[Aztlan] FW: The Mexican Presence in Guerrero exhibit in the DF

[Michael Smith]

I haven't seen this exhibit yet, but the brief description brings out a pet peeve of mine. The claim that "the Mexica presence in Guerrero lasted 72 years" only makes sense if "presence" means imperial conquest as described in the written sources. If "presence" is taken to mean commercial exchange, then almost certainly this occurred LONG before the area was conquered by the empire. I say "almost certainly" because there are no sites in Guerrero with sufficiently refined chronologies to say for sure. But given the situation in adjacent Morelos, I think that events in Guerrero were probably not too different.

There are currently two places outside the Basin of Mexico where the chronology IS fine enough to compare the timing of Triple Alliance trade and conquest: western Morelos and the Yautepec Valley in central Morelos. In both cases the evidence is unequivocal that Mexica trade goods preceded Mexica conquest by over a century. If you want the gory details, look at some of my papers, posted on my website.

Hare, Timothy S. and Michael E. Smith
1996	A New Postclassic Chronology for Yautepec, Morelos. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:281-297.

Smith, Michael E.
1987	The Expansion of the Aztec Empire: A Case Study in the Correlation of Diachronic Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Data. American Antiquity 52:37-54.

Smith, Michael E. and John F. Doershuk
1991	Late Postclassic Chronology in Western Morelos, Mexico. Latin American Antiquity 2:291-310.

If you want a more general overview, see this (also on the website):

Smith, Michael E.
2001	The Aztec Empire and the Mesoamerican World System. In Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology and History, edited by Susan E. Alcock, Terence N. D'Altroy, Kathleen D. Morrison, and Carla M. Sinopoli, pp. 128-154. Cambridge University Press, New York.


I also highly recommend the research of Maëlle Serghereaert, whose dissertation on Aztec material remains in the provinces (Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne) will be done soon. See:

Serghereaert, Maëlle
2003	Les manifestations de l'expansion Mexica (1430-1520). MA thesis, Department of Archaeology, Université Paris 1, Panthéon-Sorbonne.

2005	Les conséquences de l'expansion militaire aztèque : synthèse sur les intérêts d'une approche archéologique. In De l'Altiplano mexicain à la Patagonie: Travaux et recherches à l'Université de Paris 1, edited by Cyril Giorgi, pp. 107-115. British Archaeological Reports, International Series, vol. S1389. Archaeopress, Oxford.

And on the Aztec presence in Guerrero:

Goncen Orozco, Guadalupe
2002	Presencia mexica en Iguala. In El pasado arqueológico de Guerrero, edited by Christine Niederberger and Rosa María Reyna Robles, pp. 429-442. CEMCA, Gobierno del estado de Guerrero, INAH, Mexico City.

Niederberger, Christine and Rosa María Reyna Robles (editors)
2002	El pasado arqueológico de Guerrero. CEMCA, Gobierno del estado de Guerrero, INAH, Mexico City.

Schmidt, Paul and Jaime Litvak King
2001	Arqueología de Buenavista de Cuéllar, Guerrero: recorrido de superficie. Serie Cuadernos de Trabajo. Instituto de Investigaciones Antropológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City.

Smith, Michael E.
2003	Comercio postclásico en la cerámica decorada: Malinalco, Toluca, Guerrero y Morelos. Arqueología (INAH) 29:63-84.

Vega Sosa, Constanza and Roberto Cervantes-Delgado (editors)
1986	Arqueología y etnohistoria del estado de Guerrero. Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Mexico City.

Villela Flores, Samuel
1996	El Códice Panel de Chiepetlan y las migraciones Nahuas a la montaña de Guerrero. Estudios de Cultura Náhuatl 26:133-145.

Silverstein, Jay E.
1997	The Aztec-Tarascan War: Correlating Ethnohistory and Archaeology on the Imperial Frontiers. In The Untangled Past: Integrating History and Archaeology. 30th Annual Chacmool Conference. University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta.

2001	Aztec Imperialism at Oztuma, Guerrero: Aztec-Chontal Relations During the Late Postclassic and Early Colonial Periods. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:1-30.


I say this is a pet peeve, because of two problematic trends in some scholarly circles. (1) Ignoring technical archaeological studies while relying on biased ethnohistorical accounts; and (2) Ignoring fieldwork in the provinces, even when it does a better job of answering one's questions than does fieldwork in the imperial core region. I will refrain from more ranting here, only to suggest that within another year or so I hope to add Calixtlahuaca to the list of places whose Postclassic chronologies are sufficiently fine-grained to address questions of imperial dynamics with reliable data.

Thanks for the notice of this exhibit, I will have to go see it now to see if my fears are borne out.

Mike

Michael E. Smith, Professor
School of Human Evolution & Social Change
Arizona State University
www.public.asu.edu/~mesmith9
http://publishingarchaeology.blogspot.com
http://calixtlahuaca.blogspot.com