periodic markets in precolombian

8/3/2019 Periodic Markets in Precolombian

1/11

Society for American Archaeology

Periodic Markets in Precolumbian MexicoAuthor(s): Ross HassigSource: American Antiquity, Vol. 47, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), pp. 346-355Published by: Society for American ArchaeologyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/279906 .

Accessed: 01/03/2011 14:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Society for American Archaeology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Antiquity.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/279906?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=samhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/279906?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sam


2/11


3/11

REPORTS

exceeds its range (the distance consumers are willing to travel to a supplier), a trader cannotoperate from a fixed location; however, by becoming mobile and visiting several markets, a traderdraws on more and different consumers and thereby temporally concentrates consumer demandby presenting the market opportunity less frequently. The consumer demand encountered in a dai-ly market held in a town of 5,000 can be matched in a periodic market that draws on a populationof 1,000 if that market is held only once every five days. Such markets, which generally meet insmaller population centers, have three interlocking advantages: they allow exploitation of low de-mand areas by mobile traders, they offer consumers a greater variety of goods by periodicallyconcentrating supply, and by meeting on different days they facilitate the redistribution of com-modities in the marketing system to and from higher-level centers (Smith 1974:181-186,1976:15-18). While a general understanding of periodic markets will not necessarily explain amarketing system in its entirety, knowing how such markets function is a vital component in com-prehending the whole. Although the data on indigenous market periodicity are thin (the lack of in-digenous dates is apparently due to the complementary factors of rapid conversion to the Euro-pean calendar and the Christian monopoly of literacy in New Spain), they can be profitably ex-amined in light of our knowledge of the Aztec calendar.Calendrical systems have a great influence on the temporal patterning of markets. The frequen-cy with which markets are held, and possibly even their relative locations, are determined not on-ly by the logic of market efficiency, but by cultural factors such as calendar systems. One of thebasic concerns of markethe s implicity. It is crucial that buyers and sellers alike knowwhen the markets are held. Consequently, schedules that fithemarkets are held. Consequently, schedules that fit te fundamental units of time of agiven calendrical system are best and most easily remembered (Bromley et al. 1975:531).Regularity alone is insufficient. In our ownGregorian system, weekly or monthly markets (or somemultiple thereof) are more easily remembered than a sequence that does not fit these temporalunits. For example, with a 7-day week, a 6-day marketing schedule, though regular, would yieldthe confusing pattern of a market being held on a different day each succeeding week.

Markets of many different frequencies are recorded or the Aztecs, from daily markets in largecities such as Tenochtitlan (Casas 1967:366; Motolinia 1971:375) to 5-, 8-, 9-, 13-, and 20-daymarkets (Casas 1967:366; Gibson 1964:352; Gomara 1966:151; Motolinia 1973:30; Torquemada1975:559). Although most scholars do not use the entire 1-5-8-9-13-20 series (the most common is1-5-13-20), it is often assumed that the largest centers held markets most frequently (daily), andthe smallest centers held markets least frequently (every 20 days) (Bromley 1974:7; Gibson1964:357; Kurtz 1974:690). Certainly, this correlation of town size and market frequency is pleas-ing in its simplicity and is consistent with marketing theory, but it finds only limited support in theAztec data. In order to assess the significance of the recorded 1-, 5-, 8-, 9-, 13-, and 20-day se-quences, as well as to understand why those particular intervals were used, a brief considerationof the Aztec calendrical system is in order (based on Caso [1971] for simplicity, with all Nahuatlterms corrected in accordance with Andrews [1975]).The central Mexican calendar is based on two major cycles, one of 260 days and one of 365days, and within each there are other shorter cycles. In the 260-day cycle (the tonalpohualli-''thecounting of the days"), each day is represented by a sign, or day name, and an accompanyingnumber. There are 20 day names and 13 numbers which run concurrently.The 20 tonalpohualli day names, in conventional Aztec sequence are:

1. cipactli alligator 11. ozomahtli monkey2. ehecatl wind 12. malinalli grass3. calli house 13. acatl reed4. cuetzpalin lizard 14. ocelot) jaguar5. coatl snake 15. cuauhtli eagle6. miquiztli death 16. cozcacuauhtli vulture7. mazatl deer 17. olin (earth) quake8. tochtli rabbit 18. tecpatl flint9. atl water 19. quiahuitl rain10. itzcuintli dog 20. xochitl flower

347


4/11

AMERICAN ANTIQUITY

The 13-day sequence lacks names, but each day is accompanied by one of the thirteen Lords ofthe Day:1. Xiuhteuctli2. Tlalteuctli3. Chalchiuhtlicue4. Tonatiuh5. Tlazalteotl6. Mictlanteuctli7. Centeotl

fire godearth godwater goddesssun godgoddess of lovegod of hellcorn god

8. Tlaloc9. Quetzalcoatl10. Tezcatlipoca11. Chalmecateuctli12. Tlahuizcalpanteuctli13. Citlalinicue

water godwind godgod of providencegod of sacrificelord of dawngoddess of theheavens, the MilkyWaySince the lowest common multiple of 13 and 20 is 260, a given combination of number plus dayname will recur only after 260 days. This 260-day period is therefore the longest period withinwhich the cycles of 13 and 20 will uniquely identify a day.In the 365-day cycle (the xiuhpohualli-"the counting of the years"), there are 18 named"months" of 20 days each, totalling 360 days, plus 5 additional days, called nemontemi ornentemi. The nemontemi days are intercalated at the end of the eighteenth month.Although which month began the year is unresolved (see Caso [1971] and Cline [1973] for op-posing positions), the generally accepted sequence of the 18 xiuhpohualli months is:

1. Atl Cahualo2. Tlacaxipehualiztli3. Tozoztontli4. Huei Tozoztli5. Toxcati6. Etzalcualiztli7. Tecuilhuitontli8. Huei Tecuilhuitl9. Miccailhuitontli10. Huei MiccailhuitI11. Ochpaniztli12. Pachtontli13. Huei Pachtli14. Quecholli15. Panquetzaliztli16. Atemoztli17. Tititl18. Izcalli

water is abandonedflaying of menshort vigillong vigildry thingthe eating of bean porridgesmall festival of the Lordsgreat festival of the Lordssmall festival of the deadgreat festival of the deadsweeping of the roadsmall Spanish mossbig Spanish mossmacaw (literally, it is rubber at the neck)raising of the flagsit is the descent in the form of watershrunk or wrinkledregeneration (literally, sprout)

Both the tonalpohualli and the xiuhpohualli operate simultaneously, running in independentcycles. The multiples of the 20 day names, 13 day numbers, and 18 months (plus 5 days) generateunique combinations through 52 xiuhpohualli or 73 tonalpohualli cycles, that is, 18,980 days, andconstitute the Calendar Round, after which the entire cycle begins anew.The xiuhpohualli years are named for the day sign and number on which they begin. The formalxiuhpohualli year is 360 days, of 18 complete 20-day cycles. The xiuhpohualli cycle does not in-clude the nemontemi days, omitting 5 days each 365-day year, but the tonalpohualli is oblivious tothe nemontemi days. Each 365-day year runs 18 complete 20-day cycles plus 5 additional dayseach solar year. Consequently, the years always begin on 1 of 4 days, known as the yearbearers,which are 5 days apart in the day-name sequence. These days-calli, tochtli, acatl, and tecpatl-each designate a year 13 times during the Calendar Round (Serna 1892:313).An additional cycle of days, although by no means the only other one, is that of the nine Lords ofthe Night, the Yohualteuctin:

1. Xiuhteuctli2. Itztli or Tecpatl3. Piltzinteuctli4. Centeotl

fire godobsidian or flintthe lord of princes, or child lord, the suncorn god

348 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982


5/11

REPORTS

5. Mictlanteuctli god of hell or of the dead6. Chalchiuhtlicue water goddess7. Tlazolteotl goddess of love8. Tepeyollohtli the jaguar"heart of the mountain"9. Tlaloc rain god

This series of nine is generally attributed to the tonalpohualli, but does not fit into it evenly(unless there was a doubling of the gods on the last day of the cycle), running in continuous cyclesapparently independent of both the tonalpohualli and the xiupohualli cycles (Serna 1892:345).The central Mexican calendar can be viewed as a series of different sized cogs, each turning atits own rate, but combining as the various cycles coincide, to create larger temporal units.The issue is how the 1-, 5-, 8-, 9-, 13-, and 20-day sequences fit the calendar. The 20-day se-quence is based on the 20-day month, the3-day sequence is based on the 13-day Lords of the Daycycle, and the 9-day sequence is based on the 9-day Lords of the Night cycle. The 8-day sequence,however, does not fit the calendar in any transparent fashion. The probable explanation of its oc-currence lies in the misinterpretation of early Spanish chronicles. Seven-day markets, based onthe European calendar (initially Julian, then Gregorian), appeared after the Conquest. AlthoughEnglish practice states "every seven days" to describe a weekly event, Spanish practice includesthe day the count is begun as well as the day it ends. Thus, "every seven days" is rendered "deocho encho dias," literally every 8 days, but meaning weekly (e.g., Paso y Troncoso 1906:27).This, in conjunction with the absence of any mention of an 8-day market in Molina's (1970) classicNahuatl dictionary, which does refer to 5-, 9-,-, and 20-day markets, and the lack of supportingevidence from sixteenth-entury chronicles and colonial documents, indicates that the 8-daymarket was probably a post-Conquest chimera.The 5-day sequence is not transparent in the Aztec calendar either, but it does constitute abasic unit of time. In the 20-day month, the 4 yearbearer days have a greater significance than theremaining 16 days, each yearbearer beginning a 5-day segment of the month(Sahagpun1957:138-139). Thus, despite not being a formally recognized cycle, as were the 9-, 13-,and 20-day cycles, the 5-day cycle emerges from the way the calendar functioned. The frequencywith which sixteenth-century chroniclers and colonial documents refer to the 5-day market, aswell as its reference in Molina, leave no doubt as to its existence and importance.While it has been established that 1-, 5-, 9-, 13-, and 20-day markets existed, how these fittogether and what they meant is still unclear. That there were articulating periodic markets isrepeatedly supported by the sixteenth-century chronicles and later colonial practices, but theassumption that the 5-, 9-, 13-, and 20-day cycles represent similar market cycles, as the sixteenth-century accounts seem to indicate and as modern scholars have assumed, is misleading. Thesecycles represent two distinct types of marketing sequences.If the 5-, 9-, 13-, and 20-day cycles were actual marketing cycles, as has been assumed, whatwould be the consequences? The use of all these cycles, even at different levels in the marketinghierarchy, would result in adjacent markets meeting on the same day with relative frequency,thus undermining the primary advantage of periodic markets (see Figure 1). Furthermore, suchconflicts would appear to occur irregularly, so that deleting one of the conflicting markets wouldintroduce an undesirable element of randomness into the system. The problem would not arisewith just the 20-day cycle, as it is a regular multiple of the 5-day cycle, but the uneven number ofdays in the 9- and 13-day cycles would lead to numerous conflicts. Although the sequence of theresultant conflict between adjacent markets can be calculated, it is a sophisticated matter involv-ing patterns of 9 and 13 years, respectively. More concretely, the market deletions necessary toavoid conflicts would appear to be irregular.1 Now let us consider what these cycles meant andhow, in fact, they functioned.The 5-day sequence was the basic Mesoamerican marketing unit. A market might be held onany day within the 5-day unit. For example, a town might have its market on the third day of the5-day sequence or twice within the sequence, as was the case in Zapotitlan (Motolinia 1973:110-111), just as we may have a Saturday market, or a Tuesday and Friday market. Daily markets

349


6/11

GALLI (Q8 2


7/11

REPORTS

were a subset of the 5-day market, merely meeting every day to ensure the provisioning of thelargest centers, an example of periodic markets filling up the calendar until there was a con-tinuous market. Note, however, that Tenochtitlan's daily market had a "bulge" in attendance on a5-day schedule (Torquemada 1975:559), as expected (Bromley et al. 1975:536-537). However, theremaining market sequences-9, 13, and 20 days-differed fundamentally from the 5-day se-quence.The 9-, 13-, and 20-day markets were not cycles indicating the temporal spacing of markets.Rather, they were ritual temporal units with markets held on the first day of their respectivecycles, and only on the first day.The 20-day cycle fits the calendar system neatly, but if it actually represented a temporalmarketing unit, so that 20-day markets were held each day somewhere, they would be held on thenemontemi days, an unpropitious time when all nonessential activity was curtailed. Further, theinfrequency of a 20-day market, as well as its spacing between more frequent 5-day markets,argue against its existence as an actual 20-day sequence. Rather than an interval indicating tem-poral market spacing, but not the specific day of the market, the 20-day market means once per20-day month, on the first day. Ixtlilxochitl (1975:283) states that among the Toltecs the 20-daymarket was held on the first day of each month. Given the striking calendrical (Caso 1967) andritual (Caso 1968; Kirchhoff 1968) similarity, if not unity, throughout Mesoamerica, this practiceappears likely to have persisted for that reason as well as for others to be discussed later. Afestival is associated with the 20-day month, but there is a certain amount of debate over whichday the 20-day festival was celebrated, i.e., whether it was the first or the last day of the cycle.Despite Broda's (1969:33) statement that festivals began on the last day of the 20-day month, Ix-tlilxochitl clearly states the market to have been held on the first day of the month. The discrepan-cy is whether it was day 1 or day 20 of the month, and I believe it was probably the former, for itwould then correspond not only to the yearbearer days, but more specifically to the yearbearerdays which denoted the current xiuhpohualli year, making the event allhevent all the more important(Bromley et al. 1975:534). Unfortunately, sixteenth-century sources differ on the subject, somefavoring the last day of the month (Motolinia 1973:25) and some the first (Duran 1967:225;Sahagun 1974:21). (See also the interpretation of the Tovar calendar by Kubler and Gibson[1951:44].)In addition to the support provided by most sixteenth-century sources for the first-day interpre-tation, and the enhanced status of the market falling on a yearbearer day, two additional consid-erations favor a first-day interpretation. First, there is a certain indeterminancy as to when theAztec day began. Caso (1971:345) gives the four logical possibilities as midnight, sunrise, sunset,and noon, settling on the last as the most likely, a conclusion makesheost likely, a conclusion that makes the selection of a specificGregorian day not quite accurate. Second, in the Maya area, festivals "seat" by beginning on theday before the formal festival day (Goubaud Carrera 1935:46). Thus, the conflicting positions mayhave arisen by confusing the festival, variously given as the first and last day of the 20-day cycle,with the market, unambiguously stated as being held on the first day.Data concerning the 9- and 13-day markets are scarcer than those for the 20-day markets, butthe shorter cycles also mark fundamental cyclical units and appear similarly ritual in nature,since they are based on ritually related calendrical units-the 9 Lords of the Night cycle and the13 Lords of the Day cycle-as is the 20-day cycle, in marked contrast with the 5-day cycle. In allprobability, the 9- and 13-day markets also met only on the first day of their respective cycles.Considering the differences in function of these sequences, it is misleading to lump together 5-,9-, 13-, and 20-day markets. Although the 5-day market indicates a temporal unit within whichmarkets were regularly held on any day(s), the same was not true for the 9-, 13-, and 20-daymarkets. Held on the first day of their respective cycles, the latter markets were relatively infre-quent and were uniform throughout the area, corresponding to the dictates of the calendar. Thus,their significance for articulating markets was minimal.

What is the significance of all this for Precolumbian marketing? Knowing the calendrical unitson which a market system is based, if indeed it is a system, does not permit a fortiori deduction of

351


8/11

AMERICAN NTIQUITY

the sequence and articulation of markets. However, it should be obvious that examination of suchunits may reveal something of the temporal structure involved. The frequency of a marketgenerally indicates the population it serves; the larger the population, the more frequent themarket. Thus, daily markets in central Mexico were held in the largest centers, such asTenochtitlan, Texcoco, and Tlaxcala (Torquemada 1975:559; Motolinia 1971:375). Five-daymarkets were the norm for most towns (Torquemada 1975:559; Motolinia 1971:375; G6mara1966:151). However, in towns holding daily markets, the 5-day sequence was cumulative, and the5-day market was larger and more important than the daily one (Casas 1967:366).Which day of the 5-day sequence was the market day in specific towns in unknown. Basicmarket principles would indicate, however, that lower-level markets did not conflict with adja-cent markets of the next higher level, but rather, dovetailed with their schedules, a pattern sup-ported by the extant data. Within the 5-day sequence, the most important day was the yearbearerday. Thus, it is plausible to hold that the main town, or cabecera, of a region held its market daythen, just as, in 1547, the city of Tlaxcala claimed exclusive use of Saturday for its market in thestate of Tlaxcala (Anderson et al. 1976:123). Is there, however, any support for such a pattern,beyond the logic of it? Clavijero (1974:235) recorded the market days for Mexico City (since it hadseveral major markets, this presumably referred to the most important of them-probablyTlatelolco). He lists Mexico City's market days as the third, eighth, thirteenth, and eighteenth daysof the month, not the first, sixth, eleventh, and sixteenth, as one would assume if they were year-bearer days. However, he lists the market days as calli, tochtli, acatl, and tecpatl. Since these arethe yearbearers, it is clear that Clavijero's statement about the third, eighth, thirteenth, and eigh-teenth days refers not to the yearbearers as they function in the system but to their order in the in-digenous conventional sequence. Mexico City's market days did, then, meet on the first, sixth,eleventh, and sixteenth days of the month, the yearbearer days, leaving the remaining days forthe subordinate markets. This supports the theory that major centers held the yearbearer days.Unfortunately, the paucity of marketing data recorded in the indigenous calendrical systemprevents a fuller examination of this issue.

Given articulating markets based on a 5-day sequence and focusing on major markets on year-bearer days, what is the place of the 9-, 13-, and 20-day markets? These markets were most likelynot independent, but cumulative, superimposed on the 5-day sequence much as the 5-day marketis superimposed on the daily markets. Cumulative celebrations were common in the Aztec system(Duran 1967:83, 126). Furthermore, extant documents record the occurrence of 20-day markets inlarger cities rather than in small towns, just as one would expect if they were truly periodicmarkets, their infrequency indicating small population and small consumer demand. The neatestfit with the 5-day markets was by the 20-day market. The 20-day market, held on the first day ofthe month, would have coincided with the first yearbearer of the month. Although the name of thexiuhpohualli year rotated among the four yearbearers, the first yearbearer of each month wasalso the yearbearer after which that 365-day year was named. Presumably, this market waslarger and of more importance than the other markets, including the other yearbearer markets,just as the 5-day market was more important than the daily markets.The 9- and 13-day markets do not fit as neatly into the annual cycle. The 9-day market, if it washeld on the first day of the Lords of the Night, as appears to have been the case (Duran 1967:233-234), would fall on a yearbearer market once every 9 cycles (every 45 days-every 5 cyclesof 9 and every 9 cycles of 5) and on a 20-day/yearbearer market once every 36 cycles, but sincethe 9-day cycle does not fit the annual 365-day cycle evenly, its occurrence varied each yearthroughout a 9-year cycle. The 13-day cycle, likewise, occurred on yearbearer market days onceevery fifth 13-day cycle and on a 20-day/yearbearer market every 260 days, or 20 cycles; andsince it was not evenly divisible by the 365-day year, its schedule varied each year through a13-year cycle. The 13- and 9-day cycles coincide every ninth 13-day cycle or every thirteenth9-day cycle. The lack of better articulation introduces an element of randomness in the system ifthe 9- and 13-day markets are considered fully functional markets like those of the 5-day se-quence. If the 9- and 13-day markets coincided with an existing cycle, as with the 5- and 20-day

352 [Vol. 47, No. 2,1982]


9/11

REPORTS

markets, there would be little difficulty. However, in a sequence of "1 market day-4onmarketdays-1y marketmarkets would not only conflict with neighboring5-day markets but create an additional market too close to the established markets to generateeither demand or produce. For example, in a market system containing five towns, the introduc-tion of an additional market (either 9-day or 13-day) would result in considerable confusion. If alltowns celebrated it, none would attract sufficient numbers to its market. If a single centercelebrated it (most likely the politically dominant center), it would conflic wwith n existing marketelsewhere four out of five times, and it would be temporally near the dominant center's marketfour out of five times, thus reducing either its attraction or that of the conflicting 5-day market.The 9- and 13-day markets were probably celebrated only in those towns whose regular 5-daymarkets coincided with the 9- and 13-day markets. This practice of selective celebration wouldhave been compatible with existing patterns, as it is clear that festivals varied in importancethroughout central Mexico (DurGan 967:32, 72, 125, 189, 270). Only one town in a marketingsystem would celebrate that 9- or 13-day market, making its regular market slightly more impor-tant than it would ordinarily be, and avoiding the economic chaos of every town holding a marketon the ninth and thirteenth days-similar to the way in which the 20-day markets operate.Thus, the system as reflected in the documents, the calendar system, and the logic of marketing,appears to have been one of daily markets in major cities and articulating 5-day markets else-where, with the yearbearer 5-day markets being held in the dominant center of the area. The 9-,13-, and 20-day markets, held on the initial day of their respective cycles, were not celebrated inevery town, but only in those towns with whose market days they coincided. The 20-day marketsmay have been held only in large centers, as evidence of their occurrence in Tulanzingo andHuitzilopochco (Gibson 1964:357) suggests (and also in Toltec Tula, Teotihuacan, Tulancingo,Cuauhnahuac, Cholula, and Tultitlan, according to Vaillant 11966:841),whereas the 9- and 13-daymarkets may have rotated among the various markets of the region. This cumulative marketcelebration permitted special markets to be held without generating chaos in the system. Whatthis does indicate, however, is a marketing region of basically two levels-important centers allholding their markets on the same days, the yearbearers, and their subordinate towns withmarkets on the nonyearbearer days. While it has been shown that use of the 5-, 9-, 13-, and 20-daycycles as periodic marketing cycles would result in apparently irregular conflicts between adja-cent markets, logically, the use of a 5-day cycle alone, with the ritual 9-, 13-, and 20-day cycles be-ing cumulative rather than independent, permits aarketing pattern which would not conflictwith adjacent markets, even if the yearbearer day is reserved for the cabecera.While this consideration of Aztec marketing in light of their calendar system does not present aclear picture of what the entire system was, it does clarify some misleading data. Distinctionsmust be drawn between functional periodic markets (5-day) and ritual markets (9-, 13-, and20-day) and he lockstep nature of bothhese ritual markets and of cabecera yearbearer marketsmust be taken into account. Market articulation above the cabecera level was not a matter ofperiodicity. Further consideration of the Aztec system cannot rely solely on town size as the in-dicator of market importance and articulation, but must take into account market scheduling andseek additional data detailing actual consumer interaction.

NOTEThis is similarto oursituationwith respectto Easter.Easter s celebrated onthe first Sundayafter the fullmoonfollowingthe vernal equinox.In otherwords it is loosely tied to Passover and is set accordingto theJewish lunar calendar. Thus, despite its regularity,Easter appears irregular from the perspective of theGregorian calendar.

Acknowledgments. I would like to express my appreciationto G.WilliamSkinnerand JamesA. Fox forhaving read and helpfully commented on an earlier draft of this paper, and to I. Richard Andrews for assistingme with Nahuatl. The research on which this paper was based was funded by Grant #PRA 57781 from theOrganizationof AmericanStates and by a grantfromthe Departmentof Anthropology, tanfordUniversity.

353


10/11


11/11

REPORTSEPORTS

Smith, Carol A.1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. AnnualReviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regionalanalysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.Smith, Michael E.1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central placeanalysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125.Torquemada, Juan de1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua,Mexico, D.F.Vaillant, George C.1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.

MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES:AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUEJohn E. Clark

Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique ofprismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known ofthese ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluatedand compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de-scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success-fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.

The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in-trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friarsdescribed the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un-workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtreemade a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutchand a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopiedor mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accordwith his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his allegedmisuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric materialhas been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure-blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accordwith the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de-scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources.Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanishchroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of thediscrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.

Smith, Carol A.1974 Economics of marketing systems: models from economic geography. In Annual review of anthro-pology (Vol. 3), edited by Bernard J. Siegel, Alan R. Beals, and Stephen A. Tyler, pp. 167-201. AnnualReviews Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.1976 Regional economic systems: linking geographical models and socioeconomic problems. In Regionalanalysis (Vol. I), edited by Carol A. Smith, pp. 3-63. Academic Press, New York.Smith, Michael E.1979 The Aztec marketing system and settlement pattern in the Valley of Mexico: a central placeanalysis. American Antiquity 44:110-125.Torquemada, Juan de1975 Monarquia indiana (Vol. II). Porrfua,Mexico, D.F.Vaillant, George C.1966 Aztecs of Mexico. Penguin Books, Baltimore.

MANUFACTURE OF MESOAMERICAN PRISMATIC BLADES:AN ALTERNATIVE TECHNIQUEJohn E. Clark

Recent analyses of primary documentary sources have demonstrated that Don Crabtree's technique ofprismatic blade manufacture differs significantly from that of the ancient Mexicans. The most widely known ofthese ethnohistoric descriptions of blademaking, as well as several previously not considered, are reevaluatedand compared to the Crabtree technique. Major discrepancies between the Aztec technique and that de-scribed by Crabtree then became the focus of replication experiments. Finally, prismatic blades were success-fully produced in the manner and with the tool described by the early Spanish friars.

The method used to produce the obsidian blades common at Mesoamerican sites has long in-trigued anthropologists (cf. Courtis 1865; Joly 1883; Stoll 1886; Tylor 1861). Several Spanish friarsdescribed the technique, but contemporary experimentation has shown the descriptions to be un-workable (Barnes 1947; Cabrol and Coutier 1932; Crabtree 1968; Ellis 1940). However, Crabtreemade a breakthrough and was able to produce exact replicas of the blades using a chest crutchand a vise. He suggested that portions of Juan de Torquemada's account may have been miscopiedor mistranslated and, theorfore, he postulated several minor changes which were more in accordwith his own experiments (Crabtree 1968). Crabtree has since been criticized for his allegedmisuse of the ethnohistoric data (Feldman 1971; Fletcher 1970). Additional ethnohistoric materialhas been brought forward in these critiques and, consequently, more descriptions of pressure-blade production are now available. Although Crabtree's technique works, it does not accordwith the evidence now at hand (Sheets 1977:143-144). In this paper an alternative method is de-scribed for making prismatic blades, based upon a reevaluation of the ethnohistoric sources.Previous experimental work will be summarized and compared to the accounts of the Spanishchroniclers. The final portion of the paper will describe a technique that resolves most of thediscrepancies between previous work and the written descriptions.

John E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de lasCasas, Chiapas, MexicoJohn E. Clark, New World Archaeological Foundation-Brigham Young University, San Crist6bal de lasCasas, Chiapas, MexicoCopyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1Copyright ? 1982 by the Society for American Archaeology0002-7316/82/020355-22$2.70/1

35555

periodic markets in precolombian

Documents