0~rlprr
CAN WE READ COSMOLOGY IN ANCIENT MAYA CITY PLANS?
COMMENT ON ASHMORE AND SABLOFF
Michael E. Smith
Argumentsfor the cosmological significance of ancient Maya city layouts are plausible, but empirical applications are subjective and lack rigor. I illustrate this contention through brief comments on a recent article by Ashmore and Sabloff. I first
discuss some of the complexities and pitfalls in studying cosmology from ancient city plans, and then focus on one component of the authors' cosmological model-the hypothesized north-south axis at Classic Maya cities. My goal is not to downplay or rule out the role of cosmology in Maya city planning, but rather to encourage the use of explicit assumptions and
rigorous methods that will provide the study of Maya city planning with a more secure empirical foundation.
Los argumentos para el significado cosmologico de las trazas de las ciudades antiguas mayas son plausibles, pero las aplicaciones empiricas son subjetivas y carecen de rigor Ilustro este idea con unos comentarios sobre un articulo reciente de Ashmore y Sabloff. Primero discuto algunas de las complejidades y problemas en el estudio de la cosmologia basado en los planos
de las ciudades antiguas. Segundo, examino una parte del modelo cosmologico de los autores-el propuesto eje norte-sur en
las ciudades mayas. Mi objetivo no es disminuir ni negar el papel de la cosmologia en la planeaci6n urbana Maya; mds bien
es fomentar el uso de asunciones explicitas y metodos rigurosos para dar al estudio de la planeacion urbana una fundacion
empirica mds segura.
n a recent paper,Ashmore and Sabloff argue
thatthe "positionand arrangementof ancient
Maya buildings and arenas emphatically
expressstatementsaboutcosmology and political
order"(Ashmoreand Sabloff 2002:201); see also
the Spanishversion(Ashmoreand Sabloff 2000).
Given currentunderstandingsof Mesoamerican
cultures-and of ancient urbansocieties in general-it is certainlyplausibleto suggest a role for
thesetwo forcesin theplanningandlayoutof Maya
cities.Personally,I agreewithAshmoreandSabloff
thatcosmology must have played a role in generating the layouts of cities among the Maya and
other Mesoamericansocieties. Nevertheless,the
argumentsthey presentfor the influence of cosmology arevague,weak, andunconvincing.What
kind of a role did cosmology play? How large a
role?Canwe reconstructthatrole?Insteadof presenting rigorous methods for investigating this
issue, the authorsrely upon assertionsand subjective judgmentsbackednot by empiricalevidence
but by uncriticalcitationsof the works of others
who agree with them. In this comment I first
exploresome of the complexitiesof studyingcosmology fromancientcity plans.I thenaddressone
componentof Ashmoreand Sabloff's cosmological model-the hypothesizednorth-southaxis of
Classic Maya cities.
Cosmology And Ancient Urban Planning
The planning and layouts of ancient cities have
long fascinatedarchaeologists,architects,andother
scholars.Site mapsoften suggestthatsome sortof
spatialorderexisted in ancientcities, but scholars
have yet to develop systematicapproachesto the
study of the natureand origin of that order.The
influenceof cosmology,symbolism,andmetaphor
on ancient urbanplans is an especially difficult
topic for archaeologists.Some scholarsare of the
opinionthatsuch researchrevealsmore aboutthe
mindsof modem scholarsthanaboutthe mindsof
the ancients (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1993;
Kemp2000; Prem2000). Forthis reason,research
in this arearequiresrigorousandexplicit methods
Michael E. Smith * Departmentof Anthropology,University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222
(mesmith@c sc.albany.edu)
LatinAmericanAntiquity, 14(2), 2003, pp. 221-228
CopyrightO2003 by the Society for AmericanArchaeology
221
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
222
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
if it is to have credibilitywithinthe archaeological
community.
Threeurbantraditionsof the ancientworldare
particularlynotablein comparativeperspectivefor
the large role played by cosmology in city planning-China, India, and Cambodia.These urban
traditionsshareseveralcharacteristics:the layouts
of numerouscitiesandpublicbuildingswithineach
traditionexhibitclose similarities,thereareancient
textualdescriptionsandimagesof the layoutof the
cosmos, thereareplansanddescriptionsof the layout of the ideal city, and there are ancienttextual
sources stating that rulers deliberatelyfollowed
cosmological models in laying out their capital
cities (forChinasee Chang 1976;Steinhardt1990;
Wheatley 1971; for Indiasee Allchin 1995; Coningham 2000; Spodek and Srinivasan 1993; for
Cambodia see Dumarcay and Royere 2001;
Higham2000, 2002; Mannikka1996).
