Teotihuacan: an early urban center in its regional context

SARAH C. CLAYTON

The first century bce in the northeastern Basin of Mexico witnessed the emergence of Teotihuacan, a city that rapidly developed into the capital of a regional state of unprecedented size, monumentality, ethnic and social diversity, and political power in the Mexican Highlands (Map 13.1).

Map 13.i Settlements in the Prehispanic Basin of Mexico (drawn by author).

To understand the structure and longevity of the Teotihuacan state as well as its eventual unraveling, archaeologists recognize the importance of investigating its social, economic, and political processes at multiple scales, from individual households to regional settlements. Individual members of complex societies like Teotihuacan do not experience their society in a monolithic way. Rather, they manage environmental and cultural circum­stances in ways pursuant to their particular social positions and the resources and opportunities that those positions afford. Recent archaeo­logical inquiry at Teotihuacan reflects a strong interest in the ways in which social heterogeneity impacted Teotihuacan's political and economic struc­tures through time. Differences in economic activities, social organization and status, ritual and political ideologies, and expressions of identity among rural and urban sectors of the population were among the most significant dimensions of variation to shape Teotihuacan society.

Teotihuacan is often viewed as an impressive ancient city, but it must be understood as a regional phenomenon that included the city, its suburban periphery and surrounding countryside, as well as more distant rural settle­ments and populations as part of its sociospatial landscape. The urbanization of Teotihuacan was concurrently a process of ruralization of the surrounding region. In this chapter I explore Teotihuacan both internally (within the city) and regionally, in an attempt to consider the social terrain of this early state from a holistic perspective. I discuss current conceptualizations, based on archaeological research, of Teotihuacan's political development and the organization of its rural and urban communities and conclude with some suggestions regarding future research.

The growth of Teotihuacan

The reasons for Teotihuacan's rapid growth from marginal beginnings to a population on the order of 20,000 to 40,000^[212] during the Patlachique phase, from 150 to i bce (Table 13.1), remain enigmatic.

Until recently, many archaeologists believed that Teotihuacan's growth was due in large part to a catastrophic volcanic eruption that destroyed

Table 13.1 Chronological periods and corresponding Teotihuacan phases

Cuicuilco, a center that developed earlier than Teotihuacan, in the shadow of the volcano Xitle, located in the southwestern Basin of Mexico. The rich soil surrounding the Cuicuilco settlement was superior to that of the Teotihuacan Valley and better suited for irrigation agriculture.

Recent studies of volcanic activity suggest that the eruption of Xitle occurred around 300 ce, when Teotihuacan was at its demographic height and already dominated the region.^[214] Archaeological evidence indicates that ash and lava covered structures at Cuicuilco that were already in disrepair.^[215] This information contradicts the traditional view that Teotihuacan's devel­opment was directly linked to the total destruction of Cuicuilco. It does not, however, negate the importance of volcanic activity in the decline of Cuicuilco and the growth of Teotihuacan; it is entirely plausible that the catastrophic eruption of Xitle was preceded by the occasional bursts of activity that often associate with active volcanoes. Perhaps such signs from Xitle were perceived as threatening enough for some people to relocate from the southwestern Basin to Teotihuacan, especially given the evident eruption of Popocatepetl during the first century ce. Popocatepetl remains active today, and its eruption may have prompted large-scale migrations from the southeastern Basin and western Puebla into the Teotihuacan Valley.^[216] The events associated with the Popocatepetl disaster may not have directly impacted all parts of the Basin. However, they would have become part of the collective awareness and social memory of groups living across the central Highlands.

Governance and the urban capital

Careful civic planning during the early stages of Teotihuacan's history is evident, although it is more likely that the ultimate configuration of the monumental core area evolved through time than that a coherent master plan was conceived in entirety from the beginning. Downtown Teotihuacan is characterized by striking monumentality and orderliness. Its major struc­tures are aligned to 15.5 degrees east of north, neatly arranged around the 50- meter-wide path of the Avenue of the Dead, which follows the same canonical orientation. This avenue was the main artery of movement through the heart of Teotihuacan, gradually ascending northward for more than 5 kilometers from the southern margins of the city toward its termin­ation at the Pyramid of the Moon. Teotihuacan's architectural monuments were within the daily viewshed of the entire urban population as well as those living in the suburban and rural fringes. They likely provided a constant reminder of both the power of the state and perhaps a broadly shared notion of Teotihuacano identity. The Avenue of the Dead also significantly shaped the Teotihuacano experience through the activities that it supported and by contouring movement through the urban space. It provided a key setting for political, religious, and economic action and would have been the ceremonial path for processions culminating at the Pyramid of the Moon, during which crowds of spectators may have gathered and watched from along the sides of the avenue. The Avenue of the Dead bisects the city into eastern and western halves, which are further divided into northern and southern quadrants by the narrower East-West Avenue.

Researchers seeking to elucidate the structure of government at Teotihua­can have looked primarily to its most prominent monumental complexes for material evidence - the Pyramid of the Moon, the Pyramid of the Sun, and the Ciudadela, a large enclosure within which the Feathered Serpent Pyramid was situated. Governance at Teotihuacan remains enigmatic, and no buried ruler has ever been located within any of these monuments or elsewhere at Teotihuacan. Large-scale excavations at the Feathered Serpent Pyramid and the Pyramid of the Moon have uncovered the remains of elaborate rituals of offering and sacrifice. These offerings include predatory animals (Burial 2 in the Pyramid of the Moon, for example, includes pumas, birds of prey, rattlesnakes, and a wolf) as well as staggering numbers of human victims, many of whom appear to have been highly decorated warriors. These important projects have contributed to a clearer picture of the military might of the Teotihuacan state, but no individual inhumed in these monuments has ever been identified as a ruler. Moreover, there are no clear depictions of rulers in the large body of art and sculpture that has been recovered from the ancient city. The absence of depictions of glorified individuals suggests that rulership at Teotihuacan differed from that of other Mesoamerican states. The Maya, for example, were prolific in producing monuments commemorating the accomplishments of specific rulers.

Some have proposed that the Teotihuacan state began as a republic or had a collective political structure run by a governing council.^[217] It may have originated through the deliberate convergence of several previously autono­mous and politically equal groups. Such a synoikistic process was recently argued on the basis of the Teotihuacan's earliest civic-ceremonial configur­ation, which comprised several architecturally distinct and spatially separate complexes.^[218] Cowgill has suggested, however, that if Teotihuacan's initial institutions were relatively corporate in structure and the sanctioned ideol­ogy emphasized collectivity, they nonetheless seem to have been swiftly subverted by strong rulers.^[219] Powerful individuals, he argues, were likely responsible for conceiving and executing the immense pyramids and other ambitious buildings that were in place by 250 ce and represent the civic configuration of Teotihuacan that is recognizable today.

Life in the city

More is known about the urban landscape of Teotihuacan than that of many other ancient cities, due to the Teotihuacan Mapping Project (TMP), an immense archaeological undertaking that began in 1962 under the direction of Rene Millon.^{[220] [221]} Members of the TMP mapped the city in tremendous detail (Map 13.2), made artifact collections from across its surface, and carried out twenty-eight stratigraphic excavations that provided the basis for developing a ceramic chronology for Teotihuacan. Among many other things, the TMP revealed that urban Teotihuacan had covered about 20 square kilometers for several centuries and that at its height, most of its population resided in some 2,300 large residential compounds.

Apartment compounds were not the only kind of dwelling present at Teotihuacan, however, and it is increasingly clear that a significant propor­tion of the urban population resided in smaller, less substantial structures.¹¹ These relatively ephemeral structures were located among apartment com­pounds and may have been prevalent in the immediate margins of the urban capital, a “suburban” area that has, until recently, been largely overlooked in

9

10

11

Map 13.2 Map of the city of Teotihuacan showing the locations of monuments and districts mentioned in the text (modified from the original 1:40,000 scale map by the Teotihuacan Mapping Project, Rene Millon, The Teotihuacan Map [Austin: University of Texas Press, 1973], Map ι).

archaeological research at Teotihuacan. Research focused on Teotihuacan's outer fringes is an important future direction that is crucial for understand­ing the socioeconomic make-up of the city, the dynamic nature of its boundaries, and the movement of people to and from the surrounding countryside.

The construction of apartment compounds across the city occurred as part of what Millon described as an urban renewal project.^[222] Although the compounds vary considerably in size and layout, Millon argued that they conformed to sufficient criteria to imply the existence of a basic

Figure 13.ι Layout of an apartment compound in the La Ventilla District, including the location of courtyards and burials (drawing after Sergio Gomez Chavez and Jaime Niifiez Hernandez, “Analysis preliminar del patron y la distribution espacial de entierros en el Barrio de La Ventilla,” in Linda Manzanilla and Carlos Serrano [eds.], Prdcticasfunerarias en la Ciudad de los Dioses: los enterramientos humanos de la antigua Teotihuacan [Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Antropoliigicas, 1999], pp. 81-148).

model, which he proposed was designed by the state. This argument is based not only on the general adherence of compounds to certain architec­tural standards such as orientations consistent with those of major city streets and monuments, but also on the timing of their construction. These multi-room structures, which housed up to 60-100 people at a time, were built beginning in the Early Tlamimilolpa phase (200-275 ce), at the peak of Teotihuacan's regional dominance and its interregional expansion. They consistently contain several rooms arranged around open-air gathering spaces (Figure 13.1),^[223] which are widely believed to have been loci for domestic rituals. Manzanilla argues that individual apartment suites within the compounds were associated with distinct households.^[224] Com­pounds were generally enclosed by thick exterior walls, suggesting an inward focus and a degree of internal privacy shared by the compound residential group.

Although it is reasonable to posit that state rulers initiated a new mode of residential organization at Teotihuacan, there is evidence to suggest that the construction of individual compounds was not directed by the state. In addition to the variation in quality, size, and internal arrangement present among Teotihuacan's compounds, at least some compounds were expanded accretionally through time. Excavations at the compound Tlajinga 33, for example, demonstrate that it was remodeled no fewer than a dozen times, changing substantially through four centuries of occupation. Furthermore, its walls were never oriented to “Teotihuacan north” and its internal structures do not conform to conventions often thought to be typical of Teotihuacan domestic architecture.^[225]

Apartment compounds and possibly neighborhoods containing clusters of compounds, often called barrios, may have formed an organizational level that articulated households and state administrative institutions. However, such residential clusters have proven elusive as social units, and the specific relationships among the individuals that co-resided within the compounds themselves are not fully understood. For example, some residential areas, such as the Oaxaca Enclave, are characterized primarily by their association with migrant groups, which were absorbed into these areas throughout Teotihuacan's history.^[226] Residents of compounds that were inter-ethnic and

Teotihuacan in its regional context incorporated immigrants may have been distantly related or not related biologically at all. Such an initial arrangement may be expected, however, to develop through time into more kin-like social groups as individuals married into compounds and produced children.

Some compounds have been associated with specialized craft production activities on the scale of multiple households, and compounds are frequently discussed in terms of socioeconomic status. For example, Tetitla is often thought of as a “high-status” compound, Oztoyahualco is described as “middle class,” and Tlajinga 33 has been described as both “typical”^[227] and “impoverished.”^[228] The correlation between residence and status is further complicated by the fact that compounds were occupied by persons of varying status and likely had their own internal social hierarchies. Moreover, the economic and social structure of the compounds was not static. Eco­nomic activities sometimes shifted, as in the case of Tlajinga 33, where lapidary work as a specialization was ultimately replaced by pottery-making. Socioeconomic differences and a range of other notions of identity must have both impacted and been shaped by the social and architectural environ­ment associated with compound residential organization.

Many compounds that were built in the Early Tlamimilolpa phase were occupied until the end of Teotihuacan's statehood, a period of around 400 years. Given the longevity of compound occupation, the “kin-like” relations among their occupants, and their joint participation in production activities, the concept of social “houses”^[229] may provide a useful framework for linking social identity and residential affiliation in Teotihuacan society. The house model, which has been tentatively suggested by several Teotihuacan scholars,^[230] foregrounds daily interaction, ritual practices, co-residence, and

economic activities over blood ancestry. It does not preclude internal status variation within compound groups, but it does presuppose that the residents of these structures interacted with each other on a regular basis. This is a reasonable assessment, based on the presence of gathering spaces in com­pounds as well as the practice of burying the dead under compound floors and walls, which surely expressed a meaningful and lasting connection to these places.

Economic organization at Teotihuacan

Additional archaeological research at Teotihuacan period settlements across the Basin of Mexico is needed for fully comprehending the regional eco­nomic structure of this ancient state. Research focused on the materials produced and consumed by the urban population is plentiful, however, and indicates that individuals residing in the city engaged in a wide variety of economic activities and specializations. Households with access to or own­ership of land and sources of water probably based their livelihoods on the exchange of products made from maize, maguey, and a wide variety of other cultivates. Households also practiced a variety of craft specializations, including pottery and stone tool production, lapidary work, and lime processing.

Some craft production at Teotihuacan required access to specific resources beyond the Teotihuacan Valley. These include, for example, obsidian from the Pachuca source in the Sierra de las Navajas and lime from sources near Chingia, in Hidalgo, as well as clay and other materials used in Thin Orange pottery, which was made in Puebla but imported to Teotihuacan, where it was widely consumed. The degree to which the importation, manufacture, and distribution of various resources and mater­ials was controlled by the state, rather than by private groups, for example, is not completely clear. Specialized workshops for the production of lithic and ceramic objects have been identified in association with residential

2008), pp. 17-36; Annabeth Headrick, The Teotihuacan Trinity: The Sociopolitical Struc­ture of an Ancient Mesoamerican City (Austin: University of Texas Press, 2007); Linda R. Manzanilla, “Corporate Life in Apartment and Barrio Compounds at Teotihuacan, Central Mexico,” in Linda R. Manzanilla and Claude Chapdelaine (eds.), Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, 2009), pp. 21-42; and Gabriela Urubuela and Patricia Plunket, “Tradition and Transformation: Village Ritual at Tetimpa as a Template for Early Teotihuacan,” in Nancy Gonlin and Jon C. Lohse (eds.), Commoner Ritual and Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica (Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2007), pp. 33-54. compounds as well as in close spatial proximity to major civic-ceremonial structures. Examples of the latter include a workshop adjacent to the north side of the Ciudadela, where ceramic censers and adornos were made,^[231] and a workshop for the production of obsidian darts and other militaristic objects, located immediately west of the Moon Pyramid.^[232]

Members of Teotihuacan's population were involved in diverse economic activities and the goods they produced likely circulated in a variety of ways, ranging from inter-household reciprocation to forms of state-managed redis­tribution. There is a distinct possibility, although it has not been thoroughly tested, that goods at Teotihuacan circulated through a market system. Teotihuacan scholars have identified a few locations where large market­places may have been situated, one being the central plaza of the Great Compound, located across the Avenue of the Dead from the Ciudadela. Here, large concentrations of serving vessels were unearthed by TMP excavations. Vendors may also have operated stands along the wide Avenue of the Dead itself, where food, goods, and services could be offered to passing customers on either a regular or cyclical basis. Market exchange at Teotihuacan would likely have operated on multiple scales, from neighborhood-level interaction to large, principal marketplaces like those known from the Postclassic Basin of Mexico. Systematic archaeological research focused on the identification of marketplaces, including the analysis of micro-artifacts and chemical residues in hypothesized marketplace loca­tions, would contribute significantly to an improved understanding of Teotihuacan's economy.

Rural Teotihuacan

Archaeological investigations in the area that was once Teotihuacan's hin­terland have become both increasingly difficult and increasingly urgent due to the rapid growth and extreme urban sprawl of modern Mexico City. This condition seriously impedes field work at smaller regional sites and in many cases has destroyed them altogether. Despite these challenges, a growing body of research focused on communities situated beyond the boundaries of the ancient city represents a concern with regional inquiry that is vital for understanding how Teotihuacan the center related to the region that it dominated. This important work continues under the persistent strain of modern development.

