Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T01:17:35.229Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Texcoco Region Archaeology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Abstract

Charlton (1973) argues that Parsons' (1969, 1970) explanation for the abandonment of the central Texcoco region, Mexico, during the Early Toltec period, is misleading because Parsons considered only “non-ecological” factors. Specifically, Parsons suggested that this zone was not occupied because it was the boundary between the political spheres of two competing regional centers, Tula and Cholula. Charlton argues instead, that the region was abandoned due to “ecological” factors. Namely, he argues, the Early Toltec period was a period of low population density, when only the most suitable agricultural land was occupied; thus the central Texcoco region was not utilized because it is agriculturally marginal. Charlton’s emphasis on the use of “ecological” factors to explain the distribution of Early Toltec settlements is misleading because it does not allow prediction of the locations of other known Early Toltec settlements in the Valley of Mexico. Abandonment of large portions of the Valley of Mexico was a general pattern during this period, due to “Balkanization” and competition between local centers.

Type
Comment
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 1975

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Benfer, Robert A. 1972 Factor analysis as numerical induction: how to judge a book by its cover. American Anthropologist 74:530-554.Google Scholar
Binford, Lewis, R., and Sally, R. Binford 1966 A preliminary analysis of functional vari- ability in the Mousterian of Levallois Facies. In Recent Studies in Paleoanthropology, edited by J. Desmond Clark and F. Clark Howell. American Anthropologist 68:238-295.Google Scholar
Chayes, F. 1960 On correlation between variables of constant sum. Journal of Geophysical Research 65:4185-4193.Google Scholar
Cowgjll, George L. 1968 Archaeological applications of factor, cluster and proximity analyses. American Antiquity 33:367-375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Culbert, T. Patrick 1965 The ceramic history of the Central Highlands of Chiapas. New World Archaeological Foundation Publication 14.Google Scholar
Freeman, Leslie G Jr., and James, R. Brown 1964 Statistical analysis of Carter Ranch pottery. Fieldiana: Anthropology 55:126-154.Google Scholar
Harman, H. H. 1967 Modem factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Hill, James N. 1970 Prehistoric social organization in the American Southwest. University of Arizona, Anthropological Papers 18.Google Scholar
Lischka, Joseph J. 1972 A formal-function al analysis of ceramic distribution at Kaminaljuyu, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Arizona. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Nie, Norman H., Dale, H. Bent, and Hadlai Hull, C. 1970 Statistical package for the social sciences, McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Rummel, R. J. 1970 Applied factor analysis. Northwestern University Press, Evanston.Google Scholar
Sackett, James E. 1969 Factor analysis and artifact typology. American Anthropologist 71:1125-1130.Google Scholar
Schiffer, Michael B. 1972 Archaeological context and systemic con text. American Antiquity 37:156-165.Google Scholar
Tryon, R. C, and Bailey, D. E. 1970 Ouster analysis. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Whallon, Robert Jr. 1973 Spatial analysis of occupation floors I: application of dimensional analysis of variance. American Antiquity 38:266-278.Google Scholar