the world acording to robert

8/12/2019 The World Acording to Robert

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-world-acording-to-robert 1/13

The World According to Robert: Macroregional Systems Theory in Mesoamerica

Author(s): Rani T. AlexanderSource: Journal of Anthropological Research, Vol. 64, No. 3, Debating with Robert: Papers onMesoamerican Archaeology in Memory of Robert S. Santley (Fall, 2008), pp. 383-394Published by: University of New MexicoStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371262 .

Accessed: 15/03/2014 16:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of New Mexico is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of

Anthropological Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 187.170.132.208 on Sat, 15 Mar 2014 16:10:05 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371262?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/20371262?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=unm



THE WORLD ACCORDING TO ROBERT

Macroregional Systems Theory inMesoamerica

Rani T. Alexander

Departmentof Sociology andAnthropology, ew Mexico StateUniversity,MSC 3BV,

PO Box 30001, Las Cruces,NM 88003-8001, USA. Email: raalexan(nmsu.edu

KLEY oRDs: Classic period Mesoamerica; Matacapan (Mexico); Teotihuacan; World

Systems

Throughout is career, Robert Santley sought o explain the spread ofTeotihuacan-derivedaterial cultureto other areas ofMesoamerica andto develop better archaeological methods for recognizing variation in the

organizationfMesoamericanmacroregional conomic ystems.n this aper,I review Santley's approaches to understanding theMesoamerican World and

outline nresolveduestions nthe rchaeological se ofworld-systemsheoryas applied toMesoamerica. I discuss how recent research on trade diasporas

applies to the data fromMatacapan and consider some fruitful new directions

forresearch.

FOR ROBERT SANTLEY, TEOTIHUACAN WAS THE CENTER OF THE WORLD. We can well

imagine him living thereat theheight of theMiddle Classic in a well-appointed

compound intheheart ofthe city,close tothehubbub on the treet ofthe Dead, with

easy access to theobsidian and craftworkshops in thegreatmarket. Santley would

have made his fortuneas one of the city's obsidian moguls, having streamlined

theproduction process and kept detailed accounts of the ratios of gray to green

forevery household in thecity and every community in theBasin. He especially

enjoyed carousing with thediaspora merchants from eracruz and taking ina ball

game or two onweekends. He branched out tobecome an importerof Lowland

exotics, wisely situating his business in a thriving enterprise zone in southern

Veracruz. It was there that the sons of thewere-jaguar had memorialized their

chiefs inmonumental basalt some 1,500 years before-and, more pragmatically,

itwas theclosest spotwith therightdemographics fortakingadvantage of productvalue disparities thatoccur at the boundaries of economic spheres. He regularly

accompanied themerchants to .Matacapan, tomonitor quality control of Coarse

Orange jars produced by his new manufactory inComoapan.

Throughout his career, Santley sought to explain the spread of Teotihuacan

derived material culture to other areas ofMesoamerica and to develop better

archaeological methods for recognizing variation in the organization of

Mesoamerican macroregional economic systems (Figure 1).He was interested in

explainingwo hings:

JournalofAnthropologicalResearch, vol. 64, 2008CopyrightC byTheUniversityofNew Mexico

383







384 JOURNAL OF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

1.What processes account for archaeologicalvariationamong thethreemacroregional ystems entered n Teotihuacan,Tula, and

Tenochtitlan?2.What processes structureariation mong sites locatedoutside ofTeotihuacan's lassicperiod rban ore?

In thispaper, I review his approaches to understanding theMesoamerican

World and outline new directions for debate. Recent work inMesoamerica has

focused on (1) thedegree of political control exercised by polities in theBasin of

Mexico over peripheries; (2) thedirection, volume, and structureof commodity

flows (Minc 2006; Spence 1996; Stark et al. 1992); and (3) the extent towhich

prehispanicore-peripheryystemserecharacterizedya division f labor ndperiphery dependence on urban cores (Blanton 1996; Smith and Berdan 2003).

Results indicate hatMesoamericanmacroregional ystems ere organizedquite differently from themodem capitalist system. I suggest that flourishing

regionalolitical conomies ocatednthe semiperipheryf the iddle Classicmacroregional system-Matacapan, Kaminaljuyu, Tikal,Monte Alban-hold the

keys tounderstandingransitionsnmacroregionalystemtructure.antley'slegacy in the Tuxtlas is directly relevant to continuing inquiry about the role of

outposts and enclaves in the expansion and collapse of preindustrial states in

Mesoamerica.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH WORLD SYSTEMS THEORY?

In the early 1980s the big question kicking around theBasin of Mexico was

what had fueled urbanization at Teotihuacan, Tula, and Tenochtitlan, and what

accounted for thevariable organization of theirpolitical economies. In A Tale of

Three Cities (Sanders and Santley 1983), William Sanders and Robert Santley

looked at the energetics of agricultural and craft production and the limits of

human transport.They predicted a limited role for foreign, long-distance trade

in structuring urban development in prehispanic Mesoamerica. Santley was

already working atMatacapan in theTuxtlas, where he had ample evidence of aTeotihuacan enclave and economic activity linking theGulf Coast to the Basin

ofMexico.Around the same time, archaeologists began to consider the applicability of

Wallerstein's (1974a) world-systems theorytopre-modem, non-capitalist systems

(Blanton and Feinman 1984; Blanton et al. 1992). Variation inwealth and power

amongMesoamerica's citieswas linked toeach center's ability tomanipulate flows

ofmaterial, energy, and people at themacroregional scale by establishing ties of

superordinance and dependency. Santley was already a fan of Abner Cohen's

(1969, 1971) and Philip Curtin's (1984)work on

trade diasporas and merchantenclaves. As Algaze (1993) later explained, expansion of many pristine states

was accomplished by placing a variety of core outposts at key junctions of the

surrounding periphery. Outposts facilitate cost-efficient channeling of exchange

between distant societies thathave developmental asymmetries. They represent

extension of economic hegemony to zones outside direct political control-that







MACROREGIONAL SYSTEMS THEORY INMESOAMERICA 385

z~~~~~~~~~~-44~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i

C'

14~~~~~~~~

PQ~~~~~~~~~~~

0l

Cld-14~~~~~~~~~~

U~~~~~~~~~~~~

70

0o

0t

ct

< 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

0 10 Z








is, an early world system and are based on the same principles of asymmetrical

exchange, nterdependence,ndcapital ccumulationcross olitical oundaries

(seeStein1999).Santley saw themodem capitalistworld system as a subtype of more general

core-peripherymodels inwhich the structureof articulations among parts of the

systemwas dendritic (Santley and Alexander 1992, 1996). A world system is an

economic entity integrated by the exchange of staple products and possessing

a single division of labor spanning multiple cultural subsystems. According to

Wallerstein (1974b:40 1), it is composed of (1) a core, a zone with broad-spectrum

economies ontaining apital-intensive,igh-profitoodsproducedwith freewage labor; (2) a semiperiphery, containing an intermediatemix of high- and low

profit roduction hat orms buffer etween eveloped ores ndundevelopedhinterlands; and (3) a periphery, a politically weak, narrow-spectrum economic

zone where low-profit,ess-diversified,nd low-capitalntensiveoods andresourcesereextracted,sually nvolvingoerced abor.

The articulationsetween ore, emipheriphery,nd peripheryive rise totwo salient characteristics of all world systems (Kepecs and Kohl 2003:16-17):

1. A core-peripheryierarchy evelops throughsymmetricalxchange.Further, ecause production n cores and peripheries s organizeddifferently,world-system linkages create a division of labor that fosters

periphery dependence on thecore (Chase-Dunn andHall 1991).2. Systemic nd structuredormsf surplusxtractionnd interpenetrating

capital accumulation develop as elites share surplus across political

boundaries, creating macroregional interdependence (Gills and Frank

1996:93).

Nevertheless, as Barbara Price (1986) remarked inher article on theapplicability

ofWallerstein's model toTeotihuacan, themodem capitalist world system is a

historical nalogywhich archaeologistsppliedtoprehistoricystems ithoutfirst eveloping ufficientarranting rgumentsr subjecting henecessary

linkages etween rchaeologicalata ndpolitical-economictructureorigorousscrutiny. Consequently, Santley focused on several archaeological variables to

decipher the organization of Middle Classic Mesoamerica. First, patterns of

production nd distributionf specific rtifacts,specially achuca obsidian,allow archaeologists to trace the direction and scale of commodity flows. Second,

the technology and institutions ssociated with thephysical movement of primary

and secondary products, especially transport, ffect the distribution ofmaterials in

thearchaeological record.Third, archaeological site structure f rural settlements,

craftworkshops, and household contexts, as well as the organization and scale

of craftproduction inboth cores andperipheries,

reflect the structureofmarket

systemsnd interdependence.Although Santley's and others' analyses of theMesoamerican data reveal

broad similarities with other macroregional systems, there are significant

differences. First, Santley was convinced that inClassic periodMesoamerica, the

economy was commercialized and goods were exchanged according to forces of








supply nddemand peratingnder ompetitivearket onditionspace Spence1996).Yet, the ebate ontinues verwhether abor as widely commodified.

Except for thewell-documented case of tlamemes (human burden bearers) in thePostclassic eriod,wage labor id not exist inMesoamerica (Hirth 993:29).Similarly, monetization of the economy and thedevelopment of credit systems

and currenciesunctioneduitedifferentlyompared ithother orld systems,especially in thePostclassic period (Berdan et al. 2003).

Second, asworld systems go,Mesoamerica is small inspatial scale, limitedby

the transport systemwhich relied on human burden bearers. Exercise of military

power over distance was severely limited (Hassig 1985) in contrast toOld World

stateswhere animal traction andmechanical devices were substituted forhuman

muscle power, and goods could be transported ingreater quantities over longer

distances (Sherratt 1981). Old World societies also developed forms of animal

husbandry hich produced mounts f storable, oncentratedroteinmuchgreater than theamount of protein yielded by the animal's meat. Mesoamericans

did not experience an equivalent secondary products revolution until after the

Spanish invasion. hese observations uggestsignificantissimilaritiesntheworld-systems trajectories of the Old World andMesoamerica (Kohl and

Chernykh003).Finally, he egree feconomic nterpenetrationetween ore ndperiphery

is different in Mesoamerica compared with the modem world system. In

precapitalistorlds,modes of accumulationary ependingnwhether urplustakers or primary producers control the factors of production (raw materials,

tools, land, labor, capital, and product) (Wolf 1982). In a capitalist system, profits

are accumulated in the formof surplus value. Surplus-takers own the factorsof

production, whereas laborers are remunerated inwages worth less than the value

of theproduct theymade. Inprecapitalist economies, however, primary producers

maintain control of the factorsof production, and surplus-takers profit from the

stockpiling and differential circulation of goods. Technologies invented in core

regions can be easily replicated in peripheries (Kohl 1992). As a result, core

periphery dependence and a geographic division of labor is not strictly defining

feature fMesoamerican macroregional systems (Blanton 1996; Kepecs and Kohl2003:19).

THE TEOTIHUACAN WORLD

Although antleythoughthegeneralworld-systemodelwas applicabletoprehispanic esoamerica,he defined hree indsofmacroregional ystemsinwhich the core exercises variable degrees of political and economic control

over the periphery: dendritic political economies, hegemonic empires, and

territorialmpires SantleyndAlexander

1992).Following assig (1992),he

thoughthegemonic empires and territorial mpires best describedMesoamerican

macroregional political economy under theAztecs and Spaniards, respectively.

Although he firstproposed that Teotihuacan's Classic period periphery was

structuredmore or less dendritically and contained enclaves, interactivenodes,

and receiver nodes, he later envisioned Classic period Mesoamerica as more








variable, ontaining ifferentegional conomic ndustriesestedwithinthesamemacroregional system (Arnold et al. 1993; Pool and Santley 1992; Santley

2004a, 2004b, 2007; Santley et al. 1987; Santley andAlexander 1992:38). Powerconflictsccurredmong lites spolitical conomiesnderwentransformationsfrom a narrow-spectrum to a broad-spectrum economic base.

Santley focused on sites of the semiperiphery, such as Matacapan,

Kaminaljuyu, and Tikal, which, he argued, supported enclaves-groups of

resident oreigners rom entralMexico-as indicated y the presenceofTeotihuacan-styleomestic, ulinary,ndritual rtifactsSantley 983; Santleyet al. 1987). Alternatively, some scholars have proposed that thematerial evidence

indicatesmulationnd status nhancement.ocal pretenders possibly ocalmerchants) merely claimed Teotihuacan affiliation and identity,which formed

an importantpart of local political strategies (Cowgill 1992; Stark 1990). Santley

nevertheless maintained thata cartel of producers based inTeotihuacan was the

principal conveyer of obsidian goods over long distances in theMiddle Classic.

The foreign residents of the enclaves, he thought,worked in an analagous manner

to today's economic hitmen (Santley 1983, 2004c). He attributed variation

in the intensity, timing, and frequency of Teotihuacan contact among enclaves

to different targeting strategies by the Teo cartel (Santley 2004c, 2007; see also

Marcus 2003).In the Tuxtlas he envisioned an enclave of foreignmerchants at the head of

theGulf Coast regional economic system.Matacapan was the center of a solareconomy and a break-of-bulk place that specialized in the collection of raw

materials from the local region for transhipment to the core. It also distributed

manufactures fromTeotihuacan to consumers in the surrounding region. Civic

ceremonial buildings were constructed in talud-tablero style, and domestic

contexts contained Teotihuacan-style artifacts, such as Fine Orange cylindrical

tripods, candeleros, and Pachuca obsidian. Some portable artifactswere imitations

of Teotihuacan orginals, produced locally. They occur throughoutMatacapan,

as well as in smaller sites in the Tuxtlas hinterland, and are not confined to the

TeotihuacanarrioSantley 004c:387).Further,aterial vidence f interaction

between theBasin ofMexico and theTuxtlas continued forseveral centuries afterpersons unknown torched theprincipal structuresalong Teotihuacan's Street of

theDead (Millon 1988).

AmongMesoamericanresearchers,he egree feconomic nterpenetrationbetween eotihuacan ndthe lourishingegional olitical conomies utside heValley ofMexico is indoubt (Braswell 2003a; Pool and Santley 1992; Stark et

al. 1992). Because blade obsidian production and the fabrication of thin,orange

colored otteryere technologiesasilyreplicatednd doptednregionsutsidetheBasin ofMexico, several investigators question the transformative effects of

long-distance tradewith Teotihuacan on regional economies outside theBasin

(Spence 1996; Stark et al. 1992). Motivations forTeotihuacan interventions in

Tikal, Monte Alban, Matacapan, Kaminaljuyu, and other sites, as well as local

reception of those interventions (accommodative or resistant) produced material

evidence that is highly variable in time and space (Cowgill 2003). Currently

Teotihuacan's military objectives on the Gulf Coast are being reevaluated in








light f the discovery that some sacrifical victims inTeotihuacan's Temple of the

Moon had Gulf Coast origins (White et al. 2007).

NEW DIRECTIONS FOR DEBATE

In recent years, the studyofmacroregional systems inMesoamerica has seen a

renaissance (Braswell 2003b; Smith and Berdan 2003), yet two issues remain

problematic. irst,why did thethrivingegional conomic apitalswith thegreatest evidence of Teotihuacan interaction-Matacapan, Kaminaljuyu, Tikal,

Monte Alban-fail tobecome thenew cores of the piclassic andEarly Postclassic

world economy? Although inCentral Mexico some of Teotihuacan's secondary

administrativeenters ikely ereprime ontributorsoTeotihuacan's emise

and benefited from the spoils of thecity's collapse, ingeneral thehost cities forTeotihuacan's far-flung utposts bit the dust in theLate Classic.

The Epiclassic and Early Postclassic world economy was one dominated by

multiple ores, ncreasedommercializationndcirculationfgoods,militarism,and new ideological systems centered on the veneration of Quetzalcoatl. These

leaner and meaner Epiclassic polities did not extend economic hegemony to

areas outside theirdirect political control bymeans of colonies and outposts. Yet,

trade and military diasporas developed in the semipheripheries, such as Acalan

in the Chontalpa, the Itza' of theYucatan peninsula, and the rapid expansion of

theQuiche and Cakchiquels inhighland Guatemala. In theLate Postclassic, the

increasing demographic advantage in theBasin ofMexico relative toother areas

of Mesoamerica allowed theAztecs to reestablish asymmetrical core-periphery

relations, this time as a political hegemony.

World systems wax and wane as powers and exchange circuits shift

(Alexander and Kepecs 2005:4; Skinner 1985). Secondary economic centers in

the semiperiphery are oftenwell-positioned to assume the role of new cores,

especially sincemerchants in these zones rise to thetopof the social and economic

hierarchy,unfetteredby political interference Braudel 1992:594; Gills and Frank

1996:90-94, 97-99). In Europe, the landlocked capitals of themedieval period

were first uperseded by the economic growthof polities located along rivers andmajor waterways, and laterby polities with access to coastal ports, as technology

and transport systems developed greater capacity for exchange of bulk staples

(Batten 1998). To some extent,we can view the demise ofMatacapan, Palenque,

and theMaya Usumacinta centers as a power shift to theeast, in favorof centers

such as Comalcalco and Itzamkanac, which were advantageously situated on

an extensive riverine systemwith outlets to theLaguna de Terminos (Ball and

Taschek 1989; Vargas 2001). At the end of theLate Postclassic period, theAztecs

established Nahuatl-speaking enclaves and commercial outposts at Xicalango

and Potonchan in this semiperiphery (Gasco and Berdan 2003; Izquierdo 1997;

Scholes andRoys 1948). Closer toMatacapan, Cuetlaxtlan and Tochtepec became

tributary rovinces of theAztec Empire (Berdan 1996).

As Algaze (1993:325) explains, ivilizations ith recurringycles ofexpansion initially incorporate peripheries by establishing outposts. Local

elites are usually amenable to economic intrusions because establishing trading







390 JOURNALFANTHROPOLOGICALESEARCH

relationships with the core leads to short-termpersonal gain as well as vigorous

localdevelopment. s local politiesexpanded, owever, ore politieswould

have to either exercise more formal political and economic domination or cedetrade outes onewly mergingocalpowers. lgaze (1993:325)concludes hatoutposts end odisappear s regional conomic ndsociopoliticalsymmetrieslevel ff.

Ultimately,antleywasissatisfiedwithxplanationsortheemise fthe ateClassic economic system in theTuxtlas. As Blanton et al. (1996:10) note, theGulf

Coast was Mesoamerica's Mediterranean for all periods before thePostclassic.

Further, the leveling off of asymmetries does not explain the persistence of

Teotihuacan-inspiredaterial ulture nto he ate Classic followinghe eclineofTeotihuacan.s Spence 2000) indicates,he ersistencefTeotihuacan-stylearchitecture and material culture in theEpiclassic is not restricted to theGulf

Coast it is also common inWest Mexico and in theChalchihuites region. The

two explanations he proposes for this situation (Spence 2000:257) also resonate

for the Tuxtlas. First, Teotihuacan-inspired material culture possibly became

a key component of an international style during theEpiclassic (Blanton et al.

1996). Second, Teotihuacan stylewas maintained inLate Classic cities outside the

Basin ofMexico by refugeeswho fledTeotihuacan's destruction and relocated to

relativelyamiliarrban enters.The second issue thatremains roblematic orworld-systems esearch

concerns theautonomy of the semiperiphery in structuringthe relations betweencores and peripheries. The evidence fromthe host cities of Teotihuacan's Middle

Classic enclaves suggests that the economic development around Matacapan,

Kaminaljuyu, Tikal, andMonte Alban is the lynchpin forexplaining structural

variation and change in the Middle Classic macroregional system. Yet, the

organization of semiperipheries and theirroles are undertheorized inWallerstein's

world-systems model, nor does his framework allow for the agency of societies

outside thecore of the system (Dietler 2005; Stein 1999).

Conventionally, Santley and others viewed the enclave merchants as native

Teotihuacanos who intruded on and targeted thrivingMiddle Classic regional

systems outside the Basin of Mexico. Nevertheless, comparative historicalevidence also supports the idea that tradediasporas originate in thesemiperiphery,

not in the core (Curtin 1984). Diaspora merchants belong to a distinct ethnic

community and serve as culture brokers, but typically theywork theirway out of

business as communication between distinct cultural systems becomes more fluid

and comfortable.

Spence's (2005) work identifying a Zapotec trade diaspora network a

commercial string of diaspora termini between the Tlailotlacan barrio and

Monte Alban-raises the possibility that elites and merchants seeking greater

opportunities toexpand ina thrivingregional economy might actually be targeting

Teotihuacan (rather than vice versa). Not onlywere these entrepreneurs attracted

to the city lights of the great center, they also gained a permanent foothold

by establishing theOaxaca barrio. Teotihuacan's apparent ethnic pluralism was

the result of several such diaspora groups initiating and establishing economic

and consanguineal ties with groups of Teotihuacanos. The founding of foreign








barrios in the citywas an opportunistic strategypursued by elites andmerchants

of smaller regional systems, yet the relationship also afforded Teotihuacanos a

significantolitical ndeconomic eturn.A related issue iswhether thediaspora termini identifiedby Spence (2005)

are really market centers. Chingu, Tehuacan, Los Teteles, and other diaspora

sites contain amix of ceramics andmaterial culture suggesting interactionswith

Oaxaca, Puebla, and Teotihuacan itself, s well as Zapotec burial complexes and

ritual tems,uggestingommercialctivityirectedya particularthnic roupthat roduces n evendistributionfgoods (seeHirth1998). If so,were these

markets administered by Teotihuacan,. by diaspora merchant guilds, or by elites

in regional capitals? Do diaspora terminiormarkets represent a distinct kind of

organization, differentfromsystemsof long-distance exchange that haracterized

the ormativendEarlyPostclassic eriods?In closing, Santley would say that t's time for therestofus toget towork on a

new synthesis of theClassic Mesoamerican World. Requiescat in ace, Robert.

REFERENCES CITED

Alexander, R. T., and S. Kepecs. 2005. The Postclassic to Spanish-era transition n

Mesoamerica: An introduction, n The Postclassic to Spanish-era transition n

Mesoamerica: Archaeologicalperspectives.EditedbyS.Kepecs andR. T.Alexander,pp. 1-12. Albuquerque: UniversityofNew Mexico Press.

Algaze, G. 1993. Expansionary dynamics of some early pristine states. AmericanAnthropologist 5:304-33.

Arnold, P. J., II, C. A. Pool, R. R. Kneebone, andR. S. Santley. 1993. Intensive eramic

production ndClassic-period political economy in the ierra de losTuxtlas,Veracruz,

Mexico. AncientMesoamerica 4:175-91.

Ball, J.W., and J. aschek. 1989. Teotihuacan's fall nd theriseof the tzat: ealignments

and role changes in theTerminalClassic Maya Lowlands, inMesoamerica afterthedecline of Teotihuacan,AD 700-900. Edited byR. A. Diehl and J.C. Berlo, pp.187-200. Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks, Trustees for arvard University.

Batten,D. C. 1998. Transport nd urban growth npreindustrial urope: Implications for

archaeology.Human Ecology 26:489-516.Berdan, F. F. 1996. The tributaryrovinces, inAztec imperial trategies. dited byF. F.

Berdan, R. E. Blanton, E. H. Boone,M. G. Hodge,M. E. Smith, ndE. Umberger,pp.115-35. Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks.

Berdan,F. F.,M. A. Masson, J. asco, andM. E. Smith.2003. An internationalconomy,inThe Postclassic Mesoamerican world. Edited byM. E. Smith and F. F. Berdan, pp.

96-108. Salt Lake City: UniversityofUtah Press.

Blanton,R. E. 1996. TheBasin ofMexico market system nd thegrowth f empire, in

Aztec imperial trategies.Edited by F. F. Berdan, R. E. Blanton, E. H. Boone,M.

G. Hodge,M. E. Smith,and E. Umberger,pp. 47-84. Washington,DC: Dumbarton

Oaks.

Blanton,R. E., andG. M. Feinman. 1984.TheMesoamerican world system: comparativeperspective.AmericanAnthropologist 6:673-82.

Blanton, R. E., G. M. Feinman, S. A. Kowalewski, and P. N. Peregrine. 1996. A

dual-processual theoryfor the evolution ofMesoamerican civilization. CurrentAnthropology 7:1-14.







392 JOURNALOF ANTHROPOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Blanton, R. E., S. A. Kowalewski, and G. M. Feinman. 1992. The Mesoamerican world

system. eviewXV(3):419-26

Braswell, G. E. 2003a. Introduction: einterpreting arly Classic interaction, nTheMaya and Teotihuacan: Reinterpreting arly Classic interaction. dited by G. E.

Braswell, pp. 1-43. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

(ed.). 2003b. TheMaya and Teotihuacan:Reinterpretingarly Classic interaction.

Austin:UniversityofTexas Press.

Braudel, F. 1992. Civilization and capitalism,15th-18th century. ol. II: The Wheels of

Commerce. Berkeley:University of California Press.

Chase-Dunn, C. K., and T. D. Hall. 1991. Conceptualizing core/peripheryierarchies for

comparativestudy, nCore/periphery elations in recapitalistworlds. Edited by C.

K. Chase-Dunn andT. D. Hall, pp. 5-44. Boulder,CO: Westview Press.

Cohen,A. 1969.Customandpolitics inurbanAfrica:A study fHausa migrants inYoruba

towns. erkeley: UniversityofCaliforniaPress.. 1971. Cultural strategies in the organization of tradingdiasporas, in The

development f indigenous rade ndmarkets inWestAfrica.Edited byC.Meillassoux,pp. 266-81. London: OxfordUniversityPress.

Cowgill, G. L. 1992. Toward a political history fTeotihuacan, inIdeologyand preColumbian civilization. dited byA. Demarest and G. Conrad, pp. 87-114. Santa Fe:

School ofAmericanResearch Press..2003. Teotihuacan and EarlyClassic interaction: perspectivefrom utside the

Maya region, nTheMaya and Teotihuacan:ReinterpretingEarly lassic interaction.

Edited by G. E. Braswell, pp. 315-35. Austin:Universityof Texas Press.

Curtin, P. D. 1984. Cross-cultural trade inworld history. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dietler,M. 2005. The archaeologyof colonization and thecolonizationof archaeology:Theoretical challenges from n ancientMediterranean encounter, nThe archaeologyof colonial encounters:Comparative perspectives.Edited byG. J.Stein, pp. 33-68.

Santa Fe: School ofAmericanResearch Press.Gasco, J., and F Berdan. 2003. International trade centers, in The Postclassic

Mesoamerican world. Edited byM. E. Smith and F. Berdan, pp. 109-16. Salt Lake

City: UniversityofUtah Press.

Gills, B. K., and A. G. Frank. 1996. The cumulation of accumulation, inTheworld

system: ive hundredyears orfive thousand? dited byA. G. Frank and B. K. Gills,pp. 81-114. London: Routledge.

Hassig, R. 1985. Trade, tribute,nd transportation. orman: Universityof Oklahoma

Press.. 1992. Aztec and Spanish conquest inMesoamerica, inWar in the tribal one.

Edited by R. B. Ferguson and N. L. Whitehead, pp. 83-102. Santa Fe: School of

American Research Press.

Hirth,K. G. 1993. The household as an analyticalunit:Problems inmethod and theory,inPrehispanic domestic units inwesternMesoamerica: Studies of the household,

compound, nd residence.Edited byR. S. Santley andK. G. Hirth,pp. 21-36. Boca

Raton: CRC Press.

.1998. The distributionalpproach:A newway to identify arketplace exchangeinthe rchaeological record. urrentAnthropology39:451-76.

Izquierdo,A. L. 1997.Acaldny laChontalpa en el sigloXVI, sugeograflapolitica. Mexico,DF: UniversidadNacional Aut6noma deMexico.

Kepecs, S.M., and P. Kohl. 2003. Conceptualizingmacroregional interaction: orld

systems theory nd thearchaeological record, in The Postclassic Mesoamerican








world. Edited byM. E. Smithand F. Berdan, pp. 14-20. Salt Lake City: University

ofUtah Press.

Kohl, P. L. 1992. The Transcaucasian 'periphery' n theBronze Age: A preliminaryformulation, nResources, power, and interregional nteraction. dited by E. M.Schortman ndP.A. Urban, pp. 117-37. New York: Plenum.

Kohl, P. L., andE. N. Chernykh.2003. Different emispheres, ifferentorlds, inThePostclassic Mesoamerican world. Edited byM. E. Smithand F. F. Berdan, pp. 307

12. Salt Lake City: UniversityofUtah Press.

Marcus, J. 2003. The Maya and Teotihuacan, in The Maya and Teotihuacan:

Reinterpreting arly Classic interaction. dited by G. E. Braswell, pp. 337-56.

Austin: Universityof Texas Press.

Millon, R. 1988. The lastyearsofTeotihuacan dominance, inThe collapse of ancient

states and civilizations.Edited byN. Yoffee and G. L. Cowgill, pp. 102-64. Tucson:

UniversityofArizona Press.Minc, L. D. 2006.Monitoring regionalmarket systems nprehistory: odels, methods,

andmetrics. JournalofAnthropologicalArchaeology 25:82-116.Pool, C. A., and R. S. Santley. 1992. Middle Classic pottery conomics in theTuxtla

Mountains, southern eracruz,Mexico, inCeramicproductionand distribution: n

integrated pproach. Edited byG. J.Bey III andC. A. Pool, pp. 205-34. Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.Price, B. J. 1986. Teotihuacan as world-system: Concerning the applicability of

Wallerstein'smodel, in rigenyformaci6ndel estado enMesoamerica. EditedbyA.

Medina, A. Lopez Austin, andM. Serra Puche. Pp. 169-94.Mexico, DF: Universidad

Nacional Autonoma deMexico.Sanders,W. T., andR. S. Santley.1983. A taleof three ities:Energeticsandurbanization

in Pre-Hispanic CentralMexico, in Prehistoric settlement atterns: Essays in

honor ofGordon R. Willey. Edited by E. Z. Vogt andR. M. Leventhal, pp. 24391. Albuquerque: UniversityofNew Mexico Press, and Cambridge,MA: Peabody

Museum ofArchaeology andEthnology,HarvardUniversity.

Santley,R. S. 1983. Obsidian tradeand Teotihuacan influenceinMesoamerica, in

Highland-Lowland interactionn esoamerica: Interdisciplinarypproaches. EditedbyA.Miller, pp. 69-124.Washington,DC: DumbartonOaks.

.2004a. Prehistoric altproduction tEl Salado,Veracruz,Mexico. LatinAmericanAntiquity 5:199-221.

.2004b. Ranchoapan: The newobsidian city f the uxtlas?Albuquerque: LatinAmerican Institute, niversityofNew Mexico.

. 004c. Review article:What was Teotihuacan doing inthe aya region?Journal

ofAnthropologicalResearch 60:379-96..2007. Theprehistory f theTuxtlas. Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico

Press.

Santley,R. S., and R. T. Alexander. 1992. The political economy of core-peripherysystems, inResources, power, and interregionalinteraction. dited by E. M.

Schortman ndP.A. Urban, pp. 23-49. New York: Plenum.. 1996. Teotihuacan andMiddle Classic Mesoamerica: A precolumbianworld

system? n rqueologiaMesoamericana: homenajeaWilliam T Sanders, coleccioncientifica. dited byA. G. Mastache, J.R. Parsons,R. S. Santley,andM. C. Serra

Puche, pp. 173-94.Mexico, DF: Instituto acional deAntropologia eHistoria.

Santley,R. S., C. M. Yarborough, and B. A. Hall. 1987. Enclaves, ethnicity, nd the

archaeological record tMatacapan, in thnicity nd culture. ditedbyR.Auger,M.F.Glass, S.MacEachern, and P. H.McCartney, pp. 85-100. Calgary: Archaeological








Association of the niversityofCalgary.Scholes, F. V., and Ralph L. Roys. 1948. TheMaya Chontal Indians ofAcaldn-Tixchel.

Washington, DC: Carnegie InstitutionfWashington Publication 560.

Sherratt, . 1981. Ploughandpastoralism:Aspects of the econdary roducts revolution,inPattern of the ast: Studies inhonourofDavid Clarke. Edited by I. Hodder, G.

Isaac, andN. Hammond, pp. 261-305. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Skinner,G. W. 1985. Presidential address: The structure fChinese history.Journal ofAsian Studies 44:271-92.

Smith,M. E., and F. Berdan, eds. 2003. The PostclassicMesoamerican world. Salt Lake

City: UniversityofUtah Press.

Spence,M. W. 1996.Commodityorgift? eotihuacan obsidian intheMaya region. atin

AmericanAntiquity :21-39.. 2000. From Tzintzuntzan to Paquime: Peers or peripheries in Greater

Mesoamerica? inGreater Mesoamerica: The archaeology ofWest andNorthwestMexico. Edited byM. S. Foster and S. Gorenstein, pp. 255-61. Salt Lake City:

UniversityofUtah Press..2005. A Zapotec diaspora network inClassic-period CentralMexico, inThe

Archaeology of colonial encounters:Comparativeperspectives.Edited byG. J. tein,pp. 173-205. Santa Fe: School ofAmericanResearch Press.

Stark, . L. 1990.The GulfCoast and the entralHighlands ofMexico: Alternativemodels

for nteraction.esearch in conomicAnthropology12:243-85.

Stark,B. L., L. Heller,M. D. Glascock, J.M. Elam, andH. Neff. 1992.Obsidian-artifactsource analysis fortheMixtequilla region, south-central eracruz,Mexico. Latin

AmericanAntiquity :221-39.Stein,G. J. 1999.Rethinkingworld-systems: iasporas, colonies,and interaction nUruk

Mesopotamia. Tucson: UniversityofArizona Press.

Vargas, E. 2001. ItzamkanacyAcalan. Mexico, DF: Universidad Nacional Aut6noma deMexico.

Wallerstein, I. 1974a. The modern world system, ol. I: Capitalist agricultureand the

originsof the uropeanworld economyinthe ixteenth entury. ew York:AcademicPress.

. 1974b. The rise and future emise of theworld capitalist system:Concepts for

comparative nalysis.Comparative Studies in ocietyandHistory 16:387-415.

White, C. D., T. D. Price, and F. J.Longstaffe.2007. Residential historiesof thehuman

sacrifices t the oon Pyramid,Teotihuacan.AncientMesoamerica 18:159-72.Wolf, E. R. 1982.Europe and the eople withouthistory. erkeley:UniversityofCalifornia

Press.

the world acording to robert

Documents