No abstract

This article was presented as the third annual Distinguished Lecture in Archeology at the 90th annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November 22, 1991, in Chicago, Illinois.

Archaeologists working in the Basin of Mexico have long accepted a chronology in which sequential ceramic phases (Metepec, Coyotlatelco, Mazapan, Aztec I, and Aztec II) define the period between the last stages of Classic Teotihuacan and the immediate antecedents of Late Postclassic Tenochtitlan. The absolute chronology of these phases has remained tentative, and there have been hints of possible temporal overlap between some of them. A series of 37 new radiocarbon dates from three deep, stratified sites in the Basin of Mexico suggest (1) that the traditional sequence of phases is essentially valid; (2) that both Coyotlatelco and Aztec I may have begun significantly earlier than traditionally believed; (3) that there may have been partial chronological overlap between Late Coyotlatelco and Early Aztec I in some parts of the basin; (4) that there was probably little significant temporal overlap between Aztec I and Aztec II; and (5) that the ethnohistorically recognized sociopolitical complexity of the long era in question is amply reflected in a regional ceramic sequence that still requires considerable refinement in both time and space.

No abstract

No abstract

This paper continues the discussion of objectivity, subjectivity, and the place of evidence in archaeological argument begun by Wylie (1992a), Little (1994), and Fotiadis (1994). First, it describes my expectations concerning Indian women’s resistance to tribute cloth extraction in Aztec and colonial Mexico. Then, it explains how I tested my expectations against several bodies of archaeological data. Finally, it analyzes how I did and did not alter my initial beliefs in the face of a gap between the expected and the actual data. This study supports earlier conclusions by Trigger (1989) and Wylie (1992b) that data are somewhat independent of the archaeologists who collect them and that data have some impact on the larger edifice of assumptions that archaeologists bring to their research.

No abstract

In this article, I compare backstrap‐loom weaving in three cultural contexts: the ancient Maya, the ancient Aztecs, and 20th‐century Mesoamerica. Although continuities are present, important differences exist in the ways that weaving was situated historically. Among the Classic Maya, weaving defined class; in Aztec Mexico, weaving defined gender; and in 20th‐century Mesoamerica, weaving defined ethnicity. A comparison of these cases suggests that historical study is a useful tool for both archaeologists and ethnographers. It promotes recognition of the diversity of practice and belief in ancient societies. It helps to define the scope of contemporary ethnographic study. It combats cultural essentialism and injects agency into our accounts. It enables us to acknowledge both the rich heritage of indigenous peoples and the fact of culture change. Comparative historical study provides a strong rationale for the continued association of archaeology and cultural anthropology as parts of a wider anthropological whole.