Archaeological Windows and the Stratigraphic Reading of the City: Contributions of the Urban Archaeology Program to the Study of the Sacred Precinct of Tenochtitlan

By Julio César

Abstract

Mexico City’s Historic Center is built upon a complex sequence of occupations encompassing the Mexica period, the urban transformation that followed the Spanish conquest, the development of the viceregal city, and successive modifications during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Within this context, the subsurface constitutes a material archive through which architectural, social, and urban processes that are no longer visible at ground level can be reconstructed. Established in 1991 by Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH), the Urban Archaeology Program (Programa de Arqueología Urbana, PAU) investigates and protects archaeological remains located primarily within the area once occupied by the sacred precinct of Mexico-Tenochtitlan. Its research has documented ceremonial structures, residential spaces, architectural elements, and archaeological materials associated with different stages of occupation.

Archaeological windows constitute one of the strategies through which selected remains can be preserved and made visible without separating archaeological heritage from the urban architecture subsequently built above it. This approach is particularly significant in a setting where the complete preservation of pre-Hispanic remains is conditioned by the continued existence and use of the contemporary city. This paper examines the concept of archaeological windows and its relationship to urban archaeological research through six representative contexts: the Palace of Axayacatl, the Huei Tzompantli, the Temple of Ehécatl-Quetzalcóatl, the Ball Court, the Mexica platform identified at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado, and the remains associated with the Calmécac. These contexts illustrate how archaeological evidence contributes to the interpretation of the material transformation of the former sacred precinct while also revealing the historical superposition that characterizes Mexico City’s Historic Center.

Keywords

urban archaeology; tenochtitlan; sacred precinct; archaeological windows; archaeological heritage; mexica architecture; in situ conservation; historic center of mexico city

Part 1. The Sacred Precinct of Tenochtitlan and Urban Archaeology in Mexico City’s Historic Center

Introduction

Historic cities concentrate different temporalities within the same physical space. Streets, buildings, plazas, and infrastructure that currently support urban life may conceal archaeological remains associated with earlier phases of occupation. Urban archaeology addresses precisely this condition of superposition, in which the material evidence of one society becomes integrated into, transformed by, or partially destroyed through the construction practices of subsequent periods.

Mexico City’s Historic Center provides an exceptionally complex example of this phenomenon. Its contemporary urban configuration developed over the former city of Mexico-Tenochtitlan and, more specifically, over the area occupied by its sacred precinct. Archaeological excavations conducted at different stages of research have demonstrated that the subsurface preserves structures, floors, construction fills, sculptural elements, and archaeological materials documenting successive phases of occupation. The INAH Urban Archaeology Program was established in 1991 with the purpose of investigating and protecting archaeological heritage within this area while examining the processes of transformation that have taken place over centuries of continuous occupation.

The contribution of the PAU extends beyond the recovery of isolated objects or architectural remains. Its significance lies in integrating evidence obtained through rescue and salvage archaeology into a broader interpretation of urban development. Archaeological intervention consequently acquires a historical dimension: a wall, floor, construction fill, or ceramic fragment may provide information about the function of a space, its chronology, subsequent modifications, and the circumstances surrounding its abandonment or reuse.

This perspective is particularly relevant to Tenochtitlan, where the conquest and subsequent construction of the viceregal city profoundly altered the pre-Hispanic architectural landscape. The reuse of materials, superimposition of structures, and partial destruction of buildings generated an urban stratigraphy in which different historical periods became physically interconnected. Archaeological interpretation must therefore consider each remain within its spatial and stratigraphic context rather than treating pre-Hispanic structures as isolated elements detached from the city subsequently constructed above them.

The development of the PAU itself reflects a transition from a model primarily concerned with archaeological recovery toward an approach that incorporates conservation and public presentation. INAH has noted that the program was initially established to preserve remains within the perimeter of the sacred precinct and subsequently broadened its perspective toward heritage appreciation and public engagement.

Within this framework, archaeological windows acquire a specific function. They are spaces in which a portion of the subsurface is excavated, stabilized, and preserved so that archaeological evidence can remain visible without necessarily removing the building or urban infrastructure constructed above it. The window therefore operates as an interface between two realities: the contemporary city and the material record of the societies that preceded it.

This article is based on information provided by the exhibition Asómate al Pasado ("Peek into the Past!") of the Urban Archaeology Program (Programa de Arqueología Urbana, PAU), visited during the summer of 2026.

The Sacred Precinct as an Archaeological Unit

The sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan constituted the ceremonial, political, and symbolic core of the Mexica capital. Its spatial organization cannot be understood simply as a concentration of temples. The arrangement of buildings, plazas, platforms, shrines, and ritual spaces reflected a particular conception of the cosmos and a political structure in which religious authority and governance were closely interconnected.

Historical sources, including the work of Bernardino de Sahagún, provide essential information for reconstructing the configuration of the precinct. Archaeological research, nevertheless, has demonstrated that documentary descriptions must continually be tested against material evidence. The precise location, dimensions, construction phases, and spatial relationships of many structures can only be established through the integration of historical sources, archaeological excavation, architectural analysis, and specialized studies.

The Templo Mayor provides the principal reference point within this system. Its successive enlargements reveal a construction practice in which new structures were erected over earlier ones while retaining certain essential characteristics of their predecessors. This architectural superposition generated a sequence that now constitutes one of the most significant sources for understanding the development of Tenochtitlan.

PAU excavations have extended this interpretation into the areas surrounding the Templo Mayor. Research carried out at sites such as Donceles 97, Guatemala 16 and Guatemala 24, as well as at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado and other locations in the Historic Center, has revealed architectural elements associated with the ceremonial complex and has helped establish relationships among different buildings and construction phases.

From this perspective, each archaeological window constitutes a localized sample of a much larger urban system. Its value does not depend solely on the visual impact of the discovery, but on the information it contributes to the interpretation of the precinct’s spatial organization, ritual practices, construction processes, and subsequent transformation following the conquest.

Archaeological Windows: Conservation, Interpretation, and Public Access

Preserving archaeological remains within an active city presents challenges that differ substantially from those encountered at archaeological sites located outside urban environments. In the Historic Center, pre-Hispanic structures lie beneath historic buildings, streets, utilities, and spaces that continue to perform contemporary functions. Excavation must therefore be understood not simply as a process of exposing structures, but as an intervention that must also address the conditions required for their long-term conservation.

Archaeological windows emerged within this context as a heritage-management strategy. Their design seeks to retain selected remains in the location where they were discovered while establishing a visual relationship between visitors and the archaeological record. The result is a form of in situ conservation that incorporates later architectural layers as part of the historical significance of the site.

This approach also changes how the public perceives archaeological heritage. A buried structure ceases to be evidence accessible only through technical reports, photographs, or plans and becomes a physical presence within the contemporary city. Visitors can directly perceive that the urban environment around them was constructed over multiple historical periods.

The PAU has developed this approach through projects combining research, conservation, and public presentation. INAH identifies among these interventions archaeological windows at República de Argentina Street and the House of the Marquis of the Apartado, together with research and conservation projects involving the Calmécac, the Temple of Ehécatl-Quetzalcóatl, and the Ball Court.

The term “window” is particularly appropriate because such installations do not attempt to expose an entire archaeological site. Instead, they reveal a limited portion of the material record and require the observer to understand it as part of a larger structure. The visible evidence consequently functions as a fragment of an archaeological system whose interpretation depends upon the scientific research that contextualizes it.

The Subsurface as a Record of Urban Transformation

One of the most significant contributions of urban archaeology in the Historic Center is that archaeological remains do not document the Mexica period alone. The stratigraphic record contains evidence from successive periods, extending from pre-Hispanic occupations through colonial transformations and into the modern era.

The partial destruction of Mexica buildings during the conquest generated new archaeological contexts. Materials recovered from demolished structures could be incorporated into later buildings, while certain areas were filled or modified to accommodate new functions. Processes of destruction and material reuse therefore become archaeological evidence in their own right.

The House of Axayacatl provides a particularly illustrative example. Excavations conducted by the PAU at the former headquarters of the National Monte de Piedad documented remains associated with the Mexica palace and evidence that architectural materials from earlier structures were reused in subsequent constructions. The context demonstrates that the pre-Hispanic architectural landscape did not simply disappear at the moment of conquest; components of it remained physically embedded within the emerging urban configuration.

This phenomenon requires the subsurface to be interpreted as a dynamic sequence. A wall may have been constructed during one period, modified during another, incorporated into a later structure, and eventually covered by buildings from subsequent historical phases. Urban archaeology reconstructs these relationships through the combined analysis of stratigraphy, architecture, and material culture.

The contemporary city is therefore the visible expression of a considerably deeper historical sequence. Archaeological windows make a limited portion of that sequence perceptible, while research provides the framework necessary to reconstruct relationships that cannot be directly observed.

Research Scope

Research on the sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan remains an open process. Although decades of archaeological work have substantially transformed knowledge of Mexica architecture, numerous areas remain concealed beneath buildings, streets, and contemporary infrastructure. The fragmented nature of the archaeological record imposes inherent limits on any attempt to reconstruct the entire precinct.

This condition should not be understood as a methodological deficiency but as an intrinsic characteristic of urban archaeology. Information is obtained through localized interventions that must simultaneously address scientific objectives, conservation requirements, and the protection of cultural heritage. Each new excavation may provide evidence capable of refining or modifying previously established interpretations.

The PAU is conceived as a long-term research program focused on a territory shaped by centuries of continuous human occupation. Its interdisciplinary character brings together archaeology, physical anthropology, conservation, history, architecture, and technological tools for heritage documentation and analysis.

Archaeological windows should be understood within this broader research process. They are not simply exhibition spaces for ancient remains. Rather, they constitute points of access to a larger body of knowledge concerning the historical development of the city. Their principal contribution lies in making the continuity of the urban landscape visible and establishing a direct connection between specialized archaeological research and the everyday spaces of contemporary Mexico City.

Part 2. Archaeological Contexts and Material Evidence

Archaeological Evidence and the Transformation of the Sacred Precinct

The archaeological windows examined in this exhibition provide access to different components of the former sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan while also revealing the transformations that affected this space after the conquest. The remains do not constitute isolated units. Floors, stairways, platforms, walls, sculptures, construction fills, and archaeological materials form part of architectural sequences whose interpretation depends on their spatial position and their relationships with other elements.

The six contexts considered—the Palace of Axayacatl, the Huei Tzompantli, the Temple of Ehécatl, the Ball Court, the Mexica platform at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado, and the Calmécac—illustrate different functions within the organization of Tenochtitlan. Their study makes it possible to identify spaces associated with political power, ritual activity, the education of the nobility, and specific ceremonial practices. At the same time, some of these contexts document the destruction, reuse, and transformation of pre-Hispanic materials during the early stages of the viceregal city.

The Palace of Axayacatl: Destruction and Reuse of Mexica Architecture

Excavations conducted by the Urban Archaeology Program at the headquarters of the National Monte de Piedad between 2017 and 2018 provided evidence concerning the almost complete destruction of the Palace of Axayacatl. Among the identified elements is a floor made of basalt slabs belonging to a courtyard, located at the rear of the archaeological window and adjacent to the main courtyard.

A fill composed of tezontle and basalt stones was documented above this floor. Some of these stones had been worked, and the deposit also contained ceramics and stone tools. These materials constitute evidence of the transformations that affected the area after the invasion by Iberian soldiers and their Indigenous allies.

The context also demonstrates that destruction did not result in the immediate disappearance of all materials associated with Mexica architecture. Some elements recovered from demolished structures were reused in later constructions. In one residential room, blocks bearing pre-Hispanic high-relief representations were incorporated into a later architectural structure.

This space formed part of a house commissioned by Hernán Cortés, who lived there for several years. The building also served temporarily as the seat of the Cabildo of Mexico City, then the capital of New Spain, around 1524, and was associated with the Marquesado del Valle de Oaxaca, a noble title granted to Cortés in 1529.

The material sequence documented at this location reveals a transformation encompassing different political and architectural systems. Architecture associated with Mexica power was partially destroyed, while its materials became components of new buildings linked to the colonial order. The subsurface therefore preserves evidence of a historical transition that can be reconstructed through the relationship between architecture, materials, and stratigraphy.

The Huei Tzompantli: A Structure Associated with Ritual Practice

In the building located at Guatemala 24, the Urban Archaeology Program identified the remains of the Huei Tzompantli of Tenochtitlan in 2015. The context was associated with a building dedicated to Huitzilopochtli, the Mexica tutelary and solar deity, where the skulls of individuals sacrificed to the deity were displayed.

The structure consists of a rectangular platform oriented toward the east, constructed with tezontle blocks and covered with stucco. Circular holes remain visible in the structure and may have been used to secure wooden posts. These elements would have supported the crossbeams on which the skulls were placed.

The platform presents three construction phases and, according to the information provided in the exhibition, may have reached approximately 36 meters in length and 16 meters in width. The existence of several construction phases indicates that the structure underwent modifications during its period of use.

On the northern side of the building, archaeologists identified a circular tower made of hundreds of skulls joined with a mortar composed of lime and clay. The structure reached approximately 1.80 meters in height and 4.70 meters in diameter. Part of the tower was destroyed during the capture of Tenochtitlan by Iberian soldiers and their Indigenous allies.

Its original height and the total number of skulls incorporated into the structure remain unknown. The composition of the assemblage is also relevant to its interpretation. Although it consisted predominantly of young adult males, a significant presence of women and some children was also identified.

The Huei Tzompantli provides evidence of a ritual practice in which architecture and human remains formed part of the same ceremonial system. Its configuration cannot be understood exclusively in terms of its physical dimensions; the structure acquires meaning within the religious practices and conceptions of sacrifice that characterized Mexica society.

The Temple of Ehécatl: Architecture and Ceremonial Orientation

In 2010, the Urban Archaeology Program discovered the remains of the Temple of Ehécatl at the property located at Guatemala 16. The structure was associated with Ehécatl, the god of wind. The building consists of a two-tiered rectangular platform approximately 34 meters long, with a circular structure attached to its rear section.

The principal section of the building is oriented toward the east and remains beneath adjacent buildings. The structure is aligned with the building dedicated to Tláloc within the Templo Mayor. This spatial arrangement constitutes an important element for examining the organization of the sacred precinct and the relationship among its ceremonial buildings.

At the stage described in the exhibition, three construction phases had been identified. These were contemporary with Stages V, VI, and VII of the Templo Mayor, corresponding to the period between 1481 and 1520.

The eastward orientation can be related to the cosmological tradition associated with the birth of the Fifth Sun at Teotihuacan. According to the account, following Nanahuatzin’s sacrifice and transformation into the Sun, the gods wondered from which direction the celestial body would emerge. Xipe and Ehécatl indicated the eastern direction as the place of its rising.

Historical sources also provide information about the architectural configuration of the temple. Fray Diego Durán and Fray Juan de Torquemada described it as a high platform supporting a circular building. According to these accounts, the entrance to the temple had the form of a serpent’s jaws.

The combination of architectural evidence, spatial orientation, and historical sources provides a basis for interpreting the building without reducing its meaning to a single element. The Temple of Ehécatl formed part of a ceremonial architecture whose location and configuration were associated with religious and cosmological concepts.

The Ball Court: Architecture for a Ritual Practice

The construction of a new building at Guatemala 16 created an opportunity for archaeological investigation between 2014 and 2016. During PAU interventions, archaeologists discovered the remains of an east-west oriented platform that, based on its location and characteristics, was interpreted as part of the ball court, or Teotlachco, referred to in the exhibition as “the ballgame of the gods.”

The ball game constituted one of the significant ritual practices of the pre-Hispanic period. The documented platform presents three construction phases corresponding to the period between 1481 and 1520. During its final phase, it reached an approximate width of nine meters and was located 6.45 meters south of the Temple of Ehécatl.

At the western end, the remains of a staircase were identified. This feature may have been associated with the western head of the court. According to the interpretation presented in the exhibition, the players may have entered the court through this sector.

The east-west orientation of the complex also establishes a spatial relationship with the shrine dedicated to Huitzilopochtli in the Templo Mayor. This correspondence places the ball court within a broader architectural organization in which different ritual buildings maintained defined spatial relationships.

The opposite end of the platform consists of the superposition of three stuccoed walls. The wall corresponding to the penultimate construction phase reaches 1.95 meters in height and is the best preserved of the three.

The structure provides information about the architectural development of the space and the integration of the ball court into the sacred precinct. Its analysis makes it possible to understand the activity not as an independent element but as part of a ceremonial architecture organized in relation to other buildings and ritual spaces.

The Mexica Platform at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado

The archaeological window at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado occupies a particular place in the history of urban archaeology in Mexico City. It was the first archaeological window opened to the public in the city center and preserves the remains of a pre-Hispanic structure beneath a later building.

The structure contains a staircase with intermediate alfardas delimiting the steps. The discovery was made in 1901 during investigations conducted by archaeologist Leopoldo Batres, who also uncovered two stone sculptures: a fire serpent, or xiuhcóatl, and a jaguar-shaped offering vessel known as an océlotl cuahxicalli.

The precise function of the staircase has not been definitively established. It has been proposed that it may have provided access to the Temple of Coateocalli, dedicated to the gods of conquered peoples, or to the Temple of Cihuacóatl. The two temples were adjacent, and further research is necessary to determine which one was associated with the structure.

Following its discovery, the staircase remained covered beneath the courtyard for many years. In 2018, the Federal Government’s Secretariat of Culture, through the INAH Urban Archaeology Program, carried out maintenance work to make the remains visible to the public once again.

This case illustrates one of the principal characteristics of archaeological windows: the conservation of pre-Hispanic evidence within an urban environment that continued to undergo transformation. The structure is not presented as an isolated monument but as a historical layer integrated into the later configuration of the building.

The Calmécac: Education, Nobility, and Architecture

The construction of a new building at Donceles 97, undertaken by the Centro Cultural de España en México, required intervention by the Urban Archaeology Program. Excavations identified Mexica remains including a basalt-slab floor, a bench, and the beginning of a staircase contemporary with Stage VII of the Templo Mayor, dated between 1502 and 1520.

The penultimate construction phase of the building corresponds to Stage VI, dated between 1486 and 1502. This phase included the remains of a room with a stucco floor, a bench, and the foundations of pilasters that supported the roof.

The proposed interpretation associates these remains with the Calmécac, an institution known as the “Row of Houses,” where the sons of Mexica nobles were educated. They received training to become priests, while future rulers of Tenochtitlan were also prepared within this educational system.

The archaeological complex yielded additional evidence. Seven large clay architectural elements shaped like sectional shells were identified. In a pit dating to the early viceregal period, between 1521 and 1620, two stone sculptures representing Mictlantecuhtli, the deity of death, and Xiuhtecuhtli, the solar deity, were recovered.

According to the interpretation presented in the exhibition, these sculptures had been deposited in order to protect them and prevent their destruction. The discovery adds another dimension to the interpretation of the context: ritual objects associated with the Mexica world did not necessarily disappear with the political transformation but could also have been deliberately concealed.

The Calmécac therefore provides information about a less visible dimension of the sacred precinct: the education of the groups who would occupy religious and political positions within Mexica society. Its possible identification expands the interpretation of the precinct beyond monumental temples and strictly ceremonial spaces.

Part 3. Discussion & Conclusions 

Discussion

The evidence assembled by the Urban Archaeology Program demonstrates that the former sacred precinct of Tenochtitlan cannot be interpreted as a homogeneous architectural space. Its configuration resulted from the coexistence of buildings with different functions, successive construction phases, and spatial relationships associated with the religious and political organization of Mexica society.

The archaeological windows considered here reveal this diversity through localized contexts. The Palace of Axayacatl introduces the political and residential dimension of power; the Huei Tzompantli documents architecture associated with ritual practices and sacrifice; the Temple of Ehécatl and the Ball Court illustrate the relationship between architecture, orientation, and ceremonial activity; the platform at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado provides evidence of a structure whose precise function remains open to investigation; and the Calmécac offers an approach to spaces associated with the education of the nobility.

This functional diversity is significant because it prevents the sacred precinct from being reduced to an architectural complex dominated exclusively by the Templo Mayor. Although the latter constituted the monumental core of Tenochtitlan, the remains investigated by the PAU indicate a broader spatial organization composed of buildings, platforms, and areas intended for different activities.

Construction sequences constitute another common element among several of the contexts examined. Both the Temple of Ehécatl and the Ball Court display different architectural phases, demonstrating that these spaces were not static structures. Their configurations changed over time as part of processes of renovation and transformation within the precinct.

The archaeological evidence also demonstrates that the history of these spaces did not end with the destruction of Tenochtitlan. Remains associated with the Palace of Axayacatl show that pre-Hispanic materials were incorporated into later constructions, while sculptures identified in the Calmécac context were deposited during the early colonial period. Architecture and objects therefore retained part of their historical trajectory within the emerging urban configuration.

From this perspective, the subsurface of the Historic Center can be understood as a stratified record of successive transformations. Each archaeological layer contains information concerning a particular historical phase, but its interpretive value increases when it can be related to the layers that preceded it and those that developed afterward.

Archaeological windows acquire their significance precisely within this condition. Their function is not limited to displaying ancient structures but also to making part of a larger archaeological record perceptible within the contemporary city. Visitors encounter a localized remain, while behind that evidence lies a considerably broader historical sequence.

The conservation of these spaces also raises a methodological issue. In a city characterized by centuries of continuous occupation, it is not always possible to leave archaeological discoveries completely exposed. New construction, historic-building conservation, and contemporary infrastructure remain integral to the present urban landscape. Archaeological windows therefore establish a relationship between heritage preservation and the continued functioning of the city.

The value of these interventions lies in their capacity to preserve significant evidence without detaching it from the urban environment in which it was discovered. Archaeological heritage remains integrated into its location and can be interpreted through its relationship with later structures.

The Urban Archaeology Program consequently performs a role that extends beyond the recovery of isolated archaeological materials. Monitoring the rehabilitation of historic buildings and interventions in streets and public spaces creates opportunities to document remains that might otherwise remain unknown. Archaeological research thus becomes an integral component of managing a historic urban territory.

The principal limitation of current knowledge arises from the fragmented nature of the archaeological record. The sacred precinct remains partially concealed beneath buildings and contemporary urban spaces. Research conducted to date has substantially expanded available knowledge, but it does not yet permit a complete reconstruction of all its components and spatial relationships.

This condition keeps the research process open. Each new intervention may provide evidence concerning previously unknown structures, unidentified construction phases, or spatial relationships capable of modifying earlier interpretations. Urban archaeology therefore develops cumulatively, with each discovery acquiring meaning within a body of knowledge that remains under construction.

Conclusions

The archaeological windows of Mexico City’s Historic Center constitute a conservation and public-presentation strategy through which selected pre-Hispanic remains can remain visible within an urban environment built over successive historical periods. Their value extends beyond the display of ancient structures: they provide access to research concerning the architectural, ritual, political, and social organization of Tenochtitlan.

The contexts examined demonstrate the functional diversity of the former sacred precinct. The Palace of Axayacatl is associated with structures of political power and elite residence; the Huei Tzompantli with ritual practices involving sacrifice; the Temple of Ehécatl with architecture associated with a deity and particular cosmological concepts; the Ball Court with a ceremonial activity; the Calmécac with the education of the nobility; and the platform at the House of the Marquis of the Apartado with a structure whose precise function remains under investigation.

The architectural evidence also demonstrates that these spaces underwent modifications over time. The different construction phases identified in some buildings indicate processes of transformation predating the conquest, while reused materials and concealed objects document subsequent changes associated with the transition to the viceregal period.

Urban archaeology therefore makes it possible to study not only the structures that survived from the Mexica city but also the transformations they underwent after their destruction. The subsurface becomes a record of continuity and rupture in which materials from different periods are physically associated as a consequence of the historical processes that shaped the territory.

The Urban Archaeology Program has contributed to this body of knowledge through rescue and salvage interventions associated with the continuous transformation of the Historic Center. Each rehabilitation, remodeling, or urban intervention can provide an opportunity to identify and document additional evidence.

The existence of numerous remains that remain concealed demonstrates that knowledge of the former sacred precinct is incomplete. This condition does not diminish the value of known discoveries; rather, it demonstrates the continuing need for archaeological research to understand a city whose history extends across multiple layers of occupation.

Archaeological windows make part of this history visible. By establishing a direct connection between the subsurface and the contemporary urban environment, they transform archaeological conservation into an accessible experience without separating the remains from the city that contains them. Each window ultimately functions as an opening onto a historical sequence that remains partially buried and whose understanding continues to expand through research.

Editor-in-Chief: Julio César. Journalist with more than 15 years of experience researching and developing specialized content for print and digital media in Mexico and Latin America.

IG: @imjucesar // LinkedIn: @imjucesar

References (6)

National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH). Urban Archaeology Program. Institutional information included in the exhibition Asómate al Pasado ("Peek into the Past!") of the Urban Archaeology Program (PAU), consulted during a visit in summer 2026.

Urban Archaeology Program (PAU). Archaeological and descriptive information concerning archaeological windows in Mexico City’s Historic Center. Material included in the exhibition Asómate al Pasado (Peek into the Past!), consulted during a visit in summer 2026.

Secretariat of Culture of the Federal Government / National Institute of Anthropology and History. Information concerning the conservation, maintenance, and public presentation of archaeological windows in Mexico City’s Historic Center. Material included in the exhibition, consulted during a visit in summer 2026.

Sahagún, Bernardino de. Historia general de las cosas de la Nueva España. Historical reference cited in the exhibition material.

Durán, Diego. Historical descriptions of the Temple of Ehécatl cited in the exhibition material.

Torquemada, Juan de. Historical descriptions of the Temple of Ehécatl cited in the exhibition material.

You may also like: 

• The Birth of a Rubber Ball: Rubber Technology, Olmec Ritual Practice and the Conservation of Archaeological Organic Materials
• Clay and Ceramics in Mexico: Poetics of the Utilitarian
• Mexico to Repatriate Three Pre-Hispanic Artifacts Following New York Antiquities Investigations

Do you find this article interesting?

Share it with someone who might find it useful

Do you have a brand, project, or service that deserves to be part of the conversation?

At Gaceta Imperio, we work with brands, institutions, organizations, collectives, and individuals looking for more than traditional advertising: stories with context, clear messages, and relevant content.

📩 Write to us at ventas.gacetaimperio@gmail.com to learn how you can be featured here.

Follow us
Facebook | YouTube | X | Instagram