Laws of the Indies

For this week’s blog, I studied the Settlement Ordinances in the Laws of the Indies by Philip II (1573), that the Spanish colonizers followed for the establishment of New World cities. 

For the location of the new town, colonizers had to choose land based on its fertility, its indigenous population, medium elevation, distance from ocean, and access to harbor for economic purposes. If towns were located by rivers, it was established on the eastern banks. 

Once the site is chosen, lots are measured and organized. Peonia and caballenas are two differently measured urban lots that are given measurements for the width and depth, but other forms of measurement were used for farmland and pastures. 

Farmland uses yields of bushels (156) of wheat or barley to determine its size while pastures have to hold a certain number of animals, such as 100 sheep and 20 goats. It seems odd that the land has two different forms of measurement instead of using feet, especially when the Spanish were attempting to design a more organized settlement. 

The town had to meet the above mentioned criteria, however, it was also specified that it should be fortified, open to the north wind and not lie where the sea was to the south or west of it. These ordinances, while strange at first, is similar to the native Mesoamericans who used cardinal points and sun positions to determine the orientation of their own cities. 

 The plaza was meant to be the starting point for the town. It was described as being square or rectangular and proportioned to the number of inhabitants. Dimensions were given, though many of the plazas were already built before these ordinances. There are 4 principal streets originating from the plaza and the plaza is oriented to face the 4 principal winds.  

 While the Spaniards were given these ordinances, they did use the old Mesoamerican cities as a template to perfect their own designs because the original cities were perfectly organized.

What I found interesting is the way the towns were carefully designed. It was taken into careful consideration how it was laid out (order), with the plaza as a key feature and nature (wind, rivers, elevation, etc.) playing a huge role in deciding where to plot the town, how it would be oriented and why it was built in such a way. 

That's all for now!

I'm off. 

Reconquista

For this week’s blog, I studied the cities of Granada and Santa Fe de Granada, both located in Spain. These cities are situated very close to one another in the region of Spain that was once under Islamic control. In 1492, the Catholic Monarchs from Spain conquered the territory, bringing with it a new era of urban form and religion. 

In Granada before the reconquering, it was a Medieval and Islamic controlled city with its respective forms and monuments. When it was conquered, the Spanish brought Gothic, Renaissance and Classical architecture to fill the city and meld the Spanish-Muslim cultures. Also, to ensure that the Spanish were considered the conquerers, they needed to establish their own identity within the city. They did add the Renaissance and Classic architecture and adornments, but they also added monuments to juxtapose those of the Islamic order (such as the Palace of Charles V). Compared to Santa Fe, which was a grid-planned and Spanish created city, Granada was and still remains an organic city. 

Granada-Alhambra
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Alhambra_de_Granada,_vista_general_(Spain).jpg
(accessed March 22, 2013).

Granada
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PanoGranada1.jpg
(accessed March 22, 2013).

Palace of Charles V
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Palacio_Carlos_V_west.jpg
(accessed March 22, 2013).

In the effort to conquer Granada, Santa Fe was established by the Catholic Monarchs as a fortified military camp. By doing so, they were able to deliver a serious blow to the fortified center of Granada- Alhambra. 

Santa Fe is built in the same manner as Roman and Spanish cities (such as Thamugadi and Tenochtitlán) because they are all built in a grid-plan format. This suggests that it was built to establish the new order of the conquerer and to set up the control of the Catholic Monarchs. 

With a place of control directly outside of Granada, this allowed them to establish a force strong enough to take the Islamic city. Not only that, but it probably brought in the new Spanish architectural form. While it was introduced in Santa Fe, it was slowly established in Granada, bringing together a mesh of different architectural forms. 

Today, Santa Fe has some relics of its grid-plan, though the walls that once surrounded the city are no longer there, the four gates that intersected the wall still remain (this suggests that there was a certain flow to the city). 

Santa Fe de Granada (aerial view)
http://hotelesandalucia.es/UserFiles/images/pueblos/Granada/santafe/555.jpg
(accessed March 22, 2013).

Santa Fe was a new center created to conquer and juxtapose Granada and to ensure that the Spanish were in power. Today, what can be seen of the two cities’ relationship is the architectural styles of the conquering Spanish, and the monuments that still remain.   

That's all for now!

I'm off.

Tenochtitlán before Mexico City

For this week’s blog, I studied the ancient Aztec city of Tenochtitlán. What I did not know was Tenochtitlán was exactly where Mexico City is located today; more specifically, it is buried under the city because of the Spanish conquering. 

But before the Spanish conquered Tenochtitlan, the city was one of the largest at the time (1400s) and it was a massive centre of political, religious and economic power. It was laid out in a grid pattern (very similar to Teotihuacan) and more compressed in scale. All of the main markets, complexes, and buildings were pushed together so the city had a distinguished core. At the centre, in the precinct (enclosed by the Coatepantli or the Snake Wall) were pyramids, temples and sacrificial altars. Also at the centre of this Aztec universe was the Templo Mayor, a dual palace that represented the zone of man, the 13 levels of Heaven and nine levels of the Underworld. 

Map of Tenochtitlán
http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/aztecs/tenochtitlan-color.jpg
(accessed March 8, 2013).

Model of Tenochtitlán
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/97/Model_of_Tenochtitlan.jpg
(accessed March 8, 2013).

All of this shows how Tenochtitlán was tied and centered around religious beliefs and practices, deities, cosmology and power. Of all the Aztec sites, Tenochtitlán was the most divergently planned to show its grandeur and to distinguish it from the other cities. 

When Tenochtitlán fell, the Spanish razed most of Tenochtitlán to the ground before building Mexico City. As Mexico City was built, it was done so in European style and traditions. 

Mexico City- The Angel of Independence
http://www.mtwmexicocity.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Mexico_City.jpg
(accessed March 8, 2013).

Mexico City Cathedral (built by Spaniards over ruins of Tenochtitlán's main temple, Templo Mayor)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mexico_City_Zocalo_Cathedral.jpg
(accessed March 8, 2013).

But why would the Spanish raze and rebuild their colonial capital on a city that represented power? 

To destroy such a monumental city seems unimaginable, however, there is a significance in the Spanish (and most conquering nations) doing this. The Spanish shared a similar set of beliefs with the Mesoamericans when conquering another city; this included destroying the temples and ideological structures belonging to the conquered people and rebuilding upon the razed territory to signify a new order. 

To rebuild the city showed their control, power and superiority as the rulers of Mexico City. I can understand that to conquer, to gain that power, and to set in stone that you were the rulers made it necessary to rebuild a new empire. The Greeks, Romans and other empires exemplified this in their own efforts to become more powerful nations. It was necessary to show that they, in the end, were in control.  

That's it for now!

I'm off. 

Maya-Toltec

For this week’s blog I studied, compared and contrasted the two structures from the Mesoamerican sites of Chichén Itzá and Tula. There is not much information of either site apart from what can be gathered from the architecture. 

The two structures that I looked at were the Temple of the Warriors and Pyramid B from Chichén Itzá and Tula respectively. At first glance between the photographs of these structures, they appear almost identical. Almost.

Chichén Itza-Temple of the Warriors
http://www.chriskuzneski.com/death/virtual_files/warriors.jpg
(accessed March 2, 2013)

Tula-Pyramid B
http://theslideprojector.com/images/art9/The%20Art%20of%20Mesoamerica/Chapter%208-%20Fall%20of%20Classic%20Cities/pyramid%20b.jpg
(accessed March 2, 2013)

Both structures rise up in tiers, their sides slanting upwards with steps ascending to the top, for processions and ritual purposes. There are pillars at the front of both, and they reach the first steps (perhaps as the base for some sort of covering). At the top of the structures, it is easier to see the differences between the two. 

The Temple of the Warriors has a different arrangement at the top with what appears to be the remnants of walls around pillars that represent nobles, priests, and warriors. There is also a pathway that leads towards a statue of Chac-Mool (who has a flat belly which may have been the place for rituals, ceremonies and sacrifice).  

Chac-Mool on Temple of the Warriors
http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/95/122195-004-476CA6A1.jpg
(accessed March 2, 2013)

Pyramid B has a completely flat top with statues arranged together. They represent Toltec warriors and stand around smaller pillars. This may have also been an area of sacrifice and a place of congregation. 

Toltec Warriors on Pyramid B
http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/bevans/Art101/Art101B-6-Pre-Columbian/WebPage-ImageF.00027.jpeg
(accessed March 2, 2013)

The structures may appear to be the same size, but of the two monuments, the Temple of the Warriors is a little more monumental. Not only is it larger, but the slope of this structure is much steeper (difference in rituals or ceremonies from Tula??). Both sites use these structures to connect to the deities and both incorporate the Feathered Serpent or Quetzalcoatl (god of conquest and death) in their architecture. 

What I found very interesting was how both sites, despite differing influences (Mayan or Aztec) and differing locations in Mesoamerica, shared a strong resemblance. There is a theory of Toltec (Tula) occupation of Chichén Itzá which emphasizes the sacrificial, ritualistic and conquering nature of both occupants (shown in architecture). That one of them conquered another may be a possibility, but I like to think that maybe, maybe this is a case of two distant sites sharing and communicating through architecture (similar to colonialism???). Or maybe that’s just another theory. 

That's it for now!

I'm off.