Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
www.elsevier.com/locate/jaa
Monitoring regional market systems in prehistory:
Models, methods, and metrics
Leah D. Minc
*
Radiation Center, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA
Received 23 August 2004; revision received 20 September 2005
Available online 2 December 2005
Abstract
While market systems have long been recognized as key factors in the development and integration of many complex
societies, market exchange has been largely ignored in recent studies of archaic states. The underlying causes appear threefold: (1) we overlook the rich conceptual framework developed within economic geography that identifies key differences
among regional market systems; (2) we underestimate the degree to which these differences constrain or create distinct
opportunities for other productive activities; and/or (3) we lack appropriate measures for monitoring organizational differences in the archaeological record. To understand the role of markets within the ancient economy, measures are needed
to model and monitor its regional organization. The method proposed here focuses on the distribution of goods which
circulated through the market system. By examining how different types of market systems move goods through the regional system in different ways, distinct patterns of commodity distribution are predicted. Metrics for monitoring exchange
based on artifact assemblage similarity are then proposed. As a case study, the analysis applies these insights to characterizing the regional market system in the Aztec heartland, an area where the organization of exchange and the degree
of political interference remain topics of active debate.
2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Market systems; Regional exchange; Aztec empire
Introduction
Although market systems have long been recognized as a key factor in the development and integration of complex societies (e.g., Berdan, 1989;
Brumfiel and Earle, 1987; Flannery, 1972; Morrison
and Sinopoli, 1992; Sanders and Price, 1968; Sinopoli, 1994), market exchange has received relatively
little attention in recent studies of archaic state
*
Fax: +1 541 737 0480.
E-mail address: [email protected].
economies (Smith, 2004, pp. 83–84; Stein, 1998).
The slight is especially noticeable when contrasted
with the degree of attention focused on agrarian
and craft production (Costin, 1991, 2001; Denevan,
2001; Sinopoli, 2003; Trigger, 2003, pp. 358–373;
Whitmore and Turner, 2001), households and
domestic consumption (DÕAltroy and Hastorf,
2001; Feinman and Nicholas, 2000; Santley and
Hirth, 1993), and mechanisms of elite finance
(Earle, 2001, 2002; Feinman and Nicholas, 2004;
Yoffee, 1995).
The shift away from market studies is both
puzzling and troubling. In many complex societies,
0278-4165/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jaa.2005.09.003
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
market exchange is inextricably linked to
production and consumption, and is critical for
the effective articulation and coordination of these
economic processes. Typically, market systems are
seen as supporting increasingly specialized production in both agrarian and craft sectors by
mobilizing resources directly from producers,
and enabling households to provision themselves
with needed items. Further, market systems coordinate these activities both spatially and temporally, by concentrating exchange in a predictable
time and location that allows participants to
schedule.
Yet the relationship between market exchange
and production is not simply a supporting role. It
is widely recognized by economic anthropologists
and cultural geographers that different market systems create very different contexts for production,
exchange, and consumption according to the structure and scale of their regional organization (Hodges, 1988; Larson, 1985; Plattner, 1985, 1989a,b;
Smith, 1974, 1976a,b,c,d, 1977). Solar, dendritic,
and interlocking network systems, for example,
generate distinctive conditions for market participation that affect the degree of reliance on (and
investment in) market exchange as a viable economic strategy. In addition, these systems represent
different levels of political involvement or interference in the arena of exchange activities on the part
of ruling elites.
To understand the complex role of markets
within the ancient economy, measures are needed
not only to detect the existence of market
exchange, but to monitor key dimensions of its
regional organization. Prior approaches to modeling regional market system organization have
focused heavily on the infrastructure of market
systems, including the spatial distribution of economic central places or market centers, and networks of roads and transportation routes that
developed in response to market forces (Santley,
1986, 1991; Skinner, 1964, 1977; Smith, 1979;
Trombold, 1991). Aside from concerns over the
applicability of commercial models such as Central
Place Theory (CPT) to pre-industrial societies (e.g.,
Evans, 1980), archaeologists face the additional
problem of identifying economic nodes and networks from settlement pattern data. Settlement
systems are determined by multiple factors in addition to economic concerns, including ecological,
geographic, political, religious, and historical circumstances, such that settlement size and location
83
are not responsive indicators of market forces
alone.1
The approach taken here, in contrast, focuses on
the distribution of goods which circulated through
the market system, and is grounded on observations
from economic geographers that different market
systems move goods through the regional system
in different ways. Accordingly, this study begins
by examining the major types of regional exchange
systems and their organizational features, drawing
from the insights of previous studies in economic
anthropology (Feinman, 1980; Fry, 1979, 1980;
Fry and Cox, 1974; Hodges, 1988; Plattner, 1985;
Renfrew, 1975, 1977; Santley, 1986, 1991; Smith,
1974, 1976d). Second, by evaluating how these organizational features affect commodity flows, distinct
patterns of commodity distribution associated with
each market system type are identified.
The resulting models of regional exchange are
potentially amenable to testing using a range of data
types, including chemical, typological, and stylistic
analyses of goods that circulated through the market system. Metrics for monitoring exchange based
on artifact assemblage similarity are proposed here,
in that these data are a common product of archaeological surveys and provide the necessary regional
perspective. Finally, as a case study, the analysis
applies these insights to the task of characterizing
the regional market system in the Aztec heartland,
an area where the organization of exchange and
the degree of political interference remain topics of
active debate.
Models of market system organization
In a regional perspective, market systems consist
of a series of (1) market centers that function as foci
of economic exchange, and (2) the market zone or
service area provisioned by a given market center.
As economic central places, market centers bring
together producers and consumers on a regular
1
Central Place Theory and related models derived from
network analysis (Berry, 1967; Christaller, 1966; Skinner, 1964)
are based on assumptions that may not hold in pre-industrial,
non-commercial societies (Smith 1976a 1:8,12; Hassig, 1991, p.
20). For example, CPT holds that if the market principle is
dominant then microeconomic forces will generate a predictable
spatial patterning in the distribution and hierarchical arrangement of economic central places (King, 1984); conversely, if this
predictable pattern is observed to be present, then the underlying
market principle is assumed to have been operative. For a more
detailed critique, see reviews by Evans (1980) and Hirth (1998).
84
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
basis (either daily or periodic) for exchanges involving a broad range of goods and services. The area
provisioned by a market center depends on the
range of goods available at the market center and
their demand function (Plattner, 1989b). Lower-order centers provide basic subsistence and household
items of relatively low unit cost; since such goods
are widely available, they are not typically transported great distances to market nor distributed
far from the market centers, resulting in a relatively
small service zone. In contrast, higher-order centers
additionally offer commodities requiring greater
labor input or energy investment, with correspondingly higher unit cost and lower demand. These
goods travel greater distances from producers to
point of redistribution in the market center and
attract consumers from a broader area.
The organization and integration of multiple
market centers within a regional market system
can be assessed along three primary dimensions:
(1) scale of inclusiveness (areal extent of exchange
interactions or system integration), (2) network
(the amount of horizontal commodity flows
between market centers of the same size), and (3)
hierarchy (the amount of vertical commodity flows
between market centers at different levels of the settlement hierarchy) (Smith 1976d, pp. 314–315). A
fourth dimension, political congruence, assesses the
spatial organization of market systems relative to
features of political geography, including administrative centers and territorial boundaries.
Economic geographers suggest that the dimensions of scale, network, and hierarchy can be integrated to characterize the distinct organizational
features of four different market system models, as
described below (Fig. 1; Table 1). While these ideal
types do not claim to cover all possible cases, they
do provide a well-tested starting point for evaluating ancient, historic, and modern market systems
(Hodges, 1988, p. 25).
Solar market systems, also known as simple centralized market exchange systems, are characterized
by both poorly developed hierarchy and network,
and relatively small scale. As a system of central
places, a solar market system consists of a localized,
low-level market hierarchy (usually involving an
administrative center serviced by several small rural
market places) that is poorly articulated with other
low-level hierarchies in the same region (Hodges,
1988, p. 73; Smith, 1974, p. 176). A key feature of
solar systems is that the center provides both political and economic functions for dependent commu-
nities within its hinterland. As a result, the extent of
political control is spatially congruent with the
sphere of economic influence.
Under a system of enforced dependence on the
primary center for both economic goods and administrative services, rural market participants (as
either producers or consumers) are unable to exercise a choice in market destinations—they must
patronize the center to which they are politically
dependent (Smith, 1974, pp. 176–177). Goods move
from production sources into the central marketplace where they are redistributed throughout the
area served by the centralized market. If a number
of producers contribute to this system, their products will have nearly identical, overlapping patterns
of spatial distribution, resulting in a high degree of
internal homogeneity within the area served by the
central market.
At the regional level, restricted consumer and
retailer movements result in poor articulation
between solar market systems, marked by sharp discontinuities in commodity flows across system
boundaries. The resulting pattern is one of discontinuous, bounded market territories. Linkages
between these territories occur only as elite-controlled trade between administrative centers, indicated by the movement of foreign commodities or
prestige goods between primary central places.
Under a solar market system, then, the regional
spatial patterns of commodity flow should be characterized by (1) bounded, discontinuous market territories that (2) are coterminous with political
administrative units. If commodity exchange was
centralized at the level of the local polity, then the
boundaries of market systems would be apparent
as sharp discontinuities in commodity distribution,
corresponding to polity borders. Household assemblages within communities participating in the same
market system will appear relatively homogeneous
in composition but distinct from those served by
neighboring market systems.
Non-centralized or overlapping market exchange
systems (also called network exchange systems) are
also characterized by poorly developed hierarchy,
but the higher degree of horizontal exchanges
results in a higher degree of market network at the
regional level than found under solar market systems (Bohannan and Bohannan, 1968; Fry, 1979;
Smith, 1974, pp. 179–180). In non-centralized market exchange systems, political authority is decentralized and relatively weak, and administrative
boundaries do not constrain the movements of
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
85
Fig. 1. The primary dimensions of scale, network, and hierarchy generate distinct organizational features for four different regional
market systems.
Table 1
Dimensions of market system variation
Dimension of variation
Regional market systems
Solar
Non-centralized Overlapping
Dendritic
Complex Interlocking
Scale
Network
Hierarchy
Political Congruence
Small, local
Poorly developed
Poorly developed
Coterminous with
local polity
Small, relatively local
Well developed
Poorly developed
Not constrained by
political boundaries
Large, regional
Poorly developed
Well developed
Coterminous with control
of primate center
Large, Regional
Well developed
Well developed
Coterminous with
regional polity
goods or people. Producers and consumers have
access to several independent market centers, and
goods move readily between adjacent market zones.
Based on the distribution of goods, no sharp boundaries are visible between market zones; rather, a gra-
dient in similarity of assemblages extends along a
line between exchange centers, as the frequency of
each product declines with distance from its original
source. However, political instability precludes the
development of a market hierarchy and the system
86
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
is characterized by poor regional articulation; as a
result, economic interaction between communities
declines rapidly with distance. Neighboring communities will thus share a large number of commodities, while the assemblages of more distant
communities will be more dissimilar.
These characteristics suggest several key aspects
of regional spatial patterning generated by non-centralized or network market systems: (1) the structure
is characterized by a series of fluid, overlapping
market territories; and (2) the network is spatially
unbounded by local political or administrative
boundaries. If commodities were distributed
through a non-centralized market system in which
several independent exchange systems interacted,
then individual goods or artifact types would likely
form overlapping distributions and they would be
represented in increasingly smaller proportions with
distance from their source. Individual market territories would emerge as areas with similar assemblages, but the degree of similarity between
adjacent market territories would be high and differences across these boundaries relatively weak.
Dendritic market systems, in contrast, are characterized by a well-developed market hierarchy, in
conjunction with a poorly developed market network. Within the regional system, political and economic control emanates from a single primate
center, which connects to dependent communities
through a linear chain of exchange interactions
(Appleby, 1976; Johnson, 1970; Kelley, 1976; Smith,
1974, pp. 177–179). In the resulting branch-like
structure, goods flow vertically up and down the
market hierarchy, while horizontal connections
among communities at the same level of the hierarchy are minimal.
Dendritic market structures depend on a strong
centralized authority in which ‘‘political and economic elites are one and the same, and political
decisions are made to safeguard elite economic
interests’’ (Santley, 1991, p. 199). This imbalance
of power precludes the development of a competitive market system, as elites are able to manipulate
market commerce to their own ends. Under a strategy of commodity oligopoly, for example, administrative elites control the availability of goods and
services needed by the rural populace to force them
to produce for the urban market; monopolistic controls over access to trading partners, transportation,
and currency can be equally effective in directing
and controlling the flow of goods (Hodges, 1988,
pp. 42–52; Smith, 1974, p. 179).
Although primarily associated with mercantile
or colonial powers (e.g., Smith, 1976d; Larson,
1985; Vance, 1970), several authors note that such
market imperfections were probably widespread,
and the model has considerable utility in highlighting the effects of strong vertical market integration in prehistoric and early historic economies
as well (e.g., Allen, 1992; French, 1964, pp. 120–
122; Hodges, 1988, pp. 42–52; Santley, 1991;
Smith 1974, p. 179; 1976a, p. 36). In particular,
while the dendritic system supports the primate
center, this marketing structure suppresses economic development within the hinterland (Plattner, 1989b, p. 203). Rural goods do not flow
with regularity across rural markets, and rural
producers cannot depend on those markets for
subsistence goods (Smith 1976a, pp. 34–35). The
incomplete development of market network reduces hinterland dependence on the market system
either as an outlet for products or as a source
of desired goods (Smith 1974, pp. 177–178;
1976d, pp. 319–320).
A key characteristic of dendritic market systems, then, is the differential integration of communities into the regional system based on their
distance from the primate center (Smith, 1974, p.
177). If the regional economy is dendritic in structure, the geographic pattern would be that of distinct zones characterized by different levels of
central market participation, including (1) a wellintegrated core zone around the primate center
displaying high market participation, and (2) a
poorly integrated rural periphery with low market
participation. The degree of central market system
participation will be reflected in the degree of
access to higher-order goods produced in (or
imported into) the primate center. As market participation declines with distance from the primate
center, we can expect to see a decline in the abundance of centrally produced goods. Within the
periphery, locally produced subsistence and utilitarian goods will predominate. Reduced lateral
commodity flows within the periphery will result
in localized differences in style and assemblage
composition.
Complex, interlocking market systems or hierarchically integrated market networks are characterized by both well-developed market hierarchy and
network. In such a market system, goods are channeled through a series of local and regional centers,
serving overlapping market regions of various spatial scales:
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
‘‘In interlocking systems each market center is
linked to several higher-level centers as well as
to several lower-level centers. This creates a network with several levels, several links between
levels, and hierarchically organized service to all
places in the system. Goods flow to and from
other systems and regions but are also exchanged
within the local system at each level. Trade areas
are overlapping and economic regions unbounded. Hence, supply and demand or price information is communicated across broad areas to
ensure coordination of specialization. Under
these circumstances the rural consumer can stay
put and still enjoy product diversity in his marketplace; he can also depend on a broad market
for the goods he produces. This allows specialization within the realm of food production, so that
rural areas become as market dependent if not as
diversified as urban centers’’ (Smith 1976d, p.
320).
A primary feature of interlocking market systems
is the high degree of regional economic integration
(Plattner, 1989b, p. 203). Because goods move both
vertically and horizontally between centers, distribution patterns are geographically widespread and
create a higher degree of similarity in consumer
goods throughout the regional system. Local variations in the availability of goods from a given source
may persist, however, generating minor differences
between local market systems.
If the regional economy was organized as a complex interlocking market system, the distribution of
artifact types should reflect a pattern of widespread,
relatively uniform distribution throughout the
region served by the market system. Minimal
intra-regional variation in type frequencies would
occur, although pockets of locally produced types
might appear. However, because trade areas are
overlapping and unbounded, no sharp internal
boundaries in distribution would be apparent. Similarly, because rural areas are well integrated into
the market system, no sharp core-periphery pattern
in market participation is expected.
Archaeological correlates of regional market systems
The preceding models of regional market system
organization present distinct expectations for commodity distribution patterns against which the
archaeological case can be compared. Fundamental
to such an analysis, however, is the empirical identi-
87
fication of areas participating in the same market
system, and the delineation of market zones—the
archaeological manifestation of market territories—based on patterns of consumption. Once market zones have been delineated, the organization of
the regional market system can be evaluated in
terms of the size and number of distinct market
zones, their spatial organization, the horizontal
and vertical relationships among market zones,
and their distribution relative to features of political
geography.
Identifying market zones and boundaries
In archaeological terms, market zones are defined
here as areas serviced by the same market center(s)
within which communities have access to the same
array of goods. One direct measure of whether communities visit the same market center is the degree
to which they obtain goods from the same producers, as determined through compositional analyses
of artifacts and raw materials (Arnold et al., 1991;
Bishop and Blackman, 2002; Bishop and Neff,
1989; Glascock and Neff, 2003; Neff, 1992; Neff
and Glascock, 1995). Trace-element studies have
been particularly fruitful in modeling the extent
and mechanisms of long-distance exchange in
high-status elite goods (e.g., Glascock, 2002; Renfrew, 1975, 1977). At the intra-regional level, however, the success of trace-element studies depends
on the spatial scale of geochemical variability in
raw (source) materials and our ability to differentiate the products of local producers (Bishop and
Blackman, 2002). Even when variability in source
materials supports a fine-grained spatial analysis,
the cost of such analyses has generally limited their
application in the assessment of regional market
systems, where a large number of samples and a
regional sampling strategy are required to map
quantitative differences in the volume of exchange
and identify market boundaries. As demonstrated
below, however, compositional analyses play a critical role in verifying key aspects of market system
organization as delineated from less direct measures
of exchange.
An alternative means for defining market zones
focuses on the degree of assemblage similarity
among sites within the study area based on typological and stylistic grounds. This tactic follows up on
the ‘‘distributional approach’’ formalized by Hirth
(1998), which demonstrated that market participation to provision households results in a high level
88
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
of homogeneity in the distribution of circulating
commodities. Briefly, Hirth argues that market
places provide equal access to commodities for all
consumers, independent of social status (1998, p.
458). Since consumers participate directly in market
exchange, and all households (whether low-status or
high-status) have access to the same types of
resources in the marketplace, the result is an
increase in the homogeneity of material culture
assemblages at the community level. In the archaeological record, ‘‘the homogenizing effects of trade’’
(Creamer, 1998) among households offers a clear
indicator of marketplace exchange.
Beyond identifying the existence of market
exchange, however, the distributional approach
offers a powerful tool for examining the spatial
organization of exchange at a regional level.2
Archaeologists have long utilized stylistic similarity
(particularly that of ceramics) to assess the relative
degree of economic interaction among different
communities, arguing that greater exchange of
goods, technology, and artistic norms results in
greater uniformity (Fry, 1979, 1980; Fry and Cox,
1974; Hodge and Minc, 1990; Pires-Ferreira, 1976;
Plog, 1976, 1978). Where markets provide the primary mechanism for exchange and commodity distribution, HirthÕs analyses suggest that the degree to
which communities share similar artifact assemblages can be used to assess the degree to which they
attend the same market centers. Because they have
access to the same array of goods, communities
attending the same market center(s) will have highly
similar assemblages of basic craft goods; in contrast,
those participating in completely different exchange
networks will have largely dissimilar assemblages. It
is therefore possible to identify and map the spatial
distribution of communities participating in the
same market zone from areas which display compositionally similar material culture assemblages. Conversely, boundaries between market zones will be
apparent as discontinuities in assemblage similarity
reflecting a decline in exchange activities.
Several factors may distort the presumed relationship between assemblage similarity and economic interaction, however. Primary among these
are differences in site function and status that can
2
Several reviewers (Hassig, 1998; Hicks, 1998) of HirthÕs
approach suggested that it had wider utility, e.g., ‘‘The judicious
elaboration of his approach holds promise for going beyond the
detection of markets to the tentative identification of market
types and systems’’ (Hassig, 1998, p. 467).
alter the mix of different functional and prestige
artifact classes found at a site. In order to minimize
variability in assemblage composition owing to such
functional or wealth differences, the delineation of
market zones can focus on stylistic variability within
a single functional artifact type or class. The implementation of the distributional method is illustrated
below based on stylistic variability within the class
of decorated ceramic serving vessels.
The identification of market zones utilizes the
methodology entitled ‘‘unconstrained clustering for
the analysis of spatial data’’ developed by Whallon
(1984). The goal of unconstrained cluster analysis is
the identification of spatial clusters or areas with
similar artifact assemblages that are not constrained
as to their size, shape, density, composition, or patterns of artifact covariation by the very quantitative
methods employed to identify them. This methodology was originally designed to assist intra-site analyses in the identification of activity areas within
occupation floors. It is, however, a general
approach rather than a specific technique (Whallon,
1984, p. 244), and as such is appropriate for the
analysis of regional spatial data as well.
The approach requires, first, that we have data
on the distributions of a number of different artifact
types over a contiguous spatial area. Second, it
requires that information on artifact type distributions within this area be sufficiently detailed to characterize the underlying distributional patterns.
Ceramic collections generated by regional site surveys potentially satisfy both these requirements.
Surveys attempt to provide relatively complete
information on settlement distributions for a large
contiguous area. The surface collections generated
through these surveys theoretically represent samples drawn from the underlying ‘‘true’’ ceramic distribution patterns. Individual samples or
collections, however, are subject to local noise or
distortion of the regional pattern, due to differences
in surface collecting conditions and factors affecting
artifact preservation and visibility. One major goal
of unconstrained cluster analysis, therefore, is to
even out the local perturbations in artifact recovery
to expose the larger underlying patterns of
distribution.
Input data consist of information on both the
absolute and relative densities of artifact types, as
these potentially provide complementary types of
information. On one hand, relative measures (e.g.,
percent of ceramic assemblage) reflect potential similarities and differences in consumer behavior that
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
are independent of differences in assemblage size.
This is an advantage where assemblage size may
well vary according to differences in settlement
density or surface survey conditions. Assuming, as
Hirth (1998) suggests, that market participation
promotes equal access and that consumers (on average) obtained goods proportionate to their availability in the market place, then communities
participating in same market zone will be marked
by assemblages with highly similar proportions of
ceramic types.
On the other hand, absolute densities (e.g., differences in the total number of sherds per unit area)
potentially reflect differences in access to a particular source, as a function of distance. Typically, we
can associate source areas for a given ceramic type
with high availability and high consumption (high
absolute densities) and assume that accessibility
declines with distance from a source, such that marginal areas will be characterized by low densities of
that type. Absolute densities are also critical in identifying areas with low overall artifact densities within which percentage data may be unreliable or
misleading. Thus, through combining both perspectives, we gain insights into both the relative degree
of interaction as well as the volume of interaction
between different areas. To the extent that the
results of the two analyses agree, we can be assured
that the patterning within the spatial data is relatively robust.
Unconstrained cluster analysis proceeds through
a number of steps; at each step specific decisions
must be made to tailor the approach to the problem
at hand. Briefly, the basic sequence involves:
(1) Creation of a regular data grid from irregularly
spaced data points for each artifact type included in the analysis. A regular grid of points is
established over the study area, and the value
of each grid point (e.g., ceramic type density)
is estimated from neighboring data points
(e.g., sites or collection areas), usually as a
weighted average of the values of points within a certain distance of the grid point. Generally, the weights applied are the inverse square
of the distances from the central point.
(2) Smoothing the data within each grid. In a second optional step, the density grid is smoothed
using a moving template of surrounding grid
points, and each grid point is replaced with
the average of itself plus its closest neighbors.
Grid smoothing does involve some degree of
89
generalizing from the data, but Whallon
(1984, p. 245) argues that this is necessary:
‘‘We are interested in distributional pattern,
and pattern is a characteristic of the data as
a whole rather than of the array of individual
item locations. That is, pattern is a generalization from the data.’’ In this context, grid
smoothing is recommended in that it reduces
noise and enhances the underlying pattern by
averaging out random fluctuations.
(3) Clustering of grid points based on density values
for multiple artifact types. Cluster analysis is
utilized to summarize the information contained in the multiple density contour maps
and to reveal the joint patterning of the different artifact types or stylistic variants within
the study area (Whallon, 1984, p. 245). Input
data for the cluster analysis consists of type
densities as calculated for each grid point. It
should be emphasized here that what is being
clustered are grid points, with clusters of grid
points presumably representing areas with
similar assemblage composition. As a result,
the focus is on identifying areas with similar
ceramics, rather than on identifying groups
of sites with similar ceramics. An explicitly
hierarchical algorithm, such as the minimum
variance or WardÕs method that joins clusters
by minimizing intra-cluster variance (Aldenderfer and Blashfield, 1984), is useful in revealing the degree of relatedness among areas
within the study area. The clustering is based
on Euclidean distances between grid points
as calculated from the densities of the different
artifact types or stylistic variants at those
points. The appropriate cluster solution is
identified using the scree method, based on
major changes in error sum of squares (SSE).
According to this criterion, ‘‘clustering proceeds . . . until a series of marked jumps in
the error sum of squares are produced by the
fusion of relatively dissimilar groups. These
sudden jumps in the clustering criterion indicate significant increases in the heterogeneity
of the groups being defined’’ (Whallon, 1984,
p. 253). The strategy here is to examine cluster
solutions just prior to major increases in the
SSE, as these divisions represent relatively distinct groups.
(4) Cluster mapping. Once the appropriate cluster
solution has been identified, grid points
belonging to each cluster are plotted on a
90
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
map of the study area, and these groups are
examined for spatial integrity and geographic
interpretability. It is expected that grid points
belonging to the same cluster will also cluster
spatially, and that as a group they represent
an area with a distinctive ceramic assemblage.
(5) Cluster interpretation. If clusters pass these
preliminary tests, the analysis proceeds to
cluster interpretation using descriptive statistics to quantify differences in assemblage composition between clusters or areas. Cluster
interpretation must also consider the spatial
configuration of clusters, their size, and their
location relative to features of political geography, including political centers and polity
boundaries.
Assessing relationships among market zones
Once market zones have been delimited, the relationships within and among the zones are examined
to characterize the regional market system structure. Metrics for the key organizational attributes
of scale, network, hierarchy, and political congruence are suggested below.
Scale
The scale of market zones can be evaluated
directly from the number of market zones and their
relative spatial extent. Of primary interest here is the
characterization of the regional system as comprising one or a few large market zones as opposed to
many, smaller market zones. The size of market
zones relative to travel time and distance is also of
interest, as indicating whether the service zone
corresponds to a local, regional, or supra-regional
market center.
Network
The degree of horizontal integration among market zones reflects the extent of trade and exchange
between adjacent market zones in goods of the same
order, and can be assessed from the overall similarity among their ceramic assemblages. For example,
the Brainerd-Robinson agreement coefficient
(Cowgill, 1990) measures similarity between pairs
of market zones, when assemblage composition
data are expressed as percentages of various ceramic
types and variants. The coefficient can range from 0
(when pairs of market zones share no types in common) to 200 (when pairs of market zones share all
types in common and in the same proportions).
As a measure of network, a high coefficient indicates
a high degree of interaction among market zones.
Conversely, a low coefficient suggests a lower degree
of interaction; a sharp decrease in the agreement
coefficient represents a boundary in economic interaction. In addition, the degree of horizontal integration can be assessed qualitatively from the spatial
congruence between market zones and individual
type distributions, that is, whether type distributions appear to conform to market zone boundaries
(low network) or cross over market zone boundaries
(higher network).
Hierarchy
The degree of vertical integration within the
regional market system can be evaluated from the
dual perspective of differential access to a greater
diversity of goods and to better quality goods. In a
hierarchically organized system, higher-order markets offer higher-order goods (including higher cost,
higher status items), plus all lower-order goods (such
as basic necessities) (King, 1984, p. 32; Smith, 1985).
As a result, higher-order markets are more diverse
than lower-order markets, and carry a greater proportion of higher-order goods. In the presence of a
well-developed market hierarchy, market zones surrounding the highest-order market centers are therefore expected to have a greater diversity and greater
volume of high quality ceramics. In contrast, in a
non-hierarchically organized system, we can expect
that all market zones will be more equally diverse
and/or have roughly equal access to higher quality
goods.
A large number of indices have been developed to
measure assemblage richness and/or diversity (Ludwig and Reynolds, 1988, pp. 85–95; Pielou, 1975);
most do not adequately account for the sample-size
effect; that is, that the larger the assemblage is, the
more artifact classes it should have, simply as a function of sample size (Rhode, 1988). In contrast, the socalled ‘‘regression approach’’ (Grayson, 1984; Jones
et al., 1983), focuses on the systematic relationship
(generally linear or curvilinear) between assemblage
richness and assemblage size, and examines differences in the rate of acquisition. The region with the steeper slope adds artifact classes at a faster rate, indicating
access to a more diverse array of goods and, in this
context, proximity to higher-order markets.
With respect to higher quality goods, differential
access can be calculated by first using the production-step index to rank the different types according
to the level of labor input or number of distinct steps
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
91
Table 2
Archaeological measures of regional market systems
Dimension
Definition
Potential Measures
Delineation of market zones
Areas serviced by the same market center(s)
that have access to the same array of goods
Scale
Network
Relative size of market territories.