In an earlierpaperAshmore(1992:173) classifies the Maya with these Asian urbantraditionsas
a culturein which cosmology playeda significant
role in urbanplanning.To me, this does not appear
to be a close fit. Apartfromthe existence of a few
descriptionsof the spatial layout of the cosmos
(mostlyfromPostclassiccodicesandcolonialtexts,
not Classic-periodsources),the traitslisted above
are lackingfor the MayaandotherMesoamerican
urbancultures.The similaritiesamongMayacities
aremuchless strikingthantheresemblancesamong
Chinese, Cambodian,and perhapsIndian cities.
Moreimportantly,thereareno survivingtextsfrom
anywherein Mesoamericathatdescribeidealcities
or theeffortsof kingsto follow cosmologicalmodels in laying out theircapitals.
The Aztec capitalTenochtitlanillustratessome
of the difficultiesinvolved in identifyingthe role
of cosmology in urbanplanning.Althoughthereis
a largecorpusof documentarysourcesonAztechistoryandsociety (Smith2003), thereareonly a few
scrapsof informationdescribingthenatureof urban
planning.There is a largebody of scholarshipon
the role of cosmology (usuallytermed"cosmovision") in the design and meaning of the Templo
Mayorof Tenochtitlan(e.g., Brodaet al. 1987;Carrasco 1991, 1999; L6pez Lujan 1998; Matos
Moctezuma 1995), but this researchrelies almost
exclusively on subjectiveinterpretationsof Aztec
myths and rituals.The Templo Mayor, however,
[Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003]
furnisheswhatmay be the only directevidencefor
the explicit use of astronomicalor cosmological
factorsin the planningand layout of Mesoamerican urban architecture. A statement in the
"MotoliniaInsertno. 1,"a documentpublishedin
FriarMotolinia's(1971:51) Memoriales,suggests
thatMotecuhzomahad partof the TemploMayor
torn down and rebuiltso that the sun would rise
directlyover the temple of Huitzilopochtlion the
equinox.'
Assumingfor the sakeof argumentthatthecosmovision scholars have correctly interpretedthe
cosmological significanceof the Templo Mayor,
can their resultsbe extendedto the whole city of
Tenochtitlan?For some authorsthis is a straightforward interpretation.The passage of the sun
across the sky was one of the most importantelements of Aztec cosmology (e.g., Graulich1997),
and it seems natural to interpretthe east-west
avenuesandalignmentsof Tenochtitlanin termsof
the passage of the sun. As Tenochtitlanis one of
thefew Mesoamericancities withorthogonalplanning,the rolesof cosmology andastronomywould
seem particularlyprominent in its layout (e.g.,
Brodaet al. 1987;Carrasco1999). But thereis an
alternativeinterpretationof the grid layout of the
Aztec capitalfocusing insteadon politicalandhistoricalfactors.Itis clearfromnumerousstudiesthat
the Mexicarulersdrewon images andconceptsof
the ancientClassic-periodmetropolisof Teotihuacanto reinforcetheirimperiallegitimacy(Carrasco
et al. 2000; Lopez Lujan1989;SmithandMontiel
2001; Umberger1987, 1996).Teotihuacanwas an
earlierlargecity not far from Tenochtitlanwhose
orthogonalplanningwould have been obvious to
the Mexica. Given our knowledgeof Mexica attitudestowardTeotihuacan,it wouldmakesense for
theMexicarulersto imitateTeotihuacan'sgridlayoutin planningtheirown capitalTenochtitlan,irrespectiveof any cosmologicalnotionsof theirown.
Or perhapsthe grid layoutof the Aztec capital
hadnothingto do withthepassageof thesunorwith
Teotihuacan,but insteadoriginatedfor reasonsof
energeticefficiency.A gridis the mostefficientlayout for dividing up new land (Carter 1981:151;
Stanislawski1946).Muchof thesurfaceof theisland
cityof Tenochtitlanwasformedby fill broughtfrom
themainland.Theedgesof thecitywerefarmedwith
fieldswitha rectilinearlaychinampas,agricultural
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTS
out(Calnek1974, 1976).It seemslogicalto assume
thatas chinampaswerefilledin to accommodatethe
growingpopulationandprosperityof the city,their
orthogonallayoutwouldinfluenceor determinethe
of lots,buildings,andstreets.Howcan
arrangement
we decidebetweenthe cosmological,political,and
energeticinterpretationsof Tenochtitlan'sgrid? I
haveno answerto thisquestionandmustadmitthat
I have resortedto a hybridexplanationsuggesting
thatall threefactorsprobablyplayeda role in shaping the layout of Tenochtitlan(Smith 1997, 2003:
Chapter8). I do not find this a particularlysatisfying explanation,butI havetroublethinkingof methodsforevaluatingtherelativeimportanceof thethree
factors.
TheAztec case illustratesthe difficultyof inferringthe ideas andintentionsof rulersandbuilders
fromthematerialremainsof urbansites,evenwhen
thereis a corpusof writtendocumentation.
Another
pertinentexampleis thelayoutof InkaCuzco.Several earlychroniclerswrote thatthe imperialcapital had been built in the form of a puma. As
discussedby Hyslop (1990:50-51), it is difficultto
determinetodaywhetherthesewriterswere speaking literallyor metaphorically(see also D'Altroy
2002:114-15). Modern scholars are similarly
divided,some declaringthatthe city does indeed
resemble a puma (Moseley 2001:85; Rowe
1967:60) and others viewing the model as a
metaphor without direct and obvious physical
expression(Hyslop 1990:51;Zuidema1990).GaspariniandMargolies(1980:48)providethreemaps
withalternativespatialmodelsforCuzcoas a puma,
none of which look at all convincingto me.
Gutschow(1993) providesan even more striking examplefrom Bhaktapur,Nepal, a city whose
layout is said by its prieststo conformclosely to
anidealmandalaform.Theactualcity layout,however, looks nothing like the mandala that they
sketchedforGutschow(1993:170).Theseandother
examples in which emic spatialmodels of cities
conflict with actual urban layouts should give
archaeologistspause; we would never be able to
reconstructthe cosmologicalmodelsbehindCuzco
or Bhaktapurin the absence of writtendocumentation.Itis verylikelythatthelayoutsof Mayacities
had symbolicassociationsknownto some or all of
theireliteresidents,butcanwe recoverthosemeanings todaywith confidenceandrigor?
223
It is also instructiveto considerthe inversesituation,in whichapparentlymeaningfulspatialpatterns may have arisen from random factors
unrelatedto anycosmologicalideasof thebuilders.
Kemp(2000), for example,illustratesa simulation
model that generatesurbanspatiallayouts whose
implicationis thatthe apparentlyorderedlayoutof
residential districts at the Egyptian city of
Amama-interpreted by some as evidence for the
influenceof cosmology on urbanplanning may
have ariseninsteadfrom randomfactorsof urban
growth.Similarly,Banning(1996) arguesthatthe
seeminglyplannedandcosmologically significant
layoutsof a numberof ancientNearEasterntowns
could have arisenunintentionallythroughnonlineargrowthdynamics.To returnto theAztec example, it is entirelypossible thatTenochtitlan'sgrid
layout originatedsolely for reasons of energetic
efficiency, and thus we are wasting time today
searchingfor cosmological or political interpretations of that grid. Could the hypothesizednorthsouth axis of Maya sites be anotherexample of a
traitthatarosethroughrandomor stochasticgrowth
processes?Before thatquestioncan be addressed,
we need to determinethe natureof the north-south
axis. Is it an empiricalpatternor a symbolic construct?
Do Classic Maya City Plans
Have a North-South Axis?
The existence of some sort of north-southpattern
is a majorpartof Ashmore and Sabloff's cosmological model. Among Ashmore's statementsof
her views on city layout and cosmology, she lists
"a strongly markednorth-southaxis" (Ashmore
1989:273, 1992:174) as one of the "fiveprincipal
components"(1992:174) of the Classic Mayacosmologicaltemplate.Inanotherarticleshe describes
this principle as "emphaticreference to a northsouthaxisin siteorganization(Ashmore1991:200),
andin therecentpaper,AshmoreandSabloff(2002)
writeof north-south"axialdominance"(p.203) and
of a "pronouncednorth-southaxis" (p. 206). Just
whatdoes this mean?The fact thatAshmore'sfive
principles(1989:273, 1992:174) combine empirical spatialpatternsof architecture(e.g., architectural groups that form triangles) with symbolic
interpretations(e.g., "northstandsfor the celestial
supernatural
sphere")confusesthe question.Is the
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
224
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
north-southaxis anempiricalphenomenon-something that archaeologists can identify from site
maps-or is it a symbolic constructused to interpret site maps?
