Table Of ContentMUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
TECHNICAL REPORTS
Number 11
RESEARCH REPORTS IN ARCHAEOLOGY
Contribution 6
PREHISTORIC SOCIAL, POLITICAL, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
IN THE AREA OF THE TEHUACAN VALLEY
SOME RESULTS OF THE PALO BLANCO PROJECT
Edited by
Robert D. Drennan
With Contributions by
John R. Alden
Elsa M. Redmond
Judith E. Smith
and
Charles S. Spencer
Spanish Text Translated by
Veronica Kennedy
ANN ARBOR
1979
© 197R9e geonftT sh Uen iverosfMi itcyh igan
ThMeu seoufAm n thropology
Alrli ghrtess erved
Prniteidnt he
UnitSetda toefAs m erica
ISBN 978-0-p9a3p2e2r0)6-82-4 (
ISBN 9517583-81--396-1 (ebook)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES. . . . iv
LIST OF TABLES . . . . vi
1. INTRODUCTION
by Robert D. Drennan
1
INTRODUCCION . . . 8
2. IRRIGATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND SOCIETY IN FORMATIVE TEHUACAN
by Charles S. Spencer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
IRRIGACION, ADMINISTRACION, Y SOCIEDAD EN EL FORMATIVO DE
TEHUACAN, SUMARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3. A TERMINAL FORMATIVE CERAMIC WORKSHOP IN THE TEHUACAN VALLEY
by Elsa M. Redmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
UN TALLER DE CERAMICA DEL FORMATIVO TERMINAL EN EL VALLE DE
TEHUACAN, SUMARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4. SYSTEMATIC SURFACE SURVEY AT QUACHILCO (Ts218)
by John R. Alden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
RECONOCIMIENTO DE SUPERFICIE SISTEMATICO EN QUACHILCO, SUMARIO 155
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
5. EXCAVATIONS AT CUAYUCATEPEC (Ts281): A PRELIMINARY REPORT
by Robert D. Drennan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
EXCAVACIONES EN CUAYUCATEPEC (Ts281): INFORME PRELIMINAR,
SUMARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
6. FORMATIVE AND CLASSIC DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CUICATLAN CANADA: A
PRELIMINARY REPORT
by Charles S. Spencer and Elsa M. Redmond . . . . . . 201
DESARROLLO FORMATIVO Y CLASICO EN LA CANADA DE CUICATLAN:
INFORME PRELIMINAR, SUMARIO . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
7. CARBONIZED BOTANICAL REMAINS FROM QUACHILCO, CUAYUCATEPEC,
AND LA COYOTERA: A PRELIMINARY REPORT
by Judith E. Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
RESTOS BOTANICOS CARBONIZADOS PROVENIENTES DE QUACHILCO,
CUAYUCATEPEC, Y LA COYOTERA: INFORME PRELIMINAR, SUMARIO 247
REFERENCES CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
iii
LIST OF FIGURES
1.1 Ceramic chronology for the Tehuacan Valley ...... . 2
1.2 Map of the Tehuacan Valley showing archeological sites
mentioned in the text and the Lencho Diego survey area. 4-5
2. 1 Plan of the Purr6n Dam complex ............ . 20
2.2 Elevation and cross section views of the Purr6n Dam .. 21
2.3 Early Santa Mar1a settlement in the Arroyo Lencho Diego 23
2.4 Site map of Ts449 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.5 Middle Santa Marfa settlement in the Arroyo Lencho Diego. 29
2.6 Site map of Ts452 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
2.7 Site map of Ts450 and Ts67 .............. . 32
2.8 Late Santa Mar1a settlement in the Arroyo Lencho Diego. 34
2.9 Site map of Tsl31 . . . . . . ... . 35
2.10 Site map of Ts451 . • . . • . ..... . 37
2.11 Early Palo Blanco settlement in the Arroyo Lencho Diego 39
2. 12 Site map of Ts73. 40-41
2.13 S i te rna p of Ts 7 9a . . . . . . 43
2.14 Site map of Ts79b .... . 44
2.15 Site map of Ts79c .... . 46
2.16 Histogram of mound at Ts73/79 51
hei~hts
2.17 Proposed administrative hierarchy at Ts73/79 •. 52
2.18 Estimated population and predicted carrying capacity.
for 950 years of development in the Arroyo Lencho Diego 64
3. 1 Plans of ceramic workshop features .. 112
3.2 Lumps of fired c 1a y . . . . . . . 114
3.3 Angular fracture patterns on misfired jar rims
and bowl rims . . . . . . . 116
3.4 Spalled surfaces ......... . 116
3.5 Mineral inclusions ........ . 117
3.6 Bubbled surface and porous surfaces 118
3.7 Porous core and pocketed cores. . . . 118
3.8 Deformed sherds . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.9 Sherd with a hard-burned loam cover . . . . . . . . . . 120
4. 1 Contour map of the central area of Quachilco, showing the
locations of the surface collection squares . 131
4.2 A typical lot card, showing the data collected in the
field during the surface survey. . . . . . . . . . 132
4.3 The procedure followed in recording data from the
surface collections . . . . . . . . ....... . 133
4.4 Sherd counts and weights for the north-south transect
samples . . . . . . . . . . . ......... . 134
4.5 Sherd counts and weights for the east-west transect
samples ................... . 134
4.6 Approximate boundaries of the site and its core area
as defined by the transect samples ...... . 136
4.7 Sherd density across the Late Santa Mar1a/Early Palo
Blanco occupation at Quachilco. . . . .... 140
iv
LIST OF FIGURES
4.8 Sherd density across the Late Palo Blanco occupation
at Quachilco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.9 Sherd density across the Venta Salada occupation at
Quachilco . . . . . ............... . 142
4.10 Histograms of diagnostic sherd count in each collection
square. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
4.11 Histogram of weights of fist-sized or larger stones
from the collection squares ........ . 145
4.12 Scatter plot of rim sherd counts and weights .. 146
4.13 Scatter plot of obsidian counts and weights . 149
5. 1 View of Cuayucatepec from southeast .... 172
5.2 Map of Cuayucatepec . . . . . . 174
5.3 View to the west across Sector I to the Valle de
Cinco Se~ores . . . . . . ... 176
5.4 Plan and section of Area A excavations. 177
5.5 Plan and section of Area B excavations. 178-179
5.6 Plan and section of Area F excavations. 181
5.7 Plan and section of Area E excavations. 183
5.8 Plan and section of Area H excavations. 184
5.9 Plan and section of Area G excavations. 186-187
5.10 Plan and section of Area C excavations. 191
5.11 Plan and section of Area D excavations ..... . 192
6. 1 Location of the Cuicatl~n Ca~ada between Tehuac&n
and Oaxaca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202
6.2 Map of the Cuicatlan Canada ......... . 203
6.3 Correspondence of ceramic phases in the Valley of Oaxaca,
the Cuicatl&n Canada, and the TehuacJn Valley .. 206
6.4 Aerial photograph of the excavated Perdido phase
residential compound at La Coyotera .. 209
7.1 Partial chile pepper seed from Quachilco. 221
7.2 Avocado seeds from Quachi 1c o. . . . 222
7.3 Black zapote seeds from Quachilco .. 224
7.4 Beans from Cuayucatepec ... 231
7.5 Coyol palm endocarps from Lomas phase midden at
La Co yo tera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
7.6 Ciruela from Lomas phase midden at La Coyotera. 242
7.7 Seed fragments of unidentified fruit from Lomas phase
midden at La Coyotera . . . . . . . ..... 244
v
LIST OF TABLES
2. 1 Site sizes and population estimates for The Arroyo
Lencho Diego. . . . . . . . . . . . ... 26
2.2 Artifact distributions at Ts449 (Early Santa Marfa Phase) 27
2.3 Artifact distributions for Middle and Late Santa
Ma r1~a s1' te s ) . . . ................. . 30
2.4 Distribution of mounded residences and obsidian blades
at Ts452. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 33
2.5 Distribution of obsidian in Late Santa Marfa sites. . 38
2.6 Residential areas of Ts73/79 (Early Palo Blanco Phase). . 42
2.7 Artifact distributions at Ts73/79 (Early Palo Blanco Phase) 47
2.8 Manpower requirements of dam construction . . . . . 57
