Browsed by
Category: Blog

Teotihuacan in Numbers

Teotihuacan in Numbers

by Yolanda Peláez Castellanos

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.

PhaseTime period
Patlachique100-1 BCE
Tzacualli1-100 CE
Miccaotli100-170 CE
Early Tlamimilolpa170-250 CE
Late Tlamimilolpa250-350 CE
Early Xolalpan350-450 CE
Late Xolalpan450-550 CE
Metepec550-650 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.

Figure 1. Largest cities in the world in 500 CE (Taken from Michigan Geographic Alliance n.d.)

Area: ca. 20 km2 (7.72 mi2)

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 m2 or 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).

BuildingHeightBase side length
Pyramid of Khufu147 m (481.4 ft)230 m (755.75 ft)
Pyramid of Khafre143 m (471 ft)216 m (707.75 ft)
Pyramid of Menkaure66 m (218 ft)109 m (356.5 ft)
Pyramid of the Sun63 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.

References

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia
2020 “Central Park”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic document, https://www.britannica.com/place/Central-Park-New-York-City, accessed July 30, 2021.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia
2019 “Mahabodhi Temple”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic document, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Mahabodhi-Temple, accessed July 30, 2021.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia
2021 “Pyramids of Giza”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic document, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Pyramids-of-Giza, accessed 2 August 2021.

Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia
2021 “Roman Empire”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic document, https://www.britannica.com/place/Roman-Empire, accessed April 13, 2021.

Cmglee
2016 Comparison of Pyramids. Electronic document, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comparison_of_pyramids.svg, accessed July 30, 2021.

INAH
2021 Zona arqueológica de Teotihuacan. Electronic document,  https://inah.gob.mx/zonas/23-zona-arqueologica-de-teotihuacan, accessed April 12, 2021.

Latham, Richard
2021 “Polo”. Encyclopedia Britannica. Electronic document,  https://www.britannica.com/sports/polo, accessed July 30, 2021.

Leaning Tower of Pisa
2021 Leaning Tower of Pisa. Facts. Electronic document, https://www.towerofpisa.org/leaning-tower-of-pisa-facts/, accessed April 13, 2021.

Manzanilla, Linda
2018 Corporate Societies with Exclusionary Social Components: The Teotihuacan Metropolis. Origini, Prehistory and Protohistory of Ancient Civilizations XLII:211-225.

Michigan Geographic Alliance
s.f. World’s Largest Cities Maps. Electronic document, https://www.cmich.edu/colleges/se/Geography/Michigan%20Geographic%20Alliance/Geography%20Resources/Lesson%20Plans%20by%20Curriculum/Documents/World%27s%20Largest%20Cities%20Maps.pdf, accessed April 13, 2021.

Principality Stadium
2021 Facts and Figures. Electronic document,  https://www.principalitystadium.wales/information/facts-and-figures/, accessed July 30, 2021.

Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead
2021 Windsor Castle. Electronic document, https://www.windsor.gov.uk/things-to-do/windsor-castle-p43983, accessed July 30, 2021.

UrbiStat
s.f. Municipality of Burges. Electronic document, https://ugeo.urbistat.com/AdminStat/en/be/demografia/dati-sintesi/bruges/20204703/4, accessed April 12, 2021.

Viajes NG
2021 Los diez países más pequeños del mundo. Electronic document, https://viajes.nationalgeographic.com.es/a/cinco-paises-mas-pequenos-mundo_9351, accessed July 30, 2021.

Drawings

Drawings

How to Draw: Archaeology Version

by Yolanda Peláez Castellanos

Part 1: The Field

Archaeologists are responsible for recording everything that they find as the materials could provide valuable research information not only about the context but also about past human activities. Once the materials are completely registered, they are removed from their original context. For that reason, it is essential to record as much information as possible out in the field. Field drawings are part of this registering process, and that includes having the context drawn by hand, capturing the ‘what’ and ‘how’ the archaeologist encountered the excavation area.

Profile drawings

Have you ever driven through a mountainous landscape and observed the different shades of sediment peeking out of the exposed mountain rock?

Mountainous landscape (photo taken from https://www.pngegg.com/en/png-boaxc).

Well, back to archaeology. Think of the term “profile” as the excavation unit’s “walls.” The rock or layered sediments you see actually resemble an excavation profile. Profile drawings are important for understanding the pit’s history as different periods of time are captured by the various colors of sediments and their composition. When you combine this information with architectural and human modifications of the landscape, they can help us to understand if a structure collapsed, whether it was an intrusion or looting activity, as well as where architectonic elements (floors, walls, canals) were spatially and chronologically located. Visit the Excavations section to read more about stratigraphy.

Profile drawing example (Drawing by Amparo Robles).

Why are drawings even necessary? Can’t archaeologists just take photos?

Drawings and photographs complement each other when studying an area. Although photographs do capture color, they are taken at certain angles, limiting what is taken within each frame. On the other hand, profile drawings are accurate and do not distort what is being recorded; the drawings are drawn precisely and to scale. Additionally, sometimes there are profile details that can be better appreciated in person but are not clear in photos.

Plan drawings

These drawings show the excavation unit from above, a bird’s eye view. They depict the distribution of different architectonic elements and their relationship with each other.

Example of a plan drawing (Drawing by Amparo Robles).

Special contexts

Special contexts that show evidence of human activities, like burials, trash pits, and offerings, are also recorded as detailed plan drawings. In these cases, the exact location and thus distribution of each artifact is drawn and assigned a unique number before its removal from the excavation area. The following image is the drawing of a context excavated in Front A (see Results 2018-2019) that had thousands of disarticulated (mostly human) bones. Can you identify some of them (A-E)?

Part of the drawing of an archaeological context (Drawing by Ariel Texis).

Part 2: Digitalization

Digitalization is the process in which field drawings are converted from freeform into a digital form that can be processed by a computer. All field drawings are scanned at the end of each field season for two important reasons: to preserve and to refine field drawings (as a digital format) without changing or losing the original copy.

Each field drawing is scanned and digitally traced using illustration software such as Adobe Photoshop, Adobe Illustrator, or Corel Draw. This way, final drawings are clean, clear, and complete with pertinent details.

Look at the digitalized profile and plan drawings below. The arrows point to architectural features (i.e., floors, adobe brick walls). Notice that Floor F-015 is missing from the plan drawing. It had to be removed to uncover what was beneath but remained visible in the profile. The vertical (profile drawings) and horizontal (plan drawings) representations show different details, and both are important for understanding the context. If you want to learn more about this excavation area located in the southeastern section of Front F, visit the Results 2018-2019 section. 

Example of a digitized profile drawing (Drawing by Amparo Robles).
Example of a digitized plan drawing (Drawing by Amparo Robles).

Were your guesses on the bones from Front A’s special context correct? Although these materials are still being analyzed, the drawings will be helpful for interpreting the context because they depict the material’s spatial distribution across the excavated area.



Example of a digitized drawing of a special archaeological context (Drawing by Ariel Texis and Yolanda Peláez).

Part 3: Artifact Drawings in the Lab

Many archaeological materials are recovered in every excavation season, and realistically not all materials are drawn as they can be abundant. While analyzing the artifacts, archaeologists and specialists select those for illustration, usually artifacts that are representative of other excavated material and/or are unique to the context.

The drawing process in the lab is similar to field drawings. Artifacts are first drawn in pencil on a grid paper, allowing for ease of precise measurements and thus to scale. By handling and observing the artifacts in person, the illustrator can capture acute details that may not have been distinguishable through photographs. Afterwards, the drawings are scanned and drawn digitally or traced by hand with ink. 

What kind of information can artifact drawings provide?

A lot! The type of information depends on the artifact, but it is usually related to the object’s manufacture or use:

  • Ceramic is the most abundant material in our excavations, and their drawings demonstrate their various shapes, decorative techniques, and iconographies.
  • Lithic drawings can show the methodical steps in which the raw stone materials themselves were modified, including the decisions made by the artisans themselves (e.g., touchups).
  • Bone drawings depict their anatomy and highlight surface modifications made by humans (e.g., butchery marks, toolmaking).
Example of a candelero drawing (Drawing by Yolanda Peláez).

While archaeological artifacts are usually fragmented, certain pieces (e.g., ceramic rims) can be used to reconstruct what the complete vessel might have looked like. Reconstructions are usually delineated by a dotted line.

Ceramic lid of a tripod vessel with plain-relief incisions decorated in the Maya style and body sherd that may match the lid (Drawing by Pedro Cahuantzi Hernández © Project Plaza of the Columns Complex, images taken from Sugiyma et al. 2020:152-153 Figs. 5.9 and 5.10).

Conclusion

Archaeologists meticulously draw the details they see both in the field and in the lab. Since observation is one of the steps of the scientific method, archaeological drawings are essential because they contribute to this research process. Moreover, they are a way of preserving cultural heritage in various forms, not only in a two-dimensional sense but also in a digital format to capture multiple perspectives on a snapshot of history.

References

Pngegg
n.d. Highland Landscape Landform Plain Plateau, Mountain Landscape 2, natural, grass. Electronic document, https://www.pngegg.com/en/png-boaxc, accessed August 18, 2021. 

Sugiyama, Nawa, William L. Fash, Barbara Fash, and Saburo Sugiyama
2020 The Maya at Teotihuacan? New insights into Teotihuacan-Maya interactions from Plaza of the Columns Complex. Teotihuacan: The World Beyond the City, edited by Kenneth Hirth, David Carballo, and Barbara Arroyo, pp.139-171, Dumbarton Oaks Pre-Columbian Symposia and Colloquia series, Dumbarton Oaks Reserch Library and Collection, Washington, D.C.

 

Early Images of Teotihuacan in the Modern Era

Early Images of Teotihuacan in the Modern Era

by Yolanda Peláez Castellanos

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.

Figure 1. Pyramid of Teotihuacan, lithograph, ca. 1870, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 2. Sun and Moon Pyramids, lithograph, ca. 1870, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

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.

Figure 3. “Sun Pyramid in Teotihuacan,” painting by José María Velasco, 1878,
© Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 4. “Teotihuacan,” painting by José María Velasco, 1878, © Museo Soumaya, Fundación Carlos Slim.

Here are some bonus photographs of the site (way back in the day) for you to enjoy:

Figure 5. Stairs at the Street of the Dead, Desireé Charnay, 1880, ©American Philosophical Society.
Figure 7. Moon Pyramid, ca. 1910-1920,
© Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 6. East view of the Sun (left) and Moon (right) Pyramids, Antonio Peñafiel, 1900, (Peñafiel, 1900).
Figure 8. Moon Pyramid and Street of the Dead before archaeological activities, ca. 1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

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]).

Figure 9. Workers during reconstruction work, ca. 1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 11. Leopoldo Batres, Franz Boas, and other members of the Congress of Americanists on a tour of the Teotihuacan archaeological site, ca. 1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 10. Porfirio Díaz and others eating inside a cave near the archaeological site, ca. 1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 11. Justo Sierra, Leopoldo Batres, and others during the Congress of Americanists, ca. 1909-1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

Seeing the clothes that people wore back then is a testament to how much time has passed. Indeed, fashion has changed since.

Figure 13. Man next to a Chalchitlicue sculpture, ca. 1910, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 14. Woman and girl at the Teotihuacan Museum, ca. 1915, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

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).
Figure 15. Portrait of workers from San Juan Teotihuacan, ca. 1915, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 17. Reconstruction of the Feathered Serpent Pyramid, 4 May 1921, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 19. Men working at the reconstruction site, ca. 1961, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 16. Reconstruction at the Ciudadela, ca. 1918-1921, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 18. Reconstruction of a building at the Ciudadela, ca. 1930, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.
Figure 20. Men working at the reconstruction of a building along the Steet of the Dead, ca. 1962, © Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, México.

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 documentos para 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.

Batres, Leopoldo
1993 [1919] The “Discovery” of the Sun Pyramid. Arqueología Mexicana 2:45-48.

Gamio, Manuel
1922    La población del valle de Teotihuacan, Vol. I, 1. Dirección de Antropología, Secretaría de Agricultura y Fomento, Mexico, D.F.

Google Arts and Culture
s.f.       Teotihuacan. Electronic document, https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/teotihuacan/KgEZFx_-t8JNxQ?hl=es-419, accessed February 23, 2021.

Pérez, José
1997[1939] Informe de los trabajos de Alfonso Caso y José R. Pérez. In Antología de documentos 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.

Tate
2021 Art Term: Lithography. Electronic document, https://www.tate.org.uk/art/art-terms/l/lithography, accessed February 24, 2021.

SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 86TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

SOCIETY FOR AMERICAN ARCHAEOLOGY 86TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE

Come join us at the Society for American Archaeology’s 2021 conference. This year it will be online and our team members have prepared the following presentations:

APRIL 16

8:30 am EDT – 7:30 am CDT
Ariel Texis Muñoz, Tanya Catignani, Nawa Sugiyama and Saburo Sugiyama—Mapping Teotihuacan’s Inception: Patlachique Phase Ceramics Distribution on the Lidar Map

10:15 am EDT – 9:15 am CDT
Teresa Hsu and Nawa Sugiyama—Playing with Your Food to Feed the Masses: A Zooarchaeological Perspective at Teotihuacan, Mexico

APRIL 17

11:00 am EDT – 10:00 am CDT
Ryohei Takatsuchi, Nawa Sugiyama, Saburo Sugiyama, Tanya Catignani and Yolanda Peláez Castellanos—Spatial Distribution of Ceramics and Lithics at the Plaza of the Columns Complex, Teotihuacan, Mexico

See you all there!

The conference’s final program can be found at the SAA Website.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial