REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS”: MONUMENTALITY AND EARLY CENTERS IN THE MIDDLE PRECLASSIC LOWLANDS

James A. Doyle

For nearly a century, scholars have used astronomical evidence to explain the Lowland Maya architectural type known as “E-Groups” as solar observatories and, by extension, as locations for rituals related to solar and agricultural cycles. This article departs from the usual focus on the observational properties of E-Groups and places them in the context of early Maya monumentality during the Middle Preclassic period. Specifically, E-Groups are seen as the earliest monumental social spaces in the Maya Lowlands, with multifaceted functions and placements that indicate a shared social map of the land- scape. Geographic information systems viewshed analysis of Middle Preclassic E-Group sites demonstrates that popula- tions constructed E-Groups in places that maximized visibility of the nearby landscape. Viewsheds conducted at sites with Middle Preclassic E-Groups in the central Maya Lowlands suggest that the large plazas and similar monumental archi- tecture represent the centers of comparable, mutually visible communities. Settlers founding these communities consciously created distance from neighboring monumental centers, perhaps as means of defining and buttressing group identity and undergirding spatial claims to political authority. Recent archaeological evidence affords clues that such spaces were civic, allowing architectural settings for social gatherings and access to resources.

Por casi cien años, diversos estudios se han basado en evidencia arqueoastronómica para tratar los complejos arquitectóni- cos del “Grupo Tipo E,” propio de las Tierras Bajas Mayas, como observatorios solares y, por consiguiente, como centros rituales relacionados con los ciclos solares y agrícolas. El presente artículo parte de las características observacionales de los Grupos Tipo E y los ubica en un contexto de desarrollo temprano de la monumentalidad en el mundo maya, durante el período Preclásico Medio. Específicamente, el artículo ubica a los Grupos Tipo E como los primeros espacios sociales-mon- umentales con funciones polifacéticas en las Tierras Bajas Mayas. Esto lo realiza tras presentar la localización de los grupos como evidencia de un mapa social del paisaje compartido entre los colonos mayas tempranos. El autor usa sistemas de infor- mación geográfica de sitios con Grupos Tipo E del Preclásico Medio para demostrar que las poblaciones construyeron los Grupos Tipo E en lugares que maximizaron la visibilidad sobre los terrenos aledaños. El análisis del campo visual llevado a cabo en sitios con Grupos Tipo E del Preclásico Medio en las Tierras Bajas Mayas centrales sugiere que las plazas monu- mentales con la arquitectura similar representan los centros de communidades comparables. Los fundadores de estas comu- nidades habrían creado conscientemente distancia de los centros monumentales vecinos, quizás con el fin de definir o reforzar una identidad grupal o de sustentar autoridad política sobre reclamos territoriales. El artículo presenta evidencia arque- ológica reciente sobre el uso cívico de dichos espacios monumentales tempranos, espacios que proveían de un marco arqui- tectónico para concurrencias sociales y a la vez facilitaban el acceso a distintos recursos.

iscussions of ancient Maya political emerged from the Preclassic period that indicate a authority have largely focused on Classic high degree of sociopolitical complexity, along period (ca. A.D. 250–900) royal courts and with expressive resources that include mural paint- the extent of their control over the landscape by ing and hieroglyphic writing (Estrada-Belli 2006, Dmeans of alliances, diplomacy, and warfare (see 2011; Hurst 2009; Saturno et al. 2005; Taube et al. Garrison and Dunning 2009; Lucero 1999; Martin 2010), elaborate (Estrada- and Grube 2008). Yet it is important to emphasize Belli 2011; Hansen 1998; Laporte and Fialko that some of the greatest Classic Maya cities owe 1995), and dedicatory caches of greenstone axes their eventual geographic locations to decisions (Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011; Inomata et al. 2009). made by settlers as early as the Middle Preclassic Despite renewed archaeological attention to Pre- period (ca. 1000–300 B.C.). Recent finds have classic contexts, however, the nature of Preclassic Ⅲ James A. Doyle Box 1921, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 ([email protected])

Latin American Antiquity 23(4), 2012, pp. 355–379 Copyright ©2012 by the Society for American Archaeology

355 356 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Maya political authority and the emergence of mon- a desire to transform the landscape, to engineer a umental centers remains opaque. cultural topography that radically altered living During the Middle Preclassic, the Maya built the space” (McAnany 2010:145). Thus monumental- first monumental architecture, which implies large- ity, or the social impulse to build big things, is scale mobilization of labor. The current article con- defined both by the intent and by the perception of siders this period of incipient monumentality as a elevated scale and durability. foundation for concepts of landscape and author- ity broadly shared and linked to later, known Maya Early Maya Monumentality, ca. 1000–700 B.C. groups. Specifically, the article traces significant Maya Lowland communities did not construct shifts in Maya monumentality throughout the Mid- monumental structures as defined above until after dle Preclassic period that culminated in the con- 700 B.C. (Awe et al. 1990; Garber et al. 2004; Ham- struction of wide plazas and pyramidal platforms mond 1991; Joyce 2004; Lohse 2010; McAnany that characterize posterior Lowland Maya settle- and López Varela 1999; Potter et al. 1984). Before ments. A geographic information systems (GIS) this time, there is little evidence of archaic, prece- examination of a hallmark architectural type, the ramic populations in the Lowlands (see Iceland so-called E-Groups, shows that a regular distribu- 2005; Lohse 2010). Current palynological data tion of settlements, and thus a shared spatial con- show that maize cultivation (and possibly associ- sideration of the landscape, may have existed as ated forest clearing) may have occurred between early as 500 B.C. In such settlements, monumen- 5100 and 4600 cal B.P. (Pohl et al. 1996; Wahl tal plaza groups with similar architectural plans 2005; Wahl et al. 2006, 2007). Maize pollen intru- formed the civic centers of comparable communi- sion and disturbance taxa indicating forest clear- ties. The discussion explores archaeological data ance do not appear widely in the geological record to account for such a social map of the landscape, until after 1500–1000 B.C. and sharply increase in relation to the development of political author- after 400 B.C. (Dunning et al. 2002; Estrada-Belli ity in the Middle Preclassic Lowlands. and Wahl 2010). The early settlers’ use of perish- able construction material would explain the intru- Big sion of maize pollen and the lack of clear archaeological evidence of agriculturalists. The Archaeologists have long recognized the correla- strongest evidence of preceramic occupations tion of early complex societies and large settle- comes from northern , namely, near Colha ments with monumental architecture (e.g., Childe (Iceland 2005; Lohse et al. 2006; Rosenswig and 1950:12). Monumental architecture, a cross-cul- Masson 2001). The data show that there was a sub- tural phenomenon, consists of facilities built with stantial population engaged in lithic production and scale and architectural elaboration that “exceed the intensive , with evidence of occupational requirements of any practical functions that a build- continuity into the Middle Preclassic (Iceland ing is intended to perform” (Trigger 1990:119). 2005:16). Still, the nature of the relationship among the Although the timing is unclear and variable ancient landscape, aggregations of populations, and between regions, the first evidence of sedentary vil- monumental architecture remains unclear (see lages in the Maya Lowlands with concomitant Joyce 2004; McAnany 2010:141–157). Materials ceramics comes from the time between 1000 and that archaeologists interpret as monumental are 700 B.C. (Cheetham 2005; Clark and Cheetham typically located in culturally important places and 2003; Forsyth 1999). Settlement pattern studies constructed with significant human energy, by have concluded that people at this time lived in either a practiced specialist or a large amount of small house clusters, often close to permanent water people (Trigger 1990:121; Willey 1962:1–2). But sources, and did not engage in major landscape why did people settle densely and undertake mas- modification for construction purposes (Fialko sive building projects in certain places, and at cer- 2000; Puleston 1973:311; Rice 1976:435; Ringle tain points in history, but not in others? What makes 1999:189; Rosenswig and Masson 2001). Early architecture “monumental” is hard to pinpoint, but Middle Preclassic villagers also engaged in shared “the immense scale of these constructions bespeaks ritual practice and craft specialization, perhaps Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 357

reflecting social inequality through the presence of ings, and interior thresholds, which eventually led imported items, such as , shells, or to solid retaining walls (Gerhardt and Hammond (Hammond 1991; Hansen 1998, 2000; Hendon 1991:102). This shift to elaborate entrances and 1999; McAnany and López Varela 1999:155). The durable stone walls of residential platforms signals introduction of ceramic production and long-dis- the gradual development of Middle Preclassic Low- tance trade items signals that the Early Middle Pre- land monumental architecture in the context of liv- classic settlers began to invest more heavily in ing space. The monumentality of living space, rather places on the landscape. Perhaps several kin groups than large ceremonial earthen platforms (see Joyce cooperated as communities, centered on a specific 2004:10), signifies intent to construct larger, more geographic area. Presumably, the communities permanent structures, although the perceived began cooperating with neighbors through trade manipulation of scale would have only affected networks to obtain long-distance commodities. immediate inhabitants or visitors. Such cooperation could be the mechanism to explain shared customs and architectural conven- The Rise of Cardinal Rectangularity, ca. tions visible in the archaeological record. Most sig- 700–500 B.C. nificantly, the material changes that occur in As settlements grew, populations constructed large personal items seem to correspond to a major shift plazas and monumental over the circu- in residential constructions by 700 B.C., “most lar or apsidal platforms, especially noted at Uax- notabl[y] the partial replacement of small perish- actún, , and , Belize. Aimers able structures by permanent raised masonry or et al. (2000) provide a synthesis of work on round earthen house platforms” (Ringle 1999:190). structures from the Middle Preclassic at Cahal Although few settlements from this time have Pech, which often show signs of dismantling and been extensively excavated, the earliest detectable superimposition of rectilinear structures in later buildings in the Maya Lowlands were built on the time periods. The authors argue that round struc- ground surface with a perishable superstructure tures were important platforms for performance (Gerhardt and Hammond 1991:99). Subsequent and ancestor veneration and touch upon the impli- buildings took the form of apsidal, keyhole-shaped, cations of the architectural transition from round or circular low platforms with or without super- to rectangular building forms, which at also structures (Aimers et al. 2000; Awe et al. 1990; Ger- included the first superstructures with hardt 1988; Hammond 1991; Hansen 1998; walls (Aimers et al. 2000:80–81; Gerhardt and Inomata et al. 2009; Ricketson and Ricketson Hammond 1991:104; Hendon 2000). At some point 1937). As Gerhardt and Hammond (1991:101–102) thereafter during the Middle Preclassic, round describe at Cuello, the low platforms included a low structures were rendered “obsolete” (Aimers et al. retaining wall of limestone cobble and a core of 2000:83). Aimers et al. argue (2000:81) that it “does small stones, sealed with a layer of limestone plas- not appear to be the transformation of the formal ter. The introduction of stone-lined platforms and qualities of a dwelling, but the complete abandon- plaster floors is the earliest evidence of an emerg- ment of one building type (the exposed circular ing Maya Lowland monumentality. platforms) and its replacement with another (the Buildings of this type exist at several sites in rectilinear building with superstructure).” The northern Belize (Garber et al. 2004; McAnany and appearance of rectangular platforms and pyrami- López Varela 1999; Potter et al. 1984). The residents dal structures perhaps reflects social changes as a periodically renewed the platforms by covering result of population growth at a local level. Kent them with new layers of plaster and building new Flannery (1972:39–40, 2002:431) has argued that superstructures. This activity often included the bur- rectangular houses allow space for entire nuclear ial of deceased family members below the floor. families and the easy addition or subtraction of Over time, both the platforms and the outdoor patios rooms, perhaps related to changes in residential were repaved with plaster, thus sealing the previ- strategies that cut across kinship ties in early ous occupation levels and raising the relative ele- . vation of the building area. In subsequent phases, The earliest monumental plazas and buildings people invested more labor including steps, mold- in the Middle Preclassic that mimicked the forms 358 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

