Charlton y Fournier 1973

8/13/2019 Charlton y Fournier 1973

1/20

hapter 2

Urban and Rural imensions ofthe ontact eriodCentral Mexico, 1521 1620

THOMAS H CHARLTON AND PATRICIA FOURNIER G

INTRODUCTION

The conquest and transformation of Mesoamerican civilizations during the Colonial and Republican periods provide one of the most dynamic and widespreadexamples of acculturation known to anthropology. Ethnologists, ethnohistorians,and historians have studied in some detail both the processes and the results ofthis acculturation e.g., Farriss 1984; Foster 1960; Gibson 1964, 1981; Hassig1985; lovell 1985; Macleod 1973). Archaeologists, despite statements aboutinterest in processes of culture change and cultural evolution e.g., Blanton et al1981; Sanders, Parsons, and Sandey 1979; Wolf 1976), with few exceptions e.g.,Gasco 1987), have either neglected or overSimplified the processes and the resultsof the postconquest changes. This is most unfortunate.

In Mesoamerica during the Colonial and Republican periods there is a cycleof culture change involving the devolution of indigenous civilizations, their reformulation within an acculturative context, and the subsequent evolution andelaboration of the resulting cultural syntheses. Historically well-documented pro-THOMAS H. CHARLTON Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa, Iowa. City, Iowa52242. PATRICIA FOURNIER G Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, InstitutoNacional de Antropologfa e Historia, Mexico, D F

2 1J. D. Rogers et al. (eds.), Ethnohistory and Archaeology

Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993


2/20

2 2 THOMAS H CHARLTON ND PATRICIA FOURNIER Gcesses of culture change, many frequently cited by archaeologists as significantfor an understanding of prehistori cultural dynamics, are associated with thiscycle. These include foreign conquest, the uprising of subject peoples, forcedacculturation in selective aspects of culture, the introduction of new crops, live-stock, and subsistence technologies, environmental changes that might best beclassified as ecological disasters, demographic depression and recovery, andforced settlement relocation. The precise ways in which the above mentionedprocesses affected cultural changes during the Colonial and Republican periods in

TolucaValley

MezqunalValley TULA

CUERN V C MorelosAreaTeotlhuacan Valley

Amatzlnac Tenango ValleyKm10 20

Puebla-TlaxcalaArea

Figure 1 The Basin of Mexico and adjacent areas of Central Mexico Adapted from Lorenzo1968:54).


3/20

CENTRAL MEXICO, 1521 1620 2 3different areas and at different times are, of course, still a matter of discussion.However, as a result of extensive archaeological research in Central Mexico, it isnow possible to delineate some general patterns associated with the Colonial andRepublican periods.In this chapter we examine, from the perspective of the archaeologicalevidence, the processes of culture change operative during the Early Colonialperiod 1521-1620). This period begins with the completion of the militaryconquest in 1521 and ends with the effective relocation of the depressed ruralpopulation in a few congreg cwn centers by 1620 Charlton 1986). We shallexamine archaeological data from two urban areas and two rural settings. All arewithin or adjacent to the Basin of Mexico Figure 1 .

URBAN SETTINGSArchaeological research conducted in Mexico City and Cuernavaca has

yielded important information on the Early Colonial period.

Mexico ityArchaeological data are available from numerous excavations conducted in

Mexico City by the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia INAH). Theseinclude, but are not limited to, salvage operations carried out during the Metroconstruction Arana A. and Cepeda C. 1967; Gussinyer 1969; L6pez Wario y D.1987; Lister and Lister 1974, 1975; L6pez Cervantes 1976), the stabilization ofthe Metropolitan Cathedral and the sagrario Lister and Lister 1982; Vega sosa1979), the excavation of the Templo Mayor Hernandez Pons 1982; L6pez Cervantes 1982; Noguera 1934), and the building of the Complejo Hidalgo ChairezA and Nicholson Martinez 1981; sodi 1988).Between 1976 and 1980 Roberto Garda Moll of INAH directed excavationsin the former Convent of San Jer6nimo. The convent was founded in 1585 withinthe southern limits of the original tr z defined by the Spaniards for Europeansettlement within Tenochtitlan. The archaeological project was designed primarily to provide data to aid in the architectural restoration of the nineteenthcentury neoclassic cloister and adjacent structures. However, all of the artifactsencountered during excavation were catalogued and intensively studied. Thecollection of more than 400,000 sherd and glass fragments dating from the EarlyColonial period to the twentieth century is probably one of the largest samplesfroto these periods ever studied in Latin America. The collection consisted oflocal products and those imported from Europe and the Far East Colin 1981;Corcuera 1981; Fournier G. 1981a,b, 1985a,b, 1990; Hernandez A 1980; sala1981a,b).


4/20

2 4 THOMAS H. CHARLTON ND PATRICIA FOURNIER G.Cuemavaca

In Cuernavaca archaeological studies have focused primarily on the Palaciode Cortes and the adjacent streets and Z6calo. Between 1970 and 1972 JorgeAngulo V. directed excavations within the Palacio de Cortes in connection withthe remodeling of the building. Subsequently in 1973 and 1974 he directedexcavations in the area directly in front of the building facing Z6calo J. Angulo V.and C. Angulo 1979). Later, in 1979 and 1980, Wanda Tommasi carried outexcavations in the streets and the Z6calo opposite the Palacio de Cortes. All of theexcavations were carried out under the auspices of the Centro Regional MorelosINAH. In 1985, along with Judith Hernandez A and Cynthia Otis Charlton, westudied the post-Conquest materials from the 1970 1972 and 1979 1980 excavations along with some of the same materials from the 1973 1974 excavations. Included were studies of local and imported ceramics Charlton1987a,b,c,d; Fournier G. 1987), glass Hernandez A 1987), figurines Otis Charlton 1987), and coins Charlton 1987e).

Urban ContextsIn Mexico City, in all the examples known to us, the materials come from

mixed deposits resulting from several cycles of construction, demolition, andrenovation. A similar situation occurs in the Palacio de Cortes and Z6calo excavations in Cuernavaca. Unfortunately these circumstances are common in urbansettings where rebuilding resulting from occupational continuity must be considered a fundamental formation process of the archaeological record. As a result, ithas been necessary to date and determine the place of origin of the archaeologicalmaterials through technological and stylistic attributes. The possibility of usingurban archaeological materials to develop or refine post-Conquest ceramic sequences is limited.

RURAL SETTINGSWe are using data from two rural areas, the Otumba region of the eastern

Teotihuacin Valley and the Mezquital Valley just north of the Basin of Mexico.

