-
-
EXCAVATIONS
OF AZTECURBANHOUSESATYAUTEPEC,MEXICO
Michael E. Smith, CynthiaHeath-Smith,and Lisa Montiel
Our recent excavations at the site of Yautepecin the Mexican state of Morelos have uncovereda large set of residential structuresfrom an Aztec city. Weexcavated seven houses with associated middens, as well as several middens withoutarchitecture.
In this paper, we briefly review the excavations, describe each house, and summarizethe nature of construction materials and
methods employed. Wecompare the Yautepechouses with other knownAztec houses and make some preliminary inferences on
the relationship between house size and wealth at the site.
En nuestras excavaciones recientes en el sitio de Yautepecen el estado mexicano de Morelos, encontramosun grupo grande de
casas habitacionales en una ciudad azteca. Excavamossiete casas con sus basureros,tanto como otros basurerossin arquitectura. En este artfeulo revisamos las excavaciones, decribimoscada casa y discutimos los patrones de materiales y me'todosde
construccion.Hacemos comparacionesentre las casas de Yautepecy otras casas aztecas, y presentamosalgunas conclusiones
preliminaressobre la relacion entre el tamanode las casas y la riqueza.
Most
Aztec urban sites today lie buried
under moderntowns, and, of those that
still exist as intact archaeological sites,
most have been heavily plowed, causing the
destruction or heavy disturbance of residential
structures(Smith 1996). Intensive surface collections can provide important information about
social and economic patternsat these plowed sites
(e.g., Brumfiel 1996; Charlton et al. 1991), but
they lack the contextualand chronologicalcontrol
of excavations. Almost all prior knowledge of
Aztec houses has been derived from excavations
at rural sites such as Cihuatecpanin the Basin of
Mexico (Evans 1988) andCapilcoandCuexcomate
in Morelos (Smith 1992, 1993), although limited
information about houses can be found in documentary sources (e.g., Calnek 1974) and other,
smaller-scaleexcavations(see below). In 1993 we
excavated seven Late Postclassic (Aztec-period)
houses at the urban site of Yautepec, Morelos.
These structures,among the first excavatedAztec
urbanhouses to be described,providenew insights
into social andeconomicpatternsat a majorprovincial Aztec city.
Yautepec
SocialandEconomic
Context
Yautepecwas thecapitalof a powerfulcity-state,and
its king ruledover severalsubjectcity-statesin the
YautepecRiver Valley of central Morelos (Smith
1994).This area,separatedfromtheValleyof Mexico to the northby theAjuscoMountains(Figure1),
was conqueredby the Aztec Empire aroundA.D.
1440.Yautepecand its subjectstateswere included
in theAztectributaryprovinceof Huaxtepec(Berdan
andAnawalt1992:f24v-25r),althoughYautepec
was
not subject to Huaxtepecin a political sense (see
Berdanet al. 1996 on patternsof territorialorganizationin theAztec provinces).TheYautepecarea,at
an elevationof 1,200 m, has a semitropicalclimate,
with 1,000 mm of rainfallannually.Irrigationagriculturewas widespreadin LatePostclassicMorelos
(Maldonado1990), and large portionsof alluvium
along the YautepecRiver were probablyirrigated.
Intensiveagriculturewas necessaryto feed thedense
populationsof theYautepecareaand to supportthe
elite class andthe city-stateadministration.Smith's
(1994)demographicreconstruction
suggestsanover-
Michael E. Smith, Cynthia Heath-Smith, and Lisa Montiel * Department of Anthropology, University at Albany, State
University of New York,Albany, NY 12222.
LatinAmericanAntiquity,10(2), 1999, pp. 133-150
Copyright(C)1999 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
133
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
.
--
*
.
< J J\;
*
.
..
.
T
Ass '::#*-:*.-1
t* ' .:.
*
.
.
....
.....
-
..
.
.\
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
134
¢>
ValJey of Maxico
RS
A
a
t
X
Moreios
|
:;
vj*
\
N
|
, *
\
.
Tenochtitlan . *
XC___
r
t'
,
-
:
{
I*
*,
[Vol. 10, No. 2,1999]
Yautepecareawas characterizedby dense populations,intensiveagriculture,activetrade,andexpanding states,andtheseprocessesaffectedconditionsin
the city.
The YautepecPalace
...
Our fieldworkwas precededby excavationsat the
Yautepecroyalpalaceby Hortensiade VegaNovaof
theCentroINAH(kstitutoNacionaldeAntropologia
isv__#--,/o-,
S
/
''
)
e Historia)en Morelos.This studyfocusedon a large
.- . . Cuauhnahuac
,*
/;7
moundin a residentialdistrictof the moderntown
jg Yautepec ptHuaX:tepec
/of Yautepec,justoutsidethedowntownarea.Todate,
*
* .
* 1
/
Morelos stafe torder
* * .- .;it
YautepecValley (
about40 percentof theouterperimeterandabout25
. .
Survey
:
>
J
N
percentof theuppersurfaceof themoundhavebeen
.-*.
_9
r
v
cleared. The structureis a large, low platform,
approximately65 by 95 m in extent and 4 to 6 m
high. The cleared portionsof the top are covered
with rooms and passages that exhibit high-quality
* ;-.....v...
v * * *.
..
*..
t * .-..-,
km
construction methods and materials (Figure 2).
Figure 1. The location of Yautepec in Aztec central Floorsaremadeof severallayersof lime plaster,and
Mexico.
walls arebuiltof stonecoveredwithlime plasterthat
all zonal populationdensityof around140 persons hadbeenpaintedwithelaboratepolychromemurals
persqkrnfortheareaof Morelos.Marketswerecom- (only fragmentsof the muralssurvive).The top of
mon in LatePostclassicMorelos7and sourcesfrom the platformis reachedby a single stairwayon the
nearbyTepoztlannote an activetradeinvolvingcot- west side (deVega 1996;deVega andMayer1991).
Thereare historicalreferencesto this structure,
ton fromYautepec(Smith 1994). k summary7the
.
*
s
AnciontLakeshore
_
\
*
*
*
[
0
.
.
.
.
*
.
.
.
.
>
.
*
Figure 2. Rooms in the Yautepec royal palace, looking north.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
and interpretationsof its functionare based on the
results of the excavations.The structuredoes not
resembleknownAztec templesin the proportionsof
the platform,the layout and contentsof the rooms
on top,orthenatureof refuseandburialsfoundalong
the outer walls. The large size of the buildingand
high qualityof the architecturesupportthe hypothesis thatit servedas apalace (Evans1991 andSmith
1992:315-319 discussAztec palaces).The building
dwarfsotherknownAztec palacesin size; theYautepec palace is largerthanthe combinedareasof the
five palaces illustrated in Smith and Berdan
(1992:Figure1).The excavationof this structurehas
not been completed,and many of the artifactsand
featureshave yet to be studied,so a full functional
analysiscannotbe conductedat this time.
The Albany Project
Duringthe first season of the palace excavationsin
1989,we wereinvitedto workinYautepecby deVega
Nova and otherarchaeologistsof the CentroINAH
Morelos.Ourplanwas to studytheAztec urbancenter as a whole andto locate andexcavateresidential
structuresapartfrom the palace. In additionto the
benefits of having two projects at the same site,
Yautepecoffered several advantages.Unlike most
centralMexican towns, where the Aztec town centeris buriedunderthatof the moderntown,the centerof colonialandmodernYautepeclies to the north
of the centerof the Aztec city, leaving a majorportionof thearchaeologicalsiteonlypartiallydamaged
(Smithet al. 1994). In 1989, we notedthe existence
of dense surface artifactdeposits from the Aztec
period in large open fields in front of the palace.
These surface artifactssuggested the presence of
buried houses in what was probably the central,
"downtown,"areaof ancientYautepec.
The SurveyProjects
In our first season at Yautepec(summer 1992) we
conductedan intensivesurfacesurveyin andaround
the moderntown.The goal of this urbansurveywas
to define the bordersof the Late Postclassic settlement, and thatgoal was met successfully(Smithet
al.1994). Wetookseveralhundredcollectionsof surface artifacts,and the compositionsof these collections are currentlybeing analyzedwith spatialand
statisticalmethods.This articledescribesthe work
of the second field season, during 1993. Subsequently,in 1994 and 1996,Smith,Montiel,andTim-
135
othy S. Hareconducteda full-coveragesurveyof the
entireYautepecValley,resultingin the discoveryof
severalhundredsites. We took severaltypes of surface artifactcollections (including"grab-bag"samples, 2 x 2 m collections,and severalhundred5 x 5
m collections), conductedstratigraphictest pits at
severalsites, andcarriedout an "off-sitesurvey"of
the valley (Cascio et al. 1995; Hare 1998; Montiel
1998).
The 1993 Excavations
The 1993 season (FebruarythroughAugust 1993)
was devotedto the excavationof houses and other
domestic contexts in Yautepec.Archaeologists in
Mesoamericaand elsewhere have found that residential excavations provide rich information on
ancient social conditions (e.g., Santley and Hirth
1993). Ourpreviousexcavationsof houses andtheir
associatedmiddensattheAztec sitesof Cuexcomate
and Capilcoin westernMorelos allowedfor a finegrained reconstructionof changing activities and
social conditions at these ruralsites (Smith 1992,
1993;SmithandHeath-Smith1994).Onegoal of the
Yautepec project was to generate a comparative
datasetfromanurbansite.Weoriginallyhadplanned
to focus a major part of our efforts on the fields
immediatelywest of theroyalpalace,whicharecontained within the INAH Yautepec archaeological
zone. The 1992 surveyshowed these fields to have
very dense surfaceartifactconcentrations,and the
remainsof severalstone structurefoundationswere
visible on the surface.Owing to a sudden,butwellplanned, invasion of the Yautepec archaeological
zone by squattersin fall 1992, we were unable to
excavatein this area(Smith1997).Nevertheless,we
obtainedpermissionto dig in a numberof open lots
and fields scatteredthroughoutthe Late Postclassic
site. The results of these excavationsare summarized below.
Chronology
TheAztec period,fromthetwelfththroughsixteenth
centuriesA.D., is dividedinto threeceramicphases
atYautepec.Thesephases,establishedthroughstratigraphicanalysisand quantitativeceramic seriation
methods,are datedthroughradiocarbondatingand
ceramiccross-ties(HareandSmith 1996).Yautepec
was foundedin thePochtlaphase(A.D.110>1300),
whichcorrespondsto the MiddlePostclassicperiod.
Its founderswere membersof the Tlahuicaethnic
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
136
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
group (Duran 1967, v.2:23), one of the NahuatlspeakingAztec groupsthatmigratedto centralMexico in Postclassictimesfroman unknownhomeland
areato the north(Smith 1996:3841). The inhabitants of Pochtla-phaseYautepecestablishedcommercial relations with other peoples throughout
centralMexico.Ourexcavationsuncoveredimported
ceramicsfrom many areasand obsidianfrom most
of the centralMexicansourceareas.
The Late Postclassic period at Yautepecbegan
with the Atlan phase (A.D. 130>1440). The city
expandedin size (concurrentwith a majorpopulation expansion in the YautepecValley), imported
ceramics increased in frequency,and rare, exotic
importssuchas bronzetools andgreenstonejewelry
appearedfor the first time. The transitionto the
Molotlaphase(A.D.144s1520) coincidedwiththe
conquestof Yautepecandthe restof Morelosby the
expandingAztec Empire.Thecity continuedto grow
duringthisphase,andcommercialandstylisticcontactswithotherareaspersistedwithlittlechange.The
Santiagophase (ca. A.D. 152s1650) markedthe
transitionto Spanishcolonial society afterthe conquest of 1519.
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
Figure 3. Location of excavation areas at Yautepec.
positedvolcanicashcementedwithsilicatesandcarbonates,forms the C horizonin manypartsof central Mexico). Naturalsoil zones were followed as
much as possible; thick zones or deposits with
unclearstratigraphy
wereexcavatedin 10 cm levels.
House Excavations
Sedimentsfrom most deposits were screenedwith
1/4"wire mesh;some plow-zonedepositsanda few
Methods
sterilecontextswere not screened.
Forthe most part,surfaceevidencefor the locations
We located seven houses. The architectural
of individualPostclassic structuresat Yautepecis remains were cleared, and
exterior midden areas
absent.Becausethe site is situatedin a moderntown, were excavatedadjacentto all
structures.Wallsand
we used contemporarylandparcels(lots andfields) floors were brokenthroughin
key areasto examine
with surface artifacts as sampling frames in our architecturalhistoryandfill
deposits.In additionto
searchfor houses; these parcelsaretermedexcava- the seven houses, each with at
least one excavated
tionareas.We excavateda totalof 17 units or oper- midden, we found seven
dense domestic midden
ationswithin 11 excavationareas.The locationsof deposits,severalarchitectural
featuresnotobviously
theexcavationareasin relationto the bordersof the partof houses, nineteen
burials,and threedeposits
siteare shown in Figure3. Withtwo exceptions,all of deep alluvial
sediments that date to sometime
excavationswere aligned and recordedwith refer- betweentheEpiclassicandLate
Postclassicperiods.
enceto the UTM coordinatesystem as depictedon Overall the
excavations yielded dense artifact
Mexicangovernmentmaps of Yautepec;in the two deposits(themeanceramic
densitywas above3,000
churchyards,
we used separategridsystemsaligned sherds per m3 we recovered
over 1.2 million
withthe sixteenth-centurybuildings.
sherds).The artifactsarestill undergoinganalysisin
Except in the few cases where the locations of ourfacility in modern
Yautepec.
buried
structureswereobviousor stronglysuggested
byvisible surfacearchitectureor mounds,we sam- ExcavationAreas
pledtheexcavationareaswithgridsof testpits.Most AreaA is a large
walled propertythat houses the
testpits were excavatedto bedrock,which consists Escuela
SecundariaFederalIgnacioManuelAltamiofbasaltflows in the westernportionof the site and rano(see Figure3
for the locationsof the excavation
tepetate
hardpanin the remainder(tepetate,a rede- areas).We began the field
season there,excavating
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
six units in variouspartsof the lot. In Unit 501, we
tested a low wall segment and uncovereda small
house, Structure4, that was partiallydamagedby
plowing(see discussionof architecturebelow). Several burialswere found next to the house on three
sides. In Unit 502, begun as a trenchto test heavy
surfaceartifactsin the northend of the schoolyard,
we camedownon a rockpavementthatcoveredBurial 3. This burial,datedto the Molotla phase, containedtwo individuals,one of whomhadanobsidian
projectilepoint embeddedin the vertebralcolumn.
Unit503 consistedof threetrenches,also in thenorth
end of the schoolyard.Therewe encountereda very
dense middenwith stratifieddepositsfrom all three
Aztec phases. In Unit 504, we tested an artificial
slope breakon a gentlehill andfounda stoneterrace
wall, a midden, and a series of poorly preserved
infant burials.In Unit 505, a test of a small, low
moundadjacentto a school building,we uncovered
a poorly preservedplasterfloor and an associated
plaster-lined,tublikefeaturefrom the Atlan phase.
Below these featureswas a dense middenfrom the
Pochtlaphase.In Unit 512 we excavateda series of
trenchesin a low moundwithexposedplasterfloors.
Thisexcavationuncovereda largestructurethatprobably was an elite residence(Structure6).
Area B (Unit 506) is a walled lot, adjacentto the
archaeologicalzone, whose ownerwas preparingto
constructhomes on it. Using a seriesof 2 x 4-m test
pits, we discoveredthe partialremainsof Structure
5, a low platformthat may have been an elite residence.This areaalso containeddense middens,two
burials,and an unusualpit feature.
Area C (Unit 507) is a nearbywalled lot where
constructionof an athleticcourthadbegun.Most of
the depositsencounteredin ourtest pits consistedof
a plow-zone stratumthat rested directly on basalt
bedrock,althoughpatchesof anAtlanmiddenwere
uncoveredin two areas.
Area D (Units 508 and 509) consistsof two adjacent modernlots, in one of which new housingwas
underconstruction.In Unit 509, test pits led to the
discoveryof a patiogroupwith threehouses (Structures 1, 2, and 3) as well as middens,two burials,
and other features.In Unit 508, test pits revealed
mostly plow-zone deposits. An unusual crushed
tepetatefloor, not obviously part of a house, was
locatedin the southwestcornerof the lot, in associationwith a middenfromthe Atlanphase.
Area E (Unit 510) is locatedin the southernend
137
of the yard of Escuela PrimariaFederal Nicolas
Bravo.This is theonly excavationin one of the small
settlementsthat ringed the main site of Yautepec
(Figure3). In all four of the scatteredtest pits, we
encounteredshallow erosionaldepositswith heavy
Molotla-phaseartifactson top of basalt.
AreaF (UnitSl l ) is a largeirrigatedcornfieldon
the floodplainadjacentto the YautepecRiver.This
area is immediatelyoutside the site boundarywe
defined in 1992. The excavationwas conductedto
test the boundaryand to look for evidence of Postclassic irrigation.We discovereda light Postclassic
depositthatcould be the remainsof cultivatedfields
underabout40 cm of alluvium,but found no evidence of Postclassicirrigationcanals.
AreaG(UnitS13), acornfieldimmediatelysouth
of the southerntip of the site, also was excavatedto
test the site boundary.Veryfew artifactswererecoveredthere.
Area H (Unit 514) is the yard of the sixteenthcenturybarriochapelof San Juan.We dug fourtest
pits,bothadjacentto thechurchandat some distance
from it, but failed to find evidence of Postclassic
structuresunderornearthechurch.Wedidencounter
a depositfromthe Epiclassicperiod(A.D. 70>900)
coveredby 2 m of alluvium.
AreaI (UnitSI S) is the yardof the sixteenth-centurychurchand convent,the Iglesia de la Asuncion
de NuestraSenoradeYautepec.Testpits were excavated adjacentto the main church,in front of and
insideof the open chapel(theearliestSpanishbuilding), and at a distancefrom the buildingsbut in the
churchyard.As in the case of Unit 514, we failed to
findevidencefor Postclassicbuildingsunderor near
the church.We did encountertwo walls and several
burialsfrom the Colonial period and at least one
refusedepositfromthe Molotlaphase.
AreaJ (Unit516) is a privatelot wherewe tested
foroccupationon theeastbankof theYautepecRiver.
A small amountof Postclassicrefuse was encountered above a deep alluvial deposit that contained
small amounts of Formative and Classic-period
ceramics.This east bankalluviumwithintheYautepec site may havebeen an areaof cultivationduring
Postclassictimes.
Area K (Unit 517) is a portionof a streetwhere
a municipal work crew uncovered a plaster floor
while gradingthe road.We were approachedto settle an argumentover whetherthis surface was an
ancientplasterfloor or a moderncementpavement.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
:
g
y::::::
-
:;::
:
i:
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
138
CERAMIC PHASE
DATE, A. D.
2:::S:
|j:0:
f--f0--::|
Domestic Occupation
*
House Construction
0
Quantified Midden
o
:
::: -
E::
i:E
::
::
:7:
| 7 7:
::S
:f: f f:00
::
:; i
;:
z
:
;:
D: ; : : : f:E
*
::
::i40
::
i;
:
j
t:: t:: ::
:::
iliSD:
:::
Ei::
a: -
:-
i:
d:d
d
?fid
f
t ;
E
;;:
:::
: : 0: :
. j::
::iE -
igEL F:::
y
E ::
o
:::
S S:
:E
::
:::E
::::
:::
::
::
:::
:
:y
:::
77
SE:;
iTH:if
::
::D
iCrE
E::
-
: E
LE:i4ji
:
iEi:E:f:
755:
z
2
;:
[d
S
W1:tl: ::: CE f f
t::-
;:
f:::E
f: :::::;
f: :t :::;
i C
::
:d
::
t10:: :: | t :iA !
:S
t;4::::::: -
4::
:D::
:::
::::
: 0 | :
: T:j:
::::
A;::
:
;
T
;00iS: ;:::
72
i:
i::t:
V
iS
E:
:::
fiS
::
:f:
f::
f:
j
t
i;
;T:;
:0:
: :
: ::
id;:; fE::
::
:f:::
:V3.;tiS:
:E
iE
::::::
::
i
.
it
::E f
D: ;E::ft
::::::
:::i:
:::
i::79:E
::
TH:
f: :: f S ff:
f:0:;::fA::0:
:iS:
:
::E
::
Tit:
:;
:
:::::
iE
4:E
:
i:
:
::
::
t
;::d :: ::E :E
j :T 00if
::
; :
04
:::::
0 :::
i00 :V: i
i:
i
:
7:
: ttStES:ff00:t;}
:::::
f:E 0 ;;
:::::
Ad
t::E
Sf:
;:
1300
:
:-::
E
:
i
N
o
In
t
o
m
N
o
Ln
o:
o
In
)
n
o
Ln
::
U
o
7 i::d
:
::::
::::
::; E t000::
::;
::
:::
::;
t;;::0 fi:
*:
I
;: ::
:
::::
..
:::f
: f
1440
7
g
::::
:
:iA:::L:;
:$X.:;
:
:7
T
(:
:fE!ARE
i._
S:
idS 0:
:::
:;
:
:fid:f: :::::f:;
::::
: FE -
::
:f77:
:::E:
S:
::
::
g:: -
: ;f
::::
:4
:
AS:f:;
:::}::000::::S
:
0
0R
:-
i
:::::5:U;:
i-i
:i::
::
: :::
:::
0-
04;
:f.j
:::
::
E
:::
\ :::
:f::f::fi::S:::g:
: ::
.-
f i
(
E
L:E-:::
[:
;
:::::te:: ::Ef i:
E
L
:S:::
:::-
f-::
E
-
::
77:
::::::
:iEi:::
*::
#twi:
D ::DE::
iE
:i:
iVE
:::
:::::
:::::
i:i: :S
Si
C
: t; :fiD::S:;:::
!E::
::::
::
*: f0 :\: i: ::
i
0
iL::
::::S:
i:F
:::::::::
:
t0
i.itt::
i:
:::
S
idE
LEi
:D:::
7:
::
::
:
: a:E:
-
i:
f :i S u
:::
i t E j0
:;
::E
:f::
::
aAL iS :: (:i\E
: f f
t:
;l :: :!
:::i:i::::ft
::
.:E
:S
S:
:;
gE i
:i:
:g:
:L
::f:
:::
4:
f
:
.:
::E:-!=:
;:|7::
::
:: j
:::::::
:iS-:
::f: -
.:
f
:o
::::::::s
:
::
:f
::
i
X
idj_j:
|4 0 L i t i .
: :i:id
f-
E [EE:iTH::E
::: :: u::: :i::
::
L
0:E:
:::::::
o
t:
f
::::
iLL
:
t i E
o:
fiLi -
:::
::iD 4
::::
iE:Li::
E:::E-::
;::
:
::
:::f
: :::i::::
:: X (E | tSt10
i -S
:i
: :-iS
DA.
:gE:f:iSiS
i:
iNTe:^i:iR
:il:
7: 07 f: id t: :S;
i:f
fffT::
t::f:S
::
E:::
a
Xy
:fif :: it: ::iD
|i: -
1520
;N
::
u)
f aV::;
In
o
In
1100
25:D:05
Houses
I
Other
Deposits
Figure 4. Phases of occupation for structures and other deposits.
We cleared the floor (which was indeed ancient), ities may have been relatedto the constructionof
traced the outlines of Structure7, and excavated Structure3 in the Molotla phase. There may have
been anotherroomnortheastof the others;we were
some exteriorrefusedeposits.
preventedfrom following some poorly preserved
Descriptions of IndividualHouses
walls by a modernhouse located next to the excaFigure 4 presents the dates of occupationfor the vation. South of Structure1, we found an exterior
houses and otherdeposits at Yautepec;this graphic patioareawitha badlyerodedplasterfloor.Justnorth
updatesand supersedesa similar illustrationpub- of the centralroom, we found a midden.
Structure2 (Unit 509; Area D). This structure,
lished as Figure 6 of Hare and Smith (1996). The
term"quantifiedmiddens"denotesunmixeddeposits immediatelywest of Structure1, was a low plasterwith abundantartifactsthatarebeingquantifiedand coveredplatformbuiltinAtlantimes (Figure5). The
analyzedin detailforcomparisonsamonghousesand platformwas constructedof cut stone walls, a single coursehigh, and filled with rocks and soil. The
betweenphases.
StructureI (Unit 509; Area D). This structure,a plasterfloor was not preservedin all areas, but it
ground-level construction with several rooms, apparentlyhadcoveredthe cut stonescompletely.A
formedpartof a patiogroupwith Structures2 and3 smallplasteredstep on the easternwall led down to
(Figure 5). The walls on the north and east sides an exteriorplasterfloor betweenStructures1 and2.
weredisturbedby plowingandconsequentlyarenot The exteriorfloor predatedthe westernadditionto
well defined. Structure1 underwentseveral stages Structure1. We found no evidence for walls of any
of modification.In the Atlan phase, a large central type on top of the platform,but since the structure
room and a smallereast room were built.At some was locatedat the base of the plow zone, any walls
point,in eitherthe lateAtlanor earlyMolotlaphase, probablyhadbeendestroyed.A poorlydefinedstone
the northernwalls weredismantled,leavingonly the wall betweenStructures2 and 3 predatedbothconlowestcoursesof stonesin the ground.A smalladdi- structions,but its purposeand relationshipto other
tion to the west was addedat this time. These activ- constructionare unclear.Structure2 has a midden
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
139
Figure5. Plan of Structures1, 2, and 3 (Unit 509, AreaD).
off its southwestcorner.
Structure
3 (Unit509;AreaD). This structure,
locatedon the northside of the Unit 509 compound,
was a ground-levelstructurewith typical doublerow stone foundationwalls. The east wall is missing, probablydestroyedby plowing.Structure3 was
built at a slightly higherelevationthanStructures1
and2. The stonewalls thatrunnorthfromStructures
1 and2 (FigureS) precedethe constructionof Structure 3 and are not associatedwith it. The structure
was built in the Molotla phase.Thereis a Molotlaphase middenjust south of the house. Occupation
continuedintothe Santiagophase,witha densemidden west of the structure.
Structure4 (UnitSOl;AreaA).This structurewas
a low platformwhose west side hadbeen destroyed
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 10, No. 2,1999]
140
Figure6. Plan of Structure4 (Unit 501, AreaA).
by plowing (Figure6). The structurewas not buried
verydeeply.The eastportionwas preservedbecause
a north-southstone field wall covered it until the
1970s whena secondaryschool was built.The entire
remainsof the structurelie withinthewalledschoolyard(AreaA), andrecentdestructionhas been minimal.LikeStructure2, Structure4 lackswallremains
on top of the platform. Unit 501 is one of three
deposits in which all three Postclassic phases are
present(Figure4). The Pochtlaphaseis represented
by a middenin a wide pit on the west side of theunit;
thereis no architectureassociatedwith this occupation.TheAtlanphaseis representedby a middenon
thenorthside of thestructureandseveralburials,one
of which (Burial 1) predatesthe constructionof the
platform.
A trenchthroughthe structureencounteredconstructiondebris(stonesandheavy concentrationsof
plasterfloor fragments)underthe structureand in
the fill of the platform,along with mixed artifacts
from the Atlan and Molotla phases. The construction debris is probably from an earlier structure
destroyed or dismantled prior to construction of
Structure4. Structure4 itself wasbuiltin theMolotla
phase.The platformwas edged with a single row of
large, irregularstones that were faced on one side.
Traces of lime plaster on stones suggest that this
platformmay have been plasteredlike Structure2.
Fourareasof burnedearthand carbonwere found
in themiddenson theeastandsouthsidesof thestructure.No stones were associatedwith these features,
which may representthe remainsof temporaryfires
ratherthan regularlyused hearths These features
pertainto the Molotlaphase on the basis of stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates (Hare and Smith
1996:288-289).A multipleburial(Burial2) alsowas
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
141
Figure7. Plan of Structure5 (Unit506, Area B).
associatedwith the burntfeatures.
Structure
S (Unit506; AreaB). This structure,
anotherlow platformdestroyedon thewesternedge,
was the second largeststructurewe excavated.The
preservedportion of the structure(Figure 7) was
only slightlybelow the plow zone, andplowingwas
responsiblefor the destructionof partof the building. The platform,one coursehigh, was edged with
a wall of finely cut stonescoveredwith plaster.This
wall was builtovera narrowstonepavement(ca. 1.5
m wide) thatservedas a base or foundationfor the
wall. Sometimeaftertheconstructionof theplatform
wall, a second layer of paving stones was placed
over the originalpavementadjacentto the platform
wall on its exteriorside (Figure7). The placement
of platform walls over a narrowpavement is an
unusualtechniquethatwe have not seen used elsewhere.
The top of the platformhad been heavily disturbed,andno intactfloorwas present.Theplatform
fill consisted of clay embedded with many small
stones (ca. S to 10 cm in diameter).This fill probably servedas a preparationlayer for a plasterfloor
(numerousfragmentsof brokenplasterwere recovered in the plow zone above and aroundthe structure).A dense middendeposit east of the structure
containeda layerwith manystonesthatappearedto
be constructioncollapse.If this identificationis cor-
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
N1835
*Plairo.nm
J :
ruez
J
rwus /
{
L
e
<+><>
---
J
J
]
*
t
*
*
|
{
*
*
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
142
-
*
-
L
E
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
.
Unit 512
- N11545
Midden
-
N1
S
f- . - --
S
J/
.
J
,
ES__S.8 ' -
'
>
W.,;_,4.
te
<
,1/
,
X S
,-,>
sr
s
/>-
s,
9(tif>l
Early Wall
Middle Wall
1]111@
Wlil
{
Plsixr
_
r S
<
>>
ftJr
¢1SS
}[
o
-
5
n
E
|
|
*
F
Flnnt
*
1
9 <
E
I
X
*
E
[
s
|
|
f@05
|
|
r
S
S
|
E610
|
E
t
I
CHE
*
h
*
,
Figure8. Plan of Albanyexcavationsof Structure6 (Unit 512,AreaA).
rect, the structurewas rebuiltor modified,perhaps
afterdestructionor dismantling,at some pointmidway through its history; Molotla-phase midden
depositshadaccumulatedbothbelow andabovethis
stone layer.A small middenfrom the Atlan phase
was encounteredat the base of excavationson the
east side of the structure,butthe architectureandall
otherdepositsdateto the Molotlaphase.
Structure6 (Unit512;AreaA).This structurewas
a large, low mound in the yard of the secondary
school (Figure 8). Priorto excavation,two plaster
floors were visible where the moundhad been cut
into during construction of a basketball court.
Because of its large size and the complexity of its
architecture,we only were able to excavate a portion of Structure6. We dug two long intersecting
trenchesacrossthemoundthatuncoverednumerous
floors andwalls.At the northend of the north-south
trenchandat the eastendof the east-westtrench,we
encountereddense,stratifiedmiddendeposits.Inone
area,we excavatedthroughthe floors of the structuredownto sterilesoil. Afterthe terminationof our
field season, FranciscaRosas Sanchez(1996) from
the CentroINAH Morelos took over the operation
and clearedmuchof the structure(Figure9).
The outer walls of Structure6 were destroyed
long beforeourexcavations.This areahadbeen cultivatedin recentyears,beforethe constructionof the
school,andplowingwasprobablyresponsibleforthe
destruction.The erectionof boundarywalls around
the schoolyardand the constructionof the basketball courtalso may have contributedto the destruction of the south and west walls respectively.We
reconstructed
thelocationsof thenorthandeastwalls
from the presenceof middensthatwere almostcertainlyon the exteriorof the structure.
Structure6 was by farthe largestandmost complex structurewe excavated,withnumerousepisodes
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
143
Figure9. Photoof roomsin Structure6 excavatedby FrancescaRosasSanchez,lookingwest.
of construction
andremodeling.Onthebasisof stratigraphicand ceramicdatafrom our excavations,we
organizedtheconstructionhistoryof Structure6 into
three major stages. Rosas (1996) independently
definedfour constructionstages from the architecturethatshe cleared.The earlyandlate stagesof the
two sequencescorrespond,whereasRosas divides
ow middlestageinto two. The earliestconstruction
stageis represented
by twodeeplyburiedwallsfound
at the east end of our east-westtrench.These walls
are associatedwith ceramicsthat date to the Atlan
andlorPochtlaphases. The size and natureof the
structurein theearlystageareunknown.Thesewalls
were buriedby latermiddendeposits.
The Late Postclassicperiodwitnessedtwo constructionstages.The middleconstructionstage was
characterizedby high-qualityarchitecture.Limeplasterfloorswerewell made,withcarefullylaidsubfloorsconsistingof small stonesoverlaidby several
thinlayersof plaster,often paintedred.Wallswere
built with closely fitted,faced stones. Many minor
episodesof remodelingtookplaceduringthis stage.
The late constructionstage, on the otherhand,was
characterizedby sloppy methods. For example,
roughpiles of stone rubbleand soil were plastered
overwithlime to formcrude,unevenwalls andplatforms.Fromtheirstratigraphy,
the middendeposits
on the northandeast sides of the structureappearto
correspondto themiddleandlatearchitectural
stages.
Each deposit has a dense midden from the Atlan
penod. This middenis followed by a layerof rocks
and constructiondebns that containsa mixtureof
AtlanandMolotlamaterials.Finally,a denseMolotla
middencappedeach deposit.Few of the individual
walls andfloors can be assignedwith confidenceto
a ceramicphase,butan associationbetweenthe two
Late Postclassic ceramicphases and the two Late
Postclassicconstructionstages seems reasonable.
Atlan-phaseceramicswere widely distnbutedin
thelowestfill levels,suggestingthatthestructure
was
of similarsize in bothAtlanandMolotlatimes.Based
on ourreconstructionof wall locations,we estimate
thatthe areaof the structurewas about425 m2 for
bothphases.Stratigraphyin the northmiddensuggests that the floor of the structurewas built 50 to
100 cm abovethe level of the ground.This elevated
construction
was probablyresponsibleforthenearly
completedestructionof theouterstructurewalls.We
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
144
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
Figure 10. Plan of Structure7 (Unit 517, Area K).
hypothesizethatthe walls and floors were built on
plaster-coveredplatformssimilarto thoseemployed
in theelite residence(PatioGroup6) at Cuexcomate
in westernMorelos (Smith 1992).
Structure7 (Unit517; AreaK). This was a house
discoveredby municipalworkerswhile gradinga
street(Figure10). We cleareda largeareaof plaster
floor in the streetandfollowed out floors and walls
to define the westernportionof the structure.The
easternmostwall was destroyed,eitherby construction of the streetor by plowing. (This streetis less
than 15 yearsold; the site was formerlycultivated.)
We did locate a lip in the floor indicatingthe former
placementof a wall at the easternedge of the floor.
There is evidence for at least two stages of construction,bothin theMolotlaphase.Refusedeposits
west and northof the structurewere far less dense
thanmost of the othermiddensexcavated.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
145
REPORTS
Table 1. ArchitecturalData on ExcavatedHouses at Yautepec.
House
Excav.
No. Unit Area
1
509
1
509
2
509
3
509
4
501
5
506
6
512
7
517
Palace
D
D
D
D
A
B
A
K
-
Phases
A
M
A, M
M, S
M
M
A, M
M
M
Size
(m2)
Orientation Type
58
40
16
16
23
77
425
35
6,175
14
14
14
14
18
18
21
13
21
1
1
2
1
2
2
3
1
3
A
x
(x)
(x)
x
x
x
ArchitecturalTraits:
B
C
D
x
x
x
x
x
x
?
x
x
x
?
x
x
x
x
x
E
Function
x
x
x
x
x
x
commoner house
commoner house
commoner house
commoner house
commoner house
possible elite house
elite house
commoner house
royal palace
Phase: A = Atlan, M = Molotla, S = Santiago.
Type: 1 = Ground-levelhouse with double-row foundation walls; 2 = Low-platformhouse; 3 = Palace
Architecturaltraits:A = Plasterfloors (parenthesesindicate evidence for destroyedfloors); B = Adobe brick fragmentsrecovered;C = Burntdaub fragmentsrecovered;D = Extensive use of cut and faced stone; E = More than one stage of construction.
ConstructaonMaterzalsand Methods
Theexcavatedhousescanbe dividedintothreearchitecturaltypes:ground-levelhouseswithdouble-row
foundationwalls, low-platformhouses,andpalaces
(Table1).The stonefoundationwalls ofthe groundlevel houseshavetwo rowsof stonesandan average
widthof 60 cm (Figure11). In most cases only one
or two coursesof stones have survived.We recoveredpartiallydissolvedadobebricksadjacentto the
stonewalls at two of these houses (Structures1 and
3). This type of wall is identical to the walls of
ground-levelhousesattheruralsitesof Cuexcomate
andCapilcoin westernMorelos(Smith1992),where
adobefragmentsalso were recovered.The doublerow stonefoundationwall is stillusedin ruralMorelos today for the constructionof houses of adobe
bricks.The two rowsof stoneprovidea flat base for
the adobes,whichtodayaremadein woodenmolds.
ThemajordifferencebetweenthemodernandAztec
house walls is thatthe modernexamplesare somewhatthinner,with a meanwidthof 25 cm (Smithet
Figure11. Photoof ground-levelhouses,Structures1 (top),2 (right),and 3 (front),lookingsouth.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
146
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
Figure 12. Photo of Structure 4 (Unit 501), a low-platform house, looking
southwest.
al. 1992).Drawingananalogywiththemodernpeasanthouses, Smith(1992) arguesthatthe foundation
walls at Cuexcomateand Capilco were bases for
adobebrickwalls.Thesameargumentcanbe applied
totheYautepechouses.
One of theYautepecground-levelhouses (Structure7) hadlime-plasterfloors.Theothertwo groundlevelhouseshadno clearlydefinedfloors.Wesuspect
thatthe floorsof these houseswere of packedearth.
Ifthey hadbeen constructedof plasteror stone, we
shouldhavefoundbrokenplasterfragmentsorextensivedepositsof stone cobbles.These patternscontrastwith the houses at Cuexcomateand Capilco,
mostof which had floors of sandysoil spreadover
stonerivercobbles.At the ruralsites, only the elite
residencehad floors of lime plaster.
Thestructures
we arecallinglow-platformhouses
consisted
of low stoneplatformsthataveraged40 cm
inheight(Figure12).All threeof thesehouses(Structures2, 4, and5) wereencounteredat thebase of the
plowzone, andany tracesof walls or otherfeatures
ontop of the platformshadbeen destroyed;furthermore,portionsof Structures4 and 5 also had been
destroyed
by plowing.This poorpreservationham-
persourunderstandingof the natureof these structures.We interpretthem as houses because they
resemblethe ground-levelhouses in size, and each
is associatedwith dense domesticmiddendeposits
comparable
to those encounteredin the otherexcavations.
Structure2 had a plasterfloor.The back (west)
wallof the structure,only partiallypreserved,was a
double-row
stonewall (Figure5). The low platform
onthe east side, with a plasteredstep in the center,
servedto level the floor of this structuregiven the
slopeof the groundto the east. Structure4 had severallarge,facedstonesalongits edge, someof which
showedtracesof lime plaster(Figure12).A layerof
smallstoneson top of thisplatformprobablyserved
asthepreparation
layerfora plasterfloor,fragments
ofwhich were recoveredin the plow zone around
thehouse. StructureS was larger than the other
ground-level
andlow-platformhouses.Thebest-preserved
wall, on theeastside,was a double-rowstone
wallof a single coursebuiltovera narrowpavement
ofmedium-sizedstones (Figure7). At the level of
thetop of the large wall stones, we encountereda
layer
of small stonessimilarto those in Structure4.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
REPORTS
This excavation also yielded considerablebroken
plasterfragmentsin the plow-zone deposits.
The floors in the low-platformhouses were built
aboutao cm above the level of the ground.Several
of thesestructureshadone ormoredouble-rowstone
walls thatmayhave supportedadobebricksas in the
ground-levelhouses (adobe fragmentswere recoveredattwo structures).
Thewallsof thesehousesalso
could have been wattle-and-daubconstruction.The
threelow-platformhouseswerethe only ones where
we recoveredfragmentsof burntdaub(Table1).We
did not observe any postholes on top of the platforms, but plowing could have obliterated such
traces.Only one low-platformhouse was found at
Capilco. Cuexcomatehad several houses built on
platforms,but the platformswere higherthanthose
atYautepecandprobablyrepresenteda differentkind
of structure(Smith 1992).
The royalpalace and the elite residencethatwe
excavatedaredescribedbrieflyabove.Theystandout
relativeto the ground-levelandlow-platformhouses
in overallsize, size of rooms, amountof lime plasteron floorsandwalls, andthe generalqualityof the
stone constructionmethodsandmaterials.
Socioeconomic Context
Comparisons
withOtherAztecHouses
Thenumberof documentedAztechousesis notlarge,
but a briefreview of the corpushelps put theYautepec houses in perspective.Writtenrecordscontain
three types of contemporarydescriptionsof Aztec
houses. First,some of the earlySpanishchroniclers
provide generalized accounts of housing. Friar
Bernardino de Sahagun (1950-1982, bk. 12:
269-275), for example,lists 23 kinds of commoner
houses. These include both adobe and wattle-anddaub structures. Flat pole-and-beam roofs and
peaked strawroots are both mentioned.Sahagun's
account suggests that, although most commoner
houseswere small,simplestructures,therewas considerablearchitecturalvariation.
Spanishregionaladministrativedocumentsprovide a secondtype of informationon housing.They
describe architecture in specific, named towns,
although they often were written several decades
afterthe Spanishconquestof 1521.Forexample,the
Relaciongeograficafrom Totolapan (from A.D.
1579), a town in MorelosnearYautepec,statesthat
"Thehouses arebuiltof adobebricks,coveredwith
147
strawroofs. Some haveflatroofs. [Inthis area]there
are constructionmaterials:stone, wood, sand; and
lime is brought in from Huaxtepec" (Acuna
198>1987, vol. 8:164; authors'translation).The
Relaciones geograficas from central Mexico
describesuch small adobehouses as the normfor a
large area south and west of the Basin of Mexico
including Morelos (see data presentationand discussion in Smith 1992:303-309).
Mapsanddescriptionsof housesfromearlycolonial lawsuitsareyet a thirdethnohistoricsourcefor
Aztec housing.Calnek(1974) has publishedseveral
examplesfrom Tenochtitlan(Mexico City), and he
is currentlyworkingon a largercorpusof such documents (EdwardCalnek,personalcommunication
1997). Most of the commonerhouses in Tenochtitlan were small structuresarrangedin walled compounds.Eachstructurehouseda nuclearfamilyor a
joint family, and the membersof compoundswere
often relatedthroughkinship(see also Cline 1986).
Most commoner houses at Yautepec,Cuexcomate, and Capilco were small, single-room structures. Comparisonswith Nahuatl-languagecensus
documentsfromMorelos(e.g., Cline 1993; Hinz et
al. 1983) indicatethatindividualhouses were home
to eithernuclearorjointfamilies(Smith1993).Many
of the houses at CuexcomateandCapilcowere part
of patio groupsin which each structurewould have
containeda separatehousehold(i.e., patiogroupsdid
not have functionallyspecializedstructuresused by
a single householdunit;see Smith 1992, 1993).
Aztec commonerhouses in the Basin of Mexico
outsideTenochtitlanweremuchlargerthanthe small
houses in Morelos and Tenochtitlan.The best-documented group, six houses excavated by Evans
(1988,1993) at Cihuatecpanin theTeotihuacanValley, averaged88 m2. Houses mapped by Blanton
(1972:18(}181, 257-267) at IxtapalucaViejo were
quite large,with "averageresidences"over 100 m2
in size, and many "largeresidences"over 300 m2.
Other Aztec houses in the Basin of Mexico are
describedin Charlton(1972), Otis Charltonet al.
(1993), andvariousarchaeologicalsurveyreports.
The ethnohistoric and archaeological data on
Aztec commonerhousessummarizedabovesuggest
threedistinctspatialzones.
(1) InMorelosandadjacentareasof centralMexico outside of the Basin of Mexico, houses were
small, single rooms with adobe or wattle-and-daub
construction.Plasterfloors were very rarein rural
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
-
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
148
fromAztec centralMexico; for preliminarydiscussions, see Evans (1988, 1991), Smith (1992:
187-218), andElson (1999).
HOUSESIZE
House Size and Wealth
MostMesoamericancitiesexhibitedsignificantvariationsin wealth,power,andstatusamongtheirinhabitants,andYautepecwas no exceptionto thispattern.
Using the size and qualityof residentialstructures
as measuresof wealthandpower(e.g.,Abrams1994;
Blanton1994), the size distributionofthe excavated
structurespoints to the existence of three ranked
social categoriesat Yautepec(Figure 13, Table 2).
Structure6 clearly standsout amongthe excavated
2
1
6
2
3
4
7
1
5
6
AtlanPhase
MolotlaPhase
houses in bothphases.Its areaof approximately425
m2 is an orderof magnitudelargerthanthat of the
Figure13. Graphof housesize at Yautepec.
otherhouses, with the exceptionof Structure5. Its
commonerhouses andmorefrequentin urbancom- size and the high qualityof its architecture(at least
monerhouses atYautepec.
in the middlestage) suggestthatStructure6 was an
(2) In the Basin of Mexico, houses were large, elite residence.By comparison,an elite residenceat
multiroomadobe structureswith plasterfloors.
the townsite of Cuexcomatein westernMoreloshad
(3) In the imperialcapitalTenochtitlan,houses an areaof 540 m2 (Smith 1992). Moreover,Strucwere small, like those in Morelos, probablyowing ture6 is the only one of the sevenstructureswe excato the effects of crowdingand limited land in the vatedwhose compassorientation(21 degreeseastof
island city. Comparedwith commonerhouses, far truenorth)correspondswiththatof theroyalpalace.
fewer palaces and otherelite residencesare known The Yautepecroyal palace (6,175 m2)is in turnan
u
;
Table 2. Sizes of Aztec Houses.
Site
Perioda
1. Nonelite houses
Yautepec
Yautepec
Yautepec, excluding str. 5
Cuexcomate
"
Capilco
"
Cihuatecpan
LPC-A
LPC-B
LPC-B
LPC-A
LPC-B
LPC-A
LPC-B
LPC
2
6
5
4
25
6
9
6
37.0
34.5
26.0
18.5
23.8
19.6
21.9
88.1
2. Elite house compounds
Yautepec, royal palace
Yautepec, Structure6
Cuexcomate, Group 6
Cuexcomate, Group 7b
Cihuatecpan,Structure6
LPC-B
LPC-A,B
LPC-A
LPC-B
LPC
1
1
1
5
1
6,175
425
536
39.5
363
LPC
1
444
Chiconautlapalace
No. of Houses MeanArea
StandardDeviation
Coefficient of Variation
29.7
23.0
11.0
2.0
7.6
4.1
5.0
29.2
.80
.67
.42
.11
.32
.21
.23
.33
-
-
17.7
.45
Sources:
Yautepec:Yautepec project notes; Cuexcomate and Capilco: Smith (1992); Cihuatecpan:Evans (1993); Chiconautoa:Elson
(1999).
Key to Period: LPC = Late Postclassic, A.D. 1350-1520; LPC-A = Late Postclassic A, A.D. 1300/1350-1440 (Atlan phase
at Yautepec, Early Cuauhnahuacphase at Cuexcomate and Capilco); LPC-B = Late Postclassic B, A.D. 1440-1520 (Molotla
phase at Yautepec, Late Cuauhnahuacphase at Cuexcomate and Capilco)
b Group7 at Cuexcomate was composed of five separatesmall platformhouses arrangedaroundtwo patios, unlike otherAztec
elite residences, which were single integratedconstructions.The total area of the five platforms of group 7 is 198 m2.
a
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
149
REPORTS
orderof magnitudelargerthanStructure6. This size
distributionsuggests to us the existence of a commonerclass plus at leasttwo gradesof elite atYautepec: the ruler and royal family who inhabitedthe
royalpalace,anda lowerelite groupwho wouldhave
inhabitedbuildingssuch as Structure6.
The social significance of the size variation
among the othersix excavatedstructuresis not yet
clear.Takenas a group,thesesix housesexhibitmore
variabilitythando the commonerhouses at the rural
sitesof Cuexcomate,Capilco,orCihuatecpan(Table
2). Among the six apparentlynonelite houses at
Yautepec,Structure5 (77 m2)is far largerthanthe
others.If Structure5 is removedfromconsideration,
theremainingfive structuresareall quitesmall.Their
meansize (26 m2)is not muchlargerthanthe means
at the ruralsites, althoughthey still exhibit more
variabilityin size thanthe ruralhouses. These data
suggestthattheremayhavebeengreaterwealthvariationwithinthe commonerclass atYautepecthanat
known Aztec ruralsites, a hypothesisthat will be
tested in the futurewith data on domestic artifact
assemblages.
Conclusions
The excavationsof residentialstructuresatYautepec
providenew dataon Aztec architecturefrom which
we makesome inferencesaboutthe natureof social
organizationatthisurbancenter.Thequantitative
patternsof house size andqualitysupportthe hypothesis of a strongdifferentiationbetween the elite and
commonerclasses, a featureof Aztec societyknown
from ethnohistoricsources. The architecturalevidencefortwo gradesof elite atYautepecalsofitsgeneral models of Aztec society (e.g., Smith
1996:153-161). Oursuggestionof wealthvariation
within the commonerclass, based upon the house
size data,movestheanalysisintoanareapoorlydocumentedin theethnohistoricrecord:theactivitiesand
socialconditionsoftheAztec commonerclass.Other
membersof the Yautepecprojectare pursuingthis
topic throughdistributionaland statisticalanalyses
of the artifactsrecoveredin associationwith these
houses.When completed,these studieswill expand
ourunderstanding
of life in ancientYautepecgreatly.
Even withoutthe artifactualdata,however,quantitative studies of residential architecturecan contributeimportantnew informationon Aztec society.
Ourbrief comparativediscussionof Aztec housing
patternsis only a start,andthereis a need for a com-
prehensive analysis of archaeological and documentarydataon Aztec houses. This articleinitiates
sucha taskby presentinga newbodyof urbanhouses
from a provincialAztec city.
Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the Instituto
Nacional de Antropologia e Historia for help and support
during this project. Permission was granted by the Consejo
de Arqueologia, Dr. Mari Carmen Serra Puche, president.
The Centro INAH Morelos, directed by Arqlga. Hortensiade
Vega Nova, provided help in numerous ways. In Yautepec,
we wish to thank the PatronatoPro-Restauraci6nde la Zona
Arqueol6gica de Yautepec, the landownerswho gave us permission to excavate, and the people of Yautepec.Funding for
the excavations was provided by the National Science
Foundation, the National Endowment for the Humanities,
and the University at Albany. Smith directs the Albany
Yautepec project. Heath-Smith and Montiel excavated most
of the houses described here, and they have been involved in
the continuing analyses of the project. Other members of the
1993 field crew included graduate students Ruth FaumanFichman, Susan Norris, and MargaretShiels, and undergraduate students Robert Austin, Nili Badanowski, Elizabeth
DiPippo, and Brian Tomaslewski. Figures 1 and 3 were produced by Montiel; Figures 5-8 and 10 by Ellen Cesarski;and
Figures 4 and 13 by Smith. We would like to thank Gary
Feinman, Susan Kepecs, and Linda Nicholas for their rapid,
efficient, and helpful processing and reviewing of this paper,
and we thank the reviewers for their helpful comments and
suggestions.
References Cited
Abrams,E. M.
1994 How theMayaBuiltThreir
World:EnergeticsandAncient
Architecture.Universityof TexasPress,Austin.
Acuna,R. (editor)
1984- 1987 Relacionesgeograficasdel siglo XVI.9 vols. UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mexico, Mexico City.
Berdan,F. F., and P. R. Anawalt(editors)
1992 ThreCodexMendoza.4 vols. Universityof California
Press,Berkeley.
Berdan,F.F.,R.E.Blanton,E.H.Boone,M.G.Hodge,M.E.
Smith,andE. Umberger
1996 Aztec ImperialStrategies.DumbartonOaks,Washington, D.C.
Blanton,R. E.
1972 PrehistoricSettlementPatterns
of theIxtapalapaRegion,
Mexico.OccasionalPapersin AnthropologyNo. 6. Department of Anthropology,PennsylvaniaStateUniversity,UniversityPark.
1994 HousesandHouseholds:AComparatlveStudy.
Plenum,
New York.
Brumfiel,E. M.
1996 FigurinesandtheAztec State:Testingthe Effectiveness
of Ideological Domination. In Gender and Archaeology,
edited by R. P. Wright,pp. 143-166. Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,Philadelphia.
Calnek,E.
1974 Conjuntourbanay modelo residencialen Tenochtitlan.
In Ensayossobre el desarllo urbanode Me'xico,editedby
W.Borah,pp.11-65. Secretariade Educaci6nPublica,Mexico City.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
150
LATINAMERICANANTIQUITY
Cascio (Montiel),L. M., T. S. Hare,andM. E. Smith
1995 ArchaeologicalSurveyof the YautepecValley,Morelos,
Mexico. Paperpresentedat the 60thAnnualMeetingof the
Society for AmericanArchaeology,Minneapolis.
Charlton,T. H.
1972 Post-ConquestDevelopments
in the TeotEhuacan
Valley,
Mexico:PartI, Excavations.Office of the StateArchaeologist, Iowa City.
Charlton,T. H., D. L. Nichols, andC. Otis Charlton
1991 Aztec Craft Productionand Specialization:Archaeological Evidence from the City-Stateof Otumba,Mexico.
WorldArchaeology23:98-114.
Cline, S. L.
1986 Colonial Culhuacan,1580-1600:A Social History of
an Aztec Town.University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
1993 TheBookof Tributes:EarlySixteenth-Century
Nahuatl
CensusesfromMorelos.UCLALatinAmericanCenter,Los
Angeles.
de VegaNova, H.
1996 Proyecto de investigacion arqueol6gicoen Yautepec,
Morelos.InMemoria,IIICongresoInternodel CentroINAH
Morelos, Acapantzingo,Cuernavaca,1994, pp. 149-168.
InstitutoNacionalde Antropologiae Historia,CentroINAH
Morelos,Cuernavaca,Morelos.
de VegaNova, H., andP. MayerGuala
1991 ProyectoYautepec.Boletindel ConsejodeArqueologia
1991:79-84.
Duran,FrayD.
1967 Historiade las Indiasde NuevaEspana.Translatedby
A. M. GaribayK. 2 vols. Porrua,Mexico City.
Elson, C.M.
1999 An Aztec Palace at Chiconautla,Mexico. LatinAmericanAntiquity10:151-167.
Evans,S. T.
1988 Excavations at Cihuateepan,an Aztec Village in the
TeotihuacanValley.Publicationsin AnthropologyNo. 36.
VanderbiltUniversity,Nashville.
1991 Architectureand Authorityin an Aztec Village: Form
andFunctionof the Tecpan.In Landand Politics in the Valley of Mexico, edited by H. R. Harvey,pp. 63-92. University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
1993 Aztec HouseholdOrganizationandVillageAdministration. In PrehispanicDomestic Unitsin WesternMesoamerica: Studiesof the Household,Compound,and Residence,
editedby R. S. SantleyandK. G. Hirth,pp. 173-189. CRC
Press,Boca Raton.
Hare,T. S.
1998 ChangingPolitical Boundariesin the Peripheryof the
Aztec Empire.Paperpresentedat the 63rdAnnualMeeting
of the Society forAmericanArchaeology,Seattle.
Hare,T. S., andM. E. Smith
1996 A New PostclassicChronologyforYautepec,Morelos.
AncientMesoamerica7:281-297.
Hinz, E., C. Hartau,andM. Heimann-Koenen
1983 AztekischerZensus: Zur IndianischenWirtschaftund
Gesellschaftim Marquesadoum 1540. Verlagfur Ethnologie, Hanover.
MaldonadoJimenez,D.
1990 Cuauhnahuacy Huaxtepec:Tlalhuicasy Xochimilcas
en el MorelosPrehispanico.CentroRegionalde InvestigacionesMultidisciplinarias,
UniversidadNacionalAutonoma
de Mexico, Cuernavaca.
Montiel,L.
1998 On the Borderof the TeotihuacanEmpire:Archaeological Investigationsin the YautepecValley.Paperpresented
[Vol. 10, No. 2, 1999]
at the 63rdAnnualMeeting,Society for AmericanArchaeology, Seattle.
Otis Charlton,C., T. H. Charlton,andD. L. Nichols
1993 Aztec Household-BasedCraftProduction:Archaeological EvidencefromtheCity-stateof Otumba,Mexico.InPrehispanicDomestic Units in WesternMesoamerica:Studies
of the Household,Compound,and Residence,editedby R.
S. Santleyand K. G. Hirth,pp. 147-171. CRC Press, Boca
Raton.
Rosas Sanchez,F.
1996 Excavacionde la unidad512 ProyectoYautepec.In
Memoria,III CongresoInternodel CentroINAHMorelos,
Acapantzingo,Cuernavaca,1994, pp. 169-180. Instituto
Nacional de Antropologiae Historia,CentroINAH Morelos, Cuernavaca,Morelos.
Sahagun,FrayB. de
195>1982 FlorentineCodex,GeneralHistoryof the Things
of New Spain. 12 books. Translatedand edited by A. J. O.
Andersonand C. E. Dibble. School of AmericanResearch,
SantaFe, andthe Universityof UtahPress, Salt Lake City.
Santley,R. S., and K. G. Hirth(editors)
1993 PrehispanicDomestic Units in WesternMesoamerica:
Studiesof the Household,Compound,and Residence.CRC
Press, Boca Raton.
Smith,M. E.
1992 ArchaeologicalResearchatAztec-PeriodRuralSites in
Morelos, Mexico. Volume1, Excavations and Architecture/Investigacionesarqueolo'gicasen sitios rurales de la
e'pocaazteca en morelos,tomo 1, excavacionesy arquitectura.Memoirsin LatinAmericanArchaeologyNo. 4. Universityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh.
1993 Houses and the SettlementHierarchyin Late Postclassic Morelos:A Comparisonof Archaeologyand Ethnohistory. In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western
Mesoamerica:Studies of the Household, Compound,and
Residence, edited by R. S. Santley and K. G. Hirth, pp.
191-206. CRC Press,Boca Raton.
1994 Economies and Polities in Aztec-PeriodMorelos:EthnohistoricIntroduction.In Economies and Polities in the
AztecRealm,editedby M. G. Hodge and M. E. Smith,pp.
313-348. Institutefor MesoamericanStudies,Albany.
1996 TheAztecs.Blackwell,Oxford.
1997 WorkingTogether:Archaeologyin the Middleof Political ConflictinYautepec,Mexico.SAABulletin15(4):12-14.
Society for AmericanArchaeology,Washington,D.C.
Smith,M. E., andF. F. Berdan
1992 ArchaeologyandtheAztec Empire.WorldArchaeology
23:353-367.
Smith,M. E., andC. Heath-Smith
1994 RuralEconomyin LatePostclassicMorelos:AnArchaeologicalStudy.InEconomiesandPolitiesin theAztecRealm,
editedby M. G. HodgeandM. E. Smith,pp.349-376. Institutefor MesoamericanStudies,Albany.
Smith,M. E., C. Heath-Smith,R. Kohler,J. Odess, S. Spanogle,
andT. Sullivan
1994 The Size of the Aztec City of Yautepec:UrbanSurvey
in CentralMexico.AncientMesoamerica5:1-11.
Smith,M. E., O. Sterpone,andC. Heath-Smith
1992 ModernAdobeHousesin Tetlama,Morelos.InArchaeological Researchat Aztec-PeriodRural Sites in Morelos,
Mexico,PartI: ExcavationsandArchitecture,editedby M.
E. Smith, pp. 405418. Monographsin Latin American
ArchaeologyNo. 4. Universityof Pittsburgh,Pittsburgh.
Received April 15, 1998; accepted May 20, 1998; revised
October 5, 1998.
This content downloaded from 129.252.86.83 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:32:07 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions