The Teotihuacan Trinity: The Sociopolitical Structure of an Ancient Mesoamerican City

Notes

notes chapter 1 1. The account of the compound’s discovery appears in R. Millon 1973:18–20. Although some excavations took place in the compound, determining the function of this space is problematic because much of the archaeological evidence has been destroyed by modern construction, including the old museum at the site. 2. The names Sun Pyramid and Moon Pyramid derive from sixteenth-century Aztec appellations, and it is unclear whether they reflect Teotihuacan conceptions of these structures (Cowgill 2000a:358). 3. In her analysis of cave symbolism, Doris Heyden (1981:3–4) suggests that the Sun Pyramid cave was the religious focus for early Teotihuacan. 4. This version of Teotihuacan’s history comes from R. Millon (1966a, 1966b). The precise dates for the various periods at Teotihuacan are problematic, but I will use recent chronologies proposed by Braswell (2003b) and Cowgill (1997, 2003b). 5. See, for example, the elevated bench on the exterior of Yayahuala (Séjourné 1966b:74). 6. René Millon (1970:1080) offered the original estimates for apartment compound habitation, but recent work by Linda Manzanilla (1990:83) incorporating burial data suggests that some calculations may be inflated by 25 percent. Considering that only three to four compounds have been excavated to an extensive degree with modern techniques, any population estimates of the apartment compounds or the city as a whole are notoriously difficult (Cowgill 1974, 1993b:118; R. Millon 1992:344). 7. The 1992–1993 excavations by Rubén Cabrera at the La Ventilla apartment compounds have offered a better picture of the variety of wealth among neighboring structures. Of two apartment compounds on either side of a street, one contained finely plastered walls with elaborate murals, while the other had only mud-plastered walls with small remnants of murals (Cabrera, personal communication 1993). 8. The strongest evidence for a permanent foreign population at Teotihuacan comes from the Oaxaca Barrio , also known as Tlailotlacan. A Oaxacan-style tomb as well as Zapotec-style urns indicate that the residents of the compound managed to preserve their Zapotec customs and beliefs over several centuries of occupation (Altschul 1987:214; R. Millon 1973, 1974; Rattray 1987b; Rattray and Ruiz 1980; Spence 1989, 1992). In addition, Gulf Coast and Early Classic Lowland Maya ceramics found at the ‘‘Merchants ’’ Barrio may signal a foreign presence (R. Millon 1981; Rattray 1987b). Rattray argued that the circular structures found in this area could indicate Veracruz ties for the residents of this compound (Rattray 1989). 9. These estimates of Teotihuacan’s size are based on the work of Cowgill (1996, 2000a, and 2003a) and René Millon (1973:8, 1988a:113, 1992:354). 10. For one such different interpretation, see Braswell 2003b:23–27. An extensive variety of voices on the subject of Maya and Teotihuacan interactions may be found in the various articles contained in Braswell 2003a. Approaching the material from a Teotihuacan perspective, Cowgill (2003b) developed a better understanding of when in Teotihuacan’s history such interactions took place. 11. Cowgill (1996:256) highlighted the numerous de- ficiencies within Teotihuacan archaeology. As he noted, excavations cover little more than 2 percent of the site; many have not been published adequately; collections have been discarded; and reports from early excavations before modern practices are problematic. Furthermore, he pointed out that many excavations proceeded with the goal of restoration, not identification of construction sequences. 12. Sugiyama (2005:119, 183–184) also discussed the staff and its association with rulership, although he is unsure whether this was a royal tomb. 13. Sugiyama (1992:224–225, 2005:235) also introduced the suggestion that a pit in front of the temple staircase is another possible location of a Teotihuacan ruler’s tomb. This pit was looted during the construction of the adosada, a large porch-like platform that later covered the front of the original temple. 14. This lack of evidence is not entirely due to ancient looting, because there was a substantial loss of archaeological information both during and after the excavations. For the best account of the cave’s excavations, see René Millon 1981:231–234. 15. For information about recent excavations in the Moon Pyramid, see Cabrera and Sugiyama 1999; Sugiyama and Cabrera 2000; and Sugiyama 2005. 16. This sequence of architectural campaigns is largely based on R. Millon 1992; however, until full-scale excavations with ceramic analysis are undertaken on the structures lining the Avenue of the Dead, this sequence is subject to modification. 17...