Urbanization in both Mesoamerica and the Andes began at similar times. However, these urban centers have similarities, they are also different in extremely important ways. These differences can be seen through examining trade, political/religious structure, and building techniques of the areas. Ways of trading in these urban areas differ, but are similar in that they all participated in long-distance trade. In Teotihuacan, the government required that tribute be given by provinces. Trade was done in markets, where the government only taxed citizens who were entering the area. Otherwise, things were fairly hands off. Maya city-states interacted with one another through political ties, creating allies for their ‘cold war.’ It can be inferred
…show more content…
Quilter mentions that in South America, the three main horizon groups did not differentiate government and religion. From looking at the cases in Mesoamerica, it seems that the Maya and Teotihuacanos operated under similar beliefs. In Teotihuacan, collectivism was central to ideology, meaning that there was no singular king, but a group of rulers. These rulers most likely controlled religion, and therefore production of incense burners. The Mayas had divines kings known as aj’aws. Maya kinds were the center of power politically and religiously, due to their divine status. Kings were so important, that the majority of their writing system inscribed the dynastic line of kings for specific city-states. The Moche used ritualized means, such as elites dressing up as gods to reenact religious events, to reinforce their power. Tiahuanacos most likely had kings who doubled as priests, basing their religion on duality and ritual. The same can be said for the Wari, whom Quilter hypothesizes had the same religious system as Tiwanaku. Both the Wari and Tiwanaku used their new religious views to draw people towards their culture, and to grow their states. Although all of these cultures had different ways of running their cities and states, they all created large territories, and complex
Quilter mentions that in South America, the three main horizon groups did not differentiate government and religion. From looking at the cases in Mesoamerica, it seems that the Maya and Teotihuacanos operated under similar beliefs. In Teotihuacan, collectivism was central to ideology, meaning that there was no singular king, but a group of rulers. These rulers most likely controlled religion, and therefore production of incense burners. The Mayas had divines kings known as aj’aws. Maya kinds were the center of power politically and religiously, due to their divine status. Kings were so important, that the majority of their writing system inscribed the dynastic line of kings for specific city-states. The Moche used ritualized means, such as elites dressing up as gods to reenact religious events, to reinforce their power. Tiahuanacos most likely had kings who doubled as priests, basing their religion on duality and ritual. The same can be said for the Wari, whom Quilter hypothesizes had the same religious system as Tiwanaku. Both the Wari and Tiwanaku used their new religious views to draw people towards their culture, and to grow their states. Although all of these cultures had different ways of running their cities and states, they all created large territories, and complex