Shifting Patterns of Obsidian Exchange in Postclassic Oaxaca, Mexico

Abstract

In this paper, we present a diachronic analysis of obsidian procurement patterns during the Postclassic period in the Lower Río Verde region of Oaxaca. The study is based on x-ray fluorescence (XRF) and visual analysis of obsidian artifacts from excavated household contexts at Early Postclassic (a.d. 800-1100) Río Viejo and Late Postclassic (a.d. 1100-1522) Tututepec (Yucu Dzaa). We report the presence of at least six sources of obsidian imported to the lower Río Verde region in the Early Postclassic, whereas during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries of the Late Postclassic, the local assemblage was dominated by obsidian from Pico de Orizaba and Pachuca. Changes in obsidian procurement patterns in the lower Río Verde region through time are interpreted in light of sociopolitical change at the local, regional, and macroregional scales. The study represents the most detailed analysis of Postclassic period obsidian exchange yet reported from Oaxaca.

Political Transformations and the Everyday in Postclassic Oaxaca

“…The size and form of the buildings in both areas were virtually identical, and the relatively modest architecture and burial offerings indicate commoner status. Imported goods included obsidian recovered from both excavation areas (King 2008;Levine et al 2011), as well as two greenstone beads, a small turquoise pendant, pieces of pumice, and fragments of at least two alabaster vessels from Operation A ( Figure 11). Recent excavations in the western end of the acropolis have exposed additional low platforms dating to the very end of the Late Classic or the beginning of the Postclassic period, and these appear similar in size and form to those of Operations A and B (Barber and Joyce 2012).…”

“…These opportunities ushered in a host of changes in domestic life, especially those related to ritual and economic practices (Hedgepeth 2009;Hedgepeth Balkin et al 2014;Joyce et al 2001;King 2003King , 2011Levine et al 2011). These opportunities ushered in a host of changes in domestic life, especially those related to ritual and economic practices (Hedgepeth 2009;Hedgepeth Balkin et al 2014;Joyce et al 2001;King 2003King , 2011Levine et al 2011).…”

“…Residential excavations at Río Viejo along with regional survey data indicate that during the Early Postclassic period (a.d. 800-1100) commoners took advantage of the absence of regional authority to gain greater control over surplus craft products, especially cotton thread, as well as access to social valuables and long-distance trade networks (Hedgepeth 2009(Hedgepeth , 2010Joyce et al 2001; King 2003King , 2008King , 2011. Yet household excavations show that Late Postclassic commoners continued to control some surplus craft production and had access to social valuables like copper and polychrome pottery via market exchange (Levine 2007(Levine , 2011. These economic and ritual practices were part of the everyday social setting in which new ruling dynasties emerged.…”

“…We view social change as the outcome of negotiations among actors and coalitions with varying identities, interests, and worldviews (see also Hodder and Cessford 2004;Hutson 2010;Janusek 2004;Joyce 2010;Joyce et al 2001;Joyce and Lopiparo 2005;King 2006King , 2011Levine 2011;Pauketat 2001;Robin 2002;Yaeger 2003). We view social change as the outcome of negotiations among actors and coalitions with varying identities, interests, and worldviews (see also Hodder and Cessford 2004;Hutson 2010;Janusek 2004;Joyce 2010;Joyce et al 2001;Joyce and Lopiparo 2005;King 2006King , 2011Levine 2011;Pauketat 2001;Robin 2002;Yaeger 2003).…”

“…Scholars both within and across these two perspectives differ in a number of important ways including how rationality is addressed (Blanton and Fargher 2008:15-18; Levi 1981Levi , 1988Ortner 1984: 151-152); issues of methodological individualism (Giddens 1979: 94-95;Levi 1988:8;Ortner 1996); the degree to which social negotiations involve strategic action and intentionality, especially by elites (Blanton and Fargher 2008;Levi 1988;Ortner 2006: 134-137); and the degree to which cultural knowledge and material resources are considered to be distinct (Appadurai 1986;Blanton and Fargher 2008;Giddens 1984;Sewell 1992). In addition, even though archaeologists have been drawing on these theorists for more than three decades and are increasingly invoking social negotiation as an important concept, we see relatively few sophisticated case studies that have successfully applied this concept with well supported empirical data from the archaeological record (Fargher et al 2010;Janusek 2004;Joyce 2010;Levine 2011;Yaeger 2003). Despite their disparate theoretical foundations, we see an underlying similarity in the arguments of these two perspectives, which incorporate an understanding of political life in complex societies as historically and culturally contingent and as an outgrowth of negotiation among people and groups with divergent interests, identities, and power (see Barber 2013a, 2013b).…”