve colonial
units excavated in Xaltocan, Red Ware makes up 13.37% of all rims
(n = 1185) (all data on rim sherd frequencies in this section are ob-
tained from Rodrguez-Alegra, 2009, Table 13.2).
We also sampled 89 plain ware sherds, distinguished by the
lack of any decoration besides a slip (Fig. 3). Indigenous potters
made plain ware mostly into cooking and storage vessels, including
jars and comals (griddles), as well as bowls and other forms asso-
ciated with serving and cooking. Plain ware is common in all pre-
Columbian occupational phases in Xaltocan (Brumel, 2005b, c),
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414 401

Table 1
Ceramic types sampled.

Type or ware Type of good Tradition Main uses Sample

Red Ware Necessity Indigenous Serving 23
Plain ware Necessity Indigenous Cooking and storage 89
Black-on-orange Necessity Indigenous Serving 1
Lead-glazed earthenware Necessity Spanish and indigenous Cooking and storage 76
Majolica types
Columbia Plain Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 9
Green-on-Cream Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 16
Tlalpan White Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 1
Red Paste Green-on-Cream Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 14
Red Paste White Luxury (?) Spanish Serving 12
Figurines Widely used goods Indigenous (?) Domestic ritual 9

Our ceramic sample also includes 76 lead-glazed earthenware

Fig. 2. Aztec-tradition Red Ware excavated in Xaltocan. (For interpretation of the
references to color in this gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of
this article.)
and it is found in abundance in post-conquest contexts also. Plain
ware rim sherds make up 51.90% of all rims in the colonial units in
Xaltocan (n = 4597).
The sample also includes a fragment classied as probable
Black-on-orange pottery. Although it was originally included as
plain ware, when photographing the samples we noticed that it
had very faded black paint. Aztec Black-on-orange pottery contin-
ued to be made in the colonial period, although a single sample is
certainly not enough to study this ware thoroughly. The sample
also includes a single plain orange sherd, a ware that is generally
like plain ware, except that it is covered with an orange slip and
it is made into serving vessels.
fragments (Fig. 4). Lead-glazed earthenware was made into a vari-
ety of forms, including jars for storage and cooking, basins, bowls,
and others (Charlton, 1976; Lpez Cervantes, 1976; Sodi Miranda,
1994). Lead glazing techniques were not used in Mexico before
Spanish potters introduced them in the sixteenth century (Charl-
ton, 1976; Charlton et al., 2005; Hernndez Snchez, 2012). The
earliest dates for lead-glazed ceramics from Xaltocan have not
been established by radiocarbon dating; however, our sample con-
sists of sherds recovered from contexts with abundant sixteenth
and seventeenth-century majolica, and few or no decorated
ceramics from the eighteenth century and later. Lead-glazed
earthenware rims make up 7.37% of all rim sherds in the colonial
units in Xaltocan (n = 653).
The rest of the sample consists of a variety of glazed serving
vessels and a few gurines. The glazed serving vessels include nine
Columbia Plain fragments. Columbia Plain is an undecorated
majolica (tin-enameled) type characterized by a chalky white or
light pink paste, and a thick white glaze that is full of ring bubbles
and imperfections. It is one of the earliest pottery types brought by
Spanish potters to the Spanish colonies. They made Columbia Plain
mostly into plates, bowls, and other serving vessels during the six-
teenth and seventeenth centuries. Columbia Plain vessels made in
Spain are visually identical to those made in the Spanish colonies
(Goggin, 1968: 117126; Lister and Lister, 1982: 4551). Colonial
contexts in Xaltocan do not contain any European majolica, and
so far we have only found two Chinese porcelain sherds in Xalto-
can. All of the majolica we have found in Xaltocan is from pottery
workshops in Mexico City, Puebla, or elsewhere in Mexico
(Rodrguez-Alegra, 2009). However, Columbia Plain was the only
majolica type found in Xaltocan that could potentially be imported

Fig. 3. Plain ware fragments excavated in Xaltocan. Fig. 4. Lead-glazed earthenware excavated in Xaltocan.
402 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
from Europe and eventually brought to Xaltocan. We characterized
this small sample of Columbia Plain sherds to determine whether
they were local or whether they were made in Europe. Columbia
Plain rims make up 0.02% of rims in the colonial excavation units
(n = 2), although there is a higher frequency of body sherds.
Another majolica type in the sample is Green-on-Cream majol-
ica (n = 16; Fig. 5). It is a common-grade majolica type, dened as
such in part because of the low tin content of its glaze, which ren-
dered the glaze somewhat transparent. Lister and Lister (1982) ar-
gue that potters mixed white clays with the red clays from central
Mexico to make the paste light cream or white. This way, the glaze
would resemble the white ground of ne majolica types, even
though the color of the paste was visible through the glaze. This
particular type has a cream or off-white glaze decorated in green.
Lister and Lister argue that this type was made in Mexico City,
and Fournier and Blackman (2007) argue that it was made in Pue-
bla as well. The main reason to include this type in the present
study is to create a reference group to compare other common
grade types and other types decorated in green found in Xaltocan.
A main question we had was whether other types decorated in
green were brought to Xaltocan from Mexico City or whether they
were made locally in imitation of Green-on-Cream ceramics made
in Mexico City. This type makes up 0.59% of all rims in the colonial
excavation units (n = 52).
The sample also includes one piece of Tlalpan White majolica. It
is a low-quality majolica type with a bright red paste covered with
a glaze full of ring bubbles that is prone to aking and discolor-
ation. Lister and Lister (1982) argue that it was probably made in
Mexico City by indigenous potters. We include it in the sample
to check whether it can be sourced to Mexico City or if it came from
elsewhere, although we admit that we will need a larger sample to
study this type thoroughly. Tlalpan White is a very low frequency
type in Xaltocan, with no rims and a total of 17 body sherds in the
entire collection.
Another type of majolica included in the sample is provisionally
named Red Paste Green-on-Cream majolica (n = 14; Fig. 5). It does
not appear in the classication proposed by Lister and Lister
(1982), and it was not part of the sixteenth and seventeenth cen-
tury materials analyzed by Rodrguez-Alegra (2002) in the Spanish
houses in Mexico City. Based on the attributes described by Gmez
Serafn and Fernndez Dvila (2007: 131), it may be the type they
call Remedios Verde/Crema in Oaxaca, which they date to 1550
1750; however, we prefer to exercise caution and not claim that
our sample is denitely Remedios Verde/Crema. We have not seen
Fig. 5. Green-on-Cream, and Red Paste Green-on-Cream (bottom right corner)
majolica excavated in Xaltocan. (For interpretation of the references to color in this
gure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)
the collections from Oaxaca or had a chance to compare our sam-
ples with the ones in those collections. This type is characterized
by a red paste, much like the paste of ne grade majolica from
Mexico City described by Lister and Lister (1982), a low-tin trans-
lucent glaze (much like common grade majolica), and green deco-
ration. Given the red color of the paste and the transparency of the
glaze, this type can have a reddish tint, unlike the off-white or
cream aspect of Green-on-Cream. We included it in the sample
to verify whether it was made in Mexico City or whether it was
made in other locations, perhaps in imitation of types from Mexico
City. This type makes up 0.35% of all rims in the colonial units in
Xaltocan (n = 31).
Finally, a majolica type included in the sample was provision-
ally labeled as Red Paste White (n = 12) majolica. It also combines
attributes typically associated with both, ne grade and common-
grade majolica. On the one hand, it has the bright red paste char-
acteristic of ne grade majolica. On the other hand, it has the thin,
somewhat translucent glaze of common grade pottery, giving it a
reddish, low-quality appearance because the color of the paste
can be seen through the glaze. As is the case with Red Paste
Green-on-Cream majolica, it may be what Gmez Serafn and
Fernndez Dvila (2007: 131) call Remedios Monocromo, but we
have not had a chance to verify whether these types are the same
or not. We included it in the sample to try to identify whether it
was also made in Mexico City, or made elsewhere in Mexico. We
have not been able to secure a clear chronology for these last
two types. The archaeological contexts in which they were found
contain ceramics mostly made in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, but it is difcult to prove that there was no intrusion
of material from later centuries. If these two types are indeed
Remedios types as described by Gmez Serafn and Fernndez Dv-
ila, they most likely date between 1550 and 1750. But based
strictly on the archaeological contexts in Xaltocan, they were most
likely made the sixteenth or seventeenth century. This type makes
up 0.03% of all rims in the colonial excavation units in Xaltocan
(n = 3).
We tentatively classify the majolica in this study as luxury
goods. The majolica types found in Xaltocan are considered com-
mon grade majolica, far from the more rened ne grade majolica
(see Lister and Lister, 1982). They were not the most luxurious
types produced by the Spanish. Still, we believe that they were
important objects for display among indigenous people, who did
not necessarily share Spanish denitions of luxury wares and
who ranked material goods according to different criteria of quality
and value. Majolica fullled several of the criteria that could help
dene it as a luxury, as discussed above, including being difcult
to acquire, being useful for social signaling, and being associated
with the people who used it. Majolica in Xaltocan is not clearly
associated with indigenous elites, based on its distribution in many
scattered areas at the site and on a lack of majolica in areas that
could be considered elite. Still, majolica was likely associated with
Spaniards, and could be seen as a luxury (Rodrguez-Alegra, 2010).
In this analysis we also include nine gurines. These include
four gurines depicting people in colonial (Spanish) dress, one
horses head, two other animal heads, and two possible supernat-
ural animal heads. All of these gurines were excavated in colonial
contexts. The four humans and the horses heads are denitely
colonial, independently of the context in which they were found,
given the presence of Spanish dress and animals. The chronology
for the last four is entirely dependent on context and not on the
formal attributes of the gurines. We included them in the study
to determine whether colonial gurines were traded or locally
made. Figurines do not t clearly into the elite and bulk goods cat-
egories used by Hassig. Smith (2003: 122) tentatively classies
them as widely used goods, that is, goods that can be found in
most households but that are not clearly essential for survival.
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
We expect that the colonial gurines will be locally-made, given
that they are not luxury goods.
Obsidian sample
Our obsidian sample consists of 53 artifacts associated with
colonial pottery at Xaltocan, which were compared with 50 exca-
vated in Aztec contexts (Millhauser et al., 2011). Obsidian tool pro-
duction and use continued well into the colonial period in Mexico
(Pastrana, 1998; Pastrana and Fournier, 1998; Rodrguez-Alegra,
2008a,b). Both green and non-green (gray, black, brown, and red)
obsidian is found in abundance in colonial contexts in Xaltocan
(Millhauser et al., 2011; Rodrguez-Alegra, 2008a,b). Although at
least 1215 sources of obsidian are known to have been consumed
in central Mexico (Cobean, 2002), generally, green obsidian found
in the region is associated with the obsidian source at Cerro de las
Navajas,Pachuca, and non-green obsidian is associated with Otum-
ba. However, Moholy-Nagy (2003) has demonstrated that source
attribution of obsidian artifacts based on visual inspection alone
can underrepresent the number of sources of obsidian because
many sources include far more color variation than our typologies
allow for. She recommends chemical analysis to source obsidian
artifacts more accurately than is possible by visual inspection.
Other less-exploited sources that yield green obsidian include El
Pizarrn, Rancho Tenango, and El Encinal in the Tulancingo area.
Other sources of non-green obsidian include the Tulancingo-area
sources, El Paredn, and Malpas, in and around the Basin of Mexico
(4085 km away) as well as Zacualtipan, Ucareo, Oyameles-Zara-
goza, and Pico de Orizaba (110200 km away) (Braswell, 2003;
Clark, 1989; Cobean, 2002;Pastrana, 2007: 3742). Cobean (2002)
presents an excellent description of the obsidian sources in Mexico,
including chemical characterization data for the different sources.
Therefore, we decided to characterize a sample of green and non-
green obsidian from Xaltocan, to determine whether it came from
major sources, especially Pachuca and Otumba, or if it came from
other locations as well. Our methods for determining obsidian
sources involved chemical characterization by X-ray uorescence
and neutron activation analysis, the results of which we compared
with the database of Mesoamerican obsidian sources at the Univer-
sity of Missouri Research Reactor, following Glascock (2002) and
elaborated by Millhauser et al. (2011).
Chemical characterization methods
A thorough description of the ceramic analysis methods em-
ployed in this study can be found elsewhere (Glascock, 1992; Neff,
1992, 2000; Stoner and Glascock, 2011). All samples were prepared
in the same way. Outer slips, glazes, paint, and contaminants
adhering to the surfaces of the pottery sherds were removed with
a silicon carbide burr. Samples were crushed in an agate mortar
and weighed for short and long irradiations at the University of
Missouri Research Reactor. Thirty-three elements were measured,
but nickel (Ni), arsenic (As), and antimony (Sb) were removed from
consideration due to missing values (in the case of Ni) or remnant
contamination from glazes (in the cases of As and Sb).
The approach used to interpret the compositional data involved
hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) and principal components anal-
ysis to establish initial groupings within the sample. The initial
chemical groups were then compared to the Basin of Mexico data
to determine if any specimens within the current data set could
be assigned to established Basin of Mexico chemical groups. The
rst step of this procedure was to conduct a Euclidean distance
search of the unknowns compared to the Mesoamerican INAA
database housed at MURR, consisting of over 20,000 reference
samples. This technique compares the sample to the entire MURR
403
database and returns the 10 most chemically similar specimens
(Glascock, 1992). Particular attention was given to samples from
Xaltocan previously analyzed by this laboratory (Nichols et al.,
2002; Stoner et al., 2008). The sample was then compared to cera-
mic chemical reference groups previously established in the Basin
of Mexico using discriminant analysis (Hodge et al., 1992; Nichols
et al., 2002). Minor adjustments were then made to the initial
group assignments. Finally, Mahalanobis distance-based probabil-
ities were used to calculate the probability of membership within
any of the existing Basin groups (following Nichols et al., 2002).
NAA results
The chemical characterization study reveals that the ceramics
in the sample were produced in a variety of locations (Tables 2
and 3). Fifty-nine samples were most likely made in Xaltocan
(belonging in the Xaltocan 1a group, n = 25; and the Xaltocan 1b
group, n = 34), indicating that it was a site of production for local
consumption. Some of the samples belong to pottery traded with
towns in the northern Basin of Mexico, including Cuauhtitlan
(n = 25), and Otumba (n = 7). Other samples were traded from the
central Basin of Mexico, including pottery from Mexico City
(n = 53 [Tenochtitlan, n = 30; Xal_C, n = 23]), the southern Basin
of Mexico (probably Chalco [Southern Basin 1, n = 1]; and else-
where in the southern Basin [Southern Basin 3, n = 3]); and from
Texcoco (n = 1) (Fig. 6). A highly variable cluster of lead-glazed
earthenware sherds were provisionally assigned to a group named
XAL_D (n = 17) (Fig. 7). These were distinct from all other known
paste recipes in the Basin of Mexico. As is usual in chemical char-
acterization studies, a portion of the samples remain unassigned: a
total of 85 sherds, which account for 34% of the specimens ana-
lyzed. The majority of the unassigned specimens likely pertain to
local production. They show a high probability of belonging in
more than one of the local Xaltocan groups, making it difcult to
assign them to a specic group.
In some ways, the results conform to the expectations based on
Hassigs model: the ceramic types sampled from Xaltocan were
made locally or were exchanged with nearby centers in the north-
ern Basin, such as Cuauhtitlan and Otumba. The very low frequen-
cies of pottery from Texcoco and sources in the southern Basin also
meets Hassigs expectations; however, the presence of ceramics
from Mexico City contradicts Hassigs model, which predicted that
pottery consumers in the northern Basin of Mexico would be self-
sufcient and largely (but not completely) isolated from pottery
producers in Mexico City. Still, most of the ceramics found in Xal-
tocan that were produced in Mexico City were majolica and not
plain ware, which ts Hassigs model in terms of the movement
of elite vs. utilitarian goods, assuming that majolica would have
been an elite good, as argued above.
Our results are also consistent with Christopher Garratys study
of Aztec plain ware in various sites in the northern Basin of Mexico.
He found that plain ware in the northern Basin of Mexico was
mostly made locally and exchanged in regional markets rather
than exchanged over long distances (Garraty, 2006: 218223). To
facilitate comparisons with previous studies, and given that the
sample was drawn at random within types, we discuss the results
by ceramic type. We then discuss the ceramic results in compari-
son with sources of obsidian.
Aztec tradition Red Ware
Aztec tradition Red Ware was made in Xaltocan (n = 13), Cuauh-
titlan (n = 1), and the southern Basin of Mexico (n = 2). Seven Red
Ware samples remain unassigned. In keeping with the expecta-
tions of Hassigs model, the pattern mostly shows that trade
404 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414

Table 2
Ceramic samples and their chemical groups.

ANIDa Provenienceb Chem_groupc Probabilityd Type

XAL097 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Black-on-orange
XAL001 PC1 Lv4 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL002 PC2A Lv3A XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL003 PC1 Lv4 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL004 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL005 PC2B Lv1A XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL006 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL007 PC1 Lv1 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL009 PC1 Lv3 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL008 PC1 Lv3 XAL_C N/A Columbia Plain
XAL236 PC4A Lv5A Probable Otumba N/A Figurine: at back
XAL239 OpZ2 Lv5A Unassigned N/A Figurine: hollow
XAL232 PC4A Lv5B Unassigned N/A Figurine: mold made
XAL234 PC4A Lv5A Cuauhtitlan 58.299 Figurine: solid
XAL231 PC5 Lv14I Probable Otumba N/A Figurine: solid
XAL233 PC4B Lv7B Unassigned N/A Figurine: solid
XAL238 PC4C Lv6A Unassigned N/A Figurine: solid
XAL235 PC4A Lv3B Xaltocan 1a 17.512 Figurine: solid
XAL237 PC4A Lv5B Xaltocan 1a 90.935 Figurine: solid
XAL113 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 62.747 Green-on-Cream
XAL121 PC2B Lv1A Unassigned N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL101 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL102 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL103 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL104 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL105 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL106 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL107 Op. Z3, Lv9E XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL116 PC2A Lv5I XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL119 PC2B Lv2A XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL247 OpY1 Lv4A XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL248 OpY1 Lv4A XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL249 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL250 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL251 PC1 Lv2 XAL_C N/A Green-on-Cream
XAL032 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 16.153 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL035 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 19.012 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL038 PC2B Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 3.674 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL039 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 6.149 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL044 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 32.193 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL045 PC1 Lv4 Cuauhtitlan 26.452 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL046 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 44.302 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL054 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 33.587 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL055 PC2A Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 2.541 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL056 PC1 Lv4 Cuauhtitlan 52.435 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL061 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 22.906 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL130 PC4B Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 12.027 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL178 Op I Lv2 Cuauhtitlan 35.32 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL192 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 65.805 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL194 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 0.544 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL200 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 61.135 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL201 PC2B Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 40.424 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL203 PC4C Lv4A Cuauhtitlan 69.909 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL205 PC2A Lv4H Cuauhtitlan 12.887 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL184 Op Z1 Lv5B Otumba 44.321 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL186 Op Z1 Lv5B Otumba 12.512 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL189 OpZ1 Lv7-8A Otumba 55.776 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL195 PC2A Lv4I Otumba 14.202 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL197 PC2A Lv5B Otumba 91.145 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL182 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Tenochtitlan 13.543 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL033 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL034 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL036 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL037 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL040 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL041 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL053 PC1 Lv4 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL057 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL058 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL059 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL060 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL062 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL064 PC2A Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL065 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414 405

Table 2 (continued)

ANIDa Provenienceb Chem_groupc Probabilityd Type

XAL131 N77 W882 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL133 Op G7 Lv1 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL135 PC4B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL137 PC4B Lv6A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL140 PC4B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL177 N210 W1155 Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL179 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL181 OpZ1 Lv5B Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL185 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL187 Op H Lv7-8A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL190 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL193 OpZ1 Lv7-8 H Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL199 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL202 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL204 OpZ1 Lv5B Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL207 PC4C Lv4A Unassigned N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL042 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL043 PC1 Lv4 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL048 PC2A Lv5I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL049 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL050 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL051 PC2B Lv4A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL052 PC1 Lv1 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL063 PC2A Lv3A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL132 Op. T Lv3 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL134 S21 W819 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL136 Op T Lv1 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL138 Op I Lv2 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL139 Op T Lv2 XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL183 PC2B Lv3A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL188 PC2A Lv5I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL196 PC2A Lv4I XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL198 PC4A Lv5A XAL_D N/A Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL047 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 32.207 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL180 Op Z1 Lv7-8A Xaltocan 1b 11.813 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL191 PC4A Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 18.707 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL206 PC4C Lv4A Xaltocan 1b 69.22 Lead-glazed earthenware
XAL075 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 63.804 Plain
XAL083 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 38.658 Plain
XAL094 PC2A Lv5I Cuauhtitlan 27.57 Plain
XAL217 PC2B Lv3A Cuauhtitlan 48.848 Plain
XAL146 Zoc B Lv9G Southern Basin 1 N/A Plain
XAL142 Zoc A Lv8D Southern Basin 3 N/A Plain
XAL092 PC2A Lv5I Tenochtitlan 21.603 Plain
XAL066 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL067 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL070 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL071 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL074 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL077 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL079 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL082 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL086 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL087 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL091 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL096 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL099 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL141 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL143 Zoc A Lv12O Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL144 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL145 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL148 Zoc B Lv9G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL149 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL150 Zoc A Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL151 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL152 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL154 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL155 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL156 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL157 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL160 Zoc B Lv10 Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL163 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL164 Zoc B Lv11G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL166 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL167 Zoc B Lv13G Unassigned N/A Plain

(continued on next page)

406 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414

Table 2 (continued)

ANIDa Provenienceb Chem_groupc Probabilityd Type

XAL168 Zoc B Lv7G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL169 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL170 Zoc B Lv11G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL174 Zoc B Lv8G Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL208 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL216 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL218 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL219 PC2B Lv3A Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL220 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL225 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL226 PC2A Lv4I Unassigned N/A Plain
XAL073 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 75.057 Plain
XAL078 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 68.399 Plain
XAL153 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 15.865 Plain
XAL159 Zoc B Lv13G Xaltocan 1a 21.382 Plain
XAL161 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 16.931 Plain
XAL162 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1a 14.766 Plain
XAL172 Zoc B Lv10 Xaltocan 1a 30.192 Plain
XAL211 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1a 78.055 Plain
XAL214 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 23.899 Plain
XAL068 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 83.028 Plain
XAL069 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 76.452 Plain
XAL072 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 10.859 Plain
XAL076 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 35.517 Plain
XAL080 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 43.596 Plain
XAL081 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 74.181 Plain
XAL084 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 37.282 Plain
XAL085 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 96.817 Plain
XAL088 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 79.796 Plain
XAL089 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 95.681 Plain
XAL093 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 30.44 Plain
XAL095 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 55.334 Plain
XAL098 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 57.649 Plain
XAL100 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 54.181 Plain
XAL147 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1b 59.942 Plain
XAL158 Zoc B Lv7G Xaltocan 1b 33.763 Plain
XAL165 Zoc B Lv10 Xaltocan 1b 57.144 Plain
XAL171 Zoc B L8G Xaltocan 1b 28.88 Plain
XAL209 PC2A Lv4G Xaltocan 1b 9.929 Plain
XAL210 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 30.323 Plain
XAL212 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1b 70.765 Plain
XAL213 PC4B Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 44.948 Plain
XAL215 PC2A Lv4H Xaltocan 1b 66.491 Plain
XAL221 PC4A Lv5A Xaltocan 1b 10.044 Plain
XAL222 PC4B Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 8.971 Plain
XAL223 PC2B Lv3A Xaltocan 1b 37.905 Plain
XAL224 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 89.123 Plain
XAL227 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 14.362 Plain
XAL228 PC2A Lv4I Xaltocan 1b 26.972 Plain
XAL229 OpZ1 Lv5B Xaltocan 1b 9.777 Plain
XAL230 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1b 95.618 Plain
XAL173 PC5 Lv4F Texcoco 20.244 Plain orange
XAL029 PC2B Lv4B Cuauhtitlan 14.487 Red
XAL018 PC2A Lv5I Southern Basin 3 N/A Red
XAL030 PC2A Lv5I Southern Basin 3 N/A Red
XAL011 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Red
XAL016 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Red
XAL017 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Red
XAL019 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Red
XAL023 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Red
XAL026 PC2B Lv4A Unassigned N/A Red
XAL090 PC2A Lv5I Unassigned N/A Red
XAL010 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 21.278 Red
XAL012 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 77.2 Red
XAL013 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 38.679 Red
XAL014 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 92.947 Red
XAL015 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 78.706 Red
XAL020 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 66.704 Red
XAL021 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 64.18 Red
XAL022 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 17.848 Red
XAL024 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 75.386 Red
XAL025 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 58.169 Red
XAL027 PC2A Lv5I Xaltocan 1a 6.333 Red
XAL028 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 28.498 Red
XAL031 PC2B Lv4A Xaltocan 1a 30.76 Red
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414 407

Table 2 (continued)

ANIDa Provenienceb Chem_groupc Probabilityd Type

XAL115 PC2B Lv2A Tenochtitlan 57.816 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL118 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 69.296 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL120 PC2A Lv2A Tenochtitlan 45.756 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL124 PC2A Lv2A Tenochtitlan 37.882 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL127 PC2A Lv3B Tenochtitlan 91.869 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL175 Pc2A Lv3B Tenochtitlan 31.39 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL176 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 35.165 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL108 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 84.949 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL109 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 86.335 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL110 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 48.239 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL111 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 45.241 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL112 Op. Z3, Lv9E Tenochtitlan 59.979 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL244 PC2B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 21.513 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL246 Op Y1 Lv4A Tenochtitlan 31.049 Red Paste Green-on-Cream
XAL114 N0 W840 Tenochtitlan 38.895 Red Paste White
XAL117 PC4B Lv4A Tenochtitlan 27.01 Red Paste White
XAL240 G7 Lv1 Tenochtitlan 31.851 Red Paste White
XAL241 OpH Lv6 Tenochtitlan 71.86 Red Paste White
XAL242 PC4B Lv6A Tenochtitlan 80.667 Red Paste White
XAL243 G7 Lv1 Tenochtitlan 26.042 Red Paste White
XAL245 PC4B Lv6A Tenochtitlan 67.182 Red Paste White
XAL123 Op. H Lv5 Tenochtitlan 81.943 Red Paste White
XAL125 Op. H Lv6 Tenochtitlan 58.325 Red Paste White
XAL126 PC4B Lv? Tenochtitlan 99.544 Red Paste White
XAL128 Op H Tenochtitlan 60.602 Red Paste White
XAL129 Op G Lv3 Tenochtitlan 75.329 Red Paste White
XAL122 PC4B Lv1A Tenochtitlan 87.045 Tlalpan White
a
Analytical code used at MURR to organize samples.
b
Excavation context in Xaltocan.
c
Chemical composition group assigned at MURR.
c
Mahalanobis Distance calculation of probability of membership in the chemical composition group. Some probabilities are not available due to high probability of
membership in more than one group.

focused on the northern Basin of Mexico. Sixty-one percent of the
sample was either made locally or in Cuauhtitlan. Still, 39% of the
sample was made outside of these two towns, which is a surpris-
ingly high gure.
A previous study characterized sixteen Red Ware sherds from
Phase 4 in Xaltocan (14301521 CE) by INAA (Nichols et al.,
2002: 68). In the Aztec sample, eleven were of local manufacture,
one was from the southern Basin, and four remain unassigned. Nic-
hols and colleagues did not nd any evidence of trade in Red Ware
with Cuauhtitlan when Xaltocan was under Aztec control. This
could indicate a change in items traded in the colonial period, or
it could be a function of small sample size, which would make it
less likely to nd sherds from Cuauhtitlan if their frequencies were
low in comparison with sherds from Xaltocan. Regardless, the colo-
nial pattern shows continuity with the Late Aztec pattern, with the
possible exception of new trade in Red Ware with the southern Ba-
sin of Mexico and with Cuauhtitlan in the colonial period. More
sampling will be needed to determine whether there was signi-
cant new trade in Red Ware in the colonial period.
Plain ware
Plain ware excavated in Xaltocan was produced locally (n = 40),
and in Cuauhtitlan (n = 4). In addition, one sample was made in
Mexico City, and two were made in the southern Basin. A total of
42 samples remain unassigned. This nding indicates the continu-
ation of ceramic production in Xaltocan after the Spanish conquest.
The continuation of trade with Cuauhtitlan, and the fact that most
of the plain ware was made in Xaltocan after the conquest is lar-
gely consistent with Hassigs model, and the expectation of local
production and regional trade.
Peters (2002) characterized a sample of Aztec plain ware from
Xaltocan by INAA. She found that when Xaltocan was under Aztec
control, 70% of the plain ware sample came from Cuauhtitlan and
only 15% was made in Xaltocan. None of the plain ware analyzed
by Peters came from Tenochtitlan. In our study the ratio is different,
and we nd a higher proportion of plain ware made in Xaltocan
(45%) compared to plain ware made in Cuauhtitlan (4%) in the colo-
nial period. We see a denite increase in local production of plain
ware in the colonial period, which was predicted by Hassigs model.
The presence of plain ware pottery from the southern Basin of
Mexico and from Mexico City is surprising, even in such low fre-
quencies. The samples from the southern Basin are jar fragments,
and they could have been traded primarily as containers of food
or other substances. The sample from Mexico City is a basin, and
it was probably not traded as a container, given its wide, open
mouth. Only one sample is assigned to the Texcoco group. It is a
Plain Orange bowl. The presence of this sample is not enough to ar-
gue that trade with Texcoco included non-elite goods. A larger
sample would be needed to evaluate Texcocos role as a trading
partner with Xaltocan. Still, there was some non-local trade in
plain ceramics in the colonial period, and trade in cooking vessels
even included vessels made in towns outside of the immediate
vicinity of Xaltocan. This result is consistent with Garratys
(2006: 221) ndings, which indicated some exchange between
Texcoco and areas to the south, but not much exchange between
Texcoco and sites to the north or the west.
The unassigned samples are most likely of local production. They
remain unassigned due to their high statistical probability of belong-
ing in more than one of the chemical groups, making it difcult to jus-
tify assigning them to one group over another. Future studies may
provide clearer statistical justication for assigning them to any of
the local chemical groups, or otherwise clarify their provenance.
Lead-glazed earthenware
Lead-glazed earthenware was made locally (n = 4), in Cuauhtit-
lan (n = 19), Otumba (n = 5), and Mexico City (Tenochtitlan
 408
Table 3

E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414

Summary of NAA results by type.

Type Chemical group Total

Cuauhtitlan Otumba Probable Southern Southern Tenochtitlan/ Texcoco Unassigned XAL_C XAL_D Xaltocan 1a Xaltocan 1b
Otumba Basin 1 Basin 3 Mexico City
Black-on-orange Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Columbia Plain Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 9
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Figurine Count 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 0 9
% within type 11.1 .0 22.2 .0 .0 .0 .0 44.4 .0 .0 22.2 .0 100.0
Green-on-Cream Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 14 0 0 0 16
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 6.3 .0 6.3 87.5 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Lead-glazed earthenware Count 19 5 0 0 0 1 0 30 0 17 1 3 76
% within type 25.0 6.6 .0 .0 .0 1.3 .0 39.5 .0 22.4 1.3 3.9 100.0
Plain Count 4 0 0 1 1 1 0 42 0 0 9 31 89
% within type 4.5 .0 .0 1.1 1.1 1.1 .0 47.2 .0 .0 10.1 34.8 100.0
Plain orange Count 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Red Count 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 13 0 23
% within type 4.3 .0 .0 .0 8.7 .0 .0 30.4 .0 .0 56.5 .0 100.0
Red Paste Green-on-Cream Count 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 14
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Red Paste White Count 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 12
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Tlalpan White Count 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
% within type .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 .0 100.0
Total Count 25 5 2 1 3 30 1 85 23 17 25 34 251
% within type 10.0 2.0 .8 .4 1.2 12.0 .4 33.9 9.2 6.8 10.0 13.5 100.0
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414 409

Fig. 6. Canonical discriminant (CD) functions 1 and 2 of colonial ceramics from Xaltocan. Ellipses represent 90% probability of membership in the named chemical groups.

Fig. 7. Scatterplot of Co (ppm) and Na (ppm) of colonial ceramics from Xaltocan. Ellipses represent 90% probability of group membership.

compositional group, n = 1). Thirty samples of this type remain
unassigned. In addition, 17 samples belong in the XAL_D chemical
group, a highly variable group. This group has the lowest concen-
trations of Ca and Sr and relatively low concentrations of transition
metals. This group also displays unusually high concentrations of
rare earth elements (REE); however, the specimens within the
chemical group do not display homogeneous REE composition. In-
stead, each specimen falls on a gradational range of REE concentra-
tions that varies from values similar to the remainder of the sample
to maximum REE concentrations four to ve times those displayed
by the other chemical groups (on a linear scale). This may be sug-
gestive of contamination, differential weathering/leaching, or some
other source of chemical variation that is not directly related to the
potting behavior. Given that XAL_D is made up entirely of Lead-
glazed earthenware, with known contamination issues pertaining
to As and Sb, contamination likely has something to do with the
highly variable REE concentrations observed. Thirty lead-glazed
samples did not resemble any known reference group in the Basin
of Mexico. Such a high proportion of unassigned samples is not
unusual in chemical characterization studies.
410 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
A surprising nding of this study is the local production of lead-
glazed pottery. We have not found artifacts or facilities associated
with lead glazing in Xaltocan so far, perhaps due to sampling prob-
lems resulting from the modern occupation in the town, which
makes it difcult to excavate in most of the core of the site (Rodr-
guez-Alegra, 2010). The nding shows that the absence of Span-
iards in the town was not an obstacle to the adoption of glazing
technologies. Hernndez Snchez (2012: 143) argues that of all as-
pects of Spanish ceramic technology, lead glazing was the one that
was most widely adopted by indigenous potters. Xaltocan was one
of many sites all over New Spain where indigenous people adopted
glazing technologies, as demonstrated clearly by the INAA data.
The people of Xaltocan also imported a higher proportion of
lead-glazed earthenware from Cuauhtitlan in comparison to plain
ware. Perhaps this can account for the reduced percentage of plain
ware from Xaltocan: exchange focused on lead-glazed pottery
rather than on plain ware.
The lack of plain ware from Otumba, given the presence of ve
lead glazed samples, is consistent with the pattern found by Peters
(2002), who did not nd trade in plain ware with Otumba during the
Aztec period. The pattern indicates that lead-glazed earthenware
and plain ware, in spite of being made mostly into cooking vessels,
were not necessarily traded in tandem in the colonial period.
The lead-glazed sample made in Mexico City is a jar with a wide
mouth. Although we do not have the data necessary to prove this, it
is most likely that it was not used for transporting foodstuffs, given
the wide orice, which would have made it improper as a container
for foodstuffs. This sample was most likely from a cooking vessel.
Seventeen samples belong to a chemical group provisionally
named XAL_D, of unknown provenience. The group is highly vari-
able, in a way that is difcult to understand. It is possible that the
variability is the result of a large number of production loci supply-
ing lead-glazed pottery to Xaltocan. Fournier and Blackman (2007)
have argued that lead glazing was adopted in an unknown number
of production centers all over New Spain, and our nding could
indicate that Xaltocan obtained glazed ceramics from many of
those production centers.
While we believe that this interpretation is the most likely,
Dean Arnold (2008: 226) provides an ethnoarchaeological example
that makes our interpretation tentative. In Ticul, Yucatan, changes
in the chemical composition of pastes through time were reected
in a larger number of compositional groups identied by INAA. The
greater variability in clay composition was not clearly related to
changes in production loci, or to the presence of more producers.
It was simply due to changes in clay procurement strategies and
locations to supply clay to potters. Clay mining specialists changed
the locations where they obtained clays for different historical, so-
cial, and political reasons. Potters altered the temper that they
used to adapt to the different clays they obtained. These adjust-
ments are unrelated to a greater variety of production loci, but af-
fected clay composition in ways that could be detected by chemical
characterization. Thus, until we can assign the samples to specic
provenances, it will be difcult to determine whether the greater
variability in the composition of clays from Xaltocan has to do with
a greater number of places supplying lead-glazed pottery to Xalto-
can at any period in time, changes in clay procurement, changes in
pottery production over potentially ve centuries of use of lead-
glazed earthenware in the town, or possibly experimentation and
innovation involved in the adoption of a new technology.
Majolica
None of the majolica types were produced locally, indicating
that the people of Xaltocan must have traded to obtain them.
Almost all of the different types of majolica excavated in Xaltocan
have been assigned to chemical groups from Mexico City. The
samples with bright red paste fall into the Tenochtitlan group,
including Red Paste White (n = 12), Red Paste Green-on-Cream
(n = 14), one Tlalpan White, and one Green-on-Cream sample.
One of the Green-on-Cream samples remains unassigned.
The samples with the off-white or pink paste fall into the XAL_C
group, and they consist of two majolica types, as dened by Lister
and Lister (1982): Green-on-Cream and Columbia Plain. This group
is differentiated from the Tenochtitlan group mostly based on con-
sistently high Ca values that cannot be explained by post-deposi-
tional processes. Both Green-on-Cream and Columbia Plain can
be considered common-grade majolica,2 which is distinguished in
part by its translucent glaze, a product of low tin concentrations in
the glaze. To approximate a white color in the ceramics, potters
mixed the red-ring clays found in the Basin of Mexico with calcar-
eous clays, which helped lighten the color of the nished product
signicantly. The higher concentration of Ca in these samples is
probably due to the effect of clay mixing. We assigned this group
to Mexico City based on the work of Lister and Lister, who identied
it as a product of potters living in Mexico City, as well as on the
greater abundance of these types in the capital when compared to
other sites. Fournier and Blackman (2007) have argued based on
INAA studies that Mexico City Green-on-Cream was made in Mexico
City as well as in Puebla. Regardless of whether the samples are from
Mexico City or Puebla, theyprovide evidence of long distance trade
with sites outside of the northern Basin of Mexico.
Hassigs model predicts that trade between Mexico City and the
northern Basin would focus on what he called luxury goods. As dis-
cussed above, we tentatively classify majolica as elite goods. In that
sense, the data provided by this study largely conrm the expecta-
tions of Hassigs model. Regardless, it is important that the people
of Xaltocan imported these types from Mexico City. Red Paste
White, and Red Paste Green-on-Cream are not the products of rural
workshops in the northern Basin that imitated products from Mex-
ico City. It remains to be seen whether rural indigenous potters
adopted the production of any types of majolica at all, but the data
from Xaltocan do not support this idea.
Figurines
Colonial gurines were made locally (n = 2), in Cuauhtitlan
(n = 1), and possibly Otumba (n = 2). The other four gurines remain
unassigned. One of the gurines made in Xaltocan was an animal
head, and the other represents a colonial persons head. The gurine
made in Cuauhtitlan represents a person in Spanish colonial dress.
One of the gurines tentatively assigned to Otumba is a person in
colonial garb, and the other is a horses head. The unassigned gu-
rines include two supernatural animals (one resembling a gargoyle
and one resembling a devil), a crudely-made horses head, and a
person dressed in colonial garb. This pattern clearly demonstrates
trade was not limited to household necessities alone because there
was trade in gurines. Regardless of the expectations derived from
Hassigs model, it is interesting that gurine producers outside of
Mexico City made gurines depicting individual in Spanish cloth-
ing, and that people traded in these gurines.
Obsidian
A study of 103 obsidian samples from Postclassic and Colonial
contexts at Xaltocan (Millhauser et al., 2011) complements the
2
To be precise, Lister and Lister (1982) considered Green-on-Cream to be common-
grade majolica from Mexico City. They classied Columbia Plain as Morisco Ware.
Still, it can be considered a common-grade kind of majolica, given its light paste,
coarse forms, and semitransparent glaze. The comment that it is common-grade is not
meant to be an attempt at reassigning it in the classication proposed by Lister and
Lister (1982) but rather to emphasize the low quality of the type.
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
ceramic characterization study. Of these, 53 samples were exca-
vated in post-conquest (post-1521) strata, and 50 were excavated
in contexts dating to the Aztec and pre-Aztec era in Xaltocan. The
data are presented in detail by Millhauser et al. (2011), and we fo-
cus here on summarizing the results and integrating the discussion
with the results of the ceramic study.
The results indicate that in Postclassic (pre-conquest) Xaltocan,
there was obsidian from Pachuca-1 (one of the main compositional
subsources of obsidian from Pachuca), Otumba, Tulancingo, Uca-
reo, and San Juan de los Arcos (Fig. 8). The Tulancingo source
was represented by only one specimen from Phase 1 in Xaltocan,
before the Aztecs conquered the site and incorporated it into their
empire. In the colonial period, there was obsidian from Pachuca-1,
Pachua-3, Otumba, Ucareo, Zacualtipan, Oyameles-Zaragoza, and
an unknown source of gray obsidian. In part, the results of the
study reveal much continuity in obsidian procurement over a span
