The Quality of Tribute Cloth: The Place of Evidence in Archaeological Argument

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.

Projectile points, people, and Plains Paleoindian perambulations

“…I argue here that they offer a particularly telling test, but others have not thought so. Brumfiel (1996) has pointed out that, given the complexity of most interesting archaeological questions and the generally imperfect links between these questions and the data we use to answer them, it is often reasonable to hold tightly to a hypothesis even when a limited test does not support it. However, the reconstruction of large Paleoindian ranges is inextricably linked to other, more broadly testable, arguments about Paleoindian ways of life: it is a big idea, but it is not a free-standing idea.…”

Prosperity, power, and change: Modeling maize at Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico

“…Brumfiel (2005d) documented an increase in small spindle whorls used to produce cotton cloth in Phase 4. Given that cotton cloth was one of the most prevalent tribute items for the Aztec empire (Berdan and Anawalt, 1992a;Brumfiel, 1996;Hicks, 1994b), intensified cotton cloth production at Xaltocan was probably due to tribute requirements, though residents may have also sold it in markets . Additionally, suggested that residents of Xaltocan had to provide periodic labor service for nobles in other sites, some of which likely involved obligations to cultivate tributary fields in more distant locations.…”

Archaeology at the Millennium

“…Senior, 1998). Similarly, Brumfiel (1996b) suggests that artisans might change their execution as a form of resistance to tribute demands. Third, but perhaps most fundamental, is resolution of just what constitutes a technological "style."…”

“…There have been far fewer studies of ceramic production tools and debris (but see Costin, 1986;Donnan, 1997;Hayashida, 1998;Hegmon et al, 1995;Shimada et al, 1998;, textile production (but see Brumfiel, 1996b;Costin, 1993;Smith and Hirth, 1988), metallurgy (Earle, 1994), and shell working (Arnold, 1987;Nicholas, 1993, 1995;Yerkes, 1991), and almost no study of debris from glassmaking (Francis, 1991:30). In the past decade, analytic approaches using tools and debris have become significantly more sophisticated, informed by studies of the use of space, technological reconstructions, waste disposal practices, site formation and abandonment processes, and taphonomic processes.…”