Degree of horizontal interaction or overlap
between market territories of the same order
Hierarchy
Degree of vertical interaction between market
territories of a different order
Spatial organization of market territories
relative to administrative centers and
territorial boundaries
Spatially unconstrained cluster analysis to identify
market zones from areas with similar artifact
assemblages
Number and areal extent of distinct market zones
a. Measures of similarity/ dissimilarity between
adjacent market zones
b. Degree of spatial congruence between artifact type
distributions and market zones
a. Assemblage richness/diversity
b. Differential access to higher quality goods
Distribution of market zones relative to administrative
territories as reconstructed from:
a. Archaeological measures (CPT, Thiessen polygons,
etc.); or
b. Ethnohistoric documentation of territorial extent.
Political Congruence
involved in their production (Feinman, 1980; Feinman et al., 1981; Garraty, 2000). The distribution (relative to market zone boundaries) of ceramics
belonging to different ‘‘labor input’’ classes can be
assessed using a simple v2 test for homogeneity, based
on type counts at sites assigned to market zones. Standardized v2 residuals represent departures from the
expected frequencies in standard deviations (Reynolds, 1977, 1984). By examining the sign and
strength of the standardized v2 residuals, market
zones having greater access to more labor-intensive
ceramics can be identified.
Political congruence
The spatial organization of market zones relative
to features of political geography, including administrative centers and territorial boundaries, provides
a potential measure of political controls over market system participation. For prehistoric societies
where the distribution of administrative centers is
known from archaeological surveys, the extent of
market zones can be compared with reconstructed
political territories (e.g., Thiessen polygons) or
markers of ethnicity (such as representations of conquest on stelae, etc.). Where administrative centers
and their dependent territories have been mapped
from documentary evidence such as tribute lists,
the degree of political congruence can be assessed
directly from the degree of spatial conformity
between ethnohistoric and archaeological data.
The proposed measures are summarized in Table
2. Clearly, all measures are relative scales, such that
assessment is best approached on a comparative
basis.
Case study: the Aztec empire and market system
reorganization
We now turn to an examination of regional patterns of ceramic distribution as a basis for reconstructing the major organizational features of the
Aztec market system through which these craft
goods and a host of other commodities circulated.
Market system organization is examined relative
to two distinct phases of political centralization:
before and after consolidation of the Aztec empire.
The purpose of this exercise is to illustrate the methodology developed above as applied to the Basin of
Mexico; in the interests of brevity, it is not possible
to synthesize the extensive literature on the larger
Aztec economy, except as it directly relates to market system organization.
Models for Early Aztec market systems
The Early Aztec or pre-imperial period in the
Basin of Mexico (traditionally dated to ca. 1150–
1350 AD)3 is known from the ethnohistoric documents as a time of extreme political decentralization
and instability. At that time, the Basin was divided
3
The absolute chronology for the pre-imperial period is
currently under revision (Cowgill, 1996; Nichols and Charlton,
1996; Parsons et al., 1996), in part based on radiocarbon dates
suggesting a much earlier inception than traditionally held. In
addition, while finer grain ceramic chronologies are available for
parts of the Basin, the complex variation in ceramic sequences
continues to frustrate attempts to refine the regional picture
beyond the traditional Early Aztec and Late Aztec employed
here.
92
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
among a number of small, independent and often
conflicting city–state polities, each consisting of an
urban administrative center and a discrete territory
containing dependent villages and hamlets (Bray,
1972; Hodge, 1984, 1996). Groups of city–state polities formed alliances or confederations for purposes
of mutual defense or military campaigns (Anales de
Cuauhtitlan, 1938, 1945; Chimalpahin, 1965; Durán, 1967). The documentary accounts suggest that
while city–state territories were relatively stable geographic entities throughout the Early Aztec period,
confederation boundaries shifted with political
expansion or defeat. The settlement patterns for
the Early Aztec period support the documents on
this point. The distribution of sites during the Early
Aztec period consists of ‘‘a series of local centers,
each dominating a small part of the Basin and each
separated from its neighboring polities by a frontier
of contested, not well-inhabited borderland’’ (Blanton et al., 1981, p. 152).
In keeping with this political milieu, several
authors (Hassig, 1985, pp. 71–73; Hicks, 1987;
Smith, 1979) have suggested that Early Aztec market exchange was organized through a solar market
system. According to this view, the political insularity of polities would have made it unlikely that the
subject population was able to exercise a great deal
of choice in which market they patronized or that
they were able to travel safely to the market center
of a hostile polity. Thus, the degree of network
development was low, and the regional market system is expected to have been organized through a
series of small, discrete market zones coterminous
with city–state polity boundaries.
A second model proposed for the Early Aztec
market system is that of non-centralized, overlapping
market zones. Proponents of this model argue that
city–state polities, owing to their small size, were
unlikely to have been economically self-sufficient
(Calnek, 1982, p. 45). Thus, political confederations
of city–state polities—ostensibly organized along
ethnic lines for mutual defense—may also have been
critical economic alliances. By allowing trade to
move unhindered across borders between allied territories, consumers would have had access to a
broader range of necessary resources. Yet owing
to the unstable and competing political structure
of confederations, it is unlikely that an economic
hierarchy of centers would develop. These characteristics are consistent with the development of a
series of overlapping market zones, in which consumers had a choice—within the limits of the polit-
ical confederation—as to which of several market
centers to patronize (Minc et al., 1994).
In contrast, Blanton (1996) argues that the foundations of a hierarchically integrated market network
were established in the pre-imperial or Early Aztec
period, although the system was unevenly and
incompletely developed at that time. Based on the
number and spatial organization of primary and
secondary centers that serviced the local hinterland
during that period, Blanton concludes that even at
this early time a commercial principle was operating
as a major determinant of central-place development in some portions of the Basin, even though
the interstitial spaces of the settlement lattices were
not completely filled in (1996, p. 67). In terms of the
distribution of goods, we would expect the operation of commercial forces to generate both well-developed network and hierarchy, although
integration into a single, region-wide market system
may be incomplete.
Models for Late Aztec market systems
In contrast to the preceding period, the Late
Aztec period (ca. 1350–1520 AD) witnessed a rapid
centralization of political authority in the Basin of
Mexico culminating in the rise of the Aztec empire,
the so-called Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlacopan. Initially, these three powers were
considered equal partners and divided the Basin
amongst themselves along traditional (ethnic or
tribal) lines. Texcoco retained control over Acolhua
polities east and NE of Lake Texoco, the Mexica of
Tenochtitlan controlled territories acquired in the
south, and Tlacopan controlled polities in the west
and NW (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977, II, p. 146;
Hodge, 1996).
Tenochtitlan, however, soon emerged as the
dominant member, assuming direct control over
Tlacopan by appointing the rulers of that city, and
centralizing external relations (primarily military
campaigns and tribute collection) under her authority. Texcoco, in contrast, remained a strong member
state in the alliance, and maintained a high degree of
political and economic control over her territories
(Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977, II, p. 146; Carrasco,
1991, 1999, 1971, pp. 40–49; Gibson, 1956, 1964,
1971; Hicks, 1982, 1992; Hodge, 1984, p. 141;
Offner, 1983).
Two long-standing models have been proposed
concerning the impact of this political centralization
on the structure of exchange relations within the
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
93
Basin of Mexico. One traditional school of thought
argues that the break-down of former political barriers led to increased regional interaction and the
development of a basin-wide hierarchically integrated exchange network (Blanton et al., 1981, p. 162;
Smith 1979, 2002, p. 119). Based in large part on
central-place analyses of Late Aztec centers, this
view holds that administrative controls over
exchange activities were minimal, and argues for
the presence of both a well-developed market hierarchy centered on Tenochtitlan and an extensive
market network that moved goods efficiently
throughout all parts of the Basin (Berdan, 2005,
pp. 47–50). In terms of the distribution of goods,
the expected pattern would be that of nested market
zones serviced by a hierarchical arrangement of central places but reflecting strong network and largescale integration.
An alternative view contends that many production and exchange activities were centralized
through administrative controls to direct the flow
of rural agricultural surpluses into the dominant
urban center(s). Based on network analyses of roads
and transportation routes at the time of the Spanish
conquest, Santley (1986, 1991) argued that the
Aztec market system primarily addressed imperial
concerns for channeling bulk foodstuffs into
Tenochtitlan and Texcoco. The resulting market
system was characterized by strong vertical integration and a dendritic structure in which goods moved
up a well-developed market hierarchy, but not
among sites of the same level, resulting in poor market network. Initially, it was proposed that agricultural commodity flows were stimulated by
exchanges for urban-produced craft and elite goods
that flowed back down the hierarchy to rural dependents and local rulers (Brumfiel, 1991a, p. 193; Hassig, 1985; Sanders and Santley, 1983; Santley, 1986,
1991, pp. 206–208); however, the general picture of
decentralized, part-time production of basic craft
goods within the Basin (e.g., Brumfiel, 1976, 1980,
1986, 1991b; Hicks, 1994, pp. 94–96; Hodge et al.,
1992, 1993) indicates that urban control over these
goods was unlikely.4 In contrast, the Aztec elite
did exert monopolistic controls over exotic prestige
items, through state sponsorship of foreign trade
and regulation of the right to trade in exotic goods
(Berdan, 1975, pp. 27, 114–116; Hassig, 1985, pp.
111–113). The necessity to obtain exotic raw materials—particularly the large quantities of cotton and
tropical feathers needed to meet tribute assessments
in finished goods (Berdan, 1985, 1987; Brumfiel,
1987b; Hicks, 1987, p. 99)—would have enforced
market participation and stimulated vertical
exchanges between rural–urban markets while
dampening incentives for lateral exchanges among
smaller communities.5
More recently, there has been a growing appreciation of the extent to which the Aztec market system, in addition to provisioning a rapidly
increasing urban population, also served an important role in elite finance (Brumfiel, 1987a,b; Hicks,
1987, 1991; Minc, 1994, vol. 1, pp. 101–110). Market commerce was taxed in kind at rates as high
as 20%, with the revenues (ranging from subsistence
goods to exotic prestige items) going to the local ruler (Cortés, 1928, p. 93; Durán, 1967, pp. 2, 264; Torquemada, 1969, vol. II, p. 560). As potential bases
of wealth and competing political power, urban
markets were subject to imperial regulation, including controls over market location and the rights to
market revenues (Alvarado Tezozómoc, 1975, p.
396; Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1945, pp. 43–44; Berdan, 1985, pp. 344–345; Chimalpahin, 1965, p.
205; Durán, 1964, pp. 102–105; Hicks, 1987, p. 96).
The extent and impact of such ‘‘market meddling’’ remains an open question. Blanton (1996,
pp. 82–83), for example, argues that elite intervention served to spatially disconnect economic and
political power bases, leaving the regional market
system free to respond largely to commercial forces.
It is equally plausible, however, that administrative
regulation of the market system precluded the development of a fully competitive market network by
channeling market traffic into politically sanctioned
points in the landscape. Such political maneuvering,
as played out in the market system, would have
intensified rather than eased economic divisions
within the Basin. In fact, a growing body of stylistic
and compositional analyses of Aztec ceramics
strongly suggest that some degree of regionalism
persisted in the market system under Aztec imperial
4
The greater concentration of craft production found at
Otumba relative to other provincial centers may well relate to
its greater distance from Tenochtitlan and its position outside the
market sphere of that imperial center (Charlton et al., 1991, 1993;
Nichols, 1994; Otis-Charlton, 1994).
5
Exotic goods and raw materials were introduced into the
market system via the professional long-distance merchants
(pochteca) who specialized in such high-value goods, or through
the ‘‘recycling of tribute’’—i.e., market resale of goods received in
tribute (Berdan, 1975, pp. 215–254).
94
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
rule (Hodge, 1990, 1992; Hodge and Minc, 1990;
Hodge et al., 1992, 1993; Minc, 1994, n.d.; Nichols
et al., 2002; Parsons, 1972, 1975). However, the significance of these subregional systems—and their
potential relationship to market structure and elite
market manipulation—remains poorly understood.
Monitoring market systems in the Basin of Mexico
The regional database
To gain a regional perspective on Aztec market
exchange, this study turned to the broad spatial coverage provided by the Basin of Mexico site surveys.
The primary goal of these early surveys was to
locate, map, and describe settlements of all ceramic-producing societies in the Basin, through a comprehensive field-by-field survey effort (Blanton,
1972; Parsons, 1971; Parsons et al., 1982; Sanders
et al., 1979). But these surveys also provide a regional data base of ceramic assemblages, generated
using a relatively consistent and uniform method
of surface collection (Parsons, 1971, pp. 18–19; Parsons et al., 1982, p. 67; Sanders et al., 1979, pp. 27–
29). After a site had been located and the extent of
surface scatter mapped, the survey teams demarcated one or more collection areas within the site
boundaries. Survey members recorded the dimensions and location of the collection areas, then picked up 100% of the diagnostic sherds, including all
rims and chronologically significant body sherds
from this area.6 Although the collection strategy
was primarily designed to determine the temporal
placement of each site, when averaged over a larger
area, the collections provide a generalized picture of
ceramic distribution patterns and a uniquely broadbased perspective on prehispanic exchange within
the Aztec imperial core.
The geographic area examined here corresponds
to the Texcoco, Ixtapalapa, Chalco, and Xochimilco survey regions (Parsons et al., 1983) repre6
Collections tended to focus on areas with good visibility and
higher artifact densities, with collection area sizes ranging from a
10 m diameter circle to several thousand square meters if an
architectural unit was used to designate collection area boundaries. At small sites, a single collection area was the rule; at larger
sites, several collections areas were designated to ensure chronological control over the entire site. As a result, the number of
collections per site varies from 1 at small sites to 45 at large sites
that had extensive areas of prehispanic settlement still exposed.
The number of decorated sherds collected per site ranged from 10
to more than 3000.
senting a large (ca. 1500 km2) contiguous block
comprising the eastern and southern portions of
the Basin of Mexico (Fig. 2). Within these four survey regions, 563 Aztec-period sites had been located
and sampled for surface ceramics by the survey
teams. Collections from a sub-set of 243 sites (43%
of all Aztec sites mapped in the study region) were
selected for ceramic typological analyses. Choice
of specific sites was guided by the necessity of
obtaining representative geographic coverage by
survey region, a balanced sample of Early and Late
Aztec period sites, and the full range of site types,
from small hamlets to regional centers.
Aztec Red wares
Within this portion of the Basin, regional patterns of market exchange were examined from the
perspective of stylistic variation in one ceramic ware
and vessel shape class: Aztec Red ware (guinda or
rojo pulido) bowls. Characterized by well-slipped
and polished surfaces ranging in color from deep
red to terra cotta, Red wares were an important
component of the serving vessel assemblage during
Early Aztec and Late Aztec times (BranstetterHardesty, 1978; Minc, 1994; OÕNeill, 1956–1957,
1962; Parsons, 1966; Solis and Morales, 1991;
Séjourné, 1983; Tolstoy, 1958; Whalen and Parsons,
1982). While perhaps less well known than the Aztec
Black/Orange and polychrome types, Red wares
were widely available throughout Aztec society,
and were at times numerically dominant, accounting for over 60% of the decorated assemblage in
some areas (Hodge and Minc, 1991; Nichols et al.,
2002, p. 67).
Stylistic variability in Aztec Red wares is characterized through the identification of ceramic types
based on differences in surface treatment (including
the use of paint, incising, and other decorative techniques), vessel form, and paste characteristics. Within each type, stylistic variants represent distinct
organizational frameworks or ways of dividing up
the design field (e.g., vertical, horizontal, or diagonal panels) as established by the dominant paint color, while subvariants represent modifications of the
basic design structure, such as consistencies in the
choice and execution of decorative motifs (Franco
and Peterson, 1957; Hodge and Minc, 1991; Minc,
1994, vol. II; Noguera, 1930; Parsons, 1966).
The focus on variation within a single ceramic
ware is purposeful, and is aimed at limiting the influence of other factors (including differences in wealth,
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
95
Fig. 2. Aztec centers in the Basin of Mexico. The 16th century lakeshore (fine dashed line) provides a spatial reference in figures that
follow.
status, and site function) that potentially determine
artifact distributions within and between sites. And
although Aztec Red wares clearly cannot reflect the
total complexity of the larger market system, several
factors justify using the single commodity approach
as a point of departure. First, most economic geographers refer to a single market system for an area, but
multiple market paths. That is, different goods flow
through the same system in different ways, but they
rarely form distinct systems (Smith, 1976a, p. 38).
Second, it is well-known that most consumers buy
more than a single item in a marketing trip, so that
the range of multiple items determines their willingness to travel and their ability to give custom to any
particular supplier or location (Smith 1976a, p. 24).
Decorated ceramics are only one class of goods, but
since most buyers deal in multiple items and make
multi-purpose trips, the movement of pottery reflects
96
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
the movement of other goods as well. In this context,
Red ware ceramics represent a widely used and widely
exchanged mid-range good, whose distribution
reflects the basic structure of exchange interactions
within the Basin.
Identifying Aztec market zones from ceramic
distributions
For the Early Aztec period, the empirical
delineation of market zones was based on distributional patterns of 18 stylistic types, variants,
and subvariants that jointly account for >95%
of the early Red ware bowl assemblage.7 For
the Late Aztec period, market zones were identified from 8 dominant Red ware bowl types and
variants.8
For each time period, the starting configuration
consisted of local densities (sherds/ha of collection
area) of each type, variant, and subvariant at 243
sites within the study area (Fig. 3A). First, a regular grid of 2.5 · 2.5 km squares was established
over the study area; ceramic densities were then
calculated for each grid point using a weighted
average of ceramic type densities from the 10
nearest sites, with an unlimited search radius
and an inverse distance (1/D2) weighting factor.
Next, the density grid for each ceramic type was
smoothed using a moving template of 3-by-3 grid
squares and an inverse distance (1/D2) weighting
factor. The small template and the weighting factors were utilized to retain a fair degree of local
detail within the grid while still attaining the
advantages of smoothing out extremely local perturbations. At this point, a series of density contour maps were generated to visually characterize
the geographic distribution of individual ceramic
units (Fig. 3B).
A total of 317 grid points remained within the
irregularly shaped study area from which to characterize ceramic assemblage composition through
7
The 18 Early Aztec ceramic units included in the cluster
analyses were Black/Red early profile variants A, B, D, E, H, I;
Black/Red-Incised Variants A, B, and C/D; Black&White/Red
early profile variants AW1, AW2, AN, B, C, D1, D2, D3, E1, E2,
and E3 (for type descriptions see Minc, 1994, vol. II).
8
The eight Late Aztec Red ware bowl types and variants
included: Black/Red Variant C, Late Profile Black/Red (Variants
A, B, and E combined), Late Profile Black&White/Red (all
variants combined), Black&White/Red Variant G, Yellow/Red,
Black&White&Yellow/Red, White/Red, and Black&Red/Tan
(for type descriptions see Minc, 1994, vol. II).
spatially unconstrained cluster analysis. For each
time period, dual cluster analyses were performed
based on absolute ceramic densities as well as on
percent of Red ware assemblage, and the results
compared. Cluster membership was mapped
(Fig. 3C), and overlays were utilized to identify
areas where the two analyses were in agreement
and to determine factors affecting areas of disagreement. The results were then synthesized to
provide a map of economic interaction spheres
and market zones within the study area for each
of the two chronological periods. Once market
zones had been so identified, measures were
employed to evaluate the intensity and nature of
exchange relationships among those zones, and
to examine factors influencing their spatial configuration and boundaries.
Market System Organization in the Early Aztec
Period
Locating Early Aztec market zones
Based on the distributional patterns of Early
Aztec Red ware variants, the cluster analyses
identified six areas with distinctive ceramic
assemblages that are interpreted as representing
distinct zones of ceramic exchange activity
(Fig. 4; Table 3). Clustering results based on
absolute ceramic densities and percentage data
show a high degree of agreement for the Early
Aztec period, indicating that the spatial patterning is fairly robust.
The final composite map reveals that the southeastern portion of the study area (Chalco survey
region) is subdivided into three parallel zones
from south to north (Zones 1–3, respectively).
Together these zones share generally high densities
of Early Aztec Red wares and a preference for the
Black/Red and Black/Red-Incised types; each
zone, however, is characterized by higher percentages of locally preferred decorative variants.
Immediately to the north (eastern Ixtapalapa peninsula) is Zone 4, with somewhat lower densities
of Red ware ceramics. Based on the mix of stylistic variants, Zone 4 appears to have been intermediate between the northern and southern areas,
but more similar to the north. The northeast contains a single zone (Zone 5), including the lakeshore and piedmont portions of the Texcoco
survey region. Overall, this zone is characterized
by fairly high Red ware sherd densities, and a
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Fig. 3. Steps in spatially unconstrained cluster analysis. (A) Local densities (calculated as sherds/ ha) are mapped for each ceramic type or variant, in this case, Black/Red-Incised
Variant A. symbol size reflects relative density of variant; dots indicate sites where collections are available, but this variant was not encountered. (B) Density contour maps are
generated for each ceramic variant based on smoothed grid. Density values are interpolated at points in a regular grid, and input into cluster analyses. (C) Grid points are clustered, the
appropriate cluster solution(s) selected, and cluster membership plotted over the study area. Here, clusters show good high spatial integrity, representing areas with highly similar
ceramic assemblages.
97
98
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Fig. 4. Early Aztec market zones as identified through spatially unconstrained cluster analysis.
Table 3
Definition of Early Aztec market zones
Region (and survey zone)
Southern (Chalco)
Northern (Texcoco)
Western (Xochimilco)
a
Zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
Areal extent (km2)
200
188
181
481
331
506
Characteristic ceramic variantsa
B/R-I
B/R
A
A
I
H
B
C
—
—
None
None
B&W/R
E
E
AW2
A
A
B
B
B
E2
E2
E2
D
AN
AN
D3
D3
AW
AW
B
B
C
None
B/R-I = Black/Red-Incised; B/R = Black/Red; B&W/R = Black&White/Red (all variants after Minc, 1994, Vol. II).
predominance of the Black&White/Red variants.
Finally, Zone 6 comprises the Chalco-Xochimilco
lakebed and some adjacent lakeshore regions; this
area is characterized by very low Early Aztec Red
ware densities and apparently minimal participation in regional Red ware exchange.
Characterizing Early Aztec market system structure
Scale
The spatial map of cluster results suggests that in
areas of active Red ware production and exchange,
market zones were relatively small, ranging in size
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
from approximately 200–400 km2 (Table 3). This corresponds to a service area with a radius of 8–12 km
around a central market town, and reflects a travel
time well within that reported for peasant potters
attending local (weekly) market towns (Biddick,
1985; Streeten, 1981; Vossen, 1984, pp. 369–373).
Network
The degree of lateral movement of ceramics
among adjacent zones, however, does not suggest
that they represent discrete exchange systems.
Zones show at least an intermediate level of
assemblage similarity (Brainerd–Robinson coefficient >100) and exchange interaction with their
nearest neighbors, although the degree of similarity decreases as separating distance increases
(Table 4). The overall pattern is that of a chain
of interaction, with no abrupt discontinuities in
commodity flows, and one that supports the interpretation of a well developed network among
adjacent zones.
The chain of interaction can be seen directly from
the degree to which ceramic type distributions overlap each other and cross over market zone boundaries. A visual comparison of these areas reveals a
pattern in which the dominant variants display distinct centers of concentration, but highly overlapping distributions (Fig. 5).
Hierarchy
Possible hierarchical relations among market
zones were first assessed from their differential
access to a greater diversity of ceramics, as
revealed through a plot of assemblage richness relative to total Red ware bowl assemblage size
(Fig. 6). A visual comparison of regression lines
calculated for each market zone indicate that the
slopes for all zones are strikingly similar. The
minimal differences in assemblage richness suggest
Table 4
Matrix of Brainerd–Robinson coefficients indicating degree of
similarity among Early Aztec market zonesa
Market zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
99
that all areas enjoyed roughly equivalent access to
market centers of the same order during the Early
Aztec period.
In contrast, the relative abundance of ceramics
belonging to different ‘‘labor input classes’’ initially
does suggest significant spatial differences in access
to higher quality goods across market zones. Early
Aztec Red ware variants were divided into four
groups representing different levels of labor investment based on the number of paint colors and the
complexity of the design (Fig. 7). An analysis of
two-way v2 residuals (Table 5) indicates that southern Zones 1–3 consumed a disproportionate amount
of less labor-intensive ceramics, while the northern
Zone 5 enjoyed greater than expected access to more
labor-intensive ceramics.
In this case, however, the limited focus on Red
wares may be misleading, in that the full range of
decorated wares and labor investment is not taken
into consideration. In the south, the vibrant Chalco-Cholula polychrome tradition produced elaborately decorated elite vessels (Hodge and Minc,
1990; Parsons et al., 1982; Séjourné, 1970); Red
wares were of somewhat lower status and their decoration was correspondingly simple. In contrast, the
near absence of a true polychrome tradition further
north may have elevated Red wares to a higher-status role, such that in this area, some Red ware vessels received greater elaboration and labor input in
the form of complex, multi-color designs.
Taking into account regional differences in the
relative status of Red wares, the evidence for hierarchical relationships among Early Aztec market
zones is mixed. Within the Chalco-Cholula polychrome sphere, market zones provided equivalent
access to the range of Early Aztec Red wares, suggesting no one zone enjoyed a hierarchical advantage. Further north, however, Zone 5 enjoyed a
predominance of vessels requiring greater labor
investment, particularly the more elaborate Black&White/Red variants, suggesting at least a low-level
market hierarchy in this region.
Relationship to political geography
Market zone
1
2
3
4
5
6
200
110
200
68
136
200
72
110
111
200
55
84
82
156
200
51
90
101
129
104
200
Values for adjacent zones have been highlighted in bold.
The study area includes the archaeological
remains of at least 14 Early Aztec city–states, representing four confederations, including (from NE to
SW) the Acolhua, Chalca, Xochimilca, and Culhua
(Alden, 1979; Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977, vol. I,
pp. 310, 329; Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1945;
Chimalpahin, 1958, 1965; Davies, 1980; Durán,
100
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Fig. 5. Many Early Aztec Red ware variants display concentrated, but overlapping distributions, suggesting well-developed network among market zones. (A) Black/Red Variant I,
concentrated in Zone 1. (B) Black/Red Variant E, concentrated in Zones 1 and 2. (C) Black/Red Variant A, concentrated in Zones 2 and 3.
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
1967, pp. 21–22; Gibson, 1964, pp. 11–17, 1971;
Hodge, 1984; Offner, 1983; Parsons, 1971; Parsons
et al., 1982, pp. 76–81; Schroeder, 1991; Zimmermann, 1960) (Fig. 8A).9 A comparison of market
zone boundaries with ethnohistorically documented
city–state territories (Hodge, 1984, 1994, 1996;
Hodge and Minc, 1990, p. 422) indicates a very poor
spatial agreement between exchange interactions
and political allegiance at the local level. Rather,
ceramic type distributions and market zone boundaries generally cross-cut city–state territories
(Fig. 8B), and indicate that consumers and goods
moved freely among polities belonging to the same
confederation.
At the regional level, however, borders between
competing political confederations appear to have
limited ceramic exchange to some degree. In the
south, Zones 1–3 spatially conform to the Chalcan
province, while in the north, Zone 5 represents the
core area of the Acolhua confederation. Much of
the intervening area (Zone 4) represents the buffer
zone between the Chalca and Acolhua. Finally,
the western area of Lakes Chalco-Xochimilco (Zone
6) corresponds to the confederation territories of the
Culhua, Xochimilca, and Mixquica-Cuitlahuaca.
Multiple type distributions conform to, rather than
cross, these confederation boundaries, indicating
9
The southwestern portion of the Basin was dominated by
Culhuacan and Xochimilco. Although the Culhua initially
claimed control over much of the southern lakebed (Chimalpahin, 1958, p. 3,5; Davies, 1980, p. 23; Zimmermann 1960, p. 29),
by the mid-1300s, their territory had contracted to a core area
surrounding Culhuacan and the near-by centers of Ixtapalapa,
Mexicaltzingo, and Huitzilopocho (Gibson, 1964, p. 11). Further
east, the Xochimilca confederation controlled a large territory,
much of which extended south of the study area (Parsons et al.,
1982, pp. 76–78). Two small buffer states, Mixquic and Cuitlahuac, occupied the lakebed between the Culhua and confederations to the east (Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1945, pp. 61–62; Durán,
1967, p. 22; Gibson, 1964, p. 12; Parsons et al., 1982). The
southeastern corner of the Basin was home to the Chalcan league,
of which the member city–states of Chalco, Tenango, and
Amecameca are represented here (Chimalpahin, 1965; Schroeder,
1991). To the north, the Acolhua confederation, including the
principal city–state centers of Huexotla, Coatlinchan, Texcoco,
Chiautla, and Tepetlaoztoc, spread east from Lake Texcoco to
the piedmont (Offner, 1983; Parsons, 1971). Between the Chalca
and the Acolhua was a buffer zone, characterized in the
archaeological record by sparse population and lack of extended
suburban areas (Alden, 1979; Parsons, 1971, pp. 229–230).
Polities of this zone (Chimalhuacan, Coatepec, and Ixtapaluca)
were initially allied with the south, but more enduringly with the
north (Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1945, p. 29; Gibson, 1964, p. 17;
Parsons et al., 1982, p. 81).
101
Fig. 6. Early Aztec assemblage richness by market zone. All
zones display similar regression lines, indicating similar assemblage richness and an absence of hierarchy among market zones.
that exchange interactions decreased markedly
across these territorial limits.
Market zones belonging to either the Chalca or
Acolhua confederation have higher degrees of interaction among themselves; there are, however, significant organizational differences between these two
regions. Within the Chalcan confederation, distinct
market zones are identified, each associated with a
single political center: Zone 1 contains Amecameca,
Zone 2 surrounds Tenango, while Zone 3 contains
Chalco. Within the Acolhua area, in contrast, there
is a greater degree of similarity overall, as indicated
by the fact that the cluster analyses did not agree on
distinct subdivisions of this area.
It can be hypothesized that the differences in economic organization between the Chalca and Acolhua confederations reflect, in part, differences in
their pre-imperial political structure. For example,
the Chalcan confederation is characterized as
acephalous, containing a number of separate but
equal city–states (Hodge, 1984, p. 139). This political separatism among Chalcan league members
potentially encouraged the maintenance of distinct
local traditions and expressions of ethnic identity
(including ceramic decorative styles). In contrast,
102
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Fig. 7. Differences among Early Aztec market zones based on ceramics displaying different levels of labor investment, as a potential
measure of access to higher order goods.
Table 5
Standardized v2 residuals for ceramics of different labor input groups relative to Early Aztec market zones
Decorated ceramic labor input level
Market zonea
1
1
1
2
2
color paint, simple design
color paint, complex design
colors or treatments, simple design
colors or treatments, complex design
a
11.4
0.7
3.0
8.3
2
3
9.3
1.3
1.5
9.8
4
4.0
2.6
4.9
5.6
5
5.3
3.4
2.3
1.4
6
5.2
1.0
3.0
7.1
2.1
1.1
1.6
1.3
Positive residuals >2.0 have been highlighted to clarify patterns of association between ceramic types and market zones.
Fig. 8. Early Aztec political and economic divisions within the Basin of Mexico. (A) Early Aztec political geography: distribution of city–
states and confederations. (B) Early Aztec market zones relative to political confederations.
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
there is evidence that the Acolhua confederation
was somewhat hierarchically organized at this early
date, with one city–state—Coatlinchan (located in
Zone 5)—serving as capital and directing the affairs
of other city–states (Gibson, 1964, p. 17; Hodge,
1984, p. 139). The greater degree of political integration may have translated into an overall higher level
of economic interaction among allied city–states.
Interpretation of Early Aztec market system
organization
Of the three models proposed for market
exchange during the Early Aztec period—solar, network, and early stages of a hierarchically integrated
market network—the Red ware stylistic data lend
strong support to the model of non-centralized network market system characterized by overlapping
market zones. We can, on the one hand, readily
eliminate competing models. The lack of congruence between market zones and local (city–state)
political boundaries excludes the solar market system model from further consideration. Similarly,
the presence of major divisions within the Basin
(particularly the exclusion of the Lake ChalcoXochimilco polities from participating in Red ware
ceramic exchange) are not compatible with a model
positing uninterrupted commodity flows within an
integrated market network.
On the other hand, the relations among these
market zones are consistent with the regional
organization of exchange under a network market
system. The Early Aztec market zones exhibit
well-developed lateral integration, in that the
mapped ceramic distributions displayed a series of
overlapping areas of concentration that were shared
between adjacent market zones. Conversely, the evidence of hierarchical ties among market zones to
articulate commodity flows throughout the larger
area is weak. Some zones had richer (more diverse)
assemblages and some contained more labor intensive ceramics, but no area consistently displayed
superior access to the full diversity and wealth of
Red ware types such as would result from hierarchical advantage in a regional system. In short, the
Early Aztec pattern is consistent with a series of
overlapping market zones, in which city–state
administrative centers presumably served as important foci of exchange activities. While market activity readily crossed local city–state political
territories, hostilities between competing confederations appear to have slowed economic interaction.
103
Verification of exchange interactions during the Early
Aztec period
The features of the Early Aztec market system as
identified from Red ware stylistic data are supported by compositional analyses of Early Aztec ceramics from the study area to date. Instrumental
neutron activation analysis of 147 Early Aztec
Red ware bowls (Minc, 1994) noted strong regional
differences in ceramic pastes and identified multiple
centers of Red ware production within both the
Chalcan and Acolhua confederations. Less than
3% of bowls analyzed could not be securely linked
to production sources in these areas. Overall, the
exchange of Red ware bowls moved freely across
city–state borders but stayed largely within confederation boundaries. Greater than 80% of Red ware
bowls manufactured by Chalcan-area producers
were recovered within market Zones 1–3; similarly,
greater than 75% of Red ware bowls manufactured
by Acolhua sources were associated with market
Zones 4 and 5. In contrast, the lakebed communities
(Zone 6) were neither major producers nor consumers of Early Aztec Red wares.
Analyses of Early Aztec Black/Orange ceramics
(Hodge and Minc, 1990; Minc, 1994; Minc et al.,
1994) similarly suggest the operation of several
sub-regional market systems within the study area
during the pre-imperial period that largely conform
to confederation boundaries. Based both on the spatial distribution of distinct ceramic styles and on
trace-element analyses of ceramic pastes (N = 70),
ceramic exchange networks were associated geographically with the Chalcan (market Zones 1–3),
Acolhua (market Zones 4 and 5), and Culhua (market Zone 6) confederations.
In contrast, compositional analyses of Early
Aztec decorated ceramics reported by Nichols
et al. (2002) provide a geographically expanded view
of pre-imperial market exchange. In particular, the
Early Aztec sample from Xaltocan (N = 105) indicate that this northern center maintained more
extensive exchange relations than noted for other
sites in the Basin: greater than 60% of pre-imperial
ceramics came from non-local sources, and a significant portion crossed confederation borders. Even
here, however, regional divisions are indicated.
While Xaltocan imported large quantities of ceramics from the southern and western Basin (Chalco,
Culhuacan/Tenochtitlan, and Cuauhtitlan sources),
exchange between Xaltocan and the eastern Basin
(Texcoco) was extremely limited. The authors
104
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
suggest a split within the Basin between eastern and
western market spheres (Nichols et al., 2002, p. 70;
after Blanton, 1996, pp. 62–66), although their exact
boundaries and relationship to political geography
cannot be evaluated.
For the Early Aztec period, then, compositional analyses of decorated ceramic pastes support
key aspects of the model for pre-imperial market
system organization as derived from the distributional approach. Both approaches indicate the
operation of subregional systems of exchange in
the Basin. The spatial scale of exchange clearly
exceeded that of the city–state polity, while
sharper boundaries in exchange were identified
that reflect the geographic boundaries of confederations or other political alliances. In contrast,
there is no strong indication of hierarchy among
portions of the Basin, although this study suggests that the beginnings of market hierarchy
may be indicated (based on differential access to
higher quality ceramics) within the Acolhua
domain. In general, most market zones enjoyed
access to a diversity of local decorated ceramics,
with elite competition and added prestige value
presumably stimulating the demand for imported
ceramics as well (Brumfiel, 1994; Nichols et al.,
2002, p. 70).
Market system organization in the Late Aztec period
Fig. 9. Late Aztec market zones as identified through spatially
unconstrained cluster analysis.
Locating Late Aztec market zones
As for the Early Aztec period, the examination
of Late Aztec ceramic exchange began by determining the number and location of distinct market
zones, using unconstrained cluster analysis of spatial data. Owing to extreme differences in the rate
of artifact recovery, however, cluster analyses
based on absolute densities and percentages of
Late Aztec Red ware types do not show the high
degree of correspondence as noted for the earlier
period. There are, however, substantial areas of
overlap in cluster boundaries denoting areas which
both analyses classify as distinct that represent
boundaries in ceramic exchange activity. Overall,
the cluster analyses indicate that, during Late
Aztec times, the study area was divided into two
major ceramic spheres (SW and NE), each containing a number of distinctive subdivisions or separate
zones (Fig. 9; Table 6).
The SW sphere comprises the Lake ChalcoXochimilco area, an area dominated by the distinc-
tive ‘‘Late Profile’’ bowls. Within this sphere, Zone
1 encompasses much of the western and central
portions of the Xochimilco lakebed and adjacent
lakeshore plain. East from this area, Zone 2
extends through the eastern end of Lake Chalco
and into adjacent piedmont areas (Tenango to
Amecameca) to the southeast. Both total Red ware
densities and assemblage diversity decline markedly
from Zone 1 to Zone 2, suggesting a core-periphery arrangement. Zone 3, in contrast, represents
an area in the extreme SE corner of the study area
that may well mark the margins of the Basin of
Mexico exchange system. Although grouped spatially with the SW sphere, the near absence of
Red wares in this area precludes accurate assessment of ceramic assemblage similarity. Accordingly, Zone 3 is generally omitted from subsequent
analyses.
The NE sphere extends through much of the Texcoco survey region, and can be similarly subdivided
into apparent core and periphery. The centrally
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
105
Table 6
Definition and composition of Late Aztec market zones
Market sphere
and zone
Areal extent
(km2)
SW Sphere
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
1149
612
356
181
NE Sphere
Zone 4
Zone 5
Zone 6
831
481
306
44
a
b
Mean ceramic
densityb
% of Red ware assemblage by market zone
a
B/R
Var. C
Late
B/R
Late
B&W/Red
B&W/
Red-G
Yellow/
Red
B&W&Y/
Red
White/
Red
B&R/
Tan
68
20
2
3.5
21.2
—
32.9
27.7
—
48.7
46.0
—
2.3
0.7
—
5.8
0.7
—
4.1
3.6
—
2.6
0.0
—
0.0
0.0
—
115
227
265
67.7
89.6
78.4
2.4
0.6
1.2
9.0
0.6
0.6
12.3
5.6
4.7
1.7
0.2
0.3
3
0.5
0.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.9
2.8
14.1
Based on type counts for all sites assigned to zone.
Sherds/ha of collection area.
located Zone 4 extends N–S along the lakeshore
plain of Lake Texcoco, while a more peripheral
Zone 5 extends inland into the piedmont areas east
and north Texcoco. A number of administrative
centers, including Texcoco, Huexotla, and Coatlinchan, fall on or very near the boundary between
Zones 4 and 5. Finally, Zone 6 represents a small
area in the NE corner of the study area near
Tepetlaoztoc.
The Red ware assemblages of all three northern
zones are dominated by a single ceramic type, simple bowls decorated with the simple ‘‘comb motif’’
(Black/Red Variant C). However, Zone 4 contains
the highest percent and a broader mix of higher status wares, while the more peripheral Zones 5 and 6
are relatively disadvantaged in these ceramics even
though they have substantially higher Red ware
ceramic densities overall. Zone 6 further appears
distinctive in having a higher percentage of the
Black&Red/Tan type; however, in terms of total
assemblage composition, this small zone appears
most similar to Zone 4.
Characterizing Late Aztec market system structure
Scale
The cluster analyses suggest a two-tiered hierarchical division of the study area during Late Aztec
times: a primary division between the SW and NE
halves of the study area, and a secondary division
within each of these into distinct zones. The Late
Aztec market spheres represent a significant increase
in the spatial scale of exchange interactions and a
service area clearly exceeding the distance routinely
traveled by peasants attending weekly markets
(Table 6).
Table 7
Matrix of Brainerd–Robinson coefficients indicating degree of
similarity among Late Aztec market zonesa
Zone
Zone
SW Sphere
1
2
3
4
5
6
a
NE Sphere
1
2
3
4
5
6
200
165
200
—
—
—
44
74
—
200
16
48
—
156
200
17
49
—
158
176
200
Values for adjacent zones have been highlighted in bold.
Network
The matrix of Brainerd–Robinson coefficients
(Table 7) supports the division of the study area into
two relatively separate spheres of exchange interaction during Late Aztec times. Agreement coefficients
are high (>155) between zones belonging to the
same sphere (with the exception of the peripheral
Zone 3), but low (<75) across the boundary between
SW and NE spheres (between Zones 2 and 4). The
sharp discontinuity between spheres suggests a
poorly developed exchange network at the regional
scale.
Distribution maps for the dominant types for the
Late Aztec period illustrate the division between the
two sub-regional exchange systems. Late Profile
Black/Red and Black&White/Red variants are
clearly concentrated in the SW ceramic sphere (Figs.
10A and B), while Black/Red Variant C bearing the
simple comb motif concentrates in the NE ceramic
sphere (Fig. 10C). Only a minimal degree of overlap
occurs between these predominant types; rather,
their distributions create a sharp boundary running
106
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Fig. 10. Late Aztec type distributions reflect a major division within the study area. (A) Late Profile Black/Red variants, concentrated in the SW market sphere. (B) Late Profile
Black&White/Red variants, concentrated in the SW market sphere. (C) Black/Red Variant C, bearing the ‘‘comb motif’’, concentrated in the NE market sphere.
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
diagonally between the NE and SW spheres. The
area where these major types do overlap consists
of a lobe extending eastward from Lake Texcoco
toward Texcoco, Huexotla, Coatlinchan, and Chimalhuacan, suggesting that these administrative centers held an important role in the interaction
between the NE and SW exchange systems.
At a finer spatial scale, Red ware ceramic distributions also clarify the nature of exchange interactions within each of these ceramic spheres, and
suggest that the two spheres differ in their internal
organization. The SW sphere appears to have been
supplied by one major distribution center located
in or near Zone 1. Ceramic densities for low-frequency, more elaborate Red ware types are highest
in western Lake Xochimilco, and decline with distance from that apparent source. In the NE, in contrast, absolute densities suggest multiple centers of
distribution. The elaborate Black&White&Yellow/
Red and the Late Profile Red ware types are concentrated in Zone 4, while the numerically dominant
but simple Black/Red C is largely concentrated in
the piedmont areas along the eastern edge of the
study area within Zones 5 and 6. One of the lower
frequency types—Black&Red/Tan—is concentrated
in the extreme NE corner of the study in Zone 6, but
extends well into Zone 5.
Hierarchy
Assemblage richness as a measure of differential
access to a broader range of goods reveals clear differences among zones.10 Regression lines for Zones
1 and 2 in the south, and Zone 4 in the north display
a much steeper slope than other zones, indicating
areas with more diverse ceramic assemblages
(Fig. 11). Within the SW sphere, both Zones 1
and 2 were equally diverse, while the extreme south
(Zone 3) was clearly disadvantaged in both quantity
and diversity of Red ware variants. In contrast, in
the NE sphere, the core zone (Zone 4) enjoyed significantly greater access to a broader diversity of
Red ware variants relative to more peripheral areas
of the NE (Zones 5 and 6), suggesting a hierarchical
advantage.
10
Ceramic units included in the assessment of Late Aztec
assemblage richness were: Black/Red Variant C; Late Profile
Black/Red Variants A, B, and E; Late Profile Black&White/Red
Variants AW, AN, B, C, D1, D2, D3, E3, F; Black&White/Red
Variant G; Yellow/Red, Black&White&Yellow/Red, White/
Red, and Black&Red/Tan (for type descriptions see Minc,
1994, vol. II).
107
Fig. 11. Late Aztec assemblage richness by market zone. Several
market zones display steeper regression lines, indicating greater
assemblage richness.
Further evidence of hierarchical relationships
among market zones comes from their relative
access to higher-order goods, i.e. to ceramics requiring higher levels of labor investment (Table 8). In
both spheres, one zone appears to have enjoyed significantly greater access to higher class ceramics
than the other, a pattern consistent with a hierarchical relationship of one zone over another. In the
SW, Zone 1 has significantly higher than expected
counts of more labor-intensive ceramics, and somewhat lower than expected counts of ceramics with
simple decoration. In the NE, Zone 4 has greater
than expected counts of the elaborately decorated
types, while Zones 5 and 6 have significantly more
of the low-input ceramics, such as the simple ‘‘comb
motif’’.
These multiple lines of evidence suggest a welldeveloped hierarchy existed between market zones
within the same sphere. In the SW, Zone 1 appears
to have been the center of distribution for most
ceramic types consumed in this sphere, with overall
abundance falling off with distance from this area,
and it enjoyed access to greater quantities of
higher-class ceramics than did the more peripheral
108
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Table 8
Standardized v2 residuals for ceramics of different labor input levels relative to Late Aztec market zones
Labor investment
Red ware type
Market zonea
SW Sphere
1
1 color decoration, simple to somewhat complex design
2 color decoration, simple to complex design
2–3 step decoration, complex to very elaborate design
a
Black/Red C
Late Black/Red
Late B&W/Red
Black&Red/Tan
B&W/Red G
Yellow/Red
B&W&Y/Red
White/Red
NE Sphere
2
14.2
18.0
19.3
3.7
3.2
6.6
2.7
7.1
6.4
9.1
11.3
2.3
2.8
0.7
1.4
0.7
3
4
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.2
5
0.6
5.0
2.6
0.2
5.8
0.5
2.1
1.7
6
8.9
7.4
10.1
2.0
1.5
3.2
3.1
1.8
2.8
3.9
5.9
9.0
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.1
Positive residuals >2.0 have been highlighted to clarify patterns of association between ceramic types and market zones.
Zones 2 and 3. Similarly, in the NE, Zone 4 is characterized by greater assemblage richness and greater
access to elite ceramics than the more peripheral
Zones 5 and 6. In contrast, evidence for hierarchical
relationships between the SW and NE spheres is not
strong. Both spheres retained their distinctive stylistic traditions of elite and more mundane Red ware
ceramics, arguing for their separate but equal status.
Taken together these patterns suggest two relatively
separate systems within which vertical ties were
well-developed and predominated over lateral ties.
Relationship to political geography
According to Triple Alliance divisions, political
control over the portion of the Basin under investigation here was divided between the two dominant
imperial capitals, Tenochtitlan and Texcoco
(Hodge, 1994, 1996; Hodge and Blanton, 1996).
The northeastern portion of the study area, extending from Tepetlaoztoc to as far south as Ixtapaluca,
remained firmly under Texcocan (Acolhua) control
(Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977, vol. II, pp. 89–90).
In contrast, much of the south and southwest, corresponding to the Ixtapalapa, Chalco, and Xochimilco survey regions, came under TenochtitlanÕs
control. Although the exact boundary dividing
Acolhua and Mexica territories is unknown, the distribution of dependent communities (Hodge, 1996:
Figs. 2–5) and CortesÕ comment (cited in Gibson,
1964, p. 15) that Tlalmanalco was on the Acolhua
frontier suggest an approximate border extending
from Lake Chalco (equidistant between Ixtapaluca
and Chalco) angling southeast (Fig. 12A). Communities north of this line were dependencies of Texcoco; communities south and west of this line owed
allegiance to Tenochtitlan.
A comparison of market zone boundaries and
Triple Alliance territories (Fig. 12B) indicates a
close spatial agreement between political divisions
and exchange interactions at the regional level. Specifically, the SW sphere corresponds with the area
under the political jurisdiction of the Mexica and
owing tribute to Tenochtitlan. Within this sphere,
the core zone (Zone 1) falls in the western end of
Lake Xochimilco, adjacent to the imperial center
of Tenochtitlan, located just outside the study area
to the west, under the extensive modern construction of Mexico City. In contrast, the NE sphere is
spatially congruent with the area under Acolhua
control with tributary obligations to Texcoco. In
this sphere, the core zone (Zone 4) extends along
the lakeshore and contains the Triple Alliance capital Texcoco, while the periphery extends east up
the Texcocan piedmont (Zones 5 and 6).
Interpretation of Late Aztec market system
organization
The patterns observed here are clearly at variance
with long-held views about the Aztec market system
which posit a high level of regional market integration in the Basin of Mexico during Late Aztec times,
either within a hierarchically integrated market network or under a single dendritic market system serving the needs of Tenochtitlan. Rather, the Red ware
stylistic data argue for a dual market system in the
Basin, spatially congruent with major political divisions of the Triple Alliance.
A distinguishing feature of the Late Aztec market
system as observed here is the presence of two largely distinct spheres of Red ware exchange interaction, each subdivided into an apparent core zone
and a periphery. Ceramic distributions show sharp
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
109
Fig. 12. Late Aztec political and economic divisions within the Basin of Mexico. (A) Late Aztec political geography: Triple Alliance
divisions within the Basin. (B) Congruence between Late Aztec market spheres and Triple Alliance territories.
boundaries along the division between spheres,
reflecting a poorly developed regional market network. Further, the evidence for a hierarchical relationship within each sphere is strong. In both
cases, the affluent core zones (adjacent to the imperial centers of Tenochtitlan and Texcoco) enjoyed
greater access to higher quality ceramics and to
imported ceramics. Their peripheries, in contrast,
appear relatively disadvantaged: they consumed
high quality ceramics in much reduced proportions.
Overall, then, the regional pattern of Red ware
ceramic distribution is most consistent with a dual,
dendritic market structure focused on the two major
centers of empire, Tenochtitlan and Texcoco.
In keeping with our understanding of dendritic
market systems, the predominance of vertical market integration argues that elite interests played a
significant role in structuring Late Aztec market
exchange. While the specific mechanisms of market
manipulation remain unknown, the documentary
sources suggest a variety of administrative actions
that potentially contributed to a dendritic structure.
Monopolistic controls over exotic raw materials
needed to meet tribute assessments in finished goods
could certainly favor the development of vertical
market flows between rural producers and urban
centers (Brumfiel, 1987b, p. 116; Hicks, 1987, p.
99). At the same time, legislative and normative
controls over market location and participation
potentially combined to inhibit lateral integration.
For example, the location of marketplaces within
administrative centers, the necessity to propitiate
the patron deity of the local marketplace, obligatory
market attendance for residents within a 10–15 km
radius of the market place, and the prohibition on
exchange outside the market (Berdan, 1975, pp.
206–207; Blanton, 1996, pp. 82–83; Carrasco,
1978, 1983; Durán, 1971, pp. 273–277; Kurtz,
1974; Torquemada, 1943, pp. 558–560) could effectively constrain consumer choice and locally align
market participation with political affiliation.
Verification of exchange interactions during the Late
Aztec period
Key features of the Late Aztec market system as
reconstructed here are strongly supported by recent
compositional studies of Aztec ceramics indicating
that subregional exchange systems persisted (and
were perhaps strengthened) under imperial rule. Of
110
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
particular relevance here are trace-element analyses
of 255 Late Aztec Red ware bowls from the study
area (Minc, 1994; Minc, n.d.). Seven distinct centers
of Red ware production were identified and associated with Texcoco, Tepetlaoztoc, and the Texcocan
piedmont (under Acolhua control) as well as with
Tenochtitlan, Cuauhtitlan, Xochimilco, and Chalco
(under Mexica control). Regional maps linking
Aztec Red ware bowls to their center of manufacture confirm the sharp boundary in exchange interactions along the political boundary between
Mexica and Acolhua territories. Nearly 85% of
Red ware bowls analyzed from the NE market
sphere were manufactured by Acolhua producers
(Minc, n.d.). Further, Mexica-made imports into
the Acolhua market sphere were (a) more elaborate,
and (b) concentrated within the core zone (Zone 4),
confirming a hierarchical relationship in which consumers in the core zone enjoyed significantly greater
access to higher quality goods. In contrast, imports
into the Mexica zone were extremely limited: more
than 95% of Red ware bowls recovered within the
SW market sphere were produced within Mexicacontrolled territory. Within both spheres, the
ceramics of local producers were widely distributed,
initially suggesting a higher than expected level of
lateral integration. However, a two-way v2 analysis
reveals that while ceramics produced in or near the
imperial capitals were uniformly distributed across
market zones, those produced in the more peripheral zones were consumed primarily within their
home market zone, a pattern consistent with poor
network within the periphery.
Related studies of ‘‘imperial-style’’ Black/Orange
ceramics present a similar, if less detailed picture of
subregional exchange systems. Initial analyses of
Late Aztec Black/Orange vessels (N = 85) from the
eastern and southern portions of the Basin revealed
that the products from a given manufacturing source
tended to concentrate geographically (Hodge et al.,
1992, 1993). That is, Black/Orange ceramics produced in Texcoco were recovered largely in the area
corresponding to the Acolhua state, while ceramics
produced by Chalco and Culhuacan/Tenochtitlan
sources in the southern part of the Basin were primarily restricted to areas under Mexica control.
More recently, Nichols et al. (2002) present convincing evidence that regionalism actually intensified following imperial integration. Judging from
patterns of Late Aztec (Aztec III) ceramic consumption at Chalco (N = 17), Cerro Portezuelo (N = 27),
and Xaltocan (N = 36), for example, utilization of
locally produced ceramics increased, while lateral
ceramic exchanges among adjacent regions declined
relative to the Early Aztec period. Further, the eastwest division noted for pre-imperial exchange relations apparently persisted. Chalco and Xaltocan,
with strong political ties and tribute obligations to
Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolco, imported ceramics from
that center while ceramic exchange with Texcoco
was conspicuously absent; conversely, the incorporation of Cerro Portezuelo into the Acolhua domain
was marked by a corresponding increase in ceramic
imports from Texcoco, although sample sizes are
small (Nichols et al., 2002, pp. 70–71).
Overall, there are significant points of agreement
between direct measures of exchange as monitored
from compositional analyses of decorated ceramic
pastes and the model of imperial market system
organization developed from the distributional
approach. In particular, these alternative approaches suggest two major market spheres for the Late
Aztec period that can be associated with the major
political divisions. Within this bifurcated system,
both (a) the emphasis on vertical ties with the imperial centers at the expense of lateral integration (noted by Nichols et al., 2002, pp. 70–71), and (b) the
evidence for a hierarchical relationship among market zones within each sphere (noted here), are most
consonant with a vertically integrated market system structure, as represented by the dendritic model.
Continuity and change in Aztec market system
organization
Regional market system organization before and
after the consolidation of the Aztec empire reveals
strong continuities as well as areas of major change.
On one hand, considerable continuity is apparent in
the conformity of market zones to political boundaries—a factor that suggests that in both periods,
political forces played a major role in restricting
or structuring exchange interactions. During the
Early Aztec, confederation boundaries between the
Acolhua, the Chalca, and polities of the Lake Chalco-Xochimilco
basin
significantly
inhibited
exchanges of ceramic vessels. During Late Aztec
times, Triple Alliance divisions between the Tenochca/Mexica and the Acolhua (based in part on
earlier confederation boundaries) apparently presented even stronger constraints on consumer
movements.
On the other hand, the imposition of imperial
rule was clearly accompanied by significant changes
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
in market system organization. In terms of the four
primary dimensions, these organizational changes
involved: (1) an increase in the scale of market zones
from multiple small zones during the Early Aztec to
two large market spheres during Late Aztec times;
(2) a decrease in the degree of market network or
lateral commodity flows between zones; (3) a concomitant strong increase in market hierarchy or vertical commodity flows; and (4) a close spatial
congruence between market spheres and expanded
political territories.
The presence of subregional exchange systems
and the apparent spatial conformity of market
spheres with Triple Alliance political divisions in
this portion of the Basin suggest that consumer
movements and market participation were determined as much by political affiliation as by economic incentives. These implications are consistent with
the ethnohistoric view that Triple Alliance members
retained a significant degree of autonomy with
regards to the administration of their hinterlands,
with a clear division of political control and economic influence between the dominant centers of
empire, Tenochtitlan and Texcoco (Alva Ixtlilxóchitl 1975–1977, vol. II, p. 146; Carrasco, 1991,
1999). The actual mechanisms by which political
authority created constraints on exchange remain
hypothetical. In addition, further research is clearly
needed to evaluate the extent and intensity of
exchange interactions relative to administrative
boundaries in other parts of the Basin. However,
the patterns of market system organization revealed
here suggest that political divisions and elite competition deserve increased scrutiny in our attempts to
understand the Aztec economy.
111
exchange limit or encourage market participation
and reliance, distinct patterns of commodity distribution are evident for each, with correlates that
are readily apparent in the archaeological record.
As applied to the Basin of Mexico, this approach
has enabled the independent determination and
mapping of boundaries between distribution systems, and provides a framework for examining the
nature of exchange relationships between and within these distributional systems under Aztec rule. To
a large extent, these results are consistent with patterns of exchange identified through compositional
analyses of Aztec ceramics, while offering both
greater spatial detail than is currently available
and an enhanced conceptual framework for monitoring economic change within the Basin. It is
hoped that these additions to our methodological
toolbox will foster a critical rethinking of the Aztec
case, and serve to stimulate new interest in market
exchange in states and empires, an area which has
received too little attention in recent research.
Acknowledgments
The Basin of Mexico ceramic collections examined for this study have been curated over the years
by Jeff Parsons, and are now held by the Universidad Autónoma Chapingo, Mexico. I am indebted
to Jeff for his foresight and dedication in preserving
these important collections. I also thank members
of the INAH Consejo for permission to export samples of Aztec ceramics for chemical analyses, and
the reviewers whose thoughtful comments have significantly improved the clarity of my presentation.
Kay Clahassey provided the fine artwork used as a
basemap in Fig. 2.
Conclusions
Market systems both create and constrain opportunities for production and exchange, according to
their regional organization and spatial extent. As a
result, they offer fertile ground for bettering our
understanding not only of the economic organization of complex societies, but of the ways in which
emerging political elites meddled in economic activities to consolidate power and authority.
The models of commodity distribution expected
under different market systems and the spatially
unconstrained cluster analysis approach presented
here provide new tools for monitoring market system organization and the role of political interference. By examining how different types of regional
References
Alden, J.R., 1979. A reconstruction of Toltec period political
units in the Valley of Mexico. In: Renfrew, C., Cooke, K.L.
(Eds.), Transformations: Mathematical Approaches to Culture Change. Academic Press, New York, pp. 169–200.
Aldenderfer, M.S., Blashfield, R.K., 1984. Cluster Analysis. Sage
University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences, No. 44. Sage Publications, New York.
Allen, M., 1992. The mechanisms of underdevelopment: an
ancient Mesopotamian example. Fernand Braudel Center
Review 15, 453–476.
Alva Ixtlilxochitl, F.de., 1975–1977. Obras Históricas, 2 Vols.
OÕGorman, E. (Ed.). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de
México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, México.
Alvarado Tezozómoc, H., 1975. Crónica Mexicana y Códice
Ramirez. Orozco y Berra, M. (Ed.). Biblioteca Porrúa, México.
112
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Anales de Cuauhtitlan, 1938. Die Geschichte der Konigreiche
von Culhuacan und Mexiko. Lehmann, W. (Trans.). Quellenwerke zur alten Geschichte Amerikas aufgezeichnet in den
Sprachen der Eingeborenen, 1. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart
(reprinted 1974).
Anales de Cuauhtitlan, A., 1945. Códice Chimalpopoca: Anales de
Cuauhtitlan y Leyenda de los Soles. Feliciano Velázquez, P.
(Trans.). Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas. Primera Serie Prehispánica
1, México (reprinted 1975).
Appleby, G., 1976. The role of urban food needs in regional
development, Puno, Peru. In: Smith, C. (Ed.), Regional
Analysis, Vol. I. Academic Press, New York, pp. 147–178.
Arnold, D.E., Neff, H., Bishop, R.L., 1991. Compositional
analysis and ‘‘sources’’ of pottery: an ethnoarchaeological
approach. American Anthropologist 93, 70–90.
Berdan, F.F., 1975. Trade, Tribute, and Market in the Aztec
Empire. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas at Austin,
University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Berdan, F.F., 1985. Markets in the economy of aztec mexico. In:
Plattner, S. (Ed.), Markets and Marketing. Monographs in
Economic Anthropology No. 4. University Press of America,
New York, pp. 339–367.
Berdan, F.F., 1987. The economics of Aztec luxury trade and
tribute. In: Boone, E.H. (Ed.), The Aztec Templo Mayor.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 161–183.
Berdan, F.F., 1989. Trade and markets in precapitalist states. In:
Plattner, S. (Ed.), Economic Anthropology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, pp. 78–107.
Berdan, F.F., 2005. The Aztecs of Central Mexico: An Imperial
Society, second ed. Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York.
Berry, B., 1967. Geography of Market Centers and Retail
Distribution. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Biddick, K., 1985. Medieval English peasants and market
involvement. Journal of Economic History 45, 823–831.
Bishop, R.L., Blackman, M.J., 2002. Instrumental neutron
activation analysis of archaeological ceramics: scale and
interpretation. Accounts of Chemical Research 35, 603–610.
Bishop, R.L., Neff, H., 1989. Compositional data analysis in
archaeology. In: Archaeological Chemistry IV. In: Allen,
R.O. (Ed.), Advances in Chemistry Series 220. American
Chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 57–86.
Blanton, R.E., 1972. Prehispanic Settlement Patterns of the
Ixtapalapa Region, Mexico. Occasional Papers in Anthropology No. 6. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park.
Blanton, R.E., 1996. The Aztec market system and the growth of
empire. In: Berdan, F.F., Blanton, R.E., Boone, E.H., Hodge,
M.G., Smith, M.E., Umberger, E. (Eds.), Aztec Imperial
Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 47–84.
Blanton, R.E., Kowalewski, S.A., Feinman, G., Appel, J., 1981.
Ancient Mesoamerica: A Comparison of Change in Three
Regions. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Bohannan, P., Bohannan, L., 1968. Tiv Economy. Northwestern
University Press, Evanston, IL.
Branstetter-Hardesty, B., 1978. Ceramics of Cerro Portezuelo,
Mexico: An Industry in Transition. Ph.D. dissertation,
University of California, Los Angeles. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
Bray, W., 1972. The city–state in central Mexico at the time of the
Spanish Conquest. Journal of Latin American Studies 4 (2),
161–185.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1976. Specialization and Exchange at the Late
Postclassic (Aztec) Community of Huexotla, Mexico. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Michigan. University Microfilms,
Ann Arbor.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1980. Specialization, market exchange, and the
Aztec state: a view from Huexotla. Current Anthropology 21,
259–278.
Brumfiel, 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, Supplement No. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 245–279.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1987a. Consumption and politics at Aztec
Huexotla. American Anthropologist 89, 676–686.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1987b. Elite and utilitarian crafts in the Aztec
state. In: Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K. (Eds.), Specialization,
Exchange, and Complex Societies. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, pp. 102–118.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1991a. Tribute and commerce in imperial cities:
the case of Xaltocan, Mexico. In: Early State Economics. In:
Claessen, H.J.M., van de Velde, P. (Eds.), Political and Legal
Anthropology Series, Vol. 8. Transaction Publishers, New
Brunswick, NJ, pp. 177–198.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1991b. Weaving and cooking: womanÕs production in Aztec Mexico. In: Gero, J.M, Conkey, M. (Eds.),
Engendering Archaeology: Woman and Prehistory. Basil
Blackwell, Cambridge, pp. 224–254.
Brumfiel, E.M., 1994. Factional competition and political development in the New World: an introduction. In: Brumfiel,
E.M, Fox, J.W. (Eds.), Factional competition and political
development in the New World. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK, pp. 3–13.
Brumfiel, E.M., Earle, T.K., 1987. Specialization, exchange, and
complex societies: an introduction. In: Brumfiel, E.M, Earle,
T.K. (Eds.), Specialization, Exchange, and Complex Societies.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 1–9.
Calnek, E.E., 1982. Patterns of empire formation in the Valley of
Mexico, Late Postclassic period, 1200–1521. In: Collier, G.A,
Rosaldo, R., Wirth, J.D. (Eds.), The Inca and Aztec States,
1400–1800. Academic Press, New York, pp. 43–62.
Carrasco, P., 1978. La economı́a del México prehispánico. In:
Carrasco, P., Broda, J. (Eds.), Economı́a Polı́tica e Ideologı́a
en el México Prehispánico. Nueva Imagen, México, pp.
15–76.
Carrasco, P., 1983. Some theoretical considerations about the
role of the market in ancient Mexico. In: Economic Anthropology: Topics and Theories. In: Ortiz, S. (Ed.), Monographs
in Economic Anthropology No. 1. University Press of
America, Lanham, MD, pp. 67–82.
Carrasco, P., 1991. The territorial structure of the Aztec empire.
In: Harvey, H.R. (Ed.), Land and Politics in the Valley of
Mexico. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp.
93–112.
Carrasco, P., 1999. The Tenochca Empire of Ancient Mexico:
The Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and Tlacopan.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Charlton, T.H., Nichols, D.L., Otis-Charlton, C., 1991. Aztec
craft production and specialization: archaeological evidence
from the city–state of Otumba, Mexico. World Archaeology
23 (1), 98–114.
Charlton, T.H., Nichols, D.L., Otis-Charlton, C., 1993. Aztec
household-based craft production: archaeological evidence
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
from the city–state of Otumba. Mexico. In: Santley, R.S.,
Hirth, K.G. (Eds.), Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western
Mesoamerica. CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton FL, pp. 147–172.
Chimalpahin, Q.D.F.D.S.A.M., 1958. Das Memorial Breve acerca
de la Fundación de la Ciudad de Culhuacan und Weitere
ausgewählte Teile aus den ‘‘Diferentes Historias Originales. . .’’
Lehmann, W., Kutscher, G. (Trans.). Quellenwerke zur alten
Geshichte Amerikas aufgezeichnet in den Sprachen der Eingebornen 7. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart.
Chimalpahin, Q.D.F.D.S.A.M., 1965. Relaciones Originales de
Chalco Amequemecan Escritas por Don Domingo Francisco
de San Antón Muñon Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin.
Rendón, S. (Ed. and trans.). Fondo de Cultura Económica,
México.
Christaller, W., 1966. Central Places in Southern Germany.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Cortés, H., 1928. Five Letters of Cortés to the Emperor, Morris,
J.B. (Trans.). W.W. Norton and Co, New York.
Costin, C.L., 1991. Craft specialization: issues in defining,
documenting, and explaining the organization of production.
Archaeological Method and Theory 3, 1–56.
Costin, C.L., 2001. Craft production systems. In: Feinman, G.M,
Price, T.D. (Eds.), Archaeology at the Millennium: A
Sourcebook. Kluwer, New York, pp. 273–328.
Cowgill, G.L., 1990. Why PearsonÕs r is not a good similarity
coefficient for comparing collections. American Antiquity 55
(3), 512–521.
Cowgill, G.L., 1996. A reconsideration of the Postclassic chronology of central Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7, 325–331.
Creamer, W., 1998. Reply to Hirth. Current Anthropology 39 (4),
465–466.
DÕAltroy, T., Hastorf, C. (Eds.), 2001. Empire and Domestic
Economy. Plenum, New York.
Davies, N., 1980. The Toltec Heritage: From the Fall of Tula to
the Rise of Tenochtitlan. University of Oklahoma Press,
Norman.
Denevan, W.M., 2001. Cultivated Landscape of Native Amazonia and the Andes: Triumph over the Soil. Oxford University
Press, New York.
Durán, Fr.D., 1964. The Aztecs: The History of the Indies of
New Spain, Horcasitas, F., Heyden, D. (Eds. and trans.).
Orion Press, New York.
Durán, F.D., 1967. Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e
Islas de la Tierra Firme. 2 Vols. Editorial Porrúa, México.
Durán, F.D., 1971. The Book of Gods and Rites and the Ancient
Calendar, Horcasitas, F., Heyden, D. (Eds. and trans.).
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Earle, T., 2001. Exchange and Social stratification in the Andes:
the Xuaxa case. In: DÕAltroy, T., Hastorf, C. (Eds.), Empire
and Domestic Economy. Plenum, New York, pp. 297–314.
Earle, T., 2002. Bronze Age Economics: The Beginnings of
Political Economies. Westview, Boulder, CO.
Evans, S.T., 1980. Spatial analysis of Basin of Mexico settlement:
problems with the use of the Central Place Model. American
Antiquity 45, 866–875.
Feinman, G.M., 1980. The Relationship Between Administrative
Organization and Ceramic Production in the Valley of
Oaxaca, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of
New York Graduate Center. University Microfilms, Ann
Arbor.
Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L., 2000. High-intensity household
production in ancient Mesoamerica: A perspective from
113
Ejutla, Oaxaca. In: Feinman, G.M, Manzanilla, L. (Eds.),
Cultural Evolution: Contemporary Viewpoints. Kluwer, New
York, pp. 119–144.
Feinman, G.M., Nicholas, L. (Eds.), 2004. Archaeological
Perspectives on Political Economies. University of Utah
Press, Salt Lake City.
Feinman, G.M., Upham, S., Lightfoot, K., 1981. The production
step measure: an ordinal index of labor input in ceramic
manufacture. American Antiquity 46, 871–884.
Flannery, K.V., 1972. The cultural evolution of civilizations.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 3, 399–426.
Franco, C., Peterson, J.L., Frederick, A., 1957. Motivos Decorativos en la Cerámica Azteca. Serie Cientı́fica 5. Museo
Nacional de Antropologı́a, México.
French, A., 1964. The Growth of the Athenian Economy.
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.
Fry, R.E., 1979. The economics of pottery at Tikal, Guatemala.
American Antiquity 44, 494–512.
Fry, R.E., 1980. Models of exchange for major shape classes of
lowland Maya pottery. In: Fry, R.E. (Ed.), Models and
Methods in Regional Analysis. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, DC, pp. 3–18.
Fry, R.E., Cox, S.C., 1974. The structure of exchange at Tikal,
Guatemala. World Archaeology 6, 209–225.
Garraty, C.P., 2000. Ceramic indices of Aztec eliteness. Ancient
Mesoamerica 11, 323–340.
Gibson, C., 1956. Llamamiento general, repartimiento, and the
empire of Acolhuacan. Hispanic American Historical Review
36, 1–27.
Gibson, C., 1964. The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Gibson, C., 1971. Structure of the Aztec Empire. In: Ekholm,
G.F., Bernal, I. (Eds.), Handbook of Middle American
Indians, vol. 10, Archaeology of Northern Mesoamerica, Pt.
1. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 376–94.
Glascock, M.D. (Ed.), 2002. Geochemical Evidence of LongDistance Exchange. Bergin & Garvey, Westport, CT.
Glascock, M.D., Neff, H., 2003. Neutron activation analysis and
provenance research in archaeology. Measurement Science
and Technology 14, 1516–1526.
Grayson, D.K., 1984. Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Topics in the
Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Academic Press, Orlando.
Hassig, R., 1985. Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The
Sixteenth Century Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico.
University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Hassig, R., 1991. Roads, routes and ties that bind. In: Trombold,
C.D. (Ed.), Ancient Road Networks and Settlement Hierarchies in the New World. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp. 17–27.
Hassig, R., 1998. Reply to Hirth. Current Anthropology 39 (4),
467.
Hicks, F., 1982. Tetzcoco in the early 16th century: the state, the
city, and the calpolli. American Ethnologist 9, 230–249.
Hicks, F., 1987. First steps toward a market-integrated economy
in Aztec Mexico. In: Claessen, H.J.M., van de Velde, P.
(Eds.), Early State Dynamics. E.J. Brill, New York, pp.
91–107.
Hicks, F., 1991. Gift and tribute: relations of dependency in
Aztec Mexico. In: Early State Economics. In: Claessen,
H.J.M., van de Velde, P. (Eds.), Political and Legal Anthropology Series, vol. 8. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick,
NJ, pp. 199–213.
114
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Hicks, F., 1992. Subject states and tribute provinces: the Aztec
Empire in the northern Valley of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 3, 1–10.
Hicks, F., 1994. Cloth in the political economy of the Aztec state.
In: Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E. (Eds.), Economies and Polities
in the Aztec Realm. IMS Studies on Culture and Society
Series No. 5. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, State
University of New York, Albany, pp. 89–111.
Hicks, F., 1998. Reply to Hirth. Current Anthropology 39 (4),
467–468.
Hirth, K.G., 1998. The distributional approach: a new way to
identify exchange in the archaeological record. Current
Anthropology 39 (4), 451–476.
Hodge, M.G., 1984. Aztec City-States. Studies in Latin American
Ethnohistory & Archaeology Vol. III, Joyce Marcus, General
Editor. Memoirs No. 18. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan. Ann Arbor.
Hodge, M.G., 1990. Big city style and rural life: standardization
and regional variation in Aztec decorated serving dishes.
Paper presented at the 55th annual meeting of the Society for
American Archaeology, Las Vegas.
Hodge, M.G., 1992. Aztec market systems. National Geographic
Research & Exploration 8 (4), 428–445.
Hodge, M.G., 1994. Polities composing the Aztec empireÕs core.
In: Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E., (Eds.), Economies and
Polities in the Aztec Realm. IMS Studies on Culture and
Society Series No. 6, Institute for Mesoamerican Studies,
State University of New York, Albany, pp. 43–71.
