Frank Lloyd Wright and the Uxmal Nunnery

Helen Park

April 29th, 2017

“Almost now beyond our horizon—the Maya, we may learn from them.”–Frank Lloyd Wright (1962)

1 IntroductionEmulation of Mayan Architecture has been the focus of frequent revivals in the Americas. Specif-ically the designs of Frank Lloyd Wright in the mid-20s have been cited, with some degree ofaccuracy, as being inspired by different Mayan cities. The following two case studies explore thevisual elements and construction of the Nunnery Quadrangle at Uxmal and Wright’s Ennis Housein L.A., and will compare these elements, along with the intentions of the artists, to discoversources of style and design. Though Uxmal composes diverse buildings and temples, such as themassively tall Pyramid of the Magician or detailed Governor’s Palace, each worthy of their ownessay, the focus here is the Nunnery and its parallels to Frank Lloyd Wright, as both Wrightand critics cite the Ennis House draws inspiration from this quadrangle, both in architecture anddesign. From these comparisons it becomes apparent that Wright, though perhaps not literallytranslating Mayan style, aspires to emulate their mastery of nature, space, and—most importantlyfor Wright—originality.

2 The Maya, Uxmal, and the Nunnery

2.1 UxmalThe Maya built many cities that were each unique, both visually and stylistically. There was neverone unified Mayan culture, political body or empire, so to speak, and the variety and diversity ofarchitecture styles in cities reflect that. Each city seems to have risen and fallen at different times,one overtaking the other in power. Each had different visual motifs, both unique and drawn fromsurrounding Mayan sites, or even from Chichen Itza and Teutihuacan.

The site of Uxmal was built in the northwestern region of the Yucatan Peninsula among a groupof low-lying hills known as the Puuc, featuring architecture of which Uxmal is the best-known(Smith, December 28, 2011). Uxmal, like other Mayan sites, is composed of different structures,clustered on firm ground, connected by elevated white roads that span the swampy surroundingenvironment. (Miller, 2012) The raised roads connected buildings, temples, and plazas within andbetween cities; these paths eased trade and probably had ritual significance, as one can imaginea procession between and around structures. The site is over a kilometer, including all outlyingstructures, and is in better condition than many other Mayan sites. The city center buildingsprobably had both religious and secular stone uses, and are decorated with sculpture, iconography,and hieroglyphics (Lawrence G. Desmond, 2003).

2.2 The NunneryJust past the Temple of the Magician is a set of four buildings – North, South, East, and West,arranged around a spacious courtyard. This is the nunnery quadrangle, so named by the Spaniardsbecause the buildings’ layout and numerous rooms resembled European convents.Modern interpre-tations suggest the quadrangle was instead a royal or administrative palace, used perhaps as livingquarters. Each structure is built of elaborately carved stone façades on both the inside and out-side faces, boasting exquisite motifs of snakes, Mayan thatch-roofed houses, and masks featuringdifferent Gods.

1

The plaza is closed to nature and man, accessible only through a single entrance in the Southstructure, under a high arch. As one ascends from a lower ball court into the patio, this enclosedspace has the effect of making one feel ‘hidden’ from view, ‘secretive’ though the plaza is large.The four buildings intricately carved facades face into a courtyard - all doors facing in, framingan altar in the courtyard’s center, though the buildings are far from symmetrical. To enter anybuilding, one must then climb up stone steps that span the full width of the buildings to enter thedoorway into the dwellings. The rooms are dark, tiny, bare and uninviting – revealing that thecourtyard is of greater importance than the inner spaces and perhaps was used more frequently forgatherings. Standing atop the stairs looking out, the enclosed feeling is repeated, as surroundingbuildings appear to be floating in space, disparate from the floor. (Andrews, 1975)

2.3 CraftingThe Maya understood the false perspective – a viewer sees a square-cut, eye level floor, so claimedby Dr. Blom as well as contemporaries. While the terrain seems flat, the four buildings of theNunnery lie at different heights, North being highest down to South – a feature noticeable whenstanding atop the Pyramid of the Magician but unassumed when standing amidst in the centerpatio (Image 1 a,b). The building shape utilizes tricks and techniques undeveloped until laterperiods. Though the quadrangle appears rectangular, it is wider at the south end, while the Eastand West building floors slant up to the North building. Elaborately carved upper facades aretilted outward, a visual trick that both accentuates the sun and produces deeper shadow in thecentral patio, allowing motifs to stand out vividly, making painting seemingly unnecessary, thoughit is possible the facades were also colorfully painted (Blom, 1930) (Kowalski, 1986).

The structures are built from well-cut stones set into a core of concrete, which was then facedwith designed blocks – avoiding reliance on any adherence or plaster. Though backing tends tofall off due to lack of bonds, the main core holds up the buildings, so decoration may fall whilestructures stand tall. Blocks are cut straight and sharp, and laid flat in even courses, edges ofcomplicated shapes are closely fitted, surfaces smoothed to carry complex designs in mosaic. Theyare clearly individually precarved, as joinings are snug without adhesive. The individual blocksare quite large, and so are design elements—one stone being often up to a metre in length andweighing hundreds of kg. This would necessitate extreme manpower but also extreme labor andartisan work. The lower walls are generally plain, while the upper are completely filled with mosaicdecorations of cut stone (Andrews, 1995).

2.4 North, South, East, WestBelow is a description of each of the four nunnery buildings in some more depth. In all fourstructures, spaces over rooms reach high, contributing to the monumental appearance of buildingsto onlookers in and outside. The upper facades have an outward slope, vaults are faced withwell-cut specialized boot-shaped stones, walls faced with very carefully dressed thin veneer stones(Image 2).

The South building is the simplest in design. It opens with an arch, the only entry into thecomplex, that frames the courtyard. There are eight other doors entering the building, above eachis a Mayan hut with a mask overtop of similar size, complete with headdress. The lower structurehas plain straight lines while in the upper there is extensive use of both plain and complex X-shapes and serrated lattice work. These act as a patterned background for the complex motifscentered over top (similar, Image 3). Decoration include human, animal, and anthropomorphicfigures carved in stone, scattered almost randomly and vast in variety and cut. These figures areextensive, and fairly realistic—new to the time-period’s visual scene as the past was dominated bygeometric lattice work and masks (Kowalski, 1986) (Gutiérrez, 1974).

The North Building has two stories, with a stairway connection. It is more complex, withgeometric patterned mosaic, huts, long-nosed masks, two-headed snakes, jaguars and other figures.There are four columns leading into eleven inner chambers (Image 4). There are serpents of severalvarieties, including long bands of entwined serpent bodies, and feathered serpents down the surfaceof the façade. From the summit of the building, snakes emerge and slither weightlessly over thelattice, as if summoned from the underworld or acting as an ‘umbilical cord’ connecting Mayanrulers to the heavens. The serpent focus in architecture is characteristic to Uxmal, unique to othercities though perhaps influenced by some places in Chichen Itza. There are also many thatched-

2

Figure 1: East Building veneer stone-work rendering, West Building sculpture on upper wall zone,with snakes, flower lattice, and masks.

roof hut motifs, unique to Uxmal (Image 5), figures with large feathered headdresses over some ofthe doorways and roofcombs, perhaps portraits of Uxmal rulers (Schele, 1994) (Andrews 1995).

The East structure features two-headed serpents in trapezoidal shapes, eight serpent bodiesarranged horizontally forming V-shapes as they stack one on another between the lattice, abovethe entrances and below heads of gods above. There are pendant shields, and some ‘non-Mayan’motifs which include feathered, owl-like, creatures, perhaps a reference to the underworld, (Image6) and a head identified to be Tlalocs—a god of origin in Mexico. The East building has three mainaxes formed by large masks, potentially Chaac the rain god (Image 7), over the main entrance.The countless "Chaac" masks at Uxmal alone differ building to building, from set to set, and evenin sets, probably representing different gods (Lamb, 1980). The masks are quite similar to ChichenItza, where the flower headdress and feather adorned masks to God D, later deciphered ‘Itsamna, acosmic bird that sits atop the world tree, leaking cosmic sap and sorcery’—or more likely a generalreference to the ruling class and their idols.

The West structure is a little longer than the East and is quite complex, with multiple figuresboth human and masked, and of course the geometric feathered serpents crossing up and around.The façade consists of seven doors, of the same heights. Two rattlesnakes dominate the façade ofthe West Building, each with feathers headdresses above its rattle, and humans emerging from theirserpent mouths, wearing fish-masks (Image 8). This hidden but prevalent war imagery—similar tothat at Teotihuacan—is also present in human-figure-bundles associated with sacrifice, along withnude figures; all these carvings decorate the backsides of the buildings. (Schele, 1994) Their handsare bound, genitals naked, clearly captives of some sort. Meanwhile, above the middle door is anold ‘toothless figure with a turtle-shaped body’ with a massive headdress, potentially the god ofthe underworld, God N. In contrast to these gruesome figures are flowers, filling the lattice of theWest building, and one could imagine real flowers used as a kind of temporary structure made forritual use

3

Figure 2: The Nunnery as viewed from the Pyramid of the Magician, where leftmost buildingis the South structure, clearly lower than the north building. b) Light passes through the stonebehind the North building, lighting up the area beyond. A similar light show occurs between thebuildings.

Figure 3: North Building, temple adjacent to the stairs. Atop the stairs there are further rooms.From the South entrance, one could imagine a procession encircling the courtyard, coming up tothe North building, perhaps entering through the pillars here or standing about the stairs. Thefacades above the stairs at the top show faces of ‘Chaac,’ or other gods stacked on one another.

4

Figure 4: North Building, thatched-roof hut on south façade. Right: Restoration motif in WestBuilding: warrior in fish-mask emerging from snake head.

Figure 5: East Building, tiered arrangement of serpent bars, X-lattice work, and owl motif abovethe doorway. Notice the columnettes at the base and middle, and the finely fit stones. Restorationof West Building façade. Base is relatively plain and smooth. Façade shows curved nose masks,X-lattice and flower lattice work, and a few heads of gods.

5

3 Frank Lloyd Wright: Ennis HouseHaving discussed the nunnery buildings in depth, we now shift focus to a contemporary examplethat perhaps embodies similar ideals: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Ennis House. All images above sourcedfrom either [im1] in references, or from references listed in text.

3.1 Frank Lloyd WrightFrank Lloyd Wright was a curious mixture of new and old ideas – though he would have preferred tobe defined original. Wright was an American architect, writer, and thinker, born in 1867. Duringhis life he designed over 1000 structures, of which half have been constructed. The architect wentthrough multiple phases of creativity, pulling inspirations from different and vast places, though heclaimed his products were genuine and ‘pure.’ Wright was disheartened with architecture standardsand artists’ strict adherence to technology. He thought even publically believed ‘unique’ designswere simply re-hashing what was deemed in style by the industrial “Machine.” He aimed to createstructures molded from and complementing the surrounding nature and social scene—with thegoal to find a more ‘true’ sense of design, while still being economical and sustainable creationsfor growing cities. The decade of the 20s, an interest with concrete-block homes in California wasborn for Wright – concrete, repetitive geometry, intertwined with landscape and plant inspirationfrom the Southwest. Some critics claim these structures – the focus here being the Ennis Housebuilt for Charles Ennis – had configuration and symbolism inspired by the Yucatan Peninsula andPuuc-style (Eaton, 1995) (Smith, December 28, 2011).

3.2 InspirationWright was wholly unsatisfied with the use of current construction tools in design. He claims in his1923 essay, written the same year he designed the Ennis House, that our materials are “unsuited”in their job, that they are forced to fit the same “Style” used when stone and “ornament wasskillfully wrought. . . with clever human fingers,” driven by material texture, form, sensation. Sincestructures need not be built by human hands now, we are released from natures constraints but asa result have become ignorant of its function, relying instead on convenience, repetition, fashionstandards. He claims, “these things are only in the spirit of their original creation, when they wereoriginal and true” (Wright, 1923).

The Ennis House was designed with its owner in mind, a Mayan enthusiast himself. Hisgrandson writes, Wright "designed homes to be occupied by people. . . He created the space, butthe space becomes a creative force" when people use it (Head, 2011). This is only half of the truth.Wright’s hope was that his structures would fill with a “spirit” driven by the environment, andlandscape around it, while also being morphed by each owner, that each structure he built wouldbe its own new moment of ‘style’. In his own words he meant for Ennis House to be tailored toexpress California while also being a living thing of beauty “like textured trees.”

3.3 Built and Textile BlockingWright was quoted complementing stone-work for staying true to itself, especially when it was“allowed to be stone.” He saw the use of stone as an expression of “man’s right is to inheritthe Earth with nature-masonry” (Wright, 1962). An economical alternative to rock is the useof concrete, to which Wright turned for his 20s designs. Even though at the time concrete wasconsidered unimpressive and cheap, even a despised stone ‘imitation,’ Wright saw a chance forcreativity and originality. He saw it as a challenge, morphing a considered cold, industrial grainmaterial, into a warm and decorative design (Arquitectura, 2015).

The home is made of over 27,000-40,000 concrete blocks, made using decomposed granite andsand directly from the site. Wright’s first attempt at these homes was to use vertical and horizontalmortar joints, thus relying on skilled masons—he later overcame this reliance by developing a newsystem: the blocks were pre-grooved on all sides, stacked in sections without joints, and steel rodswere ‘threaded’ through long segments of blocks both horizontally and vertically. Finally, mortarwas poured to seat the joints and fill open edges between blocks (Pfiffer, 2009) (Image 9 a,b).Still, considerable manpower was needed to craft each stone: hand-cast molds mixed water wereused to form blocks 16 inches wide, 16 inches tall and 3 1/2 inches thick, which then needed todry for 10 days before stacking. The home has double-walls, necessitating blocks be an inch apart

6

double-wall construction called for exterior blocks and interior blocks to be set about 1 inch apart(Head, 2011) (Pfeiffer, 1985).

Wright called the method “textile blocking,” due to the unique perforated pattern that grantedwalls a textured, repetitive appearance, allowing light to shine through and form complex shadows.In a construction sense, "textile block" also refers to the way vertical and horizontal steel rodswere woven through channels in the concrete, a technique that was supposed to keep the blocksknitted together and held in position, but also made buildings contain a ‘weave’ and ‘weft’ like atapestry (Braun, 1993). These elements were integral to Wright’s vision, as he tried to transformconcrete to give the blocks texture, design, and beauty. The mold was his tool, designed uniquelyfor this home, his building “fabricated upon a unit system—each an ordered fabric, rhythm andconsistent scale of parts” (Wright, 1923). The design crafted on each block both removed the needfor skilled masonry while also creating a unique design – form and function together. (Image 10a,b)

3.4 Walk ThroughEnnis House dramatically sits atop a ravine, a towering cubical structure of intricate yet consis-tently patterned warm-toned surfaces. The home is visible from below for miles. The home hastwo buildings, a main hosue and a smaller apartment or garage separated by a large paved patio,which together span roughly 6,200 square feet. Ennis property flanks a steep hill, more cliff thanslope. A large retaining wall was built to prevent the house and terraces from collapse. In order toavoid a thick, unwieldy and expensive support structure, which would eliminate any opportunityfor fancy design details, Wright utilized the materials more ingeniously. To conserve and expandwhat he had, for he saw overuse and over application of materials ‘a waste’ weakening structures,he crafted a double-block wall rising up the face of the cliff. Every few segments, a steel beamanchored from the wall straight into the hill (Pfeiffer, 1985). The overall effect is that the homeappears to grow from this support, sloping up the hill, terraces branching out as if extending thecliff face – at once ‘tailored’ to the landscape and interacting with surrounding landforms risingin the distance (House, 2011). The parapets and home are as one built into the cliff, extending iteven as it grew and branched into the below LA. (Image 9 a,b)

The entry sweeps up from below, and as one approaches the structure it appears above inspace, strengthening the feeling that the home is less part of the below city and more with theland mounted above (Desmond, 1998). As one nears the front metal gate, the house twists awayfrom the street, as if it were secretive, fortress like (Image 9c). The house is ‘sharply’ rectangular,albeit wholly unsymmetrical. Pattern does emerge, with sections of blocks in squared, three-dimensional designs alternating with smooth flat expanses of blocks with similar dimension butlacking decoration. As one turns to enter, it is clear how spread and long the home is—outsidethere are shadowed porches and stairs, contrasting with bright paved terraces. The entrance istight and small into a large foyer, which finally closes back to a lengthy hallway, which alternatesbetween coves and high ceilings (Image 11 a). Even though the construction is dense, solid concrete,considerable light is allowed to pass, making the dwelling bright as warm sunshine seeps throughthe perforated blocks. The light falls, forming interesting patterns across the sides and floor duringthe day. Stained glass is placed at multiple locations, with similar yet unique steel designs, squareand V-shaped tree-like branches that are lattice patterns of their own (Image 11 c). Through thecenter space, there are long hallways, the columns tilt inwards, the shadow between the blocksdeepens and shifts as one steps past. The living room has a 26-foot tall ceiling next to a smaller,hidden dining room (Image 11 b). The overall feel is different, almost supernatural or otherworldly.The shape of the rooms, walls, columns, ceilings, are unpredictable, alternating large and smallspaces that demand further exploration. (Braun, 1993) (Arquitectura, 2015).

4 Comparison to NunneryTo what extent is the home Mayan-inspired? Wright himself claimed all his work, not excludingthe Ennis House, was born from original ideas. Some critiques of the time claim the intricacy ofthe Ennis House interior, when contrasted to the Mayan “man-made mountains with temples ontop. . . fully exterior structures with a lack of any interior design” make any comparison ‘ignorant’(Pfeiffer, 1985). Though the small, unadorned rooms in the Nunnery do attest to this statement,such a criticism disregards all consideration of what the Mayan spaces were designed for. It is clear

7

Figure 6: a) Construction phase of Ennis House, shown built into the cliff-face. b) House as seenfrom below, rising up out of the cliff face. Note the large windows, no two alike, and the buttressingwall that rises up out of the cliff, giving the home a fortress-like appearance. c) The home as viewedfrom the gate, as you turn to enter. Notice the shape of the house – though it is square, eachroom appears its own block, as if the individual blocks each converge to make their own separatespace. The gate, as seen in the bottom right, is also designed with square-yet-wave like swirls,complementing the design on the block faces nicely.

Figure 7: a) Diagrams showing construction process for blocks, and how connect with beams. b)representation of a single block in foam.

8

Figure 8: Image 11: a) One of multiple, though longest, hallway in the home. Along the walk,ceilings change heights, and light changes as shadows interact with columns. Notice how the lighthere is brighter down the hallway, and the how light enhances the design on the blocks, givingthem depth. b) Living room, looking up to more intimate dining area. Ceilings are high, allowingconsiderable light to enter, while maintaining the enclosed, fortress-like feeling. c) Different viewsof living room window, from top left: Inside looking out towards L.A. as if pointing down at thebuildings or towards the earth, Outside view of same window, then second window expanse. Bothwindow examples feature a V-shaped, crisscross almost lattice pattern, that is also undeniable treeor nature-inspired.

Figure 9: Motif above fireplace, clear allusion to Mayan god.

9

from prior discussion that the Nunnery outside quadrangle is the important space, potentiallybecause allowed many to stand, participating in the rituals performed there.

A second mistake would be to connect the two structures merely based off obvious Mayanallusions in the decoration. For, yes there are glyphs, ironwork doors and window, and panels ofgenuine and Wright-imagined Mayan symbols. A metal relief of a Mayan ruler even hangs overthe fireplace (Image 12), and motifs adorn handles and switches and floors. But, Wright designedthe home with the owner—Charles Ennis—in mind, who was a bit of a Mayan enthusiast and wasprobably the target of these clear associations.

4.1 Subtle TiesWright designed the Ennis House shortly after the Kanto Earthquake struck Tokyo and Yokohama,killing a hundred thousand and destroying structures. Despite this lesson in architecture stability,the Ennis House itself has suffered greatly over the years from deferred maintenance and dete-rioration of the concrete blocks, ironic after witnessing how structurally stable the Nunnery wasfound after over a thousand years, albeit being reinforced with granite and steel (Arquitectura,2015). But again, perhaps it is a mistake to compare the two structures based off their constructionintegrity, for then we would have to analyze time spent building, technology available at the time,and other factors perhaps not integral to the more pure nature of the designs.

There are more subtle ties between structures—involving the ‘spirit,’ as Wright so fixated on, ofthe designs. Though Wright might consider the Mayans primitive, focused on revengeful gods andmassive scaled buildings, he also acknowledged their knowledge of architecture and engineering.He was affected by their “close communion with the primal forces of the universe,” from weatherto seasons to the elements around them (Wright, 1962). Wright in his own work was convincedthat by conforming a building to a grid, this would prevent it from forming an organic whole,and instead attributing metaphysical power to creations that turned against the ‘Machines’ strictdesign (Braun, 1993). The attention to landscape, with the close connection to the cliff beneath,shows a connection to nature the Mayan similarly express—as Wright states, one should “grow outof the thing, never something put on it. . . allow it to ‘develop it into an expression of its nature”(1923).

4.2 Natural InspirationIt becomes readily apparent that Wright’s professed love for ‘modular geometry overlaid by sym-bolic decoration’ does reflect similar tastes as in the ancient cities. Wright was often influenced byornament from the environment around him and from nature. Perhaps it was no coincidence thathe turned to concrete while looking at Mayan models, since Maya too used lime cement, a similarmaterial. The masonry designed ‘textile,’ though construction-wise different and overall simplerin design, still in many ways reflects the Nunnery facades, whose lattice structures, with symbolstopping and intertwined, is in itself a unique fabric. And, the literal stone columns crafted forWright were “like weaving in concrete” with the steel (Braun, 1993). Granted, comparing the twois similar to comparing the repetitive machine-wrought cloth we wear today to the intricate blendof geometric and anthropomorphic motifs covering a Mayan tapestry, but it cannot be denied bothfollow the same mystic, geometric, ‘Spirit.’

Though the variety of motifs in the Ennis House is certainly inconsistent, lacking the varietyof snakes, owls, gods, a similar effect – of insane decoration and variety, of not having one placeto orient your eyes – is repeated as you walk down the long hallways. One could imagine in bothlocations you would discover a new feature every visit and even every hour.

4.3 ConclusionWright saw and utilized to certain degrees a vast variety of different architecture throughout hiscareer, similar in a sense to how the Maya drew ideas from the Olmec and Teotihuacan beforethem, yet each of their structures still speak for themselves. Preferring to see himself as a truthseeker of the natural world and of patterns that lay there, Wright would have appreciated howeach Mayan city was itself an original, unique, unchained by an overarching Mayan ‘style,’ anaccomplishment that Wright dreamed of in modern day.

Perhaps nothing was fully copied from the Maya, but it cannot be denied Wright learned fromthem. Though he saw photos from expeditions and descriptions of the city, he never did visit any

10

Mayan site—and yet the Ennis House still crafts a similar feel of otherworldliness, of deep shadowsthrough pilferated pillars, where open spaces and patios are the main attraction. Perhaps he didfind some element of ‘universal truth’ that he so sought and was similarly dreamed by the Maya(Braun, 1993). “Architecture is the living spirit of building truly and beautifully,” not “orders andstyles that have become empty rituals,” mere moments in time that the spirit coughed up and thenwere repeated over and over in the same way (1923).

Whether intentionally or subliminally inspired in his work, as Wright likes to put it, “TheMayan. . . to me were but splendid confirmation.” (1962)

5 CitationsAndrews, G. F. (1975). Maya Cities: Placemaking and Urbanization (Vol. 1). Norman, Oklahoma:University of Oklahoma Press. Andrews, G. F. (1995). Pyramids and Palaces, Monsters and Masks(Vol. 1). Lancaster, California: Labyrinthos. Arquitectura, B. d. (2015). La influencia Maya. En-nis House de Frank Lloyd Wright. Retrieved from http://noticias.arq.com.mx/Detalles/20177.html- .WQff1LGZPBI Blom. (1930). Mayans Knew Tricks of Perspective. Society for Science and thePublic, 17(479), 371-372. Braun, B. (1993). Frank Lloyd Wright: A Vision of Maya Temples.New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc. Desmond, M. J. (1998). Frank Lloyd Write and the LivingCity. New York: Vitra Design Museum. Eaton, L. K. (1995). Review: Wright in Hollywood:Visions of a New Architecture by Robert L. Sweeney. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 78,304-305. Gutiérrez, E. D. (1974). Uxmal. Mayan Metropolis of Yucatan. Artes de México,Margarita de Orellana, 176, 93-98. Head, J. (2011). Landmark Houses: Ennis house. Los An-geles Times. Retrieved from http://www.latimes.com/home/la-hm-landmark-houses-ennis-house-htmlstory.html House, E. (2011, 2017). FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT’S ENNIS HOUSE SOLDTO RON BURKLE. Retrieved from http://ennishouse.com/ Kowalski, J. K. (1986). City-Statesof the Maya Art and Architecture. U.S.A: Rocky Mountain Institute for Pre-Columbian Stud-ies. Lamb, W. (1980). The Sun, Moon and Venus at Uxmal. American Antiquity, 45(1), 79-86.doi:10.2307/279661 Lawrence G. Desmond, P. G. B. (2003). Recording architecture at the archaeo-logical site of Uxmal, Mexico: A historical and contemporary view. The Photogrammetric Record,18(102), 105-130. doi:10.1111/0031-868X.t01-1-00013 Miller, M. E. (2012). The Art of Mesoamer-ica (5th ed. Vol. ). New York: Thames and Hudson Inc. Pfeiffer, B. B. (1985). Frank Lloyd Wright(Vol. 4). Tokyo A.D.A. EDITA Tokyo Pfiffer, B. B. (2009). The Heroic Years: 1920-1932. NewYork: Rizzoli International Publications. Schele, L. (1994). Function and Meaning in Classic MayaArchitecture. Washington, D.C.: Dumbarton Oaks. Smith, M. E. (December 28, 2011). FrankLloyd Wright and the Maya. Retrieved from http://wideurbanworld.blogspot.com/2011/12/frank-lloyd-wright-and-maya.html Wright, F. L. (1923). In the Cause of Architecture: The Third Dimen-sion. Princeton University: Princeton University Press. Wright, F. L. (1962). Architecture: Manin Possession of his Earth (First Edition ed.). New York, Garden City: Doubleday and Company.

11