Research

Investigaciones recientes han mostrado que un buen número de objetos procedentes de las ofrendas del recinto sagrado de Tenochtitlan son producciones locales y no piezas foráneas, obtenidas por tributo, intercambio o saqueo. En el caso de los objetos de concha y lapidaria, sus características formales permiten identificar a un importante grupo no solamente como propio del centro de México, sino como exclusivo de Tenochtitlan e incluso de su templo principal, ya que elementos idénticos no han sido recuperados en otros emplazamientos o en las edificaciones aledañas al Huey Teocalli tenochca. El estudio de las técnicas de manufactura de estas piezas ha permitido confirmar esta suposición e incluso proponer la existencia de un estilo tecnológico tenochca. La gran estandarización morfológica y tecnológica de los objetos y su restringida distribución, permiten proponer que su producción se llevaba a cabo en un contexto dependiente, probablemente en el palacio mismo del gobernante mexica.

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.

Les Aztèques utilisèrent une quantité importante de minéraux bleus, généralement désignés comme turquoise pour confectionner, notamment, des offrandes. Notre étude propose de déterminer la composition chimique des minéraux bleus du disque de mosaïque de l´offrande 99 issu des fouilles du Templo Mayor de México Tenochtitlán, ancienne capitale aztèque, et d´observer l´usage de ces minéraux dans la manufacture de cet objet. L´objectif est de proposer une première évaluation des différentes espèces minérales présentes à partir d´analyses in situ à l´aide de la fluorescence de rayons X en comparant les résultats obtenus à ceux d´une base de donées minérale. La présente étude amène à préciser la théorie des "turquoises culturelles" proposée par Weigand et al. (1977) et reprise par Kim et al. (2003). Cette théorie suggère que la plupart des sociétés mésoaméricaines, au cours du temps, ont conféré une valeur symbolique à la couleur bleu-vert et ont employé des minéraux bleus, voire verts, pour confectionner, notamment, leurs objets d´offrandes. Toutefois, on peut aussi penser que la fabrication des objets pouvait s´effectuer sans préoccupation dans le choix de la matière première en mélangeant différentes espèces minérales de la famille des "turquoises culturelles". Ce dernier point est discuté dans le cas des offrandes du Templo Mayor dont l´étude révèle l´absence de mélange intentionnel d´espèces minèrales dans la confection de chaque objet et un usage quasi-exclusif des "turquoises minérales" comme matière première.

In the archaeological excavations carried out at the Great Temple of Tenochtitlan, the Aztecs’ main ceremonial building, archaeologists have recovered hundreds of objects representing rich offerings corresponding to the foundation of the pre-Hispanic city until the Spanish conquest (1325–1521 AD). Among the recovered objects, a significant number of green stone artefacts, which were particularly appreciated by pre-Hispanic cultures, were found. They were produced using raw materials from the Mexico Basin and other Mesoamerican areas. Various green minerals (jadeites, antigorite, lizardite, diopside) and rocks (serpentinites and even green marble) may have been used in the production of these artefacts. Jadeite sources are located far away, in the Motagua river basin in Guatemala, and, as a result, we may expect that a limited number of jadeite objects arrived to Central Mexico through trade (Taube et al. 2004). Nevertheless, the identity and provenance of most of the different green stones employed as raw materials for producing beads, pendants, plaques, earplugs, and pectorals is still unknown. Because of that, the aim of this study is to identify the green minerals and/or rocks used for producing the artefacts and to establish a relationship between raw materials and their sources with the manufacturing techniques employed for the Aztec offerings. Some preliminary results on manufacturing trends and materials characterisation for some green stone objects are presented in this paper.

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.