of earlier domestic architecture signal a second dis- equinoxes when viewed from the western pyra- tinct shift in the social importance of monumen- mid. Thus, scholars consider that the original con- tality in the built environment. Lowland Maya figuration of E-Groups facilitated observation of architecture developed as a discrete style with solar movement, albeit with some reservations strong evidence of planning related to the cardinal about their accuracy as actual observatories (Aveni directions, with similar building groups and con- and Hartung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003). The precise struction techniques (Hansen 1998). The direc- social function or meaning of E-Groups eludes tionality of architecture, and possible general archaeologists, although most concur that they are patterns of Maya cosmology, is also reflected in not residential spaces. The main argument about dedicatory offerings at Ceibal and (Bauer the meaning of E-Groups is that they were used for 2005; Estrada-Belli 2006, 2011; Willey 1978). The rituals commemorating agricultural cycles (Aimers point to emphasize here is that after about 700 B.C., 1993:46; Aimers and Rice 2006; Aveni and Har- buildings and preexisting social spaces became tung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003; Aylesworth 2004; truly monumental in intent and perception in the Chase and Chase 1995; Stanton and Freidel 2003). Lowlands for the first time. Large plazas and plat- forms, requiring a sizable labor force to construct, Origins signal to archaeologists that populations in the The origins of E-Groups are poorly understood. Lowlands aggregated or cooperated at this time. Some scholars propose E-Groups as part of a Recent evidence from the central Lowlands shows larger construction pattern, dubbed the “Middle that Middle Preclassic population nucleation and Formative Chiapas” (MFC) pattern, with archi- monumental building very often included the con- tectural groups on a north–south axis found at struction of a distinct architectural pattern, labeled many different sites (Clark and Hansen 2001:4). and now reified as the E-Group type. The follow- The MFC pattern also contains residential plat- ing discussion explores the sociopolitical implica- forms or “compounds” of approximately 80 x 80 tions of the distribution of the E-Group pattern, m (Clark and Hansen 2001:2; Hendon 1999). itself an expression of Lowland Maya monumen- Some have also posited that the earliest MFC tality that transcended residential buildings. groups exist in the Grijalva Basin of Chiapas or may be similar to a group at the Olmec site of La To “E” or Not to “E” Venta, Tabasco, (Clark and Hansen 2001; Lowe 1989:61, Figure 4.1a). Unfortunately, a lack “E-Groups” are named after Group E at Uaxactún, of precise comparative chronology between the excavated by the Carnegie Institution of Washing- Maya Lowlands and western Mesoamerica ton in the early twentieth century (Blom 1924; impedes an understanding of where and when E- Chase and Chase 1995; Ricketson 1928; Ricket- Groups first appeared. The available data from the son and Ricketson 1937; Ruppert 1940). These Maya Lowlands show consistency in construction groups most often contain the earliest cultural mate- techniques and dimensions of buildings that dif- rial at their respective sites (Clark and Hansen 2001; fers greatly from similar groups, such as at Chi- Fialko 1988; Hansen 1992; Laporte and Fialko apa de Corzo and Mirador, Chiapas (cf. Clark and 1995; Laporte and Valdés 1993). Various E-Groups Hansen 2001:Figures 1.3–1.4). The hypothetical exhibit similar features and orientation, all arranged existence of a distinct regional pattern in the cen- around a rectangular plaza that served as a defined tral Maya Lowlands suggests an independent, par- level space. The primary buildings include a large allel development from similar groups in Chiapas square-based pyramid on the western side of the and Tabasco, although more data are needed plaza, usually “radial,” or with staircases on each (Hansen 2000:56). Regardless of origin, the fre- face (see Coggins 1980; Cohodas 1980). East of quency and distribution of E-Groups at major the pyramid lies a long, narrow platform with the Lowland population centers during the Preclas- longer axis running north to south, sometimes con- sic imply that the structures and wide plaza formed taining three structures. These three structures, usu- an integral part of community life (Aimers and ally dating to the Classic period, generally lined up Rice 2006:82; Chase and Chase 1995:100; Clark with the locations of the sunrise on the solstices and and Hansen 2001). Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 359

Categorization Subtypologies of E-Groups based on Late Pre- Whereas E-Groups in the past have been treated as classic arrangements (see Chase and Chase 1995), a unitary phenomenon, new data necessitate a clear and possible variant E-Group examples in the Clas- definition of the formal and chronological criteria sic period (e.g., Guderjan 2006), are also not used here. First, architectural form and scale are of included in the current analysis. the utmost importance when defining the heuristic The comparative data utilized here come from category of E-Groups. In the present work, E- three groups of sites: (1) those with certain Middle Groups have wide rectangular plazas of approxi- Preclassic E-Groups, (2) sites with unexcavated E- mately 50 x 100 m, as bounded by a large western Groups but nearby evidence of Middle Preclassic pyramid of approximately 30–60 m at the base and occupation, and (3) unexcavated sites with E- a long eastern platform ranging from approximately Groups that fit the formal criteria (Figure 1). Exam- 50 to 100 m north–south (Laporte 2001). The cur- ples with stratigraphic evidence of Middle rent sample consists of E-Group sites that exhibit Preclassic E-Group construction include Cival similar architectural forms, most importantly the (Estrada-Belli 2011), El Palmar (Doyle et al. 2011), defined level plaza space. Most of the E-Groups Nakbé (Hansen 1992, 1998), (Fialko that fit these criteria are located in the central Maya 2004:180; Gámez 2005:229; Quintana 2008; Quin- Lowlands, ranging from southern east- tana and Wurster 2004), (Urquizú and ward to the River Valley and south to the Saturno 2008), (Laporte and Fialko 1995), Petén lakes region, as noted by Ruppert (1940:224) and Uaxactún (Laporte and Valdés 1993; Ricket- and others. son and Ricketson 1937). Examples of E-Groups One major obstacle to the application of the E- as defined above that have not been fully excavated Group category is that the visible dimensions gen- but exist at sites with firm archaeological evidence erally reflect the Late Preclassic configurations of for Middle Preclassic occupation are such groups. Chronological history is crucial, as the (Carrasco Vargas 1999, 2003; Delvendahl 2008; architectural groups did not develop overnight; nor Domínguez Carrasco 1994:301), (although did they remain fixed in form for centuries. How- as Chase [1983:149] notes, the E-Group may have ever, as demonstrated through stratigraphic exca- Middle Preclassic construction), vation, many E-Groups are clearly built upon (Forsyth 2006:499–500; Hansen 1990, 1998), smaller forms in the same arrangement erected dur- Mucaancah (Šprajc 2012), (Quintana and ing the Middle Preclassic (e.g., Doyle et al. 2011; Wurster 2002; Źrałka 2008:31), Wakná (Hansen Estrada-Belli 2011; Laporte and Fialko 1995; 1994:19, 1998), Yaxhá (Quintana 2008; Quintana Laporte and Valdés 1993). The limited evidence of et al. 2000:279), and Yaxnohcah (Šprajc 2012). Middle Preclassic E-Group architecture shows con- Finally, many sites exhibit E-Groups with the for- struction on natural bedrock, or masonry and plas- mal criteria but have yet to be excavated thoroughly, ter platforms, perhaps with superstructures (Doyle such as Balakbal (Ruppert and Denison 1943; et al. 2011; Estrada-Belli 2006:58, 2011:77; Hansen Šprajc 2012), El Cedro (Mejía 2009), El Pesquero 1998; Laporte and Fialko 1995). (Mejía 2009), Las Torres (Mejía 2009), Another challenge with previous E-Group (Ruppert and Denison 1943), (Paap et al. research is a tendency to view the type synchron- 2010; Ruppert and Denison 1943), and Xulnal ically over too long a time range. As Laporte (Mejía 2008:654, Figure 12). The current E-Group (1993:303) and Fialko (1988; Laporte and Fialko model, then, is based on sites with similar archi- 1995) have noted, there is a clear disconnection in tectural patterns, divided into three groups by build- the meanings and function of E-Groups between ing chronology ranging from Middle Preclassic the Preclassic and Classic periods. Although some certainty, to high probability, to a predicted Mid- have argued that the “construction of E-groups in dle Preclassic outcome (see Figure 1). Further general appears to have spanned most of Preclas- archaeological investigation in the E-Group plazas sic and Classic Maya history” (Aimers and Rice of the high-probability and predicted groups of sites 2006:80), the dearth of accurate and contempora- could recover similar evidence as found in the first neous site plans impedes a conclusive understand- group of well-excavated examples. It is also prob- ing of E-Group chronology in many sites. able that other E-Groups exist outside the known 360 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Figure 1. Distribution of E-Group sites mentioned in the text with confirmed, probable, or unknown Middle Preclassic construction dates. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 361

