Citation
Analysis of social space

Material Information

Title:
Analysis of social space
Alternate title:
Analyzing lived experiences in the Los Guachimontones central ceremonial area
Creator:
Hollon, Kristie ( author )
Language:
English
Physical Description:
1 electronic file (298 pages) : ;

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Ethnoarchaeology -- Mexico -- Jalisco ( lcsh )
Geographic information systems ( lcsh )
Public architecture -- Mexico -- Jalisco ( lcsh )
Indian architecture -- Mexico -- Jalisco ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Review:
This research sets out to investigate the formation of lived experiences and the dissemination of social order as mediated through monumental architecture. The built environment is a communicative medium through which important wayfinding information is conveyed. In order to investigate how lived experiences are formed and sociopolitical relations are established, reproduced and maintained, this study focuses on the architectural program of the Teuchitlán Culture that thrived in Western Mexico during the Late Formative (300 BC – AD 200) and Early Classic (AD 300-500) periods. Specifically examined is the public architecture, known as guachimontón, found at the Central Ceremonial Area of the site Los Guachimontones located in the Tequila Valley of Jalisco, Mexico (LGCCA). ( , )
Review:
Taking a phenomenological approach, this study utilizes sophisticated quantitative methods, GIS and Space Syntax, in order to address three central questions: 1) How is architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain experiences; 2) how do subsequent construction phases change or impact these experiences; and 3) how do those experiences lend coherence to the society as a whole? The results indicate that the location of the LGCCA and structures therein are indicative of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision, and that ideology may influence an individual perception of space even before entering the area. The results also show that the placement of subsequent construction of structures is deliberate affecting access and visibility. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures reveals that these spaces fostered high levels of co-awareness and co-presence, which further suggests that these spaces functioned as public arenas. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures indicates that platform size and visual space may have been manipulated to express disproportions of symbolic and political power amongst working corporate groups. This provides evidence and generated a narrative for the individuals and groups of people who came into contact with the guachimontón structures within the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area and the experiences that may have become manifest as a result.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.) - University of Colorado Denver.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographic references
System Details:
System requirements: Adobe Reader.
General Note:
Department of Anthropology
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kristie Hollon .

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
944966516 ( OCLC )
ocn944966516
Classification:
LD1193.L43 2015m H66 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE: ANALYZING LIVED EXPERIENCES IN THE LOS
GUACHI MONTONES CENTRAL CEREMONIAL AREA
by
KRISTIE HOLLON
B.S., University of New Mexico, 2012
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado in partial fulfillment
Of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts
Anthropology
2015


2015
KRISTIE HOLLON
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


This thesis for the Masters of Arts degree by
Kristie Hollon
has been approved for the
Anthropology Department
by
Christopher Beekman, Chair
Marty Otanez
Tammy Stone
October 16, 2015


Hollon, Kristie (M.A., Anthropology)
Analysis of Social Space: Analyzing Lived Experiences in the Los Guachimontones Central
Ceremonial Area
Thesis directed by Associate Professor Christopher Beekman
ABSTRACT
This research sets out to investigate the formation of lived experiences and the
dissemination of social order as mediated through monumental architecture. The built
environment is a communicative medium through which important wayfinding
information is conveyed. In order to investigate how lived experiences are formed and
sociopolitical relations are established, reproduced and maintained, this study focuses
on the architectural program of the Teuchitlan Culture that thrived in Western Mexico
during the Late Formative (300 BC AD 200) and Early Classic (AD 300-500) periods.
Specifically examined is the public architecture, known as guachimonton, found at the
Central Ceremonial Area of the site Los Guachimontones located in the Tequila Valley of
Jalisco, Mexico (LGCCA).
Taking a phenomenological approach, this study utilizes sophisticated
quantitative methods, GIS and Space Syntax, in order to address three central questions:
1) How is architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain
experiences; 2) how do subsequent construction phases change or impact these
experiences; and 3) how do those experiences lend coherence to the society as a
whole? The results indicate that the location of the LGCCA and structures therein are
indicative of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision, and that ideology may influence an
individual perception of space even before entering the area. The results also show that
IV


the placement of subsequent construction of structures is deliberate affecting access
and visibility. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures reveals that these spaces fostered
high levels of co-awareness and co-presence, which further suggests that these spaces
functioned as public arenas. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures indicates that
platform size and visual space may have been manipulated to express disproportions of
symbolic and political power amongst working corporate groups. This provides evidence
and generated a narrative for the individuals and groups of people who came into
contact with the guachimonton structures within the Los Guachimontones Central
Ceremonial Area and the experiences that may have become manifest as a result.
The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication.
Approved: Christopher Beekman
v


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This thesis could not have been completed without the constant support and
encouragement from family, friends, the anthropology department, my committee and
my advisor. This entire process was a mental and emotional rollercoaster, and I deeply
appreciate everyone who stood by me, comforted me and prayed for me.
To my parents, Jon Hollon and Julie Garcia, for being my number one supporters.
Thank you for the late night phone calls and for buying me my first coffee maker. It was
much needed and much appreciated. Thank you for allowing me to pursue my dreams,
for giving me a sense of curiosity for all things "ancient," and for tolerating the mess I
would make when I would take over the living room with my many articles and books.
To my sisters, Tamie, Cindy and Joanie, for always supporting me and for not allowing
me to give up. I appreciate all your words of wisdom and comfort. I share this
accomplishment with you.
To my loving and understanding friends for letting me bounce ideas off of you
and for listening to me practice for my defense. Thank you for reminding me that it is
okay to take a break from time to time and for understanding when I had to work rather
than play. A special thank you to my roommate, An Nguyen, for keeping things in order
and for taking care of Bayuard while I spent long hours at campus or the library. You all
have been a huge motivating factor one I could not have done this without. To my
undergraduate companion and editor extraordinaire, Gillian Leonard, thank you for
taking the time to read and look through my thesis. You are truly a gem and a life saver!
VI


To Connie Turner for always putting a smile on my face and for helping me to see
the brighter side of things. Thank you for keeping me organized. When I was one the
brink of tears in the student lounge, you were there to calm me down and to say,
"Everything will work out. You can do this." Thank you for your unwavering faith and
trust in my ability to succeed.
To my thesis committee members, Marty Otanez and Tammy Stone, for being
patient throughout this entire process. I appreciate the time spent reading this entire
work. Your enthusiasm and desire to motivate and help me accomplish this feat is
inspiring. Thank you for having confidence in me as student and as a developing
professional. Thank you for all that you have taught me in and out of the classroom.
To my advisor, committee chair, mentor and friend, Christopher Beekman, for
introducing me to the wonders of the Teuchitlan Culture. I appreciate your guidance,
support and patience. From the first page to the last, I appreciate all the edits and
critiques you made. I have something I will forever be proud of as a result of your
dedication and uncompromising desire for me to produce something of quality. There is
a part of you on every page of this.
VII


TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION...........................................................1
Research Aims and Rationale.....................................5
Chapter by Chapter Overview.....................................7
II. FRAMING ARCHITECTURE WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL LENS......................10
Landscapes in Archaeology......................................11
Monumental Architecture and its Impact on Social Relations.....19
Monumental Architecture and its Impact on Political Relations..25
Concluding Thoughts............................................36
III. THE SETTING: WEST MEXICO..............................................38
The Architectural Program of the Teuchitlan Culture............44
Explanation of the Teuchitlan Culture Trajectory...............50
Site Selection.................................................58
Concluding Thoughts............................................85
IV. IN CONSIDERATION OF GREATER MESOAMERICA AND THE TEUCHITLAN
CULTURE...............................................................86
Symbolism and Power in Mesoamerica.............................86
Symbolism and Power in the Teuchitlan Culture..................98
Concluding Thoughts...........................................113
V. INVESTIGATING SPACE AND EXPERIENCE..........................114
Data Sources..................................................126
129
viii
The Approach


The Encounter.................................................139
The Administration............................................142
Concluding Thoughts...........................................148
VI. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS................................................150
The Approach..................................................150
The Encounter.................................................166
The Administration............................................168
VII. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION.............................................203
The Approach..................................................203
The Encounter.................................................207
The Administration............................................208
Generating a Narrative for a Complex Society..................212
GIS, Space Syntax and Phenomenology: An Assessment............213
Possible New Directions.......................................215
Concluding Thoughts...........................................216
REFERENCES..................................................................218
APPENDIX....................................................................239
IX


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
3.1: Map of Northwest Mexico indicating the political divisions and major archaeological
sites...............................................................................41
3.2: Map of Teuchitlan Culture sites showing habitation densities.................43
3.3: Idealized cross-section of five element Guachimonton architectural complex...45
3.4: Teuchitlan Culture architectural geometry.....................................47
3.5: Teuchitlan Culture architectural proportionality..............................47
3.6: Ceramic model depicting a Ritual Center......................................49
3.7: Ceramic model depicting Pole Ceremony.........................................49
3.8: Architectural Chronology......................................................51
3.9: Map of Los Guachimontones indicating Central Ceremonial Area.................60
3.10 Chronology of the Los Guachimontones Site....................................61
3.11: Schematic Plan of Circle 1...................................................62
3.12: View of V-Shape created by the southeast end of Ballcourt 1 and Platform 12 of
Circle II. Facing northwest.........................................................65
3.13: Patio-side view of Platform 7 showing stairs that extends from the platform. Facing
northeast...........................................................................66
3.14: Patio-side view of Platform 12 showing steps extending along the northwest portion
of the structure. Facing southwest..................................................67
3.15: Patio-side view of Platform 2 showing built-in stairs. Facing west...........67
3.16: Staircase located between platforms 7 and 8 leading to an elite residence. Facing
northeast...........................................................................68
3.17: Schematic Plan of Circle II..................................................69
3.18: View of Circle II, central pyramid. Facing west..............................70
3.19: View of Platforms 10,1 and 2 with central pyramid............................71
3.20: Patio-side view of stairway between Platforms 10 and 1.......................72
x


3.21: Patio-side view of Platform 3. Facing southeast................................73
3.22: View of Platform 3 depicting stairway leading to square plaza. Facing
northwest............................................................................73
3.23: Patio-side view of Platform 7 two patio-side access ways. Facing west...........74
3.24: Banquette-side view of Platform 7 illustrating stairway in the southeastern potion.
Facing north.........................................................................75
3.25: Schematic Plan of Circle III....................................................76
3.26: View of Circle III, central pyramid. Facing west................................76
3.27: Patio-side view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway in the northwestern potion. Facing
northeast............................................................................77
3.28: V view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway leading to eastern square plaza. Facing
southwest............................................................................78
3.29: Back-side view of Platform 8 illustrating stairway extending from platform leading
to western square plaza. Facing southeast.....................................79
3.30: Schematic Plan of Circle IV.....................................................80
3.31: View of Circle IV with central pyramid. Facing northwest........................80
3.32: View of Platforms 3 with inset stairs. Facing west..............................81
3.33: View of Platforms 4 with back-side stairs. Facing east..........................82
3.34: View of Ballcourt 1 atop Platform 1 of Circle IV. Facing southeast..............83
3.35: View of Ballcourt 1 southern head platform. Facing southeast....................84
4.1: Different conceptions of the cardinal directions and places based on accounts of
referential practice from come contemporary Yucatan communities......................88
4.2: Two Different Depictions of the Axis Mundi.......................................90
4.3: Plan of Tikal Twin Pyramid Group.................................................92
4.4: E-Group site plan depicting the tripartite division..............................94
4.5 Map of La Noria, which includes elevations marking the outermost ring as a
hillock..............................................................................99
XI


4.6: Idealized plan of the Guachimonton Complex...............................99
4.7: Comparison between Harinoso de Ocho and the Guachimonton viewed from
above..........................................................................100
4.8: Ceramic model depicting a burial procession.......................................106
4.9: Ceremonial Village Scene with a Flying Figure.....................................Ill
5.1: Representation of the vector data model depicting polygons (A and B), lines (1, 2 and
3) and points (a, b, c, d etc.)........................................117
5.2: Representation of how the raster data model convert vector data as an assembly of
cells...........................................................................118
5.3: Representation of convexspace and axial lines.....................................122
5.4: Representation of justified graphs based on the spaces depicted in Figure
5.3............................................................................122
5.5: Conversion of 3D (left) vector data to TIN surface (right)........................135
5.6: Completed AGRAPH node-to-node graph showing all spaces and links drawn between
them with site map set as guiding background....................................137
5.7: Drawing of an observer atop the patio viewing the face of a platform..............145
6.1: Average elevations for each structure within the LGCCA............................152
6.2: Results of Slope Analysis indicating the modern town ofTeuchitlan and the rural road
used to access the site.........................................................156
6.3: Results of Cost Distance Analysis from the modern town of Teuchitlan to the
LGCCA..........................................................................157
6.4: Justified graph of LGCCA indicating all connections...............................160
6.5: Schematic Plan of Circle 1........................................................170
6.6: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle 1................171
6.7: Percent Change in Visual area for Circle I Platforms..............................172
6.8: Proportionality Results for Circle 1..............................................173
6.9: Schematic Plan of Circle II...............................................176
xii


6.10: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle II
177
6.11: Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle II Platforms........................178
6.12: Proportionality Results for Circle II........................................179
6.13: Schematic Plan of Circle III.................................................181
6.14: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle III.........182
6.15: Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle III Platforms.......................183
6.16: Proportionality Results for Circle III.......................................184
6.17: Schematic Plan of Circle IV..................................................185
6.18: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle IV..........186
6.19: Percent Change in Visual area for Circle IV Platforms........................187
6.20: Proportionality Results for Circle IV........................................188
6.21: Line of sight representation indicating Circle I platforms as source point and area
beyond Circle II as target point.............................................190
6.22: Line of sight representation with Platforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central
altar of Circle III as the target point......................................192
6.23: Line of sight representation with Platforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central
altar of Circle I as the target point........................................193
6.24: Line of sight representation with Platforms 1 and 8 as source points and the central
altar of Circle I as the target point........................................195
6.25: Line of sight representation with Platforms 3 and 8 as source points and the central
altar of Circle III as the target point......................................197
6.26: Elevation and Percent Visibility of Central Altars in LGCCA..................198
6.27: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle I as the source point and the
central altar of Circle II as the target point...............................199
6.28: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle II as the source point and the
central altar of Circle I as the target point................................199
6.29: Average Elevation and Percent Visibility of Platform Observer Points in
LGCCA........................................................................202
xiii


B.l: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Central Altar...............248
B.2: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1..................249
B.3: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2..................250
B.4: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7..................251
B.5: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11.................252
B.6: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12.................253
B.7: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar..............254
B.8: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1.................255
B.9: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2.................256
B.10: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3................257
B.ll: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4................258
B.12: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5................259
B.13: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6................260
B.14: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 7................261
B.15: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8................262
B.16: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9................263
B.17: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10...............264
B.18: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar...........265
B.19: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1..............266
B.20: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2...............267
B.21: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3...............268
B.22: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8...............269
B.23: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar.............270
B.24: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1...............271
XIV


B.25: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2................272
B.26: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3................273
B.27: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4................274
B.28: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5................275
B.29: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6................276
B.30: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7................277
B.31: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8................278
xv


LIST OF TABLES
Table
3.1: Regional Model and greater Mesoamerican chronology.......................53
4.1: Summary of Site rank, habitation zone density and total volume...........103
4.2: Summary of Ceramic Analysis representing guachimontones found within the
LG CCA..................................................................112
5.1: Table of each structure and its data source..............................128
5.2: Population Data for Teuchitlan habitation zone for Tequila II, Tequila III and Tequila
IV phases......................................................................142
6.1: Review of Structure Dimensions............................................152
6.2: Results of cost distance analysis.........................................157
6.3: Results of AGRAPH calculations for each spatial unit in the LGCCA system..162
6.4: Average syntactic parameters for the major architectural groups within the
LGCCA...................................................................165
6.5: Results of capacity analysis..............................................167
6.6: Results of Circle I platform visual area analysis.........................170
6.7: Results of Circle II platforms visual area analysis.......................175
6.8: Results of Circle III platforms visual area analysis......................181
6.9: Results of Circle VI platform visual area analysis........................185
6.10: Results of Circle I viewshed analysis....................................190
6.11: Results of Circle II viewshed analysis...................................192
6.12: Results of Circle III viewshed analysis..................................194
6.13: Results of Circle IV viewshed analysis...................................197
6.14: Numberof platforms visible from each central altar.......................201
B.l: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Central Altar..........248
B.2: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1.............249
XVI


B.3: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2
250
B.4: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7.............251
B.5: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11............252
B.6: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12............253
B.7: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar.........254
B.8: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1............255
B.9: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2............256
B.10: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3..........257
B.ll: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4..........258
B.12: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5...........259
B.13: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6...........260
B.14: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 7..........261
B.15: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8...........262
B.16: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9...........263
B.17: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10.........264
B.18: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar.......265
B.19: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1..........266
B.20: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2..........267
B.21: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3.........268
B.22: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8..........269
B.23: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar........270
B.24: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1...........271
xvii


B.25: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2
272
B.26: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3...........273
B.27: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4...........274
B.28: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5...........275
B.29: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6...........276
B.30: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7...........277
B.31: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8...........278
xviii


CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
It is argued that material culture can transmit types of information better than
spoken language (Wobst 1977). For that reason, material culture must be highly visible
in order to transmit messages effectively. Arguably, the primary purpose of architecture
is to provide for the basic human need for shelter; however, architectural purpose
seems to go beyond that. Archaeologists have long accepted the notion that
architecture serves as an ideational screen through which cultural memes, vital for
successful wayfinding, can be communicated from which societal relations are
established, maintained and/or changed.
The study of architecture concerns central issues in archaeology such as the
negotiation of social and political relations as well as the basis of community-making. A
building's ornamentation can tell (or at least refer to) stories or folklore (Clark and
Crossley 2000). Their construction can give clues to the history of the people who built
them or about the people they were built to commemorate (Forty 2000) while their
layout on the landscape can provide information about a society's cosmovision (Broda
1982). Furthermore, the architectonics of a structure or set of structures can illustrate
inner social and political endeavors (Smith 2000).
Many scholars (e.g. Ashmore 1989,1991, 2009; DeMarrais et al.. 1996; Barrett
1999; Grove and Joyce 1999; Aveni et al.. 2003; Nash and Williams 2005; Nielsen 2005;
Monroe 2010) recognize architecture as the materialization of a society's ideology.
Anthropologist Raymond Firth (1996:15), conceptualizes ideology as "a set of ideas


more or less integrated by reason but held with conviction that they are true, that they
are meaningful in relation to reality." Ideologies encompass systems of ideas, especially
social, political and religious ideas, shared by a community. Ideologies are, however, by
definition rather general and abstract. People internalize and understand societal
memes differently (Giddens 1991); thus, ideologies must be given concrete physical
form (DeMarrais et al.. 1996) Architecture brings abstract conceptions into physical
form making space a part of reality.
Ingrained in spatial form is a language, a knowledge that then guides and informs
individuals how to act in the world. In this, architecture becomes a commodity, and
ideology/knowledge becomes something to possess and control:
Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of 'the truth' but has
the power to make itself true. All knowledge, once applied in the real world, has
effects, and in that sense at least, 'becomes true.' Knowledge, once used to
regulate the conduct of others, entails constraint, regulation and the disciplining
of practice. Thus, 'there is no power relation without the correlative constitution
of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and
constitute at the same time, power relations (Foucault 1977:27).
The construction, maintenance and use of space represent the exercise of power that
power is "seldom expressed directly as a physical force... it is exercised through the
recognition and acceptance of symbols of legitimacy" (Tuan 1974:151). Stallybrass and
White (1986:80) state that "the history of political struggle has been the history of the
attempts made to control significant sites of assembly and spaces of discourse." Spatial
reality is manipulated.
Power, within the scope of Mesoamerica, was created, legitimized and
negotiated largely though religious beliefs and practices (e.g. Joyce 2000; Scheie and
2


Freidel 1990), and the structures that housed such activities became intrinsically
embedded into the cosmovision of the society. These spaces, imbued with cosmological
significance, became ripe for manipulation by those who sought to create a model of
the world that reinforced their authority. As part of the cosmologic worldview of
Mesoamerica, city plans became maps of the sky, time and the universe as well as how
the human body and terrestrial space was related. Spatial analysis of public architecture
associated with ritual (i.e. the accessibility, visibility and/or organization of space, etc.)
can provide information about both participants and spectators as well as shed light on
the political and social structures that were in place.
According to Rapoport (1994:488), "environments are thought before they are
built." Equally, we build in order to think and act (Preziosi 1983). The relationship is
essentially dynamic and reflexive. Social, economic and/or political shifts within
populations materialize as modifications in the built environment. As Hillier and Hanson
(1984:27) assert:
The most far-reaching changes in the evolution of societies have usually involved
or led to profound shifts in spatial form and in the relation of society to its spatial
milieu; these shifts appear to be not so much a by-product of the social changes,
but an intrinsic part of them and even to some extent causative of them.
In complex societies such as those found in ancient Mesoamerica, constructed
landscapes, especially monumental spaces, were important aspects of culture that both
shape and are shaped by social actions (Ashmore and Knapp 1999). As functionally
unique landscapes, architectural forms and the spaces they create have the ability to
engender and facilitate specific experiences for those who interacted in and around
3


their bounds. As laid out by Tilley (1996:162), the study of architecture in archaeology
truly conceptualizes how space is used to mediate experience: "[Space is] experienced
and known through the movement of the human body in space and through time." The
poetics of architectural organizations the values which govern the organization of a
particular group allow people to more easily recognize and understand each other as
well as communicate to outsiders the manner in which people identify themselves and
structure their daily lives.
Architectural elements evoke different connotations or emotional feelings
(Smith 2000) given the aesthetics of architecture, which then brings about experience.
By experience, I mean how one moves through, interacts and then perceived the built
environment. Additionally, experience encompasses how one then interacts and relates
to other entities or people within the same spatial parameters. Different levels of co-
awareness and co-presence (Morton et al.. 2012) lead to different experiences. How
space is perceived and imagined affects the type of responses and behaviors a person
will have when interacting in and around that space:
Function in architecture often refers to dimensional concerns... and to
quantifiable concerns... But behavioral factors go deeper, to the psychology of
the user, how he or she perceived building form, social interaction needs,
subcultural differences in lifestyles, and the meaning and symbolism of buildings
(Moore 1979:47).
Space commands bodies, prescribing or proscribing gestures, routes and distances to be
covered. For that reason, people will engage with the built environment differently.
4


Research Aims and Rationale
This research sets out to investigate the role the built environment plays in
establishing and reproducing lived experiences as wells as to investigate how power is
then mediated through spatial form in the context of the Teuchitlan Culture that thrived
in Western Mexico during the Late Formative (300 BC AD 200) and Early Classic (AD
300-500) periods. Specifically examined is the public architecture at the site, Los
Guachimontones located in the Tequila Valley of Jalisco, Mexico. Throughout this work, I
seek to address three central questions. These questions are then grounded by a set of
statements that are then further explored throughout this work.
1. How is architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain
experiences?
a. Architecture is a signifying system through which social order is
communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored;
b. The aesthetics of architecture communicate clear ideologies of power
and authority; and,
c. Architecture becomes the meeting ground between the agent and social
structures.
2. How do subsequent construction phases change or impact these experiences?
a. The creation, use and expansion of a site embodies changes in social,
ideological and political relations.
3. How do those experiences lend coherence to the society as a whole?
5


a. The public architecture of the Teuchitlan Culture is visually distinct in
comparison to other forms of public architecture giving rise to a unique
lived experience; and
b. Certain structures are retained/maintained throughout the Teuchitlan
Culture due to their historical significances.
These questions and assumptions will then be tested using spatial methods spawning
from space syntax while using a geographic information system.
The claims presented in this thesis and the conclusions made from the number
analyses are vast and substantial. First and foremost, this study broadens our
understanding of the site as well as our understanding of the culture as a whole. What
Mesoamerican literature and historical documents have left out, this study seeks to
understand: the social and political complexity of West Mexican culture as it relates to
conscious manipulation of the landscape. Furthermore, this research seeks to dispel
some of the misconceptions about West Mexican culture as "simple."
This research expands on the existing theoretical foundations for and ways to
approach the study of archaeological and architectural experience in a region where it
has yet to be explored. This project enhances scientific/technical understanding in that
it will serve as a basic model on how to apply the archaeological record when dealing
with the phenomenology. This study sets forth a methodology that can be applied to
other sites not only within the Teuchitlan Culture but also to other contemporaneous
sites throughout the Mesoamerican landscape. Some preliminary proposals are made
here on the way GIS and space syntax methods may be used (in a more humanistic way)
6


in order to close the gap between method and theory. This research aims to show the
potential of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in light of current anthropological
approaches to landscape and architecture. It follows from an attempt to break free from
the environmental determinism dominating GIS applications in archaeology.
The difference between this work and previous ones undertaken is the focus on
practice (Bourdieu 1991), which is seldom explored via a sophisticated quantitative
methods. Practice is explored in reference to the nature and spatial location and the
possible use of topographic features as perceived on the landscape. In all, this study is
significant in that it seeks to tie spatial and social realms, ultimately quantifying the
human experience.
Chapter by Chapter Overview
Chapter II provides the foundation for this research by exploring spatial analysis
within landscape studies in archaeology. This section seeks to define keywords and
concepts as used in this work. Additionally, this chapter will attempt to set forth the
framework that I will apply in studying the architectural elements of the Teuchitlan
Culture. Specifically discussed are the aspects of post-processualism as it pertains to
symbolism and power. Attention is drawn to these aspects and how they then relate to
practice and the ultimate formation of experience.
Chapter III introduces the project area. Explained will be the physical
environment as well as the cultural historical setting of West Mexico. More importantly,
this chapter examines the Teuchitlan Culture and its unique architectural program and
7


the various elements that classify it. Finally, this chapter describes the chronology and
morphology of the site Los Guachimontones, which is the focus of this study.
Chapter IV then combines what was discussed in the previous two chapters in
order to contextualize the guachimonton motif within a wider pan-Mesoamerican
worldview. The foundations of the pan-Mesoamerican cosmovision and political
strategies are presented to then draw connects to the Teuchitlan Culture.
Chapter V introduces the methodology taken for this project. It addresses the
types of data collected and how those data were collected using field reports as well as
existing published and unpublished maps. This chapter provides a discussion of how that
data were then processed and later analyzed. Described is the phenomenological
approach taken and how GIS and space syntax were used to visually demonstrate
patterns of visibility, access, connectivity, etc.
Chapter VI then presents the results of those analyses. These results are then
woven together with to the modern tourist's experience. For example, the cost distance
analysis ran using GIS shows that the journey to the Los Guachimontones Central
Ceremonial Area is an extremely costly one with several dramatic increases in slope. For
modern tourists, walking up to the site is physically exhausting, and is followed by a
break upon arrival. Then walking around between circles is physically easy.
Chapter VII reviews each of the results of the analyses presented in the previous
chapter so as to generate a narrative about the LGCCA experience. This chapter also
reviews the research questions and ties together the theoretical standpoints with the
methods chosen for this study. This chapter also outlines possible new directions.
8


Chapter VII is then followed by Appendices and References.
9


CHAPTER II
FRAMING ARCHITECTURE WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL LENS
Many ideas exist on how architecture and the physicality of built environments
condition social interaction and sustain political and ideological relations. For some,
architecture and the landscapes they create symbolize the ability to command and
control resources (e.g. Trigger 1990; Joye and Verpooten 2013; Neiman 1998). They are
stages for political exchanges shaping and affecting the negation of power. While others
argue that the built environment is the physical, materialized representation of a
society's cosmovision (e.g. Ashmore 1989; Dowd 2015; Broda 1982), which help
facilitate social interactions. They serve as maps defining interpersonal and cosmological
relationships. In many discussions, these perspectives are kept separate. This research;
however, combines each of these so as to fully explore how monumental architecture is
used both as an ideational screen and a political strategy.
Theoretically this research draws on recent studies that investigate the social
role of landscape and architecture as cultural artifacts (e.g. Bender 1993;
1998; Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; Parker-Pearson and Richards 1994; Tilley
1994). The approaches taken by such scholars direct our attention to the interplay
between power relations and embodied practices mediated by material culture and
historically shaped perceptions of meanings. They support the idea that monumental
architecture, arguably designed for interactions among a large number of individuals,
must have provided a critical arena for the constitution and transformation of society
(Foucault 1977; Geertz 1980; Houston 1998; Inomata 2006; Inomata and Cohen 2006).
10


In support of these perspectives, I argue that spatial forms are embedded in the cultural
landscape of a society, which can be seen as a mixture of the physical, representational
and experiential.
The following sections explore how monumental architecture is conceptualized
with an archaeological lens as it pertains to landscape studies. The evolution of
landscape studies and the concept of landscape as a unit of analysis are discussed so as
to better understand how architecture embodies not only the physical dimensions of
space but also the social and political implications of society. Subsequent discussions
narrow the focus onto the formation of spatial meaning and political strategies through
social practice specifically ritual. Addressed throughout is the challenge of linking human
experience bodily movements to spatial parameters.
Landscapes in Archaeology
Landscapes are sources of knowledge not only for the people who inhabit them
but also for the archaeologists who later interpret them. For many decades, landscapes
have provided archaeologists with a framework for contextualizing observation and
establishing relationships between sites across time and space. Landscape studies
within archaeology presents an opportunity for diachronic investigations in which the
changing use and inhabitation of a particular region are the focus (Davis and Thomas
2008). Despite the potentials when engaging in landscape archaeology it has a relatively
short history.
It wasn't until the mid-to-late 1980s that the concept of landscape was widely
cited in academic work. A shift in language that once placed landscape as
11


interchangeable with site now made it a unit of study in and of itself. As with any
paradigm within archaeology, landscape archaeology and the concept of landscape as a
unit of analysis has undergone much transformation, review and contestation.
With the processual philosophies of the 1960-1970s still very alive, landscape
archaeology presented itself as a type of environment archaeology (David and Thomas
2010), which looked at the impacts people had on the land. In this respect, spatial
science took on a functionalist pursuit of paleoeconomy, paleoenvironment and
paleoecology. This focus was aimed at addressing questions of human organization and
scheduling in the landscape. The human-environment relationship was understood
using economic and/or adaptive settlement-subsistence strategies; therefore, landscape
considered only the physical characteristics of the land "...(e.g. climate, geography)
which have not been markedly changed by human impact" (Crystal 1990:412), and was
to be measured, compared, analyzed and interpreted via powerful statistical models.
When architecture, as material culture distributed across the landscape, was
incorporated into the conversation, it, along with the people who erected and used
them, was viewed as a neutral and passive object. The analysis of architecture within
these economic and ecological models was primarily concerned with developing cultural
chronologies and comparative typologies; it was largely classificatory and descriptive.
Spatial forms were categorized based on physical traits and functionality. Architecture
and the landscapes they created were merely vessels for societal change and were not
responsible for producing, altering or preserving aspects of culture.
12


With the post processual movement underway, many other scholars became
dissatisfied with the limitations of neoevolutionism and sought to redefine landscape
studies within archaeology as cultural rather than natural object. According to David and
Thomas (2010:36), landscape archaeology turned its attention to symbolic dimensions
of space: landscapes as ritual engines (Gibbs and Veth 2002), landscapes as spiritscapes
(David et al. 2005), landscapes as ritual orchestration (McNiven and Feldman 2003) and
landscape as cosmovision (Boivin 2004). With this in mind, there began an effort to
humanize space and understand it as "a medium rather than a container for action"
(Tilley 1994:10). Landscapes concern not only the physical environment in which people
live but also the meaningful locations in which lives are lived. The idea here is that space
cannot be understood apart from its relational significance to people and places: what
space is depends on who is experiencing it and how. By way of a more interpretive
rather than empirical approach, archaeologists began to invoke multiple sources of
social and political theory as a way of considering space as a cultural symbol laden with
meaning. Attention turned towards the nature of daily practices and how architecture
then mediates experiences (e.g. Bourdieu 1977, 1984; Giddens 1976 1979): the nature
of practice their location, how they change through time, how their distribution
attaches meaning to certain spaces and the importance of how and why they are carried
out.
Spatial analyses of architecture became less about form, function and
distribution and more about symbolism, practice and an integrated human experience:
Buildings are rarely constructed solely for shelter.... While protection from the
actual environment may be necessary for physical survival, humans do not live
13


by shelter alone. Larger concerns about life and death, world view, cosmic
images, roles of the sexes, and the relation of the human realm to that of the
supernatural also affect building size, shape, form, function, and location. Not
only do individual buildings reflect these concerns but so do village layouts, often
visually depicting the relations between the sexes, images of the cosmos, and
human links both to the ancestors and the supernatural realm (Wilson
1993:273).
As momentum grew behind post-processual thinking within anthropology, many
scholars set out to redefine the concept of landscape so as to reflect a more humanistic
approach; however, as an anthropological concept, there is no single agreed upon
definition.
Tilley (1994:25) defines landscape as "the physical and visual form of the earth as
an environment and as a setting in which locales occur and in dialectical relation to
which meanings are created, reproduced, and transformed." Smith (2003:5) views
landscape as "the physical contours of the created environment, the aesthetics of built
form, and the imaginative reflections of spatial representations." Daniels and Cosgrove
(1988:1) define landscape as "a cultural image, a pictorial way of representing,
structuring or symbolizing surroundings." For Jackson (1995:43) landscape is "a space or
collection of spaces made by a group of people who modify the natural environment to
survive, to create order, and to produce... society." In these definitions, landscape is
rendered a meaningful part of culture that is responsible for housing human action.
Though these definitions and conceptions of landscape appeal to a more humanistic
approach, they leave out one crucial element: how landscapes then relate to human
experience.
14


In my opinion, Adam T. Smith (2003:10) provides the best definition of landscape
that encompasses the physical, representation and experiential elements that ground
this research: landscapes are "an imaginative aesthetic guiding representation of the
world at hand, a sensibility evoking responses in subjects through perceptual
dimensions of physical space and an experience of form that shapes how we move
through created environments." This definition positions landscape as a unit of analysis
that is concerned with how people visualize their world and how they engage with one
another across space. The characteristics of landscape encompass the intentional and
unintentional ways humans express their agency in manipulating and evaluating space
in order to construct an experience not only for themselves but for others as well. Space
is not passive; it is socially constituted and constituting. Architecture and the built
environments they create becomes a useful tool in understanding the social and
political implications of a society.
The language of architecture is formed, defined and left behind in history. As
social places, monumental forms do not just emerge temporarily. They contribute to
local history in a specific spatial and temporal context through the "perpetual and
intergenerational creation and utility of particular geographical and ceremonial
locations" (Dillehay 1990:226). Monuments are public structures designed and built, in
scale and detail, to be both remarkable and clearly recognizable forms of the built
environment (Moore 1996). Their character is at once ordered, communicative and
symbolic with powerful qualities. Some were designed for observing natural phenomena
that contribute to our sense of time and space, made to collect information, answer
15


questions and then to communicate answers to a broad audience (Dowd 2015).
Monuments are saturated with meaning, in which any one of several meanings may
"enable or constrain the thought and action of interacting subjects based on a range of
spatial, temporal, and social circumstances" (Lefebvre 1991:222).
The built environment organizes space, time, communication and cultural
memes: "Civic plans are dynamic constructions with each community and each
generation imposing its own cognitive map of interconnected morphologies,
arrangements and coherent meanings" (Anschuetz et al.. 2001:161). Through the built
environment, we see the organization of boundaries culture versus nature, near
versus far, private versus communal and outside versus inside; we see how space is
connected and separated. Unique spatial features take form that can now be used to
identify one place from another. Travel routines are created that connect ordered
sequences of landmarks, and knowledge of those layouts begins to make clear the
interrelations of different locations.
Built environments not only have spatial qualities but are also temporal beings
loaded with both transient and lasting significances. According to Vito Acconci (1990),
architecture attempts to freeze ideas in space and time. Thus, the materials for
monuments were chosen to withstand the results of time. Ironically, however, "they
thus guarantee that the forms become archaic, strange, and irrelevant" (Osborne
1998:434). The organization of time addresses the transformation of the site and the
urban environment: the creation, maintenance and alteration of a site. Architecture
orders cyclical and linear time the past, present and future. Local history and social
16


memory mold the perpetuation or alteration of any particular place and its meanings.
Built environments are essentially multi-dimensional constructions, the outcome of an
interplay between historically determined structures and contingent processes
(McGlade 1995). Not only embedded is the evidence of the local life and site histories
but also the language of routinized day-to-day practices; the activities that take place tie
the space to a historical context allowing room for social and cultural remembrance.
Bounded in time and space, built environments also structure communication
(interaction): who communicates with whom, under what circumstances and in what
contexts. Space reflects, channels, facilitates and controls communication. Space can
encourage communication, or it can disrupt it. Relationships between people in
different places are shaped by the constant movement of people, ideas and materials.
Having access or lack thereof to such information speaks to realms of identity, power,
status, wealth, gender, etc. Interaction, communication and information flow is said to
be uninterrupted when several paths lead to the same building or set of buildings, when
space within buildings can be reached without any barriers and when all people can
access these areas. Conversely, when pathways are hard to access, when buildings and
rooms do not have multiple entry points and when certain groups of people lack the
necessary status for admittance, the flow of interaction, communication and
information is disrupted. The physical characteristics and layouts of spatial forms
determine this.
When time, space and communication are informed by architectural parameters,
place becomes a "thing" that can be recognized and, therefore, experienced and feed
17


back upon action. Architecture stands as the materialization of ideology cosmologies,
cultural schemata, world views and reflections of philosophical systems.
"Materialization is the transformation of ideas, values, stories, myths and the like into a
physical reality that can take the form of ceremonial events, symbolic objects or
monuments" (Earle 1997:31). Monuments are symbolically charged communicative
media that condense complex and dynamic networks of information critical to the
mediation of social relations in human communities (Lawrence and Low 1990; Lefebvre
1991). Meaning is of considerable importance in perception, which is essential in
determining of human behavior and unquestionably involved with shaping the human
experience.
The experiencers, as bodies, consist of an array of senses of which to employ in
order to make sense of and to ascribe meaning to space. How space is perceived
determines how the experiencer interacts in and around the space; likewise, how the
experiencer interacts in and around space determines how space is perceived.
Altogether, there is a dialectical relationship between social actors and their built
environments. A prominent location within a landscape provides an immediate
recognition by beholders and visitors. The visibility of structures determines how far-
reaching a society's ideals permeate surrounding areas. Complexity of space
differentiates it from the mundane. These elements have the potential to elicit certain
conceptual, emotional and behavioral responses. The production of monumental space
is a transformative process in which material, symbols and signs are exchanged,
symbolically grounding a given perceptual order to a set of material practices within an
18


established social order (Lefebvre 1991; Moore 1996). Architecture, especially
monumental architecture, is in and of itself a permanent cultural symbol a means of
communication that is analogous to verbal or written language.
This analysis is concerned with an understanding of monumentality centered on
how meaning is conveyed through monumental architecture rather than identifying the
precise nature and range of past meanings. In other words, it is the goal of this analysis
to identify monumental structures as symbolically charged monuments, devices through
which social relations were mediated, at least in part, within a ritual forum of
community action. The focus is therefore on cultural formation processes involved in
the production of these public architecture as features and places within the cultural
landscape; especially their socio-political and socio-symbolic contexts. POWER
Monumental Architecture and its Impacts on Social Relations
Following post-processual thinking, this work recognizes that cultures must be
understood as sets of symbols that evoke meanings, and that these meanings vary
depending on the particular contexts of use and the specific histories of both the
artifacts and the people who made/used them (Bond and Gilliam 1994). Symbols or
material culture are imbued with meaning, and that meaningfulness is embedded
throughout their process of manufacture as well as in their use and final deposition.
These images become the basis for knowledge and way finding; they are cultural
screens through which the world is ordered, interpreted and understood. No society can
exist without associated symbols, which give concrete forms to community identities
(Kertzer 1988). By their configuration, content and associations, the spatial or physical
19


attributes establish a system of relationships that represent aspects of social life. The
material world (the world of action) and the cultural world (the world of symbols)
interconnect and are built up through the immediate association of each with the other
(Mohr and Duquenne 1997).
There are few forms in architecture to which men do not attach some meaning
either by way of construction, use, purpose or value: "People seem to shape and
interact with built environments/material culture primarily through meaning and this
seems to hold overtime, cross-culturally, and in all kinds of environments, contexts, and
situations" (Rapoport 1990:42). Meaning is something recognized by an observer; it is
not some quality inherent to the place or monument. The symbolic importance of the
built environment is found in its interpretation as an expression of culturally shared
mental structures and embodied processes. Once the built environment is understood,
the experiencer reacts. These responses are considered to fall within one of three
categories: conceptual, behavioral, and emotional (Mongelluzzo 2011). Conceptual
responses are changes in belief or thought based on what is perceived. Conceptual
responses are triggered through symbols and often draw on social memory to ensure
the symbols are understood and related to deep and profound systems of meaning.
Behavioral responses are actions shaped by cues within the built environment. Shifts in
behavior are achieved as individuals "define spaces, mark them for specific uses, create
visible and invisible boundaries" (Anttonen 2012:198). Moreover, emotional responses
are changes in the affective state of consciousness. These are achieved when the
symbolic content of a space is fully evaluated and understood. Conceptual and
20


behavioral responses act together to form emotional responses with individuals. The
created landscape reflexively places limits on how these responses/experiences come
about, persist or transform.
Monumental architecture acquires much of its meaning from a culture's
ideological principles. For many ancient societies, architecture was firmly linked to
powerful supernatural domains and the need to create a direct connection to the
human/material world: "Symbolic value is attached to geographical features like
mountain, springs, lakes or caves; they become a part of cosmovision (Broda
2015:220). These natural features stood as boundaries into the celestial and under
worlds. Cosmovision relates to archaeoastronomy or cultural astronomy, which
incorporates concepts of cosmology, symbolic landscapes, religion, technology,
economy and politics. Anthony F. Aveni (2014:187) describes cultural astronomy as
"reflecting] the role social, political, and religious issues play in our attempts to
understand nature." In many ways, architecture is argued to mimic these natural forms
creating meaningful sacred landscapes that integrate natural and built features
corresponding to, reproducing or representing an actual view of the cosmos either in
whole or in part (Ashmore 1989, 1991,1992)
Through time, in what Lefebvre (1991) terms "spatial practice" social actors
within the built environment engage in a "reflexive relationship between the production
of space and the reproduction of social relations" (Saunders 1990:183). Social activities
become contingent on the spaces in which they are enacted and vice versa. The built
environment provides particularly important 'structuring structures' that contribute to
21


the creation of embodied memories, thereby conditioning the spatial practices of those
who navigate them routinely (Monroe 2010). Space is often charged with meaning
through events (Taylor and Koontz 2001:10):
Individual actions define what the space means in relationship to a society.
Although the meaning is inherent within any given space comes from the
aesthetic values and beliefs of people, it is the actuation of these cognitive
processes that imbeds these meanings within landscapes and architecture.
Therefore, all space is construed to be culturally constructed performances, both
secular and sacred.
Monumental spaces are culturally defined spatial settings for diverse public interactions
that may be sacred or mundane: "But although distinct activities may occur in the public
square, not all open spaces have the same design or cultural intent" (Moore 1996:790).
The size, location, and access patterns of open spaces vary and may reproduce and
produce different modes of human interaction when engaging or witnessing these
spectacles. Miles Richardson terms this process as the "objectification of social
experience" (1980:217-218). In this process, the meaning of interaction is provisionally
stated by the constructed space in which it occurs. Because landscapes embody
fundamental organizing principles for the form and structure of peoples' activities, they
"serve both as a material construct that communicates information and as a kind of
historical text" (Hugill and Foote 1995:20). Hidden within the physical features of space
are important wayfinding instructions.
Contributions by Bourdieu (1977, 1984) and Giddens (1976,1979) broaden the
discussion of the relationship between the built environment and people by showing
that practical, daily activities and interactions involves continuous (re)creation of social
structures and reproduction of landscapes as culturally ordered spaces. Social practice,
22


as defined by Giddens (1976:81), is the "ongoing series of practical activities." Spatial
meaning is embodied and reproduced through the participation in social practices by
way of social structures and the agent: "a person's daily routine of activities, for
example, can be charted as a path through time-space" (Giddens 1979:205). Through
practice, spatial structures become embedded in the habitus of a society and individual,
mediating discourses between action and architecture.
According to Bourdieu (1984:170), habitus is a "structuring structure, which
organizes practices and the perception of practices." Habitus explains the interaction
between the social and materials worlds; it is context-bound and context-specific
creating a type of "spatial habitus" that details the manner in which spatial forms
facilitate social practices; that is, location informs conceptualizations. Giddens (1979)
states that social interaction can be understood as "activity bundles" that occur or are
triggered at specific places. As people go about their daily tasks, they may learn rules
and spatial constraints through the movements of the body, and through daily activities,
beliefs and values, communities transform physical spaces into meaningful places.
Architecture becomes the meeting point both of body/mind and of activity. As activities
become routinized, they become a part of social memory. When we take power into
account, those who design public architecture seek to take something from discursive
consciousness and inculcate it into people's practical consciousness.
Movement, memory, and daily routine within a landscape may work to create
particular perceptions about appropriate action in different contexts. Architecture
represents "the most generally accessible and widely shared aide-memoire of a
23


culture's knowledge and understanding of its past and future" (Kuchler 1993). The
phenomenology of Merleau-Ponty (1962) makes a similar point: we come to know the
world through our bodies, not as spectators, but from an involved point of view in which
the body is linked inescapably with the material world.
Ritualized Landscapes and Practices
Generally an orientation towards monumental space and experience guides
archaeologists towards a discussion of mass performances, specifically ritual. People
transform and navigate through society via the creation and enactment of ritual
practice. Much like the spaces that house it, ritual is informed by a society's assessment
of the world. Therefore, ritual is ideology in action. The practice of ritual, through
movement and other sensory experiences, gives significance to the places explored and
the ideas expressed both by reiterating and reinforcing the ideologies that structures
the whole. In this respect, ritual is more of a process than an event.
From a practice perspective, Bell (1997: chap 5) identifies six characteristics that
rituals and ritual-like activities exhibit:
Formalism: Rituals often employ more formal, or restricted, codes of
speech and action than people use in everyday life.
Traditionalism: Rituals often employ archaic or anachronistic elements.
Invariance: Rituals often follow strict, often repetitive, patterns.
Rule-governance: Rituals are often governed by a strict code of rules that
determine appropriate behavior.
Sacral symbolism: Rituals often make reference to, or employ, sacred
symbolism.
Performance: Ritual often involves public display of ritual actions.
It is in these capacities that ritual practice diverges from routinized actions. Actions, as a
result, become ritualized; they become more formal, traditional and invariant. Human
24


behavior becomes "ritualized" when it is self-consciously set apart from the everyday
(Cohen 2010). This "setting apart" may be achieved by means as diverse as the formality
of speech, specialized dress or specialized architecture. Ritualized actions and spaces are
elevated to create an exceptional experience. Ritual serves as a mode of inquiry, of
knowledge and of communication.
According to Theodore W. Jennings (1982:118), ritual "serves as a paradigm for
all significant action." Ritual, he argues, must be understood as praxis; it has the power
to transform the way its participants view the world and how they act in the world: "The
performance of ritual, then, teaches one not only how to conduct the ritual itself, but
how to conduct oneself outside the ritual space..." (Jennings 1982:118-119). Rituals are
very powerful structuring events and serve as instructive tools in that it deals with the
creation, acquisition and internalization of knowledge. Ritual knowledge is gained by
and through the body: "Ritual knowledge is gained not by detached observation or
contemplation but through action" (Jennings 1982:116). Whereas daily practices reflect
larger structures, mass spectacles dramatize the moral and aesthetic values of a society.
The participant enacts and the audience experiences ideologies, cultural ideals and
traditions in uniquely explicit ways (Inomata and Cohen 2006) that otherwise are not
encountered or enforced.
Ritual, as Stanley Tambiah (1985:128) writes, "is a culturally constructed system
of symbolic communication." Rituals, in this respect, function to promote and uphold
symbolic meanings in a format that can be easily understood by the masses. Just as
monumental space is situated within a society's cosmovision, so too are the actions that
25


give them meaning. Durkheim (1915) notes that the act of sharing not only spiritual
union with the cosmos but also the understanding and interpretation of that cosmos
can create a powerful sense of community and personal identity. Participants share with
the audience information about sky movements in relation to the earth and
communicate how the world works using landscape or architectural features useful in
estimating the timing of re-occurring celestial movements (Dowd 2015). This results in
human behavior being in accord with the rhythms and patterns of cosmological and
natural processes.
The ultimate goal of ritual is what Jennings (1982:121) terms cosmogonic praxis:
"to participate in a ritual is to know how the world acts, how it 'comes to be.'" The
event, whether that be celestial or natural, which the ritual enacts may encompass a
larger meaning (the origin of the world) or may be more specific (the origin of the
community, the origin of some crucially important feature of communal survival i.e.
agriculture). Either way, ritual directs an experience based on ideological contingencies,
and alters those beliefs in accordance with experience (Doran 2004). Through the
repetitive symbolism of ritual, a kind of remembering is achieved that not only ties ritual
action to symbolic meanings but also ties ritual space into the fabric of society.
Monumental Architecture and its Impacts on Political Relations
Equally important to this discussion is how architecture, and therefore, ritual,
relate to modes of power. For W. J. T. Mitchell (1994:1), landscape's role in systems of
power is not as "an object to be seen or a text to be read, but as a process by which
social and objective identities are formed." The built environment is not simply a
26


backdrop for political activities to occur but rather the very stake of political struggle
(Smith 2003). As Barbara Bender (1993:3) puts it, "[t]he landscape is never inert, people
engage with it, re-work it, appropriate and contest it. It is part of the way in which
identities are created and disputed, whether as individual, group, or nation state."
Landscape is never value-free and can function as a political resource manipulated and
drawn on in the formation of social order. Space serves as a type of competitive
marketplace in which social, economic and cultural powers are used. The investment in
monumental architecture becomes a political strategy that individuals or groups employ
to propagate elite-driven ideals, claim divine rights and privileges and control spatial
behavior.
According to DeMarrais et al. (1996:3), political strategies are "the means by
which rulers and ruling social segments combine the sources of social power to pursue
their goals." Conflict over access to and the meaning of places is frequently ongoing.
Power, as defined by Foucault (1977), is the ability to define truth and therefore
knowledge. It is the ability to control and affect the actions and/or minds of others;
thus, "limiting the freedom of action of the others, or influencing their knowledge,
attitude or ideologies" (van Dijk 1996:84). Moreover, Foucault (1977:187) asserts that,
"power [materializes as] what was seen, what was shown, and what was manifested."
Power is embedded in the built environment through the meanings inscribed from
within due to the social practices enacted, which they themselves are enmeshed in
power. In this view, monumental architecture serves as the stage for rituals which
27


create and maintain cosmological orders that legitimize the ruling elite. Once cosmology
is put into material form, it can be controlled and manipulated.
Symbolic power is encoded in architecture, which serves as a stage where
structures of power, privilege and inequality are created, enacted and (re)created.
Political inequality, defined in terms of privileged access for a ruling group to the
economic, symbolic and social resources on which power is based, must be realized in
physical space through separations, barriers and prohibitions: "The architectonics of
inequality is visible in dimensions of landscape that organize practical relationships
between subjects and the state" (Smith 1999:51) size, elevation, accessibility, etc.
According to McGuire and Schiffer (1983:282) there are three predictable effects social
inequality has on architectural design: 1) relatively higher investments by elite persons
and wealthy institutions in the symbolic component of architecture, 2) more variability
in the production costs of architecture and 3) more advantageous trade-offs between
production and maintenance costs for the structures of the elite and of wealthy
institutions. Power is not inertly revealed in built form, but instead actively mediated
through it.
Part of what monumentality reflects is the existence of a centralized authority.
The archeological record shows that there is a correlation between the emergence of
monumental architecture and the rise of stratified communities (e.g. Trigger 1990; Kolb
1994; De Marrais et al. 1996). In many ancient societies, there is often appreciable social
distance between those who made and maintain the structure and those who use or
observe the structure. Based on this, some authors presume that building monumental
28


architecture actively contributed to vertical social stratification. McGuire and Schiffer
(1983:281) see that "in societies having more groups and more social distinctions, there
is a need to communicate ever more information materially." Furthermore, as social
units become increasingly specialized, artifacts with high symbolic content, especially
built environments, are needed to help integrate a society's disparate parts (Rathje and
Schiffer 1982). Implicit is the idea that monumental architecture signals political power
and authority effectively when population size and density reach a level where direct
communication between leaders and a community is no longer achievable. Not only can
monuments be shared simultaneously by numerous individuals, but because of their
impressive size, they can also be experienced from an extensive geographical area
(DeMarrais et. al 1996). These spaces are ideal for indoctrination, population control
and dissemination of propaganda.
It is contended that place making is an inherently elite practice: "... [it suggests]
that places are necessarily programmed and designed in accord with certain interests -
primarily the pursuit of amenity, profit, status and political power" (Dovey 1999:1). The
ability to produce, use and control spaces is the manifestation of the power of an
individual or group. Differences in scale, social complexity and the institutional form of
power relations can "account for variation in the materialization of monumental
architecture" (DeMarrais et al. 1996:20). Not all individuals have the same capacity to
engage in the production of space on the level of construction, of experience or of
perception. There are constraints on the construction of landscapes, both the physical
spaces and the meanings associated with them. Non-elite populations may have the
29


ability to produce space on a smaller household-community scale but may lack the
capacity to produce space to monumental proportions.
However, even amongst elite groups, not just amongst elite/non-elite groups,
there exists inequalities that materialize within architecture. This explains the variability
in size, material and complexity not only between cultures but also within them. Trigger
(1990), for example, argues that building monumental architecture requires massive
amounts of energy and resources, and only those who actually had power and
controlled it could have been capable of recruiting and managing the energy and labor
necessary for building such structures. Additionally, construction of a single structure
requires a significant amount of knowledge about architectural technology. There exists
differentials in access to natural, physical and mental resources. Powerful individuals or
groups may have access to high quality natural resources, an extensive labor force and a
deeper understand of construction methods where lesser elites may only have partial
access or even access to lesser natural, physical and mental resources. Though the
underlying principles of monumental space may remain constant, the size, complexity
and construction quality may diverge contributing to variability within and between
cultures. The construction, maintenance and use of a structure is an investment and a
costly one that only certain people can afford. Investing in monumental architecture is a
concept rife with intent, and the choices made reflect the social goals of the designer.
Monumental architecture glorifies those who built them or ordered their
construction. Monuments usually set the stage where objects and people acquire
status. In many ancient societies, elites and high ranking individuals possessed special
30


connections with the supernatural a direct link via genealogy with the divine. They
erect monuments and orchestrate events in which to evoke divine right and mediate
communication between the human and supernatural worlds. Many scholars have
suggested that it was the appropriation of the sacred landscapes through the restriction
of access to the ritually-induced experiences that initially allowed a rising elite to
legitimize their right to rule (Farris 1984; Lucero and Fash 2006; Freidel & Scheie 1988;
Joyce 2000).
A fundamental feature of the use of power is "the ability to control access to and
manipulate particular settings for action" (Tilley 1994:27). Thus, an ability to produce
sacred landscapes confers significant ability to influence, regulate, delimit and control
daily life. Sacred public spaces and unifying ritual practices embodied and affirmed
dominant ideologies that constrained the agency of commoners and dictated a social
order. By prescribing performances to arenas under their management, ruling elites
could restrict access to ceremonial knowledge, action and objects. For Lefebvre
(1991:143), the production of space is heavily tied to the notion of controlling behavior:
"Space commands bodies, prescribing or proscribing gestures, routes and distances to
be covered. It is produced with this purpose in mind; this is its raison d'etre." People
manipulate spaces, barriers and boundaries to limit the flow of information (Sanders
1990). By controlling the flow of information is to affect human spatial behavior.
Physical space was ordered by and reflected the power structures to which the
community was subordinated: "Ritual architecture and ritual events serve as a
propagandistic tool for broadcasting particular elite ideologies" (Monroe 2010:370).
31


Monumental spaces invite large numbers of people to participate and witness the
spectacular, yet restrictions are placed on those very same people on just how involved
they are in the process. Stallybrass and White (1986:80) state that "the history of
political struggle has been the history of the attempts made to control significant sites
of assembly and spaces of discourse." This manipulation is incidentally directed at
controlling the perceptions and experience of those in attendance.
Political Landscapes and Practices
Through ritual, the very notions of power are developed and resolved: risk,
strategy and struggle. According to Broda (2015:22), "the process of taking ritual
possession of the landscape implies the exercise of political domination." With the
democratizing of political power, publicly performed ritual and ceremony become
essential elements of the political process: "What power required was performance art
in the enclosed spaces, elaborate ceremonies; and, in the open spaces, processions or
mass choreography" (Hobsbawm 2014:12). Several scholars contend that ritual is a tool
effective in the manipulation of the masses and in legitimizing privileged positions
(Rapoport 1971; Tilley 1984). Likewise, the aspects of ritual (both the landscape and
action) are useful in governing and regulating social systems (Renfrew 1994). Through
ritual, social order is disseminated and thus, embodied through powerful societal
structures.
As Trigger (1990) claims, rituals have a close connection with conspicuous
consumption. Rituals, as with their spaces, involve a great deal of risk and cost. All
rituals require the marshalling of human and material resources, but the demands that
32


large-scale events make in terms of material (money and goods), organizing capacity
and social capital are quite remarkable. It is not just that the logistics of bringing people
together are costly but that organizing them requires considerable networking skills and
know-how (Gardner and Grillo 2002). The maintenance of ritual landscapes, the
replacement of perishable objects and communication with large groups of people
requires constant circulation of natural and physical resources. Once again, only those
with access to vast reservoirs of resources can facilitate and command ritual events and
action. More importantly, ritual is a highly risky activity. Most rituals are staged to
achieve a desired outcome, so there is always something at stake for all involved:
"Because the outcome cannot be known in advance, success and failure (however these
may be measured; instrumentally, aesthetically, evocatively, morally, etc.) are
contingent" (Howe 2000:67). The need to succeed is ever so important for those in
participation for not only their reputation can be tarnished but also the very existence
of society is at stake.
Despite the cost, ritual became an intrinsic focus of communal investment.
Inomata (2006) argues that the development of large centralized polities and communal
solidarity would have been impossible in any historical context without heavy reliance
on public events. Likewise, Clifford (1988:12) recognizes that community and
community identity are social constructions that they do not exist as essences but as
"political, cultural inventions and local tactics." Within large societies where members
rarely have the opportunity to interact with most of their fellow members, there is an
increasing need to incorporate a sense of belonging to the greater population. The
33


process of ritual can determine the identity of the members of the group and the way
they bond together and become a cohesive, intimate and integrated whole. It is through
ritual that "real" communities are formed. Mass spectacles, in which large numbers of
people could gather, provided opportunities for individuals to witness and sense the
bodily existence of other community members (Inomata 2006) and their relationship to
them. The routinized practices that take place within ritual also demonstrate a certain
level of commitment to group beliefs/goals. Henrich (2009) argues that the more costly
the displays are, the potentially deeper the degree of transmitted commitment; thus,
creating deeper communal understanding. Monumental architecture was an area where
large groups of people participated in dramatic public rituals organized and led by
nobility, which probably included sacrifice, bloodletting, processions, shamanism,
dance, divinization, feasting and ancestor veneration (Joyce 2000: Orr 1997). The
audience as well as those participating would have been physically and psychologically
engaged. In public spaces, participants interact with their audience in an overt drama of
submission (Scott 1990) so as to reinforce a collective memory of the ritual space, event,
underlying doctrines and social relations.
Similarly, Bloch (1974:59-60) views that "ritual creates and maintains a certain
type of power relation among the participants not by transmitting messages but by
catching them in a highly formalized situation that gives no options to challenge
authority." Therefore, ritual is ripe for manipulation by those who seek to create a
model of the world that reinforces their authority and their ideals. The audience is
subject to the ideologies promoted by an elite group. To achieve this, state powers
34


applied a whole array of devices such as marches, mass meetings and rituals to cultivate
"mass aesthetic." Ritual is a mechanism of inclusion but also reinforces political
structures; ritual contributes to greater efficiency in the culture system and ensures the
perpetuation of political standards. The behaviors and experiences manifested in the
form of ritual act serves as important life-centering activities.
Through ritual, elites legitimized their right and duty of participation. Access to
the supernatural "legitimated the classification of the elite as separate and superior
social beings" (Bauer 1996:328). The repetition of ritual behavior enhances the self-
defining power of the ritual in that there can be no mistaking what the person
proclaims. Ritualized actions, as mentioned before, are formal, traditional and invariant
leaving little room for alternative and possibly contradictory perceptions. Ritual allows
elites to claim divine birthrights, which granted communication with and command of
supernatural forces and secured their position through myth and ritual. In this respect,
the supernatural elite harvested ritual secrets and knowledge. Individuals who are
initiated into the exclusive groups are then charged to convey ritual knowledge to the
greater population, which explains the high investment of ritual by elites. There is a
heightened responsibility to convey ritual knowledge accurately. Access to these secrets
and such knowledge has social and physical implications.
Social and physical distance amongst individuals was further displayed through
formalized arrangements of participants and the audience in order to directly replicate
social hierarchies or groupings (Orr 2001). The arrangement of bodies across a ritual
35


landscape determines roles whether active (participant) or passive (observer); however,
individuals may often have several roles as the ritual unfolds:
"In certain theatrical events, the roles of the participants as performers and
spectators, and thus the division between them, are relatively well defined. On
other occasions, where such roles are not clearly predetermined, a person can
potentially assume diverse or multiple roles" (Inomata and Cohen 2006:32).
The experiences and the level to which certain responses are activated within an
individual depend greatly on social and physical distance when engaging in ritualized
action. Social distance may limit an individual's ability to gain ritual knowledge.
Controlling access to the ritual secrets enables social inequalities to be both established
and then reproduced (Tilley 1996). Physical distance may affect how invested or
emotionally charged the individual is. If an individual is far removed from the scene,
ritual actions and symbols may be hard to see and therefore, hard to understand. The
argument, however, is that responses and experiences are never homogenous. Ritual
performance is multi-vocal, representing different meanings for different people.
Concluding Thoughts
The aim of the above discussion was to position monumental architecture within
a wider socio-political frame. Architecture does not simply signify three-dimensional
parameters; through these parameters, ideologies are materialized and relationships
are formed. Architecture does not simply house or frame events; it magnifies and
elevates them. Architecture reproduces society by defining social relations and thereby,
prompting performance. As intentional devices, buildings control movement and the
production and reproduction of memory (knowledge).
36


Bodily movements through these spaces incorporate social, natural and cosmic
relations. These ritualized movements ground a human experience that provides
information about "being in the world." They link space, time and the commemorative
event to human perceptions and senses. To understand the human experience is to
understand how social order to created, maintained and transformed.
37


CHAPTER III
THE SETTING: WEST MEXICO
This study focuses on the monumental surface architecture that characterizes
the Teuchitlan culture of west Mexico as found at the site Los Guachimontones.
According to Trigger (1990:119), monumental architecture refers to any structure where
"scale and elaboration exceed the requirements of any particular function that a
building is intended to perform." Throughout architectural history, different types of
monumental structures have been constructed. Large fortifications, palaces, temples
and tombs are amongst the most common types. Others include public buildings such as
arenas and theaters. Many early civilizations, including those found in Mesoamerica,
erected such structures providing archaeologists lasting examples of material culture
that aid in the interpretation of sociopolitical complexity.
The concept of 'Mesoamerica' was first proposed by Paul Kirchhoff (1943) who
noticed significant commonalities of material and ideational culture among societies in
central and southeastern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras and western El
Salvador. Cultural traits such as subsistence, settlement, distinct architectural features
and alignments, religious or ceremonial activities and traits relating to specialization,
rank, trade, warfare and dress were amongst the many characteristics that marked
Mesoamerica as an area of study.
The presence of west Mexico in Mesoamerican literature, however, is not always
straightforward. Hosier (1994) comments that some Mesoamerican archaeologists
argue that west Mexico is too diverse and shares so little with the great civilizations of
38


the central highlands and the southeastern lowlands; thus, west Mexico is excluded
from the conversation. On the one hand, west Mexico has been viewed as a sort of
cultural backwater "whose most complex form of organization was a peyote-induced
shamanism, and whose members were obsessed with a 'cult of the dead'" (Beekman
1996:136). In this view, west Mexico is not considered in Mesoamerican discourse. Only
until "the civilizing influences of central Mexico arrived during the Epiclassic and
Postclassic periods" (Weigand 1996:91) is it incorporated in the literature. On the other
hand, many scholars (e.g. Weigand 1985; Townsend 1998; Beekman 1996; Spence et al.
2002; Lopez 2006) have worked towards connecting this region to that of greater
Mesoamerica. As will become evident throughout this work, this area clearly
demonstrates the existence of complex societies dating from the Formative and Classic
periods and shares many of the founding principles characteristic of the societies of the
central highlands and southeastern lowlands. By recognizing west Mexico as connected
to Mesoamerica, archaeological research, particularly in the highland basins of Jalisco
and Nayarit, has greatly increased within the last fifty years: "A host of research projects
aimed at exploring these regions and landscapes have offered us... a fundamental
knowledge of settlement patterns and enabled us to identify a hierarchy of sites that
include new architectural styles" (Weigand and Beekman 1998:36). These efforts have
not only broadened Mesoamerican discourse within archaeology but have also called
for a re-evaluation of the concept of complexity within this region.
What constitutes the region of West Mexico has also been debated. For the
most part, West Mexico is composed of Jalisco, Nayarit, Michoacan and Colima given
39


the mortuary and surface architecture evidence. Beekman (2010) notes that Sinaloa,
Zacatecas and are included as addendums. Figure 3.1 shows the various states that, at
one time or another, are considered to define West Mexico. The landscape is a
heterogeneous conglomeration of topographic features, natural resources and
consistent seasonal shifts. The region undergoes two seasonal changes per year typical
of a semitropical landscape. The wet season extends from mid-June through mid-
October with the dry season extending through the winter months. This, along with
advanced irrigation systems, allowed for two harvests per year that helped support a
growing population. The Neo-Volcanic and Sierra Madre Occidental mountain ranges
are covered with lush and dense pine-oak forests, the Pacific coastal plain and the Bajio
valleys offered many natural resources. High-quality obsidian, copper, quartz and salt
were among the many resources that could have readily been extracted from the
highlands of the Neo-Volcanic and from the Sierra Madre Occidental ranges. The
proximity to the Pacific coast and the many waterways located throughout the region -
e.g. the Lerma and Ameca rivers and the San Marcos, Magdalena (now extinct) and
Chapala lakes not only provided a variety of aquatic resources but also offered
significant avenues of communication and exchanges (Spence et al.. 2002).
40


300 Km
Figure 3.1: Map of Northwest Mexico indicating the political divisions and major
archaeological sites (after Williams, Eduardo. Prehispanic West Mexico: A
Mesoamerican Culture Area. 2005: Figure 2) Foundation for the Advancement of
Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI).
41


The geographic region associated with the Teuchitlan culture incorporates the
southeastern area of Nayarit, the southwestern corner of Zacatecas and the
northwestern part of Jalisco. Ideally situated, the highland lake basins of Jalisco are of
particular interest when discussing the development of the Teuchitlan culture, for the
greatest evidence of social complexity occurred in this region notably around the
Tequila Volcano located in the Tequila Valleys (Figure 3.2). The marshy region of Jalisco
is described by Weigand and Beekman (1998:36) as a district rich in natural resources
and fertile soils making this area "superior to that of most early civilizations in
Mesoamerica." With easy access between the coastal areas both to the east and west,
access to the north toward Zacatecas and Central Mexico to the east and south, "[t]he
lake zone thus sits across an intersection of two axes of communication. The region also
sits astride another type of intersection of two axes: an east-west alignment of high-
quality obsidian flows, and north-south alignment of copper deposits" (Weigand
1985:56). It was this combination of natural resources and open communication
channels that allowed for social, ideological and economy interaction and for a unique
culture identity to arise. The Tequila Valleys then became a centralized location for the
core of the Teuchitlan culture to develop and thrive.
The following sections explore the grammar of the Teuchitlan architectural
program as well as describe the evolution of the culture itself. Finally, this chapter
provides information concerning the site chosen for this study paying close attention to
the chronology and morphology of the central ceremonial area.
42


Lakes
' River
Arroyo
H nth-density habitation
area surrounding formal
^ architecture me
Medium-density
habitation area
l tabulation area
uncertain habiulwn-
area boundary
Coiuoun in meters
10
Kilometer*
F<|ure2. The reuchelan tore wltlement xea. thown( vcpt wnh iiormal orcjlar artheetture IntrnbereJ I inrcogf. $2| ard natma-
ron tonet. Refer to TaWe I lor aey to vtr rumor
Figure 3.2: Map of the Teuchitlan Culture Sites showing habitation densities (after
Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996: Figure 2). Copyright 1996, Cambridge University Press,
Inc. All rights reserved.
43


The Architectural Program of the Teuchitlan Culture
The Tequila Valleys of Jalisco, Mexico were first surveyed by Isabel Kelly (1948)
as part of a west Mexican ceramic project. Additional ceramic work had been conducted
by Meighan and Foote (1968) on the south shore of Lake Chapala and Grosscup (1964,
1976) at the site of Amapa in Nayarit. Further research had been conducted by Javier
Galvan Villegas (1991), who observed a unique mortuary tradition in the Atemajac
valley. It wasn't until a long-term survey project spearheaded by Phil Weigand (1974,
1975,1979,1985, 1990,1991, 1992, 1993) that the Teuchitlan culture became better
understood and that a distinctive architectural program unlike any other throughout
Mesoamerica was defined. Led by information gathered from interviews with local
looters, Weigand located several habitation zones associated with certain surface and
subsurface structures. This pattern of public or formal architecture, known by the local
population as guachimonton, is characterized by five distinct elements (as seen in cross-
section in Figure 3.3):
1. A circular pyramid, terraced, and flat-topped with an occasional semi-
subterranean room on the top, which is surrounded by,
2. a circular, elevated patio which is made from clean, tamped earth; which in turn
is surrounded by,
3. a circular platform/banquette, complete an arrangement of three concentric
circles, of a family of three circles with a radical center, which display patterned
proportionality; and atop this finale circular feature are between:
4. eight to sixteen rectangular, terraced pyramids/platforms with stairways into the
patio; underneath of which are:
5. re-enterable family crypts with modest shafts and at least on side chamber for
the actual burials and offerings (Weigand 1996:94).
These concentric circles are organized as families of circles are laid out from the same
point of reference or locus. Together, these architectural elements came to describe the
44


unique program of the Teuchitlan culture; be it as it may, the five elements do not
always appear together. Only a handful of guachimonton complexes actually possess
shaft-tombs beneath their platforms; likewise, not all circle families include a Central
Pyramid or altar. Evidence suggests that atop the platforms were wattle and daub
superstructures as shown in the figure below.
THATCH HOOF
HCAH
CROSS
SECTION
Figure 3.3: Idealized cross-section of the five-element Guachimonton architectural
complex ((after Weigand 1996: Figure 7).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All
Rights Reserved.
The circular compounds can be standalone features or can be incorporated as a
group of compounds: "[m]ultiple circles are sometimes attached like gears in the larger
precincts, and ballcourts are often found utilizing one of the guachimonton's satellite
platforms as an end structure" (Beekman 1996:84).Many of the larger sites, such as Los
Guachimontones, also include multiple open l-shaped ballcourts, which are typically
attached to the platforms of these circle groups. The ballcourts typical of the Teuchitlan
45


culture are marked with several features and characteristics: parallel ridges marking the
sides of the playing field, two end platforms, terraced lateral platforms functioning as
gallery areas all forming an open-1 arena (Weigand 1991). It is important to mention,
though, that the ballcourt is not unique to the Teuchitlan culture. It is observed in many
other Mesoamerican sites, which clearly undermines the idea that this area did not
participate in Mesoamerican practices.
These circular compounds were built as a single construction, which followed
strict, formal rules of proportionality and symmetry (Weigand 1996). Weigand states
that the circular compounds seem to follow a 1:1:2.5:1.1 formula when measuring out
the diameter of the entire circle (Figures 3.4). In sequence, the banquettes is one
measurement, the patio is one measurement, the Central Pyramid or altar is 2.5 and the
subsequent patio and banquette on the corresponding side are each an additional one
measure. Weigand's research was mainly oriented towards the larger sites. He notes
that this formula is often not consistent with sub-monumental or smaller circles found
outside the core area. Weigand further explains that symmetry within the
guachimonton structures is observed in regards to placement of the pyramids/platforms
on top of the circular banquette/patio (Figure 3.5). Subsequent construction phases
alter these measurements as the overall circumference of a circular group becomes
greater.
46


TEUCHITLAN TRADITION GEOMETRY
Tho loyowt of tho ptgifofmt plop tho botvquttla
the twtten geometry
Both Sguoree 1(Z-e-6-8) ona H 0-3-3-7) art tangents to Circle C onO
Meant* to CircIO 0, with the tangents touching at l-3'-S'-T anO
i*-4'-6-0'. respeelnrely.
Figure 3.4 Teuchitlan culture architectural geometry (after Weigand 1996: Figure
7).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All Rights Reserved.
TEUCHITLAN TRAOITION OEOMETRV
T* toyeul f th§ i*m eoftCOMnC ctrclo* *o Ov*twi poomofry
PnpOrNoftoMf 4 w>00*00 for teApootO 0*d polio, ooth lw*0,
ntf K> mooturoo for tho contra* pyramid, or 441044 (H 15 II)
D
t
Hi Y
A Radical oo*or for 3 proportionally rofcHod oftcoMrtc orciot
Ovfor di>omotor of fho control pyramid, m*4 mnor diQmoto*
of tho ofoatod potto
C Om*ot dtamoior of ho oiprotod pane, and *nrw* dtomoror
f tho hortOMOftf
0* Ouior dMmoto* of tho PonpMOito
Figure 3.5 Teuchitlan culture architectural proportionality (after Weigand 1996: Figure
8).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All Rights Reserved.
47


Weigand (1996) recognizes that architectural design can tell a great deal about a
structure's function. By this, he argues that there is a tendency for large and formally
designed buildings to have public functions; however, the exact function of these
guachimonton structures is still very unclear. The best evidence used in discerning such
activities comes from ceramic dioramas that are recovered from shaft-tombs (e.g.
Figures 3.6 and 3.7). Many of these dioramas depict activities such as feasts, pole rituals
and possible musical ceremonies (Beekman 2003b; Butterwick 2004; von Winning and
Hammer 1972), but they are idealized scenes that are ethnographic at best generating
many competing speculations. These theories are described in more detail in chapter 4
as they relate to the overall symbolic and political nature of the Teuchitlan culture, but it
is safe to assume that some sort of public event took place at these compounds.
With a defined typology now established, many other sites outside of the lake
basins region exhibiting this unique architectural program have been identified.
Weigand (1985), Jaramillo (1984) and Cabrero Garcia (1989) have located and
investigated well over thirty examples of guachimontones structures in the Bolanos
Canyon with additional sites in Guanajuato (Sanchez Correa and Marmolejo Morales
1990; Lopez Mestas and Ramos de las Vega 1998; Crespo 1993) and Colima (Serna
1991). Many more shaft tombs have been associated with those sites (Cabrero Garcia
and Lopez Cruz 1997) with even more examples found in Nayarit and southern Jalisco
(Weigand 1992). The research of this unique architectural form has only since increased.
48


Figure 3.6: Ceramic model depicting a Ritual Center, Nayarit, Mexico. A.D 100/800. Gift
of Mr. and Mrs. Julian Goldsmith, 1989.639. Copyright and Photograph
1999, The Art Institute of Chicago. All rights reserved.
Figure 3.7: Ceramic model depicting Pole Ceremony, Nayarit, Mexico. 200 B.C. A.D.
500. Purchased with funds provided by Mr. and Mrs. Balch, M.86.296.35. The Los
Angeles County Museum of Art. All rights reserved.
49


Explanation of the Teuchitlan Culture Trajectory
In trying to synthesize a chronology for the trajectory of the Teuchitlan culture,
preliminary sequences have heavily relied on museum collections, looted material and
surface material; these sequences were grounded by limited radiocarbon data and a
very incomplete and mostly unpublished ceramic typology and sequence, which have
since been debunked. Weigand (1985) presented an architectural chronology that was
based on simple changes in the basic morphology of the guachimonton program. The
phases he proposed generally correlate with major Mesoamerican sequences and follow
a kind of rise-and-fall trend where each architectural element derived from more
simplistic forms and then seem to gradually be replaced by larger, more complex ones
(Figure 3.8). Each phase is not only marked with a rise in architectural complexity but
also with a rise in sociopolitical complexity. Simple forms of culture give rise to more
complex ones; however, it's not as simple as that. Not all societies follow this nice rise-
and-fall trajectory with simple forms of culture predating the more complex ones. It may
very well be that the larger, more complex sites predate smaller ones (Beekman,
personal communication).
50


I-------- 1 I *_____________l
Figure 3.8: Architectural Chronology (after Weigand and Beekman 1998: Figure
16).Copyright 1998. Ancient West Mexico. All Rights Reserved.
Weigand proposed that shaft-tombs were introduced fist during a phase that he
called the Arenal phase. These shaft-tombs were accompanied by simple surface
mounds (Weigand 1996). The subsequent phase, which he calls the Ahualulco Phase,
marked the decline in shaft-tombs construction and a steady rise in monumental
surface architecture. Here, he notes a great increase in circular complexity. Earlier forms
only included four platforms around the altar; later forms then incorporated ten, twelve
and even sixteen platforms. The following two phases were then characterized by a
significant shift in the long-established forms of monumental circular architecture. The
frequency of circular compound construction began to decline, and by the end of the
Teuchitlan II phase, Weigand suggests that all the guachimontones were abandoned and
a new rectangular form of architecture became the principal public architecture in the
region.
For quite some time, this chronology served as the principle sequence for the
region; it is, however, not without its deficiencies. The issue with this chronology lies at
51


its total disregard for ceramic data. With an increasing need to make west Mexican
archaeology more scientific, ceramic data and associated radiocarbon data needs to be
accounted for and calibrated. The advantages of including ceramic data are many. First,
ceramic data can provide direct dates on cultural material; second, the association of
dated material with the primary depositional context or the cultural activity of interest
can be more readily evaluated; and third, ceramic materials are often expendable in
quantities sufficient to produce a reliable radiocarbon date (de Atley 1980).
In light of this, recent efforts (Beekman and Weigand 2008; Beekman and
Weigand 2010) have worked towards creating a ceramic-based chronology. Using
excavation data from multiple sources, Beekman and Weigand (2008) presented a
chronological sequence for the region that now connected ceramic complexes to
radiocarbon samples and provided dates and construction/activity ranges to various
guachimonton compounds. The phases in this sequence provide a more narrow range
from the Late Formative to the Early/Middle Classic periods than what was first
proposed by Weigand (1985). Beekman (2010) observes that the shaft tombs are now
much more clearly associated with the surface architecture rather than seen as separate
entities. Beekman and Weigand suggest that this sequence can be applied to other sites
in the area under the assumption that these sites use the same ceramic types in the
same sequence; however, they stress that individual sites have diverging cultural
trajectories especially in comparing main centers to rural areas. Therefore, applying a
single sequence to an entire region may be misleading. On the one hand, this sequence
is weak on broader trends after 500 A.D. On the other hand, this sequence does well in
52


contextualizing the construction sequence at the site Los Guachimontones. Table 3.1
lays out the chronology of greater Mesoamerica and the regional model developed by
Beekman and Weigand (2008) so as to better contextualize the transitions occurring
within the Teuchitlan culture to a broader regional scope.
Table 3.1: Regional Model (after Beekman and Weigand 2008) and greater
Mesoamerican chronology.
Date Greater Mesoamerica Regional (Based on Beekman and Weigand 2008)
A.D.800 Epi-Classic
700
600
500 Middle Classic
400 Tequila IV
300 Early Classic
200
100 Late Formative Tequila III
0
100 B.C.
200 Tequila II
300
400 Middle Formative Tequila 1
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100 Early Formative
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
53


The Beginnings of a Complex Society
The earliest evidence for social organization in West Mexico appears well into
the Early and Middle Formative periods (1600 800 B.C.). Much of what is known about
these early sedentary villages comes from highly structured mortuary features as found
at the site El Openo in the Jacona-Zamora Valley of Michoacan. These features are
defined by a large stairway and two subterranean chambers with wide benches on
either side where the dead were laid to rest and may have given rise to the mortuary
tradition that defines the Teuchitlan Culture (Beekman 2010). These tombs contained
exotic goods and lavish offerings, which indicated the wealth and social networks of the
families entombed. These features offer the first indications of emerging social
inequalities within west Mexico: "... varying tomb sizes and degrees of wealth among
the El Openo lineage tombs suggest variability in social status among families..."
(Beekman 2012:498). The tombs have not been found in association with surface
architecture.
Tequila I
The first phase defined by Beekman and Weigand (2008) is the Tequila phase
(800 300 B.C.). During this phase, the shaft-tomb program is defined and surface
architecture becomes prevalent. Within the lake districts of Jalisco, elaborate
cemeteries were now accompanied by circular or oval mounds averaging 28-30 m in
diameter and 2 m high (Weigand 1996). Unlike the earlier El Openo tombs, these shaft-
tombs were built under the platforms of the circular compounds in a bottle-shape
fashion. These tombs are known for their offerings in the form of elaborate jewelry and
54


hollow ceramic figures (von Winning and Hammer 1972). Goods such as marine shells
from both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, jade from the Motagua Valley of Guatemala,
green obsidian from the Pachuca repository in central Mexico and iron pyrite mirrors
similar to that of Oaxaca were most likely acquired through trade and illuminated a
group's prestige. Larger numbers of individuals were now entombed suggesting higher
investment in ancestral care and the development of corporate groups: "Processes
toward political centralization and social inequality had certainly begun in the highlands,
although membership in corporate social groups and not individual accomplishment
was the likely vehicle for defining wealth and status." (Beekman 2010:61). According to
Hayden and Cannon (1982:134-135), corporate groups are "those which have come into
being as a result of strong economic or environmental pressures, and which, as a result,
exhibit a recognizable degree of residential coherency among two or more nuclear
families within the community." People were coming together in order to strengthen
political and social bonds that may have extended beyond defined family groups.
Tequila II
During the following phase, Tequila II (300-100 B.C.), the highlands experienced
an influx of people clustering south of the Tequila Volcano. Shaft-tombs become more
elaborate and the connection between them and surface architecture become better
understood. There was an increased investment in the construction of large ceremonial
centers, which fully integrated the guachimonton motif. These site plans also
incorporated the ballcourt design which were either standalone features or shared
platforms with the circular compounds.
55


Monumental shaft-tombs, which extended four meters or deeper and included
multiple chambers, were typically associated with the smaller circular compounds;
however, the larger portion of family-based burials, which mainly housed non-elite
members, were not associated with monumental architecture and consisted of single-
event burials with pits (Weigand and Beekman 1998). To this end, Weigand and
Beekman (1996:40) suggest that the association of monumental shaft-tombs with the
circular compounds, in clear separation of elite and non-elite burials within the
Teuchitlan core, strongly implies three important conclusions:
1. The Teuchitlan core area played a special role within the overall burial
ceremonialism of the entire region of West Mexico.
2. The monumental shaft tombs were an integral part of the ceremonial nature
of the concentric buildings, as were their adjacent structures, such as
ballcourts.
3. The use of monumental shaft tombs was restricted to a small element of the
overall population, dedicated to ceremonial events and rituals that marked
the elite social status of certain individuals within both the local social system
and the larger region.
The formation of the Teuchitlan core was then directly reflected in the distribution of
monumental public architecture with larger circular compounds relating to larger social
associations.
Tequila III
During the Tequila III phase (100 B.C. A.D. 200), corporate groups began to
express their sociopolitical authority more pronouncedly through surface architecture.
On the one hand, the corporate groups "built their structures independently, yet as a
part of a broader template... in precise alignment" (Beekman 2010:63). On the other
hand, excavations at Los Guachimontones, Llano Grande and Navajas indicate that each
56


platform unit was far from uniform. Each group expressed their political power through
disproportions in platform size, shape and construction quality (Beekman 2008).
Construction and expansion of the ceremonial centers continued during this phase, and
the shaft-tomb tradition became widespread in western Mexico.
Beekman (1996c) observes evidence for fortified or strategic centers at the
entrances into the Tequila Valleys during this period. He claims that perhaps the Tequila
Valleys had become politically unified around the Guachimonton site. Six habitation
zones have been identified in this transition: Huitzilapa, Santa Quiteria, Las Pilas,
Ahualulco, Tala, and Teuchitlan. The combination of ceremonial circular compounds and
habitation zones clearly began to define a settlement hierarchy among these six sites.
Tequila IV
By the Tequila IV phase (A.D. 200 500), the circular architectural form is seen
throughout west Mexico. Investment in ceremonial centers, however, decreases. Nearly
all expansion projects at the Guachimonton site conclude within the first decades of this
phase with little to no new projects. The circles at Comala in Colima, at Tepecuazco in
Juhipila Valley of Zacaecas, at Bolanos Canyon to the north and Los Braziles in the
Banderas Valley follow the guachimonton template and all date within this period. This
suggests that the Tequila Valleys dominated neighboring areas in terms of the degree of
political centralization, yet the onset of decentralization in the region is noted as early
as A.D. 200 (Beekman 2010). The Tequila IV phase ends with a poorly-understood
transition into the El Grillo phase, which dates to approximately A.D. 500 900.
Site Selection: Los Guachimontones
57


In order to investigate and to truly understand the affectual nature of
architecture within the Teuchitlan Culture, the site Los Guachimontones was selected.
This site represents on many fronts the best example for analysis given the goals at
hand. Many of the recurring themes found at this site are seen throughout other sites in
the area. Moreover, this site was chosen due to the high level of archaeological work
conducted there by Weigand, Esparanza and Montobello: survey, excavation,
restoration, etc. The extensive survey and excavation work conducted there meant that
the activities that took place there would be well accounted for and represented in the
archaeological record. The massive restoration project done there also meant that the
morphology of the site and architecture would be well understood in terms of
composition of the individual spaces and the relationships between them. This
ultimately allows for a greater consideration of the relationship between people and
their built environment than elsewhere. The following sections further describe the site,
the guachimonton groups and the structures within them.
Site Description
The site of Los Guachimontones is located 2 km from the modern town of
Teuchitlan, Jalisco south of the Tequila Volcano near Lake Presa de la Vega. It is by far
the most monumental and complex site of the culture and served as the ceremonial
center for the region. This site is the culmination of nearly six hundred years of activity.
This site consists of ten circular compounds, two ballcourts, several open plazas, large
residential areas, agricultural terraces and several obsidian workshops. Before getting
too deep in discussion, it is of great significance to note that this site only demonstrates
58


four of the five architectural elements that define the culture; no shaft-tombs have
been observed beneath the platforms of the circular compounds, but the site is not
completely devoid of burials. The central ceremonial area of the site and focus of this
study includes 5 architectural complexes (Figure 3.9): Circle I, II, III, IV and Ballcourt 1.
This is the highest concentration of circular groupings throughout the tradition. Many of
these complexes share structures (i.e. Platform 5 of Circle II serves as Platform 1 in
Circle III). As such, they have undergone several expansion and re-building phases. The
subsequent discussion focuses on this particular cluster of architectural compounds
concentrating on their overall morphology and relationship to one another.
Excavations of the site began during the second field session of 1999 under the
direction of Phil Weigand at Circle I, II, IV and Ballcourt I. Work at Circle III later began
during the 2001-2002 field session. Over the following ten years, several teams worked
towards better understanding the history and morphology of the site with a massive
restoration project beginning in 2002. For a description of the different structural
groups, I used the information synthesized in field reports produced by Phil Weigand
(1999, 2000, 2001-2002 and 2003-2006), Eric Orlando Cach Avendano (2002), Jennifer
Griffin (2003), Heredia Espinoza (2006), Marisol Montejano Esquivias (2003- 2006), Sean
Montgomery Smith Marquez (2009) and Ericka Sofia Blanco Morales (2009). The
chronology of the site was synthesized by Beekman et al. (2014), who investigated
existing architectural stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates in concert with
ceramic and figure/figurine data to better understand the chronology of the site (Figure
3.10).
59


Figure 3.9: Map of Los Guachimontones indicating Central Ceremonial Area. Produced
byK. Hollon. 2014.
60


S52a§32!jS555iSisao!isai5i52BifidiSs3l
r*
Figure 3.10 Chronology of the Los Guachimontones Site (after Beekman et al.
2014: Figure 7). Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.
61


Circle I
Circle I, which is shown in Figure 3.11, is the largest circle not only at the site but
also in all of the Teuchitlan culture region. It is the most northeast structure and is
located at the base of a foothill almost tucked away in an alcove. Construction began
around 160 B.C. and ended in A.D. 1. Expansion of the circle was conducted during A.D.
1 to 50 with activity occurring up until the Tequila IV phase in A.D. 240. It measures
about 125 m in diameter with a somewhat irregular outer circumference of about 400
m. This circle includes a circular central altar, a patio surrounding that altar, a banquette
and twelve platforms. An additional feature is associated with the circle located
northeast of platforms 5 through 9. A crescent shaped square, where an elite residence
has been located, follows the outer shape of the circle and natural curvature of the hill
located behind it. Several platforms in this circle are shared with Ballcourt 1.
Figure 3.11: Schematic Plan of Circle I. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015.
62


Central Pyramid and Patio. Due to heavy quarrying and looting resulting in
extended weathering and erosion, the Central Pyramid had nearly collapsed affecting
the overall morphology of the structure. In efforts to preserve its shape, it was
ultimately filled in 2000; therefore, the measurements presented here are mere
estimates of what the structure may have been in its prime. The structure is just over 50
m in diameter, and its original height was probably around 17-18 m, but it is now closer
to 15 m. Excavation revealed four major stairways of 22 to 26 steps that lead to the top
of the structure.
The patio extends 22-23 m around the Central Pyramid and is about 95 m in
diameter running throughout the entire circle. Excavation data reveal that the patio was
built in a single construction phase with a somewhat level slope.
Platforms (1, 2, 7,11 and 12). The platforms of Circle I are relatively large
averaging 16 m wide and 20-22 m long with about 4 m of banquette between them. This
allowed about 300-350 m2 of surface area, which may have provided about 200-250 m2
of space available for each superstructure area; however, only some of the
superstructures appear to have had their own foundations. For others, the entire
platform from edge to edge was used for the superstructure interior. The buildings atop
of these platforms, or any platform in this site for that matter, are poorly understood
due to an episode of mass abandonment and burning, yet many fragments of walls and
large pieces of daub are preserved. For that reason, Weigand and Esparza (2008:15)
note that "[i]t [is] not possible to calculate the total size of the temple, but clearly the
structures of temples in this circle were great."
63


Platforms 1, 2 and 12 border the northeastern wall of Ballcourt 1 creating a
series of lateral or gallery platforms. Platform 1 is about 20 m in length and 13 meters
wide creating a total top surface of 260 m2, of which approximately 120 140 m2 could
have been used as the interior space of the platform's superstructure (Weigand 2000-
2001). Platform 12 is the largest of the three measuring 23 m in length and 15 m in
depth. Additionally, Platform 11 is 23 m long and 13 m wide. These platforms exhibit
higher levels of reinforcement and several episodes of reconstruction in comparison to
the other platforms possibly as a result of structural damage from the activities
occurring in the ballcourt. For example, Platform 2 shows evidence for constant repairs
while Platform 12's outer wall was fortified with a high terrace making it the second
largest in the circle. A V-shaped area is also created between the ridges of the ballcourt
and the high terrace of Platform 12 that has a small stairway leading to the gallery
platforms (Figure 3.12).
64


Figure 3.12: View of V-Shape created by the southeast end of Ballcourt 1 and Platform
12 of Circle II. Facing northwest. Photograph K. Hollon 2014.
Excavations at Platform 7 revealed a flight of well-preserved clay stairs that lead
to the upper surface of the platform from the patio of Circle I (Figure 3.13). This is the
only example of clay stairs found in this circle. It is suggested that stairs extending from
other platforms in this circle may have also been constructed with clay making them
hard to identify. With the lack of formal staircase evidence concerning the other
platforms, it is suggested that many of the temples atop these structures were accessed
laterally where terraces or benches mimicking de facto stairways have been found (e.g.
Figure 3.14); however, additional stair-like structures have been located elsewhere in
the central ceremonial area. Built into Platform 2's structure rather than extending from
it, a small set of steps allow for patio-side access (Figure 3.15). A third staircase found in
the circle is associated with platforms 7 and 8 (Figure 3.16) leading to an elite residential
area where three of the four structures have been excavated. Platform 11 also contains
65


stair-like features located along the southern wall that lead to a large square plaza south
of Circle I. On the whole, Circle I shows the largest investment of both natural and
cultural resources. The construction and expansion phase of Circle I coincide along with
that of Ballcourt 1 suggesting that these two structures share a deeper relationship than
the other structures.
Figure 3.13: Patio-side view of Platform 7 showing stairs that extends from the platform.
Facing northeast. Photograph K. Hollon 2014.
66


Figure 3.15: Patio-side view of Platform 2 showing built-in stairs. Facing west.
Photography K. Hollon 2014.
67


Circle II: La Iguana
Circle II, as shown in Figure 3.17, is located southwest of Circle I and is the most
well-understood circle of the site. Construction began after the initial expansion of Circle
I in A.D. 40 and continued until A.D. 100. Additions were made during the subsequent
40 years. The circle is 115 m in diameter and about 360 m in circumference. It includes a
circular Central Pyramid, a patio, banquette and ten platforms making it the second
largest at the site. The morphology of this circle is particularly interesting in that it is
enmeshed in the construction histories of Circle III and Ballcourt 1.
68


Figure 3.17: Schematic Plan of Circle II. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015.
Central Pyramid and Patio. The Central Pyramid of Circle II is argued to have
been built in 3 different segments with the top segment disrupting the overall angle of
the structure (Figure 3.18). The overall diameter of the pyramid is about 35 masl. The
terraces of this structure create de facto steps with an average height of 50-60 cm and
50 cm in depth. The pyramid has been reconstructed to include seventeen steps leading
to the top. Looting of this structure long before excavations took place exposed a large
post mold in the center of the upper altar suggesting that a large pole once stood at its
center. As with the patio of Circle I, the patio of Circle II was built during a single episode
of construction. Where the earth's elevation of Circle I remains somewhat consistent
throughout its foundation, Circle II was constructed on a natural slope. This explains the
significant differences and inconsistencies in banquette depth between platforms. Some
69


are built higher than others to compensate for the elevation of the patio in relation to
other structures and the natural landscape.



* '.V' &£.*-? *WVHS!Wi
'T;-* V*/***-"£*$&
* . f v V*%t ** t P* - .
* f t i',: wx:
s#edBK&&
Figure 3.18: View of Circle II, Central Pyramid. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
Platforms (1 10). As with the platforms of Circle I, the platforms of Circle II are
far from uniform; nevertheless, all platforms possess multiple access ways leading to the
patio/central altar or to other site features. Platform 1 is by far the most monumental in
the circle conveying huge differentials in resource management (25 m by 15 m). It was
constructed in two phases. The first phase matched the level of Ballcourt l's terraces,
and the second gave it its disproportionate height in relation to the other platforms;
however, it shares a common construction history with platforms 10 and 2. These three
structures share a single, large base platform (Figure 3.19) and form the only family of
platforms in the complex.
70


Figure 3.19: View of Platforms 10, 1 and 2 with Central Pyramid. Facing northeast.
Photography K. Hollon 2014.
These platforms do not possess patio-side stairways; however, access to the
patio can be achieved via stairways extending from raised banquettes between
platforms 10 and 1 and between 1 and 2 (e.g. Figure 3.20). Access to the platforms was,
therefore, achieved laterally from the banquettes. The distance and height of the
banquette between platforms 1 and 2 is much greater than the one between platforms
10 and 1 creating asymmetry amongst the three joined platforms. These platforms then
created the supplemental gallery or lateral platforms of Ballcourt 1. The V-shaped area
created between Ballcourt 1 and Platform 10 has a small stairway leading to the gallery
platforms much like the one seen with Platform 12 of Circle I.
71


Figure 3.20: Patio-side view of stairway between Platforms 10 and 1. Facing northeast.
Photography K. Hollon 2014.
Platform 3 represents the general morphology of the rest of the platforms built
as separate structures. The platform is defined by two terraced levels, which allowed for
lateral access. This platform, in comparison to platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7, differs only in
regards to patio-side access. The top terrace level contains step-like features, but they
do not fully extend to the patio (Figure 3.21). They end upon reaching the first terrace.
Additionally located at Platform 3 is a small staircase extending along the southern wall
of the platform leading to the square plaza south of Circle I (Figure 3.22).
72


Figure 3.22: View of Platform 3 depicting stairway leading to square plaza. Facing
northwest. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
73


Platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7 possess centrally placed staircases that extend to the
patio floor (e.g. Figure 3.23). Still, access from the banquette to the top of the platforms
could have been achieved laterally. Platform 5 is shared with Circle 3 (as Platform 1) and
is the second largest platform in the circle (21 m long and 16 m wide). This structure also
contains a small set of steps that extend from the northwestern wall in the direction of
Platform 6. Platform 6 possesses a small stairway extending from the southwestern wall
leading away from the circle. Platform 7, in comparison, contains two patio-side
stairways and an additional one extending towards Platform 6. (Figure 3.24). Platforms 8
and 9 differ from the other patios as they lack direct patio access; therefore, they would
have been accessed laterally from the banquettes.
Figure 3.23: Patio-side view of Platform 7 two patio-side access ways. Facing west.
Photography K. Hollon 2014.
74


Figure 3.24: Banquette-side view of Platform 7 illustrating stairway in the southeastern
potion. Facing north. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
On the whole, the morphology of Circle II differs greatly from Circle I not only in
regards to size. The platforms possess multiple access ways leading to various parts of
the site. The construction of Circle II began shortly after the construction of Ballcourt 1
and setting the foundations for the construction of Circle III suggesting an intricate
relationship between these structures.
Circle III: El Azquelito
Circle III, shown in Figure 3.25, is located directly south of Circle II and is
comparatively smaller than Circles I and II with only eight platforms. Construction began
in A.D. 100 and continued to A.D. 175. This was done during the same time expansions
were made on Circle II. Additional construction occurred A.D. 175 to 220. This circle has
a circumference of about 157 m and is about 80 m in diameter. Four terraces comprise
the central altar leading to the top of the structure (Figure 3.26).
75


Circle III
Platform 1 /Platform 5
Platform 8 Platform 2
Platform 3
mb Meiers OB 75 5 11 16 5 22
Figure 3.25: Schematic Plan of Circle III. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015.
Figure 3.26: View of Circle III, Central Pyramid. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
76


Platforms (1, 2, 3 and 8). Platform 1, which is shared with Circle II, does not
show evidence for patio-side access. This suggests that access was gained through Circle
II or laterally from the banquettes. As part of Circle II, this platform was originally 13 m
long and 11 m wide with a surface area of 143 m2. This platform was enlarged to its final
dimensions previously mentioned rendering a surface area of 336 m2. Platforms 2 and 3
have two stairways, one leading to the patio (Figure 3.26) and the other leading to the
square plaza to the west of the circle (Figure 3.27). Platform 8 does not show patio-side
access, but has a staircase extending from the platform gaining access to another square
plaza to the west of the circle (Figure 3.28).
Figure 3.27: Patio-side view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway in the northwestern
potion. Facing northeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
77


Figure 3.28: V view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway leading to eastern square plaza.
Facing southwest. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
Though this circle is relatively small, it shares a significant construction history
with Circle II. Its platforms also allow direct formal access to the large plaza areas
located both to the east and west of the circle. As with the other circles thus far, it is
evident that the underlying principles acted like a template from which to construct
these circles, yet each element differs greatly.
78


Figure 3.29: Back-side view of Platform 8 illustrating stairway extending from platform
leading to western square plaza. Facing southeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014.
Circle IV
Circle IV (Figure 3.30) is located northwest of Ballcourt 1. Construction began in
A.D. 50 to 100 shortly after the expansion of Ballcourt l.This circle consists of eight
platforms, one of which is shared with Ballcourt 1, and contains the only rectangular
central altar in the entire precinct (Figure 3.31). It is also the smallest in the central area
with a diameter just under 54 m and a circumference of about 155. The altar is 7 m in
diameter. The altar is not positioned within the geometric center of the circle as are the
other altars in their respective circles. It is located closer to Platform 7 and is only raised
about 0.45 m from the surface. Like other altars found in the site, excavation revealed a
possible post mold in the center of the altar.
79


Circle IV
Platform 6
Platform S
Platform A
j
Platform 7
Platform 6
Platform 3
Platform 1
Platform 3
Meters
0255 10 15 20
Figure 3.30: Schematic Plan of Circle IV. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015.
Figure 3.31: View of Circle IV with Central Pyramid. Facing northwest. Photography K.
Hollon 2014.
80


A dirt road once passed through the ballcourt and Circle IV, which greatly
damaged the ballcourt facing side walls of platforms 1, 2 and 8. Platform 1 has two faces
and is the largest platform within the circular compound one to the northwest facing
the central altar with patio-side access and the other to the southeast as an end
platform for the monumental ballcourt. Platforms 2, 3 and 4 are exceptionally
interesting in that they are built atop a square-like retaining wall. Platform 2 and 3
include patio-side stairways (Figure 3.32) where Platform 4 has a stairway leading away
from the patio (Figure 3.33). The outer walls of the platforms facing the ballcourt are
very high requiring a series of large steps for easier access on the southwestern portion
of the circle. The platform walls closer to Circle I are not as high, so no large staircases
exist.
81


Figure 3.33: View of Platforms 4 with back-side stairs. Facing east. Photography K.
Hollon 2014.
Its relationship to Ballcourt 1 suggests that Platform 1 was constructed first,
which then guided the placement of the subsequent platforms. This circle is particularly
interesting due to its several rectangular altar not observed elsewhere in the complex.
The asymmetry of the altar poses some interesting questions as well where some
wonder if there was a mistake in interpretation.
Ballcourt 1
Ballcourt 1 is the integrating component of three major circular compounds
(Circle I, II and IV) (Figure 3.34). Completing the necessary elements typical of the
Mesoamerican ballgame, a standalone platform is observed serving as the southeastern
head. Construction of the structure began alongside Circle I (160 B.C. to 1 A.D.) with
subsequent construction starting A.D 1 continuing to 50 A.D. This structure was once
the most monumental ballcourt in the region, but was surpassed by the Santa Quiteria
82


Full Text

PAGE 1

ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE: ANALYZING LIVED EXPERIENCES IN THE LOS GUACHIMONTONES CENTRAL CEREMONIAL AREA by KRISTIE HOLLON B.S., University of New Mexico, 2012 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment Of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts A nthropology 2015

PAGE 2

ii 2015 KRISTIE HOLLON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

PAGE 3

iii This thesis for the Masters of Arts degree by Kristie Hollon has been approved for the Anthropology Department by Christopher Beekman, Chair Marty Otanez Tammy Stone October 1 6 2015

PAGE 4

iv Hollon, Kristie (M.A., Anthropology) Analysis of Social Space: Analyzing Lived Experiences in the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area Thesis directed by Associate Professor Christopher Beekman ABSTRACT This research sets out to investigate the formation of lived experiences and the dissemination of social order as mediated through monumental architecture. The built enviro nment is a com municative medium through which important wayfinding information is conveyed. In order to investigate how lived experiences are formed and sociopolitical relations are established, reproduced and maintained, this study focuses on the architectural program of the Teuchitln Culture that thrived in Western Mexico during the Late Formative (300 BC AD 200) and Earl y Classic (AD 300 500) periods. Specifically examin ed is the public architecture known as guachimontn found at the Central C eremonial A rea of the site Los Guachimontones located in the Tequila Valley of Jalisco, Mexico (LGCCA) Taking a phenomenological approach, this study utilizes soph isticated quantitative methods, GIS and Space Syntax in order to address three central questions: 1) How i s architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain experiences; 2) how do subsequent construction phases change or impact these experiences; and 3) how do those experiences lend coherence to the society as a whole? T he results ind icate that the location of the LGCCA and structures therein are indicative of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision, and that ideology may influence an individual pe rception of space even before entering the area. The results also show that

PAGE 5

v the placement of s ubsequent construction of structures is deliberate affecting access and visibility. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures reveals that these spaces fostered high levels of co awareness and co presence, which further suggests that these spaces functioned as public arenas. Further analysis of the LGCCA structures indicates that platform size and visual space may have been manipulated to express disproportions of symbolic and political power amongst working corporate groups. This provides evidence and gener ated a narrative for the individuals and groups of people who came into contact with the guachimontn structures within the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area and the experiences that may have become manifest as a result The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication. Approved: Christopher Beekman

PAGE 6

vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis could not have been completed without the constant support and encouragement from family, friends, the anthropology department, my committee and my advisor. This entire process was a mental and emotional rollercoaster, and I deeply appreciate everyone who stood by me, comforted me and prayed for me. To my parents, Jon Hollon and Julie Garcia, for being my number one supporters. Thank you for the late night phone calls and for buying me my first coffee maker. It was much needed and much appreciated. Thank you for allowing me to pursue my dreams, would make when I would take over the living room with my many articles and books. To my sisters, Tamie, Cindy and Joanie, for always supporting me and for not allowing me to give up. I appreciate all your words of wisdom an d comfort. I share this accomplishment with you. To my loving a nd understanding friends for letting me bounce ideas off of you and for listening to me practice for my defense. Thank you for reminding me that it is okay to take a break from time to time an d for understanding when I had to work rather than play. A special thank you to my roommate, An Nguyen, for keeping things in order and for taking care of Bayuard while I spent long hours at campus or the library. You all have been a huge m otivating factor one I could no t have done this without. To my undergraduate companion and editor extraordinaire, Gillian Leonard, thank you for taking the time to read and look through my thesis. You are truly a gem and a life saver!

PAGE 7

vii To Connie Turner for always puttin g a smile on my face and for helping me to see the brighter side of things. Thank you for keeping me organized When I was one the brink of tears in the student lounge, you were there to calm me down and to say, Thank you for your unwavering faith and trust in my ability to succeed. To my thesis committee members, Marty Otanez and Tammy Stone, f or being patient throughout this entire process. I appreciate the time spent reading this entire work. Your enthusiasm and desire to motivate and help me accomplish this feat is inspiring. Thank you for having confidence in me as student and as a developing professional. Thank you for all that you have taught me in and out of the classroom. To my advisor, committee chair, mentor and frie nd, Christopher Beekman, for introducing me to the wonders of the Teuchitln Culture. I appreciate your guidance, support and patience. From the first page to the last, I appreciate all the edits and critiques you made. I have something I w ill forever be proud of as a result of your dedication and uncompromising desire for me to produce something of quality. There is a part of you on every page of this.

PAGE 8

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. II. Monumental Architectu III. The Architectural Program IV. IN CONSIDERATION OF GREATER MESOAMERICA AND THE TEUCHITLN V. INV

PAGE 9

ix The VI. ... 166 VII. Generating a Narrative for a Co GIS, Space Syntax and Phenomeno Possible New Directions REFERENCES

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Map of Northwest Mexico indicating the political divisions and major archaeological sites 3.2: Map of Teuchitln Culture sites showing habitation densities 3.3: Idealized cross section of five element Guachimontn architectural complex 3.4: Teuchitln Culture archite ctural geometry 3.5: Teuchitln Culture architectural proportionality 3.6: Ceramic model depicting a Ritual Center 3.7: Ceramic model depicting Pole Ceremony 3.8: Architectural Chronology 3.9: Map of Los Guachimontones indicating Central Ceremonial Area 3.10 Chronology of the Los Guachimontones Site 3.11: Schematic Plan of Circle I 3.12: View of V Shape created by the southeast end of Ballcourt 1 and Platform 12 of Circle II. Facing northwest 3.13: Patio side view of Platform 7 showing stairs that exten ds from the platform. Facing northeast 3.14: Patio side view of Platform 12 showing steps extending along the northwest portion of the structure. Facing southwest 3.15: Patio side view of Platform 2 showing built in stairs. Facing west 3.16: Staircase located between platforms 7 and 8 leading to an elite residence. Facing northeast 3.17: Schematic Plan of Circle II 3.18: View of Circle II, central pyramid. Facing west 3.19: View of Platforms 10, 1 and 2 with central pyramid 3.20: Patio side view of stairway between Platforms 10 and 1

PAGE 11

xi 3.21: Patio side view of Platform 3. Facing southeast 3.22: View of Platform 3 depicting stairway leading to square plaza. Facing northwest ............................................................................................ ................. 73 3.23: Patio side view of Platform 7 two patio side access ways. Facing west 3.24: Banquette side view of Platform 7 illustrating stairway in the southeastern potion. Facing north 3.25: Schematic Plan of Circle III 3.26: View of Circle III, central pyramid. Facing west 3.27: Patio side view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway in the northwestern potion. Facing northeast 3.28: V view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway leading to eastern square plaza. Facing southwest 3.29: Back side view of Platform 8 illustrating stairway extending from platform leading to western square plaza. Facing southeast 3.30: Schematic Plan of Circle IV 3.31: View of Circle IV with central pyramid. Facing northwest 3.32: View of Platfor ms 3 with inset stairs. Facing west 3.33: View of Platforms 4 with back side stairs. Facing east 3.34: View of Ballcourt 1 atop Platform 1 of Circle IV. Facing southeast 3.35: View of Ballcourt 1 south ern head platform. Facing southeast 4.1: Different conceptions of the cardinal directions and places based on accounts of referential practice from come contemporary Yucatan communities 4.2: Two Different Depictions of the Axis Mun di 4.3: Plan of Tikal Twin Pyramid Group 4.4: E Group site plan depicting the tripartite division 4.5 Map of La Noria, which includes elevations marking the outermost ring as a hillock

PAGE 12

xii 4.6: Idealized plan of the Guachimontn Complex 4.7: Comparison between Harinoso de Ocho and the Guachimontn viewed from above 00 4.8: Ceramic model depicting a burial procession 4.9: Ceremonial Village Scene with a Flying Figure 5.1: Representation of the vector data model depicting polygons (A and B), lines (1, 2 and 3) and po ints (a, b, c, d etc.) 5.2: Representation of how the raster data model convert vector data as an assembly of cells 5.3: Representation of convex space and axial lines 5.4: Representation of justified graphs based on the spaces depicted in Figure 5.3 5.5: Conversion of 3D (left) vector data to TIN surface (right) 5.6: Completed AGRAPH node to node graph showing all spaces and links drawn between them with site map set as guiding background 5.7: Drawing of an observer atop the patio viewing the face of a platform 6.1: A verage elevations for each structure within the LGCCA 6.2: Results of Slope Analysis indicating the modern town of Teuchitln and the rural road used to access the site 6.3: Results of Cost Distance Analysis from the modern t own of Teuchitln to the LGCCA 6.4: Justified graph of LGCCA indicating all connections 6.5: Schematic Plan of Circle I 6.6: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle I 6.7 : Percent Change in Visual area for Circle I P latforms 6.8 : Proportionality Results for Circle I 6.9: Schematic Plan of Circle II

PAGE 13

xiii 6.10: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle II 6.11: Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle II Platforms 6.12: Proportionality Results for Circle II 6.13: Schematic Plan of Circle III 6.14: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle III 6.15: Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle III Platforms 6.16: Proportionality Results for Circle III 6.1 7 : Schematic Plan of Circle IV 6.18: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle IV 6.19 : Percent Change in Visual area for Circle IV Platforms 6.20: Proportionality Results for Circle IV. 6.21: Line of sight representation indicating Circle I platforms as source point and area beyond Circle II as target point 6.22: Line of sight representation with P latforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central altar of Circle III as the target point 6.23: Line of sight representation with Platforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central altar of Circle I as the target point 6.24: Line of sight representation with Platforms 1 and 8 as source points and the central altar of Circle I as the target point 6.25: Line of sight representation with Platforms 3 and 8 as source points and the central altar of Circle III as the target point 6.26: Elevation and P ercent Visibility of Central Altar s in LGCCA 98 6.27: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle I as the source point and the central altar of Circle II as the target point 6.28: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle II as the source point and the central altar of Circle I as the target point 6.29: Average Elevation and Percent Visibility of Platform Observer Points in LGCCA

PAGE 14

xiv B.1: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Cent ral Altar B.2: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1 B.3: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.4: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.5: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11 B.6: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12 B.7: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar 4 B.8: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1 B.9: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.10: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.11: Views hed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4 B.12: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5 B.13: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6 B.14: Viewshed Map of C ircle II. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.15: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8 B.16: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9 B.17: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10 B.18: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar B.19: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1 B.20: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.21: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.22: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8 B.23: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar B.24: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 15

xv B.25: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.26: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.27: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4 B.28: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5 B.29: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6 B.30: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.31: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8

PAGE 16

xvi LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1: Regional Model and greater Mesoamerican chronology 4.1: Summary of Site rank, habitation zone density and total volume 4.2: Summary of Ceramic Analysis representing guachimontones found within the LGCCA 5.1: Table o f each structure and its data source 5.2: Population Data for Teuchitln habitation zone for Tequila II, Tequila III and Tequila IV phases 6.1: Review of Structure Dimensions 6.2: Results of cost distance analysis 6.3: Results of AGRAPH calculations for each spatial unit in the LGCCA system 6.4: Average syntactic parameters for the major architectural groups wi thin the LGCCA 6.5: Results of capacity analysis 6.6: Results of Circle I platform visual area analysis 6.7: Results of Circle II platform s visual a rea analysis 6. 8 : Resul ts of Circle III platforms visual area analysis 6.9: Resu lts of Circle VI platform visual area analysis 6.10: Results of Circle I viewshed analysis 6.11: Results of Circle II viewshed analysis 6.12: Results of Circle III viewshed analysis 6.13: Results of Circle IV viewshed analysis 6.14: Number of platforms visible from each central altar B.1: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Central Altar B.2: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 17

xvii B.3: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.4: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.5: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11 B.6: Views hed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12 B.7: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar B.8: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1 B.9: Viewshe d Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.10: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.11: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4 B.12: Viewshed R esults for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5 B.13: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6 B.14: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.15: Viewshed Resul ts for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8 B.16: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9 B.17: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10 B.18: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar B.19: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1 B.20: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.21: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.22: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8 B.23: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar B.24: Viewshed Results fo r Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 18

xviii B.25: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2 B.26: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3 B.27: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4 B.28: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5 B.29: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6 B.30: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7 B.31: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8

PAGE 19

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION It is argued that material culture can transmit types of information better than spoken language (Wobst 1977). For that reason, material culture must be highly visible in order to transmit messages effectively. Arguably, the primar y purpose of architecture is to provide for the basic human need for shelter; however, architectural purpose seems to go beyond that. Archaeologists have long accepted the notion that architecture serves as an ideational screen through which cultural memes vital for successful wayfinding, can be communicated from which societal relations are established, maintained and/or changed. The study of architecture concerns central issues in archaeology such as the negotiation of social and political relations as well as the basis of community making. A Crossley 2000). Their construction can give clues to the history of the people who built them or about the people they were built to commemorate (Forty 2000) while their cosmovision (Broda 1982). Furthermore, the architectonics of a structure or set of structures can illustrate inner social and political endeavo rs (Smith 2000). Many scholars (e.g. Ashmore 1989,1991, 2009; DeMarrais et al.. 1996; Barrett 1999; Grove and Joyce 1999; Aveni et al.. 2003; Nash and Williams 2005; Nielsen 2005; ideology.

PAGE 20

2 more or less integrated by reason but held with conviction that they are true, that they eas, especially social, political and religious ideas, shared by a community. Ideologies are, however, by definition rather general and abstract. People internalize and understand societal memes differently (Giddens 1991); thus, ideologies must be given co ncrete physical form (DeMarrais et al.. 1996) Architecture brings abstract conceptions into physical form making space a part of reality. Ingrained in spatial form is a language, a knowledge that then guides and informs individuals how to act in the world In this, architecture becomes a commodity, and ideology/knowledge becomes something to possess and control: Knowledge linked to power, not only assumes the authority of 'the truth' but has the power to make itself true. All knowledge, once applied in the real world, has effects, and in that sense at least, 'becomes true.' Knowledge, once used to regulate the conduct of others, entails constraint, regulation and the disciplining of practice. Thus, 'there is no power relation without the correlative constit ution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time, power relations (Foucault 1977:27). The construction, maintenance and use of space represent the exercise of power that attempts made to con reality is manipulated. Power, within the scope of Mesoamerica, was created, legitimized and negotiated largely though religious beliefs and practices (e.g. Joyce 2000; Schele and

PAGE 21

3 Freid el 1990), and the structures that housed such activities became intrinsically embedded into the cosmovision of the society. These spaces, imbued with cosmological significance, became ripe for manipulation by those who sought to create a model of the world that reinforced their authority. As part of the cosmologic worldview of Mesoamerica, city plans became maps of the sky, time and the universe as well as how the human body and terrestrial space was related. Spatial analysis of public architecture associat ed with ritual (i.e. the accessibility, visibility and/or organization of space, etc.) can provide information about both participants and spectators as well as shed light on the political and social structures that were in place. According to Rapoport essentially dynamic and reflexive. Social, economic and/or political shifts within populations materialize as mod ifications in the built environment. As Hillier and Hanson (1984:27) assert: The most far reaching changes in the evolution of societies have usually involved or led to profound shifts in spatial form and in the relation of society to its spatial milieu; these shifts appear to be not so much a by product of the social changes, but an intrinsic part of them and even to some extent causative of them. In complex societies such as those found in ancient Mesoamerica, constructed landscapes, especially monumental spaces, were important aspects of culture that both shape and are shaped b y social actions (Ashmore and Knapp 1999). As functionally unique landscapes, architectural forms and the spaces they create have the ability to engender and facilitate specific experiences for those who interacted in and around

PAGE 22

4 their bounds. As laid out b y Tilley (1996:162), the study of architecture in archaeology poetics of architectural or ganizations the values which govern the organization of a particular group allow people to more easily recognize and understand each other as well as communicate to outsiders the manner in which people identify themselves and structure their daily live s. Architectural elements evoke different connotations or emotional feelings (Smith 2000) given the aesthetics of architecture, which then brings about experience. By experience, I mean how one moves through, interacts and then perceived the built envir onment. Additionally, experience encompasses how one then interacts and relates to other entities or people within the same spatial parameters. Different levels of co awareness and co presence (Morton et al.. 2012) lead to different experiences. How space is perceived and imagined affects the type of responses and behaviors a person will have when interacting in and around that space: r, to the psychology of the user, how he or she perceived building form, social interaction needs, subcultural differences in lifestyles, and the meaning and symbolism of buildings (Moore 1979:47). Space commands bodies, prescribing or proscribing gesture s, routes and distances to be covered. For that reason, people will engage with the built environment differently.

PAGE 23

5 Research Aims and Rationale This research sets out to investigate the role the built environment plays in establishing and reproducing lived experiences as wells as to investigate how power is then mediated through spatial form in the context of the Teuchitln Culture that thrived in Western Mexico during the Late Formative (300 BC AD 200) and Early Classic (AD 300 500) periods. Specifi cally examined is the public architecture at the site, Los Guachimontones located in the Tequila Valley of Jalisco, Mexico. Throughout this work, I seek to address three central questions. These questions are then grounded by a set of statements that are t hen further explored throughout this work. 1. How is architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain experiences? a. Architecture is a signifying system through which social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored; b. The aesthetics of architecture communicate clear ideologies of power and authority; and, c. Architecture becomes the meeting ground between the agent and social structures. 2. How do subsequent construction phases change or impact these experiences? a. The creation use and expansion of a site embodies changes in social, ideological and political relations. 3. How do those experiences lend coherence to the society as a whole?

PAGE 24

6 a. The public architecture of the Teuchitln Culture is visually distinct in comparison to other forms of public architecture giving rise to a unique lived experience; and b. Certain structures are retained/maintained throughout the Teuchitln Culture due to their historical significances. These questions and assumptions will then be tested using spatia l methods spawning from space syntax while using a geographic information system. The claims presented in this thesis and the conclusions made from the number analyses are vast and substantial. First and foremost, this study broadens our understanding o f the site as well as our understanding of the culture as a whole. What Mesoamerican literature and historical documents have left out, this study seeks to understand: the social and political complexity of West Mexican culture as it relates to conscious m anipulation of the landscape. Furthermore, this research seeks to dispel This research expands on the existing theoretical foundations for and ways to approach the study of archaeologica l and architectural experience in a region where it has yet to be explored. This project enhances scientific/technical understanding in that it will serve as a basic model on how to apply the archaeological record when dealing with the phenomenology. This study sets forth a methodology that can be applied to other sites not only within the Teuchitln Culture but also to other contemporaneous sites throughout the Mesoamerican landscape. Some preliminary proposals are made here on the way GIS and space syntax methods may be used (in a more humanistic way)

PAGE 25

7 in order to close the gap between method and theory. This research aims to show the potential of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in light of current anthropological approaches to landscape and architectu re. It follows from an attempt to break free from the environmental determinism dominating GIS applications in archaeology. The difference between this work and previous ones undertaken is the focus on practice (Bourdieu 1991), which is seldom explored via a sophisticated quantitative methods. Practice is explored in reference to the nature and spatial location and the possible use of topographic features as perceived on the landscape. In all, this study is significant in that it seeks to tie spatial and social realms, ultimately quantifying the human experience. Chapter by Chapter Overview Chapter II provides the foundation for this research by exploring spatial analysis within landscape studies in archaeology. This section seeks to define keywords an d concepts as used in this work. Additionally, this chapter will attempt to set forth the framework that I will apply in studying the architectural elements of the Teuchitln Culture. Specifically discussed are the aspects of post processualism as it perta ins to symbolism and power. Attention is drawn to these aspects and how they then relate to practice and the ultimate formation of experience. Chapter III introduces the project area. Explained will be the physical environment as well as the cultural his torical setting of West Mexico. More importantly, this chapter examines the Teuchitln Culture and its unique architectural program and

PAGE 26

8 the various elements that classify it. Finally, this chapter describes the chronology and morphology of the site Los Gua chimontones, which is the focus of this study. Chapter IV then combines what was discussed in the previous two chapters in order to contextualize the guachimontn motif within a wider pan Mesoamerican worldview. The foundations of the pan Mesoamerican c osmovision and political strategies are presented to then draw connects to the Teuchitln Culture. Chapter V introduces the methodology taken for this project. It addresses the types of data collected and how those data were collected using field reports as well as existing published and unpublished maps. This chapter provides a discussion of how that data were then processed and later analyzed. Described is the phenomenological approach taken and how GIS and space syntax were used to visually demonstrate patterns of visibility, access, connectivity, etc. Chapter VI then presents the results of those analyses. These results are then analysis ran using GIS shows that t he journey to the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area is an extremely costly one with several dramatic increases in slope. For modern tourists, walking up to the site is physically exhausting, and is followed by a break upon arrival. Then walking ar ound between circles is physically easy. Chapter VII reviews each of the results of the analyses presented in the previous chapter so as to generate a narrative about the LGCCA experience. This chapter also reviews the research questions and ties together the theoretical standpoints with the meth ods chosen for this study. This chapter also outlines possible new directions.

PAGE 27

9 Chapter VII is then followed by Appendices and References.

PAGE 28

10 CHAPTER II FRAMING ARCHITECTURE WITH AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL LENS Many ideas exist on how architecture and the physicality of built environments condition social interaction and sustain political and ideological relations. For some, architecture and the landscapes they create symbolize the ability to command and control resources (e.g. Trigger 1990; Joye and Verpooten 2013; Neiman 1998). They are stages for political exchanges shaping and affecting the negation of power. While others argue that the built environment is the physical, materialized representation of a societ cosmovision (e.g. Ashmore 1989; Dowd 2015; Broda 1982), which help facilitate social interactions. They serve as maps defining interpersonal and cosmological relationships. In many discussions, these perspectives are kept separate. This research; howev er, combines each of these so as to fully explore how monumental architecture is used both as an ideational screen and a political strategy. Theoretically this research draws on recent studies that investigate the social role of landscape and architectur e as cultural artifacts (e.g. Bender 1993; 1998; Hirsch and O'Hanlon 1995; Parker Pearson and Richards 1994; Tilley 1994). The approaches taken by such scholars direct our attention to the interplay between power relations and embodied practices mediated b y material culture and historically shaped perceptions of meanings. They support the idea that monumental architecture, arguably designed for interactions among a large number of individuals, must have provided a critical arena for the constitution and tra nsformation of society (Foucault 1977; Geertz 1980; Houston 1998; Inomata 2006; Inomata and Cohen 2006).

PAGE 29

11 In support of these perspectives, I argue that spatial forms are embedded in the cultural landscape of a society, which can be seen as a mixture of the physical, representational and experiential. The following sections explore how monumental architecture is conceptualized with an archaeological lens as it pertains to landscape studies. The evolution of landscape studies and the concept of landscape as a unit of analysis are discussed so as to better understand how architecture embodies not only the physical dimensions of space but also the social and political implications of society. Subsequent discussions narrow the focus onto the formation of spatia l meaning and political strategies through social practice specifically ritual. Addressed throughout is the challenge of linking human experience bodily movements to spatial parameters. Landscapes in Archaeology Landscapes are sources of knowledge n ot only for the people who inhabit them but also for the archaeologists who later interpret them. For many decades, landscapes have provided archaeologists with a framework for contextualizing observation and establishing relationships between sites across time and space. Landscape studies within archaeology presents an opportunity for diachronic investigations in which the changing use and inhabitation of a particular region are the focus (Davis and Thomas 2008). Despite the potentials when engaging in lan dscape archaeology it has a relatively short history. to late 1980s that the concept of landscape was widely cited in academic work. A shift in language that once placed landscape as

PAGE 30

12 interchangeable with site now made it a unit of study in and of itself. As with any paradigm within archaeology, landscape archaeology and the concept of landscape as a unit of analysis has undergone much transformation, review and contestation. With the processual philosophies of the 1960 1970s still v ery alive, landscape archaeology presented itself as a type of environment archaeology (David and Thomas 2010), which looked at the impacts people had on the land. In this respect, spatial science took on a functionalist pursuit of paleoeconomy, paleoenvir onment and paleoecology. This focus was aimed at addressing questions of human organization and scheduling in the landscape. The human environment relationship was understood using economic and/or adaptive settlement subsistence strategies; therefore, land scape to be measured, compared, analyzed and interpreted via powerful statistical models. When architecture, as material culture distributed across the landscape, was incorporated into the conversation, it, along with the people who erected and used them, was viewed as a neutral and passive object. The analysis of architecture within these ec onomic and ecological models was primarily concerned with developing cultural chronologies and comparative typologies; it was largely classificatory and descriptive. Spatial forms were categorized based on physical traits and functionality. Architecture an d the landscapes they created were merely vessels for societal change and were not responsible for producing, altering or preserving aspects of culture.

PAGE 31

13 With the post processual movement underway, many other scholars became dissatisfied with the limitation s of neoevolutionism and sought to redefine landscape studies within archaeology as cultural rather than natural object. According to David and Thomas (2010:36), landscape archaeology turned its attention to symbolic dimensions of space: landscapes as ritu al engines (Gibbs and Veth 2002), landscapes as spiritscapes (David et al. 2005), landscapes as ritual orchestration (McNiven and Feldman 2003) and landscape as cosmovision (Boivin 2004). With this in mind, there began an effort to humanize space and under (Tilley 1994:10). Landscapes concern not only the physical environment in which people live but also the meaningful locations in which lives are lived. The idea here is that space cannot be understo od apart from its relational significance to people and places: what space is depends on who is experiencing it and how. By way of a more interpretive rather than empirical approach, archaeologists began to invoke multiple sources of social and political t heory as a way of considering space as a cultural symbol laden with meaning. Attention turned towards the nature of daily practices and how architecture then mediates experiences (e.g. Bourdieu 1977, 1984; Giddens 1976 1979): the nature of practice their location, how they change through time, how their distribution attaches meaning to certain spaces and the importance of how and why they are carried out. Spatial analyses of architecture became less about form, function and distribution and more about sy mbolism, practice and an integrated human experience: actual environment may be necessary for physical survival, humans do not live

PAGE 32

14 by shelter alone. Larger concerns about lif e and death, world view, cosmic images, roles of the sexes, and the relation of the human realm to that of the supernatural also affect building size, shape, form, function, and location. Not only do individual buildings reflect these concerns but so do vi llage layouts, often visually depicting the relations between the sexes, images of the cosmos, and human links both to the ancestors and the supernatural realm (Wilson 1993:273). As momentum grew behind post processual thinking within anthropology, many s cholars set out to redefine the concept of landscape so as to reflect a more humanistic approach; however, as an anthropological concept, there is no single agreed upon definition. earth as an environment and as a setting in which locales occur and in dialectical relation to f built space or collection of spaces made by a group of people who modify the natural environment to rendered a meaningful part of culture that is responsible for housing huma n action. Though these definitions and conceptions of landscape appeal to a more humanistic approach, they leave out one crucial element: how landscapes then relate to human experience.

PAGE 33

15 In my opinion, Adam T. Smith (2003:10) provides the best definition of landscape that encompasses the physical, representation and experiential elements that ground world at hand, a sensibility evoking responses in subjects through perceptu al dimensions of physical space and an experience of form that shapes how we move that is concerned with how people visualize their world and how they engage with one another across space. The characteristics of landscape encompass the intentional and unintentional ways humans express their agency in manipulating and evaluating space in order to construct an experience not only for themselves but for others as well. Spa ce is not passive; it is socially constituted and constituting. Architecture and the built environments they create becomes a useful tool in understanding the social and political implications of a society. The language of architecture is formed, defined and left behind in history. As social places, monumental forms do not just emerge temporarily. They contribute to intergenerational creation and utility of particular geogr aphical and ceremonial scale and detail, to be both remarkable and clearly recognizable forms of the built environment (Moore 1996). Their character is at once ordered, communicative and symbolic with powerful qualities. Some were designed for observing natural phenomena that contribute to our sense of time and space, made to collect information, answer

PAGE 34

16 questions and then to communicate answers to a broad audience (Dowd 2 015). Monuments are saturated with meaning, in which any one of several meanings may The built enviro nment organizes space, time, communication and cultural generation imposing its own cognitive map of interconnected morphologies, l.. 2001:161). Through the built environment, we see the organization of boundaries culture versus nature, near versus far, private versus communal and outside versus inside; we see how space is connected and separated. Unique spatial features take form that can now be used to identify one place from another. Travel routines are created that connect ordered sequences of landmarks, and knowledge of those layouts begins to make clear the interrelations of different locations. Built environments not only h ave spatial qualities but are also temporal beings loaded with both transient and lasting significances. According to Vito Acconci (1990), architecture attempts to freeze ideas in space and time. Thus, the materials for monuments were chosen to withstand t 1998:434). The organization of time addresses the transformation of the site and the urban environment: the creation, maintenance and alteration of a site. Architecture orders cyclical and linear time the past, present and future. Local history and social

PAGE 35

17 memory mold the perpetuation or alteration of any particular place and its meanings. Built environments are essentially multi dimensional constructions, the outcome of an interplay between historically determined structures and contingent processes (McGlade 1995). Not only embedded is the evidence of the local life and site histories but also the language of routinized day to day practices; the activities that take place tie the space to a historical context allowing room for social and cultural remembrance. Bounded in time and space, built environments also structure communication (interaction): who communicates with whom, under what circumstances and in what contexts. Space reflects, channels, facilitates and controls communication. Space can encourage communication, or it can disrupt it. Relationships between people in different places are shaped by the constant movement of peop le, ideas and materials. Having access or lack thereof to such information speaks to realms of identity, power, status, wealth, gender, etc. Interaction, communication and information flow is said to be uninterrupted when several paths lead to the same bui lding or set of buildings, when space within buildings can be reached without any barriers and when all people can access these areas. Conversely, when pathways are hard to access, when buildings and rooms do not have multiple entry points and when certain groups of people lack the necessary status for admittance, the flow of interaction, communication and information is disrupted. The physical characteristics and layouts of spatial forms determine this. When time, space and communication are informed by a rchitectural parameters,

PAGE 36

18 back upon action. Architecture stands as the materialization of ideology cosmologies, cultural schemata, world views and reflections of philosoph ical systems. physical reality that can take the form of ceremonial events, symbolic objects or nicative media that condense complex and dynamic networks of information critical to the mediation of social relations in human communities (Lawrence and Low 1990; Lefebvre 1991). Meaning is of considerable importance in perception, which is essential in d etermining of human behavior and unquestionably involved with shaping the human experience. The experiencers, as bodies, consist of an array of senses of which to employ in order to make sense of and to ascribe meaning to space. How space is perceived determines how the experiencer interacts in and around the space; likewise, how the experiencer interacts in and around space determines how space is perceived. Altogether, there is a dialectical relationship between social actors and their built environments. A prominent location within a landscape provides an immediate recognition by beholders and visitors. The visibility of structures determines how far differentiates it from the mundane. These elements have the potential to elicit certain conceptual, emotional and behavior al responses. The production of monumental space is a transformative process in which material, symbols and signs are exchanged, symbolically grounding a given perceptual order to a set of material practices within an

PAGE 37

19 established social order (Lefebvre 199 1; Moore 1996). Architecture, especially monumental architecture, is in and of itself a permanent cultural symbol a means of communication that is analogous to verbal or written language. This analysis is concerned with an understanding of monumentality centered on how meaning is conveyed through monumental architecture rather than identifying the precise nature and range of past meanings. In other words, it is the goal of this analysis to identify monumental structures as symbolically charged monuments, devices through which social relations were mediated, at least in part, within a ritual forum of community action. The focus is therefore on cultural formation processes involved in the production of these public architecture as features and places within the cultural landscape; especially their socio political and socio symbolic contexts. POWER Monumental Architecture and its Impacts on Social Relations Following post processual thinking, this work recognizes that cultures must be understood as sets of sy mbols that evoke meanings, and that these meanings vary depending on the particular contexts of use and the specific histories of both the artifacts and the people who made/used them (Bond and Gilliam 1994). Symbols or material culture are imbued with mean ing, and that meaningfulness is embedded throughout their process of manufacture as well as in their use and final deposition. These images become the basis for knowledge and way finding; they are cultural screens through which the world is ordered, interp reted and understood. No society can exist without associated symbols, which give concrete forms to community identities (Kertzer 1988). By their configuration, content and associations, the spatial or physical

PAGE 38

20 attributes establish a system of relationship s that represent aspects of social life. The material world (the world of action) and the cultural world (the world of symbols) interconnect and are built up through the immediate association of each with the other (Mohr and Duquenne 1997). There are few f orms in architecture to which men do not attach some meaning interact with built environments/material culture primarily through meaning and this seems to hold over time, cross culturally, and in all kinds of environments, contexts, and not some quality inherent to the place or monument. The symbolic importance of the built environment is found in its interpretation as an expression of culturally shared mental structures and embodied processes. Once the built environment is understood, the experiencer reacts. These responses are considered to fall within one of three categories: conceptual, beha vioral, and emotional (Mongelluzzo 2011) Conceptual responses are changes in belief or thought based on what is perceived. Conceptual responses are triggered through symbols and often draw on social memory to ensure the symbols are understood and related to deep and profound systems of meaning. Behavioral responses are actions shaped by cues within the built environment. Shifts in tonen 2012:198). Moreover, emotional responses are changes in the affective state of consciousness. These are achieved when the symbolic content of a space is fully evaluated and understood. Conceptual and

PAGE 39

21 behavioral responses act together to form emotiona l responses with individuals. The created landscape reflexively places limits on how these responses/experiences come about, persist or transform. ideological principles. For many ancie nt societies, architecture was firmly linked to powerful supernatural domains and the need to create a direct connection to the mountain, springs, lakes or caves; they become a part of cosmovision 2015:220). These natural features stood as boundaries into the celestial and under worlds. Cosmovision relates to archaeoastronomy or cultural astronomy, which incorporates concepts of cosmology, symbolic landscapes, religion, technology, economy and politics. Anthony F. Aveni (2014:187) describes cultural astronomy as tural forms creating meaningful sacred landscapes that integrate natural and built features corresponding to, reproducing or representing an actual view of the cosmos either in whole or in part (Ashmore 1989, 1991,1992) Through time, in what Lefebvre (1991 become contingent on the spaces in wh ich they are enacted and vice versa. The built

PAGE 40

22 the creation of embodied memories, thereby conditioning the spatial practices of those who navigate them routinely (Monro e 2010). Space is often charged with meaning through events (Taylor and Koontz 2001:10): Individual actions define what the space means in relationship to a society. Although the meaning is inherent within any given space comes from the aesthetic values an d beliefs of people, it is the actuation of these cognitive processes that imbeds these meanings within landscapes and architecture. Therefore, all space is construed to be culturally constructed performances, both secular and sacred. Monumental spaces ar e culturally defined spatial settings for diverse public interactions The size, location, and access patterns of open spaces vary and may reproduce and produce different modes of human interaction when engaging or witnessing these spectacles. Miles Richardson terms this process as the "objectification of social experience" (1980:217 2 18). In this process, the meaning of interaction is provisionally stated by the constructed space in which it occurs. Because landscapes embody fundamental organizing principles for the form and structure of peoples' activities, they ial construct that communicates information and as a kind of are important wayfinding instructions. Contributions by Bourdieu (1977, 1984) and Giddens (1976, 1979) b roaden the discussion of the relationship between the built environment and people by showing that practical, daily activities and interactions involves continuous (re)creation of social structures and reproduction of landscapes as culturally ordered space s. Social practice,

PAGE 41

23 meaning is embodied and reproduced through the participation in social practices by ine of activities, for example, can be charted as a path through time practice, spatial structures become embedded in the habitus of a society and individual, mediating discourses between action and architecture. Accordin between the social and materials worlds; it is context bound and context specific creating a type of facilitate social practices; that is, location informs conceptualizations. Giddens (1979) triggered a t specific places. As people go about their daily tasks, they may learn rules and spatial constraints through the movements of the body, and through daily activities, beliefs and values, communities transform physical spaces into meaningful places. Archite cture becomes the meeting point both of body/mind and of activity. As activities become routinized, they become a part of social memory. When we take power into account, those who design public architecture seek to take something from discursive conscious Movement, memory, and daily routine within a landscape may work to create particular perceptions about appropriate action in different contexts. Architecture represents ssible and widely shared aide memoire of a

PAGE 42

24 The phenomenology of Merleau Ponty (1962) makes a similar point: we come to know the world through our bodies, not as spectators, but f rom an involved point of view in which the body is linked inescapably with the material world. Ritualized Landscapes and Practices Generally an orientation towards monumental space and experience guides archaeologists towards a discussion of mass performances, specifically ritual. People transform and navigate through society via the creation and enactment of ritual practice. Much lik of the world. Therefore, ritual is ideology in action. The practice of ritual, through movement and other sensory experiences, gives significance to the places explored and the ideas expressed both by reiterating and reinforcing the ideologies that structures the whole. In this respect, ritual is more of a process than an event. From a practice perspective, Bell (1997: chap 5) identifies six characteristics that rituals and ritual lik e activities exhibit: Formalism: Rituals often employ more formal, or restricted, codes of speech and action than people use in everyday life. Traditionalism: Rituals often employ archaic or anachronistic elements. Invariance: Rituals often follow strict, often repetitive, patterns. Rule governance: Rituals are often governed by a strict code of rules that determine appropriate behavior. Sacral symbolism: Rituals often make reference to, or employ, sacred symbolism. Performance: Ritual often involves public display of ritual actions. It is in these capacities that ritual practice diverges from routinized actions. Actions, as a result, become ritualized; they become more formal, traditional and invariant. Human

PAGE 43

25 behavior becomes "ritualized" when it is self consciously set apart from the everyday (Cohen 2010). This "setting apart" may be achieved by means as diverse as the formality of speech, specialized dress or specialized architecture. Ritualized actions and spaces are elevated to create an exception al experience. Ritual serves as a mode of inquiry, of knowledge and of communication. According to Theodore W. Jennings (1982:118), ritual "serves as a paradigm for to transform the way its participants view the world and how they act in the world: "The performance of ritual, then, teaches one not only how to conduct the ritual itself, but 119). Ritu als are very powerful structuring events and serve as instructive tools in that it deals with the creation, acquisition and internalization of knowledge. Ritual knowledge is gained by ation or larger structures, mass spectacles dramatize the moral and aesthetic values of a society. The participant enacts and the audience experiences ideologies, cultu ral ideals and traditions in uniquely explicit ways (Inomata and Cohen 2006) that otherwise are not encountered or enforced. pect, function to promote and uphold symbolic meanings in a format that can be easily understood by the masses. Just as cosmovision so too are the actions that

PAGE 44

26 give them meaning. Durkheim (1915) notes that t he act of sharing not only spiritual union with the cosmos but also the understanding and interpretation of that cosmos can create a powerful sense of community and personal identity. Participants share with the audience information about sky movements in relation to the earth and communicate how the world works using landscape or architectural features useful in estimating the timing of re occurring celestial movements (Dowd 2015). This results in human behavior being in accord with the rhythms and pattern s of cosmological and natural processes. The ultimate goal of ritual is what Jennings (1982:121) terms cosmogonic praxis: event, whether that be celestial or natural, w hich the ritual enacts may encompass a larger meaning (the origin of the world) or may be more specific (the origin of the community, the origin of some crucially important feature of communal survival i.e. agriculture). Either way, ritual directs an exper ience based on ideological contingencies, and alters those beliefs in accordance with experience (Doran 2004). Through the repetitive symbolism of ritual, a kind of remembering is achieved that not only ties ritual action to symbolic meanings but also ties ritual space into the fabric of society. Monumental Architecture and its Impacts on Political Relations Equally important to this discussion is how architecture, and therefore, ritual, role in systems of

PAGE 45

27 backdrop for political activities to occur but rather the very stak e of political struggle engage with it, re work it, appropriate and contest it. It is part of the way in which identities are created and disputed, whether as individ Landscape is never value free and can function as a political resource manipulated and drawn on in the formation of social order. Space serves as a type of competitive marketplace in which social, economic and cultural powers are used. The investment in monumental architecture becomes a political strategy that individuals or groups employ to propagate elite driven ideals, claim divine rights and privileges and control spatial behavior. According to DeMarrais et al. (1996:3), p which rulers and ruling social segments combine the sources of social power to pursue Power, as defined by Foucault (1977), is the ability to define truth and therefore knowledge. It is the ability to control and affect the actions and/or minds of others; oreover, Foucault (1977:187) asserts that, Power is embedded in the built environment through the meanings inscribed from within due to the social practices enacted, which th ey themselves are enmeshed in power. In this view, monumental architecture serves as the stage for rituals which

PAGE 46

28 create and maintain cosmological orders that legitimize the ruling elite. Once cosmology is put into material form, it can be controlled and ma nipulated. Symbolic power is encoded in architecture, which serves as a stage where structures of power, privilege and inequality are created, enacted and (re)created. Political inequality, defined in terms of privileged access for a ruling group to the ec onomic, symbolic and social resources on which power is based, must be realized in inequality is visible in dimensions of landscape that organize practical relationships size, elevation, accessibility, etc. According to McGuire and Schiffer (1983:282) there are three predictable effects social inequality has on architectural design: 1) relatively higher investments by elite persons and wealthy institutions in the symbolic component of architecture, 2) more variability in the production costs of architecture and 3) more advantageous trade offs between production and maintenance costs for the structures of the elite and of wea lthy institutions. Power is not inertly revealed in built form, but instead actively mediated through it. Part of what monumentality reflects is the existence of a centralized authority. The archeological record shows that there is a correlation between t he emergence of monumental architecture and the rise of stratified communities (e.g. Trigger 1990; Kolb 1994; De Marrais et al. 1996). In many ancient societies, there is often appreciable social distance between those who made and maintain the structure a nd those who use or observe the structure. Based on this, some authors presume that building monumental

PAGE 47

29 architecture actively contributed to vertical social stratification. McGuire and Schiffer social distinctions, there units become increasingly specialized, artifacts with high symbolic content, especially built environments, are needed to help integrate a society Schiffer 1982). Implicit is the idea that monumental architecture signals political power and authority effectively when population size and density reach a level where direct communication between leaders and a community is no longer achievable. Not only can monuments be shared simultaneously by numerous individuals, but because of their impressive size, they can also be experienced from an extensive geographical area (DeMarrais et. al 1996). These spaces are ideal for indoct rination, population control and dissemination of propaganda. that places are necessarily programmed and designed in accord with certain interests primarily the pursuit ability to produce, use and control spaces is the manifestation of the power of an individual or group. Differences in scale, social complexity and the institutional form of power relatio engage in the production of space on the level of construction, of experience or of perception. There are constraints on the construction of landscapes, both the physical spaces and the meanings associated with them. Non elite populations may have the

PAGE 48

30 ability to produce space on a smaller household community scale but may lack the capacity to produce spac e to monumental proportions. However, even amongst elite groups, not just amongst elite/non elite groups, there exists inequalities that materialize within architecture. This explains the variability in size, material and complexity not only between cultur es but also within them. Trigger (1990), for example, argues that building monumental architecture requires massive amounts of energy and resources, and only those who actually had power and controlled it could have been capable of recruiting and managing the energy and labor necessary for building such structures. Additionally, construction of a single structure requires a significant amount of knowledge about architectural technology. There exists differentials in access to natural, physical and mental re sources. Powerful individuals or groups may have access to high quality natural resources, an extensive labor force and a deeper understand of construction methods where lesser elites may only have partial access or even access to lesser natural, physical and mental resources. Though the underlying principles of monumental space may remain constant, the size, complexity and construction quality may diverge contributing to variability within and between cultures. The construction, maintenance and use of a st ructure is an investment and a costly one that only certain people can afford. Investing in monumental architecture is a concept rife with intent, and the choices made reflect the social goals of the designer. Monumental architecture glorifies those who bu ilt them or ordered their construction. Monuments usually set the stage where objects and people acquire status. In many ancient societies, elites and high ranking individuals possessed special

PAGE 49

31 connections with the supernatural a direct link via genealog y with the divine. They erect monuments and orchestrate events in which to evoke divine right and mediate communication between the human and supernatural worlds. Many scholars have suggested that it was the appropriation of the sacred landscapes through the restriction of access to the ritually induced experiences that initially allowed a rising elite to legitimize their right to rule (Farris 1984; Lucero and Fash 2006; Freidel & Schele 1988; Joyce 2000). ability to control access to and sacred landscapes confers significant ability to influence, regulate, delimit and control daily life. Sacred public spaces and unify ing ritual practices embodied and affirmed dominant ideologies that constrained the agency of commoners and dictated a social order. By prescribing performances to arenas under their management, ruling elites could restrict access to ceremonial knowledge, action and objects. For Lefebvre (1991:143), the production of space is heavily tied to the notion of controlling behavior: be covered. It is produced with this purpose in manipulate spaces, barriers and boundaries to limit the flow of information (Sanders 1990). By controlling the flow of information is to affect human spatial behavior. Physical space was ordered by and reflected t he power structures to which the

PAGE 50

32 Monumental spaces invite large numbers of people to particip ate and witness the spectacular, yet restrictions are placed on those very same people on just how involved political struggle has been the history of the attempts made to control significant sites controlling the perceptions and experience of those in attendance. Political Landscapes and Practices Through ritual, the very notions of power are developed and resolved: risk, democratizing of political power, publicly performed ri tual and ceremony become in the enclosed spaces, elaborate ceremonies; and, in the open spaces, processions or tend that ritual is a tool effective in the manipulation of the masses and in legitimizing privileged positions (Rapoport 1971; Tilley 1984). Likewise, the aspects of ritual (both the landscape and action) are useful in governing and regulating social sys tems (Renfrew 1994). Through ritual, social order is disseminated and thus, embodied through powerful societal structures. As Trigger (1990) claims, rituals have a close connection with conspicuous consumption. Rituals, as with their spaces, involve a grea t deal of risk and cost. All rituals require the marshalling of human and material resources, but the demands that

PAGE 51

33 large scale events make in terms of material (money and goods), organizing capacity and social capital are quite remarkable. It is not just t hat the logistics of bringing people together are costly but that organizing them requires considerable networking skills and know how (Gardner and Grillo 2002). The maintenance of ritual landscapes, the replacement of perishable objects and communication with large groups of people requires constant circulation of natural and physical resources. Once again, only those with access to vast reservoirs of resources can facilitate and command ritual events and action. More importantly, ritual is a highly risky activity. Most rituals are staged to achieve a desired outcome, so there is always something at stake for all involved: may be measured; instrumentally, aesthetically, evoc atively, morally, etc.) are participation for not only their reputation can be tarnished but also the very existence of society is at stake. Despite the cost, ritual became a n intrinsic focus of communal investment. Inomata (2006) argues that the development of large centralized polities and communal solidarity would have been impossible in any historical context without heavy reliance on public events. Likewise, Clifford (198 8:12) recognizes that community and community identity are social constructions that they do not exist as essences but as rarely have the opportunity to interact wit h most of their fellow members, there is an increasing need to incorporate a sense of belonging to the greater population. The

PAGE 52

34 process of ritual can determine the identity of the members of the group and the way they bond together and become a cohesive, in timate and integrated whole. It is through people could gather, provided opportunities for individuals to witness and sense the bodily existence of other community member s (Inomata 2006) and their relationship to them. The routinized practices that take place within ritual also demonstrate a certain level of commitment to group beliefs/goals. Henrich (2009) argues that the more costly the displays are, the potentially deep er the degree of transmitted commitment; thus, creating deeper communal understanding. Monumental architecture was an area where large groups of people participated in dramatic public rituals organized and led by nobility, which probably included sacrifice bloodletting, processions, shamanism, dance, divinization, feasting and ancestor veneration (Joyce 2000: Orr 1997). The audience as well as those participating would have been physically and psychologically engaged. In public spaces, participants interac t with their audience in an overt drama of submission (Scott 1990) so as to reinforce a collective memory of the ritual space, event, underlying doctrines and social relations. Similarly, Bloch (1974:59 type of power relation among the participants not by transmitting messages but by catching them in a highly formalized situation that gives no options to challenge Therefore, ritual is ripe for manipulation by those who seek to create a model of the world that reinforces their authority and their ideals. The audience is subject to the ideologies promoted by an elite group. To achieve this, state powers

PAGE 53

35 applied a who le array of devices such as marches, mass meetings and rituals to cultivate structures; ritual contributes to greater efficiency in the culture system and ensures the perpet uation of political standards. The behaviors and experiences manifested in the form of ritual act serves as important life centering activities. Through ritual, elites legitimized their right and duty of participation. Access to ed the classification of the elite as separate and superior defining power of the ritual in that there can be no mistaking what the person proclaims. Ritualized actions, a s mentioned before, are formal, traditional and invariant leaving little room for alternative and possibly contradictory perceptions. Ritual allows elites to claim divine birthrights, which granted communication with and command of supernatural forces and secured their position through myth and ritual. In this respect, the supernatural elite harvested ritual secrets and knowledge. Individuals who are initiated into the exclusive groups are then charged to convey ritual knowledge to the greater population, w hich explains the high investment of ritual by elites. There is a heightened responsibility to convey ritual knowledge accurately. Access to these secrets and such knowledge has social and physical implications. Social and physical distance amongst indivi duals was further displayed through formalized arrangements of participants and the audience in order to directly replicate social hierarchies or groupings (Orr 2001). The arrangement of bodies across a ritual

PAGE 54

36 landscape determines roles whether active (par ticipant) or passive (observer); however, individuals may often have several roles as the ritual unfolds: spectators, and thus the division between them, are relatively well de fined. On other occasions, where such roles are not clearly predetermined, a person can The experiences and the level to which certain responses are activated within an individual depend greatly on social and physical distance when engaging in ritualized Controlling access to the ritual secrets enables social inequalities to be both established and then reproduced (Tilley 1996). Physical distance may affect how invested or emotionally charged the individual is. If an individual is far removed from the scene, ritual actions and symbols may be hard to see and therefore, hard to understand. The argumen t, however, is that responses and experiences are never homogenous. Ritual performance is multi vocal, representing different meanings for different people. Concluding Thoughts The aim of the above discussion was to position monumental architecture withi n a wider socio political frame. Architecture does not simply signify three dimensional parameters; through these parameters, ideologies are materialized and relationships are formed. Architecture does not simply house or frame events; it magnifies and ele vates them. Architecture reproduces society by defining social relations and thereby, prompting performance. As intentional devices, buildings control movement and the production and reproduction of memory (knowledge).

PAGE 55

37 Bodily movements through these space s incorporate social, natural and cosmic relations. These ritualized movements ground a human experience that provides event to human perceptions and senses. To understand the human experience is to understand how social order to created, maintained and transformed.

PAGE 56

38 CHAPTER III THE SETTING: WEST MEXICO This study focuses on the monumental surface architecture that characterizes the Teuchitln culture of west Mexico as found at the site Los Guachimontones. According to Trigger (1990:119), monumental architecture refers to any structure where aboration exceed the requirements of any particular function that a monumental structures have been constructed. Large fortifications, palaces, temples and tombs are amo ngst the most common types. Others include public buildings such as arenas and theaters. Many early civilizations, including those found in Mesoamerica, erected such structures providing archaeologists lasting examples of material culture that aid in the i nterpretation of sociopolitical complexity. noticed significant commonalities of material and ideational culture among societies in central and southeastern Mexico, Guatemala, Be lize, western Honduras and western El Salvador. Cultural traits such as subsistence, settlement, distinct architectural features and alignments, religious or ceremonial activities and traits relating to specialization, rank, trade, warfare and dress were a mongst the many characteristics that marked Mesoamerica as an area of study. The presence of west Mexico in Mesoamerican literature, however, is not always straightforward. Hosler (1994) comments that some Mesoamerican archaeologists argue that west Mexi co is too diverse and shares so little with the great civilizations of

PAGE 57

39 the central highlands and the southeastern lowlands; thus, west Mexico is excluded from the conversation. On the one hand, west Mexico has been viewed as a sort of hose most complex form of organization was a peyote induced 1996:136). In this view, west Mexico is not considered in Mesoamerican discourse. Only es of central Mexico arrived during the Epiclassic and hand, many scholars (e.g. Weigand 1985; Townsend 1998; Beekman 1996; Spence et al. 2002; Lopez 2006) have worke d towards connecting this region to that of greater Mesoamerica. As will become evident throughout this work, this area clearly demonstrates the existence of complex societies dating from the Formative and Classic periods and shares many of the founding p rinciples characteristic of the societies of the central highlands and southeastern lowlands. By recognizing west Mexico as connected to Mesoamerica, archaeological research, particularly in the highland basins of Jalisco and Nayarit, has greatly increased knowledge of settlement patterns and enabled us to identify a hierarchy of sites that include new architectural styles not only broadened Mesoamerican discourse within archaeology but have also called for a re evaluation of the concept of complexity within this region. What constitutes the region of West Mexico has also been debated. For the most part, West Mexico is composed of Jalisco, Nayarit, Michoacn and Colima given

PAGE 58

40 the mortuary and surface architecture evidence. Beekman (2010) notes that Sinaloa, Zacatecas and are included as addendums. Figure 3.1 shows the vario us states that, at one time or another, are considered to define West Mexico. The landscape is a heterogeneous conglomeration of topographic features, natural resources and consistent seasonal shifts. The region undergoes two seasonal changes per year typi cal of a semitropical landscape. The wet season extends from mid June through mid October with the dry season extending through the winter months. This, along with advanced irrigation systems, allowed for two harvests per year that helped support a growing population. The Neo Volcanic and Sierra Madre Occidental mountain ranges are covered with lush and dense pine oak forests, the Pacific coastal plain and the Bajio valleys offered many natural resources. High quality obsidian, copper, quartz and salt were among the many resources that could have readily been extracted from the highlands of the Neo Volcanic and from the Sierra Madre Occidental ranges. The proximity to the Pacific coast and the many waterways located throughout the region e.g. the Lerma and Ameca rivers and the San Marcos, Magdalena (now extinct) and Chapala lakes not only provided a variety of aquatic resources but also offered significant avenues of communication and exchanges (Spence et al.. 2002).

PAGE 59

41 Figure 3.1: Map of Northwest Mexico indicating the political divisions and major archaeological sites (after Williams, Eduardo. Prehispanic West Mexico: A Mesoamerican Culture Area. 2005: Figure 2) Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies (FAMSI).

PAGE 60

42 The geographic region a ssociated with the Teuchitln culture incorporates the southeastern area of Nayarit, the southwestern corner of Zacatecas and the northwestern part of Jalisco. Ideally situated, the highland lake basins of Jalisco are of particular interest when discussing the development of the Teuchitln culture, for the greatest evidence of social complexity occurred in this region notably around the Tequila Volcano located in the Tequila Valleys (Figure 3.2). The marshy region of Jalisco is described by Weigand and Beek man (1998:36) as a district rich in natural resources access to the north toward Zacatec lake zone thus sits across an intersection of two axes of communication. The region also sits astride another type of intersection of two axes: an east west alignment of high quality obsidian flows, and n orth 1985:56). It was this combination of natural resources and open communication channels that allowed for social, ideological and economy interaction and for a unique culture identity to arise. The Tequila Va lleys then became a centralized location for the core of the Teuchitln culture to develop and thrive. The following sections explore the grammar of the Teuchitln architectural program as well as describe the evolution of the culture itself. Finally, thi s chapter provides information concerning the site chosen for this study paying close attention to the chronology and morphology of the central ceremonial area.

PAGE 61

43 Figure 3.2: Map of the Teuchitln Culture Sites showing habitation densities (after Ohnersorg en and Varien 1996: Figure 2). Copyright 1996, Cambridge University Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

PAGE 62

44 The Architectural Program of the Teuchitln Culture The Tequila Valleys of Jalisco, Mexico were first surveyed by Isabel Kelly (1948) as part of a west Mex ican ceramic project. Additional ceramic work had been conducted by Meighan and Foote (1968) on the south shore of Lake Chapala and Grosscup (1964, 1976) at the site of Amapa in Nayarit. Further research had been conducted by Javier Galvan Villegas (1991), who observed a unique mortuary tradition in the Atemajac term survey project spearheaded by Phil Weigand (1974, 1975, 1979, 1985, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993) that the Teuchitln culture became better understood and that a distin ctive architectural program unlike any other throughout Mesoamerica was defined. Led by information gathered from interviews with local looters, Weigand located several habitation zones associated with certain surface and subsurface structures. This patter n of public or formal architecture, known by the local population as guachimontn is characterized by five distinct elements (as seen in cross section in Figure 3.3): 1. A circular pyramid, terraced, and flat topped with an occasional semi subterranean room on the top, which is surrounded by, 2. a circular, elevated patio which is made from clean, tamped earth; which in turn is surrounded by, 3. a circular platform/banquette, complete an arrangement of three concentric circles, of a family of three circles with a r adical center, which display patterned proportionality; and atop this finale circular feature are between: 4. eight to sixteen rectangular, terraced pyramids/platforms with stairways into the patio; underneath of which are: 5. re enterable family crypts with mod est shafts and at least on side chamber for the actual burials and offerings (Weigand 1996:94). These concentric circles are organized as families of circles are laid out from the same point of reference or locus. Together, these architectural elements ca me to describe the

PAGE 63

45 unique program of the Teuchitln culture; be it as it may, the five elements do not always appear together. Only a handful of guachimontn complexes actually possess shaft tombs beneath their platforms; likewise, not all circle families include a Central Pyramid or altar. Evidence suggests that atop the platforms were wattle and daub superstructures as shown in the figure below. Figure 3.3: Idealized cross section of the five element Guachimontn architectural complex ((after Weigand 19 96: Figure 7).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All Rights Reserved. The circular compounds can be standalone features or can be incorporated as a precincts, and ba llcourts are often found utilizing one of the guachimontn Guachimontones, also include multiple open I shaped ballcourts, which are typically attached to th e platforms of these circle groups. The ballcourts typical of the Teuchitln

PAGE 64

46 culture are marked with several features and characteristics: parallel ridges marking the sides of the playing field, two end platforms, terraced lateral platforms functioning as gallery areas all forming an open I arena (Weigand 1991). It is important to mention, though, that the ballcourt is not unique to the Teuchitln culture. It is observed in many other Mesoamerican sites, which clearly undermines the idea that this area did not participate in Mesoamerican practices. These circular compounds were built as a single construction, which followed strict, formal rules of proportionality and symmetry (Weigand 1996). Weigand states that the circular compounds seem to follow a 1:1:2.5 :1.1 formula when measuring out the diameter of the entire circle (Figures 3.4). In sequence, the banquettes is one measurement, the patio is one measurement, the Central Pyramid or altar is 2.5 and the subsequent patio and banquette on the corresponding s ide are each an additional one that this formula is often not consistent with sub monumental or smaller circles found outside the core area. Weigand further explains that sy mmetry within the guachimontn structures is observed in regards to placement of the pyramids/platforms on top of the circular banquette/patio (Figure 3.5). Subsequent construction phases alter these measurements as the overall circumference of a circular group becomes greater.

PAGE 65

47 Figure 3.4 Teuchitln culture architectural geometry (after Weigand 1996: Figure 7).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All Rights Reserved. Figure 3.5 Teuchitln culture architectural proportionality (after Weigand 1996: Figu re 8).Copyright 1996. Ancient Mesoamerica. All Rights Reserved.

PAGE 66

48 Weigand (1996) recognizes that architectural design can tell a great deal about a designed buildings t o have public functions; however, the exact function of these guachimontn structures is still very unclear. The best evidence used in discerning such activities comes from ceramic dioramas that are recovered from shaft tombs (e.g. Figures 3.6 and 3.7). Ma ny of these dioramas depict activities such as feasts, pole rituals and possible musical ceremonies (Beekman 2003b; Butterwick 2004; von Winning and Hammer 1972), but they are idealized scenes that are ethnographic at best generating many competing specula tions. These theories are described in more detail in chapter 4 as they relate to the overall symbolic and political nature of the Teuchitln culture, but it is safe to assume that some sort of public event took place at these compounds. With a defined ty pology now established, many other sites outside of the lake basins region exhibiting this unique architectural program have been identified. Weigand (1985), Jaramillo (1984) and Cabrero Garcia (1989) have located and investigated well over thirty examples of guachimontones structures in the Bolaos Canyon with additional sites in Guanajuato (Sanchez Correa and Marmolejo Morales 1990; Lopez Mestas and Ramos de las Vega 1998; Crespo 1993) and Colima (Serna 1991). Many more shaft tombs have been associated wi th those sites (Cabrero Garcia and Lopez Cruz 1997) with even more examples found in Nayarit and southern Jalisco (Weigand 1992). The research of this unique architectural form has only since increased.

PAGE 67

49 Figure 3.6: Ceramic model depicting a Ritual Center, Nayarit, Mexico. A.D 100/800. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Julian Goldsmith, 1989.639. Copyright and Photograph 1999, The Art Institute of Chicago. All rights reserved. Figure 3.7: Ceramic model depicting Pole Ceremony, Nayarit, Mexico. 200 B.C. A.D. 500. Purchased with funds provided by Mr. and Mrs. Balch, M.86.296.35. The Los Angeles County Museum of Art. All rights reserved.

PAGE 68

50 Explanation of the Teuchitln Culture Trajectory In trying to synthesize a chronology for the trajectory of the Teuchit ln culture, preliminary sequences have heavily relied on museum collections, looted material and surface material; these sequences were grounded by limited radiocarbon data and a very incomplete and mostly unpublished ceramic typology and sequence, which have since been debunked. Weigand (1985) presented an architectural chronology that was based on simple changes in the basic morphology of the guachimontn program. The phases he proposed generally correlate with major Mesoamerican sequences and follow a k ind of rise and fall trend where each architectural element derived from more simplistic forms and then seem to gradually be replaced by larger, more complex ones (Figure 3.8). Each phase is not only marked with a rise in architectural complexity but also with a rise in sociopolitical complexity. Simple forms of culture give rise to more and fall trajectory with simple forms of culture predating the more complex ones. It may very well be that the larger, more complex sites predate smaller ones (Beekman, personal communication).

PAGE 69

51 Figure 3.8: Architectural Chronology (after Weigand and Beekman 1998: Figure 16).Copyright 1998. Ancient West Mexico. All Rights Reserved. W eigand proposed that shaft tombs were introduced fist during a phase that he called the Arenal phase. These shaft tombs were accompanied by simple surface mounds (Weigand 1996). The subsequent phase, which he calls the Ahualulco Phase, marked the decline in shaft tombs construction and a steady rise in monumental surface architecture. Here, he notes a great increase in circular complexity. Earlier forms only included four platforms around the altar; later forms then incorporated ten, twelve and even sixtee n platforms. The following two phases were then characterized by a significant shift in the long established forms of monumental circular architecture. The frequency of circular compound construction began to decline, and by the end of the Teuchitln II ph ase, Weigand suggests that all the guachimontones were abandoned and a new rectangular form of architecture became the principal public architecture in the region. For quite some time, this chronology served as the principle sequence for the region; it is however, not without its deficiencies. The issue with this chronology lies at

PAGE 70

52 its total disregard for ceramic data. With an increasing need to make west Mexican archaeology more scientific, ceramic data and associated radiocarbon data needs to be account ed for and calibrated. The advantages of including ceramic data are many. First, ceramic data can provide direct dates on cultural material; second, the association of dated material with the primary depositional context or the cultural activity of interes t can be more readily evaluated; and third, ceramic materials are often expendable in quantities sufficient to produce a reliable radiocarbon date (de Atley 1980). In light of this, recent efforts (Beekman and Weigand 2008; Beekman and Weigand 2010) have worked towards creating a ceramic based chronology. Using excavation data from multiple sources, Beekman and Weigand (2008) presented a chronological sequence for the region that now connected ceramic complexes to radiocarbon samples and provided dates and construction/activity ranges to various guachimontn compounds. The phases in this sequence provide a more narrow range from the Late Formative to the Early/Middle Classic periods than what was first proposed by Weigand (1985). Beekman (2010) observes that the shaft tombs are now much more clearly associate d with the surface architecture rather than seen as separate entities. Beekman and Weigand suggest that this sequence can be applied to other sites in the area under the assumption that these sites use the same ceramic types in the same sequence; however, they stress that individual sites have diverging cultural trajectories especially in comparing main centers to rural areas. Therefore, applying a single sequence to an entire region may be misleading. On the one hand, this sequence is weak on broader trend s after 500 A.D. On the other hand, this sequence does well in

PAGE 71

53 contextualizing the construction sequence at the site Los Guachimontones. Table 3.1 lays out the chronology of greater Mesoamerica and the regional model developed by Beekman and Weigand (2008) so as to better contextualize the transitions occurring within the Teuchitln culture to a broader regional scope. Table 3.1: Regional Model (after Beekman and Weigand 2008) and greater Mesoamerican chronology. Date Greater Mesoamerica Regional (Based on Beekman and Weigand 2008) A.D. 800 Epi Classic 700 600 500 Middle Classic 400 Tequila IV 300 Early Classic 200 100 Late Formative Tequila III 0 100 B.C. 200 Tequila II 300 400 Middle Formative Tequila I 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 Early Formative 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600

PAGE 72

54 The Beginnings of a Complex Society The earliest evidence for social organization in West Mexico appears well into the Early and Middle Formative periods (1600 800 B.C.). Much of what is known about these early sedentary villages comes from highly structured mortuary features as found at the site El Opeo in the Jacona Zamora Valley of Michoacn. These features are defined by a large stairway and two subterranean cha mbers with wide benches on either side where the dead were laid to rest and may have given rise to the mortuary tradition that defines the Teuchitln Culture (Beekman 2010). These tombs contained exotic goods and lavish offerings, which indicated the wealt h and social networks of the families entombed. These features offer the first indications of emerging social the El Opeo lineage tombs suggest variability in social status (Beekman 2012:498). The tombs have not been found in association with surface architecture. Tequila I The first phase defined by Beekman and Weigand (2008) is the Tequila phase (800 300 B.C.). During this phase, the shaft tomb program i s defined and surface architecture becomes prevalent. Within the lake districts of Jalisco, elaborate cemeteries were now accompanied by circular or oval mounds averaging 28 30 m in diameter and 2 m high (Weigand 1996). Unlike the earlier El Opeo tombs, t hese shaft tombs were built under the platforms of the circular compounds in a bottle shape fashion. These tombs are known for their offerings in the form of elaborate jewelry and

PAGE 73

55 hollow ceramic figures (von Winning and Hammer 1972). Goods such as marine s hells from both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts, jade from the Motagua Valley of Guatemala, green obsidian from the Pachuca repository in central Mexico and iron pyrite mirrors similar to that of Oaxaca were most likely acquired through trade and illuminat ed a toward political centralization and social inequality had certainly begun in the highl ands, although membership in corporate social groups and not individual accomplishment According to Hayden and Cannon (1982:134 o being as a result of strong economic or environmental pressures, and which, as a result, exhibit a recognizable degree of residential coherency among two or more nuclear p olitical and social bonds that may have extended beyond defined family groups. Tequila II During the following phase, Tequila II (300 100 B.C.), the highlands experienced an influx of people clustering south of the Tequila Volcano. Shaft tombs become more elaborate and the connection between them and surface architecture become better understood. There was an increased investment in the construction of large ceremonial centers, which fully integrated the guachimontn motif. These site plans also incorporated the ballcourt design which were either standalone features or shared platforms with the circular compounds.

PAGE 74

56 Monumental shaft tombs, which extended four meters or deeper and included multiple chambers, were typica lly associated with the smaller circular compounds; however, the larger portion of family based burials, which mainly housed non elite members, were not associated with monumental architecture and consisted of single event burials with pits (Weigand and Be ekman 1998). To this end, Weigand and Beekman (1996:40) suggest that the association of monumental shaft tombs with the circular compounds, in clear separation of elite and non elite burials within the Teuchitln core, strongly implies three important conc lusions: 1. The Teuchitln core area played a special role within the overall burial ceremonialism of the entire region of West Mexico. 2. The monumental shaft tombs were an integral part of the ceremonial nature of the concentric buildings, as were their adjacent structures, such as ballcourts. 3. The use of monumental shaft tombs was restricted to a small element of the overall population, dedicated to ceremonial events and rituals that marked the elite social status of certain individuals within both the lo cal social system and the larger region. The formation of the Teuchitln core was then directly reflected in the distribution of monumental public architecture with larger circular compounds relating to larger social associations. Tequila III During the Tequila III phase (100 B.C. A.D. 200), corporate groups began to express their sociopolitical authority more pronouncedly through surface architecture. part of a broade hand, excavations at Los Guachimontones, Llano Grande and Navajas indicate that each

PAGE 75

57 platform unit was far from uniform. Each group expressed their political power through disproportions in platform size, shape and construction quality (Beekman 2008). Construction and expansion of the ceremonial centers continued during this phase, and the shaft tomb tradition became widespread in western Mexico. Beekman (1996c) observes evidence for fortif ied or strategic centers at the entrances into the Tequila Valleys during this period. He claims that perhaps the Tequila Valleys had become politically unified around the Guachimontn site. Six habitation zones have been identified in this transition: Hui tzilapa, Santa Quiteria, Las Pilas, Ahualulco, Tala, and Teuchitln. The combination of ceremonial circular compounds and habitation zones clearly began to define a settlement hierarchy among these six sites. Tequila IV By the Tequila IV phase (A.D. 200 500), the circular architectural form is seen throughout west Mexico. Investment in ceremonial centers, however, decreases. Nearly all expansion projects at the Guachimontn site conclude within the first decades of this phase with little to no new projec ts. The circles at Comala in Colima, at Tepecuazco in Juhipila Valley of Zacaecas, at Bolaos Canyon to the north and Los Braziles in the Banderas Valley follow the guachimontn template and all date within this period. This suggests that the Tequila Valle ys dominated neighboring areas in terms of the degree of political centralization, yet the onset of decentralization in the region is noted as early as A.D. 200 (Beekman 2010). The Tequila IV phase ends with a poorly understood transition into the El Grill o phase, which dates to approximately A.D. 500 900. Site Selection: Los Guachimontones

PAGE 76

58 In order to investigate and to truly understand the affectual nature of architecture within the Teuchitln Culture, the site Los Guachimontones was selected. This s ite represents on many fronts the best example for analysis given the goals at hand. Many of the recurring themes found at this site are seen throughout other sites in the area. Moreover, this site was chosen due to the high level of archaeological work co nducted there by Weigand, Esparanza and Montobello: survey, excavation, restoration, etc. The extensive survey and excavation work conducted there meant that the activities that took place there would be well accounted for and represented in the archaeolog ical record. The massive restoration project done there also meant that the morphology of the site and architecture would be well understood in terms of composition of the individual spaces and the relationships between them. This ultimately allows for a g reater consideration of the relationship between people and their built environment than elsewhere. The following sections further describe the site, the guachimontn groups and the structures within them. Site Description The site of Los Guachimontones i s located 2 km from the modern town of Teuchitln, Jalisco south of the Tequila Volcano near Lake Presa de la Vega. It is by far the most monumental and complex site of the culture and served as the ceremonial center for the region. This site is the culmin ation of nearly six hundred years of activity. This site consists of ten circular compounds, two ballcourts, several open plazas, large residential areas, agricultural terraces and several obsidian workshops. Before getting too deep in discussion, it is of great significance to note that this site only demonstrates

PAGE 77

59 four of the five architectural elements that define the culture; no shaft tombs have been observed beneath the platforms of the circular compounds, but the site is not completely devoid of burial s. The central ceremonial area of the site and focus of this study includes 5 architectural complexes (Figure 3.9): Circle I, II, III, IV and Ballcourt 1. This is the highest concentration of circular groupings throughout the tradition. Many of these compl exes share structures (i.e. Platform 5 of Circle II serves as Platform 1 in Circle III). As such, they have undergone several expansion and re building phases. The subsequent discussion focuses on this particular cluster of architectural compounds concentr ating on their overall morphology and relationship to one another. Excavations of the site began during the second field session of 1999 under the direction of Phil Weigand at Circle I, II, IV and Ballcourt I. Work at Circle III later began during the 20 01 2002 field session. Over the following ten years, several teams worked towards better understanding the history and morphology of the site with a massive restoration project beginning in 2002. For a description of the different structural groups, I used the information synthesized in field reports produced by Phil Weigand (1999, 2000, 2001 2002 and 2003 2006), Eric Orlando Cach Avendao (2002), Jennifer Griffin (2003), Heredia Espinoza (2006), Marisol Montejano Esquivias (2003 2006), Sean Montgomery Smi th Mrquez (2009) and Ericka Sofia Blanco Morales (2009). The chronology of the site was synthesized by Beekman et al. (2014), who investigated existing architectural stratigraphic evidence and radiocarbon dates in concert with ceramic and figure/figurine data to better understand the chronology of the site (Figure 3.10).

PAGE 78

60 Figure 3.9: Map of Los Guachimontones indicating Central Ceremonial Area. Produced by K. Hollon. 2014.

PAGE 79

61 Figure 3.10 Chronology of the Los Guachimontones Site (after Beekman et al. 2014: Figure 7). Copyright 2014. All rights reserved.

PAGE 80

62 Circle I Circle I, which is shown in Figure 3.11, is the largest circle not only at the site but also in all of the Teuchitln culture region. It is the most northeast structure and is located at the b ase of a foothill almost tucked away in an alcove. Construction began around 160 B.C. and ended in A.D. 1. Expansion of the circle was conducted during A.D. 1 to 50 with activity occurring up until the Tequila IV phase in A.D. 240. It measures about 125 m in diameter with a somewhat irregular outer circumference of about 400 m. This circle includes a circular central altar, a patio surrounding that altar, a banquette and twelve platforms. An additional feature is associated with the circle located northe ast of platforms 5 through 9. A crescent shaped square, where an elite residence has been located, follows the outer shape of the circle and natural curvature of the hill located behind it. Several platforms in this circle are shared with Ballcourt 1. F igure 3.11: Schematic Plan of Circle I. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015.

PAGE 81

63 Central Pyramid and Patio. Due to heavy quarrying and looting resulting in extended weathering and erosion, the Central Pyramid had nearly collapsed affecting the overall morphology of th e structure. In efforts to preserve its shape, it was ultimately filled in 2000; therefore, the measurements presented here are mere estimates of what the structure may have been in its prime. The structure is just over 50 m in diameter, and its original h eight was probably around 17 18 m, but it is now closer to 15 m. Excavation revealed four major stairways of 22 to 26 steps that lead to the top of the structure. The patio extends 22 23 m around the Central Pyramid and is about 95 m in diameter running throughout the entire circle. Excavation data reveal that the patio was built in a single construction phase with a somewhat level slope. Platforms (1, 2, 7, 11 and 12). The platforms of Circle I are relatively large averaging 16 m wide and 20 22 m long w ith about 4 m of banquette between them. This allowed about 300 350 m 2 of surface area, which may have provided about 200 250 m 2 of space available for each superstructure area; however, only some of the superstructures appear to have had their own foundations. For others, the entire platform from edge to edge was used for the superstructure interior. The buildings atop of these pl atforms, or any platform in this site for that matter, are poorly understood due to an episode of mass abandonment and burning, yet many fragments of walls and large pieces of daub are preserved. For that reason, Weigand and Esparza (2008:15) ]t [is] not possible to calculate the total size of the temple, but clearly the

PAGE 82

64 Platforms 1, 2 and 12 border the northeastern wall of Ballcourt 1 creating a series of lateral or gallery platforms. Platform 1 is about 20 m in length and 13 meters wide creating a total top surface of 260 m 2 of which approximately 120 140 m 2 could 2001). Platform 12 is the largest of the thre e measuring 23 m in length and 15 m in depth. Additionally, Platform 11 is 23 m long and 13 m wide. These platforms exhibit higher levels of reinforcement and several episodes of reconstruction in comparison to the other platforms possibly as a result of s tructural damage from the activities occurring in the ballcourt. For example, Platform 2 shows evidence for constant repairs largest in the circle. A V shaped area is als o created between the ridges of the ballcourt and the high terrace of Platform 12 that has a small stairway leading to the gallery platforms (Figure 3.12).

PAGE 83

65 Figure 3.12: View of V Shape created by the southeast end of Ballcourt 1 and Platform 12 of Cir cle II. Facing northwest. Photograph K. Hollon 2014. Excavations at Platform 7 revealed a flight of well preserved clay stairs that lead to the upper surface of the platform from the patio of Circle I (Figure 3.13). This is the only example of clay stairs found in this circle. It is suggested that stairs extending from other platforms in this circle may have also been constructed with clay making them hard to identify. With the lack of formal staircase evidence concerning the other platforms, it is suggest ed that many of the temples atop these structures were accessed laterally where terraces or benches mimicking de facto stairways have been found (e.g. Figure 3.14); however, additional stair like structures have been located elsewhere in the central ceremo it, a small set of steps allow for patio side access (Figure 3.15). A third staircase found in the circle is associated with platforms 7 and 8 (Figure 3.16) leading to an elite residen tial area where three of the four structures have been excavated. Platform 11 also contains

PAGE 84

66 stair like features located along the southern wall that lead to a large square plaza south of Circle I. On the whole, Circle I shows the largest investment of both natural and cultural resources. The construction and expansion phase of Circle I coincide along with that of Ballcourt 1 suggesting that these two structures share a deeper relationship than the other structures. Figure 3.13: Patio side view of Platfo rm 7 showing stairs that extends from the platform. Facing northeast. Photograph K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 85

67 Figure 3.14: Patio side view of Platform 12 showing steps extending along the northwest portion of the structure. Facing southwest. Photography K. Hollon 20 14. Figure 3.15: Patio side view of Platform 2 showing built in stairs. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 86

68 Figure 3.16: Staircase located between platforms 7 and 8 leading to an elite residence. Facing northeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Circle II: La Iguana Circle II, as shown in Figure 3.17, is located southwest of Circle I and is the most well understood circle of the site. Construction began after the initial expansion of Circle I in A.D. 40 and continued until A.D. 100. Additions wer e made during the subsequent 40 years. The circle is 115 m in diameter and about 360 m in circumference. It includes a circular Central Pyramid, a patio, banquette and ten platforms making it the second largest at the site. The morphology of this circle is particularly interesting in that it is enmeshed in the construction histories of Circle III and Ballcourt 1.

PAGE 87

69 Figure 3.17: Schematic Plan of Circle II. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015. Central Pyramid and Patio. The Central Pyramid of Circle II is argued t o have been built in 3 different segments with the top segment disrupting the overall angle of the structure (Figure 3.18). The overall diameter of the pyramid is about 35 masl. The terraces of this structure create de facto steps with an average height of 50 60 cm and 50 cm in depth. The pyramid has been reconstructed to include seventeen steps leading to the top. Looting of this structure long before excavations took place exposed a large post mold in the center of the upper altar suggesting that a large pole once stood at its center. As with the patio of Circle I, the patio of Circle II was built during a single episode throughout its foundation, Circle II was constructed on a natural slope. This explains the significant differences and inconsistencies in banquette depth between platforms. Some

PAGE 88

70 are built higher than others to compensate for the elevation of the patio in relation to other structures and the natural landscap e. Figure 3.18: View of Circle II, Central Pyramid. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Platforms (1 10). As with the platforms of Circle I, the platforms of Circle II are far from uniform; nevertheless, all platforms possess multiple access ways leading to the patio/central altar or to other site features. Platform 1 is by far the most monumental in the circle conveying huge differentials in resource management (25 m by 15 m). It was constructed in two phases. The first phase matched the level of and the second gave it its disproportionate height in relation to the other platforms; however, it shares a common construction history with platforms 10 and 2. These three structures share a single, large base platform (Figure 3.1 9) and form the only family of platforms in the complex.

PAGE 89

71 Figure 3.19: View of Platforms 10, 1 and 2 with Central Pyramid. Facing northeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. These platforms do not possess patio side stairways; however, access to the patio can be achieved via stairways extending from raised banquettes between platforms 10 and 1 and between 1 and 2 (e.g. Figure 3.20). Access to the platforms was, therefore, achi eved laterally from the banquettes. The distance and height of the banquette between platforms 1 and 2 is much greater than the one between platforms 10 and 1 creating asymmetry amongst the three joined platforms. These platforms then created the supplemen tal gallery or lateral platforms of Ballcourt 1. The V shaped area created between Ballcourt 1 and Platform 10 has a small stairway leading to the gallery platforms much like the one seen with Platform 12 of Circle I.

PAGE 90

72 Figure 3.20: Patio side view of sta irway between Platforms 10 and 1. Facing northeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Platform 3 represents the general morphology of the rest of the platforms built as separate structures. The platform is defined by two terraced levels, which allowed for later al access. This platform, in comparison to platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7, differs only in regards to patio side access. The top terrace level contains step like features, but they do not fully extend to the patio (Figure 3.21). They end upon reaching the first t errace. Additionally located at Platform 3 is a small staircase extending along the southern wall of the platform leading to the square plaza south of Circle I (Figure 3.22).

PAGE 91

73 Figure 3.21: Patio side view of Platform 3. Facing southeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Figure 3.22: View of Platform 3 depicting stairway leading to square plaza. Facing northwest. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 92

74 Platforms 4, 5, 6 and 7 possess centrally placed staircases that extend to the patio floor (e.g. Figure 3.23). St ill, access from the banquette to the top of the platforms could have been achieved laterally. Platform 5 is shared with Circle 3 (as Platform 1) and is the second largest platform in the circle (21 m long and 16 m wide). This structure also contains a sma ll set of steps that extend from the northwestern wall in the direction of Platform 6. Platform 6 possesses a small stairway extending from the southwestern wall leading away from the circle. Platform 7, in comparison, contains two patio side stairways and an additional one extending towards Platform 6. (Figure 3.24). Platforms 8 and 9 differ from the other patios as they lack direct patio access; therefore, they would have been accessed laterally from the banquettes. Figure 3.23: Patio side view of Platf orm 7 two patio side access ways. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 93

75 Figure 3.24: Banquette side view of Platform 7 illustrating stairway in the southeastern potion. Facing north. Photography K. Hollon 2014. On the whole, the morphology of Circle II differs greatly from Circle I not only in regards to size. The platforms possess multiple access ways leading to various parts of the site. The construction of Circle II began shortly after the construction of Ballcourt 1 and setting the foundations fo r the construction of Circle III suggesting an intricate relationship between these structures. Circle III: El Azquelito Circle III, shown in Figure 3.25, is located directly south of Circle II and is comparatively smaller than Circles I and II with only eight platforms. Construction began in A.D. 100 and continued to A.D. 175. This was done during the same time expansions were made on Circle II. Additional construction occurred A.D. 175 to 220. This circle has a circumference of about 157 m and is about 8 0 m in diameter. Four terraces comprise the central altar leading to the top of the structure (Figure 3.26).

PAGE 94

76 Figure 3.25: Schematic Plan of Circle III. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015. Figure 3.26: View of Circle III, Central Pyramid. Facing west. Photog raphy K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 95

77 Platforms (1, 2, 3 and 8). Platform 1, which is shared with Circle II, does not show evidence for patio side access. This suggests that access was gained through Circle II or laterally from the banquettes. As part of Circle II, this platform was originally 13 m long and 11 m wide with a surface area of 143 m 2 This platform was enlarged to its final dimensions previously mentioned rendering a surface area of 336 m 2 Platforms 2 and 3 have two stairways, one leading to the patio ( Figure 3.26) and the other leading to the square plaza to the west of the circle (Figure 3.27). Platform 8 does not show patio side access, but has a staircase extending from the platform gaining access to another square plaza to the west of the circle (F igure 3.28). Figure 3.27: Patio side view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway in the northwestern potion. Facing northeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 96

78 Figure 3.28: V view of Platform 2 illustrating stairway leading to eastern square plaza. Facing so uthwest. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Though this circle is relatively small, it shares a significant construction history with Circle II. Its platforms also allow direct formal access to the large plaza areas located both to the east and west of the circ le. As with the other circles thus far, it is evident that the underlying principles acted like a template from which to construct these circles, yet each element differs greatly.

PAGE 97

79 Figure 3.29: Back side view of Platform 8 illustrating stairway extending from platform leading to western square plaza. Facing southeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Circle IV Circle IV (Figure 3.30) is located northwest of Ballcourt 1. Construction began in A.D. 50 to 100 shortly after the expansion of Ballcourt 1.This circl e consists of eight platforms, one of which is shared with Ballcourt 1, and contains the only rectangular central altar in the entire precinct (Figure 3.31). It is also the smallest in the central area with a diameter just under 54 m and a circumference of about 155. The altar is 7 m in diameter. The altar is not positioned within the geometric center of the circle as are the other altars in their respective circles. It is located closer to Platform 7 and is only raised about 0.45 m from the surface. Like o ther altars found in the site, excavation revealed a possible post mold in the center of the altar.

PAGE 98

80 Figure 3.30: Schematic Plan of Circle IV. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015. Figure 3.31: View of Circle IV with Central Pyramid. Facing northwest. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 99

81 A dirt road once passed through the ballcourt and Circle IV, which greatly damaged the ballcourt facing side walls of platforms 1, 2 and 8. Platform 1 has two faces and is the largest platform within the circular compound on e to the northwest facing the central altar with patio side access and the other to the southeast as an end platform for the monumental ballcourt. Platforms 2, 3 and 4 are exceptionally interesting in that they are built atop a square like retaining wall. Platform 2 and 3 include patio side stairways (Figure 3.32) where Platform 4 has a stairway leading away from the patio (Figure 3.33). The outer walls of the platforms facing the ballcourt are very high requiring a series of large steps for easier access o n the southwestern portion of the circle. The platform walls closer to Circle I are not as high, so no large staircases exist. Figure 3.32: View of Platforms 3 with inset stairs. Facing west. Photography K. Hollon 2014.

PAGE 100

82 Figure 3.33: View of Platforms 4 with back side stairs. Facing east. Photography K. Hollon 2014. Its relationship to Ballcourt 1 suggests that Platform 1 was constructed first, which then guided the placement of the subsequent platforms. This circle is particularly interesting due to i ts several rectangular altar not observed elsewhere in the complex. The asymmetry of the altar poses some interesting questions as well where some wonder if there was a mistake in interpretation. Ballcourt 1 Ballcourt 1 is the integrating component of thr ee major circular compounds (Circle I, II and IV) (Figure 3.34). Completing the necessary elements typical of the Mesoamerican ballgame, a standalone platform is observed serving as the southeastern head. Construction of the structure began alongside Circ le I (160 B.C. to 1 A.D.) with subsequent construction starting A.D 1 continuing to 50 A.D. This structure was once the most monumental ballcourt in the region, but was surpassed by the Santa Quiteria

PAGE 101

83 ballcourt, which is estimated to have been 135 m in len gth; the Santa Quiteria ballcourt is very skinny in comparison though. The court or playing field is approximately 80 m long and 7 m wide. Its overall length is about 125 m and rests at an elevation that is considerably lower than the platforms of Circle I and II. Ballcourt 1 follows the guidelines for Type I ballcourts in Mesoamerica and takes the shape of an open I with two parallel oes not refer to elsewhere in Mesoamerica. Figure 3.34: View of Ballcourt 1 atop Platform 1 of Circle IV. Facing southeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. This structure incorporates several platforms from Circles I, II and IV. Platforms 12, 1 and 2 from Circle I comprise the one lateral platform of the ballcourt while platforms 10, 1 and 2 from Circle II make up the other. The raised terraces created by these platforms were accessed via a V shaped stairways previously mentioned. Platform 1 of Circle IV se rves as the northwestern head with a single rectangular platform

PAGE 102

84 counterpart to the southeast. Both head platforms are built with high retaining walls; however, unlike Platform 1 of Circle IV, the southern platform has ballcourt side access with a stairway reaching the top of the structure (Figure 3.35). This platform does not have access to the plaza behind it suggesting that it was only used during the game. Figure 3.35: View of Ballcourt 1 southern head platform. Facing southeast. Photography K. Hollon 2014. The construction of Ballcourt 1 and Circle I occurred simultaneously while expansions to the ballcourt may have prompted the construction of Circles II and IV. Nevertheless, the platform walls of the two circles do not overlap with features of the ballcour t suggesting that the structures were conceptualized as separate buildings. The joining of these elements, however, changed the overall geometry of the platforms showing disproportions in mass and volume when comparing platforms within circle

PAGE 103

85 groups. Platf orms 1, 2 and 10 of Circle II are remarkably larger than the other platforms. The same goes for platforms 1, 2 and 12 of Circle I. Concluding Thoughts The cultural historical information presented reveal that, for the most part, there exists a degree of d ifference in natural and cultural resource investment amongst the many sites that make up the Teuchitln culture. Due to the high concentration of monumental public architecture, the Guachimontn site serves as a type of snapshot displaying the sociopoliti cal character of the Teuchitln culture. Altogether, the guachimontn program at the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area (LGCCA) flourished for nearly six hundred years. Though a distinct mortuary tradition was identified by the onset of the Early Formative, full integration of the guachimontn program did not began until several hundred years later during the Tequila II phase. The relationship between the surface and subterranean architecture is understood more as a package increasing in frequency and distribution together rather than one replacing and phasing out the other. Much work remains to be done in fully understanding the cultural trajectory of west Mexico, but the chronology presented by Beekman and Weigand (2008) has identified trends that make the social and political transitions observed more analogous to greater Mesoamerica.

PAGE 104

86 CHAPTER IV IN CONSIDERATION OF GREATER MESOAMERICA AND THE TEUCHITLN CULTURE This chapter seeks to implement the theoretical framework presented in Chapter II b y examining the greater Mesoamerican landscape so as to better understand the broader themes of symbolism and the political strategies that ultimately became manifested in the built environment. The first section looks at how the Mesoamerican people constr ucted their cities and architectural groups following a strict worldview and how civic planning reinforced social stratification. The second section and true focus of this chapter will then expand upon the social and political mechanics of the Teuchitln c ulture that was discussed in the preceding chapter. Moreover, this chapter looks into how site planning was an essential component of community integration and separation as related to ritual events. As such, another major focus of this chapter is to then sift through the several proposed activities that may have taken place at the ceremonial centers. Symbolism and Power in Mesoamerica The Mesoamerican built environment is the conglomeration of a variety of architectural types: temples, palaces, ballcourts, plazas and causeways. Additionally, civic plans may include residential areas, rural terraces and agricultural fields and burial pla ces. These structures were not mere solutions to satiate the human need for shelter; rather, they represent and embody the sociopolitical character of the society that erected and used them. The cultures of Formative and Classic Mesoamerica had a complex p olitical system that was heavily vested in ideology, and this was certainly

PAGE 105

87 propagated through architecture. Mesoamerican sites are strikingly modular with architectural groups gathering around a patio or plaza with each structure relating to a greater wor ldview. As social groups create and re create space, they do so in relation to central points of reference. In investigating a wider Mesoamerican worldview, one looks towards a cosmological base that consists of: 1) conceptions of a multilayered universe; 2) a temporal unification of these layers through cyclical movement of celestial bodies; 3) a vertical connection between the earth and other cosmic domains; and 4) a horizontal division of the world into four cardinal directions (Freidel et al.. 1993; Br ady and Ashmore 1999; Grove 1999; Manzanilla 2000; Reilly 2002; Mathews and Garber 2004). These conceptions can be identified on varying levels across the Mesoamerican landscape household versus public and in a variety of settings residential areas v ersus ceremonial centers. The Mesoamerican people believed that the universe was arranged horizontally cardinal directions drawn from a centralized point (Figure 4.1 ). Hanks (1990:299) notes that "[i]n most socially significant spaces, including towns, homesteads, plazas, and traditional cornfields, the four corners plus the center define the space as a whole." This basic division underlies the Mesoamerican world plac ing all reality into an ordered format (Pugh 2001). Cardinal (in addition to intercardinal) directionality embedded in cosmic diagrams was often associated with colors and symbolic aspects of fertility and famine, which were significant themes amongst agri cultural communities. The

PAGE 106

88 domestication of crops, especially corn, played a profound role in the social and cultural development of both ancient and contemporary Mesoamerica (Taube 1996). For this reason, a great deal of Mesoamerican symbolism and ritual h as much to do with planting and harvest cycles. Figure 4.1: Different conceptions of the cardinal directions and places based on accounts of referential practice from come contemporary Yucatan communities (after Hanks 1990: Figures 7.1, 7.1). The cardi nal directions not only represent the quadripartite division of the The cardinal directi ons east and west are connected to the movement of the sun with north and south associated with the zenith and nadir. Coggins (1980) recognizes that many pyramids and buildings were oriented towards these directions, particularly east and west, and celesti al observations based on the calendar could be made, i.e. the days of the solstices, the equinoxes and the zenith.

PAGE 107

89 The universe was further understood in vertical terms. A tripartite division of the universe encompassed a multi layering of the heavens, t he earth and the Underworld. The axis mundi based. This primordial tree bounded the earth, sky and underworld, and communication between them was through the center often represented by a tree like figure i.e. a Ceiba tree for most Maya societies. Many representations, like the ones below (Figure 4.2), depict a celestial bird resting atop the branches, which extended up into the heavens; the trunk perforated the human world and sent roots digging down into the Underworld (Mathews and Garber 2004); thus, the supernatural energies of the three some beings to others, they influence, are contagious, and they alte tree allowed the souls of humans to pass into the Underworld, and the gods, when summoned through ritual, to pass into the human world. Though the repr esentations of the great world tree differed, many Mesoamerican societies share a collective view of its significance. DuVall (2008) notes that the world tree has been interpreted to play an important role in Mesoamerican creation stories and embodies impo rtant suggestions of fertility, the cycles of life and death, divinity and rulership, timekeeping, astronomy, and ancestor/deity worship.

PAGE 108

90 Figure 4.2: Two Different Depictions of the Axis Mundi (Left: Western Mexico, Nayarit Feast. K7684; Right: World tree rising from a deceased person's body. S7308) FAMSI. Given the importance of these themes in ancient Mesoamerica, it seems likely that this particular cosmovision may have played a crucial role in architectural symbolism and perhaps even in the design and layout of buildings and cityscapes. Architecture was used to materialize the Mesoamerican cosmovision Some t emples were built to extraordinary heights to embody the sacred mountain, which in turn signified the boundary between the human and celestial worlds. While others were built in close proximity to such sacred natural features. The ballcourt was a cosmogram intended to delineate sacred space and demarcate a portal into the underworld. In comparing the major monumental zones of three Formative sac red landscapes (Chalcatzingo, La Venta and San Lorenzo), Grove (1998) found that the organization of Mesoamerican certain similar structuring principles nevertheless operated in the positioning of their monuments and major public architecture. Furthermore, the distinctive distribution of particular monument types and monument themes within these

PAGE 109

91 sites implies a cosmological foundation to those structuring principles (Grove 1998:289). To this end, I add as a disclaimer that the example provided below is by no means the only way or only right way cosmovision presented itself materially. The principles of cosmovision surely en compass the ideals of the societal at large, but its representation can and does vary greatly across the Mesoamerican landscape. In focusing on the Maya region of Mesoaerica, the earliest consistent architectural form, the E Group, appears during the latte r part of the Formative period, and its structural motifs are observed throughout the Maya Mesoamerican landscape: Uaxactun, Tikal, El Mirador, Nakbe and Giro/Wakna (Aimers and Rice 2006) (Figure 4.3). These groups are characterized by a pair of flat topp ed rectangular pyramids located on the east and west edges of a large plaza or court. In some cases, evidence suggests that these pyramids also included a temple or superstructure (Shook 2014); if so, it was built entirely of perishable materials. In fron t of the eastern pyramid, is a column of plain stelae and altars; this arrangement of structures is not mirrored to the west. On the south end of the court is a long masonry platform with a low roofed structure, which typically included nine doorways. Loca ted to the north of the plaza is another standalone building. This structure differs from its southern counterpart in that it has only one doorway and does not possess a roof. Inside this enclosure, stands an altar and single stela, which is commemorative of the ruling agent of the time.

PAGE 110

92 Figure 4.3: Plan of Tikal Twin Pyramid Group. Tikal Project. University Museum of Pennsylvania. In general, the twin pyramid groups serve as a physical representation of the Coggins 1979, 1980). The E Group structures were constructed around a large plaza following quadripartite principles, which has been argued to signify major celestial movements. Blom (1924) suggested that the E group configuration, specifically at Uaxactun functioned as a solar seasonal observatory complex marking the dates of the solstices; when atop the western radial structure, sunrise at the summer solstice occurs over the northern temple, and sunrise at the winter solstice occurs over the southern str ucture. Aveni et al.. (2003), following previous investigations (Aveni and Hartung 1986), suggest that the E group alignments were targeted toward observations of the solar zeniths. In particular, they note intervals of multiples of 20 days leading to the first solar zenith. Moreover, these complexes were possibly constructed to celebrate longer calendrical cycles known as katuns and,

PAGE 111

93 perhaps, longer cycles of 13 katuns, which is approximately 256 years (Aimers and Rice 2006). These structures were the mate rialization of cyclic time. In consideration of the tripartite division, the layout of the complex further demonstrates a profound association with Mesoamerican cosmovision (Figure 4.4). North represented the celestial level of the cosmos and the home of t he divine ancestors. The placement of the altar and stela inside this structure is interpreted as indicative of the relationship of the ruler not only to the divine but also to his people. The orientation of the stela, which faces the doorway, denotes the divine ruler symbolically looking down (south) on the earthly realm (Rice 2013). The structure to the south represents the Underworld, where the celestial bodies dwell after their disappearance in the west. The nine doors additionally correspond with the n ine levels of the underworld. The large plaza between these structures, meant for great amounts of people to gather, then represents the earthen world where humanly action occurs (i.e. feasts, dances and rituals) completing the tripartite division of the u niverse. Following the principles of the quadripartite and tripartite divisions symbolically charged the space, which then gave purpose to the events occurring there and the social relations created.

PAGE 112

94 Figure 4.4: E Group site plan depicting the tripartit e division (after Mathews and Garber 2004, Figure 7). A pan Mesoamerican view of the world can also be realized on a larger scale. Ashmore (1989) claims that placement of structures within a wider civic plan also speaks to Mesoamerican cosmovision She ob serves that there is a tendency for the highest and most elaborate structures to be built on the northern edge of a site; likewise, structures such as residences and ballcourts are typically located on more level or lower terrain concentrating in the south ern portions of sites. Brady and Ashmore (1999) maintain that this dichotomy between the north elevated areas with a concentration of human and the south a depressed area is the expression in the physical landscape of two im portant mythic locations: the watery Underworld to the south and the heavens in the north. Grove (1998) observes that the major monumental likewise, the major monume ntal zone found at San Lorenzo the MMZ comprises almost the entire upper surface of the plateau. Whether positioned in the northern sector of a

PAGE 113

95 site or built atop elevated land, allotting a structure or group of structures a significant location within a s ite supports the fact that some places were regarded more special than others. The architectural repetitiveness of the ideological themes cross culturally was inescapably linked to the motive of expressing power: makes power visible and hence becomes power rather than merely a symbol of 990:122). The Mesoamerican landscape served as stages upon which political negotiations and relations were worked through and formed. The first sedentary villages emerged during the Early Formative and were largely egalitarian. During this time long dista nce exchange networks began to form (Grove 1981). By the Middle Formative, early complex societies such as at the sites of Paso de la Amada (Chiapas), San Jos Mogote (Oaxaca) and San Lorenzo (Veracruz) started to show evidence for social stratification an d interaction with other centers on a multi regional scale (Clark 1991; Cyphers 1996; Marcus and Flannery 1996). The construction of monumental architecture created non domestic spaces to which, archaeologists presume, only community residents had special access. The number of societies employing monumental architecture to implement social stratification grew by the Late Formative (Grove 1987; Grove and Gillespie 1992) with a robust social hierarchical system well in place by the Classic l trajectory of social change in Mesoamerica through the Formative and Classic was toward larger scale sociopolitical organization, greater centralization,

PAGE 114

96 The history of Mesoame rican political organization was dominated by the development of independent polities and a centralized political power dictated by a sovereign entity or unit (Sharer and Traxler 2005). The Mesoamerican cultures viewed their leaders as embodiments of the d ivine serving as conduits of communication between the human and supernatural worlds. Monumental architecture incorporated specific references to the sovereign (i.e. scenes imprinted on stelae), which stood as explicit symbolic and textual statements of va lidation in regards to his role in mediating between society and the supernatural. The act of design was heavily informed by the planning template to depict the structure of the [Mesoamerican] cosmos and to emphasize graphically their own and The religious power of the Mesoamerican leader was manifest in the construction of temples where the king could then demonstrate his special conne ctions to the supernatural through elaborate public rituals. The Mesoamerican arenas of social and political display were largely public. In this way, the ruler was made visible. He was seen doing what he, or he and a few others, were permitted to do (Wilk erson 1999). Architecture not only secured the position of the ruler in life but also his position was further reinforced in death. Extravagant elite burials are generally associated with monumental architecture. For example, many of the large temples at T ikal are associated with elite burials; however, the highest concentration of elite entombment is found at the North Acropolis, which served as the center of the city. Large public processions and rituals would take place marking the death of a leader. Onc e again, the

PAGE 115

97 powerful became visible and the transference of power following death would be well understood. The Mesoamerican built environment is consistently depicted as a medium for performance centered on sacrifice, presentation, tribute giving and bal l playing: technology, the expression of religious symbolism, [and] the social consolidation of the ration of ritual, ceremony and official cosmology during the Formative and Classic periods was without a doubt significantly embedded into the Mesoamerican built environment. Equally important, if not more so, were the transformed daily routines of every m ember of (beekman1999:149). These public rituals were over the top, requiring heavier investment, larger participation and wider audiences in comparison to everyday activities. The publicness of activities was designed to not only create cohesion amongst large groups of people but to also reinforce the messages of the divinely mandated pow er. The monuments erected were constructed to match the grandeur of the activities they housed. Symbolism and Power in the Teuchitln Culture Given the issue of West Mexico in Mesoamerican literature presented at the beginning of chapter III, this discussion now directs our attention to the cosmovision and political motifs of the Teuchitln culture in relation to greater Mesoamerica. In

PAGE 116

98 examinin g the guachimontn architecture, the quadripartite division of the universe is expressed on several levels. Smaller guachimontn compounds, such as La Noria, only contain four platforms (Figure 4.5). The example of La Noria and the orientations of the plat forms around the altar provide a compelling connection to the greater Mesoamerican conception of the quadripartite division of the universe. Larger sites that include greater numbers of platforms around their central altars also display cardinal and interc ardinal directionality as a template source. In her analysis of twelve guachimontn sites, DuVall (2008) argues that the orientation of the circular compounds and the structures within them is strongly consistent though it remains unclear if the circles we re in fact used in the observation of celestial phenomenon. For the most part though, the concept of directionality was shared amongst the builders of the circular compounds. In using the cardinal and intercardinal directions as a guide, this would explain why the platforms always appeared in even numbers. Space could be evenly distributed between features. Furthermore, Townsend (1998) argues that the alignment of the stairways on the three largest Central Pyramids at the Los Guachimontones site correspond to the cardinal and intercardinal directions (Figure 4.6). Certainly the themes of a quadripartite division served as a major template in constructing the guachimontn complexes.

PAGE 117

99 Figure 4.5 Map of La Noria, which includes elevations marking the outermos t ring as a hillock. (after Weigand 1996, Figure 3). Figure 4.6: Idealized plan of the Guachimontn Complex (after Witmore 1998, Figure 2).

PAGE 118

100 Further review of the symbolism present within the guachimontn form has led scholars to draw connections to the more natural world. In line with other Mesoamerican beliefs, the symbolic character of agriculture may have played an important role in the construction of the guachimontn compounds. For example, Beekman ( 2003b) likens the organization of platforms around the central altar to the Harinoso de Ocho race of flour corn (Figure 4.7), which is part of the eight rowed family of corn that originated in western Mexico. In this, the platforms represent the corn kerne ls when viewed at cross section and the central altar is characteristic of the core of the cob. Agriculture may have been of great interest for the people of the Teuchitln culture, and their concerns about food production, maintenance and harvest may have been worked through in architectural form Figure 4.7: Comparison between Harinoso de Ocho and the Guachimontn viewed from above (Beekman 2003b, Figure 6).

PAGE 119

101 In search for conceptions of a tri partite division, many have identified the architectural elements themselves as representing a multi of the architecture itself was a metaphor for the Mesoamerican three (Beekman 2003a:301). Likewise, Witmore (1998) claims that each architectural element, specifically the shaft tomb, the patio and the central altar, served as representations of the axis mundi The heavens are represented by the pole, which may have extended from the central altar and/or by the central altar itself; the patio represented the human worl d while the shaft tombs beneath the platforms are reminiscent of the Underworld. Together, they completed the tripartite division of the world; however, the major ceremonial sites lack the presence of formal shaft tombs. For this reason, the symbolism of t he shaft tomb may have been replaced with the ballcourt structure serving as the boundary between the human world and the underworld. From the above discussion, it is evidence that the people of the Teuchitln culture had a strong sense of Mesoamerican cos movision and their understanding of the world was certainly expressed through architecture. It was through architecture that political negotiations could then be manifested supported by the symbolic undertones of the structures. In surveying the many site s within the culture region, Weigand (1985) began to notice huge variances in monumentality and complexity among the circular compounds. He examined the volumes of the circular compounds within a site, the number of ballcourt and circles, the area of enclo sed and open space along with the circumferences and diameters of the circular compounds themselves to then propose a hierarchy of sites. Expanding on this work, Ohnersorgen and Varien (1996) then

PAGE 120

102 categorized the sites into four types using only architectu ral volume rather than multiple variables as defined above. They then compared their findings with population data from each of the habitation zones. They concluded that [t]he marked increases in architectural volume relative to the size of associated high density habitation zone for Type A and B sites suggest that these sites did not function solely to integrate their local populations. We believe that these sites may have been administrative economic and ritual centers, controlling and/or integrating lowe r ranking compounds and residences. Our Type A site of Guachimonton may have been a dominant regional political center (Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996:118). By using the gravity model of interaction, which allows for an examination of alternative organizational models that differentially stress the importance of the size of sites with formal architecture and the distance between sites as factors affecting inte raction, they concluded that the Teuchitln area (Los Guachimontones site) may have been a focal point for interaction and administration because of its relatively central location and the amount of high ranking formal architecture found there. From an alt ernative standpoint, the settlement system may have been one composed of several politically autonomous units. This would suggest that each "zone" or large interaction cluster was a relatively autonomous unit, each dominated by its own high order center. B eekman (2000) also speaks on the relationship the core of the culture had with its periphery sites. He states that the repetitiveness of the guachimontn motif was the result of conscious decision ocal elites in distant regions adopted the new architecture and ceremonialism of their own volition, as a calculated attempt to build up their own power base (Beekman 2000:402). The core initiated contact with the periphery sites, which so happen to be str ategically placed

PAGE 121

103 principles not only benefitted the local elites but also formed political and ideological control over the periphery. Table 4.1 presents the four tier hier archy developed by Weigand (1985) and describes the data used by Ohnersorgen and Varien (1996). It is of no surprise that the Guachimontn site was given the highest rank (Tier I and Type A) in both analyses. Table 4.1: Summary of Site rank, habitation zo ne density and total volume (after Ohnersorgen and Varien 1996, Table 1, 2 and 4). Site Name Rank (Weigand 1985) Density of Habitation Zone (ha) Total Volume (m 3 ) 1. Guachimonton I 1,011 77,887 2. Mesa (Loma) Alta II in # 1 15,342 3. Arroyo de los Lobos II in# 1 10,079 4. Mesa (Loma Baja) II III in # 1 1,727 5. Estanzuela III in # 1 1,767 6. Capilla III IV in # 1 7. Campanilla III 103 3,320 8. Caldera de los Lobos III 105 2,481 9. Mesa Alta A II III 121 3,632 10. Mesa Alta B II III in #9 4,134 11. Rio Salado III 209 7,268 12. Entroque IV 420 13. Escheveria III in #12 14. La Noria IV 85 4,317 15. Chivas Palacio no assignment 44 2,610 16. Portero de las Chivas I III 219 4,638 17. Arroyo de las Chivas II III in #16 3,753 18. Zacametate IV 322 1,588 19. Nogalera IV in #12 20. Animas II III in #24 21. Cuisillo I II in #24 22. Mezquite II III in #24 23. Ahuisculco II III in #24 24. San Juan de los Arcos I 1,617

PAGE 122

104 Table 4.1 Cont. Site Name Rank (Weigand 1985) Density of Habitation Zone (ha) Total Volume (m 3 ) 25. Bosque III 48 26. La Mora III IV 39 3,070 27. El Carmen III 37 28. Ahualulco I 426 49,732 29. Ahualulco Este III IV in #28 2,486 30. Ahualulco Residencial no assignment 81 31. Cortacena III 62 2,234 32. Laguna Colorado III 51 2,234 33. La Providencia II 93 10,176 34. Ahualulco Norte III IV 79 2,426 35. Cerro de los Monos IV 49 36. Chapulimita IV 32 2,005 37. La Pena III IV 47 38. El Saucillo II III 90 10,694 39. Los Ceborucos II 71 40. Las Rosas II III in #41 4,476 41. Las Pilas II 260 4,639 42. Mesa de las Pilas IV in #41 388 43. Huitzilapa A I II 397 44. Huitzilapa B III in #43 45. Huitzilapa C III in #43 46. Huitzilapa D III in #43 47. Las Navajas II 86 48. Amititan I III 63 1,207 49. Amititan Oeste II 54 50. Santa Quiteria I 202 43,244 51. Mesa Alta I II in #50 52. Los Bailadores II in #50 1,636

PAGE 123

105 Taking a more intra site approach, many scholars focus on how the architectural elements of the Teuchitln culture functioned as exclusionary and corporate political strategies. Beekman (2013) argues for four types of formal architecture that are present d uring the Late Formative and Early Classic period as methods of political establishment and maintenance: shaft tombs, guachimontn structures, ballcourts and elite households. Located under the platforms, shaft tombs are interpreted as an exclusionary stra tegy from which the elite drew attention to the wealth and connectedness of their lineage. Through an osteological examination of the skeletal remains at Huitzilapa, Pickering and Cabrero (1998) concluded that five of the six individuals within the single tomb were genetically related to one another suggesting status in life; the treatment of the body and the type and quantity of the grave goods can be used to discern patt especially their wasteful interment with the dead, amply demonstrated the wealth and general, the shaft tombs were ex clusionary strategies strictly used by the elites while non elite populations used more simplistic, pit burials, which account for the vast majority of burial data known in central Jalisco; however, the mortuary processions that predicated the burial were public displays (Figure 4.7). The repetitiveness of the shaft tomb theme throughout the region suggests symbolic and political significances for the groups that used them or participated in the mortuary rituals.

PAGE 124

106 Figure 4.8: Ceramic model depicting a burial procession (after Beekman 1998. Drawing by Kathy Beekman, after von Winning Hammer 1972: Figure 89). The exact nature of the activities that occurred at the circles will further be expanded on later in this se ction, but the surface architecture of the guachimontn program is argued to have played an important role in public ceremonies serving as inclusive strategies. The circles, especially at the Guachimontn site, can get quite large. Each platform is argued to have been controlled by distinct corporate groups indicating greater cooperation between groups than what is seen in the shaft tombs (Beekman 2008). Many of the ceremonial centers actually lack shaft tombs, and Beekman (2000) states that it becomes rath er unclear where the elites were even buried. What is clear is the political trajectory of the Teuchitln culture as it transitioned away from a more political ritual wa s still oriented toward mobilizing followers and their labor, but by emphasizing group membership rather than attachment to a glorified elite individual or

PAGE 125

107 competing yet co existent (Beekman and Weigand 2008). Important ceremonial roles were shared among several higher ranking groups due to their possession of sacred knowledge. Their platform within the circular compound afforded them access to a higher status within their habitation zone; likewise, having a platform within a large privileged position within the circles and participating in these ceremonies allowed elite families to accumulate increased prestige, reproducing their position and solidifying Ballcourts are another prime example of how the Teuchitln leaders could gain through demonstrations of direct warfare, yet many shaft tombs contained figurines depict warriors as well as dioramas depicting battles, which suggests that warfare was i ndeed a part of the culture. The sacrificial ballgame allowed for public reaffirmation not only of the political powers in charge but also of the collective ideals that shaped this culture. Weigand further developed a hierarchy amongst the ballcourt types identified within the culture region. He stated that [t]he monumental Type I courts may have been used to represent the interest of political elites within the entire region and their dealings among themselves. Type II courts may have been more compatible with in district concerns, wither within a common habitation zone or between a political center and its hinterland. Centers without ballcourts presumably used the courts at the center that controlled them (Weigand 1991:83). It is of no surprise that thr ee monumental ballcourts of the region are associated with the three most monumental complexes: Los Guachimontones, Santa Quiteria and

PAGE 126

108 Ahualulco. Unlike the guachimontn structures, which follow a consistent orientation, the ballcourts do not. The monument al ballcourt of Los Guachimontones is situated between two circles, while others run perpendicular to the circular compounds sharing a single platform. Others, as with the second ballcourt of Los Guachimontones, are standalone structures. Moreover, the dir ectionality amongst the ballcourts does not remain consistent (DuVall 2008). Some run east west while others run northwest southeast. These inconsistencies suggests that the ballgame served more political rather than cosmological functions. Lastly, elite households further demonstrated elite power. The size and relative closeness to ceremonial centers suggests societal inequality that some descendant groups had more access to resources than others. Weigand (2007:103) claims that there platforms facing a rectangular patio and built atop a base platform that averages 50 m 30 m on a side. Eli te households are only found within the central part of the Teuchitln habitation zone with the only completely excavated elite residential area found at the Los Guachimontones site. This elite residence is found in close association to Circle I directly b ehind platforms 7 and 8. The closeness of the elite residence as part of Circle I at Los Guachimontones suggests that that group of people had more power amongst the other elites in the area. As a whole, these structures, both subterranean and surface, pro vide excellent examples of how elite power was expressed materially. Beekman (2007) claims that

PAGE 127

109 elites could have gained power by sponsoring the public rituals that took place at the guachimontn compounds. For the most part, the circles are inward looking seemingly focused upon activities occurring within their bounds. The circles present at the Guachimontn site are exceptional in that some of the platforms (i.e. Platforms 1, 2 and 10 or Circle II) are shared between multiple compounds; this would have al lowed several vantage points and the ability to observe and participate in the different activities. Except when blocked by a ballcourt or other auxiliary structure, access to the patios of these circular compounds was not obstructed further hinting at the public nature of the activities. Weigand (1996:98) notes that the arrangement of structures at the Los Guachimontones site created an amphitheater type structure that was t could be heard throughout the complex: In other words, the central area of the site have been controlled by distinct corporate groups but the overall morphology of the compounds served to establish a sense of cohesion amongst the members of the entire group. As mentioned before, the guachimontn structures seem to have agricultural undertones. With this in mind, many scholars have noted an affiliation with agricultural rituals (e.g. Kelley 1974; Townsend 1998; Witmore 1998; Beekman 2003a, 2003b). Many of the studies take into account the many ceramic dioramas that have been recovered

PAGE 128

110 from shaft tombs, which depict circle activity. These activities have been interpreted as relating to the volador or Xocotl Huetzi rituals, which are both rituals that have specific calendric components. Beekman (2003b:9 10) explains the volador ritual in detail: 25 m) pole and leap off at a climactic moment of the ceremony, allowing the ropes tying them to an apparatus at the top t o unwind as they spiral down around the pole. The four flyers (frequently dressed as birds) hope to make 13 circuits around the pole before touching down. As four times 13 equals 52, the number of years in a calendrical cycle, the ritual makes symbolic ref erence to the Mesoamerican temporal round. Several other sources discuss this type of activity; however, there is some debate of whether the ceramic scenes actually depict volador ceremonies. In the ritual, the participants fly around the pole. This would have been very difficult to express in suggested to be reminiscent of another ceremony, the Xocotl Huetzi. In a different paper, Beekman (2003a:306) describes the figure atop the pole may actually be an idol pulque were part of the ceremony, which culminated in a race among male youths to reach the top g. Butterwick 1998) also draw upon the ceramic scenes to suggest that ritual drinking and feasting were a part of the activities that took place within the circles.

PAGE 129

111 Figure 4.9: Ceremonial Village Scene with a Flying Figure. Nayarit, Mexico. 100 B.C. A .D. 250. Gift of Mr. and Mrs. Fred Olsen, 1959.55.18. Yale University Art Gallery. All rights reserved. Johns (2014) and Beekman et al. (2014) provide the most recent evidence for guachimontn of Circle 5 at the Navajas site. She studied ceramic assemblages from each of the structures and the patio. Her analysis does not show any direct link to the above mentioned activities; instead, her results point to more general activities such as communa l feasting, food storage and cooking. Beekman et al. (2014) takes a similar approach by looking into the ceramic assemblages from each circle at the Los Guachimontones site. From this analysis, the largest amount of ceramic ware of all the circles was the rough Colorines followed by the fine Colorines Both wares are associated with domestic activities. None of the circles offered evidence for feasting, which is well represented by the Arroyo Seco

PAGE 130

112 ware at Navajas. Very minimally, but more present in Circle I, was the Estolanos and Tabachines wares, which have been associated with ritual activity. The results from Beekman et al. (2014) results are presented in Table 4.2 accounting only for the circle s that make up the central area of the complex under consideration in this thesis. Table 4.2: Summary of Ceramic Analysis representing guachimontones found within the LGCCA. Los Guachimontones Circle I Circle II Circle III Circle IV Rough Colorines as % of total 49 56 51 58 Fine Colorines as % of total 33 36 40 29 Arroyo Seco as % of total 0 0 0 0 Estolanos as % of total 6 0 5 6 Tabachines as % of total 12 7 4 7 Wares 18, 19, or 21 presence X From the above studies, the general consensus does seem to be that the activities occurring at the circles lean towards more domestic ones; however, the presence of the Estolanos and Tabachines wares does not rule out ritualistic functions. Still the relat ionship between the activities of small circles and large circles remains unclear. The ceramic analysis of Johns (2014) and Beekman (2014) seemingly contradict the notion that the circles functioned strictly as places of ritual. Certainly, ritual was a par t of the activity repertoire, but they may have occurred at lesser frequencies. Perhaps, in between ritual cycles, the guachimontn structures did have more domestic functions. However, these things (rough ware and use outside of the ritual cycle) reinforc e the symbolic and political nature of the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area (LGCCA), not contradict it. Ceramics, rough or fine, in large quantities can also be a part of ritual feasting. If feasting is a part of the ritual cycle, the food must be prepared and cooked. If the cooking is done in a sacred context, it further sanctifies

PAGE 131

113 the food in other words, context of use turns rough wares into items crucial for ritual just as much as ritual paraphernalia is (Tammy Stone 2015 personal communica tion). Concluding Thoughts The guachimontn structures stand as clear evidence that architecture is and can be used as a medium to establish and maintain cosmologic perceptions and political power. With a greater Mesoamerican worldview in mind, the guachim ontn structures invoke a multi layered universe and are built with clear intentionality. The materialization of ideology then created a solid platform on which sociopolitical negotiations and relationships could manifest. The Los Guachimontones site serve d as not only an important ceremonial complex but also as the political center of the culture. To control the production and use of ideology, the ruling elite must monopolize access to it; however, this is not always the case in the Teuchitln example. Th e shaft tombs served as the only exclusionary strategy employed by the people of this society that created great separations between the elite and non elite. The surface architecture encouraged group cooperation and fostered formation of group identity. Th ough the platforms of each circular compound were controlled by different corporate groups, the public had uninterrupted access to the activities that occurred there. For the most part, the experience of the Los Guachimontones complex was essentially share d amongst the people. Only within the circles did the experience vary. The subsequent chapters seek to develop a methodology for understand those variances and provide a framework to then discuss how different experiences then came about.

PAGE 132

114 CHAPTER V INVESTIGATING SPACE AND EXPERIENCE In order to evaluate the role that the architecture of the Teuchitln culture played in facilitating lived experiences and in delineating a social order, this research follows a phenomenological approach. Phenomenology ai ms to describe the character of the human experience, specifically the ways in which individuals apprehend the material world through directed intervention in our surroundings (Bruck 2005). According to Tilley (2004:221), [e]xperience of the world is embodied and flows from the body. The body mediates our experience. Experiencing places in the landscape involves taking as much account of the landscape in which the place is embedded, its relationship with its physical and topographical context, as of th e place itself. We are thus concerned with the dialectics of place and surroundings. This approach claims that embodied engagement with the material world is fundamental for existence. In other words, it is through the body, the performance of actions and the activation of the senses that relationships between the built environment and individuals are defined. Phenomenology studies conscious experience as experienced from the first person point of view. Methodologically this requires sensing a place from w ithout and from within using a variety of vantage points and pathways. To fully understand the social and cultural geography of a place, investigations such as this one must consider structural relationships from both inter and intra levels so as to devel op a complete sense of a place and narrative of the experiencer(s). With the aim of forming this narrative, investigations must address the act of moving through, exploring and perceiving built surroundings and the activities

PAGE 133

115 occurring as well as the peopl e participating. The interpretation of landscape lay not strictly in its measurement and/or distribution; rather, it encompasses patterns of immersion, movement and perceptual engagement. The lived experience involves the senses, the body and the mind. Ph enomenological methodologies have long been recognized by scholars as a way of interpreting past lifeworlds, but this approach is not without its critiques. In summarizing these critiques, many scholars have argued that phenomenological approaches lack rep licability and methodological rigor, fail to account for past/present environmental differences, fail to acknowledge that experience is culturally constructed, privilege the visual and emphasize description at the expense of power relations (Van Dyke 2014) Recent studies, such as the ones that ground this research, have set out to combat these critiques in order to make phenomenological approaches in archaeology more pragmatic. Since the work of Tilley (1994) and Gosden (1994), phenomenological methodologi es in archaeology have come a long way and recent fieldwork shows a dedication to more rigorous methodologies in pursuit of making this approach more empirical. Though dimensional analyses and visual inspections of architecture remain a standard process, i t is often supported with other highly sophisticated quantitative methods: GIS and Space Syntax. Geographic Information Systems or GIS is a type of information system that keeps track not only of events, activities and places but also of where these events activities and places happen or exist. Phenomenology is a powerful theoretical

PAGE 134

116 (Wise 1996:143). For phenomenology, the human experience should be at the center of data collection, conceptualization and analysis. A GIS analysis influenced by phenomenology requires a different suite of variables for landscape studies. Observation points, pat hways and elevation data are just some of the information needed in order to provide information about the ways in which past humans may have experienced their landscapes. Criticisms of GIS propose that that the essential nature of GIS technology and GIS v isualizations encourage a specifically objectified view of the archaeological world we seek to understand the so (Sheppard and Poiker 1995). Therefore, it is argued that GIS can only really be applied within specifically posi tivist epistemologies. An alternative perspective on the role of GIS within the social sciences has been put forward by the geographer Kwan (2002), who argues that by maintaining a reflexive and critical approach to GIS based research, and by acknowledging the partiality of a GIS perspective, it is possible to move beyond these epistemological boundaries. Such an approach demands recontextualizing and 2) and acknowledging that GIS, as a practice, is neither a neutral or passive process (Wheatley and Gillings 2000). Gary Lock (2000:61) has interpretive process rather than the centered field survey, the potential is to treat results as hypothetical scenarios that can illuminate our

PAGE 135

117 understanding of the past, rather th an revealing universal truths about an objective world (Kwan 2002). In order to quantify the human experience using GIS, human events, activities and places are represented in two different ways, and each is used in this research. The first type is the vec tor data model (Figure 5.1). Features are represented using points, lines or polygons. Like features are then arranged into feature classes (i.e. Circle I, Circle II, Ballcourt, etc.). Attached to these feature classes are attributes tables, which store da ta about each spatial such as object ID, length and elevation. The second type is the raster data model (Figure 5.2). A raster consists of a matrix of cells (or pixels) organized into rows and columns (or a grid) where each cell contains a value. Raster da ta is also accompanied by attribute tables that represent cell values assigned to each class or group. Figure 5.1: Representation of the vector data model depicting polygons (A and B), lines (1, 2 and 3) and points (a, b, c, d etc.)

PAGE 136

118 Figure 5.2: Repre sentation of how the raster data model convert vector data as an assembly of cells. Several attempts at gauging the human experience throughout the Mesoamerican region have been undertaken in archaeology that informs the GIS methodology adopted for this research. For example, Kristin Landau (2015) used GIS in order to address energetic efficiency and cosmology within sub communities as found at Copan, Honduras. By assessing least cost paths both within each architectural group and between them, Landau add ressed social interaction as it relates to the movement of bodies between different locations. From this analysis, she claims that the architectural groups may have functioned as complimentarily functioning entities access was not significantly impeded b etween structural groups, which meant that individuals within and between architectural groups would have been able to interact with one another without any physical barriers; she also notes, however, that cost (energy expenditure) amongst the northern arc hitectural groups was significantly lower than the other groups indicating greater accessibility and greater potential for interaction within those particular groups. She then investigated site visibility by accounting for elevation and evaluating a multit ude of viewpoints, as knowing just were an observer may have stood is very difficult. By assessing viewshed, she considered

PAGE 137

119 whether architectural groups could have been planned to enable wide views over other people in their sub communities. In consultatio n of elevation, she found that communities at higher elevations had a significantly greater viewshed over other architectural groups, which suggests that the northern architectural groups were placed so as to produce the largest field of vision in order to observe the events of the other how GIS can be used in order to demonstrate embodied experiences. How one moves re important aspect of framing past lifeworlds. Despite the privileged view of the landscape, GIS approaches can be manipulated in such a way to describe a first person account e other spaces more attractive (less costly) than others? As one travels across the landscape, how physically demanding is the journey? Once a destination is reached, are there privileged viewing areas within the site? Does placement affect the surveillanc e or observance of human activity? GIS has the potential to quantify the human experience by addressing such questions. As long as the perspectives from which the varying analyses are clearly defined and multiple vantage points are account for, GIS has the potential to greatly inform the phenomenological approach in understanding past lifeworlds. Adding to the methodological repertoire, the integration of space syntax methods has also strengthened phenomenological approaches in archaeology. In 1984, Hillie r and Hanson argued that structures have particular spatial properties that

PAGE 138

120 translate into sociological rules, which then affect how people relate to one another. This methodology focuses on the importance of movement within built environments and the sign ificance of access (restricted vs. open) for social interaction. Space syntax works on the assumption that the space around buildings is structured such that strangers can move about, but only inhabitants and certain strangers (visitors) are allowed inside structures. Inhabitants have an investment of power and are the controllers, while visitors entre or star as subjects of the system and are therefore controlled (Markus 1993:13). The general idea of this method is that spaces can be broken down into components, and those components can be analyzed as networks of choices. These choices are then represented as maps and graphs that describe the relative connectivity and integration of those spaces (Hillier1984). Space syntax keeps track of how spaces either allow for or disrupt movement. It takes into account the experience of the traveler whether s/he be an insider or outsider and potential barriers that an individual may encounte r whether that be a wall or mountain. It accounts for alternative routes that could have been taken to reach a certain destination. Central to space syntax is the nature of everyday spatial movement, the lived basis of how such movement can even happen, the ways in which people, as they move about, are aware or not aware of their environment and other people co present and the ways in which people, as they move about, attentively encounter each other (or do not) (Seamon 2007). Space syntax provides powerf ul conceptual and empirical support for the phenomenological claim of a mutually affective relationship between human action i.e., everyday spatial movement and qualities of the physical spatial environment underlying pathway structure o r spatial configuration.

PAGE 139

121 A syntactic approach in archaeology theorizes spatial units in two ways axial space and convex spaces. Axial space deals with linear connectivity, continuity and flow of a space while convex space identifies the extent of spatia l decomposition and usually corresponds with the privatization and localization of space. In this sense, axial and convex spaces are representations of the movement/rest dialectic; they provide a simple way to consider how physical and spatial qualities mi ght contribute to lived aspects of movement and rest (Seamon 2007). Convex and axial spaces are then represented using two types of syntactic maps: convex and axial maps (Figure 5.3). the form of graphs from which basic syntactic parameters can be calculat ed. This graph, the bottom of the graph. All spaces one syntactic step away from the root space are places on the first level spaces two steps away are placed on the s econd level and so on. These graphs offer a visual picture of the overall depth of a layout seen from one of its points. A space syntax approach to phenomenology allows archaeologists to look at different scales of community within a particular unit and va rying levels of co presence and co awareness, which then affects interpersonal encounters and robust place activity.

PAGE 140

122 Figure 5.3: Representation of convex space and axial lines (after Dawes and Ostwald 2013: Figure 2). Figure 5.4: Representation of jus tified graphs based on the spaces depicted in Figure 5.3 (after Dawes and Ostwald 2013: Figure 2). A common concern of syntactic analysis is related to its topological representation of the city, which discards all metric information. The difficulty in ac cepting this becomes clear when considering pedestrian decision making rather than urban configuration: Convincing a pedestrian that his urban movement strategy is not based on metric but on topological distance might prove as difficult as convincing a New Yorker living on Fifth Avenue, between 111th and 112th Streets that going to Central Park North round the corner (two changes of direction in the axial map) or to Columbus Circle (a few miles away, but still two changes of direction) is the same (Ratti 20 04:6). Another common criticism of space syntax is that it flirts with logical circularity or at least causal ambiguity when it is applied to existing built environments (Montello 2007).

PAGE 141

123 The property of integration, for example, is proposed to cause varia tions in pedestrian flow, memorability and the functional importance of places within a city or building. However, whether determined by the bottom up decisions of individual inhabitants or the top intended to draw more people are placed at locations that are typically more integrated they are not 06). Space syntax does, however, allow for multi scale analyses and is outcome oriented linking architectural and urban design decisions directly to functional outcomes. Focusing on the Mesoamerican built environment and the human experience, several studies have utilized space syntax methodologies. For example, Morton et al.. (2012) looks into community relationships, sp ecifically the culturally structured aspects of city planning as mediated through practice (movement), by investigating the civic and household architecture and overall site morphology at Teotihuacan. Focusing on depth, connectivity and integration, which are all syntactic parameters that will be defined later in the chapter, they determined pathways and movement patterns that could have been used by occupants and how any given spatial unit or area of integration can be ranked to give some idea of community structure and compartmentalize the human experience by those spatial units. Their results allowed them to identify and classify three types of spaces: first, second and third order spaces. First order areas (highly integrated structures) would be expected to foster the greatest level of co presence, and through social interaction, the greatest number of people would be united under a single community or the most inclusive identity. Following this, second order areas of

PAGE 142

124 integration add multivocality to the larger spatial unit in question. For purposes of this study, multivocality refers to the bringing together of different communities. Areas of smallest and most exclusive comm unities within the overall social structure. From their analysis, Morton et al.. conclude that shallower spaces (those with lower total depths and high integration values) are interpreted as attracting movement while deeper spaces (those with higher total depths and low integration values) are considered more controlled and private. One of the more fascinating analyses and conclusions made in this study, however, was that of site intelligibility how local spatial reality would have lent coherence to a glo bal or site wide spatial reality. Morton et al.. determined that the configuration (the integration and connectivity) of space within local parameters would not have provided important navigation information of the site as a whole making it difficult for i nhabitants and visitors to maneuver through the space. This study is one of many examples in how space syntax can be used to speculate how daily practice the movement of bodies, information and/or material adds to the embodied experience and may affect might that have meant for the development of social relationships? A syntactic approach ties practice to space and allows for interpretations of cultural institutions. Even though spa ce syntax reduces space in favor of a topological representation, the results from such analyses describe how differing levels of spatial integration can either encourage or restrict the flow of not only bodies but also information. As an individual naviga ting through those integrated or isolated spaces, how inclusive or

PAGE 143

125 exclusive were the activities or exchanges occurring? As one navigates through space, would local spatial logic provide important wayfinding information when navigating through a more urban setting? Space syntax has the potential to quantify these exchanges through the practice of movement by exploring such inquiries. In order to evaluate something about the guachimontn structures within the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area (LGCCA ), this research incorporates the aforementioned methods (GIS and space syntax) along with a dimensional analysis of physical attributes for the various architectural groups present. A dimensional analysis allows for a visual inspection of the guachimontn structures in regards to how architectural scale can affect human experience and elicit certain responses. GIS then allows for an investigation of how aspects of the landscape such as slope and elevation can shape an experience well before reaching the de sired destination as well as how slope and elevation can enhance or hinder the overall functionality of the site as a ceremonial center. Space syntax then allows for an examination of how movement within and between different architectural groups can lead to varying degrees of co presence and co awareness, which may lend interpretations as to the cohesiveness of the society and the experiences of its people at any given time. Adopting a phenomenological pursuit in order to investigate human experience as me diated through the guachimontn structures, the following variables have been determined useful in investigating the human experience: location, size, capacity, visibility and accessibility. It is important to note that the LGCCA is the result of nearly 6 00 years of construction and activity. Within each section of analysis, a temporal

PAGE 144

126 element will be addressed in order to illuminate how each variable may have changed over time. These variables can then be categorized in the following ways so as to develop a phenomenological narrative of the site: the approach (location and accessibility), the encounter (capacity) and the administration (visibility and size). These variables are tested from multiple perspectives: insider (corporate groups who have a sociopo litical stake not only in the construction of the circles but also the maintenance and fruition of the activities occurring), visitor (members of the society invited into the space) and outsider (first time visitors). The succeeding sections explain the da ta sources as well as different perspectives used for the investigation of architecture and human experience as well as the methods used to evaluate the aforementioned variables. Data Sources This investigation is informed by data collected from previously produced (published and unpublished) maps, excavation plans and personal photos taken of the Los Guachimontones site. During the summer of 2014, as part of an initiative to develop a database of all site maps, structural plan views and schematic drawings, it was found that many of the circles and their individual structures in fact lacked such referential data making the database for this site very incomplete (e.g. the database lacks any single map or drawing for Platform 2 of Circle I or Platform 3 of Cir cle III). Where structural data were present, these excavation plans and profile drawings served as primary sources for the extraction of dimensional data; these files were drawn and digitized to scale making data extraction consistent; however, as alluded to before,

PAGE 145

127 many structures within the site are completely without these drawings and plans. To rectify any missing structural data, I turned to a secondary source for data extraction, which arose from a former endeavor; during the same laboratory session, I had previously converted site map data, which was originally created in AutoCAD, into ArcGIS (Please see Appendix A). The shapefiles generated from this process then supplemented data where excavation plans and profile drawings were missing. There is so mething to be said about the precision of each source, however. For example, in measuring the patio side length of Platform 5 in Circle II, data extraction from the excavation plan yielded a measurement of 21.79 m while data extraction from imported data i n ArcGIS yielded a measurement of 21.46 m. Measuring the same attribute for Platform 7 from the same circle, the excavation plan yielded a measurement of 17.95 m while ArcGIS yielded a measurement of 17.75 m. The differences in these measurements, though s to impact the results of this study; therefore, measurements from the excavation plans were prioritized over ArcGIS measurements. ArcGIS measurements where used only when excavation plans an d other necessary data such as elevation were absent. Please refer to Table 5.1 for explanation of which data source was used for each structure.

PAGE 146

128 Table 5.1: Table of each structure and its data source. Circle Feature Source Excavation Plan ArcGIS Circle I Altar X Patio X Platform 1 X Platform 2 X Platform 7 X Platform 11 X Platform 12 X Elevation X Circle II Altar X Patio X Platform 1 X Platform 2 X Platform 3 X Platform 4 X Platform 5 X Platform 6 X Platform 7 X Platform 8 X Platform 9 X Platform 10 X Elevation X Circle III Altar X Patio X Platform 1 X Platform 2 X Platform 3 X Platform 8 X Elevation X Circle IV Altar X Patio X Platform 1 X Platform 2 X Platform 3 X Platform 4 X Platform 5 X Platform 6 X Platform 7 X Platform 8 X Ballcourt X Elevation X

PAGE 147

129 The Approach one prepares and embarks on their journey to the LGCCA and how one then responds upon arrival. Location and accessibility were paired so as to determine the flow and the movement of bodies and subsequently of information and material. The analysis of location specifically addresses how cos mological spatial logic informs an individual even before entering a space and how that may inform or determine the kinds of interactions created and behaviors performed. An examination of accessibility specifically addresses spatial cohesion or lack there of by demonstrating the choices that individuals today have when navigating the area in order to infer how individuals may have moved in the past. Location As explored in the previous chapter, Mesoamerican cosmovision played an active role in site plannin g and monumental construction. It sanctified the space and symbolically charged the activities and interactions taking place. Arrangement and overall location of a site and its architectural elements can provide clues as to the defining ideological princip les that may have been in place and how strictly they may have been followed. Previous work on guachimontn arrangement and orientation adds to this investigation of how location may relate to a broader cosmologic template. For example, DuVall (2008) focu ses on the orientation and directionality of the guachimontn elements in regards to astronomical events. From her analysis, DuVall (2008:216) determined that a majority of the circles found at the Los Guachimontones

PAGE 148

130 solstice sunset/winter solstice sunrise shadow (295), the zenith sunset (292), and the equinox sunset/equinox sunrise shadow Guachimontones site would suggest some sort of as sociation with astronomical phenomena, calendric prediction and timed ritual. All of which may have symbolically charged these circles; thus, eliciting certain ritualized behaviors and responses as one interacted in and around their parameters. In the face of orientation, there exists another interpretation of directionality and placement. Rather than focus on compass bearings, several other scholars have turned to elevation data in order to determine cosmological spatial logic. The people of ancient Mesoamerica did not simply view the cardinal directions in terms of north south east west orientations separated by 90 degrees around the horizon. Cosmologic representation was also realized by the topographic axis of up/down. planning t hat supports this cosmologic spatial logic also parallels elevation and northern placement of structures with elite and/or supernatural power. Mesoamerican cosmological models, in which the sacred mountain linked to the heavens (the highest point), also su ggest that public spaces are closely related to such natural features with the sacred mountain to the north side of public space.

PAGE 149

131 The choice of site location and elevation with respects to political and cosmological agendas, thus, has the potential to def ine the types of associations made spaces themselves. The question here is whether groups of circles in the LGCCA have a larger meta organization that puts bigger circl es to the north of smaller ones. To this end, I would expect to see the largest, most elaborate structures located at higher elevations than other less elaborate and smaller structures. If the structures of the LGCCA follow this logic, an individual approa ching the area would associate structures at higher elevations with elite or supernatural power making other structures more important or more sacred than others. In order to determine whether or not structures of the LGCCA further demonstrate adherence t o Mesoamerican cosmologic spatial logic, this section of analysis investigates elevation data for each of the structural groups based on the north/south up/down dichotomy. For this analysis, ArcGIS was used in order to summarize elevation data for each s tructure of the LGCCA. During the summer of 2014, I had previously imported site map data, which were originally created in AutoCAD, into ArcGIS in order to produce shapefiles for each archaeological (Circle I, Circle II, Ballcourt 1, Ballcourt 2, etc.) a nd contemporary feature (the Talleres Outreach Center, roads, protected land outline, etc.) as well as a separate shapefiles for contour data. The shapefiles generated from this process merged data obtained during excavation and restoration projects as wel l as site drawings produced by Phil Weigand so as to create a

PAGE 150

132 restored structures were not present (i.e. all features in Circle II have been restored and are present in the d to fill any structural gaps). composition, the attribute data associated with those drawings lack eleva tion statistics; because the shapefile for each structure is the final product of a previous merge, the w layer was created from only those features with workable elevations. The attribute data produced from this newly created layer were then summarized in order to obtain the minimum, maximum and average elevation of the platforms and central altar for each circle group. The same process was followed in order to extract elevation data for Ballcourt. Each architectural group will be compared in regards to its direct neighbor in accordance to the site construction chronology presented in Chapter 2 and in regard s to the final morphology of the LGCCA. Architectural groups will then be tested against the idea that tall groups should be on the north. Accessibility: Cost and Spatial Configuration Dawson (2002) claims that spaces are usually connected in such a mann er that causes the distribution of connectivity and integration throughout the structure to fluctuate making some areas more accessible than others. According to Nielsen at are naturally difficult to reach to the construction of fences, walls, doorways,

PAGE 151

133 valued resources or prevent social interaction. This serves to regulate interactions amo ngst inhabitants as well as between inhabitants and visitors or elite and non elite groups. By placing restrictions or barriers on space, spatial segmentation or isolation becomes an important aspect of power seeking strategies. Spatial accessibility or l ack thereof is a powerful determinant of the kinds of people able to venture to the site or allowed to enter the various spaces, of the kinds of interactions that may then form and the level of isolation or integration of not only people but also of knowle dge and experience. So as to gain a more complete picture of how movement was directed, the issue of accessibility was addressed using both space syntax and GIS applications. GIS can account for space as three dimensional addressing cost distance (energy e xpenditure) while space syntax then breaks down the LGCCA into sets of choices and pathways addressing space integration or isolation. Both methods, through computed separately, are used in concert to discuss the site as a whole to then bring about a discu ssion of how accessibility may have changed throughout its history and what that would have meant for the people in the area. In order to evaluate something about energy expenditure or to determine how demanding the journey to the LGCCA may have been, GIS was employed to investigate how topography plays a role in the overall access of the site and its components. Topography and monument construction go hand in hand. According to Smith (1999:52), topography is a crucial local dimension of subject state archi tectonics in that

PAGE 152

134 a given area. In mapping out the natural and physical f eatures of a landscape, contour lines serve as the greatest distinguishing features and units of analysis. Spatial configuration and access to pathways to a site and/or leading to structures within that site can be made more difficult or can be completely obstructed in the presence of sudden changes in elevation. Sudden changes in elevation may signify a mountain side or cliff, which could potentially make traveling to these structures very demanding or impossible. For a cost distance analysis to work, lan dscape or elevation data must be in raster form. Each layer (Ballcourt 1, Circle I, Circle II, Circle III, Circle IV and Contours) was merged to make one all inclusive layer that contained all elevation data. The ArcGIS extension 3D Analyst has tools for e xamining elevation data in 3D and for creating surface models from which more exact raster data can be generated called TINS (triangulated irregular networks). TINS use contour lines and other data sources in order to triangulate or fill in any gaps within the contour and elevation dataset. Figure 5.5 illustrates the transition from vector data to TIN. Finally, the TIN was converted into raster with a cell size of 1 m2. A cell size of 13 m 2 is typically the default, but the triangulation of the surface data allows for a more exact analysis of space meaning that a smaller cell size prompts for higher resolution and higher feature spatial accuracy. the slope of the area as the rate of maximum change in z value from each raster cell to

PAGE 153

135 the next. I would expect that areas with a greater rate of change in slope to produce Figure 5.5: Conversion of 3D (left) vector da ta to TIN surface (right). The slope raster then served as the basis for the cost distance analysis. Because it is impossible to know exactly where individuals may have begun their journey to the Los Guachimontones site, this investigation relies on more ethnographic information. Today, entry to the site begins from the modern town of Teuchitln as traffic is corralled into using a single road. By creating an entry point (new feature class) representing the accumulative cost distance for each cell to the nearest source of a cost surface. In this case, how costly the journey to the LGCCA is from the starting point. The average cost of each architectural group will then be plotted against each other. From this analysis, I would expect that architectural groups with higher elevations and greater rates of change in slope would have been more physically demanding to reach than others with lower rates of change in slope. A ddressing spatial configuration once the LGCCA has been reached, two space syntax platforms were utilized: AGRAPH and JASS. AGRAPH is a PC application for drawing graphs and for executing syntactic calculations. These graphs can be drawn

PAGE 154

136 atop imported back ground images such as floor plans and maps. From those graphs, AGRAPH calculates basic space syntax parameters: Connectivity, Control Value (CV), Total Depth (TD), Mean Depth (MD) and the integration value (i). As synthesized by Manum et al.. (2005:98), th e parameters are calculated using the following formulas: 1. Connectivity of a node is the total number of links drawn to/from it and represents the degree of choice or alternate pathways; 2. The Control Values (CV) are found by letting each node give the total value of 1 equally distributed to its connected nodes. The Control Value of node n, CV(n), is the total value received by node n during this operation; 3. Total Depth of a node n, TD(n), is the total of the shortest distances from node n to the other nodes i n the systems; 4. Mean Depth for a node n is the average depth (or average shortest distance) from node n to all the other nodes. If k is the total number of nodes in the system, then MD(n)=TD(n)/(k 1); and 5. Integration Value: A parameter that describes integration (i). The integration value is found by inverting the RA, i=1/RA5. JASS is another PC application used in the analysis of convex spaces. In its core, it is a node to node graph analysis program that calculates syntactic parameters much like AGR APH; however, JASS was strictly used to generate a justified graph a graphic depiction of the calculations generated by AGRAPH. Both tools are designed to understand social processes within the built environment and can work at a variety of scales from s ingle buildings to whole landscapes. For each of the AGRAPH and JASS analyses, a .jpeg image of the central area was imported to serve as the backdrop or reference which then guided the placement of the various nodes and their connections. Once again, usi ng ethnographic information, the syntactic parameters were calculated and justified graphs were created was placed

PAGE 155

137 where the pedestrian sidewalk ends entering the site. Each struct ural element (the different platforms, the banquettes between them, the patio, the central altar, etc.) then was represented by a separate node while the links between them were represented by lines. Links were drawn only between nodes where access ways ar e known to exist. For a review of where these access ways are located, please see Chapter 2 (i.e. Platform 1 of Circle I lacks patio side access; therefore, access to the patio is reached via the banquette between platforms 1 and 12). Additionally, a node was placed to represent the open area that is east of Circle III and south of Circle I as it provided a critical avenue of access in this area. Figure 5.6 represents the completed AGRAPH node to tactic parameters are then calculated. Figure 5.6: Completed AGRAPH node to node graph showing all spaces and links drawn between them with site map set as guiding background.

PAGE 156

138 Based on the results derived from the AGRAPH analysis, the syntactic paramete rs will be evaluated in the followings ways when the site is compared as a whole: 1. Connectivity: a higher value is indicative of a higher level of choice than a lower value; 2. A high control value indicates that the space in question facilitates and guides mu ch of the traffic into other spaces; 3. a space that requires more steps to reach and is less integrated while a lower depth indicates a a space that requires less steps to reach and is more integrated; 4. A higher mean depth is indicative of a more segregated space while a lower mean depth indicates a more integrated space; and 5. A high number indicates a space that is highly integrated Given these evaluations, I would expect spaces that are mor e integrated than others to allow for high levels of movement encouraging high levels of co awareness and co presence. In turn, I would expect spaces that are highly integrated into the spatial fabric of the site to produce similar experiences for those in teracting within and around them. On the other hand, I would expect spaces that are less integrated than others to define the presence of more private and exclusionary communities. The results from the AGRAPH analysis will then allow for assessment of site observations o recognizability of the guachimontn motif as found at the Los Guachimontones site. Intelligibility is measured by the correlation between the relationships that a particular

PAGE 157

139 space sha res with neighboring spaces as measured by connectivity and the relationship of the spatial pattern as a whole as measured by integration (Hillier et al.., 1987). A higher correlation between connectivity and integration means more intelligibility of the e ntire system of spaces under consideration. Functioning as a major ceremonial site, I would expect the LGCCA to represent an intelligible spatial pattern so that visitors and outsiders alike would be able to navigate the landscape and act appropriately. Th e Encounter as one immerses oneself in and observes the activities taking place. Capacity addresses the constitutive nature of the site as a public ceremonial center accounting for how ma ny people, visitors and outsiders alike would have been invited or allowed into the space. Additionally, by addressing capacity, I aim to address the level to which collective experiences and identities could have been formed. Capacity The manipulation o f capacity represents another way in which architectural design can be used to create social order and lived experiences. Capacity refers to the maximum number of people permitted to participate in or to witness the activities that take place (Nielsen 1995 ). According to Chapdelaine (2002), capacity is indicative of a be an effective determinant of how public or private the activities and interactions taking place are; likewise, Moore (1996) claims that capacity is a strong indication of group cohesion and/or segregation. Structures with large capacities are said to make

PAGE 158

140 ideal theatrical states and are arenas that strongly reify social identities. According to Peponis an d Winean (2002), collective identity is formed on a pattern of co awareness and co presence. Large spaces encourage observation of the interplay between individuals, the activities and the institutions that exist. Structures with large capacities, thus, e ncourage high levels of co presence. Co presence is the patterning, timing and causation of material in movement. This extends not only to face to face relations but also to the face to material and material to material co presence of forms relating to mov ement. By co awareness I mean the concurrence of material presences which move together generating shared knowledge. Investigating the potential restrictions placed on guachimont n circles in fact built for public activity? If public spaces spaces with large capacities encourage high levels of co presence, could collective identity and experience been achieved? Archaeologically, it may not be possible to determine capacity exa ctly; however, structure size along with other contextual data can produce rough calculations. Moore (1996), in studying the public plazas of the Yanomamo villages, mentions the estimated space required for an individual when engaging in ritualized action ranged from 0.46 to 26.1 m2/person. The lower number implies a tightly packed space with little space for movement while the higher number would leave ample room for the person to maneuver. Inomata (2006), in studying the public plazas at Tikal, Copan and Aguateca, claims that the figure of 26.1 m2/person is much too large a number and an unreasonable figure for assessing Mesoamerican urban settings; therefore, he argues

PAGE 159

141 that a range of .46 to 3.6 m2/person is much better suited for built environments wit 2006:812). In order to assess the approximate capacities of the guachimontn circles, this to other contemporaneous Mesoamerican centers. Given that the platforms within the different circles were arguably under the control of a single corporate group, they wo uld not have provided critical theatrical space for mass amounts of people to gather. For that reason, the public space under investigation here is the patio. The patio would have been where the public was invited to gather and witness the events taking pl ace much like the open plaza spaces observed at other Mesoamerican ceremonial centers. Although the patios of the four circles within the LGCCA were built as single constructions, the presence of the Central Pyramid atop them renders a portion of the pati o inaccessible for public gathering; therefore, area of exposed patio (average area of patio as a whole minus average area of Central Pyramid) was then calculated using the s and areas on a map provided that the vector data is drawn and/or imported to scale. Once the area of each patio has been determine, it was then evaluated against each figure. To better get a sense of the public nature of their circles and how their capac ities then relate to the population it may have served, each result will then be evaluated against population data for the Teuchitln habitational zone. This is provided by

PAGE 160

142 Beekman and Heredia (in press), which is for the Tequila II, III and IV phases comb ined based upon artifact distribution. They used 10 25 persons/ha as the range for the population density. That data is presented in the table below (Table 5.2).If the structures of the LGCCA are truly public domains, I would expect a high percentage of th e population to be incorporated into the space encouraging high levels of co awareness and co presence. Table 5.2: Population Data for Teuchitln habitation zone for Tequila II, Tequila III and Tequila IV phases. Size/ha Mean pop Min pop Max pop 365.83 6402.03 3658.30 9145.76 The Administration actively facilitates and manipulates the lived experience of others in order to construct and maintain power; however, it is approached from the perspective of the visitor fold: the area of visual space of the patio side face of the platforms and the adherence components of the architecture (please see Chapter II). The analysis of size looks into the area of perceived space of the platforms in order to determine if size is indicative of power dynamics. This analysis also seeks to determine whether the platforms were built upon varying construction principles, perhaps guided by power seeking strategies, or upon more cohesive foundations. Visibility then takes on the direct perspective of the insider in order to

PAGE 161

143 determine whether there were privileged seating or v iewing areas within the site, and what that may have meant for the viewing or displaying of activities and/or people. Size : Visual Area and Proportionality Structural dimensions such as size are inherently static spatial parameters that can highlight patterns of the centralization or the distribution of power. According to Joye and Verpooten (2013), monumental architecture exploits the sensitivity for bigness 1990:120). The increasing size of structures has been widely assumed to reflect a tendency towa rds the centralization of power. The scale of monumental architecture has been used to reveal vertical relations within past societies in order to identify the type of chiefly organization (Renfrew 1974; Bradley 1984; Kirch 1990). Integral to such approach es is an assumption that the dimensions of monumental structures reflect the relationship between different socio political groups (Clark and Martinsson Wallin 2007). It can be employed to reconstruct the settlement hierarchy (Kirch 1988; Green 2002; Asaua 2005). By evaluating the area of visual space and proportionality of each structure within the guachimontn compounds, uniformities and/or discrepancies in the underlying symmetry principles can be assessed. These uniformities and/or discrepancies can be used to illuminate any disproportions in political power and how they may come about. The following measurements were gathered for the various investigations: 1. Length of base patio side platform

PAGE 162

144 2. Length of top patio side platform (if different from base) 3. De pth of entire platform (if defined) 4. Diameter of entire compound (measured from Platform 1 to opposite corresponding platform) The first investigation of size looks into the area of visual space for each of the platforms. By visual space, I mean the extent to which a viewer perceives the face (or patio facing side) of the various platforms standing atop the patio (Figure 5.7). Given that some platforms, from the perspective of an individual viewing the platforms from the patio, were built as one level platfo rms (e.g. Platform 7 of Circle I), the area of visual space was calculated using the formula for rectangle area length x width. Conversely, platforms that were constructed with several levels or terraced platforms (e.g. Platform 3 of Circle II), the area of visual space was calculated using the formula for parallelogram area, meaning that elevation data (or height data) also needed to be gathered for each platform. Elevation data was gathered using ArcGIS by obtaining the minimum and maximum elevation for each structure and calculating the difference.

PAGE 163

145 Figure 5.7: Drawing of an observer atop the patio viewing the face of a platform. Produced by K. Hollon. 2015. The second investigation of size looks into proportionality as it pertains to whether or not competing ideas amongst the different corporate groups manifested materially. In order to determine if guachimontn proportionality was as strict of a rule Chapter II fo r an in depth discussion of the proportionality rule) in order to determine the diameter of the guachimontn complex that particular platform fits into. This value was then evaluated against the actual diameter of the entire compound in order to determine any discrepancies.

PAGE 164

146 Visibility (e.g. Aldenderfer and Maschner 1996; Bauer et al.. 2004; Casana 2003; Howey 2007; Kosiba and Bauer 2013; Lake and Woodman 2003; Williams and Nash 2006). The term t only inform, structure and organize the location and form of cultural features, but also to choreograph practice within and the activity as well as an attempt to u nderstand the permeability of a structure within a given area. The visual characteristics of a structure can be highly localized and highly controlled: The visual organization and structuring engendered by these past acts of seeing and looking can be with in respect to (i) other contemporaneous or pre existing sites and monuments (ii) natural components of the environment (iii) the positions of heavenly bodies and astronomical phenomenon or (iv) all of the above (Wheatley and Gillings 2000:3) Architectural visibility can work towards incorporating a wider audience a structure is seen from a long distance and its elements are easily defined and recognizable as well as the activities and the people participating or orchestrating the activity within the stru ctures while lack thereof can function as a way of excluding people from other people, objects, actions or information its elements less identifiable. Site visibility can also subject these structures, act ivities or people to display or surveillance (Foucault 1977). By display, I mean that structures, people and activities can be seen from a wide range, yet visibility within those

PAGE 165

147 structures, of those activities and from the perspective of those people is o bstructed. Surveillance means that a group of structures and/or people can see a wider view of other structures, people and activities than other groups. area that can be seen from a given point ( outward viewshed ) and the areas from which a given point can be seen ( inward viewshed geographical area that is visible from a location. It includes all surrounding points that are in line of sight with that location and excludes points that are beyond the horizon or obstructed by terrain and other features (e.g., buildings, trees). The viewshed method is a standard technique in most GIS packages today. It is used to calculate which locations in a digital elevation model (DEM) can be connected by means of an uninterrupted straight line to a viewpoint location within any specified distance (Llobera 2003) for example, from which platforms is Circle II visible or what will the view be from the C entral Pyramid of Circle I? For this analysis, ArcGIS was used in order to generate the necessary viewshed analyses. Before initiating the viewshed analysis, two necessary steps must be taken. ArcMap representing the observation points for each circular compound (i.e. the central placed at the midpoint of each structure so as to better represent the entire extent of the structure. Because viewshed analyses take into account the topography of a landscape, these points not only include x and y coordinates but also need to include Z

PAGE 166

148 (or elevation) data. The average elevation for each observ ation point was obtained by summarizing elevation data from the attribute tables of each structure. Second, landscape or elevation data must be in raster form. For that reason, the same raster that was generated during the GIS analysis of cost distance was used as the foundation for the viewshed tests. From there, the viewshed analysis was ran for each observer point in order to produce visibility maps. The output for each test illustrates the viewshed of the central area from each point, and percent visibi lity was then dataset. From this, I would expect Circle I, being the largest circle to have greater site visibility than the other circles. Likewise, I would expect that Circle I would be able to be seen from all other structures. It is important to note, however, that the observation points placed atop the platforms, do not account for the superstructures that once existed. As mentioned before, little is known about these structures in terms of height; therefore, the results from this analysis do not speak to absolute truths; rather, they generate a discussion of privileged seating and viewing areas and of surveillance and display. Concluding Thoughts The methods used to in this research are rooted in the desire to make phenomenological approaches in archaeology replicable and grounded on methodological rigor (i.e. GIS and space syntax). Phenomenology asks for a reflexive relationship between the past a nd the present. Though a true sense of the past

PAGE 167

149 environment cannot be ascertained from the map data used in this study, the variables chosen and their accompanying methods seek to provide a methodological package, which can be applied to other ceremonial s ites within the Teuchitln culture. By linking contemporary accounts with the results presented in the following chapter, I seek to generate a more complete narrative of how the physical and cultural landscape of the LGCCA was developed and maintained so a s to instill social order and lived experiences.

PAGE 168

150 Chapter VI RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The purpose of this research was to investigate how architecture is used in facilitating the human experience and in reifying a social order by specifically a ddressing the ways in which the architectural program of the Teuchitln culture. This was accomplished by analyzing the central ceremonial area of the site Los Guachimontones. Presented below are the results of the variables chosen for this research. By in vestigating how the LGCCA was approached and encountered as well as how the activities and the people were under guided administration, this study seeks to develop a narrative for the individuals approaching the area and engaging in the activities as well as for the individuals who may have held a political stake in the construction and overall functionality of the ceremonial site. The Approach Location The purpose of this section of analysis was to examine the cosmological spatial logic of the LGCCA foll owing the north/south, up/down dichotomy. The results of this cosmovision that may have determined the location of the site during the decision making process and that may have engendered preconceive d notions about how one was to appropriately behave and respond as one entered the space and became emerged in the activities occurring. This section follows the assumption that the largest, most elaborate of structures tend to occupy elevated landscapes a nd/or is constructed to impressive heights. Likewise,

PAGE 169

151 smaller structures and ballcourts are typically located on more level or lower terrain concentrating in the southern portions of sites. Following the pan Mesoamerican view, north is associated with the sky or celestial world rendering sacred the structures, complexes and sites. Sacral affiliation may also be defined by the presence of a mountain to the north. South is then associated with the underworld. The site of Los Guachimontones is located northea st of the modern day town of Teuchitln, Jalisco, Mexico. A single road leads up to the site, which rests atop a foothill field system. The town below rests at an elevation of 1,268 masl while the elevation of the LGCCA varies from 1,357 to 1,381 masl (Ele vation data taken from ArcGIS). Taking into account the ancient Mesoamerican cosmologic view of the manner in which a approximately 100 m above the town of Teuchitln, suggests that a traveler, before associated the site with the sacred mountain aspect. Likewise, the choice of location for the various architectural groups found within the LG CCA seem to demonstrate a consideration of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision To review (Table 6.1), Circle I is the largest within the entire site with a diameter of 124 m and has 12 platforms. Circle II is 99.1 m in diameter and has 10 platforms. Circle III and IV have 8 platforms each; however, they vary in their diameters. Circl e III is 86.2 m in diameter, and Circle IV is 55.24 m in diameter. Additionally, Ballcourt 1 is 86.9 m long sharing platforms between Circles I and II.

PAGE 170

152 Table 6.1: Review of Structure Dimensions. Diameter (m) Circle I 124 Circle II 99.1 Circle III 86.2 Circle IV 55.24 Ballcourt 86.9 (meters long) Figure 6.1 describes the average elevations for each of the LGCCA architectural groups: Circle I, Ballcourt I, Circle II, Circle III and Circle IV. When comparing each architectural group to its neighb or, the elevation data does seem to support a Mesoamerican cosmovision of the north/south, up/down dichotomy. Construction of Circle I began alongside Ballcourt 1 in ca. 160 BC, continuing until AD 1 with expansions beginning thereafter until AD 50. Not on ly do these structures share similar construction histories and several platforms between them, elevation data suggest that the relationship Circle I shares with Ballcourt 1 is rooted within a deeper cosmologic spatial logic. Being that the average elevati on for Circle I and Ballcourt 1 differs only by 3.44 masl, these structures demonstrate a north/south, up/down relationship.

PAGE 171

153 Figure 6.1: Average elevations for each structure within the LGCCA. Construction of Circle II began during the expansion of Ballcourt 1 in AD 40 continuing until AD 100. Though these two structures do share platforms, they do not share the same cosmologic spatial logic as Ballcourt 1 and Circle I do. The average elevation for Ballcourt 1 is 1.29 masl greater than the average el evation for Circle II. This would suggest that the construction of Circle II may have not been considered in the same manner as Circle I may have been. In face of this, elevation data for Circle II does demonstrate the manifestation of the up/down relation with Circle III. Construction of Circle III began during the expansion period of Circle II (AD 100 140) and continued until AD 175. Sharing a platform between them, the average elevations for Circle II is 1365.16 masl and for Circle III is 1364.79. Given that elevation data for the four remaining platforms in Circle III are either missing or incomplete, I would expect the true average elevation of Circle III to be lower than what is provided here. Despite this, the elevation data does support the idea that the more elaborate and larger architectural group possess the higher elevation. Circle I 1370.60 Ballcourt 1367.16 Circle II 1365.87 Circle III 1364.79 Circle IV 1368.76 1361.00 1362.00 1363.00 1364.00 1365.00 1366.00 1367.00 1368.00 1369.00 1370.00 1371.00 1372.00 Circle I Ballcourt Circle II Circle III Circle IV Average Elevation (masl) Average Elevations for LGCCA Structures

PAGE 172

154 Furthermore, the pan association with natural features. Circle I is located at the base of a foothill to the northeas t; to the southwest of the site, by the town of Teuchitln, is Lake Presa de la Vega. If turned on its side with a southwestern northeastern orientation, the site itself represents the human world with the foothill representing the boundary to the sky an d the lake below representing the boundary to the underworld. In comparison to its neighbor, the up/down relationship is also demonstrated between Circle IV and Ballcourt 1. Construction of Circle IV commenced shortly after the expansion of Ballcourt 1 and continued until AD 100. Being the smallest of the four circles, it is the second most elevated architectural group within the LGCCA based on its average elevation. Though the average elevation of Circle IV and Ballcourt 1 only differs by 1.6 masl, the bal Summary of Location Analysis As a traveler embarks on his journey to the site, knowledge about its location as well as the placement of architectural groups within the LGCCA could have gener ated important wayfinding information as one is reminded of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision Based on the elevation data presented above, the following assumptions can be made: 1) in association with the modern town of Teuchitln, from which travelers t Mesoamerican cosmovision ; 2) the architectural groups found within the LGCCA also exhibit an up/down, north/south arrangement, specifically in regards to their direct neighbor; how ever, 3) as the largest circle at the site, Circle I has the highest average

PAGE 173

155 elevation to a traveler, and shares this up/down relations with all architectural groups within the central ceremonial area. Even today, as tourists visit the site, the location of the site atop the town of Teuchitln invokes a certain level of significance and regard for the site. Accessibility: Cost and Spatial Configuration The second component of this section of analysis focuses on the accessibility of the LGCCA by examining both the topography of the region and the syntactic parameters as defined by Hillier and Hanson: integration, depth, control value and connectivity. This investigation follows the assumption that the accessibility of a site and its components can either en courage or hinder social interaction and the acquisition of knowledge. The first analysis examines the cost distance of the landscape as one travels from the town below to the site located atop a foothill. Cost Distance Figure 6.2 represents the rate of c hange in slope as one moves across the landscape. As seen from this map, there are several drastic changes in slope that must be overcome in order to reach the site. Areas highlighted in bright red signify the greatest changes in slope (a rate change of 30 40%); conversely, areas in dark green represent smoother transitions in slope of a rate of change (0 2.7%). The majority of the landscape changes in slope at 12 % or below; however, the presence of three significant rises in the degree of slope make the j ourney to the site more difficult to overcome. Informed by the slope data presented above, the cost distance analysis converts these

PAGE 174

156 transitions in topography into traveling costs so as to better relate this all back to the overall experience of the journe y to the LGCCA. Figure 6.2: Results of Slope Analysis indicating the modern town of Teuchitln and the rural road used to access the site. Table 6.2 presents the results of the cost distance analysis while Figure 6.3 is the graphic representation of th is information. It is important to note that the values provided do not represent distance traveled, calories burned, etc. They merely reflect the level to which the cost of travel varies. As one embarks on the journey to the site, cost is at 0. As an indi vidual encounters the various shifts in slope, the cost distance exiting the road is an enormous 6118.94. From the starting point, the most costly of guachimontn structures is Circle I with an average cost distance of 6649.22. The least costly is Circle I II with a minimum cost distance of 6202.07. Ballcourt 1, in comparison, is

PAGE 175

157 the second most costly structure to reach. In comparison, cost of travel within the architectural groups is exceedingly less costly than the journey to the LGCCA. Table 6.2: Results of cost distance analysis Feature Minimum Cost Maximum Cost Average Cost Cost Within Architectural Group Road 0 6118.94 2610.6 6118.94 Circle I 6397.14 7071.97 6649.22 674.83 Circle II 6089.79 6570.78 6250.94 480.99 Circle III 6112.75 6335.33 6202.07 222.58 Circle IV 6153.25 6498.2 6344.79 344.95 Ballcourt 1 6252.82 6494.72 6361.63 241.9 Total Averages 6201.15 6594.2 6361.73 393.05 Figure 6.3: Results of Cost Distance Analysis from the modern town of Teuchitln to the LGCCA.

PAGE 176

158 Summary of Cost Analysis. Based on the cost distance analysis, the following assumptions can be made about the journey to the site from the modern town of Teuchitln: 1) the entire journey is an extremely costly one; 2) Circle I is the most costly (least attractive) of architectural groups to reach; while 3) Circle III is the least costly (most attractive) of the architectural groups; however, 4) once the site is reached, cost on their journey to the site from the town of Teuchitln, walking up to the site is physically exhausting. Individuals may need to stop and take a break while others use this as their daily exercise. Though the opportunity to take advantage of modern tran sportation is present, the parking lot is located approximately 500 meters away from the LGCCA which leaves a considerably daunting journey left. The journey to the LGCCA is typically followed by a break and the exchange of water jugs. Once the LGCCA is re ached, walking around between circles is physically easy. Spatial Configuration The second portion of this analysis then employs space syntax methods to determine movement once one reaches the LGCCA and how integrated or isolated the spatial units are giv en the current morphology of the site. Using the techniques developed by Hillier and Hanson, we see that the LGCCA has sixty two nodes (including the root node) and that there are seven syntactic steps between the root node and the deepest node (Node 21). Following the justified graph generated for the site (Figure 6.4), the visual representation of the connections drawn between the various spatial units, movement begins as one exits the rural road and into

PAGE 177

159 the site. From there, an individual would have a v ariety of choices or alternative pathways to use in order to freely move about the site or to reach a particular destination. From the road, an individual could easily access three different architectural groups: Circle II, Circle III, Circle IV or Ballcou rt 1. By entering any of the circles through their banquettes, the subsequent platforms, their banquettes, patios and central altars could then be reached. Access to Circle I is only gained by entering other spatial groups first.

PAGE 178

160 Figure 6.4: Justified gr aph of LGCCA indicating all connections.

PAGE 179

161 Key: Blue = Circle I, Green = Circle II, Yellow = Circle III, Orange = Circle IV, Red = Ballcourt 1, Black = Open Area and Grey = Road 0 Road, 1 Open Area, 2 CIIIP8, 3 CIIP5/CIIIP1, 4 CIIIP2, 5 CIIIP3, 6 CIIIPATIO, 7 CIIICA, 8 CIIP6, 9 CIIP7, 10 CIIP8, 11 CIIP9, 12 CIIP10, 13 CIIP1, 14 CIIP2, 15 CIIP3, 16 CIIP4, 17 BC1P, 18 BC1, 19 CIVP1, 20 CIP2, 21 CIP1, 22 CIP12, 23 CIP11, 24 CIP7, 25 CIPATIO, 26 CICA, 27 CIICA, 28 CIIPATIO, 29 CIVP2, 30 CIVP3, 31 CIVP4, 32 CIVP5, 33 CIVP6, 34 CIVP7, 35 CIVP8, 36 CIVPATIO, 37 CIVCA, 38 CIB2 3, 39 CIB1 2, 40 CIB12 1, 41 CIB11 12, 42 CIIB5 6/CIIIB8 1, 43 CIIB4 5/CIIIB1 2, 44 CIIIB2 3, 45 CIIIB3 4, 46 CIIB6 7, 47 CIIB7 8, 48 CIIB8 9, 49 CIIB9 10, 50 CIIP10, 51 CIIB1 2, 52 CIIB2 3, 53 CIIB3 4, 54 CIVB2 3, 55 CIVB3 4, 56 CIVB4 5, 57 CIVB5 6, 58 CIVB6 7, 59 CIVB7 8, 60 CIVB8 1, 61 CIVB1 2 The table below (Table 6.3) lists the connectivity levels, control values, total and mean depths and the integration values for each architectural or spatial unit within the LGCCA. In review, connectivity describes the total number of links drawn to/from a particular unit and represents the degree of choice or alternate pathways an individual may take in order to reach a desired destination; a higher fi gure indicates a high level of choice. For spaces that are less connected, one has to get navigate the area through purposive action as opposed to accident. The Control Values (CV) describe the level to which access to other spatial units is mediated by a particular unit; control values above 1 indicate a space in which control is particularly strong. Total Depth (TD) of a spatial unit then describes the total of the shortest distances from node n to the other nodes in the system; comparatively, a high mea n depth is indicative of a more segregated space while a low mean depth indicates a more integrated space. Mean Depth (MD) for a node is the average depth (or average shortest distance) from that particular space to all the other nodes; the values are eval uated much like Total Depth. Lastly, Integration (i) describes the level to which a spatial unit is integrated into the entire system; a high integration value indicates a space that is highly integrated where a low integration

PAGE 180

162 value indicates a space that is more isolated. Integration is indicative of the inclusiveness or segregation of space as well as the privatization of space. Table 6.3: Results of AGRAPH calculations for each spatial unit in the LGCCA system. Node Number Feature Connectivity Control V alue Total Depth Mean Depth Integration 0 Road 12 4.41 176 2.88 15.91 1 Open Area 11 4.53 212 3.47 12.11 2 CIIIP8 2 0.25 212 3.47 12.11 3 CIIP5/CIIIP1 3 0.43 202 3.31 12.97 4 CIIIP2 2 0.25 237 3.88 10.39 5 CIIIP3 2 0.42 260 4.26 9.19 6 CIIIPATIO 6 2.7 209 3.42 12.36 7 CIIICA 1 0.16 269 4.4 8.79 8 CIIP6 3 0.31 193 3.16 13.86 9 CIIP7 2 0.31 220 3.6 11.5 10 CIIP8 2 0.5 252 4.13 9.58 11 CIIP9 2 0.58 253 4.14 9.53 12 CIIP10 1 0.33 300 4.91 7.65 13 CIIP1 2 0.66 296 4.85 7.78 14 CIIP2 1 0.33 300 4.91 7.65 15 CIIP3 2 0.42 247 4.04 9.83 16 CIIP4 3 0.6 224 3.67 11.22 17 BC1P 1 0.25 258 4.22 9.28 18 BC1 4 1.75 198 3.24 13.35 19 CIVP1 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 20 CIP2 1 0.14 283 4.63 8.24 21 CIP1 1 0.33 310 5.08 7.34 22 CIP12 2 0.42 246 4.03 9.89 23 CIP11 2 0.42 249 4.08 9.73 24 CIP7 1 0.14 283 4.63 8.24 25 CIPATIO 7 5 223 3.65 11.29 26 CICA 1 0.14 283 4.63 8.24 27 CIICA 1 0.06 244 4 10 28 CIIPATIO 15 5.53 184 3.01 14.87 29 CIVP2 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 30 CIVP3 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 31 CIVP4 2 0.14 200 3.27 13.16 32 CIVP5 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 33 CIVP6 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 34 CIVP7 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 35 CIVP8 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 36 CIVPATIO 17 13.66 203 3.32 12.88 37 CIVCA 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05

PAGE 181

163 Table 6.3 Cont. Node Number Feature Connectivity Control Value Total Depth Mean Depth Integration 38 CIB2 3 3 0.97 222 3.63 11.36 39 CIB1 2 1 0.14 283 4.63 8.24 40 CIB12 1 3 1.64 250 4.09 9.68 41 CIB11 12 3 0.73 221 3.62 11.43 42 CIIB5 6/CIIIB8 1 6 1.48 185 3.03 14.75 43 CIIB4 5/CIIIB1 2 5 0.99 204 3.34 12.79 44 CIIIB2 3 2 0.25 237 3.88 10.39 45 CIIIB3 4 3 0.75 236 3.86 10.45 46 CIIB6 7 2 0.15 199 3.26 13.26 47 CIIB7 8 4 1.15 196 3.21 13.55 48 CIIB8 9 4 1.15 195 3.19 13.65 49 CIIB9 10 3 0.65 197 3.22 13.45 50 CIIP10 3 1.56 240 3.93 10.22 51 CIIB1 2 3 1.56 240 3.93 10.22 52 CIIB2 3 3 0.65 209 3.42 12.36 53 CIIB3 4 3 0.49 209 3.42 12.36 54 CIVB2 3 2 0.14 200 3.27 13.16 55 CIVB3 4 2 0.14 200 3.27 13.16 56 CIVB4 5 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 57 CIVB5 6 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 58 CIVB6 7 1 0.05 263 4.31 9.05 59 CIVB7 8 2 0.39 229 3.75 10.89 60 CIVB8 1 3 0.64 203 3.32 12.88 61 CIVB1 2 3 0.39 198 3.24 13.35 Mean 226.61 0.09 236.64 3.87 10.81 The road, as the root node for the LGCCA system, is the most integrated space within the entire system. It is where movement begins and where an individual would then initiate the decision making process of how to move throughout the area either freely or with a destination in mind. The results indicate that the most integrated patio within the LGCCA is found within Circle II. With a total depth of 184, an integration of 15.91 and a control value of 4.41, the patio would have encouraged high levels of movem ent or, traffic. The most integrated platform is also found within this circle. With

PAGE 182

164 3 spatial connections, a total depth of 193 and an integration value of 13.86, Platform 6 is the most integrated platform in the central ceremonial area. With an integrati on value of 11.29, 7 connections and a total depth of 223, this space would have encouraged movement traffic of bodies, materials and information. The least integrated patio is also found within Circle I and is the most isolated spatial unit within the fin al system. With an integration value of 7.34 and a total depth of 310, access to Platform 1 was greatly regulated suggesting a privatization of power. Alternatively, table 6.4 presents the average syntactic parameters for the major architectural groups wit hin the LGCCA. The most isolated circle within the area is Circle I. Access to this circle is achieved by navigating through the other structures. Once the only guachimontn structure in the LGCCA, access to this circle was only obstructed to the northeast by the base of a foothill and to the southwest by the ballcourt. With the constructions of Circles II and IV, access to this circle was then achieved through Circle II, Circle III and the ballcourt or by navigating completely around Circle II. Access to C ircle I around Circle IV was and still is difficult with drastic changes in slope. Construction of Circle III then makes direct access to Circle I very difficult as the parameter of Circle III borders yet another drastic change in landscape. To this end, a s the morphology of the site changed with the addition of new guachimontn structures, access to Circle I became more and more complicated as an individual now had to navigate through opposing structures to reach the circle. Despite subsequent construction phases, Circle II, since its inauguration, would have remained the most integrated circle in the central

PAGE 183

165 ceremonial area. With an integration value of 11.5, access to Circle II can be achieved directly from the modern rural road. Table 6.4: Average syntactic parameters for the major architectural groups within the LGCCA. Feature Connectivity Control Value Mean Depth Integration Ballcourt 2.5 1 3.73 11.315 Circle I 2.27 0.92 4.25 9.43 Circle II 3.32 0.9 3.71 11.5 Circle III 3.33 0.83 3.71 11.34 Circle IV 2.33 0.89 3.94 10.5 Summary of Spatial Configuration Analysis. Since the syntactic parameters do not account for linear distance or indicate changes in the physical landscape, we must always refer back to slope and elevation data so as to better support the claims made. As additional structures were added to the morph ology of the LGCCA, direct access to Circle I was made difficult as Circle III and Circle IV border significant shifts in slope. These boundaries guided the placement of links drawn between each node and shaped the syntactic results presented above. From t he space syntax analysis, the following assumptions can be made: 1) as construction at the LGCCA incorporated more and more structures, Circle I became the most isolated architectural group; 2) with Circle II sharing many connections with the road (the roo t node), it is the most integrated architectural group; and 3) Circles III and IV, as moderately integrated spaces, would have fostered additional movement within the site allowing visitors to reach the more segregated units. Today, as visitors move about the site, they too must go through other structures in order to reach the more segregated structures. Circle II is usually the first stop. From there, people have the choice to either continue to Circle III, to the open plaza to the

PAGE 184

166 east, the ballcourt or Circle IV. Given this, access to Circle I is not obtainable. The visitor must move through secondary spaces in order to finally reach Circle I. The placement of later circles next to topographic barriers may have been deliberate. This may have been the res ult of the privatization of power. With access to Circle I impeded even today, visitors sense that Circle I is more important than other structures within the LGCCA. The Encounter Capacity This portion of the study examines the public nature of the differ ent compounds by determining approximate audience size. Structures with large capacities are said to make ideal theatrical arenas that strongly reify social dynamics and collective social identity by encouraging observation of the interplay between individ uals, the activities and the institutions that exist. Table 6.5 indicates the approximate capacities of the patios within the central ceremonial area against the population data provided in Chapter V. Given the substantial areas of these patios, it is of n o surprise that the guachimontn structures were built for mass gatherings and public events. Following the chronology set forth for the site, ca. 40 years separate the construction of Circle I and Circle II with ca. 50 years separating the construction of Circle I and Circle IV and ca. 100 years separating the construction of Circle I and Circle III. For a time, Circle I served as the only ceremonial circle for the area. For that reason, it would make sense as to why, at every interval, the approximate cap acity of Circle I is considerably larger than the other complexes. As the first guachimontn complex constructed within the LGCCA, a tightly packed arena could

PAGE 185

167 have housed a population well beyond what is hypothesized. At any given level, Circle I could ho use the capacities of both Circle II and III, the second and third largest circles in the area. Table 6.5: Results of capacity analysis. Area of Patio (m 2 ) Capacity at .46 m2/person Percent of Population Capacity at 1 m2/person Percent of Populatio n Capacity at 3.6 m2/person Percent of Population Circle I Patio 4663 10137 158.3% 4663 72.8% 1295 20.2% Circle II Patio 2845 6185 96.60% 2845 44.4% 790 12.3% Circle III Patio 1493 3245 50.70% 1493 23.3% 415 6.5% Circle IV Patio 815 1771 27.70% 815 12.7% 226 3.5% Totals 9816 21338 333.3% 9816 153.3% 2727 42.6% The construction of Circle II may have alleviated the demands of a crowded Circle I at the more spacious levels by providing another critical public space. Shortly after the construction of Circle II, the addition of Circle IV would have only accommodated for smaller audiences. At any given interval, Circle II could have accommodated the capacities of both Circles III and IV. Finally, with the construction of Circle III, the entire LGCCA coul d have accommodated approximately 333.3% of the surrounding population at .46 m 2 per person, 153.3% at 1 m 2 per person and 42.6% of the population at 3.6 m 2 per person.

PAGE 186

168 Summary of Capacity Analysis As the morphology of the LGCCA grew into its final stat e of four circles, more and more people could have fit under the umbrella of the Teuchitln culture and could learn, witness and ultimately internalize important wayfinding information. From the above analysis, the following conclusions can be made about t he audience capacities of the circles: 1) the guachimontn circles of the LGCCA were ideal public spaces encouraging exceptionally large number of spectators relative to site population to witness the activities sponsored by high ranking individuals and gr oups; 2) a tightly packed area accommodated for the greatest number of individuals suggesting that individuals outside of the Teuchitln habitational zone could have been invited into the space; 3) even at 1 m 2 per person, the entire local population as wel l as visitors could have fit into the LGCCA; 4) the events occurring at the LGCCA may not have required a more spacious audience space as less than half of the local population would have been invited. Today, the grandeur of the guachimontn complexes in t he LGCCA invites thousands of tourists a year. People are awe struck as they enter the patios of each circle. Some groups, as an experiment, join hands to see how many people can link together around the Central Pyramids before the ring is complete. The Administration Size: Visual Area and Proportionality The purpose of this section of analysis was to examine the scale to which the guachimontn platforms were built specifically addressing the area of visual space and circle proportionality. Smith (1999) maintains that monumental constructions of varying

PAGE 187

169 sizes and elaboration have a deep tradition in reifying social stratification and in displaying social power. The platforms, arguably controlled by competing corporate groups (Beekman 2010), would have be en where individuals and/or groups of individuals could have exercised their power. Any asymmetries in power potentially would manifest materially as the corporate groups invested in construction to compete for hierarchy. This examination of scale seeks t o illuminate any uniformities or disproportions within the construction methods of the platforms. The results of this analysis were compiled into an Excel document, from which the charts and tables below were generated. Figures displaying platform visual a rea data are arranged not so much by their numerical order but rather by their association to one another (e.g. there is a considerable gap in the data for Circle III between Platforms 2 and 8; therefore, data for Platform 8 is presented alongside Platform 1) essentially, how these structures would have appeared next to one another to an observer. Below are the results of the visual space and proportionality analyses for each circle. Circle I Table 6.6 presents the area of visual space for the platforms o f Circle I, as seen in Figure 6.5, as an observer gazes from the patio. From the data presented, some clear discrepancies in visual area are observed. Platform 7 has the largest area of visual space at 45.09 m 2 with Platform 11 possessing the second larges t area of visual space of the platforms. The platforms comprising the gallery platforms of Ballcourt 1 (Platforms 1, 2 and 12) possess visual areas that are considerably smaller than the previous two. The

PAGE 188

170 visual area of Platform 1 is 6.41 m 2 with the visua l area of Platform 2 as 8.67 m 2 and Platform 12 as 4.7 m 2 Table 6.6: Results of Circle I platforms visual area analysis. Circle I Feature Area of Visual Space (m 2 ) Platform 1 6.41 Platform 2 8.67 Platform 7 45.09 Platform 11 23.23 Platform 12 4.7 Average 17.62 Standard Deviation 17.02 Figure 6.5: Schematic Plan of Circle I.

PAGE 189

171 So as to better conceptualize the degree to which these platforms were built and how they relate to one another to form a single compound, the visual areas were evaluated against the standard deviation determined for this circle of 17.02 m. Figure 6.6 rev eals that all but one platform fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Platform 7 is found within two standard deviations of the mean. Clearly, some degree of variance exists within this circle; however, as one encounters these structures, one woul d not do so in reference to a standard deviation. For that reason, the results of this portion of analysis are presented in an alternative way that better addresses how an individual would evaluate the differences in platform size as he or she moves throug h the circle. Figure 6.6: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle I. Platform 1 6.41 Platform 2 8.67 Platform 7 45.09 Platform 11 23.23 Platform 12 4.7 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Area (m 2 ) Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle I

PAGE 190

172 To better highlight the differences between platform area of visual space, figure 6.7 demonstrates the percent change from one platform to its neighbor. W ith Platform 11 as the starting point, as data are interrupted between this platform and Platform 7, the chart demonstrates clear changes in perceived visual area. As one moves through the circle gazing upon the platforms, there is a 79.77% decrease in vis ual area from Platform 11 to Platform 12. This is the largest decrease in platform visual area in the circle. From Platform 12 to Platform 1, there is a slight increase of 36.38% and an increase of 35.26% from Platform 1 to Platform 2. In face of the lack of data for Platforms 3 through 6, there is an increase in visual area of 420.07% from Platform 2 to Platform 7. This is the greatest increase in visual area for the circle. With an average change rate of 82.39%, an individual would be able to perceive the se changes in visual area as he moved through the circle. Figure 6.7: Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle I Platforms. Platform 11 0.00% Platform 12 79.77% Platform 1 36.38% Platform 2 35.26% Platform 7 420.07% -200.00% -100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 200.00% 300.00% 400.00% 500.00% 0 10 20 30 40 50 Visual Area in m 2 Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle I Platforms Area of Visual Space Percent Change

PAGE 191

173 Given that these platforms are not uniform, this calls into question the very underlying motives of the individuals or groups co nstructing them. Figure 6.8 presents the results of this analysis by plotting the platform widths against their anticipated circle diameter for Circle I is about 124 m. Follo wing the rule of proportionality set by Weigand (1985) of 1:1:2.5:1:1, a guachimontn of that size would require a width of its platforms to be around 19.08 m; however, this is not the case. The widths of the five platforms under investigation fall sort of this measure: the width of Platform 1 is 14.7 m, the width of Platform 2 is 14.57 m, the width of Platform 7 is 13.59 m, the width of Platform 11 is 15.2 m and the width of Platform 12 is 15.83 m. Figure 6.8: Proportionality Results for Circle I. By inputting the widths of each platform into the proportionality ratio, it becomes clear that proportionality may not have been as strict a rule as proposed. This is especially peculiar in that Circle I is the largest circle present at the largest ceremon ial 14.70 14.57 13.59 15.20 15.83 124.00 95.54 94.71 88.32 98.80 102.91 True Circle Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 7 Platform 11 Platform 12 Proportionality for Circle I Width of Platform (m) Diameter of Anticipated Circle (m)

PAGE 192

174 center and should have included all formal architectural rules as discussed in Weigand 1996. Though Platform 7 is visually the largest platform within the circle, its anticipated circle diameter is exceptionally smaller than the true diameter of the ci rcle: 88.32 m compared to 124 m; that is nearly a 30% difference in size. As visually the smallest platform, Platform 12 comes the closest to the true diameter of the circle: 102.91 m compared to 124 m; however, that is still a difference of about 19%. Giv en the width of Platform 1, the anticipated circle diameter is approximately 95.54 m while the width of Platform 2 generates a circle with a diameter of 94.71 m. As complementary platforms on opposing sides of the circle, Platforms 1 and 7 do not even prod uce circle diameters of similar size. Likewise, the width of Platform 11 produces an anticipated circle diameter of 98.8 m. Summary of Circle I. More information is needed on platforms not represented ions can be made: 1) as an individual gazed upon the platforms from the patio, he would have perceived clear differences in platform size noticeably between platforms not associated with the ballcourt; 2) the variance in visual area of platforms associated with Ballcourt 1 would suggest that differences amongst corporate groups may have materialized visually by manipulating platform visual area; whereas 3) platforms not associated with the ballcourt suggests that power may not have been expressed visually b ut rather through connection with the ballcourt; and 4) circle proportionality was not a strict guiding principle in the construction of this circle; therefore, disproportions in platform depth suggests that there were competing ideas in constructing the d ifferent platforms.

PAGE 193

175 Circle II Table 6.7 presents the area of visual space for the platforms of Circle II (Figure 6.9) as an observer gazes from the patio. At first glance, many of the platforms in Circle II have comparable visual areas; however the data does present some observable var iances in visual area. Platform 1 has the largest area of visual space at 55.6 m 2 Completing the secondary gallery platforms of Ballcourt 1, Platform 2 has a visual area of 29.8 m 2 while Platform 10 has a visual are of 36.2 m 2 with Platform 11 possessing the second largest area of visual space of the platforms. Unlike Circle I ballcourt platforms, the platforms shared with the ballcourt in this circle are amongst the largest in the group because Circle II is physically lower and hence those platforms had t o be built up much higher to work for the ballcourt as well. Platform 3 is another visual large platform with an area of 31.2 m 2 Platforms 4 through 8 vary in visual space within a couple of m 2 of each other with Platform 9 as the visually smallest area: 14 m 2 Table 6.7: Results of Circle II platforms visual area analysis. Circle II Feature Area of Visual Space (m 2 ) Platform 1 55.6 Platform 2 29.8 Platform 3 31.2 Platform 4 23 Platform 5 20.9 Platform 6 17.7 Platform 7 17.7 Platform 8 18.8 Platform 9 14 Platform 10 36.2 Average 26.48 Standard Deviation 12

PAGE 194

176 Figure 6.9: Schematic Plan of Circle II. As in the analysis of Circle I, the visual areas of Circle II platforms were evaluated against the standard deviation determined for this circle of 12 m. Figure 6.10 reveals that all but one platform fall within one standard deviation of the mean. Platfor m 1 is found within three standard deviations of the mean. Examination of percent change in visual area further demonstrates the level of variance found within this circle.

PAGE 195

177 Figure 6.10: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle II So as to further demonstrate these differences in platform area of visual space, Figure 6.11 highlights the percent change from one platform to its neighbor. As Platform 10 as the starting point, as it represents one of the gallery platforms for Ballcou rt 1, the chart explains evident changes in perceived visual area. As one moves through the circle gazing upon the platforms, there is a considerable increase in visual area from Platform 10 to Platform 1 of 53.7%. From Platform 1 to Platform 2, there is y et another substantial transition in visual area with a decrease in perceptual size of 46.47%. From Platform 2 to Platform 3, differences in visual space are difficult to detect with an increase in size of only 4.87%. Platform visual area then decreases by 26.46% between Platforms 3 and 4 and decreases by 8.93% between Platforms 4 and 5. The visual area between platforms continues to decrease by 15.26% between Platforms 5 and 6 and by Platform 1 55.61 Platform 2 29.77 Platform 3 31.22 Platform 4 22.96 Platform 5 20.91 Platform 6 17.72 Platform 7 17.65 Platform 8 18.78 Platform 9 13.96 Platform 10 36.18 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Area (m 2 ) Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle II

PAGE 196

178 an undetectable .4% between Platforms 6 and 7. Visual area between Platfo rms 7 and 8 then increased by 6.4% only to decrease once again between Platforms 8 and 9 by 25.67%. A noticeable difference is only made when gazing upon Platform 1. Figure 6.11: Percent Change in Visual area for Circle II Platforms. The succeeding anal ysis of Circle II platforms then seeks to address the issue of circle proportionality. Figure 6.12 presents the results of this analysis by plotting the platform widths against their anticipated circle diameters all in reference to the true er. The true measure of the diameter for Circle II is about 99.1 m. Following the rule of proportionality, a guachimontn of that size would require a width of its platforms to be around 15.25 m; in face of platform visual area, platform width is quite uni Platform 10 0.00% Platform 1 53.70% Platform 2 46.47% Platform 3 4.87% Platform 4 26.46% Platform 5 8.93% Platform 6 15.26% Platform 7 0.40% Platform 8 6.40% Platform 9 25.67% -60.00% -40.00% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle II Platforms Area of Visual Space (m2) Percent Change

PAGE 197

179 diameters within about 10 m of 99.1 m. Figure 6.12: Proportionality Results for Circle II Though Platforms 1 and 6, following the 1:1:2.5:1:1 rule, generate the smallest circle diameters they are quite similar, being complementary platforms of 91.2 m and als o achieved with Platforms 3 and 8 of 106.2 m and 104 m. Platforms 4 and 9 also achieve similar circle diameters that are much closer to 99.1 m of 100.8 m and 98 m. Platforms 5 and 10, as opposing platforms, as well as Platforms 2 and 7 do not achieve simil ar circle diameters. Summary for Circle II. Due to the fact that all platforms in Circle II are represented, the following assumptions can be made with confidence: 1) as an 14.0 14.0 16.3 15.5 16.9 13.7 15.5 16.0 15.1 14.7 99.1 91.2 90.7 106.2 100.8 110.0 89.4 101.0 104.0 98.0 95.2 True Circle Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 3 Platform 4 Platform 5 Platform 6 Platform 7 Platform 8 Platform 9 Platform 10 Proportionality for Circle II Width of Platform (m) Diameter of Anticipated Circle (m)

PAGE 198

180 individual gazed upon the platforms from the patio, Platform 1 would have been per ceived as the largest; while 2) differences between the other platforms would have been more difficult to perceive; 4) for that reason, differences in power did not manifest by way of platform visual area or, only those associated with Platform 1 were able and willing to invest more heavily in construction; and finally, 3) the majority of platforms within Circle II closely adhere to rules of proportionally; therefore, the different corporate groups may have shared similar ideals of the manifestation of powe r. Circle III Table 6.8 presents the area of visual space for the platforms of Circle III (Figure 6.13) as an observer gazes from the patio. At first glance, many of the platforms in Circle II have comparable visual areas; however the data do present some observable variances in visual area. Platform 1 has the largest area of visual space at 55.6 m 2 Completing the secondary gallery platforms of Ballcourt 1, Platform 2 has a visual area of 29.8 m 2 while Platform 10 has a visual are of 36.2 m 2 with Platform 11 possessing the second largest area of visual space of the platforms. Unlike Circle I ballcourt platforms, the platforms shared with the ballcourt in this circle are amongst the largest in the group. Platform 3 is another visual large platform with an ar ea of 31.2 m 2 Platforms 4 through 8 vary in visual space within a couple of m 2 of each other with Platform 9 as the visually smallest area: 14 m 2

PAGE 199

181 Table 6.8: Results of Circle III platforms visual area analysis. Circle III Feature Area of Visual Space (m 2 ) Platform 1 29.6 Platform 2 16.2 Platform 3 17.9 Platform 8 7.62 Average 17.84 Standard Deviation 9.04 Figure 6.13: Schematic Plan of Circle III. With a standard deviation of 9.02 m, 2 of the 4 platforms examined within Circle III are found within one standard deviation of the mean (Figure 6.14). As Platform 1 in Circle III, this platform falls within two standard deviations of the mean; as Platform 5 in Circle II, however, this platform falls within one standard deviation of the mean. This may suggest that the expansions made to this platform were undertaken as a way of better incorporating this structure into the visual aesthetic of Circle II rather than Circle III. Platform 8 also falls within two standard deviations of the mean for Circle III.

PAGE 200

182 Figure 6.14: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle III. Figure 6.15 then describes the visual aesthetic of Circle III platforms displaying the percent change from one platform to its neighbor. With Platform 8 as the starting point, as data are interrupted between this platform and Platform 3, the chart explains obvious changes in perceived visual area. As one moves through the circle gazing upon the platforms, there is a substantial increase in visual area from Platf orm 8 to Platform 1 of 288.19%. From Platform 1 to Platform 2, there is yet another considerably large transition in visual area with a decrease in perceptual size of 45.17%. From Platform 2 to Platform 3, differences in visual space become difficult to de tect with a slight increase in size of 10.6%. Given the data for this circle, a noticeable difference in the visual aesthetic occurs when gazing upon Platform 1. With an average rate of change of Platform 1 29.58 Platform 2 16.22 Platform 3 17.94 Platform 8 7.62 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Area (m 2 ) Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle III

PAGE 201

183 63.41%, an individual would be able to perceive these change s in visual area as he moved through the circle. Figure 6.15: Percent Change in Visual area for Circle III Platforms. Completing the analysis of Circle III platforms, Figure 6.16 presents the results of the proportionality investigation by plotting the platform widths against their measure of the diameter for Circle II is about 86.2 m. Following the rule of proportionality, a guachimontn of that size would require a pl atform width of approximately 13.26 m. As Platform 5 in Circle II, this platform differed from the true diameter of that circle by 10.9 m; here, as Platform 1, the achieved circle diameter varies by 23.8 m. Once again, the expansions made to this structure were not in reference to the construction techniques instructing Circle III. The other platforms, on the other hand, achieve circle diameters that are smaller than the true diameter. Platform 8 0.00% Platform 1 288.19% Platform 2 45.17% Platform 3 10.60% -100.00% -50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 100.00% 150.00% 200.00% 250.00% 300.00% 350.00% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Area (m 2 ) Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle III Platforms Area of Visual Space (m2) Percent Change

PAGE 202

184 Platforms 2 and 8 achieve circle diameters of about 10 m smaller while P latform 3 differs only 2.5 m. Data for complementary platforms is not present. Figure 6.16: Proportionality Results for Circle III. Summary for Circle III. More information is needed on platforms not however, the following assumptions can be made: 1) as an individual gazed upon the platforms from the patio, he would have perceived an obvious difference in platform visual space when encountering Platform 1; similarly 2) the difference between the true diameter of this circle and the expected circle diameter of Platform 1 suggests that the expansions made to this structure d o not reflect construction philosophies for this circle. Circle IV Table 6.9 presents the area of visual space for the platforms of Circle IV (Figure 6.17) as an observer gazes from the patio. The visually largest platform is Platform 3 16.9 11.8 12.9 11.6 86.2 110.0 76.8 83.7 75.5 Actual Circle Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 3 Platform 8 Proportionality for Circle III Width of Platform (m) Diameter of Anticipated Circle (m)

PAGE 203

185 with an area of 15 .96 m 2 With an area of 11.65 m 2 Platform 8 is the second visually largest platform in this circle. Platform 5 is then the third visually largest platform. Platform 1, which serves as one of the head platforms for Ballcourt 1 possesses the smallest area o f visual space within the circle of 2.02 m 2 Table 6.9: Results of Circle VI platform visual area analysis Circle IV Feature Area of Visual Space (m 2 ) Platform 1 2.02 Platform 2 6.17 Platform 3 15.96 Platform 4 6.85 Platform 5 10.14 Platform 6 4.01 Platform 7 4.26 Platform 8 11.65 Average 7.63 Standard Deviation 4.64 Figure 6.17: Schematic Plan of Circle IV.

PAGE 204

186 With a standard deviation of 4.64 m, 6 of the 8 platforms within Circle IV are found within one standard deviation of the mean (Figure 6.18). Platform 1, shared with Ballcourt 1, falls below the standard deviation. Platform 3, on the other hand, is found within three standard deviations of the mean. Figure 6.18: Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle IV. So as to further demonstrate the differences in platform area of visual space, Figure 6.19 highlights the percent change fro m one platform to its neighbor. With Platform 1 as the starting point, as all platforms are represented in the data, the chart explains evident changes in perceived visual area. As one moves through the circle gazing upon the platforms, there is a substant ial increase in visual area between Platforms 1 and 2 of 205.25%. Another sizeable transition in visual area is observed between Platform 2 and Platform 3 of 158.5%. Continuing to Platform 4, visual area decreased by 57.09%. Visual area continues to vary i ncreasing by 48.08% between Platforms 4 and 5 and then decreasing by 60.48% between Platforms 5 and 6. Another substantial increase in visual size is then observed between Platform 7 and 8 of Platform 1 2.02 Platform 2 6.17 Platform 3 15.96 Platform 4 6.85 Platform 5 10.14 Platform 6 4.01 Platform 7 4.26 Platform 8 11.65 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 Area (m 2 ) Standard Deviation: Area of Visual Space for Platforms in Circle IV

PAGE 205

187 173.78%. With an average rate of change of 59.28%, an individual would be able to perceive these changes in visual area as he moved through the circle. Figure 6.19: Percent Change in Visual area for Circle IV Platforms. The successive analysis of Circle II platforms then seeks to address the issue of circle proportio nality. Figure 6.20 presents the results of this analysis by plotting the platform widths against their anticipated circle diameters all in reference to the true m. Fo llowing the rule of proportionality, a guachimontn of that size would require a width of its platforms to be about 8.5 m; however, all platform widths exceed this value. a chieves circle diameters that are within approximately 10 m of 55.24 m. As Platform 1 is shared with Ballcourt 1, it varies from the true diameter for this circle by 25.1 m. Widths for Platforms 6 and 7 could not be obtained given the lack of a rear retain ing wall. Platform 1 0.00% Platform 2 205.25% Platform 3 158.50% Platform 4 57.09% Platform 5 48.08% Platform 6 60.48% Platform 7 6.17% Platform 8 173.78% -100.00% -50.00% 0.00% 50.00% 100.00% 150.00% 200.00% 250.00% 0.00 2.00 4.00 6.00 8.00 10.00 12.00 14.00 16.00 18.00 Percent Change Area (m 2 ) Percent Change in Visual Area for Circle IV Platforms Area of Visual Space Percent Change

PAGE 206

188 Figure 6.20: Proportionality Results for Circle IV. Summary for Circle IV. Though platform data for this circle is incomplete, the following assumptions can be made with confidence: 1) as an individual gazed upon the platforms from the patio, w ould have been able to perceived differences in platform size; 2) Platform 1, as part of ballcourt 1, has the smallest visual area of all the platforms in this circle; however, 3) this platform deviates from the proportionality rule the greatest. Visibilit y This section focuses on identifying privileged seating within the LGCCA by investigating inter compound visibility. For Choi (1991), the most integrated space is not where the maximum number of people are present, but rather the space where the maximum number of people can be seen. Visibility is not only about what can be seen but also about who can be seen. Visibility, as it relates to the reification of social order 12.37 9.96 9.51 9.57 9.86 9.21 55.24 80.40 64.74 61.82 62.21 64.09 59.87 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00 Actual Circle Platform 1 Platform 2 Platform 3 Platform 4 Platform 5 Platform 8 Proportionality for Circle IV Width of Platform (m) Diameter of Anticipated Circle (m)

PAGE 207

189 and the creation of the lived experience, can function as a way of putting people, obje cts and information on display or as a way of monitoring lesser ranking individuals. For this analysis, multiple vantage points were identified throughout the compound and viewshed analyses were run for each. Much of the ground work is completed by ArcGIS; however, any interpretation based on the results of the viewshed calculation is subject to the limitations of the DEM (e.g. altitude errors, curvature of the Earth); the absence of detailed coverage (e.g. vegetation, built environment); the effect of atmo spheric conditions and the ability of the observer to resolve features. These results from the viewshed analyses are presented in below. Circle I Table 6.10 presents the attribute data obtained from the viewshed analysis based upon the various observation points. Viewshed maps and data tables are included in the appendix (Please see Appendix B). As one stands atop the central altar, he or she would be able to see approximately 46% of the site. Percent visibility amongst the platforms is, for the most part, relatively similar with percent visibility for Platform 1 as at 23.31%, at 26.79% for Platform 2, at 18.64% for Platform 11 and at 22.51% for Platform 12. In terms of location, these platforms compose the southwestern portion of the circle. Platform 7, on the other hand, is a considerably lower percent visibility of 9.44%. Located in the northeast portion of the circle, the majority of the view from this platform is obstructed by the central altar given its tremendous size.

PAGE 208

190 Table 6.10: Results of Circle I viewshed analysis. Circle I Feature Elevation of Observer Point (masl) Percent Visibility Central Altar 1380 45.16% Platform 1 1370.31 23.31% Platform 2 1370.21 26.79% Platform 7 1373 9.44% Platform 11 1370.89 18.64% Platform 12 1369.82 22.51% Average 1372.37 24.31% Summary of Circle I Viewsheds. Even though Circle I is the tallest architectural group in the LGCCA, visibility amongst the platform observation points is quite low. This may be due to the presence of supervening architectural groups such as Circle II. To better highlight this, Figure 6.21 reveals how the construction of Circle II impedes site visibility for Circle I platforms. Figure 6.21: Line of sight representation indicating Circle I platforms as source poin t and area beyond Circle II as target point.

PAGE 209

191 For each platform observation point (black dot), a line of site was drawn. This line extends beyond Circle II near Platform 6 (red dot). The point of contact between this line and the primary obstruction is th en represented by a blue dot. Following the line, all areas in green can be seen with all areas in red as not visible along the path. With the exception of Platform 7 where visibility beyond the central altar is unattainable, visibility for all other platf orms making the southwestern portion of the circle is thwarted in the presence of Circle II. To this end, the viewshed analysis for Circle I does not strongly suggest the observance of outside happenings. At least, not after the construction of Circle II. Circle II Table 6.11 presents the attribute data obtained from the viewshed analysis based upon the various observation points for Circle II. Viewshed maps and data tables are included in the appendix (Please see Appendix B). As one stands atop the central altar, he or she would be able to see approximately 60% of the site. Standing atop Platform 8, an individual would gain the highest percent visibility for the platforms in this circle with 36.5%. Visibility amongst platform observation points is at its lo west at Platform 9 (25.71%). Without any context, the difference in visibility is significant given that these platforms are neighbors; however, Figures 6.22 and 6.23 provide examples as to why that may be.

PAGE 210

192 Table 6.11: Results of Circle II viewshed ana lysis. Circle II Feature Elevation of Observer Point (masl) Percent Visibility Central Altar 1373 59.90% Platform 1 1368.34 28.37% Platform 2 1369.06 27.69% Platform 3 1366.48 31.10% Platform 4 1365.87 32.34% Platform 5 1365.99 35.68% Platform 6 1365.28 30.50% Platform 7 1365.87 30.52% Platform 8 1366.29 36.50% Platform 9 1365.88 25.71% Platform 10 1367.7 27.81% Average 1367.25 33.28% Figure 6.22: Line of sight representation with Platforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central altar of Circle III as the target point.

PAGE 211

193 Figure 6.23: Line of sight representation with Platforms 8 and 9 as source points and the central altar of Circle I as the target point. Say an individual standing atop these two platforms wishes to vi ew the central altar of Circle III. View into Circle III from Platform 8 is not completely obstructed whereas view into this circle from Platform 9 is obstructed by the northwestern side of its own central altar. With the introduction of Circle III followi ng the completion of Circle II, visibility beyond Circle III from Platform 8 is obstructed by the central altar. Another example of difference in visibility between Platforms 8 and 9 exists f site is obstructed in more or less the same location, it is clear that Platform 8 can see more of the landscape and structural elements than Platform 9 can. Differences in elevation could also potentially contribute to the differences in percent visibili ty for these platforms. The observation point atop Platform 8 is located at 1366.29 masl while the observation point atop Platform 9 is located at 1365.88 masl.

PAGE 212

194 Summary of Circle II Viewsheds. At any given time, multiple central altars can be viewed from t he various observation points in Circle II. Visibility of supervening structures is, therefore, essentially obstructed by its own central altar. To this end, the viewshed analysis for Circle II would suggest that an individual standing atop the platforms c ould not only observe the happenings within his own circle but also could observe the activities and exchanges taking place outside of Circle II. Circle III Table 6.12 presents the attribute data obtained from the viewshed analysis for the various observation points for Circle III. Viewshed maps and data tables are included in the appendix (Please see Appendix B). As one stands atop the central altar, he would be able to see approximately 45% of the site. Standing atop Platform 1, an individual woul d gain the highest percent visibility for the platforms in this circle with 35.68%. Visibility amongst platform observation points is at its lowest at Platform 8 (27.33%). Figure 6.24 provides an example indicating a particular instance in which the differ ences between neighbors continues by providing various lines of sight. Table 6.12: Results of Circle III viewshed analysis. Circle III Feature Elevation of Observer Point (masl) Percent Visibility Central Altar 1366.00 45.07% Platform 1 1368.34 35.68% Platform 2 1364.96 30.66% Platform 3 1366.79 35.34% Platform 8 1364.02 27.33% Average 1366.02 34.82%

PAGE 213

195 Figure 6.24: Line of sight representation with Platforms 1 and 8 as source points and the central altar of Circle I as the target point. Line of sight into Circle I from Platform 8 is funneled through Circle II, yet is obstructed as one reaches the central altar of Circle II. The line of sight for Platform 1, however, continues unobstructed reaching the central altar of Circle I. As this pl atform serves as Platform 5 of Circle II, the observation point for Platform 1 is located at 1368.34 masl while the observation point of Platform 8 rests at 1364.02 masl. That is a difference of 4.32 m. Provided this information, the difference in percent visibility between these two platforms may lie in the difference in elevation. Summary of Circle III Viewsheds. At any given time, the central altars of Circle I and Circle II can be viewed from the various observation points in Circle III. Visibility of Circle IV is, often obstructed by the central altar of Circle II. To this end, the viewshed analysis for Circle III suggests that an individual standing atop the platforms could not

PAGE 214

196 only observe the happenings within his or her own circle but also could w itness the activities and exchanges taking place outside of Circle III. Circle IV Table 6.13 presents the attribute data obtained from the viewshed analysis for the various observation points for Circle IV Viewshed maps and data tables are included in the appendix (Please see Appendix B). As one stands atop the central altar, he would be able to see approximately 29% of the site. Standing atop Platform 3, an individual would gain the highest percent visibility for the platforms in this circle with 38.40%, w hich even exceeds the percent visibility of the central altar. On the other hand, v isibility amongst platform observation points is at its lowest at Platform 8 ( 23.88% ). Unlike the other circles whose observation points with the greatest visibility and wit h the lowest visibility were neighbors, the differences between these two platforms is remarkable, especially since the observation point of Platform 8 is slightly higher in elevation (0.63 masl). Figure 6.25 provides an example of where the differences be tween these platforms occur by providing a line of sight analysis. As an individual gazes across the landscape towards Circle III, a line of sight is achieved from Platform 3. Line of sight from Platform 8 towards Circle III is obstructed as one reaches th e central altar of Circle II.

PAGE 215

197 Table 6.13: Results of Circle IV viewshed analysis. Circle IV Feature Elevation of Observer Point (masl) Percent Visibility Central Altar 1369.31 29.42% Platform 1 1369.17 27.43% Platform 2 1368.92 33.92% Platform 3 1368.95 36.58% Platform 4 1368.88 38.40% Platform 5 1369.48 35.10% Platform 6 1370.15 28.34% Platform 7 1370.45 26.79% Platform 8 1369.58 23.88% Average 1369.61 31.10% Figure 6.25: Line of sight representation with Platforms 3 and 8 as source points and the central altar of Circle III as the target point.

PAGE 216

198 Summary of Circle IV Viewsheds. At any given time, the central altars of Circle I and Circle II can be viewed from the various observation points in Circle IV. In some cases, the central altars of Circle I, Circle II and Circle III can be seen; however, the landscape beyond those structures is obstructed. Given the results of the viewshed analysis, an individual standing atop the platforms in Circle IV would not only have been abl e to observe the activities within his or her own circle but also could witness the activities and exchanges taking place outside of Circle IV. Complete Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area Visibility Coming full circle, the average elevations and percent visibility data for each platforms were compiled resulting in Figures 6.26 and 6.29. Figure 6.26: Elevation and Percent Visibility of Central Altars in LGCCA. 1380 1373 1366 1369.3098 45.16% 59.90% 45.07% 29.42% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 1355 1360 1365 1370 1375 1380 1385 Central Altar Central Altar Central Altar Central Altar Circle I Circle II Circle III Circle IV Elevation (masl) Elevation and Percent Visibility of Central Altars in LGCCA Maximum Elevation Percent Visibility Linear (Maximum Elevation) Linear (Percent Visibility)

PAGE 217

199 Though the central altar of Circle 1 is the tallest structure within the central ceremonial area with an observation point of 1379.33 masl, visibility is moderately low approximately 45%. Situated at 1373 masl, an observer atop the central altar of Circ le II would achieve the highest percent visibility within the LGCCA of 59.9%. An observer standing atop the central altar of Circle III would be able to view approximately 45% of the entire central ceremonial area. Visibility atop the central altar of Circ le IV is the lowest at 29.42%. Given the trend lines for both observational elevation and percent visibility, it would seem that as elevation decreases so too does percent visibility. The central altar for Circle II, notably, is the exception to this. Figu res 6.27 and 6.28 attempt to illuminate why Circle II has a higher percent visibility than Circle I or any other circle for that matter. Figure 6.27: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle I as the source point and the central altar of C ircle II as the target point. Figure 6.28: Line of sight representation with the altar of Circle II as the source point and the central altar of Circle I as the target point.

PAGE 218

200 First, a line of sight was drawn from the central altar of Circle I to the c entral altar of Circle II (Figure 6.27). A line of sight was drawn in reverse order from the central altar of Circle II to the central altar of Circle I (Figure 6.28). As demonstrated, elevation and inclination greatly affect what is and is not seen. There will always be parts of the landscape which will be consistently invisible from ridge tops given the inclination of a landscape (Franklin and Ray 1994). In the case of the LGCCA, the guachimontn structures tend to produce slopes which have a convex profi le near the ridge and a concave profile lower down. As a result, it is very often difficult to see the slope immediately below the structure. From Circle I to Circle II, the areas which are not visible are all on the hillsides immediately below the tops of structures. Conversely, the hillside effect reverses and greatly decreases from Circle II to Circle I resulting in a greater percent visibility. Further review of the viewshed maps generated during this analysis provide some important insights as to the s urveilling nature of the central altars, being that site visibility of Circle I is quite low. Since the central altars for each circle served as the principle stage or ritual space, some important insights are made in comparing the total number of observer points that have visual access to the central altars. As a system, there exist thirty one observation points; however, only twenty seven of them represent platform observation points: six within Circle I, eleven within Circle II, five in Circle III and ni ne in Circle IV. Table 6.14 presents the total number of platforms able to view a particular altar. An observer would be able to view the altar of both Circle I and Circle II from 26 of the platforms evaluated during this analysis. From atop twenty

PAGE 219

201 platfor ms throughout the central ceremonial area, an observer would be able to witness the activities occurring at the central altar for Circle III. Of the platforms evaluated, only 12 of them provide sight lines to the central altar of Circle IV. The elevation t o which these altars were built indicates that the activities and exchanges happening were for display and collective observance. Table 6.14: Number of platforms visible from a particular central altar. Central Altar Number of Platform Observer Points Circle I 26 Circle II 26 Circle III 20 Circle IV 12 The average elevations and percent visibilities for each platform are similarly presented in Figure 6.29. With an average elevation of 1370.84, the average percent visibility is lowest for platform observation points in Circle I. The percent site visibilit y for Circles II, III and IV are quite similar despite differences in elevation. From the trend lines for both observational elevation and percent visibility, it would appear that as elevation decreases percent visibility increases. This potentially could be due to the hillside affect explained earlier. The data presented here suggests that the privileged viewing areas within the site were not located at higher elevation. Rather, it is the observation areas below that allow for a higher site percent visibil ity.

PAGE 220

202 Figure 6.29: Average Elevation and Percent Visibility of Platform Observer Points in LGCCA. Summary for Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area Visibility. More the following assumptions can be made : 1) surveillance of the site is greatly affected by the elevation and inclination resulting in a hillside effect; 2) Circle I and Circle II activity occurring at the central altars was constantly on display; as 3) pl atforms at lower elevations were able to view more of the site than platforms at higher elevations ; thus, 4) the viewing pattern of platforms within Circle I may reflect more intra circle observance. This makes sense due to the fact that it was the first circle in the LGCCA. 1370.84 1366.68 1366.03 1369.65 20.14% 30.62% 32.25% 31.31% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 Platforms Platforms Platforms Platforms Circle I Circle II Circle III Circle IV Elevation (masl) Average Elevation and Percent Visibility of Platform Observer Points in LGCA Average Elevation Percent Visibility Linear (Average Elevation) Linear (Percent Visibility)

PAGE 221

203 CHAPTER VII DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The purpose of this research was to investigate how architecture is used as a sociopolitical strategy in so as to instill a sense of order and facilitate the human experience by addressing the ways in which the architectural program of the Teuchitln culture actively affected the political and social aspects of past lifeworlds. The ruling elites structured ceremonial space so as to build affective ties between the populace self describe the synthesized experience of the Los Guachimontones Central Ceremonial Area examined in detail. Subsequently, an assessment is made as to the usefulness of GIS and space syntax approaches within the archaeology of experience for understanding the built environment, followed by comments on how this approach allows archaeologists to learn more about the human built environment. Finally, I suggest possible new directions for this type of research to expand our understanding of ancient architecture. The Approach Today, the site is located atop a foothill overlooking the modern town of Teuchitl n. As a traveler embarks on his journey to the site, knowledge about its location as well as the placement of architectural groups within the LGCCA could have generated important wayfinding information as one is reminded of a greater Mesoamerican cosmovisi on North represented the celestial level of the cosmos and the

PAGE 222

204 home of the divine ancestors. The placement of this monumental ceremonial center atop an elevated landscape suggests that the site and the activities taking place there held significant symbol ic meaning. Also the presence of the Tequila Volcano behind the site as well as the Lake Presa de la Vega below resemble a division of the universe into three parts. Similarly, the architectural groups found within the LGCCA also support the Mesoamerican v iew of up/down, north/south, specifically in regards to their direct neighbor. With this information in mind, a traveler would be directed to act a certain way. There becomes a separation between day to day activities and what may be deemed more ritualize d behaviors. Meaning is something recognized by an observer; it is not some quality inherent to the place or monument. The symbolic importance of the built environment is found in its interpretation as an expression of culturally shared mental structures and embodied processes. By recognizing the relationships between cosmovision and the Los Guachimontones site, location informs conceptualizations and transforms the landscape into a meaningful place. People probably came from multiple directions, but we re they funneled into the site from some local point down on the flatlands. Given the slope and cost distance analyses, the entire journey to the site is an extremely costly one. Pedestrian traffic is funneled into a single rural road that brings the trave ler right to the beginning of the central area. For this reason, a traveler may become extremely fatigued and may need to make several rest stops. This, however, yields a sense of accomplishment once the destination is reached and may generate a sense of a mazement and appreciation once

PAGE 223

205 the site comes into view. Cost of travel within the structures then is greatly decreased, and the traveler is able to move liberally about the area. The traveler is physically and mentally tested. By moving through the landsc ape up to the LGCCA, an individual learns about the physical and spatial constraints, yet s/he feels triumphant upon reaching the site. S/he learns to overcome obstacles; the mind and body recharges, and the individual is able to taken in his scenery as be ing a part of himself. Given that the LGCCA is the result of nearly 500 years of construction and development, direct access to Circle I was once unobstructed and was an obvious destination for any individual; however, as subsequent architectural groups we re added changing the access patterns, access to Circle I was made increasingly difficult causing it to become the most isolated architectural group in the area. This may have been due to the privatization or centralization of power. In many ancient societ ies, there is often appreciable social distance between those who made and maintain the structure and those who use or observe the structure. As the Teuchitln Culture grew and as construction continued at the site, there became an increasing need to separ ate and employ exclusionary strategies. Controlling access was just one of the ways spatial behavior was affected. With the addition of other guachimontn groups, Circle II became the most integrated and most attractive space. This may have been the princi ple arena for lesser elites to gather; however, the relatively low cost of travel between structures encouraged the movement of bodies, information and materials. Access is once highly controlled to the platforms. The platforms became a commodity for the c orporate groups one that was highly regulated and controlled; specifically, the

PAGE 224

206 platforms that compose the gallery platforms of Ballcourt 1 are amongst the least integrated units in the LGCCA system; however, access to the ballcourt was not impeded. This poses some interesting questions as to the intended audience for the ballgame as gallery platforms had exclusive access. Many scholars have suggested that it was the appropriation of the sacred landscapes through the restriction of access to the ritually induced experiences that initially allowed a rising elite to legitimize their right to rule (Farriss 1984; Lucero and Fash 2006; Freidel & Schele 1988; Joyce 2000). By restricting access to other parts of the LGCCA, the corporate groups were able to affec t spatial behavior and secure their position in society. Lesser ranking elites were subject to these barriers and could only access the more public or open domains. By invoking a greater Mesoamerican cosmovision the architecture of the central area of Los Guachimontones constructed a cosmologic spatial logic that further sanctified the activities occurring and exchanges being made. Likewise, as an insider, the control over one of the platforms, by mere construction and control over access, may have contrib uted to and resulted from the power seeking strategies discussed throughout this work. As an individual travelled to and within the site, he or she was constantly reminded of these social and political themes employed in the construction of the site and wo uld have acted/responded appropriately knowing that some structures are more symbolically charged than others and that he /she may not access to every spatial unit in the system. Even without any particular ritual taking place, an individual would consta ntly be reminded of the importance of this site; consequently,

PAGE 225

207 this may have even given importance to even the most mundane of activities occurring in and around the site. The Encounter People transform and navigate through society via the creation and e nactment assessment of the world. Therefore, ritual is ideology in action. The practice of ritual, through movement and other sensory experiences, gives significance to the places explored and the ideas expressed both by reiterating and reinforcing the ideologies that structure the whole. Given the capacity data, the nature of the rituals and activities taking place were largely public. The most public of spaces were the patios of the guachimontn circles. As the principal ceremonial space, Circle I, even as the morphology of the LGCCA grew, could accommodate a large portion of the population to participate and witness the circulation of people, information and material. This somewhat contradicts the fact that Circle I is the most segregated of spaces; however, the opportunity to invite a large audience within its bounds provided opportunities for individuals to witness and sense the bodi ly existence of other community members (Inomata 2006) and their relationship to them. As subsequent construction phases added additional critical theatrical arenas, more and more people could be subsumed under the umbrella of the Teuchitln culture and le arn important information that was constitutive of existence. The large capacities of the LGCCA circles, ranging from an astounding 280.8% of the local population to a measly 42.6 %, could have fostered high levels of co awareness

PAGE 226

208 and co presence, which ar e important aspects in the production of collective memory and identity, thus, lending coherence to the society at large. These high levels of co awareness and co presence could have fostered reification of social structures such as power dynamics. Social and physical distance amongst individuals was further displayed through formalized arrangements of participants and the audience in order to directly replicate social hierarchies or groupings (Orr 2001). Similarly, Bloch (1974:59 60) views ates and maintains a certain type of power relation among the participants not by transmitting messages but by catching them in a highly formalized and power institutions as well as between people and cosmological influences were created, maintained and transformed through public gathering, the sponsorship of widely public events and the participation or observance of these events. The Administration The religious power of the Mesoamerican leader or corporate group was manifest in the construction of temples where they could then demonstrate his special connections to the supernatural through elaborate public rituals. Though much information on the platform superstructures is lacking, the platforms themselves provide preliminary information on how power may have been exercised through the construction and maintenance of such structures. Area of visual space varies greatly between circles; however, an individual navigating th rough the area would not have even been able to view all the platforms at once; therefore, differences in visual space would have been perceived within circles. A s an individual gazed upon the platforms

PAGE 227

209 from the patio of Circle I, he would have perceived c lear differences in platform size specifically Platforms 7 and 11 with Platform 7 as the visually largest within the circle. It has been argued (Weigand 1999) that the residential area behind Platform 7 is an elite ea may support this. On the other hand, the visual areas of the platforms associated with the ballcourt are comparatively smaller than Platforms 7 and 11. This may suggest that visual area for these platforms was not manipulated to convey power; rather, it was the association with the ballcourt itself that was the manifestation of power for these groups. For this reason, it would seem that the corporate groups employed different power seeking strategies. Much of the area for Circle I is dedicated to the pa tio, which suggests that power was expressed not in the ability to overwhelm people with the size of their platform but rather by the ability to orchestrate public events and to gather large audiences. Finally, the widths of the platforms within this circl e do not support the rule of proportionality set forth by Weigand (1985). This suggests that the corporate groups possessed competing ideas of how constructing the different platforms was to be approached. Though differences in platform proportionality wou ld not have been easily perceived, differences in the proportionality of the superstructures atop these platforms may have been. More information is needed to say for certain. Even though Circle I is the tallest architectural group in the LGCCA, visibility amongst the platform observation points is quite low. The visual links are between audience and center point, not among audience members; however, this circle would have had g reat view to south before Circle II was built. Visibility beyond Circle I is

PAGE 228

210 frequently impeded due to the presence of supervening architectural groups. To this end, individuals atop these platforms would have focused more on the activities occurring withi n Circle I rather than observing outside ones. In comparing this circle to the others, the majority of platforms outside of Circle I have sightlines directly to the central altar of Circle I where rituals would have taken place. Therefore, the activities o ccurring in Circle I would have been the most grandiose of all the other circles. With an audience that extended beyond its own patio, gestures would have been exaggerated, material goods larger and sounds louder. Individuals with a political stake in the activities carried out would have gained power through the successful completion of these activities. In comparison, differences in visual area would have been more difficult to perceive for most of the platforms in Circle II though the visual aesthetic o f these platforms is quite large. Gazing upon Platform 1, however, an individual would take note of its larger size. To that end, Platform 1 may have served as a template for all other platforms to be built from. They certainly were not built to the extend Platform 1 was, but their large visual areas would suggest consistency or at least a demand to replicate its magnitude. Likewise, the majority of platforms within Circle II closely adhere to rules of proportionally. With all of this in mind, the consisten cy of platform size and adherence to circle proportionality suggests that the corporate groups within Circle II shared common power seeking strategies and expressed them similarly. Site visibility is at its greatest for platform observer points in this ci rcle. Moreover, the central altar can be seen by the majority of other platform observation

PAGE 229

211 points outside of Circle II. For that reason, high ranking individuals could gain power also through the successful completion of rituals. As Platform 5 of Circle II was then incorporated into the structural fabric of Circle III, an individual gazing upon the platforms from the patio would have taken note of how it dwarfed the other platforms in Circle III. Platforms 2, 3 and 8 share similar visual areas, which sugg est similar power seeking strategies amongst those corporate groups. One the other hand, the power seeking strategies underlying the construction of Platform 5 greatly differ from those seen in the other platforms of this circle. Circle proportionality als o deviates the greatest at Platform 5, suggests that it did not serve as the template or starting point from which the other platforms were modeled after. Visibility for platform observation points within Circle III is also quite high, yet fewer platforms from other circles can view its central altar. This would suggest that the activities occurring were less elaborate, only catering to those in the patio, atop the platforms and neighboring platforms mostly in Circle II. In light of this, individuals atop Circle III platforms would be able to reference the rituals occurring in other circles. Platforms in Circle IV, on the other hand, differ as area of visual space is very inconsistent. With the exception of Platform 1, the widths of these platforms, however are more consistent, yet they do not support the proportionality rule. Platform 1, with the greatest platform width actually has the smallest visual area. This may be due to the fact that it serves as one of the heads for Ballcourt 1. So as to not obstru ct a view onto the activities occurring within the ballcourt, the platform was not built to visually overwhelm an individual from the patio. Site visibility for the observation points in this

PAGE 230

212 circle is the lowest for the LGCCA. The majority of platforms ou tside of this circle do not have direct sight lines to the central altar. This would suggest that the activities orchestrated were less grandiose and catered to individuals within the circle. This would also suggest that activities held here were more priv ate than the others occurring in Circles I, II and III. Power may have been realized through the privatization of these activities. Generating a Narrative for a Complex Society Throughout this entire work, it has become evident that the Teuchitln Culture fact a complex society that engaged in pan Mesoamerican ideology and civic planning. The concept of complexity is a loaded one, and many scholars have proposed their own definition. According to Price and Brown (1985:7), complexity refers to that which is composed of many interrelated parts. Flannery (1972:409) takes complexity in terms of segregation and centralization the amount of internal differentiation and speci alization within a society and the degree of connectedness. Service (1978:3) states that complexity implies more parts to the whole, more differentiation or specialization of these parts and firmer integration of these parts within the whole. Additionally, McGuire (1983) focuses on complexity and its relation to heterogeneity and inequality. Through these definitions, a common theme can be extrapolated: that complexity refers to the differentiation of many interrelated parts that these parts are not equal. Complex societies involve many different entities, whose members affect each other along intricate pathways. This research has highlighted several conscious and

PAGE 231

213 deliberate strategies in which the builders of the guachimontn structures and the people of the Teuchitln Culture employed that brought about change and solidarity throughout the West Mexican landscape. In developing their ceremonial landscape, it is evident that these people were well versed in pan Mesoamerican ideologies and possessed the know how in order to bring that cosmovision to reality an architectural reality. Throughout the creation and maintenance of these structures, these people actively employed power seeking strategies that legitimized their position. These strategies were eithe r cooperative or contradictory, inclusionary or exclusionary. In the orchestration of mass spectacles, these people organized thousands of people, maintained sacred relics and educated in the art of performance. They were ware of calendric cycles and celes tial movements. Finally, as the ceremonial landscape transformed and the culture grew, these people were able to maintain relationships between core and periphery. Through architectural evidence alone, it is clear that the Teuchitln Culture, a West Mexica n culture, deserves scholarly attention and should be included in Mesoamerican discourse as a complex society. GIS, Space Syntax and Phenomenology: An Assessment Phenomenology seeks to describe the interplay of the body, the mind and the senses with the b uilt environment. A phenomenological approach to experience is rather qualitative. Many scholars have criticized phenomenological approaches for their lack of replicability and methodological rigor. As such, the incorporation of highly sophisticated quanti tative methods has begun to rectify this issue making the work

PAGE 232

214 more empirical. Overall, I believe that the tool packages and statistical capabilities of GIS and space syntax serve quite well in understanding complex built environments in terms of how they were perceived. The incompleteness of the Los Guachimontones database did pose some issues in generating a more complete narrative for the central area, but the results provide some important insights as to how social order was generated and how lived exp eriences were mediated through architecture. Though these methods attempt to reduce the gap between method and theory, the qualitative nature of phenomenology cannot be lost. In order to generate a more complete narrative, a researcher must always return t o the first person point of view from which phenomenological explanations are made. For example, site visibility was determined using the viewshed spatial analysis tool in ArcGIS. The viewshed analysis for Platform 1 of Circle I revealed a percent visibili ty of 23.31% and a percent visibility of 35.68% for Platform 1 of Circle III. Given the two figures, there is appreciable difference between the two; however, an individual who stands atop Platform 1 in Circle I and then makes his way to Platform 1 of Circ le III would not have the means readily available to know the exact differences between the two platforms. Rather, he may take note of what architectural groups can be seen from one point and which ones cannot be seen from another creating a different perc eption of visibility. By tying back the quantitative to the qualitative, a more complete narrative is created. Some preliminary proposals were made within this work on the way GIS and space syntax methods may be used (in a more humanistic way) in order to address human experience. An analysis such as this has yet to be conducted with the site of Los

PAGE 233

215 Guachimontones let al.one other sites within the Teuchitln culture. This research then develops a suite of methods that then can be applied to other Teuchitln sites. Possible New Directions The narrative brought forth here relates the complexity of the human experience and the variables that influence that it. Drawing forth more refined narratives would strengthen this type of exploration not only for the site but for generating a history that better represents the society as a whole. I think some experiences that are ripe for study are those of women, visiting dignitaries and perhaps children though the last would be very difficult. I would have liked to have done more with the other human senses, especially smell and hearing. An examination of touch would be interesting to do as well, given the public nature of the guachimontn circles. It would be interesting to try and tie these to the built environment. Als o, incorporating population data into this analysis would strengthen the claims made, specifically those relating the public nature of the structures and the activities. I think shifting to a different site of the Teuchitln culture would be an important n ext step. For example, do smaller ceremonial sites engage in the same or similar architectural maneuverings as the LGCCA? Would differences in experience relate to the site hierarchy proposed for this society? Do they function as more local or global space s? I think comparing the guachimontn architectural program to other Mesoamerican ceremonial centers would also prove fruitful. By doing a cross cultural

PAGE 234

216 study, it could be learned if the principles guiding the experience of the LGCCA were used in a more universal manner. I do not believe this to be the case, yet I think contrasting the strategies would be just as elucidating. Concluding Thoughts This thesis sought to address three central questions: 1) how is architecture, specifically monumental spaces, used in facilitating certain experiences? 2) How do subsequent construction phases change or impact these experiences? and; 3) how do those exper iences lend coherence to the society as a whole? Architecture is a signifying system through which social order is communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored. Site location informs individuals of the underlying symbolic principles that guide constr uction. Spatial accessibility or lack capacity is a potentially strong determinant of social identity as it relates to co awareness and co presence. Architectural size a nd site visibility then communicate clear ideologies of power and authority. The circles and other architectural groups within the Teuchitln culture were places where social and political exchanges were enacted. They were created in ways that communicate d the themes of cosmovision and authority in order to foster group cohesion. By affecting daily practice of bodily movement and affecting human perception, the guachimontn architecture contributed to the experiences of the people who encountered them. The se structures were a rhetoric made material, but one that worked subtly and symbolically on the body and mind.

PAGE 235

217 This work is relevant because it increases our depth of knowledge of people of the Teuchitln culture and their built environment. It serves as a reminder that, despite the many criticisms, the cultures of west Mexico exhibit the qualities of complex society sharing many aspect of social and political life with greater Mesoamerica. It also reminds us that there is still important work to be done w ithin this culture region. This is especially true of the built environment and attempts to make archaeological reconstructions of the experiences of the past.

PAGE 236

218 REFERENCES Acconci, Vito 1990 Public space in a private time. Critical Inquiry 900 918. Aimers, James J. and Prudence M. Rice 2006 Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of Maya E Group Architectural Assemblages. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:79 96. Aldenderfer, Mark and Herbert D.G. Maschner 1996 Anthropology, Space, and Geographic Information Systems. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Anschuetz, Kurt, Richard Wilshusen and Cherie Scheick 2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: perspectives and directions. Journal of Archaeological Research. 9(2):157 211. Anttonen, Veikko 2012 Space, bo dy, and the notion of boundary: a category theoretical approach to religion. Temenos. 41(2). Asaua, Tautala Silauleleioamoa 2005 Samoan archaeoratory: Bridging the gap between the spoken and the scientific. Unpublished Master of Arts research essay. University of Auckland. Ashmore, Wendy 1989 Construction and Cosmology: Politics and Ideology in Lowland Maya Settlement Patterns. In Work and Image in Maya Culture: Explorations in Language, Writing and Representation W.F. Hanks and D.S. Rice (Eds) pp. 272 286. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. 1991 Site Planning Principles and Concepts of Directionality Among the Ancient Maya. Latin American Antiquity 2:199 226. 1992 Deciphering Maya architectural plans. New theories on the ancient Maya 77:17 3 184. 2009 Mesoamerican Landscape Archaeologies. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:183 187. Aveni, A. F. 2014 Class Not Dismissed: Reflections on Undergraduate Education and Teaching the Visual Arts. Boulder (CO): University Press of Colorado Aveni, A. F. and Ho rst Hartung 1986 Maya city planning and the calendar. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 1 87.

PAGE 237

219 Aveni, A. F., Anne Doud and Benjamin Vining 2003 Maya Calendar Reform? Evidence from Orientations of Specialized Architectural Assemblages. L atin American Antiquity 14(2):159 178. Barrett, John 1999 The Mythical Landscapes of the British Iron Age. In Archaeologies of Landscape Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard Knapp (eds). pp. 253 268. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Bauer, Andrew 1996 The legiti mization of the Inca State in Myth and Ritual. American Anthropologist 98(2):327 337. Bauer, Andrew, Kathleen Nicoll, Lisa Park and Timothy Matney 2004 Archaeological site distribution by geomorphic setting in the southern lower Cuyahoga River Valley, northeastern Ohio: Initial observations from a GIS database. Geoarchaeology 19(8):711 729. Beekman, Christopher, Catherine Johns, Nichole Abbott, Mads Jor gensen and Kong Cheong, Tony DeLuca and Kristie Hollon 2014 Informe de Laboratorio 2014 CU Denver Group. Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln. Christopher Beekman (ed). Beekman, Christopher 1996a The Long Term Evolution of a Political Boundary: Archaeologi cal Research in Jalisco, Mxico. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1996b Political Boundaries and Political Structure: The Limits of the Teuchitln Tradition. Anci ent Mesoamerica 7(1):135 147. 1996c The Chronological Context of the Central Jalisco Shaft Tombs. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(02): 239 249. 1998 West Mexico in the Formative and Classic Periods: Core Periphery Differentiation or Domination? Paper presented at the 63rd annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Seattle. 2000 The Correspondence of Regional Patterns and Local Strategies in Formative to Classic Period West Mexico. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19(4): 385 412. 2003a Agricult ural Pole Rituals and Rulership in Late Formative Central Jalisco. Ancient Mesoamerica 14(2):299 318. 2003b Fruitful Symmetry: Corn and Cosmology in the Public Architecture Of Late Formative and Early Classic Jalisco. Mesoamerican Voices

PAGE 238

220 2007 Transition and trajectory: the Late Formative to Classic shift in the highland lakes district of central Jalisco. Invited paper presented at the 72nd Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Austin. 2008 Corporate power strategies in the late formative to early classic Tequila valleys of central Jalisco. Latin American Antiquity 19(4):414 43. 2010 Recent research in western Mexican archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research 18(1):41 109. 2012 Current Views on Power, Economics, and Subsistence in Ancient Western Mexico. In The Oxford Handbook of Mesoamerican Archaeology Nichols, Deborah L., and Christopher A. Pool (eds). Pp. 495 512. Oxford University Press. 2013 Community vs. Lineage Strategies and Built Space in Late Formative through Middle Cla ssic Jalisco. Invited paper presented as part of the session Households, Markets, World Systems, and Political Economy: Alternative Pathways to Complexity, organized by Lane Fargher and Verenice Heredia for the 78th annual meeting of the Society for Americ an Archaeology, Honolulu. I.P. Conflicting Political Strategies in Late Formative Early Classic Central Jalisco. In Political Strategies in Pre Columbian Mesoamerica, edited by Sarah Kurnick and Joanne Baron, pp. x x. University Press of Colorado, Boulder. Beekman, Christopher and Phil Weigand 2008 Conclusiones, cronologa, y un intento a sntesis. In La tradicin Teuchitln Weigand, P. C., Beekman, C., and Esparza, R., (eds). Pp. 303 337. Colegio de Michoacn, Zamora. 2010 La Secuencia Cronolgica de la Tradicin Teuchitln. In El sistema fluvial Lerma Santiago durante el Formativo terminal y el Clsico temprano. Memoria del Segundo Seminario Taller sobre Problemticas Regionales Laura Solar V. (ed). pp. 237 261. Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico, D.F. Bell, Catherina 1997 Ritual: Perspectives and Dimensions. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press Bender, Barbara 1993 Landscape: politics and perspectives. Berg, Providence. Bloch, Maurice 1974 Symbols, Song, Dan ce and Features of Articulation. Archives europenes de sociologie 15:55 81.

PAGE 239

221 Blom, Frans 1924 Report on the Preliminary Work at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook 23:217 219. Boivin, Nicole 2004 Landscape and cosmology in the south Indian Neolithic: new perspectives on the Deccan ashmounds. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(02): 235 257. Bond, George C. and Angela Gilliam 1994 Social construction of the past: representation as power (Vol. 24). Psychology Press. Bo urdieu, Pierre 1977 Outline of a Theory of Practice, translated by R. Nice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1984 Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Harvard University Press. Bradley, Richard 1984 The social foundations of prehistoric Britain: themes and variations in the archaeology of power. London: Longman. Brady, James and Wendy Ashmore 1999 Mountains, Caves, Water: Ideational Landscapes of the Ancient Maya. In Archaeologies of Landscape Wendy Ashmore and A. Bernard K napp (eds). pp. 124 145. Blackwell Publishers, Oxford. Broda, Johanna 1982 Astronomy, Cosmovision and Ideology in Pre Hispanic Mesoamerica. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences 385(1):81 110. 2015 Political Expansion and the Creation of Ritual La ndscapes: A comparative study of Inca and Aztec cosmovision. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(1):219 238. Bruck, Joanna 2005 Experiencing the past? The development of a phenomenological archaeology in British prehistory. Archaeological Dialogues 12( 1):45 71. Butterwick, Kristi 1998 Food for the Dead: The West Mexican Art of Feasting. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past Richard F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). Pp. 88 105. Art Institute of Chicago.

PAGE 240

222 2004 Herita ge of Power: Ancient Sculpture from West Mexico: The Andrall E. Pearson Family Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. Cabrero Garcia, Maria Teresa 1989 Civilizacion en el Norte de Mexico: Arqueologia de la Canada del Rio Bolanos (Zacatecas y J alisco). Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, Mexico. D.F. Cabrero Garcia, Maria Teresa and Carlos Lopez Cruz 1997 Catalogo de Piezas de las Tumbas de Tiro del Canon de Balanos. Instituto de Investigationes Anthropologico. Universidad Nacional Autono ma de Mexico, Mexico. D.F. Casana, Jesse 2003 The archaeological landscape of late Roman Antioch. In Huskinson J. A., and Sandwell, B. (eds). pp. 102 125.Culture and Society in Late Roman Antioch, Oxbow, Oxford. Chapdelaine, Claude 2002 Out in the Streets of Moche. Andean Archaeology I: Variations in sociopolitical organization 1(1): 53. Clark, Geoffrey and Helene Martinsson Wallin 2007 Monumental architecture in West Polynesia: Origins, chiefs and archaeological approaches. Archaeolog y in Oceania 42(1): 1 30. Clark, Georgia and Paul Crossley 2000 Towards a Better Explanation of Hereditary Inequality: A Critical Assessment of Natural and Historic Human Agents. In Agency in Archaeology Marcia Anne Dobres and John E. Robb (eds). Pp. 9 2 112. Routledge, New York. Clark, John 1991 The beginnings of Mesoamerica: apologia for the Soconusco Early Formative. In The formation of complex society in southeastern Mesoamerica William Fowler (ed). Pp. 13 26. CRC Press. Clifford, James 1988 Th e predicament of culture. Harvard University Press. Coggins, Clemency 1979 A new order and the role of the calendar: some characteristics of the Middle Classical period at Tikal. In Maya Archaeology and Ethnohistory Norman Hammond and Gordon Willey (eds ). Pp. 38 50. University of Texas Press, Austin.

PAGE 241

223 1980 The Shape of Time: Some Political Implications of a Four Part Figure. American Antiquity 45(4):727 739. Cohen, Amanda 2010 Ritual and architecture in the Titicaca Basin: The development of the sunken court complex in the Formative Period. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES. Cosgrove, Stephan and Denis Daniels 1998 Iconography of landscape: essays on the symbolic representation, design and use of past environments. Vol. 9. Cambridge University Press. Crespo, Jos Antonio 1993 Los estudios electorales en Mxico en el contexto del cambio poltico. Poltica y gobierno 5(1): 261 279. Crystal, D. 1990 The Cambridge Encyclopedia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Cyphers, Ann 1996 Reconstru cting Olmec life at San Lorenzo. Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC 61 71. David, Bruno and Julian Thomas 2010 Handbook of Landscape Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast. David, Bruno, Jow Crouch and Ugo Zoppi 20 05 Historicizing the spiritual: Bu shell arrangements on the island of Badu, Torres Strait. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15(01): 71 91. Dawson, Peter 2002 Space syntax analysis of Central Inuit snow houses. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21 (4): 464 480. de Atley, SP 1980 Radiocarbon dating of ceramic materials; progress and prospects. Radiocarbon 22(3):987 993. DeMarrais, Elizabeth, Luis Jaime Castillo, and Timothy Earle 1996 Ideology, Materialization and Power Strategies. Current Anthropology 37(1):15 31.

PAGE 242

224 Dillehay, Tom 1990 Mapuche ceremonial landscape, social recruitment and resource rights. World Archaeology 22(2):223 241. Doran, Jennifer 2004 Beyond Belief: Religious Experience, Ritual, and Cultural Neurophenomenology in the Interpretation of Past Religious Systems. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 14(01):25 36. Dovey, Kim 1999 Framing places. Mediating Power in the Built Form. Routledge. Dowd, Marion 2015 The Archaeology of Caves in Ireland. Oxbow Books. Drennan, Robert D., and Mikael J. Haller 2007 The local village community and the larger political economy: Formative and Classic interaction patterns in the Tehuacn Valley compared to the Valley of Oaxaca and the Basin of Mexico. In The Political Economy of Anci ent Mesoamerica: Transformations during the Formative and Classic Periods Vernon Scarborough and John Clark (eds). Pp. 65 81. UNM Press. Durkheim, E. 1915 The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. New York: Free Press. duVall, Shina 2007 Shared Symbolism in Powerful Places: Cosmological Principles Displayed Through the Ceremonial Public Architecture of the Teuchitln Tradition in the Tequila Valleys of Jalisco, West Mexico. Doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado Denver. Earle, Timothy 19 97 How chiefs come to power: The political economy in prehistory. Stanford University Press. Farriss, Nancy Maruerite 1984 Maya society under colonial rule: The collective enterprise of survival. Princeton University Press. Lucero, L. J. and B. W. Fash 2006 Precolumbian water management: ideology, ritual, and power University of Arizona Press.

PAGE 243

225 Forty, Adrian 2000 Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture. New York: Thames and Hudson. Foucault, Michel 1977 Discipline and Punish: The Bir th of the Prison. Translated by A. Sheridan. Pantheon, New York. Freidel, David and Linda Schele 1988 Kingship in the late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The instruments and places of ritual power. American Anthropologist 90(3):547 567. Freidel, David, Linda Schele and Joy Parker 1993 Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman's Path. William Morrow and Company, New York. Galvan Villegas, Luis Javier 1991 Las Tumbas de Tiro del Valle de Atemajac. Instituto Nacional de Anthropologia e Historia, Me xico, D.F. Gardner, Katy and Ralph Grillo 2002 Transnational households and ritual: an overview. Global networks 2(3): 179 190. Geertz, Clifford 1980 Negara: The Theatre State in Nineteenth Century Bali. Princeton University Press, Princeton. Gibbs, Martin and Peter Veth 2002 Ritual engines and the archaeology of territorial ascendancy. Tempus 7:11 19. Giddens, Anthony 1976 New Rules of Sociological Method. New York: Basic Books, Inc. 1979 Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley, California: U niversity of California Press. 1991 Structuration Theory: Past, Present and Future. In Structuration: A Critical Appreciation C. Bryant & D. Jary (eds). pp. 201 221. London, UK: Routledge. Gosden, Christopher 1994 Social being and tim e. Blackwell, Oxford.

PAGE 244

226 Green, Roger 2002 Rediscovering the social aspects of ancestral Oceanic societies through archaeology, linguistics and ethnology. Fifty Years in the Field: Essays in career Auckland: New Zealand Archaeological Association. 21 34. Grosscup, Gordon 1964 The Ceramics of West Mexico. University of California Press. 1976 The Ceramic Sequence at Amapa. In The Archaeology of Amapa, Nayarit Clement Meighan (ed). Pp. 207 27 2. University of California Press. Grove, David 1981 Olmec Monuments: Mutilation as a Clue to Meaning. In The Olmec and Their Neighbors. Elizabeth P. Benson (ed). Pp. 49 68. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 1987 Comments on the Site and Its Organization. In Ancient Chalcatzingo David C. Grove (ed.). Pp. 420 433. University of Texas Press, Austin. 1999 Public Monuments and Sacred Mountains: Observations on Three Formative Period Sacred Landscapes. In Social Patterns in Preclassic Mesoamerica David C. Gro ve and Rosemary Joyce (eds.). pp. 255 299. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Grove, David and Rosemary Joyce 1999 Social patterns in pre classic Mesoamerica: a symposium at Dumbarton Oaks, 9 and 10 October 1993. Vol. 18. Dumbarton Oaks. Grove, David an d Susan Gillespie 1992 Ideology and evolution at the pre state level: formative period Mesoamerica. Ideology and Pre Columbian Civilizations. 15 36. Guillemin, George 1968 Development and function of the Tikal ceremonial center. Ethnos 33(1 4):5 39. H ahn, Robert 2001 Anaximander and the architects: the contributions of Egyptian and Greek architectural technologies to the origins of Greek philosophy. SUNY Press. Hanks, William 1990 Referential Practice: Language and Lived Space among the Maya. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Haq, Saif and Craig Zimring 2003 Just down the road a piece the development of topological knowledge of building layouts. Environment and behavior 35(1):132 160.

PAGE 245

227 Hayden, Brian and Aubrey Cannon 1982 The corporate g roup as an archaeological unit. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 1(2):132 158. Henrich, Joseph 2009 The evolution of costly displays, cooperation and religion: credibility enhancing displays and their implication for cultural evolution. Evolution and Human Behavior 30:244 260. Hillier, B. and J. Hanson 1984 The Social Logic of Space, Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. Hillier, Bill, Julienne Hanson, and Hillaire Graham 1987 Ideas are in things An application of the space syntax method to d iscovering house genotypes. Environment and Planning B 14(4):363 385. Hirsch, Eric and Michael O'Hanlon 1995 The Anthropology of Landscape: Perspectives on Place and Space. Clarendon Press. Oxford University Press Hobsbawm, Eric 2014 Fractured times: culture and society in the twentieth century. The New Press. Hosler, Dorothy 1994 The sounds and colors of power: The sacred metallurgical technology of ancient west Mexico. MIT Press. Houston, Stephen 1998 Finding function and meaning in Classic Maya architecture Function and meaning in Classic Maya architecture 519 538. Howe, Leo 2000 Risk, ritual and performance. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 63 79. Howey, M. C. L. 2007 Using multi criteria cost surface analysis to explore pas t regional landscapes: a case study of ritual activity and social interaction in Michigan, AD 1200 1600. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(11): 1830 1846.

PAGE 246

228 Inomata, Takeshi 2006 Plazas, Performers and Spectators: Political theaters of the Classic May a. Current Anthropology 47(5):805 842. Inomata, Takeshi and L.S. Cohen 2006 Archaeology of Performance: Theaters of Power, Community, and Politics. Walnut Creek: Altamira Jackson, J. B. 1995 In search of the proto landscape. In Landscape in America. T hompson, G. F. (ed.). pp. 43 50.University of Texas Press, Austin. Jaramillo, Ricardo 1984 Patron de asentamiento en el valle de Valparaiso, Zacatecas. Unpublished Master's thesis. Escuela Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, Mexico City. Jennings, Theo dore W. 1982 On ritual knowledge. The Journal of Religion 111 127. Johns, Catherine 2014 Ceramic activity analysis of Navajas Circle 5 and the need for practice theory in unusual monumental architecture. Unpublished Master's thesis. University of Colorado at Denver. Joyce, Yannick 2000 The founding of Monte Alban: Sacred Propositions and Social Practices. In Agency in Archaeology Marcia Anne Dobres and John E. Robb (eds). pp. 71 91. Routledge Press, London. Joye, Yannick and Jan Verpooten 2013 An Exploration of the Functions of Religious Monumental Architecture From a Darwinian Perspective. Review of General Psychology 17(1):53 68. Kelley, J. Charles 1974 Speculations on the Culture History of Northwestern Mesoamerica. In The Archaeology of West Mexico Betty Bell (ed). pp. 19 39. Sociedad d Estudios Avanzados del Occidente d Mexico, Ajijic. Kelly, Isabel 1948 Ceramic Provinces of Northwestern Mexico. In El Occidente de Mxico, 4th Mesa Redonda pp.55 71. Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologa Mxico, D.F.

PAGE 247

229 Kertzer, David 1988 Ritual, Politics, and Power. Yale University Press, New Haven. Kirch, Patrick V. 1990 Monumental architecture and power in Polynesian chiefdoms: A comparison of Tonga and Hawaii. World Archaeology 22(2):206 222. Kir choff, Paul 1943 Mesoamerica, sus limites geograficos, composicion etnica, y caracteres culturales. Acta Americana 1:92 107. Klarqvist, Bjorn 1993 A Space Syntax Glossary. Nordisk Arkitekturforskning 2:11 12. Kolb, Michael 1994 Monumental Grandeur and the rise and fall of Religious Authority in Precontact Hawaii. Current Anthropology 34: 1 38 Kosiba, Steve and Andrew Bauer 2013 Mapping the political landscape: toward a GIS analysis of environmental and social difference. Journ al of Archaeological Method and Theory 20(1):61 101. Kuchler, Susanne 1993 Landscape as memory. In: Bender B, editor. Landscape Politics and perspectives. Oxford: Berg Publishers. Kwan, Mei Po 2002 Feminist visualization: Re envisioning GIS as a method in feminist geographic research. Annals of the association of American geographers 92(4):645 661. Lake, Mark and Patricia E. Woodman 2003 Visibility studies in archaeology: a review and case study. Environment and Planning B 30(5):689 707. Landau, Kristen 2015 Spatial Logic and Maya City Planning: the case for cosmology. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 25(1):275 292. Lawrence, Denise and Setha Low 1990 The built environment and spatial form. Annual review of anthropology 453 505.

PAGE 248

230 Lefebvre, Henri 1991 The production of space (Vol. 142). Blackwell: Oxford. Llobera, Marcos 2003 Exploring the topography of mind: GIS, social space and archaeology. Antiquity 70(269):612 622. Lock, Gary 2000 Beyond the map: archaeology and spatial technologies. Vol. 321. IOS Press. 1997 Tras un mtodo de estudio comparativo entre las cosmovisiones mesoamericana y andina a partir de sus mitologas. A. Garrido Aranda (comp.), Pensar Amr ica. Cosmovisin mesoamericana y andina, Obra social y cultural, Cajasur, Ayuntamiento de Montilla, Crdoba: 20 43. Lopez Mestas, Lorenza and Jorge Ramos de las Vega 1998 Excavating the Tomb at Huitzilapa. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of t he Unknown Past Richard F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). pp 169 190. Art Institute of Chicago. 2006 Some interpretations of the Huitzilapa shaft tomb. Ancient Mesoamerica 17(02):271 281. Love, Michael 1999 Ideology, Material Culture, and Da ily Practice in Preclassic Mesoamerica: A Pacific Coast Perspective. In Social Patterns in Pre Classic Mesoamerica David Grove and Rosemary Joyce (eds). pp. 121 153. Washington: Dumbarton Oaks. Manum, Bendik, Espen Rusten, and Paul Benze 2005 AGRAPH, software for drawing and calculating space syntax graphs. In Proceedings of the 5th International Space Syntax Symposium 1:97. Manzanilla, Linda 2000 Corporate life in apartment and barrio compounds at Teotihuacan, Central Mexico: Craft specialization, hierarchy, and ethnicity. Domestic Life in Prehispanic Capitals: A Study of Specialization, Hierarchy, and Ethnicity. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, 21 42. Marcus, Joyce and Kent Flannery 1996 Zapotec Civilization: How Urban Society Evolved in Mexico's Oaxaca Valley. New York: Thames and Hudson.

PAGE 249

2 31 Mathews, Jennifer and James Garber 2004 Models of Cosmic Order: Physical expression of sacred space among the Maya. Ancient Mesoamerica 15:49 59. Maurice, Merleau Ponty 1962 Phenomenology. Humanities Press. McGlade, James 1995 Archaeology and the Ecodynamics of Human Modified Landscapes. Antiquity 69(262):113 132. McGuire, Randall and Michael B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Ar chaeology 2:277 303. McNiven, Ian and Ricky Feldman 2003 Ritually orchestrated seascapes: hunting magic and dugong bone mounds in Torres Strait, NE Australia. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 13(02):169 194. Meighan, Clement Woodward, and Leonard J. F oote 1968 Excavations at Tizapan el Alto, Jalisco. Latin American Center, University of California. Mitchell, W. J. T. 1994 Landscape and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mohr, John W. and Vincent Duquenne 1997 The duality of culture and practice: Poverty relief in New York City, 1888 -1917. Theory and society 26(2):305 356. Mongelluzzo, Ryan 2011 Experiencing Maya Palaces: Royal Power, Space, and Architecture at Holmul, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Departme nt of Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. Monroe, J. Cameron 2010 Power by Design: Architecture and politics in precolonial Dahomey. Journal of Social Archaeology 10(3): 367 397. Montello, Daniel 2007 The contribution of space syntax t o a comprehensive theory of environmental psychology. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium.

PAGE 250

232 Moore, Jerry 1996 The Archaeology of Plazas and the Proxemics of Ritual: Three Andean Traditions. American Anthropologist 98(4):789 802 Morton, Shawn G., Meaghan Peuramaki Brown, Petter Dawson and Jeffrey Seibert 2012 Civic and Household Community Relationships at Teotihuacan, Mexico: a Space Syntax Approach. Cambridge Archaeology Journal 22(3):387 400. Nash, Donna and Patrick Ryan W illiams 2005 Architecture and power on the Wari Tiwanaku frontier. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association. 14(1): 151 174. Neiman, Fraser 1998 Conspicuous Consumption as Wasteful Advertising: A Darwinian Perspective on Spatial Patterns in Classic Maya Terminal Monument Dates. In Rediscovering Darwin: Evolutionary Theory in Archaeological Explanation C. M. Barton and G. A. Clark (eds). pp. 267 29 0. Archeological Papers of the American Anthropological Association, 7. American Anthropological Association, Arlington, Virginia. Nielson, Axel 1995 Architectural Performance and the Reproduction of Social Power. In Expanding Archaeology. Skibo, Walker and Nielsen (eds). Pp 47 66. Salt Lake City. Ohnersorgen, Michael A. and Mark D. Varien 1996 Formal Architecture and Settlement Organization in Ancient West Mexico. Ancient Mesoamerica 7:103 120. Orr, Heather 1997 Power Games in the Late Formative Val ley of Oaxaca: The ballplayer carvings at Dainzu. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Art History, the University of Texas at Austin. 2001 Procession Rituals and Shrine Sites: The Politics of Sacred Space in the Late Formative Valley of Oaxaca. L andscape and Power in Ancient Mesoamerica 55 79. Osborne, Brian 1998 Landscapes, memory, monuments, and commemoration: Putting identity in its place. Canadian Ethnic Studies 33(3): 39 77.

PAGE 251

233 Parker Pearson, Mike and Colin Richards 1994 Ordering the W orld: Perceptions of Architecture, Space and Time. In Architecture and Order: Approaches to Social Space M. Parker Pearson and C. Richards (eds). pp. 1 37. London: Routledge. Peponis, J. and J. Winean 2002 Spatial Structure of Environment and Behavior. In Handbook of Environmental Psychology. Bechtel and Churchman (eds). Pp. 271 292. NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Pickering, Robert and Maria Teresa Cabrero 1998 Mortuary practices in the shaft tomb region. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of th e Unknown Past Richard F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). 71 88. Art Institute of Chicago. Preziosi, Donald 1983 Minoan Architectural Design. Formation and Signification (Approaches to Semiotics 63). Berlin, New York. Pugh, Timothy 2001 Flood Reptiles, Serpent Temples, and the Quadripartite Universe: The Imago Mundi of Late Postclassic Mayapan. Ancient Mesoamerica 12:247 258. Rapoport, Amos 1971 Sociocultural aspects of man environment studies. In The Mutual Interaction of People and Th eir Environment Amos Rapoport (ed). Pp. 7 35. Walter de Gruyter. 1990 The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach (rev. ed.). Tucson: University of Arizona Press. 1994 Spatial organization and the built environment. In Compani on encyclopedia of anthropology: humanity, culture and social life. Tim Ingold (ed). Pp. 460 502. London. Rathje, William L., and Michael B. Schiffer 1982 Archaeology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Ratti, Carlo 1994 Urban texture and space synta x: some inconsistencies. Environment and Planning B 31(4): 487 499. Reilly, F. Kent 2002 The Landscape of Creation: Architecture, Tomb, and Monument Placement at the Olmec Site of La Venta. In Heart of Creation: The

PAGE 252

234 Mesoamerican World and the Legacy of Linda Schele Andrea Stone (ed). Pp. 34 64. University of Alabama Press. Renfrew, Colin 1974 British prehistory: a new outline. Gerald Duckworth & Company. 1994 The archaeology of religion. In The Ancient Mind C Renfrew and E Zubrow (ed). pp. 47 54. Ca mbridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press. Rice, Prudence M. 2013 Type Variety: What Works and What Doesn't. Aimers. Ancient Maya Pottery 11 28. Richardson, Miles 1980 Culture and the urban stage. In Environment and Culture 209 241. Sanchez Correa, Sergio and E.G. Marmolejo Morales 1990 poca Clsica: nuevos hallazgos, nuevas ideas, Instituto Nacional de Antropologa e Historia, Mxico, DF. 267 278. Schele, Linda and David Freidel 1990 A forest of kings. New York: William Morrow. Scott, James C. 1990 Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcript. Yale University Press, New Haven. Seamon, David 2007 A lived hermetic of people and place: phenomenology and space syntax. Proceedings, 6th International Space Syntax Symposium. Serna, Rosalio 1991 Perspectives de investigacin a travs del catlogo de sitios arqueolgicos de Colima. Barro Nuevo. 1(6). Sharer, Robert and David W. Sedat, Loa P. Traxler, Julia C. Miller, a nd Ellen E. Bell 2005 Early Classic royal power in Copan: the origins and development of the Acropolis (ca. AD 250 600). In Copan: the history of an ancient Maya kingdom E. Andrew and W. Fash (eds). Pp. 139 199. James Currey Publishers. Sheppard, Eric a nd Thomas Poiker 1995 Special Issue on GIS and Society. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems 22(1):3 103.

PAGE 253

235 Shook, Edwin M. 2014 TIKAL REPORT NO. Tikal Reports, Numbers 1 11: Facsimile Reissue of Original Reports Published 1958 1961. 64, 1. Smith, Adam T. 1999 The Making of an Urartian Landscape in Southern Transcaucasia: a study of political architectonics. American Journal of Archaeology 103(1):45 71. 2000 Rendering the Political Aesthetic: Political Legitimacy in Urartian Representations of the Built Environment Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 19:131 163. 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press, Los Angeles. Smith, Michael 2007 Form and meaning in the ea rliest cities: A new approach to ancient urban planning. Journal of Planning History 6(1): 3 47. Spence, M.W., P.C. Weigand, and M. Soto de Arechavaleta 2002 Production and distribution of obsidian artifacts in western Mexico. In Pathways to Prismatic B lades: A Study in Mesoamerican Obsidian Core Blade Technology Kenneth Hirth and Bradford Andrews (eds). pp. 61 79. Monograph No. 45, Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. Stallybrass, Peter, and Allon White 1986 The poe tics and politics of transgression. London: Methuen. Tambiah, Stanley 1985 Culture, thought, and social action: An anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Harvard University Press Taube, Karl 1996 The Olmec maize god: The face of corn in Formative Mesoa merica RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics. 39 81. Taylor, Kathryn and Rex Koontz 2001 The cultural poetics of power and space in ancient Mesoamerica. In Landscape and power in ancient Mesoamerica. R. Koontz, K. Taylor and A. Headrick (eds). Pp. 1 27. Westview Press. Tedlock, Barbara 1992 Time and the highland Maya. UNM Press.

PAGE 254

236 Tilley, Christopher 1984 Ideology and the legitimation of power in the Middle Neolithic of southern Sweden. In Ideology, power and prehistory Daniel Miller (ed). Pp. 111 46. Cambridge University Press. 1994 A Phenomenology of Landscape. Oxford: Berg 2004 The materiality of stone: explorations in landscape phenomenology. Bloomsbury Academic. Townsend, Richard 1998 Before Gods, Before Kings. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past Richard F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). pp. 107 135. Art Institute of Chicago. Trigger, Bruce 1990 history of archaeological thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Tuan, Y. F. 1974 Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and Values, rentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. van Dijk, Teun 1996 Discourse, power and access. Texts and practices: Readings in critical discourse analysis 84 104. Van Dyke, Ruth 2014 Phenomenology in Arc haeology. In Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology Smith C. (ed.). pp. 2 8. Springer Science+Business Media, New York. von Winning, Hasso and Olga Hammer 1972 Anecdotal Sculpture of Ancient West Mexico. Ethnic Arts Council of Los Angeles. 2007 States in Prehispanic Western Mesoamerica. In The Political Economy of Ancient Mesoamerica: Transformations during the Formative and Classic Periods Vernon Scarborough and John Clark (eds). Pp. 101 113. UNM Press. Weigand, Phil 1985 Evidence for Complex Societie s during the Western Mesoamerican Classic Period. In The Archaeology of West and Northwest Mesoamerica Michael S. Foster and Phil C. Weigand (eds). pp. 47 91. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

PAGE 255

237 1991 The Western Mesoamerican Tlacho: A Two Thousand Year Perspective. In The Mesoamerican Ballgame Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox (eds). pp. 73 86. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 1992 Central Mexico's Influences in Jalisco and Nayarit Dur ing the Classic Period. In Resources, Power, and Interregional Interaction Edward M. Schortman and Patricia A. Urban (eds). pp. 221 232. Plenum Press, New York. 1993 Evolucion de una civilizacion prehispanica: arqueologia de Jalisco, Nayarit y Zacatecas. El Colegio de Michoacan, Zamora, Mexico. 1996 Ancient Mesoamerica 7:91 101. 1999 Mesoamerican Architecture as a Cultural Symbol Jeff Karl Kowalski (ed). pp 40 57 New York: Oxford University Press. Weigand, Phil and Christopher Beekman 1998 The Teuchitln Tradition: Rise of a Statelike Society. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past Richa rd F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). pp. 35 51. Art Institute of Chicago. Wheatley, David and Mark Gillings 2000 Vision, perception and GIS: developing enriched approaches to the study of archaeological visibility. NATO ASI SERIES A LIFE SCIEN CES. 321: 1 27. Wilkerson, Jeffery 1999 And then they were sacrificed: the ritual ballgame of northeastern Mesoamerica through time and space. Vernon L. Scarborough and David R. Wilcox (eds). pp. 45 71. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson. Williams, Patrick Ryan, and Donna J. Nash 2006 Sighting the apu: a GIS analysis of Wari imperialism and the worship of mountain peaks. World Archaeology 38(3): 455 468. Wilson, Lee Anne 1993 Shelter as Symbol: Uses and Meanings of Architectural Space. In Arts o f Africa, Oceania, and Native America: Selected Readings Janet Catherine Berlo and Lee Anne Wilson (eds). pp. 271 274. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Wise, Alicia 1996 Building theory into GIS based landscape analysis. BAR INTERNATIONAL SE RIES. 845: 141 148.

PAGE 256

238 Witmore, Christopher 1998 Sacred Sun Centers. In Ancient West Mexico: Art and Archaeology of the Unknown Past Richard F Townsend and Patricia Rieff Anawalt (eds). pp. 137 149. Art Institute of Chicago. Wobst, H. Martin 1977 Stylis tic Behavior and Information Exchange. In For the Director: Research Essays in Honor of James B. Griffin Charles E. Cleland (ed). pp. 317 342. Anthropological Papers, no. 61. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

PAGE 257

239 APPENDIX A: Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln. Informe de Laboratorio 2014 Proyecto Arqueolgico Teuchitln CU Denver Group Kristie Hollon Chapter Insert

PAGE 258

240 Electronic Files GIS Kristie Hollon (M.A. Candidate, University of Colorado Denver) carried out by Kristie Hollon with direction from Christopher Beekman. Once digital files had been cataloged by Tony DeLuca, Hollon then imported the raw dat a into ArcMap 10. Goals: 1. Convert AutoCAD layers into ArcGIS compatible layers and shapefiles to then be used to make a site map; 2. Create a 3D ArcGIS map of the site and surrounding areas using ArcScene; and 3. Create a geodatabase of all ArcGIS data Procedure: Goal 1: Convert AutoCAD layers into ArcGIS compatible layers and shapefiles to then be used to make a site map. The following file was used in order to create ArcGIS layers and shapefiles: GuachLAContourExc3200mA.dwg This file was chosen because it represents the site in its entirety. It includes all major architectural features as well as contemporary additions such as the Talleres Outreach Center. ArcMap 10 was the ArcGIS platform chosen for this project. It is important to note that when openi ng any CAD data into ArcGIS that several layers are created: a main file layer (GuachLAContourExc3200mA Group Layer) under which there is an annotation layer, point layer, polyline layer, polygon layer and multipath layer. In order to accomplish the task a t hand, the polyline layer was used and all others were deleted. From the GuachLAContourExc3200mA Polyline layer, architectural groups were isolated in order to create single ArcGIS layers and subsequently single shapefiles. This process started with the c ircles then transgressed onto other features, which include both ballcourts, residences (elite and non elite), the topography, Loma Alta, other identified ruins, the protected land outline, the roads/sidewalks and the Talleres Outreach Center. The first t portions of the site. Thankfully, these were given different AutoCAD layer names: MURO and AllRestoredStructures. The next step was to isolate each feature (circles, ballcourts, residences, etc). around each desire d architectural group. Once they were selected, a separate layer of the selected features was created and given a name to describe the new layer (Table 1). Once each architectural group (both its drawings and restored portions) had been selected from the l arger map, Kristie then set out to isolate each feature (e.g. platforms, the banquette, the center pyramid, etc.) using the same method as above.

PAGE 259

241 Once layers were made for each group and its respective elements, shapefiles (Table 2) were created using the The shapefiles can now be used to not only create a complete site map but also maps of particular architectural groups and specific architectural features can be isolated. Throughout this entire process, however it was noticed that the Talleres excavations were not included in the GuachLAContourExc3200mA.dwg AutoCAD file. Excavation data was located under the T1,2,3,4_XX_XX_R.dwg file. When data from this file was added to the newly created Talleras shapefiles, the data did not properly align. The GuachLAContourExc3200mA.dwg and the T1,2,3,4_XX_XX_R.dwg files were drawn using different scales and reference points. For this reason, additional shapefiles were created that specifically display the Talleres excavati ons using the T1,2,3,4_XX_XX_R.dwg (Table 3). Goal 2: Create a 3D ArcGIS map of the site While working through the layers, it was noticed that limited elevation data was available (Table 4) The average elevation of town, Teuchitln is 1289 meters. Usefu lness was determined to be any elevation data higher than 1289 meters. Useful data was then imported into ArcScene, which is part of the 3D Analyst tool box in order to produce a 3D map of the site (Figure 1). Future work : Due to the time constraints, a w orking geodatabase has not yet been developed, so goal 3 was not accomplished. Work by Hollon continues to be conducted in order to accomplish this. When initially importing the CAD files into ArcMap 10, the following error appeared: ence: The following data sources are missing spatial reference geodatabase to work properly, all data must have a geographic coordinate system in which to attach spatia l data. Work also continues on getting the excavated Talleres data to align with the other site data. Figures: Figure 1

PAGE 260

242 Tables : Table 1 Layer Name Original Layer Source Reference Name Layer Description LaJoyita 0 A$C68363114 and A$C461D2308 Contains Excavated Plans of La Joyita A and B Roads guachimontones1$0$X REF TORRENO$0$MACHUELO Constructed Roads to center and site CurvaMaestra CURVA_MAESTRA Contains Main Contour Lines CurvaOdrinaria CURVA_ORDINARIA Contains Contour Lines AllRestoredStructures ESTRUCTURAacabado Complete Layer of All Restored Structures Circle1JPRestoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Cirlce1 and Eastern Portion of Juego de Pelota Circle2JPRestoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Circle 2 and Western Portion of Juego de Pelota 1 Circle3Restoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Circle 3 Circle4Restoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structes of Circle 4 Circle6Restoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Circle 6 EliteResidenceResotration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Elite Residence GranPlazaRestoration ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Structures of Gran Plaza AllDrawings MURO CARGA Complete Layer of All Phil Weigand Drawings Circle1JPDrawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawings of Cirlce 2 and Eastern Portion of Juego de Pelota 1 Circle2Drawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawings of Circle 2 and Western Portion of Juego de Pelota 2 Circle3Drawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle3 Circle5Drawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle 5

PAGE 261

243 Circle6Drawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle 6 Circles7n8Drawings MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawings of Circle 7 and Cricle 8 Cricle4Drawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle4 LomaAltaDrawing MURO CARGA Phil Weigand's Drawing of Loma Alta UnidadHabitacional MURO CARGA Circle10 PIEDRA Contains Excavated Plan of Circle 10 Circle9 RUINA Drawing of Circle 9 JP2 RUINA A$C404B3DDC Juego de Pelota 2 OtherRuins RUINA Contains other ruins throughout the site ProtectedLandOutline verificado gps Outline of Los Guachimontones Protected Land Table 2: Map Feature Shapefile Name Original Layer Source Reference Name Layer Description Circulo 1 C1PdML MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Plaza C1P9n10 MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Platformas 9 and 10 C1P8 MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Platforma 8 C1P5 MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Platforma 5 C1P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Platforma 4 C1P3 MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Platforma 3 C1CenAlt MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Center Altar C1BanDraw MURO CARGA Circulo 1 Banqueta Drawing C1P7 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Platforma 7 C1P2 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Platforma 2 C1P12 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Platforma 12 C1P11 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Platforma 11 C1P1 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Platforma 1 C1Ban ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 1 Banqueta Circulo 2 C2Ban ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Banqueta C2CenAlt ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Center Altar C2P1 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 1 C2P2 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 2 C2P3 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 3 C2P4 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 4 C2P5 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 5 C2P6 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 6 C2P7 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 7

PAGE 262

244 C2P9 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 9 C2P10 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 10 C2P8 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 2 Platforma 8 Circulo 3 C3P7 MURO CARGA Circulo 3 Platforma 7 C3P6 MURO CARGA Circulo 3 Platforma 6 C3P5 MURO CARGA Circulo 3 Platforma 5 C3P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 3 Platforma 4 C3Ban MURO CARGA Circulo 3 Banqueta C3P8 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 3 Platforma 8 C3P3 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 3 Platforma 3 C3P2 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 3 Platforma 2 C3P1 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 3 Platforma 1 C3CenAlt ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 3 Center Altar Circulo 4 C4Ban ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Banqueta C4CenAlt ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Center Altar C4P1 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 1 C4P2 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 2 C4P3 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 3 C4P4 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 4 C4P5 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 5 C4P6 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 6 C4P7 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 7 C4P8 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 4 Platforma 8 Circulo 5 C5Ban MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Banqueta C5CenAlt MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Center Altar C5P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Platforma 4 C5P5 MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Platforma 5 C5P6 MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Platforma 6 C5P7 MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Platforma 7 C5P8 MURO CARGA Circulo 5 Platforma 8 Circulo 6 C6P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 6 Platforma 4 C6P3 MURO CARGA Circulo 6 Platforma 3 C6P2 MURO CARGA Circulo 6 Platforma 2 C6P7 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 6 Platforma 7 C6P6 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 6 Platforma 6 C6P5 ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 6 Platforma 5 C6CentAlt ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 6 Center Altar

PAGE 263

245 C6Ban ESTRUCTURAacabado Circulo 6 Banqueta Circulo 7 C7Contours MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Contours C7CenAlt MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Center Altar C7P1n2 MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Platformas 1 and 2 C7P3 MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Platform 3 C7P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Platform 4 C7P7 MURO CARGA Circulo 7 Platform 7 Circulo 8 C8CenAlt MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Center Altar C8Contours MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Contours C8P2 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 2 C8P3 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 3 C8P4 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 4 C8P5 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 5 C8P6 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 6 C8P7 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 7 C8P8 MURO CARGA Circulo 8 Platforma 8 Circulo 9 C9 MURO CARGA Circulo 9 Circulo 10 C10P1n2 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platformas 1 and 2 C10P3 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 3 C10P4 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 4 C10P5 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 5 C10P6 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 6 C10P7 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 7 C10P8 PIEDRA Circulo 10 Platforma 8 Contours CurvaMaestra CURVA_MAESTRA Major Contour Lines CurvaOdrinaria CURVA_ORDINARIA Contour Lines Elite Residence EliteResidenceRestora tion ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Elite Residence Gran Plaza GranPlaza ESTRUCTURAacabado Restored Gran Plaza Jeugo de Pelota (1 and 2) JPEast ESTRUCTURAacabado East side of Juego de Pelota 1 JPWest ESTRUCTURAacabado West side of Jeugo de Pelota 1 JP2 RUINA Jeugo de Pelota 2 LaJoyita (A and B) A 0 A$C68363114 Excavated La Joyita A B 0 A$C461D2308 Excavated La Joyita B Unidad Habitacional UnidadHabitacional MURO CARGA Other residences Loma Alta LomaAltaDrawing MURO CARGA Loma Alta Drawings

PAGE 264

246 Other Ruins OtherRuins RUINA Other identified ruins Protected Land Outline ProtectedLandOutline verficado gps Protected Land Outline Roads Roads guachimontones1$0$X REF TORRENO$0$MACHUELO Roads leading to center and site Talleres CenterOutline guachimontones1$0$TUBO Talleres Center outline TalleresWalls guachimontones1$0$X TERRENO$0$GT 00 MUROSPIEDRAS and guachimontones1$0$X TERRENO$0$GT 00 MUROSBAJOS Parking lot walls TalleresParkingLot guachimontones1$0$X REF TORRENO$0$MACHUELO Parking lot walls TalleresSidewalk D Center sidewalk Table 3: Feature Layer Name Original Layer Source Layer Description Center Outline CenterOutline proyecciones Outline of Outreach Center Lithics Piedras Piedras Recovered Lithics Matates Metate Metate Recovered Metates Ceramics Ceramics Ceramica Recovered Ceramics Bones Bones Hueso Recovered Bone Fragments Table 4: Layer Name Layer Description Elevation Data Notes AllDrawings Complete Layer of All Phil Weigand Drawings No Elevation Data AllRestoredStructures Complete Layer of All Restored Structures Useful Elevation Data Circle10 Contains Excavated Plan of Circle 10 No Elevation Data Circle1JPDrawing Phil Weigand's Drawings of Cirlce 2 and Eastern Portion of Juego de Pelota 1 No Elevation Data Circle1JPRestoration Restored Structures of Cirlce1 and Eastern Portion of Juego de Pelota Useful Elevation Data Circle2Drawing Phil Weigand's Drawings of Circle 2 and Western Portion of Juego de Pelota 2 No Elevation Data Circle2JPRestoration Restored Structures of Circle 2 and Western Portion of Juego de Pelota 1 Useful Elevation Data Circle3Drawing Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle3 No Elevation Data Circle3Restoration Restored Structures of Circle 3 Useful Elevation Data Circle4Restoration Restored Structes of Circle 4 Useful Elevation Data Circle5Drawing Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle 5 No Elevation Data Circle6Drawing Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle 6 No Elevation Data Circle6Restoration Restored Structures of Circle 6 Useful Elevation Data

PAGE 265

247 Circle9 Drawing of Circle 9 No Elevation Data Circles7n8Drawings Phil Weigand's Drawings of Circle 7 and Cricle 8 No Elevation Data Cricle4Drawing Phil Weigand's Drawing of Circle4 No Elevation Data CurvaMaestra Contains Main Contour Lines Useful Elevation Data CurvaOdrinaria Contains Contour Lines Useful Elevation Data EliteResidenceResotration Restored Structures of Elite Residence Useful Elevation Data GranPlazaRestoration Restored Structures of Gran Plaza Useful Elevation Data JP2 Juego de Pelota 2 Not Useful Elevation is 0.2962 LaJoyita Contains Excavated Plans of La Joyita A and B No Elevation Data LomaAltaDrawing Phil Weigand's Drawing of Loma Alta No Elevation Data OtherRuins Contains other ruins throughout the site Some Elevation Data 35 out of 1345 objects have USEFUL elevation data ProtectedLandOutline Outline of Los Guachimontones Protected Land No Elevation Data Roads Constructed Roads to center and site Useful Elevation Data UnidadHabitacional Not Useful Elevations are 0 2.2017

PAGE 266

248 APPENDIX B: Viewshed Results for Each Observation Point

PAGE 267

249 Circle I Central Altar Table B.1: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Central Altar OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 25524 2 1 21015 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.1: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Central Altar

PAGE 268

250 Platform 1 Table B.2: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 35691 2 1 10848 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.2: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 269

251 Platform 2 Table B.3: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 34071 2 1 12468 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.3: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 2

PAGE 270

252 Platform 7 Table B.4: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 42148 2 1 4391 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.4: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 7

PAGE 271

253 Platform 11 Table B.5: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 37865 2 1 8674 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.5: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 11

PAGE 272

254 Platform 12 Table B.6: Viewshed Results for Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 36061 2 1 10478 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.6: Viewshed Map of Circle I. Observation Point: Platform 12

PAGE 273

255 Circle II Central Altar Table B.7: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 18660 2 1 27879 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.7: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Central Altar

PAGE 274

256 Platform 1 Table B.8: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33338 2 1 13201 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.8: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 275

257 Platform 2 Table B.9: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33652 2 1 12887 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.9: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 2

PAGE 276

258 Platform 3 Table B.10: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 32065 2 1 14474 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.10: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 3

PAGE 277

259 Platform 4 Table B.11: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 31487 2 1 15052 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.11: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 4

PAGE 278

260 Platform 5 Table B.12: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 29933 2 1 16606 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.12: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 5

PAGE 279

261 Platform 6 Table B.13: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 32345 2 1 14194 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.13: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 6

PAGE 280

262 Platform 7 Table B.14: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 7 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 32334 2 1 14205 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.14: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 7

PAGE 281

263 Platform 8 Table B.15: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 29552 2 1 16987 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.15: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 8

PAGE 282

264 Platform 9 Table B.16: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 34572 2 1 11967 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.16: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 9

PAGE 283

265 Platform 10 Table B.17: Viewshed Results for Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33596 2 1 12943 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.17: Viewshed Map of Circle II. Observation Point: Platform 10

PAGE 284

266 Circle III Central Altar Table B.18: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 25566 2 1 20973 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.18: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Central Altar

PAGE 285

267 Platform 1 Table B.19: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 29933 2 1 16606 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.19: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 286

268 Platform 2 Table B.20: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 32268 2 1 14271 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.20: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 2

PAGE 287

269 Platform 3 Table B.21: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 30092 2 1 16447 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.21: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 3

PAGE 288

270 Platform 8 Table B.22: Viewshed Results for Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33818 2 1 12721 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.22: Viewshed Map of Circle III. Observation Point: Platform 8

PAGE 289

271 Circle IV Central Altar Table B.23: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 32845 2 1 13694 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.23: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Central Altar

PAGE 290

272 Platform 1 Table B.24: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33774 2 1 12765 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.24: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 1

PAGE 291

273 Platform 2 Table B.25: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 30751 2 1 15788 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.25: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 2

PAGE 292

274 Platform 3 Table B.26: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 29516 2 1 17023 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.26: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 3

PAGE 293

275 Platform 4 Table B.27: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 28666 2 1 17873 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.27: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 4

PAGE 294

276 Platform 5 Table B.28: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 30204 2 1 16335 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.28: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 5

PAGE 295

277 Platform 6 Table B.29: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 33348 2 1 13191 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.29: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 6

PAGE 296

278 Platform 7 Table B.30: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 34072 2 1 12467 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.30: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 7

PAGE 297

279 Platform 8 Table B.31: Viewshed Results for Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8 OBJECT ID Value Count 1 0 35425 2 1 11114 Value 0 = Not Visible, 1 = Visible Figure B.31: Viewshed Map of Circle IV. Observation Point: Platform 8

PAGE 298

280