Jenn Murphy
ANT 3163
Term Paper 2009
The Place Where Men Become Gods: A Look at the Nature of Teotihuacan’s Regional Hegemony
The magnificent reach of the city Teotihuacan has attracted the attention of archaeologists and historians for centuries, its monumental pyramids and fantastic artwork sparking the imaginations of Mesoamerican scholars all around the world. Mural art depicting religious epics covered the city and although many masterpieces have been poorly preserved, the artwork is still able to convey its original meaning to modern archaeologists. Around 350 murals catalogue the rich ideology and religion of Teotihuacan known eloquently as The Place where Men become Gods, the vibrant pantheon covered the walls of the great city. The architectural calling card of the Teotihuacanos, the talud-tablero motif usually used on the façade of monumental structures has been found as far as the Guatemalan highlands. This cultural spread is one of many indications that the city was a political hub not only in Central Mexico, but all over Mesoamerica. Along with being a strong urban center, there is overwhelming evidence for Teotihuacan as a solid political force with all the makings of a legitimate state instead of a tribal conglomeration. This evidence is hidden within the living arrangements of the city, the domination of multiple industries and their capable military force. At its height, Teotihuacan housed around 200,000 individuals within its urban limits—while it was not the first Mesoamerican city to urbanize, it was certainly the largest and most efficient. Artisans emerged from the new social system and allowed for an explosion of art, while the Teotihuacanos also dominated the supply of green Pachuca obsidian used for trade. Leather working, weaving and mural painting were no longer creative past times, and became industries within themselves. This diversification of occupation among the people of Teotihuacan shows an increase in the production of consumer goods as socio-economic stratification emerged. There is no doubt that Teototihuacan was a mature state and archaeologists agree that after its massive urbanization, the city stretched its influence to other regions. However it is unclear whether Teotihuacan invaded and conquered these areas that have exhibited strong Teotihuacano influence or if the visible influence is a result of a more benign relationship. Two camps of historians, art historians and archaeologists form to debate the tone of Teotihuacan presence throughout Mesoamerica at the height of the Classic period. Externalists argue that the reach of Teotihuacan was pushed with military excursions, leaving the conquered states subservient to the capital. Alternately, the Internalists believe that the presence of Teotihuacan culture in foreign areas does not accurately illuminate power relations and offer alternative theories to the hegemonic power that the city held.
The dominance of Teotihuacan is clearly seen in key areas around Mesoamerica, including but not limited to Monte Alban, Tikal, Copan and Kaminaljuyu. In the Valley of Oaxaca, the city of Monte Alban is an example of Teotihuacan influence mixed with local variation. Archaeologists have found a modified variation of the talud-tablero architecture on their monumental structures, along with stuccos exhibiting Teotihuacan-style ornamentation in the tombs. Although the tombs maintain a typically Zapotec organization, there is intimate relation between the murals that grace the tomb walls and Teotihuacan tradition (Coe and Koontz, 2002; 125). The Mayan city of Tikal is often hotly debated between scholars and opinions of whether Teotihuacan invaded the city or not fluctuates. The Tikal Project uncovered foreign ceramics in burials 10 and 48 along with Stelae 32 and 41 which pointed to a connection with Teotihuacan seemed to solidify a tumultuous relationship between the two cities early in the project’s life (Braswell, 2006). Other Teotihuacan-style vessels and artifacts were found in burials and variations of the talud-tablero architecture were found throughout monuments, further illustrating contact. Perhaps one of the most interesting discoveries regarding the relationship between Tikal and Teotihuacan was made by Tatiana Proskouriakoff, an epigrapher who concluded that the death of the Tikal king “Great Paw” was related to the arrival of foreigners bearing Central Mexican weapons (Proskouriakoff, 1993). To further implant the notion of a Teotihuacan-led invasion, Clemency Coggins postulated that the king “Curl Nose” who succeeded “Great Paw” was a foreigner from Teotihuacan-influenced Kaminaljuyu (Coggins, 1975). Copan also shows strong Teotihuacan influence in the talud-tablero facades and the distribution of Thin Orange Wear in a burial site. The presence of Central Mexican ceramics and locally manufactured architecture in foreign style also point to Teotihuacan presence at the site of Kaminaljuyu (Braswell, 2006). However scholars have postulated that the cultural influence at Kaminaljuyu was more than a simple trade relationship and Stephan de Borhegyi attributes the strong Teotihuacano flavor to “missionizing zeal” and the quest to convert the population to their own pantheon (Borhegyi, 1971). Whether through trade or proselytization, the link between Teotihuacan and Kaminaljuyu is undeniable and there is evidence of foreign settlers in the city. There is also evidence that the Teotihuacan Empire used the city of Kaminaljuyu as a makeshift military outpost in order to expand its reach further into the Mayan region, especially when dealing with the city of Tikal. All these sites have elements of Teotihuacano contact, from the widely distributed talud-tablero architecture to burial murals and ceramics. Scholars have also noted the spread of the pantheon of Teotihuacan and the iconography mimicked by those sites in contact with the great city— although this is a potential indicator of cultural integration, possibly from an implementation of military force, there is no absolute evidence for the use of force .These sites provide just a handful of the cities that Teotihuacan seemed to have control over, though the nature of that control is currently being debated.
The Internalist versus Externalist debate is built along thin lines. Both agree that Teotihuacan dominated Mesoamerican during the Classic period but according to Geoffrey Braswell, they differ on three fronts: the degree of Teotihuacan impact, the duration of the political, social and economic changes experienced by the satellite city and whether that satellite city was a passive or active participant (Braswell, 2006). The dichotomizing concept of splitting these opposing views is laid out by Braswell, grouped by how they view Teotihuacan’s rise to hegemonic power. Externalists believe that Teotihuacan set its sights on militarily conquering others due to multiple strains on the population, its status as a mature city-state requiring a spreading of territorial conquest. Ignacio Bernal equates the empire to a wave, looming above the Mesoamerican political landscape and suddenly covering all in overwhelming force (Bernal, 1966). He also admits that the control might not have been monolithic and that the superficial control of faraway cities led to self-governance among them which was paramount to the cohesion of the empire. Regardless of the depth of control, Bernal notes the integration of Teotihuacano culture flavored with local variation as evidence of conquest (Bernal, 1966). This argument of a stronger, more invasive Teotihuacan is structured around early Mesoamerican archaeology and the argument that the adoption of a style coupled with the multifaceted strength of Teotihuacan insured conquest. However, Internalists argue that the simple flow of art styles and ceramics do not automatically point to a strong military presence in those areas. These scholars view the Teotihuacan cultural influence as a result of a trade-dominated web of relationships between cities—the concept of economic control rings true, especially in the resource rich Mayan lowlands. Instead of being the passive recipients of foreigners in their lands, the Internalists argue that centuries of transactions and trade made the Mayans active participants in economic growth. This flow of trade could then also translate into a transfer of cultural ideas and art styles as well through mutual exchange of intellectual information—in cultures where an economy is flourishing, greater varieties in art and creative expression are seen. It should be noted that economic determinism builds bonds as steadfast as political or military incursion and either way, Mesoamerican felt the overwhelming presence of Teotihuacan.
The concept of active participants versus passive participants in the flow of Teotihuacan culture is central to the debate over the nature of foreign relations. Especially in the Mayan lowlands, this dichotic argument is seen. The abundance of resources such as cacao, rubber, jadetite, and quetzal feathers made the Mayan lowlands a valuable trade partner with Teotihuacan, although both sides of the scholarly debate interperate this dynamic differently. On one hand, it would have been beneficial to both the Mayans and Teotihuacanos to maintain an amicable trade relation with one another without the threat of invasion: although there are tensions with every trade relationship, if both participants are benefitting than there is little need for force. This view portrays the Mayans as actively inviting Teotihuacan presence within their territory for economic gain, a scenario that gives the Mayans power by choosing to have foreigners in their cities. On the other hand, the resources prove to be an enticing prize for a large city with military capabilities such as Teotihuacan. An unsolicited march into the Mayan lowlands leave the Maya passive within the relationship and allowing the flow of influence not because they allowed it, but because they had little choice. Both sides cite archaeological evidence for their argument but as Geoffrey Braswell pointed out, “pots are not people” and the flow of ceramics cannot wholly tell contemporary scholars what transpired more than a millennia ago.
In reality, I feel that polarizing the nature of Teotihuacan presence in Mesoamerica is narrow-minded and instead scholars should consider a mixture of both military domination and economic cooperation. The interactions between Teotihuacan seem to be multi-faceted and complex, lending itself to a spectrum of relationship strategies rather than pure invasion and exploitation. Over a span of centuries, the empire wound its way through different cities and it is safe to believe that not every city handled the presence of Teotihuacan the same. With evidence as merchants acting as military vanguard, the dynamic between Teotihuacan and the rest of Mesoamerica becomes much more complicated and perhaps cities were dealt with on a case-by-case basis (Davies, 1982; 94). After all, not all shoes fits the same foot and surely the Teotihuacanos understood that more than any other Mesoamerican city—a myriad of relationships enable them to conquer those who truly fought their presence and deal amicably with trade partners. It is also pertinent to consider that perhaps these satellite cities didn’t pop up within a decade or even a few decades, but instead took a century or more to align with the great metropolis through gradual integration. The transfer of ceramics and green obsidian does not denote absolute presence within smaller sites and also does not guarantee direct contact with Teotihuacan itself; it is plausible that the satellite sites linked with Teotihuacan used the resources they had at their disposal for trade and they happened to be Teotihuacano in nature. Prized green obsidian could easily be used as currency in exchange for resources that the Mayans were in need of and therefore trade relations with other populations could have furthered the spread of the tell-tale obsidian. It is also possible that mimicry popped up in sites that were mostly unrelated due to admiration of the Teotihuacan style. Speculation runs the gambit about the level and depth of Teotihuacan presence over Mesoamerican: how superficial was Teotihuacan’s control over cities like Tikal and Kaminaljuyu? Did the lack of micromanagement from the political power in Teotihuacan allow for greater expansion of the empire? These questions may or may not ever be answered and therefore flexibility regarding the nature of Teotihuacan’s relations with other cities must be exercised.
With every stride in research that is made, more questions spring from the answers that archaeologists and historians have uncovered. There is no doubt that Teotihuacan was a shining theocracy, the first of its kind in the New World rich with its own unique culture and ambitions. The massive murals that covered the city inspire the imaginations of generations of new aspiring archaeologists, the imagery of the colorful pantheon delighting both scholars and laymen alike. Beyond the great pyramids and awe-inspiring feats of engineering lay a complex society complete with socio-economic stratification and economic specialization. As the virtual engine of Central Mexico, classic Teotihuacan was a powerhouse of political power and trade dominance with the ability to spread its influence far from home. The nature of Teotihuacan’s relations with the cities it influenced during its height in the Classic period is still hotly debated among scholars and polarized opinions run from one side of the spectrum to the other. Although some might cite the lack of cohesive opinion among scholars as a weakness, I believe that the debate is beneficial to careful studies of Teotihuacan and other prehistoric Mesoamerican sites, resulting in a greater effort towards cultural preservation and a renewal in the interest of pre-Columbian life. No matter how the Teotihuacanos managed to spread their influence over such a large area, one thing is for certain: where ever Teotihuacan made its presence felt, economic and creative abundance flowed.
0 comments:
Post a Comment