fulltext - Simple search

Acknowledgements
Bradford Andrews
I would like to extend my gratitude to Kjel Knutsson and Jan Apel for pro
viding me with the opportunity to contribute to this volume. Data analysis
of the Teotihuacan surface collections and the excavation and collection of
the data from Xochicalco was provided by the National Science Foundation
research grants 9420202, 9496188, and 9121949. I am indebted to Kenneth
Hirth, Jeffrey Flenniken, and Gene Titmus for their help, assistance, and
guidance throughout all steps in this research. Many thanks also to Pedro
Baños and Seferino Ortega who kindly located the Teotihuacan collections
for me and provided me space in which to analyze them at the lab in San
nal manuscript was invaluable. Anna Backer, Cathy Costin, Rand Gruebel,
Akiko Nosaka, and Alan Reed also provided valuable comments. Finally, I
greatly appreciate the efforts of Oralia Cabrera and Kristin Sullivan who or
ganized the symposium “Craft Production at Terminal Formative and Clas
sic Period Teotihuacan, Mexico” for the 69th annual meeting of the SAAs in
which this paper was originally presented.
Notes
1) The San Martin complex has never been excavated but holes for planting nopal
cactus and a barrranca cut along its eastern margin reveal the direct association of
location of the workshop on the periphery of the city, and the predominance of
Middle to Late Classic ceramics suggest that it was primarily occupied during the
Tlamimilolpa and Xolalpan phases (A.D. 300 to 650). Consequently, it is unlikely
workshops located elsewhere in the city. Given the considerably reduced population
from a Classic high of 125,000 [Sanders et al. 1979]), it is unlikely that Epiclassic
riphery of the former Classic city to dump their trash.
2) Widmer (1991:144) has proposed a similar model for the organization of lapidary
production in the large extended family compound of Tlajinga 33.
274