Symbolism in Monuments

When a monument is created and erected, it is done so for a symbolic reason. It immediately tells a story about the space it inhabits, or a person who inhabits the space, or perhaps both. It is meant to become a commemorative object, preserving the memory of a person, place, or event. In contrast to architecture, monuments are much more obvious in their symbolic meaning. As for the monuments surrounding the National Mall in Washington, DC, a message of power and American identity emulates from the several structures. I will analyze one of them, the Marine Corps Memorial Iwo Jima Statue.

This memorial claims to be one of the largest bronze statues ever cast, according to washington.org's memorial and monument section. It commemorates the marines who have ever died since 1775. It was created after a photograph of the flag being raised on Mount Suribachi during world war II. It emulates great power and status from its 32 foot high figures, and even larger, 60 foot flag pole. The flag pole has a cloth flag instead of a static bronze cast one, perhaps to make the monument seem "alive" and continuously keeping the memory of the marines living on. Just the sheer size of the monument suggests the idea of power as a key characteristic - the creator would want the importance of the men to be greatly emphasized in this monument. It certainly exudes the proud American identity - brave men who gave their lives in honour of their country. I think it is apart of our culture to view the war memorial or monument and think of patriotism and power - if it were not for the brave men who fought for our freedom, North America would not have the powerful identity it has today.

Laws of the Indies

Based on what I have read in the Laws of the Indies, it seems as though these laws were made as a front to cover the colonial Spanish when they went to invade the America's and plan settlements.

They begin by establishing ransom and peace offering rules, that in exchange for commerce and peace, the colonizers would like to gain information from the natives about the quality of the land, etc. Another mandate is "try not to damage the Indian population", which, obviously, is a rule that was not followed.  They did want to find land that would have "willing" natives to "preach the Gospel" because "this is the principle objective for which we mandate that these discoveries and settlements be made." Right away we see that the Spaniards were looking for a place that they could take advantage of the natives, convert them to Christianity and have them work for their Catholic institutions and willingly sacrifice their previous lives for it.

It is also clear that they wanted to establish land control quickly. They were to find a suitable place for a capital, near water, and near neighbouring cities that could easily be demolished to take advantage of their materials for creating buildings within the capital. They also note how the land is to be built upon: first, they were to find vacant land that could be occupied without doing harm to the Indians or Natives or with their free consent. Then, they were to divide the land into squares, streets and building lots, beginning with the main square that could branch out and intersect main roads. This does sound similar to how precontact Mesoamerican cities were set up: a giant grid plan with a main city square in the center, containing the plaza and marketplace. I am curious as to how they adopted this plan, and if it was from Latin American cities, because the text also notes how European cities were set up according to a "regular" plan from the 11th century until the end of the 15th century, which is when the discovery of the America's occurred. After that, the plan for the "orthogonal grid" was followed, perhaps alluding to the idea that they may have adopted the grid plan from Mesoamerican cities.

Granada and Santa Fe

After Granada was taken over by the Catholics, the character of the city began to change. Over the course of the 16th century, it took on more Catholic characteristics, including the transformation of mosques into Catholic churches. Areas were demolished to make room for new Catholic institutions. This reflects the Spanish colonization of Tenochtitlan which was destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up with Catholic buildings as well. Santa Fe was taken over in the same manner and built according to a grid plan for maximum control.
From what I can see on Google Maps, Granada seems to be a mixture of organic and grid plan. It looks like a poorly done job of what was meant to be a grid plan actually. The sections are somewhat square and rectangular but they vary in shape and size and don't follow a precise pattern. From the photo below, we can see the idea of monolithic churches as signifiers happening within the main part of the city. There is also a plaza area which, from what we've learned, would commonly be used for communal gathering spaces.

Santa Fe looks a little bit neater when it comes to the idea of the grid plan. It has a less organic feel and a tighter, more controlled structure. This makes sense knowing that this city was built in this manner for recapturing Granada. Although still a grid plan, it has a more organic feel to it than other city centers we have seen, such as those in Mesoamerican times - the very rigid structure of the Wari or the colonized area of Timgad. Compared to Granada, though, it does follow a much more strict set up, as we can see with the photo of Santa Fe below. 

Perhaps because Granada was the main prize for the Spanish, the structure is less grid-like because it was the place they wanted to create a new grand capital. Santa Fe seems like a side project or aid in the conquering of Granada and reflects the colonized locations of many cities taken over by the Roman empire. Perhaps Granada was meant to show off the city-restructuring skills of the Spanish, and Santa Fe emphasized their overarching power and control over nearby cities. 

Tenochtitlan - Modern Mexico City

Tenochtitlan was a city state that was founded in 1325, and became the Aztec capital of Mesoamerica. It became the largest city in the pre columbian world, spanning 13.5 kilometers. The city plan for Tenochtitlan was a division into four quadrants - similar to other Mesoamerican cities which relied on the concept of the axis mundi and cosmological order to design their cities. Those 4 quadrants were further divided into 20 districts. The streets were large to accommodate the massive city and its population. Each district even had its own marketplace, with the largest marketplace facilitating up to 60,000 traders a day! 

The founding of Tenochtitlan was based on the fulfillment of an ancient prophecy predicting that the location of the next great capital would have an eagle eating a snake, perched upon a cactus. The Aztecs saw this vision and the creation of the next great city began. This important vision still exists on the Mexican coat of arms. Clearly, the creation and founding of Tenochtitlan was a very important moment in Mexican history, making it a desirable location to build the modern capital of Mexico - Mexico City.

In 1521, Tenochtitlan was captured and colonized by Spanish settlers, and turned into the modern day Mexico city, still a very large capital of Mexico. Cortes and his men were astonished at the sheer size and beauty of the Pre Columbian city, and made plans to destroy it, even convincing some natives to aid him in the deconstruct the powerful city. Cortes erased all of the Aztec culture by replacing temples with catholic churches and renaming the city Mexico. Mexico city is quite large today, spreading out over 1,485 square kilometers, much larger than the original Tenochtitlan.

I believe that the Spanish colonized Tenochtitlan into Mexico City because at the time, it was seen as the most powerful and largest cities in the Aztec civilization. It also harbored power and status from the fulfilled ancient prophecy, which, again, is immortalized in the Mexican Coat of Arms. Cortes and his men saw the city and envisioned the magnificent transformation into a modern day Spanish city. Was the destruction of the city worth it to create what is now a very large and powerful capital? In my opinion, no. Mexico city is now much larger than the original Tenochtitlan, meaning that the Spanish could have chosen a spot that was already clear and empty for them to build upon. The effort needed to crush temples and other religious buildings and then rebuild churches and modern housing upon them would have been massive - and probably would have taken much less time and effort to rebuild on an uninhabited space in the first place. 

Tula and the supposed influence of Toltecs at Chichen Itza

This week I will be traveling to Tula and Chichen Itza to put in my two cents on the debate over whether the Toltecs had architectural influence at the Chichen Itza site or not. Most of this debate lies between Pyramid B at Tula and the Temple of the Warriors at Chichen Itza. Let's have a look.

I start at Tula, the site of the Toltecs. Pyramid B is unlike the pyramids you would see in Egypt: it has a flattened top in lieu of a point to create a triangle; it has several figures made of a stone material standing on the top, and it has several columns placed in front of it and beside it, as if creating a processional way. The figures on top, from what I remember, are Toltec warriors, perhaps guarding the pyramid. The pyramid has typical Mesoamerican features such as talud tablero structure and a central staircase leading to the top. It is either elevated on a platform of land, or the land below the columned area has been dug out like a sunken court, with steps leading into it.

In Chichen Itza, the pyramid is similar. It has a flattened top as well with a central staircase and talud tablero construction. It also has the several columns in front and beside it. It is somewhat elevated on a platform of  few stairs leading up to the columned area. What is different about this pyramid is that at the top it has a partially enclosed area, like a stone gate, no roof or cover, over some more columns. There are also a couple columns invading the central staircase space. There appears to be a small, human like statue in the middle of the columns on top of the pyramid as well. From what I can faintly see, there does seem to be some feathered serpent designs and sculptural work on the walls of these gates. I don't see any sculptural forms that look like Toltec warriors.

From looking at both of these forms, I can definitely see an influence, or connection, between the two. There must have been some kind of contact between these two areas to leave an impression on Chichen Itza. If the Toltecs had a lot of control and power in Chichen Itza, I feel that they would have built Toltec warriors there as well to mark the architectural area as an influence of the Toltec. The columned areas appear to be much shorter in Tula than at Chichen Itza, and the partially enclosed area confuses me as well. But, overall, in my opinion, I believe there must have been some influence from the Toltecs on this site because there are too many features that are too similar to just have been a coincidence.

The Great Teotihuacan

I really enjoyed learning about Teotihuacan in my Pre Columbian Mesoamerica class last semester. The city is vast and its influence in Mesoamerican times spanned for miles throughout neighbouring communities. My blog posting is late this week because I was in New York for a class trip. I would like to quickly remark on the Roman style architectural influence in New York - almost everywhere you look you see the classic fluted columns, rectangular faces and porch features of the Roman empire. It was quite fascinating!!

Today I am traveling to Teotihuacan to see the pyramids in relation to the environment around them. I am traveling along the Avenue of the Dead and seeing many step pyramids in this complex. Many of them are short and flat on the top - not like a typical pointed pyramid you would see in Egypt. The Pyramid of the Moon is a step pyramid with talud tablero construction leading to a rounded, dull top that resembles more of a mound than a point. As I look straight down the Avenue of the Dead I notice that the Pyramid of the Moon is almost perfectly placed in front of a mountain or volcanic figure, and is centered to look like a smaller version, mimicking the mountain. In comparison, all of the structures around it are flat and do not attract attention like the Pyramid does. From my previous knowledge, I am already aware that this Pyramid was built to represent the mountainous environment around it. I "walk" down the Avenue of the Dead towards the Pyramid of the Moon and it takes a surprisingly long time. The pyramid doesn't look as if it's that far away, but as you come closer, you realize the monumental size of the mountain behind the pyramid and the pyramid itself.

The Pyramid of the Sun is down the avenue on the left side. As I walk towards it I notice the mountainous landscape that practically surrounds the entire complex, as if framing it. It has a very similar build to the pyramid of the moon, with the rounded mound on top reflecting the rounded look of a mountain or volcano.

The pyramids may have been built to represent gateways to the heavens - as if raising humankind off the middle ground to be closer to the sky. Kings and rulers would have stood or sat upon the tops of these pyramids which would have represented them as Godly and Holy to their people. Perhaps representing the natural landscape around them was a way to transfer a sense of power and strength through their architectural forms. The mountains may have been seen as a natural protection of the city, and perhaps the people of Teotihuacan wanted to emulate that sense of protection within their structures as well. Overall, the pyramids that represent the mountain landscape may have been built to convey power through strength, divinity, and protection.

Timgad VS Pikillacta

For this weeks blog post, we will be exploring two architectural sites that represent hierarchical space formations and social order: the Roman site of Timgad and the Wari military center, Pikillacta.
My own previous knowledge of the Wari is that they were a somewhat violent and militaristic civilization. Their architecture was built for the purpose of having a strong fortress for defense; inspiring intimidation in enemies; and keeping access to their complexes as monitored and closed in as possible. As for Timgad, I do not have any previous knowledge, so let us explore using the power of Google maps.

I will start with Timgad. I see the classic Roman symbol of architecture: the columns. They align in what seems to be a processional way to a Roman archway. The theatre is reminiscent of the dome like structure used in the Colosseum; there definitely seems to be a hierarchy of space through the rows of seats circles around a central ritualistic area. It is quite a vast complex; from an aerial view it seems to expand over quite a large area, and it does remind me of what I have seen of Wari architecture. There are strong, stone walls in a grid-like pattern. In fact, from the aerial view, they seem to be separated into perfect squares. The walls appear to be quite short, but I can't be too sure from the views on Google maps. They certainly do not look tall enough to be solely for defensive purposes.

Now I will be looking at Pikillacta. It is located near a small lake, which seems strategically sensible! Right away I can see huge similarities between the sites. From an aerial view, Pikillacta is created in a square grid as well. I already am familiar with the site, so I know it is made up of fortifying walls that carefully channel you through the complex. These walls are taller and create more of a narrow space compared to Timgad. It definitely has more of a hostile feel to it than Timgad as well, which appears to be more of a community space that involves communal entertainment, markets, and other gathering spaces. These types of spaces are much less apparent in Pikillacta. It is also a little more aggressive by not allowing you to see where you are navigating to with the height of the walls, and even more aggressive is the occasional jutting-out of more rock wall within the already confined rock walls, as if to control and intimidate the navigator even more into staying in line. 

Overall, I would have to compare these two sites by their aerial views more than anything. They both follow a structured grid plan, created by stone walls that control the space of the complex. They both spread over a vast area of space as well, and are probably both intended to intimidate enemies in some way with its vastness and complexity. The main differences are that the Wari definitely meant to create an intimidating, rigid space that not only confines enemies who try to enter, but the Wari people themselves. There is definitely a social hierarchical division going on, where the people in power wish to control every movement of the Wari people throughout the space. As for Timgad, the space definitely appears to be more open with lower, wider spaced walls, allowing you to at least see the landscape around you and a sense of where you are going. It also is more welcoming and communal, with a theatre, a market place, and processional ways that appear to be gathering spots for ritualistic community activities.