Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WDS::$front_url is deprecated in /home2/ppcteoti/public_html/wp-content/plugins/slider-wd/slider-wd.php on line 113
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WDS::$site_url_placeholder is deprecated in /home2/ppcteoti/public_html/wp-content/plugins/slider-wd/slider-wd.php on line 89
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WDS::$site_url_buttons_placeholder is deprecated in /home2/ppcteoti/public_html/wp-content/plugins/slider-wd/slider-wd.php on line 90
Warning: Constant automattic\jetpack\extensions\social_previews\FEATURE_NAME already defined in /home2/ppcteoti/public_html/wp-content/plugins/jetpack/extensions/blocks/social-previews/social-previews.php on line 14 Plaza of the Columns Complex - Archaeological Project, Teotihuacan, Mexico
The exhibition “Ancient Mexico: Maya, Aztec and Teotihuacan” was inaugurated at the Tokio National Museum. This temporary exhibition was managed and curated by Dr. Saburo Sugiyama and will last until September 3rd 2023.
Teotihuacan was one of the most influential cities in Mesoamerica, and descriptions of its grandeur during its occupation from around 100 BCE to 550 CE have been frequently mentioned in literature. At its height, the metropolis had between 75,000 to 125,000 inhabitants and extended over an area of some 20 km2 (7.72 mi2). The biggest building in the city, the Sun Pyramid, stands at 63 m (206.69 ft) tall with each of the four sides of its base measuring 222 m (730.64 ft).
So, why all these numbers and figures? Well, get ready because the point to this blog entry is to break down these numbers and compare them with other cities, monuments, and areas around the world so you can have a better understanding of (and appreciation for) the impressive dimensions of the Teotihuacan metropolis.
Years of occupation: 100 BCE-550 CE
Fact: Learning about history is much more interesting than memorizing dates. However, dates are useful for understanding the relative timeframe between which certain events occurred. Teotihuacan was occupied thousands of years ago for centuries. How long ago was that? What was happening in other parts of the world at that time?
The city of Teotihuacan lasted a duration for about 650 years. If we are living in 2021 (21st century), the year 1371 (14th century) was 650 years ago. The Black Death hit Europe, and Dante Alighieri wrote the Divine Comedy during that century. If you think about how much time has passed and how the world has been transformed since then, you will understand that 650 years was a long time, indeed.
According to the chart below, which summarizes the estimated dates for the ceramic phases of Teotihuacan (Cowgill 2015), the city was seemingly occupied from the Patlachique to the Late Xolalpan phases with its collapse beginning around 550 CE (Manzanilla 2018:213-215). If you want to learn more about ceramics and chronology, visit the Relative Chronology section.
Phase
Time period
Patlachique
100-1 BCE
Tzacualli
1-100 CE
Miccaotli
100-170 CE
Early Tlamimilolpa
170-250 CE
Late Tlamimilolpa
250-350 CE
Early Xolalpan
350-450 CE
Late Xolalpan
450-550 CE
Metepec
550-650 CE
What about Europe? What was going on during that period? The rise of Teotihuacan (Patlachique phase) roughly corresponds with the beginning of the Roman Empire, spanning between 27 BC and 476 CE (Britannica 2021). By the time we reached the 6th century when Teotihuacan was abandoned, the Early Middle Ages were beginning.
Estimated population: ca. 75,000-125,000 inhabitants
If there were any population records taken back in the day, they were not preserved in Teotihuacan. Therefore, we do not know the exact number of people that lived in the city. Archaeologists have, however, calculated an estimated figure. René Millon (1973:44-45)[1] estimated that there were between 75,000 and 125,000 people in Teotihuacan at its height. Comparatively, in 2017 the city of Bruges in Belgium had 118,284 inhabitants (UrbiStat s.f.). This might seem like a small number compared to the biggest cities at present, but think of it like this: Teotihuacan was the biggest city in the Western Hemisphere (Cowgill 2015:1) and the sixth largest city in the world (Millon 1994:17) (Figure 1).
[1] There are other more recent and less generous calculations (e.g., Cowgill 2015), but Millon’s estimate is used here to be consistent with the map in Figure 1.
The main area the public can visit in Teotihuacan’s archaeological site is the city’s ceremonial center which stretches across an area of 2.4 km2 (0.92 mi2) (INAH 2021) (Figures 2 and 3). To put this number in perspective, the country of Monaco in Western Europe measures 2 km2 (0.77 mi2) (Viajes NG 2021) and New York’s Central Park measures 3.41 km2 (1.31 mi2) (Britannica 2020). Even further, the area that tourists frequent is only a small percentage (around 12%) of the maximum extent of the city (20 km2 or 7.72 mi2) (Millon 1973:xi), which is comparable to the Republic of Nauru (21 km2 or 8.2 mi2), an island country in Micronesia (Viajes NG 2021).
Figure 2. Teotihuacan’s Archaeological Zone (taken from INAH 2021).Figure 3. Photos of Teotihuacan’s archaeological site taken from a hot air balloon: a) northern region including the Moon Pyramid and part of the Plaza of the Columns Complex, b) southern region including the Ciudadela and the Great Compound. The border of the archaeological site is shown in orange with contemporary towns located on top of the ancient city.
Dimensions of the Sun Pyramid
Approximate Height: 63 m (206.69 ft); Base: side length: 222 m (728.34 ft); area: 49,248 m2 (530,101.06 ft2) (Sugiyama 1993:112).
While Teotihuacan’s biggest monument is the Sun Pyramid, we actually do not know its original height because it has suffered many natural and human destruction over the centuries and consequently several reconstructions along the way (admittedly not always completely accurate). In the present day, however, the pyramid measures 63 m (206.69 ft) (Sugiyama 1993:112). In comparison, the Mahabodhi Temple in India (55 m or 180.44 ft) (Britannica 2019) and the Leaning Tower of Pisa in Italy (56.67 m or 185.92 ft) (Leaning Tower of Pisa 2021) are similar in height.
From these numbers, the Sun Pyramid is still more massive than these two monuments. Each of its sides measures 222 m (728.34 ft) with an area of 49,248 m2 (530,101.06 ft2). Have you ever been to a stadium and thought how small you are in comparison to the total space? Well, the Principality Stadium in Cardiff, Wales, also known as Millennium Stadium, has a footprint of 40,000 m2 (430,556.42 ft2) (Principality Stadium 2021). A building with a similar area (52,609 m2or 566,278.56 ft2) is the Windsor Castle (Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead 2021).
When you think of pyramids, surely the famous Egyptian monuments from the Giza Pyramid Complex come to mind. So, how does the Sun Pyramid compare? The following table breaks down the measurements of each of the Giza Pyramids (Britannica 2021) as compared to the Sun Pyramid (Sugiyama 1993:112).
Building
Height
Base side length
Pyramid of Khufu
147 m (481.4 ft)
230 m (755.75 ft)
Pyramid of Khafre
143 m (471 ft)
216 m (707.75 ft)
Pyramid of Menkaure
66 m (218 ft)
109 m (356.5 ft)
Pyramid of the Sun
63 m (206.69 ft)
222 m (728.34 ft)
As you can see, the Sun Pyramid is similar in height to the Menkaure Pyramid. Although the Kuru and Khafre pyramids are taller than the Sun Pyramid, their bases are comparatively similar in length (Figure 4) and thus in area as well.
Figure 4. Sun Pyramid compared to some of the buildings mentioned in the text (modified from Cmglee 2016 by Yolanda Peláez).
A Magnificent City
With over six centuries of occupation, Teotihuacan supported an impressively large population across an extensive landscape enhanced by monuments of global proportions. The next time you visit the site, think about what these numbers mean in terms of human ingenuity. Without fortitude and strength, a city would cease to exist. For this reason, Teotihuacan is a paragon of what a city built on a complex and powerful sociopolitical foundation can achieve for centuries on end.
Manzanilla, Linda 2018 Corporate Societies with Exclusionary Social Components: The Teotihuacan Metropolis. Origini, Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations XLII:211-225.
Today, it is very easy to photograph and document the world around us. For example, people visiting Teotihuacan can take countless photos and share them on social media immediately; however, in the past, it was much harder to capture and reproduce images. The lithographs, paintings, and photographs from the end of the 19th century to the beginning of the 20th century demonstrate the many changes that the archaeological zone of Teotihuacan has undergone. Most of the images here can be found at INAH’s Media Library.
Developed in the late 18th century, lithography is a printing method which has been used to preserve images that explorers saw. In lithography, an image is engraved on a surface (usually limestone), ink is applied, and then the stone is pressed into paper (Tate 2021). This process allowed for a wider distribution of images of sites such as the Teotihuacan pyramids and its scenery during the 19th century.
José María Velasco (1840-1912) was a Mexican painter who accompanied Gumesindo Mendoza in his expeditions to Teotihuacan and portrayed the city’s landscape in his paintings (Google Arts and Culture s.f.). Teotihuacan was abandoned around AD 550, so after some 1,300 years had passed, there was certainly a lot more vegetation covering the monuments for Velasco to capture.
The first archaeological work began on site in the early 20th century by Leopoldo Batres to commemorate the centennial of the Mexican War of Independence. Batres was commissioned by President Porfirio Díaz to explore and restore some of Teotihuacan’s monuments. This project included reconstructing the Sun Pyramid, building railway lines, and discovering murals in the Temple of Agriculture (Batres 1993 [1919]).
The excavation, restoration, and reconstruction of Teotihuacan continued through the 20th century. The rest of the photographs here likely refer to:
The project directed by Manuel Gamio where he carried out a comprehensive study of the population in the Teotihuacan Valley (Gamio 1922). Some of the work his team accomplished include the excavations of the Ciudadela as well as the exploration and restoration of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid and its attached adosada (Figures 15-17).
Excavated pits in the Ciudadela and tunnels in the Feathered Serpent Pyramid by José Pérez under the direction of Alfonso Caso (Pérez 1997:488 [1939]) (Figure 18).
The Teotihuacan Project directed by Ignacio Bernal, head of the Department of Prehispanic Monuments. Although some of the buildings were excavated to learn more about their history, most of them were reconstructed so they could be restored back to the last occupational phase look (Bernal 1997 [1963]) (Figures 19 and 20).
These images document how much change Teotihuacan had undergone in the first half of the 20th century. Although several centuries have passed since its occupation during the Classic period, this site continues to be relevant in the construction of our history. To know more about the history of this pre-Hispanic city, you can check the PPCC’s study area section.
References
Bernal, Ignacio 1997[1963] Teotihuacan: descubrimientos y reconstrucciones. In Antología de documentospara la historia de la arqueología de Teotihuacan, compiled by Roberto Gallegos Ruiz, José Roberto Gallegos Téllez Rojo, and Miguel Gabriel Pastrana Flores, pp. 594-615. National Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico, D.F.
Pérez, José 1997[1939] Informe de los trabajos de Alfonso Caso y José R. Pérez. In Antología dedocumentos para la historia de la arqueología de Teotihuacan, compiled by Roberto Gallegos Ruiz, José Roberto Gallegos Téllez Rojo, and Miguel Gabriel Pastrana Flores, pp. 488-498. National Institute of Anthropology and History, Mexico, D.F.
It has been an intense week with the conclusion of the third field season (2017) of the PPCC. This includes putting the final touches on all pending fieldwork tasks: the last photo taken, the final line drawn, and the closing word of descriptions written in the notebook.
We have just three days left for filling in the last four open excavation areas. The first of them extends over an area of 12 meters long by 3 meters wide and reaches depths between 2 to 4 meters. The second area is not that wide but is certainly large and complex; it is a tunnel that runs over 10 meters long, 1 meter wide, and 1.5 meters high. The third one is located on one of the highest structures of the complex covering an area of approximately 9 meters long, 6 meters wide, and 3 meters deep. The last area revisits a tunnel previously excavated during the first fieldwork season in 2015 and continues to provide several interesting finds.
Upon finishing the last field details and closing out the season, the adrenaline runs high with a mixture of stress, anxiety, and emotions. All excavated areas must be cleaned and perfectly covered in backfill.
In order to accomplish these monumental tasks, we rely on local fieldworkers from neighboring communities near the “Zona de Monumentos Arqueológicos de Teotihuacan” (Teotihuacan Archaeological Monuments Area, ZMAT). These individuals are usually young men who recently turned 18 years old (legal working age in Mexico) and thus experience their first job with the project or, on the contrary, are mature men who each have more than 10 years of experience working for diverse archaeological research projects in the ZMAT.
These are the people who do all the hard and labor-intensive work: lifting heavy buckets filled with earth from excavation area to sifting station, carrying heavy stones out of excavation areas, finding out ways to protect excavations from rain by maneuvering a makeshift awning, among many others tasks. Although archaeologists lead the fieldwork and its activities, we acknowledge the hard and important labor our fieldworkers do to support us and the PPCC.
Often times, the fieldworkers have to endure when an archaeologist is in a bad mood during stressful situations due to lack of time particularly at the end of the field season. Despite this, they are supportive and encourage us to continue working on “that what we call archaeology.”
Not everyone can be a fieldworker in an archaeological project as this job demands a balance of finesse, precision, and strength. Finding the right combination and stamina may ultimately decide whether one returns for the next field season. However, we gladly welcome back most familiar faces who possess these characteristics and look forward to working together again out in the field, right until the inevitable stressful end of the season.
THANK YOU TO ALL who supported our PPCC team during this third field season! Muchas gracias!
Featured
Looking for traces of the past: interpreting the surface of the Teotihuacan Valley
During the 2017 field season, the Plaza of the Columns Project used a special type of investigative tool called LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) to verify archaeological features out in the field. This method of remote sensing integrates GPS technologies, Inertial Measurement Unit, and lasers in order to collect altitudinal data. The combination of these sources help to define the surface of the terrain by generating digital elevation models (DEM) for us to further interpret and analyze.
In general terms, this technique allows us to recover traces of the past, either pre-Hispanic, colonial, or historical, which today are reflected in cultivated terraces, mounds or artificial elevations, and jagueyes or water reservoirs.
These features are blurred in what are now nopaleras (terrain covered in the nopal or cactus plant), agricultural fields, or even modern day villages. But thanks to this surveying method, one can outline the dimensions and proportions of architectural or hydraulic features of the past.
Coexistence with the settlers
While surveying the area, we have had the pleasure to interview landowners and gather historical information of past populations. They recalled early childhood stories told by their parents or grandparents about the foundation or organization of their communities since the beginning of the 20th century.
In addition to sharing their experiences, they provided information on the elements that we recognize today in LiDAR images. For example, in the town of Ixtlahuaca in the municipality of San Martin of the Pyramids, interviewees Juan Guillermo Castro, Pablo Rivero, Alejandro Hernández Ramirez, and Sebastián Medina shared stories when the only accessible water was from the water reservoir located in the center of the village. They also recalled the time when this part of the valley belonged to the Hacienda of Cerro Gordo. Other interviewees, Genoveva Diaz Alba with her daughters Lidia and Maria del Carmen Delgadillo Diaz, told us that her husband decided to modify the terrain in the 1970s in order to better cultivate it.
In addition to plentiful stories, some locals were highly generous and went over and beyond. Mr. Filemon Macías Juárez of San Lorenzo Tlamimilolpa not only granted us permission to visit his land but also donated a collection of ceramic materials that he collected throughout his lifetime. This allowed us to increase our comparative sample with late materials and correspond them to the Postclassic occupation of the region.
The enthusiasm and cooperation of the landowners are a result of the clear and transparent management of our objectives. Often times, the locals are contacted by other institutions with much less cordial terms. Therefore, we feel committed to establish clear communication and respect. We want them to feel informed and involved, whether by asking them to personally see the work we do, responding and explaining any personal doubts or observations, or adjusting to their needs and availability.
Acknowledgements
It is important to highlight the support provided by the municipal and auxiliary authorities of Ixtlahuaca and Santa Maria Palapa in the municipality of San Martin of the Pyramids. We also thank San Juan Teotihuacan in the Barrio de Purificación, San Sebastián Xolalpan, San Francisco Mazapa, Santa Maria Coatlan, and San Lorenzo Tlamimilolpan. Lastly, we gives thanks to private organizations such as the Animal Kingdom Zoo.
Zooarchaeology is a field within archaeology that seeks to answer questions about past human occupation and their environment through the study of animal remains1. In practice, this means that a zooarchaeologist must be an expert in identifying animal bones. However, animals come in diverse shapes and sizes. How can someone develop expertise in such a broad field?
Having a comparative reference collection is key for understanding and formulating distinct patterns among differing species. And this is where I come in. I have just finished a project that helps lay the foundation for zooarchaeology students to build their proficiency in bone identification. Over the last four months, I have created a series of virtual three-dimensional models of deer bones. Everything from a deer’s cranium to the phalanx (or toe bone) is captured in this digital collection. Below you can explore some examples of these models:
So, how do you even start to create a 3D model? Well, it starts with taking dozens of photos of each bone element. I then loaded the photos into a program called Agisoft’s Photoscan which “stitched” them together; by taking multiple photos from different angles and views, the program was able to compile these series of two-dimensional images and transform them into virtual 3D models. After the deer bones were modeled, I uploaded them onto Sketchfab, a website that allows users to display, embed, and share 3D models online. Sketchfab is particularly helpful for this project because it allows students to view the models on smartphones, tablets, and computers alike. It also has the feature to place annotations within each model, as evidenced by the standard measurements and points included on each bone.
I will find out this summer how these models work in practice, for several students from George Mason University (GMU) are flying to Mexico to examine animal remains in the field as part of the Project Plaza of the Columns Complex (PPCC). I spoke with one of the students, Leila Martinez, about how she has prepared for this challenging task of traveling and working without a deer comparative and how she thinks 3D models might help her this summer.
According to Leila, learning zooarchaeology requires extensive hands-on study of bones. With the absence of physical bones in hand, students often rely on animal bone manuals, though these often contain hand-drawn images from few static views. She believes that 3D models may make bone identification easier by letting students interact with realistic images. While 3D technology will never be able to replace the direct tactile experience of working with real bone, in time, these 3D virtual reconstructions could rival traditional reference books. After all, books are bulky and often times expensive, and a digital skeletal collection can be easily transported and manipulated all by the swipe or click of a finger.
Students coming to Teotihuacan for zooarchaeological fieldwork can be an exciting and perhaps a little apprehensive experience, especially when one doesn’t know what to expect when joining the PPCC team for the first time. Is there a skeletal reference collection I can use? How complete is it? In what state are the bones I will be analyzing? Several GMU students like Leila and me already have firsthand experience handling bone with cleaning and labeling the many (or shall I say thousands of) animal remains in our Archaeological Sciences lab. Although real world archaeological assemblages are surely more complex with fragmented, commingled, and/or missing bones, I know the hard work I put into preparing these models of complete bones will help zooarchaeologists to confidently identify the specimens they encounter. Creating virtual 3D reference models is a time-consuming endeavor, but in the end I expect these easily transportable, full of detail, and user-friendly products will play a much larger role out in the field than anticipated.
References
1. Steele, T. E. 2015. The Contributions of Animal Bones from Archaeological Sites: The Past and Future of Zooarchaeology. Journal of Archaeological Science 56: 168–176.
The Creation of Royalty in “Out of Eurasia” civilizations: Exploring the mechanism of the Emergence of Transcendent Power
Here is the poster of the conference “The Creation of Royalty in “Out of Eurasia” civilizations: Exploring the mechanism of the Emergence of Transcendent Power” that will take place from June 30th to July 2nd at the Meiji University. Some members of the project will be participating.
The Moving Maya Conference, organized by Clarissa Cagnato and Juliette Danfakha will take place on December 7th and 8th 2022 at the Musée du quai Branly–Jacques Chirac, Paris, France.
Clarissa Cagnato and Nawa Sugiyama will present the paper “The Maya at Teotihuacan: local and foreign plant foods as proxies for interactions during the early 4th century CE”.
SYMPOSIUM “PROYECTO TEOTIHUACAN SESENTA AÑOS 1962-2022”
The Symposium “Proyecto Teotihuacan Sesenta Años 1962-2022” will take place on September 20th to 23rd 2022 from 16:00 to 19:00 at the Jaime Torres Bodet auditorium in the National Museum of Anthropology.
Dr. Nawa Sugiyama will present the paper “Construcción y simbolismo de la Pirámide del Sol de Teotihuacan” on Wednesday, September 21st at 17:30 (CT).