My own understandingof the north-southprinciple,baseduponreadingAshmore'sarticles(1989,
1991, 1992), is thatit is meantto be an empirical
patternthat once identifiedat a site, can be given
symbolic content through reference to external
informationon Maya cosmology (from sources
like the Popol Vuh).Butthiscauses problems-for
me, at least-because I cannotseem to findthepattern in the site maps publishedby Ashmore. She
says that the cosmological template (which
includes the north-southaxis) "can be seen most
easily atTikal,andthere,mostreadilyin thefamous
TwinPyramidgroups"(1992:194).To me, theeastwest axis in twin pyramidgroupsseems stronger,
or at least more prominent,than the north-south
axis. As for the overallplan of Tikal, I do not see
any dominantcardinal(or other)axis.
Ashmorealso illustratesher model with maps
of Cerros,Quirigua,Copan,andGualjoquito.Perhaps there is some kind of north-south axis at
Quirigua,but I fail to see the patternin the other
site maps.I findherdiscussionof Gualjoquitoparticularlypuzzling.She comparesthe site to Copan,
asserting that both have a north-south linear
arrangementof a publicplaza, a ballcourt,andan
enclosed compound (1989:281, 1992:181). At
Gualjoquitothislinearpatternrunseast-west,however, and Ashmore claims that the pattern is
"skewedcounterclockwise"(1989:281). At what
point does a skewed north-southaxis become an
east-westaxis?
Perhapsotherscan see north-southaxes atthese
andotherMaya sites, butI am biasedor incapable
of seeing them. I wrote my undergraduatethesis
on Teotihuacanand lived in San JuanTeotihuacan
my first summerin Mexico. I readily admit that
Teotihuacan looms large in my thinking about
Mesoamericancities. In my mind,Teotihuacanis
a site with a "stronglymarked"or "pronounced"
north-southaxis. Perhapsthis "Teotihuacanbias"
blindsme to moresubtlespatialpatterningat Classic Maya sites. PerhapsI simply do not have the
perceptualor cognitive ability to see north-south
axes at the Maya sites. Or maybethe emperorhas
no clothes;maybethereareno clearlydiscernable
[Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003]
north-southaxes at these sites. My readingof Ashmore'sarticlescouldbe in errorandthenorth-south
axis a symbolicconstruct,not anempiricalpattern.
If this lattersuggestionis correct,it is not at all
clearjust how one goes aboutapplyingthe model.
AshmoreandSabloffdo notprovideenoughinformation on how to select particularstructuresor
groupsthatcan be given a north-southcosmological interpretation. In one article Ashmore
(1989:274) suggests that the cosmological templatecanapplyto "thepairingof open,publicgathering spaces on the north with enclosed, private
(residential/administrative)
groups on the south."
Does anycase of a plazalocatedsomewherenorth
of an elite residentialcompoundfit the model?Do
the featureshave to be contiguous?Do they have
to be the largest plaza and compound at a site?
Does thissymbolismreferto certainkindsof plazas
and compoundsbut not others?
Severalof the site mapspublishedin the recent
article (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002:206-207) do
seem to have north-southaxes.These arenotcomplete site maps, but ratherplans of key groups
selected from the overall site maps to illustratea
emu(quitereasonable)suggestionof architectural
lationamongsites.Thearchitectural
groupsdepicted
at Xunantunich,Naranjo,and Calakmuldo appear
to sharesomespatialcharacteristics,
althoughwe are
not told exactly what is similaror differentabout
theseplansotherthan"thepronouncednorth-south
axis arguablylinkedto royalauthorityandcontinuity"(2002:206).The Spanishversionof the article
(AshmoreandSabloff2000)includesmorecomplete
site plansof XunantunichandNaranjo,butas in the
cases of the sites mentionedabove, I have trouble
seeing clear north-southaxes in these maps. The
east-westaxis-at Xunantunichat least-seems to
me equallyprominent.InFigureI I presentmy own
mapsof selectedbuildingsfromthosesiteplansthat
highlightwhat appearto be pronouncedeast-west
axes.At Xunantunicha constructedcausewayruns
east-westto join the centralplazaon the east side,
and whatappearsto be a clearedeast-westavenue
runsfromStructureA-21
tojointheplazaon thewest
side. At Naranjo,an east-westcorridoror axis of
extendsfromthetallpyramajorpublicarchitecture
mids on the east throughseveralplazasand buildings, including a large platform and a series of
enclosuresadjacentto a bajoon the west side.