The Otumba RegionThis region includes the modem muni ipios of Otumba, Axapusco, andNopaltepec in their entireties and portions of the muni ipios of San Martin de las

Pinimides and Tepetlaoxtoc. Geographically the region forms the eastern end ofthe Teotihuacin Valley and is clearly bounded on the south and east by well-


5/20

CENTRAL MEXICO 1521 1620 205

defined sierras. To the north and northeast the watershed is less clearly markedand runs over low ridges connecting isolated extinct volcanoes. To the west thereare no topographic barriers. Elevations range from about 2,300 meters on theMiddle Valley alluvial plain to about 3,000 meters in the eastern mountains seeCharlton [1991a], Lorenzo [1968], and Sanders [1970] for detailed descriptions).

The region lacks permanent rivers and springs. All drainages are seasonal.Before the drilling of deep wells all cultivation depended upon the relatively lowand precarious annual rainfall in the region. The areas of highest agriculturalproduction combine deep soils and floodwater irrigation. The most extensivesuch zone is the Middle Valley alluvial plain. A smaller, but still extensive zone isthe Upper Valley alluvial plain. The area was heavily occupied during the -teenth century. Gibson 1964) included the region in his study of the Aztecs afterthe conquest.

Research into the archaeology and ethnohistory of the post-Conquest periodin the eastern Teotihuacin Valley began in 1966. Surface surveys were conductedand collections made during the summers of 1966-1968. In 1969 excavationssupplemented the survey data. The main objective of the fieldwork was to gatherabundant, well-controlled provenience and chronology) surface and excavateddata from sites for which there existed good documentary data. Information oncontemporary settlement patterns and ceramics was also recorded Charlton1972, 1975, 1986). The data include a continuous sequence of settlement patterns, ceramics, and artifacts from A D 900 to A D 1969. Surveys, surface collections, and excavations conducted from 1987 to 1989 within the Aztec city-stateof Otumba have provided additional data on the post-Conquest archaeology ofthe region Charlton 1988, 1991b; Otis Charlton 1990).The ezquital Valley

The Mezquital Valley is located north of the Basin of Mexico, at the southernmost extension of the Chihuahuan Desert. Thin soils and a scarcity of rain andsubsurface water have been major influences on the economic and social strategies of the cultures in the area. Native Otomi speakers have inhabited this andother areas of Central Mexico since the thirteenth century according to ethnohistorical sources Fournier G. and Perez Campa 1991). Studies of the ethnohistory of the area were carried out by Mendizabal 1947) and Quezada1976).

In 1985 the Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia ENAH) began along-term archaeological project in the Mezquital Valley. The main objective ofthe project is to define changes in the occupation of the region with reference toethnicity, lifeway patterns, and relationships with Central Mexican political andeconomic systems both before and after the Spanish Conquest L6pez Aguilar etal. 1985).


6/20

206 THOMAS H CHARLTON ND PATRICIA FOURNIER G

From 1985 to 1991 more than 350 sites and 130. surface concentrationswere located in the Itzmiquilpan-Actopan, Huichapan-Tecozautla, andTepetitlan-Chapantongo districts of the valley (L6pez Aguilar and Trinidad 1987;L6pez Aguilar et al 1988a; L6pez Aguilar and Fournier G 1989). Surface collections were taken from all sites, and excavations were carried out at several ofthese. The materials appear to consist mainly of late Prehispanic-Historical period ceramics of a local Otom{ tradition. Few Early Colonial-period Spanish-relatedceramics were recovered. Because the excavations discovered only eroded ndmixed deposits, the dating of the local ceramic tradition remains uncertain. Thepreliminary ceramic sequence proposed for the Mezquital Valley is based oncomparative typology. Except for Tula (Cobean 1978), a major Postclassic urbancenter, and Chingu (Diaz O 1980), a Teotihuacan-period settlement, ceramicbased chronologies are not currently available for this area.Rural Contexts

The contexts of archaeological materials from the rural areas usually consistof shallow, nonstratified deposits, of a Single period. Occasionally, some stratifiedcontexts occur. The mixing of occupations is usually not a problem except withincontinuously occupied larger towns or those areas highly favorable for humanoccupation.

ACCULTURATION: CONTENT AND CONTEXTModels

Models of Colonial-period acculturation in Mesoamerica have been basedprimarily on available historical and ethnographic data from there and from theIberian Peninsula. Few studies have examined the archaeological record. Nevertheless there are some important points of convergence between models derivedfrom historical and ethnographic data and those derived from archaeologicaldata.

Foster's comprehensive study of acculturation in Hispanic America (1960)formulated a model that emphasizes the reduction in complexity of the donorculture to form a conquest culture that then w s transmitted during contact(1960:10-20). This reduction in complexity and the subsequent transmission ofthe donor culture occurred within a very complex context. The contact situationvaried in terms of the social stratification systems and the urban and ruralcomponents of each culture. It also varied diachronically, from initial contact tocultural crystallization, the formation of well-integrated colonial cultures

(1960:232-234).


7/20

CENTRAL MEXICO 1521 1620In the very first years of the Conquest, acculturation must have been markedby much direct transmission from Spaniards to Indians all along this continuum, and from Spaniards t Spaniards. But as Spanish cities were foundedand native cities rebuilt, the picture changed. The native urban-elite authority structure was replaced by the Spanish equivalent so that, instead of acontinuum, both poles of which represented variants of a single culture,there now existed a continuum for which the authority pole w s Spanish.After this modified continuum was established, and after the initial culturallymixed mestizo populations came into being, the acculturation process tookthe familiar pattern of flow of influence downward and outward, from theurban-elite pole to lower classes and peasants. Spanish, hispanicized, andpartly hispanicized peoples all along this continuum therefore continued tobe exposed to new Spanish influences as they were passed along from cities,and these peoples in turn became a point of diffusion of the items theyaccepted, to other populations less influenced by Spain. (Foster 1960:228)

207

Foster deals with the complete sequence of acculturation, whereas we aretreating only the Early Colonial period. However with a few modifications, suchas the recognition of the differential impact of Hispanic culture on urban andrural areas during the Early Colonial period, his model parallels that which we areproposing here.

Our model, previously set forth in oudine form on the basis of archaeological data from the Otumba region and a few urban sites, suggests that thereis evidence of a delayed cultural impact on the Aztecs, outside of religious structures, in the rural areas and among the lower classes. In the urban centers andamong upper classes the situation was undoubtedly different. The impact on therural population did not corne until epidemics had reduced their numbers by90 and many of the survivors had been relocated in a few designated centers(Charlton 1979:31).

Recent advances in the urban historical archaeology of Mexico City andCuernavaca, along with the extension of historical archaeology to rural areas ofthe Mezquital Valley through the ENAH research project, provide new datarelevant to the clarification of the very complex culture contact situation described above.Archaeological Concepts and Methods

Archaeologists have, of course, dealt with situations of culture contact andculture change in the archaeological record. Papers edited by lathrap (1956)and Thompson (1956) present useful categories of types of culture contact andculture change that can be tested archaeologically. In our discussion of thesequence of Early Colonial-period culture contact and change we utilize conceptspresented in those papers.


8/20

2 8 THOMAS H CHARLTON AND PATRICIA FOURNIER G

THE EARLY COWNIAL PERIOD: 1521 1620In Central Mexico, the period begins with the Conquest and ends with therelocation of populations remaining after a devastating series of epidemics. Dur

ing this period the bulk of the Spanish conquerors and colonists lived in urbansettings such as Mexico City and Cuernavaca, usually in districts separated fromthe Indian inhabitants. In rural areas indigenous peoples continued to live inpreconquest communities but became subject to new religious, economic, andpolitical leaders. The indigenous elites were eliminated, displaced, or reduced inpower both in their local settings and within the region (see Charlton [1986: 124-1271 for details of these changes).

At the same time New Spain formed part of the Spanish Empire and becamelinked to a world trade network. This conformed to mercantile policy of the time.Trade to New Spain was run through a commercial monopoly held by Spain.Initially merchant ships crossed the Atlantic to cater to the constant and evergrowing demands of the Spanish settlers in the colonies (Cue O.novas 1980:92-93; Stein and Stein 1980:50). They provided, however, an irregular supply ogoods. The flow of goods was further restricted with the development of thesystem of the annual fleet to and from Spain after 1561 Bravo Urgarte1970:285-289; Cue Cinovas 1980:92-93; Haring 1979:251-252; Ots Capdequi 1976:39; Parry 1977: ll5 .Established in 1565, the route between the Philippines and Acapulco incorporated direct trade with China by 1576. After 1576, this regular trans-Pacifictrade was successfully established through the Manila Galleon or Nao de la hinasystem and transported Oriental luxury goods yearly (Almazan 1971: l l ; Alvarezde Abreu 1977:286; Arcilla Farias 1974:43).

However, the generally inefficient trade networks both limited the availability of imported goods and increased their costs. As a result, consumption trendswere affected in New Spain, and local substitutes were promoted. According tothe historical records, most goods imported for consumption in New Spaininvolved perishable items, in particular textiles (Diaz Trechuelo 1980: 141; Lerdode Tejada 1967). The archaeological record has preserved none of these. Thus weshall focus on those that are found, ceramics, with reference to production andconsumption patterns.

THE URBAN SETTING 1521 1620

The gradually accumulating archaeological data from Mexico City and Cuernavaca indicate that in both centers it is possible to define a situation of culturecontact involving both site-unit intrusion and trait-unit intrusion. A site-unit is asite or an occupation level in a site, which is sufficiently homogeneous to be


9/20

CENTRAL MEXICO, 1521-1620 209regarded as representing the culture of a single place at a single time (Lathrap1956:7). A trait-unit is an object modified or transported by human agency, astylistic or technological feature or complex, or a characteristic archaeologicalassociation (Lathrap 1956:8).The Spanish Presence

In Mexico City, the Spanish occupation is clearly represented within thecenter of the city (la traza as a site-unit intrusion. In Cuernavaca a similarsituation exists t the Palacio de Cortes. Both of these urban settings were centersfor Spanish settlement. That settlement is reflected in the destruction of indigenous religious and secular structures in the centers of Tenochtitlan-Tlatelolcoand Cuahnahuac and in the construction of abundant new religious and secularstructures with the numerous diagnostic artifacts that occur in them (Angulo Vand C. Angulo 1979; Charlton 1979, 1986; Charlton et al. 1987; Fournier G.1985a, 1990; Gussinyer 1969; Lister and Lister 1982; Lopez Cervantes 1982).Spanish Social nd Economic Patterns: Majolicas nd Porcelains

The artifacts that have been found include abundant ceramics. The ceramicsfound in post-Conquest contexts in Mexico City and Cuernavaca include unglazed and lead-glazed wheel-thrown vessels, most of which cannot be dated(Fournier G. 1990). Other intrusive ceramics include olive jars. Because Spanishcopper and iron cooking vessels were scarce in New Spain, Indian ceramics werealso frequently used (Goggin 1968; Gomez de Orozco 1983:34).

Excavations by Jiirgen K. Briiggemann in Villa Rica, Veracruz, have demonstrated that the first Spanish settlers mainly used tablewares brought from Europe. A similar situation may have prevailed in Mexico City and Cuernavacaduring the sixteenth century. In both Mexico City and Cuernavaca sixteenthcentury Spanish majolicas from Seville have been found. Italian majolicas occurin Mexico City but not in Cuernavaca (Charlton 1987a; Lister and Lister 1982).Undoubtedly both types of imports were quite expensive and were restricted tovery few settlers d. Moreno Toscano 1976:52-54).

By 1540, shortly after the conquest, a Mexico City industry had developedto provide the bulk of majolicas found there and in Cuernavaca during the EarlyColonial period (Charlton 1987a; Lister and Lister 1982). These wares includedboth fine grade and common grade vessels (Lister and Lister 1982). They provided inexpensive substitutes for the imported Sevillan and Italian majolicas.

With the establishment of trade with China, Chinese porcelains reachedNew Spain after 1576. Chinese ivory white Fukien, polychrome Wu t sai(traditionally five colors but usually trichrome), and blue-on-white Swatow andKraak porcelains, dating to the Wan-Li Ming period (1573-1619) were widely


10/20

210 THOM S H CH RLTON AND P TRICI FOURNIER G.consumed by the upper class in New Spain (Alvarez de Abreu 1977:187). Oriental porcelains dating to the late sixteenth century have been recovered in MexicoCity and Cuernavaca (Fournier G 1985a, 1987, 1990). These wares replacedimported majolicas as sumptuary wares for the upper classes. Majolicas wererelegated to the urban middle and lower classes (Obreg6n 1968:61; Toussaint1974:96)

The majolicas, imported and local, along with the porcelains mark thepresence of an intrusive culture in the urban settings of Mexico City and Cuernavaca during the Early Colonial period as clearly as the architectural destructionand replacement. The variable costs of these ceramics reflect the internal socialand economic diversity that developed within the intrusive Spanish populationduring the sixteenth century. They are also evidence that persons belonging tothe intrusive cultural tradition participated in both local and quite distant ceramicproduction spheres.The Indian Presence

Insofar as Indian residential areas were spatially separate from the area ofSpanish occupation, we suspect that initi l contact may be represented by traitunit intrusion. The most likely trait-units would be Spanish artifacts, includingceramics, within a predominantly indigenous cultural context. To the best of ourknowledge, however, no such urban context has yet been found or studied,. dueno doubt, to the generally mixed urban archaeological deposits.After initial contact and the spread of such trait-units, there is evidence for aflorescence within the Aztec ceramic tradition. This florescence represents aninitial retention of some aspects of cultural identity with marked stimulation ofthe resident culture (Lathrap 1956:23). In this case, the result of the stimulationwas the development of Aztec IV Black-on-Orange ceramics within the stylisticcanons of pre-Conquest ceramics (Charlton 1986) and the development of fine,polished redwares such as those made in Cuauhtitlan in 1566 for the dinnercelebrating the baptism of Martin Cortes's twins (Benitez 1953:221; Juan Suarezde Peralta, Noticias e la Nueva Espafia cited in G6mez de Orozco 1983:31).

The presence, in Mexico City, of lead glazing on tripod molcajetes and otherprehispanic forms, such as jars with indigenous deSigns, reflects such stimulationand technological fusion as does the presence of a slipped and glazed waredecorated with prehispanic naturalistic elements (Lister and Lister 1982:34-37,96). Although glazing technology spread to indigenous ceramics, another aspectof ceramic technology, wheel throwing, did not (Charlton 1976). Foster(1959:112-113) has noted the reluctance of contemporary rural potters to usethe wheel. It is possible that Indian potters made use of it only to manufacturevessels needed in specific production settings such as sugar mills and mines cf.Barret 1977:132). We suspect that design and form changes in Black-on-Red


11/20

CENTR L MEXICO, 1521 1620 2wares in Cuernavaca mark a similar development in the Tlahuica culture (Charlton 1987d). The urban indigenous elite in Mexico City and other urban centerssuch as Texcoco probably participated in these aspects of material culture to agreater extent than did Indians of lower social and political standing (Charlton979:28 29 .

Later developments in ceramics in the urban contact situation are marked byfusion with dominance of the intruded trait-unit in the aspect of culture in

volved (Lathrap 1956:8). In Mexico City, indigenous ceramic forms and designsbecome less variable and complex. Undecorated glazed earthenwares and unglazed Colonial Plain Orange ceramics become the dominant types. The indigenous ceramic tradition became less complex and converged with a Hispanicceramic tradition that was also less complex and variable than that in the IberianPeninsula (Foster 1960; Thompson 1956:42-45). We suspect, but cannot demonstrate, that a similar pattern occurred in Cuemavaca. The urban indigenouselite participated less in this reduced and simplified tradition than did the otherIndians and retained access to Spanish ceramics and to some of the few remainingelaborated Indian wares.Summary

The archaeological data from the first 100 years after the Conquest suggestthat the impact of the intrusive Hispanic culture on indigenous culture in anurban setting was marked by (1) the intrusion of Spanish site-units and traitunits; (2) the stimulation and elaboration of indigenous elements, with somefusion; and (3) the reduction, for most Indians, in the cultural tradition to createa colonial culture, a cultural crystallization in Foster's terms (1960:232-234).1There is some evidence to indicate that these changes affected elite and noneliteIndians differentially. Just as urban Spanish colonial society was marked bystriking social and economic differences so was the urban Indian society.

THE RURAL SETTING: 1521 1620The archaeological data from the Otumba region of the Teotihuacan Valley

and the Mezquital Valley differ from those in the urban contexts of Cuernavacaand Mexico City for the same period. Although we suspect that there was somelocal differentiation between smaller urban centers, such as Otumba and Tula,and their rural dependencies, we lack the archaeological data to determine thelIn a study of maps ofIndian origin, Gruzinski (1987) has documented a siIililar sequence of culturalretention, florescence, disintegration, and crystallization in Central Mexico during the sixteenth andseventeenth centuries.


12/20

212 THOM S H. CH RLTON ND P TRICI FOURNIER G.degree to which it existed. Thus we shall draw our comparisons only between therural areas and the larger cities of Cuernavaca and Mexico City.The Spanish Presence

The Spanish presence in rural areas is definitely marked by a site-unitintrusion during the Early Colonial period. The most widely spread site-unit inboth the Otumba region and the Mezquital Valley is the church, convento andcemetery complex. In the Mezquital Valley less elaborated structures such ascapillas or visitas also occur. These site-units occur either as ruins or as churchesthat still function after numerous remodelings (Mondrag6n et al. 1991). Anothercomplex, the estancia occurs in the Mezquital Valley and m y occur in theOtumba region (Charlton 1979, 1986). Because the Mezquital Valley unlike theOtumba region, was the focus of Spanish controlled mining systems to extractmetals through the exploitation of the Otomf Indian labor force (Mendizabal1947), mines and reales are additional site units present there ut absent from theOtumba area. Extremely limited amounts of Spanish artifacts occur in associationwith the site-units mentioned (Charlton 1979, 1986). In both regions, the intrusive religious site-units replace the indigenous temple complexes.Spanish Social and Economic Patterns: Ceramics

Unlike the urban centers, very few Spanish artifacts dating to the EarlyColonial period are found in association with the religious site-units and theestancias. In the Mezquital Valley Mexico City majolicas and lead-glazed wareswere associated with the estancias and the visitas. The ceramic complex is formedmainly of local Indian ceramics used to transport fresh agave sap, to ferment it,and to store the pulque produced (L6pez Aguilar et al. 1988a). In the Otumbaregion, limited Early Colonial majolicas occur at the possible estancia sites. At thechurch complexes, there are only a few fragments of majolica, glazed earthenwares, glass, and metal artifacts. We are speaking of 1 to 2 examples of each ofthese in an artifact complex that is predominantly Indian in origin.

The small amounts of intrusive ceramics and other artifacts suggest that theSpaniards who were present in the Mezquital Valley and the Otumba region wererelatively impoverished or few in numbers and depended heavily upon Indianmanufactured pottery and other artifacts. From the documents we know that thepermanent Spanish presence in rural areas during the Early Colonial period wasrestricted to necessary religious and governmental officials and to encomenderosand estancia holders.There is a striking contrast in social and economic status between the urbanand rural Spaniards of the Early Colonial period. Although this could be explained by religiOUS rules of the various orders of monks who carried out the


13/20

CENTRAL MEXICO 1521 1620 213conversion program, no one could claim that the encomenderos and holders ofest nci s had taken vows of poverty. We suspect that in those cases the actualholders of the encomiend s and est nci s did not live on their holdings but wereabsent most of the time. They relied upon a few individuals who were less well-offsocioeconomically to administer their holdings.The ndian Presence

In both areas Indian communities continued t be occupied during the EarlyColonial period. In these communities, initial contact is marked by site-unitintrusions of the types previously described and by low frequency trait-unitintrusions, both at the intrusive site-units and in the indigenous communities. Inthe Otumba region, the intrusive trait-units include majolicas, glazed earthenwares, metal tools, coins, and glass in association with indigenous structures andceramics. These trait-units were adopted without modification and without fu-sion of the introduced trait unit with the corresponding elements in the receivingculture (I..athrap 1956:8).

Associated with the intrusive trait-units in the Otumba region, there is someevidence for the stimulation and elaboration of aspects of Aztec ceramics. In therural area, this involves the presence of Aztec IV Black-on-Orange ceramics andsome modifications in Black-on-Red forms and designs under the influence ofSpanish ceramics. We have described these changes for the urban settings examined. In the Otumba region, unlike the urban settings, these changes appear tohave involved only minimal introduction of lead-glazing technology to indigenous forms and the modification of indigenous Red Ware ceramics t incorporatehigh polish and Hispanic designs at this time. Indigenous wheel-thrown potterydoes not occur. In the Mezquital Valley a less elaborated development of Aztecwares includes Aztec IV Black-on-Orange ceramics made with local clays anddecorated with designs peculiar t the area, along with a local tradition of redwares with typical Aztec forms but with unpolished and unburnished surfaces.The subsequent reduction in complexity of the indigenous ceramic complex, noted as a third stage in this process in urban areas, was barely underway inthe Otumba region by the end of the Early Colonial period. The degree of fusionand convergence with the Hispanic ceramic tradition found in urban areas priorto 1620 did not occur in the rural areas until the middle seventeenth century.Summary

In the 100 years after the conquest the impact of Hispanic culture onindigenous cultures in the rural areas was much less obvious than in the urbansettings. Although not as heavily affected during the Early Colonial period, therural areas were marked by the same sequence as the urban areas. These include


14/20

2 4 THOM S H CH RLTON ND P TRICI FOURNIER G

the intrusion of 0 Spanish site-units and trait-units, 2) the stimulation andelaboration of indigenous cultural elements, and (3) the reduction, for mostIndians, of the cultural tradition to create a colonial culture, a cultural crystallization in Foster's terms 0960:232-234 .

In the rural areas, the first two occurrences wee much more limited in theirimpact, and the third was barely underway by 1620. Substantial archaeologicalevidence of contact, acculturation, and fusion is lacking in rural areas. Althoughdirect evidence of differential access to Hispanic goods by the rural elite atOtumba has not been noted for the Early Colonial period, there is some evidencethat suggests that differential treatment did occur. Aztec IV-style Black-on-Orangeceramics, a development of the Early Colonial period, occur in the core of thecity-state center in significantly lower frequencies than in the periphery. Thismight well be the result of the movement of the elite of Otumba to the newcolonial town founded north of the Aztec town prior to or just as Aztec IV Blackon-Orange ceramics appeared in this region (Charlton and Nichols 1987).

SUMMARY ND CONCLUSIONSThe archaeological data we have reviewed support an elaborated version of

Foster's (1960) model of acculturative processes during the Early Colonial period.In Central Mexico, it is quite evident that the sequence of acculturation followedthe same stages in both urban and rural areas. However, the major archaeologically demonstrated impact is found earlier and stronger in the urban centersand is only weakly reflected in rural sites.

Interaction between Spaniards and Indians in the cities was more intenseand more complicated than in the rural areas. In the rural areas, interaction wasprimarily with religious, governmental, and encomiend personnel. Although significant changes occurred in indigenous society in rural areas, the archaeologicalrecord indicates that intensity and complexity of contact was much less than thatin the urban settings. The processes of contact and change operated in bothsettings. However, they were differentially effective, depending on the social andeconomic status of both Spaniards and Indians, and on the urban or rural settingsof their contact. Rural and lower-class Indians were affected later and less thanurban and elite Indians. This should not be too surprising because Frank (1979)has documented the intent of the conquerors to create a dual economy thatwould leave the economic and social organization of the conquered peoples asundisturbed as possible (1979:5).

This pattern of an urban-rural, elite-commoner dichotomy in the archaeologically demonstrated effects of conquest and acculturation during the EarlyColonial period is probably applicable to most regions of Central Mexico whereSpaniards either occupied indigenous cities or established new cities. We expect,


15/20

CENTRAL MEXICO, 1521 1620 215for example, that when comparable studies are carried out in other urban ruralunits, such as the Texcoco region, and expanded to rural areas around citiesalready studied, such as Cuernavaca, data confirming the general applicability ofthis model will be found.

PIWGUDuring the Early Colonial period, the indigenous population underwent a

massive demographic depression, as a result of epidemics of European diseases.This contributed to the devolution or reduction in indigenous rural culture during the Middle Colonial period 1621-1720). It also brought about increasedcontact with middle- and lower-class Spaniards. These ran the developing r nchosand h ciend s for absentee landlords. Some owned or rented r nchos for their ownuse. Variable numbers of Spaniards also moved into Indian communities. In therural areas, the Indian elite aspired to sumptuary goods that the now-residentSpaniards used. These included Mexican-produced majolicas, polished redwares, glazed earthenwares, and a few pieces of porcelain and glass. The rest ofthe indigenous rural population used an extremely impoverished ceramic complex that was comprised, for the most part, of undecorated glazed and unglazedearthenwares. By this time, however, the pattern proposed by Foster 1960:228)of a continuum of influence from an urban-elite pole to lower classes and indigenous people, both urban and rural, was fully operative.cKNOWLEDGMENTS

The archaeological data on which this chapter is based are derived fromnumerous investigators and their projects. Of particular importance was theProyecto Arqueol6gico Ex-Convento de San Jer6nimo carried out under the auspices of the Direcci6n de Monumentos Hist6ricos-INAH and directed by RobertoGarcia Moll. Fernando A. Miranda of the Departamento de Salvamento-INAHprovided pertinent information about materials recovered in rescue operations inMexico City. Materials from the Palacio de Cortes in Cuernavaca were graciouslymade available by Jorge Angulo v. the late Wanda Tommasi, and NorbertoGonzalez c. the director of the Centro Regional Morelos- INAH. Our colleagues,Judith Hernandez A. and Cynthia L. Otis Charlton, helped in the analyses ofthose materials and prOvided us with numerous suggestions about their interpretation. Judith Hernandez A. then of the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos-INAH, provided relevant information about the excavations directedby Jiirgen K. Brtiggemann in Villa Rica Veracruz. Cynthia L. Otis Charlton andMarcia Bakry prepared the map.

The Proyecto Arqueol6gico Valle del Mezquital ENAH-INAH) is directed


16/20

2 6 THOM S H CH RLTON ND P TRICI FOURNIER G

by Fernando L6pez A. T. H. Charlton s research in the Otumba area has beensupported by the Canada Council through a Short Term Research Grant (1966),the Associated Colleges of the Midwest through a Non-Western Studies FacultyResearch Fellowship (1967), the University of Iowa through three Old GoldSummer Faculty Research Fellowships (1968, 1970, 1985), a Research Assignment (1975) and two Developmental AsSignments (1982, 1989), the NationalScience Foundation through Grants GS 2080 (1968-1972), BNS-871-9665(1988-1990), to Thomas H. Charlton as principal investigator, and GrantBNS-971-8140 (1988-1990) to Deborah L. Nichols as principal investigator, andthe National Endowment for the Humanities through three Research Grants,RO-21447-75-138 (1975-1977), RO-20173-81-2231 (1981-1983), andRO-22268-91 (1992-1993). The Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos andthe Consejo de Arqueologia of INAH provided the necessary permits for theresearch.

The junior author, Patricia Fournier G. is a professor at the Escuela Nacionalde Antropologia e Historia-INAH. She prepared her portion of the chapter whilea Fulbright-lASPAU scholar at the University of Arizona.

REFERENCESAbbreviations used in references:

ENAH-Escuela National de Antropologia e HistoriaIMCE-Instituto Mexicano Comercio ExteriorINAH-Instituto Nacional de Antropologfa e HistoriaSEP-Secretaria de Educaci6n PublicaUNAM-Universidad Nacional Auton6ma de Mexico

Almazan, M. A 1971, EI Gale6n de Manila, Artes de Mtxico 143:4 19.Alvarez de Abreu, A 1977, Extracto Historical del Comercio Entre Filipinas y Nueva Espana Volume 1,

IMCE Mexico, D.F.Angulo v. j. and Angulo, C 1979, Una VisiOn del Museo de Cuauhnahuac Palacio de Cortes SEPINAH, Mexico, D.F.

Arana A R. M. and Cepeda C G., 1967, Rescate Arqueol6gico en la Ciudad de Mexico, INAHBoletln 30:3-9 Mexico, D.E

Arcilla Farias, E., 1974, RefoTmas Econ6micas del Siglo XVIII en Nueva Espaiia Volume 1 SEP Mexico,D.F.

Barrett, w. 1977, La Hacienda Azucarera de los Marqueses del Valle Siglo Veintiuno, Mexico, D.F.Benitez, E 1953, La Vida Criolla en el Siglo XVI El Colegio de Mexico, Mexico, D.F.Blanton, R. E., Kowalewski, S. A. Feinman, G., and Appel, j. 1981, Ancient Mesoamerica Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.Bravo Urgarte, j. 1970, Historia de Mtxico Volume 2, Editorial Jus, Mexico, D.EChairez A. A. D., and Martinez, K. N., 1981, Algunas Consideraciones Hist6ricas en la Ciudad de Mtxico

a Partir de las Excavaciones Arqueol6gicas en los Terrenos del Complejo Hidalgo Paper presented atthe 14th Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, New Orleans.


17/20

CENTRAL MEXICO 1521 1620 2 7Charlton, T. H., 1972, Post-Conquest Developments in the Teotihuacin Valley, Mexico, Part 1,

Excavations, Office of the State Archaeologist Report 5, Iowa City.Charlton, T. H., 1975, Archaeology and History, 1519-1969: The Emerging Picture in theTeotihuacin Valley, Mexico. Actas del xu Congreso Intemacional de Americanistas 1:219 229.Charlton, T. H., 1976, Contemporary Mexican Ceramics: A View from the Past, Man n.s.), 11:217-

252.Charlton, T. H., 1979, Historical Archaeology in the Valley of Mexico, Proceedings of the XUI Intema-

tional Congress of Americanists 8:21 33.Charlton, T. H., 1986, Socioeconomic Dimensions of Urban-Rural Relations in the Colonial Period

Basin of Mexico, in: Ethnohistory Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians Volume4 (R. Spores, ed.), University of Texas Press, Austin, pp. 123-133.

Charlton, T. H., 1987a, Loza May6lica, in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6rico EIPalacio de Cortes Cuernavaca Morelos (T. H. Charlton, P. Fournier G.,]. Hernandez A., and C LOtis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH,Mexico, D.F., pp. 110-178.

Charlton, T. H., 1987b, La Ceramica Rojo Colonial en el Palacio de Cortes, in: Estudios de MaterialesArqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6rico EI Palacio de Cortes Cuemavaca Morelos (T. H. Charlton, P.Fournier G. ]. Hernandez A., and C L. Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo deArqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de laDirecci6n de Arqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 179-18l.

Charlton, T. H., 1987c, La Ceramica TonaJa Bruiiida en el Palacio de Cortes, in: Estudios de MaterialesArqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6rico EI Palacio de Cortes Cuemavaca Morelos (T. H. Charlton, P.Fournier G. ]. Hernandez A., and C L. Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo deArqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de laDirecci6n de Arqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 182-185.

Charlton, T. H. 1987d, La Ceramica Rojo Colonial en el Palacio de Cortes Tradici6n Local deCuernavaca), in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6rico I Palacio de CortesCuemavaca Morelos (T. H. Charlton, P. Fournier G.,]. Hernandez A., and C L. Otis Charlton),Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F.,pp. 185-196.

Charlton, T. H., 1987e, Las Monedas, in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6rico IPalacio de Cortes Cuemavaca Morelos (T. H. Charlton, P. Fournier G.,]. Hernandez A., and C L.Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH,Mexico, D.F., pp. 331-335.Charlton, T. H., 1988, Reconocimientos de Superficie del Sitio de TA-80 Otumba Informe Tecnico Final,submitted to the Consejo de ArqueoIogia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos,INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F.

Charlton, T. H., 1991a, Land Tenure and Agricultural Production in the Otumba Region, 1785-1803in: Land and Politics in the Valley of Mexico A Two Thousand Year Perspective (H. R. Harvey, ed.),University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, pp. 223-263.

Charlton, T. H., 1991b, Ceramica de Superficie, TA-80, Muestreo de 1 , Ocupaciones Post-Azteca, in:Informe con Resultados Preliminares del Analisis de los Datos Arqueol6gicos del Estado Azteca deOtumba Parte 3 (T. H. Charlton et aI.), Research Report No.5 Mesoamerican Research Colloquium, Department of Anthropology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, pp. 67-69.

Charlton, T. H., and Nichols, D. L., 1987, Late Post-Classic and Colonial Period Elites at Otumba Mexico:The Archaeological DimenSions Paper presented at the 86th Annual Meeting of the AmericanAnthropological Association, Chicago.


18/20

IB THOM S H CH RLTON AND P TRICI FOURNIER G

Charlton, T. H., Fournier G., P., Hernandez A., J., and Otis Charlton, C. L., 1987, Estudios deMateriales Arqueo16gicos del Perfodo Hist6rico El Palacio de Cortes Cuernavaca Morelos Informesubmitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia and the Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos,INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologfa del INAH, Mexico, D.F.

Cobean, R. H., 1978, The Pre-Aztec Ceramics of Tula Hidalgo Mexico unpublished Ph.D. dissertation,Harvard University, Cambridge.

Colin, B., 1981, Caldlogo de Ceramica Vidriada Ex-Convento de Sanjer6nimo Ms. on file, Direcci6n deMonumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.E

Corcuera, M. S., 1981, Caldlogo de Mayolica Ex-Convento de Sanjer6nimo Ms. on file, Direcci6n deMonumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.E

Cue anovas A., 1980, Historia Social y Econ6mica de Mexico Editorial Trillas, Mexico, D.F.Diaz 0. C. L., 1980, Chingu: Un Sitio CIasico del Area de Tula, Hgo., Colecci6n Cieritffica 90, INAH,

Mexico, D.F.Diaz Trechuelo, Ma. de Lourdes, 1980, Relaciones en Oriente en la Edad Modema, Veinte Alios deComercio entre Filipinas y China, in: La ExpansiOn Hispanoamericana en Asia Siglos XVI y XVII CE

de la Torre Villar, compiler), Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, Mexico, D. E pp. 134-148.Farriss, N. M., 1984, Maya Society under Colonial Rule, Princeton University Press, Princeton.Foster, G. M., 1959, The Potter s Wheel: An Analysis of Idea and Anifact in Invention, Southwestern

journal of Anthropology 15:99-119.Foster, G. M., 1960, Culture and Conquest, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology 27, New York.Fournier G., P., 1981a, Caldlogo de Ceramica Oriental Ex-Convento de San jer6nimo Ms. on file,

Direcci6n de Monumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.F.Fournier G., P., 1981b, Caldlogo de Ceramica Europea Ex-Convento de San jeronimo Ms. on file,

Direcci6n de Monumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.F.Fournier G., P., 1985a, Evidencias Arqueol6gicas de la ImportaciOn de Ceramica en Mexico con Base en losMateriales del Ex-Convento de San jer6nimo Unpublished Licenciatura Thesis, ENAH, Mexico,

D.EFournier G., P., 1985b, Arqueologia Hist6rica en la Ciudad de Mexico, BoleUn de Antropologta Ameri

cana 11:27-31.Fournier G., P., 1987, Lozas Importadas y Mexicanas, in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueologicos del

Periodo Hist6rico El Palacio de Cortes Cuernavaca Morelos T. H Charlton, P. Fournier G., JHernandez A., and C. L. Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia andthe Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n deArqueologfa del INAH, Mexico, D.E, pp. 43-109.

Fournier G., P., 1990, Evidencias Arqueol6gicas de la Importaci6n de Ceramica en Mexico con Base enlos Materiales del Ex-Convento de San Jer6nimo, Colecci6n Cientifica 213, INAH, Mexico, D.E

Fournier G., P., and M. Perez Campa, 1991, Fuentes e Indicadores Hist6ricos acerca de los Otomies Ms.submitted for publication, INAH, Mexico, D.E

Frank, A. G., 1979, Mexican Agriculture 1521-1630: Transformation of the Mode of ProductionCambridge University Press and Editions de la Maison des Sciences de I Homme, Cambridge andParis.

Gasco, J L., 1987, Cacao and the Economic Integration ofNative Society in colonial Soconusco New SpainPh.D. disserration, University of California, Santa Barbara, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.

Gibson, c. 1964, The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Indians of the Valley ofMexico, 1519-1810 Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Gibson, c. 1981, Heritage of Conquest: New Spain/Mexico, in: Latin America Today: Heritage ofConquest D. C. Hazen, T. H. Holloway, and D. M. Jones, eds.), Latin American Studies Programand New York State Latin Americanists, Ithaca, pp. ~ 2 7 .

Goggin, J M., 1968, Spanish Majolica in the New World, Types of the Sixteenth to EighteenthCenturies, Yale University Publications in Anthropology 72, New Haven.


19/20

CENTR L MEXICO 1521 1620 2 9

G6mez de Orozco, F., 1983, EI Mobiliario y la Decoraci6n en la Nueva Espana en el Siglo XVI, UNAM,Mexico, D.F.

Gruzinski, S., 1987, Colonial Indian Maps in Sixteenth-Century Mexico, Res 13:46 61.Gussinyer,]., 1969, El Salvamento Arqueol6gico en las Excavaciones del Metro en la Ciudad deMexico, Boletfn Bibliografico de Antropologfa Americana 32:89 96.

Haring, C 1979, Comerico y Navegaci6n entre Espana y las Indias Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica,Mexico, D.F.

Hassig, R. 1985, Trade Tribute and Transportation University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.Hernandez A., j. 1980, Cawlogo de Vidrio Ex-Convento de San Jer6nimo Ms. on file, Direcci6n de

Monumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.F.Hernandez A., j. 1987, Vidrio en el Palacio de Cortes, in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueol6gicos del

Perfodo Hist6rico EI Palacio de Cortes Cuemavaca Morelos T. H. Charlton, P. Fournier G., j.Hernandez A., and C l Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia andthe Direcci6n de Monumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n deArqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 241-330.

Hernandez Pons, E. C 1982, Excavaciones en el Ex-Convento de Sta. Teresa La Antigua, in: EI TemploMayor: Excavaciones y Estudios E. M. Moctezuma, ed.), INAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 283-292.

Lathrap, D. W. (ed.), 1956, An Archaeological Classification of Culture Contact Situations, in: Seminars in Archaeology: 1955 (R. Wauchope, ed.), Society for American Archaeology Memoir :30.

Lerdo de Tejada, M., 1967, Comercio Exterior en Mexico Desde la Conquista Hasta Hoy, Banco Nacionalde Comercio Exterior, SA, Departamento de Publicaciones, Mexico.

Lister, F. C and Lister, R. H., 1974, Majolica in Colonial Spanish America, Historical Archaeology8:17-52.

Lister, F. C and Lister, R. H., 1975, Non-Indian Ceramics from the Mexico City Subway, EI Palacio81 2):25-48.

Lister, F. C and Lister, R. H., 1982, Sixteenth Century Majolica Pottery in the Valley of Mexico,Anthropological Papers of the University of Arizona 39.

LOpez Aguilar, F., Mercado, N., and Trinidad, M. A., 1985, Proyecto Valle del Mezquital Ms. on file,Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH, Mexico, D.F.

L6pez Aguilar, F., and Trinidad, M. A., 1987, Informe e la Primera Temporada del Proyecto Valle deMezquital Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia c Iel INAH, Mexico.

L6pez Aguilar, F., Fournier G., P., and Paz, C 1988a, Contextos Arqueol6gicos y Contextos Mo-mento: El Caso de la Alfareria Otomi del Valle de Mezquital, Boletfn de Antropologla Americana17:99-131.

LOpez Aguilar, F., Fournier G., P., Trinidad, M. A., and Paz, C 1988b, Informe de la SegundaTemporada de Trabajo de Campo: 1988 Proyecto Valle de Mezquital Ms. on file, Archivo de laDirecci6n de Arqueologfa del INAH, Mexico, D.F.

LOpez AgUilar, F. and Fournier G., P., 1989, Informe de la Tercera Temporada de Trabajo de Campo:1989 Proyecto Valle de Mezquital Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia del INAH,Mexico, D.F.

LOpez Cervantes, G., 1976, Ceramica Colonial de la Ciudad de Mexico, ColecciOn Cientijica Ar-queologfa 38, INAH, Mexico, D.F.

L6pez Cervantes, G., 1982, Informe Preliminar Sobre los Materiales Colonial.es, in: El Templo Mayor:Excavaciones y Estudios (E. Matos Moctezuma, ed.), INAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 255-282.

L6pez Wario yD., l A., 1987, El Hospital de San Lazaro, Investigaciones en Salvamento Arquo16gico2:71-93. (Cuaderno de Trabajo 6), INAH, Mexico, D.F.

Lorenzo, j. l (ed.), 1968, Materiales Para la Arqueologfa de Teotihuacan, Serie Investigaciones 17INAH, Mexico, D.F.


20/20

22 THOM S H CH RLTON ND P TRICI FOURNIER G

Lovell, W. G., 1985, Conquest and Survival in Colonial Guatemala: A Historical Geography oj theCuchumaUin Highlands 1500-1821 McGill-Queen s University Press, Kingston and Montreal.

Macleod, M.]., 1973, Spanish Central America: A Socioeconomic History 1520-1720 University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.Mendizabal, M. O. de, 1947, Evoluci6n Econ6mica y Social del Valle de Mezquital, in: Obras Com

pletas Talleres Graficos de la Naci6n, Mexico, D.F., Torno 6:7-258.Mondrag6n, L., Noguera, N., and Fournier G., P., 1991, Cultura Material de los Hniihnii de Santa Maria

del Pino Hidalgo: La Arquitectura Religiosa Paper presented at the XXII Mesa Redonda of theSociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, Chiapas, Mexico.

Moreno Toscano, A., 1976, El Siglo de la Conquista, in: Historia General de Mixico Volume 2, ElColegio de Mexico, Mexico, D.F., pp. 1-8l.

Noguera, E., 1934, Estudio de la Ceramica Encontrada Donde Estaba El Templo Mayor de Mexico,Anales del Museo Nacional de Arqueologia y Etnologia 5a. Epoca, Torno 1:267-282, Mexico, D.F.

Obreg6n, G., 1968, La Mesa Mexicana, in: Artes de Mexico 107 1):60-63, Mexico, D.F.Otis Charlton, C L., 1987, Las Figurillas, in: Estudios de Materiales Arqueol6gicos del Periodo Hist6ricoEl Palacio de Cortes Cuernavaca Morelos T. H. Charlton, P. Fournier G.,]. Hernandez A., and CL. Otis Charlton), Informe submitted to the Consejo de Arqueologia and the Direcci6n deMonumentos Prehispanicos, INAH, Ms. on file, Archivo de la Direcci6n de Arqueologia delINAH, Mexico, D.F., pp. 197-240.

Otis Charlton, C L., 1990, Operation 4, Field 39, Figurine Workshop Zone, in: Preliminary Report onRecent Research in the Otumba City-State, Part 1 T. H Charlton and D. L. Nichols, eds.),University oj Iowa Mesoamerican Research Colloquium Research Report 3, Volume 1, Iowa City, pp.115-122.

Ots Capdequi,]. M., 1976, El Estado Espanol en las Indias Fondo de Cultura Econ6mica, Mexico, D.F.Parry,]. M., 1977, The Spanish Seaborne Empire Hutchinson, London.Quezada, N., 1976, El Valle del Mezquital en el Siglo XVI, Anales de Antropologia 13:185-197.Sala, M., 1981a, CaUilogo de Cerdmica del Contacto Ex-Convento de Sanjer6nimo Ms. on file, Direcci6n

de Monumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.F.Sala, M., 1981b, CaUilogo de Cerdmica Alisada Ex-Convento de Sanjer6nimo Ms. on file, Direcci6n de

Monumentos Hist6ricos del INAH, Mexico, D.F.Sanders, W. T., 1970, The Geography of the Valley of Teotihuacan, in: The Natural Environment,

Contemporary Occupation and 16th Century Population of the Valley, The Teotihuacan ValleyProject, Final Report Volume 1 CW T Sanders, A. Kovar, T H. Charlton, and R. Diehl),Pennsylvania State University Occasional Papers in Anthropology 3, University Park, pp. 69-101.

Sanders, W. T., Parsons,]. R., and Santley, R. S., 1979, The Basin ojMexico Academic Press, New York.Sodi, M. F. A. C A., 1988, La Cerdmica Novohispana Vidriada y con Decoraci6n Sellada del Siglo XVI,Unpublished Licenciatura Thesis, ENAH, Mexico, D.F.Stein, S., and Stein, B., 1980, La Herencia Colonial de America Latina Siglo Veintiuno, Mexico, D.F.Thompson, R. H. ed.), 1956, An Archaeological Approach to the Study of Cultural Stability, in:

Seminars in Archaeology: 1955 R. Wauchope, ed.), Society jor American Archaeology Memoir1l:31-57.

Toussaint, M., 1974, Arte Colonial en Mexico UNAM, Mexico, D.F.Vega Sosa, C Coordinator), 1979, El Recinto Sagrado de Mixico-Tenochtitldn Excavaciones 1968-69 y

1975-76, SEP-INAH, Mexico, D.F.Wolf, E. R. ed.), 1976, The Valley oj Mexico University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Documents

Charlton y Fournier 1973