What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed?

The Prerequisitès of Empire and the Politics

of Plausible Alternative Histories
Author(s): Christopher T. Morehart
Source: American Anthropologist , JUNE 2012, New Series, Vol. 114, No. 2 (JUNE 2012),
pp. 267-281
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/41515357

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/41515357?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Anthropological Association and Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,
preserve and extend access to American Anthropologist

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? The Prerequisitès
of Empire and the Politics of Plausible Alternative Histories
Christopher T. Morehart

ABSTRACT This article studies archaeological and local versions of the past at Xaltocan, Mexico. At xaltocan, the
past provides a vehicle for statements of ethnic, national, and community identity. Community organizations seek to

glorify the town as the descendant of an ancient kingdom that had a different constellation of historical processes

transpired, could have become both the center of an empire and a nation. This process raises questions regarding

archaeology's utility and points of convergence and divergence between archaeological and local versions of the past.

Rather than disregard the local appropriation of archaeological knowledge, this article attempts both to recognize

the relationship between the past and identity politics and to assess local claims by examining archaeological and

historical data. This article also considers the problems of this project, particularly the unintended consequences of

archaeological research connected to identity politics. I identity , heritage , empire , Mexico , Aztec empire]

RESUMEN Este artículo estudia las versiones arqueológicas y locales del pasado en Xaltocan, México. En Xaltocan,
el pasado proporciona un vehículo para la manifestación de la identidad étnica, nacional y comunitaria. Las organi-

zaciones de la comunidad tratan de glorificar a la ciudad como descendientes de un antiguo reino que, habiéndose
dado una constelación diferente de procesos históricos, podría haberse convertido en el centro de un imperio y una

nación. Este proceso plantea dudas sobre la utilidad de la arqueología y los puntos de convergencia y divergencia

entre las versiones arqueológicas y locales del pasado. Este artículo intenta reconocer la relación entre el pasado y

las políticas de identidad y evaluar los reclamos locales mediante el examen de los datos arqueológicos e históricos.

También, este artículo considera los problemas de este proyecto, en particular, las consecuencias impremeditadas

de la investigación arqueológica ligadas a la política de identidad.

The procession then returned to the central plaza where

In north
northMarch of Mexico
of Mexico City, 2008,
erectedresidents City, erected
a new monument of the a town new monument of Xaltocan, in just the
in the the monument remained veiled in a white sheet. The elder
central plaza that fronts the town's 1 6th-century church. The gave a speech in Nahuatl, and members of the Gran Señorío
local historical society, the Civil Association of the Great spoke on the significance of Xaltocan. Behind the monument,
Kingdom of Xaltocan (also known as the Gran Señorío), the dance troop performed, greeting the four corners, while
unveiled the monument during a festival celebrating the the elder raised die serpent staff above a thick cloud of smoke
town's 800th birthday. To commemorate the monument, and thicker crowd of digital cameras. The monument was
a large procession departed from the Casa de Cultura, pro- unveiled, formally starting the festival, which was marked by
ceeded down the main street, and stopped at a statue of more performances, regional cuisine, and an official oratorio
an Aztec warrior that stands at the intersection with the competition (most debate centered on the role of the United
States in global injustice). The monument is an Aztec Cal-
local highway. The procession was led by the eldest mem-
ber of the Gran Señorío. He carried a wooden serpent endar Stone, virtually identical to the one in Mexico City's
staff. A dance troop in full Aztec regalia followed himMuseum of Anthropology and History with one exception.
burning incense. At the statue, several members of the Instead of the face of the sun god, Tonatiuh, at its center,
Gran Señorío as well as municipal politicians gave speeches. this disk has the toponym of Xaltocan (see Figure 1).

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST, Vol. 114, No. 2, pp. 267-281, ISSN 0002-7294, online ISSN 1548-1433. © 2012 by the American Anthropological
Association. All rights reserved. DOI: I0.11l1/j.l548-l433.2012.01424.x

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
268 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

FIGURE 1 . Calendar Stone in Xaltocan s central plaza and advertisement/or annual celebration. (Courtesy of author)

It is impossible to ignore, although very possible to mis-
interpret, die past in Xaltocan' s present. One is physically
confronted by the ways in which particular renditions of the
past are materialized and memorialized in the monuments
and events that commemorate the town's history. As an
archaeologist, these moments and monuments appear even
more significant: they reference archaeological knowledge
in seemingly deliberate ways. But also as an archaeologist, it
is easy to fetishize this materiality. Preoccupations with the
distant past focus our gaze and dominate our conversations
on "stuff" that is ostensibly archaeological. Recognizing how
these material practices depart from archaeological perspec-
tives is challenging "and will always be politicar (Smith and
Waterton 2009:57). In these contemporary practices, ar-
chaeological knowledge is deployed for local reasons, which
have little to do with the social and intellectual universes of
academic archaeologists.
This observation does not mean that members of the
.Gran Señorío or other local residents have little inter-
est in documenting the same historical truths as archae-
ologists. Unlike many postcolonial, nationalist histories,
these narratives are not "focused on questions of no rele-
vance to contemporary people or their struggles" (Wylie
1995:265). Local narratives of the past and archaeological
narratives of the past are not irreconcilable. Community
historians and organizers directly pull on narratives cre-
ated by archaeologists and contained in historical texts to
write their history (Brumfiel 2000). The archaeological and
historical record produced through the work of nonlocal
researchers is publicly used to glorify the town and fos-
ter a sense of community solidarity. At least at the surface
level, this situation is seemingly at odds with the radical plu-
ralism that Shanks and Tilley (1987:245) advocated based
on "multiple pasts produced actively in accordance with
ethnic, cultural, social, and political views, orientations
and beliefs." Despite the apparent common thread, how-
ever, archaeologists and residents deploy such knowledge in
radically different contexts for radically different reasons,

