William Carroll

Professor Watson
Project I Essay
January 20, 2023

Tenochtitlan and Cuzco: An Urban Comparison

Although both cities lie upon a similar contextual sphere, the urban fabric of Tenochtitlan

and Cuzco presents both similarities and differences through its presentation of religious

buildings, its utilization of culturally significant symbology, and its choices of districting.

Within Tenochtitlan and Cuzco, religion and religious structures both played a defining

role in the daily lives of their respective inhabitants. The formation of the urban fabric upon both

of these cities reveal the notable differences, and similarities, upon their society’s religious

practices. The city of Tenochtitlan, divided by its linear causeways and avenues, selected the

epicenter of the city to be the location of the Great Temple. This Great Temple functioned as a

“double sanctuary”, idolizing “the rain god Tlaloc and the war god Huitzilopochtli”1.

Considering that these idols were the crux of Aztec life, sacrifices were made frequently to

appease the Gods. Additionally and to maintain the theme of centrality to the city, the Great

Temple was expanded on, “each (layer) grander than the last”. The Great Temple complex within

the city of Tenochtitlan functioned primarily as a central joint, allowing the chinampas and

avenues to become excavated from that point. The city of Cuzco, adorned with demarcated

sections and avenues similar to Tenochtitlan, rather placed their central religious structure

towards the far extremity of the city; resting upon an imposed puma’s tail. The main temple, or

the Qorikancha, defined itself as the Temple of the Sun and it was “here that the richest tribute

was collected”2. This temple was considered to be the central religious structure of the Incan

world, however, it did not lie in Cuzco’s geographic center. Cuzco’s center, consisting of

1
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.
2
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.
 William Carroll
Professor Watson
Project I Essay
January 20, 2023

courtyards, fixed the city as organically drawn avenues “radiated like the spokes of a wheel”3.

Through the presentation of its religious buildings, Tenochtitlan boasts its temple at the

geographic center of the city, allowing for its urban culture to be intertwined within its religious

culture. The prominent religious structure found within Cuzco similarly acts as the urban cultural

and religious center, however, it lays homage to the city’s organic structure by situating itself

non-centrally.

Both cities draw importance upon their religious functions and religious heritages. This

heritage is prevalent among the ritual practices utilized by members of each city, however, it’s

also prevalent upon the symbolic urban fabric of both cities. Tenochtitlan brings symbology into

justification onto the location of the city. The creation myth of the city claims that an eagle had

“marked the island on the lake as the place where they should settle”4. This myth has then

manifested itself upon the creation, expansion, and success of the city. Due to its location, the

island-city had naturally fertile soil, due to the proximity of the lake, and natural defenses as it

had utilized its chinampas and moats as unique defenses. The eagle resting upon the island acted

as a cultural and symbolic landmark for the Aztecs residing in the city, and consequently had

altered the urban fabric of the city towards being dependent on its location upon the water and

being subdivided by man-made chinampas. Similar symbology relating to the culture’s practices

is also found within the urban fabric of Cuzco. The city, “shaped as the fiercest example of local

wildlife”5, allowed its functions and avenues to be dictated by this organic creature. The main

3
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.
4
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.
5
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.
 William Carroll
Professor Watson
Project I Essay
January 20, 2023

temple placed itself residing beneath the tail of the imposed puma as the city’s royal residence

resided towards the puma’s head. Demarcated districts and avenues were utilized similar to what

is found within Tenochtitlan, however, it didn’t utilize a strict linear theme. Cuzco instead

utilized more organic means to impose the puma into the circulation of the city, impacting the

functions of everyday residency. The apparent cultural symbology upon both cultures and their

respective cities placed heavy demands upon their urban fabrics. Tenochtitlan allowed the

symbolic gesture of an eagle to justify lake-based expansion and strictly linear avenues as Cuzco

rationalized the likeness of the puma to create more organic urban plans and avenues.

In terms of districting, both cities provide distinct means in regards to distribution of their

expansive populations. Tenochtitlan’s take on thoroughness is reaffirmed when analyzing the

city’s districting. “Roughly eighty ritual-related structures'' were meticulously placed among the

city’s quadrants. Each quadrant housed their “own neighborhoods, shrines, and administration

buildings”6. All centering around the city's main temple, a place where intense, daily sacrifices

were made. As identified, “the Aztecs imagined Tenochtitlan” to be a “cosmos in miniature” 7.

This ensured that the districting and placement of buildings within Tenochtitlan were to be linear,

formal, divided by long avenues, and all facing towards the most prominent religious structure.

Although Cuzco had also acted as the epicenter of Incan culture, it rather decorated itself with a

contrasting districting style. Temples, “linear stone buildings grouped around quadrangles”8, and

well-crafted royal residences defined the likeness of the city. Avenues divided these buildings

and allowed for some distinct districting to occur. However, this districting differentiates itself

6
Michael Fazio, “Indigenous Architecture in the Americas and Africa”, Buildings Across Time, 2023.
7
Michael Fazio, “Indigenous Architecture in the Americas and Africa”, Buildings Across Time, 2023.
8
Michael Fazio, “Indigenous Architecture in the Americas and Africa”, Buildings Across Time, 2023.
 William Carroll
Professor Watson
Project I Essay
January 20, 2023

from the aspects found in Tenochtitlan by allowing for the most prominent buildings to be

towards the exterior. The Royal Residence, adorning the “finest example of pre conquest

masonry”9, is situated towards the upper left hand of the city and the Qorikancha is situated

towards the lower right. The central courtyard of the city allowed for avenues to be radially

centered and organically intertwined to create the main imposing image. Tenochtitlan presents

itself as a thorough and subdivided city, demarcating strictly abiding quadrants which all directs

itself, through avenues, towards the central ceremonial quadrant. The city of Cuzco invites a

different type of centrally based districting by allowing important cultural buildings to be off the

geographic center, for avenues to jet organically from the geographic center of the city, and for

districts to be rudementally grouped.

Although these cities, and the respective cultures which resided in them, adorn many

similarities in terms of religious practices and social values, their urban fabric reveal their

distinctive qualities in terms of their presentation of religious buildings, their utilization of

culturally significant symbology upon the imposing urbanscape, and their selections in

districting.

9
Kathleen James-Chakraborty, “Tenochtitlan and Cuzco”, Architecture Since 1400, 2014.