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTS
225
Figure 1. Plans suggesting possible east-west orientations at Maya cities: A) Xunantunich (modified after Ashmore and
Sabloff 2000:Figure 4); B) Naranjo (modified after Ashmore and Sabloff 2000:Figure 5). I make no claims for cosmological or other significance for these plans.
I freely admitto selectingout only those buildings thatfit my preconceivedgoal of definingeastwest axes atXunantunichandNaranjo,andI claim
no cosmological(orother)significancefortheplans
in Figure 1. These are perverse fantasy figures
whose sole purposeis to challengeAshmore and
Sabloffto clarifytheirmethodsandproceduresof
analysis.I am surethatAshmoreandSabloffused
more rigorouscriteriain creatingtheir Figures 4
and5 fromthe samebasemapsthatI used.Butwhat
are those criteria?The readerneeds to know.And
what is the empiricalbasis for the judgmentthat
the plans of architecturalgroups at Xunantunich,
Naranjo,and Calakmul-or Copan and Gualjoquito-are similar?Whatwould have to be differentto concludethatthesegroupswerenot similar?2
Justhow does one decidethata complicatedurban
north-south(oreast-west)
planhas a "pronounced"
axis? Are there degrees of adherenceto an ideal
north-south model? Do Xunantunich and
Naranjo-or Tikal and Copan-fit the model
closely, or do they only beara vague resemblance
to it? Because the authorsfail to presentobjective
methodsor criteriafor comparison,theirinterpretationssoundhighly subjective.
Analyses of the role of cosmology in ancient
urbanplanningdo not have to be vague and subjective. UrbanplannerKevinLynch(1981:73-81)
discusses ancientChinese, Indian,and other patternsof urbanplanningunderthe label of an emic
"theoryof magical correspondences"and identifies a numberof cross-culturalarchitectural
expressions of that cosmological model (Table 1).
Environmental psychologist Amos Rapoport
(1993) discusses a similar cosmological model,
drawing upon a much-cited passage in Eliade
(1959:5-12). Ratherthanpresenta singlecross-culmanifestationslike Lynch,
turalset of architectural
Rapoportapplies the conceptualmodel to a variety of ancientcities and describesits architectural
expressionsin referenceto individualcases (Table
1). Similarly,studies of the expressionof ancient
politicalideologiesin urbanplansby archaeologists
(e.g., Blanton 1989; DeMarrais2001; Prem2000)
present specific architecturaland spatial features
as possible manifestationsof state or elite ideologies.
Compared to such works, Ashmore and
Sabloff'scosmologicalmodellacksspecificityand
rigor,largely because the materialexpressionsof
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
226
LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY
[Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003]
149-158. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado.
2001 Skywatchers. 2nd ed. University of Texas Press,
Austin.
(1993:43-52):
(1981:75-79):
Rapoport
Lynch
Aveni,AnthonyF., EdwardE. Calnek,and HorstHartung
axial line of procession
1988 Myth,Environmentandthe Orientationof theTemplo
city walls with gates
AmericanAntiquity53:287-309.
Mayorof Tenochtitlan.
encircling enclosure with gates orientationto the
cardinaldirections
Banning,E. B.
1996 Patternor Chaos? New Ways of Looking at "Town
vertical markersat the
dominanceof up versus down
Planning"in the Ancient Near East. In Debating Comcenter
Proceedingsof the 26th Annual ChacmoolConplexity:
open sacred plazas
grid layout
ference, editedby DanielA. Meyer,PeterC. Dawsonand
tombs in key locations
bilateral symmetry
DonaldT. Hanna,pp. 510-518. ArchaeologicalAssociaNote: These featuresdo not exhaust either author'slists of
tion of the Universityof Calgary,Calgary.
architecturalexpressions.
Blanton,RichardE.
