The Cotaxtla Archaeological Survey: Results of the 1998 Field Season

Field Research and Results

A program of field and laboratory work was undertaken between February-August 1998.  Fieldwork involved intensive survey, mapping, and systematic surface artifact collection. The archaeological site of Cotaxtla sits atop a large, 1.8 sq km mesa top alongside the Río Cotaxtla, approximately 45 km southwest of modern Veracruz city (Figure 1). The mesa top edges were used as an arbitrary boundary to delimit an area for survey. The mesa top was systematically surveyed using pedestrian transects spaced 50 m apart. Over 400 features were recorded and mapped, including structural remains, terraces, and artifact concentrations (Figure 2). A sample of 16 different feature areas was surface collected for more intensive analysis (Figure 3); areas that appeared to capture a range of variation in social differentiation and activity patterning were selected (Table 1). Surface collected areas were systematically sampled with 3 x 3 m collection units placed every 42 m over each area. A total of 275 systematic surface collections were made in this fashion, along with an additional 192 judgmental collections made on key features and in areas of the site not systematically sampled. In the laboratory, artifacts were classified and pertinent information regarding each artifact category was recorded. In the fall of 1998, a final map of the site, including collection locations, was reproduced from field maps at a scale of 1:1,000 and was digitized for computer analysis. Artifact data from surface collections was entered into a computer database and incorporated along with the site map into a GIS database to permit spatial analysis of the data.

Settlement Patterns (refer to Figure 2 and Figure 3).  Fieldwork revealed dense archaeological remains dispersed over almost all parts of the site, including several formal, mound complexes and abundant residential remains. Ceramics recovered date almost exclusively to the Middle and Late Postclassic periods. Some areas of the site differ considerably with respect to the style and quantity of architecture as well as the types and quantities of artifacts, suggesting some degree of spatial differentiation within the site. The central area of the site (on Figure 3, in the vicinity of areas A, B, C, D, F, G, and H) appears to represent a large civic-ceremonial zone, containing at least 3 formal mound complexes. Many of the larger structures observed on the site were encountered in this central zone, some located on platforms or modified terraces, and many of which incorporate cut architectural stone coated with stucco. Some of the features in this central zone likely represent temple and palace complexes, or administrative buildings. There are additional features in the central area that appear to represent residential remains—low mounds and concentration of artifacts containing domestic ceramics, obsidian, and ground stone.

Areas of the site surrounding the central zone contain mostly residential remains in the form of low mounds or concentrations of domestic artifacts. Generally, these structures utilized unworked cobble foundations. Occasionally a small complex of taller mounds or a single large mound, differentiated by the use of cut architectural stone, is found near residential features. These groupings of residential and formal features may help define possible barrios, but future excavation is needed to verify structure functions.

Around the borders of nearly the entire mesa are natural terraces of soft sandstone bedrock, many of which were modified with small stones, perhaps to level them. Frequently, these terraces contain dense scatters of domestic pottery, obsidian, and ground stone, suggesting a residential function. Settlement patterns at Cotaxtla, therefore, suggest a densely populated, differentiated and urban center. This nucleated pattern is in keeping with a broader Postclassic trend for the Gulf lowlands that differed from Classic period centers, which had more dispersed populations.

Craft Production. With respect to the issue of craft production, data pertaining to three industries were evaluated: pottery production, obsidian blade production, and the textile industry. Survey and analysis of collections detected evidence for production in all three of these industries, for example as pottery molds and production tools, debris associated with obsidian tool production, and ceramic spindle whorls used to spin cotton thread. This material was found dispersed over the site, suggesting a general picture of relatively low intensity, probably household level production in many locations.  107 spindle whorls for spinning cotton were recovered, but were well distributed and did not show any spatial concentrations. Two areas of the site, however, (areas A and I on Figure 3) have evidence of more intensive obsidian blade production, while three areas of the site (areas C, E, and I) have evidence of more intensive pottery production than other areas (including figurine molds and fondo sellado pottery molds). The spatial patterning and association of craft activities with what are apparently residential structures in at least two of these areas suggests that corporate economic pursuits may have been one basis of differentiation among residents of the site.

The Cotaxtla evidence contrasts sharply with evidence from earlier, Classic period sites in the region, which show little evidence of specialization, and a marked absence of specialization within centers (Curet 1993; Heller and Stark 1999; Stark 1992). Even compared to nearby Postclassic sites, Cotaxtla produced a surprising amount of evidence for craft production. The high amount of craft activity may be related to several factors, including the site’s dense population, which could support specialization, tribute demands from Aztecs and local rulers, and the capital town’s better access to local economic networks, a factor related to regional growth in trade and marketing.

Regarding local economic organization, preliminary analysis of the data pertaining to pottery and obsidian industries from Cotaxtla are consistent with those from the Mixtequilla, in which pottery production shows characteristics of horizontally integrated economic organization, with most production on a relatively small scale. Obsidian shows a more vertically-integrated organization, with more intensive, concentrated production that might have served outside consumers (Heller and Stark 1999; Stark 1992). It is suggested that the reason for the discrepancy between the two products lies in the nature and availability of the raw materials and transport costs of the finished goods, which led to distinct but overlapping economic spheres.

Aztec Imperial Presence. A final aspect of the investigation is the issue of Aztec presence at Cotaxtla. A few pieces of Aztec style sculpture were recovered long ago from Cotaxtla (Medellín 1949). Additional Aztec related material was recovered during our fieldwork, including Aztec style figurines, pottery and architecture. Clay figurines from Cotaxtla included four fragments of Aztec style temple models, and several female representations similar to examples from Postclassic sites in the Basin of México (Millian 1981; Parsons 1972). Aztec style pottery includes Aztec III Black-on-Orange slab support bowls and Texcoco Molded censers. These pottery types occur infrequently, making up less than 2% of the total pottery assemblage. They are observed in low quantities in scattered locations of the site, but a few areas show concentrations (Figure 4). A large concentration was observed on the Grand Platform contained by Area B (Figure 3), a large mound-platform complex centrally located on the site. This concentration occurs with high proportions of domestic ceramics and may represent cooking and serving ware of an elite household—perhaps the Aztec governor’s palace, or, alternatively, feasting-related debris associated with a temple. Most of the Aztec-style pottery from Cotaxtla appears to have been locally produced, rather than imported, although it was clearly not produced in large amounts. Interestingly, two mold fragments for making Texcoco Molded censers—a rare type—were recovered, which is significant in that it represents efforts to reproduce Aztec ritual practices at the site, which might have been used in state sponsored or domestic rituals.

Aztec style pottery at Cotaxtla presents some interpretive difficulties because alternative explanations may account for its presence: the use of imperial style by Aztec administrative personnel, the presence of foreign residents using items in domestic contexts, or simply the emulation of foreign/imperial styles by local elites or residents. Further, ceramics are portable objects and some may have been acquired independently of imperial activity, through trade or markets. The overall low frequency of Aztec style ceramics does not necessarily indicate a minimal Aztec presence at Cotaxtla. Durán (1967, 2:238) describes how Aztec colonists sent to Oaxaca were supplied with local style pottery and housing. If Cotaxtla or other parts of Veracruz received Aztec residents, it is possible that they used mainly local pottery styles, which may account for low frequencies of Aztec styles in general from the Gulf lowlands. An alternate explanation is that imperial styles were consciously not adopted—perhaps a form of resistance to overbearing imperial rule. However, if Aztec styles at Cotaxtla were used actively as imperial symbols, differential production and distribution might help account for overall low frequencies, as items were produced and used in specific contexts or by select individuals. Because of the spatial differentiation they show, the Cotaxtla data may support this latter interpretation.

Architecture provides additional information. One element of Aztec architecture in central México is the use of stone tenons, often arranged in the facades of temples or elite residences, but also observed archaeologically in association with non-elite housing (Evans 1991; Sahagún 1950-82:Bk. 11, figs. 888-890). In the Gulf lowlands, similar tenons have been reported only from the Aztec style pyramid at Quauhtochco, another provincial capital near Cotaxtla, also under Aztec domain (Medellín 1952). During field survey at Cotaxtla, a considerable number of tenons were observed and recorded from dispersed areas of the site (Figure 5). Many are associated with large structures in the central core of the site (possibly temples or palaces), but others are infrequent and well scattered, often associated with low, unremarkable mounds.

Until excavation can verify the nature and function of structures at Cotaxtla using tenons, the meaning of their presence remains speculative. Architectural styles, however, like style on other objects, can send political messages. In the Andean highlands, Roman Greece, and at Vijayanagara, for example, ruling states invested in imperial style temple architecture in provinces as a form of legitimization (Sinopoli 1994). Perhaps because of Cotaxtla’s rebellious nature, the Aztecs needed to maintain a strong visible political presence, and did this by imposing state architecture, and possible associated state ritual, throughout the site. The use of tenons on larger structures in the site’s center suggests a form of public proclamation—a clearly imperial style on what was likely highly visible architecture. Smaller outlying structures may have had special state functions as well, or may have been domestic in function, indicating a widespread adoption of imperial styles or a well integrated—at least well distributed—Aztec population using homeland styles. Nonetheless, the architecture, along with Aztec style sculpture, represent substantial investments in imperial ideology at Cotaxtla, in contrast to previously held ideas about imperial investments in the outer provinces (Smith and Berdan 1992; Umberger 1996). Taken together with the presence of Aztec style pottery and figurines, the Cotaxtla data argue for an Aztec imperial presence at the site that is greater than previously thought, and we now have a better idea about the distribution of Aztec-style remains on the site. While some remains may be associated with reported garrison activity, they may also indicate a more widespread imposition of imperial presence, possibly through state-sponsored ceremony or the presence of colonists. Cotaxtla had a history of repeated rebellion (Berdan et al. 1996:286), which did not make it a good candidate for cooperative, indirect administration and the data suggest imperial investments indicative of more direct forms of administration.

More generally, the results suggest a need to reconsider current models of Aztec political administration in the outer provinces. Although cost-effective, indirect administration may have been desired, the Aztec empire may have had to contend with difficult relations in certain provinces, possibly resulting in province-specific administrative changes over time. Such a scenario echoes the structural and temporal dynamics alluded to earlier in Schreiber’s (1992) mosaic model of imperial organization.

Table of Contents  |  Next Page

Return to top of page