Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0619-5

ORIGINAL PAPER

Petrographic and XRF analyses of andesitic cut stone blocks

at Teotihuacan, Mexico: implications for the organization
of urban construction
Tatsuya Murakami 1 & Matthew T. Boulanger 2 & Michael D. Glascock 3

Received: 5 December 2017 / Accepted: 18 February 2018

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
This study presents preliminary results of petrographic and X-ray fluorescence analyses of cut stone blocks used for urban
construction at Teotihuacan, the capital of a regional state in Central Mexico (ca. AD 150–650). Cut stone blocks were concen-
trated in the civic-ceremonial core of the city and were probably prestigious architectural elements due to their higher costs of
procurement and transportation compared to alternative materials (boulders and clay amalgam). This suggests that the organi-
zation of stone block procurement and distribution was likely embedded in power relations between commissioners and mining
groups. By combining multiple analytical methods that complement one another, this study was able to discriminate local (within
10–15 km radius) from non-local materials. The results suggest that the majority (> 80%) of andesitic cut stone blocks were
brought from non-local sources. This paper discusses procurement organization and suggests that most rocks were quarried by
specialized groups and brought to the city through a tribute system and/or patron-client relations. This has implications for
understanding the nature of the urban-hinterland relationship and expansion of the Teotihuacan state.

Keywords Cut stone blocks . Procurement . Petrography . XRF . Urbanism . Teotihuacan . Mesoamerica

Introduction residences, pyramids, and other civic-ceremonial structures

Stone masonry was an essential component of urban architec-
ture in Prehispanic Mesoamerica. Rocks were used for fill and
facing of buildings and were often shaped into square or rect-
angular blocks (cut stone blocks). At Teotihuacan, the capital of
a regional state in Central Mexico (ca. AD 150–650), various
types of rocks were brought to the city for constructing
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s12520-018-0619-5) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Tatsuya Murakami
tmurakam@tulane.edu
1
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, 6823 St. Charles
Ave., Dinwiddie Hall 101, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
2
Department of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, PO
Box 750235, Dallas, TX 75275-0235, USA
3
Archaeometry Laboratory, University of Missouri Research Reactor
Center, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
(Millon 1973). The Teotihuacan Valley is a sub-valley in the
northeastern portion of the Basin of Mexico (Fig. 1), which is
mostly of volcanic origin and includes Tertiary and Quaternary
volcanoes. The valley offers different types of extrusive igne-
ous rocks, such as basalt (both compact and scoriaceous ba-
salts) and andesitic rocks (Murakami 2015, pp. 268–270). Of
these rocks, tezontle (the local name for scoriaceous basalt) and
andesitic rocks compose the majority of cut stone blocks, which
were used for staircases, walls, entryway steps, and delimiting
courtyards. Tezontle is easy to work with given its porosity and
lightweight (Margáin 1967, p. 171), making it the most abun-
dantly used material for urban construction (Díaz Lozano 1979,
pp. 60–61). Barba Pingarrón (2005) and Barba Pingarrón and
Córdova Frunz (2010) demonstrate that caves and depressions
found in the northwestern city and east of the Sun Pyramid
(Fig. 2) were quarrying loci for tezontle. Andesitic rocks in-
clude andesite, dacite, rhyolite, and trachyte and are widely
available in the valley and adjacent areas.
In this study, we focus on cut stone blocks made of andesitic
rocks rather than tezontle given the greater labor costs of pro-
curement, preparation, and transportation of the former. The

Fig. 1 Map of Central Mexico
showing archaeological sites and
sources of obsidian mentioned in
the text
procurement and unequal distribution of such expensive mate-
rials likely constituted some dimensions of power relations,
making the present provenance study an important basis for
exploring sociopolitical aspects of urban formation and trans-
formation. Based on petrographic and X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) analyses of geological and archaeological samples, we
examine the source areas of andesitic cut stone blocks from
Teotihuacan and discuss the organization of their procurement,
specifically whether it was organized centrally by the state or
individually by smaller social segments. Although our geolog-
ical sampling was limited in scale, the combined use of petrog-
raphy and XRF successfully discriminated some local (within
10–15 km radius) and non-local (beyond 10–15 km radius)
source areas. The preliminary results suggest that rocks from
certain source areas, specifically non-local sources, were re-
peatedly exploited for urban construction. We suggest that the
procurement of the majority of rocks was centrally organized,
probably as part of a tribute system and/or through patron-client
relations, and that intermediate- and small-scale procurement
and distribution systems coexisted to some extent.
Cut stone blocks and the quality
of architecture at Teotihuacan
Urbanization of Teotihuacan began around 100 BC, and large-
scale construction programs started around AD 200, during
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
which time the major pyramids (the Moon and Sun Pyramids
and the Feathered Serpent Pyramid) were built along the central
avenue called the Street of the Dead (Cowgill 2000; Millon
1981; Murakami 2015; Sugiyama 2005). During the
Tlamimilolpa to Early Xolalpan phases (ca. AD 250–450), the
city of Teotihuacan underwent urban renewal as over 2000 apart-
ment compounds (walled enclosures that consist of multiple
courtyard units) were built across the city (Millon 1973, 1981).
The use of cut stone blocks was highly concentrated at
large-scale monumental structures visible today along the
Street of the Dead (the central precinct hereafter) during the
Tlamimilolpa and Early Xolalpan phases, which suggests that
procurement was organized by the state (Murakami 2010).
Yet, a small number of cut stone blocks were used in apart-
ment compounds. During the Late Xolalpan and Metepec
phases (ca. AD 450–650), construction activities in the central
precinct were reduced substantially, and the use of cut stone
blocks was concentrated in some intermediate elite
compounds.
The use of cut stone blocks was likely determined by their
functional, and probably aesthetic, superiority over shaped
rocks covered with clay amalgam, common building materials
for walls and staircases. The architectural elements in which
cut stone blocks were used, such as staircases and steps in
porticoes, rooms, and courtyards (Fig. 3), were subject to fre-
quent foot traffic, and cut stone blocks would have been an
ideal construction material given their durability. In contrast,
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Fig. 2 Location of architectural complexes mentioned in the text (redrawn with modification after Millon 1973). Caves and depressions identified by
Barba Pingarrón (2005) are inserted in the map
the edges of stairways and steps made of shaped rocks and
clay amalgam were more susceptible to attrition (the likely
reason why their edges are often slightly rounded), and so
cut stone blocks were likely used to reduce maintenance costs.
It is also possible that the sharper edges of cut stone blocks
were more aesthetically appealing.
Cut stone blocks were also used for low relief and three-
dimensional sculptures (Fig. 3a). While the production of
sculptures, instead of mural paintings, was probably related
to aesthetic preferences and the nature of activities (e.g., rit-
uals) and messages conveyed by the iconography (e.g., Sarro
1991), the use of cut stone blocks in sculptures, as opposed to
modeled clay or stucco, was probably due to their functional
(or structural) superiority. It is highly difficult, and likely im-
practical, to make large sculptures, such as those of the serpent
heads adorning the Feathered Serpent Pyramid (FSP), out of
modeled clay or stucco. We suggest that cut stone blocks were
preferred for certain architectural elements due to their func-
tional, structural, and aesthetic superiority over alternative ma-
terials and thus serve to highlight qualitative differences
among buildings. Also, we emphasize that the use of cut stone
blocks was not a structural requirement, with the exception of
large three-dimensional sculptures; the same functions could
have been met by using alternative materials. This provides
the basis to consider the use of cut stone blocks as a type of
architectural conspicuous consumption and thus indicative of
power differentials. Moreover, it is likely that the quarrying of
andesitic blocks required specific knowledge, indicative of
higher investment in human resources, compared to quarrying
boulders.
Procurement techniques of cut stone blocks
Few quarries used to procure for cut stone blocks have been
identified in Mesoamerica, with the exception of Mitla in
Oaxaca (Robles García 1992; see also Gillespie 1994 for an
Olmec monument carving site). This has resulted in a poor
understanding of the techniques used for rock extraction.
Quezada et al. (Quezada Ramírez et al. 2018) and Quezada
Ramírez (2016, pp. 221–225) conducted an
ethnoarchaeological study of techniques for the procurement
of cut stone blocks in Central Mexico. Cut stone blocks are

Fig. 3 Cut stone blocks used at Teotihuacan: a sculptures at the Feathered
Serpent Pyramid; b cut stone blocks dismantled from the Feathered
Serpent Pyramid and discarded at the rear of the pyramid; c a step for
rooms at the La Ventilla III apartment compound; d steps delimiting a
still used in construction (e.g., stone pavements and houses) in
Mexico and come from several quarrying locations.
Quezada Ramírez et al. (2018) observed the techniques
used to extract stone blocks of andesite at a quarrying location
in the Guadalupe range on the west coast of Lake Texcoco,
where the Aztecs also exploited cut stone blocks for monu-
mental construction (López Luján et al. 2003). The extraction
process consisted of the following steps. The first step was to
choose a specific location based on the desired size of the final
products and the rock’s propensity for fracturing. Holes were
made using iron sticks along a selected fracture line (which
took several days) and filled with dynamite in order to detach
a large block or blocks from the bedrock. The second step was
to reduce these large blocks to smaller blocks or preforms.
Workers did this by locating veins on the blocks and
fracturing them along the veins using a wedge and a
hammer. The preforms were then carried to specific
construction locations. Quezada Ramírez et al. (2018) note
that fracture lines in the preforms are largely straight.
Although iron tools and dynamite did not exist in
Prehispanic times, this suggests that similar steps were taken
to quarry stone blocks of andesite, which probably required
more labor expenditure than modern quarrying (Abrams
(1994, p. 48) estimates the ratio of labor costs with steel tools
to those with stone tools at 1:1.5).
As mentioned above, andesitic rocks are one of two major
raw materials used for fashioning cut stone blocks at
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
courtyard at the West Plaza Complex, a sub-complex of the Street of the
Dead Complex; e stairs of a temple at the West Plaza Complex; and f an
entrance to the La Ventilla II apartment compound
Teotihuacan, and systematic quarrying techniques such as
those described by Quezada Ramírez et al. (2018) may have
been employed. If so, this may suggest that some specialized
group or groups of stone workers existed, although it is be-
yond the scope of this paper. Unlike quarrying unshaped
rocks, extracting nearly square or rectangular blocks
(preforms) required knowledge of specific rocks (such as the
comprehension of veins and fracture dynamics). Thus, the use
of cut stone blocks, specifically andesitic rocks, was expen-
sive not only in terms of preparation and transportation costs
but also in terms of human resources in knowledge. It should
be noted, however, that not all the cut stone blocks were quar-
ried through the systematic techniques described above. In
particular, those of tezontle were probably quarried as un-
shaped blocks and then shaped through percussion and abra-
sion since tezontle is vesicular and may lack the veins that
facilitate straight fractures. It is possible that some types of
andesitic rocks were also quarried as unshaped blocks and
processed later.
Geological sampling of possible sources
The provenance study is based on the comparison of geolog-
ical samples from possible source areas and archaeological
samples of cut stone blocks collected from architectural com-
plexes in the city. No sources were known at the beginning of
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
this study and, due to constraints of time and resources, not all
potential source areas were surveyed. Thus, the results of this
study remain preliminary and seek to provide baseline data for
future research. Below we present procedures of geological
and archaeological sampling and methods employed to char-
acterize rock samples. Then, we discuss the results with re-
spect to the procurement organization of cut stone blocks.
As mentioned above, andesitic rocks are widely available
in the Teotihuacan Valley, and the proximate sources outside
the valley are located in the Texcoco region, south of the
Teotihuacan Valley (Fig. 4). The lead author (Murakami)
chose these two regions for geological sampling of andesitic
rocks, and more focus was given to sampling within a 10–15-
km radius of the city of Teotihuacan (i.e., southern and west-
ern portions of the Teotihuacan Valley and the northern por-
tion of the Texcoco region) due to time constraints and the
hope of distinguishing local and non-local materials for this
study. The Teotihuacan Valley and the Texcoco region occupy
Fig. 4 Location of geological
samples in the Teotihuacan Valley
and the Texcoco region
the northeastern portion of the Basin of Mexico, which per-
tains to stepped plains forming part of the Trans-American
Volcanic Arch (Mooser 1968, pp. 32–22; Vázquez-Sánchez
and Jaimes-Palomera 1989, p. 136). Consequently, most vol-
canic events in the two regions are associated with the Trans-
American Volcanic Arch and produced different types of an-
desitic, dacitic, and basaltic rocks from the Miocene to the
Quaternary (Vázquez-Sánchez and Jaimes-Palomera 1989).
In each possible source area, the lead author collected one
to 11 samples, maximizing different colors and textures. It
should be noted that sample size at each area was affected
by accessibility (some lands were private and access was
prohibited). In most cases, samples were taken from outcrops
and in some cases from boulders. A total of 80 samples were
collected from 16 possible sources (Table 1 and Fig. 4). The
sample location was recorded with a handheld GPS. Below
we describe each sampling location and the type of rock re-
ported in the literature.
 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Table 1 Sample size and characteristics of geological samples of andesitic rocks

Source area Location Context n XRF Thin section Identified rock types Color variations
(abbreviation) (n) (n)

Cerro Colorado W Teo Valley Boulder 4 3 2 Andesite Light pink/brown to light gray
(COL)
Cerro Malinalco W Teo Valley Boulder 11 10 3 Andesite Light brown, brown, light
(MAL) Gray, gray, dark gray, mottled
pink/gray
Zacualuca (ZACL) W Teo Valley Boulder 5 3 1 Dacite, andesite Purple, pink, dark gray
Cerro Nixcuyo W Teo Valley Boulder 1 1 0 Andesite Purple
(NIX)
Cerro Clacaiteipa W Teo Valley Boulder 2 1 0 Andesite Dark pink, mottled dark gray
(CLA)
Belem (BEL) S Teo Valley Quarry 9 8 2 Dacite, andesite, rhyodacite, Mottled white/brown, brown
rhyolite
Cerro Xoxoqui S Teo Valley Boulder 6 6 3 Andesite Gray, purple, dark pink
(XOX)
Santiago La Cruz S Teo Valley Boulder 5 5 2 Andesite Light to dark gray
(CRZ)
Cerro Patlachique S Teo Valley Boulder 4 4 2 Andesite Light brown to brown
(PAT)
Cerro La Cruz S Teo Valley Quarry 8 2 1 Andesite-dacite Purple, gray, dark pink/brown
(CRUZ)
Cerro Huixtoyo S Teo Valley Quarry 6 1 0 Andesite-dacite Purple-dark gray
(HUI)
Tepetitlan (TPT) Texcoco Boulder 2 2 1 Andesite-dacite Dark gray/pink
Region
Jolalpan (JOL) Texcoco Quarry 7 7 2 Andesite-dacite Pink to gray/pink to dark gray
Region
La Flor (FLOR) Texcoco Secondary 4 4 3 Andesite, dacite, rhyolite Gray/pink
Region deposit
Santo Tomas Texcoco Boulder 1 1 1 Andesite Gray
(STOM) Region
Coatlinchan Texcoco Quarry and 5 3 2 Andesite, dacite Light to dark gray, light brown
(COAT) Region boulder
Total 80 61 25

The Teotihuacan Valley
Andesitic rock samples were collected from 11 cerros or
mountains in the Teotihuacan Valley (Figs. 4 and 5).
Andesitic rocks constitute the oldest formation in the
Teotihuacan Valley (Díaz Lozano 1979, p. 32; Hernández
Javier 2007, pp. 30–39; Mooser 1968; Sotomayor
Castañeda 1968). Díaz Lozano (1979) reports the results
of petrographic thin section analysis of rocks from multiple
mountains within the valley, and the sampling locations for
this study were selected based on his descriptions of rocks
(see also Biskowski (1997) who conducted INAA on ba-
saltic and some andesitic rocks within the valley).
Sampling locations can be grouped into two major areas,
the northwestern and southern portions of the valley. Díaz
Lozano (1979, p. 32) also mentions that andesitic rocks are
present in an area east of Cerro Gordo, but the lead author
was unable to visit this area due to time constraints in the
field.
In the northwestern portion of the valley, samples were
collected from a mountain adjacent to the village of Santiago
Zacualuca (hereafter referred to as Zacualuca), Cerro Nixcuyo
(just east of Zacualuca), Cerro Clacaiteipa (north of
Zacualuca), Cerro Colorado (north of the modern town of
San Juan Teotihuacan), and Cerro Malinalco (or Cerro
Maninal in the geological map) (Fig. 4). Díaz Lozano (1979,
pp. 38–40) reports the presence of gray quartzitic andesite
(western side of Cerro Nixcuyo), dark red hypersthene andes-
ite (western side of Cerro Nixcuyo), reddish altered andesite
(southeastern side of Cerro Nixcuyo, Cerro Colorado, south-
eastern side of Cerro Malinalco), and dark red pyroxene an-
desite (southeastern side of Zacualuca). It seems that all these
andesitic rocks are from Miocene volcanoes (Mooser 1968;
Sotomayor Castañeda 1968). Mooser (1968) assigns these
rocks to andesite and rhyodacite, whereas Sotomayor
Castañeda (1968, p. 42) assigns Zacualuca rocks to augite
andesite (pyroxene andesite) and those from Malinalco to
hornblende basalt. The geological map published by INEGI
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
(1979) reports andesite from Quaternary volcanoes in
Zacualuca and Cerro Clacaiteipa and gray dacite from Upper
Tertiary volcanoes in Cerro Malinalco.
At the southern limit of the Teotihuacan Valley stands the
Patlachique range, which divides the Teotihuacan Valley and
the Texcoco region (Fig. 1). It consists of multiple mountains
that belong to the same formation that originated in the
Miocene (Vázquez-Sánchez and Jaimes-Palomera 1989, p.
148). Rock samples were collected from a hill adjacent to
the modern village of Belem, Cerro La Cruz (adjacent to the
modern village of Santiago Tepetitlan; hereafter referred to as
Santiago La Cruz), Cerro Xoxoqui (whose western slope is cut
by a road to Texcoco), Cerro Patlachique (or Cerro Patlachico
in the geological map) on the northeastern portion of the
range, and Cerro Huixtoyo and Cerro La Cruz on the western
side. Of these mountains, Belem is a disused modern quarry
site (Fig. 5a), and Huixtoyo and La Cruz are still functioning
as rock quarry sites.
Díaz Lozano (1979, pp. 33–37) reports pink dacite
(Belem), gray to pink dacite (eastern side of Cerro
Patlachique), gray andesite (Santiago La Cruz and the eastern
portion of Cerro Patlachique), pinkish light gray altered an-
desite (the northeastern portion of Cerro Patlachique), banded
blue gray/pink compact andesite (La Cruz), and brown
Fig. 5 Mountains sampled in this study: a a historical quarry at Belem; b a modern quarry at Jolalpan; c a modern quarry at Coatlinchan; d Cerro
Malinalco viewed from the Street of the Dead; and e Patlachique range (the Sun and Moon Pyramids can be seen)
pyroxene andesite (Cerro Huixtoyo). All of these andesitic
rocks are assigned to rhyolite in the geological map published
by INEGI (1979). Mooser (1968) states that the majority of
the mountains in the Patlachique range (Fig. 5e) are Miocene
except for Cerro Patlachique, which is assigned to a Pliocene
volcano. He assigns rocks from Miocene volcanoes to
andesite and rhyodacite, whereas those from the Pliocene are
assigned to andesite and latite. Sotomayor Castañeda (1968, p.
42) assigns the andesitic rocks in the Patlachique range to
biotite latite and hornblende andesite.
To the east of Cerro Gordo, Díaz Lozano (1979, p. 41)
reports pink compact andesite near Hueyapan, northwest of
Otumba. This type of rock is found between basaltic flows
that covered andesitic rocks. He mentions that stone blocks
were quarried extensively at this location, although it had been
abandoned at the time of his survey in the early 1900s.
The Texcoco region
Major andesite outcrops extend in the mountain ranges that
form the eastern limit of the Basin of Mexico (e.g., Heizer and
Williams 1963). The geology of the Texcoco region is not well
studied, and there is little information on the variation of an-
desitic rocks available in the region. The mountain ranges that
 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

form the eastern limit of the Texcoco region (and thus the
Basin of Mexico) were formed from two major units, volcanic
deposits of the Early Pliocene and the Tlaloc Formation of the
Quaternary, which covered most of the earlier deposits. The
composition of rocks from the Early Pliocene varies from
andesitic to dacitic (Vázquez-Sánchez and Jaimes-Palomera
1989, p. 149), and that of the Tlaloc Formation includes an-
desitic, latitic, and dacitic (Vázquez-Sánchez and Jaimes-
Palomera 1989, p. 157). Vázquez-Sánchez and Jaimes-
Palomera (1989, p. 158) mention that the majority of rocks
are andesite and dacite of amphibole, lamprobolite
(oxyhornblende), and pyroxene. The geological map of
INEGI (1979) shows the presence of hornblende andesite
and lamprobolite andesite.
Samples were collected from five possible source areas
(Figs. 4 and 5): a mountain adjacent to the modern village of
San Antonio Tepetitlan (hereafter referred to as Tepetitlan);
Cerro Teponaxtle (adjacent to the modern village of Jolalpan
or Jolalpa; hereafter referred to as Jolalpan) on the southern
side of the Patlachique range; La Flor near the city of Texcoco;
Santo Tomás, east of the city of Texcoco; and mountains near
the modern town of Coatlinchan (hereafter referred to as
Coatlinchan A and Coatlinchan B). Among these, Jolalpan
and Coatlinchan A are modern quarry sites (Fig. 5). La Flor
is also a modern quarry site, formed by a deposit of boulders
that sedimented into sand layers. The boulders likely originat-
ed from multiple locations and include different types of an-
desitic rocks. Of these source areas, Coatlinchan is the south-
ernmost location, about 25 km directly south of Teotihuacan.
It was included because a large Teotihuacan-style statue
(called the Idolo de Coatlinchán) was found there (Heizer
and Williams 1963) and was identical in mineralogical com-
position to the statue of the so-called Water Goddess found
near the Moon Pyramid.
Selection of archaeological samples
Thirteen architectural complexes were included in the analysis
of cut stone blocks (Table 2): the Moon Pyramid, the
Quetzalpapalotl Palace Complex, the Sun Pyramid, the
Street of the Dead Complex, the Ciudadela, La Ventilla I, La
Ventilla II, Atetelco, Tetitla, Zacuala Palace, Yayahuala,
Tepantitla, and La Ventilla III (no samples were collected from
the Moon Pyramid). All cut stone blocks came from structures
built during the Tlamimilolpa through Metepec phases (ca.
A.D. 250–650), except for some blocks from the first Sun
Pyramid, which was built during the Miccaotli phase (ca.
A.D. 150–250).

Table 2 Sample size and summary data of archaeological samples of andesitic cut stone blocks

Location (abbreviation) Recorded blocks (n) Sample (n) XRF (n) Thin section (n) Mean size (m3) Range (m3) Estimated total
volumea (m3)

Central precinct
Moon Pyramid (MP) 107 0 0 0 0.031 0.012–0.061 151.97
Quetzalpapalotl Palace Complex (QP) 149 28 11 3 0.021 0.002–0.057 29.68
Sun Pyramid (SP) 41 41 16 4 0.147 0.046–0.3 1038.72
Street of the Dead Complex
Viking Group (VG) 31 28 6 1 0.028 0.004–0.125 1.77
West Plaza Compound (WPC) 344 69 33 10 0.016 0.002–0.112 50.39
Compound of the Superimposed 11 10 2 0 0.014 0.009–0.02 0.15
Structures (CSS)
Ciudadela (CD) 46 46 27 15 0.175 0.003–0.497 2070.34
Intermediate elite compounds
La Ventilla I (LVI) 52 46 19 9 0.045 0.012–0.228 11.25
La Ventilla II (LVII) 22 23 11 3 0.015 0.004–0.056 0.36
Atetelco (Atet) 175 23 10 1 0.016 0.005–0.047 4.93
Tetitla (Tet) 19 19 10 3 0.006 0.002–0.011 0.11
Zacuala Palace (Zac) 39 32 12 1 0.007 0.002–0.017 0.99
Yayahuala (Yay) 34 21 10 3 0.022 0.002–0.231 0.73
Tepantitla (TP) 12 7 1 0 0.037 0.006–0.066 2.78
Non-elite compounds
La Ventilla III (LVIII) 16 15 8 1 0.012 0.005–0.035 0.34
Total 1098 408 176 54 3364.52
a
Estimated total volume includes those cut stone blocks that were not recorded in the field
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
In total, the size, color, and texture of 1098 cut stone blocks
were recorded and 408 samples collected from 12 architectur-
al complexes (Table 2). The selection of samples was judg-
mental and multiple criteria were combined differently for
each architectural complex. When cut stone blocks were not
numerous, nearly all were recorded and sampled with the ex-
ception of some blocks of identical material. This was the case
at the Viking Group and the Complex of the Superimposed
Structures within the Street of the Dead Complex, as well as
the surrounding apartment compounds (with the exception of
Atetelco). At the Quetzalpapalotl Palace Complex, the West
Plaza Complex, and Atetelco, the color and texture of all ob-
served cut stone blocks were recorded (except for those coated
with lime plaster and heavily weathered blocks) and samples
were selected to maximize different colors and textures. The
state of preservation and the public visibility of the location
were also taken into account in choosing the sampling loca-
tion. At the Feathered Serpent Pyramid and the Sun Pyramid,
around 40 samples were arbitrarily selected from dismantled
cut stone blocks scattered around the pyramids (Fig. 3b).
From each selected cut stone block, a small piece (ca. 5 mm
to 5 cm) was detached using a hammer and a chisel.
Analytical methods
The provenance study of the cut stone blocks was carried out
combining three different techniques: reflected light micro-
scopic observations on the freshly broken edge of samples,
petrographic analysis of thin sections, and geochemical anal-
ysis through XRF. There are advantages and disadvantages to
each technique, so the three methods used together comple-
ment one another. Petrologically different rocks may form
from the same magma, depending on the cooling rate and
other factors. Conversely, petrologically similar rocks may
form from chemically different magmas. Thus, it is important
to combine geochemical and petrographic (including micro-
scopic) analyses.
Microscopic analysis
Microscopic observation of freshly broken edges with a
reflected light microscope is a useful and expedient technique
to identify color, texture, and some minerals at no cost. For
certain types of rock, it can be used as a substitute for thin
section analysis. A limitation, however, is the difficulty in
identifying small and underdeveloped crystals. All archaeo-
logical samples (n = 408) and the 61 geological samples were
analyzed through microscopic observation (Tables 1 and 2).
The color and texture of the groundmass and the size (e.g.,
small, medium, large) and type of phenocrysts were recorded
for each sample. Based on these variables, the archaeological
samples were classified into different groups referred to as
color groups in this study. These color groups are not meant
to be equivalent to source groups, for we think same color
groups may have come from several different sources and a
single source area may also contain rocks of different color
groups.
Petrographic thin section analysis
Based on the results of microscopic analysis, 54 archaeologi-
cal samples and 25 geological samples were selected for pet-
rographic thin section analysis (Tables 1 and 2). For archaeo-
logical samples, at least one specimen was included from each
microscopic color group. Petrographic analysis was employed
mainly to evaluate microscopic color groups and corroborate
the classification of archaeological samples. Thus, the color,
texture, and structure of groundmass and the size and type of
phenocrysts were recorded. Subsequently, archaeological
samples were assigned to possible source areas, which were
further examined based on geochemical analysis.
Geochemical analysis
XRF was used within archaeological provenance research to
identify chemical signatures of each sample. XRF is more
commonly used for obsidian analysis but has successfully
been applied to extrusive igneous rocks, including basalt
(Greenough et al. 2001; Latham et al. 1992) and andesite
(Jones et al. 1997; Ogburn 2004; Williams-Thorpe and
Thorpe 1993; see also Schaaf et al. 2005). Based on the results
of microscopic analysis, 61 geological samples and 176 ar-
chaeological samples were selected for XRF analysis
(Tables 1 and 2). These samples were analyzed at the
University of Missouri Research Reactor (MURR)
Archaeometry Laboratory.
XRF analysis was conducted by placing the entire artifact
within the chamber of an ElvaX energy dispersive X-ray fluo-
rescence spectrometer. Measurements were made using a
tungsten anode. Quantitative analysis of the resulting spectra
was calibrated with data from the analyses of 19 different
geological standard reference materials1 (SRMs). Reference
samples were made by combining powdered SRMs with a
wax binder in a ratio of approximately 4:1 and pressing the
1
Standard reference materials from the following institutions were used to
calibrate the ElvaX spectrometer: National Institute for Standards and
Technology (NIST): SRM278 (obsidian rock), 688 (basalt rock), and 1633b
(coal fly ash); United States Geological Survey (USGS): AGV-1 (andesite),
BCR-1 (basalt), BHVO-1 (Hawaiian basalt), BIR-1 (Icelandic basalt), G-2
(granite), GSP-1 (granodiorite), RGM-1 (rhyolite), SDC-1 (mica schist),
STM-1 (nepheline syenite), and W-2 (diabase); and Geological Survey of
Japan (GSJ): JA-1 (andesite), JB-2 (basalt), JG-2 (granite), JGB-2 (gabbro),
JR-1 (rhyolite), and JSy-1 (nepheline syenite). Reference values for NIST and
USGS standards are given in the sixth edition of Tables for Neutron Activation
Analysis (Glascock 2006). Reference values for GSJ standards are from un-
published neutron activation data produced at MURR and are available upon
request.

combined powder/wax matrix into a solid pellet. Analyses of
an additional 30 whole-rock obsidian samples were conducted
to validate the resulting calibration. Following this protocol,
analysis with the calibration routine produced elemental con-
centration values for 13 elements (Na, K, Ca, Ti, Mn, Fe, Zn,
Ga, Rb, Sr, Y, Zr, and Nb) with varying degrees of estimated
uncertainty (Table 3).
For this study, a non-destructive approach was chosen for
its time and cost-effectiveness, but it entailed disadvantages
that should be kept in mind. First, the irregular surfaces (i.e.,
freshly broken edges) analyzed here may have interfered with
transmitted and incident X-rays, producing erratic results; a
flat and polished surface is preferable. Second, the samples
may not have exhibited a homogeneous distribution of ele-
ments throughout the analyzed surface. This was particularly
true for some of the volcanic rocks, which showed large phe-
nocrysts of hornblende, feldspar, biotite, pyroxene, and am-
phibole. Typically, this problem is addressed by pulverizing
samples into a homogeneous mixture of relatively uniform
crystal size, thus allowing a determination of the Baverage^
chemical content of the entire rock (i.e., the combined com-
position of groundmass and phenocrysts). As such, elemental
determinations for the samples may be more accurately and
precisely made using more sensitive bulk-sample techniques
such as neutron activation analysis, in which the sample is
homogenized into powdered form and pressed into a pellet,
or selective analysis of highly polished surfaces. However, all
of these options require substantial commitments of time and
resources. In this study, microscopic and petrographic analy-
ses were employed for the samples that showed large and
irregular phenocrysts to complement XRF analysis.
The interpretation of compositional data obtained from the
analysis of archaeological materials is discussed in detail else-
where (e.g., Baxter and Buck 2000; Bieber et al. 1976; Bishop
and Neff 1989; Glascock 1992; Harbottle 1976; Neff 2000)
and is only summarized here. The main goal of data analysis is
to identify distinct homogeneous groups within the analytical
database. Initial hypotheses about source-related subgroups in
the compositional data can be derived from non-
compositional information (e.g., archaeological context, visu-
al description, etc.) or by applying various pattern-recognition
techniques to the multivariate chemical data. Some of the
pattern-recognition techniques that have been used to investi-
gate archaeological data sets include cluster analysis (CA),
principal components analysis (PCA), and discriminant func-
tion analysis (DFA). Each technique has advantages and dis-
advantages that may depend upon the types and quantity of
data available for interpretation.
The variables (measured elements) in archaeological and
geological data sets are often correlated and frequently large in
number. This makes handling and interpreting patterns within
the data difficult. Therefore, it is often useful to transform the
original variables into a smaller set of uncorrelated variables in
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
order to make data interpretation easier. Of the
abovementioned pattern-recognition techniques, this study
employed PCA to transform the data from the original corre-
lated variables into uncorrelated variables (Baxter 1992;
Baxter and Buck 2000; Neff 1994, 2002).
Based on PCA results, archaeological samples were divid-
ed into several provisional groups. The group membership of
each archaeological sample was then assessed through the
Mahalanobis distance (or generalized distance), a metric that
makes it possible to describe the separation between groups or
between individual samples and groups on multiple dimen-
sions. The Mahalanobis distance of a specimen from a group
centroid (Bieber et al. 1976; Bishop and Neff 1989) is defined
by:
h it h i
D2y;x ¼ y−X I x y−X
where y is the 1 × m array of logged elemental concentrations
for the specimen of interest; X is the n × m data matrix of
logged concentrations for the group to which the point is being
compared, with X being 1 × m centroid; and Ix is the inverse of
the m × m variance-covariance matrix of group X.
Mahalanobis distance is analogous to expressing distance
from a univariate mean in standard deviation units because it
takes into account variances and covariances in the multivar-
iate group. Like standard deviation units, Mahalanobis dis-
tances can be converted into probabilities of group mem-
bership for individual specimens. For relatively small
sample sizes, it is appropriate to base probabilities on
Hotelling’s T2, which is the multivariate extension of the
univariate Student’s t.
In addition to PCA and Mahalanobis distance, we conduct-
ed statistical analysis on subsets of the samples using bivariate
plots of the color groups identified through microscopic and
petrographic analyses. Similarity chemical composition de-
pends largely on the similarity of the original magma and
not necessarily on petrological similarity. Thus, it is critical
to combine petrological and geochemical data to reliably iden-
tify source areas.
Results
Microscopic and petrographic analyses
Archaeological samples were grouped into 24 major groups
through initial microscopic analysis: eight gray, four light
brown, seven brown, two white, two purple, and one mottled
brown/white. Some of these groups were further divided into
subgroups for a total of 35 identified groups (including sub-
groups) (Table 4). Following petrographic analysis, some of
these groups were combined (Brown 1b, 2, 5, and 6 were
Table 3 Summary data of elemental concentrations (ppm) for geological samples of andesitic rocks

Source area Na K Ca Ti Mn Fe Zn Ga Rb Sr Y Zr Nb

Colorado (n = 3) Mean 27,674.86 11,094.22 28,575.03 3810.74 306.51 22,277.51 63.25 16.43 16.77 683.66 36.09 162.19 0.87
Std. Dev. 726.01 2777.02 7148.18 432.16 71.25 914.28 11.33 0.33 6.07 11.65 15.62 19.59 0.29
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

CV (%) 2.62 25.03 25.02 11.34 23.25 4.10 17.92 2.00 36.21 1.70 43.27 12.08 33.39
Malinalco (n = 10) Mean 24,235.56 11,930.21 30,799.53 4780.81 298.90 25,961.79 58.67 16.21 28.14 705.59 44.04 168.16 4.51
Std. Dev. 2871.83 3154.88 12,714.78 1262.42 116.61 2928.49 11.54 0.29 8.06 115.55 21.38 17.75 4.22
CV (%) 11.85 26.44 41.28 26.41 39.01 11.28 19.67 1.77 28.64 16.38 48.55 10.56 93.52
Zacualuca (n = 3) Mean 21,469.73 17,897.55 30,373.46 3243.37 279.40 26,145.84 53.06 15.91 58.25 335.70 26.04 168.31 3.92
Std. Dev. 4059.11 1425.20 7970.98 767.13 75.76 5137.27 3.83 0.08 15.38 35.93 1.89 15.00 3.27
CV (%) 18.91 7.96 26.24 23.65 27.12 19.65 7.21 0.50 26.40 10.70 7.27 8.91 83.48
Nixcuyo (n = 1) Mean 16,837.36 12,309.78 29,932.83 3906.19 243.43 34,018.89 73.03 16.41 56.25 365.20 31.67 167.48 3.30
Clacaiteipa (n = 1) Mean 23,009.57 8527.06 33,920.53 4153.79 318.77 28,400.23 62.69 16.03 34.57 512.08 31.49 140.00 1.88
Belem (n = 8) Mean 29,265.47 18,529.20 13,690.27 2115.66 341.48 16,278.81 46.80 15.69 85.15 488.71 53.50 147.21 4.74
Std. Dev. 2685.16 1927.87 3357.87 889.70 163.50 2505.10 9.95 0.27 12.79 47.80 46.06 24.74 1.51
CV (%) 9.18 10.40 24.53 42.05 47.88 15.39 21.26 1.69 15.02 9.78 86.09 16.80 31.75
Xoxoqui (n = 6) Mean 25,763.81 16,740.86 14,770.18 4160.94 505.73 25,454.32 50.04 15.99 77.76 877.95 46.60 165.10 4.87
Std. Dev. 6797.46 1498.71 2483.26 780.97 313.09 7132.64 8.61 0.28 3.82 85.66 12.20 4.77 2.53
CV (%) 26.38 8.95 16.81 18.77 61.91 28.02 17.21 1.76 4.91 9.76 26.18 2.89 51.98
Santiago La Cruz (n = 5) Mean 20,583.42 12,185.18 22,847.12 5533.19 221.92 28,553.58 49.50 16.10 43.13 1086.88 79.52 183.01 3.93
Std. Dev. 4873.01 2545.30 5438.83 945.74 104.68 4968.62 14.20 0.41 8.30 118.39 24.55 11.13 3.11
CV (%) 23.67 20.89 23.81 17.09 47.17 17.40 28.69 2.53 19.24 10.89 30.88 6.08 79.28
Patlachique (n = 4) Mean 16,682.44 18,722.08 35,150.81 6269.63 306.41 35,059.03 75.94 16.78 14.80 885.45 58.06 172.27 1.13
Std. Dev. 1350.85 967.37 1038.24 337.18 24.41 1658.06 4.63 0.08 2.71 20.87 5.63 10.43 0.32
CV (%) 8.10 5.17 2.95 5.38 7.97 4.73 6.10 0.50 18.33 2.36 9.69 6.05 28.26
Cerro La Cruz (n = 2) Mean 27,099.79 14,559.28 19,952.43 3535.83 175.39 18,892.40 43.97 15.71 77.64 594.11 42.45 168.62 7.93
Std. Dev. 135.14 192.16 774.04 525.11 49.36 302.87 0.81 0.11 0.38 20.42 0.78 14.35 1.25
CV (%) 0.50 1.32 3.88 14.85 28.14 1.60 1.84 0.68 0.49 3.44 1.83 8.51 15.73
Huixtoyo (n = 1) Mean 27,753.45 18,594.12 24,922.27 3052.64 196.33 17,864.89 49.02 15.80 83.85 519.47 31.45 163.22 6.03
Tepetitlan (n = 2) Mean 27,796.70 16,077.95 19,945.84 3281.11 280.98 19,723.45 50.78 15.92 61.67 574.27 33.59 156.95 5.06
Std. Dev. 796.52 585.94 3094.02 368.92 32.93 1507.02 9.95 0.27 12.62 43.89 9.15 17.67 4.25
CV (%) 2.87 3.64 15.51 11.24 11.72 7.64 19.59 1.68 20.47 7.64 27.23 11.26 84.03
Jolalpan (n = 7) Mean 33,360.60 21,719.07 14,078.22 1788.49 378.69 11,995.95 36.94 15.22 104.16 319.96 26.74 120.23 5.88
Std. Dev. 3453.27 3448.17 1942.11 408.00 70.52 3313.34 4.94 0.18 13.90 43.03 6.07 20.67 3.07
CV (%) 10.35 15.88 13.80 22.81 18.62 27.62 13.37 1.19 13.34 13.45 22.69 17.19 52.33
La Flor (n = 4) Mean 26,590.04 23,666.00 18,314.46 2592.15 447.31 21,750.28 45.53 15.76 49.67 446.95 22.73 143.68 5.22
Std. Dev. 1213.63 5550.80 3030.93 1610.90 70.31 2272.06 2.98 0.10 27.69 149.40 7.08 17.45 4.16
 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

79.73

68.58
4.15
2.85
0.39
grouped together based on the presence of oxyhornblende),
Nb resulting in 32 groups. Moreover, it appeared that four out of
the 408 archaeological samples were basalt and therefore ex-

151.44
12.15

20.70
13.67
98.63
cluded from subsequent analysis. Among the color groups,
Zr

Gray 1 and Gray 2 comprised the majority of samples (about

35 and 39%, respectively), followed by Gray 3 (about 4%),
31.14

33.00
24.08
17.07

7.95 Mottled Brown/White (3%), Light Brown 1 (3%), White 1

Y

(2.2%), and Brown 1 (2%). Although the samples are not

statistically representative, it is unlikely that the overall pattern
354.44
741.78

103.11
33.43

29.09

changed drastically. During the recording process in the field,

Sr

it was noted that fine-grained gray andesite comprised the

majority of non-sampled cut stone blocks.
55.75

34.43
51.85
66.40
11.35

Through the comparison of color groups with geological

Rb

samples (Table 4; see Figs. 6, 7, and 8), some groups were

provisionally assigned to specific sources. Samples in the
15.31
15.78
0.64

0.30
1.92

Light Brown 1 group are nearly identical to geological sam-

Ga

ples from Cerro Patlachique, and those in the Mottled Brown/

White group are very similar to geological samples from
35.28
48.06

19.38
6.54

9.31

Belem (see below). Other color groups were also assigned to

Zn

possible sources but less confidently than our assignments for

the two groups mentioned above.
18,341.26
20,914.93
6795.85

In addition to the groups similar to the geological sources

10.45

32.49

sampled, there are other groups most likely originating from

Fe

sources that were not sampled. The Gray 1 and 2 groups,

which comprise the majority of samples, are totally different
316.99
226.04
15.72

11.49
3.63
Mn

from the geological samples, being only somewhat similar to

Coatlinchan B. The White 1 group is also completely different
from sampled geological sources; it is probably trachyte. The
2982.65
3362.85

858.97
62.15

28.80

White 2 group was assigned to oxyhornblende (lamprobolite)

CV coefficient of variation (standard deviation divided by the mean, then multiplied by 100)
Ti

andesite, which was not observed in our geological samples

(but Colorado and Cerro Patlachique do contain
22,969.83
20,403.57

oxyhornblende). A major source of oxyhornblende andesite

8435.00
16.55

41.34

is found in the Guadalupe range on the west coast of Lake

Ca

Texcoco (López Luján et al. 2003), and so it is possible that

the White 2 group came from the Guadalupe range.
22,146.19
6465.19
6834.67

Sotomayor Castañeda (1968) suggests that some grinding

23.45

29.19

tools at Teotihuacan were made of rocks from the

K

Guadalupe range.
29,887.19
26,011.29
4655.08
17.90
4.56

Geochemical analysis
Na

Preliminary analysis of the compositional data verifies that

Std. Dev.
CV (%)

CV (%)

most samples analyzed here can correctly be classified as ei-

Mean
Mean

ther andesite or dacite according to the discriminant diagram

of Winchester and Floyd (1977). Source samples analyzed in
this study fall predominantly within the andesite and dacite
range of volcanic rocks, with some outliers from La Flor and
Table 3 (continued)

Santo Tomas (n = 1)
Coatlinchan (n = 3)

Belem falling within the compositional range of rhyolite and

rhyodacite (Fig. 9a). This is not unexpected given that samples
Source area

from La Flor derived from secondary (i.e., boulder) deposits

that may represent varying lithologies, and samples from
Belem were classified as dacite through petrographic analysis.
Table 4 Summary data of color groups identified through microscopic analysis cross-tabulated with macrogroups created through XRF analysis

Color group n (%) Rock type Description Result of XRF (n) Possible source

Teotihuacan High Rb
Valley Macrogroup Outliers
Macrogroup
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Gray 1a 114 (28%) Dacite Fine to glassy groundmass with small mafics 1 28 2 Non-local (Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
(biotite and hornblende) scattered and
some small to medium plagioclase phenocrysts
Gray 1b 30 (7.4%) Dacite/andesite Fine to glassy groundmass with abundant small 6 9 1 Non-local (Tepeapulco/Pachuca? Texcoco
mafics (biotite and hornblende) and small region?)
to medium plagioclase phenocrysts
Gray 2a 79 (20%) Andesite Glassy to fine groundmass with few but 26 1 Texcoco region
developed plagioclase phenocrysts and
small hornblende scattered. Gray 2
group is characterized by the presence
of well-developed large
(> 2 mm) phenocysts of plagioclase
Gray 2b 26 (6.4%) Andesite Glassy to granular groundmass with small mafics 11 1 3 Texcoco region
(hornblende and biotite) scattered and
abundant small to large plagioclase
phenocrysts
Gray 2c 16 (4%) Andesite Glassy to fine groundmass with small-medium 7 Texcoco region
mafics (hornblende and biotite) scattered
and large plagioclase phenocrysts
Gray 2d 24 (5.9%) Andesite Glassy to fine groundmass with small to large 10 Teotihuacan Valley
mafics (hornblende and biotite) and Texcoco region
developed plagioclase phenocrysts
Gray 2e 10 (2.5%) Andesite Fine to medium groundmass with scattered/ 4 1 Teotihuacan Valley
crowded medium mafics (hornblende and
biotite) and developed feldspar phenocrysts
Gray 2f 4 (1%) Trachyte/dacite Glassy groundmass with zoned oxidized 1 1 Non-local (Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
voids, plagioclase phenocrysts (some zoned Texcoco region
growth), and scattered small
hornblende and biotite
Gray 3a 9 (2.2%) Andesite Fine to glassy groundmass with abundant 8 Texcoco region
medium-large plagioclase phenocrysts
and few mafics
Gray 3b 5 (1.2%) Andesite Fine to glassy groundmass with abundant 3 Texcoco region
plagioclase phenocrysts of varying sizes and
few mafics. Gray 3 group is characterized by
the reduced amount of mafics
Gray 3c 2 (0.5%) Andesite Fine to glassy gray groundmass with medium 1 1 Texcoco region
to large plagioclase phenocrysts and few
mafics. Some olivine phenocrysts
as accessories
Table 4 (continued)

Color group n (%) Rock type Description Result of XRF (n) Possible source

Teotihuacan High Rb
Valley Macrogroup Outliers
Macrogroup

Gray 4 5 (1.2%) Trachyte/rhyolite Fine to granular groundmass with abundant 2 2 W Teotihuacan Valley
and crowded plagioclase phenocrysts Non-local
with some small hornblende.
Some samples are very glassy with
quartz phenocrysts, similar to Gray 8
Gray 5 4 (1%) Dacite-andesite Fine purplish glassy groundmass with 3 Teotihuacan Valley
few phenocrysts (some plagioclase
and hornblende)
Gray 6 4 (1%) Dacite-andesite Fine to glassy groundmass with xenomorphic 3 Texcoco region
phenocrysts. Some plagioclase, biotite,
and olivine phenocrysts
Gray 7 1 (0.2%) Andesite Very fine to glassy groundmass with some 1 Teotihuacan Valley
developed elongated plagioclase and biotite
phenocrysts and small rounded mafics
scattered. Some olivine phenocrysts
Gray 8 1 (0.2%) Rhyolite-rhyodacite Glassy mottled dark gray and light brown 1 Non-local (Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
groundmass with some quartz and plagioclase
phenocrysts and few mafics
Light Brown 1 12 (3%) Oxyhornblende dacite Fine light brown groundmass fluidal structure 2 Patlachique
with oxyhornblende phenocrysts scattered
Light Brown 2 4 (1%) Trachyte/rhyolite Very fine to glassy groundmass with few 2 Non-local (Otumba? Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
phenocrysts and mafics
Light Brown 3 2 (0.5%) Rhyolite Mottled fine (microcrystalline; light brown) and 1 Non-local (Otumba? Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
glassy (white) groundmass with quartz and
plagioclase phenocrysts. Small mafics
scattered
Light Brown 4 5 (1.2%) Andesite Fine light brown groundmass with abundant 3 Patlachique range
small-medium plagioclase and some alkaline
feldspar phenocrysts. Few mafics.
Brown 1a 6 (1.5%) Andesite Fine to glassy gray groundmass with some well- 4 Teotihuacan Valley
developed plagioclase and abundant
hornblende and biotite phenocrysts
Brown 1c 2 (0.5%) Andesite Glassy to granular pink groundmass with 2 Teotihuacan Valley
abundant well-developed plagioclase
and some hornblende and biotite phenocrysts.
Some oxyhornblende
Brown 1b, 2, 5, and 6 6 (1.4%) Oxyhornblende Fine to grassy pink-brown groundmass 4 1 Colorado
andesite with plagioclase phenocrysts of varying
sizes and scattered oxyhornblende phenocrysts
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Table 4 (continued)

Color group n (%) Rock type Description Result of XRF (n) Possible source

Teotihuacan High Rb
Valley Macrogroup Outliers
Macrogroup
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Brown 3 1 (0.2%) Andesite Glassy mottled gray and pink groundmass with 1 Patlachique range
some plagioclase and hornblende phenocrysts.
Some quartz and alkali feldspar
Brown 4 1 (0.2%) Andesite Very fine to glassy groundmass with some 1 Patlachique range
plagioclase phenocrysts of varying sizes and
small hornblende. Some olivine phenocrysts
Brown 7 1 (0.2%) Andesite Fine to glassy groundmass with few 1 Cerro La Cruz
plagioclase phenocrysts and abundant and
scattered hornblende
White 1 9 (2.2%) Rhyolite/trachyte Very fine to glassy groundmass with some 5 Non-local (Otumba? Tepeapulco/Pachuca?)
plagioclase phenocysts and small
hornblende scattered. Some
specimens are almost devoid of phenocrysts
White 2 6 (1.5%) Oxyhornblende Very fine to glassy groundmass with some 3 Texcoco region
andesite medium to large plagioclase phenocryst and
oxyhornblende or corroded hornblende
scattered
Purple 1 1 (0.2%) Dacite-andesite Glassy mottled dark gray and pink groundmass 1 Texcoco region
with abundant well-developed and
elongated plagioclase phenocrysts and some
hornblende and olivine
Purple 2 1 (0.2%) Rhyolite-dacite Fine purple groundmass with few plagioclase 1 La Cruz?
phenocrysts and some small mafics scattered
Mottled 13 (3.2%) Dacite Fine to glassy mottled white and brown 4 2 Belem
Brown/White groundmass with some plagioclase non-local
phenocrysts and abundant small
oxyhornblende phenocrysts scattered
Total 404 (100%) 111 39 26 Total = 176
 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 6 Cross-polarized micrographs of geological samples (see Table 1 for the abbreviation of source areas): Plg = plagioclase, Hbl = hornblende, Bio =
biotite, Qtz = quartz, Ol = olivine, Oxy = oxyhornblende, Afs = alkali feldspar, Opx = orthopyroxene

In terms of lithology, archaeological samples from
Teotihuacan show markedly greater variation relative to the
source samples (Fig. 9b), ranging from transitional andesite/
basalt to trachyte and peralkaline rhyolite (i.e., comendite and
pantellerite). Of the architectural complexes sampled here, the
West Plaza Complex shows the greatest variation in terms of
volcanic lithologies.
PCA of the XRF data reveal that greater than 90% of the
cumulative variation in the 237-member dataset can be
described by six principal components (PCs). The first
six PCs are most heavily loaded by immobile elements
(e.g., Nb, Y, Zr, Ti, Sr), suggesting that some petrogenic
differences may be detectable within the sample. The first
PC is strongly loaded on Sr and Ti in the negative direc-
tion. The second PC is positively loaded on Nb. Biplots of
PC-transformed data fail to reveal source-specific sub-
group structure.
A second PCA conducted on only the samples comprising
the source database (i.e., excluding artifacts) reveals that, un-
like with the entire dataset, alkali metals and Nb account for
most of the variation in the dataset (Table 5). Biplots of these
scores suggest that at least some of the better-represented
sources can be successfully discriminated in multivariate
space (Fig. 10a, b). This is particularly true if the boulder-
derived samples from La Flor are removed from consider-
ation, something entirely warranted considering that these
samples may have derived from multiple geological forma-
tions and locations.
Bivariate plots of logged elemental concentrations also re-
veal slight subgroup structure among individual sources
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Fig. 7 Cross-polarized micrographs of gray groups: Plg = plagioclase,
Hbl = hornblende, Bio = biotite, Qtz = quartz, Ol = olivine. a CDC-13. b
LVIC-2. c SPC-14. d AtetC-3. e SPC-16. f CDC-15. g CDC-17. h CDC-
(Fig. 10c). Unfortunately, there is no straightforward correla-
tion between elemental abundance and geological source. For
example, the samples from Cerro Colorado and Cerro
Malinalco tend to plot with each other in bivariate and multi-
variate space, as might be expected since these sources are
relatively close together in geographic space, but the single
sample from Santo Tomas is also compositionally similar,
despite the fact that this source is located over 40 km to the
south.
Examination of the artifact samples analyzed in this study
reveals slight clustering, suggestive of significant chemical
similarities among samples. While the majority of samples
reflect the broad compositional variability represented by the
various sources in the Basin of Mexico, a tightly clustered
group of artifact samples falls well outside of this range.
Specifically, these samples have consistently higher concen-
trations of Rb and K (Fig. 10d) and lower concentrations of Sr,
Zr, Zn, Fe, and Ca. The chemical differences observed within
29. i CDC-8. j CDC-19. k TetC-19. i QPC-15. m YayC-2. n WPCC-52. o
SPC-3. p LVIIIC-12 (see Table 2 for the abbreviation of architectural
complex)
the artifact samples suggest that the tightly clustered group of
samples originates from a single source. Their distinctiveness
from other samples is attributed to either (1) a fundamentally
different petrology, (2) a chemically distinct source, or (3) a
combination of both. Cross-validation of these samples with
the rock classification diagrams presented earlier suggests that
they fall within the dacite/rhyodacite range of compositions;
thus, the chemical data may reflect petrology. Yet, it should be
noted that these artifacts are compositionally distinct from the
dacites and rhyolites present in the source database, and there-
fore, the data appear to reflect as well. We prefer a conserva-
tive approach for handling these results and thus discern at
least two compositional macrogroups: one reflecting the broad
compositional variability observed within the Teotihuacan
Valley and the Texcoco Region (designated as the
Teotihuacan Valley Macrogroup) and the other representing
a different chemistry that is suspected—but not proven—to be
non-local (called the High Rb Macrogroup). Using
 Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 8 Cross-polarized micrographs of brown groups: Plg = plagioclase, 42. d WPCC-25. e CDC-28. f WPCC-16. g WPCC-65. h LVIC-39 (see
Hbl = hornblende, Bio = biotite, Qtz = quartz, Ol = olivine, Oxy = Table 2 for the abbreviation of architectural complex)
oxyhornblende, Afs = alkali feldspar. a CDC-35. b LVIC-32. c CDC-

Mahalanobis distance-based probabilities, these two groups
can be shown to be statistically distinct from one another,
and artifact samples unassignable to either group can easily
be identified (called outliers) (Fig. 11).
Discussion of the combined results
The comparison of color group and PCA macrogroup assign-
ments (Table 4) indicates that some color groups can be se-
curely assigned to sources not sampled in this study. The ma-
jority of the samples composing the High Rb Macrogroup are
those assigned to Gray 1a or 1b through microscopic and
petrographic analyses (Table 4). This accords well with the
microscopic observation results of Gray 1 samples, which
suggest they are from non-sampled geological sources. All
of the White 1 samples were assigned to outliers, which also
accords well with microscopic observation. These samples
were identified as rhyolite or trachyte through microscopic
and petrographic analyses. Compositional data also indi-
cate that some are rhyolite and others trachyte. These
types of rock were not collected during the sampling.
Some Gray 4 (rhyolite and trachyte), Gray 8 (rhyolite-
dacite), and Light Brown 3 (andesite) samples were also
assigned to outliers; microscopic analysis indicated no
similar geological samples.

Fig. 9 Classification of volcanic rocks based on immobile elements (after Winchester and Floyd (1977)) showing source samples from the Basin of
Mexico (a) and artifact samples from Teotihuacan (b). Samples not classified as andesite or dacite (rhyodacite) are labeled with MURR ANIDs
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Table 5 Principal component

analysis of the 61-member dataset PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6
of volcanic-stone sources from
the Basin of Mexico % Variance 50.863 22.92 6.569 5.397 4.12 3.817
Cum. % Variance 50.863 73.783 80.352 85.749 89.87 93.686
Total Structure Coefficients
Ti −0.307 0.4583 0.0868 −0.2055 0.5661 0.5231
Ca −0.2268 0.1262 0.4671 −0.1053 0.0348 −0.3139
Sr −0.2182 0.2812 −0.3265 0.1178 −0.0905 0.1563
Fe −0.2021 0.205 0.023 −0.0619 0.1805 −0.4232
Y −0.1121 0.4492 −0.5738 0.2126 −0.2428 −0.2022
Zn −0.1091 0.1477 0.0287 −0.145 0.031 −0.2997
Zr −0.0346 0.1408 −0.0103 0.0114 0.0444 −0.2468
Ga −0.0153 0.0168 −0.0025 −0.0107 0.0016 −0.0339
Mn 0.0704 −0.0974 −0.3986 −0.8265 −0.0872 0.0132
Na 0.1103 −0.1259 −0.0148 −0.0723 −0.1772 0.3364
K 0.1753 −0.1151 −0.124 −0.2482 0.3849 −0.3399
Rb 0.5587 0.0171 −0.2495 0.2812 0.5546 −0.042
Nb 0.6164 0.6085 0.3166 −0.1832 −0.2846 0.0301

The first six principal components are shown, accounting for greater than 90% of the cumulative variation in the
dataset. The first two components are most heavily influenced by alkali metals, niobium, and manganese (see Fig.
10a). Numbers in bold show moderate-high correlation with respective component

PCA assignment of macrogroups also provides some prob-
lematic results. While Light Brown 1 samples were assigned
to Cerro Patlachique through microscopic analysis, these sam-
ples were designated outliers by PCA. It is possible that the
irregular surfaces and/or non-homogeneous distribution of el-
ements produced erratic results. Brown 6 (dacite-andesite) is
somewhat similar to Malinalco samples but was classified an
outlier. It is not clear whether this is due to analytical uncer-
tainty or whether it is from another source. Although we sug-
gested earlier that White 2 samples (oxyhornblende andesite)
possibly came from the Guadalupe range on the west coast of
Lake Texcoco, these samples were assigned to the
Teotihuacan Valley Macrogroup by PCA. It is possible that
there are oxyhornblende andesite sources in the Texcoco re-
gion or the Guadalupe and Texcoco sources share similar
compositions. At any rate, oxyhornblende andesite is not pres-
ently documented within the Teotihuacan Valley, suggesting
that the White 2 group likely came from outside the valley.
Geochemical compositional results were analyzed further
by comparing bivariate plots against color groups. This allows
us to illustrate the compositional variability among petrologi-
cally similar rocks. Geological samples were divided into gray
andesite-dacite (including purple), brown andesite-dacite (in-
cluding light brown), and mottled brown/white dacite, which
were then compared against archaeological samples of the
same color groups (i.e., gray, brown, and mottled brown/
white groups). Samples of the White 1 and 2 groups were
excluded from this analysis. Based on this comparison, each
color group was assigned to specific sources, possible areas,
or broader regions (i.e., the Teotihuacan Valley or the Texcoco
region). The results are summarized in Table 4.
Based on the results of PCA mentioned above, four ele-
ments, Rb, Sr, K, and Fe, were selected to show the variability
among geological and archaeological samples. Comparison of
Rb and Sr reveals some correlation between compositional
data and geographical areas (Fig. 12). Specifically, geological
samples from each of the northeastern (Santiago La Cruz and
Xoxoqui) and western (La Cruz, Huixtoyo, and Tepetitlan)
portions of the Patlachique range show clear clustering and
can be isolated from the rest of the samples. Samples from the
southern portion of the Patlachique range (Jolalpan) and those
from the Texcoco region (La Flor and Coatlinchan A and B)
also exhibit clustering, although a sample from the western
Teotihuacan Valley (Zacualuca) does fall within the range of
variability of the samples from the south. Conversely, a sam-
ple from the Texcoco region (Santo Tomas) falls near the
range of the Malinalco samples. Since our sampling in the
Texcoco region was not extensive, it is possible that signifi-
cant overlap exists between sources in the western
Teotihuacan Valley and the Texcoco region. We suggest the
possibility that this overlap is due to the similar geological age
of some sources, although there are controversies with respect
to the dating of geological events in these regions. Thus, it is
likely that the variability among the western Teotihuacan
Valley and the Texcoco region can be accounted for by both
petrology and the geological age of sources.
The bivariate plot of K against Fe also shows a gen-
eral division between the Teotihuacan Valley and the

Fig. 10 Bivariate plots based on geochemical data. a Biplot of the first
two principal components scores for geological samples (samples from
La Flor are removed). b Biplot of the first and third component scores. c
Bivariate plot of rubidium and strontium concentrations for geological
samples (ellipses represent the 1σ confidence interval for group
Texcoco region. Samples from the western Teotihuacan
Valley and the northeast portion of the Patlachique range
are clustered together, and both of which can be isolated
from the Texcoco samples. Samples from the west por-
tion of the Patlachique range fall between these two re-
gions. As with the plot of Rb and Sr, there is an overlap
between the two regions; samples from Coatlinchan A
are located within the range of the Teotihuacan Valley
samples. A sample from Santo Tomas in the Texcoco
region is well outside the range of the Texcoco sources
but also apart from the Teotihuacan sources as well.
Given the uncertainty of non-destructive XRF analysis
as employed here, it is possible that the chemical com-
position of the Santo Tomas sample may be in error, or
perhaps, this particular piece of stone is not representa-
tive of the Santo Tomas source locality.
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
membership). d Bivariate plot of rubidium and potassium
concentrations for both geological and archaeological samples (ellipses
represent the 1σ confidence interval for group membership in geological
sources. Extreme outliers removed). Note clustering of artifacts at the
upper left of chart (high Rb-high K)
Gray andesite-dacite
Based on the tentative divisions among geographically dis-
tinct source areas for gray andesite-dacite, archaeological sam-
ples were compared against geological samples using the
same bivariate plots. As indicated by PCA, the majority of
Gray 1 samples are outside of the range of both Teotihuacan
and Texcoco sources (Fig. 12b).
The source area for these samples is unknown, but we
suggest a location somewhere in Central Mexico. The biplots
clearly show that Gray 1 samples form part of a continuum in
the chemical composition of geological samples. The nearest
source areas for dacite/rhyodacite include the Otumba region
and an area between the northeastern limit of the Teotihuacan
Valley and Pachuca, both of which contain obsidian sources.
Geochemical composition of obsidian has been well studied
Archaeol Anthropol Sci

Fig. 11 Bivariate plots showing the two macrogroups of artifacts defined plot of potassium and iron concentrations. b Bivariate plot of rubidium
within the assemblage from Teotihuacan (compositional groups of and zirconium concentrations (outliers are labeled with MURR ANIDs)
geological sources are shown by 1σ confidence ellipse). a Bivariate

and those studies indicate that Pachuca obsidian has a higher other types of rocks with different cooling processes, specifi-
concentration of Rb (e.g., Carballo et al. 2007). Since obsidian cally rhyolite and probably rhyodacite and dacite. In addition
forms from rhyolitic lava, the geochemical variations between to Pachuca obsidian, two other obsidian sources, the
these two sources of obsidian should also reflect variations of Zacualtipan and Paredon (northwest and southeast of

Fig. 12 Bivariate plots of Rb and Sr concentrations for geological samples (a), Gray 1 group (b), Gray 2 group (c), Gray 3 group (d), and the rest of gray
and purple groups (e)

Pachuca, respectively) obsidian sources, also have high Rb
concentrations (Carballo et al. 2007, Table 3). This suggests
that an area along the Sierra Madre Oriental, which runs from
the northwest to southeast in Mexico, is formed from Rb-rich
rocks. Based on these observations, we suggest that the geo-
logical source of the High Rb Macrogroup is located not with-
in the Basin of Mexico, but to the north of the Teotihuacan
Valley, probably near Pachuca.
Within the Gray 1 group, some Gray 1b rocks were
assigned to the Teotihuacan Valley Macrogroup (Fig. 12b).
It is possible that they came from the Texcoco region where
samples contain higher concentrations of Rb and K and lower
concentrations of Sr and Fe compared to sources within the
Teotihuacan Valley. Microscopic and petrographic analyses
suggest that some Gray 1b samples are somewhat akin to
samples from La Flor.
Gray 2 samples fall within the range of Teotihuacan and
Texcoco sources, with the majority likely coming from the
Texcoco region (Fig. 12c). Most Gray 2a and 2b samples are
within the range of Texcoco sources, and Gray 2e samples
cluster with Teotihuacan sources, although not necessarily
within the range of sampled sources. Gray 2c and 2d are likely
from a variety of sources in the Teotihuacan Valley and
Texcoco region. It should be noted, however, that geological
samples similar to Gray 2 samples were not identified, so
future research should attempt to locate their sources.
Gray 3, 5, 6, and 7 and Purple 1 samples fall within the
range of either or both Teotihuacan and Texcoco sources
(Fig. 12d). Microscopic and petrographic analyses reveal a
similarity between some archaeological and geological speci-
mens (see Figs. 6, 7, and 8), which is consistent with geo-
chemical data. However, it was not possible to assign archae-
ological samples to specific geological sources. Geological
samples from the Texcoco region are underrepresented in this
study and it is likely that varying lithologies with similar geo-
chemical composition exist in this region.
Gray 4, Gray 8, and Purple 2 samples were identified as
other types of rocks (i.e., rhyolite and trachyte) and designated
outliers by PCA. We discuss the possible sources of these
outliers at the end of this section.
Brown andesite-dacite
Brown variants of andesitic rocks are nearly limited to the
Teotihuacan Valley and the southern side of the
Patlachique range, although this does not preclude the
possibility that there are unknown sources of brown an-
desitic rocks in the Texcoco region. As with gray types,
bivariate plots of four elements (Rb, Sr, K, and Fe) indi-
cate that compositional variability is more or less corre-
lated with geographical areas (Fig. 13). Several sources in
the Patlachique range (except for Cerro Patlachique) are
distinguishable from West Teotihuacan Valley sources
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
based on Rb and Fe contents. The Sr and K concentra-
tions allow for further division of the Patlachique range
sources into northwestern, western, and southern portions.
Samples from Cerro Patlachique cluster with sources from
the northeastern portion of the Patlachique range accord-
ing to Sr and K contents but depart from them according
to Fe and Rb contents. This may attest to the difference in
geological age between Cerro Patlachique and adjacent
mountains as suggested by Mooser (1968).
The comparison of archaeological samples of Light
Brown and Brown groups against geological samples in-
dicates that all the archaeological samples fall within the
range of Teotihuacan sources with the exception of the
few outliers (Light Brown 2 and 3) defined by PCA men-
tioned above. The plots (Fig. 13) show that Light Brown
1 samples are clustered with Patlachique samples even
though they were assigned as outliers by PCA.
Microscopic and petrographic analyses show that Light
Brown 1 samples are strikingly similar to those of Cerro
Patlachique samples (Fig. 13) and can thus be assigned to
Cerro Patlachique. As previously noted, the non-
destructive methodology employed here may have intro-
duced analytical uncertainty in the XRF data, so we are
hesitant to rely exclusively on this source of data alone as
a means of discriminating sources.
Light Brown 2 and 3 samples are also considered out-
liers within the PC-transformed data, and the bivariate
plots show that they are not clustered with any
Teotihuacan sources. Petrographic analysis suggests that
they are trachyte and/or rhyolite-trachyte, not present in
our geological dataset. While Light Brown 4 samples fall
geochemically within the range of the western and south-
ern portions of the Patlachique range (Fig. 13), we do not
find any similar petrology in our source materials. It is
possible that they came from sources in the Patlachique
range not sampled in this study.
Brown 1b, 2, 5, and 6 samples were assigned to Cerro
Colorado through petrographic analysis, which is consistent
with geochemical analysis, with the exception of Brown 6
(Fig. 13). These samples contain varying amounts of
oxyhornblende and developed plagioclase phenocrysts.
Within PC space, Brown 6 is an outlier, but the bivariate plots
clearly show that it is closely clustered with Colorado/
Malinalco samples.
Brown 1a, 1c, 3, and 4 samples were not assigned to
any source though petrographic analysis, but the bivariate
plots show that they are within the range of Teotihuacan
sources (probably the Patlachique range). Of these sam-
ples, the Brown 4 sample exhibits similar petrological
composition in some respects to those from La Flor in
the northern Texcoco region. Since this source is a sec-
ondary deposit, it is possible that some of the original
rocks derived from the Patlachique range. All these
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Fig. 13 Bivariate plots of Rb and Sr concentrations (left) and K and Fe concentrations (right) for geological and Brown group samples. Micrographs of
geological and archaeological samples of similar composition are also shown
samples are characterized by well-developed phenocrysts
of plagioclase, hornblende, and/or biotite.
Petrographic observation showed that one Brown 7 sample
is very similar to the Cerro La Cruz samples from the western
Patlachique range (Fig. 13). However, the bivariate plots sug-
gest that Brown 7 came from the western Teotihuacan Valley,
probably near Nixcuyo.
Mottled brown and white
Mottled brown and white rocks were identified as dacite and
collected from only two sources within the Teotihuacan
Valley: Belem in the northeastern portion of the Patlachique
range and Zacualuca in the western Teotihuacan Valley. It is
possible that more sources of these rocks exist, but based on
petrologic similarities, the archaeological samples of the
Mottled Brown/White group were assigned to Belem through
microscopic and petrographic analyses. The comparison of
archaeological samples against geological samples from
Belem and Zacualuca based on geochemical data generated
by XRF analysis (Fig. 14) shows that most archaeological
samples cluster with the geological samples from Belem.
Two of the archaeological samples were designated as outliers
by PCA as mentioned above, and in the bivariate plots, they
do not cluster with any source material. However, given their
striking similarity in petrology to other samples, it is likely
that some factors, such as non-homogeneous distribution of
elements over the surface, resulted in poor characterization by
our XRF method. We suggest that all the Mottled Brown/
White samples are from Belem.

Fig. 14 Bivariate plot of Rb and
Sr concentrations for the Mottled
Brown/White group and micro-
graphs of geological and archae-
ological samples
Geochemical outliers
Out of 26 outliers identified through PCA, two samples of
Light Brown 1 show strikingly similar composition to geo-
logical samples from Cerro Patlachique as discussed
above. Six of the outliers were identified as rhyolite (two
of which are peralkaline rhyolite), which pertain to Gray,
Light Brown, and White color groups. Additionally, two
samples (Gray and White groups) were assigned to tra-
chyte. Most trachyte and rhyolite specimens contain high
concentrations of Rb, so we suggest the possibility that the
source areas for these types of rocks and the High Rb
Macrogroup are located near each other, probably north
of Tepeapulco and/or around Sierra de las Navajas
(Pachuca) as discussed above. Aside from the
Tepeapulco/Pachuca area, the nearest source of rhyolite
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
and trachyte is located in the Soltepec range at the eastern
limit of the Teotihuacan Valley, also where the Otumba
obsidian source is located (Fig. 15; Hernández Javier
2007). Since Otumba obsidian was heavily exploited dur-
ing the Teotihuacan period, it is highly likely that other
types of rock were also quarried in this area.
The rest of the outliers (n = 16) are andesite-dacite,
whose colors include gray, light brown, brown, purple,
white, and mottled brown/white. Some of these outliers
have high Rb concentrations. It is possible that both the
Tepeapulco/Pachuca area and the Otumba area provided
those rocks. Lastly, we suggest the possibility that other
sources within the Basin of Mexico, such as the
Guadalupe range on the west coast of Lake Texcoco
(López Luján et al. 2003), were also exploited. There
are several Teotihuacan period settlements on the eastern
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Fig. 15 Map showing possible
non-local (beyond 10 km radius)
sources (dashed lines) of andesitic
rocks in Central Mexico. Pink-
purple tones represent extrusive
igneous rocks (based on the
INEGI digital map)
and western sides of Lake Texcoco that reflect interaction
of varying intensity with Teotihuacan (Clayton 2013).
Both Azcapotzalco and Axotlan, located on the west coast
of Lake Texcoco, show a close connection with
Teotihuacan, so it is possible that their residents quarried
rocks in the nearby Guadalupe range (Fig. 15) and pro-
vided them for urban construction at Teotihuacan.
Provenance studies of ceramics in Central Mexico have
successfully discriminated different source areas, such as
the Texcoco region, the Teotihuacan Valley, the Otumba
region, and the Cuauhtitlan region (adjacent to the
Guadalupe range) (e.g., Garraty 2013; Neff et al. 2000),
as well as three subregions of the Texcoco region (Minc
2009). These studies are encouraging as the parent rock of
local clay and temper is supposedly from the adjacent
mountains. In fact, the geochemical composition of obsid-
ian and ceramics at Otumba shows a substantial overlap
(though obsidian is much more homogeneous) (Neff et al.
2000). Thus, further research is warranted for determining
the provenance of outliers and the High Rb Macrogroup.
Implications for the procurement
organization of andesitic cut stone blocks
Petrographic and XRF analyses strongly suggest that the ma-
jor sources of andesitic cut stone blocks are not located in
close proximity to the city but outside a 10–15-km radius from
the city center. The Tepeapulco/Pachuca area and the Texcoco
region are the likely source areas (Fig. 15). It should be
emphasized that source assignments are still preliminary, and
further analysis coupled with extensive sampling of source
materials is needed to determine the source of each sample.
With this caveat in mind, overall patterns show that non-local
sources (beyond 10–15 km) were exploited to a greater degree
than local sources in the Teotihuacan Valley. Around 80% of
the analyzed samples were assigned to the source of the High
Rb Macrogroup (possibly the Tepeapulco/Pachuca area) and
the Texcoco sources. We suppose that the actual proportion of
cut stone blocks from non-local sources is higher because the
majority of blocks recorded (but not sampled) in the field are
fine-grained gray andesite-dacite, which is probably the same
as the Gray 1 group.
In addition to non-local sources, some mountains in the
Patlachique range (southern Teotihuacan Valley) were
exploited. Specifically, this study identified rocks from Cerro
Patlachique, Belem, and possibly Cerro La Cruz. Compared to
the southern valley, rock sources in the western portions of the
Teotihuacan Valley were underexploited. These overall pat-
terns apply to most architectural complexes.
The use of cut stone blocks was highly restricted to some
buildings in the central precinct during the Tlamimilolpa and
Early Xolalpan phases, whereas during the Late Xolalpan to
Metepec phases, it was restricted to some intermediate elite
compounds (Murakami 2010). In the following discussion,
we focus on the Tlamimilolpa and Early Xolalpan phases
and examine the changing procurement organization of cut
stone blocks based on diachronic changes in the spatial distri-
bution of different source materials among architectural com-
plexes in the central precinct.

The FSP and the Quetzalpapalotl Palace Complex (QPC)
contain samples of cut stone blocks from Early Tlamimilolpa
contexts. At both structures, the majority of cut stone blocks
were likely brought from the source of the High Rb
Macrogroup and, to a minor extent, from the Texcoco region.
Gray types predominate among these rocks. In addition,
brown type rocks from the southern (e.g., Patlachique and
Belem) and western (e.g., Colorado) Teotihuacan Valley are
present but constitute a minor proportion.
The variety of rocks appears to have increased in the central
precinct during the Early Xolalpan phase. The major sources
of the High Rb Macrogroup and Texcoco region continued to
be exploited, but the number of different brown types from the
Teotihuacan Valley increased. Specifically, cut stone blocks of
Light Brown 4 and Brown 1 through 6 types appeared during
this phase. White 1 and 2 and Purple 1 types were newly
exploited. All of these types likely came from the southern
or western valley, with the exception of White types. This
indicates that the mountains in the southern and western valley
were more extensively exploited than during the Early
Tlamimilolpa phase. The White 1 type probably came from
the eastern valley and the White 2 type from either the
Texcoco region or the western coast of Lake Texcoco.
Sampled complexes rebuilt in this phase include the QPC,
the Sun Pyramid, three complexes within the Street of the
Dead Complex (the Viking Group, the West Plaza Complex,
and the Complex of the Superimposed Structures), and the
Ciudadela. Of these complexes, the West Plaza Complex con-
tains the most variety of rocks. Including subtypes from our
color groups, a total of 20 different types of rock were used at
the West Plaza Complex, followed in frequency by the Viking
Group (11 types), the QPC (10 types), and the Sun Pyramid (9
types). The number of types at the West Plaza Complex is
clearly related to the larger sample and amount of cut stone
blocks used at the complex, but it might also attest to an
importance attached to the complex. It is important to note
that the number of rock types does not necessarily equate to
the number of rock sources, as different types of rock may be
present in a single mountain. Further provenance studies are
necessary to assign each color group identified in this study to
a specific source location, and much is dependent on the geo-
logical scale of what we may treat as a source location.
The predominance of a few sources and the near exclusive
use of cut stone blocks for state buildings suggests that their
procurement was organized directly by the state (e.g., labor
tax akin to Aztec coatequitl; see Carballo 2013) or indirectly
through other guild-like institutions (e.g., patron-client rela-
tions) during the Early Tlamimilolpa and Early Xolalpan
phases. Considering the large size of cut stone blocks used
for the FSP and the Sun Pyramid, it is likely that the
Tepeapulco/Pachuca and Texcoco sources were systematical-
ly and extensively exploited by a group (or groups) of special-
ists, who possessed the knowledge to extract large-sized
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
blocks from outcrops. Alejandro Pastrana’s research at
Pachuca (Pastrana and Domínguez 2009) has demonstrated
that mining groups resided at the quarry, probably for part of
the year, to exploit obsidian. Moreover, Teotihuacan period
settlements are found near the quarry, whose residents likely
participated in the quarrying of obsidian. It is possible that the
procurement of andesitic cut stone blocks was organized in a
similar fashion.
With respect to sources within the Teotihuacan Valley, it is
possible that procurement was organized by the state to some
extent, guild-like institutions, and/or through community-
level labor obligations (e.g., Aztec tequitl; see Carballo
2013) at Belem in the Patlachique range and Colorado/
Malinalco in the western valley. These two source areas pro-
vided some large-sized blocks to the FSP. While our sampling
was not random, if we assume that our samples are represen-
tative, a simple calculation shows that about 400 blocks
(0.2 m3 on average) or 80 m3 of rocks were quarried at each
of these two source areas (based on the calculation that around
10,000 blocks were used for the FSP). The procurement at
each source was probably not as extensive as this, but even
to extract 50 or 100 large blocks would require some system-
atic exploitation.
Cut stone blocks from other sources within the valley were
probably obtained by small-scale work groups either indepen-
dently or through tribute or patron-client relations. As pointed
out above, the number of different types of rock increased dur-
ing the Early Xolalpan phase. The majority of cut stone blocks
from sources within the valley were used for staircases and
steps delimiting courtyards and rooms. The sizes of these indi-
vidual blocks are considerably smaller than those used for the
FSP and the Sun Pyramid. This suggests that procurement did
not require extensive specialized knowledge and/or groups,
meaning average persons could have quarried these blocks.
Furthermore, procurement activities at a greater number of
sources and/or locations within a single source, as opposed to
an intensive quarrying of a single source, imply that procure-
ment was less systematically organized than the quarrying at
the Tepeapulco/Pachuca and Texcoco sources. Most likely in-
dependent work groups quarried limited numbers of blocks at
certain locations because they were required to provide stone
blocks to the state and/or because of their value as commodity.
Conclusion
This study indicates that a limited group of sources of andes-
itic rocks, most likely non-local, were heavily exploited for the
construction of the central precinct and other buildings. This
observation, coupled with the unequal distribution of cut stone
blocks (Murakami 2010) and the skill required to quarry large
blocks, suggests that procurement was systematically and cen-
trally organized by a specialized group or groups of masons.
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Given the concentrated distribution of cut stone blocks within
the central precinct, it seems reasonable to assume that these
specialized groups were closely associated with the state gov-
ernment. While it is difficult to determine the nature of the
relationship between the specialized groups and the state with
the currently available evidence, we suggest two possibilities:
patron-client relations and/or relations embedded in a tribute
system. In either case, we argue that the procurement of an-
desitic cut stone blocks was administered by the state govern-
ment. If we are correct that the Tepeapulco/Pachuca area was
the major source of the High Rb Macrogroup, then it is likely
that elite groups at Tepeapulco administered the procurement
and transportation of rocks. The presence of possible second-
ary centers in resource-rich areas can also be observed in the
Tula region, where elites of Chingu (Fig. 15) probably admin-
istered the production and transportation of lime (Barba
Pingarrón et al. 2009; Murakami 2016). Along with this cen-
tral procurement and distribution system, we think that other
systems at intermediate and small scales coexisted for the
procurement and distribution of cut stone blocks. All of these
discussions illustrate the importance of provenance studies of
key resources for understanding the nature of intra-regional
and inter-regional relations and the expansion of the
Teotihuacan state.
While the resolution of the geochemical data is insuffi-
cient to rigorously define source-specific compositional
groups, the combined analysis by microscopic observation,
petrography, and XRF served to identify specific source
areas. We note that, while the initial classification based on
microscopic observation of freshly broken edges allowed us
to analyze all collected samples, it was slightly modified
following the results of the petrographic analysis.
Petrography is a powerful tool for determining source areas,
but is limited by the fact that the spatial extent of possible
source areas is immense, and more importantly, varying li-
thologies exist in a single source area. These factors make it
difficult to obtain representative samples from possible
source areas. In this respect, this study has demonstrated that
rocks with different lithologies but, from the same area,
share a similar geochemical composition. Thus, geochemical
analysis can help to identify source areas irrespective of
having detailed knowledge of lithologies. That said, similar
geochemistry does not necessarily indicate geographic ori-
gin, as shown by the geochemical overlap between the west-
ern Teotihuacan Valley and the Texcoco region (but they do
have different lithologies). Clearly, the three techniques
employed in this study have their respective advantages
and disadvantages, and so it is critical to combine multiple
methods. This study provides baseline data for future re-
search, which should include more extensive geological
sampling, petrographic analysis, and more sophisticated geo-
chemical analyses (e.g., INAA, ICP-MS) to determine spe-
cific source areas of andesitic cut stone blocks.
Acknowledgements The lead author (Murakami) would like to thank the
Consejo de Arqueologia for their permission to conduct research, as well
as Alejandro Sarabia, the director of the Zona Arqueológica de
Teotihuacan, for providing logistical support for archaeological sampling
at Teotihuacan. The study presented in this paper was made possible by
financial support from the National Science Foundation Dissertation
Improvement Grant (BCS-0836716) awarded to Murakami and a
National Science Foundation grant (0504015) awarded to MURR.
Finally, we thank Chris Oswald for his assistance in the analysis of the
samples by XRF and Alex Jurado for editing help for an earlier draft of
this paper. Comments and suggestions by two anonymous reviewers
greatly helped clarifying our argument and the scope of the paper.
References
Abrams EM (1994) How the Maya built their world: energetics and
ancient architecture. University of Texas Press, Austin
Barba Pingarrón LA (2005) Materiales, técnicas y energía en la
construcción de Teotihuacan. In: Gallut MER, Peralta JT (eds)
Arquitectura y urbanismo: pasado y presente de los espacios en
Teotihuacan. Memoria de la Tercera Mesa Redonda de
Teotihuacan. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia,
Mexico City, pp 211–229
Barba Pingarrón LA, Córdova Frunz JL (2010) Materiales y energía en la
arquitectura de Teotihuacan. Instituto de Investigaciones
Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México,
Mexico City
Barba Pingarrón LA, Blancas J, Manzanilla LR, Ortiz A, Barca D, Crisci
GM, Miriello D, Pecci A (2009) Provenance of the limestone used in
Teotihuacan (Mexico): a methodological approach. Archaeometry
51:525–545
Baxter MJ (1992) Archaeological uses of the biplot—a neglected tech-
nique? In: Lock G, Moffett J (eds) Computer applications and quan-
titative methods in archaeology, 1991, vol BAR International Series.
Tempvs Reparatvm, Oxford, pp 141–148
Baxter MJ, Buck CE (2000) Data handling and statistical analysis. In:
Ciliberto E, Spoto G (eds) Modern analytical methods in art and
archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp 681–746
Bieber AMJ, Brooks DW, Harbottle G, Sayre EV (1976) Application of
multivariate techniques to analytical data on Aegean ceramics.
Archaeometry 18:59–74
Bishop RL, Neff H (1989) Compositional data analysis in archaeology.
In: Allen RO (ed) Archaeological chemistry IV, vol 220. Advances
in chemistry. American Chemical Society, Washington, D.C., pp
576–586
Biskowski MF (1997) The adaptive origins of Prehispanic markets in
central mexico: the role of maize-grinding tools and related staple
products in early state economies. Ph.D. diss. University of
California, Los Angeles
Carballo DM (2013) Labor collectives and group cooperation in Pre-
Hispanic Central Mexico. In: Carballo DM (ed) Cooperation and
collective action: archaeological perspectives. University Press of
Colorado, Boulder, pp 243–274
Carballo DM, Carballo J, Neff H (2007) Formative and Classic period
obsidian procurement in Central Mexico: a compositional study
using laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry.
Lat Am Antiq 18:27–43. https://doi.org/10.2307/25063084
Clayton SC (2013) Measuring the long arm of the state: Teotihuacan's
relations in the basin of Mexico. Anc Mesoam 24:87–105
Cowgill GL (2000) The central Mexican highlands from the rise of
Teotihuacan to the decline of Tula. In: Adams REW, MacLeod MJ
(eds) The Cambridge history of the native peoples of the Americas.

Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part 1. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, pp 250–317
Díaz Lozano E (1979) Rocas y minerales del valle. In: Gamio M (ed) La
población del Valle de Teotihuacan, Tomo II. Instituto Nacional
Indigenista, Mexico City, pp 27–66
Garraty CP (2013) Market development and pottery exchange under
Aztec and Spanish rule in Cerro Portezuelo. Anc Mesoam 24:151–
176
Gillespie SD (1994) Llano de Jícaro: an Olmec monument workshop.
Anc Mesoam 5:231–242
Glascock MD (1992) Characterization of archaeological ceramics at
MURR by neutron activation analysis and multivariate statistics.
In: Neff H (ed) Chemical characterization of ceramic pastes in ar-
chaeology. Prehistory Press, Madison, pp 11–26
Glascock MD (2006) Tables for neutron activation analysis. The
University of Missouri Research Reactor Center, Columbia
Greenough JD, Gorton MP, Mallory-Greenough LM (2001) The major-
and trace-element whole rock fingerprints of Egyptian basalts and
the provenance of Egyptian artifacts. Geoarchaeology 16:763–784
Harbottle G (1976) Activation analysis in archaeology. Radiochemistry 3:
33–72
Heizer RF, Williams H (1963) Geologic notes on the Idolo de Coatlichán.
Am Antiq 29:95–98
Hernández Javier I (2007) Geología y geomorfología volcánica de la
región de los yacimientos de obsidiana de Otumba en el sector norte
de la Sierra Nevada de México. Tesis de licenciatura, Universidad
Nacional Autónoma de México
INEGI (1979) Carta geológica: Texcoco E14B21, Mexico y Tlaxcala,
Escala 1:50,000. Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e
Informática, Mexico City
Jones GT, Bailey DG, Beck C (1997) Source provenance of andesite
artifacts using non-destructive analysis. J Archaeol Sci 24:929–943
Latham T, Sutton PA, Verosub KL (1992) Non-destructive XRF charac-
terization of basaltic artifacts from Truckee, California.
Geoarchaeology 7:81–101
López Luján L, Torres J, Montúfar A (2003) Los materiales constructivos
del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 34:
137–166
Margáin CR (1967) Sobre sistemas y materiales de construcción en
Teotihuacan. In: XI Mesa Redonda. Sociedad Mexicana de
Antropología, Mexico City, pp 157–211
Millon R (1973) The Teotihuacan map. Part 1: text. Urbanization at
Teotihuacan, Mexico, vol 1. University of Texas Press, Austin
Millon R (1981) Teotihuacan: city, state, and civilization. In: Bricker V,
Sabloff JA (eds) Supplement to the handbook of middle American
Indians, vol.1: Archaeology. University of Texas Press, Austin, pp
198–243
Minc LD (2009) Style and substance: evidence for regionalism within the
Aztec market system. Lat Am Antiq 20:343–374
Mooser F (1968) Geología, naturaleza y desarrollo del Valle de
Teotihuacan. In: Lorenzo JL (ed) Materiales para la arqueología de
Teotihuacan, Serie Investigaciones XVII. Instituto Nacional de
Antropología e Historia, Mexico City, pp 29–37
Murakami T (2010) Power relations and urban landscape formation: a
study of construction labor and resources at Teotihuacan. Ph.D. diss.
Arizona State University
Archaeol Anthropol Sci
Murakami T (2015) Replicative construction experiments at Teotihuacan,
Mexico: assessing the duration and timing of monumental construc-
tion. J Field Archaeol 40:263–282
Murakami T (2016) Materiality, regimes of value, and the politics of craft
production, exchange, and consumption: a case of lime plaster at
Teotihuacan. J Anthropol Archaeol 42:56–78
Neff H (1994) RQ-mode principal component analysis of ceramic com-
positional data. Archaeometry 36:115–130
Neff H (2000) Neutron activation analysis for provenance determination
in archaeology. In: Ciliberto E, Spoto G (eds) Modern analytical
methods in art and archaeology. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
pp 81–134
Neff H (2002) Quantitative techniques for analyzing ceramic composi-
tional data. In: Glowacki DM, Neff H (eds) Ceramic source deter-
mination in the greater Southwest. Monograph 44. Cotsen Institute
of Archaeology, Los Angeles, pp 15–36
Neff H, Glascock MD, Charlton TH, Charlton CO, Nichols DL (2000)
Provenience investigation of ceramics and obsidian from Otumba.
Anc Mesoam 11:307–321
Ogburn DE (2004) Evidence for long-distance transportation of building
stones in the Inka empire, from Cuzco, Peru to Saraguro. Ecuador
Lat Am Antiq 15:419–439
Pastrana A, Domínguez S (2009) Cambios en la estrategia de la
explotación de la obsidiana de Pachuca: Teotihuacan, Tula y la
Triple Alianza. Anc Mesoam 20:129–148. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0956536109000133
Quezada Ramírez ON (2016) El Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan:
sistemas, materiales y técnicas constructivas. Tesis de licenciatura.
Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City
Quezada Ramírez O, Pascal C, López AG (2018) De la cantera a
Tenochtitlan: Presencia de rocas de origen volcánico en la
construcción y la escultura del Templo Mayor. La explotación de
andesita en la cantera de San Bartola Tenayuca, una aproximación
etnoarqueológica. Mexico City
Robles García NM (1992) La extracción y talla de cantera en Mitla,
Oaxaca. Tecnología para la arquitectura monumental. Arqueología
2(7):85–112
Sarro PJ (1991) The role of architectural sculpture in ritual space at
Teotihuacan, Mexico. Anc Mesoam 2:249–262
Schaaf P, Stimac J, Siebe C, Macías JL (2005) Geochemical evidence for
mantle origin and crustal processes in volcanic rocks from
Popocatepetl and surrounding monogenetic volcanoes, Central
Mexico. J Petrol 46:1243–1282
Sotomayor Castañeda A (1968) Estudio petrográfico del area de San Juan
Teotihuacan, Edo. de México. In: Lorenzo JL (ed) Materiales Para la
Arqueología de Teotihuacan, Serie Investigaciones XVII. Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City, pp 39–49
Sugiyama S (2005) Human sacrifice, militarism, and rulership: material-
ization of state ideology at the feathered serpent pyramid,
Teotihuacan. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Vázquez-Sánchez E, Jaimes-Palomera R (1989) Geología de la Cuenca
de México. Geofis Int 28:133–190
Williams-Thorpe O, Thorpe RS (1993) Geochemistry and trade of eastern
Mediterranean millstones from the Neolithic to Roman periods. J
Archaeol Sci 20:263–320
Winchester JA, Floyd PA (1977) Geochemical discrimination of different
magma series and their differentiation products using immobile el-
ements. Chem Geol 20:235–343