Mesoamerican Archaeology

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:35 pm

Thanks Monk, you're the "go to guy" for astronomy info. That's more information than I need, and it was quite understandable.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 3:42 pm

I wish I could remember this sort of stuff without having to look it up every time. Anyway, regarding Teotihuacan, George Kubler (The Art & Architecture of Ancient America - third edition, Pelican books) writes:

Like many later central Mexican platforms, the eastern pyramid faces 15 degrees north 30 minutes north of west, so that the sun sets on axis with the edifice upon the day of zenith passage. The Sun Pyramid governs the axial arrangement of all other buildings at the site.

I've read that the avenue of the dead was originally at a slightly different orientation to its present one, although it was altered early on in the city's history and Kubler, rather annoyingly, fails to mention this. Damn. Can't find any reference to that, so maybe (once again) I dreamed it. Not sure quite how that impacts on Venus, though as FM points out, the favouring of one stellar object doesn't necessarily rule out that of another. I suspect the circular Venus pyramids were a later development, though I could be wrong.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 4:07 pm

http://www.delange.org/Cuicuilco/Cuicuilco.htm

Here is a link to the circular pyramid in Mexico City. It's a review of someone's vacation but they took good pictures.

It's my understanding that there used to be three of them, but now only this one is left. I don't know why.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:28 pm

At the end of this short film, the guide gives his interpretation of the purpose of Chich'en Itza

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... &plindex=8

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Oct 04, 2007 7:53 pm

I saw one reference that the round pyrymid of Cuicuilco was destroyed by construction of a high-rise office complex. Nevertheless, here is an interesting link -

http://www.archaeology.org/0611/abstracts/agave.html

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 2:37 am

Beagle wrote:http://www.delange.org/Cuicuilco/Cuicuilco.htm

Here is a link to the circular pyramid in Mexico City. It's a review of someone's vacation but they took good pictures.

It's my understanding that there used to be three of them, but now only this one is left. I don't know why.

Thanks for that superb link, although in some ways it only adds to the frustration of having been there three times (including two hours wandering across the vast university campus) and still not found the bloody thing. The signs all pointed to a small public park with, in one corner, an overgrown and fenced off curving wall that I never found completely convincing as the remains of Cuicuilco. Going by those pictures (and it's nice to see modern ones rather than the usual two that always turn up in the books) it definitely wasn't. Next time I go to Mexico I'm going to refuse to leave until I've found the bloody place! I wouldn't mind but I used different directions each time from a lonely planet guide, then taxi drivers, even a letter from a prof who had been there - everytime I ended up in that sodding park!
I'm normally a dab hand at finding obscure lumps of rock in unexpected places.
Not sure what the other two would have been, though I assume this doesn't include the "circular pyramid" at Pino Suarez metro station - it's much later and is really more of a cylindrical platform (the sides don't slope) than a circular pyramid and covers the ground of (roughly) a very generous garden shed.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Oct 05, 2007 3:43 am

I just said - the pyramid is under an office complex! Mexico, apparently, does not want to live in the past.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 4:49 am

I just said - the pyramid is under an office complex!

I understand your frustration Monk. It has happened to me countless times. But you're sounding a little harsh I think.

Obviously W/A read the above post (mine) and hit the quote button to reply. I do it. You do it. We all do it. Unfortunately posts get missed all the time.

If you really want some confusion, just try to keep up with some of the conversations at Maat. That board is not phpbb and it's the most confusing mess I've ever seen.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:00 am

The real frustration, is not because W/A may have missed my post. Its the fact that priceless archaeological treasures cannot be preserved. And yet, I understand also, that things must progress. Afterall, it not always practical to preserve a site. Land is expensive and needs to be put to use.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:34 am

An element of truth there Monk, but again, what does it say about our society that land is more valued than heritage?

kbs2244 · Post by **kbs2244** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 5:50 pm

Well, there are two sides to that argument.
Would you be in favor of the Elgin Marbles being sent back to where their heritage is undoubted.
Or kept some place where they are in a climate controlled space, to be preserved beyond the capabilities of their homeland?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:51 am

Under the conditions that you describe I would keep them here because the preservation of our heritage should be more important than national pride. But if the Greeks set up the correct conditions that would be different.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 9:32 am

Forum Monk wrote:The real frustration, is not because W/A may have missed my post. Its the fact that priceless archaeological treasures cannot be preserved. And yet, I understand also, that things must progress. Afterall, it not always practical to preserve a site. Land is expensive and needs to be put to use.

Wooah. Sorry. I didn't miss your post, but the link was discussing somewhere else and Beagle's link suggested that Cuicuilco was at least still there in 1995. I was assuming (perhaps wrongly) the one that got built over was something other than Cuicuilco, based purely on (1) they can't have built over it surely - I know that sort of thing does happen from time to time but Cuicuilco has long been recognised as very much a significant site and (2) Mexico City residents trying to give me directions to it in 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2005. Obviously there's some wires crossed here somewhere, and personally I believe they're mine and the site still stands, although I concede with the present lack of evidence you may well be right - any more information on that appreciated.
Sorry - didn't mean to appear rude there.

Aha!
True enough, certain finds at the site (including a circular pyramid) were bulldozed as you say, FM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuicuilco
Given that these seem to be located at part of the site only discovered in 1990, I suspect the larger structure remains (it was excavated many years ago), as is suggested by the photos taken in the link supplied by Beagle. Nevertheless it's still outrageous. Last time I saw Mexico City it had plenty of vacant lots that could have supported another office block so it's a mystery how such a thing happened. They normally seem pretty hot on preserving their ruins even if it's only in support of tourist dollars.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 10:53 am

War Arrow wrote:Sorry - didn't mean to appear rude there.

You're not rude and I didn't mean to appear that way as well. Sorry.

True enough, certain finds at the site (including a circular pyramid) were bulldozed as you say, FM:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuicuilco
Given that these seem to be located at part of the site only discovered in 1990, I suspect the larger structure remains (it was excavated many years ago), as is suggested by the photos taken in the link supplied by Beagle. Nevertheless it's still outrageous. Last time I saw Mexico City it had plenty of vacant lots that could have supported another office block so it's a mystery how such a thing happened. They normally seem pretty hot on preserving their ruins even if it's only in support of tourist dollars.

My reference was from the net as I researching circular pyramids. I would be happy to try to find it but at this point feel it would serve little purpose. I suspect, as you do, the greater site may be present, hence the efforts of some to direct you to the site even recently. I had a similar experience in Carnia, Italy looking for the 'torre romanum' or what ever site supposedly existed there. The 'official' signs were in place but no ruins to be found and the locals, though friendly seemed a bit suspicious of the stranger tromping over their fields. Sadly, I never found a thing, though I did visit many other ruins with success.

War Arrow · Post by **War Arrow** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 3:56 am

Forum Monk wrote: You're not rude and I didn't mean to appear that way as well. Sorry.

Er... that's okay. You didn't.
I think I'd better stop posting beore I turn this forum into a Soho Gentleman's club circa 1880.
"Do forgive me, my dear fellow."
"Not at all."
"Oh but I insist, my dear sir." etc. etc.

Still I suppose it's better than "Ha Ha You're all going to HELL' and the like.