21

22

The most significant project to explore diachronic settlement patterns throughout the region was the Basin of Mexico Settlement Survey, which covered 3,500 square kilometers through a series of separate surveys by William Sanders, Jeffrey Parsons, Robert Santley, and colleagues.^[233] Given the dramatic changes that have shaped the Mexico City area in the decades following this project, archaeologists are tremendously fortunate to be able to consult and build upon the data that it generated. These data continue to be fundamental for examining demographic patterns of growth and decline among regional settlements as well as their particular environmental set­tings and access to resources. For many Prehispanic sites in the Basin, these surveys provide the only archaeological information we will ever have, since so many have been destroyed by modern development.

Only a few Teotihuacan period sites have been excavated since the regional survey project was conducted; most research concerning the Teotihuacan state has focused exclusively on the urban capital. However, some important exceptions to a generally urban-centric perspective have contributed to the issue of Teotihuacan's economic and political relation­ships with surrounding settlements. For example, Charlton's investigations of rural sites and trade routes in the Teotihuacan Valley and adjacent areas have led to a firmer grasp on exchange and the settlement organization of rural populations.^[234] Recent field projects beyond the Teotihuacan Valley have also provided valuable data for examining differences and similarities among rural settlements and for comprehending how they related to Teotihuacan and its urban population. Large-scale excavations of the settlement of Axotlan present a noteworthy example.^[235] The body of data and materials resulting from this project provide a useful source of information for examining the ways that life in a rural settlement differed from that of city dwellers.

Located 35 kilometers to the west of Teotihuacan in the Cuauhtitlan region, Axotlan was a large nucleated village of approximately 10 hectares with a population of around 800 people. The site does not appear to have had a significant occupation until the Tlamimilolpa phase, when Teotihua­can was at the height of its regional political dominance. Excavations at Axotlan revealed two large residential compounds as well as some poorly preserved stone architecture that may represent either a degraded com­pound or a cluster of less substantial structures. The use of apartment compounds like those of Teotihuacan lends a distinctively urban character to the settlement and expresses cultural likeness with the urban population. Compounds at Axotlan differed from each other in size, internal design, and quality of construction, echoing the variation present among compounds at Teotihuacan. They also share with many of Teotihuacan's compounds the directional orientation of 15.5 degrees east of north. Variation in the quality of construction among Axotlan's compounds suggests that residential groups in this community differed in terms of socioeconomic status.^[236] Axotlan is unlikely to have hosted the members of the uppermost social echelons that resided at the urban center, but it is possible that its local households were integrated into the same general class structure that operated in the urban context.

In addition to similarities in residential architecture, residents of Axotlan produced and consumed many of the same kinds of material objects and engaged in ritual activities, such as funerary practices, which were highly congruent with many residential groups at Teotihuacan. These patterns are consistent with a relatively close social connection with urban communities as well as participation in the economic and political institutions connected to the Teotihuacan state. This does not mean, however, that there were not significant differences between Teotihuacan's rural and urban social groups. For example, there are marked differences in the mortuary treatment of males and females at Axotlan, a pattern that contrasts significantly with the relatively similar treatment of the sexes in most mortuary contexts at Teotihuacan. This suggests that principles of gender organization, including the domestic and ritual roles of men and women, may have varied consider­ably across Teotihuacan society. This variation, which does not just speak to gendered experiences but also relates fundamentally to modes of household and community-level social organization, may have been most pronounced between rural and urban populations.

Beyond the rural-urban comparison, rural settlements may be compared along several dimensions, such as domestic organization and ritual life, to generate a more complete picture of diversity among communities in Teotihuacan's hinterland. Comparative analyses of archaeological assem­blages and the behaviors that they represent help us to understand the economic and social connections between rural settlements and Teotihua­can. Equally important, however, is the information that archaeological research at a regional scale can provide regarding the relationships among rural settlements themselves. For example, how much direct control did the capital exercise over regional economic networks; or, conversely, to what degree were some rural settlements economically autonomous? How did they relate, socially and economically, to each other? Continued archaeo­logical research at settlements in Teotihuacan's rural hinterland is necessary for answering these important questions.

In pursuit of Teotihuacan's changing social landscape

Ambitious archaeological projects such as the TMP and Basin of Mexico Settlement Survey made great strides toward conceptualizing the process of urban development and decline at Teotihuacan, its settlement density, the size of its population, and the extent of its regional political reach. Abundant research focused within the urban core continues to bring city life at Teotihuacan into focus, from its economic organization and socioeconomic disparities to the materialization of its governing institutions. Nevertheless, there is still much work to be done both within the city and beyond its margins in order to understand Teotihuacan society. Investigations of intra- societal variation have demonstrated that Teotihuacan's compound groups and neighborhoods differed from each other in significant ways. Issues that require further attention include variation in domestic organization, the impact of immigration and processes of ethnogenesis, diverse ritual practices and the ideological differences that they reflect, and relative health and longevity, accessible through bioarchaeological studies. Significant contribu­tions have been made in many of these areas through intensive excavations within select compounds and barrios. It is important to address these questions on a large scale, however, through the comparison of multiple compounds and neighborhoods, as well as from a diachronic perspective.

Perhaps the most significant issue that stands to benefit from diachronic archaeological research concerning Teotihuacan's social composition and diversity is that of its ultimate political collapse. That is, what processes and events culminated in the end of Teotihuacan, and why did they happen? Violent and destructive events associated with the end of the Metepec phase (550-650 ce) point to either internal rebellion or attack by external forces. These actions seem to have been selectively focused on the monuments and residences of the ruling elite and on elite individuals themselves. Members of the TMP survey identified 147 buildings concentrated around the Avenue of the Dead that exhibited unequivocal evidence of burning, mostly concen­trated on staircases and the tops of temple platforms.^[237] This burning as evidence for purposeful violence is bolstered by the discovery of smashed and scattered stone sculptures and dismembered skeletons with shattered crania found in the Palaces of the Ciudadela.^[238] The numerous temples that were destroyed were never rebuilt and Teotihuacan never recovered, polit­ically, indicating that the government had effectively been rendered impo­tent. There is evidence from one burned compound on the eastern side of the city to suggest that Teotihuacan was abandoned for a time,^[239] but additional research in residences beyond the core is needed to fully explore this question. During the subsequent Coyotlatelco phase (650-850 ce), Teotihuacan supported a population in the tens of thousands. This was a large settlement, relative to its contemporaries in the region, though it was greatly diminished in comparison to the former metropolis.

Archaeologists do not know who was responsible for the violent acts associated with Teotihuacan's demise. Information from research focused on Teotihuacan's general population, however, suggests that increasing socioeconomic inequality, ideological difference, and mounting internal tensions factored in the eventual breakdown of a government that was unable to mitigate these challenges. Sempowski's^[240] comparative analysis of status based on mortuary assemblages and Robertson's^[241] investigation of Teotihuacan's internal socioeconomic landscape point, respectively, to growing status differentiation and increasing spatial segregation based on status and wealth. More recent analyses of mortuary practices among distinct urban and rural residential groups indicate that Teotihuacan was ideologically diverse, with segments of its population maintaining distinctive ritual traditions.^[242] Bioarchaeological research at the Tlajinga 33 compound, a residence of commoners, indicates that quality of life may have been in a state of decline in Teotihuacan's later years, measured by increasing infant mortality and extreme nutritional deficiencies.^[243] Additional research along these lines promises to enrich our understanding of the varied social com­position of this early state, its possible sources of internal tension, and the dynamic circumstances that ultimately challenged the efficacy of its governing apparatus.

Finally, archaeologists seeking to understand Teotihuacan must strike a balance between research concentrated within its internal urban cityspace and investigations of its surrounding countryside. At stake is a fuller com­prehension of the ways in which rural populations were politically inte­grated, the level of economic interdependence or autonomy among regional settlements, the degree to which rural communities subscribed to insti­tutions of the state or identified socially with the urban population, and the role of rural populations in Teotihuacan's decline.

FURTHER READINGS

Andrews, Bradford W., “Stone Tool Production at Teotihuacan: What More Can We Learn from Surface Collections?”, in Kenneth G. Hirth and Bradford W. Andrews (eds.), Pathways to Prismatic Blades: A Study in Mesoamerican Obsidian Core-Blade Technology, Los Angeles: The Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of Califor­nia, 2002, pp. 47-60.

Barba, Luis A., andJose Luis Cordova Frunz, “Estudios energeticos de la production de cal en tiempos teotihuacanos y sus implicaciones,” Latin American Antiquity 10 (1999), 168-79.

Beramendi-Orosco, Laura E., Galia Gonzaiez-Hernandez, Jaime Urrutia-Fucugauchi, Linda R. Manzanilla, Ana M. Soler-Arechalde, Avto Goguitchaishvili, and Nick Jarboe, “High-Resolution Chronology for the Mesoamerican Urban Center of Teotihuacan Derived from Bayesian Statistics of Radiocarbon and Archaeological Data,” Quaternary Research 71 (2008), 99-107.

Blanton, Richard E., and Lane Fargher, Collective Action in the Formation of Pre-modern States, New York: Springer, 2008.

Cabrera Castro, Ruben, “La excavation de la Estructura IB en el interior de la Ciudadela,” in Ruben Cabrera Castro, Ignacio Rodriguez Garcia, and Noel Morelos Garcia (eds.), Memoria del Proyecto Arqueologico Teotihuacan 80-82, Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologla e Historia, 1982, pp. 75-87.

Cabrera Castro, Ruben, and Sergio Gomez Chavez, “La Ventilla: A Model for a Barrio in the Urban Structure of Teotihuacan,” in Alba Guadalupe Mastache, Robert H. Cobean, Angel Garcla Cook, and Kenneth G. Hirth (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2008, Vol. ιι, pp. 37-83.

Cap, Bernadette, “‘Empty' Spaces and Public Places: A Microscopic View of a Late Classic Plaza at Chan, Belize,” in Cynthia Robin (ed.), Chan: An Ancient Maya Farming Community in Belize, Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2012.

Charlton, Thomas H., “Teotihuacan Non Urban Settlements: Functional and Evolution­ary Implications,” in Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn C. Rattray (eds.), Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sintesis, nuevos problemas, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional AutiSnoma de Mexico, 1987, pp. 473-88.

Cowgill, George L., “Origins and Development of Urbanism: Archaeological Perspec­tives,” Annual Review of Anthropology 33 (2004), 525-49.

“Rulership and the Ciudadela: Political Inferences from Teotihuacan Architecture,” in Richard M. Leventhal and Alan L. Kolata (eds.), Civilization in the Ancient Americas: Essays in Honor of Gordon R. Willey, Cambridge, MA: Peabody Museum of Archae­ology and Ethnology, 1983, pp. 313-43.

“Teotihuacan as an Urban Place,” in Alba Guadalupe Mastache, Robert H. Cobean, JAngel Garcla Cook, and Kenneth G. Hirth (eds.), Urbanism in Mesoamerica, Univer­sity Park: Pennsylvania State University, 2008, Vol. ιι, pp. 85-112.

“The Urban Organization of Teotihuacan, Mexico,” in Elizabeth C. Stone (ed.), Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to Robert McCormick Adams, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute, 2007, pp. 261-95.

Dlaz Oyarzabal, Clara, “Chingu y la expansion teotihuacana,” in Evelyn C. Rattray, Clara Dlaz Oyarzabal, and Jaime Litvak King (eds.), Interaccion cultural en Mexico central, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional AutiSnoma de Mexico, 1981, pp. 107-12.

Garcla Cook, Angel, “The Historical Importance of Tlaxcala in the Cultural Develop­ment of the Central Highlands,” in Jeremy A. Sabloff (ed.), Supplement to the Handbook of Middle American Indians, Austin: University of Texas Press, 1981, pp. 244-76.

Gazzola, Julie, “La production lapidaria en Teotihuacan, estudio de las actividades productivas en los talleres de un conjunto habitacional,” in Marla Elena Ruiz Gallut and Jesias Torres Peralta (eds.), Arquitectura y urbanismo: pasado y presente de los espacios en Teotihuacan. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de Teotihuacan, Mexico City: INAH, 2005, pp. 841-78.

GOmez Chavez, Sergio, “La Ventilla: un barrio de la antigua ciudad de Teotihuacan,” unpublished BA thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2000.

Heizer, Robert F., and James A. Bennyhoff, “Archaeological Investigation of Cuicuilco, Valley of Mexico, 1957,” Science 127 (1958), 232-3.

Longstaffe, Fred J., Michael W. Spence, Rebecca Storey, and Christine D. White, “Immigration, Assimilation, and Status in the Ancient City of Teotihuacan: Stable Isotopic Evidence from Tlajinga 33,” Latin American Antiquity 15 (2004), 176-98.

McClung de Tapia, Emily, “Patrones de subsistencia urbana en Teotihuacan,” in Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn C. Rattray (eds.), Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevas sintesis, nuevos problemas, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1987, pp. 57-74.

Millon, Rene, “Social Relations in Ancient Teotihuacan,” in Eric R. Wolf (ed.), The Valley of Mexico, Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1976, pp. 205-48.

Millon, Rene, Bruce Drewitt, and James A. Bennyhoff, The Pyramid of the Sun at Teotihuacan: 1959 Investigations, Philadelphia, PA: Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 1965.

Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruhuela, “Tradition and Transformation: Village Ritual at Tetimpa as a Template for Early Teotihuacan,” in Nancy Gonlin and Jon C. Lohse (eds.), Commoner Ritual and Ideology in Ancient Mesoamerica, Boulder: Univer­sity Press of Colorado, 2007, pp. 33-54.

Rattray, Evelyn C., “Anaranjado Delgado: ceramica de comercio de Teotihuacan,” in Evelyn C. Rattray, Clara Diaz Oyarzabal, and Jaime Litvak King (eds.), Interaccion cultural en Mexico Central, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 1981, pp. 55-80.

Sanders, William T., and LarryJ. Gorenflo, Prehispanic Settlement Patterns in the Cuautitlan Region, Mexico, University Park: The Pennsylvania State University, 2007.

Spence, Michael W., “Domestic Ritual in Tlailotlacan, Teotihuacan,” in Patricia Plunket (ed.), Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, Los Angeles: Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, 2002, pp. 53-66.

“The Scale and Structure of Obsidian Production in Teotihuacan,” in Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn C. Rattray (eds.), Teotihuacan: nuevos datos, nuevos sintesis, nuevos problemas, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autionoma de Mexico, 1987, pp. 430-50.

Sugiyama, Saburo, Human Sacrifice, Militarism, and Rulership: Materialization of State Ideology at the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, Teotihuacan, Cambridge: Cambridge Uni­versity Press, 2005.

Sugiyama, Saburo, and Ruben Cabrera Castro, “The Moon Pyramid Project and the Teotihuacan State Polity,” Ancient Mesoamerica 18 (2007), 109-25.

Sullivan, Kristin S., “Commercialization in Early State Economies: Craft Production and Market Exchange in Classic Period Teotihuacan,” Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University, 2007.

“Specialized Production of San Martin Orange Ware at Teotihuacan, Mexico,” Latin American Antiquity 17 (2006), 23-53.

Widmer, RandolphJ., “The Evolution of Form and Function in a Teotihuacan Apart­ment Compound: The Case of Tlajinga 33,” in Emily McClung de Tapia and Evelyn C. Rattray (eds.), Teotihuacan: Nuevos Datos, Nuevas Sintesis, Nuevos Problemas, Mexico City: Universidad Nacional AuftSnoma de Mexico, 1987, pp. 317-68.

“Lapidary Craft Specialization at Teotihuacan: Implications for Community Structure at 33⅛W1 and Economic Organization in the City,” Ancient Mesoamerica 2 (1991), 131-47∙

Yoffee, Norman, “Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States,” Annual Review of Anthropology 24 (1995), 281-311.