2.9 Available manpower and manpower stress index ...... . 58
2.10 Manpower stress and administrative complexity ..... . 59
2.11 Social differentiation and number of households dependent
upon irrigation system. . . . . . . . . 61
2.12 Maize productivity. . . . . . . ... . 66
2.13 Carrying capacity estimates . . . . . . .. . 66
2.14 Reconstructed diets of occupants of Purron Cave 67
2.15 Regional population estimates for the Tehuacan Valley 69
3. 1 Fire-cracked rock at Ts73 . . . . . . . . 113
3.2 Density of sherds in ceramic workshop ...... . 115
3.3 Distribution of firing accidents among vessel forms . 121
3.4 Relation between firing accidents and surface colors. 1 21
3.5 Proportions of misfired bowls and jars in ceramic
workshop collection squares ............. . 124
4.1 Definitions of ceramic type groups used in this report. 137
4.2 Frequencies of type groups from excavation units. 138
4.3 Population estimates for the three occupations at
Quachilco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
4.4 Mean proportions of three well-dated ceramic categories
in surface strata and t-Test comparisons of strata. 147
7 . 1 Persea americana seed measurements. . . ... . 223
7.2 Tentative varieties of Phaseolus at Cuayucatepec ... . 232
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
by Robert D. Drennan
During the past four years the Palo Blanco Project has conducted
fieldwork in and around the Tehuacan Valley with the objective of contribu
ting to a better understanding of the processes of social, political, and
economic development by which complex societies emerge. To this end we
have focussed on the Late and Terminal Formative and Early Classic periods.
In terms of the ceramic chronology established by MacNeish, Peterson, and
Flannery (1970), these include the Late Santa Maria and the Early and Late
Palo Blanco phases (Fig. 1.1). Before this time the fehllacan Valley was the
scene of a series of relatively autonomous, egalitarian farming villages.
At the beginning of the period we study, a primitive Central place was
11 11
founded and became the geographical focus of a society which included a
number of villages subsidiary to the central place. During the Early Palo
Blanco phase this pattern crystalized and spread throughout the Tehuacan
Valley, with the result that some half-dozen polities, each focussed on a
central place of moderate size, divided the valley among themselves. No one
of these polities seems ever to have dominated the entire valley, although
competition among them and consequent waxing and waning of various centers
are apparent.
It is this process of sociopolitical change we seek to understand
in terms of the region in which it developed and in terms of its relation
ship to the sociopolitical developments apparent in the nearby and contem
poraneous but much more spectacular centers of Teotihuacan and Monte Alban.
Our preliminary reconstruction of the sociopolitical development in the
Tehuacan Valley is described in greater detail in Drennan (1978:1-7) as are
the issues involved in coming to an understanding of it.
The several chapters in this volume are reports on various portions
of the studies we have carried out during a number of field seasons. These
reports vary considerably in nature. Some are final reports of discrete
segments of our work, while others are preliminary reports on more recent
seasons. At this writing, then, we stand in the middle of the project.
Some parts of the project have been completed, and the results are presented
here. Fieldwork for other parts of the project has been completed but
analysis of data has only begun; these parts are described in preliminary
form, as has been done previously (Drennan, ed., 1977 and Drennan 1978), so
that their immediate results may be made available as soon as possible.
And still more fieldwork is planned for several parts of the project.
The chapters are arranged roughly in chronological order, according
to the archeological phases with which they deal. First, because it reaches
farthest back in time, comes a final report by Charles Spencer on surface
survey conducted during 1976 in the area of the Arroyo Lencho Diego at the
downstream end of the Tehuacan Valley (Fig. 1.2). The arroyo is spanned by
1
2 PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT IN THE TEHUACAN VALLEY
the impressive irrigation structure called the Purron Dam. This dam was
studied by Woodbury and Neely (1972:82-99), and habitation sites in the ad
jacent region were further described by MacNeish et al. (1972:393-428).
Spencer conducted more intensive surface survey, including detailed mapping
and controlled surface collection, at these habitation sites. His study
spans the entire period during which the dam was in use, from the Early
Santa Marfa phase through the Early Palo Blanco phase (Fig. 1.1). As such
it shows in microcosm the sociopolitical development outlined above in
general terms for the Tehuacan Valley as a whole. Small, apparently egali
tarian villages of the Early Santa Marfa phase gave way to more complex
social forms, culminating during the Early Palo Blanco phase in a hilltop
town (central place for one of the half-dozen polities which existed in
11 11
the valley at this time) before the dam ceased to function and the immediate
area was abandoned. Because of the evidence available from the dam, a
unique data set for its time period in Mesoamerica, Spencer is able to
study in unprecedented detail the relationship between this sociopolitical
development and the development of the system of irrigated agriculture
which sustained it. He can thus offer some unusually well-documented
1520
LATE VENTA SALADA
1150
EARLY VENTA SALADA
700
LATE PALO BLANCO
250 A. D.
EARLY PALO BLANCO
150 B.C.
LATE SANTA MARIA
500
EARLY SANTA MARIA
850
LATE AJALPAN
1150
EARLY AJALPAN
1500
PURRON
2300
Fig. 1.1. Ceramic chronology for the Tehuacan Valley.
1. INTRODUCTION 3
conclusions concerning this much-discussed relationship.
Chapter 3 relates to Chapter 2, since it is a detailed study of the
evidence for ceramic production at the Early Palo Blanco hilltop town in
the Arroyo Lencho Diego survey area. The contribution of this study by
Elsa Redmond is twofold. First, it provides fundamental information con
cerning the organization of production in this area during the Early Palo
Blanco phase. Such information contributes materially to Spencer•s study
in Chapter 2 and to our understanding of sociopolitical development in the
Tehuacan Valley in general. Second, it outlines the kind of evidence for
ceramic production available for this period in Mesoamerica. Despite the
heavy reliance of archeologists on the study of ceramics and the number of
implicit assumptions we make concerning the organization of production of
ceramics, actual archeological evidence bearing upon this organization is
extremely scarce for Mesoamerica. Mesoamericanists have not been unaware
of the problems created by this scarcity of evidence, as the attention to
ethnographic studies of pottery manufacture shows. But concrete archeo
logical data on pottery manufacture have been difficult to locate. An
occasional feature from a later time period has been interpreted as a
ceramic kiln (see, for example, Winter and Payne 1976), but the direct
artifactual evidence of pottery manufacture has received almost no atten
tion. As Redmond shows, Mesoamericanists need not nurse a concealed envy
of colleagues who work in regions such as the Near East where "kiln
wasters" are well known, although we may have to hide some embarrassment
at our failure up to now to make more of evidence that is, under some cir
cumstances at least, available in Mesoamerica.
Chapter 4 is out of place chronologically in that it deals with an
earlier phase than the most recent developments discussed in Chapters 2
and 3. John Alden presents a final report on systematic surface survey
conducted in 1975 at Quachilco, the Late Santa Mar1a phase site repre
senting the earliest "town" in the Tehuacan Valley (see above). It is
located in the center of a broad level expanse of alluvial farmland in
the central section of the valley (site 218 in Fig. 1.2). Here are found
the earliest indications of the more centralized kind of sociopolitical
organization which characterized the Classic period. On the one hand,
Alden•s survey served as a guide for the 1977 excavations at Quachilco
(Drennan 1978), suggesting notions about the organization of the site to
be pursued by collecting data through excavation. On the other hand,
the data from the surface collections complement the excavation data by
providing a view of the site more extensive and complete than one at
tained through limited excavation at a large site, although subject to all
the problems inherent in dealing with material not in primary context.
Beginning in Chapter 5 we turn to preliminary reports with a des
cription of 1978 excavations at Cuayucatepec (site 281 in Fig. 1.2).
Founded during the Early Palo Blanco phase and occupied into the Late
Palo Blanco phase, Cuayucatepec represents the period during which the
pattern of "town" organization was replicated throughout the Tehuacan
Valley. Cuayucatepec was a second generation central place, one of the
half-dozen which, like the hilltop town in the Lencho Diego survey area,
succeeded Quachilco. The excavations here were explicitly intended to
