elpais.com
Mexica Obsidian Trade: Market Networks in a Centralized Empire
A geochemical analysis of 788 obsidian artifacts from Mexico City's Templo Mayor reveals eight sources, including regions historically considered rival territories to the Mexica Empire, suggesting a complex, market-based trade network beyond the tribute system, particularly evident in the increased obsidian diversity in Tenochtitlan between 1375 and 1520.
- How did the Mexica Empire's acquisition of obsidian differ from its acquisition of other resources, and what does this reveal about the empire's economic strategies?
- The increased obsidian diversity in Tenochtitlan over time (1375-1520) contradicts the expectation of decreased diversity with Mexica consolidation. Instead, the empire's expansion led to more obsidian sources, suggesting market-based trade beyond tribute. This highlights a decentralized aspect within the centralized Mexica state.
- What specific evidence from the Templo Mayor obsidian analysis reveals the extent of the Mexica trade network and its implications for understanding their economic system?
- A geochemical analysis of 788 obsidian artifacts from Mexico City's Templo Mayor reveals eight obsidian sources, including Ucareo (Michoacán), a region of the rival Purépecha Empire. This expands previous knowledge and indicates a complex trade network, even with enemies. The study suggests that obsidian's distribution wasn't solely controlled by the Mexica tribute system.
- What are the implications of the differing obsidian sources used in ritual versus everyday objects for understanding social hierarchies and power dynamics within the Mexica Empire, and what further research could illuminate these aspects?
- The study's findings suggest that future research should investigate the interaction between centralized political control and decentralized economic forces in the Mexica Empire. Analyzing the varying obsidian sources used for ritual versus everyday objects provides a unique lens into understanding power dynamics and social structures within the empire. Further research could explore the implications of this trade network for broader economic and political relationships within Mesoamerica.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing is generally neutral, presenting a balanced account of the research findings. The headline and introduction clearly state the study's purpose and main conclusions without sensationalizing or oversimplifying the results. The article gives weight to the researchers' interpretations, but also presents factual data supporting these interpretations.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and descriptive. There is a slight tendency toward positive phrasing when describing the research's findings ("new light," "intricate networks"), but this does not significantly skew the overall tone. The use of terms like "puño de hierro" (iron fist) is contextually appropriate in describing the Mexica's rule, but a translation and brief explanation might make it more accessible to non-Spanish speaking readers.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses primarily on the obsidian trade and its implications for understanding the Mexica Empire. While it mentions the Mexica's tributary system, it doesn't delve deeply into other aspects of their economy or governance, which could provide additional context. The limited discussion of potential internal trade dynamics within the empire is also a minor omission. However, given the article's focus, these omissions are not significant enough to constitute major bias.
Sustainable Development Goals
The research highlights the Mexica Empire's extensive trade networks for obsidian, even sourcing from rival territories. This suggests a degree of economic interconnectedness and exchange that could have mitigated inequalities in access to valuable resources across different regions.