Lost Cities of the Mexican Highlands

[Dark_Lord]

I have recently returned from an expedition to the highlands of Morelos, in Central Mexico, to the well known archaeological sites of Xochicalco and Chalcatzingo, as well as to other less travelled archaeological sites in the area. It was during this trip that I came across the first references to an ancient city of stone built on an isolated mountaintop in the remote Sierra de Huautla, at a site called Chimalacatlán.

The ruins of Chimalacatlán are highly unusual, in that it is the only site in all of the Central Mexican highlands (and perhaps in all of Mesoamerica) to exhibit what can be rightfully called megalithic architecture. The architecture at the site bears a striking resemblance to that of the Inca an pre-Inca ruins of Peru and of the Andean highlands, only that this site is found in almost complete isolation, in an area which is not known for ancient megalithic construction.

Chimalacatlán is indeed an ancient city of stone, where the most impressive feature is a set of megalithic stone platforms, measuring some 70 by 40 meters and reaching an height of about 8 meters. The style of construction is undoubtedly megalithic, with large blocks of stone, measuring up to 2,5 meters in length, laid without mortar.

Very little is known of the builders of these ruins and of their date, as the site is not even mentioned in most archaeological publications on ancient Mesoamerica (and, suprisingly for a site of this importance, not even in the list of archaeological sites kept by the Mexican national Institute of Anthropology - http://www.inah.gob....s-arqueologicas).

The scant information available (the only published source is a 1948 paper by archaeologist Florencia Muller) attributes the ruins to the early pre-Classic period, ca. 1000 to 800 BC, and considers the people of the Olmecs as the most likely responsible for their construction (mostly based on supposition).

At the time of the ruins first discovery, towards the end of the XIX Century, claims were even made (by the then bishop of Cuernavaca and famed anthropologist - Francisco Plancarte y Navarrete) that the ruins found in the remote and mountainous Sierra de Huautla were in fact those of the legendary Tamoanchan, the mythical place of origin to which later Mesoamerican civilizations traced their ancestry and original homeland.

The fact that no other similar site to Chimalacatlán, displaying this kind of megalithic architecture, exists in all of the Mexican highlands (and perhaps in all of Mesoamerica), poses several unanswered questions about the origins of its builders and the reason for such a monumental scale construction in such a remote area, far from the center of the Olmec, as well as of the other known Mesoamerican civilizations.

You can find more information and pictures following the link below:

http://unchartedruin...-highlands.html

[Hanslune]

That may be because it is better known as Tlaquiltenango. This is a town has two archeological ruins, one in Chimalacatlán and the other in Huaxtla, plus conquistador ruins as this area was part of Cortes' holdings. There are a number of studies on the site in Spanish and under the names I noted.

I visited this site in '77 while interesting it isn't evidence for "a lost civilization'.

I would suggest looking at the Nahua Cartography for the Mapa de Otumba.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/481526?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents - this is hidden behind a paywall but lists all the pre-1750's mention of this place

http://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=4703675

etc

Edited June 17, 2015 by Hanslune

[Dark_Lord]

Thanks Hanslune,

I am familiar with reports of the existence of ruins similar to those of Chimalacatlan in Huaxtla, but haven't been able to find any description, maps or pictures of the ruins themselves. Do you have any pictures or location map you can share?

I have recently obtained a copy of Florencia Muller's 1948 paper on Chimalacatlan (part of the Acta Anthropologica series), and will try to find more information there.

Any hypothesis on where this peculiar megalithic architecture could have originated? It seems to have no parallels to me in all of ancient Mesoamerica.

Edited June 17, 2015 by Dark_Lord

[Hanslune]

Thanks Hanslune,

I am familiar with reports of the existence of ruins similar to those of Chimalacatlan in Huaxtla, but haven't been able to find any description, maps or pictures of the ruins themselves. Do you have any pictures or location map you can share?

I have recently obtained a copy of Florencia Muller's 1948 paper on Chimalacatlan (part of the Acta Anthropologica series), and will try to find more information there.

Any hypothesis on where this peculiar megalithic architecture could have originated? It seems to have no parallels to me in all of ancient Mesoamerica.

There isn't much I see the name mentioned here in this Spanish language PDF

http://www.iaea.org/...16/43116884.pdf

As Cortes took this land as his personal fief and he is known to have constructed towers, defenses and buildings for his horse ranch my first inclination would be to find a way to determine which of the ruins are those.

Not much has been translated into English language publications. It is also highly probable that it may have research done on it under a different place name(s) - an occurrence that is not unusual in Meso-America.

I'd suggest contacting the Mexican University nearest that location (that has an antiquities or anthroplogy/archaeology department and ask them.

Edited to add

National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mexico city is the closest, everyone I knew there is long gone but that would be a good place to start. If that doesn't work try the more robust program at the University of Yucatan

Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán

Edited June 17, 2015 by Hanslune

[jaylemurph]

Any hypothesis on where this peculiar megalithic architecture could have originated? It seems to have no parallels to me in all of ancient Mesoamerica.

Why exactly does "using big blocks of stone" necessarily mean "unimaginable mystery"? There's nothing in that picture impossible (or else it wouldn't be in a picture), and from what little I know about construction, using large stones as a foundation isn't something that needs deep explication.

It feels like you're trying to manufacture something here that just isn't present or needed.

--Jaylemurph

[Dark_Lord]

I certainly agree there is nothing truly mysterious or unexplainable (?) in megalithic constructions per se.

I nevertheless find very intriguing that this seems to be the only site of megalithic/ cyclopean architecture in all of Mesoamerica. There are several elements to me that make it a very fascinating site, and worth of further investigation:

• The unique, megalithic/ cyclopean architecture of the site which, I repeat, has no parallel in Mesoamerica (I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this, though)
  
• Its high antiquity (compared to most Mesoamerican sites). Even the relatively conservative dating of the site to the late formative/ early pre-classic (ca. 800 BC), makes it one of the oldest monumental architectures of this kind in Mesoamerica. Yet, there is no conclusive evidence as of the date of the megalithic constructions, so the 800 BC date is really a terminus ante quem. meaning they can be much older. The region does indeed bear evidence of nearly continuous human habitation since the Pleistocene.
  
• The absence of sculptures, stelae or glyphs associated with the megalithic structures, that, in addition to their unique architecture, makes it impossible to conclusively attribute them to any known Mesoamerican civilization or to their predecessors
  
• The mythical associations of the portion of the state of Morelos where the ruins are found with the legendary Tamoanchan, believed to be the place of creation or the place of origin of all Mesoamerican civilizations
  
• The strong and significant Olmec present in this part of Morelos (not only at Chimalacatlan, but also at nearby sites such as Chalcatzingo and Teopantecuanitlan), in an area very far from the Olmec heartland on the Gulf cost of Mexico
  

Just food for thought.

[Hanslune]

One note megalithic has a distinct meaning in mesoamerican architecture which is different from the European variety/meaning:

The term is used to describe limestone (or other rock*) blocks 1 m x 50 cm x 30 cm laid without mortar and often covered with a thick layer of stucco or adobe. This method was common used by the northern Mayan cities until the first part of the classic period. A large number of those structures are considered megalithic by that description.

*Tezontle

You may be using the ill defined European term of megalithic out of the European context.

I would suggest looking at the stone work of the northern Maya cities like Mayapan. Some of the formative period Olmec ruins have also been described as megalithic in the blog you linked to one of those sites is mentioned.

Edited June 19, 2015 by Hanslune

[Dark_Lord]

Thanks, Hanslune for your comments.

I have seen some good examples of what is sometimes defined as "megalithic" construction in the Pre-Classic Maya cities of the Guatemala lowlands.

For instance, the massive site of El Mirador contains many examples of unmortared limestone masonry (you can find more pictures here: http://unchartedruins.blogspot.com/2013/04/part-iii-great-pyramid.html)

However, this style of masonry can hardly be called "megalithic" by the conventional (albeit ill-defined) meaning of the word. In this respect, the megalithic walls of Chimalacatlan have more to share with the megalithic and cyclopean constructions of Italy and Greece (to draw an architectural parallel) than with the so called "megalithic" architecture of the Northern Maya states.

I still find it very interesting that this style of construction, employing large blocks of stone finely cut and jointed together, is only found in some of the oldest Mesoamerican sites (belonging to the formative or pre-classic period), while it disappears entirely in the Classic and Post-classic period.

This is especially puzzling, as the later Classic and Post-classic cities and city-states certainly had the organization to cut and raise large blocks of stone, yet chose more simple techniques and less durable materials for their constructions. It's almost as if the art of building in stone had got somehow lost, or had been perhaps deliberately abandoned in favor of a more utilitarian concept of architecture. All very interesting.

[Hanslune]

Thanks, Hanslune for your comments.

I have seen some good examples of what is sometimes defined as "megalithic" construction in the Pre-Classic Maya cities of the Guatemala lowlands.

For instance, the massive site of El Mirador contains many examples of unmortared limestone masonry (you can find more pictures here: http://unchartedruin...at-pyramid.html)

I still find it very interesting that this style of construction, employing large blocks of stone finely cut and jointed together, is only found in some of the oldest Mesoamerican sites (belonging to the formative or pre-classic period), while it disappears entirely in the Classic and Post-classic period.

The example that you have at the top of this page doesn't show 'large blocks of stone finely cut and jointed' - it shows average sized stone neither fine cut or jointed; - do you have a better image for that?

This is especially puzzling, as the later Classic and Post-classic cities and city-states certainly had the organization to cut and raise large blocks of stone, yet chose more simple techniques and less durable materials for their constructions. It's almost as if the art of building in stone had got somehow lost, or had been perhaps deliberately abandoned in favor of a more utilitarian concept of architecture. All very interesting.

That is a common way to do it - when you first start out it is hard to cut the stones so you cut big ones, later as the expertise spreads you find you can cut smaller ones (which are easier to move) and use mortar on them to achieve what you want in less time.

You seem to be hinting at the 'lost civilization' building these which you can do but you run into a time line problem.

[Dark_Lord]

Here are a few more pictures of the megalithic stonework:

http://1.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4726d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4720d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4680d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4827d.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4648d.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4726d.jpg

As it can be seen from the pictures above, the workmanship quality is not uniformly constant, but is nevertheless remarkable. The second (uppermost) megalithic platform shows some of the finest stonework. This is also where some of the largest stones were employed (measuring over 2,5 x 0,8 x 0,8 meters).

There is not much to provide a reference for the size of the stones (my fault, didn't take any measuring tape or rods), but this can be inferred based on the height reached by the wall at the corner points.

Edited June 25, 2015 by Dark_Lord

[Hanslune]

Here are a few more pictures of the megalithic stonework:

http://1.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4726d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4720d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4680d.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4827d.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4648d.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot...0/IMGP4726d.jpg

As it can be seen from the pictures above, the workmanship quality is not uniformly constant, but is nevertheless remarkable. The second (uppermost) megalithic platform shows some of the finest stonework. This is also where some of the largest stones were employed (measuring over 2,5 x 0,8 x 0,8 meters).

There is not much to provide a reference for the size of the stones (my fault, didn't take any measuring tape or rods), but this can be inferred based on the height reached by the wall at the corner points.

Thanks for the images; some appear to be reconstructions (27d) while most appear to be the original. The reconstructed one tend to have different sizes and shapes of stone with different patina. Those may have been reconstructed in historic times or when Cortez owned the land.

The others are interesting have you tried contacting the universities I suggested? Also you'll need to get into Spanish language sources for any more information. You can also try determining the largest town near that site and if they have a public library and send them an email. Local libraries near sites tend to keep folders on any research done on sites in their area.

[Dark_Lord]

There is an interesting article on the ruins of Chimalacatlan published by the Department of Architecture of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, 24, 1993; also accessible online: http://arquitectura....24_reducido.pdf), that also includes many interesting pictures.

The ruins were apparently first mentioned by the native Mexican historian Ixtlixochitl (1568 - 1648), himself a descendant of the old kings of Texcoco and author of the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca:

"En Cuauhnahuac otro palacio con una ciudad que solía ser antigua, obra antigua famosa; un palacio labrado todo de piedras grandes, de piedras de cantería sin lodo, ni mezcla, ni vigas, ni ninguna madera, sino una piedras grandes pegadas unas a otras" (Vol. I, p. 38, Mexico 1891)

Meaning:

"In the [region of] Cuauhnahuac, they [The Toltecs] built a palace with a city, an ancient and famous work, a palace all built of large stones, of large cut stones without mortar, nor plaster, nor wood, but all of stone, carved and jointed together"

There is hardly any other construction in all of Central Mexico that would match this description. It is also interesting the way in which Ixtlixochitl stresses the fact that this is an unmortared stone construction, which was certainly a most unusual sight in that region.

Edited June 26, 2015 by Dark_Lord

[Hanslune]

There is an interesting article on the ruins of Chimalacatlan published by the Department of Architecture of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (Cuadernos de Arquitectura Mesoamericana, 24, 1993; also accessible online: http://arquitectura....24_reducido.pdf), that also includes many interesting pictures.

The ruins were apparently first mentioned by the native Mexican historian Ixtlixochitl (1568 - 1648), himself a descendant of the old kings of Texcoco and author of the Historia Tolteca-Chichimeca:

"En Cuauhnahuac otro palacio con una ciudad que solía ser antigua, obra antigua famosa; un palacio labrado todo de piedras grandes, de piedras de cantería sin lodo, ni mezcla, ni vigas, ni ninguna madera, sino una piedras grandes pegadas unas a otras" (Vol. I, p. 38, Mexico 1891)

Meaning:

"In the [region of] Cuauhnahuac, they [The Toltecs] built a palace with a city, an ancient and famous work, a palace all built of large stones, of large cut stones without mortar, nor plaster, nor wood, but all of stone, carved and jointed together"

There is hardly any other construction in all of Central Mexico that would match this description. It is also interesting the way in which Ixtlixochitl stresses the fact that this is an unmortared stone construction, which was certainly a most unusual sight in that region.

From your link

The author presents an analysis about the constructive system used in the archaeological site of Chimalacatlán, based in a megalithic architecture in which the constntctive characteristics can be very well differentiated in its f our groups. He indicates that i11 the middle of this century, archaeologist Florencia Müller esta-blished that Chimalacatlán was a Late Classic and defensive site. The autlwr refutes those statements by detennining t/zat the place belongs to the Fonnative Period a11d tlzat the stntcture of the terraces may have been used as commercial arcas. A comparison with other sites with megalitic architecture such as Teopa11tecuanitlá11in the Mexican state of Guerrero is made

So a formative date would be circa 2000 BC to around 0 AD if the second guy is right if the first is then its much newer. Based on what I can see is the site is mixed and contains various re-use indicators.

Your other source says Toltec who were both in the area and at that time.

I'm not sure what your point is - this structure by your own sources is well within the established chronology - but you seem to think it is something else.

page 87

Edited June 26, 2015 by Hanslune