clusters in the study area (see Estrada-Belli construction phases throughout the Preclassic, begin- 2011:Figure 4.5; Laporte 2001:Figure 1). ning with earthen platforms, transitioning to masonry architecture surfaced with , and finally solid E-Group Distribution, Landscape block construction with modeled stucco facades (see Visibility, and Community Figure 3). The architectural fill consists of bajo mud and fine limestone blocks and soils (Doyle et al. The distribution of the current sample of known 2011:47–48; Laporte ca. 1983:1-08–1-25). Middle Preclassic E-Groups combined with prob- Radiocarbon dates from the fills at El Palmar able and predicted Middle Preclassic E-Groups can generally confirm the time line set out by Laporte provide clues to the earliest community organiza- and Fialko (1995) for the Mundo Perdido (Table 1). tion in the Lowlands. The main premise in this During the earliest phases of construction, ca. study is that the Middle con- 700–600 B.C., the residents of El Palmar excavated structed settlements with monumental architecture the nearby laguna for architectural fill, with sedi- in very specific locations on the landscape; in other ment originally deposited around 1800 B.C. (Beta- words, although small villages probably existed 285473, Beta-285474). This act could also have across the Lowland terrain, only certain places been motivated by a need to modify the laguna, a became foci of monumental E-Group construction. hypothesis subject to future investigation. The sub- Previous studies have concluded that Classic Maya sequent generations constructed platforms between sites generally lie in prominent areas of greater rel- 600 and 300 B.C., which culminated in a large tiered ative height than the average terrain (Podobnikar pyramid with stucco-covered-stone facades, and Šprajc 2007). Thus during the Middle Pre- approximately 18–20 m in height, dating to the early classic, the distribution of E-Groups can provide Late Preclassic, ca. 300 B.C.–A.D. 1 (Beta-265817, information about the original choices made by Beta-285472). The Early Classic population at El settlers when building monumental centers. Palmar seems to have ceased major constructions A comparison of two neighboring sites from the by about A.D. 300 (Beta-265821), and the E-Group well-excavated sample with very similar E-Group was completely in ruins by the Late Classic period construction sequences can perhaps suggest a wider (Beta-285471). On the other hand, the Mundo Per- pattern. The first case involves the Mundo Perdido dido shows intense construction episodes and group at Tikal, one of the most thoroughly inves- ceramic production in the Early Classic and Late tigated E-Groups, and El Palmar, approximately 15 Classic periods (see Laporte and Fialko 1995:Fig- km to the west of Tikal, which I recently investi- ure 3), conspicuously absent from El Palmar. Pos- gated as part of the Proyecto Arqueológico sible visitors in the Postclassic period (ca. A.D. (Figure 2). The El Palmar E-Group contains very 950–1520) utilized the lakeside ruins at El Palmar similar evidence of construction over the Preclas- for hunting or to collect water from the laguna sic period to the Mundo Perdido group at Tikal (Beta-285470). Dates from the nearby center of El (Figure 3). The proximity of the two sites raises the Zotz demonstrate extensive occupation in the Post- question, What factors could have contributed to classic (Arredondo Leiva and Houston 2008; Gar- two similar monumental plaza groups in these spe- rido López et al. 2010; Román and Houston 2009). cific locations? The monumental scale of the El Palmar and The Mundo Perdido group demonstrates a con- Tikal groups during the Preclassic is also very sim- tinual, episodic occupation from the Early Middle ilar (Figure 4). Most notably, the plazas are of com- Preclassic period to the Terminal Classic period (ca. parable width, a significant fact in light of the 1000 B.C.–A.D. 900 [Laporte and Fialko 1995]). construction sequences mentioned above. Excava- The El Palmar E-Group exhibits a similar Middle tion data show that, as an initial step, the plazas were Preclassic beginning but seems to have been com- leveled and paved with plaster, with concurrent pletely abandoned during the transition from the construction of the eastern platform and western Late Preclassic to the Early Classic (Doyle et al. pyramid. In both cases, the builders of subsequent 2011). Tunnel excavations in the western pyramids phases went to great lengths to preserve the foot- of each site (El Palmar Structure E4-1 and Tikal print of the plaza: to maintain the size over time, Structure 5C-54) have revealed at least five to six by constructing the bulk of structures away from 362 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Figure 2. El Palmar site map. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 363

Figure 3. Above, cross section of El Palmar Structures E4-1 and E4-4 with profiles of excavated areas; below, recon- struction cross section of Tikal Structures 5C-54 and 5D-86 (after Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure 6). Asterisks denote Middle Preclassic construction phases.

the center, sometimes even destroying earlier struc- 2006:Figure 6). Recent research on plazas through- tures (Doyle et al. 2011:48; Laporte ca. 1983; out many time periods in Mesoamerica also pro- Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure 6). A key point to poses that these wide level spaces were more than note is that, despite the cessation of construction in frames creating proper geometric conventions for many E-Groups during the Early Classic, the res- astronomical alignments but actually gathering idents of monumental centers maintained the plaza spaces for ritual performances (e.g., Inomata 2006; space throughout generations of later settlement. Lucero 2003). Thus, the respective E-Group plazas This pattern of plaza preservation, also noted at at Tikal and El Palmar were likely the setting of many other sites in the area (see Estrada-Belli similar social activities for the inhabitants of each 2011:77), could possibly be a defining factor of E- community. Groups—that the absolute size of the plaza was cru- cial to those who built the group. One interpretation Spatial Analysis of the plaza size has been that it created sight lines El Palmar and Tikal are located very close together that allowed for viewing of the sunrise on certain (approximately 15 km), and GIS studies of line-of- points throughout the year (see Aimers and Rice sight show that the two centers were probably inter-

Table 1. Radiocarbon Dates from El Palmar.

Uncalibrated Sample Number Type of Material Age (B.P.) 2σ Calibrated 1σ Calibrated 13C/12C Ratio Beta-285474 Organic sediment 3410 ± 40 1870–1850 and 1750–1670 B.C. –22.3 1780–1620 B.C. Beta-285473 Organic sediment 3250 ± 40 1620–1440 B.C. 1590–1590 and –19.7 1530–1490 B.C. Beta-285472 Charcoal 2120 ± 40 350–300 and 200–90 B.C. –25.4 210–40 B.C. Beta-265817 Charcoal 2230 ± 40 390–190 B.C. 380–340 and –24.6 320–210 B.C. Beta-265821 Charcoal 1730 ± 40 A.D. 230–410 A.D. 250–380 –24.8 Beta-285471 Charcoal 1280 ± 40 A.D. 660–810 A.D. 670–770 –26.2 Beta-285470 Charcoal 720 ± 40 A.D. 1240–1300 A.D. 1270–1290 –26.4 and 1370–1380 364 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Figure 4. Above, plan of El Palmar E-Group; below, plan of Mundo Perdido, Tikal (after Laporte and Fialko 1995:Figure 12). Late Preclassic Period.

visible, even in Preclassic times (Doyle et al. 2011). tial analysis of these two sites has the potential to Remote sensing and settlement survey near El Pal- address early geopolitical processes and motiva- mar (Garrido López et al. 2010) and Tikal (Webster tions to build at particular locations across the cen- 2007) have yet to reveal an E-Group as defined tral Maya Lowlands. Prior distributional analysis of above between or near the two sites. Thus, at least E-Group sites in the area based on two-dimensional in the area around these two Middle Preclassic mon- maps (e.g., Aimers 1993) has been inconclusive, in umental centers, only two specific places contain a part because it lacked a connection to the topogra- major plaza with a similar inventory of associated phy of particular local landscapes. For instance, major architectural constructions. Therefore, spa- many have noted that there seems to be a minimum Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 365

Figure 5. E-Group sites with arbitrary 6 km buffer zones applied.

arbitrary radius around each E-Group, but the dis- ses for site location, by considering visual percep- tance is inconsistent within the study region and tion of the landscape through viewshed analysis other Lowland areas (Figure 5). (Arkush 2011; Doyle et al. 2012; Estrada Belli and Recent spatial analysis in archaeology has uti- Koch 2007:266; Kosiba and Bauer 2012; Podob- lized GIS as a tool to provide alternative hypothe- nikar and Šprajc 2007; see also Krist and Brown 366 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Figure 6. Viewsheds from El Palmar (white) and Tikal (dark grey). Cumulative viewsheds generated from E-Group loca- tions based on 5-m resolution AIRSAR Digital Elevation Model.

1994; Lock and Harris 1996:225; Madry and Rakos resolution and ASTER 30-m resolution digital ele- 1996). Spatial research on Classic Maya cities has vation models, obtained results using the standard proposed viewshed or direct line-of-sight observa- Viewshed feature in the Spatial Analyst Toolbox in tion as a motivation for certain Classic period con- the commercially available software ArcGIS 10 by structions (Estrada-Belli 2008; Golden 2010; ESRI. In the current analysis, cumulative view- Podobnikar and Šprajc 2007; Quintana 2008:Fig- sheds, or the sum of multiple generated viewsheds, ure 10). This study builds on such research and display the visible topography from five viewer seeks to use viewshed analysis as a method to eval- points on the approximate location of E-Groups at uate visibility as a possible factor in the Middle Pre- the sample sites, using the standard correction for classic Maya spatial consideration of the landscape. the earth’s curvature. Several limitations affect the utility of viewshed From the approximate location of the El Pal- analysis in the Maya Lowlands, mainly the consid- mar and Tikal E-Groups, it is clear that a large ter- eration of what a human viewer could have seen in ritory around each site is visible, with the majority the past or whether visibility was meaningful to of the visible areas mutually exclusive and inhabitants. (For further critiques of viewshed analy- nonoverlapping (Figure 6). The viewshed pattern sis in general, see Conolly and Lake 2006:228–231; hints that early E-Groups were constructed to exist Wheatley and Gillings 2000:2.) on higher ground relative to nearby terrain to allow Between Tikal and El Palmar, at a distance of for a clear view of the nearby geographic area, not 15 km, probably only the largest structures, smoke, solely to view the rising on the solstices and and fire would have been visible to the naked eye. equinoxes. Such distribution could perhaps be a Regarding vegetation, viewshed analysis assumes consequence of the hydrological processes in the a degree of deforestation, some evidence of which tropical environment, as communities avoided exists in paleoenvironmental investigations low-lying areas that flood during the intense rainy (Estrada-Belli and Wahl 2010; Wahl et al. 2006, season. The fact that the viewsheds appear to be 2007). Nevertheless, monumental buildings would at intervals based on visibility of the landscape rel- not have supported vegetation during their use; fur- ative to each other may also speak to the original thermore, despite full forest cover today at sites decisions of the settlers who built the E-Groups at such as El Palmar, Tikal, and Yaxhá, ground-truthed Tikal and El Palmar. In other words, settlers of one observations still show extensive viewsheds. The area were conscious of how far away they were, current study, which utilized both AIRSAR 5-m or how visible the intervening territory was, from Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 367

