Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1996 The Ceramics and Chronology of Cholula

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Vázquez Tépox
    18 views25 pages
    Una cronología de la cerámica de Cholula, Puebla

    Original Title

    1996_The_Ceramics_and_Chronology_of_Cholula

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Una cronología de la cerámica de Cholula, Puebla

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    18 views25 pages

    1996 The Ceramics and Chronology of Cholula

    Uploaded by

    Eduardo Vázquez Tépox
    Una cronología de la cerámica de Cholula, Puebla

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 25
    ‘Ancient Mesoamerica, 7 (1996), 299-323 ‘Copyright © 1996 Cambridge University res, Printed in the U.S.A THE CERAMICS AND CHRONOLOGY OF CHOLULA, MEXICO Geoffrey G, McCafferty Department of Anthropology, Brown Unversity, Providence, RI 02912972, USA Abstract ‘Chronology is fundamoaal prerequisite for problem oriented, whropologically relevant archaeology. alo the shaky foundation tha has hampered attempts to reconstrct th ealtore history of Cholla, Mexico. Cholla is among the oldest continuously occupied urban cen ofthe New World, yeti remains ne ofthe most eniginalc. This paper evaluates previous tural sequences forthe site, and summarizes recent evidence 1o eonstuct a chronology using absolute dates and ceramic assemblages rom primary depositional contexts. This revised sequence features a clearer understanding of Middle Formative settlement and the definition of ritual and domestic contexts fromthe Classic period, In addition, there is now evidence fora ‘rade transition between Late Classic and Eatly Posclassic macs ‘uadon within a sequence of shor, clearly defined phases Chronology is one of the key objectives in archaeology. Suong chronologies are those with fairly short divisions defined by dis- tinctive artifact assemblages allowing for precise identification of ‘cultural sequences: weak chronologies generally have long peri- ‘ods during which the material culture appears uniform. “Static ‘culture isan anthropological paradox, however, as itis more likely that long periods are the result of inadequate archaeological ro- finement instead of eultural stagnation. Chronotogies with brief, ‘well-defined periods are important stepping stones to understand {ng the processes that lead to culture change, and thereby facilitate ‘2 wide range of subsequent interpretations. (ne criticism of the “culture-historical” approach in archaeol- ‘gy, however, has been the overemphasis on chronology building (Binford 1962, 1965; Flannery 1967; Willey and Sabloff 1974), particularly that kind accomplished through seration and relative dating (Trigger 1989:304~305). The increased use of absolute- dating methods (e.g, radiocarbon, obsidian-hyeration, and archac- ‘magnetic dating) provides the opportunity to date events rather than simply blocks of time, with the archaeological past therefore becoming more of a continuum than a sequence of static stages (Dean 1978). ‘This ideal has been more successfully achieved in some areas, such as the U.S, Southwest, than in central Mexico where rather coarse chronologies still continue to be used. Not only are Meso- americen time periods cumbersomely long in duration, but they ‘usually rly on few absolute dates for calibration, and often incor- porate assumptions based on ethnohistorical accounts of mythico- historical events (Smith 1987). ‘This paper discusses the chronology of Cholula, Puebla, eval- uating existing sequences and summarizing available chronomet- Fie dates and ceramic complexes from recent excavations. Cholula is one of the oldest continuously occupied centers in Mesoamer ica, with settlement dating back at least into the Middle Formative period (ca. 1000 m.c.). Its located in the Puebla-Tlaxcala valley 51 culture and forthe evolution of the Postcassc plyebrome (ee Figure 2 in Parsons etal. 1996), a broad plain with outstand- ing agricultural productivity and a natural clay source (Bonfil Batalla 1973). Archaeological investigations at Cholula have con- tinued for more than 100 years (Bandelier 1976 [1884]; Marquina 1939, 1951, ed, 1970; Messmacher 1967; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973; Suarez C. 1985, 1989; summarized in McCafferty 1992:51- 69; Merlo 1989; Paddack 1987; Peterson 1987; Suérez C. and Ma- \inez A. 1993), with particular emphasis onthe ceremonial precinct surrounding the Great Pyramid. Yet Cholula remains one of the ‘most enigmatic of Mesoamerican centers, and its poorly onder stood chronology is the shaky foundation that has limited attempts to reconstruc its culture history. CHOLULA CHRONOLOGIES: PAST AND PRESENT In 1856, Edward B. Tylor visited Cholula and observed that: ‘hough hore was plenty of coloured pottery tobe found inthe neighborhood of th [Groat Pyramid, the pyramid itself hai ‘only fragments of uncotoured ware imbedded in its structure; Ui seems wo prove that it was but befor the ar of colour ing potery was invented (Tylor 1970 [1861275 Despite the numerous archaeological investigations that have since been conducted atthe site, understanding of the Cholula ce- ‘amie sequence has progressed remarkably litle since Tylor’ visit. Conflicting sequences proposed by Noguera (1954) and Miller (1970, 1978) were based primarily on stratigraphic excevations {nto and around the Great Pyramid. Both scholars were influenced by Valley of Mexico sequences o the extent that they recognized litle difference between the cultural sequences of the separate ar- eas. Confusion over the Postclassic chronology in particular has had a far-reaching impact on the culture history of Cholula, and 300 consequently, for all of central Mexico (Nicholson 1982:243— ‘244; Sanders tal, 1979"133; Smith and Heath-Smith 1980:36-37), In addition to the “Mexico-centrism of the sequences, how- ver, there was slsoa fundamental methodological problem. Since ‘most of the investigations have been conducted at the Great Pyr- amid and its surrounding ceremoniel precinct, deep test pits were the standard technique used for obtaining stratified ceramic sam- ples. But the depositional contexts of these units are badly di torted by the monumental construction actives at the mound. Examples ofthe degree of disturbance can be found inthe original reports, Noguera (1954:46~49), for example, described and illus- trated one unit where the Classic and Postclassic deposits were inverted. The utility of stratigraphic test pts is well documented, yet problems may occur when pits are used without regard for con text or site formation processes, particularly in situations where construction activities involve the extensive use of earthen fill (Gchiffer 1987:137-139). ‘The ceramics from Cholula have been the subject of numerous studies (Acosta 1975; Barrientos 1980; Caskey 1982a, 1982b, 1988; Fajardo 1985; Lind 1994; Lind et al. 1990; Léper V. 1967; Me- Cafferty 1992, 1994, 1997; Muller 1970, 1978, 1981; Noguera 1941, 1954; Peterson 1972; Suarez C. 1994). Yet ambiguities and even contradictions in these studies have resulted in fundamental problems especially for the interpretation of Postclassic assem- blages. These difficulties are caused in pat by the tremendous di- versity within the Cholula ceramic complex. ‘The first systematic study of Cholula ceramics was caried out bby Eduardo Noguera (1941, 1954), who analyzed pottery recov- cred during the initial phase of explorations atthe Great Pyramid, His samples came from stratigraphic pits, tunnel excavations, and block excavations at the Altar of the Carved Skulls. He published the results in La cerdmica arqueoldgica de Cholula (Noguera 1954), ‘which featured numerous illustrations including photographs and color plates. ‘! “Archaic” remains were found beneath the Great Pyramid, ina stratigrephically lower position than Classic-period levels (Nogu> era 1954:199-200). The earliest pottery featured red paint and i cising over a white base coat, and white decoration over red (Noguera 1954:201), Formative-period figurines were related 10 the sequence developed by Vaillant (1930, 1931) forthe Valley of Mexico. CCassic-period ceramics were comparable to those from Teoti~ ‘huacan, especially from the intial period when Noguera (1954:188) postulates that Cholula was occupied by people ethnically related to those of Teotihuacan, Later developments in Teotihuacan-syle ‘ceramics were less noticeable at Cholula, however, suggesting di- ‘vergence between the two cultural systems, The characteristic ce- rami type is a burnished gray/brown-to-black vessel with low, concave walls and a flat base, occasionally with small supports Decoration is rare, most often occurring 2s incised geometric pat- tems, Another decorated type features red and white paint over ‘brown, similar to pottery discovered inside Teotihuacan’s Pyramid of the Sun (Noguera 1954:190). [Noguera (1954261, 280-281) divided the Postclassic into three ‘phases on te basis of decorated ceramic types, termed Cholulteca 111 and ILL These phases were loosely correlated withthe Valley ‘of Mexico sequence of Aztec I, Il, and Ill but no absolute dates ‘were assigned to define the periods. Cholulteca Iwas identified by the presence of polferoma laca and decoracién negra sobre el color natural del barro. Cholulteca Il was poorly represented, with ppolicroma mate a8 its only diagnostic. Chotulteca Il was defined McCafferty by the presence of policroma firme, decoracién sencilla, and dec- ‘oracién rojo o negro sobre fondo anaranjado. The final oecupa- tion of the Great Pyremid occurred during the Early Postclassic period, ending about «.D. 1200 (Marquina 1951:119), This date ‘was probably derived from ethnohistoric accounts, supported by the presence of polychrome pottery on the surface ofthe pyramid, ‘The second major ceramic study was directed by Florencia Maller (1970, 1978; Acosta 1975), as part of the Proyecto Cho- lula, The analysis was based on over 2.5 million sherds from strat- graphic pits and features such as burials, wells, and middens (Maller 1978:13). “Miller classified the ceramics based on surface treatment and ‘vessel form. Temporal assignment of the different types used rel- ative similarities with other ateas, particularly the Valley of Mex- ‘eo. Thus Formative-period phases at Cholula were identified using Valley of Mexico site names (c.g., Tatleo and Ticoman), while CClassic-period phases were direct phases (Miller 1978:19) “The enormous effort of the Proyecto Cholula revised the ce- amie sequence for the Postclassc period, but it retained Nogu- cra’ original phase names of Cholulteca I Il, and Il, while adding TV. Furthermore, Maller collapsed the entire polychrome se~ {quence into a single phase (Cholulteca IM), thus introducing « ma- {or contradiction between the two schemes, as Noguera had defined his difforent phases on the basis of specific polychrome types. ‘Miller assigned dates tothe phases, but without reliance on ar- cchaeometric dates. Instead, the time periods were apparently adopted directly from historical events in the Valley of Mexico (McCafferty 1992:234-235; Smith 1987:38), For example, Cho- Tultecs II began in A. 900, coincidental with the founding of Tol- an, and lasted until the foundation of Tenochtitlan in a.D. 1325. CCholulteca I was identified withthe Mixteca-Puebla horizon, and lasted until a.n. 1500. The method used by Miller is problematic because it assumes a direct correlation between interregional sty- listic similarities, ethnohistorieslly documented political events, and cultural production processes (Smith 1987). ‘The Proyecto Cholula ceramic analysis radicelly changed the Postelassc ceramic sequence while retaining Noguera’ orig- ‘nel phase terminology. By considering ell assemblages with poly- ‘chrome pottery as Late Postclassc, earlier Postclassic assemblages became relatively rare. Consequently, Cholula was interpreted as being abandoned following the Classic period, and only regained its status at an urban center in the later stages of the Postelasic period (Dumond 1972; Dumond and Miller 1972; Garcia Cook 1981; Garefa Cook and Merino Carrién 1990; Mountjoy 1987; Suérez C. and Martinez A. 1993) Excavations on the campus of the Universidad de las Américas (UDLA), located about 2 km cast ofthe Great Pyramid (Figure 1), have produced ceramic sequences and absolute dates useful for revising Noguera’s and Miller's chronological sequences. Daniel ‘Wolfman (1968) excavated a series of domestic compounds and associated features at UA-I that provide a ceramic seriation to clar- ify the Postctassic sequence (McCafferty 1992, 1994, 1997). Mountjoy and Peterson (1973; Peterson 1972) investigated For- mative, Classe, and Postclassic deposits and obtained the first “C and obsidian-hydration dates from the site. Michael Lind (1979) ‘excavated a variety of Postclassic features that define the Late Post- classic ceramic eomplex (Barrientos 1980; Caskey and Lind 1979; Lind 1994), Rescue excavations on the campus continue to pro- duce important results, including the discovery of a possible Early Formative occupation (Plunket 1992). ‘Ceramics and chronology of Cholula Great Pyramid, Tlachinusitepet! Cerro Cocoyo Edificio Rojo | Cerrito de Guage va-69 N ua-70 ua-t ua-79 Vitles Arquecldate 10 San Anérds Formative Midaen 11 Tranaite Site, A108 12 San Pearo W 18 Formetive Mounds 14 Pyramid of Quetzelcoat! eervenrene Figure. Map of arcaeciogia loc within Cholla. ‘Additional investigations in Cholula have been conducted by the Puebla Regional Center of Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (INAH). Most of these excavations have been in the form of rescaze (rescue) projects in advance of planned construction, usualy as small test pits; occasionally more exten sive Block excavations are conducted when significant features are encountered (Caskey 1988; McCafferty and Suez C, 1994, 1995 Susrez C. 1985, 1989), 302 ‘Tablel. Radiocarbon dates from Cholua McCafferty Radiocarbon Age Calibrated Sigma Calibrated 2-Sigma ‘Sample Number Context @r) Calibrated Date(s) Date Range Date Range ox2256" UA-T0, swamp" 2645= 110 802 ne. 897-765 ne. 1046-410 pe, INAH-I340° R106, Poza 2 157965 A. 431,520,528 ND 408-544 AD.272-638 INAH-1339° R06, Cale 108, 153949. 537 Ap. 429-575 A. 410-680 INAH-1338° R106, Pozo 2-1 1490261 Ap. 568 A 437-640 x0, 420-660) INAH-1336* R106, Pozo 5-1 M2235 40.639 Np. 584-645 0, 544-663 ox2ee7* 13652 180 4.0, 670,685, 543-937 0. 358-1026 ox.2ai6" BIS * 109 A.D. 689 AD. 644-861 1D. SH4-980 INAH-1102° 1055 +55 4984 Apav-IOIS AD, 7-118 INAH-1103" 960 180 A.p, 1028, 1145, ‘Np. 905-1220 A, 770-1280 Ox.1815" 'UA-68, Faculty Housing midden® 095 4.0. 1290 p.1260-1392 A, 1159-1427 INAH-I332" Patio of the Carved Skulls, NISVW7 B59. 1282 1265-1387 a, 1220-1406 614" UDLA we 50080 41429 A, 1333-1468 AD, 1298-1627 *Catewtion wing CALIB Rev, 3.0.6 (Quarry lope Lab Uiversity of Wein) ®caliteaton by Labomsaie de Fetumiznt, Departaneat de Petr, INAH, *Mounjoy nd Petes (1979 Url and Alvarer Mende (1989) ‘Over the past 25 years a series of absolute dates has been ob- tained with which to construct Cholula’s chronological sequence (Table 1). The total number of dates is still quite small, particu- larly because they are distributed across 2,500-year period, but recent efforts by Sergio Sudtez C. and the INAH 'C lab have {greatly improved the situation. These dates are useful for calibrat- ing the ceramic sequence based on excavated assemblages. Inthe remainder of this paper I summarize the results of recent investi- gations relating to the Formative, Classic, Epiclassic, and Post- classic periods. Included are absolute dates within the context of their artifact assemblages, a5 well as additional excavation data when the ceramic complexes ate useful for defining the ceramic sequence. : FORMATIVE PERIOD During the Formative Period, Choluta grew from a small lakeside hamlet toa sprawling regional center surrounding its nascent cer ‘emonial precinct. Based on scattered concentrations of Formative artifacts, it appears that Chotula may have covered 2 km, though the population density cannot be estimated because of later occu- pational overburden." Initial setlement clustered around the shore of a swampy lake on what is now the UDLA campus, presumably {o take advantage of the rich lacustrine environment, Excevations fn the grounds of the campus have recovered pottery stylistically similar to Middle Formative ceramies from other regions (Baravalle and Wheaton 1974; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973). In 1969 and 1970, Joseph Mountjoy directed excavations on the UDLA campus a the edge of the “swamp” (Mountjoy and Pe- " Because of Cholul’s location on a valley oor and its 3,000-year setlementhistory it isa deeply safe sie fr which radtiona methods ‘of surface reconnaissance ae only minimally successful. Early deposits ‘ae poorly represented on the surface, and therefore aemps at reconsrt- ing Giachuonie setiemert paterns ae tentative. Seulement size estimates presented here are based oa surface reconnaissance observations from deep ‘onstruction teaches Gneluding a municipal drainage system), and INAH terson 1973:13-19, 46-65). Excavation Units 5 and 6 contained ich deposits of unmixed Formative materials, Decorated pottery resembled that from the transitional and upper phases from Tla- tileo, with incised double-line breaks and filled geometric patterns ‘om either black or white-slipped surfaces. Figurines also related {to Formative types from the Valley of Mexico. Waterlogged con- ditions created favorable preservation for organic materi cluding wood, com cobs, and maguey spines (Mountjoy and Peterson 1973:59). No architectural features were detected, and this area was interpreted as a refuse dump atthe lake's edge. (One large piece of carbonized wood from Excavation Unit 6 was dated at 897-765 n.c. (2645 = 110 3.P.; GX-2256; Mountioy and Peterson 1973:62). Tis date seems to be several centuries too erly, however, based on stylistic eomparisons with ceramics from the Valley of Mexico. Ten obsidian prismatic blades were dated using obsidian hydration analysis, but the results ranged from 2083, + 118 nc. to. 149 * 125. The dates were based on both green and gray obsidian samples without consideration of the possible cffects of source on hydration rat. Formative ceramics have been discovered in several other parts ‘of Cholula, Noguera (1956:214) reports pottery and figurines re- lating to the Zacatenco 1/1 phase from the interior of the Edificio Rojo northeast ofthe Great Pyramid. Similar artifacts were found atthe Conejero, an early stage ofthe ceremonial precinct (Miller 1973; Suérez C. and Martinez A. 1993). Formative pottery ‘mon on the surface beneath the initial levels of the Great Pyramid (Noguera 1954:199-200).. ‘A midden deposit from San Andrés Cholula was found during the backhoe excavation of a municipal waterline (McCafferty 1984). 1c was associated with a cobblestone platform that mea- sured about I m in height, though only a portion ofthe structure was exposed in the trench profile. Ceramics included kaolin slipped serving wares (Cholula Creatn) decorated with incised, ex- ised, and painted motifs (Figure 2). Other decorated pottery hed black (Amalucan Polished Black) and brown (Totimehuacan Red- ‘on-brown) surfaces, with incised and red-painted designs (Fig. ure 3). Figurines correspond to Valley of Mexico types, including Vaillant’s Type B-C (Figure 4a; Vaillant 1930:108-109, 124— 125) and Niederberger’s (1976:211, 217) Paiuacan clas from the Ceramics and chronology of Cholula Figure 2. Examples of Chola Cream 2, <) Red-on-crem Ince (b) Incsed/ Excised ‘Manantial phase (Figure 4b). Additionally, $6 fragments of a dis- tinetive form of zoomorphic censer cover were recovered, featur- ing an open mouth and a face with pinched ears and indented eyes (Gee Fowler etal, [1980:38] and Garefa Cook, [1981:245] for com- parable examples). A large feature excavated at the Hotel Villas Arqueolégicas (Cas- ‘key 1988) included a rich deposit of Middle Formative artifacts, probably representing domestic refuse. Ceramic types and relative ‘requencies were very similar to those ofthe San Andrés midden ? Caskey (1988:79-80, 142) used ts featureto define his “Cabanies phase,” 800-500 ».c. ‘A final Formative-period locus was discovered to the north of the UDLA campus, on what may have been an island inthe swampy Take, It featured several possible mounds, though they had been ‘modified to form a modern jaguey (reservoir). Ceramics included kaolin-slipped Cholula Cream with double-line incising in de- signs more similar to those from the UDLA excavations than ei- ther the San Andrés or Villas Arqueol6gicas middens, Unfortunately, this site was bulldozed during a land dispute in the early 1980s, ‘and no systematic collections are available. Formative-period ceramics from Cholula represent at least two ‘definable complexes. The earlier features (1) Cholula Cream kaolin« slipped pottery with incising, excising, and red pain; (2) Totime- ‘uacan Red-on-brown, including incised subtypes: (3) Amalucan Black, with an Incised subtype; and (4) Coapan Monochrome util- itarian forms (Table 2; Caskey 1988; McCafferty 1984;also Baravalle ‘and Wheaton 1974), Stlistcaly, thesetypes are earlier thanthe dated assemblage from the UDLA campus, and similarities link both the ‘ceramics and figurines with the Valley of Mexico and Chalcatzingo 2 For the purpove of standardized terminology, type names defined in the San AndsGs report (McCafferty 1984) are sabetitated for the names sven by Caskey (1988), These inelide: Chlula Cream for Cabaéas White, ‘Totimehuacan Red-on-brown for Villa Red-ver brown, Coapan Reddish Brown for Martinez Monochrome, and Amalvean Black for Varela Black, No parallel was identified for Caskey’s Plopa Incised, so that tem ise. luined. Table 2. Middle Formative (Cabos) ceramic rim frequencies, Villas Sm UDLA Argueclégicas* Andrés? Exe. No. 6° ‘Typelsite om) (or) ol) Cholala Cream 26060 29609136131 Plain (oan) (S124) Incised/Excised (era) G16) (12290) Red-on-cream cay aio) Red-on-eeam Incised (122444) (132/56) = Totimehusean Red-on-browa 8471813122. aw Phin asi) — = Brown a cans) = Brown Incsed = any = Inelsed (66779) 7 = Red-on-brown a asin Gm Red-on-brown lncised = 557) = Pilopa incised or.) mi = ‘Brown 89) = = Red am) 7 Cospan Reddish-brown oot 143s tT “Amalucan Black 3u7 309 285/56 Pin 239) a7 Paern Burnished ans Ineised amen B88) 29) Red-on-black — = anny Red-and-back incised = = any Red-and-white-on-black = a an White-on-back - — as) Marzanilla Sandy Orange = 208, au Phin = 199) Incised = 5) = Unidentified 7 ene) m6 ‘Tal ins -s7onic0 (608100) 439/100 ‘Tonal bodies 1,540 894 = "Data rom Caskey (1988, Date fm MeCary (1988). “Du tom Mountjoy ad Paes (1973. Figure 3, Examples of Totimehuacan Rec-on-brown (2b) and Amalucan Polished Black (c~<). in the early Middle Formative period (1000-700 .c.; Cyphers ‘Guillén 1987; Garefa Cook 1981; Niederberger 1976). "Tae second complex features complex-sihouette vessels with incised decoration including filled geometric motifs, especially ti- angles, on black- and white-slipped vessels (Mountjoy and Peter- son 1973; Noguera 1956), Kaolin-slipped pottery is stil prominent 1 second complex, but decoration is limited to simple incised pattems such as zig-zags and life breaks. This complex may date to the lato Middle Formative (700-300 a.c.), although it is asso ciated with the single “C date from the UDLA excavation that ‘would place it slightly earlier. Late Formative ceramics are knowa from other sites in the Cho- Iula region, such as Cogpan and Amalucan (Fowler et al. 1980), bt thus far are rare at Cholula. An Early Formative complex has been reported from the UDLA campus (Plunket 1992). Addition- ally, several mammoth bones have been found in deep deposits, suggesting the possibility ofa Paleoindian-period occupation. CChassic Pertod CCholula became a principal religious center during the Classic pe- riod, as the Great Pyramid went through three major construction ‘stages until it measured 350 m on aside and 66 m in height (Fig- ture 5; Marquina 1970, 1975; McCafferty 1996). Cultural remains of the city cover about 4 km, though most of this area is beneath Iter Postclassic and Historic occupations. Several additional py- ramidal mounds stand out lke islands in sea of modern devel- ‘opment, including Cerro Cocoyo, the Cerrito de Guadalupe, and ‘an adobe nucleus that has been stripped of its original facade Relatively litle attention has been paid to subdividing the Clas sic period. Mller and Noguera both adopted ceramic sequences ‘rom the Valley of Mexico, noting the “impoverished” nature of CCholula's ceramic assemblage (Dumond and Miller 1972:1208). ‘The diagnostic pottery type is Tepontia Burnished Gray/brown, ‘which usually occurs as serving wares that range in color from Figure 4, Middle Formatve gurines from mde den deposit a San Andrés Cholla: (2) example corresponding with Vlley of Mexico types (0), example corresponding with Pahuacan css from ‘Manantal phase at Zohaplco, ‘Ceramics and chronology of Cholula = feanveo. exULLS GREAT PYRAMID OF CHOLULA “Pom Got oe FgureS. Plan of the Great Pyramid and ceremonial precinct light gray to dark brown to black (MoCafferty 1997). The surface is lightly burnished to polished, The most common vessel form is ‘ conical bowl witha flared rim and flat bottom (Figure 6). Dec- ‘oration is rare but may include pattern burnishing, incising, o sim- ple painted designs. Acozoc Tan/orange isthe principal ui V1 ‘ware, and occurs as both ollas and casuelas. Teotihuacan Thin Or- ‘ange and local variations occur in low frequency. “The most extensive excavated context for refining the Classic- period chronology is the Transito site (R-106), a domestic struc- ture with associated features including an obsidian workshop L Figure 4. Tepontia Burnished Gray/ brown vessel forms, McCafferty opsipian_| ‘woRKsHOF es Eedstone wall y —s o™50 100 m | posrciassic Historic fee WALL PIT IDLE POSTCLASSIC MIDDEN Figure7. Pan ofthe Transit (8106) ste. (Figure 7; Buelstein 1995; McCafferty and Suérez C. 1994). The structure could not be completely delimited due to intrusive dis turbances (such as a large Colonial midden). The house featured plaster.covered adobe walls over a thick stucco floor. Excavation ‘units through the upper floor encountered three additional floor Jevels. A stone-tined tomb was associated with the earliest floor level, butt was later reopened to inter a second individual prior to surfacing the final floor level. Grave offerings from the tomb in- cluded six vessels (including a small olla with gadrooning,coffee- bean appliqués and nubbin supports), greenstone beads, and several figurines. our “™C samples date the construction sequence of the struc ture. Charcoal samples recovered from sealed contexts above the lower floor in Pozos 5-2 and 2-1 dated to A.. 408-544 (1579 * (66 nur; INAH-1340), and ad, 437-640 (1490 + 61 8.2.3 INAH- 1338) respectively. A sample from above the capstone ofthe tomb in Pozo 5-1 dated to A.D. 584~645 (1428 = 35 B.r; INAH-1336), ‘The fourth sample came from obsidian-workshop debris against the outside of the west wall, dated at a.p. 429-575 (1539 = 49 1p.; INAH-1339), The depositional sequence therefore spans the Late Classic from about 4.0. 400 10 680, Diagnostic artifacts associated with these dates include cer ics and figarines (Table 3). Tepontla Burnished Gray/brown com- prised about 50% of the assemblage, while Teotihuacan Thin Orange ‘made up another 8%, The most distinctive pottery decoration was a diagonal criss-cross motif pattern-burished onto the exterior of ‘lared-rim conical bowls (Figure 8). Vessels often featured nubbin suppors. Ceramics and anthropomorphic figurines correspond to those of the Tlamimilolpa and Xolalpan phases at Teotihuacan. ‘Other Classic-period loci have been exeavated that provide ad- tional data for the ceramic sequence. At the Hotel Villas Ar- ‘queolégicas south of the Great Pyramid, Suérez C. and Caskey (Caskey 1988) excavated a section ofa possible house (including stucco loor and stone-lined hearth) and an associated burial with ‘an extensive offering. The burial pit penetrated through the stucco floor, but no evidence was recovered to suggest thatthe pit was, ‘ever sealed by ater constriction (Caskey 1988:158). A partial skel- ‘ton of an adult mal, probably a secondary interment, was found with an offering of 125 complete vessels, wo greenstone beads and two other worked stones (Caskey 1988:164). The ceramics were almost all of the monochrome Tepontla Burnished Gray/ ‘brown type, with no examples of Teotihuacan Thin Orange. No ‘Ceramics and chronology of Cholula 307 Table 3. Late Clusic ceramic rim frequencies from the Transit ste (R06) 2 52 SA Toul ‘Type/Comext Subitoae (86) __Sabvloar (se) __SubMoor (a) ore cone Tunforange 1620 tans an 3904 0027 tern Burnished = 7 22. na ant Blackitan ma 7 7 = Ms. Coapan Laca Plychrome ~ 7 mi - u3 Coarse Gray a 6 Mm ms an Impressed Rim — na uw 2 2S Coase Orange m2 2B 7 us an Cocoyotla Black natural — a n a us Comic Redfbut? m2 = a = 3 Momoxpan Orange as a = an Reg-on-orange = ue 7 33 a8 Rec-and-white/brown = = 7 us 3 “Teotinuacan Thin Orange on an ae 108 308 Tcised/Puntate m2 — Ee us 2S Inization Thin Orange “Thin Brown a a m as ua Thin Gray = = a us ua “Thin Gray Incites = = = us ua Imitation Tick Orange — = us ua ‘Tepontla Grayforown 49158 sr67 459 aver Treised 22 ma us ms astern Burnished as a ana it “Teponta Red Rim Banded ~ = M3. “Xcali Pain| = = a sia Subtotal si/t00 ano 1147100 369/100 Percentage of tal, 0 76 66 ® Unidensifable® sno 2408 5838 orn oust %0 oe m 415 "Sheds suing ese han 22cm nse orto ml enya 0 vessels with nubbin supports were found (Caskey 1988:218). A similar to those found at the Transito site. Caskey (1988:232) con- distinctive vesse! form was the vaso, atall conical beaker that may have been used for consuming pulgue (Caskey 1988:196-202). Also present wore flared-rim conical bowls and hemispherical bowls Figure 8. Tepontia Burnished Gray/brown flared-im, conical bow! with ptte-bumished decoration and nubbin supports. pase on a reinterpretation of the construction history ofthe Patio of the Altar, the Bebedores mural may actully dae to Une Epielasic period (McCafferty 1996, se below). earlier (4.0. 0-200), while Suérez C. (1985:71) dates the Pato Abi- certo burial to the Late Classic (A.. 500-700). Ifthe vasos were ‘used for ritual drinking, then pesheps they were not as temporally sensitive as Miller originally suggested. This form was not prom- inent in domestic debris atthe Teansito site, however, and was not among the vestels interred as offerings inthe tomb. That this ves- ‘sel form is used to support periodizations forthe Protoclassi¢ and Early and Late Classic phases is indicative of the lack of resolu- tion in the Classic-period ceramic chronology. “The Classic-period sequence remains indivisible duc 1 a lack of distinctive types or forms. The different assemblages identified athe Teansito site were remarkably similar despite the temporal range indicated by the “C dates. The burial ceramies from the Villas Arqueol6gicas lacked Thin Orange, but this may be due to the specialized nature ofthe offering. Vessel forms inthe Tepontla Ceramics and chronology of Cholula Bumished Gray/brown type are relatively consistent, withthe ex ‘ception of the vate form. At present the most likely characteristics that could potentially be useful as diagnostics for future temporal division are nubbin supports and pattera burnished decoration, Which were present at the Transito site but absent from both the Villas Arqueologicas offering and the Patio Abierto. Until addi- ‘ional assemblages from primery contexts become available for seriation, the Classic period cannot be subdivided into more spe~ cific phases. Eplclassic Period ‘Tae most controversial stage in Cholula’s history isthe transition between the Classic and Postelassi periods, in par because inter- pretations have changed through time. Following the initial phase ‘of archaeological investigations, and influenced by ethnobistori- ‘cal accounts, Marquina (1951) and Noguera (1954) suggested that, CCholula was occupied continuously, with the Great Pyramid aban- doned at the end of the Early Postclassic period when Nahua ‘Toltece-Chichimeca overthrew the “tyranny” of the Olmecs Xicallanca rulers (Chadwick 1971; Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca 1976; Jiménez Moreno 1942, 1966; Olivera and Reyes 1969; ‘Torquemada 1975-1983 [1615). Investigators from the Proyecto CCholula challenged this theory with evidence that the pyramid, and Perhaps the entire city, were abandoned at the end of the Classic ‘riod duc toa varity of possible factors: volcanic eruption. flood ing, and/or social upheaval related to the wider Clessic-period “collapse” (Dumond and Miller 1972; Marquina 1975; Maller 1970, 1978; Suérez C, and Martinez A. 1993). Under this sce- ‘atepi volcano wen rough a periodof vclet eruptions between A.D. 800, nd 1000 that may have effected Cholulaas well ais rr hinerané To ‘my knowledge no evidence of Volcanic debrixhas been foundatte site, bat flute excavation shovld adress his possibilty and also the effect af re- sallant ash fall and mad slides on subsidiary population ceaters and ar alta ands Figurel0, Examples of Cocoyota Black-on-natural (2b) and ‘CocoyotiaIncised (e-d). nario, nearby Certo Zapotecas was occupied us a defensible site for refugee from the urban center (Mountjoy 1987; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973). Recently, Ihave argued that Cholula was not abandoned and that the Great Pycamid continued asa ceremonial zone at least into the Early Postclassc period (MeCatferty 1996). The firs line of ev- dence to supportthisreinterprettion comes from the ceremonial pre- cinct onthe south side ofthe Great Pyramid. A miniature pyramid- lta with the unfortunate misnomer of Altar Mexica"Sis associated with an cary stage ofthe Patio ofthe Altars. Iteontained offerings that inctuded Cacoyotls Black-on-natural (sometimes called “Az- teeI") potery diagnostic the Epiclssic and Early Postelassicpe- riods (Acosta 19703; McCafferty 1997).A nearby statigraphictest foundthat vrwally lof te 6 mo deposition shove the Mosaic Ps- tio was Postclssie (Mller 1970:132, Figure 22) Cocoyetla pot tery was also essociated with ie. 1 (Matos Moctezama and Lopez 'V, 1967) and Altar 2 (Acosta 19706). The implications thatthe Pa- tioof the Altas and other elements ofthe southern precinct includ- ingthe Bebedores murals) span the Late Classico Farly Postclassic inacontinuous sequence (McCafferty 1996) ‘CocoyotlaBlack-on-nataral features Black-painted decoration cover the tannish-orange ofthe unslipped surface (Figure 10). De- signs include horizontal straight or wavy lines on the interie wall. “More complex subtypes can include panel of black paint through which designs are incised. The typical vessel form is a subhemi- > The “Altar Mexica” probably derives its name from having “Aztec I ceranies unong i offerings inte Chluia archeological zone he att {is ideotifed with a descriptive text discussing the Mexiet/Aztc culture Is fact, “Arto I" (Cocoyotla Black-on-nataral) ceramics. are Epclassie and Barly Postclscc diagnostic, and therefore the Alla Mesica predates the Mexia eultre by * Iphisreview of hin ial meee ean Onoeyocmana Te 430 3 p DetweenthebeginaingofMetepecand Aztec” Thelieve that he ‘Sanaa hastesncleg “Artec, Cocoota Blck-on-natra) maybe faseazly a 4D 700 and therefore there is gep. Nevertheless, his iss is ar fom esel¥eé, and adiional research must address the problem, 310 sphericel bowl witha flattened bottom that was occasionally stamp pressed with a decorative pattern. Cocoyotla pottery resembles “Aztec 1" Black-on-orange pottery from the Valley of Mexico in both form and decoration, although it does not fit neatly ito any ‘of the categories defined by Hodge and Mine (1991).” ‘Since St. 3 and 4 ofthe Patio of the Altars attach tothe exterior ‘of Stage 3A ofthe Great Pyramid (Salazar O. 1970), they postdate the “classic” talud-tablero facede. On the westside of the pyra: mid, Stages 3B and 3C also postdate the talud-tablero architec ture, but are then covered over by yet another layer of adobe fill (tage 4). Stage 4 was either never completed, or the stone and stucco surface was removed for later construction, perhaps for the Postelassic ceremonial center built by Tolteca-Chichimeca immi- grants that included the “new" Pyramid of Quetzalcoatl (see be- Tow). Further evidence forthe abandonment of the Great Pyramid ‘complex is found in the Patio of the Altars, where Altars 1 and 3 Were shattered (Acosta 1970e; Contreras 1970), and in the case of ‘Altar 3 the pieces were then dispersed. This may be evidence of ‘violent conflict between rival ethnic factions, as illustrated on the nearby Cacaxtla murals (MeVicker 1988), or ofa “termination ri ual” intended to symbolically release the power of the ceremonial center (ef. Mock 1997). Epiclassic and Early Postclassic ceramics cover the surface of the Great Pyramid, where they are associated with buildings from the final construction stage (Noguera 1954:219-226). Pottery types include Cocoyotla Black-on-natural, an Pedro Polished Red, Oco- tlgn Red Rim, San Andrés Red, and even Torre Polyehiome (Me- Cafferty 1997). On the basis of his ceramic sequence, Noguera (1954:226) inferred two distinct phases of occupation on the pyr- amid: Chotulteca I that was characterized by Cocoyotla Black-on- natural: and Cholulteca I, characterized by polieroma firme (Torre Polychrome) and stamped-bottom bowls. By reordering the ce ramic sequence (as discussed in the following section) this ean be ‘reinterpreted asa simple progression from Epielassic to Early Post= lassie periods. "Noguera's most extensive excavations were on the northeast plat- {form of the Great Pyramid atthe Altar de los Criineos Esculpidos. (Altar of the Carved Skulls; Noguera 1937; 1954:225-226). The altar itself was a miniature, pyramid-shaped tomb, neatly identical to the “Altar Mexica” in the Patio ofthe Altars, but wit plaster- covered sculpcures of human skulls attached to the exterior. Skel- tons of an adult male and female were found within the altar, buried with an elaborate offering of pottery vessels, copper jew- elty, obsidian projectile points, spinning and weaving tools, abone ‘musical rasp (omichicahuazt), and the jaw bone of a dog (Nogu- ‘era 1937:9-10). The altar was located in a small patio surrounded by stairways leading up to platforms on at least two sides. The patio and altar were sealed beneath a later floor (Noguera 1934:226). Cocoyotla Black-on-natural pottery was found within ‘the tom® and inthe fill sealed by the upper floor. During the summer of 1994 Thad the opportunity to conduct ad- ditional excavationsat the patio surrounding the Altar ofthe Carved ‘Skulls (MeCafferty and Suérez C. 1995). Test pts on the south, east, and north sides of the patio identified six construction stages asthe patio was modified and finally illed and sealed (Figure I). Stage * One Cocoyots subtype, Chalco Black-on orange, clossly resembles the Mixguie variety destibed by Hedge and Mine (1991) interme of de sign coniguretion and particulary a characenstcallyeverted lip, Chsleo Blackcon-orange is most commos inthe Late Tachiwltepll phe, McCafferty 1 featured an earlier pyramid-alar, similar to the one excavated by ‘Noguera, Stage 2represents an expansion of that altar andaportion ‘of an associated stucco floor; an intrusive burial pit withthe skel- ‘etonof ascated adolescent was discovered just north of the alta. The criginal altar was then partially dismantled on the south and westsides toaccommodate the north staircase ofthe Patio ofthe Carved Skulls (Stage 3). On the west side of the patio this staircase was bultinthree successive stages. Interestingly, while the patio itself corresponds tothe orientation of the Great Pyramid at 24° north of west, the Al- ‘ar ofthe Carved Skullsis oriented at 17° northof west, conforming with ites in the Valley of Mexico suchas Tetihuacan and Tula (Tichy 1981). Finally, the altar and the rest of the patio were filled and then covered by a stucco floor (Stage 6). ‘Material remains in the construction fill from the various stages of the Patio of the Carved Sills complex are remarkably consis- tent, despite substantial alterations tothe architectural plan; this assemblage isthe basis for defining the Early Tlachihualtepet phase (4.0. 700-900). The two principal serving ware types were Coco- yotla Black-on-natural and Tepontia Burnished Gray/brown (Table 4) These ranged in frequency between 23 and 31% for Co- coyotla, and 26 and 32% for Tepontia; Cocoyotta became slightly ‘more abundant through ime, while Tepontls decreased slighty. Aco: ‘Table 4, Early Thchhultepetl cram rm frequencies from the Patlo of| ‘the Carved Skulls Post Stage 2 Post-Stage 4 Post Stage 5 ‘TyperContest ww) /%) (al) ‘Acorae Tanvorange rare ams uns Cero Zapoteess Sendy Plain 38. ma ma Cholula Cream 0 ur ° Incised 0 ua 0 Cocoyotla Natural w7 1s nas Black Rim os si 3 Black-on-natural na va on White-on-natural 0 0 m2 Tncised 8 ° ae (Comae Red-on-bult us ua ma Mazapan Redon-orange 0 ° ° ‘Momoxpan Metalic ‘Orange ore on ont cota Red Rim Banded us o o ‘an Andres Red 0 ur 2n San Pedro Polished Red o ° ma ‘Teponta Burnished ‘Gray/Brown saat ans 199 Incisea 0 za Red Rim 9 as Redhon-black 0 ° ical Pain| 109 se Unidentified A Tacised Tan ° ° ma Unidentified 8 Red-on-brown 0 ar) Sobtoial tim00 13810000 Unidentifiable ” 3 2 Tonal 18 18 9% "herds mecsaring een 2% 2 em insite too ama idea 10 9p ‘Ceramics and chronology of Chotula 3 anard whee Alt Duct a= Stone ps # Post Stage —— 2m PROYECTO CHOLULA 1904 Patio of the Carved Skulls Figure Plan ofthe Patio of the Carved Skul 200 TanVorange was the principal utilitarian type present though Post- Classic types such as Momoxpan Orange and San Andrés Red were present in very low frequencies. The co-occurrence of the Classic~ period diagnostic Tepontla Burnished with the Early Postlassic di agnostic Cocoyotle Black-on-natural suggests thatthe transition did ‘not involve a major breakin the cultural sequence. The lack of Teo- tihuacan Thin Orange indicates that ths is not imply redeposited fil, since in that case some Thin Orange would be expected Only a single polychrome rim sherd (Ocotién subtype Sencillo) was found, though Noguera (19'54:226) noted that it was present in other parts ofthe platform, and in fact surface reconnaissance of an adjacent but statigraphically later arca west ofthe patio did 32 discover polychrome ceramics. A single sherd of Mazapan Red- ‘on-buft was found at the patio (Cobean 1990:267-280), as were several sherds imported from the Gulf Coast. Five '*C samples were submitted for dating by the INAH lab, but because of the small size of the samples only one date thas been returned. Charcoal recovered from above the stucco floor of Stage 2 was dated at a.o. 1266-1387 (681 + 59 INAH-1332). This date is far too late, since by A.D. 1000 polychrome pottery is well documented from Cholula (see dis ‘cussion in the next section); the date may correspond 10 dis- turbance related to the intrusive burial pit, Future testing at the site will hopefully produce additional materials suitable for dating, ‘Another source for evaluating the Classic to Postclassie tran- sition is the nearby site of Cerro Zapotecas, located about 2 km ‘west of Cholula (Mountjoy 1987; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973). ‘A broad natural terrace contains rismerous small mounds and balleourt, Pottery included diagnostic types from the Late Clas- sic through Bpiclassic that can be tentatively identified as Tepontls Burnished Gray/brown with incised and stamped designs, and ‘Comac Red-on-buff,' possibly a precursor of Cocoyotla Black- ‘on-natural hased on design similarities (Mountjoy 1987:142, Fig- ure 4; Mountjoy and Peterson 1973:112-113, 136). Two '¥C dates. ‘were obtained: Mound 3 was dated at a.p. 644-861 (1315 * 100 ‘3.3 GX-2446); and the bellcourt (Mound 4) was dated at Av, 543-937 (1345 * 180 a.r.; GX-2447). An archacomagnetic sam- ple from Mound 2 dated to a.b, 785-820 (Wolfman 1990:280- 281). ‘The Early Tlachihualtepetl ceramic assemblage at the Patio of the Carved Skulls combined Classic and Early Postelassic diag nostic types, suggesting a gradual transition with the addition of new elements (e.g., Cocoyotla Black-on-natural and Momoxpan Metallic Orange). That there was not a dramatic disruption in the ‘material culture argues agains! te concept of a major break inthe cultural sequence, such as would be caused by site abandonment ‘or invasion by a foreign ethnic group. Furthermore, no evidence has been discovered to indicate either volcanic eruptions or food ing, Aa alternative model for the Classic to Postelassc transition might therefore be one of gradual intermarriage with a group of newcomers, possibly from the Gulf Coast based on ceramics and architectural elements from the Great Pyramid (MeCafferty 1996). It should be noted that this does not conform to the ethnohistoric ‘model of Olmeca-Xicallanca conquerors driving out the quinametin (Cgiants”) as recorded by Ixtlilxochitl (1975-1977 [1625]:529- '530). Nor does it agree with the image of ethnic conflict depicted in the Cacaxta battle murals (McCafferty and McCafferty 1994, MoVicker 1985; Quirarte 1983), and implied by the destruction of ‘monuments in the Patio ofthe Altars. “The Classic to Postelassic transition remains the most problem atic period in Cholula’s culture history, in part because the ethno- historic accounts do not correspond well with the archacological evidence, The recent investigations a the Patio ofthe Carved Skulls hhave contributed important information to the question, but addi- tional work it urgently needed to expose both earlier and late stapes. ‘of the construction sequence, and to obtain datable material with ‘which to calibrate the ceramic sequence. * Joseph Movetoy provided valuable unpublished information on dee ‘orative elements of ceremics from Cerro Zapotecs McCafferty Postclassic Period Postelassic Cholula was a major religious center for central Mex ico, compared in Colonial-period accounts to Mecca or Rome (Ro: {jas 1927 [1581]; Sahagun 1950-1982 (1547-1585), Introductory ‘Volume:70), It covered an area of about 8 kin®, with a population estimated at 38,000-50,000 (Peterson 1987; Sanders 1971:29- 31), Barly Colonial accounts describe “more than 430 towers all of temples” (Cortés 1986 [1519-1521]:75) in the city atthe time ofthe Conquest; local residents stil remember leveling mounds for agricultural fields. The ceremonial center ofthe city inthe Late Postclassic was the Pyramid of Quetzalcoal, located beneath what is today the Cathedral of San Gabriel on the plaza of San Pedro CCholula (Olivera 1970). Pilgrims from throughout Mesoamerica visited Cholula to attend religious ceremonies, and foreign nobles kept estates in Cholula where they stayed when they visited the “Temple of Quetzalcontl to receive legitimation (Rojas 1927 (1581. ‘The Great Pyramnid was partially abandoned by the Late Postclas- sic but was sill an important shrine fora rain éity, Chiconauge: ‘ahuit! (Rojas 1927 [1581)), possibly a female avatar of the Aztec oddess Chalchiuhilicue (McCafferty 1996). The discovery of hun dreds of Late Postclssic burials from the Great Pyramid’s ceremo- nial precinct indicates that it was still considered a locas of ritual activity (Lopez. et al. 1976). CCholula was a center for artisans, and pochteca merchants af- ited with the Quetzalcotl/Yacatecubtli cult brought exotic goods to the Cholula marketplace (Durén 1971 [1576-1579]: 129, 278: Pineda 1970 [1593)). It was particularly famous for its beautiful polychrome pottery that was considered 2 hallmark of the Mixteca- Puebla stylistic tradition (Lind 1994; MoCafferty 1994; Nichol- son 1960, 1982; Noguera 1954; Suérez C. 1994). Cholula polychrome was the preferred tableware of the Aztec king (Diaz del Castillo 1963 [1580}:226). Yet despite scholarly recognition ‘of its artistic quality, the evolution of Cholula polychrome has remained poorly understood. The confusion stems from Maller assignment of all polychrome types to her Cholulteca It phase, ater A.0, 1325, Since polychrome pottery was well developed in ‘other central Mexico sites well before this date, Miller effec- _ tively eliminated Cholule from having contributed to the devel- ‘opment of the artistic style for which it was most famous (but see McCafferty 1994, 1997). Recent excavations and analyses of Postclassic contexts con- teibute toa reinterpretation ofthe Postclassic sequence, and thereby push back the date for the origins of Cholula polychrome to at Teast a.0.900.The earliest absolute dates come froma pre-Hispanic well excavated in downtown San Pedro Cholula by Sergio Susrez (1994), The well was filled with domestic refuse; judging from mends from widely separated levels it was probably filled over a fairly brief period of time, Two '“C samples produced dates of .n, 897-1018 (1065 * 55 #.P. INAH-1102) and a.D. 905-1220 (960 = 140 f.p.; INAH-1103). Ceramies found in the well in- ‘cluded Cocoyotla Black-on-natural, Xicli Pain, and Ocotlén Red Rim, including the polychrome subtypes Cristina Matte and Ele- ante. Diagnostic Postclessic utilitarian types such as Momoxpan ‘Orange and Saa Andrés Red wore well represented in the assem- blsge * Acchacological investigations in 1993 and 1994 by the Universidad deas Amérieae searched for traces ofthe ceremonial complex Beneath the convent associated with he cathedral ‘Ceramics and chronology of Chotula ‘APostelassic trash deposit excavated on the UDLA campus was ‘dated at A.D, 1260-1392 (700 * 95 n.P; GX-1815; Mountjoy and. Peterson 1973:30).Itcontsined a diverse assemblage of polychrome types (Mountjoy and Peterson 1973:33), including “Cholula Poly- chrome A" (Apolo Red-and-black-on-orange Polychrome, Aqui- ‘ahuac Burnt Orange Polychrome, and Coapan Laca Polychrome; 22%), “Cholula Polychrome B” (Aquiahuac subtype Barracuda; 14%), and “Cholula Polychrome D” (Torre Polychrome; 6%). Late Postclassic ceramics were found at the UA-79 excavations from the UDLA campus, particularly inthe F-10 trash midden (Bar- ‘ientos 1980; Lind 1979, 1994). Apolo-Red-and-black-on-orange Polychrome (33%) was the most abundant decorated type found, but Aquiahuae subtype Zécalo (4%), Torre Polychrome (4%), and STRUCTURE 1 wou 3 “Trash Middon Sel STRUCTURE 3 35 CCogpan Laca (3%) were alo present. A pre-Hispanic well fom {he UDLA campus witha similar ceramic assemblage was *C dated atv, 1333-1448 (500 # 802-14, 614; Urutuelaand Alvarez- ‘Méndez 1989:70, in Lind 1994:81, Note 4). ‘Adiverseasemblage of Postclssic ceramics was recovered at the UA-1 excavation onthe UDLA campus (Table 5; MeCatferty 1992, 1997; Wotfmun 1968). A vasiety of primary depositional con- texts were found in association with two domestic stroctre, i cluding middens, wells, burials, and floor contact deposits (Figure 12). Although no absolute dates exist from ths excav tion, 13 diserete ceramic assemblages were seriated using Gel- fan's Method T (Marquarc 1982:419-421)t0 construct a ceramic Sequence forthe Postlassc period (MoCafferty 1992:456-466, gee te QO shen OOD Ba rn ‘STRUCTURE 2 Ts 0 2 dm JA - 1 SITE PLAN San Andres Cholula, Pue. (DI= atooe wat (E> stone wat ‘Stucco Surface = midaen Deposit 3 Figure 2. Pan of the UAL! ste 34 ‘Table 5. Postale ceramic rim fequoncis from UA contents McCafferty ‘welll ‘Su. Floor Well} TiashMidden Intrusive Midden Sut. 2-Above Floor Type (ors) is) ws) i) or) (or) ‘Major decorated typer ‘Apolo Black-andedforange ms ° a4 wm ant vars ‘Aquiahuse Burnt Orange wT ° 712 3621 308 14 ‘Cospan Laca ° 0 ° us “i 3 Cocoyeata Black/natural am 2078 row 146 92. o Sencillo 39183) ° (65132) voy 2s) 0 Tncised ° 0 67) ° 0 0 Banded way anes) cn1954) 680) 4150) 0 Banded Hiegante any uls) ° a0) ° © Chalo Blackiorange es) ° na) 0 ens) 0 ‘Cvntilos Mate 133 ans 2318 ma. 19 wy ‘Ocotlan Red Rim na 28 33711 16 338 us ‘Sencillo eum ets) sia) iss) 21168) 0 Elegance cigs) ano) ast) ena) ina) «anoo) Cristina Mate 38) as) sin) ca as) o Other sbypes a) (ano aay ens) 16) 0 ‘San Peo Polished lor 32 652 42 ons 26 ‘Toute Red-and-ceange/vhite 25 an 22818 oa 164 26 Major undecorated types Certo Zapotecs Sandy Pain a2 ans on m2 28 a8 ‘Momoxpan Metalic Orange sari9 3016 387720 4205 8120 Bane ‘San Andros Red so aso 21677 no suis santa ‘Teponta Buenished 8 ana 783 an 92. V8 cali Plaio 942s ans air9 a3 8120 isi Minor ypes Colonial /hisoreat ° ° 03 o an © Lae Porcassc ° 0 os us ° n arly Postclassic ° ua ua o ua ° Classic 2 ° a7 us 2 16 Preclassie 2 0 au o ° us Unidentified ° ° us o ° ua Subtotal identifiable rims * asanoo 249100 2.949110 on 40/100 ssss100 Percentage of tual au 95 6 68 6 80 Unidenifiablet su16 1s ‘905728 ron ous an0 ‘Total vim sherds svm00 ——267100——3858/100 249/100 591/100 4431100 Note: Nantes puntos inde Hequencies of sete sabaypes lave the bl pe “Ris ht were bees red, 1994). Four phases are identified: the Middle Tlachihualtepetl phase {(a.0.900-1050 ) characterized by Cocoyotla Black-on-natural (sub. types Sencillo and Incised), Ocodlén Red Rim (subtypes Sencillo, TIncised, and Elegante) and Xicalli Plain Figare 13);the Late Tlachi- Inualtepet! phase (a.0. 1050-1200), characterized by Cocoyotla, Black-on-natural (espectally subtypes Banded and Flegante), Oco- {ln Red Rim (especially subtypes Banded snd Cristina Matte), Cua xiloa Mate, and Torre Polychrome (Figure 14); the Early Cholollan pphase (a.0. 1200-1350), characterized by Cuaxilos Matte, Torre Polychrome, Aquiahuac Black-on-orange, and Apolo Red-and- black-on-orange (Figure 15); and the Late Chotollan phase (aD. 1350-1550), characterized by Apolo Red-and-biack-on-orange and Coapan Laca Polychrome (Figure 16). ‘Additional Postclassie deposits have been found in rescate ex- ccavations throughout Cholula, A Late Tlachihualtepetl phase mid- oo sal ers menting ess han 2% 2m in si), ‘den was found atthe R-106 Transito site (McCafferty and Suarez CC. 1994), with Torre Polychrome (9%), Cuaxiloa Matte (7%), Co- coyotla Black-on-natural (5%), and Aquiahuac Black-on-orenge (49). Sudrez C. (1989) excavated a Late Cholollan mass burial in San Andrés Cholula in which $1 individuals were interred with grave offerings tat included Apolo Red-and-black-on-orange and CCogpan Laca Polyehrome. ‘The Postelassic-period chronology at Cholulais probably the best understood, "in part because the highly distinctive polychrome pot- tery isa sensitive medium for identifying stylistic change through "© ice! Lind (1994; Lind eta. 1990) has recently proposed an al- lemative set of ceramic (pe and phase names based on UDLA ceramic assemblages (see MeCafcry (1994) fr a corelation of terms). Ceramics and chronology of Cholula 3s Figure 13, Mile Tachihaltepet! polycome types: (a) Ocotlin Red Rim Senco; (4) Ocotlin Incsed (c] Ocotlin Banded; (8) Ocotlin Banded Elegante; (@) Ocetn Elegant. time. On the other hand, there are stil relatively few analyzed con- texts with which to test this sequence, and even fewer chronomettic dates with which to calibrate the periods. CONCLUSIONS . ala quimomachiia in Hal, in tapalat! colotoa [they are those whe know noting, those who pileup earth and) potsherd [Sahagin 1950-1982 (1547-1585):BK. 62] In contrast to Sahagsin’s pessimistic characterization, archecolo- gists learn about the past precisely by “piling earth and pot- sherds." Over the past 100 years, archaeologists studying Cholula have generated huge mounds of both, and consequently a culture history spanning 2,500 years can now be reconstructed, even if it is still very tenative. Confusion aver Choluls's chronological sequence has hin- ered the ability to address fundamental questions about its his tory and the processes of historical change, especially in relation to the Epiclatsc transition and the origins of the Mixteca-Pueble polychrome ceramic tradition. Investigations over the past 25 years contribute to a reinterpretation of the sequences proposed by Nogu- «ra (1954) and Miller (1970, 1978). The revised chronology is informed by absolute dates, but also by excavated ceramic assem- blages from primary depositional contexts. Consequently, 3 se ‘quence of ceramic complexes is constructed that is calibrated using MC and other archaeometric dating techniques (Figure 17), Note, however, that although the number of °C dates has in- creased dramatically in recent yeats, most phases are still repre- sented by only a single date, and no phase has more than one dated assemblage, so independent confirmation is as yet impossible. Only ‘single chronometric date exists from the ceremonial precinet of the Great Pyramid, and it is questionable. More dated contexts are 36 McCafferty Figure. Late Tlachihualtept! polychrome types (2) Cocoyotta Banded (b} Cocoyotla Elegante; () Ocotlin Elegante; {4c} Cunsiioa Matt; (0 Torre Polyehrome. needed to fill in the chronological sequence with representative However, while this is an ideal representing normative, unilineal ‘ceramic assemblages for comparative analyses. change, it does not reflect cultural practice, where objects are used ‘As stated atthe outset, a good chronology is one that can ac- _purposively osymbolizea variety of specific, multidimensional strat ‘curately and unambiguously order material culture through time. egies. For example, whereas polychrome pottery certainly does re- Ceramics and chronology of Chotula a7 gure 5. Early Chootan polychrome types (2-b] Cuioa Matte; (Torre Polychrome;(d} Tore subtype Universtad(] Aquishuac subtype Zocalo; (0 Aquihuac subtype Senco. flect a sequence of stylistic changes, more focused analyses may out finely tuned chronological control, but itis always important to identify social factors that select for change or continuity as strate- Keep in mind thatthe construction ofa diachronic sequence is not Bic choices in constructing cultural identities (Hodder 1979, 1982; theend of thesnalyss. Instead tis the portal to more interesting and Miller 1982; Wobst 1977). Thislevelofanalysisisnotpossible with: anthropologically meaningful questions. And, because ofthe inher- Figure. Late Chotolan polychrome types: a} Apolo Sencll;(b-<] Apoto Geometric e) Apolo Elegante; {f-h) Cospan Lace. entdialecti between stylistic change, chronology, and social change, these factors must be critically reevaluated on an ongoing basis. Choluta fas had a long and complex history, and therefore offers tremendous potential for addressing a wide range of substantive and theoretical research questions. Past confusion over site chronology has severely limited interpretation, while discour- aging attempts to incorporate Choiula in broader syntheses of Me- soamerican culture history. The chronological sequence presented herein is intended to provide @ framework for future investiga- tions. Significant geps still exist, and further refinement is needed for all periods; nevertheless, important discoveries have been made in the reconstruction of Chotula’s historical development. Hope- fully we can now move beyond chronology to addrest more problem-oriented research questions that will allow Cholula to contribute meaningfully to the broader debates in Mesoarmerican archaeology. Ceramics and chronology of Cholla 1000 B.c. ‘chotuia cream ‘Totimenuacan Red/browa Asslucan Polished Black coapa orange ‘Tepontla Burnished Gray Acozse Tan/orange Teotibuacan Thin Orange Cocoyotia Black/natural ocotiaa Red Ria xiealli Plata Cerro Zapotecas Sandy Plein Monoxpaa Metallic Orange San Pedco Polished Red cuaxiloa Katte Polychrome Torce Polychrome Aqulehuae Black-op-orange Apolo Red-f-black-on-orange coapen Lace Polychrone 1000 B.c, 500 a9 A.D. 1500 1 ° 500 1000S, 2800 Figure 7, Diachronic distribution of ceramic types. RESUMEN ‘Cholala foe un cento urbano yreligioso por lo menos 2,00 aos. Ete ‘ensayo documenta la cronagt del ito arqueeléigico dante tu historia prchspdnic, usando la secuoacia de cerdmea ealbrada con fechas bso Tus de radiocarbén y argueomagnetismo. Resultados de esta fates In scan que Cholla fue ocupads continuamente desde el preclésco medio, ‘aunque hubieron varios cambios culturals y Enicos. Esta coaelusin con. ‘essa con interpetaciones ecientes,expecialmene las dal Proyecto Cho ula, pero estéa més de acuerdo con interretaciones basadas en fuentes cetanobisticas. Las cifeencias ene las dos interpretaciones pueden ser texpliadas por svances metodolégicos: un énfasis en excavaciones con- textualesy en el uso de métodos 6 datacin absolutes. Investigaciones arqueolipias en Cholla fuecon condecidas por mis e100 afos. La mayora de estas excavaciones se concentss 0 la zon ceremonial alrededor de la Gren Pride, con my poca stencin a ta zona urbana. La compleja estratirafa de Ia Gran Pismide hace dificil Interpreter secuerets de consruccién y como conseeuenca i cronologia ha estado sojea varias inerpetaclones.Especificameme, la wansiciéa ‘entree cldscoy el poscsio ha sido interprciada como un sbundono del sitio asf como ana oeupacién continua ‘Con nvevor daos de excavacionesreciantes y reinorpretaionos de cevidencia anterior, podemos empezar a aprecar la historia completa de ‘Choluls. Los restos més tempranos de Chlula ocure alrededor de na antiga laguna al nore dela Oran Pirgmide, cerea de los terrenos de Ia Universidad de las Américas (UDLA). Certmicatpia del preclésco me- dio se ha encontrado en varios lugares, incluyendo basureros de San An- ‘és Chal, Hotel Villas Arqueoldgias,y UA-69 y UA-70 de a UDLA. 320 Une mocstea de MC dio una feche de 697-765 aC. Bs durant ol pre: ‘lsico que las etapas ms termpranas dela zona ceremonial fueron con strides, la 2ona urbana Ge Chota crec6 a2 ki LaCChollaéel periodo céscn se conoce mejor por los niveles 1-3 de 1u Gran Pirémide, cuando varios anges (nclayendo la cermica) se ase- ‘mejan a Teothuacan, Excavaciones recientes do un conjuato doméstico, ‘denominado R-106, produjo cuatro fechas de carbn entre 400 y 650 ¢.C. ‘con un complejo de cerdmica que define el cisco tardfo, Ou excava- ‘iones recientes han derouberto rere cldscos ep Ia falda dela Gran Pirmide yen el Hotel Villas Arqeol6gica. La época més problemitica en Cholla todavia es el epiclsco, entre 700 y 1000 .C.Distniasinterpetaionessugiren tanto cl absndono det sito come eeupacia continua, Bvidencia en el cereano Cerro Zapotecas Indica otra ocupackén, posblemente de refigies, con aumerosos montid- Tos una eancha de juego depot, Sin embargo, muevas exeavaciones en ‘1 Patio de los Créncos Excupidos, Jonde Noguera excavé a los sf 30, rodajeron ue complejo de cergmica que combina rasgos del clisicoy post ‘lisicotemprano indicando un tansicin gradual. Bn base a esta eviden ‘a, paree que Chalula no fue abandonada, aunque si hubo un tansicién ‘con introduce de ratgos nuevos, prebablemente incicativa de una en tradade gente de grupo nico olmeca-xicalanes, Dante el epclésie, McCafferty Gran Piémide fae amplinda a su mésima exensin, con rasgosesilisicos 441 Golfo, Fin el postelésco Cholla lleg6 & sv temato méximo, con una po- baci de 38,000-50,(00 en une dea de aproximadamente Bkn’. Enesta época Cholua fue centro relgioso del ello de Quezaleatl; mercaceres pochteca de Cholla viajron por todas parte de Mesoaméricainercam- biando bienes exéticos por anticulos del eslo “mixtecpeebla.” La cerémice polleroma exo mixteca-poebla esté presente en Cholla desde por lo menos 9904, Lasexcavaciores del sitio UA-1 que documentan la ‘Secuencia evolutiva de In cerdmica policroma, la cual se divi en euro fases, Durante el postlisco, el centro ceremoril de Cholla cambi al presente 26alo de San Pedro Cholul, en donde se asent6 la Pirkmide de (Quetzaloat desea por los conquisadoresespafoles. Le Gran Pirdmide ‘permanecié en uso como suncivario; ls erenos del recto sagrado com tviron msde 400 enteros postclésicos. Con 13 fechas absolute yes posible constulr una secuencicrono- {ica para Cholla. De todos modos, es muy poco considerado la larg da- raci del centro aqueoldgico. Las intepretcionespreseniadas aqui se ‘considera como hipiess simplemente; esperamosmucvos dos para.cval- ‘eary amplia estas sugerenlas, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My research onthe ceramics nd chronology of Cholula has been supe ported by Sigma Xi, 8 SUNY-Bingharmtan Research gram, and a Melon Foundation Post-Doctoral Fellowship at Brown University. Many individ ualehave contnbated to this research, notably Chuck Caskey, Michael Lind, tnd Sergio Suiter C. Serge’ ongoing commitment to Cholua atchaeol ‘fy continues to produce important result, including mastof the “C dates reported here. Sharisse McCafferty provided envsmos assistance in all REFERENCES Acosta, Jonge R 197Da _Seccién 3, In Proyecto Chola, edited by lgracio Marquina ‘pp. 47-56. Serie Investigaciones No, 19. Instituto Nacional de Antropologtae Historia, Mexico 1970h El Alar 2. In Proyecto Chlala, edited by Ignacio Marquina, ‘pp. 103-110, Serie Investigaciones No. 19, Iasituto Nacional de ‘Aniropologiae Historia, Mexico. 19702" EL Alar I. In Proyecto Cholula, eed by Ignacio Marquina, ‘pp. 93-102. Serie Ieveutigsciones No. 19. Instituto Nacional de ‘Anuopotogiae Historia, Mexico 1975" Lacerémica de Cholla, I Lor pueblos y seoriosteocrdticas Et pertodo de las ciudad urbanas, primera parte, by EdustGo Ma: tos Mocteruma etl, pp. 123-134, Departamento de Investigaciones istics, Instituto Nacional de Antropeiogia e istra, Secretaria de Eeveacin Pablica, Mente. Bandolier, Adolph E. 1976. {1884} Report of am Archaeological Tour in Mexico, in 188. "AMS Press, New York. Basavalle, Richard, and Thomas R, Wheaton 1974 Preliminary Site Report: UA-T3F Fall and Winter Seasons, 1973-4. Report subpitied to Departameato de Monumeates Prehis- inicos, Insteto Nacional de Antropoogiae Historia, Mexico. Barrientos, Caalina 1980” Andlisis de a cerdmica del Blemento 10 de UA-79. Unpublished icencltura tess, Department of Amropolony, Universidad de as ‘Améticns, Santa Catarina Mart, Puebla, Mexico, Binford, Lewis 1962" Archaeology as Anthopclogy American Antiquity 28:217-225 1965 Archatological Sytematics and the Study of Culture Process. ‘American Anuguity31:203-210. Bonfl Billa, Gollermo 1973 Cholula: La eluded sagrada on lo era industrial Instituto de Investigaciones Hstrias, Universidad Nacional Auténoma de Méx ico, Mexico, Caskey, Charles. 19828 Segundo informe preliminer sobre el andl de cerdmica de rhases ofthis analysis, inclading drafting the maps and drawing ceramics; the Bebcdores of Figure 9 were drawn by Sharinee withthe asitance of alleen Chilcete, and Figure 4 was drawn by R, Ashley Withers. This pe or has benefited from the thoughtful comments of Elizabeth Bram, Michael Lind, Joseph Mountjoy and Mike Saath. Mickey Lind! know ‘ede of Chola archaeology and his ole of devil's advocate have been Patiulalybelpfil in preparing this study CCholua, Fonanur. Repost sabmitted 1 the Centro Regional de P+ bila, Instituto Nacional de Antropologi e Historia, Puebla, Mexico. 19825 Tercera informe prelininar sobre andliss de cerdnica de Cho- Tula, Fonatur, Report submited tothe Centro Regional de Puebla, Instituto Nacional de Antropotoglae Historia, Puebla, Mexico. 198K Two Archaeological Ditnveres at Choluia Pucbia, Mexico. Un- published Masters tess, Department of Anthropology, Universidad Se lat Américas, Santa Catarina Mart, Puebla, Mexico. ‘Caskey, Chutes, and Michael Lind 1979. Late Posclassic Cholula Ceramic Typology, Annex IV. Manu Script on file, Department of Anthropology, Universidad de las ‘Américas, Santa Catarina Marti, Puebla, Mexico Chadwick, Robert, 1971 Native Pre-Aztee History of Central Menco. In Archaeology of ‘Nonihera Mesoanerie, pt 2, edited by Gordon F. Ekim and igus ‘ie Bera, pp. 474-504, Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol 11, Robect Wauchope, genera editor. Univesity of Texas Press, Aus CCobean, Robert HL 1990" Le cerdmica de Tula, Hidalgo. Coleccisn Cientfica, Serie Ar ‘qucologta Tnstiznto Nacional de Aniropolopi e Historia, Mexico. Contreras, Eduardo 1970 El Altar 3. In Proyecto Cholla edited by Ignacio Margaina, ‘Bp. ILI-118, Sere Investigaciones No. 19. Insuto Nacional de Historia, Mexico thory Pagden. Yale University revs, New Havea, CT. Cyphers Guilén, Ana 1987 Ceramics In Ancient Cholatsngo, edited by David C. Grove, pp. 250-252. University of Texas Press, Austin. Dean, Sify 8. 97R Indopenden Dating in Archacological Analysis. In Advances ix “Archacological Method and Theory, vol. | edited by Michael B Schiffer, pp. 223-285. Academic Pres, New York. Ceramics and chronology of Cholula Diaz det Castillo, Bernal 1963 [1380] The Conguest af New Spain. Translated by XM. Coben. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, Midclesex, England Dumond, Don 1972 Demographic Aspects ofthe Clasi Period in Puebla/Taxcal, ‘Southwestern Journal of Anhropology 28:101-130. Dumond, Don, and Florencia Milles 1972 Classe to Pos-Classc in Highland Cental Mesico. Science 17s:1208-125. Durdn, Diego 1971 [1316-15791 The Book ofthe Gods and Rites and the Ancient Calendar: Translated by Fernando Hercasitas and Doris Heyden: Uni- versity of Oklahoma Press, Norman Béetsein, Rath 1995 " Obsidian Exptotaion and Pollical Economic Dynamics onthe ‘Clase Period Through Colonil Era Ceniral Plateau: An Analysis of a Lihic Collection fom Cholula,Pueble, Mesico. Unpabished ‘Master's thesis, Deparment of Anthropology; MeMaster University, Hariltor, Omario, Conads. Fajardo, Carmen 1985" Andliss de tres basueros del sitio argueolico de Cholule,Un- published Licencirra hess, Escuela Nacional de Antopologiae His- toni, Merco. Flansery, Kent V. 1967 Culture History v Cultural Process: A Debate in American Ar chacology.Scionific American 217(2):119-122. Fowler, Melvin L., Pradence Procoort, Gerald Cone, Grogory James, snd Wiliam Woods 1940 Archaeological Investigations inthe Valley of Puebla, Mexice: ‘The Pueble Preciasric Project of the University of Wisconsin Mibwaudkee. Report of Investigations No. 2S. Archaeological Re- search Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of ‘Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI Garcia Cook, Angel 1981 The Historical Importance of Tlaxcala inthe Cultural Develop- ‘ment ofthe Central Highlands. In Archacology. edited by Victoria Bricker and Jeremy A. Saboff, pp. 244-276. Handhook of Middle ‘America Tedans, Supplement I. Univesity of Texas Press, Asti, Garefa Cook, Angel, and Beatz Leonor Merino Caron 1990 "EI "Epiclsico” ena regidn poblano-taxcaltec. In Mescamérica ‘yelnorte de Mexico: Siglo K-XUl-eited by Sool Miranda, pp. 257— 3280. Museo Nacional de Antfopologfa, Instituto Nacional de ‘Anttopologiae Historia, Mexico, Historia Toleca-Chichimera 1976. [ea. 1550} Hstoria Toteca-Chichimeca. Edited and Translated by Pabl Kirchhoff, Lina Odera Guemes, and Luis Reyes Gari. fn- stitute Nacional de Antropologs Historia, Mexico Hodder, fan 1979) Social and Bconomic Stress and Material Culture Paterning, “American Antiguity 4:446-484, 1982" Symbols in Acton: Etimoarchacological Studies in Material Cul ‘tre. Cambridge University Press, Cambri. Hodge, Mary G. and Leah D. Mine 1994. Aitee Period Ceramic Distribution and Exchange System. Sab mitted othe National Sience Foundation, Washington, DC. nitoehi, Fernando de Alva 1915-1977 (1625) Obras hstricas, 2 vols. Edited and with a intro-

    You might also like