Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:08:20.589Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Texcoco Region Archaeology and the Codex Xolotl

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Thomas H. Charlton
Thomas H. Charlton*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The use of a hypothesis of conflict between Tula and Cholula by Parsons (1970) to account for settlement patterns and ceramics of the Toltec periods in the Texcoco region has resulted in the introduction of inconsistencies in the settlement interpretations of the preconquest Texcoco sequence. The Tula-Cholula Conflict Hypothesis is based on inadequate data and not supported. However, it is possible to interpret the settlement and ceramic changes of the Texcoco sequence using ecological and cultural factors suggested by Parsons for periods earlier than the Early Toltec. The correlations suggested by Parsons (1970) between the Codex Xolotl and the Early Toltec period rested in part on the use of the Tula-Cholula Conflict Hypothesis. With the elimination of this hypothesis, it is possible to correlate the 2 basic culture patterns of the Codex, as defined by Parsons, with terminal Late Toltec and Early Aztec. These correlations support Dibble"s original thirteenth century date for the early events depicted in the Codex Xolotl.

Type
Reports
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 1973 , pp. 412 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bennyhoff, James A. 1964 The prehispanic ceramic sequence of the Teotihuacan Valley. Lecture Series, June-July,Google Scholar
Bennyhoff, James A. 1964, San Juan Teotihuacan, Mexico. Ms Department of Anthropology, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa.Google Scholar
Charlton, Thomas H. 1965 Archaeological settlement patterns: an interpretation. Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Dibble, C. E. 1951 Codice XolotL Instituto de Historia, Publication 22.Google Scholar
Lorenzo, José L. 1968 Clima y agricultura en Teotihuacan. In Materiales para la arqueologia de Teotihuacan, edited by José L. Lorenzo. Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Investigaciones 17:51–72.Google Scholar
Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1968 Teotihuacan, Mexico, and its impact on regional demography. Science 162:872–877.Google Scholar
Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1969 Prehispanic settlement patterns in the Texcoco region, Mexico, preliminary conclusions. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, mimeographed.Google Scholar
Parsons, Jeffrey R. 1970 An archaeological evaluation of the Codice Xolotl. American Antiquity 35:431–440.Google Scholar
Rattray, Evelyn Childs 1966 An archaeological and stylistic study of Coyotlatelco pottery. Mesoamerican Notes 7-8:87–193.Google Scholar
Sanders, William T. 1965 The cultural ecology of the Teotihuacan Valley. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, multilithed.Google Scholar