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 269
calling for a consideration of the utility of archaeological
knowledge.
In this article, I explore points of convergence and diver-
gence between local and archaeological versions of the past
at Xaltocan, where the past is reappropriated to challenge
the centrality of the Aztecs in Mexican history and to glorify
the town as the center of an imagined universe that could
have come to pass had a different constellation of histor-
ical forces occurred. Significantly, however, my objective
differs from many similar projects because it does not center
exclusively on the contemporary politics of the past. Al-
though this alternative history is as much about the present
as it is about the past, I assess its plausibility here by exam-
ining archaeological and historical data. That is, the current
consumption of the past at Xaltocan offers an opportunity
simultaneously to evaluate the plausibility of identity state-
ments and to interrogate the archaeological and historical
sources from which these statements derive. My goal is not
to question or to legitimize the validity of a local narra-
tive but, instead, to frame this narrative as a valid research
question. Far from being contrary to the interests of archae-
ologists, this alternative narrative forces a consideration of
the contingent nature of history and, more specifically, of
empires. In so doing, this article directly employs a local,
albeit highly politicized, view to evaluate archaeological ap-
proaches and consider points of reconciliation between local
and nonlocal versions of the past.
To undertake this process, I first consider challenges re-
lated to the utility or disutility of archaeological knowledge.
The pursuit of socially useful archaeology has intended and
unintended consequences and finding an ethically correct
path is often perilous amid complex contemporary pro-
cesses. I substantiate this dilemma by discussing the strate-
gic use of archaeological knowledge at Xaltocan to defy a
marginalizing national trajectory. Centering the town, as
I call it, involves selectively comingling notions of former
glory and primordial origins with conceptions of ethnic-
ity, nationalism, and community. This alternative history is
highly political but only partly imagined. In the following
sections, I present both archaeological and historical data on
pre -European Xaltocan that suggests it was an expansive state
whose conquest, which occurred at least 40 years before the
Aztec empire, possibly fostered conditions in geopolitical
space for subsequent imperial formation, supporting narra-
tives of imagined glory.
Undertaking this project, however, raises ethical ques-
tions about the alignment of archaeological knowledge with
ongoing identity politics. I deliberately walk a line that can
be seen (and has been seen) either as empowering or as prob-
lematic. Given the nature of the materials I present, an easy
opportunity exists simply to write another history of a pre-
Columbian polity, ignoring the utility or disutility of such
an endeavor. Without knowing the long-term outcome of
archaeology's ambiguous utility, such seemingly innocuous
endeavors also should be recognized as perilous. Thus, I end
with a consideration of the challenges regarding the utility
This content downloaded from
201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of archaeological research when undertaken in the service of
community interests.
THE UTILITY OF ACADEMIC ARCHAEOLOGY
About 20 years ago, Parker Potter (1 991 ) challenged arc
ologists working on plantations in the United States an
Caribbean. Although the historical context of his critique
fers markedly from the present concern, his critique rem
relevant. He urged archaeologists to take a self-refle
approach to their work. Among his recommendations, t
are presently relevant: (1) to consider the consequences
stem from how we represent our findings and (2) t
sess the utility that archaeological research, in both prac
and publication, has for descendent communities. This
ity has intended and unintended dimensions: some f
of archaeological knowledge can have a positive usefulne
while other forms of knowledge can be discursively
lent and employed with negative results. Acknowled
these challenges fuels more ethically engaged archaeo
ical collaboration with descendent communities - pro
that foster an inclusionary practice "without sacrificing
rigor and knowledge production capacity that make arc
ology such a powerful tool for understanding past lifew
(Atalay 2008:30; see also Colwell-Chanthaphonh
Ferguson 2008; McGuire 2008; Smith and Waterton
Silliman 2008). In Potter's words, "the starting point fo
this is self-reflection" (Potter 1991 :97).
What interpretive and representational frameworks
useful? Few epistemic frames have evaded accusations t
they reinforce, rather than question, patterns of struc
inequality or intellectual imperialism. Most of these
tiques are now well known. Scientific approaches carry
baggage of western domination and provide the tech
ogy and vocabulary for expanding neoliberal inequa
around the globe. Social evolutionary viewpoints elev
white, European, and American men above all organi
human or otherwise (Stocking 1982). Phenomenologic
hermeneutic pathways often idealize space and place
can be discursively violent when employed in identity
tics (Harvey 1989). Marxist political economic analysi
been accused of reductionism in its predominant focus
changing modes of production (Soja 1989). Some poststr
tural theory essentializes non- Western people as tim
and tradition bound (Cobb 2005; di Leonardo 1998). P
modernism in general is criticized as a byproduct of adv
capitalism and the relations of wealth and power it attem
to, ironically, reject (Harvey 1989; Jameson 1991; Tr
1998). Moreover, postcolonial perspectives that deprivil
Western science in favor of the plurality of local narra
risk unintentionally legitimizing potentially dangerous i
violent identity politics (Arnold 1 992; Bernbeck and Po
2007; Dietler 1994; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Kuper 2
What use can descendent communities make with such
epistemologically and politically bound archaeological per-
spectives? Is an archaeological study framed by the work of,
say, Merleau-Ponty or Bourdieu any more practically useful
270 American Anthropologist • vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

than one influenced by the work of, say, Childe or Stew- historical stages, especially indigenismo during the 20th cen-
ard, or one without any explicit theoretical orientation? Is it tury. Indigenismo, a social and intellectual movement pro-
necessary for archaeologists to wear two hats? One for an aca- moted by politicians, artists, historians, and archaeologists,
demic universe and one for the friends, collaborators, hosts, sought to foster national consciousness by valorizing select
and, indeed, employees in the communities where we work? elements of the indigenous past and incorporating them into
No politically neutral archaeological knowledge exists. As a narrative of Mexican identity (Errington 1993; Hyland
Alison Wylie (1995:257) observed, "whatever commitment 1992; Keen 1971; Lorenzo 1981; Patterson 1995). "The
practitioners may make to a stance of detached neutrality, glories of the Indian past would be brought to light through
their situated interests play a powerful role in shaping the archaeological research while contemporary Indian folk cul-
work of history making" (see also Brumfiel 2000; Dietler ture would be revitalized through the anthropological study
1994; Kohl and Fawcett 1995; Panameña and Nalda 1979; of arts, crafts and music" (Hyland 1992:99). Archaeological
Potter 1991 ; Trigger 1984). The only ethically correct path sites, artifacts, and groups of people became physical idols
has potential as a resource for empowerment (or at least emblematic of a unified and modern nation. At Xaltocan,
not a resource for disempowerment) given anthropologists' the past provides a vehicle for statements of ethnicity and
obligations to the people with whom we work. Yet this po- nationalism, key elements of the indigenismo intellectual
sition exposes a tension between researchers who feel that tradition. However, these two powerful tropes of identity
they are pursuing an objective reality and those who argue politics are subordinated by a much more local level idea:
that all realities are inextricably tied to politicoethical issues community.
otherwise "rendered mute by force of scientific objectivity Xaltocan' s Calendar Stone offers a starting point to con-
and research agendas" (Meskell 2002:280). sider an alternative history and assess its plausibility. The
The charge of paternalism also is difficult to evade, disk is a deliberate statement about multiple historical and
especially when community archaeology follows a pre- contemporary processes. The disk and the rituals associ-
determined Panglossian trajectory that omits the contra- ated with its installation constitute a politically conscious
dictions, the struggles - the messy reality - of engaged, statement (and performance) of ethnic identity. Even the
self-reflective, and honest research. Because archaeology can spelling of the town's name evokes strategic ethnicity in
easily be pulled into ongoing identity politics, the assertion representational monuments. For instance, several colonial
that archaeology will be empowering seems frighteningly and later documents employ a spelling with either a "J" or,
arrogant at best, unintentionally dangerous at worst. Rose- sometimes, an "S" in place of "X." While I was living in the
mary Joyce (2002:100) asks archaeologists, "how often do town, a restaurant opened along the highway called Las Vias
we ask what harm we might do?" That is, archaeologists de Jaltocan. The owners (who were nonresidents) did not
may often be unaware of the unintended dimensions of neg- recognize the restaurant's sign as a monument to identity.
ative utility within ostensibly positive and well-intentioned Not long after it opened, they changed the spelling to Xalto-
endeavors. Bernbeck and Pollock note that "by placing iden- can after some minor discontent, although the remnant "J"
tities at the heart of archaeological projects, we run the can still be seen beneath the "X" (see Figure 2). The Calen-
risk of creating fictional anchors in the past that serve as dar Stone's statement of identity, however, is generalized
stable referents for present problems" (Bernbeck and Pol- beyond ethnicity and also references Mexican nationalism;
lock 2007 : 2 1 0) . Unlike many archaeologists who have made Xaltocan' s disk signifies the Calendar Stone in the Museum
comparable observations, they recognize that this dilemma is of Anthropology and History, "a national symbol expres-
not just a matter of archaeology as a tool for nation building. sive of a glorified ancient Mexican past" (Graham Widdifield
Rather, it is a more general predicament of archaeology in 2010:235; see Figure 3).
the service of identity politics, a process that is not vaguely Statements of identity strategically reference origins in
"national" but is, instead, tangibly local. time and space. Xaltocan' s disk plays on primordialism via
the vehicle of ethnicity and nationalism but also via commu-
ERASING THE AZTEC EMPIRE AND CENTERING nity, stressing the town's unique importance above other
XALTOCAN: ETHNICITY, NATION, COMMUNITY towns, including neighbors. That is, in reaching out across
The appropriation of the pre-European past existsexpanses
as a of time and space, ethnic and national tropes foster
strategy within many ongoing projects in Mexico (e.g.,
an exclusionary identity that conjures the specter of Wolf s
(1957) closed corporate community. According to many his-
Castañeda 1996; Errington 1993; Hyland 1992; Keen 1971;
Lorenzo 1981; Nalda 2005; Patterson 1995). Historically,
torical sources, Xaltocan was the capital of a large kingdom
before the Aztec Triple Alliance (see below). The festival I
these projects have sought to foster national conscious-
described earlier commemorated its founding, the date of
ness since independence from Spain, especially during the
which
country's economic liberalization under the Porfiriato, in was established by members of the Gran Señorío us-
the decades following the 1910 revolution and in theing pastarchaeological and historical texts (Romero Navarrete
30 years with increasing neoliberalization. Most scholarly 2007 : 30) . The town grew in power during the 1 3th century
discussion of this process in Mexico occurs at broad tempo-C.E., but this date is arbitrary from an archaeological stand-
point. Dismissing this date, however, is problematic. Such
ral and spatial scales, examining national strategies at specific

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 271
At least up to the latter half of the 19th century, federal
most arid, and miserable town in the valley" (Orozco y Berra
FIGURE 2 . "Misspelled" restaurant sign in Xaltocan. ( Courtesy of author)
FIGURE 3. Calendar Stone in Mexico City's Museum of Anthropology
and History. (Courtesy of author)
an exercise could refocus attention on archaeologists as the
exclusive arbiters of historical knowledge and distract atten-
tion from the way in which the past occupies the present.
Moreover, such rejections could be discursively violent -
reinforcing a historical process that has relegated the town
to the fringes of Mexican history.
The erasure of local histories in favor of state endorsed
narratives is widespread in Mexico (Nalda 2005). The his-
torical consciousness at Xaltocan can be viewed in this light.
This content downloaded from
201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
employees characterized Xaltocan as "perhaps the saddest,
1864:170; also Garay 1888). In fact, local myths memori-
alize this marginalization as the result of an ancestral viola-
tion of a sacred covenant, especially the stories of Awitsotl
still alive in the memories of many residents (Barlow 1999;
Morehart 2010:369-370; Ramírez Casas 2008). Awitsotl
(who shares the name of a 15th-century Mexica tlatoani) is
portrayed as a powerful lord who owned the wealth of Xal-
tocan: freshwater springs that fed the surrounding lake. Res-
idents became dissatisfied with his rule. They captured him
and attempted to take him by canoe to a neighboring town
to answer charges. Awitsotl, however, transformed into an
aquatic animal, flipped the canoe (drowning his captors),
and escaped, taking with him the town's wealth: "eventually
the waters dried up, all the fish and all the animals of the
water fled; all went with Awitsotl. Only some swallows have
returned to Xaltocan, but only to say 'you have done bad
by chasing away our love, as he was the owner of the water
and the animals that you eat; today you will stay miserable'"
(Barlow 1999:184).
Members of community organizations at Xaltocan re-
ject this marginal status, a project made possible by historical
texts and archaeological research (Brumfiel 2000). In a self-
published book, historian and member of the Gran Señorío,
Omar Romero Navarrete (2007 : 1 2) , writes that "the history
of Xaltocan became the history of Tenochtitlan . . . and that
noble history, Xaltocan' s beautiful history, was erased and
replaced by the Mexica and Tenochtitlan." This sentiment
pervades his entire text. But it also elucidates the symbolic
power of Xaltocan* s Calendar Stone. Replacing the image
of Tonatiuh with the Xaltocan toponym places Xaltocan at
the center of an imagined history and cosmological universe
that could have come to pass given a different constellation
of historical forces. By reconfiguring history and stressing
the community's significance, the monument can be read as
saying "Xaltocan could have been Tenochtitlan," the capital
city of the Aztec empire. But this material metaphor goes
deeper. A symbolic statement of "could have been Tenochti-
tlan" also signifies that Xaltocan "could have been Mexico
City," the capital of the modern nation.
THAT NOBLE HISTORY: RECONSTRUCTING
XALTOCAN'S DOMAIN
A teleological framework long has surrounded research on
the Aztec empire, particularly in social evolutionary models
of change. This trajectory structures not only archaeologi-
cal narratives but also the built space of museums and the
nationalist discourse they reflect (Errington 1993; Hyland
1992; Keen 1971; Nalda 2005). Given the constellation of
demographic, environmental, and macropolitical processes,
the Aztec empire has been portrayed as the inevitable cul-
mination of the forces of social evolution. The implication
that Xaltocan could have been the center of both the Aztec
and the Mexican world challenges the way this narrative
272 American Anthropologist • vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

FIGURE 4. Basin of Mexico map , showing sites discussed in text. (Courtesy of author)

privileges the Aztec empire and suggests a different, socially
empowering history for local residents. For archaeologists
it also offers an intrinsically valuable impetus to reexam-
ine central Mexican historical trajectories and assess our
conceptual apparatuses of political change. In the following
discussion, I pursue this path by examining historical and
archaeological information on the community's position in
the pre- Aztec geopolitical landscape.
Geographically similar to Tenochtitlan, the capital of
the Aztec Triple Alliance, Xaltocan was an island kingdom,
although farther north on Lake Xaltocan (see Figure 4).
Archaeologically, settlement began in the tenth century
C.E., when the regional influence of Tula was declining
(Brumfiel 1991, 2005a). At its height in the 13th- 14th
centuries C.E., archaeologists estimate the kingdom had
a sizeable population. Rulers intermarried with nobles from
other Basin of Mexico polities (Anales de Tlatelolco 2004;
Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1891; Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000). The
early- 17th-century chronicler Fernando Alva Ixtlilxochitl,
in fact, connects the founding of Xaltocan itself with a royal
marriage. He writes that Xolotl, the mythic founder of the
Chichimeca dynasty of Texcoco, not only gave his daugh-
ter in marriage to Chiconquauh, leader of the Otomi, but
also "gave him Xaltocan as the capital of his kingdom, which
was the Otomi nation for many years" (Alva Ixtlilxochitl
1891, vol. 2:42). Chemical studies of pottery show ex-
tensive exchange relations with other sites, probably as a
result of such royal alliances but also of tribute and market
transactions (Hodge and Neff 2005). Local farmers con-
structed an expansive chinampa system in the lake (fed by
Awitsotl's springs), which was capable of supporting two-
thirds more than the community's maximum population
(Morehart 2010). In short, archaeological evidence suggests
an independent polity and an economy of local production,
market trade, and tribute. "Xaltocan' s autonomy is indi-
cated by its size, its architectural complexity, and its diverse
economy" (Brumfiel 2005a: 349).
Xaltocan' s position as an important, pre- Aztec city-state
has occupied historical reconstructions of central Mexico
for decades. In his historical treatise on the Otomi, Pedro
Carrasco Pizana (1950) identified Xaltocan as an impor-
tant center whose inhabitants worshipped deities that were
widespread in Mexico, were characteristic to the Otomi,
and were specific to Xaltocan, especially the serpent god-
dess Acpaxapo (see below). Indeed, Carrasco suggested an
organizational affinity with later Aztec coalitional strate-
gies, setting the stage for comparisons with the empire to-
day (Romero Navarrete 2007). He speculates on the exis-
tence of an earlier Triple Alliance that effectively expanded
Xaltocan's northerly influence to the south:

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 273

In the period before Tepaneca power, Culhuacan. Tenayocan,
and Xaltocan controlled the land. If this represents an alliance of
these three kingdoms, it was even more extensive than that led by
Xaltocan, which was never able to dominate the southern Valley
of Mexico." [Carrasco 1 950: 116]
Despite the claim that Xaltocan controlled much of the
northern Basin of Mexico before the end of the 14th century
C.E., extensive archaeological research has been restricted
to the community itself. Investigations in areas said to be
included within the kingdom's sway have not sought ex-
plicitly to examine this issue. Mapping its political domain
depends on the same historic texts that Carrasco consulted.
These records exhibit several kinds of biases, which range
from deliberate political decisions to simply incomplete data
(cf. Smith 1984). The two principal sources on the extent
of Xaltocan' s influence are the Anales de Cuauhtitlan (Bier-
horst 1992) and a series of letters written by Don Pablo
de Nazareo to King Philip II and Queen Isabel of Spain
in the 16th century (in 1561 and 1566; Pérez-Rocha and
Tena 2000). Nazareo, who traced descent to the pre- Aztec
dynasty of Xaltocan, wrote to establish land claims in Xal-
tocan and surrounding areas. Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1891) also
describes some lands held by Xaltocan kings. The Relación
Geográficas de Chiconauhtla (Paso y Troncoso 1 905 : 1 69 -
1 77) names additional communities within Xaltocan' s juris-
diction, but I have omitted these places. This record reflects
the community's status as cabecera during the 1 6th century -
another "central" political position Xaltocan once held, but
one whose territorial influence was restructured by the Span-
does not seem to be the only factor influencing how Nazareo
classified tributaries. Several communities listed as having
tributary farms and fields are quite far from Xaltocan. Pre-
sumably, these communities paid tribute in the form of
agricultural produce, although research on maize from the
community suggests progressive self-reliance on local chi-
nampas as the polity's power grew (Morehart and Eisenberg
2010).
No reason exists to conclude these communities were
unchanging subordinates within an equally unchanging polit-
ical territory. Political alliances and royal kinship may have
linked some of them to Xaltocan. For example, the last ruler
of Xaltocan, Tzompantzin, was also a lord of Metztitian (#
17 in Table 1 and Figure 5), where he resided before as-
cending to the throne at Xaltocan (Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1891,
vol. 1 : 1 37). In fact, many of the dependencies of Xaltocan
had their own dynasties with ties to and conflicts with other
kingdoms. If these historical records reflect actual political
affairs, Xaltocan appears to have been a state with an ex-
tent on par with other powerful polities at the same time,
especially Texcoco and Azcapoltzalco, which supports con-
temporary statements of the town's pre-Hispanic power.
Yet, Xaltocan' s regional influence was not monolithic. The
constitution of the state was renegotiated as new rulers nav-
igated and encroached on the entitlements of other polities,
which led to shifting alliances and conflict.
WAR, CONQUEST, AND THE PRECEDENT
OF EMPIRE

ish (Rodríguez- Alegría 2010). By the 14th century C.E., Xaltocan suffered defeat a
The level of detail in these sources is variable. Often a lengthy war. More than just an interesting facet of
locations and towns either no longer exist or have taken on prehistory of the town or region, this event is importan
Spanish names entirely. This situation especially character- understanding the geopolitical trajectory of central Mex
izes places in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan, and I could not making it directly relevant in the idealization of Xaltoc
relocate some of them. Moreover, the role of these sites in
today. As I discuss, historical and archaeological informa
relation to Xaltocan differs depending on the source. The on the war and its outcome reinforce identity statemen
Anales de Cuauhtitlan and Alva Ixtlilxochitl simply designate Paradoxically, however, the exact same data also resist th
some places as territory of Xaltocan or its kings, although Scholars have argued that the war involved Xalto
the former text includes specific locations used for hunting. against the neighboring Tepaneca kingdom of Cuauhtitl
Nazareo, however, was more explicit and associated specific (Brumfiel 1991, 2005a; Carrasco 1950). According to
communities as either being a tributary with farms and fields trajectory, in 1 395 C.E., Cuauhtitlan obtained the aid of
or as a place of mines, in the case of Pachuca. It was possible more powerful ally, Azcapotzalco, as well as Mexica m
to locate more of the communities he listed, probably be- cenaries, and conquered Xaltocan. The war involved s
cause he was writing in the 1 6th century during the process mishes and battles in several named locations in the surro
of congregación when many communities were nucleated as ing region. In fact, the Anales de Cuauhtitlan states that
corporate entities of New Spain (Gibson 1964). final coup de grâce occurred at a place called Acpaxapoca
Table 1 lists and Figure 5 displays 48 sites I was able to where Xaltocamecas worshipped a powerful serpent godd
relocate and enter in a GIS. Data were compiled from paper and where their enemies laid an ambush (Bierhorst 1
maps, digital files available from Mexico's National Geo- The war was "cruel and fierce in which many people
graphic and Statistical Institute, and, at times, Google Earth. and was ultimately a great destruction for the Otomi" (
The large extent and the great environmental diversity of Ixtlilxochitl 1891 , vol. 1 : 295) . Xaltocan' s population is
Xaltocan' s domain are evident. Subordinate communities to have fled and that the community remained abandon
are not restricted to the Basin of Mexico but also lie in adja- for 30 years.
cent basins to the east and the rugged terrain of present day Whether this conquest principally affected nobility
Hidalgo. The diversity of goods that entered central Xalto- the entire community has been difficult to determi
can via tribute or the market reflects this diversity. Distance Elizabeth Brumfiel (2005b) identified militaristic theme

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
274 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

TABLE 1. List of Communities within Xaltocan's Domain

Name Code Additional Reference Name Code Additional Reference

Acayuca 1 Farms /villages B,C Tepeapulco 25 Farms /villages B,C

Apaxco 2 Farms/villages B,C Tequixquiac 26 Farms /villages B,C
Atitalaquia 3 Farms /villages B,C Tetepango 27 Farms /villages B,C
Atlacomulco 4 Farms /villages B,C Texcatepec 28 Farms /villages B,C
Atotonilco 5 Farms /villages B,C Tizayuca 29 Farms /villages B,C
Cuautitlan 6 Farms /villages B,C,D Tlaquilpa 30 Farms /villages B,C
Cuautlalpan 7 Farms /villages B,C Tonanitla 31 Farms /villages А, В
Cuautlalpan 8 Farms /villages В Tulancingo 32 Farms /villages B,C
Ecatepec 9 Farms /villages A,B,C Tutotepec 33 Farms /villages B,C
Epazoyucan 10 Farms /villages B,C Xoloc 34 Farms /villages В
Huehuetoca 11 Territory С Zempoala 35 Farms /villages B,C
Hueypoxtla 12 Territory С Zitlaltepec 36 Farms /villages B,C
Ixmiquilpan 13 Farms /villages B,C Zumpango 37 Farms /villages A,B,C
Ixtlahuaca 14 Farms /villages B,C Toltepec 38 Farms /villages В
Jaltenco 15 Territory A Temacpalco 39 Territory A
Jocotitlan 16 Farms /villages B,C Tenopalco 40 Territory A
Metztitian 17 Farms /villages B,C,D Teoloyucan 41 Farms /villages В
Nextlalpan 18 Territory A Toltitlan 42 Farms /villages B,C
O tumba 19 Farms /villages B,C Chiconautla 43 Farms /villages A,B,C,D
Pachuca 20 Place of mines B,C Tecalco 44 Farms /villages В
Sanguilucan 21 Farms /villages B,C Coaclaco 45 Territory A
Tecamac 22 Farms /villages A,B,C Jiquipilco 46 Farms /villages B,C
Temascalapa 23 Farms /villages B,C Jilotepec 47 Territory D
Temoaya 24 Farms /villages B,C Tepotzotlan 48 Territory D
Note: See Figure S for correspondences. A. Anales de Cuauhtitlan (Bierhost 1992); В. Nazareo (Pérez-Rocha and Tena 2000); C. Carasc
Carrasco employed Nazareo. It was not possible to distinguish between the two Cuautlalpans.

the iconography on vessels from the site duringexplanations in historic sources. Brumfiel proposed a
its final
period of independence, which might suggest systemic view. Although relationships between Cuauh
widespread
and
participation in and support of the polity during Xaltocan
the confla-originally may have been amiable, "both
flourishing
gration. She argues that Xaltocan's persistent conflict market centers, interaction that led to eco
"may
competition,
have contributed to the development of an ideology of war- and finally warfare" (Brumfiel 2005
fare and human sacrifice" (Brumfiel 2005b: Historic sources support this view that conflict em
2 34). Recent
via contestation
research on the chinampa system provides additional in- over regional market and tributary
especially
sight into this historical event (Morehart 2010). Basedthe
on Anales de Cuauhtitlan, which suggests
torial dates,
surface and excavated artifacts, several radiocarbon basis to the war. Each loss Xaltocan suffered app
entailed
and stratigraphie data, the chinampa system appears to a loss of territory (Bierhorst 1992).
have
been largely deserted after Xaltocan's defeat. This More proximate reasons involve the distribution of
large-scale
cific affected
abandonment suggests that the conquest of Xaltocan resources. For example, Hicks (1994) suggest
one
the social relationships necessary to sustainably reason
manage behind the conflagration was competit
the
wood. Most
agricultural system. Brumfiel et al. (1994) also documented trees necessary for fuel, construction, an
ual ainhabited
a dramatic decline in the frequency of lip plugs, possible the surrounding foothills, areas that ma
marker of Otomi ethnic identity, after this conquest,under
fallen whichXaltocan's influence. The demands of gr
populations
might indicate demographic and social change (if historical would have increased the competition ove
a critical resource.
descriptions of Xaltocan as an Otomi center are accurate).
The reasons behind the war are unknown. They A similar
rangeconflict over hunting rights may have been
an issue. The Anales de Cuauhtitlan suggests that Xaltocan
from systemic causes to proximate issues to idiosyncratic

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 275

FIGURE 5. Reconstruction of Xaltocari s pre- Aztec political domain. (Courtesy of author)

controlled the hunting grounds of "Quail Hill" (Cerro de
las Codornices), currently in the municipality of Melchor
Ocampo (the modern town of Toltepec surrounds this hill).
This source states that contestation over this place was the
last straw leading to war: the Xaltocameca "were always
courting danger to go quail hunting at Quail Hill. Indeed,
the quail-hunting area belonged to the Xaltocameca. It was
their quail hill
Although the Anales de Cuauhtitlan suggests a territorial
basis to the war, the specific reasons it gives center on cultural
defamations:
"Who are these Xaltocameca? Let's chase them away. They're
going to bother us. They're bad people, they're vicious. They're
the ones who made war against the Mexitin [Mexica]. And in fact
our ruler gave the command that that the Xaltocameca were never
to be our friends." [Bierhost 1992:57]

them, intending to make war on them" (Bierhost 1992:57).

This sentiment expresses a cultural bias against Xaltocan,
The reliability of this statement is unknown, but neither quail
which is common in other sources asserting Otomi inferior-
nor pheasant are represented in Xaltocan's zooarchaeological
ity (Sahagún 1961:178-179). It also suggests revenge over
assemblage (Valadez Azúa and Rodríguez Galicia
Xaltocan's 2005).
war against the Mexica. This "war" involved Xal-
Water possibly was another proximate cause.
tocan's Xaltocan's
alliance with other polities to expel the Mexica from
chinampas were dependent on freshwater from springs
Chapultepec that
(Anales de Tlatelolco 2004; Barlow 1949).
drained waters from Cerro Chiconautla, but it also relied
Despite the prominent position scholars assign to
on water from the Cuauhtitlan River, which flowed into
Cuauhtitlan in this conflict, its definite role in the war is
the Lake Basin (Morehart 2010). Population growth around research suggests a decline in Xal-
unclear. Archaeological
Cuauhtitlan possibly increased demands on arable land that
tocan's size and prosperity under the Aztec empire, but, as
would have benefited from the exploitation and manipulation
with the extent of the polity's domain, little physical evi-
of this water source. In this regard, after Xaltocan's conquest
dence exists to specify the exact nature of conflict or even the
the Cuauhtitlan River was diverted north to the Tepotzotlan
actual groups involved. Chemical composition studies con-
River in the early 15th century (Strauss 1974).
ducted on ceramics from this time reveal that much of the
Historic sources also are replete with idiosyncratic rea-
pottery recovered from the community came from Cuauhti-
sons behind the war. Alva Ixtlilxochitl (1891, vol. 2:137)
tlan sources (Hodge and Neff 2005). If the two communities
suggests that the war was undertaken because the residents of
were in lengthy conflict, why does the archaeological record
Xaltocan would rob -all the neighboring cities and towns. Af-
contain strong evidence of exchange relations? To the extent
ter acceding to office, the last Xaltocan ruler,
that Tzompantzin,
descriptions in the Anales de Cuauhtitlan can be trusted,
began acquiring more lands and subjects and Xaltocamecas
ignored risked
previ-
capture or death if they travelled too
ous economic obligations to other polities, creating height-
far from town. Regional conflict contributed to greater
ened hostility. This situation led Hassig tointensification
speculateofthat
chinampas because agricultural land be-
a crisis of dynastic legitimacy stimulated conflict: "Tzom-
came progressively circumscribed politically (Morehart and
pantli was a leader without an established Eisenberg
reputation, and
2010). These data on exchange relations, thus,
this jeopardized Xaltocan's ties with other areas" (Hassig
might make more sense if Cuauhtitlan paid tribute to Xal-
1988:134).
tocan or if the two communities maintained strong market

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
276 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

ties. In light of these observations, the archaeological record and the archaeological narrative do not conflict entirely: the
suggests that Cuauhtitlan was either Xaltocan's subordinate Aztec Empire may never have existed without Xaltocan's
or its ally. However, the continuation of economic rela- conquest.
tions between the two communities despite hostile political Although this perspective supports the plausibility of
relations cannot be ruled out. an alternative history, it also resists it by suggesting demo-
Nevertheless, the possibility that the Anales de Cuauhti- graphic discontinuity across time. After the emergence of
tlan reflects a politically biased effort to ally the history ofthe Triple Alliance, the area was repopulated by peasants
Cuauhtitlan to successful states (i.e., the Aztec Triple Al- with economic obligations to Tenochtitlan and its sister-
liance) is not farfetched. Taking responsibility and credit for city Tlatelolco (Hicks 1994). Late Postclassic archaeological
Xaltocan's defeat appears to have been relatively common data support historical descriptions of Xaltocan as a subordi-
in the ethnocentric historical chronicles of central Mexico. nate community, lacking its earlier wealth and size (Brumfiel
The Codex Mendoza, for example, lists Xaltocan as one of 1 99 1 , 2005a) . Data from the chinampa system suggest a rapid
the conquests of the Mexica king Huitzilihuitl (Berdan and decline in agriculture that was not reinitiated at previous
Anawalt 1992:14, folio 3v). Other historic sources, such as scales (Morehart 2010). Archaeological evidence of Otomi
Alva Ixtlilxochitl' s, not only do not emphasize Cuauhtitlan' s ethnic markers (i.e., lip plugs) is less abundant during later
role but explain that it was actually controlled by Xaltocan's periods (Brumfiel et al. 1994). The chemical composition of
king and also was conquered during the war by armies from pottery demonstrates greater dependency on Tenochtitlan,
Azcapotzalco, Texcoco, and Tenochtitlan: "One night they the Aztec capital (Hodge and Neff 2005).
attacked Xaltocan, Cuauhtitlan, Tepoztlan, and Xilotepec, In tension with the contemporary narrative, archaeo-
and other towns and provinces subject to Tzompatzin [sic]" logical and historical data indicate the town's political status
(Alva Ixtlilxochitl 1891, vol. 2:137). He credits Techot- became the product of the direct rule of the Aztec state, a
lalatzin, ruler of Texcoco, with forcibly removing remnant unique political relationship given that indirect rule domi-
followers of Tzompantzin to the surrounding mountains and nated much of Aztec imperial strategy (Hassig 1985). This
sierras, never to return, "being vile and lowly people" (Alva situation was unavoidable: there was no longer a compara-
Ixtlilxochitl 1891, vol. 2:138). Alva Ixtlilxochitl' s assertion ble political structure with which to interact, a necessary
component of systems of indirect rule. The Aztecs made no
of Texcoco' s dominance over Xaltocan's geopolitical history
effort to reestablish Xaltocan's indigenous dynastic line, a
is not surprising given that he traced descent from Texcoco' s
pre-Columbian dynasty. frequent Aztec political stratagem, although the autonomy
of Xaltocan's indigenous rule would not have been forgotten
PREREQUISITES OF EMPIRE less than 50 years later. Nazareo claimed to be an heir well
into the 16th century. Moreover, the Aztecs did not award
The Gran Señorío maintains an image of Xaltocan as unique,
but there is little question that the town's history was the
con-town to another member of the nobility and install a
new ruler, which occurred in some locations, including in
nected to broader historical forces and entanglements. The
communities and lands previously within Xaltocan's broader
war was embedded within a regional process of competition
domain. They instead installed calpixqueh , imperial stewards,
and conflict, which sheds light on the plausibility of Xalto-
to collect tribute (Hicks 1 994). These individuals behaved as
can's alternative history. By the end of the 14th century,
bureaucratic agents of empire rather than as nominal rulers
Texcoco and Azcapoltzalco became increasingly rival states.
Conflict between the two polities, as well as problems of aof
political community (altepetl).
dynastic legitimacy in Azcapoltzalco, led to the formation Of course, the Aztecs could have let the community
of the Triple Alliance among Tenochtitlan, Texcoco,recede
and into the archaeological record. In contrast to the
southern Basin of Mexico, for example, Aztec officials did
Tlacopan, and the conquest of Azcapoltzalco and its allies,
not feel it worthwhile to sponsor chinampa farming at previ-
setting the stage for the imperial consolidation of central
Mexico by 1428-31 C.E. (Brumfiel 1983). ous scales of production. Yet, the simple fact that the Aztecs
Smith and Montiel (2001:246) observed that "the incorporated
ar- the town indicates the area's importance for
imperial centralization. However, Xaltocan's tributary po-
chaeological identification of imperialism must start with
imperial impact on the provinces, not the indigenoussition
sit-is unclear, which likely is the result of its previous
uation that preceded, incorporation." At least in the political
case fragmentation. It is not mentioned in the Matrícula
de Tributos and is depicted only once in the Codex Men-
of Xaltocan, however, the preimperiai situation elucidates
doza with communities charged with providing provisions
the historical contingency and emergent character of em-
pire. The war left Xaltocan with neither an autonomous for garrisons (Berdan and Anawalt 1992). Xaltocan was the
setting of a battle between Aztec soldiers and Cortes' s army
political system nor an autocephalous ruling dynasty. Un-
(Diaz del Castillo 1956:355-357), which might suggest its
like other city-states the Aztecs conquered, its political
position as a military outpost. Not surprisingly, Xaltocan's
system collapsed prior to the formation of Aztec impe-
rialism, but the political vacuum that followed may armed
have resistance to the Spanish also prevails in statements of
community identity in the town today (Romero Navarrete
contributed to structural conditions that led to the Triple
2007).
Alliance. Although politically charged, the local narrative

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 277

PARADOXES AND POLITICS OF ALTERNATIVE

importance by suggesting its conquest was one prerequi-
HISTORIES
site to imperial formation; (2) stresses the contingency of
Eric Hobsbawm's (1983) notion of the "invention of
the tradi-
Aztec empire; and (3) sheds light on archaeological ap-
tion" encourages social scientists to recognize the politics
proaches to the study of political change.
of the past in the present. However, this concept This shouldinterpretation is potentially useful for community
not lead scholars simply to question authenticity. interests.
Instead, However, local interests are far from uniform, and
Hobsbawm suggests we view discourse and practices that
smoothing over internal dissent is rarely possible (Colwell-
summon the past as evidence of complex, Chanthaphonh
current and Ferguson 2008; Croes 2010; Smith and
processes - as "symptoms and therefore indicators of prob-
Waterton 2009). At Xaltocan, archaeologists must work
lems which might not otherwise be recognized" (Hobsbawm
with the town's delegation, the organization of common
1983:12). Recognizing the appropriation of the pastlands,
at macro
the organization of ejido lands, the Gran Señorío, as
levels, such as the "nation," allows archaeologists toindividual
well as un- households regardless of our permits from
derstand the historicized nature of knowledge. INBut
AH.1it can
Each of these institutions have different, although
promote a detachment that fails to locate points of recon-
often overlapping, demands. Archaeology also brings work
ciliation between archaeological and local interestsand
and canwhich offers resources but can foment conflict.
money,
distance archaeologists from the tensions within the com-
Moreover, individual members of these organizations use
munities where we work (Hoobler 2005; Rodriguez 2006). not only to promote community interests but
their positions
This path is unsustainable as archaeologists not also
only mustprestige and power.
to acquire
navigate these tensions but also often promote if notFinally,
create this article walks an ethically perilous line. The
them, at least via our roles as seasonal employers.politics
In otherof identity are always prone to slip into danger-
words, the utility or disutility of our research becomes less
ous terrain. Notions of primordial origins and glory are
clear once archaeologists consider local level deployments
laden with interest, and archaeological research can be used
of archaeological knowledge. to promote inequality, disenfranchisement, and even vio-
Is the conclusion of demographic or ethnic discontinu-
lence. Elizabeth Brumfiel (2000: 1 84) captured this dilemma
ity at Xaltocan ethically problematic? Does it represent anin relation to her extensive work at Xaltocan:
specifically
example of the expropriation of knowledge? Is it contrary to
"Where prehistory has been used to fan the flames of eth-
the interests of community organizers who are deliberately
nic, nationalist, and imperialist struggles, the political im-
seeking to glorify the town's history and foster community
plications of archaeology are very serious" (see also Arnold
1992; Bernbeck and Pollock 2007; Dietler 1994; Kohl and
solidarity? Such questions are imperative because statements
Fawcett
of community identity and history in Xaltocan do 1995; Schmidt and Patterson 1995; Sen 2002;
not oc-
cur in a vacuum. They occur within a context Trigger
of change
1 984). It is easy to overlook these potential conflicts
that is witnessing condominiums and other developments
at Xaltocan because identity statements occur in a small town
squeeze the town's lands on all sides. In 1992, Article 27
among descendente with valid claims to the pre -European
of Mexico's constitution was modified to make it easier to
past - under the seemingly harmless mantles of indigeneity
privatize community and state controlled landsand (Hamilton
community.
2002). Many members of the Gran Señorío are alsoThe mem-
empowerment of local residents should be an ob-
bers of local organizations that manage the town's common
jective of engaged community archaeologies. But the allure
and ejido lands. A genealogy that disconnects current resi-
to be responsible can be deceptive, leading archaeologists
dents from the Great Kingdom of Xaltocan can become
down a potentially destructive unintended results.
a path with
resource for those seeking to question local claims Rodriguez's
to tenure. (2006: 1 70) statement that "living people are af-
The prehistoric and current landscape confronts private de-
fected by archaeology" should not be taken lightly. Different
velopers as a palimpsest - one that potentially cankinds
be wiped
of identity politics, from the most innocuous to the
clean of previous entanglements and entitlementsmost(Morehart
extreme, are the same species of phenomena simply
2010:231). with distinctive behavioral, ideological, and structural man-
Simultaneously, these data suggest that the conquest ifestations. But such manifestations can shift unpredictably,
of Xaltocan was one prerequisite to the formation of the especially at the complex level of the community. Once
Aztec empire, which can be used to buttress the notion archaeologists collect and interpret data that validate local
that Tenochtitlan took Xaltocan' s rightful place in history identity statements, we can become unwitting parties to
(Romero Naverrette 2007). Xaltocan was conquered and intricate political processes we might poorly understand.
eliminated during a series of geopolitical conflicts that were Thus, another step toward responsible community archae-
causally related to the emergence of the Triple Alliance. It ology is to treat the community as both real and ideological
is, of course, problematic to assert that Xaltocan could have and attempt to disentangle internally competing interests in
been the center of an imperial landscape and, eventually, the past and in archaeological research. This task requires a
the modern nation. The outcome of competition between more continuous historical perspective than presented here,
city-states is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. But tak- documenting long, unfolding connections up to the present.
ing this alternative seriously and evaluating its plausibility via Such a goal is beyond this article's present scope but is funda-
historical and archaeological data (1) elucidates Xaltocan' s mentally important for future research and collaboration.

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
278 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012

CONCLUSION NOTES

Xaltocan's past is implicated both discursively andAcknowledgments.