of 800 years or more in Xaltocan. Millhauser et al. (2011: 3149) ar-
gue that if statesespecially the Aztec empireever controlled
obsidian procurement in central Mexico, they did so by taking
advantage of obsidian procurement traditions that had existed
for centuries rather than by eliminating them. Obsidian exchange
networks were more durable than the political systems that vied
for control in the Basin of Mexico (Hirth, 1998: 452; Millhauser
et al., 2011: 3150).
The sources of obsidian in Xaltocan indicate an emphasis on
sources to the north and east of the Basin of Mexico, especially
Pachuca and Otumba. The entire sample (n = 10) from the period
when Xaltocan was under Aztec domination (14281521), belongs
to the Pachuca-1 and Otumba sources, although there is one sam-
ple from an unidentied source. This pattern was not surprising gi-
ven the predominance of green obsidian in the entire assemblage.
However, what is surprising is that among the fraction of the
assemblage that is non-green, other sources of obsidian that had
been used in low frequencies in Xaltocan before the Aztec conquest
(Tulancingo, Ucareo, and San Juan de los Arcos) are not present in
the sample after the Aztec conquest. This pattern is difcult to
interpret due to the small sample size (n = 10; Millhauser et al.,
2011: 3150). Small sample sizes may be sufcient to identify major
trends in the data set, but they may also miss some of the variabil-
Fig. 8. Map of central Mexico showing sources of obsidian represented in the sample from Xaltocan. Obsidian sources are marked with crosses.
411
ity in the data set, especially low frequency artifacts, and in this
case, sources (Cowgill, 1964). Some of the sources that are present
in the colonial period are also absent from the earlier sample,
including Pachua-3, Ucareo, Zacualtipan, and Oyameles-Zaragoza.
In spite of the small sample size from the pre-conquest period,
we offer a tentative explanation for this pattern integrating the re-
sults of the chemical characterization study and the results of
typological studies of chipped-stone tools in Xaltocan (Brumel
and Hodge, 1996; Millhauser, 2005; Rodrguez-Alegra, 2008a,b).
Briey, under Aztec domination, the chipped-stone sample is con-
sistent with the sample one would nd if there was a reduction in
local production of chipped-stone tools. The collection consists
mostly of nished tools, including prismatic blades, projectile
points, scrapers, and other formal tools. There is little evidence of
local tool production and the abundance of obsidian decreased sig-
nicantly in Xaltocan (Brumel and Hodge, 1996; Millhauser,
2005). A reduction in the availability of obsidian, a decrease in tool
production, and a reduction in the number of sources of obsidian
used in Xaltocan is the pattern one would expect if the Aztecs con-
trolled the availability of obsidian as well as obsidian tool produc-
tion in a subject state like Xaltocan. Pastrana (1998; Pastrana and
Dominguez, 2009) has argued that the Aztecs controlled the
exploitation of obsidian at Pachuca, and perhaps elsewhere,
although not all scholars agree (e.g. Clark, 1986). The data from
Xaltocan are consistent with the pattern of Aztec imperial control
over obsidian exploitation and distribution, but not sufcient to
prove that such control existed. Alternatively, changes to local pat-
terns of work to meet Aztec imperial demands for tribute in labor
and goods may have decreased the local demand for obsidian tools
and raw material, a pattern that Brumel (1986) also noted at Xico.
The data from the colonial period in Xaltocan are also consistent
with what one would expect if Aztec imperial control over obsidian
procurement and tool production existed and was eliminated after
the Spanish conquest. Colonial contexts in Xaltocan contain n-
ished tools (prismatic blades, scrapers, projectile points, etc.) and
also evidence of tool production, including exhausted cores, rst
series blades, and production debitage (Rodrguez-Alegra,
2008a,b). There is also an increase in the abundance of obsidian
in colonial contexts when compared to the period of Aztec
412 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
dominance (Rodrguez-Alegra and Obledo, 2007). Finally, there are
more sources of obsidian represented in the sample analyzed in
this study when compared to the sample from the period of Aztec
dominance. Changes in labor patterns are unlikely to explain these
patterns because tribute in labor continued during the 16th cen-
tury in tandem with the massive loss of life that depleted the labor
pool. Rather, these patterns indicate a probable reduction in con-
trol of obsidian procurement and tool production after the Spanish
conquest.
If the Aztecs controlled obsidian procurement and tool produc-
tion, they may have done so to force people to go to markets to
purchase obsidian and thereby increase the movement of goods
in marketplaces, although we admit that this possibility needs fur-
ther research. If such controls existed under Aztec domination, the
new colonial powers eliminated them. Spanish miners did not care
to control obsidian, instead focusing their attention on the extrac-
tion of metals, such as gold and silver. This resulted in increased
access to obsidian in the colonial period, increased trade in obsid-
ian from minor sources, and the continuation in the use of
chipped-tone tools well after the Spanish conquest. As indicated
above, this interpretation should be evaluated with larger sample
sizes and other data in the future.
Two nal observations are important. First, in both the Aztec
and the Colonial periods, Pachuca and Otumba remain the domi-
nant sources of obsidian used in Xaltocan. Any changes in access
to markets in Mexico City had little effect on the availability of
these sources of obsidian for the people of Xaltocan. There are
two ways to interpret this. Either we have overemphasized how
important Mexico City was for trade in the north in the Aztec per-
iod, or the breakdown of canoe trafc between the northern Basin
and Mexico City had far less effect on trade of obsidian than we
might expect. Second, the small quantities of obsidian found from
rather distant sources in the colonial period imply that there were
trade relationships or networks that existed independently of pot-
tery exchange networks. In other words, trade networks were
more complex than Hassig believed, and they reached long dis-
tances without the need for an urban center that would stimulate
or manage the trade.
Discussion
This study provides a good basis to evaluate Hassigs character-
ization of the political economy of the northern Basin of Mexico.
The data from Xaltocan only partially support the description of
towns in the northern Basin of Mexico as mostly isolated and
self-sufcient, and trading less than before with Mexico City. The
sources of ceramics excavated in Xaltocan are linked mostly to
towns in the northern Basin of Mexico. Xaltocan was a main site
of production for local consumption and some export (Stoner
et al., 2013). Two other sites that produced ceramics analyzed in
this study were Cuauhtitlan and Otumba. Cuauhtitlan shows some
continuity as a trading partner with Xaltocan since before the
Spanish conquest. In both periods Red Ware was mostly produced
in Xaltocan, but the proportion of plain ware that was produced lo-
cally in comparison with what was imported from Cuauhtitlan
changed (see Nichols et al., 2002; Peters, 2002). Otumba became
a source of lead-glazed earthenware in the post-conquest period,
even though the data indicate that Xaltocan also produced its
own lead-glazed pottery. These patterns indicate a focus on pottery
trade with towns in the northern Basin. These towns supplied pot-
tery for daily use, including cooking necessities, such as jars and
comals. Towns in the northern Basin also produced some of the g-
urines used in Xaltocan.
The people of Xaltocan used majolica made in Mexico City,
including Columbia Plain, Green-on-Cream, Red Paste White, and
Red Paste Green-on-Cream. They also used some plain ware made
in Mexico City and in the southern Basin of Mexico. However,
majolica imported from Europe was not included in trade with Xal-
tocan. Asian porcelain is found in Xaltocan in very low frequencies:
only two fragments have been found (Rodrguez-Alegra, 2010).
Because of their scarcity and the cost of importing European and
Asian serving vessels, they may have been considered luxury goods
by Smiths (2003: 122) denition (see also Lister and Lister, 1982),
although it is difcult to determine whether they were more desir-
able to indigenous people in Xaltocan than majolica made in Mex-
ico. Regardless, the patterns in the data indicate that even if luxury
goods, however dened, were traded between Mexico City and rur-
al towns in the northern Basin of Mexico, trade certainly did not in-
clude all goods dened as luxury goods by the Spanish, who
hoarded some, if not most, scarce imports, including ceramics
(Rodrguez-Alegra, 2010). Even if trade extracted resources, reve-
nues, and luxuries (such as silver) from the hinterlands into Mexico
City and Spain, it did not always move luxury goods from overseas
into rural areas of Mexico. Factors that could explain this pattern
include a power imbalance and different economic status between
Spanish colonizers and indigenous populations, different access to
imported goods when they rst arrived in Mexico, and perhaps a
lack of interest in these imports on the part of indigenous people.
Obsidian tools were not luxury goods, but rather a necessity in
Mesoamerican households (Smith, 2003). The data indicate that
obsidian was widely traded in the colonial period in a manner that
reects continuity with pre-Hispanic patterns: there was a reliance
on obsidian from Pachuca and Otumba. The data also indicate that
there was an increase in the number of sources of obsidian used in
Xaltocan in the colonial period, compared to the Aztec era. In a
sense, this pattern is not compatible with the pattern of isolation
and self-reliance predicted by Hassigs model. Of course, the data
we have do not help us determine whether any of the obsidian
was traded through markets in Mexico City. Currently we can only
identify sources but not markets or trading partnersthis will only
be addressed with more studies of obsidian sources from colonial
contexts around the Basin of Mexico. Still, an increase in the num-
ber ofsources that provided obsidian to Xaltocan, coupled with an
increase in access to obsidian and an increase in obsidian tool pro-
duction (Rodrguez-Alegra, 2008a,b) show that the town was
hardly isolated, and that trade in obsidian ourished in the colonial
period. In addition, if trade with Mexico City decreased in the colo-
nial period, as was predicted by Hassigs model, this had little ef-
fect upon the supply of obsidian to Xaltocan.
Conclusion
The data obtained in this study, rather than providing a basis to
dismiss Hassigs model, help build on it. The data mostly agree
with Hassigs idea that towns in the northern Basin of Mexico fo-
cused on trading with each other. The people of Xaltocan traded
pottery with nearby Cuauhtitlan and Otumba, which were about
as far from Xaltocan as Tenochtitlan, and probably seemed farther
if one considers that canoe transportation was not possible be-
tween Xaltocan and Otumba at any point in time. The people of
Xaltocan also produced much of their utilitarian pottery locally.
The main difference between the patterns observed and Hassigs
model is that Xaltocan was neither isolated nor self-sufcient in
the colonial period. In fact, we see more sources of obsidian repre-
sented in the data set, an increase in the number of sources that
produced the plain ware used in Xaltocan, and trade in newly
available ceramic types, including lead-glazed earthenware, and
majolica. Lead-glazed earthenware was produced locally in Xalto-
can, and obtained from a variety of sources, many of which remain
unidentied. People in Xaltocan imported majolica made in Mexico
 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
City. We even nd a few pottery samples that were imported from
the southern Basin of Mexico, although these are in low frequen-
cies in our sample. There was also trade in and local production
of gurines.
Data from historical documents can aid the interpretation. They
indicate that the people of Xaltocan sold reed mats, salt, and other
products in the colonial market. It seems that the people of Xalto-
can benetted from market exchange in a greater diversity of prod-
ucts in the colonial period compared to the Aztec period. The
market system of colonial Mexico supplied a variety of products
to Xaltocan, and the variety even increased through time. It in-
cluded obsidian from more sources, lead-glazed earthenware,
and majolica serving vessels.
Xaltocan may not be representative of economic changes in
other towns in the northern Basin of Mexico during the post-con-
quest period, but by denition, nobody trades in isolation. Other
towns probably formed the same complex webs of exchange that
we have seen in Xaltocan by studying ceramics and obsidian. Gar-
raty (2006) also found much trade in plain ceramics between colo-
nial sites in the northern Basin of Mexico. This is an example of
how local histories can help us understand broad historical pat-
terns in greater detail. In this case, simply by shifting the focus
away from Mexico City, we see a more complex pattern of ex-
change and connections than expected in a rural site. Instead of
an isolated rural site, we discovered a site with plenty of external
connections that provided it with necessities and luxury goods.
In fact, Xaltocan received products made in a greater variety of
places in the colonial period when compared to the Aztec period.
Perhaps the countryside in colonial Mexico was not as isolated as
it has seemed. Even though transportation by water was easier
during the Aztec period, the people may not have been able to
trade with as many partners due to impoverishment under Aztec
tributary demands, or they may have been less willing to go to
the markets, perhaps resisting the system of economic exploitation
of the Aztecs.
More data are needed to unravel the complex patterns of eco-
nomic change in colonial Mexico. These data should include local
and regional historical sources, as well as archaeological data from
regional surveys and excavations at other sites. We expect that fur-
ther research will indicate that rural towns in colonial Mexico,
rather than being economically isolated, were part of a bustling
market system that moved goods across the countryside and con-
nected people through diverse and overlapping networks. Perhaps
the image of rural isolation is a result of reliance on Spanish histor-
ical documents, written by colonizers who focused their life and
attention on Mexico City, and were isolated from indigenous peo-
ple, missing out on what was going on in the countryside around
them.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this study for Rodrguez-Alegra provided by the
National Science Foundation (SES-0309796 and BCS-0612131),
the University of Texas at Austin, a Big XII Fellowship, and a How-
ard Foundation Fellowship. This research was made possible, in
part, through NSF Grant 1110793 awarded to the University of
Missouri Research Reactor. The authors thank the Instituto Nacion-
al de Antropologa e Historia in Mexico, which graciously facili-
tated permissions to export the samples for analysis. We thank
the people of Xaltocan and the Casa de Cultura for their support
for our research and their hospitality. Patrick Ryan Williams and
Laure Dussubieux guided Millhauser and provided access to the
pXRF analyzer at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago.
The pXRF analyzer was purchased with a grant from the Grainger
Foundation. Michael Glascock performed the lXRF analysis of some
of the samples and Chris Oswald did the INAA study.
413
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in
the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaa.2013.07.001.
These data include Google maps of the most important areas de-
scribed in this article.
References
Appadurai, A., 1986. Introduction: commodities and the politics of value. In:
Appadurai, A. (Ed.), The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural
Perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 363.
Arnold, D.E., 2008. Social Change and the Evolution of Ceramic Production and
Distribution in a Maya Community, University Press of Colorado; Boulder.
Bareld, T.J., 2001. The shadow empires: imperial state formation along the
Chinese-Nomad frontier. In: Alcock, S.E., DAltroy, T.N., Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli,
C.M. (Eds.), Empires. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1041.
Bauer, A., 1996. The colonial economy. In: Hoberman, L.S., Socolow, S.M. (Eds.), The
Countryside in Colonial Latin America. University of New Mexico Press,
Albuquerque, pp. 1948.
Bejines Jurez, J.M., 1999. Nextlalpan de Felipe Snchez Sols. Mongrafa Municipal,
Instituto Mexiquense de Cultura, Morelos.
Berdan, F.F., Smith, M.E., 2003. The Aztec empire. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.),
The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,
pp. 6772.
Braswell, G.E., 2003. Obsidian exchange spheres. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.),
The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City,
pp. 131158.
Brumel, E.M., 1986. The division of labor at Xico: the chipped stone industry. In:
Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland Mexico, Research in
Economic Anthropology. Suppl. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 245280.
Brumel, E.M., 2005a. Introduction: production and power at postclassic Xaltocan.
In: Brumel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan.
University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 2742.
Brumel, E.M., 2005b. Conclusions: production and power at Xaltocan. In: Brumel,
E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University of
Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 349368.
Brumel, E.M., 2005c. Ceramic chronology at Xaltocan. In: Brumel, E.M. (Ed.),
Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press,
Pittsburgh, pp. 117152.
Brumel, E.M., Hodge, M.D., 1996. Interaction in the Basin of Mexico: the case of
postclassic Xaltocan. In: Parsons, J.R., Mastache, A.G., Santley, R.S., Serra Puche,
M.C. (Eds.), Arqueologa Mesoamericana: Homenaje a William T. Sanders.
Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico, City, pp. 417438.
Charlton, T., 1968. Post-conquest Aztec ceramics: implications for archaeological
interpretations. Florida Anthropologist 21, 96101.
Charlton, T., 1970. El Valle de Teotihuacan: cermica y patrones de asentamiento,
15201969. Boletn del Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia 41, 1523.
Charlton, T., 1976. Contemporary Mexican ceramics: a view from the past. Man 11,
517525.
Charlton, T., 1979. The Aztec-Early Colonial Transition in the Teotihuacan Valley. Acts of
the XLIV International Congress of Americanists, Paris, 1976, vol. 9b, pp. 203208.
Charlton, T.H., Fournier, P., Cervantes, J., 1995. La cermica del periodo Colonial
Temprano en Tlatelolco: el caso de la Loza Roja Bruida. In: Presencias y
Encuentros: Investigaciones arqueolgicas de salvamento. Direccin de
Salvamento Arqueolgico, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia,
Mxico, D.F., pp. 135155 (Note: the book does not identify an editor).
Charlton, T.H., Otis Charlton, C.L., Fournier Garca, P., 2005. The Basin of Mexico A.D.
14501620: archaeological dimensions. In: Kepecs, S., Alexander, R.T. (Eds.),
The Postclassic to Spanish-Era Transition in Mesoamerica: Archaeological
Perspectives. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, pp. 4964.
Clark, J.E., 1986. From mountains to molehills: a critical review of Teotihuacans
obsidian industry. In: Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of Prehispanic Highland
Mexico. JAI Press, Greenwich, pp. 2374.
Clark, J.E., 1989. Obsidian: the primary Mesoamerican sources. In: Gaxiola, M.,
Clark, J.E. (Eds.), La Obsidiana en Mesoamerica. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologa e Historia, Mexico, pp. 299330.
Cobean, R.H., 2002. A World of Obsidian: The Mining and Trade of Volcanic Glass in
Ancient Mexico. University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Corts, H., 1970. Cartas de Relacin. Porra, Mexico City.
Cowgill, G.L., 1964. The selection of samples from large sherd collections. American
Antiquity 29, 467473.
Douglas, M., Isherwood, B., 1979. The World of Goods: Towards an Anthropology of
Consumption. Norton, New York.
Fournier, P., Blackman, M.J., 2007. Produccin, intercambio y consumo de lozas
vidriadas en Nueva Espaa: Conformacin de una base de datos de
composiciones elementales mediante INAA. Report submitted to FAMSI.
<http://www.famsi.org/reports/06014es/index.html> (accessed 20.07.12).
Fowler, W., 1993. The living pay for the dead: trade, exploitation and social change
in Early Colonial Izalco, El Salvador. In: Wilson, S., Rogers, J.D. (Eds.),
Ethnohistory and Archaeology. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 181199.
Garraty, C. P., 2006. The Politics of Commerce: Aztec Pottery Production and
Exchange in the Basin of Mexico, A.D. 12001650. Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona
State University.
414 E. Rodrguez-Alegra et al. / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 32 (2013) 397414
Gibson, C., 1964. The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the
Valley of Mexico, 15191810. Stanford University Press, Stanford.
Glascock, M.D., 1992. Characterization of archaeological ceramics at MURR by
neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics. In: Neff, H. (Ed.),
Chemical Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press,
Madison, pp. 1126.
Goggin, J. M., 1968. Spanish Majolica in the New World: Types of the Sixteenth to
Eighteenth Centuries. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New
Haven.
Gmez Serafn, S., Fernndez Dvila, E., 2007. Las cermicas coloniales del ex
convento de Santo Domingo de Oaxaca: pasado y presente de una tradicin.
Coleccin Cientca 496. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico,
D.F.
Graff, S.R., 2012. Culinary preferences: seal-impressed vessels from Western Syria
as specialized cookware. In: Graff, S.R., Rodrguez-Alegra, E. (Eds.), The Menial
Art of Cooking: Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation.
University Press of Colorado, Boulder, pp. 1946.
Hassig, R., 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth-Century Political
Economy of the Valley of Mexico. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hassig, R., 2006. Mexico and the Spanish Conquest. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Hernndez Snchez, G., 2012. Ceramics and the Spanish Conquest: Response and
Continuity of Indigenous Pottery Technology in Central Mexico. Brill, Leiden.
Hicks, F., 2005. Mexico, Acolhuacan, and the rulership of Late Postclassic Xaltocan:
insights from an Early Colonial legal case. In: Brumel, E.M. (Ed.), Production
and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp.
195206.
Hirth, K.G., 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to identify marketplace
exchange in the archaeological record. Current Anthropology 39, 451476.
Hirth, K.G., 2009. Craft production, household diversication, and domestic
economy in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Archaeological Papers of the American
Anthropological Association 19, 1332.
Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., 2005. Xaltocan in the economy of the Basin of Mexico: a view
from ceramic tradewares. In: Brumel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at
Postclassic Xaltocan. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 319348.
Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., Blackman, M.J., Minc, L.D., 1992. A compositional perspective
on ceramic production in the Aztec empire. In: Neff, H. (Ed.), Chemical
Characterization of Ceramic Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison,
pp. 203220.
Lister, F.C., Lister, R.H., 1982. Sixteenth-Century Maiolica Pottery in the Valley of
Mexico. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Lpez Cervantes, G., 1976. Cermica colonial en la Ciudad de Mxico. Instituto
Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Millhauser, J.K., 2005. Classic and postclassic chipped stone at Xaltocan. In:
Brumel, E.M. (Ed.), Production and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. University
of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, pp. 267318.
Millhauser, J.K., 2012. Saltmaking, Craft, and Community at Late Postclassic and
Early Colonial San Bartolome Salinas. Doctoral Dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, Northwestern University.
Millhauser, J.K., Rodrguez-Alegra, E., Glascock, M.D., 2011. Testing the accuracy of
portable X-ray uorescence to study Aztec and Colonial obsidian supply at
Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological Science 38, 31413152.
Moholy-Nagy, H., 2003. Source attribution and the utilization of obsidian in the
Maya area. Latin American Antiquity 14, 301310.
Montfar, A., 1897. Descripcin del Arzobispado de Mxico Hecha en 1570. Jos
Joaqun Terrazas e Hijas, Impresores, Mexico City.
Morehart, C.T., Eisenberg, D.T.A., 2010. Prosperity, Power, and Change: modeling
maize at postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
29, 94112.
Morrison, K.D., 2001. Coercion, resistance, and hierarchy: local processes and
imperial strategies in the Vijayanagara empire. In: Alcock, S.E., DAltroy, T.N.,
Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli, C.M. (Eds.), Empires. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 252278.
Neff, H., 1992. Introduction. In: Neff, H. (Ed.), Chemical Characterization of Ceramic
Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp. 110.
Neff, H., 2000. Neutron activation analysis for provenance determination in
archaeology. In: Ciliberto, E., Sporto, G. (Eds.), Modern Analytical Methods in
Art and Archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 81134.
Nichols, D.L., Brumel, E.M., Neff, H., Hodge, M., Charlton, T.H., Glascock, M.D., 2002.
Neutrons, markets, cities, and empires: a 1000-year perspective on ceramic
production and distribution in the postclassic Basin of Mexico. Journal of
Anthropological Archaeology 21, 2582.
Parsons, J.R., 1966. The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the Teotihuacan Valley. PhD
Dissertation, University of Michigan, University Microlms International,
Mexico.
Pastrana, A., 1998. La explotacin azteca de la obsidiana en la Sierra de las Navajas.
Coleccin Cientca 383. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico
City.
Pastrana, A., 2007. La Distribucin de la Obsidiana de la Triple Alianza en la Cuenca
de Mxico. Coleccin Cientca 517. INAH, Mexico City.
Pastrana, A., Dominguez, S., 2009. Cambios en la estrategia de la explotacin de la
obsidiana de Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula y la Triple Alianza. Ancient
Mesoamerica 20, 129148.
Pastrana, A., Fournier, P., 1998. Explotacin colonial de obsidiana en el yacimiento
de Sierra de las Navajas. In: Fernndez Dvila, E., Gmez Seran, S. (Eds.), Primer
Congreso Nacional de Arqueologa Histrica: Memoria. Consejo Nacional para la
Cultura y las Artes and Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico
City, pp. 486496.
Peters, J.M., 2002. A compositional analysis of plainwares from Xaltocan, Mexico.
Lux Fiat: Journal of Undergraduate Research, Scholarship and Creative Activity
1, 149157.
Roche, D., 2000. A History of Everyday Things: The Birth of Consumption in France,
16001800. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., 2002. Food, Eating, and Objects of Power: Class Stratication
and Ceramic Production and Consumption in Colonial Mexico. PhD Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., 2008a. Narratives of conquest, colonialism, and cutting-edge
technology. American Anthropologist 110, 3341.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., 2008b. De la Edad de Piedra a la Edad de ms Piedra.
Cuadernos de Arqueologa Mediterrnea XVII, 1530.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., 2009. La Etapa Colonial en Xaltocan, Mxico: Informe nal de
excavaciones de 2003 y 2005. Final Project Report Submitted to the Instituto
Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., 2010. Incumbents and challengers: indigenous politics and
the adoption of Spanish material culture in Colonial Xaltocan, Mexico. Historical
Archaeology 44, 5171.
Rodrguez-Alegra, E., Obledo, M., 2007. La obsidiana colonial en Xaltocan. In:
Rodrguez-Alegra, E. (Ed.), La Etapa Colonial en Xaltocan, Mxico: Informe de
Materiales Excavados en 2003 y 2005. Lab report submitted to the Instituto
Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico.
Sheets, P., 2000. Provisioning the Ceren Household: the vertical economy, village
economy, and household economy in the southeastern Maya periphery. Ancient
Mesoamerica 11, 217230.
Sinopoli, C.M., 1994. The archaeology of empires. Annual Review of Anthropology
23, 159180.
Smith, M.E., 2003. Key commodities. In: Smith, M.E., Berdan, F.F. (Eds.), The
Postclassic Mesoamerican World. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, pp.
117125.
Sobel, E.A., 2012. An archaeological test of the Exchange Expansion Model of
contact era change on the Northwest Coast. Journal of Anthropological
Archaeology 31, 121.
Socolow, S.M., 1996. Introduction to the rural past. In: Hoberman, L.S., Socolow, S.M.
(Eds.), The Countryside in Colonial Latin America. University of New Mexico
Press, Albuquerque, pp. 318.
Sodi Miranda, F., 1994. La cermica novohispana vidriada y con decoracin sellada
del siglo XVI. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mexico City.
Stoner, W.D., Glascock, M.D., 2011. Neutron Activation Analysis of Colonial Ceramic
Samples from Xaltocan in the Basin of Mexico. University of Missouri Research
Reactor Report Prepared for Enrique Rodrguez of the University of Texas,
Austin.
Stoner, W.D., Glascock, M.D., Ferguson, J.R., 2008. Instrumental Neutron Activation
Analysis of Aztec and Other Figurines from the Site of Xaltocan, Valley of
Mexico. Report Written for Client Lisa Overholtzer. University of Missouri
Research Reactor (MURR), Archaeometry Laboratory.
Stoner, W.D., Millhauser, J.K., Rodrguez-Alegra, E., Overholtzer, L., Glascock, M.D.,
2013. Taken with a grain of salt: experimentation and the chemistry of
archaeological ceramics from Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Archaeological
Method and Theory 20.
Van Buren, M., 1996. Rethinking the vertical archipelago: ethnicity, exchange, and
history in the South Central Andes. American Anthropologist 98, 338351.