Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T16:06:01.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Technological Analysis of the Calcite Beads from the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2014

Emiliano R. Melgar Tísoc  and
José Luis Ruvalcaba
Emiliano R. Melgar Tísoc
Affiliation:
Museo del Templo Mayor, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Seminario 8, Centro histórico, México D.F., C.P. 06060, Mexico. e-mail: [email protected]
José Luis Ruvalcaba
Affiliation:
Instituto de Física, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Circuito de la Investigación Científica s/n, Ciudad Universitaria, México DF 04510, Mexico.
Get access

Abstract

In the Great Temple at Tenochtitlan, the archaeologists found more than 150 offerings with thousands of pieces, most of them made on foreign raw materials to the Basin of Mexico. Among these votive contexts, the Chamber III of stage IVa (AD 1440-1469), buried during the government of Moctezuma I, is one of the most richness offerings of the temple. Inside this context, the quantity of greenstone beads is huge, and among them, there is a group of translucent appearance that resembles the green calcite objects from the Huastec region. The purpose of this research is to confirm or discard this probable cultural origin and technological manufacture of these beads. To do that, we perform different analysis with neither non-destructive nor invasive techniques like X-Ray Fluorescence (XRF), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), Raman, Optic Microscopy (OM), and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). By this way we could confirm the similarities among Huastec pieces and these beads, both at mineralogical and technological levels. Based on that, and supported with some written sources from the Colonial period, we propose that these pieces could be war prizes and looted objects by pillage during the Aztec campaigns against Huastec sites; furthermore some of these goods were deposited as victory´s gifts to the gods at the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan.

Keywords

archaeologyscanning electron microscopy (SEM)tribology
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1618: Symposium 8A – Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Issues in Materials Science , 2014 , pp. 97 - 107
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 C. E. Cleland (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) pp. 5–17.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, 1993).Google Scholar
González y, C.J. Olmedo, B., Esculturas Mezcala en el Templo Mayor, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1990).Google Scholar
Urueta, C., “Presencia del material mixteco dentro del Templo Mayor”, Bachelor Thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1990, pp. 4–7 & 92-94.Google Scholar
L. López Luján, La recuperación mexica del pasado teotihuacano, (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 1989) pp. 62–71.Google Scholar
Durán, D., Historia de las Indias de Nueva España e Islas de Tierra Firme, (Porrúa, 2006).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, 1992) pp. 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 E. S. Chilton (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
Ruvalcaba, J.L., Ramírez, D., Aguilar, V., Picazo, F., X-ray Spectrometry 39, 338–345 (2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruvalcaba Sil, J.L., Filloy, L., Vaggi, M., Tapia Gálvez, L.H., Sánchez Becerra, R., “Estudio no destructivo in situ de la Máscara de Malinaltepec” in La Máscara de Malinaltepec , S. Martínez del Campo coord. (CONACULTA- Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2010) pp. 153–168.Google Scholar
Filloy Nadal, L.; Magaloni Kerpel, D., Ruvalcaba Sil, J.L., Sánchez Hernández, R., “Las materias primas utilizadas para la manufactura de las figurillas y las hachas de la Ofrenda 4 de La Venta: caracterización y fuentes de origen” in La Ofrenda 4 de la Venta, Un tesoro Olmeca reunido en el Museo Nacional de Antropología. Estudios y catálogo razondo. Edited by D. Magaloni Kerpel and L. Filloy ( Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2013) pp. 103–127.Google Scholar
de Sahagún, B, Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva España, (Porrúa, 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 L. Mirambell and L. González (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., Ruvalcaba, J.L., in Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Issues in Materials Science, edited by Ruvalcaba Sil, J.L., Reyes Trujeque, J., Velázquez Castro, A., Espinosa Pesqueira, M. (Mater. Res. Soc. Symp. Proc. 1374, New York, 2012) pp. 103–114.Google Scholar
Melgar, E., “Análisis tecnológico de los objetos de piedra verde del Templo Mayor de Tencochtitlan” in El jade y otras piedras verdes. Perspectivas interdisciplinarias e interculturales, edited by W. Wiesheu and G. Guzzy (Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, 2012) pp. 181–195.Google Scholar
Stresser-Péan, G., San Antonio Nogalar (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social - El Colegio de San Luis - Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas - Centro de Estudios Mexicanos y Centroamericanos, 2000) pp. 95 & 467.Google Scholar
Ekholm, G. F., Anthropologist Papers of the National Museum of Natural History, XXXVIII, V, pp. 321–509 (1944).Google Scholar
Medenbach, O. and Sussieck-Fornefeld, C., Minerales (Blume, 2005) pp. 128–132.Google Scholar