Antiquity

http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY

Additional services for Antiquity:

Email alerts: Click here

Subscriptions: Click here
Commercial reprints: Click here
Terms of use : Click here

Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the

New World

Antiquity / Volume 85 / Issue 327 / February 2011, pp 172 - 186

DOI: 10.1017/S0003598X0006751X, Published online: 02 January 2015

Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S0003598X0006751X

How to cite this article:

(2011). Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World. Antiquity, 85, pp
172-186 doi:10.1017/S0003598X0006751X

Request Permissions : Click here

Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/AQY, IP address: 132.174.255.116 on 14 Mar 2015

Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an
ancient republic in the New World
∗
Lane F. Fargher1 , Richard E. Blanton2 , Verenice Y. Heredia Espinoza3 ,
John Millhauser4 , Nezahualcoyotl Xiuhtecutli5 & Lisa Overholtzer4

Arguing from the overall settlement plan and

the form of buildings, the authors present a
persuasive case that the Late Postclassic city of
Tlaxcallan and its near neighbour Tizatlan
constitute the central elements of a republican
state. This is an unusual political prescription,
not only in Mesoamerica but further afield.

Keywords: Mesoamerica, Tlaxcallan, Late Postclassic (AD 1250–1519), republic, urbanism,

governance

Introduction
In Western history, the development of the modern nation-state or republic involved the
construction of a political system that combined legal-rational bureaucracy (e.g. Weber 1947:
333) with some form of collective rule such as rule by council (e.g. congresses, parliaments,
1
Departamento de Ecologı́a Humana, Centro de Investigaciones y de Estudios Avanzados-Unidad Mérida, Km. 6
Antigua Carretera a Progreso, Apdo. Postal 73, Cordemex, 97310, Mérida, Yuc., México (Email:
lfargher@purdue.edu)
2
Department of Anthropology, Purdue University, Stone Hall, 700 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907,
USA
3
Centro de Estudios Arqueológicos, El Colegio de Michoacán, A.C., Cerro de Nahuatzen 85, Frac. Jardines del
Cerro Grande, 59379, La Piedad, Michoacán, México
4
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University, 1810 Hinman Avenue, Evanston, IL 60208, USA
5
Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, 7041 Freret Street, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA
∗
Author for correspondence

Received: 28 January 2010; Revised: 10 May 2010; Accepted: 3 July 2010

ANTIQUITY 85 (2011): 172–186 http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/085/ant0850172.htm
172
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

senates). Bureaucratic and governmental reforms were intended to overcome the despotic
forms of government that dominated northern Europe and parts of Mediterranean Europe
during the medieval period (e.g. England, France, Spain, Milan) (e.g. Bendix 1978). In the
late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and still often expressed now, Europeans and by

Research
extension Euro-Americans developed the philosophy that the social construction of nation-
states and the rational social action they imply were uniquely European developments
(Mills 1817; Hegel 1953; Marx 1973; Montesquieu 1989; for more recent expressions of
similar ideas see Wittfogel 1957; Hobsbawm 1985; Anderson 1991; Wolf 1999) and that
ancient republics are absent outside Mediterranean/European history (e.g. Nederman 2005:
2099).
We suggest that this idea reflects, in part, a view of the non-Western ‘other’ that is
largely informed by a symbolic inversion of European history (rather than empirically
supportable social analysis) that sees European society in opposition to supposed despotism
in which powerful rulers were able to remain in power because the people they ruled were
mired in irrationality (e.g. Anderson 1974: 472; Vitkin 1981: 445). Recently, however,
Western and non-Western anthropologists, archaeologists and historians have begun to
accumulate data demonstrating that legal-rational bureaucracy and especially collective rule
are not uniquely European in origin and are present in many cultural traditions (e.g.
Blanton & Fargher 2008). Importantly, recent work has demonstrated that collective rule
or republics (states which lack a king or monarch) developed in the Near East, south
Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, and (possibly) China (see Liu 2004: 247–51) independent of
European intervention. For example, numerous scholars have drawn attention to historical
evidence that late fourth- and early third-millennium BC cities in the Near East were
governed by citizen assemblies similar to later Greek democracy (Jacobsen 1943; Postgate
1992: 80–81; van de Mieroop 1997; Fleming 2004; cf. Raaflaub 1998: 31). In south
Asia, the period from 1000 to 300 BC saw the emergence of republics (gana or sangha)
(e.g. Licchavi) that rejected monarchy and placed ruling power in the hands of a council
or assembly drawn from the ksatriya caste (J.P. Sharma 1968; Thapar 1984: 78–81; R.S.
Sharma 1996: 128–32). In nineteenth-century Swahili Lamu (East Africa), the political
system was organised around a ruling council (diwan) which represented ‘the people’ and
elected leaders who served four-year terms, at which time they were replaced by elected
leaders from the opposing moiety (Prins 1967: 49, 100, 1971: 50; Horton & Middleton
2000: 159–60).
To this list we can now add the Americas. Our recent work has documented the
development of aspects of legal-rational bureaucracy, especially open and competitive
recruitment, and a mix of governing councils and dynastic rule in the Aztec Triple Alliance
(Fargher & Blanton 2007; Blanton & Fargher 2008; see also van Zantwijk 1985). And here,
we describe the archaeology of a republic in the pre-Columbian New World, Tlaxcallan
located in central Mexico.

The archaeological remains of an ancient republic

In August of 2009, we completed a systematic full-coverage study of the ancient city of
Tlaxcallan, as well as a rural governmental complex (Tizatlan) on a hill located about 1km

173
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

Figure 1. Map of Tlaxcallan and Tizatlan.

outside the city’s limits (Figure 1). Between about AD 1250 and 1519 (the Late Postclassic
period of the central Mexican archaeological sequence) Tlaxcallan city was constructed
rapidly on a series of hilltops and hillsides that have little evidence for occupation during
any previous archaeological period. In less than 200 years, the city grew from a population
numbering in the hundreds to an estimated 22 500–48 000 people in an area of just 4.5km2
(producing a population density of 50–107 people per hectare) with domestic and public
architecture covering 3km2 within the site.
We were struck by the fact that the urban landscape we discovered at Tlaxcallan was
unlike other Mesoamerican cities that have been studied. For example, we were unable
to locate any structures that we could clearly identify as palaces. Mesoamerican palaces
known from other sites typically feature multiple rooms and patios constructed atop large

174
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

platforms. Some are quite substantial: the best-known examples cover 10 000–20 000m2
(we discuss Mesoamerican palaces in more detail below). While some residential structures
at Tlaxcallan were elevated on low platforms (no more than 1–2m high), even the largest
example would have supported a house no larger than 1000m2 . Excavations of mounded

Research
architecture and associated space on or near plazas by the Mexican government in three
different areas (two within Tlaxcallan and one in Tizatlan) uncovered only relatively small
temples (Caso 1927; Fuentes 1927; Garcı́a Vega 1929; Noguera 1929; Contreras 1992a
& b; Guevara Hernández 1999a & b). Also, we were surprised to find no evidence that
the Tlaxcaltecas built substantial pyramids like those that served as focal points for other
Mesoamerican political centres. This is remarkable given the fact that Tlaxcallan is within
100km of the Great Pyramid of Cholula (the largest pyramid in Mesoamerica), the Pyramid
of the Sun at Teotihuacan and the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan (Mexico City), all of
which were known to the Tlaxcaltecas.
While the typical city plan in Late
Postclassic central Mexico features a central
civic-ceremonial building complex adjacent
to larger houses and palaces (Smith 2008:
461, 463, 465, 467) (Figure 2), Tlaxcallan’s
urban landscape consisted of large open
plazas surrounded by residential terraces.
We were able to locate 24 plazas dispersed
throughout the site ranging in size from
450 to 10 000m2 . Plazas were constructed
atop large terraces or platforms and were
accessed through a network of stone-paved
and walled roads that passed between
terraces and were designed for public use.
Figure 2. Urban epicentre, Cohuintepec (after Smith 2003: In some cases, the Tlaxcaltecas constructed
fig. 8.1). small, low temples at the edges of these
plazas. There is no indication that any
particular plaza played a central role in the life of the city, as indicated by the convex
rank-size graph of plaza area (A = .29; t-test = 1.77, ρ = .04 for divergence from
rank-size) (cf. Johnson 1981; see also Drennan & Peterson 2004: 534–5) (Figure 3). The
city’s domestic zones also display considerable uniformity suggesting a minimal degree
of social differentiation. In nearly all areas of the site, multiple houses were placed on
large terraces constructed with earthen fill, capped by rubble, and faced with cut stone.
Terraces range in size from about 1000 to 5000m2 with retaining walls ranging from 50
to 300m in length. The scale of construction devoted to domestic use is impressive; the
total length of linear terrace wall construction probably exceeded 50km and represented
by far the most overt expression of built environment within the city. Examination of
exposed profiles revealed that terraces were typically constructed in a single phase. Moreover,
exposed construction fill is basically sterile indicating that older archaeological deposits
were not redistributed during the Late Postclassic. Also, there is little evidence that major
levelling of hilltops occurred. Therefore, we estimate the Tlaxcaltecas moved an estimated

175
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

Figure 3. Rank-size graph of Tlaxcallan’s plazas.

1 000 000 to 1 500 000m3 of fill for terrace construction, representing a rapid and
monumental anthropogenic modification of the landscape aimed principally at construction
for domestic purposes.
The main urban zone at Tlaxcallan was divided into at least 20 neighbourhoods, each one
focused on its own plaza. Based on descriptions from early colonial Tlaxcala (Tlaxcallan’s
name after the conquest) (Anguiano & Chapa 1976), we think these subdivisions
are examples of tlaca, which were neighbourhood-scale subdivisions of the teccalli or
administrative units of the Tlaxcallan state. As such, each one of these neighbourhoods
was administered and represented by an official (teuctli).
While the main settled area of the urban centre was made up of 20 neighbourhoods,
our investigation suggests the possibility that the state’s main governmental complex was
at Tizatlan (cf. Muñoz Camargo 1999: 63–4). Tizatlan is located about 1km outside the
city across rugged terrain that shows no evidence of occupation (e.g. terraces, artefacts).
Diagnostic ceramics recovered in excavations at Tizatlan (Noguera 1929), and from our
survey, are identical to pottery found in Tlaxcallan city. Interestingly, although Tizatlan
features a massive platform supporting mounded structures, there is no evidence of a palace
or any residential occupation. Instead, excavations conducted in the first part of the twentieth
century uncovered a group of single-room structures set on low platforms that bound two
sides of a small plaza or patio that, in turn, opens onto a massive plaza and terrace complex set
on a huge platform (e.g. Caso 1927; Garcı́a Vega 1929; Noguera 1929). The entire complex
covers 14 800m2 , representing an estimated 60 000m3 of construction fill. At this scale, it is
similar to Nezahualcoyotl’s palace in Texcoco, which covered at least 11 400m2 and required
about 45 600m3 of fill (Parsons 1971: 362). However, Tizatlan looks more like a palace

176
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

that has been turned inside out or reversed (the rooms are at the centre and surrounded by
massive open spaces as opposed to placing small patios at the centre and surrounding them
with many rooms and walls). It had a series of monumental entrances that would facilitate
access by large numbers of persons (Muñoz Camargo 1999: 60). Finally, Tizatlan is the

Research
only monumental complex that we were
able to document in the core area of the Late
Postclassic Tlaxcallan state and probably
functioned as a central place for the
entire state, which covered about 1450km2
and included an estimated 162 000–
250 000 persons dispersed throughout
many towns and villages (Gibson 1952:
138–42; Garcı́a Cook & Merino Carrión
1991: 329; Muñoz Camargo 1999: 60).

Discussion
These archaeological data provide new
insights on the settlement pattern as-
sociated with a unique and previously
poorly documented society and political
system in ancient Mexico. Most notably,
the Tlaxcaltecan approach to building a
political capital departed in significant
ways from other Mesoamerican polities.
Every known pre-Hispanic capital (seat
of governance) in ancient Mesoamerica is
located within a city, which was the largest
settlement within that particular state
(e.g. Teotihuacan, Tenochtitlan, Texcoco,
Figure 4. Main plaza at Monte Albán (after Blanton 1978:
Monte Albán, Chichen Itza, Tikal,
fig. 4.3 & Google Earth). Xochicalco, Tula, Teposcolula, Tututepec,
etc.) (Carr & Hazard 1961; Parsons 1971;
Millon 1973; Calnek 1976; Blanton 1978; Sanders et al. 1979; Diehl 1983; Puleston 1983;
Healan 1989; Kowalewski et al. 1989, 2009; Stiver Walsh 2001; Mastache de Escobar et al.
2002; Joyce et al. 2004). Within cities, monumental public architecture, which included
palaces, ballcourts and temples built atop elevated platforms, was constructed on or adjacent
to a central plaza or axis (e.g. Teotihuacan) which dominated the entire settlement. These
architectural complexes housed the rulers and associated political officials that carried out
the daily business associated with running states or empires.

A comparative perspective on Mesoamerican palaces

We know from both archaeological and ethno-historic information that palaces functioned
both as the residence of a dynastic ruler and as the centre of political administrative activities
(or as the court). According to Sahagún (1540–85 [2005] II: 309–314 [Libro 8, Cap. XIV])

177
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

Figure 5. Acropolis and palace at Copán (after Andrews V et al. 2003: figs. 3.1 & 3.2).

178
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

Research

Figure 6. Tikal central plaza with North Acropolis and Central Acropolis (after Harrison 2003: fig. 4.2).

central Mexican palaces included rooms that housed criminal courts, civil courts, noble
courts, war councils, storage areas, tax houses, music and dance halls, jails and residential
areas occupied by the ruling family. In archaeological examples from Monte Albán and
Copán, the palace consisted of two sections, a more public zone located atop an acropolis
and a more private zone with residential occupation below and adjacent to the acropolis
(Blanton 1978: 58, 61–2, fig. 4.3; Andrews et al. 2003: 94, figs. 3.1 & 3.2) (Figures 4 &
5). In the case of Tikal, Palenque and Xochicalco, the palace was constructed entirely atop

179
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

Figure 7. Central zone at Palenque (after Sharer 2006: fig. 8.35).

an acropolis or high platform (Hirth 2000: 70, fig. 5.5; Harrison 2003: 103–106, fig. 4.2;
Sharer 2006: 452, fig. 8.35) (Figures 6–8). Finally, the core of Cantona (Figure 9), from
our point of view, contains a number of palatial complexes with internal patios instead of
plazas (Garcı́a Cook & Merino Carrión 1998: 197, fig. 3). At all of the sites mentioned, the
palaces have diverse internal architectural patterns suggesting a range of different activities
were carried out within their walls. Also, at all of the sites, the palaces are located on relatively
closed and tightly controlled plazas that would have limited access to both the plaza itself
and the ruler’s palace (except Cantona, which lacks public space in its core zone).
In the Postclassic northern Maya lowlands, architectural patterns deviated from those
described above. At sites such as Chichen Itza and Mayapan, plazas were constructed
around a much more open pattern that would have allowed for more public access (Ringle
& Bey 2001: figs 9.2 & 9.7). Acropolis structures are absent and palatial residences are on
the edges of public areas. Scholars suggest that these more open forms and new styles of
architecture, especially the colonnaded hall, became the centres of administrative activities

180
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

Research
Figure 8. Central plaza and palace at Xochicalco (after Google Earth).

or the court (e.g. Ringle & Bey 2001: 276). These patterns have been associated, in the
past, with a more collective or corporate political organisation called mul tepal (joint rule)
(Roys 1965: 669; Blanton et al. 1996: 12; Ringle & Bey 2001: 273). In these systems, ruling
councils are more important, suggesting a possible analogy to Tlaxcallan; however, dynastic
rulers remain prominent despite the constraints on their behaviour (Ringle & Bey 2001:
274–5; Ringle 2004). The presence of dynastic rulers is evidenced in both iconographic
displays and elaborate residences at both Chichen Itza and Mayapan. For example, Ringle
(2004: fig. 3) identified a dynastic ruler in murals on the wall of the ballcourt’s north temple
at Chichen Itza. The presence of a dynastic ruler is supported by the wide distribution of
jaguar thrones throughout the site (Ringle & Bey 2001: 277–8). Moreover, Kowalski (2003:
232, 234–5) suggests that the Monjas complex and Akab Dzib were palaces and that the

181
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

Figure 9. Core of Cantona (after Garcı́a Cook & Merino Carrión 2003: figs. 6, 10 & 11 & Google Earth)

latter possibly housed the dynastic ruler and his lineage (Figure 10). Not surprisingly, the
Monjas is also associated with a jaguar throne (Kowalski 2003: 234).
At Mayapan, stelae dating to the Late Postclassic contain images of rulers (Milbrath &
Peraza Lope 2009: 599–600, fig.15). Furthermore, ethno-historic descriptions indicate that
although a number of both powerful and secondary lineages resided at the site, the Cocom
lineage dominated the city, until the Xiu overthrew them (Ringle & Bey 2001: 274; Sharer
2006: 602–604). Architectural analysis suggests that the centre of Mayapan consisted of
a series of small plaza complexes that surrounded the central and most important plaza
(Ringle & Bey 2001: 285–7, fig. 9.7). Each of these small plaza complexes served as the
administrative headquarters for the ruling lineages that resided at the site (Ringle & Bey
2001: 285–6). Although residing at Mayapan, they maintained relative autonomy in their
respective territories (Ringle & Bey 2001: 274–5; Sharer 2006: 603). The largest and most
important plaza at the centre of the arrangement was probably controlled by the highest
ranked lineage, the Cocom, which claimed the kingship of Mayapan. At the edge of the
public core of the site, the Carnegie Project excavated a palatial residence that could have
functioned as the residence of the ruling Cocom lineage (Milbrath & Peraza Lope 2009:
598). Finally, the central district was walled off from the rest of the city, suggesting some
degree of exclusivity not apparent at Chichen Itza (Ringle & Bey 2001: 286; Sharer 2006:
fig. 10.1).

182
 Lane F. Fargher et al.

Research
Figure 10. The Monjas at Chichen Itza (after Kowalski 2003: fig. 8.17)

Clearly, palaces and associated public spaces were highly important features of
Mesoamerican states. However, the more corporate states separated the public and private
sections of the palace and relocated public functions to central plazas. Apparently, the
Tlaxcaltecas took this pattern a step further, doing away with the palace entirely and
replacing the central plaza with numerous relatively equally ranked plazas. The absence
of a palace and the multitude of plazas resulted from a political system that abandoned
dynastic rule and replaced it with a highly decentralised and much more open system. If
plaza areas functioned as nodes for administration and political activities (e.g. Ringle & Bey
2001: 276), then governance of Tlaxcallan city was divided into at least 20 horizontally
organised and unranked sections. However, to achieve an integrated political structure, the
Tlaxcaltecas selected Tizatlan, an isolated hilltop outside the city, for the construction of a
neutral meeting place for political officials that governed these sections and probably other
sections of the state.

Conclusion
We think the archaeological data described in this article represents the material
manifestation of a republican model for governance in Late Postclassic Tlaxcallan. That
is to say, a system, like Rome, Venice or Licchavi, that placed political power in the hands
of a ruling council and not a hereditary monarch or king. Our conclusion is consistent
with ethno-historic data that suggests that a council consisting of between 50 and 200
officials (teteuctin) governed Tlaxcallan (Fargher et al. 2010). Importantly, Tlaxcallan’s main
residential zone, with its multiple plazas and associated residential zones, lacks any obvious
central complex of civic-ceremonial buildings, especially palaces; in fact, it is not clear that
any structure in this zone was comparable to Mesoamerican palaces. Moreover, the chief

183
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World

governing complex was located in Tizatlan and separated from the main residential zone.
With its massive and largely open plaza space and spacious entryways, but without a clear
palace structure, Tizatlan seems to have been designed principally to host large numbers
of visitors. Such a pattern has not been described previously for Mesoamerica, making
Tlaxcallan unique there (at least for the moment).

Acknowledgements
We thank Mexico’s Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia and its regional centre in Tlaxcala for providing
permissions and logistical support for our project. We extend special thanks to the modern communities of
Tepeticpac, Teotlalpan, Quiahuixtlan, Ocotelulco, Acxotla del Rı́o, Chimalpa and San Miguel Tlamahuco
for allowing us to work in their fields, yards and streets. Finally we thank Purdue University, the Colegio de
Michoacán, FAMSI, the National Geographical Society (Grant #8008–06), and the National Science Foundation
(Grant 0809643-BCS) for their financial and logistical support. All errors or omissions are the sole responsibility
of the authors.

References
ANDERSON, B. 1991. Imagined communities: reflections
on the origin and spread of Nationalism. London:
Verso.
ANDERSON, P. 1974. Lineages of the absolutist state.
London: New Left Books.
ANDREWS V, E.W., J. JOHNSON, W. DOONAN,
G. EVERSON, K. SAMPECK & H. STARRATT. 2003. A
multipurpose structure in the late Classic palace at
Copán, in J.J. Christie (ed.) Maya palaces and elite
residences: an interdisciplinary approach: 69–97.
Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
ANGUIANO, M. & M. CHAPA. 1976. Stratificación social
en Tlaxcala durante el siglo XVI, in P. Carrasco & J.
Broda (ed.) Estratificación social en la Mesoamérica
prehispánica: 118–56. Mexico City: Centro de
Investigaciones Superiores, Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia.
BENDIX, R. 1978. Kings or people: power and the
mandate to rule. Berkeley (CA): University of
California Press.
BLANTON, R. 1978. Monte Albán: settlement patterns at
the ancient Zapotec capital. New York: Academic
Press.
BLANTON, R. & L. FARGHER. 2008. Collective action in
the formation of pre-modern states. New York:
Springer.
BLANTON, R., G. FEINMAN, S. KOWALEWSKI & P.
PEREGRINE. 1996. A dual-processual theory for the
evolution of Mesoamerican civilization. Current
Anthropology 37: 1–14.
CALNEK, E. 1976. The internal structure of
Tenochtitlan, in E. Wolf (ed.) The valley of Mexico:
studies of pre-Hispanic ecology and society: 287–302.
Albuquerque (NM): University of New Mexico
Press.
CARR, R. & J. HAZARD. 1961. Tikal report no. 11: map
of the ruins of Tikal, El Peten, Guatemala.
Philadelphia (PA): University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.
CASO, A. 1927. Las ruinas de Tizatlán, Tlaxcala. Revista
Mexicana de Estudios Antropológicos 1: 139–72.
CONTRERAS, J. 1992a. Excavaciones arqueológicas en
Ocotelulco. Boletı́n del Consejo de Arqueologı́a 1991:
50–55.
– 1992b. Los hallazgos arqueológicos de Ocotelulco,
Tlaxcala. Arqueologı́a 7: 113–18.
DIEHL, R. 1983. Tula: the Toltec capital of ancient
Mexico. London: Thames & Hudson.
DRENNAN, R. & C. PETERSON. 2004. Comparing
archaeological settlement systems with rank-size
graphs: a measure of shape and statistical
confidence. Journal of Archaeological Science 31:
533–49.
FARGHER, L. & R. BLANTON. 2007. Revenue, voice and
public goods in three pre-modern states.
Comparative Studies in Society and History 49:
848–82.
FARGHER, L., R. BLANTON & V. HEREDIA ESPINOZA.
2010. Egalitarian ideology and political power in
pre-Hispanic Central Mexico: the case of
Tlaxcallan. Latin American Antiquity 21: 227–51.
FLEMING, D. 2004. Democracy’s ancient ancestors: Mari
and early collective governance. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
FUENTES, J. 1927. Informe de las excavaciones en la zona
arqueológica de Tizatlán. Mexico City: Archivo de
Monumentos Prehispánicos del Instituto National
de Antropologı́a e Historia.

184
 Lane F. Fargher et al.
GARCÍA COOK, A. & B. MERINO CARRIÓN. 1991.
Tlaxcala: textos de su historia. Tomo 3: los orı́genes:
arqueologı́a. Tlaxcala: Consejo Nacional para la
Cultura y las Artes y Gobierno del Estado de
Tlaxcala.
– 1998. Cantona: urbe prehispanica en el altiplano
Central de México. Latin American Antiquity 9:
191–216.
GARCÍA VEGA, A. 1929. Ruinas de Tizatlan, Tlaxcala:
antecedentes históricos de Tlaxcala. Publicaciones de
la Secretaria de Educación Pública 20: 3–22. Mexico
City: Talleres Gráficos de la Nación.
GIBSON, C. 1952. Tlaxcala in the sixteenth century. New
Haven (CT): Yale University Press.
GUEVARA HERNÁNDEZ, J. 1999a. Sitio arqueológico de
Tepeticpac, Tlaxcala: informe preliminar del estudio y
análisis del material arqueológico. Mexico City:
Archivo Ténico de la Coordinación Nacional de
Arqueologı́a, clas: 28–60. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia.
– 1999b. Proyecto: Excavaciones en unidades residenciales
y domésticas en Tepeticpac: Informe de la segunda
temporada de campo, otoño de 1999. Mexico City:
Archivo Técnico de la Coordinación Nacional de
Arqueologı́a, clas. 28–65. Instituto Nacional de
Antropologı́a e Historia.
HARRISON, P. 2003. Palaces of the royal court at Tikal,
in J. Christie (ed.) Maya palaces and elite residences:
an interdisciplinary approach: 98–119. Austin (TX):
University of Texas Press.
HEALAN, D. 1989. Tula of the Toltecs: excavations and
survey. Iowa City (IA): University of Iowa Press.
HEGEL, G. 1953. Reason in history: a general
introduction to the philosophy of history. Translated
by R. Hartman. New York: Liberal Arts.
HIRTH, K. 2000. Archaeological research at Xochichalco,
Volume 1: ancient urbanism at Xochicalco: the
evolution and organization of a pre-Hispanic society.
Salt Lake City (UT): University of Utah Press.
HOBSBAWM, E. 1985. Introduction, in E. Hobsbawm
(ed.) Karl Marx: pre-capitalist economic formations:
9–65. New York: International Publishers.
HORTON, M. & J. MIDDLETON. 2000. The Swahili: the
social landscape of a mercantile society. Oxford:
Blackwell.
JACOBSEN, T. 1943. Primitive democracy in ancient
Mesopotamia. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2:
159–72.
JOHNSON, G. 1981. Monitoring complex system
integration and boundary phenomena with
settlement size data, in S. van der Leeuw (ed.)
Archaeological approaches to the study of complexity:
143–88. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam.
185
JOYCE, A., A. WORKINGER, B. HAMANN, P. KROEFGES,
M. OLAND & S. KING. 2004. Lord 8 Deer ‘Jaguar
Claw’ and the land of the sky: the archaeology and
history of Tututepec. Latin American Antiquity 15:
273–97.
Research
KOWALEWSKI, S., G. FEINMAN, L. FINSTEN, R.
BLANTON & L. NICHOLAS. 1989. Monte Albán’s
hinterland, Part 2: Prehispanic settlement patterns in
Tlacolula, Etla and Ocotlán, the Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico. Ann Arbor (MI): University of Michigan,
Museum of Anthropology
KOWALEWSKI, S., A. BALKANSKY, L. STIVER WALSH,
T. PLUCKHAHN, J. CHAMBLEE, V. PÉREZ
RODRÍGUEZ, V. HEREDIA ESPINOZA & C. SMITH.
2009. Origins of the Ñuu: archaeology in the Mixteca
Alta, Mexico. Boulder (CO): University Press of
Colorado.
KOWALSKI, J. 2003. Evidence for the functions and
meanings of some northern Maya palaces, in J.J.
Christie (ed.) Maya palaces and elite residences: an
interdisciplinary approach: 204–252. Austin (TX):
University of Texas Press.
LIU, L. 2004. The Chinese Neolithic: trajectories to early
states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MARX, K. 1973. Grundrisse: introduction to the critique
of political economy. New York: Vintage Books.
MASTACHE DE ESCOBAR, A., R. COBEAN & D. HEALAN.
2002. Ancient Tollan: Tula and the Toltec heartland.
Boulder (CO): University Press of Colorado.
MILBRATH, S. & C. PERAZA LOPE. 2009. Survival and
revival of terminal Classic traditions at Postclassic
Mayapan. Latin American Antiquity 20: 581–606.
MILLS, J. 1817. The history of British India. London:
Baldwin, Cradock and Joy.
MILLON, R. 1973. Urbanization at Teotihuacán, Mexico.
Austin (TX): University of Texas Press.
MONTESQUIEU, C. 1989. The spirit of the laws.
Translated and edited by A. Cohler, B. Miller & H.
Stone. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MUÑOZ CAMARGO, D. 1999. Relaciones geográficas:
Tlaxcala (descripción de la ciudad y provincia de
Tlaxcala de las indias y del mar). Edited by René
Acuña. San Luis Potosı́: El Colegio de San Luis &
Tlaxcala: Gobierno del Estado de Tlaxcala.
NEDERMAN, C. 2005. Republic, in M. Cline Horowitz
(ed.) New dictionary of the history of ideas:
2098–103. Detroit (MI): Charles Scribner’s Sons.
NOGUERA, E. 1929. Ruinas de Tizatlan, Tlaxcala: Los
altares de sacrificio de Tizatlan, Tlaxcala.
Publicaciones de la Secretaria de Educación Pública
20: 24–65.
PARSONS, J. 1971. Prehistoric settlement patterns in the
Texcoco Region, Mexico. Ann Arbor (MI): University
of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology.
POSTGATE, J. 1992. Early Mesopotamia: society and
economy at the dawn of history. London: Routledge.
 Tlaxcallan: the archaeology of an ancient republic in the New World
PRINS, A. 1967. The Swahili-speaking peoples of Zanzibar
and the east African coast (Arabs, Shirazi and
Swahili). London: International African Institute.
– 1971. Didemic lamu: social stratification and spatial
structure in a Muslim maritime town. Groningen:
Institut voor Culturele Anthropologie der
Rijksvuniversiteit.
PULESTON, D. 1983. The settlement survey of Tikal.
Philadelphia (PA): University Museum, University
of Pennsylvania.
RAAFLAUB, K. 1998. Power in the hands of the people:
foundations of Athenian democracy, in I. Morris &
K. Raaflaub (ed.) Democracy 2500? Questions and
challenges (Archaeological Institute of America:
Colloquia and Conference Papers 2): 31–66.
Dubuque (IA): Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
RINGLE, W. 2004. On the political organization of
Chichen Itza. Ancient Mesoamerica 15: 167–218.
RINGLE, W. & G. BEY III. 2001. Post-Classic and
terminal Classic courts of the northern Maya
lowlands, in T. Inomata & S. Houston (ed.) Royal
courts of the ancient Maya, Volume 2: data and case
studies: 266–307. Boulder (CO): Westview Press.
ROYS, R. 1965. Lowland Maya native society at Spanish
contact, in G. Willey (ed.) Handbook of middle
American Indians: archaeology of southern
Mesoamerica, part two: 659–78. Austin (TX):
University of Texas Press.
SAHAGÚN, B. de. 1540–85 [2005]. Historia general de
las cosas de Nueva España. Prepared by Ángel Ma.
Garibay K. Mexico City: Editorial Porrúa.
SANDERS, W., J. PARSONS & R. SANTLEY. 1979. The
Basin of Mexico: ecological processes in the evolution of
a civilization. New York: Academic Press.
SHARER, R. with L. TRAXLER. 2006. The ancient Maya.
Stanford (CA): Stanford University Press.
186
SHARMA, J.P. 1968. Republics in ancient India, c. 1500
BC–500 BC. Leiden: E.J. Brill.
SHARMA, R.S. 1996. Political ideas and institutions in
ancient India. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers
Rivate.
SMITH, M. 2003. The Aztecs. Oxford: Blackwell.
– 2008. The archaeology of Aztec city-state capitals:
four views of Aztec urbanism, in A. Guadalupe
Mastache, R. Cobean, A. Garcı́a Cook & K. Hirth
(ed.) Urbanism in Mesoamerica: 447–99. University
Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University; Mexico
City: Instituto Nacional de Antropologı́a e Historia.
STIVER WALSH, L. 2001. Prehispanic Mixtec settlement
and state in the Teposcolula Valley of Oaxaca,
Mexico. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Vanderbilt
University.
THAPAR, R. 1984. From lineage to state: social formations
in the mid-first millennium BC in the Ganga Valley.
Bombay: Oxford University Press.
VAN DE MIEROOP, M. 1997. The ancient Mesopotamian
city. Oxford: Clarendon.
VAN ZANTWIJK, R. 1985. The Aztec arrangement: the
social history of pre-Spanish Mexico. Norman (OK):
University of Oklahoma Press.
VITKIN, M. 1981. Marx and Weber on the primary
state, in H. Claessen & P. Skalnı́k (ed.) The study of
the state: 443–54. The Hague: Mouton.
WEBER, M. 1947. The theory of social and economic
organization. Translated by A. Henderson & T.
Parsons. New York: Oxford University Press.
WITTFOGEL, K. 1957. Oriental despotism: a comparative
study of total power. New Haven (CT): Yale
University Press.
WOLF, E. 1999. Envisioning power: ideologies of
dominance and crisis. Berkeley (CA): University of
California Press.