Hodge, M.G., 1996. Political organization of the central provinces. In: Berdan, F.F., Blanton, R.E., Boone, E.H., Hodge,
M.G., Smith, M.E., Umberger, E. (Eds.), Aztec Imperial
Strategies. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 17–45.
Hodge, M.G., Minc, L.D., 1990. The spatial patterning of Aztec
ceramics: implications for pre-Hispanic exchange systems in
the Valley of Mexico. Journal of Field Archaeology 17, 415–
437.
Hodge, M.G., Minc, L.D., 1991. Aztec-Period Ceramic Distribution and Exchange Systems. Final report submitted to the
National Science Foundation for Grant #BNS-8704177.
Hodge, M.G., Blanton, R.E., 1996. Appendix I: Data on political
organization of the Aztec empireÕs central provinces. In:
Berdan, F.F., Blanton, R.E., Boone, E.H., Hodge, M.G.,
Smith, M.E., Umberger, E. (Eds.), Aztec Imperial Strategies.
Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, DC, pp. 229–241.
Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., Blackman, M.J., Minc, L.D., 1992. A
Compositional perspective on ceramic production in the
Aztec empire. In: Chemical Characterization of Ceramic
Pastes in Archaeology. In: Neff, H. (Ed.), Monographs in
World Archaeology No. 7. Prehistory Press, Madison, WI,
pp. 203–220.
Hodge, M.G., Neff, H., Blackman, M.J., Minc, L.D., 1993. The
regional structure of Black-on-Orange ceramic production in
the Aztec empireÕs heartland. Latin American Antiquity 4 (2),
130–157.
Hodges, R., 1988. Primitive and Peasant Markets. Basil Blackwell, Oxford.
Johnson, E.A.J., 1970. The Organization of Space in Developing
Countries. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Jones, G.T., Grayson, D.K., Beck, C., 1983. Artifact class
richness and sample size in archaeological surface assemblages. In: Dunnell, R.C., Grayson, D.K. (Eds.), Lulu Linear
Punctated: Essays in Honor of George Irving Quimby.
Anthropological Papers No. 72. Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp. 55–73.
Kelley, K.B., 1976. Dendritic central place systems and the
regional organization of Navaho trading posts. In: Smith, C.
(Ed.), Regional Analysis, vol. I. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 219–254.
King, L.J., 1984. Central Place Theory. Sage University Paper
Series on Scientific Geography, vol 1. Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills.
Kurtz, D.V., 1974. Peripheral and transitional markets: the Aztec
case. American Ethnologist 1 (4), 685–705.
Larson, B.K., 1985. The rural marketing system of Egypt over the
last three hundred years. Comparative Studies in Society and
History 27 (3), 494–530.
Ludwig, J.A., Reynolds, J.F., 1988. Statistical Ecology. Wiley,
New York.
Minc, L.D., 1994. Political Economy and Market Economy
under Aztec Rule: A Regional Perspective Based on Decorated Ceramic Production and Distribution Systems in the
Valley of Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Minc, L.D., 2000. n.d. Style and substance: evidence for regionalization within the Aztec market system. (in preparation).
Minc, L.D., Hodge, M.G., Blackman, M.J., 1994. Stylistic and
spatial variability in Early Aztec ceramics: insights into preimperial exchange systems. In: Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E.
(Eds.), Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm. IMS
Studies on Culture and Society Series No. 6, Institute for
Mesoamerican Studies, State University of New York,
Albany, pp. 133–173.
Morrison, K.D., Sinopoli, C.M., 1992. Economic diversity and
integration in a pre-colonial Indian empire. World Archaeology 23 (3), 335–352.
Neff, H. (Ed.), 1992. Chemical Characterization of Ceramic
Pastes in Archaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison.
Neff, H., Glascock, M.D., 1995. The state of nuclear archaeology
in North America. Journal of Radioanalytical and Nuclear
Chemistry 196, 275–285.
Nichols, D.L., 1994. The organization of provincial craft
production in the Aztec city–state of Otumba. In: Hodge,
M.G., Smith, M.E. (Eds.), Economies and Polities in the
Aztec Realm. Institute for Mesoamerican Studies, Statue
University of New York at Albany, pp. 175–194.
Nichols, D., Charlton, T., 1996. The Postclassic occupation at
Otumba: A chronological assessment. Ancient Mesoamerica
7, 231–244.
Nichols, D.L., Brumfiel, 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, 25–82.
Noguera, E., 1930. Decorative aspects of certain types of mexican
pottery. In: Proceedings of the XXIII International Congress
of Americanists, New York, 1928, pp. 85–92.
Offner, J., 1983. Law and Politics in Aztec Texcoco. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
OÕNeill, G., 1956. Preliminary report on stratigraphic excavations
in the southern valley of Mexico: Chalco-Xico. Revista
Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 14 (2), 45–51.
OÕNeill, G., 1962. Postclassic Ceramic Stratigraphy at Chalco in
the Valley of Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Otis-Charlton, C., 1994. Plebeians and patricians: contrasting
patterns of production and distribution in the Aztec figurine
and lapidary industries. In: Hodge, M.G., Smith, M.E. (Eds.),
Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm. IMS Studies on
Culture and Society Series No. 5. Institute for Mesoamerican
Studies, State University of New York, Albany, pp. 195–219.
Parsons, J.R., 1966. The Aztec Ceramic Sequence in the
Teotihuacan Valley, Mexico. Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Michigan. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.
Parsons, J.R., 1971. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the
Texcoco Region, Mexico. Memoirs No. 3. Museum of
Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Parsons, J.R., Brumfiel, E., Hodge, M., 1996. Earlier dates for the
Early Aztec in the Basin of Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7,
217–230.
Parsons, J.R., Brumfiel, E., Parsons, M.H., Wilson, D.J., 1982.
Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Southern Valley of
Mexico: the Chalco-Xochimilco Regions. Memoirs No. 14.
Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.
Parsons, J.R., Kintigh, K., Gregg, S.A., 1983. Archaeological
Settlement Pattern Data from the Chalco, Xochimilco,
Ixtapalapa, Texcoco, and Zumpango Regions, Mexico.
Technical Reports No. 14. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Parsons, M.H., 1972. Spindle whorls from the Teotihuacan
Valley, Mexico. In: Spence, M.W., Parsons, J.R., Parsons,
M.H. (Eds.), Miscellaneous Studies in Mexican Prehistory,
Anthropological Papers No. 45. University of Michigan
Museum of Anthropology, Ann Arbor, pp. 45–79.
Parsons, M.H., 1975. The distribution of late Post-Classic spindle
whorls in the Valley of Mexico. American Antiquity 40 (2),
208–215.
Pielou, E.C., 1975. Ecological Diversity. Wiley, New York.
Pires-Ferreira, J.W., 1976. Obsidian exchange in Formative
Mesoamerica. In: Flannery, K.V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York, pp. 292–306.
Plattner, S. (Ed.), 1985. Markets and Marketing. Monographs in
Economic Anthropology 4. University Press of America,
Lanham, MD.
Plattner, S. (Ed.), 1989a. Economic Anthropology. Stanford
University Press, Stanford.
Plattner, S., 1989b. Markets and marketplaces. In: Plattner, S.
(Ed.), Economic Anthropology. Stanford University Press,
Stanford, pp. 171–208.
Plog, S., 1976. Measurement of prehistoric interaction between
communities. In: Flannery, K.V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. Academic Press, New York, pp. 255–272.
Plog, S., 1978. Social interaction and stylistic similarity: a
reanalysis. In: Schiffer, M.B. (Ed.), Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, vol. 1. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 143–182.
Renfrew, C., 1975. Trade as action at a distance: questions of
integration and communication. In: Sabloff, J.A., LambergKarlovsky, C.C. (Eds.), Ancient Civilization and Trade.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 3–59.
Renfrew, C., 1977. Alternative models for exchange and
spatial distribution. In: Earle, T.K., Ericson, J.E. (Eds.),
Exchange Systems in Prehistory. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 71–90.
Reynolds, H.T., 1977. The Analysis of Cross-Classifications. Free
Press, New York.
115
Reynolds, H.T., 1984. Analysis of Nominal Data. Sage
University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the
Social Sciences, Series No. 07-007. Sage Publications,
Beverly Hills.
Rhode, D., 1988. Measurement of archaeological diversity and
the sample-size effect. American Antiquity 53 (4), 708–716.
Sanders, W.T., Price, B.J., 1968. Mesoamerica: The Evolution of
a Civilization. Random House, New York.
Sanders, W.T., Santley, R.S., 1983. A tale of three cities: energetics
and urbanization in pre-hispanic central Mexico. In: Vogt,
E.Z., Leventhal, R.M. (Eds.), Prehistoric Settlement Patterns.
University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 243–291.
Sanders, W.T., Parsons, J.R., Santley, R.S., 1979. The Basin of
Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York.
Santley, R.S., 1986. Prehispanic Roadways, transport network
geometry, and Aztec politico-economic organization in the
Valley of Mexico. In: Isaac, B.L. (Ed.), Economic Aspects of
Prehispanic Highland Mexico. Research in Economic
Anthropology, Supplement No. 2. JAI Press, Greenwich,
CT, pp. 223–244.
Santley, R.S., 1991. The structure of the Aztec transport network.
In: Trombold, C.D. (Ed.), Ancient Road Networks and
Settlement Hierarchies in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 198–210.
Santley, R.S., Hirth, K.G. (Eds.), 1993. Prehispanic Domestic
Units in Western Mesoamerica. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton,
FL.
Schroeder, S., 1991. Chimalpahin and the Kingdoms of Chalco.
University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Séjourné, L., 1970. Arqueologı́a del Valle de México 1: Culhuacan. Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia, México.
Séjourné, L., 1983. Arqueologı́a e Historia del Valle de México de
Xochimilco a Amecameca. Siglo Ventiuno Editores, S.A.,
México.
Sinopoli, C., 1994. The archaeology of empires. Annual Review
of Anthropology 23, 159–180.
Sinopoli, C., 2003. The Political Economy of Craft Production:
Crafting Empire in South India, c. 1350–1650. Cambridge
University Press, New York.
Skinner, G.W., 1964. Marketing and social structure in rural
China, Part I. Journal of Asian Studies 23, 3–43.
Skinner, G.W., 1977. Cities and the hierarchy of local systems. In:
Skinner, G.W. (Ed.), The City in Late Imperial China.
Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, pp. 275–352.
Smith, C.A., 1974. Economics of marketing systems: models from
economic geography. Annual Review of Anthropology 3,
167–201.
Smith, C.A., 1976a. Regional economic systems: linking geographic models and socioeconomic problems. In: Smith, C.A.
(Ed.), Regional Analysis, vol. I. Academic Press, New York,
pp. 3–63.
Smith, C.A., 1976b. Causes and consequences of central-place
types in western Guatemala. In: Smith, C.A. (Ed.), Regional
Analysis, vol. I. Academic Press, New York, pp. 255–300.
Smith, C.A., 1976c. Analyzing regional social systems. In: Smith,
C.A. (Ed.), Regional Analysis, vol. II. Academic Press, New
York, pp. 3–20.
Smith, C.A., 1976d. Exchange systems and the spatial distribution of elites: the organization of stratification in agrarian
societies. In: Smith, C.A. (Ed.), Regional Analysis, vol. II.
Academic Press, New York, pp. 309–374.
116
L.D. Minc / Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 25 (2006) 82–116
Smith, C.A., 1977. How marketing systems affect economic
opportunity in agrarian societies. In: Halperin, R., Dow, J.
(Eds.), Peasant Livelihood. Studies in Economic Anthropology and Cultural Ecology. St. MartinÕs Press, New York, pp.
117–146.
Smith, M.E., 1979. The Aztec marketing system and settlement
pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central place analysis.
American Antiquity 44, 110–125.
Smith, C.A., 1985. How to count onions: methods for a regional
analysis of marketing. In: Plattner, S. (Ed.), Markets and
Marketing. Monographs in Economic Anthropology 4. University Press of America, Lanham, MD, pp. 49–77.
Smith, M.E., 2002. The Aztecs. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford,
UK.
Smith, M.E., 2004. The archaeology of ancient state economies.
Annual Review of Anthropology 33, 73–102.
Solis, F., Morales, D. 1991. Rescate de un Rescate: Coleccion de
Objetos Arqueológicos de El Volador, Ciudad de México.
Catálogo de las Colecciones Arqueológicas de Museo Nacional de Antropologı́a, Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e
História, Móxico, D.F.
Stein, G., 1998. Heterogeneity, power, and political economy:
some current research issues in the archaeology of Old World
complex societies. Journal of Archaeological Research 6 (1),
1–44.
Streeten, A.D.F., 1981. Craft and industry: medieval and later
potters in south-east England. In: Howard, H., Morris, E.
(Eds.), Production and Distribution: A Ceramic Viewpoint.
Oxford, pp. 323–346.
Tolstoy, P., 1958. Surface survey of the northern Valley of
Mexico: the classic and postclassic periods. Transactions of
the American Philosophical Society, n.s. 48, Pt. 5.
Torquemada, Fr. J. de., 1943. Monarquı́a indiana, Tomo 2.
Chávez Hayhoe, S. (Ed.) Mexico.
Torquemada, Fr. J. de., 1969. Los Veinte i un Libros Rituales i
Monarquı́a Indiana. 3 vols. Editorial Porrúa, México.
Trigger, B.G., 2003. Understanding Early Civilizations: A Comparative Study. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Trombold, C.D. (Ed), 1991. Ancient Road Networks and
Settlement Hierarchies in the New World. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Vossen, R., 1984. Towards building models of traditional trade in
ceramics: case studies from Spain and Morocco. In: van der
Leeuw, S.E., Pritchard, A.C. (Eds.), The Many Dimensions of
Pottery. Universiteit van Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp.
339–397.
Whalen, M.E., Parsons, J.R., 1982. Ceramic markers used for
period designations. In: Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the
Southern Valley of Mexico: the Chalco-Xochimilco Regions,
by Jeffrey R. Parsons, Elizabeth Brumfiel, Mary H. Parsons,
and David J. Wilson, Appendix. Memoirs No. 14. Museum
of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, pp.
385–459.
Whallon, R., 1984. Unconstrained clustering for the analysis of
spatial distributions in archaeology. In: Hietala, H.J. (Ed.),
Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 242–277.
Whitmore, T.M., Turner, B.L. III (Eds.), 2001. Cultivated
Landscapes of Middle America on the Eve of the Conquest.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Yoffee, N., 1995. Political economy in early Mesopotamian
states. Annual Review of Anthropology 24, 281–311.
Zimmermann, G., 1960. Memorial Breve. In: Das Geschichteswerk des Domingo de Muñon Chimalpahin Quauhtlehuanitzin.
Quellenkritische
Studien
zurfrühindianischen
Geschichte Mexikos. Beiträge zur mittelamerikanischen Völkerkunde 5. Hamburgishen Museums für Völkerkunde und
Vorgeschichte, Hamburg, pp. 29–33.