Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T11:09:53.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Manufacturing Techniques of the Teotihuacan Style Masks from the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2014

Emiliano R. Melgar Tísoc  and
Reyna B. Solís Ciriaco
Emiliano R. Melgar Tísoc*
Affiliation:
Museo del Templo Mayor, Seminario 8, Centro Histórico, México D.F., C.P. 06060, Mexico.
Reyna B. Solís Ciriaco
Affiliation:
Museo del Templo Mayor, Seminario 8, Centro Histórico, México D.F., C.P. 06060, Mexico.
*
*e-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

At the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, the archaeologists found hundreds of stone masks considered foreign pieces obtained by commerce, tribute, and pillage. Because of that, they were classified in the main Mesoamerican styles, like the Olmec, Mezcala, Teotihuacan, Mayan, Mixtec and Aztec art. Among them are seven Teotihuacan Style masks found in five offerings. Its presence was explained by other researchers as relics looted by Aztec people from the Teotihuacan site, because the Aztec priests and rulers employed them as sources of power, prestige and mythical links between the City of the Gods and Tenochtitlan. But, are these stone masks from Tenochtitlan really Teotihuacan items? How can we identify which of them came from Teotihuacan and could be relics and which of them not? To solve this problem, we analyze its manufacturing techniques and compare them with lapidary objects from different areas of Teotihuacan, employing experimental archaeology, Optic Microscopy and Scanning Electron Microscopy. As results, we identify two technological patterns: five masks share the tools and techniques of Teotihuacan manufactures but two other masks contrast with them. Interestingly, its technology match with the Tenochcan productions, so, both pieces could be recreations crafted by Aztec artisans during the Postclassic times.

Keywords

scanning electron microscopy (SEM)hardnesstribology
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1618: Symposium 8A – Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Issues in Materials Science , 2014 , pp. 109 - 119
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2014 

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

REFERENCES

Sackett, J.R., American Antiquity 42(3), 375 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobst, H.M., “Stylistic behavior and information exchange” in For the Director. Research Essay in Honor of James B. Griffen, Anthropology papers 61, edited by Cleland, C. E. (Museum of Anthropology of University of Michigan, 1977) pp. 321.Google Scholar
Conkey, M., “Experimenting with style in archaeology: some historical and theoretical issues” in The uses of style in Archaeology, edited by Conkey, M. and Harstorf, C (Cambridge University Press, 1990) p. 11.Google Scholar
Plog, S., “Approaches to Style “in Style, Society, and Person. Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Carr, C. and Neitzel, J. E. (Plenum Press, 1995) pp. 369–387.Google Scholar
Pasztory, E., Aztec Art (University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, 1993).Google Scholar
González, C.J. y Olmedo, B., Esculturas Mezcala en el Templo Mayor, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1990).7. C. Urueta, Bachelor Thesis, ENAH, 1990, pp. 4–7, 92-94.Google Scholar
Urueta, C., “Presencia del material Mixteco dentro del Templo Mayor”, Bachelor Thesis, Escuela Naiconal de Antroologia e Historia, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1990, pp. 4–7 & 92-94.Google Scholar
López Luján, L., La recuperación mexica del pasado teotihuacano, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1989) pp. 62–71.Google Scholar
Lemonnier, P., Journal of Anthopological Archaeology 5, 153 (1986).Google Scholar
Schiffer, M. B., Technological Perspectives on Behavioral Change, (University of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1992), p. 51.Google Scholar
Pfaffenberger, B., Man 23(2), 241 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosselain, O.P., Man 27(3), 580 (1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sackett, J. R., “Style and Ethnicity in Archaeology: The Case for Isochrestismin” in The Uses of Style in Archaeology, edited by Conkey, M. and Harstorf, C. (Cambridge University Press, 1990) pp. 33.Google Scholar
Stark, M. T., “Social Dimensions of Technical Choice in Kalinga Ceramic Traditions” in Material Meanings, edited by Chilton, E. S. (The University of Utah Press, 1999) pp. 27–29.Google Scholar
Lechtman, H., “Style in technology: some early thoughts” in Material Culture: Styles, Organizations, and Dynamics of Technology, edited by Lechtman, H. and Merrill, R. (American Ethnological Society, 1975) pp. 6–7.Google Scholar
de Sahagún, B, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, (Porrúa, México, 1956).Google Scholar
Kovacevich, B., “Ritual, Crafting and Agency at the Classic Maya Kingdom of Cancuen” in Mesoamerican Ritual Economy, Archaeological and Ethnological Perspectives, edited by Wells, C. E. and Davis Salazar, K. L. (University Press of Colorado, 2007) pp. 67–114.Google Scholar
Gazzola, J., in Investigaciones recientes sobre la lítica arqueológica en México, edited by Mirambell, L. and González, L. (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2009), pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
Ascher, R., American Anthropologist 63(4), 807 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Binford, L.R., “Theory building in archeology” in For Theory Building in Archaeology, edited by Binford, L. R. (Academic Press, 1977) pp. 7.Google Scholar
Tringham, R., “Experimentation, Ethnoarchaeology, and the Leapfrogs in Archaeological Methodology” in Ethnoarchaeology, edited by Gould, R. (University of New Mexico Press, 1978) pp. 180.Google Scholar
Melgar, E., Solís, R. and Ruvalcaba, J.L., “La Lapidaria de Teopancazco: Composición y Manufactura” in Estudios arqueométricos del centro de barrio de Teopancazco en Teotihuacan, edited by Manzanilla, L. (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2012), pp. 258–279.Google Scholar
Velázquez, A., Valentín, N., Zúñiga, B., Melgar, E. and Solís, R., “Análisis Tecnológico de la Máscara y el Collar de Malinaltepec” in La Máscara de Malinaltepec, edited by Martínez del Campo Lanz, S. (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, México, 2010) pp. 173–183.Google Scholar
Velázquez, A., La producción especializada de los objetos de concha del Templo Mayor de Tenochtitlan, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2007) pp. 182–183.Google Scholar
Matos, E., López Luján, L., Escultura Monumental Mexica, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia – Fundlocal - Fundación Conmemoraciones 2010-Danhos- Secretaría de Cultura Gobierno DF, 2009) pp. 71–113.Google Scholar
León Portilla, M., La Filosofía Náhuatl, (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1983), pp. 270.Google Scholar
Nicholson, H. B. and Quiñones Keber, E., Art of Aztec Mexico. Treasures of Tenochtitlan, (National Gallery of Art, 1983) pp. 5.Google Scholar