Figure 7. Viewsheds (dark gray) from Middle Preclassic E-Group sites. Dotted lines represent approximate area of viewshed extent. See Supplemental Figure 1 for color image. 368 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Figure 8. Viewsheds (dark gray) from all E-Group sites. Dotted lines represent approximate areas of viewshed extent. See Supplemental Figure 2 for color image. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 369

prior settlements when they began monumental asserted a conceptual autonomy relative to its neigh- constructions. bors. But what was the sociopolitical impulse for The El Palmar–Tikal pattern holds up when populations to construct new monumental centers examining ASTER viewsheds of other Middle Pre- rather than migrate to existing communities? classic E-Group sites in the region, and the land- E-Groups could perhaps be the earliest exam- scape seems to contain communities with ples of a Maya civic requirement for sociopolitical complementary areas of visible topography (Figure units, a space and monumental architectural for- 7, Supplemental Figure 1). For example, Uaxactún mation necessary for settlers to interact with one and San Bartolo have expansive views, but aside another. Adam Smith elaborates on “civic” values from the elevated ridges, their areas of visible ter- embedded in the political landscape: “The politi- ritory do not overlap. The same holds true for Cival cal landscape is constituted in the places that draw and Naranjo, as their viewsheds are divergent except together the imagined civil community, a percep- for the prominent ridge to the west of the sites. The tual dimension of space in which built forms elicit Nakbé viewshed extends radially more than 10 km, affective responses that galvanize memories and supporting claims for its Middle Preclassic impor- emotions central to the experience of political tance in the Mirador region (Hansen 1992, 2000). belonging” (2003:8). The fact that many monu- Expanding the viewshed pattern analysis to other mental settlements in the Middle Preclassic Maya E-Group sites suggests that although centers were Lowlands seem to contain an E-Group speaks to intervisible, they did not share large views of the its centrality to the daily lives of settlers, perhaps surrounding landscape (Figure 8, Supplemental Fig- even a widespread belief that these spaces garnered ure 2). For example, the views from Calakmul, a sense of belonging to a group identity. A sense of Yaxnohcah, Naachtun, and Balakbal seem to cover belonging forms a major part of the recently pro- a continuous large area, but closer examination posed model for a Classic Maya “moral commu- reveals little overlap among the four viewsheds, nity” (Houston and Inomata 2009:28–42). despite their geographic proximity. The same pat- According to Houston and Inomata (2009:36): tern holds up for Uxul, El Mirador, Nakbé, Wakná, There was not one moral community within and Xulnal, some of the largest settlements in the the Classic Maya world but many, most more- Mirador region. Another cluster of close sites in the or-less coterminous with individual kingdoms. southern Mirador area, El Cedro, El Pesquero, and . . . The conceptual origins of Classic Maya Las Torres, demonstrates that even the sites with the covenants lay deep in the past and, indeed, least intersite distance do not have significant over- were not devised anew in each generation but lapping viewsheds. Another notable characteristic built on the very premise of great antiquity. of sites such as El Palmar, Cenote, and Yaxhá is that the viewsheds cover most, if not all, of the nearby Although little evidence exists regarding the water sources. The viewshed analysis supports the dynamics of Middle Preclassic Maya moral com- interpretation that the distribution of early monu- munities or shared group identities, one could argue mental site cores, possibly as early as the Middle that the distribution of E-Groups represents the ear- Preclassic, could have been based on sight lines and liest archaeological evidence of many individuals vistas. adopting a shared covenant beyond the kin group. The covenant became manifest in the monumen- Sociopolitical Implications of tal gathering spaces and architecture. Early Maya E-Groups In addition to group identity, many have stressed Juan Pedro Laporte (1993:314) has argued that E- the importance of elite legitimation and the expres- Groups are clues to understanding the extents of sion of political authority as motivations for build- Early Classic sociopolitical units. The GIS research ing early monumental centers (see McAnany here supports that assertion, proposing the existence 2010:155–156). Though, as Ringle (1999:187) suc- of distinct communities with similar monumental cinctly notes, “it seems improbable that Formative spaces as far back as the Middle Preclassic period. elites could somehow hoodwink an entire populace The architectural similarity and geographic distance into building massive reminders of their humble of the E-Group communities could imply that each station in life . . . monumental construction 370 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

expressed aspects of communal life that were of clear example of a Middle Preclassic site that lacks deepest importance.” Early E-Groups could repre- an E-Group civic space but shows evidence of sent the earliest large-scale places of community shared Middle Preclassic Maya ritual practice is cohesion and political belonging in the Maya Low- Cuello, Belize (see map in Hammond 1991:10–11; lands. Viewshed analysis suggests that from E- cf. Aimers 1993, cited in Aimers and Rice 2006:81). Groups, one could visually perceive the limits of Why, then, would certain Preclassic centers notice- one’s community in relation to neighboring settle- ably lack monumental civic spaces and buildings ments. More broadly, it seems that Middle Preclas- that seem so prominent and necessary in other com- sic monumentality coincided with the settlers’ munities? If the construction of E-Groups indeed distinct desire to create and maintain distance from represents communities consciously positioning others over the landscape, another nod to the con- themselves on the landscape, what implications fluence of group identity and possibly political does this have for communities without such mon- authority. Future excavations in Middle Preclassic umental civic spaces? monumental civic centers will illuminate the As mentioned, evidence for the chronological sociopolitical relationship between these distinct, development of ritual activity that contributed to but architecturally similar, communities and the the monumental growth of E-Groups in the Mid- activities they engaged in during their daily lives. dle Preclassic is largely inaccessible to current archaeological research methods. Therefore, it is Discussion: Constructing Meaning impossible to distinguish between the dynamic his- torical trajectory of a site like Cuello and that of Most prior research on the function of E-Groups sites with E-Groups, such as Tikal and Uaxactún. operates on the assumption that “it is sufficient to Regardless, recent excavations and comparative repeat the generality that this special arrangement evidence from across the Maya Lowlands bring to of mounds served ritual purposes, perhaps con- light new possibilities for central Lowland E- nected with observations of the sun’s passage and Groups. Specifically, evidence exists that E- with calendrical rites” (Clark and Hansen Groups, and their common inventory of civic 2001:23). The current discussion attempts to depart architecture, may have formed early centers of from this assumption. Recent archaeological evi- emerging political authority, as elite groups and dence has opened new channels for research into individuals engaged with the spaces in which peo- the social meaning of the monumental plazas and ple gathered for various activities. The fact that associated buildings of the Middle Preclassic Maya many sites with Middle Preclassic E-Groups later civic spaces. developed into dynastic kingdoms invites further It is important to mention the implications of exploration of the relationship among E-Groups, Middle Preclassic communities that did not con- population aggregation, and early Maya political struct E-Groups. The distribution of E-Groups authority. described above applies to the central Lowlands, where known groups exhibit the most similar mor- Lithic Production Evidence phological and chronological similarities. E-Groups E-Group locations with a commanding view of the as defined are conspicuously absent at the same fre- surrounding landscape could possibly relate to the quency in certain areas, including the Usumacinta appearance of “radial” pyramids, with staircases on drainage, the eastern (coastal) Lowlands of Belize, all four sides, implicative of cosmic centrality and and the northern Lowlands, all regions that demon- four-part movement and ritual (see Coggins 1980; strate ample evidence of Middle Preclassic occu- Cohodas 1980). Unfortunately, due to overburden pations. Some E-Groups have been identified in from Late Preclassic and Classic constructions, these areas, but they are generally of differing scales radial pyramids in the Middle Preclassic are diffi- and architectural forms than those in the central cult to identify, and such cosmological interpreta- area, such as at La Técnica along the Usumacinta tions “may take as cause what may be (Scherer et al. 2007) and Dzibilchaltún and Yaxuná consequences of the first monumental construc- in northern Yucatán (Andrews and Andrews 1980; tions” (Joyce 2004:8). Although excavations were Stanton and Freidel 2003, 2005), among others. A unable to conclusively determine if the earlier Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 371

Figure 9. Fill of El Palmar E-Group pyramid, Structure E4-1-4; inset, flakes recovered.

phases of the El Palmar E-Group pyramid, Struc- (Figure 9). Excavators at Mundo Perdido Tikal ture E4-1 (Figures 2–4; Doyle et al. 2011), were report similar layers with large quantities of lithic radial, a striking feature of Middle Preclassic build- materials (Laporte ca. 1983:1-19). Other Middle ing practices became evident in building fills. When Preclassic sites with E-Groups have yielded large constructing the Middle Preclassic (ca. 500 B.C.) quantities of worked chert in architectural fills (e.g., pyramid of the E-Group, the residents of El Pal- San Bartolo [see Saturno 2003:321]). mar used distinct layers of dark mud from low-lying It stands to reason that stone tools were a vital and a layer almost entirely composed of prerequisite for successful Middle Preclassic vil- rock and chipped-stone tool production lage life— from hunting to building shelter to agri- 372 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

cultural production. The debitage recovered at El identity and statements of political authority— or a Palmar consists of a large quantity of mid- and combination of both. A key fact remains certain early-stage chert biface reduction flakes, suggest- about Middle Preclassic E-Groups: the initial act ing that residents of El Palmar worked raw chert of construction always involved the building of a into biface preforms locally (Hruby and Lang large, level plaza. These plazas would have accom- 2009:310). This chert debitage may imply that El modated many people, almost certainly more than Palmar was located close to a large source of chert the residents in the immediate vicinity, according (see Hester and Shafer 1984). The possible prox- to current archaeological evidence. The scale of imity to chert sources has also been noted by these plazas could mean that people would have archaeologists at other major Preclassic sites, such been traveling to the E-Groups from a distance, as as Tikal (Moholy-Nagy 1997:296), San Bartolo proposed by Estrada-Belli for the site of Cival, (Garrison and Dunning 2009:535), and many sites where “the first inhabitants of the Cival commu- in Belize (Cackler et al. 1999). The lack of a soil nity lived on hilltop farmsteads widely dispersed matrix in the lithic layer could signify that the debris in a 3.7 km radius around the main hill. Construc- was collected directly in the immediate area and tion of the first ceremonial plaza was contempo- deposited in one event when constructing the El rary with the first farming occupation and is not a Palmar pyramid. It remains unclear who was pro- result of gradual population increase” (Estrada- ducing such quantities of stone tools at El Palmar Belli and Wahl 2010:25). The likelihood that peo- or what prompted the seemingly simultaneous ple from distant areas constructed, and periodically deposit of the debitage in the construction fill. gathered in, these plazas has important implications Although more is necessary, the when considering material culture evidence, specif- possibility exists that the E-Group plaza served as ically the distribution and homogeneity of certain a locus for early-stage stone tool production, that ceramics from the Middle Preclassic period. is, obtaining and reducing nodules into biface pre- The innovation of Mamom-sphere ceramic forms. Thus the spatial distribution of Middle Pre- technology happened in the Maya Lowlands classic E-Groups perhaps provides a window into around the same time as the appearance of E- the earliest civic centers of early “moral commu- Groups. Smith (1955) initially identified Mamom- nities” engaging in daily tasks, such as stone tool type ceramics at Uaxactún, characterized by waxy production, in addition to ritual activities. The slips and forms including everted-rim bowls and deposit of stone tools and debitage in architectural large, unslipped utilitarian jars. Many have noted fills might have symbolic significance as well, con- that the widespread similarities in the form and sur- sidering that working stone was at the “center of face treatment of Mamom ceramics may signal a craft production from the Early Preclassic onward” consistent production process throughout a large (Stuart 2010:297). Stuart (2010:286) notes that for area (Ringle 1999:198). However, no causal expla- the Classic Maya, stone was “an inherently pow- nation or proposed social mechanism exists for erful and timeless substance, a permanent mater- such a wide distribution of similar household ial both of the earth and transcendent, evoking other goods. One possibility is that the construction of spatial realms and categories.” Therefore layers of monumental plazas and subsequent aggregation of stoneworking by-products could be considered a large numbers of settlers could have contributed to deliberate offering, given as part of the building such a reduction in the diversity and quality of clay process. But currently it is unclear whether the sources used by potters, as argued by Fowles et al. lithic production was part of the motivation for cre- (2007) for precolumbian New Mexico. ating these monumental buildings or a consequence Stark and Garraty (2010; see also Feinman and of preexisting E-Group activities that were incor- Garraty 2010:176–178) recently proposed another porated into subsequent renewal efforts. possibility for the regional distribution of similar household goods, like the Mamom pottery exam- Evidence for Gathering and Exchange? ple here. They argue that the large-scale distribu- As discussed above, scholarship on monumental tion of household goods very likely suggests the civic spaces highlights a tension regarding the moti- existence of a market system, relative to the pos- vations to build: between expressions of group sibilities of nonmarket mechanisms such as redis- Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 373 tribution. Several lines of evidence in recent als in the Middle Preclassic E-Groups. As men- research point to the existence of Maya market- tioned before, the construction of such large build- places, in large open plazas, throughout many dif- ings for the first time in the Lowlands implies both ferent time periods (Carrasco Vargas et al. 2009; a sophisticated labor organization and monumen- Dahlin 2009; Dahlin et al. 2007; for a central Mex- tal intent— but which groups or individuals could ican comparison, see Hirth 2009). Relevant to the have been supervising authorities? household ceramic example are the early Late Clas- Unfortunately, very little evidence of Middle sic market murals at Calakmul, Mexico, where a Preclassic political authority exists. It is clear that “clay-vessel person” displays a basket full of ves- Classic Maya divine kingship— as attested to by sels, presumably for exchange (Carrasco Vargas et epigraphic, archaeological, and ethnohistoric al. 2009:Figure 7). Although it is highly specula- scholarship— has its roots in the Preclassic period tive, perhaps E-Group plazas could have been a spa- (e.g., Freidel and Schele 1988). With the discovery tial medium through which necessary or desired of the San Bartolo murals, dated at around 100 B.C., materials flowed. In other words, as populations came further evidence of accession, sophisticated gathered in E-Groups, perhaps visiting more than rituals relating to autosacrifice and the cardinal one near their home communities, technical knowl- directions, and possibly kingship (Taube et al. 2010). edge of Mamom-type ceramics spread among com- The artistic skill and iconographic content of these munities of potters within a few generations. murals are extraordinary and imply an even more Thus, it is possible that groups of settlers con- ancient cultural tradition yet to be discovered for structed E-Groups as a central place to gather and Middle Preclassic times. San Bartolo, a modestly facilitate access to and exchange of goods such as sized site, also hints that the Classic period prac- stone, foodstuffs, or ceramic vessels. To be clear, tices of hereditary kingship were present at many this is not to argue that the E-Groups during the more Late Preclassic centers than previously Preclassic period are equivalent to the proposed thought (Saturno et al. 2006). In 2008, excavations markets of the Classic Maya or Postclassic Maya. uncovered a Middle Preclassic E-Group, albeit of Nor is the economic association proposed for E- a smaller scale than found in other study sites, com- Groups here a first; Rathje et al. (1978) have pro- posed of the Hunahpu and Ixbalanque structures posed E-Groups as a complex specifically built to (Hurst 2009; Urquizú and Saturno 2008). mark calendrical cycles in order to schedule long- The San Bartolo E-Group shows similar formal distance trade. Rathje’s analysis focused on Clas- characteristics to contemporary groups, but the sic period processes, when in fact, E-Groups group at San Bartolo contains what seems to be a emerged as primary social spaces at many sites ball court alley on the eastern face of the radial pyra- much earlier. Considering that the earliest E-Group mid (Hurst 2009; Urquizú and Saturno 2008). The platforms do not seem to have explicitly marked radial pyramid itself serves as the western ball court the solstices and equinoxes as observatories (Aveni wall, with the eastern wall built inside the plaza, and Hartung 1989; Aveni et al. 2003), it is plausi- complete with a ball court marker actually painted ble that the platforms and buildings formed a in the center of the ball court alley. Others have bounded, cleared public space, within which early noted the association of ball courts with E-Groups, settlers exchanged goods (cf. Stanton and Freidel but never has one this early been found associated 2003:8). The reality of the E-Group plazas is that directly within the E-Group plaza itself (see Aimers they were probably multiuse spaces, with rituals, and Rice 2006:89–90). exchanges, celebrations, and social interactions The San Bartolo ball court E-Group harkens occurring throughout time. back to the proposed interpretations of gathering and possible production and exchange: perhaps Under Whose Authority? after some generations of use for various daily or Although suggestive, a functional or economic ceremonial activities, the E-Groups became locales explanation of E-Group community distribution for performance, gaming, and other forms of elite coupled with previous interpretations of ritual interaction known from later periods. The ball court behavior does not explain fully the radical increase could have been the scene of public spectacles per- in the scale and durability of construction materi- formed by the ancestors of the very rulers shown 374 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

in the accession scenes on the western wall of the Middle and Late Preclassic sites (Clark and Hansen murals (Taube et al. 2010). Even in the non–ball 2001; Hendon 1999). court E-Groups, large amounts of people would Finally, Late Preclassic sites with E-Groups have had a clear view of what occurred on top of exhibit extensive evidence of comprehensive urban the masonry platforms or later pyramids. In short, planning, including major spatial axes, consistent these plazas were giant performance spaces for building orientations, and standards for architec- emerging dynastic rulers, possibly the first of their tural measurements (see Doyle 2012; Šprajc et al. kind in the Maya Lowlands (see Inomata 2006; 2009; for a discussion of ancient urban planning, Lucero 2003). see Smith 2009). Buildings in the Late Preclassic E-Groups, as well as the massive “Triadic Groups,” Conclusions became larger and were full of rich iconographic programs of architectural sculpture, the meaning The E-Group architectural configuration, the sub- of which is still only partially understood by schol- ject of much debate within archaeoastronomy, ars (see Estrada-Belli 2011; Hansen 1998). So deserves renewed attention as the earliest monu- through associating themselves with E-Groups at mental, multifaceted social space in the Maya Low- a specific geographic place, a hub of ritual and per- lands. The distribution of early E-Groups implies haps economic activity, elite groups used the prox- that the Middle Preclassic Maya had imposed order imity and interaction of the surrounding settlers to on the landscape, an order expressed through a gain authority over the Maya sociopolitical land- common monumentality of civic centers. GIS scape, for the first time. viewshed analysis supports the hypothesis that sites Acknowledgments. Latin with Middle Preclassic E-Groups represent centers I am grateful to the editors of American Antiquity and three anonymous reviewers for of early communities with complementary visible insightful comments that helped improve the clarity of this access to the landscape, although the precise social article. Many individuals provided helpful feedback on ear- meaning of distance or perceived boundaries lier drafts of this article, especially Stephen Houston, Andrew remains unknown. The plazas of confirmed Mid- Scherer, Takeshi Inomata, and Thomas Garrison. Digital ele- dle Preclassic E-Groups, and perhaps those of other vation model data were generously provided by NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The Institute of Anthropology and sites that await stratigraphic excavation, could have History of Guatemala graciously granted permission to inves- been hubs of activity for distinct “moral commu- tigate the site of El Palmar within the El Zotz Archaeological nities” or even early polities. The pyramids and Project, directed by Dr. Stephen Houston and Lic. Edwin platforms might represent the earliest requirement Román. Work at El Palmar was only possible with the dedi- to achieve civic belonging, or express political cation of Varinia Matute, Rony Piedrasanta, and excavation assistants from Cruce Dos Aguadas and Dolores, Petén. Work authority, among communities in the Maya Low- at El Palmar was supported generously by the U.S. National lands. Clearly more research is needed to investi- Science Foundation (BCS #1023274—Doctoral Dissertation gate the relationship among E-Group Improvement Grant, Houston and Doyle PIs; BCS monumentality, group identity, and political power #0840930—Landscape Succession in Lowland Maya during the Middle Preclassic. Archaeology, Houston and Garrison PIs), the U.S. National Endowment for the Humanities (grant #RZ-50680-07— Research in E-Groups from the Late Preclassic Archaeology of El Zotz, Guatemala, Houston PI), the period supports the claim that over many genera- Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research tions, one group or individual came to exert power (Dissertation Fieldwork Grant, Doyle PI), Brown University over ritual, production, or exchange activities at the Graduate School and Department of Anthropology, the E-Group civic center. Elite ritual caches and buri- Brown University Dupee Family Professorship of Social Sciences (Houston, chair), and the Tinker Foundation along als appear widely in Late Preclassic E-Groups, espe- with the Brown University Center for Latin American and cially noted at Calakmul, Mexico; , Belize; Caribbean Studies. Other organizations that provided me and Tikal, Guatemala (Carrasco Vargas 1999; Chase with research and practical support include the Dumbarton and Chase 1995:95; Laporte and Fialko 1995). Fur- Oaks Library and Research Collection (Short-Term Pre- thermore, Late Preclassic residential platforms, Doctoral Residency, 2010; Junior Fellowship 2011–2012) and the Mesoamerica Center at the University of Texas at including at least four at El Palmar, exhibit the same Austin Casa Herrera (Visiting Scholar Residency). Special form as alleged elite “compounds” at many other thanks also go to the Doyle family and Pablo Suárez Becerra. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 375

Supplemental Materials. Supplemental materials are linked Cackler, Paul R., Michael D. Glascock, Hector Neff, Harry Ice- to the online version of the paper, which is accessible via the land, K. Anne Pyburn, Dale Hudler, Thomas R. Hester, SAA member logon at www.saa.org/members-login and Beverly Mitchum Chiarulli Supplemental Figure 1. Viewsheds (colors) from Middle 1999 Chipped Stone Artefacts Source Areas, and Prove- Preclassic E-Group sites. Supplemental Figure 2. Viewsheds nance Studies of the Northern Belize Chert-Bearing Zone. Journal of Archaeological Science 26:389–397. (colors) from all E-Group sites. Carrasco Vargas, Ramón 1999 Actividad ritual y objetos de poder en la Estructura IV de Calakmul, Campeche. In Land of the Turkey and the References Cited Deer: Recent Research in Yucatan, edited by Ruth Gubler, pp. 69–84. Labyrinthos, Lancaster, California. Aimers, James J. 2003 Calakmul en el arte y la arquitectura del Formativo. 1993 An Hermeneutic Analysis of the Maya E-Group Com- In Calakmul: Antología, edited by Carlos Vidal Angles and plex. Unpublished Master’s thesis, Department of Anthro- Marilyn Domínguez Turriza, pp. 97–110. Instituto pology, Trent University, Canada. National Library of Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro INAH Canada, Ottawa. Campeche, Campeche. Aimers, James J., Terry G. Powis, and Jaime J. Awe Carrasco Vargas, Ramón, Verónica A. Vázquez López, and 2000 Preclassic Round Structures of the Upper Belize River Latin American Antiquity Valley. 11:71–86. 2009 Daily Life of the Ancient Maya Recorded on Murals Aimers, James J., and Prudence M. Rice at Calakmul, Mexico. Proceedings of the National Acad- 2006 Astronomy, Ritual, and the Interpretation of Maya emy of Arts and Sciences 106:19245–19249. Ancient “E-Group” Architectural Assemblages. Chase, Arlen F. Mesoamerica 17:79–96. 1983 A Contextual Consideration of the Tayasal-Paxca- Andrews, E. Wyllys, IV, and E. Wyllys Andrews, V man Zone, El Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Excavations at , Yucatan 1980 . Publication Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania. 48. Middle American Research Institute, New Orleans. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Arkush, Elizabeth N. Chase, Arlen F., and Diane Z. Chase Hillforts of the Ancient Andes: Colla Warfare, Soci- 2011 1995 External Impetus, Internal Synthesis, and Stan- ety, and Landscape . University Press of Florida, dardization: E-Group Assemblages and the Crystal- Gainesville. lization of Classic in the Southern Arredondo Leiva, Ernesto, and Stephen Houston (editors) Lowlands. In Emergence of Maya : The Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 1: Tem- 2008 Transition from the Preclassic to the Early Classic, porada de Campo 2008 . Report submitted to the Institute edited by , pp. 87–101. Saurwein, Markt of Anthropology and History, Guatemala. Electronic doc- Schwaben, Germany. ument, http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed Cheetham, David February 13, 2012. 2005 Cunil: A Pre-Mamom Horizon in the Southern Maya Aveni, Anthony F., Anne S. Dowd, and Benjamin Vining Lowlands. In New Perspectives on Formative Mesoamer- 2003 Reform? Evidence from Orientations ican Cultures, edited by Terry Powis, pp. 1–14. BAR Inter- Latin American of Specialized Architectural Assemblages. national Series 1377. Archaeopress, Oxford. Antiquity 14:159–178. Childe, V. Gordon Aveni, Anthony F., and Horst Hartung 1950 The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Review 1989 , Guatemala, Group E and Similar Assem- 21(1):3–17. blages: An Archaeoastronomical Reconsideration. In Clark, John E., and David Cheetham World Archaeoastronomy , edited by Anthony Aveni, pp. 2003 Mesoamerica’s Tribal Foundations. In The Archaeol- 441–461. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ogy of Tribal Societies, edited by William Parkinson, pp. Awe, Jaime J., Cassandra Bill, Mark Campbell, and David 278–339. International Monographs in Prehistory, Ann Cheetham Arbor. 1990 Early Middle Formative Occupation in the Central Clark, John E., and Richard D. Hansen Maya Lowlands: Recent Evidence from Cahal Pech, 2001 The Architecture of Early Kingship: Comparative Per- Papers from the Institute of Archaeology Belize. In , Vol. spectives on the Origins of the Maya Royal Court. In Royal 1:1–16. University of London Institute of Archaeology, Courts of the Ancient Maya, Vol. 2: Data and Case Stud- London. ies, edited by Takeshi Inomata and Stephen Houston, pp. Aylesworth, Grant R. 1–45. Westview Press, Boulder. 2004 Astronomical Interpretations of Ancient Maya E- Coggins, Clemency Archaeoastronomy Group Architectural Complexes. 1980 The Shape of Time: Some Political Implications of a 18:34–66. Four-Part Figure. American Antiquity 45:727–739. Bauer, Jeremy R. Cohodas, Marvin 2005 Between Heaven and Earth: The Cival Cache and the 1980 Radial Pyramids and Radial-Associated Assemblages Creation of the Mesoamerican Cosmos. In Lords of Cre- of the Central Maya Area. Journal of the Society of Archi- ation: The Origins of Sacred Maya Kingship , edited by tectural Historians 39:208–223. Virginia Fields and Dorie Reents-Budet, pp. 28–29. Scala, Conolly, James, and Mark Lake Los Angeles. 2006 Geographical Information Systems in Archaeology. Blom, Frans Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1924 Report on the Preliminary Work at Uaxactun, Dahlin, Bruce Carnegie Institution of Washington Yearbook Guatemala. , 2009 Ahead of Its Time? The Remarkable Early Classic Vol. 23:217–219. Carnegie Institution of Washington, Maya Economy of . Journal of Social Washington, D.C. Archaeology 9:341–367. 376 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Dahlin, Bruce H., Christopher T. Jensen, Richard E. Terry, David by Juan Pedro Laporte, Héctor Escobedo, Bárbara Arroyo, R. Wright, and Timothy Beach and Ana Claudia de Suasnávar, pp. 501–513. Museo 2007 In Search of an Ancient Maya Market. Latin Ameri- Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. can Antiquity 18:363–384. 2004 Investigaciones arqueológicas en Naranjo: primeras Delvendahl, Kai observaciones sobre el desarrolo cultural del centro urbano. 2008 Calakmul in Sight: History and Archaeology of an Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäolo- Ancient . Unas letras, Mérida. gie 24:179–194. Domínguez Carrasco, María del Rosario Flannery, Kent V. 1994 Calakmul, Campeche: Analisis de la cerámica. Uni- 1972 The Origins of the Village as a Settlement Type in versidad Autónoma de Campeche, Campeche. Mesoamerica and the Near East: A Comparative Study. In Doyle, James A., Thomas Garrison, and Stephen Houston Man, Settlement and Urbanism, edited by Peter Ucko, 2012 Watchful Realms: Integrating GIS Analysis and Polit- Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby, pp. 23–53. Duck- ical History in the Southern Maya Lowlands. Antiquity worth, London. 86:792–807. 2002 The Origins of the Village Revisited: From Nuclear Doyle, James A., Stephen D. Houston, Thomas G. Garrison, to Extended Households. American Antiquity 67:417–433. and Edwin Román Forsyth, Donald W. 2011 ¿Al alcance de la vista de Mundo Perdido? La plani- 1999 La cerámica preclásica y el desarrollo de la comple- ficación urbana y el abandono abrupto de El Palmar, Petén, jidad cultural durante el Preclásico. En XII Simposio de Guatemala. In XXIV Simposio de Investigaciones Arque- Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1998, edited ológicas de Guatemala, 2010, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, by Juan Pedro Laporte and Héctor Escobedo, pp. 50–62. Lorena Piaz Aragón, Adriana Linares Palma, and Ana Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. Lucía Arroyave, pp. 45–56. Ministerio de Cultura y 2006 El desarrollo cultural de la Cuenca Mirador a través Deportes, Guatemala. de la cerámica. In XIX Simposio de Investigaciones Arque- Doyle, James A. ológicas en Guatemala, 2005, edited by Juan Pedro 2012 Early Maya Geometric Planning Conventions at El Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 498–506. Palmar, Guatemala. Journal of Archaeological Science. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2012.08.006. Fowles, Severin M., Leah Minc, Samual Duwe, and David V. Dunning, Nicholas P., Sheryl Luzzadder-Beach, Timothy Beach, Hill John G. Jones, Vernon Scarborough, and T. Patrick Cul- 2007 Clay, Conflict, and Village Aggregation: Composi- bert tional Analyses of Pre-Classic Pottery from Taos, New 2002 Arising from the Bajos: The Evolution of a Neotrop- Mexico. American Antiquity 72:125–152. ical Landscape and the Rise of . Annals Freidel, David A., and Linda Schele of the Association of American Geographers 92:267–283. 1988 Kingship in the Late Preclassic Maya Lowlands: The Estrada-Belli, Francisco Instruments and Places of Ritual Power. American Anthro- 2006 Lightning Sky, Rain, and the Maize God: The Ideol- pologist 90:547–567. ogy of Preclassic at Cival, Peten, Guatemala. Gámez, Laura L. Ancient Mesoamerica 17:57–78. 2005 Investigaciones en los Templos B-19 y B-24 de 2008 Investigaciones arqueológicas en la región de Hol- Naranjo, Petén: la evolución del eje norte-sur de la Plaza mul, Peten: Cival, y K’o. Informe preliminar de la tem- Central. In XVIII Simposio de Investigaciones Arque- porada 2008. Report submitted to the Institute of ológicas en Guatemala, 2004, edited by Juan Pedro Anthropology and History, Guatemala. Electronic docu- Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 226–233. ment, http://www.bu.edu/holmul/reports/informe_08_lay- Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. out.pdf, accessed February 13, 2012. Garber, James F., M. Kathryn Brown, Jaime Awe, and Christo- 2011 The First Maya Civilization: Ritual and Power Before pher J. Hartman the Classic Period. Routledge, New York. 2004 Middle Formative Prehistory of the Central Belize Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and Magaly Koch Valley. In The Ancient Maya of the Belize Valley: Half a 2007 Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis of a Maya City and Century of Archaeological Research, edited by James F. Its Landscape: Holmul Guatemala. In Remote Sensing in Garber, pp. 25–47. University Press of Florida, Gainesville. Archaeology, edited by James Wiseman and Farouk El- Garrido López, Jose, Stephen Houston, and Edwin Román Baz, pp. 263–282. Springer, New York. 2010 Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 5 Tem- Estrada-Belli, Francisco, and David Wahl porada 2010. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthro- 2010 Human–Environment Interactions in the Southern pology and History, Guatemala. Electronic document, Maya Lowlands: The Holmul Region Case. Final report http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed Feb- submitted to the National Science Foundation. Electronic ruary 13, 2012. document, Garrison, Thomas G., and Nicholas P. Dunning http://www.bu.edu/holmul/reports/Holmul_NSF_human_ 2009 Settlement, Environment, and Politics in the San Bar- environment_interactions.pdf, accessed February 13, tolo– Territory, El Peten, Guatemala. Latin Ameri- 2012. can Antiquity 20:525–552. Feinman, Gary M., and Christopher P. Garraty Gerhardt, Juliette Cartwright 2010 Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological 1988 Preclassic at Cuello, Belize. BAR Perspectives. Annual Review of Anthropology 39:167–191. International Series 454. British Archaeological Reports, Fialko, Vilma Oxford. 1988 Mundo Perdido, Tikal: Un ejemplo de complejos de Gerhardt, Juliette Cartwright, and Norman Hammond conmemoración astronómica. Mayab 4:13–21. 1991 The Community of Cuello: The Ceremonial Core. In 2000 Distribución de los asentamientos preclásicos mayas Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize, edited by entre Tikal, Nakum, y Naranjo. In XIII Simposio de Norman Hammond, pp. 98–117. Cambridge University Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1999, edited Press, New York. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 377

Golden, Charles Iceland, Harry B. 2010 Dynamic Landscapes and Political Developments in 2005 The Preceramic to Early Middle Formative Transition the Maya Kingdoms of Piedras Negras and : New in Northern Belize: Evidence for the Ethnic Identity of the Perspectives Provided by Remote Sensing, Archaeology, Preceramic Inhabitants. In New Perspectives on Forma- and Epigraphy. Paper presented at the 75th Annual Meet- tive Mesoamerican Cultures, edited by Terry Powis, pp. ing of the Society for American Archaeology, St. Louis. 15–26. BAR International Series 1377. Archaeopress, Guderjan, Thomas H. Oxford. 2006 E-Groups, Pseudo-E-Groups, and the Development Inomata, Takeshi of the Classic Maya Identity in the Eastern Peten. Ancient 2006 Plazas, Performers, and Spectators: Political Theaters Mesoamerica 17:97–104. of the Classic Maya. Current Anthropology 47:805–842. Hammond, Norman (editor) Inomata, Takeshi, Daniela Triadan, and Otto Román 1991 Cuello: An Early Maya Community in Belize. Cam- 2009 Desarrollo de las comunidades preclásicas e interac- bridge University Press, New York. ciones entre las Tierras Bajas y el área olmeca. In XXIII Hansen, Richard D. Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 1990 Excavations in the Tigre Complex El Mirador, Petén, 2009, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, Adriana Linares Palma, Guatemala. Papers of the New World Archaeological and Lorena Paiz Aragón, pp. 53–67. Museo Nacional de Foundation 62. New World Archaeological Foundation, Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. Brigham Young University, Provo. Joyce, Rosemary A. 1992 The Archaeology of Ideology: A Study of Maya Pre- 2004 Unintended Consequences? Monumentality as a classic Architectural Sculpture at , Peten, Novel Experience in Formative Mesoamerica. Journal of Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Archaeol- Archaeological Method and Theory 11:5–29. ogy, University of California, Los Angeles. University Kosiba, Steve, and Andrew M. Bauer Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 2012 Mapping the Political Landscape: Toward a GIS 1994 Investigaciones arqueológicas en el norte del Petén, Analysis of Environmental and Social Difference. Jour- Guatemala: una mirada diacrónica de los orígenes mayas. nal of Archaeological Method and Theory. DOI: In Campeche Maya Colonial, edited by William J. Folan, 10.1007/s10816-011-9126-z. pp. 14–54. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Campeche, Krist, Frank J., and Daniel G. Brown Campeche. 1994 GIS Modeling of Paleo-Indian Period Caribou Migra- 1998 Continuity and Disjunction: The Pre-Classic tions and Viewsheds in Northeastern Lower Michigan. Antecedents of Classic Maya Architecture. In Function and Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing Meaning in Classic Maya Architecture, edited by Stephen 60:1129–1137. Houston, pp. 49–122. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Laporte, Juan Pedro 2000 The First Cities— The Beginnings of Urbanization ca. 1983 Informe de Mundo Perdido, Tikal. On file in the and State Formation in the Maya Lowlands. In Maya: library of the Centro de Investigaciones Regionales en Divine Kings of the Rain Forest, edited by Nikolai Grube, Mesoamerica, Antigua Guatemala. pp. 51–66. Könemann, Cologne. 1993 Architecture and Social Change in Late Classic Maya Hendon, Julia A. Society: The Evidence from Mundo Perdido, Tikal. In 1999 The Pre-Classic Maya Compound as the Focus of Lowland Maya Civilization in the Eighth Century A.D., Social Identity. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic edited by Jeremy A. Sabloff and John S. Henderson, pp. Mesoamerica, edited by David Grove and Rosemary 299–320. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. Joyce, pp. 97–126. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. 2001 Dispersión y estructura de las ciudades del sureste de 2000 Round Structures, Household Identity, and Public Per- Petén, Guatemala. In Reconstruyendo la ciudad maya: El formance in Preclassic Maya Society. Latin American urbanismo en las sociedades antiguas, edited by Andrés Antiquity 11:299–301. Ciudad Ruiz, Maria Josefa Iglesias Ponce de León, and Hester, Thomas R., and Harry J. Shafer Maria del Carmen Martínez Martínez, pp. 137–161. Pu - 1984 Exploitation of Chert Resources by the Ancient Maya blicaciones de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas of Northern Belize, . World Archaeology 6. Sociedad Española de Estudios Mayas, Madrid. 16:157–173. Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Vilma Fialko Hirth, Kenneth G. 1995 Un reencuentro con Mundo Perdido, Tikal. Ancient 2009 Craft Production in a Central Mexican Marketplace. Mesoamerica 6:41–94. Ancient Mesoamerica 20:80–102. Laporte, Juan Pedro, and Juan Antonio Valdés (editors) Houston, Stephen D., and Takeshi Inomata 1993 Tikal y Uaxactún en el Preclásico. Universidad 2009 The Classic Maya. Cambridge University Press, New Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City. York. Lock, Gary R., and Trevor M. Harris Hruby, Zachary, and Katrina Lang 1996 Danebury Revisited: An English Iron Age Hillfort in 2009 La lítica del Proyecto Arqueológico El Zotz. In a Digital Landscape. In Anthropology, Space and Geo- Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 4 Tempo- graphic Information Systems, edited by Mark Aldender- rada 2009, edited by E. Román and S. Houston, pp. fer and Herbert D. G. Maschner, pp. 214–240. Oxford 307–320. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthropol- University Press, Oxford. ogy and History, Guatemala. Electronic document, Lohse, Jon C. http://mesoweb.com/zotz/resources.html, accessed Feb- 2010 Archaic Origins of the Lowland Maya. Latin Ameri- ruary 13, 2012. can Antiquity 21:312–352. Hurst, Heather Lohse, Jon C., Jaime Awe, Cameron Griffith, Robert M. 2009 Murals and the Ancient Maya Artist: A Study of Art Rosenswig, and Fred Valdez, Jr. Production in the Guatemalan Lowlands. Ph.D. disserta- 2006 Preceramic Occupations in Belize: Updating the Pale- tion, Department of Anthropology, Yale University. Uni- oindian and Archaic Record. Latin American Antiquity versity Microfilms, Ann Arbor. 17:209–226. 378 LATIN AMERICAN ANTIQUITY [Vol. 23, No. 4, 2012

Lowe, Gareth on “Lowland Maya Archaeology at the Crossroads.” Amer- 1989 The Heartland Olmec: Evolution of Material Culture. ican Antiquity 49:628–631. In Regional Perspectives on the Olmec, edited by Robert Puleston, Dennis E. J. Sharer and David C. Grove, pp. 33–67. Cambridge Uni- 1973 Ancient Maya Settlement Patterns and Environment versity Press, Cambridge. at Tikal, Guatemala: Implications for Subsistence Mod- Lucero, Lisa J. els. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Uni- 1999 Classic Lowland Maya Political Organization: A versity of Pennsylvania. University Microfilms, Ann Review. Journal of World Prehistory 13:211–263. Arbor. 2003 The Politics of Ritual: The Emergence of Classic Quintana, Oscar, and Wolfgang W. Wurster Maya Rulers. Current Anthropology 44:523–558. 2002 Un nuevo plano del sitio Maya de Nakum, Petén, Madry, Scott L. H., and Lynn Rakos Guatemala. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden 1996 Line-of-Sight and Cost-Surface Techniques for Archäologie 22:243–275. Regional Research in the Arroux River Valley. In New 2004 Un nuevo plano del sitio Maya de Naranjo, Petén, Methods, Old Problems: Geographic Information Systems Guatemala. Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden in Modern Archaeological Research, edited by Herbert D. Archäologie 24:149–178. G. Maschner, pp. 104–126. Southern Illinois University Quintana, Oscar, Wolfgang W. Wurster, and Bernard Hermes Press, Carbondale. 2000 El plano del sitio Maya de Yaxhá, Petén, Guatemala. Martin, Simon, and Nikolai Grube Beiträge zur Allgemeinen und Vergleichenden Archäolo- 2008 Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens. 2nd ed. gie 20:261–285. Thames and Hudson, New York. Quintana Samayoa, Oscar Antonio McAnany, Patricia A. 2008 La composición arquitectónica y la conservación de 2010 Ancestral Maya Economies in Archaeological Per- las edificaciones monumentales mayas del noreste de spective. Cambridge University Press, New York. Petén. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Departmento de McAnany, Patricia A., and Sandra L. López Varela Composición Arquitectónica, Universitat Politécnica de 1999 Re-Creating the Formative Maya Village of K’axob. Valéncia. Electronic document, http://riunet.upv.es/han- Ancient Mesoamerica 10:147–168. dle/10251/3403, accessed February 13, 2012. Mejía, Héctor E. Rathje, William L., David A. Gregory, and Frederick M. Wise- 2008 Desarrollo y estructura de las ciudades al sur de El man Mirador, Petén. In XXI Simposio de Investigaciones Arque- 1978 Trade Models and Archaeological Problems: Clas- ológicas en Guatemala, 2007, edited by Juan Pedro sic Maya Examples. In Mesoamerican Communication Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 647–671. Routes and Cultural Contacts, edited by Thomas A. Lee, Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. Jr., and Carlos Navarrete, pp. 147–175. Papers of the Mejía, Héctor E. (editor) New World Archaeological Foundation 40. New World 2009 Informe final de investigaciones 2008, Proyecto Archaeological Foundation, Brigham Young University, Arqueológico Cuenca Mirador. Report submitted to the Provo. Institute of Anthropology and History. Copies available Rice, Don S. from the Department of Prehispanic Monuments, 1976 Middle Preclassic Maya Settlement in the Central Guatemala City. Maya Lowlands. Journal of Field Archaeology 3:425–445. Moholy-Nagy, Hattula Ricketson, Oliver 1997 Middens, Construction Fill, and Offerings: Evidence 1928 Notes on Two Maya Astronomic Observatories. Amer- for the Organization of Classic Period Craft Production at ican Anthropologist 30:434–444. Tikal, Guatemala. Journal of Field Archaeology Ricketson, Oliver G., and Edith B. Ricketson 24:293–313. 1937 Uaxactun, Guatemala, Group E, 1926–1931. Pt. I: Paap, Iken, Antonio Benavides Castillo, and Nikolai Grube The Excavations; Pt. II: The Artifacts. Carnegie Institu- (editors) tion of Washington Publication 477. Washington, D.C. 2010 Informe técnico: temporada de levantamiento Ringle, William M. topográfico, excavación y consolidación arqueológicas, 1999 Pre-Classic Cityscapes: Ritual Politics Among the Uxul (Campeche). Report submitted to the Instituto Early Lowland Maya. In Social Patterns in Pre-Classic Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Electronic document, Mesoamerica, edited by David Grove and Rosemary http://www.uni- Joyce, pp. 183–224. Dumbarton Oaks, Washington, D.C. bonn.de/~mayaarch/downloads/2010_InformeINAH.pdf, Román, Edwin, and Stephen Houston (editors) accessed February 13, 2012. 2009 Proyecto Arqueológico “El Zotz” Informe No. 4 Tem- Podobnikar, Tomaš, and Ivan Šprajc porada 2009. Electronic document, http://mesoweb.com/ 2007 Spatial Analyses and Maya Cultural Landscape. Elec- zotz/resources.html, accessed February 13, 2012. tronic document, http://www.ipf.tuwien.ac.at/publica- Rosenswig, Robert M., and Marilyn A. Masson tions/2007/podobnikar_cuba_2007.pdf, accessed February 2001 Seven New Preceramic Sites Documented in North- 13, 2012. ern Belize. Mexicon 23:138–140. Pohl, Mary D., Kevin O. Pope, John G. Jones, John S. Jacob, Ruppert, Karl J. Dolores R. Piperno, Susan D. deFrance, David L Lentz, 1940 A Special Assemblage of Maya Structures. In The John A. Gifford, Marie E. Danforth, and J. Kathryn Maya and Their Neighbors: Essays on Middle American Josserand Anthropology and Archaeology, edited by Ralph Linton, 1996 Early Agriculture in the Maya Lowlands. Latin Amer- Samuel K. Lothrop, Harry Shapiro, and George Vaillant, ican Antiquity 7:355–372. pp. 222–231. Dover, New York. Potter, Daniel R., Thomas R. Hester, Stephen L. Black, and Fred Ruppert, Karl J., and John H. Denison, Jr. Valdez, Jr. 1943 Archaeological Reconnaissance in Campeche, Quin- 1984 Relationships Between Early Preclassic and Early tana Roo, and Peten. Carnegie Institution of Washington Middle Preclassic Phases in Northern Belize: A Comment Publication 543. Washington, D.C. Doyle] REGROUP ON “E-GROUPS” 379

Saturno, William Context, Use, and Meaning in Mesoamerica’s Preclassic 2003 Proyecto Arqueológico Regional San Bartolo: Resul- Transition, edited by Julia Guernsey, John E. Clark, and tados de la primera temporada de campo 2002. In XVI Sim- Barbara Arroyo, pp. 283–298. Dumbarton Oaks, Wash- posio de Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, ington, D.C. 2002, edited by Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, Héc- Taube, Karl A., William A. Saturno, David Stuart, and Heather tor Escobedo, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 320–324. Museo Hurst Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. 2010 The Murals of San Bartolo, El Petén, Guatemala, Pt. Saturno, William A., David Stuart, and Boris Beltrán 2: The West Wall. Ancient America 10. 2006 Early Maya Writing at San Bartolo, Guatemala. Sci- Trigger, Bruce G. ence 311(5765):1281–1283. 1990 Monumental Architecture: A Thermodynamic Expla- Saturno, William A., Karl A. Taube, and David Stuart nation of Symbolic Behaviour. World Archaeology 2005 La identificación de las figuras del Muro Oeste de Pin- 22:119–132. turas Sub-1, San Bartolo, Petén. In XVIII Simposio de Urquizú, Mónica, and William Saturno (editors) Investigaciones Arqueológicas en Guatemala, 2004, edited 2008 Proyecto Arqueológico Regional San Bartolo Informe by Juan Pedro Laporte, Bárbara Arroyo, and Héctor Mejía, Anual No. 7. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthro- pp. 626–635. Museo Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, pology and History, Guatemala. Copies available from the Guatemala. Department of Prehispanic Monuments, Guatemala City. Scherer, Andrew, Charles Golden, and Rosaura Vásquez (edi- Wahl, David B. tors) 2005 Climate Change and Human Impacts in the Southern 2007 Proyecto Regional Arqueológico Sierra del Lacandón, Maya Lowlands: A Paleoenvironmental Perspective from 2007. Report submitted to the Institute of Anthropology the Northern Peten, Guatemala. Ph.D. dissertation, and History, Guatemala. Electronic document, Department of Geography, University of California, Berke- http://usumacinta-archaeology.blogspot.com/p/research- ley. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. reports.html, accessed February 13, 2012. Wahl, David, Roger Byrne, Thomas Schreiner, and Richard Smith, Adam T. Hansen 2003 The Political Landscape: Constellations of Authority 2006 Holocene Vegetation Change in the Northern Peten in Early Complex Polities. University of California Press, and Its Implications for Maya Prehistory. Quaternary Berkeley. Research 65:380–389. Smith, Michael E. 2007 Paleolimnological Evidence of Late-Holocene Set- 2009 Form and Meaning in the Earliest Cities: A New tlement and Abandonment in the Mirador Basin, Peten, Approach to Ancient Urban Planning. Journal of Planning Guatemala. The Holocene 17:813–820. History 6(3):3–47. Webster, David (editor) Smith, Robert E. 2007 Re-Evaluation of the Earthworks at Tikal, Guatemala: 1955 Ceramic Sequence at Uaxactun, Guatemala. Middle Phase 2. Report prepared for the National Science Foun- American Research Institute, Tulane University, New dation. Electronic document, http://www.anthro.psu.edu/ Orleans. faculty_staff/docs/Tikal%20final%20NSF.pdf, accessed Šprajc, Ivan February 13, 2012. 2012 El Preclásico en el sureste del estado de Campeche, Wheatley, David, and Mark Gillings México. In XXV Simposio de Investigaciones Arqueoló - 2000 Vision, Perception and GIS: Developing Enriched gicas en Guatemala, 2011, edited by Bárbara Arroyo, Approaches to the Study of Archaeological Visibility. In Lorena Paiz, and Héctor Mejía, pp. 871–886. Museo Beyond the Map: Archaeology and Spatial Technologies, Nacional de Arqueología y Etnología, Guatemala. edited by Gary Lock, pp. 1–27. IOS Press, Amsterdam. Šprajc, Ivan, Carlos Morales-Aguilar, and Richard D. Hansen Willey, Gordon R. 2009 Early and Urban Planning at El 1962 The Early Great Styles and the Rise of the Pre- Mirador, Peten, Guatemala. Anthropological Notebooks Columbian . American Anthropologist 15(3):79–101. 64:1–14. Stanton, Travis W., and David A. Freidel 1978 Excavations at . Department of Petén, 2003 Ideological Lock-In and the Dynamics of Formative Guatemala, Artifacts. Memoirs of the Peabody Museum Religions in Mesoamerica. Mayab 16:5–14. of Archaeology and Ethnology Vol. 14, No. 1. Harvard Uni- 2005 Placing the Centre, Centring the Place: The Influence versity, Cambridge. of Formative Sacbeob in Classic Site Design at Yaxuná, Źrałka, Jarosław Yucatán. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 15:225–249. 2008 Terminal Classic Occupation in the Maya Sites Stark, Barbara L., and Christopher P. Garraty Located in the Area of Triangulo Park, Peten, Guatemala. 2010 Detecting Marketplace Exchange in Archaeology: A Prace Archeologiczne No. 62. Jagiellonian University Methodological Review. In Archaeological Approaches to Press, Krakow. Market Exchange in Ancient Societies, edited by Christo- pher P. Garraty and Barbara L. Stark, pp. 33–58. Univer- sity of Colorado Press, Boulder. Stuart, David 2010 Shining Stones: Observations on the Ritual Meaning Submitted: April 12, 2011; Revised: February 28, 2012; of Early Maya Stelae. In The Place of Stone Monuments: Accepted: September 18, 2012. James A. Doyle Supplemental Figure 1

James A. Doyle Supplemental Figure 2