RESEARCH ARTICLE
Using Virtual Reality to Understand Astronomical Knowledge and Historical Landscapes at Preclassic Cerros, Belize Jeffrey Ryan Vadala University of Florida
[email protected]
Susan Milbrath Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida
[email protected]
Abstract: This investigation explores the emergence of ancient astronomical systems of knowledge at the site of Cerros, Belize. We argue that the ancient Maya of Cerros early on observed features in the coastal landscape that marked zenith events, and over time they constructed buildings to memorialize this observation point on a unique promontory at the site. As the site grew, the system of observation at Cerros developed into a form of architecture that only elites could access, thus creating a separate privileged form of knowledge. Later construction marked other important horizon events, most notably the spring equinox. The architecture itself became a form of landscape that helped mould their ceremonial activities. Using three-dimensional reconstructions of the site based on recorded archaeological data, we focus on how the Maya at Cerros developed an astronomically influenced cosmological system. Keywords: astronomy; Cerros; landscape; Maya; Preclassic; virtual reality
1. Introduction
This investigation explores how ancient astronomical systems of knowledge developed at the Maya site of Cerros, where costal residents interacted with the local landscape and constructed architecture that encoded agricultural cycles and related rituals. We discuss JSA 2.1 (2016) 25–44 doi: 10.1558/jsa.v2i1.26915
ISSN (print) 2055-348X ISSN (online) 2055-3498
26
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath evidence of celestial observation beginning when Cerros first existed as a “nucleated village” and ending with Cerros’ grandest architectural construction, Structure 4, which has an equinox orientation that was built shortly before the site was abandoned around 150 AD near the end of the Preclassic period (300 AD). The architecture itself became a form of landscape that helped mould their rituals. The shift from astronomical observation of the zenith to later interest in equinox events resulted in changes in architecture. In our analysis, we use an approach that Manuel DeLanda (2011) defines as “topological”, which explores the changing relationship of natural and constructed environments over time. Aided by three-dimensional reconstructions of the site based on recorded archaeological data, we focus on how the Maya at Cerros developed an astronomical system of knowledge that was embodied in their architectural orientations. We use phenomenologically based methods of observation, employing a reconstructed three-dimensional world in virtual reality as a point of analysis. This 3D world includes the site and landscape of Cerros in the most accurate detail currently possible. Virtual reality provides a more subjective experience than is possible with conventional maps and diagrams, making it a desirable tool for more fully representing the human-scale capacities of a changing site topography. This three-dimensional reconstruction gives us a first-person view of how things might have looked to the ancient Maya. Although the recreation of Cerros is not exact, this method of virtual reality exploration offers the most approximate visual experience of Cerros’ ancient site core currently possible. 2. Site Overview
Cerros is located on a small peninsula in the eastern area of the Corazal Bay, a large lagoon in northern Belize (Figure 1). Lagoon resources were enhanced by access to nearby rivers, such as New River and Hondo River, and the mouth of Corozal Bay leading into Chetumal Bay and out to the Caribbean. During the Late Preclassic period (400 BC–300 AD), Cerros was one of the largest settlements in the region. The peninsular site was ideally situated for trade both inland along rivers and through Chetamul Bay, allowing access to the east coast of Yucatan and the coast of Belize. The local lagoon provided abundant resources for Cerros to expand into a large civic centre. A Preclassic dock indicates that the shoreline was only slightly further out than today. Holocene sea-level reconstructions from the Corozal Bay area indicate that the sea level around the time of Cerros’ most intense occupation was only 30 cm lower than present levels (Dunn and Mazzullo 1993). Therefore, we may assume, a shoreline, similar to today’s, gave the earliest inhabitants easy access to an open marine environment for trading and fishing. Furthermore, the lagoon environment with its open viewsheds and shorelines running east and west also provided an ideal environmental frame for Cerros’ early inhabitants to track and observe the movement of the Sun throughout the year (Vadala and Milbrath 2014). Intense occupation of Cerros began in the middle of the Late Preclassic (50 BC) and lasted until abandonment at the end of the Late Preclassic around 150 AD (Walker 2005). Cerros covers an area of around 1 sq km, with 108 structures in a 0.69 sq km area (Scarborough and Robertson 1986). Although considered to be large for the period, Cerros was a relatively small regional centre when compared to later Maya sites. Its site core © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge
Figure 1. The location of Cerros in northern Belize (Walker 2005).
had pyramids, civic architecture, and a residential zone encircling the core to the south. The residential zone was characterized by mounds built on low terrain, which had an ancient canal enclosing the densest portions of the residential zones (Reese 1996, 1–9; Scarborough 1991; Scarborough and Robertson 1986). The residential area had some large structures that seem to have been elite residences (Freidel 1986, 105), as well as large publicly utilized monumental platforms (Reese 1996, 5). The civic centre of Cerros, built over an earlier village, is located in the northern part of the site (Figure 2). This civic zone contains the highest density of structures at Cerros, and here we find the largest architectural constructions. The plaza area in the civic centre has four large masonry pyramids and associated platforms and plazas (see also Figure 4). Here archaeologists found exotic offerings in caches, indicating elaborate ritual activities (Freidel and Schele 1988; Schele and Freidel 1990). Some of these large masonry structures had elaborate stucco masks that can be compared with those at sites such as Kohunlich and Nak’be where large stucco masks frame the main stairway (Hansen 1992, fig. 3.6). Bayesian-modelled AMS dates indicate that Cerros’ occupation was far shorter than previously suggested. David Freidel (1986) argued that Cerros was first occupied around 400–300 BC, but the new analysis shows occupation more likely began around 200 BC (Vadala 2015). Our analysis focuses on three architectural constructions built sequentially over a 200-year period (Figure 3). The earliest of these, 5C–2nd, a small temple built around 50 BC, has been featured in many publications that describe its symbolically © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
27
28
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath
Figure 2. Map of Cerros, including site core and residential zones.
Figure 3. Chronology of Monumental Construction at Cerros plotted from 200 BC to 200 AD, based on Bayesian modeling. Negative numbers indicate BC, positive dates indicate AD.
© 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge charged cosmological sculptures (Freidel 1986; Schele and Miller 1986; Freidel et al. 1993). This is the first major construction at Cerros, indicating that the monumental period of construction appears to belong to the latter half of the late Preclassic. The second large architectural construction, Structure 6, was built roughly 50 years after Structure 5C–2nd. Structure 6 was very massive but not as large as the third pyramid, Structure 4, the largest of all monumental constructions at Cerros. Structure 4 is unique in that it is oriented in an east–west direction, unlike Structure 5C–2nd and Structure 6, which were both oriented north–south (see Figure 4). Structure 29 appears to face directly west, mirroring the east–west alignment of Structure 4. It was also built around the same time as Structure 4 (Reese 1996, 175). It is located next to a ball court and contains remnants of stucco façades analysed by Reese (1996). Structure 29’s location outside of the site’s civic core, however, puts it beyond the scope of the 3D reconstructions and analysis described in this paper. Overall, Cerros’ architecture appears to have been built by 100 AD and the site can be seen as having an extremely short monumental florescence (a period of around 150 years). As the site was constructed over this 150-year period, the astronomical orientations and symbolism associated with the architecture were apparently transformed over time. These changes must be considered in relation to the entire corpus of architecture and the general landscape at Cerros. 3. Analyses
Researchers exploring forms of ancient Maya landscape use and subsistence often define systematic and reciprocal relationships that exist between ancient societies, their practices and their environments. For example, various researchers have argued that Maya deforestation practices produced varying levels of erosion that came to reshape the landscape, thus inducing the production of terraces (Binford et al. 1987; Beach 1998; Dunning and Beach 2000; Turner et al. 2003). The social result of complex environmental modifications such as terracing programs would have been accompanied by developing agricultural strategies, practices and systems of knowledge. In a similar fashion, we argue that observation of seasonal events in the natural landscape resulted in a series of architectural constructions that codified the underlying cosmological principles. Furthermore, these codified principles came to play a role in the development of ritual and hierarchy until Cerros was abandoned in the Late Preclassic. Our study analyses Cerros in a diachronic manner, striving to illuminate the capacities of architectural constructions and landscapes in relation to the evolving social tendencies of the elite and non-elite Maya denizens in the Preclassic period. In the case of our study, this notion of capacities is relevant because it forces us to consider why and how ancient peoples built architecture with astronomical orientations. In this article, we employ Manuel DeLanda’s (2011) theoretical concepts of capacities and tendencies found in his assemblage approach to help us understand how ancient astronomical systems of knowledge emerged at Cerros. His unique perspective allows us to consider capacities as emerging from relational assemblages of heterogeneous entities. In this case, we primarily identify capacities as the choices the ancient inhabitants at Cerros made when building their architectural environments. © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
29
30
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath Delanda (2006) takes the concept of “assemblages” from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari (1987), and he argues that social analysis should be ontologically realigned to the study of these by analysis of the component parts of any social system. This processbased approach forgoes traditional approaches that seek to define social essences and totalities. According to DeLanda, traditional social analyses tend to focus on determining or defining the essential qualities of a class or type of object, thus leading to simplified and reified categorizations of social actors, classes and historical events. To avoid this problem, DeLanda argues that all objects of study should be viewed as heterogeneous parts rather than a priori or predefined objects of study. These component parts should be understood in terms of their position within assemblages as well as how they function in their given context. This means that assemblages and their parts should be viewed as interchangeable and dynamically shifting entities. Therefore, assemblage analysis should focus on exploring and understanding relationships that exist between parts and wholes of any given assemblage. By understanding these relationships, the emergent capacities of an assemblage may be assessed in relation to other assemblages in similar contexts. Therefore in our study, we are looking at the components of the assemblage as being the sky, and the natural and built environment.
Figure 4. 3D reconstruction of Cerro’s site core. Structures detailed in this paper are labelled.
3.1. The 3D Process
To explore how the space of social possibilities was structured at Cerros, we employed a virtual reality phenomenological approach. To do this, we used the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset in tandem with a 3D reconstruction of Cerros (Figure 4). Methods © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge developed for archaeological analysis by Vadala (2009) were used to create a reconstructed virtual landscape from conventional archaeological maps. With Trimble’s Sketchup program, the archaeological site maps of Cerros were first recreated on a two-dimensional plane (Figure 5). Using measurements from the original excavation notes, each architectural construction was given its basic geometric shape and volume. This included platforms, plazas, stairways and other architecture features unique to each building (Freidel 1986). The configuration of the landscape was also mapped beneath the various points of architecture. For this project, we only focused on reconstructing the site core. This included a village phase of the site core and the site’s following period of monumental expansion (Cliff 1982).
Figure 5. Visual summary of process used to build Virtual Cerros.
After 3D models of the various phases of the site’s core were finished, they were imported into a video game engine called CryEngine. Here architectural details were added. Stucco, thatch and limestone textures were applied to the geometry created in Sketchup. The most detailed model was of Structure 5C–2nd (see Figure 8). Pictures of Cerros’ masks were applied to the basic geometry. The pictures were normal mapped to provide the appearance of depth and varying luminosity. Landscape details were added to the overall map. Using Google Maps and SRTM satellite imagery, a black to white gradated depth-map was created of the peninsula where Cerros is located. When imported, the “depth map” created land topography using black to white pixels to determine overall height, thus creating an accurate topological map in three dimensions. Ground and grass textures were applied to this virtual landform. The three-dimensional model of Cerros’ civic core was then situated in its exact place on the landform. The environment was then painted with 3D foliage along the coast. Water was given a small amount of particle reaction physics to set it in motion. This © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
31
32
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath adds a dynamic element as the viewer moves through virtual space. The virtual Sun is also dynamic, moving in both daily and annual cycles that reflect seasonal positions. The completed virtual world was then run using a driver solution called Vorpx to output stereoscopic imagery to the Oculus Rift virtual reality headset. Further setup was extremely easy, since CryEngine was designed for use with first-person perspective video games. After a few small elements of code were added, a full 3D world was ready to explore with fully interactive lighting, architecture, physics, foliage and dynamic day and night cycles. With this final stage completed, we were able to experience the phenomena of the ancient site from a ground-level perspective. During the process, we adhered to Tim Ingold’s “dwelling” perspective, an approach that explores how “the forms people build, whether in the imagination or on the ground, arise within the current of their involved activity, in the specific relational contexts of their practical engagement with their surroundings” (Ingold 2000, 186). We spent hours exploring small and large elements of the landscape and architecture. In the village phase of the site, we noted the best places and times to watch and witness various celestial phenomena. For the monumental phase of the site, when Cerros experienced many changes over a short period of time, we used a similar approach while also considering how each place had changed from a previous phase. This mirrors Wendy Ashmore’s suggestion to explore the establishment, use and “afterlife” of places (Ashmore 2002, 1178). Richard Bradley, too, explores the afterlife of places in an article on the origins of monuments in Britain and continental Europe (Bradley 1993). In sum, this diachronic dwelling approach allowed us to deeply explore and experience the basic capacities and tendencies of the natural and constructed landscape that shaped the lives of the ancient inhabitants. We considered the perceptions and experiences they would have gained as they were involved in tasks of building and navigating through architecture, and viewing astronomical phenomena and performing ritual events (Ingold 1993; 2011, 72, 117). 3.2. 5C–2nd and Cerros as Small Village
Structure 5C–2nd sits on the northern edge of a small promontory that reaches out into Corozal Bay (Figure 6). The structure must be viewed in broader temporal and spatial contexts. Its unique form and construction features were added to a small spit of land that had an optimal view of the coastline. Evidence of construction beneath 5C–2nd indicates that it was important to the earliest inhabitants of Cerros (pers. comm. D. Walker 2012). Previous research showed that this promontory itself provided the ancient Maya unique capacities for astronomical observations linked to the onset of the rainy season (Vadala and Milbrath 2014). The first skywatchers at Cerros were probably agriculturalists observing the sky to predict seasons and the best time to plant in relation to the rain, like traditional Maya farmers today (Milbrath 1999, 12–15). The environmental knowledge of contemporary Yucatec farmers is extensive. They monitor wind direction, wind speed and daily temperatures alongside using their knowledge of astronomical patterns to predict rainfall (Barrera-Bassols and Toledo 2005, 17). © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge Similar powers of observation would have had to have been used when first settling the lagoon landscape. The best place to monitor solar patterns would have been the promontory where 5C–2nd was eventually constructed. Jutting out into the bay, it afforded an open viewshed of the sky and the lagoon environment itself. From this vantage point, facing to the east, the angle of the lagoon shore provided a very noticeable marker for the solar zenith, an event that was important for Maya agriculturalists. The solar zenith coordinates with the onset of the rainy season for much of the Maya area (Milbrath 1999, 13–14; Aveni 2001; Iwaniszewski 2002, 505; Šprajc 1995). At the latitude of Cerros, the first solar zenith of the year takes place on 14th or 15th May, when the Sun’s azimuth on the horizon reaches 70°, resulting in an alignment with the coastal geography; whereas in the nine months preceding the first solar zenith, the viewer watching the sunrise from the promontory would see the Sun move across a forested landscape bordering the site of Cerros, and, in the period between mid-May and late July (the first and second solar zeniths), the Sun would be seen to rise over the water – a dramatic shift in location when viewed from the promontory (Figures 6 and 7). Figure 7 is a reconstruction of this sunrise event, and Figure 6 illustrates this alignment with a yellow line representing a viewshed along the coast from the position of where Structure 5C–2nd was located. On the day of the solar zenith passage, an observer would see the Sun marking the onset of the rainy season in mid-May (Inwaniszewski 2002, 505). From the promontory, this event would be marked by the position of the Sun moving to the edge of the coastline to the east. This feature of the landscape made the promontory an ideal position to track the Sun on the solar zenith. May has the greatest increase in rainfall when compared with previous months at the latitude of Cerros (18°21' N), where the first solar zenith falls on 14th or 15th May. Data compiled on the website www.worldclimate.com (accessed 15th March, 2014) for the area of Chetumal, very near Cerros, indicates that rainfall in that area shows a marked increase in May, when compared with previous dry season months. Rainfall averages for a period of 197 months from 1961–1990 show the average rainfall in March was only 19.9 mm and 26 mm in April, but in the month of May was 92 mm, an increase that is almost four-fold in magnitude. In sum, the rainfall pattern for the region fits a seasonal model showing the alternation of rainy and dry seasons. Ancient seasonal patterns would have most likely mirrored contemporary patterns because variations in the axial tilt of the Earth have been minor. Over a period of 41,000 years, the Earth’s axis has shifted minimally from 22° to 24.5°, and effects of this tilt are also greatly reduced in climate zones moving towards the equator (Campisano 2012). Therefore, we use contemporary data as an approximate measure of rainfall patterns. There exists variability, as often rains come late in the season. This would have created problems for farmers relying on astronomical observations; however, ethnographers Narciso Barrera-Bassols and Victor Todelo note: Rainfall is constantly and obsessively monitored during the annual cycle, as it is scarce, irregular and unpredictable. That is why Yucatec Maya farmers make use of their astronomical knowledge to predict rainfall and recognize as one of their main deities […], the Rain God. (Barrera-Bassols and Toledo 2005, 17) © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
33
34
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath Thus it appears the unpredictability of the rainy season only re-enforces the social tendency for farmers to rely on astronomical systems of knowledge. Furthermore, astronomical knowledge and skills are used to time and offer rituals related to rain. A number of festivals in the Maya area seem to coordinate with the local solar zenith (Milbrath 1999, 15–16). The lead researcher, Vadala (2015), observed during ethnographic work that many small rural pueblos in Quintana Roo hold fiestas dedicated to Saint Isidor, the patron saint of agriculture, on days near the zenith. Ethnographic data illustrates contemporary social tendencies to observe and utilize astronomical knowledge to form a social ritual at an approximate time of the year where the zenith occurs. These social tendencies most likely shaped life in a comparable way at Cerros.
Figure 6. Azimuth alignment of 70° along coastline.
Thus, when viewed in conjunction with the general rainfall patterns, the promontory where 5C–2nd would later be constructed can be understood as a specialized feature of the landscape that has the capacity to be used as a simple astronomical calendar to mark the onset of the rainy season. The simplicity of this alignment system would have been very easy to understand and share among different social groups (Deleuze and Guattari 1987; DeLanda 2006). A codified system similar to the following could have developed: Sun over lagoon = first half of the rainy season. Cerros could have been exposed to the emerging phases of the Preclassic Maya Long Count calendar, which may have developed first in the Pacific Slope on the edge of the Maya area at sites like El Baul and Takalik Abaj (Milbrath 2016). Even though no early texts have been found at Cerros, they © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge certainly participated in the broader Maya world through trade. Furthermore, as Ivan Šprajc (1995) points out, since the Maya calendar lacked an intercalation, solar observations were important for tracking the seasonal cycle.
Figure 7. Recreated view of rising zenith Sun from the location where 5C–2nd was eventually constructed.
A simple system of codified knowledge could have also been shared easily amongst villagers residing in the area at the time, before monumental construction began at Cerros (Village Phase, beginning at roughly 200 BC). The promontory probably became associated with zenith Sun observations, and the earliest structures in the surrounding area were arranged to face the promontory. This further indicates the social importance of this landscape feature (Cliff 1982, 479; pers. comm. D. Walker 2014). The first architecture in this area facing the promontory would have blocked a view of the zenith event, so even after the earliest construction, the promontory remained the best location to see the zenith sunrise at the edge of the coastline. Eventually, the promontory was selected for the construction of Structure 5C–2nd. An elite group may have sponsored construction while groups of masons, stoneworkers, plasterers, labor administrators and other personnel would have been involved. It seems likely that the symbolic value of Structure 5C–2nd was interlaced with its location as a place to view this important event in May and July. Structure 5C–2nd’s south-facing orientation does not limit its capacity to serve as a location for viewing the zenith sunrise. When standing in the structure at the summit of 5C–2nd, all that would be required to view the zenith event would be a small window or slit like the ones found at many other astronomical “observatories” such as the Caracol at Chichen Itza, and structures with windows or viewing tubes at Tulum, Oxkintoc and Dzibilchaltun (Šprajc 1995; Milbrath 1999; Aveni 2001). © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
35
36
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath
Figure 8. Recreation of Structure 5C–2nd.
David Freidel and Linda Schele (1988) argue that 5C–2nd served as a stage for shamanic performances that helped solidify the power of Cerros’ early leadership. When considering the overall form of 5C–2nd, it is clear that it could have been used as a powerful symbolic stage (Figure 8). In an earlier publication, we argued that 5C–2nd essentially monumentalized the place of zenith observance (Vadala and Milbrath 2014). Furthermore, 5C–2nd carried symbols relating to cosmological ideals, as is evident in masks representing the Sun God and other deities (Estrada-Beli 2006, 65; Schele and Freidel 1990, 103, fig. 13). It also served to memorialize a location of central importance, one that can be traced back to the times when Cerros was a simple village site. We propose that 5C–2nd helped make the promontory a sacred and historically important locale. The symbols it portrayed and the associated rituals would come to express ideological notions important to the whole of Cerros’ early society. 3.3. Structure 6
Structure 6 was built around 20–50 years after 5C–2nd, based on Bayesian analysis of radiocarbon dates (Vadala 2015). It was the largest construction the site had seen to date. Structure 6 is composed of a large and steep basal structure (Structure 6B) measuring 120 x 125 m and 16 m high, with eight smaller superstructures on top of it. Much more labour and organization would have been required for construction than for Structure 5C–2nd, a smaller structure estimated to be 4.5 m high, with the base measuring 15 x 17 m. More groups of labourers, planners and architects would have contributed their © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge resources and time and this building effort, which would have endowed Structure 6 with the capacity to be a public meeting place for extravagant public rituals. However, even though the structure had the capacity to draw upon more people and social groups during its construction, after it was completed, it actually limited social access in several ways. Linda Schele and David Freidel (1990, fig. 3.17) note that only those at the summit could witness royal rituals, but their preliminary reconstruction is significantly different from ours (Figure 9), which is based on detailed analysis of excavation data first released in 1996 (Reese 1996). Superstructures on top of Structure 6 would have created a restricted and divided space that could have served as various ritual and astronomical observations. Esoteric and astronomical knowledge generated during rituals on top of Structure 6 would have also probably been restricted to elite social groups.
Figure 9. Recreation of Structure 6’s superstructures with 6B marked at summit.
Furthermore, Structure 6 blocked the more ancient Structure 5C–2nd from general view. From on top of Structure 6, 5C–2nd is barely visible (it becomes visible if standing on the northeastern edge). Structure 6 thereby limited 5C–2nd’s capacity to serve as a place for public ceremonies, and made a later phase of Structure 5C (5C–1st) inaccessible for any public form of rituals. One stairway on the southern side of Structure 6 controlled access to the buildings at the summit. Elites most likely only allowed a few individuals to enter this important space. Superstructures on top of Structure 6 were probably platforms for small hut-like thatched structures (Reese 1996). This would have created a small semi-enclosed space that could not be seen from the rest of the site © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
37
38
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath (Figure 9). Limited access and visually enclosed areas provided Structure 6 the capacity to maintain a segregated social space. Establishing publicly visible mechanisms for restrictions like this are important dynamics in building and maintaining segregated social space (DeLanda 2006, Vance 1990, 36–37). Elsewhere in the Maya area, similar changes in spatial dynamics are noted when contrasting the public “stage” formed by Maya E-Groups in the Middle Preclassic with the more restricted access to late Preclassic Tradic Groups, as Francisco Estrada-Belli (2006, 64) notes when discussing the implications for ritual activities. The final construction details made Structure 6 an ideal location to segregate people based on status, essentially serving in a different role than Structure 5C–2nd when it served as the main religious structure during earlier times. Whereas Structure 5C–2nd had been visualized as a stage area for public ritual, the rituals taking place on Structure 6 were certainly more private. In many societies, elite groups mark their social difference by creating places where the general populace cannot enter (Bourdieu 1998, 6). This can be seen as a pattern of the elites co-opting sacred locations, a form of territoriality that began with Structure 5C–2nd’s location on the previous public place of zenith observance. Such restrictive space is clear because the buildings on the Structure 6 platform were more private. For example, Structure 6B could not be easily viewed from the ground, and viewing it up close required entrance into the Structure 6 platform. The largest of the superstructures, Structure 6B, resembled Structure 5C–2nd and thus emulated its capacity to express polyvalent meanings expressed in the masks of Structure 5C–2nd. Structure 6B appears to be almost an exact duplicate of Structure 5C–2nd. It bears similar dimensions and exhibits similar giant plaster reliefs. It also likely carried a thatched roof like Structure 5C–2nd. Its form and similarity to 5C–2nd indicates that it most likely carried many of the symbolic and historical meanings associated with 5C–2nd. Around the same time, 5C–2nd was buried under layers of another construction (5C–1st), which would have re-coded and re-contextualized its symbolic meaning. Furthermore, 5C–2nd and the later construction on 5C became completely obscured by Structure 6’s large size. This is important because many societies maintain a sense of identity through large monuments. DeLanda writes: The centre of a city, particularly when there is a single one, is a privileged locale which plays a large role in defining its identity. A central square may owe its location to the building which served as a nucleus for urban settlement, a church or a castle, for example, and to this extent may serve as an expression of the historical origins of the town. (DeLanda 2006, 103)
Thus it may be said that the elite made the sacred temple of 5C–2nd inaccessible, effectively commandeering and altering the possibilities for the populace to share and identify with their old community-focused monument. By rebuilding a mirror of 5C–2nd on Structure 6B, elites essentially resurrected 5C–2nd as a private temple that provided very different observational capacities. The viewer would have been able to see roughly the same zenith alignment (because of its close proximity to 5C), but the restricted setting meant the observations were seen only by those on the summit of the Structure 6 platform. The open platform area atop © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge Structure 6B provided a higher and more open viewshed of the sky than previous architectural constructions. Elites could now monitor the movements of constellations using the space between the eight buildings as horizon markers, marking a specific location for constellations as they appeared and disappeared on the horizon. The new capacities of this architecture would have thereby enabled the elite to create a different set of astronomical knowledge. 3.4. Structure 4
The next monumental construction is the site’s largest. Structure 4’s form, shape and architectural features varied greatly from earlier civic and religious constructions. Structure 4 was 21 m high, 68 m long and 58 m wide at its base (Freidel 1986). To this day, it towers over the rest of the site and dominates the Corozal Bay horizon. This structure was obviously designed with a capacity to provide space for public performance, thus serving both the elites and the broader community. A massive staircase led up the basal structure to the top of a very steep pyramidal platform that created a unique apex. A grand plaza lay beneath Structure 4, where hundreds of people could gather and witness events on Structure 4’s two platform levels (Figure 10). While constructing Structure 4, non-elite workers experienced the power of this architecture first hand. These workers could appreciate its monumental heights and massively open celestial viewshed that provided a view of the entire bay and sky. Reese (1996, 167) proposes that this temple was adorned with plaster masks that formed a backdrop for performances that were similar, but larger in scope than, those performed in front of 5C–2nd. She argues (Reese 1996, 168–169) that elite leaders used Structure 4 to demonstrate their mastery of the cosmic forces in nature, which would have been important to the agricultural peasant community supporting elite rule. Freidel and Schele (1988) link Cerros in its final form to the emergence of the concept of divine kingship. It was likely the stage-like nature of the structure had the capacity to increase social solidarity and security, for elites could demonstrate a connection to large numbers of the populace in ritual events (Weber 1947, 364, 370, 383). Weber argues that charismatic leaders must use a combination of methods designed to traditionalize or rationalize their rule. Leaders must appeal to the material interests of the community at large through “the continual reactivation of the community” (Weber 1947: 364). More recently, studies such as Elias Canetti’s (1984) work discuss the social dynamics of crowds. Structure 4 also provided those on the summit with a better view of certain astronomical events. It stood far above the tree line, providing a wide view of the bay and skyscape. Furthermore, Structure 4 was unique in being oriented to the east, breaking from the south-facing architectural alignments seen in Structures 5 and 6. Preliminary studies indicate that when standing above the central stairway of Structure 4, the viewer would have the capacity to observe the spring equinox sunrise (23rd March), or an approximation of same as at other sites studied by Ivan Šprajc (1995, 590). While at the summit of Structure 4, Vadala took measurements of 88° aligned with the stairway of the structure, and this was adjusted for magnetic declination using a theodolite application that demonstrated the centre point of the stair is aligned to the sunrise on 27th © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
39
40
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath
Figure 10. Recreation of Structure 4 and the massive plaza beneath.
March, several days after the spring equinox (Figure 11). While constructing Structure 4, the builders may have created an approximate equinox alignment because the Sun’s movement along the horizon is fairly rapid at this time of year, thus difficult to measure around the time of the equinox. Alternatively, the orientation may reflect a slightly different calendric model. Some scholars argue that, in the Preclassic, equinoxes were determined by first marking solstice dates (21st December and 21st June) and bisecting the number of days between, while others see a division of the year into quarter days, marked by intervals of 182 days between the solstices and 91 days between the quarter days, which would emphasize a date several days after the true equinox in March (Šprajc 1995, 590; Sánchez and Šprajc 2012; Šprajc and Sánchez Nava 2013). As is evident from the map (Figure 11), Structure 4 is slightly off-angle when compared with Structure 5C and 6, and we believe this was a deliberate choice to realign the focus of observation to the equinox alignment or the quarter days. Since there are no mountains nearby, Structure 4’s location and east–west orientation could have also provided a location to measure the Sun’s azimuth near the equinox. The capacity to view the rising equinox Sun from the summit was limited to only a few people at most because of the small space available. Only elites were privileged to view this sunrise around the equinox from the open area on Structure 4’s summit. Unlike the more common E-group configurations in the Preclassic Maya period, Structure 4 itself served as the observation point and its stairway guided the viewer to the horizon where the equinox Sun would rise. In this case, a second counterpoint or range structure was not necessary to maintain and track the equinox sunrise as had been standard in Maya E-groups (Aveni 2001, 288–292, fig. 109). This represents an innovation in Maya architecture and astronomical knowledge. © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge
Figure 11. 88° alignment of Structure 4.
4. Discussion: Structuring the of Space of Possibilities
Abundant archaeological data from the Maya Preclassic indicates that the Maya had an astronomical system to observe zeniths, solstices and equinoxes (Aveni 2001; Milbrath 1999). Astronomical knowledge emerged as a powerful social force in the Classic period, where it became integrated into the emergent Maya calendric system, but how these systems arose is poorly understood. Our diachronic approach has allowed us to investigate a specific astronomical system in the context of the landscape and architecture at Cerros. These systems incorporated the natural seasonal movement of the Sun, the settlement of the landscape and codified knowledge about the landscape by creating architectural spaces and territories upon the landscape, organizing labour pools, modifying architectural landscapes. We believe that the complexity and interactions between these processes indicate that astronomical systems of knowledge were not only transported site to site but also developed locally as uniquely emergent social phenomena. Beginning with a pragmatically inspired landscape-based astronomical system, Cerros’ astronomical system of knowledge became incorporated into an elite organized architectural program that oscillated between public and private social dimensions. What began as a more community-based ritual location on the promontory later was closed off by newer monumental architecture that restricted access to celestial observations used to track the seasonal cycle. © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
41
42
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath DeLanda (2011) suggests that the emergence of social systems should be studied carefully by identifying the capacities and tendencies of key elements of social systems, and this has proved useful for understanding these oscillations and processes that formed various aspects of society, the landscape and architecture, and their relationship with celestial observance at Cerros. These processes include the events that could have occurred in specific architectural spaces, how people could have experienced the ancient landscape, and how elites and commoners modified their site over time. 5. Conclusion
We have documented perhaps the earliest known evidence of a landscape feature that relates to the horizon position of the Sun transitioning from the land to the sea on the solar zenith. Furthermore, we have also provided evidence of a pyramid used for equinox observations that did not require the range structures that make Preclassic Maya E-groups functional. We conclude that astronomical systems of knowledge developed in a unique manner at the site of Cerros. These systems of knowledge were built upon the meaningful relationships that people created between shared experience of local place, references to the local landscape, the observations of seasonal celestial patterns, the modification of architecture and community memory and local histories of place. The use and manipulation of these systems of knowledge appears to historically coincide with the increased social stratification that occurred when Cerros developed into a monumental trading centre. We arrived at this highly localized interpretation through our use of a diachronic approach that considered how the relationships between capacities and tendencies of architecture and social groups shaped the possibilities of dwelling over time. This localized diachronic approach could be applied to many other Maya sites within the region, thus making comparisons between local histories of astronomical systems of knowledge possible in the future. References Ashmore, W., 2002. “Decisions and Dispositions: Socializing Spatial Archaeology”. American Anthropologist 104 (4): 1172–1183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.2002.104.4.1172 Aveni, A. F., 2001. Skywatchers: A Revised and Updated Version of Skywatchers of Ancient Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barrera-Bassols, N. and V. M. Toledo, 2005. “Ethnoecology of the Yucatec Maya: Symbolism, Knowledge and Management of Natural Resources”. Journal of Latin American Geography 4 (1): 9–41. http://dx.doi. org/10.1353/lag.2005.0021 Beach, T., 1998. “Soil Catenas, Tropical Deforestation, and Contemporary Soil Erosion in the Petén, Guatemala”. Physical Geography 19 (5): 378–405. Binford, M. W., M. Brenner, T. J. Whitmore, A. Higuera-Gundy, E. S. Deevey and B. Leyden, 1987. “Ecosystems, Paleoecology and Human Disturbance in Subtropical and Tropical America”. Quaternary Science Reviews 6 (2): 115–112. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-3791(87)90029-1 Bourdieu, P., 1998. Practical Reason. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bradley, R., 1993. Altering the Earth: The Origins of Monuments in Britain and Continental Europe. Edinburgh: Society of Antiquaries of Scotland. Campisano, C., 2012. “Milankovitch Cycles, Paleoclimatic Change, and Hominin Evolution”. Nature Education Knowledge 4 (3): 5. © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
Virtual Reality and Astronomical Knowledge Canetti, E., 1984. Crowds and Power. C. Stewart, trans. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux. Cliff, M. B., 1982. “Lowland Maya Nucleation: A Case Study from Northern Belize”. PhD Diss., Southern Methodist University, Dallas. DeLanda, M., 2006. A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London and New York: Continuum. DeLanda, M., 2011. Philosophy and Simulation: The Emergence of Synthetic Reason. New York: Bloomsbury. Deleuze, G. and F. Guattari, 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. B. Massumi, trans. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dunn, R. K. and S. J. Mazzullo, 1993. “Holocene Paleocoastal Reconstruction and its Relationship to Marco Gonzalez, Ambergris Caye, Belize”. Journal of Field Archaeology 20 (2): 121–131. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1179/009346993791549183 Dunning, N. P. and T. Beach, 2000. “Stability and Instability in Pre-Hispanic Maya Landapes”. In Imperfect Balance: Landscape and Transformations in the Precolumbian Americas, edited by D. L. Lentz, 179–202. New York: Columbia University Press. Estrada-Belli, F., 2006. “Lightning Sky, Rain, and The Maize God: The Ideology of Preclassic Maya Rulers at Cival, Peten, Guatemala”. Ancient Mesoamerica 17 (1): 57–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0956536106060068 Freidel, D., 1986. “The Monumental Architecture”. In Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America, vol. 1: An Interim Report, edited by R. A. Robertson and D. A. Freidel, 1–22. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press. Freidel, D. A. and L. Schele, 1988. “Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Instruments and Places of Ritual Power”. American Anthropologist 90: 547–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aa.1988.90.3.02a00020 Freidel, D., L. Schele and J. Parker, 1993. Maya Cosmos: Three Thousand Years on the Shaman’s Path. New York: William Morrow. Hansen, R. D., 1992. “The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Preclassic Architectural Sculpture at Nakbe, Peten, Guatemala”. PhD Diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Ingold, T., 1993. “The Temporality of the Landscape”. World Archaeology 25 (2): 152–174. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/00438243.1993.9980235 Ingold, T., 2000. The Perception of the Environment: Essays in Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. London and New York: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203466025 Ingold, T., 2011. Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description. London and New York: Routledge. Iwaniszewski, S., 2002. “Los Conceptos del Tiempo en el Discuro Ideológico en el Protoclásico Maya: Cerros y Uaxactún”. In Tercer Congreso Internacional de Mayistas, 503–516. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Milbrath, S., 1999. Star Gods of the Maya: Astronomy in Art, Folklore, and Calendars. Austin: University of Texas Press. Milbrath, S., 2016. “The Legacy of Preclassic Calendars and Solar Observation in Mesoamerica”. In Early Maya E-Groups, Solar Calendars, and the Role of Astronomy in the Rise of Lowland Urbanism, edited by D. A. Freidel, A. F. Chase, A. S. Dowd and J. Murdock. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, in press. Reese, K., 1996. “Narratives of Power: Late Formative Public Architecture and Civic Center Design at Cerros, Belize”. PhD Diss., University of Texas at Austin. Sánchez, N. P. F. and I. Šprajc, 2012. “Orientaciones en la Arquitectura Maya: Astronomía, Calendario y Agricultura”. Arqueología Mexicana 19 (118): 46–55. Scarborough, V. L., 1991. Archaeology at Cerros, Belize, Central America vol 3: The Settlement System in a Late Preclassic Maya Community. Dallas, TX: Southern Methodist University Press. Scarborough, V. L. and R. A. Robertson, 1986. “Civic and Residential Settlement at a Late Preclassic Maya Center”. Journal of Field Archaeology 13: 155–175. http://dx.doi.org/10.1179/009346986791535753 Schele, L. and D. Freidel, 1990. A Forest of Kings: The Untold Story of the Ancient Maya. New York: William Morrow. Schele, L. and M. E. Miller, 1986. The Blood of Kings: Dynasty and Ritual in Maya Art. Fort Worth, TX: Kimbell Art Museum. © 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
43
44
Jeffrey Ryan Vadala and Susan Milbrath Šprajc, I., 1995. “El Satunsat de Oxkintok y la Estructura 1-sub de Dzibilchaltún: unos apuntes arqueoastronómicos”. In Memorias del Segundo Congreso Internacional de Mayistas 1: 585–600. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Cuidad Universitaria. Šprajc, I. and P. F. Sánchez Nava, 2013. “Astronomía en la Arquitectura de Chichén Itzá: Una Reevaluación”. Estudios de Cultura Maya 41: 31–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0185-2574(13)71376-5 Turner, B. L., P. A. Matson, J. J. McCarthy, R. W. Corell, L. Christensen, N. Eckley and G. K. Hovelsrud-Broda, 2003. “Illustrating the Coupled Human–Environment System for Vulnerability Analysis: Three Case Studies”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 (14): 8080–8085. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.1231334100 Vadala, J., 2009. “Three Dimensional Analysis and the Recreation of a Preclassic T’isil: Experiential Use of Three Dimensions in Maya Archaeology”. MA Diss., California State University, Los Angeles. Vadala, J., 2015. Caches as Events: Diachronic Analysis of Ancient Maya Caching Practices at Preclassic Cerros, Belize. In preparation. Vadala, J. and S. Milbrath, 2014. “Astronomy, Landscape, and Ideological Transmission at the Coastal Maya site of Cerros Belize”. Journal of Caribbean Archaeology 14: 1–21. Vance, J. E., 1990. The Continuing City: Urban Morphology in Western Civilization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Walker, D. S., 2005. “Sampling Cerros’ Demise: A Radiometric Check on the Elusive Protoclassic”, FAMSI [online]. Accessed 16th July, 2015, http://www.famsi.org/reports/03064/03064Walker01.pdf Weber, M., 1947. The Theory of Economic and Social Organization. A. M. Henderson and T. Parsons, trans. New York: Oxford University Press.
© 2016 EQUINOX PUBLISHING LTD