materi- Several individuals have given construct
ally in statements of ethnicity, nationalism, and, principally,
comments on this article in its various manifestations, includi
community. Annual celebrations offer an opportunity forBrumfiel, Timothy Earle, Jeffrey Parsons, Alejandra Alons
Elizabeth
community organizations, such as the Gran Señorío, to pro-
Michael Smith, Richard Blanton, James Brown, Nicole Fabrican
mote public performances of identity. These practices
Dawn defy
Pankonien, Shanti Morel-Hart, Kristin Landau, Jeffrey Glove
a marginalizing historical trajectory. Glorifications of Milhauser,
John the and Faidra Papavasiliou. My research in Xaltocan w
past allude to an alternative history that suggests supported
Xaltocan,by Fulbright-Hays, NSF, and the Weimer- Gren Founda
rather than Tenochtitlan, could have been the centertion.of the
Mexico's Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia per
empire the Spanish encountered. But this process mitted
goes be-
the work. Above all I acknowledge friends and colleagu
yond Nahua ethnicity. Tenochtitlan, for example, becamefor allowing archaeologists to continue the collaborati
in Xaltocan
not only the physical center of Mexico but also thework Elizabeth Brumfiel initiated.
imagined
axis mundi of Mexican nationalism. Identity statements in Xal-
tocan attempt to (re)appropriate this dual imaginary. 1 .These
The IN AH is the Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Hist
overlapping layers of meaning are embedded within the ria,sun
which manages archaeological and historical resources i
Mexico
disk erected in the town's plaza. The physical permanence of
the disk constitutes material evidence that these nationalist
REFERENCES CITED
and ethnic tropes are deployed in the service of community.
A consideration of the history and archaeology Alva Ixtlilxochitl, Don Fernando de
of Xal-
tocan buttresses fundamental themes in community 1891 state-
Obras históricas, vols. 1-2. Alfredo Chavero, trans. Mex
La Secretaria de Fomento.
ments of identity. Xaltocan was an influential polity before
Anales de
the formation of the Aztec empire. But these same Tlatelolco
data
suggest it was not a monolithic political entity. The 2004 Mexico, D. F. Conacuita.
town's
Arnold,
power shifted across space and time, especially with the Bettina
in-
auguration of new rulers. This instability was characteristic
1992 The Past as Propaganda. Archaeology 45(4): 30-37.
of the decentralization of the Basin of Mexico during the
Atalay, Sonia
Middle Postclassic period. Over the long term, the conflict
2008 Multi vocality and Indigenous Archaeologies. In Evaluating
that would eventually lead to the Aztec empire began when
Multiple Narratives: Beyond Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperi-
Xaltocan was still an independent city-state. Xaltocan'salist
con-Archaeologies. Junko Habu, Clare Fawcett, and John M.
quest created a political vacuum that may have contributed
Matsunaga, eds. Pp. 29-44. New York: Springer.
Barlow, Robert H.
to conditions for later imperial formation. This possibility
reinforces an ideological sentiment that the Aztec empire
1 949 El còdice Azcatítlan. Journal de a Société des Americanistas.
38:101-135.
may never have existed - that history could have turned out
1 999re-
differently. Yet, again, historical and archaeological data Textos De Xaltocan. Estado de México. In Escritos Diversos,
sist this sentiment by suggesting that conquest was followed
vol. 7. Jesús Monjarás Ruiz and Elena Limon, ed. Pp. 1 69-1 95 .
Mexico,
by a dramatic economic and political shift. However, the past D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia.
Bernbeck,
is deployed strategically and flexibly at Xaltocan in ways that Reinhard, and Susan Polock
render such historical inconsistencies irrelevant - a blending
2007 'Grabe, Wo Du Stehst!' An Archaeology of Perpetrators.
process that is simultaneously imagined and real. In Archaeology and Capitalism. Yannis Hamilakis and Philip
I traced these paradoxes not simply to locate areas where
Duke, eds. Pp. 217-233. Walnut, Creek, CA: Left Coast
Press.
nonlocal and local versions of the past converge or diverge.
I employ this work also to more self-reflexivelyBerdan,considerFrances F., and Patricia R. Anawalt
potential unintended consequences that can stem from 1992ar-
The Codex Mendoza, Vol III: A Facsimile Reproduction of
chaeological research. As Potter lamented (1991), archae- Codex Mendoza. Berkeley: University of California Press.
ologists still infrequently consider these problems. Their
Bierhorst, John
solution cannot be found in Panglossian paternalism 1992 or by a
History and Mythology of the Aztecs: The Codex Chi-
belief in apolitical archaeology. Consider this article. Given
malpopoca. Tuscon: The University of Arizona Press.
Brumfiel,
the nature of the data, I easily could have (1) stressed Elizabeth M.
its role
in empowering community organizations or (2) framed 1983 it as State Making: Ecology, Structure and the Origin of
Aztec
just another pre-Columbian political history. The utility
the or
State. American Anthropologist 85(2): 26 1-284.
disutility of either project, whether intended or not, may
1991 Tribute and Commerce in Imperial Cities: The Case of
have gone unnoticed if I simply failed to bring it up. Xaltocan, Mexico. In Early State Economies. H.J.M. Claessen
and P. van de Velde eds. Pp. 177-198. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Christopher T. Morehart Department of Anthropology ,
Georgia State University, Atlanta , GA 30303; c-morehart@gsu.edu. 2000 Making History in Xaltocan, Parts I and II. In Work-
ing Together. Kurt Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed? 279
Doehner eds. Pp. 181-190. Washington, D.C.: Society fro
American Archaeology.
2005a Conclusions: Production and Power at Xaltocan. In Produc-
tion and Power at Postclassic Xaltocan. Elizabeth M. Brum-
fiel ed. Pp. 349-360. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Hamilton, Sarah
Antropología e Historia.
2005b Materiality, Feasts, and Figured Worlds in Aztec Mexico.
In Rethinking Materiality. Elizabeth DeMarrais, Christopher Harvey, David
Gosden, and Colin Renfrew, eds. Pp. 225-37. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Brumfiel, Elizabeth, Tamara Salcedo, and David Schafer
1994 Lip Plugs of Xaltocan: Function and Meaning in Aztec Ar-
chaeology. In Economies and Polities in the Aztec Realm.
Mary Hodge and Michael Smith, eds. Pp. 113-131. Institute
for Mesoamerican Studies: State University of New York at
Albany.
Carrasco Pizana, Pedro
1 950 Los Otomíes: Cultura e historia prehispánicas de los pueblos
mesoamericanos de babla Otomiana. Mexico, D. F.: Instituto
Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Castañeda, Quetzil, E.
1996 In the Museum of Maya Culture. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Cobb, Charles R.
2005 Archaeology and the "Savage Slot": Displacement and Em-
placement in the Premodern World. American Anthropologist
107(4):563- 574.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip, and T. J. Ferguson
2008 Introduction: The Collaborative Continuum. In Collabora-
tion in Archaeological Practice: Engaging Descendant Com-
munities. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T. J. Ferguson,
eds. Pp. 1-32., Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press.
Croes, Dale R.
2010 Courage and Thoughtful Scholarship = Indigenous Archae-
ology Partnerships. American Antiquity 75(2):21 1-216.
Diaz del Castillo, Bernal
1956 The Discovery and Conquest of Mexico: 15 17- 1521. New
York: Farrar, Straus, and Cudahy.
Dietler, Michael
1994 Our Ancestors the Gauls: Archaeology, Ethnic Nationalism,
and the Manipulation of Celtic Identity in Modern Europe.
American Anthropologist 96(3) .-584-605.
di Leonardo, Micaela
1998 Exotics at Home: Anthropologies, Others, American
Modernity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Errington, Shelly
1993 Progressivist Stories and the Pre Columbian Past: Notes on
Mexico and the United States. In Collecting the Pre-Columbian
Past. Elizabeth H. Boone, ed. Pp. 209-49. Washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks.
Gibson, Charles
1964 The Aztecs under Spanish Rule: A History of the Valley of
Mexico, 1519-1810. Standford University Press: Stanford.
Garay, F.
1888 El Valle de México: Apuntes sobre su Hidrografía. Mexico,
D. F.: Secretaria de Fomento.
This content downloaded from
201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Graham Widdifield, Stacie
2010 The Aztec Calendar Stone: A Critical History. In The Aztec
Calendar Stone. Khristaan D. Villela and Mary Ellen Miller,
eds. pp. 223-237. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute.
2002 Neoliberalism, Gender, and Property Rights in Rural Mex-
ico. Latin American Research Review 37(1): 1 19- 143.
1989 The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Ori-
gins of Cultural Change. Oxford: Blackwell.
Hassig, Ross
1985 Trade, Tribute, and Transportation: The Sixteenth Century
Political Economy of the Valley of Mexico. Norman: Univer-
sity of Oklahoma Press.
1988 Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control.
Norman: Universitv of Oklahoma Press.
J
Hicks, Fredrick
1994 Xaltocan under Mexica Domination, 1435-1520. In
Caciques and Their People: A Volume in Honor of Ronald
Spores. Joyce Marcus and J. Zeitlan. eds. Pp. 67-85. Anthro-
pological Papers, 89. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropology,
University of Michigan.
Hobsbawm, Eric J.
1983 Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In The Invention of Tra-
dition. Eric J. Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, eds. Pp. 1-14.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hodge, Mary G., and Hector Neff
2005 Xaltocan in the Economy of the Basin of Mexico: A View
from Ceramic Tradewares. In Production and Power at Post-
classic Xaltocan. Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, ed. Pp. 319-348.
Mexico City: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Hoobler, Ellen
2005 To Take Their Heritage in Their Hands: Indigenous
Self-Representation and Decolonization in the Community
Museums of Oaxaca, Mexico. American Indian Quarterly
30(3 /4) :44 1-462.
Hyland, Justin R.
1992 Archaeological Mediations of the Conquest and Construc-
tions of Mexican National Identity. Kroeber Anthropological
Society Papers 73-74:92-1 14.
Jameson, Fredric
1991 Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Joyce, Rosemary
2002 Academic Freedom, Stewardship, and Cultural Heritage;
Weighing the Interests of Stakeholders in Crafting Repatriation
Approaches. In The Dead and Their Possessions: The Repa-
triation in Principle, Policy, and Practice. Cressida Fforde,
Jane Hubert, and Paul Turnball. Eds. Pp. 99-107. London:
Routledge.
Keen, Benjamin
1971 The Aztec Image In Western Thought. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Kohl, Philip, and Clare Fawcett
1995 Archaeology in the Service of the State: Theoretical Con-
siderations. In Nationalism, Politics, and the Practice of
280 American Anthropologist • Vol. 114, No. 2 • June 2012
Archaeology. Philip Kohl and Clare Fawcett. eds. Pp. 3-20.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuper, Adam
2003 The Return of the Native. Current Anthropology
44(3): 389-402.
Lorenzo, Jose L.
1981 Archaeology South of the Rio Grande. World Archaeology
13(2): 190-208.
McGuire, Randall H.
2008 Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Meskell, Lynn
2002 The Intersections of Identity and Politics in Archaeology.
Annual Review of Anthropology 31 :279- 301 .
Morehart, Christopher T.
2010 The Archaeology of Farmscapes: Production, Power, and
Place at Postclassic Xaltocan, Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, Northwestern University.
Morehart, Christopher T. and Dan T.A. Eisenberg
20 1 0 Prosperity, Power, and Change: Modeling Maize at Postclas-
sic Xaltocan, Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology
29(1):94 - 1 12.
Nalda, Enrique
2005 Mexican Archaeology and its Inclusion in the Debate on
Diversity and Identity. Museum International 57(3): 32-43.
Orozco y Berra, D. Manuel
1864 Memoria para la Carta Hidrográfica dei Valle de México.
Sociedad Mexicana de Geografía y Estadística: Mexico, D. F.
Panameño, Rebeca, and Enrique Nalda
1979 Arqueología. ¿Para Quién? Revista Nueva Antropología
3(1 2): 1 1 1-124.
Paso y Troncoso, Francisco del
1905 Relaciones geográficas de la diócesis de México. Impre-
sores de la real casa, real academia de la historia de Madrid
y del Archivo de Indias en Sevilla, Museo Nacional de
Méxco.
Patterson, Thomas С.
1995 Archaeology, History, Indigenismo, and the State in Peru
and Mexico. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non- Western Settings. Peter R.
Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson, eds. Pp. 69-85. Santa Fe,
NM: School of American Research.
Pérez-Rocha, Emma, and Rafael Tena
2000 La nobleza indígena del centro de México despues de la
conquista. Mexico, D. F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropologia
e Historia.
Potter, Parker
1991 What Is the Use of Plantation Archaeology? Historical Ar-
chaeology 25(3):94- 107.
Ramírez Casas, Omar, dir.
2008 El augurio del ahuizote. 30 min. D.R. Mexico.
Rodriguez, Timoteo
2006 Conjunctures in the Making of an Ancient Maya Archaeolog-
ical Site. In Ethnographies of Archaeological Practice; Cultural
Encounters, Material Transformations. Matt Edgeworth. ed.
Pp. 161-172. New York: Alta Mira Press.
This content downloaded from
201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Rodríguez- Alegría, Enrique
2010 Incumbents and Challengers: Indigenous Politics and the
Adoption of Spanish Material Culture in Colonial Xaltocan,
Mexico. Historical Archaeology 44(2) :5 1-71 .
Romero Navarrete Omar
2007 La gloria de Xaltocan: los guerreros del sol. Mexico, D.F.:
Talleres de Luis Gonzalez Obregon
Sahagún, Fray Bernadino de
1961 Florentine Codex, General History of the Things of New
Spain: Book 10, the People. Santa Fe: School of American
Research and the Museum of New Mexico.
Schmidt, Peter R., and Thomas C. Patterson
1995 Introduction: From Constructing to Making Alternative
Histories. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of
Archaeology and History in Non- Western Settings. Peter R.
Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson, eds. Pp. 1-24. Santa Fe,
NM: School of American Research.
Sen, Swadhin
2002 Community Boundary, Secularized Religion and Imag-
ined Past in Bangladesh: Archaeology and Historiography
of Unequal Encounter. World Archaeology 34(2) : 346-
362.
Shanks, Michael and Christopher Tilley
1987 Re-Constructing Archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Silliman, Stephan, ed.
2008 Collaborating at the Trowel's Edge: Teaching and Learn-
ing in Indigeous Archaeology. University of Arizona Press,
Tuscon.
Smith, Michael E.
1984 Aztlan Migrations of the Náhuatl Chronicles: Myth or His-
tory? Ethnohistory 31(3): 153- 186.
Smith, Michael E., and Lisa Montiel
2001 Archaeological Study of Empires and Imperialism in Pre-
Hispanic Central Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archae-
ology 20(3):245- 284.
Smith, Laurajane, and Emma Waterton
2009 Heritage, Communities, and Archaeology. London: Duck-
worth.
Soja, Edward W.
1 989 Postmodern Geographies: The Reassertion of Space in Crit-
ical Social Theory. London: Verso.
Strauss, Raphael A. K.
1974 El área septentrional del Valle de México: Problemas agro-
hidráulicos prehispánicos y coloniales. In Nuevas noticias sobre
las obras hidráulicas prehispánicas y coloniales en el Valle de
México, ed. Teresa Rojas Rabiela. Pp. 135-174. México,
D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia.
Stocking, George W.
1982 Race, Culture, and Evolution: Essays in the History of
Anthropology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trigger, Bruce
1 984 Alternative Archaeologies: Nationalist, Colonialist, Imperi-
alist. Man 19(3):355- 370.
1998 Sociocultural Evolution: Calculation and Contingency.
Oxford, Blackwell.
 Morehart • What If the Aztec Empire Never Existed?

Valadéz Azua, Raul, and Bernardo Rodriguez Galicia Amith, Jonathan D.

2005 Faunal Remains from Xaltocan. In Production and Power at
Postclassic Xaltocan. Elizabeth M. Brumfiel, ed. Pp. 233 -
246. Mexico, D.F.: Instituto Nacional de Antropología e
Historia.
Wolf, Eric
1957 Closed Corporate Communities in Mesoamerica and Java.
Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 13(1): 1 - 1 8 .
Wylie, Allison
1995 Alternative Histories: Epistemic Disunity and Political In-
2005 Place Making and Place Breaking: Migration and the Dev
opment Cycle of Community in Colonial Mexico: Americ
Ethnologist 32(1):159- 179.
Bradley, Matthew Timothy
2004 Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in the Cherok
Nation of Oklahoma: PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthrop
ogy Review 27(1): 144-146.
Fabricant, Nicole
2009 Performative Politics: The Camba Countermove-

tegrity. In Making Alternative Histories: The Practice of Ar- ment in Eastern Bolivia. American Ethnologist 36(4):
chaeology and History in Non- Western Settings. P.R. Schmidt 768-783.

and Thomas C. Patterson, ed. Santa Fe: School of American Healy, Kevin, and Susan Paulson
Research Press. 2000 Political Economies of Identity in Bolivia, 1952-1998.
Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Anthropology 5(2):
FOR FURTHER READING 2-29.

(These selections were made by the American Anthropologist editorial

Meskell, Lynn(Ed.)
interns as examples of research related in some way to this article. They
2009 Cosmopolitan Archaeologies. Durham, NC: Duke Univer-
do not necessarily reflect the views of the author.) sity Press.

This content downloaded from

201.141.19.165 on Sat, 10 Apr 2021 05:51:38 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms