...
mmigration played an important role in the city’s growth and its multiethniccomposition, which included ethnic barrios. The well-known Oaxaca (Zapotec)Barrio and the Merchants’ Barrio continue to be the subject of research (Croissier2007; Go´mez and Gazzola 2009; Rattray 2001, 2004, Spence 2002, 2005; Spenceet al. 2004, 2005; White et al. 2000b, 2004a). We now have a much richer view of the city’s ethnic complexity and immigration, including from western Mexico,Oaxaca, the Gulf Lowlands, and central Mexico (Go´mez 2002; Manzanilla 2011,2015; Michelet and Pereira 2009; Plunket and Urun˜uela 2012; Price et al. 2000;Spence 2005; Spence et al. 2004, 2013; White et al. 2002, 2003, 2007). Go´mez(2002; Go´mez and Gazzola 2007, 2009) has identified a West Mexico barrio nearthe Zapotec barrio on the western periphery of Teotihuacan (White et al. 2004a).Taube (2003) discusses the Maya presence at Teotihuacan (Clayton 2005; Rattray2005). Biogenetic studies (e.g., A´lvarez-Sandoval 2014) have opened a new windowon ancient migration and Teotihuacan’s relationship with both its hinterlands andmore distant areas; such immigration had economic, political, social, anddemographic dimensions that have yet to be fully explored.Within the urban heterogeneity of Teotihuacan, over time, neighborhoodsbecame more homogeneous (Robertson 2001, 2005). Increasing residentialsegregation would have added to social tensions in the city, although wealthdifferences between apartment compounds were not greatly marked (Smith et al.2014). Another source of tension is the contradiction between the multiethnic city,Teotihuacan’s corporate ideology and strategy, and the growing importance of intermediate elites (Manzanilla 2006a).
...
Foreign Relations and Interregional Interactions
Teotihuacan’s interregional relations continue to spark debate and have been thesubject of recent books and articles (Go´mez and Spence 2013). Teotihuacan was amultiethnic city. Rattray (2004, 2005) and Spence (1996b) discuss the Merchants’Barrio, an enclave or colony with connections to the Gulf Coast and also to theMaya region. Ruiz and Soto (2004) bring together papers dealing with the diverseinteractions between the Gulf Coast and Teotihuacan (also Cowgill and Neff 2004;Daneels 2002). Arnold and Pool (2008) look at southern and central Veracruz(Arnold and Santley 2008; Santley and Arnold 2004, 2005; Stark 2008). The Zapotec enclave at Teotihuacan, where Croissier (2003, 2007) excavated a two-room Oaxaca-style temple built with Teotihuacan construction techniques, was partof a diaspora in central Mexico. Also, on the western periphery of the city was abarrio with ties to West Mexico (Michoaca´n) and Oaxaca (Go´mez 1998, 2002;Go´mez and Gazzola 2009; also Gamboa 1998).
Carballo and Garcı´a-Des Lauriers (2008; also Brambila and Crespo 2002; Darrasand Fauge`re 2007; David et al. 2007; Fauge`re 2007a, b) discuss early ties betweenTeotihuacan and the Basin of Mexico and areas to the north and west. Settlementreorganization in southern Quere´taro and murals at the site of El Rosario suggest adirect Teotihuacan presence ca. AD 400 (Moreno 2012). Filini (2004; Filini andCa´rdenas 2007) discusses trade relations between the Cuitzeo region of Michoaca´nand Teotihuacan.
Carballo and Pluckhahn (2007) provide new details of Teotihuacan’s corridorthrough Tlaxcala to the east and south. Sugiura (2005, also Dı´az 1998) examinedhow portions of the Valley of Toluca became part of Teotihuacan’s outerhinterlands. Healan (2012) reviews Teotihuacan’s expansion into the Tula region,along with Zapotec enclaves, and Teotihuacan’s subsequent retraction, whichreflected its growing difficulties with hinterlands. Teotihuacan incorporated cotton-producing areas of Morelos (Hirth 2000; Smith and Montiel 2001). Although Pueblacontributed to the flow of immigrants to Teotihuacan, Teotihuacan apparently didnot control Cholula or southern Puebla where Thin Orange ceramic workshops werelocated (Plunket and Urun˜uela 1998; 2005; also Plunket and Blanco 1989; Rattray1990).
Articles in Braswell’s (2003a) volume present evidence and varied viewpointsabout the nature of interactions between Teotihuacan and the Maya highlands andlowlands. Beyond replaying old themes, I see several important developments. Thefirst is tighter definition of different types of influence and interactions. The secondis application of new methods, such as compositional, isotopic, and DNA studies, tosystematically assess interactions.
...
Kaminaljuyu´ in highland Guatemala has been interpreted as a Teotihuacancolony, a merchant colony, a port-of-trade, or a case of local emulation andinternational elite interactions (Sanders and Michels 1977; Wright et al. 2010). Braswell (2003c) finds data from Kaminaljuyu´ inconclusive. Recent isotopic studiesof tomb burials identified skeletons of local children, but decapitated skulls andperipheral skeletons were mostly people from the Maya lowlands; two individualswere either from or traveled to central Mexico (Wright et al. 2010; also White et al.2000a). This evidence indicates more intensive interaction between Kaminaljuyu´and the Maya lowlands but also direct relations with central Mexico, most likely Teotihuacan.
Stuart’s (2000) translation of texts referring to an ‘‘arrival of strangers from thewest’’ in AD 378, which coincided with the disappearance of Tikal’s king, refueleddebate about a direct Teotihuacan presence in the southern lowlands and possiblemeddling in dynastic successions at Tikal and Copa´n. Stuart argues that the newking, Yax Nuun Ayiin, was of Teotihuacan descent, perhaps the son of aTeotihuacan ruler (Martin and Grube 2000, pp. 24–53). The founder, K’inich YaxK’uk’ Mo’, of Copa´n’s dynasty, however, (Sharer 2001, 2003), most likely came from Caracol in the central lowlands, although he also might have journeyed toTeotihuacan (Buikstra et al. 2004; Chase and Chase 2011; Price et al. 2010; Stuart 2007). Many Mayanists see Teotihuacan influence as emulation by local rulers andelites (e.g., Borowicz 2003; Iglesias Ponce de Leo´n 2003; Laporte 2001, 2003; Wright 2005).
Smith and Montiel (2001, p. 267) suggest that Maya elites adopted Teotihuacan symbolism and perhaps undertook pilgrimages to the city to legitimizenew dynasties, and in some cases, they formed alliances with Teotihuacan (alsoEstrada-Belli et al. 2006; Fash and Fash 2000; Fash et al. 2009).
Santley’s (1983) notions of a Teotihuacan economic empire were exaggerated.Cowgill (2003b, pp. 315–316) is now convinced that for a brief time Teotihuacan orpeople closely connected to Teotihuacan interfered with the politics of Tikal andCopa´n and established a few colonial outposts (Hassig 1992; Manzanilla 2006a; Smith and Montiel 2001). Cowgill (2003b) sees Teotihuacan–Maya interactions as dynamic that began in first century AD, perhaps a century earlier, as mostly indirect.Relations of relative equality became more unequal as Teotihuacan sought tradingpartners, including those on the Gulf and Pacific Coasts. Cowgill detects a change ininteractions ca. AD 350 that perhaps lasted for 100 or 150 years and involved directinterventions by Teotihuacan-related people backed by armed forces in selectedplaces: Matacapan on the Gulf Coast, the Cerro Bernal district and Mirador inChiapas, Montana/Los Chatos in coastal Guatemala and selected Maya centers,including Tikal, Copa´n, Kaminaljuyu´, Rı´o Azul, and perhaps elsewhere. TheAzatemo stela depicting a Teotihuacan-style warrior suggests a military presence inGuerrero (Taube 2011, p. 104). Bove (2002; Bove and Medrano Busto 2003) sees evidence of a Teotihuacan colony at Montana. The absence of locally madeTeotihuacan-style utilitarian pottery suggests to Cowgill (2003b) an incursion of soldiers or perhaps merchants from Teotihuacan. He doubts that Teotihuacan hadsufficient resources to sustain an empire for very long. In fact, Teotihuacan’spresence outside central Mexico was short-lived.