Michael E Smith - Aztec Urbanism

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN
Chapter14
Aztec U rba ni sm
Cities andTowns
Michael E.Smith
The huge Mexica capital Tenochtitlan (Rojas 2012)drew the attention and admiration of the Spanish conquerors and chroniclers, and today Tenochtitlan sometimes
seems synonymous with the concept of Aztec urbanism. Yet this hyperurbanized metropolis was an anomaly, the least-typical city in the entire Aztec Empire.
The Aztec landscape was divided politically into several hundred altepetl, or city-
states, and the modest capitals of these small polities were the predominant form of
Aztec city (Smith 2008). As in other city-state cultures throughout history (Hansen
2000), the capitals cannot be understood outside of their political and administrative context.
Most Aztec altepetl and their capitals were founded in the Early Aztec period
in the wake of the Aztlan migrations (Smith 2006). The forms and functions of
these cities synthesized two historical traditions:(a)millennia-old Mesoamerican
urban patterns and (b)innovations created by the Aztec kings and their architects.
Mesoamerican cities
from the Olmec period on
exhibit several fundamental principles of urban planning (Smith 2007). First, most cities had a standard
set of civic buildings:temple-pyramids, smaller shrines, ballcourts, and royal palaces. Second, these buildings were arranged carefully around formal rectangular
plazas. Third, most of the civic architecture was concentrated in an epicenter, and
large cities often had smaller, subsidiary ceremonial zones. And fourth, commoners and lower-ranking elites built their houses in neighborhoods around the epicenter without planning or direction from the king or central administration. In most
Mesoamerican cities, residential density was low (in comparison with Old World cities) because major areas were dedicated to cultivation as gardens or infields (Isendahl
and Smith2013).
OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 201
6/28/2016 4:28:31 PM
202Michael E.Smith
(a)
N
(b)
100
m.
figure14.1 Epicenters of the Toltec capital Tula and Coatetelco, an altepetl capital in Morelos.
A:modified from Mastache etal. (2002:92); B:map by Michael E.Smith.
When Aztec kings established their dynasties, they looked back to the kings of
Tula (Mastache etal. 2002)as their sacred ancestors and the source of legitimacy.
They even invented a whole mythology of the greatness of the Toltecs and the wealth
of Tula. It is hardly surprising, then, that some Aztec kings adopted the epicenter
layout of Tula as a template for laying out their own cities. Key elements include the
use of a single large public plaza with the largest pyramid on the eastern side, a royal
palace and ballcourt on other sides of the plaza (Smith 2006, 2008:ch. 3), and an
overall high level of symmetry and formality of layout (Smith, 2007:#10220). The city
of Coatetelco, in Morelos, was clearly modeled after Tula, although on a smaller scale
(Figure 14.1). Locations of the major cities discussed in this chapter are shown in
Figure14.2.
A Sample of AztecCities
Almost all of the capitals of altepetl at the time of the Spanish Conquest were founded
during the Middle Postclassic period. The founding of a city was an important ceremonial event that established both the legitimate dynasty of the rulers and the city
as an urban place (Smith 2006). The most powerful altepetl of the Middle Postclassic
period was Tenayuca. According to historical accounts, Tenayuca was founded by
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 202
4:28:31 PM
figure14.2 Map of the locations of the best-documented Aztec cities. Map by JulianaNovic.
figure14.3 The main pyramid of Tenayuca. Photograph by Michael E.Smith.
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 203
6/28/2016 4:28:32 PM
204Michael E.Smith
figure14.4 Circular temple at Huexotla. Photograph by Michael E.Smith.
the semi-legendary king Xolotl, the first of the Nahuatl kings and founder of the
Acolhua dynasty of Texcoco. Located just outside of Mexico City, its central pyramid was the focus of one of the first major excavations after the Mexican Revolution
(Anonymous 1935). This pyramid had two stairways, leading to two temples on top
(Figure14.3).
There is more information about cities in the Late Aztec period. Three cities that
survive today as government archaeological zones
Huexotla, Ixtapaluca, and
Calixtlahuacagive an idea of the nature of cities in Late Aztec times. Huexotla was an
important city affiliated with the Acolhua kingdom; the king of Huexotla was a subject
of Nezahualcoyotl and the other kings of Texcoco. More than 100years ago, Leopoldo
Batres excavated several buildings, including a platform with large rooms known today
as La Comunidad, and a circular temple dedicated to Ehecatl, the god of wind (Figure
14.4). In the 1970s, Elizabeth Brumfiel carried out an archaeological study of the social
and economic organization of the ancient city (Batres 1904; Brumfiel 1980; Garca
Garca1987).
Ixtapaluca was another altepetl whose king was subject to Texcoco. Part of the site
was excavated in the 1970s as a salvage project. Ahousing development, the Unidad
Deportiva y Residencial Campestre Acozac, was planned for the hilltop that contained the ruins of the ancient city. When the construction activities for this project
destroyed several ancient buildings, the work was stopped and excavations began. The
major structures were excavated and restored, and visitors can see them today (Figure
14.5). The large structure in the middle was probably a palace, but half of the building
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 204
4:28:32 PM
Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 205
figure14.5 Central plaza at Ixtapaluca, looking north from the main pyramid. Photograph by
Michael E.Smith.
was destroyed by construction activity before the work was stopped (Blanton 1972;
Brggemann1976).
Calixtlahuaca is an archaeological zone just north of the city of Toluca. Formerly
called Matlatzinco, the city was the capital of the Toluca Valley before its conquest by
the Mexica emperor Axayacatl in 1478. Jos Garca Payn first excavated at the site in the
1930s and restored the major buildings. The site contains the best-preserved examples
of an Aztec royal palace and a circular Ehecatl temple. More recent fieldwork at the site
(Smith etal. 2009; Smith etal. 2013)revealed an urban area of 2.642 km that covered the
sides of an extinct volcanic crater, Cerro Tenismo. The entire hillside was terraced, with
houses and agricultural plots on most terraces.
Urbanization
As the capitals of altepetl and as distinctive places on the landscape, Aztec cities were
of fundamental importance in Aztec society. Yet in his influential synthesis of early
Colonial Nahuatllanguage documents, James Lockhart (1992:19) downplayed the size
and importance of these cities, claiming that a dominant central city was not really
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 205
6/28/2016 4:28:32 PM
206Michael E.Smith
compatible with the principles of altepetl organization. The notion of a city separate
from the altepetl did not enter into the vocabulary in the form of any distinct word.
Lockhart (1993:1920) did not even accept the label city as appropriate for these settlements, which he saw as merely places where several calpolli intersected in a nonurban
settlement. Lockharts account contains serious errors and distortions, and because his
ideas have now entered the secondary literature (e.g., Hirth 2008), some comment is
calledfor.
Lockharts claim that Nahuatl lacked a distinct word for city was countered by
Pedro Carrasco (1999:1620), who discusses several such terms. The problem is that
the absence of terms for city in the particular (Colonial period) documents analyzed
by Lockhart was transformed into a claim for the lack of such a word in the Nahuatl
language. More serious, however, is Lockharts claim that altepetl centers were not distinctive places on the landscape. This claim is contradicted by three kinds of evidence.
First, altepetl capitals were much larger than other settlements. Second, they contained
distinctive monumental civic architecture not found in smaller settlements. Third, they
were the setting for urban functionsactivities and institutions that had a powerful
effect on hinterland communitiesand such urban functions were lacking in smaller
communities. Aforeign visitor would have had no difficulty at all in identifying the capital city of an altepetl.
The sources of Lockharts errors are not hard to find. First, although the altepetl continued functioning into the Colonial period, its status shrank from an independent polity to a local administrative unit. The altepetl in Lockharts documents was not a state
polity. It no longer sponsored warfare, and it no longer administered a state religion.
Its leader, still known as a tlatoani, was no longer a king; he was a low-level bureaucrat.
The urban functions of the altepetl capital were terminated. So while Lockhart was correct in claiming that altepetl centers were not important in a particular group of colonial period documents, his inferences cannot be applied to Aztec cities without serious
distortion. The second source of his errors is his failure to consider the archaeological
record.
In comparison with the hyper-urbanized Tenochtitlan, Aztec altepetl capitals were
considerably smaller (Table 14.1). The median city covered 209 hectares in area, with
a median population of 7,250. The median population density was 50 persons per
hectare (5,000 persons per square kilometer). But these capital cities were an order of
magnitude larger than other settlements within the altepetl. According to data assembled by Mary Hodge (1997) and otherspresented in Smith (2008:152)the median
size of the second-largest settlement in an altepetl of the Basin of Mexico was 7percent
of the size of the capital city. In other words, these cities were much larger than any
other settlement in their altepetl. The following sections document the distinctiveness
of altepetl capitals in their civic architecture and urban functions, demonstrating the
inadequacy of Lockharts view of these settlements. In one respect, however, Aztec
cities did resemble smaller settlements:commoner life was quite similar in rural and
urban settings.
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 206
4:28:32 PM

Table14.1Sizes of Aztec Cities inthe Late Aztec Period.
Area (ha.)
City
City
Population
Epicenter
No.
Density
State of Mexico
Amecameca
Calixtlahuaca
400
10,000
285
Cerro Tlaloc
25
Chalco
250
12,500
50
Chiautla
115
600
40
Chi malhuacan
260
12,000
45
85
2,500
35
Coatlinchan
210
11,000
25
Cuitlahuac
90
4,500
50
Culhuacan
65
4,400
70
300
17,100
57
Ixtapalapa
28
2,800
100
Ixtapaluca
90
15.0
1,400
16
Malinalco
Coatepec
Huexotla
Mixquic
45
2,300
50
Otumba
220
10,700
49
Sta. Cecelia Acatitlan
Tenayuca
Tepetlaoztoc
450
13,500
30
Texcoco
450
24,100
54
Tlalmanalco
80
4,000
50
Xaltocan
26
1,300
50
214
10,700
50
Xochimilco
Federal District
Azcapotzalco
Tlacopan
(continued)
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 207
6/28/2016 4:28:32 PM
208Michael E.Smith
Table14.1(Continued)
Area (ha.)
City
City
Tenochtitlan
Population
Epicenter
No.
1,350
16.9
Cholula (Puebla)
Zultepec (Tlaxcala)
8.0
Coatetelco (Morelos)
1.1
Coatlan (Morelos)
15
1.0
800
53
Cuexcomate (Morelos)
15
1.2
800
53
Teopanzolco (Morelos)
1.9
Tepozteco (Morelos)
Yautepec (Morelos)
209
15,100
72
209
1.9
7,250
50
Tlatelolco
212,500
Density
157
Other states
Median size
Note: Data from:Smith (2008).
Public Architecture
The monumental buildings in altepetl capitals were constructed of stone. Most temples
consisted of small rooms located on top of step pyramids. The rooms, which housed
images of the gods and other items of religious cult and ceremony, were reached by a
stairway on one side of the pyramid. The pyramids and platforms were filled with rough
stone rubble. The exteriors of buildings were covered with lime plaster, which was often
painted red. In this section Idescribe the major building types; this discussion is based
on Smith (2008:ch.4).
Pyramids withTwo Temples

The pyramid with two temples on top, each with its own stairway up the side of the
pyramid, was a popular style in the Early Aztec period; surviving examples include
Tenayuca (Figure 14.1), Santa Cecilia Acatitlan, and Teopanzolco. In the Late
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 208
4:28:32 PM

Aztec period, most pyramids had only a single temple (see later discussion). But
at Tenochtitlan, Tlatelolco, and Texcoco, this ancient style was revived, perhaps as a
deliberate reference to the great ancient city of Tenayuca. The best-known Aztec-
period temple is the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan, a pyramid with two temples. There
is considerable information, from both archaeology and ethnohistory, about the symbolism, rituals, and religious significance of the Templo Mayor (see Lpez Austin and
Lpez Lujn, this volume). The extent to which these interpretations can be applied to
other temples is unknown.
Pyramids witha SingleTemple

The rectangular pyramid with a single temple on top was the most common form at
Aztec-period cities (Figure14.1B). The largest temple in a city was usually dedicated
to the patron god of the altepetl. Excavations at a pyramid with a single temple at
Calixtlahuaca (structure 4)uncovered offerings of vessels with the face of Tlaloc, leading to the interpretation that this temple was dedicated to Tlaloc. But this is an exception
to the usual situation at capitals of altepetl, where the identity of the patron god is uncertain. These pyramids ranged in size from small to very large. Most cities had numerous
temples of this form in addition to their large, central temple, often serving as neighborhood temples (see Figure14.6).
figure 14.6Structure 1, a neighborhood temple at Calixtlahuaca. Photograph by Malle

Sergheraert, Calixtlahuaca Archaeological Project.
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 209
6/28/2016 4:28:32 PM
210Michael E.Smith
Circular Temples
Unlike the rectangular pyramids, which could be dedicated to a wide range of gods, circular pyramids (Figure 14.4) were always dedicated to Ehecatl, god of wind and avatar
of Quetzalcoatl (Pollock 1936). This association is known from numerous depictions in
the ritual codices and accounts in written sources. In a few cases, sculptures of Ehecatl
have been excavated as offerings in circular pyramids, as at temple 3 at Calixtlahuaca or
a small circular pyramid excavated in the metro in Mexico City; the latter structure is
visible to the public today in the Pino Surez metro station.
BallCourts
Ball courts were important features at all Aztec-period cities, and the pictorial codices
have many images of ballcourts at capitals of altepetl (Nicholson and Quiones Keber
1991). Only a few ballcourts have been excavated at Aztec-period sites, however. The
site of Coatetelco in Morelos (Figure14.1B) has the most completely excavated Aztec
ballcourt (Arana lvarez 1984), and part of a ballcourt under the Sacred Cathedral
in Mexico City was excavated by the Programa de Arqueologa Urbana (Matos
Moctezuma2001).
SmallAltars
Small platforms or altars were important features at Mesoamerican cities for many centuries. But in the Aztec period urban designers started building many small platforms in
prominent locations. These altars became one of the most distinctive features of urban
planning at cities in this period (Smith 2008:108113). The photograph of Ixtapaluca
(Figure 14.5) shows two of these features in the foreground. Although excavations of small
altars and ethnohistorical documents provide some clues about their use and significance,
they remain poorly understood. Some were bases for racks of skulls from sacrificial victims; others were shrines dedicated to themes of female fertility and curing associated
with the tzitzimime deities (Klein 2000); and others were altars for offerings to the god
Tezcatlipoca (Olivier 2003). For individual shrines, it is difficult to distinguish between
these or other possible uses. Nevertheless, the large number of these altars and their central locations in cities indicate that they were a crucial component of the urban townscape.
Palaces
Each altepetl capital had a royal palace. It was the residence of the tlatoani and his family; the center of government, where advisors and high nobles gathered for meetings; a
meeting place; and an economic facility where goods were stored and artisans produced
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 210
4:28:33 PM

fine objects for the tlatoani. There are a number of depictions of royal palaces in the
codices, and several have been excavated (see Evans, this volume). Although each example was unique in its size and form, all Aztec palaces shared key principles of design
(Evans 2004; Smith 2008:115119).
Palaces were built around an open courtyard with a single opening to the outside.
Opposite the opening was a platform that served as a shrine for offerings and ritual
activities. On the sides of the palaces were rooms built on low platforms. These rooms
included both residential facilities and important chambers for the tlatoani and his government. Nobles below the level of the tlatoani built palaces that were smaller than the
royal palace but with similar principles of design.
Other Public Buildings

Other public buildings in Aztec cities included schools and buildings where warriors
gathered. Two kinds of schools are described in written documents:the calmecac and
the telpochcalli (Calnek 1988). Houses where elite warriors gathered are described in
some written sources, and one examplethe Eagle Warriors Househas been excavated adjacent to the Templo Mayor of Tenochtitlan (Lpez Lujn2006).
Urban Functions
and Regional Context
The capitals of altepetl were urban centers where a variety of activities were concentrated. Activities and institutions that occur in cities but affect a larger part of the landscape are called urban functions. The major urban functions of these cities can be
described as political, religious, and economic.
The status of Aztec cities as capitals of altepetl is an example of a political urban function. The tlatoani (ruler) resided in the capital city, but his influence extended to the entire
altepetl. This political role was the most important urban function of these cities. The
royal palacethe center of political and administrative activitieswas usually the largest
building within an altepetl (largest in area, but not in height), highlighting the centrality of
theking.
The territorial organization of the altepetl followed principles very different from
those of modern nation-states. In the contemporary world, a polity or state is defined
by territory and borders. Membership is defined by location:people living within the
borders are citizens and those outside are not. The altepetl, however, was structured differently. Instead of having borders that were marked and defended, membership in the
altepetl was defined by personal relationships (Tomaszewski and Smith 2011). All people
who were subject to a tlatoani were members of his altepetl. Sometimes people subject to
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 211
6/28/2016 4:28:33 PM
212Michael E.Smith
a given tlatoani lived interspersed with those subject to a rival tlatoani (Gibson 1964:44
47). This principle shows the importance of the tlatoani in the organization of the altepetl. It also illustrates why the political function was the most important function of
these cities:the tlatoani lived in the capital, and the capital existed in order to support
and promote the reign of the tlatoani (Smith2008).
The tlatoque claimed supernatural support for their rule, and many of the sacrifices
and ceremonies at the citys central pyramid helped reinforce their power and legitimacy. As religious urban functions, rituals within the city affected the entire altepetl.
People from outside the city came into town to participate in ceremonies, and the offerings that priests made to the gods were done in the name of the entire altepetl. The link
between religion and politics in the altepetl was so strong that it is difficult today for us to
separate the two fields.
The capitals of altepetl were also centers of economic activity, but economic urban
functions were far more variable than the political and religious functions discussed earlier. All cities had a marketplace where goods from near and far could be purchased.
Most markets met once a week (the week was five days in the Aztec period), and the
larger cities had markets that met every day (Smith 2012:ch.5).
Archaeologists have found that there was much variation among cities in the
extent of craft production. At one end of the scale was Otumba, a craft center in the
Teotihuacan Valley with numerous workshops for the production of obsidian tools,
maguey textiles, ceramic objects, and other items (Nichols etal. 2000). At the other
end of the scale, Brumfiel (1980) found no evidence of craft production at Huexotla
other than the domestic production of textiles, a fundamental activity within all families. Other urban sites where craft production has been studied by archaeologists (e.g.,
Calixtlahuaca, Xaltocan, and Yautepec) have more workshops than Huexotla but fewer
than Otumba.
UrbanLife
Whereas the realms of public architecture and urban functions sharply distinguished
altepetl capitals from smaller settlements, the nature of urban life was remarkably similar in urban and rural contexts.
Urban Households
Excavations of houses have provided much new information about the lives of both
commoners and nobles in Aztec cities (see De Lucia, this volume). Two types of commoner house have been identified. In Tenochtitlan and other cities in the Basin of
Mexico, houses were complex structures with several rooms (Evans 1988; Alcntara
Gallegos 2004). In Morelos and the Toluca Valley, on the other hand, most commoner
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 212
4:28:33 PM

houses were small, one-room structures (Smith et al. 1989; Smith et al. 1999; Smith
etal.2013).
In Morelos, comparisons of urban and rural domestic contexts revealed many similarities (Smith 2012:chs. 3, 6). Commoner houses were identical in rural and urban settings; both areas had small, adobe-brick houses. The population densities were quite
similar (60 persons/ha in urban Yautepec and 50 persons/ha in the rural town of
Cuexcomate), suggesting the presence of cultivation within both rural and urban settlements (Isendahl and Smith 2013). While each region had its own suite of decorated
serving vessels, the assemblages of ceramic forms were identical in rural and urban settings. Rural and urban households had ready access to imported goods, from obsidian
to ceramic vessels to bronze objects (Nichols 2004). In Aztec central Mexico, rural and
urban life were not terribly different.
Neighborhoods
The calpolli was a group of commoners who lived near one another and shared some
basic economic and social characteristics, including service to a noble who owned the
land people farmed (see Smith and Hicks, this volume). In many cities, the calpolli operated as a neighborhood. The members lived in a cluster, spatially separated from the
residents of other neighborhoods. Each calpolli had a patron god, whose image was kept
in a temple that served the neighborhood (Figure 14.6). Most calpolli in cities also had
a telpochcalli (school) and a small market. In Tenochtitlan and Otumba, some calpolli
were specialized economically.
Popular Participation
While people probably spent most of their time in their own neighborhoods and fields,
a variety of events brought people from different neighborhoods together, often in the
central area of their city. Attending the market was the most common such event. Public
religious ceremonies were another opportunity for popular participation in the life of
the city. The 18monthly ceremonies typically lasted for several days and included many
different types of activity. Some of these, including processions and dances, were settings for widespread popular participation.
People also had obligations to the tlatoani and the altepetl that were organized on a
public basis. For example, most urban residents had to provide goods or labor service to
the palace. This was organized on a rotating basis; when it was a familys turn, its members went to the palace to run errands or do other tasks (Hicks 1984). Large public construction projectstemples, palaces, dams, and canals for irrigationwere organized
by a form of labor service known as coatequitl. Officials organized the workers in each
neighborhood into groups of 20 laborers, who had to work for a certain number of days
each year (Rojas Rabiela1979).
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 213
6/28/2016 4:28:33 PM
214Michael E.Smith
Aztec CitiesToday
Most altepetl capitals were transformed into colonial cities, leaving few remains for
archaeologists to study. Those cities whose ruins remain intact today as archaeological zones have a particularly important role. Sites such as Huexotla, Otumba, Xaltocan,
Calixtlahuaca, and others are places where archaeologists continue to learn about these
ancient cities that once dominated the landscape of central Mexico. These are also places
where the public can see ancient remains and learn first-hand about these ancient cities.
They contain tangible evidence of the history and heritage of both individual communities and the Mexican nation.
For these reasons, it is important to protect these places from further destruction.
Governments at all levelsnational, state, and municipalplay crucial roles in the
protection of archaeological zones. The members of local communities have perhaps
the most important role in protecting sites from illegal looting and destruction. These
archaeological sites are places where scholarship and heritage come together for the
benefit of both realms.
ReferencesCited
Alcntara Gallegos, Alejandro
2004 Los barrios de Tenochtitlan:Topografa, organizacin interna y tipologa de sus predios.
In Historia de la vida cotidiana en Mxico, Vol. I:Mesoamrica y los mbitos indgenas de la
Nueva Espaa, edited by Pablo Escalante Gonzalbo, pp. 167198. El Colegio de Mxico and
Fondo de Cultura Econmica, MexicoCity.
Anonymous
1935 Tenayuca:estudio arqueolgico de la pirmide de este lugar, hecho por el Departamento de
Monumentos de la Secretara de Educacin Pblica. Talleres Grficos del Museo Nacional de
Antropologa, Historia y Etnografa, MexicoCity.
Arana lvarez, Ral M.
1984 El juego de pelota en Coatetelco, Morelos. In Investigaciones recientes en el rea maya,
XVII Mesa Redonda, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa, Vol. 4, pp. 191204. Sociedad
Mexicana de Antropologa, MexicoCity.
Batres, Leopoldo
1904 Mis exploraciones en Huexotla, Texcoco y Montculo de El Gaviln. J. I. Guerro,
MexicoCity.
Blanton, Richard E.
1972 Prehistoric Settlement Patterns of the Ixtapalapa Region, Mexico. Occasional Papers
in Anthropology Vol. 6. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University,
UniversityPark.
Brggemann, Jrgen Kurt (editor)
1976 Estudios estratigrficos en el sitio arqueolgico de acozac, 1973, y estudios estratigrficos
en el ajusco, 1974. Departamento de Monumentos Prehispnicos, Serie Arqueologa Vol.
3.Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, MexicoCity.
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 214
4:28:33 PM

Brumfiel, Elizabeth M.
1980 Specialization, Market Exchange, and the Aztec State:AView From Huexotla. Current
Anthropology 21:459478.
Calnek, Edward E.
1988 The Calmecac and Telpochcalli in Pre-Conquest Tenochtitlan. In The Work of Bernardino
de Sahagn:Pioneer Ethnographer of Sixteenth-Century Aztec Mexico, edited by Jorge Klor de
Alva, H. B. Nicholson, and Eloise Quiones Keber, pp. 169177. Institute for Mesoamerican
Studies, Albany,NY.
Carrasco, Pedro
1999 The Tenochca Empire of Ancient Mexico:The Triple Alliance of Tenochtitlan, Tetzcoco, and
Tlacopan. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Evans, Susan T.
1988 Excavations at Cihuatecpan, an Aztec Village in the Teotihuacan Valley. Vanderbilt
University Publications in Anthropology Vol. 36. Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt
University, Nashville.
2004 Aztec Palaces and Other Elite Residential Architecture. In Palaces of the Ancient New
World, edited by Susan T. Evans and Joanne Pillsbury, pp. 758. Dumbarton Oaks Library
and Collection, Washington,DC.
Garca Garca, Mara Teresa
1987 Huexotla:un sitio del Acolhuacan. Coleccin Cientfica Vol. 165. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologa e Historia, MexicoCity.
Gibson, Charles
1964 The Aztecs Under Spanish Rule:AHistory of the Indians of the Valley of Mexico, 15191810.
Stanford University Press, Stanford,CA.
Hansen, Mogens Herman (editor)
2000 A Comparative Study of Thirty City-State Cultures. Royal Danish Academy of Sciences
and Letters, Copenhagen.
Hicks, Frederic
1984 Rotational Labor and Urban Development in Prehispanic Tetzcoco. In Explorations
in Ethnohistory:Indians of Central Mexico in the Sixteenth Century, edited by Herbert R.
Harvey and Hanns J. Prem, pp. 147174. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.
Hirth, Kenneth G.
2008 Incidental Urbanism:The Structure of the Prehispanic City in Central Mexico. In The
Ancient City: New Perspectives on Urbanism in the Old and New World, edited by Joyce
Marcus and Jeremy Sabloff, pp. 273298. SAR Press, Santa Fe,NM.
Hodge, Mary G.
1997 When Is a City-State? Archaeological Measures of Aztec City-States and Aztec City-State
Systems. In The Archaeology of City-States:Cross-Cultural Approaches, edited by Deborah L.
Nichols and Thomas H. Charlton, pp. 209228. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,DC.
Isendahl, Christian, and Michael E. Smith
2013 Sustainable Agrarian Urbanism:The Low-Density Cities of the Mayas and Aztecs. Cities
31:132143.
Klein, Cecelia F.
2000 The Devil and the Skirt:An Iconographic Inquiry into the Pre-Hispanic Nature of the
Tzitzimime. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:126.
Lockhart, James
1992 The Nahuas After the Conquest:ASocial and Cultural History of the Indians of Central
Mexico, Sixteenth Through Eighteenth Centuries. Stanford University Press, Stanford,CA.
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 215
6/28/2016 4:28:33 PM
216Michael E.Smith
Lpez Lujn, Leonardo
2006 La Casa de las guilas:Un ejemplo de arquitectura religiosa de Tenochtitlan. 2 vols. Fonda
de Cultura Econmica, Conaculta, and Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia,
MexicoCity.
Mastache, Alba Guadalupe, Robert H. Cobean, and Dan M. Healan
2002 Ancient Tollan:Tula and the Toltec Heartland. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Matos Moctezuma, Eduardo
2001 The Ballcourt in Tenochtitlan. In The Sport of Life and Death:The Mesoamerican Ballgame,
edited by E. Michael Whittington, pp. 8895. Thames & Hudson, NewYork.
Nichols, Deborah L.
2004 The Rural and Urban Landscapes of the Aztec State. In Mesoamerican Archaeology:Theory
and Practice, edited by Julia A. Hendon and Rosemary Joyce, pp. 265295. Blackwell, Oxford.
Nichols, Deborah L., Mary Jane McLaughlin, and Maura Benton
2000 Production Intensification and Regional Specialization:Maguey Fibers and Textiles in
the Aztec City-State of Otumba. Ancient Mesoamerica 11:267292.
Nicholson, H. B., and Eloise Quiones Keber
1991 Ballcourt Images in Central Mexican Native Traditional Pictorial Manuscripts. In
The Mesoamerican Ballgame: Papers Presented at the International Colloquium, The
Mesoamerican Ballgame, 2000 BCAD 2000, edited by Gerard W. van Bussell, Paul L.F. van
Dongen, and Ted J.J. Leyenaar, pp. 119133. Rijksmuseum voor Volkenkunde, Leiden.
Olivier, Guilhem
2003 Mockeries and Metamorphoses of an Aztec God:Tezcatlipoca, Lord of the Smoking Mirror.
Translated by Michel Bisson. University Press of Colorado, Boulder.
Pollock, Harry E.D.
1936 Round Structures of Aboriginal Middle America. Publications Vol. 471. Carnegie Institution
of Washington, Washington,DC.
Rojas, Jos Luis de
2012 Tenochtitlan:Capital of the Aztec Empire. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
Rojas Rabiela, Teresa
1979 La organizacin del trabajo para las obras pblicas:El coatequitl y las cuadrillas de trabajadores. In El trabajo y los trabajadores en la historia de Mxico, edited by Elsa Cecilia
Frost, Michel C. Meyer, and Josefina Zoraido Vzquez, pp. 4166. El Colegio de Mxico,
MexicoCity.
Smith, Michael E.
2006 La fundacin de los capitales de las ciudades-estado aztecas:La recreacin ideolgico
de Tollan. In Nuevas ciudades, nuevas patrias: Fundacin y relocalizacin de ciudades en
Mesoamrica y el Meditterneo antiguo, edited by Mara Josefa Iglesias Ponce de Len,
Rogelio Valencia Rivera, and Andrs Ciudad Ruiz, pp. 257290. Sociedad Espaola de
Estudios Mayas, Madrid.
2007 Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities:ANew Approach to Ancient Urban Planning.
Journal of Planning History 6(1):347.
2008 Aztec City-State Capitals. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.
2012 The Aztecs, 3rd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Smith, Michael E., P. Aguirre, C. Heath-Smith, K. Hirst, S. OMack, and T. J. Price
1989 Architectural Patterns at Three Aztec-Period Sites in Morelos, Mexico. Journal of Field
Archaeology 16:185203.
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 216
4:28:33 PM

Smith, Michael E., Aleksander Borejsza, Angela Huster, Charles D. Frederick, Isabel Rodrguez
Lpez, and Cynthia Heath-Smith
2013 Aztec-Period Houses and Terraces at Calixtlahuaca: The Changing Morphology of a
Mesoamerican Hilltop Urban Center. Journal of Field Archaeology 38(3):227243.
Smith, Michael E., Cynthia Heath-Smith, and Lisa Montiel
1999 Excavations of Aztec Urban Houses at Yautepec, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity
10:133150.
Smith, Michael E., Juliana Novic, Angela Huster, and Peter C. Kroefges
2009 Reconocimiento superficial y mapeo en Calixtlahuaca. Expresin Antropolgica 36:3955.
Tomaszewski, Brian M., and Michael E. Smith
2011 Politics, Territory, and Historical Change in Postclassic Matlatzinco (Toluca Valley, central Mexico). Journal of Historical Geography 37:2239.
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 217
6/28/2016 4:28:33 PM
6/28/2016
oxfordhb-9780199341962-ch11-20.indd 218
4:28:33 PM

Michael E Smith - Aztec Urbanism

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Michael E Smith - Aztec Urbanism

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

figure14.3 The main pyramid of Tenayuca. Photograph by Michael E.Smith.

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

figure14.4 Circular temple at Huexotla. Photograph by Michael E.Smith.

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 205

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 207

Sta. Cecelia Acatitlan

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Pyramids withTwo Temples

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 209

Pyramids witha SingleTemple

figure 14.6Structure 1, a neighborhood temple at Calixtlahuaca. Photograph by Malle

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 211

Other Public Buildings

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 213

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 215

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

Aztec Urbanism:Cities andTowns 217

OHB_575Wpp_US Template Standardized 25-05-2016 and Last Modified on 28-06-2016

OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF FIRSTPROOFS, Tue Jun 28 2016, NEWGEN

También podría gustarte