The past two decades of research and debate in anthropology have shown how ethnocentric perspectives in methodology and interpretation have led to misinterpretations in ethnography and archaeology. This article contrasts Western and indigenous perceptions of ritual attire that marked the role and status of Aztec rulers and deities. Stimulated by inconsistent Spanish colonial descriptions of the emperors' xiuhtlalpilli “blue-knotted” cloaks, the study compares all of the relevant Nahuatl terms, contexts, and native-drawn images and analyzes these in the light of linguistic, technological, social, archaeological, pictorial, iconographic, textual, and ethnographic evidence. This contextual analysis of the primary data reveals the nature of Spanish misperceptions and the true structure of the indigenous clothing-symbol system. While Spanish chronicles are easily accessible and thus more heavily utilized, this study makes the point that only systematic assessment of Nahuatl terms, indigenous images, and contexts are fully dependable. Reliance on the native perspective and evidence allows new insights into pre-Hispanic categories and worldviews.

Tribute sources have played a significant role in reconstructions of the Triple Alliance's history and geography at the time just before the Spanish Conquest. The Tenochcan tradition has been the main source for these reconstructions. The critical historical analysis of the internal relationship of an alternative tradition, that of Tetzcoco, sheds new light on the Tenochcan tradition and on the tribute distributional ratio of 2:2:1, i.e., of the Triple Alliance tribute to Tenochtitlan, to Tetzcoco, and to Tlacopan. I conclude that this distribution only applied to a minor geographical area in the Triple Alliance conquests. This ratio shows only that Tetzcoco and Tenochtitlan had a major participation in the conquest of part of the northeastern area of central Mexico.

Archaeologists working in the Basin of Mexico have long accepted a chronology in which sequential ceramic phases (Metepec, Coyotlatelco, Mazapan, Aztec I, and Aztec II) define the period between the last stages of Classic Teotihuacan and the immediate antecedents of Late Postclassic Tenochtitlan. The absolute chronology of these phases has remained tentative, and there have been hints of possible temporal overlap between some of them. A series of 37 new radiocarbon dates from three deep, stratified sites in the Basin of Mexico suggest (1) that the traditional sequence of phases is essentially valid; (2) that both Coyotlatelco and Aztec I may have begun significantly earlier than traditionally believed; (3) that there may have been partial chronological overlap between Late Coyotlatelco and Early Aztec I in some parts of the basin; (4) that there was probably little significant temporal overlap between Aztec I and Aztec II; and (5) that the ethnohistorically recognized sociopolitical complexity of the long era in question is amply reflected in a regional ceramic sequence that still requires considerable refinement in both time and space.

The Aztec city-state of Otumba is the focus of a long-term project of archaeological investigation. Analysis of surface and excavated ceramics and obsidian-hydration dates for the capital—Otumba—indicate a dispersed Mazapan occupation, a scattered early Aztec (Aztec II) occupation, and an intense Late Aztec (Aztec III) and Early Colonial (Aztec III/IV) occupation. In the paper we incorporate recent radiocarbon dates to refine the local late Postclassic chronology. A cluster of hydration dates suggests the early (Mazapan) occupation starts ca. a.d. 900. Aztec II ceramics, which are widely distributed in surface artifact collections, may begin as early as a.d. 1200 and continue until a.d. 1400, overlapping Aztec III ceramics, which we have dated from a.d. 1350 ± 50 to 1521 and later. Otumba continued to have a substantial occupation until ca. a.d. 1600/1620 in the early seventeenth century, when most of the Aztec town was abandoned.

In this article we summarize the results of an ongoing project designed to study the tunnels and caves of Teotihuacan, emphasizing those findings derived from the excavation of four extraction tunnels located immediately to the east of the Pyramid of the Sun. In particular, we present radiocarbon and obsidian-hydration dates from the Cueva de las Varillas, where 13 Mazapan-phase burials were found and which has substantial evidence for a post-Teotihuacan occupation. In addition, the Cueva del Pirul has produced evidence of another 14 human burials, which were predominantly children, as well as complete dog skeletons, in a context clearly related to underworld symbolism. After the fall of Teotihuacan, these underground cavities excavated into tezontle continued to provide space for the practitioners of Tlaloc and fertility cult activities. In Aztec times, they were living spaces, and given the lack of space on the surface, this was a function that they served well into the twentieth century.

The Postclassic period in central Mexico was characterized by enormous population growth and expansion of settlement, but the timing of the onset of these processes has been poorly understood. Obsidian tools from residential contexts at the Late Postclassic village of Cihuatecpan in the Teotihuacan Valley have been analyzed to determine the extent of hydration, and thus the amount of time elapsed since the tools were manufactured. Estimated dates of manufacture range between a.d. 1221 and 1568, consistent with ethnohistoric accounts of the timing of establishment of Cihuatecpan and other rural villages, and their abandonment in the Early Colonial period. Ceramics found in the same contexts as the obsidian tools include Black-on-orange types, such as III, which may have come into use in the thirteenth century. This experiment in relative and absolute dating accords with other current research, indicating a needed revision of traditional chronologies toward an earlier onset of major processes.

We describe the derivation of a new archaeological chronology for the Postclassic period at Yautepec, Morelos. We first apply cluster analysis to ceramic type frequencies for 47 excavated contexts to identify groups of related ceramic collections. This classification is then extended to several hundred additional collections using discriminant-function analysis. The groups are evaluated successfully against stratigraphy and radiocarbon dates, resulting in their designation as chronological phases. Radiocarbon determinations are then used to assign calendar dates to the phases. The new chronology consists of one Middle Postclassic phase (Pochtla), two Late Postclassic phases (Atlan, Molotla), and one Early Colonial phase (Santiago). We also explore issues concerning the extension of this chronology to other Postclassic sites in the Yautepec Valley.

Chronology is a fundamental prerequisite for problem-oriented, anthropologically relevant archaeology. It is also the shaky foundation that has hampered attempts to reconstruct the culture history of Cholula, Mexico. Cholula is among the oldest continuously occupied urban centers of the New World, yet it remains one of the most enigmatic. This paper evaluates previous cultural sequences for the site, and summarizes recent evidence to construct a chronology using absolute dates and ceramic assemblages from primary depositional contexts. This revised sequence features a clearer understanding of Middle Formative settlement and the definition of ritual and domestic contexts from the Classic period. In addition, there is now evidence for a gradual transition between Late Classic and Early Postclassic material culture; and for the evolution of the Postclassic polychrome tradition within a sequence of short, clearly defined phases.

To begin the discussion, I propose distinctions between four archaeological approaches to time. I call these clock time, phase time, social time, and characterization. Main points in the other papers are that Postclassic phases tend to be a century or more earlier than recently thought, that Aztec I may be much earlier than thought, and that there may be considerable temporal overlap among Postclassic phases. The evidence is fairly good for the first of these points, but less clear for the other two—more data are needed. I propose a slightly revised Teotihuacan chronology and mention some issues about the nature of the Teotihuacan to post-Teotihuacan transition.