1989 Continuityand Change in PublicArchitecture:Periods I throughV of theValleyof Oaxaca,Mexico.InMonte
theircosmological and politicalmodels are vague
Alban'sHinterland,Part II: PrehispanicSettlementPatterns in Tlacolula,Etla, and Ocotlan, the Valleyof Oaxorunspecified.Inearlierpublicationson thistheme,
aca, Mexico,editedby StephenA. Kowalewski,GaryM.
Ashmorewas carefulto label herconclusionsproFeinman,LauraFinsten,RichardE. BlantonandLindaM.
visionalandexploratory.Now,tenyearslater,AshNicholas, pp. 409-447. Memoirs, vol. 23. Museum of
more and Sabloff (2002:202) againstatethattheir
Anthropology,Universityof Michigan,AnnArbor.
work is "provisional."But until they devise more Broda, Johanna, David Carrasco, and Eduardo Matos
Moctezuma
objective methods with a firmer grounding in
1987 TheGreatTempleofTenochtitlan:Centerand Periphery in the Aztec World.University of CaliforniaPress,
empiricaldata,theargumentforcosmologicalprinBerkeley.
ciples in Maya urbanplanningwill remainweak, Calnek,
EdwardE.
speculative,and provisional.
1974 Conjuntourbanay modelo residencialen Tenochtitlan.InEnsayossobreel desanrllourbanode Mexico,edited
References Cited
by WoodrowBorah,pp. 11-65. Secretariade Educacci6n
Piblica, Mexico City.
Allchin, F. Raymond(editor)
1976 The InternalStructureof Tenochtitlan.In The Valley
1995 TheArchaeologyof Early Historic SouthAsia: The
of Mexico:Studiesof Pre-HispanicEcology and Society,
Emergenceof Cities and States. CambridgeUniversity
edited by Eric R. Wolf, pp. 287-302. Universityof New
Press, New York.
Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Andrews,George F.
1975 Maya Cities: Placemakingand Urbanization.Uni- Carrasco,David
1991 ToChangePlace:AztecCeremonialLandscapes.Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman.
versityPressof Colorado,Boulder.
Ashmore,Wendy
1999 City of Sacrifice:TheAztec Empireand the Role of
1989 Constructionand Cosmology: Politics and Ideology
Violencein Civilization.Beacon Press, Boston.
in LowlandMayaSettlementPatterns.In Wordand Image
in Maya Culture:Explorationsin Language,Writing,and Carrasco,David,LindsayJones, and Scott Sessions (editors)
2000 Mesoamerica'sClassic Heritage:FromTeotihuacan
Representation,edited by William F. Hanks and Don S.
to the Aztecs.UniversityPressof Colorado,Boulder.
Rice, pp. 272-286. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake
Carter,Harold
City.
1981 The Study of Urban Geography. 3rd ed. Edward
1991 Site-PlanningPrinciplesand Conceptsof DirectionArnold,London.
alityAmong the AncientMaya.LatinAmericanAntiquity
Chang,Kwang-Chih
2:199-226.
1976 Towns and Cities in Ancient China.In AncientChi1992 DecipheringMayaArchitecturalPlans. In New Thenese Civilization:AnthropologicalPerspectives,editedby
ories on theAncientMaya, edited by Elin C. Danienand
Kwang-ChihChang,pp.61-71. HarvardUniversityPress,
RobertJ. Sharer,pp. 173-184. UniversityMuseumMonoCambridge.
graph,vol. 77. UniversityMuseum,Universityof PennConingham,Robin
sylvania,Phildelphia.
2000 ContestatoryUrbanTexts or Were Cities in South
A.
and
Sabloff
Ashmore,Wendy,
Jeremy
Asia Builtas Images?CambridgeArchaeological
Journal
2000 El ordende espacio en los planes civicos mayas. In
10:348-354.
Arquitecturae ideologia de los aniguos mayas: memoria
de la SegundaMesa Redondade Palenque,editedby Sil- D'Altroy,TerenceN.
2002 TheIncas. Blackwell,Oxford.
via Trejo,pp. 15-34. InstitutoNacionalde Antropologia
DeMarrais,Elizabeth
e Historia,Mexico City.
2001 The Architectureand Organizationof XauxaSettle2002 SpatialOrdersin MayaCivic Plans.LatinAmerican
ments. In Empireand DomesticEconomy,editedby TerA
_101
215.
ntiquity
ence
N. D'Altroyand ChristineA. Hastorf,pp. 115-153.
Aveni,AnthonyF.
Plenum,New York.
1992 Moctezuma'sSky: Aztec Astronomyand Ritual. In
Moctezuma'sMexico: Visionsof the Aztec World,edited Dumarcay,Jacques,and PascalRoyere
2001 CambodianArchitecture,Eighth to ThirteenthCenby David Carrascoand EduardoMatos Moctezuma,pp.
Table 1. ArchitecturalExpressionsof Cosmological
Symbolism in Ancient Cities.
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
COMMENTS
turies. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Three,
South-EastAsia, vol. 12. Brill, Leiden.
Eliade,Mircea
1959 CosmosandHistory:TheMythof theEternalReturn.
Translatedby WilliardR. Trask.Harperand Row, New
York.
Flannery,KentV., andJoyce Marcus
1993 CognitiveArchaeology.CambridgeArchaeological
Journal3:260-270.
Gasparini,Graziano,andLuise Margolies
1980 IncaArchitecture.
Translatedby PatriciaJ. Lyon.Indiana UniversityPress,Bloomington.
Graulich,Michel
1997 Mythsof AncientMexico. Translatedby BernardR.
Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz de Montellano.
Universityof OklahomaPress,Norman.
Gutschow,Niels
1993 Bhaktapur:SacredPatternsof a Living UrbanTradition.In UrbanFormandMeaningin SouthAsia:TheShaping of CitiesfromPrehistoricto PrecolonialTimes,edited
by Howard Spodek and Doris Meth Srinivasan, pp.
163-183. Studies in the History of Art, Center for
AdvancedStudyin theVisualArts,SymposiumPapersXV,
vol. 31. NationalGalleryof Art,Washington,DC.
Higham,Charles
2000 The Symbolismof theAngkorianCity.In:Viewpoint:
WereCities Built as Images?CambridgeArchaeological
Journal 10:355-357.
2002 The Civilizationof Angkor.Universityof California
Press,Berkeley.
Hyslop, John
1990 InkaSettlementPlanning.Universityof TexasPress,
Austin.
Kemp,BarryJ.
2000 BricksandMetaphor.In:Viewpoint:WereCitiesBuilt
as Images? Cambridge Archaeological Journal
10:335-346.
L6pez Lujan,Leonardo
1989 La recuperaci6nmexica del pasado teotihuacano.
InstitutoNacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico
City.
1998 Recreatingthe Cosmos:SeventeenAztec Dedication
Caches. In The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination,
in theArchaeologicaland
Dedication,and Transformation
EthnographicRecordof Mesoamerica,editedby Shirley
Boteler Mock, pp. 177-188. Universityof New Mexico
Press,Albuquerque.
Lynch,Kevin
1981 A Theoryof Good CityForm.MITPress,Cambridge.
Mannikka,Eleanor
1996 AngkorWat:Time,Space, and Kingship.University
of HawaiiPress, Honolulu.
MatosMoctezuma,Eduardo
1995 Life and Death in the TemploMayor.Translatedby
BernardR. Ortizde MontellanoandThemlaOrtizde Montellano.UniversityPress of Colorado,Boulder.
Maudslay,AlfredP.
1913 A Note on the PositionandExtentof the GreatTemple Enclosureof Tenochtitlanandthe Position,Structure,
and Orientation of the Teocalli of Huitzilopochtli
(Abstract).In Proceedings, 18th InternationalCongress
ofAmericanists(London,1912), vol. 1, pp. 173-175. Harrison and Sons, London.
Moseley, MichaelE.
2001 TheIncas and TheirAncestors:TheArchaeologyof
Peru.Revised ed. Thamesand Hudson,New York.
227
Motolinia,FrayToribiode Benavente
1971 Memoriales,o librode las cosas de la NuevaEspana
y de los naturalesde ella. Editedby EdmundoO'Gorman.
UniversidadNacionalAut6nomade Mexico, Mexico City.
Prem,HannsJ.
2000 LDetrasde que esquina se esconde la ideologia? In
Arquitecturae ideologia de los aniguos mayas: memoria
de la SegundaMesa Redondade Palenque,editedby Silvia Trejo,pp. 55-70. InstitutoNacional de Antropologia
e Historia,Mexico City.
Rapoport,Amos
1993 On the Natureof CapitalsandTheirPhysicalExpression. In CapitalCities, Les Capitales:PerspectivesInternationales, International Perspectives, edited by John
Taylor,JeanG. LengelleandCarolineAndrew,pp. 31-67.
CarletonUniversityPress, Ottawa.
Rowe, JohnH.
1967 WhatKind of a Settlementwas Inca Cuzco?Nawpa
Pacha 5:59-77.
1977 Archaeoastronomyin Mesoamericaand Peru.Latin
AmericanResearchReview 14(2):227-233.
Smith,Michael E.
1997 City Planning:Aztec City Planning.In Encyclopaedia of theHistoryofNon-WesternScience,Technology,and
Medicine,edited by Helaine Selin, pp. 200-202. Kluwer
Academic,Dordrecht.
2003 TheAztecs. 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford.
Smith,Michael E., and Lisa Montiel
2001 The ArchaeologicalStudy of Empiresand Imperialism in PrehispanicCentralMexico. Journalof Anthropological Archaeology20:245-284.
Spodek,Howard,and Doris Meth Srinivasan(editors)
1993 UrbanFormand Meaning in SouthAsia: The Shaping of Citiesfrom Prehistoricto PrecolonialTimes.Studies in the Historyof Art,CenterforAdvancedStudyin the
Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XV, vol. 31. National
Galleryof Art,Washington,DC.
Stanislawski,Dan
1946 TheOriginandSpreadof theGridPatternTown.GeographicalReview36:105-120.
Steinhardt,Nancy S.
1990 ChineseImperialCityPlanning.Universityof Hawaii
Press, Honolulu.
Umberger,Emily
1987 Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in
Aztec Art.RES:AnthropologyandAesthetics 13:62-105.
1996 Art and ImperialStrategyin Tenochtitlan.In Aztec
ImperialStrategies,editedby FrancesF. Berdanet al., pp.
85-106. DumbartonOaks,Washington,DC.
Wheatley,Paul
1971 ThePivotofthe FourQuarters:A PreliminaryEnquiry
into the Originsand the Characterof theAncientChinese
City.Aldine, Chicago.
Zuidema,R. Tom
1990 Inca Civilizationin Cuzco.Universityof TexasPress,
Austin.
Notes
1. The statementin the Motolinia Insertno. 1 (published
in Motolinfa 1971:50-54) was first noted by Maudslay
(1913:175), who stated,"Motolinfasays thatthe festivalcalled
Tlacaxipeualistli'took place when the sun stood in the middle
of Huichilobos,which was at the equinox, and because it was
a little out of the straight,Montezumawished to pull it down
and set it right' " (quotationfrom Rowe 1977:229; the Span-
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
228
LATINAMERI
ANANTIQUITY
ICA
ish originalis in Motolinia1971:51).This quote,whose importance for the studyof Mesoamericanastronomicalalignments
is obvious, has been much discussed in the literature.Maudslay's interpretationis acceptedby Aveni (2001:236-238), and
Aveni et al. (1988:290, 294-295), who analyze the natureof
the likely observationalpracticesin relationto the architecture
of the Templo Mayor. Rowe (1977:229-230), on the other
hand,expresses reservationsaboutMaudslay'sinterpretation.
HannsPrem(personalcommunication2002) follows Rowe and
suggests that two separate issues may be conflated in the
Motolinia Insert: whether Tlacaxipehualiztli fell on the
equinox,andthe meaningof the obscurestatementthatthe sun
was "inthe middleof Huichilobos"(whichMaudslayandAveni
interpretas meaningthatthesunrosebehindthe Huitzilopochtli
templeon the TemploMayor).AnthonyAveni (personalcom-
[Vol.14, No. 2, 2003]
munication2002), acknowledgesRowe's andPrem'sreservations but prefershis own publishedinterpretation.AlthoughI
am hesitant to venturevery far into the realm of archaeoastronomy,Aveni's interpretationseems to me the most logical
one. I thankHannsPremandAnthonyAvenifor theiropinions
and citationson this issue.
2. Anothersimilarityin site plandiscussedby Ashmoreand
Sabloff focuses on Sayil and Labna (2002:207-208). Prem
(2000:66) points out disagreementover the degreeof similarity of these site plans, however. He contrastsAshmore and
Sabloff's (2000) views withthose of Andrews(1975:326),who
finds "almostno consistency in theirgeneralconfigurations."
ReceivedAugust 21, 2002; Accepted October22, 2002.
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Sat, 7 Sep 2013 16:11:51 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions