The Basin or Valley of Mexico is a highlands plateau in central Mexico roughly corresponding to modern-day Mexico City. Here, we are interested in the phase of its prehistory known as the Terminal Formative period (c. 100 BCE-99 CE). The most notable aspect of this period is the emergence of Teotihuacan as the largest and most populous city in the New World: by 150 CE, it had a population ranging between 60,000 to 80,000 inhabitants distributed across an area of about 20 kilometers.
[1]
Political power was inherently theocratic;
[2]
[3]
[4]
beyond that, the exact administrative mechanisms prevalent at the time remain unclear.
[1]: (Sugiyama 2005: 1) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P56I2R2H
[2]: Barba de Piña Chán, Beatriz. (1980). Tlapacoya: Los Principios de la Teocracia en la Cuenca de Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopedica del Estado de Mexico, p.13-42, 95-142.
[3]: Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2012). "Where East Meets West: The Formative in Mexico’s Central Highlands." Journal of Archaeological 20(1): 1-51
[4]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-215.
| unknown [---] |
| Central Highland Mesoamerican Late-Terminal Formative |
| MxClass |
| 40,000 km2 |
| continuity |
| Preceding: Late Formative Basin of Mexico (mx_basin_of_mexico_5) [continuity] |
| quasi-polity |
| Otomanguean | |
| Mixe-Zoquean |
| NO_VALUE_ON_WIKI |
| suspected unknown |
| 20,000 people | 100 BCE 1 BCE |
| [40,000 to 60,000] people | 0 CE 99 CE |
| - |
| - |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| inferred present |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| present |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| inferred present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| present |
| present |
| absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| unknown |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| present |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred present |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| present |
| absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| Year Range | Terminal Formative Basin of Mexico (mx_basin_of_mexico_6) was in: |
|---|---|
| (100 BCE 99 CE) | Basin of Mexico |
This archaeological quasi-polity might be referred to by the names of excavated sites within its bounds, the name of particular Basin of Mexico ceramic phases, or the name of Basin of Mexico subregions within its bounds during the Late and Terminal Formative (also known as First Intermediate Periods 2 and 3 in the alternative Basin of Mexico Project chronology).
[1] The following refers to a previous periodization. The start date 650 BC for the MxFormT quasi-polity is the beginning of the Late Formative period (c.650-200 BC) in the Basin of Mexico (alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 2"). [2] [3] [4] The end date is fuzzy and problematic because it is unclear exactly when in the Terminal Formative period (c.200-1 BC; alternatively called "First Intermediate Period 3") the entire MxFormT quasi-polity was conquered by its aggressive neighbors Cuicuilco (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Cui&action=edit&redlink=1 ) and Teotihuacan (EXTERNAL_INLINE_LINK: /browser/index.php?title=Basin_of_Mexico-Teo&action=edit&redlink=1 ). Since the MxFormT quasi-polity is made up of multiple, discrete, independent settlement clusters, the timing of their conquest by Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan was most likely different for different areas. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] This quasi-polity ceased to exist during the subsequent Tzacualli ceramic phase (c.1 BCE - 100 CE) because the Plinian eruption of Popocatepetl led to the abandonment of most of the quasi-polity’, while the rest of the quasi-polity was taken over by Teotihuacan and Cuicuilco. [11] [12] [13] The date ranges for the eruption/abandonment are c. 100 BCE - 50 CE, and the start date for the Tzacualli ceramic transition is centered around 1 BCE, so I use the date of 1 BCE to designate both events.
[1]: (David Carballo, pers. comm. to G. Nazzaro and E. Cioni, 2019)
[2]: Nichols, Deborah L. (2016). "Teotihuacan." Journal of Archaeological Research 24:1-74.
[3]: Cowgill, George L. (2015). Ancient Teotihuacan: Early Urbanism in Central Mexico. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.7-11.
[4]: Kolb, C. C. (1996). "Analyses of Archaeological Ceramics From Classic Period Teotihuacan, Mexico, AD 150-750." In MRS Proceedings (Vol. 462, p. 247). Cambridge University Press.
[5]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363.
[6]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105.
[7]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207.
[8]: Santley, Robert S. (1977). "Intra-site settlement patterns at Loma Torremote, and their relationship to formative prehistory in the Cuautitlan Region, State of Mexico." Ph.D. Dissertation, Depatartment of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, pp. 365-425.
[9]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223.
[10]: Brumfiel, Elizabeth. (1976). "Regional growth in the Eastern Valley of Mexico: A test of the “Population Pressure” hypothesis." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 234-249.
[11]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2006). "Social and cultural consequences of a late Holocene eruption of Popocatépetl in central Mexico." Quaternary International 151.1: 19-28.
[12]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. "Mountain of sustenance, mountain of destruction: The prehispanic experience with Popocatépetl Volcano." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 170.1 (2008): 111-120.
[13]: Siebe, C. (2000). "Age and archaeological implications of Xitle volcano, southwestern Basin of Mexico City." Journal of Volcanology and Geothermal Research 104, 45-64.
The settlement clusters of the MxFormT quasi-polity are thought to have been relatively independent and autonomous chiefdom-level polities during the Late Formative, but then gradually came under the control of neighboring Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan during the Terminal Formative c.200-1 BCE. While some have hypothesized that Cuicuilco headed some kind of Supra-polity political system during the Late Formative, [1] [2] [3] [4] the characteristics of such a Supra-polity political system are unknown to archaeologists.
[1]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105.
[3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207.
[4]: Earle, Timothy K., (1976). "A nearest-neighbor analysis of two formative settlement systems." In Flannery, Kent V. (Ed.), The Early Mesoamerican Village. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 196-223.
Including the rest of the Basin of Mexico, the Puebla-Tlaxcalla Valley, Morelos, the Toluca Valley, and parts of Southern Puebla.
Continuity in material culture, symbolic culture, settlement occupation, and subsistence practices.
Continuity in material culture, symbolic culture, settlement occupation, and subsistence practices.
Inhabitants. "It has been difficult to get people to recognize that the Patlachique phase (c.100-1 BCE) was more than a prelude to the development of Teotihuacan [...] By the end of this phase, the population was likely at least 20,000". [1] During the next stage (Tzacualliphase: AD1-150), Teotihuacan quickly became the largest and most populous metropolis in the New World. By AD 150 the urban area had expanded to approximately 20 km2 and contained some 60,000 to 80,000 inhabitants. [2]
[1]: (Cowgill 2015: 53) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/JRFZPUXU.
[2]: (Sugiyama 2005: 1) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P56I2R2H
Inhabitants. "It has been difficult to get people to recognize that the Patlachique phase (c.100-1 BCE) was more than a prelude to the development of Teotihuacan [...] By the end of this phase, the population was likely at least 20,000". [1] During the next stage (Tzacualliphase: AD1-150), Teotihuacan quickly became the largest and most populous metropolis in the New World. By AD 150 the urban area had expanded to approximately 20 km2 and contained some 60,000 to 80,000 inhabitants. [2]
[1]: (Cowgill 2015: 53) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/JRFZPUXU.
[2]: (Sugiyama 2005: 1) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/P56I2R2H
in squared kilometers. During the Terminal Formative (c.200-1 BC), MxFormT includes at least parts of the regions of Cuauhtitlan, Texcoco, Ixtapalapa, and Chalco. The territory of Cuicuilco and Teotihuacan hegemony is very poorly understood during the Terminal Formative, and it is possible that the entire Basin of Mexico was controlled by the two polities at this time. Prominent excavated sites of the MxFormT quasi-polity include Tlapacoya, Temamatla, Torremote-Tlaltenco, Loma Torremote, Cuanalan, and Tezoyuca.
levels. Some settlement clusters have a 3-tier settlement hierarchy, while others have a 4-tier settlement hierarchy.
[1]
[2]
[3]
(1) Regional Center -- 3,000-10,000 inhabitants(2) Large Village -- 1,000-3,000 inhabitants(3) Small Village -- 100-1,000 inhabitants(4) Hamlet -- 10-100 inhabitants
[1]: Steponaitis, V. P. (1981). "Settlement hierarchies and political complexity in nonmarket societies: the Formative Period of the Valley of Mexico." American Anthropologist, 83(2), 320-363.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 98-105.
[3]: Charlton, Thomas H., & Deborah L. Nichols. (1997). "Diachronic studies of city-states: Permutations on a theme—Central Mexico from 1700 BC to AD 1600." In Charlton and Nichols, eds. The Archaeology of City-States: Cross-Cultural Approaches. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp.169-207.
levels. Political and religious institutions are thought to be essentially identical for the Central Mexican Highlands Late/Terminal Formative, such that political power was inherently theocratic.
[1]
[2]
[3]
At least 3 hierarchical levels of religious institutions can be discerned for Cuicuilco. First, formal religious ritual at the household/house-group level (i.e. local corporate/Kin groups, the the basal units of exchange and production) is ubiquitous for the Central Mexican Highlands Late/Terminal Formative, and these are thought to have organized the basal level of the political economy. This has been inferred from the ubiquitous household/house-group shrines and ritual offerings, which are associated with senior lineage houses in house compounds. Compared to junior lineage houses, senior lineage houses also have higher quantities of prestige goods, food storage, obsidian/lithic production, burials, larger houses/rooms, greater architectural quality and ornamentation, and greater occupational time depth. Given that these same ritual tropes are replicated at higher hierarchical levels, it has been inferred that senior lineage religious-ritual authority in access to ancestors was the basis of political-economic authority at the basal house-group (kin/corporate group) level.
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[3]
[11]
[2]
Second, formal settlement- or community-level religious rituals (i.e. wider groupings of hierarchically-ordered kin/corporate-groups) were associated with feasting sponsored by religious/political elites, ritual labor service (production/construction), and sacrificial offerings. Evidence for these religious institutions are centered on settlements’ ceremonial precincts (temples and plazas), which directly associate them with the priestly elite and the political economy.
[2]
[3]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[9]
[10]
[15]
[1]
(1) Community- or settlement-wide (possibly polity-wide) religious institutions at ceremonial center(2) House group, corporate/kin-group religious institutions at senior lineage shrine
[1]: Barba de Piña Chán, Beatriz. (1980). Tlapacoya: Los Principios de la Teocracia en la Cuenca de Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopedica del Estado de Mexico, p.13-42, 95-142.
[2]: Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2012). "Where East Meets West: The Formative in Mexico’s Central Highlands." Journal of Archaeological 20(1): 1-51
[3]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-215.
[4]: Santley, Robert S. (1993). "Late Formative Period Society at Loma Torremote: A Consideration of the Redistribution vs. Great Provider Models as a Basis for the Emergence of Complexity in the Basin of Mexico." In Prehispanic Domestic Units in Western Mesoamerica: Studies of Household, Compound, and Residence, edited by Robert S. Santley and Kenneth G. Hirth, pp. 67-86. CRC Press, Boca Raton.
[5]: Sanders, William T., Michael West, Charles Fletcher, and Joseph Marino. (1975). The Formative Period Occupation of the Valley, Parts 1 and 2. Occasional Papers in Anthropology, No. 10. Department of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
[6]: Manzanilla, Linda. (1985). "El sito de Cuanalan en el marco de las comunidades pre-urbanas del Valle de Teotihuacan." In Mesoamérica y el entro de México, México, edited by J. Monjarás-Ruiz, E. Pérez Rocha and Roas Brambila, pp. 133-178. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.
[7]: Nichols, Deborah L., Charles D. Frederick, Luis Morrett Alatirrem, and Fernando Sanchez Martínez. (2006). "Water Management and Political Economy in Formative Period central Mexico." In Precolumbian Water Management: Ideology, Ritual, and Power, edited by Lisa J. Lucero and Barbara W. Fash, pp. 51-66. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
[8]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (1998). Preclassic Household Patterns Preserved Under Volcanic Ash at Tetimpa, Puebla, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 9:287-309.
[9]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2002). "Shrines, ancestors, and the volcanic landscape at Tetimpa, Puebla." In Domestic Ritual in Ancient Mesoamerica, edited by Patricia Plunket, pp. 31-42. Monograph 46, Cotsen Institute of Archaeology. University of California, Los Angeles.
[10]: Plunket, Patricia, and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2005). "Recent Research in Puebla Prehistory." Journal of Archaeological Research 13:89-128.
[11]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 305-34.
[12]: Carballo, David M. (2013). "Labor Collectives and Group Cooperation in Pre-Hispanic Central Mexico." In David Carballo (Ed.) Cooperation and Collective Action: Archaeological Perspectives. Boulder: University of Colorado Press, pp.243-274.
[13]: Carballo, D. M., Roscoe, P., & Feinman, G. M. (2014). "Cooperation and collective action in the cultural evolution of complex societies." Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory, 21(1), 98-133.
[14]: Carballo, David M., et al. (2014). "Suprahousehold consumption and community ritual at La Laguna, Mexico." Antiquity 88.339 (2014): 141-159.
[15]: Uruñuela Ladrón de Guevara, Gabriela, and Patricia Plunket Nagoda. (2001). "¿“De peidra ha de ser la cama …”? Las tumbas en el Formativo de Puebla-Tlaxcala y la Cuenca de México a partir de la evidencia de Tetimpa, Puebla." Arqueología 25:3-22.
levels. Political and religious institutions are thought to be essentially identical for the Central Mexican Highlands Late/Terminal Formative, such that political power was inherently theocratic. [1] [2] [3] Beyond indirect, theoretical proxies like hierarchical levels of socioeconomic stratification, irrigation systems, monumental construction, and settlement patterns, there is no direct evidence for sociopolitical administrative levels.
[1]: Barba de Piña Chán, Beatriz. (1980). Tlapacoya: Los Principios de la Teocracia en la Cuenca de Mexico. Biblioteca Enciclopedica del Estado de Mexico, p.13-42, 95-142.
[2]: Plunket, Patricia and Gabriela Uruñuela. (2012). "Where East Meets West: The Formative in Mexico’s Central Highlands." Journal of Archaeological 20(1): 1-51
[3]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-215.
The presence or absence of markets and market exchange is debated for the Late/Terminal Formative due to the ambiguity of the archaeological evidence. [1] or Classic Period. [2] [3] [4] The archaeological location of physical "marketplaces" at large sites in the Late and Terminal Formative Basin of Mexico is difficult because they constitute open areas that are equifinal with plazas (or other open spaces).
[1]: Castanzo, Ronald A. and Kenneth G. Hirth. (2008) "El asentamiento del periodo Formativo en la cuenca central de Puebla-Tlaxcala, Mexico. In Ann Cyphers and Kenneth G. Hirth (eds.) Ideologia politica y sociedad en el periodo Formativo:Ensayos en homenaje al doctor David C. Grove. IIA/UNAM, Mexico City, pp.203-231.
[2]: Carballo, David M. (2013) "The Social Organization of Craft Production and Interregional Exchange at Teotihuacan." In Kenneth H. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury (eds.) Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pg. 113-140.
[3]: Kenneth H. Hirth. (2013) "The Merchant’s World: Commercial Diversity and the Economics of Interregional Exchange in Highland Mesoamerica." In Kenneth H. Hirth and Joanne Pillsbury (eds.) Merchants, Markets, and Exchange in the Pre-Columbian World. Washington D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks, pg. 85-112.
[4]: Kenneth H. Hirth. (2013) "Economic Consumption and Domestic Economy in Cholula’s Rural Hinterland, Mexico." Latin American Antiquity 24(2): 123-148.
Irrigation systems were present in the Cuautitlan region, as well as at early Teotihuacan, Cuicuilco, and numerous other sites across the Basin of Mexico. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51.
[2]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.73-84, 125-134.
[3]: Nichols, Deborah L. (1987). "Risk and Agricultural Intensification during the Formative Period in the Northern Basin of Mexico." American Anthropologist 89(3): 596-616.
[4]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 96-7.
[5]: Nichols, Deborah L. (2015). "Intensive Agriculture and Early Complex Societies of the Basin of Mexico: The Formative Period." Ancient Mesoamerica 26(2): 407-21.
The only known storage features were private bell-shaped storage pits and raised granary structures (cuexcomates). [1] [2]
[1]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51.
[2]: Carballo, David M. (2016). Urbanization and Religion in Ancient Central Mexico. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.154-6.
Regional and long-distance trade was common, [1] [2] and a system of foot paths existed during the Postclassic, [3] but no evidence of roads exist in the limited archaeological record of the Early Formative.
[1]: Grove, David C. (2000) "The Preclassic Societies of the Central Highlands of Mesoamerica." In Richard Adams and Murdo MacLeod (eds.), The Cambridge History of The Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pg.122-151.
[2]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51.
[3]: Hassig, Ross. (1985) Trade, tribute, and transportation: The sixteenth-century political economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pg.28-39.
Lacustrine ports would not be developed until the later Postclassic at Tenochtitlan when they were needed to logistically unload goods onto the urban island; otherwise beaches were used to land canoes. [1]
[1]: Hassig, Ross. (1985) Trade, tribute, and transportation: The sixteenth-century political economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pg.56-66.
Canals for transportation purposes would not be developed until the later Postclassic around Tenochtitlan, when they were needed to logistically transport goods through chinampas, dyke systems, and the city itself. [1]
[1]: Hassig, Ross. (1985) Trade, tribute, and transportation: The sixteenth-century political economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pg.56-66.
Regional and long-distance trade (crossing rivers) was common, [1] [2] but no evidence of bridges exists in the limited archaeological record of the Early Formative
[1]: Grove, David C. (2000) "The Preclassic Societies of the Central Highlands of Mesoamerica." In Richard Adams and Murdo MacLeod (eds.), The Cambridge History of The Native Peoples of the Americas, Volume II: Mesoamerica, Part I. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pg.122-151.
[2]: Plunket, P., & Uruñuela, G. (2012). Where east meets west: the Formative in Mexico’s central highlands. Journal of Archaeological Research, 20(1), 1-51.
In addition to a Terminal Formative quarry located in the Teo Valley (TE-TF-264), [1] abundant stone and obsidian craft production indicates that raw materials were mined away from settlements. [2] [3] [4]
[1]: Sanders, William T., Michael West, Charles Fletcher, and Joseph Marino. (1975). The Teotihuacan Valley Project Final Report, Volume 2: The Formative Period Occupation of the Valley, Part 1 -- Texts and Tables. The Pennsylvania State University Department of Anthropology, Occasional Papers in Anthropology.
[2]: Piña Chan, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp.157-178.
[3]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42.
[4]: Biskowski, Martin. (2008) "Maize-Grinding Tools in Prehispanic Central Mexico." In New Approaches to Old Stones: Recent Studies of Ground Stone Artifacts, edited by Yorke M. Rowan and Jennie R. Ebeling. London: Equinox Publishing, pp. 144-155.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
Raw or manufatured prestige goods -- ceramics, precious stone, feathers, textiles, jewelry, ornaments, etc. (both "articles" like jade and feathers, and "tokens" like shells) -- likely functioned as "primitive money" or "social currency." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]: Piña Chan, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp.157-178.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 331-3.
[3]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35.
[4]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42.
[5]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16.
Raw or manufatured prestige goods -- ceramics, precious stone, feathers, textiles, jewelry, ornaments, etc. (both "articles" like jade and feathers, and "tokens" like shells) -- likely functioned as "primitive money" or "social currency." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]: Piña Chan, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp.157-178.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 331-3.
[3]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35.
[4]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42.
[5]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16.
Raw or manufatured prestige goods -- ceramics, precious stone, feathers, textiles, jewelry, ornaments, etc. (both "articles" like jade and feathers, and "tokens" like shells) -- likely functioned as "primitive money" or "social currency." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]: Piña Chan, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp.157-178.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 331-3.
[3]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35.
[4]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42.
[5]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16.
Raw or manufatured prestige goods -- ceramics, precious stone, feathers, textiles, jewelry, ornaments, etc. (both "articles" like jade and feathers, and "tokens" like shells) -- likely functioned as "primitive money" or "social currency." [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
[1]: Piña Chan, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, pp.157-178.
[2]: Sanders, William T., Jeffrey R. Parsons, and Robert S. Santley. (1979) The Basin of Mexico: Ecological Processes in the Evolution of a Civilization. Academic Press, New York, pg. 331-3.
[3]: Stoner, Wesley D., Deborah L. Nichols, Bridget A. Alex, and Destiny L. Crider. (2015)"The emergence of Early-Middle Formative exchange patterns in Mesoamerica: A view from Altica in the Teotihuacan Valley." Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 39: 19-35.
[4]: Charlton, Thomas H. (1984). "Production and Exchange: Variables in the Evolution of a Civilization." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.17-42.
[5]: Hirth, Kenneth G. (1984). "Early Exchange in Mesoamerica: An Introduction." In Kenneth G. Hirth (Ed.) Trade and Exchange in Early Mesoamerica. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, pp.1-16.
Would not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
Probably unnecessary given probable scale and distances of military action.
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
May not survive archaeologically, only detectable via excavation.
None have been found, and fortifications themselves are scarce.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The small, round stone balls excavated from Late/Terminal Formative sites in the Basin of Mexico and across Mesoamerica as sling stones. [1] [2] increased frequency of groundstone balls (3-10cm) found in Late/terminal Formative; these represent either slings or bolas [2]
[1]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.28-9.
[2]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
"There is no substantial evidence of bows and arrows at this time [Middle and Late Formative]". [1] First introduced into Central Mexico during the Middle Postclassic by Chichimec invaders from Northern Mesoamerica. [2] [3]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 197) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.47, 119-20.
[3]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
Not included in the following: "Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1] diverse array of projectile points in archaeological record, and there is evidence for their use in Formative Mesoamerican art. [2] [3] [4]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.13.
[3]: Voorhies, Barbara (1996). Archaic Period in Mesoamerica." The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, ed. B. Fagan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442-444.
[4]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.
Gunpowder not yet invented or introduced.
"There is no substantial evidence of bows and arrows at this time [Middle and Late Formative]". [1] First introduced into Central Mexico during the Middle Postclassic by Chichimec invaders from Northern Mesoamerica. [2] [3]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 197) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.47, 119-20.
[3]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
"There is no substantial evidence of bows and arrows at this time [Middle and Late Formative]". [1] First introduced into Central Mexico during the Middle Postclassic by Chichimec invaders from Northern Mesoamerica. [2] [3]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 197) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.47, 119-20.
[3]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
technology present in the wider region from c.4000 BCE, diverse array of projectile points in archaeological record, and there is evidence for their use in Formative Mesoamerican art. [1] [2] [3]
[1]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.13.
[2]: Voorhies, Barbara (1996). Archaic Period in Mesoamerica." The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, ed. B. Fagan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442-444.
[3]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
"Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
Not included in the following: "Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1] unknown from the archaeological record, and no direct evidence in Central Mexico before the early postclassic. [2]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.112.
"Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1] obsidian and stone spearpoints have been found archaeologically, and there is evidence for their militaristic use in both Formative Mesoamerican and Classic Teotihuacano art. [2] [3] [4]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.13, 30-1, 47-8.
[3]: Voorhies, Barbara (1996). Archaic Period in Mesoamerica." The Oxford Companion to Archaeology, ed. B. Fagan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 442-444.
[4]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
Not included in the following: "Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[1]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.31.
Not included in the following: "Thrusting spears became the primary combact weapons [in the Late Formative situation] as they spread throughout Mesoamerica. Clubs persisted, but declined [...] maces also declined. [...] The distribution of slingstones throughout Mesoamerica indicates the continued use". [1] unknown from the archaeological record, as the known lithic axes seem crude for military weapons, and were probably used as tools [2] [3]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992). "War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica." Berkeley: University of California Press, p.122.
[3]: Tolstoy, Paul (1971). "Utilitarian Artifacts of Central Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm, and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 270-296.
Hassig lists war dogs among the new military "technologies" the Spanish introduced to the region in the sixteenth century [1]
[1]: (Hassig 1992, 143) Hassig, Robert. 1992. War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. London; Berkeley: University of California Press. Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/collectionKey/F76EVNU3/itemKey/E9VHCKDG
"In reaction to slings, shields were widely adopted in the Late Formative, especially rectangular ones that protected most of the body [...] The protection afforded the trunk and the limbs". [1]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The following implies that shields were the only form of armor: "In reaction to slings, shields were widely adopted in the Late Formative, especially rectangular ones that protected most of the body [...] The protection afforded the trunk and the limbs". [1]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The following implies that shields were the only form of armor: "In reaction to slings, shields were widely adopted in the Late Formative, especially rectangular ones that protected most of the body [...] The protection afforded the trunk and the limbs". [1] known form artwork and figurines, but they may have been purely decorative (i.e. for status). [2] [3]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Hassig, Ross. (1992) War and Society in Ancient Mesoamerica. Berkeley: University of California Press, pg.31.
[3]: Piña Chán, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 157-178.
The first evidence for the introduction of indigenously produced (copper-based) metallurgy in Mesoamerica is c.600 CE for ornamental valuables, [1] and the system closest to coinage ever practiced in Mesoamerica was the widespread use of cacao beans and copper axes as media of exchange during the Postclassic. [2]
[1]: Shugar, Aaron N. and Scott E. Simmons. (2013) Archaeometallurgy in Mesoamerica: Current Approaches and New Perspectives. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, pg. 1-4.
[2]: Berdan, Frances F., Marilyn A. Masson, Janine Gasco, and Michael E. Smith. (2003) "An International Economy." In Michael E. Smith and Frances F. Berdan (eds.) The Postclassic Mesoamerican World. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press, pg. 102.
The following implies that shields were the only form of armor: "In reaction to slings, shields were widely adopted in the Late Formative, especially rectangular ones that protected most of the body [...] The protection afforded the trunk and the limbs". [1] breastplates are known from figurines, but they may have been purely decorative (i.e. for status). [2] [3] [4]
[1]: (Hassig 1992: 31) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/E9VHCKDG.
[2]: Niederberger, Christine. (1996). "The Basin of Mexico: Multimillenial Development toward Cultural Complexity." In Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, edited by Emily P. Benson and Beatriz de la Fuente. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, pp. 83-93.
[3]: Niederberger, Christine. (2000) "Ranked Societies, Iconographic Complexity, and Economic Wealth in the Basin of Mexico Toward 1200 BC." In Olmec Art and Archaeology in Mesoamerica, edited by John E. Clark and Mary E. Pye. New Haven: Yale University Press, pp. 169-192.
[4]: Piña Chán, Román. (1971). "Preclassic or Formative Pottery and Minor Arts of the Valley of Mexico." In The Handbook of Middle American Indians, vol. 10, ed. G. F. Ekholm and I. Bernal. Austin: University of Texas Press, 157-178.
Lakeshore/island residency, woodcarving expertise, and extensive exploitation of lacustrine resources all suggest that canoes similar to those known from the Late Postclassic were probably used, [1] and the prehisoric use of canoes has often been suggested, [2] [3] [4] [2] and archaeologists believe that warfare was widespread in the Basin of Mexico among polities that shared lakes, but there is no direct evidence of canoes (made of wood) or canoe warfare in the archaeological record.
[1]: Niederberger, Christine. (1979) "Early Sedentary Economy in the Basin of Mexico" Science 203(4376):131-142.
[2]: Drennan, R. D. (1984). Long‐distance transport costs in pre‐Hispanic Mesoamerica. American Anthropologist, 86(1), 105-112.
[3]: Parsons, Jeffrey R. (2006) The Last “Pescadores” of Chimalhuacán, Mexico: An Archaeological Ethnography. Anthropological Papers, No. 96. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
[4]: Hassig, Ross. (1985) Trade, tribute, and transportation: The sixteenth-century political economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pg.56-66.