0~rlprr

CAN WE READ COSMOLOGY IN ANCIENT MAYA PLANS? COMMENT ON ASHMORE AND SABLOFF

Michael E. Smith

Argumentsfor the cosmological significance of ancient layouts are plausible, but empirical applications are sub- jective 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 compo- nent of the authors' cosmological model-the hypothesized north-south axis at Classic Maya . My goal is not to down- play 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 apli- caciones empiricas son subjetivas y carecen de rigor Ilustro este idea con unos comentarios sobre un articulo reciente de Ash- more 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 who agree with them. In this comment I first that the "positionand arrangementof ancient explore some of the complexitiesof studyingcos- Maya buildings and arenas emphatically mology from ancientcity plans. I then addressone express statementsabout cosmology and political componentof Ashmoreand Sabloff's cosmologi- order"(Ashmore and Sabloff 2002:201); see also cal model-the hypothesizednorth-south axis of the Spanishversion (Ashmoreand Sabloff 2000). Classic Maya cities. Given currentunderstandings of Mesoamerican And Ancient Urban cultures-and of ancient urban societies in gen- Cosmology Planning eral-it is certainlyplausible to suggest a role for The planning and layouts of ancient cities have thesetwo forcesin theplanning and layout of Maya long fascinatedarchaeologists, architects, and other cities.Personally, I agreewith Ashmore and Sabloff scholars.Site maps often suggest thatsome sortof thatcosmology must have played a role in gener- spatialorder existed in ancientcities, but scholars ating the layouts of cities among the Maya and have yet to develop systematicapproaches to the other Mesoamericansocieties. Nevertheless, the study of the natureand origin of that order.The argumentsthey present for the influence of cos- influenceof cosmology,symbolism, and metaphor mology are vague, weak, andunconvincing. What on ancient urban plans is an especially difficult kind of a role did cosmology play? How large a topic for archaeologists.Some scholarsare of the role? Can we reconstructthat role? Insteadof pre- opinion that such researchreveals more aboutthe senting rigorous methods for investigating this minds of modem scholarsthan about the minds of issue, the authorsrely upon assertionsand subjec- the ancients (e.g., Flannery and Marcus 1993; tive judgmentsbacked not by empiricalevidence Kemp2000; Prem2000). Forthis reason,research but by uncriticalcitations of the works of others in this arearequires rigorous and explicit methods

Michael E. Smith * Departmentof Anthropology,University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222 (mesmith@ c sc.albany.edu) Latin AmericanAntiquity, 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 [Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003] if it is to have credibilitywithin the archaeological furnisheswhat may be the only directevidence for community. the explicit use of astronomicalor cosmological Threeurban traditions of the ancientworld are factors in the planningand layout of Mesoameri- particularlynotable in comparativeperspective for can urban architecture. A statement in the the large role played by cosmology in city plan- "MotoliniaInsert no. 1,"a documentpublished in ning-China, India, and Cambodia.These urban FriarMotolinia's (1971:51) Memoriales,suggests traditionsshare several characteristics: the layouts that Motecuhzomahad partof the TemploMayor of numerouscities andpublic buildings within each torn down and rebuiltso that the sun would rise traditionexhibit close similarities,there are ancient directlyover the temple of Huitzilopochtlion the textualdescriptions and images of the layoutof the equinox.' cosmos, thereare plans and descriptions of the lay- Assumingfor the sake of argumentthat the cos- out of the ideal city, and there are ancienttextual movision scholars have correctly interpretedthe sources stating that rulers deliberatelyfollowed cosmological significance of the Templo Mayor, cosmological models in laying out their capital can their results be extended to the whole city of cities (for Chinasee Chang 1976;Steinhardt 1990; ?For some authorsthis is a straight- Wheatley 1971; for India see Allchin 1995; Con- forward interpretation.The passage of the sun ingham 2000; Spodek and Srinivasan 1993; for across the sky was one of the most importantele- Cambodia see Dumarcay and Royere 2001; ments of Aztec cosmology (e.g., Graulich1997), Higham2000, 2002; Mannikka1996). and it seems natural to interpret the east-west In an earlierpaper Ashmore (1992:173) classi- avenuesand alignments of Tenochtitlanin termsof fies the Maya with these Asian urbantraditions as the passage of the sun. As Tenochtitlanis one of a culturein which cosmology played a significant the few Mesoamericancities withorthogonal plan- role in urbanplanning. To me, this does not appear ning,the rolesof cosmology andastronomy would to be a close fit. Apartfrom the existence of a few seem particularlyprominent in its layout (e.g., descriptionsof the spatial layout of the cosmos Brodaet al. 1987; Carrasco1999). But thereis an (mostlyfrom Postclassic codices andcolonial texts, alternativeinterpretation of the grid layout of the not Classic-periodsources), the traitslisted above Aztec capitalfocusing insteadon politicaland his- are lackingfor the Maya and otherMesoamerican toricalfactors. It is clearfrom numerous studies that urbancultures. The similaritiesamong Maya cities the Mexica rulersdrew on images andconcepts of aremuch less strikingthan the resemblances among the ancientClassic-period metropolis of Teotihua- Chinese, Cambodian,and perhaps Indian cities. can to reinforcetheir imperial legitimacy (Carrasco Moreimportantly, there are no survivingtexts from et al. 2000; Lopez Lujan1989; Smithand Montiel anywherein Mesoamericathat describe ideal cities 2001; Umberger1987, 1996). Teotihuacanwas an or the effortsof kings to follow cosmologicalmod- earlierlarge city not far from Tenochtitlanwhose els in laying out theircapitals. orthogonalplanning would have been obvious to The Aztec capitalTenochtitlan illustrates some the Mexica. Given our knowledgeof Mexica atti- of the difficultiesinvolved in identifyingthe role tudestoward Teotihuacan, it would makesense for of cosmology in urbanplanning. Although there is the Mexicarulers to imitateTeotihuacan's grid lay- a largecorpus of documentarysources on Aztec his- out in planningtheir own capitalTenochtitlan, irre- tory and society (Smith2003), thereare only a few spectiveof any cosmological notionsof theirown. scrapsof informationdescribing the nature of urban Or perhapsthe grid layout of the Aztec capital planning.There is a large body of scholarshipon hadnothing to do withthe passage of the sunor with the role of cosmology (usually termed"cosmovi- Teotihuacan,but insteadoriginated for reasonsof sion") in the design and meaning of the Templo energeticefficiency. A gridis the mostefficient lay- Mayorof Tenochtitlan(e.g., Brodaet al. 1987;Car- out for dividing up new land (Carter 1981:151; rasco 1991, 1999; L6pez Lujan 1998; Matos Stanislawski1946). Much of thesurface of theisland Moctezuma 1995), but this researchrelies almost city of Tenochtitlanwas formedby fill broughtfrom exclusively on subjectiveinterpretations of Aztec themainland. The edges of thecity werefarmed with myths and rituals.The Templo Mayor, however, chinampas,agricultural fields with a rectilinearlay-

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 223 out (Calnek1974, 1976).It seemslogical to assume It is also instructiveto considerthe inverse sit- thatas chinampaswere filled in to accommodatethe uation,in which apparentlymeaningful spatial pat- growingpopulation and prosperity of the city, their terns may have arisen from random factors orthogonallayout would influence or determinethe unrelatedto anycosmological ideas of the builders. arrangementof lots, buildings,and streets. How can Kemp(2000), for example,illustrates a simulation we decidebetween the cosmological,political, and model that generatesurban spatial layouts whose energeticinterpretations of Tenochtitlan'sgrid? I implicationis thatthe apparentlyordered layout of haveno answerto this questionand must admit that residential districts at the Egyptian city of I have resortedto a hybridexplanation suggesting Amama-interpreted by some as evidence for the thatall threefactors probably played a role in shap- influenceof cosmology on urbanplanning may ing the layout of Tenochtitlan(Smith 1997, 2003: have ariseninstead from randomfactors of urban Chapter8). I do not find this a particularlysatisfy- growth.Similarly, Banning (1996) arguesthat the ing explanation,but I havetrouble thinking of meth- seeminglyplanned and cosmologically significant odsfor evaluating the relative importance of thethree layoutsof a numberof ancientNear Eastern towns factors. could have arisenunintentionally through nonlin- TheAztec case illustratesthe difficultyof infer- eargrowth dynamics. To returnto theAztec exam- ring the ideas and intentionsof rulersand builders ple, it is entirely possible that Tenochtitlan'sgrid fromthe material remains of urbansites, even when layout originatedsolely for reasons of energetic thereis a corpusof writtendocumentation. Another efficiency, and thus we are wasting time today pertinentexample is the layoutof InkaCuzco. Sev- searchingfor cosmological or political interpreta- eral early chroniclerswrote thatthe imperialcap- tions of that grid. Could the hypothesizednorth- ital had been built in the form of a puma. As south axis of Maya sites be anotherexample of a discussedby Hyslop (1990:50-51), it is difficultto traitthat arose through random or stochasticgrowth determinetoday whether these writerswere speak- processes?Before thatquestion can be addressed, ing literally or metaphorically(see also D'Altroy we need to determinethe natureof the north-south 2002:114-15). Modern scholars are similarly axis. Is it an empiricalpattern or a symbolic con- divided, some declaringthat the city does indeed struct? resemble a puma (Moseley 2001:85; Rowe Do Classic Plans 1967:60) and others viewing the model as a Maya City Have a North-South Axis? metaphor without direct and obvious physical expression(Hyslop 1990:51;Zuidema 1990). Gas- The existence of some sort of north-southpattern pariniand Margolies (1980:48) provide three maps is a majorpart of Ashmore and Sabloff's cosmo- withalternative spatial models for Cuzco as a puma, logical model. Among Ashmore's statements of none of which look at all convincingto me. her views on city layout and cosmology, she lists Gutschow(1993) providesan even more strik- "a strongly marked north-southaxis" (Ashmore ing examplefrom Bhaktapur,Nepal, a city whose 1989:273, 1992:174) as one of the "five principal layout is said by its priests to conform closely to components"(1992:174) of the Classic Maya cos- anideal mandala form. The actualcity layout,how- mologicaltemplate. In anotherarticle she describes ever, looks nothing like the mandala that they this principle as "emphaticreference to a north- sketchedfor Gutschow (1993:170). These and other southaxis in site organization(Ashmore 1991:200), examples in which emic spatial models of cities andin therecent paper, Ashmore and Sabloff (2002) conflict with actual urban layouts should give writeof north-south"axial dominance" (p. 203) and archaeologistspause; we would never be able to of a "pronouncednorth-south axis" (p. 206). Just reconstructthe cosmologicalmodels behind Cuzco what does this mean?The fact thatAshmore's five or Bhaktapurin the absence of writtendocumen- principles(1989:273, 1992:174) combine empiri- tation.It is verylikely that the layouts of Mayacities cal spatialpatterns of architecture(e.g., architec- had symbolic associationsknown to some or all of tural groups that form triangles) with symbolic theirelite residents, but can we recoverthose mean- interpretations(e.g., "northstands for the celestial ings today with confidenceand rigor? supernaturalsphere") confuses the 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 [Vol. 14, No. 2, 2003] north-southaxis anempirical phenomenon-some- north-southaxes at these sites. My readingof Ash- thing that archaeologists can identify from site more'sarticles could be in errorand the north-south maps-or is it a symbolic constructused to inter- axis a symbolicconstruct, not an empiricalpattern. pret site maps? If this lattersuggestion is correct,it is not at all My own understandingof the north-southprin- clearjust how one goes aboutapplying the model. ciple, basedupon reading Ashmore's articles (1989, Ashmoreand Sabloff do not provideenough infor- 1991, 1992), is that it is meantto be an empirical mation on how to select particularstructures or patternthat once identifiedat a site, can be given groupsthat can be given a north-southcosmolog- symbolic content through reference to external ical interpretation. In one article Ashmore informationon Maya cosmology (from sources (1989:274) suggests that the cosmological tem- like the ).But this causes problems-for platecan applyto "thepairing of open, publicgath- me, at least-because I cannotseem to findthe pat- ering spaces on the north with enclosed, private tern in the site maps publishedby Ashmore. She (residential/administrative)groups on the south." says that the cosmological template (which Does any case of a plaza locatedsomewhere north includes the north-southaxis) "can be seen most of an elite residentialcompound fit the model?Do easily atTikal, and there, most readily in the famous the featureshave to be contiguous?Do they have TwinPyramid groups" (1992:194). To me, theeast- to be the largest plaza and compound at a site? west axis in twin pyramidgroups seems stronger, Does this symbolismrefer to certainkinds of plazas or at least more prominent,than the north-south and compoundsbut not others? axis. As for the overall plan of , I do not see Severalof the site maps publishedin the recent any dominantcardinal (or other)axis. article (Ashmore and Sabloff 2002:206-207) do Ashmore also illustratesher model with maps seem to have north-southaxes. These are not com- of ,Quirigua, Copan, and Gualjoquito.Per- plete site maps, but rather plans of key groups haps there is some kind of north-south axis at selected from the overall site maps to illustratea Quirigua,but I fail to see the patternin the other (quitereasonable) suggestion of architecturalemu- site maps.I findher discussion of Gualjoquitopar- lationamong sites. The architectural groups depicted ticularlypuzzling. She comparesthe site to Copan, at ,, and Calakmuldo appear asserting that both have a north-south linear to sharesome spatialcharacteristics, although we are arrangementof a public plaza, a ballcourt,and an not told exactly what is similaror differentabout enclosed compound (1989:281, 1992:181). At these plansother than "the pronounced north-south Gualjoquitothis linearpattern runs east-west, how- axis arguablylinked to royalauthority and continu- ever, and Ashmore claims that the pattern is ity" (2002:206).The Spanishversion of the article "skewedcounterclockwise" (1989:281). At what (Ashmoreand Sabloff 2000) includesmore complete point does a skewed north-southaxis become an site plansof Xunantunichand Naranjo, but as in the east-west axis? cases of the sites mentionedabove, I have trouble Perhapsothers can see north-southaxes at these seeing clear north-southaxes in these maps. The and otherMaya sites, but I am biased or incapable east-westaxis-at Xunantunichat least-seems to of seeing them. I wrote my undergraduatethesis me equallyprominent. In FigureI I presentmy own on Teotihuacanand lived in San JuanTeotihuacan mapsof selectedbuildings from those site plansthat my first summer in . I readily admit that highlightwhat appearto be pronouncedeast-west Teotihuacan looms large in my thinking about axes. At Xunantunicha constructedcauseway runs Mesoamericancities. In my mind, Teotihuacanis east-westto join the centralplaza on the east side, a site with a "stronglymarked" or "pronounced" and what appearsto be a clearedeast-west avenue north-southaxis. Perhapsthis "Teotihuacanbias" runsfrom StructureA-21 to join theplaza on thewest blindsme to moresubtle spatial patterning at Clas- side. At Naranjo,an east-west corridoror axis of sic Maya sites. PerhapsI simply do not have the majorpublic architecture extends from the tall pyra- perceptualor cognitive ability to see north-south mids on the east throughseveral plazas and build- axes at the Maya sites. Or maybe the emperorhas ings, including a large platform and a series of no clothes;maybe there are no clearlydiscernable enclosuresadjacent to 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 cosmo- logical or other significance for these plans. I freely admitto selecting out only those build- Analyses of the role of cosmology in ancient ings thatfit my preconceivedgoal of definingeast- urbanplanning do not have to be vague and sub- west axes at Xunantunichand Naranjo, and I claim jective. Urbanplanner Kevin Lynch(1981:73-81) no cosmological(or other) significance for the plans discusses ancient Chinese, Indian,and other pat- in Figure 1. These are perverse fantasy figures ternsof urbanplanning under the label of an emic whose sole purposeis to challengeAshmore and "theoryof magical correspondences"and identi- Sabloff to clarify theirmethods and procedures of fies a numberof cross-culturalarchitectural expres- analysis.I am sure thatAshmore and Sabloff used sions of that cosmological model (Table 1). more rigorouscriteria in creatingtheir Figures 4 Environmental psychologist Amos Rapoport and5 fromthe samebase maps that I used.But what (1993) discusses a similar cosmological model, are those criteria?The readerneeds to know.And drawing upon a much-cited passage in Eliade what is the empiricalbasis for the judgment that (1959:5-12). Ratherthan present a single cross-cul- the plans of architecturalgroups at Xunantunich, turalset of architecturalmanifestations like Lynch, Naranjo, and -or Copan and Gualjo- Rapoportapplies the conceptualmodel to a vari- quito-are similar?What would have to be differ- ety of ancientcities and describesits architectural entto concludethat these groups were not similar?2 expressionsin referenceto individualcases (Table Justhow does one decide thata complicatedurban 1). Similarly,studies of the expression of ancient planhas a "pronounced"north-south (or east-west) politicalideologies in urbanplans by archaeologists axis? Are there degrees of adherenceto an ideal (e.g., Blanton 1989; DeMarrais2001; Prem2000) north-south model? Do Xunantunich and present specific architecturaland spatial features Naranjo-or Tikal and Copan-fit the model as possible manifestationsof state or elite ideolo- closely, or do they only bear a vague resemblance gies. to it? Because the authorsfail to presentobjective Compared to such works, Ashmore and methodsor criteriafor comparison,their interpre- Sabloff'scosmological model lacks specificityand tationssound highly subjective. rigor,largely because the materialexpressions of

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]

Table 1. ArchitecturalExpressions of Cosmological 149-158. University Press of Colorado, Boulder, Col- Symbolism in Ancient Cities. orado. 2001 Skywatchers. 2nd ed. University of Texas Press, Austin. (1981:75-79): Rapoport(1993:43-52): Lynch Aveni,Anthony F., EdwardE. Calnek,and HorstHartung axial line of procession city walls with gates 1988 Myth,Environment and the Orientationof the Templo encircling enclosure with gates orientationto the Mayorof Tenochtitlan.American Antiquity 53:287-309. cardinaldirections Banning,E. B. dominance of up versus down vertical markersat the 1996 Patternor Chaos? New Ways of Looking at "Town center Planning"in the Ancient Near East. In Debating Com- plexity: Proceedingsof the 26th Annual ChacmoolCon- grid layout open sacred plazas ference, editedby DanielA. Meyer,Peter C. Dawson and bilateral tombs in key locations symmetry Donald T. Hanna,pp. 510-518. ArchaeologicalAssocia- Note: These features do not exhaust either author'slists of tion of the Universityof Calgary,Calgary. architecturalexpressions. Blanton,Richard E. 1989 Continuityand Change in PublicArchitecture: Peri- ods I throughV of the Valleyof Oaxaca,Mexico. InMonte theircosmological and politicalmodels are vague Alban's Hinterland,Part II: PrehispanicSettlement Pat- or unspecified.In earlier publications on this theme, terns in Tlacolula,Etla, and Ocotlan, the Valleyof Oax- Ashmorewas carefulto label herconclusions aca, Mexico,edited by StephenA. Kowalewski,Gary M. pro- Feinman,Laura Finsten, Richard E. Blantonand Linda M. visional andexploratory. Now, ten yearslater, Ash- Nicholas, pp. 409-447. Memoirs, vol. 23. Museum of more and Sabloff (2002:202) again state thattheir Anthropology,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor. work is But until devise more Broda, Johanna, David Carrasco, and Eduardo Matos "provisional." they Moctezuma objective methods with a firmer grounding in 1987 TheGreat Temple ofTenochtitlan: Center and Periph- empiricaldata, the argument for cosmological prin- ery in the Aztec World.University of CaliforniaPress, in urbanplanning will remainweak, Berkeley. ciples Maya Calnek,Edward E. speculative,and provisional. 1974 Conjuntourbana y modelo residencialen Tenochtit- lan.In Ensayos sobre el desanrllourbano de Mexico,edited References Cited by WoodrowBorah, pp. 11-65. Secretariade Educacci6n Mexico Allchin, F. (editor) Piblica, City. Raymond 1976 The InternalStructure of Tenochtitlan.In The 1995 The Archaeologyof Early Historic South Asia: The Valley Mexico: Studies Ecology and Emergence of Cities and States. Cambridge University of of Pre-Hispanic Society, edited Eric R. 287-302. of New Press, New York. by Wolf, pp. University Mexico Press, Andrews,George F. Albuquerque. Carrasco,David 1975 Maya Cities: Placemakingand Urbanization.Uni- 1991 To Place:Aztec Ceremonial Landscapes. Uni- versityof OklahomaPress, Norman. Change Pressof Colorado,Boulder. Ashmore,Wendy versity 1999 of The Aztec and the Role 1989 Constructionand Cosmology: Politics and Ideology City Sacrifice: Empire of Violencein Civilization.Beacon Press, Boston. in LowlandMaya Settlement Patterns. In Wordand Image Carrasco,David, Jones, and Scott Sessions in Maya Culture:Explorations in Language,Writing, and Lindsay (editors) 2000 'sClassic FromTeotihuacan Representation,edited by William F. Hanks and Don S. Heritage: to the Aztecs. Press of Colorado,Boulder. Rice, pp. 272-286. Universityof Utah Press, Salt Lake University Carter,Harold City. 1981 The Urban 3rd ed. Edward 1991 Site-PlanningPrinciples and Conceptsof Direction- Study of Geography. Arnold,London. alityAmong the AncientMaya. Latin American Antiquity 2:199-226. Chang, Kwang-Chih 1976 Towns and Cities in Ancient China. In Ancient Chi- 1992 DecipheringMaya Architectural Plans. In New The- nese Civilization: edited ories on the AncientMaya, edited by Elin C. Danienand AnthropologicalPerspectives, by 61-71. Harvard Press, RobertJ. Sharer,pp. 173-184. UniversityMuseum Mono- Kwang-ChihChang, pp. University graph,vol. 77. UniversityMuseum, Universityof Penn- Cambridge. Coningham,Robin sylvania,Phildelphia. 2000 Urban Texts or Were Cities in South Ashmore, and A. Sabloff Contestatory Wendy, Jeremy Asia Built as Journal 2000 El orden de en los planes civicos In Images?CambridgeArchaeological espacio mayas. 10:348-354. Arquitecturae ideologia de los aniguos mayas: memoria TerenceN. de la SegundaMesa Redondade ,edited by Sil- D'Altroy, via 15-34. InstitutoNacional de 2002 TheIncas. Blackwell, Oxford. Trejo,pp. Antropologia Elizabeth e Historia,Mexico DeMarrais, City. 2001 The Architectureand of Xauxa Settle- 2002 SpatialOrders in Maya Civic Plans. LatinAmerican Organization A ments. In Empireand Domestic Economy,edited Ter- ntiquity 101 _- 215. by ence N. and ChristineA. Hastorf, 115-153. Aveni, AnthonyF. D'Altroy pp. 1992 Moctezuma's Aztec and Ritual. In Plenum,New York. Sky: Astronomy and Pascal Moctezuma'sMexico: Visionsof the Aztec World,edited Dumarcay,Jacques, Royere 2001 Cambodian to ThirteenthCen- by David Carrascoand EduardoMatos Moctezuma,pp. Architecture,Eighth

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 227

turies. Handbook of Oriental Studies, Section Three, Motolinia,Fray Toribio de Benavente South-EastAsia, vol. 12. Brill, Leiden. 1971 Memoriales,o librode las cosas de la Nueva Espana Eliade, Mircea y de los naturalesde ella. Editedby EdmundoO'Gorman. 1959 Cosmosand History:The Myth of the EternalReturn. UniversidadNacionalAut6noma de Mexico, Mexico City. Translatedby WilliardR. Trask.Harper and Row, New Prem,Hanns J. York. 2000 LDetrasde que esquina se esconde la ideologia? In Flannery,Kent V., and Joyce Marcus Arquitecturae ideologia de los aniguos mayas: memoria 1993 Cognitive Archaeology. CambridgeArchaeological de la SegundaMesa Redondade Palenque,edited by Sil- Journal3:260-270. via Trejo,pp. 55-70. InstitutoNacional de Antropologia Gasparini,Graziano, and Luise Margolies e Historia,Mexico City. 1980 IncaArchitecture.Translated by PatriciaJ. Lyon.Indi- Rapoport,Amos ana UniversityPress, Bloomington. 1993 On the Natureof Capitalsand Their Physical Expres- Graulich,Michel sion. In Capital Cities, Les Capitales:Perspectives Inter- 1997 Myths of AncientMexico. Translatedby BernardR. nationales, International Perspectives, edited by John Ortiz de Montellano and Thelma Ortiz de Montellano. Taylor,Jean G. Lengelle andCaroline Andrew, pp. 31-67. Universityof OklahomaPress, Norman. CarletonUniversity Press, Ottawa. Gutschow,Niels Rowe, John H. 1993 Bhaktapur:Sacred Patterns of a Living UrbanTradi- 1967 What Kind of a Settlementwas Inca Cuzco? Nawpa tion.In UrbanForm and Meaning in SouthAsia:The Shap- Pacha 5:59-77. ing of CitiesfromPrehistoric to PrecolonialTimes, edited 1977 Archaeoastronomyin Mesoamericaand Peru. Latin by Howard Spodek and Doris Meth Srinivasan, pp. AmericanResearch Review 14(2):227-233. 163-183. Studies in the History of Art, Center for Smith,Michael E. AdvancedStudy in theVisual Arts, Symposium Papers XV, 1997 City Planning:Aztec City Planning.In Encyclopae- vol. 31. NationalGallery of Art,Washington, DC. dia of theHistory ofNon-Western Science, Technology, and Higham,Charles Medicine, edited by Helaine Selin, pp. 200-202. Kluwer 2000 The Symbolismof theAngkorianCity. In: Viewpoint: Academic, Dordrecht. WereCities Built as Images? CambridgeArchaeological 2003 TheAztecs. 2nd ed. Blackwell, Oxford. Journal 10:355-357. Smith, Michael E., and Lisa Montiel 2002 The Civilizationof Angkor.University of California 2001 The ArchaeologicalStudy of Empiresand Imperial- Press, Berkeley. ism in PrehispanicCentral Mexico. Journalof Anthropo- Hyslop, John logical Archaeology20:245-284. 1990 InkaSettlement Planning. Universityof TexasPress, Spodek, Howard,and Doris Meth Srinivasan(editors) Austin. 1993 UrbanForm and Meaning in SouthAsia: The Shap- Kemp,Barry J. ing of Citiesfrom Prehistoricto Precolonial Times.Stud- 2000 Bricksand Metaphor. In: Viewpoint: Were Cities Built ies in the Historyof Art,Center for AdvancedStudy in the as Images? Cambridge Archaeological Journal Visual Arts, Symposium Papers XV, vol. 31. National 10:335-346. Galleryof Art,Washington, DC. L6pez Lujan,Leonardo Stanislawski,Dan 1989 La recuperaci6nmexica del pasado teotihuacano. 1946 The Originand Spread of the GridPattern Town. Geo- InstitutoNacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico graphical Review36:105-120. City. Steinhardt,Nancy S. 1998 Recreatingthe Cosmos: SeventeenAztec Dedication 1990 ChineseImperial City Planning. University of Hawaii Caches. In The Sowing and the Dawning: Termination, Press, Honolulu. Dedication,and Transformationin theArchaeologicaland Umberger,Emily EthnographicRecord of Mesoamerica,edited by Shirley 1987 Antiques, Revivals, and References to the Past in Boteler Mock, pp. 177-188. Universityof New Mexico Aztec Art.RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics 13:62-105. Press,Albuquerque. 1996 Art and ImperialStrategy in Tenochtitlan.In Aztec Lynch,Kevin ImperialStrategies, edited by FrancesF. Berdanet al., pp. 1981 A Theoryof Good CityForm. MIT Press,Cambridge. 85-106. DumbartonOaks, Washington, DC. Mannikka,Eleanor Wheatley,Paul 1996 AngkorWat: Time, Space, and Kingship.University 1971 ThePivot ofthe FourQuarters: A PreliminaryEnquiry of HawaiiPress, Honolulu. into the Originsand the Characterof theAncient Chinese Matos Moctezuma,Eduardo City.Aldine, Chicago. 1995 Life and Death in the TemploMayor. Translatedby Zuidema,R. Tom BernardR. Ortizde Montellanoand Themla Ortiz de Mon- 1990 Inca Civilizationin Cuzco.University of TexasPress, tellano. UniversityPress of Colorado,Boulder. Austin. Maudslay,Alfred P. 1913 A Note on the Positionand Extentof the GreatTem- Notes ple Enclosureof Tenochtitlanand the Position,Structure, and Orientation of the Teocalli of Huitzilopochtli 1. The statementin the Motolinia Insertno. 1 (published (Abstract).In Proceedings, 18th InternationalCongress in Motolinfa 1971:50-54) was first noted by Maudslay ofAmericanists(London, 1912), vol. 1, pp. 173-175. Har- (1913:175), who stated,"Motolinfa says thatthe festivalcalled rison and Sons, London. Tlacaxipeualistli'took place when the sun stood in the middle Moseley, Michael E. of Huichilobos,which was at the equinox, and because it was 2001 The Incas and TheirAncestors: The Archaeologyof a little out of the straight,Montezuma wished to pull it down Peru. Revised ed. Thamesand Hudson,New York. 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 ICA AN ANTIQUITY [Vol.14, No. 2, 2003] ish originalis in Motolinia 1971:51).This quote,whose impor- munication2002), acknowledgesRowe's and Prem'sreserva- tance for the study of Mesoamericanastronomical alignments tions but prefershis own publishedinterpretation. Although I is obvious, has been much discussed in the literature.Maud- am hesitant to venture very far into the realm of archaeoas- slay's interpretationis acceptedby Aveni (2001:236-238), and tronomy,Aveni's interpretationseems to me the most logical Aveni et al. (1988:290, 294-295), who analyze the natureof one. I thankHanns Prem and Anthony Aveni for theiropinions the likely observationalpractices in relationto the architecture and citations on this issue. of the Templo Mayor. Rowe (1977:229-230), on the other 2. Anothersimilarity in site plandiscussed by Ashmoreand hand,expresses reservationsabout Maudslay's interpretation. Sabloff focuses on and (2002:207-208). Prem HannsPrem (personal communication 2002) follows Rowe and (2000:66) points out disagreementover the degree of similar- suggests that two separate issues may be conflated in the ity of these site plans, however. He contrastsAshmore and Motolinia Insert: whether Tlacaxipehualiztli fell on the Sabloff's (2000) views with those of Andrews(1975:326), who equinox, andthe meaningof the obscurestatement that the sun finds "almostno consistency in their generalconfigurations." was "inthe middleof Huichilobos"(which Maudslay and Aveni interpretas meaningthat the sun rosebehind the Huitzilopochtli temple on the TemploMayor). Anthony Aveni (personalcom- Received August 21, 2002; Accepted October 22, 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